The Anvil and the HammersAuthor(s): Ambrose ReevesSource: Africa Today, Vol. 4, No. 6, South Africa: Alternatives to Disaster? (Nov. - Dec., 1957),pp. 17-18Published by: Indiana University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4183901 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 03:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Africa Today.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 03:50:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Thle Anvil adn the Hammers By RT. REV. AMBROSE REEVES

From time to time the leaders of various churches in South Africa have voiced their disagreement with laws that have been passed by the South African government in an attempt to implement their racialist theory of apartheid. They have not done this through any desire to enter the arena of party politics, but because of their responsibility for hundreds of thousands of Africans who are members of their re- spective churches. Such protests have meant that there has been a growing tension between church leaders and secular authorities; a ten- sion which has culminated in the recent Native Laws Amendment Act.

There is a great deal in this particular piece of legislation that causes grave disquiet to many church people, because it takes away many of the few rights now enjoyed by urban Africans, further dimin- ishes the powers of local authorities, and threatens that freedom of association between human beings belonging to different racial groups which for long has been taken for granted. It is not, as has been fre- quently maintained, that the government is simply tightening up con- trols that already exist. This law effects a revolution, for the right is claimed to enter people's homes and dictate their choice of friends. No longer is there to be any area of human activity in which the dogma of apartheid is not to be applied.

Who Shall Worship... And this is even to be applied to the sphere of religion. By this

law the authorities are empowered to direct that no African may attend any particular church in an urban area if it is deemed undesir- able for him to do so. Certainly the Minister of Native Affairs must obtain the concurrence of the local authority before doing so, and also consult with the church concerned, satisfy himself that alternative accommodation exists, and give reasons before taking such action. But the fact remains that whatever restrictions are placed upon the Minis- ter of Native Affairs in this Act, he has the power to determine who or who shall not worship in any particular church. Even worse is the fact that under this law the penalty for failure to comply with his direction does not fall upon the leaders of the church in question, but upon the voiceless and voteless African people. It is possible that church leaders will be liable for prosecution under the Criminal Laws Amendment Act for this lays down heavy penalties both for disobedi- ence to any law, and for inciting others to disobey a law. The Bishops of the Anglican Church met in Capetown in Easter week to consider the situation, and unanimously de- cided that if and when this partic- ular provision in the Native Laws Amendment Act is implemented they wvill have no alternative but disobey the law and counsel their

The Rt. Rev. Ambrose Reeves is the Angli- can Bishop of Johannesburg. He has re- cently returned to South Africa after a visit to the United States. Bishop Reeves has been active on behalf of the defend- ants in the so-called treason trials.

17

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 03:50:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

clergy and laity to ignore any directive issued to them. They realized that this was a most serious step to take because they recognize that obedience to secular authority, even in matters in which there is sharp difference of opinion, is a command laid upon Christians by God. But they were also convinced that there come times when the church must obey God rather than men.

In this action the Anglican Church has been fully supported by the Action Committee of the Christian Council of South Africa at its meeting at Capetown on April 24 last, and by the Methodist Church in South Africa, the Baptist Union of South Africa, the Congregational Union of South Africa, the Mission Council of the Church of Scotland in South Africa, the Bantu Presbyterian Church of South Africa, Pres- byterian Church of South Africa, The Disciples of Christ, American Lutheran Mission in South Africa, and the Religious Society of Friends. The twenty-five bishops of the Roman Catholic Church have both issued a press release declaring their opposition to this law, and at a meeting in Pretoria on July 11 issued a statement in which the whole dogma of apartheid was described as "blasphemous." The Dutch Reformed Churches sent a deputation on March 12 to discuss this issue with the Minister of Native Affairs, and at the meeting of the Council of the Dutch Reformed Churches in Pretoria on March 27 stated "because the delegation were convinced from their interview with the Minister that no violence would be done to the principles described above (i.e.: principles which declared the freedom of the Gos- pel and the sovereignty of the church in it.s owtn sphere) they felt that they could remain satisfied with the proposed legislation." The Moder- ator of the Council to whom the delegation submitted a report decided to accept this finding. So it can be said that all Christian bodies in South Africa, with the exception of the Dutch Reformed Churches, are seriously opposed to this provision-the Native Laws Amendment Act, and even in the Dutch Reformed Churches are some who see this as a threat to religious freedom.

There for the moment the matter rests. Nothing more can be done in this matter by the churches until the Minister decides to act in some specific case under the powers niow conferred on him. Still the churches are not dismaved, for they recall the words of Bova to the King of Navam: "Sirs, it belongs in truth to the Church of God . . . to receive blows and not to give them, but may it please you to remember that it is an anvil that has worn out many hammers."

18

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 03:50:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions