South Africa’s Dutch Reformed Church—A House Divided
By “Awake!” correspondent in South Africa
ON AUGUST 25, 1982, a wedge was driven yet deeper into a house already divided. That day the World Alliance of Reformed Churches met in Ottawa, Canada, and voted for the suspension of South Africa’s two most powerful Afrikaans churches. The reason? The refusal of these churches to accept nonwhites as members. And as a dramatic underscore of this decision, the very next day the alliance elected Allan Boesak, a black South African minister, to serve as its president.
Sectarian struggles are so common in Christendom that this event was hardly deemed newsworthy by much of the news media. Nevertheless, you may be one who yearns for religious unity and wonders if it is possible. The situation in South Africa should therefore be of interest to you.
No one can comprehend South Africa’s religious polarization without first knowing some of the nation’s history. In 1652 the Dutch first established a settlement at the Cape in South Africa. Originally intended as a mere stop for ships en route to the Dutch East Indies, it later saw a virtual invasion of settlers—Dutch, French, German and British. These lands, however, were already inhabited. It was therefore not long before animosities flared between natives and settlers.
The Roots of Discord
The first white settlers belonged to the Reformed Church in Holland. So this church was established in South Africa and in time took on the name Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk (referred to as the NG church), or Dutch Reformed Church. At first the church had a tolerant view of the black and “coloured” (mixed racial origin) races. “Converted” ones were accorded full church privileges. This, however, did not set well with many of the Dutch settlers.
Come the 1800’s and the Cape was now controlled by the British. To the annoyance of the Dutch, the church became a tool of the State: the governor was declared head of the church, prayers had to be said for the British royal family at every church service, English-speaking ministers were appointed, services began to be conducted in English. Further, the British made the law “colour-blind”; new rights and privileges were suddenly bestowed upon the African.
But since the settlers had long engaged in ferocious wars and disputes with the native population—and they also had a general disdain for the dark races—it is no surprise that these changes angered many of the Dutch populace. The Dutch thus turned to their church. And in 1829 the request for segregated places of worship was brought before the church synod (assembly). This request was soundly rejected by the synod. Communion would be administered “simultaneously to all members without distinction of colour or origin.”
“The Afrikaans frontier farmer now got no satisfaction from Church and state,” in the words of historian C. F. J. Muller. War with the mighty British Empire being out of the question, many trekked—moved, fled from British rule en masse. In 1835 the Great Trek began, some 14,000 Dutch settlers heading for the northern interior. The church’s reaction? Denunciation and a refusal to permit “any of its ministers to leave the colony with the Trekkers.”
The trekkers, nevertheless, saw their flight “as the birth of a nation, as a divinely directed exodus out of the land of oppression,” says one historian. “Many trekkers saw this as the prophecy of Joel and believed that their flight was necessary for scriptural fulfillment.” Since the church would not serve the large group of trekkers who had fled into the far area known as the Transvaal, they formed their own church! This happened following the arrival in 1853 of Dirk van der Hoff from Holland. He became the minister of the new church—the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk. In 1858 this church became the State church of the Transvaal Republic. The schism widened the next year when Dirk Postma, another minister from Holland, arrived and founded yet another church—the Gereformeerde Kerk.
Now there were three reformed churches to choose from. Buffeted by the winds of change, the NG reassessed its position toward the trekkers. Ministers were sent out to organize those who wanted to remain part of the original NG church.
The NG church then made an even more drastic change of position. Making allowances for what it termed “the weakness of some,” the synod of 1857 decided to tolerate racially separate church services. One writer admits this was “an example of social pressure and pragmatism, custom and culture, rather than theology and Scripture, determining the life of the church.” This decision was to have long-lasting ramifications. Unwittingly the church had provided “an ecclesiological blueprint for the Nationalist policy of separate development” of the races, or apartheid.
The Breach Widens
In 1865 leaders of the Hervormde church and a minister of the NG church met with hopes of uniting the churches. Neither church was willing to budge, however, on its stand on “predestination,” a teaching of French theologian John Calvin. While the NG church staunchly held to this theory, the elders and deacons of the Hervormde church could not believe a loving God would create some humans for salvation and the rest for damnation. Hopelessly divided, they terminated the meeting.
Racial animosities widened the gap further in 1881. The NG church established the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Sendingkerk, or mission church. It was a church solely for nonwhites. Since then other “daughter” churches for blacks and Asians have been formed. Oddly enough, the “mother,” or the NG church, gives financial support to her “daughters.” But it still does not allow its members to become members of the exclusively white NG church. Sometimes nonwhites are even turned away from religious services, such as funerals.
Recent Attempts at Unity
More recently, meetings of South African church leaders and theologians have been held. While some had hoped that these meetings would be a major step forward, they ended with the churches as polarized as ever. Why? For one thing, as the Christian Science Monitor reported, “many Afrikaners [Dutch descendants] see themselves as a ‘chosen people’ similar to the children of Israel.” The problem is, however, that some black church members also envision themselves as a “chosen people” fighting for liberation. So when at one of these meetings NG director Pierre Rossouw reportedly claimed that “God sanctioned the present South African system of white minority rule and apartheid in politics and church life,” an “uproar” was caused at the meeting. According to The Christian Century of May 26, 1982, “Some black delegates booed Rossouw’s speech; liberal members of his own NGK described his views as ‘untheological’ and ‘based on ideology’ rather than Scripture.”
In June of 1982, 123 of the white ministers of the NG church had a joint letter published in the official mouthpiece of the church, Die Kerkbode, saying: “We want also to: Confess our deep guilt before God because we ourselves do not sufficiently practise the unity of the Church in Christ.” Nevertheless, a subsequent survey published in the Afrikaans newspaper Rapport indicated that only 16 percent of the members of the church are in favor of having nonwhite members.
The surprise decision of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches mentioned at the outset, however, apparently caused the church to reassess its support of apartheid policies. Die Kerkbode of September 1, 1982, claimed that the church would “reexamine the whole situation in the light of the Scriptures.” Nevertheless, The Cape Times of October 25, 1982, reported the results of a church synod: “The powerful and influential Ned Geref Kerk (NGK) remains irrevocably committed . . . to a policy of apartheid in church and politics.”
Whether the powerful NG church will take a course based on Scripture or expediency remains to be seen. In the meantime South Africa’s reformed churches continue to fragment. Yet a fourth white church has come into being—the Afrikaanse Reformatoriese Kerk. Black members are not tolerated—not even “daughter” churches.
Religious Unity—Is It Possible?
Lamentably, unity seems to be out of reach for the reformed churches of South Africa. However, their tale is far from unique. Rather, it is typical of the divisiveness that plagues the religions of Christendom. Sincere lovers of truth find this sad state of affairs difficult, impossible, to reconcile with the Bible’s words to true Christians at 1 Corinthians 1:10: “Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you.”
Nevertheless, true followers of Jesus enjoy unity even now. Because they are united by a bond of Christian love, they overcome political, racial and doctrinal differences. Jesus even said that you would be able to recognize his followers by “their fruits” or activities. (Matthew 7:16) The publishers of this magazine invite you to investigate the “fruits” of Jehovah’s Witnesses who enjoy unity—even in divided South Africa.
[Blurb on page 17]
Unwittingly the church had provided “an ecclesiological blueprint for the Nationalist policy of separate development” of the races, or apartheid
[Blurb on page 19]
Only 16 percent of the members of the church are in favor of having nonwhite members
[Picture on page 17]
In 1835 the Dutch trekked into the interior and formed their own church, maintaining segregation