Magister Philosophiae - MPhil (Religion and Theology)http://hdl.handle.net/11394/31592024-03-29T04:42:00Z2024-03-29T04:42:00ZThe ''silence'' of the church in South Africa on rapeEsau, Wendyhttp://hdl.handle.net/11394/96412023-02-24T00:02:31Z1997-01-01T00:00:00ZThe ''silence'' of the church in South Africa on rape
Esau, Wendy
Rape is a complex issue with many faces. Different researchers from the field of psychology to sociology have attempted to understand rape. ln some psychological studies, rape is considered as a psychological disorder. Psychologists like Krafft-Ebing, a researcher on sexual disorders, in his research "Psychopathia Sexualis," categorized rapists as "degenerate, imbecile men" (Brownmiller 1975:1). Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis (1856-1939) (Meyer et al 1989:39), did not deal with the subject of rape specifically. Freud viewed the sexuality of men, which was sometimes marked by aggression and a strong tendency to subdue women, as biological. It is necessary for men to overcome the resistance of the sexual object (women) by actions other than mere courting (Geis 1977:18-19). According to Freud, this aggression is a natural characteristic of being male. Thus, in rape there is no abuse or violence, no offence, no victims and no offenders (Fortune 1983:114-115\. This view that aggression was natural to being male made rape, which is an act of aggression, a natural act. Women had no need to complain, speak up, or lay a charge against their offenders in rape. They need to be silent. Rape was most of the times considered as natural and acceptable in both church and society.
Magister Theologiae - MTh
1997-01-01T00:00:00Zlnterreligious dialogue and the colonial legacy: A critical assessment of current models for interreligious dialogue as tools toward reconciliation in the South African contextJohnson, Arthur Anthonyhttp://hdl.handle.net/11394/91332022-06-10T00:01:15Z1998-01-01T00:00:00Zlnterreligious dialogue and the colonial legacy: A critical assessment of current models for interreligious dialogue as tools toward reconciliation in the South African context
Johnson, Arthur Anthony
This chapter will start the debate by concentrating on the phenomenon or
occurrence of religious pluralism. Thereafter, the reasons for its existence
and its importance in providing a system of coexistence in mutuality will be
examined. The contours of interreligious interaction will be outlined as briefly
as possible, by assessing the processes of interreligious dialogue and the
role this dialogue must play, from a Christian perspective. An attempt will be
made to show how Christianity's view of the other shifted from viewing the
other as posing a threat, to regarding the other as affording an opportunity to
understand personal and individual reality within a context of diversity. A
further attempt is made to show how by mutual effort evil and injustice can be
eradicated through dialogue, within the interreligious context.
Magister Philosophiae - MPhil
1998-01-01T00:00:00ZFood relief or food security? A study of the policies and programmes of four Muslim social welfare organisations in South AfricaKhan, Cassiem Dawoodhttp://hdl.handle.net/11394/89312022-03-19T00:29:50Z2021-01-01T00:00:00ZFood relief or food security? A study of the policies and programmes of four Muslim social welfare organisations in South Africa
Khan, Cassiem Dawood
Food is a basic need, but there is nothing simple, rudimentary, and straightforward about its provision, production, distribution, preparation, or consumption. The provision of food is regarded as an act of great virtue in all faiths and is particularly firmly entrenched in Islamic doctrine, thought, history, culture, and practice. This study investigates the programmes and implementation strategies of four national Muslim social welfare organisations (MSWOs) operating in and from South Africa; these organisations provide food relief to thousands of poor people worldwide, using faith-based donations such as Zakãh (a purifying tax on personal wealth).
Masters of Art
2021-01-01T00:00:00ZThe Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999): A Comparison of the implied positions of Simon Maimela and Klaus NürnbergerPieterse, Willem Elia “Nosey”http://hdl.handle.net/11394/88792022-03-11T21:12:43Z2021-01-01T00:00:00ZThe Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999): A Comparison of the implied positions of Simon Maimela and Klaus Nürnberger
Pieterse, Willem Elia “Nosey”
The Protestant reformation in the 16th century led to some of the major and long-lasting
schisms in global Christianity. The doctrine of justification was at the core of Lutheran schism
which was triggered by the papal bull of 1521. The Confession of Augsburg (1530) and the
subsequent Apology (1531) failed to heal that schism and instead resulted in the hardening
of the schism after the Council of Trent (1545-1563). After Vatican II, on-going dialogue
between the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF)
continued to address this schism. This culminated in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of
Justification (JDDJ) (1999) signed by the Catholic Church’s Pontifical Council for Promoting
Christian Unity (PCPCU) and the LWF. However, this declaration did not by itself heal the
schism and resulted in mutual discontent, e.g., signalled by RCC’s Cardinal Avery Dulles and
the statement of 250 German professors (1998), advising Lutheran churches not to sign the
JDDJ (1999).
This study explores the reception of the JDDJ (1999) in the context of Evangelical Lutheran
Church in Southern Africa (ELCSA) as one of the member churches of the LWF. However, such
reception arguably remains extremely limited in terms of synodical debates and resolutions,
letters to the press or publications by members of ELCSA. Instead, this study focuses on the
positions on justification adopted by two senior Lutheran scholars who are members of
ELCSA, namely Klaus Nürnberger and Simon Maimela. The question that will be investigated
is whether the views on the doctrine of justification of Klaus Nürnberger and Simon Maimela
diverge from the “differentiated” consensus on justification as expressed in the JDDJ (1999).
Magister Philosophiae - MPhil
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z