This is the second part of an investigation of the subject of injustice relating to the issue of human sexuality in a mainstream South African Christian denomination. The first paper, entitled ‘Hated without a reason I – Contending with issues of human sexuality in a South African ecclesial context: A case study of the Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa’, sought to trace the development of the issue from 1999 to 2016. This article considers the issue from the standpoint of an individual. Within the Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa (UPCSA), views have polarised along lines determined by views on the authority of scripture and biblical hermeneutics, with little hope for a resolution that will satisfy all the parties concerned despite proposals being made because of a ‘failure of love’.
This article seeks to extend the discussion on human sexuality in the South African church scene.
In the first part of this article, I argued that the issue of human sexuality is a matter of justice denied to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning (LGBTIQ) people in South African churches. There I worked with the definition provided by Walter Brueggemann (
[
The issue of justice in this context centres on the issue of human sexuality.
In terms of the topic of human sexuality, what does justice require of us where gay people have been deprived of genuine love, their dignity, respect (of self and others) and an authentic and meaningful role in the church? Surely, it implies the restoration of justice leading to the assertion of the dignity of all God’s creatures, respect from others and within themselves and an authentic role in church and society as we are ‘all one person in Christ Jesus’ (Gl 3:28), for ‘[
In the 2016 General Assembly, an overture entitled ‘Concerning Christian Marriage’ was moved by the Central Cape Presbytery (UPCSA
The status quo was considered by the movers of the overture to be damaging to doctrine and practice within the UPCSA and was causing ‘confusion and division in the Denomination, damage our witness, negate the clear teaching of Scripture and undermine the traditional Christian understanding of marriage’ (UPCSA
The terms of the overture were:
Assembly to rule as follows (UPCSA
[
It was further observed that this overture had been adopted by the following presbyteries, most of whom were unanimous: the Presbyteries of Copperbelt, M’chinga, Munali (Zambia), Zimbabwe, Central Cape, Limpopo, Thekwini, Lekoa, Amathole, Thukela, Transkei, Drakensberg and Highveld.
Then the personal attack began. However, by this time Revd Martin Young had died suddenly. To a degree this changed the nature of the debate in addition to (UPCSA
[
This led the Presbytery of the Western Cape to rescind the decision taken at the Executive Commission meeting of 8th March, 2016, to adopt and transmit to General Assembly the Overture concerning the doctrinal views of the Rev. Prof. J.L.P. (Hansie) Wolmarans and the Rev. Dr. M. Young. (p. 545)
At the 2016 General Assembly, a notice of motion was presented:
The Presbytery of the Western Cape and the Presbytery of eGoli have been corresponding for well over a year regarding the theological views of Prof. Hansie Wolmarans, Associate Minister of St. Columba’s Presbyterian Church, Parkview.
According to a statement from commission of the eGoli Presbytery itself, Prof. Wolmarans convinced it with an assurance that he accepts all the subordinate standards of the UPCSA, whereas his own statements make clear that he makes this only on the symbolical level of ‘myth’ and not the level of what he calls ‘logos’, or (rational) reality. In his publicly expressed views he has consistently and radically opposed all the fundamental doctrines of the UPCSA.
Professor Wolmarans is a founder member of the Nuwe Hervormde Beweging and an explicit supporter of the ‘post-Christian’ and ‘anti-Christian’ positions for which it stands and which it openly propagates.
In articles, public lectures and debates placed on the Internet, Prof. Wolmarans explicitly states that Scripture can no longer be regarded as inspired and that ‘the master narrative’ of Christianity is false in all aspects including the fall of humankind, the incarnation and the doctrine of atonement. He denies the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and disparages it as a myth concocted on the basis of pagan myths.
The documents ‘En route to an alternative, secular Christianity’ and ‘Immanent transcendence in a postfoundational religion: an impossible dream?’, which Prof. Wolmarans has placed on the Internet under his name and title as the Associate Minister of St. Columba’s Presbyterian Church, Parkview, and allowed to remain there despite the ongoing scandal they have caused, are explicitly atheistic and anti-Christian (see
Professor Wolmarans’ beliefs, teaching and publications contradict the Confession of Faith of the UPCSA ….
Despite all the evidence presented to it, the eGoli Presbyterian has to date still failed to act in any way against Prof. Wolmarans or even to distance itself from his publicly expressed views.
Professor Wolmarans is currently serving on the Ministry Committee of the General Assembly and is on the nominations committee list to serve again as a member of the Ministry Committee, which selects all the candidates for our ministry and supervises their training. In the light of these facts I shall move further that the General Assembly:
In accordance with paragraph 18.4(a) of the Remove Prof. Wolmarans from the Ministry Committee of the General Assembly until this matter has been resolved by the Court of General Assembly. Instruct Prof. Wolmarans to refrain from teaching or preaching in any UPCSA congregation until this matter has been resolved by the Court of General Assembly. Withhold the status of minister emeritus from Prof. Wolmarans subject to the Court of General Assembly resolving the issues (UPCSA
There are a number of issues here that are worthy of discussion. Firstly, it is not legally appropriate for one presbytery to insist that another presbytery conforms to its views as is implied in point 1. Presbyteries can only refer to a higher council, that is, the General Assembly. Secondly, a minister’s theological views come under the discipline of the presbytery of which he or she is a minister. Thirdly, the UPCSA does not prescribe only one hermeneutic to be applied in the interpretation of scripture (UPCSA
[
Therefore, there is no ostensible issue when Prof. Wolmarans accepts some points of doctrine ‘on the symbolical level of “myth” and not the level of what he calls “logos,” or (rational) reality’. The UPCSA has never prescribed only one hermeneutic to be applied throughout the denomination. When Revd Prof. Wolmarans became a minister he was examined (as all applicants from other churches are) on Presbyterian doctrine and practice. The mover of the overture took no cognisance of the fact that Prof. Wolmarans was a lecturer in a public university committed to the promotion of research and, therefore, not bound to any confessional standard in pursuit of his academic research. The tenor of the overture suggests that it is not Prof. Wolmarans who is the subject of the proposed discipline but the Presbytery of eGoli for its failure to act against him. No mention is made about the specific ‘subordinate standards’ of the UPCSA he has contravened. According to the overture, the matter was sent to the wrong council of the denomination to be dealt with.
At the same time, Pinetown Presbyterian Church (Minister Revd Jeremy Smith) within the bounds of the Presbytery of eThekwini petitioned the General Assembly to terminate Prof. Wolmarans’ secondment on the ground that (UPCSA
[
His teaching, conducted under the auspices of the University of Johannesburg, blatantly contradicts the foundational principles of the Christian faith in a series of categorical statements. It has been argued in defence of Rev. Professor Wolmarans that this heretical teaching is part of his academic work. Such academic work clearly has no connection with the work and witness of the Christian Church; indeed it is our conviction that his teaching has injured the peace and unity of the Church.
We therefore petition the General Assembly to terminate his secondment. (pp. 525–526)
The Moderator correctly ruled that this notice of motion was incompetent (UPCSA
Mr Russell’s overture was converted to a complaint and the General Assembly ruled that Revd Prof. Hansie Wolmarans’ status as Minister Emeritus should be withheld pending the decision of the Court of Assembly. The vote was put and the motion was carried. Fifteen commissioners registered their dissent with various reasons given amongst which was that no charges had been laid against Prof. Wolmarans, yet he was judged guilty (UPCSA
This complaint was the subject of a report submitted to the Executive Commission of 2017. The purpose of the report was to provide an account of the meetings conducted with Rev. Prof. Hansie Wolmarans as an informal procedure following the issuance of a formal charge sheet of alleged misconduct emanating from a complaint tabled at the 12th General Assembly of the UPCSA and to make recommendations to the Executive Commission of the UPCSA.
The terms of reference of the committee were contained in paragraphs 18.60–18.68 of the
18.67 If the Court of the General Assembly is to act as a Court of first instance, which is rare but is permissible, the rules are the same as for a Presbytery and its Court above.
18.68 If an alleged offender confesses guilt and repents, and the commission from whichever Court it has come decides that no further action need be taken, the hearing is at an end.
Having given due notice to Revd Prof. Wolmarans, the committee conducted the informal meeting with him at Tiyo Soga House on 09 December 2016. Upon reflection following the meeting held in December 2016, the commission, in consultation with the representatives of General Assembly as well as the clerk and the convenor of the Court of Assembly, concluded that the procedure followed during the meeting was flawed because it did not interrogate a formal charge sheet. It was decided that the informal procedure should include a meeting with the accused member where the formal charge sheet may be discussed. The Representatives of General Assembly having drafted a formal charge sheet delivered the formal charges to the accused member. It was agreed that a meeting be held on 26 April 2017 (UPCSA
Throughout the proceedings, theological hermeneutics dominated the debate. Whilst Wolmarans’ detractors insisted on their fundamentalistic interpretation, at least Wolmarans, who disagreed with them, did not attack their position as can be seen in:
Wolmarans challenged the veracity of depending on scientific, philosophical and moral arguments in this regard. His response was detailed and drew on:
Chapter 20, Article 2 of the
f. The Rev. Professor Wolmarans indicated that his theological approach is Protestant liberal and thus understands the Bible from such an approach.
There followed a litany of charges relating to Wolmarans’ alleged ‘heresy’ (UPCSA
[
CHARGE 1 … The allegation as formulated is factually incorrect as to the actual wording of the paper in question. Committee found it puzzling that this mistake, which also occurred in the original document containing the allegations against the member, was transferred to the charge sheet unchecked and uncorrected. It is simply inaccurate and has been proven so.
b. It must be noted that Protestant Liberal Theology is a valid theological perspective within Systematic Theology and is used within mainstream theological debate to help understand Holy Scripture and Doctrine.
c. There is no charge discernible in this allegation – there is no clear rule or church law that has been contravened, nor does it contradict the
CHARGE 2 … Inadequate understanding of the Greek terminology of
CHARGE 3 … The concept of the virgin birth is both a matter of personal faith and a deeply emotive issue (UPCSA
CHARGE 4 … The misquote in the complaint changes the essence of Wolmarans’ argument. What is contained in the complaint is simply not what Wolmarans has written (UPCSA
CHARGE 4 … This charge is not only based upon a misinterpretation of Wolmarans’ point of view but also upon a misrepresentation of what he wrote (UPCSA
CHARGE 5 … The accusation is inaccurate in its content insofar as it ignores the context and meaning of Wolmarans’ writing (UPCSA
CHARGE 6 … Committee finds it difficult to understand how a call for a return to more traditional Biblical philosophy may be regarded as grounds for a charge of misconduct (UPCSA
CHARGE 7 … Wolmarans does not attack the Bible as a resource for
b. Committee further observed that some practices apparently promoted, tolerated, or by implication condoned in the Bible are no longer regarded as acceptable in modern day social and cultural practice. This includes, amongst others, slavery, male domination over females, killing of other human beings, etc. (UPCSA
CHARGE 8 … Committee finds no proof or substance in this charge (UPCSA
Throughout, the ‘committee/commission’s’ meeting with Prof. Wolmarans, put each complaint to him, listened to his defence and compiled a report that exonerated him on every charge. All in all, with the dismissal of these charges in their entirety, there remains an underlying impression that these charges were malicious. This is a serious issue in the UPCSA. The MOFO (2007) states:
[
The report had an Appendix D that contained the critique of the case against Prof. Wolmarans and the findings of the so-called ‘Wolmarans Commission’ (UPCSA
that the Assembly had ‘failed’ ‘to appoint a committee to investigate whether there was a legitimate charge to answer’ (MOFO 2007:8.60)
that such a committee did need to be appointed to investigate the charges
that it would therefore ask the Moderator, Clerk and Treasurer of the General Assembly to ‘appoint a Commission, in terms of paragraph 18.60, to investigate the accusations against the Rev. Prof J.L.P. Wolmarans to determine whether there is a charge to be answered and, if there is, to administer the “Informal Procedure” outlined in paragraphs 18.63–68’.
that ‘the report’ of the committee ‘must be received by the Court of Assembly’
that the Moderator should ‘report on this action to the Executive Commission in 2017’ (All the quoted wording is from a letter of the convener of the Court to Brent Russell dated 17 March 2017) (UPCSA
The Court met again on 11 May 2017 together with the Assembly’s
Brent Russell, as one of the representatives, made the point, not for the first time, that a committee appointed in terms of paragraph 18.60 should report to the Assembly, not to the Court
Jeremy Smith, as the other representative, objected that it would be unfair to go ahead with discussing the report in the absence of Prof. Wolmarans, because he could not defend himself. The Court thereupon:
found that after all it was correct that a committee appointed in terms of paragraph 18.60 should be called a committee, not a commission
decided to refer the whole matter, with the report of the committee/‘commission’, to the Executive Commission (UPCSA
A number of issues arose. Firstly, by deciding in terms of the
The report states bluntly (UPCSA
[
It also impugned the integrity of all concerned and further perpetrated the injustice against Prof. Wolmarans. It was the opinion of the committee that (UPCSA
[
This led the committee to a conclusion that went beyond the case in point (UPCSA
[
On reference to the Manual committee, its convener stated (UPCSA
[
In response to this, the Presbytery of eGoli (UPCSA
The Presbytery of eGoli took up the matter of the issue in Zambia and Zimbabwe, which was being used as an argument to prohibit same-gender unions and further noted that this was irrelevant because neither country had laws, which prohibited same-gender relationships. And if they have such laws, how would that affect the argument when South Africa did have such laws? The argument had to be consistent. If same-gender unions were prohibited in Zambia and Zimbabwe because of the law, surely the same argument would apply in South Africa regardless, even if that law permitted same-gender unions (UPCSA
[
All these issues should be addressed again in a manner that assist the making of the decisions that are long overdue, and which create the space for all parties on both sides of the continuum in this debate, to freely practise their convictions while maintaining mutual respect for one another, within the Church. (p. 547)
Friday 11 August 2017 at 10:00 was set as the date for the Informal Procedure. Professor Wolmarans indicated that in his opinion in the entire process he had complied with everything the UPCSA had required of him with regard to these issues to date; he further indicated that the UPCSA’s failure to follow correct procedures was not his fault. He felt that he had already been severely prejudiced by the situation having been a target of malice and defamation of character (UPCSA
The convener of the commission, Revd William Pool, in a letter to the members of the Court of Assembly wrote that (UPCSA
[
The purpose of the letter was to request that the matter be referred to the Court of Assembly. It could be argued that the actions of the Court in focussing on an irregularity: ‘You turned down the work of the Commission on a technical point of law that had no bearing on the work of the Commission’ (UPCSA
[
The General Assembly ruled on a number of matters relating to this matter in terms of the informal procedure. It confirmed the participation of Revd Dr P.D. Langerman in the work and decision-making of the commission and noticed that the process was now completed. It dismissed the commission with thanks. Furthermore, it required its representatives appointed in 2016 in terms of clause 18.61 of the
Based on a notice of motion from the Presbytery of Tekwini, the Assembly observed the unanimous ruling of the Presbytery of Thekwini on the teaching of Revd Prof. J.L.P. Wolmarans and our call to all our members to doctrinal integrity: ‘The Presbytery of Thekwini at its meeting on the 21st November 2017 reaffirms its commitment to, and its adherence to, the basic tenets of the Christian faith as set out in the Preamble/Declaration of Standards (2.1) in Chapter 2, The Faith of the Church, in the
Matters proceeded apace and, in order to avoid an extremely costly legal case, it was agreed to refer the process to mediation. This had its origin in the engagement of Revds Jeremy Smith and Brent Russell with ‘various general secretaries and moderators’ in an attempt to resolve the matter. It needs to be clear here that resolution in their minds refers solely to Prof. Wolmarans withdrawing his theological views. For them the righteousness of their cause prevented any serious discussion or negotiation.
However, on 10 July 2019 the two ministers met in Johannesburg with Prof. Wolmarans and his legal team to see if a mediated outcome could be reached. By agreement between the parties Bishop Emeritus Peter Lee was appointed as independent mediator. Surprisingly, a mediated settlement was reached.
A day later, the Moderator of General Assembly issued a statement in which he commented (Langerman,
[
UPCSA (
[
This confidentiality agreement was strange because firstly, this was not a private dispute but a matter that affected the entire denomination. Furthermore, this left a number of questions unresolved. It was clear that the matter was ongoing, so how would it be possible if some participants were in possession of information denied to others? Was there some internal private agreement, which would favour one side over the other? What was the danger that would emerge from full disclosure? The outcome was open to interpretation (something the fundamentalists were sure to wish to avoid) and to lead to distrust. Secondly, this denied the South African values of transparency and accountability (De Vos
[
Comparatively speaking, it is understandable why some would wish this also to apply to ecclesiastical matters.
In the matter of
Firstly, the UPCSA withdrew unconditionally and with immediate effect the charges against Prof. J.L.P. Wolmarans in the disciplinary matter instituted by the General Assembly. Secondly, it was confirmed that the power to grant Prof. Wolmarans Emeritus status vests with General Assembly and/or its Executive. This issue was removed and referred back to the Executive Commission of General Assembly to finalise at the Executive Commission in September 2019. The executive was hereby requested to convey to Prof. Wolmarans and the UPCSA its position regarding his status as a matter of urgency and by no later than the end of September 2019. Thirdly, the parties acknowledged that the UPCSA recognises liberty of conscience subject to the Confession of Faith of the UPCSA and undertook to exercise their ministries in the church in that spirit. Fourthly, Prof. Wolmarans and the UPCSA acknowledged that the views expressed in his academic article ‘En route to an alternative secular Christianity’ were not per se the views of the UPCSA and are part of an ongoing exploratory academic discussion. Fifthly, the UPCSA apologised publicly as noted above.
What is noteworthy is that the merits of this matter, that is, whether the article that Prof. Wolmarans published was in conflict with the foundational faith tenets of the UPCSA, were not dealt with in the settlement. This is largely because there could be no agreement taking into account the theological views of the parties concerned.
This indicates that there had been no movement on either side of the argument, which was theological in nature. Then secular influences took over. Smith commented (UPCSA
[
Then Smith introduced other reasons for the settlement. He argued that the eGoli Presbytery failed to address the complaints and charges in this matter properly from the start as it
It is interesting to note how theological principle could so easily be set aside when the cost of dealing with the matter became a significant factor. Firstly, there was the cost to the church and then to the complainants. In truth, a court case would probably have bankrupted both parties, and to what end? Yet, the question remains as follows: what is the price of theological integrity? The denomination had not sought this fight. It emerged from within and from one particular theological view that denied the broad church theological position of the UPCSA. It had its own view of the Reformed inheritance although it has never substantiated this view (Russell & Smith
[
Again there is no definition of the lack of or problem with the ‘doctrinal identity’ of the UPCSA, other than that it does not conform to the standards of Russell and Smith. The matter of what is critical for the denomination is a matter of discernment and many members do not depend on a definitive position on this matter, which is not of the substance of the faith. It appears from this statement that the protagonists are on a mission to save the UPCSA from itself.
It is interesting to note that Prof. Alan Boesak (
[
We should learn to resist the temptation to see the global realities through the eyes of the powerful and privileged, but rather through the eyes of the suffering, the weak and the vulnerable, the dehumanized and the demonized, the outcasts and the excluded. Our theology, and hence our preaching, should be anchored in a theology attuned to the cries of the poor and oppressed because I believe John Calvin was right: the cries of the oppressed are the cries from the very heart of God. Calvin is quite radical in this: ‘It is then the same’, Calvin says, ‘as though God heard Godself when God hears the cries and groaning of those who cannot bear injustice’. God presents Godself as the poor and the oppressed. We must not be afraid to say it. (p. 14)
The key to the process of justice is dynamism. Working towards justice has never been a static movement but has operated in time, place and humanly specific contexts. The process of discerning Christian truth is ongoing and progressive. It emerges in faithful living, which involves decision, repentance and new steps forward and sometimes backward, in faith as was the case in the early Christian community, where under severe threat and trauma, the Christian community suffered, endured and grew in numbers and in faith. Focussed on the coming kingdom, their hope sustained them. This is a process of lifelong learning, of negotiation through the complexities of living as we attempt to remain loyal to Christ (Ballard
[
Perfection, like salvation, is not a given; it is something that has to be worked towards as part of life’s struggle, although that work has to demonstrate a high degree of authenticity and integrity in the light of our vision and mission. One of the most common criticisms made against the church is its perceived hypocrisy, for example, talking about unity when we actually foster division. What is credible about a church that is polarised and divided within itself? The focus is Christ, the Word of God incarnate.
Historically, this was a PCSA issue brought into UPCSA at the time of the union. Throughout the progress of the entire matter there was no evidence of caring for those most intimately affected and a singular lack of mutual care, which is the prime aim of church discipline: ‘to care for and correct rather than punish’ (UPCSA, MOFO
Any mention of the relational aspect contrary to scripture was denigrated. There was no preparedness for engagement, nor was there any mention of justice throughout. Hence, with regard to the Wolmarans matter, the manifest injustice was compounded by the fact that Prof. Wolmarans was never convicted of any wrongdoing.
An ongoing issue relates to the matter of injustice. How could an issue that is not a matter relating to the substance of the faith come to dominate the agenda of the UPCSA over such a long period of time? And then, how did this relate to the Mission and Vision statement of the UPCSA in terms of priority? The vision statement is contradicted by those who do not work towards the formation of a reconciled community:
To be a reconciled community of Christians exercising a prophetic witness to Christ.
The term ‘justice’ appears in the mission statement:
We will proclaim our Triune God in Southern Africa through:
Visibly proclaiming the Kingdom of God through unity, justice, peace and love.
Then it appears in the mission priorities:
4. Engaging in reconciliation and justice (UPCSA
This indicates that the achievement of justice is a priority for the UPCSA. Those who wish to impose their views on the denomination must square them with these values.
Why does everyone have to have the same views on morality and ethics forced on them, to the extent that their consciences are offended? And then, why does the church need to take a clear position in this matter? There are various views in the denomination regarding baptism, which is, unlike the matter of human sexuality, an issue relating to the ‘substance of the faith’. Such an approach would minimise the tensions caused by absolutising positions and allow ‘freedom of conscience’ to operate.
One thing that emerges from this study is the lack of love that impedes any resolution of this contentious matter. In an attempt to ‘protect’ the faith, the integrity of individuals has been impugned and dreadful injustices have been committed, not least in eschewing due process when differences emerge. For too long, evasion rather than engagement was the modus operandi. Rather than intimate (free open exchange on an emotional and intellectual level) and intense discussion there was a war of attrition in between the councils of the UPCSA. This became a winner-take-all rather than a win-win situation where the gospel and the integrity of the UPCSA were seriously compromised and the cause of justice was denied.
The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
G.A.D. is the sole author of this article.
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
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 in this study.
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.