A paper presented to the Cape Forum of Lutheran Pastors at the Moravian Theological College, Heideveld, Cape Town

Introduction

Theology is the attempt through reasoning to understand the implications our faith has for everyday life and for everyday issues. From my understanding of the models of the pastor, these would include designations such as prophet, priest and, in a German sense, an integral part of being a theologian. Public policy, on the other hand, reflects what politicians choose to do or not do in order to shape and enhance the public space that determines how people relate to one another. It also has to do with how the public is enabled to use the resources available to them in the public space. It may be as a political ideal, as claimed by Otto von Bismark, that politics is "the art of the possible"[1] or semantically understood as that which happens and causes interest and concern (for good or bad within the "polis"). JK Galbraith, on the other hand, sets limits to the public arena and the shaping of public policy. He says: "politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."[2] Within the public sphere, therefore, if we follow Galbraith's reasoning (and I have no reason to doubt that he is spot on in the context of 21^st century global relations) choices are never between the best and worst but more frequently between the lesser of two evils. It is never a choice between back and white, so to speak, but a choice between varying shades of grey. So public policy involves shaping, influencing and assisting our public officials to make the better choices for the improvement rather than deterioration of our how we are to live together and survive as a nation.

All of this takes place within a public space in which ordinary citizens are able to interact with those who shape policies. Within this same space we have the interaction of theology all of which, according to Duncan Forrester, "seem to have lost their relevance and cogency ... [while] venturing into unknown territory."[3] The questions that face us are whether we can discern some path and direction in this venture? And, if so, do we, as Church and theologians, have anything to offer this venture? Due to the limits of this paper I will deal with the Church's own perceptions of inadequacy on unknown journeys. Secondly we shall also examine the change of public arena since 1994 and the influences of globalisation that shape the public arena. Finally, we shall ask what we can do together to enhance the broader expression of the Church's voice on matters of common public concern.

Where have we come from and where are we going?

In a paper delivered in 1996, the previous Director of the SACC PO, Malcolm Damon, placed the Church's and indeed faith involvement in public policy as far back as the prophets in the Old Testament. The prophets were, he said, always placed in relation to the office of one King or another and their oracles and actions frequently identified within the political context of that King[4]. He specifically refers to the story of Micaiah who refused to identify with King Ahab's request for underwriting his policy of war. As we know, Micaiah was put into prison for predicting the King's downfall but, ultimately, was vindicated when the Syrians killed Ahab. This is perhaps a drastic example of the involvement of religious leadership in public policy. Yet it is important to remember that the relationship of religion and theology engaging with public policy is not something entirely unique and novel. Indeed, Damon illustrates the involvement by faith communities in public policy as far back as in ancient biblical times.

In pre modern times, theologians wrote extensively on political themes while adopting such thought within the Christian story as in Augustine's City of God (Civitas Dei) which Luther later developed from two cities to two kingdoms, each expressing diverse ways of God's love and justice. Calvin later provided for a sophisticated doctrine of power and sovereignty which included keeping a reign on the power used by human beings as God's fallen creatures. And yet, in all of these pre modern times, says Forrester, the role of the Church and of theology was taken for granted. When one turns to the gospels, the role of Jesus in Luke 4:18-19 is presented by the writer as a vision and tradition incumbent upon God's people of faith. This role of prophecy identified by Jesus is one that is given by God in the power of the Spirit to the Church. It requires a constant evaluation of its mission and ministry to the poor, the outcast, the marginalized including the widow, the orphan and the stranger. The tradition of the faithful has only one enforceable moral law -- and that is the protection of the dignity of the poor and oppressed as instruments of God's special favour.

I am saying that the Church's policy support for the emancipation from slavery, the proclamation that apartheid was (is) a heresy, the promotion of the Kairos and Damascus Documents, the Standing for Truth campaigns and the Rustenberg Declaration etc. are clear indicators of a theological longing for a new version of social identity as well as policy direction. Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu's frequent exclamations in the '80s that "politics is too important to leave to the politicians", the involvement of the Church in 2005 in attempts at shaping policy in a democracy, are sign of recalling the mission of the Church at the heart of social transformation. When we identify what this means and seek to communicate it to those in power, we begin to understand the role of the Church in shaping public policy. The link of the Church with the demand for social transformation is the soul of Christ's longing for the Kingdom values to be mirrored on earth. We need to note that Jesus himself teaches the disciples, when they wish to know how to address their Creator, are taught to pray: "Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven."

To what extent does and should the global context determine policy in South Africa?

When the churches in South Africa attempted to interact with policy issues and their consequences during the apartheid era, they did so in the full knowledge that these policies were shaped by an illegitimate government. Yet, even at times when Archbishop Tutu and other church leaders were granted an audience with PW Botha, the Arch's pain was clear. "They said their say. We said ours. But there was no real engaging of minds on the issue at hand." Apartheid South Africa chose not only separate development for the nation, but acted with intransigence on any attempts at genuine dialogue. This obstinacy extended to church and political leaders of the West (and with a thorough disdain for anyone else across the Iron Curtain), as well as other African nations and the Churches that refused to kow-tow to its dictates. For these reasons (its intransigence) it became, according to Dr. Simon Gqubule, the "polecat of the word". We proudly point out that democracy has not only changed the shape of SA's global participation but also enhanced our willingness (and undoubtedly our ability) to cooperate in shaping the world to become more a "family of nations". Quite apart from all of this, our new found and advanced Constitution places South Africa in a league of its own amongst nations that have taken the venture to democratic transition. In this sense, SA has become the darling of the world and, dare we say, we no longer carry that "polecat" smell any longer.

Some of the institutional arms which democracy enable the Churches, together with the rest of civil society, to interact and actively participate in are:

• Public Hearings
• Petitions, representation and submissions to Portfolio Committees
• Participation with institutions in place to strengthen democracy e.g. Public Protector, Human Rights Commission; CURLCOM; Commission on Gender Equality
• Lobby at constituency level

Having said that, however, one needs also to take cognisance of effects that globalisation of the economy and the transformation of a political system brings to the actions of governments. One needs to remember that the process of globalisation includes the privatisation and commercialisation everything. David Pfrimmer, amongst others, points out the process of globalisation has dangerously fragmented the world bringing with it significant threats to human peace and security[5]. He points to Benjamin Barber's work , Jihad vs McWorld, Terrorism's challenge to democracy, as an extended argument that characterises globalisation as the "McWorld" threat. He notes the position that:

"Western beneficiaries of McWorld celebrate market ideology with its commitment to the privatisation of all things public and the commercialisation of all things private, and consequently insisting on total freedom from government interference in the global economic sector (laissez-faire). Yet total freedom from interference -- the rule of private power over public goods -- is another name for anarchy. And terror is merely one of the many contagious diseases that anarchy spawns." (Emphasis added)

Privatising things public and commercialising things private has accompanied and in many ways has facilitated economic globalisation[6]. While these efforts at privatisation discredit governments and international institutions in that they seem to serve the interests of the few, privatizing things public and commercialising things private also threatens our principles of constitutional democracy by threatening to replace our processes of decision making with the "market." It often marginalizes and too often trumps the encounter on the public arena where various people, groups and organizations collaborate with one another to articulate the public interest and pursue the common good.

A summary reflection, challenges and concluding remarks

Within this context, it would appear that vocation of the political within the public realm may be displaced with a privatisation of morals, leading to religion that simply upholds the status quo. Margaret Thatcher's reshaping of government by denationalising its institutions and placing them on the free market together with Ronald Reagan's leaner budget at the expense of withdrawn social security have led the way to globalisation which demands that governments put all services on the market of the world. This has led to policy contentions such the claims that nations require economic growth in order to make resources available for the alleviation of poverty. Or they even say that globalisation may be a painful experience initially but there is no other way and, once the pain is over, it will be all gain" Since the "telos" of politics appears to have become the economic growth principle, even so Christians have a duty and obligation to help put the "vocation" or passion back into politics for the politician. Even though the choices that face us are not the ideals that we cherish, and even though that choices we have to make may lie between the "disastrous" and the "unpalatable" the Churches ultimately need to seek to bring public policy and politicians back to serve the needs of the people -- and not the needs of an economic system geared toward profit rather than enhancing human, social and community resourcefulness and development.

• Churches can assist the Parliamentary Office by providing a database of topics in moral and political discourse they are conducting together with the names of persons engaged in any form of special and technical expertise;
• Churches will need to be more progressive in approach to policy issues by being wiling to identify distinct partners/allies with whom they may be in conversation (e.g. organised labour, community based organisations and NGO's which are not necessarily "Christian") without losing our identity;
• Churches need to be prepared to learn and speak the language of public discourse which is distinctly different from the "religious speak" with which we are so familiar;
• Churches need to encourage and engage in ongoing discussion with various Church public policy units so as to produce a more refined public theology; and most importantly
• Churches are required, by virtue of participating in the public arena, to develop an alternative vision for a dangerously, broken and divided world in which our nation is seeking to take its place. Morally, the Churches need to move from utilitarianism Ð the greatest good for the greatest number and expert decisionism -- (although I think we already have) to a moral position that relates the story of the poor and marginalized as character in order to reshape the character of the nation. This calls for a task of courage and unparalleled heroism whereby, the experience and story of the chronically poor citizen begins to shape the policies of our nation and the world -- rather than the present architecture of power whereby international regulations and systems determine what is possible. Or as Galbraith puts it, shapes our choices between "the disastrous and the unpalatable".

Rev. Keith Vermeulen
Director, Parliamentary Office
South African Council of Churches

NOTES

[1] See this quotations on www.quotationspage.com

[2] For the US economist and administrator JK Galbraith's reaction to Michael Moncur's use of Von Bismark's statement see also www.quotationspage.com

[3] Duncan B. Forrester, Christian Justice and Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, p.9.

[4] See www.sacc-ct.org.za/damonart.html

[5] David Pfrimmer, Parliamentary Officer for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, interviewed at the SACC Parliamentary Offices on a visit to South Africa in May 2004.

[6] I am greatly indebted to David Pfrimmer for the notes in this section. These are embargoed until further notice: Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld, Terrorism's Challenge to Democacy. New York, Ballentine Books, 1995, p. xvii maintains that the pressure of privatising things public is well documented. Privatisation has been a key feature of many of the economic programs of various countries. There are notable examples of privatisation that have been advocated by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, corporate lobbies and "think tanks" as well as those promoted by politicians. The sale of "state-owned enterprises;" the private management of airports, schools, health care, hospitals, airports, water services, electrical utilities, prisons; and the "out sourcing" of government services such as welfare administration, driver testing and license applications, other jobs formerly done by civil servants; even the use of "private contractors" as part of the Iraq war effort are but to mention only a few. Many of these schemes have been discredited upon more serious analysis on the economic merits of their particular situation. Civil society has rejected these policies as an unacceptable abdication by governments of their responsibilities as witnessed by the recent elections of Norberto Kirchner in Argentina and Luis Inacio da Silva ("Lula") in Brazil, just to mention a couple of examples. Commercialising things private may be less obvious but it too is a drive that accompanies economic globalisation. Among the more noteworthy examples is the drive to protect "intellectual property rights" which deprived indigenous communities of access to traditional knowledge that has been handed down to them over centuries as a trust for generations yet to come. In Mexico, indigenous groups are organizing to oppose the flooding of the Mexican market with genetically modified corn that threatens to contaminate indigenous strains. Commercialising things private is altering our understanding of life and humanness and is encroaching on the biological arena. In South Africa, the patents of Rooibos Tea and other plant species indigenous to South Africa, are being commercialised as American products with American privileges.