229 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

The Church and The Struggle for South Africa
By John W. de Gruchy

"The church struggle in South Africa is being redefined as a struggle within the churches related to the political struggle for the future of South Africa. Christian participation in and reflection on the political struggle has re-written the agenda for the church struggle."

TEN years ago, I was preparing lectures which were eventually published as The Church Struggle in South Africa.¹ During the intervening decade, a great deal has happened in South Africa, and, in the process, my perception of the nature of the church struggle has changed. My clue for redefinition has come from the title and content of another book published the same year, 1979, Ian Linden's The Catholic Church and the Struggle for Zimbabwe.² The emphasis in my title was on the church struggle against racism, a struggle taking place within and between churches, as well as between some churches and the state. Linden's emphasis was on the role of the church in the political and military struggle for the liberation of Zimbabwe. The different focus is significant. I now see more clearly that the church struggle in South Africa can only be understood in the context of the larger political struggle, the struggle for the future of South Africa. The struggle within the churches, as well as the struggle between the church and the state, is about the role which the church should play in the unfolding drama of the struggle for justice and liberation.

I

The struggle for South Africa has to be understood in relation to the socio-political crisis in which the country presently finds itself. This crisis is the product of apartheid, the ideological attempt to divide South

John W. de Gruchy is Professor of Christian Studies, the University of Cape Town, South Africa. He also serves as Editor of the Journal of Theology for Southern Africa. He has written extensively on the church-state issue in his own country and is the author of The Church Struggle in South Africa (1979), Apartheid Is a Heresy (with Chalres; Villa-Vicencio, 1983), Bonhoeffer and South Africa: Theology in Dialogue (1984), and Cry Justice! Prayers, Meditations from South African Christians in a Time of Crisis (1986).

¹ John W. de Gruchy, The Church Struggle in South Africa (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Cape Town: David Philip, 1979).
² Ian Linden, The Catholic Church and the Struggle for Zimbabwe (London: Longman, 1979).

230 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

Africa so that whites, and especially Afrikaner Nationalism, should control the country. This racist ideological project has permeated virtually everything in our society, and it continues to do so despite the Government's attempt at reform and some improvement away from racial discrimination. The new constitution and its tri-cameral parliament, for example, while hailed as evidence of reform, remains based upon ethnic difference. The reason for this structured control in the face of massive rejection by the world community and the majority in the country is undoubtedly the Government's perceived need to retain power in order to protect the material interests of the white community and its continued existence. These interests include the unjust distribution of land, resources, and wealth, interests which are also increasingly shared by middle-class members of the "coloured" and Indian communities, and those blacks with power in the homelands.

In pursuance of the possession and control of these interests, apartheid has meant the uprooting of peoples, social dislocation, bad housing, migrant labor, third-rate education, poverty and malnutrition, and, despite the emergence of a black middle class, a growing gap between the rich and the poor coupled to rampant unemployment especially among blacks. South Africa has long been a country in which first and third worlds have co-existed. This co-existence has become increasingly problematic and conflictual as first world privilege collides with third world need, and as those who are oppressed have become more urgent and radical in their demands.

These demands have been expressed during the past few years most loudly and clearly by the emergent black trade unions and young black students, whose anger and frustration burst so dramatically on the world's television screens during 1985. The majority of blacks are no longer willing to accept apartheid passively, and have quite categorically rejected the Government's path of reform as totally inadequate. This is reflected in the emergence and growing strength of new organizations like the United Democratic Front and the National Forum, the revitalization of the African National Congress, and the re-appearance of the South African Communist Party. Of course, the situation is more complicated than it might appear at first sight, because some blacks have accepted, or at least begun to participate in the reformist program of the Government, and some whites have identified themselves with the black struggle for liberation. Within both racial groups, there are different factions with different ideologies, hopes, and fears. None of the segregated ethnic communities are united in the struggle, a fact which is vividly reflected in the life of the churches and their response to the struggle for South Africa.

Politics is ultimately the question of who has power, how it is exercised, checked, and balanced. The majority in South Africa have been denied access to this power, and thus have begun to explore and use the power which they have, the power of numbers and labor, the power of social morality, conscience, and world-wide support, the power of

231 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

protest, of strike action, of shop and school boycotts, of civil disobedience, and, for some, the power of the gun. This movement for liberation, while a movement of diversity, has a common commitment to ending white power and hegemony, and ushering in a new non-racial democracy. The actual shape of South Africa's future is a subject of intense debate.

The response of the Government to the emergence and activities of black or non-racial resistance movements has for a long time been forceful and sometimes violent. Security legislation, which includes banning and detention without trial for extensive periods, censorship and propaganda, violently repressive police action, and the militarization of the country, have been a reality for many years though they reached new depths during the recent state of emergency. The pattern established at Sharpeville twenty-one years ago has been exceeded and become almost routine in recent months. As a result, the rejection of apartheid followed by violent government repression, in turn followed by the radicalization of increasing numbers of blacks and more violent resistance, has created the familiar spiral of violence, and, in the process, society has become more and more brutalized. This brutalization is exacerbated by the fact that right-wing vigilante groups have emerged, both black and white, taking the law into their own hands, and there has been a frightful amount of violence exercised by blacks upon other blacks.

Whether or not it is strictly accurate to say that South Africa is now in the midst of a civil war is a moot point; it is near enough to the truth, as troops patrol the townships and guerillas engage in acts of revolutionary violence. It is no longer meaningful to ask whether social change will come about without it. For those who live in the black townships especially, violence is endemic to apartheid, it has become an everyday, terrifying reality. Many would argue, and with some justification, that violent reaction is the only language which speaks to those in power. The authorities use the same argument in reverse. To argue the case for non-violent change, to which I remain committed, can only be done in the light of this reality. Can fundamental social change come about without a violent conflagration, what people refer to as the Lebanese option?

The spiral of violence extends, of course, beyond the borders of South Africa. Since 1966, South Africa has been involved in an ever-escalating conflict in Namibia and Angola, and is apparently covertly involved in other areas of conflict in the southern African region. The truth is South Africa cannot be separated from southern Africa as a whole, nor from the globalization of the conflicts in the sub-continent. What is happening in Angola, Namibia, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, but also in Washington, London, Havana, and Moscow, is now of considerable consequence for the conflict within South Africa. There is a regional and international conflict of interests integrally related to that within the country.

232 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

Fundamental to the conflict of interests now violently starting to engulf us is a conflict of perceptions. South Africans differ from each other and respond in radically different ways to what is happening., because each of us is, to a significant degree, the product of our history, culture, and environment, and, more immediately, the product of an apartheid society. Our perceptions, the way we discern our society and its future, as well as the way in which we respond to other people and events, are profoundly affected by the conditioning of our culture, our education, or, to put it in other terms, the fears, hopes, and interests of our class, group, and race. South Africa is, historically, a country made up of many different cultures and ethnic groups. Even if apartheid had never been devised, it would have been difficult to weld such diversity into a nation with a shared sense of identity and common goals. But it has created a bitter legacy which has reinforced these historic divisions so successfully that our society has become one of separated islands between which there is not only little meaningful communication, few common interests, or shared perspectives, but mistrust and enmity. The exceptions, and there are significant exceptions, signs of hope amid despair, prove the rule. But how does one build a united nation with common values and commitments in such a divided community?

While I do not believe that the end of apartheid and white dominance in South Africa has arrived, I do believe that the beginning of the end has been signalled. Apartheid is breaking down not so much through white altruism as through its own inherent absurdity, and through the immense pressure that is being brought to bear upon it both internally and externally. Of course, predictions about human history are perilous undertakings, and it is foreseeable that something could happen, for example, a white, right-wing military coup which will clamp down on the process of change. But even that, I suggest, could only be a short-term digression toward the end of white oligarchic rule controlled by Afrikaner nationalism. But the road ahead is strewn both figuratively and literarily with landmines. It is within this critical context that the church of Jesus Christ which, being comprised of the same social groupings as those in conflict with each other, experiences the conflict within her own life, has to bear witness to the gospel of justice and liberation, peace and hope.

II

Those familiar with the church in South Africa will already know that it is made up of many different groups and denominations reflecting, on the one hand, the divisions of post-Reformation Christendom imported into the sub-continent, and, on the other, the cultural plurality and historic divisions of South Africa itself. It is only possible to speak of the church as an article of faith; sociologically or empirically speaking, we have to recognize not only different churches which relate in a variety of diverse ways to the crisis in which we find ourselves, but also different responses within the same churches. The various historic tensions and

233 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

conflicts between denominations and church groups, such as the South African Council of Churches (SACC), which I documented and discussed in The Church Struggle in South Africa, are still very much with us.

The conflict of perception and interest which lies at the heart of the present socio-political crisis also permeates the life of the church itself, both ecumenically and within each separate denomination. This affects the way in which the gospel is understood, the way in which ecumenical and socio-political issues are debated, and the resolutions and actions which result.³ Hence, the ongoing struggle within the church and, concomitantly, the ambiguity of the church's response to the struggle for liberation in South Africa.

Within the past decade, several movements have arisen within the churches which have attempted to overcome this ambiguity and to identify fully with the liberation movement. Prominent among these are the black confessing movement (the Alliance of Black Reformed Christians in South Africa, ABRECSA, and Die Belydendekring within the black Dutch Reformed churches) and those identified with the Institute for Contextual Theology, which have articulated a more decisively radical theology and program of action. The roots of these developments can be found in the emergence of black theology at the end of the 'sixties, and the development of liberation theologies in various parts of the world.⁴ As a result, Christians in every major church are radically challenging their denominational leadership and membership, including even the South African Council of Churches. In the process, the church struggle in South Africa is being redefined as a struggle within the churches related to the political struggle for the future of South Africa. Christian participation in and reflection on the political struggle has re-written the agenda for the church struggle.

This redefinition of the church struggle must not be understood as something unprecedented. The debate within the churches as to their appropriate response to black political movements like the ANC has a much longer history. Already in the 1950s, there was tension precisely on this issue as black Christian leaders, such as Albert Luthuli, Z.K. Mathews, and Robert Sobukwe, threw themselves fully into the political struggle, and as some whites like Fr. Trevor Huddleston identified with them. For many politically conscious blacks, this is what the church struggle has always been about. But it is only more recently, as the struggle for liberation has escalated, that it has become the central issue on the churches' agenda.

Several earlier developments laid the foundation for and began this process of redefinition. I refer especially to the publication of The

³ See my essay, "Christians in Conflict: the Social Reality of the South African Church," Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 51 (June 1985).
⁴ See my essay, "Theologies in Conflict: the South African Debate," in Charles Villa-Vicencio and John W. de Gruchy, Resistance and Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985).

234 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

Message to the People of South Africa in 1968; the rise of black theology; and the World Council of Churches' Program to Combat Racism, launched in 1969. Each of these has also contributed to the growing polarization within the churches. But, in the past few years, several important steps have led directly to the redefinition of which I am speaking. First, in 1982 apartheid was finally declared a heresy by significant groups of churches in South Africa, including the DR Mission Church and many of those involved in the SACC. This completed the process already begun with the publication of The Message to the People of South Africa in 1968, in which apartheid was declared a false gospel. With the declaration that it is a heresy, apartheid was, for once and all, rejected as theologically and morally bankrupt, indefensible, and beyond reform.⁵

Second, on June 16, 1985, the ninth anniversary of the Soweto uprising in 1976, services of prayer were held in South Africa for "the end to unjust rule." In the theological rationale which accompanied the call, it was stated:

Now, on 16 June, and twenty-five years after the dawning of this phase of resistance [i.e. Sharpeville], it is right to remember those whose blood has been shed in resistance and protest against an unjust system. It is also right that we as Christians reassess our response to a system that all right-thinking people identify as unjust. We have prayed for our rulers, as is demanded of us in the Scriptures. We have entered into consultation with them as is required by our faith. We have taken the reluctant and drastic step of declaring apartheid to be contrary to the declared will of God, and some churches have declared its theological justification to be a heresy. We now pray that God will replace the present structures of oppression with ones that are just, and remove from power those who persist in defying his laws, installing in their place leaders who will govern with justice and mercy.⁶

Following on from this call to pray for an end to unjust rule came, third, the publication of The Kairos Document in September, last year. Since the advent of apartheid as the governing ideology in 1948, there have been several important statements or confessions of faith emanating from those churches and Christians in opposition to it. Each of these statements has clarified the issues at the given moment and pushed the debate further. For example, The Message to the People of South Africa clearly stated that apartheid was a false gospel which contradicted the gospel of reconciliation in Jesus Christ. More recently, the Belhar Draft Confession of Faith of the DR Mission Church (1982) rejected apartheid as a heresy. The Kairos Document has gone further and, in important respects, represents most forcefully the paradigm shift in the Christian response to apartheid which redefines the church struggle.

⁵ See John W. de Gruchy and Charles Villa-Vicencio, Apartheid Is a Heresy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).
⁶ Published in the Journal of Theologyfor Southern Africa 52 (Sept., 1985), p. 58. See also Allan A. Boesak and Charles Villa-Vicencio (eds.), When Prayer Makes News (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986).

235 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

This paradigm shift led, fourth, to The Harare Declaration, emanating from a conference of South African and world-wide church leaders meeting in the capital of Zimbabwe in December, in which churches inside and outside South Africa were called upon "to support South African movements working for the liberation of their country." In this way, what was implicit in the WCC Program to Combat Racism has become explicit at a critical moment in the struggle for liberation. It has yet to be seen how the churches in South Africa will respond to The Harare Declaration, but if they do respond positively, it will be the most far-reaching and concrete opposition they have expressed to apartheid hitherto.

As a result of this redefinition or paradigm shift in thought and action, the conflict within the churches and between Christians has intensified. For some, the response to the liberation movement is unambiguous commitment; for others, it ranges from one which is more qualified or reluctant to rejection and opposition. Illustrative of this diversity is the fact that, on the one hand, the Black Ecumenical Consultation held in November last year strongly criticized the South African Council of Churches for being dominated by white church leadership.⁷ This criticism was levelled despite the SACC's longstanding commitment to the struggle for justice and liberation under the leadership of Bishop Desmond Tutu and Dr. Beyers Naude. On the other hand, there is the emergence during the past decade of a small but vocal coalition of right-wing church groups, which seeks to oppose such commitment and often does so through misrepresentation and distortion of the facts. Thus, the church struggle is very much alive within the churches, but the debate is not so much about apartheid as it is about how to change it and what role the church should fulfill in that process.

III

In order to show more concretely the way in which the church struggle has been redefined, but also in order to examine alternative ways in which the church might respond to the struggle for liberation in South Africa, I propose to examine two different responses which were articulated at the height of the crisis toward the end of 1985. Both have subsequently become embodied in programs of witness and action. The first was the launching of the National Initiative for Reconciliation (NIR) at a conference held in Pietermaritzburg in September. This led to the formulation of a Statement which set out the position of those who attended, the goals to which they were committed, and the means they were to employ in working toward them.⁸ The second was the publication

⁷ The most recent volume on black theology and its challenge to the churches in South Africa is Itumuleng Mosala and Buti Tlhagale (eds.), The Unquestionable Right to be Free (Johannesburg: Skotaville, 1986; New York: Orbis, 1986).
⁸ The full text of the NIR Statement of Affirmation was published in the Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 54 (March, 1986).

236 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

of The Kairos Document a few weeks later.⁹ Significantly, both of these were attempts by Christians in South Africa who reject apartheid and seek to respond to the crisis in a way that will facilitate a more just society in the future of the country. Yet, a comparison of the two documents will show that despite some common ground and shared concerns, the approaches are significantly different.

The National Initiative for Reconciliation was sponsored by Africa Enterprise, an evangelical organization, which has attempted increasingly over the years to relate evangelism to social witness, and to include in its program Christians and churches from across the socio-political, racial, and theological spectrum. Present at the launch of the NIR were people like Bishop Desmond Tutu, who did not sign The Kairos Document, and other black theologians, such as Dr. Bonganjalo Goba and Professor Simon Maimela, who did. Also present were a number of white ministers and theologians of the Dutch Reformed church, as well as representatives from various other churches, including both SACC member churches and others such as Pentecostal denominations. The vast majority endorsed the Statement of Affirmation, which was issued at the end of the conference. As already intimated, the Statement no less than The Kairos Document categorically rejects apartheid, and endorses a program of action which will "take the necessary steps toward the elimination of all forms of legislated discrimination." Among those listed are the demand to the State President to:

Release all detainees and political prisoners, withdraw charges against the Treason trialists, and allow exiles to return home.

Begin talks immediately with authentic leadership of the various population groups with a view toward equitable power sharing in South Africa.

Both statements would also be regarded as priorities by the Kairos theologians and those who endorsed The Harare Declaration. Yet, the approaches are different, in fact, at points, quite radically different. For example, whereas the NIR Statement calls for "power sharing," The Harare Declaration calls for "the transferring of power to the majority of the people."

The Kairos Document was produced largely by black ministers and theologians in the Johannesburg-Soweto area during the height of the social crisis last year. It was subsequently endorsed by others, both black and white in different parts of the country. Since its publication, it has sparked off widespread debate both in South Africa and overseas. Those who prepared it, the "Kairos theologians," do not regard it as a finished document but as a statement in via. At the same time, it is meant to be not a balanced statement of faith but a sharp and radical response to the present Kairos, "a moment of truth not only for apartheid but also for the church."

⁹ The Kairos Document was reproduced in full in the Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 53 (Dec., 1985).

237 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

The moment of truth has compelled us to analyze more carefully the different theologies in our churches and to speak out more clearly and boldly about the real significance of these theologies. We have been able to isolate three theologies and we have chosen to call them "State Theology," "Church Theology" and "Prophetic Theology." In our thoroughgoing criticism of the first and second theologies, we do not wish to mince our words. The situation is too critical for that.

Let us, then, compare the two different approaches, and ask, in the process, whether or not the NIR Statement falls into the category of "Church Theology" as set forth by The Kairos Document.

First and fundamentally, the Statement and The Kairos Document differ in their analysis of what is happening in South African society. This is a critical difference between them, because it determines much of what follows by way of prescription for Christian involvement in social action and transformation. As Nicholas Lash has observed, "The struggle for the accurate 'description' of reality [thus] becomes an aspect of the struggle for social change."¹⁰ Indeed, whereas The Kairos Document makes social analysis a priority and criticizes the churches for failing to engage adequately in it, the NIR Statement avoids any attempt to do so, possibly for fear of splitting its constituency. But even though it does not engage in social analysis, such analysis is implicit. It is evident in the underlying conviction that racism is the major problem.

The Kairos Document goes much further and speaks of a conflict between "oppressor" and the "oppressed." Clearly, racism is regarded as only part of the problem which is, at root, one of economics and material interests, of poverty and power. The primary problem is not simply that of racism but of conflict between "an oppressor and the oppressed…. between two irreconcilable causes or interests in which the one is just and the other is unjust." This understanding of the problem is absent from the NIR Statement.

Second, The Kairos Document is a radical and sharp critique which seeks to confront both what it calls "State Theology," that kind of theology which seeks to justify the present status quo "with its racism, capitalism, and totalitarianism," and "Church Theology," that is, the theology of the leadership of the so-called English-speaking churches whose criticism of apartheid "is superficial and counter-productive because instead of engaging in an in-depth analysis of the signs of the times, it relies upon a few stock ideas derived from Christian tradition and then uncritically and repeatedly applies them to our situation." Specifically mentioned and examined are: reconciliation (or peace), justice, and non-violence. The point of the critique is that such "Church Theology," while it appears to challenge and reject apartheid, actually ends up by preventing the churches from engaging in concrete action

¹⁰ Nicholas Lash, A Matter of Hope (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982), p. 132.

238 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

which will bring about change. In the process, these central Christian themes are debased. For example, while The Kairos Document does not explicitly support violence in the struggle for justice, it is very critical of the way in which non-violence has been absolutized by the churches.

Non-violence has been made into an absolute principle that applies to anything anyone calls violence without regard for who is using it, which side they are on, or what purpose they have in mind.

What happens, in fact, is that "violence" becomes part of State propaganda. It refers to the actions of those who seek to overthrow unjust structures, but not to the violence of the structures nor to the violence used by the State in maintaining such structures.

In contrast, the NIR Statement offers no critique except by way of implication of either the state ideology or the churches, and its very name is indicative of the centrality which the idea of reconciliation plays in its understanding and program. There is, of course, a clear rejection of apartheid, and its concluding recommendations express rejection of the way in which the state has responded to the crisis in South Africa. But there is no attempt to uncover and judge the ideology which lies behind it. With regard to the churches, the Statement seeks to be as conciliatory, balanced, and inclusive as possible, given its rejection of apartheid and the proposals it makes. The Kairos Document, on the other hand, rejects any attempt to be balanced and is especially sharp in its criticism of what it regards as a message of "cheap reconciliation"; it seeks to be as exclusive as is necessary to confront the system totally. White repentance and a clear commitment to fundamental, non-racial change must precede negotiation and reconciliation.

Third, over against "Church Theology," The Kairos Document propounds what it calls "Prophetic Theology," a theology which recognizes that the root problem is oppression, and that God is on the side of the oppressed in their struggle for liberation. This requires recognition that the present Government has lost its moral legitimacy and, in accordance with Christian tradition, may be called tyrannical, that is, an "enemy of the common good" resorting to terror in order to maintain its power and privilege; it is incapable of change.

The NIR Statement, on the other hand, assumes that the Government, can change, and that it can bring about the changes needed to prevent: catastrophe. Whereas The Kairos Document categorically rejects negotiation at this stage in the struggle, the NIR sent a delegation to the State President to present its vision for change and the steps that need to be taken to achieve it. The Kairos Document maintains that only the people acting "from below" can bring about the changes that are necessary. Therefore, the churches, instead of trying to convince those in power to change, should commit themselves to the struggle of the poor and oppressed. The Christian response to those in power must be one of' confrontation until they indicate they are willing to undergo fundamental change. It is argued that the justice which "Church Theology" seeks

239 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

is the "justice of reform, that is to say, a justice that is determined by the oppressor, by the white minority, and that is offered to the people as a kind of concession." In other words, it is justice on the terms of those in power which leaves relatively untouched the basic structural injustices of apartheid. "Church Theology" addresses those in power, those on the top, calling upon them to act justly. But what is required is church support for those who are below, the oppressed, in their struggle to get rid of unjust structures.

Fourth, whereas the NIR Statement sets out a program of action for Christians and the churches along the lines of the church being an "alternative community" or a Third Force working for reconciliation, The Kairos Document explicitly rejects such an approach in the interests of liberation. On the contrary, the church and Christians have to identify and participate, albeit critically, with those engaged in the struggle for justice, and therefore in their organizations. Whereas the strategy envisaged by the Statement is at the level of proclamation and witness, prayer and fasting, the creation of opportunities for non-racial worship, fellowship and discussion, education for change, and the sharing of suffering, the strategy of The Kairos Document, while accepting these, goes much further in encouraging direct political action. Acts of civil disobedience are specifically stated. Tacitly, The Kairos Document gives legitimacy to the use of violence if this becomes necessary in the struggle for liberation. In the Christian tradition of the just war, it supports, as many Christians have in the past, the just revolution.

This short comparison highlights two very different approaches of Christians in South Africa to the present political struggle, even though they both agree that apartheid must be ended. They differ in their prognosis, because they differ in their social analysis, in their attitude toward the present Government, and in their understanding of the task of the church. A large part of the reason for their different approach is, however, the fact that the NIR Statement was drafted by church leaders who were concerned to take their constituency with them, especially the white, more conservative evangelical component, whereas The Kairos Document, a product largely of black theologians, was addressed primarily to black Christians involved in the liberation struggle.

For many of those involved in the NIR, The Kairos Document exceeds the boundaries of legitimate church action, the "church should be the church." For the "Kairos Theologians," the NIR Statement would be regarded as an example of "Church Theology," and it is undoubtedly where much of the church leadership opposed to apartheid would place themselves. The Kairos Document is meant to be a prophetic challenge to them to move faster and to commit themselves more unequivocally to the struggle for liberation. At the same time, it is not primarily an attempt to address church leaders, but an attempt to provide a theological basis for those Christians who are already committed

240 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

to the struggle. Thus, it radically redefines the nature of the church struggle in South Africa.

IV

In concluding, I would like to propose several theses which could guide the church in its participation in the struggle for a liberated and just South Africa. As a signatory of The Kairos Document, I agree with its criticism of the misuse of "non-violence" by the state and often by the churches, and I acknowledge that the Reformed tradition, in which I stand, has in the past supported the idea of a just revolution and may with good reason do so again. Nevertheless, I still believe that nonviolent strategies for social transformation remain the church's primary responsibility, and that, given the spiral of violence in South Africa, everything must be done to prevent its escalation to the point of mutual self-destruction.

1. In the struggle for a just society, the church cannot be neutral, but there are different, complementary strategies.

The two approaches represented by the NIR Statement and The Kairos Document are not necessarily antithetical or exclusive of each other, though both can be interpreted in that way. If I had been present at the NIR conference, I would have undoubtedly signed its Statement even though critical of some aspects of it, just as I signed The Kairos Document despite some reservations. In some respects, the NIR Statement is a far-reaching document which could have important ramifications throughout the country among groups of Christians who have generally been cautious about socio-political involvement. For many of them, the NIR was a major step forward, a catalyst for change, and the Statement a challenge for action. Such transforming encounters are necessary, and the program of witness and worship which they promote are essential.

But complementary strategies are not an excuse for neutrality or ambiguous commitment. And this is the strength of The Kairos Document: it is unequivocal in its stance. The Kairos Document is by no means perfect, and many of those who signed it have expressed criticisms of it. It is a document that was developed in the heat of crisis. Yet, it is also a document which seeks to grapple seriously with the biblical, prophetic tradition in relation to the context; not one which surrenders Christian faith and tradition, but which retrieves and restates it for today. Its sharp analysis and concrete proposals, developed further in The Harare Document, are precisely what the churches need to hear if they are not to become irrelevant to the struggle for the future of South Africa. Its message is one which speaks directly and positively to those involved in the struggle who no longer believe that the Christian faith has anything to say to them.

(2) The church must be the church, but this does not mean that it has its own political program alongside that of the struggle for liberation. It must participate in critical solidarity.

241 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

One problem that I have with The Kairos Document is that the line between the church and political movements gets blurred; the problem that I have with the NIR Statement is that no connection between them is made. The slogan "let the church be the church" is often used as a way of escape from political commitment into neutrality. Similarly, the idea of the church as an "alternative community" or "third force" is sometimes interpreted in this way. The Kairos Document will not allow this. The church has to identify with those who are struggling for justice and not start its own political program. Indeed, many of those involved in liberation movements are members of the church. Yet, The Kairos Document also recognizes that Christians have to participate in "critical solidarity" with movements for social change.

Critical solidarity, if it means anything, means that the church has a unique contribution to make in the struggle for liberation, a contribution that will remain necessary in the new society. Central to this contribution is its spiritual resources, the resources of the biblical tradition to which it seeks to bear witness. To deny this contribution is fatal for both the church and the struggle for liberation. The church, when true to its vocation, will always be in a critical relationship both to those in power and those who take power. The church is not the servant of a political movement but the servant of the kingdom of God, and, therefore, of people struggling for justice. It is always critical of that which dehumanizes and destroys people and communities, and especially people and communities who are powerless, disadvantaged, and poor. "The only 'permanent allies' of Christianity are, or should be, the weak and dispossessed: and their identity changes."¹¹ Critical solidarity also means that Christians should not absolutize political conflict, or arrogantly come to regard themselves and their party in the conflict as doing the will of God, whether it is in defense of the status quo or in seeking to change it. This leads us to our third thesis.

(3) The gospel of reconciliation and liberation, as well as the political strategies of negotiation and confrontation, are not antithetical but two sides of the same coin.

The good news that God has reconciled the world in Jesus Christ is the foundation of Christian faith and action. Reconciliation is an act of God in Jesus Christ, it is something which is given. At the same time, Christians are called to be reconciled to their neighbors and their enemies through suffering love and forgiveness. Reconciliation to God is inseparable from reconciliation with one's fellows. Such reconciliation requires repentance and change-not just a change of attitude, but fundamental change which affects the very structures of existence. In South Africa, it is possible for individuals of different races to discover the deep significance of Christian reconciliation. But as long as apartheid structures continue, the genuine reconciliation of social groups remains elusive, and, therefore, peace remains elusive. Both whites and

¹¹ Ibid., p. 289.

242 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

blacks are chained, and the liberation of the one is necessary for the freedom of all. "Cheap reconciliation," and therefore negotiation prior to a genuine commitment to change, only prolongs the bondage.

In this regard, something needs to be said about the tyrannical nature of the state. I affirm with The Kairos Document that the South African Government has acted in a tyrannical way and should be replaced by another. However, the Christian must always be open to the possibility of change, the "possible impossibility," and should not regard the state in a static way. Negotiation and confrontation are not necessarily exclusive of one another. Indeed, as Moses in his encounters with Pharoah demonstrated, they may need each other in order to achieve the desired goal of freedom. Ronald Preston, the British theologian has some wise words to offer us here, and he writes specifically with South Africa in mind:

If Christians find themselves genuinely on opposite sides of it [the conflict], they must take part in fear of the Lord, but never let go the possibility of reconciliation through the conflict, but not avoiding it. This is a desperate situation, so we must work to avoid polarization at all costs. But if it occurs, the attitude I have mentioned demands great spiritual resources; but it is not impossible.¹²

There is an alternative to "cheap reconciliation," it is reconciliation through the suffering witness of the cross.

(4) The suffering witness of the cross, and therefore non-violent redemptive action, remains the paradigm for the Christian, even though there is an honored Christian tradition which supports the idea of a just revolution.

It should already be clear that the problem of violence in South Africa is a complex one. I stand by The Kairos Document in its strong criticism of the way in which "non-violence" and "violence" have both been misused as part of state propaganda. The church in South Africa needs to be very clear about the nature of the violence which is endemic in our society, and why it is that others have been forced to use violence in order to bring about change. Tragically, it would appear that the authorities only begin to respond significantly when they are forced to do so in this way. But, ultimately, the spiral of violence will destroy society unless it is first of all limited, and then brought to an end. Hence, the need for Christians to struggle for justice and liberation in a way which both serves that end and yet, in doing so, breaks the spiral.

The suffering witness of the church and of the disciples of Jesus Christ may take many forms. It is beyond the scope of this essay to elaborate upon them, and, as in other respects, Christians may differ in their witness. Nevertheless, such witness must take the side of those who suffer injustice and seek to express in concrete ways a non-violent strategy for social change. It is in this regard that we have to understand

¹² Ronald H. Preston, Church and Society in the Late Twentieth Century: The Economic and Political Task (London: SCM), p. 112.

243 - The Church and The Struggle for South Africa

the call for disinvestment and other acts of civil disobedience, together with those forms of pressure called for in The Harare Declaration. In one of the best articles I have read on disinvestment, Sheena Duncan, the past president of the Black Sash in South Africa, an organization of white women committed to non-violent social change, concludes: "It is for these reasons that I am in favor of strategic, economic pressures, carefully thought out, carefully monitored, and adjusted according to the observed effects. It seems to me," she continues, and I agree, "that these may be our last hope for avoiding a long-drawn-out civil war which would result in total economic collapse."¹³ Actions such as these are crucial in seeking to bring about non-violent change, and it is precisely at this point that the church universal can participate in the struggle for the future of South Africa.

¹³ Sheena Duncan, "Some Personal Observations on the Disinvestment Campaign," Sash 28 (Feb., 1986) 4, p. 21.