Abstract
Can J A Heyns’ Social Ethic equip us theologically for the future? Heyns’ socio-ethical model, which is based on a "cultivar" of the Calvinistic philosophy, provides ethical stability with its theocentric anchor. However, it shows shortcomings as to flexibility and relevancy because a dialectic between deductive and inductive ways of theologizing is lacking. The use of the notion "Volksverband" (national bond) as an ethical pillar in the first chapter cannot be derived from a New Testamentical centre but can rather be connected to the theology of creational orders. Although the chapter contains important ethical directives for internal dialogue amongst (white) Afrikaners, there is very little on the economic, semiotic, restitutional and ecological facets of modem group-forming tendencies.
Highlights
Heyns’socio-ethical model, which is based on a "cultivar" o f the Calvinistic philosophy, provides ethical stability with it’s theocentric anchor
The use o f the notion "Volksverband" as an ethical pillar in the first chapter cannot be derived from a New Testamentical centre but can rather be connected to the theology o f creational orders
The main premise is based on inadequate exegesis o f Romans 13
Summary
Oor militêre dienspligweiering handhaaf Heyns enersyds die reg van die staat om burgers tot militêre diensplig op te roep "... die plig van die owerheid, van Godsweë, om die land te verdedig en dus mense in opdrag dood te maak. Heyns los die konflik ten opsigte van totale pasifisme op deur te beweer dat voorskrifte van ’n goddelike Opperwese swaarder moet weeg as gehoorsaamheid aan die staat. In geval van selektiewe passifisme sou daar nie die "voorrang van opdragte van ’n Opperwese" bo die van staat wees nie en vir die "subjektiewe" oorwegings kan die toegewings nie gemaak word nie. Heyns erken wel dat daar "praktiese oorvleueling" bestaan (pl86-187), maar tog word die sleutel-oplossing gekoppel aan die moontlikheid om subjektiewe besware van geloofsbesware te skei. Deur nie die inhoudelikheid van politieke besware te weeg nie, maar alleen na die formele aspek dat verskille met ’n politieke beleid nie rede is vir dienspligweiering nie, te verwys (pl82) word geloofsgehoorsaamheid ’n a-historiese saak w aarin die V oorsienigheidsw oord nie ’n rol het nie. Die riglyne oor dienspligweiering en ook die waarde van individuele vryheid is nie genoegsaam om óf as ’n universele 6f as kontekstuele riglyn te dien nie
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
