Contextuality and Theology

Contextuality and (Afrikaner) Theology
Reading current research on two prominent Afrikaner theologians I have had reason to think about the importance of contextuality for theology. It is also of quite some interest to note that many times the context is taken for granted.
As is well known, Apartheid has repeatedly been compared with Nazism, and rightly so. Both were racist ideologies that in the end also discriminated against a certain group; but in addition, one could actually argue that apartheid was even worse in the sense that as an ideology it was justified on basis of a particular theology. That was never the case with Nazism. Rather, the German church, through its belief in the two kingdoms doctrine, where the church had its own sphere and the world its own, rather allowed space for this ideology to develop without interference.
It is quite clear that if one were a part of the Afrikaner community (Dutch descendants who settled in South Africa and ruled the country between 1948 – 1994, also called Boers, nowadays a derogative word) one could fall in the trap of believing that apartheid or separate lives for separate population groups was something quite normal. This is where the importance of contextuality comes in.
The two theologians referred to above are Ben Marais and Beyers Naudé. They both lived through most of the 20th century. Both also developed a critical view of apartheid and of apartheid theology. The thing is that a number of the Afrikaner theologians, especially from the 1930s onwards, claimed that different race groups were designed by God to remain different and separate; Scriptural grounds for this belief were also given.
On the other hand, an Afrikaner, who broke away from the own group would probably see things differently. He or she might eventually come to the conclusion that there are no strict borders between people and creating alliances across established ethnic or racial borders could work perfectly well on the condition that a conducive environment could be created (such alliances would have to have more of the same and would not easily fit into a particular race or ethnic group). For such a person the ideology of apartheid would fall like a house of cards.
Looking at what Ben Marais and Beyers Naudé said as theologians one would have to conclude that they both rejected apartheid as ideology. From a Christian point of view there is no ground for such a view. But these two Afrikaners were radically different in one respect and that difference finally also showed in a lack of consistency on one sensitive point, which could turn out to be a pit fall.
Marais was never impressed by the nationalist tendencies that became very strong among the Afrikaners during the 1930s. In his research he also showed that the church always was called to accept all human beings regardless of background. So it must also be in South Africa, sooner or later. However, Marais remained an Afrikaner among Afrikaners. He never challenged the apartheid policies more than in some of his theological lectures and in some articles in church magazines. Even though he took part in the ecumenical movement, especially at an earlier stage, he remained largely confined to the Afrikaner community.
Naudé was different. He was for many years a staunch follower of the ideology of the Afrikaner, in church and society, i.e. of apartheid; and he was for many years in the leadership both in church (moderator of a regional Dutch Reformed Church) and society (prominent member of the secret society the Broederbond). Only in connection with the very fateful shootings in Sharpville in March 1960, when the police killed more than 60 blacks running away from a police station where they had handed in their ID documents (they had to carry these at all times to be able to identify themselves, whites did not have such documents).
Naudé became during the 1960s a very vocal opponent of apartheid and he tried to influence other Afrikaners to openly reject the practice of apartheid in church and society. This led to him being defrocked in his church (he had to resign as a pastor or dominee) and he was in many ways ostracised from his community; yet, on the hand, he never alienated himself from his own community.
After a few years, also due to the resistance and rejection from his own community, he came closer and closer to the black community. He was threatened by the government, his organization, formed as a protest against apartheid, the Christian Institute, became an affected organization (they could no longer received funding from abroad) and eventually this organization and he were banned. Naudé was banned for seven years and during this time he was only allowed to meet one person at a time; but he was privileged, unlike blacks who had been hit by the state ended up in prison directly, he was allowed to stay at home.
Beyers Naudé developed a more radical theology which took into account that blacks had to come into their own and eventually rule. He gave room for the articulation of Black Consciousness and Black Theology. In terms of contextuality Naudé came to live intensively with virtually all the major groups in the country. He became a member of the black Dutch Reformed Church in Africa, in Alexandra Township. Many whites, not only Afrikaners but also the majority of the English speaking whites, took great offence for the fact that he so easily shared life also with blacks. His context, and we are now talking about the 1970s before he was banned in 1977, was in fact the new South Africa, which has become a tangible phenomenon only in the 1990s.
My question is: was it possible for Marais and Naudé to articulate the same theology, as an anti-apartheid theology, while their contexts were so different? If you read their texts, you may get that impression.
To end I like to offer two comments to a rather difficult problem, namely the exact relationship between context and theology. First of all it is a question of authenticity. If I say that any person is welcome to my church, not only whites, but does nothing about it, does that not in some sense impact on the authenticity of what I am saying also as a theologian? I am not saying that Marais did not do anything to break the isolation between the population groups, but he was a scholar and not an activist. However it would be quite easy to give examples of how he stayed away from confrontation in church and society, while Naudé was on the barricades as the activist. But there is more to it than that, and many scholars miss out on this when describing Marais’ theology. Marais was clear about the fact that apartheid could not be supported theologically. He knew that it one day had to go. But he could also say that it would be a total disaster if the racial laws were abolished over night. To open up society for full freedom in terms of racial relationships would be worse than apartheid; chaos would ensue. Therefore, for as long as I have been able to follow him in his own texts, he elaborated with the term ‘practicalities’. He said that apartheid is wrong, but for practical purposes, for the time being, it had to be in place.
This talk about ‘for practical reasons’ was nearly fatal. What would blacks think? Is it not that this has to do with authenticity and that a narrow contextuality (basically accepting the Afrikaner community as the frame of reference) came back haunting him? My contention therefore is that contextuality after all has a direct bearing on the theology (or any other world view or ideology for that matter) that is put on display; and that is after all the whole idea of the whole notion of the dire need for contextual theology in all circumstances and contexts.