This article examines how coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impacted on religion–state relations in South Africa. By examining the models of religion–state relations the article highlights the implications of these relations in the context of the South African government’s national response to COVID-19 and critically engages a public theology of ‘immense trust and authority’ assigned to leaders. The article identifies ‘separation with interaction’ as a model, which informs the South African government’s state–religion engagement. Although this model is constitutional and promotes religious freedom, the article identifies the government’s failure to act decisively on religious leaders who exploit the poor as a major obstacle to socio-economic and religious transformation. The article contends that the dark part of South African history presents a dilemma to church–state relations in South Africa and suggests that life-affirming practices of political and religious leaders should be tested through the values of goodness, kindness, justice and obedience as a demonstration that they are essential workers who have an important transformational role to play in the context of COVID-19.
This article represents a systematic and practical reflection within a paradigm in which the intersection of philosophy, religious studies, social sciences, humanities and natural sciences generates an interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary contested discourse.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has fundamentally changed the world and impacted on religious and political processes in significant ways. The rapidly changing socio-political and religious contexts will impact on the economics and politics of contemporary Africa. Addressing the nation on the 13th of May 2020, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa highlighted some of the necessary changes in life and worship practices:
There needs to be a fundamental shift in our thinking and our way of life … [
This fundamental shift is necessary in post-COVID-19 contexts, the new normal, as communities have to remain compliant with new regulations as part of combatting the spread of the virus. We all have to comply with the necessary – although disruptive – social-distancing measures because epidemiological evidence shows that social distancing, combined with general hygiene, and personal protective clothing are effective ways of reducing the spread of the virus.
Coronavirus disease 2019 disruptions to life activities have given a new meaning to life as business and faith communities creatively moved to ‘cyber space’ and ‘virtual space’ to continue providing services during the lockdown. The terms ‘cyber space’ and ‘virtual space’ were first coined by science fiction author Gibson (
As religious communities adapt to the challenge of the corona virus, new ways of fellowship emerged. Priests delivered sermons, conducted worship and dispensed sacraments on various social media platforms, creating new cyber-based faith communities. The understanding of community has changed – as society has changed – and one of the catalysts for this societal transformation is technological revolution (Lord
Not only do I inhabit my virtual communities to the degree that I carry around their conversations in my head and begin to mix it up with them in real life, my virtual communities also inhabit my life. I’ve been colonized; my sense of family at the most fundamental level has been virtualised. (Rheingold
Chavis Kunzmann (
Business and religious leaders will have to harness technological prowess to remain relevant and effective in the new context of fighting COVID-19. Contextualisation is an important aspect for doing mission and as Koch (
[
Koch’s (
Under the lockdown regulations on level four and five, religious gatherings were banned and communities with access to internet moved their services to cyber space. In his address on Sunday the 24th of May, President Ramaphosa informed the nation that government was consulting with leaders of various faith communities and the Command council through virtual meetings where they discussed government’s preparations for a ‘differentiated approach’ across the country to manage reopening of the economy alongside the unrelenting effort to save lives. After these consultations the government agreed to allow places of worship to open, subject to compliance with agreed regulations – limiting services to 50 people, sanitising places before and after services and maintaining hygiene and social distancing measures.
This meeting represented a wide range of interfaith communities and included the leadership of the South African Catholic Bishops Conference, the South African Council of Churches, the National Interfaith Council of South Africa, the Muslim Judicial Council, the Jewish Board of Deputies, the South African Hindu Maha Sabha, African Independent Churches, Charismatic or Pentecostal churches, African Traditional Faiths, the National Religious Leaders Council and the Southern African Interfaith Council were invited (MSN News, 27 May 2020). South Africa has a diverse religious population and the diverse background of representatives reflected a constitutional guarantee for freedom of religions. Therefore, in exercising its mandate, the South African government had to consult broadly with religious leaders as a means to promote religious tolerance and ensure separation of religion and politics. Coronavirus disease 2019 brought the relations between religion and politics to a new spotlight as a result of government-initiated measures to regulate religious activities as part of responding to the public health emergency posed by the virus. However, as this article suggests, the history of collusion between religion, colonialism and apartheid mirrors a dark part of South African history and presents a dilemma in church–state relations as I will demonstrate in the sections that follow.
The interface between politics and religion is still a relatively neglected field. Jeffrey Haynes’ seminal work
On the contrary, religion is one of the main sources of democratic energy and the main subject of democratic debate because religious and near-religious commitments and enthusiasm are crucial features of political life (Walzer
In an article titled
[
And according to Smith (
Reflecting on the role of public theology in an article titled
The foyer contains a large wall built from bricks of the old prison … [
By making consultations with religious leaders, the government was African in their approach as this resonated with
Addressing the nation on the 26th of May 2020, President Ramaphosa rightly acknowledged the role of faith communities in the fight against coronavirus and recognised religious leaders as essential workers given the role they play in providing care and counselling to distressed people. He also highlighted how religious communities had opened their facilities to provide additional shelter to abused women and children, additional healthcare facilities and distributing food to the poor – especially during the lockdown period. Despite commendable interfaith consultations and recognition of the important role played by religious communities in addressing challenges in South Africa,
Announcing the easing of lockdown to level three, President Ramaphosa concluded his address to the nation
On the 28th of May 2020
In addressing the confusion of whether churches should open on level three, the Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa (UPCSA)
South Africans are a people of deep faith … the faith community is an integral part of South African life and has made a great contribution in the fight against the coronavirus.… In such a time of crisis, the noble values that are shared by all faith communities have truly come to the fore – of charity and doing good works, of helping the needy, of feeding the hungry and caring for the sick. … Our religious leaders occupy positions of immense trust and authority in our communities, and need to play a proactive role in raising the level of public awareness around the coronavirus in their services.
A word of caution to corrupt and unscrupulous religious leaders who are motivated by greed to open places of worship on the basis of dwindling financial resources would have provided a more balanced and pragmatic approach for the government. What if some religious leaders resort to giving detergents or sanitisers to their members to drink as measures to prevent coronavirus – as we have seen in the past? I overhead that ‘God will protect us in the name of Jesus’ and got worried that some of us may replace scientific, medically proven measures with some pseudo-spirituality, which may compromise compliance and safety of the poor people who often worship in crowded, poorly sanitised places. Who will address these religious excesses in the context of COVID-19 if the government is shying away?
The government should have ceased this opportunity to not only applaud faith communities for the ‘great contribution in the fight against the coronavirus…’ and displaying ‘noble values’ – but to also address life-denying practices by some religious leaders. Given the realisation that religious leaders occupy positions of ‘immense trust and authority in our communities’, it is critical that the government speaks out against abuse of such trust and authority. In the last few years the South African Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL)
There are studies that have analysed abuse of power in Christian leadership (Plantak
The role of the church and other faith communities in spiritual and social transformation has been observed by Villa-Vicencio (
[
Religious communities play an important role in social transformation, but religion can be exploited and it is inherently a powerful tool that often succumbs to the deceit of human power. Therefore, the practices of religious leaders should be tested through the values of goodness, kindness, justice and obedience as recommended by Plantak (
Whilst respecting religious freedom and rights enshrined in the constitution, the government should boldly step in where religious authority is abused to protect the dignity of people. For example, in Engcobo in the Eastern Cape there were brothers who killed police officers as they exchanged fire with the police in a church used for criminal activities, which included abuse of women and children.
Indeed, ‘it is now in our hands’, but how will religious leaders uphold ‘authority’ entrusted to them as essential workers. Will some continue to abuse trust and exploit the poor through criminal activities in the name of religion? Martin Luther once retorted: ‘If you preach the gospel in all aspects with exception of issues which deal specifically with your time-you are not preaching the gospel at all’ (in Koch
Church is not an institution or a space for religious gathering; rather Church is an event that happens in particular contexts in the life of communities longing for love, freedom, dignity, justice, acceptance and flourishing of life … communities […] experience […] violence of dominant power relations, morality and religious dogmas and practices, the Church happens as counter-cultural experience that disrupts the logic of the prevailing order … and empowers the communities … Church as an event is more is more than a disruptive event; it is also a creative event as it midwifes the birth of alternative faith communities that live out of the foretaste of the reign of God. (Sudipta FB post 22 May
It is critical that government engagement with religious leaders be pragmatically informed by science and reason. Government should remain pro-poor and place the safety of the people ahead of financial gains. The opening or no opening of places of worship is not about ‘freedom of worship’ – but it is about health and safety in the face of coronavirus. Spirituality does not have to replace reason and the following should be recommended:
Authorities should ensure that religious gatherings are for purposes of prayer and life-affirming humanitarian activities centered on values of goodness, kindness, justice and obedience as means to work towards fullness of life and restoration of hope and dignity for distressed people. Exploitation of the poor should not be tolerated.
In demonstrating that the decision to open up churches on level three was not ill-advised, government and religious leaders should take responsibility to protect lives and ensure compliance with all the guidelines and standards developed to save lives. Anglican Archbishop Thabo Makgoba (Church Times 2020) pointed out: ‘COVID-19 will test as never before [
In line with government regulations and values of trust expected of religious leaders, those who choose to open their places of worship
Lastly, to protect poor communities from being exploited by unscrupulous religious leaders, government should not shy away from its responsibility to ensure that religious organisations operate in compliance with the SARS regulations, which guide public benefit organisations.
This article examined the South African government’s engagement with religious leaders and highlighted the implications of these relations in the context of the South African government’s response to COVID-19. By critically engaging a public theology of ‘immense trust and authority’ assigned to religious leaders, the article identifies ‘separation with interaction’ as a model, which informs the South African government’s state–religion engagement. Although this model is constitutional and promotes religious freedoms, the article identified the government’s failure to act decisively on religious leaders who exploit the poor as a major obstacle to socio-economic and religious transformation. The dark part of South African history was identified as a dilemma to church–state relations in South Africa and amongst some recommendations, it is suggested that life-affirming practices of religious leaders should be monitored by religious councils and tested through the values of goodness, kindness, justice and obedience as well as contextualised theological consensus based on the great commandments as a demonstration that they are essential workers who have an important transformational role to play in the post-COVID-19 context.
The author would like to acknowledge the generous contributions for the participation in eThekwini Presbytery WhatsApp group conversations and Facebook interactions and statements issued by the Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa (UPCSA) during the COVID-19 lockdown period.
The author solemnly declares that he has no financial or personal relationship(s), which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
The author contributed to this work individually.
While the ethical clearance was sought to conduct research on COVID-19, this article did not involve data which needed ethical procedures as it relied on literature review and media statements.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed. Data which were collected through a questionnaire cleared by the research committee are yet to be received and analysed.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author.
It is estimated that Zoom registered more accounts than any tech company during the COVID-19 crisis. According to Nicoló (2020) there are few companies out there in the world right now that are benefiting from the coronavirus quite as much as Zoom. Zoom benefited massively from the crisis, they have helped millions by extending their free trials, removing time limits for every user in China and most importantly offering their service for free to schools and educational institutions all over the world. Viewed 02 June 2020 from:
President Cyril Ramaphosa was the leader of the youth student Christian movement and most politicians often attend religious gatherings during their campaigns.
For example, see;
It is important to mention that this process has been ongoing before COVID-19 measures, but had yielded very little in addressing abuses of power by religious leaders.
Viewed 30 May 2020, from
CMRM Coronavirus (COVID-19) Advisory notice three (3), 27 May 2020, issued by CMRM Board of Governors.
UPCSA Leadership Guide On the Opening/ Not Opening Places of Worship. 30 May 2020.
Viewed 30 May 2020, from
Viewed 30 May 2020, from
Viewed 30 May 2020, from
UPCSA Finance Update circulated to all UPCSA congregations and dated 28 April 2020.
It is important to keep remembering that religious gatherings in South Korea and Germany were places of high transmissions for the spread of coronavirus. Paying attention to these statistics demonstrates reason and responsible leadership.