Scot. Joum. of Theol. Vol. 34, pp. 245-262.

BONHOEFFER, CALVINISM AND

CHRISTIAN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
IN SOUTH AFRICA*
by DR J O H N W. DE GRUCHY
A nation consistingof citizens whose consciences are bruised,
is itself broken in its national strength.
Abraham Kuyper
The discarding of God's commandments means death for
nations as well as individuals.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
I. Introduction
In a much publicised address to the 1979 National Conference
of the South African Council of Churches (SACC), Dr Allan
Boesak, a theologian of the black Dutch Reformed Mission
Church, challenged the Church in South Africa to engage in acts
of civil disobedience against apartheid laws:
The church must initiate and support meaningful pressure
on the system as a non-violent way of bringing about change.
The church must initiate and support programs of civil
disobedience on a massive scale, and challenge especially
white Christians on this issue. It no longer suffices to make
statements condemning unjust laws as if nothing has
happened. The time has come for the black church to tell the
Government and its people: We cannot in all good con-
science obey your unjust laws because non-cooperation with
evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.
So we will teach our people what it means to obey God rather
than man in South Africa.1
Several years before, at its 1974 National Conference, the SACC
made a similar stand when it adopted its highly controversial
* This paper was originally prepared for presentation at the International
Bonhoeffer Congress held at the University of Oxford in March 1980, and made
possible through a grant from the Human Sciences Research Council in South
Africa.
1
'The Black Church and the Struggle in South Africa', The Ecumenical Review,
vol. 32, no. 1, January 1980, p. 23.
245

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 246 S C O T T I S H JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
'Resolution on Conscientious Objection'. 2 T h e Preamble to that
'Resolution' called on the member Churches of the SACC to
consider whether or not Christians could in good conscience
defend an unjust situation through participation in the military.
Judging from the political and ecclesiastical furore sparked off by
both Dr Boesak's address and the earlier statements on conscien-
tious objection, a furore which will surely grow rather than abate,
it is clear that the question of Christian civil disobedience (quite
apart from civil disobedience as such) is now a major issue facing
both the Church and the State in South Africa today. 3
The relevance of the life and theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer
for Christians in contemporary South Africa has been shown
before. 4 His relevance becomes even more pertinent when we
consider the question of civil disobedience in South Africa today.
We recall his reaction to Hitler's non-Aryan legislation; his
pacifist tendencies, interest in Ghandi, and advocacy of conscien-
tious objection; and, of course, his participation in the conspiracy.
All of this has been dealt with in detail by others and needs no
further elaboration here. 5 But we wish to emphasise that in
virtually all of this, Bonhoeffer went against the German political
tradition and Lutheran heritage in which he was steeped; in
much of it he went beyond the limits acceptable to the Confessing
Church; and at the end he not only knew that he would be
regarded as a 'traitor' by his nation, but that his participation in
the conspiracy had put him beyond the perimeters of the Church
itself.
Leaving aside, for the moment, Bonhoeffer's participation in
the conspiracy, and accepting the similarities between his position

2
cf. John W. de Gruchy, The Church Struggle in South Africa (Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids; S.P.C.K., London; David Philip, Cape Town, 1979) pp. I38ff.
5
At the time of writing, two young white South Africans, Richard Steel and
Peter Moll, were in military prison for refusing to serve in the army on specifically
Christian grounds. The Reverend David Russell was found guilty of breaking his
banning order in order to attend a Church synod. In 1979 several Churches
reiterated that they would not obey certain racial laws.
4
cf. Eberhard Bethge, 'A Confessing Church in South Africa?' and John W. de
Gruchy, 'Bonhoeffer in South Africa', in E. Bethge, Bonhoeffer: Exile and Martyr
(Collins, London; Seabury, N.Y., 1975).
5
cf. L. Rasmussen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality and Resistance (Abingdon,
Nashville, 1972); T. R. Peters, Die Prasenz des Politischen inder Theologie Dietrich
Bonhoeffers (Chr. Kaiser, Miinchen, 1976); Dale W. Brown 'Bonhoeffer and
Pacifism', mimeographed paper for Bonhoeffer Consultation, St. Louis, 1976.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA 247
and that of South Africa Christians who feel called to disobey the
authorities, we may note some important differences in the
Church situation at this point. For while it is true that the three
Afrikaans-speaking Reformed Churches, along with many mem-
bers from most other Churches, reject civil disobedience out of
hand, it is equally true that the member Churches of the SACC as
well as the Roman Catholic Church do not. Since 1974 these
Churches have supported the rights of conscientious objectors,
and in 1979 they did not rush in and condemn Dr Boesak's
address. On the contrary, long before 1979 these same Churches
affirmed the right of their members to disobey laws which would
compromise their Christian confession beyond the inevitable
limits imposed upon all human beings in a fallen world.
Moreover, they have on certain occasions indicated that it may be
necessary for them as Churches to disobey certain laws. In other
words, while their path is still very difficult, Christians in South
Africa who disobey laws which are fundamentally unjust have
some Church support, even if it is qualified.
But we wish to go further and maintain that such Christians,
unlike Bonhoeffer, may call upon the support of the dominant
theological heritage in South Africa, namely Calvinism. This
recourse to Calvinism may come as a surprise, even shock, to the
many who regard Calvinism as partly, if not largely responsible
for the ideology of apartheid and Afrikaner Nationalism. In his
Naught for Your Comfort, one of the earliest Christian attacks upon
apartheid, Trevor Huddleston blamed Calvinism for providing
the ideological basis for South Africa's racial policies.6 And this
indictment has been repeated by many others.7 That there is an
important connexion we do not deny, but like Weber's hypothesis
on Capitalism this equation does not fully stand the test of
historical and theological analysis. Racism is not confined to
countries with a Calvinist milieu, and racial segregation as a
political policy in South Africa was first formulated by British
(largely Anglican) colonial authorities and settlers in Natal and
not the Dutch at the Cape.8 Calvinism has certainly been used to
6
Trevor Huddleston, Naught for your Comfort (Fontana, London, 1957) p. 50.
' cf. Irving Hexham's critique of this tendency in Totalitarian Calvinism: the
Reformed (Dopper) Community in South Africa igo2-igig (Ph.D thesis, University of
Bristol, 1975), chapter 2.
8
cf. David Welsh, The Roots of Segregation (Oxford, 1971).

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 248 S C O T T I S H JOURNAL OF T H E O L O G Y
rationalise apartheid, but that is very different from motivating
it.9
Historical accuracy apart, a moment's reflection on the witness
of Dutch Reformed theologians and pastors like B. B. Keet and
Beyers Naude suggests that there is another side to Calvinism
than that which is popularly presented. 10 It is this side which some
theologians, like Dr Boesak are currently calling upon. In his
letter to the South Africa Minister of Justice responding to the
latter's warning which followed his address to the SACC, Dr
Boesak wrote: 'I am of the opinion that I have done nothing more
than place myself fairly and squarely within the Reformed
tradition.'" Bonhoeffer may well have found himself outside his
Lutheran heritage and even an uncomfortable ally for the
predominantly Reformed 'Confessing Church', but in some,
respects he was entering into another heritage and joining hands
with those whose spiritual forefather is John Calvin.

II. Sovereignty of God and Liberty of Conscience

We can discern three distinct theological tendencies within the
Dutch Reformed Church at the Cape during the nineteenth
century. Firstly, following the impact of the Enlightenment there
was a rather arid Calvinist rationalism which eventually led to a
form of theological liberalism, as in Holland. Secondly, the
pietistic 'Reveil' movement, with its evangelical modification of
Calvinism was introduced to South Africa half way through the
century by Andrew Murray jnr. This development not only
successfully countered the prevailing liberalism; it spurred on
missionary endeavour amongst the indigenous peoples, and,
significantly for our purposes, it was critical of church involve-
ment in political issues. Thirdly, from about 1870 the impact of
the resurgence of hyper-Calvinism in Holland was felt in South
9
cf. Heribert Adam and Hermann Giliomee, The Rise and Crisis of Afrikaner
Power (David Philip, Cape Town 1979), p. 92.
10
cf. C. Beyers Naude, 'Waaroor het dit eindik vir Calvin Gegaan?' Pro Veritate,
vol. viii/i, May, 1969; Andre Bieler, The Social Humanism of Calvin (John Knox,
Richmond, 1961); W. Fred Graham, The Constructive Revolutionary: John Calvin
and his Socio-Economic Impact (John Knox, Richmond, 1971) D. S. Bax A Different
Gospel: A Critique of the Theology behind Apartheid (Presbyterian Church of
Southern Africa, Johannesburg, 1979).
" The letter is published in the International Review of Missions, vol. LXIX, no.
273, January 1980, pp. yiS.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA 249
Africa. It is this tradition, as represented by Abraham Kuyper in
particular which has had a profound influence on the political
development of South Africa and the Calvinist involvement in
it.12 For this reason, this section of our paper will concentrate on
Kuyper's interpretation of Calvinism and politics, and especially
on that side of his thought which has too often been ignored in
our context.
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) not only represented Calvinism
according to the Synod of Dort, he was also the successor to Groen
van Prinsterer, the founder of the Anti-Revolutionary political
party in Holland. As such he was a very conservative theologian
and statesman, and at one time Prime Minister of his country. His
writings and actions confirm his conservatism, and there are
passages in his famous Lectures on Calvinism given at Princeton in
1898 which would today be regarded as racist.ls In that respect he
was very much a European of his time. Be that as it may, it is our
contention that while Kuyper's theology has profoundly influ-
enced Dutch Reformed thinking and action in South Africa in the
direction of apartheid and Separate Development, it has also
been gravely distorted in the process. In this we agree with
Dunbar Moodie's treatment of Kuyper in his The Rise of
Afrikanerdom.14 But we wish to go beyond Moodie and claim that
even the conservative Kuyper provides a substantial basis for
Christian civil disobedience in his interpretation of Calvinism.
This does not necessarily mean that Kuyper would have
supported civil disobedience himself unless the freedom of the
Church was itself threatened, as his opposition to the Dutch
railway strike in 1903 shows. Yet there are insights in his writings,
and especially in his Lectures on Calvinism which are of consider-
able significance for our theme.
As a typical Calvinist, Kuyper begins his Lectures by stressing
that Calvinism is not only a theological or ecclesiastical interpreta-
tion of Christianity, but an all-embracing 'life-system'.15 'Calvin-
ism' he declares, 'put its impress in and outside the Church upon
every department of human life'.16 Again, as a typical Calvinist,
Kuyper affirms the priority of the Sovereignty of God in and over

" cf. Hexham, op. ciL; T. Dunbar Moodie, The Rise of Afrikanerdom: Power
Apartheid and the Afrikaner Civil Religion (California, University of California
Press, 1975). " Published by Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1931.
14
op. cit. esp. chapter 4. " Kuyper, op. cit., chapter 1. " ibid.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 250 SCOTTISH JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
the world, and the primacy of man's relationship with God.
Unfortunately, many Calvinists have tended to stop at this point
or have proceeded with extraordinary caution lest they be
regarded as humanists. Not so Calvin, and clearly not Karl Barth,
but also not Kuyper. 'If Calvinism places our entire human life
immediately before God, then it follows that all men or women,
rich or poor, weak or strong, dull or talented, as creatures of God,
and as lost sinners, have no claim whatsoever to lord over one
another, and that we stand as equals before God, and consequent-
ly as equals man to man.'17 Kuyper draws out the consequences of
these words of his in the following way. Firstly, the only
distinctions we can recognise between people are those based on
God's gift of ability, and those with such gifts are the servants, not
lords of others. Secondly, slavery in any form, overt or covert,
including systems of caste, slavery of woman and the poor, cannot
be tolerated. Thirdly,

Calvinism was bound to find its utterance in the democratic

interpretation of life; to proclaim the liberty of nations; and
not to rest until both politically and socially every man,
simply because he is man, should be recognised, respected
and dealt with as a creature created after the Divine likeness.

Although the followers of Kuyper may not have extended this

passion for equality to situations such as pertain in South Africa,18
we submit that even Kuyper's conservative interpretation of the
Calvinist understanding of man under God in relation to others
fundamentally contradicts any kind of discrimination based on
race, sex or class.
In the third of his Lectures on Calvinism Kuyper develops his
distinctive idea of 'sphere-sovereignty'.19 This is the dominant
motif in his treatment of the relationship between Calvinism and
politics. For Kuyper, the dominating principle of Calvinism is 'not

" ibid., p. 27.

18
cf. Jan J. Loubser 'Calvinism, Equality, and Inclusion: the Case of Afrikaner
Calvinism', in The Protestant Ethic and Modernization, ed. S. N. Eisenstadt (Basic
Books, N.Y., 1968), p. 380.
" On the historical connexion between 'sphere-sovereignty' and Calvin, see
Gordon Spykman 'Sphere-Sovereignty in Calvin and the Calvinist Tradition' in
Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin, ed. David E. Holwerda (Baker, Grand Rapids,
1076).

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA 251
soteriologically, justification by faith, but in the widest sense,
cosmologically, the Sovereignty of the Triune God over the whole
Cosmos, in all its spheres and kingdoms, visible and invisible. A
primordial Sovereignty which eradiates in mankind in a threefold
deduced supremacy, viz., 1. The Sovereignty in the State; 2. The
Sovereignty in Society; 3. The Sovereignty in the Church.'20
On the basis of this statement, and much else in his writings, we
can already discern the major point of divergence between
Kuyper on the one hand, and Karl Barth and Bonhoeffer on the
other. For though both Kuyper and Barth start from the
'Sovereignty of the Triune God', Kuyper's interpretation is
primarily Cosmological whereas Barth's is Christological. In his
address on the occasion of the founding of the Free University of
Amsterdam in 1880, Kuyper declared: 'while that royal Child of
Bethlehem protected sphere-sovereignty with his shield, he did
not create it. It was there from of old. It was embedded in the
creation order, in the plan for human life.'21 Kuyper's theology
opens the door for natural revelation (cf. his doctrine of 'common
grace') though he does so on biblical grounds. As is well known,
Barth reacted strongly against any theology which was not
thoroughly grounded in Christology. Indeed, it was Barth's
opinion that the naivete of the followers of Kuyper in Holland
during the rise of Nazism was related to their espousal of natural
theology.22 Like Barth's, so too Bonhoeffer's point of departure is
the doctrine of Reconciliation, not Creation, and his rejection of
the Lutheran 'orders of creation' would apply in many ways to
Kuyper's 'sphere-sovereignty'. We recall his powerful statement:
'One need only hold out something to be God-willed and
God-created for it to be vindicated for ever.'23
Kuyper's 'sphere-sovereignty' has certainly been misused in
South Africa in a way which parallels the misuse of the 'orders of
creation' by Lutherans during the Third Reich. But when we
consider his treatment of the State it becomes clear that this need
not be so. For Kuyper, the State is God's remedy for human
disorder which has resulted from the Fall. Through his 'common
grace' God exercises his authority for justice and order directly
20
op. cit., p. 79. " Quoted by Gordon Spykman, op. cit., p. 183.
M
Church Dogmatics, ii/i, p. 173.
" 'A Theological Basis for the World Alliance?', in No Rusty Swords (Collins,
London, 1965), p. 165.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 252 S C O T T I S H JOURNAL OF T H E O L O G Y
through the State, that is, through the government elected for
this purpose. Kuyper's understanding of the State, however, is as
opposed to the idea of State-Sovereignty as developed in
Germany, as it is to Popular-Sovereignty as exemplified in France
since 1789. Both deny the Sovereignty of God and usurp his
authority. It is God's authority in the State, not the Sovereignty of
the State that is at stake. Again and again, Kuyper criticises the
Romantic German idea of the State as an organism, a mystical
body, an institution which rules over the individual as if it were
God Almighty himself. As we know, Bonhoeffer espoused this
Germanic view of the State throughout his life, and only towards
the end did he discard the extreme nineteenth-century versions
of State autonomy and glorification.24 His concern for human
rights grew almost in spite of his idea of the State. Kuyper's
concern for human rights, on the other hand, correlated with his
view of the State. For him 'sphere-sovereignty' was a way to
prevent State corruption and absolutism, and the consequent
dehumanising of the nation. Indeed, it has been suggested
recently that in many respects Kuyper's 'sovereign spheres' are
similar to that which Peter Berger calls 'mediating structures',
and these are vital for the well-being of society.25 Any interpreta-
tion of Kuyper, therefore, which exalts the State over the
individual is a mis-interpretation. That he might have opened
himself up to such mis-interpretation is, as we shall see, another
matter.
When we turn to the Social sphere (which includes the family,
education, human relationships, art, economics etc.) we note that
this too is directly under the sovereignty of God and not under
the State. In an important sense, the Social sphere takes pre-
cedence over the State because it is given in Creation; it is not a
post-lapsarian remedy. So the State has a limited role in relation
to Society, not an all-embracing one. It exists to maintain justice,
but not to interfere in the way in which families, for example,
order their lives. Certainly the State, understood in this way,
could not prevent the marriage of people of different races as the
Mixed Marriages Act in South Africa attempts to do. Further, in
!<
cf. Ruth Zerner, 'Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Views on the State and History',
mimeographed paper for the American Academy of Religion conference, 1974.
" Lewis B. Smedes, 'Mediating Structures', in The Reformed Journal, vol. 28, no.
12, December 1978, pp. 4f.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA 253
order to maintain justice, the State must maintain the boundary-
lines between the spheres and defend individuals and the weak
against the power of others. It is precisely this antithesis between
the State and Society which leads 'in Calvinism to the generation
of constitutional law' and so guarantees civil liberty.26 Kuyper
does not seek the abolition of social tension, but he uses it
creatively to prevent the absolutism of any sphere.
Sovereignty in the Church means that the Church alone is
responsible for the ordering of its faith and life. The State has no
right to interfere. Kuyper's sharpest, possibly only real criticism
of Calvin was that he used the State to protect the life of the
Church, notoriously as in the case of Servetus. Calvin along with
his contemporaries was caught in the Constantinian trap, and not
true to the insights of his own theology. A Reformed Church
properly understood is independent of the State. Kuyper goes
even further: 'by praising aloud liberty of conscience' Calvinism
'has in principle abandoned every absolute characteristic of the
visible church.'27
There is a corollary to this separation of Church and State
which has significant implications for South Africa. According to
Kuyper, the Church as an institution may not interfere in the
affairs of the State. The Government is not an appendix to the
Church but 'stands itr-elf under the majesty of the Lord.'28 God's
Word must rule, 'but in the sphere of the State only through the
conscience of the persons invested with authority.' In other
words, the Church as Church must keep out of politics; its witness
to the State is to be exercised by its individual members, who may,
as in Holland, establish a Christian political party.
While Kuyper's position on Church and State relations is
understandable in late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-
century Holland, it does not really reflect Calvin's conviction that
the Church as Church must witness to the State. This prophetic
task is acknowledged by the Dutch Reformed Church in South
Africa, and certainly from a Reformed perspective,29 a Church
which is not free to speak prophetically to the State is not free no
matter what a country's Constitution may declare. The problem
in South Africa is that the Government generally regards such a
86 28
op. cit., p. 94. " ibid., p. 102. ibid., p. 104.
29
cf. Human Relations and the South African Scene in the Light of Scripture (DRC
Publishers, Pretoria, 1976), chapter 3.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 254 S C O T T I S H JOURNAL OF T H E O L O G Y
prophetic ministry as the Church interfering in politics, and in
Kuyperian manner tells it to remain in its own sphere. Of course,
if the Church supports the Government that is not interfering in
politics! And the fact of the matter is that the Dutch Reformed
Church in South Africa has profoundly shaped the social and
political policies of the National Party. It has not kept out of
politics, except in theory, and when prophecy has been required
it has too often kept silent on the pretext of sticking to its sphere.
In other words, Kuyper's teaching on Church and State accord-
ing to 'sphere sovereignty' has been interpreted in South Africa in
such a way that it differs little from the Lutheran doctrine of the
'two kingdoms'. As Helmut Thielicke has pointed out, Kuyper's
'flexible handling of the Calvinistic principle can lead to a de-
finition of the Church-State relation which approximates to that
of a synthesis with the corresponding Lutheran heritage.' 30 And
Bonhoeffer, amongst others, has made us fully aware of the
dangers inherent in that heritage at this point. He speaks more as
a Calvinist than a Lutheran when he declares:

The emancipation of the worldly order under the dominion

of Christ takes concrete form not through the conversion of
Christian statesmen, etc., (cf. Kuyper) but through the
concrete encounter of the secular institutions with the
Church of Jesus Christ, her proclamation and her life.31

Although the above exposition of Kuyper's teaching is impor-

tant for a general understanding of Calvinism and politics in
South Africa, our main reason for it was to lay a foundation for
understanding the final dimension to Kuyper's 'sphere
sovereignty' — the 'Sovereignty of the Individual person'. Though
this almost appears to be tacked on at the end of his treatment,
reflection on what we have dealt with above will indicate that
Kuyper's concern for the rights of the individual conscience is a
constant theme. The Government, he writes, has a 'two-fold
obligation. In the first place, it must cause this liberty of
conscience to be respected by the Church; and in the second
place, it must give way itself to the sovereign conscience.'32 Those are
50
Theological Ethics, vol. 2 (Fortress, Philadelphia, 1969), p. 598.
" Ethics (Macmillan, N.Y., 1962), p. 294 (our reference to Kuyper).
" op. cit., p. 108 (our emphasis).

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA 255
very far-reaching words, but for Kuyper, the Sovereignty of God
implies the liberty of conscience. Indeed, conscience, he main-
tains, can 'never be subject to man but always and ever to God
Almighty.' Moreover,
In order that it may be able to rule men, the government must
respect this deepest ethical power of our human existence. A
nation consisting of citizens whose consciences are bruised, is
itself broken in its national character.33
It is for this reason that 'we must watch against the danger which
lurks for our personal liberty in the power of the State.'34 Indeed,
'the struggle for liberty is not only declared permissible, but it is
made a duty for each individual in his own sphere.'35 At this point
we are clearly reminded of Calvin's own convictions on con-
science, and the qualification which he and others who have
followed him have placed upon Romans 13:1-7. Submission to
authority does not mean the surrender of one's conscience before
God. 'Human laws' writes Calvin, 'still do not of themselves bind
the conscience. For all obligation to observe laws looks to the
general purpose, but does not consist in the things enjoined.'36
Conscience, as Bonhoeffer perhaps more than any other
theologian has reminded us, is problematical. 'The call of
conscience in natural man' he wrote, 'is the attempt on the part of
the ego to justify itself in its knowledge of good and evil before
God, before men and before itself, and to secure its own
continuance in this self-justification.'37 For Bonhoeffer, consci-
ence needs to be set free in Jesus Christ. Only when this happens
does the freedom of conscience become a freedom for others and
not a means of self-justification or even of perverted obedience.
This must always be kept in mind when we speak of the
Sovereignty of God and the liberty of conscience. The sundering
of the Sovereignty of God from the humanity of God in Jesus
Christ can lead, and often has led to a fanaticism which, in the
name of conscience has destroyed and dehumanised. This has
certainly been a danger for ardent Calvinists. But this is no more
true of Kuyper than it is of Barth. The liberty of conscience arises
out of obedience to God revealed in Jesus Christ, and it protests
M
" ibid. ibid., p. 81. " ibid., p. 99.
M
The Institutes of the Christian Religion (Westminster, Philadelphia, i960)
IV/X/5, vol. 2, P. 1184. " Ethics, p. 211.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 256 S C O T T I S H JOURNAL OF T H E O L O G Y
against any human institution which attempts to usurp that which
belongs to God alone. When true to its confession of the
Sovereignty of God, Calvinism must therefore oppose any State
which dehumanises and prevents its citizens from obeying their
conscience under God.

III. Calvinism and Afrikaner Civil Religion

Throughout its history, Calvinism like other living traditions,
has been shaped by its cultural milieu. It has adapted to meet new
challenges. Sometimes it has succumbed to culture instead of
transforming it. In his study on 'The Decline of Calvinism', D. W.
Howe shows how in eighteenth-century Europe and North
America most 'educated Protestants were strongly occupied with
the importance of preserving social order. Many of them seem to
have felt that a quiet modification of the urgent demands of
Calvinism offered the most promising possibility for attaining
such order.'38 We have already noted some of the ways in which
Calvinism in South Africa was modified in the nineteenth
century, but the crucial modification for our purposes took place
in the early decades of the twentieth century. This modification
was given expression in numerous books and tracts, the most
important of which was a three-volume work entitled Koers in die
Krisis.S9 The underlying theme throughout was that Calvinism
had to be adapted to meet the particular situation pertaining in
South Africa, namely, the struggle of the Afrikaner against
British imperialism, against humanism, liberalism and commun-
ism, and against being swamped by the Blacks. Kuyper's
neo-Calvinism provided the point of departure, but the end
product was an Afrikaner civil religion which has too often been
mistaken for Calvinism.
Afrikaner civil religion has been dealt with in detail and at
length by others.40 We need only comment on two themes which
relate to our task in this paper.
Firstly, Kuyperian Calvinism in South Africa has been wedded
to the German Romantic view of history. As Herman
58
In Comparative Studies in Society and History, June 1972, p. 320.
59
Koers in die Krisis (Stellenbosch, 1935-1941) eds. H. G. Stoker, F. J. M.
Potgieter, & J. D. Vorster.
40
cf. Moodie, op. cit.; W. A. de Klerk, Hie Puritans in Africa (Collins, London,
1975); t n e Journal °f Theology for Southern Africa, No. 19, June 1977.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA 257
Dooyeweerd has reminded us, Groen van Prinsterer, the mentor
of Kuyper, was attracted to the German F. J. Stahl's view of
history, van Prinsterer, writes Dooyeweerd

fought for an idea of the state along historical-national lines

which would suit the Dutch national character in its historical
development. He was the first person to use the phrase
'souvereiniteit in eigen sfeer' (sovereignty within its own
sphere) with regard to the mutual relation of church and

The idea, not only of national sovereignty, but of each nation

having a particular historical calling, destiny and cultural
mandate, not only suited the German and Dutch national
character, it was also particularly well-suited to the emerging
Afrikaner nation at the end of the nineteenth century.42 The key
interpreter of Kuyper along these lines in South Africa was the
philosopher H. G. Stoker for whom, says Moodie

the People (volk) was a separate sphere with its own structure
and purpose, grounded in the ordinances of God's

Kuyper certainly spoke of God as creating separate nations, each

with its own identity, but he never regarded die volk as a
'sovereign sphere'. Indeed, he even regarded Calvinism as a
means whereby nationalism could be transcended! But with
Stoker and others in South Africa the Afrikaner nation became a
sphere created by God, sovereign in its own circle. And
eventually, under Separate Development, this understanding of
nation-hood was transferred to other groups in South Africa on
an ethnic basis.
Secondly, Kuyperian Calvinism in South Africa has been
wedded to the German organic view of the State in spite of
Kuyper's antipathy towards such a view. This marriage was not
performed by theologians but by the political philosophers' and
" Roots of Western Culture (Wedge, Toronto, 1979), p. 53.
" cf. Hexham, opcit., p. 11,p. 17. See also Moltmann's comment that there are
similar tendencies in Bonhoeffer. Two Studies in the TTieology of Bonhoeffer,
(Scribners, N.Y., 1967), p. 41.
" op. cit., p. 66.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 258 S C O T T I S H JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
leaders of Afrikanerdom in the 1930's. Dr Nico Diedrichs, one of
the leading proponents of this view, and a later President of the
Republic, declared in a speech of that period:

Only through his consecration to, his love for and his service
to the nation can man come to the versatile and harmonious
development of his human existence. Only in the nation as
the most total, most inclusive human community can man
realise himself to the full. The nation is the fulfillment of the
individual life.44

T h e concomitants of this are clear. Service to God and the nation

become the same thing, and therefore to obey one's conscience
under God means to obey the State without dissent. Nothing
could be further removed from Kuyper's understanding of the
Sovereignty of God and the 'sovereign spheres', and certainly
nothing could be more alien to Calvin. The further tragedy is,
however, that because according to Kuyper the Church must not
interfere in the State, and because within Afrikanerdom there is
such a direct connexion between the Church and the volk, the
Church's prophetic voice is rendered almost silent. And the
possibility of Christian civil disobedience is ruled out.
Thus far we have attempted to place the debate on Christian
civil disobedience in South Africa in the context of Calvinism, for,
it will be recalled, Allan Boesak's speech arose out of his
commitment to the Reformed tradition. We have not considered
Calvinism in general, but we have sought to interpret that form of
Calvinism, namely Kuyper's neo-Calvinism, which has had such a
profound influence on Afrikaner Calvinism and politics. On the
one hand, we have seen how Kuyper's views have been used to
foster and legitimate Afrikaner Nationalism and its racial
policies, but on the other hand, we have pointed to a largely
forgotten Kuyper whose theology challenges the way in which
Calvinism has too often been understood and used in South
Africa. In particular, we have focused on the question of the
liberty of conscience under God over against an omnipotent-
State, and it is this which now provides us with a Calvinist basis on
which to evaluate Christian civil disobedience in South Africa
today. In doing so, we are once again reminded of the witness of
44
ibid., p. 157.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA 259
Bonhoeffer, whose insights continually question and challenge us
in our reflections.
IV. Christian Civil Disobedience
We are tempted at this point to trace the history of civil
disobedience in South Africa over the past 150 years. Such a
history would include the pioneering work of Mahatma Ghandi,
and that would provide us with some kind of historical, if tenuous
link with Bonhoeffer. But we must forgo such an excursus. Our
task in this final section is rather to focus on the question of civil
disobedience: what is it? what is the specifically Calvinist
understanding of it? and in what way does Bonhoeffer relate to
our discussion of it?
According to John Rawls' widely accepted definition, civil
disobedience 'is a public, non-violent, conscientious yet political
act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a
change in law or the policies of the government.' 45 When we speak
of Christian civil disobedience we mean that it too is a 'public,
non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law', but it
arises specifically out of a conscience shaped by the Gospel. It is a
conscience which, in Bonhoeffer's categories, is formed by Jesus
Christ, and has accepted responsibility for 'the neighbour'. We
may go further and say that the primary aim of such Christian
civil disobedience is to bear witness to the State and society, as Dr
Boesak has indicated, though the changing of unjust laws also
remains paramount.
When true to his insights, the heirs of John Calvin have
regarded civil disobedience, or resistance to unjust laws, as a
necessary part of Christian discipleship. It is the Church
witnessing to the State when it no longer serves God's purposes of
justice and order. As such it is not anarchic, but arises out of a
deep respect for the rule of law. It is not a rejection of the
authority of the State, it is a confession of that authority as being
instituted by God. 'Civil disobedience may thus be described as a
kind of conscientious violation of the law which yet seeks to
maintain values that law promotes.' 46 Christian civil disobedience
4S
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Oxford, 1Q71), p. 364. Rawls is here following
H. A. Bedau, cf. footnote 19 in Rawls.
<6
Andre du Toit, 'Civil Obedience and Disobedience', Pro Veritate, vol. 12 no. 3,
July 1973.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 260 S C O T T I S H JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
in South Africa is a protest against racist la ws in the name of law; it
is a protest against the way law is denied even in the name of the
law. Nothing could be more Calvinist than that, or, for that
matter, closer to Bonhoeffer's opposition to the undermining of
law in Germany.
This leads us to a further important Reformed insight.
Christian civil disobedience is not idiosyncratic. It is not indi-
vidualistic in the sense that anyone can.just please himself in
disobeying authority. In Calvin's own writings, and that of his
successors like Theodore Beza, the Magistrates had a corporate
responsibility in determining when and how resistance was to be
engaged upon. With the arrival of constitutional democracy this
magisterial role fell away. But what happens when constitutional
democracy denies itself so that only some citizens can really
participate in the process (as in South Africa), or when the State
becomes totalitarian (as in the Third Reich or the U.S.S.R.)? Who,
then, fulfills the role of the Magistrates? In Bonhoeffer's case we
would suggest that those who were involved in the conspiracy, all
of whom came from the German elite and who had positions of
responsibility within the nation, fulfilled this function. The
lengthy and profoundly ethical debates which characterised the
circle of conspirators, and Bonhoeffer's participation in particu-
lar, suggests that this is so. But there is another possibility from a
Calvinist perspective. Just as it is the Church's task to witness to
the State, so it is the Church's responsibility to decide when
certain laws are unjust and need to be disobeyed. This raises the
problem of the divided voice of the Church — a problem that is
acute in South Africa. Yet, the churches in South Africa have
virtually been unanimous in condemning racism, and some have
expressly declared the policy of the Government to be un-
Christian and un-just, and in some instances, supported the right
and even duty of Christians to disobey. So Allan Boesak can and
does appeal to the synod's resolutions of his own Dutch Reformed
Mission Church to support his particular stand. 47
One of the qualifying remarks which John Rawls makes in his
treatment of civil disobedience is that such activity assumes a
nearly just society. Clearly Nazi Germany did not meet that
requirement. In such a case, to quote Rawls, 'the wisdom of civil

" cf. Dr. Boesak's letter referred to above in n. u.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA 261
48
disobedience is highly problematic.' Dr Boesak, and others, see
civil disobedience as an option in the South African situation,
though many others clearly do not. 'I look to this alternative
because I still do not find the way to violence to be the proper
way.'49 For the Calvinist the way to prevent violent rebellion and
revolution is to bring about just constitutional change, to provide
ample opportunity for all people to participate in the shaping of
their common life and future, and, when necessary to have
'unlimited scope to petition the government for a redress of their .
grievances.'50 It is to this that the Churches in South Africa who
are calling for a National Convention are committed.
It has been said that 'Calvinism was as useful in producing
revolution where it was needed as it was in^preventing it where it
was not.'51 This leads us to our concluding point. If Calvinism
does not help to prevent revolution, what is its attitude toward
armed rebellion against tyranny? Calvin, Beza-, Knox, du Plessis
Mornay, and many other exponents of Calvinism have supported
the right for Christians to resist the tyrant.51! Abraham Kuyper
himself spoke positively about the 'Calvinistic Revolutions' in
Holland, in England and in the United States. They were
necessary to restore law. Bonhoeffer was not outside the
Reformed tradition when he joined the conspiracy against Hitler.
But let the final comment come from the Dutch Reformed
Church, which, along, with the other Afrikaans Reformed
Churches in South Africa, responded'to the Afrikaner Rebellion
in 1914 as follows: 'No one may revolt against lawful authority
other than for carefully considered and well-grounded reasons

" op. cit., p. 386. On the difficulties of civil disobedience in a pluralistic society
see D. C. S. Oosthuizen The Ethics of Illegal Action (Ravan, Johannesburg, 1973), p.
16: 'the firmer the traditions and the more homogenous the society to which we
belong, the easier it will be for us to decide whether, when and how to act illegally,
and on what sorts of occasions.'
<9
Letter to the Minister of Justice, IRM, p. 72.
50
van der Vyver 'The Right of Revolt', in Contours of the Kingdom, May/June
1979, p. 8.
51
Quoted by Gordon Spykman, op. cit., p. 203.
52
cf. Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion IV/20/30-32; Theodore Beza
De jure magisterium (E.T. Concerning the Rights of Rulers, H.A.U.M., Cape Town,
1956); du Plessis Mornay, Vindiciae contra Tyrannos (E.T. A Defence of Liberty,
Londo'n, 1689); The Scottish Confession of 1560, articles 14 and 24. See also Jean
Lasserre War and the Gospel (Herald Press, Scottdale, 1962), pp. I22f, and
J. Moltmann, 'The Ethic of Calvinism' in The Experiment Hope (SCM, London,
'975)-

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 262 S C O T T I S H JOURNAL OF T H E O L O G Y

based on the Word of God and a conscience enlightened by the

Word of God.' 53 T h e corollary is clear.
" cf. C. F. A. Borchardt 'Afrikaanse Kerke en die Rebellie, 1914-1915', in
Teologie en Vernieuwing, eds., I. H. Eybers, A. Konig, and C. F. A. Borchardt
(Pretoria, 1975). On Kuyper.see Hexham, op. cit., p. 28: 'there is an inner logic in
his (Kuyper's) argument which allows him to justify the use of power by the State
while at the same time limiting that power and allowing for the possibility that
under certain circumstances rebellion may be justified.'

JOHN W. D E GRUCHY
Dept of Religious Studies
University of Cape Town

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600013983 Published online by Cambridge University Press