2021/10/12

Public theology - Wikipedia

Public theology - Wikipedia

Public theology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

공적 신학 위키백과,

공적신학 (Public theology)은 일반 은총에 근거하여 기독교인들이 교회와 사회의 일반적인 관심에 대하여 참여와 대화를 추구하는 신학이다. 공공 신학이라고 부르기도 한다 기독교 신학은 사회를 향해서 말하기만 하는 것이 아니라 사회와 더불어 대화한다.  이것은 공적으로 이해될수 있으며, 공적 토론과 비판적 질문을 갖는 방법으로 제시되어야 한다.[1]


목차
1 주제의 발전
2 비판
3 같이 보기
4 각주
주제의 발전
공적 신학을 처음으로 만든 학자는 시민 종교에 반대한 마르틴 마티(Martin Marty)이다 .[2] 시민종교는 일반적으로 국가와 종교의 관계에서 종교에 더 치우치지만, 공적 신학은 기독교인의 관점에 뿌리를 가지고 사회와 국가에서 기독교인들의 공헌에 더욱더 정체성을 둔다.[3]

데이비드 트레시(David Tracy)도 공적 신학에서 공적인것이 무엇인가에 질문을 던진다,[4] .[5]

비판
공적신학은 주제의 광범위성으로 인해 특정 문제에 대하여 전문적인 접근과 전문적인 방법에 대한 결여를 나타낸다고 한다.[5]



Jump to navigationJump to search

Public theology is the Christian engagement and dialogue within the church and especially with the larger society. It seeks the welfare of the state and a fair society for all by engaging issues of common interest to build the common good. This is Christian theology that talks with society not just to society.[1] This is done by presenting the Christian position in a way that can be publicly understood and thereby open to public debate and critical enquiry.[2]

Key developments[edit]

The term public theology was first coined by Martin Marty to contrast against civil religion.[3] Civil religion looks more generally at religion in relation to the state, whereas public theology is rooted in a Christian standpoint and identity as it considers its contributions to the society and the state.[4][page needed]

David Tracy asked what the "public" in "public theology" meant. He identifies three publics that public theology should try to engage in dialogue with: the society, the academy and the church.[5] He suggests that, given these publics, the language and rationale used should be openly accessible by all and not couched in theologically elitist terms. Since Tracy identified these three publics, others have suggested the addition of other "publics" such as economics,[6] law,[7] the market, media, and other religious communities.[8]

Harold Breitenberg suggests that most literature on public theology falls into one of three classes.[9] Firstly, there are studies on key public theologians and how they understand the topic.[10] Secondly, there are discussions on the nature and the shape of public theology.[11] Lastly, there is "constructive public theology" which is the actual doing of public theology.[12] The first two aim at developing public theology as a field of study while the last one is the practical application of it.[13]

Some notable figures in this field are Dietrich BonhoefferWilliam TempleMartin Luther King Jr.Desmond TutuJürgen MoltmannRonald ThiemannDorothee SoelleJohn Courtney MurrayReinhold NiebuhrDuncan ForresterMax Stackhouse, and Sebastian C. H. Kim.

Common traits[edit]

While there is no authoritative definition or corpus of books on public theology, there are several common traits which are observable in varying degrees. Katie Day and Sebastian Kim note six common "marks" of public theology. Firstly, public theology is often incarnational. It is not confined to the church but meant to be relevant to people outside of it as well. It is meant to be realistic and concerned with all aspects of societal life. Secondly, there is often discussion over which public(s) to engage and the nature of the public sphere. Thirdly, it is interdisciplinary because it draws on other fields of study in order to be more relevant to society. Fourthly, public theology always involves dialogue and critique from both the church itself and society as well. Fifthly, it has a global perspective because many issues affect countries across borders, such as immigration, climate change, refugees, etc. Lastly, public theology is performed, not just printed in books. This field of theology is not theorized first then applied, but it is a theology that develops and evolves while being expressed in society.[14]

Compared with political theology[edit]

Public theology and political theology share many common points. They have overlapping concerns for social justice and Christian engagement in the public and political sphere.[15] They also share similar concerns that the Christian faith is more than individual piety. It has a role to play in building societal peace, justice, and the common good.[16]

However, they differ in many ways as well. Political theology tends to be more radical in its pursuit for societal transformation, sometimes compelled by a sense of crisis. Public theology, on the other hand, is more moderate. It seeks to bring change gradually through social analysis, public dialogue, and shaping the moral fabric of society. So political theology tends to be more revolutionary while public theology is more reformative.[17]

Political theology is directed more towards the government or the state, whereas public theology is more towards civil society.[18] This is because political theology is more concerned with a just political system whereas public theology is more concerned for a just society for everyone, open dialogue,[19] and the building a common ground.[20]

Criticism[edit]

A common critique of public theology is the overly broad range of issues it is concerned with. Because it seeks to engage in all issues that concern the society, public theology may find itself spread too thin across these issues. As a result, it may fail to engage the issues with sufficient depth and academic rigour because it lacks the necessary subject matter expertise. This overt broadness may also cause public theology to lack a focused approach and method because each issue may require a different methodology.[21]

Another critique public theology faces is the inherent difficulty in retaining its Christian distinctiveness while being publicly relevant.[22] Too much weight in either direction may cause it to be irrelevant to the public or bearing no distinct Christian witness.[23] The tension may be ideal in theory, but difficult to achieve in reality.[24]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ Day & Kim 2017, p. 14.
  2. ^ Forrester 2004, p. 6.
  3. ^ Marty 1974, p. 359.
  4. ^ Stackhouse 2004.
  5. ^ Tracy 1981, pp. 3–5.
  6. ^ Stackhouse 1998, p. 166.
  7. ^ Benne 1995Kim 2011, p. 19.
  8. ^ Kim 2011, pp. 10–14.
  9. ^ Breitenberg 2003, p. 63.
  10. ^ Breitenberg 2003, pp. 63–64.
  11. ^ Breitenberg 2003, p. 64.
  12. ^ Breitenberg 2003, pp. 64–65.
  13. ^ Breitenberg 2003, p. 65.
  14. ^ Day & Kim 2017, pp. 10–18.
  15. ^ Lee 2015, p. 57.
  16. ^ Lee 2015, p. 53.
  17. ^ Kim 2011, p. 22; Lee 2015, p. 54.
  18. ^ Bell 2015, p. 117.
  19. ^ Kim 2011, p. 23.
  20. ^ Kim 2011, p. 22.
  21. ^ Kim 2011, pp. 20–25.
  22. ^ Kim 2011, pp. 19, 25.
  23. ^ Kim 2011, p. 19.
  24. ^ Kim 2011, p. 25.

Bibliography[edit]