are designed to prudently avoid, “with few exceptions, any irrevocable acts of public defiance”.216
Ministers in local congregations in the South African context of apartheid were able to exercise certain forms of social power which were prohibited by law. Deeming the prohibition laws on marriage to be oppressive, many ministers were able to assert that when the laws of the land demonstrated a contradiction to the teachings of the Gospel, they were obliged to uphold the latter. The anonymity of the setting; for example, the wedding ceremonies of Jack and Thembi Kemp, and of Maria and Striny Naidoo, both conducted in private venues, represented covert contestations of the prevailing hegemony. According to Scott, “[m]ost of the political life of subordinate groups is to be found neither in overt collective defiance of power holders, nor in complete hegemonic compliance but in the vast territory between these two polar opposites”.217 The space between overt defiance and collective compliance is the space in which these ministers were able to use their positions to become activists on behalf of inter-racial families in the context of apartheid.
By performing marriage ceremonies for inter-racial couples and by providing support and counselling, the ministers demonstrated their commitment to freedom of choice in marriage and addressed issues of segregation and injustice within South African societies under apartheid. These ministers demonstrated through their actions, that inter-racial relationships were not sinful in the eyes of God, even though they were regarded as sinful in the eyes of the dominant Church and of the state. Their actions, even though covert, symbolized a criticism of the status quo as well as a refusal to collude with the apartheid regime. Resistance was therefore present but not in the eyes of the dominant.
To understand what it is that dominated groups do to defend their interests as best they can, or “between revolts” as Scott puts it, he examined those actions in which the dominated engage and which fall short of open defiance; such as foot dragging,
216 Ibid. p 17.
217 Ibid. p 136.
dissimulation, false compliance, pilfering, feigned ignorance, and so forth.218 He maintained that the dominated are able to avoid reprisal from the dominant because their actions “rarely accord any social significance”.219 However, multiplied many times over, these acts of resistance “may in the end make utter shambles of the policies dreamed up by their would-be superiors”,220 and in the long run, lead to meaningful change.
For the ministers who performed marriage ceremonies for inter-racial couples, their actions were masked by a display of “false compliance”.221 These pastors were regarded as pillars in the communities and as ministers of the Gospel - committed to upholding the law. Even though they ran the risk of being prosecuted, their veiled actions were shielded from the scrutiny of the dominant because they took place in the sequestered social spaces of which Scott speaks. Moreover, since they were ordained ministers in the various Churches, they held positions of importance in society and would not have readily been suspected of transgressing the law. Inter-racial couples were also very circumspect about the way in which they conducted themselves outside the very tight knit circles to which they belonged, and they thus minimised the danger of discovery by the authorities.
Once the perception of danger was lessened - because of the domestic and international pressure on the government to repeal the laws - the Anglican Church declared that it would solemnise marriages for inter-racial couples, despite the laws forbidding them to do so still being in force. At this time, the South African political landscape was under heavy scrutiny and prosecution for such an action would have embarrassed the government and further alienated them from the international community. In 1986, when the laws were repealed, Jack and Thembi Kent, Maria and Striny Naidoo, and Dave and Carol Gray were able to have their relationships legalized by the state. The White partners in these relationships were prepared to lose their status as White South Africans and to be re-classified under the Population Registration Act, even though, for reasons
218 Ibid. p 2.
219 Ibid. p 172.
220 Ibid. Ibid.
221 Ibid. p 86-87.
unknown, Dave Gray was not re-classified and maintained his status as a White South African.
However, the entire system of apartheid was based on segregation laws which affected people in all areas of their lives. The Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act and the Separate Amenities Act, were still in intact in 1986. Gail Govender and Henry Smith were unable to legalise their relationship because Henry Smith was not willing to run the risk of losing his job, since he was the sole breadwinner in the family. For this family, freedom was only realized in 1994, when the entire system was abolished.
Lorraine Green experienced the Church as a place where she received support and nurture, and as a place where she was educated on the evils of the oppressive system of apartheid. Her experiences in the Anglican Church and with the multi-denominational prayer group, to which she belonged, indicated that the Churches were aware of the various situations confronting people in South African societies under apartheid.
Additionally, the Churches were engaged to some degree in providing assistance to people facing various problems relating to oppression under apartheid rule.