Thursday 21 July 2016

URCSA’S ENACTMENT ON CHURCH JUDICIAL AND LEGAL ISSUES

Article by Rev Prof. Mary Anne Plaatjies van Huffel, moderator of the General Synod.


ABSTRACT

In this article, I explore the enactment of the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa (URCSA) on church judicial and legal issues. The first part of this article recounts the history of URCSA. The second part of the article focuses on (1) the legal framework of URCSA, (2) the legal status of URCSA, (3) the fundamental rights of higher and lower assemblies of URCSA, (4) judicial procedures with regard to discipline, (5) the scope of the application of the Labour Law in URCSA, (6) URCSA and the protection of individuals, (7) URCSA and assets. The third part of the article focuses on URCSA engagement in public discourse. The fourth part presents two implications of my analysis, namely: as a general rule that a church should dissolve properly by taking the steps required by their respective church order or constitution. Secondly, that provision should be made in the Church Order for the application of the Labour Law on employment relations in URCSA.


1.    Historical background of the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa

The meaning and implications of URCSA engagement in legal matters cannot be fully appreciated without an insight in and due consideration of the country’s historical past. Until the end of the eighteenth century converts of indigenous people, slaves and members of the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) jointly attended services and received sacraments together (Kriel 1963:54; Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk Acta 1829:79, VI, 6). On the 12th November 1880, the synod of the DRC decided to establish a separate Nederduitsche Reformed Zendingkerk for people of mixed descent (NGK Acta 1880:57). The DRC adopted a set of regulations to govern the mission church for people of mixed descent (Acta NGK 1880:54-57). The Dutch Reformed Mission Church was constituted in 1881 in Wellington as the first of these churches (Acta NGSK 1881:6). Consequently the Dutch Reformed Church in Africa (DRCA) and the Reformed Church in Africa (RCA) emerged during the 19th and 20th centuries as an effort by the DRC to develop churches along racial lines. On the 09th March 1910 the Dutch Reformed Zendingkerk in Orange Free State for black people was established (Acta Gereformeerde Zendingkerk in the Orange Rivier Kolonie 1910:3). Shortly afterwards a racial segregated churches for blacks was constituted in Transvaal, Natal and in the Cape Province. It was later followed during 1968 with the constitution of a racially segregated reformed church for Indians, namely the Reformed Church of Africa (RCA) (Acta NGK OVS 1906:94; Acta Indian Reformed Church 1968:21). On the 07th May 1963 at Kroonstad, the Dutch Reformed Mission Church in Orange Free State, the Dutch Reformed Mission Church in Transvaal, the Dutch Reformed Bantoekerk of South Africa and the Reformed Mission Church in Natal unified and consequently the Dutch Reformed Church in Africa (DRCA) was constituted. The autonomy of these mission churches was not acknowledged by the DRC. Since their inception, these churches strived to have full church judicial autonomy, which culminated in the constitution of URCSA in 1994 (Plaatjies van Huffel 2008:252). The General Synod of the DRCA (1974) decided to work towards the reunification of the DRC, DRMC and the RCA (Skema NGKA 1974:253). Both the DRMC and the RCA made similar decisions during the seventies. The RCA Synod (1976) decided that: “The family of NG Churches should become one. The Reformed Church Synod empowers the Synodical Committee to initiate discussions towards church union with other churches of the NG Family and that the church councils should be informed accordingly” (Acta RCA 1976:76-77 and 172). On the 14th April 1994, the union between the DRMC and the DRCA was consummated and the URCSA was constituted (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 1994:282). The URCSA represents over 500 000 church members in South Africa, Lesotho and Namibia. The URCSA consists of one General Synod, 7 regional synods, 85 presbyteries and 763 congregations.


2.    Legal framework of the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa

The legal framework in URCSA consists of the confessional basis and the Church Order. Amendments to the Church Order and the confessional basis (which are the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Heidelburg Catechism, the Canons of the Synod of Dort and the Confession of Belhar) can only be made upon adoption by the General Synod at a stated meeting, with recommendation to the regional synods and church councils for approval. In 1986 the DRMC accepted the Confession of Belhar as a critique on the theological justification of apartheid. The Belhar Confession became part of the confessional basis of the URCSA in 1994. Amendments to the confessional basis should be proposed by the General Synod to the regional synods, and must be approved by a two-thirds majority vote in regional synods. The General Synod is then only able to ratify the vote at its next meeting (Church Order General Synod URCSA 2011 art. 11). The amendment of the Church Order or the confessional basis can take place by the enactment of a General Synod upon overtures from two-thirds of the delegates at the General Synod. The Church Order of the URCSA does not address every situation of the church, nor does it presume to be exhaustive or to cover everything. Ordinarily, however, when something is not mentioned in the Church Order of the URCSA the omission is deliberate and intentional.


3.    Legal status of the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa

Act 108 of 1996 of the Constitution of South Africa guarantees everyone the right to freedom of association. South Africa’s legal framework for civil society organisations enables URCSA to be a legal structure. URCSA is a voluntary association that is treated as an indivisible whole by the law (universitas). It is an autonomous body that has its own constitution. In order for a voluntary association to have body corporate status, the founding document must make provision for the following: firstly, it must have perpetual succession, secondly, it must have the capacity to acquire certain rights apart from the members forming it and no member has any rights by reason of his/her membership to the property of the association, and thirdly, it must have the right to hold property in its own name. URCSA generally meet these three requirements and can thus be deemed a universitas:

  1. It is structured to continue as an entity notwithstanding a change in membership;
  2. It is able to hold property distinct from its members; and
  3. No member can have any rights, based on membership, to the property of the association (Geldenhuys 195:340-368).

Once a church has been established it is presumed to continue as an entity notwithstanding a change in membership. URCSA is perpetual. URCSA is governed by the common law which requires that its objectives are lawful and not primarily for the gain or profit for its members.

3.1.  Fundamental rights of higher and lower assemblies in URCSA

URCSA has a Presbyterian-Synodical system of church governance. According to Drimmelen (2007:41), the Presbyterian-Synodical system of church governance is anti-hierarchical, anti-Episcopal, anti-independent as well as anti-congregational. URCSA is against a hierarchical church governance system and affirms that the church authority is vested not in individuals but rather in representative assemblies. The Church Order provides for four grades of administrative courts, namely: the church council [which has authority over a congregation], the presbytery [which has authority over a number of congregations in a demarcated area], the regional synod [which has authority over congregations within a region] and the General Synod (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 1994:290). These assemblies exercise all ecclesiastical functions in accordance with the Church Order. There are stated responsibilities for each governing body in URCSA. These assemblies transact ecclesiastical matters only and deal with them in an ecclesiastical manner. These assemblies exercise judicial as well as legislative powers. The assemblies may delegate to committees the execution of their decisions or the preparation of reports for future consideration. They give every committee a well-defined mandate and require of them regular and complete reports of their work. A report of a committee, when received by a lower or higher assembly, is the property of the said assembly, and should be handed to the clerk, with all accompanying papers (Stephens 1907:137). Each assembly exercises, in keeping with its own character and domain, the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the church by Christ. The Church is a theocracy, with Christ as its Head. The only King and Head of the Church is the Lord Jesus Christ. All the power that Christ has bestowed upon His church is conferred upon the local congregation; it resides not only in the offices alone (Church Order General Synod URCSA 2011 art.1).

A higher assembly of URCSA deals only with matters that concern it commonly or which could not be finished in the lower assemblies. The higher assemblies are composed of office bearers who are delegated by the lower assemblies. Voting rights are limited to the delegates. The lower assemblies provide their delegates with proper credentials that authorise them to deliberate and vote on matters brought before the higher assemblies. A delegate cannot vote on any matter in which s/he or the church which s/he represents is involved (Church Order Regional Synod URCSA 2011 art.103.3; Stephens 1907:139). Members may not, without concrete reasons, decline to vote, as this practice might leave the decision of issues to a small proportion of the judicatory body. Silent members, unless excused from voting, must be considered to be agreeing with the majority (Stephens 1907:130). The church council is a permanent, continuing body. The authority of the church council is original and that of the higher assemblies are delegated. In each URCSA congregation, there must be a council composed of minister(s) of the Word, elders and deacons. Tasks that relate to the administration of the church (such as the calling of a minister of the Word, the approval of nominations for church office, mutual censure, etc.) are the responsibility of the church council (Church Order Regional Synod URCSA 2011 art.44). The minister of the Word has power to convene a meeting of the church council. The minister of the Word of a congregation is always the chairperson of the church council except when it may appear advisable for another minister of the Word in the presbytery to be invited to preside (Stephens 1907:32). When a congregation is vacant [without a minister of the Word], the presbytery will appoint one of its ministers of the Word to act as chairperson of the church council (Church Order Regional Synod URCSA 2011 art.28; Stephens 1907:33).

A presbytery is an assembly and a judicatory body consisting of all the ministers of the Word and the church council delegates who represent all the congregations within the boundaries of the presbytery. There is a balance between the discretion of the church council and the authority of the presbytery. The presbytery has the same authority over the church council as the regional synod has over the presbytery. The presbytery exercises a general superintendence over the church councils and over the interests and concerns of the congregations within its boundaries. The church council of each congregation delegates the minister and a church council member to a sitting of the presbytery. If a church is without a minister of the Word, or the minister of the Word is prevented from attending due to church discipline, two church council members will be delegated (Church Order Regional Synod URCSA 2011 art.49.3). Voting rights are limited to the delegates. A presbytery functions between sittings through commissions. 

A presbytery has power:
·        to enforce the rulings of higher assemblies;
·        to receive, hear, resolve and decide references, appeals and complaints according to church procedures or discipline;
·        to advise and to adjudicate on matters from church councils;
·        to unite, divide, organise and dissolve congregations (Church Order Regional Synod URCSA 2011 art.50).
The presbytery must refer all questions of doctrine to the General Synod. The presbytery exercises appellate supervisory power over the acts, proceedings and decisions of the church councils under its authority. The presbytery also has authority to ordain, install, suspend, declare demitted and declare retired ministers of the Word (Church Order Regional Synod URCSA 2011 art.136). According to Stephens (1907:77-79) the presbytery has power to remove ministers of the Word. Removing ministers of the Word means “releasing them from their duties in a congregation”. This may be done (1) at the minister of the Word’s request; (2) on the petition of the congregation (Stephens 1907:79). The presbytery also approves the disbanding or dissolution a congregation. When two or more congregations decide to merge, the approval of the presbytery is required.

A regional synod of URCSA is a judicatory body, consisting of ministers of the Word and elders delegated by each of the local congregations within its boundaries, as determined by the General Synod. Voting rights in a regional synod is limited to the delegates. The regional synods function between sittings through commissions. The regional synods determine the boundaries of the presbyteries (Church Order General Synod URCSA 2011 art.10). A regional synod exercises an appellate supervisory power over the acts, proceedings and decisions of its presbyteries. Therefore, a presbytery cannot unilaterally decide to change its boundaries, unify with other reformed churches or dissolve. The decisions of the assemblies of URCSA are considered settled and binding; unless it is proved that they conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order. Assemblies and church members may appeal to the assembly next in order if they believe that injustice has been done or that a decision conflicts with the Word of God or the Church Order (Church Order Regional Synod URCSA 2011 art.38.7). A request for revision of a decision shall be submitted to the assembly which made the decision. A regional synod receives and issues all appeals, complaints and references that affect decisions of the lower assemblies in its boundaries. The grounds of appeal may be:
·        irregularity in the proceedings;
·        refusal to entertain an appeal or a complaint;  
·        refusal of reasonable indulgence to a party on trial;
·        receiving improper testimony;
·        declining to receive important testimony;
·        hastening to a decision before the testimony is fully taken;
·        manifestation of prejudice in the conduct of the case; and
·        mistake or injustice in the decision (Bittinger 1888:72).

The General Synod is made up of:
·        four members of the Moderamen (executive) of each regional synod; and
·        one minister and one church council member from every presbytery in each regional synod.
The General Synod constitutes the bond of union and correspondence among lower and higher assemblies of URCSA. The General Synod is the highest judicatory body of URCSA. The General Synod has authority over all matters pertaining to doctrine and denominational polity – it determines the denominational policy of URCSA (Church Order General Synod URCSA 2011 art.4). The General Synod cannot refer the final decision on any matter relating to the doctrine of the church to a lower judicatory body. The General Synod’s judicial decision is final and sets a precedent for all similar cases. The General Synod determines the boundaries of regional synods and has the power to create new regional synods if necessary. The General Synod assists regional synods in the fulfilment of their tasks, provided that such assistance does not infringe upon the authority of the regional synods. The General Synod is the legal custodian of the funds, property, equipment, bequests and other assets given or bequeathed directly to the General Synod. Any URCSA member has the right to seek redress for any act or decision of any assembly by appeal or complaint. The General Synod receives and issues all appeals, complaints and references that affect the doctrine or Church Order of URCSA. The General Synod has the power to liaise with foreign churches, on such terms as may be agreed upon by the General Synod and the corresponding church (Church Order General Synod URCSA 2011 art.12). The General Synod functions between sittings through commissions and ministries.  

A complaint is a written statement alleging that an action or a decision of an assembly or officer of the church has violated or failed to comply with the Church Order. An appeal is the transfer to a higher judicatory body of a complaint, a charge or a judgement rendered in a lower judicatory body. The right of appeal belongs to either of the original parties in a case. That right may be exercised when a party considers itself to be aggrieved by a judgement of a lower judicatory body. The grounds for appealing include: irregularity in the proceedings of the lower judicatory body, bias or prejudice in the case and manifest injustice in the judgement. All proceedings of a church council, presbytery and regional synod are subject to review by, and may be taken to, a higher judicatory body by general review and control, reference, complaint or appeal (Church Order Regional Synod URCSA 2011 art.38.1; Stephens 1907:3). A higher judicatory body may confirm or reverse, in whole or in part, the decision of a lower judicatory body, or remand the case presented to it with instructions. Persons who have voted on the matter in a lower judicatory body, or who have a conflict of interest, shall not vote upon appeal in a higher judicatory body.

3.2.  Judicial procedures with regard to discipline

In disciplinary matters, the URCSA’s Church Order Provisions in effect at the time of the alleged offence are authoritative. This principle ensures that a person accused of an offence is not tried on the basis of statutes approved subsequent to the time of the alleged offence. Therefore, disciplinary matters referred to higher assemblies by lower assemblies should be presented in accordance with the procedure entailed in the Church Order. The exercise of discipline in URCSA may take the form of:
·        admonition;
·        rebuke;
·        suspension from the privileges of membership in the church or office;
·        deposition from office; or
·        excommunication.
Admonition and rebuke are pastoral in nature and are exercised by an assembly in the ordinary course of its proceedings. All further steps of discipline – suspension, deposition and excommunication – are judicial in nature and require the formal presentation of charges to a judicatory body. The trial must be presented in a fair and impartial manner. A member who has been suspended or excommunicated may be restored to the privileges of membership in the church upon repentance expressed before the judicatory body that suspended or excommunicated the member. Public notice of the verdict of a higher assembly shall be given by the congregation (Church Order Regional Synod URCSA 2011 art.129). The purpose of admonition and discipline is:
·        to restore those who err to faithful obedience to God and full fellowship with the congregation;
·        to maintain the holiness of the church; and thus
·        to uphold God’s honour (Bittinger 1888:25).
The suspension of a minister of the Word is imposed by a higher assembly. The deposition of a minister of the Word shall not be effected without the approval of a higher assembly (Church Order Regional Synod URCSA 2011 art.127). A person who has been suspended or deposed from office may be restored to office upon repentance and renewal of vows before the curatorium, provided that the higher assembly is satisfied that the honour of the office will no be impaired and that the welfare of the church will be served by such a restoration. Restoration after deposition includes re-ordination to office.

Both the appellant and the respondent have the right to appeal the decision of a presbytery to a regional synod (Bittinger 1888:62). A complaint is a written representation by one or more persons, subject and submitting to the jurisdiction of a judicatory body, to the next higher judicatory body against a particular delinquency, action or decision of the lower judicatory body in a non-judicial or administrative case (Bittinger 1888:63). An appeal is the removal of a judicial case, by a written representation, from a lower to a higher judicatory body (Church Order Regional Synod URCSA 2011 art.134; Bittinger 1888:64). When the judgement directs admonition or rebuke, notice of appeal shall suspend all further proceedings, but in other cases the judgements will be in force until the appeal is decided. For example, when a person is suspended from an office by a presbytery, s/he will continue to be under suspension until the next meeting of the regional synod or synodical commission when his/her appeal is heard and decided. The appellant and the respondent do not have the right to be present during the presentation of the case to a higher judicatory body. Appeals of decisions of assemblies of the church and such matters requiring formal adjudication are referred to the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee then provide the synod with appropriate advice on appropriate procedure for handling the matter. The synod may dispose of a judicial matter in one of the following ways:
·        by deciding on the matter;
·        by deferring it to one of its committees for settlement or reconciliation;
·        by remanding it with advice to the appropriate assembly (Church Order Regional Synod URCSA 2011 art.135).
The members of the Judicial Committee must, notwithstanding their duty to digest and arrange all the papers, prescribe the whole order of proceedings for members of a judicatory body to hear the case and vote (Stephens 1907:133).

3.3.  Scope of the application of the Labour Law in URCSA

The period in South Africa since 1994 has been characterised by policy and legislative reforms. The Employment Equity Act of 1998 constitutes one of the interventions government has made to redress the imbalances of the past. The act contains a number of provisions providing for affirmative action and protection against, amongst other things, unfair discrimination and sexual harassment. The act provides for the elimination of unfair discrimination by requiring every employer to take steps to promote equal opportunity in the workplace by eliminating unfair discrimination in any employment policy or practice. Employment policy or practice refers to recruitment, job classification, remuneration, employment benefits, employment terms and conditions, promotion and dismissal. General Synod 2005 called upon all church members who can be defined according to the act as designated employers, to take steps to promote equal opportunity in the workplace by eliminating unfair discrimination in any employment policy or practice, to ensure the implementation of employment equity to redress the effects of discrimination in any employment policy or practice, to ensure the implementation of employment equity to redress the effects of discrimination in order to achieve a diverse workforce broadly representative of the population. URCSA emphasises the elimination of unfair discrimination in employment. URCSA urges local congregations as well as church members, who are designated employers, to adhere to this act.

URCSA thus far has not aligned the Church Order with the Labour Law. Currently, ministers of the Word forfeit their status when they avail themselves as candidates for political election – examples are Rev C. A. T. Smith, Rev H. Mbatha, Rev S. K. Mbambo, Rev Dr A. A. Boesak, etc. Due to his acceptance of the ambassadorship to Russia on behalf of the Namibian government, Rev Dr S. K. Mbambo forfeited his status as minister of the Word in the church. In March 2004 Rev H. Mbatha, the scribe of the General Synod, forfeited his status after he availed himself as a premier candidate for the African Christian Democratic Party in Kwa Zulu-Natal Province (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 2005:26). Rev Dr A. A. Boesak forfeited his status in 2009 when he availed himself as a political candidate for the Congress of the People. In all the above cases Rules 3.1 to 3.2 of the Regulations Regarding the Status of the Minister of the Word were implemented. They read as follows:

3.1. In the following events a minister of the Word or a legitimated candidate or somebody who received status as a candidate for ministry shall forfeit his/her status and the secretary of the Judicial Commission of the General Synod will give notice through the official communication channels of the church:
3.2. If he/she serves on a political governing body or if he/she makes him/herself available as a candidate in a nomination or election contest.

The General Synodical Commission in 2003 mandated the Permanent Judicial Commission to table a report on the nature of the relationship between a minister/evangelist and a church council (and the implications of this for the functioning of URCSA) in terms of the Labour Legislation (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 2005:36). This report was never tabled.

3.4.  The URCSA and the protection of individuals

No decisions regarding the protection of privacy, freedom to marry, the Religious Family Law, freedom of expression, professional secrecy, medical deontology, cultural religious freedom, individual religious freedom, collective religious freedom, organisational religious freedom have been made by URCSA thus far. URCSA will table the endorsement of the South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms only at the upcoming General Synod in 2012. URCSA embraces a diversity of languages and cultures and strive to overcome inequalities in terms of generation, race, class and gender. At the first General Synod in 1994, URCSA adopted a gender policy (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 1994:15). However, recommendations for General Synod 2008 to approve the extension of the same ethical directives that apply to heterosexual members to homosexual members were not accepted. Currently confessing homosexual members are not eligible to occupy some offices (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 2008:115).

3.5.  URCSA and assets

URCSA is a large property holder. Ecclesiastical property is held by assemblies in trust, explicit or implied, for ecclesiastical uses. The legal title to property of an assembly vests in an assembly that has power:
·        to assign them,
·        to bring a suit for their recovery if lost, and
·        to prosecute in case of theft.
A church council, presbytery or synod accepts and executes deeds for the furtherance of the purpose of the congregation, presbytery or synod. A presbytery or synod may buy, sell, lease or mortgage property. The church council holds the authority:
·        to bargain, sell, convey, mortgage, lease or release any real estate belonging to the congregation;
·        to erect and repair church buildings, parsonages and other buildings for the direct and legitimate use of the congregation.
However, no purchase, sale, conveyance, mortgage or lease can occur unless the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the congregation is obtained (Church Order Regional Synod URCSA 2011 Regulation 8.6.4). Members of a local congregation have a voice in the acquisition, management and disposal of ecclesiastical property. No sale, mortgage or transportation shall be made, which would be inconsistent with the express terms or plain intent of the grant, donation, gift, transportation or bequest.

On the 14th April 1994 during the foundation synod, the Dutch Reformed Mission Church (DRMC) and the Dutch Reformed Church in Africa (DRCA) dissolved and the two churches consolidated to form one church organisation with full corporate power. Decisions were taken by the DRCA synod in 1991 and the foundation synod on ecclesiastical property. At the foundation synod it was decided that DRMC and DRCA ceased to exist. It was also decided inter alia that all the regional synods, presbyteries and congregations of DRCA and DRMC ceded with the implementation of the Church Order of URCSA all its assets, liabilities, privileges, properties, rights and obligations to the regional synods, presbyteries and congregations of URCSA (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 1994:39; Acta NGKA 1991:393). The General Synod decided that the management of the ecclesiastical property shall be vested in the General Synod or the respective regional synods, presbyteries and/or congregations of URCSA. URCSA was granted authority to take all legal actions to give effect to the cession and transfer of property (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 1994:42, 131, 313, 340, 341).

However, these decisions led ultimately to church schism and court battles between the DRCA Orange Free State Regional Synod and the DRCA Phororo Regional Synod on the one hand and URCSA on the other hand. These court battles had a negative impact on URCSA’s cash strapped budget. On the 27th November 1998, after a lengthy court battle, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the decision of the DRCA General Synod in 1990 to amend the Church Order of the DRCA as ultra vires. Amongst other, the DRCA General Synod had no right to transfer property rights of the DRCA congregations and regional synods to the new legal entity called URCSA (Acta General Synod 2001:134; Nederduitse Gerformeerde Kerk (VS), Nederduitse Gerformeerde Kerk in Afrika (Phororo) en die Verenigende Gereformeerde Kerk in Suider-Afrika 536/96:11). No provision was made in the constitutions of the respective two churches for the proper dissolution of their constituencies and the transfer of assets to the new church organisation. No dissolution decision was made according to appeal judge, Justice Vivier, by the DRCA Orange Free State and Phororo Regional Synods (supra 536/96:11). The verdict of the Supreme Court of Appeal in 1998 affirmed that DRCA, as a legal corporate entity, remains. 

No provision is made in the Church Order of URCSA that if a congregation does not comply with the Church Order procedures, then the congregation should forfeit all its right, title and interest in and to its property to the presbytery within which it is located. When, for some reasons, the interests of the members in particular and of the church in general would be, in the judgement of the presbytery, best served by dissolving the congregation, the presbytery shall formally declare it dissolved, and shall direct the scribe of the presbytery to issue certificates of transfer for the remaining members to other congregations in the boundaries of the presbytery.


4.    URCSA and politics

URCSA thus far has not expressed its opposition to legislation and policy affecting what some will see as the Judeo-Cjristian ethos, for example:
·        The National Gambling Act of 1996,
·        The Lotteries Act of 1997,
·        The Film and Publication Act of 1996,
·        Capital Punishment and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1997,
·        Choice of Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1996,
·        Education Laws Amendment Act of 1999,
·        South African Schools Act of 1996,
·        Broadcasting Act of 1999.
URCSA has made no official comment on the legal position of religious marriages and/or popular culture thus far. URCSA sees itself as part of the society, as such, as an institution among other institutions and other social structures such as the state, the school, industry and others, it lives and works. In as far as the reigning legal order of society does not conflict with the Word of God, URCSA lives accordingly (Church Order General Synod URCSA 2011 art.12). URCSA presumes that it is necessary to abide by the laws of the state. In that sense, the state confines the operation of the church. The state and its laws, however, do not define what the church is or what it believes to be its calling in Jesus Christ. At the same time, URCSA demands recognition by the governing authorities of its inalienable right to freedom of ministry, worship and the organisation of its institution by virtue of its own profession. URCSA sees it as its task to pray and intercede for the government and society and to intervene on behalf of the suffering, the poor, the wronged and the oppressed within society (Church Order General Synod URCSA 2011 art.12).

URCSA prophetically criticises economic injustices and works towards the building of a just, participatory and sustainable global political-economic system that serves all. Therefore, URCSA embarked jointly with the Evangelical Reformed Church in Germany (ERC) on a project on globalisation. The objective of the project was to interrogate the issues emanating from the Accra Confession (developed in 2004), share their experiences from within their different historical, social, economic, political and theological contexts and to seek common understanding of the complexities of the challenges confronting the church and society (Dreaming of a Different World 2010:41).

URCSA identifies itself with the poor and encourages church members to make and implement pro-poor commitments and explain to church members why pro-poor commitments are important (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 2005:149). The congregation serves God, who in a particular way is the God of the suffering, the poor and those who are wronged (victimised):
·        by supporting people in whatever form of suffering and need they may experience;
·        by witnessing and fighting against all forms of injustice;
·        by calling upon the government and the authorities to serve all the inhabitants of the country by allowing justice to prevail and by fighting against injustice (Church Order General Synod URCSA 2011 art.3, Confession of Belhar 1986 art.4).
The congregation serves God by witnessing against the state and the powerful in the society at large. In 2009, URCSA called on all its members
·        to strengthen the democratic gains made over the preceding 17 years;
·        to promote human security – such as access to basic services – as a means towards a just and peaceful society;
·        to secure economic justice in order to eradicate poverty and inequality;
·        to advance a culture of moral and spiritual transformation based on care and dignity.
The follow challenges in post apartheid South Africa had been addressed by the General Synod of URCSA:

Xenophobia

URCSA encourages the protection of religious freedom and promotes religious tolerance for all groups and individuals. The General Synod (2005) noted:
·        the resurgence of incidents of xenophobia and tribalism;
·        the growing exploitation of immigrants for cheap labour; and
·        the conflicts that arise between unemployed nationals and immigrants who compete for scarce resources and job opportunities.
URCSA affirmed to render pastoral care and support to the refugees and foreign nationals (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 2005:106).

HIV/AIDS pandemic including orphans and vulnerable children

The General Synodical Commission in 2003 agreed with the creation of facilities for the debriefing or counselling of care-givers who, in the process of caring for HIV/AIDS infected and affected people, suffer from post traumatic stress disorders such as depression and burn-out. URCSA welcomes the roll out of the anti-retroviral medication and urges the Department of Health to accelerate the process within the context of proper treatment (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 2005:105). URCSA noted the disastrous reality of women’s death rate because of lack of healthcare and prenatal care; and called for government policies that acknowledged women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights. Policies should confirm women’s bodily integrity and autonomy; and assure access to healthcare for girls and women, and transform state hospitals and clinics into spaces that uphold women’s rights (Dreaming of a Different World 2010:68).

Domestic violence

URCSA noted the recurrence of domestic violence and requested government to transform the criminal justice system in order to protect the rights of women and children. URCSA also noted the horror of human trafficking and human slavery and called members to seek governmental action to criminalise human trafficking and to enforce codes which make slavery a crime (Dreaming of a Different World 2010:67).

Genetically modified products and the bio-safety protocol

The General Synod in 2005 urged government to see to it that genetically modified (GM) products reaching the market has been adequately tested and that these products are being monitored to ensure safety and to identify problems as soon as they emerge. The General Synod also requested government to comply with the Bio-safety Protocol and bring its bio-safety legislation in line, at a minimum, with the international safety standards established by the Bio-safety Protocol and implement its Precautionary Principle. The General Synod appealed to government to restrict the experiment with GM organisms (GMO) until the ecological and social benefits of these experiments have been proven beyond doubt. URCSA demanded that all foodstuffs and other organic matter containing GMO must be prominently labelled so that the public can decide if they want to utilise thee products. URCSA adopted the precautionary principle and proposed the prohibition of the introduction of GMO until their safety is ascertained; and that the monopolistic control of seed production and distribution by multinational biotech companies should be prevented (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 2005:106).

Climate change

The General Synod in 2008 accepted a resolution on climate change (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 2008:100). Amongst other demands, they called upon government:
·        to introduce regulatory legislation that will sufficiently reduce CO2 emissions to ensure that global warming remains below the 2 ºC rise;
·        to end all subsidies to fossil fuel and nuclear energy generation;
·        to subsidise and promote at all levels – community, municipal, provincial and national – the development and construction of renewable energy plants.

Economic justice

The General Synod approved the publication of a booklet on economic policies and practices to educate and train members, ministers of the Word, church councils and presbyteries. The booklet must address the problem of consumerism and encourage members to lead simple lives. The General Synod in 2005 encouraged ministers of the Word and members to join and actively participate in community development structures in their fight against poverty and other forms of economic injustice. The General Synod (2005) mandated the executive to engage government on social justice issues through the National Religious Leaders Forum and/or other relevant structures which strive for the creation of a caring society and the implementation economic policies that are pro-poor. The General Synod (2005) called on regional synods and congregations to, in addition to paying attention to the Accra Declaration on the Economic Order, also reflect on John Calvin’s focus on the poor, the marginalised and the downtrodden in society (Acta and Agenda General Synod URCSA 2005 decision 8).


5.    Conclusion

The interaction between URCSA and the state on a political and legal level in post-apartheid South Africa must be understood in terms of URCSA’s history. Part 1 of this article recounts the troubled background of the formation of URCSA. The article emphasised that the legal framework of URCSA consists of the Church Order and the confessions. All members, as well as assemblies of URCSA, must adhere to the Church Order and the confessions. URCSA is a voluntary association that is treated as an indivisible whole by the law (universitas). The different assemblies of URCSA exercise both judicial and legislative powers. Ample provision is made in the Church Order regarding the judicial steps that must be followed in order to exercise discipline in the church on an equitable and fair basis. Regarding the protection of its workers, it seems that URCSA thus far has not aligned the Church Order with the Labour Law. URCSA does not make ample provision for the protection of individuals. The church is legally organised to be capable of holding property in any form. Since formation, URCSA has demonstrated a deep commitment to social justice issues. I deduce two implications from my analysis of URCSA’s engagement:
·        Firstly, that a church must dissolve properly by taking the steps required by its church order or constitution;
·        Secondly, that provision should be made in the Church Order of URCSA for the application of the Labour Law on employment relations in URCSA.


Source: http://ngtt.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/294


Friday 15 July 2016

The Minister of the Word in URCSA and Party Politics: A Theoretical and Practical Perspective


The Minister of the Word in URCSA and Party Politics: A Theoretical and Practical Perspective

Paper authored by Rev Dr Leepo Modise, moderator of the URCSA Southern Synod and Actuarius of the General Synod.


ABSTRACT

This article consists of five parts: First, definitions of faith and politics will be provided. Second, Regulation 4(3.2) regarding the status of a Minister of the Word in the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa (URCSA) will be discussed in brief. Third, decisions of different synods on the forfeiture of the status of Ministers of the Word in URCSA due to participation in the governing structures of political parties will be discussed. Fourth, the author will look into different well-known Reformed ministers and theologians who have influenced the thinking of URCSA in terms of its confession – the likes of John Calvin, Abraham Kuyper and Karl Barth – in order to make an argument for the relevance of such a regulation. Fifth, the motive behind Regulation 4(3.2) regarding the status of a Minister of the Word and party politics and its relevance will be discussed.


Introduction

Since the second General Synod sitting of the URCSA in Mooigenoeg in Bloemfontein in 1997, the issue of a Minister of the Word and involvement in party politics has been a burning issue. There is confusion within the faith community of URCSA about ministers participating in party politics and the involvement of a minister or prophetic voice of the church in politics. In the first Church Order of URCSA, the word politics was qualified by an adjective, "party" politics; the present Church Order speaks of "appointment to a political governing body" or availing oneself for election. The question that you and I need to answer in this paper is: What is the motive behind Regulation 4(3.2) in Chapter 4 of the Church Order of the General Synod of the URCSA 2012? It will be proper to first define faith and politics in order to clear the ground for discussion.

Definition and clarification of concepts: Faith and politics

First, for anyone engaged and involved in faith activities, the lack of opening up and functioning in the dimension of faith, belief, trust and confidence – all belonging to the faith realm in the sociopolitical context – is highly problematic. Secondly, a lack of awareness is being detected among Christians regarding the impact their experience of faith, belief, trust and confidence have on their experience of sociopolitical context, their participation, performance and the execution of their skills and know-how in sociopolitical activities.

In these two statements, I strongly allude to the fact that people's experience of faith, belief, trust and confidence is in many instances plagued by unawareness of the problematic role of religious and church-centred faith which steadfastly considers God to be the only object of faith. The moment self-belief, belief in the neighbours and belief in the physical-organic-environment are being left out of the experiential foursome rolling pattern of faith, the role and experience of faith is paradoxically neutralised and immunised by the faith person's involvement in his/her sociopolitical environment. Religious faith and God are thereby being forced back into and locked up in spiritual spheres and faith communities. Though faith communities are an integral part of people's lives, the important point here is that God's presence is intrinsically part of every social structure, institution and community. God's presence is not explicit in certain social institutions and less explicit in others (Modise 2009:55).

Faith is unlimited; it is not limited to religious people at all. It is a human experience. Human beings can love, they can hope, they can fear, they can hurt and they can have faith. It is one of a human being's attributes. This concept of faith as a human experience of belief is crucial; not as an acceptance of a creed or a set of rules laid down by an institution. Faith is a movement within one's being, a conviction and a commitment – not something one does but something that happens to oneself. It is the experience of believing in something beyond oneself, something transcendent and something to which one can reach out, that draws one onwards (Mayson 1997:9).

In this sense faith is an orientation of personality to oneself, to other human beings, to the physical-organic environment (universe) – a total response. It is a way of seeing the world and of handling it, a capacity to see in more than an ordinary level. It is to see, to feel and to act in terms of transcendent dimension... It is the prodigious hallmark of a human being. Faith has to be seen as a societal, not merely a personal concept. It breaks through the restrictions of privatised religion with the vision of a transformed world. Faith is not complete without practice. Faith cannot do without engagement. Faith must be a practical force in life: in caring for the other, in justice for all, in solidarity between people. Faith and life are closely connected, thus faith and politics are connected in the African context.

Politics has been taken to mean the essential human activity of deciding how to live together in communities. Politics has to do with the day-to-day lives of people who are governed. In essence, politics has to do with human relationships and how to protect and use the physical-organic environment. Popenoe and Cunningham (1998:348) define politics as "the process by which some people and groups acquire power and exercise it over others". Political power is a psychological relationship between those who exercise it and those over whom it is exercised. The former exert it over the latter's minds. Such an impact is derived from three sources: the expectation of benefits, the fear of disadvantages, and the respect or love for humankind or institutions. Furthermore, politics is a social process characterised by activity involving rivalry and cooperation in exercising power – and culminates in the making of decisions for a group. Politics are found wherever power relationships or conflict situations exist. Politics means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state. Politics, like faith, is a human activity. Politics cannot do without engaging with people. Politics must be a practical force in life: in caring for the other, in justice for all, in solidarity between people. Politics and life are closely connected, thus faith and politics are connected in the African context (Thielicke 1969:214).


Regulation four (3.2) regarding the status of a Minister of the Word in URCSA

This regulation regulates the active participation of URCSA ministers of the Word in party politics. It is very important to point out that this regulation does not prohibit a Minister of the Word from engaging in politics, but prohibits a minister from taking a position in party politics. One might wonder how one can participate in politics without being engaged in party politics. To respond to that, in South Africa there are many spaces created for constructive political activities or for caring for people or for advocating for justice and equality – forums such as Ward Committees, Faith Based Organisations (FBO), Community Based Organisations (CBO) and the church. The most important for a minister of the Word is to stand for the truth and his/her prophetic voice should be heard and respected because he/she is blameless from siding with any political party.

The regulation reads as follows: “The secretary of the Support Ministry for Judicial Matters (SMJM) of the General Synod gives notice of forfeiture of status through the official communication channels of the church. A minister of the Word or ministry candidate forfeits his/her status if: he/she accepts appointment to a political governing body, or if he/she makes him/herself available as a candidate in a political nomination or election contest." The following is an extract from the General Synod of 1997, as the interpretation of Regulation 4(3.2) of Chapter 4 in the Church Order of the 2012 General Synod:

Status of ministers of the Word – political election

People who avail themselves for a local election, as well as election as members of parliamentary, ministers or members of the executive committee in government at provincial, will forfeit their status as ministers of the Word in accordance with the regulation for status of ministers of the Word. Presbyteries and regional synods must first handle this matter and then give notice to the General Synod Actuarius that they have withdrawn the status.

This article intends to clarify the position of URCSA with regard to ministers of the Word and their involvement in party politics. This regulation does not prohibit ministers of the Word of URCSA from participating in politics. Since politics is part of the life of a congregation that a minister is serving, it is not easy for a minister to divorce him/herself totally from politics. Regulation 4(3.2) prohibits the active participation of a minister in party politics, but not in the affairs of the city. What made the church prohibit ministers of the Word from being active participants in party politics is postulated by Hunsinger (1976:20):

I would guess that both are represented among us gathered here. The one side is formed by the so-called Christian circles in the narrower sense of the term, with which the majority of bourgeois churchgoers is affiliated. If they read or hear that “Jesus Christ and the movement for social justice” have been linked together, they will protest more or less energetically that Christ is being made into a social Democrat. “But please don't paint the Saviour too 'red' will you…?” Then the assertion customarily follows, almost with a certain enthusiasm, that it is completely impossible to associate Jesus with a political party. His person remains nonpartisan, above social conflicts, indeed, indifferent to them. His significance is eternal and not historically limited like that of the Social Democratic Party.

In terms of the above argument, this will bring tension between the minister of the Word and the congregation, because the congregation believes that the minister of the Word represents Jesus Christ on earth. Djupe and Gilbert (2003:8) state that the life and the work of Jesus Christ can be perceived as offering revolutionary ideas and challenging the so-called societal norms, and many Christians view the task of ministers of the Word as translating and broadcasting such counter-cultural claims of congregation members and the larger society. At the same time, members want a spiritual guide comforting in good times as well as in periods of grief and hardship. A minister of the Word who fills this role also conveys core messages of their faith traditions. Some congregation members see problems of society as existing outside the church's walls and range of vision, while others believe their faith calls them and their church to act in the world. How does a minister of the Word navigate the potential conflicts inherent in these differing visions? In URCSA these differing visions are addressed in Regulation 4(3.2) where a minister of the Word will forfeit his/her status as a minister of the Word for the sake of the congregation's welfare and wellness. Djupe and Gilbert (2003:8) address it by providing a possible solution borrowed from political science: the concept of two basic roles of representatives, namely the delegate and trustee. Djupe and Gilbert (2003:8) distinguish between the two roles:

Delegates are sent to the legislature or some other political gathering to follow the will of the people, often explicitly. For example, delegates to a party convention are typically bound to express formally the will of some prior convention or a state's primary election voters... Trustees on the other hand, are exemplified by Theodore Roosevelt's self-described role as "steward of the people": it was not only [a representative's] right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded unless such action was prohibited by the constitution or by the laws.

Djupe and Gilbert (2003), quote the philosopher and theologian Cornel West reacting to this concept of two basic roles; he used the metaphor of thermometer or thermostats for the role of a minister of the Word or public officials. Reflecting on delegate models, he states that a thermometer presents the temperature of its location – representatives or clergy/ministers of the Word simply reflect what they see in their surroundings, seeking not to change conditions or opinions, but only to report to them whenever and wherever called upon to do so. In contrast to thermostats – akin to trustees – a thermometer not only reads the temperature, but also reacts to it. West's metaphor captures the interrelationship of representatives or a minister of the Word and constituents or congregations more subtly than the usual delegate-trustee model.

West also points out (referring to the metaphor of temperature) what congregation members are thinking and how societal norms and prevailing attitudes affect a minister of the Word's decisions about participation in political and civic activities (Djupe and Gilbert 2003). In many respects, ministers of the Word cannot resist fulfilling the thermometer role. They cannot afford to be unaware of what their members think, especially if members hold the power to hire and fire them. But a minister of the Word also serves important prophetic roles: to remind or sometimes tell members what the denomination teaches about a particular issue, to strengthen the shared identity that binds people to a particular congregation or denomination, and to simply be present with the congregation in times of intense struggle and unrest. In this sense ministers of the Word should be very careful whenever getting involved in party politics. If a minister of the Word identifies him/herself with a particular political party, and if his/her thinking is not aligned with the thinking of their congregation, then they may divide the congregation. As a result URCSA – which strives for unity, reconciliation and justice – urges ministers of the Word to refrain from party politics, not from the day to day life affairs of the congregation. Hence, Regulation 4(3.2) in the Church Order discourages ministers of the Word from participating in party politics.


Decisions of General Synods in relation to the implementation of Regulation 4(3.2)

It is of paramount importance to indicate that from the General Synod held in Mooigenoeg, Bloemfontein (1997) to the General Synod in Okahanja, Namibia (2012), ministers of the Word who had availed themselves for political election at local, provincial and national level have forfeited their status. In Mooigenoeg, a decision was taken that two ministers of the Word would forfeit their status due to their participation in party politics. At that synod, what is very interesting is that the two members who forfeited their status were not involved in party politics, but were independent candidates in the local elections. An independent candidate has his/her own political ideology, and he/she is convinced that he/she will have people vote for him/her. An independent candidate is as much a legal political entity as an individual in his/her own right. The problem is that as a minister of the Word, his/her political ideology might differ from the majority of his/her congregation and that might split the congregation. Hence, the extract mentioned above is drafted to control such a situation (Agenda 1997:766-767).

During the General Synod in Upington (2001), it is reported that one of the ministers of the Word who had forfeited his status during the Mooigenoeg General Synod sitting had taken the church to court. It was reported that “The GSC takes note that Rev C. A. T. Smit lost his status as a minister of the Word after he had availed himself to stand for election as an independent candidate in the local election. The GSC also takes note that the said brother has also sued the Presbytery and the Regional Synod of the Cape for unfair dismissal.” Furthermore, the GSC resolved that ministers of the Word who are involved in local, provincial or national government will forfeit their status as ministers of the Word, as they can never be “an independent” or not fall under a political party. The GSC took a decision that the involvement of ministers of the Word in party politics needed to be discussed in the meantime (Acta General Synod URCSA 2001:115). A similar decision was taken by the General Synod of Okahanja, Namibia (2012) that this matter needed to be discussed in depth by Proclamation and Worship together with the Support Ministry for Judicial Matters.

The General Synod held in Pietermarisburg (2005) also approved the forfeiture of status by ministers who had availed themselves and/or accepted being appointment or elected into political parties. One such minister from the Namibia Synod, Rev S. Mbambo, was appointed the Ambassador of Namibia in Russia, and the other from the Kwa Zulu-Natal Synod, Rev H. Mbatha, joined the Independent Democracy Party as a possible candidate for election in the national and provincial election (Acta General Synod URCSA 2005). What is very sad is that quality ministers of the Word were lost by the church due to participation in party politics. During the General Synod held in Hammanskraal (2008) there was a similar case, where the synod approved the decision of the SMJM to withdraw the status of a Rev Matseketa from the Phororo Synod, who was a candidate for a political position (Acta General Synod URCSA 2008:18 & 113). Rev Dr A. A. Boesak also forfeited his status as a minister of the Word when he joined the Congress of the People, and availed himself as a candidate for election; his forfeiture of status was approved by the Okahanja General Synod (Acta General Synod URCSA 2012:14). I have attempted to highlight the decisions of the General Synod regarding Regulation 4(3.2) – that if ministers of the Word avail themselves for party politics, such ministers will forfeit their status as ministers of the Word.

In most of these cases there were complaints about inconsistency in the implementation of this regulation. A response on the ministers of the Word who were actively involved in politics and party politics before the establishment of URCSA on the 14th April 1994 was as follows: “it is proper for me as the Actuarius of the General Synod of URCSA to bring to the attention of all ministers who wish to follow in the footprints of these ministers that during apartheid it was different. During the apartheid era the people of South Africa had to use everything at their disposal to fight apartheid to its end. Some of these ministers have even served in the parliament of national unity or the first democratic parliament of South Africa. The Dutch Reformed Mission Church (DRMC) also has this regulation in its church order, namely Regulation 132 1.1.4 (Church Order and Supplementary Regulations of DRMC 1990). Ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church in Africa (DRCA) were aware of Art 9 and Regulation 12.3.2 of the DRCA General Synod which clearly states that ministers of the Word can forfeit their status if they avail themselves as candidates of a political party (Church Order and Supplementary Regulations of DRCA 1991). Based on the above argument, the former DRMC and the former DRCA as well as URCSA worked with the same premise with regard to ministers availing themselves as candidates of a political party. As clause 3.2 regarding the status states, specifically the forfeiture of status in terms of involvement in party politics, it was discussed during the April 1994 synod for approval to become regulation for URCSA ministers, but in the same breath the list of candidates was long completed before the regulation was in place. It is a fact that ministers from DRCA and DRMC were aware of the situation, but the candidates from the ranks of ministers of the Word of URCSA did not know what the decision of the April 1994 synod would be regarding ministers and party politics. Secondly, it is important to note that the two sister churches decided before the 14th April 1994 to become one church. Hence I maintain that the list of all candidates for political appointments after the national election on the 27th April 1994 was complete before the establishment of URCSA on the 14th April 1994. According to the rule of law, the new law cannot be enforced on the person who was in the system before the law or the regulation was introduced. This is called the transitional provision; based on this provision the said ministers should be exempt from Regulation 4(3.2).” The following section will discuss the reformed thinking around faith and politics to justify Regulation 4(3.2).


Reformed tradition's understanding of faith and politics

Within the Reformed tradition, we find different approaches. Like Luther, Calvin distinguished between a civil and spiritual regiment, but at the same time he differed from Luther, stressing the inner coherence of the two regiments. This coherence corresponds with the coherence between law and gospel in Calvin's thought, and consequently with the characteristic reformed belief in the sovereignty of the law of God over life in its totality. Within this context the Word of God gets an all-embracing function.

Through the Word the spiritual regiment should bring the worldly regiment in submission to the regiment of Christ. This is the unique contribution of Calvin to the very difficult problem of the two regiments. The two regiments are bound together by the sovereignty of Christ, but the first regiment and therefore the faith community retains priority. For in the faith community Christ reigns directly through Word and Spirit and only through the proclamation of this same Word does His reign extend to government and society. From this follows the conviction that the faith community as the bearer of the Word has a prophetic task vis-à-vis government.

This sounds rather straightforward to those who accept and share the Reformed belief in the sovereignty of Christ in all spheres of life. There are, however, two basic problems that have to be faced before speaking too glibly about the prophetic voice of the faith community in matters that affect government and society. The first problem is the fact that within the Reformed tradition the inner coherence between the regiments never annihilates the distinction of the two. Accordingly, both the faith community and the government as embodiments of the two regiments have their own functions and power – each within its own sphere. The question therefore is: In what way should the prophetic voice of the Church be heard in view of the sphere-sovereignty of government? The second problem is even more serious than the first. It concerns the method in which the faith community should proclaim the Word of God vis-á-vis government, bearing in mind that the faith community cannot proclaim the Word without first having understood the Word of God for a concrete and specific situation. In other words, we are faced with the most difficult of all theological problems: the hermeneutical problem.

In combination, the two problems should be read as follows: How are the ethical norms of the Scripture to be understood in a specific political situation? And in which way should the faith community confront government and individual politicians with these norms without over-stepping their boundaries into the political arena? Based on the nature of these problems we should not be surprised that, in the history of the Reformed faith, different answers have been given and different systems have been developed, although all of them understood themselves as legitimate continuations of the original starting point of Calvin. There are three important Calvinistic models: the Kuyperian model, the Barthian model and the Van Ruler's model. In this paper the author will attempt to find the solution from the Kuyperian and Barthian models.

Durand (1981), referring to Kuyper, states that the faith community is more than an institution. The faith community is not even an institution in the first place, because if it was an institution, then it would compete with other institutions like government and school. More than anything, it is an organism, consisting of regenerated human beings who move and live in all spheres of life. This is the true faith community. Kuyper even identifies the invisible faith community (Durand 1981:7). Living in all spheres of life, this rebirth of human beings has to exercise its influence even by means of Christian organisations (in the South African context faith-based organisations under the Department of Social Development). With respect to the life of government, this implies the formation of a Christian political party, by means of which the invisible faith community of true believers exercises influence.

The institutional faith community has no direct function in this respect. The influence of the institution on the life of the people, society and government will always be indirect, via the faith community as an organism of believers. This fact implies, furthermore, that in Kuyper's view the prophetic calling of the faith community in political matters is not primarily that of the institution, but of the organism (Durand 1981:5). The tension between the faith community and government is reduced to a minimum. The struggle to maintain Christian norms in the political sphere is to be waged by the Christian political party as the prophetic mouthpiece. This kind of conclusion can be drawn and has been drawn by some of Kuyper's epigones, especially in South Africa. Throughout the ages the followers of Kuyper in South Africa have had the problem that, due to historical and other circumstances, only one part of the Kuyperian model has been copied in South Africa. The formation of a strong Christian political party was never realised until the democratic election of 1994 where political parties like the United Christian Democratic Party and the African Christian Democratic Party were formed, but with ulterior motives.

According to Durand (1981), Barth in his model uses the image of two concentric circles to explain his line of thought. The Christian congregation forms the inner, smaller circle, and the civil congregation the bigger outer circle. The common hub of these two circles is Jesus Christ and the proclaimed Kingdom of God. What then is the relationship between the two concentric circles and their common centre, and between the two circles themselves? Barth's answer is that the light of God's kingdom falls on the faith community and from there is reflected onto government. The relationship is analogous by nature. By virtue of the common centre, government has the right of existence as a paradigm, as an analogy of the kingdom of God as it is proclaimed in the faith community. In this respect the political responsibility of the Christian congregation emerges. Through its existence and through its proclamation of the Word, the faith community must remind government of the kingdom of God, so that government can become a mirror image and paradigm of the kingdom of God. The true and successful government finds in the true and successful faith community its primordial example.

According to Durand (1981), Barth does not align himself with the notion of the establishment of the Christian political party. He asked whether there can be any other Christian "party" in the government apart from the Christian congregation itself, whose task embraces the totality of government and society. He argues: that which is Christian can never become directly visible in the political sphere. It can only do so as a mirror image and a paradigm. In practice, it may well happen that the Christian message can become an embarrassment for a Christian political party if it is not able to find political room for that message. It is therefore possible that a Christian political party may compromise the Christian congregation and its message. Therefore, Christians must always act anonymously in the political field.

The anonymity of the Christian in the political sphere, however, finds its pendant in a speaking faith community. In the faith community the preaching becomes a political act and a good congregation will understand the political sense even though no word is said about politics. But the faith community does not only speak through its preaching. It is part of the duty of the faith community to make its political decisions known by means of notification from the pulpit and other official channels, in this regard the faith community should see to it that it does not awake from its apolitical sleep only when the government lotteries and desecration of a Sunday are at stake. Even more important than all these is the necessity for the faith community to be truly a faith community. Within government the faith community speaks loudest through what it is. In this sense the faith community as such is a political factor.

When the two models of Kuyper and Barth, both of which claim continuity with the original idea of Calvin, are compared, it becomes evident that whereas the Kuyperian model combines the active Christian witness in the political field with an almost silent faith community, the Barthian model does almost the opposite: a speaking or prophetic faith community is combined with silent Christians as Christians. Their political actions and witnessing, they do anonymously. Christians should strive to be the salt of the earth everyday – politically, socially and economically. For that matter, he may even organise a political party. But the voice of the political party can never be a substitute for the prophetic voice of the faith community or a minister of the Word.


The motive behind Regulation 4(3.2) on the status of ministers of the Word

In this article I have chosen to follow Djupe and Gilbert (2003) to measure the effectiveness of ministers of the Word participating in politics. They mentioned four measures to evaluate these effects on ministers of the Word's political efficacy, frequency of church-based political activity and approval of political activity:

  • Perceived congregational approval of the political activity;

  • Discouraging attitudes of the congregation towards clergy's political activity;

  • Discouragement based on the reactions of potential members;

  • General ideological differences between clergy and congregation as perceived by clergy.

Taking the above measures into consideration then, there is a question which remains: Do ministers of the Word represent their denomination or faith tradition for themselves, their congregation or a combination of these? Which set of interests dominates and on what issues? Djupe and Gilbert (2003:11) argue that:

Few clergy approve of direct involvement in the electoral politics by religious institutions (on theological as well as constitutional and legal grounds), but many more clergy approve of and justify actions that are more civic in orientation. As we will see, these clergy place heavy, though not exclusive, emphasis on discussion of issues and activities that inform constituents of all kinds.

Moreover, ministers of the Word at times see themselves as working in the interests of their congregations. This is generally what Blizzard (1958:374) referred to as an integrative role. However, previous studies of ministers of the Word and political action have largely missed this aspect, assuming that political activity is issue based rather than interest based. If one views, from an interest-based perspective, a black minister protesting racial discrimination in part because of strong civil rights convictions, but also as a way to advocate for the interests of the congregation in ending discrimination. To avoid the minister from being attached to a political party the church chose to be the salt and the light of the world and ministers need to be salt crystals or light rays that penetrate through the world in all directions without limitation or political party boundaries.

The author also needs to look into the attributes of a minister of the Word while dealing with the motive for Regulation 4(3.2). Some of the direct conflict between ministers of the Word and their congregations is mitigated by the minister of the Word's attributes such as tenure on the job, the duties of the position, and denominational affiliation. For instance, one new minister of the Word suggested that politics is not a high priority: “I have not been at this church that long and have other more immediate issues to address." But these factors are not always consistent predictors, and the direction of the relationships cannot be easily assumed. For example, ministers of the Word who have long service experience in the ministry are more politically active, but believe they have less capacity to influence their congregation. Ministers of the Word with long service in their present congregation are also more politically active in the church, but long-serving ministers of the Word are less approving of a minister of the Word's political activity (Djupe and Gilbert 2003:62-3). In this sense the attributes of a minister of the Word contribute positively towards the prohibition of a minister of the Word to be actively involved in party politics. Serving in a church is thought to allow ministers of the Word to build credit or political capital that they can then expend on political activity, but being linked to a political organisation might discredit a minister of the Word.

Furthermore, the research of Djupe and Gilbert (2003) illustrates that this is exactly what occurs, even as ministers of the Word (Clergy) become more skeptical of political activity and of their own ability to affect congregational attitudes. Moreover, decreases in political efficacy, political activity, and minister’s approval of political activity are associated with ministers’ beliefs that the duties of their position discourage political action, indicating that ministers of the Word are busy people but also probably reflecting an underlying belief that politics and religion should be mixed with caution.

There is also a need for the author to look into the congregational characteristics while dealing with the motive for Regulation 4(3.2) in the Church Order and regulations of the General Synod. Ministers of the Word should be made to understand and appreciate the internal dynamics of their congregations. Internal conflicts can be exposed and exacerbated by a minister of the Word's political activities. Horror stories abound about congregations dividing over minor or major theological issues, splitting over political issues such as homosexual rights, and falling to pieces because of the actions of a minister of the Word or other church officials. Therefore, it is expected that a minister of the Word should avoid politics when the congregation is divided (Djupe and Gilbert 2003:63). In that sense, URCSA as a church that confesses the Belhar Confession – which emphasises unity, reconciliation and justice – cannot afford to promote divisions or splits within her congregations by allowing her ministers to be actively involved in party politics. Hence the General Synod Church Order and regulations of URCSA enforcing Regulation 4(3.2) on the forfeiture of the status of minister of the Word who avails him/herself or accepting party political responsibilities.


Conclusion

I want to conclude by saying that based on the workload of a minister, the congregational characteristics and a minister's attributes; it is very complex for a minister of the Word to be actively involved in party politics. Reformed theologians have also shown that it is not easy to belong to a political party – hence Abram Kuyper suggests the Christian political party and Karl Barth question the notion of Christian political parties by saying that there is no better Christian political organisation than a congregation and Christians, let alone ministers of the Word. Their political actions and witnessing, they should do anonymously.


Source: www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1017-04992014000300018