Ÿþm Icrosoft W
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
x% i L x% i L I Ii Fffil I I It's time for churches to stand up and be counted WHO IS BACKI CHANGE IS BACKING The debate over support for violence to bring about fundamental change in South Africa has long been obscured by complex and (sometimes deliberately) confusing dialogue. The time has come when the simple question must be asked: precisely where do the Anglican and Catholic churches, in particular, stand on this issue? And, furthermore, if violence is abhorred in principle, what of church support, overt and covert, for organisations openly committed to the so-called "armed struggle"? Christian South Africans and the West are receiving conflicting signals. The Anglican and Catholic churches in SA have not yet expressed themselves on the question of violence - thereby giving some clergymen the latitude to speak their own minds on the subject. The same applies to the issue of sanctions and disinvestment. Some church newsletters now talk of "using only enough force to repel the aggressor (and) to take up arms ... can only be used when all peaceful negotiations have failed..." (The Southern Cross Catholic newspaper, August 10, 1986.) Do some church leaders already believe that all peaceful negotiations have failed in South Africa? Clarion Call is aware, for instance, of interviews given by the Catholic Archbishop of Durban, Denis Hurley, in which he has expressed his opinion that violence is inevitable. Archbishop Hurley also openly identifies himself with an organisation, the United NG PEACEFUL AND WHO THE ANC ? Democratic Front, which tolerates proviolence elements among its supporters. The Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, The Most Rev Desmond Tutu, (a Nobel Peace Prize laureate) has in numerous published interviews stated quite clearly that he believes that "non-violence calls have not worked..." Archbishop Tutu has openly (and divisively) called for support for the External Mission of the African National Congress (ANC) which is committed to the violent overthrow of the SA Government and receives arms and ammunition from the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc for this purpose. In doing so Archbishop Tutu has given his personal blessing for this organisation whose officially stated aim is to kill people for political gain. In an interview in Johannesburg on August 22 (Sapa reports), he made it clear that " .. when I speak, I speak as Desmond Tutu." He has also talked of a "just war" and, in an interview reported by Reuters from a religious festival he attended in Powys, Wales, Archbishop Tutu was quoted as saying that should he one day give support for violence " . it would be a merely traditional position of the church that it is justifiable for Christians to overthrow an unjust dispensation..." Apartheid is evil and the policies of the SA Government are unjust. But is it too late for decency and democracy to prevail? Is bloodshed really all that is left? There is overwhelming evidence that the majority of black South Africans and a significant number of whites want to work towards ing power in this country. They want inciliation and are prepared to work Lrds peaceful change -ials past and present of the South can Council of Churches make no et of their support for the pro-violence rnal Mission of the ANC and in various ;ultations with church bodies abroad . rly ask for financial and other support' he ANC. This is documented further on is issue. h African church bodies (like the C) and individual clergymen call for ivestment and sanctions. When Ien die because sanctions and ivestment have robbed parents of jobs the ability to feed their families, is not a form of violence? rch leaders including Archbishop Tutu the Rev Allan Boesak claim within h Africa and abroad that blacks "are )ared to suffer.. "' What mandate do ibishop Tutu and Rev Boesak have Lthe broad mass of black South :ans td say this? ugust a 20-year-old mother ofthree was n a suspended sentence by a Rand reme Court judge for infanticide after g found guilty of throwing her ghter into an overflow pipe shortly after was born. told the court that both she and her )and were unemployed and "... I saw only course open to me was causing ieath of ny baby. I placed her 10 ites old and still living in the manhole (The Star, August 5, 1986). is the stark reality of the kind of Eering" Archbishop Tutu supports. re is no record that we can find of a le church diocese supporting lions and disinvestment. Has ibishop Tutu ever polled the general ibership of the Anglican church to ask , opinion and wisdom on disinvestment sanctions? The organisation both he the Rev Allan Boesak support, the has also not polled its rank and file )orters - it is not membership based t these issues. answer is that they do NOT speak for majority of black South Africa. utterly amazing thing is that nowhere ad is this fact ever mentioned. ibishop Tutu and the Rev Boesak are ng, in effect, that black South Africans told them that they are prepared to !h their children die from starvation. they and their children also prepared re along with the black masses? Are these highly visible proponents of sanctions here and those abroad willing to accept responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of children who will be irreparably stunted and brain damaged through malnutrition? An independent and non-aligned welfare organisation, Operation Hunger, believes that an "Ethiopia- type catastrophe" faces South Africa. (Sowetan, August 20, 1986) More than 50 percent of all black South Africans are under 15 years of age. They are not wage earners. Blacks are cash dependent to feed, clothe, house and educate themselves. Already, more than 1,5 million blacks in SA are totally reliant on welfare and feeding schemes. Disinvestment and sanctions will mean the loss of thousands upon thousands of jobs. Not one black worker employed by a foreign firm is known to have voted with his feet in support of sanctions and left his job. Church leaders know this. Political leaders know this. So do others who have assumed the mantle of political leadership. There are few black South African leaders who are constituency-based politicians. There is only one mass political organisation, Inkatha, which is membershipbased and holds regular general elections for the appointment of its officials. Inkatha, with 1,3 million members, is vehemently opposed to apartheid and the racist policies of the SA Government. It does, however, believe in non-violence, negotiation and peaceful change. It has steadfastly refused to endorse the antiapartheid tactic of disinvestment and sanctions while, of course, continuing to work towards its goal of a united, democratic, non-racial, future for South Africa. Here you have 1,3 million members of a black organisation who have clearly articulated their views. This issue of Clarion Call reports on what church leaders, church organsations and others are actually saying about violence, sanctions and disinvestment. Information has been taken from official church documents as well as from church newspapers and newsletters, SA and international newspaper reports and other reliable sources. We believe that time has come for honesty in this debate. There has been enough obfuscation. The Editor Dissension in the ranks? THE ANGLICAN In July this year the Anglican Bishop of Natal, the Rt Rev Michael Nuttall, claimed that the views expressed by Bishop (now Archbishop) Desmond Tutu on sanctions, disinvestment and violence were in his "personal" capacity and did not represent those of the Anglican Church as a whole. The Anglican Church, Bishop Nuttall stressed, had not called for economic sanctions against South Africa and "... we grieve over every type of violence in our society.. :' Bishop Tutu had "called for sanctions in his personal capacity.. "' and had ''reasons'" for this which ought to be respected and not condemned. (Business Day, July 29, 1986 and The Citizen, July 30 Sapa reports.) He was commenting on an address made by the King of the Zulus, Goodwill Zwelithini, in which the King (an Anglican) was highly critical of various church endorsements for sanctions and warned of "preachers of the Gospel" increasingly being seen urging people to support the politics of desperation and the politics of violence "under the cloak of religion..." It should be noted that the King made no mention whatsoever of Bishop Tutu in his address and it was Bishop Nuttall who brought his name into the issue in his critical reply to the King's speech. There are more than two million Anglicans in South Africa of all races and Bishop Nuttall was obviously referring to stances of the Anglican Church in SA. Again in July, Anglican leaders in the United Kingdom voted. overwhelmingly for economic sanctions against South Africa. (The Natal Mercury, July 8, 1986, The Citizen, July 8, 1986 - Sapa and Associated Press reports). In York, Church of England leaders voted 394-21 with 12 abstentions after a three-hour debate at the regular summer session of the general synod the policy- making body of bishops, clergy and laity. At the synod meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, the spiritual head of the church and leader of the world's 70 million Anglicans, said he had received a personal telex from Bishop Tutu - then Bishop of Johannesburg. The Anglican Primate said Bishop Tutu had cabled: "Please, please help us. Thank you for your concern and caring about our situation. We know that justice and goodwill will prevail and that there is nothing they can do against the church of God. Not even hell can prevail against it:' The approved resolution from the church's board for social responsibility said that to help bring about a non-racial democratic South Africa the British Government should "deploy effective economic sanctions:' It said banks and business corporations should do everything they could, including withdrawing from the South African economy, to increase the pressure.