"You will speak all these words to my people, but they will not listen to you; you will call them, but they will not answer." (Jeremiah 7:27)

As the Council began to explore the full meaning of the word of God in the apartheid situation so its statements and resolutions began to reveal that exploration.

Such revelation came to the fore and in fact caused a furore when the National Conference of 1974 passed a resolution on the right of conscientious objection. Call up for national service was compulsory for all white males so the resolution, prepared and presented by white members of the Conference, spoke mainly to the white members of the Churches.

The resolution was long. It pointed to the way in which the "just war" policy was normally accepted by Churches, then to say that South Africa is "fundamentally unjust and discriminatory." It said that the military of South Africa was being prepared to defend the status quo of the nation, and that "it is hypocritical to deplore the violence of terrorists while we ourselves prepare to defend our society with its primary institutionalised violence by means of yet more violence."

The Conference went on to "deplore violence as a means to solve problems" and asked member Churches to "challenge all their members to consider ... whether Christ's call to take up the cross and follow Him ... does not, in our situation, involve becoming conscientious objectors." The resolution went on to ask Churches to examine the manner in which pastoral care was given not only to members of the South African Defence Force but also to those "at present in exile or under arms beyond our borders." The last two paragraphs contained a request for the SACC Task Force on Violence and Non-Violence to study methods of non-violent action, and a closing prayer for "the Government and people of South Africa."

The public media reaction was immediate and mostly critical. As pointed out by the General Secretary in a statement made just a few days after the Conference concluded, however, "the negative reaction has come so far from white media, white newspapers, white politicians and certain white Churchmen."

There were comments that the Council was unpatriotic, to which the Council responded, "We on our part yield to no one in our claim to love our land, but we are called .... to give our highest loyalty not to 'our country right or wrong' but to God and His Kingdom."

The Minister of Defence called Archbishop Hurley of the Catholic Church, who expressed support for the resolution, "a lackey of communism" and also said that "religious conviction should not be permitted to interfere with one's attitude to military service." The Council retorted that denying the sovereignty of God over every area of man's life was blasphemous.

It is strange that a number of the criticisms concluded that the contents proved once again that the SACC supported violent overthrow of the Government. This after a resolution on conscientious objection to violence!

The statement by the General Secretary began with " The Council has, and has always, rejected violence as a means of achieving change." The same statement concluded, "Finally we reiterate the Council's rejection of violence in all its forms." The main body of the statement, while refuting the various accusations made because of the decision, stated the position of the SACC once again on the issue of violence.

These included:

• The Council deplores "terrorism in all its forms."
• The Council stands for "justice and reconciliation and all efforts to bring about peaceful non-violent change..."
• The Council has warned that "institutionalised violence inherent in our society should be challenged and eradicated."

These were the principles that the Council operated on during all its years of opposition to the apartheid regime. They were not a false statement or a cover for covert operations, but the natural inference arising from the Word of God in the context of the South African situation. They did not come from opportunistic tacticians attempting to destroy an enemy, they came from deeply concerned Christians seeking to know what God wanted of them and all God's people in that particular moment of history.

In 1975 the National Conference noted the responses to the conscientious objection resolution and noted that all the member Churches had "either refused to dissociate themselves from it or came out in strong support of it."

Ten years later the then General Secretary, Bishop Desmond Tutu, mentioned the conscientious objection issue once again. By now the Government was considering a bill that would allow for religious conscientious objection by members of specific "Peace Churches" where the pacifist creed was written into their basic constitution.

"Why is the Government so worried about conscientious objection?" asked Bishop Tutu, "After all if the cause they espouse is just, then most would surely wish to support them. Are there ...nagging doubts about the rightness of their cause and that there might be many young white South Africans who don't want to die defending the indefensible?"

"We must insist", said Bishop Tutu, "that the Gospel of Jesus Christ demands that each person should obey his conscience and that this imperative implies an inalienable right to be able to do so. It is pernicious in the extreme for the state to force people to violate their consciences, especially for a state that claims to be Christian."

This last sentence points to the crux of the matter for many. The constitution of the country begins, as the Rondebosch Church statement on the message reminded us, "The people of South Africa acknowledge the sovereignty and guidance of God." The statements and judgements of the Council of Churches were not made in opposition to a secular Government that denied the existence of God but in opposition to a regime that purported to believe in and act in the name of God.

Thus it was from the beginning that the Council felt not only able, but also compelled by a divine imperative to speak out against injustices practised in the name of God.

The statement on conscientious objection, as it happens, was addressed to the member Churches of the Council. There were many occasions when the Council in session felt it necessary to speak a prophetic, and sometimes disturbing, word out of its collective conscience to the member Churches.

It is interesting to note that it is these messages to the member Churches, which could be classified in one way as internal messages to itself as a Council of Churches, that aroused the ire of the authorities and the white controlled media more than any others. This happened with the message, with the conscientious objection resolution and, many years later, with the call for "Standing for the Truth."

Statements made by a Council of Churches often have some tension around them as, especially if the statement is a long one with many points, not all Churches may agree with what is said. As early as June 1969 the Council tried to deal with this problem.

Based on the assumption that the Council needs to "make statements, pass resolutions and publish literature on socio-ethical, ecclesiastical and theological matters" a memorandum suggested that statements may be published in the name of the National Conference or Executive, that statements do not bind the member Churches to complete agreement, and that the General Secretary may make statements in the name of the Council where these have "evident support of statements and resolutions of the Council."

In 1972 the Executive was aware that "many Churches and newspapers waited for the Council to speak first before they took any stand on the issues of the day." The Executive could not be called together each time and, after a long discussion, it was agreed that the General secretary should speak and that "the Executive should be prepared to bear the consequences of any statement ... and that they placed their full trust in him in this regard."

The same question arose a number of times through the years, but always the same conclusion was reached that the General Secretary could speak on behalf of the Council based on the theological principles upon which the Council operated as well as the mind of the Council as known through previous declarations.

Bishop Storey remembers the query being raised during the secretaryship of Bishop Tutu. "I remember once more when he had made a stand which was certainly not going to be very popular with some sections of some of the constituent Churches. It was certainly related to sanctions. But at that point we had a debate in the Executive about the degree to which the General Secretary needs to reflect positions already taken and the degree to which God can use him as a prophet to speak into the situation, to what degree was he bound and to what degree he was free. And again, I think, there was a remarkable decision. A decision which said that no matter how uncomfortable, the whole Biblical tradition is that God raises up prophets who speak not necessarily because a majority vote has been taken but because God has spoken to them. Take that freedom away and we actually become a majority vote type of forum instead of a place where God's Word can strike into a situation like a thunderbolt. I think it was those kind of debates where we were beating out, against the anvil of a very difficult situation, a very hostile situation, profoundly theological insights."

The Mass Media

Most people knew about the SACC and what it was saying and what it was doing through the mass media. Most people, therefore, knew the SACC through the edited and biased versions of the media. There is no doubt that this led to much distorted and twisted image of the Council.

In 1971 it was agreed for the first time to allow the media into the National Conference debates and discussions, except for specific times when the Council felt the need to be "in camera." This resolution was reached not only because of the persistence of a number of journalists but to, hopefully, allow journalists to see and understand the context in which the Council reached its decisions. Of such is the naivety of the Church regarding the media!

There were journalists who did try to understand and put the truth before their public. There were newspaper editors who did make a stand against the innumerable laws restricting the free flow of information and the right to print about specific matters.

Those who spoke through the Rand Daily Mail paid dearly for its stand when it was closed. The editors and owners of the English papers were often in court through breaking an obscure law, the cases usually bringing greater publicity to the original sentences or articles than was possible in any other way. The "alternative" press, such as the "New Nation", "Vryeweekblad" and "The Weekly Mail" which were to be established in the 1980's, played a prominent role in exposing much of apartheid's cruelty and corruption.

The general media picture, however, was that the SACC was a leftist-influenced organisation cloaking in Christian terms its devilish intent for South Africa. This began almost as soon as the SACC came into existence and, as the SACC grew in size and importance as a player on the South African scene, it developed into an industry of disinformation. It was at its height during the time the charismatic Bishop Tutu was General Secretary, when character assassination was the order of the day.

The South African Broadcasting Corporation was at the top of the league for distorted reporting and biased comment. It's "Current Affairs" radio programme was often filled with vicious attacks on the Council. When television came into South Africa in 1976 the coverage given to the affairs of the SACC remained very much the same with it being regarded as fair game for misrepresentation.

The visuals used at the time of the Eloff Commission, for example, were distorted images and not true reflections of the proceedings of the Commission. Statements by Government spokespersons and opponents of the SACC received most attention while the presentations by the SACC General Secretary, Bishop Tutu, and its President, the Rev Peter Storey, and other supporters received scant regard. There was little mention made of the eventual outcome.

Television is a personality medium. It can make or break people while finding institutions more difficult to portray in a visual format. It was used to its utmost in its portrayal of Bishop Tutu as a communist inspired power hungry politician calling for the violent destruction of the social structure and economy of the land without regard for black or white lives. Juxtaposition of images and words, short cuts from speeches, and all the tricks of technological deceit were used to put over the distorted image. The one thing that never happened was for time to be given to the Bishop, or any other General Secretary, to speak for themselves.

The SACC was constantly attacked on both radio and television without any opportunity of response. This was to be so apparant even in the early seventies that the SACC decided it was necessary to start a press agency to counter the many distorted views of itself and its activities, as well as present a Christian perspective on events in the nation. The Ecumenical Press Agency, later to become ECUNEWS, served the secular and religious press both in and out of South Africa. As with so many statements and activities of the SACC, the agency was taken much more seriously overseas than in South Africa itself.

Statements

The SACC throughout its history has issued statements to call attention to the demands of the Word of God in specific instances. There was a significant change in the tone of the statements as the oppression of the majority of the population became more apparent, as the SACC became more indigenous as reflected in its membership, and the practical implications of the theological position became more obvious.

In 1968 when speaking to the matter of forced removals it was said that the Executive "cannot approve of the uprooting of settled communities." It went on to say, however, "If nevertheless, Government policy requires and legislation authorises the enforced removal of people ... common humanity demands that everything possible should be done to effect the removals with maximum consideration for the ... interests of the people concerned." This is a far cry from the outright condemnation of the practice itself and the decision to stand alongside communities threatened with removal in later years.

In March 1969 the Executive debated the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill which gave the Minister of Bantu Affairs the right to move and remove "a Bantu", as Africans were officially called at that time, at will. The decision made was to present a memorandum about the Bill to members of Parliament and to "seek an interview with the Minister on the subject."

This was a common practice throughout the days of the Christian Council and also in the early days of the SACC. There was considerable correspondence with Ministers of State, and requests for visits to Government officials to discuss issues. In August 1971 the Executive was asked to approve a film company making a film about the Inter Church Aid programme. The money was already promised and the ICA itself was in favour of the production. The Executive said that it supported the project but "approval of the Government would first have to be obtained."

By 1974 that acceptance of the Government's right to order the life and witness of the SACC was fast disappearing. The Council felt stable enough, as well as committed and impelled by the imperative of the Gospel, to speak on matters affecting the lives of the people of South Africa.

Although the practice of requesting and arranging meetings with Government officials never completely ceased, it was often queried in relation to practical value and many thought it ascribed to the Government a validity that was disputed. This debate still continues.

One thing is certain. The SACC has never courted popularity in its statements or its actions. It has sought to speak on the basis of Gospel demands, interpreting these to the particular and often peculiar situations within South Africa.

In 1974 soon after the emotional uproar that followed the conscientious objection resolution, and when the Portuguese withdrew from Angola and Mocambique, Dr Axel-Ivar Berglund pointed to the lives and resources that had been wasted in those countries. He then went on to say "If only someone in Portugal twelve years ago had raised a voice and asked: 'In God's name, what are we fighting for? What are the alternatives to violence?' it just might have given that nation pause for thought and spared it an immensity of sacrifice and humiliation. Such a voice has been raised in South Africa. Will South Africa listen?"

By 1974 the SACC had seventeen member Churches, nine member organisations, and seven observer member Churches. It had worked hard through the years to hammer out a common theological approach to the issues of South Africa and proved itself to be a formidable opponent of the apartheid regime. It had extended its programmes and activities, begun to receive considerable overseas support for those programmes, and established more regional offices in different parts of the country.

The Council was out of its fledgling years. It knew where it stood and what it stood for. This was soon to prove very necessary and to be tested to the hilt when in June 1976 Soweto, the largest residential area in the country, erupted into chaos and confrontation.