The agony of soul presently experienced within the Dutch Reformed Church (Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk) of South Africa about racism is generally unknown or underestimated. As an American from the South, I have throughout my adult life been concerned with this problem, and have closely observed the South African scene, being personally acquainted with all the theologians mentioned in this article. I can affirm that, comparatively, their spiritual agony has produced more biblical and theological probing than has emerged from our southland over the same period and crisis. And in spite of the present apartheid policy of their Nationalist government, they have advanced considererably in their thinking on Christian race relations.
It is not so much what is said—although the general direction of their statements is good—but that they are saying it at all, and the redemptive manner in which they are saying it, that is significant. Even slight examination will disclose how far they have come since Professor J. du Plessis wrote in his History of Christian Missions in South Africa at the beginning of the century, “No responsible missionary today would venture to preach or to practice the doctrine of social equality between the White and the Colored races” or since the (1951) Twenty-second Synod of the DRC of South Africa which declared “that it will not be unchristian for Christians of different races to mix at international congresses, but in social life where national customs and habits are at stake, everyone should maintain his national identity by withdrawing to his own separate circle.”
Within the past year, the majority church of South Africa, which has embarrassed world Christianity with such official policies as the foregoing, has produced some nation-shaking departures from these positions. In June Dr. W. D. Jonker, the official adviser on church law to the Synod of Transvaal, issued a document advising the white missionary “even in South Africa to become a member of the church he serves, subject to the discipline and supervision of their synod (African).”
The Assault on Apartheid
Within the decade there has been a radical reversal pertaining to the justification of apartheid based on the Bible; this started with a commendable openness to listening to the Word of God afresh, as stated by the advance commission reporting to the Federal Council of all the branches of the Reformed Church in South Africa (1956), and developed into the present virtually unanimous repudiation of finding support for apartheid in the Bible. The commission advised: “To an increasing degree the Christian Church is becoming aware of the danger of acquiescing in race relationships which may perhaps not be in accord with the Word of God. Consequently the DRC too is listening afresh to what the Word of God has to say to us on the above-mentioned matter, in the light of the present situation.” Dr. Ben Marais summarizes the change of climate in the epochal symposium of the new mood, Delayed Action (1961): “Only ten years ago a responsible ecclesiastical body in South Africa could put it in writing that separate Churches for Whites and non-Whites were not only permissible but, according to God’s Word, imperative. I know of no responsible theologian in South Africa who would today subscribe to such a doctrine.”
Moreover, since the aggravating adamancy of the DRC in the ecumenical councils, including the 1954 Evanston Assembly, there has been a growing willingness within the church to be open to the brotherly advice of world Christians on this matter. Official committees of 25 members from the Cape and Transvaal Synods concurred in the now-famous Cottesloe Consultation of December, 1960, called by the World Council of Churches and including all denominations of South Africa. And even though the die-hards in the hierarchy have subsequently succeeded in repudiating Cottesloe, even to withdrawing from the World Council, those findings are generally admitted to be the true opinions of many and testify that ecclesiastical power cannot forever hold back the tide of the converted conscience. Included in the final Cottesloe Statement was this affirmation (No. 6): “No one who believes in Jesus Christ may be excluded from any church on the grounds of color or race. The spiritual unity among all men who are in Christ must find visible expression in acts of common worship and witness, and in fellowship and consultation on matters of common concern.”
But far more important for the understanding of the soul-agony of the DRC are the growing ranks of the prophetic minority who have risked the wrath and repudiation of their fellow churchmen to plant the seed which would eventually split the rock wall of apartheid. From the two theological seminaries, at the professorial level, came the first trumpet sounds. At Pretoria Dr. Ben Marais published his historical survey, The Color Problem and the West (1954). However it is generally conceded that Professor B. B. Keet, who was then dean of Stellenbosch Theological School, in Whither South Africa? (1956), was the first theological voice of public protest. Since then others on his faculty have joined him: Professor Jack Muller, Professor P. A. Verhoef, and now, most recently, Professor J. C. G. Kotze (Principle and Practice in Race Relations [1962]). Two of the aforementioned, Marais and Keet, were joined by three others—namely, Professor G. C. Oosthuizen of Ft. Hare University, Professor J. Alex van Wyk of Turfloop Theological School (for Africans), and Dr. G. J. Swart, pastor in Johannesburg—in publishing, with six other persons from the other branches of the Reformed Church in South Africa, an arresting tract for the times, Delayed Action (1961). The courage required for their open stand is indicated in the Preface: “The writers do not expect immediate and complete agreement. They have written in the full knowledge that pioneers also in the realm of Christianity, very often and for a long time stand alone. All the same they realize beforehand with deep gratitude that their work will be welcomed because it has put into words a sense of urgency which has been felt by many for a long time.”
In addition these eight leaders have been joined by others, especially younger men in missions and parishes. For instance, in July of this year a highly successful suburban pastor in Johannesburg relinquished his comfortable living to launch a new and independent “Christian Monthly for South Africa” called Pro Veritate, and he (Dr. C. F. B. Naudé) and his supporters are thinking of staging continuous spiritual consultations on the subject throughout South Africa.
Let no one think these churchmen find it easy to take their stand with Christ. All of these mentioned and many others have had their hardships. Of the 11 writers of Delayed Action, one professor has been tried and found guilty of “theological heresy,” a pastor was obliged to resign, and another was forced to explain his article before the church session. In other words, the soul-agony within the South African DRC has been written publicly in blood—in church trials, in enforced resignations, in demotions, in censored press—and all have been under the fire of culture pressure. Yet, as the Preface of Delayed Action makes clear, they were spiritually prepared for this beforehand: “For church people reflection means asking with faith and listening in prayer to the will of God made known through His word. This takes time. The formulating of an answer to His Word requires courage. For church people courage in certain circumstances means to conquer and renounce the self. This too takes time.” But they eventually brought forth, spreading a beacon light in the darkness of their nation’s race tensions. They may not have said all the things we would want them to say, and there are some questionable tenets in what they have written. Sometimes they appear to have been overly cautious amidst the rapid social change of our world, but invariably they have been open and constructive, never rigid and avengeful.
Two Births
Pain and travail
Overtake a woman,
Crimson drops
Usher a new life
Into the shallow mercy
Of Time.
A child is born.
He grows
In wisdom and knowledge
And one day,
He beholds himself
In the mirror
Of Holy writ,
And sees
A whited sepulchre.
He gazes on a cross,
Where, again,
There is travail and pain,
God of agony,
Who is not willing
To send us a cross
He cannot bear
Himself,
A thorn-crowned God,
Suffering
The innocent,
For the guilty.
Crimson drops
Usher a new life.
A man
Enters the womb
The second time,
By the Spirit.
He is born again
Into the unchangeable
Mercy
Of eternity
In Christ.
ROMAYNE ALLEN
Criticism of Race Codes
A short review of the latest and perhaps the best book written by these courageous voices will summarize the advanced thinking of all. Professor Kotze’s Principle and Practice in Race Relations According to Scripture was published in English this year but first appeared in 1961 in Afrikaans as Ras, Volk en Nasie [Race, Folk and Nation] in terme van die Skrif. Generally speaking, it can be said that he underscores the criticisms of prevailing South African race codes made by all the persons mentioned: (1) that the Bible nowhere supports racism; (2) that thoroughgoing apartheid is both impractical and sinful; (3) that the church does not uncritically support government policy; (4) that racism is the greatest hindrance to missionary outreach in Africa; (5) that the extra division of a racist church further defies the ecumenical unity of the Church; and (6) that racism as presently defended in South Africa greatly embarrasses any defense of so-called “white western Christian civilization” on the continent.
His lucid and forthright statements reinforce what his colleagues have said in this united DRC front against racism. As a theological-school professor formerly in the chair of missions, he can be expected to speak urgently on the relationship of missions and race. “Next to mission work, her [the Church’s] most difficult task is the building up of Christian race relations.… The task of the church in human relations! We shall succeed in our mission work according as we progress in this respect” (p. 20). Racism at home has a boomerang effect on missions abroad. “We are, alas, today witnessing the painful situation that racial tensions tend to close many hearts and doors to the missionary message” (p. 123). And unfortunately “you find whites who display great zeal for missions while at the same time they are extremely inhuman and unchristian in their race relations” (p. 77). Finally he states the case bluntly: “In South Africa it is precisely our race-relations and colour situation with its whole background which hampers the practice of our Christian principle of unity” (p. 101).
He writes from a thoroughly biblical and theological stance, and apparently would not have taken the public platform had he thought that his fellow DRC churchmen were stating the case fairly without rationalizing the Bible and theology. With this sense of urgency he enters the controversy, and writes on the flyleaf of his book: “We in South Africa are more intensely concerned with this problem than any other country in the world.” Once entering the fray he makes the strongest positive suggestions to date. These focus around the dialogue in his country over the terms “apartheid,” “differentiation,” and “indigenous” churches. Regarding the first, he thinks there can be no apartheid in the Lord’s house: “But colour and racial type must not play a discriminating or excluding role here. This in no way accords with Christian thought and brotherhood. Nobody must ever be excluded from the exercise of corporate worship with other believers solely because of his colour” (p. 94).
Most significant is the fact that since the publication of his book six African ministers from Nyasaland participated in Holy Communion with the white congregation of the Central (Student) Church, Stellenbosch, of which the Rev. Kosie Gericke is pastor. In spite of the open criticism, the Synod of the Cape DRC, which was then in session, passed an epochal resolution—a resolution said by observers to be “far more significant than its resolutions passed on to Cottesloe.” What follows is a translation: “This meeting has noted with approval the efforts of several congregations of our church to establish closer contact between ministers, church councils, congregations and church organizations of our mother church and mission churches. The Synod would therefore encourage all congregations of our church to seek, with due care and Christian love, ways by which we as Christians and members of the same confession could learn to know one another better, could learn to work together better, and could learn to pray together more often in the interests of the Kingdom of God. The Synod regards this task as urgent in view of the increasingly difficult times which, according to the Scriptures, await the Christian Church in the World.”
In regard to the second term, he refutes the defenders of “differentiation” (who interpret race as a fact of God’s creation in order to justify separation) by substituting the more proper concept, “homogeneous.” “In the sight of God all men as contrasted with the rest of creation are homogeneous; they are human beings, they are His creation in His image and likeness” (p. 65). In two ways, theologically speaking, they “still remain similar to the rest in spite of the highest achievements in human life. They are all fallen sinners, dependent on the grace of God alone” (p. 76). While this doctrinal awareness may not seem to have many social and political results, for Dr. Kotze it has tremendous bearing on practical life. “The realization that we are all equal in sin before God ought to save us from this offensive superiority” (p. 77). Developed further, it means, contrary to the usual rationale of apartheid, that the concepts “race,” “folk,” and “nation” are not interchangeable (p. 48) or rooted in the Bible; and that Christian brotherhood transcends any attempts to legalize such spurious divisions of “homogeneous” mankind.
The Christian Fellowship
Furthermore, this central theological concept means that “indigeneity” must not hamper koinonia. “When, however, the church in the name of diversity organises the indigenous church ‘apart,’ on the ground of ethnic differences with their peculiar culture, in such a way that spontaneous Christian contact and fellowship are made impossible or are hampered, the principle of Scripture for the church of Christ is neglected.… Then it is no longer an indigenous church, but a church ‘apart,’ with the purpose of bringing about separation” (p. 93). The historic decision of the Synod of 1857 which allowed for “indigenous churches” “because,” in its original wording, “of the weakness of some,” is not to be interpreted as supporting permanent apartheid. “There was never any question of the exclusion of non-white believers,” he points out (p. 83). Moreover, “homogeneity” as opposed to “differentiation” allows for no depreciation of the cultures of other ethnic groups. All men need each other for mankind’s corporate maturity. There can be no talk of second-rate cultures. “In spite of the cardinal differences, we have to do here with homogeneous beings who must be accepted and treated as human beings no matter how much they may differ mutually. The White people must also bear in mind that the Bantu’s culture—call it primitive if you like—is not necessarily of a poor quality and unacceptable because it does not accord with the Western pattern and standards” (p. 51). On the contrary, he affirms that “we would have made much more headway in the sphere of race relations if we had clearly realized, and adhered to it, that backwardness is not necessarily identical with colour or race” (p. 73).
Moreover, if racial groupings are to have any meaning in human relations, they must never be rigid but must be understood as dynamic. “With the right Scriptural philosophy of life relevant to racial affairs, we shall gradually develop realistically according to norm. On the one hand, we shall regard and treat all people, irrespective of ethnic differences, as fellowmen; on the other hand, we shall realize that cultural differences in equality are not static or connected with colour” (p. 75). Within this norm, he allows for a minimal self-preservation of each culture group, but only if maintained on the superior principle of eternal righteousness (p. 148).
Finally, besides taking his nation to task for its pretentious talk of “guardianship”—not unlike colonialism’s pretentions about “the white man’s burden,” the Central African Federation’s policy of “partnership,” and the United States South’s “separate but equal”—he reinterprets the concept of guardianship positively. “Whoever takes maturity for the non-white to be less than for the white, solely on the ground of race or colour, does not exercise a Christian guardianship” (p. 128). For him guardianship implies three principles: (1) “in the process of education towards maturity, the ward must be guided and treated in such a way that he becomes innerly free and mature” (p. 127); (2) the ward must be encouraged by keeping alive within him the promise of the concrete termination of the guardianship; (3) there must be a present acknowledgment on the part of the guardian as well as the ward that the termination date based on the “human state of maturity ought eventually to include for the non-white exactly what it includes for the white” (ibid.).
In the light of the evidence presented, who can affirm that the Spirit of God is not moving redemptively on the troubled waters of South Africa?
G. MCLEOD BRYAN
Professor of Christian Ethics
Wake Forest College
Winston-Salem, N. C.
