PERSPECTIVEPERSPEC TIVE IS A CHRISTIAN NEWSPAPER AT UC T

Vol. 3 No. 6 Free 3 September 1984

Burger Best By FarFACULTY POLLS

The "left" romped home in style in the SRC elections on Friday night to the jubilent cheers of an excited crowd on Red Level. Lead by Christine Burger (who topped the polls with an incredible 2 218 votes - the highest individual poll in 1 7 years) they took the top 9 places - leaving the re­maining six for the "representative" stu­dents. The most tense moment of the evening was when the percentage poll was announced as many had feared that the

mandatory 25% would not be reached. How­ever the final poll was 27,91% - a drop of 7,22% over last year. This drop was attributed to the political activity on campus around election time, as well as the exceptionally low number of candidates

that stood. '

1 . Christine Burger 2218 (66,65)2. Paula Hathorn 1457 (43,78)

3- Glenn Goosen 1449 (43,54)4. Vivien McMenamin 1398 (42,01)

5. Donald Skinner 1301 (39,09)6. Steve Kromberg 1250 (37,56)

7. Ali son B i1 1 i ng 1236 (37,14)8. Barbara Friedman 1121 (33,68)

9. Colin Kahanov i tz 1116 (33,53)10. Justin Simpson 972 (29,21)1 1 . Carla Sutherland 945 (28,40)12. Antony Greenstein 310 (27,34)

13. Kim Densham 714 (21,45)14. Richard Sauerman 555 (16,68)

15. Ali sta i r De Con i ng 485 (14,57)1b. Raphi Lidchi 480 (14,42)

17. Nicholas Gevers 254 ( 7,63)

(Number of votes polled follows the

candidate's name, and percentage of the total votes cast is in brackets)

INTERESTING FACTS*Burger's 2218 votes (66,651) is

the best individual poll since 1967 (when incidentally Robert Schrire came 2nd with 1473 votes)

*The top nine places went to "left"

candidates. Justin Simpson -10th-

Was the first "rep rese nta tiv e" home.

•-Burger came first in all but two

of the faculties (Music £ Commerce)^

* A 1 1 those standing for re-election got o n ;

1 - Burger 2218 (1746)

3 - Goosen 1449 (1189)

4 - McMenamin 1398 (1147)

10 - Simpson 972 (1476)

12 - Greenstein 910 (1042)

(Position; Candidate; '84 vote;

'83 vote)

••Nicholas Gevers, the "Ghost" can­didate, who produced no posters, pamphlets, and banner nor gave any speeches at all still managed to gain 254 votes.

■The EDUCATION IN ACTION group came 6th-Kromberg , 7 1 h - B i 1 1 i n g 8th-Fr iedman; 9 th-Kahanovitz

*The UNITE AGAINST CONSCRIPTION group

came 2nd - Paula Hathorn; and 5th - Donald Skinner

(Peixentage polls in brackots.follow­ed by leading candidates)

LAW (65,09) Burger; Goosen; Kahan- ov i tz

ARTS (39,15) Burger; Kromberg;Goosen

COMMERCE (30,38) Simpson, Burger Greenste in

SOCIAL SCIENCE (28,33) Burger;

Hathorn; Goosen

SCIENCE (28,06) Burger; Billing; Hathorn

ENGINEERING ( 24,24) Burger;B i 1 I i ng , S u t h e r 1 and

MEDICIN E (23,17) Burger; Skinner; Goosen

MUSIC (22,71) De Coning; Hathorn; Burger

FINE ART £ ARCH I (22,34) Burger; Hathorn; Goosen

EDUCATION (1 5 ,88) Bjrger; Hatho rn £

Kromberg; Sutherland £ Billing

PAST TRENDS

s

PERSPECTIVE editorial‘It is immoral to face a boy of 18 with the choice of a possible six years in prison and a period of two years initial military training.’ CPSA Synod.

War is an issue that affects every single one of us veiy directly. The country we live in is involved in a quest­ionable war in foreign countries. We, or our brothers/ husbands/boyfriends or friends, are legally required to serve for four years in total in the SADF, or six years in alternative community service — or face a prison sentence o f a maximum six years.

Those who have younger brothers or friends who face the choice at 18 years of age have the delicate respon­sibility of counselling them in their decision. It is naive and irresponsible for women, or those who are not called up. to consider that this decision does not affect them directly. Our relationships affect our decisions unavoidably. Those called-up need to take into account the fears and feelings of their families and friends as they take this decision. The discussion, encouragement (or lack o f it) of those closest to us can help or hinder us in coming to a position of integrity as we face this issue.

But war is a complex problem which raises many deep questions. Such as: is there such a thing as a justifiable war? If the system which is being fought against perpetrates structural violence, can war be seen as the lesser o f two evils; and if so what are the divid­ing lines? Does the end justify the means; or is it possible for evil means to achieve a good end?

These are questions which we each have to face, if we want to make an honest stand, and if we want to decide for the best. There are many more: can one work more effectively for good from within the army? Was it right to attempt to assasinate Hitler? What

about personal violence: can one use violence in self- defence or in defending an overpowered person?

For Christians the Bible, which we believe to be the inspired word o f God, presents many paradoxes which need to be resolved. Jesus told us to ‘turn the other cheek’ and pray for our enemies. Yet he said, ‘Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.’ The Old Testament paints a picture of God who won military victories for his people: yet this same God revealed his character clearly in Jesus’ death ‘as a lamb to the slaughter’.

Peter who wrote in his letter, ‘Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among m e n , told the Sanhedrin, ‘Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.’What about Romans 13: what, exactly, is Caesar’s due and what is God’s due?

PERSPECTIVE has focussed this issue on war, in the hope o f helping our readers to begin to be able to answer these questions for themselves. Yet it is im­portant that each of us read, discuss and study much further. We need to have as accurate and clear an idea of what is happening in Namibia, before we make decisions. For further reading PERSPECTIVE recommends:

The Catholic Bishop’s Report On Namibia ‘Conscientious Objection’ : A counsellors’ resource manual. (SACC, PO Box 4921, Jhb, 2000)Books recommended on page 10

i j IT 7*U Et h a t a

M U -*hon ytAJt-S A *£ ROT A

AND A M>L>-lON' £>°l.UAf ̂ Atft

J u f T A PtWNY

PERSPECTIVE EDITORIAL STAFF

Editors: Carla Sutherland Richard Gosnell

Production: Gustav Scholtz Graphics: Nathan Dietrich Financial andAdvertising: Terence Parker Sub-Editors: Clair'1 Keeton

Tansy Jessop Rory Williams Sheelagh Stewart

With: Jeanel 1 e t Linda-annMany thanks to Phyllis, Linda and Mannie.Published by SCA.

The views in these co lum ns do n o t necessarily re flec t the views o f either the publishers or the editors.

OJ

Pulling teeth, not triggers

Dr Neil Myburg, who is a Christian pacifist, applied in August this year to render community service to South Africa rather than serving in the SADF. He appeared before the Board for Religious Objectors, and his application was accepted. PERSPECTIVE spoke to Neil about his stand:

PERSPECTIVE: Neil, could you tell us a little abou t your background?Neil: I was born and schooled in Cape Town. I left to spend 12 m onths in the airforce in 1975. Thereafter I spent tim e studying at Wits’ Dental School and at the same time living in com m­unity and participating in the Anglican S tudents’ Society. I started writing letters to the m ilitary authorities during tha t time saying tha t I did n o t wish to render any more military service. I became fairly definite in my stand towards the end of my university train­ing.

It was only after that that I received call-ups at which stage I was working at a clinic in Crossroads where I felt I had been called quite specifically to serve. I am still working there and have re­ceived two subsequent call-ups. On the third one I have now had to apply to be processed by the Board for Religious Objection.

PERSPECTIVE: What type o f objector does the board recognise?Neil: There was much debate about w hether a person is political or religious and i t ’s very unfortunate that they have a very narrow definition of the word

“ religion” . It is the English word “ relig­ious” which is binding legally on the situation. This means tha t it is no t necessarily belief in ‘a supreme being or beings, or constellation of divinities’ (Judge Steyn), but tha t the broader sense of the word “ religious” should be accepted and could be accepted as a precedent once someone appears before them with such a basis o f belief. I think what is im portant is tha t this basis o f be­lief, whether it be a com bination of moral and ethical, o r a Buddhist position, should be shown to occupy a central role in the individual’s life - a place tha t would otherwise be occupied by a recognised religion. The ‘ju st war theory’ is som ething they have clearly tried to exclude and they asked me questions to tha t effect too.PERSPECTIVE: What criteria are the board looking fo r in your application? Neil: I th ink tha t what the board is looking for is sincerity in your motives— from the statem ents, past activities, past correspondence and present life of the applicant. They are looking for a position which is universal and it’s a position of pacifism which does not allow any particular instance in which an applicant would be able to participate in war. They w ant to know quite clearly

th a t you can say “ yes” to category 3 in the Defence Am endm ent Act o f last year: which means that you would n o t be prepared to participate in any war or render service in connection with any armed force, etc., etc.

PERSPECTIVE: How did you fee l about yo u r appearnce before the board and their response to you?Neil: I felt fairly confident. I felt that the docum entation that I had subm itted, the statem ent that I had written, the preparation tha t I had made was quite sufficient and justified my own position. I felt that they should classify me and was quite relaxed. It was a challenge to express w hat I had to say. The atmos­phere of the board is no t that for a “brotherly discussion” because they’re up there on a floor and you’re down below — six against one and it is fairly intimidating.

PERSPECTIVE: You are now required to do 1 1/2 times your remaining time in com m unity service. Where do you feel this would be best rendered?Neil: At present I am working as a den­tist at the clinic in Crossroads. I think quite definitely tha t there is a need for a dentist there and I am available to serve. I also know that the people for whom I would would appreciate it if I am not removed from that position. So we really believe th a t I should be sent straight back to work in tha t com m unity.

PERSPECTIVE: Who do you recom­m end to apply to the board?Neil: Clearly anyone with sincere object­ions to service in the SADF should seriously consider the board. I would say tha t if there is any doubt, apply and thereafter you can always decide to change, o r reapply in another category. One can even leave the country at that stage.

PERSPECTIVE: Thank you very much, Weil.

I THINK THEREFOREWe all have beliefs about what sort of things are real and beliefs about what sort of things are valuable or worthwhile. We have these sorts of beliefs even if we're unaware o f them. Do you believe in life after death? Do you believe in “mercy-killing"? You see, you do have beliefs about these things!

What philosophy does is to make you aware of w hat they are — to make you aware o f your basic beliefs about reality. . s • orl.; »lev , jo-.ir ''d iet's about what is worthwhile and your system o f values. Once you are aware o f what your basic beliefs are, philosophy helps you find ou t which of them are posssibly/ probably or certainly true. The m ethods it uses to do this are logic, dialectic and conceptual analysis.

That is one conception of philosophy — an intellectual technique for clarifying and evaluating one’s basic beliefs. It is the academic conception of philosophy, the sort of thing taught in philosophy departm ents at unversities. There is another, more popular, conception of philosophy according to which Marxism, Existentialism . Buddhism, even Christian­ity, are all thought of as different “ philo- sopies” . This view of philosophy often speakes of a “ philosophy o f life” and expects each o f us to decide on our own philosophy of life. So philosophy in this view actually am ounts to a world-view plus a system of values — the set o f basic beliefs one relies on to live one’s life.

It is n o t difficult to see the similarity between the two conceptions o f philoso­phy. They bo th have to do w ith our basic beliefs about w hat is real and w hat is worthwhile. But there is an equally im portan t difference w'hich is not so easily seen. In the first case philosophy is an intellectual technique or skill for examining our beliefs; it doesn’t o f itself com m it you to any particular beliefs as such. In the second case a philosophy is precisely a particular set of beliefs to which one is com m itted and which excludes all sorts o f o ther beliefs.

What has all this to do w ith Christianity? The two different conceptions of philoso­phy raise two different problem s for the Christian. Let us take them one by one.

The first raises the question: ‘Does one arrive at the tru th about w hat is real and w orthw hile by reason or by faith?’ Should one use reason to answer some questions, scientific ones like ‘What are

things made of?’ and faith to answer o ther, religious, ones like Is there a God? But what if religion and science con­tradict each other?

I do no t think Christians need to worry about a conflict between reason and faith. A fter all we believe th a t it is the same God who creates our reason and makes it work, and who reveals himself to our faith in Jesus. So there can’t be an ultimate conflict.

In fact all adult Christians ought to use their reason on their faith in order to understand it better. That is the classi­cal Christian definition o f theology given by St Anselm: fides quaerens intellectum , faith seeking understanding. And philoso­phy, as a rigorous intellectual discipline, can be a great help in this. All the great Christian theologians have also been philosophers in this sense.

The other conception of philosophy is more problem atic. A philosophy in the sense of a to tal world-view and system of values is actually a com petito r w ith Christianity for people’s allegiance.

There was time, before the Renaissance, when all Christianity’s com petitors were other religions. Religions, of course, are also world-views and systems of values But part o f their world-view is belief in the existence and value o f a transcendent being or beings. From the Renaissance onward the process called secularisation brought many non-religious world-views

0u u m m uand value-systems in to being: secular philosophies like Marxism and Existent­ialism. Now on the face of it these secular systems are simply incompatible with religious systems and therefore with Christianity.

Christianity, however, is unique among the religions of the world. The beliefs we have about Jesus are no t the same sort of beliefs that Jews, for instance, have about Moses or Muslims have about Mohammed. Jesus, we believe, is divine. And so, unlike Moses or Mohammed, he is not confined to one religion. He is at work in any religion and every philoso­phy ; he is at work in every person.

So we can acknowledge Christ’s spirit and tru th in good Jews or Muslims, or any person of goodwill, good Marxists or good Existentialists. And the same applies to their religions or their philo­sophies. There is often a great deal in them tha t we Christians are in a position to recognise as genuinely Christian in this sense. Even a so-called atheist may really be only anti-idolatry, an enemy of false gods in the same way as the prophets in the Old Testam ent were and the apostles in the New.

1 think the unique character of Christ­ians faith makes it more and not less able to cope w ith the pow er of human reason and the philosophies it produces. Q

Dr A ugustine S h u tte is a senior lecturer in the D epartm ent o f Philosophy at UCT.

A look at the “Southern Suburbs Vagrancy Project”:

Haven on EarthIn mid-April 1982 the Cape Times drew attention to the plight o f the vagrants in the “elite suburbs” of Rondebosch and Claremont.

In an editorial headed “The Rains are Coming” , the newspaper referred to the work of the Haven nightshelter in Green

Point, stating: “The need for not one but several such institu tions has been dem on­strated tim e and again. For this reason it would be an act o f mercy if the church­es in Rondebosch, Clarem ont and Kenil­w orth came together to launch a similar haven in their areas.”

This led to m uch discussion among concerned individuals and in response to ; ’ ."tion from CUMIC (Churches C om m ittee for U rban Mission in Clare­m ont) sixteen people from local churches and from welfare agencies m et on May to consider a possible research project.

lh o se at the meeting agreed on the need for reliable inform ation as a basis for effective, caring action. The “ SSUP” was established to conduct a limited action-orientated local survey. A small working com m ittee was constituted. Its m andate was to recruit and supervise a researcher, keep the local constituen­cies in touch w ith the project, and arrange for a report.

The research worker, Mr Barry Kinkead- Weekes, was duly appointed for the period 1 O ctober - 31 December 1982. His task was to interview vagrants in the Rosebank to Clarem ont area, as well as people in authority and other relevant persons; investigate possible premises should a night shelter be indicated; and prepare a factual report w ith recom m en­dations for action. The findings o f the survey are published in a booklet titled “The Rains are Com ing” :

It is our belief th a t the establishm ent o f several night shelters do tted through­ou t the Southern suburbs would be first step in meeting the needs of the vagrant com m unity. By a night shelter we mean a place th a t is open for a limited period, usually 6.00 pm to 6.00 am, and providing limited facilities in return for a small fee — a simple supper and breakfast; toilets, showers and a place to wash clothes; dorm itory accom m odation and a com mon room . Also an opportun i­ty for counselling and referral to relevant welfare agencies and/or to possible em ploym ent opportunities.

A place o f th is kind does n o t cater for the long-term needs o f homeless families,

nor is if- intended to do so. It is aimed at bringing in off the streets some o f the destitute, marginalised, “ unhousable” in­dividuals and less hardened “ rondlopers” who with practical assistance at an early stage could get back into mainstream society. Basic rather than deluxe, such a shelter respects the dignity of the clients and seeks to enhance their sense of self- w orth and their capacity for self-reliance.

The SSVP is at present looking to site its first night shelter. The most con­centrated pockets o f vagrants in the Southern Suburbs are found in the Newlands Forest, at the Claremont bus terminus, the Wynberg Fire Station, Diocesan College (Bishops), under Bel­m ont Road Rondebosch bridge and behind Forest Hill in Mowbray. Sites/ buildings being investigated are:

Fears that these night shelters may act as magnets attracting undesirables from other areas have not been substantiated in the case of the NICRO night shelter or The Haven. Most o f the vagrants catered for by such shelters have a limited beat of 3 - 5 kilometres. To be viable and effective inthe long-run a night shelter needs to be no t simply a physical facility, but an interface between the settled com m unity and people of “no fixed abode” . It needs to be a link in a chain tha t includes a localised day trainee centre and sheltered em ploym ent facility, detoxification centre for alcoholics and homes for aged and infirm people.

i) the old Claremont Police S tation;ii) K lipfontein Road, Rondebosch (next

to the Council Cleansing depot);iii) Council land behind and between

Grand Bazaar and OK Bazaar in Clarem ont (it is thought this falls w ithin the Claremont By-pass area);

iv) under the bridge at Belmont Road, Rondebosch;

v) the old house on the Valkenberg Hospital Estate.

The SSVP is contactable through RonWilson at the Rondebosch Congrega­tional Church, Belmont Road.

THE CONTENTED FISH ERM A N .....................

The rich industrialist from the North was horrified to find the Southern fisherman lying lazily beside his boat, smoking a pipe.

"Why aren't you out fishing?" said the industrialist."Because I have caught enough fish for the day," said the fisherman.

"Why don't you catch more than you need?" said the industrialist."What would I do with it?" asked the fisherman.

"You could earn more money," was the reply. "With that you could have a motor fixed to your boat. Then you could go into deeper waters and catch more fish. Then you would make enough to buy nylon nets. These would bring you more fish and more money. Soon you would have enough money to own two boats...maybe even a fleet of boats. Then you would be a rich man like me."

"What would I c d then?" asked the fisher­man."Then you could sit down and enjoy life said the industrialist.

"What do you thi.ik I am doing right no said the contented fishepnan.

By God’s Graceby Isobel de Gruchy There is more to Christianity than conversion, although there is a ten­dency to regard the conversion experience as the be-all and end-all of the Christian life. We are satis­fied that we have been converted and that we have Christ who is “the answer to all our needs” . But while conversion is a new birth, it is just the beginning of a long process o f growth.

God is calling us to undertake the journey o f life w ith him. A lthough each individual journey is unique there are certain stages tha t all Christians pass through. We cannot predict the way in which the Holy Spirit will work in each person, bu t those who have journeyed before agree tha t there is a general pattern of Christian growth. Based on the experien­ces of deeply spiritual people over the centuries, Doris Donnelly, a teacher of spiritual th eo lo g y in the U nited States, sees seven stages on the journey to a deepening relationship w ith God.________

This is the necessary first step. It is a turning around to face a new direction, to look to Christ. Life has a new meaning and prayer flows freely w ith m any words of thanks. As w ith all new relationships we w ant to learn as much as we can about the other person. So the Bible holds a new fascination as we find out more about Christ in its pages.

must 'com e to us all. Even in a human relationship the stage of awe cannot last. I t is too superficial no m atter how real.

Christian, in John Bunyan’s description of the Pilgrim’s Progress, falls into the hands of Giant Despair and is imprisoned in Doubting Castle sometime after the joyfu l experience of having his burdens lifted off his back at the Cross.

Many do n o t survive this stage because they are no t expecting it, and they do n o t know how to deal w ith the new sense o f their own unworthiness and sin­fulness tha t comes. God is at w ork here enabling us to get to know our true self.

We are so m uch part of our society that we expect instant success and instant results in our Christian life as well. We cannot force G od’s hand and we need to wait for him to renew us in his own time. In persisting w ith prayer w ithout recompense we are helping Christ to carry his cross.

We are amazed tha t Christ could call us and save us. Euphoric prayers o f praise fall from our tongues. We w ant to share our new joy w ith others. We w ant them to share w hat we have found. We have the answer to everything.

4. Renewal Faith has been tested and renewal will come if we do n o t give up. This could be the acutal conversion because it could be more real — more a conversion of the will and not only of feelings and emotions. God pours his grace upon us and we are aware of it again. But his grace was never really absent from us. Prayer is no t now so many words but a m editation and a quiet waiting on God.We do not as a m atter o f course move on to the nex t stage. D oubts and de­pression may assail us again. We may have to work through these all over again. The two stages of depression and renewal can be cyclical and last for some for many years. O thers never move on to the nex t stage.

3, Depression

Inevitably the tim e will com e when the honeym oon is over. We fail Christ, or he does n o t answer our prayers just as we w ant him to. We are filled w ith doubts and uncertainties. God no longer seems to be there when we pray. So we stop praying. Let us be aware that this stage

6. Intim acy

We want intimacy in a relationship and yet we shrink from it. We know what it can offer us but we don’t like to reveal ourselves to others, partly because we don’t really know ourselves. The same is true of this stage in the Christian journey.

This can be a very painful stage. We have to allow God to reveal our real self to us and to do away with our false self or ego. Only then can we be united with Christ. A nother paradox becomes appar­ent. As we go deeper in to intim acy with God we are no t forming a cosy little relationship by removing ourselves from the world and others. We are enabled to lover others and to form intim ate rela­tionships with them w ithout mixed motives for only those who know them ­selves — and know themselves united w ith Christ - can do this. Too often people go out to others or serve others in order to bolster their own egos.

Here prayer moves from m editation to contem plation — prayer w ithout words, just simply being with God.

5. Paradox wGod gives us a new uifterstanding and we realize all is no t plain sailing; we don’t have, nor do we need “ the answer to everything” . Love begins to overwhelm our reason. T u rth confronts us at a deep­er level than that o f the mind and often as a pradox. We realise that God is known through no t knowing; that as Christ said “ it is in losing our lives that we find them ” ; tha t as with St Francis “ it is in giving that we receive” ; and tha t power is in powerlessness.

7. Praise

We can only be free to really praise someone when our own need for affirm­ation has been satisfied. This has happen­ed in intimacy and union w ith Christ. And we can only really praise when someone exceeds our expectations and this God does. This is different to the awe and giving thanks of stage 2. Genuine praise is the mark o f the m ature Christian and the mature com munity. We pray and praise God now not in order to get something out o f it but because we love and are more open to see and realize the unexpected thing — the “ more than” .

We may start on the Christian journey in order to m eet some need of our own or to find some answers to life’s meaning. The person in stages 6 and 7 has only incidentally accomplished this goal. She is indifferent to these issues. She is filled w ith love and a desire to serve others, even to suffer for others, and is free to be Christ for others. This way is not an elitist way but God gives the invitation to all to “ come up higher” . Q

JUST WARby Peter Moll

The intensifying war situation in South Africa poses difficult quest­ions for Christians. Some want to know whether Christians can ever go to war. and if so, how killing can be reconciled with “ thou shalt not kill" and “ love one another, as I have loved you” . Others want to know where the dividing line is between a war that is permissible for Christians and a war that Christians should obvious­ly not participate in. like Hitler’s war o f aggression in Western Europe. Just War theory can supply criteria to help us answer these questions.

How did Just War theory arise? The early church believed that, in accord­ance with the New T estam ent’s em ­phasis on brotherly love and “ going the second mile” , they should no t engage in killing. Some were even m artyred for their refusal to fight. So when German tribes in the north threatened to destroy the Roman em pire and the church with it, the church faced a dilemma. Should Christians stick to their traditional pacifism and leave the Empire in the lurch? Or should Christians m odify their principles and fight?

St Augustine's solution was as simple as it was revolutionary: to separate motives from actions. Thus one could love one’s enemies (motive) while at the same tim e killing them (action). And so the concept o f the Just War began. What constituted a “ Just War” ?

Theologians like Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin, and secular jurists like Grotius put their minds to the question. I shall m ention the most im portan t criteria they laid down to justify resort to the ultim ate means of te rro r — war.

(1) The war must be waged by a legiti­m ate authority . This was intended to exclude private wars and private armies.

(2) The war must have a just cause, eg. if the state has been done a grave injustice which could n o t be avenged in any other way. Defence and recovery of property were just causes while the desire for richer land and the desire to rule over other peoples were not.

(3) There should be a reasonable hope of victory. War is so m onstrously evil that it would be immoral to wage a war w ithout assurance of victory.

(4) All peaceful means should first have

been exhausted before going to war. War should thus be the last resort.

(5) The war must be waged justly. This implied a rule of proportionality , viz. no more violence should be used than necessary. It also implied discrimination, viz. the army should discriminate be­tween soldiers and noncom batants and not attack the latter.

Together these rules were intended to form a basis for the state, the church, and the individual to consider whether a war was just. This did not mean tha t a “ Just War” became a “ good war” . The theologians and jurists were strongly aware of the horror and senselessness o f war - that war is in a sense the ul­tim ate form of injustice.

I am not suggesting that we mechanically take up these five rules o f warfare and apply them in the contem porary scene — besides anything else, the means of them would be obsolescent, and new rules would have to be developed to suit chan­ged circumstances.

The im portant point to note is that those theologians and jurists expressed their moral seriousness about war in terms which afforded some application in the real world; in a similar way to them I am suggesting that a new Just War theory needs to be developed in our situation so that people will have the mental categories w ith which to approach the whole problem of war. Among the new circumstances which need to be addressed are: the Geneva conventions, guerrilla warfare, nuclear warfare, military expend­iture, the rise of the “ to ta l war” , and the m odern phenom enon of conscientious objection.

When the Catholic church reform ulated its theological thinking in the Vatican II Council in the sixties, it reiterated the principles of the Just War tradition. The Anglican church holds that a Christian may fight only in a “ Just War” (Article 37). The 1689 Baptist Confession said that a Christian may fight only in a “just and necessary” war. In fact all the “ mainline” denom inations stand in the Just War tradition.

But the Just War tradition is addressed also to the individual. This is for the rather obvious reason that killing in­volves m orality, and m orality is inescap­ably the concern o f the individual. The sixteenth century Catholic scholar, de V itoria, held tha t if a subject is con­vinced of the injustice of a war, “he ought not to serve in it, even on the command of the prince” .

He insisted, furtherm ore, that those whose conscience is against the justice of a war should not serve in it “ whether they be right or wrong” (Bailey, 11). Karl Barth w rote similarly, tha t “we render the state the w orst possible

c o n t i n u e d ove r l e a f

THE OPTIONSOur focus in this issue combines articles on two alternative Christian views o f war. Peter Moll examines the Just War Theory which is held by most o f the mainline church denominations, while Neil Myburgh looks at pacifism in its historical context. Militarism affects all students in one way or another, and we urge readers to critically examine their own views on the subject.

PACIFISMby Neil Myburgh

Curious species, this human race that spawned A-Team cult violence and for whom mass annihilation is a fervently supported national pasttime.

The likes o f Freud, Lorenz and others have struggled to explain why. In contrast, animals hardly ever kill members o f their own species. More than them, we humans have freedom of choice in such matters. It seems we choose to divide ourselves into separate and alienated “teams” , all o f whom strive for an accumulation of power, resources and hey presto, a recipe for conflict. But why? Can one make a different choice?

Clearly, an overriding sense of unity can bring peace. W ithout division there Gan be no further conflict. Religion allows one to see one’s “ Faith” as the universality tha t is far bigger than the issues tha t alienate and allow violence. In Christianity, obedience to one God meets this need. In Eastern mysticism, “ALL IS ONE” is the concept providing the same unity . People try to become part o f something bigger than them ­selves, sacrificing themselves, giving of themselves, giving of themselves to God, displacing their ego and obtaining peace.

Let’s look at Buddha . . .

Siddhartha Gavtama, a princeling from Nepal, wandered across Indian in about 500 BC, and refined the “ Four Noble T ruths” which form the basis for Budd­hist belief. N otably, the eightfold path which is the fourth of these Truths, includes “ Right A ction” . This involves practicing Ahimsa which is non-violence, harmlessness. It is more than the com m­andm ent “ thou shalt no t kill” . I t means n o t even wanting to harm other creatures in any way. This concept is based on two ideas:

i) violence is nearly always futile be­cause the real conflict is going on inside you, n o t outside;(ii) because of “ Karma” , practising viol­ence will tend to have a bad effect on yourself.

These tru ths, to a large extent, lay the foundation for our present-day under­standing o f non-violence and pacifism.

. . . and Jesus

Born into a political upheaval, and executed by a military governm ent after

only three years of public life, but worshipped by millions for tw o thousand years: Jesus Christ.

We can all quote, “ Love thy neigh­bour as th y se lf ’; “ Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” ; “ If anyone forces you to go one mile, go tw o” ; “ I ’m telling you to behave in a new way, love one another as I have loved you” ; “ Blessed are the peace­makers” . Perhaps the teaching is obvious when quoted like this, but w hat remains the m ost extraordinary event of all, is His m ethod of uniting all hum anity, o f bridging every human division.

We spoke o f sacrifice, and herein lies the essence of Christianity’s contribution to peace. “ God so loved the world that He gave His only Son . . . ” The cross is an u ltim ate sacrifice, a source of reconcilia­tion for any who will accept it.

However powerful this may be, church history tells a sadly different story. Until about 300 AD, Christians refused to fight in the Rom an army. The tale of Maximilianus, a young conscript of 295 AD, is “ I cannot serve as a soldier.I cannot do evil. I am a Christian” . He was beheaded for this objection.

Official religionsBoth Buddhism (300 BC) and Christiani­ty (300 AD) became entangled in affairs o f state at this point, as they were in­dividually adopted as official religions. B oth suffered the conflict of the prob­lem: religion is about sacrifice and politics is about power. However, for our purposes the single political question of pacifism is to be traced.

A quick look at the Oxford dictionary reveals:Pacifism (n ); “ Doctrine that abolition of war is desirable and possible.”

We have seen how essential the them es of reconciliation and non-violence are w ithin the w orld’s two greatest peace religions and how they vanished from the area of conscription for war for more than 1 000 years in Christendom.

But pacifism returned w ith the Cathars from the Middle East, whilst fighting in the Crusades, and later passed on to sects like the Albigenses, Waldensians, the Lollards and the Hussites as people began to read the Bible for themselves. Taken up by fundam entalist Protestants in the reform ation era we then read o f John of Leiden, Conrad Grebe 1 and others in the A nabaptist tradition. Survivors of this tradition today are the Mennonites and H utterites, now scattered to N orth Am erica and Russia.

In Russia one indirect descendant was Leo Tolstoy who stated tha t “ the New Testam ent morality of love must also be applied to public affairs” . His writingc o n t i n u e d o v e r l e a f

continued from pg 8: JUST WAR

service by telling m en no t to accept personal responsibility bu t to shift it onto the state. . . Killing . . . should be the them e of a supremely personal interro­gation” .

In the end, moral reflection on the con­ditions of justifiable war is inescapable.

P eter M o ll is do ing his M asters in R e lig ­io u s S tu d ie s a t U C T - a thesis on m ilita ry chaplaincy. H e o b jec ted to m ilita ry ser­vice on “ju s t w ar” grounds, and sp e n t a year (1989 ) in d e te n tio n barracks.

continued from pg 9: PACIFISM

had some effect on the A narchist move­m ent and on Mohandas Ghandi. Later the Quakers emerged w ith a line similar to the M ennonites. So, did pacifism remain alive.

So m uch for the smaller groups. Let’s go back to the Christian Rom an Empire and the need to defend it against rampag­ing barbarians in 410 AD. Here comes St Augustine to the rescue w ith a just war theory (discussed in another article). Most significant is his ability to keep spirituality and politics entirely separate (no prizes for guessing where you’ve heard tha t before).

He also developed the main arguments still in use today, against absolute pacifism, ie: (i) The Fall: hum ans are naturally aggressive; (ii) Legalsim: love is the only m oral absolute therefore you can’t assume it is always absolutely wrong to kill; (iii) Peace isn’t Justice: Raises the question of structural vilence verses revolutionary violence; (iv) Viol­ence isn’t hate: only a man who loved his enem y should be free to kill him.

One is tem pted to say “ no com m ent” to these, but instead I urge you to re­examine the im portance of Ahimsa, the incredible significance o f the Cross, and the person o f Jesus as you understand Him. Official church policy has little to be proud of, but each individual needs to decide on his own position, at the peril o f his sanity and all life itself.

Suggested reading:

* Ron Sider : Christian Violence* R obert G Clouse : War: F ou r Christian Views* John H Y oder : The Politics o f Jesus* Jacques Ellul : V iolence* A cknow ledgem ents to Ian Kellas and Peace for Beginners.

N eil M yb u rg is a d e n tis t a t the SA C L A clinic a t Crossroads. H e o b je c te d to do ing h is m ilita ry cam ps, and was classi­f ie d as a religious universal p ac ifis t by th e board in A u g u s t th is year. H e will be do ing c o m m u n ity service fo r a b o u t three years. _

It is abundantly clear in the New Testament that Giving is an integral and an important part o f the Christian life.

Giving is central to the whole of Scrip­ture — God gave us His creation: ‘T h e earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness th e re o f’ (Ps 24:1; 1 Cor 10:26); Jesus gave himself com pletely for us (Gal 1:4), loving us “ to the end” (John 13:1), And all this Giving requires from us a response, and a loving response. “All things com e from You, and o f your own do we give to You.”

In fact, about one third o f Jesus’ teach­ing was to do w ith possessions and m oney, showing us that giving and stewardship are im portant to the Lord; and I believe th a t they should be taught and preached about now as they were then. There is a distinction to be drawn between giving and stewardship. Giving is w hat we give to God, while steward­ship is our use of what is left — His, left w ith me. To teach giving is, in fact, to help people to grow.

Giving requires from us a response and a loving re­sponse. “All things come from You, and of your own do we give to You.”St Paul deals specifically w ith giving in2 Corinthians 8 & 9. And in this context the word “ Grace” is used five times, referring to G od’s free and undeserved giving to us. What we see is that the receiving of Grace brings out grace in us — and this becomes evidenced in our giving. Real giving comes, in fact, when God unlocks hearts, and we become freed to give — sacrificially, spontaneously and systematically.

Sacrificial giving

Sacrificial giving is shown in 2 Cor 8 by the Macedonian Church, responding to the need of Christians in Jerusalem. “ For, in a severe test o f affliction, their abundance of joy and their extrem e

freepoverty have overflowed in a w ealth of liberality on their part. For they gave . . . beyond their means, o f their own free will, begging us earnestly for the favour of taking part in the relief o f the saints.” (w 2-4) But the key to this lies in the next verse: “b u t first they gave them ­selves to the Lord” . They gave themselves— and were then freed to give abundantly out o f their poverty, and to give freely and joyfully.

It rem inds us o f the widow’s mite (Luke 21:1-3). We note there that Jesus didn’t prevent the widow from giving her last coins to God, but let her go ahead, trust­ing in God to provide for her needs in response to her faith and love and sacri­fice.

Spontaneous giving

Spontaneous giving reflects our attitude tow ards w hat we are doing. “ Each one must do as he has made up his mind, n o t reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” We must make up our own mind about our giving to God, because our giving will reflect where we are at w ith God. Spontaneous giving says a lo t about our relationship w ith God and our love for Him. That relationship needs to be right before our giving will be both generous and spontaneous. If the giving falls short, the relationship must be questioned.

Systematic giving

System atic, disciplined, regular giving is another Scriptural standard. “ On the first day o f the week, each one of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper — Givingbeing no t ju st a ‘once off thing’, but a regular and ordered, system atic, part of the Christian life, a constant reflection

HELP BEAT THE FAMINE. JOIN ItWORLD

14-16 September '84 Tel. 715353

fam ine Help the hungry to help themselves.• contact Perspective for Info

giving frees

of our love for the Lord.

The point about Christian giving is that it is to God that we give. We don’t give in order to m eet a particular need or situation; we don’t give in order to m atch a budget or to m eet a crisis. Indeed, real Christian giving will usually exceed bud­gets and specific needs.We need to remember tha t “ He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly; while he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully .” (2 Cor. 9:6f)

Picture a large farm, where the farmer will afford only enough seed for one small field. His crop will be lim ited to that field, and he will remain a poor and small farmer. But the farm er who plants seed throughout his farm will have a far greater crop, and will have more to put in to the farm the nex t year. For God surely blesses our giving.

We don’t give in order to be Blessed. R ather, we give in order to bless God — the fact th a t He Blesses us in return is som ething extra. When we give, God supplies, and in many ways. F or we will never outgive G od’s giving. This, too, has its purpose: for He gives more so that

we m ay give more, and so more becomes available for His work. Such giving, too, brings growth.

What about tithing?

Tithing, let it be said, is no t a New Testa­m ent principle. It was very much an Old Testam ent demand (cf Malachi 3:8-10), and in fact there are three types of OT tithe.

T obit, in the A pocrypha, paid all three types of tithe to God. St Paul, who had been a Pharisee before his conversion, would n o t have seen a lesser giving for the Christian: after all, we have Christ and therefore have so much more. We have, therefore, a com m itm ent beyond the tithe, which becomes our very mini­mum, our starting point in Giving.

There are, after all, those who would feel lim ited to tithing if that were to become the Christian demand, whereas they should perhaps be challenged to give far more. Many people are presently earning quite vast salaries, for whom a tithe would be quite unrealistically low. No, tithing should be our minimum. And tithing, in fact, brings w ith it a

freedom in giving which never was there before. Tithing frees. It frees us to give freely, and it frees money for G od’s work.

What God wants o f us, then, is a readi­ness to give — ou t o f our abundance to supply for the needs of others.

But He wants us first to give ourselves — w ithout reserve. And He w ants us to give freely, n o t grudgingly. F or God loves a cheerful giver.

Finally: The question was recently asked why, when we pray regularly ‘Give us this day our daily bread’, there is still starvation in the Transkei. The question was answered by Bishop Lawrence Zulu: when God supplies our Daily Bread, he gives us our neighbour’s daily bread, too. But all too often, we just sit on it, and our neighbour never receives it.“

Scriptural references:Malachi 3:8-102 Cor. 8,9.1 Cor. 16:1-3

R e c o m m e n d e d reading:“To Corinth with L o ve” Michael Green.

Lutheransexpelled

Rethink on race laws

A recent Lutheran Assem­bly in Budapest suspended white Luteran churches in South Africa and Namibia.

The Cape Evangelical Luteran Church expressed its “ sincere regret" at the Lutheran World Federation 's decision, claiming it was com m itted to “ fellow­ship and un ity within the entire family o f Lutheran churches in Southern Africa” . The other church whose mem­bership was suspended is the 15 000-m em ber Germ an Evan­gelical Lutheran Church in Namibia.

This decision follows an All- Africa L utheran Consultation in Harare, held in December, at which it was urged th a t this disciplinary measure re­main in effect until the white Lutheran churches have de­clared the apartheid system sinful and unjust and united w ith the predom inantly black Evangelical L utheran Church of Southern Africa (ELCSA). and have opened their con­gregations to all races.

The suspension m otion stipu­lates tha t the white Lutheran churches m ust abolish the practice of aparthied in the life of their congregations, “ move to visible un ity” w ith the larger black churches, and “actively participate in projects that deny the legitimacy of apart­heid” , before they can qualify for re-entry.

Suspension means that the white churches will no longer be entitled to send voting delegates to LWF assemblies or official meetings, o r to have their members on a governing body o f the LWF.

In an em otional appeal before the vote in favour o f suspen­sion — which was carried by 222 to 23 w ith 29 absten­tions — a South African

pastor, Dean Simon Farisani, appealed to delegates no t to weaken the motion. Dean Farisani, whose area of respon­sibility includes the Venda homeland, was recently paid a substantial sum o f money in an out-of-court settlem ent for damages arising from torture by the Venda security police.

He said the time had come for the LWF to take a strong stand against apartheid:“How many more families must suffer; how many more people must be tortured , de­tained and killed before the LWF takes a stand?” Dean Farisani asked.

The suspension decision comes two years after a similar decision by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches meeting in O ttawa when they voted to suspend the two white Dutch Reformed churches in South Africa — the NGK and the NHK.

It also co-incides with the declaration, by the Reformed Ecumenical Synod (RES), which met in Chicago recently, that the theological justification of apartheid is a heresy, a decision tha t will certainly affect the NGK.

The RES is a small and con­servative Reformed body, the only significant ecumenical body, to which the white Reform ed churches in South Africa still remain affiliated. Their recent “ Apartheid is a heresy” declaration indicates tha t white churches will soon suffer to ta l isolation.

Both the LWF and the RES decisions are sure warning tha t “ whites-only” churches must give proof of their rejection o f apartheid before they can be accepted as part­ners in preaching a Gospel o f reconciliation. Q

by Terence Parker

Ecunews

The Nederduits Gerefor- meerde Kerk (Dutch Re­formed Church) has reit­erated its standpoint of 1976 with regard to the Mixed Marriages and Im­morality Acts that the prohibition on racially mixed marriages is motiva­ted largely religiously, not sc riptu rally.

The NGK’s 1974 decision says mixed marriages can ham per the Christian marriage through the influence of factors such as difference in religion, social structures, cultural patterns and biological descent. The balance in the stabilisation of relationships in a multi-racial situation can be disturbed by such marriages, making the m aintenance of “peace” in the Biblical sense of the word more im portant for the author­ities than the wishes of individ­uals.

It is, therefore, possible and conceivable for the authorities to prohibit such marriages, the Kerkbode says.

“The Bible does n o t speak ou t literally for or against such marriages,” a report in the latest Kerkbode (official organ of the NGK) says. This follows the announcem ent recently by the parliam entary select com­m ittee which investigated the possibility and advisability of amending the Acts “ w ithout damaging the basic aims (of such Acts) or the principles in other existing laws affected directly or indirectly by these Acts” .

The select com m ittee found the Acts were not justifiable scripturally — or on any other grounds - and that they could not be “ improved” . It was a m atter of retaining or scrapping the Acts, according to the com m ittee which called for extended power to in­vestigate the scrapping or the retention of the Acts. □

No more accommodation — Dr Motlana

“The most evil act arising from forced removals in South Africa today is that it stops the natural expan­sion of settled communi­ties.” This was said by Dr Nthato Motlana, chair­man of the Soweto Comm­ittee o f 10 and president of tiie Soweto Civic Assoc­iation.

He was speaking at a meeting held in the AME church complex, Hazendal, Athlone, soon after participating in the “ Workshop on conflict accom­modation and conflict manage­ment in SA”, which attracted much attention when Chief Gatsha Buthelezi was prevent­ed from delivering his speech on “Pragmatism in South Afri­can Politics - An Inkatha View” .

“ There is nothing as evil, traum atic and dehumanising as the forced removal of a settled

com m unity,” he said.“ The fact that the South A frican government went ahead w ith the removal o f the Magopn com m unity to Pachs- draai, despite international warning against it, represents the final rejection of all accom­m odation in South Africa. “KwaNdebele, as an example

of a com m unity which has suffered deprivation and de­gradation, is a disaster area, and consists of miles and miles o f tin shacks, and where m alnutrition and pelagra are suffered by all too many children.“ The government moved peo­ple from Sophia town (re­

nam ed “ Triom f” — the trium ph of apartheid!) to Med- dowlands, which has seen no expansion since 1958,” he said. Similarly, Mr Tebahali, the “ M ayor” of Soweto, adm itted recently tha t Soweto has not appreciably expanded since 1968, and that at a tim e when the housing shortage fo r blacks has reached such critical pro­portions.

He went on to say tha t the tim e will come when “ colour­ed” leaders m ust refuse to occupy Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu, which the govern­m ent intends to convert into “ coloured” housing areas once the removal of some 180 000 people from these areas to Khayelitsha is com plete.

“ When our Nuremburg trials start in S outh Africa one day, no one will be able to say ‘we didn’t know !’ — someone must pay for the damage that is being done,” said Dr Motlana. n

U nder the new Defence Am endm ent Act o f 1983, a Board for Religious Objectors has been established. The Board shall consist of:

* a chairman who shall be a judge or retired judge of the Supreme Court;

* three theologians from diff­erent denom inations

* a chaplain of the S A D F ;* an officer o f the SADF.The Board is appointed by the minister o f manpowerJudge M C Steyn, a former adm inistrator general o f SWA is at present its chairman. The Board met for the first time in March and to date 250 men have gone before the Board. Steyn says 85-90 per­cent o f these were Jehovah’s

Board decides sincerity

witnesses.There are three categories of objectors catered for by the Act (Section 72D): religious objectors w ith whose religious convictions it is in conflict to:

(i) render service in a com­batan t capacity in any armed force;(ii) as in (i), but who will n o t wear a m ilitary uniform and perform any maintenance tasks of a com batant nature;(iii) render any m ilitary ser­vice connected to any armed force.

Thus to satisfy the Board’s classification, elements o f paci­fism and o f universality are required. The Board may grant an application, classify the

applicant in a category other than th a t which was applied fo r or refuse the application. A bout four objectors have been refused to date.

The objector cannot have a legal representative in going before the Board, although witnesses are called for. The Board will judge the sincerity o f the person’s beliefs on a balance of probabilities basis. Under category (iii) above, the applicant will be liable for com m unity service (under the D epartm ent o f Manpower) for 1 1/2 times the norm al period o f national service still re­maining to him (4 x 1 1/2 equals 6 years at present). This service could be in any o f the three levels o f govern­

ment.The maximum sentence for those whose application to the Board is turned down, and who still refuse to participate in the SADF (eg: political, ethical, moral or Just War objectors) is 1 1/2 times norm al national service in prison.

Church Participation

Even though there is an Angli­can chaplain of the SADF and a M ethodist m inister o n the Board, they do no t represent their respective churches offic­ially. The Cape Synod o f the M ethodist Church has asked the church to “declare its m ind” on the conscription issue a t its annual conference in October. a

Collection Number: AG1977

END CONSCRIPTION CAMPAIGN (ECC)

PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers Research Archive

Location:- Johannesburg

©2013

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate,

distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or

omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.

This document is part of a collection held at the Historical Papers Research Archive at The University of the

Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.