The conversation between public theology and missiology: A response to Sebastian Kim

Abstract

This paper responds, from a North American perspective, to Sebastian Kim’s plenary address at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Society for Missiology on the relationship between public theology and missiology. The paper reviews the contribution of North American missiologists to the reflection on the public witness of the church, highlights the published contributions of Hunsberger, Leffel, Pieterse, Hunt, Okesson and Fensham, while recognizing the contribution of practitioners such as Kenney and Simpson. The paper proposes that missiologists can contribute to the conversation with public theologians on the themes of theologies of culture, the missionary dimension of all theology, the clarification of the meaning of “church”, “world” and “publics,” the theme of repentance, and offering an inspiring transformative vision for a flourishing creation.

What we mean by public missiology

“…Charles Fensham’s forthcoming (2023) Mission as Penance: Essays on the Theology of Mission in a Canadian Context is set within a public missiology framework. Other topics have addressed the fundamentally public meaning of ekklesia and the public character of the church-in-mission (Hunsberger, 2005); “anxious tribalism,” the problem of witness among unstable and increasingly radicalized social identities (Hunt, 2016); global intercultural theology and the challenge of public discourse (Pieterse, 2017); witness in light of the ideological and structural powers of institutions and the “powers and principalities” (Fensham, 2022; Okesson, 2016); and clarifying the overlaps and tensions between public theology and public missiology (Fensham, 2017; Kim, 2017).…”