Mennonite interest in a South African ministry dates to the 1950s, when the Defiance Campaigns led by Albert Luthuli and the ANC were in full swing. This non-violent effort attracted the attention of people who were also involved in the American civil rights campaign. Some envisioned pacifist Mennonites, holding strongly to a peace theology, as having a special ministry to the movements in South Africa at that time. A Mennonite contribution to these nonviolent efforts, they reasoned, could be of assistance in helping them develop a stronger theological foundation for peacemaking. Because Mennonites were, in early attempts in the 1960s, unable to acquire residence permits in South Africa, they initiated programs in surrounding countries. Here people could work in ways which were locally relevant and practical, while still having a "window" through which to better perceive and understand South African society.

This interest in a peace witness has remained central to all Mennonite work in the Southern Africa region. Experiences during the past three decades have enriched Mennonite workers' understanding of South Africa's complexity and have also allowed many personal relationships to develop. In a profound way Mennonite workers have been humbled by the Christian testimonies they have witnessed. Although our convictions about pacifism in the Christian life continue to be a central definition for ministry, our orientation has grown from one of seeing our contribution as something new and unique to one of simply sharing in the common life and worship of Christ with South African Christians. For many, that which we have gained seems more profound than that which we have been able to contribute.

In light of the history of movement that we have surveyed throughout this booklet, it is especially important to ask how Mennonite work should be carried out in South Africa. How do we define ourselves? To whom do we look for direction? On whose terms do we carry out a Mennonite ministry? In looking at these questions we will focus on the following four areas: accountability, a peace witness, program involvement and spokespersons.

Are we accountable?

Except for those in Zimbabwe and Zambia, no established Anabaptist/Mennonite church exists in Southern Africa. During the past two and a half decades, Mennonite agencies have not undertaken to plant such churches. No doubt the lack of access to South Africa has contributed to this. But more than that, while discussions on this issue have taken place on many occasions, the consensus has generally been that starting a church-planting ministry would not be appropriate or needed.

This understanding holds that the Anabaptist/Mennonite spiritual heritage is not housed exclusively within an Anabaptist/Mennonite institutional structure. That does not mean that an institutional base is negative; it is the way God's people communicate and work together, making it a basic component of the church's mission in the world. But in southern Africa Mennonites have felt that this is not the time or place to build yet another Western institutional base. Starting another denomination would not contribute to the current edge of Christian growth in South Africa. The church is well-established in South Africa and generates its own internal agenda; thus, an Anabaptist/Mennonite ministry should be at its base ecumenical or interdenominational in nature. We should work to feed our spiritual heritage into the structures that already exist in a kind of incarnational model of ministry.

Although this model for ministry should not be used everywhere, it is appropriate to the South African context. Black Christian leaders are not looking outside the South African context for a new theology or a new understanding of the Bible message. If anything, the movement is in the other direction, towards African traditions, black experience and an African spirituality. Following years of being made to feel that these traditions were wanting, black South Africans are convinced that some balancing or catching up is needed. An attempt to establish an independent institutional base for the Anabaptist/Mennonite spiritual tradition would move in the wrong direction. For this reason, Mennonite agencies have worked to strengthen indigenous movements such as the African Independent Churches. The church is planted and growing in South Africa, and we can help it grow by responding to local initiatives.

A second theme important to an ecumenical ministry in South Africa relates to the centrality of the unity of the church. We simply must, as followers of Christ, take seriously other people who profess the same allegiance. Today we are more aware than ever that our definition of the Christian life is greatly influenced by personal and cultural assumptions. When we move to a context different from the one that nurtured us in the faith, we need to avoid creating divisions in the body of Christ that need not exist or that do not arise in that new context. For many reasons the church in South Africa finds Christian unity difficult to achieve. People can hide behind many differences, theological ones frequently not the most significant. In such a context it is especially important that we guard and hold high a commitment to the unity of those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord. Mennonite programs have maintained this focus by working through ecumenical or established local church organizations.

Within Southern Africa, Mennonite willingness to work in locally established organizations and churches has opened more doors than we have been able to respond to. A significant example has been the work with African Independent Churches. These churches, though growing numerically at a rapid pace, do not automatically translate into stable institutions and organizations. Whether that will happen or how it will happen in the future is an open question. Whatever happens will surely be on their own terms and in ways that meet needs within their own context. Mennonites have been seen as safe, non-threatening and perhaps controllable. We are in the midst of these churches at their request and hopefully have been able to assist them to become stronger -- but on their terms. Other churches and church organizations have also invited us into their midst in ways that would perhaps not have happened if our goal was more centered on developing another denominational structure and base.

This approach or methodology does leave unanswered some fundamental questions. If our accountability is not based in one place, how do we define our presence or mission? A diffused accountability can easily turn into no accountability. How do we define our contribution or make decisions about new work possibilities? To whom do we listen? The Christian church in South Africa does not speak with one voice. The question of accountability cannot be reduced to "following local agenda." We must also be able to respond and act.

Choices must be made in many situations where relationships are being fostered across cultural lines. We feel the following considerations are important in Southern Africa. First of all, we must ask whether we are relating to authentic church leaders. Do the individuals from whom we are taking our cues represent their own communities, or have we chosen them because they are close to us? For us to choose someone who is comfortable to us comes close to choosing our own spokespersons. In South Africa this has been the technique of many, such as the government, whose goal is domination, not communication. Although our objective is certainly not domination, we send signals which may be so perceived when we act too hastily in this regard. Our contact with and knowledge of South Africa need to be broad enough so that we can sense when a church leader does not represent the constituency or community in which he or she is grounded.

Second, as workers from a foreign agency, we cannot become an accountability structure for local ministries. Again, a grounding in the local context is crucial, and we as outsiders cannot provide a substitute for this. There is no future in one or another of the Mennonite agencies allowing themselves to become a major source of guidance and accountability for local programs and ministry. Our responsibility is not to take or be placed in such a position.

Third, because most of us are western, well-resourced and white, we should clearly see ourselves and our presence as being much less than neutral to people with whom we may live in many local contexts. In the negative sense we represent influence and power, something to acquire, use or perhaps exploit. As one Mennonite administrator put it recently, "Though we see ourselves as people sharing life and ministry, some see us as canned meat." Even our desire to listen and respond to local initiative can all too often be looked at with suspicions, such as, "This person has something to give us, but first we have to guess what it is." Time, shared experiences and much forgiveness from all sides are necessary to get down through all these layers and barriers. We must acknowledge that taking time to build confidence is important and central to the ministry we are involved in.Accountability to the local, established church remains an important, although frequently complex, guiding principle. Experience has demonstrated its importance in many ways. Explanations of this experience may at times appear to say that attitudes are more easily defined by what we feel will not work than by clear methods for developing a program. Our understanding is growing, however, and we hope we are becoming more sensitive to that which inspires and nurtures Christian faith in this part of the world.

What about a reconciliation and peace witness?

The call to be peacemakers has been from the beginning an underlying motivation for Mennonite involvement in South Africa. Mennonites have worked as outsiders in this society, have not had a denominational base, and have consciously adopted a stance of listening and learning. Thus, their involvement in what might be called peacemaking activities has been quiet and supportive rather than large and public. As non-South African citizens, Mennonites are not able to involve themselves directly in confronting the government regarding its violence to people or in mediation between fighting groups. The role of Mennonite workers has rather been to give support where possible to groups within the South African church community that are more directly involved in a peace witness.

Probably the clearest example of this in the past has been MCC support for South African conscientious objectors (COs). Prior to 1982, the only exceptions to universal military call-up for white males were members of traditional peace churches (in South Africa, mostly Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses). Beginning in 1979, when two Baptist men (Richard Steele and Peter Moll, mentioned earlier) went into military detention rather than put on Defense Force uniforms, a growing movement among white Christians has questioned the morality of service in the South African military. Mennonites were able to assist these early COs with court costs, provision of peace resources and a network of moral support. As the movement has grown, the South African churches have responded in supportive ways; the government finally also responded to growing pressure by providing alternative service possibilities for a limited category of objectors.

With the formation of the End Conscription Campaign in 1984, emphasis has shifted toward the general role of the military in South African society and especially its activity against black South Africans. Mennonites remain in touch with this movement and are ready to support it where needed, though its local strength means less need for direct outside involvement. In a similar relating and supporting way, Mennonites in Southern Africa connect to groups such as the Commission on Violence and Nonviolence of the SACC or the South African office of International Fellowship of Reconciliation. On a more personal level Mennonite workers attempt to witness for peace and reconciliation in their communities.

Our stance as learners in South Africa affects the ways in which we can engage in a ministry of peace and reconciliation. We have suggested that one's view of the place of the church in society affects one's definition of reconciliation. If Christ has ordered society and life, then people are to be reconciled to that order. If Christ is a mediator or conciliator between opposing sides, then reconciliation happens when individuals from those groups begin to relate to one another. If Christ is liberator, savior or bringer of justice, then reconciliation may involve drastic and painful change in the structures of society.

Each of these viewpoints has important elements of truth, and all of them can act somewhat as correctives to the others. For example, the first one holds up the importance of and need for an orderly base in society. This is certainly important for reaching toward justice; jobs, economic development and social welfare all depend on orderly structures that work in predictable or consistent ways. The danger of this view is the tendency for control and an absolutizing of the status quo which too often accompanies it.

Christ the mediator seems initially to be the best of these options, and the fairest in that it points up the need to recognize and listen to various points of view. This model seems to assume an orderliness, a spirit of compromise, which is attractive, especially to those who are somewhat removed from the situation of oppression. However, its often too easy assumptions of how change happens and lack of careful analysis of the structural nature of sin in society present problems. If black and white Christians can meet together equally as sisters and brothers to pray for change in South Africa, but at the end of their meeting they must return to their racially separated lives at opposite ends of the economic ladder, has reconciliation happened?

The third option, that of Christ as liberator and savior, is in many ways the most difficult one for North American Mennonites to come to terms with. Its rather militant language seems strident, and we worry about openness to possibilities of violent resistance. The call to choose sides does not always seem loving enough to people on all sides, especially when we suspect that we ourselves are perceived to be on the wrong side on many issues. Yet, the current stream of history in the church in South Africa suggests that God is leading this effort in a unique and prophetic way. The holders of this viewpoint will shape future South African society, and this stream will also determine the future shape of the church. The movements within the church which fit into this viewpoint are not always the easiest ones to relate to; they tend not to be institutional or to fit easily into established patterns. But if we as outsiders want to understand where God is leading the church in South Africa, these are the people we must listen to carefully.

Our emphasis is on listening. While the language may seem one-sided or strident, we need to recognize that these expressions of pain and anger speak for the majority of South Africa's people. We must continue to search out and be open to opportunities for sharing our convictions on the Christian's role as peacemaker, but we must beware also of stating this too quickly or simplistically in ways which do not acknowledge the experiences of people in South Africa. Our role must be one of openness, humility, repentance for our own complicity and willingness to hear and understand the pain of many South Africans. A peace witness in South Africa will be heard only if it comes from such a posture of listening.

Program involvement: How do we serve?

When we begin to talk about program, in some sense we move to a level of discussion different from the discussion of history and the views of the church. Program is by definition more specific, more nuts and bolts everyday activity. But while workers, caught up in surviving each day in a specific local context, may forget or not see as crucial the larger view, they need to be aware of what the history and divisions of the church in South Africa mean for Mennonite program there. How we work and for whom we work are important.

An example of the kind of dilemma this poses for program decisions might be the case of a church-run institution. The Dutch Reformed Church is a leader in South Africa in education for the disabled and runs a school and training workshop for the deaf and blind. The school is needed and is doing good work. Without it, these students would have little chance of employment or of a productive life. But the school must also abide by government-established apartheid policies. Not only is it only for black people; it is only for Xhosa-speaking black people who are citizens of the Transkei, one of South Africa's so-called independent homelands. The school runs on grants from the homeland government. It performs a good service, but it does so within the rules of an unjust system. With an orientation toward Christ as orderer of society, the Dutch Reformed missionaries who run the school do not ask many questions about the larger structures around them. Should Mennonites become involved in the needed ministry of the school even though we differ on the larger issues?

Program involvement tends by its nature to be an ordering function. Many Mennonites in Southern Africa work in community development and community organization. They live in rural communities and maintain a Christian presence by working with people in areas such as water resource development, nutrition, literacy or gardening. One struggle in such assignments is finding or fitting into local support and accountability structures. We are committed to working under and being accountable to local groups instead of initiating our own programs. But finding such local structures is difficult. A South African government body is setting up in local villages a network of community workers whose work sometimes seems similar to the kinds of assignments we are doing. If the work is similar, why should we not place workers with such an agency?

Pragmatically, with the kinds of skills of Mennonite workers who usually come, questions such as these may appear easy to answer: "We have people who want to work in this way, and it is work which we feel is appropriate. Why should we not get involved?" In the light of our discussion of the history and divisions in South Africa, however, the questions become more complex. We need to work especially at listening to those voices and groups in the church in South Africa that call the church to take a stand, based on the love of God for the poor, for those who are oppressed. These are usually black people, outside the structures of power.

Trying to listen especially to such groups does not mean that Mennonites may never work with institutions that might reflect other views of church and society. It does mean that we will be discerning in our involvements. Certainly it will mean wariness about involvement with structures that are government-based. It may also mean that involvement with programs of churches that support the present structures of society will include asking hard questions. It may mean consciously focusing Mennonite programs toward involvement with the now marginalized groups, those calling for a new order, those without a voice in the structures of power.

The specific kinds of program involvements we enter into will tend to be ordering ones. Each of the views of church in society tends to include elements of the others, and certainly those holding up the view of Christ as liberator and savior are also concerned with ordering. Often, however, their concern is with an alternative order and with a reconciliation that recognizes that alternative as a prerequisite.

Such groups are not easy to find -- or to work with -- for an agency coming into South Africa from the outside. A history of paternalism and dependency led to the black consciousness reaction, the emphasis on self-reliance and self-initiative, within South Africa's black community. Those very groups with which we have said contact is important, will often not welcome those who come with programs and answers. Alternatively, groups which are less conscious of the dangers of dependency and more welcoming of outside expertise and resourcing may tend also to be more distant from this black stance and more reluctant to question the current order. To say that this is always the case is too simplistic, but the possibility reinforces the need to move slowly and carefully.

Again our stance toward program involvement in South Africa must be one of listening, of building relationships and then of being ready to respond with involvement where appropriate. Such a careful, listening stance sometimes makes it difficult for Mennonite workers to describe to a North American constituency what they are doing in South Africa. However, it does build toward the future by establishing relationships that reinforce local initiative and ownership and that build confidence for stronger communities.

Who interprets South Africa for us?

In September 1986, Coretta Scott King, widow of American civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., paid a visit to South Africa. The visit was planned to include meetings with people from a broad spectrum of South African life so that Mrs. King could better understand the many complexities of the South African situation and express her interest in reconciliation. She was to visit outspoken anti-apartheid church leaders such as Rev. Allan Boesak and Bishop Desmond Tutu. She would also listen to Chief Buthelezi, a black leader willing to work within current government structures, and South Africa State President P.W. Botha. Talking to all sides seemed to an outsider to be a rational way both to gather information and to represent the path of reconciliation.

From within South Africa, however, the tour looked different. South Africa receives countless international figures on such tours. Each makes the rounds through various communities, listens to persons of differing viewpoints, shares words of wisdom along the way, then boards the plane, perhaps just as the next person arrives. Rev. Boesak and Bishop Tutu refused to see Mrs. King if tour plans were conducted in this way. The situation was too serious for this kind of polite willingness to sit down with all sides. "The blood of our children is on their hands," was their response. "We cannot treat this as just some domestic squabble."

The issue at stake here is not that certain people should not be heard. Bishop Tutu especially has tried to maintain a public openness to dialogue with people across the many divisions in South Africa. This openness has even led some to question his credibility as a black leader and spokesperson. The question is rather, in this instance, a call for outside groups and individuals to respect the urgency of this time in South Africa. The time for polite chats is past.

To whom one listens is an important question in today's South Africa. Although black South Africans have been denied an established democratic process, leaders have arisen who have been acknowledged by large numbers of people as speaking authentically for them. Within the church, such leadership has at times been within, and at times outside of, established structures.

As Christians, we are part of a fellowship which extends across national or racial boundaries. We cannot allow such boundaries to determine for us whom we will call our neighbor. We have earlier raised the question of who the authentic church leaders are to whom we must be accountable in our work. But this question may be stated more broadly. Within the church in South Africa are both oppressors and oppressed, those who bless the status quo and those who suffer under or work to change it. As people from outside, do we approach the South African church like Coretta Scott King, listening equally to all voices? To what extent do we, or must we, give more weight to some? Who interprets South Africa for us?

We tend to hear most easily those who are most like us. A European Mennonite leader toured South Africa briefly several years ago, meeting with a variety of people, black and white. His report praised several of the more evangelical, white people for having a "balanced" view of the situation, in contrast to the anger he heard from some younger black church workers. One who stands somewhat outside a situation of conflict finds it is easier to maintain an ideal of neutrality. Doing so is more difficult for Mennonite workers who involve themselves in the lives of people in South Africa. From this vantage point a stance of "neutrality," of equally listening to all points of view, is also choosing to take a side.

We must pay special attention in South Africa today to the voice that sees Christ as liberator and savior. Not that this is the easiest voice for us to listen to; it is not. The reason is also not that it is the voice of the majority of the people or that it is the strongest movement in recent history, although this may be true. Ultimately, our reason for listening to that voice must stem from our conviction that a full and free life is the life to which God calls all people, and that a life of shalom is bound up in justice for the meek of the earth. Jesus was not so much tempted to join the collaborators, the Sadducees, those who were willing to excuse the current order and at times even defend it. Rather, Jesus was attracted to the Zealots. While he rejected their call to violent overthrow, Jesus was at times understood to be a Zealot because he spoke for the poor of his society.

Following the example of Jesus in South Africa today does not mean a refusal to hear or relate to people from various parts or segments of the church. We need to hear and understand the stories of those who see the church as preserver of tradition and Christ as primarily orderer, as we need to hear from those for whom Christ stands primarily as mediator between individuals. But in South Africa we must choose especially to understand the South African situation through those who suffer. We must give special weight to the voices which see Christ as savior and champion of justice for the poor. We may not always agree with those who hold that view or with their tactics, but they are the group to which we must listen especially carefully as we try to understand South Africa.