The Split in 1981 – Part two
Profile by Dr CUTHBERT CHIDOORI
My First General Conference of the Assemblies of God
The Congress on Mission and Evangelism held in Durban
W F P Burton and some Congo Missionaries
Nicholas
Bekinkosi Hepworth Bhengu
– His Youthful Dreams
– His Preaching
- Bhengu and Education
- Bhengu and Money
- Miraculous Experiences
- Spiritual Happenings
- The Sanctifying Spirit of God
– His Departure
Bhengu’s “Isinthunzi”
- Government and Politics
– Some Faults, Virtues and the Burden
of His Heart
President Lucas Mangope of Bophuthatswana
William
Frederick Mullan
The Fairview Assembly
Fred Mullan and the Gifts of the Spirit
A Miracle and a Vision
The Revival in Norwood
James E Mullan
Paul O Lange
William Branham in Durban
Oral Roberts in South Africa
Billy
Graham in Salisbury and Durban
The American Missionaries from Springfield, Missouri
C. Austin Chawner and the Portuguese Work
August Kast and the Mount Tabor Mission Station
Colin
La Foy and the Coloured Leadership
The Work in Zimbabwe
Mauritius and Reunion Island
Special
Answers to Prayer – 1
Special
Answers to Prayer – 2
A Beautiful Square with Good Vibes
Prayer and the Hippie Revival
The Young Turks
Tensions within the Group
The Split
of 1981 – Part One
The Split
of 1981 – Part Two
The Beginnings of the Faith Movement in South Africa
The Statement of September 1989
The Charismatic Renewal
The Start of the Pentecostal Revival World Wide and The Swedish Pentecostal Assemblies
Epilogue
APPENDIX 1 : How to be Filled with the Holy Spirit
APPENDIX 2 : The National Church by Nicholas Bhengu
APPENDIX 3 : Article from the Argus 5/02/1981
APPENDIX 4 : Pointers to the future of the Assemblies of God in the New South Africa (10/06/94)
When H C Phillips in 1959 made a suggestion to Alfred Gumede that there be three Interim Conferences with three Interim Executives, all over-arched by a single General Conference and General Executive, it was readily enacted by the General Conference. Everybody was perfectly pleased with the arrangement. It suited the existing character of the Assemblies of God who from the first had come together on the principle of each missionary society operating in South Africa as a group under the umbrella of the General Constitution, while maintaining their organisational ties with their own home boards.
It is argued by some that the
structures of the Assemblies of God came about through the policies of
Nicholas Bhengu and James Mullan. They suppose that between them, James
Mullan and Nicholas Bhengu created a division in the work which didn’t
exist before. They allege that the present structures of the Assemblies
of God are in fact a direct result of the philosophy of Apartheid allegedly
existing in our ranks. Those who argue thus fail completely to understand
that a principle of co-operating within the Assemblies of God as a number
of separate groups was first advanced in 1937 by W F Mullan and Austin
Chawner and that others such as H C Phillips and his Emmanuel Mission
would never have joined had it not been for that arrangement. There would
have been no Assemblies of God as it exists today. Brother Phillips,
for instance, watched Fred Mullan and Austin Chawner drawing their circles
in the sand. He slapped his thigh in a gesture of agreement and said, “It
will work!” Racial considerations and Apartheid were the last thoughts
in his mind at that moment. His interest as a missionary was entirely
concerned with the administrative problems posed by an amalgamation of
heterogeneous missionary organisations coming together as a united body
in South Africa, but not severing overseas ties with their various sending
movements.
At that stage neither Nicholas Bhengu nor James Mullan had a group of their
own. James Mullan indeed, had not yet launched into his efforts to build
up white assemblies. He was still a missionary in the Emmanuel Mission.
It all dates back prior to the early 1940’s, whereas even the Nationalist
Government and Dr Malan’s cry of “Apartheid” only came
to the fore in 1948.
I remember the fateful night in 1948 when the election results came out,
declaring Dr Malan’s victory over General Smuts’ United Party.
It was a balmy Durban evening. I witnessed white Nationalist youths delightedly
chasing blacks through the streets of Durban, unable to wait before asserting
their “baaskapheid” in an outburst of hooliganism.
It is of the utmost importance to stress the foregoing point, because without
this realisation, the Assemblies of God becomes caricatured by our own
grass-roots membership who think that our structures are the product of
racialism and were made in imitation of the tri-cameral system in parliament
introduced by President P W Botha more than twenty years after HC Philips
spoke to Alfred Gumede. Such thinking betrays a deep confusion among the
younger rank and file Assemblies of God membership in the townships, and
even among some Assemblies of God leaders.
Fully 13 years elapsed between Gumede’s historic proposal and the
intense dialogue and self-examination we all were subjected to at the Congress
on Mission and Evangelism held in Durban in 1973. The pressures of the
congress brought about an urgent determination in ourselves to alter the
Assemblies of God constitutions and thus to distance ourselves from the
Apartheid that ruled the day socially and politically in South Africa.
Our constitution had not developed through any wish to align our structures
with those of the Nationalist Government. We had arrived at them spontaneously,
one might say instinctively, and indeed we had found that they worked well.
But the Congress compelled us to think in terms of “political correctness”,
a thought that had never influenced our actions hitherto. As soon as possible,
we scrapped our three Executives Conferences and sets of By-laws.
~
But in doing so it seems we focused attention on constitutional issues
that previously had been ignored. As General Chairman of the Conference
I found myself wrestling in debates that frequently became heated. I learnt
over the next few years the meaning of the term ‘ad hominem’,
or in South African parlance, “playing the man and not the ball”.
Jim Mullan rediscovered his antipathy to any constitution at all apart
from the Bible. He scornfully would refer to the by-laws which he had helped
to form as “John Bond’s Constitution”. For some obscure
reason, Sam Ennis’s F.I.A.M. became averse to having a constitution.
Mike Attlee dogmatically inveighed against constitutions and executives,
but nevertheless he accepted a place on the executive and even made his
own constitution for his group of assemblies, calling them the “Coastal
Assemblies of God”. His constitution empowered him and his co-workers
to seize and control church properties with absolute power.
Nicholas Bhengu not only wanted a constitution but he frequently called
for a “constitution with teeth in it”.
For six years a heated debate gathered strength, seldom conducted logically,
coolly and in a peaceable Christ-like way. It illustrated the Scriptural
comment “but where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every
evil thing is there”.
~
In all the debate, Nicholas Bhengu played the role of the strong man ruling
by fiat. The heterogeneous nature of the Assemblies of God proved a serious
problem to us. For instance, Brother do Cerro, the leader of a growing
number of Portuguese-language assemblies, wanted to start Portuguese-speaking
churches for Mozambican blacks in Soweto. Nicholas Bhengu abhorred the
thought, fearing that the unity of the black work would thereby become
undermined. That concern was an abiding pre-occupation with Nicholas Bhengu.
He was in fact reacting to a sentiment held throughout black Africa. Universally
in Africa leaders deprecate the multiplicity of churches and wish for the
Christian church to show a single face. Mike Attlee and Noel Scheepers
through their reading of the By-laws had conceived a wish to establish
black churches under their own apostolic leadership alongside Nicholas
Bhengu’s assemblies in Soweto. Nicholas Bhengu declared that if their
plan was pursued, he would leave the Assemblies of God with all his congregations
and start afresh in a new movement. I myself pledged to follow him out
if that happened.
All this occurred in the General Conference of 1979. To defuse a very serious
situation, we rescinded the existing By-laws and carried on for two years
without any. In 1981 we introduced them again, changing the title to “Rules
of Procedure”.
Further to rescinding the By-laws, I proposed a resolution that there should
be no administrative involvement across the colour line. The proposal was
indeed racialistic, but in the circumstances there had to be some measure
preventing any unwanted intrusion into the African sphere of influence.
My proposal caused me to be hung on my own petard. I realised when I made
it that it might do so but the crisis in the Assemblies of God made it
essential to take that risk. For several years the Harfield Road Assembly
had been interested in establishing an assembly among the people of colour
at a place called Lotus River on the Cape Flats. Moreover, on Brother Bhengu’s
recommendation, we had taken under our wing a coloured minister called
Tommy Coetzer. Tommy was an entrepreneur if ever there was one. But his
coloured brethren did not like him. They opposed him wherever they could.
Of course, as his sponsor, I too was criticised and vilified by certain
of the coloured leaders. I found I could do little to please them. I strove
to bridge the racial divide by arranging frequent times in the Cape Peninsular,
where we would hire a camp-ground, sharing accomodation and having fellowship
on a non-racial basis. Hundreds of coloureds and whites used to attend.
On the surface the fellowship seemed real enough.
We built at least two fine church buildings and started five coloured assemblies.
I hoped the opposition of the coloured leaders would abate, but I reckoned
without Tommy Coetzer. Unknown to me, he used my influence and support
to goad his hostile brethren whose response was vehement.
When I proposed what was in effect a moratorium on cross-cultural administration,
my coloured confreres were quick to seize their opportunity. They put their
case to Nicholas Bhengu. During the Conference in progress, I was summoned
to a meeting under the leadership of Nicholas Bhengu. There I came under
pressure to desist from activities in the coloured field. Some of my white
co-workers protested. “This is un-Biblical, it is racialistic”.
Of course it was racialistic, but in the circumstances it was a pragmatic
necessity. Nicholas Bhengu said, “We part to meet”. I think
he acted there with true wisdom, statesmanship and benign ruthlessness.
He held me over a barrel until I agreed to withdraw. Several congregations
and two church buildings were surrendered to the coloured hierarchy. Biblical
or not, it was the best thing to do at the time. With the passage of time,
fellowship between me and the coloured leadership has grown warm, and I
think trusting. But the memory of those happenings still irks me when I
hear from certain leaders charges of racialism supposedly tainting the
white leadership, for in 1979 it was they who enforced segregation .
~
In the two years between the 1979 conference and 1981, we operated without
by-laws. The experience convinced me that in a church growing as was the
Assemblies of God, a legal instrument was necessary. Nicholas Bhengu was
convinced likewise, but he wanted even more. There were questions as to
who owned church properties. In one case, a certain African minister was
disciplined on a serious moral charge. But when the General Executive required
him to leave the congregation where he was ministering, vacating the church
house and ceasing to preach in the church building, he defied the General
Executive. The congregation too rejected the order of the General Executive,
maintaining that the man should continue as their minister.
The matter went to court. After a long legal wrangle, it came to the Supreme
Court. The judge’s ruling there was concise and clear. He said the
sovereignty of local assemblies is entrenched in the Assemblies of God
Constitution. Therefore the local constitution of an assembly takes precedence
in certain matters over the General Constitution. What the local congregation
had decided in this case over-ruled the decision of the General Executive.
The man won the case.
Nicholas Bhengu wanted a constitution which would not allow for something
that was correct in law but was a violation of down-to-earth righteousness.
He asked for an amendment to the constitution. He cited clause 5(2) of
the constitution (not to be confused with any rules of procedure which
were to be placed before the General Conference for ratification). He wanted
it to include the words:
“If a property movable or immovable, such as a churchbuilding, minister’s house or anything else is registeredin the name of the Assemblies of God and held under
the General Constitution of the Assemblies of God and not under a local assembly constitution, such property, movable or immovable, is deemed to be held by the
Assemblies of God and must continue to be so until the General Executive might decide otherwise, etc, etc”.
The intention was to specify properties that the government
leased to the Assemblies of God as a denomination and to make sure that
such
properties were under the
power of the General Executive. Freehold properties registered by any local
assembly under its own local constitution were excluded. In my opinion, the
clause could
not be more explicit. As Nicholas Bhengu remarked, “Anyone who is not
stone blind can see what the clause says”.
However, there had developed over a few years a background of confusion, division
and in some quarters, of malice. I think in dealing with the rank and file
of the Assemblies of God, there were cases where plain language was sincerely
not
properly understood. But it seems that there were cases where people deliberately
set out to sow confusion. A rumour was bruited abroad that the General Executive
was bent on a policy of gaining possession of all church properties. It was
even said by some that white congregations had to safeguard themselves against
a time
when they would be ruled by an all black executive and lose their assets. Clause
5(2) was cited as evidence. Sam Ennis and the F.I.A.M. appeared to believe
the propaganda. In the F.I.A.M. was a certain brother who edited a magazine.
He adorned
the front cover with a full-page picture of an octopus wrapping its tentacles
about a church building. The octopus of course was the General Executive. Clause
5(2) was passed at the 1981 conference without an alteration. To the present
day, no church properties have been eaten by the octopus. Yet to this very
day there are sincere people who erroneously think the clause actually had
to be
modified (and was modified, they falsely say) because of popular protests from
them. So great was the confusion of those days which to some extent lives on
even today.
The conference of 1981 took place at CYARA in the Magaliesberg. As a venue,
it was somewhat small for our General Conference. The voting constituency had
to
be limited to something a little over 700.
One of the difficulties at the General Conferences has always been the nomination
of candidates to be elected to the General Executive. In 1981 the method for
nomination we decided upon was that each executive member would bring to the
Conference a list of nominees whom he thought should be put forward for election.
As so often happens, the arrangement was more honoured in the breach than in
the observance. Indeed, James Mullan presented a few names for nomination.
Apart from him, I was the only person to bring with me a list of nominees.
For his part, Nicholas Bhengu had become totally frustrated by persistent conflicts
within the General Executive. He determined to engage in some lobbying to exclude
contentious elements. He came to me and asked for a list of my nominees. I
gave it to him without comment. It was not pre-arranged except that every single
executive
member should have had his own list of nominees. It was by no means a plot
that I was engaged in. I did guess that Bhengu would lobby in favour of my
nominees,
but we did not discuss it. Bhengu was free to do what he pleased.
In the event, he did advise all his delegates whom he wanted them to vote for.
Others also lobbied. Mike Attlee instructed his people not to vote at all.
None of them did.
We have never lobbied or canvassed in Executive Elections, either before or
after 1981, but it did happen then. I suppose lobbying is a common practice
in the
democratic process but in 1981 it caused a furore because feelings were running
high. Sam Ennis, the leader of the F.I.A.M., after allowing his name to go
forward but being outvoted for election as General Chairman, refused to let
his name
be proposed as a member of the Executive. Within a month or two he led a split
from the Assemblies of God, taking the name “Assemblies of God Fellowship” for
his new movement.
Others followed his lead. Mike Attlee and I among other AOG ministers had attended
an Easter convention of the British Assemblies of God earlier in 1981. At a
lovely spot in Cornwall called Waters Meet we had strolled together amicably
in the
drizzling rain. There, Mike Attlee asked me whether he should leave the Assemblies
of God. I replied, “Mike, there is nothing you can do being apart from
the Assemblies of God that you can’t do within the fellowship. Why do you
want to leave?” He replied that because of Nicholas Bhengu he was forbidden
to evangelise among the blacks in Soweto. I was shocked at the way he was thinking.
When Sam Ennis split from us, Mike Attlee seized the occasion to do what had
been in his heart for some little time. He and his assemblies left too.
The two or three Canadian missionaries who remained in the South African field
also resigned with whatever few churches they had in the Northern Transvaal.
These churches had requested permission to form themselves into a group. We
had told them they need not link up with Bhengu’s Back to God Movement, but
they would have to operate as individual assemblies. We did not wish for any
more groups in the Assemblies of God.
A split of any large dimension is never a clean break. Tensions and recriminations
followed. Nicholas Bhengu himself took it very much to heart. He could not
bring himself to admit that he had been the storm centre of the quarrel. Others
made
it easy for him by pointing to me as the cause of all the division. My reputation
certainly was blackened.
Enid and I went through a severe time of mental and spiritual stress following
the division. Personally, I wondered whether I had reached the end of the road
as far as my ministry was concerned. One day we both knelt down at our bedside
to pray. We surrendered our whole life and ministry afresh to the Lord, telling
Him that if this was to be the end of us, we were willing to submit to His
will. Happily, God kept His hand upon us. But the anguish and accusations of
those
times are not easily forgotten.