Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
11 October 2019 | Story Eugene Seegers | Photo Eugene Seegers
Tutu-Jonker Prestige lecture
Ingrid Mostert and Nathlene van Wyk, both from the Office of the Dean of the Faculty of Theology and Religion, with guest speaker, Prof Nico Koopman (SU), and the Dean of Theology and Religion, Prof Rantoa Letšosa.

The “rich Christian logic of Luther tells us this: ‘Forgiveness is the first word.’ It invites, facilitates, anticipates, and comes to fruition in contrition.” With these words, Prof Nico Koopman, Vice-Rector: Social Impact, Transformation, and Personnel at Stellenbosch University (SU) sought to reach the hearts of those who attended the UFS Faculty of Theology and Religion’s annual Tutu-Jonker Prestige Lecture on 19 September 2019. 

Prof Koopman’s chosen theme was No Future without Justice: The Forgiveness-Logic of Desmond Tutu and Willie Jonker, which focused on these ‘prophets of forgiveness’ as well as the praise and critique they received as a result of their actions.

On Forgiveness

Delving into the history of the relationship between these two prominent theologians, Prof Koopman first revisited the emotional scene when, in 1990, Prof Willie Jonker pleaded for forgiveness on behalf of the Dutch Reformed Church and the Afrikaner nation at an ecumenical conference in Rustenburg, describing it as personal, yet representative. This confession spoke of justice versus injustice, saying that injustice is a stumbling block to reconciliation. Later, Prof Jonker would be criticised for making this confession ‘on behalf of’ the church and white Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, yet even some of his former critics and others defended his actions. Jonker also maintained that a confession of guilt, of sin or wrongdoing, was necessary to enable reconciliation and forgiveness; action was needed to overcome these stumbling blocks. According to Prof Koopman, Prof Jonker’s logic of reconciliation follows that of the apostle Paul, in which justice is essential to the at-one-ment or atonement, reconciliation.

Next, Prof Koopman reviewed Archbishop Tutu’s unequivocal, representative, and vicarious forgiveness, for which he, too, was criticised. Prof Koopman equated this forgiveness with Lutherian tradition, as mentioned at the outset. This belief is grounded in the scriptural principle found in the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:12: To forgive others, just as we have been forgiven. Prof Koopman said this amounted to passing on and sharing our forgiveness as received from God to those who have sinned against us in some way.  

Drawing from the Christian parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-32, Prof Koopman said the road is paved for real restitution, forgiveness is available. In the parable, the father of the prodigal son ran to him and greeted him even before he could make his confession: “In the space of the hospitality of forgiveness, justice flourishes,” said Prof Koopman. “Tutu granted forgiveness with justice in mind.”

 On Justice

Justice is known as Summum Bonum, or ‘Highest Good’. Archbishop Emeritus Tutu’s message is still: ‘Seek justice’. According to Romans 14:17 and Isaiah 65:17-25, future blessings in God’s kingdom, such as peace and joy, flow from justice.

Referring to the South African Constitution, Prof Koopman said dignity is a foundational value. Recalling the 2015 #FeesMustFall protests, he said this highlighted how essential it is for dignity to be linked with justice in practice.

 Concretely seeking justice

Prof Koopman mentioned several areas in which one could ‘seek justice’ now, everywhere, and concretely ‘next door’, saying: “Human rights need right humans.”

“Firstly, break rape culture as a quest for justice NOW!” Prof Koopman described rape as oppression, cruelty, barbarism, ‘thingification,’ and dehumanisation; a violation of the most precious, cherished gift — a fellow human being.
 
Second, he said, is to oppose racism and racial determinism, especially in the field of research. Third, seeking socioeconomic liberation and fulfilling socioeconomic rights, such as access to healthcare, housing, and education.

Lastly, seeking wise hospitality and association with other races, nationalities, and cultures. Following the Tutu-Jonker Logic involves advancing justice as embracing, not alienating. 

 Porcupine Journey (‘Ystervarkpad’)

In conclusion, Prof Koopman related how porcupines need to huddle close together to conserve their body heat during cold winter nights. However, every time they get close to another porcupine, their quills prick each other, causing them to pull away. Yet, their survival depends on their overcoming those small injuries in order to benefit from each other’s body heat. 

He compared this to the situation in South Africa: There are old and new sores that require continuous confessing and offering of forgiveness. He concluded: “Embracing justice means drawing closer together to survive and thrive. Don’t seek to be right all the time; what is most important is to be forgiven. This makes our joint quests for justice sustainable.”

News Archive

Protection of Information bill- opinions from our experts
2011-11-28

Prof. Hussein Solomon
Senior Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of the Free State. 

In recent years, given their failure to effectively govern, the ANC has become increasingly defensive. These defensive traits have become particularly acute in light of the various corruption scandals that members of the ruling party involve themselves in.
 
Given the fact that for now they are assured of an electoral majority (largely on account of their anti-apartheid credentials), coupled with the fact that they have managed to make parliament a rubber stamp of the executive as opposed to holding the executive accountable, it is the media which has increasingly held the ruling party to account by exposing such corruption and incompetence in government.
 
The passing of the information bill, therefore, is not merely an attack on the media, but an attack on the pivotal issue of accountability. Without accountability, there can be no democracy.
 
By defining national interest broadly, by refusing to accept a public interest clause in the bill, the ANC increasingly shows its disdain to South Africa's constitution and its citizens.
 
More importantly, as former Minister of Intelligence and ANC stalwart Ronnie Kasrils pointedly makes clear, the ANC is also betraying its own noble struggle against the odious apartheid regime. It was the media which played a key role in exposing apartheid's excesses, it is the same media which is coming under attack by the heirs of PW Botha's State Security Council - Minister of State Security Siyabong Cwele and his security apparatchiks whose mindsets reflect more Stalin's Gulag's than the values of the Freedom Charter.
 
The passing of this bill is also taking place at a time when journalists have had their phones attacked, where the judiciary has been deliberately undermined and parliament silenced.
 
Democrats beware!

 
Prof. Johann de Wet
Chairperson: Department of Communication Science 
 
The ANC’s insistence on passing the Protection of State Information Bill in its current form and enforcing it by law, means that the essence of our democratic state and the quality of life of every citizen is at stake.
 
Yes, our freedom as academics, researchers, mass media practitioners and citizens comes into play. Freedom implies the right to choose and is, along with equality, an underlying principle which helps make democracy happen. While the South African state needs to protect (classify) information which could threaten its security and/or survival, the omission of a public interest clause in the Bill at this stage effectively denies a citizen the right to freedom of information.
 
 Freedom of information, along with press freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and religious freedom, are essential to democracy. These freedoms are granted because they conform to basic liberal ideas associated with (Western) democracy and which resonate with South Africa’s liberal constitution, such as (1) belief in the supreme value of the individual (and thus not of the state); (2) belief that the individual has natural rights (rights which belong to all human beings by nature – such as the right to life and to control government)) which exist independently of government, and which ought to be protected by and against government; and (3) recognition of the supreme value of the individual. 
 
One wonders how many cases of South African government corruption and mismanagement would have been uncovered by investigative journalists over the past number of years if this Bill in its current form was on the statute books. This Bill represents a backward step from the promise of democracy of having an informed public. The former National Party government had similar laws in place and one does not want to go there again. The infamous Information Scandal in South Africa of some thirty years ago, or Muldergate as it has come to be known, reminds one of what governments can do when it works clandestinely.
 
What South Africans need, is more information on what government structures are doing and how they are doing it with taxpayers’ money, not less information. While information in itself does not equal communication or dialogue, it is an indispensable part thereof, and the need for dialogue based on verifiable information is urgent for meeting vexed challenges facing South African communities. Academics in all fields of specialisation are constantly in need of untainted information to pursue answers and/or offer solutions to where South Africa should be moving in all spheres of life.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept