SOUTH AFRICAN. Archbishop Desmond Tutu OUTLOOK. Registered at the GPO as a newspaper OCTOBER 1986 R1,50

Transcription

1 SOUTH AFRICAN OUTLOOK Registered at the GPO as a newspaper Archbishop Desmond Tutu OCTOBER 1986 R1,50

2 ounook SOUTH AFRICAN ISSN Vol117 No 1384 Editor Assistant Editors Review Editor Secretary Francis Wilson Glyn Hewson Michael King Jeanelle de Gruchy Sarah-Anne Raynham Peter Moll Ruth Samuels OCTOBER 1986 OUTLOOK ON THE MONTH ENTHRONEMENT CHARGE Desmond Mpilo Tutu THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE KAIROS DOCUMENT Jim Cochrane SUMMARY THE KAIROS DOCUM ENT EVANGELICAL WITNESS BOOK REVIEWS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS UNDER RENEWED ATTACK 113 TOWARDS A PEOPLES CULTURE 116 South African Outlook is an Independent Journal dealing with ecumenical and racial affairs which, un-interruptedly since 1870, has sought to place its readers in possession of facts and opinion which bear upon the lives of all the people of the sub-continent. Without allegiance to any political party, but according to what it believes to be Christian standards, it seeks to give information and comment on measures suggested either for the regulation or the advancement of any section of the population, by whomsoever proposed. The editorial board welcomes articles, letters, and criticism. All correspondence, including orders for subscriptions, should be addressed to the Editor, South African Outlook, PO Box 245 Rondebosch Political comment in this issue is written to express the views of South African Outlook by F Wilson, G Hewson, M King, S-A Raynham, J de Gruchy and P Moll, PO Box 245, Rondebosch All Subscriptions include General Sales Tax. Published by Outlook Publications (Pty) Ltd., PO Box 245, Rondebosch 7700, Cape and 247 Lower Main Road, Observatory Printed by Lovedale Press, PO Lovedaie Outlook on the Month ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU Together with thousands of his friends in this country and around the world, we welcome with joy and anticipation the appointment of Desmond Tutu as Archbishop of Cape Town. At the same time we are saddened by the dismay, nay anger, with which his appointment has been greeted by some business leaders, by the government and by SATV which gave derisory coverage to his enthronement. It is worth noting in this regard that TV viewers in Australia were regaled with full coverage of the event; probably South African Anglicans saw less on TV of their own Archbishop than did Christians in most of the Western world. Why then the rancour from business and government? One possibility is that he is black, filling a post held hitherto only by whites. We should not forget that iust a century ago the Anglican Church was the official church of the Cape Colony (much i like the Church of England whose bishops are still appointed by Margaret Thatcher) until this legislation was removed from the statute books in the 1870s. Yet this alone fails to explain the brouhaha. The Methodist Church, the Congregational Church, the Bantu Presbyterian Church and other churches had black leaders years ago. We believe that the real reason for the stir runs deeper. Desmond Tutu s understanding of the Gospel and of the Church s mission is fundamentally different to that of his critics. The Gospel to him has a prophetic ring. He preaches a God who breaks the fetters of injustice, who sets the downtrodden free (Luke 4:17), who says have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt, and have given heed to their cry because of their taskmasters, for I am aware of their sufferings (Exodus 3:7). To Archbishop Tutu, justice precedes reconciliation. To at least some of his critics it appears to be the reverse: they would like to see some kind of peace, some kind of reconciliation, but not necessarily with the justice that makes it possible and undergirds it. It is the difference between wanting pacification within an unjust status quo and wanting genuine peace by removing the injustice. It is therefore appropriate that in this issue of SA Outlook we publish both selections from the Archbishop s Enthronement Charge and a fine essay by Jim Cochrane on the significance of the Kairos Document. The Kairos signatories insist that in our situation in South Africa today it would be totally unchristian to plead for reconciliation and peace before the present injustices have been removed. Any such plea plays into the hands of the oppressor by trying to persuade those of us who are oppressed to accept our oppression and to become reconciled to the intolerable crimes that are committed against us. That is not Christian reconciliation, it is sin. It is asking us to become accomplices in our own oppression. Just because Archbishop Tutu is a Nobel Peace Prize winner does not mean that he is obliged to seek peace at any price. That would imply acquiescence in the government s definition of peace which amounts to law and order" unjust law and oppressive order. Accordingly Archbishop Tutu prods South Africans, especially white South Africans, to penitence. It is because of the Gospel that he calls for the dismantling of apartheid. It is because he is inspired by Christ the Prince of Peace that he disturbs people by pressing for justice knowing that the way to arrive at peace is to work for justice. The government and sections of the business community have been scandalized by his politics, especially by his call for sanctions. These disagreements flow directly, we believe, from the divergent understandings of the Gospel, peace, and reconciliation mentioned above. As he stresses in his Charge, neither he nor the people and organizations that call for sanctions want them; they want an end to apartheid. If there were any other viable nonviolent strategy to overcome apartheid he would certainly use it. Therefore the onus to end sanctions lies not with the international community but with those who practise injustice. Archbishop Tutu is a person of great wisdom, prayer, experience and love. The Anglican Church is indeed blessed to have someone like him at the helm at this time. We wish him and his wife Leah Godspeed in their ministry.

3 Enthronement Charge Desmond Mphilo Tutu Archbishop of Cape Town St. George s Cathedral Cape Town September 1986 I have recently been reading the book of the Prophet Ezekiel. It struck me how the prophet starts by describing that extraordinary vision of the glory of God and then he is overwhelmed by the transcendent numinous following the paradigm described so well by Rudolf Otto in his Idea of the Holy how it is the mysterium tremendum et fascinans which overwhelms and awes us. It draws us and yet repels us at the same time. Having been vouchsafed this theophany, the prophet falls prostrate. But God raises him to his feet because He wants to send him to this recalcitrant house of Israel. He is given the scroll written on both sides. He receives the Word or is imbued with the Spirit, imbued with the Spirit not for his self-cultivation, but for service. The Spirit is given, the divine is encountered, for the sake of others. I am sure you have noted before that this seemed to be the almost universal rhythm. Moses encounters the divine at the burning bush and he receives his instructions to go tell Pharah to let my people go. The seventy elders receive a share in the Spirit given to Moses in order to assist him in judging the people; Saul is spirit-filled so that he can become king and the Spirit is snatched back when he proves disobedient. Isaiah sees the Lord high and lifted up and then hears the diving question Whom shall I send who will go for us? and he volunteers Send me. The Universal rhythm This rhythm is repeated in the New Testament. Our Lord having spent nearly thirty years in a hidden life preparing for His Messianic mission waits until He is Our maturity will be judged by how well we are able to agree to disagree and yet to continue to love one another... You are not expected to agree with your Archbishop on every issue. anointed by the Holy Spirit at His baptism. Mark says this Spirit virtually propelled Him into the desert to enter the fray against the Evil One. Again the Spirit is not given so that the individual person may luxuriate in its possession. It is given to goad him/her into action, to prepare him for the stern business of loving God and loving neighbour not in a nebulous fashion but in flesh and blood terms, love incarnated in the harsh reality that forms the normal Sitz in Leben, the ordinary life setting of so many of God s children. Jesus commands His disciples to wait in Jeruslem for the gift from on high before they can embark on their mission to be His witnesses in Jerusalem and unto the ends of the earth. No false dichotomies For our God, everybody is a somebody. All life belongs to Him. Because of Him all life is religious. There are no false dichotomies so greatly loved by those especially who are comfortable in this life. Consequently if you say you love God whom you have not seen and hate your brother whom you had, the Bible does not use delicate language; it does not say you are guilty of a terminological inexactitude. It says bluntly you are a liar. For he who would love God must love His brother also. And so the divine judgment about our fitness for heaven will be based not on whether we went to church, whether we prayed or did other equally important religious things. No, Jesus says it will be based on whether we fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc. because in doing these things to those whom He called the least of His brethren we would have done them as to Himself. Our God, this hidden God is also the incarnate God, the God made flesh, our flesh. And if we take the incarnation seriously we must be concerned about where they live, how they live, whether they have justice, whether they

4 are uprooted and dumped as rubbish in resettlement camps, whether they are detained without trial, whether they receive an inferior education, whether they have a say in the decisions that affect their lives most deeply. Room for disagreement The wonderful thing about family is that you are not expected to agree about everything under the sun. Show me a Our people are peace-loving to a fault. The miracle of our land is that it has not gone up in flames. Would white people still be talking about non-violent change as some of us do if what they do to us were done to them? man and wife who have never disagreed and I will show you some accomplished fibbers. But those disageements, pray God, do not usually destroy the unity of the family. And so it should be with God's family, the Church. We are not expected at all times to be unanimous nor have a consensus on evey conceivable subject. As long as we are one on the fundamentals and refuse to let go of one another. You are not expected as Anglicans to agree with your Archbishop on every issue. Healthy differences of opinion can help the body to be more lively. After all it is unity we are talking about not uniformity. What is needful is to respect one another s point of view and not to impute unworthy motives to one another nor to seek to impugn the integrity of the other. Our maturity will be judged by how well we are able to agree to disagree and yet continue to love one another, to care for one another and to cherish one another and seek the greater good of other. Fundamental attitudes unchanged God calls on us to be His fellow-workers. He wants to enlist our support to be His agents of transfiguration, of transformation. There is much evil afoot in the world, in this land. Many years ago there used to be signs that read Natives and dogs not allowed. They spoke eloquently about the attitude of some whites towards blacks. We were thought to be human but not quite human as white people for we lacked what seemed indispensable to that humanity, a particular skin colour. That attitude made possible some gross ill-treatment meted out to black people by their white compatriots. Have things changed? Yes and no. I am sad to say that I believe that the fundamental attitude that blacks are human, but... has not changed. I do not intend to shock you. I wish I were totally wrong. We do not express it with the same crudity, but it remains all the same. But let me give you some instances. At the present time one of our bishops is not here, Sigisbert. He is in detention his second detention. His first ended when we declared that we were going to march on the prison in which he was being held. He was quickly brought to court and after three court appearances had charges withdrawn. Some time during his second detention he and other black ministers held with him were released. A few yards away from their place of detention they were accosted by white policemen laughing and feeling very pleased with themselves who said they were re-detaining them. They were taken into custody and they were stripped, Sigisbert to his underpants and the others quite naked. The reason, it was said, was to search them for dangerous weapons. Where would they have got these unless detainees are supplied with weapons in detention? Was it not in order to humiliate them, to humiliate this Bishop of the Church of God and his fellow ministers of the Gospel? Would this have happened had they been white? More equal than others Yes, perhaps. Francois Bill, the Moderator of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in detention was brought in shackles and leg irons, the head of a church, to meet someone from the Swiss Legation. Perhaps he was thought to be beyond the pale because he is moderator of a church which is almost exclusively black. You have heard the allegations of torture made by Father Mkhatshwa. In a country that has a Constitution that calls on the name of God. Why can it happen that when twenty or so white children die in a bus accident the papers cover this awful disaster extensively and the bus driver is actually brought to court. Mercifully he is acquitted and commended highly by the judge. Or when a very few whites are killed say by a land mine, that too is covered extensively and yet just this past week or so over twenty people were killed by the police in Soweto and there is not too much fuss. I am glad that the PFP have called for a judicial enquiry but I think I have made my point. Any death is one death too many and yet it does seem some are more equal than others in life and death. Can you imagine the outcry there would have been had it been a white four-year-old killed by a police rubber bullet as happened recently, or had it been a white eleven-year-old kept in solitary confinement for five months? Peace-loving to a fault It can never be the perpetrators of apartheid who can say apartheid is changing. The world will believe this is so when we the victims declare it is changing. Friends like you I abhor all violence. I condemn the violence of an unjust system such as apartheid and that of those who want to overthrow it. But it is absolutely important for South African whites to know that the ANC and the PAC were non-violent for most of their history, so much so that they had their own Passive Resistence Campaign and one of the Presidents General of the ANC, Albert Luthuli was awarded the Nobel Peace Price as a tribute to that commitment to non-violence. These organisations opted for the armed struggle when this Government banned them in 1960 after Sharpeville. It is important when talking about violence of apartheid. Our people are peace-loving to a fault. The miracle of our land is that it has not gone up in flames. Would white people still be talking about non-violent change as some of us do if what they have done to us and they continue to do to us had been done to them?

5 It can never be the perpetrators of apartheid who can say apartheid is changing. The world will believe that this is so when we the victims of this vicious evil declare that it is indeed changing. If white people are so impressed with all the changes, would they swop places with blacks even for one day? We have appealed to the Government and to white South Africans to recognise us as human beings with inalienable rights, just as whites. I do not want sanctions. I know that those who advocate sanctions do not want them either. Viable non-violent strategy If you were to lift the State of Emergency, remove the troops from our townships, release political prisoners and all detainees, unban our political organisations and then sit down with the authentic representatives of every section of our community to negotiate a new constitution for one undivided South Africa, then for what it is worth I would say to the world Put your sanctions plans on hold. I meant that. Please spare us your new-found altruism. Where were you when Sophiatown, District Six, Pageview and many other black communities were destroyed? Where was your concern when blacks received an inferior education, were cheap labour, when black family life was deliberately being destroyed by the migratory labour system? Why did you not utter a squeak most of you about real, actual suffering? The onus must be on those who say 1 no" to sanctions Provide us with a viable non-violent strategy to force the dismantling of apartheid. Remember that The onus must be on those who say no to sanctions to provide us with a viable non-violent strategy to forced the dismantling of apartheid. the Government has rejected gentle persuasion. The ball is still in the court of the Government and the White community. We want to live amicably with you. We want one united South Africa where everyone matters because each of us is created in God s image. MISSING ISSUES OF SA OUTLOOK It has come to our attention that some subscribers, especially those overseas, have not received certain issues of SA Outlook. We have checked and rechecked our mailing system and are convinced it is not at fault. Work in Progress magazine has been experiencing similar difficulties. We strongly suspect interference. Please be patient while we take further action.

6 The Significance of the Kairos Document Jim Cochrane This essay-in-two-parts briefly assesses the significance of the now well-known Kairos Document. Whether or not one agrees with the Document, this significance can be measured objectively in terms of its impact, reception and method. The first part deals with the contemporary crisis in South Africa, and with South African church history. The second (next issue) deals with theology and Christian experience. PART ONE The Kairos Document confesses to being unfinished. The invitation to debate generated by this historic document is sincere and extended to all those who agree with its thrust, and those who don t. Debate is its major intention. Thus it is not called a confession or a declaration, but a document, a theological comment. Here I do not intend to deal with the specific arguments of the Kairos Document, nor with those aspects which have occasioned greatest controversy (among these are the statements on violence and reconciliation). That it has weak spots too, even the original authors admit. Instead I wish to consider why the Kairos Document is of significance way beyond its immediate content. This might help us all, supporter and opponent, take both its weaknesses and its strengths with the deserved seriousness. The contemporary crisis The Kairos Document came into being through a process of reflection arising out of a profound crisis. This fact alone is part of its significance. However, it illuminates the crisis as well, focusing in unexpected ways on certain aspects. Firstly, the Document draws particular conclusions about the extent o f the crisis. Differences of opinion and judgment or badly functioning social institutions j are not at the heart of the crisis. Rather, death is: stark, unsentimental, daily death occasioned by a particular social system. This the Christian ignores only at the peril of apostasy (the practical abandonment of one s faith). Secondly, the Kairos Document makes claims about the current nature of the state which are equally serious. In their most solid argument, the authors define the state as a tyranny, and invoke the Christian tradition on the duty to defy tyranny. Thus one overseas commentator notes that the Kairos Document has gone far beyond the Barmen Declaration (of Third Reich fame) in its clarity that confession, in itself, is a political act. Rhetorically he asks: In the long Christian tradition of teaching about tyranny, is there another communal church document that has spoken as clearly as this?1 Thirdly, the Kairos Document locates the crisis not only outside the churches (a tendency in contemporary church history) but even in those churches known to have long-standing official policies rejecting apartheid. Thus the Kairos Document has evoked astonishing unrest among Christians everywhere, and not a little uneasiness and defensiveness on the part of many leading members of the church hierarchies. Surge of courage A fourth, almost unexpected, result of the Kairos Document is its evangelical impact. Many oppressed Christians in communities and townships all over South Africa who have had any access to the Kairos Document have felt a renewed confidence in their faith, a sense of hope that God in the face of persistent adversity. They make clear that they feel that at last someone has said things we have felt for so long, things never really accepted or understood in the churches before. Interestingly, not only those who feel themselves, at last, defended against the evils they face, but also many who have grown up used to power and privilege are testifying to the profound spiritual challenge they have faced in confronting the Kairos Document and the issues it addresses. Finally, what the Kairos Document has also done in our context is to make clear that all is not well in the Body of Christ. There are at least two fundamental experiences and perspectives on the meaning of the gospel in South Africa, and the dominant one has been that defined by those who have also defined the political and economic realities of contemporary South Africa. The poor, the outcast, the oppressed, the marginalised people have had little input in the past. They do not often feel themselves in any deep way represented by the official denominational institutions or practices. It is no coincidence that the largest body of Christians in South Africa find their homes in a multitude of independent churches, many of them also members of one of the established churches. Mutually exclusive viewpoints In the context of the current crisis, the Kairos Document makes quite clear that the views of the dominated and the dominant are not compatible. One should not any longer avoid the point and its implications. Bert Hoedemaker, a Dutch commentator on the Document, nicely notes: The crucial point in the struggle of the Church is not the tension between black and white as such, but the tension between an oppressed majority and a privileged

7 minority. It is the tension between two mutually exclusive projects: changing the political order, and maintaining the political order. It is, moreover, the tension between two mutually exclusive sets of moral and theological arguments. It is a tension which divides the Church more deeply than mere disagreement about doctrine....ultimately, the question of truth with which we are dealing here, is not raised by a clash o f political opinion, but by suffering. In the end, it is the actual, structural and continuing suffering of people which makes it impossible to avoid the question, and to avoid some kind of choice. Even if one disagrees with the analysis of the situation, one s position will have to be able to stand the test of that experience.2(italics mine) South African church history The Kairos Document is not the first challenging document in South Africa church history, and it will probably not be the last. Many previous attempts have been made to address critical issues in South Africa. Here a little thought experiment is worthwhile. Perhaps you might guess the origin of the following citations: The working man, though presumably able to manage his own affairs fairly satisfactorily, is not allowed to have a voice in Church matters because he is not in a position to contribute largely individually to Church funds...(moreover) much of the more useful and important work is transacted in synods and other meetings held in the working hours... it is not sufficient that the Church should throw open its doors, it must go out into the world, mix with the people, learn of the bitterness and cruelty and oppression and wrongs that exist,... extract knowledge of the results of the iniquity and uncharitableness it now preaches so guardedly agaist, and then it will be in a position, if courageous and fearless, to fight the good fight...3 Writing about a miner s strike, a leading church journal found itself capable of writing thus: (It is) not altogether fanciful to describe the exodus of Israel from Egypt as at least a great political deliverance if not the emancipation from tyranny and oppression of a horde of slaves who went out on strike against their masters.4 In another article attacking capitalism and philanthropy, we find the following: The Church has a very obvious duty... But this duty does not consist in exhorting the rich man to give away his wealth nor of specifying exactly how it should be disposed of. The whole system of wealth production wants altering.5 Half a century later I have quoted at some length here for the specific purpose of demonstrating the Church s long history of concern about some of the issues that the Kairos Document directly or indirectly addresses. Did you guess where these citations come from? Without details, suffice it say that they all come from the period 1907 to Their contemporary ring is astonishing. Even more astonishing is that the Kairos Document should be needed more than half a century later. Here then is one significant fact about the Kairos Document. It encapsulates in the clearest manner to date the nature, extent and implied longevity of a particular and persistent form of oppression in South Africa. Beginning with the exclusion from citizenship of the majority of black South Africans in the Union of South Africa (1910), to the removal of their rights to their land in the Land Act of 1913; from the great miner s strikes of 1918 andi 1946, to the student battles of the seventies and eighties; from Herzog s racist parliamentary bills of the 1930 s to the present fraud of the tricameral parliament; from the Cottesloe Conference of the gathered churches in 1961, through the Message to the People of South Africa, to the Harare Declaration of 1986 on all these occasions and many more, the Church has had to face up to new challenges and old failures. Almost without exception, the lead and the direction has inevitably come from those who wield greatest power and influence in the churches themselves. Historically these same people usually have been befriended with or connected to those who have wielded definitive power within our land. With even the best of pastoral intentions and desires to serve all the people of the Church, this largely has meant the dominance in the churches of those who are the dominant in South African society. Direction from below The Kairos Document is the first major document of broad and penetrating impact that has not come from church councils down, but from parish workers up. It turns on its head the traditional authority relationships, and in this sense bears strong resemblance to liberation theologies elsewhere. Thus it could not refrain from criticizing what it calls Church theology. In consequence, the Kairos Document also calls for an ecclesial option in our current crisis, a choice of what kind of church practice is wanted and needed in the face of overwhelming injustice and downright evil. This in itself is another moment in the document where the direct political impact of Christian action is recognized more clearly than ever before in South Africa church history. World response Finally we come to the ecumenical impact of the Kairos Document. Whatever South Africans may think of the document, the broader community of Christians across the world, in lands as diverse as Singapore, the Philippines, Australia, France, Germany, India, Canada, Brazil, Nicaragua and the USA, have already given it a place in the history of modern Christianity. Astoundingly, the impact has not been only because of the topicality of the South Africa trauma, but because Christians everywhere see it as a challenge addressed to them in their own contexts as well. By way of example, let me quote parts of a letter from the Dutch Council of Churches:...we are conscious of the fact that your document presents to us too, challenges of which we can only guess the scope and the dimensions. Your struggle challenges us to venture ourselves in our part of the world and to come to clear choices.... We have the intention to deal with your document at all levels of our churches in the Netherlands.6 More precisely, the Document raises critical choices in one context not only affecting other contexts but the nature of the ecumenical theological discourse itself. This point Hoedemaker makes; it is substantiated by the wide range of responses to the Kairos Document to date. He comments: Against that background the Kairos Document very definitely reveals and confirms that it. is no longer possible to carry on a discussion about the unity of the Church which is untouched by the struggle of the human community. The Document confirms that the time of ecumenical naivete in this respect is over.7 References ' South African church leaders speak out, Clifford J Green, in Christianity and Crisis, Nov 11, 1985, p.440ff. 2 The Kairos Document: A Challenge to the Ecumenical Movement, Bert Hoedemaker, WCC publication, January Sanderson, L.M., in The Anglican, February The Kingdom, June The Rev A F Cox, The Church Chronicle, October 16, Raad van Kerken in Nederland, Amersfoort, 30th November Bert Hoedemaker, op cit.

8 SUMMARY The Kairos Document: Challenge to the Church A Theological Comment on the Political Crisis in South Africa and EVANGELICAL WITNESS IN SOUTH AFRICA An Evangelical Critique of Theology and Practice Two documents have emerged within the past year arising out of a crisis facing South Africa. Finding themselves in a divided church where professing Christians are on both sides of the conflict, the authors of the Kairos document asked themselves: if Christianity can be used to justify the actions of the oppressor and the oppressed, can it be used for any purpose at all? While the Kairos document was being circulated, another group of Christians, regarding themselves Evangelicals and finding themselves in a similar crisis of faith, were drafting a critique of their own theology and practice. Rather than responding to and analyzing the Kairos document as something to be criticized, they decided to deal with the log in their own eyes first. Both writings are people s documents they were written by those who do not wield much influence and power in the church hierarchy. They critically examine the dominant church theology of the day, and invite response and further discussion from other Christians. Different authority The language used in the documents is different owing to the compositions of the authors. The denominational compositions of the signatories also differed widely. For the Kairos document, the three most prominent denominations were the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Methodist Churches; for the Evangelical Witness, most prominent were the Baptist Church, Apostolic Faith Missions, and Assemblies of God. The Evangelical Witness asserts that it derives its authority only from the Bible and hence extensive use is made of references to and quotations from biblical passages. The Kairos authors see their authority to rest not only in the Bible but also in the church and human reasoning in the way used by Thomas Aquinas. The Evangelical Witness authors discuss at considerable length the tension which exists in their churches between evangelism and social concern, the emphasis on the former at the expense of the latter, and the underlying theology of missions. This is omitted entirely in the Kairos document. Selective absolutization Nevertheless there is considerable overlap between the two documents. Selective absolutization of certain doctrines, most notably blind submission to the government based on Romans 13, identification of communism as the principal threat to be overcome at all costs, restoration and preservation of law and order, peace, and unity in a way which necessitates the maintenance of status quo, abuse of the concept of reconciliation to mean coexistence of the ruling class and the oppressed in the absence of serious attempts at restructuring society, reliance on individual conversions to change the system, and the emphasis on non-violence as a universal principle while supporting the military and the police all these are criticised by both documents as the propagation of the ideology of the dominant class disguised as demands of the gospel. The Evangelical Witness refers to the South African government as a terrorist regime and the preamble to the constitution blasphemous, and the Kairos document similarly calls this government a tyrannical regime and the god of the constitution the anti-christ. Hellenistic influence The Evangelical Witness points out how so many Christians are totally oblivious of the power of the society to mould and influence their thinking, and how Western capitalist culture and their own class interest have become their idol without their conscious realization. As a result, structures of the church mirror the society at large with white domination and the affluent occupying key positions. These leaders regard the world to be so sinful as to merit no effort at eliminating structural injustice and oppression. This way of thinking, coupled with the Hellenistic concept of dualism sharply demarcating the spiritual and the material yields preoccupation with heavenly matters. The Kairos document on the other hand specifies that the fundamental problem lies in lack of social analysis. This lack of social analysis in turn leads to spiritualization of all biblical passages and the rejection of anything political, as though the Bible can offer a non-political solution to political problems." The Kairos document explicitly states that this government is irreformable, and that historical changes take place not when the oppressor is morally persuaded but rather when the ruling class can no longer withstand the pressure exerted on it. The document rejects the justice of reform whereby oppressor dictates the nature and time scale of reform. It also distinguishes the violence of the oppressor and of the oppressed. In all these areas, while the Kairos document and the Evangelical Witness are not necessarily at variance with each other, the former is far more explicit. Third force The Evangelical Witness challenges fellow Christians to commit themselves to the radical demands of Jesus Christ, disobeying unjust laws even at the risk of persecution by earthly systems. It urges Christians to rid themselves of anti-ecumenism and to work together with other believers. The Kairos document goes further. It urges participation in the struggle for liberation at large, not just within the church but in the popular movement outside. It explicitly warns against the church trying to be a third force, duplicating the efforts of other organizations. While the last section of the Kairos document, Challenge to Action, has often been criticized for being the weakest part of the writing, the Evangelical Witness refrains from discussion of specific actions, aside from disobedience to unjust laws, leaving the decision altogether to the reader. Strident The two documents are clearly intended for different audiences and hence the different emphases. Although dealing with far more conservative Christians, the Evangelical Witness is nonetheless no less strongly worded than the Kairos document. They both demand response from and the critical self-examination by Christians in South Africa who have been voicing opposition to apartheid while benefitting from the system.

9 The Ambiguities of Dependence in South Africa Class, Nationalism and the State in Twentieth Century Natal Shula Marks School of Oriental and African Studies London In her The Ambiguities of Dependence in South Africa, Shula Marks has yet again produced a piece of historical scholarship that is interesting, stimulating and significant. Her scholarly aims are modest enough contained as they are in just over a hundred jampacked pages. Modest they may well be but Shula Marks s historical and by the same token human concerns in this little book are wide ranging. There is a disarming sense in which The Ambiguities of Dependence in South Africa is not only a book about the nature of the emerging South African State, nationalism, class and class consciousness in early twentieth century Natal. It is also a consummate achievement which reveals how the past is in the present and the present in historical terms was initiated and formed in the past. What is probably most seminal about this work is that without consciously setting out to do so, Shula Marks has placed the sign posts for any future significant African historical biography. She achieved this feat without undue fan-fare and extravagance. The interplay between actors" and historical events is handled in an even-handed and parsimonious fashion and the narrative is unclattered. The historical figures: Solomon Ka Dinizulu, John Dube and George Champion are handled compassionately and with a delicacy of touch that makes them come to life. Yet one is privileged to feel that not far from these historical figures and the economic and political terrain in which they lived out their lives is the lively intellect of the writer. The book is a timely corrective of what the author describes as the heavy structuralism of the historiography of race and class in Southern Africa. She has provided ample room for the individual historical actors who are the main concern of the narrative without neglecting objective material and historical conditions. Although the main part of the book was conceived as three separate essays, a remarkable degree of narrative continuity and cohesion is achieved and enhanced in the concluding chapter which conflates past and present. Without doubt, this superb little book would have been more remarkable if Shula Marks had taken the intellectual trouble to articulate more clearly rather than insinuate the nature and meanings of dependence. With its well annotated and useful notes, index and photographs, The Ambiguities o f Dependence in South Africa will remain of immense interest and value to both scholars and general readers alike. After reading it, one is left with the distinct impression that the book could have been longer an inspiring beginning to a future historical trilogy. N. Chabani Manganyi Mabangalala: The rise of Right wing vigilantes in South Africa Nicholas Haysom Centre for Applied Legal Studies: Univ. of Witwatersrand Conscientious Objectors under Renewed Attack Peter Moll Plans are under way to further tighten the already stringent rules governing conscientious objection. A Defence standing committee has been asked to deliberate: * redefining religious convictions as (basically) theistic convictions so as to exclude people like Buddhists. * making the length of community service a mandatory six years, i.e. take away the discretion of a judge to award a period shorter than six years, * similarly making the length of a prison sentence for military refusal a mandatory six years, and Mabangalala is essentially a report that was drawn up in response to an urgent request from the National Committee against Removals, the Transvaal Rural Action Committee (TRAC) and the Black Sash. The report is based on affidavits and statements, reports and interviews. The report traces the rapid escalation of violence that began in South Africa in September 1984 and culminated in the declaration of a state of emergency in August During this time and subsequently, the official and other media have given a great deal of attention to what is described as black-on-black violence which is a convenient label that is often used to obscure the emergence of extra-legal violence by right-wing vigilantes. As the author points out: By referring to all conflict in which both parties are black, as black-onblack conflict, the links and relationships between conflicting parties and apartheid structures were buried. The book sets out to describe and document the emergence of vigilante groups in Its primary purpose being to expose the nature of this form of terror. Mabangalala is essential reading for anyone who is genuinely interested in the nature of the violent struggle in South Africa. The first edition has already been sold out and a second, updated edition will now have to be prepared. Michael Rice * making these mandatory rules retroactive thereby considerably lengthening the periods of service or sentences several men are currently doing. In the Memorandum on the Objects of the Defence Amendment Bill, 1986 it is stated that the Board for Religious Objection supports the amendments contemplated because of the necessity thereof. These legislative plans emerged after three court cases. The first was that of one Hartmann, a Buddhist, who applied to the Board of Religious Objection on grounds of being a religious pacifist. Buddhists do not believe in the existence of a supreme being, viz. they are

10 not theistic in the Western Judaeo-Christian-lslamic sense. Neverthless the Board referred his case to the Supreme Court which accepted his petition that he was religious and pacifist, and al-.. the problem that to convince narrowminded people that you adhere to a set of beliefs that they have defined narrowly, one has to become (or convey the impression of being) as narrowminded as one s interlocutors lowed him to do alternative service. In response the legislators set about to tighten the law so as to exclude people like Hartmann. In another court case, a Jehovah s Witness who had been sentenced to a period of six years imprisonment for disobeying a call-up had his sentence reduced to three years by a judge. In the third court case, a Jehovah s Witness had his period of community service reduced from six years to four years. The argument of the Transvaal judge was that the law requires a man to do 1 1/2 times the normal period of military service. If the period of military service is two years basic plus two years camps, then the community service period (or the prison sentence) is six years. But, pointed out the judge, most conscripts do far less than the full period of two years plus two. They do more like two years basics plus six months worth of camps, and so the period of community service (or the sentence) should be reduced accordingly. It was these three cases which led to the drafting of the Defence Amendment Bill 1986 which the standing committee was asked to consider. To date the standing committee has discussed only the definition of religious and decided against the proposed change, on the grounds, for example, that it would be too difficult to define a supreme being, giving Hartmann and others a temporary respite. Parliament was adjourned before the committee could approve the change to sentences and periods of service of mandatory length, but the committee is expected to meet in December or January and upon its approval the rest of the proposals will be tabled before Parliament. Conscientious objectors, the churches and other interested bodies have therefore only a few months in which to mobilize against these retrogressive steps. Another objector turned down Recently a Christian pacifist objector in Durban, Don Edwards, went before the Board of Religious Objection and after two lengthy examinations (four hours each) his application for community service was refused. Apparently the Board was not convinced of his Christian convictions even though the man s priest was flown in to Bloemfontein to testify on his behalf. Board members pro-military This case highlights once again the conviction of this journal and of several church denominations at the time of the passing of the relevant Act in 1983 that the legislation is fundamentally flawed. It requires the Board which is composed of mere humans including several military people and chaplains at that to decide on a man s conscience. None of the people who sit on the Board are conscientious objectors. The judge, one trusts, is impartial. However, the military men and chaplains on the Board can It is inconceivable that a man with thirty years military service behind him could ever comprehend the convictions of a conscientious objector, much less come to a reasoned judgement as to how sincere the objector is. confidently be predicted to hold strongly pro-military opinions. It is inconceivable that a man with thirty years military service behind him could even comprehend the convictions of a conscientious objector, much less come to a reasoned judgement as to how sincere the objector is. Methodology One might well pose the question: given that most of the members of the Board (excluding the president who is a judge) are pro-military, what kind of methodology would they employ when considering an application by a conscientious objector? Consider, for example, what would happen if (as is possible) there is a clear demarcation in their minds between political beliefs and religious beliefs. They might then look through the objector s application, and as long as it sounds religious, pass it, but if it starts to sound political (read leftist or liberal, not right-wing!), fail it. Religion versus politics One might even ask whether their method is not a key-word search, i.e. pick out the political-sounding words if there is more than a certain proportion of them then it must surely follow that the man is not really religious because he is political, for religion and politics are necessarily mutually exclusive. Of course it is impossible for this journal to find out at short notice what is the procedure used, but the evidence seems to point in this direction. The statement laid before the Board by Don Edwards was transparently religious and pacifist all the way through. In addition, Edwards had the misfortune to be honest and open about his beliefs, so he also explained in his statement what his political convictions were. This provoked a storm of protest from the Board which in the end decided he was not a genuine religious pacifist. One suspects that if Edwards had been sly he would have hidden the fact that he is a thinking, broad-minded intellectual who notices that South Africa is going through a revolution (in fact Edwards is an engineer and runs a journal part-time). He would have been cleverer to try to convince the Board that he holds no strong political convictions, knowing that they would seize on these and deem him insincere. Edwards, like many other conscientious objectors, faces the problem that to convince narrow-minded people that you adhere to a set of beliefs that they have defined narrowly, one has to become (or convey the impression of being) as narrow-minded as one s interlocutors. The impossible This is not the only problem with the Board. The Board is required to do the impossible. How can any person ever truly know the motives of another? In terms of the very Christian theology which the chaplains espouse The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately wicked; who can understand it? (Jer. 17:9) Every person s motives

11 are mixed when doing any action; therefore the only way one can ever tell what a person s real motives are is by observing that person s actions. We are reminded of our Lord s words, You will know them by their fruits (Matt. 7:16). He added that by merely saying Lord, Lord people would not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 7:21). Mere protestations of sincerity and belief do not on their own amount to the depth of conviction required to act upon them. It appears, though, that the Board is requiring young men to do the Lord, Lord" act in order to be regarded as conscientious objectors. Could it be that if they just get the phraseology right and carefully edit out any awareness of the revolution this country is passing through, they will be accepted as genuine? The current arrangement is unavoidably elitist. People with a good turn of phrase and a university training in essayand speech-writing (and the requisite degree of self-censorship) can be reasonably certain of fulfilling the Board s requirements. People without considerable literary sophistication but with the depth of conviction that would drive them to acting and suffering for their beliefs run the risk of being sent to jail. Church representatives The above problems with the Board raise the question of the church s participation in the scheme. There is a Methodist minister, and also an Anglican priest on the Board (the latter in contradiction to the will of the Anglican church). The Presbyterian, Congregational and Catholic churches have refused to send representatives because of their disagreement with the Board s terms of reference. As mentioned above, the memorandum used by the Defence standing committee states that the Board approved of the proposed changes in the legislation. It is implied (if not in the minds of the Anglican and Methodist Board members, then certainly in the minds of the politicians who formulate the legislation) that these two churches also support the proposed legislative changes. This is so as long as these churches say nothing to the contrary and they have not yet done so. Collaborators In view of how matters have turned out, the Presbyterian, Congregational and Catholic churches clearly made the right decision. The Methodist and Anglican Board members have effectively become collaborators in a move to limit the amount of conscientious objection as far as possible; their participation on the Board has given the Board a religious and moral legitimation which it does not deserve in terms of their own theology. Both these churches have called upon the state to open the conscientious objection legislation to all sincere objectors, pacifist and non-pacifist, religious and non-religious, and have advanced theological reasons for doing so. Yet the two Board members are now participating in a scheme which is steadily narrowing the definition of legally acceptable conscientious objection and making it more difficult for objectors by raising the periods of service and sentence. The basic aim: exclusion not inclusion Appalling as the proposed changes are, it should not be forgotten that the fundamental difficulty is that the legislation on conscientious objection is too exclusive. The public appears to be under the Could it be that if applicants to the Board just get the phraseology right and carefully edit out any awareness of the revolution this country is passing through, they will be accepted as genuine?... the intention [of the current legislation] was not so much to distinguish between the conscientious objector and the convenience objector, but to limit the number of objectors without angering the church excessively. impression that since there is a Board conscientious objectors are basically O.K. That is emphatically not the case. The legislation specifies that only religious pacifists may do community service. This excludes non-religious pacifist objectors. The English-speaking" churches have individually and collectively (through the SACC) called for the extension of community service to these groups as well. Probably the current legislation excludes many more conscientious objectors than it includes. Its intention, no doubt, was not so much to distinguish clearly between the genuine and the fake, between the conscientious objector and the convenience objector, but to limit the number of conscientious objectors as far as possible without angering the church excessively. And it has succeeded. The number of The churches should make it clear that the Board carries no theological, moral or ecclesiastical legitimation and stress that it is a shabby pretence at liberalism when its real objective is to force men into the apartheid arm y. objectors rose when the legislation was first passed in 1983, but to nowhere near the level it would have if all conscientious objectors were accepted. Furthermore the church has remained silent apart from some good statements in that year. Lethargy It is time for the churches to set aside their lethargy and take up the struggle of conscientious objectors. The church is responsible for them to the extent that the church s own theological response to apartheid in the past five years compels young men to consider conscientious objection as an option. It is wrong for the churches to conscientize people, pass resolutions condemning apartheid as a heresy, and then remain indiffernt to the fate of those young men who take their theology seriously. The Anglican and Methodist Board members should immedately stand down. All the churches should issue urgent statements urging Parliament not to make matters more difficult for conscientious objectors. They should seek interviews with the Minister of Defence and try to persuade him to open up the legislation further. They should object in the strongest terms to the Board's rejection of men like Don Edwards. Above all, they should declare the whole system of the Board a farce. While not discouraging young men from applying to it if they choose, they should make it quite clear that the Board carries no theological, moral or ecclesiastical legitimation and stress that it is a shabby pretence at liberalism when its real objective is to force men into the army.

12 Worker play Towards a Peoples Culture Arts Festival 1986 As we went to press the Arts Festival 86 which had been planned to take place from 12 to 22 December was banned. The following outline, written before the banning, tells something of the hope for the Festival which has now been dashed temporily we trust. Non-profit venture The Festival is a non-profit venture whereby participating organizations are asked to make a contribution to costs. Progressive church funding agencies are also being approached to cover any deficit. Money left over at the end of the Festival will be chanelled into progressive cultural organizations to advance their work. Although time and financial constraints dictate that the Festival be a regional event, contact is being established with groups throughout the country to inform them of the Festival. While local cultural expression will be prioritised, groups and individuals nationally are being invited to participate on the basis of their past contributions to the building of a people s culture. There will be as much national input as is possible and it is hoped that the Festival will provide the impetus towards a national progressive arts festival in the near future. State of emergency What are the origins of the Festival? At the beginning of this year, the national conference of the End Conscription Campaign decided to host a cultural festival primarily to make gains in their constituency. However, with the declaration of the emergency, it was clear that ECC would not be able to host such a festival any longer. It was felt that the festival should go ahead but that a group independent of ECC should organize it. So a wide range of community organizations and progressive cultural workers was invited to be a part of the planning and organizing of the Festival. Across ideological differences As a result of this broadening out process which began in the middle of August, the aims, nature and priorities of the Festival have shifted from making gains in a particular constituency to advancing progressive, grassroots culture in general. The present state of emergency may have curbed traditional ways of organizing but it has also awakened many organizantions to the important role of culture within the struggle for liberation, and as a means of gathering and mobilizing people. Organizations are invited to be part of the Festival provided that they agree with the basic antiracism, anti-sexism, non-profit, anti-militarism and non-collaboration with apartheid structures principles of the Festival. Rather than promote one particular ideological tradition, the Festival seeks to foster relationships across ideological differences within the progressive movement through working together in the cultural sphere with a long term view to building a national, progressive people s culture. Cultural liberation 3 Other aims of the Festival are: to facilitate the expression of grassroots cultural activity by making resources and space available for this purpose; to provide forums where theoretical issues related to a progressive people s culture can be debated; to promote the teaching and discovery of cultural skills; to allow organizations to make organizational gains through participation in the festival; to break down barriers between disciplines and find new ways of working collectively in an inter-disciplinary manner; to be a springboard for organizing cultural workers; to prioritise the creation and expression of grassroots cultural activity but also to encourage progressive cultural activity among semi-professional and professional cultural workers. Some of the events planned for the Festival include drama events with skills training workshops, a worker play festival, street theatre, children s theatre, a workshop production combining various art disciplines and working alongside community organizations to produce their own plays for the Festival. An exciting range of progressive musicians from Cape Town and other places in the country will play throughout the Festival. In seminars, these musicians will share their experiences and questions of musical form and content will be discussed. Three exhibitions will be held one of national and overseas posters relating to South Africa, a child-art exhibition and an exhibition of progressive South African art. A literature group is publishing a book of short stories. Progressive South African films and videos will be shown. A Tribute Evening will celebrate the contributions of our cultural heritage. A multimedia event including slide shows, music, videos, drama, alternative fashions and design, a cartoon exhibition and an exhibition of cultural posters in scheduled. Other events are a week long symposium that will deal with issues related to progressive people s culture, a cultural rally, a Heroes Day commemoration event and a large people s fair. The Festival has become a stimulating and informative forum for collectively working through problems and ideals related to the growth of a national people s culture. More worthy causes? Is the Festival a priority at this time? If we view culture and politics" as two separate spheres, then we may have reservations about the Festival in terms of its expenditure (i.e. aren t there more worthy causes?) and its celebratory nature (i.e with all the repression, is such a Festival justifiable?) There will always be worthy causes to spend money on. And as the struggle intensifies so will repression. But if we view cultural liberation as being integral to political liberation then we would know that for too long has our culture been shaded or suppressed by the dominant culture of the ruling classes. Too long have we been taught to believe that culture and politics are separate spheres. Too long has our progressive cultural activity occurred on an ad-hoc, sporadic basis. The time is long overdue for us to consciously build a national people's culture. The time has come for progressive culture to be asserted. With a wealth of grassroots cultural activity during the last few months of emergency repression, the Festival will but give impetus to a progressive cultural movement that is already there!