"My brothers, what good is it for someone to say that he has faith if his actions do not prove it?" (James 2:14)

The date June 16th 1976 is etched deeply into the story of modern South Africa. It has become known as Soweto Day, the day to remember the students of Soweto who were slain as they demonstrated over the enforced use of Afrikaans in education.

The Soweto schoolchildren were in carnival mood at the start of their day of protest. Placards saying "Our teachers can't teach in Afrikaans", "Afrikaans is the oppressor's language", and "Away with Afrikaans" were held high as the huge procession snaked its way toward the Orlando stadium for a mass meeting. On the road they were met by a large contingent of heavily armed police.

What came first, a stone or teargas? Whatever came first, the police were soon firing at random and the students were using stones and then fire as they vented their anger at the death of their colleagues and the heavy arm of the law.

The disturbances in Soweto on that fateful day became a signal to many other areas of the country where similar incidents occurred until the whole country was covered in pockets of student resistance to the apartheid laws.

Television had entered South Africa earlier in the year. It was still young enough for there to be no strict rules of censorship so the images of what was happening in Soweto went straight into the lounges and living rooms of the white population. The shock was enormous and the whole nation was compelled to recognise the racial conflict. It was a time of testing. A test that many failed, including the Government who dealt with it by using a heavy hand and iron fist. Many young people were forced to flee their homes, many their country, and the die was cast for the total confrontation of the black masses with the Government.

By June 23rd the official figures, disputed as only a fraction of the reality by some, was that one hundred and fifty were dead, two thousand injured, and "hundreds" arrested.

The Government blamed "agitators" for the unrest, praised the police for their swift action, and defended the use of live ammunition instead of rubber bullets because South Africa was "different." The late Dr Andries Treurnicht, then Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, said that as the Afrikaaner paid taxes toward Bantu education they had a right to say which language would be used. In July, however, the Government announced that the use of Afrikaans as a teaching medium was left to the choice of the schools themselves.

There had been signs of the potential for unrest. These had been made known to the authorities in various ways, including an open letter on May 8th to the Prime Minister by Desmond Tutu, who was then the Dean of the Johannesburg Cathedral and already appointed to be the new Bishop of Lesotho. It was a long letter of warning about the increased anger, bitter frustration, and deep hurt of the black experience.

The letter pointed to the comment of the South African representative at the United Nations, Mr "Pik" Botha, that "South Africa was moving away from discrimination based on race" and to the Government's "promotion of detente and dialogue."

It mentioned the fear of the whites and "I say with all the eloquence I can command" that the security of our country does not ultimately depend on military strength and security police draconian power. Dean Tutu called for acceptance of urban blacks as permanent residents of South Africa, the repeal of the pass laws, and a National Convention of "genuine leaders." He then closed with the prayer "Please may God inspire you to hear us before it is too late ... "

Although the letter received considerable publicity, the terse reply from the Prime Minister and his outright rejection of the Dean's request for permission to publish the reply caused him to say that the Prime Minister's response "leaves me with less hope than ever."

His warning, echoed by so many Church leaders and ministers and priests of Soweto and other townships, was ignored and June 16th became the scene of violent confrontation.

On the evening of June 16th a group including the Dean, SACC General Secretary John Rees, and others drafted a statement on the situation for local and international distribution. It was one of many that poured out of Churches, a special meeting of national Church leaders, the Christian Institute, the World Council of Churches and many overseas Churches.

The statements were similar in condemnation of police action and Government intransigence, a request to move away from the forced use of Afrikaans, for the Churches to minister to both black and white bereaved, and for the calling of a National Convention. The Church leaders added a phrase asking that the SABC stop "attempts to interpret the situation." The then President of the SACC, the Rev John Thorne who was the Associate General Secretary of the United Congregational Church, was deeply involved with the General Secretary of the SACC in drafting statements and monitoring the situation in Soweto. He was also in contact with the Prime Minister to appeal for intervention in some of the planned police and local authority actions to quell the disturbances.

There were calls made, on behalf of the Church leaders, by Mr Rees of the SACC and Dr Beyers Naude of the Christian Institute, that police withdraw from the townships as their presence only aggravated the situation. The official response of the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg was to serve restraining orders upon them both for "interference" in Soweto. At the same time the Prime Minister, Mr John Vorster, on a visit to Germany said that "certain clergymen" were behind the disturbances.

A Divided National Conference

The Council of Churches itself did not escape the testing of the hour. Meeting in Hammanskraal once more, the National Conference for the first, and last, time in its history had to divide into black and white groups to discuss some of the issues before it.

At the 1975 National Conference the President, the Rev John Thorne, spoke of the "dawning of a new day" for South Africa. "the day of the white man is over," he said, "the black man will take command and control of his own destiny."

One year later the words were put to the test in the National Conference of 1976 with demands from some black delegates for a changed programme resulting, after long debate, in a decision to have three caucuses, one black, one white and one mixed to discuss the current situation. In the event the white caucus did not take place. Most black delegates joined the black group but a significant number joined the whites to form one mixed group.

Such was the tension of the time. Such was the need of the moment to make the division to allow for an exclusive black voice that could speak to the turbulent situation out of its own experience. Here again was a natural step forward in the progress toward a genuinely indigenous Council of Churches.

The conscious decision that the Council had to be the conduit of black expression had been taken by the Council on previous occasions, mainly at the National Conferences of 1974 and 1975. The ratio at National Conferences from 1972 onwards had been in the favour of black representatives. But the initiatives in presentations and discussions had to a large extent remained the monopoly of whites. Now that was to change.

In 1975 the late Professor David Bosch, a Church theologian of note and one of that small group of Afrikaans Churchmen to be associated with the SACC through the years, lectured to the National Conference. In his address, "The Church in South Africa Tomorrow" he spoke of two misunderstandings of the Church. The one, he said, is that the "world" and the "Church" can be "neatly distinguished from one another." This he saw as an aggressive form of Church which undertook mission to save people from the "world." On the other hand, there was the view that saw no difference between Church and world. In this case the Church only offers what any other organisation can offer, concerns itself solely with humanitarian needs, and "the assumption that we Christians know exactly what to prescribe to society." Prof Bosch went on to say that the Church must tread the "wary path between" to offer the world faith, hope, and love.

This challenge was not forgotten in 1976 or at any other later stage in the life of the Council of Churches. The speaking to and activity in the socio-political affairs of the nation came out of a deep sense of the Gospel and a spiritual life of prayer. Dean Tutu's letter to the Prime Minister, for instance, was written during a three day prayer retreat, and the 1976 Conference debate followed a prayer service.

On the other hand, there were many times when the involvement in the socio-political needs of the nation led to a sense of reliance upon God as the only source of strength and hope to see you through. There was always this Gospel-inspired sense of need to balance between being IN the world and yet not OF the world.

Many years after 1976, when Parliament was debating the report of the Eloff Commission into the affairs of the SACC, the Rev Alex Boraine, one time President of the Methodist Church and at that time member of Parliament for the Progressive party, was able to say that the report pointed to the problem the Government had with the SACC stemming from the fact that " the Council has tried to resolve the age-old dichotomy between the gospel of personal conversion and the gospel of social responsibility."

This is not to say that there were never moments of doubt or moments of straying from the "wary path between". But for those who worked in, through, or alongside the Council there was always the sense of seeking to know the will of God and facing the implications of that will in action and empathy.

In the 1976 National Conference this led to the President, Congregational Minister the Rev John Thorne, and speakers Anglican Bishop of Lesotho Desmond Tutu and Catholic Archbishop Dennis Hurley calling for greater participation in the struggle for peace and for liberation.

Archbishop Hurley spoke a prophetic word to say that there is a need to mobilise for peace. He said that if violence could be avoided while present internal and external pressures prevailed and intensified, peaceful change could be effected by the year 2000. "But obviously we haven't until then. The assumption we are working on is that if there is no significant change by 1980 violence is inevitable."

He went on to say a word that many in recent years would wish could have been picked up and acted upon with greater zeal and urgency. The task of indicating the kind of change necessary in South Africa to avoid violence, he said, " must be undertaken as part of the Christian endeavour to map out the path to peaceful change. The mapping out would have to be perfectly honest and indicate that within a specified time majority rule is inevitable and that an important consideration is that whites prepare themselves psychologically for it and blacks prepare themselves psychologically and technically."

John Thorne said that in the near future of South Africa "we must not expect good sense to prevail or that people will be rational enough to accept that it is impossible to withhold liberation as it is to thrust the newborn baby back into the womb." He called for perseverance in the cause of liberation.

Bishop Tutu spoke of liberation as crucial for the survival of South Africa itself. Liberation, he said was "absolutely crucial for both oppressor and oppressed, for freedom is indivisible. One section of the community can not be truly free while another is denied a share in that freedom."

He went on to say, "We are involved in the black liberation struggle because we are also deeply concerned for white liberation." And concluded, "The struggle for liberation, a truly Biblical struggle, is crucial for the survival of South Africa. It must succeed."

The deep feeling and sense of frustration of that National Conference is found in the plea to "individual Christians" with which the Conference ended. The statement arose out of the black caucus and was then endorsed by the whole Conference.

"We say to every Christian "Peel the arrogance from your heart, listen and learn, show your brotherhood in the streets, in the shops, on the farms and in your homes.

"Form groups across the barriers of your community to discover with others the needs of our country, the details of righteousness and the purpose of prayer.

"The time for action is come.

"We say as individuals to the angry and the suffering, we are listening to you and we suffer with you.

"We have failed in many ways, but we rededicate ourselves to learn together, work together, share together,suffer together."

There was one other speaker at that Conference, Dr F E O'Brian Geldenhuys, Director of Ecumenical Affairs of the Dutch Reformed Church. He was, according to ECUNEWS, the first official DRC person to attend an SACC Conference for 36 years.

Dr Geldenhuys did not conform to what the rest of the Council was saying. Although he pointed to many commonly shared beliefs about the nature of Church and State relationships, his presentation, especially in the context of that particular Conference, could only highlight the differences of approach.

The State, he said, "should not feel threatened by the Church as the true Church could never engage in betraying or undermining the authority of the state." He agreed that the Church had a role in liberation, "but the whole problem lies in determining the nature and extent of its involvement as well as the methods employed, according to the norms of the Word of God."

There were many words he used which would be accepted as true by most, if not all, the delegates but, without doubt, having a rather different interpretation. Who was he talking about, for instance, when he quoted a DRC statement that "the Church should not merely be concerned with the promotion of popular opinions, nor should it seek to hide behind opinions which cannot be justified according to scripture."

It is interesting that he should be speaking to the divide that was evident between the member Churches of the SACC and the DRC at a National Conference that welcomed a "daughter Church" into membership.

Joining the Council

The late Rev Willie Cilliers remembered very well the Dutch Reformed Church in Africa (NGKA), one of the so-called "daughter" Churches of the DRC, becoming a full member of the Council.

"You must realise that the sending Church in the DRC is the white Church," he said. "That is a majority Church among the white Afrikaans-speaking people who think they have no need of ecumenism because it is a majority Church. On the other hand, the black daughter Churches are, in their own communities, minority Churches. The dilemma of those so-called daughter Churches was where to identify. Do we identify with the Church that subsidises our budget or do we identify with the people among whom we live and work?

"The signs of liberation came to quite a few of the younger ministers during the sixties who said our real identity lies with the people. It does not lie in toeing the line of the sending Church any more. This is where the momentum started to move towards a more prominent ecumenical outreach.

"In the black community itself our people were scolded and earmarked as the Church of the Government because of the name Dutch Reformed Church. So the black clergy were ... becoming more and more radical."

The Rev Cilliers went on to talk of membership of the Council. "In 1975 at the Synod of Worcester I was the writer of the report to put before the Synod that we join the SACC. So that Synod decided, yes we do. And in 1976 the representatives of the NGKA at the Hammanskraal National Conference were the senior Reverend Buti and myself. When we entered to take our places in the hall the meeting rose and sang N'Kosi Sikelele Afrika. It was a very deeply moving experience."

The NGKA later provided a President for the Council, the Rev Sam Buti, and the Church has been an active participant in the SACC through the years.

The member Churches were drawing ever closer in fellowship through the SACC. Their committed ownership of the SACC had proved to be strong enough to take them together through the trauma of the 1976 National Conference and would be strong enough to hold them together in the years of testing that lay ahead.

A sign of this determination was to follow the 1976 Conference when, because of obvious increased police harassment and Government declarations about the SACC, General Secretary John Rees called a meeting to suggest breaking the Council up into a number of separate and autonomous Divisions as a means of survival. In this way, a successful move to close one Division on the part of the authorities would not harm the others.

John Rees also points to another reason. "There were some Divisions of the Council where all the Churches felt comfortable and others where they felt discomfort and the idea of trying to make them autonomous was to have as much involvement of the Churches as was possible."

The meeting of Church representatives would have none of it. Bishop Storey recalls the day. "I think I was chairing that meeting and there were all the documents lying around to end the Council as a legal persona. John (Rees) had taken all the legal advice to move in that direction and I remember an outstanding debate in which people said no way. We will stay together and if one Division is attacked we must all go down rather than allow this thing to be picked off piecemeal.

"I can remember the celebration at the end of the day and those who had done so much of the paperwork were as celebratory as anyone else. John, I remember, being amazed at the solidarity which had come through that day."

John Rees comments when looking back at that occasion that he is "glad that it did not happen and with hindsight I think there was a chance that the Churches would have lost control of the separated Divisions."

At that moment it was another symbol of the unity that was present within the family of the Council of Churches. The significance of the day lies, of course, in the Church's ownership of the Council as their body, belonging to them. No one else, especially the enemies of the Council, will make decisions about its shape and format. It was and is a Council of Churches.

There are those who would insist that the Council has little support among the Churches themselves. Such talk is wishful thinking on their part and the story of the SACC is one in which whenever it was necessary the member Churches responded to the call for support and solidarity. This does not mean that every single decision made by the Executive or National Conference was adopted and accepted by its constituent members. That does not happen in any organisation of worth. It does mean, however, that the Council provided a focus for fellowship as well as a challenge and opportunity for involvement in national and inter-Church affairs.

Bishop Peter Storey: "I think Desmond (Tutu) was quite right when he said that it doesn't matter what you do to us you will not destroy the Church. That was a very firm conviction which was the root of our hope. I think one came away from National Conferences, not always in total agreement with everything said or decided but with an awareness of a body that was alive, was vigorous and it really did have right on its side. Therefore, those whom we were up against were the losers, even at that point. They never had the opportunity to feel the peace that comes with doing the right thing."

The peace that comes through doing the right thing was to face further tests during the coming years.