Document
Introduction
The year 2025 holds significant ecumenical anniversaries that provide a unique opportunity for the church to reflect on and reclaim its prophetic witness in the face of the multiple and interconnected crises. The year 2025 offers a unique ecumenical moment to reawaken the church’s prophetic witness. This year, we recall that 140 years ago, at the Berlin Conference, the African continent was divided up in colonies, a process leaving a legacy of racial marginalization, economic exploitation, fragile social cohesion, and environmental catastrophes. This year, 100 years ago, the inaugural “Life and Work” conference was held in Stockholm, Sweden, setting the trajectories of ecumenical social thought and action and the formation of the WCC. This year, 80 years ago, World War II ended with the liberation from fascism and the promise of meaningful participation of citizens in the way they were governed.
For my presentation today, I want to lift the 40th anniversary of the publication of the South African Kairos Document (KD)—a theological critique on the churches’ response to the apartheid government in South Africa that provided an articulation of the national challenge and proposed prophetic theology as the appropriate response.[1] The KD characterized the 1980s as a “kairos,” a decisive moment for the church and the apartheid government. According to the Kairos theologians, the churches’ response to the apartheid crisis was either based on “state theology,” a theological orientation that legitimated the status quo through its abuse of the Bible or by “church theology,” which called for cheap reconciliation in the face of oppression and injustice. Kairos theologians proposed “prophetic theology” to inform the churches’ transformative and action-oriented response.
This paper will (a) argue that the contemporary intertwined challenges of wars and militarism, rise of exclusivist and nationalistic rightwing politics, the breakdown of the multilateral consensus, and economic inequality and climate emergency, constitute a kairos, a “fateful moment” and “decisive”[2] moment for the church and the world, (b) demonstrate that the churches’ responses to such crises tend to reflect theological underpinnings of “state theology” and “church theology,” (c) reiterate the urgency of the situation and the need for a prophetic church.
- KAIROS MOMENT
In the ecumenical movement, Kairos has been taken as an “important category of the New Testament interpretation of history.”[3] Soon after the inaugural Life and Work conference in 1925, there was a shared understanding of historical time as chronos, which referred to the normal flow of time, aion, a particular historical epoch, and kairos, a decisive moment or an opportunity for a turning point which if missed, spells disaster.[4] Later, ecumenical theologians described kairos as designating “the fulfilment of the period of expectation or preparation, and the beginning of the period of reception or fragmentary actualization.” It was “a prophetic interpretation of history for the right time in which all time gains its meaning and qualification.” This is how the concept was understood by the kairos theologians in South Africa in the 1980s. They said “time has come”…It is the KAIROS or moment of truth not only for apartheid but also for the Church and all other faiths and religions.”[5] They read theirs as a time demanding a special appreciation of “the theological significance of this moment in our history.”[6] In this understanding historical events pose a kairos if their implications for the confessional integrity of the church and when the particular historical events threaten to undermine God’s kingdom of peace, justice, and abundant life for all people.
The question is whether our contemporary historical situation is a kairos. Which contemporary social, economic, and political developments constitute a kairos moment? A general criterion to determine this would be to see if there are any human powers given ultimate significance, and whether any developments undermine the dignity of people and undermine God’s kingdom of justice, peace, and abundant life for all people. In our time, this has been manifesting in the following ways.
Slavery and Colonialism
It is not adequate to engage with contemporary history without confronting the enduring legacies of exploitation and domination that have defined the West’s relationship with the rest of the world—beginning with the European or transatlantic slave trade and culminating in the colonial era. As we mark 140 years since the Berlin Conference, where Western powers carved up Africa for their own gain, we are witnessing a new scramble for the continent’s resources—now driven by the demands of the so-called green transition and technological advancement in both the West and China. This unequal global order, rooted in slavery, colonialism, and racism, persists in both implicit and explicit forms. One stark example was the refusal of Western nations to equitably share vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, reinforcing patterns of exclusion and disparity that have shaped centuries of exploitation. Slavery and exploitative labor practices, especially for the false luring of racialized groups continues today in many forms. Thousands of young Africans have drowned and died in the Mediterranean being lured by the promises of good life in Europe, where they are treated with indignity if they make it.
Resurgence of imperialism
Slavery and colonialism of the global south were based on an earlier imperial template used to invade and destroy the Indigenous communities in the Americas. These imperial tendencies of the past, driven by the same capitalist greed, have become more explicit in our time and are behind much of the wars and instability in the world. We now know that behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are the imperial tendencies of countries that have strong armies to invade those that are weak with the aim of accessing mineral and agricultural resources. We are also not naïve to the fact that even before the invasion of Ukraine, the local small farmers were struggling to keep their land in the face of aggressive takeover of their land by big multinational companies involved in large-scale commercial farming. Any useful contextual analysis cannot decouple the capitalist, imperial, exploitative, and violent nature of imperial ambitions of our time. In its crude form, imperialism has recently been exemplified by Donald Trump’s claims over Panama, Canada, and Greenland.
Regression of democracy
The optimism after the second world war that liberal democracy coupled with capitalist economy will result in the improvement of life is now under immense pressure due to the rise of rightwing politicians and the rise of dictatorships and coup de tart. Democracy is now under threat more than ever. The belief “in democracy and so in the obligations of citizenship, in individual liberty and so in the freedom of opinion, and in the Enlightenment and so in the primacy of truth,” is now under immense pressure as observed by Martin Wolf.[7] The new political wave threatens the whole democratic vision as a whole. In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt had argued that democracies today would not only be eroded through coups but through the gradual breakdown of institutional norms, often led by elected leaders. “Democracies may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders—presidents or prime ministers who subvert the very process that brought them to power.” They frame the US political crisis as part of a global pattern of democratic backsliding, emphasizing the role of polarization, eroded norms, and partisan complicity. Levitsky and Ziblatt identify two foundational norms critical to democracy, which are slowly disappearing, namely, “mutual toleration,” which means accepting the legitimate right of the political opponents to exist, and “institutional forbearance: Restraint in using legal powers to undermine opponents. Without robust norms of mutual toleration and forbearance, constitutional checks and balances alone cannot prevent democracies from decaying into partisan warfare.”
Rise of rightwing politics
This paradigm shift is manifest in the global phenomenon of rightwing parties. This populist and exclusive nationalist political trajectory has been developing slowly but surely in many countries where liberal capitalism has created inequalities. Rightwing politics has managed to exploit such dissatisfactions by stoking and appealing to nationalist sentiments, often framing their rhetoric around “us vs. them” narratives. These movements frequently target immigrants, minorities, and marginalized groups, portraying them as threats to national identity or security. What is common to this exclusive politics is that it tends to lean towards authoritarianism and the concentration of power in the hands of a charismatic leader or a small elite. This undermines democratic institutions, checks and balances, and the rule of law. The rightwing political phenomenon has an economic dimension to it. It normally exploits economic anxieties and cultural fears, blaming globalization, multilateralism and multiculturalism, or progressive social changes for societal problems. This creates a fertile ground for scapegoating and divisive rhetoric as well as weakening possible cooperation at the global level to resolve common challenges.
Rightwing populism often fosters distrust in traditional sources of authority, such as the media, the courts, academia, and scientific institutions. This distrust is weaponized to dismiss inconvenient truths, such as climate change, public health measures, or historical injustices. For this reason, this movement—which promotes a “post-truth politics” where objective facts are less influential than appeals to emotion and personal belief—has been a hallmark of many rightwing movements. This is often accompanied by the proliferation of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and "alternative facts." Social media and partisan news outlets have exacerbated this polarization, creating echo chambers where individuals are insulated from opposing viewpoints. This makes it easier for rightwing leaders to propagate falsehoods and demonize critics.
Anti-multinational
The United Nations and the whole multilateral system were put in place to create conditions for peace and coexistence among nations on the basis of the rule of law. It is noted that the multilateral system had many limitations including the unequal participation, especially on the security council. But the rise of nationalistic and rightwing politics is contributing to the undermining and disregard for the multilateral system. That heads of states such as Vladmir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, charged by the International Criminal Court (ICC), can choose to disregard such rulings with impunity, demonstrates why a rules-based world is slowly becoming unrealisable.
War mongering generation and the strongmen
In the face of much uncertainty, rightwing politics offers the “strongman” who is presented as not contaminated with institutional politics, but viewed with a messianic or saviour complex. In her 2020 book “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present,” Ruth Ben-Ghiat, characterises this phenomenon of the “strongmen” as warmongering. She argues that wars and militarism are central to the identity and strategies of these rightwing and authoritarian-leaning leaders. She highlights how strongmen use conflict and wars to achieve three goals, namely (a) consolidation of power, (b) projection of strength, and (a) to reinforce their cult of personality.
In the absence of a strong rules-based international system, wars within and between countries have increased. This has resulted in increased budgets on militarization at the expense of development aid or social investment. In the absence of solid investment into peace, the world faces the challenge of nuclear proliferation and the possibility of nuclear war. For the first time since the Second World War, a war is raging on European soil, leading to deaths, displacement of people, destruction of infrastructure and livelihoods and creating mistrust and suspicion. The war on Ukraine by Russia, the genocidal attack of Israel on Gaza, the externally funded wars in Sudan and South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, just to name a few, are all proofs that the “strongmen” mentality and the industrial war complex are operating.
Climate crises
One major crisis resulting from the failure of multilateral consensus is the impending climate disaster as countries do not agree on minimising carbon emissions. Rightwing politics does not believe in the human-induced climate crises, hence invests into fossil fuels. The rising sea levels have already seen communities displaced in the Pacific and other such regions. This is a crisis, a Kairos.
Politics of death
In summary, one can describe the contemporary situation as presided over by “Necropolitics” or politics of death, as put by the African thinker, Achille Mbembe.[8] According to Mbembe, Necropolitics, reflects on the power to determine who dies at who lives. This also includes exposing populations to conditions that make death inevitable. For those located in the “death worlds,” death is inevitable. Mbembe shows that the contemporary challenges tend to be disproportionally suffered by racialized and colonized peoples. This politics of death makes use of modern technologies that makes killing impersonal. What has been the response of the church in the face of such life-denying situations?
B. THE RESPONSE OF THE CHURCH
In this section, we will briefly demonstrate that the churches’ responses to such crises tend to reflect theological underpinnings of “state theology” and “church theology.” Examples can only be illustrative and not exhaustive here. One can choose from how the churches responded to the anti-gay legislation in Ghana, how the churches responded to Israel’s indiscriminate bombardment on Gaza, how the churches have responded the rise of rightwing and nationalist politics in Europe and the US, how the churches have responded to growing militarization. While it has been easy for churches in Europe and North America to call churches in Africa to respond prophetically to anti-gay legislation in the continent, their responses to these challenges in their own backyard has been muted.
United States churches
The response of churches in the United States to the policies of the Trump administration (2017–2021) varied significantly across denominations, reflecting theological, social, and political diversity. Responses were deeply polarized, often aligning with preexisting political and theological priorities. While conservative churches prioritized abortion and religious liberty, progressive faith communities emphasized social justice, immigration, and climate action. These divisions reflect broader societal debates, underscoring the complex role of religion in US politics. If the question refers to a hypothetical future Trump administration, responses would likely follow similar fault lines, contingent on the policies pursued.
Here are some examples:
Evangelical Protestants
Many white Evangelical leaders and congregants have strongly supported Trump’s policies, largely due to his alignment with conservative priorities like appointing anti-abortion judges (e.g., Supreme Court justices), defending religious liberty policies, and opposing LGBTQ+ rights expansions. Groups like the Southern Baptist Convention and leaders such as Franklin Graham praised these actions.
A minority of Evangelical voices, like author and pastor Tim Keller or the organization Christians Against Christian Nationalism, opposed Trump’s rhetoric on immigration, race, and divisive rhetoric, emphasizing compassion and biblical justice.
Catholic Church
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) frequently criticized Trump’s immigration policies (e.g., family separations, travel bans) and environmental rollbacks, aligning with Catholic social teaching. However, many lay Catholics, particularly conservative voters, supported Trump for his anti-abortion stance and defence of religious institutions (e.g., Little Sisters of the Poor case). The Vatican occasionally signalled disapproval of Trump’s policies, such as the border wall proposal, emphasizing global solidarity.
Mainline Protestant Churches
Denominations like the Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, and Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA) often opposed Trump’s policies on climate change, immigration, and healthcare. For example, the Episcopal Church joined lawsuits against the travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries and supported DACA recipients. Activist leaders such as Rev. William Barber (Poor People’s Campaign) mobilized interfaith coalitions to advocate for racial and economic justice.
Black Protestant Churches
Predominantly African American churches, like the National Baptist Convention and Progressive National Baptist Convention, were critical of Trump’s rhetoric on race, voting rights, and policing. They highlighted systemic racism and supported movements like Black Lives Matter. Many Black pastors encouraged voter turnout to oppose Trump-backed policies and candidates.
Latter-day Saints (Mormons)
While many LDS members leaned Republican, the church itself maintained neutrality. It emphasized bipartisan issues like refugee support and religious freedom but faced internal debates over Trump’s moral conduct.
Interfaith and Progressive Coalitions
Groups like the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and interfaith alliances (e.g., Shoulder to Shoulder) opposed Islamophobic policies, family separations, and anti-LGBTQ+ measures. Jewish, Muslim, and Sikh communities often led protests against the administration’s rhetoric.
Key Policy Flashpoints
Immigration: Widespread condemnation of family separations and detention policies from Catholics, Mainline Protestants, and interfaith groups.
Environment: Mainline and Catholic leaders criticized withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and environmental deregulation.
Religious Freedom: Evangelicals and Catholics applauded policies protecting conservative religious institutions but faced criticism for enabling discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals.
Race: Black churches and allies denounced Trump’s responses to white supremacy and voter suppression efforts.
This varied response shows that in the absence of an ecumenical prophetic foundation, the churches cannot speak and act in agreement.
The case of Serbia
Recent demonstrations in Serbia have been primarily driven by widespread public discontent over government corruption and negligence. The protests began in November 2024, following the tragic collapse of a railway station canopy in Novi Sad that resulted in 15 fatalities. This incident, attributed to systemic corruption and poor infrastructure maintenance, sparked nationwide outrage. The movement, largely led by university students, has since grown, with protests spreading to hundreds of cities and towns across Serbia.[9]
On 15 March 2025, a massive anti-corruption rally took place in Belgrade, marking the largest demonstration in Serbia’s modern history. Estimates suggest that between 275,000 and 325,000 people participated, underscoring the depth of public frustration with President Aleksandar Vučić's administration.[10]
Additionally, on 25 March 2025, thousands protested against a real estate development project financed by Jared Kushner's investment firm, Affinity Partners. The project aims to transform a former army headquarters in Belgrade, damaged during the 1999 NATO bombing, into a luxury hotel and shopping complex. Protesters argue that the site should remain a cultural monument rather than be developed for profit.[11]
The Serbian Orthodox Church's response to the protests has evolved over time. In January 2025, the church openly criticized the demonstrators, accusing protesting students of "living in parallel universes" where "the values of Saint Sava are ridiculed." However, by March 2025, amidst escalating tensions and larger demonstrations, the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church issued a statement calling for peace and dialogue, reflecting a more conciliatory stance.[12]
Such oscillation of the church’s response moves within the frame of state theology and church theology which is characteristic of some Orthodox churches. It is based on some “traces of Constantinian era, of the period of “symphony,” where “part of the salary of clergy and professors is paid by the state; the state is responsible for the restoration of churches and historical monuments; theological faculties are incorporated into state universities; clergy are members of parliament; leaders of the church are recognized and even honoured by state authorities.”[13]
German churches on Gaza
The response of German churches to the Israel-Gaza conflict following 7 October 2023, can also shed some light on the complexities of churches’ response to a Kairos moment. The Evangelical Church in Germany issued a statement emphasizing Israel’s “right to self-defence” under international law while condemning Hamas’s attacks. It also called for humanitarian aid to Gaza and urged political solutions to avoid further escalation. The EKD stressed the need to protect civilians and address the root causes of the conflict. The German Catholic Bishops’ Conference leadership echoed similar themes, advocating for dialogue and a ceasefire. They highlighted the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the moral obligation to assist civilians, regardless of nationality or religion. Humanitarian organisations like Diakonie (Protestant) and Caritas (Catholic), mobilized aid for Gaza, focusing on medical supplies, food, and support for displaced populations. They partnered with international agencies to deliver assistance.
The general calls were for restraint and dialogue. Both Protestant and Catholic leaders urged all parties to adhere to international law, avoid civilian casualties, and resume peace negotiations. They emphasized the two-state solution as a long-term goal. Interfaith and ecumenical initiatives involving Jewish and Muslim communities in Germany, sought to promote unity, condemning antisemitism and Islamophobia. Joint prayers for peace were organized in several cities. Some regional church leaders and grassroots groups voiced stronger criticism of Israel’s military actions, calling for accountability for civilian deaths in Gaza. Conversely, others reaffirmed unwavering support for Israel’s security, reflecting Germany’s historical responsibility post-Holocaust. The churches encouraged congregations to engage in informed discussions, avoid polarization, and support humanitarian efforts. Educational materials on the conflict’s complexity were distributed.
While official church statements often aligned with the German government’s support for Israel, there was visible tension between upholding Israel’s security and addressing Palestinian suffering. The churches’ responses aimed to navigate these sensitivities while advocating for a just and lasting peace.
C. PROPHETIC THEOLOGY FOR A PROPHETIC CHURCH
In this last section we reiterate the call by the Kairos theologians that life-denying situations require the church to act influenced by prophetic theology. The 1985 Kairos Document was not a product of the mainstream church. It was authored by South African theologians and activists in informal spaces. It included members of the South African Council of Churches Beyers Naudé who was the general secretary. Other key contributors included Albert Nolan, O.P.: He was a Dominican priest and theologian known for his liberation theology writings, including Jesus Before Christianity. He played a central role in drafting the document. Another figure was Frank Chikane. He was a leader in the Apostolic Faith Mission and later general secretary of the SACC. He was deeply involved in anti-apartheid activism. Father Smangaliso Mkhatshwa was a Catholic priest and anti-apartheid activist who later became a politician in post-apartheid South Africa. Simon Maimela was a theologian and academic who contributed to the document’s theological critique of apartheid. Wolfram Kistner, a Lutheran theologian and advocate for social justice, also played a role, emphasizing the church’s role in confronting apartheid. Takatso Mofokeng, was a theologian and academic who analyzed apartheid through a biblical and ethical lens. Itumeleng Mosala, was a biblical scholar who contributed critical perspectives on liberation theology and the role of scripture in resistance. Buti Tlhagale was a Catholic priest (later Archbishop) who engaged in theological critiques of systemic injustice. In short, the KD was an ecumenical product, involving leaders from multiple denominations, including the Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, and Methodist churches. While the drafting process included input from over 150 signatories, the core group focused on articulating a theology of resistance, condemning both apartheid and churches that remained neutral. The authors emphasized prophetic theology, calling for active opposition to oppression. Notably, figures like Desmond Tutu supported the document but were not among its primary drafters. The collaborative nature of the text reflected a unified Christian challenge to apartheid’s moral legitimacy.
Below is a summary of the document’s critique of the passive church and the proposed outline of a vision for “Prophetic Theology.”
State Theology
Churches were criticized for legitimizing apartheid through a theological framework that conflated divine authority with the racist regime. This theology used selective biblical interpretations to justify segregation, authoritarianism, and violence, portraying apartheid as “God’s will.”
Church Theology
Moderate or neutral churches were condemned for promoting a false “reconciliation” and “peace” without addressing systemic injustice. Their calls for “nonviolence” and “dialogue” were seen as complicit with oppression, prioritizing order over justice. Church theology was also criticized for spiritualizing faith by focusing on personal piety and heaven while ignoring political and economic oppression. This claim to “neutrality” was deemed a betrayal of the Gospel’s call to side with the marginalized. Churches were accused of hypocrisy for condemning apartheid in theory through issuing of statements but failing to materially support liberation movements or confront state violence. This institutional inertia perpetuated the status quo, argued the Kairos theologians.
In place of state and church theologies, the KD proposed prophetic theology. While the 1985 version of the Kairos Document mentioned prophetic theology in passing, the 1986 version sought to give some flesh to what such theology was made of.
Prophetic Theology
The document proposed “Prophetic Theology” as an alternative since it was rooted in the tradition of liberation theology and biblical radicalism reflecting the following elements:
Solidarity with the Oppressed:
Prophetic theology was not neutral. It emphasized “taking sides” unequivocally with the poor and marginalized, reflecting God’s bias toward the oppressed (e.g., Exodus, Jesus’ ministry in Luke 4:18-19). This meant that prophetic theology did not seek to find the middle ground. It did not say for example, that there were “good people on both sides” of the oppressed and the oppressor.
Active Resistance:
Prophetic theology called for churches to engage in praxis—action aligned with justice, including supporting grassroots movements, civil disobedience, and international sanctions against apartheid. In this understanding, theology and being a prophetic church was not seen as something based on the statements one issued. There was need for concrete and tangible action on the side of the suffering.
Confronting Injustice as Sin:
Prophetic theology framed apartheid as structural sin requiring radical repentance, not just individual moral reform. Justice was a prerequisite for true reconciliation. By taking this social, economic, and political system of oppression and injustice in theological terms, prophetic theology was appealing to individuals perpetuating apartheid to each take a stand of faith. But it was not only individual, it was also systemic sin which required systemic transformation.
Contextual Reading of Scripture:
Prophetic theology urged reading the Bible through the lens of the oppressed, prioritizing liberation (e.g., Exodus, prophetic denunciations of injustice in Amos, Jesus’ overturning of power structures). It was prophetic in the sense that it sought to align its actions and words to the God of life, peace, justice, and abundant life for all people.
Eschatological Hope:
Prophetic theology was grounded on the belief that God’s Kingdom opposed tyranny and promises liberation. This hope was not passive but demanded participation in “God’s transformative work.” The realization of the Kingdom of God on earth inspired by the promised coming kingdom of God was the source of inspiration especially during difficult times.
Critique of Power:
Prophetic theology rejected alliances with oppressive powers, advocating instead for a church to embody Christ’s subversive love and challenge all forms of dehumanization. This refusal to align with power and the powerful was also meant to make sure the church could not be coopted for purposes of maintaining the status quo.
Conclusion
This reflection highlights the fact that the world is in a crisis. But there is a bigger crisis in the church because the churches’ response to these crises are based on state or church theology. The paper invites the churches to reappropriate prophetic theology in order for their responses to the world to become transformative. It seeks to kickstart a conversation on how such prophetic theology can manifest in different contexts.
[1] This reflection is based on the second edition of 1986
[2] Life and work : bulletin of the International social institute at Geneva No 1 May 1927, p.10
[3] THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND HISTORY, by H. G. W OOD, DODD EDWYN BEVAN EUGENE LYMAN PAUC TILLICH H. D. WENDLAND CHRISTOPHER DAWSON, LONDON GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD MUSEUM STREET, 1938
[4] Frank Kermode: Sense of an ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction, (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2000) p.48
[5] Kairos Document 1986, p.1
[6] Kairos Document 1986, p.1
[7] Martin Wolf, The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, (Penguin Books, 2023), p.xiii.
[8] Achille Mbembe, Necropolitics, (Duke University Press, 2019)
[9] See Cadena SER, Wikipedia
[10] Cnn.com, The Guardian
[11] Reuters, Al Jazeera
[12] Kossev.ifo, Serbiantimes.info, OrthoChristian.com
[13] Church and State: Opening a new ecumenical discussion, (Faith and Order Paper No. 85, World Council of Churches, 1978),p.108