Apartheid as a status confessionis

Karel Blei

In 1982, the WARC general council in Ottawa took a historic decision by declaring that the apartheid situation in South Africa, and the position of both white South African WARC member churches with reference to it, constitute a status confessionis. This declaration still stands. It was reaffirmed by the WARC general council in Seoul in 1989.¹ It is our point of departure.

The meaning of status confessionis

Literally, status confessionis means a situation of confessing, a situation in which the confession of Jesus Christ is at stake. As it was stated in the Ottawa resolution itself: declaring that a situation constitutes a status confessionis means "that we regard this as an issue on which it is not possible to differ without seriously jeopardizing the integrity of our common confession".

The Seoul general council dealt more elaborately with the status confessionis issue as such. "Any declaration of a status confessionis stems from the conviction that the integrity of the gospel is in danger... It demands of the church a clear, unequivocal decision for the truth of the gospel, and identifies the opposite opinion, teaching or practice as heretical."²

Of course, the term status confessionis is used only when there might be reasons for the idea that the issue in question is just a matter of discussion, an issue on which differences of opinion are very well possible and acceptable. The field of ethics, for example, is often seen as an area in which only the moral consequences of faith are at stake. Our moral convictions are mostly personal convictions, to be distinguished from our common faith. Now, where the term status confessionis is used, one wants to make clear that in a given situation a certain issue, contrary to what it looks like, is not just a matter of free discussion or of personal moral conviction, but indeed a matter of faith. Defending a certain ethical position sometimes is nothing less than the concrete manifestation of confessing or denying Jesus Christ.

Ottawa stated: this applies to the apartheid issue. Here, the time for free discussion is over. This is not just a matter of ethics or politics, but a matter of faith, of proclaiming or betraying the gospel. To quote once more the Ottawa resolution: "We declare...that apartheid...is a sin, and that the moral and theological justification of it is a travesty of the gospel, and in its persistent disobedience to the word of God, a theological heresy."

Here, another important word catches our attention: heresy. Like status confessionis, it was used here very deliberately. Heresy is not just mistake or error. It is indeed: betrayal of the gospel, doctrine in contradiction with it; false doctrine which can only be rejected by the church, and for which, by definition, there is no place within the church.

Over the centuries, the church had to struggle with the seduction of heresy, in different forms, in order to remain faithful to the gospel. In the context of this struggle, dogmas and confessions have been formulated and adopted. They are like marks and signposts for the church on its road through history. In those dogmas and doctrinal decisions, the truth of the gospel was confessed in a concentrated way; each time in reply to a challenge by some special, dangerous, heretical doctrine. In the Christian tradition, confession always goes together with rejection. It is in this rejection that the confession of Jesus Christ, in that given situation, gets its special, concrete focus.

By calling the theological justification of apartheid a heresy, Ottawa underlined how much it considered the apartheid issue a matter of faith. There is no ground for the opinion that the word here is not used in its original, authentic meaning. Sometimes we do find testimonies in which, as in Ottawa, the theological justification of apartheid is called a heresy, while at the same time a weaker interpretation of the word heresy is given. This happened for instance in the assembly of the Reformed Ecumenical Council in Athens, in May 1992. That assembly adopted a recommendation which adds immediately after the word heresy, "i.e., it is in conflict with the Bible".³ As if heresy meant no more than that!

Let me be clear: by using the qualification heresy, the Ottawa resolution put the theological justification of apartheid on the same level as such heretical doctrines as second-century gnosticism or Marcionism, or fourth-century docetism. Ottawa considered the ideology of apartheid, especially because it was presented as a Christian, biblical position, a threat to the very heart of the gospel; just as in early Christianity church councils considered the heresies propagated then that way.

The Ottawa resolution leaves no doubt about its intention. It starts by giving a clear characterisation of this heart of the gospel: "God in Jesus Christ has affirmed human dignity. Through his life, death and resurrection he has reconciled people to God and to themselves. He has broken the wall of partition and enmity and has become our peace. He is the Lord of His church who has brought us together in the one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God who is the father of us all... The gospel of Jesus Christ demands, therefore, a community of believers which transcends all barriers of race - a community in which the love for Christ and for one another has overcome the divisions of race and colour."

This being so, the resolution states that racism has to be denounced, because it "fosters a false sense of supremacy, it denies the common humanity of believers, and it denies Christ's reconciling, humanising work". And as apartheid is racism put into sociopolitical practice, the denunciation of racism necessarily implies the denunciation of apartheid. "The promises of God for his world and for his church are in direct contradiction to apartheid ideals and practices". Apartheid, being a system of oppression and injustice, "is sinful and incompatible with the gospel", essentially because "it is based on a fundamental irreconcilability of human beings, thus rendering ineffective the reconciling and uniting power of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Because of this, according to the Ottawa resolution, the situation of apartheid indeed constitutes a status confessionis.

Let there be no misunderstanding: the Ottawa resolution was not just a denunciation of a certain form of apartheid, of a special way of practising apartheid, of a certain outcome of apartheid - as if other forms and practices might well have been acceptable or as if, even speaking theoretically, apartheid could be isolated from this outcome and so, as something abstract, be appreciated. No, it is apartheid itself, apartheid as such, that has been denounced unconditionally. According to Ottawa, a "better" apartheid would be a contradiction in itself. A theoretical justification of such a "better" apartheid - whatever that might be - would even be a more dangerous seduction to the church and so even more clearly a heresy.

Status confessionis in the tradition

The first use of the term occurred in sixteenth-century Lutheranism. In the 1930s, it re-emerged in discussions in Nazi Germany. In both cases, however, the use of status confessionis had a different function from that in 1982.

About 1550, in German Lutheranism the conflict about the adiaphora broke out. Adiaphora was the name given to "intermediate things" such as ceremonies and church practices. As such, it was said, those ceremonies are neither prescribed nor proscribed in the word of God. They have been introduced just for the sake of order and piety in the church. They are not unimportant, but they are not decisive for one to be a real Christian either. One is free in practising or not practising such ceremonies. But does this mean that one freely could give in under political pressure, and so comply with Roman Catholic habits, for tactical reasons? Some defended this position, but others rejected it.

In the end, the latter party was put in the right. As is pointed out in the Lutheran Formula of Concord (art. X), in a time of emergency the question whether one would leave one's own church ceremonies and comply with "the enemies of the gospel" in order to avoid persecution, may at once be a question of principle. Then, keeping the existing ceremonies may suddenly become a matter of confession of faith. The sixteenth-century Lutheran church historian Matthias Flacius Illiricus had already pointed in the same direction, in his famous statement: nihil est adiaphoron in casu confessionis ("nothing is indifferent in case of confession"). Casus confessionis here is equivalent to status confessionis.⁴

Status confessionis is supposed to exist where the inner freedom of the church is jeopardized. Where the (Protestant) church is put under pressure, it becomes to this church a matter of faith not to give in, and to continue its own (liturgical, disciplinary) practice. We see: the attention is focused on the church itself, its own position, its own freedom.

In the 1930s the concept of status confessionis re-emerged. Dietrich Bonhoeffer used this concept in discussing the question whether the Aryan paragraph, introduced by the Nazi government, might also be applied in the church. This Aryan paragraph, issued in 1933, forbade the appointment of Jews as civil servants, and by law it was provided that (baptised, Christian) Jews had to be excluded also from the church and from the church ministry. The "German Christians", enthusiast supporters of Hitler's Nazi regime, strongly pleaded in favour of accepting this new rule. Only people of "Aryan race", they said, could be church members and ministers.

Bonhoeffer made vigorous objections. He stated that the exclusion of baptized Jews would be a violation of the church in its substance. Such an exclusion would be a denial of God's act of reconciliation in the cross of Jesus Christ, through which he "has broken down the dividing wall" between Jews and gentiles and "made the two into one" (Eph.2.14f.). A church that accepted the Aryan paragraph in its own life, would cease to be the church of Jesus Christ. One could serve such a (pseudo) church only by leaving it. Here, to Bonhoeffer, the status confessionis had become a reality. So, what seemed to be only a matter of politics, of social order, was in fact, according to Bonhoeffer, a matter of faith, of confessing or denying Jesus Christ.⁵

Now, I certainly do not want to underestimate the courage necessary for such a position in a time like that. Later, Bonhoeffer would confirm his opposition to the Nazi regime by the sacrifice of his life. Nevertheless, his protest in 1933, in appealing to the status confessionis, was in fact inspired by his concern for the church itself. It was more "defensive" (on behalf of the church) than "offensive" (against the Nazi state). As in the sixteenth-century adiaphora conflict, attention was focused on the church itself, its own freedom.

Maybe that has to do with the fact that Bonhoeffer (like the antagonists in the adiaphora conflict) was a Lutheran, not a Calvinist. More than the Reformed tradition, the Lutheran tradition is hesitant in acknowledging a direct political responsibility of the church. In their "two kingdoms" doctrine the Lutherans distinguish carefully between the spiritual and the socio-political realms; between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world. In the first realm, love is the dominant principle; it is here that the church has its own place and function. The second realm, however, is the realm where the state is at home, preserving law and order, if necessary: by force. And according to this careful distinction, in this second realm, the church does not have any direct responsibility.

In Bonhoeffer's considerations from 1933, we recognize to a certain extent this Lutheran pattern of thinking. In his lecture, "The Church in Front of the Jewish Question", delivered in April 1933,⁶ he begins by stating that it is not the church's task to intervene directly in politics. Politics are the state's business, and the church should just assent to the existence of the state as instituted by God to keep order and to preserve life in this chaotic, godless world. Only in exceptional situations, Bonhoeffer stated, the church may feel urged to speak out in matters of politics: namely where it sees the state fail and create injustice by either preserving "too little" social order or enforcing "too much" social order. In both cases, the legitimate existence of the state itself is endangered, and the church may have a reason for protesting, the more so because its own existence is in danger too.

In fact, according to Bonhoeffer, in Nazi Germany the church had to do with a state that failed especially by enforcing "too much" order; namely by intervening in the church's inner affairs and commanding the church to excommunicate its baptized Jewish members. So, here the church was obliged to question openly the legitimacy of the state's policy. Bonhoeffer is arguing very carefully. It is true, he leaves room for the possibility of a decision on the necessity of an even more direct political intervention by the church. Such a decision, however, he says, cannot be the logical result of any casuistry; it could only be taken by a specially convened "Protestant church council". In fact, later on, he himself came to such a more political action; he paid for that by the sacrifice of his life.

In the Reformed tradition, church and state are seen more closely connected, and there is less hesitation in speaking about the political responsibility of the church. Here, instead of the "two kingdoms" doctrine, the concept of the sovereignty of Jesus Christ over the whole of life is dominant. This concept means: Jesus is Lord, in the world not less than in the church, in the socio-political realm not less than in the spiritual realm. In the Reformed tradition, such language is well known. And the law of God is seen as valid, not only in personal life, in the community of believers, but also in society, in public and political life. Which means that the church has to speak out in matters of politics, not only in exceptional situations, but as a permanent task, in judging the state's policy by this law of God.

So it cannot be a surprise that a Reformed ecumenical body like the WARC Ottawa general council issued its declaration on the apartheid situation as constituting a status confessionis. Here, the attention was not primarily focused on the church itself, on its position, its freedom. The council's major concern was South African society as a whole, the situation of injustice and oppression created by the apartheid system. The Ottawa declaration was not so much (like Bonhoeffer's position in 1933) "defensive" (on behalf of the church) as "offensive" (against the South African apartheid state). One might almost say: the Ottawa declaration is a typically Reformed one.

Apartheid and status confessionis: ecumenical consensus

Remarkably enough, however, the WARC general council was not the first ecumenical body to issue such a statement. It was the Lutheran World Federation, in its general assembly in Dar-es-Salaam in 1977, that came first. Its Southern Africa resolution is worth quoting.

It starts by referring to the "normal circumstances" in which, among Christians, there may be a legitimate variety of opinion on political questions. This is, one could say, "good Lutheran". But then it goes on to say that this legitimate variety of political opinions reaches a limit where "political and social systems...become so perverted and oppressive that it is consistent with the confession to reject them and work for changes".

In the conclusion of this paragraph, this general statement becomes very concrete: ""We especially appeal to our white member churches in southern Africa to recognize that the situation in southern Africa constitutes a status confessionis. This means that, on the basis of faith and in order to manifest the unity of the church, churches would publicly and unequivocally reject the existing apartheid system".⁷

We recognise the Lutheran concern to stay in line with the confession, which in Lutheranism plays an important, authoritative rôle. We see the Lutheran view that the church in normal circumstances should abstain from intervening in politics. But we also see that in the present situation of southern Africa the circumstances are considered as completely abnormal, so that political intervention now is the task of the church.

In his dissertation, "Confession and Global Responsibility",⁸ the German Lutheran theologian Günther Krusche points out that this position is not in contradiction with the Lutheran tradition. As is the case with the Reformed tradition, the Lutheran tradition includes several tendencies. The Lutheran "two kingdoms" doctrine leaves room for different interpretations. One can see the unity and identity of the church as founded only on "the right understanding of the gospel". In that case, one will want to avoid the term status confessionis, even if one rejects apartheid on political grounds. Another possible position is, however, to see the identity of the church as founded on "its service to the whole human being" (the title of a special LWF study). In that case, Krusche says, one cannot avoid the question of confession, lest the church, by racism in its own midst, should lose its credibility. Krusche himself is very much in favour of this second position. He sees the church's global responsibility as the challenge to live and practise faith.

In fact, the intention of the Dar-es-Salaam resolution is very much like that of the Ottawa 1982 resolution. The LWF and WARC took a similar stand against racism as well as apartheid. This should be noticed. The Ottawa resolution was not a strange, isolated phenomenon. On the contrary, it was and is part of an ecumenical consensus. We could also have confirmed this by referring to the World Council of Churches' programme to combat racism. Christianity as a whole is denouncing apartheid. The awareness that the apartheid situation constitutes a status confessionis, and that the theological justification of apartheid is - in the full sense of the word - a heresy, has now become an ecumenical insight. This is true, even if the phraseology status confessionis as such is not in use everywhere.

Implications of the status confessionis resolution

One important implication was already included in the resolution itself. The Ottawa decision was not only a strong theological statement, but also a practical disciplinary measure.

On racism and apartheid, former WARC general councils (Frankfurt 1964, Nairobi 1970) had already issued strong statements. In that sense, Ottawa did nothing new. But new was the fact that Ottawa gave a follow1up to its language by suspending the white South African WARC member churches from the privileges of membership. It is especially this element of the Ottawa resolution that brings us together in this consultation. It therefore deserves our special attention.

First of all: it is worth noting that a similar action was taken by the LWF with reference to its white South African member churches, though only in its 1984 general assembly in Budapest, not yet in 1977. It is good to see that in this matter WARC did not act in isolation either.

Secondly: suspension, far from being arbitrary or superfluous, was the direct consequence of the denunciation of the apartheid ideology. Again, let us see the issue in historical perspective. In church history, the authoritative rejection of any heresy went together with the official condemnation of its adherents. Remember the stereotype concluding formula: anathema sit, "cursed be the one who..." Where any doctrine has been identified as a heresy, its determined upholders must be seen as heretics, for whom in principle there is no place within the church of Christ unless they repent.

As especially the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) and the Nederduitse Hervormde Kerk in Afrika over the years had worked out both the apartheid policy and its theological justification, the Ottawa general council felt obliged to suspend the rights of membership of these two churches. According to the Ottawa declaration, these churches, because of their outspoken pro-apartheid position, had become heretical churches, witnessing not to the gospel, but in opposition to it. That Ottawa did not shrink from suspending these two churches indicates how seriously its denunciation of the "Christian" apartheid ideology and its statement on status confessionis were meant.

Thirdly: maintaining church discipline is one of the characteristic marks of Reformed identity. In this sense one may say that Ottawa, by taking a disciplinary measure, acted in accordance with the Reformed tradition.

But, fourthly, here some questions have to be answered. Was the Ottawa decision indeed a matter of maintaining church discipline? Was it within the competence of the council to act like an authoritative church body? In other words: was the Ottawa general council in principle, formally, juridically, competent to take disciplinary actions against some of its member churches? Did the council, by taking the action of suspension, perhaps claim too much church authority for itself?

In Ottawa, this question was put to the vote. In the general council itself there was overwhelming support for the opinion that such an action was within the competence of the general council.⁹ But, of course, that in itself does not really answer the question.

The Seoul general council discussed this question again. It adopted the following statement: "While the council has no authority over its member churches, it is able to act in a representative way on behalf of the churches and bring to their attention for decision matters which they may not have been able to focus clearly for themselves... Status confessionis when declared by the council, is effective to the degree it is appropriated by the churches with their assent or consent."¹⁰

In my opinion there is, however, more to be said about it. Alan Sell (former WARC theological secretary) wrote a book on the theological history of WARC: "A Reformed, Evangelical, Catholic Theology".¹¹ In this book, he does not fail to call attention to the unique character of the Ottawa decision, seen from the ecclesiological perspective. He puts it this way: "Here... with the suspension of two white Dutch Reformed member churches, the Alliance acted in a decidedly ecclesial, church-disciplinary way, and this despite its traditional stance as a fellowship whose resolutions have moral force only. The Ottawa resolution not only challenged the suspended member churches - and, indeed, all member churches - in the matter of racism; it also challenged the Alliance to review its own status as an international communion of Christians."

Sell is right, I think. We can only ask whether there is not an inner connection between these two items: the issue of denouncing racism and the issue of ecclesiology. Maybe we should say that a community, even a federal community of "independent" churches, rises above its own level and gets ecclesial character wherever it feels challenged to witness to the gospel in a concentrated way, reacting in word and deed against the seduction of heresy.

Let us remember what we heard Krusche say, a moment ago, on the identity of the church. Is the identity of the church founded on "the right understanding of the gospel"? That is not untrue. But it is not sufficient either. What is "the right understanding of the gospel"? It is more than orthodoxy. It includes orthopraxy. So one should add: the identity of the church is founded on "its service to the whole human being". One cannot understand the gospel rightly apart from service to the whole of humankind.

The church is, of course, something given; a visible institution; the "body of Christ". The church "exists". But at the same time, the church is an event: the event of the Spirit. Church "happens". Wherever humanity really is served, wherever (in the name of Christ, if only anonymously) inhumanity is fought, there "church" emerges! So it is my conviction that the WARC general council in Ottawa got the features of a real church council in finding the courage and decisiveness to proclaim the gospel against racism and apartheid, without shrinking from the consequence of suspending the two white South African pro-apartheid WARC member churches.

The Ottawa decision of suspension, then, does not derive its justification from any existing formal church competence of the general council. It is the other way around: that decision itself, because of its inner authority, created the competence, to be acknowledged afterwards. Here we see another implication of the status confessionis resolution: unintended, but nevertheless real!

It may be good to end this section by quoting again the Seoul general council in 1989: the declaration of status confessionis by a general council "may act in a prophetic way, challenging member churches to become more faithful to the gospel by recognizing and acting on matters that are decisive for life in faith".¹² Indeed, the Ottawa general council did act in a prophetic way. It spoke out with the authority, the competence, of the prophet.

Church and politics

Perhaps I am too quick in my conclusions. It could be significant that Ottawa only suspended the white South African WARC member churches from the privileges of membership. Given the status confessionis, given the strong rejection of the theological justification of apartheid as a heresy, could one not have expected more? Why suspension only? Why not expulsion from WARC? Why not excommunication? Would not that have been consistent?

Yes, maybe. But on the other hand: if in Ottawa the white South African member churches had been excommunicated, a consultation like this would not have taken place; meeting and conversation would not have been possible any more. The action of suspension did not mean what a DRC delegate in Ottawa said it would mean: "the amputation of a diseased or cancerous limb".¹³ On the contrary, the action of suspension aimed at maintaining the relationship to both white South African WARC member churches. By this it meant to place these churches under a permanent appeal: to reconsider their position; to repent. And is not that the real aim of every disciplinary measure? I presume that another reason for not excommunicating was the awareness that, after all, the relationship between the WARC general council and the WARC member churches is different from that - in a church - between the church leadership and the individual church members. Anyway, I think, the Ottawa general council did wisely by acting with reserve.

But if that is so, then once more the question comes up whether the action of suspension was not already a step too far. By this action, even more explicitly than by the status confessionis declaration of which it was the consequence, Ottawa indeed very much identified its rejection of apartheid with understanding the gospel itself. Now, is that right? To put it in a challenging way: how far can a church, or an ecumenical church body, go in identifying the gospel with one specific political option?

Here we encounter the issue of the relation between church and politics. It is not necessary now to discuss this issue at length. We saw already that it belongs to the Reformed tradition to have a strong conviction about the church's own responsibility vis-à-vis politics. Both defenders and antagonists of apartheid and of its theological justification are in agreement on that. Let us, with reference to the relation between church and politics, just recall, very briefly, four basic Reformed insights.

First: welfare and (eternal) salvation are not identical. A clear distinction between both is needed. Without such a distinction people would be left without any perspective on eternal life. Ultimate salvation cannot be expected from politics. This has rightly been pointed out in the Netherlands by the Reformed theologian Harry Kuitert, in his book "Everything is Political, but Politics is not Everything".¹⁴

Secondly (here I disagree with Kuitert): welfare and salvation may not be identical, they are however mutually connected. In the New Testament we read about Jesus having come to proclaim and to bring the kingdom of God, in word and deed. This proclamation makes clear that restoration and re-creation are at hand - not only spiritually, but also materially. Sins are forgiven; diseases are healed. That means welfare and salvation at the same time. Welfare belongs to salvation; is expression and part of it. In so far as politics have to do with promoting welfare (and so with salvation), the church has to do with politics.

Thirdly: the church and the politicians each have their own perspective. The church by definition is not just another political party. Neither can the gospel be identified with any specific political option. It is the proper responsibility of the state, to distinguish good from evil, to promote good and punish evil; to keep and promote justice so that life can be lived in freedom. See, e.g., Romans 13.1-7.

Fourthly: this responsibility implies a limitation. The government is not just free to everything it wants to do, whatever it has within its own physical capacity. It is the responsibility of the church to measure politics by what, from scripture, it has learnt about the real aim of politics. Being called to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, the church has a sentinel function regarding politics. It will (hopefully) not hesitate to protest wherever it sees injustice instead of justice promoted; human rights violated instead of defended; tyranny prevailing over just ruling. The government has its authority under God, and the church knows that it (like everybody) should "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5, 29).

In these considerations we recognise some fundamental elements of the doctrine of the state as it was elaborated by Calvin in his Institutes.¹⁵ They are well-known and well-accepted in South Africa. Echoes are to be found, e.g., in the Belhar Confession,, in the Kairos Document, in declarations issued by the Belydende Kring and in the Rustenburg Declaration.¹⁶ Discussing these principles theoretically is, however, easier than putting them into practice. And it is on practice that disagreements have arisen in South Africa.

Let us look once more at the Ottawa declaration. In no way can the gospel be identified with any special political option. But the church cannot help feeling urged to raise its voice in protest against injustice. Then, the church cannot confine itself to issuing just general declarations. It has to be specific in its statements, in order to make clear what it means. This clarity was and is necessary in the case of apartheid in South Africa. Here it had to be said, unambiguously, prophetically, that the situation of apartheid constitutes a status confessionis; namely: that in this issue the confession of Jesus Christ is at stake. Because of this declaration and as a confirmation of its utmost seriousness and necessity, the action of suspension of the two white South African WARC member churches from the privileges of membership had to be taken. On this issue, within the church of Christ as it was represented in the Ottawa general council, a difference of opinion was and is not acceptable. Everybody should know that and draw the consequences.

Conclusion

In this consultation, the position of one of the suspended churches, the DRC, is under discussion (the other suspended church, the Nederduitse Hervormde Kerk, soon after Ottawa left the Alliance). We shall have to see whether the DRC is willing to do more than just to withdraw from its former outspoken pro-apartheid position; whether it now really agrees with the Ottawa decision in all its dimensions, including the DRC's own suspension.

That would, for the DRC, open up the way back into full membership. Less would be insufficient. As long as the DRC keeps looking back in protest to the Ottawa decision, it is clear that it does not yet fully understand that decision, and that it has yet really to change its position. A "neutral" position with regard to apartheid is not better than, is not really different from, a pro-apartheid position. If Church and Society, also in its revised 1990 edition, does not go beyond such a "neutral" position, then this document is not yet what would be necessary today.

Much is at stake in this consultation. Much clarification is needed. Let us pray for a good result.

Notes