Zambezia (1979), VII (ii).ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH AND ITS POLITICALINVOLVEMENT IN SOUTHERN RHODESIA, 1959-1972W. R. PEADENWolverhamptonTHE TRIAL IN 1978 of Bishop Lamont and criticism of the Roman CatholicCommission for Justice and Peace in Rhodesia made it clear that there wassomething of a crisis in relations between Church and State.1 On the otherhand, academic work on the subject, especially that of Dr Kapungu, tendedto condemn the churches in Rhodesia for their lack of solidarity withAfricans.2I have some sympathy with Kapungu's point of view, because during mysixteen years in Rhodesia (1957-73), I too was often irritated by the conserva-tive approach of some churches who seemed more concerned with main-taining the peace of mind of their White members than in making a standfor justice.However, in criticizing the churches, it is unfair to select only theevidence which points to their failure and to suppress contrary evidence,as Kapungu tends to do. Also he seems to be unaware that within theChurch there have been many sincere members of both races working forfull racial justice. Nor does he allow for the process of evolution in thinkingwhich characterizes all human institutions and is certainly true of the Rho-desian churches.A few examples will suffice to show this. Kapungu reminds us thatAfricans had a doctrine of God and an ethical code before the missionariesarrived in the country, although the missionaries did not recognize the fact.rIt would', he says, 'have been easy for the churches to convert the Africansto Christianity had they only treated them as people with a developed culture'.3On the contrary, he continues, they attacked many aspects of African cultureincluding the ancestor cult. These criticisms are true of many of the firstgeneration of missionaries, but as early as 1902 the Revd A. S. Cripps sawthat the Shona 'held firmly the belief that the spirits of the dead watch overi See D. Lamont, Speech from the Dock (Leigh-on-Sea, K. Mayhew in associationwith Catholic Institute for International Relations, 1977); Rhodesia, ParliamentaryDebates ... 1975 (Salisbury, Govt Printer, 1976), XCI, 28 Aug., 1437; The SundayMail, 18 June and 21 Sept. 1975. .a L. T. Kapungu, Rhodesia: The Struggle for Freedom (Maryknoll, N.Y., Orbis,1974), 81-105; M. O'Callaghan, Southern Rhodesia, The Effects of a Conquest Societyon Education, Culture and Information (Paris, UNESCO, 1977), 145-b.a Kapungu, Rhodesia: The Struggle for Freedom, 82<J.191192 THE CHURCH AND ITS POLITICAL INVOLVEMENTthe living. It should be possible by the grace of God to build upon theseMashona convictions a magnificent faith in the Communion of Saints.'4When we look at the present we see that considerable debate andadaptation is taking place in the Church. The Roman Catholics areahead of the other churches in this matter because the Bishops' Conferencein 1966 accepted a new burial rite which goes a long way towards accom-modating the Shona view of the ancestors.5 When we look at the churches'views on African customary marriage there is similar progress. A few yearsago a working party was established by the heads of churches to study therelation between Christian and African customary marriage.6 The MethodistChurch Synod has an African Customs and Beliefs Committee to advise theChurch on all matters relating to Christianity and traditional culture. Theseand other features at least show that progress is being made towards under-standing African culture. It should also be remembered that African cultureis not static but is changing all the time, and that when people talk abouttheir traditions it is often mere nostalgia. People tend to project into thepast an idealized picture of what society was like which is largely wish-fulfilment and bears little relation to actuality.In dealing with the contribution of the churches to African education,Kapungu focuses very little on the achievement in educational developmentand more on the way the churches have used education to recruit pupils intochurch membership. The churches in the past have indeed used the offer ofeducation to exert pressure on pupils to become members but with thegrowth of the ecumenical movement there has been increasing co-operationbetween most churches and less of a desire to proselytize the members ofother churches. The churches would, however, be surely failing in their dutyif they made no attempt to bring people into membership. The progress ofAfrican education has been spectacular, and especially so when one remem-bers how limited Government aid has been over the years. It has beenachieved largely by strenuous efforts on the part of local communities them-selves who have built schools and equipped them. This represented an enor-mous spirit of goodwill and co-operation between the churches and communi-ties. Doubtless there was friction from time to time, but that happens in everysituation where human beings meet.Kapungu then turns to the churches' attitude to the settler Government.He says that 'The Rhodesian Churches did not protest against the govern-ment's racist policies until the Rhodesian Front was elected to power inDecember 1962.'7 There is no space to deal with this in detail, but, if Kapu-ngu had done research in Rhodesia, he would have known this to be in-correct. There are volumes of correspondence and reports in the archives of* Mashonaland Quarterly Paper (Feb. 1902), XXXIX, 7.s Quoted in M. L. Daneel, Old and New in Shona Independent Churches (TheHague, Mouton, 2 vols to date, 1971-), I, 270ff.e The writer was a member of it until 1973.7 Kapungu, Rhodesia: The Struggle for Freedom, 90.W. R. PEADEN 193both Government and churches to show that representations- about racismhave been made year after year, ever since White settlement began.8 Whatis true is that few missionaries until the 1950s questioned the right of thecolonists to govern, or considered that majority Black rule was more than adistant possibility. The churches may have been mistaken in believing thatone can protest against racism without questioning the validity of the powerstructures that perpetuate the system. That, however, is different from sayingthat they never protested against racism. In fact the Church leaders as a bodyhave always been to the left of the generality of European political opinionin Rhodesia.9Nevertheless, Kapungu's basic idea has some validity. Fr Plangger inhis introduction to a collection of pastoral letters by the Catholic Bishops ofRhodesia on various matters of race relations during the period 1959-67 hassaid that, 'Up to the late forties few people were aware that there was any-thing wrong with the colonial situation in most parts of Africa. The rightof the white man to rule, and the duty of the non-white to be ruled, weresimply taken for granted.'10 This statement could, of course, apply equallywell to the Protestant churches as to the Catholic Church. In fact many mis-sionaries until the late 1950s took a paternalistic view of their African flock.Colonial rule might have its faults and it was conceivable that the Africanpopulation might be fit to rule themselves at some far distant date, but in themeantime the missionaries in general were content that Africans should de-velop at a leisurely pace. For it seemed as if there was plenty of time forAfrican development, because, as Plangger says, it was only in the mid-1950sthat there was a 'real awakening of the African's political consciousness'."There had, of course, been a national organization of Africans since c.1936.the African National Congress (A.N.C.). But according to Aaron Jacha, afounder member, the A.N.C. was elitist and moderate in its intentions, work-ing for African amelioration within existing structures; only after the SecondWorld War did it become more radical12 and gain the popular support ofthe mass of the population in the 1950s after it had been reformed under theleadership of Joshua Nkomo, then a Methodist local preacher.As is well known, the rise of African nationalism was then rapid, spurredon by dislike of Federation north of the Zambezi. Between 1959 and 1964the nationalist movement in Southern Rhodesia went through a series ofa See for example, National Archives of Rhodesia, Salisbury, S138/17 (ChiefNative Commissioner, Numerical Series: Schools and Missions, 1924/33) where, amongmuch else, correspondence between the Southern Rhodesia Missionaries' Conferenceand the Government is lodged. The Minutes of the Methodist Church Synod inMethodist House, Salisbury, contain numerous resolutions over the years on racialissues. Many other sources could be quoted.9 I hope to deal with this subject more fully in a later article on Church andState in Rhodesia in the period 1890-1930.Ł° A. Plangger (ed.), Rhodesia : The Moral Issue (Gwelo, Mambo Press, 1968),7-8.ii Ibid., 11.'2 Personal communication from Mr A. Jacha, M.B.E., 14 Nov. 1971.194THE CHURCH AND ITS POLITICAL INVOLVEMENTbannings and some internal dissensions in face of the determined resistanceof the Government, first of Whitehead and then of the Rhodesian Front. ,The churches were largely overtaken by these events. Bishop Lamont s ,tjastoral letter of 1959, for example, allowed that Africans had legitimatenationalist aspirations, but said that these must be channelled through law-ful means- at the same time it accepted that colonialism was legitimatewhere it meant the acquisition of land which was uninhabited or sparselypopulated so that full use could be made of it. The Bishop also said thatcolonial administration could be beneficial to the indigenous people when -,laws are introduced to raise the standards of the people, particularly as The .African is as yet equipped neither academically nor technically nor econo- \mically to assume complete control of ... a highly complex and industrializedcountry' The real desire of Africans, he considered, lay not in the acquisitionof the franchise but in the basic requirements for an adequate life: land, ,better education, and recognition of his human dignity. The pastoral con- \eluded by pleading for a massive advance in African education as a meansof bridging the gap between the races.13 At a later stage Lamont was to be- |come a radical campaigner for justice for Africans but here his argumentscorresponded almost exactly with middle-of-the-road White Rhodesians. Likethem he underestimated the strength of African anger against the repressive [effects of colonial rule, and of their desire to acquire not just the vote but .the total control of their country because only then would they feel free tobe themselves and to develop in their own way. Lamont also avoided thorny Iquestions likely to irritate the Whites, such as job opportunities for Africans |and reduction in wage differentials between Whites and Blacks. ,The next pastoral letter written by all the Catholic bishops of Rhodesiain 1961 shows that the thinking of the bishops had moved forward to some !extent; and it is this movement over time, before the election of the Rhodesian -Front,'that Kapungu ignores. This pastoral letter condemned the many dis-advantages suffered by Africans: poor wages, housing conditions, terms ofemployment, separation of families, insecurity of jobs and several others Šan injustice, the bishops said, which 'cries to heaven for vengeance'. Theyaccepted that the form of government may be changed, but warned African IChristians that they should use only lawful means to change it: 'only an finsupportable tyranny, or flagrant violation of the most obvious essentialrights of the citizens, can give, after every other means of redress has failed,the right to revolt'. Again the concept of legitimate colonialism was stressed Łprovided that it did not lead to 'exclusive privileges for the colonisers'.14 >The Methodist Synod in 1959 was dominated by European missionariesmany of whom had been twenty or more years in the country. Their attitudes *were similar to that shown in Lamont's first pastoral letter and were typicalof the liberal European settler. Colonization was legitimate and had, amongis Plangger, Rhodesia : The Moral Issue, 28-41, quotation at 32.14 Ibid., 61-72, quotations at 62, 69, 72.W. R. PEADEN 195other things, been of benefit to African society. The African people, on theother hand, had legitimate aspirations and ultimately would control thecountry. For the present, however, they were immature and unequippededucationally and technically to do so. There was also a small number ofrecently appointed missionaries, notably the Revd Whitfield Foy, who weremore sensitive both to the racial injustices of colonialism and to Africannationalist aspirations. African leaders in the Church, both ministerial andlay, were becoming increasingly influenced by the rising tide of nationalisticfeeling and irritated by the lack of direction given by the Synod. Matterswere brought to a head towards the close of 1959. Whitfield Foy had beenrejected by his European circuit in Salisbury and its leaders were preparingto go to Synod in January 1960 to demand his transfer elsewhere. Theirreason for rejection was Foy's active identification with African politicalaspirations and his criticisms of White attitudes towards Africans. Africanleaders in the Harare African Circuit responded by rejecting their missionarysuperintendent minister. The 1960 Synod was marked by an acrimoniousdebate during which African delegates strongly pressed for the removal oftheir superintendent. The result was that he was transferred (which to hiscredit he accepted graciously) and that Foy returned to England. One of Foy'snotable achievements, however, was to convince the White congregationsof Trinity Circuit to accept the need for Africans living in European areasto be able to worship in White churches. In principle all Methodist churcheshad been open to members of all races, but in practice this had rarely beenfollowed. Vernacular services were begun in the Circuit and in 1961 anAfrican minister was appointed to the Circuit for the first time.At the 1960 Synod another radical change was made. Previously, noEuropean minister had worked under the supervision of an African minister,but that year a junior missionary was appointed to a circuit under the super-intendence of an African minister. Further opportunities for African leader-ship were provided in 1963 when the organization of the Church was re-gionalized and four Area Councils were established; of the first four areachairmen elected, two were Africans. Nevertheless, despite these changes, theEuropean viewpoint continued to dominate much of the Synod debate.In 1964 the Methodist Missionary Society in London, mindful of therapid political changes taking place elsewhere in Africa decided to anticipatesimilar change in Rhodesia by appointing an African chairman of the Synod.The Southern Rhodesian Synod was not consulted in advance about thematter. The Revd Andrew Ndhlela was nominated by London and the ap-pointment was to be effective from January 1965. The appointment of achairman from London caused no small resentment in the Church in Rho-desia, and the Bulawayo Area Council meeting in August 1964 passed a re-solution deploring the lack of consultation although pledging loyalty to theperson of the Revd A. Ndhlela."5is Bulawayo Area Council of the Methodist Church, Minutes, August 1964.196 THE CHURCH AND ITS POLITICAL INVOLVEMENTAccording to Clutton-Brock the conservative element was also thedominant force in the Anglican Church in 1959. Clutton-Brock had been res-ponsible for starting a multiracial farming co-operative at St Faith's Missionin 1950. Over the years the enterprise had caused a division of opinion inthe Diocesan Standing Committee, and following the detention of a numberof members of the co-operative in the 1959 Emergency, Church authoritiesdecided to close it down.10 In 1962 the Matabeleland Diocese appointed anew bishop, Kenneth Skelton, and he adopted a radical stance on the ques-tion of racial justice. His views were often regarded as controversial bythe European members of the Anglican Church, who at one stage reacted byreducing their contributions to the missionary activity of the Church.Other major denominations in Rhodesia included the Dutch ReformedChurch and the American missions, notably the Methodist Church.17 TheDutch Reformed Church officially adopted a neutral stance on all politicalmatters, although its silence, according to Daneel, has often been interpretedby its African members as support for Government policies.18 In practiceit has encouraged segregation of the races in its congregations and so giventacit support to Afrikaner political philosophy. The American missionariesof the United Methodist Church and other missions for a time maintainedthat they were unqualified to speak on political matters because they werealiens. In 1956, however, the Revd Ralph Dodge was appointed Bishop ofthe United Methodist Diocese of Rhodesia, Angola, Mozambique and theTransvaal. His views on racial justice became increasingly radical. Unlikethe other major denominations, the United Methodist Church did not havea large European membership in Southern Rhodesia and this allowed theAfrican viewpoint to become dominant; the church authorities in the 1960smade preparation for the Africanization of their church by sending promisingyoung members to America for higher education, so that they could returnto Southern Rhodesia and take over the leadership of the Church. In 1964Bishop Dodge was declared a prohibited immigrant by the Rhodesian authori-ties and deported. Dodge was given no reasons for his deportation but hebelieved that the sending of young people for higher education was wronglyinterpreted by the Government who claimed that they had gone for trainingin subversion.'9The main vehicle for ecumenical consultation among Protestant de-nominations was the Southern Rhodesia Christian Conference. The Confer-ence met in plenary session every two years and included in its purview allIG G. and M. Clutton-Brock. Cold Comfort Confronted (London Mowbravs1972), 96-7.'7 Known before 1939 as the Methodist Episcopal Church; in 1968 it becamethe United Methodist Church and this designation will be used throughout this articleto avoid any confusion with the British-based Methodist Church.<a Daneel, Old and New in Shona Independent Churches, I, 240-1.is IThel Rhodiesial Her[ald], 24 Mar. 1971.W. R. PEADEN 197aspects of missionary enterprise. It was open to all who were engaged inmissionary work. It was, however, dominated by White missionaries andwas not well-adapted for political comment. In the first instance it washampered by the infrequency of its meetings whereas the political scenewas changing so rapidly. Secondly, and of more importance, it containedwithin its membership representatives of widely differing viewpoints andthere could be little unanimity on contentious issues.It was partly to meet this difficulty, but also to have closer associationwith the wider ecumenical movement, notably the World Council of Churches,that the Christian Council of Rhodesia was formed in 1964. This was aparallel organization to the Christian Conference but with some differences.It was to meet twice a year and its membership was restricted to a smallnumber of nominated representatives of member societies. It was also to bethe official vehicle through which the World Council of Churches couldchannel grants to Rhodesia. Above all it had a mandate to speak on nationalissues. Most of the major denominations joined the Christian Council ofRhodesia, but notable exceptions were the Dutch Reformed Church andsome minor churches which also adopted a neutral stance in political matters;the Roman Catholics also felt unable to become members because of thelink with the World Council of Churches. From the beginning the ChristianCouncil of Rhodesia had more African weight and the general secretary wasan African.There was also a number of local councils of churches which met fromtime to time for fellowship and action.20 One other small but notable ecumeni-cal organization was the Salisbury Christian Action Group, formed in 1956by a group of churchmen of both races to demonstrate in practice the Christiancalling to 'love their neighbours as themselves'; the Group believed that'Christians should work to bring about truly representative government' and'seek the repeal of legislation . . . which would discriminate against men onthe grounds of race, colour, creed or nationality'.21 The group, though rela-tively small and unrepresentative of the main body of the churches, had con-siderable influence. It applied itself to study and action on current issues andspearheaded the formation of other groups such as Citizens Against theColour Bar, and Christian Care which looked after the welfare of politicaldetainees and their families.The period 1959 to 1964 then saw tremendous changes not only inthe political life of Southern Rhodesia but in the churches themselves. Themissionaries' paternalistic complacency had been shattered; and they hadbeen increasingly forced to look at the racial injustices of Rhodesian society2° See N. E. Thomas, 'Inter-Church co-operation in Rhodesia's towns 1962-72', inT. O. Ranger and J. Weller (eds), Themes in the Christian History of Central Africa(London, Heinemann, 1975), 238-55.2« From the 'Constitution of the Christian Action Group'.198 THE CHURCH AND ITS POLITICAL INVOLVEMENTand also to give way to African aspirations to share the leadership within thechurches. At the same time a wide gulf was opening between European andAfrican members within the denominations because the political expectationsof the European Christians were widely divergent from those of their Afri-can co-religionists.The next few years were to witness a heightening of political tensionsand fears, as the Rhodesian Front Government, failing to obtain independ-ence from Britain, prepared for U.D.I. A state of emergency was declaredto combat African unrest and sanctions were to make for a laager mentalityamong Europeans. Against this background, the non-Roman churches, throughthe newly constituted Christian Council, were taking more active interest innational affairs. In 1964 an ecumenical consultation on 'Christian and De-sirable Action in Social Change and Race Relations in Southern Africa' tookplace in Zambia; and the Christian Council of Rhodesia was asked by theSouthern Rhodesia Christian Conference to organize a conference on thissubject in Rhodesia.22 Preparations were made for a conference involvingboth Protestants and Roman Catholics to be held in 1965. Meanwhile inApril 1965 the British Council of Churches, concerned at the possibility of aunilateral declaration of independence, sent a message to the churches inRhodesia endorsing the views of the British Government concerning theconsequences of any U.D.I., and saying that the Council regarded as in-equitable 'any grant of independence which does not involve much greaterrepresentation of Africans in Parliament'.23The conference, called the Consultation on the Church and HumanRelations, took place in August 1965, and most of the major denominationsand a number of representatives of African independent churches took part.The Dutch Reformed Church, however, and a number of smaller churcheswho adopted a neutral attitude to politics were not represented. The Con-sultation reviewed almost every aspect of Rhodesian social and political struc-tures and their effect on African life. A report of the findings shows thatchurch leadership in Rhodesia had now moved a long way to accommodatingthe African viewpoint on the political situation in the country.The authority of the State, it said, is derived from God through theconsent of the governed. Without the consent of the governed it has no validauthority. The 1961 Constitution was regarded as unsatisfactory because,among other things, it left power in the hands of the minority for an in-definite period without the consent of the majority. It was also felt that thefranchise provisions were too high and had not been accepted by the22 The Christian Council of Rhodesia, The Church and Human Relations: [Reportof] A Consultation Held at the University College of Rhodesia and Nvasaland 24th-29th August, 1965 ([SaKsbnry, the Council, 1965]), 5.23 Resolution of the British Council of Churches, 27 Apr., The Times, 28 Apr.W. R. PEADEN 199majority.24 Recent legislation was said to erode civil rights and when certainlaws 'offend against human rights . . . [they] do not merit obedience', and itmight be a Christian duty to disobey legislation which, for example, preventedpersons of different races from meeting and sharing hospitality. Even on thequestion of the use of violence to promote social change, views had beenmodified. Whereas it was preferable to effect social change by peaceful means,it was recognized that Christians have always had sincere disagreement 'asto whether or not there are human situations in which Christian people areleft no alternative but to resort to violence In order to achieve justice'.25Both positions must be respected and Christians must be free to follow theirconsciences in this matter. On the question of U.D.I. it was felt that such adeclaration would be an immoral act which would cause Rhodesians an acuteconflict of loyalties.26All this shows just how far the thinking had moved away from thetraditional thinking of the liberal White settler. This Consultation marks thewatershed in Church and State relations in the colony. The censorshipauthorities prevented the circulation of the report in Rhodesia after it waspublished.27After the declaration of independence, the Christian Council met andcondemned the action of the Rhodesian regime, affirmed its continuingloyalty to the Queen and called on those Christians who opposed the U.D.I,to make their views public.28 The Catholic bishops hurried back from theVatican Council in Rome and their joint pastoral letter, issued on 28 Novem-ber, had a stormy passage. The English version passed the censors, but whenit was read in Gwelo Cathedral the C.I.D. intervened and confiscated copies.Parts of the Shona and Ndebele versions were unacceptable to the censorsand were not printed. The pastoral called attention to the fact that manyCatholics were very perplexed by U.D.I, and that it could have appallingrepercussions. It called upon all concerned to come together as quickly aspossible to try and res-olve their differences. Vast numbers of people, it said,have been angered that U.D.I, was taken in the name of preserving Christiancivilization, whereas they considered that it was a travesty of Christianity.29A number of individual church leaders also made known their oppositionto U.D.I, and pledged their loyalty to the Queen of England. When it cameto the churches' decision-making bodies, however, it was another matter; formost major denominations still had a considerable European lobby, largelylay, but supported by some missionaries also. Thus when the MethodistChurch Synod, for example, debated the constitutional position, in January2-» The Christian Council of Rhodesia, The Church and Human Relations. 19.as Ibid., 20.as Ibid., 21.27 Methodist Recorder, 18 Nov. 1965, 3.2s Ibid., 9 Dec. 1965, 5.29 Plangger, Rhodesia : The Moral Issue, 90-2.2OO THE CHURCH AND ITS POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT1966, the determined opposition of some European representatives preventedany vote being taken which would indicate that the church condemnedU.D.I. A similar thing happened in the Synod of January 1967.3°At the same time the major churches refused to recognize the inde-pendence of Rhodesia. When the first anniversary of U.D.I, approached, theGovernment declared that 11 November would be a public holiday and thatthe morning should be observed as a 'time of thanksgiving for the divineguidance which has enabled us to overcome the difficulties of the past yearand to give prayer for continued guidance during the years which lie ahead'.31The major denominations, apart from the D.R.C., refused to recognize offi-cially any special arrangements for that day although some European congrega-tions on their own initiative did hold services.In the period following U.D.I, it soon became clear that, contrary tothe expectations of the British Government, Rhodesia was not going to bebrought to heel by sanctions. Constitutional discussions were therefore re-sumed and a draft agreement reached on board H.M.S. Tiger in October1966.32 These proposals did not nearly meet the Six Principles but in theevent were rejected by the Rhodesian Government. Nevertheless this episodemarked another step in the hardening of the attitude of the churches. TheBritish Council of Churches had criticized the proposals because 'the controlof access to voting rights remained with the white minority' and the LandApportionment Act, one of the principal instruments of racial discrimination,did not have to be speedily amended; and it now emphasized that Britainstill had a moral responsibility towards Rhodesia: 'if sterner measures requir-ing international action have now to be taken, our readiness to apply themwill be felt by the world to be a test of our sincerity'.33Rhodesia began to make plans of her own for a new constitution byappointing a Constitutional Commission in 1967 to receive evidence as towhat would be a suitable constitution for Rhodesia. Numerous bodies, in-cluding the Roman Catholic bishops, gave evidence on proposals designedto ensure that a new constitution should 'promote the common good, guaran-tee the dignity and freedom of every individual, build up a true social order,bring about the unity of the nation and establish concord with other nations'.34In April 1968 the Constitutional Commission made proposals for the ulti-mate parity of representation of Blacks and Whites in Parliament, whileso The writer was present at both Synods.31 Rhodesia, Parliamentary Debates, Second Session, Eleventh Parliament 1966(Salisbury, Govt Printer [1967]), LXV, 15 Sept., 1267, Prime Minister.32 Great Britain, Rhodesia : Documents Relating to Proposals for a Settlement1966 [Cmnd 3171].33 British Council of Churches, Rhodesia and Ourselves (London, The Council1967), 11, 12.34 Rhodesia Catholic Bishops' Conference, The Land Tenure Act and the Church(Gwelo, Mambo Press, 1970), 48.W. R. PEADEN 2O1rejecting outright majority rule.35 Settlement with Britain, however, remainedthe great aim and in November 1968 there were further negotiations betweenthe British and Rhodesian Governments, this time on H.M.S. Fearless. Theproposals put forward on Fearless in some ways further eroded the SixPrinciples of the British Government, and no mention was made in themof the additional principle, NIBMAR. A major new feature, however, was theoffer by the British Government of considerable aid to African education inorder to speed the advancement of Africans.36 The proposals were also re-jected by the Rhodesian Government.The British Council of Churches found the Fearless proposals also un-satisfactory: 'Progress towards majority rule is not assured or even probable'.37African leaders had not been consulted in drafting the proposals, and thetest of acceptability 'asks us to take a great deal on trust'. Also criticizedwas the absence of arrangements to remove existing discriminatory legisla-tion.38 The Council felt that as no agreement had been reached there wasno alternative but to continue existing policies and more effective sanctions.Meanwhile there had been the beginning of guerilla activity in the borderareas of Rhodesia. In this situation the rift between European and Africanchurch members widened, because to a large extent the European churchmenaccepted U.D.I, whereas the African churchmen did not. There were somechurches where the European members walked out of services when theirministers made their stand clear on U.D.I. In March 1966 a visiting clergy-man from England, Fr Hugh Bishop, head of the Community of the Re-surrection, had preached in Salisbury Cathedral, and, when in the courseof his sermon he mentioned police brutality, a large number of the pre-dominantly White congregation walked out. A minor crisis had occurred inthe Methodist Church Synod in 1967 when the question of making appoint-^ ment of a full-time chaplain to the Rhodesia forces was discussed. A numberi of European clergymen were already acting as part-time chaplains. Duringthe Synod debate it was made clear that a proportion of Synod memberswere opposed to the appointment of a chaplain on the grounds that Rhodesia, was in rebellion against the Queen and that to appoint a chaplain would| be tantamount to recognizing U.D.I. No appointment was made.i There were, during the period, changes in the leadership of some, churches. After Bishop Dodge's deportation in 1964, he remained for atime bishop in exile over the United Methodist Church members in Rho-desia. Eventually it was decided to create a separate diocese of Rhode-sia and elect a new bishop. The Revd Abel Muzorewa was elected35 Rhodesia, Report of the Constitutional Commission, 1968 (Salisbury, GovtPrinter, 1968); The Times, 11 Apr. 1968.36 Great Britain, Rhodesia : Documents Relating to Proposals for a Settlement 1968[Cmnd 3793]; The Times, 16 Nov. 1968.37 British Council of Churches, Rhodesia : A Commentary on the Fearless Negotia-tions (London, The Council, 1968), 3.38 Ibid., 4.THE CHURCH AND ITS POLITICAL INVOLVEMENTand installed in August 1968. In the Anglican diocese of Mashonaland, anew bishop, the Revd Paul Burrough was appointed in 1968; the fact thata European was appointed shows the continued dominance of the Europeanmembers of that Church.The Rhodesian Government was increasingly confident that it couldride out sanctions and so proceeded with plans to introduce its own re-publican constitution. It was announced that a referendum of the pre-dominantly White electorate would be held on 20 June 1969 to test theacceptability of new constitutional proposals; the Constitutional Bill came outat the beginning of June, and the Land Tenure Bill, which was to be part ofthe constitution, came out later still.In the midst of speculation as to what the actual provisions of theconstitution would be, a consultative committee of the World Council ofChurches was meeting in London during May to consider the question ofracism. The committee decided to ask the executive of the Council to re-commend that Britain should re-affirm that independence would not begranted to Rhodesia until after majority rule, that sanctions be intensified,and, significantly, that Britain should 'withdraw her earlier assurance thatforce would not be used in resolving the Rhodesian conflict'.39 The re-commendation that force might be used was denounced by many Rhodesianchurch leaders including the Anglican Bishop of Mashonaland and the headof the Methodist Church, the Revd A. M. Ndhlela. The secretariat of theCatholic bishops pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church was not amember of the World Council of Churches but thought that the use of forcewas not morally justified at that time in Rhodesia."0When the constitutional bill was published most Church leaders wereextremely critical of the proposals. The Catholic bishops on 7 June issued apastoral letter condemning the proposals because they had been drafted with'the deliberate intention of ensuring the permanent domination of one sectionof the population over another' and because 'racial discrimination shall beintensified'.41 The Protestant church leaders issued a separate statement onthe following day which was endorsed also by the Catholic bishops: 'Theseproposals to entrench separation and discrimination are a direct contradictionof the New Testament teaching that race, like all other human discriminations,has lost all divisive s:gnificance, and should not be used to regulate relation-ship between man and God and between man and man.'42Specific criticisms of the proposals were made. The European population,although consisting of less than 6 per cent of the total population, would39 Christian Council Newsletter (June 1969), 8.AoRhod. Her., 28 May 1969.4i 'A Call to Christians', The Sunday Mail, 8 June 1969 (reprinted in RhodesiaCatholic Bishops' Conference. The Land Tenure Act and the Church, 49).«2 A Message and Appeal from Church Leaders to the Christian People of Rhodesia(Salisbury, Unitas Press, 1969), 4.W. R. PEADEN 203initially have 67 per cent of the seats in the Senate and House of Assembly.The qualified franchise and separate voters rolls were disadvantageous toAfricans and entrenched racial division. The proposed Declaration of Rightswould offer little protection to the population. No court would have powerto pronounce on it and its provisions could be set aside if the Presidentconsidered this to be 'in the national interest'. The distribution of land bywhich approximately half was set aside for European occupation and halffor African occuption was inequitable and furthermore enforced racialsegregation."3Radical though these criticisms were, they represented a modificationof the view expressed in the draft statement presented to the church leadersfor discussion. In the original draft, after stating that in every age safeguardsagainst tyranny have to be discovered, this sentence followed: 'We believethat universal adult suffrage, though not itself a Biblical concept is in ourtime, the best safeguard, and the best expression of the Christian ideals ofjustice, brotherhood and responsible love'.44 In the final draft the sentencewas removed and in its place was substituted: 'A broad based adult suffrageis necessary for this.' The concept of 'one man, one vote' did not haveunanimous acceptance even among the heads of churches. The D.R.C. wasnot represented at the meeting of the heads of churches when the messagewas approved, and later officials of the D.R.C. dissociated themselves fromthe other church leaders' views. This caused some division of opinion withinthe D.R.C. ranks and some members of the African Reformed Church, whichis the African branch of the D.R.C, claimed that Africans supported the peti-tion of the other churches.45The messages received headline treatment in the Rhodesian press andplayed a significant part in the referendum campaign. The British PrimeMinister condemned the proposed constitution, but paid tribute to the courageof the Christian churches in Rhodesia (other than the D.R.C.) for their standagainst the proposals.46 The leader of the Centre Party, the main White op-position party to the Rhodesian Front, supported the church leaders' viewsand called on the Rhodesian electorate to vote against the proposals. Therewas considerable correspondence in the newspapers, mainly, but not entirely,in opposition to the Church leaders' views. The Officer Administering theGovernment, himself a member of the Rhodesian Front, attempted to directattention from the message of the church leaders by calling upon the electorateto seek divine guidance as to how to vote. During the Sunday before theelection the full text of the church leaders' message was read out in theŁ*3** Proposed draft 'Message from Church Leaders to the Christian People of Rho-desia', 1.Ł*= The Sunday Mail, 15 June 1969.«6 Reported in Rhod. Her., 11 June 1969.2O4 THE CHURCH AND ITS POLITICAL INVOLVEMENTAnglican Cathedral in Bulawayo, and as a result walkouts were staged atboth the morning services by White members of the congregations.47 Pre-dictably, the predominantly White electorate ignored the church leaders'appeal and gave a resounding 'yes' vote to the proposed constitution whichbecame effective in March 1970 (Constitution of Rhodesia (Act No. 54 of1969)).The second part of the constitution, the Land Tenure Act (No. 55 of1969), which became effective at the same time, had far-reaching implica-tions for the Churches. The principal objectives- of the Act were to divideRhodesia into roughly equal racial areas, and to ensure that the interests ofEuropeans were paramount in the European areas and the interests of Afri-cans were paramount in the African areas.48 Subject to certain provisions, aEuropean could not own, lease or occupy land in the African area, and anAfrican could not do so in the European area. The term 'occupation' wasdeemed to include attendance for a specified purpose at premises to whichthe public are admitted.49 Apart from entrenching racial segregation, this hadfar-reaching implications for the churches themselves. Many church buildingsand educational and medical establishments belonging to the churches wereplaced into the category of European areas although the establishmentscatered for both races. In terms of the Land Tenure Act the church who ownedthese premises was required to get written permission from the appropriateauthority for permission for Africans to 'occupy' them even if the purposewas worship.50 A permit might be granted or withheld on the authority of theappropriate minister. Furthermore a permit even if it were granted couldsubsequently be withdrawn. A similar provision applied for Europeans whowished to occupy premises belonging to churches in African areas. It was arequirement that a European priest or church worker should apply for writtenpermission to 'occupy' the premises where he lived and worked if thesewere in African areas. Since members of one race could not ordinarily ownland in another racial area, it was necessary to determine the race of all land-owners. The churches and other non-statutory land-holding bodies were there-fore required to register as 'voluntary associations', and in registering it wouldbe determined which race had the controlling interest in the association.51The major churches, except the D.R.C., were horrified at these provi-sions of the Act which they interpreted as opening the way for State controlas to who should worship in their churches and attend their educational andother welfare establishments. The church leaders met in conference in Apriland roundly condemned the Act in general because it opened the way for47 Ibid., 16 June 1969.48 Rhodesia, Debates of the Legislative Assembly, Fifth Session, Eleventh Parlia-ment . . . 1969, LXXV, 15 Oct., 1478.49 Land Tenure Act, Preliminary section, Sub-section 3(1) and (2)so Ibid., Part II, para 11(1), and para 17(1).si Ibid.W. R. PEADEN 205apartheid laws and in particular because of the effect it could have on thework and witness of the Church. They decided that their churches would re-fuse to comply with the requirement of the Act to register as 'voluntary as-sociations' on the grounds that they were non-racial organizations. It was alsodecided that they would refuse to apply for permits for members of onerace to 'occupy' church premises in another racial area. As the CatholicBishops put in the pastoral letter afterwards:We are now compelled to declare, 'We must obey God rather thanman (Acts 5.29). We cannot in conscience and will not in practiceaccept any limitation of our freedom to deal with all people irres-pective of race, as members of the human family.32Other churches also published their views individually. The United MethodistChurch in its Annual Conference in January 1970 declared that the churchis one:we cannot tolerate divisions into African and European congrega-tions. Every individual must be free to worship in the place of hischoice . . . The right to choose a home, enter a school, secure em-ployment, vote and have access to public accommodation should beguaranteed to all, regardless of race.53In its views on the franchise and public accommodation the U.M.C.seems to have been in advance of other denominations. The leaders of theMethodist Church (Synod) in a pastoral letter to members, considered thatthe Act 'denies the Church the freedom to organize its own life and wor-ship' and so showed the worthlessness of the Declaration of Rights in theConstitution which said that 'no person shall be hindered in the enjoymentof the freedom of his conscience, that is to say, freedom of thought and reli-gion and to manifest and propagate his religion or belief through worship,teaching, practice and observance'.54 Bishop Skelton in a sermon in Salisburysaid, 'If our nation's rulers pursue a policy which is at variance with ourbelief in God we have no choice but to resist.'55 The Christian Council ofRhodesia in a unanimous resolution deplored the Act as being 'based on racialseparate development which not only is incompatible with Christian commit-ment to non-racial free development but also permits interference with thefree worship and witness of the Church'.56 Bishop Lamont now radicallycommitted to the African cause, in an obvious reference to African guerillamovements, described as 'the real terrorists' the people who framed the newconstitution.5752 Rhodesia Catholic Bishops' Conference, The Land Tenure Act and the Church,55-6.=3 Vmbowo [The Journal of the U.M.C. in Rhodesia] (Feb. 1970).34 'The Methodist Church and the Land Tenure Act', May 1970 (quotation fromPara 8(1) of the Declaration of Rights in the 1969 Constitution).ss Reported in Christian Mirror (March 1970), 6.5« Ibid.37 Ibid.2O6 THE CHURCH AND ITS POLITICAL INVOLVEMENTThe Afrikaans newspaper Die Rhodesier, on the other hand, reportedon the attitude of the D.R.C. towards the Land Tenure Act. The D.R.C. feltthat the other churches were making a mountain out of a molehill: 'Nowherein the legislation they disapprove of so vehemently is the church deniedany privileges and rights to continue preaching of the Gospel to all peoples.'The legislation in question does not take away this right, the statement con-tinued, but regulates the orderly execution of this work within the contextof the State. But whereas the other churches contended that the unity ofChristians can only be in common assembly and worship, the D.R.C. deniedthis claim: 'We do not deny for a moment that this unity can be achieved incommon assembly but we strongly challenge the validity of any claim thatit is the only way in which it can be achieved.'58Amid widespread publicity in the national press the church leaders(excluding, of course, the D.R.C.) pressed for an interview with the PrimeMinister and put their objections to him. This was granted but the churchleaders received little satisfaction from their discussions. As the Septemberdeadline for registration came near, the Government apparently wishing toend the confrontation with the Church, decided that churches need notregister as voluntary associations. Instead they would be 'deemed' to haveregistered. A slight amendment to the Act was made in October 1970 (theLand Tenure Amendment Act, No. 42 of 1970). This deemed that permitshad been issued to all establishments to carry on their work on mission landswhich were now in the European area. The concession also accepted theright of missions to own or lease land in these areas-.59Another major dispute between Church and State which came to a headin 1970 concerned African primary schools for which mission churches werethe responsible authority. About 85 per cent of African education was inthe hands of the missionaries. The position was that with some exceptionsthe Government provided for education in urban areas while the missions,with some Government grants-in-aid, provided the education in the ruralareas.The partnership between Church and State in African education had forsome years been subject to a certain amount of strain. In 1963 the Govern-ment had announced plans to promote community development schemes inthe rural areas. To provide structures for policy, Africans in rural areaswere encouraged to form local councils and community boards. It was en-visaged that public services and amenities, including primary education,should eventually come under the control of these councils and communityboards. The proposals caused some concern among the churches, particularlyas they seemed to imply that church schools would be taken over. Thess Quoted in Rhod. Her., 15 June 1970.59 R. H. Randolph, Church and State in Rhodesia 1969-1971 : A Catholic View(Gwelo, Mambo Press, 1971), 43-4.W. R. PEADEN 207Catholic Bishops issued a pastoral letter following the announcement of theplans for community development. The Bishops hoped that there would be noattempt to take over church property, including schools, or to interfere inany way with the Church's education programme.60The African rural communities were very reluctant to form councilsand community boards and in some areas pressure was applied by the Gov-ernment, by giving instructions that new primary schools and other facilitieswould only be opened if the councils were in existence to assume the res-ponsible authority for them. Pressure also began to be applied by Govern-ment on mission authorities to consider handing over their primary schoolsto African councils. It was also Government policy that all new primaryschools from 1968 would be under local councils, and suggestions weremade to missions that an increase in the level of school fees paid by parentswould be necessary. There were also proposals to limit the amount of ex-pansion possible in existing mission primary schools. The missions resistedboth the increase of fees and the possibility of handing over their primaryschools to local authorities.During 1967 the Methodist Church (Synod) conducted a survey amongits own primary schools (about 280 in number) to ascertain the feelings oflocal communities about handing over to local councils. The majority werein favour of the Church continuing to be the responsible authority. This didnot mean that communities were concerned to preserve the authority of theChurch for religious reasons; rather it stemmed from distrust of Africancouncils which were themselves not free from Government control.During 1969, however, the Government announced that it would bereducing its grant towards the salaries of teachers in African primary schoolsby five per cent, the balance to be made up by the parents of primary schoolchildren. For the majority of missions this was unacceptable. They had foryears been pressing for increased grants to African education because Afri-can children only received per capita a small fraction of the amount thatEuropean children received. This reduction in grants to African primaryeducation alone seemed racialistic to the church leaders. The halting of de-velopment in mission schools was also seen to be a grave disability.After a meeting with the Prime Minister that produced no results, mostchurch leaders decided that they could no longer, in all conscience, be theresponsible authorities for African primary schools and implement a policywith which they were in radical disagreement. Thus, under protest, prepara-tions were made for handing over primary schools to African councils andlocal boards of parents. On 31 December 1970, most major denominations,apart from the D.R.C., the Salvation Army, and the Mashonaland diocese ofthe Anglican Church, ceased to be the responsible authorities for primaryeducation.plangger, Rhodesia : The Moral Issue, 80-2.2.OB THE CHURCH AND ITS POLITICAL INVOLVEMENTIn this dispute with the Government in 1970 over the five per centreduction in primary teachers' salary grants, the United Methodist Churchadopted a radical attitude. The Church authorities decided that they wouldneither collect the deficit from parents nor hand over their schools to localauthorities, even if it meant that their primary schools would close. Localcommunities in the area where they had schools supported them in this stand.The United Methodist Church leaders hoped that other churches would jointhem in this stand, and that this would cause the Government to have secondthoughts about making the reductions in grants. The leaders of the otherchurches, however, would not risk jeopardizing the future of African educa-tion by taking this step and eventually the United Methodist Church had toclimb down and agree to hand over their schools to local authorities. DuringAugust, while the controversy was at its height, the head of the UnitedMethodist Church, Bishop Abel Muzorewa, was issued with an order banninghim from entering Tribal Trust Lands where three-quarters of the 55 000members of the Church lived. No reason was given for the banning butMuzorewa, asked to comment, said that if it had anything to do with hisChurch's dispute over the reductions in grants for primary teachers' salaries,then he thought the ban was unfair.61The hand-over of schools was conducted fairly smoothly in the end.Most African parents, while resenting deeply the imposition of an extra fee,and regretting the severing of the ties of the churches with primary education,nevertheless felt that the education of their children had to continue.Meanwhile yet another controversy involving the churches developedfrom the decision of the World Council of Churches in August 1969 toestablish a fund to combat racism. Early in September 1970 the news brokethat grants would be given for educational, medical and welfare purposes toa number of guerilla organizations operating in Central Africa which, ofcourse, included the banned ZAPU and ZANU.62 There was immediatecondemnation by Government officials and many European churchmen in-cluding some White missionaries. At a meeting in November, the African-dominated Christian Council of Rhodesia, however, endorsed (although withfour dissenting votes) the action of the World Council of Churches.63 At theAnglican Synod of Mashonaland an attempt was made by White representa-tives to present a resolution condemning the grants; but in the event theSynod accepted an amendment from the chair which 'asked for no positiveaction and alluded to the violence inherent in the policy of apartheid'.64 InAugust 1970 Bishop Skelton of Matabeleland returned to Britain and BishopWood was appointed in his place. The two Anglican bishops, however, later6i Rhod. Her., 15 Aug. 1970ez Ibid., 12 Sept. 1970.es Ibid., 11 Dec. 1970.si Ibid., 23 Sept. 1970.W. R. PEADEN 209came out in protest against the grants. The Methodist Church Synod was alsothrown into a state of confusion. A European congregation at Greendale gavegrants for welfare purposes to the Rhodesian security forces to 'express intangible form our strong condemnation of the recent action of the WorldCouncil of Churches in donating funds to terrorist organizations'.65 Rumoursreached the press that some White Methodist congregations were contemplat-ing secession from the parent body if the Synod meeting in January 1971endorsed the action of the World Council of Churches. To test opinionthe chairman of the Synod, the Revd A. M. Ndhlela, called together all theclergy into retreat for some days. During the discussions the clergy of eachrace was deeply divided, for and against the grants. The chairman himselfwas determined to avoid any breach, and, both at the retreat and later inSynod, non-committal statements were made which condemned violence ofany form to obtain a political solution to problems and called upon the racesto seek mutual reconciliation.The United Methodist Church, with its very few European members,supported the World Council of Churches' programme. The General Synodof the D.R.C. meeting in Cape Town, however, charged that the action ofthe World Council of Churches 'conflicted with the call of obedience foundin the Bible, and Christ's admonition to suffer rather than use violent actionand resistence'.66The Roman Catholic Church was once again thankful to report that itwas not associated with the World Council of Churches; and a spokes-man commented: 'It would seem to be much too early to abandon hopes ofsuccess in negotiations and to have recourse to a modern holy war orcrusade.'67Then, of course, views on the issue depended largely upon whether ornot a particular denomination had a large White lobby. If the White memberswere strong the Church was more likely to be cautious or condemnatory inits attitude to the World Council of Churches.After the Conservative Party regained power in Britain in 1970 it wasdecided to make another attempt to bring about a settlement of the Rhodesianproblem. A series of talks was held between the two Governments culminat-ing in negotiations in November 1971 between the British Foreign Secretary,Sir Alec Douglas Home, and the Rhodesian Prime Minister. Agreement wasreached and the proposals were signed on 24 November.68When the proposals were published the African population, whosepolitical voice had been stifled for some years, was re-awakened throughthe formation and mushroom growth of the African National Council. In65 Ibid., 12 Sept. 1970.66 Christian Mirror (December 1970), 2.67 Rhod. Her., 30 Oct. 1970.68 Rhodesia, Anglo-Rhodesian Relations : Proposals for a Settlement. .. ICmdR.R.46, 1971].210 THE CHURCH AND ITS POLITICAL INVOLVEMENTDecember 1971 leading African clergymen combined with nationalist leadersin forming an organization to fight the proposals which had been formulatedwithout first consulting African opinion and which offered only marginalpolitical advance. True, eventual majority rule was envisaged, but only aboutsixty-five years later. African development would be helped by British aidfor a period of ten years. Racially discriminatory legislation would be re-viewed after independence had been achieved, but there were no cast-ironguarantees for its repeal.The next step was to test the acceptability of the proposals to Rhodesianopinion as a whole and the Pearce Commission was established by the BritishGovernment to go to Rhodesia for this purpose. Before the Pearce Commis-mission arrived in February 1972, many Church leaders were critical of theproposals. The Catholic bishops said that there were some aspects of theproposals that were 'morally objectionable'.69 The Christian Council ofRhodesia was scathing about the proposals and decided to publish a guideto them, printed in the three main languages of the country. The Guide was astep by step commentary on the proposals pointing out the disadvantages forthe African people. In particular the high qualifications necessary for Africansto be able to register for the Higher Roll and the smallness of the immediaterepresentation of Africans in Parliament were criticized.70The African National Council helped to distribute the Christian Councilof Rhodesia's Guide and used it as part of its publicity in fighting the pro-posals. When the Pearce Commission arrived it received a 'yes' vote fromthe Europeans and a resounding 'no' from Africans of all sections of thecommunity.71 The constitutional problem remained unresolved.After Pearce, the African National Council remained in existence as aresidual political voice of the African people. African political views whichhad for some years been suppressed were heard again. During these yearsthe church leaders, despite a sometimes uncertain voice, had been the mainvoice in the country for African social and political justice.es Rhod. Her., 27 Jan. 1972.7° Christian Council of Rhodesia, A Guide to the Proposals for a Settlement (GweloMambo Press, 1971). '7i Great Britain, Rhodesia : Report of the Commission on Rhodesian Opinion . .7972 [Cmnd 4964]. v '