Litnet

Abstract

Dr. John Daniel Kestell is often called Father Kestell because of his special role as a field preacher during the South African War (Anglo-Boer War). He was regarded as the father of the Afrikaner people at that time. The purpose of this article is to determine what Dr. J.D. Kestell’s beliefs were during the war; whether he in some way pursued peace or otherwise provided the Biblical justification for the continuation of the war. The question of justice, which weighed heavily on him, must be considered. This means, therefore, that there should not be any talk of a holy war here, but that justice must be done. It is difficult to portray justice in war, but war on civilians, like women and children, and methods of utter destruction would be regarded as injustice. The theoretical framework used in this article involves looking at both primary and secondary sources on Kestell’s contribution during the war to determine what his considerations were. This is in line with the methodology of putting Kestell himself to the test, while also looking critically at his actions and views. In this way, “hero worship” is rejected, but justice is also done to the person. The findings are that Kestell was no pacifist, but that he acted from the conviction of his heart, bound to the Republican ideal and his religious beliefs. However, he did not compromise himself by participating in battles himself, but cared for citizens and English soldiers on the battlefield.

Kestell is well known in church history circles as a field preacher who provided medical aid to Boers and Britons during the South African War (1899–1902). In addition to his medical care and the impartiality thereof, he is also known for his involvement with President M.T. Steyn and General C.R. de Wet’s case, as well as the case of the Republic of the Orange Free State. He is known as a bittereinder, who remained with the commando until the end of the war. Was Kestell a man of peace and yet also a supporter of the continuation of war? Did he want to achieve peace at all costs, or did he prolong the war with the religious justification of the fight for General De Wet and President Steyn? Was there any choice for him if he wanted to affirm justice? What does justice mean here? This article examines the following aspects of Kestell’s religious beliefs in war:

• Grounding his beliefs: What determined his beliefs?
• Man of peace: Did he really pursue peace?
• Continuation of war: Was it necessary or not?
• Influence on De Wet and Steyn: Was it positive?
• The beliefs at the conclusion of peace: What was his role?
• Evaluation

Kestell identified himself completely with the Republican ideal. He was a Republican through and through and as a field preacher, lived out this ideal and constantly strived towards it (Malan 2000:IV). Therefore, he was, secondly, convinced that the cause of the Republicans was necessarily correct, and, thirdly, he wanted to commit himself to it. He therefore participated in the war in a very special way and also showed throughout that he was aware of the necessity of this struggle. As an extremely humble person, he would never want to draw fame from his participation (Nicol 1941:19); yet it is his dedication to the struggle that makes him deserving of the title Father Kestell (Hoofstad 1976:16). Kestell involved himself deeply in the religious life of the burghers, because he realised that they were a deeply religious people, and he could therefore identify himself with them as a teacher. According to Kestell, the strength of the Afrikaner is faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who carried them through all adversity (Van Schoor 1992:77).

During the war, Kestell was offered the rank of combat general by President Steyn. It was a surprising offer to him that he pondered deeply. Ultimately, he decided that he could neither accept it nor actively participate in the battle by acting as a combat general. He would constantly dedicate himself to caring for civilians, and the enemy, on the battlefield (Strauss 2017). His participation in the Harrismith Commando and later in De Wet’s Commando was not warlike, but peace-seeking (Van Schoor 1992:88). Kestell describes in detail the misery they experienced on commando and how they sometimes either got involved in battles in extremely difficult circumstances or had to manage to escape certain attacks while heavy artillery rained down on them (Van Schoor 1992:101). On Tuesday, 25 September 1900, they started as a horse commando, with nothing more than the bare necessities. The commando (and Kestell) often had to cope with extreme exhaustion; he describes how drowsy he was after two days and two nights on horseback and awake in the tent (Kestell 1999:111). He was constantly asked to address the men and encourage them (Kestell 1999:113). His hardships were the constant fleeing from the enemy and the difficult action (Kestell 1999:144). In addition, his abhorrence of the persecution of women and children and the indiscriminate arson and slaughter of livestock is also clear.

Like Kestell, over the centuries, many theologians have struggled with the question of whether Christians should be completely pacifist towards war. A. van de Beek (1982:77−99), professor emeritus of dogmatics at the Vrije Universiteit in the Netherlands, believes that the early Christians were indeed pacifists, to the annoyance of the Romans. They were persecuted for it. Origen believes that they were all pacifists. Van de Beek agrees with them. However, Aurelius Augustine and the Reformers, such as Zwingli and Calvin, clearly started from the position that war may be resorted to under extreme circumstances. There is, therefore, such a thing as a just war. The choice of the words holy war would, however, be inappropriate. Heyns (1978:72–7; 1988:186–92) also touches on this matter and mentions that the government carries the sword. Under extreme circumstances, because of sin, war may sometimes be resorted to, and Christians may participate in it when justice must be done. Kestell evidently sided with the Reformers in this regard.

When one considers the preceding facts and discussions, certain points become very clear. The first is Kestell’s deep faith. The second is that he was no pacifist, even though he refused to become a combat general and always acted only with bandages and water bottles and never carried weapons. No evidence can be found that he was in any way responsible for the death of any one of the enemies, although he identified himself with the war that, in his opinion, was justified. Yet, paradoxically, he was also consistently committed to promoting peace. Furthermore, it is clear that he gave General De Wet and President Steyn a deep theological and religious basis for the continuation of the war; he was never prepared to give up the fight. The question, therefore, remains, as Mostert (c.1980) confirms: Was Kestell, the field preacher, a folk hero whose presence should be recognised in this way thanks to his bravery and courage?

One cannot think about this matter uncritically. Because of the misery, the disaster, and the utter destruction of the war, the question remains whether Kestell had a limited understanding of God in his understanding of the gospel. Should he not, as Lord Kitchener suggested, have also strived more for peace during the Middelburg negotiations? It must be emphasised immediately that Kitchener did not include the Cape rebels in this proposal. If this proposal were accepted, it would be a betrayal of the rebels. For Steyn, this was unthinkable. At Vereeniging, they were better off. Should Kestell, as a committed Christian theologian, not have urged Steyn and De Wet to make peace for the sake of the children, women, and burghers when devastation struck the country? This remains a question that will always be open to discussion. A more instructive question is perhaps whether one can disregard the justice pursued by Kestell, Steyn, and De Wet. For these three, there was a higher concept of justice. They committed themselves to justice, yet war cannot be justified, but the law of God must also be maintained in times of war. Injustice must be fought without glorifying war. Kestell did not, therefore, justify war, but did, according to his own insight, uphold the right of the matter before God. In that connection, a deep theological issue is touched upon, namely that justice must also be done amidst the injustice of war. One must say that Kestell was a deeply convinced Christian who could not tolerate the injustice against the small republics, and that he committed himself to fighting against it.

Keywords: Kestell; pacifism; peace; religion; war

• This article’s featured image was created by an unknown author (in possession of the Bloemfontein War Museum) and obtained from Wikipedia.

Lees die volledige artikel in Afrikaans

J.D. Kestell: Godsdiensoortuigings vir vrede en die voortsetting van die stryd tydens die Suid-Afrikaanse Oorlog (Anglo-Boereoorlog)