The Rocky Road Travelled by the DRCA towards Church Unity from Tshilidzini to Pretoria

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 14^th 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 14^th 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 29^th 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 07^th 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.