This article addresses the issue of the durability of peace settlements, with South Africa as the illustrative case. Settlement failure occurred as parties approached negotiation from different cultural perspectives. These lead to fundamental disagreements about the rules of good faith, the status of contract and approaches to dealing with incommensurables. These disagreements undermine the fairness of the original exchange, putting the legitimacy of the entire settlement at risk. Post-settlement settlements allow for such eroded agreements to be revisited and revised. The agenda should address the theme of relative group status, the objective should be to establish parity of esteem.

This article dealt cursorily with developments in theology, philosophy and the sciences that have contributed to what one might call horizontal transcendence. The premise is that humans have evolved into beings that are wired for transcendence. Transcendence is described in terms of the metaphor of frontiers and frontier posts. Although the frontiers of transcendence shift according to the insights, understanding and needs of every epoch and world view, it remains transcendent, even in its immanent mode. Diverse perceptions of that frontier normally coexist in every era and we can only discern <em> a posteriori</em> which was the dominant one. Frontiers are fixed with reference to the epistemologies, notions of the subject and power structures of a given era. From a theological point of view, encounter with the transcendent affords insight, not into the essence of transcendence, but into human self-understanding and understanding of our world. Transcendence enters into the picture when an ordinary human experience acquires a depth and an immediacy that are attributed to an act of God. In philosophy, transcendence evolved from a noumenal metaphysics focused on the object (Plato), via emphasis on the epistemological structure and limits of the knowing subject (Kant) and an endeavour to establish a dynamic subject-object dialectics (Hegel), to the assimilation of transcendence into human existence (Heidegger). In the sciences certain developments opened up possibilities for God to act in non-interventionist ways. The limitations of such an approach are considered, as well as promising new departures – and their limitations – in the neurosciences. From all of this I conclude that an immanent-transcendent approach is plausible for our day and age.<p><strong>How to cite this article:</strong> Du Toit, C.W., 2011, ‘Shifting frontiers of transcendence in theology, philosophy and science’, <em>HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies</em> 67(1), Art. #879, 10 pages. DOI: 10.4102/hts.v67i1.879</p>

This article explores a context for designing a new natural theology. The starting point is that traditional developments in this regard, from Augustine to Aquinas, Paley, Boyle and Barth, do not get us much further. Our thinking refl ects our world -a world which has changed dramatically under modern and postmodern infl uences, especially those of the sciences. A new natural theology is simply an account of nature and creatureliness with due regard to scientifi c advances. Consequently natural theology today must start 'from below' with a new anthropology that refl ects the worldview of our time. As a result the article rejects absolute transcendence, replacing it with a horizontal transcendence that accords with humans' biological makeup and with presentday scientifi c thinking. In the framework of horizontal transcendence the pivotal problem of the human condition is no longer death, but life. This has radical implications for theological thinking. The example used in the article is the impact this has on Paul's theological method. Examples of theology centring on the problem of life are discussed briefl y with reference to Girard, Žižek and Vattimo.

The very important issue of human rights has become a highly controversial issue because of the alleged or denied relation with Scripture and faith.

The Radical New Perspective on Paul distinguishes between two subgroups of believers in Christ in Paul’s time: gentile believers and Jewish or Judaean believers. The same distinction is utilised in supporting contemporary Messianic Judaism, which presupposes an ongoing covenantal relationship between God and contemporary Jews that exists over and above Christianity. Many proponents of Christian Zionism, a Christian movement that envisions the Jews’ return to the land of Israel, utilise aspects of both the Radical New Perspective on Paul and Messianic Judaism in support of their beliefs. Ironically, while the Radical New Perspective on Paul is a certain product of post-holocaust theology, Christian Zionism can be perceived as a perpetuation of a kind of imperial theology that brings injustice to Palestinian people, especially in view of a post-imperial South African context. While none of these connections are inevitable, to point out the relationship between these approaches to identity serves to rethink some of the preconceived notions behind them, as well as some of the (unintended) consequences that arise from them.