Article Sidebar
Published:
Sep 29, 2022Article Details
The author(s) retain copyright on work published by AOSIS unless specified otherwise.
Licensing and publishing rights
Author(s) of work published by AOSIS are required to grant AOSIS the unlimited rights to publish the definitive work in any format, language and medium, for any lawful purpose. AOSIS requires journal authors to publish their work in open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
Read more here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The authors retain the non-exclusive right to do anything they wish with the published article(s), provided attribution is given to the applicable journal with details of the original publication, as set out in the official citation of the article published in the journal. The retained right specifically includes the right to post the article on the authors’ or their institution’s websites or in institutional repositories.
Previously published work may have been published under a different licence. We advise the community that if they would like to reuse the work to consult the applicable licence at article level.
Main Article Content
Change agency and urban vulnerability: Theologicalecclesial paralysis or deep solidarity
Abstract
Globally, cities respond differently to their most vulnerable urban populations, notably so during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In the City of Tshwane, there seems to be a general paralysis of the church and theological education in relation to urban vulnerability. If the church and theological education are to participate as change agents to help transform urban vulnerability, a deliberate theological praxis and deep urban diaconate – in solidarity with the city’s most vulnerable realities – are proposed. This is done with reference to Harvey Cox’s assertion that the task of the church in the city is that of Diakonos and the provocations of Philippino liberation theologian, Daniel Pilario.
Contribution: This article proposes that urban vulnerability and various responses to it need to be reflected upon as a priority, much more deliberately, considering how the entire urban household (oikos) is at risk.
