It has almost become an axiom of public theology that theological content is co\u2010determined by context. This does not mean that the influence a particular context exerts on public theology is always easily detectable. In fact, it is quite possi\u2010ble that even the closest examination of a particular theological text cannot trace any link to the context in which it was written. <\/span><\/p>\n Take, for example, the contribution the well\u2010known theologian of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, prof Jo\u2010han Heyns, wrote for the publication Storm\u2010kompas (English: Compass in the storm) in 1981 in which he provided \u2018A theological perspective\u2019 on the church in the South African context (Heyns 1981:15\u201021). This contribution provoked the famous remark in the same publication by another well\u2010known South African theologian of the Dutch Reformed Mission Church in South Africa, prof Jaap Durand: \u201cI have a problem with the contribution of prof Heyns; with minor changes it could just as well have been written on the church in\u2026 say, Lapland\u201d (Durand 1981:21; translated from the Afrikaans). <\/p>\n Prof Durand\u2019s indignation was especially inflamed by the fact that Prof Heyns wrote about the church in the South African context and its task to promote reconciliation without mentioning the injustice done to Black people that caused the conflict in South Africa or admitting the complicity and guilt of the Afrikaans churches regarding this injustice (Durand 1981:21\u201023). <\/p>\n There is, of course, a sense in which Prof Heyns\u2019s silence on the concrete situation in South Africa does confirm the co\u2010determination of theological content by context. It was typical of leading theologians in the Afrikaans churches, who supported apartheid during the seventies and early eighties, to say very little about the political situation in South Africa. The apartheid policy was at that stage well established and supported by the majority of the members of the Afrikaans churches. There was in such a context no need to defend apartheid theologically anymore and by keeping silent as a theologian on its alleged injustices one could contribute to its continuing legitimisation (see De Villiers 1989:268\u2010269). <\/p>\n What this demonstrates, is that there is no singular and also no objective way in which a particular context is reflected in theological texts. Not only does the subjective understand\u2010ing of the context by a particular author play a decisive role in this reflection, but also the moral responsibility \u2010 or lack of it \u2010 to seriously strive to take all the relevant features of the context into account (cf.T\u00f6dt 1988:31\u201033). This is also true of my attempt in this paper to answer the question: \u201cTo what extent should the context of South African society be reflected in public theology produced by South African theologians?\u201d It is a morally risky endeavour that may in the end be hampered by my own bias as a privileged South African white male. <\/p>\n I will nonetheless try to provide in this paper an unbiased sketch of relevant features of South African society, discuss the fundamental challenge to reach a common understanding on the nature and goals of South African public theology and identify some of the more specific challenges confronting public theology in the South African context.
<\/p>\n