Thesis (DTh)--Stellenbosch University, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis is a critical study of the work of John Rawls, political philosopher, and Reinhold Niebuhr, theologian. The work of these two scholars is brought into dialogue with theological thought to work towards a Christian notion of justice which seeks more than justice as fairness but realises the impossibility of perfect love in this world. Rawls’s two principles of justice form the basis of the discussion, with liberty placed prior to equality, and permissible inequalities only allowed when the weakest benefit. He excludes religion and moral reasoning from justice, essentially any thick theory of the good, in favour of the right; any conception of the good must be in agreement with the right and a thin theory of the good is necessary to guide people in the right direction. In his later works he accepts that people will mostly be guided by some moral or religious thought. Niebuhr believed that a prophetic religion combines an utmost seriousness about history with a transcendent norm. Hope, faith and love form the foundation of a call to a continual struggle for justice and equality. The boundaries in which justice is sought are being continually extended as global cooperation and dependence increase. Perfect justice would be a state of solidarity with no conflict of interests. Because people are a combination of vitality and reason, the social coherence of life can never be based on pure rationality. Our truth is never the truth; we are always subjective and prejudiced. There can be no universal rational standards of justice or neutrality in social struggle. Love is the primary law of nature and a fundamental requirement of social existence. We are called to involvement in society by the very nature of our justification by faith. Equality as the pinnacle of the ideal of justice points towards love as the final norm of justice; for equal justice is the realization of community under the conditions of sin. Justice as imperfect love aims for an equality which is increasingly inclusive and continuously creates space for people to live in harmony. In the final chapter, Rawls and Niebuhr are brought into critical discussion with other theologians. The Christian preference for the poor, an inherent part of theological justice begins the discussion. The importance of moral reasoning for justice comes into conflict with Rawls’s idea that there should be no thick theory of the good influencing justice. Human dignity is an important facet of justice. The inalienable dignity owed to every human being, created in the image of God, is an essential part of theology and can enrich secular theories of justice. Justice necessitates community. People learn how to behave in a way which is just, moral and ethical from their associations in communities. The church community can provide an important place where dialogue and learning can take place. The boundaries of justice are ever-increasing. Globalisation presents challenges to where and how justice is implemented and we become increasingly aware of how our actions affect other people. The responsibility of the struggle for justice is everincreasing. The eschatological hope and the specific way of life which can be offered by the church complete the Christian notion of justice. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie tesis is ’n kritiese studie van die werk van die politieke filosoof John Rawls en die teoloog Reinhold Niebuhr. Hierdie denkers se werk word met teologiese nadenke in gesprek gebring om sodoende ’n Christelike idee van geregtigheid te vorm wat meer as billikheid wil wees, en wat terselfdertyd die onmoontlikheid van perfekte liefde in dié wêreld erken. Rawls se twee beginsels van geregtigheid vorm die basis van die argument, deurdat vryheid voor gelykheid geplaas word en met die enigste toelaatbare ongelykhede dié wat tot die swakstes se voordeel is. Hy maak nie gebruik van godsdienstige of morele arugmente om geregtigheid te begrond of vul nie – enige begrip van die goeie moet in ooreenstemming met die regte wees en slegs ’n dun teorie van die goeie is nodig om mense in die regte rigting te lei. Hy aanvaar in sy latere werk dat die meeste mense tog deur morele denke of godsdiens gelei sal word. Niebuhr glo dat ’n profetiese godsdiens ’n diepe erns met die geskiedenis met ’n transendente norm kombineer. Hoop, geloof en liefde vorm die grondslag van ’n oproep tot ’n voortdurende stryd om geregtigheid en gelykheid. Die beperkinge waarbinne geregtigheid gesoek word, word voortdurend uitgebrei soos globale samewerking en afhanklikheid verhoog. Volmaakte geregtigheid sou ’n toestand van solidariteit met geen konflik van belange wees. Omdat mense 'n kombinasie van vitaliteit en rede is, kan die sosiale kohesie van die lewe nooit op suiwer rasionaliteit gebaseer word nie. Óns waarheid is nooit dié waarheid nie en ons is altyd subjektief en bevooroordeeld. Daar kan geen universele rasionele standaarde van geregtigheid of neutraliteit in die sosiale stryd wees nie. Liefde is die primêre wet van die natuur en ’n fundamentele vereiste vir sosiale bestaan. Ons word geroep tot betrokkenheid in die samelewing op grond van die regverdigmaking deur geloof. Gelykheid as die toppunt van geregtigheid verwys na liefde as die finale norm van geregtigheid, want gelyke geregtigheid is die verwesenliking van die gemeenskap onder die voorwaardes van die sonde. Geregtigheid as onvolmaakte liefde het gelykheid wat toenemend inklusief is en voortdurend ruimte skep waar mense in harmonie kan lewe ten doel. In die laaste hoofstuk van hierdie studie word Rawls en Niebuhr in kritiese gesprek met ander teoloë gebring. Die bespreking begin met die Christelike voorrang vir die armes, ’n basiese element van teologiese geregtigheid. Die belang van morele redenering vir geregtigheid kom in konflik met Rawls se idee dat enige dik teorie van die goeie geregtigheid nie behoort te beïnvloed nie. Menswaardigheid is 'n belangrike faset van geregtigheid. Elke mens – as beeld van God – se onvervreembare waardigheid, vorm ’n noodsaaklike deel van die teologie en kan sekulêre teorieë van geregtigheid verryk. Geregtigheid vereis gemeenskap. Mense kan in gemeenskappe leer hoe om op te tree op 'n manier wat regverdig, moreel en eties is. Die kerk as gemeenskap kan 'n belangrike plek wees waar dialoog en opvoeding kan plaasvind. Die omvang van geregtigheid neem steeds toe. Globalisering bied uitdagings oor waar en hoe geregtigheid geïmplementeer behoort te word en ons raak meer bewus van hoe ons aksies ander mense beïnvloed. Die verantwoordelikheid vir die stryd om geregtigheid neem ook steeds toe. Die eskatologiese hoop en die manier van lewe wat die kerk kan aanbied voltooi die Christelike idee van geregtigheid.

This thesis comprises a re-evaluation of the feminist theological critique, as given by Valerie Saiving, Judith Plaskow, Daphne Hampson and Susan Nelson Dunfee, of Reinhold Niebuhr's doctrine of sin. The re-evaluation proceeds from a contextual interpretation of Niebuhr's theology in general and a contextual reading of his doctrine of sin in particular. My argument is that Niebuhr is deliberately and consistently a contextual theologian. I locate his contextual methodology in the open-ended approach of Christian realism. / The feminist critique is based on the assumption that Niebuhr universally defines the primary sin as pride. It is argued that pride is in fact a distinctly male characteristic, and, while quite plausibly the primary sin for men, is clearly not the primary sin for women. Niebuhr is guilty, that is, of confusing male reality with human reality in the doctrine. Saiving and Plaskow then develop a definition of women's sin which they correspond with Niebuhr's sin of sensuality. This type of sin, rather than being self-aggrandizing, is characterized by inordinate and destructive self-effacement. Their subsidiary argument is that Niebuhr erroneously treats sensuality, which should be equal but opposite to pride, as a secondary form of sin. / My argument in this thesis is that the critique rests on a mistaken assumption about the universality of Niebuhr's claim. His concerns were with the powerful. The contextual claim that pride is the primary form of sin in those who are empowered is being mistaken for a claim that pride is the primary sin for all people, regardless of gender or context. My subsidiary argument is that the correlation of women's sin with Niebuhr's understanding of sensuality is mistaken. What the feminists refer to as women's sin is in fact not sin at all for Niebuhr but evidence of injustice. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Boston University Includes bibliographical references (leaves 287-293). Abstract: leaves 294-301.

No description available.

While few would deny America is the most powerful nation on earth, there is considerable debate, and controversy, over how America uses its foreign policy power. This is even truer since the “unipolar moment,” when America gained sole superpower status with the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. In the Cold War Reinhold Niebuhr was the main theological voice speaking to American power. In the Unipolar world, the Religious right emerged as the main theological voice, but instead of seeking to curb American power the Religious right embraced Neoconservatism in what I will call “Totemic Conservatism” to support use of America's power in the world and to triumph Manifest destiny in American foreign policy, which is the notion that America is a chosen nation, and this legitimizes its use of power and underpins its moral claims. I critique the Niebuhrian and Religious right legacies, and offer a classical realist strategy for theology to speak to America power and foreign policy, which avoids the neoconservative and religious conservative error of totemism, while avoiding the jettisoning of Niebuhr's theology by political liberals, and, the political ghettoizing of theology by his chief critics. This strategy is based on embracing the understanding of classical realism, but not taking the next step, which both Niebuhr and neoconservativism ultimately do, of moving from a prescriptive to a predictive strategy for American foreign policy. In this thesis, I argue that in the wake of the unipolar moment the embrace of the Religious right of Neoconservatism to triumph Manifest destiny in American foreign policy is a problematic commingling of faith and politics, and what is needed instead is a strategy of speaking to power rooted in classical realism but one which refines Niebuhrian realism to avoid the risk of progressing a Constantinian theology.