The title of this article comes across as rather pretentious. This is however, not erudite at all. It is rather a bit of a tongue in the cheek remark of locating the article within a certain context which is not only to be understood in terms of the second century of existence of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria, but more importantly, in which the classical paradigm of the Faculty finds its identity and relevance. It is a recognition of its diachronically rootedness in the Western tradition of scholarly education.

The informed reader will immediately recognise the opening phrase in the title of the article, as the title of the renowned book of John Henry Newman (1809–1890), The idea of the university (1982). The historian G.M. Young has ranked this book with Aristotle’s Ethics among the most valuable of all the works on the aim of education. Arthur Quiller-Couch told his students at Cambridge that, ‘of all the books written in these hundred years there is perhaps none you can more profitably thumb and ponder.’ (See Martin Svaglic in his Introduction to The idea of the university [Newman 1982:vii]).

There is an allusion to another important publication by John Henry Newman, and that is to his Apologia pro vita sua (2005). Newman, a highly influential figure in the Church of England, stunned the Anglican community in 1845 when he left his position as vicar of St. Mary’s, Oxford, to join the Roman Catholic Church and set up a university for Catholics in Ireland. No one took greater offence than Charles Kingsley who responded with a scathing attack on Newman’s faith and honour, which inspired his brilliant response in his spiritual autobiography. The depths and nature of Christianity, together with the Latin in the title (‘A defence of one’s life’) have insured its status as a classic.

The expression, ‘Pretoria Model’, was first used by Conrad Wethmar (2000) in his rethinking of theological education at Pretoria, since the two sections (of the NGK¹ and the NHK²) have merged to a single multi-ecclesial³ Faculty. Wethmar (1997) foresaw two decades ago quite a challenge for theological education in the Western world, but for South Africa in particular:

In spite of all this, and understandably so, the South African debate is characterized by its own particular issues and emphases. These issues and emphases are to a large extent related to the new political dispensation that developed in South Africa. (pp. 415–416)

What Wethmar did not foresee in his ‘Pretoria Model’ are the changes in the international academic landscape and the impact it has on faculties of Theology worldwide.

The fourth allusion in the title is of course the centenary of the Faculty of Theology. The Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria (UP) was established in 1917.⁴ It did not develop from a seminary as was the case of Stellenbosch and Potchefstroom, but developed as a Faculty with full academic status at the university since its inception, making this the oldest fully fledged Faculty of Theology in South Africa.⁵

Of the total number of eleven faculties of Theology at universities in South Africa, today only four⁶ remain as proper faculties of Theology. I will argue that the world-ranking of universities has opened up a new challenge and even a niche for a new approach to Theology in the 21st century. I propose that the ‘Pretoria Model’ is given a new dimension and perhaps defines the nature of theology at the University of Pretoria for the time to come.

The exposition of the argument will be unfolded on the basis of Ricoeur’s (1984:52-87) threefold mimesis of prefiguration, configuration and reconfiguration. This means that the idea of a university is therefore not understood as following everything, but rather as preceding everything. Immanuel Kant (1963:20) states in the preface to the second edition of his Critique of Pure Reason, that reason ‘constraining nature to give answer to questions of reason’s own determining’, or as ‘an appointed judge who compels the witnesses to answer questions he has himself formulated.’

The earliest decisive statement with regard to the nature of the Faculty, and which is eagerly pursued, was made by the Rev. M.J. Goddefroy in 1888, epitomising theological training as of academic deference, that is as a Faculty at a university and not a seminary:

Wij moeten een Hoogeschool hebben - geen Kweekschool […] een kweekschool is tegen ons Ned Herv beginsel. In onze kerk word nooit leeraars toegelaten of zij moesten hunne opleiding aan een werklijke universiteit gehad hebben (Oberholzer 2010:2 of 12).

This has been the fibre⁷ of Theology at the University of Pretoria and intellectual inquiry is an uncompromised value of the Faculty and the line I follow in unfolding the argument.⁸ As a sort of tacit presupposition, the unfolding will be executed to the point where the Pretoria Model finds a niche in its own right at a public university competing for the top 500 positions of research-intensive world universities.

This article does not pretend to be a historical exposition of the Faculty over the past one hundred years.⁹ It is a critical reflection by the Dean on the past century and an orientation towards the next hundred years, identifying the essence of what a real Pretoria Model could and should be and looking ahead to the next century.¹⁰ History is not a destination, but an orientation will sound like a refrain in this article and during the centenary. It is a humble endeavour to make sense of the past in the light of the future.

Obviously, this enterprise should be contextual with regard to time and space. The assessment is subsequently done in terms of this continent and this century, that is, Africa and the 21st century. This article ultimately proposes that the Pretoria Model fills a unique niche in theological inquiry at public universities competing for a position among the top 500 on the ranking of world universities.

The Western universities or communities of teachers and scholars (universitas magistrorum et scholarium) are almost a thousand years old. The oldest university is Bologna, it dates back to the late eleventh century. The universities of Oxford and Paris were to follow soon and were established in 1096 and 1215 respectively. In lists based on broader definitions, Al-Qarawiyyin, founded in 859 as a madrasa is sometimes considered to be the ‘oldest university.’

The origin of many medieval universities can be traced back to the Christian cathedral or monastic schools,¹¹ which appeared as early as the 6th century and were run for hundreds of years as such before their formal establishment as universities during the high medieval period (Wikipedia contributors 2016). Andrew Louth (2004:70) identifies a certain monk, Bede of Northumbria, to be the first scholar to equip monastic schools for education, he also authored textbooks on grammar and rhetoric, the two subjects together with dialectic that constituted the trivium, the introductory part of the medieval curriculum. These were the early beginnings of the eighth century. This introduction enabled the learners to read, write and think in Latin and to enable them subsequently to have access to the scriptures.

Beyond the trivium lay the quadrivium which entailed music, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy. They completed the artes liberals – the so-called liberal arts – which is still a familiar term used at modern universities. The monastic schools’ aim was to enable monks to fulfil their vocation as monks and to come to know God, to praise him and to love him. This is encapsulated in the term contemplatio which consisted of the four steps of lectio → medidatio → oratio → contemplatio. This reading, thinking, pondering ultimately led the monks to contemplation: to looking to God, to be aware of God’s presence (Louth 2004:70). The human intellect was seen as not only doing things, but getting beyond them and knowing reality. Discerning God, is perhaps what it was all about. Louth (2004) makes the following important conclusion from this:

Right from Aristotle, and indeed earlier, the acknowledgment of the supreme value of contemplation, and the need that there be those who may devote their time to this, has been linked to acknowledgment that human beings are not simply earth-bound entities. (p. 77)

Although I will later attempt to define theology within the context already referred to, it is nevertheless important to allude to the pre-Christian era in this regard, not so much to find the roots of university, but rather to indicate what a university is all about. The Ionic philosophers already tried to explain the ultimate problems of the origin of the universe. They asked the question of what is fundamental to all things, or as the Milesians put it, the basic substance or Arche. Thales of Miletus (c. 624–546 BC) reduced everything to water, Anaximander (c. 610–545 BC) was of the opinion the Arche of all things is the boundless and Anaximenes (c. 585–528 BC) held the opinion that breath and air encompass everything (Zeller 1963:32). Since the earliest times, humans have had the urge to penetrate to the absolute in order to understand the whole.

The key expression in coming to grips with what the understanding of reality (read: university) is all about accepting what has been said by Kant (see the above citation), is Anselm’s fides quaerens intellectum or ‘faith seeking understanding’. The theologian’s task is not to determine the object of inquiry, but to be guided by the inherently rationality of the object itself.¹² This concept has its antecedent already in the theology of Augustine (MacDonald 2010:1012): ‘Unless we believe these things, we would do nothing at all in this life’ (Augustine 1996:130). A measure of faith is a sine quo non when one wants to come to grips with reality. This is the proper epistemic approach to reality, which transcends the empirical senses. Yet, reason plays the primary role in furnishing depth of understanding to what we believe in faith. MacDonald (2010) recapitulates this point effectively when he says that:

Augustine affords reason the primary role of furnishing depth of understanding or knowledge to what we believe in faith even if we only can achieve full understanding or knowledge, and thus perfect happiness, in the life to come. (p. 1012)

MacDonald (2010:1013) uses this argument to contend that this allows theology at a secular university, because all disciplines have certain epistemic authorities. The question is not whether a discipline is grounded in certain presuppositions, but rather which authoritative teaching they are grounded in.

For Cardinal John Henry Newman (1982) it is clear that Theology is a branch of knowledge and that universities should teach universal knowledge:

But this, of course is to assume that Theology is a science, and an important one: so I will throw my argument into a more exact form. I say, then, that if a University be, from the nature of the case, a place of instruction, where universal knowledge is professed, and if in a certain University, so called, the subject of Religion is excluded, one of two conclusions is inevitable, - either, on the one hand, that the province of Religion is very barren of real knowledge, or, on the other hand, that in such a University one special and important branch of knowledge is omitted. (p. 16)

The argument for Newman is that knowledge is an end in itself and not for the sake of one or other ulterior motive. The university appeals to common sense and not some ecclesiastical rules and only then is it a place at which it can make humans fit for the world.¹³

However, the universality and unity of the scientific disciplines has turned out to be only a phantom and although the very concept of truth is in danger of losing its place in the modern university, Ebeling (1981:16–18) argues, it has an intrinsic relationship to human life and is preserved in both the person of the scientist who conducts the research and in the impact of that research on the environment and is therefore indispensable. Religion is a major determinant in human life (Van de Beek 2012:84).

MacDonald (2010:995) cites Donald Wiebe claiming that theology is intrinsically driven by at least some sort of a priori commitment to ‘an independent subject matter – that is, God, the gods, the Transcendent, Ultimate Reality, and so on.’ World views are templates that govern the social construction of a symbolic universe. Michael Polanyi developed the expression tacit knowledge as a central part of knowledge in general in order to express what we look for and have some idea about what else we may want to know: ‘we can know more than we can tell.’ (Polanyi 1966:6). Subsequently, tacit knowledge indicates shared values and tradition, rather than scepticism and lies at the heart of scientific discovery.

Western societies have made fundamental errors in believing that an objective body of knowledge exists and is waiting to be discovered, secondly that the actual possession of such knowledge is neutral and value-free and thirdly that the pursuit of knowledge benefits all human endeavour rather than just a specific class (Grenz & Olson 1996:313). Thus, the argument goes, theology cannot produce valid knowledge (Van de Beek 2012:83).

In a well-researched and argued paper, ‘Why the university needs theology’, Edna McDonagh puts up four reasons to address this question, namely historical, cultural, societal and intellectual grounds. She is of the opinion that ‘a combination of ignorance and arrogance is undermining the role of the humanities, including theology, in the intellectual enterprise of many universities’ (2006:141). The historical grounds are not only mentioned because theology was an embryotic part of Western universities, but also because scientific dialogue is impossible without the Judeo-Christian heritage of the different disciplines. She (McDonagh 2006) gives a backhand compliment to Richard Dawkins in acknowledging that reality needs a multi-dimensional approach and asserting that:

[E]ven in the very latest anti-religious writings of scientist Richard Dawkins the scientific arrogance and theological ignorance expose the need for a dialogue with university theology which he refuses or has no opportunity to address. (p. 142)

The cultural grounds deal with the sources of human beliefs and practices in their historical context, otherwise they are mere shallow surveys of current lifestyles. Ritual practices of both the past and the present should be engaged with. It is noteworthy that many secular studies nowadays base their methods of interpreting texts, on earlier Jewish and Christian approaches. On societal grounds McDonagh (2006:145) argues that many professional disciplines like food science, engineering and medicine are significant social practices and interact with religion through the medium of morality. Theology contributes not only to the social cohesion of society, but shapes the value system too. This all escalates into the intellectual ground when it becomes clear that theology (and philosophy) yield certain ultimate questions about human and cosmic life and death. This is of course ‘subject to critical intellectual exploration and scrutiny if they are not to lapse mere self-deception and superstition’ (McDonagh 2006:148).

‘The house of religious studies is full of strange beds and even stranger bedfellows’ (Hart 2002:93). It is rather important to distinguish between different forms of theological tuition and learning. The scope of this article is not a general one, but very focused on theology as a science¹⁴ taught at a secular university, with or without ecclesial sanction (although with recognition). William Hart (2002:94) differentiates between Theology (upper case) and theology (lower case but with italics). Theology with a capital ‘T’ refers to a devotional, confessional, and dogmatic enterprise, that is, very much church-based. On the other hand, theology with a small ‘t’ and written in italics, refers according to Hart, to a liberal, academic, and humanistic enterprise, that is very much based on philosophy. ‘Theology is fideistic; theology is fallibilistic.’ However, there is a tertium datur too: a theology with a small ‘t’ and non-italicised. Hart commends this option to a post-Theological culture.

In his latest publication, Knowledge and Christian belief, Alvin Plantinga, by using the tools of modern epistemology, argues for a rational and warranted theology; ‘Christians not only can be but also are justified in holding their characteristic beliefs’ (2015:45) and it is in this line that I (Buitendag 2014) endorse the QANU Report on the Quality Assurance of Netherlands Universities.¹⁵ Van de Beek (2012:86-89) argues for a ‘filled neutrality’ in the study of Theology at a public university. This makes provision for all religions and philosophical world views, assessed by their own internal critique.

In my mind, theology and religious studies are not birds of the same feather. Similarities can so easily be over accentuated and differences glossed over. There is a major difference in epistemology. The assumptions of modernistic liberal understanding have been challenged from different angles and ‘the presumptive epistemic privilege of the scholar has been shaken as the epistemological foundations upon which it was based have crumbled’ (Cady 2002:113). Each of us inhabits a particular place and time and that limits research and making it provisional. No scholar is above the data, but is in relation to it. The academic and cultural trends of the last 50 years oppose abstraction and the universalisation of knowledge. Abstract analysis has made place for contextual relationality. Kathryn Tanner (2002:206) aptly states: ‘In a search for truth humbled by the recognition of constant change and limitations of perspective, this cultural contest would require the widest possible purview.’

I would like to conclude my argument with a citation by Denys Turner (2005) with regard to the place of theology at a university:

And that precisely is the reason why any university should want to have in its midst the presence of theologians: for ‘Religious Studies’ people ask only the same old sorts of questions that the anthropologists, or psychologists, or historians, or sociologists ask, as it happens about religions, whatever they are. Whereas theologians ask distinctive questions all of their own that no one else would have thought of asking, questions of such oddity that you are obliged, as a first sort of task, to demonstrate that they can be legitimately asked at all – like Leibniz’s question, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing? (pp. 36–37)

Although there are both ‘strange beds’ and even ‘stranger bedfellows’, I would like to distinguish between the different models all using the same adjective ‘theological’: theological training, theological education and theological inquiry. Theological training is carried out by a church, and financially supported by the relevant denomination(s). Obviously there is much emphasis on the praxis of the denomination and very little or perhaps no independent thinking happens. The training is for a fixed period after which the candidate is licensed by the church. But these schools, sometimes even seminaries, are independent and not linked to a university. This is outside the scope of this article. Theological education is of a much higher standard, and institutions offering it are often accredited by Higher Education as a seminary. Whereas the previous has the emphasis on praxis, this model has theory as well and proper study of the confessions and creeds is done. The focus is broader than only the denomination, and society is seen as the context of the ministry. This is a lifelong education, and continuous teaching and learning normally takes place. A more advanced form, is a Christian university. In Africa it becomes an increasingly popular development for excelling seminaries.¹⁶

The third category is what I see as a new challenge, yet a niche for theology. Theological inquiry is what Hart calls theology spelled in lower case (no italics) which has a critical approach in its methodology. It is open for contestation, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and even transdisciplinary research and wants to contribute to humans’ search for understanding and meaning. It is not essentially ecclesiastical, perhaps not even ecumenical, but scientific in nature. It tries to be a worthy dialogue partner among the different sciences at the university. It accepts the challenge to compete internationally and adheres to the demands of the world-ranking systems with the core criteria of publish or perish. Its focus is the scholarly world and it realises that ‘glocalisation’ is the route to go; it contributes to global scholarly debates from a local perspective. The following concise table lists the differences between the two, although binary forces:

The Pretoria Model is fit to taking up this challenge. The latest InCites data¹⁷ shows that the Faculty at the University of Pretoria is ranked position #25 in the world with regard to research done by religious institutions as per the Web of Science categories. This position is based on the (1) articles on the Web of Science, (2) Normalized Citation Impact, (3) Times Cited, and (4) International Collaborations. The following graphs indicate both the four South African faculties of theology¹⁸ as well as the three international Faculties the Faculty at Pretoria has chosen to benchmark itself against.¹⁹

The point at stake here is that a new grammar has been developed for theology as a science. The challenge for a Faculty of Theology at a research-intensive university is to publish where it is noted, that is Scopus, The Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) SA and the Norwegian list (Tshilidzi 2016:34) and of course the Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science, previously referred to as the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), and the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS). The three most important indices measuring the world ranking position of universities are currently the Academic Ranking of World Universities²⁰ (ARWU), The Times Higher Education²¹ (THE) and the Quacqaurelli Symonds²² (QS), each with its own criteria:

Theology has unfortunately no independent research field for these classifications and is grouped among different disciplines by different indices often as part of the Social Sciences or Humanities. In the SCImago Journal & Country Rank²³ (SJR), theology is found under the subsection of Religious Studies which is in turn under the umbrella of Arts and Humanities. Theology in South Africa is according to this index in position #6 in the world (SJR 2016). The South African Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) groups Theology and Religion with Philosophy, of which the latter is in many cases the only denominator.²⁴ The ranking of a university is therefore not equal to the ranking of that university’s respective research fields.²⁵

The following table demonstrates the only five South African theological journals listed by the SJR (SJR Journal & Country Rank 2016). HTS Theological Studies, in the top position in Africa and 40th in the world, is the oldest and largest theological journal in South Africa and affiliated to the Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria (SJR 2016). The journal in the third position, Verbum et Ecclesia²⁶ is affiliated to the Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria as well.

In the process of unfolding my argument about my way to a re-orientation of the Pretoria Model, it is appropriate to conclude this section now by offering my understanding of both what a university in my view is all about and together with that, what theology in this context could be. It does not exclude other definitions, but as argued, the grammar prescribes the following:

Universities are places of debate and contestation which provide space for new knowledge to be created, intellectual activity and freedom of thought. (South Africa 2015)

Theology is a scholarly endeavour by believers in the public sphere in order to come to grips with multi-dimensional realities (being) in a manner that matters (bread).

These definitions will be fleshed out in the next and last section, before some final concluding remarks.

Research universities in the 21st century cannot be single-purpose institutions anymore, but must rather be pluralistic in the sense of combining various functions.²⁷ Kofi Annan, a former Secretary General of the United Nations, strongly promoted the importance of universities for development in Africa, (quoted in Cloete, Maasen & Bailey 2015):

The university must become a primary tool for Africa’s development in the new century. Universities can help develop African expertise; they can enhance the analysis of African problems; strengthen domestic institutions; serve as a model environment for the practice of good governance, conflict resolution and respect for human rights, and enable African academics to play an active part in the global community of scholars. (p. 12)

This means that universities have to become agents of change and ‘the critical source of equalisation of chances and democratisation of society by making possible equal opportunities for people’ (Cloete et al. 2015:2).

The second Higher Education (HE) summit on transformation took place in Durban 2015 and a public declaration was released on 17 October 2015 (South Africa 2015). Students and staff were fundamentally interrogating the nature and pace of transformation at our universities and fundamentally questioned the state of universities in South Africa, who is teaching and researching, what are they teaching and researching, and what the qualitative experiences of students in our universities are like.

The summit agreed inter alia that:

Higher Education is a public good.

During the Mini-Lekgotla of the Faculty of Theology on the 4^th December 2015, Prof Kobus Krüger²⁸ was invited to provide direction to the possible positions the Faculty could go towards in the future with regard to its values of inclusivity and diversity. As an introduction, he alluded to three entangled sets of problems that compel humanity today to rediscover and return to the root and nature of things.

Like ancient Polynesian way finders over vast stretches of ocean, Krüger said, humanity today will have to draw on all dimensions of human experience and knowledge; remember past stretches of water covered and islands passed on the way here; be able to read the tides and the winds of the present moment; and have a good understanding of the groundswell, the deep currents in the ocean of human consciousness. We have entered a new axial age, and it may be time for an exciting new start.

The challenge for the Faculty of Theology at Pretoria is therefore to be globally competitive, yet locally relevant. Richard Starcher (2004) of the Nairobi of the Evangelical Graduate School of Theology, found that:

[R]esearch participants most often expressed a desire to grow in competence (knowledge or skill) in connection with a desire to be of greater service to Africa or the African Church. (p. 211)

With regard to the relevance of theology in South Africa, Anthony Balcomb (1998:68) distinguishes subsequently between theologies of bread and theologies of being. The first type is engaged in the reconstruction of the South African society and the latter type struggles with the quest for identity in a society dominated by Western values. Relevance is therefore not only an ethical question, but an ontological as well as an epistemological one. Deconstruction of the heritage of the past century and engaging in the world debate from an African vantage point, is what should be pursued. A comprehensive transformation of curricula²⁹ is therefore needed, or as Achille Mbembe (2016) phrases it:

A Eurocentric canon is a canon that attributes truth only to the Western way of knowledge production. It is a canon that disregards other epistemic traditions. It is a canon that tries to portray colonialism as a normal form of social relations between human beings rather than a system of exploitation and oppression. Furthermore, Western epistemic traditions are traditions that claim detachment of the known from the knower. (p. 5)

That this challenge has been appropriated by the Faculty, is evident from inter alia a recent report from the Head of the Department of Practical Theology, Prof. C.J. Wepener (2016), to the Dean:

The aim of practical theological research is a better understanding of faith practices as well as the continuing renewal of a theory for praxis. Ultimately Practical Theology wants to make a contribution regarding the healing of individuals, society and creation which for us includes issues such as justice, reconciliation, inclusivity, equality, poverty alleviation – in essence the meaningful reconnection of individuals and communities to themselves, each other, creation and God. (Unofficial email by C.J.W. to J.B).

The ‘shape and size’ of the Faculty of Theology has been indicated by the University’s Executive as a matter that should be revisited. The Vice-Principal: Institutional Planning therefore formally requested the Dean on 9 March 2015 by an email³⁰ to conduct an investigation into the possibility of transforming certain research clusters into managerial units, that is, departments, with the potential implication of reducing the number of departments in the Faculty (Ströh 2015).

The following Terms of Reference³¹ were set by the Executive:

To review the current structure of the Faculty and suggest possible changes to improve its organisational efficiency and research productivity in support of the University’s strategic goals.

It was a sine qua non throughout these discussions was that the integrity and independence of the Faculty should be maintained as well as the six established disciplines of Theology. The restructuring is therefore to be seen as a managerial issue in order to improve the operational efficiency of the Faculty. Based on a Faculty Lekgotla (Pure Joy, 10–11 March 2016), the Dean prepared a report to the effect of reducing the current six departments to five and to rename both the departments and the Faculty.

The following changes are proposed³² (Buitendag 2016:3–4):

The Departments of Church History and Church Polity and the Department of Dogmatics and Christian Ethics will merge.

South Africa is a multi-religious society and a secular constitution (vis-à-vis Zambia which is Christian as per its Constitution). In order to adopt a broader inclusive religious, theological and ecclesial diversity at the University of Pretoria (UP) it was proposed that the Faculty of Theology be renamed to the Faculty of Theology and Religion. The addition of and Religion’ should enhance diversity and diminish exclusiveness. This will do justice to the broader vision of inclusivity and advance the prospects of other religions. It was however, emphasised that the slightest idea of syncretism be obliterated. Both the external review panel and the Faculty proposed the formation of a new department, namely a Department of Religion Studies.³³

‘History is not a destination, but an orientation’. It is important not only to interpret the past, but to come to terms with it as well. Like any human, the Faculty has a two-pronged genealogy, the line of the fatherly ancestry and the line of the motherly ancestry. In terms of the Pretoria Model and the discussed reconfiguration, it is decisive to identify the core traits in the fibre of the Faculty. In Wethmar’s mind, this is undoubtedly the issue of either the simplex ordo (NGK) or the duplex ordo (NHK) and the clear choice of the former (Wethmar 2000:425). This however, is much more complex than presented here. Neither the NGK nor the NHK had a pure application of either model. No distinction was later³⁵ made between church subjects (Dogmatics and Practical Theology) and the others. In both sections of the Faculty, the respective churches played a crucial role in the appointment of all academic staff and in the case of the NHK, they dismissed a New Testament professor³⁶ whose actions would be in a duplex ordo dispensation, inappropriate. Since the amalgamation of the two sections in 2000, it was clearly stated in the agreements with the churches that academic appointments would be made according to university’s rules and regulations, with the only provisoo that denominational allocated positions would be filled from the ranks of that church, but appointed by a Recruitment and Appointment Committee of the University. I would rather contend that the Pretoria Model is in its fibre a hybrid with more traits of the duplex ordo, except for the distinction of church subjects vis-à-vis academic subjects and that the current complement of lecturers are all believers and even licensed ministers of a number of different denominations. Loader³⁷ has indicated convincingly that the nature of the Faculty since its inception, was very much based on the Dutch Ethical Theology which most probably today is very much the character of the Pretoria Model, which is neither liberal, nor orthodox but finds a dialectical third option of pursuing truth as an encounter. Postfoundationalist approaches are noted in many publications by the Faculty. In my view (Buitendag 2014), the Postliberal Theology of the Yale School gives very much vocabulary to express this crucial trait of the Pretoria Model. This approach permits space for different and authentic voices, each in their own right.

In my mind it is clear that the Faculty has to continue to closely collaborate with different churches, religious institutions and different religions. It is also clear in my mind that academic excellence is not negotiable and that churches would have to add a certain amount of denominational flavour to the theological inquiry offered at the Faculty. If theology really wants to serve the church, it should have ‘certain degree of freedom in relation to the official structures of the church’ (Wethmar 2012:81). This implies a new application of the duplex ordo in the sense that all six disciplines are academic, yet ecclesiastical.

By means of an approach of constructive dialogue, a Faculty Theology at a public university has to contribute to human’s urge to comprehend nature or rather reality. I concur with David Ford (2007) when he states that:

Academic or public theology seeks wisdom in relation to questions, such as those of meaning, truth, beauty and practice, which are raised by, about and between the religions and are pursued through engagement with a range of academic disciplines. (p. 117)

Truth-seeking is intrinsic to the inquiring mind and characterises theology as well, or as Ford puts it, ‘speaking the truth in love’ (Ford 2005:727). This is perhaps what Wethmar (1997) sensed when he stated that:

Christian theology will no longer retain its position at state-funded universities for traditional religious or ideological reasons but it will have to justify its presence in academic and moral terms. (p. 416)

However, Van de Beek (2012:85) warns against a meta-religious moral framework which so-called ‘objective’ researchers apply in investigating their subject matter. A public university should never become idiosyncratic.

The Faculty of Theology has therefore engaged in critical multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research on a wide spectrum of strategic academic and societal interests ranging from social cohesion, social ethics and leadership, missional church to narrative pastoral care and to actual biblical-hermeneutical challenges to the influential science-theology discourses. Much of the research has as its focus the problem of poverty, the challenges of reconciliation and the need for restorative justice, involving key role players from different sectors of society, industry and academia.

Prof Kobus Krüger (2015) has concluded his argument at the said Mini-Lekgotla of the Faculty with the following blessing:

Clearly the Faculty has arrived at a moment of truth. It could become a pioneering Faculty, exploring new academic and religious ways in the Republic of South Africa, Africa, and wider. I believe the Faculty is strategically well-positioned, administratively in excellent hands and academically excellently equipped to fulfil that role. My very best wishes accompany you.

In the 2013 Faculty Plan, the following introductory paragraph led the vantage thinking of the author and is perhaps the leitmotif of his thinking (Buitendag 2012):

The last message of the late President Paul Krüger to the people of the old Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek in the Transvaal during his exile in Switzerland in the final days of the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902), was that they should gather from the past what was good and of value and build a future on it. However praiseworthy, it should be turned upside down in real business and strategic thinking: visualise the future and build a history accordingly. (p. 2)

‘Ars longa, vita brevis’, is the slogan on the cornerstone of the Theology Building on the campus of the University of Pretoria. Life is short, but art forever. And so is theology here to remain. Or to conclude with another Latin expression: ‘ex Africa semper aliquid novi.’ There is always something new from Africa. May this Pretoria Model as ars theologica Africae be a gateway to the Kingdom. Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika!