The following is the summary of points made in two letters to a Cape Town newspaper, Southern Suburbs Tatler. The letters were printed on 3 and 17 February 2000, respectively.

 

Dear Sir or Madam

 

If the AWB [a white supremacist group in South Africa - ed] were to celebrate its 50th anniversary somewhere in the Southern Suburbs of Cape Town would Tatler splash pictures of the occasion in its "Scene Around" column? Probably, not. Why then join in the celebration of the New Apostolic Church (Tatler, January 27 page 8)?

 

Somehow the New Apostolic Church has managed to disguise itself as a respectable Christian denomination. For this reason few people are aware that this church (which also hides its operations and financial affairs from public scrutiny) has a long history of association with racist practices.

 

Its support of apartheid is but the most recent example. Far more shocking is its unrepentant support of Nazism in Germany. Thirteen of its "Apostles" (many of whom were welcomed here in South Africa) were members of the Nazi Party. The New Apostolic Church showed its support to Hitler's brutal regime through articles printed in its official publications, exposure and expulsion of members who opposed the government and donations to the Nazi Party.

 

When the New Apostolic Church's German leader invited the South African "Apostle", Heinrich Schlaphoff, from Claremont to Germany in 1937, Schlaphoff had the following to say: "We were amazed at the wonderful order and peace in Germany." This sort of pro Nazi propaganda continued to be spread long into the Second World War even as the horrors of the Holocaust became known.

 

The point of my letter is not to criticise you for covering the 50th anniversary of the New Apostolic Church in Claremont per se.

 

The fact that the New Apostolic Church supported the Nazi regime is not well known in this country. The New Apostolic Church has tried to cover up this fact both here and elsewhere. In this respect, the New Apostolic Church is different from both the Roman Catholic Church and the Dutch Reformed Church. The past records of those two churches are well known. Those two churches have furthermore acknowledged and apologised for their roles in respect of apartheid and Nazism. The New Apostolic Church has done neither.

 

I am suggesting that it is in the public interest to give an objective account of the history of the New Apostolic Church in your newspaper. I have a problem with the way in which you covered the 50th anniversary of the New Apostolic Church. I do not for one moment believe that you would cover the history of other organisations with dubious pasts in the same way. Or am I wrong?