Follow Up On Address on Management of Cultural Differences
5 November 2009 
0 Comments
FOLLOW UP ON THE ADDRESS ON THE MANAGEMENT OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCES WHERE DRC AND URCSA CONGREGATIONS ARE WORKING TOGETHER,
WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE IN THE DAILY PAPER “BEELD” AND ON SABC TV CONCERNING RACE RELATIONS
Since the event of our conference on the challenges of intercultural collaboration on 21-22 August, some articles on the role of Afrikaners in the public discourse and political debate in our country were published in Beeld newspaper. A lot of correspondence followed, reflecting a wide variety of views. Of importance was the article by Tim du Plessis in Beeld of 4th September, titled “Land van Ons en Hulle” (“Land of Us and Them”). He argues that we are as a country, once again moving towards the precipice of the abyss of racial division and polarization, which was so characteristic of the apartheid regime, when it was easily argued that political power is equivalent to “being right”, and that the “others” just had to comply, because “we had the power”. He furthermore argues that the same sort of discourse is now being practiced by the “other side”, and refers to examples of blatant racism surrounding news events and public figures. In the case of the sad circumstances of the South African athlete ms Caster Semenya, the whole issue is explained by Mr. Chuene from Athletics South Africa as “originating with white racists who cannot accept the fact that a black person is excelling in sport”. In the case of judge Motata, who was recently found guilty of drunken and reckless driving after crashing into the garden wall of a white resident, it was reported that he said “I will not be humiliated by a ‘Boer’, because this is no longer white man’s land”. In the case of judge Hlope, whose conduct was under preliminary investigation by the Judicial Service Commission, his supporters publicly declared, without once considering the possibility of wrongdoing or misconduct by judge Hlope, that the whole issue surrounding the judge was just a matter of whites that “persecute” him, because “their own interests are at stake”. His important observation was that we see a climate of progressive hardening of hearts on both sides of the racial divide, and a consequential process of “bridge builders” getting discouraged and even giving up, because of lack of progress in peace building, and because of being maligned and vilified in their own communities.
The article was soon followed by an article by Dr. Nico Smith, titled “Wittes, Pas Aan in SA of Pas Op!” (“Whites, Adapt in SA or Watch Out!”), in which he argued that whites had to stop complaining about the so-called or perceived wrongdoings of blacks and also criticizing government at every possible occasion, lest blacks may get fed-up with being criticized and humiliated by whites and resort to violent attacks or a rampage on whites, which will leave them “trapped like a rat”, the same as happened in Algeria during the sixties, where one million French fled to France, leaving more or less everything behind. In his article he also referred to the racist letters published in Beeld. The reaction was more or less predictable: outrage, and even more racist letters ! There was also a preponderate and insightful response by Mr. Flip Buys, the director of Solidariteit, the mostly white and Afrikaans Trade Union, in Beeld of 14th September 2009.
In his article, “SA het Wittes se Kundigheid Nodig” (‘SA Needs Whites’ Skills”) Mr. Buys criticizes Smith by pointing out that his “solution” of advising whites to “shut up” is very undemocratic and boils down to saying that whites must “commit suicide in order to prevent them from being murdered”. He admits that the style and substance of criticism should be temperate and well-founded, but he points out that public criticism is one of the cornerstones of a democracy which should be utilized by everyone, but especially by racial minorities. He points out that post-colonial African governments mostly failed because of bad management, corruption and the loss of the skills of whites who left the continent. The fact that by the year 2000 Western countries donated money to the value of more or less 50% of African countries’ budgets, illustrates clearly that there is a problem in Africa, and that these high levels of financial support from the West is not sustainable. In South Africa, the reality is that the ANC inherited a well functioning government in 1994 with some problems, and has turned this, through mismanagement, corruption and transformation into a dysfunctional government with huge problems. Unrealistic expectations have been created that can never be satisfied, and at the same time government (civil service), that could be used to fulfill at least some of the expectations concerning service delivery, was irreparably harmed and weakened by ideologically-driven transformation.
He argues that South Africa needs the skills of whites in general and of Afrikaners specifically. The problem is however, according to Buys, that the central idea in South Africa is that whites and Afrikaners specifically are responsible for most of our problems and should therefore be ignored, marginalized or targeted. This is seen in government’s treatment of Afrikaans, especially in our schools, and in the many closed doors in the working place for Afrikaners who are able, willing an eager to help build and develop the country. This leads to the weakening of Afrikaners’ emotional bonds with South Africa and with the continent and eventually to a lack of vision for a future of Afrikaners in South Africa. These factors continue to push well-qualified Afrikaners out of the country to other parts of the world were their skills are appreciated and welcomed.
He quotes the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor that mutual trust between the (black) majority and the (white) minority in a country like South Africa needs to be renewed form time to time, to ensure that national reconciliation and peaceful coexistence is maintained. He calls this a social contract between government and the white/Afrikaans minority in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Therefore, he says, Nico Smith should rather stop kicking the corpse of apartheid and help to create a stable future for whites in South Africa, whilst government should admit its own mistakes over the past fifteen years and give Afrikaans people the opportunity to be truly Afrikaans, thereby creating the space for them to be also truly “African” and truly “South African”.
In the TV Programme “Fokus” on Sunday evening of the 20th of September, mr Freek Robinson, had a discussion with both dr Smith and mr Buys. In this interview mr Buys protested against dr Smith’s characterization of Afrikaners as racist, and pointed out that the legitimate minimum Afrikaners are asking for is: a stable society, good governance, the maintanance of law and order in the face of rising levels of violent crime, and an opportunity to be involved in the building and development of our country. He emphasized the fact that according to him, by far the majority of Afrikaners want the country to succeed. The frustration comes when good intentions are ignored or misread by government and by people in authority. As example, he mentioned that Solidarity warned the top management of ESCOM and government about the impending crisis in the generation and delivery of power five years prior to the actual event, but the warnings were not heeded.
Dr Smith eventually admitted that we as Afrikaners have the right to protest when necessary, but once again emphasized that whites are mostly not aware of their strong tendency to “talk down” to blacks, and that this tendency is according to his understanding the main reason for the deterioration of race relations in the country.
In the meantime, since all of these debates started, the whole issue of mr Chuene’s conduct has become even more relevant, more public and more emotional. It was shown that mr Chuene lied about not knowing about the tests done on ms Semenya before her international participation, and also about the advice of the official doctor of ASA to rather withdraw her before the event. Mr Chuene eventually admitted to lying in public about the matter. But he did not apologize for originally blaming so-called “white racists” for the problems regarding ms Semenya. In the meantime ASA decided not to take any disciplinary steps against mr Chuene, but it was reported that there is widespread discontent amongst athletes regarding mr Chuene’s style of leadership. And mr Julius Malema is seemingly “waging war” against Nedbank, who cancelled their sponsorsip of ASA bacause of ASA’s and mr Chuene’s poor conduct. It seems that the ANC is now also distancing themselves from mr Malema and his irresponsible and wild statements. Eventually mr Chuene and the whole board of Athletics South Africa have been removed by SAFCOC. It seems that sometimes, the old saying “give a man enough rope, and he will hang himself” may be true.
In the case of ESCOM, it became clear that a lot of internal strife was going on, with mr Maroga, the CEO of ESCOM, seemingly resisting efforts from mr Bobby Godsell, the chairperson of the board, to solve some of the internal problems in the organization. Mr Maroga complained that some senior white officials were conspiring against him, and that it was part of an existing pattern of plotting against black Ceo’s of parastatals, whilst those officials protested against what they called an unacceptable authoritarian style of management by mr Maroga, of which the termination of the services of the American expert consultant, was a good example. And this happened because she pointed out in her report that ESCOM was heading to a crisis concerning the procurement of coal and the generation of enough electricity to meet the growing needs. It also became clear that mr Maroga did not find it necessary to make a copy of her report available to the board, which meant that they were unaware of the problems pointed out to mr Maroga.
Eventually, when it became clear that tensions between mr Maroga on the one hand, and mr Godsell and the board of ESCOM on the other hand, actually erupted into the open, mr Maroga resigned, then he complained that the problems were the result of a culture of white supervision, that he actually did not resign, and the ANC Youth League and the Black Business Forum joined the debate, confirming their conviction that a vendetta against mr Maroga, as against other black CEO’s, was going on, fuelled by white racism. Eventually it seemed that government tried to intervene and tried to convince mr Godsell not to accept mr Maroga’s resignation, which led to the resignation of mr Godsell as chairperson of the board, even though he was requested by government to stay. He even received a compliment from COSATU that he was definitely not a racist. The ensuing decision by the (black dominated) board of ESCOM, to bar mr Maroga from reentering the premises of ESCOM and deny him access to his office, seems to be the end of a bitter racial fight, and may just be a signal of a new beginning where race is not the defining factor, but that rather responsible and good management wins the day.
Some More Public Discourse in the Afrikaans Media Regarding the Lack of Social Cohesion and Unity in South Africa and Perceived Problems in Government
The untimely death of Chris Louw, well-known Afrikaans journalist who died through suicide by way of a single gunshot with an AK47 rifle on the 29th of November 2009, caused a shock in the community of Afrikaans journalists, authors and in the Afrikaner-community as a whole. Many of his colleagues and friends wrote about their impressions of his journalistic work and his person. It also brought a lot of raw emotions, blaming and self-searching for many. Louw is wellknown for the book he wrote a few years ago, titled “Boetman is die Bliksem in” (“My Boy is Pissed Off” – my translation). The title was derived from a remark that the late dr Willem de Klerk, in life brother of mr FW De Klerk, last president of the “old South Africa”, made towards him when he (Louw) was working as junior journalist at “Die Transvaler”, Afrikaans newspaper in the seventies and eighties, where De Klerk was editor at the time. Apparently De Klerk made some trivial, somewhat derogatory remark towards Louw, callling him “Boetman” (My Boy, Or: “Son”, but in a patronizing tone). In this book he described his disillusionment with the previous generation of Afrikaner-leaders and members of the Afrikaans establishment, who, for many years misled the Afrkaner youth and sent them to a war (in Namibia, against Swapo and the Angolans, supported by the Cubans) “we could not win”, and where many “died in vain”. He rebelled against the arrogance of those leaders, even though some of them (de Klerk included) were also responsible for turning the tide against apartheid and started working for democratic change.
Louw was considered a “liberal”, a stringent critic of the apartheid regime, and took part in the visit of a fairly representative group of Afrikaans academics and authors to the ANC in Dakar, in Senegal in West-Africa, during the time of president PW Botha. Later, after 1994 and the advent of the “new South Africa”, he became more and more disillusioned with te ANC and he even became an outspoken critic of the ANC. Since 2005, the whole community of smallholdings in the semi-rural area norhtwest of Pretoria where he lived, known as De Wildt, was locked, so to speak, in a deadly war against criminals who terrorised the white inhabitants, whilst the local SAPD (South African Police Service) was mostly standing by passively, and in some cases openly discriminated against whites. A number of violent attacks and even murders took place in that area. During his last few months he wrote quite a few good articles about the problems in the ANC-government and focused on its seeming unwillingness to act decisicely against the scourge of crime. One of these articles was titled “Ons is Gatvol om Vermoor te Word” ( “We are Fed-up of Being Murdered”). After his death, his last article for publication in Beeld, the Afrikaans daily paper, was published under the title “Vir Oulaas die Bliksem in” (“Pissed Off A Last Time”) in which he once again wrote against the flood of corruption, mismanagement and self-enrichment which was taking place under the ANC-rule, and also asking the question whether Roelf Meyer, the main negotiator of the National Party during te transition to the new dispensation, did not sometimes have regrets for not negotiating a better deal for Afrikaners.
After is death a number of Afrikaans authors and journalists issued a statement in which they pointed out the genuine liberal viewponts he had right through his life, but the significance of his death, and even the symbolic way in which he died, with an AK47, as a protest against the downward spiral of South Africa under the ANC and the endless slaughtering of innocent people by arrogant and mindless criminals. It is of some significance that he told some of his friends a few days before his death that he planned to write an artical to praise the SAPD for the posivtive way in which they were fighting crime in his neighbourhood the last few monts, in contrast to some time earlier. Some commentators referred to Louw as the George Orwell of South Africa (the old and the new), because of his aversion from all forms of pharaseism and self-deception and his passion for truth, thinking about the dictum by Orwell that “speaking the truth in an age of universal deceipt, is a revolutionary act”.
Some of te reactions of well-known authors and journalists were very much in the same vein as that of Louw. Breyten Breytenbach, a well-known Afrikaans writer and poet, (some say the best) wrote an article with the title “Die Reënboog is ‘n Spieël aan Skerwe” (“The Rainbow is a Shattered Mirror”. In this article he refers to himself as “Boetman” Breytenbach. It is significant if one keeps in mind that Breytenbach at a certain stage during the freedom struggle, identified so strongly with the ANC, that he even took part in a covert operation against the apartheid government, was captured, convicted and incarcerated for a number of years. It is also significant that he now argues that a “newly formulated South Africa” based on some form of federalism, should be negotiated. (Not many will share this ideal, purely because it is really not practical and realistic).
The editor of the daily newspaper “Beeld”, Tim du Plessis, wrote an article “’n Lewe Anderkant Gatvol” (“A Life on the other side of being Fed-up”), in which he points out that the death of Louw was rather a personal tragedy, not a political one. With good political insight he points out that revisiting the 1994-deal time and again, and blaming Meyer and de Klerk was really not helpful for us today. He points out that it has become customary for rightwingers to do this ad nauseam, but that it is not only futile but also wrong, because we really dit not have any choice. He further points out that the ANC now habitually breaks its many promises it made in 1994, and asks the question, if they do not even deem it necessary to keep those promises, what would the chances have been that they would have kept promises that would have put the Afrikaner in a better position ? He closes his article with an interesting analogy, comparing the old National Party as a clumsy, overweight boxer, during the 1994 negotiations, and the ANC as full of new ideas, eager and enthusiastic about the challenge of governing, dancing around in the ring like the young Mohammed Ali. But now, sixteen years later, the ANC stumbles around like an overweight has-been boxer that even hits is helpers in stead of his opponent. He finally verbalizes his conviction, in contrast to Louw, that it is still worthwhile to struggle on and eventually make a difference. In very much the same vein, Flip Buys, the spokesperson of the mainly Afrikaans union “Solidariteit”, argues that although the Afrikaner is progressvely being marginalised and discriminated against, the values of justice and freedom, on which the new political dispensation after 1994 was built, should also be applicable for Afrikaners. Therefore, the struggle for these values should prevail, and we should rather grip the plough in stead of the AK47. The latter, though it was designed and exported to the whole world to further the values of justice and freedom in a revolutionary context, mostly did not bring about these ideals, but only led to greater suffering and oppression.
The abovementioned articles and responses to the negative and unacceptable things that are happening in our country, are not isolated reactions. They point to a deep-felt frustration and anger amongst many Afrkaners and whites in general. But it is also important to point out that the woes and problems in government are not only experienced by Afrikaners. There are at least four books that address some of the problems that seem to obscure the rainbow of the New South Afirica. In an article by Prof Milton Shain, lecturer in History at the University of Cape Town and director of the Kaplan Centre for Jewish studies, in the Afrikaans Sunday Newspaper “Rapport” of 6th December 2009, he gives some perspectives on this situation by commenting on the following four books: “After the Party” (2007) by Andrew Feinstein, the new edition of Herman Gilliomee’s book “The Afrikaners”, “South Africa’s Brave New World”(2009) by RW Johnson, and “People’s War”(2009), by Anthea Jeffery. All of these books in some way reflect the ANC’s obsession with power, its abuse of power, its self-enrichment and corruption and the disillusionment of ordinary people as well as intellectuals with the direction the ANC has taken.
Gilliomee illustrates the way in which the ANC “coopted” the NNP and basically left whites without political muscle, the way in which the Afrikaans language and culture is being sidelined and marginalized, and the way in which a rigid style of “transformation”, aimiing at “being representative of society at large”, caused 117 000 white civil servants to leave the service between 1998 and 2002, and one out of every five whites to leave the country since 1994. South Africa has become “a kleptocracy”. Feinstein describes his struggle within the ANC to investigate te Weapons-scandal, and the way in which the investigation was frustrated and he was sidelined. He accuses the ANC of moving away of its traditional non-racial, inclusive identity, and its culture of open, informed debate. In his concluding chapter he makes a passionate plea for a “Politics of Hope”. Johnson’s book is, according to Shain, definitely angry, partisan and even one-sided. Nevertheless he ruthlessly analyzes and exposes the way in which good governance and integrity was sacrificed since 199. His focus is on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the supply of electricity, HIV-Aids, crime and illegal immigration, etc. As emeritus-Oxford Porfessor he has the ability to “pulverise” the ANC. His enemies, though, discredit him by pointing out that his initials, RW, can be interpreted to mean “right wing”.
Shain emphasises the fact that the ANC is so powerful that it can afford the luxury of simply ignoring these voices. It sees no need to engage these authors in public debate. And most South Africans do not want to revisit the “miracle” of 1994, according to Shain. He refers to Gilliomee who quotes Vernon Bognadour, professor in comparative politics at Oxford, who said that he does not know of one instance where a divided society managed to create social stability without some form of power-sharing. Lastly, Shain discusses te book “People’s War” by Jeffery. She argues that the ANC as freedom movement planned its strategy for domination over many decades, starting in the sixties and seventies already. An important part of this strategy was manipulation at the highest levels and a sophisticated propaganda campaign that was swallowed by gullible journalists and commentators who were sick and tired of the cruelties and injustices of the aparteid regime. She charges the ANC of sacrificing 20 000 people unnessary in the decade before 1994, because of its obsession with Moscow and Vietnam.
Lastly, an informed an intelligent commentator, Clinton du Plessis, points to the article by Ngoako Ramatlhodi, “an ANC ideological heavyweight” who recently wrote in an English Sunday Newspaper about the direction of the post-Polokwane leadership of the ANC, explaining that the “National Democratic Revolution” actually consists of two “legs” , the first being the (black) “national leg” and secondly the “socialistic leg” which eventually leads to the victory of the “socialist revolution”. Given the realities of the free-market system and global capitalism, prescribed and enforced by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, it remains a question whether the Cosatu and the Commnunists will make any progress in their agenda to transform the ANC into a true socialist party and South African into a socialist “dream come true”. In the meantime, du Plessis writes, everyone in the ANC-government is free to enjoy the benefits of state funding for their extravagent lifestyles, even the communists. The new elite, fighting one another at their parties of caviar, shampagne and sigars, will decide how the riches of the state will be divided amongst them. Meanwhile, the ongoing discourse of blaming apartheid and whites for eveything gone wrong, and fanning racism through the antics of Julius Malema of the ANC Youth League ( “usefull idiot” ?), keeps the masses of the poor in the informal settlements and in the rundown RDP houses (the proletariat) submissive and subservient, but also hoping continually for some bread crumbs from the tables of the rich.
How Do We Respond As Church?
It is clear that the church cannot respond to every instance of injustice and racism and risk becoming a party in an ongoing fight of words. But the question nevertheless comes to the fore: how should we as church of Jesus Christ, white and black, respond to the sort of events described above with its train of angry, blaming interactions in public life ? Secondly, do we as a church have ways and means of throwing water on the fire of growing racism and estrangement in public life? Thirdly, what may be the negative effect of this type of discourse on our challenge as churches to find ways to join hands and work together ? Fourthly, how should we manage those effects and hopefully minimize their effects on church life and on our reconciliation as churches ? I will try to present some guidelines and proposals concerning these questions, as best I can.
1. Firstly, there can be no doubt that the viewpoints of Dr. Nico Smith as expressed in his article will not find a lot of sympathy amongst Afrikaans readers of Beeld and most DRC-members. Most readers who find the courage to write a letter to Beeld voiced their strong disdain and opposition to his views. Some even point out as some commentators also pointed out that Dr. Smith himself did not keep quiet, but protested in the manner of a prophetic voice, against apartheid, when it mattered. In the same way (white) people feel that they have the right to protest against new forms of injustice, marginalization and discrimination.
2. Secondly, the fact that Dr. Smith is so closely identified with the URCSA, may create the perception that he voices the viewpoint of URCSA also. Even if it is understood that he reacts a an individual and not on behalf of the church, the identification of Dr. Smit as “Mr. URCSA” can create the impression that in some way his viewpoints represent or reflect the majority of URCSA’s members views or sentiments. This may lead to even more indifference of DRC people to the problems and challenges that URCSA congregations are facing.
3. Thirdly, whilst we must admit that we as white people are indeed sometimes inclined to complain too much and also to be too critical, and sometimes paternalistic and/or talking or acting from an attitude of superiority when we discuss (especially at the braai’s), the problems of our country and the mistakes of government, we must affirm the democratic right of people, irrespective of their political alliances, their race or social status, to openly criticize government. Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of a free, democratic country, guaranteed and by our constitution.
4. Fourthly, we must affirm that all public criticism of government policies and its implementation or lack thereof, should firstly and foremostly be honest and fair, founded in facts, be properly substantiated, and free of racist and disrespectful attitudes. We should therefore also continue to preach and work against all forms of (white) racism and prejudice, which indeed, as dr Smith argued, are sometimes very subtle. On the other hand black Christians should also be willing to admit that they are sometimes prone to deny problems in government out of loyalty and solidarity towards the ANC, as the party that is seen to be the embodiment of the struggle for freedom, and when black leaders resort to the race card unnecessarily they tend not to protest, at least not publicly.
5. Fifthly, criticism of government should preferably be addressed by the media and political parties, who both have the role and the mandate to criticize if and when they are convinced that it is necessary. The prophetic role of the church, nationally and ecumenically, should be to affirm and protect the values expressed in Scripture and which underlie our constitution, guarding against all forms of abuse of power, and against all actions that undermine the constitutional rights of citizens, of minorities and of the church. These constitutional rights include the access of citizens to the courts and the right to be fairly treated in the courts, and therefore also impacts on the independence of the judicial system. But the church should also give public witness to the values of fairness and evenhandedness, as well as civility and respect in public discourse. It should be clear from the church’s witness, that all forms of racism, inflammatory language and hate speech is against the will of God and damages our vulnerable national reconcilation and society as a whole.
When the abovementioned constitutional rights are undermined, the church also has the calling to speak up. The problem may be that “white” churches will feel that it may be necessary in a certain context to speak up, whilst many “black” churches will feel that they have an obligation towards the ANC as the champion and guarantor of their freedom, to be loyal and therefore not to criticize it publicly. These differences underline the responsibility for churches to work together and do their public and prophetic witness in a unified and ecumenical way, as far as possible. In this regard the style and approach of the church should differ from that of the media or of political parties. It should be clear that we are speaking and witnessing from the viewpoint of a Christian ethical framework, informed by our Biblical and evangelical basis.
6. We should not allow the role and calling of the church to public and prophetic witness, and even te problems and stumbling blocks concerning church unification to work against or cancel or nullify our calling to do the ministry of reconciliation and of service and witness towards the poor and the disadvantaged. This is especially true in the case of local congregations. In spite of possible processes going on to criticize government and to witness prophetically to them at the national and ecumenical levels, we should continue to look for ways of building bridges between local congregations of the DRC and of the URCSA, and to join hands to collaborate in helping the poor. This also implies that contentious issues of national importance should not be given priority in our local meetings and processes, nor the complex and emotional issue of church unity and the question who is to blame for the disappointment of the moratorium. We should rather focus on the things we can do together to make a difference in our local communities. There is no better way of helping whites to grow and move out of racism or a negative mode of isolation, also those who have these attitudes in the DRC, than inviting them to become involved with serving and helping the poor, in partnership with URCSA. Although I have found that many DRC congregations are more than willing to do just – serve te poor and reac out to poor communities, I have definitely found resisitance in some places to doing it in conjunction with URCSA. This really is a difficult stumbling block to overcome.
7. Only when sufficient mutual trust has been built between the local DRC and URCSA congregations, should local congregations in partnership consider to witness publicly to city councils, municipal managers etc, about service delivery, corruption, crime etc., preferably also including other churches in our joint public witness. This is not to say that urgent problems should be postponed because sufficient trust does not exist. It is merely to say that normally the building of good relations and mutual trust precedes effective joint action.
8. Even more important than working together on poverty and other challenges, the church itself, meaning we as DRC and URCSA congregations, should once again study and reflect jointly on what the implications of the Biblical witness on the unity of the church, on reconciliation between believers of different cultures and races, and the practice of justice may be in our context, and find ways and means to put these biblical priciples into practice at the local level, and at the same time hopefully also building the necessary basis for church unification in our “DRC-Family”. A concerted effort should be made to determine the validity of some of the claims by URCSA about injustices by the DRC, and to find ways and means to address and resolve some of the restorative justice issues. A very practical way of doing this at the local level, may be for DRC congregations to actively support and assist URCSA congregations, also financially, ih the process of registering properties in URCSA’s name. Ways and means should also be found to support the formation of new URCSA congregations in the new informal settlements and RDP-townships around our cities, which could also be utilised as platforms for joint community outreach and –development.
9. A last remark concerning the fact that South Africa has just recently “toppled” Brazil as the country in the world with the highest GINI-count, signifiying that RSA is the country in the world with the biggest difference in income between rich and poor. And at the same time, a researcher from the HSRC stated that more or less 6 000 incidences of violent protests by poor people, mostly in rural towns, have taken place during the last few years, more or less since 2000, where people do not hesitate to burn and pillage municipal offices and businesses, out of frustration bacause of poor service delivery or total lack of it. In many cases the abuse of public funds, corruption and self-enrichment by councillors, as well as infighting amongst different factions in die the ANC, seem to be part of the underlying factors in these problems. This phenomenon cries out for a massive joint effort by government, business, NGO’s and churches to support municipalities and even transform them, in order to turn our country around from the precipe of a failed state. But this also cannot be achieved unless the protection of openly dishonest and corrupt officials by government stops.
10. We need moral transformation, not more political trasformation where ANC “cadres” are deployed in exchange for blind loyalty. Unfortunately, judging the ANC by its appointment of persons in public office, e.g judges in die the appelate court and in the constitutiional court, and mr Simelane as the new head of the Public Prosecution Office, it does not seem that the ANC has really changed intrinsically after Polokwane 2007. The story remains the same. The leadership has changed, but the leading principle remains loyalty. It is still about loyalty towards the ANC leadership above all as the ultimate good.
11. In relation to the issue of church unification, it may be appropriate to look at some considerations conccerning unification talks and the moratorium by URCSA, taken by the General Synod by the end of 2008, specifically in the context of our endevours to build relations at the local level and even establish some structures of collaboration.
12. On the one hand the question is relevant how the church should engage in prophetic public witness to the state and to government specifically, especially concerning reconciliation, justice, and racism, when there is disunity, strife and division within the church itself (referring now to the DRC en URCSA specifically). This aspect touches on the issue of the credibility of the church in its public witness. On the other hand the question is also relevant how the moratorium will influence our endevours to work for greater understanding and collaboration at the local level.
13. I am personally saddened and disheartened by the fact that most DRC congregations seem to position themselves against the Belhar confession and church unity. My dream is indeed that we may come to some form of unity, willingly, joyfully and with thanksgiving. But when we as DRC and URCSA fail to come to a mutual understanding concerning the road to unity and even concerning the question of unity as such, it must still be a question whether we may give one another some freedom to differ, offering one another, so to speak, the benefit of the doubt and keeping the door open for some cooperation and for some practical forms of “unity”, even if structural or “organic” unity may not be realised in the near future.
14. The fact that URCSA chose for the moratorium, seems understandable and logical from the URCSA point of view, especially since it seemed clear that the DRC was not ready and willing to move toward unification. But the moratorium is in some way an act of finality, communicating that it has become meaningless to go on talking about unity, but at the same time fixing blame on the DRC. As such it is also an act as it were from the high moral ground, communicating that URCSA had more or less no alternative, given the reluctance of the DRC. And it implies that unity talks can only be reopened if and when the DRC comes with a new attitude and a clear intent and mandate to really go ahead with unity. This approach implied by the moratorium, to my mind, will not create an atmosphere conducive to mutual trust and to meaningful dialogue. On the contrary, it may even create the impression that the issue is approached as part of a power struggle, where specific strategic advantages are pursued by means of some form of coercion, morally, emotionally and even judicially. If understood in this way, it will be more or less impossible to convince DRC people that church unification is not about domination (popular term “transformation”), and of course, about money. Not everyone having doubts about unification would be willing to concede these suspicions openly. On the other hand, I personally would not condemn URCSA ministers if they hope to profit at least somewhat from church unification ! I am convinced that all issues, including money, should be discussed openly and honestly, if we ever want to make any progress with discussions on church unity. I also think that most DRC congregations and –ministers did not believe church leaders when they assured them that not much will change when church unity becomes a reality.
15. Therefore we should not, I think, have high hopes that the WARC-facilitator would somehow pull a rabbit out of the hat and achieve the improbable: reconciliation and unity. It may lead to some positive outcomes concerning restorative justice, but probably not to reconciliation and definitely not to unity. In some way the decision of URCSA to ask for WARC-facilitation is actually contrary to the whole character and intent of the moratorium. The moratoium signifies finality, and the request for facilitation signifies at least some hope that the process of talks may not be over. I fear that URCSA will once again be disappointed if the latter consideration may be the dominant motiff. The undeniable fact is that for the most part, DRC congregations and ministers are not positive about church unification and they will resist every move to bring it about. What will the result of this situation be on our endevours to build relations at the local level and to build joint structures for ministry to the poor ?
16. Perhaps a further remark may be appropriate concerning some spiritual and theological factors within the DRC that may impact negatively upon the debate about church unification. I would name three specific influences emanating mainly from the “zeitgeist” but also from the theology and theories of congregational development, all impacting upon the ideal of church unification negatively.
16.1 Firstly, it seems that the role and value of the denominational structures or of the “kerkverband” and “meerdere kerklike vergaderinge”, to use the wellknown Afrikaans and reformed terms, have been greatly reduced and weakened during te last decade or two. Congregations feel that they do not need the denominational structures in order to be a relevant and effective local church any more. Most local congregations feel very little loyalty towards the structures of presbytery and synod. Mostly they are viewed as superfluous and definitely not as essential to the functioning of the local congregation. This “independentism” as we were taught to name this phenomenon, was definitely strengthened by the rise of independent charismatic churches and also by the development of similar DRC congregations like Moreletapark, but it is by no means restrictred to those sort of congregations. It has become the dominant way in which congregations see and understand themselves. In the case of Eastern Synod, the philosophy underlying the restructuring of the work of synod that was undertaken a few years ago, was specifically stated in this way: “the only valid reason for the continued existence of synod, was to serve and support local congregations”. This may be seen as a logical and establised way of looking at the relationship between local congregations and synod, but it was actually promoted and experienced as a radical, even revolutionary new way of looking at the relationship. It impacts for instance on the philosophy of Eastern Synod that synod or synodical structures do not undertake any ministry or project. That is the exclusive domain and responsibility of congregations. This of course also applies to the Witness Forum. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that the format and content of synodical meetings have changed radically. They are not primarily places of debate and of decision-making, but rather conferences where some new trends and needs are discussed in plenary sessions and in small groups.
16.2 Secondly, the postmodern worldview and style/brand of theology has eroded the concept of fixed and undeniable truths. Apart form the fact that the postmodern popular philosophy has become endemic in our society at large, relativism and even radical doubt has also become commonplace amongst some influential theologians. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is denied or questioned by some. It may even be understood metaphorically, according to them. The virgin birth of Christ is rejected outrightly by some. Panentheism (“god is in everything”) is promoted as an alternative to the theistic view of God in the Bible. Whereas the incarnation of Jesus as the Son of God is one of the cornerstones of the doctrine of Christ, it is likened by a certain theologian to belief in a “space traveller-god”. (posted in an article in the Afrikaans newspaper Beeld, last year in the time of advent – and believe me, not one word of protest from the church!). The belief in Satan and evil spirits is seen as part of the ancient worldview which is no longer relevant to modern Christians. (therefore those pastors who try to help people to come out of the occult probably have personality disorders). A report by te Task Team for Doctrine on a “ministry of liberation” for people who have been influenced by occult and demonic activity, tabled at the General Synod of 2007, implied that we may no longer as modern Christians accept the traditional Bilical view of Satan, spiritual powers and demons. The report was not accepted but referred back and the original assignment to the task team reiterated. In spite of some resistance to this so-called “New Reformation”-theology in the church, these theologies are mostly tolerated, if not on the pulpit, then at least at the level of public theological debate and discourse. The important point to make in this regard, is that if a theology of doubt concerning core Biblical beliefs becomes the norm, what would the result be on the understanding of the Biblical preachiing on the unity of the church? One has to mention, to be fair and balanced, that of course also the pietistic influence in the DRC also contributed to the largely negative stance towards church unification, as a endevour which is not mandated by the spirituality of, and emphasis on, the salvation and edification of individual souls.
Even though the DRC General Synod of 2007 did not accept permanent and exclusive gay relationships as acceptable according to Biblical standards, and ministers who may have a “homosexual orientaion” were not given permission to enter into such relationships, most “career theologians” in the DRC support the acceptance of exclusive and permanent gay relationships and some also doubt the God-given status of marriage as instituted by God. This is a typical result of the drift in the direction of a postmodern theology. It seems that a new study by the General Task Team for Doctrine concerning marriage as the only place for sexual relations is now under way because some church members requested it and because most of the church youth does not trust the guidelnes given by the church any more, according to the spokesperson of the Task Team. This new initiative was even reported on the front page of Rapport, the Afrikaans Sunday Newspaper. Of course there is some resistance to this sort of theology (or rather philosophy ?) and some conflict in the church will probably flow from this development. But commitment to the ideal of academic freedom and to the principle of tolerance within the context of accomodating and managing diversity in the church seem to be the paramount values, trumping all others. What will the relevence and the priority of the debate about church unity be in this context ? Those who applaud the new approach to theology or “the new reformation” has found a “new gospel”, and those who resist it, find themselves under pressure to stand for the truth of te gospel. Not much time or energy will be left for the cause of church unity.
16.3 Thirdly, added to the above-mentioned theological factors there is also another theological challenge, the one posed by the pervasive influence of the new age philosophy and –religion, with its opnenness to and involvement in the spirit world, mostly in the white community and therefore relevant in the DRC, and of the even more pervasive belief in the ancestral spirits and the widely prevailing of the ancestor cult in the black community and therefore mostly relevant in the URCSA. Whilst most people, universally speaking, have a blind spot for the problems and shortcomings of their own cultures, even Christians tend to have the same sort of blind spots concerning the non-Christian elements of the cultural and ethnic groups they belong to. In this regard the whole issue of the relationship of the so-called traditional world view vis a vis modernity and modernism on the one hand, and the relationship of both these worldviews vis a vis the Christian faith on the other hand will have to be studied comprehensively and analytically if we want to get a handle on some of the difficult issues that divide us as Westerners and as Africans, and that sometimes form stumbling blocks to better mutual understanding. In this regard the unique position of the RCA, a dominantly evangelical church amongst the Indian community, coming from neither an African nor Western background, may be of some help to better understanding regarding our relative positions. Without going into any detail of such a study project, it is important neverteless to point out that these issues should be approached from a historic, dogmatic, ethical and pastoral viewpoint, in order to really help us understand and handle the issue in a Biblical way.
NB: The essay above, together with the presentation given at the conference in August, is a personal view and interpretation of events meant to help and further the debate about church unification and the collaboration of local congregations of URCSA and the DRC. It in no way represents any formal or official viewpoints of any of the two churches. In the meantime, a personal remark: researching and compiling this document nearly made me as depressive as Chirs Louw must have been. Therefore, and also, especially because of the Good News of Jesus Christ and the commission He gave us as church, I plan to write another article, hopefully full of hope and enthusiasm, about the opportunities that exist for us as church to make a difference. In this article I will also make use of the articles of Wilhelm Jordaan, emeritus Professor of psychology from UNISA, as well as the Arbinger principle, and lastly but not least, also of the clear mandate and instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ in this regard.
Rev Andries Louw
Functionary of the Synodical Witness Forum
9th December 2009
Soortgelyke artikels:
No comments yet... Be the first to leave a reply!