XPost: alt.christnet.racism, alt.christnet.theology, alt.politics.religion   
   XPost: soc.culture.south-africa, za.politics   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   Last Friday I participated in this event via Zoom:   
      
   CHURCH AND STATE What are our options? SIMON LEREFOLO   
   Rosebank Doppio Zero, Fri 11 Oct 2024, 6:30am-7:30am   
      
   The relationship between church and state continues to be a subject of   
   debate in South Africa and across the globe. It’s not as simple as   
   trying to find an optimal point along a one-dimensional spectrum   
   between total separation and respecting no boundaries. Many factors   
   are at play.   
      
   What are the most popular models – and the most workable ones?   
      
   Simon Lerefolo studied Mechanical Engineering & Economics and has   
   worked as an engineer and a  consultant. He is the Senior Pastor at   
   Every Nation Church in Rosebank. His Master’s Thesis is on “An   
   Analysis of Prevalent Theological Postures towards church and state   
   relations - A Case Study of South Africa”.   
      
   ---------------   
      
   I'm not going to try to summarise what Simon said, which was in turn a   
   summary of his masters dissertation. But here are some thoughts   
   prompted by the question.   
      
   "Apartheid" was a political slogan used by the National Party in South   
   Africa in the General election of 1948.   
      
   The National Party won the election and came to power in place of the   
   United Party, which had governed South Africa since before World War   
   2.   
      
   The slogan "apartheid" was used to counter a policy of relaxing racial   
   segregation laws which had been proposed by the Fagan Commission,   
   which had been set up by the United Party. For more on that see here:   
      
      
      
   The National Party's policy was to increase racial segregation, and so   
   used "apartheid" (separateness) as an election slogan.   
      
   In 1948 most of the voters were white, and only a few black and   
   coloured South Africans were allowed to vote, and over the next 20   
   years the National Party systematically removed the few black and   
   coloured voters.   
      
   After coming to power in 1948 the National Party appointed the Sauer   
   Commission, whose recommendations were diametrically opposed to those   
   of the Fagan Commission, and, in effect, turned "apartheid" from a   
   slogan into a policy.   
      
   This policy was generally supported by the three Afrikaans Dutch   
   Reformed Churches, but other Christian groups criticised it, mainly   
   from a humanitarian rather than from a theological point of view. If   
   the policy was strictly applied, they said, it would increase the   
   suffering of black people.   
      
   The Dutch Reformed Churches, to varying degrees, tried to support   
   apartheid theologically. The Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk (NHK), which   
   was the most politically conservative though the most theologically   
   liberal of the three, already had in its constitution a clause that   
   said there should be no equality (between black and white) in church   
   or state.   
      
   The National Party increased its majority in the 1953 general   
   election, and added a new slogan -- baasskap (bossship). The white man   
   must be the boss.   
      
   One of the first public *theological* criticisms of apartheid came   
   from an Anglican priest, Trevor Huddleston, who ministered to an urban   
   parish in Sophiatown, a largely black community which was being   
   subjected to ethnic cleansing in the implementation of apartheid. In   
   his book "Naught for your Comfort" Huddleston maintained that   
   apartheid was not only cruel and unjust, but also heretical.   
      
   A National Party spin doctor, Alexander Steward, wrote a reply, "You   
   are Wrong, Father Huddleston", in which he used purely secular   
   arguments to try to show that apartheid was not cruel or unjust, but   
   was well-intentioned and perfectly just, but he made no attempt to   
   engage with Huddleston's theological criticisms at all.   
      
   The National Party again increased its majority in general elections   
   in 1958, 1961 and 1966. Apartheid, which had started as a slogan in   
   the 1940s, and became a policy in the 1950s, by the 1960s had become   
   an ideology, part of a wider ideology of Christian Nationalism.   
      
   For the ideology to prevail, the youth must be indoctrinated with it,   
   and this was done by means of Christian National Education, which   
   became the guiding principle of primary and secondary schools   
   controlled by the National Party government. Education was a   
   provincial affair, and the National Party controlled three of the four   
   provinces, but not Natal.   
      
   The only way to escape Christian National Education (CNE) was to live   
   in Natal or attened a private school, most of which were run by   
   various Christian denominations.   
      
   In the mid-1950s the National Party passed the Bantu Education Act,   
   which effectively nationalised (and Nationalised) all the church   
   schools for blacks), and took control of black schools out of the hads   
   of the provincial governments and put them under a new central   
   government Department of Bantu Education. And new church schools for   
   whites, started after 1952, no longer received government subsidies,   
   so had to depend on fees -- so children could only escape Christian   
   National Education if their parents were rich and white.   
      
   In 1968 Christians of many different denominations examined the   
   ideology of apartheid, and produced a theological statement that   
   condemned it as not merely heretical, but as a false gospel. This   
   theological rejection of apartheid was summarised in "A Message to the   
   People of South Africa" which was widely distributed by the   
   newly-formed South African Council of Churches, the Christian   
   Institute, and other denominational and interdenominational bodies.   
      
   The point that all this is leading to is that apartheid, in its   
   various forms -- growing from a slogan, to a policy, and then an   
   ideology, became a focus for Christian critique. As years went by the   
   critique was elaborated and extended.   
      
   Some Christians supported and defended the apartheid state, but the   
   majority rejected it, and in the 1990s apartheid, as an ideology,   
   collapsed. Though some still believe it, it is no longer backed by   
   state power. Many of its effects are still felt, but the engine which   
   drove it has lost its power.   
      
   Now this may have been covered in Simon Lerefolo's dissertation, but   
   most of it was not mentioned in his talk, so I've tried to describe it   
   here. I've described some aspects of it more fully in a series of blog   
   posts here:   
      
      
      
   The thing about that is that apartheid was the official dominant   
   ideology, which hardened over the years, and it made it fairly easy to   
   focus on and think about theologically.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)