| The South African State has its own heretical theology and according
to that theology millions of Christians in South Africa (not to mention
the rest of the world) are to be regarded as 'atheists.' It is significant
that in earlier times when Christians rejected the gods of the Roman Empire
they were branded as 'atheists'--by the State. |
31 |
| 2.4 The God of the State
The State in its oppression of the people makes use again and again
of the name of God. Military chaplains use it to encourage the South African
Defense Force, police chaplains use it to strengthen policemen and cabinet
ministers use it in their propaganda speeches. But perhaps the most revealing
of all is the blasphemous use of God's holy name in the preamble to the
new apartheid constitution. |
32 |
| In humble submission to Almighty God, who controls the destinies of
nations and the history of peoples; who gathered our forebears together
from many lands and gave them this their own; who has guided them from
generation to generation; who has wondrously delivered them from the dangers
that beset them. |
33 |
| This god is an idol. It is as mischievous, sinister and evil as any
of the idols that the prophets of Israel had to contend with. Here we have
a god who is historically on the side of the white settlers, who dispossesses
black people of their land and who gives the major part of the land to
his "chosen people." |
34 |
| It is the god of superior weapons who conquered those who were armed
with nothing but spears. It is the god of the casspirs and hippos, the
god of teargas, rubber bullets, sjamboks, prison cells and death sentences.
Here is a god who exalts the proud and humbles the poor--the very opposite
of the God of the Bible who "scatters the proud of heart, pulls down the
mighty from their thrones and exalts the humble" (Lk 1:51-52). From a theological
point of view the opposite of the God of the Bible is the devil, Satan.
The god of the South African State is not merely an idol or false god,
it is the devil disguised as Almighty God--the antichrist. |
35 |
| The oppressive South African regime will always be particularly abhorrent
to Christians precisely because it makes use of Christianity to justify
its evil ways. As Christians we simply cannot tolerate this blasphemous
use of God's name and God's Word. 'State Theology' is not only heretical,
it is blasphemous. Christians who are trying to remain faithful to the
God of the Bible are even more horrified when they see that there are Churches,
like the White Dutch Reformed Churches and other groups of Christians,
who actually subscribe to this heretical theology. 'State Theology' needs
its own prophets and it manages to find them from the ranks of those who
profess to be ministers of God's Word in some of our Churches. What is
particularly tragic for a Christian is to see the number of people who
are fooled and confused by these false prophets and their heretical theology. |
36 |
| CHAPTER THREE
CRITIQUE OF 'CHURCH THEOLOGY'
We have analyzed the statements that are made from time-to-time by the
so-called 'English-speaking' Churches. We have looked at what Church leaders
tend to say in their speeches and press statements about the apartheid
regime and the present crisis. What we found running through all these
pronouncements is a series of inter-related theological assumptions. These
we have chosen to call 'Church Theology.' We are well aware of the fact
that this theology does not express the faith of the majority of Christians
in South Africa today who form the greater part of most of our Churches.
Nevertheless the opinions expressed by Church leaders are regarded in the
media and generally in our society as the official opinions of the Churches.
We have therefore chosen to call these opinions 'Church Theology.' The
crisis in which we find ourselves today compels us to question this theology,
to question its assumptions, its implications and its practicality. |
37 |
| In a limited, guarded and cautious way this theology is critical of
apartheid. Its criticism, however, is superficial and counter-productive
because instead of engaging in an in-depth analysis of the signs of our
times, it relies upon a few stock ideas derived from Christian tradition
and then uncritically and repeatedly applies them to our situation. The
stock ideas used by almost all these Church leaders that we would like
to examine here are: reconciliation (or peace), justice and non-violence. |
38 |
| 3.1 Reconciliation
'Church Theology' takes 'reconciliation' as the key to problem resolution.
It talks about the need for reconciliation between white and black, or
between all South Africans. 'Church Theology' often describes the Christian
stance in the following way: "We must be fair. We must listen to both sides
of the story. If the two sides can only meet to talk and negotiate they
will sort out their differences and misunderstandings, and the conflict
will be resolved." On the face of it this may sound very Christian. But
is it? |
39 |
| The fallacy here is that 'Reconciliation' has been made into an absolute
principle that must be applied in all cases of conflict or dissension.
But not all cases of conflict are the same. We can imagine a private quarrel
between two people or two groups whose differences are based upon misunderstandings.
In such cases it would be appropriate to talk and negotiate to sort out
the misunderstandings and to reconcile the two sides. But there are other
conflicts in which one side is right and the other wrong. There are conflicts
where one side is a fully armed and violent oppressor while the other side
is defenseless and oppressed. There are conflicts that can only be described
as the struggle between justice and injustice, good and evil, God and the
devil. To speak of reconciling these two is not only a mistaken application
of the Christian idea of reconciliation, it is a total betrayal of all
that Christian faith has ever meant. Nowhere in the Bible or in Christian
tradition has it ever been suggested that we ought to try to reconcile
good and evil, God and the devil. We are supposed to do away with evil,
injustice, oppression and sin--not come to terms with it. We are supposed
to oppose, confront and reject the devil and not try to sup with the devil. |
40 |
| In our situation in South Africa today it would be totally unChristian
to plead for reconciliation and peace before the present injustices have
been removed. Any such plea plays into the hands of the oppressor by trying
to persuade those of us who are oppressed to accept our oppression and
to become reconciled to the intolerable crimes that are committed against
us. That is not Christian reconciliation, it is sin. It is asking us to
become accomplices in our own oppression, to become servants of the devil.
No reconciliation is possible in South Africa without justice. |
41 |
| What this means in practice is that no reconciliation, no forgiveness
and no negotiations are possible without repentance. The Biblical teaching
on reconciliation and forgiveness makes it quite clear that nobody can
be forgiven and reconciled with God unless he or she repents of their sins.
Nor are we expected to forgive the unrepentant sinner. When he or she repents
we must be willing to forgive seventy times seven times but before that,
we are expected to preach repentance to those who sin against us or against
anyone. Reconciliation, forgiveness and negotiations will become our Christian
duty in South Africa only when the apartheid regime shows signs of genuine
repentance. The recent speech of PW Botha in Durban, the continued military
repression of the people in the townships and the jailing of all its opponents
is clear proof of the total lack of repentance on the part of the present
regime. |
42 |
| There is nothing that we want more than true reconciliation and genuine
peace--the peace that God wants and not the peace the world wants (Jn 14:27).
The peace that God wants is based upon truth, repentance, justice and love.
The peace that the world offers us is a unity that compromises the truth,
covers over injustice and oppression and is totally motivated by selfishness.
At this stage, like Jesus, we must expose this false peace, confront our
oppressors and sow dissension. As Christians we must say with Jesus: "Do
you suppose that I am here to bring peace on earth. No, I tell you, but
rather dissension" (Lk 12:51). There can be no real peace without justice
and repentance. |
43 |
| It would be quite wrong to try to preserve 'peace' and 'unity' at all
costs, even at the cost of truth and justice and, worse still, at the cost
of thousands of young lives. As disciples of Jesus we should rather promote
truth and justice and life at all costs, even at the cost of creating conflict,
disunity and dissension along the way. To be truly biblical our Church
leaders must adopt a theology that millions of Christians have already
adopted-a biblical theology of direct confrontation with the forces of
evil, rather than a theology of reconciliation with sin and the devil. |
44 |
| 3.2 Justice
It would be quite wrong to give the impression that 'Church Theology'
in South Africa is not particularly concerned about the need for justice.
There have been some very strong and very sincere demands for justice.
But the question we need to ask here, the very serious theological question
is: What kind of justice? An examination of Church statements and pronouncements
gives the distinct impression that the justice that is envisaged is the
justice of reform, that is to say, a justice that is determined by the
oppressor, by the white minority and that is offered to the people as a
kind of concession. It does not appear to be the more radical justice that
comes from below and is determined by the people of South Africa. |
45 |
| One of our main reasons for drawing this conclusion is the simple fact
that almost all Church statements and appeals are made to the State or
to the white community. The assumption seems to be that changes must come
from whites or at least from people who are at the top of the pile. The
general idea appears to be that one must simply appeal to the conscience
and the goodwill of those who are responsible for injustice in our land
and that once they have repented of their sins and after some consultation
with others they will introduce the necessary reforms to the system. Why
else would Church leaders be having talks with PW Botha, if this is not
the vision of a just and peaceful solution to our problems? |
46 |
| At the heart of this approach is the reliance upon 'individual conversions'
in response to 'moralizing demands' to change the structures of a society.
It has not worked and it never will work. The present crisis with all its
cruelty, brutality and callousness is ample proof of the ineffectiveness
of years and years of Christian 'moralizing' about the need for love. The
problem that we are dealing with here in South Africa is not merely a problem
of personal guilt, it is a problem of structural injustice. People are
suffering, people are being maimed and killed and tortured every day. We
cannot just sit back and wait for the oppressor to see the light so that
the oppressed can put out their hands and beg for the crumbs of some small
reforms. That in itself would be degrading and oppressive. |
47 |
| There have been reforms and, no doubt, there will be further reforms
in the near future. And it may well be that the Church's appeal to the
consciences of whites has contributed marginally to the introduction of
some of these reforms. But can such reforms ever be regarded as real change,
as the introduction of a true and lasting justice. Reforms that come from
the top are never satisfactory. They seldom do more than make the oppression
more effective and more acceptable. If the oppressor does ever introduce
reforms that might lead to real change this will come about because of
strong pressure from those who are oppressed. True justice, God's justice,
demands a radical change of structures. This can only come from below,
from the oppressed themselves. God will bring about change through the
oppressed as he did through the oppressed Hebrew slaves in Egypt. God does
not bring his justice through reforms introduced by the Pharaoh's of this
world. |
48 |
| Why then does 'Church Theology' appeal to the top rather than to the
people who are suffering? Why does this theology not demand that the oppressed
stand up for their rights and wage a struggle against their oppressors?
Why does it not tell them that it is their duty to work for justice and
to change the unjust structures? Perhaps the answer to these questions
is that appeals from the 'top' in the Church tend very easily to be appeals
to the 'top' in society. An appeal to the conscience of those who perpetuate
the system of injustice must be made. But real change and true justice
can only come from below, from the people--most of whom are Christians. |
49 |
| 3.3 Non-Violence
The stance of 'Church Theology' on non-violence, expressed as a blanket
condemnation of all that is called violence, has not only been unable to
curb the violence of our situation, it has actually, although unwittingly,
been a major contributing factor in the recent escalation of State violence.
Here again non-violence has been made into an absolute principle that applies
to anything anyone calls violence without regard for who is using it, which
side they are on or what purpose they may have in mind. In our situation,
this is simply counter-productive. |
50 |
| The problem for the Church here is the way the word violence is being
used in the propaganda of the State. The State and the media have chosen
to call violence what some people do in the townships as they struggle
for their liberation i.e. throwing stones, burning cars and buildings and
sometimes killing collaborators. But this excludes the structural, institutional
and unrepentant violence of the State and especially the oppressive and
naked violence of the police and the army. These things are not counted
as violence. And even when they are acknowledged to be 'excessive,' they
are called 'misconduct' or even 'atrocities' but never violence. Thus the
phrase 'Violence in the townships' comes to mean what the young people
are doing and not what the police are doing or what apartheid in general
is doing to people. If one calls for nonviolence in such circumstances
one appears to be criticizing the resistance of the people while justifying
or at least overlooking the violence of the police and the State. That
is how it is understood not only by the State and its supporters but also
by the people who are struggling for their freedom. Violence, especially
in our circumstances, is a loaded word. |
51 |
| It is true that Church statements and pronouncements do also condemn
the violence of the police. They do say that they condemn all violence.
But is it legitimate, especially in our circumstances, to use the same
word violence in a blanket condemnation to cover the ruthless and repressive
activities of the State and the desperate attempts of the people to defend
themselves? Do such abstractions and generalizations not confuse the issue?
How can acts of oppression, injustice and domination be equated with acts
of resistance and self-defense? Would it be legitimate to describe both
the physical force used by a rapist and the physical force used by a woman
trying to resist the rapist as violence? |
52 |
| Moreover there is nothing in the Bible or in our Christian tradition
that would permit us to make such generalizations. Throughout the Bible
the word violence is used to describe everything that is done by a wicked
oppressor (e.g. Ps 72:12-14; Is 59:1-8; Jer 22:13-17; Amos 3:9-10; 6: 3;
Mic 2:2; 3:1-3; 6:12). It is never used to describe the activities of Israel's
armies in attempting to liberate themselves or to resist aggression. When
Jesus says that we should turn the other cheek he is telling us that we
must not take revenge; he is not saying that we should never defend ourselves
or others. There is a long and consistent Christian tradition about the
use of physical force to defend oneself against aggressors and tyrants.
In other words there are circumstances when physical force may be used.
They are very restrictive circumstances, only as the very last resort and
only as the lesser of two evils, or, as Bonhoeffer put it, "the lesser
of two guilts." But it is simply not true to say that every possible use
of physical force is violence and that no matter what the circumstances
may be it is never permissible. |
53 |
| This is not to say that any use of force at any time by people who
are oppressed is permissible simply because they are struggling for their
liberation. There have been cases of killing and maiming that no Christian
would want to approve of. But then our disapproval is based upon a concern
for genuine liberation and a conviction that such acts are unnecessary,
counter-productive and unjustifiable and not because they fall under a
blanket condemnation of any use of physical force in any circumstance. |
54 |
| And finally what makes the professed non-violence of 'Church Theology'
extremely suspect in the eyes of very many people, including ourselves,
is the tacit support that many-Church leaders give to the growing militarisation
of the South African State. How can one condemn all violence and then appoint
chaplains to a very violent an oppressive army? How can one condemn all
violence and then allow young whit males to accept their conscription into
the armed forces? Is it because the activities of the armed forces and
the police are counted as defensive? That raises very serious questions
about whose side such Church leaders might be on. Why are the activities
of young blacks in the townships not regarded as defensive? |
55 |
| In practice what one calls 'violence' and what one calls 'self-defense'
seems to depend upon which side one is on. To call all physical force 'violence'
is to try to be neutral and to refuse to make a judgment about who is right
and who is wrong. The attempt to remain neutral in this kind of conflict
is futile. Neutrality enables the status quo o oppression (and therefore
violence) to continue. It is a way of giving tacit support to the oppressor. |
56 |
| 3.4 The Fundamental Problem
It is not enough to criticize 'Church Theology' we must also try to
account for it. What is behind the mistakes and misunderstandings and inadequacies
of this theology? |
57 |
| In the first place we can point to a lack of social analysis. We have
seen how 'Church Theology' tends to make use of absolute principles like
reconciliation, negotiation non-violence and peaceful solutions and applies
them indiscriminately and uncritically to all situations. Very little attempt
is made to analyze what is actually happening it our society and why it
is happening. It is not possible to make valid moral judgment: about a
society without first understanding that society. The analysis of apartheid
that underpins 'Church Theology' is simply inadequate. The present crisis
has now made ii very clear that the efforts of Church leaders to promote
effective and practical ways o: changing our society have failed. This
failure is due in no small measure to the fact that 'Church Theology' has
not developed a social analysis that would enable it to understand the
mechanics of injustice and oppression. |
58 |
| Closely linked to this, is the lack in 'Church Theology' of an adequate
understanding of politics and political strategy. Changing the structures
of a society is fundamentally a matter of politics. It requires a political
strategy based upon a clear social or political analysis. The Church has
to address itself to these strategies and to the analysis upon which they
are based. It is into this political situation that the Church has to bring
the gospel. Not as an alternative solution to our problems as if the gospel
provided us with a non-political solution to political problems. There
is no specifically Christian solution. There will be a Christian way of
approaching the political solutions, a Christian spirit and motivation
and attitude. But there is no way of bypassing politics and political strategies. |
59 |
| But we have still not pinpointed the fundamental problem. Why has 'Church
Theology' not developed a social analysis? Why does it have an inadequate
understanding of the need for political strategies? And why does it make
a virtue of neutrality and sitting on the sidelines? |
60 |