This article was authored
by Rev Prof Thias Kgatla, former moderator of the General Synod.
Abstract
The events prior to and
after the union of the Dutch Reformed Church in Africa (DRCA) and the Dutch
Reformed Mission Church (DRMC) in 1994 to form the Uniting Reformed Church in
Southern Africa (URCSA) are perplexing. This is because the white Dutch
Reformed Church (NG Kerk) was influenced by apartheid ideology in its response
to church unity within the DRC family.1 Unity talks were held
between the NG Kerk and the Reformed Church of Africa (RCA), but they were unsuccessful.
Minutes of these talks reveal that the biblical concept of church unity was
problematic, especially to the NG Kerk, which created a language that made the concept
of Christian unity elusive. This article gives a brief survey of the
developments that shaped the unity process undertaken by the DRMC and the DRCA
from 1986 to 1994, when the two churches eventually united. The role played by
the white NG Kerk and its motive to frustrate this union is also analysed. The change in
leadership of the DRCA in 1987, the DRCA General Synod in Umtata and the momentum this
change gave to the process of unity between the DRMC and the DRCA are also
investigated. The internal struggles within the DRCA's Northern Transvaal Regional
Synod2 are also discussed. Gender inclusiveness in church ministry,
property ownership and the inclusion of these issues in the new Church Order
are investigated. After seventeen years of democracy in South Africa, unity of the Dutch
Reformed family of churches (the RCA, NG Kerk and URCSA) has not yet been realised. This article sketches
the DRCA's road to unity with the DRMC in 1994 without the NG Kerk and RCA – shedding
light on why it was difficult for the NG Kerk and RCA to become part of the
URCSA.
Introduction
Events leading up to the union
of the DRCA3 and the DRMC in 1994 are perplexing. Many unity talks
were held before 1994 between the NG Kerk4 and the RCA, but without
success. Minutes of these unity talks reveal that adapting to the biblical
concept of church unity (presbyterian and organic unity) was a mammoth task,
especially for the NG Kerk (NGKA Akta 1991:16). In order to sidestep the issue,
the NG Kerk developed a specially created language that made the issue of
Christian unity elusive. From 1975, when the DRCA first pondered unity with its
sister churches, there were difficulties. The NG Kerk continues with these
tactics to this day. In 2007 the NG Kerk misrepresented the decisions taken with
URCSA, DRCA and RCA at unity talks in Achterberg, Krugersdorp (URCSA Acta
2008:197).
After seventeen years of
democracy in South Africa, complete church unity
among the Dutch Reformed family of churches – the RCA, the NG Kerk and the
URCSA – has still not materialised. By reading church history, one is able to understand
why it was difficult for the NG Kerk and the RCA to be part of the URCSA. This
article also explains the path followed by the DRCA until it eventually united
with the DRMC in 1994 without the NG Kerk and the RCA.
Church unity in the DRCA
The DRCA took a decision
to unite with the other members of the Dutch Reformed family of churches in
1975 at its Third General Synod in Worcester (NGKA Akta 1978:10). The
decision was reiterated at the Fifth DRCA General Synod held in Barkly West in
June 1983 (NGKA Akta 1983:38), when a report from the DRMC on reconciliation
and apartheid was discussed. In the report, the apartheid policy was described
as a policy that separated and kept people apart based on language, race,
religion and colour
(NGKA Akta 1983:38). The possibility of people working together to fulfill
God's purpose was nullified by the apartheid system, which was still in full
force at the time and was underpinned by government legislation and brutal police
enforcement. According to the General Synod, because of the political environment,
there was no possibility of genuine Christian reconciliation (NGKA Akta
1983:39). The report profoundly influenced the thinking of the DRCA General Synod
about the NG Kerk's ambiguous and ambivalent language of apartheid and
reconciliation. The NG Kerk was seen as not ready for authentic church unity.
At the same synod, the DRMC's synod decision in 1982 on the Status
Confessionis5 and its 1978 decision regarding apartheid and
church unity were discussed, and the DRMC's Status Confessionis (drafted
in 1982) was adopted. These two documents played a crucial role in shaping
unity talks and the path towards unity between the DRCA and the DRMC.
The DRCA Northern
Transvaal Regional Synod (Regional Synod) first discussed the Belhar
Confession, the fourth confession adopted by the DRMC synod, in 1986. During
the sitting of the Regional Synod, some African ministers received telephone
threats from leaders of the NG Kerk, warning them that they would lose their
subsidies if they voted for the adoption of the Belhar Confession. Indeed, some
of these threats were carried out later, when the NG Kerk placed many
ministers' stipends on a sliding salary scale (glyskaal). The voting results
were as follows: 182 voted in support, 11 voted against, and one abstained. The
NG Kerk was strongly opposed to the acceptance of the Belhar Confession by the DRCA
and would do everything in its power to frustrate the process. However, the
theological insight and influence of the DRMC did not take root in the DRCA
without resistance. The Moderator (chairperson) of the General Synod, Rev
Lebone, who later led a splinter group that is still resisting the URCSA unity,
objected from the chair. His stance was also evident in his Moderator's Report
to the DRCA General Synod held in Umtata in 1987 (NGKA Akta
1987:38). In that document, he reported on the March 1985 meeting convened by the
NG Kerk that the DRCA was part of, where church unity was discussed. In their
response to the NG Kerk's position that it believed that the Church of Jesus
Christ is one, without different visible forms (implying it is invisible), Rev
Lebone's leadership said that they too were still considering the matter of
church unity. By not taking a stand on the matter, an opportunity was missed to
tell the NG Kerk what the DRCA's position regarding church unity was. Instead,
the DRCA leadership played into the hands of the NG Kerk, delaying visible and
structural unity further, by pleading that the leaders too had not taken any
decision on such unity.
The agenda for the March
1985 meeting between the executives of the NG Kerk and the DRCA is revealing.
The issues on the agenda were the immigration of labourers (people moving from the Bantustans to white cities), NG
Kerk financial subsidies to the DRCA ministers, and government social grants to
black people. This meeting took place at the height of the apartheid struggle,
when many black people were losing their lives, but nothing was said about
that. The NG Kerk told the Executive Committee of the DRCA (Rev Lebone, Rev
Mataboge, Dr Pitekeo and Dr Basson) that the Church's role in the country was
to pray for all the people – the Church was not supposed to get involved in
politics (NGKA Akta 1987:38). The meeting concluded that if things from inside
the church would come right, it would follow that things outside its purview
would also come right. What mattered most, the meeting concluded, was a healthy
relationship with Christ, and this relationship could be lived under the
illuminating light of God. A healthy relationship with Christ implied living in
harmony with the NG Kerk and the apartheid laws. This implied that everything
was fine and well under apartheid rule.
From the discussions
between NG Kerk and DRCA Executive Committees at the meeting of March 1985, it
was clear that the NG Kerk was not only opposed to visible church unity but
also contemptuous of the process. It regarded itself as the author of the
process to unity and that there would be no unity without its blessing (NGKA
Akta 1991:16). Unfortunately, at that stage, the leadership of the DRCA was
weak and relied heavily on the NG Kerk, both ideologically and financially.
Clearly, the leadership in the DRCA had to change, otherwise the union of the Dutch
Reformed family of churches would remain stagnant. Something radical had to be
done in order to take the process forward. Replacing the leadership of the General
Synod was imperative for church unity to take place.6
The new leadership
elected at the Umtata General Synod in 1987 (with Dr S. Buti as Moderator, Rev
M. Maphoto as Assessor, Dr S. Petikeo as Scribe and Dr N. Smith as Actuary)
swayed the direction of the DRCA from being controlled by the NG Kerk. They
immediately got in touch with the leadership of the DRMC and worked closely
with them on the union of the two churches. They challenged the NG Kerk on its
model of unity (federalism) and clearly paved the way for the acceptance of the
Belhar Confession by the DRCA (NGKA Akta 1991:19-21). The two churches, DRMC
and DRCA, could freely consult each other on the matters of confession and
unity without impediment or fear of the NG Kerk.
Bilateral talks between
the NG Kerk and the DRCA leadership structures made it apparent that church
unity was not possible in the near future. The church unity process, whose form
and structure were not defined, had to start from scratch. This was merely a
delaying tactic on the side of the NG Kerk. A special DRCA Northern Transvaal Regional
Synod was convened from the 22nd to 27th
April 1991 to discuss unity with the DRMC. Informal talks between the
DRCA and DRMC had already taken place and common ground between the two
churches had been found. In April 1991, the DRCA Northern Transvaal Regional
Synod expressed its unequivocal support for church unity with the DRMC (NGKA
Akta 1991:28).
On the 14th April 1994, the DRMC and the DRCA
unified to constitute URCSA. At the founding synod, URCSA affirmed the Belhar
Confession as one of its four confessions (Reformed Standards of Unity), the
original three confessions are:
- the Heidelberg Catechism (1563),
- the Belgic Confession (1561, revised 1619), and
- the Canons of Dort (1618-1619).
The Belhar Confession is
therefore one of the "standards of unity" of URCSA (Agenda en
Handelinge VGKSA 1997:26, 504).
Proposed new Church Order for the uniting church
The next item on the
agenda was a draft Church Order for the envisaged new church. The first
eight articles of the proposed Church Order were accepted without much
discussion, but Article 9, concerning the calling and retirement of ministers,
and the representation of congregations at presbytery and regional synod levels
were met with some resistance (NGKA Akta 1991:28). Some delegates were
concerned because Article 9 affected the livelihood of the ministers. The low
salary with inadequate pension at retirement was not discussed in the article.
Congregations established from the NG Kerk missionary work were never prepared
to look after their ministers.
One of the questions that
were raised was whether presbyteries should be empowered to come up with their
own stipulations rather than allowing the regional synod to impose its will on
them all the time. After a long discussion, a compromise was reached: it was
decided that the regional synods would provide presbyteries with stipulations
to ensure unity and conformity, but that presbyteries were free to develop
their own stipulations suitable for their local needs. Emphasis was placed on
own solutions, rather than on bureaucracy. These concessions compromised the
classical reformed principles of church polity of elder-centred governance.
Representation at
presbyteries and regional synods was no longer to be based on the number of
ministers, or posts, in a congregation. Delegates to these gatherings had to
include the laity, women and the youth (NGKA NTvl Akta 1995:40). Stipulations
of the Church Order were not regarded as legalistic rules but as
church-governing regulations. Finally, the General Synod decided on a four-tier
church structure that consisted of congregations, presbyteries, regional synods
and the General Synod (URCSA NTvl Akta 1995:41).
The next item discussed
was the effectiveness and efficiency of the General Synod in the new church. It
was decided that the General Synod, as a policy-maker, should not choke the
development of the church. The guiding principle was that regional synods must
be watchdogs against the inability of the church to achieve its goals in their
regions. New ways and structures were to be sought to make the church effective
and these were to be embedded in the curriculum of the theological training in
the North and the South (URCSA NTvl Akta 1995:40).
Names for the new church
were suggested, and the name Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa (URCSA)
was favoured more. Finally, the General Synod instructed all the church congregations and
presbyteries to sign a consent form for unity. Circulars were placed in
newsletters and letters were sent to congregations encouraging congregations to
sign the consent forms (URCSA NTvl Akta 1995:40). An overwhelming number of
congregations signed the consent forms and returned them to the church office.
At congregation and presbytery levels, the movement toward church unity enjoyed
support from a substantial majority.
Church property
A worrying factor faced by
the Regional Synod as it prepared for church unity was the uncertainty regarding
church property (URCSA NTvl Akta 1995:161). Nearly all church buildings and all
immovable property were registered under the NG Kerk. The question was whether
the NG Kerk would use this factor to frustrate church unity. This concern later
proved to be genuine as the DRCA and URCSA, to this day, are still involved in
legal battles for church property. The NG Kerk pleads innocence in the court
battles between the DRCA and URCSA, although the contested properties are in
its name. Many URCSA members see the silence on the part of the NG Kerk as
disapproval of the unity achieved by the DRCA and DRMC without its involvement
and approval.
The Regional Synod that sat
from the 22nd to 27th April
1991 instructed its congregations to negotiate with the NG Kerk for the
transfer of church property ownership to the new church (URCSA NTvl Akta
1995:160). The Church Administration Office was requested to assist
congregations through the process of property registration if required. A
special form called Document H was designed to guide congregations
through the process of property registration. However, a majority of these
congregations did not register properties under their names as advised –
despite the government Land Tenure Act 32 of 1966
that enabled properties to be properly registered.
Church farms and
properties at Kranspoort, Bethesda, Emmerentia Geldenhuys
and church schools were identified as church properties where negotiations had
to be entered into with the NG Kerk. However, the negotiations yielded nothing
until the Land Claims Commission took over the matter (African Eye News Service,
12 December 1999:2). The Kranspoort and Bethesda farms have since been
handed over to the African people who were residing on them before the NG Kerk
missionary take-over in the mid-1880s. These developments further worsened the
fragile relationships between the two churches. The claims of church land by
URCSA were seen as an extension of government appropriations of white land in
the country.
Calling of ministers
Finally, the Regional
Synod considered the process of calling ministers. As the Regional Synod was
moving towards unity, it reconsidered the process of calling ministers and wished
to move away from the former DRCA practices. The Regional Synod acknowledged
that the method used to call ministers at that time put a strong emphasis on
the working and guidance of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of church council
members (URCSA NTvl Akta 1995:162). The Regional Synod felt that the Holy
Spirit works in various ways and that the Holy Spirit could also use the
process of advertising vacant posts, having candidates apply, interviewing them
and appointing the best candidate. The Regional Synod eventually took a
decision to use both methods, and this practice is reflected in the present Church
Order of the URCSA Northern Transvaal Regional Synod (URCSA NTvl Akta
1995:160). Included in this practice is the concept of the tent-making
ministry. Part-time employment of ministers is acceptable as indicated by the
current Church Order.
General Synod of July 1991: Pretoria
As already mentioned,
church unity in the DRCA depended on the quality of leadership that was in
place at various times. A true shepherd (John 10) leads his sheep, and the
sheep follow. It was only after the DRCA General Synod leadership change in Umtata (June 1987) that
progress became evident. After the Umtata General Synod, the church unity talks
between the DRCA and the NG Kerk reached a dead end, but the talks between the
DRCA and DRMC bore fruit.
The new chairperson of
the DRCA General Synod was Rev S. P. E. Buti. Under his leadership, the unity
talks were purposive and unambiguous. On the 3rd
July 1990, the DRCA and NG Kerk executives met in Pretoria to discuss church unity,
the Dutch Reformed family of churches, and church relationships. The NG Kerk's
stance on church unity (NGKA Akta 1991:17) was tabled as follows:
- Church unity is important.
- It should be more visible.
- At that stage, it was not clear what it should look like.
- Instead of top to bottom, it should grow from the bottom up.
- Church unity is not fixed, but it takes place where believers meet and live.
- Structures for cooperation could develop.
- It is an open model that could differ in terms of local needs and it depends on historical and other circumstances.
- The Holy Spirit should work in the hearts of people to see the need for church unity.
- It is thus a local, organic, dynamic model, which evolves and grows.
- Church councils, presbyteries and synods could form joint commissions.
- The direction of such an approach would crystallise as time went on.
Finally, the NG Kerk
pronounced (ironically) its blessings on unity developments between the DRCA
and the DRMC. It was clear that the NG Kerk was certain that unity between DRCA
and DRMC would not materialise.7 The DRCA's (NGKA Akta 1991:16) stance
on church unity was as follows:
- The Federal Council of the Dutch Reformed Churches could not serve as a forum for church unity. It had avoided church unity and that was the reason the DRCA withdrew from it.
- Structural church unity should be accepted as an accomplished fact. The DRCA and the DRMC had no problem with that. Since 1975 the DRCA has been convinced that structural church unity should be the basis on which the new church would be formed.
- The NG Kerk should admit that there was only one Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa and should repudiate its decision of 1857.
- The NG Kerk should not try to initiate or hinder the unity process.
- Improper and condescending attitudes in NG Kerk congregations, which suggest that the NG Kerk financially subsidised the DRCA congregations, should be corrected.
The DRCA General Synod in
July 1991 endorsed this stance. Church unity between the DRCA and DRMC took
place on the 14th April 1994, a mere two weeks before
the first democratic elections in South Africa. The first URCSA
Northern Transvaal Regional Synod was held in Pretoria from the 03rd to 08th April 1995. The Regional Synod was characterised by a spirit of joy and
optimism. The meeting ended with the sharing of the Holy Communion at a local
congregation. At this gathering, a foundation was laid to take the Regional
Synod forward using various strategies, as is evident in the Commissions'
reports. We single out two of the 17 reports to demonstrate the enthusiastic
spirit in the Regional Synod, those of the Church Office and Judicial
Commission (NGKA Akta 1991:18). The work of these two commissions represents a
contrast of the strength and weakness of the URCSA Northern Transvaal Regional
Synod.
Unity and subsequent events
Church Office
Commission
The ownership of church
buildings, farms and buildings in cities occupied the Regional Synod of the Northern Transvaal from the late 1980s into
the 1990s. At the last Regional Synod (before church unification in 1994)
congregations were specifically urged to have all properties under their care
registered under their names (NGKA Akta 1991:18). Congregations were given forms
to guide them through the process and were urged to approach the Regional Synod
when they faced an impasse with the NG Kerk. All church properties built by the
NG Kerk for the DRCA were registered under the NG Kerk. After the DRCA decided
to unite with the DRMC to form URCSA, the DRCA leadership approached the NG
Kerk to transfer the buildings to URCSA congregations. The NG Kerk agreed with
this arrangement, but some incidents that occurred after the unification
between the DRCA and DRMC showed that the NG Kerk was not fully committed to
its undertaking. Where problems arose regarding church buildings between the
URCSA and DRCA congregations, the NG Kerk was always on the side of the DRCA.
Examples are to be found in the Orange Free State and Northern Cape provinces. In the former Northern Transvaal, isolated incidents
happened – for example in Sabie (now in Mpumalanga) and Saulspoort (now in
the North West Province).
Congregations falling
under the URCSA Northern Transvaal Regional Synod were continuously requested
to acquire title deeds of their church buildings. Safekeeping of ownership
documents was regarded as extremely important. Copies of ownership documents
were to be kept at congregations, while original copies were to be sent to
church offices for safekeeping. This had implications particularly for
properties such as NG Kerk mission hospitals, schools and farms such as
Emmerentia Geldenhuys, Bethesda and Kranspoort.
The process of
registering church buildings in the names of congregations, as well as transferring
farms, mission hospitals and schools to URCSA, did not run smoothly. A few
congregations managed to get their church buildings registered under their
names, but most failed, mainly because of a lack of knowledge of what needed to
be done or because they lacked funds to purchase the properties. The Land
Claims Commission settled the matter of Bethesda farm and Kranspoort farm
(African Eye News Service, 12 December 1999:2). The two farms were handed over
to the descendants of the people who lived on them prior to missionary
occupation. Emmerentia Geldenhuys is still the property of the NG Kerk.
Properties on the former mission stations either had to be taken over by the
local municipalities or had to be handed over to the local congregations.
The following properties fell
under the jurisdiction of the URCSA Northern Transvaal Regional Synod:
- Church farm schools: Karneelzijn Kraal Farm and Draaikraal Farm;
- Special schools: Yingisani School at Letaba near Tzaneen and Bosele Handcraft School near Groblersdal;
- The Training Centre at the Church Office in Mamelodi was also flourishing. From 1992 to 1998 (six years), 2 293 students graduated in different work-related fields from Mamelodi Service Centre (URCSA NTvl 1999:145). Of these fields, computer literacy was the most effective, because ninety per cent of the graduates found jobs.
The other church projects
that still contribute meaningfully towards the trust fund held by the church
include the Willie Theron Project in Pretoria City, the Christian Women
Ministry and the SIBSMARAIS Cooking Centre. From these projects, retired
ministers and evangelists were given R12 000 to augment their meagre annuities at retirement.
The Dibukeng Project (a
church bookshop) is still functioning very well in providing all literature
needs of the church, in addition to the excellent service of providing
essential Christian literature. Dibukeng is also making profit for the church.
In 1998, an amount of R1,800,000 passed through its books (URCSA NTvl Akta 2003:25).
In 1997 Dibukeng celebrated its 50th anniversary.
The church farm Seboeng,
situated next to Ga-Rankuwa, is one of the stories of loss which the church has
had to contend with. The farm can no longer be used fruitfully, because of
squatters who invaded it. The buildings on the farm became dilapidated. Because
of the squalid conditions around it and the poor quality soil, it did not have
a good market value. Getting a lawyer to repossess the property on behalf of
the church will not be worthwhile.
Interestingly, the issue
of the acquisition of property rights by congregations has disappeared from the
reports of the Church Office Commission, even though few congregations have
acquired their title deeds. This means that the ownership of properties that they
are using belongs to the NG Kerk. It is strange that a crucial matter such as
property ownership could simply be neglected.
Congregations
and their Financial Capability
The URCSA Northern
Transvaal Regional Synod inherited congregations from the DRCA that were unmotivated, disoriented by the apartheid legacy
and paralysed by a dependence mentality. Out of one hundred and eighteen
congregations, forty-seven owed synodical levies for ten years or more. Only
sixty-one congregations were duly paying their levies. The rest were in arrears
for between three and nine years (URCSA NTvl Akta 1999:63). Some of the
congregations were not meeting their synodical obligations because they did not
see a need to do so – not because they could not afford to. The Regional Synod
expenditure is growing, while its income is declining and the deficit is
doubling every second year.
Drastic decisions were taken
to encourage congregations to pay their levies. Members of congregations whose
levies were in arrears were required to attend Regional Synod meetings at their
own cost, pay for their traveling costs, provide themselves with meals, and buy
the agenda for meetings. These harsh measures did not yield positive results,
because those who were affected saw the action as hostile and antagonistic rather
than as loving and encouraging.
The problem of congregations
that were not paying their levies to the Regional Synod did not improve for a
while. Strategic intervention was needed to deal with the problem. Between 1995
and 2003 the Regional Synod realised a steady increase in levies paid by
congregations. In 1995 levies collected amounted to R127 880. In 2002 levies
from congregations had doubled to R282 778 and a year later, in 2003, the
figure was R300 882. Although synodical levies have increased phenomenally over
the past ten years the deficit could not be kept low. In 2002 the deficit stood
at R151 727 and in 2003 it was R189 872, and the overall overdraft was R500 405
(URCSA NTvl 2003:48).
Intervention strategies
were agreed to by the Synodal Commission that met from the 26th to 28th August 1996 in an attempt to reverse
the culture of nonpayment in congregations. The culture of nonpayment was not
unique to URCSA and other churches. Municipalities were also battling with
citizens who did not want to pay for services they received during the same
period. The church learnt from the government’s methods of dealing with the
problem, but it adopted a slightly different approach. At this Synodal
Commission meeting members of Moderature, in conjunction with the Commission
for Church Administration, were mandated to visit presbyteries to investigate
the matter (URCSA NTvl Akta 1999:63). The executive commissions of the
presbyteries were also urged to place the matter on their agendas and try to
change the mindset of congregations.
The names of defaulting
congregations and the years during which they had defaulted were published in
the Synodal Commission agendas, with members of Moderature giving reports about
their visits to presbyteries (URCSA NTvl Akta 1999:66). The process was
repeated annually at ecclesiastical meetings with positive results. The present
Moderature is continuing the process with some success.
Development of
a New Church Order for the Regional Synod (NTVL)
The unprecedented
optimism triggered by the twelve articles of the draft Church Order of
the URCSA has already been mentioned. The new Church Order was discussed
at the last DRCA Northern Transvaal Regional Synod held in Mamelodi in April
1991. Issues such as the calling and retirement of ministers, gender
sensitivity and inclusiveness at ecclesiastical meetings, empowerment of
presbyteries and congregations to make their own stipulations, and the training
of ministers were on the agenda.
The possibility of the
merger between the DRCA and DRMC energised delegates at the Northern Transvaal
Regional Synod to such an extent that in 1992, they found themselves in Cape Town for a unification
meeting. Unfortunately, the DRMC was not yet ready and the unification had to
be postponed until the 14th April
1994 (URCSA Akta 1994:4). From the minutes of meetings held around this
period, it is evident that the Regional Synod had never found itself so united
and enthusiastic about its future. Church unification shook off the shackles of
the past and placed the church in a new dispensation – where democracy, rule of
law and respect for basic human rights reigned supreme.
Calling and Retirement
of Ministers
The Regional Synod
reaffirmed its previous decision to set the retirement age of ministers at 65
years. Presbyteries and congregations were urged to support ministers in their
contributions to the Pension Fund (the joint Retirement Pension Fund of the
DRCA and URCSA) so that they could retire with a decent pension. Members of the
Moderature and the Church Office Administration were requested to monitor this
matter carefully. Because many ministers are paid below the synodical salary
scale, congregations find it hard to have them retire at the age of 65. Some ministers
stay on, hoping that congregations will be able to pay them their amounts in arrears
before they formally cut ties with them. This is still one of the thorny issues
that need attention (URCSA Church Order NTvl 1999:51).
Gender Sensitivity
and Inclusiveness
The South African society
is a male-dominated society and women are often relegated to the periphery of
influence. Their voices and contributions are not considered even in organisations where they constitute a
majority. This was the case in the DRCA Northern Transvaal Regional Synod. The
training of ministers, the composition of church councils, presbyteries and the
Regional Synod were all a preserve of male members of the church. At the last
DRCA Northern Transvaal Regional Synod in 1991, the issue of gender balance was
rigorously debated and these discussions continued in the URCSA Northern
Transvaal Regional Synod (URCSA Church Order NTvl 1999:51).
After church unification
in 1994, the issue of gender sensitivity and inclusiveness was rigorously
debated (URCSA Church Order 1999:51). Stipulations that guided how
presbyteries and the Regional Synod had to be constituted were agreed to.
According to stipulations 66 and 67, at least twenty-five per cent of delegates
to presbyteries must be women, and at the Regional Synod women should form at
least thirty-three per cent of delegates. These constitutional requirements
brought far-reaching changes. Women’s voices were heard for the first time in
the church on an equal basis with those of men. In addition to this
arrangement, women’s organisations were also able to send their representatives (one
for each organisation) to ecclesiastical meetings (URCSA Church Order 1999:52).
Although the inclusion of
women in these gatherings made the meetings larger and more expensive, the net
benefit outweighed the disadvantages. Women, who constitute 51% of the South
African society (Moletsane et al 2010:ii), are now for the first time
represented in church structures, as is the case in all government structures.
There are enabling clauses in the Church Order, which pertinently compel
church meetings to allow women to be represented (URCSA NTVL 2003:45).
Devolution of Powers
to Minor Gatherings
The constitutional reform
that came with church unification has been inspiring to members. For the first
time, people feel that the church is taking them seriously and that they are
involved in shaping their own future. The church has indeed become a covenantal
community where all members are taken seriously and are treated with respect.
The climate in which the church operates is conducive to building a truly united
Church of Christ with a specific purpose
in the world.
The new Church Order
adopted at the Regional Synod in 1999 had a few stipulations that empowered
church councils and presbyteries to make their own local arrangements and
regulations (URCSA NTvl Church Order 1999:52). Stipulation 67.1, for
example, empowers presbyteries to determine how many delegates from each congregation
can constitute a presbytery meeting, provided that the requirements of gender
representation are observed. Representatives or chairpersons of Commission of
the Presbytery can also be delegated to the presbytery and serve in its
commissions, provided that they do not have voting rights. In terms of
Stipulation 64 of the new Church Order, a church council is allowed to
make its own internal stipulations for its meetings and activities, provided
such stipulations are not in conflict with the Word of God, the Church Order
and other stipulations of the Presbytery and the Regional Synod.
Church ministries and organisations such as the Christian
Women’s Ministry, Christian Youth Ministry and Christian Men’s Ministry have
their own constitutions – these constitutions are approved by the General
Synod. They are allowed to make their own internal stipulations to regulate
their activities, provided that they are not in conflict with the church
regulations.
Laity Representation
at Church Gatherings
One of the major
innovations introduced by the URCSA Northern Transvaal Regional Synod is laity representation
in church gatherings. Traditionally, the clergy and laity were represented on a
one-to-one basis. If a congregation had two ministers, it would delegate both
ministers to the Regional Synod and presbytery, with two elders representing
the laity. Where a congregation had no minister, one elder would be delegated.
This arrangement, however, brought about skewed representation because a
congregation with two ministers would have more delegates than a congregation
with one minister or one without a minister (URCSA NTvl Church Order
1999:52).
The dispensation after unification
meant that this had to change. Every presbytery now decides how many members a
congregation can delegate based on equal representation. Stipulations 66 and 67
of the Church Order spell out the required composition of delegates to presbyteries.
In addition to official delegates to a presbytery, church councils are expected
to send additional members to serve on commissions. If, for example, a
presbytery has five commissions, each congregation would send five members to
serve on these commissions, in addition to the official delegate(s).
All ministers in
congregations that fall under a presbytery are permanent members of that
presbytery. They attend presbytery meetings (representing their congregations)
together with elders who have been officially delegated. These changes have
brought a positive impact on presbytery meetings. The lack of representation
and the resultant distortions have been curbed. More people can now collaborate
on presbytery reports than in the past.
The situation at the
Regional Synod has also changed. In the past, each congregation delegated
members to the Regional Synod based on the number of its members or ministers.
The same solution implemented in presbyteries was applied to the Regional Synod
to ensure that all congregations are represented equally (URCSA NTvl Church
Order 1999:42). At present, each congregation in the Regional Synod delegates
three persons to the Regional Synod, at least one of whom is a minister and one
of whom is a woman (URCSA NTvl Church Order 1999:42). As a result of this
decision the number of delegates to the Regional Synod has increased by one
hundred. A third of the delegates to the Regional Synod are now women, the
other third is ministers and the remaining third is a mixture of male and
female elders.
The Issue of a
Quorum at Church Gatherings
According to the old Church
Order of the DRCA, which the Regional Synod continued to use until 1999, a
quorum at presbytery and Regional Synod meetings was formed by the attendance
of two-thirds of members. However, under the new arrangements, quorum is formed
by attendance of 50% plus one member for church council, presbytery and
Regional Synod meetings (URCSA NTvl Church Order 1999:56).
The minister 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. Furthermore, the church council is expected to comply with
stipulation 17 (containing duties of the minister) of the Church Order.
The disadvantage of this arrangement is that a church council member who has
better skills to chair meetings and who should be given the opportunity cannot
be allowed to preside over meetings. Where there is no minister to chair the
meetings, elders should feel free to do so, but may not do so under stipulation
61.3.
Introduction
of a New Church Order (Regional Synod NTVL)
At its last meeting
before unification in 1991, the DRCA Northern Transvaal Regional Synod took a
decision, in principle, that it would continue using the Church Order of
the DRCA Regional Synod (as far as it was not in conflict with the twelve
articles of the new URCSA Church Order). The intension was to
use this Church Order until 1995, when a new Church Order would
be implemented. However, at the Regional Synod in 1995, the Judicial Commission
had not yet delivered a revised Church Order for the Regional Synod.
Apparently the main obstacle at that stage was appeal cases that kept the
Judicial Commission pre-occupied.
The matter of a new Church
Order was again put on the agenda of the Synodal Commission in 1996. A
proposal from the Judicial Commission to the Synodal Commission was that a
workshop be held for the whole Synodal Commission in order to facilitate the drafting
and translation of the new Church Order from Afrikaans to English. Church
council members in congregations were requesting an English version of the new Church
Order. The request was accepted and this was made a resolution of the
meeting. The matter of drafting a new Church Order remained the
responsibility of the Judicial Commission (URCSA Akta 1997:3).
In 1997, the second General
Synod of the URCSA sat in Mooigenoeg, Bloemfontein. The activities of the
General Synod had a negative impact on the performance of the Regional Synodal
Commission, because the leadership of the Regional Synod was also part of the
General Synod. They were expected to be involved in arranging and coordinating
these significant gatherings which were held within three months of each other.
In addition to this, the Regional Synod lost an experienced and hardworking
actuary, Rev L. S. Mataboge, who retired. These events had a negative impact on
the Regional Synod, especially regarding the drafting a new Church Order.
At the sitting of the Regional Synodal Commission, a report from the Judicial
Commission was not received. During recess in 1997, the Moderature tasked Rev H.
C. Krause, the former scribe of the Regional Synod, to draft a new Church
Order (URCSA NTvl Akta 1999:60).
Rev H. C. Krause finished
a draft in May 1998. A workshop was arranged on the
25th August 1998 for members of the Regional Synodal
Commission to review the draft and suggest amendments and improvements. An
ordinary meeting of the Regional Synodal Commission was convened from the 28th September 1998 to the 01st October 1998. The commission had an
opportunity to consider the draft and improvements suggested at the workshop.
The Regional Synod decided to task Rev Masenya, Rev Ledwaba, Rev Mabitsela, Rev
Ditshwene, Rev Maluleke, Rev Moller, Rev Masipa, Rev Waggenaar, Rev Krause, Rev
Mabusela and Rev Kgatla with scrutinising the draft, collating all comments
from members of the commissions, presbyteries and congregations and writing a
final draft to be presented to the Regional Synod that was to sit in 1999 (URCSA
NTvl Akta 1999:17).
The draft was eventually
adopted by the Regional Synod in 1999 with the proviso that congregations be
encouraged to submit their comments, which would be considered for inclusion in
future versions of the Church Order. Very few comments were received
from congregations, and very few improvements and amendments have been made in
the last five years. The Church Order of the Regional Synod contains
stipulations that regulate the activities of the synod. Although the Church
Order still needs legal and linguistic editing, it remains a valuable
document that guides the Regional Synod.
Conclusion
The road that culminated
in church reconciliation and unification in 1994 and the subsequent
developments presented enormous challenges and were full of uncertainty.
However, the uniting churches had a will and determination, against all odds,
to make it a reality. The Regional Synod had to face the challenges of
transformation, transparency, empowerment and equity. The legacy of the NG Kerk
dominance, intimidation and control was present all the way. The weakness, on
the part of URCSA, of not being able to shake off the colonial chains caused it
irreparable damage. Many congregations still expect that the NG Kerk will
assist them in their acquisition and registration of property, despite the
setbacks they have suffered. To this day, there are leaders within URCSA who
still believe in the generosity and well meaning of the NG Kerk towards URCSA.
The DRCA and the DRMC
gave birth to a new child, the URCSA, in 1994 against all odds. They had no
midwife to help during this process, so the only solution was a Caesarean
section. Sadly, the NG Kerk, which had sown the seed in its missionary endeavours and which was supposed
to serve as a midwife during the union, was opposed to this birth. The birth of
this child (URCSA) nevertheless did take place, despite attempts to cause a
miscarriage. The entire process was a miracle, because at that stage both
churches were heavily dependent on the NG Kerk for financial support,
especially for the stipends paid to ministers.
1
|
The DRC family consists
of four churches that resulted from the Dutch Reformed Church mission in South Africa. These churches are the
NG Kerk (for Europeans), the Dutch Reformed Church in Africa (for Africans), the
Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa, and the Reformed
Church in Africa (for Indians).
|
2
|
The DRCA was established
in 1963 with six regional synods, namely: Cape, Northern Transvaal, Southern Transvaal, Natal, Free State and Phororo.
|
3
|
The Dutch Reformed
Mission Church in Africa was established by the NG Kerk as
its mission church for Africans in different provinces: Dutch Reformed
Mission Church in Orange Free State (1910), Dutch Reformed
Church in Transvaal (1932), Dutch Reformed Mission
Church of Natal (1952) and Dutch Reformed Bantu Church (1950). These separate
churches for Africans came together in 1963 to form the DRCA. In 1994, this
church united with the Dutch Reformed Mission Church (founded in 1881) to
form the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa. A small section of
this church has remained outside the union and still calls itself the Dutch
Reformed Church in Africa.
|
4
|
NG Kerk is the Afrikaans
abbreviation of the Dutch Reformed Church. The official English abbreviation
is DRC, but to prevent confusion with the Democratic Republic of Congo and to
reduce the number of confusing abbreviations in the text, the term NG Kerk is
preferred in this article.
|
5
|
Literally, status
confessionis means a situation of confessing, a situation in which the
confession of Jesus Christ is at stake. As it was stated in the Ottawa resolution of the World
Alliance of Reformed Churches in the case of white Afrikaner Reformed churches
in South Africa, declaring that a
situation constitutes a status confessionis means “that we regard this
as an issue on which it is not possible to differ without seriously jeopardising the integrity of our
common confession.”
|
6
|
At this stage, the
leadership of the DRCA consisted of people who were easily manipulated by the
NG Kerk and had a white clerk (the actuary, Dr Basson) who dictated terms to
the leadership. On their own, the African leaders within the DRCA would not
dare differ with the NG Kerk policy at that stage.
|
7
|
The NG Kerk was sure
that church unity between DRMC and DRCA would not succeed. Partly because
both churches depended heavily on NG Kerk subsidies and they had many white
missionaries in their midst and partly because the DRCA could not lawfully
change Article 36.1 in order to accept the Belhar Confession. Articles 36.1
stipulated that all churches of the DRC family should not only be consulted
but also give permission for the amendment of the article. A two-third
majority vote of the DRCA General Synod and of the six regional synods had to
be obtained. Any decision to amend Article 36.1 would be ultra vires in
the eyes of secular courts.
|
Source: http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/5128/Kgatla.pdf.txt?sequence=3
