Determinación del Carbono Orgánico Total

From the inception of the AME Church in South Africa, the authorities, though not eager to allow African American bishops to be assigned to South Africa to perform their Episcopal duties, tolerated their presence. However, the number of schisms within the AME Church; its questionable actions such as proselytising; the perception that the African American bishops encouraged members to disrupt the political peace in the country, made the Union believe that African Americans were not honest in their promises. The Union therefore in 1950 decided not to allow any African American bishop to serve in the country for a period exceeding six consecutive months.

45 Although the AME Church in Zimbabwe (ertswhile Rhodesia) started its missionary endevours in  

To this effect, a letter from the Secretary for the Interior of the Union of South Africa, dated July 1953 to Rev. Francis Herman Gow, then minister of Bethel Memorial, District Six in Cape Town and also General Superintendent of the 14^th Episcopal District, made it clear that the request for Bishop F D Jordan, newly assigned bishop for the 14^th Episcopal District, to enter the country for a four year period was denied.

However, the letter stated that the bishop would be granted a six months permit to enter, but with strict controls attached.⁴⁶

Balia (1991) explains the reason for the report of the Secretary for the Interior as follows: “The tendency of the Christian Bantu to continually increase the number of churches and sects serving his religious life, mostly under outside influences and to the detriment of good mutual relations, unity and the participation in important privileges accorded by the State, has been observed with much regret by the Government. It therefore believes that it is in the interest of the Bantu of South Africa, and in line with their increasing desire for self-determination, that their church organisations in the Union should be self-contained and not administered from other countries, where conditions are usually quite different. In order to aid the Bantu to achieve this, the Government feels that it must discourage at this stage, further importation of Negro church leaders for Bantu Churches in the Union” (Balia 1991:

71). The Union of South Africa was of the opinion that since the AME Church had been operating for more than fifty years in South Africa, it should have had equipped enough leaders in South Africa to administer church affairs.

Gow refused to accept this state of affairs between the church and the government.

Although he was well aware of the fact that the AME Church had been named in the government’s political warning list, and that the name of one of its ministers, Rev.

Nimrod Tantsi, then acting president of the ANC in the Transvaal, was listed under the Riotous Assembly Act of 1930 and could therefore not attend any gatherings, he responded to the letter send by the Secretary for the Interior.⁴⁷ Gow explained that the

1900 it was only properly organised as an Annual Conference in 1928.

46 File no. 3 of EM Gordon at UWC library under the heading “correspondences”, dated 1957.

47 Newspaper clippings from the scrapbook of Kadalie at the UWC under the heading AME Priest Banned, 9 July 1953 (newspaper unidentified)

AME Church was not a Bantu church since it had over 17,000 members that were classified as coloureds. He also explained that the church was not a sect as determined by the Union of South Africa since it had its roots dated back to 1787 in the United States. He concluded his letter by stating that he failed to understand why the AME Church was treated differently to other denominations that came from foreign countries.⁴⁸

Gow also applied for an audience with the Secretary for the Interior which was granted on 29 April 1954. Gow led a deputation of ten ministers and laypersons to discuss this matter. He explained the history of the AME Church in America and in South Africa. He made it clear that as General Superintendent of the church in South Africa, he did not have the authority to perform important duties that a bishop had.

For instance, he could not ordain ministers of the church. He also pointed out that Bishop Jordan was permitted entrance to Southern Rhodesia to perform his Episcopal duties there. Gow emphatically stated that it seemed as if the government wanted the South African districts to break ties with the American districts. Although the Secretary denied that this was the government’s motive, he refused to change the conditions pertaining to the entrance of Bishop Jordan for a period longer than six months at a time.

In an interview with Albert Dunmore of the Pittsburgh Courier in 1956 Gow made it clear that a newly designed policy of the Union of South Africa prohibited American Negro bishops or church leaders to administer the business of the AME Church in South Africa (cf Pittsburgh Courier, 19 May 1956: 2).

Van der Ross (1973: 766 - 767) notes that the government’s action not to allow African Americans for long periods in South Africa was based on the fear that black American leaders had the potential to challenge the spirit of submissiveness that the white government sought to instil in black people. Furthermore he remarks that it was most likely connected with the general disfavour with which the Union looked on foreign influence on South African blacks, especially when these foreign influences were likely to be of a liberalising nature. Van der Ross further comments that while

48 Francis H Gow to Secretary of the Interior, 17 July 1953 in the EM Gordon files at UWC.

other churches in South Africa segregated blacks from white members in worship, the AME Church constantly ignored this practice.

A flow of correspondence also took place between Gow and the Council of Bishops to keep the leadership informed of the situation in South Africa. Gow explained that the Secretary for the Interior of the Union of South Africa was unyielding in his attitude towards African Americans entering the country to administer the work of the church and that he could not cope with all the work which was supposed to be done by a resident bishop. Gow’s argument was that should the church neglect to address this crucial issue, the church in South Africa might face further schism.

After thorough discussions the American districts came to the conclusion that the election of an African bishop for South Africa would resolve the problem. Spencer (1996: 16) notes that the election of Gow as bishop was not an attempt by the American Church to elect an indigenous leader, but rather a way to eliminate the pressure placed upon them by the Union of South Africa. Gow’s election to the bishopric can thus be interpreted as a political one to satisfy the constant harassment of the church by the Union of South Africa.