by Richard K Knodel, Jr.

A few months ago, some of my

fellow "clergy" in Lynchburg, Virginia,
got agitated when I wrote criticizing
those who supported sanctions against
South Africa. I argued that those who
supported the sanctions "hated the
Whites more than they loved the
Blacks."
Though stark, doesn't this cut
through a lot of the confusion and
hyprocrisy that we hear concerning this
dear country? My argument consisted of
the fact that sanctions definitely hurt
Black South Africans more than
Whites, and that pro-sanction people
were more in love with the idea of
hurting Whites than helping Blacks.
Does not this really describe the
liberal American scene? How can you
"love" someone and want to viciously
hurt them at the same time? Or, how
can you "love" someone in this sense
and act condescendingly toward them
when they protest your "kindnesses?"
Because you see, the vast majority of
South African Blacks do not wan:t sanc-
tions. The most famous Black Chief,
Mangosuthu Buthelezi (boot-ah-LAZ-
y), has spoken out against them. He
represents seven million Zulus. So
have lesser . magistrates like Mayor
Tamsanqa Linda, who represents
400,000 people in Ibhayi Township
(budget: 35 million Rand!).
But these men who are concerned for
the welfare of their people cannot be .
heard because Western media, for whom
belief in biblical Christianity and pri-
vate property are the greatest two sins,
find Marxists, and socialists like
Bishop Tutu, more to their liking.
Our question, is this: What should
Western Calvinism'S posture be in the
face of this hypocrisy? Heretofore, an-
swers have been sad to say the least.
With the exception of some of the
conservative Dutch journals, almost no
voice has been raised which has been
willing to give the Afrikaaners (cf. a
term similar to "American," ie. one
who grew up in Africa) a fair shake.
Our periodicals, while moderating some
from the most virulent forms of the
Marxist propaganda, have failed misera-
bly to consider the situation from a
Christian perspective.
What questions might we ask which
would redeem South Africa's reputa-
tion? To this we can make quite a list:
1) Why have we never heard the
South African situation analysed along
the lines of Covenant Theology? Has
not anyone considered that in the same
way Israel was to be separate from un-
belief, that the Christian White South
Mricans have attempted to maintain
their faith in the face of an earlier Black
One of their major chal-
lenges has been how to integrate cove-
nanially, without losing their birthright
for a mess of modern media pottage.
2) Along those lines, if there
Wete a theoretical, modern, Christian
state, which flourished and capitalized
itself, would it be responsible if it
away its wealth because some other
people suddenly showed up--and de-
manded it? (Note: most South Afrip.an
Blacks don't demand such things, but
theMarxists do).
Did the Old Testament call Israel to
bankrupt herself by giving all of her
possessions to their pagan
Of course . not. Covenant Theology
stands diametrically opposedto human-
ism's teaching that all men have equal
rights. The only equal rights sinful men
have is death before the wrath of God.
But the Lord even destroys this equality
with his sovereign discriminating love.
This too galls humanist equalitarians.
They demand all go to heaven, or even
to Jiell, anything, as long as. it's to-
gether so that there is no social divi-
sion!
3) Have American Calvinists
understood that South Africa's settlers
were "Puritans," just like in America?
Their history parallels our own almost
exactly. During the reigns of perse-
cuting kings like James I of England
(1600's), earnest Reformed Christians
fled to America. . . .and to South
Africa. It was the same in France (the
Huguenots fled) and in Romanist parts
of Germany. And the same in Scotland,
where during "the killing times" Scots
Covenanters emigrated.
In other words, .the Afrikaaners were
not bred in the cradle of modern
fascism, but the bed of Reformation
Christianity! That's why, aside from
media caricatures, they are so much like
us today (in terms of some of our vir-
tues).
4) Why have not our writers
boldly declared that the South African
situation contrasts with Rhodesia's like
night and day? White Rhodesia was
originally settled by Black tribes, and
then later colonized by the English.
South Africa was basically an empty
country and was settled by Whites a
century or more earlier than Rhodesia.
South Africa did have some native
aborigines (red and yellow skinned
peoples) occupying parts of the land;
but even here the comparison is parallel
to America.
. As in Virginia, whose native Indian
population only numbered about twenty-
thousand, the Aboriginal peoples were
very sparse, backward and sickly. The
White South Mricans had never even
seen a Black man until almost the
1800's when the latter group was
migrating South along the Eastern
coastal region and that was one hundred
and fifty years after the settlement (as in
America) had commenced. (Here again,
the settlement of the Northern and
Northeastern sections of South Africa
historically compares with our Ameri-
can settlement of the West.)
The bottom line here is that the
Afrikaaners are about as ready to leave
Pretoria as Tip O'Neill is to leave Bos-
ton. Anybody who tries to root them

The Counsel of Chalcedon, February-Mar<;ll,, . ,
out is going to be prodding about at a
land mine with which most Americans
ought to identify.
5) Do most Americans under-
stand that South Mrica has only had
her independence since 1926, and her
more organized republic since 1961? Do
they know that the twin hammers of
the Boer War (1902) and the Great
Depression (1920's and 30's) wreaked
terrible havoc upon the Afrikaaners?
Economically they were almost des-
troyed. Yet through faithful labor and
the good providence of God, they
rebuilt their country in the 1940's and
SO's.
It was not until the 1950's, with the
rapid industrialization, that Blacks from
other "South" African countries started
streaming in looking for jobs. It has
been since then that the population has
swollen. Similarly, it has been since
then that Apartheid measures were put
in place so as to maintain some sort of
social order in the midst of what other-
wise would have been chaotic. (Think
about it. What would you have done?
What would any other country have
done? Would it have been right to allow
the dispossession of one's children, for
a migrant people?)
One of the efforts of the Apartheid
measures has been to create Black states
along-side White states. This follows
closely the biblical Old Testament
model wherein there was a confederation
of different tribes (states) in one nation.
Before the "War Between the States"
here in America, this model of state
sovereignty within a nation was also
paramount. It too came from the bibli-
cal model!
Yet today, barely thirty years since
such measures were inaugurated, West-
em media scoffs at the Afrikaaner's
efforts to dismantle the apparatus. In
fact, some such efforts were no doubt
necessary at the time. And today, as
that necessity passes, and as the Black
tribes have converted to Christianity,
the Apartheid structures are coming
down. But this still does not mean that
the Whites are going to squander their
ancestors' capital and give everything
away just because Tom Brokaw et. al.
think they ought to!
6) Why has not the Christian
West admitted that the Mrikaaners
have been the nwst successful mis-
sionaries in Africa? The editor has
witnessed a fibn where Prime Minister
P.W. Botha traversed a Zulu crowd of a
hundred thousand or so (with but a mere
handful of bodyguards) in order to wor-
ship Christ together with them. And
not only have these Whites brought the
gospel to these immigrating Blacks,
they have also brought them Western
wealth! Christian economics, in con-
trast with Marxist economics, teaches
that wealth is not limited to what al-
ready exists. Based upon the "wealth"
God has hidden in the creation, men can
create new wealth as they till the earth
and take dominion (Gen. 1 and 2) over
it.
Western-media-camera shots notwith-
standing, there is a large Black middle
class in South Africa. And it is the
only one on the continent! In other
parts of Africa, which have been domi-
nated by a more pietistic-evangelical
mission model, such economic progress
has not been accomplished. For ex-
ample, South African Blacks own more
cars than the rest of Black Africa put to-
gether.
7) Do Western Liberals know
that their slanderous efforts have been
used by God, providentially, to enrich
the very people they sought to hurt?
Through the disinvestment pressures,
stocks of major internationally owned
companies have collapsed. Then, as the
Americans and the English have fled to
their homelands with only half their
capital, the South Africans have bought
back the companies at a fraction of their
value. During this last year, there have
been many cases where West German
banks have loaned the Africaaners the
money to buy out the fleeing Western-
ers, and the Africaaners have been able
to pay back their entire loan on the
gains that have then registered on those
same stocks! God has used Western
liberals and unbelievers to capitalize the
Africaaner Calvinists! It's been an
amazing historical turn of events.
In conclusion, we believe that a
whole new generation of thinking must
take place regarding South Africa. It
ought to start with the Bible and extend
out into reality. The Christian Church
ought to commence its own thinking,
and stop depending on those who hate
true piety for their information re-
garding who they should love ..
[This article is reprinted by p_ermission
from Jourfi#Y Magazine, November-
December1 1987. R.E. Knodel, Jr. is the
editor of mat publication.] 0
UNITED CHRISTIAN ACTION
News from South Africa
P.O. Box 35 737
0102 Menlo Park
South Africa
Tel (012) 982680
Telex 4-21851 sa
UCANEWS+UCANEWS+UCANEWS+UCANEWS
" " i i ~ 'cbunsel of Chalcedon, February-March, 1989
----------------------Page 15