Special Hearings — Faith Community Hearings — 1997-11-17

DR GIDEON KHABELA: Thank you Mr Chairman. We are one segment of the Presbyterian   Church that has been mentioned before. The Reformed Presbyterian Church in Southern   Africa is a black church. It originated from the union of two major Scottish   missions, the missions of the Free Church of Scotland and the United Presbyterian   Church. This union was affected in the formation of the Bantu Presbyterian Church   of South Africa in August 1923. In line with the changes in South Africa, the   name Bantu was dropped in 1978 in favour of the name Reformed Presbyterian Church.   As the name "Bantu" indicates, the Reformed Presbyterian Church was   formed as a native experiment. A native church led by natives themselves. It   was born out of a debate within the Scottish missions and the debate centred   on two differing approaches, namely that there must be one Presbyterian Church   in South Africa. The advocates of this view argued that it was wrong for the   Church of Scotland to create two Presbyterian Churches in South Africa. Contrary   to this view was the opinion that there must be a native church. A native Presbyterian   church, led by the natives themselves. In a sense, this was a call for the liberation   of African people from domination by white people in a white led church. In   the African church, Africans would take charge of their destiny and shape their   faith in a way suitable to them. 
While today this position may sound in support of the apartheid separate development   policy, at that time it was the most radical thing one could do about the liberation   of the African people. The advocates of this position argued that there was   no community in South Africa in which black and white people lived as equals.   There was also no culture of worshipping together between Europeans and African   converts. At Lovedale and at Umgwali, two racial churches, the European Church   and the Native Church, had emerged within one church. It was thus, within this   context, within the context of its experience as a black church responsible   for a predominantly black membership, that the RPC responded, understood and   acted in the face of gross human rights violations, which happened during the   designated period beginning in 1960 and ending in 1994. Now the question that   has been posed to us, the question whether the theology and the activity of   the Reformed Presbyterian Church contributed to the formation of motives and   perspectives of those who are responsible for the gross human rights violations   raises to us the issue of the morality of the struggle. It raises a christian   ethical question How does a christian respond when faced with a human rights   issue? While the RPC would not abdicate its duty of taking full responsibility   for the actions of its members, we would like to point out that perspectives,   motives and actions of our members who might have committed gross human rights   violations or participated in such actions, within the context of a mob or within   the military wings of political movements, did so not because of direct incitement   resulting from the teachings of the RPC. There is no particular case, at least   known to us, which directly links our church to any actions of human rights   violations. It is also unknown to us that there has been any charge that actions   of human rights violations committed either by a mob, kangaroo courts or military   wings of political organisations or committed in any other form, emanated from   the teachings of the church. The RPC as a member of the South African Council   of Churches, which reported this morning Mr Chairman, the RPC has acted according   to the understanding of the South African political situation by supporting   the SACC. Like other member churches of the SACC, the RPC has been faithful   in its preaching of peace and reconciliation. An honest attempt to deal with   the question relating to the contribution of the RPC in creating a climate or   justification for human rights violations, must of necessity call to mind certain   important factors which must be seen as having greatly influenced our church.   For many years the RPC along with many other mainline churches, adopted a negative   or at best, a neutral stance towards the liberation struggle, thereby helping   to create a climate conducive to the violation of human rights.
An inherited racist system which eventually matured into apartheid created   the social and economic climate into which we, as a church, were born and socialised   in 1923. Whether you benefited from the system, or suffered under it, the racist   system was a given if you were black. It formed our consciousness of reality   and socialised us into a value system which sheepishly accepted racism. Individualism,   selfishness, possessiveness and money as the merger of all values. In order   to inculcate a culture of docility and acceptance of the status quo by the church,   the apartheid regime often pointed at Romans 13. This was done to discourage   members of the churches from taking part in actions of civil disobedience. The   result was that this often caused the general membership of the church to refuse   to follow a leadership that was politically active. Often it was this conditioning   that was responsible for the failure of the church to lend meaningful support   and protection to those who felt called to act. Religious propaganda that emanated   from the apartheid system was effective, Mr Chairperson. It made many of our   members feel guilty about any form of opposition, disobedience or even criticism   of the government's policy. As a result, the church was silent when it should   actually have spoken out. Because of its silence, when it should have spoken,   it is guilty of collaboration with the system that caused great suffering to   many innocent people. For that we wish to repent and apologise to all those   who suffered because we were quiet. The church often took refuge in obstructions   which removed them from the realities of life. It often resorted to formulas   and formalities which were far removed from the harsh realities of daily lives.   Lives of its members, even though it was a black church. The trouble with this   kind of religion is that it fails to listen to the cries of the oppressed. It   was this kind of abstract christianity which allowed the apartheid regime to   carry on for so many years. For that we also wish to apologise unreservedly. 
Mr Chairperson, a charge has been laid to the churches and other leaders of   churches and theologians by a certain John K. Burman, this has been referred   to this morning. I will not dwell on it. In summary, I would just like to say   that we reject the accusations that he levels against the churches. The question   also, another question which has been posed to the church is In which way did   the RPC fail to live up to those values and principles of the christian faith   which oppose human rights violations? 
The membership of the RPC, Mr Chairperson, as we have already said, consists   mainly of the part of our society who have been victims of apartheid. There   are specific responsibilities which the christian gospel places upon a church,   which finds itself in the midst of such victims as the RPC found itself in the   period which the TRC is investigating. Christian teaching would require such   a church to have a pastoral ministry which is relevant to the situation in which   its members find themselves in their day to day lives. Although from time to   time, the RPC made public statements condemning human rights violations that   apartheid committed, it failed to formulate a specific programme of action which   would reflect a church which is in solidarity with the struggles of the oppressed.   Our teaching, preaching and witness did not differ from that of the so-called   multi-racial churches, most of which have reported this morning. For this we   must confess and repent. We did not stand firm and unashamedly on the side of   those who were the victims of apartheid atrocities. We lived with them. They   were our total membership. We lived with them everyday, but we did not embrace   their struggles as a black church would have done. 
When the apartheid government embarked on a strategy of co-opting black leadership   into the mainstream of apartheid through the creation of Bantu Stand, many of   our members at clergy and later levels were used to lend respectability to this   policy. We recognise that there are members of our church who, much against   their will, served as civil servants because they had no option but to seek   employment within those systems. But we also have to confess and repent for   the fact that there are some who took very senior positions in the Bantu Stand   machinery and played very key roles in sustaining and defending this system   of separate development. We repent for those who are members of the RPC who   have not had the courage to repent for themselves. We also have to repent for   the manner in which we failed to support those who took a position of faith   and stood up to oppose the system of apartheid. Some of our sisters and brothers   were marginalised within the church for their prophetic stance against apartheid.   The propaganda which was spread against all those who were fighting for justice   in our land, was too powerful. We confess and repent that this blinded our eyes   to the truth, and some of us adopted the language of the system in labelling   some of our fellow christians as communists and terrorists. The other question   posed to us, Mr Chairperson is ...[intervention]