This article is about freedom of religion as an integral part of the Reformation of the 16th century and how it was expressed in the Church Order of Dordt (1619) and later at the Cape of Good Hope under the rule of the Political Council. The article also traces the route of freedom of religion under the rule of the English and after 1910, under the rule of various political parties until the current situation (2018) with a Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion for every person in South Africa, and The South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms.
Without fear of contradiction, it can be said that the Reformation of the 16th century was about freedom of religion – the right of Christian believers to differ from and to criticise the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, to express their views and to form a new church, and to express their new faith identity. It is very significant that one of Martin Luther’s so-called three main Reformation publications (Berkhof & De Jong
The fourth National Synod in the Netherlands was held in 1586 in The Hague under difficult military and political conditions. The war against Spain was not going very well and in 1584, Prince William of Orange was assassinated. It became clear that the States-General could not contain the situation. They consulted first with Henry III of France and then with Queen Elizabeth I of England to take over the sovereignty in the Netherlands. Both refused, but Elizabeth sent Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, together with 5000 troops to the Netherlands. According to Williston Walker (
Leicester, however, did support the Reformed Church in its quest for greater independence from the authorities (De Jong
After the departure of the Earl of Leicester from the Netherlands in 1587, the relationship between state and church in the Netherlands got worse. In the Province of Holland, the rulers were viewed as wanting to rule over the church, while the rulers were wary that the church wanted too much say in political matters. By the end of 1589 the rulers in the Province of Utrecht, for instance removed all reformed ministers and decided that, in future, they would call only ‘peace loving ministers’. In the rural areas of Utrecht, the owner of a church had the right to take to the authorities the name of a minister of his choice for approval, while in the cities, it was seen as the right of the magistrate to appoint a minister. No classes were established and no Provincial Synod could be held (De Jong
Between 1586 and 1619, the Dutch society became ever more divided between on the one hand, the strict Calvinists (
A conflict sprang up between Arminius and Franz Gomarus, his Calvinist colleague at the University of Leiden, over the doctrine of predestination (Walker
After the death of Arminius in 1609, Johannes Uytenbogaert (1557–1644) and Simon Episcopius (1583–1643) became the leaders of the Arminians. The ‘Arminian’ views were systematised, opposing the emphasis on minutiae of doctrine and viewing Christianity primarily as a force for moral transformation.
In 1610, at the insistence of the eminent Dutch statesman from the states of Holland and a supporter of religious tolerance, Johan van Oldenbarneveldt (1547–1619), Uytenbogaert, Episcopius and 41 of their sympathisers drew up a statement of their faith called the ‘
The Calvinistic opposition, under the leadership of people such as Petrus Plancius in Amsterdam, Festus Hommius in Leiden and Sybrandus Lubbertus (a professor in Franeker), issued a Contra-Remonstrance on 11 March 1611 in which they opposed the views of the Remonstrants, rejected talk of a review of the confession and advocated the independence of the church to decide for itself on matters of dogma and doctrine. They recognised the authority of the government regarding matters external to the church, but denied that it had the authority to express itself in ecclesiastical differences regarding doctrine (Bakhuizen van den Brink
In more than one city, the authorities favoured the Remonstrants and made it very difficult for the Contra-Remonstrants. In the states of Holland, Provincial Synods had been prohibited since 1608 (Nauta
To bring the various dispersed Dutch churches together in the 16th century, the Convent of Wezel was organised in 1568. In our time, the question is asked by some whether the Convent of Wezel ever took place (see Jesse Spohnholz
The character of that church is seen by some as clearly Calvinistic. Others characterise it as Presbyterian or anti-hierarchical (Bakhuizen van den Brink & Dankbaar
No church shall lord over another church; no minister of the word over another minister, no elder over another elder, neither any deacon over another and everyone will be on guard for any suspicion and longing to lord.
On the face of it, this article forbids any lording of churches or offices over each other, but behind this wording lies the most fundamental principle of the Reformation, namely that Jesus Christ is the only Lord and Head of the church and none other. It is the insight of John Calvin and the wording of the Belgic Confession (
The National Synod of Dordrecht of 1618–1619 took place at the Kloveniersdoelen in Dordrecht (De Jong
In the second phase of the synod, attention was given to matters such as the church order and also the translation of the Bible. The church order was a revision of the Church Order of The Hague (1586). In broad lines the church order remained unchanged and the typical reformed characteristics, which were already present at the Synod of Emden, remained: the offices in the church, the tasks and authority of ecclesiastical assemblies at the various levels, confessional matters, the administration of the sacraments and Sunday worship, oversight and discipline in doctrine, and church members and office bearers’ way of life. The Church Order of Dordt concludes with the prescription with which the Church Order of Emden had begun: ‘No church shall have any authority over other churches, no minister over other ministers, no elder or deacon over other elders or deacons’ (art. 84). Article 30, on the functions of the various levels of assemblies, had already been formulated by the Synod of Dordt of 1578 (Blei
Nauta (
With regard to both the political and the ecclesiastical situations in the Netherlands, we find that the relationship between church and state played an exceptional role. During the first part of the Synod of Dordt of 1618–1619 – when doctrinal matters were on the table – the political situation made it possible for the synod to be called. The States-General invited the international representatives, they ratified the decisions of synod, and they took disciplinary measures against the Remonstrants. We have also seen the extent to which the church was willing to write measures into the Church Order of Dordt, giving the state very strong control over the church; in other words, impeding their own religious freedom. It was in fact so strong that, after Dordt (1618–1619), it was not possible for the Reformed Church to meet again in a national synod, because the authorities prohibited it.
In terms of the development of religious freedom through the ages up until now, it would entail that any religious institution and church have the right to determine its own confessions, doctrines and ordinances. It also has the right to decide for itself in all matters regarding its doctrines and ordinances, and in accordance with the principles of tolerance, fairness, openness and accountability, to regulate its own internal affairs, including organisational structures and procedures, the ordination, conditions of service, discipline, dismissal of office bearers and members as well as determining of membership requirements. Apart from this, religious freedom also means that churches and religious institutions are recognised and protected as an institution that have authority over their own affairs and towards which the state, through its governing institutions, is responsible for just, constructive and impartial government in the interest of everybody. The state, including the judiciary, must respect the authority of every religious institution over its own affairs, and may not regulate or prescribe matters of doctrine and ordinances (The South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms
Measured against the above standards it is clear that there was not much of religious freedom for churches recognised and displayed in the Netherlands during the time of the Synod of Dordt in 1618–1619. In fact, that can be said of all the churches which were present at the Synod of Dordt. The relationship between church and state was very much one where the state protected the church, but, at the same time, also kept the church subjected to the laws and rules it made.
On 22 August 1650, the VOC, decided that for the sake of greater security and refreshment for their ships, they would start a settlement at the Cape of Good Hope (Vorster
In 1652, Jan van Riebeeck, an official of the VOC together with about 200 Company employees, landed at the Cape to start a refreshment post for the fleets of the Company that passed the Cape on their way to and back from the East (Hanekom
In fact, from 1652 to 1795 the responsibilities for religion and spiritual care of the people of the Cape resided with the Political Council under the leadership of the Commander (Vorster
The Charter awarded to the VOC on 22 December 1622 by the States-General, gave the VOC Board – consisting of 17 administrators and therefore known as the ‘Lords XVII’ – full sovereignty with regard to navigation, trade and warfare in the areas to which they expanded, but also obliged them to conserve the ‘public faith’ (Vorster
The Church Order of Van Diemen had been accepted in 1643 for the East Indies. It was done by Van Diemen without any consultation with the fatherland. This church order determined that permission of the government was necessary for nearly any action by the churches, including the election of elders. The church in East India was completely controlled by the government (Boetzelaar van Dubbeldam
However, in spite of all these indications that the church at the Cape considered the Church Order of Dordt, the facts remain that it was never officially accepted at the Cape and that the church was subjected to the rule of the VOC in and through the Political Council. The VOC protected the reformed religion in the areas where they worked, but they also clearly controlled the Reformed Church – just as the authorities in the Netherlands both protected and controlled the Reformed Church. Confessionally, this kind of church-state relationship goes back to article 36 of the Dutch Confession of Faith, while historically, it goes back to the time of Constantine when the Christian church received official recognition from the state, but at the same time was also controlled by the state (Nederlandse Geloofsbelydenis
On 28 November 1689, the Political Council refused the request of the French refugees to install their own church council in Drakenstein (
About the situation in the 18th century, McCall Theal, as quoted by Vorster (
All of this attests to the fact that, between the years 1652 and 1795, the Political Council at the Cape had a typically Constantinian approach towards the church in South Africa: one of not merely protecting the church, but also controlling it just as was the case in the Netherlands. The church could not say that it had the religious freedom to conduct its own affairs.
After 1795, the rule of the VOC at the Cape ended. It was followed by the first British occupation from 1795 to 1803. That was followed by the Batavian rule under Governor de Mist, and from 1806 on, English colonial rule. Under all these rulers the same approach with regard to the church was followed. The rulers protected the church, but they also controlled the church (Die Kerkorde van De Mist [25 Julie 1804] in Dreyer
The decision of the Political Council in 1759 to stop the meetings of the ‘combined meeting’ of churches, clearly hampered the normal development of the church at the Cape, because it was only in 1824 that the church received permission from the then English authorities to hold a synod. In 1822, the three ministers of the church in Cape Town, Abraham Faure, Jan Christoffel Berrange and Johann Heinrich von Manger, wrote a letter to the Governor, asking his permission to call a meeting of a synod or a general meeting according to the terms of the church order drawn up by De Mist (art. 46) in 1804. Among the reasons, they noted, were that church councils and synods are the ways by which Presbyterian churches are governed. Further, it would help to overcome differences, advance religious education and promote unity among the different ministers. Following the loss of support from the classes and synods in the Netherlands, it was argued that the ministers were more or less left to themselves and church councils had no ‘higher’ body to join. Also, the numbers of the Dutch Reformed Church were growing and an increasing number of previously-unknown religious bodies, which could disrupt the existing order, were making their appearance. Permission was granted and the first synod of the Dutch Reformed Church met on 02 November 1824. In drawing up articles for the management of the church, the meeting took as guideline the
In 1843, the Church Ordinance of De Mist, to which the churches at the Cape still had to adhere, was replaced by the Ordinance Number Seven of 1843. This ordinance supposedly made the church more free from control by the government in that political commissioners no longer took seats in church meetings and the church received the power to regulate its own internal affairs. The ordinance was presented under the heading of ‘The Separation of Church and State Petition’. Yet, in practice, the church remained subject to government in so far as the government still controlled the church through the so-called ‘power of the purse’ and the privilege of presenting ministers to congregations. Furthermore, the ordinance restricted the church with regard to its faith identity, its organisation, its competence and its geographical limits (Kleynhans
The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa (Cape Province) eventually decided on 21 October 1957 to ask the government to revoke Ordinance Number Seven of 1843:
The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa declares and confirms its historical view that this church as an body had an independent existence in its own competence even though always subjected to the articles of law applicable to the church. Since the existence of the church is not dependent on the articles of law, Synod, given the legal advice which was obtained, mandates the Moderature to approach the authorities to revoke Ordinance Number Seven of 1843. (Kleynhans
One of the results of the Great Trek to the northern parts of South Africa during the 3rd decade of the 19th century and of providing pastoral care to the people there, was the eventual establishment of two other reformed churches in South Africa: the Netherlands Reformed Church (
In 1948, the Nationalist Party came into power and very soon started to enforce its policy of apartheid on the whole of the country, including the churches. Not all churches accepted the policies of the government and some continued to resist it. Of that time it cannot be said there was no tolerance of different faith convictions in the country or that churches did not have the freedom, for instance to determine their own church orders, but all the while the government was trying to control the churches through its policies. However, it must also be said that in many cases, Afrikaans-speaking churches not only subscribed to the policies of the government, but also encouraged them. Even if there were certain freedoms for churches, the Constantinian approach of protect-and-control remained the main characteristic of church-state relations until 1994.
In May 1959 the Council of Dutch Reformed Churches, meeting in Bloemfontein, accepted a new proposed church order for the government of the Dutch Reformed Church. Willie Jonker comments that this concept church order would not only serve as a basis for the organic unification of the Dutch Reformed Church in the different provinces of the country, but that it would also serve to strengthen and establish the reformed character of the church (Jonker
The church order of Dordt is without doubt the best and purest historical formulation and summary of the scriptural principles on which Reformed Church government rests in spite of a few articles which could be formulated in another way, due to the changes in time (p. 796).
He continues by saying that the Dutch Reformed Church, in spite of not having the Church Order of Dordt as an official document of the church, i never lost the spirit and main principles of the Church Order of Dordt (Jonker
It is interesting to read in the church orders of the church from 1962 to 1994 how the church always affirmed its right to freedom of religion over and against the state, although, at the same time, it also acknowledged the protection of the church by the state. In the official publication Church and Society (
The principle of religious freedom must be maintained at all times. This means that the government must be impartial to all churches and religions, that scope must be given in which the church may continue with its work without government interference and that no one will be discriminated against on account of their religious convictions. (art. 301)
In 1994–1996, a new Constitution for South Africa (Republic of South Africa
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.
(2) Religious observances may be conducted at state-aided institutions, provided that (a) those observances follow the rules made by the appropriate public authorities; (b) they are conducted on an equitable basis and (c) attendance is free and voluntary.
The third part of article 15 allows for marriages in South Africa to be concluded under any tradition or system of religious, personal or family law (Republic of South Africa
The relationship between church or religion and state in South Africa can be described as one of amicable co-operation. Article 15 of the Constitution (Republic of South Africa
Given these provisions in the Constitution, academics, theologians, legal scholars (both national and international) and religious leaders worked to formulate a South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms in order to explain what freedom of religion entails for everyone in South Africa. On 21 October 2010, representatives of about 15 million believers in SA endorsed a South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms. Since 2010, the number of persons endorsing the Charter has grown to about 25 million people. The CRL-Commission has also mentioned the Charter approvingly in Parliament. At a recent Portfolio Committee on the report of the CRL-Commission, more than one religious body referred to the Charter in positive terms. The Charter has also become widely accepted in the South Africa society. The Charter is endorsed by most of the mainline churches as well as charismatic churches, members of the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Hindu community as well as members of African traditional religion. More times in the recent past these religions have stood together, for instance to ask for religious education in public schools. One of the original endorses of the Charter was the CRL-Rights Commission.
The Charter spells out in greater detail wat religious freedom means for the religious people and religious bodies in South Africa. In other words, what the religious rights and freedoms are that can be claimed in South Africa. The Charter also plays a very important role in the protection of people’s religious rights and freedoms. It is about:
The right to belief and the right to what you may belief or not belief (art. 1).
The right not to be forced about your belief (art. 2).
The right to impartiality and protection of the state in respect of religion (art. 3).
Every person’s right to private or public, individual or joint observance or exercise of their religion (art. 4).
The right of persons to maintain traditions and systems of religious personal, matrimonial and family law that is not inconsistent with the Constitution (art. 5).
The right of every person to freedom of expression in respect of religion (art. 6).
The right of every person to be educated or to educate their children or have them educated in accordance with religious or philosophical convictions (art. 7).
The right of every person to receive and provide religious education, training and instruction. The state may subsidise such education, training and instruction (art. 8).
The right to institutional freedom – the right of every religion to determine its own confessions, doctrines and ordinances and to regulate its own affairs (art. 9). Every religious institution is subject to the law of the land. A religious institution must be able to justify any non-observance of a law resulting from the exercise of the rights in the Charter (art. 9).
The right of all religions in South Africa who qualifies as a juristic person to receive tax, charitable and other benefits from the state (art. 10).
The right of every religious person to solicit, receive, manage, allocate and spend voluntary financial and other forms of support and contributions – the confidentiality of such support and contributions must be respected (art. 11).
Every religious person has the right to conduct relief, upliftment, social justice, developmental, charity and welfare work in the community and also to establish, maintain and contribute to charity and welfare associations, and solicit, manage, distribute and spend funds for this purpose (art. 12).
After the endorsement of the Charter a South African Council for the Promotion and Protection of Religious Rights and Freedoms (SACRRF or just CRRF) was elected to guard over and protect the Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms. In August 2015, explanatory notes on the Charter were approved of as an aid to understand the Charter and its implications (The South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms and Explanatory Notes
From 1652 to 1994, the state authorities in South Africa always had, to a greater or lesser degree, a determining say in the affairs, first of the Dutch Reformed Church, and later in the affairs of all churches in South Africa, although not always with the co-operation of all the churches. It was a typical Constantinian situation whereby the state protected churches, but at the same time, also tries to control them. Understanding this relationship between state and church in South Africa, sheds a completely new light on the accusation often made that it was the church(es) through a theocratic relationship with the state that were responsible for the ideology and practice of Apartheid. It was not theocracy – where the policies of the church indeed control society – but rather the Constantinian relationship between church and state that was largely responsible for the state ideology of apartheid. It must, however, also be recognised that the churches often asked the government for apartheid measures to be taken.
The new (since 1994 and 1996) situation in South Africa for religions brought about most definite freedoms not only for Christian churches, but also for all religions. At the same time, it also brought certain obligations. It is of little avail for religions to have constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and a Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms spelling out the religious rights religions can claim if the religions themselves do nothing to appropriate and apply those rights. If religions do not claim and use the religious space provided for them in the Constitution and the Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms, the consequence will be that any right that they claim will be adjudicated in terms of the laws of the land. A religion, for instance cannot limit the rights of employees in labour relations if its own order gives proof that freedom of religion in labour relations has not been appropriated in its own rules. A religion also cannot claim special rights with regard to disciplinary hearings and, for instance limit the rights of the accused with regard to legal representation if it does not show proof that it has used the right to freedom of religion in making sure its disciplinary hearings are done in accordance with its faith identity. All of this makes it very important for churches and religions to ensure that their church orders or rules of order conform to their faith identities. That is what the Church Order of Dordt intended to do with regard to the life of reformed churches. Unfortunately, the relationship between state and church did not always allow for that. Freedom of religion in a constitutional state creates the opportunity for a church or a religion to create its own order as long as it can be shown that the order is based in the faith identity of the church or religion and that limitations on rights of its members are also in conformity with the church’s faith identity. Also, for the Dutch Reformed Church there is now the guaranteed freedom to lay down its own rules for matters such as church unification, labour relations, disciplinary actions, theological training, et cetera as matters of fact for the whole life of the church.
This article is a revised version of the article ‘Dordt and South Africa. Church and state Relations in the Netherlands and in South Africa’ which was published in Allan J. Janssen and Leo Koffeman (eds.), 2011, ‘Protestant Church Polity in Changing Contexts 1. Ecclesiological and Historical Contributions’, paper presented at the International Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 7–10 November, published in 2014 by Lit Verlag, GmbH & Co. KG Wien Zweignierderlassung, Zürich and by Lit Verlag, Dr. W. Hopf, Berlin. The focus and presentation of the current article is completely different by focusing on freedom of religion and not on church–state relations as the previous article. A lot of updating has also been done.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
Compare Coertzen (
Compare Witte (