Christian anthropology and the National Development Plan: The role of personhood

Abstract

This article is an attempt to analyse and assess the use of personal responsibility in the National Development Plan (NDP). Some signposts that Christian anthropology can make to the enhancement of the plan will then be suggested. An overview of the development debate will include the development debate after the two world wars, the church and state attempts for social transformation and the contributions of Korten and Sen who represent the peoplecentred and capability approaches. It will be followed by a Christian anthropology that is characterised by personhood and personal responsibility. The fact that constructive and sustainable development is embedded in personal integrity and responsibility will be argued. The NDP acknowledged the shortcomings of the previous attempts by both state and church, and the global development debate. Instead of exclusive economic development, human capital and human capabilities are integral to development. Christian anthropology embeds responsibility within personhood and the two form part of an integral whole.

Full text

hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
In die Skriig / In Luce Verbi
ISSN: (Online) 2305-0853, (Print) 1018-6441
Page 1 of 6 Original Research
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Author:
John S. Klaasen1
Aliaon:
1Department of Religion and
Theology, University of the
Western Cape, South Africa
Corresponding author:
John Klaasen,
jsklaasen@uwc.ac.za
Dates:
Received: 26 Apr. 2017
Accepted: 27 July 2017
Published: 29 Sept. 2017
How to cite this arcle:
Klaasen, J.S., 2017, ‘Chrisan
anthropology and the
Naonal Development Plan:
The role of personhood’, In
die Skriig 51(1), a2264.
hps://doi.org/10.4102/ids.
v51i1.2264
Copyright:
© 2017. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creave Commons
Aribuon License.
Introducon
This article is an attempt to engage critically with the NDP and to suggest some signposts that
Christian anthropology can make to the enhancement of the plan. Firstly, a brief overview of the
development debate will be presented. This overview will include the development debate after
the two world wars, the church and state attempts for social transformation, and the contributions
of Korten and Sen who represent the people-centred and capability approaches. Secondly, a
Christian anthropology, characterised by personhood, will be outlined. Finally, personal
responsibility for development as fundamental for development in the South African context will
be proposed.
The contribution of this article will be the neglect of personal responsibility that is embedded in
personhood. The fact that constructive and sustainable development is embedded in personal
integrity and responsibility will be argued. The dominant development theories and activities
have largely ignored personal responsibility which is embedded in personhood. Separate
development, The Reconstruction and Development Plan (RDP), Sustainable Development and
social welfare by Non-Governmental Organisations and Faith Based Organisations, including the
church, failed to address the personal integrity and personal responsibility that persons must take
for their own development. The NDP, draws from the different development initiatives and
through a broad consultation process, sets out to present a vision for a developed South African
nation by 2030. The interest of this article is to evaluate whether the plan considers the role of
personal responsibility for development and to present some contours and markers for
constructive and sustainable development which is found in Christian anthropology.
Development in the South African context
The concept development has received mixed reactions within both theological and secular debates
in the South African context after 1994. A brief overview of development provides the background
of the development debate within South Africa.
The dominant notion of development has been viewed from the perspective of the North
providing economic and technological aid to the South in order to develop the latter in line with
the former. This was the case after the two world wars and the subsequent establishment of the
Bretton Woods institutions. These institutions adopted a universal approach whose end was a
greater Growth National Product through the provision of technical support, the sharing of
technological information, loans and other forms of aid. This notion of development has been
closely linked with exclusive economic development and formed the bases of the Modernisation
and Dependency theories (Davids et al. 2009:7).
This article is an attempt to analyse and assess the use of personal responsibility in the National
Development Plan (NDP). Some signposts that Christian anthropology can make to the
enhancement of the plan will then be suggested. An overview of the development debate will
include the development debate after the two world wars, the church and state attempts for
social transformation and the contributions of Korten and Sen who represent the people-
centred and capability approaches. It will be followed by a Christian anthropology that is
characterised by personhood and personal responsibility. The fact that constructive and
sustainable development is embedded in personal integrity and responsibility will be argued.
The NDP acknowledged the shortcomings of the previous attempts by both state and church,
and the global development debate. Instead of exclusive economic development, human
capital and human capabilities are integral to development. Christian anthropology embeds
responsibility within personhood and the two form part of an integral whole.
Chrisan anthropology and the Naonal Development
Plan: The role of personhood
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.

Page 2 of 6 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
Modernisation is the ‘combination of mutual and social
changes of a people which enable them to increase,
cumulatively and permanently their total real production’
(Bragg 1987:22):
The entire project was, however, based on several flawed
assumptions: it supposed that what was good for the West
would be good for the Third World also (in this respect, then, it
was culturally insensitive) between the human subject and
material object and believed that all the Third World stood in
need of was technological expertise … and it operated on the
assumption that nothing in the rich North needed to change …
(Bosch 1991:433–434)
The more serious limitation of the modernisation theory was
its proponents’ ignorance of the extent of poverty and the
root causes of underdevelopment among the developing
countries (Bowers 2006:35). Some of the limitations of these
theories also include the reduction of persons to commodities,
persons being regulated by economic and social principles as
well as technology, and that modern economics takes
preference over human capital. This kind of development
results in dependency, loss of fundamental societal structures,
loss of creativity and imagination, the depleting of both
renewable and non-renewable natural resources, and the
dehumanising of persons through the false dichotomy of the
private and the public.
Within the South African context, the NDP is by far the most
comprehensive attempt by the South African government
and the African National Congress to accelerate development
among the South African society – particularly among the
poor and marginalised. The predecessor of the NDP, the RDP
of 1994, failed to address the inequalities enhanced by the
separate development theory of the 1960s.
Although there was a relatively low increase of people living
in poverty in the decade following the RDP, it was mainly
because of the unprecedented increase of social grant
expenditure (Burger, Louw & Van der Watt 2010:61). The
population growth, immigration from other African countries
and high unemployment rate among the available employed
people is the main contributing factors to the more than 16
million people who are living below the breadline. The state,
faith based organisations and non-profit organisations are
either implementing the modernisation development
theories or charitable based development theories.
The RDP served as the election manifesto at the first
democratic elections and are regarded as the single most
successful contributor to the landslide victory by the African
National Congress. ‘It spelled out a vision for the total
transformation of the South African society’ (Swart et al
2010:17). The high unemployment rate, escalating population
growth, ever widening gap between rich and poor,
xenophobic and racist attacks, and diminishing popularity of
the African National Congress is a far cry from the envisioned
transformation of the South African society. These are some
of the reasons for the establishment of a new development
plan. I contend that the previous attempts towards
development and transformation are the overemphasis on
social policy towards social welfare and the lack of personal
responsibility.
The church has played a very active role in the development
debate in both apartheid and post-apartheid South Africa.
The Dutch Reformed Church has had the most active and
organised development programmes in South Africa and has
been in partnership with the South African government in
development and social welfare. Swart et al. (2010:289)
summarises the policy and practice of the social welfare work
of the Dutch Reformed Church in three development models
as proposed by Kritzinger during the 20th century as
‘structural holistic approach’ up and till the 1950s;
‘institutional approach’ between 1950s and 1970s; and
‘community-based approach’ during the 1980s and 1990s.
After a careful analysis of Kritzinger’s proposed development
models, Swart et al. (2010) asserts that:
the DRC’s failure to adapt to a new model of effective socio-
economic involvement could be attributed especially to two
factors: a theology of social charity that has shaped this church’s
social thinking and practice, and a stipulation that resulted in its
charity services being in terms of its defined application policy
quite exclusive. (p. 290)
There are correlations that can be drawn between
development in the RDP and that of the DRC post-apartheid.
Both approaches were appropriated on the basis of social
welfare or charity. Development was providing immediate
needs without taking in consideration the sustainability of
such efforts. Both approaches neglected the role of personal
responsibility for one’s own development, including skills
development and personal integrity.
On a more national scale and within the context of post-
apartheid South Africa, the church played an important role
in the development debate through institutions such as the
Ecumenical Foundation of Southern Africa.1 Since the
establishment of the Reconstruction and Development
Program, the church has continued to approach development
from the mainstream development approach and in
conjunction with the state. This approach is evident in the
first three major ecumenical consultations organised by
EFSA. At these consultations the focus was on critical
engagement with the positions of the Bretton Woods
institutions and the modernisation and dependency theories.
The engagement with the approaches of these institutions
was to critique the emphasis on economic development and
to apply a more holistic approach to development as found in
the Latin American liberation theology. The focus shifted
from the liberal, free market economic policies and its
outcomes of technological advancement and modernisation
to a more social economic plan and human capital and
capabilities. Social capital and human capabilities replaced
technology and modernisation as the core components of
development (Swart et al. 2010:16–17).
1.Some of the publicaons of EFSA include Koegelenberg (2001) and Louw &
Koegelenberg (2003).

Page 3 of 6 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
In the broader development debate, the approach by leading
scholars such as David Korten (1990; 1995; 2006b:124) and
Armatya Sen (1999a; 1999b; 2009) pioneered the shift from
exclusively economic development to other forms of
development that are more encompassing. Korten’s writings
from the 1990s emphasise development as people-centred.
Within his four generation approach, generation two and
three are people-centred. His writings of the 2000s move
towards development as a global community replacing
Empire style social arrangements. This shift finds expression
in generation four. To this effect, Korten (1998) claims that for
democracy to be restored:
we will need to remove the legal fiction of corporate personhood
through which corporations have acquired more rights than
persons and we will need to get corporations out of politics.
(p. 398)
Sen, on the other hand, moves toward the capability of
persons. Whilst the capabilities approach is closely related
with the traditional notion of development, the capability
approach does not make economic freedom the end itself.
The traditional notion of development makes persons
subjective to economics (Sen 1999a:1). Sen differs from the
traditional or modernise notion of development by
including the importance of ethics within development.
He (Sen 1999b:6) asserts that control over properties or
commodities do not guarantee development. He turns to
Aristotle’s words in the Nicomachean Ethics, ‘wealth is
evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful
and for the sake of something else’ (Ross 1980:7) to illustrate
his critique of the modernisation theory. Sen (1999a) describes
development as follows:
Expanding the freedoms we have reason to value not only makes
our lives richer and more unfettered, but also allows us to be
fuller social persons, exercising our own volitions and interacting
with-and influencing-the world in which we live. (pp. 14–15)
Development in the South African context (the RDP and EFSA),
from the perspectives of both the socio-political sphere and
Christianity, focussed on the debates that were taking place in
the international arena. There was an attempt to move away
from the one way approach of development from the North to
the South. Social welfare and dependency were two of the most
criticised consequences of this notion of development. Within
most mainline churches, during the early 1990s, the term
development was fused with the liberation of people.
Development and liberation became the two core concepts at
the first three EFSA consultations between the early and mid-
1990s. The idea of liberation of people was part of the theological
revolution in South America among the Roman Catholic
theologians during the 1960s and 1970s. The discussion
document SODEPAX – an initiative of the World Council of
Churches and the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace
– was an attempt to establish a theology of development and
was largely influenced by liberation theology.
Development, as found in the RDP, EFSA, and that of Korten
and Sen has progressed beyond the modernistic and
dependency theories that treated development as a one
way process of exclusive economic and technological
advancement. Instead of production, human beings became
the centre of development. Value goes beyond economic
policies and technological innovations. An economic and
market value was attached to everything that had being,
including human, animal and ecological life. Opportunities
and choices were presented to persons in which their being
had worth, and both object and subject mattered.
The limitation of the above forms of development is situated
in the position of personhood. Even when people became
the focus of development, it was not to nurture the
personhood of people into taking responsibility for
development, but rather to add to the value of material
trade. Persons became human capital in so far as they can be
used for the advancement of economic trade and exchange
of commodities.
The NDP and responsibility
To what extend has the NDP implemented responsibility for
development? In ethics the difference is made between
knowing and doing. In the visioning statement of the NDP
there is a clear reference to taking responsibility for
development:
We, the people of South Africa, have journeyed far since the long
lines of our first democratic election on 27 April 1994, when we
elected a government for all. We began to tell a story then. We
have lived and renewed that story along the way. Now in 2030
we live in a country which we have made. We have created a
home where everybody feels free yet bounded to others; where
everyone embraces their full potential. We are proud to be a
community that cares. We have received the mixed legacy of
inequalities in opportunity and in where we have lived, but we
have agreed to change our narrative of conquest, oppression,
resistance. (National Planning Commission 2011:1)
This opening paragraph describes the projected future in
the form of a vision statement. It describes the beginning
of a narrative that starts with the first democratic election
and moves to the possible future. The vision has three
important parts. First, the people are active participants,
made clear in the proclamation ‘a country which we have
made’; second, community ‘where everybody feels free
yet bounded to others’ is a strong feature of the South
African society; and third, persons can reach their ‘full
potential’.
These three parts indicates that the NDP builds on the RDP
of 1994 and the associated debates within secular and
religious spheres. People are not merely passive observers
and receivers of welfare, but are rather active participants in
the development. Persons became an important contributor
to development. This was a shift in both the efforts of the
state through policies such as the RDP and EFSA. Swart et
al. (2010:17) points out that ‘the EFSA development agenda
could find important support and strategic momentum in
the RDP, a document that echoed the people-centred
development philosophy promoted at EFSA’s first two
conferences’.

Page 4 of 6 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
From a secular perspective, Korten’s differentiation between
The Empire Community story and The Earth Community
story symbolises the participation of the people. The former
reduces persons to subjects of an autocratic ruler. Persons are
passive recipients of hand-outs. The Earth Community story
replaces the cultural values of money and material abundance
to life and spiritual fulfilment. Limited interpretation of
rights as ownership is replaced by the health of families,
policies that ensure all to have access to and benefit
from the production, truth democracy, generosity and the
responsibility to be good stewards. The political turning is
about democracy of people instead of democracy of money,
active citizenship instead of passive recipients, commitment
to cooperation instead of selfish competition and social order
by consensual responsibility and accountability instead of
coercion (Korten 2006a; 2006b). To choose is crucial to the
development of the current and future generations:
Our defining gift as humans is our power to choose, including
our power to choose our collective future. It is a gift that comes
with a corresponding moral responsibility to use that power in
ways that work to the benefit of all people and the whole of life.
(Korten 2009)
Sen also shifts towards the centrality of persons for
development. The concept agency, as used by Sen, implies
that the person is a doer in the development process. The
person is thought of in collective terms and refers to the well-
being of both the individual and the collective. As with the
case of Korten, choice is a core element of development for
Sen’s development theory:
Sen gives us another glimpse into his notion of humanity when
he makes the difference between human capital and human
capabilities. Although the two is not mutually exclusive human
capital enhances production while human capabilities
concentrate on the abilities of people to lead the lives they value
and enhance their choices. (Klaasen 2014:79)
The NDP and the notions of development, discussed in this
article, acknowledge the value of personhood, but it does not
make the acceptance of responsibility by the persons an
intrinsic part of personhood and development. In the most
explicit reference to responsibility, the NDP ascribes this task
to leaders within ‘government, business, labour and civil
society’ (National Planning Commission 2011:47). The Plan
further refers to responsibility as accountability within
various systems: ‘Weak, poorly performing systems make
it hard to attribute responsibility’ (National Planning
Commission 2011:50). This notion of responsibility, which is
extrinsic to personhood and responsibility that is part of
closed systems, has more to do with knowing than doing.
Even where the NDP makes more explicit reference to ‘own
development’ under the section, ‘Citizens active in their own
development’ (National Planning Commission 2011:27), the
role of the state, government, legislature, the judiciary and
business takes preference over personhood as organs of
development. The notion of own development, as it is
presented in the plan, has the same weakness as Sen’s attempt
to shift development from exclusively economic development
to agency.
Within Christian anthropology,2 the identity of a person is
intrinsically connected to his or her calling. Genesis 1:27–28,
the most common scripture used as a theological
interpretation for what it means to be human, keeps person
and calling as intricately related. De Gruchy (2003) claims:
It is important to recognise that in both creation accounts in
Genesis, from which the affirmation of identity is traditionally
drawn, the truth of being made in the image of God (1:17) or
being filled with God’s breath (2:7) is immediately coupled with
the theme of vocation, the calling to be responsible actors in this
world newly created by God (1:18; 2:5). (p. 24)
There is a clear indication that to be created in God’s image
goes beyond knowing what is right. It is also about doing
what is right. The development debate is not only about
institutions, projects or policies that provide opportunities
and choices. It has to do with the calling that is connected
with who one is. Identity is much more than knowing
information – it is about doing with the information what is
right. Lubardic (2011) captures Zizioulas’ assertion that:
the ethical encompasses not only bringing oneself to an other in
a morally acceptable form, but creating something good and
beautiful in the world for one’s other and one’s ecclesial
personhood to begin with. (pp. 578–579)
Personhood is an acting agent who is continuously formed
and forming. Personhood is closer to the orthodox view of
creation, namely that one is in a living process of formation
and not a fixed finish product.
Another shortcoming of the NDP is the submerging of
the individual into the community. Community forms a
central part of the vision statement and demonstrates the
interconnectedness of the South African society. This sense of
community is entrenched in the word we that appears more
than any other word in the vision statement as well as at the
beginning of almost every sentence. The word is used in a
typical African philosophical sense that puts the community
over and against that of the individual.
Sen and Korten, and to a certain degree the RDP, go to the
other extreme by using choice in a typical modern sense that
makes the person a complete autonomous self. Choice is an
important part of development. For Sen, development is
nothing other than the expansion of choice. Korten views
choice as a unique gift of humanity that is intrinsically part
of what it means to be human. The person is viewed as
independent of outside forces. The individual possesses the
ability to make decisions through rationalisation. Choice
constitutes what it means to be a person. The limitation of
choice is that there is no guarantee that the individual will
take responsibility, even if he or she is aware of possibilities
or if information is made known to him or her.
The notion of community, as it is used in the NDP, causes
the individual to be consumed as simply part of the collection
2.It is not intenon to give an outline or analysis of Chrisan anthropology and the
recent noons of evoluonary perspecves. For further interest on this noons of
personhood, see Koopman (2003).

Page 5 of 6 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
of selves. The selves are connected merely by virtue of what
is common to the group. In this case, he or she is denied
personal choice unless it is for the common good of the
group. Responsibility is limited to the collective and state
organs. Policies, groups and communities become providers
and agents of development.
Within African-Christian anthropology the individual is
not placed above the community or the community above
the individual. The either/or argument is well demonstrated
in the contrasts between Gyekye’s attempt to argue for
reason as the single most significant determinant of
personhood and Menkiti’s notion of personhood as
embedded in the supremacy of the community. For Gyekye
community is not absolute and universal but rather what
he refers to as ‘moderate community’.3 ‘Moderate or restricted
communitarianism accommodates communal values as
well as values of individuality, social commitments as well
as responsibilities to oneself’ (Gyekye 1997:76). On the
other hand Menkiti follows Mbiti’s notion (1975; 1990) of
personhood as absolutely in community.
However, Matolino (2009) sets aside Gyekye’s claim of
‘moderate communitarianism’.
Gyekye attempts to show that moderate communitarianism is
at least true for the Akans but immediately contradicts
himself when he lays bare the essential beliefs of any form
of communitarianism. (p. 164)
Both Gyekye and Menkiti agree that moral responsibility
is central to personhood.
From an African-Christian perspective the creative
tension between individualism and communitarianism is
demonstrated in Tutu’s Ubuntu community. Battle (1997)
describes Tutu’s community as interdependence between
people in an environment of vulnerability in which true
relationships foster the humanity of each other. Battle (1997)
concludes:
[Tutu] stresses the Christian definition of relationship, as opposed
to other social forms of communalism, to define Ubuntu.
Influenced deeply by Anglican spirituality, Tutu is able to
overcome African philosophy’s tendency to go to the opposite
extreme of discounting individuals for the sake of community.
For him, being properly related in a theological Ubuntu does not
denigrate individuality. Instead it builds an interdependent
community (p. 42).
Such an interdependent community does not deny self-
determination, but comes through deeper awareness than
mere rationalisation, opportunities or choices. It comes
through relationships with other persons in an open,
trustworthy and honest environment. The self is not
completely autonomous, but in its vulnerability penetrates
the availability of choices and becomes an active forming and
transforming agent.
3.For a discussion of Menki’s idea of personhood in community against European
philosophy’s idea of the self as autonomous see Shue (1993).
Tutu (2004) claims:
We are stewards of all of this … The dominion we were given in
Genesis 1:26 was so that we should rule as God’s viceroys, doing
it as God would-caring, gently, not harshly and exploitatively,
with a deep reverence, for all is ultimately holy ground and we
should figuratively take off our shoes for it all has the potential
to be ‘theophanic’-to reveal the divine. (pp. 28–29)
These kinds of creative relationships are made possible
through transcendence of the self and the community.
Relationship of an interdependent nature is as important for
the self (self-concern, moral conscience, and ways of relating
to their attitudes and actions) as it is for ‘the other’ (care,
compassion, love and trust). This is not a reference to the
other in a subordinate manner, but as a constructed other that
is both a dependent and independent variable.
Community, which is characterised by interrelatedness, is
demonstrated in the Christian notion of ecclesia. The ecclesia:
is possessed by a vision of God and the created order and
engaged in a life-process. Unity is not to be equated with the
denial of difference or the reduction of them all to one, but
speaks of the mutual intercommunion and interpenetration of
elements of difference. (Greenwood 1994:88)
Community is made up of vulnerable persons. The vulnerable
person, according to LaCugna (in Medley 2002),
evokes mystery, compassion, reciprocity and obligation. It is as
we look into another person’s eyes and gaze upon the face of
another person that we see with the ‘eyes of the heart’ and stand
in openness before her and his ineffable and inexhaustible
mystery. (p. 177)
Conclusion
The NDP is by far the most comprehensive effort by the
South African government and the ruling political party to
address underdevelopment post-apartheid. The plan builds
on the critical engagements of religious and secular
institutions with the narrow approaches of the modernistic
and dependency theories on economic and technological
development. The plan also takes seriously the weaknesses
of the capability and people-centred approaches that is
represented by Sen and Korten, respectively. Choice does not
translate into development, because even if choices are given
and opportunities made available, it does not guarantee
taking responsibility for one’s own development. The
capability approach of Sen and sustainable development
approach of Korten have points of contact with the RDP
employed by the state to redress underdevelopment in South
Africa. People are central for the development process.
However, persons are still seen as a commodity.
The NDP does not consider the role of personhood for self-
development. Personhood, from the perspective of Christian
anthropology, implies responsibility for own development,
because one’s identity is locked up in your calling.
Notwithstanding the role of the state and other political and
social agencies, the person has an inherent responsibility for

Page 6 of 6 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
own development. Christian anthropology includes calling
and interdependent relationships as part of reaching our
potential image of God.
Personhood, as in Christian anthropology, is not restricted to
the autonomous self, but finds expression in the creative
relationship between the self and other selves. Unlike the
dominant position, given to community in form of a collection
of selves, Christian anthropology does not deny self-
determination, but the self has her or his being in relationship
with other selves. To take responsibility for development
includes interaction with others as constructed other whose
vulnerability evokes responsible action for development.
Acknowledgements
Compeng interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal
relationships which may have inappropriately influenced
him in writing this article.
References
Bale, M., 1997, Reconciliaon: The Ubuntu theology of Desmond Tutu, The Pilgrim
Press, Ohio.
Bosch, J.B., 1991, Transforming mission: Paradigm shis in theology of mission, Orbis
Books, New York.
Bowers, N., 2006, Development as transformaon: The local church in Lavender Hill as
agent of change in a post-Carnegie 11 context, PhD dissertaon, Stellenbosch
University, Stellenbosch.
Burger, R., Louw, M. & Van der Wa, C., 2010, in I. Swart (ed.), ‘ The challenge of
poverty and social exclusion in post-apartheid South Africa-Considering the
potenal role of religious groups’ Religion and social development in post-
apartheid South Africa, pp. 61–74, Sun Press, Stellenbosch.
Bragg, W.G., 1987, ‘From development to transformaon’, in V. Samuel & C. Sugden
(eds.), The church in response to human need, pp. 20–51, Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids, MI.
Davids, I., Theron, F. & Maphunye, K. (eds.), 2009, Parcipatory development in South
Africa: A development management perspecve, 2nd edn., Van Schaik Publishers,
Pretoria.
De Gruchy, S., 2003, ‘Of agency, assets and appreciaon: Seeking some commonalies
between theology and development’, Journal of theology for Southern Africa 117,
20–39, November.
Greenwood, R., 1994, Transforming priesthood: A new theology of mission and
ministry, SPCK, London.
Gyekye, K., 1997, Tradion and modernity: Philosophical reecons on the African
experience, Oxford University Press, New York.
Klaasen, J., 2014, ‘ Towards an approach to development as mission: The category of
personhood as addressed by Amartya Sen’, Missionalia 42(1–2), 72–87.
Koegelenberg, R.A., 2001, ‘Social development partnerships between religious
communies and the state. Perspecves from the Naonal Religious Associaon
for Social Development (NRASD)’, Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 110,
97–109.
Koopman, N., 2003, ‘Trinitarian anthropology, Ubuntu and human rights’, in K. Sporre
& H.R. Botman (eds.), Building a human rights culture: South African and Swedish
perspecves, pp. 194–207, Stralins, Dalarna.
Korten, D.C., 1990, Geng to the 21st century: Voluntary acon and the global
agenda, Kumarian, Conneccut.
Korten, D.C., 1995, When corporaons rule the world, Kumarian Press, CT.
Korten, D.C., 2006a, ‘From empire to earth community’, Development 49(3), 76–81.
hps://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100286
Korten, D.C., 2006b, The Great turning: From empire to earth community, Kumarian,
Conneccut.
Korten, D.C., 2009, ‘Life in a real-wealth economy’, Development 52(3), 394–400.
hps://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2009.40
Louw, L. & Koegelenberg, R.A., 2003, ‘Building a New South Africa. The Building of a
Caring, Democrac and Equitable Society through partnerships between the State
and the Naonal Religious Leader’s Forum (NRLF). A perspecve from the
Naonal Religious Associaon for Social Development (NRASD)’, posion paper
prepared for the NRLF Meeng with President Thabo Mbeki, 29–30 April, viewed
11 July 2005, from hp://sarpn.org.za/documents/d0000557/index.php
Lubardic, B., 2011, ‘Orthodox theology of personhood: A crical overview’, Expository
Times 122(12), 573–581. hps://doi.org/10.1177/0014524611415586
Matolino, B., 2009, ‘Radicals versus moderates: A crique of Gyekye’s moderate
communitarianism’, South African Journal of Philosophy 28(2), 160–170. hps://
doi.org/10.4314/sajpem.v28i2.46674
Mbi, J.S., 1975, Introducon to African religion, Heinemann Educaonal Books,
London.
Mbi, J.S., 1990, African religions and philosophy, Heinemann Educaonal Publishers,
Oxford.
Medley, M.S., 2002, Imago Trinitas: Toward a relaonal understanding of becoming
human, University Press of America, Maryland.
Naonal Planning Commission, 2011, Naonal Development Plan: Our future-make it
work, execuve summary, viewed 8 August 2017, from hp://www.gov.za/sites/
www.gov.za/files/Executive%20Summary-NDP%202030%20-%20Our%20
future%20-%20make%20it%20work
Ross, D., 1980, Nicomachean ethics, rev. edn., transl. D. Ross, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Sen, A., 1999a, Commodies and capabilies, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Sen, A., 1999b, Development as freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sen, A., 2009, The idea of jusce, Penguin Books Ltd, London.
Shue, A., 1993, Philosophy for Africa, University of Cape Town Press, Cape Town.
Swart, I., Rocher, H., Green, S. & Erasmus, J. (eds.), 2010, Religion and social
development in post-apartheid South Africa, SUN Press, Stellenbosch.
Tutu, D., 2004, God has a dream: A vision of hope for our me, Random House,
London.