Go to the people I send you to, and tell them everything I command you to say. Do not be afraid of them, for I will be with you to protect you. I, the Lord, have spoken! (Jeremiah l:7f)

The late Rev Joseph Wing of the United Congregational Church said that "around the time that the Council was being constituted we were confronted with a serious crisis in the country. It was felt that a strong statement had to be made on theological grounds regarding the position of the Church in relation to the totalitarian stance the State was taking increasingly, especially after the assassination of Verwoerd and with BJ Vorster becoming Prime Minister. His attitude was a threatening one to say the least.

"The Council felt that it really had to identify the theological issues that were present in the whole South African situation and to oppose apartheid not only on pragmatic grounds but also on theological grounds."

The message was not a document of the SACC alone. Like all the theological declarations that were to follow down the years it was the work of a number of groups and individuals. The SACC played a crucial facilitating role but can not claim credit itself for the content of the message or any such declarations that followed.

The message came out of a Theological Commission put together originally by both the CCSA and the Christian Institute. A number of theologians discussed and debated a theological position in the apartheid situation until agreeing upon the final content of the message.

It arises inevitably out of the same kind of thinking that brought the SACC into existence. This is the thinking that puts Church and mission together, places faith and action side by side.

So the message examined the word of God not simply in terms of personal salvation but in relation to the social and political situation of the country. "This gospel of Jesus Christ offers hope and security for the whole life of man, not just in man's spiritual and ecclesiastical relationships, but for human existence in its entirety."

"In South Africa," it said, "everyone is expected to believe that a man's racial identity is the most important thing about him." It went on to show the gospel as that which transcends such differences and that "The Christian Gospel declares that separation (from God and from one another) is the supreme threat and danger, but that in Christ it has been overcome.

The message ended with a number of questions on "first loyalty and primary commitment" for "every Christian person in the country."

At the 1968 meeting it was agreed that the Council "receives the draft Message to the people of South Africa, authorises its reference to the Theological Commission for revision and publication in the name of the Council. It further resolves that individual Christians be invited to sign the document as an expression of their Christian commitment and that the member Churches of the Council be invited to give it serious consideration."

The message seems small in the context of the huge monolithic structure of apartheid. But it did have an impact. Here was the first attempt of the fledgling Council, and its allies, to speak to the nation at large about Gospel values.

One of the first members of staff to be appointed to the SACC was the Rev John de Gruchy, now Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Cape Town and well known author of a number of theological books with special reference to South Africa. His appointment in September 1968 as Director of Publications and Ecumenical Studies, later to be known as Director of Communications and Studies, meant that the task of distributing the message fell mainly on his shoulders.

By January 1969 fifty thousand English copies of the "Message to the People of South Africa" had been printed and distributed and there were Afrikaans, Xhosa, Zulu, Portuguese and German editions in circulation as well. By the following month a 72 page book "The Message in Perspective" was published. This put together press comments, Church statements, correspondence on the Church and politics, controversy it had engendered and articles on the theological issues raised in the message. (For those interested in increasing costs the book sold for 75 cents a copy!)

The theological interest and prolific writing skills of John de Gruchy helped keep the Message before the Churches for a considerable length of time. Many would, no doubt, have been happy to have seen it quickly forgotten, but that was not to be.

It received continual coverage in KAIROS, a monthly SACC magazine edited by John de Gruchy until he left the Council in 1973 and then continued for a number of years by his successor, the Rev Axel-Ivar Berglund. The Christian Institute magazine "Pro Veritate" also followed up in ensuring that the message was not forgotten. It was also continually brought to the attention of Churches through pamphlets and letters to remind denominations, local Churches and individual Christians to take its content seriously.

The Media

But the message received most of its publicity through the generally critical media reporting. Reports on radio and in newspapers were not enthusiastic or supportive, but they did notice it and talk about it. SABC radio (there was no television in South Africa at that time) was especially critical, thus starting what was to be a twenty five year propaganda battle against the SACC. Every opportunity was used to depict the Council and its successive General Secretaries as misguided liberals at best and communist terrorists at worst.

As proof of the communications maxim that there is no such thing as bad publicity, the message was heard throughout the country if only through that critical reporting.

The Prime Minister, John Vorster, heard it. His response was to tell the Churches to "cut it out" and stick to preaching the gospel in the pulpit. A form of response to the Churches that was often used by the authorities in the years to follow.

A group of twelve Church leaders, of whom the Rev Joseph Wing was one, entered into correspondence with the Prime Minister. Correspondence which Joseph Wing described as "very heated at one stage", and which led to nothing of more value than expressing viewpoints.

Some of the Churches not only heard it, but debated it and passed their own resolutions. Not enough, evidently, for in the first National Conference of the SACC, held in Port Elizabeth in 1969, a resolution was passed requesting "its member Churches and member bodies to express its mind in favour of, or against, the principals underlying the 'Message to the People of South Africa' before the next Annual Conference. But it seems that all the responses that were going to be made had in fact a1ready been made. No other group or Church was to send a response to that next National Conference.

Outright support for the Message came from the Congregational, Methodist, and Anglican Churches who all commended it for study at local Church level and for members to sign. The Presbyterian Church's Church and Nation Committee suggested that the Message be a focal point for a denominational call for "reflection on the indignities and hardships which those who bear the burden of racial discrimination labour under in this country." The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) said that they had "never felt able to accept doctrinal statements" and went on to accept the challenge of the Message to "make visible the spirit of Christ in the life of our community"

The Federation of Evangelical Lutheran Churches said that "the theological reasoning of the message is open to criticism" and called for member Churches to study it.

It was the Baptist Union that produced the longest reply in which they began with a statement to say that "much of the theological reasoning and some of the conclusions are unacceptable." A number of reasons were mentioned as to why it was unacceptable, followed by a number of affirmations about the Union and its beliefs on the national life. This included points such as "although we are a professedly Christian nation, and in spite of much that is being done for the welfare of our non-white people, many of them have received an unfavourable impression of Christianity" and ".. our firm belief that in the sight of God all men and women are equal."

Following Year

The Baptist statement was issued by the Executive Committee of that Church with the "approval of the Annual Assembly" in October1968. The following year that same Assembly resolved to withdraw from the Council of Churches. An interesting aspect of this particular vote that led, after a number of years of observer membership, to a lack of any further contact up to this day between the Baptist Union and the SACC, is that it was taken despite a recommendation to the contrary by the Union's Executive.

The message had immediate effect upon the call made to the Dutch Reformed Church for a renewed relationship. The DRC stated that no relationship was possible unless "amends were made to certain passages in the message..." The SACC National Executive of March1971 thought the DRC had misunderstood the passage in question and suggested, yet again, that there be a meeting.

The Catholic Church, already an observer member of the SACC, approached the Message with caution although displaying a great deal of agreement. The South African Catholic Bishops said, "... the Conference gratefully recognises the document as a prophetic summons to all Christians and Churches to reform their lives according to the Gospel and to apply the precept of Christian love of all men in a truly effective way both in their individual lives and in their communities, whether ecclesia or secular, not allowing any ideology of nation or race to take precedence over the Gospel."

The statement went on to say that the Bishops thought the South African situation was more complex than appears to be recognised in the message, and that some of the theology could not be adopted because it proceeds "from a tradition and outlook different from the Catholic one."

Ecumenical Study

"Nevertheless, it wholeheartedly endorsed the substance and aims of the Message and accepts it as a basis for further ecumenical study and action."

The Synod of the Archdiocese of Durban of the Catholic Church was much more direct in its endorsement. Perhaps this is not surprising with Archbishop Dennis Hurley in charge. In December 1968 it passed a resolution "That this Synod accepts and endorses the Message to the People of South Africa issued by the South African Council of Churches·"

The statement suggested the message be read from all pulpits throughout the diocese on the same Sunday, and that all groups represented at the Synod "be urged to study the contents of the message." The statement finally asked the Commission for Justice and Peace to give attention to the message "with a view to drawing up a plan by which the contents of the message might be translated into effective action."

It is this final suggestion that highlighted the dilemma facing many who agreed with the contents of the message. What do we do now? How can the message be fulfilled in some form of action?

The Rondebosch Congregational Church voiced this need In their local Church resolution about the message.

The Church Meeting expressed thanks to the Council for "its timely document." Their statement went on to accept that "we bear a responsibility for the situation," and then reminded their readers that the racial discrimination and injustice in South Africa "is pursued in the name of God, for the Constitution of the Republic begins with these words; 'The people of the Republic of South Africa acknowledge the sovereignty and guidance of God'" The statement went on to stress that "every man is equally precious to God regardless of colour, race, or cultural background" and then to commit the members of that Church to living "according to our belief in this matter as part of our Christian obedience and calling"

It is the final portion of the statement that points to the same dilemma. They knew that the apartheid structure was wrong and, although the word had not been used yet had some inclination to look upon it as a heresy. The question was what to do about it. So the statement ends, "Though we are uncertain as to what is our immediate task we affirm that we cannot condone policies as at present enforced In South Africa."

Denominations and local Churches were looking for some form of participative action to translate the words of the message Into deeds.

The SACC staff at that time was small and the Council was not able of itself to offer programmes for such deeds. The major programmes offering many opportunities for practical participation in Council activities were still to come.

At the beginning, apart from Bishop Burnett and the Rev John de Gruchy there were five other members of staff. These were Administrative Secretary, Ms Ruth Schoch, assisted by Ms Irene Meadows; the Director of the Inter-Church Aid Programme, the Rev Clifford Welch; Literature Secretary, the Rev Derrick Cuthbert; and the Director of Christian Education and Home and Family Life, the Rev John Tau. That was the complete staff of the SACC. (It needs to be mentioned that Ms Meadows is still a member of the SACC staff having served it faithfully throughout all the 25 years.)

The need to put words into actions was very strongly felt. The Theological Commission was given the task of working on the practical implications of the message and very soon presented the Council, the Christian Institute and the Churches with the challenging "Study Project on Christianity in an Apartheid Society (SPROCAS).

The Sprocas Publications

Before deciding upon any name, the Theological Commission, through the Council and the Christian Institute, set up study groups to examine the social, legal, political, economic, educational and ecclesiastical implications arising from the message.

The Commission also appointed a full time executive-secretary, later to be called Director, Mr Peter Randall, who had been Assistant-Director of the South African Institute of Race Relations. Mr Randall was appointed by both the Council and the Christian Institute to head the joint project.

The sense of urgency that surrounded the study, together with the energy put into the project, was soon evident in reports from the Director and as the plan for a series of study volumes began to emerge. The project was given a two year life span by which time each commission, as the original six groups were now called, would have published at least one study publication.

KAIROS of August 1969 says that the study commissions were "the most representative group of South Africans ever brought together to study our country's problems." More than 140 persons were involved in SPROCAS through membership of commissions or as specialist consultants.

The list of names of those involved contained many that were, and are, well known. KAIROS lists "stalwarts" like Edgar Brookes, Alan Paton, Dr W F Nkomo and Sir Richard Luyt. It also mentions the "brightest and most able younger people in our universities and professions" including Francis Wilson, David Welsh, John Dugard, Lawrence Schlemmer, Dennis Worall, and Andre Brink. The Church Commission included Bishop Burnett, the Rev John Davies, an Anglican University Chaplain who was later denied returned access to South Africa, Lutheran Dean Jim Knutson, the Rev John de Gruchy, Mr Peter Randall, the Rev John Tau and a name that was later going to be synonymous with the SACC, the Rev Desmond Tutu.

There was missionary doctor Anthony Barker, United Party Member of Parliament Japie Basson, Professor Kgware of the University of the North, educational expert Franz Auerbach, and sociologist at Stellenbosch University, Frederik van Zyl Slabbert.

Through what was termed "the pressures of the South African situation" many African, Coloured and Indian leaders were not able to take part and there is no doubt that this was eventually a great loss to the SPROCAS publications. But with that limitation it certainly could be called as representative a group of South Africans as was possible and the results of their labours were outstanding.

Recommended Reading

The material was dramatic and of high standard. Although originally planning to publish only the six completed reports, the SPROAS organisers began the flow of material instead with a number of booklets containing a selection from the large volume of working documents prepared for the various commissions. "The Anatomy of Apartheid" was first off the press and drew much attention. It will rank as one of the recommended, if not compulsory, readings for any serious student of South African social, political, or cultural history.

Indeed the complete set of SPROCAS publications stand today as a creative and prophetic record of South African history. Many of the issues raised at that time are the ones that face the nation now in the period of transition. Perhaps this is the time, almost twenty five years later, to take the books down from the shelves, blow off the dust and put some of their suggestions Into practice.

In 1971 only two of the planed reports, "Education beyond Apartheid" and "Towards Social Change" were published in both English and Afrikaans. The SPROCAS project was extended for a two year period, with an enlarged staff including Bennie Khoapa, Danie van Zyl and Neville Curtis, in a changed structural form allowing for more autonomy and with a changed use of the acronym to "Special Project for Christian Action in Society."

During that two year period SPROCAS extended to publication of books other than those originally planned. These included volumes that will be recorded as classic South African literature such as James Matthews' "Cry Rage", Steve Biko's "Black Viewpoint", Francis Wilson's "Migrant Labour in South Africa", and the final full report of the SPROCAS project, Peter Randall's "A Taste of Power."

The Church Commission's report "Apartheid and the Church" received wide publicity. Its colourful cover photo of a young bearded cleric playing a guitar getting as much comment as any of the contents!

Once again it raised in public the issue of the Church and politics, a sure recipe to get the Broadcasting Corporation, some newspapers, politicians, and members of the public reacting.

The anticipated critical reactionary reception was tempered in some newspapers by serious comment. The Pretoria News, for example, said that the Commission "has added what could be crucial material to a ferment of thought from which new South African attitudes promise to emerge." The Rand Daily Mail and the Cape Argus also agreed that the Commission report was worthy of serious study.

In the Church newspapers it, obviously, received an even greater reception. Anglican Bishop John Carter writing in Seek said, "Here, then, is the stuff for Synods, Parish Councils, and Christians who are not afraid of the truth." And Professor Ben Marais of the University of the Witwatersrand was quoted in Pro Veritate as saying. "! wish I had a way of making 100 000 South Africans read this volume."

The SPROCAS project was also a scene of Church and State conflict and a sign of more to come in harassment and hindrances on the part of the authorities. There were battles with the Publications Control Board and the arbitrary banning of many of those who wrote for the project. Fr Cosmos Desmond, Dr Rick Turner and Mr Steve Biko were among those whose banning orders meant that they could no longer be quoted.

The loss of finance, creative energy and effort through the enforced destruction of books, reprints which omitted offending passages, and the outright banning of some materials, was enormous. The final list of twenty five publications in the four year history is testament to the courage and determination of Peter Randall and all who worked with him on the SPROCAS project.

Looking back at SPROCAS, Bishop Peter Storey suggests, "That was really the first visionary attempt to envisage a South Africa free of apartheid. It was a remarkable thing to be doing at that time when one realises that the worst years were yet ahead. That was a very very prophetic action and the content of the documentation that came out of SPROCAS Is secondary to the fact that again it was a statement to the world that apartheid would end. Without any question, we were all confident about that and we did have a theological, sociological, educational and economic vision.

A vision indeed and to quote the Pretoria News once again, "crucial material ... from which new South African attitudes promise to emerge." But the SPROCAS material did not produce those promised new attitudes and, despite the quality of material and the nationwide publicity, the project was unable to reach the hearts and minds of the white population it was intended to confront.

The Rev Joseph Wing said, in a typically British understatement, "I think these reports have never been given the consideration which they really merited." He went on to add that, as happened with a number of documents produced In South Africa, the SPROCAS books had a wider impact overseas. He then suggested that "the whole SPROCAS endeavour unfortunately seemed to lose steam partly because we were overtaken by other events during this period."

The "other events" included the 1970 announcement of the World Council's Programme to Combat Racism which brought a new dimension into the apartheid struggle for the country in general and the Churches in particular. But we are running too far ahead!

Formative Years

To understand the response to the Programme to Combat Racism there is need to recognise what was being established in those first formative years of the Council.

Bishop Burnett speaks lightly of his time with the Council but there is no doubt about the tremendous influence he had upon the course it set for itself and which it followed. His disappointments with the Churches' response to the "Message to the People of South Africa" and the SPROCAS material would help him leave the position of General Secretary after only a short stay of less than two years from the time when the SACC itself was constituted. That and his love for pastoral ministry meant that when, in his own words, he was "yanked back to become Bishop of Grahamstown" he was only too willing to make the move. "I was becoming a routine organiser" he says. "My pastoral ministry was hindered because I was expected to be doing a job at an office and that is not what I felt I was ordained to do. So when the opportunity for pastoral work came I took it. I do not regret it at all."

A short period of time, but his three year secretaryship, from 1967 to 1969, saw the start of a new era in the ecumenical movement in South Africa. He established the initial structure upon which the Council was to grow and infused the SACC with a new energy and life that lifted it from being a passive respondent on the issues raised by others to being a significant proactive Christian body with its own positive position in the country

Guidance of God

Bishop Burnett was a symbol that the Council belonged to the Churches of South Africa, that its days of overseas mission domination were over and that its agenda was to be set under the guildance of God by the people of this land.

The Council made it clear from the start that the total needs of the whole nation were to be judged by the standards of the Gospel of Christ. This included that area of politics that many politicians and those who favoured the status quo wished to be left alone.

At the 1968 Conference it was clearly stated, "Since we believe that Jesus Christ is the Lord of all life the Church would fail in its duty if it did not encourage all its members to participate responsibly in the right ordering of society. Its ordained ministry is bound also to seek to give scriptural guidance in the application of the Gospel to social problems. We, therefore, warmly endorse resolution no.6 of the recent Lutheran Ecumenical Reformed Synod which reads as follows: 'In the proclamation of the Word, the Church, to whom has been entrusted the message of Christ's Kingdom should speak courageously and relevantly on the issues of the day, both for the edification and correction of her members and, where necessary, in criticism of the activities and policies of governments and organisations.'"

The foundation was laid for the ensuing battle between Church and State. In military terms, the 'colours" were now well and truly nailed to the mast. There certainly could be no misunderstanding of the stand the Churches of the SACC were decisively agreed to hold together relating to the system of apartheid.

Holding together was also important. If Bishop Burnett was a symbol of the Council belonging to the Churches, then through the Council the Churches belonged to each other in a new way. The common enemy of the evil apartheid structure united the Churches together in a common purpose that formed the priority of Christian mission in South Africa for many years. In expressing the unity of all people under God the member Churches of the Council began to discover the joys and problems of unity among themselves.

In this the South African Churches were catching up with the rest of the world in exploring the meaning of the faith in a world filled with division and inequalities. And like others in the world the SACC was also having to face the criticisms, later to become deliberate hostility, of those who felt threatened by this form of Churchmanship.

But the strong theological basis of those early days helped then and throughout the years for the Council to stand firmly for its beliefs. The members knew that the convictions about unity among themselves and the need for the country to know and experience that unity of equality as God's people was not a blueprint that they had drawn up for themselves or a simple ideal that they had chosen from among many. It was, and remains, an aspect of the revelation of God in Christ that no one can defeat or deny.