Second Open Letter
To A Divided Church

Dear Friends in Jesus

Warm Christian greetings to you.

Special thanks to all those who replied to our earlier communication regarding the merger of the "white" and "black" conferences in South Africa. I am happy to say that the response was overwhelmingly positive.

The general consensus is that the merger is a moral issue and that, as such, we need to simply hear God's voice. Either way, there will be related problems, but none so great as those that will result if we do not follow God's clear cut counsel.

Please pray that God will soon have His way in South Africa.

Some are of the opinion that there are men of influence who do not want the merger to go through, and that these are hoping to justify the church's continued division on the grounds that "the laity voted against it." But where in the word of God do we find justification for our seeking the opinion of the laity as to whether the church should obey or disobey God? Let us pray that this is not the case and, if it is, that God will intervene.

At a time like this we especially need to remind ourselves that Jesus sought "to break down the barriers which separated the different classes of society, that He might bring men together as children of one family." (DA150)

As a follow up to our previous communication, we would like to share one of the not-so-positive responses that we received - one that posed a number of questions that need to be answered. Portions from this particular communication are in CAPITAL LETTERS, with our thoughts following. Please consider this document in the light of the previous one.

--------------------------------------

DEAR . . .

HAVING GROWN UP IN ENGLAND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH COLOUR AND RACE.

Because you never grew up in South Africa, I would like to share just a little of my past with you before I deal with your questions and statements.

The history books at our school made much of the "kaffir wars" - and only in adult life I came to realise that they had subtly implanted in our minds the idea that the black man was a lower order of being, and that he had been, still was, and always would be a serious threat to society. Those same history books took great pains to detail the atrocities that were committed by the black man on the white man during the early years of our country's settlement. No mention was made in these books of how the white man treated the black man. Yet those of us who grew up in this country, and who saw how black people were often treated by the police and by others, have a good idea as to the content of the chapters that were never included in our history books.

My country never gave me the opportunity to get to know the black man and to understand his heart - or his hurt. Then I spent a year in England in 1974, and I had the privilege of managing a team of delightful black people from all over the world. It did not take long before I was deeply touched by their infectious enthusiasm for life, their love, and their genuine concern for me - despite the fact that they never made any profession of Christianity. I still remember the day when the mists of prejudice finally cleared from my mind and I came to realise that black people are not what our history books, and some in our country, made them out to be. I came to realise that black people are essentially just people like all of us - that black people have hopes and aspirations, that they love and have feelings, that they care and want to advance in life just like anyone else. I was not a Christian then, but I realise now that that experience (together with my mom and dad's kindly attitude towards black people,) was vital to my Christian development as it enabled me to unlearn all that had been ingrained in my mind by a racialist society and educational system.

MY PROBLEM HERE IS THAT IN SA THE CULTURES THINK SO DIFFERENTLY, AND THEREFORE WORK SO DIFFERENTLY. IN OUR CONFERENCE WE HAVE [HENRY] WHO HOLDS [A NUMBER OF] PORTFOLIOS, IF WE WERE TO BE RE-STRUCTURED THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE DOING [HIS] WORK LOAD. OUR CONFERENCE IS EFFICIENT AND DOES NOT EXCLUDE PEOPLE OF OTHER RACES.

(1) Your conference may be efficient, and that is good, and there might be a few members of other races in your conference, and that is good, but we cannot escape the fact that the "black"/"white" conference structure was erected in the apartheid era and it constitutes a sad reminder of the fact that the church in South Africa followed the example of a government that legislated racial segregation - even to the point of demanding "non-white" park benches etcetera. As "whites" we might not have realized this, but the truth is that your conference (and mine) stands today as a monument to something that made angels weep. In fact, your conference today represents a living reminder of what Ellen White refers to as the world's greatest sin - that being "the inhumanity of man towards man" (MH163). Please note that I use the word "reminder." It is especially sad, nevertheless, that this sin should be memorialized in a divided church. Will the wound caused by apartheid ever heal while this structure remains in place?

For some of us, it is easy to forget the past, for we had a relatively comfortable past. For many of our black believers, however, the past constitutes a nightmare that they would love to forget - but cannot. If I were a black person, I would never be able to forget the day a white policeman hit my black daddy in the face, and this right before my eyes. I would never be able to forget the day when my black mum and I were thrown off the empty bus because there were no more seats left in the upstairs back row - which was the only row reserved for "non-whites." Nor would I be able to forget how the white kids threw stones at me and how they called me "jou swart ***". Nor would I be able to forget how my mom wept when I told her how they treated me. And these are not made up stories. Most black families have tales to tell that range from heartbreak to outright horror. You can understand, therefore, that these sad memories will forever come to mind for as long as we have a "white" conference anywhere in our country. Can we continue to hide behind culture, and individuality, and finances, and comforts, and inconveniences, and whatever, when our continued existence as a "white conference" conjures up such painful memories of a sad past?

(2) If, as you say, the cultures think so differently in South Africa, then we have to ask ourselves if there is not good reason for this. If the black man had been given equal opportunity in the past, would he not be thinking just as we do today? Do we hold it against him, and disadvantage him, and refuse to embrace him and his people, because we never gave them the opportunity to develop as we did?

(3) With the opportunities that black people have had in this country, I think we need to be taking our hats off to them. I have met enough black people, those who had a fair opportunity in life in some other country, to know that essentially the black man has the same potential as the white man - but he was simply never given a chance to develop his potential.

(4) If our primary calling as a church is to "aid in relieving and softening life's hardship and misery" and to "let the oppressed go free," and if merging means that we are going to lose a little of our efficiency, then so be it. Surely we are more concerned about the dignity and the feelings of millions of people than we are about the prized efficiency of a few conference workers?

`Let each of us please his neighbour for his good.' (Romans 15:2). How do we justify our stand-offish attitude in the light of this counsel? Or is a black person not my neighbour?

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE SHAMBLES MOST OF THE REST OF THE COUNTRY IS IN AFTER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, IT TELLS ME THAT IT DOES NOT REALLY WORK FORCING TAKE-OVERS ETC, BUT RATHER A GRADUAL INCORPORATION WHERE VALUES AND STANDARDS CAN BE MAINTAINED, WHERE PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO WORK, ARE PROUD OF THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS, AND EFFICIENCY IS MAINTAINED.

(5) The old government afforded the black man little opportunity to learn how to manage and to govern. Are you seriously expecting anything other than "shambles" for a little while? With the same experience, how well would anyone do under the same circumstances? Personally I would rather live under a government that is in a bit of a shambles than live under the oppressive, cruel, unfeeling government of the past. Is the fact that millions of black people are now free citizens, and no longer living in fear, not a reasonable trade-off for the present "shambles?" I certainly feel better about the fact that the awful atrocities of the past few decades are no longer taking place in dark prison cells throughout the country? I can live with "shambles," but I cannot live with that.

(6) Do you really believe that gradual incorporation will ever take place? Gradual incorporation is comfortable for the white believer - but only for those who have not realized how the black man is hurting under the present structure in the church. How would you feel if an organizational structure (and many of those who uphold that structure) made you feel like you are a lesser order of being? Put yourself in the black father and mother's situation. How do they explain the present division to their children - especially when it comes garbed in the name of Christianity? Do we honestly expect the black man to feel comfortable as we oh-so-slowly incorporate "them" into "our" society, and into "our" conferences. What makes "our" society so right and "their" society so wrong? Are we justified in prolonging the agony for our black brothers and sisters just so that we can maintain our "efficiency" and our cherished "values and standards?"

WE ARE STEWARDS OF WHAT THE LORD HAS GIVEN TO US, AND MUST SAFEGUARD IT.

(7) Absolutely! But what has the Lord given us to safeguard? First of all He gave us the example of His Son - He who died - even for His enemies - and He asked us to safeguard that example by putting others first and by being willing to die, even for our enemies. Then He gave us His law - the universal law of love - and He asked us to safeguard its principles by being more concerned about the needs and comforts of others than we are about our own needs and comforts. When we have attended to these - the higher things in life - we will know the difference between that which needs to be safeguarded and that which needs to be discarded. Then we will have no doubt that anything that makes an entire race feel uncomfortable and unhappy, anything that reminds them of an unhappy past, anything that makes them feel unwelcome, especially if it stands in the name of Christianity, had better be quickly discarded.

Paul tells us that `we are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.' (Romans 12:5). Are we being good stewards by rejecting those that the Lord has given us? Are we safeguarding the body of Jesus if we give the impression that it is a "white's only" body? Like it or not, Scripture assures us that we are crucified, one to the other - and that means all races, cultures and colours.

WHY MUST WE BE FORCED INTO A MERGER, MUST WE BE FORCED TO JOIN THE ANC NEXT?

(8) Nobody is trying to force anyone into anything. Can two people come close to the cross without coming closer to each other? Can two people come close to the cross without coming closer to each other? Can two people come close to the cross without coming closer to each other? It is for good reason that I repeat the previous sentence. The only force involved in this merger is the force of the cross that draws people of all colours together. The impartial and unconditional love of Jesus is the force that demands that we embrace each other.

(9) In the light of the previous point, we must understand that there is a deep spiritual dimension attached to this merger issue, for our continued separation is keeping the church from coming as close to the cross as Jesus would have us come. And He wants us to come up real close for only at the foot of the cross can we see the agony that he endured for all men - black men and women included, only at the foot of the cross can we see the shame that He suffered for all men, black men and women included, only there can we see how wretched we are - and how much we need Him and His saving grace. Then, understanding how depraved we ALL are, and how undeserving we ALL are of such kindness, we will not be at all concerned about a black brother's skin colour, but rather about whether we, by our love and our compassion, can make it easier for the black brother or sister to understand the unconditional love of God. Our one overriding concern will be whether our black brother or sister understands that "our Redeemer has opened the way, so that the most sinful, the most needy, the most oppressed and despised, may find access to the Father?" (PK702)

(10) Very kindly I wish to point out that in the last two sentences you have used the word "we" three times. You see, the prevailing situation has done to you what it has done to most - it has erected a partition in our minds. In this situation, however, "we" are not a conference, nor are "we" a culture, or a race. "We" are the people of God, and that includes black and white. "We" are the body of Jesus, and that body includes black and white people. There is simply no justification for dividing God's church into the "we" camp and the "they" camp. God never intended that conferences should be a dividing factor in His church. God only sees us as His children, His precious family that have been redeemed from certain ruin at infinite cost. We are His prized possession - bought at the cost of divine blood and unexplainable suffering and anguish.

OTHER CULTURES, JUST AS OUR OWN, HAVE THEIR OWN PECULIARITIES AND IF THEY WANT TO JOIN OUR CONFERENCE WHY SHOULD THEY NOT DO IT ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, WHY SHOULD WE BE TAKEN OVER.

(11) Is it "your conference?" Or is it God's conference in God's church? Thank you for opening "your" conference doors to the black believer after all these years, but how many decades will it take before the black believer feels that it is also "his" conference? Though some black people might venture to join "your" conference, the majority will never feel welcome to enter your "open" doors - and nobody can blame them.

(12) If there is a merger, and a black man is elected as president of your conference, does that mean that you have been "taken over?" Even if all the newly elected leaders of the new conference were black, does that mean that you have been "taken over?" Are these black leaders not also children of God? Is it a bad thing to be led by God-fearing men who have dark skins?

We must keep reminding ourselves that, as Christians, culture counts for nothing because `no distinction on account of nationality, race, or caste (culture), is recognised by God.' (COL386). As such, if the highest purpose of "our" conference is to preserve "our" culture, then we have missed the boat entirely. The conference is not to be the bastion of culture. If that were the case, we could only evangelize our own culture. No, the conference is but a part of the church - and the church is but a small facet of our culture. Nobody is looking to invade anyone else's culture. All that we are calling for is that God's will and the feelings of others be respected, and that we now clasp the hand of our black family and, united, draw a little closer to the cross - that we might finish the work that has been appointed us.

(13) The black people do not want to "take over" anyone or anything. Those that I have spoken to only wish that this issue could be settled so that the church can get on with the all-important work of preaching the gospel - that gospel which makes no provision for division on any grounds. Remembering that the Holy Spirit was only poured out on a people who were `of one accord' (Acts 2:1), do we seriously believe that the Holy Spirit will ever be poured out on a divided church? Or is there a "black" Holy Spirit and a "white" Holy Spirit?

(14) I fear to say this, but it is obvious that our present division is hindering the work and delaying the Lord's coming. If this is the case, we must ask ourselves whether a divided church has the right to preach about His soon coming? Aren't we being a little hypocritical preaching about the "advent" when we are divided and, as such, so far from ready?

(15) In the above sentence you again refer to "our own" culture, "their own" peculiarities, "our" conferences," etc . . . . But do we not sing about "Others, Lord, yes others - let this my motto be?" "We are one in the Spirit?" "United we stand?"

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LINK BETWEEN THE SAU AND THE CONFERENCES. DO WE NOT COME TOGETHER UNDER THE SAU? WHY CAN WE NOT MAINTAIN OUR INDIVIDUALITY?

(16) It is a sad state of affairs if we can only maintain "our" individuality at the expense of disunity. Surely, if the leadership at Union level have united, we should expect the leadership at conference level to unite, as well as the laity that they serve. Or is unity only expected of those who serve at Union level? Is a condition for the outpouring of the Spirit only a union of the Union brethren? Is this perhaps why we call it "the union?"

Is God preparing two heavens so that we may maintain our individuality? Once again we need to remind ourselves that we are here for others, to build up others, to help others, to nurture others. If all that our religion does is to help "us" to maintain "our" individuality, then we had might as well join a social club or a sports club - or some other organization where individuality (a long word that means "me") is highly prized.

After all, what are we here for? To protect our interests? To maintain our efficiency? To wing our way to heaven on clouds of ease? . . . . "From the manger to the cross, the life of Jesus was a call to self-surrender, and to fellowship in suffering." (DA57). Yet, sadly, all the anti-merger talk that I have heard so far only revolves around "our" inconvenience, how "we" will be disadvantaged, how much "we" will lose, what "we" will lose. Is this not a time for us to surrender, to be willing to suffer, to lose a little so that our disadvantaged black believers may gain a little? Is this not a time for us to share some of our responsibilities that others may have an opportunity to learn and to gain experience? Is this not a time to relax a little as far as our demands for efficiency are concerned, so that others may have opportunity to learn from us how to be more efficient?

(17) In closing, we need to remember our objectives. "The final objective of all efforts of the . . . church is that of (1) preaching the gospel and (2) preparing men and women [black and white] to meet the Lord." (4BIO 427). This is what we are here for, and anything that stands in the way of our reaching these objectives must be put aside. If the gospel speaks of a God who has embraced undeserving humanity in the person of His Son, can we preach this gospel when we cannot even embrace each other at the foot of the cross?

I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR REPLY.

I am sure that you did not expect such a long reply. Thank you again for your response and for the opportunity that it has given me to again wrestle with the issues in my own mind. Thanks to your E-Mail, I am now more convinced than ever that the merger absolutely must go through. As one minister who responded to my earlier communication has stated, "Let the decision be taken on principle - not on what impact it will have upon my comfort zone."

GOD BLESS

Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus. He will carry you through.

NAME WITHHELD