On a Bumpy Road: Historical Survey of (Unity) Talks Between the DRCA and the NG Kerk before 1994

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 22^nd to 27^th 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 14^th 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 22^nd to 27^th 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 3^rd 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 14^th 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 03^rd to 08^th 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 50^th 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 26^th to 28^th 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 14^th 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 25^th 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 28^th September 1998 to the 01^st 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