Multi-cultural congregations in South Africa – Guidelines from

social science theory and research in being and becoming

community

Cornie Groenewald and Frans Kotze1

Paper submitted for a Conference on Being Multi-Cultural Congregations, organised by Kommissie

vir Getuienisaksie (KGA), Raad vir Gemeenteontwikkeling en Kerklike Samewerking (GKS), and

Hugenote Kollege (HK), 22-23 July 2014

Abstract

The paper aims to introduce relevant sociological conceptual contributions in understanding the

social reality in which multiculturalism has been historically problematized in South Africa. It is

asserted that power relations characterised and defined these socially problematic situations and

generated a high potential for antagonistic and distanced social relationships. From this analysis, it is

concluded that social interface at the local community level, as to be found in a faith community or

congregation, offers a unique platform for cooperative and intimate relationships among previously

differentiated, and even conflictual, groups. Based on empirical research, sociological and social-

psychological conditions for healthy and cooperative relationships as stated according to the so-

called contact hypothesis are introduced together with a local community strategy that may guide

such a process.

Introduction

When we were invited to participate in the reflection on multicultural congregations, and the

challenges it brought to both pastor and member, the reason for including us into the circle of

conversational partners was first and foremost to provide sociological guidance in this apparently

1 The authors are active retired persons. Cornie Groenewald (DPhil) retired from Stellenbosch University where he was Professor and Head of the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology until 2005. He is currently Managing Member of Regeneration. Frans Kotze (DPhil) retired from the University of the Western Cape where he was Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Social Work. He is Director of ROADS (Rural Outreach and Development Services).

1

new reality facing worship or faith communities at a local level. This immediately raised two

considerations in our minds; first, what is sociological guidance, and second, what would be the

perspective typical of sociologists when they address a phenomenon indicated as ‘multicultural’?

Sociology

On the first consideration, that is, what is a sociological direction or guidance, we concluded that we

were invited due to the fact that we both practiced careers related to sociology and social work,

which have been very much the same thing within the academic realm up to the 1960s. The

simplistic perception was that the one represents the theory and the other the practice of social

relationships, be it networks of social relationships found in families, workplaces, prisons, child care

welfare organisations, churches, or communities. Our team composition, therefore, is deliberately a

mix of the two sides to avoid the pitfall of becoming too abstract or too concrete. The objectives of

sociological analysis and synthesis are to observe, put apart, dissect, discover linkages and to

synthesize the parts within a totality of a social unit. The ultimate goal would be to contribute to

quality of life by having well-functioning systems of living together and acting as a unity. From this

perspective, the challenge would be how to construct and reconstruct the multicultural

congregation as a space for genuine pastoral care, worshipping and koinonia.

The word ‘sociology’, we should remind ourselves, is a hybrid of the Latin socius and the Greek logos

with the promise that this 19th century intellectual invention attempts to study systematically from a

Francis Bacon scientific perspective the social realm, as apart from the physical reality, to conclude

findings and facts very much as a geologist would do when rock formations are studied – or as

August Comte would have it, sociology is the physics of society. Today, the interpretive and

intersubjective perspectives, stoked by Max Weber, opens up the possibility to take a far more

phenomenological stance in sociological work. In this genre, a qualitative approach is practiced in

order to understand, rather than explain, the meanings of objects, social practices, events, and social

processes. This is a far more user-friendly approach in the practice of social science than the 19 th

century tradition.

Sociological analysis

2

But what is typical of sociological investigations whether they are positivistic (following traditions

spurred by August Comte and Emile Durkheim) or intersubjective and interpretive (following the

Weberian tradition)? Perhaps there is no typical line of inquiry, but we suspect that the power

dimensions of social relations would be a strong contender. More specifically, the questions that

interest social inquiry – in a broad sense – interrogate as follows:

Who are the power holders and the powerless in any social configuration?

What are the means of power and in what ways are these means demonstrated?

How do powerful members exert their power in a social situation, in what ways and with

what means to their disposal?

How do powerless members respond to the exertion of elite power and in what ways and

with what means?

What is or can be the social outcome of power relationships and the way do they play out in

a social situation?

It is perhaps with this last question that the assumed distinction between sociology and social work

(and in a sense practical theology) is most dramatically demonstrated. Sociology in its 19 th century

guise wants to describe what is – this is the empirical project of sociology; while interpretive

sociology would lead to an analysis of what can be – a paradoxical project of deconstruction and

reconstruction. In evangelic language, one needs to repent before healing is possible.

In a multicultural congregational context, it means we have to heal the wounds of the past, following

a route of reconciliation and peace-making, before constructive and healthy faith-based

relationships would be possible.

Multi-cultural relations

Cultural relationships in South Africa, as in many other colonial and post-colonial societies, tend to

be defined in power terms. Culture has been defined in many ways but a dynamic definition

describes it as a permanent activity of meaning construction in which the old and the new are

established; it is a permanent process of meaning construction. Culture produces various and

varying patterns of meaning and systems of conceptions, which are historically transmitted and

inherited, embodied in verbal and non-verbal symbols, and are vehicles to shape knowledge about

and attitudes toward life. All cultural behaviour is said to be of a symbolic nature that carries

3

meaning that is shared by the group and abstracted by the individual from the social system through

participatory interaction (Geertz, 1993).

In the meaning structures generated by people and their mind games, culture often has been

mistaken for rank, class, estate or caste and for justifying and even legitimising social distance

among various layers of people. People of so-called “high culture” would look down on those of “low

culture” and avoid interpersonal contact and intimate relationships with the latter. Such

differentiation precipitates in the structures of society and defines the included and the excluded,

setting in motion a historical process of development and underdevelopment not only within

societies but also across societies and world regions. Today we recognise political and economic

international relationships that are structured according to designations such as North and South,

developed and developing, and we define cultures as being “modern” or “traditional” or even

“primitive”. These labels often function as a basis for stereotyping people, particularly in racial

terms.

Classic interpretations of religion have emphasized the assumption that religion functions as a

meaning generating structure in society. For instance, Max Weber postulates that in situations

where one encounters a radical breakdown in secure and routine life patterns, such as the loss of a

dear one and the breakdown of intimate relationships, religion provides answers on the “why”

questions of life, and so creates meaning in and for life. In this sense, religion is a crucial part of

culture as a meaning generating institution in social life. In particular, it presents hope in situations

of hopelessness; an expectation that there is a way out of the dead-end of the present.

Because the generation of meaning – that is, making sense of life, providing the reason for living a

life, regardless of or in the face of nonsensical events – is very personal, sensitive, fragile, and

sanctimonious, it has become an effective object of power exertion and manipulation of people. It is

in this area of life that powerful people have invent extremely effective means to influence less

powerful and powerless people and to subordinate them to positions of passive compliance in life.

This may be an explanation of why people of different cultural inclinations prefer to practice their

religious obligations among like-minded fellows of the same faith and conviction.

The correlation between separate worship arrangements and the power distribution in multi-

cultural societies, especially where such differential patterns associate with race and sometimes

language, is not coincidental or purely because of some practical consideration for easy

communication. It may be understood as the outcome of power relations more than other socio-

religious considerations. This has been documented clearly for the case of the Dutch Reformed

4

Church in the pre-1857 position by Carl Borchardt (1986) when the DRC was still a multi-cultural

church. He shows how for both practical and socio-political reasons congregations provided for

separate seating in the same building, separate buildings, separate services and teaching

programmes, separate missionary approaches, and separate participation in practicing the

sacraments, sometimes under the clear understanding that biblical prescription would argue

otherwise.

By the end of the 20th century, Dawid Venter (1999) observes that racially-integrated congregations

are rare in South Africa, due mostly to the political policy of residential and social segregation

enforced by the apartheid regime between 1948 and 1990 and, we would also argue, due to

“subordinate adaptation” and “boundary maintenance” (Schwalbe, 2001).

Various dimensions of culture are to be distinguished, of which power and inequality is one. This and

other dimensions of culture help us to understand the differences in thinking, feeling and acting by

‘others’. They serve as a basis for intercultural discourse and mutual understanding (Hofstede,

1995). Although intercultural interaction and relationships in the global world is inevitable, historical

power distributions may cause it to be consistently unequal. However, it is the means of power

exertion that has the potential of changing the nature of these relationships.

In this respect, Amitai Etzioni (1961) distinguishes three types of means for exerting power; namely

coercive means such as physical force; normative means that commit people to adhere to beliefs

and values; and calculative means that appeal to the rational application of material or economic

resources as rewarding mechanisms for being compliant. The application of these means of power

will become clear in the following discussion.

In South Africa, historically, cultural groups symbolically signified by race, have been forcefully

defined in separate categories and spaces, a clear example of coercive power exertion that ended in

alienation between the race groups (Etzioni, 1961). The ideal of apartheid to create peaceful

coexisting racial and cultural groups did not materialise and proved to become a false ideology that

stoked violent conflict. However, the change in cultural relationships was motivated as a possibility

based on the assumption that a shared system of values would transcend cultural differences. A

multi-cultural common society has been proposed as an alternative. The normative base for such a

society is to be found in a system of human rights and the protection of minority cultural interests.

The power means for regulating social interrelationships would therefore become normative power

(Etzioni. 1961) with the assumption that all groups and cultures will develop a strong and

5

overarching commitment to the country and nation. The rainbow nation concept serves as an

expression of this ideology and the nation building project becomes the vehicle for carrying it.

However, cultural relationships have taken on a class nature, which has its base in material interests

and resources. This means that the economic more than the political realm impacts intercultural

relationships. For example, historical patterns of neighbourhood settlement as determined by the

Group Areas Act during the 1950s to 1970s remain very much the same in terms of majority

occupation in these neighbourhoods with some notable exceptions. Residential settlement is

determined by the financial ability of house-owners and has become a subtle exertion of economic

power. The second and underlying force determining the residential settlement patterns is access to

higher paid jobs and to work in itself. Unemployment and associated poverty as a racially differential

characteristic remained a basic feature of South Africa society. Culture and its signifier, race, is a

strong correlate of differential economic power in our country.

One of the consequences of the patterns of cultural relationships is that voluntary association takes

on the character of the residential patterns. Even in cases where residential racial and cultural

integration occur, the members of the respective groups still associate in terms of their pre-

democracy memberships. Churches as a voluntary association remain therefore very much still the

same as two decades ago.

Multicultural faith communities or congregations in South Africa therefore remain a minority

phenomenon. Intercultural relationships within a faith context is a rather exceptional manifestation.

By and large, interculturalism is new ground in South Africa and manifests a different type of

community and not a mainstream community type. While tolerance would be a characteristic of a

multicultural community, close intimacy as among dedicated faithful Christians in their worship

community is an unusual social phenomenon.

The coming about of these rather exceptional social configurations seems to be explained mainly in

terms of a common and a shared belief in Christian faith terms – seeing Jesus Christ as the only and

singular Redeemer and Saviour from eternal damnation and the Way to everlasting life. Once this

belief is stripped from cultural, political and social connotations in the sense as preconditions for real

salvation, a common theologically based value and knowledge system would pave the way for true

and credible community among different and diverse groups of people.

Among the non-theologised reasons for increasing the racial mix of local congregations, Venter

(1999:108) provides a glimpse of insight into the factors operating here. Based on inquiries (37

6

congregations; more English-medium churches) during 1997, external factors were the majority

reasons (70.3%; of which demographic changes were strongest). Internal considerations such as

deliberate effort to invite other races, were quite small or actually unknown. Unless forced to adapt,

congregations do not change their own composition of membership deliberately.

The issue under discussion is not the about the structural unity and unification of various

denominations and churches but the creation of local worship and faith groups within the same

space of worshipping. In this sense, the real question is about how to overcome the divide of cultural

and racial groups that has been so characteristic of South African society. This would raise issues and

challenges of intergroup relationships, prejudice, stereotypes and inequality as a result of decades

and centuries of power exertion by colonial and oligarchic regimes that have used cultural including

religious differences as a fault line of domination and subordination. Even in the post-apartheid

society, South Africa has been profiled as a country with two nations. And during the past decade we

have seen xenophobic outbursts against foreigners in our midst.

The question to be addressed is therefore one of practical importance and necessity; how can we

achieve respect, trust, caring and a supporting community and Christian koinonia among and within

congregations at the local level that currently experience cultural diversity. How can intergroup and

interpersonal relationships be promoted towards becoming more positive for the involved parties to

these relationships? These questions seem to be a critical challenge not only for the church but for

wider community as well. We attend in the following section to this aspect.

The social conditions of credible association – the contact hypothesis

It is a general assumption that a shared value system would provide favourite conditions for such

positive development. Another social condition is underscored by the so-called contact hypothesis

whereby it is postulated that increased intergroup contact will lead to more positive intergroup

perceptions and behaviour towards one another (Amir, 1969). There is some truth in both

assumptions but in themselves values and social contact are not sufficient to produce positive

relationships. A number of preconditions are to be considered unless contact among politically

conflicting or culturally different people lead to even more negative behaviour. Based on extensive

research, a number of qualifications and proviso’s need to be made in this regard – the proverbial

“terms and conditions” should be taken note of. We make use of findings that were forthcoming

from a Western Cape based research project in the late 1980s, a period of intense turmoil and

7

conflict in our country. The findings are based on an extensive literature study and review of the

contact hypothesis, conducted by Johan Malan, a social psychologist at the University of Western

Cape at the time, and empirical research findings by a team of social science academics and

practitioners under the supervision of Cornie Groenewald, whilst located at Stellenbosch. (See:

Groenewald, et al, 1988; Malan, 1988). We also include an Addendum to the paper that suggests a

framework for capacity building in community relations.

In intergroup relations we distinguish among in-group and out-group participants that often

translate into we and they, which form the basis for a process called ‘othering’ – in which one

objectifies and stereotypes characteristics of people different from oneself in terms of their assumed

traits and characteristics even if an individual case is markedly different from the stereotype. We

also apply terminology such as majority and minority groups, which do not refer in the first place to

demographic quantities but more often to power groups – the majority group being the stronger

group in terms of power and influence and the minority group the weaker one.

Within the context of in- and out-group and majority-minority relations, intergroup or inter-cultural

relationships often find expression in dominant, racist and classist relations that weaken solidarity

with subordinate groups in opposing them. The result tends to be the perpetuation of poverty and

face-to-face processes such as “othering, subordinate adaptation, boundary maintenance, and

emotional management” (Schwalbe, 2001).

These concepts are explained by Aigner, Raymond and Smidt (2002) among others. Especially

othering seems to be a strong operative action in dealing with inequality. Othering shapes the

nature of interactions and the subsequent relationships among individuals and groups. Othering

refers to the process whereby a dominant group defines into existence an alleged “inferior” group,

inventing categories and ideas about what characterizes people who belong to the inferior group.

Over time, the dominant group assumes a collective identity congruent in a particular way. One

subtype is oppressive othering that asserts that differences are “deficits”, and ideologies emerge to

support the deficits of others, i.e., racism and classism. Another subtype is defensive othering

among subordinates. Members of the subordinate group may seek membership in the dominant

group or they may try to avoid the stigma attached to membership in the alleged inferior group. The

marginal person acknowledges the “legitimacy of the devalued identity”, but rejects his or her

membership in the devalued category in this adaptive process.

Othering may become a strategy in an attempt to develop authentic relationships among unequal

people, as can be seen in programmes proposed by Paulo Freire and Saul Alinsky. One strategy

8

would be for the dominant group that practised oppressive othering, to become an ally with the

othered in opposition to the dominant groups. In contrast to a confrontational approach the allied

groups may commit themselves to a new process of working together towards an alternative future.

The importance of transformed and authentic relationships is the key in the process ahead.

Harvey Jenkins (1980) put it as follows:

“People can only be effectively organized to participate in liberation on an individual basis.

Calling mass meetings, distributing leaflets, and other ‘mass’ activities are an almost

complete waste of time unless they are peripheral to a systematic making of individual

friends, who will consider a liberation program if you offer it because they trust you …

“We can learn to love and trust each other, but we must begin with an attitude of respect, of

complete respect for every human being in the world. The love and trust can come later …

“The only relationships strong enough to carry us through the strains of wide world changing

are close personal friendships; if you are not too embarrassed, call it love. You have to love

each other.”

Keeping the Harvey Jenkins dictum of Love each other in the back of our minds let’s turn to research

findings that may assist us in this journey.

Findings based on academic literature and research

1. Contact, that is, social interactions on a face-to-face basis, between members of in- and out-

groups do have as its result a change of attitude towards the other.

2. The direction of this attitudinal change however depends on the kind of social situation in which

the contact happens.

3. It is not necessarily a direction of change that follows on contact but a change in the intensity of

the attitude.

4. The change of attitude often stays limited to the contact situation itself and is not generalised to

other situations.

5. Real conditions in society often include negative contact situations which then create an

increase in negative prejudice among the participants or their groups.

6. Conditions that create beneficial or advantageous conditions for a decrease in negative

prejudice normally are found in the following situations where:

a. In- and out-group members of equal status are in contact;

9

b. Contact is between members of the majority group and higher status members of the

minority group;

c. Contact is encouraged by recognised authority figures and where the normative climate

is beneficial for intergroup contact;

d. The contact situation promotes intimate (close) contact rather than superficial contact;

e. The contact situation is experienced as pleasant and unforced (voluntary);

f. In functionally important affairs, the members of the respective groups work together in

an interdependent way to achieve overarching common goals that are regarded as more

important than their respective group centred objectives;

g. The contact situation understate in- and out-group differentiation and string group

members together within an overarching common in-group;

7. On the other hand, conditions that create an adverse climate for decreasing negative prejudice

are found in situations where:

a. The contact situation evoke competition between the respective groups;

b. The contact situation is experienced as unpleasant, tensed, and forced;

c. The status of one of the groups is diminished;

d. The in-group holds the out-group responsible for their (the in-group’s) frustration;

e. The respective groups find each other’s moral and ethical standards offensive or

distasteful;

f. The members of the minority group are of a lower status according to relevant criteria

than the majority group;

g. The contact situation promote or increase in- and out-group differentiation.

In conclusion

From the above we can state the following as concluding remarks -

Contact may decrease prejudice if the right conditions are valid for the contact situation.

The nature of the organisation (congregation) may have an effect on the outcome of the

contact.

The development of friendship relationships are an important goal to strive for.

Facilitators / leadership need to have proper and relevant knowledge and skills in promoting

intergroup relationships.

10

Trust building in which positive attitudes and relationships can develop has a better chance

to materialise in the context of a local community, that is, in contrast to nation-wide efforts.

The creation of positive relationships within the local community however needs to be

generalised to other situations, for example, the work situation and politics.

The continued emphasis on the group character of “races” needs to be discontinued and

positive identities (such as religious identity) need to take its place.

Contact situations need to be structured to promote voluntary participation and association

in such a way that friendship formations be encouraged, with an emphasis on the worth of

the individual and not of the group.

Aspire to find an overarching identity and values above sectional identities and group norms.

11

ADDENDUM

A Framework for a Local Strategy in Promoting Community Interrelationships

This Framework is based research completed by the Study Group for the Advancement of Healthy

Community Relationships (Groenewald, et al, 1988) and informed by Dr. CM Smith (1988).

In outlining the Framework, it is assumed that a process of building interrelationships among

different collective role players (or groups) will be facilitated by an implementing agent, which we

will call the Relations Facilitator, or in brief just the Facilitator. The strategy contains various

components.

1. Historical and contextual information

First and foremost, the Facilitator needs to be a person or agency that has a full understanding of

the field in community interrelationships and skills in facilitating such relations towards positive and

constructive participation and involvement.

Second, the Facilitator needs to be properly informed about the historical conditions and issues that

underlie cultural relationships among different groups in South Africa and how these relations have

been regulated and politically managed throughout the history. The constitutional provisions and

requirements, especially with respect to the rights of individuals and groups, including the

protection of minority group rights, should be fully understood and interpreted for the local

situation.

Sometimes a specific local community represents special manifestations of the socio-historical

processes within broader society that intensify the potential for conflict within the local community.

The Facilitator needs to have intimate knowledge of the local history and of prominent events. It

should be known who were involved and what legacies have affected the community ever since.

The Facilitator should also have knowledge and understanding of the unique and special

circumstances prevailing in the local community that create challenges and needs for specific groups

as well as the total community. Also needed is knowledge about community resources, assets and

potential for positive development. In this regard a situation analysis needs to be conducted and a

complete community profile should be drawn.

2. Attitudes and perceptions

12

In so far as a programme for healthy community interrelationships is reliant on a change in the state

of intergroup attitudes and perceptions within the local community, progress (or lack of it) should be

measureable and a baseline in this regard is needed. Attitudes and perceptions are multi-

dimensional and it should be attempted to be informed about aspects such as:

How are other people perceived – in terms of stereotypes, prejudice, affinity, hate feelings,

fear and anxiety? What are the standards of human worth?

How are society perceived – what would constitute a just society and how is the future of

society seen?

How are the local community perceived – level of identification with the community, degree

of participation in community affairs, mutual support within the community, state of

cohesion among different groups in terms of affinity and tolerance?

Self-worth, esteem and identity – how are these aspects perceived and what are the

threatening factors and self-actualisation potential present?

3. Social skills among community members

Advancing social relationships imply capacity building in interpersonal communication, conflict

resolving and management, service delivery and support, and leadership and organisational roles

and development.

4. Regard for community dimensions and sectors

Advancement of community relations will have to acknowledge intercommunity, regional and

national contextual and dependency aspects and deal with external relations.

Equally and perhaps more important are the internal sectors of community life, such as economy,

education, religion, recreation, welfare, culture, government, health, politics and other. Within in

each of these specialised sectors the social implications of interrelationships among role players and

functionaries have an effect of their respective contribution to the community’s well-being, both

intra- and inter-sectoral.

It is therefore necessary that the Facilitator enacts a community-wide relations agency

(organisation) representative of all the different sectors. This will contribute to a balanced

development of community relations.

13

5. Goals and objectives

Goals are changes and end-states that will be strived at as the outcome(s) of the community

relations programme. Objectives refer to measurable mile-stones that are aimed to be achieved

within a certain span of time and/or after having completed certain activities in support of the goals.

The programme therefore should be a planned, structured and outcomes based enterprise.

Goals may include:

Transfer of knowledge and skills regarding contact and interaction situations and

interrelationships among opposing / distanced groups.

Learning and internalisation of positive attitudes towards groups, their members, the

community, and society (any sectors within these contexts).

Identification and support of common values among different groups / cultures.

Development of personal relationships and friendships among members of different group /

cultures.

Objectives will specify specific activities within the project cycles of the programme, and specify

what, how, by whom, when, and in terms of resources needed. In this sense, objectives are specific,

clear, measurable, situational, and time based.

6. Approach and method

A methodical approach is recommended. The comments above already implied such an approach –

seeing the advancement of community relations as a programme organised sectorally and project

based. This may imply that specific projects are complementary to the overall programme. Projects

could be directed to and within the different community sectors. It also implies that target groups

should be identified, strategically and carefully, and well coached for their participation. Planning

needs to done and implementation should be monitored and evaluated for their effectiveness.

While programmes are ongoing concerns, projects are specific and time bound with a beginning and

end. Termination needs also to be planned. Accountability is an important element of community-

wide programmes and we have indicated that a representative community committee or

organisation should take responsibility of the task. Periodic reporting back to the wider community

would answer to the accountability quest.

14

Postscript

Congregational processes should not be seen in isolation of the wider community and societal

environments. Local community relations should take cognizance of congregational developments as

a specific sector (see par. 4 above) while initiatives from within congregations should be sensitive to

community context and community sectors.

15

Bibliography

Aigner, Stephen M, Raymond, Victor J & Smidt, Lois J. 2002. “’Whole Community Organizing’ for the

21st Century.” Journal of the Community Development Society, 33(1) 86-106.

Amir, Y. 1969. “Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations.” Psychological Bulletin, 71, 319-342.

Borchardt, C.F.A. 1986. “Die ‘Swakheid van Sommige’ en die Sending”. In: Kinghorn, Johann (Ed.)

Pp.70-85.

Etzioni, Amitai. 1961. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations – On Power, Involvement,

and Their Correlates. New York: The Free Press.

Geertz, Clifford. 1993. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Groenewald, C.J. (Ed.) and Co-workers. 1988. Gemeenskapsverhoudinge en Verhoudingsorganisasies

in die Wes-Kaap. ‘n Ondersoek deur die Studiegroep vir die Bevordering van Gesonde

Gemeenskapsverhoudinge. Universiteit van Stellenbosch: Departement Sosiologie. ISBN 07972 0201

3

Hofstede, G. 1995. Allemaal Andersdenken. Omgaan met Cultuurverschillen. Amsterdam: Contact.

Jackins, Harvey. 1989. Logical thinking about a future society. Seattle, WA: Rational Island Publishing.

Jonker, Louis. 2005. From Multiculturality to Interculturality: Can Intercultural Biblical Hermeneutics

be of Any Assistance? University of Stellenbosch: Department of Old and New Testament. Draft

Paper.

Kinghorn, Johan (Ed.) and others. 1986. Die NG Kerk en Apartheid. Johannesburg: Macmillan.

Malan, D.J. 1988. “’n Oorsig van Internasionale Navorsing rakende tussengroepverhoudinge en die

Riglyne vir Pogings om Gunstige Tussengroepkontak te Bevorder”. In: Groenewald & Co-workers.

McAllister, P.A. 1997. “Cultural Diversity and Public Policy in Australia and South Africa – The

Implications of ‘Multiculturalism’”. African Sociological Review, 1(2)1997. pp. 60-78.

Schwalbe, M and others . 2001. “Generic Processes in the Reproduction of Inequality: An

Interactionist Analysis.” Social Forces, 79(20 419-452.

16

Smith, C.M. 1988. “A Framework for a Local Strategy for the Promotion of Relations.” In:

Verhoudingsnuus, 3 (1) pp. 12-14.

Venter, Dawid. 1999. Language, Nation and Congregation: World-system and World-polity

Perspectives in Language Integration in South African Churches. Doctoral of Philosophy Dissertation.

Stellenbosch University.

17