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

BISHOP RETIEF: The submission that we're about to make, well I'm going to read   with your permission, will last approximately 15 minutes and then we'll be available   for questioning.
We thank the truth and reconciliation commission for the opportunity to forward   a written submission earlier this year and again at this public gathering of   the faith community today. 
Introduction The Church of England was established in this country around   1806, with the first Bishop being sent from England by the Colonial Office in   1847. The church in those days was largely evangelical and reformed in character.   In 1870 a well-documented division took place which resulted in the formation   of the Church of the Province of South Africa. 
These developments had a huge impact on the life of the Church of England.   It lost most of its properties and congregations and was finally rejected by   the rest of the Anglican Communion. It was left to a small community of Christians,   both black and white, to struggle for survival. Coloured and Indian congregations   were established at a later stage. It finally emerged from its struggle as the   Church of England in South Africa, a small group of people who were committed   to the evangelical reformed and Protestant convictions of its forebears. 
Development When I entered the ministry in 1966 there were no more than five   churches in Cape Town and only two and half ministers, one being retired. In   fact there were no more than twenty-five churches countrywide. I came into a   denomination that was very small but committed to the bible as the word of God. 
It was strongly pietistic in its ethos and consequently according to the times   in which we lived, separatist in its mentality. In the wider Anglican Communion,   we had been stigmatised as a recaltratent schismatic group of unreasonable right   wing evangelicals. Now to some extent, we have no one to blame for these views   but ourselves. We saw our theological position under threat and we acted accordingly.   When the government made legislation that accorded with our moral or biblical   understanding we supported them. However, on the great issue of justice for   all, we were often insensitive. We had not made the connection between gospel   and society. One of our Bishops took part in the state funeral for the assassinated   Dr. Verwoerd. Another of our Bishops by synodical decision took part in the   inauguration of FW de Klerk. 
These actions were performed under the influence of our belief that we needed   to support and pray for the authorities ordained by God. [TAPE THREE] [inaudible]   under other circumstances whoever the dignitaries were, but we now see that   these things contributed to the impression that we endorsed the system. We consequently   gave the impression that we were supporters of the regime. This impression has   caused many of our members great pain in the past and all of us great embarrassment   in the present. 
Thus, some of the impressions we gave were justified. However, we ignored all   these things because we felt we had a priority to preach and teach the gospel,   consolidate our work and begin to build it up. By 1979, there were 54 ordained   clergy in active ministry and within a further 10 years the number had increased   to 96. The denominations are administered as a single unit, with area councils   in the Cape Province, Kwa Zulu Natal Province and the Gauteng/Free State region. 
There are presently 153 congregations in South Africa, 14 in Namibia and a   similar number in Zimbabwe, which are all self-administered. So you can see   we're a very small show. The establishment in 1989 of our own theological institution,   George Whitfield College, has produced clergy and ...[indistinct] with a new   awareness and involvement in the controversial moral, ethical and social issues   of the day. Our new academics and generating valuable insights into the ongoing   debates and tensions between faithfulness to the gospel and social responsibility,   something we deeply lacked in the past. 
The struggle years The apartheid years, with the struggle for liberation caught   us completely off guard and unprepared. There were a number of reasons for this
1. Our tiny group of churches was simply trying to survive. We considered ourselves   as nobodies. We had no influence, no outside contacts, apart from a few exceptions,   no money, no property of note. Yet we found a ready response to our message   in all sections of our society. While the struggle for liberation was deepening,   we got on with the job of building our churches. 
2. We had no theologians nor thinkers of note in our ranks, having been cut   off from the rest of the Anglican communion, we were not exposed to the thinking   and debate taking place there, nor were we privy to the wider network of information   to assist in raising awareness. Our church was led largely by lay-people because   of our lack of clergy. It was only in later years that theologically trained   men arose who were able to see things in better perspective and better understood   the times in which we lived.
3. Many members of the Church of England in South Africa generally and honestly   believed the government's propaganda about the Communist threat. Like most other   whites, our white elect church believed that we were in a struggle for western   values and freedom, and that the liberation groups were all pawns of the Communist   regime. 
4. Many victims of apartheid and oppression find it hard to believe whites   when they plead ignorance. We ask them to moderate their judgement. Most of   you here today will remember that Jesus once performed half a miracle. He touched   a man's eyes, who was blind, and he only half saw and described his experience   as seeing men as trees walking. He needed a second touch. The truth is that   the full extent of the atrocities exposed by the TRC were in fact not known   to us. Many suspected but were probably reluctant to believe these stories.   Previously when stories of atrocities leaked out, it was usually attributed   to Communistic forces trying to undermine the government. The exposures by the   TRC have filled many white people and many of us in the Church of England in   South Africa with shock, shame and revulsion. Looking back, it is amazing that   we were so naive. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that we   allowed ourselves to be misled into accepting a social, economic and political   system that was cruel and oppressive. 
5. A further complication was the development of liberation theology. Now the   impact of this particular ideology on evangelicals must not be under estimated.   First of all, evangelicals have often been misunderstood and misrepresented   in the popular media. Sometimes, of course, it is their own fault because of   their unwise behaviour, but fanatics, unschooled rejecters of technological   development, bible punchers who are unconcerned with the social needs of people   and huge hysterical performances of healing and hysteria are not representative   of true evangelicals. But this is the way evangelicals were sometimes represented   in the media and by some who expounded liberation theology. We certainly deserved   a lot of the criticism we received as evangelicals. But we ask that the difficulties   we faced at least be understood, even though not condoned. Some evangelicals   saw liberation theology as a sell-out of the gospel of Christ crucified and   risen to a secular vision of Utopia on earth. There was a sense of dismay among   evangelicals as we saw the gospel of Christ's redemption redefined to suit the   mood and the agenda of the day. Many evangelicals felt that while liberation   theology had recaptured the important truths of justice in society, it had in   the process assimilated an ideology that undermined the basic message of the   gospel. That is how we, in the Church of England in South Africa felt at the   time. And therefore we in the Church of England in South Africa found ourselves   in a dilemma. To get on board the social action programs and protest movements   was to identify with the theological emphasis, which we saw as a betrayal of   Christ's message. As we distanced ourselves from liberation theology, we were   therefore seen to support the system even further. Yet we knew by this time   that the struggle for justice was justified. We, however, had different views   and were uncertain about what to do. The Church of England in South Africa thought   that, because of its smallness and insignificance, because of our lack of debating   power, and also because of the reigning confusion of the age, our way forward   was to continue with the teaching and the preaching of the word of God and to   establish churches and help programs where we could. We declared ourselves to   be a-political and in this way failed to adequately understand the suffering   of our many black members who were victims of apartheid. Our failure to be involved   in the political struggles of our land was a major error in both understanding   and judgement and this mistake has caused us a great deal of embarrassment,   heartache and pain.
6. In spite of these failures, during those tumultuous years, we established   social community projects such as feeding schemes in under privileged schools,   a community centre with various activities in Khayelitsha where one of our white   volunteer workers was shot and maimed, AIDS centres for adults and children   in Kwa Zulu Natal, nursery schools country wide, amongst other things. We held   to our conviction that Christ's kingdom is ultimately not of this world. But   we did believe as do most Christians, that it must be demonstrated in this world.   And yet we remained confused at the every deepening political crisis and the   challenge to our own theological pre-suppositions. 
7. There were occasions after our annual synods when we communicated with and   sought meetings with various government officials to protest privately about   various matters. A delegation of senior leaders once met with Mr. P.W. Botha   when he was State President to express concern about the wrongs in South Africa.   While on several occasions our presiding Bishop, personally encouraged Mr. F.W.   de Klerk when he was State President, to hasten change. We found both men receptive   to our approach, although we do not know what it accomplished. It was dialogue   rather than confrontation. That was our modus operandi. However, we now see   that instead of helping our cause, it hindered it. The reason for this was our   failure to report back to our local leadership and their congregations and this   reinforced the view that we were supporters of the government and not critics.   It must also be said that on local levels, stands were taken on certain issues   which we failed to publicise or to which we failed to draw attention. For instance,   one of our churches in the Northern suburbs of Cape Town opened a pre-school   education facility which was open to all race groups. They resisted considerable   government pressure to change their policy. In addition in years gone by, protest   was may by our previous leadership to the army's activities in Ovambo. And also   after World War 2, to the educational policies of the government as they applied   to black people. In 1988 the late Reverend Murray Hoffmeyer and I spent two   hours with a government commission discussing the question of the Group Areas   Act in which we vigorously argued for the abolition of that Act. In addition   to that, we also over the years, voiced our opposition to the migratory system   which had disruptive impact on families. Now these things are mentioned not   to exonerate us, but to indicate that we were not entirely unaware or silent.   However, we were too naive to keep minutes and records, because many of these   activities took place spontaneously off the cuff, so to speak. Nor did we think   it important to inform all our church members of what we were doing. In any   event, we recognise and fully admit that whatever we did was too little and   too late.
8. It should be noted at this point that when we were able to travel overseas,   we were surprised by queries concerning segregation in the churches. Many of   our friends thought segregation was practised by all churches, including us.   But this has not been our practice. Our understanding of the gospel led us to   believe that all l people should be welcome at any worship service. While some   denominations may have held to a policy of segregation, the Church of England   in South Africa did not. However, it must be added that while our services were   always open to all, not all could come. The apartheid laws had created both   geographical and language problems so that it remained true that most of our   congregations were either predominantly white, coloured, Indian or black. During   these times, the leadership of the Church of England in South Africa was not   discerning enough to see the significance of this. But since the early eighties,   any indications of discrimination in the Church of England in South Africa's   constitution, in our national structures and practices have been systematically   removed. This is an ongoing process, assisted greatly by new awareness and sensitivity   as well as new thinking by all in leadership. Now these reasons are not offered   as excuses, but rather as an explanation of whom we were during the struggle   years. We do not apologise for our stand on the central message of the bible.   However, we do want to express our apology, our sorrow and regret at the things   we left undone. We refer to article 12 in our statement of faith, 39 Articles   of Religion entitled Good Works. Quote "Although good works, which are   the fruits of faith and follow after our justification, cannot put away our   sin and are subject to the severity of God's judgement. Yet inasmuch as they   are done in Christ and for his sake, they are pleasing and acceptable to God   for they spring necessarily from true and vital faith and are indeed the evidence   of a vital faith, just as a tree is recognised by its fruit". Insofar as   the search for justice is part of the Christian's good works, we believe we   have failed. 
9. The awakening Our own awakening to the true state of oppression in our   nation developed gradually. In the Cape particularly, where contact with the   coloured community was easier than with the black community, the heartache and   injustice were increasingly conveyed to us. Bishop Martin Morrison worked tin   Sowed and Bishop Joe Bell worked in Natal. They were regularly faced with the   consequences of the political system and became increasingly distressed. The   tense years of the early nineties with the freeing of Nelson Mandela and the   subsequent election brought political reality home to us all. The culmination   for the Church of England in South Africa came on Sunday night the 25th July   1993 with the massacre at St. James Church, which had from its inception been   a non-racial church. Apart from other considerations at the time, we realised   with what fear many people in the oppressed communities lived. It brought a   new awareness to us. As stated, the subsequent revelations made the truth and   reconciliation commission have left us all deeply shocked and our own experience   reinforced this sense of shock. The truth had come home to us. 
10. Conclusion As we reflect on the past and look to the future, there are   several things we would like to say. 
10.1 Notwithstanding that many in the white community saw the evil of apartheid   and its out working, many did not and may not have chosen to. That stands as   a sombre lesson of how whole communities and countries can be misled by skilful   leaders. It has happened before and no doubt it will happen again.
10.2 While we believe that many of the government officials of the old regime   were sincere Christians, nevertheless, we were a witness to how the bible and   its message can be misused to support an evil ideology. National government   used the bible to support its policies, to give the impression that they were   a Christian government. But then so did some liberation theologians who finally   supported violence as a means of continuing the struggle. They argued that the   crucifixion of Jesus sanctioned violence as a method of obtaining freedom. At   least we heard that argument. This particular interpretation of the death of   our Lord was highly offensive to us and served only to alienate us and other   evangelicals even further from those involved in the more visible aspects of   the struggle. It is well worth noting at this commission that many evangelicals   would have been more involved in the struggle had it not been for the particular   theological justification which was presented and which served to confuse us   even further. In the Church of England in South Africa, we remain convinced   that the primary task of the ordained minister is to explain the true message   of the bible without adding his own agenda to it. This message fully explained   and applied includes the proclamation that Jesus is Lord over all, including   our society and its laws. It further includes the command to love our neighbour   with special reference to the poor, the needy, the oppressed and the doing of   good works. Not as a ground for our justification before God, but as our expression   and fruit of it as explained in article 12 referred to earlier. We in the Church   of England in South Africa therefore feel the need to pray the words of the   confession in our morning service Almighty and most merciful Father, we have   strayed from your ways like lost sheep. We have left undone what we ought to   have done and we have done what we ought not to have done.
10.3 The Church of England in South Africa, especially the whites, must accept   collective responsibility for its role in the injustices of the past. Although   largely ignorant and unwitting, we were nevertheless passive and compliant.   We benefited from the status quo. Up until the early 1970's our largely white   leadership, and I'm sure all too many of our white church members being children   of their culture, no doubt practised some forms of discrimination either in   action of attitude. With hindsight, we should have been more aggressive in campaigning   against the evils and injustices of apartheid, more vociferous in opposing violence   in all its forms and far more active in our programs of social upliftment and   evangelism. We should have been more aware, more vocal and insightful, but we   were not. For this we are guilty. We confess our imperfections and are truly   repentant. Where we have been negligent, careless and insensitive to biblical   injunctions and mandates as we have been, may the Lord graciously forgive us.   Where our actions, our silence or our acquiescence has been the cause of added   hardship, pain and suffering to any of our Christian brothers and sisters, to   any of our other fellow south Africans, we ask for forgiveness. In regard to   the black members of our own denomination, we admit that we were unable to fully   understand the full extent of their pain and suffering. However, we attempted   to provide leadership in terms of financial support for their churches and families,   spiritual encouragement and the arm of fellowship. There were occasions when   we spoke to the authorities on behalf of our members who were harassed or in   trouble. In fact it is true to say that all our presiding Bishops gave a great   deal of time and effort, probably most of their time and effort to minister,   encourage and assist our black congregations. In our ranks at present, various   discussions are taking place to facilitate confession, repentance, reconciliation   and healing. Our stance that we were not a political church was an attempt to   emphasis our commitment to the central message of the gospel. But it was also   a great failure to truly understand and apply the gospel. In this regard, we   were guilty of sinning against our Lord and our brothers and sisters. We pray   for grace that never again will be fail in our duty.
10.4 We are conscious that any participation we may now have in public debate   must arise out of the context of our understanding of our past failure to speak   out. Our response to society must arise out of a response to the gospel and   not out of political pragmatism. Or a hypocritical desire to create the right   impression. As our understanding of the gospel and its implication grows, so   must our obedience. This includes a new understanding of the need to seek greater   understanding and fellowship with other church groups, even those with whom   we may not see eye to eye. 
10.5 The Church of England in South Africa remains convinced that its function   is to continue to clearly teach and preach the word of God. To this task we   re-dedicate ourselves. We have no wish to repeat past mistakes, nor to compromise   our message in any way in the future. But Christians now face new challenges.   The rebuilding of our society and the establishment of an ongoing culture of   justice and compassion is an obvious case in point. To this end, our theological   institutions are training a new generation of thinkers equipped to minister   within the socio-political political realities of South Africa and to enter   into dialogue and debate with those with whom we formerly had very little contact.   Another challenge is the ongoing struggle to uplift the poor and needy and to   think through the issue of the redistribution of wealth from a Christian perspective.   To this end we shall continue to develop our existing programs dealing with   education, health and poverty. In addition, there are other ethical challenges   of the day in relation to crime and corruption, abortion, pornography, gambling   and the proposed decriminalisation of prostitution, to mention just a few. To   this end we remain committed to active participation in these debates. One of   the most challenging issues is the rise of religious pluralism. We agree that   respect and tolerance are called for and we welcome the opportunity for other   faiths to state their case. If I may pause here for just a moment to say the   during the days of the trauma of the massacre in our church, there were representatives   of the other faiths who were there at our doorstep as soon as they could get   there to express their solidarity and condolences with us, for which we are   deeply grateful. However, we need to say that we do not feel able to accommodate   all the compromises asked for in relation in other faiths. We have distinctive   convictions which are non-negotiable. The fact that the bible was used in the   past to condone injustice does not mean its true message may be ignored today.   We believe in the uniqueness not only of Jesus, but also of the God of the old   and new testaments. We believe the message of the gospel to be as relevant today   as its was 2000 years ago. We still believe that that message is the message   of reconciliation to God first and foremost and that reconciliation of one to   another is a fruit of our reconciliation to God. The re-establishment of a moral   framework referred to earlier this morning also in our opinion stems from a   living relationship with God, the power of the Holy Spirit and the teaching   of the bible. We believe in the return of our Lord Jesus Christ to this world   and in the setting up of a day of judgement. To this end we work in witness.   We pray for courage to hold to the truth and for endurance to reflect that truth   in the way we serve our Lord in society and for humility in all aspects of our   witness. We do not expect all to agree with us and we pray for grace to accept   any criticisms. We pledge ourselves, nevertheless to the search for fellowship   where possible, and to work for Christian reconciliation as far as we are able.   I conclude by saying that we received very little notification that we were   to make a submission and consequently were not able to consult extensively with   all concerned parties regarding this document. Nevertheless, the sorrow and   repentance that we express today is real. Our desire to truly live for Christ   and proclaim his gospel is genuine. Our determination to right past wrongs in   our own ranks as far as possible is sincere. In spite of sins and imperfections,   we still declare ourselves Christians. We can do no other expect to pledge ourselves   to do better. It is our belief that this day and hour calls for men and women   of conviction and integrity to apply the message of the bible more accurately   and faithfully to our emerging society. Regretful though the past may have been,   we know that we cannot live in it forever. Changes have come and no doubt will   still come, but the duty of all Christian churches is to preach Christ Jesus,   who is the same yesterday, today and forever. As representative of and on behalf   of all members of the Church of England in South Africa, I thank you Chairperson   for the opportunity to make this public submission on our particular role in   South Africa's history. May we all by God's grace grasp this opportunity to   secure a righteous and a just future for those who have suffered and especially   for our children.