No longer ‘speaking truth to power’

ABSTRACT

It is a common assumption that one of the fundamental roles of public theology is to ‘speak truth to power’. This article examines the work of William Temple and Elaine Graham to suggest there are problems with this model. In particular, in our postmodern context, it is difficult to agree on what constitutes truth as well as locate the powerful to whom truth should be spoken. Richard Rorty’s notion of edification is suggested as an alternate model for public theologians. In this schema the public theologian redescribes social, political and cultural texts with a view to providing original insights which engender empathy for the poor and oppressed.

KEYWORDS:

• Richard Rorty
• edification
• truth to power
• redescription

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 See chapter one of Christianity and Social Order (29–38) and especially page 29 for the Baldwin reference. Temple had drafted the Conference Message of the Jerusalem 1928 IMC Conference which significantly addressed the issue of secularism as a result of a lecture by the North American Quaker Rufus Jones; see Smith (2004, 119–121).

2 There are of course others who might make the claim to influence. In practical theology circles Stephen Pattison and Heather Walton are very important figures, but their work is not quite public theology in the sense meant here. Likewise Graham Ward and John Milbank are very influential thinkers, but they would be more likely to identify themselves as political theologians, not that this does not produce overlap with public theology. However in the field of public theology Graham is the most important writer, teacher and thinker, not least because her doctoral students are becoming the next generation of academic staff. (Graham 2013, 2017)

3 Important supporters of Thatcher made their case from a Christian perspective, for example Griffiths (1982); and for a difference perspective see, Atherton (1992).

4 The key text by Michel Foucault (1977); but see also Foucault (1980).

5 This is Charles Mathewes view. He describes Rorty as frivolous whose ‘ironic knowingness’ is a ‘consolation prize’ that turns out to be ‘cold comfort’, (Mathewes 2007, 288).

6 Thiselton (1992, 400–401). For a summary of Thiselton’s objections to Rorty see 544–546. Similar criticisms are offered by Richard John Neuhaus (2009) see esp. chapter 5, 119–162. Neuhaus is difficult to engage with academically because his writing here is popular, wide-ranging and not referenced.

7 James Conant suggests that Rorty has misread Orwell arguing that Orwell was far more of a realist than Rorty allows; Conant (2000, 286–342) and especially 279. Rorty responds in the same volume, 342–350, agreeing that Orwell was more of a realist than he was but that this was not his point, 344.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Graeme Smith

Dr Graeme Smith is Professor of Public Theology at the University of Chichester.