Article by Rev Dr Modise Leepo, Moderator
of the General Synod and Moderator of the Southern Regional Synod.
Abstract
This review of the road travelled by the Dutch Reformed
Church in Africa (DRCA) to achieve church unity is divided into five parts.
Firstly, the history of the DRCA is briefly traced. Secondly, the author
investigates the various decisions of the DRCA General Synod – from Tshilidzini
in 1971 to Pretoria in 1991 – regarding church
unification. Thirdly, decisions of the DRCA General Synod on a fourth
confession are considered. Fourthly, the decision of the General Synod
regarding the Belhar Confession prior to the 14th
April 1994 and the unity talks within the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) family
of churches and their impact are discussed. Fifthly, the final decisions of the
DRCA regarding unification with the Dutch Reformed Mission Church (DRMC), notwithstanding
the interference by the DRC, are investigated.
INTRODUCTION
The Background
As we trace the road travelled by the Dutch Reformed
Church in Africa (DRCA) to achieve church unity, it is important to begin by
considering the racial segregation in the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) and why
the need to unite the DRC family of churches arose. The DRC General Synod in
1834 dealt with two important issues on inter-racial worship, especially at
Holy Communion (Saayman 2007). The General Synod pronounced unequivocally that
nobody should be excluded from worship based on race alone. It further stated
that ‘heathen’ (non-white) members, baptised and catechised by ordained
missionaries, would be considered full members of the local DRC. The real
reason for this resolution was that some congregations were increasingly
unwilling to allow the administration of Holy Communion in an inter-racial
setting, and so the synod was requested to clarify whether such racial
exclusivity was acceptable or not (Dreyer, 1936; Saayman, 2007). Tingle
(1992:12) indicates that division along racial lines in the DRC dates back to
1857 when it was decided that, although not desirable or scriptural, owing to
the weakness of some (whites) it was permissible to hold separate services for
white and black people. Furthermore, some white DRC members established separate
churches on the basis of doctrinal differences.
The DRC simply continued
to ignore the theological injunction and continued with racial segregation in
ministry and mission in many congregations. From 1857, therefore, the DRC was a
church divided along racial lines. A summary of historical events that
contributed to making the DRCA’s road to church unity a rocky one should prove
instructive. The decisions of the DRCA General Synod regarding church unity
will be investigated and evaluated. Moreover, a discussion on the formulation
and adoption of a fourth confession of faith by the DRCA will be highlighted.
In this article we will journey together to remember how the DRCA struggled to
find a way to church unity and her efforts to confess anew that Jesus is Lord
within one united body of Christ. The major obstacles to church unity, and the
drafting and adoption of a fourth confession of faith will be highlighted.
These obstacles include paternalistic cooperation between the DRC and DRCA; the
Federal Council of the DRC family of churches; white missionaries who occupied
leadership positions in the DRCA; socio-economic factors; the discussion forum
regarding church unity; and the inferiority complex of most African ministers.
Aims of the Study
This article has five
aims. The first is to briefly trace the history of the DRCA. The second aim is
to investigate and evaluate decisions of the DRCA General Synod regarding
church unity from the Tshilidzini (Venda) General Synod in 1971
to the Hatfield (Pretoria) General Synod in 1991.
The third aim is to illustrate the attempts by the DRCA to adopt a fourth
confession of faith. The fourth is to consider decisions of the General Synod regarding
the Belhar Confession prior to the 14th April
1994 and, lastly, the unity talks within the DRC family of churches and
their impact on unity.
HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND OF THE DRCA
In 1652 the Dutch
established a settlement in Cape Town, and introduced Reformed
theology in the area. Up until 1857 people of mixed descent as well as people
of African heritage were accepted as fully fledged members of the DRC in South Africa. On the 29th April 1829 the DRC Cape Presbytery
dealt with an enquiry by the Somerset West congregation regarding separate
facilities and services for congregants of mixed descent. At the infamous DRC General
Synod in 1857, approval was given for separate services for ‘coloured’ members of the church.
This decision led to the division of Christians on the basis of colour at the Lord’s Table as a
matter of practice and policy, and was phrased as follows according to Thomas
(2002:63):
The
Synod considers it desirable and according to the Holy Scripture that our
heathen members (non-whites) be accepted and initiated into our congregations wherever
it is possible; but where this measure, as a result of the weakness of some,
would stand in the way of promoting the work of Christ among the heathen
people, then congregations set up among the heathen, or still to be set up,
should enjoy their Christian privileges in a separate building or
institution.
Thomas (2002:63) explains
that in South Africa the DRMC had been
established for coloured people by 1881; its purpose was not the same as that of the
mission societies involved in church planting, but was rather to entrench
racial segregation. The DRC saw the Mission Church not so much as a church
moving towards autonomy, but rather as a coloured department of the mother church.
The establishment of the DRCA was the outcome of mission work among the African
population undertaken by the various synods of the DRC. At first, African
converts were simply added to the DRMC. In time, separate churches and synods
for African converts were established. The first to be created was the synod of
the Orange Free State in 1910. Similar synods
were created in the Transvaal in 1932, the Cape Province in 1951 and Natal in 1952. The separation
between these synods came to an end in 1963, when the DRCA was formed.
Eventually, in 1968, the Reformed Church in Africa (for Indians) came into
being (Thomas, 2002:194; Meiring, 2004:120).
The DRCA was established
for Africans based on racial segregationist principles. It had the same
structure, doctrine, traditions, and customs as the mother church (DRC), which had
extensive control over it by providing 80% of its budget. The DRCA clergy could
not serve white congregations and intercommunion between the two churches, even
as a symbol of ecumenical unity, was prohibited. White ministers were trained
specifically to serve the black congregations, and these ministers were to be
watchdogs of the DRC in its mission churches, and decision-makers on behalf of
the mission church.
From inception, the DRCA
enjoyed no independence or autonomy as a church. It was stated in Article 4 of
the DRCA Church Order of 1932 that white ministers must be members of
the moderature of the General Synod of the DRCA, and that the DRC must have
representatives at all levels of the DRCA, that is at synod, presbytery and
church council level. This arrangement was very disturbing to many theologians
and ministers of the Word within the DRCA and DRMC. The disunity in the DRC
family of churches was questioned, and the need to become what the church
originally was – one church – was expressed. Believers in the DRCA wanted to be
accepted as believers in Jesus Christ, and not to be classified as African or Coloured or Asian Christians. The
DRCA therefore called for church unity at its different General Synods.
CHURCH UNITY
TALKS IN DIFFERENT SYNODS OF THE DRCA
The DRCA, in its General
Synods, viewed church unity as a gift, obligation and scriptural imperative.
For the DRCA, the church is the body of Jesus Christ on earth – not many
bodies, but one united body. This fact is vividly described by the Apostle Paul
in 1 Corinthians 12:12–31 where he compares the church to the human body. He explains
that this body is a single, integrated, living organism whose every part
supports, strengthens and intimately cooperates with every other part. There is
no division or conflict in a body; there is always the spontaneous mutual
support which different organs give to one another. It is true that the limbs fulfill different functions and
responsibilities, but all are servants of one another and cooperate closely in
order to promote proper and successful functioning.
The DRCA felt that the
unity emphasised by Paul in this passage was central and crucial; although diversity is
a reality which the church acknowledges and respects, it is always secondary.
The DRCA in its General Synods was influenced by this passage and others
dealing with church unity. They debated possible routes to reach church unity.
In the first place, the DRCA needed a compass to give it direction. It needed a
confession of faith to express its stance amidst racial segregation, injustice
and division in the church. As a result, the issue of a fourth confession was
tabled by the DRCA during the General Synods that sat in Tshilidzini, Umgababa,
Barkly West, Umtata, Cape Town and Pretoria.
The
Tshilidzini General Synod in 1971
Discussions about race
relations within the ecumenical movement were held as early as 1946. In 1958 the
Reformed Ecumenical Synod (RES) declared that there was no scriptural evidence in
support of or against mixed-race marriages. In 1968 the RES took an additional
step of saying that Church and state may not prohibit mixed-race marriages. The
RES in 1968 declared that the unity of the body of Christ should come to
expression in common worship – including the administration and taking of Holy
Communion – among Christians regardless of race. The RES also held a series of
consultations with South Africans. The declarations and consultations of the
REC in South Africa sparked a debate within
the DRCA, the end result of which was the drafting of an African confession of
faith encapsulating the standpoint of the African church. The matter was
referred to the Federal Council of Dutch Reformed Churches for advice and
reported to the General Synod (Luke & Van Houten, 1997).
According to Decision
11.2, the General Synod in Tshilidzini accepted the recommendation of the Federal
Council of the DRC that there could not be changes to the creeds without
consultation with other members of the DRC family of churches. This decision
indicates that the possibility of an additional confession of faith was
considered by the General Synod. The Federal Council of the DRC deliberately obstructed
progress in that regard (NGKA Akta, 1971). Thomas (2002:63) reminds us that the
Federal Council of the DRC was established by the DRC in the 1940s, without a
single, multiracial body to express the unity of the church. While the motives
for establishing ‘daughter churches’ were initially based on racial
considerations, they were later justified in terms of the three formulas which
were, of course, also applied to the African churches founded by the DRC
outside South Africa. The emphasis was on the
salvation of individuals rather than on the salvation of the whole nation. It
was clear that the Federal Council of the DRC would not support any move
towards the establishment of a multiracial body to express church unity.
The influence of the
leadership of the DRCA General Synod at that time should not be underestimated.
The General Synod was led and influenced by members of the DRC in accordance
with the Church Order of 1932. The influential positions of Moderator
and Actuary were occupied by white missionaries who supported apartheid. Thomas
(2002:195) explains that white ministers in the DRCA had an influential voice:
There
were also strong pragmatic factors which might have made it sympathetic to
apartheid. Although legally autonomous, it was still extremely dependent on the
NGK for financial subsidies, while the white missionaries of the ‘mother
church’ working in the DRCA not only exercised a powerful influence within it,
but remained members of, and responsible to, the white church rather than to
the DRCA itself.
These missionaries
remained loyal to the DRC and its apartheid policy. As a result, the DRCA
delayed implementing the decision of the General Synod on church unity.
It was the Afrikaans
churches which, in principle, promoted the segregation of their white and African
members. Thomas (2002) states:
However,
in terms of wealth and power it easily matched the resources of even the
largest churches of the Ecumenical Bloc, particularly because after 1948 the
members of successive apartheid-supporting Nationalist governments, practically
without exception, were members of these churches. The close collusion between
church and state was reinforced by the fact that the leading members of both
the Nationalist government and the Dutch Reformed Churches belonged to the
secret society known as the Afrikaner Broederbond, or the ‘Band of Afrikaner
Brothers’. That body was widely and popularly believed to be the éminence
grise guiding the policies and particularly the apartheid policies of the
Nationalist government.
It was mainly as a result
of the influence of the Afrikaans churches that the policy of apartheid or segregation
of white and Africans in schools came to be accepted. Nevertheless, the very
same white ministers in the DRCA subsequently supported a single, non-racial,
united church in South Africa (Saayman, 2007).
The Worcester General Synod
in 1975
The DRCA was led by white
missionaries as required by the Church Order of 1932. The Worcester General
Synod witnessed a turning point in terms of the leadership of the church. In
this historic General Synod, the first African moderator (Rev E. T. S. Buti)
and the first African scribe (Rev S. P. E. Buti) were elected – raising hope
for sound debate on church unity as a result of the change in leadership.
Decision 1.2.6. (NGKA Akta, 1975) on church unity taken by this General Synod was
as follows:
The
General Synod wishes to unite with the Indian Reformed Church, Dutch Reformed
Mission Church and Dutch Reformed Church in order to form one church, and has instructed
the Synodical Commission to meet with these churches to discuss the possibility
of church unity.
The role played by the
white missionaries in the DRCA and the operational structure of the DRCA should
not be overlooked. The powerful influence of the missionaries and financial subsidies
from the DRC affected the implementation of the decision. This decision became
a threat to the DRC, because it viewed racial segregation as a means of
protection from other nations:
Racial
separation was only widely accepted in the church in the early twentieth
century, as many Afrikaners came to believe that their own survival as a
community was threatened, and as the belief in racial separation was gaining
acceptance among white South Africans in general. Social and spiritual survival
became intertwined in church philosophy, influenced in part by the early
twentieth-century persecution of the Afrikaners by the British (British
Imperialism and the Afrikaners, Ch. 1). Church leaders refused to condemn
Afrikaner rebellions against the British, and their followers gained strength
by attributing divine origins to their struggle for survival. Reasons for
church division were and are still deeply rooted in the South African social,
political, cultural, personal and economic situation. One can therefore deduce
that it was impossible for members of the DRC who were serving as ministers in
the DRCA to support the decision of the General Synod. The church is divided
along the lines of class, economic disparity and material interests, and the
poverty of the vast majority of black Christians compared with the relative
affluence of their white counterparts is likely to be the most serious
stumbling block to full unity.
This decision potentially
had negative financial implications and was very difficult to implement – most
of the African DRCA ministers could not express support for this decision
because it might have resulted in a reduction in the financial subsidies received
from the DRC, which supported a racially separated church and society. The new African
leadership led the General Synod in taking the first steps towards achieving church
unity, but the initiative was not as successful as it was expected to be. The
conservatives within the leadership and the white advisors from the DRC derailed
the process in consultations and discussion forums.
The Umgababa General
Synod in 1979
At this General Synod the
formulation of a fourth confession of faith was tabled and discussed extensively
(DRCA Acta 14.4, 1979). The debate on the formulation of the confession of
faith was a point of departure for a discussion of church unity in the DRC
family of churches. The General Synod instructed its Commission on Bible Study
and Confessions to formulate a draft of a fourth confession of faith – a statement
of faith of the African church. This General Synod implemented the decision of
the World Alliance of Reformed Churches in Ottawa (1978) on racism (and
thus apartheid), where the Reformed churches called for a status
confessionis on the situation in South Africa. A status
confessionis requires Christians to confess anew during times of heresy and
false proclamation of the gospel. At such times the church needs to create a
symbol as part of the confession of the church, where the church declares
itself in the present so that the false teachings may be known and corrected. The
Umgababa General Synod, therefore, debated the possibility of formulating a
fourth confession of faith as a means of achieving reconciliation, justice and
unity (NGKA Akta 1979).
The Umgababa General Synod
instructed its General Syndical Commission (GSC) to open negotiations on church
unity with all members of the DRC family of churches – which was in line with Decision
1.2.6 of the Worcester General Synod (1975); the GSC was requested to report to
the following General Synod meeting (NGKA Akta 1979). The tone of decision
14.4.1.3 reflected the character of the leadership leadership elected at the
Umgababa General Synod: one of the African conservative members, Rev M. J.
Lebone, was the Moderator; the Actuarius was Rev N. W. Basson who was also a
conservative member, the scribe was Rev Dr S. P. E. Buti who was a radical
member and the Assessor was Rev E. M. Mataboge who was a moderate member. This General
Synod used referral as a technique to delay the process; the following General
Synod was to give feedback on developments elating to church unity (NGKA Akta
1979).
The Barkly
West General Synod in 1983
The General Synod in
Umgababa (1979) had instructed the GSC to enter into negotiations with other
members of the DRC family of churches regarding church unity. A report by the
GSC on church unity was to be considered by the General Synod in Barkly West (1983).
The General Synod in
Barkly West took a firm stand on church unity in Decision 1.2.1. The decision
was that church unity is an obligation that the church is required to meet, and
that the church is to proclaim this unity wherever it proclaims the gospel. Preparations
were made during the Barkly West General Synod in anticipation of the united church.
An interesting element of these preparations was the change in the DRCA
theological training curriculum to match that of the DRC, by adding the
Bachelor of Arts (with Greek 1 and 2 and Hebrew 1 and 2) and Bachelor of
Divinity (master’s equivalent). The aim of the change in curriculum was to
equip future black ministers who would be participating in the ministry of the
united church. The Order Commission was tasked with researching the possibility
of church unity further and negotiating with other members of the DRC family of
churches. The Order Commission was then requested to report to the GSC. The Moderature
of the DRCA endeavoured to fulfill
this mandate, and as a result, discussions were held with other members of the
DRC family of churches (NGKA Akta 1983).
After the Barkly West General
Synod there were discussions between Moderatures, executive committees and
representatives of the DRC family of churches. The composition of the
discussion group members was as follows:
- DRC Members: Rev J. E. Potgieter, Rev G. S. J. Möller and Rev D. J. Viljoen, and Rev Dr D. C. G. Fourie and Rev Dr P. Rossouw
- DRMC Members: Rev Mentor and Rev Dr A. J. C. Erwee
- DRCA Members: Rev M. J. Lebone, Rev E. M. Mataboge, Rev N. W. Basson and Rev Dr M. S. Pitikoe
- RCA Members: No representative (NGKA Akta, 1987).
Of the ministers present,
54% were white, 18% were coloured and 28% were African. One can deduce that, on the basis of racial
composition, the white ministers would have dominated the group in terms of
votes and the opportunity to speak. Thomas (2002:195) argues that although the
DRCA was legally autonomous, it remained heavily dependent on the DRC for
financial assistance. The white missionaries of the ‘mother church’ working in
the DRCA did not only exercised a powerful influence within it, but remained
members of, and responsible and accountable to the DRC rather than to the DRCA
itself. Naturally the racism and division in the church benefited the white
community. The financial constraints of the time also determined the words and
actions of black ministers in the DRCA, with the three conservative African
ministers in the Moderature being more affluent than those who were vocal on
church unity.
According to the agenda
of the General Synod of the DRCA in 1987, the discussion group did not deal
with the status confessionis or church unity, the purpose of the meeting
was simply to placate the DRCA. The agenda for the March 1985 meeting between
the executives of the DRC and the DRCA is revealing: the migration of labourers (people moving from the bantustans to white cities), DRC
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 lost their lives, but this issue was not raised. The DRC told the
executive committee of the DRCA that the church’s role in the country was joint
prayer for all the people – the church was not to be engaged in politics (NGKA
Akta 1987). During the discussions it was pointed out that if things are right
in the church, they will automatically be right in society. It was emphasised that delegates had come
together to support one another, which is why it was important to be open and
honest with one another, and in Christ to accept and listen to one another. The
meeting encouraged prayers and an apolitical stance, while nevertheless facing the issues
of the day. The discussions did not extend to church unity as per the General
Synod decision or the mandate to the Order Commission (NGKA Akta, 1987).
In the decision register
of the 1987 General Synod (Akta 1987), the chairperson reported on the March
1985 meeting between the DRC and the DRCA that was convened by the DRC, during
which church unity was discussed. In their response to the DRC’s position that
it believed the Church of Jesus Christ to be one, without different visible
forms (implying that it is invisible), Rev Lebone and his leadership stated
that they too were still considering the matter of church unity. By not taking
a stand on the matter, the DRCA missed an opportunity to state its position
regarding church unity before the DRC. Instead, the DRCA leadership played into
the hands of the DRC, delaying visible and structural unity further, by
pleading that the leaders of the DRCA too had not taken any decision on such
unity (Kgatla, 2011).
The Umtata General
Synod in 1987
The General Synod in
Barkly West (1983) had already taken a firm stand on church unity, and the GSC
was required to report to the General Synod in Umtata on progress made in this
regard. Based on point 2.6.1.2 of the agenda of the Umtata General Synod, the
GSC referred the decision on church unity to the Permanent Law Commission for
the necessary attention and advice to the General Synod. The Permanent Law Commission
responded as follows: “The General Synod refers the decision of the 1983 General
Synod on church unity, that is decision 1.2.1 on pages 344 to 347 of the Acta,
together with all decisions that the General Synod will take during the 1987 meeting,
to the executive committee as the stand point of our church.” The matter that was
referred to the GSC was being referred to the Permanent Law Commission, and the
Permanent Law Commission was referring it to the executive committee – a
time-consuming process. It is important to note the composition of the Permanent
Law Commission at the time. The commission had eight members, five were white
and three were black. The report was finalised by two white members of the Permanent
Law Commission, namely the Rev N. W. Basson and Rev S. O. Skeen. As a result,
one should not take the report entirely at face value.
The General Synod then
reiterated the position it took in Barkly West in 1983, and emphasising the importance of the
decision taken there. In Decisions 18.9.1 to 18.9.4 the General Synod emphasised the powers of the General
Synod in connection with Decision 22 of the Bloemfontein General Synod. In Decision
1.2.3.1 regarding the unity of the DRC family of churches, the DRCA stated that
it did not support division in the public life of the church. Therefore, the General
Synod reemphasised decisions 1.2.1.3.2.1 to 1.2.1.3.2.5 taken in Barkly West (1983):
- Church unity is an obligation. The church is under obligation to proclaim this unity and to emphasise it wherever it goes.
- The diversity of spiritual gifts within the church (diversity within unity) was emphasised.
- The broader unity of the church was emphasised and it was stated that services should be open to all who wish to pray God in truth.
- The church exists through its members and it needs to model the truth and unity of Christ, which surpass human nationality and race.
- For the above to be fulfilled, the members of the DRC family choose the way of negotiation. If this way does not materialise, the church will be free to use the best way that will be suitable for the church (NGKA Akta, 1987).
The General Synod in Umtata took a firm stance to
strengthen the decisions taken in Worcester, Umgababa and Barkly West,
directing the General Synod to embrace church unity in a real sense of the
word. The identity of the leaders during this time is important. The church was
then in the hands of great thinkers, critical ministers of religion and
theologians such as Dr S. P. E. Buti (Moderator), Rev M. M. Maphoto (Assessor),
Dr N. J. Smith (Actuarius) and Dr M. S. Pitikoe (Scribe). These were men of God
who guided the church during unity talks that resulted in the establishment of
the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa following the 1991 General Synod
in Pretoria (NGKA Akta, 1987).
The Pretoria General
Synod in 1991
Prior to the General Synod
in Pretoria (1991) there had been an extraordinary General Synod sitting of the
DRCA in October 1990 in Cape Town to discuss the implementation of the
decisions of the DRCA over the many years. In that General Synod a final
decision was taken that the two churches, the DRCA and DRMC, would continue
with the process that would lead to unity between these two churches. The
decision was final. The General Synod in Pretoria (1991) was given the
task of implementing the decisions of the previous General Synod on church
unity (NGKA Akta, 1991).
The General Synod in Pretoria took a different resolution
to Decision 1.2.1.3.2.5 from the one taken by the General Synod in Barkly West (1983)
– that the DRCA should choose the way of negotiation; if this proved unsuccessful,
the church was free to adopt the path it deemed best. In the General Synod in Pretoria the church approved the
dissolution of church structures to enable it to unite with the DRMC. The General
Synod took the important decision to dissolve the General Synod, regional
synods and presbyteries. The legal existence of congregations continued. Based
on the history of the DRCA, the church then existed as it had done between 1881
and 1963, in the form of congregations before uniting on the 07th May 1963 to constitute a single General
Synod for the African church.
THE DECISIONS
OF THE DRCA IN RELATION TO A FOURTH CONFESSION OF FAITH
According to the agendas
and the Acta of the DRCA during the period that falls within the scope of this
article, there is evidence of efforts by the DRCA to formulate a fourth
confession of faith. The Belhar Confession in 1982 was supposed to be a
solution to the protracted attempts by the DRCA to formulate a fourth African
confession of faith. During the last General Synods of the DRCA, namely
Tshilidzini (1971), Umgababa (1979), Umtata (1987), Cape Town (1990 – extraordinary
General Synod) and finally Pretoria (1991), there had been discussions and
debates concerning the formulation and adoption of a fourth confession of
faith. The decisions of these General Synod are briefly highlighted below.
At the General Synod in
Tshilidzini (1971), Decision 11.2 related to a fourth confession of faith. The General
Synod accepted the recommendation of the Federal Council of the Dutch Reformed
Churches that there cannot be changes in the confessions of faith without
consultation with all members. This decision suggests that changes in the
confessions of the church had been considered. The Federal Council of the DRC
family advised the General Synod that all members of the council should be
consulted on this matter. In essence, the Federal Council was not in favour of changes to the
confessions, and were buying time by referring the matter to all members of the
Federal Council of the DRC family.
A fourth confession
appears again on the agenda of the General Synod in Umgababa (1979), where it
was the subject of Decision 14.4. The General Synod hesitated to act any
further in this regard, considering that certain matters remained unresolved
within the DRCA alone. However, the General Synod then instructed its Commission
on Bible Study and Confessions to begin drafting a fourth confession, with due
emphasis on the African church’s faith (NGKA Akta, 1979). In the agenda and the
Acta of General Synod in Barkly West (1983) there is no indication that the
commission had formulated the draft of a fourth confession of faith. We need to
remember that the draft of the Belhar Confession was a year old and awaiting
acceptance by the General Synod of the DRMC.
The General Synod in Umtata (1987) made the Belhar
Confession, which was accepted by the DRMC as their fourth confession, the
subject of its decision 14.5. The DRCA referred the Belhar Confession to its Commission
for Bible Study and Confession for study and evaluation. Specific aspects to be
considered were:
- The importance of the acceptance of the Belhar Confession by the DRCA,
- How the acceptance of the Belhar Confession would contribute to church unity, and whether it would either promote or disrupt the unity process
The commission was
required to make its findings available to the Federal Council of the DRC
during recess and make recommendations to the next General Synod.
The DRCA Northern
Transvaal 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. (Kgatla, 2011).
The General Synod in Hatfield,
Pretoria, discussed the report of the General
Synod in Umtata (1987) on the acceptance of the
Belhar Confession. The General Synod in Pretoria (1991) favoured implementation over
talking, and did everything in its power to ensure the acceptance of the Belhar
Confession. The Belhar Confession was accepted by the General Synod as the
fourth confession of faith of the DRCA as a result of a large majority vote.
The acceptance of the Belhar Confession by this General Synod was a clear
indication that the DRCA was now in a position to work towards reconciliation,
justice, and ultimately church unity. The road traveled by the DRCA to reach
this outcome was not an easy one, and involved overcoming the following hurdles:
- psychological factors (internalised superiority and internalised inferiority);
- leadership of the church (the right person in the right position at the right time);
- quality of theological training (inferior theological training led to a lack of critical thinking);
- missionaries (inferior white ministers trained to minister only to black congregations feared that they would not match up to their brothers in the DRC and that they would never rise to leadership positions); as ambassadors sent by the DRC to serve the ideological interests of that church in the DRCA, they delayed the process;
- economic factors, specifically the financial dependence by the DRCA on the DRC (as a result of which the DRC placed the stipend of a number of ministers on a sliding scale);
- the Federal Council of the DRC;
- discussions with the DRC when serious decisions were to be taken.
These obstacles ensured
that the process of achieving church unity was delayed. It is sad to note that
the same mentality prevails today within some of the member churches of the DRC
family. It is therefore important to take note of such strategies when engaging
in talks about the adoption of the Belhar Confession and church
reunification.
CONCLUSION
This article has offered
some background to the establishment of URCSA. In it I investigated various
decisions of the General Synods of the then DRCA from Tshilidzini (Venda) in 1971 to Hatfield (Pretoria) in 1991 regarding
church unification. The research undertaken revealed significant efforts made by
the DRCA to establish the United Reformed Church until it dissolved itself in
preparation for uniting with the DRMC. It was also found that this church traveled a long way in an attempt
to draft the fourth confession of faith up to the point where it received a
gift from God in the form of the Belhar Confession, accepted at the General Synod
in Pretoria (1991). The acceptance of the
Belhar Confession was a clear indication that the DRCA was committed to
reconciliation, justice and church unity. This article takes cognisance of the struggle of the
then DRCA to achieve reconciliation, justice and church unity among the members
of the DRC family of churches.
