THEOLOGY AS PUBLIC DISCOURSE* Terrence Merrigan 1. Introduction: Clarifying our Terms The topic which this paper seeks to address is 'theology as public discourse' . Both of these terms, 'theology' and 'public discourse' , first need to be clarified. Let us begin with 'theology'. 1.1 The Notion of 'Theology' Between 1996 and 1998, the Faculty of Theology at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium engaged in a lengthy and at times painful process of reconstituting its Theology programmes with a view to achieving two goals: first, bringing those programmes into line with Belgian government reforms of university education in general; and, second, increasing the presence, in those programmes, of so-called Religious Studies components, by which was primarily meant the study of comparative religion. Meeting the first goal meant abandoning the centuries-old insistence on the study of philosophy as a prerequisite for the study of Theology.l Meeting the second goal generated a long and intense discussion on the specificity of theology with respect to Religious Studies. That discussion made it clear that theology, unlike Religious Studies, is a reflection on the phenomenon of religion from within a particular tradition of faith. That tradition shapes, to a large degree, the focus of one's reflection and research. In our case, it became clear that being a theological faculty involved an unequivocal decision to opt for a particular tradition of thought, namely, the Roman Catholic theological tradition. One might say that the Leuven Faculty of Theology "declared an interest." That declaration * Prof. Terence Merrigan read this paper as the 1999 Aquinas Lecture. 1. The governmental reforms included the demand that all degree-programmes be immediately accessible to first-year undergraduates. 4 Terrence Merrigan made it possible for the Faculty to shape its curriculum and to decide on particular areas of research. So, for example, in line with the Catholic tradition, the Faculty insists on philosophical formation as part and parcel of theological education. And it initiates research projects which have a distinctly Catholic flavour, for example, in sacramental theology and in Catholic social teaching. In the case of Leuven, the process of reflection which was undertaken led to a reaffirmation of the Faculty's Catholic identity. At the same time, however, it brought about a more profound awareness that, in today's world, Catholic theology cannot avoid the challenges which are thrown up by contemporary experience. The decline in the influence of organized religion on Western society means that this experience is shaped less and less by the churches. In other words, theology is being called to come to terms with a world over which it exercises less and less influence.2 Let us take as an example of this phenomenon the evolution in the Christian theology of religions. Not so long ago, Christians of all persuasions shared the view that non-Christian religions were somehow inferior to Christianity, and that no religious figure was comparable to Jesus Christ. Today more and more people in the West incline to the view that no religion and no religious figure is by definition superior to any other. This view is certainly a reflection of the Western tendency to relativism but it is also the fruit of the actual encounter between Christians and non-Christians. The actual experience of non-Christian religious traditions and of non-Christian, but religious, men and women has led many Christians to question their presumption of superiority. This change in attitudes has had a profound effect on the Christian theology of religions. In the past, this theology was mainly concerned with explaining how non-Christians could participate in the salvation which was effected by Christ and mediated by the Church. Recently, a prominent Catholic theologian has described its task as searching for the "meaning" of the factual plurality of religions in "God's design for humankind."3 In other words, whereas the theology 2. This is also the case in Malta. See Anthony M. Abela, "Youth, Religion and Social Development in Malta," Melita Theologica 45 (1994) 157-167, especially 166; ''The Socio­ Cultural Milieu of Holiness: Maltese Values in a Euro-Mediterranean Perspective," Melita Theologica 46 (1995) 125-142, especially 129-133; "Shifting Values in Malta and Western Europe," Melita Theologica 48 (1997) 21-41, especially 23-25. 3. Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology ofReligious Pluralism (Orbis; Maryknoll, NY: 1997) 10. I have discussed Dupuis' views on the theology of religions in Terrence Merrigan, "Jacques Dupuis and the Movement Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism," Louvain Studies 23 (1998) 338-359. Theology as Public Discourse 5 of religions once sought to account for non-Christian traditions simply in terms of their relationship to Christianity, it now (also) approaches them as religions in their own right. Here, we have a clear instance of contemporary experience helping to reshape theology's agenda and even its self-understanding. As far as theology is concerned, then, I would suggest that it is best seen as a tradition-bound, reflection-in-faith on human experience. As tradition-bound, it operates with a distinctive conceptual framework; as areflection-in-faith, it seeks to unlock humankind's history with the hermeneutical key provided by the Christian story; as a reflection on human experience, it is in principle open to the whole range of humanity'S doings and undergoings. Now let us turn to the notion of 'public discourse' . 1.2 The Notion of 'Public Discourse' David Tracy has dedicated a lengthy book to the notion of "public discourse" as it applies to theology. Tracy uses the word, "public," for "reasoned discourse" which is capable of "appealing to any intelligent, reasonable and responsible person."4 As Tracy somewhat recklessly puts it, the public realm is the realm "where only the lowest common denominator will count."5 We might express this rather more positively by saying that public discourse is 'communal' discourse. What is at stake in public discourse is what concerns the entire community. One of the great merits of Tracy' s work is his thoroughgoing reflection on the nature of the community for which theological reflection is undertaken. In fact, Tracy identifies three distinctive communities or publics which shape theological discourse. These are: (i) the academy, (ii) the church, and (iii) the wider society.6 The decision to focus on one or other of these publics results in the development of three theological subdisciplines. Tracy identifies these as, respectively: (i) fundamental theology, (ii) systematic theology, and (iii) practical theology. Each of 4. David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (Crossroad: New York 1981) 131. See also p. 63: " ... The word 'public' here refers to the articulation of fundamental questions and answers which any attentive, intelligent, reasonable and responsible person can understand and judge in keeping with fully public criteria for argument." 5. Tracy, Analogical Imagination, 112. 6. Tracy, Analogical Imagination, 5. 6 Terrence Merrigan these disciplines is characterized by its own mode of argument; each promotes its own work-ethic, so to speak; and each employs its own criteria when assessing claims to truth.? Let us illustrate this by reflecting briefly on each discipline separately. Fundamental theology is primarily concerned to relate religious truth-claims to the questions and concerns of contemporary men and women. These questions and concerns are perhaps best described as "existential." They include such issues as the meaning of human existence, the limits of human knowledge, and so on. In practice, the main public which fundamental theology addresses is the academy, that is to say, those persons who are professionally engaged in reflection on such 'ultimate' questions, especially philosophers. Fundamental theology endeavours "to provide arguments that all reasonable persons, whether 'religiously involved' or not, can recognize as reasonable."8 Accordingly, it recommends the honest, critical inquiry proper to the academy and does not insist on membership of a particular religious tradition as a prerequisite to its pursuit. Fundamental theology is characterized, above all, by the drive to universality and its model of truth can perhaps best be described as "metaphysical."9 Systematic theology is concerned primarily with the reinterpretation of a particular religious tradition for the contemporary generation of believers. Hence, its primary public is the community of faith, i.e., the Church. Systematic theology is most interested in the coherence of its argumentation with the accepted tradition. This tradition is regarded as the privileged locus for the disclosure of religious truth.1O Hence, systematic theology generally presumes commitment to the 7. In fact, Tracy identifies five points of comparison, namely: (1) the primary reference group of each type of theology; (2) the modes of argument; (3) the ethical stance; (4) the religious stance; (5) the nature of the claim to meaning and truth. I have treated (3) and (4) together. See also Tracy's earlier work, Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology ( University of Chicago Press; Chicago 1975; reissued, with a new Preface, 1996). 8. Tracy, Analogical Imagination, 57. Fundamental theology assumes "the most usual meaning of public discourse: that discourse available