The Church situation and Christian witness in South Africa

Transcription

1 The Church situation and Christian witness in South Africa Use of the Aluka digital library is subject to Aluka s Terms and Conditions, available at By using Aluka, you agree that you have read and will abide by the Terms and Conditions. Among other things, the Terms and Conditions provide that the content in the Aluka digital library is only for personal, non-commercial use by authorized users of Aluka in connection with research, scholarship, and education. The content in the Aluka digital library is subject to copyright, with the exception of certain governmental works and very old materials that may be in the public domain under applicable law. Permission must be sought from Aluka and/or the applicable copyright holder in connection with any duplication or distribution of these materials where required by applicable law. Aluka is a not-for-profit initiative dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of materials about and from the developing world. For more information about Aluka, please see

2 The Church situation and Christian witness in South Africa Author/Creator Date Resource type Language Subject Coverage (spatial) Rustenburg Conference (1990); National Conference of Churches in South Africa; De Gruchy, John W. Reports English Coverage (temporal) 1990 Source Rights Format extent (length/size) South Africa World Council of Churches Library and Archives: Programme to Combat Racism; microfilm created by the Yale University Divinity Library with funding from the Kenneth Scott Latourette Initiative for the Documentation of World Christianity., Yale University Divinity Library, Programme to Combat Racism [microform], /8; mf. PCR 157 (from frame 416 to 662) By kind permission of the World Council of Churches (WCC). 10 pages

3 THE CHURCH SITUATION AND CHRISTIAN WITNESS IN SOUTH AFRICA THE CHURCH SITUATION AND CHRISTIAN WITNESS IN SOUTH AFRICA JOHN W. DE BRUCHY Professor of Christian Studies University of Cape Town (National Church Leaders Conference : November 1990) 1. The intention which led to the convening of this conference was the urgent need for Christians to discover and express their unity in a common witness at this historic moment in South Africa. The fact that we need to discover our unity is indicative that there are serious divisions within the church in our land. The fact that it was felt necessary to convene such a gathering indicates that these divisions which characterise the church situation are perceived as detrimental to Christian witness and the transformation of our society. Yet it is of critical importance that we understand the nature of our unity as well as the task to which we are called at this hour of destiny. A false or superficial expression of unity will not s*-engthen Christian witness, for the truth of the gospel is often more faithfully maintained by a prophetic minority rather than a compromised majority. Moreover, a unity expressed in words which is not embodied in action is empty. Indeed, there is plenty of contemporary evidence that Christians have discovered their unity in Christ most significantly as they have shared together in the struggles for truth and justice in the world. In any event, there is an integral connection between the unity and witness of the church. This is the major theme, for example, in the letter to the Ephesians, and, as will become evident, I have found reflection on Ephesians particularly helpful in preparing what I have to say. Our unity as Christians derives from what God has done in Jesus Christ, our crucified saviour and risen Lord. Christ "himself is our peace." (Ephesians 2:4) Our unity is God's gift, not something which we have to create or engineer; it is a gift which has been brought into effect through the Holy Spirit, and it is therefore something which precedes all our efforts to discover and affirm it, If this were not the case, it is highly unlikely that we would be here because we are, humanly speaking, like the Jews and Gentiles addressed in Ephesians, a very disparate group of people. While unity is God's gift to us in Christ. it is. nevertheless, a gift which has to be appropriated and expressed otherwise we deny the gospel and undermine the witness which is our common task. For this precise reason the letter to the Ephesians reminds 'is to "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." (Ephesians 4:3) In order

4 to do this, the same letter exhorts us to affirm the apostolic faith and to speak "the truth in love." There would be little point in coming here if we sought to affirm our unity in-christ, but failed to speak "the truth in love" about our divisions, and about the gospel and its implications for us and our witness in society. For the sake of both the gospel and the future of South 2 Africa we must speak honestly to each other, for only in this way can we begin to affirm our unity in Christ and bear a faithful witness to Christ. Any reflection on the church situation in South Africa must begin, then, with the contradiction that while we confess to be "one in Christ", we are really divided and fragmented, and often in conflict with one another. It is an audacious act of faith to confess "one holy, catholic church" when so much of the evidence points in the opposite direction. Furthermore, the reality of our divisions is such that only a naive romantic would assume that they can easily be overcome. Nonetheless, our belief in the reconciling power of the cross, and our belief in the Holy Spirit, keeps us open to the miracle of that possibility, and therefore committed to making the effort necessary to keep the unity which the Spirit gives. The problem can best be seen in the light of previous attempts to do what we are seeking to do here. There have been many conferences of one kind or another in South Africa where Christians of different backgrounds have experienced an almost ecstatic euphoria in discovering their unity. But far too often that sense of belonging has broken apart when they have returned home to their own constituencies and continued their ministry within the parameters of a particular church, cultural, or racial group. This was the case with Peter who, having experienced unity in Christ with the Gentiles in Lydda, changed his mind when amongst Jewish believers, refusing to eat with Gentile Christians. Hence the need to be confronted and challenged by Paul on the issue, a classic example of "speaking the truth in love." (Acts 10-11; Galatians 2:11f.) The reason for superficial or cheap forms of reconciliation is that we too often fail to speak the truth to each other, and therefore our expression of unity, when it emerges, is far too shallow. It is not the unity which the Spirit gives us, but a cheap reconciliation conjured up by our own emotions or sense of good will which soon falls apart when we have to face reality. For precisely the same reason any talk about reconciliation in South African society is cheap unless it is based on truth and justice, upon righting the wrongs of the past, on ridding society not only of the legislation but also the awful legacy of apartheid. For what is the violence which has engulfed our nation in recent months but part of a legacy in which people have been dehumanized, in which ethnic divisions have been made supreme and exploited, and in which people have been denied. over many years, access to decent education, decent housing, and a decent way of life -- all in the name of Christianity. 2.

5 Many assume that the reasons for our divisions are doctrinal or theological. But if we look back over Christian history, it soon becomes evident that the reasons for the divisions which have taken place in the church have been a mixture of sociological, political, cultural, personality, as well as theological factors. It also becomes evident that in many instances, the theological reasons given for division were not primary, but rather developed as a way of legitimating what had already taken place for other reasons. The schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, the Protestant Reformation, and the many divisions which have occurred subsequently within Protestant denominations, were, as a matter of historical fact, the result of a compound of forces. If you examine the causes of the divisions in the church in South Africa, the same is certainly true. For example, the reasons which led the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk to establish segregated mission churches, demonstrates the extent to which sociological and cultural factors have torn the church apart. Theology had little to do with the segregation of the church, for all the parts of the Dutch Reformed family accepted the same confessions, but a theology was subsequently developed, not based on the confessions, to sanction segregation and eventually sanctify apartheid itself. The church situation in South Africa is very complex. being the product of several centuries of historical development. Some of our divisions stem from the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, and were introduced at the southern tip of Africa along with European colonisation. In many respects so-called "mainline Christianity" in South Africa is still dominated by a colonial mentality. Other divisions have their roots in more recent, history, whether imported from elsewhere, notably North America, or emerging from within our own geographical context. Of particular note, in this regard, has been the emergence of African indigenous churches, a movement which represents a strong reaction against the cultural captivity of European Christianity. Yet a movement which is, itself, highly fragmented. My focus in this paper is not so much on the historic denominational divisions which separate us, often needlessly, but upon those divisions which are found today as much within our denominations as between them. Divisions which, like the JewishGentile Christians divisions of primitive Christianity, reflect like a mirror the social and cultural struggles and conflicts within society. Such divisions compromise and contradict our witness even more seriously at this time because they show the extent to which the sinful structures, norms and values of our own present-day society permeate and control the life, thought and action of the church. By reflecting on these divisions we see very clearly the extent to the church situation is related directly to its witness. 3. Firstly, the church in South Africa has been and remains to a great extent divided by racism, even within churches which claim to be multi-racial or non-racial. Indeed, it is encumbent upon those of us who belong to the latter to recognise

6 how divided we are by race even though we may strive to be nonracial. It is of vital importance to recognise that while almost 80% of the population in South Africa may be nominally Christian, the vast majority of that number happens to be black. Unfortunately the significance of this has not yet dawned on most white Christians, or on those churches in which whites still dominate in a paternalistic way. Racism within the church, we must state as strongly as possible, compromises its witness, and therefore any talk about 4 the unity of the church which does not tackle this question is unfaithful to the gospel and to be rejected. Moreover, we need to recognise that even when apartheid legislation has finally been eradicated from our nation's statute books, racism and much else in the legacy of apartheid, will still be a potent force within our society, and the struggle against it will still be necessary. It is an illusion to think that now, because apartheid as government policy, is on its way out, that the struggle against racism is over. Inter-racial violence is a clear sign that this is not the case, but there are many other more subtle indications as well. Secondly, the church in South Africa has been and remains divided by culture and language, as can be seen when we distinguish between the so-called English-speaking and Afrikaansspeaking churches. This cultural divide goes much further, as can be seen from the fact that within most of the so-called English-speaking churches, English is probably not the home language of more than a minority. Cultural diversity is natural, and it is not divisive unless it is allowed to become dominant in some way. Cultural diversity can and should enrich the life of the church, and better enable it to fulfil its mission, so it is important that the church in South Africa make the most of its varied cultural inheritance. But the moment culture becomes absolute in some sense, then it divides rather than enriches the church. When it is allowed to divide, then, as in the conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christianity in the early church, our witness to the gospel is denied. In seeking to express the unity of the church, then, we must treasure and affirm the rich cultural diversity present amongst us, but we must not allow culture to become a source of division. This is part of our witness, for it is of vital importance in the reconstruction of society that the church enables cultural diversity to enrich but not destroy community. Thirdly, the church in South Africa has been and is divided by class, economic disparity, and material interests, and by the resultant perception which we have of society and our place within it. This is nothing new in the history of the church, but it is particularly pertinent for us at this time. The poverty of the vast majority of black Christians in our country, compared with the relative affluence of white Christians, not only confronts us starkly, but is likely to be the most serious stumblingblock to expressing our unity concretely in a way which gives integrity to our witness. That is the message of the letter of James for us today. (James 2:5f.)

7 White Christians, myself included, and not a few black Christians, have become very materialistic in our values and life-style, and have too readily accepted capitalism as consonant with the gospel. Ironically, in the same breath some reject socialism as unchristian because it is too materialistic! Biblically-speaking, the only economic order which is consonant with the gospel is one which benefits those who are most in need, not those who have more than they need. (II Corinthians 8:1-15) Our understanding of the gospel is far too determined by our respective material interests, and this severely affects our witness. The enormous gap between privileged rich and poor Christians, who have for so long been denied access to economic. educational and other resources in South Africa, is a division which denies the gospel and undermines our ability as the church to confess Jesus Christ concretely. Fourthly, the church in South Africa has been and is divided between those who believe Scripture requires it to be a community controlled by males, and those who believe that the same Scriptures require a church in which there is equality of all in Christ. A church in which there is "neither Jew nor Gentile, male or female, slave or free person", but in which all are united fully in Christ.(Galatians 5:28) The vast majority of active members within the church in South Africa today happen to be women. But the leadership of the church often functions as though women were only there to be used as men decide, often on shaky biblical exegesis. Here, as elsewhere, we have allowed cultural norms. whether ancient or modern, rather than the gospel to determine our reading of Scripture. As a result the church has said very little about the way in which women in general, and black women in particular, have been abused in society, and the way in which the church has too easily conformed to some questionable values of a male-dominated society, contradictory to the values of the kingdom of God. While the so-called "house tables" in Ephesians (5:22-6:9) seem to sanction inequality between men and women, as well as between slaves and free, they also inject into these cultural norms of society a new and radical dimension which eventually undermines them. This becomes especially clear when read in the light of Jesus' own teaching. Fifthly, the church in South Africa is and has been divided by political allegiance and ideology, a fact which we have experienced with increasing intensity during the past century. This is perhaps the force which has above all else kept us apart. The church has not only been divided, it has taken sides in the conflict, so that the struggle for power has become a struggle also within the church, indeed, a struggle for the support of the church. There are those who say they are not to blame for this because they are strictly a-political, or politically neutral. But on examination it soon becomes clear that the claim to be politically neutral simply hides a preference for the status quo. When the status quo is challenged or begins to crumble it soon becomes obvious where ideological commitments lie.

8 None of this is meant to imply that the church as church must identify with a particular political party or ideology. But faithfulness to the gospel requires that the church cannot be neutral when it comes to matters of justice and equity in society. Not to take such a stand in the interests of preserving unity means undermining the witness of the church. The church struggle is part of the political struggle -- not the struggle for dominating power, but the struggle for truth, justice, human rights, and equity, and therefore the struggle to see the true exercise of power within society. That alone is the way to peace and reconciliation. 4. The way in which social forces and theology interact in dividing the church and compromising our witness can be seen, perhaps most acutely, when we consider the different ways in which we read and interpret Scripture. Indeed, the conflict within the church in South Africa is, theologically-speaking, a hermeneutical struggle. A struggle about the meaning of the gospel within our particular historical context. In the letter which invited us to participate in this conference we were reminded that "the bible-will be regarded as the final source of authority." Yet we are all fully aware that this means different things to different groups within the church. It is clear that while we may all accept the authority of Scripture, we do not all interpret and understand Scripture in the same way. Indeed, even those who are fundamentalist in their doctrine of Scripture disagree amongst themselves on a variety of issues, some, for example, practising infant baptism and others believer's baptism, some rejecting and others affirming charismatic gifts, as consonant with the teaching of Scripture for today. So a fundamentalist doctrine of Scripture does not mean mutual consent on doctrines or practice. But there is also disagreement on the scope of Scripture and its authority. For some, the bible speaks as authoritatively about social and economic justice as it does about justification by faith; for others the bible has do chiefly if not exclusively with individual redemption. The fact is that we all read Scripture through our own spectacles, and these spectacles are coloured by our background, our church tradition, our experience, and by our own interests. As a result we often find in Scripture what we want to find there, and inevitably it is something which confirms us in our own position rather than something which challenges us to the core. It is remarkable how we can claim that our synodical resolutions are based on Scripture alone, even though in some cases they change as the political situation changes. With due respect, this has been most markedly the case within the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk where every four years a new statement on church and society has appeared which, while claiming to be only based on the bible, actually reflects new developments in government policy. While we rejoice in the changes, we really need to be more honest with ourselves and with society. The same applies in the case of other churches as well, and none of us is exempt.

9 The Word of Sod is a "two-edged sword", it cuts through our pretense, hypocrisy, and self-interest. If we are not willing to be open to that possibility, irrespective of who we are and where we come from, then it is unlikely that we will really hear the Word of God speaking to the church in South Africa today. And if we fail to hear that Word we will not understand the nature of our task, our witness within.the world, nor will we be able to express our unity. 5. We have noted at- some length that the church reflects and often reinforces the social reality of South Africa. This not surprising, given the fact that it includes a significant majority of the population, a population which is as divided and polarised about as much as it could possibly be. But while this may be understandable it also indicates the extent to which the 7 church conforms to society rather than being God's agent of transformation. We need to recognise that the dehumanzing divisions within church and society are the result of sin, that is, they contradict God's purposes. Sin is, after all, that which, in separating us from God, destroys human life, breaks up human relationships and community, undermines those values which enables life to flourish, and separates us from the source and giver of life. That is why the letter to the Ephesians reminds us that it was only through the death of Christ on the cross that the divisions which separated Jew and Gentile are overcome. (Ephesians 2:11f) The problem is that we have not taken sin seriously enough, but, on the contrary, have reduced it to something metaphysical rather than real, private rather than public as well, general rather than contextually specific, or as something to be combatted outside the church instead of also within it. In bearing witness to Christ in our society we are called to proclaim God's judgment on all that which contradicts God's redemptive purpose, "to bring all things in heaven and earth together under one head, even Christ." (Ephesians 1:10). We need to speak concretely about sin in our society, name the demons which destroy, the "principalities and powers" against which we are called to wage war (Ephesians 6:12f.), and engage in mission and evangelism in such a way that people are saved from their power and restored to their dignity as human beings in community with others. Hence the need for an understanding of mission in which the prophetic rejection of oppression is related contextually to the pastoral and evangelistic task of human liberation and transformation. If evangelism does not lead to a genuine change in people's values in a way which enables the transformation of society then we must question whether it is evangelism at all. Our witness to Jesus Christ derives from the fact that Jesus's life, teaching, death and resurrection, has to do with the coming of God's reign on earth. That is central to the message not only of the gospels but Scripture as a whole. It is this conviction which enables us to discern in Jesus the promised Messiah and see in

10 him the fulfillment of the hope of Israel. If that is true, then, we cannot understand Jesus apart from the kingdom or reign of God which he proclaimed and inaugurated. This is certainly how Jesus himself understood his task according to the synoptic gospels. The classic text being his first sermon in the synagogue at Capernaum in which Jesus proclaims the purpose of his coming in terms of his liberating good news to the poor, prisoners, the blind, and the oppressed, and does so in relation to the promised Year of Jubilee in which human society is meant to be transformed. (Luke 4:1Bf; Leviticus 25) Jesus, in other words, indicates at the beginning of his ministry that he has come to meet human need, to redeem people from the power of sin which has dehumanized and broken them and society as a whole. In particular Jesus relates his ministry to the victims of society, though he by no means excludes others who know their need of God. But it is remarkable that in this initial setting out of his mission, as well as in many other places within the gospels, Jesus makes it clear that his coming is good news for the under-dog, the downtrodden, the despised, those who are the victims of society, its cruelty, callousness and inhumanity. Indeed, the gospels emphasize the extent to which it was the victims of society who found in Jesus their saviour, their healer, their liberator, and therefore came to acknowledge him as their Lord. While the gospel is for all, the litmus test of our witness in the world is whether the victims of society discover within it the good news of Jesus Christ, and respond gladly to his invitation. If the powerful, the affluent, the worldly wise, the dominant class, find only comfort and confirmation in our testimony to Christ, rather than the call to repentance, change and discipleship, then we must surely ask whether we are being faithful to the gospel. When the disciples of John the Baptist enquired whether Jesus was truly the one whom God had sent, Jesus responded by saying: "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor." (Luke 7:22f.) When the victims experience God's healing power and grace, when the poor hear good news, then Jesus' is at work through the Spirit. That remains the touchstone of authentic Christian witness. This means that Christian witness has to focus not only on the life-giving power of Christ, but also on the death-giving power of sin. As such the church will always have to proclaim God's judgment on sin, and therefore on those sins which destroy human life, dehumanize people because of their race, class or gender, and which thereby undermine the well-being of society. Irrespective of who might be in government, the church has a prophetic and therefore critical responsibility to the state and those in authority. It has to proclaim the Word of God in the most concrete way possible. This is essential to its witness to Jesus as Lord, it is also fundamental to the well-being of the state, and therefore fundamental to any attempt to relate church and state in our context.

11 But the church's witness to the state presupposes that the church itself acknowledges its own complicity in the sins and guilt of the nation. Thus at the very heart of our witness lies the need for the church to repent and be transformed; the need for the church to both acknowledge its own guilt, and to take upon itself the guilt of the nation. It is totally inadequate, if not hurtful, for us who are whites in South Africa to say that now at last apartheid is dead, let us forgive one another and forget the past. How superficial and callous that is! True repentance, the acceptance of our guilt requires far more. It requires, as part of our witnesss a commitment to engaging in acts of restitution, in enabling the righting of centuries of wrong. When the church in South Africa speaks and acts clearly on this issue then its witness will become truly authentic and redemptive. 6. In considering Christian witness in our context we must, in conclusion, give some thought to our attitude and approach to that task. The fact that almost 80% of the population is, nominally at least, Christian points to the possible contribution which the church could make to the transformation of society_, simply because the church represents virtually all segments and 9 is present within virtually all communities. While this is certainly true, such an understanding needs to be qualified in several ways. First of all it must be recognised that much of the membership of the church in South Africa is nominal rather than committed to the gospel and the values of the kingdom of God. Large numbers by no means implies truth, and it may well be that e minority of persons is actually more faithful than a church which is numerically very strong. The church in South Africa may well need to be evangelised before it can make a faithful and transformative impact on society. A second false assumption is that we as Christians share a common vision of what God demands of us at this time: that we agree on the nature of Christian witness; and that we are willing in some way to share in the task required of us. Indeed, I suggest that the moment we begin to reflect on the task of Christian witness we discover a further major source of conflict amongst us which reflects both our own position in society and therefore the way in which we read and understand Scripture. But there is a third qualification that needs to be made. The church in South Africa, precisely because of its size may well be tempted to adopt a triumphalist attitude and approach to its role. One is reminded here of the Roman Catholic church during the late medieval age sanctioning crusades and the inquisition, but there are also other examples of triumphalism in Christian, including Protestant history. not least in our own country. Such an approach to mission points away from the cross of Jesus Christ and God's call to the church to be a servant people under the cross. There is a real danger at this moment, when we consider the church's role in nation building, that the church might begin to act in a triumphalistic way,

12 seeking to dominate society, seeking advantages over people of other faiths or no religious convictions. This is not the way of Christ. Every time the church has attempted to dominate society in this way it has compromised the gospel, it has confused culture with faith, it has perhaps grown strong in size and influence, but it has lost the power of the Spirit. Christian witness is most truly born when the church places itself under the cross, and therefore identifies with God's suffering in Christ for the sake of the world. Christian witness *in South Africa is not so that the church might be exalted, indeed, like John the Baptist it might well have to decrease in worldly power and influence in order that Christ might be acknowledged as Lord. The vision of the letter to the Ephesians is that of the restoration of humanity to the fullness of life which God intends for the whole of creation. Jesus comes that we might have life. The mission of the church is precisely that the men and women might be brought to life, reconciliation and wholeness in Christ. That is its ultimate goal and vision, the grounds for its hope 10 and therefore the motivation for its evangelism. But this is also precisely why the church itself must continually be transformed so that it can be a witness to God's purpose, a living sign of the hope we all have for our country, as well as a living sign of the hope which we have in the coming of God's kingdom.