Imitating Jesus: Part 7- Apartheid Is (Un)’Biblical’
Dec 30th, 2007 by John
“Yet the extraordinary thing is that apartheid was a ‘biblical’ doctrine, justified ‘in the light of Scripture’ within a predominantly Christian country and supported by excellent university faculties of theology and biblical studies” (Burridge 406).
How could well-meaning, godly people–scholars and pastors and communities of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa–live believing that ’separate development’ (apartheid), which is now considered racist, even evil, had an ethical basis in the Word of God? This is the test-case for New Testament ethics with which Burridge ends his book Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics. I cannot possibly cover in this brief summary all that Burridge so ably presents in this final section of his book.
Burridge takes the reader into the honest and difficult challenge of bridging “the gap” between the biblical texts (and time) and our own contemporary ethical challenges. Without diligent work, we face a danger like this: “Premature assimilation [of the biblical text to our world], where the reader assimilates the text into his own prior horizons without recognizing its distinctiveness, will leave him trapped in his own perspectives, but under the illusion of having been addressed by the text. No one who takes the Bible at all seriously would want to domesticate it in this way” (357).
On the one hand, some treat the Bible cavalierly not recognizing how very foreign the people, events and stories of the Bible are to us. So, for some there is no gap. “The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it” mentality…and sentimentality. No group of Christians actually live according to this popular declaration. On the other hand, there are those who believe “the gap” cannot be bridged. We are left with no ethical help from the Scriptures. Burridge helps us avoid these two extremes.
Burridge surfaces four “biblical” ways the subject of apartheid was approached (and he offers specific examples of how the Bible was used): 1) Obeying rules and prescriptive commands, 2) Looking for principles and universal values, 3) Following examples and paradigms, and 4) Embracing an overall symbolic worldview. Those who believed apartheid to be “biblical” used the Bible in these ways to offer support for their views. The irony is this: those who opposed apartheid used the Bible in these identical ways to show that apartheid was very “unbiblical.” Both sides claimed to be “biblical,” yet had opposite views of apartheid! This is reminiscent of the ante-bellum slavery debates in the United States which led eventually to the Civil War.
Burridge offers his approach the ethical dilemma of apartheid based upon the biographical narrative reading of Paul and the Gospels: 1) a commitment to imitate Jesus and his ‘law of love’ 2) within an open, inclusive and diverse community. The life of Jesus honored and followed in community may save us from creating sectarian, hurtful doctrines that demean members of the human community. Out of South Africa is coming a strong plea for “contextual hermeneutics” where “interpretive communities” come together to study and dialogue about the way to live as Christians in society. We need opposing viewpoints within the community so that distortions are avoided by those in power or control. Without an inclusive, diverse, interpretive community, ”Scripture simply becomes a mirror reflecting a community’s self-deceptions back to itself disguised as the word of God” (400). Read that last quote again.
We need to honestly ask, Are we being led astray by so-called “conservatives” who believe they have a monopoly on being “biblical” as much as we may be led astray by so-called “liberals”?
Can right-wingers be wrong as well as left-wingers? We must not ever forget “the church” supported the Crusades, the holocaust, apartheid, slavery in Britian and America, and racist segregation in the South. Some branches of the USAmerican church support the secular, militaristic state called Israel to the detriment and even death of Palestinian brothers and sisters in Christ. How can this be? (And I write this believing that God has a unique place for the Jews in his heart.) An Israeli tour guide told a group of us one time that the state of Israel now trusts in the Uzi, not in God. As Christians what are we to do with that admission?
Burridge’s final words are “…to be truly biblical is to be inclusive in any community which wants to follow and imitate Jesus” (409).
Popularity: 4% [?]
Thought provoking. I see some of these dynamics played out on Scot’s blog: Jesus Creed. And especially the dynamic of balancing perspectives from equally committed Christians.
This also reminds me of William Webb’s “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals”, in which he seeks to demonstrate, and I think does so clearly, the importance of seeing things in cultural context to its day, before we seek to discern its meaning for the present time and in light of the kingdom of God come in Jesus.
Good education for us. Thanks, John.
Ted,
I learned a kind of hermeneutics-in-isolation where the “exegete” comes up with meaning of the text all by him- or herself. I think this is so dangerous because marginalized voices are seldom heard in this kind of biblical study. We need interpretive communities to iron out the horrendous distortions in USAmerican evangelicalism—focused on abortion and homosexuality to the neglect of the evil of war, unfetted consumerism in the church, world hunger, and an idiotic fascination with “end times.”
Apartheid is unblibical. Today almost everybody in South Africa agrees with that statement. It is imprtant though to mention that South Africa had its prophets in those days. Prof. WD Jonker In the last days of his career he was Dean of the Theological Faculty of the University of Stellenbosch. In the earlier years it was his criticism agaisnt apartheid that forced him to the netherlands where he taught at Kampen University. DJ Bosch is of course the other well known theological opposer of apartheid.
Lessons learned: First of all, listen to your friends for moral support, but listen to your enemies when you are in search of wisdom. If the church listened to WD Jonker and DJ Bosch in the seventies, I believe things could have been different.
Second: Keep the distance between church and state. At a critical point in our history Koot Vorster was the moedrator of the Dutch Reformed Church and his brother was the Prime Minister. Both of them were members of the secret organization the Broederbond. The Broederbond had one purpose and that was the protection and advantaging the course of the Afrikaner at all cost. Many of us are of the opinion that the church and state were rather goeverned by the Broederbond in those days.
Third: Make a habit of checking your priorities. You cannot follow Jesus when you are listening to others. An example to us is Desmond Tutu. Number one enemy in South Africa during the apartheid regime. Today he is in the same manner a critique of the ANC Government and not a member of the ANC. though not perfect, God is the number one priority in the life of Desmond Tutu. At this moment he is in Kenia trying to resolve the conflict and bring some peace in that country.
My thoughts on this issue.
Attie,
I was so eager to hear from you on this last post regarding apartheid. Thank you for returning and commenting. Burridge does speak of the influence of DJ Bosch and Desmond Tutu (and many others). Your second observation regarding “church and state” is both telling and informative. Burridge does not write about the Broederbond, but that kind of one-sided concentration of power is devastating, as you attest.
When one group (the Boers) believe that they are “God’s people” released from slavery (fleeing the Netherlands) and coming to the “promise land” (South Africa), then, of course, the native peoples (Zulus, etc.) will be viewed as the “wicked Canaanites.” You have volitile exclusion from the beginning. This was (and is) a horrible perversion of the Exodus story. This perverted Exodus story was also played out by those fleeing England to America and led to the whole-sale slaughter of Native Americans who were viewed as the “pagan” obstacles to developing the “new England.”
Do you have access to Burridge’s book?
I am a bear of very little brain, I think.
I couldn’t follow Burridge’s argument at all.
The scriptural justification of apartheid was very simple: it was based on the basic principle, assumption, or presupposition that the community of race trumps the community of grace.
Those who like their theology “nuanced” will probably say that that’s simplistic, but that’s the way I see it anyway.