demonstrated for instance by the fact that South Africa is the only country that accepts in law both homosexual and polygynous unions - cf. Rabe 2013).These concurrent and causative changes, along with many others, fill the agenda of social identity construction in the South Africa of today in such ways that a matrix of the fluid characteristics can hardly be drawn up with any accuracy. Still, theologians have a strong tradition from the apartheid times, and earlier (pro-apartheid theology itself being highly contextual - Govender 1980:77), of reacting to the prominent socio-political matters of the day. It has become something of a truism to point out that particularly mainline English theology in post-apartheid South Africa had become fairly disoriented without its common enemy of apartheid (e.g. Tutu 1995:95-97). Still, there is a strong sense among all but fringe reactionary theology that theologians should concretely deal with "the litany of pressing socio-economic problems ... [which] are usually listed as 'an inventory of the evils on the continent: HIV/AIDS and other health problems, poverty, war and violence and crime (Rabe & Lombaard 2011:242, drawing on Lombaard 2006:151; De Beer & De Beer 2002:256). In one sense, therefore, the majority of theologians have become liberation theologians; most theology has been contextual and most South African theologians at least intend that their research should "mean something" directly for South African society.However, much among these sentiments, though noble, is flawed. The bibliological sciences provide a good case in point.2 The kind of innocent piety of many among the younger generation of Bible scholars often lead to the expression of a felt urgency that the negative circumstances in society should be changed for the better. Similarly, a deep sense of care about pressing socio-economic issues is found across the generations of Bible scholars. The majority would agree firmly: research should be pressed towards service in dealing with these problems. This is valid across the spectrum of specialisms from, for instance, Semitic linguists to many exegetes, including deliberately politically engaged reception critics.Nevertheless, attempts by scholars to direct intervention for the betterment of society are bound to fail, for two reasons: we know not what we do, and we do not what we know.We know not what we doBy we know not what we do is meant that theologians are poorly equipped to change the world for the better. For instance, the academic training provided to social workers and psychologists to deal with human problems on a smaller scale, and to development economists and sociologists on the broader-societal scale, is more appropriate for individuals who feel themselves called to active social upliftment than theological training can be. The values of "love thy neighbour" and "love [even] thy enemy" lead many, probably almost all people who enter theological training programmes, to do so. Honourable intent is unquestionable here. However, theological training does not provide the most effective intellectual and practical equipment for alleviating the litany of social evils indicated above. When theologians say they deal with societal ills, they generally present their good intentions, the principle of love, but they can