By McGlory Speckman (Photo by Zubeida Jaffer)
As we celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the Kairos Document in September 2025, we must look back at its impact on what it called ‘State Theology’ and how it influenced people’s behaviour. A case in point is the behaviour of theologically formed social formations such as the Afriforum and Solidarity. Their ideology is very much influenced by the theology that formed the basis of apartheid philosophy and the policies that resulted from it. Hence, they go on as if their conduct is natural. At the same time, the government’s attempts to normalise a society that was made abnormal by the apartheid policies are portrayed as diabolical and deserving of strenuous resistance.
Why Solidarity and Afriforum?
I single these two out because they constitute a good case study of the result of toxic theology. It influences the way people think and live. That is, it creates a pseudo-religion that elevates one group over another, ostensibly in line with the divine plan; resists change or any new ideas; is judgemental towards others, especially those it does not agree with, and sows a negative group spirituality along the lines of being ‘chosen’ or ‘elected’ by God. We see, especially in the Pauline writings, resistance to this kind of theology in the New Testament. Paul even goes to the extent of ‘telling Peter in his face’ that all are equal before God, that is, Jew, Gentile, male, and female. In Romans, he rejects the Jewish doctrine of being automatically ‘chosen’ because of an Abrahamic lineage. Paul argues that it is not that historical heritage but current faith that qualifies one for God’s favours.
Anyone who has worked closely with groups such as the AfriForum and Solidarity will attest to how ‘religious’ they appear to be, starting and ending their meetings with a prayer to God and legitimating their political and legal views with what they think is God’s will and religious values. What happens between the opening and closing prayers is not always a reflection of the image of God other people hold. Regrettably, they use their massive financial muscle to perpetuate this toxic theology nearly more than four decades after the World Alliance of Reformed Churches declared it a heresy. Of course, as said above, they only know it as a way of life, not necessarily, theology.
Who are they, and what is their mission?
The names of these organisations betray their mission. Afrikaner identity is central to both, not being South African. Starting with ‘Solidariteit’ which came into being just before the Tricameral Parliament elections of 1984, their mission is to resist change, more poignantly, the inclusion of black people in government over Afrikaners. It had nothing to do with Lech Walesa’s Solidarity in Poland. The Afriforum was only established in 2006, more than a decade after the establishment of an inclusive democracy. There was an opportunity to set up young people to blend into the new and future worlds they said they wanted to be part of. But they were led in a different direction that promoted exclusive Afrikaner nationalism, and money flowed from the people behind the strategy.
At the time, they made a mockery of ‘affirmative action’ (now known as BEE..), forgetting that it is that mechanism that gave Afrikaner families and individuals a head-start to where most are today. It boggles the mind that the current president of the United States of America and his advisors see affirming black entrepreneurs as a victimisation of Afrikaners today while not questioning the source of their wealth.
The above-mentioned groups each argue that they are open to everyone, the criteria being the Afrikaans culture and language. That already is exclusive, let alone attitudes and sometimes condescending and patronising behaviour. They also claimed initially that they were only a civil rights organisation.
What we see in practice is a political movement outside government and democratic structures. I was personally at the receiving end of the poison the young people imbibed from these groups making them transmitters of the doctrine of apartheid. The late Minister in the Presidency, Dr Essop Pahad, was nearly swayed by the hypocrisy of the Afriforum student chapter whose members later held various prominent positions in Afriforum, that the organization was the best thing to happen to the country. He thought that they would foster reconciliation and collaborate with others in reconstructing the society that was devastated by apartheid. Regrettably, he is not here today to see the vindication of my warnings to him about where such groups were taking our fledgling democracy. Former Deputy Minister at the time, Ntombazana Botha, is still alive to confirm that.
More serious than the poison which South Africans have had to endure for decades, is their solidarity with a like-minded international group that is taking the world backward; their betrayal of South Africa elsewhere with distorted information is going to have lasting implications. Someone said on SAFM last week that this is the price we pay for forgiving people who never showed remorse for the sins of apartheid. We were not wrong in choosing that path. But we must continue to hope that beneficiaries of apartheid who chose to remain in South Africa after 1994 did so because they wanted to make a positive contribution to undo the legacy of their forefathers.
Kairos and anti- State Theology
Chapter 2 of the Kairos Document condemns what it calls ‘State Theology’. This means, according to the document, a theology that supports the apartheid status quo, using Romans 13 and similar scriptures to justify apartheid; it also embraces racism, capitalism, and totalitarianism while it reduces the poor to apathy and obedience. In the past, Solidarity and Afriforum would have befitted the description embedded in that statement. However, in the new dispensation, they only befit the second half of it. Neither of the two is interested in supporting or undergirding support for the state with any theological statement. Instead, they wish the state or its officials, to go down while they develop their own justice, educational, and economic systems parallel to those of the state, to undermine the ‘black-led’ state. This is neither State nor Church Theology as described in the Kairos Document. It is something new. Yet with elements of both. For lack of a better description, we may refer to it as anti-state theology. It is important too to recall that when Apartheid theology was declared a heresy in 1982, the gathering of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches in Ottawa, Canada represented more than 75 million Christians in over 100 countries around the world.
The Kairos Document followed in 1985, when a group of South African theologians met to critique the theological models that guided the church’s activities and to develop alternatives. As the country celebrates the fortieth anniversary of this document, a conference to assess its impact on State and Church Theology would be most appropriate. The conference should do two things: first, reflect on the phenomenon of anti-state theology and give it a name; secondly, reassess Church Theology.
It is imperative to do this as we look ahead to another forty years because there are political, social, and theological narratives that need to be corrected in our new democratic society. At a political level, the narratives of both governing and opposition parties need to be challenged and corrected; at a social level, a language that instils pride in being a South African needs to be developed. What is known as ‘White Talk’ in literature might be private and, at times, intended for humour around the table, but it results in reactions from ignorant people such as we see in Donald Trump’s actions. At a theological level, there is a lot to scrutinize. There are concepts and statements from elsewhere that do not befit the South African context. They influence behaviour and lead to pseudo-religion.
Call to Action
This is a call to action in a democratic context. Theologians will respond if they are concerned about the future of this country as we move towards the anniversary in September.
The question is… Can this toxic theology be challenged to halt the continued damage to different sections of the South African society?
McGlory Speckman is an Honorary Professor at the University of KwaZulu Natal and was Dean of Students for two terms at the University of Pretoria. He writes in his personal capacity. This article was first published in Times Live.
