Text in English / With the start of democracy in South Africa and the end of the legal Apartheid rule, it became apparent to those who identified the church with the liberation struggle that Christian communities had lost their significance in society today. This feeling, although not popular among theologians, became widely held by those who thought that we had arrived politically. This feeling was also supported by views which felt that democracy was the ultimate human form of governance. In this light, it is conceivable for churches to abandon the struggle because of the irrelevance of agitating a form of government that is affirmed and celebrated globally. Also, it became justified to abandon the struggle, if indeed the struggle was against Apartheid, because the enemy had been defeated. Consequently, this meant a withdrawal from siding with those whose rights were marginalised. Such an abrupt withdrawal from championing the rights of those who are marginalised (especially as displayed by the church during the Apartheid era) also raises many concerns pertaining to the role that the churches ought to be playing in the current democratic dispensation. It is also conceivable that the initiative to struggle against Apartheid was motivated only by the fact that the Apartheid regime was unjust and that it discriminated against certain groups of South African citizens. The attainment of liberation in South Africa has plunged churches into an illusion that democratic states are capable of good governance and that when such a government exists, churches can safely concern themselves with their primary ecclesiastical duties—of preaching the Word of God and administering the sacraments and leave the socio-economic and political affairs to those who are governing. It seems that this view is especially prevalent among the constituency of the church that brought forward a theological confession against the theological legitimacy granted to the Apartheid ideology. To unapologetically declare its association with those on the margins, and to defy Apartheid for the evil that it was, this church brought about the Belhar Confession as proof of its allegiance to those on the margins. This study shall confine itself to the realm of the Christian community. It will look to the historicity of the URCSA precisely because it has been bold enough to pen a confession that chastised Apartheid. / Philosophy & Systematic Theology / D. Th. (Theological ethics)

Text in English / With the start of democracy in South Africa and the end of the legal Apartheid rule, it became apparent to those who identified the church with the liberation struggle that Christian communities had lost their significance in society today. This feeling, although not popular among theologians, became widely held by those who thought that we had arrived politically. This feeling was also supported by views which felt that democracy was the ultimate human form of governance. In this light, it is conceivable for churches to abandon the struggle because of the irrelevance of agitating a form of government that is affirmed and celebrated globally. Also, it became justified to abandon the struggle, if indeed the struggle was against Apartheid, because the enemy had been defeated. Consequently, this meant a withdrawal from siding with those whose rights were marginalised. Such an abrupt withdrawal from championing the rights of those who are marginalised (especially as displayed by the church during the Apartheid era) also raises many concerns pertaining to the role that the churches ought to be playing in the current democratic dispensation. It is also conceivable that the initiative to struggle against Apartheid was motivated only by the fact that the Apartheid regime was unjust and that it discriminated against certain groups of South African citizens. The attainment of liberation in South Africa has plunged churches into an illusion that democratic states are capable of good governance and that when such a government exists, churches can safely concern themselves with their primary ecclesiastical duties—of preaching the Word of God and administering the sacraments and leave the socio-economic and political affairs to those who are governing. It seems that this view is especially prevalent among the constituency of the church that brought forward a theological confession against the theological legitimacy granted to the Apartheid ideology. To unapologetically declare its association with those on the margins, and to defy Apartheid for the evil that it was, this church brought about the Belhar Confession as proof of its allegiance to those on the margins. This study shall confine itself to the realm of the Christian community. It will look to the historicity of the URCSA precisely because it has been bold enough to pen a confession that chastised Apartheid. / Philosophy and Systematic Theology / D. Th. (Theological ethics)

Blaming those who are different from us because of skin colour, nationality and language when things do not go right during the process of reconstruction is common among those who are faced with such a task. This assertion is confirmed by our examination and evaluation of xenophobia in post-apartheid South Africa and post-exilic Israel. In South Africa socio-economic and political reasons are cited for the rejection of African immigrants by some South Africans. The Jews in the post exilic period understood their religious, social and economic problems to be caused by others. What is more disturbing is that the Jews understood their xenophobia to be demanded or legitimised by God. These reasons for them necessitated hatred, isolation, stigmatisation and sometimes negative actions against foreigners. When we compare xenophobia in both post-apartheid South Africa and post-exilic Israel in this study, we find that factors such as identity, notion of superiority, negative perception of those who are different and use of power, play a major role in the exacerbation of xenophobia. In evaluating both situations, using the African principle of Ubuntu and Christian moral values, we are able to demonstrate that xenophobia as found in both situations is morally wrong since it is inhuman, selfish, racist/ethnocentric, discriminatory and often violent. Ubuntu and Christian values and principles such as human dignity, human rights, reciprocity, love, compassion, forgiveness, hospitality and community were sacrificed by South Africans and Jews in their dealings with foreigners in their respective situations. It is argued here that among other things in the case of South Africa, the reduction of inflammatory statements by government representatives and the media, education of the unemployed, the youth and workers; and the meeting of spiritual, material, humanitarian and moral needs by the Church, will help sensitise South Africans to the plight of African immigrants and migrants and will further deepen the ubuntu and Christian values. / Religious Studies and Arabic / D.Th.(Theological Ethics)

Blaming those who are different from us because of skin colour, nationality and language when things do not go right during the process of reconstruction is common among those who are faced with such a task. This assertion is confirmed by our examination and evaluation of xenophobia in post-apartheid South Africa and post-exilic Israel. In South Africa socio-economic and political reasons are cited for the rejection of African immigrants by some South Africans. The Jews in the post exilic period understood their religious, social and economic problems to be caused by others. What is more disturbing is that the Jews understood their xenophobia to be demanded or legitimised by God. These reasons for them necessitated hatred, isolation, stigmatisation and sometimes negative actions against foreigners. When we compare xenophobia in both post-apartheid South Africa and post-exilic Israel in this study, we find that factors such as identity, notion of superiority, negative perception of those who are different and use of power, play a major role in the exacerbation of xenophobia. In evaluating both situations, using the African principle of Ubuntu and Christian moral values, we are able to demonstrate that xenophobia as found in both situations is morally wrong since it is inhuman, selfish, racist/ethnocentric, discriminatory and often violent. Ubuntu and Christian values and principles such as human dignity, human rights, reciprocity, love, compassion, forgiveness, hospitality and community were sacrificed by South Africans and Jews in their dealings with foreigners in their respective situations. It is argued here that among other things in the case of South Africa, the reduction of inflammatory statements by government representatives and the media, education of the unemployed, the youth and workers; and the meeting of spiritual, material, humanitarian and moral needs by the Church, will help sensitise South Africans to the plight of African immigrants and migrants and will further deepen the ubuntu and Christian values. / Religious Studies and Arabic / D.Th.(Theological Ethics)