The third public: Hermeneutical key to the theological debate on church and development?2
ABSTRACT
The aim of the paper is to answer the question whether the proposal for a third public mode of theological involvement represents the key to overcoming the current deficiency in theological thinking about the strategic role of the churches in addressing the problems of poverty and underdevelopment in South Africa. In the light of a twofold exploration into (i) historical ecumenical development discourse and (ii) the so-called generational perspective in the NGO development debate, the paper concludes with a positive answer. At the same time, however, it is argued that there is also an important role to play for the modes of the first and second publics, and that a greater interplay between the various publics is required in order for Christian theology to be effective in the field of development.
1. INTRODUCTION
In my view one of the most important and useful publications to have emerged from the post- apartheid public theological debate in South Africa is an essay by Stellenbosch religious studies professor Bernard Lategan on “Taking the Third Public Seriously”. Published as part of the proceedings of the founding conference of the South African Academy of Religion (SAAR) in January 1994 on the theme of “Religion and Civil Society” (see De Gruchy 1995), this essay by Lategan raises the kind of issues that, in my opinion, are crucial to our current task of conceptualising the effective role of Christian theology and the churches in the plaguing problems of poverty and underdevelopment in our country.
My point of departure in this paper is a critical one. Having made the theological issue of development my own focus of research during the last ten years, my concern, similar to that of Lategan, is that we have to date not sufficiently thought through the mode of involvement or discourse that is required if we want to effectively address the poverty and development problem (see Lategan 1995:217-226; cf Swart 2002). Indeed, my argument at this point is that we should not neglect the sincerity of our theologians and church people in the current poverty and development debate. The new commitment and theological reflections that are emerging on these issues today are certainly encouraging.3 At the same, however, I want to reiterate Lategan’s concern that we are dealing with a prevailing “structural deficiency” in our efforts “to participate meaningfully and effectively in the public arena” (Lategan 1995:218), especially where such efforts concern the issues of poverty and underdevelopment.
To become more specific at this point, my own thinking about the churches’ role in development has very much developed along the lines of the “pragmatic debate”, a sub-debate in the historical ecumenical development debate in which the churches’ preoccupation with a project-centred mode of involvement in the sphere of development has been strongly problematised.4 Clearly, this very same problem also surfaces in the writings of our own theologians and the public discourse of our church leaders on the poverty and development theme; that is, their inability to move beyond a project-centred language in their concretisation of the role of the churches and local congregations in addressing the issues of poverty and development. Such a move is necessary in order to conceptualise a development praxis that would be more authentic in terms of the nature and competence of the churches as faith- and value-based institutions (see Swart 2000; cf Korten 1990:223) – essentially, a development praxis that would be more radical, ideologically critical and sophisticated in the light of the complexity of the problems of poverty and underdevelopment. Indeed, I want to argue at this point that Charles Elliot’s criticism of the churches’ historical involvement in development some years ago seems just as relevant to our own theological context, i e that there is a gap between our own rhetoric on the issues of poverty and development and our actions to combat poverty and underdevelopment (Elliot 1987:30);5 moreover, that we need to start realising the simplicity of our own thinking about the problems of poverty and development and the practical solutions that we are currently offering. In Elliot’s words:
[T]o continue to act as though the poverty of nearly a billion people can be eliminated by aided projects is to fail to take seriously both the nature of the problem and the nature of the world. It does not take seriously the nature of the problem because it ignores the structures within which mass poverty is set – and by which it is perpetuated. It does not take seriously the nature of the world because it ignores the Powers that, as it were, hold the world in thrall. More damningly than either, it consequently ignores the scale of the work of Christ in Cross, Resurrection and Pentecost. (Elliot 1987:179-180)6
At the core of this paper lies the question of how the current deficiency within Christian theological and church circles (as, for instance, appropriately highlighted by the pragmatic debate) to deal effectively and authentically with the problems of poverty and underdevelopment in our society can be overcome. In seeking an answer to this question, Lategan’s proposal for a third public mode of involvement (vis-à-vis the modes of involvement assumed by the so-called first and second publics) will particularly be considered and evaluated in the light of (i) considerations about the mode of theological discourse in the historical ecumenical development debate and (ii) the perspective on generations of development engagement in the NGO development debate that has also been applied in recent South African theological reflections to strategic thinking about the role of the churches in development. On the basis of this evaluation I will more pertinently attempt to answer the question whether the mode of involvement assumed by the third theological public (society at large or civil society) should be considered as the key to the theological debate on church and development in South Africa; as such, the issue is whether we should conceive of the church’s role in development rather exclusively in terms of the third public mode of involvement or whether the modes of involvement assumed by the other publics of theology (the first public, the academy, and the second public, the community of faith or the church) should also be taken into account in our conceptualisation of an effective church praxis in development.
2. THE THIRD PUBLIC MODE OF INVOLVEMENT
It can rightly be claimed that Lategan, in his contribution to the public theological debate in South Africa, has gone further than most other theologians who have participated in the public theological debate.7 Having taken American theologian David Tracy’s distinction of the three publics of theology (the academy, the church, and society at large) as analytic starting-point,8 he basically came to argue that we have so far in our post-apartheid theological endeavours not taken seriously enough the question about the mode or style of discourse that would be required to deal effectively in the realm of the third public – wider society or civil society. This neglect, according to him, is “the main reason for the ineffective operation of theology” in the matters that concern South African society most in the post-apartheid era (Lategan 1995:217). 9For this reason he argues that:
In context of a society in transition, this public is of critical importance. It is the acid test for the contribution many are expecting theology to make and which theology itself is claiming to be able to make. However important other tasks and challenges for theology might be, this is the terrain which, to a large extent, will determine its future and the role it is likely to play in a new and fundamentally different society. (Lategan 1995:220)
It is important to note that Lategan, in the further development of his argument, makes special reference to a discussion by another South African theologian, Ernst Conradie, on the so-called ‘Chicago-Yale debate’ in American theological circles (Lategan 1995:223-225; Conradie 1993:32-45). However, whilst Lategan is clearly very appreciative of Conradie’s article, he also goes a step further in his evaluation of the relevance of the Chicago-Yale debate for the post-apartheid South African theological context.10 For him, more still than for Conradie, the problem with both the Chicago and Yale schools lies in the way in which they, although differing in their approach, remain preoccupied with “preserving the integrity of the Christian faith” and defending “the ‘truth claims’ of Christianity” (Lategan 1995:224).
It follows from the above that Lategan also adopts a critical stance towards Tracy’s interpretation of the third public. According to him the problem with Tracy’s interpretation, which features prominently in the Chicago school of thought, is that it basically remains stuck in an apologetical mode of theological discourse, like all other traditional theological interpretations (Lategan 1995:224). It is a mode of involvement that a theological focus on the third public cannot escape, as Tracy, like the proponents of the Yale school, is not interested in subjecting theology to any criteria “external to theology itself” (Conradie 1993:33). Although, in Tracy’s case there is a greater emphasis on rational thought and dialogue with the outside world (compared to the Yale school) (see Conradie 1993:32-45), successful communication is also for him (Tracy) “only possible in terms of criteria acceptable to both theology and its publics” (Conradie 1993:33).
For Lategan the position taken by Tracy (and others) seriously hampers theology’s prospects of being innovative and effective in larger society. He comments that even when Tracy insists that Christianity’s own terms, rules and methods “can be translated into the conceptual universe of any reasonable person who is genuinely open to the subject of conversation … the presupposition remains that the task consists of the translation of a given [Christian] entity in some publicly accessible form”:
However desirable this translation may be, a fundamental condition is that the integrity of the belief system is not violated in the process … [T]he aim is to demonstrate the reasonableness of the truth claims of theology. This is an end in itself, not the first step in a further process (Lategan 1995:225).
It needs to be stated at this point that the purpose of Lategan’s proposal for a third public mode of involvement was not meant to replace or undermine the existing modes of theological discourse – by implication, neither Tracy’s own interpretation of the third public mode, nor the first and second public modes assumed by the Chicago and Yale schools, or the traditional theological and faith discourses in general. Rather, the argument could be seen as “one of ‘horses for courses’”. In the ongoing theological enterprise the various modes “all have their validity and function” and the issue is to determine which mode or modes best suit a particular purpose or context (Lategan 1995:225).
At the same time, however – and this becomes the fundamental motivation for the proposal – beyond the preservation and pursuance of theological and faith discourses in the other publics (including Tracy’s third public mode), there ought to, and could, be a legitimate and necessary place for a different type of (third public) theological discourse – a type or style of discourse that would complement (and not oppose!) the other (more) traditional modes of discourses. Essentially this type or style of discourse would focus on the needs and demands of the third public, of wider society or civil society. In a South African context it would (proactively) respond to the new challenges and opportunities presented by this society, most specifically “the need to contribute to the establishment of a new public ethos in civil society” (Lategan 1995:225).
For Lategan, finally, it would be extremely important to spell out in more concrete terms the conditions and characteristics of the new kind of discourse asked for:
Firstly, such a discourse could only become possible if theology was willing to abandon its “privileged position” and move beyond its preoccupation with itself, its concern with the validity of its own truth claims, its defensive attitude, its experience of marginalisation and its resignation to not being able to influence civil society (Lategan 1995:225-226).
Secondly, such a discourse requires from theology a change of style whereby it would move beyond what is conventionally understood as theological discourse and explore the possibilities of a form of language that is not primarily interested in preserving the integrity of theology. In short, theology would be willing “to serve a wider cause” (Lategan 1995:226).
Thirdly, in such a discourse theology would demonstrate the ability to become policy specific, “to recommend or prescribe quite particular courses of action about quite specific issues”. Furthermore, in this mode theology (and by implication the churches) would not take an external position, but would take full responsibility for what is proposed – through appropriate action (Lategan 1995:226-227).
Fourthly, for such a discourse to succeed, very specific characteristics would be required (Lategan 1995:227-228):
i. Theology would be required to adopt a non-prescriptive mode of discourse, whereby their attitude “should rather be one of joint discovery … letting issues and formulations emerge before directing and confining the discourses”.
ii. Theology would be required to adopt an inclusive style of discourse, whereby it becomes open to the flow of ideas, to the fundamentally new and unexpected, and to all possible contributions.
iii. Theology would be required to adopt an interactive, participatory style of discourse, which is no longer developed and conducted in the protected environment of its “own group”. “It implies the willingness, not to claim a privileged position for theology, but to become vulnerable, and to be challenged.”
iv. Theology would be required to adopt a discourse that gives evidence of hermeneutical competence, “that is, familiarity with different discourses, but also the ability to move between these discourses and to mediate and interpret the issues as they are expressed and experienced in different contexts”.
v. Theology would be required to adopt a serving mode of discourse, whereby it loses and transcends itself “to become liberated in service to the other”.
vi. Theology would be required to adopt a new kind of constructive discourse, which goes beyond resistance and protest and display “a willingness to reach out, to build, to take responsibility, and to jointly map out a possible course of action”.
vii. Theology would be required to adopt a new mode of anonymous, secular or camouflaged discourse, which is no longer formulated in recognisable theological language and effectively translates theological concepts in a public discourse accessible to participants from other discourses – “in a form that is genuinely ‘public’”.
3. ASPECTS OF THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATE ON CHURCH AND DEVELOPMENT
In this section I now more specifically direct our attention to the theological debate on church and development. However, whilst we are specifically interested in this paper to answer the question about the relevance of Lategan’s proposal of a third public mode of involvement for the theological development debate in South Africa – a debate that today stands at the centre of theological inquiry about the issues of poverty and underdevelopment in South Africa and (importantly) the contribution of the churches towards combating these problems11 – we will take our point of departure from the historical debate on development in the ecumenical movement.12
Taking this historical debate to be an important source of learning also for our own debate on development in South Africa,13 we will more specifically confine ourselves, in accordance with the focus of this paper, to those theological considerations that paid particular attention to the question about the mode of theological discourse in the debate. In the following sub-section we will then take a closer look at the so-called generational perspective in the NGO development debate, which has influenced the church development debate in South Africa and, in an own peculiar way, poses questions about the effective modes of involvement in development.
3.1 Historical ecumenical development discourse
It is not correct to say, as Steve de Gruchy claims in his introduction to the recent special issue on “Theology and Development” in Journal of Theology for Southern Africa (No. 110, July 2001), that the development debate in the ecumenical movement came to an abrupt standstill in the early 1970s due to liberation theology’s rejection of the idea of development (De Gruchy 2001:1). Although the liberation theology paradigm certainly played a role in influencing ecumenical thinking about development (see e g De Santa Ana 1975; Dickinson 1991:270-271; 1975:31-34, 68-69, 99; Itty 1974:12-13, 16-18; Parmar 1975; Tolen 197514), a more lasting impression was made by another group of theologians and Christian intellectuals, who were instrumental in the same period but also in the late 1960s in giving shape to a “theology of development” and mode of discourse that spoke about development in a predominantly positive way.15
In what should certainly be regarded as one of the most profound and clear-cut essays on the topic in the above-mentioned period, the German theologian Trutz Rendtorff observed that the incentives to an ecumenical “theology of development” emanated especially from two great ecumenical conferences – one in Geneva in 1966, and the other in Uppsala in 1968. Rendtorff, however, also went on to point out an important difference in emphasis between the two conferences. Although the development problematic already dominated proceedings at Geneva, the discussions were still very much couched within the conceptual and ideological framework of the so-called “theology of revolution”. Thus, the catchword was still “revolution” and the churches centred their practical and theological focus on the idea of revolution.
However, at the Uppsala conference a decisive shift of emphasis could be detected from the “theology of revolution” to a prospective “theology of development”. Although this shift did not imply a rejection of the demand for social change inherent to the idea of revolution, “development” was regarded as a much richer concept that denoted “something more and something other than social change”. The concept of development, in short, was seen as “more rational and more comprehensive than the idea of revolution”, based on the practical reality that it provided “the impetus to projection, to planning, and to positive reflection and consciously ratified change”. It was “no less dynamic than the concept of revolution, nor less political” (Rendtorff 1971:89-91; cf 1970:206-20816).
But it is more complex, because “development” includes consideration of the interdependence and the participation of all productive forces. In this context, on ethical, human, and theological grounds, certain tendentious procedures have to be encouraged, the validation of which is provided by the phenomenology of development processes. Scientific analysis and practical motivation to action pertain in equal measure to the rational core of the idea of development. (Rendtorff 1971:92; cf 1970:208)
In an attempt to describe in this sub-section the impact that those initial reflections on a “theology of development” had on ecumenical development thought and the mode of discourse that it promoted, Rendtorff ’s historical perspective thus becomes important. In the ecumenical movement the historical unfolding of theological development discourse suggests a positive or proactive embracement of the idea and processes of development rather than the negation of the term in those modes of resistance theological discourse associated with the theologies of liberation and revolution. As another prominent ecumenical scholar of the earlier period, C I Itty, put it in somewhat euphoric terms, development indicated “the most crucial concern of our time. It signifies the concern of communities to change and improve their living conditions, including socio-economic structures by deliberate, rational and planned efforts” (Itty 1967:349).
In Itty’s formulation, then, a further dimension in the ecumenical understanding of development can be observed. Development, beyond Rendtorff’s technical and more general description, anticipated a new Christian involvement with the existential and structural issue of poverty. According to Itty, it was the poverty of the Third World, representing two-thirds of the world’s population, which made development an urgent necessity. In turn, it was the consciousness of poverty and the conviction that it can be overcome, through a combination of the poor’s own efforts and the capabilities of science and technology that made development a possibility. For the churches, moreover, development was also a matter of deep moral concern and had deep spiritual implications. To care for the poor and the needy was part of their divine obligation. To be concerned about the development of the Third World was the most active expression of the Christian imperative for love and social justice (Itty 1967:349-351).
Indeed, it is along the positive lines emphasised by earlier ecumenical theologians such as Rendtorff and Itty that the ecumenical discourse about development predominantly developed. Whereas we, in later years, encounter voices in the debate that emphasised the human and holistic element in development17 (see Itty 1974:9-10; Robinson 1994; Swart 2000:40-41), others warned consistently against defining development too broadly as the total or integral liberation of the human person. Although this latter group did not want to forsake the principles of a human perspective, which naturally has to define the ultimate objective or outcome of an authentic development process, it was pointed out that such a wide term of reference also robbed the word of any specific and workable meaning (Elliot 1970:21). The cutting edge of any liberating development process, it was emphasised, had to remain the economic entry point of development. Development is specifically about “the conscious struggle against mass poverty”. It is the lack of a minimum of economic goods and services that holds people captive, causes their spiritual and human enslavement, and remains the decisive link with the other dimensions of human well-being that are fundamental in the ecumenical understanding (Thomas 1972:36; see also Itty 1974:10; Kurien 1972:16; Elliot 1970:21).
Through the stimuli that the earlier thinkers provided, we can, therefore, confidently speak about a basic consensus in the historical ecumenical debate regarding the meaning and purpose of development, as well as the churches’ proactive commitment to the cause of development. Yet, the issue of the churches’ actual, concrete engagement in development remained a bone of contention. As Richard Dickinson noted in his documentation of the ecumenical development debate, for most people in the ecumenical movement, already at a relatively early stage in their concern with development, the issue was not whether the churches should be involved in socio-economic development, but how (Dickinson 1991:269; 1983:71). In other words, what has also (i e similar to our current quest) been a constant intellectual struggle in the ecumenical development debate, based on a positive commitment to the cause of development, is the question about the modes through which the churches can most effectively engage in development (cf Dickinson 1983:71-75). Where and how could they be involved most effectively and appropriately? What is their authentic role in development?
My contention is that we may at this point fruitfully return to those initial reflections on a “theology of development” in the ecumenical movement that we took as a point of reference at the beginning of this sub-section. Although we can by no means speak of an absolute consensus in the debates or reflections on a “theology of development” (cf Itty 1974:16), we basically find in them a common recognition that a “theology of development” – in other words, a theology whose task is to empower the churches towards an effective role in development – could not be devised from the traditional ways of doing theology. The point was perhaps best argued by Rendtorff in his above-mentioned essay:
The complex, diverse, and far-reaching problems of development are, as we well know, far beyond the competence of the churches to solve. They can play only a modest part in the task confronting us here. Any development work undertaken exclusively by the churches would be either arrogant or naïve. Here, if anywhere, the need is for cooperation with all social, national, and international bodies engaged in development work. The urgency of cooperation makes it essential to reach agreement about the goal and content of development in a framework that is accessible to all and understood by all. The human basis and purpose of development work must therefore furnish also the frame of reference for its theological interpretation. The cooperation factor means that we cannot construct a theology of development from existing church dogmatics and doctrines alone. This factor imposes on us a new concept of theology, one which is, as it were, supra-ecclesiastical. (Rendtorff 1970:210; cf. 1971:95; italics added for emphasis)
It follows from Rendtorff’s statement that the need for reflection on theological method was urgently called for in the ecumenical reflections on a “theology of development”. (Alszeghy and Flick 1971:112; Land 1971a:ix; cf Bennett 1970; Löffler 1970:72-73; Rendtorff 1971:94; 1970:208). Thus, there was the common recognition that a “theology of development” could at best be constructed by a new dialectical interaction (Alszeghy and Flick 1971:125; Elliot 1971:82; Löffler 1970:65, 72) between the traditional context of theology (the Biblical tradition, theological subjects such as dogmatics, the church and its doctrines) and the secular context of development (the various social science disciplines feeding into the subject matter of development, the various themes arising from the secular development debate, the secular actors engaged in development) (see Abrecht and Land 1969; Alszeghy and Flick 1971; Bennett 1970; Elliot 1971:Part II; Land 1971a; b; Rendtorff 1971; 1970).
However, within this hermeneutical framework of dialectical interaction the most outstanding feature could be regarded the emphasis placed on the context of development as point of departure for theological reflection. As well defined by Zoltan Alszeghy and Maurizio Flick in their definition, the essential task of a “theology of development” was to relate the description of present human conditions (development) to the Christian message (Alszeghy and Flick 1971:119; cf Land 1971b). Whilst the churches found the motivation for their participation in development in the Christian principle of “love” (Abrecht and Land 1969:137, 140; Dickinson 1968:39; Elliot 1971:83-92; Itty 1967:350-351), it was recognised as a fundamental point that the traditional Christian sources were in themselves insufficient to guide the churches towards an effective praxis in development (Alszeghy and Flick 1971:113-115, 119-120; Land 1971b:1; Rendtorff 1971:98; 1970:212). At most, such a point of departure would lead to a simplistic mode of involvement defined by the notion of charity (Dickinson 1968:37),18 an obedient response to Christ’s law of love through which nothing more but some basic necessities of life could be met (Abrecht and Land 1969:137-138).
Essentially, therefore, an ecumenical “theology of development” involved the quest for new social understanding in order to empower the churches for a development praxis responsive to “the life problems of the modern world” (Rendtorff 1971:86; cf Dickinson 1968:37). According to Rendtorff, this implied nothing less than locating a “theology of development” within “the field of the theory of development” (Rendtorff 1971:103; 1970:215). From a strategic point of view, this perspective placed new emphasis on the importance of theological research. It confronted the churches and their theologians with a twofold challenge: on the one hand, to acquire an objective understanding of the complex problems involved in development and, therefore, to actively enter the process of development research; on the other hand, on the basis of such an inquiry, to form an opinion and influence congregations and Christians in view of their practical engagement in development (Rendtorff 1971:97; 1970:211-212).
Indeed, it becomes important at this point not only to mention the above-mentioned strategic orientation in an ecumenical “theology of development” but also its ideological orientation. Taking one’s point of departure from the point of view of secular development implies a fundamentally new theological attitude towards the world (in contrast to traditional theology) (see Alszeghy and Flick 1971; Abrecht and Land 1969; Bennett 1970; Gutierrez Merino 1970; Land 1971b; Rendtorff 1971; 1970). Based on a new understanding of the “continuity between human and salvation history” (Abrecht and Land 1969:138), it meant that the themes of (secular) development could now also be accepted by the churches and theology “as their own themes” (Rendtorff 1970:205; cf 1971:85, 88). In this awareness, furthermore, the special identity of the church was no longer the first consideration, but the development of the world in all its aspects (Rendtorff 1971:86-88; cf 1970:205-206).
It may be said, in conclusion, that the initial reflections on a “theology of development” in the ecumenical movement have left the ecumenical development debate, but also the theological development debate in general, with an important legacy. More than any other contribution to the debate, those reflections point out to us that the questions about effective praxis, which have dominated theological discussions over the last number of decades (i e Dickinson’s question about how the churches should be involved), are in fact a false starting-point – as illustrated by the churches’ prevailing inability to adopt a more sophisticated mode of development praxis in the light of such discussions.19 Consequently, those reflections challenge ongoing theological debates about the role of the church in development to take a step back and ask questions, firstly, about the mode of theological discourse, the mode of doing theology that ought to determine and inform the anticipated modes of effective ecclesiastical praxis in development. In this sense, they leave Christian theology and the churches with a radical hermeneutical challenge: to take the secular context of development (cf Abrecht and Land 1969:138) as their starting point of interaction20 and to engage in serious dialogue with the theories and actors of that context (cf Alszeghy and Flick 1971:125-128; Land 1971b:23-35). From such a vantage point they once again expect theology to become explicit, to speak a new kind of theological language by which it would engage critically with the world and its own tradition, motivate the churches sufficiently to take up the task of development, and guide them towards effective modes of discourse and practical action (Rendtorff 1971:101; 1970:214; cf Tufari 1971:249, 261).
3.2 Generational perspective
An important feature of the South African theological development debate of the last decade or so has been the way in which an NGO perspective has been integrated in the reflections on the role of the churches in development.21 Taking a closer look at the various contributions that have been made, the influence of David Korten’s thinking on shaping the debate especially stands out (see Bonbright 1992; James 1992; Swart 2000; Swart and Venter 2001; 2000; Venter 2001; cf also Schenk and Louw 1995). An internationally renowned expert in the field of alternative development theory, Korten’s work appeared attractive to South African scholars not only for its promotion of a people-centred development philosophy (see Swart 2000:113-121; cf Schenck and Louw 1995), but especially also for the perspectives it offered on different modes or generations of NGO strategic intervention to realise the goals of the people-centred development paradigm. For these scholars Korten’s differentiation between various strategies of NGO development intervention seemed directly relevant to the churches, who, like their NGO counterparts in post- apartheid South Africa, stood before the challenge to move beyond their conventional welfarist and local project-centred modes of intervention (first and seco