In mid-July 2026, Chinese Christian scholars and pastors from various denominational backgrounds in the United States, the United Kingdom, China, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Hong Kong gathered in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, for the three-day Third Public Theology Conference. The conference was titled “Pluralism and Public Theology.” As the title suggests, participants noted that Malaysia serves as an excellent example of a multicultural context, where the Malay, Chinese, and Indian communities influence one another, compete with one another, and jointly uphold peace. During the conference, scholars presented papers on related topics from the perspectives of biblical studies, ecclesiology, history, sociology, theology, philosophy, and aesthetics, and engaged the audience in discussions on the nature and significance of public theology in a pluralistic context. At the event, the organizations Universal Good News and ChinaSource presented attendees with a collection of conference papers in both Chinese and English. Through reading this collection and attending the conference in person, the author of this article gained a deeper understanding of and reflections on public theology itself.
I. Definition of Public Theology
“Public theology” is composed of two terms. The first is “public,” which is distinct from the private sphere and refers to an individual’s participation in public life—including politics, economics, culture, education, science and technology, the environment, and social relations. Stackhouse defines this “public” as the public sphere, which encompasses human rights, democracy, the rule of law, market ethics, and civil society. David Tracy, on the other hand, identifies three spheres of the “public”: the church, academia, and society.
The other term is “theology.” Although “theology” is not a term exclusive to Christianity, it appears with great frequency within the Christian tradition. This indicates that “public theology” is a form of theology grounded in a Christian faith background and perspective, aimed at engaging with issues of public life.
Public theology refers to Christians’ engagement in public policy and public discourse, enabling faith to serve society as a whole, rather than merely the church. How should this engagement take place? Scholars have proposed numerous approaches, such as “dialogue,” “attention,” “witness,” “virtue,” “advocacy,” “liberation,” “service,” and “care.”
The theme of this conference is “Pluralism and Public Theology.” Based on the scholars’ comprehensive discussions on pluralism, the consensus is as follows: Pluralism is a neutral term; its flip side is conflict; pluralism involves distinction without separation; pluralism is respect for differences; pluralism is both a gift and a source of tension; for Christians, pluralism presents an opportunity to fulfill the Great Commission; In a pluralistic context, Christians must listen and seek to understand, engage in dialogue, avoid withdrawal, and reject authoritarianism; amidst diversity, they must build relationships, collaborate, and seek the common good.
II. The History of Public Theology
If public theology is guided by the spirit and example of Christ—caring for others in public life, seeking the common good, and ultimately serving as salt and light to bear witness to the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven—then the development of public theology is not a topic that has emerged only in recent decades. Its origins can be traced back to the Old Testament’s teachings on social justice and compassion, as well as the New Testament’s command to “love your neighbor as yourself” and the parable of the Good Samaritan.The Bible calls on the Church to be salt and light and a city on a hill, thereby reflecting God’s glory in a dark world. Furthermore, Augustine’s “The City of God” affirmed the public responsibility of Christians and advocated for the Church’s active participation in society. During the Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin’s concept of the “vocation” imbued the Christian workplace with sacredness, holding that every faith-based profession is a calling and gift from heaven, serving as a platform and opportunity to serve God. Finally, Kaybol asserted, “In the entire realm of human existence, there is not a single inch of land that does not belong to Christ, for Christ is the Lord of all, and He declares over every inch, ‘This is mine.’”
The term “public theology” was first coined by Martin E. Marty, who argued in the 1970s that the church should not be merely a private religion but should become a public church. His views are widely recognized as a key impetus for the development of public theology. This movement arose against the backdrop of apartheid in South Africa and the continued prevalence of racial discrimination in the United States. Seeking to counter the extremes of the Social Gospel within the World Council of Churches (WCC), churches in Europe and the United States joined forces with evangelical churches in South America and other regions to hold the first Lausanne Conference in Lausanne. The Lausanne Covenant established that the relationship between the truth of the Gospel and social concern—or social responsibility—is one of cause and effect; the two cannot be separated. Therefore, public theology represents the evangelical response to striking a balance between fundamentalism and liberalism.
Beginning in the 1980s, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong successively established research programs or specialized majors in public theology at universities and seminaries. Currently, public theology has become one of the most popular disciplines in Christian seminaries over the past few decades, second only to missiology.
III. The Limitations of Public Theology
Over the past two years, I have been closely following developments in public theology. Through my reading and research, combined with my experiences at this conference, I have formed some reflections—and also some concerns—regarding “Chinese public theology.”Public theology is not a one-size-fits-all panacea; it has its own unique historical context, as well as its own distinct principles and limitations, which are essential to its very nature.
1. Public Theology Requires “Public” Rules
Public theologians maintain that public theology is not about speaking to society but rather engaging in dialogue with it. This space for dialogue is called the public square, where any issue within the public sphere can be discussed. No single domain should become authoritarian, using its monopoly on discourse to suppress another domain. Therefore, everyone in this square must adhere to shared values and rules of dialogue to maintain the equality, freedom, and democracy of discourse in the public square. This means that when Christian scholars enter the public square for dialogue, they must do so with humility and a spirit of submission. They must be willing to understand the rules of dialogue, to listen to and comprehend the perspectives expressed by faith positions different from their own, and to collaborate in seeking the common good for society—even bearing witness to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ through dialogue and cooperation.
Consequently, scholars of public theology must thoroughly understand the rules of dialogue in the public square—that is, academic norms—adhere to these rules and engage in dialogue using language that is accessible to everyone in the public square. Such an attitude and approach can break down traditional posturing, dismantle the dichotomy between the sacred and the secular, and shatter the totalitarian mindset of self-exaltation, thereby enabling the Gospel of Christ to be proclaimed through friendly dialogue.
2. The Distinction Between Academic Language and Pastoral Language
As a pastor with nearly twenty years of ministry experience, this was the first time in my life that I had attended an academic conference. While listening to these scholars’ presentations, I found that some were clear in their reasoning and rich in insight, while others were moving and thought-provoking. However, in conversations with fellow pastors who attended the lectures, I also discovered a problem: some of the scholars’ presentations were simply incomprehensible to us. We do not doubt their research abilities, nor do we question their research topics; rather, we suspect that they failed to translate academic language into terms accessible to non-scholars, so that their messages could be easily understood by a non-academic audience. If two groups sharing a common faith background—scholars and pastors—cannot understand each other’s language, how can we facilitate dialogue among groups from different fields in a pluralistic public sphere?
If Christian academia and the church are to be part of this pluralistic public sphere, it means that Christian scholars and pastors need to engage in dialogue—and, more importantly, must make a conscious effort to adapt themselves to facilitate that dialogue. Christian scholars need to listen to the perplexities and insights of church pastors in their pastoral ministry, so that they can assist the church in future academic research; church pastors also need to deliberately improve their academic literacy, “listening carefully” to understand scholars’ research reports and receiving the provision God distributes through them in due season. Therefore, academic language and pastoral language are not disconnected; they need to jointly build a bridge of dialogue in Christ.
3. The Differences Between Democratic and Totalitarian Contexts
Does public theology have universal applicability? Public theologians universally recognize that public theology emerged within the context of democratic nations. A democratic political environment characterized by freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly is a prerequisite for dialogue in the public square. Some scholars have also pointed out that freedom of religion is the foundation of all democratic freedoms. Consequently, some Latin American theologians strongly oppose the promotion of public theology in their own contexts and are even more opposed to establishing public theology departments in universities. They argue that “public theology” is a product of Western democratic nations that overlooks issues such as colonialism, totalitarianism, and capitalist monopolies, and is therefore not applicable to totalitarian states. They believe that Western theology cannot be directly transplanted to other regions and countries, nor should one blindly follow or flatter Western theology.
This conference was labeled “Chinese Public Theology,” and most participants were Christian scholars and pastors from democratic or relatively democratic contexts. When discussions focused on “Chinese Public Theology” grounded in democratic contexts, it made Chinese Christian scholars and pastors living in non-democratic contexts feel overlooked. Since China has the world’s largest Chinese-speaking population, none of the presentation topics directly addressed the situation of Christians in China. This is regrettable. It is hoped that the fourth “Chinese Public Theology” conference will feature research on relevant topics.
4. There Is a Distinction Between Public Theology and the Social Gospel
As is well known, the Lausanne Movement was launched in 1974 precisely to counterbalance the World Council of Churches’ (WCC) shift from social concern toward the Social Gospel. From an external perspective, the Social Gospel and Public Theology appear very similar, as both focus on the relationship between the Christian faith and public life. However, there are clear distinctions between the two in terms of historical background, theological foundation, and objectives. The Social Gospel involves the church reforming social institutions and engaging in social care to make society more aligned with Christian ethics, with the goal of transforming the kingdom on earth into the kingdom of heaven; it emphasizes ethical practice and public welfare while downplaying the truth of salvation. Public theology, on the other hand, involves the church engaging in dialogue and participating in public affairs across diverse spheres, with the goal of bearing witness to the gospel and the Kingdom of Heaven; it is grounded in doctrinal tradition and emphasizes that the truth and power of the Gospel are the foundation and solution for public life.
As we discuss public theology 50 years after the First Lausanne Congress, my personal concern is: to what extent does our “public theology” actually amount to the Social Gospel? How can we prevent a public theology conference from becoming a Social Gospel conference? We should not use the banner of public theology to promote the Social Gospel, for this would strip the Lausanne Movement—which our predecessors advanced at great cost—of its historical significance.
Conclusion
As someone who has long been involved in pastoral ministry within church circles, I was fortunate to participate in the Third Public Theology Forum for the first time. The above reflects my personal insights and reflections gained from the conference. The very fact that public theology can be introduced into Chinese theology and the context of the church demonstrates the humility and eagerness to learn of Chinese-speaking Christians. I look forward to the day when, through continuous introduction and reflection, public theology can become an indigenous topic and bring hope to the Chinese-speaking Christian community. I thank all the fellow workers involved in the research and ministry of Chinese public theology.
God bless you all.
