scholarly journals Breaking the Ethnic Barrier in Mark 7:24-30: Implication for the Ghanaian Context

Author(s):  
Alice Matilda Nsiah

The study aims at interpreting Mark 7:24-30 to establish whether Jesus was initially reluctant in helping a needy woman because she was non-Jewish, or the author was establishing the gradual breaking of ethnic and all other barriers to redefine the scope of Jesus’ ministry. The study uses African Biblical Hermeneutic theory of Gerald West that allows a dialogue between the text and the African context. It argues that the text may be interpreted as a covenant renewal discourse aimed at including Gentiles into the covenant family. The study concludes that unproductive ethnic and religious barriers may be broken for the common good of God’s family. It recommends the importance of mutual respect in dialogue in the face of diversities of opinions and perspectives. Keywords: Ethnicity, Barriers, Covenant, Discourse.

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Cloete

The main objective of the article is to identify the possible implications of social cohesion and social capital for the common good. In order to reach this overarching aim the following structure will be utilised. The first part explores the conceptual understanding of socialcohesion and social capital in order to establish how these concepts are related and how they could possibly inform each other. The contextual nature of social cohesion and social capital is briefly reflected upon, with specific reference to the South African context. The contribution of religious capital in the formation of social capital is explored in the last section of the article. The article could be viewed as mainly conceptual and explorative in nature in order to draw some conclusions about the common good of social capital and social cohesion.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article contributes to the interdisciplinary discourse on social cohesion with specific reference to the role of congregations. It provides a critical reflection on the role of congregations with regard to bonding and bridging social capital. The contextual nature of social cohesion is also addressed with specific reference to South Africa.


Author(s):  
Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo

Migration is a shared condition of all humanity. We have all been strangers in a strange land. All humanity lives today as a result of migration, by themselves or their ancestors. Migration is a matter sometimes of choice, often of need, and always an inalienable right. All helpless people deserve to be helped. Offering such help is a commandment and a blessing shared among all religions. Accordingly, as Pope Francis reminds us, our duties to migrants include “to welcome”, “to protect”, “to promote”, and “to integrate.” National borders are not a result of primary natural law, as aren’t private property and clothes, “because nature did not give [humans] clothes, but art invented them”. National borders depend on social, political and geographical factors. Therefore, faced with current waves of mass migration, in order to establish practices that respond to the common good we need to be guided by three levels of responsibility. The first principle being that “in case of need all things are common”, because “every man is my brother”. This principle is relative to existence or subsistence and conditions other related issues (such as accommodation, food, housing, security, etc.). Secondly, as part of the fundamental rights of people, legal guarantees of primary rights that foster an “organic participation” in the economic and social life of the nation. Access to these economic and social goods, including education and employment, will allow people to develop their own abilities. Thirdly, a deeper sense of integration, reflecting responsibilities related to protecting, examining and developing the values that underpin the deep, stable, unity of a society— and, more fundamentally, create a horizon of public peace, understood as St. Augustine’s "tranquility in order". In particular, with regards to the aforementioned context, policies on migration should be guided by prudence, but prudence must never mean exclusion. On the contrary, governments should evaluate, “with wisdom and foresight, the extent to which their country is in a position, without prejudice to the common good of citizens, to offer a decent life to migrants, especially those truly in need of protection. Strangely enough, the response of most governments in the face of this phenomenon only seems to value the third principle, completely disregarding the first two.


2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernst M. Conradie

AbstractThis article is based on the observation that any theological discourse is always from a particular location and a particular point of view, which is immediately recognized by others. At the same time, any (theological) discourse cannot escape the use of universals, of common categories that we need to communicate with others. We make constructions of the whole, of that which is common, albeit that we ineluctably make particular constructions of the whole. This poses particular challenges for discourse on the common good in the context of public theology. On this basis the article investigates a selection of ecclesial statements on climate change produced during the course of the year 2009 alone that are available in English. It focuses on how these statements handle the dilemma of speaking about the universal and the particular, given the moral ambiguities surrounding any Christian discourse on climate change. It argues that most of these documents are plagued with problems of reception; namely, whether the stipulated addressees would actually receive and read the documents, let alone respond to them appropriately.


Author(s):  
Francesca Borgonovi ◽  
Mario Piacentini ◽  
Andreas Schleicher

Migration is a shared condition of all humanity. We have all been strangers in a strange land. All humanity lives today as a result of migration, by themselves or their ancestors. Migration is a matter sometimes of choice, often of need, and always an inalienable right. All helpless people deserve to be helped. Offering such help is a commandment and a blessing shared among all religions. Accordingly, as Pope Francis reminds us, our duties to migrants include ‘to welcome’, ‘to protect’, ‘to promote’, and ‘to integrate.’ National borders are not a result of primary natural law, as aren't private property and clothes, ‘because nature did not give [humans] clothes, but art invented them’. National borders depend on social, political and geographical factors. Therefore, faced with current waves of mass migration, in order to establish practices that respond to the common good we need to be guided by three levels of responsibility. The first principle being that ‘in case of need all things are common’, because ‘every man is my brother’. This principle is relative to existence or subsistence and conditions other related issues (such as accommodation, food, housing, security, etc.). Secondly, as part of the fundamental rights of people, legal guarantees of primary rights that foster an ‘organic participation’ in the economic and social life of the nation. Access to these economic and social goods, including education and employment, will allow people to develop their own abilities. Thirdly, a deeper sense of integration, reflecting responsibilities related to protecting, examining and developing the values that underpin the deep, stable, unity of a society- and, more fundamentally, create a horizon of public peace, understood as St. Augustine's ‘tranquility in order’. In particular, with regards to the aforementioned context, policies on migration should be guided by prudence, but prudence must never mean exclusion. On the contrary, governments should evaluate, ‘with wisdom and foresight, the extent to which their country is in a position, without prejudice to the common good of citizens, to offer a decent life to migrants, especially those truly in need of protection. Strangely enough, the response of most governments in the face of this phenomenon only seems to value the third principle, completely disregarding the first two.


1979 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver F. Williams

“Living Christian values in the business world turns out to be a saintly task that may require heroic courage. Maybe we have set our sights too low. … For the most part, churches must become much more effective in communicating their vision and framework in the face of powerfully attractive alternatives provided by corporate life. If the values of compassion and concern for the common good are to stand tall with the value of maximization of profit, it will be because of support groups that reinforce these values. That is a crucial challenge for the church today.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document