Human rights in South Africa: a liberal theological understanding of Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 in response to injustices of the Dutch Reformed Church

Abstract

Ecclesiastes or 'Qohelet' is perhaps one of the most remarkable texts from the Wisdom tradition in the Hebrew Bible, and the 4:1-3 pericope presents a small yet emphatic glimpse into the effects of suffering and injustice from individuals at the hands of those in powerful positions. In this study, I propose to use Qohelet as a liberal theological paradigm towards contextualising the oppression and injustice that has been 'done under the sun' at the hands of individuals from the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) in South Africa; with specific focus on the DRC's history of using the Bible in promoting colonialism, institutional segregation policies and discrimination against same-sex individuals. Injustices with which the DRC has still not reconciled. Therefore the victims at the hands of such oppressors, still 'have no comforter', and by arguing that these are implicit violations of human rights, this study further aims to highlight the need for new Constitutional legislation; regulating church bodies in South Africa, and in so doing, demanding their accountability. 2 Introduction:

Full text

1
Human rights in South Africa: a liberal
theological understanding of Ecclesiastes
4:1-3 in response to injustices of the Dutch
Reformed Church
Tristán Kapp
University of Pretoria
Abstract
Ecclesiastes or ‘Qohelet’ is perhaps one of the most remarkable texts from the
Wisdom tradition in the Hebrew Bible, and the 4:1-3 pericope presents a small yet
emphatic glimpse into the effects of suffering and injustice from individuals at the
hands of those in powerful positions. In this study, I propose to use Qohelet as a
liberal theological paradigm towards contextualising the oppression and injustice that
has been ‘done under the sun’ at the hands of individuals from the Dutch Reformed
Church (DRC) in South Africa; with specific focus on the DRC’s history of using the
Bible in promoting colonialism, institutional segregation policies and discrimination
against same-sex individuals. Injustices with which the DRC has still not reconciled.
Therefore the victims at the hands of such oppressors, still ‘have no comforter’, and
by arguing that these are implicit violations of human rights, this study further aims to
highlight the need for new Constitutional legislation; regulating church bodies in
South Africa, and in so doing, demanding their accountability.

2
Introduction:
“Isn’t it greatness to have been the first, perhaps the only, to have taught us how to
live on this earth without any conditions other than those of life itself?” – Flavius
Josephus (Josephus 1976:40).
Ecclesiastes can easily be considered one of the most profound and stimulating texts
of the wisdom tradition in the Hebrew Bible. The unknown author, pseudonymously
known by historians and Biblical scholars alike as ‘Qohelet’ guides us on an existential
journey with its thematic approach to a lifestyle of wisdom as opposed to the vanity (or
futility) of life. In this study, I will endeavour to explore the narrative of the Qohelet;
specifically focusing on the background concerning the theme of oppression and evil
in the pericope of Ecclesiastes 4:1-3. In understanding the aforementioned context of
injustice and oppression, this study will attempt to argue how and where the Dutch
Reformed Church (DRC) has had a difficult relationship with human rights in South
Africa; specifically focusing on colonialism, segregation (Apartheid), and
homosexuality as exemplary (yet, correlated) issues. Since the 20th century, the Dutch
Reformed Church (see Spangenberg 2020:1-2) has been at the forefront of
intolerance. Persecuting those who would not submit to its ecclesiological status-quo
(Villa-Vicencio 1988:1).
The DRC’s early ‘Afrikaner-Calvinist’ position in the mid-1930’s especially influenced
colonialism and segregation narratives over the years (Spangenberg 2020:3-4),
however they have since our adoption of democratic Constitution in 1996 been
declared a violation of human rights and moral decency and have subsequently been
abolished (Amponsah 2013:431-457). When looking back at the important role that
the Dutch Reformed Church played during the Western colonisation of Africa (in the
name of God), the already established theological and cultural narratives led to the
eventual spearheading, justification and formation of Apartheid in South Africa
(Piotrowski 2019:56-57) between 1948-1994, along with the same biblical premise
influencing modern events of discrimination by the Dutch Reformed Church against
homosexual persons from 1962-2019. The aforementioned attitudes bring to mind the
sentiment from the infamous statement “all animals are equal, but some are more
equal than others” (Orwell 2003:82) and therefore the severity of these acts, done

3
specifically by the church has not sufficiently been considered as violations of human
rights.
There is evil and oppression being practiced under the sun, and Ecclesiastes 4:1-3
provides an apt narratological vantage point, which can be contextualised as
sympathetic with this proposed dilemma. And thus through studying its literary and
historical context through a liberal theological hermeneutic, this study hopes to
appropriate it to contemporaneity; using human rights legislation as an appropriate
reference for identifying the oppression in South Africa, at the hand of the Dutch
Reformed Church. The call to regulate churches in an attempt to hold them
accountable in South Africa is unignorably loud, as the demand grows for action to be
taken in light of injustice – “...for I have seen the tears of the oppressed and they had
no one to comfort them” (Qoh. 4:1).
Background:
Ecclesiastes is one of 24 books that collectively form part of what is known as the the
Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), and in particular it is identified as being one of the Ketuvim
(Writings) body of texts. The name ‘Ecclesiastes’ is Greek and derives from
ἐκκλησιαστής (èkklēsiastḗs); Jerome’s Greek Septuagint translation of   
(Qohelet), (Kealy 2012:147) which can be translated as either “assembler (of
sentences)” or “preacher” (Brown, et al. 1907:875). The biggest part of the
Ecclesiastes-text, indicates its preoccupation with the wisdom genre and is primarily
in monologue format; spoken by an individual identifying himself only as Qohelet or
rather “the wisdom teacher/collector” -and the son of David (cf. Qoh. 1:1). Yet,
regarding the exact identity of the author, little is known. The author does however
adopt the common ancient habit of positing philosophical precepts in the form of
speeches, and it is possible that the author comments on his own speeches (cf. Qoh.
12:9-10) (Weeks 2001:423).
Perry (2015) argues that the book is therefore pseudonymous, which is in direct
contrast to the Jewish tradition proposing Solomon as the author (cf. Forsyth 2005:19-
20). However, the pseudonym, is considered indicative of the text’s narrative form,
stylistic elements and especially its content. It could even be argued that the author’s
pseudonym possibly serves as the pen name of all authors in this genre who collected

4
and assembled sayings (or proverbs) (Perry 2015:1-2). The vocabulary in Qohelet is
rather peculiar as it contains a variety of Aramaic expressions and Persian loanwords
– these characteristics are more likely to be found in post-Biblical Hebrew, rather than
in the Biblical texts. There have been attempts to describe this phenomenon as
dialectical, but it is commonly agreed that they rather indicate a later dating and
authorship (Weeks 2001:423; Biwul 2017:4) leaning towards the 4th Century BCE.
Furthermore, the lack in Greek loanwords (or ‘Graecisms’), therefore propose that the
Ecclesiastes-text was perhaps composed before Alexander the Great’s conquest of
Palestine around c. 333 BCE placing the terminus a quo of between the second half
of the 5th century BCE, and the first half of the 4th century BCE as a terminus ad quem
(Rudman 1999:47-48). Alternatively, if the text was written during what is known as
the Hellenistic era, there would of course be numerous ‘Graecisms’ that entered the
Hebrew language (Seow 1997:12-16), which Seow (1997) and Rudman (1999), both
agree there is not. Considering as well the fact that Aramaic started taking over around
the 6th to the 5th centuries BCE, there are also no identifying factors that indicate an
influence of Aramaic, although there are some factors leaning more towards Rabbinic
Hebrew, Alter (2010) argues that the Qohelet’s language-style and themes,
elaborately discussing the brevity and futility of life exemplifies a thought pattern most
associative with that of a thought stream that had been established by the 4th Century
BCE (Alter 2010:357-358).
Therefore, if we are to arrive at a clear terminus a quo for Qohelet, in consideration of
the aforementioned, the possible composition could be no earlier than 600 BCE. Also
most scholars seem to opt in towards the notion of composition being no later than the
4-5th century BCE (cf. Seow 1997:120; Rudman 1999:52; McCabe 2015:14-16; Biwul
2017:4), because of the fact that it was known to the author of Ben Sira in 180 BCE,
yet it is not conclusive as there are simply too many factors to take into consideration
when attempting to arrive at a precise date. Furthermore, the precise social location
of the text – unlike other wisdom texts – has unfortunately been lost to modern
scholarship. Attempts have been made linking its thought to Epicureanism or Stoicism,
although Dell (2016) argues that not one classical-philosophical paradigm seems to
match the sentiments of Qohelet (Dell 2016:64-65).

5
When it comes to the wisdom-interpretation of the text, Qohelet is closest to the book
of Job, in also providing a criticism of wisdom along with the law of retribution.
However, it is clearly more true to the wisdom themes and forms of its tradition than
its brother-text, Job. And in terms of its content, there is a common perception that
Qohelet is a direct attack on the optimistic hermeneutical understandings of texts like
Proverbs, where there are clear dichotomies: reward for justice vis-a-vis punishment
awaiting wrongdoing; which is also quite similar to the perspectives of Job’s friends.
The author, Qohelet, thus tears through the illusory veil of a specific interpretational
reality. On the other hand, some experts interpret the author of the text as a probable
king who enjoys a substantial amount of comfort and wealth. This king then places
himself on an impregnable moral high ground, and from there criticises the
conventional perceptions of wisdom, in an attempt to enable people to see through the
many distorted present illusions. And thus in doing so, setting them free (Kealy
2012:147).
Dr. Paul Marcus, Ph.D. a New York training and supervising psychoanalyst at the
National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysis writes, “[The author of]
Ecclesiastes was struck by the fact that time and time again, according to his
experience, it is as if man lives in an ethically indifferent universe. [He] believed that
there was a God who had creative and boundless power, but that He often did not
wish to intervene in human history at the appropriate time, or if He did intervene, it was
usually too little, too late. [The author of] Ecclesiastes passionately protests against a
world in which the powerful are evil and the weak vulnerable to victimisation.” (Marcus
2000:236)
Own translation of Qohelet 4   
           - -                   
                      :
1. Thus I returned, and considered all the oppression that is done under the sun.
And behold the tears of the oppressed; they have no comforter. Alas on the side
of their oppressors [there is] power, but no. They have no comforter.

6
                         :
2. So I commended the dead -who were dead already, more than the living -who
are still alive:
                           
        :
3. That better [is he] than the two of them who has yet never existed, who has not
seen the evil work that is done under the sun.
Verse-by-verse Analysis:
Qohelet appears emotional in the start of this pericope, as a sense of woe can be
interpreted from his words here. He reacts more emphatically than in the preceding
chapters about the abhorrent circumstances he perceives the world to be in: Qohelet
maintains that it is better to be dead than to have first-hand experience of the
oppression because there will not be anyone to provide necessary comfort to the
oppressed. Therefore the concept of a supposed “divine purpose” is all fair and well,
yet it does not contribute any solace to the exploited oppressed (Weeks 2001:424-
425). Christianson (2007) seems to think the pericope in 4:1-3 seems to present the
author in a light lacking of concern (or a feeling of apathy) towards real justice. Here,
Qohelet presents himself as a detached ‘from the outside in’ observer that recognises
injustice and oppression but does not in actual fact advocate for an appropriate (and
just) reaction in response (Christianson 2007:180).
v.1) Alter (2010) seems to support this notion of apathy at first. When considering the
Hebrew noun       (hā-‘ă-šu-qîm), which most likely translates to “acts of
oppression” (v.1), as Qohelet states this twice for emphasis (MacKnight 2016:16). It is
therefore clear from the syntax that the author does in fact acknowledge the suffering
of the oppressed. Yet, there is again no indication (as seen in other wisdom texts, like
Psalms, cf. v.121) that Yahweh will come to their aid or rescue those oppressed from
their suffering. Alternatively, one may acknowledge the presence of an indirect
exhortation, similar to that of the prophets (cf. Zech. 7:10) that the responsibility to

7
rescue them lies with the individual (Alter 2010:377-378). According to Utley 2014 this
line indicates that Solomon is definitely not the author, because he would have had
the means to address the injustice whereas Qohelet is a helpless observer, but his
acknowledgement of the injustice notes that should humanity be left to their own
devices, it will corrupt everything (Utley 2014:45).
v.2) The second line introduces a sense of redundancy, “the dead -who were dead
already, more than the living -who are still alive...” which Alter (2010) ascribes to a
stylistic emphasis, a hyperbole (Utley 2014:46) unique to Qohelet (Alter 2010:378).
Most will consider this as a complaint, however MacKnight (2016) argues that this is
merely a statement of fact in consideration of the situation of the oppressed. A
reflection of what is wrong with the world (MacKnight 2016:16-17).
v.3) In the final verse of this pericope, Qohelet gives praise to those who have not yet
come into existence, which can be considered in parallel with like-minded sentiments
in Job 3 & 10 where Job curses the day he was born (cf. Job 3:1-26; 10:18-19).
However, what Qohelet appears to offer here is not a depressed, fatalistic or nihilistic
view of life, but in actual fact substantive of a high appreciation of life (MacKnight
2016:17). Although, compared to Job who utters such statements in relation to his own
suffering; Qohelet posits this as a philosophical reflection of the present human
condition. Alter (2010) justifies this in reference to       (ha’-mma-‘ă-śeh) “the
works/deeds” which is grammatically masculine singular, but syntactically stands as a
collective noun (Alter 2010:378). I would argue a different perspective: Qohelet utters
this phrase as an indictment at how far humanity has fallen in their oppression of one
another for their own selfish gain. It is more than a mere reflection of the human
condition, but a finger pointing at the gross injustice befalling humanity before his
(Qohelet’s) very eyes. MacKnight (2016) agrees with this view in acknowledging that
this is not how life ought to be, and that Qohelet thus wishes that he had never seen
the manifestations of such oppression (MacKnight 2016:17-18).

8
A Liberal Theological Contextualisation:
Gathering from the aforementioned explanations, it is logically sound to admit that the
pericope in Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 symbolises a cry for help with hands tied, in the face of
injustice and oppression. This is why I believe; liberal theology (not to be confused
with liberation theology) provides an apt hermeneutical framework from which to
appropriate this text into a modern response: Liberal theology, also known as ‘free
theology’ or ‘modern theology’ focuses on the reinterpretation and reformation of
Christian doctrine and Biblical texts through taking into consideration modern ethics,
knowledge and scientific discourse (see Hodgson 1999:65-73). At its core, it maintains
an emphasis on individual experience and reason. Liberal theology is a ‘third way’
between both atheistic rationalism, and traditional theological understanding which is
formed upon premises such as the Biblical narratives or sacred traditions as
considerations of absolute external authority (Dorrien 2001:50-51 cf. Hodgson &
Finney 2010:4-10).
A Brief History of Liberal Theology:
In theological discourse, the concept of liberal theology ought to be separated from
liberalism as a political and philosophical narrative, which is based on the idea of
prioritising an individual’s right to liberty (freedom), life as well as property as the
highest goal of government (Meiser 2017:22). Theological liberalism started in the
1730-40’s and forms a part of a period called the “Great Awakening” which was a
movement that swept the United States and the United Kingdom (where it was known
as the “Evangelical Revival”), marking a permanent shift in Protestantism as arguing
for an interdenominational protestant theology (Ahlstrom 2004:280-330).
Liberal theology was pioneered by three pastors from Boston, Charles Chauncy (1705-
1787), Ebenezer Gay (1696-1787) and Jonathan Mayhew (1720-1766) who appealed
for a “supernatural rationalism” which meant an emphasis on reason and revelation.
Moving away from Calvinist piety and presumption, and abolishing its key doctrinal
stances of ‘total depravity’ and ‘election to grace’ with extreme criticism (Dorrien
2001:1-2). However, the most important of these leaders was William Ellery Channing
(1780-1842) who was a philosopher and theologian, known for his passion and vigour
in sermons, criticism of orthodoxies in numerous Christian doctrines (like the trinity

9
and incarnation) of which Calvinist doctrines were the most prominent (Madden
1997:558-559).
In General, Channing can be considered a ‘civil libertarian’ and ‘abolitionist’ (both
political movements that focused on the abolition of slavery during the Civil War in the
U.S.) (Köşker & Harika 2017:23-44); even writing a book called “Slavery” which was a
treatise on man's duty to rectify the social ail of slavery, as the United States nation
knew it in 1835. Moreover, whenever freedom of speech and the freedom of the press
were threatened, Channing was the first to jump to their defence, and his most
valuable contribution in support of other abolitionists was the fact that he defended
their right to be heard, no matter how unpalatable it was for the gross majority (Madden
1997:585).
On the basis of the aforementioned events, along with his contempt for prosperity, his
conflict about his family’s devotion to freedom but disregard for the lower-classes,
Channing eventually succeeded to prominence and became a well-known critic of the
United States’ institutionalised tyranny and hypocrisy (Dorrien 2001:6). It was against
this contextual backdrop that Liberal theology was born: “...[Calvinism] proclaiming a
God who is to be dreaded. We are [then] told to love and imitate God, but also that
God does things we would consider most cruel in any human parent, ‘were he to bring
his children into life totally depraved and then to pursue them with endless
punishment’” (Channing 1957:56).
However, it is not with an emphasis on Calvinistic doctrine per se that I wish to posit
my response, but rather an approach to specific relevant teachings and practices in
the contemporary South African churches that contributes –or has contributed to
oppression and abuse of human rights in the past. What are these evils being done
under the sun? Who are those in power? And what can be done to comfort the victims
at the hands of oppression?

10
Injustice and the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC):
“Thus I returned, and considered all the oppression that is done under the sun” (Qoh.
4:1a)
Western-European Colonialism
Since the start of missionaries arriving in South Africa, the church (in general) was
meant to be the main weapon in the European Imperialist’s armoury: Mission stations
were characterised by the South African missionary Dr. John Philip as being cheap,
easy and effective military outposts that any government can and should employ to
defend its frontiers against the savagery of indigenous tribes (Villa-Vicencio 1988:42-
44). The early European colonialists in South Africa aimed to utilise their Christianity
to “colonise the conscience and consciousness of the colonised” so as to decondition
the indigenous natives of their ‘nativity’ (Masondo 2018:209). It was meant to shape
the native into the coloniser’s imago Dei. However, religion in Africa did not start with
the unannounced arrival and emergence of settlers and missionaries – Africans had
been practising their own religions since the dawn of their humanity (Sindima
1990:206).
The oppression and injustice only came into play when the European settlers utilised
the religious narratives of the church as a means to ‘civilise’ the native through
converting them into adoption of these meta-narratives (Masondo 2018:209-210).
The African was perceived as a blank canvas on which the Europeans could paint
their own picture, like Yahweh moulding man into his own image in the Genesis-
narrative. The Dutch Reformed Church enforced ‘superior’ Western narratives of
civility on Africans through ‘Christianising’ them with the Bible (Spangenberg 2020:4)
and the missionary policy adopted in 1935 by the DRC corroborates this (see
Kinghorn 1986:87-90); which brings to mind the infamous quote by Archbishop
Desmond Tutu, “When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we
had the land. They said, ‘Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened them,
we had the Bible and they had the land” (Simango 2018:4).
Platvoet (1996) builds on this by mentioning that travelers, traders, slavers,
missionaries and other colonial powers undermined Africa and its natives, (Masondo
2018:211) and Villa-Vicencio (1988) proposes that at the heart of this was the

11
Gospel of the colonial church which was directly linked to the ideology of colonialism
founded by the British. This worldview, of course, helped form the predisposition
through which the colonial church viewed indigenous people in Africa and South
Africa (Villa-Vicencio 1988:44). The problem with such a worldview was that the
native African was perceived as inferior. And Horton (1984) affirms this narrative
approach in saying “Judaeo-Christian religious discourse…celebrates the primacy
and centrality of the ‘Supreme Being’ as against all ‘lesser’ spiritual agencies”
(Horton 1984:403). This meta-narrative became ingrained into the convictions of the
colonial church, and became an excuse to enslave and dehumanise (oppress) the
indigenous people of South Africa.
Greene (1996) argues that the Western history of religions divided native religious
presence into three evolutionary phases: Firstly, according to Masondo (2018)
Africans were identified as a people without a religion, (and whether this is true or
false is beside the point). The point is rather the implications that such a world-view
had for the dignity of the African native; resulting in injustice (Masondo 2018:211) –
secondly, the indigenous tribes’ religious practices were acknowledged but deemed
inferior. Thirdly, colonial perspectives on indigenous religious practices deemed it to
be in the infancy stages of ‘Fetishism’ which primarily meant that they were deemed
to be at the level of where Western religions started centuries ago, and therefore
they were inconsistent with modernity (Greene 1996:122). Inevitably, one can
describe this historical development as the backdrop which paved the way for the
categories of superhuman, the human and sub-human.
These narratives still remain very real for many a South African, because as Vosloo
(2015) states this notion quickly developed into segregation, which inevitably led to
one of the greatest injustices to human rights in the history of our country: Apartheid
(Dumeni 1983:1-4; Vosloo 2015:196-200), as missionary churches found themselves
siding with the colonial state. Reformed theologian Max Stackhouse argues that
"[t]he deep roots of human rights ideals are rooted nowhere else than in the biblical
tradition, but these values remained a minority tradition (within the Church) for
centuries.” This statement is echoed by American actor and producer, James Woods
when he stated “religion and freedom have not been natural allies” (Villa-Vicencio
2000:579).

12
“And behold the tears of the oppressed; they have no comforter. Alas on the side of
their oppressors [there is] power, but no. They have no comforter.” (Qoh. 4:1b)
The DRC’s Influence and Theology on Segregation
The Western biases attributed to Africans from colonialist Christianity became a
testament for the Apartheid regime, when H. F. Verwoerd and D. F. Malan applied a
sub-human narrative as justification for their political plans (Masondo 2018:212).
Verwoerd believed that “Blacks were only good for providing labour and nothing more”
and this statement was not exclusively just a political narrative, but a narrative backed
by theological biases from the Dutch Reformed Church as the National Party
emphasised the “Christian guardianship” and superiority of the European race over
that of the non-white races (Venter 1999:422).
At the helm of this ecclesial metamorphosis was Prof. J.D. Du Toit (Totius) from the
Reformed Churches in South Africa (RCSA) along with Prof. E.P. Groenewald from
the DRC who was not only professor but representative of the Algemene Sinode
(Federal Council) of the DRC in the Transvaal in 1943. He was also chairman for the
Current Affairs committee who were later commissioned by the DRC to prepare a
paper for their next meeting to be held in 1947, providing Biblical support for the
apartheid ideology (Van Der Watt 1987:87-88) later published in Regverdige Rasse-
Apartheid (Fair Race-Segregation) with minor changes that same year (see Cronjé &
Nicol 1947), although Du Toit (Totius) was not a member of the DRC, he was a
member of the Broederbond (see Zaaiman 2010:121-146) and also an influential Bible
translator, poet and theologian who in 1944 read a paper ‘Die Godsdienstige
Grondslag van ons Rassebeleid’ (The Religious Foundations of our Race policy),
claiming racial segregation as Biblical, with ‘God as the great Divider’ at the hand of
Genesis 1 (Jonker 1998:193).
Segregation was a product of Afrikaner nationalism which arose from the Afrikaner
narrative of being ‘chosen by God’ (just like the Israelites); Spangenberg (2020)
argues that this Afrikaner meta-narrative stems from the ‘Great Trek’ serving as
Exodus, and celebrating this after the Boer War gave new meaning to Afrikaner history
and also gave birth to the Voortrekker Monument, yet it was all these events that
collectively “contributed to a new wave of Afrikaner Nationalism” (Spangenberg
2020:4-5). And this was to be the precursor for Apartheid, which as a term represents

13
a more developed and institutionalised form of racism: A racial ideology, “calling for
allegiance or rejection” (Richardson 1986:1-4). And firmly behind this ideology (as
indicated earlier), was the Dutch Reformed Churches who were considered the
“custodians” of this ideology; referring to Apartheid as “our policy” during a Natal
Synod meeting in 1951 (Bosch 1983:31).
Furthermore, it is also acknowledged by both critics and allies of the apartheid regime
that a unique precurrence of theological narratives influenced its ideological roots: a
variety of neo-Calvinist theology founded on the thoughts and ideas of Abraham
Kuyper (1837-1920), an influencial Dutch theologian, newspaper editor and academic
who co-founded the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Spangenberg 2020:3) and whose
theological convictions built the foundations of the ‘Hervormde Kerk Nederland’ (1886)
who later joined another congregation and together became the ‘Gereformeerde Kerke
Nederland’ in 1892 (Deist 1986:117-119) accompanied by romanticised ideals of
German nationalism (Villa-Vicencio 2000:581). Collectively, these narratives
cemented the foundation of doctrines like election and covenantal theology, rebuilt to
house a more alien cultural and racial, nationalist narrative (Richardson 1986:4).
The Dutch Reformed Church (DRC), an offspring of the aforementioned churches
(Strauss 2019:370-371) was also very influential (not just on academic and
congregational level) but also on a political level, and openly pioneered initiatives
alongside the ideal of racial segregation (separation) on theological and scriptural
basis, justified via influential documents like Human Relations and the South African
Scene in the Light of Scripture of 1974, defending the National Party’s policies on
racial segregation (Van Der Merwe 2013:137-141). And Du Toit (Totius) a failed
politician and 17th century theologian (as explained elsewhere), was one of the
fundamental engines of the DRC that drove apartheid theology on the basis of biblical
narratives like Genesis 11, referring to God’s idea of a ‘different nation’, founded on
Biblical texts like Acts (2:5-12) and Revelations (5:9; 7:9 & 14:6) which according to
Du Toit, implied the separation of tongues and cultures will also be present in heaven
(Manavhela 2009:56).

14
The Dawn of Apartheid
It was such overtures that made the DRC in South Africa believe it was their ‘God-
ordained duty’ to preserve their Afrikaner cultural identity, therefore racial
Segregation was considered an imminent commandment from God that none should
oppose as none could supplant nor make equal that which God has pre-empted to
be unequal. However, by the time the National Party (NP) came into power under
leadership of Dr. D. F. Malan as its president in 1948, apartheid (as an ideology) was
already institutionally established in the 1935 mission policy of the Dutch Reformed
Church (Manavhela 2009:56-57). Moreover the apartheid policy being implemented
politically, shy of 3-years after the fall of the greatest nationalist and fascist, epitome
of human injustice that shook modern history, the Nazi-regime: Apartheid was
inarguably the embodiment of all its preceding white supremacist ideologies and
regimes.
Ahmed Kathrada shared such sentiments in his speech at a meeting in Sophiatown,
Johannesburg held by the ‘Anti-Permit Committee’ in 1956, where he stated “I have
seen European civilization and I want to say that what Dr. Malan is trying to impose
upon the people of South Africa is not civilization at all...I have been to Germany. I
have seen what Hitler has done...I have been to the concentration camps of Poland.
I have been to these countries, where [a collective of] six million people were killed!
In Germany itself, five million people...- I have seen those things. I have studied
those things; and whenever I went into a concentration camp, my heart went back to
the people of my country; to the people in South Africa” (Arieli 2019:1-2).
Apartheid resulted in the murder, torture and abuse of hundreds of innocent black
South Africans, robbing many of their loved ones. It was the epitome of institutionalised
racism, repression and inhumanity. Nelson Mandela affirmed this in his words, “The
resistance of the black man to white colonial intrusion was crushed by the gun! Our
struggle to liberate ourselves from white domination [was] held in check by force of
arms.” (Hinds 1985:6). And to imagine that Apartheid was supported by the church on
an institutional level, pioneering a systemic disregard for the existence and most basic
human rights of its majority citizens just because of their ethnic predisposition (Hinds
1985:6-8), affirms its place as a foundationally equal human injustice likened to the
Nazi regime. 20-years after the Apartheid institutional plan was brought to fruition, the

15
United Nations Commission on Human Rights publicly denounced the South African
Apartheif government for “its perpetuation and intensification of the inhuman policy of
Apartheid, in complete and flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and
Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (Hinds 1985:8).
Church Theology vs. State Theology
In June 1985, the Kairos Document was released, which was written by a group of
Pastors in Soweto (De Gruchy & De Gruchy 2005:195) who declared prominently that
the church was a part of the problem. The problem faced in South Africa (and the
church) was characterised by this document in two ways: ‘State Theology’ vs. ‘Church
Theology’ (Goba 1990:10-11): ‘State Theology’ was mainly critiqued in the document
as being the theological justification behind the institutionalised racism and
totalitarianism that created Apartheid, accused that it blesses injustice, canonising the
will of the powerful to the detriment of the poor who are then curbed into submission,
passivity and apathy (Leonard 2010:9-12). Yet the Kairos document, also condemns
the Dutch Reformed Church’s church theology; calling their interpretation of both
theologies as analogous with injustice and oppression.
I agree with Goba (1990) who argues that there is no denial in the theological shift in
the document’s reasoning, although, the document (given the volatile context)
maintains a relatively neutral ideological stance (Goba 1990:12), one could even say
it was rather precarious. Goba (1990) further maintains that the document was a rather
diluted attempt at addressing a gross injustice to universal human rights. The leaders
of the apartheid church Dr. Malan and Dr. Treurnicht utilised their ideologies of
apartheid to both promote the combined ideals of the state and the church, as well as
the theological notion of the Afrikaner’s divine calling as “God’s chosen nation”, which
influenced the racial context of Apartheid South Africa, and continues to shape the de
facto Afrikaner theological meta-narrative (Goba 1990:12-13), especially within the
DRC that still remains largely segregated on the basis of old Apartheid policies
(Hesselmans 2016:120-121). Willem Nicol a prominent Dutch Reformed minister
opined that the “mother church” (NGK) has not proactively spearheaded initiatives for
change. The Afrikaner church merely developed a guilty conscience and but followed
the majority of the flock in their apathy towards social reconciliation after Apartheid.
And this has permeated an ‘evil cycle’ (bose kringloop) where the negative

16
experiences associated with Apartheid, reinforced a recurring theological critique;
which in turn resulted in a strengthening of the complete opposite in the minds of the
Afrikaner church (Weiße & Anthonissen 2004:116-119 cf. Hesselmans 2016:121).
Although, in 1986 a confession was drafted by a DRC Synod appointed committee,
consisting of Dr. Alan Boesak, Rev. Isak Mentor, along with three lecturers from the
University of the Western Cape (UWC): Dirkie Smit, Jaap Durand and Gustav Bam
(Plaatjies-van Huffel & Modise 2017:19). This confession, known as the Belhar
Confession marked a definitive change in the journey to reconciliation on the part of
the DRC. Unfortunately, the vote to adopt this confession into DRC legislation was
rejected by a majority of 71 clergy, including Rev. Mentor (Assessor of the Synod) who
proposed that it should first be referred to all other DRC congregations for approval,
before a final vote on its adaptation could be made. What’s more, is the fact that it
deliberately omitted the terms ‘Apartheid’, ‘racism’ and ‘ethnicity’ in the draft of the
confession (Plaatjies-van Huffel & Modise 2017:19-23).
The Belhar confession, however, was not to be taken lightly and had profound judicial
implications for clergymen in the DRC; Moodie (2018) considers the DRC’s reaction
to this confession “a tragically lost opportunity” that continues to be so (Moodie
2018:32-33). To date, the Dutch Reformed Church – as the founder of Apartheid and
Segregation – has still not officially adopted the 1986 Belhar confession as statement
of faith (Plaatjies-van Huffel & Modise 2017:25). And subsequently, unity (and justice)
continues to escape the Dutch Reformed church according to Nicol (Weisse &
Anthonissen 2004:120). Furthermore, Dirkie Smit takes a different stance; he argues
that to the DRC ethnicity is not relevant anymore and neither are other social struggles
for justice because in abandoning their ‘ethnic character’, the DRC has consistently
failed a commitment to reconciliation and social justice (Weisse & Anthonissen
2004:139-141).
From the above context, it is arguable that the Dutch Reformed Church has shown a
consistent pattern of unrepentance towards the shadow of injustice it casts over the
nation of South Africa, post-apartheid. And the answer as to why the Dutch Reformed
Church has shown such elusiveness and apathy to such a stellar example of human
injustice, can be found in the lamentations of Qohelet that there is injustice around us
today and the victims (still) have no comforter because those at the hand of injustice

17
are possessors of power. “So I commended the dead -who were dead already, more
than the living -who are still alive” (Qoh. 4:2)
Homosexuality in the Dutch Reformed Church:
Indeed, post-apartheid South Africa has since provided equality before the law for all.
Regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, gender or sexuality (see CRSA
1996:6-9). In light of this, certain laws have been considered unpopular and oft
controversial by major (especially religious) factions of the general South African
public, (Kotzé & Loubser 2018:2-3) for one, the decriminalisation of homosexuality in
1998 where the National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality won against the
Minister of Justice and Others: Such an achievement set an international pace for
approving new laws concerning immigration, pension, adoption as well as rights for
same-sex individuals in South Africa (Thoreson 2008:679). And subsequently, South
Africa has been hailed as a country with one of the most progressive Constitutional
legislations in the world, according to a study done by the Chief Directorate in 2016
(see Insight 2017), in celebration of the 20th anniversary since the birth of the South
African constitution in 1996. In fact, South Africa has been one of the first countries to
legalise same-sex unions in 2006, despite receiving enmity and hostility from the
religious conservative public in response (Roberts & Reddy 2008:9-11).
This a tremendous political victory, following the Dutch Reformed Church’s original
(and even by then still immanent and unchanged) response in 1986, declaring
homosexuality something that ‘in light of scripture’ ought to be considered a ‘gross
depravity of [intended] normative sexual nature’ (NGK 1986:672). It is a well-known
fact that the Dutch Reformed General Synod still makes decisions on issues within the
DRC on behalf of the entire church, and the Dutch Reformed Church vowed to revise
their decisions made on homosexuality in 2007, in order to reach a conclusion that
both reflects traditional stances but also takes into consideration new information
(Strauss 2011:1-2). However, there is absolutely no doubt that the Dutch Reformed
Church regards the topic of homosexuality (and sexuality ingeneral) of utmost
importance in light of the Biblical texts; this is not only reinforced by the evidence from
the churches’ official proceedings, but also its stances on the importance of Sola
Scriptura in relation to faith (Van Wyk 1991:23).

18
It is therefore worth noting that the Biblical narratives that even slightly weigh in on this
discourse, play a fundamentally important role in dictating the DRC’s approaches to
Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual unions: this comes as no surprise, for even during
Apartheid and the latter half of the 20th century, the Bible has been a superbly
important ally (Punt 2006:885). Moreover, when considering the dominant
discouragement of Homosexuality (and Bisexuality) by the Dutch Reformed church –
the conversation usually proposes that the Biblical narratives provide clear guidance
on this issue. Hence, the conclusion is understood as rather simple and
straightforward: the Bible states clearly that those with a homosexual inclination will
not enter the kingdom [of heaven] (1 Cor. 6:9), period. König (2005) emphasises this
stance as initially affirmative, (König 2005:85) and yet arises the question if perhaps
these Biblical narratives ought not to be understood in a different light?
After all, theological scholarship continues to contribute new research on the matter,
revising past Biblical hermeneutics at the hand of social scientific studies and placing
the sitz im leben through historical-critical methods in order to explain ancient texts for
a contemporary zeitgeist (see Elliot 2011:1-4). However, outside the church, it is likely
that most will agree; homosexuality is – after all – not a choice, but merely a different
(yet still normative) way of life for some individuals in society who still express and
experience love and sexuality naturally (Strauss 2011:2-3).
On the contrary, the (Biblical) presuppositions held by the Dutch Reformed Church
influencing their overall decision making, -as we have seen earlier in the history of the
NGK with regards of Apartheid- appears to have a tendency to cloud their judgement
on social issues. Dreyer (2006), however makes it clear that the debate concerning
homosexuality (in the DRC) does not find its roots in a presupposition-stance, but
rather a prejudiced-stance. Nevertheless, she concedes that we –as humans- are
incapable of being objective, and when we engage with such sensitive issues; it is
impossible not to carry along our presupposed narratives (Dreyer 2006:155). Dreyer
(2006) then further argues that such narratives, however, should not be demonised as
they form a part of our (natural) histories, experiences that make us who we are.
Moreover she attests that these narratives or “value-neutral” realities cán create
emotions and bring about acts and attitudes that could be utilised for prejudice, which
then subsequently may be harmful to others (Dreyer 2006:155-156).

19
Under apartheid, the concept of GLB (Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual) relations were
closely related to other perceived Afrikaner ‘cultural threats’ such as the fear of
interracial mixing (miscegenation), which ‘threatened’ the preservation of the Afrikaner
cultural bloodline, which stems from the DRC’s anthropological arguments that
resulted in a closed worldview, with a limited perspective for many Afrikaners (Kruger
& Van Der Merwe 2017:2, 5). This led to extreme prohibitions and unforgiving
brutalities against non-reproductive sexual behaviours under the Apartheid regime
(Kaplan 2004:1415-1416; Thoreson 2008:679).
Today we no longer find ourselves under the laws of the Apartheid regime, and
advocating hatred or causing harm to persons on the basis of sexual orientation has
become a criminal act of hate speech (Geldenhuys & Kelly-Louw 2019:5-7), and
inasmuch deserves no excuse. Hence, I again posit the argument made by Dreyer
(2006) in this context, arguing that the Dutch Reformed Church has moved well
beyond mere presupposition (Dreyer 2006:155) in their ambiguity towards same-sex
expressions, since 1982 up until today. As there is still an overarching prejudice rooted
in the Dutch Reformed church: believing that “inclusivity, extreme accommodation and
an overemphasis of diversity has penetrated theological scholarship due to a
permissive liberal-secular culture” (Botha 2005:9). “That better [is he] than the two of
them who has yet never existed, who has not seen the evil work that is done under
the sun” (Qoh. 4:3).
Dutch Reformed General Synod [NGK]:
1982-1990
As mentioned elsewhere, the DRC and their decisions that were (and are) made by
the Dutch Reformed Church (even concerning homosexual relationships), are made
by the Algemene Sinode (Federal Council) on behalf of the entire DRC. In this section,
I will briefly trace the important decisions made by the DRC Synods where same-sex
unions are discussed.
In 1982 the Council decided to treat same-sex individuals with a complete banning
and definite exclusion from experiencing communion (Algemene Sinode [NGK]
1982:164). This decision was later revised in 1986 but the DRC remained prejudiced
in their attitude regarding homosexuality as sinful, deviant and immoral. Yet the DRC
has made the exception to allow homosexual persons to have communion, but also

20
appealed to financial support to fund ‘specialist church services’ assisting people with
their unique homosexual predicament (Algemene Sinode [NGK] 1986: p134-135, 355-
363, 672). The church nowhere specifies what the exact nature of these services were,
and it remains a mystery as no records of them can be found. Nonetheless in 1990, it
was noted that the church could not get funding from the state for these ‘specialist
services’ but that there is a committee adding new research to the 1986 decision on
homosexuality (Algemene Sinode [NGK] 1990:353).
2002-2007
With the arrival of 2002, the annual DRC Council meeting marked a pivotal step in the
controversy, as the church declared that they cannot associate themselves with the
1986 declaration anymore. Even though it welcomed homosexual persons into the
congregational fold and apologised for the church’s behaviour, the church still stood
firm that the 1986 position on homosexuality, remains valid and that only heterosexual
marriages are recognised by God, even though it understood the need for more
research to be done and then maintained that a more definitive stance will be taken at
the next DRC Council meeting in 2004 (Algemene Sinode [NGK] 2002:624). It was
also during this time that church councils started to withdraw their support from the
only church that provided services to gay congregants: FIC (Filadelphia in Christ)
assisted gay people to ‘change’ their sexual orientation, but was eventually later
cancelled due to a lack of interest from the gay community (Van Loggerenberg
2008:7). Perhaps these were the ‘specialist church services’ mentioned in the 1986
Council agenda?
At the 2004 Council meeting, the 1986 decision was officially replaced with one that
declared all people (regardless of sexual orientation) should be accepted as members
of the DRC. Nonetheless, the church still maintained their original stance, that only a
heterosexual union can be recognised as a marital union, and also apologised (a
second time) to the homosexual community, for the pain the church has caused. And
had decided to provide pastoral care to the homosexual community (Algemene Sinode
[NGK] 2004:374). Van Loggerenberg (2008) noted that the DRC at this stage
acknowledged that sexuality was in fact innate to a person’s identity, but such an
epiphany tragically did not contribute to any strides from the DRC towards

21
reconciliation with the homosexual community, neither through their attitudes nor their
deeds (Van Loggerenberg 2008:8).
In 2005, the General Synod’s moderamen decided at their annual meeting to employ
a task team (cf. Stander, et al. 2019:305) to further investigate the matter of
homosexuality and Van Loggerenberg (2008) states that he, along with 19 other
members were conscripted to submit a report to the General Synod by 2007. The team
consisted of a scribe (Dr. Willie Botha), convener (Dr. Ben Du Toit) and a facilitator
(Dr. Herman Carelsen), the other 16 members were considered experts in the field of
homosexuality and were divided into opposing factions: the one group, open to the
idea of monogamous homosexual relationships versus the second group remaining
reserved towards homosexual relations of any sort. Although, both groups were
considered equally sympathetic towards homosexual individuals (Van Loggerenberg
2008:8-9).
The atmosphere of the 2007 Council meeting was rife with tension, even though
people in these task teams learned to respect opposing views (Jackson 2007:7),
Burger (2007) noted that the discourse however went much different – compared to
all other Synod meetings as it contained profound knowledge and insight into the
matter and even showed consideration to opposing viewpoints, (Burger 2007:14).
According to Van Loggerenberg (2008) the 2007 sitting could be considered as yet
another pivotal moment in the history of the DRC, because of the fact that the DRC’s
empathy towards homosexual Christians had increased (Van Loggerenberg
2008:117-118). Individual chairpersons like Dr. André Bartlett (pro-gay) versus Dr.
Jorrie Potgieter (anti-gay) presented their opposing consensuses to the Synod
‘moderamen’ (cf. Stander, et al. 2019:305), after which each of them had a chance to
propose their arguments openly. This led to a compromise from the DRC in
consideration of both stances on the matter (Van Loggerenberg 2008:118).
The 10 appointed Synod ‘moderamen’ were accompanied by facilitator Nelis Janse
van Rensburg and and former lecturer in Dogmatics and Christian Ethics, Prof. Danie
du Toit (Algemene Sinode [NGK] 2007:107). The final statement of the moderamen
comprised of 8 statements (considered a unit), yet even though greater inclusivity
towards contrasting viewpoints was shown; the main stance on homosexual
relationships remained similar to that of 2002 and 2004: homosexual unions were still

22
not recognised (Algemene Sinode [NGK] 2007:204-205, 110). Van Loggerenberg
(2008) however still felt that this was a positive stride towards victory for the gay
community in the DRC because the final clause (No. 8) in the official declaration
allowed discretion to individual churches (Van Loggerenberg 2008:119). Such
sentiments were shared by many others, despite the fact that gay clergy were still
required to be celibate and homosexual unions were still not recognised (cf. Algemene
Sinode [NGK] 2007:110).
2013-2020
After the decision in 2007 there was a long period of silence, all were content until 6
years later when the 2007 decision was reviewed by the Council and reaffirmed in
their 2013 meeting, except for a few added clauses: one allowing for an equal
‘Christian-ethical standard’ expectation of both straight and gay students of the DRC,
preparing to enter ministerial positions. And another mentioning that the church strives
towards the ‘season of human dignity’ for homosexual individuals (Algemene Sinode
[NGK] 2013:237).
Eventually in the 2015 annual Council meeting, the Dutch Reformed Church broke
church history in South Africa by finally opening its doors to the gay community – the
General Synod under leadership of Nelis Janse van Rensburg (Moderator), and Dirkie
van der Spuy (assessor) decided to allow and recognise ‘loving and committed’
homosexual unions in the Dutch Reformed Church. In an emotional Pastoral letter,
Janse van Rensburg and van der Spuy wrote, “there was a strong feeling [among the
Council] that further study was needed [concerning homosexual relationships] but [we]
eventually decided that we cannot stay silent any longer; [as] staying silent would say
too much. We [therefore] present this decision in humility, as a decision that is still
submitted under rigorous consideration” (Janse Van Rensburg & Van Der Spuy
2015:1). The 7th clause as submitted in the decision of 2007, permitting homosexual
clergypersons – provided they were celibate – was retracted in the 2015 decision
under the 5th clause stating that “the same Christian-ethical standards are required of
all persons wishing to be ordained” (Algemene Sinode [NGK] 2015:90-99).
Tragically, the 2015 celebrations were short lived as the previous decisions was ‘set
aside’ in the 2016 Council meeting, called together a Buitengewone Algemene Sinode
or ‘Extraordinary Federal Council’ (cf. Stander, et al. 2019:8) regarding the 2015

23
decisions around same-sex unions. This meeting, declared their dissatisfaction with
‘red cards in the air’ towards the 2015 Council decision permitting homosexual unions
in the church, (Swanepoel, et al. 2016:3). Returning to decisions made in 1968, 1990
and 2004 concerning same-sex unions and thereby repealing their 2015 ideals
(Bartlett 2017:162,203). And reemphasising that indeed only heterosexual unions are
considered marriages and that homosexual unions cannot be considered as
alternatives (or equal) to the recognised heterosexual marriage (Algemene Sinode
[NGK] 2016:71-76).
This was followed by public outcry, as the DRC Council told its members that each
church may choose how they responded to the question of homosexual relationships.
This was catastrophic after 2015 made such a masterful stride towards inclusivity.
Dreyer (2006) argues that this struggle for minority groups to discover language and
labels to enable their quest of forming their own self-identity is indicative that
something is terribly wrong, (Dreyer 2006:163). The queer community in South Africa
as a result of the Dutch Reformed Church have been judged ‘different’ and
dehumanised, stripped of their privacy in terms of their sexuality and Dreyer (2006)
maintains that such notions are a direct result of hegemonic social institutions, as they
have played a notorious part in the perpetuating discrimination against minority groups
(Dreyer 2006:163-164; Gough 2002:219).
Ever since the conundrum in 2016, the Dutch Reformed Church Council, consisting
predominantly of ‘Afrikaner men’ (see Van Loggerenberg 2018:14) remained as
hesitant as ever in making their stance on this matter –in 2019, the decision was still
maintained that homosexual unions are not recognised as ‘legal’ unions in the eyes of
the Christian Reformed ethical paradigm (Algemene Sinode [NGK] 2019:98), this
resulted in Dr. Fritz and Laurie Gaum, accompanied by 8 other members of the DRC
approaching the Pretoria High Court with an appeal to declare the decision of the
Dutch Reformed Synod unlawful and discriminatory in light of Section 9 in the South
African Constitution (Mitchley 2019), yet the DRC remained steadfast, and argued that
their non-recognition of homosexual unions was not discriminatory, as they did not
disallow gays from attending services. However, eventually the church conceded and
admitted that their conduct could perhaps have been considered discriminatory but
rebutted that there was no proof that it was in fact unfair (Mitchley 2019).

24
The Dutch Reformed Church was represented by Adv. Schalk Burger (S.C.) who
argued that the church did not prohibit -and “did not force anyone into anything”, but it
simply did not allow gay couples to get married in the Dutch Reformed Church, also
allowing that the church could maintain its own policies and interpretations regarding
homosexual unions (Mitchley 2018). Contra this, Gaum argued that the church failed
to provide factual basis, justifying their right to discriminate fairly. The South African
High Court supported this and regularly mentioned the DR church’s shortcomings in
their affidavit throughout the commencement of the judgement (Sutton & Sutton
2019:399-400). When it came to the ruling of the case, the court ruled in favour of
Gaum, affirming that the actions of the DRC was indeed discriminatory, unfair and
illegitimate in light of Section 9 in the legal Constitution of South Africa.
The Gaum-case was then set aside (settled) by the court (Sutton & Sutton 2019:412)
and it once again became evident that the Dutch Reformed Church was ruled by a
powerful minority (the Synod), representing the majority decision and thus there can
be no guarantee that the implied majority was in actual fact the majority. Earlier in
2020, Moreleta Park DRC held a ‘Special Deliberation’ (Spesiale Beraad)
contemplating what was referred to by the media as #Morelexit (Marx 2019). Moreleta
NG, one of the flagship churches in the DRC, scheduled a 3-day deliberation between
25 and 27 February 2020 to discuss the crucial issue of same-sex unions, after the
Synod’s somewhat reserved stance in 2019 (Kerkbode 2020a).
Collectively about 450 members, and non-members of the Dutch Reformed Church
attended the event, of which I were one. Nine options (reactions) were placed on the
table pertaining to the 2019 Council’s somewhat ambiguous decision (see Kerkbode
2020b). However, the concerns of many congregants were mainly, do we stay or do
we break away (i.e. become independent)? Hence the tag #Morelexit was constructed
by popular media (cf. Marx 2019). As Moreletapark DRC hosted this deliberation solely
for the purpose of discussing whether it was still worthwhile to remain part of the Dutch
Reformed Church body and be subject to the rulings of the Council (Kerkbode 2020b).
On the other hand, some other attendees used this as an opportunity to gain clarity on
the DRC’s situation and position in an attempt to understand why their beloved church
seemingly wanted to ‘eject’ itself from the ‘mother ship’. In the end, it came down to
the 6th option (cf. Kerkbode 2020b), lamenting the 2019 decision, to which Dr. Gustav

25
Claassen, secretary of the DRC Synod expressed disappointment because there was
no opportunity provided for “acceptance and/or tolerance of differential views”
(Kerkbode 2020c). However, in August 2020 this all changed when Dr. Gustav
Claassen announced in the Kerkbode that same-sex marriages ‘may now commence’
as per Article 5(2) of the Civil Union Act, 2006 (No. 17 of 2006), which allowed
ministers in the DRC to contract same-sex unions (Kerkbode 2020d). The Civil Union
Act of 2006 was published thereafter on 22 October 2020, after being legislated by
Pres. Cyril Ramaphosa, repealing Section 6 entirely which previously allowed
marriage officers the opportunity to object on the basis of conscience, religion or belief
to solemnise a same-sex civil union (Carter 2020:4). Hence, ministers in the DRC (and
marriage officers in general) are constitutionally obligated to solemnise same-sex
unions, and may no longer legally object.
Restricting the way forward?
From the above provided context, it is thus apparent that the Dutch Reformed Church
has had a history of human rights abuses in South Africa, of which only two are
formally considered here. The fact of the matter remains; the Dutch Reformed church
(and the church in general) remains an institution that exerts extreme influence over
its followers, and because of this Mokhoati & Rembe (2017) argues, many of its faux
pas either go unnoticed or ignored as it is arguable that only in extreme instances
(such as the above) when such events are brought to light (Mokhoathi & Rembe
2017:1-2). Which begs the question, how could we as Qohelet states ‘the comforter’
prevent injustice from happening at the hands of those in positions of (religious)
authority? Does this not call for a conversation on the regulation of churches? Perhaps
in theory. However, in practice the present constitution makes such a notion
problematic. Because while maintaining that religious freedom should be allowed,
there is very little it outlines about the regulation of religious liberties (Mokhathi &
Rembe 2017:3), without infringing religious freedom. It thus sets no clear ethical
boundaries through which religious bodies are be held accountable for their
(mis)conduct.
Henrico (2019) argues that this is largely due to the fact that when the constitution was
signed into legislation in post-apartheid 1996, its developers did not really think of

26
regulating religious institutions, and the various faith institutions in our country mainly
went on as normal in pursuit of its spiritual goals and ideals after Apartheid; even the
churches (like the DRC) which states elsewhere, was the main instigators and
engineers behind the Apartheid ruling minority, were allowed to continue undisturbed
(Henrico 2019:3).
Yet, Henrico (2019) maintains that religious freedom in South Africa is not governed
by a supervisory collective and neither are we as a country considered a politically
enforced theocracy as such narratives were done away with after Apartheid (Henrico
2019:5), subsequently marking South Africa as a “secular state”. However, if we look
at example constitutions such as that of the U.S., the first amendment treats religious
freedom and religion much different from other ordinary liberties to protect religious
liberties (cf. Volokh 2009:1076). The First Amendment, which regulates various
liberties, reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for redress of grievances” (Amendment I, 1791).
The United States is occasionally looked up to by many as the epitome of Democracy
(see De Tocqueville 2000:578-579), and the First Ammendment may objectively
appear very similar to the South African constitution and to some degree it is, the only
difference is that it incorporates a clause stating that religious bodies do have the right
to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Volokh 2009:1076-77). This
clause not only allows for the freedom of speech, allowing individuals to air their
concerns (if need be even through the press), it also allows the Government to
intervene when religious grievances arise (Mokhoathi & Rembe 2017:3-4). Such a
clause does not appear in the South African constitution; and in light of this study,
following the events discussed it could, in a word, be worrisome. As according to
Mokhoathi & Rembe (2017) the only stage where we as South Africans are permitted
to do something like this, is when there is a state of emergency (van Staden 2020:26)
as is indicated in Section 37 & 38 of the South African constitution. Yet, these sections
do not apply to human rights – they merely apply in times of war, disease (i.e. COVID-
19), invasion, insurrection etc. where the collective welfare of South Africans are
endangered (Mokhoati & Rembe 2017:5).

27
However, there is hope: The CRL Rights Commission exists as one of six institutions,
dedicated to the protection of Section 9 in the South African Constitution (Henrico
2019:7-8) and is considered a ‘constitutional arm’ (Banda 2019:1), free from
governmental and state-affiliated interference (CRL Rights Commission 2017:7). This
body, known as The ‘Commission for the promotion and protection of Cultural,
Religious and Linguistic Rights’ according to Section 185(1) of the South African
constitution, serves to (a) “promote respect for the rights of cultural, religious and
linguistic communities” and (b) “promote and develop peace, friendship, humanity,
tolerance and national unity among cultural, religious and linguistic communities, on
the basis of equality, non-discrimination and free association”; as well as (c) “to
recommend the establishment or recognition, in accordance with national legislation,
of a cultural or other council or councils for a community or communities in South
Africa” (Banda 2019:1-2).
Essentially, this means that the CRL Rights Commission’s purpose and sole mandate
is to ensure the country and its inhabitants enjoy their democratic right to freedom of
association in terms of religion, culture and language (CRL Rights Commission
2017:7). Although, the CRL Rights Commission is primarily occupied with protecting,
promoting, regulating and recommending. - Not enforcing. Even though it has proven
itself as an effective and powerful body, that actively and vocally preoccupies itself
with religious issues South Africa often faces (Banda 2019:2). Some of the most
prominent cases that the CRL Rights Commission has pioneered and dealt with was
the sexual abuse of girls and women by faith leaders (Daniel 2018), as well as religious
extremism found in African Independent Churches AIC’s such as spraying insecticides
on their congregants or forcing their congregants to ingest unhealthy chemicals
(Mabuza 2018). Therefore, Banda (2019) argues that the commission has in more
than one way done its part in bringing religious and cultural groups ‘to book’ due to
their infringement of human rights, through injustice (Banda 2019:2).
However, perhaps the CRL Rights Commission could potentially pave the way for
contributions regulating religious ‘freedom’ within reasonable bounds, and therefore
could prove invaluable to imposing a tighter hold on the South African religious
environment, as the call for regulation is arguably reasonable gathering from the
history of the Dutch Reformed Church with their impervious ‘track-record’ of injustices
ranging from institutional segregation during Apartheid, to the institutional

28
marginalisation of same sex individuals and possibly other minorities attempting to
form a self-identity in the 21st Century (cf. Dreyer 2006:155-156).
Conclusion:
With the above serving as context, this study posits the liberal-theological argument
that a call to change the relationship between religious freedom and legislative
accountability is neccessary in South Africa. Due to the fact that human injustice
flourished at the hands of the Dutch Reformed Church and has subsequently shown
that Church doctrinal regulations, such as that of the DRC (see Stander, et al. 2019)
even though prioritised, cannot (and should not) serve as replacement for
Constitutional legislation protecting human dignity. Qohelet 4:1-3 serves as a truly
remarkable and sufficiently encompassing matrix through which we may consider the
suffering recorded here, that has been done under our ‘(African) sun’. It transforms us
into co-sympathisers in the suffering of the oppressed, lamenting the abuse of
innocents at the hands of those in seats of religious power, instilling in us a need to
comfort those affected by injustice, and in echo of the NATO’s article 5, an injustice
on one should be an injustice on all (see Johnson 2010:2).
Our country has had a complex and painful history with the Bible in the hands of the
Dutch Reformed Church at the forefront, propagating discriminatory policies and
theology for 64-years against Africans to colonialist and institutionalised segregation
hermeneutics since the mid-1930’s along with alienations against same-sex
individuals for 57-years, since 1962. Even though it could be said that the church
should be one of the many places of reconciliation, prioritisation and understanding
the value of human rights. The Dutch Reformed Church had clearly been the exact
opposite; prioritising the value of ad hominem doctrinal philosophies benefitting only
the minority, over the benefits of the collective. The Bible had not fallen down from
heaven, written in colonial languages and thus we cannot use it as a-contextual
blueprint from which to derive analogies, theologies and anthropologies through which
to oppress others wé deem inferior: as it remains a collective of ancient texts
expressing a sitz im volksleben alien to our own in every way.

29
References:
Ahlstrom, S., 2004, A Religious History of the American People. Yale University
Press, New Haven.
Alter, R., 2010, The Wisdom Books Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes: A Translation
with Commentary, W.W. Norton & Co., New York.
Amponsah, D., 2013, ‘Christian Slavery, Colonialism, and Violence: The Life and
Writings of an African ex-Slave, 1717–1747’, Journal of Africana Religions 1(4), 431-
457.
Arieli, R., 2019, ‘Ahmed Kathrada in post-war Europe: Holocaust memory and
apartheid South Africa (1951-1952)’, African Identities, 25 April, 1-2.
Banda, C., 2019, Redefining religion? A critical Christian reflection on CRL Rights
Commission’s proposal to regulate religion in South Africa, Verbum et Ecclesia,
40(1), 1-2.
Bartlett, A., 2017, Weerlose Weerstand, Protea Boekhuis, Pretoria.
Biwul, J.K.T., 2017, ‘The use of hebel in Ecclesiastes: A political and economic
reading’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 73(3), 4.
https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v73i3.4571
Bosch, D., 1983, Nothing but Heresy, in De Gruchy, J. & Villa-Vicencio, C.,
(ed.), Apartheid is a Heresy. David Philip and Lutterworth Press, Cape Town and
Guildford.
Botha, P., 2005, Die Sinode & Homoseks. Khanya Press, Kranskop.
Brown, F., Driver, S. & Briggs, C., 1907, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York.
Burger, W., 2007, Die stem van die magtelose poppies. By, 24 March, 3.
Carter, D., 2020, Civil Union Amendment Bill, Creda Communications, Republic of
South Africa.
Channing, W., 1957, The Moral Argument against Calvinism, in Bartlett, I.,
(ed.), Unitarian Christianity and Other Essays, p.56, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.

30
Christianson, E., 2007, Ecclesiastes through the Centuries. Blackwell, Victoria,
Australia.
CRL Rights Commission, 2017, ‘Report on the hearings on the commercialisation of
religion and abuse of people’s beliefs systems’, viewed 8 June 2020, from
http://www.crlcommission.org.za/docs/Report%20On%20Commecialization%20of%2
0Religion%20and%20Abuse%20of%20People’s%20Believe%20Systems%20final.p
df.
Cronjé, G. & Nicol, W. (eds.), 1947, Regverdige Rasse-Apartheid, CSV,
Stellenbosch.
Daniel, R., 2018, Sexual abuse at religious institutions more rife than you think –
CRL, viewed 8 June 2020, from https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/ sexual-
abuse-at-religious-institutions-more-rife-than-you-think-crl-20180405.
De Gruchy , J. & De Gruchy, S., 2005, The Church Struggle in South Africa, Fortress
Press, Minneapolis.
De Tocqueville, A., 2020, Why the national vanity of the Americans is more restive
and more quarrelsome than that of the English, in A. De Tocqueville, H. Mansfield &
D. Winthrop, (eds.), Democracy in America, pp.578-579, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago and London.
Deist, F.E., 1986, Kan ons die Bybel dan nog glo? Onderweg na ’n Gereformeerde
Skrifbeskouing, J.L. Van Schaik, Pretoria.
Dell, K., 2016, 4. Reading Ecclesiastes with the scholars, in D. Firth & L. Wilson,
(eds.), Exploring Old Testament Wisdom: Literature and themes, pp.64-65, Inter-
Varsity Press, Lincolnshire.
Dorrien, G., 2001, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive
Religion, 1805-1900 Volume 1, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky.
Dreyer, Y., 2006, ‘Prejudice, homophobia and the Christian faith community’,
Verbum et Ecclesia 27(1), 155-156,163-164.
Elliott, J.H., 2011, ‘Social-scientific criticism: Perspective, process and payoff. Evil
eye accusation at Galatia as illustration of the method’, HTS Teologiese
Studies/Theological Studies 67(1), 1-4

31
Feni, D., 1983, ‘Human Rights Violations in Apartheid South Africa’, Southern Africa
Perspectives 83(1), 1-4.
Forsyth, D., 2005, ‘Ecclesiastes as an authoritative foundation for teaching life skills
to youth today’, PhD thesis, Dept. Practical Theology, University of Pretoria.
Geldenhuys, J. & Kelly-Louw, M., 2019, ‘Hate Speech and Racist Slurs in the South
African Context: Where to Start?’, PER / PELJ 2020(23), 5-7.
Goba, B., 1990, ‘Perspectives on ethnic and racial conflict in South Africa: a critical
assessment of the Churches' response from 1960 to the present’, Journal of Black
Theology in South Africa 4(1), 10-13.
Greene, S.E., 1996, ‘Religion, history and the supreme gods of Africa: A contribution
to the debate’, Journal of Religion in Africa 26(2), 122.
Handelinge van die Algemene Sinode (NGK), 1982, p.164.
Handelinge van die Algemene Sinode (NGK), 1986, pp.134-135, 355-363, 672.
Handelinge van die Algemene Sinode (NGK), 1990, p.353.
Handelinge van die Algemene Sinode (NGK), 2002, p.624.
Handelinge van die Algemene Sinode (NGK), 2004, p.374.
Handelinge van die Algemene Sinode (NGK), 2007, pp.204-205,110.
Handelinge van die Algemene Sinode (NGK), 2013, p.237.
Handelinge van die Algemene Sinode (NGK), 2015, pp.90-99.
Handelinge van die Algemene Sinode (NGK), 2016, pp.71-76.
Handelinge van die Algemene Sinode (NGK), 2019, p.98.
Henrico, R., 2019, ‘Proselytising the Regulation of Religious Bodies in South Africa:
Suppressing Religious Freedom?’, Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 22, 3, 5, 7-
8.
Hesselmans, M., 2016, ‘Apart We Pray? The Struggle Of South Africa's Reformed
Churches To Unite A Divided Nation’, PhD Thesis, Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences, Boston University.

32
Hinds, L., 1985, ‘Apartheid in South Africa and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights’, Crime and Social Justice: State Terrorism in South Africa 24, 6-8.
Hodgson, P.C. & Finney C.G., 2010, ‘Liberal Theology’, The Expository Times
122(1), 4-10.
Hodgson, P.C., 1999, ‘Liberal Theology and Transformative Pedagogy’, Teaching
Theology and Religion 2(2), 65-73.
Horton, R., 1993, Judaeo-Christian spectacles: boon or bane to the study of African
religions?, in Patterns of Thought in Africa and the West: Essays on Magic, Religion
and Science, p.403, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jackson, N., 2007, Spanning tydens gay-debat, maar … voorsitters leer om mekaar
te respekteer, Beeld, 29 May, p.7.
Janse Van Rensburg, N. & Van Der Spuy, D., 2015, Pastorale Brief n.a.v die 2015
Algemene Sinode, viewed 8 June 2020, from http://www.bybelmedia.org.za/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/Algemene-Sinode-Pastorale-brief.pdf.
Johnston, P., 2010, ‘The debate about Article 5 and its credibility: what is it all
about?’, NATO Research Paper 58, 2.
Josephus, F., 1976, The Life. Against Apion. Loeb Classical Library, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Jonker, W.D., 1998, Selfs die kerk kan verander, Tafelberg, Cape Town.
Kaplan, R., 2004, ‘Treatment of homosexuality during apartheid: More investigation
is needed into the shameful way homosexuality was treated’, British Medical Journal
329, 1415-1416.
Kealy, S., 2012, The Wisdom Books of the Bible: Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, Ben
Sira, Wisdom of Solomon: A Survey of the History of their Interpretation. Edwin
Mellen Press, Lewiston, NY.
Kerkbode, 2020a, Beraadgangers: ‘Dis hoekom ek hier is’, viewed June 8 2020, from
https://kerkbode.christians.co.za/2020/02/25/beraadgangers-ons-soek-duidelikheid/.

33
Kerkbode, 2020b, Kyk: Beswaardes deurtrap nege opsies by Moreleta, viewed 8
June 2020, from https://kerkbode.christians.co.za/2020/02/25/moreleta-beraad-
beswaardes-deurtrap-nege-opsies/.
Kerkbode, 2020c, Moreleta nooi ontevredenes: huil saam met ons, viewed 8 June
2020, from https://kerkbode.christians.co.za/2020/02/27/huil-saam-met-ons/.
Kerkbode, 2020d, SGV: Bevestigings mag nou voortgaan, viewed 5 December 2020,
from https://kerkbode.christians.co.za/2020/08/07/bevestigings-mag-nou-voortgaan/.
Kinghorn, J., 1986b, ‘Die groei van ’n teologie – van sendingbeleid tot
verskeidenheidsteologie’, in J. Kinghorn (ed.), Die NG Kerk en Apartheid, vol. 1986,
pp. 86–143, Macmillan, Johannesburg.
König, A., 2005. Wat Is Reg? Weet Iemand Dalk?. Lux Verbi, Wellington.
Köşker, G. and Harika, N., 2017, ‘A quest for rights: The abolitionist movement in the
Nineteenth-Century United States of America’, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Dergisi 8(1), 23-44.
Kotzé, H. and Loubser, R., 2018, ‘Christian ethics in South Africa: liberal values
among the public and elites’, Scriptura 117(1), 2-3.
Kruger, P. & Van der Merwe, J.M., 2017, ‘The Dutch Reformed Church as a
prominent established South African church: In transition towards the 21st century’,
Verbum et Ecclesia 38(1), 2, 5 https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v38i1.1698.
Leonard, G., 2010. Καιρός: The Moment of Truth, the Kairos Documents. Ujamaa
Centre for Biblical and Theological Community Development and Research
University of Kwa-Zulu Natal, Durban.
Mabuza, E., 2018, Extremist church was identified by CRL in its report last year, in
Sowetan, viewed 8 June 2020, from https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/south-
africa/2018- 02-26-extremist-church-was-identified-by-crl-in-its-report-last-year/.
MacKnight, J., 2016, ‘In The Wrong Place: Qohelet’s Despairing Social Justice with
Consideration to the King, Wealth, and Creation’, Master’s thesis, University of St.
Michael’s College.

34
Madden, E., 1997, ‘William Ellery Channing: Philosopher, Critic of Orthodoxy, And
Cautious Reformer’, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 33(3), 558-559,
585.
Manavhela, F., 2009. ‘An Analysis of the Theological Justification of Apartheid in
South Africa: A Reformed Theological Perspective’, PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam.
Marcus, P., 2000. The wisdom of Ecclesiastes and its meaning for
psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Review 87(2), 236.
Masondo, S., 2018. Ironies of Christian Presence in Southern Africa. Journal for the
Study of Religion, 31(2), 209-210.
McCabe, R. V., 2015, ‘Pondering the Authorship of Ecclesiastes’, DBSJ 20(2015)
Meiser, J., 2017, 2. Liberalism, in S. McGlinchey, R. Walters and C. Scheinpflug,
(eds.), International Relations Theory. E-International Relations, Bristol.
Mitchley, A., 2018. Dutch Reformed Church maintains decision not to recognise
same sex marriages is not unfairly discriminatory, in News 24, viewed 08 June 2020,
from https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/dutch-reformed-church-
maintains-decision-not-to-recognise-same-sex-marriages-is-not-unfairly-
discriminatory-20180821.
Mitchley, A., 2019, Same-sex marriages: Dutch Reformed Church's decision
diminished gay congregants' integrity – court, in News24, viewed 8 June 2020, from
https://www.news24.com/news24/SouthAfrica/News/same-sex-marriages-dutch-
reformed-churchs-decision-diminished-gay-congregants-integrity-court-20190308.
Mokhoathi, J. and Rembe, N., 2019, Religious liberties and the constitution of South
Africa: A call for religious accountability, Scriptura Journals 116(1), 1-5.
Moodie, D., 2018, Confessing remorse about the evils of Apartheid: the Dutch
Reformed Church in the Nineteen-Eighties, in WiSER - Wits Institute for Social and
Economic Research, Johannesburg, University of the Witwatersrand viewed 7 June
2020, from https://wiser.wits.ac.za/content/confessing-remorse-about-evils-
apartheid-dutch-reformed-church-nineteen-eighties-13121.

35
Orwell, G., 2003. Chapter 10, in C. Hitchens, (ed.), Animal Farm, p.82, Harcourt Inc.,
London.
Piotrowski, A., 2019, ‘Colonialism, Apartheid, and Democracy: South Africa's
Historical Implications on the Land Reform Debate’, Journal of Interdisciplinary
Undergraduate Research 11(4), 56-57.
Plaatjies-Van Huffel, M. and Modise, L. (ed.), 2017, Belhar Confession: The
Embracing Confession of Faith for Church and Society, 1st ed., Arican Sun Media,
Stellenbosch.
Punt, J., 2006, ‘Using the Bible in post-apartheid South Africa: Its influence and
impact amidst the gay debate’, HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies, 62(3),
885.
Richardson, N., 1986, ‘Apartheid, Heresy and the Church in South Africa’, Journal of
Religious Ethics 14(1), 1-4.
Roberts, B., & Reddy, V., 2008, ‘Pride and Prejudice: Public Attitudes toward
Homosexuality’, HSRC Review 6(4), 9-11.
Rudman, D., 1999, ‘A Note on the Dating of Ecclesiastes’, The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 61(1), 47-48.
Simango, D., 2018, ‘There is a Great Need for Contextualisation in Southern
Africa’, Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae, 44(2), 4.
Sindima, H., 1990, ‘Liberalism and African Culture’, Journal of Black Studies, 21(2),
206.
Spangenberg, I.J.J., 2020, ‘The Bible, theology and the Dutch Reformed Church in
South Africa 1920–2020’, HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 76(4), 1-5.
https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i4.6111
Stander, et al., 2019, Reglemente van die Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk in Suid-
Afrika, Sinode van Wes-Kaapland.
Strauss, P.J., 2011, ‘Homoseksualiteit: Die standpunte van die Nederduitse
Gereformeerde Kerk en die Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk van Afrika in 2007’ HTS
Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 67(3), 1-3.

36
Strauss, P.J., 2019, ‘“Hervormd” of “gereformeerd?”: Die keuse voor die Algemene
Kerkvergadering van die Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk in die Zuid-Afrikaansche
Republiek in 1866’, Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 59(3), 370-371.
https://doi.org/10.17159/2224-7912/2019/v59n3a4
Sutton, W. & Sutton, L., 2019, ‘Regsgevolge volgens die Gaum-saak vir
nienakoming van kerkordelike prosedures ten opsigte van besluite deur die
Algemene Sinode van die Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk’, LitNet Akademies,
16(2), 399-400, 412.
Swanepoel, E., Nel, J. & Oosthuisen, J., 2016, Kerkrade ‘mág self kies’, in Rapport,
viewed 8 June 2020, from https://www.pressreader.com/south-
africa/rapport/20161113/281569470305964.
Targeted Analysis from the Communication Environment, 2017, in Insight 1(23),
viewed 7 June 2020, from
https://www.gcis.gov.za/sites/default/files/images/resource_centre/INSIGHT2%20%2
8Interactive%29.pdf.
Thoreson, R., 2008, ‘Somewhere over the Rainbow Nation: Gay, Lesbian and
Bisexual Activism in South Africa’, Journal of Southern African Studies 34(3), 679.
Utley, B., 2014, Wisdom Literature: The Mysterious Books of Ecclesiastes & Song of
Songs, Bible Lessons International, Texas.
Van Der Merwe, J., 2013, ‘The Dutch Reformed Church from "Human Relations and
the South African Scene in the Light of Scripture" to "Church and Society": the
struggle goes on’, Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae 39(1), 137-141
http://hdl.handle.net/10500/9974.
Van der Watt, P.B., 1987, ‘Die Ned. Geref. Kerk en die Rassevraagstuk’, in P.B. van
der Watt (ed.), Die Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk 1905–1975, pp. 87-88, N.G.
Kerkboekhandel, Pretoria.
Van Loggerenberg, M., 2008, ‘Deconstructing gay discourse in the Dutch Reformed
Church’, Master’s thesis, Dept. Practical Theology, University of South Africa.
Van Staden, M., 2020. Civil Liberty during a State of Emergency or Disaster in South
Africa 1st ed., Free Market Foundation, Johannesburg, South Africa.

37
Van Wyk, B., 1991. Die Presbiteriaal-Sinodale Kerkbegrip Met Besondere Verwysing
Na Die Kerkwet Van Die Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk Van Afrika. Kital, Pretoria.
Venter, J.J. 1999. ‘HF Verwoerd: Foundational aspects of his thought’, Koers:
Bulletin for Christian Scholarship 64(4), 422.
Villa-Vicencio, C., 1988, Trapped In Apartheid, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York.
Vosloo, R.R., 2015, ‘The Bible and the justification of apartheid in Reformed circles
in the 1940’s in South Africa: Some historical, hermeneutical and theological
remarks’, Stellenbosch Theological Journal 1(2), 195–215.
https://doi.org/10.17570/stj.2015.v1n2.a09
Volokh, E., 2009, ‘Symbolic Expression and the Original Meaning of the First
Amendment’, The Georgetown Law Journal 97(1057), 1076-1077.
Weeks, S., 2001, 20. Ecclesiastes, in J. Barton & J. Muddiman, (eds.), the Oxford
Bible Commentary. Oxford University Press, New York.
Weiße, W. and Anthonissen, C., 2004, Maintaining Apartheid Or Promoting Change?
Waxmann, Mnster.
Zaaiman, J., 2010, ‘The local role of a Wellington Afrikaner Broederbond branch,
1937–1994’, Historia 55(2), 121-146.