Early in 1986 Desmond Tutu, then the Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg, met with South African President P. W. Botha to discuss the deepening crisis in the country. Schools were hardly functioning, scores of people were being detained, levels of violence were increasing, and the government's attempts at reform were not addressing the basic injustices of the society. Although he was criticized by many blacks for even trying to talk to the government, the bishop felt that keeping channels for communication open was important -- even while not expecting such a meeting to change much. As he came away from the meeting, the bishop was asked what they had talked about.

"Well," he answered with a smile, "We agreed on a few things. We agreed that we are both South Africans. And we agreed that we are both Christians. You're laughing. But those are more important than you think."

What does it mean to be a Christian in the midst of social upheaval and struggle? What is the role of the church in a society caught up in change? The divisions run right through the church. Both the white minority government and many of its most outspoken opponents claim to be Christian, and both have appealed to their faith as a reason for their actions. What does the unity of the church mean in such a complex and divided society? What does it mean that P.W. Botha and Bishop Tutu are both Christians?

The struggle for a just society in South Africa is not new, although it has recently received renewed attention from the rest of the world. South Africa's conflicts are rooted in 300 years of history and in a tangle of economic and social relationships. This struggle is also part of the larger phenomenon of the rise of poorer nations determined to take control of their own lives. The poorer countries of Latin America, Asia and Africa, long under the thumb of the colonial empires and dominant economies of the West and North, are determined to assert themselves. Along with this need, in recent years, has come a new awareness on the part of Christians in these countries that the Bible is relevant to their condition. The gospel is being read as empowering in a special way the under-priviledged and the poor. In South Africa, such thinking has been called "black consciousness," and its parallel in the church, "black theology." It provides much of the undergirding for the present opposition to the government's policy on apartheid.

But the church has been in South Africa since long before the advent of black consciousness. It is the one common factor in all aspects of the society; black and white, rich and poor, the government and its opponents all belong to the church. The church is common to all segments of South African society, but it has also played a role in the society's divisions. The government appeals to the Bible to justify apartheid while its opponents find support in the Bible for their opposition. This is not to say that the church is the only factor shaping South Africa; the mix of factors includes economic ones. But in South African society the church is one important component. The church's views of the just ordering of society and the role it chooses to play are important factors in South Africa.

The church in South Africa is divided. It is divided by ethnic and racial allegiances and by languages. It is also divided in its view of its own role in society. And it is divided on what reconciliation would look like in South Africa. The different ways the South African church has viewed its role in society grow to a great extent out of South Africa's history, and we will need to examine that history in subsequent chapters.

But differences in self-definition may also help to illustrate the divisions within the South African church. No one church or Christian may fit exclusively into one category. The purpose of these definitions, however, is not so much to separate people or groups categorically as it is to begin to understand the dynamics of the South African church.

What follow are four differing views of the role of the church in South African society. Three of the four views are in some sense active; proponents of each assume that the church or Christians do have a role to play, that Christians must in some way be involved or responsible members of society. They differ on what the involvement should be.

The fourth view, held by some Christians and churches in South Africa, would say that the church should have no involvement in the structuring of society, that this is outside the church's realm. For these groups, Christ and the church are concerned primarily with spiritual salvation and well-being or with an individual's problems or joys. They might dismiss a suggestion that Christianity has something to say about a just society or the way one lives in the world as inappropriate because it would be introducing politics into religion.

As with the three main stances described below, persons holding to this fourth view can be found within all church denominations. It is most clearly represented today in certain newly formed independent groups, such as the predominantly white, charismatic, faith healing groups, the Rhema or Hatfield Churches. These groups are on the fringes of the South African church, but although they may not specially deal with this question, in practice they would tend to fit into our second type, that of Christ as orderer of society. While concentrating on the problems of individuals, they tend to assume that the larger social order is a given. "If God wanted things to be different, God would change them; the church doesn't need to concern itself with such matters." For these churches or Christians, not choosing turns out to be a choice for the status quo.

The views described in more detail below are not a complete description of the churches in South Africa. While some church traditions fit more clearly into one or another of these views, the categories really cut across denominational lines. Taken together, they are helpful in understanding the differences within the South African church or the church's role in society. They are also helpful in thinking about the meaning of reconciliation. As Mennonites seek to work in the Southern African context, we have described ourselves as trying especially to support efforts of reconciliation. Reconciliation is what proponents of three of the four views would agree South Africa needs. But what reconciliation means may differ considerably, as may the ways in which one works for it. As we work in South Africa, we must recognize these differences.

The church as a leader in the struggle for change: Christ as savior and liberator

The view of the church as a leader in the liberation struggle is most closely identified with "black theology," which gained prominence in the 1970s, but it is not confined to black South Africans. In fact, the church as a leader in lifting up a people's societal position was characteristic of the rise of white Afrikaner nationalism in the early to mid-20th century, as the Afrikaners sought to strengthen themselves against British domination. However, in the current ferment within South African society this view has become prominent.

Theologically, this view of the church is influenced by the liberation theology which has developed in Latin America and elsewhere. A reading of the Bible from the vantage point of poverty or oppression places emphasis on God's partiality toward the poor; God's liberating acts such as the Exodus and Jesus' many acts are in solidarity with those on the bottom rungs of society. The church should take on the role of Jesus or the Old Testament prophets in denouncing injustice in the name of God.

Pressure on the South African church to take on the role of leader and spokesperson for change also comes from its milieu. The majority of Christians in South Africa are black, and so the church is victim of injustice and apartheid. Historically, as political organizations have been banned or suppressed, the church has been the one available forum in which blacks could express their anger and aspirations. But many have also given up on the church as not having been true to its calling. Young people especially, in today's increasingly militant atmosphere, are writing off the church as irrelevant because Christians have not been willing to be radical in denouncing injustice. While the church remains important, as shown by the prominence of certain black church leaders, increasing numbers sense that the momentum towards liberation resides elsewhere and that the church is merely responding to it rather than leading it. Nonetheless, in this view, the church needs to indicate clearly which side it stands on in the struggle.

Christians who call for the church to stand with blacks in their struggle against apartheid differ on the question of the use of violent means in this struggle. Many use the just-war doctrine which has long been part of Christian tradition to argue in favor of a justified use of violence in countering the structural violence of apartheid. However, to claim that this view of the church's role in society means that Christians must engage in acts of violence is an over-simplification. Many Christians are working for change using nonviolent strategies of resistance such as boycotts, strikes or developing alternative structures.

Allan Boesak, a leader in the Reformed Church, expresses well the meaning of reconciliation in such a context:

Reconciliation is not feeling good; it is coming to grips with evil. In order to reconcile, Christ had to die. We must not deceive ourselves. Reconciliation does not mean holding hands and singing: 'black and white together.' It means, rather, death and suffering, giving up one's life for the sake of the other" (Boesak, 1984: 29).

The church as protector of faith and tradition: Christ as the orderer of society

The view of the church as protector of tradition, of Christ as an ordering force in society, has been dominant throughout most of Christian history. In South Africa this view may be most readily identified with the mainstream church denominations and as typical of white, Western theology (as opposed to "black" or "liberation" theology), though to say that its adherents are only whites would be an over-simplification. Its most classic expression is in the concept of Christendom, in which church and state are allied in the ordering of the society. More recently, as the state has become secular in most Western (formerly "Christian") countries, holders of this view have spoken of the church's responsibility toward the society and toward helping to shape the governmental structures.

Because of its long standing in church history, the theological roots of this view of the church's role are many. The doctrine of creation shows God as the source of order and structure. The Roman Catholic tradition appeals to natural law, a basic commonality among all people, while Protestants may stress the calling or sphere within society to which each person is assigned by God. The Pauline writings of the New Testament are often appealed to for their view of the Christian within the role assigned by the society (slave or master, husband or wife, obedient citizen). The church supports the order of society, and thus preserves both society and its own traditions.

Those for whom this is the correct view of the church's role would differ on the extent to which it requires the church to support every action of the government. In South Africa the clearest examples of such support are the white Dutch Reformed churches. These churches have not only acquiesced to the state's ideology of apartheid but have actively buttressed it with scriptural and theological argument. The church blesses the activity of government while the government admonishes the church to tend to its own sphere. That the church would in any substantial way criticize the government is not dreamt of: in the words of one Afrikaner, "I know that some people aren't treated fairly, but you can't disobey the government -- that's not biblical."

The South African government would see itself as cooperating with the churches. The role of any government is an ordering one, but few governments in today's world refer so consistently to themselves as God's instruments as do the South Africans. In its constitution, the government sees itself as having been uniquely formed by God's providence, and government spokespersons refer frequently to their task of protecting "Christian values" and "Christian civilization" against the forces of communism and black nationalism. From the government's point of view, then, the churches should recognize it as an ally and should support its actions; churches or Christians which do not, are not being true to their faith and their God.

With the exception of the white Dutch Reformed churches, the churches of South Africa tend not to play the role the government thinks they should. Even so, many of them would hold this general view of the church's role in society. Those who hold the church's sphere to be completely separate from that of the political or social realm fit into this view by virtue of their silent consent or fatalistic acceptance of the present order. Even those churches that are in many ways outspoken in their abhorrence of apartheid but that encourage working within present structures to bring about a more just society might fit here, albeit a trifle uneasily.

If the role of the church is that of protector, and if the given structure of society is something ordained by God, then reconciliation will have a meaning which fits into this ordering. Again, Paul's call to persons to be reconciled within their social settings is here read to mean that reconciliation has to do with accepting one's given role in life. Reconciliation means fitting gladly into one's role, as something given by God. Rather than wanting change or appealing to a new vision of the future, this view calls Christians to live godly lives within structures as they now are, with the assumption that, although not perfect, they are God-given. If Christians speak out against injustice, they can do so only within the channels that are in existence.

The church as a middle way: Christ as resolver of conflict and confusion

We have seen that two current and conflicting views of the church would call it either to buttress society as it stands or to lead the fight against it toward a new order. While these views take opposing political bases, they are also similar in that both see the church as closely related to the political process. A third view, also prevalent in South Africa, tends to distance the church from the political realm to a greater extent, although it can be asked whether such distancing is in fact actually possible. This view sees the church as standing apart from or outside of the current societal conflict in South Africa precisely so that the church will be able to play a mediating role in relationship to it. The intention is not to ignore the conflict.

Although, like other views described above, this view of the church as a mediator can be found within all of the denominations, it is most clearly exemplified by the more evangelical groups in South Africa. The evangelical attitude toward society and social change tends to focus on the individual, so that rather than trying to change structures or becoming involved in the political arena, the goal of Christians is to convert individuals. Once enough individuals' hearts are changed or converted, societal change will follow.

The temptation of those who hold this view is to use it as an escape from the responsibility of shaping society in favor of too easy a concentration on personal sin and personal salvation. But holding to this orientation need not mean a lack of concern about injustice or social problems and needs, although it will mean a somewhat different strategy for working at these problems.

One of the best examples of a group that holds this view is Africa Enterprise, a South African-based organization for mass evangelism. Africa Enterprise is involved in various ways in the social problems of South Africa, including feeding schemes in the poor housing areas near its headquarters. Its staff is both multi-racial and inter-denominational, so it sees itself as a sign of the reconciliation that is possible. Recently, Africa Enterprise launched a National Initiative for Reconciliation, with the goal of having Christians meet and pray together for repentance and reconciliation throughout South Africa.

The National Initiative is a good example of the way in which those who see Christ as Mediator would work to overcome injustice in South Africa. Because of its emphasis on individual conversion, this view tends to consider reconciliation mostly in terms of individual people coming together. If people with opposing views or from different levels of society or different racial groups can come together and really hear each other's stories, it is felt change should result. Proponents of this view tend to place great stock in meetings or forums where black and white Christians, or Dutch Reformed and Catholic people, or government officials and those who oppose them can come together and worship Christ. Talking together, and especially worshiping together, in itself has a salvific quality. They believe it is important that the church keep in touch with those on all sides in a conflict and try to get them to come together as people. The church must avoid choosing one side or another as the most authentic or right, as our other two views tend to do; to do so would be to forfeit the posture of mediator and agent through which persons from all sides can come together and be reconciled.

The differing views of the church in society which we have described above are found throughout the world, but their distinctiveness and their importance are seen especially clearly in South Africa. In a land of great divisions and of conflict, of oppression and of resistance, the churches are also divided. Some voices call for the church to take sides in today's struggle, while for others the church must never be on one side or the other. The churches talk about reconciliation, but they are divided too on what reconciliation looks like.