South African Government's Terms for Return Unacceptable to Bishop Mize
Diocesan Press Service. September 27, 1968 [69-8]
NOTE TO THE EDITORS:
NEW YORK, N.Y. -- The attached letter from the Rt. Rev. Robert Mize, evicted as Bishop of Damaraland and Ovamboland July 26 by the government of South Africa, was delivered to the foreign minister of South Africa yesterday (September 26) through the U.S. state department.
In his letter Bishop Mize rejects terms laid down by the government which would allow his re-entry into the country and points out the reasons why he cannot accept those terms.
Bishop Mize is a former priest of the Episcopal Church in the United States and a native-born citizen of the U.S. He was consecrated in November, 1960, as Bishop of Damaraland.
A resolution passed by the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church in May protested the then threatened eviction of Bishop Mize and urged Episcopalians and other Christians to protest to Congressmen, the South African government, the United Nations and the U.S. state department.
Bishop Mize is now in the United States and is staying with a sister in Yuma, Arizona.
LETTER FROM THE RIGHT REVEREND ROBERT H. MIZE, JR., S. T. D. FORMERLY BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF DAMARALAND AND OVAMBOLAND IN SOUTH WEST AFRICA TO THE HONORABLE HILGARDE MULLER, FOREIGN MINISTER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA
September 21, 1968
Dear Mr. Muller:
On arrival in America on August 28th I was asked to contact the U. S. State Department; and on doing so, was given the message that the South African Government had returned a decision through Mr. Rountree, American Ambassador to South Africa, as follows:
"If the Bishop is prepared to state in public that some of his actions, since he came to South West Africa, were such that it might have been assumed or might have created the impression that he had concerned himself with political matters beyond the scope of his ecclesiastical duties and that he will in future refrain from such acts, he will be allowed to return immediately on the prevailing conditions. It must be explicitly understood that his permit will be withdrawn immediately should the government consider it necessary in view of his activities."
In answer, I cannot say that I have concerned myself with any matters beyond the scope of my ecclesiastical duties, nor can I say that I will refrain from assisting African people similarly in the future any more than I would refrain from assisting white people if they had needs to be voiced, and if possible, remedied, through any legitimate means. From the wording of your question I take it to mean that the South African Government now realizes belatedly that I did not concern myself with political matters beyond the scope of my ecclesiastical duties, but that "it might have been assumed or might have created the impression" that I had done so.
Your condition that I pledge myself not to give similar impressions in the future, is impossible in view of the sensitive feelings of Whites within South West Africa, nor could any Bi shop of the Church refrain from giving such impressions to some people under the circumstances. Could a Bishop refrain from unspecified lawful acts that might give rise to an assumption or impression on the part of the Government that the acts fell beyond the scope of his ecclesiastical duties ? In fairness to your Government I believe that I should give it the opportunity to specify.
My letter of August 2nd, the telegraphic text of which was delivered to you on July 29th, covers acts which you state gave rise to non-renewal of my permit. Which, if any, of these acts when repeated, might lead your Government to "assume" that I acted beyond the scope of my ecclesiastical duties? What other possible acts do you have in mind? What is your attitude toward the following questions raised by me in my letter to you: ministry to the Hereros; ministry to refugees; the matter of Rev. A.M. Garrison; general opportunity for our clergy to know of and respond to any Special Branch suspicions.
Let me illustrate the dilemma in which your formula would place me. There is a matter which has been of urgent concern to me and which is wholly within the ecclesiastical duties of a bishop.
Even today I must make appeal once again for rescindment of the withdrawal of the visa scheduled for October of our American missionary, Miss Sally Camp, of Odibo, P. O. Oshikango, Ovamboland, knowing that her withdrawal threatens the closing of St. Mary's High School because of the difficulty of achieving teachers and knowing too, and forewarning the South African Government, that there will be increasing resentment and bitterness amongst Ovambo peoples because of the deep affection they have for Miss Camp. As far as I know, her work has never been purposely political nor have I ever heard her speak discourteously of South Africa, and I believe she would be prepared to pledge to confine any future duties within the scope of her school work and religious routine.
Again, I have just read press reports quoting parts of a report of the South African Council of Churches expressing the view, which I strongly support, that the doctrine of the finality of racial identity is a denial of the central statements of the Gospel and opposed to the Christian understanding of the nature of man and community.
How may I determine whether, when I address such appeals to your Government, or express any of the concerns of the kinds above referred to, in public or in private, your Government may assume or form the impression that I am exceeding my ecclesiastical duties?
In closing may I express my personal thanks to you for reopening my case, even belatedly, when all doors had been closed and for giving me insight into the reasons back of the Government's decision.
My resignation as Bishop of Damaraland took effect on August 31.
Sincerely,
Robert H. Mize