A Draft RICSA Document1
March 1997
Introduction
The new Constitution of South Africa recognises religious diversity, and government leaders, not least President Nelson Mandela, acknowledge the important role which religion fulfils in the public sphere. South Africa is a multi-faith country. Yet current estimates are that approximately seventy percent of South Africans claim to be Christian. From this as well as other perspectives, Christianity is the most widely represented religion in the country. Given this, it should not be considered unusual that Christianity is represented in Parliament, and that Parliamentarians often invoke its symbols and dogmas.
There can be no denying that the role of Christianity in South Africa is ambiguous. The impact of Christian missions in the colonial period is controversial and strongly contested. It also played an important role both in legitimating apartheid and in supporting the liberation struggle. This ambiguity, coupled with the fact that understandings of Christianity as well as the way in which it is practised exhibit great diversity, makes it appropriate to speak of "Christianities" in South Africa. An examination of the way in which these "Christianities" are both expressed and understood within the South African Parliament reinforces this observation.
Parliamentary Appeals to Christianity
The diversity exhibited by Christianity in the South African context is often not recognised by Parliamentarians – perhaps for political reasons. It is tempting to claim that, when speaking "as a Christian", one is representing more than seventy percent of the population. Here is a sample of some Members of Parliament speaking "as Christians":
When Jesus Christ came into this world he said, `The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, to give freedom to the poor...’ and the RDP, to me, speaks the language of God, who brings life to the dying.
T. S. Farisani, Speech in Parliament, 8 June 1995.
For a party like the ACDP, which is based on biblical principles, this issue is an easy one as the Scriptures are clear on it. For us it is not what the caucus says, but what the scriptures say. If the N.P. truly believes in Christian principles, then the public must know where they stand on these issues."
K. R. Meshoe, Speech in Parliament, 3 June 1996.
Brother, the law is old. The law is also in the Bible. Even the South African law uses the Bible. There are some other laws which I could mention which originate from the Ten Commandments. They include the following: Honour thy father and thy mother ...thou shalt not kill.., thou shalt not commit adultery...thou shalt not steal...thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour...I am just mentioning this to indicate that there are laws...[Interjections].
L. R. Mbuyazi (IFP), Speech in Parliament, 26 August 1994.
Christian values mean providing shelter for the homeless and health care for the sick. No representative of the people can come to Parliament and say they should not get condoms when Aids is on the rampage.
Christian values also mean providing clothes for the naked, caring for children and safety and security for all. However, it definitely does not mean sending criminals into the deepest parts of the ocean.
These are noble values - Christ called them Christian values. That is why the world is proud of our Christian values and our leadership. Klaus Hansch, President of the European Parliament, said: "Here in South Africa at this time, you have the best leadership in the world".
People were asking questions during the time of Luthuli. After Luthuli, what comes? They did not know that the ANC has high religious Christian values. After Luthuli came Tambo and his collective leadership. However, God brought Mandela and his collective leadership. [Applause.]
In his own words, the President says: "There is life after Mandela." It is because of these high values which are respected all over the world. These values, practised on this imperfect earth create liberation, which translates into an unfolding process of salvation in its material and spiritual dimensions. When these values are pursued and realised, we experience an answer to our prayer, namely: "Let Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
F. S. Farisane, Speech in Parliament, 14 February 1996.
By the gracious will of God I am an Afrikaner. No other national bond can replace what I am as a result of descent. It is in the Afrikaner environment that I can be my natural self with my language, in joy and sorrow, and in everything I do. It has nothing to do with convenient accusations of racism and the forming of laagers. The Xhosas, Zulus and others are entitled to nothing less, and I do not begrudge them that…. 16 December is the Day of the Covenant. This day is the closest to the heart of the people, it is firmly rooted in faith in God, and gives the Afrikaner people their own stamp. This is also one of the reasons why the FF will not attend the proceedings tomorrow [on May 16], Ascension Day. This is not a boycott action, but is deeply rooted in our Christian faith
L. Louw (FF), Speech in Parliament, 15 May 1996.
"Does anyone speak for Christianity?"
Is it possible that these people all refer to the same thing? Or is "Christianity" an empty signifier, merely a name for whatever different people consider of highest value, or more cynically used as a rhetorical device for supporting arguments in order to give them an absolute status? This may explain in part the observation that the interjections which occur during such speeches are sometimes derisive and mocking. The fact is, such pretentious speech often masks weak arguments in the name of a religious faith, just as it also reinforces the view that there are important differences amongst Christians within Parliament. Members of Parliament can be forgiven for wondering which set of views really represent Christianity, or to put it differently, who, if anybody, speaks for "the Church"? Or, indeed, how it matters at all.
Given the diversity of Christianity it is not possible to answer this question in any unequivocal way. Stated bluntly, nobody speaks for "the Church", though there are spokespeople for different denominations and traditions. Any Member of Parliament should be entitled to express her or his convictions in whatever fashion they wish. If they wish to employ religious language that is their choice, just as it is the right of others to contest it. Yet those who claim overtly to speak as Christians or for Christians do not by any means represent the views of all Christians. Indeed, there are many Christians both in Parliament and outside who do not see themselves or their faith represented in the kinds of exchanges noted above. Such Christians are deeply concerned not just about what they regard as misrepresentations of Christianity, but about the danger that the way in which Christianity is used might prevent it from fulfilling a meaningful role in the shaping of public policy.
There are undoubtedly Members of Parliament who are secularist in their views, possibly even anti-Christian or anti-religion in their orientation. Such people would not be bothered at all by the representations of Christianity in Parliament and might well feel vindicated in their stance by the way in which Christianity is being mocked. There are also people from other faiths who are generally respectful of the convictions expressed by Christians, and perhaps embarrassed by the way in which religion is an occasion for mockery.
An Analysis of the Representation of Christianities
This brief study is a preliminary analysis of the different ways in which Christianity is represented in Parliament based on three main sources of information:
A future study might require direct observation of parliamentary debates in order to gain a first hand impression of the way in which rhetoric that appeals to Christianity is actually received.
A Christendom Approach
There has been a long tradition in South African politics of engaging in theological debate even within Parliament. Many of South Africa’s political figures have been closely associated with Christianity and the Churches. This has been particularly true of the National Party. Several NP Prime Ministers or State Presidents such as D. F. Malan, J. G. Strijdom, and H. F. Verwoerd, were ministers or elders within the various Afrikaans Reformed Churches. The National Party certainly continues to represent such a tradition, as does the Freedom Front and Conservative Party. This is clear from the NP’s present Programme of Principles:
The Party acknowledges the sovereignty and guidance of God in the destinies of nations and men, and strives to build and develop our nation in accordance with Christian norms and values, with explicit recognition of freedom of religion and of conscience.
This approach is oriented toward what might be called a "Christendom" or "Neo-Christendom" understanding of South African society. That is, it acknowledges the reality of pluralism, but still strives to make Christianity the centre of reference ("we can tolerate pluralism because a Christian society should be tolerant", assuming of course an uncontested view of what a Christian society would be). Here, as elsewhere, it is assumed that such "Christian norms and values" are uncontested.
This view is, of course, not only that of the NP. It is a view also held by Christians who opposed apartheid on the basis of "Christian principles". The theological discourse of the National Party was countered by dissenting voices who still wanted to identify themselves as Christians, though not after the fashion of the NP. While many of these have been engaged in changing their oppositional discourse into one of reconstruction, there remain Members of Parliament who continue within a neo-Christendom model. Like their counterparts in the National Party, they see a close correlation between their party and the Christian gospel -- as, for example, in the following speech by ANC MP and Lutheran minister T. S. Farisani:
In heaven there is no sexism, no age discrimination, no racism, no volkstaat. There is sanctity of life there. [Interjections.] However, we are not in heaven yet, but here on earth. There is a place called earth, and on it a place called South Africa. It is on this planet that the President made the speech, on this planet where he carried the cross, Rev Meshoe, and on this planet where he carried a crown of thorns. For Christ said: Carry your cross and follow me. [Interjections.]
Farisane goes on:
Now, coming to the high priests of apartheid Christian values, let me remind them that these values were rejected by the World Council of Churches, by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, by the Lutheran World Federation, and by all religions. So what these Christians are saying in this part of the world is neither Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism nor African religion, but rather apartheid confusion. [Applause.]
It is notable that Farisane attacks the appeal to Christian values on the part of his opponent as discredited in that such values are not Christian at all, but "Apartheid confusion". Farisane also identifies the acts of the ANC (even of the Muslim Minister of Water Affairs) with the acts of God:
The Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry is carrying out a task of Christian value. That is why God is giving him so much rain, so that he can provide our people with water. [Applause]
In a speech given on 22 February 1996, B. M. Ntuli of the ANC claimed that it is only her party or its constituency who truly read and understand the Bible "correctly":
It is surprising to hear distortions from these people who claim to read and understand the Bible thoroughly. … I am posing a challenge to Mr. Geldenhuys that if he wants us to debate about the Bible, he must come to us, the people who really read the Bible. He must call on us if he wants such a debate. The Bible clearly states that in the past the slaves were released after 50 years. At their release they were given something to start their lives with. What I realize is that the readers of the Bible like hiding some of the things so that they can be the only beneficiaries of those things.
Botha comments on this:
…since the NP based their policy of apartheid on the Bible the ANC never tires of pointing out that the NP MP’s did not understand the Bible and thus still do not understand it "correctly". Part of the moral high ground that the ANC is claiming is that they are the people who really read the Bible and thus understand it "correctly".
The approach of Farisane, Ntuli and others strives to be prophetic, but also looks back to the days of struggle for its model of rhetoric. Then, the ANC (among others) was identified with the hopes and aspirations of the oppressed majority. Now the new age is present in the new regime, and all forces opposing it are considered anti-Christ. What both "Neo-Christendom" approaches have in common is a tie to the discourse of oppression-liberation of the apartheid years. While this indeed reflects the ways Christianity has functioned in South Africa’s history, it has yet to make the transition to a reconstructive and positive era.
A Fundamentalist Approach
A new style of Christianity has appeared in South African political discourse within Parliament. This representation of Christianity has strong links with Right Wing fundamentalism in the United States. It is an approach which is opposed to (or at least very suspicious of) religious pluralism, and is especially critical of legislation which provides rights for homosexuals, advocates abortion on demand, does not enforce strict moral censorship, permits gambling, and does not allow for the death penalty. All such legislation is under the judgement of God. In this respect, such Christian fundamentalism shares much in common with fundamentalists of other religious faiths. On certain issues, such groups would also receive support from major Christian denominations, such as the Roman Catholic Church on abortion.
The major spokesperson for this position is the Revd. K. R. Meshoe of the ACDP. Of course, many of his views are generalisations which would be affirmed by all Christians. For example:
Speaking at the 10th Desmond Tutu Peace Lecture, organised by the World Conference on Religion and Peace, the hon. President Mandela said that our democracy needed religious leaders to assist with the strengthening of the moral fibre of our society. The ACDP fully supports that call.
Most of us know the words of Jesus Christ recorded in Matthew 7:26-27 that a house built on sand will collapse during storms.
Again in 1995 Meshoe called on all political parties:
to put the interests of the nation before their own and to have a vision for a South Africa in which truth, justice and a love for one's neighbour will be the pillars of our democracy, otherwise our fragile democracy will not last. God bless.
Speaking on the proposed scrapping of the Publications Act of 1974, Meshoe had this to say:
The ACDP takes the goal of nation building very seriously. We know for a fact that the best structures will not survive the storms and the test of time if the foundations upon which they are built is weak. That is why Psalm 11:3 says : "If the foundations are destroyed what can the righteous do?" Those who believe in nation building should guard and protect their families, because they are the nerve centre of the nation we are trying to build.
The point of divergence between Meshoe’s views and other Christians comes when the language shifts from generalisations to specific issues.
...Any attempt to abolish all forms of publication control in the name of constitutional rights would be unacceptable and must be vehemently opposed by all sensible, moral and decent people. The ACDP would like to see the Publications Act of 1974 strictly enforced in order to protect and respect cultural, traditional and religious values of the majority of South Africans. The rights and freedoms now entrenched in the bill of rights must be made subject to morality. Our constitution must promote respect for other citizens dignity, decency and a right to privacy.
In a similar vein, Mr L. Green, the only other ACDP member of Parliament, speaking in the debate on abortion warns:
Finally, the child that is not safe in the womb of its mother can never be safe in this world and particularly in the new South Africa which I believe, can become a model country.
On the death penalty, Meshoe quoting from the Bible, warned the Government:
Leviticus 24:17, Numbers 35:16 and Deuteronomy 19:11-13 [Interjections.] clearly instruct governments to impose capital punishment on deliberate murderers. Revelations 13:10 makes it quite clear that he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. [Interjections.] In Acts 25:11 Paul also recognised that some crimes merit the death penalty. The Bible says that murder pollutes the land, and the only way to cleanse that land is for murderers to be executed. If this government continues to resist its God-given responsibility, then the people will take the law into their own hands and institute barbaric kangaroo courts throughout the land. Victims of violence, child abuse and rape, and ordinary South Africans who do not have access to body guards as Government Ministers do, demand justice and protection from the Government now! [Interjections.] [Time expired.]
The following report appearing in the Cape Times seemingly confirms the links of the ACDP with conservative organisations such as the Christian Voice:
The Christian Voice was formed in February last year to offer a home to conservative Christians concerned about the government’s approach to abortion, the death penalty, pornography, homosexuality and a secular state among other issues. Although its chairman, the Rev Soon Zevenster, was at pains to deny that they had a political agenda, and denied any links with the conservative African Christian Democratic Party, its leader and member of Parliament, Mr. Kenneth Meshoe, addressed the gathering together with the party’s only other MP Mr Louis Green.
The fact that the spokespersons of the ACDP always claim divine authority for their positions, and that these positions are often contrary to the democratic ethos now enshrined in the Constitution, explain to a large extent the negative reaction of both non-Christians and other Christians inside Parliament to the ACDP, and by implication more generally to Christianity as such.
Christianity in a Pluralistic State
The South African Parliament has far more Christians in it than those who claim to speak in the name of Christianity. The irony here is that many of those who opposed apartheid in the name of Christianity find their understanding of Christianity marginalised in the new Parliament. Among these are pastors and priests who have a dual identity as Church leaders and as Members of Parliament. Such people find it difficult to toe a party line on certain issues (such as abortion) when it contradicts their personal convictions, or the official teachings of their church. But they also find it difficult to employ Christianity rhetorically within a Parliamentary context. The reason for this is not a lack of conviction but a feeling that religious rhetoric may not be appropriate in Parliamentary debate, especially when it is subject to abuse.
Perhaps a fundamental disagreement such Christians have with both the "Christendom" or "Fundamentalist" approaches, is in their recognition of the pluralistic nature of the new South African state. A pluralistic state does not exclude religious conviction and freedom, nor does it uphold "secularist" values at the expense of religious values, but it does reject the idea that one religion or its adherents has a controlling interest and right. Christians who accept the ethos of pluralism understand that they must express themselves in a public discourse appropriate to that ethos.
Contesting Christianity
Religion like politics is always contested. But the way that Christianity is contested is an important thing to reflect upon. Why is it that there is such a strong reaction when a member of the ACDP gets up to speak in Parliament? Why are there strong reactions particularly from NP, IFP and ACDP quarters when T. S. Farasani gets up to speak on behalf of the ANC?
Each camp is trying to present their view and interpretation of the Bible as applied to current events as the only correct one. Some interpretations may lead to offence such as Farasani's identification of Mandela with Christ and Ntuli's claim that the ANC are the only correct interpreters of the Bible. This appears to be falling into the same trap that NP leaders did when they justified apartheid on biblical grounds in the fifties.
Equally offensive to many in Parliament is Meshoe's warnings of God's judgement and impending doom on South Africa when certain biblical norms and standards as he understands them, are not heeded in the governing of the country. The ACDP's dogmatic (in its insistence that the Bible is the only authority upon which the governance of the country should be based) stance in matters of religious freedom and freedom of conscience is probably a cause for irritation for many in Parliament, both Christians and non-Christians alike.
The NP and the FF's claims to be the guardians of Christian norms and standards are too reminiscent of the past Apartheid Government’s use of conservative theology to back partisan agendas to be taken seriously. Their invocation seems to elicit much irritation and ridicule in the majority ANC benches. The suspicion probably exists amongst members of former liberation movements in the House that these parties are trying nothing more than to perpetuate white priviledge in some form or another, although they may disagree on specific strategies. Ironically, the FF may well be seen as more open about their intentions and hence more trustworthy than the NP.
These are the issues at stake in the representation of Christianity in Parliament and the aforementioned parties are the actors contesting the terrain for hegemony. As to who is right and what is to be done about the negative image that Christianity enjoys in Parliament at the moment remains an open question which is beyond the scope of this brief account. This paper seeks only to note the several forms that Christianity is taking in Parliament and to encourage debate and critique on the nature of constructive Christian engagement in Parliament.
Prepared by James Cochrane, Kevin Davy, John de Gruchy, Stephen Martin and Henry Mchlauli. Facilitated by Stephen Martin