by The Rt. Rev. Ambrose Reeves
A casual observer of the South African scene might be pardoned for concluding that there is little difference in relations between the churches and the State in the Republic and that which obtains in many other countries. Churches are free to teach any specifically religious doctrines and their members are at liberty to worship in any way acceptable to the churches to which they belong. And there are no churches "established" by law in South Africa. Further, up to the present there has been no open confrontation between the State and any particular church or group of churches.
However, since the National Party came to power in 1948, there is massive evidence of growing tension between the Government and the churches. As the Government has intensified the implementation of apartheid or "separate development", this tension has been heightened. In earlier years this was not as obvious as it has become recently, but already there were signs that, obliquely if not directly, relations with some at any rate of the churches would become increasingly strained.
As early as 1954 the passing of the Bantu Education Act might have led to an open Church-State conflict. This was avoided because most of the churches agreed, either willingly or grudgingly, to hand over their school buildings to the Government. At that time six-sevenths of all education of African children was in the hands of the churches and missionary societies in South Africa. It was possible that if the churches had stood together in opposing the Government, the implementation of the Bantu Education Act might at least have been halted for a time. But this did not happen.
It is true that the Roman Catholic Church raised a large sum of money to enable it to retain some of its schools as private schools, and the Anglican diocese of Johannesburg, together with certain Anglican religious communities, refused the use of the schools under their control to the Government and closed them. The rest of the churches either gave or rented their schools to the State to be used for "Bantu education".
The result was that however unwillingly, the churches became an instrument for the implementation of apartheid in the most critical field of education. Almost overnight, all that the churches had built up, however inadequately, was destroyed. From 1954 onwards, African children were to be given the education that the Government (which only represented the white minority) had already decided would fit them to occupy that place in South African society which the authorities had determined should be theirs; in short, education for serfdom.
Only three years later (perhaps emboldened by its success in the educational field) the Government decided to replace section 9 (7) of Act 46, 1937, by section 9 (6) of the Bantu Laws Amendment Act, 1957. This change presented the churches with grave problems for it meant that churches previously erected would be left unusable or almost unusable when the area in which they were situated was allocated to a racial group other than the one which had previously occupied it. Further, the Native (Urban Areas) Act, taken in conjunction with the Group Areas Act, made the occupation of churches by Africans (whether within or outside African areas) depend increasingly on the unfettered discretion of the Minister of Bantu Affairs who could also cancel the grant made of a site if he considered that any words spoken in that building might encourage or tend to encourage any deterioration in the relations between Africans and governmental bodies.
From all this it can be seen that while there has been no open breach between any particular church and the State authorities, even in the earlier years of National Party rule in South Africa, the churches were from the first exposed to grave pressures exerted on them by the implementation of apartheid. This pressure weighed much more heavily on the English-speaking than the Afrikaans-speaking churches. But none have entirely escaped the consequences of Government policy. In some degree all churches have experienced the tensions and problems created by apartheid.
The remarkable thing is that the growing tensions and problems created for the churches by the implementation of the racist theories of the ruling National Party did not lead even in the first decade of that rule to a head-on collision between any church and the State authorities. We are bound to ask why no such clash occurred.
But before an attempt is made to answer that question it has to be remembered that from the moment that the National Party came to power a number of churchmen in all churches were vocal in their opposition to apartheid, and among them a few were prepared to match their words with their actions. Already in the early 1950s, the Rev. Michael Scott was refused permission to re-enter South Africa. And behind individuals like him there have always stood a number of unknown church members who have supported their actions and who have stood faithfully behind them. Further, it must never be forgotten that in those years the witness of individual churchmen was a great encouragement to non-white church members to remain loyal members of churches which were (and which largely still are) white-dominated. But not only this. There is little doubt that the witness of individual churchmen has caused a few at least of the white members of the churches to examine more seriously the implications for Christians of Government policy. This has even been true in the Dutch Reformed Churches. While it is true that the great majority of the ministers and lay members of these churches have actively supported apartheid, there have been a few courageous individuals who at great cost to themselves and their families have consistently opposed apartheid.
For example, in 1957, Prof. Keet of Stellenbosch University wrote:
"In our South African situation we have all the injustice of group thinking aggravated by the absurd group formation according to the colour of one`s skin. For this difference in pigmentation the individual is held responsible together with his group, as if he had chosen his ancestors. As a consequence we have developed a caste system that surpasses all of its kind; because in others it may be possible to advance to a higher caste, but here there is no possibility of change - the Coloured man stays Coloured even if he becomes the most exemplary citizen of the country. He is one of a group, a mere cypher without any personal attributes or claims."
Keet only spoke for a very small minority of the Dutch Reformed Churches at that time but he summarised the dilemma in which the churches in South Africa found themselves increasingly after the National Party came to power, and it may well be that the fact that today there is a greater questioning of apartheid in some Afrikaner circles is in part at least due to the few courageous individuals like Prof. Keet who in earlier years exposed the evils of apartheid.
Yet in spite of a succession of opponents to apartheid within the churches, until Sharpeville in 1960 all the churches managed to avoid any open breach with the State. But it has to be remembered that as in South African society all the political and economic power remains in the hands of the white minority so in the churches the white members have retained most of the power and influence. This is even true in churches like the Anglican and Methodist Churches which have a majority of African and Coloured members.
Even more important is the fact that whenever the Government harassed or even persecuted an individual church leader, the State could always rely on some white church members publicly disowning him, and others by their silence consenting to the action taken against him. The result has always been that no church has ever been able to present a united front against Government action, for both the leadership and the rank and file in any church have been deeply divided. Certainly on every occasion some white church members have rallied to the support of any individual leader under attack, but all too often many have openly ranged themselves on the side of the Government or more commonly by their silence given tacit support to the Government`s action.
One of the few exceptions to this was when the Government proposed to replace section 9 (7) of the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act by section 29 (c) of the Native Laws Amendment Bill in 1957. This new clause which soon became known as the "church clause" virtually gave permission to the Minister, with the concurrence of the local authority, to forbid the attendance of any African at any church, school, hospital, club or other institution or place of entertainment outside the segregated location.
Reaction to this was immediate. The Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, the Most Reverend Geoffrey Clayton, signed a letter on March 7, 1957, to the Prime Minister - his last act before dying suddenly. In this the Archbishop wrote:
"The Church cannot recognise the right of an official of the secular government to determine whether or where a member of the Church of any race... shall discharge his religious duty of participation in public worship or to give instructions to the minister of any congregation as to whom he shall admit to membership of that congregation.
"Further, the Constitution of the Church of the Province of South Africa provides for the synodical government of the Church. In such synods, bishops, priests and laymen are represented without distinction of race or colour. Clause 29 (c) makes the holding of such synods dependent upon the permission of the Minister of Native Affairs. We recognise the great gravity of disobedience to the law of the land. We believe that obedience to secular authority, even in matters about which we differ in opinion, is a command laid upon us by God. But we are commanded to render unto Caesar the things which be Caesar`s, and to God the things that are God`s, and not Caesar`s, and we believe that the matters dealt with in Clause 29 c) are among them."
Other churches joined in this protest, the most influential being that of the Conference of the Dutch Reformed Churches in South Africa. In an interview with the Minister of Native Affairs their leaders enunciated four principles:
As a result of all these representations the Minister modified the church clause in a manner that made it acceptable to the Dutch Reformed Churches. While the other churches found the revised clause less objectionable in practice, they still found it very objectionable in principle. As it is finally to be found in Section 9 (d) of Act 30 of l957, it was so hedged round with restrictive provisos that it has not been used as frequently as was once feared. But it means that Africans no longer have any right to worship where they will. This clause makes their right to worship a privilege conferred on them by the Minister concerned. And it is not the white clergyman or minister who incurs any penalty for allowing Africans to worship in the congregation of which he is in charge. It is the African worshipper who is penalised. By this device the Government avoided any direct clash with the churches on this issue.
However, no human situation is ever static, and Church-State relations in South Africa are no exception. Although there was much in the relations of the churches with the State in the first ten years of the implementation of apartheid to cause them grave disquiet, the year 1960 not only brought with it the shooting at Sharpeville, the banning of African political movements and the declaration by the South African Government of a state of emergency. It also marked the beginning of a further deterioration in church-state relations which has continued to this day.
In September 1960, the South African Government took the grave and unprecedented step of arresting and deporting me from the Republic. At that time I was the Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg, to which diocese I had gone in 1949 after my consecration in Cape Town Cathedral. Among the numerous comments made at that time, the South African Institute of Race Relations, of which I was a Vice-President, "protested against the Government`s summary eviction of an important spiritual leader of one of the major churches of the country. Whether or not so intended, this action will be viewed by many as a step towards stifling views on the burning question of the day, namely, the relation between white and non-white, if such views are opposed to those of the Government." (2)
The South African Government recognised (as I believe the churches within and outside South Africa have still largely failed to recognise) that picking of church leaders who opposed apartheid one by one is a far more effective way of securing the subservience of the churches than making any frontal attack on them. Indeed this is the policy that the South African Government has followed increasingly since 1960.
In January 1971 the South African Prime Minister claimed that in the previous ten years only 25 out of the 1,440 foreign religious workers had had action taken against them. What he did not say was that as the years passed, action was taken against more and more church leaders. For example, in 1971 alone the following have been compelled by the Government to leave the Republic: the Rev. Marcus Braun, a German Lutheran pastor; Fr. J.L. Casimir Paulsen, a Roman Catholic priest from the United States; the Rev. Colin Davidson, an Anglican priest working for the Christian Institute; Mr. and Mrs. Reed Kramer and Mr. Gus Klous, three American mission workers in Natal; the Rev. R. Llewellin, an Anglican priest in Johannesburg; Mr. and Mrs. Turnbull of the United Congregational Church in Durban; Fr. Wilfred Jackson, a Franciscan priest who was distributing food and clothing to destitute Africans in Limehill; and Mr. David Walker, Warden of the Bishop`s Hostel in Kimberley. Fr. Cosmos Desmond, author of The Discarded People, has been placed under house arrest. Two research workers of the Christian Institute have had their passports seized and the passport of the Rev. Dale White has been restricted. Again some missionaries have been refused entry to the country and others have been refused re-entry permits after visits to their homes.
It is understandable that the Rev. Beyers Naude, in his annual report on the work of the Christian Institute for 1970, said that if the Christian churches in South Africa implemented their Christian beliefs on crucial issues, a direct confrontation with the State is inevitable. This is a serious warning but so much depends upon this small word "if", for too many similar statements made in the past in South Africa have gone unheeded.
Meanwhile the Very Rev. Gonville Aubrey ffrench-Beytagh, the Anglican Dean of Johannesburg, has had to endure what may justly be described as a "show trial" in Pretoria, at the end of which he was sentenced to five years` imprisonment under the Terrorism Act. Then early in 1972, the Bishop of Damaraland was ordered to leave Namibia, the second bishop from that diocese to be expelled in four years. At the same time, two of his white clergy were expelled from the diocese. As long ago as 1962, Al Lowenstein entitled his record of a journey to Namibia (then South West Africa) Brutal Mandate. One wonders what his title would have been if he was writing of a visit to Namibia in 1972.
All this shows how from a small beginning has grown a monstrous menace to the life and work of the churches in South Africa. But the deportation of one Anglican bishop on September 12, l96O, was part of a more immediate chain or events.
Already in April that year, following the Sharpeville incident, Dr. Robert Bilheimer, an Associate General Secretary of the World Council of Churches (WCC), visited South Africa to discuss the situation with leading members of those churches which were members of the World Council of Churches. On his return to Geneva he suggested that a consultation should be held in South Africa between a fully representative group of these churches and the WCC. It was envisaged that such a consultation would seek a factual understanding of the South African situation and a clearer assessment of that situation from the Christian viewpoint, together with an understanding of the meaning of the emergency in South Africa that had followed Sharpeville.
It was agreed that such a consultation should be held in December 1960, but my deportation complicated the situation. However, after some argument in which differences of opinion were expressed, it was decided to hold the consultation in December as originally planned, the delegates meeting at Cottesloe, Johannesburg, from 7 to 14 December.
Each of the eight member churches sent ten delegates. These churches were the Church of the Province of South Africa (Anglican); the Nederduitse Gereformeede Kerk (NGK) of the Transvaal; the Methodist; the Presbyterian; the Congregational Union; the Bantu Presbyterian; the NGK of the Cape; and the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk of South Africa (NHK). Each of the first five churches mentioned sent inter-racial delegations.
In the statement issued at the conclusion of this consultation the delegates declared that while they were united in rejecting all unjust discrimination, they had expressed widely divergent views on the basic issues of apartheid. However, those present were able to make certain affirmations concerning human need and justice as they affected relations among the races in South Africa. In the nature of the case the affirmations that the delegates made on a wide variety of subjects did not express in full the convictions of the member churches represented at the consultation. As a result of their work, the delegates hoped that a South African Conference of World Council members would be created, at which local matters could be dealt with so that it would become an organ of study, consultation and cooperation.
But these hopes were never to be realised, because the Dutch Reformed Churches represented at Cottesloe soon repudiated the agreement of their delegates to the statement and within a few months decided to leave the World Council of Churches. In the meantime the Prime Minister in his New Year`s message had warned the people of South Africa that any form of political multi-racialism or so-called partnership would ultimately deprive the white man of his rightful heritage.
Although the Roman Catholic church in South Africa was not represented at the Cottesloe consultation, the Catholic bishops had issued a joint pastoral letter on May 21, 1960, in which they had enjoined their members to cease practising a social colour bar and that positive steps must be taken to ensure rapid racial integration in parochial activities.
At the time it might have seemed that the consultation of the member churches of the World Council of Churches held at Cottesloe was an almost complete failure. The very churches, namely those Dutch Reformed Churches, which had taken the initiative in bringing together representatives of the member churches, on an inter-church and inter-racial basis (prior to the consultation convened by the World Council of Churches), ended by withdrawing from the WCC.
This however was not the end. Individual members of the Dutch Reformed Churches continued to support the ecumenical movement. They, and many leading members of other churches, were convinced that individual Christians, members of all the various denominations in South Africa, should meet together to try to work out the implications of the Kingdom of God for all the peoples living in the Republic.
The Christian Institute of Southern Africa was formed for this purpose in August 1963. In no sense did this new body compete with the once-established Christian Council of South Africa, for this latter body was a council of churches and missionary bodies, whereas the Christian Institute was essentially an association of individual Christians drawn from any church.
The Rev. C.F. Beyers Naude, who in the previous April had been elected Moderator of the Southern Transvaal Synod of the N.G. Kerk, was appointed Director of the Christian Institute. By a majority vote the Examining Commission of the Northern and Southern Transvaal Synod refused the application of Mr. Naude to remain a minister of the NGK. Mr. Naude appealed to the Synod of his church against this decision but his appeal was rejected. In his first annual report to the Christian Institute, Mr. Naude pointed out that some Dutch Reformed members of the Christian Institute had felt compelled to resign from the Institute because of pressure exerted upon them and the request that had been made by a commission of the NGK that church members should not join the Christian Institute. In October 1966, at the four-yearly meeting, the Synod of the church went much further, ordering all officials and members of the NGK to withdraw from the Christian Institute.
Shortly after its foundation the Christian Institute began to interest itself in the theological training of the ministers of the African Independent (or Separatist) Churches. Later the Christian Institute joined with the South African Council of Churches (formerly the Christian Council of South Africa) in working out a plan of training for these ministers. This decision taken in l968 was of great importance for it brought members of "recognised" churches into close contact with leaders of churches which are exclusively African and which have grown from a membership of 761,000 in 1946 to 2,188,000 in 1961.
But attacks on the Christian Institute have continued from its foundation until the present time. As has been indicated these attacks in the first instance came from leading members and others in the Dutch Reformed Churches. So severe did they become that early in 1966 the Rev. Beyers Naude and Prof. A. S. Geyser were compelled to institute libel action in the Supreme Court arising out of a series of articles in May the previous year written by Prof. A.D. Pont. In June of 1967, they were each awarded R10,000 ($14,000) damages plus costs, the highest damages that up to that time had ever been awarded in South Africa for libel.
These attacks were not for long to be limited to those from other churchmen. Soon the State began to take a hand in the affairs of the Christian Institute. In March 1966, complaints were made by officials of the Christian Institute to the head of the Security Police that non-white members of the Institute had been interrogated by the police. In May of the same year eight policemen searched the offices of the Christian Institute, but left without finding any incriminating material. They then proceeded to Mr. Naude`s house, searching both his home and his person. The Executive Committee of the Christian Institute at once sent telegrams to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition deploring these uncalled-for searches. But their protests were to little avail and the harassment of the Christian Institute by the police has increased until Prime Minister Vorster announced in February 1972 that the Christian Institute, the South African Institute of Race Relations, the University Christian Movement and the National Union of South African Students would be investigated by a Parliamentary Select Committee.
In the summer of 1968, the Anglican Bishops met at Lambeth and the General Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Uppsala. The second of these two meetings was especially important for South Africa. At Uppsala Bishop Zulu of Zululand (Anglican) was elected one of the six Presidents of the World Council of Churches, but even more important was the conclusion reached by the Assembly that racism is a scandal before God. Later, the attempt of the World Council of Churches to work out the practical implications of this assertion were to have serious consequences not only for the churches in South Africa but also for some churches elsewhere.
Meanwhile important events were taking place in South Africa. The Christian Council of South Africa became the South African Council of Churches with 27 churches and church organisations associated in the Council, including the Christian Institute of Southern Africa and the University Christian Movement. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the NGK (Dutch Reformed) agreed to send observers to the meetings of the reorganised Council of Churches. Then in February, the Council of Churches, together with the Christian Institute, sponsored a national conference on "Church and Society". The findings of this conference dealt inter alia with "The nature and function of the State", "International cooperation" and "Man and community in changing societies", and recommended the creation of a permanent commission on family life. Later, in May, another national conference was convened on the emergence of pseudo-gospels in church and society in South Africa. At this conference attention was focussed on deviations from true Christianity caused by such factors as attempts to justify racial discrimination, appeasement of the intolerance of some whites, blindness to the sufferings of fellow South Africans and the emphasis by some Christians on forms of spiritual pietism to the exclusion of social concern. As a result of these conferences a "Message to the People of South Africa" was published on September 24.
The above document opens with a brief statement on the bearing of the Gospel on race relations; goes on to express the concern of the authors over the effects of the doctrine of separate development; and in the next section deals at length with the claims of Christ, and then spells out the task of the church in the light of these claims. Not only does it deal with the effects of apartheid on society, it also draws attention to the fact that in its own structures the church conforms to the practice of racial separation.
By itself nothing in this document goes much further than what has already been said by churchmen more than once in the past. What is encouraging is that for the first time in South Africa a significant group of church people, in the light of this document, was set up to consider the practical implications of the rejection of apartheid. An attempt was to be made to suggest alternative policies more in keeping with Christian principles.
Government reaction to "A message to the People of South Africa" came swiftly. At the Natal Congress of the National Party, the Prime Minister stated that the calling of ministers of the church demanded that they preach the gospel of Christ, the Word of God. The job of the Church was not to turn their pulpits into political platforms to do the work of the Progressive Party, the United Party and the Liberal Party.
A few days later at a National Party meeting at Brakpan, the Prime Minister repeated this and is reported to have said that there were clerics who were toying with the idea of doing the same sort of thing in South Africa that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had done in America. He added:
"I want to say to them, cut it out immediately, because the cloth that you are wearing will not protect you if you try to do this in South Africa."
This led 12 leaders of the Council of Churches and the Christian Institute to address an open letter to the Prime Minister in which, after answering the points made by him, they reiterated their conviction that apartheid was not in accordance with the intention of God as revealed in His Word.
In October the Prime Minister returned to the attack, stating that he was not impressed by their pious talk and accused them of wanting to make propaganda by their attacks on the Government. Nor were political leaders the only ones to attack this document. For example, the Executive Committee of the Baptist Church in South Africa said that much of the theological reasoning and some of the conclusions reached in "A Message to the People of South Africa" were unacceptable to them. Some other church bodies received the statement with enthusiasm, but others were much more qualified in their support.
However, whatever the reaction has been either by the churches of South Africa or the Government of the Republic, the groups set up by the church conferences in 1968 to consider the practical implications of rejecting apartheid have continued steadfastly in their work. Already seven important volumes of their findings have been published. Yet, valuable as these documents are, everything will depend on the action taken by the churches as a result of their labours.
At the moment the churches in South Africa may have little chance of influencing to any great extent the structure of South African society, but if they had the will, there is a great deal that they could do to change the structures in their own church communities. It is true that in the last few years, in addition to the statements, resolutions and protests that appear year after year with monotonous regularity, some churches have made gestures in this direction. Yet when such gestures are announced the impression is that too little is being done and too late. Patterns of church life in South Africa often conform all too closely to the pattern of life found in South African society. If any church with an appreciable white membership took seriously the need to change radically the pattern of its own life this would result in a serious division at least in the white membership of that church.
From time to time in recent years some people have speculated that a "Confessional" church may emerge in South Africa as it once did in Nazi Germany. At the moment there are few signs of this happening. Already the hour is late and it may well be that the implications of "A Message to the People of South Africa" provide at least those churches with a considerable white membership the last chance they will have of radically reforming themselves.
Be that as it may, there was a conference in l97O which may well have more than passing significance for the Dutch Reformed Churches in South Africa which have an exclusive white membership, their non-white adherents being the mission church of the D.R.C. with its own organisation and ministers.
In August, 1970, delegates from these churches attended a conference on "Reconciliation" in Nairobi, convened by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, the only world church organisation to which the Dutch Reformed Churches still belong. From the outset of the conference the South African delegates were under attack. And the attack continued right through until the end of the conference. It is true that a resolution declaring that the D.R.C. was no longer an authentic Christian church was defeated. Nevertheless, the conference condemned the D.R.C. for practising internal apartheid, in a declaration which said:
"Since, according to the New Testament there is neither Greek nor Jew, a doctrine or practice which asserts racial segregation is against the nature of the Christian church..."
The conference also condemned the impression that the D.R.C. gave of supporting white supremacy.
In October 1970 a motion at the General Synod of the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk that the church should resign from membership of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches was defeated. Instead, the question of continued membership was referred to a commission of investigation which is to report to the next General Synod in 1974. It is therefore too early to say what the final reaction of the D.R.C. will be to the strictures passed on the South African Dutch Reformed Churches at the Nairobi conference.
In the meantime the D.R.C. cannot fail to recognise that this is the most sustained attack upon its structure and practice that it has yet encountered - and it came from fellow-churches in the same Calvinist tradition. It is true that in the closing session of the Nairobi Conference the World Alliance of Reformed Churches decided to organise a regional consultation between their executive and representatives of the South African member churches. At the time the leader of the N.G. Kerk delegation indicated that his church might be unwilling to participate in such a consultation as the conference had already pronounced judgment on the D.R.C. in South Africa. Even if such a consultation takes place, in view of what happened at the Cottesloe consultation, there is little ground for hope.
On the other hand the D.R.C. may hesitate to take the same step in relation to the World Alliance of Reformed Churches as it took in relation to the World Council, for if it did the D.R.C. would snap the last link with any world organisation of churches and end in complete isolation. From what happened at the 1970 Synod it seems that the D.R.C. is more likely to employ delaying tactics. This in itself has some virtue of buying time at a moment when there are some signs of questioning apartheid in certain circles in the D.R.C. These ought not to be exaggerated, even though it is clear that without a radical change in attitude on the part of members of the D.R.C., there is little or no hope of significant change on the part of the white minority in South Africa.
Not only the Dutch Reformed Churches, but all the churches in South Africa, were greatly disturbed the same year (1970) by the decision of the Executive Committee of the World Council of Churches meeting at Frankfurt to allocate money received from a special fund to combat racism (to which member churches had contributed), together with some of the reserve funds of the WCC, to strengthening the organisational capability of certain organisations committed to freeing racially oppressed people, and to raise the level of awareness of churches to the racial problem. Without dissent the executive agreed to the disbursement of $200,000 for this purpose, noting with appreciation that the organisations which had been given grants had of their own accord given the WCC assurances that they would not use the money given by the WCC for military purposes but for activities which are in harmony with the World Council of Churches.
It is often forgotten that following on the decisions of the General Assembly at Uppsala in 1968, the Central Committee had set up a Division to Combat Racism in 1969, and that this money allocated by the Executive Committee was part of the programme of that Division of the WCC. But it was the fact that of this $200,000 a sum of $120,000 was given to certain liberation movements that caused a sharp reaction from the churches in South Africa as well as from a small number of churches elsewhere. Church leaders in South Africa and in Rhodesia were swift to condemn this action, as was the Prime Minister of South Africa.
Indeed the Prime Minister was surprised that the member churches in South Africa had not reacted more strongly than they had done, and on September 15, 1970, he said in the House of Assembly:
"If they do not decide to dissociate themselves from this organisation, I would be neglecting my duty... if I did not take action against them, if I allowed more money to be collected in South Africa for remission to that organisation, if I allowed churches which... remain members to send representatives to conferences of that body... and if I failed to take action against clergymen who allow pamphlets to which I shall refer in a moment... to be distributed at their churches." (3)
This statement referred to a leaflet entitled "Money for Terrorists" which had been distributed by Fr. Mercer to his parishioners at the Anglican church at Stellenbosch. Needless to say Fr. Mercer and his colleague Fr. Chamberlain were ordered to leave the country soon afterwards.
While the churches in South Africa dissociated themselves from the action of the WCC Executive, those that were members of the World Council of Churches decided to retain their membership. The South African Council of Churches and the Christian Institute of Southern Africa also dissociated themselves from the action of the WCC, issuing statements in which they rejected violence as a morally acceptable means of effecting change.
While the attitude of the South African Council of Churches and the Christian Institute of Southern Africa towards all use of violence to change the status quo ought to be taken seriously, it must be asked if those who take this view have become pacifists. If this is doubtful then do they draw a sharp distinction between international and civil war? Such a distinction is surely dubious, and in any case is very difficult to make in colonialist situations such as those in Rhodesia, Mozambique, Angola and the Republic of South Africa. Further, if they genuinely renounce violence under any circumstances in these situations, then they have a responsibility to spell out alternative methods by means of which situations which daily become more intolerable may be speedily changed.
In January of 1971, the Central Committee of the WCC endorsed the action of the Executive Committee by 84 votes to none, with 3 abstentions, and an appeal was made to member churches to support the special fund for combating racism. In April the World Council of Churches received a formal invitation from South Africa to send a delegation for joint talks. But when in June the South African Prime Minister refused to allow the WCC delegation to go further than the international hotel at Jan Smuts airport and to leave immediately, the consultation was concluded. The Prime Minister also suggested what the agenda of the consultation should be, whereupon the World Council indicated that they found such conditions totally unacceptable, and the South African churches concerned concurred.
But the matter was not to rest there for when in September the World Council of Churches gave a further 45,000 to liberation groups for humanitarian purposes, the Prime Minister told a deputation from the South African Council of Churches that he was not now prepared to allow a delegation from the WCC to enter South Africa under any conditions, although he would not stand in the way of a meeting held outside the Republic.
As long go as 1957, the Bishops` Conference of the Roman Catholic Church in South Africa condemned the "evil and non-Christian character" (of apartheid), "the injustice that flows from it, the resentment and bitterness it arouses, the harvest of disaster it must produce." These words are among the most searching criticisms that have ever been made by any group of church leaders in South Africa since the National Party came to power in 1948. However, as the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, the Most Rev. R. Selby Taylor, observed at the 1971 national conference of the South African Council of Churches, the time had passed when it was enough for the South African Council of Churches to pass resolutions condemning racial prejudice and social injustice. He went on to state:
"We must take positive action which will make it abundantly clear that we are not prepared to accept inequalities based on race."
This was indeed a strong call for action but the Archbishop did not specify what action ought to be taken. Further, it has to be remembered that if such action was designed to secure some transfer of power, which is essential if the present inequalities based on race are to be overcome, then many white members in the English-speaking churches would resist any erosion of their present privileged position or diminution of their present political and economic power. This remains true, even though the acceptance of the application for full membership of the South African Council of Churches by the African Independent Churches Association (representing 358 out of the 3,000 Independent African churches) has considerably increased the African membership of the Council.
As in most countries, relations between church and State in South Africa are a continuing and changing relationship. But for the moment it may be well to let the Rev. Beyers Naude, the Director of the Christian Institute, have the last word on these relations. In his annual report on the work of the Institute in 1971, he made it clear that in spite of the denial of the Prime Minister and others, if the churches and Christian bodies in South Africa were to affirm and implement their Christian beliefs on crucial issues, a direct confrontation with the State was inevitable.
But what of the relation of churches outside the Republic to whatever form the Church-State struggle there may take in the future? Twenty years ago, various church leaders in South Africa were advising church leaders elsewhere that they ought not to become involved in their affairs, and that same advice is still given from time to time. But looking back over two decades the wisdom of this advice may well be questioned. Too often this refusal to become involved has been taken as acquiescence in what has happened in South Africa. The inaction of some churches outside South Africa has been more than matched by the apparent indifference of some governments to these events, even when their own nationals have been the victim of the policy of the South African Government. Is this indifference due to the fact that the financial and economic involvement of others of their nationals is so great? Do such governments believe that a few bishops, clergy and laity who have actively opposed apartheid are expendable because of the vast material interest involved?
Certainly the World Council of Churches has made its conviction plain that its member churches have a Christian responsibility to be involved in events in Southern Africa. St. Paul declares, when talking of the church, all members must care for one another. "If one member suffers all suffer together."
If churches, why not governments? And if governments, why not the international community?
(1) From "Notes and Documents", No. 9/72, March 1972
(2) Survey of Race Relations, 1959-1960 (South African Institute of Race Relations, Johannesburg, 1961), p. 98
(3) House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), September 15, 1970