The article presents a socio-historical analysis of the sections in the Apostolic Faith Mission (AFM) of South Africa from 1908 to the present. In order to achieve this, the article studies the relationship between the South African social politics and the ecclesiastical politics. It demonstrates how the AFM got divided into sections. The sections are the white, mixed race, Indian and black sections. The four sections in the AFM were not equal in power and responsibilities. The white section of the church was the major and domineering section of the AFM. Although other sections like mixed race and Indian were also inferior to the white section, the black section was the most inferior and marginalised section. The article also studies how the divisions in the AFM were addressed and solved. The purpose is to demonstrate how the church that was once divided into sections according to racial groups was able to move into unity.
The Apostolic Faith Mission (AFM) of South Africa is an African Pentecostal Christian church founded by American missionaries in 1908. The early developments of the AFM are linked to John G. Lake and Thomas Hezmalhach who played a major role as missionaries from the United States. Prior to their trip to South Africa, John G. Lake and Thomas Hezmalhach had contact with both John Alexander Dowie of Zion City, Chicago, and William Seymour of the Azusa Street Revival, Los Angeles (Oosthuizen
The AFM was divided into four main sections, namely the black, mixed race, Indian and white sections, before 1996. These sections came as a result of racial segregation and discrimination. The church started as interracial in the beginning, but as time went by it became segregated along colour lines (Paul
These white missionaries were also appointed to oversee the work started by black pastors. Black leaders were not given an opportunity to take part in the high echelons of the church (De Wet
Many pastors in the black section were dissatisfied in the church because they did not participate in leadership positions and as a result decided to start their own organisations or churches (Kgatle
South Africa was segregated into different racial groups. Segregation denotes a complex amalgamation of political, ideological and administrative strategies designed to maintain and entrench white supremacy at every level. It was elaborated in the context of South Africa’s experience of rapid industrialisation and was intended to defend the prevailing social order from the threat posed by the growth of a potentially militant African proletariat. As an ideological justification of political inequality, segregation was founded on a dual principle: firstly, that the recognition of an African’s right to land ownership which was conditional on the sacrifice of their claims for common citizenship; secondly, that Africans were the wards of their white ‘trustees’, under whose benevolent guidance they would be encouraged to develop autonomously (Dubow
Racial segregation was an economic policy for societal advantage through political, ideological and administrative strategies. Sibeko and Haddad (
Through the vein of religion, for example, the apartheid system in South Africa enabled white people to establish superiority in a land where they were, in fact, the minority. Through the system, white people would come to possess 87% of South Africa’s land and wealth, leaving the black African population a diminutive 13%. This system of classification proved economically beneficial for white people (Howard
Although segregation was predicated on perceptions of racial difference and was developed in the aftermath of colonial conquest, South African segregation was not just racial subordination. Its underlying principle was the enforced separation, not just subordination, of black people and white people in the spheres of work, residence and government (Worden
The laws and policies of racial segregation influenced the church in a negative way. In the AFM, a paternalistic policy undergirded with racial overtones was sometimes forced upon the church by the state (De Wet
In its early development, the AFM has been characterised by a strong conformity to white societal policy of racial segregation. The effects of this policy are evident in the sectional division existent within the AFM and are indicative of the organisation’s close alliance with the political philosophy of the status quo. Together with its ideological bias, the church’s theological conservatives have precluded it from involving itself in affirmative socio-political action in an apartheid ridden society (Reddy
At the end, the church instead of becoming an example to the state in their relationship with the state conformed to the standard of racial segregation. The church ceased to become a prophetic voice to the state and correct its wrongdoings. The church could not correct the state because they were practising the very same acts of segregation. However, there were few individuals who confronted the status quo until racial segregation was defeated in 1994.
The AFM started as a non-racial church. Early attempts to introduce racial separation in worship were resisted by the founding missionaries. When the missionaries left the country to return to their homelands, the church was set on a course of racial separation in compliance with the racial ideology of the country. Protests by black people were not heeded because a paternalistic mentality characterised the white churches involvement with regard to the black church (Paul
The position of American missionaries on either prohibiting or permitting racial segregation is argued by the fact that the founding missionaries in the person of John G. Lake and Thomas Hezmalhalch made a strong case for separate works among black, mixed race, Indian and white congregations though under the umbrella of the AFM (Poewe
The minutes dated 17 September 1908, apparently at Lake’s instigation, according to Roy (
However, it might be true that the poor missionaries were under social pressure because Pentecostals, like other churches in South Africa during apartheid, yielded to the pressures from white society and developed racially segregated churches. The AFM is a striking example of the differences in outlooks of white and black members of the same church (Anderson
Horn (
Another aspect of racial segregation was seen in the membership of the AFM as exemplified by Matika (
In 1944, 4 years before the National Party government took over, the AFM took a resolution that the mission stands for segregation that highlighted its support for the philosophy of apartheid. The fact that the black, Indian and mixed races are saved does not render them European. The church also asserted its support for Bantu Education, that is, Native Education: The mission stands for a lower education (for black people) but is definitely against a higher education (Kgatle
The AFM continued with the mission practice of ‘daughter churches’, similar to that practised by the Dutch Reformed Churches. The practice led to the establishment of four major groupings in the AFM: the white (parent) church, a large black daughter church, a mixed race daughter church and an Indian daughter church. The black church consisted of many different components, ordered primarily by language and region (Clark
It is understood here that although the AFM started as a racially integrated church, the American missionaries adopted racial policies that were socially acceptable at that time to divide the church into four main sections, namely the black, mixed race, Indian and white sections. They did not do so because they believe in racial segregation. Therefore the meetings in the early AFM were non-racial, it is only at the departure of the American missionaries that the AFM became segregated (Kgatle
The black mineworkers’ strike of 1946 lamed the country’s economy, and in 1947, the Natives’ Representative Council demanded the removal of all discriminatory laws. In 1948, the Fagan Commission recommended that the government should stabilise the black urban population to prevent widespread rebellion over the long term. In the same year, the Sauer Committee, established by the National Party, recommended the policy of separate development or apartheid as a solution to the ‘black problem’. This led to comprehensive apartheid laws regulating most aspects of black people lives from 1948 onwards (Burger & Nel
The AFM conformed to the
Boundaries between races were sanctified and were accepted as a natural part of God’s ordering of the universe. A collection of biblical verses was used to justify as well as explain God’s desire to keep races of people segregated (Welty
Many white people were convinced that there was no way people of different races could unite because of their differences. For the white section, it was obvious that God wanted a variety of races, each with its own purpose. Racial integration was sin. AFM leaders were defending the mental, emotional and spiritual superiority of the white race, all based on the scriptures. White Pentecostals not only acquiesced to the apartheid ideology but also actively defended it.
The involvement of the white section in ‘mission’ activities in terms of relationships with their local black churches also meant that institutionalised segregation did not necessarily imply total segregation. The relationship was extremely paternalistic, but the discrepancy in economic resources between the white and the black sections during the period under discussion left little alternative. The fact was that some very close relationships and friendships developed between white and black Pentecostals even in a segregated church environment (Clark
It was only in 1983 that the white section decided to draw up a new constitution for all the sections of the church, with the result that the AFM would have only one name. The constitution would be valid for every section, even though each section would have its own policy, as required by its own needs. The new constitution could not be altered without the consent of all sections, and a two-thirds majority would be needed in every respective Workers’ Council. The new constitution would also provide for a General Council, with annual meetings and the task to serve as a forum for fostering better co-operation between the difference sections (Burger & Nel
In 1992, the white Workers’ Council also approved a strategy for the involvement of the AFM in the poverty issue in South Africa, providing local assemblies with plans to combat poverty within their constituencies.
In 1993, further changes were approved to structures in the local assembly and District. The Dorcas Council, responsible for welfare work in the local assembly and community, changed its name to the Welfare Council, providing for women as well as men to participate in this function.
The functions of the National Leadership Forum were defined thus: to create a context within the church for spiritual and strategic leadership; to be a guardian of doctrinal, ethical and liturgical matters in the church; to be the guardian of ministerial training; to determine curricula; to set minimum training requirements for entry to the ministry; to accredit training institutions and evaluate the final training product; to facilitate the ministry of pastors to pastors; to promote ecumenical relations; to convene an annual National Leadership Conference and manage the affairs of the church and to decide on all matters that give rise to different interpretations.
In 1994, the principle of decentralisation was approved as the principle upon which the AFM would be founded, as a result of a long process of strategic reflection. The process of devolving power from the highest to the lowest structures continued and was managed by the Executive Council with a mandate from the Workers’ Council. The function of hierarchical higher councils was to promote fellowship, while all issues that could be handled by the local assembly should not be discussed and decided at the level of those councils. The possibility be investigated that statutory bodies function as legal personae in their own right and that the National Office Bearers’ positions become part-time in order that assemblies would benefit financially (Burger & Nel
Mixed race people were allowed to attend church with white people compared to black people who were not (De Wet
Both the ‘mixed race’ and ‘white’ church spoke the same language and basically shared the same culture. They also shared the same faith in Jesus Christ, were baptised through triune immersion and baptised in the same Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. Given these reasons, the mixed race church thought that it would be easy for it to unite with the white church given the above-mentioned reasons. In contrast, the unity issue was deeper than race and colour (Lapoorta
The white section racially separated with the mixed race section regardless of many similarities between the two sections. In the years between 1924 and 1949, racial separation continued in the AFM. Even though most of the ‘mixed race people’ spoke Afrikaans, there was a tendency to keep the races apart. The white Executive Council even resolved that white people should be discouraged to worship in the ‘mixed race people’ assemblies (Lapoorta
When Pastor E.J. Gschwend took over the leadership in 1969, it was the beginning of a new era in the mixed race section. It can be said that he took the mixed race section away from the control and management of the Missions Department and put it in a position where the mixed race Executive Council could lead and manage the mixed race section. With the growth of the mixed race work in the country, more districts were demarcated. This resulted in more missionaries being appointed as overseers. Many of these missionaries contributed positively to the extension of the mixed race work. New assemblies were planted and new church buildings were erected (Burger & Nel
Pastor D.W. Patrick served as vice chairperson of the mixed race Workers’ Council from 1969 until his retirement in 1977. Pastor C.A. Botes served as general secretary from 1969 until his retirement in 1982. In 1985, the Workers’ Council elected all four office bearers for the first time whereby Pastor E.J. Gschwend served ex officio as moderator. Change came in 1990 in the last Workers’ Council election of the mixed race section whereby J.J. Lapoorta was appointed as moderator of the section (Burger & Nel
The Indian people who were brought to Natal between 1860 and 1911 to aid its struggling agricultural industry were socially and politically discriminated against. They encountered bitter anti-Asiatic resistance in the 19th century in Natal. They were threatened with repatriation to India for the first half of this century. Their movement and domicile were legally controlled and they were disenfranchised. For example, during the 1960s, 176 000 Indian people were moved under the
In the AFM, the Indian section was represented by white missionaries without their consent. The constitution governs them without any input. There was also a loss of membership due to racism in the church. In addition, members on the ground also were confronted daily with a racism problem, and it seems that the church was lagging behind the government in advocating change (Lapoorta
The revised Articles of Association of the AFM in 1946 defined members of the Indian mission as ‘adherents’. The members of the AFM shall be composed of 200 000 persons of European descent. The non-European, which includes the Indian mission, shall be governed by separate policies and instructions and drawn up for the aforesaid communities by the Executive Council in consultation with the Missionary Council and approved by the General Workers’ Council. The church was not racially exclusive, but the policy of the AFM was not one of racial integration. An AFM church for the black people existed with another AFM church for white people in the same surrounding area as the AFM continued with separate and racially exclusive churches (Burger & Nel
The Indian section was governed by a separate policy. Instructions were formulated and drawn up by the Executive Council in consultation with the Missionary Council. There was paternalism exercised by the white people over the Indian mission whereby the Indian church coexisted with the mother church of the white people. The Missionary Council, through Missionary Overseers, controlled the Indian section. Each assembly in the white section was expected to involve itself in mission to the nearest ‘non-white’ AFM church. Such missionary activities were coordinated and controlled by the mission department (Burger & Nel
The Indian daughter church in the AFM thrived as a daughter church during the period of racial segregation, although some of the restrictions on leadership brought some limitations. Once the church dissolved its separate racial sections and united as a non-racial church, the single greatest loser became the Indian church. As a small minority within the nation and the church, the daughter church concept protected them and allowed the development of their own training institution. Powerful and effective Indian church leaders, and of meaningful interaction between Indian congregations, were trained. This protection does not exist anymore, and the continued success of the Indian work in the AFM is one of the critical challenges facing the denomination in the 20th century (Clark
The Indian mission church continued to grow in the midst of racial segregation in the AFM. The apartheid system did not disadvantage all the sections. On the contrary, other sections like the Indian section benefited from such a system and would have loved to stay longer in the system. The system was a favour to others while it was a disgrace to some like the black section. It was a win situation for some and loss for others. In the decades following 1946, AFM churches were planted in many Indian areas, predominantly in Natal and with few struggling churches in Transvaal (Burger & Nel
In 1955, there were 6865 members of the AFM Indian Section, 17 full-time workers and 19 fully-fledged assemblies. In 1980, there were 12 000 members, 34 full-time workers and 33 assemblies with many outreach works, hundredfold increase within 25 years. The Indian section was also responsible for outreaches to Mauritius and India. The year 1985 saw the establishment of a head office at Covenant Bible College which brought an improvement in administration. During the 1990s, various departments blossomed and grew. The pioneer pastors experienced several struggles mainly a lack of transportation. The AFM’s policy of establishing self-supporting churches caused hardship for the early pastors, because they were completely dependent upon the income generated in the local assembly through tithes and offerings (Burger & Nel
The paternalistic approach to missions in the AFM was clearly demonstrated by two facts. Firstly, the fact that the black Council consisted of 50% white people to assist 50% black people. In other words, the minority white people led the majority of black people. Secondly, the fact that every decision of the black Council had to be first confirmed by the white Executive Council before implementation. This meant that even if the decision did not go in their favour, the black section could not reverse such a decision (De Wet
The power of the white missionaries increased in the mission committee. The firm hold white people had on black people was reinforced. Only white people were allowed to assume important positions in mission work. The participation of black leaders in the mission work was very minimal. Black people were only seen as mission targets and not participants (Erasmus
All the minutes of the meetings of the Missionary Council in the black section, as well as the Workers Council, had to be approved by the white Executive Council and no decision could be implemented without the approval of white people. The first time the Missionary Council discussed the need for an Executive Council for the ‘Natives’ was in 1947, but it was decided to leave the matter till the next conference. By 1962, the Indian and mixed race sections had already received the right to form an Executive Council, but the black section had not been allowed to form one (Burger & Nel
In 1960, the Native Workers’ Conference discussed a motion that future workers of the black section of the AFM would be known and certified either as a ‘minister’, with powers as appear on a certificate, or as an ‘evangelist’, with the same powers as a minister, but having no congregation and only ministering the Lord’s Supper when requested by the minister in charge of church.
In 1973, a revised constitution allowing for an Executive Council for the black section was accepted.
By 1986, the AFM acknowledged that a new policy for the ‘Missions Department’ was necessary due to radical changes in the way churches were starting to think about outreaches to indigenous people. In 1998, the policy was extended, and it was resolved that, in order to retain the initiative for mission endeavours, all fields should be analysed with future-projected goals (Burger & Nel
There was often contact between white congregations and those of the other sections. However, contacts with black people tended to be very ‘top down’, and many white members would preach regularly in black townships or mine hostels. Contact between white people and Indian people and white people and mixed race people was an easier option because of many cultural similarities (Clark
Of all the sections (black, mixed race, Indian and white) in the AFM, the white section was the domineering section and the black section was the marginalised section. Although the mixed race section and the Indian section were also oppressed by the supreme white section, the black section was the most oppressed. Therefore, the black section can be classified as the marginalised section of the AFM.
AFM was inconsistent in their dealings with white and black pastors. For example, white pastor, Wessels, was actively involved in party politics and even served for many years as a National Party senator, while he remained in active ministry (De Wet
The roots of the oppression and marginalisation of black people and other minorities in the country were based on a theology of a privileged Western civilisation to the exclusion of all other groups. Concomitant with this privilege was the thin line that divided Western theology and Christian theology. For the black majority to be liberated, liberation theology was needed. The more the black section inclined towards a Western theology, the more they were oppressed (Welty
This marginalisation was seen in the leadership positions of the AFM. Racism was more blatantly practiced in South African Pentecostalism than in most other countries in the world. African pastors were given only nominal and local leadership opportunities and the practice became the accepted practice of the AFM. Other prominent leadership positions were reserved for the white pastors who could also lead in black churches and communities. The same pattern pertained in all other white-led Pentecostal denominations until the 1990s (Anderson
The God-given dignity and worth of black people as human beings was disregarded in the AFM as well as in society. They were robbed of their rights and freedom by their white oppressors in the country (Lapoorta
In the AFM, black leaders were not given an opportunity to take part in the high echelons of the church. It means that decisions were taken on their behalf without their consent because they were not members of such decision-making bodies of the church. The black people were regarded as adherents and not members of the church as only white people could become full members of the church. This marginalisation became a source of humility and submission for the majority of black pastors. To some, it was a source of inspiration to seek a solution through zeal and knowledge, whereas others reacted by starting their own organisation.
The composite division existed as a result of delaying tactics and reluctance for unity by the white section of the AFM. The black, mixed race and Indian sections of the AFM decided to unite to form what is called the composite division. While the white section remained independent, it was declared a white division. As a result of the composite division, AFM moved from four sections to two divisions: the composite division (black, mixed race and Indian) and the white division.
In September 1990, the three sections (black, mixed race and Indian) gave expression to the declaration by merging. The leadership consisting of the office bearers of each section was responsible for the joint administration of the composite division. In April 1991, the Workers’ Council of the white section accepted a new constitution, allowing corporate administration of the legal personality by the white single division and composite division. It also reaffirmed its intention to create a single structure for the whole church (Horn
An important meeting was held in Port Shepstone in May 1988, when six delegates from each of the three sections Workers’ Council came together. It was agreed that the committee for unity should continue to negotiate with the white division, but that the three sections should themselves unite and become a legal entity within the AFM. Legal opinion was sought, as it was clear that the white people were not moving towards real unity. They were advised that the interim arrangement should be to agree to two divisions in the AFM constituted by two statutes, each of which was subsidiary to
In other words, the three sections of the church became impatient with the delay for the unity of the whole church. Paul (
The foundation of the composite division in the AFM was as a result of the white section of the church’s delay in the unity process. This led to the formation of the two divisions in the AFM from January 1993. It is obvious that the other three sections of the church were more pro-unity than the white section. It is a sign that these three sections were uncomfortable with the current system of racial segregation in the church, while the white section continued to benefit from the system.
Although a move in the right direction, the composite division, however, did not solve the two major problems of the AFM: Racial segregation and white supremacy. The church was still divided under two divisions, the composite and white division. In conclusion, Richardson (
As indicated in the above section, there were few factors that hindered unity between the composite division and the white division. One of the factors is that the white division insisted on geographically linguistically demarcated districts in order to maintain their predominantly Afrikaans speaking districts intact (Lapoorta
These obstacles did not stop the strong drive in the AFM towards unity. The two presidents of the AFM, one (Frank Chikane) elected by the composite division of the church and the other (Isak Burger) elected by the white division moved towards unification. They moved towards the AFM under one legal entity tied together by a common constitution and at an executive level by liaison committees with equal representation, dealing with property and finance, liaison and doctrine, ethics and liturgy (Anderson
Although the white division was initially sceptical, Matika (
In June 1992, white people and black people agreed on a new constitution. The constitution took into consideration the existence of the two divisions. For the first time in the history of this church, the constitution set the two divisions on an equal footing. Intensive and painful negotiations continued between the two divisions followed by an agreement on structural unity of the church. The composite division adopted the new constitution in July 1994, and the white division adopted it in April 1995 (Paul
At the beginning of 1995, the composite division requested that the process of unity be accelerated. A joint meeting of both Executive Councils was held on 22 February 1995 to discuss the request (Burger & Nel
The white section experienced a lot of tension and fears about the future of the unified church. At one stage, the possibility of a schism was a looming reality. Many conservative white people believed that unification with the composite division would inevitably lead to domination by the majority. The Executive Council requested Burger to visit all white Regional Councils before the crucial Workers’ Council of 1996 to inform pastors and other leaders about the process of unification. He successfully convinced the white division to complete the road to unification (Nel
Finally, the whole church was united under one name, AFM, in 1996. This meant that the church was no longer divided according to sections but became one single body. It meant that the church had one constitution, one legal persona, one Workers’ Council, one Executive Council and open membership.
The structural racial unity process took 22 years from the time of the first move in the direction of unity, until the point was reached where structural unity became a reality in 1996 (Erasmus
The unification of the AFM took a long time and came as a surprise after the years of Pentecostal support for racial segregation, but it brought some fruits and benefits. Mathole (
During the dramatic unification service in which Isak Burger embraced Frank Chikane, the AFM gained the respect of both political and religious leaders in South Africa. Since 1996, the church has moved on to become a respected church and member of the South African Council of Churches (Horn
This unity in the AFM came with some changes in the leadership structures to suit the united church. The Executive Council was renamed the National Leadership Forum, and the Regional Councils were renamed the Regional Leadership Forums. The senior local pastor of each assembly is now termed the assembly leader, whereas previously all accredited ministers and part-time ministers were simply referred to as workers. The annual largest representative body, called the Workers’ Council, became known as the General Business Meeting and convenes only tri-annually. Furthermore, the General Business Meeting consists of few representatives compared to the former Workers’ Council. Most of its powers have been removed and given to the National Leadership Forum. The day-to-day running of the church as a denomination is the task of the four National Office Bearers (President, Vice-president, General Secretary and General Treasurer) who enjoy significant executive authority of their own (see Clark
Another highlight of the unity of AFM after 1996 according to Chandomba (
The issue of language and culture was important for the formation of identity, while for others they were regarded as more functional, as a prerequisite for communication. Some regarded unity as total integration, while others argued that integration would lead to loss of identity defined in terms of language and culture and that worship should be defined in terms of language and culture. The National Leadership Forum emphasised that the church should exert itself at all levels to educate its members in prejudice reduction, cultural interaction, cultural sensitivity and appreciation of cultural diversity. Caring for one another should be encouraged through involvement in sharing resources with one another in the form of financial assistance to struggling assemblies. Assemblies in poor areas should be adopted by economically strong assemblies. Involvement in community development projects should also be encouraged among strong assemblies (Nel
In summary, after 1996, the various sections of the church were reconstituted into one homogenous unit and the AFM became one church in its structure. The leadership structure was changed to make sure that it now represents all different races in the church. Though there is no racial requirement or quota written into the AFM’s constitution, it has been the practice of the organisation to ensure that the four office roles that are a part of the National Leadership Forum – the AFM’s senior leadership body – are each occupied by a different racial group: black, mixed race, Indian and white (Richardson
The AFM was divided into four sections as a result of the influence of the South African social politics on the ecclesiastical politics. The sections are the white section, the mixed race section, Indian section, and the black section. These sections came as a result of racial segregation and discrimination. The four sections in the AFM were not equal in power and responsibilities. The white section of the church was the major and domineering section in the AFM. Although other sections like mixed race and Indian were also inferior to the white section, the black section was the most inferior section. The four sections in the AFM were able to move into structural unity in 1996. Since 1996, the church has seen tremendous growth spiritually and numerically.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
Minutes of the Missionaries in Conference, held at Central Tabernacle, Johannesburg, 27 March 1961, p. 90.
Minutes of the Workers’ Council, Addendum 4, pp. 150–153.
Minutes of the Workers’ Council, 21 April 1992, pp. 2, 4.
Minutes of the Workers’ Council, 14 April 1993, p. 273, Resolution 30.
Minutes of the Workers’ Council, 15 April 1993, p. 275, Resolution 35.
Minutes of the National Leadership Forum, 13–16 November 2000. Appendix F3.p. 16.
Minutes of the Annual General Native Workers’ Conference, 19 March 1960, p. 83.
Minutes of the Missionaries in Conference, held at Central Tabernacle, 27 March 1961, p. 90.
Minutes of the Annual General Native Workers’ Conference, 23 March 1973.
Minutes of the black Executive Council, 22–23 March 1977, p. 115.
Minutes of the Missionaries in Council, 10 April 1993, p. 207.