Yet, the land has become the scene of racial conflict and violence. You may wonder: ‘Why have the churches been unable to foster Christian love and unity?’

The dilemma grows if you examine recent history. This is because it becomes distressingly clear that religion actually shares a great responsibility for this country’s conflicts. In order to understand why, consider how South Africa’s religious situation developed.

In 1652 Dutch Protestants first established a permanent settlement on the southern tip of Africa. Their descendants today speak Afrikaans, a language developed from Dutch. In time, the Dutch churches split into a number of reformed churches, the largest of which is the Dutch Reformed, or DR, Church (Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk). Over a third of the nation’s white population are members of the DR Church.

English settlers also streamed to South Africa. Many were Anglicans, who later split into the so-called High Church and Low Church. Others were Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists. Similarly, German settlers introduced the Lutheran Church. South Africa thus became a Protestant stronghold, resulting in the conversion of millions of blacks. Today, 77 percent of South Africans claim to be Christian​—less than 10 percent of whom are Catholics.

South African Protestantism, though, continues to splinter. Many whites have left mainstream churches and have joined born-again movements. Likewise, many blacks have established an African brand of professed Christianity. “There may be as many as 4000 such independent churches in South Africa alone,” reports the magazine Leadership.

The traditional Protestant churches face another dilemma. As their flocks dwindle, so does financial support. To make matters worse, those who remain are deeply divided over their church’s preoccupation with racial issues. While some members demand that their church support radical measures to end apartheid, others demand that their church sanction apartheid. Between these extremes, members are divided as to the extent to which their church should go in promoting integration and racial equality.

“I resent being told that I must go and hold hands with people I don’t know and pretend to feel brotherly love for people who are not my kind,” said one Anglican regarding arrangements for an interracial service. Many white Anglicans also resent the political meddling of their black archbishop, Desmond Tutu.

A report by South Africa’s Human Sciences Research Council thus warned that religion “often plays a divisive and destructive role” with “the unthinkable prospect of followers of the same religious tradition facing one another from opposing camps.” Indeed, as we will see, South African Protestantism has played a strong role in igniting racial animosities.

Protestantism and Apartheid

AN ARTICLE in the South African Digest reported that DR (Dutch Reformed) Church “buildings, church services, and membership have been declared open to all, regardless of race or colour.”

For decades the DR Church stood for total segregation of races. What brought about this historic change adopted at an October 1986 meeting of church leaders?

Perhaps it would surprise many people to know that in the last century whites, black slaves, and those of mixed European and African ancestry all belonged to one DR Church. In 1857, however, a church synod bowed to mounting racial animosities and stated that services for people of mixed race could be held in separate buildings. The Bible did not encourage such a decision, admitted the synod, but the decision was made “as a result of the weakness of some.” This led, in 1881, to the establishment of a separate denomination for people of mixed race, which was called the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Sendingkerk, or DR Mission Church.

Little did those church leaders realize what they had started. Soon separate denominations were also established for blacks and Indians. Attendance in many DR churches was reserved for whites only. What had once been viewed as a “weakness” became rigid church policy. Blacks were sometimes turned away from the funeral services of their own white employers. Such humiliation stirred resentment among black church members.

“Apartheid . . . a Church Policy”

In 1937 the FC (Federal Council of DR Churches) requested the government to pass a law forbidding whites to marry people of mixed race. The government refused. In 1939 the FC repeated this request, at the same time also asking that whites be given separate residential areas, schools, and universities. Several delegations of clergymen approached the government about this. In 1942 the Federal Mission Council of DR Churches wrote the government: “The Church wants to see that this principle of racial apartheid is strictly enforced in the future.”

Then, in 1948 the white National Party was elected to power, promising to work for the legislation of apartheid policies. New apartheid laws soon followed. After the election, Die Kerkbode, the official DR Church magazine, proudly stated: “As [a] Church we have . . . always deliberately aimed at the separation of these two population groups. In this regard apartheid can rightfully be called a church policy.”

A Bible Teaching?

Until then, church appeals for apartheid were based mainly on tradition. In 1948 the Transvaal Synod even admitted they had not made a “conscious claim to being bound by Bible principles.” A new approach, though, now gathered momentum​—the presentation of apartheid as a Bible teaching.

In 1974 the General Synod of the DR Church published a report entitled Ras, Volk en Nasie en Volkereverhoudinge in die lig van die Skrif (Human Relations and the South African Scene in the Light of Scripture). “In [it] the theology of apartheid found its classical expression,” states Dr. Johann Kinghorn, editor of the book Die NG Kerk en Apartheid (The DR Church and Apartheid). Dwelling at length upon the account of the division of mankind at Babel, the report stated: “A political system based on the . . . separate development of various population groups can be justified from the Bible.” The report also commented on Jesus’ request that his followers “be perfected into one.” (John 17:23) Such unity, the report claimed, “need not be revealed in one institution.”

A “Credibility Crisis”

South African Protestantism has become the target of much criticism. In 1982 the World Alliance of Reformed Churches met in Ottawa, Canada, and declared apartheid theology a “heresy.” South Africa’s DR Church was suspended from membership. In addition, the South African government itself placed pressure on the churches by scrapping some apartheid laws, including the one forbidding so-called mixed marriages.

How have the churches responded? Some DR Church ministers have also become openly critical of apartheid. In the book Apartheid Is a Heresy, DR Church theologian Professor David Bosch states: “The Afrikaans Reformed Churches have only to return to their roots to discover that what they now cherish is nothing but a heresy.”

But what effect has such backtracking had on church members? Observes DR Church theologian Professor Bernard Combrink: “Some members do not hesitate to speak about the credibility crisis in the church, in the light of the fact that a certain standpoint or policy has been advanced as Scriptural for many years, and now ‘suddenly’ other standpoints are being advanced as in agreement with Scripture.”

Indeed, the “credibility crisis” in the DR Church reached a climax in October 1986 when its general synod accepted a resolution about apartheid that stated in part: “The conviction has grown that enforced segregation and the separation of peoples cannot be deduced as a prescription of the Bible. The attempt to justify such a prescription from the Bible must be acknowledged as erroneous and repudiated.”

This rejection of apartheid theology has caused mixed reactions among whites. Many feel that the DR Church synod has not gone far enough, since it is unwilling to unite as one body with its black reformed churches. Yet, others feel that the church has gone too far and so are withholding financial support from it. On Saturday, June 27, 1987, 2,000 DR Church dissidents met in Pretoria. By a majority vote, they formed a new church for whites only called the Afrikaanse Protestantse Kerk (Afrikaans Protestant Church).

While Dutch Protestantism took the lead in establishing apartheid, the English-speaking South African churches have publicly condemned the controversial policy. Yet, two white ministers, Methodist and Congregationalist, admit that life in the English-speaking churches still “reflects racial division and discrimination which is sometimes as consistent and intense as that which is to be found in the Afrikaans Reformed Churches.”​—Apartheid Is a Heresy.

What has been the reaction of black church members? While white theologians have hotly debated apartheid, prominent black theologians have been forming some views of their own.