Original Research

The distinction of Clint Le Bruyns’ Kairos theology in South Africa

Gift Masengwe

Received: 24 Oct. 2024; Accepted: 04 Feb. 2025; Published: 31 Mar. 2025

Copyright: © 2025. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This article, contextualised within the commemoration of 50 years of scholarship at the Research Institute for Theology and Religion of the University of South Africa, examines the enduring contributions of Clint Le Bruyns to the development of the Kairos brand of public theology in post-apartheid South Africa. Le Bruyns engages contemporary imperatives of a transformative framework, including economic justice, gender equity, environmental sustainability, decolonisation and political responsibility by synthesising insights from theology, development studies and social ethics. He critiques the persisting inertia of faith communities in passive theological reflection rather than prophetic action, wherein the church remains a pivotal agent of social justice and human flourishing. Le Bruyns’ theological framework (dual role as a scholar and activist), intensely articulates the communal dimensions of Kairos theology anchored in the foundational tenets of the South African Kairos Document and complemented by insights from global decolonial discourses that include Palestinian Kairos and Latin American Liberation Theology. He uses this background in his ecumenical dialogues to equip grassroots movements to transcend denominational divides in grappling with the complexities of moral renewal and social transformation in South Africa. Kairos theology serves as both a historical artefact and active, engaging scholarship and praxis (i.e. robust public theology) from an interdisciplinary perspective in view of historical injustices of colonialism and apartheid.

Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article concludes that Le Bruyns provides an integrative, dynamic and enduring approach to navigate complex socio-political landscapes that can be used to affirm the indispensable relationship between faith and social responsibility.

Keywords: Clint Le Bruyns; Kairos theology; transformative justice; constructive public theology; equity; stewardship; South Africa.

Introduction

This article responds to the call for articles commemorating 50 years of scholarship at the Research Institute for Theology and Religion of the University of South Africa. Clint Le Bruyns is chosen as a focal point because his work exemplifies an unwavering commitment to interweaving theological scholarship with social responsibility. For this reason, the study uses theological reflection to examine Clint Le Bruyns’ work. His contributions serve not only as a beacon for future generations of theologians and practitioners but also as a sturdy bridge in South Africa’s public theology discourse, where faith mandates a proactive engagement with social justice imperatives and systemic injustices.

Clint Le Bruyns’ theology underscores a transformative vision that advocates for justice, equity and communal flourishing, highlighting the interconnectedness of socio-economic issues, environmental stewardship and gender equity within the framework of Kairos theology. By addressing systemic injustices through a theologically grounded approach and fostering collaboration across diverse faith communities, Le Bruyns calls for a proactive engagement that empowers marginalised voices and redefines the church’s role as a vital agent of social change in South Africa. Thus, Le Bruyns actively contributed to Kairos theology in integrating contemporary issues into church actions, mobilising the communal dimensions of collective action, regarding public theology as activist theology and adding decolonisation and intersectionality into the discussion.

Le Bruyns occupies a vital position within this landscape, elucidating a robust faith commitment towards social justice through critical engagement with systemic oppression and a steadfast pursuit of a liberatory vision for society. He poignantly probes the role of faith traditions, asserting that ‘how churches, faith traditions, and broader civil society contribute to meaningful and constructive public rationality for a more responsible citizenship is a continuing challenge’ (Le Bruyns 2012a:73, 2012c:15). His scholarly output effectively integrates diverse contemporary themes, including dignified work, gender equity, economic justice, environmental stewardship, decolonisation and political responsibility, thus presenting a comprehensive framework for action.

Le Bruyns’ work embodies an urgent call for faith communities to reevaluate their roles, not merely as passive domains of worship but as active participants in societal transformation. This prophetic vision necessitates a cohesive and integrative approach across multiple disciplines, notably theology, development studies and social ethics. Such a stance is crucial as it asserts the church’s responsibility to advocate for holistic transformation, confronting prevailing systemic injustices and championing marginalised voices.

Central to the significance of Le Bruyns’ contributions is his adept navigation of the socio-historical complexities of contemporary South African society, profoundly shaped by the legacies of colonialism and apartheid. His theological reflections illuminate the challenges facing public life and the potential for the church as a transformative social agent. He reinforces a renewed Kairos consciousness, advocating for a theologically grounded and socially responsible engagement characterised by contextuality, criticality and transformative action. In this perspective, Kairos theology emerges as an enduring and dynamic framework, empowering faith communities to actively pursue justice and communal flourishing amid the intricate socio-political landscapes of our time. As Le Bruyns aptly states, ‘The Kairos theological tradition provides not merely a template for activism but a profound theological grounding for the church’s engagement in the public sphere’ (Le Bruyns 2011:45), which is activist theology. From here we examine his life journeys.

Early life and academic journey

Clint Le Bruyns’ early life and academic trajectory illuminate the profound interplay between personal experiences, socio-political contexts and scholarly pursuits that shaped a theologian devoted to justice and ethical engagement. His dedication to confronting systemic injustices in Southern Africa is evident from the outset, with his theological education fuelled by a desire to address pervasive inequality and oppression. This moral and intellectual development is anchored in his commitment to ‘transformative action’, emphasising that faith must actively engage societal injustices rather than merely reflect upon them. Le Bruyns situates his work within applied theology, advocating for a faith that intersects with lived realities, thus empowering individuals to advocate for marginalised populations through Kairos theology, moving from theory to actionable commitment.

As a Senior Lecturer in Theology and Development at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Le Bruyns played a pivotal role in shaping future theologians committed to addressing pressing social issues. He nurtured ethical leadership and public theology among students in a context marked by enduring racial and economic disparities. His pedagogical approach underscored the necessity of theological education as a tool for fostering critical engagement with socio-political dynamics.

Le Bruyns’ exploration of Kairos theology further demonstrates his theological depth, particularly concerning poverty, inequality and violence. He posits that ‘Kairos serves as an invitation to discernment, an opportunity to engage meaningfully with the complexities of contemporary pressures and tensions’ (Le Bruyns 2012a:68). This proactive stance invites individuals and communities to respond actively to marginalised voices, thereby illuminating paths towards justice rather than opting for passive observation.

His engagement extended well beyond academia, as he contributed to initiatives such as Kairos South Africa, Global Kairos for Justice and the Freedom Flotilla (i.e. people-to-people freedom movements). This duality as an academic and activist exemplifies how theology can bridge diverse global cultures and contexts. Le Bruyns’ involvement in these movements underscores his commitment to addressing international injustices, including those faced by Palestinians (Schmid 2013), thereby raising critical inquiries about how academic institutions might better support scholars in their activist endeavours. His work fosters a form of theology that is responsive to global realities and grounded in active engagement.

Despite his untimely passing, Le Bruyns’ legacy endures through his teaching and activism, leaving an indelible impact on students, peers and the broader theological community, as can be attested by tributes to his life (Nthla 2021). Respected figures, including Rev. Dr. Allan Boesak, have affirmed the profound influence he wielded, championing a vision of ecumenical movement grounded in lived theology rather than merely institutional frameworks. This commitment underscores the imperative that future generations of theologians continue to advocate for justice and emerge as proactive agents of social change in an increasingly complex world.

Contributions of Le Bruyns to Kairos theology

Le Bruyns’ contribution to Kairos theology presents a sophisticated framework for public engagement, emphasising the concept of ‘rebirth’ rooted in the historical context of apartheid, while urging a renewed focus on contemporary challenges characterised by ‘contextuality, criticality, and change’ (Le Bruyns 2012c:7). He contends that relegating Kairos theology to the past undermines its prophetic nature, asserting its relevance as a critical response to modern struggles. Drawing upon the foundational principles of the South African Kairos Document (1985) and the 2009 Palestinian Kairos, Le Bruyns reiterates the theology’s imperative for public justice, gender equity, social solidarity, ‘liberative expectancy’ and ‘prophetic witness’ (Le Bruyns 2012c:7). This theological tradition inspires a potent call to action (this is where Bruyns differed with earlier theologians who emphasised reflection to assist others to act) against injustices and nurtures a prophetic orientation because of its grounding in the public nature of the Christian faith. The ‘Kairos moment’ signifies an awakening, urging faith communities to respond decisively to current circumstances.

Moreover, Le Bruyns accentuates the communal dimensions of Kairos theology, which invites collective engagement across diverse contexts. He articulates that ‘Public theology calls us to a communal understanding of the gospel, rooted in shared experiences and struggles’ (Le Bruyns 2009a:21). This communal approach is integral, as it positions the church as an active participant in transformation and justice, moving beyond passive observation.

In his ongoing scholarship, Le Bruyns addresses contemporary issues through the lens of Kairos theology, arguing for its adaptability to engage critically with the socio-political realities of post-apartheid South Africa and beyond. His focus on economic justice, ecological sustainability and human dignity reflects the need for theological discourse to confront the material conditions of life. He asserts, ‘The gospel demands an active engagement with the material conditions of life. It compels us to confront the structures that perpetuate injustice’ (Le Bruyns 2011:47), urging churches to renew their interest in public witness and broader socio-political engagement.

Le Bruyns’ influence permeates the ecumenical discourse, positioning Kairos theology as a shared resource among diverse Christian traditions navigating complex societal challenges. His interactions with various faith communities underscore the necessity for a methodological re-evaluation of interfaith relations and collective responsibilities in addressing pressing social issues. He highlights the importance of agency among faith communities, citing Korten’s fourth-generation strategy and Castells’ concept of symbolic politics to underscore the role of social movements and non-partisan political action in development (Le Bruyns 2009b:581). However, he notes a precarious state within ecumenical structures, stated by Maluleke (2005:117) as being held together by ‘the most fragile of threads’ because of financial and structural problems, which hinder relevance by focusing on outdated methods of protest instead of proactive advocacy.

The Kairos movement emerges as a unifying paradigm that inspires collaborative efforts for the common good. Le Bruyns eloquently remarks, ‘The shared Kairos moment compels us to recognise our collective responsibility within the ecumenical family, to act against oppression, marginalisation, and systemic injustices’ (Le Bruyns 2009a:14). De Gruchy (2004) emphasises that during apartheid, churches unified under a common purpose, coalescing visibly in the work of the South African Council of Churches (SACC) and in local ecumenical networks, becoming vital agents of protest against oppressive ideologies (De Gruchy 2004:223). Such unity allowed them to advocate vigorously for the rights and dignity of marginalised people through moral frameworks and collaborative efforts.

This article advocates for contemporary ecumenism to transition from protest to advocacy, lobbying and development partnerships amid the complexities of globalisation. Le Bruyns asserts the imperative for ecumenical bodies to wrestle with the realities of the development agenda while navigating globalisation’s marginalising effects. In cultivating awareness of local and global dynamics, ecumenical agencies should contribute to transformative change through strategic advocacy and international partnerships. Thus, ecumenical bodies transcend theoretical constructs by actively engaging in realms such as politics, economics, and health, leveraging their historical and theological traditions to amplify their efforts for social transformation and justice.

Potential critiques to Le Bruyns’ contributions

Clint Le Bruyns’ contributions to Kairos theology and public engagement merit commendation for their intention to foster socio-political transformation through faith. However, several critical areas warrant scrutiny, particularly with respect to their depth, breadth and practical applicability within the contemporary South African context.

Primarily, while Le Bruyns advocates for collective action among diverse faith communities, his analysis inadequately acknowledges the entrenched divisions and complexities that often hinder such collaboration. South Africa’s social landscape is multifaceted, characterised by deep denominational splits, historical grievances and cultural intricacies that complicate unified efforts towards social justice. In pursuing a common Kairos consciousness, one might argue that Le Bruyns underestimates the substantial barriers that persist in a post-apartheid environment, where historical power dynamics and patriarchal structures continue to shape ecclesiastical relations. A more nuanced examination of these obstacles, alongside the potential for authentic ecumenical dialogue, would significantly bolster his argument by providing a clearer picture of the challenges inherent in pursuing collective engagement.

Furthermore, while Le Bruyns emphasises the theological dimensions of social justice, particularly concerning economic and environmental issues, he often neglects the practical implementation of his proposals. His critiques of capitalism and calls for economic justice are undoubtedly significant, yet they necessitate concrete strategies to effectively address the systemic issues he raises. His urging for faith communities to interrogate capitalist structures lacks specific examples or frameworks that would enable religious institutions to confront these economic paradigms. A richer exploration of actionable steps that ecumenical bodies or individual congregations could undertake in promoting economic justice would enhance his work’s pragmatic relevance, moving beyond theoretical discourse into actionable change.

Additionally, Le Bruyns’ treatment of gender equity within the church occasionally mirrors the patriarchal frameworks he critiques. By primarily positioning women in relation to ecclesiastical roles or the need for recognition in ordination, his discourse inadvertently reinforces the gender norms that require scrutiny. To cultivate a more inclusive theology, it would have been essential for Le Bruyns to integrate broader gender narratives that illuminate the experiences and contributions of women beyond ecclesiastical parameters, thereby amplifying their agency in societal contexts.

Moreover, Le Bruyns adopts a rather universalist approach to human dignity, potentially overlooking the diverse cultural interpretations this concept holds within South African society. By promoting a singular narrative aligned with constitutional principles, he risks marginalising indigenous perspectives that diverge from this framework. An intersectional approach that actively engages local epistemologies would enrich his work and ensure deeper resonance with the lived realities of marginalised communities.

Lastly, while advocating for faith communities as moral agents in the public sphere, Le Bruyns insufficiently addresses the historical complicity of the church in past injustices, including apartheid and gender-based violence. Acknowledging this troubled history is crucial for articulating a credible path towards genuine moral renewal. Without such self-reflection, his call for a more engaged church may appear as ungrounded optimism rather than a substantive appeal for introspection and transformation.

In sum, while Clint Le Bruyns’ work offers valuable insights at the intersection of faith and social justice, there exist critical opportunities for deeper engagement with the intricate realities of social dynamics, practical implementation, gender inclusivity, cultural interpretations of dignity and historical accountability. Balancing his theological discourse with these considerations will not only enhance the robustness of his arguments but also align his scholarship more closely with the transformative potential he advocates.

Themes in Clint Le Bruyns’ Kairos theology

Contextual theology and ethic of work

Clint Le Bruyns’ research critically examines theological reflections on work within the ambit of public theology and socio-economic transformation. He posits that ‘the quality of our work must be examined through the lens of justice and the common good’ (Le Bruyns 2009a:25), highlighting the pivotal role public theologians play in shaping societal discourse around pressing socio-economic issues. A primary assertion is that public theology transcends mere political mobilisation; it also encompasses theorising societal transformation, wherein ‘the role theologians play in society is not merely one of implementation of political, legal and economic concerns’ (Le Bruyns n.d.:1). This reframing positions theology as an active intermediary between faith traditions and socio-political realities. While Le Bruyns’ theoretical engagement is germane, rich examples of successful theological frameworks could bolster his argument, consider Catholic Social Teachings influencing labour movements advocating for living wages in urban economies, Liberation Theology galvanising solidarity movements against totalitarianism in Poland and the Protestant Work Ethic shaping corporate social responsibility (CSR). Furthermore, Buddhist principles advocating mindfulness in workplace cultures, along with Islamic teachings promoting ethical business practices, demonstrate theology’s capacity to align faith with socio-economic justice.

In his exploration of theological perspectives on work, Le Bruyns elucidates its inherent complexities and ambiguities, positing that ‘the theological tradition comprises a resourceful, albeit ambiguous, set of theoretical paradigms concerning human work’ (Le Bruyns n.d.:1). These paradigms – from dualism to liberalism – reflect significant historical shifts in work perception, notably the sacred-secular dichotomy that has often devalued quotidian labour and stunted advancements in justice. To combat the dualistic tendency, an integrative framework that incorporates prayer and worship into daily work practices may prove advantageous, framing labour as an integral facet of divine creation. In addressing liberalism, a focus on community-impact entrepreneurship paired with individual agency is essential. The Protestant work ethic’s emphasis on diligence necessitates balanced self-care practices, such as Sabbath observance. Churches could facilitate social justice initiatives through advocacy workshops on labour rights, enhancing communal responsibility initiatives to bolster food security and employment. Consequently, the integration of faith and work emerges as vital, particularly in profit-driven contexts prone to ethical ambiguity, emphasising the imperative for theological reflection on business practices through mentorship and communal discourse.

Critiquing several philosophical paradigms regarding work – including dualism, divinism, Marxism and Freudism, Le Bruyns identifies dualism as a predominant worldview that reduces labour to mere necessity. He contends, ‘A view of one’s work as a necessary curse and an obligated entrapment … cannot contribute meaningfully to socio-economic transformation in South Africa today’ (Le Bruyns n.d.:2), underscoring the detrimental fatalism that stifles social activism. He advocates for a reconfiguration of communal perceptions, urging congregants to view their work as opportunities for service that catalyse local change before engaging broader societal transformations.

In examining theological traditions, Le Bruyns elucidates their contributions to conceptualising work through the lenses of vocation, social responsibility and ministry constructs. He highlights Luther’s concept of work as vocation as a significant paradigm that ‘could encourage people in the public domain to contribute to social and economic justice’ (Le Bruyns n.d.:5). This perspective elucidates the nexus of dignity and justice within the workplace. Nonetheless, while acknowledging the potential and pitfalls of these theological frameworks, further elaboration on practical applications within contemporary socio-economic contexts would enhance his analysis. For instance, operationalising Lutheran notions of vocation through communal initiatives could address pressing community needs, thereby grounding these theories in present realities.

Finally, Le Bruyns asserts that public theologians in South Africa bear a unique responsibility in articulating socio-economic narratives. He states, ‘Public theology and public theologians have a distinctive role to play in formulating theoretical paradigms’ (Le Bruyns n.d.:1). This underscores the church’s role in critiquing entrenched power structures while contributing to structural reforms. In a nation ripe for a theology that bridges faith, public life and workplace justice, further exploration of how South African churches historically engage in transformative discourses could illuminate their potential as catalysts for new movements that harmonise faith with socio-political engagement. This has implications on gender discussed next.

Women and the church: Towards an inclusive theology

Clint Le Bruyns advocates for transformative dialogue on gender justice within ecclesial structures, critiquing patriarchal orientations that impede women’s full involvement in religious life. He argues that ‘the prevailing theological narratives must evolve to embrace the full humanity and agency of women’ (Le Bruyns 2006c:38), positioning the church as a catalyst for societal transformation through a commitment to gender equity in both doctrine and practice.

The discourse surrounding women’s ordination in the Roman Catholic Church exemplifies essential themes of gender justice and ecclesiastical authority. Le Bruyns elucidates the Vatican’s entrenched opposition to female ordination, supported by documents such as Inter Insigniores (Pope Paul VI, 1976) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (John Paul II, 1994), which assert that ‘priestly ordination has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone’ (Le Bruyns 2004:241). Although he recognises the rigidity of this stance, he calls for a deeper engagement with its historical and theological foundations to create space for contemporary feminist critiques that challenge the rationale for a male-exclusive priesthood. Le Bruyns contends that the Catholic doctrine lacks substantial justification compared to other doctrines, yet he does not sufficiently delineate its implications for ecclesiastical dialogue. His subsequent works reflect the stagnation in ecumenical discourse on women’s ordination, mirroring Cardinal Walter Kasper’s acknowledgement of a ‘stuckness’ in conversations surrounding this critical issue (Le Bruyns 2006c:57–60). The persistence of institutional doctrines necessitates a re-evaluation of dissenting voices and the cultural barriers obstructing fruitful theological discourse across various denominations.

At the grassroots level, advocacy for women’s ordination among laypeople, clergy and bishops has highlighted a growing dissonance within the Catholic community. Le Bruyns reports that approximately 70% of Catholics support women’s ordination (Le Bruyns 2004:243), illuminating tensions between official dogma and grassroots demands for change. This scenario compels essential examinations of the magisterium’s authority and the evolution of ecclesiastical governance amid shifting societal landscapes (Giansanti 2000). The legitimacy dilemmas arising from a significant faction of believers contesting established teachings reveal challenges faced by institutional structures. In parallel, Le Bruyns’ analysis of CSR underscores similar themes of dissent, asserting that ‘its engagement with gender priorities has not been forthcoming’ (Le Bruyns 2009b:222). This parallel indicates that both religious and corporate institutions often prioritise public perception over substantive reform, perpetuating existing inequities.

Furthermore, the Vatican’s stance on women’s ordination impedes ecumenical dialogue, suggesting that the ramifications of this issue extend beyond Catholicism to the broader Christian community. Despite the Vatican’s rigidity, Le Bruyns encourages inquiries into possible dialogues grounded in shared values of social justice and gender equity. He posits that ‘the primary emphasis in our ecumenical and ecclesial deadlocks is not really about structures as it is about relationships’ (Le Bruyns 2006c:60), accentuating the necessity for a relational framework that fosters genuine dialogue, although he refrains from proposing concrete methodologies for such exchanges. Similarly, CSR discourse necessitates a relational approach to accountability, where transparency regarding commitments to gender justice is paramount for realising the potential of CSR initiatives.

Le Bruyns underscores the pivotal role of leadership in engendering change within ecclesiastical and corporate contexts. He urges the papacy to confront its historical failings and acknowledge the alienation experienced by dissenting voices (Le Bruyns 2006c:58). While compassionate leadership is essential, addressing entrenched power dynamics is critical, as authentic reconciliation necessitates more than mere openness; it requires structural modifications that elevate marginalised voices. This notion resonates with accountability frameworks in CSR, where he critiques philanthropy as ‘an expression of both power and moral complacency’ (Le Bruyns 2009b:231), indicating a shared propensity for superficial engagement with complex social issues.

The narrative of change within ecclesial and corporate engagements must also account for cultural and psychological dimensions. Le Bruyns identifies a ‘siege mentality’ (Le Bruyns 2004:249) within the Vatican, stemming from historical persecution that hinders progress on gender issues. Understanding this cultural context is pivotal for navigating the friction between enduring traditions and emergent societal norms, a dynamic similarly evident in CSR strategies influenced by the legacy of apartheid in South Africa. Le Bruyns asserts that corporations must dismantle these inequities, emphasising the complexities in fostering equitable policies across diverse spheres.

Ultimately, Le Bruyns calls for a transformative vision for both church and corporate entities, underscoring that gender justice should be integral to their missions. He posits that faith-based organisations are essential in spearheading dialogues on gender justice, maintaining that ‘Churches and theology fulfil an important role in assisting companies with such dialogues’ (Le Bruyns 2009b:233). This collaboration underscores the potential for theological frameworks to inform ethical corporate practices. Utilising empirical case studies showcasing successful ecclesial and corporate collaborations may yield valuable insights for promoting gender justice, provided these engagements genuinely empower marginalised communities without co-opting their movements. An inclusive discourse that recognises diverse perspectives (gender mainstreamed) is essential for progressing towards a more equitable future, shaped by the intricate interplay of gender justice, institutional authority and social responsibility across religious and corporate landscapes. This builds foundations for economic transformation to achieve the proposed justices.

Economy and justice: Theological foundations for economic transformation

Le Bruyns critically examines the intersection of theology and economic responsibility, positing that faith communities are equipped to champion economic justice. He contends, ‘An authentic public theology must interrogate the structural injustices perpetuated by economic systems’ (Le Bruyns 2009a:54). This theological framework calls for a vigorous critique of capitalism and promotes collective responsibility and ethical stewardship towards marginalised groups.

A notable deficit in South African theological discourse is the neglect of work-related issues. Le Bruyns emphasises this oversight by referencing Baum’s assertion that ‘Christian theologians have been quite “slow to recognise the need for a theology of work”’ (Baum in Lossky et al. 2002:1216). Such neglect raises pertinent questions regarding the church’s engagement with believers who spend a significant part of their lives at work. Concrete examples of ecclesiastical shortcomings in addressing labour realities are crucial to strengthen his argument. Moreover, case studies showcasing successful church initiatives that effectively confront workplace inequities would provide a more comprehensive view of the church’s role. It is essential to contextualise these labour-related challenges within the broader societal perceptions of work, especially in a post-apartheid landscape that continues to grapple with systemic inequalities (Le Bruyns 2006a).

Le Bruyns traces the historical engagement of South African theologians with labour issues, particularly during apartheid. Key works like ‘The Three-Fold Cord: Theology, Work and Labour’ (eds. Cochrane & West 1991), edited by Cochrane and West, serve to illuminate these concerns. However, while Le Bruyns effectively chronicles this historical backdrop, a nuanced exploration of the enduring impact of these contributions on contemporary labour discourses is imperative. Analysing how theological reflections from the past have shaped current conversations surrounding labour rights and human dignity would bolster his discourse and underscore the necessity for continual theological engagement with labour issues.

In addition, he identifies macro-level systemic challenges impacting the labour market, such as globalisation, rising unemployment and the degradation of human dignity. Le Bruyns asserts that the work environment has become one characterised by unpredictability, remarking, ‘the world of work has become a “be prepared for anything” world’ (Le Bruyns 2006b:334). While this insight is enlightening, a more detailed examination of how these macro challenges pertain to industrial theology is warranted. It is essential to investigate avenues through which industrial theologians may engage to address these overarching issues. Providing examples that illustrate the interaction between global phenomena and their local repercussions would enhance Le Bruyns’s analysis, particularly regarding how globalisation alters community relationships and exacerbates job insecurity in sectors across South Africa.

Le Bruyns astutely critiques the inadequacies within South African theological frameworks concerning labour issues, observing that ‘not sufficient work has been forthcoming on the part of most South African industrial theologians to renew or develop theological frameworks for interpreting the world of work’ (Le Bruyns 2006b:334). This observation necessitates a deeper exploration of the systemic impediments or cultural reservations that hinder effective theological interactions with contemporary economic challenges. Highlighting instances where theologians have innovatively addressed labour dynamics could serve as paradigmatic models for future discourse. Additionally, examining strategies for incorporating these new frameworks into theological education and practice may cultivate a robust grounding for revitalising industrial theology in South Africa.

Le Bruyns (2006b) also stresses the need to address micro-level dynamics in labour experiences, highlighting the inadequacy of industrial theology in engaging with individual worker narratives. He suggests:

[P]erhaps the theological community bears a fair share of the responsibility for this shortcoming… since there is arguably insufficient consideration offered by theologians in South Africa to a comprehensive, coherent, critical theology of human work and labour. (p. 335)

This emphasis on personal experiences necessitates exploration of practical methodologies theologians could adopt to engage with individual and relational dynamics in the workplace. Empowering theologians to navigate these complexities through community involvement and pastoral counselling could offer significant benefits to both congregants and the broader labour community. Ultimately, positioning the church as a supportive entity within workplace challenges aligns with the need for a relational theological framework that interconnects labour rights, human dignity and ecclesiastical accountability, advocating for a synthesis of prophetic theology and grassroots engagement as a transformative framework for reimagining labour discourse in the South African context.

Environmental stewardship: A theological imperative

In addressing environmental injustice, Le Bruyns advocates for a theologically grounded ecological perspective, asserting humanity’s intrinsic responsibility towards creation. He posits that ‘ecological sustainability is intrinsically linked to justice; to neglect it is to undermine the very fabric of our communal life’ (Le Bruyns 2012b:42). This imperative challenges faith communities to weave ecological ethics into their missional practices, urging a Kairos-inspired response to contemporary ecological crises.

Le Bruyns illuminates a profound crisis within contemporary Christianity, particularly concerning worship and stewardship, suggesting a disconnect between organised religious practices and pressing socio-ecological concerns. He argues that ‘worship services and liturgical activities do not appear to necessarily be accomplishing vitality and growth for the Christian community’ (Le Bruyns 2014:1), highlighting a trend whereby church attendance increasingly feels irrelevant in a context marked by social inequities. In addition, he critiques traditional stewardship, characterising it as possessing a ‘narrow philanthropic and individualistic perspective with no regard for more social ideals such as equality, justice, responsibility and transformation’ (Le Bruyns 2009a:70). This critique underscores an urgent need to reevaluate worship and stewardship, advocating for innovative practices that engage with societal issues directly, thereby fostering both church vitality and social responsibility.

In advancing the notion of worship as a ‘territorial venture’, Le Bruyns calls for a recovery of ‘sacred space’ within liturgical practices (Le Bruyns 2014:2). This framework engages the interplay between physical spaces and spiritual experiences, suggesting that everyday environments can be transformed into worship arenas. However, this perspective prompts critical inquiries surrounding inclusivity and the definitions of ‘sacred’ versus ‘profane’ spaces. While recognising that ‘prohibitions and privileges’ delineate these environments (Le Bruyns 2014:5), it becomes imperative to interrogate how marginalised communities engage with such definitions. By reclaiming spaces typically perceived as profane for worship, an expansive, inclusive vision of worship emerges, addressing social inequities inherently linked to spatial considerations.

Le Bruyns argues for the integration of worship into everyday life, stating that ‘worship should take place in the very spaces of our work’ (Le Bruyns 2014:6). This proposition has profound implications for reshaping individual perceptions of daily routines into acts of worship. To actualise this theological assertion within congregational contexts, churches must develop strategies that help individuals recognise and embody worship in their quotidian lives. Programmes should cultivate this understanding and equip congregants with the tools for integration. The intersection of stewardship and the church’s broader social responsibilities emerges here, as Barrera questions the paradox of divine providence against the backdrop of material scarcity, prompting the church to expand its stewardship beyond individual resource management to encompass systemic advocacy for social justice and economic reform (Barrera 2005:xi).

Le Bruyns further emphasises a renewed ethics of stewardship grounded in ‘care’, asserting, ‘Caring is a fundamental aspect of being human; “the human being is a being that takes care”’ (Boff 2008:17). This paradigm shift positions stewardship as a fundamentally relational and compassionate engagement, fostering solidarity with marginalised communities and promoting ecological sustainability. Actualising this ethic necessitates transformational shifts in church missions that embrace responsive, community-oriented actions. Guiding principles for stewardship, globalisation, communalisation, ecologisation, politicisation and futurisation invite a holistic appreciation of stewardship’s role in addressing poverty, environmental degradation and social justice (Le Bruyns 2009a:70). By implementing these principles, congregations can more comprehensively engage with diverse social challenges, thereby reclaiming their moral authority in public discourse.

Finally, Le Bruyns asserts that church buildings, often seen merely as venues for worship, should serve as community centres that foster communal engagement. He insists that ‘as the church gathers each week, there must be a real experience of God in worship’ (Le Bruyns 2014:6). However, an entrenched focus on church facilities risks perpetuating a narrow conception of worship confined to designated spaces. By positioning church buildings as community hubs, hosting events, providing services and responding to local needs, churches can establish a deeper connectivity between worship and broader social life. Thus, they must not only facilitate worship but also embody a steadfast commitment to local and global stewardship, reflecting the ethical principles of care and justice that underpin Le Bruyns’s work.

Decolonisation of theology: Navigating contemporary challenges

In the discourse on decolonisation, Le Bruyns calls for a re-examination of theological traditions through the lens of indigenous epistemologies and practices. In an article by Buttelli and Le Bruyns (2019a), there is a critical intersection of liberation theology and decolonial discourse in order to address ongoing dimensions of coloniality, modernity and systemic injustices faced by marginalised communities in developing South Africa and Brazil. The authors further discuss significant student protests and debates began in 2015 with the campaign ‘Fees Must Fall’, demanding free, decolonised and decommodified higher education in the post-apartheid context of racial and gender inequity in South Africa (Buttelli & Le Bruyns 2019b). Butelli and Le Bruyns (2019a) differentiate coloniality from colonialism saying:

[C]oloniality is a pattern of power that continues and recreates itself continuously through the creation of hierarchies that, even after the end of the political regimes of colonialism, continue to distinguish people according to class, race, and gender. (p. 206)

As in the case of students’ protests, they displayed that colonial structures have persisted beyond formal decolonisation. Thus, Buttelli and Le Bruyns (2019) continue to argue that:

‘The decolonial critique is a category that enables us to understand the way capitalism and modernity established themselves as a single process and how it built up this global system that ends up resulting in the violent exploitation of the southern countries. This process entrenches inequalities enriching rich countries and creating an unbalanced political access to power. (p. 206)

Using a liberation theology methodology, critical to both liberation and decolonial theological discourse, See-Judge-Act, they articulate that ‘the socio-analytic mediation, hermeneutic mediation, and practical mediation’ (Buttelli & Le Bruyns 2019a:210) are sequential steps that allow communities to relate their lived realities to theological reflection. Social realities demand that other disciplines such as sociology and anthropology are incorporated in these methodological tools as well as case studies that illustrate effectiveness of applying the methodology in varied settings.

In this study, it needs to be understood that modern academic and theological frameworks are steeped in Eurocentric paradigms that marginalise indigenous and alternative epistemologies because, ‘The main body of academic theology, as a modern knowledge, operates under the modern science paradigm’ (Buttelli & Le Bruyns 2019a:210). Butelli and Le Bruyns (2018) point out that:

The coloniality of knowledge deconstructed completely other knowledges, erased ancient knowledges – transmitted orally through generations in other cultural patterns – stole the practical knowledge created by other peoples and established an Eurocentric narrative, an Eurocentric ‘beginning of history’, forgetting other knowledges, and establishing a new cornerstone, a new centre for the authority of the discourse, creating ways to impose it, substituting other epistemological systems, and subjugating other forms of discourses. (p. 60)

For this reason, the decoloniality of theology should respond to historical injustices faced by marginalized communities. This calls religious and theological institutions to engage in decentralised and diverse epistemological frameworks that affirm diversity and nurture local expressions of faith in action.

Furthermore, an element of interculturality that incorporates diverse cultural narrative is important. ‘Interculturality suggests a pluralistic balance. It does not dismiss or neglect any contribution from different religious traditions or beliefs’ (Buttelli & Le Bruyns 2019a:211). This suggests that in constructing a decolonial theology, multiple cultural perspectives must be engaged. Moreover, it makes this discussion valuable for contemporary theological discourse, as it recognises the richness of diverse traditions and the potential for cooperative engagement despite the challenges associated with navigating theological pluralism because of fears of dilution of core theological principles by syncretism. Institutions could overcome this problem by distancing social and public issues from their faith narratives.

Finally, a ‘decolonial systematic theology’ must be intersectional, grappling with capitalism as a pervasive force maintaining systemic inequalities because capitalism is insidiously interwoven with colonial and imperial histories, continuing to perpetuate exploitation and violence against marginalised communities (Buttelli & Le Bruyns 2019a:215–216). The economic system is a focal point for a decolonial critique, which theologians need to consider in their theological reflections. This means that besides capitalism, theological reflection needs to consider other economic models that should be embraced into the decolonial theological framework even though they are originating from countries that were not formerly colonised such as Communist Russia and China where economic disparities exist because of similar economic injustices.

In all, liberation theology and decolonial discourse are critically interconnected, and they both need anti-colonial, anti-capitalist, inclusive and contextual theological approach in order to address systemic injustices faced by marginalised groups. In this way, theology scholars and practitioners need to engage with real-world experiences to examine whether theological frameworks are actionable. Ultimately, the call for a decolonial theology that is rooted in lived experiences, collective action and intercultural dialogue sets a transformative agenda for contemporary theological scholarship, encouraging an ongoing commitment to justice and liberation.

Politics and public responsibility: The church as a moral agent

Le Bruyns elucidates the church’s integral role in the public sphere, positing that it is a vital participant in advocating for responsible citizenship that transcends superficial political allegiances. He asserts that ‘The Christian community’s engagement in public life must foster a vision for justice that challenges systemic inequities’ (Le Bruyns 2011:48). Central to his argument is the assertion that Kairos theology serves as a source of hope, power and grace, which together foster responsible citizenship and enhance participatory democracy. Le Bruyns delineates these concepts: hope as a catalyst for agency and vision, power as the means to surmount political impotence and grace as the foundation for transformative engagement. He emphasises that ‘the quality of our democratic life is intimately bound up with the quality of our church-state relations’ (Le Bruyns 2018:14), suggesting a theological imperative for churches to embody hope, power and grace, thereby equipping individuals for socio-political transformation towards a just society.

Le Bruyns advocates for an active church that negates passive observation, thus enhancing civic responsibility. He calls for concrete instances of church-civic collaboration to demonstrate the potential for effective engagement while interrogating the boundaries of church involvement in civic affairs to prevent overreach into state functions. He articulates hope as a cornerstone of citizen engagement, noting that ‘hope involves agency, reason and possibility’ (Le Bruyns 2012c:4) and draws on Alan Mittleman’s observation of hope affirming ‘the enduring goodness of being’ amid despair. While the depiction of hope is salutary, there is a necessity for deeper examination to avert a superficial optimism that may stifle dissent, ensuring that hope translates into actionable political engagement underpinned by strategies that foster effective civic participation.

Furthermore, Le Bruyns calls for a re-evaluation of the church’s rapport with political power, invoking Jacques Ellul’s critique regarding the church’s complicity with political authority (Le Bruyns 2012c:8). While a transition from institutional power to grassroots empowerment is progressive, a critical exploration of internal power dynamics within religious institutions remains imperative. This exploration must assess how hierarchies impact the church’s capacity for advocating social justice, cautioning against potential individualism that could dilute essential collective action for societal transformation.

The concept of grace, as posited by Le Bruyns, underlines that ‘without grace there can be no liberation from nihilism and despair or impotence and entrapment in political life’ (Le Bruyns 2012c:9). This theological articulation of liberation necessitates nuanced unpacking to stave off the endorsement of passivity during systemic injustices. Thus, fostering frameworks through which grace becomes an impetus for active engagement and social justice initiatives is critical for addressing socio-economic disparities with integrity.

Finally, Le Bruyns references William Gumede’s stipulation of the need for a ‘vibrant, diverse and critical civil society’ (Le Bruyns 2012c:4) as a backdrop for robust political engagement. The discussion thus invites practical methodologies for embedding democratic values within faith communities while emphasising the responsibilities of faith leaders to cultivate civic competencies. Ensuring inclusivity in political discourse and amplifying marginalised voices aligns with a broader commitment to nurturing a democratic political culture, fortifying the church’s role in fostering civic engagement and social equity.

The future of Kairos theology

Le Bruyns advocates for the adaptive evolution of Kairos theology, asserting that it must remain attuned to the dynamic realities confronting South Africa and the broader African milieu. He calls for a ‘rebirth of Kairos consciousness’, emphasising the necessity of upholding liberation principles while incorporating holistic development, social cohesion, and transformative action (Le Bruyns 2012b:39). Amid South Africa’s persistent struggles with acute inequality and social fragmentation, his vision aligns closely with the theological community’s imperative to discern the signs of the times and respond with both audacity and humility. As he asserts, ‘We are called to act not merely as agents of change but as conscious participants in God’s ongoing project of creation and redemption’ (Le Bruyns 2011:49), urging us to heed the Kairos call.

In contemplating the future, it is imperative to reflect on the moral renewal initiative in South Africa, particularly highlighting Nelson Mandela’s engagements with religious leaders in the late 1990s. This initiative arose amid a national awareness of a widespread moral malaise characterised by corruption, violence, and social disintegration. Le Bruyns encapsulates Mandela’s concerns, observing that ‘Mandela bemoaned the moral condition of the nation as “a spiritual malaise”’ (Le Bruyns 2007:202). While this historical context remains critical, there is a pressing need for a forward-looking evaluation of the efficacy of such moral campaigns. A detailed exploration of the Moral Regeneration Movement (MRM) and its tangible outcomes, especially in combating entrenched issues of crime and corruption, would yield a more nuanced understanding of the trajectory and effectiveness of moral initiatives. Engaging with comparative historical precedents and addressing potential shortcomings would enhance the discourse and cultivate a more comprehensive view of South Africa’s moral landscape.

Le Bruyns also emphasises the substantial capacity of faith communities to function as moral agents within the wider societal framework. He posits that ‘We need to understand the faith communities as one among many different communities that contribute to public morality’ (Le Bruyns 2007:204). While this underscores the instrumental role of these entities in advocating for human dignity, it necessitates a critical interrogation of their historically complex roles, often marked by scandal, failure and complicity in systemic injustices, including their responses to apartheid and gender equality. Acknowledging these complexities can foster a more equitable perspective on their contributions to moral discourse. The discussion would be enriched by examining how both the successes and failures of faith communities have shaped perceptions and influenced their capacity to effectively champion human dignity and social justice.

Central to Le Bruyns’ analysis is the assertion that public moral discourse in South Africa must prioritise the inherent dignity of individuals, aligning with constitutional tenets of ‘human dignity, equality and freedom’ (Le Bruyns 2007:204). This framing warrants scrutiny regarding the constitutional interpretation of ‘human dignity’ apart from its other derivatives across South Africa’s diverse cultural, socio-economic and historical contexts. A critical examination of varying cultural perceptions of dignity is essential, particularly when navigating potential conflicts between universal human rights and traditional practices. How might the imposition of a universalised concept of dignity overshadow indigenous practices that pronounce communal value yet conflict with individual rights? Engaging with these complexities within the moral discourse can enhance the dialogical space, facilitating a more inclusive comprehension of human dignity that transcends simplistic binaries.

Le Bruyns invokes Paul Tillich’s conception of transcendence as a foundational element for advocating a renewed moral ethic in South Africa, positing that ‘the moral imperative is the command to become what one potentially is, a person within a community of persons’ (Le Bruyns 2007:208). While this philosophical grounding elucidates the significance of moving beyond individualism towards community-oriented morality, it necessitates further exploration into its tangible manifestations within community practices. For instance, analysing specific communities that have successfully engaged in moral renewal initiatives could illustrate the practical implications of Tillich’s vision. Additionally, engaging in dialogue with alternative philosophical frameworks that either challenge or complement Tillich’s existential approach may enrich discussions surrounding ethical imperatives within the South African context.

In this, Le Bruyns posits a collective moral obligation towards advancing human dignity and societal renewal, asserting that ‘Churches and faith communities do not bear the mandate of moral values and conduct that affirm human dignity alone, for it belongs to all’ (Le Bruyns 2007:210). This assertion emphasises the necessity for collaboration across diverse societal sectors; however, it is crucial to explore potential frictions among various actors seeking a shared moral vision. How do competing political agendas or economic interests intersect with the moral imperatives championed by faith communities? A deeper engagement with these dynamics could yield insights into barriers that impede collective moral transformation efforts, ultimately enriching the discourse on societal ethics and shared responsibility in the South African context. By broadening the analytical lens and incorporating actionable pathways for reform and collaboration, contemporary discussions on moral transformation can be further advanced, promoting a deeper, more inclusive vision of communal ethics.

Conclusion

Clint Le Bruyns’ contributions to the Kairos brand of public theology in South Africa underscore the rich tapestry of theological inquiry intertwined with activism, significantly shaping the trajectory of liberation theology across the continent. His unwavering commitment to contextuality, critical engagement and collective action has revitalised the Kairos movement, ensuring its relevance in contemporary discussions surrounding justice, equity and communal flourishing. As the Research Institute for Theology and Religion at the University of South Africa celebrates 50 years of scholarship, Le Bruyns’ work exemplifies the powerful intersection of faith and social responsibility, establishing a legacy that promises to inspire future generations of theologians and practitioners. His theological perspectives elucidate the multifaceted responsibilities of faith communities as they navigate contemporary challenges. By emphasising critical engagement with key themes such as work, gender equity, economic justice, environmental stewardship, decolonisation and political responsibility, Le Bruyns presents a cohesive vision for a public theology committed to fostering justice and inclusivity. His insights not only challenge faith communities to reevaluate their roles in society but also encourage active participation in addressing socio-economic and ecological crises. Through his scholarship, Le Bruyns imparts a prophetic call for the church to function as an advocate for holistic transformation, unequivocally addressing issues rooted in systemic injustice and advocating for the marginalised. Consequently, the resonances of Le Bruyns’ work continue to reverberate in discussions about the church’s role as an agent of change, reinforcing the imperative for a theologically grounded and socially responsible engagement in today’s world. In doing so, he positions Kairos theology as an enduring and dynamic framework through which faith communities can actively pursue justice and communal flourishing in increasingly complex socio-political landscapes.

In all, Clint Le Bruyns’ scholarship does not only reinvigorate the Kairos movement within the South African context but also offers a profound model for integrating faith and activism, establishing a framework for public theology that is both relevant and transformative. His work challenges theological communities to actively engage with pressing societal issues, ensuring that the pursuit of justice and equity remains at the forefront of their mission.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge United Theological College for availing their library to them.

The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

G.M. is the sole author of this research article.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Zimbabwe Open University Research Ethics Committee on Research, Innovation and Enterprise Development on 03 March 2024. The ethical clearance number is ZOU-REC(REID)2024/1/03/24.

The author declares that all data that support this study are available in the article and its references.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References