The Management of Cultural Differences Between Congregations Who

THE MANAGEMENT OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONGREGATIONS WHO

ARE WORKING TOGETHER

Rev Andries NE Louw

1. Introduction

1.1 Apology for dr SD Maluleke

I apologize for dr SD Maluleke who is unfortunately not well. Consequently, he was not able to attend the conference and also to take part in this presentation. We originally planned to do it together, each of us taking responsibility to portray as best what we can the different perspectives of the two churches we represent, namely the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa (URCSA) and the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk (NG Kerk) - Eng. Dutch Reformed Church (DRC). I will therefore try my best to represent both perspectives as best I can, even though I concentrated on the DRC-perspective in my preparations.

1.2 The Need for Cooperation and Collaboration

Perhaps the form or model of intercultural ministry which is mostly under discussion in our time, is a ministry or local church where different cultural groups are accommodated and ministered to in the same congregation and different strategies are implemented to make it work. It seems that New Testament passages like Ephesians 2:14-22 reflect not only on the theological, Christological and ecclesiological aspects of our unity in Christ but also presupposes or reflects this sort of unity in one congregation where everybody, regardless of race, ethnic group or language, is accommodated.

We are offering this topic from the viewpoint that for the foreseeable future we will still have to face the reality of perhaps the majority of the congregations of our two churches that they will for the most part still be made up of one cultural or race group. We have to note though, that in many or most “African” black congregations of URCSA in metropolitan areas, different African languages are used in worship services. A congregation in the Gauteng area may for instance choose to use Northern Sotho (Sepedi) as well as Zulu. The minister may use Sepedi, and somebody would translate in Zulu, or the other way round. In some of the townships or informal settlements Northern Sotho (Sepedi) may be used as well as English, for the sake of accommodating immigrants from neighbouring countries e.g. Zimbabwe or Malawi. In the Northern part of our country one may find a handful of so called coloured people or even African blacks also attending DRC congregations, but it will be few and far in between.

It is important to note what George Yancey has found in his research as reflected in his book “Principles for Multicultural Congregations”, that generally speaking, accommodating different races is a bigger challenge than accommodating different ethnic groups. This seems to be supported by the general pattern in the so-called Dutch Reformed Family of Churches. In the case of the DRC, it remains by far and large, a white, Afrikaans church. Even in the Uniting Reformed Church it seems to be the general pattern that at least race groups are ministered to in separate congregations. The so-called coloured congregations of the former DR Mission Church and the “African” black congregations of the former DRC in Africa seem to prefer preserving their historical character and identity, although there are some exceptions, especially where new congregations are formed in newer informal settlements. We have to note though, that in the case of URCSA there is at least some exposure between the two race groups (black and coloured) in the contexts of the presbytery and synod, whilst in the DRC it will not necessarily happen, thus remaining very exclusively white, as long as we do not have church unification.

Against the background of the present deadlock in discussions concerning church unification, it should therefore be accepted as fact that for most DRC and URCSA congregations, the only form of multicultural or at least multiracial church exposure or -ministry they will experience, will be in the form of partnerships, where congregations of different racial groups decide to work together.

In these partnerships some common challenges and even stumbling blocks may be experienced.

We consider three distinct but interwoven challenges in intercultural congregational partnerships, namely cultural, political and socio-economic, and thirdly, diverse church cultures.

2. Language and Culture

Since the topic of intercultural communication has already been covered by dr Ryk van Velden, I will briefly point out some challenges posed by language, without implicating that other cultural differences and issues are not important or may be disregarded. My remarks in this regard will perhaps have more relevance to our situation in the northern parts of our country than in the south.

When we have joint meetings, we tend to choose either Afrikaans or English as language of communication.

From the perspective of URCSA, where English has been established as official language, English will be the preferred language, partly because of the unfortunate association of Afrikaans with the apartheid policies of the past (think of the Soweto protests in 1976), and perhaps also partly because the current trend in official government communication is by far favouring English, which seems to be in the process of practically becoming the only official language of our country. The choice of English as official language in URCSA may also have some bearing on the fact that it presents a more or less neutral choice, thus avoiding the choice between any of the indigenous African languages. This makes sense in view of the fact that for instance Zulu-speakers, and to some extent also Xhosa-speakers usually expect speakers of other African languages to switch over tot their mother tongue in their presence.

From the perspective of the DRC the “natural choice” for English and the dominance of English in the public domain is exactly part of the problem. Whereas Afrikaans used to be one of the two official languages in the old dispensation, it has lost this status in the New South Africa. And although we actually have eleven official languages, it seems that indigenous African languages are not really accepted and readily used and spoken as official languages on par with English. This is also true in relation to Afrikaans. The experience that we as Afrikaans people have lost a lot that was important and dear to us (some would even say “sacred”), makes the language issue a very touchy one for Afrikaans people, especially white Afrikaners. Some even go so far as to bluntly refuse to speak any other language than Afrikaans, even in meetings where some do not understand Afrikaans very well.

Our general experience in joint meetings is that the language issue is not so difficult that it cannot be solved. Most of the time we usually use English as a natural and neutral choice, because it is not the mother tongue of most of our members, whether URCSA or DRC. For most it is our second or even third language. It therefore presents the opportunity to find one another “somewhere in the middle”. But we also usually “allow” members of joint meetings the choice of using the language that they are most fluent in, e.g. their mother tongue. In such cases some form of translation/interpretation should be used, for the sake of others who are not fluent in that language, whether it is Afrikaans or one of the indigenous African languages. It would be important to emphasize that the language arrangements in meetings should be negotiated and that everyone should feel accepted and at ease with the language choice, even though it may not be his/her first choice. The secret for success is to let everyone feel that he/she is accepted and appreciated for what he/she is.

3. Political and Socio-economic Issues

This issue may be even more complex and sensitive than the previous one. Theologically and Biblically it is about the concepts of justice, unity and reconciliation, the issues addressed so eloquently in the Belhar Confession and to some extent also in the study accepted by the DRC in 1986, titled “Church and Society”. The relevance of including politics as part of the “intercultural equation” consists in the fact that the DRC and most of its members supported the previous political dispensation known as the apartheid regime, at least up to a certain point in time, or at least tolerated it. In this situation it was the members of URCSA (formerly DRC in Africa and DRCMissionChurch), together with other blacks, coloureds and Indians that suffered under the discrimination and injustices of apartheid. Of course the previous statement is a generalization, and we therefore also have to give credit to many DRC ministers and members who worked and preached tirelessly against apartheid, sometimes at the price of being rejected and marginalized in their own congregations and/or constituencies.

Allowing for the fact that others factors also contributed, e.g. the campaign by the UDF, international pressure, etc, the transition to the new political dispensation was eventually brought about because of the fact that the majority of whites, who had the vote, including the members of the DRC, gave the national party the mandate to negotiate a totally new political dispensation. This started the process of radical reform, starting with the release of Mr. Nelson Mandela and all other political prisoners, the unbanning of the ANC, CODESA 1 and 11, which eventually lead to the adoption of a new constitution and the first democratic elections in April 1994, together constituting the birth of the new South Africa, with freedom and equality for everyone. Notwithstanding the fact that some whites feared the new situation and even built up a reserve of canned foods etc (afterwards people laughed about it), overall, the atmosphere was wonderful and everybody believed that we had managed, by the grace of God, to achieve not only a peaceful transition but also some form of national reconciliation. The person and attitude of mar. Nelson Mandela, our first democratically elected president, contributed a lot to this atmosphere, and also the wonderful role that the chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, “the arch”, bishop Desmond Tutu, played in our process of national reconciliation and nation building.

Over the past fifteen years a new political situation emerged however, contrary to the expectation of most whites, which again created tensions between different race groups. But this time it was the other way round. Now it is whites who experienced ambivalent feelings. Although they were eager to identify with the new South Africa, it was difficult for them because they experienced the feeling of being marginalized and disempowered. The general experience of whites was that they were now being wronged and discriminated against.

When we try to understand what is going on, we have to remember that the politics of the country plays a definite role in the way people perceive and experience reality. Mostly white people react to what they perceive to be the problems and perceived injustices against them in the country at present, whilst most black people still have vivid memories of the injustices experienced by them in the past, under apartheid, that also colours their perceptions and interactions. This tendency must be understood in the light of the universal tendency to minimize one’s own mistakes and shortcomings, and at the same time enlarge or maximize the mistakes and shortcomings of others. It makes you feel better about yourself and the racial or cultural group you belong to. It is of course also dangerous because it can lead to growing enmity and polarization between racial groups.

Without necessary agreeing with all aspects of present grievances, I will try to voice the objections most white people are presently experiencing with the current political situation in the country. I will also try to balance it with perceptions from the black community and try to point a way out of the dilemmas.

Affirmative Action

Firstly, the government policy of affirmative action. Although it was agreed upon during the negotiations about the new constitution that affirmative action should be part of the process of giving formerly disadvantaged people opportunities they were previously denied, they way in which the policy has been applied is causing new forms of discrimination and also doing the country a lot of harm. The fact that hundreds of posts in government are kept vacant, rather than fill them with qualified white people, because qualified black people are not available right now, is impacting very negatively on service delivery and causing many white people to leave the country and look for jobs elsewhere in the world. Especially disillusioned young whites who were born after 1990 feel that they should not be discriminated against because they were born after the end of apartheid. On the other hand, many young blacks who grew up as members of the elite governing class, are profiting hugely without ever experiencing any form of deprivation.

Responding to this situation, blacks may feel that whites seems to be very sensitive relating to economic injustices whilst in the old days it did not seem that injustice towards the black majority mattered to them at all. Although there is some truth in this, it remains a question if we want more and perhaps other forms of injustice in our country. And we will have to answer the question whether one form of injustice can be rectified or made good by new forms of injustice, however attractive this option may seem. And if it becomes clear that many well-qualified whites are able and willing, even eager to help in building up and developing our country, it may be time to reconsider some of the policies concerning affirmative action, especially if it becomes clear that they are no longer helping, but rather hindering progress and development.

Criminality

The second problem is the high rates of violent crime, especially armed robberies, car hijackings, farm attacks and housebreakings, together with corruption in government. The rates of crime have skyrocketed since 1994, and everywhere communities, especially in the suburbs, are taking appropriate measures to protect themselves against crime. Neighborhood watches are organized and people patrol the streets at night and in daytime, in a joint and concerted effort to deter criminals. In our area a man was shot by a criminal in a house breaking incident and was consequently permanently paralyzed. A young female pupil in our local secondary school was killed by a taxi-driver who knocked her over and drove right over her. The court case in which he is charged with murder, is currently under way.

However one may try to give explanations about high crime rates accompanying situations of political transitions, or using arguments that it is not really a problem, like the form of denial mr Mbeki practiced, as also in connection with HIV-Aids, the fact remains that crime is killing our country and robbing innocent people of their freedom, their property and sometimes their lives, and that it is sapping the life from our future economic prosperity. Above all, it is creating a new form of oppression and lack of freedom. What is particularly disturbing to white people is the excessive force and cruelty mostly accompanying armed robberies, farm attacks and housebreakings. This tends to reinforce the popular perception amongst whites that at least some crime is fuelled by racism.

Responding to these objections, we have to affirm and emphasize that it is not only whites who are suffering because of crime, and that all sectors of society suffer and are victims. It is also important to note that because only 10% of the total population is white, it goes without saying that also 90% of all criminals are black. Unfortunately, chances are that these perspectives will not really change the perceptions of most whites. It is clear, from research, for instance, that most armed robberies and housebreakings take place in the suburbs, where most whites reside. We all know that it is simply because of the fact that there is more the steal and rob in the suburbs, in contrast to the townships. But it automatically creates an undertone of racism.

It is therefore important that we should fight the perception that black people are more prone to passively accept the phenomenon of crime as a fact of life that cannot be changed, mostly out of fear for reprisals, and find ways of joining hands in the struggle against crime, whether it be violence against women and children, against unsuspecting homeowners or whether it be corruption that steals and destroys our country’s resources.

Breakdown of Service Delivery

The third concern of most whites, and also of all concerned citizens, is the widespread breakdown of service delivery, especially as it involves local authorities of city councils and municipalities. Corruption, flowing from the culture of entitlement and nepotism, together with poor administration and lack of basic skills, partly brought about by hasty transformation, forcing whites to retire prematurely and of people filling posts that are not qualified and not trained properly, is causing our local authorities to falter and fail. In many small communities right across our country violent protests have broken out because of poor service delivery and even the total lack of it. We have become accustomed to pictures of overflowing sewers and raw sewerage running down streets. In some communities taxpayer-associations have withheld their rates and taxes and started to repair failed systems themselves. We have just heard the news that the total debt of local authorities in our county is in excess of R50 billion, and that the municipality of Tshwane was forced to ask for an extension of debt facilities in order to pay the bills from Rand Water and ESCOM.