Isaac and Ishmael: The Unity of the Body of Christ

The Unity of the Body of Christ - a top Priority?

Contents
Preface
Introduction

Chapter 1 Unity as a Biblical Principle
Chapter 2 Jews First!
Chapter 3 Honour for the Despised
Chapter 4 Obstacles to Unity
Chapter 5 The need for Plurality and Diversity
Chapter 6 The Moravians implementing biblical Principles
Chapter 7 The Word as uniting Dynamite
Chapter 8 Cape Pioneers of Church Unity
Chapter 9 Outreach to Jews as a unifying Factor
Chapter 10 Tragic Results of the Racism Debate
Chapter 11 South Africa as a Case in Point
Chapter 12 Transformation at the Cape in the 21st Century

Appendix 1 Precedents of South African Church Leaders
Appendix 2: (Draft) Declaration on Christian-Muslim Relations 2010
Ashley Cloete's life is the best foreword to this book: he lives the message of servanthood reconciliation. But I am happy to add my commendation as well. What you hold in your hands is the result of thousands of hours of research about the efforts of great men and women who paid a great price to demonstrate the love of God.

One reason I was especially eager to read this book was to understand what saved the nation of South Africa from a horrific civil war. Ashley tells the stories of behind the scenes activities of dedicated men and women who acted courageously to forestall a bloodbath in South Africa. Hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by those who believed and subsequently obeyed Jesus' teachings.

I was also rewarded with a sweeping history of people through the ages who laid down their lives to obey the words of the Lord Jesus to "love your enemy, to bless those who curse you". I was particularly moved to read about the Moravians and how they promoted unity in the body of Christ. They were amazing people.

I found this book fascinating and convicting and inspiring. It fueled my desire to be one of those people I read about, to not just espouse nice words about love, but to live them out in my daily life. I believe you will be as well.

Floyd McClung,
All Nations,
Cape Town, South Africa

Some Autobiographical Background

Ever since my late sister returned excitedly from an ecumenical week-end youth event at Applewaith farm in Elgin – in the apple growing district of Grabouw in the early 1960s - I recognised that the unity of believers across the racial and denominational barriers could be quite important in the spiritual realm. A young White student from Rhodes University had rattled my late sister's inculcated and socially conditioned racial mind-set. (In a country as ours where racial classification has caused such damage, I am aware that the designation Coloured has given offence to the racial group into which I have been classified. For this reason, I put ‘Coloured’ consistently between inverted commas and with a capital C when I refer to this racial group. To the other races I refer as ‘Black’, ‘White’ and 'Indian' respectively, with a capital B, W and I. The former two races, Black and White, are written with capitals to note that they do not refer to normal colours and the latter group refers to persons from Indian descent, but born and bred in this country.)
Even though my conviction was more intuitive because my knowledge of the Bible was still very limited, I thought as a teenager that the most effective opposition to the heretical apartheid ideology would be to assemble Christians from different racial and denominational backgrounds as often as possible, to demonstrate the unity of followers of Jesus in this way.

A turning Point in my Life
A major turning point in my life occurred when two different teenage friends nudged me to attend the evangelistic outreach of the Students’ Christian Association (SCA) at the seaside resort of Harmony Park near Gordon's Bay that was scheduled to start just after Christmas at the end of 1964. There I was not only spiritually revived, but there I also received an urge to network with people from different church backgrounds. Multi-racial work camps at Langgezocht in the mountains of the Moravian Mission station Genadendal from the mid-1960s - to help build a camp site there - gave me the rare opportunity to meet students from other racial groups in a natural setting.
A church-sponsored stint in Germany in 1969 and 1970 included study and practical experience in youth work as well as studies of the biblical languages. Wherever I had the opportunity to address groups there, I highlighted the ecclesiastical disunity, the fragmentation of the Body of Christ in my diagnosis of the einzigartige (unique) problems of South Africa. (The other two problems that I mentioned in these talks were racial discrimination - apartheid was still fairly unknown in Germany - and alcoholism) At this time I would also read everything that I could get hold of what Martin Luther King (jr) had written (This was banned material in South Africa).

Quest for visible expression of the unity in Christ
The importance of the visible expression of the unity of followers of Jesus grew further after my return to my home country in October 1970. However, in a rather overdrawn and misguided anti-apartheid activism, I joined the Christian Institute (CI) soon thereafter, hoping that White members would also be willing to expose themselves with me and Paul Joemat, my old stalwart rebel fighter of the Moravian Sunday School conference days, to the possibility of arrest for breaking petty apartheid laws. (The CI policy at that time was to respect the law, although the laws were so immoral and discriminating.)1
I proceeded to study part-time at the seminary in 1971 linking up with Paul Joemat, who was incarcerated for anti-apartheid activities after I had left for Germany after the completion of my initial theological examinations in November 1973.
I met my future wife Rosemarie in May 1970 in an infatuation-at-first-sight encounter. After my wife-to-be had been refused a work permit and thus entry into South Africa in order to get reclassified as a 'Coloured', the Moravian Church Board assisted me to return to Germany.2 Rosemarie and I married in March 1975.

(In)voluntary Exile

In the first few years of my (in)voluntary exile in Germany there was little opportunity to translate my conviction of a visible expression of the Unity of the Body of Christ into action.
During the final part of my theological studies in Bad Boll (Southern Germany), the legacy of Jan Amos Comenius, the 17th century theologian and last bishop of the old Czech Unitas Fratrum (Unity of the Brethren) and Count Zinzendorf, the leader of the renewed Moravian Church, became very dear to me. I was ordained as a Moravian minister in September 1975. Thereafter Rosemarie and I left for West Berlin where I co-pastored a Moravian congregation. Two years later we moved to the historical town of Zeist in Holland, serving the predominantly Surinamese Moravian congregation of Utrecht.
I discerned ever more clearly with the passing of time that racial and ecclesiastical divisions were hampering a deep work of the Holy Spirit, notably in South Africa. The need for racial reconciliation and the attempt to help close gaps between ‘ecumenicals’ and ‘evangelicals’, as well as between the rich and the poor, became increasingly important to me as I became aware how much of a micro-cosmos my home country was. In November 1978 I needed divine healing from my anger towards the apartheid government and my denomination for their indifference towards the gross injustices of the day during a six week stint in the country with my wife and our first born son. Towards the end I only wanted to leave the country finally and not return again at all. God used the banned Dr Beyers Naudé to make me determined to labour towards reconciliation between the estranged people groups and races instead.
I hereafter delved into intense correspondence with various agencies in what I sensed as a calling to achieve reconciliation in my divided home country. I felt an intense challenge to oppose the demonic tenets of church rivalry and competition, by stressing the unity of the Body of Christ, as well as fighting the diabolical economic disparity and structural injustice in a low-key manner. These were to become facets of our personal ministry. I hoped and prayed that South Africa might give an example to the world at large, not only in respect of racial reconciliation, but also in the voluntary sharing of resources.

Blessing of united Prayer
Linked to this was also the blessing of united prayer, which was repeatedly confirmed - such as in 1981 during a six-month stint in South Africa3 - as we attempted to address the racial barrier in a low-profile way. We were very much encouraged by a multi-racial group of believers from different denominations in Stellenbosch that had been started by Professor Nico Smith and a few pastors. (This was a sequel to the SACLA event in Pretoria in 1979.)
Another networking initiative with local ministers of other churches saw me deeply embroiled in the Crossroads saga with high risks, linking closely with Rev. Douglas Bax, who had been a friend of our theological seminary in District Six. We were very thankful to hear later that two pivotal apartheid laws were removed from the statute books - influx control for Blacks and the prohibition of racially mixed marriages.
In Holland I tried to put the lessons of the unity of the Body of Christ to good effect that I had been learning. A first big nudge came in 1982 from Rens Schalkwijk, a teenager who had returned from Jamaica with his Moravian missionary parents a few years earlier. He suggested that we pray together - in the footsteps of our Moravian ancestors - early in the morning in the nearby forest. I was unemployed at this time, having left the pastorate at the end of 19804 and a rather nerve-wrecking year as teacher of religious instruction in Utrecht. I was now also a member of the Broederraad – a sort of church council - of a non-denominational fellowship that developed out of a weekly Bible Study with Christians from diverse denominational backgrounds. Rosemarie and I were requested to assist leading the youth group of the new fellowship which had been started in Zeist during our absence in South Africa. We joined the group that had no formal membership, although I was not so happy that they celebrated on Sunday mornings. (I had been impressed by the idea of the base communities of South America which gathered on Saturday evenings.)
One of the teenage members of our youth group pointed out to me that the Kinderkaravaan, a local evangelistic agency, was looking for a leader. Soon Rosemarie and I were leading the Goed Nieuws Karavaan (GNK) initiative of Zeist and surrounds. This we did from 1982 until the end of 1991. Our vision to give visibility to the Body of Christ locally was partially realized during this ministry. We were blessed with holistic practical fellowship, in which believers from different denominational backgrounds participated.

Concerts of Prayer
Rens Schalkwijk gave us another nudge in early 1988, this time to start a small prayer group, along with two students of the local Pentecostal Bible School. The American prayer leader Dave Bryant visited Holland to promote Concerts of Prayer. A Dutch YWAM leader initiated regional prayer groups as a sequel to Dave Bryant's visit. In no time our geographic area became the first Regiogebed of the country, attended by Christians from quite diverse denominational backgrounds. The monthly events included prayer for local evangelistic work, praying for missionaries that left our area and for individual countries.

Back in Cape Town
I was back in Cape Town in January 1992 – this time with my own family including our five children, where I endeavoured to stimulate non-denominational targeted prayer almost from the outset. Initially we targeted the residential area Bo-Kaap that had become an Islamic stronghold because of apartheid. With a few other believers we prayed for Bo-Kaap, Sea Point and the Middle East, for Jews and Muslims. (After substantial research into missionary work to these groups, I deemed it appropriate to dub outreach to Jews and Muslims neglected 'Cinderella's' of evangelism and missionary work.) At venues near to Bo-Kaap, the Shepherd's Watch and later at the Koffiekamer underneath the St Stephen's Dutch Reformed Church building, we prayed during the lunch hour on Fridays with individual believers for many years. From this prayer initiative many a blessed ministry developed. From January 1992 until July 2007, Rosemarie and I served as missionaries of Worldwide Evangelization for Christ (WEC) International.

Fighting PAGAD
My participation in the Western Cape Missions Commission became the backdrop of my organizing Jesus Marches in the Western Cape in 1994. This coincided with an attempt to start a regional prayer network. The most visible result in this period was when I worked alongside various local pastors in the Cape Peace Initiative (CPI). An important new acquaintance was Pastor Errol Naidoo, who was linked to His People Ministries. We succeeded with God's help to nullify the PAGAD (People against Gangsterism and Drugs) attempt from 1996 to islamize the Western Cape. A big factor in this regard was the networking with the local Christian radio station Cape Community FM (CCFM). Pivotal in this effort was a testimony programme on Friday evenings called God Changes Lives that I produced, with Pastor Richard Mitchell as my presenter. At this time I was also very much involved with city-wide prayer events, led by Pastor Eddie Edson of Mitchell's Plain. Those city-wide prayer events ultimately became the forerunner of the big Newland Rugby Stadiium meeting on 21 March 2001 and the annual Global Day of Prayer that started in 2005.5

Praying at different Venues
With Louis Pasques and the late Pastor Edgar Davids, the pastors at the local Baptist Church and the one in nearby Woodstock, I came together for prayer on a weekly basis. From this base we attempted to get pastors and local believers of the Cape Town City Bowl to operate in unity, but we harvested only limited success. Pastor Richard Mitchell had been praying over the city with Christians from the heights at Rhodes Memorial. We took this cue to start monthly early morning prayer from Signal Hill in 1998, praying for Bo-Kaap, Sea Point and often also for a greater expression of the unity of the body of Christ in the CBD.

Unity appears on the Horizon
The implementation of real unity on biblical grounds in the spirit of the person and example of Jesus - without semantics and doctrinal bickering around issues like baptism and women in the pulpit – only appeared on the horizon at the beginning of 2012. The Church universal still has to acknowledge collective guilt for the doctrinal squabbling that led to the establishment and rise of Islam. The maltreatment of Jews by Christians falls in the same category. If they are not repented of and confessed, these issues will remain hurdles in the way of a collective turn around by Islam or Judaism in my view. (In the case of Islam, some bewilderment set in because of the radical Islamism propagated by Ayatollah Khomeini after 1989, and twelve years later after the September 11 Twin Towers event of 2001.

After the failure of the Church in our country to hone in on an opportunity towards an effective networking during the xenophobia mob attacks of May and June 2008, I latched on to the national outreach effort that was launched in the country with the 2010 Soccer World Cup called The Ultimate Goal (TUG), a very positive experience but it still resulted in limited networking. Both the Global Day of Prayer and Lausanne III events of 2010 did not live up to our high expectations to foster unity among the Bride of Christ in the city. The 2011 initiatives of 'Strengthening the Ties' of followers of Jesus and 'Fire Trails' straddled man-made boundaries and barriers, but these events had no significant noticeable impact.

Research of Revivals
In the course of my hobby – historical research – I furthermore discerned how revivals followed as a rule after there has been the unity of praying believers. Alternately, disunity – accompanied at the Cape by denominational rivalry, personal ambition, envy and racial prejudice - seems to have been stifling a major move of the Holy Spirit often enough. I thought to have discerned another 'missing link' in October 2010, viz. that revivals were as a rule to be accompanied by deep remorse over personal and national sins. This would then result as a rule in the shedding of 'rivers of tears'. I shared this insight on Signal Hill and at a few other occasions. In the run-up to Lausanne III in October 2010 in our city, I was deeply moved to 'discover' not only the disobedience and neglect of the Church at large in reaching out 'to the Jews first' (Romans 1:16f), but I was especially moved again how the Jews were side-lined by our Christian ancestors. (In my research I had been discerning anew how our Christian forbears have haughtily thought that the Church replaced the nation of Israel and the Jews.)
Soon thereafter I was thoroughly humbled and embarrassed when I cried publicly and uncontrollably. I was completely overwhelmed by a sense of guilt towards Jews while I felt an urge to apologise on behalf of Christians for our disobedience and for the fact that we have been side-lining the Jews. The trigger at that occasion was the return of Pastor Baruch Maayan and his family from Israel, in obedience to a call by the Holy Spirit.
I am convinced that God himself will ultimately remove the veil from the eyes of Jews (and Muslims) in a clear supernatural way. I do believe however, that we can erect signposts, to be instrumental in ushering in the final global reign of the Messiah.

Renaming of 'Devil's Peak'
At the beginning of 2011 the Lord put the public demonstration of the unity of the Body of Christ on my heart once again. This time I saw it in connection with the possible renaming of 'Devil's Peak'. I linked up with Pastor Barry Isaacs and Murray Bridgman, a local advocate, who had been praying with us at different venues over a number of years.

Some features of the Book
In Chapter 1 of this book I attempt to expound why diversified unity has to be regarded as a biblical priority. In this section I endeavour to highlight Jesus' yearning for the complete unity of his followers. I also attempt to show how fruitless discussion and bickering over trivial matters can be. How Zinzendorf and his contemporary Moravians in East Germany's Herrnhut implemented biblical principles to great effect is depicted in Chapter 6. How the Word is like dynamite to unite followers of Jesus is examined, but also how the arch enemy attempts again and again to abuse issues around the holy Scriptures to divide and rule. We also look at the outreach to Jews as a possible unifying factor as well as at the negative results of the racism debate of the 1970s. We highlight cases where the unity of the Body of Christ operated well at the Cape, but we will also note a few instances where blessing stopped because rivalry and competition had reared their head. Chapter 11 shows how Transformation at the Cape started at the beginning of the 21st Century, ushered in by the Global Day of Prayer on 21 March 2001. We finally touch on recent and present moves to facilitate unity of the body of Christ at the Cape.
This publication has been partly inspired by my admiration for Bishop Jan Amos Comenius, Count Zinzendorf and Dr Andrew Murray. For all three great men of God the functioning of the unity of the Body of Christ was quite important. Seventeenth century Comenius proposed that we should erect signposts which would point to the millenial reign of the coming King. This was very inspiring to me. Thus it became not so important any more to me to see any immediate fruit or result.6 Similarly, the example of Count Zinzendorf through his day-to-day Umgang mit dem Heiland (conversing with the Lord) - along with his high view of the Jews - really challenged me in a significant way. I have been intensely blessed by the heritage and commitment of Dr Andrew Murray at the Cape when I engaged in intensive research and studies of the run-up and aftermath of the 1860 revival of Worcester and surrounds.
The mistakes of the arch enemy tend to be among the best weapons in the arsenal of the Holy Spirit to unify the body of Christ at the Cape. The brutality of the SA police in the mid-1980s, fueled by a callous government when many innocent children were killed, was the run-up to country-wide prayer and ultimately to an end of apartheid. The St James Church (Kenilworth) massacre of July 1993 and the PAGAD threat of 1996-99 to islamise the Western Cape, as the start of a process to capture the continent by the turn of the century, were the most significant catalysts the last few decades to get Christians praying across denominational boundaries in my opinion.
The threat of our country to be put under the rule of ancestors at the centenary celebrations in Bloemfontein in January 2012 seems to have caught the imagination of intercessors in a big way. Here at the Cape the Lord used Pastor Light Eze, a Nigerian pastor, to bring believers together unprecedentedly. We linked the ogre of demonic ancestor spirit rule to the effort to change the name of a well known mountain summit to Doves' Peak. The result was a new season of spiritual warfare including '8 Days of prevailing prophetic prayers...' during which we sang every evening Jesus, we enthrone you! Fairly spectacular answers to prayer followed and there were also supernatural phenomena which set us up with great expectation for the fervently yearned after revival.
We continue to hope and pray that the Church at the Cape might grasp new chances to get out of its complacency, indifference and lethargy to reach out lovingly to Muslims, Jews and those foreigners from the nations that are already in our midst.

Cape Town, March 2012

Main Abbreviations used in this Book

ANC - African National Congress
CCM - Christian Concern for Muslims
CCFM - Cape Community FM (radio)
CSV - Christelike Studentevereniging
DRC - Dutch Reformed Church (NG Kerk)
Ds – Dominee (equivalent of Reverend)
DTS - Disciple Training School
FFA – Friends from Abroad
GCOWE - Global Consultation for World Evangelisation
OM - Operation Mobilization
PAGAD - People against Gangsterism and Drugs
SIM - Society of International Ministries/Serving in Missions
TEASA - The Evangelical Alliance of South Africa
UCT - University of Cape Town
UDF - United Democratic Front
UNISA - University of South Africa
UWC - University of the Western Cape
WCC - World Council of Churches
WEC -Worldwide Evangelization for Christ
YWAM - Youth with a Mission

Introduction
The title of this book might sound somewhat presumptuous - a top priority in activities for all followers of Jesus? I attempt to show from Scripture why this should definitely be the case.
To unite people in any situation is as much part of the nature of God as is the converse, namely that satan wants to divide and destroy. A golden thread going through the Bible is that God loves the world and that he chose the tiny nation of Israel, to bring salvation to the whole world. From this nation, one person - the Messiah – has been chosen to bring millions from all tribes, peoples and nations in voluntary faith back to the Creator, the Father and supreme ruler of the universe. God was active all the time in revealing Himself, working through prophets and kings. Other ancient non-Jews, such as Jethro and Job, are held in high regard in the Hebrew tradition. In the 'New Testament'7 oriental 'Wise men' came to worship King Jesus when he was still a newly born infant. That was in line with the Messianic prophetic Isaiah 60 where we read 'All those from Sheba will come; they will bring gold and frankincense, and will bear good news of the praises of the Lord'. The same context mentions also Nebaioth, Kedar (the two eldest sons of Ishmael) and the 'camels of Midian'. Nebaioth, Kedar and Midian give an indication of the harvest to come from the descendants from those wives of Abraham's other than Sarah. In our day and age we can read Arab Muslims from the Orient are coming to the Lord as never before. Isaiah 60 is being fulfilled.
The unity of the body of true believers has been attacked already from Creation. The arch enemy - called in Scripture a murderer from the beginning, a father of lies and one whose native language is lying (John 8:44) - caused estrangement all around. He brought a rupture in the relationship between man and his Maker, between the first human beings, between male and female. Friction between man and nature was caused simultaneously. God's original plan for the creation of man was intimate relationship - communion with us! Satan, the deceiver, liar and diabolos (separator), robbed humanity in this way.
God's reply to this onslaught was what was called redemption. The Bible explains redemption by using pictures or models such as how God freed the Israelites from their slavery in Egypt. The Almighty thus became their redeemer. This exodus event was however only a fore-runner of the great redemption still to come. Universally mankind needs redemption. The 'salvation' of the small nation of Israel was like a demonstration of God's loving nature and care for man. What the arch enemy has stolen – sweet intimate communion with the Almighty - had to be redeemed. Redemption has been defined as 'to recover possession or ownership'. To do this, God became flesh, coming to the earth in the form of His Son, Jesus Christ, who reconciled the World with himself (2 Corinthians 5:20). Jesus shed His precious blood to deliver mankind from the bondage of sin.
Pleading with Corinthian believers to be reconciled to God themselves, Paul, the missionary apostle, communicated that followers of Jesus should consciously step into this tradition to get men and women reconciled to God. In the extension of this, every believer in Jesus Christ is challenged to be and to become an agent of reconciliation, consciously also addressing all visible and perceived rifts. On the basis of the foundation that in Christ the 'dividing wall of hostility' between Jew and Gentile has been broken down (Ephesians 2:14), the Church should be a conduit for the breaking down of all man-made and demonically inspired barriers.
The Church has unhappily not fulfilled its biblical role in this regard. All too often people from the ranks of churches have caused rifts, separating themselves. Some Christians have consciously chosen to be partisan or biased, even in cases where the biblical message is clear enough. One of the most striking but tragic examples in this regard, is the situation in the Middle East. The Bible teaches that a special blessing was given to both Isaac and Ishmael. If there had been some rift between Abraham's two sons – which would have been natural after all that had transpired with Hagar and her son, this was probably amicably resolved in their life-time. At the funeral of Abraham both sons buried their father together (Genesis 25:9) - reconciled to all intents and purposes. The notion that the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael have been eternal enemies (and should remain that way?) has only a very limited biblical basis.8 In stead of being an agent of reconciliation, e.g. by bringing together Jews and Muslims who got reconciled through common faith in Jesus and working with followers of Jesus Christ from those backgrounds, Church leaders have all too often jumped on the bandwagon of taking sides in the age old tussle of Israel and Palestine.
However, unity does not imply uniformity. Unity in diversity should demonstrate to the spiritual powers in the heavenlies ‘the manifold wisdom of God’ (Ephesians 3:10). William Barclay (New Testament Words, 1973:234) noted that the original Greek word for the adjective describing the divine wisdom, poikilos (meaning literally multi-coloured) 'describes anything which is intricate or complex.' The Church world-wide will possibly only really come into its own if the unity of the Body of Christ in all its diversity is restored across all man-made barriers, thus displaying the manifold wisdom of God. The next verses and the following chapters of Ephesians give us an extraordinary glimpse of the universal Body of Christ, the whole family in heaven and earth (3:14) as Paul prayed for the believers – together with all the saints - to be empowered by the four-dimensional love of Christ (3:14-19). In Ephesians Paul gives us powerful practical tips to implement unity in our walk with the Lord and in general interaction with other believers.

Biographical details of books mentioned in the course of this work which are not listed in the selected biography can as a rule be found in the unpublished manuscript spiritual and ideological dynamics at the cape, accessible at www. isaacandishmael.blogspot.com.
The Unity of the Body of Christ - a top Priority?

Chapter 1 Unity as a Divine Biblical Principle

The very nature of God is that he (she and it!) is a multi-dimensional indescribable unfathomable complex unity. Attempts to define His nature doctrinally gave more problems than any other single doctrine. As an example we will show how the attempt of the revered North African Church Father Tertullian to get a grip on God's nature philosophically, caused immense problems in subsequent centuries.
Too Simplistic Traditional Apologetics
On the other hand, some traditional apologetic efforts to explain the Trinity are much too simplistic. To note that water can have three forms - as a gas (vapour), as a solid entity (ice) and as a fluid – surely is helpful, but when other tools are used like to say that a tree consists of roots, a trunk and branches, one notices already the limitations. A male can have more than three different functions than son, father and brother. If we refer to the three dimensions of space – length, breadth and height – we limit the Almighty. What about the dimension of time? We use the unit light years to approximate the distance to stars! To counter the argument of Unitarians and Muslims that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 with a multiplication equation - that God is rather like 1 X 1 X 1 = 1, is still limiting God. If we want to use Mathematics, we should rather go for an exponential equation.9 This would however possibly still not capture the true character of God. The three notes of the perfect musical chord that produces harmony - like C, E and G - is a helpful tool because any other note added brings about discord.
Better Models of the Trinity in Nature
There are of course other models which approach the complex inexplicable nature of God better. I want to mention only two of them which have a clear biblical tangent. One of the attributes of the Almighty in the Bible says God is Light.10 Apart from the fact that all natural colours can be derived by mixing the three base colours red, yellow and blue, Thomas Edison discovered that white light sent through a small hole can be broken by a glass prism into the whole spectrum of the rainbow. A second prism on the other side of the prism can unite those rays again into white light. This sounds to me very much like unity in diversity and diversity in unity, which is in line with Ephesians 3:10 where Paul teaches that the Church radiates the multi-coloured, complex nature of God.
Another model of the Trinity in nature can be found in the mysterious event or phenomenon we call fire. Fire needs three things in order to survive or exist! It needs heat, fuel and oxygen. God appeared in the form of fire many times in the Bible, to Moses He appeared as the fire in the Burning Bush without actually burning the Bush. Again with Moses He appeared as the pillar of fire (Exodus 13: 21–22) guarding the People of Israel. In Exodus (19:18) Mount Sinai was entirely wrapped in smoke because Yahweh had descended on it in the form of fire and later when God appeared again to Moses on Mount Sinai. To the watching Israelites the Glory of Yahweh looked like a devouring fire on the Mountain top (Exodus 24:18). In the 'New Testament' we see that God the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles on Pentecost Sunday in the form of "Tongues of Fire" (Acts 2:3–4).
Restoration of the Harmony of the human Race
Restoration of the harmony and unity of the human race seems to be part of the Messianic vision that the prophet Isaiah passed on (chapter 2). But also in the here and now God commands his blessing where we live and operate in love and harmony (Psalm 133). The 'New Testament' offers a powerful potential equivalent through the unity of believers in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Jesus regarded the unity of His followers as something of great importance. In the Gospel of John it is recorded that our Lord prayed for all those who would follow Him, to be one (John 17:21). He proceeded to intercede fervently that his followers 'may be brought to complete unity’ (John 17:23).

Networking as the biblical Counterpart of Division
According to the Hebrew Scripture, the temple was constructed under King Solomon in an interesting model of networking. When Solomon became king, he enlisted the aid of his ally Hiram, the king of Tyre (980-946 BCE), in the construction of the Temple. In return for wheat, oil, and wine, Hiram supplied Solomon with cedar and cypress wood, as well as gold. Hiram also sent Solomon artisans and craftsmen to aid him. During Solomon's reign, the Temple was the focal point of all Jewish ritual and pilgrims came to it from all the tribes of Israel. The worship of Yahweh was thus an important element of unity. It became problematic though when pride got in the mix and the Jews started to despise other nations who worshipped in different ways.
The biblical modus operandi of Church Unity is networking, operating together towards a common goal. One of the best biblical examples of the principle is the building of the Jerusalem wall under the leadership of Nehemiah. Two parallel 'NT' references are the 'networking' of the disciples of Jesus as recorded in Luke 5 and Paul's teaching on unity in Ephesians 3 and 4.
In Luke 5:6ff, Peter and the fishermen colleagues in his boat hauled in a great multitude of fish on the rhema, the word of the Lord. Their net threatened to break when they had the presence of mind to call their colleagues in the other boat to come and assist them. Had they carried on independently, they probably would have lost the catch. When they were ready to drop their independence, the big catch could be brought to the shore. In spite of this obvious lesson in 'networking', the bulk of pastors and churches still carry on building their own little kingdom, prodding on independently!
In 1 Corinthians 3 Paul also referred to different non-competitive functions of leaders and believers, the one plants and another waters but God gives the growth. Mutual love and respect, along with the acceptance of any differences in gifting and character, should be the bottom line. Thus Paul could proclaim that the Church radiates the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10).

Jesus reconciled opposing Factions
Even within the close circle of the disciples Jesus had to reconcile opposing factions. We do not understand fully why John always referred to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. Or was John pushing himself to the front, like at the last supper? Even after the Lord’s resurrection, the rivalry between him and Peter continued. The few verses which are recorded about the meeting of Jesus with the eleven at Lake Tiberias indicate enough of the mutual dislike of Peter and John (Acts 21:20-22). The two could have become bitter rivals for the leadership after the Lord’s ascension.
The Holy Spirit is powerful to reconcile people who would normally be at loggerheads constantly. This is evident in the case of the vastly different disciples. In Acts 3:1ff it is reported how the two, John and Peter, operated as a team. This exposes the lie of using incompatibility as an excuse for separation - to suggest that it is utterly impossible to work together with a certain Christian because of this. If both parties are open to the work of the Holy Spirit, reconciliation would be the eventual result and even teamwork is possible thereafter. Of course, God can also use an amicable parting of ways - albeit that it is almost always painful - to multiply the evangelistic effort. That Paul and Barnabas parted ways because of the inclusion of John Mark is fairly well known, sometimes used as an example for amicable parting. I suggest that here was some carnality involved – in this case Paul's unforgiving attitude. (One of the very special examples of modern times along these lines was when Brother Andrew had to leave WEC International for health reasons, but pioneering Open Doors later. All this is part and parcel of God's mysterious ways, His wonders to perform.

Attempts to Disrupt the Unity of the Circle around Jesus
Attacks on the Unity of followers of Jesus by the arch enemy should be no surprise to us. We read in John 3 about a quarrel around ceremonial washing. The disciples of John the Baptist were evidently upset, complaining as they used a half truth: ‘Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan - the one you testified about - look, he is baptising, and everyone is going to him’ (John 3:26). How easy it would have been for John to get upset. But none of it! The baptiser would not give the enemy of souls an opportunity to create a rift between him and the Lord, his cousin. John the Baptist’s greatness came through when he answered coolly: ‘You yourselves can testify that I said, `I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.’ He even surpassed this when he added: 'He must become greater; I must become less' (John 3:30). We find these words in the run-up to the narrative of the Samaritan woman where John 4 starts with a rumour that was possibly spread by Pharisees, also about (the number of) people baptised. The enemy of souls seems to have displayed a predilection for using water baptism as an issue to split followers of Christ. Jesus appears to have just ignored the issue initially. There were more important issues to see to – a harvest among the Samaritans was awaiting them. He was not going to be bogged down in a debate or side-tracked by minor issues! Jesus opposed the prejudice towards Samaritans in various ways, notably in the Gospels of Luke and John.

Diversity in Unity
Recognising diversity, the Bible does not teach uniformity. Count N. L. Zinzendorf, the founder of the renewed Moravian Church, saw in the various denominations as evidence of God’s providential care for the different temperaments and needs of His children. He thus clearly saw the phenomenon of diversity as an expression of the Church radiating the multi-coloured11 wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10). The proviso in this scenario is however the absence of rivalry and a competitive spirit. These tenets must be fiercely opposed. Let us recognise and applaud the rich variety of believers and the varying approaches to spread the Good News in stead of judging others. Let us embrace and cherish diversity.
Having said that, it does not mean that any group has a right to elevate themselves in any way. Paul opposed the formation of factions (1 Corinthians 1:10-11): 'And so, in effect, you have broken Christ into many pieces' (1 Corinthians 1:10-11, Living Bible). At best, the phenomenon of factionalism can be regarded as a concession to the flesh, a compromise for different tastes. But it is nevertheless therefore diabolic; the Spirit of God unites whereas the arch enemy rips asunder. His prime tactic is divide and rule. Almost all denominations started with a negative split of some sort, all too often with dire consequences. It often brought in its train an arrogant 'better-than-thou' or judgemental attitude. A variation of the theme is a kind of indifference, allowing for 'the weakness of some'. Here at the Cape satan12 abused this compromise at a Dutch Reformed Church Synod in 1857 to set the precedent of a separate racially defined ('Coloured') sector of the denomination. That can be regarded as the formal start of Church apartheid.

Evangelisation and Social Involvement belong together
Jesus had no scruples to socialize with rich people. He entered the house of the wealthy Zacchaeus, dined with the Pharisee Simon (Luke 7), who probably was not a pauper either. The affluent Joseph of Arimathea regarded him as one of His friends, so much so that he offered His tomb after the crucifixion of Jesus. Likewise Peter visited the influential Cornelius and Paul never made a secret of the fact that he hailed from the upper class Pharisee establishment. This group was not regarded as belonging to the poor of their society. The message is clear: rich people should be challenged to share their wealth in a dignified way. This indicates a ‘red card’ to a paternalistic ‘Father Christmas’ attitude of giving or - even worse - to donate conditionally, with strings attached.
At the same time the dual content of mission work, spiritual and social, is evident. Missionary endeavour can never be limited to mere economic or social upliftment. By His life-style Jesus demonstrated that evangelisation and social involvement belong together. He taught and preached the Gospel of the Kingdom and healed all illnesses (Matthew 9:35). His disciples were expected to do likewise: According to this report of His public ministry, Jesus asked them to pray for more workers for the white harvest. This happened just after He had been demonstrating sensitivity to the general depravity of the shepherdless masses. His practical compassion for the despised immoral woman that came at midday to Jacob’s well, ushered in the harvest of Samaritans. After Jesus and His disciples lived among the Samaritans for two days, they discerned that he was the Saviour of the World (John 4:42). Concern for the practical needs is more than merely a valid reason for evangelization. Jesus looked at the whole person: we should do likewise.

Unprofitable Bickering
Jesus did not allow himself to be trapped in fruitless discussion around trivial matters, like to whom tax should be paid (Matthew 22:17f). Sometimes we use religious arguments in defence, just like the Samaritan woman, when she referred to where one should worship (John 4:20). Jesus encouraged the disciples to get rid of the dust on their feet if the message of the Kingdom was rejected (Matthew 10:14). The reason why a Samaritan village refused the disciples accommodation and fellowship – because they were heading for Jerusalem - (Luke 9: 51-4ff) should not be dumped or discarded as petty. On the contrary, we should learn from it to be culturally sensitive in all outreach. At another occasion, Jesus passed through Sychar (John 4:4) in the northerly direction, coming from Jerusalem. I surmise that this advice was given as a safeguard, in lieu of debating the merits of their mission or trying to convince people through intellectual efforts. When a rumour about the number of people He had baptised came to Him, Jesus appears to have preferred to walk away, in stead of engaging in debate around a petty issue (John 4:1).
Intellectualism not only often leads to unprofitable bickering (2 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 6:3,4), but it also supplies an opening for the demonic, just like the arts and the sensual (see Genesis 3:6: The fruit of the forbidden tree were luscious, they were a feast for the eyes and able to impart wisdom). Many a theological student lost biblical truth when the quest after worldly academic learning got a grip on his mind. Paul echoed this wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1: 27-29: ‘God has deliberately chosen to use ideas the world considers foolish and of little worth in order to shame those people considered by the world as wise and great...' In fact, Paul suggests that we should be content with limited debating skills from a spiritual point of view: ‘We are glad that...in all our dealings we have (depended) ...not on our own skills' (2 Corinthians 1:12).

Jesus practised Flexibility
In His personal example and teaching to the disciples, our Lord focussed on Jews (e.g. Matthew 10:5). Yet,
Jesus was so open and accessible that even strangers had no qualms to come to Him for help. Thus the Roman military chief from Capernaum had the liberty to approach Him (Matthew 8:5). Jesus was immediately prepared to go to his house. The apostles took the cue from their Master.
We note how different our Lord’s approach was to the many people He met. There is no fixed scheme. He treated every person individually, concentrating on their needs.
However, Jesus spent much time with His disciples. Fellowship was evidently very important to Him, not only as a strategic tactic in His ministry. His teaching was practical, using mundane examples for His parables. (The West is catching up with the rest of the world in discovering that story telling is a much more effective tool in preaching than the traditional three-point sermon.)
In obedience to the nudging of the Holy Spirit, Philip had no qualms to speak to a seeking foreigner, an Ethiopian official, about his soul (Acts 8:26ff). But Peter had some difficulties to step down from his pedestal of pride and condescension towards Gentiles. Paul kept in touch with the churches he had planted with letters of encouragement. But he also had the courage to rebuke them when necessary.

Primacy of Obedience
Obedience to God’s Word became the golden thread running through the Bible. The Almighty thrives on having a living relationship with his creation, especially with human beings, seen in the Scriptures as the pinnacle of His creation. They have been crowned with glory and majesty, to rule over the works of the divine hands (Psalm 8:5, 6).
Ever since, man had difficulty to discern between His Word and that of the arch-enemy. Obedience would be the hall-mark of the true believer, the vehicle towards a close relationship.
The issue of obedience is especially highlighted in the Book of Deuteronomy. Repeatedly the Israelites were told that the demand of obedience to the Law is for their good (e.g. Deuteronomy 6:24). Moreover, it is clear that their obedience can never be an effort to buy God’s favour, but rather it is required so that believers can enjoy His favour. The Israelites were not called to purchase their redemption by obedience, but expected to obey because they are a redeemed people. The enemy of souls is a specialist in confusing matters. It is sad that Moses' heritage, the gift of the Torah, in due course lost its original purpose, namely instruction and a guideline for living under the Almighty’s sovereign rule. Legalism and a petty playing with words came in its place. A whole range of legalist interpretations and traditions in Judaism reaped the combined effect of nullifying God’s laws. Samuel summarised beautifully what was at stake: To obey is better than sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22).

Our Lord learned Obedience
When Peter merely faintly suggested that Jesus should escape his innocent death, the Master had to rebuke him strongly, seeing no less than satan behind this idea (Mark 8:33; Matthew 16:23). By the time of the Gethsemane struggle, our Lord had obviously learned the lesson of obedience very well. This is not to say though that this had not been the case throughout his life and ministry as well. Significantly, this happened at the temptations by the devil, when satan retreated to tempt him 'until an opportune time' (Luke 4:11). The Gethsemane event was however very special. Though Jesus was the Son, he was required to empty the cup in obedience (Hebrews 5:8), the content of which ultimately took him from the presence of His Father, so much so that he ultimately used the word forsaken. In the agonizing prayer of the Garden of Gethsemane, our Lord responded thrice with ‘not my will but your will be done…’ (Mark 14:36). Jesus chose the road of suffering, to be ultimately crowned with thorns. His Kingdom is not of this world.
The line between acclamation and rejection can be very fine at times. Choosing for absolute truth often makes the difference. Compromise could sometimes already lead to us wanting to avoid persecution or rejection.

No slavish Obedience
While the positive notion of obedience to God runs like a golden thread through the Bible, the converse is also true. Disobedience wrecks not only the relationship between man and God but also that between human beings and even between man and nature.
Yet, it needs to be emphasized that the Bible definitely does not teach slavish obedience. It would be more correct to see critical obedience as the biblical norm. When Gideon could not see his way clear to obey straight away, God nevertheless took him seriously. His reticent obedience, initially expecting a proof of the presence of God (Judges 6:17), his need of absolute certainty that God wanted to use him (Judges 6:37ff), can be seen as an example for checking God’s will. The enemy does have ways of emulating God. In our day and age some people speak too glibly about what God is supposed to have said to them. It should become a custom and habit to use biblical checks and balances to discern God’s will, otherwise we can be deceived so easily. His written and preached Word, peace at heart and the advice of mature believers, often assist to this end.
The inferior family background can also haunt the gifted. The tall Saul was impressive by all standards. But he had an inferiority complex. The first time we read about Saul, one senses: here is a man with a destiny. He was ‘an impressive young man without equal among the Israelites - a head taller than any of the others’ (1 Samuel 9:2). But like Gideon, he was shying away from the awful task of leading his people because of his family background. Tragically, he was more bent on currying favour with men, than to be obedient to God. Samuel had to reprimand him strongly, highlighting that obedience is better than ritual sacrifice of animals (1 Samuel 15:22).

‘OT’ Examples of Disobedience
In the creation story the disobedience to the divine instruction was the cause of the havoc. God granted authority and dominion to man over the earth, linked to obedience to the divine command. His free will permitted Adam and Eve to obey or not. Disobedience would lead to slavery - to become slaves of satan. Genesis 3:1 tells us that 'the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field,' while Gen.3:12 records Adam’s words to God, 'I heard your voice in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked and I hid myself.' There is an interesting play on words in the Hebrew text. In verse 1 the word translated “cunning” is the Hebrew word arum while in verse 12 the word translated with “naked” is the Hebrew word erom. Both are from the identical root (the letters ayin, resh, mem). The devil was arum, Adam was erom. Our arch ancestors sought to become like God, but their disobedience caused them to become like the devil!
Disruption of the unity between man and God, discord between Adam and Eve and strife between man and nature (Genesis 3:15) were the bad fruit of man’s first act of disobedience. The basic enmity though is between the seed of the snake and the seed of man. Interesting is the divine intervention, the provision of skins, which was of course preceded by the slaughtering of an animal and the shedding of blood. This pattern can be found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. This is how the Almighty over-ruled the disobedience and wrong compromises of sinful human beings. The ultimate sacrifice was the one of his Son, the Lamb of God, which made all other sacrifices redundant.
Various biblical examples demonstrate how disobedience to divine instructions caused men of God to fall. Those persons who toyed with sin were unrepentant or not submissive - to their own peril! The tragic case of Saul comes to mind. He tried to camouflage his disobedience and impatience with an offering, without however displaying remorse. He still offered excuses why he violated the Lord’s instructions after he had basically only been interested in setting up a monument in his own honour (1 Samuel 15:12, 24). That presumption and arrogance can be the cause for God not listening to our prayers, is illustrated in Deuteronomy 1:41-45 ‘...the Lord...paid no attention to your weeping and turned a deaf ear to you.’

Costly Examples of Compromise
Obedience is honoured by God, but compromise is seen as disobedience, as sin which incurs the wrath and punishment of the Almighty. The Hebrew Scriptures contain examples of personalities who incurred problems for themselves, only because they could not wait. The most classic one is probably Abraham and Sarah who settled for a compromise that resulted in the birth of Ishmael. This spawned the age-old rivalry between the off-spring of Isaac and Ishmael. In the case of King Saul, his impatient disobedience even cost him the loss of his kingship (1 Samuel 13:13). Jonah received another chance after his initial disobedience.
Even sacrifice is rejected by God if it is mixed with sinful behaviour, if it is not accompanied by remorse and repentance. Animal sacrifice and all ancestry worship are regarded as watering down the Word of God, whereas the appropriate reaction should be respect for God’s Word (Isaiah 66:2,3).
Jesus actually told the Pharisees to their face that they nullify the power of the Word through their traditions (Mark 7:13). They get people to obey them in the overdrawn and meticulous observance of rules and regulations like the ritual washing of hands, but then make these disciples worse than themselves.
A similar trend can be discerned in Catholicism and Islam. Later generations came up with ridiculous requirements and interpretations. Thus it is almost impossible for a devout Muslim to enter paradise (apart from the jihad guarantee), even if he or she wanted to 'earn' it in this way. Thus not only is any Islamic prayer null and void if it is not preceded by abdas - by ritual ablution - but it has also been decreed later to be a worthless exercise if the prayer direction deviates only one degree from the proper qiblah towards Mecca.

Abraham's pervasive Habit of Lies
It has been suggested that Abraham delayed God’s dealings with him when he took his father Terah with him from Ur. For as many as fifteen years there were no further commands, no additional promises and no communication between Abraham and God. There is every indication that the worldly Lot could have been a drag on Abraham’s spiritual pilgrimage. He definitely still had to learn to wait on the Lord before acting in panic, like going to Egypt when famine broke out. God deemed it necessary to intervene after Abraham’s ‘white lie’ that Sarai was his sister. This had brought Abraham out of God’s will.
The habit of lies proved very pervasive. When Abraham perceived a threat from King Abimelech, he resorted to the lie again, that Sarah was his sister. By this time he had received the divine promise of off-spring more than once. God’s mercy and grace came through. In this regard a tenet of the character of Yahweh of the Tenach13 and Allâh of Islam is well-nigh identical - Allâh is also forgiving and merciful in the extreme, albeit that the punishing Allâh remained a predominant feature in Islam. The Qur'an furthermore stresses that Allâh does not have a son nor does he beget. (Both in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the 'NT' the Almighty is a Father figure with a son, but also one who displays maternal qualities.)
Abraham compromised by listening more to his wife than to God to have a child with his slave Hagar. This compromise was the cause of division between the off-spring of Isaac and Ishmael. The strife between his descendants via Isaac and Ishmael had repercussions that still keep the Middle East in suspense. Sadly, the evident reconciliation which must have preceded the burial of Abraham when his two sons buried him (Genesis 26:9), hardly seems to have penetrated to the Jewish and Muslim communities.

Moses’ Fall and Restoration
Moses actually overstepped in his disobedience and reluctance to carry out the appointed task, so much so that God became angry with him. That he apparently was also (repeatedly?) disobedient, by not circumcising his son, appears to have been the last straw. Shedded blood was necessary to save him from God’s wrath. In Exodus 4:24f we read how his wife Zipporah was divinely used, when she touched his feet with a flint knife that had been used for circumcision. She called him a 'bridegroom of blood'. This evidently appeased the divine anger as Moses was humbled. By now he had apparently become humble enough! Moses had thus been moulded to become God’s chosen instrument.
In this moment of truth, Moses was clearly once more a proto-type of Jesus. In contrast to the rebellious Moses however, the Master added the significant words: ‘Yet not as I will, but as you will’ (Matthew 26:39ff). Jesus became the real ‘bridegroom of blood’, appeasing the wrath of God. John summarised it so succinctly: ‘...and the blood of Jesus, God’s Son, cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7).
Aaron and Moses were nevertheless disqualified to enter the Promised Land because of their disobedience. Moses smote the rock after God had ordered him to speak to it at Meribah. Irreverence and disobedience thus almost led to Moses’ complete downfall. In the ‘Word of Faith’ movement one sometimes gets the impression that speakers operate to quite an extent in their own authority, using the name of Jesus not always reverently. God will not allow the usurping of his authority to go unpunished.

Compromise as Disobedience
Biblically, compromise is regarded as disobedience, as sin which incurs the wrath and punishment of the Almighty. The Hebrew Scriptures depict more than once how defeat followed when disobedience and compromise crept in. Moses had to tell the Israelites – this is recorded in Deuteronomy 1:45 – that their tears before the Lord were of no avail. The reason for God’s 'deaf' ear was their rebellion and arrogance. Tears of frustrated foolhardiness do not move God.
Saul is a negative example of someone who went it alone, cutting himself off from correction and encouragement. His actions included all the elements of dishonesty and disobedience: improper modesty (1 Samuel 10:22), taking honour for himself,14 impatience (1 Samuel 13:9), imposing his will on others (1 Samuel 14:24), followed by sinful independence and activism (14:36).

Turning the other Cheek
Jesus gave us the example of how to handle a perceived or supposed rival. We know how John the Baptist approached the matter (He must become greater; I must become less (John 3:30). In similar manner Jesus praised his cousin 'behind his back.' Lesser minds would have reacted differently to a supposed rival: For I say unto you: Among those that are born to a woman, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11). Our Lord taught enemy love, the opposite of retaliation as a way of response to a personal attack. That Jesus clearly toned down revenge, made him extremely unpopular. The author Luke especially picked up this facet of Jesus' ministry. The absence of revenge runs like a golden thread throughout the Gospel of Luke. This - perhaps more than anything else apart from nationalist pride - was probably a major reason for the change of atmosphere during Jesus’ address in the synagogue of Nazareth (Luke 4:18). By quoting Isaiah 61, the Lord Jesus stopped short of the reference to vengeance and ‘the wrath of our God.’ What caused the complete change of mood that day in the Nazareth synagogue? Was Jesus’ implied opposition to vengeance the only cause or were there other reasons? Within a matter of a minute or two their pride over their prodigious villager swung over into fierce anger. The positive reference of our Lord to foreigners – probably above all else - rubbed his Jewish townsfolk up the wrong way. This obviously angered them in a xenophobic way, so that they wanted to push him over the cliff.
Jesus surely did not endear himself to His Jewish compatriots by quoting Leviticus 19:18 ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ when he narrated the parable of the Good Samaritan. (Jews traditionally despised Samaritans fiercely because they mixed pure worship of Yahweh with elements of the Baal cult). This parable is only recorded in the Gospel according to Luke, not even referred to in any other gospel. It is very clearly a teaching on ‘enemy love.’
The reaction of Jesus to the exclamation of the Samaritan woman of John 4 – she was probably angry or at least indignant - that he as a Jew dared to ask her for a drink, could be interpreted as an example of ‘turning the other cheek’. Instead of retaliating, the Master initiated a discussion on water.
Heaping coals of fire on the head of the one who offended you (Romans 12:20) is the corollary of turning the other cheek. A modern Afrikaans translation of this phrase renders this aptly, viz. maak hom vuurrooi van skaamte, shame your opponent that he blushes red as fire.

The fallacious Elevation of the ‘New Testament
In the radical suggestion by Jesus to ‘turn the other cheek’, one finds an excellent example of a crooked misconception that developed out of the fallacious elevation of the ‘New Testament’15 at the cost of the 'OT'. I personally thought for years that Jesus’ instruction to ‘turn the other cheek’ was new and innovative. How big was my surprise to discover that Jesus was actually merely quoting the Hebrew Scriptures. In the Bible book Lamentations Jeremiah identifies himself fully with the sins, the idolatry of his people, which resulted in the exile. Then he writes: ‘Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him and let him be filled with disgrace’ (Lamentations 3:30). The suffering servant of Isaiah, who is widely accepted as a prophetic foreshadowing, a type of the Messiah, likewise displays these characters: ‘I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I hid not my face from shame and spitting’ (Isaiah 50:5-6). 'Long toes', over-sensitivity to criticism – is a major obstacle to unity.

The broken Wall
Paul, the great missionary apostle, stressed that the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles has been broken down through the atoning death of Jesus on the Cross, that there should not even be any social divisions between slaves and free persons. A new unity, also between slaves and their masters, between husband and wife becomes possible through a common faith in Jesus Christ.
The Church universal should learn to put the priorities where Jesus put them in His prayer life. Jesus deemed it fit to pray in His high priestly prayer for His disciples and for those who would believe in Him because of their message, ‘that they may be one’ (John 17:21). It is possibly no exaggeration to state that all sorts of disunity in the body of Christ boils down to crucifying Him once more. We should take to heart that we have to be in unity ‘so that the world will believe’ that Jesus was sent by God.
Actually Jesus was only echoing what Psalm 133 had expounded so powerfully centuries before him, namely that God commands His blessing where there is unity, where brothers live in harmony. In that psalm the unity is depicted as an image for the anointing of the high priest, bridging hundreds of kilometres (From Mount Hermon near Damascus in Syria to Mount Zion, Jerusalem). Would it be too preposterous to suggest Church unity as something which is so powerful that it would incur God’s special blessing, if we could locally unite the disparate but related Abrahamic three religious groups under the banner of the Lamb? I refer to groups such as Muslim background followers of Jesus and Messianic Jews - along with those who enjoyed a Christian upbringing and who have been born again by faith in Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.
One of the early attacks on the Unity of the Body has been the elevation of the 'NT' canon at the cost of the Hebrew Scriptures. Not only the Hellenic and Roman Church of the first centuries, but also the body of Christ in general, rightly highlighted the contributions of Jesus and Paul. Simultaneously, more often than not, it was however neglected to stress that these spiritual giants were Jews. Who dares to contradict the German theologian Klaus Berger, that also in our day and age pastors have been silent in mentioning the Jewish side of the Bible?

The radical Quality of Jesus’ Love
Jesus personified God's inclusive love (John 3:16). The quality of the Lord’s love is especially shown by the incidents at his crucifixion. His first words of love from the Cross - even before he addressed his friends - were forgiving words directed at his enemies. After His resurrection, the Lord rushed to those who had denied and rejected him in the hour of his deepest need. Jesus has every right to put forward the high standard of sacrificial love because he had demonstrated this through his life and death. He showed the way to be prepared to sacrifice your life for your friends... and for your enemies.
Jesus set the example in his attitude towards the Samaritans. On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him; but they did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. When his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?”But he turned and rebuked them (Luke 9:52-54). Paul echoed this injunction in one form or another, emphasizing refraining from retaliation in almost every epistle.
Within this framework the beatitude encouraging us to be peace-makers (Matthew 5:9) follows naturally. How powerful this dynamic can be, was demonstrated in East Germany's Herrnhut in the run-up to 12 May 1727. Count Zinzendorf succeeded in bringing the fighting factions together. The ultimate reconciliation was possibly the most important ‘ingredient’ towards the ultimate revival three months later (see below in Chapter 6 more about this development).
A special Role for marginal People
Jesus’ ministry was inclusive, bringing salvation to all. The Gospel according to Luke shows especially how Jesus gave a special Role to marginal people and how he broke down human barriers. This is especially true of the third synoptic Gospel. This is clear already in the narratives around Jesus' birth. Whereas Matthew highlights the magi – in tradition they are known as kings from the Orient – coming to see the newborn king, Luke described how lowly despised shepherds were divinely called to witness the birth of the Saviour of the world (Luke 2:14). John links the same discovery to Jesus interaction with an outsider of the Samaritan village of Sychar (John 4:42). Luke is the only Gospel to record a saying of Jesus that there is more joy in heaven over one repentant sinner, than over ninety-nine who have no need of repentance (15:7). The scribes and Pharisees and customs of His society erected barriers between people, but Jesus broke down those barriers. He wanted to reveal the love of God to all people and show all people that God loves them equally. Therefore Jesus broke through social taboos or the restrictions of the society and religion of his time.
In Luke’s Gospel in particular we see Jesus breaking down barriers. He broke down partitions between God and people known to be 'sinners' such as tax collectors. Luke also highlights his uplifting of Samaritans and women. Jesus went to have a meal and lodged with the intensely resented tax-collector Zacchaeus, a representative of these collaborators with the Roman oppressors, and He used a despised Samaritan (Luke 10:30ff) as an example of border-crossing benevolence. He challenged the establishment of His society by bringing them in contact with the gifts of the marginal people. In the Gospel of Luke, the Pharisee Simon becomes a witness to the devotion and dedication of an ex-prostitute (Luke 7:36-40). Due to common prejudice, by far not everybody would have been excited to find Jesus in the normal company of a Pharisee, let alone to hear that our Lord actually dined with him. The Lord’s presence there brought a very improbable visitor into the house of Simon. What an example the Master gave, what a challenge for Christians to bring together whosoever belongs together, namely the body of Christ, regardless of social status! Even more, Jesus dared to praise the prostitute and he reprimanded the Pharisee. What a reappraisal of their prejudicial value system there was in this encounter!
Outlawing of Hero-worship
Hero-worship and idolizing of charismatic figures often lead to disunity. A sign of really great personalities is that they choose suffering rather than glamour when the chips are down. At the outset of his ministry Jesus chose not to be flattered by the adoration of his Nazareth townsfolk. In stead of surfing on the crest of the wave of praise, he swam against the stream in their synagogue, risking his life in the process (Luke 4:14-30). When a multitude of Jewish worshippers wanted to forcefully make Jesus their worldly king after the feeding of the five thousand (John 6:15), he refused this adulation. In stead, he left the multitude who hailed him as a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15,18). (Through Moses' mediation the Israelites had been divinely fed in the desert.)
In John 6 it is recorded how the Lord responded with a 'hard' word, after which the crowd left him en masse (John 6:66). The hard word seems to have been that he said I am the bread of life, alluding to his divine nature. Jesus' divinity is still a problem, not only to Jews. The Unitarian movement within Christianity separated themselves from the rest of Protestantism because of this tenet and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
With the advantage of historical hind-sight, it is much easier for us to discern that our Lord opposed superficial hero-worship because he does not only feed hungry stomachs, but also hungry hearts – people hungry for love, yearning for forgiveness, striving after justice, peace and joy!
In Mark 1 it is reported how many people came to see Jesus already in the morning. Simon and his companions went to look for him. When they found him, they said, "Everyone is looking for you." The Master did not seem impressed by the obvious adulation. Jesus replied, "Let us go somewhere else--to the nearby villages--so I can preach there also. That is why I have come."

Jerusalem Believers acted in one Accord
After our Lord’s ascension, his followers were united in prayer (Acts 1:14a). The Greek word homo-thumadon, which has usually been translated as ‘of one mind’, indicates a common purpose, a common goal, an emotional and wilful agreement. ‘Of one mind’ is a characteristic of ‘New Testament’ leadership. This unity in prayer formed the natural base for the revival at Pentecost. But also after Pentecost the Jerusalem believers acted in accord, ‘of one mind’ (see Acts 2:45, 46; 4:24; 5:12; 6:2; 15:25). The new-found unity was grounded in their trust in God, which minimized possible differences - perhaps even cancelled some of them. Thus the regular meeting locally or in some geographical unit - primarily for prayer to get God’s mind for their city or town - should be a top priority of pastors and all serious followers of Christ.
It is no co-incidence that 10 of the 11 'NT' occurrences of the phrase ‘of one mind’ occur in the Acts of the apostles.16 If we consider how important unity was for the first church - no, how important it is in God’s eyes - we cannot stress it too much.
The 'NT' gives us a wonderful balance between orthodoxy which keeps unity intact on the one hand and necessary correction or reprimand on the other hand. Speaking the truth in love is a characteristic of those who are no longer spiritual infants (Ephesians 4:14,15).

Division as Satan’s Strategy
Lying and its accomplice dishonesty are main contributors to disunity, also in the Church. The enemy often succeeds to add misunderstanding to the mixture. If the disunity is not properly addressed, bondage ensues. We must recognise that division is the paramount strategy of satan. The arch enemy attempted to cause division among the disciples of Jesus through unhealthy rivalry. If he can abuse the Church and its leaders, he would never hesitate. Through the ages the arch enemy has succeeded to sow division in lively gospel-minded churches again and again. The blessings that God could have used to bring millions to the cross have become a curse in many a case. The ‘flesh’ in some Christians, who want to assert themselves through exhibitionism or sheer arrogance, have been contributing handsomely to that end. The early Church seems to have handled the supernatural gifts of the spirit in a balanced way (see Acts 2:42-47). However, in no ways it is suggested that biblical principles should be compromised.
On two occasions Paul refers to believers as infants/children in the context of petty bickering and a lack of unity (1 Corinthians 3:1-3; Ephesians 4:13-15). Paul did not mince his words, calling those believers who hero-worship strong personalities babies in the faith (1 Corinthians 3:1-5). So often Christians quote the latter part of 1 Corinthians 11 in the context of the Lord’s Supper, completely ignoring or forgetting that Paul used those words within the framework of the disunity of the believers at Corinth (see 1 Corinthians 11:17ff).

Rivalry between Jews and Samaritans
The rivalry between the Jews and Samaritans is found throughout the Bible. Simon Magus, mentioned in Acts 8, was a Samaritan. After his disappointment with the apostles he became what has been described as a heresiarch, the founder of the Simonians. (The Simonians worshipped Simon Magus like Zeus. He was a sort of god to them.) Simon Magus' successor, said to have been a certain Menander, was also a Samaritan. The Gospel of Luke in particular highlights how Jesus put things in perspective, giving the despised and rejected Samaritans a special place in the sun, advocating in this way for their inclusion.
Second century Justin, also called the Martyr, has generally been hailed in Christian circles as a great apologist. Few would regard him as heretical. However, his attitude towards Jews ushered in the gradual side-lining of Jews. He is on record as the one who contributed – albeit probably unintentionally - to what became known as 'Replacement Theology'. The Samaritan Justin Martyr possibly did not have this in mind when he suggested that the Church had replaced Israel. The oppression by the Jews could have influenced him unconsciously in the background. That would have been natural as a Samaritan.
Justin was very much a child of his day when he went overboard in his haughty intellectual arrogance, teaching that the Greek philosophers and the ‘barbarians’ such as Abraham... all who at any time ‘obeyed the same guidance, were really Christians’ (Walker, 1976:47).17 In due course the Church was seen as the new Israel that replaced the Jewish nation.

Disunity stifles spiritual Renewal
Disunity often stifles spiritual renewal and biblical revival. We cannot stress it enough: the spirit of separation and disunity is a demonic principality. Disunity wielded in few parts of the world such power as in South Africa. The apartheid practice was only one visible expression of this division. The denominational disunity, rivalry and mutual distrust of churches and pastors are two less visible ones. True unity is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, but if denominational and racial disunity proceed unchecked, a potential spiritual awakening will be given a major setback.
Disunity in the Church and competitiveness must never be regarded as minor flaws, but recognized for what it really is in the light of the Bible: sin! Not for nothing Jesus prayed for His disciples and for those who would believe in their message (i.e. we, the spiritual off-spring): ...That all of them may be one (John 17:20f) and ‘that they may be brought to complete unity’ (John 17:23).
Division is the paramount strategy of satan. Through the ages the enemy has succeeded to sow division in churches. The blessing, which God could have used to bring millions to the Cross, has sadly become a curse in many a case.

Disunity - a Demonic Stronghold?
Not only to people from other religions the denominational and doctrinal disunity has posed a problem of no mean dimension. The unity in Christ must be practised and seen to be a reality in the lives of believers. On the other hand, ecclesiastical disunity must be recognized for what it really is - sin! We quote the words of the Indian Bishop Azariah in 1927 at the Faith & Order conference in Lausanne: ‘The divisions of Christendom may be a source of weakness in Christian countries, but in non-Christian lands they are a sin and a scandal.’ Cindy Jacobs, an intercession leader from the USA, has put it even stronger. She referred to the 'idolatry of denomination and pride in doctrine' as sectarianism, calling it a demonic stronghold (in Wagner, 1993:90ff). Viv Grigg wrote very aptly: ‘The spiritual unity of believers is a key to spiritual power... The Holy Spirit may not work significantly in a situation where he is grieved due to disunity’ (in Wagner, 1995:26). One of the best positive examples of the principle at the Cape to date was the run-up to the first stadium event of Newlands, that took place on 21 March, 2001.
The honest words of Bishop Azariah in 1927 have not been completely without effect. At the 75th anniversary of that Lausanne conference, Dr Mary Tanner summarised: 'We rightly celebrate the fruits of the conversations; the convergences, even consensus, reached between churches in areas that were causes of division and which once seemed intractable. And we can celebrate the fact that this theological conversation has gone on in an ever more inclusive circle and amidst increasingly friendly relationships of trust and confidence...' (Taken from the internet). May practical implementation follow the resolutions of Lausanne III. May it be different to that of so many other conferences and seminars which merely supplied us with lots of paperwork. There have been examples of networking and cooperation of believers and Christian organisations all over the world with wonderful results. May this multiply hundred-fold and more.
No Door-Mat
A related issue is the fallacy that servility could be a Christian virtue. Because Jesus taught his followers to turn the other cheek, to go the second mile, some people deduce that Christians should always be willing to be a sort of door-mat. Far from it! In John 4 it is reported how a rumour was brought to the Master that John was baptising more converts. What the motives of those people were who came to Him with the rumour, is not clear. The dynamite contained in it is nevertheless quite evident. His clashes with the religious establishment, equating the leaders with white-washed tombs that contain dead bones - along with His overturning the tables in the temple – are well-known.
When Jesus spoke confidently in reply to a question of the High Priest Caiaphas about his teaching, he was slapped. His reply was interpreted by one of the high priestly officials as rudeness (John 18:19f). The Lord promptly challenged the official to point out what he said wrongfully and if not, why did he strike him? Much anger can be averted if we use our authority in Christ, not to allow others to trample on us.
Matthew (Chapter 23) highlighted our Lord's criticism of the Pharisees, influential religious leaders of the synagogues - a full chapter of it! These random examples demonstrate that Jesus was nowhere the softy certain people have asserted. Jesus was however not always on confrontation course with these leaders during His lifetime either. Our Lord was radical, but nowhere merely a trouble-shooter.
In our dealings with people from other faiths, some loving straight talk might be necessary. Senseless debating should be avoided, but Muslims, Hindus and whatever other religious groups and sects who normally never heard the Gospel message clearly, also have a right to hear the truth spoken in love. It is however not always easy to discern whether the conversational partner in religious matters is a sincere seeker after truth.
Resentment towards Muslims among Christians became fairly wide-spread, especially since the PAGAD (People against Gangsterism and Drugs) era and the September 11, 2001 event in New York. If we dare to oppose that mood, we should not be surprised to be castigated or side-lined, even by Christians. (This may not be construed as any support for the syncretist Chrislam movement in North America which I regard as very unfortunate and convenient compromise, unworthy of the Gospel of our Lord.) Among Africans the follower of Jesus who dares to oppose the worship of ancestors will suffer the same fate. We dare not take support from rank-and-file Christians for granted. And yet, we have no option if we take the teaching of the Bible seriously, viz. to love everybody, even your 'enemy'.

The Leader Servant
A leader can make or break unity on different levels. If a pastor does not take the lead to network with other fellowships locally, the chances are slim that members of his congregation will do it. The biblical model is the servant leader, or better still as Mike Burnard has been teaching us, a leading servant – a leader in serving (The 18 inch Principle, 2011:25).
Jesus himself set the pace as he washed the feet of His disciples (John 13). In so doing he performed the menial task that was usually done by slaves. The importance John attached to this act of love is amplified when one considers that the story of the feet washing takes the place in the context of the last supper in the fourth Gospel.
The Gospel according to Mark depicts the fact that Jesus regarded his atoning death as a duty done by a servant: ‘And whoever wants to be greatest of all must be the slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to help others, and to give his life as a ransom for many’ (Mark 10:44f).
In a different way Paul penned this in his letter to the Philippians (2:5-8): "Your attitude should be the kind that was shown to us by Jesus Christ, who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God, but laid aside his mighty power and glory, taking the disguise of a slave and becoming like men. And he humbled himself even further, going so far as actually to die a criminal’s death on a cross." Both Peter and Paul called themselves a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ. We note the order. In his salutation to the believers in Rome Paul introduced himself as Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle. In a similar way he wrote to Titus. Peter started his second epistle with Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1).

Bondage of Denominationalism
Bondage can also come in by the back-door. Paul clearly taught that religious practice can develop into bondage, into slavery. In stead of being a guideline, God’s laws then become a choking legalism. In this context the letter of the law kills (2 Corinthians 3:6). Coming from the background of having been a Pharisee, the apostle discerned how the law can blind (2 Corinthians 3:14ff): ‘the same veil remains when the old covenant is read’. He had to become blind first, so that his spiritual eyes could be opened. That is why Jews and Muslims find it so hard to break through into living faith. A sad thing with regard to bondage is that there are many Christians who got bound through religious practices. This does not only occur in the Roman Catholic Church where traditions with an occult background and ingredients have been passed on from generation to generation. Also in Protestant-evangelical circles certain traditions have brought along legalism unwittingly, keeping Christians in bondage, without them even realizing it. The best example is probably those traditions which were given the tag sacraments. The practice in churches often deviates considerably from the obvious scriptural origin or the spirit of the gospels. Unscriptural usage often spawned unnecessary ‘theology’ to justify the practice of certain ‘sacraments’, causing church splits in its wake. A case in point may be baptism. On the one hand the followers of Luther and Calvin often became legalistic on the issue of ‘re-baptism.’ Baptists on the other hand, have often enough refused church membership to those believers who have not been immersed. Some of them have been doing it with an uncharitable legalistic attitude. (In Scripture itself, there is an instance (Acts 19,1-5) where the believers were baptised a second time. It seems rather semantic to stress that they have previously been baptised with the baptism of John.18 What should Christians do in countries where there is an absolute water shortage and/or drought? The legalism and arrogance of some Baptists and Pentecostals, (ab)using Scripture to convince others that christening of infants and confirmation are unscriptural, have so often been very uncharitable. This is possibly a case of applying truth without grace and love.
Confession as an Important Biblical Mandate
It is my conviction that confession is one of the most important biblical mandates in countering any guilt incurred in respect of Muslims (and Jews). Next to that, forgiveness always plays an important role to set parties free who have struggled under or are living through any form of strife or conflict. Wherever restitution is needed, we should attempt to rectify our part of the guilt as promptly as possible.
Great barriers to the unity of the body of Christ are haughtiness and arrogance. A critical spirit has damaged and stifled not only the witness of many individuals, but also harmed effective outreach in communities. Few groups would openly vocalise that other churches or denominational groups are second-class or inferior. Yet, speaking of 'mainline churches' and mission agencies as 'para-church' – along with the inference that real churches are the Pentecostal type or at least those who are really evangelical, display a haughty spirit. Alternately, these groups are often typified by their counterparts with a condescending vibe as 'happy clappy'. Sometimes nice-sounding excuses are used patronisingly for exclusivity, e.g. that one does not want to confuse young believers being taught in churches that have 'not yet' come to the 'true biblical message'. Would it not be more dignified to allow people to make their own choices, or guiding the new believers to a good personal choice? After listing 17 ways in which groups and ministries are written off as second-class by Christians without realizing it, George Verwer says in his book Drops from a Leaking Tap (2008:144) 'The list can go on...' Among African Blacks the view of ancestor worship has created a wall of mutual suspicion which reminds one of the days when 'ecumenicals' and eveangelicals would not even speak to each other. A study together of the Word in stead of blunt mutual condemnation could still turn the tide. Confession and repentance for our uncharitable and general judgemental damaging attitude to the unity of the Body of Christ is surely called for in many places all around the evangelical world.

Getting the Priorities Straight
Let us deduce some lessons from our Lord’s handling of conflict. The major lesson is probably that he had his priorities right. From His intimate relationship to his Father His behaviour flowed and followed. A life of commitment to Him, the light, automatically leads to conflict and confrontation with the forces of darkness. Because our Lord is the truth, the tempter - who is the father of the lie (John 8:44) - tried to catch Him out through a distortion of the Word. As the only person who did not die again after having been resurrected, Jesus is the way to eternal life – indeed the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6). He is the ladder on which angels go up and down, through whom we can have constant communion with the Father (John 1: 33,50, Genesis 28).
Right from the start of His ministry, Jesus was involved with conflict. The narrative of the temptation in the desert in Matthew 4 is a high-powered confrontation between the forces of darkness that wanted to woo the Lord into a compromise, in an exchange for power. His challenge to the fishermen to follow Him was likewise conflict-laden. The report of the changing of wine into water (John 2:1-11) contains a potential conflict of priorities between His earthly mother and His heavenly Father. Jesus' response demonstrated the authority, sovereignty and flexibility of Father and Son.
A good example of our Lord’s complete mastery of priorities is given in John 4 where it is reported how a rumour (instigated by Pharisees?) was brought to Him that He was baptising more converts than John the Baptist. The motive of those people who came with the rumour is not clear, but the gun-powder contained in the question is quite evident. In verse 1+2 there are at least three issues in the rumour which could have drawn a response from Jesus. There was the suggested number of people baptised, who performed it and the comparison with John the Baptist. In stead of allowing himself to be drawn into a petty, unproductive discussion, our Lord ‘left Judea’. A possible inference that he walked away cowardly, has to be rejected when we look closely at the verses that follow these words.
The remarkable verse 4 squashes any idea that the Master dodged difficult issues: ‘He had to go through Samaria’. If our Lord had been the type of person to circumvent problematic matters, then here was a good opportunity. Our Lord faced the issue of the despised Samaritans head-on. In fact, He uplifted them as He went along. Not only did He go to the town of Sychar, but He went to sit next to the cultic explosive well of Jacob. No Jew of those days would have done a thing like that. That was tantamount to looking for trouble! And thereafter he stayed with them for two more days.

Handling Conflict
On the other hand, we see in the enfolding narrative how Jesus handles confrontation in such a skilful way that the Samaritan woman is completely turned around in the process. When she used religion as a cover-up after the Lord had cornered her on her lifestyle, He challenged her in a respectful way. To this day His reply challenges religious people everywhere: The Father seeks true worshippers... those who worship in Spirit and in truth. It is not so difficult to find Christians in our day and age who adore the act of worship in stead of worshipping the triune God.
Another special lesson of our Lord is how He handled disputes. In almost classical style He could unmask wrong alternatives; more correctly, we should say He often radicalized false alternatives. When the Master was put on trial on the issue of the paying of taxes - when His questioners tried to put Him in a spot of bother - He coolly replied that both God and the Caesar had to get the due of their respective allegiance (Matthew 22:21). When His disciples became involved in petty bickering about rank, He challenged them with service as the qualification for rank: whosoever perceives himself to be the greatest, should be the servant of all (Luke 22:24ff).
How our Lord operated cross-culturally in a loving way, should now be our model, not shying away from confrontation. The word tolerance has sometimes been abused in this regard. Whilst this is a virtue which should generally be the aim of every believer, we note from our Lord’s example that it is far from absolute. God hates sin but He loves the sinner. In the same context in which Jesus speaks about thieves who rob (John 10), He calls himself the door. Whereas there might be different avenues to get to God, Jesus made it clear to which highway these minor roads should lead to: ‘I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes unto the Father but by me’ (John 14:6). This might sound intolerant to some ears, but this is nevertheless the only way, the only door. It thus becomes a matter of take it or leave it. It would be fruitless to debate about the matter.

Mediation in a Conflict
The Master gave practical and clear teaching for mediation of a conflict. We refer especially to the prime example, Matthew 18. Sometimes counsellors forget to check out the very basic step, viz. whether the complainant had been attempting to resolve the matter by approaching the other party first.
Of course, it is usually not easy to confront the person who has offended you - unless one is of the type that likes to squabble and fight. Those who come to us for counsel after a break in any relationship, have to be taught to check out their assumptions. In stead of accepting any loaded or hurting information passed on as truth, a good practice and principle is to ascertain if the spirit in which it has been conveyed, has not perhaps been distorted. How much anger and hurt can be prevented in interaction among people – also in Christian circles - if this teaching of Jesus is adhered to.
There is of course the very real situation where the opposing party reacts indifferently or even aggressively upon personal confrontation. Jesus’ advice to take one or two witnesses along for this eventuality makes such a lot of sense. Yet, how often is this practised? The same thing applies to the next step of church discipline, viz. the exclusion from the fellowship if anyone persists with sinful behaviour and/or the refusal to repent, to mend his/her ways.
I suggest that we take our day to day interaction as human beings as a point of reference. How does one handle conflict in a biblically responsible way? Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18 is in my view the valid paradigm in this regard. An important lesson from this teaching is that it is not wise to wait on the other party to offer an apology. If you know there is some discord between you and a brother or a sister, you must just make the start to get the air cleared, starting with an apology if that is feasible and applicable. In pastoral counsel the willingness to offer forgiveness must be inculcated and taught. This is also the route to be taken, even if one thinks that one's own part in the development of the rift is minimal and the other party’s guilt is gross. The biblical way is always to be the least, to serve rather than expect to be served. If there are things to be set right, we have to do it promptly and generously. (Zacchaeus was ready to return the fourfold of what he had taken from some people!! (Luke 19:8).

Sanctified Anger
An important facet of conflict management is the issue of anger. Fallaciously some Christians seem to believe that it is sinful to become angry. On the contrary, there is such a thing as holy anger. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures one can read how God reacted with wrath and anger because of the idolatry and sins of His people. Similarly, Jesus got really angry when He saw how the Temple was desecrated by traders. (One suspects that He was very much angered that the lame and the blind (Matthew 21:14), the foreigners and other proselytes that habitually visited that part of the temple precincts, had been pushed out of the temple premises).
There are general cases and circumstances where we should fight the good fight (of faith) (Timothy 6.12). In Jude 1:3 we are encouraged and advised to 'contend earnestly for the faith' and 2 Peter 3:17 warns us to 'be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness'.
Yet, the nature of God is such that He is swift to forgive, but ‘slow to anger and rich in steadfast love and truth’ (Exodus 34:7). In the Psalms it is repeated more than once that God is slow to anger. At issue is how we handle our anger, or better still, how we get our anger sanctified. In fact, it would be a complete distortion of the Pauline verses (1 Corinthians 13:4-6) to say that love should cover up sinful behaviour. Paul takes it for granted that we can get angry, but we should be careful not to sin when we are angry. But even then we must rectify things and clear the air before the sun sets (Ephesians 4:26). We should guard our temper, pray for a guard to be put before our mouth. Paul actually encourages us to actively oppose anger in our midst by not only putting off anger and other carnal traits (Colossians 3:8), but instead, let the Spirit renew your thoughts and attitudes. put on your new nature, created to be like God – truly righteous and holy (Ephesians 4:23,24), i.e. through the sanctifying work of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
In his epistle James (1:19, 20) passed on some practical teaching in this regard: be slow to get angry. This ties in with Romans 12:2 which defines the renewing of our thoughts as a transforming process that the Holy Spirit must perform in us. Rather than a quick fix, it is a metamorphosis.19

Chapter 2 Jews First!

Moishe Rosen, the founder of Jews for Jesus, highlighted Jews first in his paper delivered in Manila, 1989 as part of the Jewish Evangelism track at Lausanne II. In the summary of that paper he suggested that 'God’s formula' for worldwide evangelization is to bring the Gospel to the Jew first. He highlighted the example of Paul in the same paper that ‘by not following God’s programme for worldwide evangelisation – that is, beginning with Jerusalem (Israel, and the Jews) – we not only develop a bad theology because of weak foundations, but we also develop poor missiological practices’ (Published in the LCJE Bulletin, Issue 101, September 2010, downloadable from the internet.) However, outreach to Jews still has to be regarded as a 'Cinderella' of missionary work. Many international mission agencies who have corrected the neglect with regard to outreach to Muslims since the 1980s, have still to start in some significant way with outreach to Jews.
Concentration on the Jews
With regard to missionary strategy we note that Jesus concentrated on Israel and the Jews. Although he praised the faith of Gentile Roman centurion of Matthew 8:10, Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith, the Lord also inferred in His reaction to the request of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Matthew 15:21f) where He saw His priority in His healing ministry: Let the children first be fed, since it isn't good to take bread out of children's mouths and throw it to the dogs! In the Scriptural context of John 3:16, the Lord made use of the account in Numbers 21, to show that His eventual death on the Cross has its precedent in Moses’ elevation of the serpent in the desert. Moses is a great prophet to the Jews (and to the Muslims.) In the Gospel according to Matthew, Jesus constantly refers to His ministry as fulfilment of prophecy. In my view our Lord’s concentration on the Jews not been taken seriously. It is not clear why Jesus instructed the twelve disciples to stick to the house of Israel in Matthew 10:5f, omitting this specific instruction to the seventy (Matthew 11:20-24). Or is here already the expansion and spread of the Gospel - ultimately to the ends of the earth - implied?20 But it is clear that Jesus concentrated on the Jews. Paul followed Him in this, by always starting in a new town or city in the synagogue. This should be a pointer to our careful and sensitive use of the Hebrew Scriptures in interaction with Jews. In fact, the use of the Word of God as such is a powerful tool. Jesus demonstrated it in His life, by quoting from the Scriptures time and again. A deduction from our Lord’s last commission could be that the spreading of the Gospel should start in Jerusalem, in the case of the Jews among the Jewry (Acts 1:8, also Luke 24:47), and spread from there to the ends of the earth. This may not be interpreted in absolute terms, i.e. that evangelistic outreach should occur in a concentric or spiralling way from your home town or city. It does put a question mark though with a practice whereby people are eager to engage in missionary outreach far from home but do nothing about reaching out lovingly to their neighbours and in their home town.
It could be argued that our Lord’s involvement with the Jews was not missionary, not border-crossing at all; that He concentrated on his home culture. The first leading disciples initially appeared very reluctant to obey the Great Commission, only staying in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1). Right from his very first public appearance in Nazareth, Jesus however showed the way to the acceptance of the other nations and the mission to them. In fact, this may have been one of the main reasons why the Nazareth congregation rejected Him (Luke 4:29). According to the Gospel of Luke, the examples of Jesus with the Samaritans seem to have been intended to soften the nationalistic Jews up because of their unhealthy pride and prejudice.

The Gospel to the Jews first
Paul wrote already in the first century: ‘I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe, to the Jew first and also to the Greek’ (Romans 1:16). In stead of recognizing the need to minister humbly and respectfully to the apple of God's eye (Deuteronomy 32:10; Zechariah 2:8), the Church in general neglected the loving and compassionate outreach to Jews completely. Starting with Justin Martyr in the second century, their rejection was emphasised, overlooking that Paul clearly taught that this was merely temporarily, that in the completion of God's perfect timing '...all Israel will be saved' (Romans 11:26; Jeremiah 31:1).
Below we will point to a few individuals down the centuries who stressed the special eschatological role of the Jews, and the need of the Church to provoke them in a loving and positive way to fulfil their prophetic destiny.
Paul practised what he preached, including the notion that the Gospel should be brought to the Jews, his nation, first. In every city he came on his missionary journeys, he first went to the synagogue. That Paul fought for the right to bring the Good News also to the Gentiles, sometimes clouds this sense of priority. Paul advised in Romans 11:25 that the Gentiles should not be conceited, reminding the Roman believers from Gentile stock that they are merely branches that had been grafted into the true olive, Israel.
Famous Preachers with a Positive View of Jews
The renowned Bishop Jan Amos Comenius was a faithful scholar of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam who taught: ‘teach first the Jews and the neighbours nearby, thereafter all the nations of the earth' (Van der Linde, J.M., De Wereld heeft toekomst, Kampen, 1979:197).21 Both parents of Comenius belonged to the Unitas Fratrum, the (Moravian) Unity of Brethren. Bishop Comenius later became one of the leaders of that pre-Reformation Protestant denomination. Contrary to the practice of his time, Comenius refrained from polemical writing. He suggested that the holy books of the Jews, the Law, Psalms and the Prophets are to be valued highly. He furthermore reminded that the Jews are collectively to be regarded as a light to the nations, which is a prophetic teaching from Isaiah. Even though the Jews have rejected the Messiah and the apostles, they must be allowed to keep their law and rituals until God would reveal the truth to them in his good time. The light of Moses (the Pentateuch), the rest of the Hebrew Scripture and the light of Christ (the ‘New Testament’) - form together the bright light for all nations. Comenius furthermore said that we as Christians, have to respect Jews as our librarians, to expound the prophetic Word that had been entrusted to them. The resistance of Israel is merely temporary.
Count Zinzendorf had a similar view. He propagated strongly that the Gospel must be preached to the Jews. Already as a teenager at the boarding school in Halle he was impressed by August Hermann Francke’s sermons that stressed our responsibility towards the people of the 'Old Covenant'. Already in his teenage years ‘the conversion of the Jews’ can be found before ‘the conversion of the heathen’ in the hopes and expectations of the order of the Mustard Seed (Steinberg et al, 1960:25). If Zinzendorf had his way, a greater effort would have been made by the Herrnhut Moravians to reach the Jews with the Gospel.
A Choice between Jews and Muslims?
A notion has been circling in some Christian circles that if one wants to reach out lovingly to people from the two other Abrahamic religions, then one has to make a choice between Jews and Muslims; one can either support the Palestinians or the Jews in Israel! That Christians could have a reconciling role to play, does not feature in such thinking. Some Christians are even surprised to hear that the sons of Abraham buried him together (Genesis 25:9). We have already pointed how that the widely accepted notion - that the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael have been eternal enemies - has hardly any biblical basis. We regret that many a Church leader have all too often compounded the age-old problem of Israel and Palestine in an unreconciling way, in stead of being an agent of reconciliation. While I concede that this is very personal and subjective, I contend that one of the best bases for bringing together Jews and Muslims is when we include those from their ranks who got reconciled with God through faith in the atoning work of His Son. And yet, there are no quick fixes in such reconciliation and a lot of patient waiting on the Lord in prayer is required. Ultimately only He can really change hearts, prejudices and fixed mind-sets. Some dialogue would be perfectly in place, but cheap proselytism is outlawed in this field of outreach.

Major Problems of Judaism and Islam
All this of course does not address the major problems of Judaism and Islam, viz. to acknowledge the divinity of Jesus and to acknowledge Him as the Son of God. Basically only the Holy Spirit can illuminate to adherents of these religions the loving Father-heart of God. If we practise sensitivity in our dealings with the followers of Judaism and Islam, the Lord could use a loving approach to weaken or even remove some of their prejudice against ‘offensive’ Christian doctrine. To some of them it is only a matter of (mis)understanding. (Many Muslims e.g. have a literal comprehension of Jesus as the physical son of God.) The sharpness of any hostility could be reduced or even removed by pointing out for instance that the words ‘only begotten’ Son comes from the Greek monogenos. This word is more accurately translated in the context of John 3 as the unique Son. A parallel is found in Genesis 22:1 where Isaac was to be sacrificed as such - a unique son. Furthermore, the use of son as a metaphor - in this case for the divine character of Jesus - is not completely unknown. 'Son of the Road' and similar expressions are well known in the Orient. Along the same lines a loving non-confrontational approach could assist to open up Jews (and Muslims) to discover why Yeshuah is indeed Ha Mashiach, the Messiah.

Consultation with the Church Leadership
An issue which was forcefully demonstrated in the life of Paul, the apostle, was the relationship to the local church. Paul showed how valuable a healthy relationship to the church leadership can be. Even though God had already revealed it to him previously to bring the Gospel to the heathen nations, Paul did his missionary work in consultation with the church leaders (Galatians 2:2ff). Initially they did not share his vision and views. The result of the consultation was a doubling of the outreach: Peter would concentrate on working with the Jews while Paul would pioneer the work among the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8). Because he did not do his own thing, Paul and Barnabas eventually received the right hand of fellowship. Finally they were commissioned and sent out by the body, the church at Antioch (Acts 13:3). It is a pity that the other apostles had nobody to record their missionary journeys as Paul had, viz. the physician Luke. A single verse, 1 Peter 5:13, gives an indication of the rock-like apostle’s presence in Babylon. About the activities of Thomas in India and Mark in Alexandria (Egypt) we have to rely on scant oral traditions. From the Gospel records we sense that Philip must have been a powerful evangelist. Yet, we have only Acts 8 as a written report of some of his ministry
With regard to ongoing consultation with the church leadership, this was part and parcel of life in Herrnhut in East Germany. There the revival of 13 August 1727 led to the flowering of the missionary endeavour of the Moravians; in fact, it was the laborious writing of diaries and reports, which have enabled later generations to get such a good picture of church life there and of Moravian missionary work in general.

The different Parts of the Body
Paul evidently deemed the unity of the body of Christ as of prime importance. He taught not only about the different parts of the body (Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12) but he also wrote ‘Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit’ (Ephesians 4:3). Paul knew that unity is something at which we must work unceasngly. Earnestly he appealed to the bickering believers in Corinth where factions had developed. He reprimanded not only the followers of Apollos and Peter, but also his own fans in the fellowship for hero-worshipping him. God must be worshipped because he alone can give growth. The flesh in us loves to get recognition, likes to build the own kingdom. Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church included a moving plea: ‘I appeal to you brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ... that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Corinthians 1:10-13 and 3:1-6).

Chapter 3 Honour for the Despised

A tenet that runs through the Bible is that God honours the lowly and despised who put their trust in Him. Jesus and Paul display the nature of God on this issue. The Hebrew Scriptures are full of examples of how God used despised/rejected people.
Eli, the priest, was wise to recognize that Samuel could be raised to become a divine tool already as a boy and David, the shepherd boy, was clearly initially overlooked as a future king of Israel. Joseph had been rejected by his brothers and imprisoned before he became a ruler in Egypt. Ehud stemmed not only from the minute tribe of Benjamin, but he was also left-handed to boot. But he was elevated by God to be a deliverer of his people, as was Gideon who suffered from a serious inferiority complex (respectively in Judges 3 and 6). God can and wants to use the fearful, yes, even the coward. (Yet, the Angel of the Lord called Gideon a mighty warrior when he was in hiding from the all-conquering Midianites.) There is only one condition: we must be obedient and dependent on Him alone. Gideon experienced concretely what God promised through Moses: ‘The Lord your God goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory’ (Deuteronomy 20:4).
With the Moabite Ruth, the biblical condition becomes clear: faith in the God of Israel is the criterion. When Philip interacted with the influential eunuch from Ethiopia, the equivalent of a Finance Minister, that was probably the vehicle to bring the Gospel to our continent, next to Mark who evangelised in Alexandria (Egypt) according to oral tradition.
Our Lord praised the faith the centurion who came from the ranks of the oppressing Romans. Groups usually looked down upon are refugees and vagrants. That Jesus was a refugee as a baby and homeless as an adult, should at least give us food for thought.

The Messianic Stone initially rejected
In the picture of a dome, Jesus is also described as the capstone that holds the building together, with believers as 'living stones' (1 Peter 2:4ff). Simultaneously, Jesus is also the Messianic stone that was rejected by the builders, that became the cornerstone of the divine edifice. That the nation of Israel has been rejected – albeit as punishment for their non-recognition of Yeshuah (Jesus) as Messiah – has some Messianic trait. This wisdom, appearing first in Psalm 118:22, recurs at Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:7, making it one of the New Testament's most repeated phrases. Of course, also the Messianic Isaiah 53:3 speaks about the same thing. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. The Gospel writer John summarised the phenomenon thus: He came to his own people, and even they rejected him (John 1:11).
The living stones are also a chosen people, a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). To be a priest is to be consecrated to God and fellow-man. This is the calling of every Christian. If this functions well, the Church would automatically cease to be an institution chiefly concerned with maintaining forms and traditions. It would meet the world as a united, Spirit-empowered witnessing fellowship.

Fellowship also for the Despised
Jesus offered fellowship to people who were despised by their society. Seeing her deepest need, He spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) who was probably so ashamed to be seen by others that she went to fetch water at a time when there was the least chance to meet other villagers or be seen by them. In meeting her deepest need, Jesus turned the social outcast into one of the first evangelists of the Messiah of all time, causing a people movement among the inhabitants of the little Samaritan town of Sychar. Breaking with all custom of the time, He spoke with the woman in public. The Western rationally-inclined mind would regard the speaking about ‘koeitjies en kalfies’ (trivialities) as wasting of time. Jesus demonstrated how the opening up of a conversation with a stranger about a mundane thing like water can break down walls of prejudice (John 4:10).

Inclusion of the Outsider and Fearful
Jesus led by example in His loving ministry to the doubting, the outsider and the fearful. This is a divine quality. The Master had an eye and a heart for the doubting Thomas. It seems as if Western theological tradition has overlooked that Thomas was prepared to go and die with Jesus (John 11:16). Many only see him as the ‘doubting Thomas’ or even ‘die ongelowige Thomas’ (the unbelieving Thomas). In general, it has hardly been recognized that Thomas was not the only one among the disciples to doubt. It has been reported that '...some doubted' (Matthew 28:17). We note that this happened just before the Ascension of our Lord, i.e. after some of them had been walking close to Him for many months. The Master took doubts seriously, reassuring the hovering disciple in this way. Jesus saw behind the impulsive Peter also his qualities as a potential leader. The Bible teaches that God specifically uses the fearful when they trust Him, even more so when they become completely dependent on Him. This is wonderfully depicted in the life of Gideon (Judges 6-8). He could easily be described as a coward with a serious inferiority complex. Coming from the poorest family of the half tribe of Manasse and youngest of all, he thought he had ample reason to shy away from an awesome task.

Foreigners and Strangers in the Bible
In the Hebrew Scriptures the Israelites are repeatedly admonished to be hospitable to strangers. About Abraham it is specifically mentioned that he was a stranger in various places (Genesis 12:10; 17:8; 20:1). Likewise were Isaac (Genesis 26:3), Jacob (Genesis 32:4), Joseph (Genesis 37ff), Moses (Exodus 2:15ff) and Nehemiah. In fact, it can be argued with some substance that in the case of David and Moses, their years as a refugee served as training ground for later service. The Israelites were strangers in Egypt. Repeatedly they were reminded of this fact. Exactly because they had been oppressed there, they were commanded to refrain from oppressing foreigners. Leviticus 19:33,34 includes the astounding verse Love the stranger as you love yourself. In fact, the Law commands more than once to treat the stranger as an equal (for example Leviticus 24:16, 24). If the foreigner/stranger is destitute, he should be supported and afforded hospitality (Leviticus 25:35).
The Hebrew Scriptures furthermore depict clearly how foreigners became a blessing to the people of God. The prime example in this regard was Joseph who was an Egyptian in the eyes of his brothers when he reminded them of their God and the God of their forefathers. The Ethiopian Ebed-Melech, an official in the royal palace who rescued Jeremiah ((38:7) and the prostitute Rahab are only two of quite a few ‘foreigners’ who are mentioned favourably. Both were rewarded when their lives were saved in the respective sacking of Jerusalem and Jericho. The Italian Cornelius is mentioned positively as someone used by God to rid Peter from his religiously tainted prejudice and pride. This was part and parcel of the divine move to bring the Gospel to Gentiles, God's method to provoke them to ultimately discern who is the one sent by Him as the Messiah and Saviour of the World.
But God also used other nations to chastise the ‘apple of His eye’, the Israelites, when they strayed from Him. God wanted His people to be a blessing to the nations. The idea of the ‘New Testament’ Church as a replacement, a spiritual Israel, is nowhere clearly taught in the Bible, but the inference is nevertheless correct that Israel is the example to the Church. The body of Christ - his Bride - should also bless the nations but there is a need for correction in its other role. As the one new man (Ephesians 2:15) - by His nullifying the tradition of the commandments by decrees, so that He could create the two, Jewish and non-Jewish, into One New Man, establishing peace - all followers of our Lord should willingly and gladly witness together with Messianic Jewish believers, perhaps be ready to be led by them.

Foreigners as a Blessing
A phenomenon is highlighted in the Scriptures, viz. that foreigners can be as a blessing to any nation if given the opportunity.
The persecuted French Huguenots of the late 17th century and the Moravian-Bohemian refugees of the early 18th century are well-documented examples of the phenomenon how God can turn around tragedy into a massive blessing to those who gave refuge to followers of Jesus who had been persecuted for their faith. The Cape profited in a big way from the French Protestants who came here from 1688. The Moravian-Bohemian refugees were divinely used to usher in the modern missionary movement after Count Zinzendorf gave them refuge on his estate in 1721. That was to become the village of Herrnhut.
In recent decades this also happened in the Netherlands. In the 1970s Holland was heading for the spiritual precipice. It was fast resembling a spiritual desert because of liberal teachings at their theological institutions. God used foreigners like the Switzerland-based American national Francis Schaeffer (via the TV) and Floyd McClung, the well-known American Youth with a Mission leader who started ministering there in the 1970s, linking up with a fringe minority of Dutch evangelicals. From 1978 an exiled Capetonian with his German wife started linking up with local evangelicals from different backgrounds in the centrally located town of Zeist. There they started a local evangelistic agency, the Goed Nieuws Karavaan towards the end of 1982. A national impact followed the Campus Crusade-inspired Er is Hoop (There is Hope) campaign of the early 1980s. The big conferences for evangelists in Amsterdam of 1983, 1986 and 2000 - sponsored by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association – had a world-wide influence. Evangelists from all parts of the globe converged on the Dutch capital. In some cases indigenous evangelists came from remote villages which one would not even find on a map.
The converse also happened simultaneously. God used Hein Postma, whom I met when he was the principal of the Moravian primary school in Zeist. He challenge me when I was still very much a disgruntled anti-apartheid activist and embittered exile in Holland. That served as a model to me to start Friends from Abroad at the Cape, a ministry to impact and equip foreigners who came to our shores.

An honoured Place for Refugees
The Bible assigns an honoured place to refugees. Moses became a refugee and fugitive because of his choice to stand with the Israelites. Acts 7:22 points to the fact that he enjoyed the best education of his day in Egypt and the letter to the Hebrews 11:25 highlights how he displayed the Spirit of our Lord to choose suffering, to share in the oppression of his people. He became just like Jesus who voluntarily left the Father's glory, not counting it robbery to become man and ultimately experience the death of a criminal on the cross (Philippians 2:5ff). That David roamed the country, staying in caves and at times living among the enemy with a bunch of rogues, makes him the equivalent of a modern-day gangster. More than once someone from the ranks of the despised and rejected groups - for example a gangster, drug lord or prostitute - was exactly the one God used to make others spiritually hungry, thirsty and inquisitive.
The refugee status of the baby Jesus should fill us with compassion towards all refugees. During his earthly life Jesus was so to speak homeless, only at home with his Father. In fact, already as a twelve year-old he referred to the temple as ‘my Father’s house’ (Luke 2:49). As an adult the Master replied to someone who wanted to follow him: ‘Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head’ (Luke 9:58). When traders defiled the Temple, Jesus jealously guarded the sanctity of its precincts. It had to be a house of prayer. He drove the traders out because ‘… you are making it a den of robbers’ (Matthew 21:13).

An Eye for Down and Outs
Few groups in history had an eye for the potential of down and outs and the outcast, like the homeless, refugees and exiles comparable to the compassion of Count Zinzendorf and his Herrnhut Moravians.
Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, and David, as well as many prominent figures in Church History like Amos Comenius had all been out of their home country against their will for one or another reason. The Herrnhut congregation was banned from Saxony. Jealousy of traders in the Wetteravia, caused them to be also driven from there. We should be quite aware that God can turn seemingly difficult circumstances to the good, to His end. I suggest that the presence of refugees should be regarded as a challenge and a chance. At any rate, they should definitely not be regarded as a threat to our jobs and livelihood.

A special Place for Inexperience, for Women and Youth
The divine creation gender model was equality between male and female. The Hebrew Scriptures swam against the stream of ancient Oriental culture when they depicted how individual women like Jochebed, the mother of Moses and complete outsiders like Rahab, a pagan and a prostitute, played a special role in Jewish history. At a time when females counted for nothing, Deborah led the Israelite army (Judges 4 and 5). The teenagers Esther and Mary, the mother of Jesus, are very special in God's wisdom, which goes against the grain of our human ideas. At the same time, the wisdom of experience and age should be appreciated and highly valued.
The Lord entered Jerusalem on an inexperienced colt, the foal of a donkey – not on a horse or a camel, the more fancied transport animals of the day. It is remarkable that God seems to have a special place for young people who are ready to go all out for him. In fact, it has been generally overlooked that Jesus drove out the religious establishment from the temple – with animals and all – so that there could be place for despised, for those coming from the nations,22the lame, the blind and the children (Matthew 21:14). Religious church people may perhaps have to be driven aside so that God can be worshiped in Spirit and in Truth.

Engaging so-called non-Entities in Mission
After the 18th century Moravians and Methodists, the next spiritual giant who engaged so-called non-entities in missionary work was Hudson Taylor, a British Protestant missionary to China, and the founder of the China Inland Mission (CIM, now OMF International). James Hudson Taylor (Chinese: 戴德生) (21 May 1832 – 3 June 1905)spent 51 years in China. The agency that he founded was responsible for bringing over 800 missionaries to the country. Hebegan 125 schools and his ministry resulted in 18,000 Christian conversions. More than 300 stations of work were established with more than 500 local helpers in all eighteen provinces of China.
Hudson Taylor was known for his sensitivity to Chinese culture and zeal for evangelism. He adopted wearing native Chinese clothing even though this was rare among missionaries of that time. Under his leadership, the CIM was exemplary non-denominational in practice, accepting members from all Protestant groups, including individuals from the working class and single women, as well as multi-national recruits. Primarily because of the CIM's campaign against the opium trade, Taylor has been referred to as one of the most significant Europeans to visit China in the 19th century. Historian Ruth Tucker (???:73) summarises the theme of his life: 'No other missionary in the nineteen centuries since the Apostle Paul has had a wider vision and has carried out a more systematised plan of evangelising a broad geographical area than Hudson Taylor'.

Thumbs down to hierarchical Church Structures
In the ‘NT' Church23 plural non-hierarchical leadership seems to have been the norm. Presbyters and deacons were not regarded as titles but valued and used respectively as a gesture of respectful honour and a function in serving. Apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelists were in Paul's teaching functions as equals in the four- or five-fold ministries. He took for granted that each one in the church received grace24 (Ephesians 4:7), from which flows one or more of these functions. In his first letter to the Corinthians (14:26) Paul states as a given that in the ekklesia, the church, each one should edify each other (oikodomeo, build each other up) whenever the believers congregate.
The only permissible 'NT' 'hierarchy' would be to see Jesus Christ as the capstone, the head of the Church. In various ways the image of a building is used in Scripture. In Matthew 16 Jesus himself said that he will build (oikodomeo is the verb) his church. Paul notes that he intends to operate like a master builder with Christ as the foundation stone. In another picture the Gentiles and Jews form together God's house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. The cornerstone is Christ himself (Ephesians 2:20) that holds together these two functions, the apostolic and the prophetic dimensions.
These two functions have to complement each other with Jesus as the connecting link. To be an apostle means throughout the fulfilling of a function, those sent from the bosom of the church. From here the word missionary was derived (via the Latin missio). The model of the apostle/missionary was the ambassador of Rome. In a similar way every follower of Jesus is an ambassador and emissary/missionary who has to attempt to inculcate and represent the culture of the Kingdom of God (2 Corinthians 5:20).
Chapter 4 Obstacles to Unity

The apostle Paul advised: "Every Scripture is ... useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). In the first letter to the Corinthians he wrote about the wisdom of the world, which they should definitely not strive after. In the same context (1 Corinthians 1:18-21) Paul applies Isaiah 29:14, to stress how futile philosophy is: 'Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.' God would ultimately baffle and destroy the useless learning and wisdom of the Greeks. The Early Church Fathers unfortunately did not always latch onto this advice. But there is a danger, viz. to go overboard in futile debate and discussion. Tertullian, a jurist who joined the Christians of North Africa in 207 A.D., saw philosophy very wisely as a major culprit: ‘heresies are themselves prompted by philosophy ... After Christ Jesus we desire no subtle theories, no acute enquiries after the Gospel...’?25 Against the advice of Paul not to get involved in futile philosophical arguments, the very same Tertullian brought the element of polemic bickering into the equation like few others before or after him. In this chapter we will touch on issues which divide the three Abrahamic religions. Theological squabbling was a major culprit in this regard.

A Disservice to the Church
Tertullian rendered the Church a disservice when he introduced the terms ‘trinitas’, ‘substantia’ and ‘personae’. This was his effort to describe the Trinity, the nature of Christ and the different manifestations of God in the Son and the Holy Spirit. His terse descriptions ‘one substance but three persons’ and ‘two natures, one person’ were nice-sounding, but they ushered in theological polemics. It is clear that the early Christians confessed both Christ and the Spirit to be Lord and there are indications of the equating of the three ‘persons’ in the ‘NT’. Tertullian’s philosophical theologising was not helpful however. After the heretic Marcion – who was clearly outlawed by the Church – the lion’s share of the bickering that led to the Arian controversy and later to the unfortunate quarrels around the formulation of the Holy Trinity, has possibly to be attributed to Tertullian.

Limited scriptural Backing for the Trinity
Taken from a position of faith, the Trinitarian formulae had much clout, but they have limited scriptural backing. Ephesians 4: 4-6 speaks of ‘one Spirit… one Lord …one God and Father of all.’ In 1 Corinthians 12: 4-6 Paul writes of the same Spirit, the same Lord and the same God. Peter chips in with his words ‘the foreknowledge of God, the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ’ (1 Peter 1:2). Yet, that is rather meagre as a basis upon which to build the whole doctrine of the Trinity. A little bit more substance we find in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 as evidence of the granting of spiritual gifts, different kinds of service and different kinds of expression and manifestation, noting that 'to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good' (1 Corinthians 12:7). 'There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work'. The Holy Spirit will reveal to those people searching after truth that there are so many characteristics of the triune God in which He has revealed or manifested himself when we read and study the Holy Scriptures.
It is surely true that the Holy Spirit is much more than merely a force like electricity or the wind. But to debate about its nature was not really necessary in my view – the bad smell of theology.

The Use of Latin
Another unwitting contribution of Tertullian was his use of Latin, moving away from the practice in theological circles. Cyprian followed in the footsteps of his master Tertullian. Their prior training in Law may have played an important role, in contrast to the Church leaders of Egypt who wrote in Coptic, thus indigenising the national expression of the body of Christ. In spite of his Berber descent, Augustine also treaded the same treacherous path of Tertullian and Cyprian, weakening the North African Church tremendously. The uncompromising attitude of Cyprian and Augustine led to the schism with the Donatists. These Church Fathers can be sadly said to have introduced denominationalism to the African continent.

Introduction of Greek Thought Patterns
Tertullian was not the only one guilty of the introduction of Greek thought patterns which divided the Church. Origen (184 -254 AD) was a giant amongst the early Christian thinkers. He tried to interpret Christian concepts in language familiar to the Platonic tradition, 'mingling philosophical discussion with expositions of biblical cruxes' (Chadwick, 1969:100). Possibly unwittingly, he undermined the Hebrew thought pattern in this way. Hebrew thinking is more inclusive, wary of false alternatives. A typical example of Origen's attempt is how he would play down the dissention between Peter and Paul at Antioch, suggesting that is was merely 'edifying play-acting' (Chadwick, 1969:100).

Religious Arrogance spread
Religious arrogance was spread by Justin Martyr in the second century. He stressed that the nation of Israel had been ‘rejected’ by God because of their disobedience. In Romans 11, Paul clearly stated that God did not reject the Jews totally and finally. Their limited temporary time of 'rejection' was also intended to bring the Gentiles to the Father. Upon seeing Gentiles enjoying a relationship with God would arouse a sanctified envy among the Jews. In addition, although the first day of the week was called ‘the Lord’s Day’, specially honoured as a day of special celebration of his Resurrection, there was still real dialogue between Christians and Jews in the second century. Justin’s record of his interaction with Trypho, a Jew, testifies to this. The next major schismatic group displaying religious arrogance was those Christians who allied themselves with the doctrines of Novatian. He was a Roman priest who let himself be made a rival pope, one of the first antipopes. He held that lapsed Christians, who had not maintained their confession of faith under persecution, may not be received again into communion with the Church. They went so far as to re-baptise their converts.26 Novatianists were labelled by Rome as schismatics. Novatian was an advocate of the traditional view that to those guilty of murder, adultery and apostasy the Church had no power to grant remission, but only to intercede for divine mercy at the Last Judgement.

East-West Rift: the Result of Semantics
The arch enemy of the Church abused semantics to sow disunity. A single letter spawned the Arian controversy. Affirming the divinity of Jesus, the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) delegates turned their attention to the question of how Jesus relates to the Father. This ignited more semantic squabbling. The historian Eusebius suggested at the occasion that Jesus had a nature similar to that of the Father (homo-ousos). Athanasius, who was not invited to the proceedings, had earlier already stated that this would be a compromise which would miss the full teaching of Christ’s divinity. The Lord was homo-ousios, one and the same, not merely of similar substance. The whole discussion boiled down to a debate over the difference between the Greek words for similar and same, about the presence of the letter i of the Greek alphabet. In the extension of this debate the doctrine of our Lord's divinity, the issue of Jesus’ Sonship (of God) and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity were later drawn into the discussion.
Worse was to follow when the theologians tried to formulate the position and origin of the Holy Trinity within the Creed. The Western form of the Nicene Creed affirms that the Holy Spirit '...proceeds from the Father and the Son'. Eastern Orthodox theologians formulated the same truth as: We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life … who proceeds from the Father.
Massive disagreement arose about the part of the Father and the Son in sending the Spirit, causing division in AD 1054. Because the difference boils down to the phrase … and the Son (filioque in Latin), the disagreement became known as the filioque controversy.
This was of course mere semantics, completely unnecessary as Thomas Smail pointed out so clearly. In his contribution The Holy Spirit and the Resurrection27 Smail described very lucidly how the biblical account of the resurrection is 'an act in which God reveals himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each actiing in a distinctive way but in the closest possible relationship and … in unity with one another.' (Walker (ed), 1988:65). He furthermore showed how the message of the Trinity is fairly centrally included not only in the discovery of the empty tomb and the appearances of the risen Lord, 'but also the ascension and exaltation of Jesus to the Father's right hand and the imparting of the Spirit to the Church' (ibid, p. 67).
Abuse of Sound Doctrine
Sound doctrine, however, has sometimes also been abused to bind people denominationally. Even a virtue like humility can become a negative tenet if someone becomes proud of it. The follower of Jesus should display humility, but he is no door-mat. Humble submission is a virtue, but slavish subservience is sinful. The believer in Jesus may assert his authority in humility, but he does not have to allow anybody to abuse him as a slave (2 Corinthians 11:20). If we have been liberated by the Son of God, we are free indeed (John 8:36). There is thus a subtle difference between biblical submission and bondage due to servility. Under the guise of submission expected by wives or congregants, Church leaders sometimes also become guilty in this regard. Those who are trampled upon in this way are however not blameless either, because we should not allow ourselves to be brought under a yoke of slavery, under a new bondage (Galatians 5:1). After all, believers may invoke the anointing of the Holy Spirit to break every yoke of bondage (compare Isaiah 10:27). A good check in every denominational situation is whether there is a good balance with regard to freedom. Where the Spirit of the Lord reigns, there is freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17). If there is a lack of freedom for adherents and members to associate with believers from another Bible-based denomination, the red light should flicker. If unbiblical prohibition of any sort is present, like with Jehovah’s Witnesses or the New Apostolic Church, the lack of freedom is clear. But we should not allow it to come even near to that stage. On the other hand, the freedom to which Christ has liberated us contains a healthy restraint, not to be brought into a new bondage. Overdrawn and enforced loyalty to strong personalities and their often one-sided interpretation of Scripture - in combination with their teaching of these interpretations - has also been another major cause for splits.
Attempts at the Veneration of Mary in the ‘NT’
Attempts at the veneration of Mary were already present in the ‘New Testament’. There were at least two efforts during Jesus’ lifetime to put Mary on a pedestal in a wrong way. In both these instances Jesus deemed it necessary to rectify his audience. They are recorded in Luke 11:27-28 and Matthew 12:46-50.
In the afore-mentioned Scripture, Luke 11:27-28, a woman from the crowd called out to Jesus: ‘Blessed is your mother - the womb from which you came, and the breasts that gave you suck!’ Jesus basically agreed to these sentiments in his reply, but he put things in perspective: ‘Yes, but even more blessed are all who hear the Word of God and put it into practice.’ This reply of Jesus was in a sense an echo of what Mary herself said at the wedding in Cana when Jesus started his ministry. In John 2:5 we read how she said to the servants: Do whatever he tells you!
In the second Scripture reference, Matthew 12:46-50, Jesus was speaking in a crowded house when his mother and brothers wanted to talk to him. When someone told him they were there, he remarked: Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? Look! he said, These are my mother and brothers. Then Jesus added, anyone who obeys my Father in heaven is my brother, sister and mother.
So we see that even during Jesus' lifetime, He had to rectify people who wanted to make more out of Mary than what she had herself perceived to be primarily, namely the maid servant of God. At the same time, it joins all people who want to do the will of the Father, who worship Jesus as the Son of God. They become a big family, as brothers and sisters of each other. Thus we could even interpret Jesus’ reply as a stinging attack on all forms of sectarianism and denominationalism.
The prophetic word of the aged Simeon that a sword would pierce her soul was possibly pointing to her experience decades later at the feet of the Cross, where she would witness how her Son would die cruelly and innocently.
In spite of Jesus’ own words - which were of course not yet freely available - Mary was worshipped before long almost like a goddess, at the expense of her son. An idolatrous worship followed, a practice which was later to be imitated also in respect of ‘saints’. As a rule, these revered (wo)men of God were devoted Christians who themselves had pointed people to Jesus. Mary herself did just that when she said: ‘Do whatever he tells you’ (John 2:5).

Continued Worship of Mary
Too much influenced by the Reformation, Protestants are in general very negatively inclined towards Roman Catholicism, especially with regard to anything that honours the mother of Jesus. Because of this, Mary is perhaps more highly regarded by Muslims in general than by the average Western Protestant. Many Muslims see Mary and Jesus as the only two sinless people to ever have traversed the earth. The influence of Roman Catholicism in this view is all too obvious.
We can be thankful for Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which could have rectified our view to appreciate the mother of our Lord more. The indirect indoctrination which we in the West experienced – especially in the 'cold war' era – possibly blinkered us so much that this tenet got out of sight of our Protestant churches and seminaries, often mingled with suspicion of Communist influence.
Thankfully there are individual Protestants who did attempt to value the biblical truths highlighted in the veneration of Mary. Richard Wurmbrand (If Prison Walls could speak, 1972:41) thus pointed to a beautiful hymn sung in the Orthodox churches on Good Friday, to express the awe which her Son inspired in Mary. (Wurmbrand preached to the prison cell walls without having access to a Bible). The Holy Spirit revealed some profound truths to Wurmbrand, such as that Mary believed in the Lord, whereas his own physical brothers did not (John 7:5). Of course, two of the brothers, James and Jude, did subsequently become believers. (The former became even the general leader of the Jesus' Movement.) In a balanced way Wurmbrand argues with ‘my Orthodox and Catholic friends’, noting that ‘they seem to forget sometimes how unspeakably small the Virgin Mary felt herself to be, and how unworthy, when she held the infant in her arms.’
Protestants are often quick to put the blame for the idolatrous honouring of Mary on the Roman Catholic Church. It is sobering to remind ourselves as Protestants that this early development is part and parcel of our common Church History, many centuries before the Reformation. This is an integral part of our common guilt.
The Roman Catholic Church however has to take full responsibility that there has hardly been any effort to rectify the idolatrous worship of Mary. In fact, apart from the unfortunate occult connections that Catholicism appears to have inherited from the ancient Mithrash cults, two doctrines were added in this denomination which have no biblical basis, namely the immaculate conception of Mary and her supposed ascension. Crooked circular reasoning caused the Roman Catholic Church to refuse recognising James, the epistle writer, as a brother of Jesus. As a 'perpetual virgin' Mary was not supposed to have had other children. (The unholy veneration of Muhammad and his ‘ascension’ could be traced to this development.)

The Danger of futile Debate and Discussion
In his interaction with the Pharisee rabbi Nicodemus, Jesus compared the Holy Spirit with the wind, which is something inexplicable. The wind blows where it wills, you cannot tell where it comes from or where it goes to (John 3:8). The wind is a reality and yet one cannot explain it. To explain how it works to get 'born again' thus likewise has an inexplicable character. Why do people start to try and explain inexplicable things, thereby merely causing confusion? I suggest that satan himself has been at work, because argumentation all too often leads to the lie via exaggeration and distortion. And this almost invariably brings with it demonic division, tragically often also within the Body of Christ.

The Denial of the Cross in Church Tradition
Various aspects of the application of the Cross - for example the crucified life of believers - could be mentioned which are negatively affected, sometimes even cancelled by church traditions. The evasion of persecution because of one’s faith and of innocent suffering for your beliefs, would be among the most important ones. Paul reprimanded the Galatian Christians who tried to lure new believers, by avoiding persecution and compelling new believers to be circumcised (Galatians 6:12).
In the 4th and 5th centuries, the Donatists of North Africa similarly despised Christians who had wilted under the pressures of persecution. The Donatists were the followers of Donatus and those Christian theologians who made suffering for Jesus' sake and for the cause of the Gospel such a virtue that nobody who had wilted once under persecution was allowed to take an office in the Church.

Doubtful and Unbiblical Baptismal Practices
The practice of all forms of baptism in the Church, which eradicate or lessen the visible demonstration of the death and resurrection of Jesus, would be another example of denial of the Cross. Romans 6:5 especially refers to the symbolic identification of the new believer with the death and resurrection of Jesus in the act of baptism. The symbolism is all but lost with any practice other than believers’ baptism by immersion. The aspect of obedience in faith must be stressed. Convenient baptism by immersion to be with the crowd - without a commitment to become a Jesus follower who is willing to deny himself and takes up his cross - is not good enough. This is also denial of the Cross.
Prior to the practice of mass baptism during and after the reign of Constantine, the step of baptism was also understood as a willing ‘taking up of the cross’, a preparedness to be persecuted for your faith. Thus John introduces himself in the book of Revelations, as ‘your brother and companion in the suffering’ (1:9).
The arch enemy definitely succeeded to infiltrate the Christian camp through doubtful baptismal practices by the Great Church after and during the reign of Constantine. Hereafter the impression was spread that it was not needed any more to make a clear stand when one turns to Christ. The practice of ‘confirmation’ was a poor replacement of the original commitment and confession of baptism by immersion as a step of obedience and an affirmation of self-denial. The sound teaching of confirmation classes that precede the actual church service of consecration, is something that is often lacking in the practice of baptism by immersion. All too often it is performed as a ritual, without a testimony by the person to be immersed.
There has hardly been any other tradition over which there had been so much dispute (even conflict) than around various issues around baptism. Both John the Baptist and Jesus had shown the way in John 3:27-30 and 4:1-3 about the issue when their respective disciples were upset by rumours around baptism and ritual washings. Neither of them allowed a schism to develop between them because of this petty bickering.

The Abuse of Scripture
A typical example of modern-day abuse of scriptural debate could be doctrinal differences around the meaning of the Greek words logos and rhema. What purpose does it serve to go to some length to explain for example that logos is supposed to refer to the written word and rhema to the spoken word? A closer study would show that they are used interchangeably in Scripture.28 But what would be the purpose of such a study? Through academic ‘stone throwing’ about nothing, much energy is lost that could rather be used to spread the Gospel. It should suffice to know that Jesus is God’s Word incarnate, which must be passed on as the Good News, a power of God unto salvation for those who believe in Him (Romans 1:16). What a sad indictment that many have not heard the preached Word because Christians were entangled in theological and doctrinal wrangling (Compare Romans 10:15, ‘How can they hear without someone preaching to them?’) In fact, the sharp edge of the Word is blunted in this way. On the other hand, in stead of senseless semantics, e.g. around rhema and logos, the investigation of the use in the original languages could be so enriching, e.g. pneuma and ruach,29the respective words for breath and wind in Greek and Hebrew - as well as glõssa, the word for tongue. With the availability of the Internet, such studies can nowadays be undertaken quite easily.
The sad side-effect of such unnecessary semantic squabbling is that deeper theological truths are then missed or obscured. That Jesus is the Logos in John 1 is generally duly recognised and understood that he was part of the Godhead at creation. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. To highlight the philosophical use by the gospel writer within a Gnosis context, only darken the fact that the divine element involved was also discerned by people outside of the Judeo-Christian frame. The Gentile Roman centurion of Matthew 8:9 definitely understood something of the divine authority that Jesus possessed to just speak a word. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” He believed that a word from the Master would suffice to heal his sick slave.
A quite surprising fact is that the Qur'an – possibly not intentionally – contains the element as well in the special chapter Surah Imran 3. There we read in aya 59: The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". The emphasis is clearly to stress that Allah created by speaking the word 'Be'. In Surah An-Nisa 4:171 we read Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was a Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers.30

Two Cases of semantic Squabbling
I want to briefly look at two examples of unfortunate doctrinal squabbling of recent decades: the preaching of females from the pulpit and gay men as preachers. For centuries it has been recorded in the Bible that Mary Magdalene was the first female to spread the Good News of the resurrection of our Lord according to the Gospel of John (Chapter 20 and Mark 16). A eunuch was one of the first carriers – possibly the very first – of the Good News to Africa. Even though this may nowhere be abused to support practising gays as preachers of the Word, it should also not be (ab)used in any semantic exercise. There are too many other scriptures that clearly oppose a life-style that contradicts the biblical definition of a marriage as one male with one female. Elsewhere I highlight that both the traditional monologue-type of preaching and a hierarchical form of (local) church government do not have 'NT' backing. If we keep in mind that everyone should be ready to contribute, be it with a revelation, an instruction, a hymn, a psalm or song (1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 5:19) whenever believers come together, the whole discussion of female or gay preacher become redundant.

What about secret Believers?
When Jesus pointed to the elevated serpent in the desert in the Numbers 21 event during the nightly visit of Nicodemus, the religious leader possibly knew exactly that this was Messianic. There was no long monologue necessary. Didn't Isaiah (45:22) pen the divine words 'Look to me and be saved'. Those who had been bitten by the snakes merely had to look in obedience to the serpent on the pole! God's very nature has always primarily been love for the perishing (John 3:16). It seems that Nicodemus remained a secret believer until the death of our Lord. Only at the cross (John 19:38-42) he and his friend Joseph from Arimathea, another secret believer, showed that they stood by the man of Nazareth who had been crucified. Whereas it should possibly not be encouraged, we may nevertheless not be judgemental if certain Jews or Muslims do not have the courage immediately to break with their religious upbringing. Some find it quite easy to do but others have great difficulty to get over the hurdle.

Paul’s insensitivity to Jewish Christians
Paul, the great apostle, was not completely innocent in creating the impression that he was insensitive to the sentiments of the Jewish Christians, let alone to those of the other Jews. When he came to Jerusalem with his contingent, according to the report in Acts 21, the leaders there could really empathise with the group, rejoicing at what God had done through Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles. James promptly referred to the ‘many thousands of Jews’ (who) have believed, ‘and all of them zealous for the law’ (v. 20). Strikingly, James brought over to Paul what was the talk of the town: ‘They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs’. James tried to quell the flames of anger with a suggestion how Paul could show the Jews that he was not a fully fledged apostate of the law. It did not help much. Incited by malicious opponents, furious Jews almost killed Paul. Whether there was miscommunication or not, the tension radiated by the allegations brought against Paul had spoken a language of its own.
From what has been handed down, it is clear that these allegations had a lot of substance. Words from Paul like the comparison in Romans 7:1-6, are quite unfortunate. To compare the Law of Moses to a marriage when the husband has died, was apt to send many a Jewish heart boiling in anger: ‘You are no more under the law’ (v.6). Paul, the prolific letter-writing missionary, did not always practice what Jesus preached, for example when he spoke about his adversaries. To refer to anybody as ‘dogs’ does not radiate enemy love. (Jesus did say of course some biting things to the face of the Pharisees and Scribes, but possibly very rarely behind their backs.) What is worse is that Paul probably referred scathingly to other believers in the context of his letter to the Philippians. The words ‘...those dogs, those men who do evil’ (Philippians 3:2) could still have pertained to anybody – even thugs for that matter - but ‘those mutilators of the flesh’ is evidently a word play, a reference to the prime representatives of circumcision (katatome and peritome respectively). Paul deliberately attacked the Judaizers’ insistence on circumcision, by sarcastically calling it mutilation. For those believers who had lost the significance of circumcision and insisted on it as a rite for Christians, it was merely a 'mutilation of the flesh'. This he follows up in the context with ‘For it is we who are the circumcision’ (3:3). A touch of haughty arrogance can be detected easily. He probably unintentionally widened the rift between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

Was Paul divisive?
A strong case could be made for suggesting that a rather controversial Paul caused division in the early Church. His initial reaction to the onslaught of the Judaizers was possibly not lovingly enough. It is nevertheless unfair that Paul is singled out if we consider that Jesus also really called a spade a spade. Paul was clearly quite outspoken. Here and there carnal reactions would flare such as in Acts 18:6 But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, 'Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.' However, he must have gained his composure soon thereafter. He moved to Ephesus where he kept his cool perseveringly in spite of provocation. Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord. (Acts 18: 8-10).
It can be easily shown that the allegation that Paul was divisive, has to be qualified. If there was one who had a vision for the unity of the body of Christ, it was Paul. In his early letters, especially in the letter to the Galatians, Paul was possibly not following in the Master’s footsteps meticulously in this regard. We have noted how he referred to opponents as dogs and ‘those mutilators of the flesh’. This must be seen however against the background of the Judaizers, who went around giving the impression that James had sent them, but without proper authorization (Acts 15:24), thus disturbing the unity of Jesus' followers.
The assertion that Paul contributed to the retention of the rift between the Judaizers and the rest of the Body clearly has some validity, but it is also true that Paul mellowed his tone in later letters. By the time of his writing the second letter to the Corinthians, he beseeches ‘by the meakness and gentleness of Christ (10:1ff), emphasising that spiritual warfare must not be applied with carnality. Paul’s teaching to the Gentile churches on unity was excellent, but possibly even he could not do enough to restore the strained relations between him and the Jewish Christians. The question is however, if they would have allowed him. The prejudice of society was heavily stacked against him because of his status as an apostate, perceived as someone who had left the Jewish faith to become a follower of the blasphemer Jesus. (In the rank-and-file Jewish view of the day Jesus posed as the Messiah, who also claimed blasphemously to be the Son of God. The followers of Jesus started off as a peripheral minority.)
In Acts 21:17ff it is reported how Paul attempted to follow up James’ advice meticulously. But he was nevertheless almost killed by the Jews, who were furious because of his teaching on the law and circumcision. Modern opponents of Paul, as well as those down the ages, seemed to have overlooked that there had been consensus at the Jerusalem Council. However, in Acts 15 it is recorded how the Judaizers’ insistence on circumcision was first opposed by Peter, thereafter by Barnabas, Paul and James. Furthermore, although Paul was so firm about not wanting to enforce circumcision for the Gentiles, he baptised Timothy himself (Acts 16:3) ‘because of the Jews’. He thus demonstrated that he was neither dogmatic nor legalistic about it at all.

Paul misinterpreted?
The Gentile majority – possibly influenced by the teaching of Paul - considered the continued observance of the traditional customs and rites of Judaism as ‘works’. Coming from his Pharisee background Paul did have a hangover and objection against the legalistic bondage of the law, but he did not dump 'works' completely. He emphasised grace in this connection as an antidote to uncharitable boasting: 'For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast' (Ephesians 2:8f). But he immediately goes on to refer to the basis of good works: For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works...(v.10).
Another teaching of Paul, namely that the barrier between the Gentile believers and the Jewish-descent Christians was broken down by faith in Jesus Christ, was by far not known universally in his lifetime and subsequent decades. Early compatriot Jewish Christians, who saw things differently in many ways, called themselves Ebionites. (From this source many Islamic doctrines evolved.31)
Talmudic Judaism remained fairly quite close to Christianity, until the age of Emperor Constantine at least ideologically. Many a targum - Aramaic commentary on the Scriptures - sometimes even pointed to the death and resurrection of Jesus. There is for example the suggestion in targums on Genesis 22 that Isaac carried the wood like someone would carry a cross. Another one suggests that Isaac passed out when Abraham lifted the knife on Mount Moriah - to be resuscitated when the voice stopped Abraham in his tracks.

Economic Justice as the biblical Pattern
Jesus was definitely deeply influenced by the thought pattern of economic justice. David Bosch notes that the idea of the year of Jubilee permeates the Gospel of Luke (Bosch, 1990:41).32 That the nation of Israel did not heed the laws given to them, may never be an excuse for us to perpetuate the historical pattern of greed and exploitation, but it should rather be a challenge for us to adapt economic justice for our time and situation.
The first Christians spread a tradition and culture of generosity and sharing, with aid given to the poor brethren and sisters in Jerusalem. Visser ‘t Hooft calls this inter-church aid ‘.. a witness to the solidity of the bond between all who belong to Christ’ (Visser ‘t Hooft, 1959:49).
Paul, the apostle, also came from the same school of thought. Thus he laid a link in the economic sense, as can be seen in his wording of 2 Corinthians 8. Here he radicalizes the idea: ‘Though they (the Macedonian churches) have been going through much trouble and hard times, they have mixed their wonderful joy with their deep poverty, and the result has been an overflow of giving to others. They gave not only what they could afford, but far more...and not because of nagging on my part (verses 2 and 3)... Now I want you (wealthy Corinthians) to be leaders also in the spirit of cheerful giving (v.7)...You know how full of love and kindness our Lord Jesus was: though he was so very rich, yet to help you he became so very poor, so that by being poor he could make you rich … (v.9).’
Also in the teaching of John, the Baptist, sharing is mentioned. When his listeners asked him what they ought to do as a token of their repentance, he identifies their sin in terms of the preparedness to share their possessions with the poor. This means that riches as such are not condemned out of hand. Job, Abraham, Joseph, David and a few other personalities in the Hebrew Scriptures are examples of affluent people who were nevertheless mentioned as positive examples.
But Jesus warned against riches that could make it almost impossible for someone to enter the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:23- 26). Also Paul saw riches as a snare, as a temptation. The love for money is described as ‘the root of all evil’ (1 Timothy 6:9, 10).

Quality rather than Quantity
Sheep stealing and the conscious attempts to increase the number of adherants belong to the great obstacles to unity. From John 3 and 4 and also from other Gospel narratives we can safely surmise that Jesus was not interested at all to boast with an impressive number of followers. Thus, when ‘many disciples turned back and no longer followed him’, Jesus offered to the twelve in John 6:67, “You do not want to leave too, do you?’ On another occasion, one of the disciples cried 'wolf' after they had seen someone driving out demons in Jesus' name. Significantly, this disciple objected that the person was 'not one of us.' Opposing this sectarian spirit of exclusivity and arrogance, the Master responded coolly with ‘Don’t forbid him...Anyone who is not against us, is for us’ (Mark 9:38f).

Discipling in Depth as a Priority
Without neglecting the masses, the Master sent away those who wanted to follow him for ulterior motives, for example because of signs and wonders. As we have just seen, He even offered this generously to the twelve disciples. (Compare this with Saul who became nervous and disobedient when His soldiers deserted him (1 Samuel 13:11). Our Lord invites us to follow him for what He is and not for what we hope to get out of the deal. Jesus taught the few, who had to become multipliers. In mission strategy, discipling in depth should always have the priority over evangelising in breadth.
Jesus led by example rather than by precept. In so many words, servanthood - feet washing - became the example, which His disciples had to follow (John 13:15). The Master probably spent more time with His disciples than with everybody else put together. Whether He addressed the masses or whether He spoke to the Scribes and Pharisees, the disciples were close at hand to observe and to listen.

Religious Leaders causing Splits
The teaching of unity as a biblical priority has been grossly neglected. Religious leaders through the ages fell into the trap of allowing themselves to be hero‑worshipped or causing rifts (or both). They often caused splits and division through a strong emphasis on some doctrinal tenet. We bear in mind that all great men have aroused the opposition of lesser minds. By way of a strong emphasis on some special doctrinal teaching or distortion of the Word, they however sometimes polarised believers, blurring the vision for the unity of the Body of Christ and causing splits instead. Many denominations started in this way. To our own detriment we lose out and miss the blessings God wants to give, because He is eager to command His blessings when there is unity (compare Psalm 133:1,3).
It is sad to see the low morals that religious leaders can display when their influence appears to be threatened. Instead of doing introspection, the Pharisees of Jesus' day started a smear campaign. And because they could not successfully hit at Jesus’ moral quality, they tried to play Him out against John, the Baptist (John 4:1ff). The aim of their endeavours was evidently to get Jesus out of the way. I wonder if the beastly intrigue, which preceded the death of John the Baptist, did not have its origin with the religious leaders. From what we read in the gospels about the Baptist, he might just as well have told Herodias or Herod to their face what he thought of their incestuous marriage. But some incitement by certain leaders would also have fitted perfectly into the picture. Let’s face it: some of the things that the Master said to those Pharisees and Sadducees who came to him were not readily palatable.33
In South Africa many a prominent Christian leader become a victim of fame. In a subtle way the heresy of apartheid caused some believers to lose their sense of biblical priorities. Quite a few Church leaders, who started off as committed followers in Jesus, were side-tracked in the struggle against apartheid. Many a pastor lost his passion and urgency to reach the spiritually lost. (I was one of those who nearly lost my way in this regard.)

Chapter 5 The need for Plurality and Diversity

Romans proclaimed divide et impera34 (divide and rule) as the supreme method to subjugate groups and nations. By its very nature it is thus divisive and diabolic. It is not surprising that this has been a prime method of the arch enemy, using conflict as a tool. To our shame the Church and Missions have often imitated and used this tool, colonising and subjugating people groups and nations, robbing them of land and dignity. Has this ever been confessed by representatives of the Church universal?

Plurality and Diversity
It is interesting that Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in North Africa from 248-258 CE, already saw the importance of the unity of the Church, yet allowing for plurality. He wrote: ‘The church is a unity, yet by her fruitful increase she is extended far and wide to form a plurality; even as the sun has many rays, but one light; and a tree many boughs but one trunk, whose foundation is the deep-seated root... So also the Church, flooded with the light of the Lord, extends her rays over all the globe; yet it is one light which is diffused everywhere and the unity of the body is not broken up....yet, there is but one head, one source...’ The sad side of the picture is that Cyprian was also labelled as the 'champion of episcopacy.' The importance that he attached to the local bishop, supported an unbiblical hierarchy which would have its most extreme form in the Roman Catholic hierarchy with the pope at the summit of the echelon of cardinals, archbishops, bishops and other Church dignitaries.

'No' to fruitless theological Discussion
The modern concept of pluralism is in biblical terms untenable. This plurality implies dialogue where it is understood and expected that no party takes an absolute stand. An important snippet of advice from Paul, which he passed on through his letters, is not to indulge in fruitless theological discussion, which too often merely divides the Body of Christ (for example 2 Timothy 2:14ff; 2 Timothy 6:3-6). This was not heeded or followed generally. We cannot emphasise this too strongly. If the Church through the ages had heeded this advice, a lot of tragedy could have been avoided. Here I refer not only to the many splits which account for the multitude of denominations, but especially also to the doctrinal and petty bickering of Church leaders that have been confusing Christians down the centuries.

The one necessary Thing
The Bible speaks of diversity based on unity. Comenius, the last bishop of the old Czech Unitas Fratrum (Unity of the Brethren) wisely discerned that there should be unity in essentials. Differences in minor issues should be allowed.
A common element with all great reformers of the Church has been their close relationship with the Lord. Referring to Psalm 27:4 which expresses the wish of the Psalmist as the one thing he desires, to be in God's presence forever, but possibly also highlighting the choice of Mary compared to that of her sister Martha (Luke 10:38-42), Comenius wrote a booklet Unum Necessarium (the one necessary thing).35 Mary chose to sit at the feet of Jesus. The world must be changed and renewed. Restoration and renewal of man and humanity can take place via the one necessary thing, sitting at the feet of Jesus Christ, the restorer of His Church. Count Zinzendorf took it further, spelling it out that differences could even serve towards mutual enrichment. There have been only a few people like the 18th century German Count Zinzendorf who practised and preached the unity of the body with such verve. He for one was very unhappy when his group was more or less forced to become a denomination, to enable them to operate in Britain.

Run-up to Replacement Theology
The rift between Judaism and Christianity probably started with the expulsion of Paul from the synagogue. His contact with Gentiles was just one too much for the legalists among the Jews.36 But Jesus had already warned his disciples that this day would come (John 16:2): They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. It became increasingly clear that 'NT' Christianity on the one hand – with the strong stamp of Pauline emphasis of the freedom in Christ - and the legalistic interpretation of the Law on the other hand, were by and large incompatible.
Some Gentile believers went overboard, rejoicing too much in the rejection of Jews after the religious leaders in Israel had rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Paul had to rebuke those Gentile followers of Jesus who adopted a haughty attitude towards Jews. He reminded them that they were merely wild olive branches, grafted into the true olive tree, Israel (Romans 11:17).37
Paul however may unwittingly have caused the start of the development of so-called Replacement Theology, e.g. by his strong opposition to the Judaizers, who wanted to impose circumcision on the Gentiles. In this context he referred in Galatians 6:16 somewhat ambiguously to the Church as the ‘Israel of God’. In due course Christian theologians started to see the Church as the new Israel.
The haughty arrogance of Gentiles towards Jews increased, especially after the destruction of the second temple by Titus in 70 CE and the sacking of Jerusalem. This will have increased even more after all those who had been circumcised were prohibited to enter Jerusalem. It had become the pagan city Aelia Capitolina in 135 CE, after Emperor Hadrian had temples built to the Greco-Roman gods. (Christians retreated to Pella.) With no means of quick dissemination of the rectification of Paul via his letter to the Romans at the disposal of first century Christians, human carnality seems to have won the day.
Yet, some dialogue continued, such as that between Trypho, a Jew, with whom Justin ‘Martyr’, a second century apologetic, had been engaging. It has been recorded as the Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew. But this seed was dangerous, something which Count Zinzendorf would typify as odium theologicum (bad theological smell).

Two rival Interpretations of Scripture
Two rival interpretations of Scripture brought about a rift between the primal Church of the new era and Judaism. It has been said that the Christological explanation of the Hebrew Scriptures brought an anti-Jewish exegesis in its train. In an effort to legitimate itself, the young Christian Church sketched the official Judaism as a fallen apostate Israel. Official Judaism on the other hand dropped the concept of a dual Messiah generally. Old sages had foreseen the Messiah as the son of Joseph and as the Son of David. This could have been accepted as the equivalent of two Messianic appearances. The former concept, the son of Joseph could be linked to the 'suffering servant' of Isaiah 49 -53. Messiah, Son of David, was the all conquering Prince of Peace of Isaiah 2:3ff and 11:2ff who will reign supremely when even the lamb and lion will graze peacefully next to each other. He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plow shares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war any more. In this structure the 'suffering servant' was not acceptable any more.
In the Talmudic period two consecutive Messiahs crystallized where the Messiah, Son of Joseph is killed in the Battle of Gog and Gog. He is then succeeded by Messiah, Son of David.
Ultimately Isaiah 53 was also removed from the Sabbath reading from the Prophets, obviously because of its resemblance with Yeshuah from Nazareth, e.g. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. 'NT' explanations of words like He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth.John the Baptist pointed to the one on whom the Holy Spirit had descended like a dove as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World (John 1,29,35). This was too embarrassing for the Jewish Scribes.

Catastrophic Results of Doctrinal Bickering
The Church Father Tertullian apparently had little vision for the unity of the Body or plurality. Chadwick (1967:91) notes that Tertullian’s Apology does not merely include apologetic defence of the Christian doctrine, but also ‘militant and trenchant attack on the corruption, irrationality and political injustice of polytheistic society.’ This statement could still get wide approval, but Chadwick goes on to highlight that every page of Tertullian’s work ‘is written with the joy of inflicting discomfort on his adversaries for their error and unreasonableness, but in such a manner as to embarrass his own friends and supporters.’ The doctrinal bickering of the North African Church had catastrophic long term results.
The dispute in the Church in the third century around the deity of Christ caused the followers of Arius to be side-lined. Later this spawned the development of doctrine, which became one of the major problems that Islam still encounters with biblical teaching. There were undoubtedly some problematic matters in Arianism, but how he and his followers were treated was not Christ-like. That was diabolic seed.
Docetism, the doctrine stating that it merely appeared to spectators of Jesus' crucifixion that he died on the Cross - along with other doctrinal tussles - caused a significant weakening of the North African Church. This opened the door for Islam to sweep across the continent in the 7th century. This is not even mentioning the obvious: a significant delay of many centuries in which Africa seized to be a missionary force to Europe and further afield. One can only speculate what could have happened if the Christians had followed the example and teaching of our Master and of Paul to reach out in love to Jews first. (In Alexandria there were quite a number of Jews at that time.)

Unintentional Division of the Body of Christ
Much of the fragmentation of the Body of Christ has been unintentional. The first significant shift developed between Jewish Christians and other strands of first century Jews appeared after James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem and the brother of Jesus, was executed by a group of Jews that acted on the instructions of the High Priest Ananus.38 The stoning of James with the collaboration of the Sanhedrin and the High Priest, was a bitter signal to those contemporary Jewish and Gentile Christians who still attempted to engage in dialogue with Jews.
We have noted already how the germ of religious arrogance was clearly disseminated by Justin Martyr in the second century. According to him, the nation of Israel had been ‘rejected’ by God because of their disobedience. He might have picked this up from oral tradition such as recorded in Acts 13 where Paul and/or Barnabas reacted revengefully in an emotional moment of rage. Jews 'slandered and argued against whatever Paul said' (verse 45) on his first missionary journey. In Acts 13:46 Paul and Barnabas reportedly said - it is unlikely that they said this in unison - 'It was necessary that we first preach the word of God to you Jews. But since you have rejected it and judged yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we will offer it to Gentiles'!39 In Romans 11, written a few years later probably from Corinth,40 Paul rectified that rather rash statement, clearly stating that God did not reject the Jews completely. Their limited and temporary time of ‘rejection’ was meant to also bring the Gentiles to the Father. This would in turn provoke the Jews in a more loving way, especially when they see the descendants of Abraham via Ishmael and Esau becoming followers of Jesus.
It does speak for Justin Martyr that he dared to pass on the views of Trypho, a Jew, quite candidly. Whether fictional or not, Trypho's account of his faith is typical of any Jew (or Muslim for that matter): ‘But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular way separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read that the soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties, and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God. If, therefore, you can defend yourself on these points, and make it manifest in what way you hope for anything whatsoever, even though you do not observe the law, this we would very gladly hear from you, and we shall make other similar investigations.’

Heresy turned into a negative Term
An interesting variation of pluralism occurred via Irenaeus, a respected theologian from Lyon (France), who died around 200 CE. He turned around the neutral Greek verb haireomai (αιρεομαι) into a negative term. Originally heresy (derived from haireomai, meaning to "choose") meant either a choice of beliefs or a faction of believers, or a school of thought.41 It was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Against Heresies to describe and discredit his opponents in the early Christian Church. He described his own position as orthodox (from ortho = straight + doxa = belief). His stance eventually evolved into a proud and elevated position of the Early Church. The effect was devastating nevertheless.
During the first three centuries, Christianity was effectively outlawed by requirements to worship the Roman emperor and Roman gods. Consequently, when the Church labelled its enemies as heretics and cast them out of its congregations or severed ties with dissident churches, it remained without the power to persecute them. However, those called "heretics" were also called a number of other things (e.g. "fools," "wild dogs," "servants of Satan"). Thus the word "heretic" got very negative associations.
The Church Father Cyprian of Carthage, who was beheaded in AD 258, taught ‘whoever ... is not in the Church of Christ is not a Christian’ (Cited in Walker, 1976:67). The Church was according to Cyprian the sole ark of salvation, without which one could not have God as one’s Father. On this basis the unscriptural concept of 'baptismal regeneration' was developed - that man, i.e. also infants - can be born again through baptism.
The Samaritan Justin Martyr, a contemporary of Irenaeus, possibly did not have separation in mind when he suggested that the Church came in the place of Israel.42 By stressing the fact that Israel was punished by God for their idolatry in his Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew – and ignoring the promises of their return to Yahweh – this was an unfortunate by-product.
The stressing of one verse at the expense of the full biblical revelation is not limited to the founders of sects. In a rather debatable way Martin Luther for example did that as well. The highly respected reformer possibly undermined the unity of the body of Christ through his sectarian interpretation of Romans 1:17 “but the righteous man shall live by faith.” He emphasised the verse in an overdrawn way - sola fide, by faith alone - putting works in a rather negative light. Elsewhere we discuss this unfortunate polemical interpretation. Furthermore, I propose that the rivalry between the respective followers of James and Paul have often been inappropriately blown up and exaggerated. Martin Luther for one blew into that horn. In the extension of this concept, grace and law were seen as opposites. Very simplistically, in this construct, the 'OT' would radiate 'Law' and the 'NT' stands for 'Grace'.

Grace versus Law
Paul's distinction between Isaac as the son of the promise and Ishmael as the son of the bondwoman is unquestionably very valid just as that between grace and law. It caused however a tragic by-product, a haughty condescending attitude towards Islam and Muslims, as well as a sickening arrogance of Western Protestants towards Roman Catholics.43 Protestant theologians were taken on tow by Martin Luther through his going overboard to create the impression that grace and law are mutually exclusive, or even suggesting that Torah (Law) belongs to the ‘Old Testament’ and charis (grace) to the new covenant. In Galatians 5:4 Paul did of course warn against those who believed that they could be justified by faith - those legalists have fallen away from grace. That was the nearest he came to propagate a so-called contradiction between law and grace.
The incorrect legal and forensic interpretation of Torah44 – preferably only with negative connotations and in contrast to the Jewish understanding of loving and protective teaching - led to a caricature. The sad part of this is that this construction even found its way into Bible translations. The King James version – generally regarded as one of the best English translations - thus fell into the trap by translating John 1:17 incorrectly. The word but is used, thereby indirectly implying that there is a contradiction between the law given by Moses and the grace and truth which came through Christ. (In the original Greek the word used is the conjunction kai; it should thus be translated as the law and grace.
In spite of Paul's warning against a lackadaisical attitude towards sin – he actually said in Romans 8 'far from it', licentiousness and even grave sin cannot be tolerated with excuses such as 'grace abounds' or 'die liefde bedek alles', (love covers everything). In so many churches remorse because of sinful practices and a clear evidence of breaking with sinful and immoral practice are nowadays hardly required or expected. In Reformed churches the dichotomy is weakened to some extent when the law is read every Sunday in their liturgy in some form. Following Paul, the apostle, this is followed up by a pronouncement of grace. All too often, however, this amounts to an empty ritual.
In more than one instance the Hellenist upbringing of the prodigious Paul comes through. Greek philosophic thinking loved the either/or combination. Coming from his personal experience of a legalist interpretation of the Torah - against which our Lord also protested strongly - he would proclaim the law to be an educator to bring one to faith in Christ. Hebrew thinking is more inclusive, wary of false alternatives. Under this influence Paul wrote to the Galatians (3:5) along similar lines with regard to the gift of the Holy Spirit: ‘... by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith.’ (Elsewhere we examine the false alternatives of works and faith.) This verse, along with Galatians 3:2 could be abused to support the grace versus law argument. Paul basically argues indeed that the gift of the Holy Spirit was not imparted to them in consequence of the observance of the Law of Moses, but in connection with a faith response to the preaching of the gospel.

The Word obscured?45
The Church of the Middle Ages remained in darkness because the Word was not only obscured, but it was also hidden from the masses on purpose. Only priests were allowed to read the Bible. This was a demonic ploy, also repeated in the Orthodox Church of Greece and in the East. It was abused by the Roman Catholic Church as well as by Islam, to keep adherents in religious bondage. Judaism and its Rabbis succeeded to make suspect anything that has to do with the 'blasphemer' Jesus. Jewish adherents were told that the document the Christians call the 'New Testament', was 'forged'. No good Jew should touch that book let alone read it..
Paul wrote that the Gospel is a power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16), but it had to get to the people. Even the great apostle could only be at one place at any moment. By way of contrast, in recent years we have seen how the mere translation of (parts of) the Word into the spoken language of previously unreached people groups - be it on paper or through tape cassettes, CDs and DVDs - have changed the lives of thousands dramatically. Yet, it was hardly discerned that Paul also wrote in the above verse, Romans 1:16, 'to Jews first and also to the Gentiles.' It had been Paul's own practise to first go into synagogues in every town he came. Jesus instructed his disciples in a similar way (Compare Matthew 10 and Luke 10:1-24, if we take these events to have been sequential.) The Church down the centuries succumbed to the temptation – with a few individuals and the Moravians of the 1740s through 1770 as striking exceptions to concentrate on easier targets than the difficult Jews (and Muslims). This only changed to some extent since the six day war of 1973 in Israel. W.r.t. Muslims, significant change transpired after the Desert Storm war in 1991.

The Rediscovery of the Word
Any input from rank and file believers was high-jacked by Church authorities in the Middle Ages. It belongs to well-known Church History that it took centuries for the Word to be translated into the vernacular of nations. Waraqah bin Naufal, the cousin of Mohammad's first wife, appears to have been one of the first to attempt such a translation - into Arabic. There is no known record of what he actually translated before he became blind. The rediscovery of the Word through people like Wycliffe and Luther caused a major wave of spiritual renewal in Europe. Britain's John Wycliffe was an early advocate for translation of the Bible into the common tongue. He completed his translation directly from the Latin Vulgate into vernacular English in 1384. Wycliffe also gave oversight to a hand written translation of 150 copies of the Wycliffe Bible.
The official Roman Catholic and Holy Roman Empire abhorrence of Bibles translated into the vernacular can be seen from historic quotes: Thus Archbishop of Canterbury Arundel declared: 'That pestilent and most wretched John Wycliffe, of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child and pupil of the anti-Christ...crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue.' Henry Knighton, a contemporary Catholic historian, wrote: 'John Wycliffe translated the Gospel from Latin into the English ...made it the property of the masses and common to all and...even to women...and so the pearl of the Gospel is thrown before swine and trodden under foot and what is meant to be the jewel of the clergy has been turned into the jest of the laity...'
The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a stiff-necked heretic and under the ban of the Church on 4 May 1415. But Magister Jan Hus, teaching in Prague, had already been deeply influenced by Wycliffe's writings. After the martyr's death of Jan Hus on the fire stake on 6 July 1415, the great Hussite movement arose so to speak from the ashes, leading to the translation into the Bohemian vernacular and the first printed Bible. The Hussite Reformist movement spread through Middle Europe like a simmering fire, ultimately impacting Germany's Martin Luther and Switzerland's John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli. The very special contribution of Luther to the Reformation was that he made the Word accessible to the rank-and-file German Christian.

Legacy of Wycliffe at Oxford
In the 1490’s another Oxford professor, Thomas Linacre, decided to learn Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his diary, 'Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.' The Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel. Yet the Church still threatened to kill anyone who read the scripture in any language other than Latin - although Latin was not an original language of the scriptures.
In 1496, John Colet, another Oxford professor and the son of the Mayor of London, started reading the New Testament in Greek and translating it into English for his students at Oxford, and later for the public at Saint Paul’s Cathedral in London. The people were so hungry to hear the Word of God in a language they could understand, that within six months there were 20,000 people packed in the church and at least that many outside trying to get in! Fortunately for Colet, he was a powerful man with friends in high places, so he amazingly managed to avoid execution.
Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam
In considering the experiences of Linacre and Colet, the great scholar Desiderius of Rotterdam was so moved to correct the corrupt Latin Vulgate, that in 1516, with the help of printer John Froben, he published a Greek-Latin Parallel 'New Testament'. The Latin part was not the corrupt Vulgate, but his own fresh rendering of the text from the more accurate and reliable Greek, which he had managed to collate from old Greek 'New Testament' manuscripts he had acquired. This milestone was the first non-Latin Vulgate text of the scripture to be produced in a millennium… and the first ever to come off a printing press. The 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus further focused attention on just how corrupt and inaccurate the Latin Vulgate had become, and how important it was to go back and use the original Greek ('New Testament') and original Hebrew ('Old Testament') languages to maintain accuracy… and to translate them faithfully into the languages of the common people, whether that be English, German, or any other tongue. No sympathy for this 'illegal activity' was to be found from Rome… even as the words of Pope Leo X's declaration that 'the fable of Christ was quite profitable to him', continued through the years to infuriate followers of our Lord.

God's Exile – a very special Martyr
The first Bible printed in English was illegal and the Bible translator, William Tyndale, was burned alive for the crime of translating God's Word into English. William Tyndale produced the first English translation from the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Because of the persecution and determined campaign to uncover and burn these Bibles, few copies remained. William Tyndale was introduced to the writings of Luther and Zwingli at Cambridge University. Tyndale earned his M.A. at Oxford. Thereafter he was ordained into the ministry, serving as a chaplain and tutor. He dedicated his life to the translation of the Scriptures from the original Hebrew and Greek languages.
Tyndale was shocked by the ignorance of the Bible prevalent amongst the clergy. To one such cleric he declared: 'I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spares my life, before many years pass I will make it possible for the boy who drives the plough to know more of the Scriptures than you do.' After he had failed to obtain any ecclesiastical approval for his proposed translation, Tyndale went into exile to Germany. He noted that 'not only was there no room in my lord of London's palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England.'
Supported by some London merchants, Tyndale sailed in 1524 for Germany, never to return to his homeland. In Hamburg he worked on the 'New Testament', which was ready for printing by the following year. As the pages began to roll from the press in Cologne, soldiers of the Holy Roman Empire raided the printing press. Tyndale fled with as many of the pages as had been printed. Tyndale moved to Worms where the complete 'New Testament' was published the following year (1526). King Henry VIII sent out his agents to offer Tyndale a high position in his court, a safe return to England and a great salary to oversee his communications. However, Tyndale was not willing to surrender his work as a Bible translator, theologian and preacher merely to become a propagandist for the king!
He became a new version of John the Baptist when he argued against divorce and specifically dared to assert that the king should remain faithful to his first wife! Tyndale maintained that Christians always have the duty to obey civil authority, except where loyalty to God is concerned. King Henry's initial enthusiasm for Tyndale turned into rage. Tyndale was hereafter an outlaw both to the Roman Catholic Church and its Holy Roman Empire - and to the English kingdom!
In 1535 Tyndale was betrayed by a fellow Englishman, who gained his confidence only to treacherously arrange for his arrest. Tyndale was taken to the state prison in the castle of Vilvorde, near Brussels. For 500 days, he suffered in a cold, dark and damp dungeon and then on 6 October, 1536, Tyndale was taken to a stake where he was burned. His last reported words were: "Lord, open the king of England's eyes.

Tyndale's Dying Prayer Answered
Then, a year after Tyndale's death, the Matthews Bible appeared. This was the work of another friend and fellow English Reformer, John Rogers. Because of the danger of producing Bible translations, he used the pen-name Thomas Matthews which was an inversion of William Tyndale's initials – WT in stead of TM. In fact, at the end of the Old Testament he had William Tyndale's initials WT printed big and bold.
At Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's request, Henry VIII authorised that this Bible be further revised by Myles Coverdale and be called The Great Bible. And so in this way Tyndale's dying prayer was spectacularly answered. The sudden, unprecedented countrywide access to the Scriptures created widespread excitement. Just in the lifetime of William Shakespeare, 2 million Bibles were sold throughout the British Isles. About 90% of Tyndale's wording passed on into the King James Version of the Bible. This was also referred to as the Authorised Version, which became a powerful divine tool of unifying the body of Christ when Brittania ruled the waves for centuries.

Chapter 6 The Moravians implementing biblical Principles

In this chapter we investigate how Count Nicolaus Zinzendorf and the 17th Century believers in East German Herrnhut implemented biblical principles, adapting them to their time.
Ever since Peter gave the example of stepping down from his condescending attitude in obedience to the command of the Holy Spirit to enter the home of the Roman soldier Cornelius, there can be no excuse for permitting any artificial social barriers in the Church of Jesus Christ. Any effort in this regard would be tantamount to disobedience to the teaching of the Word. It has perhaps not been appreciated sufficiently that real, meaningful contact between master and servant contains the seed of radical mission work.

To Follow Christ means Stepping Down
The most profound example of the principle in well-known mission history is probably the instance when Count Zinzendorf ‘stepped down’ to speak to the slave Anton at the occasion of the coronation of Christian VI of Denmark in 1731, after the mediation by one of his Herrnhut believers. Meaningful dialogue46 ensued because Anton, the slave, challenged Zinzendorf, the aristocrat, in no uncertain way. The Count responded in a positive way by inviting Anton over to Herrnhut to repeat his challenge to the congregation that had been hearing repeatedly of the worldwide mission need.47 Although the Herrnhut believers were apparently still very much in the revival mood, they needed the slave Anton to get them moving to the mission fields. What will be the reaction of the more affluent South Africans if their poorer compatriots challenge them to share their lives meaningfully in partnership, to become servants, the equivalents of slaves?48
In Herrnhut the slave Anton did not mince his words either. He stated unequivocally that any prospective missionary to St Thomas, the island in the West Indies from where he originated, should be prepared to become like one of them; the missionary candidate had to be prepared to become the equal of a slave. The Moravians of Herrnhut, through their child-like faith in Jesus, accepted the challenge spontaneously. In the next few decades they left the little village in their hundreds to places all over the world.
The socializing of Count Zinzendorf with the slave Anton was definitely not an one-off occasion. This was in line with the charismata,49 the spiritual gifts of Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12 and the five-fold ministries of Ephesians 4, that they are not only given to leaders. Moreover, it was part of Zinzendorf's life-style to converse with kings and slaves alike, whoever came across his path. For almost a decade the Count had been ‘on everyday terms with artisans and peasants’, confirming his instinctive conviction that spiritual gifts are independent of social rank (Weinlick, 1956:96). This was evidently part and parcel of the DNA of Moravian missionaries.
A Blemish
Through the ages missionaries have understood that to follow Christ meant ‘stepping down’, being prepared to forgo privileges and being prepared to be humiliated for the sake of the Lord. Unfortunately, but definitely not in the spirit of Christ - an air of heroism was attached to being sent out as a missionary. Biographies have been very selective. Those missionaries who fitted the role expectation like David Livingstone and Mary Slessor, were put on a pedestal, but ‘troublesome’ missionaries like Dr John Philip, who rocked the boat of British (and South African) society by speaking out on behalf of the oppressed, were branded as ‘political.’ (Dr Philip did however blot his copy-book by not being completely truthful, exaggerating here and there). Similarly, South African Christian mission history displays bias against the great missionaries Johannes van der Kemp and James Read. It was not appreciated that they married Khoi women. In the case of Van der Kemp the age difference complicated matters, as did the immoral behaviour of James Read, fathering a child outside of wedlock. Of course, the society of Jesus’ days also had a problem with the religious leader who socialized with ‘sinners’, the lower ranks of their day. With God the condition of the heart is decisive. Thus he still called David a man after his heart in spite of his serious moral failures. David displayed genuine remorse and that is what God honoured.

Servant Leadership
Count Zinzendorf demonstrated what servant leadership entails. Although it becomes clear from all reports that he was a dominant aristocratic figure in the fellowship, his style was nowhere autocratic or domineering. Thus he regarded the way Friedrich Martin treated his Caribbean congregants as too strict, but Zinzendorf did not oppose him in the least (Spangenberg, 1773-75:1177). Even though he disagreed fiercely on some issues, it seems that Zinzendorf hardly ever imposed his will on others. Although he was for example very dissatisfied about a financial transaction which was enacted in his absence - and against which he protested as soon as he heard about it, the Count assisted to scratch the capital together (Spangenberg, 1773-75:1490). The Count excelled at integrating the initiatives of congregants. Centuries before cell groups were rediscovered in the 20th century, the Herrnhut congregation was divided in 56 small bands where an informal atmosphere encouraged innovation. Thus the cup of the covenant - whereby the cup would pass from hand to hand as well as the dawn service on Easter Sunday became standard practice in the denomination as a whole (Weinlick, 1956:85). Both traditions were initiated by the group of the single brethren. Zinzendorf instructed candidate missionaries to have a servant attitude: ‘You must never try to lord over the heathen, but rather humble yourself among them, and earn their esteem through the power of the Spirit...’ How seriously they took the instructions is borne out by the fact that Matthaeus Freundlich, a first generation missionary in St Thomas, married the mulatress Rebecca, at a time when non-Whites were still called ‘Wilden’ also in the literature of the Brethren. The missionary had to seek nothing for himself. ‘Like the cab-horses in London, he must wear blinkers and be blind to every danger and to every snare and conceit. He must be content to suffer, to die and be forgotten’ (Lewis, 1962:92). Zinzendorf demonstrated what it means to regard the other higher than yourself. Spangenberg recorded how the Count praised the North American indigenous believers. In his diary the following entry is found for March 9, 1729: ‘...I spoke earnestly with our servant Christoph and was deeply humbled by his testimony concerning himself. He is far in advance of me’ (Lewis, 1962:90).
Teachability and Humility
It has been reported how Count Zinzendorf was getting challenged in his faith in the Holy Scriptures from a very early age. He became deeply involved with questions around the authority of God's Word from the age of seven (Beyreuther, 1962:84). Zinzendorf discovered that whosoever is prepared to face uncomfortable questions and then take a step of faith, can only grow through it spiritually. He had the courage to speak bluntly of transcription errors, of geographical and chronological mistakes in Scripture. He saw it as no major tragedy that the apostles erred in their imminent expectation of the second coming of the Lord. The Count even proceeded to say: ‘Misunderstood prophecies can and should not be defended, but they should rather be pre-empted and acknowledged’ (Cited in Beyreuther, 1962:89). Count Zinzendorf was quite radical. He believed that the Holy Spirit can empower anybody to interpret the Word for himself according to his own capacity and circumstances. Not only the professional teacher had the right to expound Scripture, because the paraclete (The Holy Spirit) ‘will teach you everything’ (John 14:16).
It is evident that the lessons were thoroughly learned and put into practice. John Wesley was struck by the humility of the Moravians. In his first confrontation with Moravians with him on a ship bound for North America, John Wesley was deeply impressed: ‘...I had long before observed...their behaviour... performing servile offices for the other passengers which none of the English would undertake.’ Zinzendorf also taught that the leaders had to be teachable themselves. ‘Only when the ‘Amtsträger’ (clergyman) becomes a brother amongst brethren and accept from them fraternal help in comfort, encouragement, complimenting, admonishment, correction and prays with and practises brotherliness as one of them, then brotherhood is realized' (Beyreuther, 1962:193). Through his example Zinzendorf inspired others. His teachability inspired noblemen and professors to go and sit at the bare feet of the potter Martin Dober. His example of putting the Kingdom first found a following when learned men declined high academic posts. Spangenberg refused an offer as professor of Theology at Jena. Arved Gradin, a prominent Swedish academic of Theology and Philology, declined the call to a professorship at Uppsala university, coming to the village of lowly Herrnhut instead.
The Biblical Model of Fellowship Practised
In the course of my studies in Church history I became very much aware how demonic hierarchical structures really are. The biblical model of mutual fellowship has hardly been practised better ever than among the Moravians of Bethlehem (Pennsylvania) in the ‘new world’ in the 1750s. ‘Seldom has even the most easy service executed with such holy reverence... a brother in the stable or in his manual work can ever think that he does nothing for the Saviour; whoever is faithful in the outward (things) is just as well a respectable servant of Christ as a preacher or a missionary.’ The joy with which they performed mundane tasks, interspersed with love feasts, was part of their DNA. Even at work they would sing. Thus Bishop Spangenberg could write: ‘In our economy the spiritual and physical fit together like the body and soul of man...’ Hierarchical church structures have favoured and conditioned leaders to become bosses. The dictum coined by Lord Acton (1834-1902) that 'power tends to corrupt, but absolute power corrupts absolutely', is so true, also in religious contexts. This is however alien to the spirit of biblical servitude. Loving brotherhood, (or rather siblinghood), should be the hall-mark of church work where the leader's endeavours should result in the empowering of the congregants. The early Moravian missionaries evidently understood this very well. They discerned that ‘New Testament’ life had to be demonstrated. In the Caribbean they bought slaves free, took them into their houses and worked alongside them on the plantations (Spangenberg, 1773-1775:1177). On the other hand, the Herrnhut fellowship respected the culture gender pattern of their day, whereby a distance of mutual respect had to remain intact. The sisters called each other by the familiar ‘Du’ (you) but used the polite ‘Sie’ (thou) when they addressed the brethren. Among the males the same thing happened. But also the Bishop was not addressed with a title, but merely as brother so and so. (In fact, the Bishop's role in the Moravian church to this day is merely that of the pastor of the clergy, without an administrative function).50
Winning Sectarians over Through Love
God commands his blessing where brethren live in love and harmony (compare Psalm 133:1,3). The enemy of souls is therefore always on the lookout to cause disruption and disunity. It is no wonder that Herrnhut received its fair share of sectarians, who converged on the village from all geographic and spiritual directions. The practice of winning sectarians over through love eventually won the day. The refugees from Moravia refused to be drawn into religious quarrels until a separatist with the name of Krüger came to Herrnhut in 1726. He typified Zinzendorf as the ‘beast from the Abyss’. Krüger dubbed Johann Rothe, the Lutheran pastor of the neighbouring town Berthelsdorf a false apostle. Even Christian David, the faithful pioneering refugee from Moravia, was misled. Ultimately only three brethren remained with Zinzendorf. When the Count discerned that the fiery Pastor Johann Rothe merely aggravated the situation with his sermons, he requested leave from his lawyer’s office in the city of Dresden to move to Herrnhut at 'Easter' 1727. Hereafter he spoke laboriously to the erring members individually with patience and love. In public he shed heiße Tränen, (hot tears) because of the evident disunity. The big turn-about came when the Count called all the inhabitants of the village Herrnhut to a public meeting on May 12, 1727. He taught them for three hours in the new statutes - the rules and regulations. Everybody who wanted to live on his property had to sign their agreement to abide by the statutes. The general tone of these statutes was significant. The brothers and sisters of Herrnhut were enjoined to live in love with the children of God in all churches. Internally, the mere critical judging of each other would be regarded as a ‘Greuel’, an abomination, to be fiercely opposed. He ‘discoursed on the sole ground of salvation – without entering into the various notions which had caused confusion and division among them’ (Langton, 1956:72). One after the other the members agreed until only a few stubborn separatists were left. (On 12 May 1748, twenty one years later, the Count recalled how the village had been weighed. He used to call the 12th May, 1727 the ‘critical day’ upon which Herrnhut would prove to be either a ‘nest of sects’ or a vibrant fellowship of Christ.) The inhabitants were required to sign the statutes, the Manorial Injunctions and Prohibitions, promising with this act to end their sectarian quarrels, and to live in fellowship with Christians of all beliefs and denominations. Twelve Elders were elected who had control over every department of life, and enforced the Injunctions and Prohibitions with an iron hand. They levied the usual rates and taxes to keep the streets and wells in order and supervised the care of widows and orphans, while keeping a watchful eye over the relationships of single young men and women. They also followed the actions at the inn closely and they reprimanded the narrators of evil tales. All who disobeyed the laws, or conducted themselves in an unbecoming, frivolous or offensive manner, were required to leave Herrnhut.
Small Cells of Mutual Trust and Transparency
On Sunday 9 July 1727 the tide had almost turned, but Zinzendorf was not yet completely happy. He noticed that there was still not warm mutual trust and love. Hereafter he endeavoured to meet every member of the community individually, sometimes with one other person who had their trust, discussing the respective spiritual condition of the person concerned. He sought to link them up in small groups of two, three or more from the same sex who could console, encourage and rectify each other. This was the beginning of the 'bands', by which not a single soul was left out in the cold. This developed into small cells of mutual trust and transparency.
On the 5th of August Zinzendorf conducted a moving all-night prayer on the Hutberg, the hill just outside the village. Sunday 10 August they had another lengthy meeting of song and prayer that went on until midnight. The remaining separatists were finally pulled in. Three days later the congregants went to Berthelsdorf for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, where a ‘sea of tears’ - mutual love and forgiveness - drowned the occasion. It seems as if God was only waiting for the unity to let the revival break out in force!
Taking Critics Seriously
A major problem in Church history has been that leaders often responded to critics inappropriately. All too often these critics were either not listened to properly or Church leaders over-reacted, requesting people to leave the fellowship if they were not satisfied.
Count Zinzendorf was exemplary in listening even to critics of the Gospel. Although he was self-confessingly not an avid reader, he stayed a humble learner throughout his life. Erich Beyreuther, in his hey-day professor in Munich and a prominent biographer of Zinzendorf, saw the greatness of Zinzendorf amongst other things in how he would even look for help during his personal religious struggle at the work of Pierre Bayle, an eminent 17th century harsh critic of the Church. Beyreuther shows quite convincingly how Zinzendorf understood Bayle much better than anyone before or after him, better even than the renowned philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach. Whereas Bayle kept on waiting and hoping for new revelations of faith in the churches, Zinzendorf surged forth towards the realization of it (Beyreuther, 1965:233). It testifies of special grace that Zinzendorf could throw ‘a conciliatory light on the tragic figure of Bayle’ after the lonely fighter had bravely put forward uncomfortable views, heavily attacked thereafter (Beyreuther, 1965:233). That Zinzendorf candidly confessed that he was reading Bayle’s works as a close second to the Bible, did however not earn him acclaim. This was yet another reason for clergy of other denominations to castigate him.
The bad Smell of Theology
Count Zinzendorf’s views on certain doctrinal issues - to let love prevail in stead of clinging to official Church doctrine and the letter of the law - could have averted much pain if they had been taken seriously by the Church of his day (and ever since). He detested the 'bad smell of theology'. He stated that ‘all the essential theology can be written with large characters on one octavo sheet’ (Cited in Lewis, 1962:15). Thus he was very concerned at the development at the Herrnhut Theological Seminary during his absence in America, fearing that ‘the brethren would move away from simplicity, that their bishops would start filling the young people with learnedness’ (Spangenberg, 1773-1775:1492). In one of his Fetter Lane Lectures in London, the Count made the astonishing remark that the philosophers and theologians ‘have made that which was before obscure so pitch dark that, if earlier, before hearing it explained, one did understand a little bit; now after the explanation one no longer has the slightest idea what to make of it.’ In the sentence just prior to this remark, Zinzendorf offers the reason that was so typical of him: ‘they have been intent on hunting for expressions outside of Scripture in order to expound... those passages of Scripture which they found obscure’(Zinzendorf, Nine Lectures, 1746). The Count referred to the vain academic theological practices and exercises as odium theologicum (bad theological smell). To put the record straight: the Bible does not teach that intellect must not be appreciated. Paul sat under the feet of the famous Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), but he only became a spiritual giant after his mental capacity came under the rule of Christ. Thus the warning is possibly just as apt for our day and age as in by-gone times. (In S.A. many a Bible School suffered in spirituality when academic accreditation was frantically sought because of government requirements for lecturers.)

Doctrinal Differences cause a Rift
Zinzendorf taught missionary candidates not only to refrain from getting involved in doctrinal disputes, but rather to try and diminish the differences between churches (Spangenberg, 1773-1775:1272). In an age of tremendous Protestant bigotry, he wrote: ‘I have been severely censured for not acknowledging the Pope to be the Antichrist, as I am sure he is not, and cannot be deemed so upon the authority of the Bible...’ In the same context the Count said ‘...Every church bearing the name of Christ... (is) to be (seen as) a congregation formed for his sake; more or less erroneous … I never will boast of it (my church) and despise others’ (Cited in Lewis, 1962:20). The people of Herrnhut caught the broad vision. They sought nothing for themselves, wanting only to be ‘used by the Lamb of God as a leaven of his unity wherever he might call them’ (Lewis, 1962:61). Zinzendorf however fell into the enemy’s trap himself through a doctrinal tussle with John Wesley. In his journal Wesley recalls the interaction at Marienborn in the Wetteravia in 1738: ‘… the Count insisted that “to be justified is the same thing as to be born of God.” I take issue with this.’ (JOHN WESLEY, His Life and Theology, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1978:207). But there was no serious immediate rift between the two great men of God as yet. Wesley reported a a few years later quite positively (p.209): ‘Before leaving Marienborn I had opportunity to observe another intercession day. The ninety brethren from the community (though gathered out of many nations) - together with many strangers (from different parts) - met for prayer and fellowship. I remember writing: “O how pleasant a thing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” The Methodists however ultimately went their separate way. Count Zinzendorf himself caused estrangement to the Reformed folk in Holland by stating in a weak moment that he regarded predestination as a 'cursed doctrine' with which he would never be able to get reconciled (Cited in Lütjeharms, p. 150 by Praamsma III, 1980:126). Of course, Zinzendorf was the one who had the vision that every denomination possessed a specific ‘tropos paideia’ (practise field), from where they should be linked into a common bond of mutual respect and communication. Jonathan Edwards, the great contemporary, also seems to have discerned the need of unity as a counterfoil to the attacks of the arch enemy.51 In a similar way, the great Dr Andrew Murray was caught in the web of doctrinal disputes, albeit not at all of his own volition. Having been elected as Dutch Reformed moderator for the first of a record seven times in 1862, he became involved in a fierce theological skirmish arising from the alleged liberal tendencies of two Western Cape clergy colleagues. (This dispute even landed in court.)

Co-operation in Missionary Endeavour
A major contribution of Zinzendorf in missionary strategy - which has often been over-looked by many ‘faith mission’ agencies at their own peril - was that he succeeded in getting other denominations to co-operate in the support of the Moravian missionary endeavours. Already in Germany he exploited the Moravian tradition of music to the full when their groups were invited to conduct ‘singstunden’ (singing hours, devotional meetings with songs around bible verses, the daily texts, as the 'sermon') in both Reformed and Lutheran congregations. Although his emphasis on the Body of the Messiah was not appreciated everywhere, committed believers nevertheless joined them from almost every denomination of the time. In England he could call on support from Anglicans, Methodist and Quakers. At the first Pennsylvania Synod of the Reformed Church the representatives of the denomination were called upon by one of their leaders to support the non-denominational Moravian work for the furtherance of the Gospel in the Americas and the West Indies. Little groups of contributors were organized in Philadelphia and New York and in the homes of many synod members (Lewis, 1962:149). Similarly, some Moravians worked alongside the Lutherans. In the teaching of Zinzendorf to his missionaries he made it clear: ‘You must not enroll your converts as members of the Moravian Church, you must be content to enroll them as Christians’ (Lewis, 1962:95). At a Moravian church conference in ‘s Heerendijk (Holland), Zinzendorf stated emphatically: ‘I cannot ... confine myself to one denomination, for the whole earth is the Lord’s and all souls are His; I am debtor to all’ (Lewis, 1962:143). As the reason for this activity the Count expressed himself thus in 1745: ‘For thirty years I have yearned that all may be one in the Lord’ (Nielsen I, 1951:44).

The Love of God as the only valid Motivation
We should also not forget the repeated warning of Andrew Murray: ‘The missionary problem is a personal one.’ It is not the sheer effort which will get missionaries to the fields, but the love of God personified. He allowed His Son to die for our sins. After seeing the Ecce homo painting of Christ in the museum of Düsseldorf with the challenging words,52 the youthful Zinzendorf was deeply moved. He knelt before the painting, pleading that the Lord might ‘draw him forcefully into communion with his sufferings.’53 He surrendered his whole life to the Lord and the Cross: his name, rank and fortune became relative. He was more determined than ever to give his everything in the service of the Lord. Andrew Murray took the cue from the Herrnhut Moravians: ‘Get this burning thought of ‘personal love for the Saviour who redeemed me’ into the hearts of Christians, and you have the most powerful incentive that can be had for missionary effort’ (Murray, 1901:44). Or in different wording: ‘Missions was the automatic outflow and the overflow of their love for Christ. It was to satisfy Christ’s love and express their own love that they brought to Him souls that He had died for to save’ (Murray, 1901:158). This somehow also puts a question mark to some modern-day 'worship' services, which all too often resembles a glorified concert, with musicians amplified too much on a stage and the congregation hardly singing along. It seems to me very problematic when loving Christ is expressed vocally, but where the logical follow-up - like loving outreach to the needy and spiritually lost - is conspicuous by its absence.

Zinzendorf’s Vision for Church Unity
Count Zinzendorf had a tremendous vision for the unity of the Body of Christ. He envisioned the believers around him not as a separate denomination, but as a dynamic renewal society which would serve to revitalize existing denominations and help create new work in mission areas. There are numerous churches in Pennsylvania where Moravians had started a church and school for the settlers and native Americans, and then turn it over to the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church, or whatever denomination they perceived to be the strongest in that area. This also happened in other parts of the world, such as Greenland and Australia.

Ecumenicals since the Reformation
Count Zinzendorf has been described as the first ecumenical after the Reformation,54 but then it should be remembered that his ecumenical theology arose from the religious experience among those who ‘have experienced the death of Jesus on their hearts’ (Lewis, 1962:15). It was a ‘Herzens-religion’55 that he preached: ‘without it, all efforts towards unity he regarded as unfounded and doomed’ (Lewis, 1962:15). Visser ‘t Hooft, the first General Secretary of the World Council of Churches (WCC), quoted Zinzendorf: ‘All fellowship which is only based on agreement of opinions and forms without a change of heart, is a dangerous sect’ (Visser’t Hooft, 1959:27). Increasingly however, the leaders of the WCC after Visser ‘t Hooft did not heed this warning. The spirit of New Age, through the inter-faith movement, became rife among spokespersons of the WCC in due course. (In recent times sounds from the WCC, e.g. at the Lausanne III event in 2010, indicate that a return to their biblical roots may still be forthcoming.)
Zinzendorf was however for many Christians too difficult a customer. He was too unconventional, fraternizing with Roman Catholics while remaining on very friendly terms with those who are coming from the opposite doctrinal pole of the Church spectrum. Even in our day many Christians would be unhappy with someone who straddles the Church boundaries as Zinzendorf did. In my view the only persons who approached that ecumenical evangelical spirit ever since were Dr Billy Graham and Dr David du Plessis. The Cape-born but Free State-raised South African who was dubbed ‘Mr. Pentecost’, became the instrument that God used to usher in the breaking down of the wall not only between Pentecostals and other Protestants, but also between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church in the 1960s. Being a reconciler has never been a bed of roses. Dr Billy Graham has been fiercely criticized by evangelical leaders, notably for going to speak in Communist countries and meeting the Pope (see for example Drummond, 2001:97).
Making Use of All Generations
It seems that the Reformation did not bring major revision with regard to the making use of all generations. The Moravians were once again exemplary; nobody was excluded. Even children had a role to play. Gifting and ability was primary so that teenagers were given leadership functions. When Melchior Nitschmann was nominated to become one of the four chief elders of the Herrnhut fellowship, Count Zinzendorf had reservations. He thought that they should not have included the teenager into the lot because of his age. The Count apparently did not know Melchior Nitschmann that well. The bare-footed youngster evidently had the trust of the congregants, demonstrating a steadfast attitude that soon enough impressed Zinzendorf (Uttendörfer and Schmidt, 1914:95). Anna Nitschmann was given the leadership over the single sisters although she was only fifteen (Weinlick, 1956:84). Eighteen single ladies decided under her leadership to live solely for the Lord. Along with Anna Nitschmann, Susanna Kühnel was to be a special channel that God used in the 1727 revival among the children. In 1731 Martin Linner, a seventeen year-old, became the ‘Älteste’ - the elder - for the unmarried young men.

Serious Bible Study
An example of a much better use of Scripture than the false alternatives which are sometimes derived from it is seen in the life of Count Zinzendorf and the Moravians after 1727. From a very early age the Count was searching the Scriptures, later becoming the spearhead and driving force of the Order of the Mustard Seed when he was still at secondary school. Here it was already clear that a missionary spirit was evolving. The choice of the name of their order has of course the biblical parable as its origin, when Jesus referred to the small seed which grew into a mighty shrub (Matthew 13:31f).
In the congregation at Herrnhut the Bible Study was thorough and deep. Those brothers, who had a gift of Scriptural exposition, received full freedom. Spiritual leadership was charismatic rather than based on formal academic training (Weinlick, 1956:87). The Herrnhut Moravians were not apologetic about it at all. When someone suggested that the group was shallow and superficial, Zinzendorf retorted in passing how eager the congregation listened to the splendid scriptural exposition of Leonhard Dober, who used the Hebrew text for this purpose although he was no academic. He was merely a potter. His brother Martin Dober - also a potter - often found distinguished and learned people in his audience. How they appreciated his teaching is proved that they even went to sit next to the potter’s wheel to listen to his teaching. ‘... he might be visited by a count, a nobleman or a professor, who found him barefoot in his shop’( Weinlick, 1956:87). Martin Dober was also the most popular preacher at the morning devotions at 5 a.m. (Uttendörfer and Schmidt, 1914:34). Count Zinzendorf himself set the good example to use Scripture to unite rather than divide. Thus he would use Bible verses to reconcile parties who were at loggerheads. Yet, he was humble enough to acknowledge his own limitations, by avoiding difficult or controversial portions from Scripture (Weinlick, 1956:91).
Bible Verses out of Context The Herrnhut fellowship took the Pauline exhortation at face value that the Word should dwell richly in us. The Watch Word, which started in 1728, was primarily a verse from Scripture which was passed on orally and memorized. They cannot be faulted that later generations of Moravians used these verses out of context or that the Watch Word became a substitute for the reading of the Bible itself, abusing it as a sort of oracle. How seriously they treasured the Word, is evidenced by the fact that Spangenberg (1971:1033) quoted various Bible verses when the community deviated from biblical practice. His book Idea fidei fratrum had such a deep impact because of the profound use of Scripture. It does not seem however that the private study of the Bible – in contrast to communal reading and studying – was generally encouraged in Herrnhut extensively. But there would have been little time for that any way. The first communal 'Andacht' (devotions) was already at 5 a.m. Daily meetings and prayer events occurred almost 24/7. This eventually led to a practice where in later years only the daily texts - thus only verses out of their context - were read. Similarly, we cannot generally applaud the practice of using a Bible verse at random, but I am only too aware that a scriptural word out of the blue - sometimes given by a stranger - has often been a special word of encouragement. It was clearly the leading of the Holy Spirit when Zinzendorf used a Bible verse randomly for an impromptu sermon which staved off a rift in the Herrnhut congregation in 1728 (Weinlick, 1956:81).
An independent Line In various matters Zinzendorf took an independent line from Luther, although he was deeply influenced by the great reformer. The most striking difference is perhaps their respective views on Jews. Martin Luther initially emphasized the Jewishness of Jesus, urging Christians to love all Jews for the sake of Jesus. Towards the end of his life, however, Luther not only gave up on converting Jews to Christianity but he also wrote one of the most enduring anti-Semitic tracts. Whereas Adolf Hitler abused the latter writings of the Wittenberg reformer to execute the Holocaust, Zinzendorf’s contemporaries from the Jewish nation regarded him as their great friend! In various other ways he demonstrated an independent spirit; he wanted to be dependent on the Lord alone. He did not follow the stern 'Busskampf' of Jacob Spener, his godfather, the father of Pietism. In stead, the Herrnhut Moravians became known for their frivolity and joyous worship with lots of singing. Those Pietists, who insisted on the Bußkampf of the Halle tradition (painful struggle on conversion) had problems with the joyful practice of the faith that the Herrnhut Moravians displayed. With regard to another accusation - that Zinzendorf strived after a unified Church - the main fears were completely unfounded. The Count actually encouraged the believers to remain in their churches and rather be the ecclesiola, little churches within the bigger Lutheran denomination (Spangenberg, 1773-1775 (1971):1462). In America the Moravians worked so closely with the Reformed Frelinghausen, who had been there since 1720, that Frelinghausen was regarded as one of them. Of course, Zinzendorf remained a pain in the neck for all denominationalists because of his wide vision of the Body.
The Moravian missionaries sent out from Herrnhut in the 18th century were required to fend for themselves. They received just some pocket money, together with a coffin. They were expected to be ready to die in the tropics in the service of their Saviour after few years due to the health conditions and the absence of medical facilities. The missionaries were required to identify fully with the slaves and indigenous people among whom they would be working. They were expected to empower the slaves and indigenous people where they brought the Gospel, without getting politically involved in skirmishes with the slave owners or local authorities.
William Carey, who revived this missionary spirit from 1792, and the generation of missionaries that came through in the next fifty years, spread the same vision.

Moravian Inclusivity
If one considers how inclusive Count Zinzendorf and his Moravians were – and how he viewed grace - we understand why they were argueably the most successful ever in the outreach to Jews. The celebration of the Singstunde (singing hour) on Saturday evening was a tradition that they had brought along from the early Herrnhut days, which they adapted from the Jewish practices, where the Sabbath starts on Friday evening. The abounding grace that went ahead of the emissaries to the ‘heathen’ nations enabled the Count to be bold enough to see the same grace at work in the christening of infants. They refrained from getting involved in divisive debates about the mode of baptism. In America they put so much grace in practice to accommodate the Sabbatharian habits of the indigenous population that they practised two days of rest, Saturday and Sunday.
Zinzendorf took matters further, spelling it out that differences could even serve towards mutual enrichment. Sigurd Nielsen, a bishop of the Moravian Church in South Africa and originally a Danish national who served for many years in the Transkei, examined the idea of tolerance in Zinzendorf's theology. He summarized the tension with the word homopoikilie, a term which expresses the unifying in diversity and the diversity in unity (Nielsen I, 1951:60).
Various Approaches
It was the rich variety of believers and the varying approaches to spread the Good News which led Zinzendorf to appreciate the various denominations: they were to him clear evidence of God’s providential care for the different temperaments and needs of His children. He thus clearly saw in this an expression of the Church radiating the multi-coloured56 wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10). Within the Church of the Lord Zinzendorf distinguished various tropoi: Lutheran, Calvinist, Anabaptist (Mennonite) and Anglican. He expected every group to retain their own identity and distinctives within a multi-coloured 'rainbow' constellation.
Nevertheless, Zinzendorf did not ride roughshod over the ecclesiastical disunity, and we should not do do so either. According to him the main ecumenical task was a deep sense of repentance and need of forgiveness because the holiness and the unity of the Church had been broken by the narrowness, bigotry and pride of nominal Christianity (Lewis, 1962:108). But Zinzendorf was too far ahead of his time. The other church groups did not trust him. In fact, when he tried to create one denomination in the United States among the Germans, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg was specially sent from the Pietist stronghold of Halle to counter this influence. Zinzendorf was however much too ambitious and activist, organising no less than six conferences or synods in half a year in 1742 (Praamsma, III, 1980:125).
An accommodating View on Baptism
It is well-known how the followers of Luther persecuted the 'Anabaptists'. For four centuries the 'Anabaptists' as a group were labelled as folk who preached false doctrine and who led people into apostasy. Followers of Zwingli in Switzerland were among the first to persecute the 'Anabaptists', decreeing in 1526 that some of them should be drowned.
During Zinzendorf's life-time the christening of infants was common and the immersion of believers was regarded as sectarian, associated with re-baptism. Yet, the Count advised Georg Schmidt in Baviaanskloof, the later Genadendal of the Cape Overberg, after he had received the report of the first convert in the letter of ordination: ‘Baptise him where you shot the rhino’, that is at the river. (It seems as if Moravians thus also baptised their ‘first fruit’ in a river or at other places than a church.) Georg Schmidt evidently understood this advice as an encouragement to baptise the new convert in the river, because one can read in his diary entry of 31st March, 1742: ‘Then I said to him to go and stand in the water and I baptised him.’57 The context does not indicate whether the water was deep enough to immerse Wilhelm, but this action was already revolutionary for the time. Georg Schmidt used the precedent of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26ff) when he was challenged soon hereafter why he baptised someone at a venue outside the confines of a church building. In the same letter of ordination Zinzendorf referred to the christening of the children of believers. He thus did not take an absolute stand. Be it as it may, the Reformed Church folk both at the Cape and in Holland were furious, because there was no congregation present at the Sergeant's River event at Baviaanskloof. The Cape Reformed ministers regarded this as absolutely necessary for baptism. To interpret that the Count was playing it safe in case he could have been labelled an Anabaptist, would definitely not be applicable. He took so many life-threatening risks!
Unity on God’s Terms
Ephesians 4:4,5 (There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism...) shows that Zinzendorf was probably too accommodating. Biblically, there is no such thing as unity at all costs. There is only unity on God’s terms. The issue of ‘one baptism’ to which Paul refers among others in the verse quoted, may bear out the above theory in the years to come. Devoid of a dramatic ‘Here I stand’ position of Baptists and Pentecostals, the Holy Spirit has brought movement on this issue which was unthinkable a decade or two ago. The loving acceptance of divergent views - allowing God to bring about the shifting of positions through his Holy Spirit - is apt to bring about more unity than heated synod discussions on doctrinal issues. (Nehemiah 3, the building of the wall, does demonstrate that different (church) groups can work towards a common goal. Various groups worked next to each other, each with a clearly defined goal within the bigger purpose: the completion of the wall around Jerusalem. Thus the Bible underscores unity in diversity.) A united front against abortion and the legalisation of prostitution are issues where Bible believing Christians may even be challenged to join hands with people of other faiths. Capetonians from diverse backgrounds did this in 2011 when they attempted the name change of Devil's Peak.

In Search of the Invisible Church
Count Zinzendorf looked on the one hand seriously for evidence of the 'Invisible Church', but he also deemed it a priority to work towards visible expressions of it. As he put it: 'The church cannot live on the long run from an invisible and uncommitted brotherhood’ (Beyreuther, 1962:193). True unity is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, but if denominational and racial disunity proceed unchecked, a potential spiritual awakening would be given a major - if not fatal - set-back. The revival of August 1727 in Herrnhut is often romanticized. It is often overlooked or forgotten that Count Zinzendorf went to the little village on his estate in April 1727 explicitly ‘that he might give all his time to the healing of the discords and to caring for the souls whom the Lord had led to his estate’ (Lewis, 1962:51). The summer of 1727 could only flourish after a major conflict had been resolved. The Moravian refugees wanted their original denomination - the Unitas Fratrum - restored, whereas Zinzendorf preferred a small fellowship evolving that would display a significant ‘leven’ presence within the bigger Lutheran Church. A good compromise was reached when the statutes were finalized on 12 May 1727, including the radical statement: ‘Herrnhut shall stand in unceasing love with all children of God in all churches, criticize none, take part in no quarrel against those differing in opinion, except to preserve for itself the evangelical purity, simplicity and grace’.
However, Zinzendorf also believed that the unity should become concrete, that believers had the task to make the Church of Christ visible. The challenge is to bring together all those who are already united in Christ in some ‘field of encounter’ (Lewis, 1962:108). All the denominations have only relative value, they could only point to the ecclesia invisibilis, the invisible church (Lewis, 1962:108). At the same time, Zinzendorf believed in ‘the manifoldness of life.’ He said for instance: ‘... souls must not be forced; we must not expect them all to be measured by the same yardstick or to share exactly the same development of inward experiences ... It is not Gospel-like to prescribe rules, methods and dispositions, or require equality of souls’ (Lewis, 1962:102).
Spirit-wrought Unity the Name of the Game
Count Zinzendorf’s desire for Church unity was influenced by the tragedy of the fragmentation of the Body of Christ. He referred to his own church as Secta Morava (Spangenberg, 1773-1775 :1230). And if he may still have erred in being too accommodating, Zinzendorf made up for it by going out of his way to take differing theological positions really seriously. He succeeded in a special way with a great balancing act, succumbing neither to engage in squabbling nor by offering cheap compromises. In his activism, he was however sometimes too hasty. When he wanted to include Roman Catholics in a unifying process without clear indication that their leaders were prepared to address Mariolatry, he was definitely expecting too much from other Protestants.
Count Zinzendorf discerned that overt co-operation could never be a substitute for unity wrought by the Holy Spirit through prayer and supplication. He knew only too well that men could join in the same ‘outward ceremonies and duties of religion, but in reality deny the truth of it.’ The Count realized that we should not strive after an organic union of denominations, but work towards unity which transcends all church divisions. The ‘unity of His wounds’, of common faith in the crucified and risen Christ, will ultimately determine all other kinds of unity' (Lewis, 1962:99). Therefore, it is not surprising to find the Count attacking righteousness and piety that come out of our own efforts. Without the blood of Jesus they are like ‘ein beflecktes Kleid’, a stained garment (Spangenberg, 1773-1775:1451). This is of course a reference to Isaiah 64:6 where human righteousness is described as filthy rags.

No Christianity without Fellowship
Zinzendorf showed by his example that his philosophy: ‘Ich statuiere kein Christentum ohne Gemeinschaft’ (I state that there is no Christianity without fellowship), was no empty theory. It has been suggested that Zinzendorf added fellowship as a third sacrament in the Protestant Church (Lewis, 1962:66). Yet, it must be stressed that the Count did not expect fellowship to be man-made; it was a gift of the Lamb. ‘It is not so much a fellowship of kindred minds but fundamentally of kindred hearts’ (Lewis, 1962:66). It was therefore natural that he expected believers who were linked to Herrnhut to get involved with fellowship locally, wherever they lived. Although Zinzendorf broke with Pietism in many other ways around 1734, the small ecclesiolae within the bigger churches remained a part of the Moravian practice in the diaspora. This was definitely in line with the teaching and example of the Master. Thus, I dare to suggest categorically that God is possibly unhappy with the practice of some Christians to travel long distances to attend some fellowship, without however having contact with other believers in their neighbourhood.
Concentration on a few dedicated Believers
The Herrnhut Moravians had a good missionary strategy by concentrating on a few dedicated believers who could work alongside the missionaries to evangelise their own people. In fact, Count Zinzendorf encouraged His missionaries to be especially on the lookout for those individuals whom the Holy Spirit had already prepared. In one of the Moravian litanies a prayer was included: ‘Save us from unholy growth.’ (Literally58 guard us from an unholy getting big).
Count Zinzendorf was one of the few people in Church history who really discerned the importance of this principle. He discerned on the one hand the untiring will to reform of the ‘children of the world’, but on the other hand the ‘sleeping churches and their inactive congregations.’ Not much has changed since then. Influenced by the principle of the ecclesiolas (small fellowships inside the big churches) of the Pietists, the Count organized the Herrnhut community in small ‘bands’ and ‘choirs’, which would of course be easier to handle. Therefore he also put much emphasis on young people. He guided and nurtured them, even during conferences so that they could grow into the Church work, but he also used them for experimentation, because thus he could also stop any new endeavour more easily when it did not succeed. Following the Master, the vibrant Herrnhut church openly discussed the success (or lack of it) of missionary ventures.
In recent decades the house church movement has been making great strides, notably in different Asian countries. Will the lessons to be derived really be heeded or are we just going to continue as we have or - just as bad - are we going to proceed with pouring new wine into old bags, wasting the precious wine?

Count Zinzendorf cared for the Individual
Following the habits of the Master, Count Zinzendorf had an eye for the individual. At the Danish court he defied the custom of the time to have fellowship with a slave, a person of low social status. By doing this, he discovered the spiritual quality of the West Indian slave Anton. This act and the subsequent visit of Anton to Herrnhut were major catalysts of the world missionary movement that started from Herrnhut in 1732. Spangenberg reports how Zinzendorf not only noticed the absence of a particular organist in a British congregation, but he immediately went to go and pray with him afterwards when he heard that the brother was terminally ill (Spangenberg, 1971:1963). About Zinzendorf's relationship to the single brothers, Spangenberg reported : 'His first aim was to know every one of them... very well' (Spangenberg, 1971:1912). An incident shows the pastoral eye of the Count, when he looked through the list of men in the church. He thereafter requested information not only on those who had left the church, but also about those who had been sent away for various reasons.
Utilizing Diversity of Gifts An important part of a personalized approach is working towards the development of latent gifts in others. Zinzendorf ‘was swift to recognize the diversity of racial and individual gifts, and from the beginning he insisted on the enlistment of native ‘Helpers’ wherever possible' (Lewis, 1962:96). The graves of native Christians from all over the world at Herrnhaag, where the Count and his retinue found refuge after their banishment from Saxony, bears witness to the fact that this idea was also put into practice. Special in this regard was the Count’s eschatology where he saw it as the duty of missions to bring in the ‘first fruit’, the first converts from all tribes and nations. He believed that the Moravians could hasten the Lord’s return in this way. His personal sojourn among the Indians of North America taught him to be happy and contented to see individuals come to the Lord, but who are also fully sold out in His service. From the ranks of the nations the individuals who had been fished, they had to take the message to their peoples. The day of using the net to catch fish (Matthew 13:47) would come. Zinzendorf thus taught what would be highlighted at the turn of the 21st century in the Church Planting Movement where the missionary is constantly on the look out for the person of peace (taken from Jesus command to the 72 disciples he had sent out two by two in Luke 10).59

Church and Mission Separation
Zinzendorf would proverbially have turned in his grave by what developed at the end of the 18th century. In 1786 a young William Carey was told at a conference of Baptist ministers in Northampton, England: 'Sit down young man. When it pleases the Lord to convert the heathen he will do it without your help or mine.' Carey refused to be silenced completely. Evidently inspired by the research of Bishop August Spangenberg, he wrote his monumental An enquiry into the obligations of Christians to use means for the conversion of the heathen. This book singularly ushered in missions like no other work before it. With regard to a holistic approach – i.e. including social involvement – Carey became the ‘Father’ of modern missions, following in the footsteps of the Moravians in many a way. Carey established the Serampore Mission, a Christian community that had an impact on all of India after he had been more or less insultingly treated in Britain by his fellow Baptists. Carey not only translated many Christian and secular works in India, but he also fought to bring an end to the practice of sati, the burning alive of widows on their husband’s funeral pyre. He furthermore influenced young British civil servants to deal with the Indian people in a just and culturally sensitive way. The Anglican Church Mission Society that was founded in 1799, also faced stern opposition from their denominational leadership. Their leader was refused an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury when they sought to explain their aims (Thomas, 2002:5).
In Britain those early 20th century clergy and laity interested in missions, resorted to setting up para-ecclesiastical bodies to provide a financial base for the new enterprises. In its wake Protestant Christianity was now however characterized by a split between what was seen to be the work of the church and that of missions. The church/mission dichotomy emerged with racial implications. Church became associated with Christians in the White Western world and Mission with people of colour in the areas that had been colonised.

Chapter 7 The Word as uniting Dynamite

The role of the invention of printing is paramount in the disseminating of the Word. In this regard it is good to be reminded that exactly this was the motivation of the German Johan Gutenberg. When he saw that the Christian truths were kept imprisoned in a few manuscripts, he wanted to give wings to the truth.
The Cape has its own version of the same phenomenon. Arnoldus Pannevis, a Dutch school teacher who came to the Mother City in 1866, noticed that the people at the Cape were speaking a language which was quite distinct from Dutch. He was driven by a passion to see the Bible translated into the language spoken by the people. However, he was met with derision for his idea to have the Bible translated into a patois, a kombuistaal.60 Pannevis’ plea with the British and Foreign Bible Society was flatly refused: ‘We are by no means inclined to perpetuate jargons by printing them.’
However, only in the 1960s the second Vatican Council permitted ordinary Roman Catholic Church members to read the Bible for themselves. In the 1980s we saw a mighty turning to Christ in that denomination in South America when all church members were encouraged to read the Bible. This led to a substantial exit from the Roman Catholic Church and the simultaneous growth of Evangelicalism in South America.
A similar phenomenon occurred in the Middle East in recent years. Every Muslim who has access to Internet can now read the Bible in their own language (This was preceded by ten years of prayer for the Muslim world). Thousands became followers of Jesus and many others are possibly still secret believers.

The Purpose of the Scriptures
The prophets knew that God’s Word was the vehicle to bring His rebellious and back slidden people back to Himself. Repeatedly a promise is connected to obedience to the Word and its teachings on the one hand and punishment for disobedience on the other. Down the ages the preached Word was divinely used to call back-sliding Christians back to God and His ways.
The purpose of the Scriptures should be stressed: guidance and correction. David exclaimed: "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path" (Psalm 119:105) and Paul advised Timothy: "Every Scripture is ... useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
Paul emphasized that the Word should dwell richly in us (Colossians 3:16). Of course, this does not mean that we have to imitate Ezekiel who literally seems to have eaten the scrolls (3:3). It does mean however that we may be radical in our obedience to scriptural teaching. In fact, Paul encouraged us in a similar way that Christ should dwell in us and from there we must be rooted61 and established in love (Ephesians 3:17). The Word in us has the quality of purification. Therefore John can say that whosoever remains in Christ, sins not (1 John 3:6). There is of course always the occasion of lapses, when one leaves the close communion with Christ. This is the time when the enemy loves to strike, when we are overcome by sin (Galatians 6:1). In this regard there is a definite difference between wilful sinning and accidental sinning. However, confession and the conscious refraining from sinful behaviour (Proverbs 28:13) opens a clean slate for the road of victorious living in the footsteps of the resurrected Son of God (1 John 1:9 ‘if we confess our sin … He … will purify us from all unrighteousness’).

Martyrdom as the Seed of the Church
The blood of the Martyrs during the first centuries indeed turned out to be the seed of the Church. Christians had fought hard for the right to practice their religion in peace. Although there were some persecutions in the past, the worst persecutions against Christians occurred in the third century under emperors Decius, Valerian, Diocletian and Galerius. Persecutions of Christians in the first two centuries do not even approach the scope or ruthlessness of the third century.
Christianity did not recognize the deities and guardians of Rome. This was regarded not only as an attack on public order and the pillars of Roman tradition, but as atheism to the vast majority. To most, Christianity blasphemed their gods – which they regarded as the protectors of homes, temples, and cities. Jews were known to be even more meticulous in their rejection of all idolatry.

Persecution as Gospel Seed
Carsten Thiede, in his book - Jesus: Life or Legend (1990:117) dubbed Tertullian ‘a master of the art of how to turn the tables’. This was especially the case with the adage, which stemmed from his pen: ‘The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.’ Tertullian referred pertinently to the sadder part of early Christianity: how Christians were hated, persecuted and martyred, though all they were offering was a message of kindness and neighbourly love.
One of the most spectacular examples of the Tertullian adage took place in a North African village in the 1980s where God ‘sovereignly descended upon this coastal township with gracious bounty... He did not rest till every member of the Muslim community was properly introduced to His only begotten Son, Jesus.’ A ‘wholesale conversion involving some 400 to 450 villagers’ ensued (Otis, 1991:157). Stunned by this special divine visitation, mission workers sought for the reason. They discovered that this took place at the site where Raymond Lull, a Spanish missionary from Majorca, had been stoned in June 1315. Lull wrote in his book The tree of Love, that Islamic strongholds are best conquered by ‘love and prayers, and the pouring out of tears and blood.’ (Cited in Tucker, From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya, 2004:58).
A noteworthy occurrence in recent Church History was achieved by the conversion – and rejection by his family – of Abdul, a Muslim-background believer of South Asia, This spiralled into hundreds of thousands of his Bangladeshi compatriots becoming Isahi Muslims, followers of Jesus. (An abbreviated version can be found in The Camel, as narrated by Kevin Greeson (2007:23-30). An unresolved question is in how far the spiritual growth of new believers becomes limited or stifled if there is no clear break with the Islamic past. Experience and the biblical injunction seems to support this notion. Didn't Jesus teach that those who put their hands to the plough should not look back? On the other hand, the so-called 'Insider Movement' has definitely been a divine instrument to assist many Islamic followers of Christ to begin a journey with the Lord.

The Special Gifts of Women
The special gifts of women are still by and large not used properly and sufficiently. It is fortunately no big debate any more whether females should be in the pulpit or not. The discrimination of the 'weaker sex' in the Church, the Synagogue and the Mosque has a long sad history. Talmudic Jewish writers entrenched base discrimination against women. This even found its way into the form of morning prayer for a Jewish man - thanking God every morning that he was not ‘a Gentile, a slave or a woman.’ In Jewish law a woman became a thing. She had no legal rights whatsoever; she was absolutely in her husband’s possession. He could do with her as he willed. Islam seems to have drawn richly from this sad heritage, a terrible aberration of the creation model. It is sad to have to note that the Church by and large disregarded the revolutionary teachings of Jesus and the ‘New Testament’ with regard to women (and youth). It was only in the Assyrian (later Nestorian) Church where women were treated with exemplary dignity for some length of time. Research of recent decades shows that even widows had leadership roles in the first century or so in the Assyrian Church. But in the rest of the Church women were pushed into lesser roles of leadership and responsibility. Tertullian (and later Jerome) verbalised sentiments with regard to women,62 of which we all Christian men should be ashamed. But even before before that women were silenced in the Church. Expression of regret and remorseful confession by Global Church leaders in this regard is long overdue.

Contextualization or Confrontation
A choice between contextualization and confrontation would be another case where false alternatives are sometimes projected. If all issues were as straightforward as the logos/rhema debate,63 it would not be such a problem. However, there are instances where the heart of the Gospel is at stake. One such issue is the so-called contradiction of contextualization and confrontation. The ‘New Testament’ is quite clear that both have its rightful place; in fact, proper contextualisation inevitably leads to confrontation. The nature of the Gospel is that it ‘offends’ because it goes against the grain of our innate yearning for self-sufficiency.
Improper contextualisation occurs when the adaptation to the culture goes so far that no confrontation comes about. The message of the Cross is always ‘folly’ to those who oppose the Gospel (1 Corinthians 1:18). On the other hand, it does not mean that the carrier of the Good News must set off on confrontation course every time he/she shares the Gospel. Jesus taught that his followers should be ‘shrewd as serpents and as innocent as the doves’ (Matthew 10:16).
Paul became a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks (1 Corinthians 9:20ff). Nevertheless, this did not eliminate the necessity of confrontation with the Romans, the Greeks or Jews. In fact, his contextualisation, going into the synagogues and sharing the Gospel from the Scriptures, more than once led to a threat to his life. Abusing contextualisation to avoid confrontation is unbiblical. Senseless dialogue which becomes an end in itself is also biblically untenable. This does not take away the necessity of sharing the Word in a way that is geared to the culture. Ideally, sharing the Gospel respects the hearer in every way. It is sensitive to his/her special needs.

Occasional Need of Confrontation
In no way should we condone an airy-fairy covering up of differences. Jesus used God’s Word as a prime weapon against the devil when He was attacked in the desert. But also the assistants of the arch enemy had to be opposed. Because the Lord had observed their ways meticulously and listened carefully to what they were saying, Jesus could venture into enemy territory, telling his religious opponents to their face that they were hypocritical. He gave Simon, the Pharisee, a lesson in hospitality, while he uplifted the prostitute who 'wasted' precious nard ointment to anoint him and drying his feet with her hair.
The Master furthermore spoke of ‘binding the strongman’ (Matthew 12:29). Paul wrote about ‘taking captive every thought’ (2 Corinthians 10:5), about ‘strongholds’ (2 Corinthians 10:4) and ‘weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left’ (2 Corinthians 5:7). The full ‘armour’ of the believer (Ephesians 6:11ff) belongs of course to the very well-known portions of Scripture which have even been taught to children in Sunday school. In traditional theology these warlike terms have generally been over-spiritualized. (This probably happened when the superficial impression could be gained that it could clash with the impression that Christians should depict the reign of the Prince of Peace.)64
In Galatians 2:11-15 it is reported how Paul criticized Peter to his face in the presence of others when he sensed hypocrisy. Jesus did this also in a stinging attack on the religious establishment of his day, as we can read in Matthew 23. If the actions of fellow brothers and sisters confuse young believers it might be necessary to do the unusual thing to reprimand them publicly.
Paul had been taught at the feet of the renowned Gamaliel. As a Pharisee, he thus had a head-start. But, like the Master, he dared to confront his opponents on their own turf. In Athens he challenged the learned Greeks who were constantly debating on the Areopagus (Acts 17:16ff). In the same vein, the apostle did not beat about the bush in his condemnation of hand-made gods as idols. This made the Ephesians very nervous, causing an uproar in the process. The presence of him and Silas caused a furore in Thessaloniki, especially when Paul spoke about
Jesus as the Christ (Acts 17:1-9).

Division as a paramount demonic Strategy
We must recognize that division is the paramount strategy of satan. Through the ages the arch enemy has succeeded to sow division also in evangelical churches. The ‘flesh’ in some Christians who wanted to assert themselves saw to that. The first Jerusalem Apostolic Church seems to have handled the supernatural gifts of the spirit in a more balanced way (see Acts 2:42-47). Both Peter and Paul did not shun confrontation either. When principles were at stake, they were no slow coaches to engage in heated debate. Acts 6 and 15 reflect conflict-laden situations. In both cases the end result was a sharing of responsibilities and a doubling of the work. If conflict is handled well, it has the potential to spread the Gospel even more widely and the work load can be delegated among more people. After Peter had been taught by God that he should cease despising those nations which he had regarded as ritually impure, he was prepared not only to act upon it by going to Cornelius (Acts 10), but also to defend his action before his colleagues.
The end result of the delicate situation in Acts 6 was the appointment of Greek-speaking deacons. The heated debate in Acts 15 resulted in church planting where the best men were ultimately sent (Verse 22). A lesson that can be derived is that big differences – if tackled properly and lovingly – can lead to expansion and improvement.
At a time when it has become fashionable to be a 'Revolutionary',65 by just quietly leaving the conventional Church system, there is more than ever need for healthy confrontation. Every pastor should know why people are leaving the (sinking?) ship. Before leaving, church members should pray for a good opportunity to share their frustrations and/or disappointments in a mature and loving way. This phenomenon is simultaneously subtly fragmenting the Body of Christ – and not conducive to the transformation of communities.

The Observance of the Lord's Day
A very careful study of the 'Church Fathers' will reveal that, almost to a man, they did not support a legalistic approach to “Sabbath” or Lord's Day observance. The Testimony of Ignatius is typical. In The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (ca. 110 A.D.) we read:
'Do not be deceived by strange doctrines or antiquated myths, since they are worthless. For if we continue to live in accordance with Judaism, we admit that we have not received grace. For the most Godly prophets lived in accordance with Christ Jesus. This is why they were persecuted, being inspired as they were by His grace in order that those who are disobedient might be fully convinced that there is one God who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word which came forth from silence, who in every respect pleased Him who sent him. If, then, those who had lived in antiquated practices came to newness of hope, no longer keep the Sabbath but live in accordance with the Lord's day,...' Religious policy in the Roman Empire was about to change with three Imperial decrees issued from 311 to 313. From Nicomedia, in May, 311, the Emperor Galerius issued the first Edict of Toleration which gave Christians religious equality with pagans and Jews. Christianity was finally a legitimate religion in the empire. Galerius was in this way a forerunner of Constantine also in his prime motive, viz. to get the Christians in support rather than in opposition. That the Jews were side-lined – actually ditched in the process – was of little political consequence. Theologically the Jews were now all but completely isolated. Jews were gradually marginalised until finally Constantine decreed in 321 AD that Sunday was a compulsory free day. De facto Christianity was regarded by Jews to be in opposition to them.
Constantine Ambivalence
Constantine was strongly attracted to Christianity but he did not finally fully commit himself to it until his deathbed. Despite his flaws the Lord undoubtedly started working through Constantine to relieve the pressure of the continued persecution of Christians. Superficially Emperor Constantine seems to have had at least some concern for the Unity of the Body of Christ. However, he had a hidden political agenda, viz. to get the difficult Christians on his side. He knew that many of them held the first day of the week in high esteem, even though it was a normal working day. They called it the Lord's Day. In 321 AD Constantine introduced the first legislation concerning Sunday: "Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades rest on the venerable day of the sun." In promoting pagan worship, he wrote in a letter dated 323 or 324 AD: 'Finding, then, that the whole of Africa was pervaded by an intolerable spirit of mad folly, through the influence of those who with heedless frivolity had presumed to rend the religion of the people into diverse sects; I was anxious to check this disorder, and could discover no other remedy equal to the occasion, except in sending some of yourselves to aid in restoring mutual harmony among the disputants.' Furthermore, that he resented Jews also came through: 'I have judged that it ought to be the first object of my endeavors, that unity of faith, sincerity of love, and community of feeling in regard to the worship of Almighty God, might be preserved among the highly favored multitude who compose the Catholic Church. And first of all, it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin... Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way... Beloved brethren, let us with one consent adopt this course, and withdraw ourselves from all participation in their baseness... For how should they be capable of forming a sound judgment, who, since their parricidal guilt in slaying their Lord, have been subject to the direction, not of reason, but of ungoverned passion, and are swayed by every impulse of the mad spirit that is in them? '
Two Types of Christians
A tragic aberration set in when the Church became the establishment. The rapidity of numerical and geographical expansion of Christianity in the third century greatly accelerated the acceptance of a double ethical standard. Acute theological problems were raised by a doctrine of two types of Christians, ordinary ones and clergy. Already in the first century the concept was known as the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, composed of two words, nikao meaning conquer and laos which means people. A Nicolaitan was someone who conquered the laity, the common people. This unbiblical germ was contained in a sermon of Origen (184 -254 AD), when he spoke of an elite army that was supported by soldiers who also fought against evil but who were not involved with the actual fighting (Chadwick, 1969:176).

The State Church replacing House Churches
The secular advantages given to the Church as a result of the Constantine military victories and the subsequent reforms, had a fatal side effect. The unified State Church replaced house Churches, which were actually forbidden. This was of course far removed from the biblical idea of the unity of the Body of Christ. In the process the Church lost its prophetic power over social, cultural and pagan habits. The clergy became less dependent on God and their life-style moved further and further away from biblical standards. One sees for instance how the biblical word paroikia of which Peter, the apostle, speaks in his first epistle, meaning to be a stranger on earth, evolved to become a parish (Dutch parochie). This became almost the opposite of the original concept, but understandable in the environment of a society without money. The parish was the security of the priest.

Using Force if Persuasion does not work
Augustine set the pattern for Muhammad to react with force if persuasion does not work. He initially accepted that there would be godless and nominal Christians in the Church, because wheat and weed should be able to grow next to each other until the harvest. Church discipline should not be practised forcefully with the iron rod, but rather like that of an operating surgeon. The erring and back-sliding folk should be brought back to the fold with the 'Gospel of grace.' The Donatists were however not to be moved.
Hereafter Augustine however abused the Bible, requesting the secular authorities to use force to bring the erring Donatists back to the Church. To motivate his position, Augustine quoted Luke 14:23, ‘Force them to come in.’ Otto de Jong, a Dutch church historian, concludes: ‘With this argumentation he paved the way for the inquisition.’ Unwittingly, Augustine legitimized force to subdue opposition (The Inquisition became known as a harsh international secular judiciary, where a travesty of justice became the common practice).

A total Aberration The use of force to ‘make’ Christians was a total aberration of what Christ taught about the expansion of his kingdom. The parables about the kingdom is the model which Jesus handed down, for example 'The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed upon the ground... the seed should sprout and grow up, he knows not how...' (Mark 4:26ff). It spreads the clear message: it is not man’s labour and effort which bring about the kingdom. It is God’s sovereign work, which comes to pass through the Holy Spirit. This parable is obviously a reply to the passionate striving of those who want to force the coming of the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:24).
One can somehow comprehend the actions of the Jews of the first century for their part in the persecution of the Christians. I have more difficulty to understand Constantine and his successors. But I cannot find any reason to exonerate the theologian Augustine at all, when he abused the Bible to propagate force and quoting Luke 14:23 to this end. He set a bad example which had dire results in subsequent centuries. Religious wars proliferated through the Middle Ages, with the Inquisition and the Crusades among the best known - next to the Muslim conquest of North Africa, Spain and quite a few other countries.

Lack of religious Tolerance
It is sad that the great Reformers of the 16th century also displayed a lack of religious tolerance. The very great Martin Luther who proclaimed semper reformanda (be always reforming, i.e. do not stop reforming) had no sympathies with those who wanted to reform the tradition of christening infants.
The most important personalities in Germany and Switserland, Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, remained at loggerheads for all intents and purposes. Sadly, rank-and-file followers of Luther physically attacked the Anabaptists, killing many of them after being encouraged by the reformer through dubious teaching to do so. It is all the more tragic that these very same Anabaptists had originally been inspired by him and Zwingli to examine the Scriptures. But when the outcomes differed to their own convictions, they ordered the Anabaptists to be eliminated. Even more outrageous were Luther's views on Jews when they refused to convert to Christianity.
Wilhelm Reublin (1484–ca.1559) was a leading figure of the Swiss Brethren movement. In 1521, after studying theology in Freiburg and Tübingen, Reublin became the pastor at St Alban in Basel and began to advocate reform. St Alban was soon the centre of the evangelical movement in Basel. In the Autumn of 1522 Reublin was expelled from the city for his Reformation sermons and moved to Witikon in 1524, where he became the local pastor.

A dark Side of the Reformation
In the strange fight against the Anabaptists, a semblance of reason can be detected by one of its proponents, Balthasar Hübmaier. In a disputation with Zwingli in Zürich in October 1523. he set forth the principle of obedience to the Scriptures, writing inter alia: 'In all disputes concerning faith and religion, the scriptures alone, proceeding from the mouth of God, ought to be our level and rule.' Hübmaier was also committed to abandoning infant baptism, a practice he could not support with Scripture. Yet, he held the position that where the Scriptures appear to contain contradictions, both truths are to be held simultaneously. But this did not save him ultimately.
Together with Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz, Wilhelm Reublin was one of the midwives of the Anabaptist movement in Zürich in January 1525. Reublin took part in a disputation on 17 January 1525 after which Grebel, Mantz and Reublin were given eight days to leave the canton.66 Even in Zürich, the bastion of the Swiss Reformation, Ulrich Zwingli decreed in 1526 for Anabaptists to be drowned. In similar fashion Martin Luther had no scruples to fight Anabaptists violently and John Calvin ordered the Spaniard Michael Servetus to be killed because he opposed the doctrine of the Trinity.
In April 1525 Wilhelm Reublin baptised Hübmaier and sixty others. In Waldshut, Hübmaier's increasingly Anabaptist views gained him the disfavour of Prince Ferdinand, who ruled as King of Bohemia from 1526. It was that rivalry which would eventually lead to Hübmaier's martyrdom. He initially went to Schaffhausen in order to find protection against the Prince. In December 1525 Hübmaier fled once again, this time to Zürich to escape the Austrian army in prison. Under the torture of the rack, he offered the required recantation. With this, he was allowed to leave Switzerland journeying to Nikolsburg in Moravia. This weakness, having recanted under duress, troubled him deeply, leading to his Short Apology in 1526, which includes the following: 'I may err … I am a man...but a heretic... O God, pardon me my weakness.'
In Nikolsburg, Hübmaier's preaching soon brought converts to Anabaptism out of the group of Zwinglians who lived in the area. Political fortunes turned however, and Prince Ferdinand, to whom Hübmaier had already become an enemy while in Waldshut, gained control of Bohemia, thus placing Hübmaier once again under Ferdinand's jurisdiction. Hübmaier and his wife were seized by the Austrian authorities and taken to Vienna. He was held in the castle Gratzenstein until March 1528. He suffered further torture on the rack, and was tried for heresy and convicted. On March 10, 1528, he was taken to the public square and executed by burning. His wife exhorted him to remain steadfast. Three days after his execution, his wife, with a stone tied around her neck, was drowned in the River Danube.
The dynamic Luther also uttered the most despicable words in the latter part of his life in his reference to Jews. (Much of this has been published via his table-talk.67)
Some corporate confession by Protestants of the Lutheran/Calvinist type would be appropriate for this dark intolerant period of the Reformation.

Legalism sneeks in by the Back Door
In an internet article about celebrating and worshipping on Sunday one can read: 'Sunday… was adopted by the early Christians as a day of worship.. . Sunday was emphatically the weekly feast of the resurrection of Christ, as the Jewish Sabbath was the feast of creation. It was called the Lord's day, and upon it the primitive church assembled to break bread. No regulations for its observance are laid down in the New Testament nor, indeed, is its observance even enjoined. Yet Christian feeling led to the universal adoption of the day, in imitation of the apostolic precedence. In the second century its observance was universal...'
Christian creeds of the 4th century onwards did much to keep heresy out of the Church, but lamentably, some of their references to the Lord's Day did tend to encourage legalism in the observance of the Lord's Day. The unity achieved was seriously undermined through this. Thus the Council of Gangra (c. 350 A.D.) condemned fasting on the Lord's day as well as staying away from the 'House of God' and attending any non-Christian assembly. The Council of Laodicea (363 A.D.) condemned the observance of the Jewish Sabbath and Sunday was commanded to be a day of rest from labour: 'Christians must not act like Jews by refraining from work on the Sabbath, but must rather work on that day, and, if they can, as Christians they must cease work on the Lord's Day, so giving it the greater honor'.
By the time of the Reformation legalism was widespread. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin opposed this legalism fiercely. The Reformers were determined to make the Lord's Day a celebration of the resurrection yet again and to free it from being the burden which it had been becoming. This is especially true of the German/Swiss Reformation.
Calvin stressed the dangers of seeing the Lord's Day as a sabbath. The Swiss Reformer Heinrich Bullinger, who came from Bremgarten near Zurich, had a 'high view' of the law. As a result the sabbath was destined to greatly influence the Church worldwide. His views would become normative within the later Calvinism. For Bullinger, Sunday was to be observed in the same way that the Sabbath was adored among Jews. Calvin, on the other hand, clearly held that Sunday is not the Sabbath. Unfortunately the later "Calvinism" chose to follow Bullinger rather than Calvin on this point.
First Day Sabbatarianism as a unifying Factor
First Day Sabbatarians is the tag given to those Christians who believe that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, to be observed in accordance with the 4th commandment. In its strictest form, this was largely the creation of the Scottish and English Reformers, especially John Knox. The Scottish Presbyterians and the Puritans brought their views to the New World colonies, where rigorous sabbath laws were decreed and penalties were often severe. First Day Sabbatarianism which not only made Sunday a new Christian Sabbath day but it often applied all kinds of legal sanctions and regulations (apparently failing to learn the lessons from the Pharisees, making the Mosaic Sabbath Day a burden). This is largely the product of the Scottish Presbyterianism and English Puritanism of the 16th -18th centuries. These Christians were undoubtedly sincere, but their views were tainted with the sort of legalism which tended to undermine the vital Christian doctrine of Justification by Faith alone. Taking their eyes from the warnings of Scripture, especially in the epistles, they lost sight of the fact that our works cannot save us.
Zinzendorf a Separatist?
The spirit of racial disunity has possibly had nowhere in the world such pervasive power as in South Africa. The apartheid practice was only one visible expression of such division. Denominational disunity, distrust and rivalry among pastors have been other demonic forces. But it had been rearing its head also in other parts of the world.
It seems as if the flesh in us prefers to build our own kingdoms, just like Saul built a monument to himself (1 Samuel 15:12) – followed or accompanied by pious pretenses. Because of his vision for unity, Count Zinzendorf and his Moravians were attacked, often for opposing reasons. John Wesley criticized the Count for following the teachings of Luther slavishly, but definitely did this wrongfully when he accused Zinzendorf for being a separatist (Praamsma III, 1980:125). The Pietist Lutherans specially sent Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to America to counter Zinzendorf’s vision of Church unity, abusing his motto of ecclesia planta (church planting). Zinzendorf furthermore did not follow Luther's teaching of anti-Semitism. On the contrary, the 18th century Moravians were known to be philo-semitists, with a high regard and love for Jews, reaching out to them lovingly in the US and Holland with their best people. The most conspicuous break of Zinzendorf was the difference with Philipp Jacob Spener, his godfather August Francke. Spener was known as the pioneer and Father of Pietism and the teenager was definitely influenced deeply by the movement when he attended the boarding school of Francke in Halle. However, Zinzendorf and his Herrnhut Moravians clearly distanced themselves from the austere prescribed 'Busskampf' of the Pietists. In fact, under the leadership of his son Christian Renatus in the Wetteravia period - after the group had been banned from Saxony in the mid-1730s – the Morvians went overboard at Herrnhaag in their frivolity. This gave the Moravians a bad name all around Europe.

Church Disunity as Sin
We repeat that denominational disunity must be recognised for what it really is in the light of the Bible: sin! Not for nothing Jesus prayed for His disciples and for those who would believe in their message (it is thus applicable to us, the spiritual off-spring): '...That all of them may be one... and that they may be brought to complete unity' (John 17:21, 23). Paul did not mince his words either, calling believers babies in the faith who hero-worship strong personalities (see 1 Corinthians 3:1-5). But there is light at the end of the tunnel. In South Africa we have seen in recent decades some remarkable bridging of doctrinal positions, especially with regard to baptism, like Methodists who have been going to an Apostolic Faith Mission church building to practise immersion.
On the issue of denominational differences, no less than the Pope himself, has conceded with his encyclica already in May 1995, Ut unum sit, that the disunity of the Church is a major hindrance to the spread of the Gospel. He explicitly asked forgiveness from God for the sins against the unity. This has however not been followed up. It seems that Mariolatry has not been addressed seriously at all to this day in that denomination. Protestants in general have reason to repent as well for their disobedience in respect of the biblical primacy of the nation of Israel as the apple of God's eye. Gospel outreach to Jews is still the 'Cinderella' of all missionary work. The Church has yet to start to seriously 'provoke' Israel to jealousy. Instead, even at the recent evangelical Lausanne III conference in Cape Town, the theological commission had to battle to formulate their statement in a way which would not include the pervasive Supercessionism – the impression that the Church is the new Israel.

Faith as Work or Works of Faith?
For many centuries the 'works of faith' teaching was evidently not always understood properly. How else was it such a revolutionary experience for Martin Luther to discover in Romans 1:17 that ‘the righteous shall live by faith alone’? We note that this Pauline verse was merely citing Habakkuk 2:4. The esteemed Luther however definitely over-interpreted Paul. The accusations of Jewish theologians against Paul – all too often selectively and abusively emulated by Muslim scholars – have often like-wise been overdrawn. The prolific epistle writer possibly never intended to play works out against faith as Martin Luther (see below) and other theologians since him have been doing. In fact, in his beautiful song on love, 1 Corinthians 13, Paul ends with ‘Faith, hope and love... and the greatest of these is love.’ Are not love and works almost identical in this context, albeit that he attacked works in that chapter which are not motivated by love?
From the letter that the second century Church Father Policarp wrote to the Philippians, it can be deduced that he must have known at least the bulk of the writings of the 'New Testament'. It is evident that he picked up the gist of Pauline teachings accurately when he described the relationship between faith and love (works) as follows: ‘Faith is the mother of all, it is followed by expectation (hope) whilst the love to God, Christ and the neighbour leads the way.’

A Serious Misconception
Some Christians have been led to believe that according to the Hebrew Scriptures salvation is accomplished only through works. This is definitely a misconception. The Hebrew word most often translated with ‘grace’ or ‘favour’ is chen. Chuck and Karen Cohen - two Messianic Jews, i.e. followers of Jesus with a Jewish background, have clarified the meaning of chen in biblical context: ‘the stronger coming to the help of the weaker... (The stronger) acts by a voluntary decision, though he is moved by the dependence or the request of the weaker party.’ (??). An excellent example of how it works in practice is how Moses interceded for the idolatrous Israelites after the experience of the golden calf in Exodus 32. In the exchange between God and Moses the word chen is used nine times. Moses knew that it was not by any merit on the part of the Israelites that he could approach the Lord and intercede for them. It is significant that God met him on that basis, even stating that it is His divine nature to be ‘gracious’ (Exodus 34:6). Tragically, the Jewish Christians, already excluded by their fellow-countrymen because of their faith in Jesus as their Messiah, became isolated from their Gentile co-believers as they continued with the observance of Sabbaths, circumcision and other Jewish feasts and thereby perpetuating the misleading conception that they thereby reduced Christ's sacrifice.

Paul versus James
Martin Luther has possibly to be given the bulk of the blame for making works of faith suspect. He even went to the extreme of calling the Epistle of James 'straw-like'.68 Luther changed the order of the 'NT' books in his Bible translation in such a way that the epistle of James was moved to just before the book of Revelations. Many believers since Luther went to another extreme. Thus some evangelicals reacted in opposition to the so-called 'Social Gospel' of the early 20th century. They over-emphasised faith, sometimes even side-lining works of compassion. The Bible teaches the combination of faith and works, or better still, it highlights works of faith. Jesus’ example of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25ff) is the prime paradigm, where the ritually and doctrinally ‘incorrect’ Samaritan - in the view of Jesus’ audience - put the Levite and the Priest to shame. The probable view of the law expert, who had questioned Jesus in the context of the parable, would have been legalist. James stressed in his epistle that our faith should be derived from our works; yes, that faith without deeds is dead (James 2:14-26). In this passage James highlights the action of the harlot Rahab, that she was performing a deed of faith when she was still a pagan.
It is possible that James deemed it necessary to give this correction because of an extreme interpretation of Pauline teaching. Paul possibly merely meant that works could not be abused to boast with or to earn some rewards with them. But he did not discard them either. In fact, 1 Corinthians 3:14 shows that he did reckon with rewards: If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. In that context however, the rewards are not material. Elsewhere Paul gives an idea what he means with the remuneration the believer should be looking at, e.g. Phillipians 4:1 I love you and long to see you, dear friends, for you are my joy and the crown I receive for my work.
In his second letter to the Corinthians the believer is challenged to aspire to be ‘transformed into his (the Lord’s) likeness’ (3:18) and in 1 Corinthians 9:25 he writes about a crown that will last forever. The crown refers to a reward in respect of the quality of the material used in building on the foundation Jesus Christ. Paul pointed to the committed mature believers of Phillipi as ‘You... my crown’ (Philippians 4:1). Thus believers who have been discipled well, is the sort of reward Christians should be aiming for. At the same time, building on any other foundation than Jesus, is disqualified for any reward. Timothy Keller (Generous Justice, 2010:98) summarized the various positions succinctly: 'The contradiction is only apparent. While a sinner can get into relationship with God by faith only (Paul), the ultimate proof that you have saving faith is the changed life that true faith inevitably produces (James).69

Was Martin Luther guilty of Polarisation?
If anyone was guilty of polarisation, I suggest that it was the highly esteemed great reformer Martin Luther. Whatever differences he may have discerned between the Pauline teaching of ‘faith not works’ and James’ emphasis on ‘works of faith’, Luther unfortunately verbalised in a very problematic way. We have shown already that the differences were not that big. (The main difference between the faction of James and that of Paul was the relationship to the Law. Because he stressed stated that nobody is justified by the law Galatians 5:4), Paul was deeply resented as an apostate by different Jewish Christian groups). To go to the extreme of shifting the epistle of James to the back of his (German) translation - just before Revelations - as Luther did, was very disrespectful. He also made it clear that he would have preferred to see the epistle removed completely from the canon, regarding it more or less as apocrypha. He thus might have regarded the inclusion of the Epistle of James as a concession, but then placed just before Revelations.
Yet, we should not be too harsh on Luther ourselves. He unhappilly reacted to his misguided understanding of Pauline teaching and the emphasis on work righteousness in the Church of his day. Besides, Luther was under the impression that the Epistle of James was an ordinary Jewish letter, which had no right to be included in the canon because he seems to have thought that there was hardly anything specific Christian about it - apart from the description of Jesus as Messiah. Klaus Berger, the prominent Heidelberg University exegete, has pointed out that research of recent times has highlighted James’ admonition of Peter (not of Paul) for his interpretation of the Jerusalem accord:
a) the concern of James for the protection of his Jerusalem Church and
b) the continued fellowship with the Gentile Christians.
Luther's rigid doctrinal position in respect of justification by faith was destined to cause much trouble in later generations. Possibly it was this influence - more than anything else - which caused the split between Count Zinzendorf and John Wesley. The founder of Methodism was very much a Calvinist at the point of their inter-action, at about the same time when he and George Whitfield – who was even more Calvinist - parted ways. In an unguarded moment Zinzendorf had a slip of the tongue, calling predestination 'a cursed doctrine', (Lütjeharms, 1935:150). God's ways are inexplicable. All three of these great 18th century men of God seem to have mellowed their rigid doctrinal stances in later years.

Semper Reformanda
Although Martin Luther caused arguably the biggest church split in history, he is not to be given the blame that Protestants later made a shibolleth,70 a test of orthodoxy, out of his catechisms. They were intended for teaching young people the basics of the Christian faith. Luther emphasised ecclesia reformata semper reformanda (literally it means a reformed church is always reforming), suggesting that we should never remain static in our church practices and traditions. We should always continue the process of evaluation and we have to be ready for constant change and reformation. There he is on sound 'New Testament' ground. No less than our Lord himself set the standard for looking at rules and regulations like traditions and rituals such as
washing of hands, offerings and fasting (e.g. Mark 7:13ff, 'Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down...) Matthew Henry comments aptly and concisely on Mark 7:1ff, 'One great design of Christ's coming was, to set aside the ceremonial law; and to make way for this, he rejects the ceremonies men added to the law of God's making. Those clean hands and that pure heart which Christ bestows on his disciples, and requires of them, are very different from the outward and superstitious forms of Pharisees of every age. Jesus reproves them for rejecting the commandment of God.' Our Lord attacked long exhibitionist prayers. Even the Sabbath Law came under scrutiny. The functionality should be primary, without losing the core. If functionality becomes convenience, he deems it fit to use the whip to drive us out of our temples. How many churches got stuck in rigid formalism and tradition!
Jesus also led the way in flexibility, getting his cue from the Father. The communion with Him gave our Lord the liberty to change the water into wine, although he initially deemed it inopportune to go public with miracles and wonders (John 2). Although his stated strategy was to stick to the House of Israel, he broke his own rules by helping the Roman centurion and the Syro-Phoenician woman when he discerned true faith. He challenged the norms of the society of his day by dining with the despised chief tax collector Zaccheus and allowing a prostitute to anoint him and use her hair for drying purposes.

Dubious Peace Agreements
Religious wars impacted nations over many centuries. Muhammad's victories brought millions under religious bondage. Military defeat brought Islamic expansion to a halt. From Rome a choking and burdensome Catholicism had been exported to colonies already from the times of the 'Holy' Roman Empire'. After the Thirty Years war in Europe (1618-1648) the power taken by King Ferdinand III of Spain, in contravention of the Empire's constitution, was stripped and returned to the rulers of the Imperial States. This rectification allowed the rulers of the Imperial States to independently decide their religious preference. The status of Protestants and Catholics were redefined as equal before the law, and Calvinism was given legal recognition. All parties would recognize the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, in which each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state. The options were Catholicism, Lutheranism, and thereafter also Calvinism (the principle of cuius regio, eius reliogio71). The unity achieved in this way was very fragile, causing many problems all around the world.
In South Africa the religious wars of Europe would have a significant impact down the centuries. A sad sequel transpired after 1652, thus only a few years after the Peace Treaty of Westphalia (1648), when the ruling Dutch enforced their Reformed version of Christianity, even refusing the German Lutherans to have a church building of their own for decades. On the positive side of the equation, the French Huguenots, fleeing persecution in their home country turned out to be a mighty blessing to the Cape.
The British colonizers after 1806, notably via the governor Lord Charles Somerset, endeavoured to neutralize the influence of the Dutch Reformed Church. As part of his effort to anglicize the Cape Colony, Somerset brought in Scottish Presbyterians. However, they subtly opposed the anglicizing policy of the governor. In stead of enforcing English down the throats of the congregants, they learned Dutch. The Presbyterian Scottish ministers put a stamp of rare piety in our part of the world. The Murray clan was a very special breed in this context. Graaff Reinet, that had been a boozing centre of the region with more liquor outlets than houses, were cleaned up after the arrival of Ds. Andrew Murray (sr.). His faithful prayers for revival, that stretched over decades, was the seed-bed on which the famous 1860 reveil could germinate that was spearhead by his namesake son.

Dealing with the so-called Higher Criticism
Evangelicals usually make a special point of the in-errancy of the Word. It is however important to remember that the various biblical authors were human beings who were not infallible. It is unwise to try and defend God’s Word to the hilt in the face of opposition. Playing around with the words in-errancy and infallibility, it could then easily develop into unfruitful semantics. In 1896 Andrew Murray responded to an article in the British Weekly about the dearth of conversions (Du Plessis, 1917:471). His diagnosis of the evil went beyond superficial symptoms; he suggested that the main cause was not the influence of the Higher Criticism, nor the lack of evangelical sermons, but the lack of the Holy Spirit. In this way he was reaching for the ultimate causes, teaching us a lesson or two in dealing with the so-called Higher Criticism.
There are inconsistencies in the Bible which cannot be explained away easily. If any seeker is really keen to get to the truth, we may trust that God is fully capable to meet such a seeker on his own terms. George Verwer, the founder of Operation Mobilization, put succinctly what has been the experience of believers down the ages: ‘I do believe that the Bible is God’s inerrant word, but I cannot say that I’ve arrived at that belief without a struggle, or without many, many questions and doubts over passages in both the Old and New Testaments’ (Verwer, ??, 1993:57).
One of the best examples of the power of the Word happened in the ministry of Dr Billy Graham. He was seriously challenged in 1949 as a young evangelist with Youth for Christ to delve deeper into academic biblical studies. He had started to doubt the authority of Scripture. On the other hand, he noted how the quoting of Scripture in sermons and at other occasions so often evidently had an effect beyond human arguments. The turmoil in his spirit led to deep soul searching. In a spirit of absolute surrender before God, he cried out, 'Oh God, I cannot prove certain things. I cannot answer some of the questions... but I accept this Book by faith as the Word of God.'72 This was the divine intervention in his life, leading to the famous Los Angeles Campaign a few days later, an event that effectively stopped the rot towards theological liberalism, not only in the USA, but in different countries of the Western world. Dr Graham would be God’s special instrument again in the run-up to major conferences in the cities of Berlin (1966), Lausanne (1974) and Amsterdam (1983 and 1986), events that can be regarded to be the effective catalyst for the slowing down of the worldwide march of atheist Socialism and Marxism, and ultimately for the smashing of the ‘iron curtain’ in 1989.

Monopoly of Monologue-Type Sermons
The monologue-type sermon received a monopoly as a way of communication in church services. Mutual fellowship suffered when it became habitual for congregants to leave immediately after church services in many a fellowship. Thus the efforts of churches to reach new people were nullified by this bad tradition. New believers who got used to interactive church events, e.g. during the Alpha programme, could not discover any link to the formal Sunday services.
There appears to have been constant dialogue in Jesus' days, even at a mass meeting with thousands present, as we can read in John 6. The 'I am' divine hint that our Lord was the Bread of Life, recalling the epochal manna event in the Sinai Desert, was too much for many of the Jewish listeners. Jesus didn’t make a fuss when hundreds of those who had been offended, walked away. In fact, he gave the faithful twelve the option to follow the example of the masses (John 6:67). We note also how Paul took for granted that all believers have something to contribute when they congregate (1 Corinthians 14:26) for fellowship. Yet, in most churches monologue sermons, without any active participation of congregants, is not only standard practice, but it seems still completely unchallenged. (Attempts have been made to use modern technology to break through this pattern via roving microphones or SMS of mobile phones, but these are still the exception. A scriptural reference that has been abused to justify long monologue-type sermons is Acts 20:7ff. We read there that Paul was speaking until midnight because he would leave the next day. But to translate Acts 20:9 as the Living Bible did - ‘Paul was speaking on and on’ – is rather deceptive. The verb in Greek – dialegomai – just refers to speaking, perhaps even implying dialogue-ing with the others, due to the special circumstance of his eminent departure.
In the beginnings of the Moravian village of Herrnhut in the 1720s Pastor Rothe practised a revolutionary mode of worship which turned out to be a great attraction. The preaching was followed by a general conversation between the pastor and his hearers (Langton, 1956:68). The synagogue at Capernaum in Jesus' day apparently also knew this practice (see Luke 4:22ff).73

The Length and Mode of Scriptural Exposition
It is unfortunate that the length and mode of sermons has been a reason for controversy. Why do we still debate matters when the examples and teaching in the Word are clear enough? Unfortunately it seems as if the tradition that developed through the ages that one person comes up with a more or less prepared lengthy monologue, became the accepted practice within a set liturgy of some sort or other. From the example of Jesus we can easily derive that he did not live up to that sort of expectation. After his reputation had gone ahead of him, he must have disappointed his Nazareth audience thoroughly when he not only aborted the prescribed reading from Isaiah, but also that he merely said that the prophecy had been fulfilled that day, Luke 4:21. In this case, when the Lord discerned the surprised reaction, he more or less entered into dialogue with the audience. In many other cases, for example when our Lord used parables, we should rather speak of dialogue than using monologues. Also Paul intimated some prior preparation by fellowship members, but then by everybody, and not by only a single preacher. Whenever believers come together, everyone should be ready to contribute, be it with a revelation, an instruction, a hymn, a psalm or song (1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 5:19).
Dialogue to be Refused?
Dialogue as such is not the be all and end all of missionary inter-action. Not all dialogue edifies. Sometimes dialogue has to be refused. If it is clear that the opposing conversational partners just want to talk - without any clear purpose - we would do well to emulate Nehemiah in the Bible when he refused to talk to the likes of Tobia and Sanballat. It sounds so nice when someone invites: ‘Come let us meet together in one of the villages on the plain of Ono’ (Nehemiah 5:2). Translated into modern idiom, this could sound like the following: ‘Come let us have inter-faith dialogue at a neutral venue!’ The prayerful church leader will discern whether the potential dialogue partners are genuine in this encounter or whether the invitation for dialogue is just a ploy to hold up God’s work. Nehemiah replied: ‘I cannot come down.’ He saw through the enemies’ strategy, that they wanted to take away the leader so that all the followers would stop working. They wanted to talk and talk until no time was left for work. All too often it is forgotten that the real enemy of God’s work is not outside the realms of religion. Sanballat was an Ammonite and Tobia was an Arab - so to speak inter-faith candidates.
A valid application for our time is to be wary of the enemy in the own camp. How many pastors and mission leaders get their time swallowed up with endless meetings and discussions. How often people phone the pastor just to complain over matters which do not even warrant a proper hearing. How valuable it is that we have the Holy Spirit at our disposal to guide us, enabling us to distinguish between genuine seekers after truth and those who merely love to hear their own voice or those who want to trip one up like the Scribes and Pharisees who came to Jesus with all sorts of questions. Cape Town experienced an abuse of dialogue on 11 December 2009 when a Christian-Muslim “Debate” took place in the Sea Point Civic Centre. In a rather one-sided way the Islamic Propagation Centre of Durban organised the event without any prior consultation with CCM (Christian Concern for Muslims), a national organisation. The theme was Is the New Testament the Word of God - without putting the same question to the Qur'an. Dialogue without level playing fields is questionable. However, the follower of Jesus can always look prayerfully to divine intervention, even if the above premise is not given. (This actually happened on 11 December 2009. The electronic projector remained stuck for quite a while, depicting on the screen the victorious Jesus, complete with the dove above his head, thus clearly confirming the biblical message: 'This is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased'. It is well known that Islam and the Qur'an deny the tenet of Jesus as the Son of God.)

Semantics around Dialogue?
A debate has been raging in evangelical circles around dialogue. Especially the talking and discussions with people from other religions have been maligned. The criticism definitely has some justification because so many councils, conferences and synods have swallowed up hours of discussion without anything substantial coming out of them. Yet, we should keep in mind that there is a definite case to be made out for missionary dialogue. Biblical examples are Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman (John 4) and Paul’s dialogue with the debating club on the Aeropagus (Acts 17). A condition for missionary dialogue seems to be an openness to listen to the other point of view without a rigid stance. But it does not imply an absence of a principled stand. Flexibility to listen to the other point of view does not expect quick fixes, but this does not mean an absence of a goal. The ‘New Testament’ follower of Jesus does not believe that one can come to the Father in any random way, but he/she will not expect people from other faiths to start following the Lord through our arguments immediately. We do have the privilege though to expect the Holy Spirit to open up biblical truths to anyone. In such dialogue our own attitude to adherents of other faiths is apt to change as well. In recent decades Brother Andrew took no small risk when he interacted with Islamic leaders of Hamas.
A positive example of missionary dialogue occurred when ‘Mr Pentecost’, Dr David du Plessis, engaged in intensive talks with representatives of the Vatican in the early 1960s. This resulted among other things in a ground breaking decision of the second Vatican Council, permitting ordinary Roman Catholic Church members to read the Bible for themselves.

Mother Tongue Translation of the Word
Translation of the Word into different languages progressed rather slowly. A major difference occurred with the dynamic British missionary William Carey. From 1793-1834 he and his colleagues translated Scriptures into more than 40 languages of India and Asia.
By the nineteenth century, Bible societies that were formed, focused on furthering Scripture translation and Scripture distribution. Many languages were discovered, but translation progress slowed down. Only in the 20th century the process picked up again. Two giants tower above everybody else in this regard. Efrain Alphonse, the first African-American Bible translator, grew up in Panama while his father worked on the canal. He was one of the greatest missionary translator pioneers of the 20th century. Eugene Nida says of Efrain Alphonse in his book, God’s Word in Man’s Language, 'Of all the missionary translators in the Western Hemisphere probably no one has entered more fully into the rich realms of aboriginal speech than this humble African American servant of God who (worked) untiringly among a needy people.' Cameron Townsend was the second gigantic 20th century Bible translator. A missionary to the Cakchiquel Indians of Guatemala, William Cameron Townsend caught the vision for translation after Cakchiquel-speaking men expressed their concern and surprise that God did not speak their language. Townsend resolved that every man, woman and child should be able to read God’s Word in their own language. Borrowing the name of the Reformation hero, John Wycliffe, who first translated the Bible into English, Townsend founded Camp Wycliffe in 1934 as a linguistics training school. By 1942, "Camp Wycliffe" had grown into two affiliate organizations, Wycliffe Bible Translators and the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). Today, SIL and Wycliffe Bible Translators work together to translate Scripture, train field personnel and promote interest in translation. More than 700 translations have been completed, and hundreds more are in the process. William Cameron Townsend inspired a new generation to continue Bible translation until every last man, woman and child had God’s Word in a language they could understand. Townsend founded the Summer Institute of Linguistics in 1934 and Wycliffe Bible Translators in 1942, both with a strategic focus on Bible translation for the remaining languages groups without Scripture. Other Bible translation organizations were formed subsequently. Translation progress became steady, but much more has yet to be done to get the word available in the vernacular of every tribe and nation.
The Smuggling of Scriptures
The smuggling of sacred writ has a long history. We took note of the phenomenon with William Tyndale who had the English Bible printed in Germany and then smuggled into England in bales of cotton.
The smuggling of Scriptures came only really of age during the 'cold war' era.74 It was a major source of spiritual power, dynamite that eventually caused the demise of the Communist ideology. The gift of one million Bibles to the Orthodox Church at the occasion of their one thousandth year anniversary – together with the seven years of prayer for the Soviet Union from 1984 - spawned the dismantling of the ‘iron curtain’. As a member of the official Dutch delegation at a conference on human rights in the 1980s in the conference centre De Burcht in the Dutch village of Heemstede, Brother Andrew offered on behalf of Open Doors a donation of one million Bibles to the Russian Orthodox Church for their coming millennial celebration. Furthermore, the translation of Scripture into indigenous languages not only opened many primitive tribes to modern civilization, but it also gave them dignity.
A noteworthy achievement of recent Church History was a breakthrough affected by A Bible School graduate, an anonymous ex-Muslim in a North African country. He pushed aside all his intellectual knowledge from theological seminary, and rather concentrated on communicating the Word to Islamic countrymen. Using the Muslim custom of learning the Qur’an by heart, he used a verse from Scripture repeatedly every time he visited his Muslim compatriots. The Word is still sharper than a double-edged sword, which can penetrate the strongest resistance; it also judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

God’s Word not always welcomed ` On the other hand, we must be realistic enough to know that God’s Word will not always be welcomed with open arms. This is nothing new. In fact, the tearing up or burning of Bibles has a Hebrew Scriptural precedent. In Jeremiah 36:16ff it is reported how the king’s secretary and other officials were alarmed by the prophecy of Jeremiah, to the extent that they thought the king himself should also hear it. However, in callous contempt King Jehoiakim cut off the parts from the scroll which had been read with a knife and threw it into the fire (Jeremiah 36:23). The message of the scroll almost sent Jeremiah to prison. On the other hand, Martin Luther might have fared even better, if he had taken the Pauline advice more seriously, to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). His courageous bold stand75is laudable, but we should not forget that his divisive demeanour spawned the rift which caused great damage to the unity of Christianity. Luther was not even prepared to work together with the Swiss reformed believers. Luther refused the right hand of reconciliation of Zwingli with the latter saying there is nobody in all the world with whom I want to link up than those from Wittenberg. Luther's curt reply was: 'You have a different spirit from us.'76 (Even if we take into account that he was risking his life and that his testimony at the Diet of Worms in January 1521 was possibly blown up to mythical proportions, we should compare Luther’s attitude with the clear stand of people like Francis of Assisi and brave Christian women in the Middle Ages. Even popes went to these saintly followers of Jesus for counsel.77) This should not be construed however as support for scripturally indefensible doctrines like papal infallibility ex cathedra (from the papal chair) or worship of Mary as the ‘mother of God’.

The Sword blunted
The arch enemy would of course never sit still as he recognised the dynamite power of the double-edged sword, the Word of God. The subtle serpent used not only obvious instruments like cults, e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, to change the biblical wording to suit their particular doctrine, but also materialism. Worldly publishing companies counterfeited King James Bibles. These worldly publishing companies made minor changes to the standard text so that they can please certain groups, which would translated into extra sales for them. (more details about this phenomenon at www.thebelieversorganization.org.)
Biblical Injunctions watered down
It is clear that the 'NT' Church cut through all man-made separation like social strata. A typical example of how Western theology watered down the impact of the Gospel has been theologizing of the Lord’s saying ‘The poor you have always with you’ (Matthew 26:11). This Bible verse has all too often been abused to justify economic disparity. The context of these words shows that Jesus praised the lavish warmth and love of an unknown woman (or Mary, the sister of Lazarus in John 11). Was it perhaps too radical for male-dominated (male-domineering?) Western society to accept that this act of the anointing of the Messiah was actually performed by a socially despised woman? What makes the narrative in the Gospel of Matthew even more remarkable is that this happened to the Master while he was enjoying the hospitality of an outcast, a leper in the report of Luke 7:36ff. (According to the Gospel of John a similar event took place at the house of Lazarus and his two sisters.) We have noted already how watering down even crept into the 1983 Afrikaans Bible translation of the beatitude ‘blessed are the poor’ (Luke 6:20).
The translation of Proverbs 22:2 is another example. Earlier versions brought the rich and the poor in a close proximity to each other. The Afrikaans translation, which was still reprinted in 1983, translated the notion that rich and poor78 meet, but the Nuwe Afrikaanse Vertaling (1984) and the more recent English ones, for example the NIV and the Living Bible, simply note that God has created both rich and poor. I suspect that we westerners have fitted the words to what we would like to hear. Paul, the apostle, describes this phenomenon in 2 Timothy 4:3 as follows: ‘what their itching ears want to hear’.
On the other hand, this should not be interpreted as a one-sided interpretation as if God only has the poor in mind, even though it is surely correct to speak of some preference. The missionary verse par excellence, John 3:16, speaks of God’s love for the world, which culminated in the sending of his unique Son. Christians should however be careful with their handling of this verse. (It is repugnant to Jews and Muslims, the two world religions which are the closest to Christianity, because both of them cannot accept Jesus as the Son of God.) Yet, the context of John 3:16 gives us some idea of the inclusive missionary heart of God. It is placed between the narrative of the Lord’s ministry to Nicodemus, a high-ranking Pharisee (John 3:1-17) and that of His ministry to the Samaritan woman (John 4, see also chapter 11). The message is clear: the Gospel is meant for all social strata, for the influential people of His day and for the ethnic minorities like the Samaritans and for social outcasts of society.

Opposition to Cost-effectiveness
In the parable of the poor widow (Mark 12:41-44) Jesus uses a typical sample of the despised of his society as an example of radical giving. The Gospels clearly show that the poor have a lot to give, especially immaterial gifts like love, warmth, devotion and hospitality. Jesus taught that giving should not always be measured in terms of its (cost)-effectiveness. This goes completely against the grain of typical Western thinking, where we might for example be tempted to ask how effective it is to give to the poor. A typical Western expression is ‘a drop in the ocean.’
In God’s eyes the love and devotion to Him could have unintelligible ‘waste’ as result! When his disciples79 or Simon the Pharisee were ready to condemn the ‘wasteful giving’ of the precious nard ointment by the unnamed prostitute, Jesus praised her affection as a prophetic act. Prayer journeys to strongholds of the arch enemy might not look very ‘cost effective’, but they may turn out to be more ‘productive’ than years of toil, of writing books and compiling costly video productions.
Jesus was of course taught by rabbi’s, who used the Hebrew Scriptures as a basis. In fact, the verse about the poor among us (Matthew 26:11), is simply Deuteronomy 15:11 quoted by Jesus. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures God is depicted as the champion of the materially poor. If they were treated unjustly and exploited by the wealthy, they could call on the king who would have been compelled to intervene on their behalf. Special laws were divinely promulgated to make sure that nobody would starve. Thus the people of Israel had to let land lie fallow during the Sabbath year and told to ‘let the poor among the people harvest any volunteer crop that may come up’ (Leviticus 19:10). The Sabbath year (every seventh year) and the Jubilee year (the year after the 7th Sabbath year) were intended by God to be equalizers, so that everybody should get a chance to start anew.
In the history of missions there are many examples of devout followers of our Lord who 'wasted' many years of toiling on barren soil. All the more we are thankful for researchers and authors who demonstrated that the story of the gentleman who laboriously threw starfish back into the ocean that would have perished if they were allowed to die on the beach, should be the Christian model. Jesus himself held up the model of seed that have to die first before it can produce fruit. A discovery of recent times is how the seed germinated that was sown by a Swedish missionary, Svea Flood. She died in the Belgian Congo (now called Zaire) while giving birth to a baby who later became known as Aggie Hurst. The only convert of Svea and her husband David – a little boy – became God's instrument to lead hundreds of other villagers and folk from his tribe to the Lord.80

Diluting the Word
Accommodating our comfort zones could even creep into Bible translations, but diluting the sharp edges of the Word. The American ‘Inclusive Version’ translates away terms like God as Father and Jesus as Son. Also in other languages ‘offensive’ terms have been scrapped. The question is whether all this is not a case of getting what itching ears want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3).
Ideology has clearly influenced an Afrikaans Bible translation in this country. The watering down thus crept into the 1983 Bible translation of the beatitude ‘blessed are the poor’ (Luke 6:20), giving a spiritualized rendering of this beatitude: Blessed are they who know how dependent they are on God.’81 Thus the intention of the Greek metaphor has been eradicated. According to the original text, the poor is blessed, full stop. In Holland the Willibrord translation of 1995 stirred up emotions because the commentary to the text clearly reflects accommodation to modernist New Age thinking. In recent years a syncretist tendency in the US - popularly known as Chrislam – appeared to take away the sharp edges of the Gospel for Muslims.
The most recent outrage has still not settled as the reputable Wycliffe Bible Translators are under attack. In an attempt to make the Word palatable to Muslims, Christian books were published where God as Father and the Sonship of Jesus seemed to be compromised. Concern has been and is still being expressed that the changing of fundamental words of Scripture such as "Father" and "Son" might also fuel the Muslim claim that the Bible is corrupted, full of errors and has been abrogated by the Qur'an and example of Muhammad. The issue at stake is not a matter of mere semantics.

Light at the End of the Tunnel?
We recognise that division is the paramount strategy of satan. If he can use the Church and its leaders for this purpose, he will never hesitate. Not only to people from other religions, the denominational and doctrinal disunity poses a problem of no mean dimension. The unity in Christ must be practised and seen to be a reality in the lives of believers. The highly respected Bishop Vedanayagam Samuel Azariah, the first Indian to be consecrated as an Anglican bishop, said already at the The First World Conference on Faith and Order, which took place from 3-12 August in 1927 in Lausanne (Switzerland): ‘The divisions of Christendom may be a source of weakness in Christian countries, but in non-Christian lands they are a sin and a scandal.’ (Quoted in Visser ‘t Hooft, 1959:44)..

The Rapture as a divisive doctrinal Tenet
The rapture is a reference to the being caught up referred to in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, when the dead in Christ' and we who are alive and remain will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord. The only other reference in the Bible used to defend the doctrine is Matthew 24:40,41 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. The context of the latter verse is saying something totally opposite. Jesus explained an event that would be 'As in the days of Noah...when the flood came" (vv. 37-39). In that context those who were "taken" from the earth were the evil, unbelieving people and Noah and seven others, 8 in all., were saved for a new beginning.
The term 'rapture' is used in at least two senses in modern traditions of Christian eschatology; in pre-tribulationist views, in which a group of people will be left behind.
There are many views among Christians regarding the timing of Christ's return (including whether it will occur in one event or two), and various views regarding the destination of the aerial gathering described in 1 Thessalonians 4. Some 'mainline' denominations believe in a rapture only in the sense of the final resurrection generally, when Christ returns.
Pre-tribulation rapture theology was developed in the 1830s by British evangelist Jon Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren and popularized in the USA in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.
I propose that Christians handle the doctrine of the rapture very carefully, especially in attempting to propose the time for it to happen. The pre-tribulation concept, during which it is taken as a given that the Jews as a nation would especially have to suffer - when they would discover that followers have Jesus have disappeared and through that come to recognize their Son as the Messiah and mourn the One they have pierced (Zechariah 12:10) - has an uncharitable un-Christlike triumphalist ring around it. Would it not be more loving to see our own responsibility to share the Gospel with them as an urgent matter, so that they can be raptured with all other believers from the nations? Is it really so important whether the rapture happen before or after the tribulation?

It is very easy to discern how wrong or one-sided interpretation of Scripture - or words taken out of its context - accounted for the bulk of denominational splits. This is not taking those splits into account because of personality or personal differences. Conversely, it is to be expected that the veil will fall from the eyes of millions to whom the Word has been obscured. They can now read for themselves who the incarnated Word really is. Because of the internet, people around the world can now not only read the Word for themselves in so many languages, but they can also read where all the doctrinal confusion came from.
Chapter 8 Cape Pioneers of Church Unity
The Cape inherited religious intolerance from the early beginnings of the half-way settlement in 1652. Protestant missionaries were expediently abused to oppose Roman Catholicism in different parts of the world. An agreement had been reached after the 30 years war, which ended in Europe in 1648: cuius regio, eius religio. This implied that colonial powers could enforce their national religion on the areas that they ‘possessed’, i.e colonized. Therefore no other churches except the Dutch Reformed denomination were allowed to operate at the Cape. Thus it would be ensured that the Catholics would not have any pretext to come and join the fray. The V.O.C. (Vereenigde Oost Indische Compagne = United East India Company), the trade company that governed the Cape from 1652, regarded Dutch Reformed Calvinism to be the obvious guarantee that this would also happen at the Cape.
One of the worst examples of denominational discrimination worldwide was practiced at the Cape in respect of Catholics. Around 1800 local inhabitants from this denomination ‘did not have liberty’ to attend mass with one of their clergymen on one of the ships in the port (Du Plessis, 1911:368). The three Catholic priests, the first of whom arrived in October 1805, were requested to leave the Cape at the British re-conquest of the colony the following year.
Other religions were even worst off. Muslims were merely tolerated and Judaism was trampled upon. The Dutch Reformed Church regarded itself as the new Israel that replaced the nation, which the Bible describes as the ‘apple of God’s eye.’
Another Brand of Apartheid?
We South Africans in general have allowed a sectarian brand of Christianity to cloud the issues. We have neglected to communicate properly the true message of the 'New Testament', e.g. that all walls of partition between human beings have been broken down through Jesus Christ. In fact, the first church in Jerusalem consisted of people from extremely diverse cultural backgrounds, although all of them were of Jewish extraction. Acts 13 shows how various nationalities were represented in the leadership at Antioch, the first congregation that was formed after the persecution that scattered the initial Jerusalem Church.
I had no good answer ready when one of my secondary school learners of Hanover Park asked me in 1981, 'Why do you have so many churches?' I have to confess that even at the present time Christians are still allowing doctrinal differences to confuse people of other religions. I call the disunity and rivalry among church fellowships a heresy82‑ another brand of apartheid ‑ because Jesus saw the unity of His followers as something of great importance.

The Dutch Reformed Church and other mainline Protestants
The French Huguenots, who arrived at the Cape after 1688 were spiritual relatives of the ruling church but even they were not allowed to use their home language for worship. In France the Huguenots had been persecuted. After the Huguenot pastor Pierre Simond had protested successfully against the language ruling forbidding them to worship in French, Simon van der Stel, the Cape governor, branded him a rebel.
Although there were many Germans at the Cape by 1700, they were not permitted to have their own church. It took the Lutherans almost 40 years of petitioning until they were finally allowed to bring their own minister to the Cape and to have their own worship in 1779. Georg Schmidt, the Moravian missionary, was the first cleric outside of the Reformed ranks to operate at the Cape. Theal (Vol. 3, 1964 [1907]:59) notes that Schmidt initially experienced ‘nothing but kindness’ from the government at the Cape. However, he was seriously handicapped after Ds. G. Kulenkamp, an Amsterdam minister, issued a pastoral letter of warning against the ‘extreme views’ expressed by the Count Zinzendorf, the leader of the Moravian Church movement at the time. The letter branded the Moravians a mystical society, spreading dangerous opinions detrimental to the pure doctrine under the cover of pure simplicity (Kulenkamp was actually erring, referring to the ‘Blut und Wunden’ [blood and wounds] theology of Zinzendorf’s son Christiaan Renatus, but the warning was now understood to be against the Moravians as such). But also later there was a basic clash with Reformed teaching.83 Furthermore, the free attitude of the Moravians towards the various confessions caused offence. Count Zinzendorf endeavoured to form a fellowship of all who accepted the salvation through Christ as the main point of their faith.
A basic objection against Georg Schmidt was that he had no relationship to the Dutch Reformed Church. Gerdener (1937:20) highlighted Schmidt’s reactions to these ‘whisperings’ that were intended to halt his work, a reaction that was so typical of that generation of Moravians: ‘More than ever Schmidt sought the guidance of the Lord of the harvest and declared that this guidance demanded that he should not only continue but renew his efforts with even greater vigour.’
At Baviaanskloof Georg Schmidt was expected to refrain from starting a new church through his mission work, although the colonial church officials believed ‘less in the possible conversion of the Khoi than in the conversion of the devil’, to quote Schmidt’s own words (Bredekamp et al, 1981:43). Schmidt was merely tolerated as long as he worked far away from company settlements. Worldwide the Moravians were operating with a low profile in remote places. It is quite telling of the religious intolerance that this church group was nevertheless ‘treated as criminals for attempting to reach the blacks’ (Cited in Du Plessis, 1955:419 from the Missionary Review of the World, July 1908). It did not begin like that though.

Early evangelical Beginnings in the Mother City
The first serious effort in the 18th century to evangelize the Muslims at the Cape is said to be that of the Dutch Reformed Ds. Henricus Beck, a Groote Kerk minister, after his retirement in 1731 (Haasbroek, 1955:58),84 i.e. the same year in which the Count Zinzendorf had his encounter with the Caribbean slave Anton in Denmark. Nevertheless, a group of evangelical Christians gathered around Ds. Beck. His pioneering labour provided the spade work for the dynamic Georg Schmidt to start lively Christian groups in due course.
It has been reported that Schmidt had a small congregation of 47 and that he was in contact with 39 Whites (Schmidt, Afrika en die Evangelie [pamphlet], Genadendal, 1937). The evangelical group in the Mother City laid the foundation of what became the Zuid-Afrikaanse Gesticht (Z.A. Gesticht) on the corner of Long and Hout Street. This would influence the religious life at the Cape for the next decades decisively.
A few years later in 1742, Cape residents described the impact of Schmidt’s ministry to Nitschmann and Eller, two Moravian missionaries en route from Ceylon (the modern-day Sri Lanka), from where they had been deported. In their assessment they stated that Schmidt had accomplished in three and a half years ‘what others would not have affected in thirty years’ (Du Plessis, 1911:56).
Direct fruit in the Mother City of evangelistic work of Georg Schmidt, were new believers among the colonists. Some of them were Reformed Christians of the Groote Kerk, others were German Lutherans. Schmidt, proceeded soon after his arrival to pioneer with ministry among the Khoi at the Sergeants River in the Overberg. These indigenous people were disparagingly called Hottentotten at the time, regarded as unconvertible barbarians.

The first Converts of Georg Schmidt
Georg Schmidt was a powerful evangelist. Various sailors on his voyage to the Cape were touched and converted. Both corporal Kampen and his successor at the military base at Zoetemelksvlei described Schmidt as their spiritual father (Cruse, 1947:147). His sense of purpose is demonstrated by the fact that Schmidt moved on from Zoetemelksvlei to the Sergeants River soon after the conversion of Kampen, to get to the original reason for his coming - to evangelise the Khoi.
Schmidt gradually overcame the ‘apathy of his flock’ with ‘labour of love and patience of hope’ (Du Plessis, 1911:54). It was however no cakewalk in the light of the growing opposition against his work. In the beginning of 1742 Schmidt was very frustrated and despondent after long years of toil and little to show for it. He wrote to Zinzendorf that he intended to return to Europe, partly because of the indolence of his folk, partly because he did not receive helpers. But then the fruit came in the form of the first converts. Schmidt came to the Mother City to greet his friend and benefactor, Captain Rhenius, who was about to leave the country for his retirement. On his arrival, he heard that his compatriots Nitschmann and Eller, two Moravian missionaries were on the ship ‘Marquetta’, which was expected shortly en route from Ceylon (the modern-day Sri Lanka), from where they had been deported. The visit to the Mother City with Willem, a convert, resulted in an unprecedented interest among colonists and officials. During this visit to the Cape Schmidt picked up the letter of ordination from Count Zinzendorf. In March 1742 he thus at last had the ordination to baptise suitable candidates in his possession. The Count encouraged him in the same letter to baptise his converts ‘where you shot the rhino’, i.e. at the river.
Schmidt had to overcome his own sexist prejudices. This was possibly the result of deficient teaching in Herrnhut. Whereas the Count Zinzendorf gave full scope for women and young people – even teenagers from the age of fourteen - to grow into leadership roles, the understanding was they they would be leaders within their own gender, but definitely not ruling over men.85 Schmidt initially only attended to males. At first he found only three men suitable for baptism and thereafter two more persons. Much to his surprise an intelligent, strong-willed woman wanted to become a follower of Jesus. In the conversion and baptism of the determined first female convert, Vehettge Tikkuie, there was a clear supernatural element. Schmidt only proceeded to test her Bible knowledge on 4 April 1742. Quite prejudiced against females, he did not expect much, but Schmidt was very surprised by her answers. He had little choice than to baptise the intelligent Khoi woman as well, giving her the name Magdalena,86 surely hoping that she would spread the news of the resurrection of Jesus Christ like her biblical namesake. She had been exceptional, progressing quickly from the Dutch ABC manual, to read the New Testament in that language (Bredekamp, 1987:138).
Schmidt succeeded - against all odds and contrary to all expectations - to convert Khoi, baptising them in or at the Sergeant’s River. To the church authorities this was unacceptable, the ordination having being signed by a foreign denomination. We can hardly comprehend the thinking that caused a government to forbid missionaries to baptise their indigenous converts. This is exactly what happened to Georg Schmidt. He heard that a new pamphlet against the Moravians had arrived at the Cape and that people expected him to be banished like the brethren from Ceylon. Much too carelessly he shared with the believers at the military post at Zoetemelksvlei that he baptised the five. He was promptly called to book because he had not heeded the warning, albeit that the Calvinists had a convenient formal excuse: Schmidt was regarded as ‘not properly ordained’. Count Zinzendorf, the leader of their church, had only ordained Schmidt by letter.

A Threat to the colonial Church?
Schmidt was hereafter regarded as a threat to the colonial church. The three Dutch Reformed dominees at the Cape, Le Seur (Groote Kerk), van Gendt (Stellenbosch) and van Echten (Drakenstein) referred to Schmidt unbecomingly in a letter to their church authorities as ‘deeze zoogenaamde hottentots- bekeerder’ (so-called hottentot converter), who pretended to convert ‘de blinde Hottentotten’ (Dreyer, 1936:196f). They complained that the converts were not sufficiently instructed and that Schmidt was not ordained. They referred to Zinzendorf’s letter of ordination in very disparaging terms. Their real problem comes through in the sentence ‘ook mogen geen bejaarden worden gedoopt, dan in de kerken voor de gantsche gemeente’ (my italics, Dreyer, 1936:196f). They could not palate it that Schmidt baptised in the river and not in a church. Their letter of September 1742 arrived too late in Amsterdam for a reply, which could have changed the situation.
Pressure was successfully exerted by the three ministers to get Schmidt sent back to Germany. Nevertheless, the Cape ministers were reprimanded by the Amsterdam classis: ‘men had niet mogen aandringen op Schmidt’s vertrek doch eerst met hem te confereren.’87 When this letter, dated 5 December 1743, was still on the sailing-vessel to the Cape, Schmidt was already waiting in the Mother City for transport to take him back to Europe. It looked as if Schmidt’s work in Baviaanskloof was doomed, a complete failure.
Schmidt’s position had become extremely unpleasant ‘if not untenable’ (Theal, Vol. 3, 1964 [1907]:61). But even as he was waiting for a ship to take him to Europe, Schmidt evangelised among the colonists at the Cape. He hoped for many years that he could return to Baviaanskloof. It has been reported that Schmidt continued to pray for his flock in Africa until old age in the East German village of Niesky where he died in 1785.
Furthermore, neighbouring farmers instigated the indigenous Khoi of Baviaanskloof and surroundings successfully so that many of them left the mission post. The letter of the three Cape clergymen spread like a wildfire in Europe. At this time the Moravians had been banished from Saxony, in which Herrnhut was situated. This coincided with the Count Zinzendorf’s absence from Herrnhaag where the revolutionary church had found a refuge. Doctrinal excesses by his son Christian Renatus exaggerated the problem. The Moravians were hereafter vilified and branded as fanatics, who held wild views of Christianity.

Church Planting by Default
The seed that Schmidt had sown at the Cape during his stint of not even seven years germinated, both in the Mother City and in Baviaanskloof, the later Genadendal. Schmidt was said to have been ‘n man van sterk geloof en ‘n bidder (Schmidt, Afrika en die Evangelie [pamphlet], Genadendal, 1937), a man of great faith and a prayer warrior. In fact, colonists told his two colleagues Nitschmann and Eller admiringly during their stay in Cape Town en route from Ceylon, how Schmidt succeeded ‘to teach a Hottentot to pray as he has done. They actually retire from time to time to pray in solitude’ (Kaapsche Cyclopedie, nr.48). Apparently, this example rubbed off on Vehettge Tikkuie, who got the name Magdalena at her baptism. Khoi Christians, with whom later missionaries had interaction, reported that she was found ‘dikwels biddend in ‘n knielende posisie’, often in prayer on her knees. The intelligent Magdalena was urged to lead the saddened flock without a shepherd by Hanna, the daughter of Joshua, Schmidt’s first convert.
Andreas Sparrman, a Swedish traveller in the Cape Colony during 1775 to 1776, reported how he had heard of an aged Khoi lady, who was building on the foundations laid by a German missionary. On Sundays ‘de oude Lena’ would walk to the pear tree where the pioneer missionary had preached, to read the New Testament and pray with her folk.
De 'oude Lena’ had the New Testament on hand that she received from Georg Schmidt, the pioneer missionary, when three new Moravian missionaries arrived in 1792. Lena herself could no longer read, due to failing eyesight, but the woman whom she had taught ‘opened the sacred volume and read the second chapter of Matthews’s gospel with considerable fluency’ (Du Plessis, 1911:73). Even though she could not remember anything Georg Schmidt had taught her, his example and teaching was evidently still operating.
Almost 50 years after Schmidt had left, Khoi witnesses said that they came together at her home every evening where she prayed with them. In addition to this, she taught the believers from her New Testament. Khoi Christians reported that she was often found on her knees in prayer. On top of this, she taught the believers from the copy of the ‘New Testament’, which she had received from Georg Schmidt before his (en)forced departure.
If one takes the finance minister of Ethiopia mentioned in Acts 8 as the absolute first indigenous evangelist, we can now say that Magdalena was definitely the first one of Sub Saharan Africa. But she was also the first known indigenous female church planting evangelist of all time.

Revival and spiritual Warfare
As a result of the vision of a young reformed pastor, Dr Helperus van Lier, who arrived at our shores in 1786, about 60 Christians in Cape Town and its surroundings set aside one day in the week for evangelistic outreach as early as 1788. They congregated in this way for the religious teaching of ‘the heathen’ at the Zuid-Afrikaanse Gesticht88 on the corner of Long and Hout Streets. The missionary prayer circle committed themselves in an organized way to weekly prayer (later twice a week) for the outreach to the ‘heathen’ and the slaves. The influence of the Moravians operated at these prayer meetings because Van Lier saw to it that the Idea Fidei Fratrum of kort begrip der christelijke leer in de evangelische broedergemeenten (1778) by Bishop Spangenberg - and other writings of the Moravians, including reports of their mission work around the world – were read (Krüger, 1966:48).
Van Lier continued to lobby for missionary action, pleading for the establishment of a Dutch missionary society, for the admission of missionaries to the colony and urging the Moravians to re-enter the field. According to him, three enterprises were called for: ‘One among the Hottentots in the Colony, one among the Bantu in the East, and one among the indigenous peoples to the North’ (Du Plessis, 1911:63f). Van Lier possibly had some indirect influence on the founding of the London and Rotterdam missionary societies in 1795 and 1797 respectively. What a joy it must have been for him to welcome the three new Moravian missionaries to his table after returning from sick leave, but his days were numbered. Tragically, Van Lier was not around to see the actual founding of the first missionary society in the world outside of Europe at the Cape in April 1799. Van Lier had already died of tuberculosis in March 1793 only 28 years old.
Supernaturally Khoisan converged on the settlement Baviaanskloof that was later renamed Genadendal. Soon the mission station became quite sizeable in terms of population, second only to the Mother City. Catherine Pik’s recollections at Genadendal in 1808 illustrate how many were divinely drawn to the settlement. One of the inhabitants recalled: ‘I remember what my late father used to say, exhorting us children to take notice and follow those people who would once come from a distant country, and show us Hottentots a narrow way, by which we might escape from the fire, and the true Toiqua (= God)’.
The mission station seemed to have formed a glue for all devout believers. Also prominent people like Lady Anne Barnard visited Genadendal.

The second Cape Mini-Revival
The spiritual hunger of the Khoi at Baviaanskloof, has been attributed to the prayers of the Americans during their second great awakening (e.g. Terhoven (1989:153). The 24-hour prayer watch of the Moravians in Europe and America, together with the faithful prayers of Georg Schmidt until the time of his death, and those of his convert Magdalena in Baviaanskloof - will have been at least as contributory.
It is interesting to note that the three Genadendal missionaries - Kühnel, Marsveld and Schwinn - recorded in their diary the story of a man who ‘dreamt that three would come to teach them... They (the Khoi) say that they spoke about it often because they very much wished for it to happen’ (Bredekamp and Plüddeman, 1992:134).
Khoi came to Baviaanskloof, desiring to know more,
wanting to accept the Lord into their lives
In the diaries of these three missionaries one reads again and again of Khoi coming to them, desiring to know more, wanting to accept the Lord into their lives, wishing to be baptised. Evidently the Holy Spirit had prepared these people through dreams and visions. On a daily basis the new Genadendal missionaries were overwhelmed by questions such as ‘What must I do to be saved? (Viljoen, Khoisan Labour Relations in the Overberg Districts during the latter half of the 18th Century, (M.A. Thesis, UWC, 1993:221). It is striking that those who came to faith in Christ also sought protection against satanic forces (Bredekamp, Flegg and Plüddeman, 1992:155).
People came to Baviaanskloof from everywhere, drawn to the mission station as if by a magnet. Some of those from the Cape testified to the obvious: ‘... this is God’s work, no one can hinder it though many are trying’ (Bredekamp, Flegg and Plüddeman, 1992:252).

A Cape Minister with a Heart for Slaves and Khoi
Ds. Michiel C. Vos cannot be regarded as one of Van Lier’s ‘trophies’. He had been called by God independently as a juvenile after wrestling with God in prayer in such places as the stone quarry at the foot of Signal Hill. His ‘heart was grieved at the neglect of the immortal souls’ of the Cape slaves. As an orphan with a sizeable inheritance, he had a yearning to study theology. To this end he resorted to the unusual step of getting married to a lady, arranging that he would leave after two years of marriage to go and study in Holland (Vos, reference ??).
In March 1794 Ds. M.C. Vos returned from the Netherlands. There he had been inspired anew by the Holy Spirit to return to his home country to minister to the slaves and the Khoi. Ds. Vos took up the legacy of Dr van Lier.89 Although he soon moved to Roodezand (Tulbagh), his influence was felt all over the Western Cape. In the Mother City itself, Mechteld Smit(h), a widow who had been discipled by Van Lier, was performing a similar role to that of Magdalena Tikkuie in Genadendal. God used her - along with Ds. Vos as the main role players - to advance the evangelical cause.
The visit to Baviaanskloof by Ds. Vos in January 1797, taking along Machteld Smith and other mission friends, caused a marked change of public opinion. A few weeks later, farmers told the Moravian brethren in Baviaanskloof of a revival there, spawned by this visit.

A Cape spiritual ‘Revolution’
A spiritual ‘revolution’, in which the Lord used Dr van Lier, was the change in the attitude of many White believers towards slaves and other people of colour. In those days slaves were initially not allowed near the entrance of the church after the closing of services and they were punished if they dared to attend the funeral of one of the colonists. Prejudice against missionaries was still prevalent when Van Lier arrived, but the youthful minister dared to challenge the church through his fiery sermons and personal example. The young dominee literally caused an ecclesiastical revolution at the Cape by shortening the duration of sermons and the length of his prayers during church services. Believers were encouraged to get involved with the spreading of the Gospel.
Cape Town evangelicals – Reformed and Lutheran - were among the worldwide leaders with a passion to spread the Gospel. They were not far behind the Moravians of Herrnhut in Germany and Bethlehem (Pennsylvania, USA). A local newspaper, the Zuid-Afrikaansche Tijdschrift, reported in 1824: ‘When people in many parts of Europe were still discussing whether slaves and heathen should believe and whether they could be taught, they had already started with that work in this Colony’.

Start of the SAMS
Mechteld Smit(h) was to become a powerful instrument in God’s hand at the Cape. The colonist farmers, who a few years prior to this had been ready to attack and destroy the Moravian mission institution, now asked for permission to attend the worship at Baviaanskloof. Some farmers introduced family prayers for the whole community on their farms, which caused the Khoi to prefer them to other employers. The South African Missionary Society (SAMS) was formally constituted in 1799. The first missionaries of the SAMS at the Cape were significantly not ordained in the Groote Kerk or even in Stellenbosch, but in Roodezand (Tulbagh) where Ds. Vos was the minister. It comes therefore as no surprise to find that a Cape missionary was inducted there on 3 October 1799 in the home of Mechteld Smit(h), in the presence of forty-seven SAMS members.

Divisive elements in a brittle Cape Church Unity
Due to the combined effect of the spadework of Georg Schmidt, Ds. Henricus Beck and Ds van Lier much of the denominationalism that came along with Dutch colonialism seemed to have been reduced considerably towards the end of the 18th century. The LMS missionaries who arrived from 1799 unfortunately soon caused division. The committed Dutch missionary Dr Johannes van der Kemp, who joined the newly formed London Missionary Society (LMS) was one of the first missionaries sent to the Cape. He was the first missionary to work among the Xhosa (1799-1800). Strongly influenced by the philanthropic views of the Swiss philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, inter alia that man was born free but subsequently became chained, Dr Van der Kemp became interested from the start in the economic plight of the Khoi ('Hottentot') in the Cape Colony and strongly advocated granting then legal equality with the White colonists. At Berthelsdorp Dr van der Kemp and others did phenomenal work.

Influence of Jean Jacques Rousseau
One of the reasons for the negative view of the government and colonists towards missionaries was the overdrawn uncritical acceptance of the unbiblical ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Penetrated with the doctrine that the Khoikhoi were free men, with all the rights and privileges of free citizens, Dr Johannes van der Kemp, the first superintendent of the London Missionary Society, refused to use compulsion in his dealings with the Khoikhoi. Both van der Kemp and his colleague at Bethelsdorp, James Read, married Khoikhoi women, to the chagrin not only of the rank and file colonist. Dr. George Thom, his successor as superintendent, became an important adversary, with little sympathy of the work in Bethelsdorp, regarding the station to be a ‘nursery of indolence and filth.’ In a problematic interpretation of the teachings of Rousseau, Van der Kemp – decades before Hudson Taylor made contextualisation known by wearing the clothing of the Chinese – would discard hat, shoes and stockings, frequently returning from some journey to a distant village with all feet lacerated and bleeding.
That Dr van der Kemp , a widower of over sixty years, married a teenager alienated the White settlers against his work, especially when he attempted to baptise her. James Read, another LMS missionary, who held similar views by accepting all races as equal, caused discord in the LMS team, especially after it became known that he had fathered a child outside of wedlock. The race issue was destined to wreck relationships for decades.
Yet, indirectly Dr van der Kemp blazed a trail for a better understanding between the Dutch Reformed Church and the missionaries when he stuck to his calling to the indigenous, refusing to become the pastor of Graaff-Reinet. In a compromise, his colleague Aart A. van der Lingen, who had once started at the Cape and who had been refused permission by De Mist to work among the slaves there - became the Graaff-Reinet minister. Hereafter quite a few of the earliest missionaries sent out by the London and Rotterdam Missionary societies ended their days as pastors of Dutch Reformed congregations, blessing that denomination with an evangelical stamp of commitment to the Word of God. At the same time the gulf between the pastor of the White church and the mission churches was somewhat lessened and the negative vibes of the colonists towards the missionary from abroad decreased.
Some LMS missionaries, including Van der Kemp, who married a young Khoi woman, were falsely accused of immorality and others of treason for standing up for the rights of the Khoi and slaves. The missionaries on the other hand ‘regarded themselves as the conscience of the settlers and the protectors of the “natives”’. (De Gruchy, 1979:13)

Change of Attitudes
Towards the end of the 18th century the Dutch Reformed minister of Stellenbosch at this time, Meent Borcherds, made no secret of his resentment of missionary work within the boundaries of his parish. He and his church council complained about the ringing of the bell in far away Genadendal. Of course, this situation was nothing new. Years before him, Borcherds’ predecessors at the Cape had applied pressure, forcing Georg Schmidt to leave the Cape. The complaint regarding the bell was however ludicrous in the extreme. The missionaries ‘had to construct ... (the bell) in three sections to get it round and shaped like a bell’ (Bredekamp, Flegg and Plüddeman, 1992:93). The brethren themselves were not very much impressed by the bell. It was merely an instrument to call the people of the village together because the indigenous folk had no watches.
The January 1797 visit to Baviaanskloof by Ds. Vos with Machteld Smith, J.J. van Zulch and other mission friends for a few days caused a marked changed of public opinion. A few weeks later, farmers told the brethren of a revival, caused by this visit. The colonist farmers who a few years prior to this had been ready to attack and destroy the mission institution, now asked for permission to attend the worship at Baviaanskloof. They even requested that one of the missionaries should come and live among them.
The attitude and stance of Ds. Meent Borcherds, once a fierce opponent of the Moravian brethren, changed after his study of the Moravian Bishop Spangenberg’s doctrinal exposition Idea Fidei Fratrum, even to the extent of apologizing to a visiting Moravian brother for his earlier behaviour.

A supernatural Revival Element
A supernatural element can hardly be denied as spiritual renewal ensued. On 15 June 1801 - only two weeks after Maanenberg’s appointment - he informed the directors that he needed a bigger place for the services. The ‘oefeningshuis’ had become too small for the great number of listeners and that it would be almost impossible to have services there in the summer (Botha, 1999:16). A zealous mission-minded group of believers rallied around the SAMS missionaries Maanenberg and Tromp, supporting Maanenberg’s suggestion for a bigger building where they could have prayer meetings, place for teaching of the ‘heathen’ and a residence for the missionary. Already on 5 August 1801 the building commission reported that they had bought a plot of ground in Long Street with a house en ‘pakhuis’ for 50,000 guilders. To prevent provocation the directors of the SAMS decided on 2 March 1802 to refrain from the traditional ceremony of laying the corner stone (Botha, 1999:19). Thus the ceremony took place without freemason ritual as was the custom. Apart from this fringe group of Christians, the Gospel outreach to slaves figured very low on the list of priorities of the first Cape churches.

A Blessing in Disguise
Maart, a slave from Mozambique, was blessed ‘with strong intellectual endowments’. He responded so well to the five years of Christian teaching under Ds M.C. Vos that the LMS thought of educating him ‘... to qualify him to accompany some other missionaries to... introduce into his native country ...that gospel which brings healing and salvation in its wings’. The missionary Henricus Maanenberg was forced however to suspend instruction to Maart because of a ban on teaching reading and writing to ‘heathen’. The blame for the ban should possibly not be laid solely at the feet of the secular authorities. It is reported that Ds. Christiaan Fleck, one of the Groote Kerk ministers, also complained that Maanenberg wanted to teach slaves: ‘want daartoe hebben we hier geen afzonderlike zendelingen nodig... terwijl van kerkenraadswege daartoe perzonen zijn aangesteld’ (Hofmeyr, Pillay 1994:199).90 One suspects sour grapes at Maanenberg’s success. Governor De Mist’s reaction to the memorandum handed to him by the directors of the SAMS may have influenced Maanenberg to resign. He was so discouraged by the antagonistic attitude of De Mist that he withdrew from the work to live outside the city.

Supernatural Intervention
When the Church and the colonists at the Cape started becoming disinterested in reaching out in love to the slaves yet again, God intervened - surely because of the prayers of the faithful few elsewhere, probably evangelicals in England, in Germany and the USA.
God sometimes appears to supernaturally use natural disasters to shake people out of their indifference and lethargy. An earthquake on 4 December 1809 at the Cape caused not only an 8-day revival and a significant increase in evangelicals (Terhoven, 1989:60), but it also imparted a new urge towards missionary work among the slaves.
During the earthquake, not a single person was killed, but the people fled in fear and watched horrified as the city was shaken as if by the fury of a giant hand. Kendrick wrote in 20 November 1810 that it was the greatest thing that could have happened as soldiers and civilians turned to God in prayer and pleaded for mercy. Many persons were led to think seriously about the salvation of their souls. A weekly prayer meeting was started every Saturday evening in addition to the monthly one, which continued for many years. The Methodist military officer Kendrick mentions revivals at Cape Town and at Wynberg. By 1812 there were 142 men in the Methodist Society ‘all of whom experience the Love of God shed abroad in their hearts’ (Mears, 1973:8).
The 1809 earthquake impacted the SAMS in many ways. Jacobus Henricus Beck, a Cape colonist who had joined the SAMS, was deeply touched by the earthquake. Before long he was on his way to the Netherlands, Scotland and England for theological training. (Later he became the first pastor of the congregation formed at the ZA Gesticht.)
Another Cape colonist who was impacted deeply by the earthquake was Martinus Casparus Petrus Vogelgezang. He was a teacher, who also went for missionary training. Later Vogelgezang became a powerful preacher and church planter at the Cape. In 1837 he applied to be ordained, but he did not find favour with the Dutch Reformed Church authorities. Not having obtained the expected university theological training (in Holland), they turned him down, referring him to the ruling for missionaries. This condescending attitude was indicative of the general view by the Cape church with regard to mission work.

Other missionary Efforts of the early nineteenth Century
At the end of the 18th century, the effect of two pastoral stars of the Cape were operating in full force in mission work. Although Rev. M.C. Vos - born and bred in South Africa - initially laboured in far-away Tulbagh, his influence and that of Dr van Lier was felt at the Cape ‘soos ‘n suurdeeg in die Kaapse volksplanting, like a leaven at the Cape people’s settlement (Haasbroek, 1955:69). A century after their pioneering work, J.I. Marais wrote in the foreword to the Dutch translation of Nachtigal’s book on missions in South Africa: ‘Het tegenwoordig geslacht plukt de vrucht van hun gebed en arbeid, van hun tranen en hun strijd. Het waren donkere dagen toen zij optraden... Doch hun geloofsmoed zegevierde.’91
The work of Z.A. Gesticht flourished despite a significant simultaneous turning to Islam from the side of the slaves. Under Reverend Beck a living ecumenical spirit prevailed. After the start of the British occupation various denominations started working at the Cape like the Anglicans, Congregationals, the Methodist and the Presbyterians. The missionary ‘Genootschap’ at the Z.A. Gesticht enjoyed the support of all the church and mission agencies at the Cape. After 1824 the Directors invited the ministers of all the local congregations to become honorary members. Nobody refused. Their stance was not founded on window dressing, but was based on sound biblical principals. Thus the secretary Metelerkamp uttered his conviction at the welcoming of honorary members on 20 May 1824 that the kingdom of God can only be credibly extended on the foundation of unity of Christians according to John 17. Missionaries were also encouraged to come to the Mother City to come in contact with the other spiritual leaders. Strassberger (1969:6) suggests that the Gesticht church ‘was probably one of the reasons why the Dutch Reformed Church decided at their first Synod in 1824 to begin mission work…’

Another Blessing in Disguise
In 1837 Martinus Vogelgezang applied to be ordained, but he did not find favour with the Dutch Reformed Church authorities. Not having obtained the expected university theological training (in Holland), they referred him to the ruling for missionaries: ‘onder geene andere wijze, en onder geene andere bepalingen... dan betrekkelijk het ordenen van zendelingen’.92
In the spiritual realms the church ruling was to influence the Cape in no uncertain way, a blessing in disguise. The condescending attitude was indicative of the general view by the Church with regard to mission work. (The indifference to mission work is still rife in the great majority of churches. It is definitely no complement that many of them see behind all missionary endeavour only competition for the funds of the church.) On 17 October 1738 Vogelgezang resigned from the Dutch Reformed Church to start the first denominationally independent fellowship.
After the abolition of slavery in 1838, there was a rush of freed slaves to the city. Many deserted their former owners in the agricultural areas. The bulk of these newly urbanised freed slaves turned to Islam. Support from the colonists for the mission work was not forthcoming at all. It does not credit the churches at the Cape that hardly any effort was made to reach the slaves at the Cape with the Gospel up to 1838, apart from what was done at the Z.A. Gesticht. A lack of perseverance was furthermore prevalent, combined with a tendency to go for softer targets than the resistant Muslims. And not much changed thereafter. All the more the stalwart work of individuals like Vogelgezang has to be admired, even though his initial approach to the Muslims was quite offensive.
Undeterred by the rebuff from the Church of his day, the evangelist Vogelgezang preached the Gospel among the Muslims with unprecedented zeal. Vogelgezang used a version of ‘tentmaking’ - i.e. working in some vocation while doing missionary work. He operated initially simultaneously from his shoemaker’s shop in Rose Street, which is part of present day Bo-Kaap.93 That Vogelgezang gained the respect of his ecumenical contemporaries is demonstrated by the fact that various ministers of other denominations were present at his ordination in February 1839 at the Union Chapel including Dr John Philip and Rev Robert Moffat of the London Missionary Society. In the course of time the zealous Vogelgezang planted a few churches, bringing the Gospel to the Muslims with much authority and conviction.

Racial Prejudice entrenched
Slavery as such was already in existence in biblical days. It has been a major tragedy of Christianity that Paul’s teaching was completely ignored, namely that Christian slaves were to be regarded as brothers and sisters (e.g. Philemon, verse 16). European colonists came to the Cape as a rule with racial arrogance. The prowess of Western civilization served to entrench racism, which had already been prevalent for centuries. The Greek classification of ‘Hellenes and barbarians’ - which was fairly neutral with hardly any racial connotation - was replaced by ‘Christians and heathens.’ The former were Europeans and the latter the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Africa and all new areas that were discovered. It needed a ruling from Pope Paul III with his edict of 1537 to decide that Indians were human! And yet, ‘Bushmen’ ‘Hottentotten’ and slaves at the Cape remained sub-human in the eyes of Westerners. A theology developed in which racism was rationalized and defended. Thus dark-skinned people were ‘distinguished from Whites because they were said to have been created with the animals on the sixth day. Hence they were excluded from the Garden of Eden, which was a white paradise!’ (Esterhuyse, 1979:21)
Esterhuyse suggests that ‘racism as a racial ideology owes its origin in our Western cultural history to attempts at a moral justification of slavery as a social institution’ (Esterhuyse, 1979:22). From this basis it naturally developed in South Africa to a defence mechanism and justification for racial prejudice and apartheid, namely ‘the preservation and safeguarding of vested (in this case “white”) interests.’
As we have seen, the slaves were perceived as property at the Cape. Even otherwise exemplary missionaries/clergymen like M.C. Vos not only owned slaves, but these Christians were also subtly influenced by their prejudicial upbringing. It is reported by Clinton (1937:30) how Van der Kemp directed new missionaries to a certain Mr Krynauw rather than to Ds. Vos, since he considered the latter ‘to be not altogether free from the common … (colonist) prejudices against the heathen nations.’
The pastors at the Cape lacked the courage to challenge the colonists with the Pauline teaching that they had to regard the believers among the slaves as family in Christ. Instead, the slaves were conveniently pointed to their duties in subordination and obedience. This sad fact represents a major factor of debt towards the Cape Muslims, that vital tenets of the Gospel have thus been withheld from them.

Apolitical role the Moravian missionary Work
The Moravian missionaries stayed clear of public debate over slavery and oppressive laws, cleverly theologising around it. Thus their Bishop Hans Peter Hallbeck called slavery the blackest of evils, which must certainly lead to the destruction of any country (Krüger, 1966:195). But the brethren did not feel themselves called to fight it. ‘To became slaves to the slaves and free men to the free, in order to win some for Christ’, was their attitude. This was an ingenious application of 1 Corinthians 3:19ff). Furthermore, Hallbeck regarded oppressive laws as great evils. He did not remain quiet about the pass laws, but only refrained from publicly opposing them in the newspapers (Krüger, 1966:165). The precedent was set for the unbiblical notion ‘not to mix politics with religion.’In newspaper polemics during which Theunissen, a neighbouring farmer, attacked the Moravians under a pseudonym, Hallbeck restrained himself, omitting to take legal steps. In official correspondence he preserved Theunissen’s anonymity. Because of their apolitical role the Moravian missionary work suddenly became the role models and played out against that of the LMS.
The pastors at the Cape lacked the courage to challenge the colonists with the Pauline teaching that they had to see the believers among the slaves as family in Christ. Instead, the slaves were conveniently pointed to their duties in subordination and obedience. This sad fact represents a major factor of debt towards the Cape Muslims, namely that vital tenets of the Gospel have thus been withheld from them.

Negative Legacies of LMS missionary Work
Dr Philip undermined his own efforts by the unloving and untruthful way in which he presented his case. His writing - painting the picture at the Cape in a distorted way, exaggerating things here and there - became one of the causes of the Great Trek, as expounded by the Voortrekker leader Piet Retief in his manifesto. All LMS emissaries of the Gospel were hereafter suspect in the eyes of the colonists, while the Moravian mission at Genadendal became the model. This diabolic situation was a direct result of Dr Philip’s harsh criticism of the colonists. Not so long before him the Moravian missionaries had also been villains in the eyes of colonists - accused of ‘corrupting the Khoisan and encouraging laziness’. The absolute distancing of themselves from politics was a tradition of the Moravians, which was not always helpful, making it difficult for the LMS missionaries to make a clear prophetic stand on ethical and racial issues.
The way Dr Johannes van der Kemp and Dr John Philip presented their case exacerbated negative feelings towards missionaries. They somehow failed to translate the biblical message of brotherhood of all believers. Had they done this, it might have made Ordinance 50, which made Khoi and slaves equal to the colonists before the law - more palatable. The financial losses incurred due to the emancipation of slaves, was the result of the lies and distortions of Dr Philip and his LMS cronies in the view of the colonists.
The other side of the coin was that the LMS missionaries regarded the civilization of the ‘primitive’ indigenous peoples as a close second motive in the spreading of the Gospel. White domination seemed to be primary and colonial expansion an important part of their ministry. Suspicions were aroused that the Church had ulterior motives, leading some in the 1960s to reject Christianity in favour of Islam or Marxism (De Gruchy, 1979:178).

The controversial Ministry of the LMS
The compassionate work of London Missionary Society (LMS) missionaries like Rev James Read, Dr Johannes van der Kemp and Dr John Philip on behalf of the underdog slaves had the moral power of biblical truth on their side, but they were often opposed by their missionary colleagues. They were furthermore very unfortunate to have to battle against the pace that the Moravians had set at Genadendal. Nevertheless, the battle that raged at the Cape around the Khoi and the slaves – in which Dr Philip and Dr Van der Kemp had a big hand - had worldwide ramifications when it aided the cause of the abolition of slavery. Dr John Philip discerned that the abolition of the slave trade in 1808 caused the price of slaves to rise, leading to the enserfment of the Khoisan. (Between 1808 and 1826 the price of slaves rose by 400% (Theal, Records of the Cape Colony, 29:427). In a letter to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Earl Bathurst, Dr Philip called attention to several hardships suffered by the Khoi, such as the pass regulations, which prevented them from settling where they chose and sometimes led to the separation of families. These were felt to be legitimate grievances, which would ultimately lead to the Ordinance 50 of 17 July 1828.

Co-operation of Mission Agencies
It is all the more special how the co-operation of the mission agencies impacted the Church life. Thus one finds the same Ds Borcherds who had been so negative to missions, opening up to other denominations a few years later. In the pastoral letter of the Dutch Reformed synod of 1826, of which Borcherds was the secretary, one discerns remorse over the earlier period in which there had been ‘zorgvuldige bekommering eene heerschende kerk te willen zijn en blijven.’94 He regarded it as ‘better days’ that they were (i.e. in 1826) preaching in each other’s churches (Dreyer, 1936:255). This formed the basis for the theologically sound synod decision three years later not to divide the church on racial grounds. It was even regarded as ‘een onwrikbaar stelregel’, a steadfast rule based on the Word of God (Dreyer, 1936:316).

The Rift between the British and the Dutch widened
Lord Somerset’s autocratic anglicising policies widened the rift between the British and the Dutch colonists. Whether the colonists either conveniently forgot or whether they were ignorant of the way in which Dutch authorities had discriminated against German and French-speakers in earlier decades, was actually immaterial. More factors which added to the Great Trek arose out of a desire for freedom from British domination along with the grudges they bore from the effects of the emancipation of the slaves. Close to this desire was the Trekker vision of a Calvinist republic in which neither White ‘aliens’ like the British – they regarded themselves as Afrikaners, to whom African soil was dear – nor people of colour would be eligible for a meaningful role in the life of the community. (Of course, they were still completely blinded. They could not 'see' the native Blacks and Khoi as Africans).

A Cat among the Pigeons?
When Dr John Philip became the LMS superintendent, the cat was among the pigeons. Church people regarded the LMS superintendent as ‘too political’, not behoving a missionary.
During Dr Philip’s visit to England in 1826, he met the evangelical parliamentarian Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton. The latter had close links to William Wilberforce, the staunch fighter for the complete emancipation of slaves in the British Parliament. In his subsequent correspondence with Buxton, Philip linked the slave issue to the situation of the Khoisan in the Cape Colony already in his first comprehensive report on the LMS stations. He did make a distinction between the problems with the Khoisan and those pertaining to slaves (Walker, 1964:153). Ordinance 50 of 1828 and last not least the publication of Philip’s two-volumed Researches in South Africa were major factors in the run-up not only to the Great Trek of colonists to the interior, but also to the final emancipation of slaves worldwide.95
Dr Philip’s role in the proclamation of Ordinance 50 has sometimes been exaggerated. John Philip however definitely played a crucial role in the run-up to this ordinance and he became a prime mover both in the eventual formal abolition of slavery in 1834 and in its implementation at the Cape in 1838. Yet, this decree dramatically changed the legal standing of the Khoisan, putting them on an equal footing with the colonists. It is doubtful if William Wilberforce would have been able to die with satisfaction after his half a century of pioneering fighting of slavery, if he had not received the support from Dr Philip.
It might be somewhat exaggerated, but it is nevertheless interesting that Dr Elfie Strassberger (1969:3) states: ‘Dr Philip is rightly regarded as the greatest politician at the Cape at the beginning of the nineteenth century.’ Yet, chiefly due to Dr Philip, a historian of British Colonial History concludes that the English missionaries were the chief inspirations of British policy (Cited by Strassberger (1969:4).96 The contribution of Dr Philip for the underdogs of Cape society at that time was nevertheless phenomenal.

Tension between Mission Agencies
As deplorable as it was that Dr Philip gave ‘partial and mutilated extracts from official documents’ (Shaw, 1836:vii), it has to be seen as unfortunate in historical hindsight that the Methodist missionary Rev William Shaw deemed it fit to publish the correspondence between him and the LMS superintendent in the heat of the battle. It can not be defended that Philip refused his injurious statements, but the issues at hand were definitely not worthy to be fought about in public. It merely tarnished the image of two great missionaries. The missionary strategy of Dr Philip - to identify with the underprivileged, defending their rights of the indigenous peoples in the face of an advancing land grabbing colonial power - is surely in line with the teachings and example of the Master himself. Dr Philip was hypocritical in a sense. The LMS – as all mission agencies – accepted big land grants with little scruple, albeit that it cannot be said that this was land taken from the indigenous.
Rev. Shaw had a vision of a chain of mission stations. This inspired many believers in Britain to come and assist the missionary cause in Southern Africa. It is disgusting to read however that the editor of a church magazine ‘exerted his utmost ingenuity to excite the indignation of British Christians against the Wesleyan Missionaries’ (Shaw, 1836:19). Shaw and his Methodist colleagues would however have done better to leave the defence over to people from outside their fold.97 The mission cause undoubtedly suffered because of the tension as a result of the polemics fought out in the public domain.
A few decades later, the Anglican Bishop Gray was perhaps the most honest on this matter. He bluntly conceded in his correspondence with the Secretary of State, the Duke of Newcastle,: ‘We have taken possession (justly or unjustly is not now the question) of a new Territory. From it we have thrust out the Heathen and planted ourselves in’ (Cited by Hodgson, 1984:65). His views on the release of Xhosa chiefs from banishment might even have assisted their release in 1869. They received a big tract of land in Kaffraria. This had nevertheless little effect because when the chiefs returned, they found their people dispersed, the bulk of their land confiscated and their power gone.

Apartheid Precedents by Churches and Missions
In 1824 the DRC decided to regard the missionary as a separate but inferior entity. Nico Smith suggests that this invariably had to lead to separate churches for non-Whites (Elkeen in sy eie taal, 1973:68). However, at a 1829 Cape DRC ringzitting (meeting of the presbytery) it was decided – upon a question to that effect from the circuit of Zwartland (Malmesbury) - that all members would be admitted to Holy Communion ‘zonder onderscheid van kleur of afkomst’.98 It was also stated that this issue was not even to become a subject for deliberation at a synod. Instead, it had to be seen as ‘een onwrikbaar stelregel, op het onfeilbaar woord van God gegrond...’99 that no person should be barred on these grounds (Dreyer, 1936:316).100 The churches at Somerset West and Swartland were far from happy with this decision. The missionary paper of 1834 provided for ‘gemeenten der naturellen’ (congregations for natives) but it was accepted that converts could join the White churches in the meantime. The watershed decision of 1829 of the Cape presbytery of the DRC was however significantly watered down. In 1837 the DRC synod mentions that there should be enough (separate?) seats in churches for ‘heidenen die zich tot de openbare godsdienst begeven’ (Cited in Geldenhuys, 1982:29).101
After the abolition of slavery in 1834, the London Mission Society established a separate suburb, isolated from the town Port Elizabeth, for its people. It is ironic that the establishment of the mission stations, with the rationale to be a haven of protection for the Khoi people, set a precedent for the “locations”, which would be established in future.

Cape Churches working together
The entry of the Berlin Mission had an interesting component. It was started in Berlin in 1800 by Pstor Johann Jänicke, a preacher of the Bohemian Church. (The Count Zinzendorf, the founder of the renewed Moravian Unitas Fratrum, was also consecrated as a bishop by Jablonsky in Berlin, who came from the line of Episcopal succession of the Moravian-Bohemians.) The mission movement from Herrnhut was almost emulated when 80 missionaries were sent from Berlin until Jänicke’s death in 1827 (Du Plessis, 1911:211). Learning from the mistakes of the LMS where the selection of missionaries had been not strict enough, the new German agencies - e.g. at Berlin and Basle - prepared aspiring candidates for the mission for an ascetic and pietistic lifestyle, ready for hardship. Many of these missionaries came to South Africa.
The endeavour of the missionaries spawned the working together of the Cape churches around the time of the slave emancipation in 1838. The cordial harmonious relationship between churches seems to have operated for quite a few years. A special feature of the mission effort of the early 19th century was the apparent lack of denominational rivalry. Thus Anglican Church services were first held in the Groote Kerk.
The Presbyterian Dr James Adamson and the Lutheran Rev. George Wilhelm Stegmann engaged in combined endeavours. Soon after his ordination as a Lutheran minister, Stegmann not only felt the need to do something for the slaves, but he also started with a ministry in Plein Street. He was asked by Dr Adamson to join him in the outreach to the ‘Coloureds’ (Die Koningsbode, Desember 1958, p.34). At St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Adamson would preach in English in the morning and Stegmann in Dutch during the late afternoon service. A special event to highlight the actual emancipation of the slaves was organized at the Scottish Church - as St Andrew’s was generally known. (Hence the name Schotse Kloof was given to the area where the ministers were residing). Dreyer wrote in the Christmas edition of the Koningsbode, 1936 (p.19) that the organized mission to the slaves started on 1 December 1838 - i.e. the date of the official emancipation. At the start of St Andrew’s Mission after the slave emancipation, Stegmann became a regular preacher at St Andrew’s in Green Point. In this endeavour believers from different church backgrounds worked together.

The Start of the Alliance South Africans were already among the world leaders in church co-operation when the Evangelical Alliance was formally started in 1857 in Cape Town. In fact, at this occasion the founders declared that an Evangelical Alliance existed in the Mother City in all but name already in 1842. Cape Evangelicals assembled in Cape Town in 1842 to work out a strategy to reach the lost of Southern Africa. Gerdener records how ‘concerted action had arrived.’ The South African Evangelical Alliance thus functioned long before it kicked off formally in England and six years before it started in Germany. Pastors of different denominations had a weekly prayer meeting a few years after the slave emancipation. The South African branch of the Evangelical Alliance was the first to be started outside of Europe. The start of the Alliance in Cape Town led indirectly to the opening of the Stellenbosch DRC Kweekschool in 1859. In due course the Alliance would form a powerful bulwark against liberalism which reared its head at the Cape in the late 1850's. The opposition to liberalism was led in the early 1860s by Ds. Andrew Murray as the moderator of the Dutch Reformed Church and a prime mover in the Cape Evangelical Alliance. (This worldwide movement brought a major correction in Lausanne in 1974, after Marxists had successfully infiltrated the World Council of Churches.)
The Two Murray Brothers in Europe
After graduating from Marischal College in Aberdeen (Scotland) in 1844, Andrew and John Murray went to Utrecht (Holland), for the purpose of further study in theology and the Dutch language. Religious life at this time in the Netherlands was at a low ebb and rationalism had crippled many of the pulpits and seminaries. Much like the two Wesley brothers and the Holy Club at Oxford a century before them, John and Andrew joined a zealous group in Utrecht at the university called Sechor Dabar (Remember the Word). Here they found like-minded brethren, warm fellowship, and true missionary zeal. During a vacation from their classes, the Murray brothers visited Germany, where they had the opportunity to meet Pastor Johann Christoph Blumhardt. This remarkable man had been used to bring about spiritual renewal in certain parts of Germany. This revival was marked by extraordinary manifestations of deliverance and healing the sick through prayer. Andrew Murray saw first-hand the ongoing work of God’s power in his own time. While studying in Utrecht, they were only a few kilometres from Zeist, where the Moravians had their Dutch headquarters. This impressed Andrew very much. (Later he sent his daughters to the boarding school on Zusterplein in Zeist.)
Andrew Murray and his brother John were in Scotland in 1843 when a controversy between moderates and strict Calvinists erupted there. John and Andrew Murray aligned themselves to the evangelicals of the Réveil, the spiritual renewal that swept through Europe in response to the religious rebellion of the Enlightenment and its pinnacle, the French Revolution.
The Murray Brothers back in South Africa While Andrew Murray was still in Bloemfontein, his first congregation, he got involved in the negotiations between the British government and the Dutch colonists for the independence of the Boer Republic of the Orange Free State, the Bloemfontein Convention of 1854. Subsequently he travelled to the UK where he attempted to recruit missionaries and preachers to come to Southern Africa. The general unwillingness among pastors there brought him on the idea of getting a seminary started at the Cape. Rev. John Murray became a founder of the Dutch Reformed Seminary at Stellenbosch in 1859. At this occasion Professor N. Hofmeyr, the co-founding professor, complained that no effort was made to bring all Christians of the country together. A committee organized a conference fairly quickly. Delegates from the Dutch Reformed, Congregational, Lutheran, Methodist, Moravian and Presbyterian Churches converged on Worcester in 1860 for an epoch-making conference. Worldwide it was one of the first of its kind, preceded only by one in India (1855) and one in Liverpool in March 1860.102
Tragic Mistakes
Count Zinzendorf had discerned already in the 18th century that Christians should not strive after an organic union of all denominations, but rather work towards unity which would transcend all church barriers. Andrew Murray somehow did not discern this clearly or otherwise he did not take it to heart sufficiently. His initiative to attempt a denominational merger between the Dutch Reformed Church and the Anglican Church in 1870 ended in a rather tragic disaster. Bishop Robert Gray, his Anglican negotiating partner, was open to work with like-minded evangelicals like Andrew Murray, who had been the Groote Kerk minister from 1862. The timing was however the worst one could imagine.
Gray experienced a major doctrinal tussle in his own denomination. Bishop John Colenso of Natal had been giving him headaches with his liberalism. Colenso for example 'asserted that the atonement is an entirely objective event. Christ's saving work needed no personal application to the individual' (Hinchliff, 1963:84). Bishop Gray begged John Colenso in vain to reconsider the distribution of his commentary to Paul's Epistle to the Romans which disseminated these views or to consult with friends and advisors in England at least. Doctrinal differences tragically killed not only the highly promising missionary policy of Bishop Colenso among the Zulus, but it also stifled the potential of a merger of the Dutch Reformed Church and the Anglican Church. That could have had worldwide repercussions, had they succeeded in merging Episcopal and Congregational church structures.
Ds. Andrew Murray, in his capacity as the Dutch Reformed moderator, had skirmishes against liberal colleagues which landed in court.
Bonds forged on a fragile Basis
The suppression of their language and a misguided paternalist perception as the true custodians of the Gospel in Africa were main factors for the Great Trek of the Afrikaners into the interior and ultimately to the formation of two Boer republics. Their identification with Israel simultaneously led to their feeling themselves superior to the indigenous people groups. The fear of of being out-voted helped them to rationalise discrimination, not only for the exclusion of non-Whites, but also European 'Uitlanders' who streamed to the Reef after the discovery of gold in 1881. Afrikaner Nationalism grew on the dubious and fragile basis of fear of Blacks and resentment to the rooinekke, the British.
All people who were not White were excluded from the negotiations that led to the formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910, where a main factor of Boer and Brit reconciling was the retention of the colour bar in the national parliament. As a concession the Cape could have qualified franchise for the non-Whites. The suppression and oppression of races other than White was the fragile basis on which the African People's Organisation (APO) and the (South) African National Congress were formed respectively in 1904 and 1912.
The cancerous resentment of the British on the other hand - together with a dangerous air of superiority on the side of the Brits - and Black nationalism that also surfaced in the Church, were gangerous, eating away at any sense of nation building. The clashing of the various nationalisms was inevitable without divine intervention.

Paternalism breeds Secession
Another stumbling block against the unity of the Body of Christ in South Africa circled around racial prejudice and paternalism. In the attitude towards people of colour there was still a lot of goodwill among Whites at the turn of the 20th century at the Cape. A problem was that even radical thinkers among them hardly ever consulted people of colour. Proper consultation could possibly have averted many a crisis. From the earliest days at the Cape the ‘natives’ were regarded as inferior, their culture despised. Paternalism was rife.
This gave rise to the secessionist ‘Ethiopian movement’. The ‘Ethiopians’ have been typified by the sentence: 'We have come to pray for the deliverance of Blacks’ (Cited in Elphick et al, 1997:212). The ideological link went back to the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8 and the Church, which developed in Ethiopia without assistance and mediation of Westerners. The term ‘Ethiopian’ was derived from the concept that the first indigenous church on African soil started in Ethiopia. The ‘Ethiopian’ movement began in different parts of South Africa as breakaway congregations from the Methodist Church. Disillusioned by the imperfections of colonial society, they withdrew from White-dominated structures to start exclusively African organisations. Their policy was to throw off the shackles of White domination and reassert their former independence, while retaining what they considered to be the best elements of European civilisation. In a sense the good teaching of the Methodists backfired when they tried to make the indigenous independent, because the missionaries kept on patronizing their congregants of colour. The first ‘Ethiopian' church was established in Pretoria in 1892 after Black Wesleyan (Methodist) ministers had been excluded from a meeting of White colleagues.
Brit and Boer drift apart
Andrew Murray tried valiantly but in vain to stave off the inevitable - war between the two Boer Republics and Britain in the wake of the catastrophic Jameson Raid of the New Year weekend of 1895–96 and the rising political temperature.103 In June 1900, after the fall of Pretoria in the South African War (1899-1902) a meeting of Transvaal Boer military leaders recommended immediate surrender to avoid disaster. Lord Alfred Milner, their counterpart, the British High Commissioner for South Africa, came from a small circle of friends in Oxford who embraced British racial superiority. Unlike the Cape colony statesman Cecil John Rhodes who also had imperialist ideas but who respected the yearning of Afrikaners for independence, Milner mistrusted the pragmatic and dynamic Transvaal President Paul Kruger.
Fired on by a deep resentment of the British, the President of the Orange Free State, the lawyer Marthinus Theunis Steyn, resisted anything which would look like capitulation, inspiring young Afrikaners to fight to the bitter end. This was calamitous on the long run, especially when the Bittereinders came to be regarded as heroes by many Afrikaners. The heroics of sabotage and insurrection make interesting reading, but it was poison for nation building. The pervasive fear and hatred of Blacks helped the simmering Broedertwis104among Afrikaners to escalate.

Significant Corrections Worldwide
Events in Europe continued to influence the situation at the Cape and vice versa. Ecclesiastic disunity impeded spiritual renewal and biblical revival. Serious discord was experienced at the World Church and Mission Conference in New York in 1900. Dr Andrew Murray was invited as a speaker, but he felt strongly led to be in South Africa because of the war. After receiving the papers of the New York conference Andrew Murray exposed what he discerned as a major deficiency. His booklet The Key to the Missionary Problem in 1901 was the result.
The very next year however, the German theologian Ernst Troeltsch - obviously very much under the influence of Darwin’s theory of evolution - proposed that Christianity was the highest form of all religions up to that time, implying thus that a better religion could still evolve. Albert Schweitzer followed this up in 1906, declaring in his study of the historical Jesus that Christianity had no absolute authority. The influence from this side was so pervasive that the 1910 Edinburgh Church and Missionary Conference - the forerunner of the World Council of Churches - had an albatross around its neck, where the final authority of Scripture was seriously compromised. Two groups evolved which made a caricature of the Good News message, the one group emphasizing the ‘Social Gospel’. This faction received the tag 'Practical Christianity'. The other group – dubbed ‘Faith and Order’ - stressed good doctrine.

Soil for Atheism
The disunity of the World Church and Mission Conference was soon out in the open to all intents and purposes! On this soil, atheism could grow phenomenally, inspired by the teachings of Karl Marx - not only outside of the Church ranks. Marx was angered by the general impression that Christianity does not seem to support justice. Some Christians indeed still spread the unbiblical notion – it can still be found today among certain (groups of) evangelicals – that riches and poverty are willed by God and that one must just rest in that fact, hoping for compensation in eternity. Believers from these ranks enjoy their comfort zone, not seeing any need for anybody to fight exploitation and corruption. All too often they enjoy the fruits of such exploits themselves!
Basically it was the age-old problem of ‘faith’ versus ‘works’. The Anglo-Catholic Society for the Propagation of the Gospel opposed any discussions on Church unity (Thomas, 2002:18), unwittingly thus contradicting the purpose of its existence. The impression grew that evangelisation and missionary work were separate entities, the one local - performed by the Church and the other one border-crossing, the domain of missionary societies. The statement of Bishop Azariah in 1927 in Lausanne that disunity is tantamount to sin, can be seen against this background.
Correction at World Mission Conferences
The International Missionary Conference (IMC) in Jerusalem in 1928 brought some correction, stressing that evangelisation and missionary work were basically two sides of the same coin. At this conference the paternalistic undertones of 'native churches' was changed into 'indigenous churches' where their own architecture, art and culture would be appreciated more. This encouraged the development of indigenous leaders in different parts of the world. This unfortunately also had a negative side effect, what was known as the 'euthanasia of missions'. Nevertheless, Church leaders agreed in 1937 to establish a World Council of Churches, based on a merger of the Faith and Order Movement with the Life and Work Movement. Its official establishment was deferred with the outbreak of World War II until August 23, 1948.105
The third mission conference took place in 1938 in Tambaram, near Madras, India. In a world where peace was increasingly threatened by fascist-type regimes (Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Japan), the discussions focused on the importance and centrality of the Church, in particular the local Church, in mission. Representatives from the so-called "younger" churches became a majority in Tambaram. While the conference defended the ultimate truth of the Christian message vis-à-vis other religions, it also advised missionaries towards a listening and dialogue approach. In due course that became an end in itself within the WCC.
Christianity became increasingly 'church centric', with foreign missions 'dropping into insignificance' (An unknown IMC rapporteur quoted by Thomas (2002:21). So-called 'faith missions' started to fill the gap, operating cross-denominationally, to the chagrin of churches. Friction was so to speak programmed because devout church members (and funds) were regarded to be syphoned away by these agencies. Ecumenical unions, driven by catalysts like Bishop M.M. Thomas from India, were nevertheless quite effective. In South Africa the race issue aggravated the differences. In due course apartheid became one of the dividing lines between ‘evangelicals’ and ‘ecumenicals’. The decision by the global Church body to support all agencies that fight racism brought matters to a head. (This ultimately developed into a strange situation where many evangelicals in Europe hereafter thought they had to support the apartheid regime in South Africa because the WCC deemed it their duty to support the freedom fighters of Southern Africa almost indiscriminately.)
A Travesty of Unity
Three idealistic young men, HJ Klopper, HW van der Merwe and DHC du Plessis - supported by Ds. Jozua Naudé106 - founded an exclusively male and white Protestant organization Jong Zuid Afrika, dedicated to the advancement of Afrikaner interests. In 1920 the organisation was re-styled as the Afrikaner Broederbond, consisting of 37 White men. They envisaged to use Afrikaner ethnicity and Calvinist Reformed faith as a springboard to unite White Afrikaans speakers who shared cultural, semi-religious, and deeply-political objectives for upliftment purposes. Resentment of the British and bitterness because of the Broedertwis was however also a groundswell. The chairman of the organisation that turned into a secret clique verbalised the laudable perception as follows: 'The Afrikaner Broederbond was born out of the deep conviction that the Afrikaner volk has been planted in this country by the Hand of God, destined to survive as a separate volk with its own calling.' The exclusive nature of the organisation led to its downfall - its lofty intentions were completely derailed by the 1960s.
The Caricature of Biblical Christianity
The caricature of biblical Christianity as it has been exported and practised around the world is not very attractive. The advantages of superior educational opportunities and good medical care became the misleading trophies of missionary work. Indigenous people were regarded as civilized or Christian when they started to wear Western clothing. No wonder that an oppressive system could flourish - a set-up where suppression became the order of the day. The more affluent ‘Coloured’ and Black Christians in South Africa often unfortunately also adopted repugnant superior attitudes, playing the boss in the worst sense of the word. What a pity that the unity and fellowship in Christ of rich and poor, of educated and unskilled, hardly got a chance. In this climate, the brotherhood of Islam became for many quite attractive. Others saw the only solution in Communism to get to some sort of social parity. The practice in South Africa became a complete travesty of church unity where the clergyman in White Reformed churches was called dominee (from the Latin word for Lord), the colleague working in one of the Black churches was an eerwaarde, a reverend but with a connotation of inferiority. In rank-and-file Afrikaner parlance the latter clergyman was derogatorily called the kafferdominee. Black clergy with inferior training were called evangelists. In episcopal Protestant denominations the whole papal hierarchy (minus cardinals and the Pope) is still intact.
Lording and Servility
A lording attitude was often copied and emulated by non-Western ministers of religion. South Africa has been no exception to this general statement. Bossing is still one of the problems in churches throughout Africa. This has sometimes made it difficult for church members to submit. Often church splits were the result. Some of these Christians had (and occasionally still have) their own domestic workers living in sub-standard living conditions on the same premises. What a change would take place in South African society if Christians of all races start doing things together on a substantial scale - including the household chores, gardening and drinking tea.
Unfortunately the servant attitude of the early Moravian missionaries degenerated to such an extent that their missionaries were later not commonly known any more for a servant-like attitude. In fact, in South Africa just the opposite took place, as the influence of the racist society took its toll. In the (Moravian) mission town of Elim for example, the townsfolk were still calling the missionary ‘Heer’ (Lord) in the late 1950s. They were looking up to the missionaries in an attitude of servility rather than with a healthy reverence and respect. Too often however, the missionaries unfortunately also adopted the pervasive condescending and/or paternalising habits of Whites at large.
In recent years the local evangelistic agency Straatwerk set a laudable example on non-racialism where people from all race groups and from different African countries work harmoniously side by side, doing mundane work as they have been keeping our city clean.
Another problematic Legacy
South Africa has another problematic legacy, which is related to the issue under discussion. People of colour have sometimes gone to the other extreme, which is best described by the ‘ja-baas’ mentality: even educated people went cap-in-hand in an undignified attitude to get favours from Whites. It was all too often regarded as ‘Christian’ to suffer under the bossy attitude of a superior. It should suffice to repeat that although Jesus taught us to have the attitude of a servant, yes even of a slave, this does not mean that it should transpire in an undignified way. Paul taught Philemon that he should take his run-away slave Onesimus back as a brother in Christ. Both the bossy attitude and the cap-in-hand mentality is outlawed by Scripture! South Africans may have to repent of both, as the case may be, and ask forgiveness from the Lord and from the other party where possible. In the true body of Christ there is no slave and master mentality.
An Emerging Church Unity high-jacked
The enemy of souls succeeded in high-jacking an emerging unity of believers in South Africa at the end of the 1950s once again. Professor G.B.A. Gerdener could still write in 1959:’With thankfulness we observe signs to come together and work together, also in our own Dutch Reformed Church’ (Gerdener, G.B.A., Die Afrikaner en die Sending, 1959:92).107 Gerdener rightly saw exclusivism and isolation as a danger to mission work: ‘Nowhere is isolation and exclusivism so deadly and time-consuming than in the fight against the mighty heathendom and nowhere is co-operation and a united front so necessary and useful as here.’108 Unfortunately, the issue of race was used by the arch enemy to send the Dutch Reformed Church on the path of isolation, causing a deep rift in the denomination. White theologians defended a biblical heresy of racial separation. Ds. Ben Marais and Professor Keet fought a lonely but losing battle in their denomination.
The Black, ‘Coloured’ and Indian sectors of the denomination drifted further and further away from the Moederkerk, linking up with other churches that opposed apartheid. Danger signals however also started to surface, namely a bad compromise with inter-faith notions, which undermined the unique position of our Lord Jesus as the Son of God.
Pervasive Racial Prejudice
Sometimes the impression was created that racial prejudice was only prevalent amongst the Afrikaners. David Thomas (2002:136) showed how farcical the application in 1955 of the first indigenous church, the Moravian Church of the Western Cape for membership in the British-dominated Christian Council of South Africa (CCSA) was handled. That was in sharp contrast to 1937 when the CCSA took special steps to commemorate the arrival of Georg Schmidt, the first missionary. The dominance of the English-speaking White Anglican and Methodist Churches in the CCSA at this time also co-incided with a stark decline in interest in missions. This led to a marginalisation of mission societies. Opposition to racial oppression in the Church would have dire consequences when the World Council of Churches (WCC) intervened in 1960. One of the major crises for the churches in South Africa resulted from the Cottesloe Consultation. On this occasion the Church's role regarding racism was put under the spotlight by delegates of the WCC and representatives of South African member churches. After some far-reaching decisions had been taken by this consultation, there was a strong reaction from especially the Afrikaans-speaking churches. At synods held in 1960 the Nederduits Gereformeerde Churches and the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk van Afrika decided to resign from the World Council of Churches. Dr Beyers Naude started the Christian Institute in protest, initiating Bible Study groups across the racial divide. (Protest is to be understood here from its Latin root pro testare, testifying for something. The mouthpiece of the CI was very fittingly called Pro Veritate, for truth.) The Dutch Reformed counterparts of colour - especially the ‘Coloured’ dominees - responded by politicizing the Church. On the other hand, the open letter which was signed by 123 Dutch Reformed ministers in 1982, stressed the unity of the Church. This proved to be a major correction.109

A significant Power Encounter
Something happened in Cape Town in August 1961 which unified Christians unprecedentedly. Ds. Davie Pypers had been called to become the missionary to the Cape Muslims on behalf of the Dutch Reformed Church, linked to the historical Gestig (Sendingkerk) congregation in Long Street. It is the church where once people from different denominations worshipped, the cradle of missionary outreach in South Africa.110 Ds. Pypers had hardly started with his new task there when a challenge came from a young imam, Ahmed Deedat, to publicly debate the death of Jesus on the Cross. In vain Pypers tried to get one of the Stellenbosch professors to accept the chalenge The young dominee David Pypers then prepared himself through prayer and fasting in a tent on the mountains at Bain’s Kloof for the event which was to take place on Sunday 13 August 1961 at the Green Point Track.
Because of publicity in the media, 30 000 people of all races jammed into the dustyGreen Point sports venue. The stadium quivered with excitement like at a rugby match. In the keenly contested debate, Imam Deedat started with the assertion that Jesus went to Egypt after the disciples had taken him from the Cross. He thoroughly ridiculed the Christian faith, challenging Pypers to give proof that Jesus died on the Cross. The young dominee rose to the challenge by immediately stating that Jesus is alive and that his Lord could there and then do the very things He had done when He walked the earth.
Dr David du Plessis reported: ‘Taking a deep breath, he (Pypers) spoke loud and clear, ‘Is there anybody in this audience that, according to medical judgement, is completely incurable? Remember, you must be incurable...’ (A man called Mr Pentecost - David Du Plessis, Logos International, 1977:??) Of course, the stadium was abuzz by now. And then several men came along, carrying Mrs Withuhn, a White Christian lady, with braces all over her body. She was completely paralyzed. Then Pypers went ahead, asking whether there were any doctors present who could examine her and vouch for her condition. ‘Several doctors came forward, including her own physician, and they concurred in pronouncing her affliction incurable.’ (Du Plessis, 1977:??)
Pypers simply walked to her and without any ado prayed for her briefly and proclaimed: ‘In the name of Jesus, be healed!’ Immediately she dropped her crutches and began to move.

The Green Point Aftermath
The Green Point Track event thus resulted in a victory for the Cross, with Mrs Withuhn being miraculously healed in the name of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.
Many Muslims were deeply moved, but something else unfortunately also happened. The booklet The Hadji Abdullah ben Yussuf; or the story of a Malay as told by himself (in an Afrikaans translation) was re-issued. Its distribution at the gates of the Green Point Track was definitely not helpful. The booklet refers negatively to the Qur’an and Muhammad, the founder of Islam.111 The Cape Muslim community was enraged by the re-publication of this nineteenth century pamphlet.
The effect of the Green Point Track miracle was furthermore almost nullified by news that came from another part of the globe on that same day - the report of the building of the Berlin Wall resounded throughout the world! A new type of battle was cemented - the ‘cold war’ between Soviet Communism and Western Capitalism!
However, it was also very bad that Pypers was heavily criticized by his people from his denomination for undertaking the confrontation, without getting prior synod approval. Furthermore, the leaders of his denomination were still clinging to an untenable interpretation of divine healing – that it belonged to a past age, to the times of the biblical apostles.
As the ensuing cold war increasingly became a hot potatoe internationally, the enemy of souls abused Communism with its atheist basis, in an attempt to stifle the spreading of the victorious message of the Cross, as it had been proclaimed at the Green Point Track.
Was there a link between Islam and Communism
in opposition to the Cross?
I believe that the events of 13 August 1961 had great importance in the spiritual realm. One wonders whether the Islamic Crescent was not probably linked to Communism in opposition to the Cross at that occasion. (This was to happen again in reverse in 1990 after the demise of Communism, the result of a seven year prayer effort of Christians across the Globe.) Islam took over the mantle from the atheist ideology as a threat to world peace when the Iraqi army marched into Kuwait. However, the event dubbed Desert Storm also became the catalyst for many Christians to start praying for an end to Islamic bondage, including deception at the base of the ideology as a destructive spiritual force. At the time of writing Islamist Iranic leaders have been bringing a world war closer by a rather biased Qur'anic interpretation to wipe Israel from the map, using their expected nuclear capability sooner rather than later. Israel has just as clearly stated its intention to pre-empt that, looking for support from the USA.

Unbiblical Unity of the WCC
The Bible tells us that the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is the Head of the Church, His Body, of which He is the Saviour (Ephesians 4:15-16; 5:23). He has the supremacy in everything (Colossians 1:18), and His followers are obliged to do what He commands (John 15). They are to bring all things under the authority of the triune God and therefore engage in missions.
The original Greek word ’oikoumene’ means ’all the inhabitants of the earth’, and the word ’ecumenical’ was derived from it. In World Council of Churches (WCC) parlance the word ecumenical soon referred not merely to Christians, but to men of all faiths and even those with no faith at all. Although the WCC proclaimed formally that it was promoting Christian unity in faith, witness and service for a just and peaceful world, ecumenism took on a secular meaning. Thus the World Council of Churches increasingly freed itself from its Christian identity, moving into a realm of inter-faith relativity. Jesus Christ was not perceived any more as being unique. In ecumenical terms, His Words: I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6), had become almost irrelevant. The Biblical claim that salvation is found in no-one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men, by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12), virtually lost its meaning in due course in WCC literature. The aim of the WCC shifted from seeking the Kingdom of God to promoting the concept of a united Church - without the unique Christ of the Bible. It moved from uniting Christians to uniting mankind. At best the WCC seemed to aim for the establishment of a world religion in which all faiths are equal - an unbiblical unity.

Bad Advice from Abroad Bad advice from abroad transpired when national Anglican sensitivities were over-ridden by the 10-yearly global Lambeth Conference of bishops. The conference of 1958 'officially encouraged member churches to seek union with any other churches willing to discuss the subject' (Thomas, 2002:165). From 1960 various churches started with talks which gained momentum, so that by 1967 a Church Unity Commission was set up with seven churches involved. The exercise was not easy but not completely futile. Here at the Cape there were some mergers in the wake of it like the Camps Bay United Church. Worldwide there came the correction that the trouble and expense of such exercises are not commensurate with the result for the expansion of the Kingdom. That there is some validity and truth in Ephesians 3:10 in this regard, that the true Church radiates the manifold wisdom of God - which has little to do with external forms - did however not break through generally. In the Lausanne Covenant of 1974 wise words were penned regarding the unity of the Church: 'Unity should be marked by truth, but has room for diversity and flexibility. Joining together local churches or even denominations has not in the past brought an impetus to evangelize; we need to guard against naivety that mergers in and of themselves can take us forward... Mergers can be good, combining strengths as well as saving on costs... But we must not be starry-eyed about new spiritual energy... This is not how the Holy Spirit works' (Lausanne Covenant, p.35). This was not new at all. Count Zinzendorf had already discerned that overt co-operation could never be a substitute for unity wrought by the Holy Spirit through prayer and supplication. He knew only too well that men could join in the same ‘outward ceremonies and duties of religion, but in reality deny the truth of it’ (Lewis, 1962:99). The Count realized that we should not strive after an organic union of denominations, but work towards unity which transcends all church divisions.

Dr Billy Graham and World Congresses on Evangelism
From the mid-1960s the schism between so-called ‘evangelical’ and ‘ecumenical’ Protestants became bigger and bigger. They seemed almost unbridgeable by that time. When divergent and competing ‘faith’ missions and humanist social church missionary work seemed logical and normal, God used Dr Billy Graham to initiate international conferences on World Evangelization and missions. The 1966 World Congress on Evangelism, held in West Berlin, Germany, was an important event in the history of Christianity. At this meeting Protestant evangelical Christians (theologians, evangelists, church leaders) from around the world met for the first time. They began to build relationships and exchange views that led to much closer co-operation. The Congress was sponsored by two American organizations - the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christianity Today magazine - and was planned and financed largely by Americans. The papers at the conference gave some indication of the explosive growth of the church in Africa, Asia and Latin America and the shifting centre of gravity of the Church universal from the Western to non-Western cultures. Michael Cassidy, still a young Southern African who had grown up in Maseru in Basutoland, (as Lesotho was previously called), attended the 1966 congress in Berlin. There he got caught in the crossfire through his paper Political nationalism as an Obtacle to Evangelism, after he had hammered both White and Black nationalisms (Coomes, 2002:130). His fledgling agency African Enterprise was condemned by evangelical Christians for calling for political change, and for a just dispensation in South Africa.
Third third World Theologians make a stand
At the International conference in Lausanne of 1974, third world theologians were divinely used by God, showing that two tenets of evangelical faith, social engaement and evangelism, are not alternatives, but that both are equally needed - the so-called Great Commandment (Love your neighbour as yourself) and the Great Commission (Make disciples of all nations ...). Fouad Assad, the Lebanese executive secretary, bridged the gap between the more liberal and the common Western evangelical theology during a devotional session. He pointed out that the apostle Philip broke through the taboo of the religious people of his time by communicating with an Ethiopian eunuch112 (Acts 8).113 (Zinzendorf did the same centuries ago when he communicated with the likes of slaves and Eskimo's.)
At the above-mentioned congress in Lausanne (1974), the Korean Okhill Kim brought the evangelicals back to the best of their roots when he reminded participants how the missionary Mary Scranton started a school for girls in their country in 1886. She intended ‘not to force Koreans to give up their own ways’ (From the official report of the 1974 Lausanne Conference, Let the Earth hear his voice, 1975:657), but to show them new ways of being Koreans. Okhill Kim brought a new challenge to the West that was reeling under the threat of a moratorium, a temporary cessation of new Western missionaries to the third world. (African theologians had been suggesting via the WCC in 1972 that the West should send them money rather than workers who had no sensitivity for the African culture.) Okhill Kim highlighted the wrong alternatives, stating that it was the task of Christian evangelism to rejuvenate the old stale practices. He encouraged the Church ‘to cultivate the educational forms of our own cultural heritage in the arts, combining the arts of the West and the East’ (ibid, p.659). (Even today the 'developed' world would do well to drop their haughty protectionism and open themselves up to 'third-world' values of human warmth, hospitality and ubuntu.114)

Evangelical Missionaries in the Dock
Anthropologists were accusing evangelical missionaries at this time of destroying indigenous cultures. There was a lot of clout in these accusations and still is. Thus Richard Twiss, an indigenous American of Sicangu Lakota, was made to burn and destroy all his tribal carvings, eagle feathers, and his dance outfit. 'The pastor told me … that I was a Christian, old things passed away and all things became new, which meant all my Native cultural ways needed to be replaced with Euro-American cultural ways' (Mission Frontiers, September-October 2010, p.7).

Oppression spawned (Prayer) Offensives
The crying to God in the wake of oppression as the Israelites did in response to the slavery in Egypt, found emulation in different parts of the world down the centuries. This was also the case at the Cape. The manyanos (the Xhosa word for prayer unions) turned out to be instruments of Black empowerment virtually second to none. Women leaders would not only pray and preach, but here their dignity and political awareness was also developed. Dawn prayer and nights of prayer were quite common in Black churches. (It seems to me that these manyanos were however still very much divided along denominational lines.)
Apartheid oppression triggered united action by churches, notably after the Message to the people of South Africa, in 1968. A Study Project of Christianity in Apartheid Society (SPROCAS) was launched in the wake of the Message as a combined product of the SACC and the Christian Institute (CI). The latter was led by Ds. Beyers Naudé. Its overt political character however simultaneously created a schism to the three White Afrikaner denominations which supported the government ideology. Low-key united prayer could perhaps have bridged that gap.

Africans who broke down Barriers
Two Africans from different parts of the continent contributed significantly to the bridging of the gap between evangelicals and ecumenicals, viz. Bishop Kivengere of West Uganda and South Africa’s ‘Mr. Pentecost’ David Du Plessis. Bishop Kivengere, a convert of the Rwandan revival of the 1940s, had to flee the wrath of the dictator Idi Amin in 1977. He became a blessing to Christians around the world with his challenging message of love and forgiveness. Together with Du Plessis the couple were divine instruments in the thawing of the relationship not only between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, but also between Pentecostals and other Protestants. At a later stage Festo Kivengere teamed up with Michael Cassidy and his AE in a dynamic partnership, also inside South Africa. Michael Cassidy and Festo Kivangere visited and preached as equals, also in the Afrikaner stronghold of Stellenbosch. This was a bold step, building on the foundation laid by Professor Nico Smith at the Theological Faculty. With evangelical involvement in the Black ghetto of Soweto after 1976, Africa Enterprise was to be God’s choice instrument for change in Africa over the next decades.

United Prayer in Spiritual Warfare
Jim Wilson highlighted united prayer in his booklet Principles of War in 1964 to revive evangelical interest to attack demonic strongholds. But it hardly seemed to make any dent in the spiritual realm. Paul Billheimer’s book Destined for the Throne (1975) approached the matter of prayer in a revolutionary manner. Although this book had a few printings, the content was probably not distributed globally by way of translation before 1989. Thus it did not mobilize believers significantly to use either praise or prayer - let alone both - to tear down demonic strongholds in spiritual warfare. Paul Billheimer had close links to the World School of Prayer, whose founder and leader, Dick Eastman, was deeply influenced by the writings of Andrew Murray.

A Call to Prayer for African Cities
Michael Cassidy, a Southern African spiritual giant, proceeded to study at the famous British Cambridge University in the mid-1950s. While attending a meeting with Dr Billy Graham there, he was greatly impacted. In Cambridge the conviction developed that only a spiritual renewal could remove Boer-Brit alienation, as well as the Black-White rift in South Africa. On vacation in New York in mid-1957, he attended an evangelistic campaign by Dr Billy Graham. Cassidy reported about this event: “Suddenly I heard within my spirit: ‘Why not in Africa?’ ‘Yes, why not Lord?’ I replied.” (Coomes, 2002:68). God started to prepare him for a special mission.
During a study stint in the USA in 1960 Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade, invited Michael Cassidy to start work in South Africa on behalf of the agency. During the Week of Prayer at the Campus Crusade Training Institute, Cassidy participated in a period of 'Waiting on God'. There he was challenged to pray for the 31 major cities of Africa.
After being told by a friend about a ship sailing between Africa and America with the name Africa Enterprise, the 23-year old Cassidy decided to start an evangelistic agency, with the goal of reaching the influential people of the African continent. He wrote in a letter to Eternity, an American magazine: ‘We desire to have a social emphasis in our ministry as well … because evangelical Christians have presented a lob-sided message that has greatly ignored the social implications of the Lord’s teachings. Consequently, ... they have lost the hearing of the people they are trying to reach; therefore, we feel it important to have a ministry to the physical needs of these people, as well as their spiritual needs..’ (Coomes, 2002:81).
During his study stint at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena (USA), Michael Cassidy was divinely touched not only to reach Africa's cities, but also to open up Black Africa to the Gospel. He and his student friend Ed Gregory visited 31 African cities during the long US college vacation, meeting many a government leader.
On 18 July 1961 in Liberia he drew a vast map of Africa in the sand on impulse, writing across it: Claimed for Jesus Christ' As he resumed his walk, he '… also asked God for 50 years of ministry in Africa – a year for every state on the African continent' (Coomes, 2002:89). Across the 'Black continent' the new agency Africa Enterprise (AE) was destined to have a significant impact in the years thereafter, starting with an interdenominational campaign in Pietermaritzburg in August 1962.
The Kivengere-Cassidy Combination
Bishop Festo Kivengere of Uganda met the Africa Enterprise (AE) leader the first time in 1961 when Cassidy was still studying in Pasadena. When they met again in Nigeria in July 1968 at a conference there, Cassidy challenged Kivangere to join AE. Displaying great courage to collaborate with a White from the polecat of the world, the notorious apartheid country, Bishop Festo Kivengere became God's special channel to open up East Africa for the Gospel. Deeply influenced by the East African Revival - one of the great movements of the Holy Spirit in the 20th century - Festo Kivengere's ministry of reconciliation crossed boundaries of race, culture and denomination, forging the unity of the body of Christ in an unprecedented way.
The Holy Spirit movement flowed via a big national church event with Dr Billy Graham in Durban in 1973. In the spiritual realm this was a significant build-up to the International Congress on World Evangelization, in Lausanne (Switzerland), the following year. During the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization a group of forty-five Christian leaders from Africa met in Lausanne to discuss the possibility of a Pan African meeting of church leaders to investigate the needs and possibilities of the rapidly growing Christian community on the Black continent. The group asked Bishop Festo Kivengere of Uganda and Michael Cassidy of Africa Enterprise to explore what could be done. Representatives from all over Africa were subsequently invited to a larger meeting in Nairobi in 1976 called PACLA (Pan African Christian Leadership Assembly), chaired by the Ghanaian Gottfried Osei-Mensah of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, Forced to flee for his life from Uganda in 1977 at the height of the eight-year reign of terror of the dictator Idi Amin, Festo and his wife Mera remained abroad until the liberation of his country in 1979. He then immediately returned to bring the message of God's reconciling love in Jesus Christ to his battered country. Through African Enterprise he helped organize emergency relief for those who were suffering, as well as long-term help for the reconstruction of Uganda. All over the world Kivengere had been spreading the message of Revolutionary Love, the title of a book he authored (downloadable from the Internet). As leader of Africa Enterprise's East Africa teams, Bishop Festo Kivengere laboured for decades in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda - but especially also in the reconstruction of his ravaged country Uganda. Reconciliation was needed after Milton Obote, the successor of Idi Amini, turned out to be corrupt as well. A close friendship was forged with Michael Cassidy, who was destined to become one of the pioneers to usher in the new democratic South Africa in the 1980s.
The Programme to Combat Racism (PCR) was initiated at the WCC plenary Assembly in Uppsala (Sweden) in 1968 as part of their Programme Unit on Justice and Service. Its aim was to develop ecumenical policies and programmes contributing to the liberation of victims of racism. Much of its attention and focus was on southern Africa, especially apartheid and the divestment campaign. It established a special fund from which donations were made to liberation movements and to solidarity organisations around the world. The fund was fed from voluntary contributions from churches. The Programme to Combat Racism was a controversial initiative of the WCC during the 1970s. It funded a number of humanitarian programmes of liberation movements and groups that were involved in their struggle against racial or colonial-related oppression.

Chapter 9 Outreach to Jews as a unifying Factor?

It is my contention that a biblical view of Jews could be a unifying factor for Christianity at large. There is a special anointing on the Jews as a people group. Whether one likes it or not, the Word teaches that Israel is the apple of God’s eye (Deuteronomy 32:10; Zechariah 2:8). In stead of quarrelling whether it is repulsive/ favouritist or not, we would do much better to use their anointing positively. Matthew 13:52 points to the possibility that the teacher of the (Jewish) law has a special faculty to bring out of the store-room of the Hebrew Scriptures those treasures which we Gentile Christians could use profitably. Paul, undoubtedly the greatest missionary of all time, was a Jew.

The early Moravian view of the Jews and Israel115
We have already seen how the 18th century Moravians applied biblical principals to facilitate Church unity. I would like to examine how the Moravian and other philo-semitists have been using the love for the Jews to good effect. Count Zinzendorf appears to have been one of very few church leaders to have recognized the primacy of the Jews and Israel in biblical Theology. In general, the Jews and the Muslims have been neglected where missionary work is concerned. Moravians were the first denomination to add a prayer for Israel to a Church Litany. In one of the Sunday morning prayer liturgies Abraham prayer for Ishmael (Genesis 17:18) is included: O that Ishmael might live before thee! Bishop August Spangenberg (1773-75:1181) reports how Count Zinzendorf was filled with compassion when a Jew Daniel Nunez da Costa and his wife approached him just before his return from the Caribbean in 1739. The Count paid their fare to enable them to get back to Europe. Zinzendorf understood very well that border-crossing mission work implied a holistic approach. He even went the second mile, giving his state-room to the couple, while he himself shared a cabin with other passengers (Weinlick, 1956:146).
Through personal contact with the Jewish community in Amsterdam and especially with the Portuguese refugee Nunez da Costa, Zinzendorf came to appreciate the distinctiveness of Judaism. For a while, Nunez da Costa was one of Zinzendorf ’s closest friends, and he attempted to live with the Moravians in Europe. Eventually Zinzendorf helped set him up in business in Amsterdam. It was around the time of the contact with Da Costa that Zinzendorf added the petition for Israel to the Litany in 1740. Count Zinzendorf’s open interest and love for the Jews were however not generally welcomed.
Certain Moravian communities, such as Bethlehem (Pennsylvania), celebrated Yom Kippur as a Christian festival, even though there were no Jews in the community, to emphasize the Jewish roots of Christian doctrine. Zinzendorf also hoped this would make it easier for Jews who wanted to follow Jesus to live in a Moravian settlement. Zinzendorf and his household ate kosher so as not to offend Jews or create a barrier between Jews and Christians. He criticized the Western Church for adopting the name “Oester” (Easter) instead of holding to the original 'Pasch' Lamb. (This was the preferred dinner at the annual resurrection celebration for many Moravian families throughout the 19th century.) 'Pasch' makes clear the connection to our Lord as the Passover Lamb.

Interest and Love for the Jews
Count Zinzendorf had a special affinity for the Jews, because Jesus was also a Jew (Spangenberg, 1773-1775:1105). When he was still a student, Jews were included in Zinzendorf’s prayer lists (Beyreuther, 1957:187).
At the castle Ronneburg, the Jews who were living there, trusted the Count because he not only respected their religion, but he also vocalized his love for them fearlessly. Many Jews of the vast area between Darmstadt and Giessen in southern Germany called Zinzendorf their great friend (Beyreuther, 1965:95). Yet, it was never his intention to wipe away differences in inter-faith fashion. He strived for a good and harmonious living together between Christians and Jews, but simultaneously he challenged the Jewish people to fulfil their divine calling to be a blessing to the nations. In order to do this, they had to bow before the Man of Nazareth who came from their ranks as the King of Kings. The Christians on the other hand were admonished not to forget Israel as their first-born brother (Beyreuther, 1965: 94).
Zinzendorf took the evangelization of the Jews seriously. He gave a rule that once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the Moravian Church should pray for the conversion of Israel (Spangenberg, 1773-1775:1105). Zinzendorf believed that the time for the conversion of nations on a big scale had to await the conversion of the Jews (Weinlick, 1956:100). This high expectation from the converted Jews brought him to some special translations and paraphrases of Hebrew Scripture portions. Thus he would paraphrase the old father Jacob’s prophecy over Naphtali (Genesis 49:21, Naphtali is a doe set free that bears beautiful fawns). Highlighting that the northern land given to Naphtali is the region where the later Galilee would be situated, Zinzendorf interpreted the verse in the following way: ‘From Naphtali will come the flight-footed messengers, who will carry the Gospel to the ends of the world’ (Steinberg, 1960:39). At a Moravian conference in Berlin in 1738, the work among the Jews was seriously discussed (Spangenberg, 1773-1775:1100). The Moravians demonstrated the priority of the outreach to the Jews by allowing one of their best men, Leonhard Dober, to minister to them. (He had been recalled from St Thomas in the Caribbean to be the chief Elder after the sudden death of Martin Linner, to pioneer this ministry.) Dober promptly moved into the Jewish quarter of Amsterdam with his wife. When Dober was needed elsewhere, the very able Samuel Lieberkühn who had studied Hebrew thoroughly in Halle and Jena, was asked to lead this ministry. Lieberkühn preferred to go and work among the Jews in Holland, rather than accepting an offer to become professor of Semitic languages in Königsberg.116
A Jew to the Jews
Like very few others before or after him, Samuel Lieberkühn practiced the Pauline instruction to become a Jew to the Jews, refraining from all food which Jewish custom prohibited. He respected the views of Messianic Jews when they still preferred to follow Jewish Law, as well as their expectation of a significant return of Jews to Palestine in the last days. Lieberkühn however used the life and testimony of Jesus rather than Hebrew Scriptural quotations to prove the Messiah-ship of our Lord in his altercations with Jews.
Many Jews came from Amsterdam to the Moravian congregation in Zeist (near Utrecht) when Samuel Lieberkühn became the pastor there from 1751. Although the christo-centric Count Zinzendorf differed with Lieberkühn on some of his opinions and approach, he respected that. The Moravian Synod of 1764 endorsed the ministry of Samuel Lieberkühn. For both Comenius and Zinzendorf the 'Old' and 'New' Testaments belonged together. Thus the Count did not see the beginning of missions with the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19 or Mark 16:15), but rather where the ‘mission’ of the Saviour started, it is before the foundation of the earth (Ephesians 1:4). His wish to see a separate Jewish sector of Moravian mission, was however never fulfilled, although various missionaries had a vision for it. (The astounding Christian Richter, who pioneered work amongst slaves in Algiers, wanted to see work started among the 8,000 Jews who were living in that city in 1740.117)
A special Jew
On the opposite side of First Day Sabbatarianism, Jewish Evangelism as a priority could have united the Body of Christ if the biblical injunction of 'Jews first, and then also the Greeks' (Romans 1:16f) had been discerned properly. The example of the Moravian involvement in outreach to Jews in Amsterdam and a philo-semitic lifestyle in Bethlehem (Pa, USA) appears to have remained worldwide exceptions. Many a Jew who come to faith in Christ made a big difference. This was definitely the case with Joseph Samuel Christian Frederick Frey, born in Stockheim, Franconia, Germany, in 1773; At six years of age he was reading the five books of Moses in the original language. He was also daily instructed by a private tutor in the Jewish law and Talmud. Every opportunity was used to inspire him with a hatred of Christianity. At the age of nine the study of Mischna and Gemara - digests of Jewish traditions - were added to his theological textbooks. On attaining early manhood he moved to Hesse, teaching Hebrew children as a private tutor.
At twenty-one Joseph Frey became a leader in the synagogue, reading the prayers and the Torah. During this period, while journeying from Hamburg to Schwerin, he met a Christian, who suggested to him novel ideas regarding the Messiah. Frey was impressed by the doctrines of the Christian religion. After three or four years of mental struggle, he became a follower of Jesus. In May 1798, he was baptised and received into the Protestant community. In 1800 he entered the theological seminary established in Berlin for the education of missionaries. He studied there for one year, and then went to London, with the intention of going to Africa as a missionary. He afterwards changed his purpose, deciding to remain in England to be an evangelist to his own people, the Jews. Frey's family, on learning of his apostasy, enacted all the rituals, which would have been performed at his death. For the next seven years he studied and laboured in connection with the London Missionary Society, travelling through the United Kingdom, preaching to whatever Jewish congregations he could muster, suffering much opposition and meeting with little encouragement. In 1816 Joseph Frey moved with his family to New York where he established the Mulberry Street Congregationalist Church, and was ordained its pastor in 1818. In 1820 he founded an American Society for ameliorating the Conditions of the Jews. The object of this association was to establish an asylum for Christian Hebrews from all parts of the world. The enterprise proved a failure, and occupied several years of fruitless labour. In 1827 Joseph Frey, convinced of the necessity of immersion, left the Congregationalist Church and became a Baptist. He held several small charges as a member of that denomination, and in 1837 resigned his pastorate to go to Europe as an agent for the American Society for the Conversion of the Jews. He remained abroad three years, but the mission was not favourably received.
Church’s Ministry among the Jewish People
The Church’s Ministry among the Jewish People, known in South Africa as Messiah's People, began in the early 19th century, when leading evangelicals, including members of the influential Clapham Group such as William Wilbeforce and Charles Simeon, decided that there was an unmet need to promote Christianity among the Jews. In 1809 they formed the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews. The Jewish missionary Joseph Frey, is often credited with the instigation of the break with the London Missionary Society. Abbreviated forms such as the London Jews' Society or simply The Jews' Society were adopted for general use. The original agenda of the society was:
Declaring the Messiahship of Jesus to the Jew first and also to the non-Jew
Endeavouring to teach the Church its Jewish roots
Encouraging the physical restoration of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel - the Land of Israel
Encouraging the Hebrew Christian/Messianic Jewish movement
The society's work began among the poor Jewish immigrants in the East End of London and soon spread to Europe, South America, Africa and Palestine. In 1811, a five-acre field on the Cambridge Road in Bethnal Green, east London, was leased as a centre for missionary operations. The complex was named Palestine Place. In 1813, a Hebrew-Christian congregation called Benei Abraham (Children of Abraham) started meeting at the chapel in Palestine Place. This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations.
The London Jews Society was the first such society to work on a global basis. In 1836, two missionaries were sent to Jerusalem: Dr. Albert Gerstmann, a physician, and Melville Bergheim, a pharmacist, who opened a clinic that provided free medical services.
In its heyday, the society had over 250 missionaries. The society was active in the establishment of Christ church, Jerusalem, the oldest Protestant church in the Middle East, completed in 1849.
The organisation is one of the eleven official mission agencies of the Church of England. It currently has branches in the United Kingdom, Israel, Ireland, the USA, Canada, South Africa, Hong Kong, and Australia.
The first identifiable congregation made up exclusively of Jews who had converted to Christianity, was established in the United Kingdom as early as 1860. The first congregation of Jewish Christians in the United Kingdom was Beni Abraham which came into existence in London when forty-one Hebrew Christians assembled as Jewish Christians. In 1866 the Hebrew Christian Alliance of Great Britain was organised with branches in several European countries and the United States. These organisations had the combined effect of encouraging Jewish believers in Jesus to think of themselves as a community with a unique identity.
In response to changing attitudes towards outreach to the Jewish people, the society has changed its name several times over the years, first to Church Missions to Jews, then The Church's Mission to the Jews, followed by The Church's Ministry Among the Jews, and finally to the current name of The Church's Ministry Among Jewish People, which was adopted in 1995. The International Hebrew Christian Alliance, established 1925, was an initiative of the Hebrew Christian Alliance of America (established 1915) and the Hebrew Christian Alliance of Great Britain.
Liberal Theology ushered in
In a very sad turn of events a product of Moravian teaching would usher in liberal theology. Friedrich Schleiermacher (November 21, 1768 – February 12, 1834) became influential in the evolution of 'Higher Criticism'. Because of his profound impact on subsequent Christian thought, he is often called the "Father of Modern Protestant Theology."
He was educated in the Moravian Boarding School at Niesky in Upper Lusatia, and at Barby near Halle. However, the pietistic Moravian theology failed to satisfy his increasing doubts as he fell prey to the general tendency to neglect the Hebrew Scriptures. As an otherwise brilliant theological student, Schleiermacher pursued an independent course of reading, neglecting the study of the Hebrew Scriptures and Oriental languages. In due course he developed a deep-rooted skepticism as a student, and soon he rejected orthodox Christianity. The German theologian and philosopher became known for his impressive attempt to reconcile the criticisms of the Enlightenment with traditional Protestant orthodoxy which ultimately ushered in a deceptive demonic Church unity - liberal theology that swept like wildfire over Europe in the mid 19th century.
Foils to Liberalism An effective foil operated quietly from Moravian soil – the 24 hour prayer that was still going strong in Herrnhut. The prayer movement resonated also in Bethlehem (Pennsylvania, USA) on the other side of the ocean and other places where Moravian missionaries had started fellowships, also in the Western Cape mission station Genadendal where three new missionaries arrived at Christmas 1792. William Carey's seminal work influenced by Bishop August Spangenberg's work, was another important factor, blazing the trail for missionary work.
Isaac da Costa was born on January 14, 1798 in Amsterdam. Through his Hebrew teacher he became acquainted with the great Dutch poet Willem Bilderdijk, who, at the request of Isaac's father, agreed to supervise the boy's further education. Bilderdijk taught him Roman law. An intimate friendship between them developed in due course. As the son of an Amsterdam physician, Willem Bilderdijk grew up with strong monarchical and Calvinistic convictions. Willem Bilderdijk and Isaac da Costa led the spiritual renewal in the Netherlands. Bilderdijk had contempt for government-controlled Christianity softened by indifference. Isaac da Costa was a converted Portuguese Jew who wrote poetry, attacking the liberalism and ethical decay of the times. Bilderdijk refused in 1795 to take the oath to the administration of the new Batavian Republic, and was consequently obliged to leave the Netherlands. He went to Hamburg and then to London, where his great learning procured him consideration. In 1806 he was persuaded by his friends to return to the Netherlands. On the accession of William I of the Netherlands in 1813, Bilderdijk hoped to be made a professor, but was disappointed and became a history tutor at Leiden. He continued his vigorous campaign against liberal ideas till his death on the 18th of December 1831. Willem Bilderdijk was the founder of the spiritual movement that is called 'Het Réveil', which tried to give a Christian answer to the atheist ideals of the French Revolution. Among his disciples were Abraham Capadose, Willem de Clerq, Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer, and especially Isaac da Costa. Under the influence of Bilderdijk and Da Costa, Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer, who served as Cabinet Secretary for the King and as a member of Parliament, was converted from an ethical view of Christianity to evangelical faith. Van Prinsterer was a prominent historian. His views on the significance of the Gospel and of its fortunes through history were shaped by the thought of Merle D’Aubigne, the prominent Reformation historian whose pastoral ministry had a profound effect on Groen, and through whom the Réveil was spread in the Netherlands. One of the effects of this spiritual renewal in the Netherlands was the revival of Calvinistic thought, and in particular its outworking in the political arena. This revival of Calvinism was not simply a return to the 16th century, but a contemporary application of the insights and principles of Calvinism to the issues of the day. There was also criticism, correction and expansion of various aspects of the thought of Calvin and his spiritual heirs. In 1817 Da Costa went to Leiden, where he again saw much of Bilderdijk. He there took his degree as doctor of law in 1818, and as doctor of philosophy on June 21, 1821. Three weeks later he married his cousin, Hannah Belmonte, who had been educated in a Christian institution; and soon after, he was baptized with her at Leiden. Da Costa was a faithful adherent of the religious views of his friend Bilderdijk. His religious views and efforts were severely censured by liberal opponents, but his character, no less than his genius, was respected by his contemporaries. Although he wrote much on missionary matters, he is distinguished from many other converts in that, to the end of his life, he felt only reverence and love for his Jewish co-religionists. He was deeply interested in their past history, and often defended them.

Theologians in fierce Rivalry
Two Jewish brothers, both theologians, profoundly enriched evangelical Christianity at the Cape - Jan and Frans Lion Cachet. Both had been influenced deeply by Isaac da Costa. In 1873 Ds. Frans Lion Cachet pleaded in the Cape Dutch Reformed Church Synod for a mission to his people, the Jews, to be started. He moved to the Cape village of Villiersdorp in 1876. He found a ‘deep sea of love’ for the Jews among Dutch Reformed Church ministers, elders and deacons, even among the most distant congregations (Cited by Hermann, 1935:201). The passionate plea of Frans Lion Cachet was however also a provocation to the Jews. Notably, the opposition was coming from their Rabbi at the Cape, Joel Rabinowitz. Hermann (A History of the Jews of Cape Town, 1935:201) cited ‘violent opposition on the part of the Rabbi.’ Rabinowitz’ letter of 30 October 1876 to the Cape Argus was definitely not cordial, accusing Cachet of condescension and ‘casting doubts on … his motives.’ But Ds. Cachet’s reaction was not in the spirit of Christ either. The ‘lively correspondence’ between Christians and Jews – perhaps one should rather say polemics - continued in the Cape Argus for over a month.
The Struggle for Cape Outreach to Jews118
The result of the controversy and discord was that by 1876 favourable conditions for Messianic Jews to win their cultural compatriots at the Cape over to faith in Yeshua had passed temporarily and it was left to Gentiles to challenge such people to believe in Jesus as their Lord and Messiah. Outreach to Jews was however merely discussed in a commission of the Dutch Reformed Church Cape Synod. Only in 1894 the resolution was passed: ‘… the time has come for the DRC to pay its debt to Israel by commencing its own mission to the Jews’ (Gerdener, 1958:131). Three years later a commission recommended that a missionary be appointed. European mission agencies were however not so eager to assist as it initially seemed. A Rev. Cohen was appointed for outreach to Jews in Transvaal, but for the rest, this outreach was hardly attended to. In 1906 the mission to Jews was discussed once again at the DRC Cape Synod. A Mildmay Mission to the Jews (today it is called Messianic Testimony) worker Mr Reitmann was approached. He had started to serve at the Cape. This was the first formal outreach to reach Jews with the Gospel in this part of the world.

Correction of Replacement Theology
In the latter quarter of the 20th century JOHN WILKINSON, the Founder and Director of the Mildmay Mission to the Jews brought a major attempt to correct 'Replacement Theology' through his book Israel, my Glory: or Israel's mission, and missions to Israel that went through a few printings. He pointed out what should have been obvious, viz. that the terms Israelites and Gentiles are not interchangeable in the Bible,
'but are as distinct as are the peoples to whom they apply. To call Israelites, under any circumstances, Gentiles, is not less unscriptural than to call Gentiles Israelites. How strange it would seem to find Jews appropriating promises made to Gentiles by name, and yet it is far from uncommon to find Gentiles exclusively appropriating promises made to Jews or Israelites by name. We must let Israel mean Israel, and Gentiles mean Gentiles, or we miss the purpose of God in the miraculous origin, history, and preservation of the natural and national Israel.' The Mildmay Mission to the Jews changed its name a few times and is now called Messianic Testimony. A few other outreaches to Jews started at the turn of the 20th century. Chosen People Ministries became well known.

An orthodox Jew discovers the true Messiah
In the latter part of the 19th century people were on the move, for many different reasons. Political and social upheavals in Europe continued throughout the turn of the century. This turmoil generated an intense longing, both for material stability and religious freedom. It was during this time of tremendous change that Leopold Cohn was born in Berezna, a small town in eastern Hungary. In this part of Europe, Orthodox Judaism was a way of life. Traditional Judaism was all-pervasive in its impact on a daily existence and there was zeal for the Torah (Law). It was not surprising, then, that Leopold Cohn became a rabbi. During years of rabbinic study certain portions of Scripture led Leopold Cohn to seek more knowledge about the Messiah. He searched the Scriptures and questioned other rabbis. One rabbi advised him to go to America where, he said, people knew more about the Messiah. The high profile rabbi said he would lose his position if he were to discuss the Messiah. Cohn knew that there was but one course for him to follow: he must share the knowledge of the Messiah, Yeshua, with his Jewish people. He explained an early encounter with members of the local community: 'I showed them from the Scriptures that to believe in Yeshua was Jewish faith, real Jewish faith. This became Leopold Cohn's life calling. It also became a guiding principle for Chosen People Ministries, which he founded in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York, in 1894. Leopold Cohn began this ministry by holding meetings in a store which was a renovated horse stable. He founded his work upon faith, in response to the Scriptural exhortation of Romans 1:16, "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." The ministry's first Bible meeting was attended by eight Jewish people. The Lord continued to bless this work, and in the course of his lifetime, Leopold Cohn led over 1,000 people to the Lord.
Chosen People Ministries melds Judaism with evangelical Christian faith and engages in evangelism to Jews. It supports development of congregations of adherents to Messianic Judaism, which it describes as 'faith communities that stress the Jewish context of the Gospel of Jesus.' The Mission was later relocated to the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, New York and became the Williamsburg Mission to the Jews from 1897 until 1924. From 1924 until 1984 it was known as the American Board of Missions to the Jews. Since then it has been known by its current name, Chosen People Ministries. The American Board of Missions to the Jews was instrumental in the growth and professionalism of the movement during the 1920s-1960s, providing training to many of the new missionaries. One of its most famous products was Martin Moishe Rosen, who became notoriously known all over the Jewish world.
An Outreach with a Sting
It was to take many decades before evangelism to Jews really took off. This can be attributed to Moishe Rosen. Martin "Moishe" Rosen (April 12, 1932 – May 18, 2010) was the founder and former Executive Director of Jews for Jesus, an evangelical Christian missionary organization that focuses specifically on evangelism to the Jewish people. Coming from Reform Jewish parentage himself, Rosen and his wife Ceil became Christians in 1953. After graduating from Northeastern Bible College, Rosen made a commitment to be a missionary to Jews from 1956. He was ordained as a Conservative Baptist minister in 1957. Jews for Jesus in 1969. Using modern evangelistic methods like humorous broadsheets, drama and music, Jews for Jesus got a bad name among Jews for the aggressive methods. On the other hand, many a Jew, especially in the US, was challenged to at least consider the claims of Yeshua, not only to be the true Messiah, but also to commit their lives to Him. He brought anew the challenge of Jews first very strongly to the Church, e.g. at the second Lausanne Congress in 1989 in Manila. Generally however, outreach to Jews (and Muslims) remained a 'Cinderella' of missionary work.
A Positive Tendency
Even in Christian countries people from other faiths who became followers of Jesus have been confused by the multitude of churches, which were often competing and vying for their membership. The attitude of the Church Planting Movement to discourage new believers to attend denominational churches is however no solution either. To be driven by fear of confusion is not a good motivation. Love for the body of Christ should be primary.
It just cannot be ignored that there is a special blessing on the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob up to this day. Therefore it should be high on the list of our priorities to pray and work that the Jews’ eyes may be unveiled to the one who was pierced on the Cross of Calvary, that they may discover that he is really the promised Messiah (cf. Zechariah 12:10). It is very encouraging how Christians have started to use this resource in recent years, notably via Jewesses. Thus Ruth Lapide has featured on television quite prominently in Germany and here at the Cape Edith Sher has a regular radio programme on Sunday afternoons via CCFM.119
In Chapter 6 we investigated the two-pronged approach of Zinzendorf and his Moravians in the 17th Century with regard to Church unity and some of their practices. Love drives out all fear (1 John 4:18). Negative uncharitable references to 'mainline churches' and 'para church' organisations, as it often happens in charismatic denominations - or to the 'Church of the Pope' and an unqualified reference to 'sects' by others - are definitely not displaying the spirit of Christ either. It must be stressed unequivocally that the competitive spirit of unhealthy rivalry is demonic. Any attempt to defend disunity of the body of Christ needs to be emphatically opposed.

The Rift between Rich and Poor
A sad rift of the Church universal is the huge gap between rich and poor. One of the biggest problems in the churches of the third world is a dependency syndrome that has been created by 20th century Western missionaries. The massive rift between churches in the affluent West and the poor churches of the third world is a tragic indictment on the body of Christ.
A general deficiency was empowerment for leadership. Later generations of missionaries were content with schools and hospitals as trophies of missionary endeavour. A system evolved where Whites remained at the top of a hierarchical echelon. These missionaries would send their own children back to be trained sufficiently to take over leadership positions on the mission fields. But it remained a big exception to send a prodigy overseas.
The spiritually most healthy churches were planted in Africa and Asia when the missionaries themselves had few resources at their disposal. With regard to loving open-minded dialogue, we need to highlight that the dependency syndrome killed honest sharing of ideas. Due to the fear of offending the ‘generous’ givers from the Western nations, own initiative on the part of the recipients was stifled. It also stimulated and perpetuated a beggar mentality among the bulk of the churches of the third world. The call from Africa for a moratorium of (Western) missionaries120 in 1972 may have sounded very uncharitable. Possibly this was inspired by a reaction against the bossy attitude of Western missionaries who gave the impression that they always know it better. Why is 2 Corinthians 8 still unknown by and large, namely how the poor Macedonians begged to be given the opportunity to bless the mother church in Jerusalem? How often is it taught that poor believers have much to give? Was this not what Jesus also demonstrated with the gift of the widow’s mite? In recent decades paternalism killed unity. Refugees who wanted to retain their East African Swahili or West African Islamic culture (or whatever home culture) were all too often given limited space. Thus many a church building was refused to refugee type foreigners. In isolated cses premises were offered with empire-building conditions. On the other hand, an undignified beggar mentality was also not helpful either.

Christian Abuse of Marxist Analysis
The WCC’s Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME) held a conference in Bangkok in 1972 under the theme ’Salvation Today’. It called formally for a ’Moratorium on Missions’. The evolution of a negative perception of Church and Missions as analyzed by Karl Marx is very tragic. Black Churches, it was however said - rightfully I propose - must become truly African. As a result of the moratorium, WCC-linked missionary societies withdrew their missionaries from Africa and elsewhere. This left many unprepared young churches however with a void of proper oversight. Some third-world Theologians started focussing on grievances and some of them moved away from evangelism to political activism. Already in the 1950s the Indian theologian M. M. Thomas had introduced revolution as a theological concept. In the International Review of Missions of 1973 a commentator stated that 'his political theology it through and through a missionary theology' (Cited in Thomas, 2002:28). Richard Shaull, who worked as a missionary in Columbia and Brazil, came up at this time with a Theology of Revolution, supporting the poor to throw off the yoke of oppression - if need be violently. His critical thinking on social change, prophetic Christianity, and dialogue with Marxism, as well as Christian use of Marxist analysis, preceded the emergence of the formal schools of Liberation Theology. With quite a lot of substance Liberation Theology was soon teaching that the colonially enforced Christianity led to oppression and injustice. This was definitely the case in Southern Africa. Marxism would be the answer liberal theologians suggested. A new Jesus emerged – Jesus, the militant revolutionary!121 In a further development, the WCC’s Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME) changed its name into Commission for Dialogue with People of other Faiths (CWME), which basically embodied an historical judgement on the missionary movement. Missionary work which invited people to become followers of Jesus was not fashionable any more.

A Reply to the Dependency Syndrome
Glen Schwarz, an American missionary, held seminars in various countries from the 1990s on how to overcome the dependency syndrome. He highlighted how condescending charity destroys dignity. An undignified cap-in-hand beggar mentality exists in many a third world country because of missionaries who never took hold of the three-self biblically derived principle, which Henry Venn and Rufus Anderson had been propagating in the mid-19th century as aims of church planting. New fellowships should strive to become self supporting, self-propagating and self-reproducing as soon as possible.

A possible Correction?
Thankfully there are quite a few positives to report in this area. A very important recent correction to highlight the Jewish roots of Christianity is The One New Man Bible. This translation has the potential to bring a greater understanding of and appreciation for the power given to believers for their daily walk. The Jewish roots of our faith come to life in this translation. Hebrew is a very expressive language. The One New Man translation attempts to bring out much of the power that has been omitted from traditional English translations.
The One New Man Bible has been written to help present-day believers move toward God’s perfect plan to create one new man (Ephesians 2:15), bringing Jewish and non-Jewish together. The Hebrew Scriptures are in the traditional Jewish book order which would help to make Jewish readers more comfortable. Many Jewish sources were studied to bring the Scriptures to life. These studies also give insight into the thinking of the New Testament authors and the Apostles.

Chapter 10 Tragic Results of Racism Debate

Rev. Arthur Lewis was possibly the first to highlight the insidious spread of liberation theology and the subtle work of the World Council of Churches. He discovered that church funds were used to advance Communism via the 'freedom fighters' of Southern Africa that were called 'terrorists' in other quarters. There was definitely some truth in this suggestion. (I heard personally from theological students in Germany of their intention to infiltrate the Church.122) Rev. Arthur Lewis spent 11 years serving at various mission stations in Tanganyika and on the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba.123 In 1958 Arthur Lewis moved to Zimbabwe that was called Southern Rhodesia at the time. His book, Christian Terror, created a sensation as it documented how missionaries, pastors and other Christians were being brutally murdered by soldiers of Robert Mugabe's ZANU and Joshua Nkomo's ZAPU. These groups were among the recipients of World Council of Churches funding. As a result, Readers Digest picked up the scandalous story and the Salvation Army and Baptists withdrew their membership with the WCC in protest. To help mobilize prayer and action on behalf of Christians suffering on the frontline of the battle, against the advance of Soviet and Chinese supported Communism, Rev. Arthur Lewis launched the Rhodesia Christian Group. In other countries similar reactionary groups started like the Notgemeinschaft in West Germany.
South African Churches withdrawing support of the WCC
In due course certain South African churches followed suit in withdrawing their support of the WCC. The infiltration of the WCC by Communists became increasingly clear at the same time. In 1976 Rev Lewis was elected to the Rhodesian Senate. The Church of England granted him temporary leave to accept this responsibility. At this time a similar move occurred in South Africa. Dr Andries Treurnicht, a former editor of the Dutch Reformed mouthpiece Die Kerkbode, became Deputy Minister of Education in 1976. His instruction to implement the policy that Black students should be taught in Afrikaans triggered the Soweto uprising. In 1978, Treurnicht was chosen, over the heads of 12 other Cabinet ministers, as Leader of the National Party in the Transvaal. The impression was cemented that verkrampte (ultra reactionary) right-wingers were gaining control of the ruling party. When Prime Minister P.W. Botha wanted to introduce limited cosmetic reforms to apartheid Treurnicht and 17 other MPs decided to quit the National Party to form the Conservative Party on March 20, 1982.
Opposition to racial Oppression splitting the Church
Non-violent opposition to racism became increasingly unpopular among Church members of colour. More and more the White-dominated regimes were perceived as oppressors of the peoples of colour that could only be toppled with military means. After the West had refused to help them in the battle against the apartheid regime, the ANC turned to the Soviet Communists. The military situation on the country’s borders spawned White believers of South Africa to form a group called Intercessors for South Africa. This was initiated by Dr Frances Grim, leader of the Hospital Christian Fellowship, which had its national headquarters in the picturesque Capetonian suburb of Pinelands. He was one of very few at the time to discern the growing moral dangers clearly: ‘Most people seem to be too busy making money, enjoying themselves ... to notice the dangerous downward trend in the country’s morals’.
Prayer as a Part of the Process of Change
Prayer was very much part of a process of change. This is demonstrated by times of prayer and fasting in the St George’s Cathedral. Rev. Bernard Wrankmore was convinced that the country was misled by a similar delusion as the Germans under Hitler. He decided to retreat for prayer and fasting to St George’s Cathedral for the situation in the country. However, Wrankmore was refused permission to do so by the Archbishop and the Dean of the Cathedral. He received permission to fast and pray in the islamic shrine between Lion's Head and Signal Hill. Those responsible for St George’s Cathedral evidently repented after the negative response to Rev. Bernard Wrankmore in 1971, allowing other people to pray and fast with political overtones of protest.
Dr Frances Grim initiated a National Day of Prayer, called for 7 January 1976. However, this was not perceived by people of colour as something to join. In fact, few people from those ranks knew about the day of prayer. The all-White organizers had still not recognized the need to draw in people from other racial backgrounds. Yet, this move may have stemmed the tide of Communist-inspired revolution, to which the June 16 upheavals in Soweto in 1976 could easily have led. Dr Grim gave a challenging title to a booklet that was published by his organisation: Pray or Perish. At any rate, God was already at work. On that very June 16 (1976), a young policeman, Johan Botha, was posted in Soweto. Supernaturally God would use him almost 20 years later to bring many in the nation to their knees in prayer.124

Personal Attempts at Reconciliation
My personal understanding of getting involved in a ministry of reconciliation was also aimed at trying to heal rifts where I discerned them and where I deemed it feasible. In correspondence I encouraged Professor Heyns, a prominent Dutch Reformed theologian, to include colleagues of colour like Dr Allan Boesak in the plans of the denomination for overhauling a booklet on race relations in the church.125 Indirectly I also tried to reconcile these two theologians by correspondence. They were respectively leading the influential “Broederbond” and “Broederkring”. (I knew from our student days how excited Allan had been about Dr Heyns, his lecturer in Biblical Studies at the University College of the Western Cape). Next to the attempt to bring together Professor Johan Heyns and Dr Allan Boesak, I also tried to reconcile Bishop Desmond Tutu and Dr Allan Boesak. The latter, along with his Broederkring colleagues, were angry at the likes of Bishop Tutu - who was still prepared to talk to President Botha. My effort to bring Boesak and Heyns together was unsuccessful, but I was happy to hear later that Bishop Desmond Tutu and my former evangelism buddy Allan Boesak were again operating in tandem. Professor Heyns went on to become one of the instruments of change to lead his denomination away from apartheid thinking and attitudes.

(C)overt Support of Violence Opposition to the apartheid government had a subtle variation of covert support of violence. Bishop Desmond Tutu and Dr Allan Boesak were the main proponents of a special variety through formally promoted non-violence. His bold stance earned for Tutu the Nobel Peace Prize of 1984. Emeritus Archbishop Desmond Tutu is surely however rueing that he could be quoted in London's Daily Telegraph for saying in November 1984: 'One young man with a stone in his hand can achieve far more than I can with a dozen sermons”. This was very unfortunate. Yet, this stance was quite risky, because the brutality of the regime was well known. This was problematic however, because retaliation is obviously not in the spirit of Christ who taught us to love our enemy. The year 1984 could be regarded as the start of a new season of significant spiritual upheaval. Many Black Christians supported the call of Dr Allan Boesak at the SACC national conference of 1984 to pray for the ‘abolition of all apartheid structures’ and for ‘the end to unjust rule’. A year later, in the run-up to the anniversary of the 16th of June Soweto tragedy, Christians were summoned to pray via a statement prepared by the Western Province Council of Churches that was called a ‘Theological Rationale’. This was in essence a cautious moderate document with an inclusive character, intended to achieve consensus. It ended with a pledge to work for Lukan liberation (Luke 4:18,19) - an invitation to pray for a new and just order in South Africa. The words ‘that God will replace the present structures of oppression with ones that are just, and remove from power those who persist in defying his laws...’, were however taken out of its context in an alarmist fashion by a Witwatersrand university professor, coupling it with ‘overthrow’ and (violent) ‘revolution’.
Increase of the Yoke of Repression Racial tension escalated towards a major climax. Amidst brutalities and repression which took place nearly every day, a group of pastors and theologians in Soweto came together to reflect on the Christian ministry in such a situation. Through a process of discussion and consultation with an ever widening group of Christians of all races, a document took shape that was issued on 25 September 1985. It became known as the Kairos Document (KD). Some people interpreted this document as a blanket endorsement of violence. On the other hand, the document encouraged many of those Blacks who had already abandoned the Church, writing it off as an irrelevant institution that in their view was supporting, justifying and legitimizing the cruel apartheid system. They began to feel that if the Church became the Body as expounded in the Kairos Document, then they would return to the Church.
Power in Weakness!
Biblically much sounder advice came from UCT's Prof. John de Gruchy. He noted about the impact of the crucifixion of Jesus that the Church is destined ‘to live beneath the cross not in power but in weakness’ (2002:134). It is sad that Black South African Church leaders never confessed their covert support of violence during the apartheid era. It would have been great if the same courage were shown to confess this failure as it had been expressed in opposition to racial oppression.

Unity in Diversity
Tenets which are destructive and unscriptural, which are not conducive to unity, should not be tolerated.
The unity in the diversity should
demonstrate ‘the manifold wisdom of God’
to the spiritual powers in the heavenlies.
Unbiblical sectarian views and practices must be addressed and rectified, but at the same time the unity in the diversity must be stressed. The diversity should demonstrate ‘the manifold wisdom of God’ to the spiritual powers in the heavenlies. It is no optional, but part and parcel of being the Church of Jesus Christ to make the unity of His Body more visible.
The trend of ‘back to basics’ and ‘back to the Bible’ in the mid 1990s looked promising, but seems to have fizzled out since then. A radical honesty - to listen in humility to what the Bible teaches - has often challenged followers of Jesus to go out to spread the Good News. It probably basically boils down to the question of how radical we are prepared to be. Are we prepared to take a critical look at the roots of our denominational divisions in the light of the Word?126Co-operation on the missionary front is slowly coming into its own. The coming together for prayer across denominational boundaries at venues like Rhodes Memorial for decades, the Shepherd's Watch in Shortmarket Street from September 1992 until it was sold, and at Signal Hill since 1998, had the potential to unleash a new power. Prayer can spawn a vision of what God can do and this will build mutual trust and sound relationships. Regular monthly prayer events since 2007 have been occurring at the Civic Centre of Cape Town on Saturday mornings and later also in the Provincial Parliament. They had significant answers as a result in the sphere of community and national transformation.
The Danger of a superficial Type of Unity
But we must be careful not to get excited too soon. A word of warning is appropriate in the light of any euphoria because of superficial net-working. Dr Andrew Murray discerned this when he read the reports of two big international conferences, in New York and Edinburgh respectively. After the first conference in New York he wrote the seminal booklet The Key to the Missionary Problem when he noticed that the importance of prayer was hardly taken into account at the New York conference.
A superficial 'New Age' type of unity would in fact dilute the 'New Testament' message. A theology which endeavours to cut away the sharp edges of the message of the Cross has throughout been looming on the horizon. The arch enemy knows that one of his biggest opponents is the unity of Bible-believing Christians. He will do everything in his power to prevent Christians from co-operating in love and harmony! It must, however, be a unity at heart. There is a significant difference between superficial ecumenism and true unity birthed by the Holy Spirit. Just as the Father and the Son are different persons and yet joined in love, the Body should depict this image - where the various parts can bring in their different functions. Are we aware that due to the lack of visible unity of the Body of Christ – and not mere lip-service to the notion – we are actually obstructing evangelisation? The old apartheid practices were demonic. Real networking and practical support would demonstrate to the world out there that God has sent his Son. Jesus prayed '… that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me' (John 17:21).

Networking with a Sound Base
In all networking with a sound base, the Word and prayer must have preeminence. It was the discovery of the Law that brought the teenage King Josiah (2 Kings 20) to discern how far the nation had strayed from God's ways. The Word is a mirror which leads to reforms for the common good of the nation. Let us pray that our nation may take God's word seriously again. And let us get serious about it in our private lives. It is not good enough to merely carry the Bible faithfully to church meetings and Bible Study but for the rest leave it as a closed book.
In all networking with a sound base,
the Word and prayer must have pre-eminence.
Unity in the Spirit - built around a bond of peace and accepting each other in love (Ephesians 4:2, 3) - gives a good biblical framework. Bible-based net-working has its base in Scripture, otherwise it becomes ‘work of the flesh’. The latter kind of co-operation is doomed to strife, to points scoring and a competitive spirit. Also personally we must be closely linked to God like the branches to the vine. That will bring forth luscious fruit. The big catch of fish in Luke 5 was only made possible after Peter and his fisherman colleagues were prepared to lay aside their rational thinking and experience. When Peter was prepared to act in obedience, at the Word of the Master, the foundation for the networking was laid. The big catch could have been lost, perhaps even with net and all if they had not joined forces! Likewise, I dare to say that the big catch for Jesus will only be brought in if individual churches and fellowships put aside their pride and their own man-made doctrine, which so often has a sectarian basis. The danger of glossing over serious differences came to the fore most starkly in recent years around the ordination of homosexual practising ministers. The 10-yearly Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church of 2008, convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury, got into a deep crisis when various bishops, notably from the 'third world', preferred to refrain from attending. Evading discussion and healthy confrontation is however not a good way to resolve differences over non-peripheral issues.
A Spiritual Earthquake in Pretoria
Since 1978, Gerda Leithgöb, an Afrikaner believer, has been directing spiritual warfare in Pretoria. She and her prayer team offered confession at the Voortrekker Monument. Their prayers and confession surely helped to cause a change in the spiritual complexion of the country’s capital. That made true democracy possible. Their prayer ministry for the city of Pretoria was the prelude to the South African Christian Leadership Assembly (SACLA) event in the national capital the following year. This conference was the equivalent of a spiritual earthquake. Professor David Bosch, a giant rebel against apartheid, was its leader. SACLA influenced the whole country deeply in a positive way and the conference was evidently part of God’s plan to transform the apartheid stronghold and capital of South Africa. Pastor Ed Roebert initiated a gathering of like-minded pastors with the purpose of fellowship and mutual encouragement. Soon he met regularly with other pastors including Reinhardt Bonnke and Ray McCauley. In due course many new charismatic churches were established and men with unusually anointed ministries appeared on the scene.

Praise into the Mix
Praise is used in the ‘OT’ a few times in the attacks on God’s enemies. Probably the most well-known of them is Joshua and the seven trumpets. The Israelite congregation marched around Jericho silently on the seventh day, culminating in the united shout after the seventh time. (We note the repetition of the number seven, the biblical number for completion and perfection). Sometimes fasting, prostrating worship and praise occur in close proximity in Scripture (e.g. Joshua 6, Nehemiah 9:1+4; 2 Chronicles 20:3ff).
A valuable rediscovery in 'Spiritual Warfare' was praise. Paul Billheimer noted in 1975 in his booklet Destined for the Throne how praise caused an international spiritual turn around once again via the Pentecostal movement. This was especially brought about by Merlin Carothers, who stressed the power becoming available through praise! In his book Power in Praise he teaches how miracles are wrought by the simple application of biblical truth, viz. by accepting in faith that all things work together for good in divine wisdom for those called according to God's purposes. Carothers' teaching included how the spiritual dynamic of praise can revolutionize lives!

Mercia and Vincent Pregnalato led a dynamic local fellowship in Greenhaven, a Cape Flats suburb in 1981. This couple and their fellowship held the fort of Christianity in an area that was becoming Islamic at an alarming pace in the late 1980s. They also ushered in spiritual dancing, using visible artifacts like flags and processions as part of worship. This spread in due course to audiences throughout the country. A weak link was th elack of unity of the body locally. Two other churches nearby had prominent pastors, viz Pastor Barry Isaacs of the Evangelical Bible Church and the Methodist Rev. Cecil Begby, who was involved with the Haggai Institute. Networking was non-existent while the area became increasingly Islamic as the Muslims bought up one property after the other.

A Forerunner of the ‘Boiler Room’ Concept
Paul Billheimer made some profound statements about the role of the prayerful church that might have influenced world history deeply, had his book Destined for the Throne been taken seriously. He suggested for example that the church wields the balance of power ‘in overcoming disintegration and decay in the cosmic order’. (This has become especially relevant at the beginning of the new millennium, with increasing moral decay and an almost universal increase of (organized) crime and violence.) In the above booklet Billheimer does not only refer to the Moravians and their 24 hour prayer chain, but he also included notes from Dick Eastman. These were added as an appendix in Destined for the Throne. There one can also read about the start of ‘The Gap’, based on Ezekiel 22:30 (I sought for a man to stand in the gap for me for the land). In this venture young people committed their lives to the Lord for a year during which they would intercede for two hours a day in an ‘upper’ room. This was indeed a harbinger of the ‘boiler room’ concept at the turn of the 21st century.127

Bibles and Prayer in a Coalition
In 1984 Open Doors invited Christians around the globe to pray for seven years for the Soviet Union and the collapse of its atheist ideology. The founder of Open Doors, Anne van der Bijl, generally known as Brother Andrew, was a member of the official Dutch delegation at a conference on human rights in the 1980s. At this event in the conference centre De Burcht in the Dutch village of Heemstede, Brother Andrew offered to donate one million Bibles to the Russian Orthodox Church on behalf of Open Doors at their millennial celebration. Along with the seven years of prayer for the Soviet Union, the dismantling of the ‘iron curtain’ can be attributed to the acceptance of the gift. A parallel move was the covert operation to smuggle one million Bibles into China in this era.
Things changed dramatically when the results of the seven years of prayer became known, including millions of new followers of Jesus in China. New opportunities for the spreading of the Gospel were there to be utilized. The demise of Communism received its major impetus from the crashing of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989. This had been preceded by mass prayer rallies at different churches, for instance in the East German cities of Leipzig and Dresden. By this time there were already millions of new believers in China, the result of the secret smuggling operation of a million Bibles. There is nevertheless no cause for triumphalism - this never behooves a believer any way.
Also in 1989, Edgardo Silvoso and Tom White presented papers at the Spiritual Warfare Track workshop of the Lausanne II Congress in Manila. White’s paper on spiritual warfare there set the evangelical world on course for the biggest missionary decade of the 20th century. The outcome was the founding of a Spiritual Warfare Communication and Referral Network. Since then Peter Wagner and others have developed this further. A spate of books followed on the topic. In the 1990s, Ed Silvoso would influence many countries with his teaching and example of bringing churches together in unity and practising restitution as part of genuine repentance. His additional emphasis on market place outreach resulted in the city of Resistencia (Population 400,000) in Argentina becoming the first city to be reached for Christ. From a mere 5,143 believers in 1988, it grew within a matter of a few years to over 100,000 in the entire city. (Ed Silvoso, Transformation, 2007:162)

Communism exposed as a spent Force
With the increased awareness of spiritual warfare in Christian circles, the power of occult strongholds was also recognized more and more. Things started to change dramatically on a worldwide scale after the results of such prayer became known. The effects of seven years of persevering prayer for the Soviet Union were already quite apparent towards the end of 1989. A lot of spadework had been done through the use of Patrick Johnstone’s seminal work Operation World.128 For the first time in the modern era thousands of prayer warriors were mobilized globally.
Communism was exposed as a spent force.
Worldwide prayer brought it down.
It is probably due to the faithful prayers of many over the years that South Africa did not fall into the communist camp. By the time Nelson Mandela was freed in February 1990, Communism had been exposed as a spent force. Worldwide prayer brought it down. The demise of the atheist ideology was ushered in by mass prayer rallies at different East German churches, but especially also prepared by the faithful prayers of believers around the world.

Spiritual Warfare spirals
Only in the last two decades has it been duly recognised - but still not generally as yet - that occult forces are at work, which hamper the spread of the Gospel. ‘Spiritual warfare’ as such had been either completely neglected or had become fairly unknown up to about 1990. Of course, the example of Hur and Aaron in the Bible might have been noted. Their holding Moses’ arms aloft had often been taught as a model for intercessory prayer. Occasionally, lessons were taken from the battle of Gideon against the Midianites or Joshua taking Jericho so dramatically. But it was hardly emphasized that the ‘sword of Gideon’, which brought such awe in the camp of the Midianites in the end, turned out to be a torch. In biblical context the Word is the (two-edged) sword (Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12). Furthermore, Psalm 119:105 describes the Word as a light and a lamp, the equivalent of a torch.
At the GCOWE conference in Pretoria in July 1997 a significant development and correction took place when churches and mission agencies discerned that they had been working in competition with each other. But there followed hardly any implementation of the discovery in terms of action. In fact, there has been a dramatic decrease of Bible School students and full time Christian workers since then. This will possibly only be reversed in South Africa by a complete spiritual renewal and networking of the poor and more affluent churches, to tap into the dormant goldmine of a vast potential of missionary recruits from Black communities and refugees who could return to their countries of origin with expertise that they have acquired in South Africa and as emissaries of the Gospel.129
Chapter 11 South Africa as a Case in Point

In this section I want to look at possible practical steps that can be done to get out of the present impasse of a narrow parochial mind-set of local churches in general. Simultaneously we applaud thankfully what has been done here at the Cape in recent decades as combined Christian endeavours. I am nevertheless ware that ultimately only God in his sovereign will would ultimately let such seed of unity and revival germinate and grow.
Cape Town is special. Only very few cities in the world are not only so cosmopolitan, but few of them have a significant representation of the world's major religions. The Cape sadly however also hosts theological institutions that have been exporting unbiblical views such as a complete and overdrawn identification with the nation of Israel.130 And it is still believed by many that the Church replaced Israel and that miracles belong to the times of the apostles. I pray that we may soon express corporate regret and remorseful confession because of this.
We have noted in Chapter 3 that uncharitable doctrinal bickering in the Church resulted in confusion, which is also reflected in the Qur’an. This was clearly used by the arch enemy to mislead Muhammad, the gifted leader of the Arabian Peninsula and founder of Islam. Through him millions have been led astray up to this day - millions who now hail Muhammad as their prime prophet.131The call ‘back to basics’ which resounded throughout South Africa during the early 1990s, is still valid. Perhaps we should say ‘Back to the unadulterated Word of God’. With a good representation of all three Abrahamic religions, Cape Town is in a special position to lead the way in different ways, perhaps also through united confession and prayer.

A Gale Catapults an Evangelist into Prominence
The destruction by a gale of a gigantic tent in the mid-1980s in which the German-born evangelist Reinhardt Bonnke was to hold an evangelistic campaign in the Cape township Valhalla Park, created much interest for the event. The organisers were forced to conduct the campaign in the open. Thousands attended who would never have fitted into the gigantic tent. In stead of the planned 15 nights, four extra nightly services were added amid clear skies in mid-June, which is known to be part of the Cape rainy season. An interesting sequel of the Valhalla Park campaign was that Reinhardt Bonnke became a household name throughout the African continent and beyond.

Networking of Cape Township Churches
The networking of township churches in the run-up to this campaign was unprecedented, with a corresponding response at the altar calls. Many Muslims gave an indication that they wanted to become followers of Jesus. However, tardy follow-up by the churches prevented a massive spiritual turn-around at the Cape. A brutal apartheid clampdown at the time drove many nominal Christians to Islam. To become a Muslim was regarded as part of the struggle against apartheid. Marriage swelled the numbers of Cape Muslims when the Christian partner converted to Islam. (The bulk of them remained Muslims also after divorce, due to all sorts of pressure exerted by the family.) The indifference of Christians combined with the apartheid oppression to see Cape Islam grow in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Bliss Brings Blessings
Under the auspices of Africa Enterprise (AE) David Bliss came to South Africa in 1967 from the USA as a student. The relatively young missions and evangelistic agency AE started by Michael Cassidy in 1962 had a profound effect on Dave Bliss. He decided to postpone his return to Princeton University for a year. After his marriage to Deborah (Debby) in 1972, the couple came to South Africa in 1979 as AE workers on the Witwatersrand University campus in Johannesburg. That year the South African Christian Leadership Assembly (SACLA) took place in Pretoria, an event that changed their lives. The Holy Spirit confronted them with the issue of unreached people groups and the possibility of seeing South Africans sent out as missionaries.
The next year Dave and Debby Bliss participated in the students’ conference in Edinburgh, which ran parallel to the 70th anniversary celebrations of the founding of the World Council of Churches. The 1980 event brought the use of non-Westerners as missionaries into focus. For Dave and Debby Bliss this was a natural follow-up to SACLA in Pretoria the previous year.

A Wave of Prayer Starts at UWC
Dr Charles Robertson, a lecturer at the University of the Western Cape (UWC) from 1971-76, became part of a Cape prayer emphasis in 1983. After his father’s death in 1979, Robertson was thrust into a quagmire of spiritual turmoil. The business he had started was failing. The combination of these experiences brought him to his knees. Hereafter he broke through into a living faith in Jesus as his Lord.
Dr Robertson was approached to help fund the hiring of a bus to take participants to a prayer service at the historical Sendingsgestig Museum in the Mother City’s Long Street, which coincided with a Frontiers Missions Conference at UWC. (The venue was the former DRC Gestig church building of the 'Coloured ‘Sendingkerk’, that had been ‘saved’ by Dr Frank R. Barlow, a Jewish academic with a keen sense of history. The congregation had to move because of the Group Areas Act, and thereafter the former church was turned into a museum). An interesting ‘resurrection’ transpired when the Gestig congregation was revived in Belhar. There the synod hall of the Sendingkerk was ultimately built. The somewhat controversial but influential Belhar Confession was passed there in 1986.

A National Prayer Awakening Erupts
The Sendingsgestig Museum itself would become the venue for Concerts of Prayer. That event would reverbarate throughout the country, ushering in the prayer movement. In 1983 a prayer awakening started in a few congregations all around South Africa. One of these was a small group of intercessors led by Gerda Leithgöb in Pretoria that had already set them on a path previously unexplored in this country. Simultaneously, Bennie Mostert, a Dutch Reformed Church minister, started a newsletter to mobilize prayer in Namibia. Mostert dubbed his newsletter Prayer Action Elijah.
In 1987 the Lord led the group in Pretoria to do more intense research into spiritual matters. In that same year, a similar initiative started spontaneously all over the world. The Lord also called pastors in South Africa to start writing on prayer. Books appeared concerning this issue.

The World gets 'smaller'
Gerda Leithgöb requested prayer warriors from other countries at a conference in Singapore in 1988 to pray for South Africa, which had been in constant crisis since 1985. Ds. Bennie Mostert founded a national prayer network known as NUPSA (Network for United Prayer in Southern Africa), which became closely linked to the spiritual transformation of the continent. In 1993 the first teams started praying also on site, using information gained from serious research. During 1993 South Africa also participated in the Pray through the Window132 initiative, that was launched internationally by the AD 2000 Prayer Track.
Intercession was also done for our country in different countries in the run-up to our first democratic elections in April 1994. The result was very encouraging - miraculous peaceful elections – when mayhem and civil war was anticipated.133

Cape Prayer Endeavours of the Early 1990s
In the late 1980s the Concerts of Prayer - inspired by David Bryant - drew good crowds to the Sendingsgestig Museum, a fitting commemoration of the inter-denominational work that started there in 1799. On one occasion, Dr Charles Robertson was asked to chair a Concert of Prayer meeting as an Afrikaner. That was not to be the last time for him to do this. He led the Concerts of Prayer hereafter not only at the monthly meetings at that venue, but also later when the event relocated to the Presbyterian Church in Mowbray. (These Concerts of Prayer were held there for many years.) It was very fitting that Charles Robertson and his wife Rita would donate the property where the first NUPSA School of Prayer was to be erected in AD 2000 where 24/7 prayer is practised.
Prayer was the biggest factor in the start of new ministries at the Cape in the 1990s, undergirding the events that led to the birth of the new South Africa.

Initiatives towards Racial Reconciliation
It was surely special in the spiritual realm when the Vredehoek Pentecostal Protestant Church initiated 24 hour prayer in a few offices of Boston House in the city. To have Christians from different churches and different racial backgrounds coming together for prayer in the New Life Centre, as it was called, ushered in change like few other moves at that time.
Another mighty move of God in the mid-1980s was the National Initiative for Reconciliation. In a sense this was a spin-off of SACLA (1979), but even more it was a result of the political tension of 1985 - when the country seemed to be speeding towards the precipice of civil war.
God used Michael Cassidy and his Africa Enterprise at this time in a special way to heal wounds of racial polarization in the run-up to the National Initiative for Reconciliation, which was convened in September 1985. Cassidy wrote about this preparation: ‘I felt while travelling around South Africa that I was seeing a new thing – the birth of an embryonic national humility…’ (Cassidy, 1989:295).

A call for a National Day of Prayer
The most significant outcome of the National Initiative for Reconciliation was the call for a National Day of Prayer and submission, set for Wednesday 9 October, 1985. How politicized the country had become was obvious when it was deemed necessary to debate the prayer day on television. But God intervened, in answer to intercession. As Michael Cassidy recalled: ‘I knew many were praying for me. An African leader told me he fell on his knees by his TV set the moment he saw me come on… A whole bunch of (TV) technicians were up there: We were all praying for you, Mike…’ (Cassidy, 1989:301).
How different this National Day of Prayer was to the one in 1976 when only a slice of the population – some Whites - participated. This time – 1985 - Christians from different denominations and races came together for prayer services all around the country. In Cape Town over thirteen hundred people crammed into the St George’s Cathedral for a lunch-hour prayer service. According to the report of a participant: ‘In Cape Town we broke out of our islands as never before’ (Cassidy, 1989:302). Significantly, concerned Christians all over the world across denominational barriers joined in prayer for South Africa that day. Thus the Pope, speaking to seven thousand Catholics in St Peter’s Square in Rome, called Catholics everywhere to pray that ‘South Africa should soon find peace founded on justice and reciprocal love through a sincere search for a just solution to the problems that torment that dear country’ (Cited in Cassidy, 1989:303f). The well known evangelist Luis Palau relayed the prayer call on that day to hundreds of radio stations across Latin America.

Waves of Astonishment
The elation did not last very long however. Yet, the contacts which Africa Enterprise made to Christians in other parts of the continent proved invaluable for reconciliation in the strife-torn beloved country. Waves of astonishment went through the country when Dr Frederik van Zyl Slabbert, the leader of the Progressive Federal Party (PFP) opposition and former Stellenbosch professor, announced his resignation from party politics in 1986 to start IDASA (Institute for Democracy in South Africa). History proved him right. Subsequently he took a group of advance guard Afrikaners to meet ANC leaders in exile in Dakar (Senegal) in 1987.

A New Age Onslaught
The mid-1980s coincided with the office of Gordon Oliver as Mayor of Cape Town. He proved to be a forceful agent of the New Age movement, fighting for the erection of a Peace Pole apiece on Table Mountain and at Rhodes Memorial. With its syncretist-universalist elements (the mixture of different religions whereby people can get saved in any way), the claims of Jesus to be the unique Saviour of the World (John 4:42) were clearly challenged. The position of Jesus as Saviour was compromised in various other quarters, e.g. in the growing inter-faith movement.
1989 was a year of spiritual clashes. What was interesting in the response to the New Age onslaught was that an Afrikaans clergyman, Dominee E. J. Sevenster, linked up with the Pentecostal Pastor Paul Daniel of the Lighthouse Christian Centre. It was also significant for the unity of the body of Christ that a ‘Coloured’ Christian from Mitchell’s Plain, Mr Norman Scheffers, had prayed at a gathering of 1000 Christians at the St George’s Mall, ‘that this pole be removed and that the name of Jesus Christ will triumph.’

New Age and Satanism given a mighty Blow
The efforts of the mayor of Cape Town to push the New Age ideology through by using his high office, backfired. It spawned some sort of prayer networking in the Cape Peninsula. Stiff resistance was given by Christians, with Jamie Campbell and Brian Johnson the prominent personalities. The involvement of former apartheid-related imprisonment by evangelicals like Pastor Richard Mitchell widened the scope of the united prayer. Both New Age and Satanism were inflicted major defeats. Evangelicals took the presence of Gordon Oliver and the inter-faith involvement on board as they joined a massive march on 13 September 1989 through the city. God answered the prayers that the police would not interfere with brutality as in previous years. For some of the participants this was also a prayer march for an end to the apartheid oppression. Looking back, we can say now that this event, along with the prayer day of 9 October 1985, possibly ushered in the new democracy more than anything else before that.
The overt involvement of clergymen in political matters had interesting ramifications. Indoctrination of centuries still had a profound effect. Devout Christians thought that they should not get involved in politics even remotely. This confused some believers, because apartheid ideologists were abusing the Bible to that end. More and more Afrikaners, however, saw the need of confession. Gerda Leithgöb and her fellow prayer warriors had been leading the way in Pretoria since 1978 at the Voortrekker monument of all places.
Be it as it may, the 1984 call for world-wide prayer against the Soviet Communist oppression and persecution of Christians set the tone for 'spiritual warfare' on a global scale. The harsh and brutal suppression and killing of innocent children turned the tables in South Africa. Some prayer groups started in different places, notably in the City.

Personal Precedents134
While I was still a teenager, I thought that it would be wonderful if Christians could display unity in Christ concretely and overtly.
The major change in my own life happened at Christmas 1964 when I was spiritually empty, just before participation in a beach evangelistic effort in Harmony Park near Somerset West in the Cape. A few of participating young people went on to play a significant role in the throwing off of the shackles of racial oppression in South Africa in later years. Among those Allan Boesak and Franklin Sonn were the most prominent.
To me the prayer unity in Christ and the lessons in spiritual warfare I had learned at Harmony Park in 1964, formed the paradigm for new action. I hoped that united prayer and evangelization by believers across man-made ecclesiastical and doctrinal boundaries would make some impact when I joined the Wayside Sunday School movement and when I wanted to join White folk linked to Youth for Christ for early morning prayer. In later years I also endeavoured to apply the lessons learned in attacks on the walls of Communism and Islam. Harmony Park was also my model as I tried to get Cape Church leaders working together on behalf of the harassed Black women of Crossroads and KTC in the first half of 1981, working closely with Rommel and Celeste Roberts-Santos, a Roman Catholic couple with whom we shared a house for 3 months. Rev. Douglas Bax, our friend from my seminary days in District Six, was our connection to other ministers connected to the Western Province Council of Churches.
In the Dutch town of Zeist, where I spent the bulk of my enforced exile of close to 20 years, we started a local evangelistic agency in October 1982, the Goed Nieuws Karavaan. In this endeavour we succeeded to enlist believers from different denominational backgrounds, including students from different Bible Schools of the region. The networking among doctrinally quite diverse backgrounds demonstrated to all and sundry that it was possible to work together on a sound biblical basis – even over a period of almost ten years - if our unity in the Lord would be stressed and doctrinal differences not allowed to cause disruption.
The Regiogebed (Regional Prayer) for Driebergen-Zeist started in August 1988 as the first one of Holland. Other Goed Nieuws Karavaan co-workers were prominent in this move of networking across denominational barriers.

International Prayer Involvement
In the Regiogebed we had the special joy to become a part of God's mighty work to achieve spiritual breakthroughs elsewhere. We prayed concertedly not only for local evangelistic outreach and missionaries that left our region, but also for certain countries. Very special was the spiritual victories we could enjoy via big changes, first in Hungary and then in East Germany. This was part of seven years of prayer against Soviet oppression. The big prize was the demolition of the Berlin Wall on 9 November, 1989. that signalled the beginning of the end of Soviet Communist domination of Eastern Europe and of Communism at large as a global ideological force.
The Regiogebed of October 4, 1989 was unforgettable when the whole prayer meeting focused on my beloved South Africa. The event targeted strife-torn South Africa, when one of the attendees heard of my personal letter of confession because of my arrogance and activism, that was posted that day to President F.W. de Klerk, i.e. shortly after he had taken office. Unbeknown to us, the new State President F.W. De Klerk was to meet Archbishop Tutu and Dr Allan Boesak a few days later. In the spiritual realm our prayer event and my letter to the new South African President may have played some role – along with other prayer events at that time - in preparing the big changes in the country the following year.

Tackling the Wall of Islam
The run-up to the Gulf War (in 1991) spawned the call of the mission agency Open Doors for ten years of prayer for the Muslim World in 1990. With the increased awareness of spiritual warfare in Christian circles, the power of occult strongholds was recognised more and more.

However, the lie and deception of Islam still have to be clearly exposed. Yet, the Holy Spirit had been revealing to different people the demonic nature of the Islamic Jibril, the figure that Muslims deem to be identical to the Angel Gabriel of the Bible. During early morning prayers - as part of a missionary stint with students from the Cape Town Baptist Seminary in March 1994 - this was revealed to Rosemarie, my wife, as she was reading the first verses of Galatians 1. We discerned anew that a supernatural figure has brought a distorted message, masquerading as an angel of light. (Subsequently I made an in-depth study of Jibril, including a comparison with the biblical Angel Gabriel. This can be accessed on our blog.)

Rustenburg 1990 and its Impact
The Rustenburg meeting of church leaders in November 1990, where delegates from 97 denominations had gathered, sent signals of reconciliation throughout the land that augured well for the future. There, Professor Willie Jonker135 of the University of Stellenbosch started the tide of confession rolling: 'I confess before you and before the Lord, not only my own sin and guilt, and my personal responsibility for the political, social, economic and structural wrongs that have been done to many of you and the results [from] which you and our whole country are still suffering, but vicariously I dare also to do that in the name of the NGK,136 of which I am a member, and for the Afrikaans people as a whole.' Archbishop Desmond Tutu accepted the confession in a spirit of forgiveness. It was also very significant that Professor Potgieter of the University of Stellenbosch, well known to be an arch conservative theologian, stressed the next day that Professor Jonker had spoken on behalf of the whole denomination.
The Rustenburg Declaration, the document issued after the event, contained specific and concrete confession like the abuse of the Bible by some Church people. It noted also that many of the delegates had been ‘bold in condemning apartheid but timid in resisting it’. The confessions were not one-sided at all. Apartheid victims acknowledged for example their ‘timidity and fear, failing to challenge our oppression.’ The conference finally resulted in the signing of the Rustenburg Declaration, which moved strongly towards complete confession, forgiveness, and restitution.
The government of the day and Afrikaners in general nevertheless slammed the Rustenburg confessions, claiming that the theologians at Rustenburg were not representing the bulk of the church members. Were they forgetting that it had been President F.W. de Klerk himself who had originally suggested such a national Church conference, or were they too surprised at the outcome? Be it as it may, a deep impact was definitely made in the spiritual realm.
Two years later the Dutch Reformed Church's response to the observations and resolutions of the Reformed Ecumenical Council (REC) in Athens (May-June 1992) demonstrated that the DRC was indeed clear in its rejection of apartheid. It helped them to take back from Athens the message to their Afrikaner compatriots that rejection of apartheid does not mean to turn your back on the Afrikaans language and the Afrikaner heritage and culture. The obvious repentance and change in the denomination was achieved at a great price. It is generally accepted that a right wing extremist, who could not come to terms with Professor Johan Heyns’ role in the dramatic turn-around of the denomination, was responsible for his assassination in November 1994. This highlights the fact that reconciliation is not cheap at all.
Prayer used in Evangelism
After we returned to Cape Town in January 1992, I soon got involved in local attempts of spiritual warfare. When Rosemarie and I discerned a dark presence over Bo-Kaap during prayer walks in February 1992, we immediately saw the need to rope in assistance from other believers. Regular prayer meetings focused on the prime Muslim stronghold of the Cape. The weekly Friday lunch hour prayer meeting that was started in September 1992 became the catalyst for many initiatives. The meeting itself was initially mooted by Achmed Kariem, a convert from Islam who had attended the fortnightly prayer meeting in the home of Cecilia Abrahams, the widow of a Muslim background believer from Wale Street in Bo-Kaap. (Her husband had been in a back-slidden state, but he returned to faith in the Lord just prior to his death.) This event was actually a resumption of the prayer meetings, which had been conducted by a SIM Life Challenge missionary, before he and his family left for Kenya.
The venue of the weekly prayer meeting at the ‘Shepherd’s Watch’ (98 Shortmarket Street) had to be changed to the Koffiekamer in the basement of the historical St Stephen’s Church in Bree Street when the ‘Shepherd’s Watch’ building was sold. The Bo-Kaap prayer meeting in Wale Street was later changed to a monthly occasion, where intercession for the Middle East was the focus. This monthly meeting - at our home, first in Tamboerskloof and later in Vredehoek - also included prayer for the Jews, those in Israel as well as those in Cape Town. Regular monthly prayer walks from 1998 were attended by individual believers from as far afield as Melkbosstrand and Eendekuil. Occasionally I attended Beth Ariel, a fellowship that had been started for Messianic Jewish believers, especially in the years prior to 1999 when Bruce Rudnick led the fellowship. (Bruce Rudnick changed his name to Baruch Maayan during their stay in Israel thereafter)
Sports Uniting the Nation
Church unity in South Africa is closely linked to nation building in the light of our punctured past of racial friction. In the sports-loving country God used international events to forge unity in an unprecedented way. When President F.W. de Klerk announced a Whites-only election on 20 February 1992, it was still unclear in which direction the country would go. The possibility of unprecedented civil war could definitely not be ruled out. The Whites were asked to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the question: ‘Do you support continuation of the reform process which the State President began on February 2, 1990 and which is aimed at a new constitution?’ The success of the national cricket team at the World Cup tournament in Australia at that time possibly influenced the vote decisively. A ‘no’ vote would most certainly have sent the country back into the sporting wilderness. The latter possibility was for many in the sports loving country just 'too ghastly to contemplate'! (This formulation was a dictum coined by Mr B.J. Vorster, a previous Prime Minister, to portray the civil war option.) With a resounding ‘yes’ - 68% - from all corners of the country, Mr de Klerk was given a mandate on 17 March, 1992, to negotiate a new constitution with African National Congress (ANC) leader Nelson Mandela.
The Goodwill of promising Beginnings evaporate
Much of the goodwill of the promising beginnings seemed to evaporate after 1992 during the transition to democratic government. In Kwazulu, a simmering condition of civil war had been prevailing for years. The tension between ANC followers and those of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) was just waiting for the final ignition of the proverbial powder keg. The apparent - if perhaps not intentional - simultaneous side-lining of Dr Mangusuthu Buthelezi and his IFP in the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (Codesa) talks, spelled danger. At the infamous Boipatong massacre on 17 June 1992 in the Vaal triangle, 46 township residents were massacred by local Zulu hostel-dwellers. The perpetrators were taken to have been Inkatha followers of Dr Buthelezi, highlighting how volatile the situation still was. A major Zulu versusXhosa tribal battle was feared.
Over the Easter weekend of 1993, the country seemed to have been pushed to the precipice of major racial conflict. On 10 April, 1993, the news reverberated throughout the country that the outspoken Communist Chris Hani, who had been groomed for a top position in a possible ANC-led government, had been assassinated. The fact that a White woman provided information leading to the prompt arrest of the alleged perpetrators, two right-wing activists, helped to lower the political temperature momentarily, but the situation remained extremely tense.
But satan overplayed his hand. The St James Church massacre of July 1993 turned out to be the instrument par excellence to spur prayer and ignite the movement towards racial reconciliation in the country. Those family members who lost dear ones received divine grace to forgive the brutal killers. The killing of innocent people during a church service sparked off an unprecedented urgency for prayer all around the country.

Lapses into traditional racial and denominational Divisions
The concrete fear of civil war before the first democratic elections in 1994 was a common goal that spawned prayer meetings which straddled the racial divide. Although much of the prejudicial mutual distrust was overcome, Christians thereafter however more or less lapsed back into traditional racial and denominational divisions. Though for example many prayer meetings were convened in South Africa for the gateway cities since October 1995, they were all too often either confined to prayer within the own church or limited to prayer within the own racial grouping. Therefore Grigg’s recipe is very appropriate: ‘If there is not significant unity, the first step is to bring together the believers in prayer or in renewal and teaching until there is reconciliation and brokenness.’

Blessings of United Prayer at the Cape
The stimulus for Operation Hanover Park was given by a police officer, who approached the churches of the township in a last-ditch effort to secure peace in Hanover Park in mid-1992. The law enforcement agents could not handle the criminality and gangster violence in the area any more. The local City Mission Saturday afternoon prayer meeting, which had become a monthly missionary event, was soon the precursor to a united prayer occasion as a part of Operation Hanover Park towards the end of 1992. Operation Hanover Park involved believers of diverse church backgrounds who prayed together on a regular basis.
It looked as if the Hanover Park churches were finally getting out of their indifference with regard to community involvement. At the same time, this would also give a good example to the rest of the country to combat criminality and violence – through united prayer! Operation Hanover Park was on the verge of achieving an early version of community transformation at the beginning of 1993 when a leadership tussle stifled the promising movement. A miracle happened nevertheless: the crime-ridden Hanover Park had experienced its ‘most quiet Christmas ever’, according to a senior resident!

Strategic Contacts and Jesus Marches
The Western Cape Missions Commission, to which our WEC colleague Shirley Charlton took me soon after our arrival at the Cape in January 1992, proved very valuable in terms of contacts. Here I met strategic people from the Cape mission scene. One of the events organised in 1993 by the Western Cape Missions Commission was a workshop with John Robb of World Vision. I used the list of participants at this event to organize the Cape Jesus Marches the following year. In this way I updated my contacts for further mission endeavour in the Western Cape.
Jesus Marches were planned for June 1994 all over the world. In a letter from a friend from Sheffield (England), he wrote about their preparations for a Jesus March in their city. Inquiries on this side of the ocean brought the co-ordination of the whole effort in Cape Town into my lap. I had high expectations when I co-ordinated about 20 prayer marches in different parts of the Cape Peninsula, making strategic contacts at this time.
I had been hoping that this venture would result in a network of prayer for a breakthrough among Cape Muslims across the Peninsula. However, the initial interest that our second attempt with an updated audio-visual had ignited in various areas, soon fizzled out. I deduced that it was not yet God’s timing and that we should do a lot more to stimulate the unity of the body of believers. For the first time I shared now publicly what I had researched about the influence of the Kramats, the shrines on the heights of the Cape Peninsula.
A strategic contact of this initiative was Trefor Morris, who was closely linked to Radio Fish Hoek, a pioneering Christian Cape radio station. Trefor had been a regular of our Friday lunch time prayer meeting, while he was assisting with the work done on the OM missionary ship the Doulos in the City dockyard. Another important contact of this initiative was Freddie van Dyk, a link to the Logos Baptiste Gemeente in Brackenfell. Freddie's attendance at our Friday lunch hour prayer meeting led to strategic hospital outreach.
Another concrete positive was the start of a movement towards Christ in many Muslim countries. In 1992 mission leaders had decided to call the Christians worldwide to pray for the Muslim world during Ramadan. This was a natural follow-up of the call of Open Doors for 10 years of prayer for the Muslim world in 1990. Everybody was still vividly remembering the spectacular result of the 7 years of prayer for the Soviet Union. The contacts that I gained during the Jesus Marches were used extensively to disseminate Ramadan Prayer booklets for quite a number of years.

Ministers’ Fraternal of Mitchells Plain
In the early 1990s various Mitchells Plain pastors met for prayer every Friday morning. The ministers’ fraternal of Mitchells Plain succeeded in bringing well-known evangelists like Reinhard Bonnke to the area. That gave them a lot of credibility among the churches there. After an approach to the ministers’ fraternal in 1994 to join in the Jesus Marches, they were immediately eager to do so, organising a separate march in no time.
During prayer drives believers would
target strongholds of the arch-enemy
The Mitchells Plain ministers’ fraternal was also the driving force of the pastors’ and pastors’ wives prayer meetings which took place every second Thursday of the month from the mid-1990s. This prayer meeting soon included other church leaders from all over the Peninsula. Pastor Eddie Edson of the Shekinah Tabernacle was pivotal in the formation and organisation of prayer drives where believers would target strongholds of the arch-enemy, going to pray there every last Friday evening of the month.

Spin-offs of the Jesus Marches
As the Jesus Marches approached, the vision grew in me to start a prayer network throughout the Cape Peninsula to effect a spiritual breakthrough among the Cape Muslims. I was very much aware that concerted prayer was needed. We were able to start a few prayer groups, but the majority petered out. In the mid 1990’s, Sally Kirkwood led a small prayer group for the Cape Muslims at her home in Plumstead. Later she played a prominent role among Cape intercessors, notably in the PAGAD (People against Gangsterism and Drugs) era. Another group was formed by Gill Knaggs in Muizenberg after she had attended our Friday lunch hour prayer meeting. Soon God used Gill to get the YWAM base in Muizenberg more interested in reaching Muslims. Concretely, an Egyptian connection was established, with YWAM starting to network with the Coptic Church via links through Mike Burnard of Open Doors. My wife and I were asked to teach at a YWAM Discipleship Training School (DTS) in Muizenberg in 1996. This culminated in a close friendship with Mark Gabriel, a former shaykh from Egypt who had to flee his home country when he became a follower of Jesus. (He had changed his name from an Islamic one.)

A Gift to the World
Whether the release of Nelson Mandela was mere political acumen or pragmatic realism of President F.W. de Klerk might be debatable. Without doubt however, it was an answer to prayer of millions that Mandela led the ANC at that time. He was very sensitive to the need of wooing the right-wing Afrikaner Volksfront party to participate in the first democratic elections of 27 April 1994. A divinely orchestrated intervention brought the Zulus and their recalcitrant side-lined leader Dr Mangosuthu Buthulezi to the ballot box. After he took office in 1994, Mandela attempted to tackle the country's largest problems - crime and unemployment, among many others - in a state that was almost bankrupt. When Mandela attended a game of the Springboks, the country's Rugby Union team at that time, he noticed that the Blacks in the stadium were cheering against their home squad. The Springboks (their history, players, and even their colours) represented prejudice and apartheid in their minds - the oppressor's sport. Knowing that South Africa was set to host the Rugby World Cup the following year, Mandela took a big political risk by convincing a meeting of the newly- formed black-dominated South African Sports Committee not to change the Springboks' name and emblem. Mandela understood the message below the surface: if the Springboks can gain the support of non-White South Africans and succeed in the upcoming Rugby World Cup, the country could be unified and inspired to exceed its expectations. Mandela also dared to swim against the stream, harvesting disapproval from friends and family. Many more, both White and Black citizens and politicians, began to express doubts on using sports to unite a nation torn apart by some 50 years of racial tensions. For many non-Whites, especially the radicals, the Springboks symbolised White supremacy and decades of oppression.
However, both Mandela and Francois Pienaar, the Springbok captain, stood firmly behind their theory that the game can be used to successfully unite the country. The Springboks were not expected to go very far in the competition; they were expected to lose in the quarter finals. During the opening games, support for the Springboks began to grow among the non-White population. By the second game the previously injured Chester Williams, the only Black player in the team, was fit once again. Citizens of all races turned out in numbers to show their support for the Springboks.

A Rugby Game that united the Country
With the whole nation behind them, the Springboks proceeded to the final. In a nail-biting match they actually won the World Cup, after beating the highly fancied world beating All Blacks from New Zealand - considered an invincible team before the tournament. Nelson Mandela's attendance caused a stir of appreciation in the huge and overwhelmingly Afrikaner crowd. In an intensely emotional moment of joy Mandela sported a Springbok cap and a jersey with the captain Francois Pienaar's number 6 when he handed the trophy to him. NELSON! NELSON! was chanted repeatedly by the home crowd during Mandela's entrance, a contrast to a previous rugby match scene of the Springboks, in which he was booed by some in the crowd. Through various other symbolic gestures Nelson Mandela succeeded hereafter to win over the hearts of Afrikaners.
With him frail and not expected to live very much longer – it needs no prophet to expect the whole nation to mourn the gigantic statesman, the greatest of the 20th century. The whole world will cherish the memories of the grandfather of the nation, the towering gift of God at a critical time - when a civil war of great magnitude was widely expected.

A demonic Response in Disguise
In the spiritual realm the evil one responded in yet another way. In 1995/6 living conditions in the township of Manenberg were almost unbearable for the local people, and things seemed completely out of control. Rev. Chris Clohessy, the local Roman Catholic priest, had earned the trust of many people there, moving fearlessly also in gangster territory. PAGAD (People against Gangsterism and Drugs) was initiated by a group of Muslims in 1996, striving to create a gangster-free and drug-free society. The group was joined by Father Chris Clohessy. However, in the ensuing inter-faith venture, Muslims were soon dominating proceedings. PAGAD developed anti-government and Western sentiments. The organisation believed that the new secular South African government posed a threat to Islamic values. It also aimed to create better political representation for South African Muslims, although they were actually grossly over-represented in Parliament, compared to their percentage of the population. Prominent figures like Imam Achmat Cassiem were reported to have performed a palace coup. As the leader of the extremist group Qibla, Achmat Cassiem subtly changed the anti-drug, anti-crime movement into an organization that sought to bring Islamic rule into the Western Cape by any means. PAGAD radicals saw this move merely as part of the plan to implement the October 1995 decision in the Libyan capital Tripoli, to attempt Islamising the African continent from the South by the year 2000 AD.

The PAGAD Threat unites the Church
Who would have thought that Africa would one day set the pace in the twentieth century in the criticism of Islam? A women speaker at a liberal mosque in the Cape suburb of Claremont was as big a surprise as anyone could expect, but this was not followed up. Egypt-born Mark Gabriel's book Islam and Terrorism was conceived while hiding from Islamic reprisals in the City bowl suburbs of Vredehoek and Devil's Peak in the wake of the PAGAD scare in August 1996. It became a best seller soon after its publication at the beginning of 2002 – i.e. soon after the September 11 event in New York. Islam and Terrorism brought a significant correction in unexpected ways. That book became a major factor in the exposure of the violent side of Islam. (Subsequently the book has been translated into over 50 languages.)
Suddenly it appeared that Islamic right-wing folk became ready to move away from the medieval tendencies in dealing with their critics. They still however had no scruple to bomb churches, e.g. in Indonesia and Nigeria, or to bury female adherents alive who had been caught in adultery (while the men involved get away with impunity.)

Female Islamic Critics to the Fore
Islamists had difficulty to handle female critics. It was significant that Noni Darwish, the daughter of a prominent Egyptian general, became a critic after she had become a Christian. In the new millennium outspoken females from their own ranks came to the fore who made it clear that they were not to be muzzled. Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Holland, a refugee from Somalia, ruffled the feathers in no uncertain way. She was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2005. In criticizing Islam she was followed by Irshad Manji, who fled from Uganda as a little girl with her family to Canada during the mad rage of Idi Amin when he started persecuting Indian traders. Manji (The Trouble with Islam, a wake-up call for honesty and Change, 2003:11) dared to call for ‘an end to Islam’s totalitarianism, particularly the gross human rights violations against women and religious minorities.’
Musalaha was founded in 1990, when the need for unity among Israeli and Palestinian believers was especially lacking due to the First Intifada,137 Dr. Salim J. Munayer, an Israeli-Palestinian from Lod, relates how this lack of unity was recognized by leaders from both sides. In response they founded Musalaha as a vehicle to bring Israeli citizens into the process of Biblical reconciliation. Christine Darg, a prominent US television journalist, encountered Jesus supernaturally as a child. Facing a life-threatening illness, she still remembers when Jesus appeared to her in an open vision as a Jewish king and healed her. Because of her love of both the Jewish and Arab peoples and all the spiritual descendents of Abraham in the Church, Christine Darg has received a most unique ministry to share God's love and ministry of reconciliation. Her Exploits Ministry embraces all the peoples of the Bible Lands and gives of her ministry time, resources and efforts to all the parties involved. Christine's healing tours of the Holy Land, "Tabernacle of David" and "Women on the Walls" intercessory prayer conferences in Jerusalem are inspired by the ongoing fulfilment of Bible prophecies.
An aged Coptic priest, Zechariah Butros ?? caused bewilderment in many a Muslim country with candid revelations about Muhammad for months until a massive surge to achieve democracy started in Egypt on January 25, 2011. Dubbed the Arab Spring, the winds of change raged through North Africa like a wild fire, jumping later also to other countries in the Near East. The rise of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood plus the likelihood of a third world war as Iran threatened Israel with annihilation is hanging like a sword of Democles over the globe now already for months. Israeli leadership on the other hand has made it clear that they are not prepared to wait for that to happen. Divine intervention is needed to prevent what looks like the inevitable.
Chapter 12 Transformation at the Cape in the 21st Century

Having experienced first-hand how powerfully the principle of united prayer operated both in the wake of the St James Church massacre of July 1993 and the threatening PAGAD scourge of August 1996 to November 2000, South Africa could show the way. Positive examples of treating groups on the fringes of society in a dignified manner could go a long way to demonstrate the spirit of love, compassion and care. An expression of regret - or better still, a confession in respect of the omission and neglect towards Muslims and Jews on a broad level - is something that still has to be addressed. W.r.t. the former group I take liberty to pass on ISLAM as an acronym, that the well known Brother Andrew has spread far and wide: I Shall Love All Muslims.

Churches from different Denominations joining Hands
It was truly significant for the Cape Town Metropolis in April 1997 when churches across the city and from many denominations joined hands for a big campaign on the Newlands Cricket Stadium with the evangelist Franklin Graham, the son of the renowned Billy Graham. Pastor Walter Ackerman from the Docks Mission Church in Lentegeur and the late Pastor Elijah Klaassen from a Pentecostal fellowship in Gugulethu/Crossroads, worked tirelessly to enlist people from the Cape Flats and Black churches for this event. Transport from the townships was provided free of charge. This served as a model for the Transformation stadium events of the new millennium.
Gerda Leithgöb introduced research into spiritual influences at the Cape at a prayer seminar in Rylands Estate in January 1995. Such research especially investigates the demonic or anti-Christian nature of these influences. It has been dubbed 'spiritual mapping'. It seems that the exercise was only significantly implemented in 1999 at the Cape. Manenberg was a Cape township where it was practised with visible results. This township depicted a change in the religious climate more than any other at the Cape within a matter of months. In the mid-1990s, Eben Swart became the coordinator for Herald Ministries for the Western Cape. He worked closely with the Network of United Prayer in Southern Africa (NUPSA), which had appointed Pastor Willy Oyegun, a Nigerian, as their Western Cape coordinator. Together they did important work in research and spiritual mapping, along with Amanda Buys (Kanaan Ministries), who counselled Christians with psychological problems.

Prayer Efforts in the City Bowl
From 1995 I got fairly close to Rev. Louis Pasques of the Cape Town Baptist Church after the fellowship had experienced a difficult time. Together with his student colleague Edgar Davids of the Baptist Seminary, who was the minister of the struggling sister 'Coloured' congregation in Woodstock, a mere 3 kilometres away, we came together for weekly prayer. This grew into a ministers' fraternal with a few other local evangelical pastors.
Some churches in the City participated in a forty-day period of prayer and fasting from Easter Sunday to Ascension Day 1998. Louis Pasques spearheaded this endeavour. The weekly meeting with a prayer emphasis gained ground slowly after the 40-day effort from April to May 1998. Later that year, combined evening services were held once a month in the City Bowl in participating churches, with the venue rotating very time.
A corresponding period of prayer and fasting in 1999 - this time for 120 days - was concluded in the Western Cape in the traditional Groote Kerk celebration of the Lord’s Supper when pastors from different denominations officiated. This was a visible sign of a growing Church unity. At that Ascension Day event, Dr Robbie Cairncross was divinely brought into the situation. He came to the Mother City with a vision to see a network of prayer developing in the Peninsula. His prayer for an office for his Christian Coalition/Family Alliance near to Parliament was answered in a special way when he moved into the premises of the Chamber of Commerce (SACB), a stone’s throw from the Houses of Parliament. Cairncross’ plan became quite strategic when Islamic convert Achmed Kariem, with a vision for distributing prayer information, joined the SACOB staff. Cairncross’s vision bore fruit.

Seeds for 24/7 Prayer
The pastors’ and pastors’ wives prayer meetings became the run-up to the city-wide prayer events at the Light House Christian Centre in Parow, on the Grand Parade in the City and at sports stadiums from 1998. These events, along with prayer events like the one at Moravian Hill in District Six on 1 November 1997, brought about further correction, especially with big citywide occasions until 2000 AD. This ultimately led to the Global Day of Prayer in 2005.

From a visit to the USA, Rev. Trevor Pearce, an Anglican minister who also had expereience of ministry on one of the OM ships, brought back copies of the Transformation video and an audio copy of Informed Intercessions by George Otis, jr. This documented account of what happened in Cali (Columbia) also included principles for successful community transformation. At the city-wide prayer event at the Lighthouse Christian Centre on 15 October 1999, the first Transformation video of George Otis was viewed by the audience.
SACLA II, a conference held from 7-12 July, 2003, was described as the ‘most representative gathering of the Church in South African, perhaps African history.’ (Lausanne III in Cape Town from 17 -24 October 2010 well and truly surpassed and eclipsed SACLA II.) All-important is however the follow-through of any event of this nature. In Cape Town not much of this was evident at the end of 2003 in the run-up to a prayer convocation from 1-5 December 2003, which had as goal the breaking down of demonic opposition on the African continent. The challenge remains with South African Christians to attempt to perpetuate the wonderful sense of unity at Lausanne III (City detectives were wondering at this time what was going on during those 10 days because they had no work. Crime in the CBD had dropped to zero over those days).
Regular weekly prayer at the Central Police Station in Buitenkant Street had a special aftermath. (In due course die Losie, a former Freemason lodge at this police station became the regular prayer venue.) As part of the preparation for the 2006 Global Day of Prayer, a prayer drive where participants prayed Scripture, converged at the Central Police Station. God used this event to touch at least one person in a special way. Wim Ferreira had been a transport engineer working with the City Council. He was challenged to resign from his position to concentrate on prayer for the City. He was hereafter invited to work with the Deputy Mayor of the Metropolis.
When all the groups had arrived at the former Losie, Daniel Brink, the co-ordinator of the event, asked me to share in a few words how God had changed things at the police station. Although it was not that dramatic, I became too emotional. However, at this moment, Wim Ferreira was touched to request a room for prayer in the metropolitan Civic Centre, where he had just started to work. This was another divinely orchestrated move. A few months further on, a regular Friday prayer time was functioning in one of the board rooms there. I soon joined him for prayer in the board room of the ACDP. Barry Isaacs joined us there in due course.
The Lord challenged Ferreira to start 24-hour prayer at the Civic Centre premises. Before long, a trickle of workers from all walks of life was coming to faith in Jesus as their Lord as a result of these prayers. On Wednesdays at lunch time believers from different denominational backgrounds gathered there to pray and intercede for the city. Hereafter the prayer room near to the parking area on the ground floor was frequented by various people throughout the day.

Pro’s and Cons of religious Tolerance
We should be really grateful for the spirit of religious tolerance that had become a cherished tradition of South African society. We have been spared the violence stemming from religious fanaticism, with which many other countries are still battling. In areas like the old District Six and the Malay Quarter of Cape Town, where Muslims formed an influential part of the population, there was hardly any religious conflict ‑ in fact, Muslim children attended church schools on no mean scale and individually the converse also took place.
The solidarity of Muslims and Christians in the opposition to apartheid legislation did played a minor role in the demise of the resented ideology. The mutual tolerance had a significant deficiency: we hardly spoke to each other about our faiths. Whereas Muslims theoretically had ample opportunity to get to know the basics of the Christian faith, e.g. through the radio, TV and open air services, a general lack of basic knowledge about Islam even among the Christian clergy is still prevalent. This has led to unnecessary tension and bitterness. Many ‘Coloured’ women, who got involved in a relationship with Muslim men leading to marriage, became completely estranged from their families.

Philoxenia and Compassion ushered in
On 21 May, 2008 a national mass xenophobic outburst also came to the Cape. At a well-attended Transformation/Consultation of Christian Churches planning meeting on 31 May 2008 in Parow, it was exciting to hear how various churches enquired how they could join in compassionate action on behalf of the displaced foreigners.
The influx of Black African refugees into the suburbs Woodstock and Salt River has been turning around a situation where gangsters and prostitutes had threatened to make these township-like suburbs hotspots of crime. Because of other reasons however, these new residents were not valued. The flood of refugees – many of them came because of economic reasons - caused xenophobia. South African Blacks saw the newcomers as a threat and competition to the already tight employment market. This unfortunately drove some of the expatriates to the lucrative drug trade - and criminals were soon on hand to take control of mafia-style operations.
In contrast to that, the Cape Town Baptist Church turned out to become a model for other congregations, not only by taking care of some foreigners from 1996, but also in being blessed by them - indeed a 21st century version of the French Huguenots.
The intensive prayer on many a Friday night into the next morning, plus intercession on some Saturday mornings, especially by those coming from the Congo region, augured well for the future. Years later there was still however only few links between the various churches of foreigners and to the rest of the Body of the Messiah at the Cape.

A possible Catalyst towards spiritual Renewal ` To get the Body of our Lord at the Cape in action for bringing the Good News to its two main unreached groups, the Muslims and the Jews, remains a major challenge. I propose that combined expression of the Body of Christ in remorseful confession and repentance could be a catalyst towards spiritual renewal. It would be great if local churches could muster forces in prayer and action towards godly governance. This would be but a small - and yet significant – step. How wonderful it would be if church leaders could be the channel, voicing regret which could ignite remorse; that so many of our forebears claimed that the Church came in the place of the nation of Israel; that some of our co-religionists like Waraqah bin Naufal have been misleading Muhammad and because of that, millions are now caught in the web of religious bondage. Confession for doctrinal bickering that led to centuries of religious conflict is long overdue.
A nudge - humanly speaking - could be the acknowledgement that Islam is the result of heretical Christianity and distorted Judaism.138 A precedent has been set in Rustenburg in 1990 when White participants confessed their ‘racial arrogance toward black culture’. It is high time that the Church in this country should follow this up regarding Judaism and Islam. It is my firm belief that the verbalizing of remorseful regret – along with any restitution that might be appropriate - could go a long way towards ushering in a new future for all of us on the African continent and beyond, as followers of the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords! In Luke 4:18-21 our Lord has set out the path of God’s mission to the world, viz. an evangelizing dimension – Good News to the poor; a healing and liberating dimension - restoring sight to the blind and freedom to the oppressed, also to the spiritually blind and those bound with religious chains!

A Watershed for World Evangelism
The 1974 Lausanne Conference became the watershed for world evangelism during the last quarter of the 20th century. Many movements flowed from it, which aimed at reaching the unreached people groups of the world before the end of the millennium. The DAWN (Discipling a whole Nation) and AD 2000 movements, along with the ‘Concerts of Prayer’ of Dave Bryant, are a few of the catalysts of a resurgence of prayer.
In many quarters denominational division is still not recognised as a demonic stronghold. Tthe Republic of South Africa has no excuse any more to be hesitant about engaging in missions. Opportunities have opened up all over the world. South Africans are welcome everywhere: in fact, we must pray to be able to remain humble, not to be carried away by pride. An abundance of untapped language talent still lies dormant in the Black townships. These South Africans have an almost unparalleled faculty for language learning. There is hardly a Black in the urban townships who does not speak three or four languages, and the mastery of six or seven is not a big exception. I suggest that these people could be ideal missionaries in pioneer areas where oral communication is required, where the Word should rather be translated on CD/DVD than in written form. Some form of over-arching unity – perhaps using a vehicle like the Consultation of Christian Churches (CCC) – would go a long way to achieve this goal.

Other Expressions of Bondage
Other forms of bondage have to be tackled before Black South African missionaries can stream forth in numbers of any magnitude. All sorts of magic, horoscope, witchcraft and ancestral worship have brought millions in bondage through the influence of the occult. Secret curses and spells have been put on Christians. Many Black pastors have made compromises with ancestral worship and hereditary occult forms, sometimes under the pressure of the family or their community. Even though the power of the blood of Jesus has protected them, it may still be that a ministry in power is effectively hampered through these occult influences of the past. As a rule, the people involved must first be liberated and the hereditary effect of their ancestor worship cut off in the name of Jesus.
On the other hand, an over-emphasis on healing has also caused bondage. Some Christians have been running from one faith healing service with a prominent speaker to the next, becoming addicted to consumerism in the process. Even some gifted speakers have been deceived in this way, unwittingly encouraging superficiality in stead of encouraging believers to seek holistic liberation. It has often been overlooked that Jesus denounced the chronic sign-seeking attitude of people. We read that he ‘sighed deeply’ because of this (Mark 8:10-12). Could it be that his sigh was so deep because the religious leaders of his day, the Pharisees and Sadducees, were taking the lead in this sign seeking? We note that Jesus warned his disciples to watch out for the ‘yeast’ of these people. The ‘yeast’ is still fermenting, operating unchecked. Churches often radiate a sour or morbid atmosphere, rather than a sweet fragrance unto the Lord. Thus one often finds serious and sour faces singing ‘halleluja’, clearly not conveying the content of the hymns. Matthew 23 contains a stinging attack on the religious establishment of Jesus' day. Much of this could be applied to present-day conditions in churches, where the words of men ferment like yeast. Yes, they are like cancer that makes the Body of Christ very sickly indeed.
The watering down of the authority of Scripture at the ecumenical conference in 1910 at Edinburgh ushered in a fermenting process. Fairly big denominations now have difficulties to define marriage for example in a biblical way, viz. as the union between one man and one wife. A return to the unadulterated Word of God is absolutely necessary to stop the rot.
Run-up to a new Season of Spiritual Warfare
As the month of November 2011 was about half-way, Psalm 127 came to me strongly again: 'If the Lord does not build the house... in vain you toil.' There was little prospect that even a single single home church would be formed... after almost 20 years. Especially in respect of getting believers in the City Bowl to network and/or pray together – to give visibility to the unity of the Body of Christ - I was very despondent. I more or less through in the towel in resignation. 'OK, Lord you will just have to do it!' That is where the Master wanted me. There was too much effort on my part and too little dependence upon Him to bring about what we had been praying for. A few months later, in mid-March 2012, Rosemarie and I put the ball even more firmly in the court of the Master, to confirm whether he still wanted us to continue pursuing with our involvement and prayer for a breakthrough in Bo-Kaap.
On 5 December 2011 we went as usual to our evening Monday prayer meeting to Claremont. We excitedly recalled the Bar Mitzwah of the son of Baruch and Karen Maayan two days before. The highlight for all of us was when the teenager proclaimed so profoundly applied 1 Kings 1 – the story where Solomon was installed as the aged David's successor, after Adoniah had unjustly usurped the position. It had struck the youngster that Bathsheba and Nathan merely reminded King David of his promise and 'uplifted' Solomon, without fighting the injustice. He learned from this story that we don't have to fight Satan, we must just uplift Jesus! At this occasion Gay French, where we had our weekly meetings, shared a concern which came to her attention via an intercessor from Johannesburg, viz. it has become known about the ANC centenary celebrations that every town and city would be committed to the spirits of ancestors.

Another Chapter of Name Change of a Mountain Peak
Rather spontaneously Richard Mitchell, who was on his way to the UK, called a few intercessors to join him in prayer at Rhodes Memorial for early morning on Saturday, 24 December 2011. After a number of prophetic utterances by him over the city which included the slumbering of the body of Christ, there was also encouragement regarding the unity of the Church.
I updated Richard and the other two brothers who attended about the plans for '8 Days of prevailing prophetic prayers ...' initiated by Pastor Light Eze, a Nigerian pastor who responded obediently to a divine call to rally the Church at the Cape to repentance and prayer. I shared with them how the believers were challenged to uplift Jesus at the Bar Mitzwah occasion of 3 December. This was followed by our singing Jesus, we enthrone you.
The intention of the ANC to commit the country to the ancestors of ANC founders and past leaders at its centenary celebrations from 6-8 January 2012 spawned a season of intensive spiritual warfare. In an email it was suggested that we cherish and celebrate the Christ-like legacy of ANC founders like John Dube and Albert Luthuli, but oppose the abomination of ancestor worship. Repeating a further suggestion to uplift Jesus and inspired by that very special time at Rhodes Memorial, it was suggested that we use the anthem Jesus, we enthrone you as the theme song of 8 Days of prevailing prophetic prayers in birthing a new move of God in 2012. The programme was prepared by Pastor Light Eze and a few prayer leaders, liaising with Daniel Brink of Jericho Walls and Pastor Barry Isaacs of Transformation Africa.

Conclusion
Paul Billheimer made some profound statements in his book Destined for the Throne about the role of the prayerful church.139 He suggested for example that the church wields the balance of power ‘in overcoming disintegration and decay in the cosmic order’. Unity of the Body of Christ is unquestionably a top priority. Will Cape Christians rise to the challenge? Questions like these will keep us busy in time to come. Sharing of resources – material and spiritual – and visible demonstration across the board that all walls of partition have been broken down, would be a signpost indicating that we are en route to God’s new age, to the reign of the Messiah. It would be great if local churches could start dropping their narrow parochial mind-sets, and begin to radiate the image of the rainbow nation, reflecting a full spectrum of colours of the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10). This does not mean that every fellowship would be involved with all these aspects, but as the Church – with the capital C - joins and networks, the coming of the Bridegroom could be ushered in. Together we would then be able to cry out with joy and expectation: Maranatha! Come Lord Jesus, our King of Kings!
The new millennium brought significant growth in the house church movement. Sometimes this caused some stress and/or strife. We must pray that this may be overcome through co-operation and networking. The emphasis should be to get to those who would never otherwise be reached with the Gospel.

Selected Bibliography

Berger, Klaus – Qumran und Jesus – Wahrheit unter Verschluss?, Quell Verlag Stuttgart, 1993
Beyreuther, Erich - Der Junge Zinzendorf, Francke Buchhandlung, Marburg/Lahn, 1957,
- Beyreuther, Studien zur Theologie Zinzendorfs, (Neukirchener Verlag, 1962)
Brother Andrew - Building in a broken World, Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, 1981
Light Force, the only hope for the Middle East, Open Doors International, London, 2004
Cassidy, Michael – The Passing Summer: A South African pilgrimage in the politics of love,
Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1989
Coomes, Anne - African Harvest, Monarch Books, London, 2002
Lewis, Anthony J. The ecumenical pioneer, (SCM Press, London, 1962
Lütjeharms, Het philadelphisch streven der Herrnhutter in de Nederlanden in de 18de eeuw, Zeist, 1935
Matthews, Arthur, Voor de strijd geboren, Evangelische Lektuur Kruistocht, Apeldoorn, n.d
(Original title: Born for Battle, 1978)
Murray, Andrew - Key to the missionary Problem, published by James Nisbet, London, 1901; contemporised by Leona F. Choy and published by Christian Literature Crusade, Fort Washington, 1979.
Nielsen, Sigurd – Der Toleranzgedanke bei Zinzendorf, Vol.1, Ludwig Appel Verlag, Hamburg, 1951
Piper, John – Let the Nations be glad, Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, 2003
Praamsma, L -De Kerk van alle Tijden, Volumes 1-IV I, T.Wever, Franeker (NL), 1979-1981
Spangenberg, August -Das Leben des Herrn Nicolaus Ludwig Grafen und Herrn Zinzendorf und Pottendorf,
facsimile reproduction of the edition 1773-1775, Georg Olms Verlag, 1971,
Steinberg H.G., Schütz, H.I.C., Lütjeharms, W., Van der Linde, J.M., Zinzendorf, Callenbach, Nijkerk (NL), 1960
Thomas, David – Christ Divided, Liberalism, Ecumenism and Race in South Africa, Unisa Press, Pretoria, 2002
Tucker, Ruth – From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya, Zondervan, Grand Rapids (USA), 2004
Uttendörfer, Otto and Schmidt, Walter (ed) Die Brüder, aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der Brüdergemeine, Verlag des Vereins für Brüdergeschichte, Herrnhut, 1914
Van der Linde, J.M., - God’s Wereldhuis, Uitgeverij Ton Bolland, Amsterdam, 1980
Verkuyl, J. - Breek de Muren af, Bosch en Keuning, Baarn, 1969
Visser ‘t Hooft, W.A. - The pressure of our common calling, SCM, London, 1959
Wagner, C. Peters and Wilson, (ed) - Praying through the 100 gateway cities of the 10/40 window, YWAM publishing, Seattle, 1995,
Wagner, C. Peter (ed.) - Breaking strongholds in your City, Regal Books,, Ventura (USA), 1993
Walker, Williston - A History of the Christian Church, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1976 (1919)
Weinlick, John R. - Count Zinzendorf, Abington Press, New York, 1956
Zinzendorf, N - Nine Lectures, Edited and translated by George W. Forell, University of Iowa Press, Iowa, 1973

Appendix 1: Precedents with South African Church Leaders
South Africa had a notable example of the result of reconciliation of Bishop Tutu and Dr Allan Boesak in 1980. The reason for the rift was the willingness of Bishop Tutu and other clergymen to speak to Prime Minister P.W. Botha, while Dr Boesak and his Broederkring140 colleagues maintained that this would only give credibility to the evil system. After getting reconciled the two clergymen teamed up in their opposition to apartheid.
South African Church leaders also set a precedent where confession of failure had major ramifications. The occasion was a big conference in Rustenburg in November 1990, which became a major catalyst of change in the country at large, albeit that the final declaration was perhaps too overtly political as opposed to prophetic in the biblical sense. Thus one finds slogans like 'church theology' without giving the biblical link.
The combination of the above elements was used by God - along with the prayers of God’s people around the world - to stave off a major bloody conflict in our country. Could it be that unresolved estrangements or strained relationships and unforgiveness by certain Church leaders locally, regionally or nationally might still be blocking the free flow of Holy Spirit revival? A statement in 2010 by the revered Archbishop Tutu, who had been so instrumental in bringing about reconciliation in our country, was clearly divisive and unbiblical. Taking sides in the Middle East conflict is definitely not helpful. It is regrettable that he did not show any willingness to respond on efforts to revise his stance, e.g. after a group of Israeli students had visited him.

B.P.Rudnick
Absa savings Somerset West
acc no- 9173117131
Appendix 2: (Draft) Declaration on Christian-Muslim-Jewish Relations -
Reconciliation Day 2010

Preamble to the (Draft) Declaration
Deploring the recent outcry against Israel by certain Church leaders, the following declaration is presented to South Africans by a group of Cape followers of Jesus. Some of them have been raised as Jews and others as Muslims - augmented by local Christians.141 We are aware that we have no mandate to speak on behalf of Christians in general.
We would like to highlight that the Bible teaches clearly that Abraham blessed both Isaac and Ishmael. We also invite followers of Jesus to let the acronym ISLAM stand for I Shall Love All Muslims.
Furthermore, the possible rift between Abraham's two sons – which would have been natural after all that had transpired with Ishmael and his slave mother - was evidently amicably resolved in their life-time. It is recorded that both sons buried their father together (Genesis 25:9), possibly reconciled to all intents and purposes. We believe that it is incumbent upon followers of Christ to strive after reconciliation between the spiritual descendants of Abraham. We do however also wish to express our regret of the side-lining of Jews from the first century AD onwards by Gentile Christians and that ultimately the Church was taken to have replaced Israel.
The location of the Lausanne III Conference, the Cape Town International Convention Centre, a mere Kilometre respectively from the prime localities of Judaism and Islam in the Western Cape, has been a renewed stimulus for some of us to pray more intensely that a representative body of Christians might express regret for the above and offer an apology on behalf of Christians for a) the side-lining and persecution of Jews by Christians b) that Christian theologians misled the founder of Islam at the inception of that religion.
In the light of strained Christian-Muslim relationships and violent encounters in the past, we deem it necessary to write down down some of our convictions that could assist to "clear the table" for fresh meaningful interaction between the spiritual descendants of Abraham.
The (Draft) Declaration is not primarily a confession with regard to past failures and transgression of Christians, yet it hopes to stimulate thought among individuals or groups to evaluate themselves and take appropriate action. Knowing how powerfully God has used confessions in the past to bring about meaningful change in our country – notably the confession of Church leaders at Rustenburg in 1990 – we do ask however that Christians and Church leaders in particular would consider drafting a confession in respect of wrongs perpetrated by our forebears to Muslims in general, and more explicitly to Cape Muslims. Similarly, we believe that a general confession on behalf of Christians for arrogantly regarding the Church to have replaced Israel and the Jews is long overdue.
The (Draft) Declaration however merely suggests steps of an appropriate response which could be contemplated and prayerfully applied under God's guidance for each local context. In short, the Declaration should make us think, pray and act.
The (Draft) Declaration is written from the understanding that the Bible spells out clearly that we do have a biblical mandate to proclaim the truth, to witness and to serve. It suggests also a reappraisal of the role of the Church at large with regard to the situation in the Middle East. The notion that the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael have been eternal enemies (and should remain that way,142) has hardly any biblical basis. We regret that Church leaders have all too often compounded the age old problem of Israel and Palestine in an unreconciling way in stead of being an agent of reconciliation, e.g. by bringing together Jews and Muslims who got reconciled through common faith and working with followers of Jesus Christ from those backgrounds.
We also regret the disobedience of the Church at large to the example and precepts of Jesus with regard to Jews, as exemplified and taught by Paul, the prolific first century letter writer and missionary. In stead of seeing the preponderance of the apple of God's eye (Deuteronomy 32:10; Zechariah 2:8) as God's formula for world evangelism – loving concern for and outreach to Jews first (Romans 1:16f) - the Church in general neglected the loving and compassionate outreach to them completely. In stead, our Christian forebears haughtily rejoiced in the perceived rejection of Israel by the Almighty and arrogantly accepted the erroneous concept by and large that the Church replaced Israel.

(Draft) DECLARATION143
As followers of Jesus, the Christ, we have an unpaid debt to Jews and Muslims - the message of hope in Him, our Lord and Saviour. We believe that God calls us to share His love for the World (John 3:16) with every human being, especially with Jews and Muslims as co-spiritual (and in some cases natural) descendants of Abraham.

1. The early Muslim Community.
There is no historical evidence that the man Muhammad, who is revered by Muslims as God's final prophet to mankind, ever came to know God through faith in Jesus personally. On the contrary, we are sad that the founder of Islam apparently had contact with confused Christians, some of whom even denied Jesus Christ's divinity. Strikingly, he was evidently deceived by the unbiblical veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus, after which he thought that Christians believed her to be a consort, a partner to God. The founder of the religion was apparently also devoid of clear and patient guidance by followers of our Lord who could explain to him that God revealed himself in the person of Jesus. We deem it our task to introduce Muslims to the God who spoke to us through Jesus the Christ and through his revealed Word, the Bible.

2. Side-lining of Jews
We take note that the religious leaders of Jesus' day rejected him as the promised Messiah (John 1:1-11). In fact, Jesus described it as the unpardonable sin that the Pharisees asserted that he was demonically inspired after he had healed and set a demon-possessed man free from his bondage (Matthew 12:22-37). The move caused that generation of Jews, to reject him as Messiah - the veil that is still by and large to be removed. Arrogance of Gentile believers towards Jews because of perceived divine rejection of Israel and the Jews was apparently already discernable among the first century churches. (Some Christians later deemed the Church to have replaced Israel. This is to us tantamount to another veil covering the eyes of the Church.) In Romans 11 Paul clearly intended to rectify this situation, stating that the Gentile Christians were merely grafted into the true olive tree Israel. Our vision is to see the prayer of Jesus in John 17 fulfilled that it will become one flock and one shepherd – Jew and Gentile believers who follow and serve him as their Messiah and Lord - and that his followers will be brought to complete unity (v.23). This is to us congruent with the yearning of Paul that the branches of the olive that have been broken off from the olive tree may be grafted back, that the veil from Jews be removed.
We thankfully note that the respective emperors of the Roman Empire, Constantine of the West and Licinius of the East proclaimed the Edict of Milan in 313, which established a policy of religious freedom for all; with regret we however also take note that Constantine's proclamation of a free day on the day of the sun, the first day of the week, side-lined Jews. In effect this also more firmly established the erroneous view of certain Christians that the Church replaced the nation of Israel as God's elect.

3. The Abuse of Force.
The secular advantages given to the Church as a result of the Constantine military victories and the subsequent reforms had a fatal side effect. The example of Emperor Constantine to subjugate peoples was emulated by Muhammad and his Islamic successors to bring whole nations under Islamic bondage.
Augustine, the renowned North African Church Father, set the pattern for Muhammad to react with force if persuasion would not work. He initially accepted that there would be godless and nominal Christians in the Church, because wheat and weed should be able to grow next to each other until the harvest. Church discipline should not be practised forcefully with the iron rod, but rather like that of an operating surgeon. The erring and back-sliding believers should be brought back to the fold with the Gospel of grace. Augustine requested the authorities to use force to bring back the erring ones to the church. To motivate his position, Augustine quoted Luke 14:23, ‘Force them to come in.’ With this argumentation he.’ Unwittingly, Augustine legitimized force to subdue opposition, paving the way for the Inquisition and the Crusades (The Inquisition became known as a harsh international secular judiciary, where a travesty of justice became the common practice. Jews were given the option to become Christians or be killed).
The Crusades (1096-1270) were not honouring God, but were mostly done by Christians seeking revenge and who were motivated by earthly gain by way of domination. The 'Crusaders' did not spread the Gospel of salvation to Jews and Muslims. In no way can these monstrous acts be condoned. We utterly deplore them as a grave caricature of the Gospel. It is our task to be on our guard not to fall prey to other agenda's other than that of the Kingdom of God coming through in the person and ministry of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. When we hereby attempt to express regret in a small way, we would like to emphasise that we want to refrain definitely from any"points scoring'.

4. Jews and Muslims in the colonial Era
Government officials of the Dutch East Indian Company (DEIC), pastors and European settlers dissuaded slaves to become Christians and thus be freed. This was contrary to the noble DEIC decrees.
We deplore the religious intolerance of the colonial era at the Cape when Jews and believes from other denominations were expected to join the colonial church to participate fully in normal activities of their society.
The colonial period at the Cape of Good Hope was a time of little hope for slaves. This era was marked by a decline in the missionary fervour in the Church. Due to materialistic greed Christian slave owners encouraged their workers - as their possessions - to rather become Muslims. Consequently, many slaves were neglected by the Christian Church at the Cape. Many slaves subsequently embraced Islam towards the end of the eighteenth and in the beginning of the nineteenth century. The Christian Church and many Cape Christians have largely neglected their prophetic task to pass on to Muslims and Jews the Good News of salvation through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus.
When so-called "Christian" Western countries became obsessed with a lust for territorial power, it resulted in colonial empires that were dominated by Western nations of the Northern hemisphere. Muslims in Islamic countries sadly usually came to see a distorted Jesus in the lives of so-called "Christians", such as traders who invaded, annexed and exploited their territory, without really intending to build the Kingdom of God. We cannot ignore what happened or make it go away. We however want to show the love of Jesus to Muslims through our lives. We believe the Message of Jesus the Christ needs to be brought to Muslims (and Jews) in the uncompromising servant attitude of Jesus.
We are however grateful towards God for the example of individual Christian believers who displayed compassion for downtrodden people at the Cape of Good Hope, the slaves, the Khoi and San people. These individual believers did not shy away from sharing their faith also with Muslims (and Jews).

5. Muslims in the Apartheid Era
It is significant that so many apartheid laws and practices had their precedence in the attitudes and measures against the Cape Muslims of the colonial days. We are aware that the ideologists of apartheid took their cue from a misguided interpretation of Scripture via the demonic ideology of Germany's Nationalist Socialism. (The Anti-semitic Nazi leaders not only discriminated against Jews but they were also responsible for the extermination of 6 million Jews – the Holocaust.) The enforcement of apartheid enhanced the spread of Islam. An unknown number of nominal Christians embraced Islam in protest because the apartheid laws were perceived as the dealings of a ‘Christian’ government. We note sadly that the legislation and practices of our new South African government have also been driving people further away from a living vibrant relationship to Jesus Christ, notably with perceived laxity regarding sexual immorality.

6. Let Your Kingdom Come.
In the light of what happened, we as followers of Jesus Christ, concede that the Evangelical witness through the ages, especially during recent decades here in South Africa, was not always bold and clear. The impression was given that Allah of the Qur'an and the God who revealed Himself in the Bible and through Jesus as the Messiah, are identical. Notably, in the Bible, God confirmed Jesus as his Son, whereas the Qur'an states that God does not have a son.
The impression that Christians, Jews and Muslims serve the same God, caused many Christians to be deceived and disillusioned after marrying into a Muslim family and then required to forsake their faith in Jesus as Saviour and Lord. We admit that the Church did not stand up to clear the confusion. With the co-operation of Christian denominations and individual Christians we want to bring fresh hope to all people.
We accept the challenge to bring the message of salvation within the reach of all Jews and Muslims in our vicinity and to invite Christians to become educated regarding this challenge. Realising that in our own lives, as well as in the generations before us, there has by and large been sin of omission with regard to Muslims to a large extent. We now invite all South African Christians to bring this guilt personally before God and repent of it.
May God in his Almighty power use us to spread His love to all our neighbours irrespective of faith, nationality or creed!

Ishmael-Isaac Christian Ministries,
Cape Town, February 2011

Isaac and Ishmael

Monday, February 13, 2012

The Unity of the Body of Christ - a top Priority? march 2012

0 Comments:

Previous Posts