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

UNKNOWN: Thank you very much Sir. 
I think the submission of the United Reformed Church needs to be placed in   a context for it to be correctly understood. This church is quite young, established   out of the amalgamation of the Dutch Reformed Mission Church and Dutch Reformed   Church in Africa in 1994.
The history of the former churches being churches established because of racial   reasons, separated at the communion from the White Dutch Reformed Church in   1881. From 1881 right up to 1994, four racially divided churches existed, named   the Dutch Reformed Mission Church, the Dutch Reformed Church in Africa, the   Reformed Church in Africa for so-called Indians and the NG Kerk or Dutch Reformed   Church for Whites.
We ourselves even having been set of this church as daughter churches, have   always - in the sense in terms of our identity, been accused of being in cahoots   with the White church and in many cases not much distinction was made between   the Mission Church, the NG Kerk in Afrika, the Reformed Church and the Dutch   Reformed Church. The history was intertwined for different reasons. On the one   hand you had the influence of a specially dominant leadership of the missionaries   within these churches, the whole question of the dependency of these churches   on the White church and it's impact on it's theological training within these   churches.
If I should leave the rest of the history and come to the idea of our unification   in 1994. We understood the ideal ...[indistinct] by these churches and especially   in this sense that the former Dutch Reformed Church in Africa and Mission Church   and our own actions in amalgamating the two churches, as being our own departing   from our divided and racial history. And this departure Sir, represents to our   understanding, our contradiction of the idea of racially divided churches.
The church consists of about 483.000 confessing members and 683 congregations   nationally. In our own submission we would like to clarify a few points, the   one being that we understand that speaking to the TRC and making submissions   on the question of violation of human rights, of our participation thereof,   support thereof or the extent to which we were victims of it, comes from both   a social as well as a church context.
The popular slogan of the '80's "The Church - The Sight of Struggle",   is relevant in this regard. Historical and contemporary self understanding of   the church, I think was portrayed in this slogan. ...[indistinct] as one of   the institutions in society that did not remain unaffected but the all encompassing   influence of apartheid. The slogan led to the realisation that the same contradictions   that are prevalent in society are present and often reflected in the teaching   and life of the church.
And in the sense, our submission reflects a church context representing both   the struggle within and the struggle of the church outwardly. We understand   that speaking to the questions of the violation of human rights, it concerns   both those violations by ourselves or our members as well as violations committed   against our members or collectively. In this regard we listed in our written   submission, various areas where these matters were raised.
If I morally without going into each of those, we in summary say that we believe   that the United Reformed Church - even in it's existence as the former Mission   Church and Dutch Reformed Church in Africa, did not do enough in opposing apartheid.   It did not do enough in speaking clearly against the evils of apartheid. It   did not do enough - in terms of our own programmes and actions, to enable and   incite our members to actively oppose and struggle against the evils of apartheid   in the extent to which this very policy was the cause and the main motivation   behind many of the human rights violations - as has been heard by this Commission   in the past couple of months.
I therefore continue on to one of the areas I do think we need to highlight    the whole question of the apartheid war and the chaplancy service - it's on   page 8 of our submission. Security forces in this country - the police and army,   were mainly responsible for both offensive and defensive actions, in defence   of apartheid and against the onslaught of terrorism, communism and ant-Christ.   In the cause of this war and the development of the total strategy - total onslaught   strategy, the Government initiated the whole idea of winning the hearts and   the minds of the people.
Some of the organs being used in winning hearts and minds was amongst others   - for instance, the christian cultural organisations. Following on this was   the low intensity war with all it's covert actions, the result of which - I   think, we have heard quite a lot of evidence and submissions before the TRC,   but basically the apartheid government relied very strongly on the moral and   spiritual undergirding as a means of enabling the forces to carry out their   acts in defence of this crime against humanity.
The chaplancy services of both the police and army became - to our understanding,   the means of attaining this ideal and so we had the whole holy war concept that   became operative. Although individual members of the synods of the former churches   opposed the idea of participation in the chaplancy services, the church continued   to avail ministers for this service and through this act the church participated   in this holy war and even blessed it.
It did not resist, neither did it guide it's members in opposing it. Thus the   church contributed to gross human rights violation, polarisation and the indescribable   suffering and grief many people suffered. Precariously we also need to acknowledge   that the very presence of the members of our churches in these services - in   actual fact, was our own guilt - a part of it, in these violations.
I'd like to go onto section 5 Sir, speaking to the issue of the failure of   these churches to live up to our principles of faith. This Uniting Reformed   Church does not claim sole responsibility for the insights we have for what   is normative in both the questions of faith, morals, ethics, etc. The Uniting   Reformed Church is rooted in the reformed tradition. This tradition boasts the   fact that scripture alone is normative for teaching and living. 
In Jesus Christ, God confirmed the dignity of human kind. Through Christ's   life, death and resurrection, God reconciled human kind with himself and each   other by breaking down the walls of divisions, destroying ...[indistinct] and   establishing peace. Further defined, this church strongly relied on the calvarous   doctrine on Church/State relationships. This doctrine clearly teaches the responsibility   of the church as an institution and it's individual members.
Calvary teaches that God through Jesus Christ, reigns supreme. Within this   theological perspective, the State is a servant of God to the benefit of it's   subjects. The State is burdened with the responsibility to restrict ...[indistinct],   restrain chaos and fight evil and in this sense, the State is servant of God.   To enable the State in it's task, it is invested with the sword as a means of   effective or effecting authority of it's calling - according to Romans XIII.
In contrast, the State that diverts from this calling is described as the beast   that acts in contravention of it's mandate. Kelvin, in view of his understanding   of scripture, was convinced that resistance against the unjust States and tyranny   is not only justified ...[indistinct] true faith and obligation. The failure   to denounce, resist and incite to resist against apartheid and it's resulting   violation of human rights, constitutes our failure, failure to live up to our   faith's convictions.
Rather, the church often got involved in debates on the legitimacy and right   of resistance against authority. These debates were often dominated by the question   of violence and armed struggle and this furthermore happened under circumstances   in which ...[End of tape 3]
... the failure of the structure of the church to give the necessary support   for youth suffering, other members did so in their personal capacity. For this   they deserve recognition and honour. Therefore having acknowledged this, the   United Reformed church wishes to use this opportunity in view of acts or commission   or omission, to consequently oppose human rights' violations in view of its   subtle recognition of the illegitimate apartheid regime's liaison, (indistinct)   and negotiations. In view of its silence and conscious and unconscious lack   of clarity in word and deed, we confess unreservedly (indistinct) its members'   guilt. 
We herewith plead for forgiveness of opposed citizens and the Supreme God.   I wish to however on this very note indicate that the nature of our confession   before this house is not one defined purely for the sake of appearing before   the TRC.
In our own struggling with our identity in 1982, and having had the status   (indistinct) and the adoption of the confession (indistinct), this very church   in 1982 in looking at itself and how it functioned in this society said along   with many others, we confess our guilt that we have not always witnessed clearly   enough in our situation and so are jointly responsible for the way in which   those things which were experienced as sin, and confessed to be so, or should   have been experienced as and confessed to be sin, have grown in time so seem   self evidently right and to be ideologies foreign to scripture.
This confession sir, you find in the accompanying letter, paragraph 1 to the   confession on (indistinct) So we wish to say that even though in the last few   days and even in the last times, you may have heard people and churches come   before, seemingly the one after the other confessing sin and seeking forgiveness,   we would truly hope that this occasion would never denigrate what happened in   sense of the confession and we wish to say that in the same sense, in the urgency   in which we for ourselves in 1982 defined our own confession of guilt in a sense,   that today just becomes a continuation and logical consequence of it.
If I may go on to the matter of decisions and actions with regards or in resistance   of human rights' violations, once again if I could shortly just highlight the   context of the church. When we speak of our own actions and decisions, we never   claim to be the only church who has had certain insights, certain commitments.   We understand that the context which exist, was one in which we shared communally   with other people.
So for instance, some of the main moments for this church in terms of becoming   clear on certain matters, are represented in the matters before you, the attack   by the Minister Schlebush in 1979 against the SACC with regards to civil disobedience   and the resulting letter of Dr Allan Boesak to the Minister.
The confession of Belhar as stated and the vice-Chairperson will later make   some comment on this. The document and its own and clear witness that one cannot   reconcile good and evil, one cannot reconcile God and Satan.
The church clearly need to be involved in activities that would transform,   liberate society as part of God's mission.
I said earlier on our own failure to remain true to our calling, was the main   cause for the struggle within the church itself. In this sense certain moments   needed to be highlighted without going into detail.
One being for instance the Christian institute, its own actions and confessions.   The extent to which it sought to enable people to clearly understand and act   in the society.
The confessing circle within the framework of the former Dutch Reformed Mission   Church and Dutch Reformed Church in Africa and what it stood for, (indistinct)   and many others, that is the context from which our own understanding grew.
Speaking of the struggle of this church itself, I wish to say that for quite   a period one did not see clear decisions in the minutes of Synod, neither actions   that would to some extent indicate this church's struggle against apartheid.
We however, recognise that this very same period right up to the beginning   of the 1960's was one in terms of my earlier reference, where a very strong   dominance of Dutch Reformed Church missionaries functioning in these churches,   and it is only since 1961 in the case of the former mission church and 1963   in the case of the former Dutch Reformed Church in Africa, that one has seen   the up come of indigenous leaders in the church and so greater clarity within   the church's teaching and actions.
You have a list before you of some of the issues dealt with by the church.   The members of the former church primarily as students, on a student level,   were at the centre of historical events at that time. They took the lead at   many campuses and schools. I mention a few with regards to the University of   the Western Cape and other institutions.
(Indistinct) youth and student revolt resulted in expulsions and detentions,   going into exile. The conviction and imprisonment of members of this church,   disruption of academic careers as well as the deaths of others as I referred   to earlier on.
During the 1988 Synod the church declared that this policy of irreconcilability   leads to polarisation and conflicts and this conflicts was then used by both   government and in many church circles as an alibi to maintain the separation   of people at all costs.
Decisions of this church itself, contributed to decisions made at the World   Alliance of Reformed Churches in 1982 when the question of apartheid was clearly   stated not to be only a practical or political matter, but a question of fait   and therefore the declaration of the status (indistinct) in 1982. This led to   the adoption of the confession of Belhar to which my brother will also shortly   refer.
I think maybe I should just pass on to the question of our own contribution   in the question of reconciliation. In a very short reference to the confession   of Belhar, this church has in the past two years in the strategic planning,   has taken on as its vision the whole idea of unity, reconciliation and justice.
Not only in the sense in which it was confessed in 1982 and 1986, but in terms   of our own grabbling on how this church can make contributions in the renewal   as well as reconciliation in this country.
I just shortly list a few points we have mentioned in this document with regards   to the idea of pastoral counselling of victims, (indistinct), the confession   of guilt, service of the church in forgiveness and reconciliation, the sense   in which a church could be able in continuing acts of reconciliation bring people   to public reconciliation, (indistinct) of reconciliation (indistinct) and transforming   worship into acts of reconciliation.
Reconciliation services for local, regional and national groups, (indistinct)   of rehabilitation programmes holistically seeking the renewal of perpetrators.
We believe that the religious community can contribute to a profound religious   or theological statements and the erection of some memorial in remembrance to   the martyrs and the victims of human rights' abuses.
But one point I think we would like to emphasise comes under what we think   could happen nationally, that is within this country of ours, for the sake of   reconciliation but also for the sake of accountability, that there should be   a presentation of a report of a civil audit and social comments on the part   or the progress in and the promotion of human rights by the authorities, followed   by a policy declaration or manifesto, the declaration of intent by the State   itself.
We know that there are many organs functioning in a sense as watchdogs of what   happens, but I believe that the whole idea of holding government accountable   in view of our history, could be one of the means in which we would ensure that   what happened in the past, will never again happen in the future.
I thank you sir.