Konferensie oor Kultuur en Bediening

Gehou op 21-22 Aug 2009

Kliek hier om hierdie artikel te stoor

 

A Biblical Foundation for Intercultural Ministries

Rev. Johannes Wessels

North – West University

Abstract

This paper deals with the Biblical foundation for intercultural ministries and its relevance for contemporary congregations. Although often (intentionally) overlooked, the intercultural ministry and the rapid growth thereof forms an integral part of the New Testament Church. The aim of this discussion is not only to focus on intercultural ministry as it presents itself in the New Testament, but also investigating the way in which this would place our current attempts at intercultural ministry in perspective. In a second part of the discussion the focus will fall on the role of leadership in the process of fostering intercultural ministry, and the basic character traits that are needed in this regard are mainly deferred from the approach of the apostle Paul.

1. The composition of the New Testament church during it’s inception and its complete form in heaven.

The concept of the church as a home for all cultures and natures originates in the Old Testament, where the Lord himself promises in Isaiah 56:8 that the house of God will be “called a house of prayer for all nations.” In Isaiah 66:18 the Lord also announces that He is “about to come and gather all nations and tongues, and they will come and see my glory.”

These prophesies were already fulfilled in the first large gathering of believers at the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-11), where the apostles were using diverse languages in addressing the Jews that gathered in Jerusalem from cultural diverse communities. They were not Jews by birth alone, but also other proselytes that converted to Judaism. The fact that this distinction is made in Acts 2:11, shows that despite the isolated nature of Judaism, there were several converts from other cultures worshipping with the Jews.

Over and above the proselytes we also find reference to God-fearers (Acts 10:1-4; Acts 13:49-52). Although they did not complete the full ritual in order to become a Jew, they attended the Jewish services in the Synagogue. These Godfearers would certainly be more at home amongst the believers in Christ. than in the Jewish Synagogue, where they were not fully accepted.

Although the main distinction was often made between Jew and Greek, it is clear that most New Testament congregations consisted of people from diverse cultural backgrounds. Even the congregation in Jerusalem, which one would consider to have been almost entirely Jewish, consisted amongst others also of Grecian Jews and Hebraic Jews (Acts 6:1).

Although the church of Christ went through several changes throughout the centuries, in especially its cultural composition, it is important to note the church in heaven as described in the Book of Revelation. In the Book of Revelation each nation or the nations are referred to in a positive sense as part of the church of God no less than nine times! One of the significant passages in this regard is found in Revelations 5:9 and 7:9

Looking at the Biblical data above it is clear that the church is depicted for from its inception to the complete church as an end as consisting of several nations. Intercultural ministry is part and parcel of the New Testament Church, and could not be ignored.

2. The development of the New Testament Church as an intercultural church.

The first references to the life in the newly formed church (Ac 2:41-47, 4:32-37) portrayed a vibrant young church that acted together in complete unity. Although these converts to Christ were of different cultural backgrounds, they were mostly Jews that came to celebrate Pentecost. From the initial founding of the Church in Jerusalem and Judea, the gospel would the spread to Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

In Acts 11 we find specific mention that the scattered believers also preached to the “Greeks” in Antioch, and that the message was accepted with joy. Antioch would therefore stand out as one of the first locations where Jewish as well as Non-Jewish congregants were worshipping together.

It is furthermore interesting that the first congregation where we find a reference to “Christians” is not Jerusalem as one would presume, but the very same Antioch (Acts 11:26). From Paul’s letter to the Galatians it is clear that Antioch did not only comprise of Jews, but also of several other cultures. Paul’s mission not to build on the foundation of anyone else, but to take the gospel to the ends of the earth and to all the nations is evident in Romans 8:8-28. A modern commentator like Jewett (2007:xv) even argues that the whole of the book of Romans was written as a motivation for Paul’s mission to Spain. Throughout Paul’s letters his quest for unity amongst Christians of different cultures is evident.

3. Intercultural conflict in the New Testament Church.

This transition from a predominantly Jewish to an intercultural church was by no means effortless. In one of the interesting passages in this regard we see Paul approaching the leaders in Jerusalem with the Gospel that he is to preach amongst the heathens, aspiring to achieve their co-operation, or at least approval of his mission to the non-Jews (Gal. 2:1-10). Their only request to Paul, i.e. to “remember the poor” in Jerusalem, was taken up vigorously by Paul throughout his missionary journeys.

In the subsequent passage in Galatians 2:11-14 we do find that these same leaders who approved Paul’s plans, came to Antioch and almost derailed the process, by creating division in the congregation. Paul initially confronted Peter for joining the Jewish group in separate meals, at the cost of unity in Antioch.

This negative attitude of the Jerusalem leaders continued during Paul’s hard work amongst the non-Jews (and Jews in the Diaspora). In 2 Corinthians 12:22 Paul directly accuses the Hebrews as being his opponents in the congregation of Corinth. It is quite possible that Paul’s whole collection for the “poor” Jews in Jerusalem was eventually not used to assist the “poor”, but to fund the purification offerings necessary to allow the four Greeks that was with Paul into the temple! Over and above all, this action led to Paul’s arrest, with the church in Jerusalem leaving him to “hang and dry” (Acts 21:20-28).

Even though this cultural tension between Jews and Non-Jews in the respective congregations is evident throughout the New Testament, especially in the book of Acts, and the letters to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians and Ephesians, there are references to congregations coping well with the differences between cultures.

Two examples of such congregations are the congregations of the Colossians and Philippians. In Colossians 1:4-6 where Paul praises the Colossians for their “love for all the saints”, and he does that in the context of the “gospel bearing fruit and growing” all over the world. Although Philippians 3:1-9 indicates clearly that this congregation was not free from the Judaïsing influences in the church, Paul does specifically refer to members in the congregation of Philippi following his example (Phil 3:17).

The outcome of the apostles meeting recorded in Acts 15:1-33 is one such an example. After the correspondence from Paul and Barnabas the verdict was gladly accepted by the congregation of Antioch. This surely contributed towards unity in congregations.

4. Paul’s approach to intercultural ministry.

Paul did not only bridge the boundaries “to the ends of the earth”, but was used mightily by the Lord in handling the subsequent cultural conflicts in congregations. Paul’s approach to the conflict in Corinth is one of the prime examples in this regard.

The congregation of Corinth must have been one of the most culturally diverse congregations in the New Testament church. Not only does the history of this city contribute to the diversity in the city, but this is also evident in all the cultural issues that came up in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. Many of the issues in 1 Corinthians can be attributed to serious cultural differences in the congregation. Attitudes towards the Roman judicial system (6:1-8), as well as the circumcision (7:19-21), the consumption of idol meat (chapters 8,10), the covering of the head (11:3-16), are only a few of the issues that can be directly linked to cultural differences.

From 1 Corinthians 9, and the whole of the second letter to the Corinthians, it is evident that the spiritual leader(s) of a cultural diverse congregation is often drawn in, or even placed at the centre of conflicts that might arise between members. How did Paul handle this very complex and fragile situation? To my view 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 and 2 Corinthians 4:6 provides us with the essence of Paul’s approach towards cultural diverse congregations.

What can we infer from Paul’s words here? In line with the self-emptying act of Christ described to us in Philippians 2:5-11, Paul lays down his cultural heritage for the sake of the gospel. He approaches everyone with the attitude of learning from them. He attempts to see things from the cultural perspective of the people he ministered to, in order to win them for Christ.

These actions surely came at a price. As a truly intercultural minister, Paul had to endure many hardships, even working for his own salary (1 Cor 9:18) at times, and experiencing many sufferings (2 Cor 6:3-13). But fortunately there were congregations supporting him in this quest (Phil. 4:15-16), which made the burden much more bearable.

5. Conclusion.

This paper was intended to be a motivation towards intercultural ministry, rather than a description of multicultural ministries in the New Testament. I hope that it was evident that this ministry presented a serious challenge to both congregants and ministers in its time, and still presents a challenge to us today. But in this quest we can know that believers all over the word are praying for us the prayer of Ephesians 3:18 that we “may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ,” and that we eventually will grow towards the last two ingredients of our faith that Peter (2 Pet. 1:7) describes, being brotherly kindness and love.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

JEWETT, R. 2007. Romans: A commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

JOUBERT, SJ. 2000. Paul as benefactor: reciprocity, strategy and theological reflection in Paul’s collection. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

---

Rev. 5:9 “… and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”

 

Rev. 7:9 “After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no-one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.”

Stephan Joubert illustrates this well in his book, Paul as benefactor (2000).

1 Cor 9:19-23 ¹⁹ Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. ²⁰ To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law though I myself am not under the law, so as to win those under the law. ²¹ To those not having the law I became like one not having the law though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law, so as to win those not having the law. ²² To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. ²³ I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

2Cor 4:5 ⁵For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.

 

The Challenge of Intercultural Communication

Dr Ryk van Velden

Toerustingsburo vir Interkulturele Werk

In this section we shall briefly highlight three challenges which people from different cultural backgrounds  often encounter in intercultural communication.: Authority and power; High and low context communication; Shame and guilt..

1. Authority and power

When people meet as individuals or as groups, in one’s own culture or across cultures, there is usually a conscious or unconscious process to establish the power relationship between the people involved.  This is not necessary bad or wrong. In most cases one party (culture group) dominates the interaction and communication or expects to have more power or authority than the other. The other party may willingly accept the dominance and therefore participates mainly in a re-active way in the communication.  It is however also possible that the other party may be angered and frustrated by the other who assumed power and may respond in ways which are not conducive for meaningful communication (boikot, attacking etc.)  Many factors may contribute to this experience of power differences in the communication process, but there is no doubt that culture values, tradition and taboes also contribute to the way people of different culture groups perceive and experience themselves when they interact with other culture groups.

For effective communication it is important for all parties involved to take steps to prevent that different perceptions or experiences of power differences in the course of communication may prevent meaningful interaction. It is especially important that the dominant party (culture group), whether really dominant or perceived as dominant, will take concrete and deliberate steps to enhance a more balanced experience of power in the interaction of the parties involved. The first step may be to try to understand why a culture group perceive or experience itself dominant or subdued in the communication process so that ways and means could be found to work towards a more balanced experience of power and influence in the communication process. Apart from historical reasons or the current context which may lead to a the experiences of power in the relationship between culture groups, it is necessary to establish if the cultures of the groups involved do not lead spontaneously to a certain experience of power in the communication process between the parties involved.

“Power Distance” is a term which was coined by Hofstede when he studied the effect of “national cultures” (countries) in the workplace.  “Power distance” is an index to determine to what extend people with less power in organisations and institutions expect and accept that power will be distributed unevenly. He discovered that people from different national cultures differ with regard to their acceptance and contentment that power is not shared evenly among all in the workplace. “Small Power Distance” and “Large Power Distance” cultures differ therefore in their interaction and communication styles in the workplaces.

Small Power Distance:

· People accept or expect power relationships which are democratic and involving others

· People treat one another as equals not withstanding their formal positions in society

· All people expect to participate in processes and be allowed to criticise

· Leaders and others associate freely

 

Small Power Distance:   ·         People accept or expect power relationships which are democratic and involving others   ·         People treat one another as equals not withstanding their formal positions in society   ·         All people expect to participate in processes and be allowed to criticise   ·         Leaders and others associate freely

 

Large Power Distance:

· People accept power relations which are more autocratic or paternalistic

· People readily accept the authority of others simply because of hierarchy

· Lest spontaneous interaction between those in authority and the rest

Malaysia                      104 Guatemala                   95 Panama                        95 Philippines                   94 Mexico                        81 Venezuela                    81 China                           80 Egypt                           80 Iraq                              80 Kuwait                        80 Lebanon                      80 Libya                           80 Saudi Arabia               80 United Arab Emirates 80 Ecuador                       78 Indonesia                     78 Ghana                          77 India                            77 Nigeria                         77 Sierra Leone                77 Singapore                    74 Brazil                           69 France                          68 Hong Kong                 68 Poland                         68 Colombia                     67 El Salvador                  66 Turkey                         66 Belgium                       65 Ethiopia                       64 Kenya                          64 Peru                             64

Greece                         60 South Korea                60 Iran                              58 Taiwan                         58 Czech Republic           57 Spain                           57 Pakistan                       55 Japan                           54 Italy                             50 Argentina                    49 South Africa                49 Hungary                      46 Jamaica                        45 United States              40 Netherlands                 38 Australia                      36 Costa Rica                   35 Germany                      35 United Kingdom         35 Switzerland                 34 Finland                        33 Norway                       31 Sweden                       31 Ireland                         28 New Zealand               22 Denmark                      18 Israel                            13 Austria                         11

Power Distance Index

Magdalena Polak investigated education in the light of “Power Distance” and summarised her observations as follows:

 

SMALL POWER DISTANCE   ·         Students’ initiative is considered very important(student-centred ed) ·         Students initiate communication ·         Teachers expect students to find their own way ·         Students are encouraged to speak up spontaneously ·         Students express their own opinion ·         Effective learning depends on two-way communication in class ·         in conflicts between teacher and student, parents take the student’s side ·         Teachers are treated as equals outside class ·         Young teachers are more liked than older ones

 

LARGE POWER DISTANCE   ·         Order in class is very important (teacher-centred education) ·         Teacher to initiate communication ·         Students expect teacher to show them paths to follow ·         Students speak up only when asked by the teacher ·         Students accept what teacher says ·         Effective learning is a result of excellence of the teacher ·         In conflicts between teacher and student, parents take teacher’s side ·         Teachers are respected also outside class ·         Old teachers are more respected than young ones

 

SMALL POWER DISTANCE · Students’ initiative is considered very important(student-centred ed) · Students initiate communication · Teachers expect students to find their own way · Students are encouraged to speak up spontaneously · Students express their own opinion · Effective learning depends on two-way communication in class · in conflicts between teacher and student, parents take the student’s side · Teachers are treated as equals outside class Young teachers are more liked than older

LARGE POWER DISTANCE · Order in class is very important (teacher-centred education) · Teacher to initiate communication · Students expect teacher to show them paths to follow · Students speak up only when asked by the teacher · Students accept what teacher says · Effective learning is a result of excellence of the teacher · In conflicts between teacher and student, parents take teacher’s side · Teachers are respected also outside class · Old teachers are more respected than young ones

If there are therefore big differences with regard to “Power Distance” between individuals or groups who meet, their communication styles will differ in meetings and in teaching projects.  All parties involved in the communication should therefore be made aware of the expectations and experiences of the different participants with regard to the distribution of power among the participants involved.

It is important that people from different culture backgrounds develop methods to interact, preach and teach in such a way that the people from other culture groups feel at home with the communication approach and communication style. Christians must be prepared to communicate and teach in styles contrary to their spontaneous way of doing.

2. High and low context communication

Cultures differ on the importance and the place of words in communication. In some cultures words are central and the main means of communication. This is low context communication. In other cultures things, apart from words, are very important in communication.  Implied meanings arising from the physical setting, relational cues, or shared understandings form an important part of communication. This is high context communication.

All of us engage in both high-context and low-context communication. There are times we “say what we mean, and mean what we say,” leaving little to be “read in” to the explicit message. This is low-context communication. At other times, we may infer, imply, insinuate, or deliver with nonverbal cues messages that we want to have conveyed but do not speak. This is high-context communication. Individualistic oriented cultures tend to prefer low context communication and communal oriented cultures tend to prefer high context communication.

Low context communication

• Verbal communication is on the foreground; Non-verbal communication is more on the background or  functions on an unconscious level;

• Subject matters are addressed directly and openly and precise words are used to describe what somebody thinks or feels;

• Low context communication is a speaker-oriented style where speakers do not hesitate to offer their opinions and expertise (Self-enhancement style)
• Interpersonal contact between people in general and between those directly involved in communication is usually superficial;
• People of low context communication are usually very task oriented. Communication has lot to do with decisions and activities on what needs to be done to complete a task;
• Rules are important in different life contexts;
• Low context communication leads to lot of public knowledge, external and accessible for any person.

High context communication

Some of the characteristics of high context communication are:

• Less verbal and written communication than in low context communication. Deliberate non-verbal communication is more on the foreground than in low context;
• Silence often part of communication;
• Many networks of relationships between people and groups have an influence on communication – what is said and how it is said.
• High context communication builds on long term relationships;
• High context communication is listener oriented where speakers do not present themselves forcefully to other (Self-effacement Style)
• Decisions and activities build upon personal relationships and often centre around a person of authority

Communication breakdowns can easily occur when people from low and high context communication styles interact. Low context speakers may fail to notice the subtle and indirect messages which high context speakers send to them non-verbally or misinterpret their silences or ambiguous speech. High context speakers may not listen to the words of low context speakers, but try to discover the non-existent hidden message behind the actual words of the speakers.

When people who prefer low context communication interact with people who prefer high-context communication, it may be helpful to remember that:

• Non-verbal gestures, social settings, numbers of people present, dress codes, time keeping, silences and food may all be part of a verbal message or be taken into account when interpreting the verbal message. The “messages” sent this way may be as important as the verbal message.
• Status and identity may be communicated indirectly in a non-verbal manner and it must be acknowledged and respected for good communication.
• Face-saving and tact are important aspects of communication and should in most cases not be considered as deliberate attempts to avoid issues or to speak the truth. Frank and open discussions should always take place in a context where people feel save and experience respect.
• Building good relations with communication partners and important people to them, will enhance the ability to interpret the verbal and non-verbal messages of the high context communication partners.

When people who prefer high context communication interact with people who prefer low-context communications, they should remember that:

• They must focus upon what is actually said and not look for hidden messages behind the words or in non-verbal ways. Non-verbal messages may be unintentional and must be interpreted with caution.
• The speakers will concentrate on the matter under discussion and that the status and identity of the people involved are of lesser importance. There is no intention to ignore people or be rude.
• Direct questions, observations or proposals are not necessarily meant to intimidate or to offend, but to clarify and promote the task or mutual goals.
• Indirect or non-verbal messages may not be detected or wrongly interpreted by the communication partners. More direct messages are needed to keep the communication process going.

3. Communication in “shame” and “guilt” cultures

We know that cultures differ with regard to shame (honour and dishonour in the community) and the allocation of guilt (what is right or wrong in the light of objective rules or norms).  Sensitivity for shame or the importance to do what is right, have a big influence on the communication styles of  people. If these communication styles are not understood or respected when people from different cultures meet, it can easily lead to lack of understanding or conflict in the communication.

Some characteristics of communication in shame oriented cultures are:

• Indirect and non-verbal communication is common so that the weaknesses or mistakes of people are not expose in public. If a participant in the communication made a blunder, he or she is corrected in an indirect way or the indirect speech creates space for the person involved to correct him or herself without losing face.
• Direct, strong and open confrontation is not the rule.
• Speakers avoid it to say anything which could embarrass themselves or others present.
• Communication is characterised by an awareness of the relationships and the status or position of people involved in the communication.
• A person who is shamed in the communication experience it as rejection of his/her person and not just of their opinion.

Some characteristics of guilt oriented cultures are:

• Communication is usually direct and to the point, even it may expose mistakes or weaknesses of other people in public. What is true or right is more important than the image or feelings of people.
• The subject matter (right or wrong) and not good relationships dominates the communication.
• Direct, strong and open criticism or confrontation is not avoided, but encouraged.
• Disagreement, opposition or rejection of a point of view is not experienced as a threat or a rejection of the person involved.

 

THE MANAGEMENT OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONGREGATIONS THAT

ARE WORKING TOGETHER

Rev Andries NE Louw

1. Introduction

1.1 Apology for dr SD Maluleke

I apologize for dr SD Maluleke who is unfortunately not well.  Consequently, he was not able to attend the conference and also to take part in this presentation.  We originally planned to do it together, each of us taking responsibility to portray as best what we can the different perspectives of the two churches we represent, namely the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa (URCSA) and the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk (NG Kerk) – Eng. Dutch Reformed Church (DRC).  I will therefore try my best to represent both perspectives as best I can, even though I concentrated on the DRC-perspective in my preparations.

1.2 The Need for Cooperation and Collaboration

Perhaps the form or model of intercultural ministry which is mostly under discussion in our time, is a ministry or local church where different cultural groups are accommodated and ministered to in the same congregation and different strategies are implemented to make it work.  It seems that New Testament passages like Ephesians 2:14-22 reflect not only on the theological, Christological and ecclesiological aspects of our unity in Christ but also presupposes or reflects this sort of unity in one congregation where everybody, regardless of race, ethnic group or language, is accommodated.

We are offering this topic from the viewpoint that for the foreseeable future we will still have to face the reality of perhaps the majority of the congregations of our two churches that they will for the most part still be made up of one cultural or race group.   We have to note though, that in  many or most “African” black congregations of URCSA in metropolitan areas, different African languages are used in worship services.  A congregation in the Gauteng area may for instance choose to use Northern Sotho (Sepedi) as well as Zulu.  The minister may use Sepedi, and somebody would translate in Zulu, or the other way round.  In some of the townships or informal settlements Northern Sotho (Sepedi) may be used as well as English, for the sake of accommodating immigrants from neighbouring countries e.g. Zimbabwe or Malawi.  In the Northern part of our country one may find a handful of so called coloured people or even African blacks also attending DRC congregations, but it will be few and far in between.

It is important to note what George Yancey has found in his research as reflected in his book “Principles for  Multicultural Congregations”, that generally speaking, accommodating different races is a bigger challenge than accommodating different ethnic groups.  This seems to be supported by the general pattern in the so-called Dutch Reformed Family of Churches.   In the case of the DRC, it remains by far and large, a white, Afrikaans church.  Even in the Uniting Reformed Church it seems to be the general pattern that at least race groups are ministered to in separate congregations.  The so-called coloured congregations of the former DR Mission Church and the “African” black congregations of the former DRC in Africa seem to prefer preserving their historical character and identity, although there are some exceptions, especially where new congregations are formed in newer informal settlements.  We have to note though, that in the case of URCSA there is at least some exposure between the two race groups (black and coloured) in the contexts of the presbytery and synod, whilst in the DRC it will not necessarily happen, thus remaining very exclusively white, as long as we do not have church unification.

Against the background of the present deadlock in discussions concerning church unification, it should therefore be accepted as fact that for most DRC and URCSA congregations, the only form of multicultural or at least multiracial church exposure or -ministry they will  experience, will be in the form of partnerships, where congregations of different racial groups decide to work together.

In these partnerships some common challenges and even stumbling blocks may be experienced.

We consider three distinct but interwoven challenges in intercultural congregational partnerships, namely cultural, political and socio-economic, and thirdly, diverse church cultures.

2.  Language and Culture

Since the topic of intercultural communication has already been covered by dr Ryk van Velden, I will briefly point out some challenges posed by language, without implicating that other cultural differences and issues are not important or may be disregarded.  My remarks in this regard will perhaps have more relevance to our situation in the northern parts of our country than in the south.

When we have joint meetings, we tend to choose either Afrikaans or English as language of communication.

From the perspective of URCSA, where English has been established as official language, English will be the preferred language, partly because of the unfortunate association of Afrikaans with the apartheid policies of the past (think of the Soweto protests in 1976), and perhaps also partly because the current trend in official government communication is by far favouring English, which seems to be in the process of practically becoming the only official language of our country.  The choice of English as official language in URCSA may also have some bearing on the fact that it presents a more or less neutral choice, thus avoiding the choice between any of the indigenous African languages.  This makes sense in view of the fact that for instance Zulu-speakers, and to some extent also Xhosa-speakers usually expect speakers of other African languages to switch over tot their mother tongue in their presence.

From the perspective of the DRC the “natural choice” for English and the dominance of English in the public domain is exactly part of the problem.  Whereas Afrikaans used to be one of the two official languages in the old dispensation, it has lost this status in the New South Africa.  And although we actually have eleven official languages, it seems that indigenous African languages are not really accepted and readily used and spoken as official languages on par with English.  This is also true in relation to Afrikaans.  The experience that we as Afrikaans people have lost a lot that was important and dear to us (some would even say “sacred“), makes the language issue a very touchy one for Afrikaans people, especially white Afrikaners.  Some even go so far as to bluntly refuse to speak any other language than Afrikaans, even in meetings where some do not understand Afrikaans very well.

Our general experience in joint meetings is that the language issue is not so difficult that it cannot be solved.  Most of the time we usually use English as a natural and neutral choice, because it is not the mother tongue of most of our members, whether URCSA or DRC.  For most it is our second or even third language. It therefore presents the opportunity to find one another “somewhere in the middle”.  But we also usually “allow” members of joint meetings the choice of using the language that they are most fluent in, e.g. their mother tongue.  In such cases some form of translation/interpretation should be used, for the sake of others who are not fluent in that language, whether it is Afrikaans or  one of the indigenous African languages.  It would be important to emphasize that the language arrangements in meetings should be negotiated and that everyone should  feel accepted and at ease with the language choice, even though it may not be his/her first choice.  The secret for success is to let everyone feel that he/she is accepted and appreciated for what he/she is.

3. Political and Socio-economic Issues

This issue may be even more complex and sensitive than the previous one.  Theologically and Biblically it is about the concepts of justice, unity and reconciliation, the issues addressed so eloquently in the Belhar Confession and to some extent also in the study accepted by the DRC in 1986, titled “Church and Society”. The relevance of including politics as part of the “intercultural equation” consists in the fact that the DRC and most of its members supported the previous political dispensation known as the apartheid regime, at least up to a certain point in time, or at least tolerated it.  In this situation it was the members of URCSA (formerly DRC in Africa and DRC Mission Church), together with other blacks, coloureds and Indians that suffered under the discrimination and injustices of apartheid.  Of course the previous statement is a generalization, and we therefore also have to give credit to many DRC ministers and members who worked and preached tirelessly against apartheid, sometimes at the price of being rejected and marginalized in their own congregations and/or constituencies.

Allowing for the fact that others factors also contributed, e.g. the campaign by the UDF, international pressure, etc, the transition to the new political dispensation was eventually brought about because of the fact that the majority of whites, who had the vote, including the members of the DRC, gave the national party the mandate to negotiate a totally new political dispensation.  This started the process of radical reform, starting with the release of Mr. Nelson Mandela and all other political prisoners, the unbanning of the ANC, CODESA 1 and 11, which eventually lead to the adoption of a new constitution and the first democratic elections in April 1994, together constituting the birth of the new South Africa, with freedom and equality for everyone.  Notwithstanding the fact that some whites feared the new situation and even built up a reserve of canned foods etc (afterwards people laughed about it), overall, the atmosphere was wonderful and everybody believed that we had managed, by the grace of God, to  achieve not only a peaceful transition but also some form of national reconciliation.  The person and attitude of mr. Nelson Mandela, our first democratically elected president, contributed a lot to this atmosphere, and also the wonderful role that the chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, “the arch”, bishop Desmond Tutu, played in our process of national reconciliation and nation building.

Over the past fifteen years a new political situation emerged however, contrary to the expectation of most whites, which again created tensions between different race groups.  But this time it was the other way round.  Now it is whites who experienced ambivalent feelings. Although they were eager to identify with the new South Africa, it was difficult for them because they experienced the feeling of being marginalized and disempowered.  The general experience of whites was that they were now being wronged and discriminated against.

When we try to understand what is going on, we have to remember that the politics of the country plays a definite role in the way people perceive and experience reality.  Mostly white people react to what they perceive to be the problems and perceived injustices against them in the country at present, whilst most black people still have vivid memories of the injustices experienced by them in the past, under apartheid, that also colours their perceptions and interactions.  This tendency must be understood in the light of the universal tendency to minimize one’s own mistakes and shortcomings, and at the same time enlarge or maximize the mistakes and shortcomings of others.  It makes you feel better about yourself and the racial or cultural group you belong to.  It is of course also dangerous because it can lead to growing enmity and polarization between racial groups.

Without necessary agreeing with all aspects of present grievances, I will try to voice the objections most white people are presently experiencing with the current political situation in the country.  I will also try to balance it with perceptions from the black community and try to point a way out of the dilemmas.

3.1 Affirmative Action

Firstly, the government policy of affirmative action.  Although it was agreed upon during the negotiations about the new constitution that affirmative action should be part of the process of giving formerly disadvantaged people opportunities they were previously denied, they way in which the policy has been applied is causing new forms of discrimination and also doing the country a lot of harm.   The fact that hundreds of posts in government are kept vacant, rather than fill them with qualified white people,  because qualified black people are not available right now, is impacting very negatively on service delivery and causing many white people to leave the country and look for jobs elsewhere in the world.  Especially disillusioned young whites who were born after 1990 feel that they should not be discriminated against because they were born after the end of apartheid.  On the other hand, many young blacks who grew up as members of the elite governing class, are profiting hugely without ever experiencing any form of deprivation.

Responding to this situation, blacks may feel that whites seems to be very sensitive relating to economic injustices whilst in the old days it did not seem that injustice towards the black majority mattered to them at all.  Although there is some truth in this,  it remains a question if we want more and perhaps other forms of injustice in our country.  And we will have to answer the question whether one form of injustice can be rectified or made good by new forms of injustice, however attractive this option may seem.   And if it becomes clear that many well-qualified whites are able and willing, even eager to help in building up and developing our country, it may be time to reconsider some of the policies concerning affirmative action, especially if it becomes clear that they are no longer helping, but rather hindering progress and development.

3.2 Criminality

The second problem is the high rates of violent crime, especially armed robberies, car hijackings, farm attacks and housebreakings, together with corruption in government.  The rates of crime have skyrocketed since 1994, and everywhere communities, especially in the suburbs, are taking appropriate measures to protect themselves against crime.  Neighborhood watches are organized and people patrol the streets at night and in daytime, in a joint and concerted effort to deter criminals.  In our area a man was shot by a criminal in a house breaking incident and was consequently permanently paralyzed.  A young female pupil in our local secondary school was killed by a taxi-driver who knocked her over and drove right over her.  The court case in which he is charged with murder, is currently under way.

However one may try to give explanations about high crime rates accompanying situations of political transitions, or using arguments that it is not really a problem, like the form of denial mr Mbeki practiced, as also in connection with HIV-Aids, the fact remains that crime is killing our country and robbing innocent people of their freedom, their property and sometimes their lives, and that it is sapping the life from our future economic prosperity.  Above all, it is creating a new form of oppression and lack of freedom.   What is particularly disturbing to white people is the excessive force and cruelty mostly accompanying armed robberies, farm attacks and housebreakings.  This tends to reinforce the popular perception amongst whites that at least some crime is fuelled by racism.

Responding to these objections, we have to affirm and emphasize that it is not only whites who are suffering because of crime, and that all sectors of society suffer and are victims. It is also important to note that because only 10% of the total population is white, it goes without saying that also 90% of all criminals are black.  Unfortunately, chances are that these perspectives will not really change the perceptions of most whites.  It is clear, from research, for instance, that most armed robberies and housebreakings take place in the suburbs, where most whites reside.  We all know that it is simply because of the fact that there is more the steal and rob in the suburbs, in contrast to the townships.  But it automatically creates an undertone of racism.

It is therefore important that we should fight the perception that black people are more prone to passively accept the phenomenon of crime as a fact of life that cannot be changed,  mostly out of fear for reprisals, and find ways of joining hands in the struggle against crime, whether it be violence against women and children, against unsuspecting homeowners or whether it be corruption that steals and destroys our country’s resources.

3.3 Breakdown of Service Delivery

The third concern of most whites, and also of all concerned citizens, is the widespread breakdown  of service delivery, especially as it involves local authorities of city councils and municipalities.  Corruption, flowing from the culture of entitlement and nepotism, together with poor administration and lack of basic skills, partly brought about by hasty transformation, forcing whites to retire prematurely and of people filling posts that are not qualified and not trained properly, is causing our local authorities to falter and fail.  In many small communities right across our country violent protests have broken out because of poor  service delivery and even the total lack of it.  We have become accustomed to pictures of overflowing sewers and raw sewerage running down streets.  In some communities taxpayer-associations have withheld their rates and taxes and started to repair failed systems themselves. We have just heard the news that the total debt of local authorities in our county is in excess of R50 billion, and that the municipality of Tshwane was forced to ask for an extension of debt facilities in order to pay the bills from Rand Water and ESCOM.

Because of these problems, together with the problems in education, health services, land reform, food security for the country as a whole, the independence of the judiciary, etc., whites are asking the question where we are heading .  How will our country stay economically competitive in international markets if the average teaching time in black public schools is 3.5 hours a day in comparison to the 6.5 hours in white schools (according to stats quoted by the president, Mr. Zuma) ?

Many of these problems causes whites to lose hope and also to withdraw from involvement in politics and from all public institutions altogether.  This is important when we try to understand the general tendency of DRC-congregations to avoid becoming involved with URCSA congregations.  We may even say it is not intended to be understood in any personal way.  It is part of reactive pattern of self-preservation.  White people also tend to forget where we come from.  Few of them fully understand the deprivation, the humiliation and the injustices experienced by black people under apartheid.  They have not experienced it at all, and they find it difficult to deal with it, sometimes because of underlying feelings of guilt.   Their deep concerns about the present problems also contributes to this “blackout of the past”.  It is only rarely that one finds someone like the late dr Willie Jonker that publicly voiced his deep sense of guilt on behalf of the DRC toward blacks and towards black Christians in particular for the role of the DR Church played in maintaining the repressive political system of apartheid.  And for someone like archbishop Desmond Tutu to graciously accept this apology.  And we also have to remember the name of mr Adriaan Vlok with his action of washing the feet of rev. Frank Chikane as symbolic deed of repentance for bombing the building of the SARCC during the apartheid years.  He is also constantly reminding Afrikaners to realize that the root evil of apartheid was lack of love (Afr. “liefdeloosheid”), and that he therefore calls on Afrikaners to leave bitterness behind.  This may be applicable to all of us.

It is not morally acceptable to use the issue of present problems as a way out when the injustices of the past are discussed, as if past injustices can be minimized or denied because of problems experienced at the moment.  It boils down to rationalizing the evil of the past by trying to implicate that those days were better than the present situation.  On the other hand it will also not be helpful to continually resort to blaming the apartheid past on the problems we are facing at the moment, in spite of the fact that it is indeed very difficult to overcome the inequalities of the past within a short period of time.  It is also not helpful when the so-called race card is played every time somebody from the white community points out some of the current problems.  Sometimes the undisciplined and even hateful utterances of someone like mr Julius Malema, leader of the ANC Youth League, fills white people not only with disgust, but also with fear.

In explaining some of the emotions and ways of thinking by white people in general in our current situation, I am trying to help black people understand some of the fears and even the reluctance we sometimes see amongst white Christians to become involved in joint ministry with URCSA congregations.  We know there are wonderful exceptions, for instance with the local Witness Forums in Modimolle-Nylstroom, Potgietersrus, Koedoeskop (Kwena) etc.,  and for that we are thankful.   We even have instances where somebody like dr Johann Ernst, previous moderator of the DRC Eastern Synod took the opportunity at the time of delivering a message at the URCSA Northern Synod in 2007 to apologize publicly, in front of Synod, to brother David Legodi (who is with us here today) for not inviting him into is house during the difficult years in the eighties in Groblersdal, when brother Legodi paid him a friendly visit.  He even retold this incident before his own synod the next year.

On the other hand we also have to take head when a respected political commentator and sage like mr Moletsi Mbeki recently pointed out in a public lecture that the constant blaming of whites and of apartheid for all our current woes is the same sort of blaming and shaming reaction that eventually lead to the genocide in Rwanda some years ago.

In most cases politics as such may not even be discussed in joint meetings of URCSA and the DRC, because of the principle of keeping politics out of church work as far as possible.  We have to remember though, that some of our political views, our perceptions and even some of our racial prejudices in regard to one another, etc.,  may be present in the way we perceive one another and in the way in which we interact, sometimes even without us realizing this.

3.4 Socio-economic Issues

No discussion on the role of politics in our interactions will be complete without also taking into account economic considerations.  The old axiom that it is “money that makes the world go round” is not without truth.

Once again, the perspectives from the side of whites and blacks respectively, will differ.  Blacks may generally feel that by the looks of things, whites are still relatively well off, with many of them living in luxury homes and driving luxury cars.  And they would also point out that 80% of the very poor in South Africa are still blacks.

From my exposure to white DRC members I would think that they will point out the fact that whilst it is obviously true that most whites are not doing too bad financially, it is not the case with the large majority of Afrikaans people that they are part of the very rich.  That will be the case mostly for the “black diamonds” that are driving the best cars and living in huge, luxurious homes.  Also, many good and productive careers of especially white men was cut short and terminated prematurely when pressure was put on senior and even middle career white men, especially in the public sector, to leave their jobs early, which meant anything from the age of forty five to fifty five.  Whilst some of them have made a successful transition from formal employment to becoming entrepreneurs, many also failed and was left with very little of nothing for old age.

Some indication of a new class of poor we see especially on the street corners where you also see whites, some of them elderly, begging for some donations.  They are representative of almost half a million of very poor whites who mostly live in shelters, some of them in cities and others on smallholdings, away form the mainstream of life.  Some live in zinc shacks or other forms of temporary housing, some in old caravans.  It seems that the number of these poor whites are still growing at an alarming rate.  An important observation in regard to this new class of poor is that they are mostly excluded from all government programmes designed to uplift and assist the poor, mostly because of the preference given in government to reddress the imbalances and injustices of the past.  Although reaching out to these communities may not  be a high priority in most  DRC congregations, this situation is changing, and we do find that more and more of the affluent members of the DRC prefer that any goods like clothes or money they may donate, must specifically be given to some of these poor whites, arguing that we have to look after our “own people” first.   We also have to remember that more or less one million whites have left the country since 1994, and immigrated to mostly either Australia, new Zealand or Canada.  Most of them already experienced either the problem of unemployment or of violent crime, and decided to rather emigrate.

Real poverty is always heartbreaking and destructive, whether it is whites or blacks experiencing this.  It brings out the worst in people and it constantly leads to all sorts of accompanying social problems like domestic violence, idleness, addiction, and incest. Taking all of these problems together, we may refer to a culture of poverty, which manifests in the abovementioned ways, and is always accompanied by the mindset of being a victim and of helplessness and lack of hope and any vision of the future.

It is also important to note that almost all commentators agree about the danger of a revolutionary potential in the big gap between the rich and the poor.  In the long run there can be no political stability in a country where the income gap between rich and poor is so big as in South Africa.  The crucial question will be whether it will be sustainable for 5.5 million personal taxpayers in South Africa to support the more or less 13 million people who are at present receiving social grants from government.  And even to add the possibility of government paying a basic income grant to every jobless person in the country, which is considered at present.    It seems that many economic and political factors are pushing us more and more in the direction of socialism.  But in the long run socialism does not create wealth and does not bring permanent solutions to problems of poverty and underdevelopment.  Neither does unbridled capitalism, where the rich only become richer and the poor seem to become even poorer.   The global economic meltdown following the sub-prime crisis in the USA caused the whole world to question this sort of unbridled capitalism which was clearly driven by greed.  It seems that a consensus is growing in the world that capitalism should be regulated in such a way that this sort of thing should not happen again that easily, in the process robbing millions of people of their jobs, homes etc.   What may be the correct and most helpful approach that will create economic growth, create more jobs and opportunities ?  Realising that there are no easy answers, we should aslo admit that the other extreme, namely socialism, have not once in history managed to create or maintain wealth and prosperity.     

When we take into account the fact that whilst the majority of white DRC congregations still find it possible to function in an economically viable way (more or less 20% are actually no longer viable), the majority of URCSA congregations are not able to survive economically without some form of support from DRC congregations.  In many (most?) cases DRC congregations have stopped this practice somewhere during the eighties or the nineties, or at least cut it down to a very small figure.  This also caused a lot of frustration and bad feelings amongst people of URCSA.  By and large they felt that the DRC has let them down.  In some cases it has lead to a total breakdown in the relationships.  The only viable alternative for the URCSA ministers in most cases, was to become tent-making ministers, in order to support their families an still enable them to continue with some kind of ministry in their congregations, although it could not, of course, be maintained at the same level as before.

Although some URCSA congregations found it possible to really motivate and mobilize their members to take responsibility for their congregations and their ministers, in many cases it was not possible to really move to financial independence.  Perhaps a good example is the congregation of Ivory Park, where dr Maluleke serves as tentmaker-minister.  In that congregation of more or less 200 members, only seven people, including dr and mars Maluleke, are earning salaries in full time jobs. In spite of this situation they managed to collect more or less R20 000 to put up a palisade fence around their church plot, whilst still having their worship services in a tent.

When DRC and URCSA congregations decide to work together, there will  always be the issue of money.  URCSA-representatives and especially the minister, will wonder, if it is not spoken out aloud, “what sort of support will come from the DRC ?  Will it help me to really survive, or will it only benefit some sort of joint project, while I still remain struggling ?”   DRC congregations will most of the time ask themselves the question “how much is this partnership going to cost us ?  Is it worthwhile to spend x-amount of money on an URCSA congregation and minister ?  Will it not keep the URCSA congregation stuck in the dependency syndrome?”

In some cases, where many DRC congregations are also struggling to survive, they may communicate it clearly that they will not be able to donate any monies, except for some small amounts for a project like supporting a crèche or feeding some orphans.    Even apparently affluent macro-congregations may find it difficult to donate or subsidize an URCSA congregation in any way, because of huge commitments they have in terms of personnel and the sustenance of buildings or loans to service bonds on buildings.

It is extremely difficult to give any guidelines to URCSA- and DRC-congregations in this regard, especially in the new situation in the DRC where local congregations really have the freedom to decide whether they are going to become involved with an URCSA congregation, and if so, in what manner.  What should be emphasized however, is that it is of the utmost importance that expectations and commitments regarding subsidies or donations should be negotiated and even re-negotiated from time to time in order to avoid misunderstandings and frustrations. And the ideal of financial independence and the growth in stewardship should never be given up, no matter how difficult it may seem.   DRC congregations should also consider other ways of support, e.g. cooperation, help and guidance with a bazaar or a golf day, or even with the training of elders and deacons, assistance with good financial administration, computerizing, etc.

In the context of partnerships between DRC and URCSA congregations, it goes without saying that the focus in poverty alleviation will be mostly on the large majority of the very poor in the black communities of the rural areas and in the informal settlements around our cities.   But it would help us immensely if we could also join hands in reaching out together to the growing number of poor white people.  It will strengthen our resolve to strive towards racial reconciliation and Christian compassion and solidarity across all racial and cultural boundaries.

 

4.  Church Identities and Cultures

The third aspect of intercultural and interchurch cooperation is the issue of our different church cultures.   I am not going to focus too much on this issue, because I think that it will not pose extraordinary grave challenges for working together.

It is self-evident that our different cultures also impacts on the church cultures we have developed.  We have already touched upon the language issue.  The DRC remains by and large a reformed, Afrikaans-speaking church.  This means that order, respect and silence dominate DRC worship services.  The charismatic renewal movement definitely had some influence in the sense that there is much more of an informality in the way in which services are conducted, but they never move away from the reformed model so radically that it can not be identified as “Dutch Reformed”.  One must immediately admit however, that in some cases the renewal has been so radical that alternative services, at least in congregations that have two morning services,  have become the norm, where the singing of hymns is done with the help of a small “choir” and a “band”, including guitars and drums. And where many new spiritual melodies, mostly English, and in a totally different style than the traditional hymns, are sung.  But still, the only bodily expression of joy, may be the lifting of hands in adoration.

The difference between Western and African styles of worship becomes clear when you visit an URCSA congregation.  Singing is always much more spirited than in the average DRC congregation.  You will  find that worshippers will keep the time by clapping their hands, “clapping” on their hymn books or Bibles, or they may even have a small leather “cushion” that they use for clapping on.  And sometimes they will also gently sway their bodies in time with the music and singing.  This is mostly not done in DRC congregations.  It is just not done.  (“we don’t air punch..” !) We mostly stand still and upright like soldiers.

The experience of most congregations involved with interchurch partnerships is actually that visits of groups of members to one another’s worship services are always experienced in a very positive manner.  Although the style of worship of the other partner is never the same as ours, and never will be, exposure to it is always experienced as an enrichment of our own spirituality.

But we also have to remember that the different church cultures does not only involve our spirituality or style of worship.  It also involves the way in which we conduct our meetings, our styles of interacting, of decision-making and problem-solving, and the way in which we tend to resolve conflicts etc.  In these actions  and processes which are universal to all cultures and churches worldwide, we will find that the different cultures from which we come as well as the specific way in which our different cultures have impacted on our church life and become part of the way we “do” church, will differ.   In all of this we should also remember that even in the same church there will be differences between congregations because of  social, demographic and even generational factors.  It will differ between the rural and the city contexts, and it will differ between different generational groups.  And last but not least, it will differ between congregations because of the unique “story” of each congregation.

Perhaps it is in this wonderful diversity amongst the people and the church of God that we once again rediscover the truth that there is unity in our diversity, the unity which points to God and to the Lord Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all and who guides us all through his Spirit. (Rom 12:1-8; 1 Cor 12-14)

5. Some Characteristics of Good Partnerships

• We realize that we cannot do it alone – we need each other to have maximum impact
• Both of us, URCSA and DRC, have specific gifts and potentials from God that we can bring to the table of collaboration and partnership
• Both of us, URCSA and DRC, have certain limitations and shortcomings where we have to accept that the other partner that can help to compensate for those limitations
• Crucial to successful partnership is the process of getting to know one another better and in the process building mutual respect and trust
• Good communication and good feedback is vital
• The ideal for which we are striving, is to create a sense of joint ownership and shared joy in the successes we experience, and where the stronger partner does not take all or most of the credit for everything
• Maximum joy and gratitude is achieved if we do not just help and support one another but also reach out to the community, to the poor, to those living with HIV and Aids and to all who are suffering.

Rev Andries NE Louw

Functionary of the Synodical Witness Forum

August 2009

Stoor hierdie artikel

Soortgelyke artikels:

• VALUES AND GUIDELINES FOR FORUMS FOR JOINT PUBLIC WITNESS
• VGKSA Konferensie oor MIV-Vigs Gehou
• Abridged Mission Statement And Values
• UNITING REFORMED CHURCH IN S.A.General Synod PRESS RELEASE 14 April 2010
• Follow Up On Address on Management of Cultural Differences