Land, church, and the politics of memory in post-1994 South Africa

Abstract

This article aims to investigate the connection between land reform and the prophetic function of the Church in post-1994 South Africa through the optic of political memory. The paper contends that land is not simply a material possession but a contested site of historical trauma, ethical responsibility, and theological value. Regardless of the presumed formal end of apartheid, the slow pace of land compensation continues to mirror unresolved discrimination. Drawing on political memory as a critical framework, the study critiques the Church’s historical ambivalence toward land and argues that ecclesial institutions must recover their prophetic vocation by antagonizing genetic silences and marshaling theological ingenuity toward land justice. Through a profitable commitment to biblical theology, memory studies, and post-1994 ecclesiology, the paper intends a praxis-oriented model for churches to participate vigorously in remedying land inequality in South Africa.

Introduction

Land in South Africa is far more than a material possession; it is a theological, ethical, and political issue bound up with identity, belonging, and justice. For centuries, land dispossession under colonialism and apartheid fractured not only social structures but also spiritual and cultural identities. The South African Council of Churches (SACC) has consistently argued that land must be understood as “God’s gift for the benefit of all humanity,” not as a commodity to be monopolized for private gain (SACC, 1990, p. 7). As such, the theological valuation of land connects directly to human dignity and community life. Boesak (2015, p. 67) similarly notes that land in the South African imagination functions as a “symbol of freedom and faith,” an existential marker of liberation, and a site of resistance against systems of oppression. Thus, the land question carries profound theological weight, requiring churches to engage it as both an ethical mandate and a spiritual responsibility.

Despite South Africa’s political transition in 1994, land inequality remains unresolved. The democratic government initiated three programs—redistribution, restitution, and tenure reform—with the target of transferring 30% of agricultural land to Black South Africans by 2014. Yet by 2018, only about 10% of farmland had changed hands, while white landowners retained more than 70% of arable land (Walker, 2008, p. 132; Cousins and Hall, 2011, p. 215). This failure has been described as “a betrayal of the promises of freedom” (Hall, 2018, p. 160), as it perpetuates the structural injustices of apartheid within a formally democratic dispensation. The slow pace of redistribution and persistent ownership disparities reflect not only economic inequality but also an unhealed national wound that continues to bear witness to historical trauma.

Existing scholarship has interrogated the role of the Church in land reform primarily through liberationist and postcolonial frameworks (Vellem, 2014, p. 213; Maluleke, 2011, p. 89). These approaches rightly expose systemic injustice and highlight the prophetic potential of the Church. However, they seldom engage political memory as a hermeneutical lens. Political memory, as articulated by Metz (2007, p. 114), is a “dangerous memory” that refuses to allow past suffering to be forgotten, insisting that theology remember the cries of the victims of history. Similarly, Vosloo (2017, p. 20) contends that memory within South African ecclesial life must be “reformed, redeemed, and transformed” to address the fractures of colonial and apartheid legacies. Miroslav Volf (2006, p. 17) adds that memory, when guided by truth and justice, has the capacity to heal and to orient communities toward reconciliation. Yet, despite these insights, political memory has not been systematically applied to the South African Church’s engagement with land justice, leaving a gap in theological discourse.

Against this backdrop, the present study asks: How can political memory inform the Church’s prophetic role in addressing land injustice in post-1994 South Africa? By raising this question, the study seeks to situate the Church’s task not merely in socio-economic advocacy but in the theological work of memory that confronts silenced histories and unmasks inherited injustices. Methodologically, this article employs a hermeneutical-theological approach. First, it draws from memory studies (Metz, 2007; Vosloo, 2017; Volf, 2006) to analyze how memory can function as a theological resource in contested political spaces. Second, it engages biblical theology, with particular attention to prophetic traditions and the Jubilee motif that foregrounds land as a site of divine justice (Brueggemann, 1977, pp. 41–58). Third, it examines post-1994 ecclesiology, including both the Catholic Church’s restitution initiatives (De Villiers, 2019, p. 5) and the Church Land Program’s solidarity with landless communities (Terreblanche, 2014, p. 43). Together, these dimensions form the basis for a praxis-oriented model of ecclesial engagement that reclaims the Church’s prophetic vocation in the struggle for land justice.

Land as historical trauma and ethical responsibility

Historical overview of land dispossession under colonialism and apartheid

South Africa’s land dispossession did not occur haphazardly but emerged from deliberate colonial and apartheid legislation. Beinart and Delius provide a nuanced historical account demonstrating that the 1913 Natives Land Act was part of a broader architecture of racial exclusion—from undermining black tenants to setting precedents for migrant labor systems and racial spatial stratification (Beinart and Delius, 2014, pp. 667–688). South African History Online further traces earlier colonial seizures—from the Dutch expropriation of Khoikhoi and San land to British expansion into Natal—and highlights how claim-fabricating “treaties” underpinned dispossession (South African History Online, 2013). These dispossessions enabled the flourishing of white capitalist agriculture while deliberately impoverishing indigenous peoples, a dual process that served economic exploitation and political control (South African History Online, 2011). Legislation like the Group Areas Act (1950) and the establishment of Bantustans strategically excluded black South Africans from land, confining them to fragmented, economically marginal areas Marthinus van Staden (2025).

Land as a site of trauma and unresolved discrimination in post-1994 South Africa

The formal democratic transition in 1994 did not erase—or even begin to close—the deep chasm of land inequality. Despite constitutional gains and redistributive frameworks (restitution, redistribution, tenure reform), the legacy of dispossession persists. Data collected by LAMOSA shows that by 1996, less than 1% of South Africans (mainly white) held over 80% of farmland, while the African majority had access to under 15% of agricultural land and suffered insecure tenure (LAMOSA, Historical Context). The persistence of intergenerational trauma associated with ancestral land loss is not just social or economic but deeply psychological and cultural. Atuahene conceptualizes this as “dignity taking”—a dual harm involving both property loss and erosion of human dignity, and she calls for “dignity restoration” that attends to both material and ontological injury (Atuahene, 2014).

Ethical responsibility of state and church in the slow pace of redistribution

The slow pace of land reform raises critical moral questions. State policy since 1994 has relied on the “willing-seller, willing-buyer” principle—sidestepping structural injustice in favor of market mechanisms. This inherently constrained redistribution and failed to meet promises of transformation. Scholars such as Beinart & Delius critique this approach as inadequate for healing the legacies of structural theft (Beinart and Delius, 2014, pp. 667–688). Ethically, the state is bound to deliver substantive restitution, not merely procedural mechanisms.

The Church, moreover, bears a particular moral burden—not only because of its institutional landholdings but also due to its historical complicity. Drawing on theological frameworks such as Jubilee and restorative justice, ecclesial entities have the capacity—and obligation—to go beyond advocacy to participate actively in restitution. The “locust theology” of entitlement, which enabled colonial land appropriation, must be replaced with theologies of stewardship and reparative justice. Atuahene’s notion of dignity restoration dovetails with such a prophetic ecclesiology, emphasizing that restitution must restore not only property but community dignity and spiritual identity (Atuahene, 2014).

Intersections of land, identity, and dignity

In South African discourse, land embodies spiritual, psychological, and existential meaning. It is not merely an economic resource but a locus of communal memory, belonging, and dignity. This is apparent in legal cases, community narratives, and theological reflections. Atuahene’s findings highlight that where land is restored, claimants often emphasize reconnection with ancestral identity and the restoration of dignity—not merely economic improvement (Atuahene, 2014).

In theological terms, the loss of land disrupts sacred relationships—between people and ancestors, generation and memory, faith and practice. Memory scholars within theological disciplines would argue that restoration must include liturgical and memorial practices that heal and reconnect communities to their land-in-history. This kind of restoration enables a recuperation of dignity, identity, and communal integrity—turning the secular notion of restitution into integrative theological praxis.

Political memory as hermeneutical framework

The concept of political memory has been shaped by several influential theorists, most notably Paul Ricoeur, Johann Baptist Metz, and Aleida Assmann. Paul Ricoeur, in his monumental work Memory, History, Forgetting (2004), explores the fragile interplay between memory and historical narrative. Ricoeur insists that memory is not merely a passive recall of the past but a critical act shaped by interpretation, imagination, and ethical responsibility. He observes that collective memory must always be safeguarded against both “manipulative ideologies” and the distortions of selective forgetting (Ricoeur, 2004, p. 85). For Ricoeur, memory becomes political when it confronts public narratives and demands justice for voices historically silenced.

Johann Baptist Metz, writing from the perspective of political theology, offers the idea of dangerous memory. In Faith in History and Society (1980), Metz argues that Christian communities are summoned to remember past suffering in ways that disrupt complacency and orient believers toward justice and solidarity. Such memories are termed “dangerous” because they resist being domesticated into safe rituals; instead, they make demands on the present (Metz, 1980, p. 109).

Aleida Assmann, a cultural theorist, extends this discourse by analyzing how societies construct cultural memory through institutions, rituals, and archives. In Cultural Memory and Western Civilization (2011), she distinguishes between communicative memory (short-term, intergenerational) and cultural memory (long-term, institutionalized). For Assmann, political memory is not neutral but structured by systems of power that either preserve or erase historical experiences (Assmann, 2011, pp. 37–39). This provides a critical lens for interrogating how memory has been used in South Africa’s post-apartheid land debates.

Political memory as resistance to “genetic silences”

A crucial function of political memory is its role in resisting what may be termed “genetic silences”—the systemic suppression of histories that challenge dominant power. Metz’s dangerous memory directly confronts these silences, insisting that the memory of suffering must remain alive in the Church as a prophetic witness (Metz, 1980, pp. 110–112). This approach positions memory as a theological category with profound political consequences, since remembering past injustices obliges the community to act against their repetition.

Ricoeur also addresses silences in historical narratives. He maintains that memory, when critically examined, prevents the ideological manipulation of history and restores ethical responsibility to the work of remembrance. For Ricoeur, history must serve as a safeguard against “the abuse of memory and the forgetting of injustice” (Ricoeur, 2004, p. 452). Thus, memory is not merely an act of recall but a moral obligation to confront the fractures of history.

Assmann’s work complements these insights by showing how institutionalized forgetting—whether through selective commemoration or the deliberate omission of uncomfortable events—produces silences that become embedded in national identity (Assmann, 2011, p. 56). Applying this to South Africa reveals how state-sanctioned narratives of reconciliation have often failed to adequately address the ongoing trauma of land dispossession.

Memory as theological and political capital

Political memory functions as both theological capital and political capital. As theological capital, it anchors ecclesial communities in the memory of suffering and calls them to prophetic action. Metz describes this as a “practical fundamental theology of remembrance” that ties Christian identity to solidarity with the oppressed (Metz, 1980, pp. 115–118). This suggests that the Church’s witness is incomplete if it avoids confronting silenced histories of land theft and dispossession.

As political capital, memory provides resources for communities to articulate claims to justice. Ricoeur argues that when collective memories are critically mediated through historical consciousness, they become legitimate grounds for political and ethical claims (Ricoeur, 2004, pp. 459–460). This is evident in South Africa where land claimants frequently ground their demands in intergenerational memories of forced removals.

Finally, memory serves as cultural capital in Assmann’s sense: it preserves identity, transmits trauma, and resists the erasure of historical pain. However, cultural memory can also be manipulated by the state to promote selective narratives. The challenge, therefore, is to employ memory critically so that it becomes a site of resistance rather than domination (Assmann, 2011, pp. 83–84).

Relevance of memory studies to land discourse in South Africa

In South Africa, the unresolved land question is deeply intertwined with memory. Marschall (2006) argues that monuments, museums, and public commemorations reflect contested memory politics that either acknowledge or obscure histories of land dispossession. She notes that memory in post-apartheid society is not a neutral act of commemoration but a struggle over recognition and justice (Marschall, 2006, pp. 150–152).

Similarly, Witz et al. (2021) observe that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), while significant, often framed apartheid as a closed chapter, thus limiting its capacity to address structural injustices like land redistribution. They argue that memory must extend beyond reconciliation to grapple with the material legacies of dispossession (Witz et al., 2021, pp. 27–29).

Moore (2005) provides an anthropological perspective by showing how land in Southern Africa is “sedimented with histories of displacement.” He contends that land disputes cannot be resolved without acknowledging the layers of memory embedded in landscapes themselves, particularly in contested zones like the Limpopo Transfrontier Park (Moore, 2005, p. 317). In this way, memory becomes a tangible form of political capital in contemporary land struggles.

Thus, memory studies open new interpretive horizons for land discourse in South Africa. They highlight how remembrance is not only about acknowledging the past but also about shaping present claims and responsibilities. For the Church, engaging memory critically can reawaken its prophetic vocation, enabling it to stand with marginalized communities in the ongoing quest for land justice.

The church and land: historical ambivalence and contemporary silence

• 1. Missionary Christianity’s Complicity in Land Dispossession

Missionary activity during colonial expansion in South Africa was deeply implicated in land dispossession. Ntandoyenkosi Mlambo observes that a considerable portion of modern ecclesial landholdings stems directly from colonial and apartheid-era grants, implicating church institutions in structural injustice (Mlambo, 2020, p. 2). Many of these properties—numbering over 20,000 hectares across multiple dioceses and parishes—were obtained under legal frameworks that privileged settler interests and marginalized indigenous claims (Mlambo, 2020, p. 3). Even missionary converts faced constrained access to citizenship and land. As early as 1828, Khoikhoi and San Christians required baptismal certification to access land rights—criteria that were inconsistently granted—highlighting how land and faith became entwined in systems of exclusion (Mlambo, 2020, p. 2; Bigge Commission cited in Mlambo, 2020).

• 2. Ambivalence of the Church during Apartheid and the Transition

During the apartheid era, many churches exhibited ambivalent or superficial resistance to racial injustice. Though some overtly opposed apartheid, others promoted a depoliticized “church theology” that called for reconciliation without demanding justice. Kairos Document (1986), authored by Kairos theologians, critically accused many mainstream churches of neutrality that effectively upheld apartheid structures; reconciliation without justice, they argued, was “counterfeit,” and neutral positions served the oppressors (Kairos Document, 1986, pp. 9–15).

This ambivalence continued into the democratic transition. Churches that had played key roles in liberation quietly retreated from critical engagement with land reform. Powell notes that the South African Council of Churches (SACC), once a prophetic force, significantly diminished its involvement in land debates post-2000, while Pentecostal and African-Initiated Churches (AICs) largely pivoted toward charismatic and experiential faith, showing limited political engagement (Powell, 2021, 2024, pp. 7–8). This withdrawal points to an ecclesial ambivalence that allowed land inequality to persist without robust moral critique.

• 3. Ecclesial Silence and Limited Interventions in Land Debates

Despite formal declarations, ecclesial responses to land injustice have often been limited in scope or subsumed by institutional caution. The Rustenburg Declaration of 1990—committed to acknowledging church complicity and advocating for restitution—remained largely symbolic, with limited follow-through in policy or action (Okure, 2012, para 2.4).

An exception appeared in Catholic initiatives to audit and restitute church land. Between 1994 and 2014, eight SACBC dioceses audited church-owned properties, seeking ways to affirm community belonging through land restitution (Lephoto, 2020, pp. 1–2). Yet these represent isolated ecclesial efforts rather than system-wide transformation.

The Church Land Program, launched in 1997, initially functioned like a conventional NGO. From 2004 onwards, however, it transitioned toward active solidarity with landless communities, using liberation theology to critique imbalanced power dynamics and advocate for community-led land solutions (Phiri, 2018, pp. 162–165; Butler et al., 2007, pp. 1–34). While this marked a positive shift, such praxis remains a limited vanguard rather than mainstream ecclesial posture.

• 4. Challenges: Institutional Inertia, Theological Privatism, and Accommodation

Multiple institutional forces have constrained the Church’s prophetic voice on land justice.

Institutional inertia is evident in the struggle of churches to move from declarations to concrete reforms. Even churches with progressive legacies have often prioritized institutional stability over moral accountability (Ngtt_v43_n3_a10, p. 1).

Theological privatism—the inward turn toward personal faith—has contributed to ecclesial disengagement from socio-political issues. As highlighted in Ngtt, some churches fear that advocating for justice over government authority may misuse the Gospel, leading to a quietist theology that avoids public critique (Ngtt_v43_n3_a10, pp. 1–2).

Accommodation to state politics is another challenge. Churches that once resisted structural injustice now express cautious support for government, sometimes at the expense of critical solidarity. Powell observes SACC’s declining influence, linked partly to proximity to political power rather than independent prophetic voice (Powell, 2021, 2024, pp. 7–8).

Recovering the prophetic vocation of the church

Biblical-theological reflections

Prophetic tradition (Amos, Micah, Isaiah on land, justice, memory)

The Hebrew prophets—Amos, Micah, and Isaiah—consistently foregrounded land as integral to divine justice, communal memory, and covenantal ethics. Amos, for instance, condemns empty ritual divorced from justice, declaring: “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24). Amos rejects sacrificial religion as meaningless when it masks exploitation, demanding instead ethical commitment to the vulnerable and collective responsibility for justice (Amos, see Wolfe, 1945: JBL review).

Micah offers a typologically rich account linking land theft with religious violation. He indicts those who “hate good and love evil, who tear the skin from my people,” a metaphor that points to injustice and dispossession (Micah 3:2); his famous ethical summary—"What does the LORD require… to act justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8)—positions land justice at the heart of covenantal religion (see encyclopedic summaries of Micah 6:1–8).

Isaiah, particularly in chs. 61–62, depicts messianic land restoration infused with social justice: a vision that proclaims “good news to the poor… release to the captives… to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor” (Isa. 61:1–2). These prophetic traditions root ecclesial responsibility in land-based memory and justice rather than performative religiosity.

Jesus’ parables and kingdom ethics on possessions and justice

Jesus’ parables constitute a subversive hermeneutic of kingdom justice. Jesus’ parables, writes Hultgren, are “subversive stories” that shock prevailing religious norms and reorient perceptions of possessions toward inclusive abundance and dignity (Hultgren, 2000: p. 10). They challenged systems that marginalized the poor through taxation, rent burdens, or Temple-based economies, portraying a kingdom where wealth must be shared, not hoarded (Hultgren, 2000, p. 10).

For example, the Parable of the Persistent Widow (Luke 18:1–8) models a vision of justice by highlighting perseverance and God’s affirmation of marginalized voices, reversing power dynamics through faith (Green’s interpretation of Luke, reflecting prophetic insistence on justice). Together, these parables offer a radical ethic of redistribution and prophetic care—where the vulnerable must not be burdened by structural injustice but honored within God’s alternative world.

Land in the eschatological vision: restoration, Jubilee, reconciliation

The biblical concept of Jubilee presents land restitution, debt forgiveness, and restoration as cyclical divine mandates. Leviticus 25 envisions every fiftieth year as a reset: ancestral land is returned to original owners, debts forgiven, and freedom proclaimed (Leviticus 25:23–28). This law indicates that land belongs ultimately to God and should not consolidate power or perpetuate inequality.

As Chris Wright explains, the Jubilee rules aim to foster sustainable land use, communal shalom, and economic equality—asserting that justice is embedded in the land’s care and distribution (Wright, 2004, p. 28). Ecclesiastical engagement with Jubilee as a theological motif invites the Church to recover covenantal memory and shape economic relations accordingly.

Furthermore, in eschatological literature like 11QMelchizedek, the Jubilee is reimagined as a cosmic, transformative event—evoking hope not only of physical restitution but of spiritual restoration and debt forgiveness (Williams, 2023, pp. 111–149); such visions reinforce that the Jubilee anticipates full redemption and justice in both land and life.

Ecclesiology of memory: church as a remembering and justice-seeking community

The Church’s prophetic vocation requires an ecclesiology of memory: the congregation must not merely recall Scripture but incarnate memory through public witness and restorative action. By continually recalling prophetic and Jubilee narratives, the Church can counteract the biblical amnesia that emerges in wealth, privilege, or institutional silence.

Memory, in this frame, is not passive nostalgia but active formation—shaping identity and mission. In the biblical tradition, remembering the Exodus, the land covenant, or the Jubilee compels communities to act in solidarity with the displaced and oppressed. The Church, then, practices theological remembrance through liturgy, preaching, advocacy, and reparative engagement with land injustice.

The prophetic imperative: moving from memory to praxis

Remembering is insufficient unless transformed into praxis—concrete action informed by theological memory. The Church must bridge the gap between remembrance and engagement, embodying Jubilee-like redistribution and solidarity.

This requires ecclesial structures to identify areas where land and resources are unjustly withheld and to pursue creative restitution models (e.g., land trusts, advocacy for land reform, direct support for land claimants). Liturgy should narrate stories of dispossession and encapsulate repentance and restoration. Pastoral care must attend to communities traumatized by land loss.

Ultimately, the prophetic imperative calls the Church to be a memory-acted community, actively producing social transformation. Memory is both the motivation and ethical base for action; prophetic praxis makes memory credible. Institutional preaching, communal education, and deliberate resource allocation rooted in biblical land theology reinforce ecclesial responsibility.

Toward a praxis-oriented model for ecclesial engagement

Building on the previous discussion of the Church’s prophetic vocation, the move from theological memory to active praxis requires a structured, multidimensional model. This model is rooted in remembering silenced histories, advocating publicly, standing in solidarity with marginalized communities, and embedding justice within ecclesial liturgy and ritual. Such praxis ensures that theological reflection is not an abstract exercise but a transformative, justice-oriented engagement with South Africa’s enduring land inequalities.

• 1. Remembering and Narrating Silenced Histories of Dispossession

A foundational element of praxis is the intentional recovery of silenced histories related to land dispossession. The Church’s complicity in colonial and apartheid-era land seizures necessitates a deliberate process of remembering, narrating, and educating congregations about these histories (Mlambo, 2020, pp. 2–5; see also Mlambo, 2024, pp. 1–8). By engaging with these historical realities, ecclesial communities confront what Aleida Assmann calls “cultural memory”—the socially mediated recollection of events that shape ethical responsibility (Assmann, 2011, p. 16). In the South African context, this entails acknowledging not only state-imposed dispossession but also the Church’s role in legitimizing or benefiting from these systems.

Practical measures include archiving testimonies from land claimants, incorporating historical narratives into sermons and church education programs, and establishing commemorative rituals that reflect on dispossession and resilience. As Wright (2011, pp. 872–874) argues, embedding the memory of injustice within ecclesial life nurtures both awareness and moral accountability, preparing communities to act justly in the present.

• 2. Advocacy: The Church’s Theological Voice in Public Land Debates

The prophetic vocation of the Church necessitates active engagement in public discourse on land reform. This is not merely political activism; it is a theological mandate grounded in biblical imperatives for justice, mercy, and stewardship of creation (Micah 6:8; Amos 5:24). The Church must articulate a coherent theological vision for land justice that challenges policies perpetuating inequality and advocates for equitable redistribution.

Case studies demonstrate the potential impact of ecclesial advocacy. The Church Land Program (CLP) has historically provided legal support for communities engaged in land restitution, mediating between claimants and governmental authorities (Muswubi, 2024, pp. 7–10). Similarly, the South African Council of Churches (SACC) has issued public statements critiquing policy delays in land redistribution, framing land reform as both a moral and social imperative (Powell, 2021, 2024, pp. 7–9). These interventions exemplify the Church’s capacity to influence both public perception and policy when theological reflection is translated into organized, informed advocacy.

• 3. Solidarity with Landless and Marginalized Communities

Solidarity is the tangible expression of the Church’s prophetic memory and advocacy. It involves forming genuine partnerships with communities affected by land dispossession, providing material, spiritual, and strategic support. This is aligned with liberationist theological perspectives that see ecclesial solidarity as essential to addressing structural oppression (Phiri, 2018, pp. 162–165).

Solidarity practices include offering training in legal literacy for land claimants, facilitating community-led development initiatives, and providing platforms for marginalized voices to influence ecclesial and political deliberations. By standing alongside these communities, churches enact a praxis that embodies biblical justice: defending the rights of the landless, advocating for restoration, and resisting complicity in ongoing inequities.

• 4. Liturgical Memory: Embedding Land Justice in Worship and Sacraments

Liturgical life provides a critical site for the embodiment of memory and advocacy. Incorporating land justice themes into worship ensures that congregations internalize historical consciousness and moral responsibility. This could involve prayers for land restitution, preaching on prophetic texts such as Isaiah 61 and Leviticus 25, and integrating Jubilee motifs into sacramental practice (Wright, 2004; see also Skirvin et al., 2011, pp. 624–633).

Moreover, liturgical enactment of justice rituals—such as blessing reclaimed land, offering thanksgiving for restitution victories, or symbolic acts representing solidarity with the landless—reinforces the ethical imperative of land justice. These practices make the Church a living witness to the eschatological hope of restored land and reconciliation.

• 5. Models from South African Churches

Several South African ecclesial initiatives exemplify praxis-oriented engagement. The CLP emphasizes community-driven land projects that combine legal support, advocacy, and theological education (Muswubi, 2024, pp. 7–10). The SACC’s campaigns demonstrate the role of denominational collaboration and prophetic public voice in addressing land inequalities (Powell, 2021, 2024, pp. 7–9). Denominational audits of church-owned land, particularly within Catholic and mainline Protestant churches, have identified opportunities for restitution or community sharing, modeling accountability and historical repair (Lephoto, 2020, pp. 1–2). These models underscore the principle that effective ecclesial engagement is relational, collaborative, and grounded in both historical awareness and theological reflection.

• 6. Practical Theological Proposals for Ecclesial Institutions

The preceding theological and ethical analysis underscores that any meaningful engagement with land justice necessitates a shift from conceptual reflection to embodied ecclesial praxis. Ecclesial institutions, shaped by their historical entanglements with both colonial-era land dispossession and contemporary struggles for restitution, are uniquely positioned to contribute to transformative justice. This section, therefore, outlines a set of interrelated proposals that translate the theological imperatives discussed earlier into actionable practices. These proposals do not function as isolated recommendations but form a coherent framework through which churches can cultivate moral responsibility, foster institutional accountability, and participate constructively in broader societal efforts toward equitable land reform.

To operationalize this praxis-oriented model, the following proposals are suggested:

• 1. Develop a Theology of Land Justice: Ground ecclesial engagement in biblical and ethical reflection, emphasizing the sacredness of land, equitable distribution, and prophetic accountability (Wright, 2011, pp. 867–897).

• 2. Conduct Comprehensive Land Audits: Churches should evaluate historical land holdings to identify opportunities for restitution, collaboration with communities, and advocacy (Mlambo, 2020, pp. 2–5).

• 3. Education and Formation Programs: Offer workshops, seminars, and theological education for clergy and laity on historical dispossession, justice frameworks, and advocacy strategies (Phiri, 2018, pp. 162–165).

• 4. Liturgical Integration: Embed land justice within worship, prayers, and sacramental practices to cultivate moral consciousness and communal responsibility (Wright, 2011, pp. 874–875).

• 5. Partnerships with Civil Society: Collaborate with NGOs, advocacy groups, and academic institutions to amplify impact, share expertise, and create sustainable programs for land justice (Gillan, 1998, pp. 14–18).

• 6. Monitoring and Accountability Structures: Establish internal ecclesial committees to ensure ongoing evaluation of land justice initiatives, maintaining fidelity to both theological principles and social impact.

Final remarks

The investigation of land in post-1994 South Africa reveals that it is far more than a material resource; it functions as a site of historical trauma, ethical responsibility, and theological reflection. Land dispossession under colonial and apartheid regimes not only stripped communities of their material sustenance but also disrupted collective memory, identity, and dignity (Mlambo, 2020, pp. 2–5; Lephoto, 2020, pp. 1–2). Despite formal political reforms, persistent inequalities and delays in land restitution continue to reflect unresolved discrimination, signaling the urgent need for ecclesial engagement informed by both moral and theological imperatives (Muswubi, 2024, pp. 7–10).

The concept of political memory emerges as a critical hermeneutical lens that both challenges and enriches the Church’s understanding of its role in land justice. By recovering silenced histories, acknowledging complicity, and engaging with prophetic and Jubilee narratives from Scripture, ecclesial communities are equipped to move beyond passive remembrance toward active, justice-oriented praxis (Assmann, 2011, p. 16; Wright, 2011, pp. 872–874). Memory, in this sense, functions as both a theological and political resource, empowering the Church to articulate prophetic critique and intervention in public debates on land reform (Gillan, 1998, pp. 14–18).

Through biblical-theological reflection on prophetic texts such as Amos, Micah, Isaiah, and Jesus’ parables, the Church is reminded that land justice is inseparable from covenantal ethics, social equity, and communal restoration (Hultgren, 2000, p. 10; Wright, 2011, pp. 874–875). This theological grounding provides a basis for ecclesial practices that embody solidarity with marginalized communities, advocate for equitable policies, and integrate justice into liturgy, preaching, and sacraments. Models from the Church Land Program (CLP), the South African Council of Churches (SACC), and denominational initiatives demonstrate how memory and theology can translate into tangible action (Muswubi, 2024, pp. 7–10; Powell, 2021, 2024 pp. 7–9).

Ultimately, this study calls for a renewed prophetic witness in the struggle for land justice—a witness that is attentive to memory, committed to ethical engagement, and courageous in public advocacy. The Church, as a remembering and justice-seeking community, is uniquely positioned to participate in the re-imagination of land as a theological, ethical, and political imperative. By embracing this vocation, ecclesial institutions can contribute meaningfully to the rectification of historical injustices and the construction of a more equitable, reconciled South African society.

References

• 1

  AssmannA. (2011). Cultural memory and early civilization: Writing, remembrance, and political imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AtuaheneB. (2014). We want what’s ours: Learning from South Africa’s land restitution program. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BeinartW.DeliusP. (2014). The historical context and legacy of the natives land act of 1913. J. South. Afr. Stud.40, 667–688. doi: 10.1080/03057070.2014.930623

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BoesakA. (2015). Kairos, crisis, and global apartheid. US: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BrueggemannW. (1977). The land: Place as gift, promise, and challenge in biblical faith. Minneapolis. US: Fortress Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  ButlerE. A.LeeT. L.GrossJ. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and culture: Are the social consequences of emotion suppression culture-specific?Emotion, 7, 30–48. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.30

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  CousinsB.HallR. (2011). Land reform in South Africa: a review. J. Agrar. Chang.11, 213–230.

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  De VilliersE. (2019). The Catholic Church and land restitution in South Africa. HTS Teol. Stud.75, 1–7.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  GillanR. (1998). Fostering a praxis of spatial justice in suburban churches. Pretoria: University of Pretoria Repository.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  HallR. (2018). “Land redistribution in South Africa: Progress to date” in Land divided, land restored. eds. HallR.CousinsB. (Johannesburg: Jacana), 158–174.

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  HultgrenA. J. (2000). The parables of Jesus: A commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Kairos Document: Challenge to the Church: a Theological Comment on the Political Crisis in South Africa, 1986, 2nd edn., William B. Eeerdmans, Grand Rapids.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  LephotoN. (2020). The restitution of Roman Catholic Church land to indigenous people in post-apartheid South Africa: 1994–2014. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies76:a5607. doi: 10.4102/hts.v76i1.5607

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  MalulekeT. (2011). The elusive public of public theology. HTS Teol. Stud.67, 83–92.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  MarschallS. (2006). Commemorating “struggle heroes”: constructing a genealogy for the new South Africa. Int. J. Herit. Stud.12, 176–193. doi: 10.1080/13527250500496136,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  MetzJ. B. (1980). Faith in history and society: Toward a practical fundamental theology. New York: Seabury Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  MetzJ. B. (2007). Faith in history and society: Toward a practical fundamental theology. New York: Crossroad.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  MlamboN. N. (2020). Church land reform through a combination of examples and theology of spatial justice: The Roman Catholic Church in the diocese of Mariannhill 1999–present (MTh thesis). Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  MlamboN. N. N. (2024). Can land help church history? A spatialised historical methodology using land contestations. In die Skriflig58:a3113. doi: 10.4102/ids.v58i1.3113

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  MooreD. (2005). Reconstructing history, grounding claims to space: history, memory and displacement in the great Limpopo Transfrontier Park. J. South. Afr. Stud.31, 285–308.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  MuswubiT. A. (2024). Reviewing equitable justice and the land question in South Africa from a reformation perspective. Theol. Viatorum48, 7–10. doi: 10.4102/tv.v48i1.267

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Marthinus van Staden (2025). Land loss and labour control: the intersection of land dispossession and labour law in south African history. Ind. Law J.54, 324–356. doi: 10.1093/indlaw/dwae034

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  OkureA. (2012). ‘SECAM to set up Faith, Culture and Development Agenda’, Africa Faith & Justice Network, 23 November. Available online at: https://afjn.org/secam-to-set-up-faith-culture-and-development-agenda/ (Accessed July 22, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  PhiriS. (2018). Learning to be ‘out of order’: A life history of the church land Programme and the theoretical development of its praxis. PhD dissertation. South Africa: University of KwaZulu-Natal.

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  PowellD. (2021). Fostering a praxis of spatial justice in suburban churches: An emancipatory approach. University of Pretoria Repository. Available online at: https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/85772/Powell_Fostering_2021.pdf (Accessed May 12, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  PowellC. J. (2024). Future(s) for the church on the corner: A proposed praxis of spatial justice for South African congregations. Verbum et Ecclesia, 45:a3207. doi: 10.4102/ve.v45i2.3207

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  RicoeurP. (2004). Memory, history, forgetting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  SACC (1990). Land is crying for justice. Johannesburg: South African Council of Churches.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  SkirvinD. J.Kravar-GardeL.ReynoldsK.WrightC.MeadA. (2011). The effect of within-crop habitat manipulations on the conservation biological control of aphids in field-grown lettuce. Bull. Entomol. Res.101, 623–631. doi: 10.1017/S0007485310000659,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  South African History Online (2011). ‘A land dispossession history 1600s–1990s’. Available online at: https://sahistory.org.za/article/land-dispossession-history-1600s-1990s (Accessed May 22, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  South African History Online (2013). ‘Land: dispossession, resistance and restitution’. Available online at: https://sahistory.org.za/article/land-dispossession-history-1600s-1990s (Accessed May 22, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  TerreblancheS. (2014). Lost in transformation: South Africa’s search for a new future since 1986. Cape Town: KMM Review Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  VellemV. (2014). Prophetic theology and the public role of the church in South Africa. HTS Teol. Stud.70, 210–221.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  VolfM. (2006). The end of memory: Remembering rightly in a violent world. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  VoslooR. (2017). Reforming memory: Essays on south African church and theological history. Stellenbosch: Sun Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  WalkerC. (2008). Landmarked: Land claims and land restitution in South Africa. Johannesburg: Jacana Media.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  WilliamsL. (2023). Melchizedek, the son of man, and eschatological jubilee: the sin-forgiving messiahs in 11QMelchizedek and mark. J. Study New Testam.46, 111–149. doi: 10.1177/0142064X231191176

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  WitzL.MinkleyG.RassoolC. (2021). Unsettled history: Making south African public pasts. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  WolfeR. E. (1945). Meet Amos and Hosea: The Prophets of Israel. New York: Harper & Brothers.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  WrightC. J. H. (2004). Old testament ethics for the people of god. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  WrightN. G. (2011). Christianity and environmental justice. CrossCurents61, doi: 10.1111/j.1939-3881.2011.00174.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar