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
No comments:
Post a Comment