Reimagining Poverty Interventions in Post-Apartheid South Africa: The Prophetic Imperative of the Belhar Confession

Abstract

Poverty has continued to be a huge challenge in the post-apartheid South Africa, despite some interventions from the government, civil societies and religious organizations. The persistent increase in poverty raises critical questions about how interventions to address this challenge have been effective. Among other things, the country’s poverty situation reveals that something is missing in its approaches to addressing it. This article investigates the theological and ecclesial implications of the poverty crisis, arguing the need for the church to critically reexamine its role and witness in combating the problem. Drawing on the Confession of Belhar, mainly from Article 4, which asserts God’s solidarity with the poor and the oppressed, the article argues for the need for the church’s engagement with poverty to be rooted in renewed theological conviction. Article 4 of the Belhar Confession calls the church not only to solidarity with the poor but also to prophetically acting against systemic injustice and social–economic marginalization. The article discusses the causes of poverty in post-apartheid South Africa and argues that the church must look back to the Belhar Confession not just as a historical document but also as a guide for addressing all forms of injustice in a changing context. The article encourages the church in post-apartheid Africa to reclaim its prophetic identity and renew its commitment to economic justice.

1. Introduction and the Context

The prevalence of poverty in post-apartheid South Africa still remains a significant, deeply troubling, unresolved challenge (Francis and Webster 2019, p. 788; Gumede 2021, p. 184; World Bank 2025a, p. 286). Notwithstanding the political transition to democracy and introduction of extensive policy frameworks aimed to address socio-economic challenges, poverty and inequality continue to challenge a significant proportion of the population. This raises a critical question: How can the Belhar Confession guide the church in post-apartheid South Africa toward a renewed prophetic and justice-oriented response to persistent poverty? To address this question, we first situate the church’s witness within the prevailing socio-economic realities: while multiple analyses explain poverty’s drivers, its persistence despite sustained policy efforts signals that technical responses alone are insufficient—hence the need for a renewed, confessionally grounded ecclesial response.

While various authorities in the country have attempted to explain this challenge, the persistence of poverty suggests that existing approaches to addressing it have failed. Beukes (2017, p. 231) opined the following:

There were political as well as economic expectations by many South Africans—especially by the previously disadvantaged people, that the democratization would result in a better life for all, especially since ANCs 1994 ‘A Better Life for all‘ campaign promised this better future for all South African citizens. However, more than twenty years after democracy, the current South African context shows that increasing widespread inconsistency, poverty and social problems in the country still exist.

Beukes’ (2017) observation remains evident today, with no significant strides having been made against poverty in the country. While it is undeniable that some sectors of society have improved living conditions, many South Africans still face economic hardships and social exclusion (Statistics South Africa (Stats SA 2025)).

Stats SA (2025), reporting on poverty trends from 2006 to 2023, shows a gradual decline in poverty levels at the national level when measured against official poverty lines and indices. However, one cannot rely solely on these official poverty measures, as they do not always reflect the actual depth and deprivation experienced by a large portion of the country’s population. Contemporary indicators, such as unemployment, food insecurity, and income vulnerability, continue to point to the persistence of deep and widespread poverty (OECD 2025, p. 34; Leibbrandt and Pabón 2021; World Bank 2025a).

Furthermore, South Africa remains one of the most unequal societies globally (IMF 2025, p. 5; World Bank 2024). In 2017, Webster et al. (2017) demonstrated that the wealthiest 10%of the population control approximately 90% of the country’s wealth and receive about 60% high of the national income. This has remained the same, as no significant improvement has been observed (IMF 2025). This enduring inequality suggests that structural factors, such as labor market exclusion, unequal access to quality education, and historically entrenched patterns of economic ownership, continue to shape the socio-economic landscape. Consequently, modest fluctuations in poverty levels do little to alter the deeper reality of systemic injustice.

The continued escalation and persistence of poverty, therefore, point to the inadequacy of prevailing strategies and interventions (Gumede 2021; Ngepah 2024). While the enduring legacy of apartheid, structural inequality, and governance failures, including corruption, are frequently identified as key drivers of poverty (World Bank 2018), the limited progress in addressing these well-documented factors raises critical questions about the effectiveness of the responses mounted to confront them. Given South Africa’s democratic institutions and policy capacity, the slow pace of socio-economic transformation suggests not only structural constraints but also a broader failure of coordinated and morally grounded action.

The current situation of poverty in post-apartheid South Africa demands multiple societal interventions. The government is responsible for policy formulation, implementation, and accountability (Sessa et al. 2020). However, the persistent weaknesses in governance and service delivery continue to undermine efforts to address poverty. Civil society organizations have often struggled to effect sustained structural changes despite being active in advocacy and relief (Ngumbela and Mle 2019, p. 6).

It is within this context that the church, historically recognized as a morally influential social institution with deep grassroots presence, has also struggled to fully realize its potential to confront systemic injustice, mobilize communities, and hold both the state and society accountable (Beukes 2017, p. 232; Nanthambwe 2024). It is important to note that when this article refers to ‘the church,’ it does not imply a uniform or monolithic entity. South Africa hosts a diverse Christian landscape, including mainline Protestant churches, African Independent Churches, Pentecostal and charismatic movements, and Roman Catholic communities, each with distinct theological emphases, governance structures, and historical engagements with social issues. While all these churches share a common call to faithfulness and justice, their approaches to poverty alleviation, advocacy, and community engagement vary considerably. Some churches have historically played prophetic roles, mobilizing communities and challenging systemic injustice. (Dube and Molise 2018; Pillay 2017), while others have focused more on pastoral care or charitable relief (Prinsloo and Dreyer 2024). This diversity highlights the need to interpret the Belhar Confession in ways that can be relevant across denominational lines while remaining sensitive to the contextual realities and capacities of each ecclesial tradition.

The shortcomings by the government, civil society and the church to address poverty suggest that poverty in post-apartheid South Africa is not only the result of historical and structural conditions, but also of fragmented, insufficiently transformative responses.

Poverty in a post-apartheid South Africa poses a deep theological and confessional challenge for the church, apart from its socio-economic and political dimensions. The situation of persistent poverty and extreme inequality in the country calls into question the credibility of Christian claims regarding God’s justice, human dignity, and reconciliation in a society that professes faith in a God who sides with the marginalized. With the enormity of poverty in the country, the church is confronted not only with an ethical concern but with a crisis of faithfulness that exposes the tension between theological confession and lived reality. This disjunction between what the church confesses and how it acts reinforces the central claim of this article that confession without praxis undermines the credibility and transformative potential of Christian social teaching.

The country’s poverty situation raises the question of whether the church has adequately drawn on its theological resources to meaningfully respond to the crisis. This article contends that the Confession of Belhar offers a compelling and underutilized theological framework through which the church in South Africa can reorient its engagement with poverty. Rooted in the interrelated themes of unity, reconciliation, and justice, the Belhar Confession affirms God’s preferential concern for the poor and the wronged and calls the church to resist all forms of injustice that undermine human dignity (Beukes 2017; Plaatjies-van Huffel 2017).

The article reconsiders the Belhar Confession to investigate how its theological affirmations and ethical imperatives can inform a more coherent, prophetic, and transformative ecclesial response to the poverty crisis in the post-apartheid South Africa. It argues that the Belhar Confession must be understood not merely as a historical document born of the apartheid-era struggle, but as a living confessional resource capable of guiding the church’s public witness and pastoral praxis in the face of the country’s prevalent poverty.

The article employs theological reflection and ecclesial analysis methodology to critically examine the church’s identity, practices, and public witness, discerning how its theological convictions can be translated into transformative action that responds contextually to the issue of poverty in a post-apartheid South Africa.

Theological reflection, as articulated by Tracy (1981) and Browning (1991), is understood as a disciplined process that brings Christian faith, Scripture, tradition, and doctrine into critical dialog with concrete socio-historical realities. In a context marked by persistent poverty and inequality, such reflection must interrogate how Christian faith commitments shape moral responsibility and public witness, calling the church to a credible and justice-oriented engagement with socio-economic realities (Forster 2015, p. 1; Resane 2019, p. 2). Ecclesial analysis complements this approach by examining the church’s role, practices, and self-understanding within its social context, including tensions between theological confession and lived ecclesial praxis (Osmer 2008).

The article argues that poverty in post-apartheid South Africa presents a theological and ecclesial obligation rather than merely a socio-economic or political concern. To answer the guiding question, how can the Belhar Confession guide the church toward a renewed, prophetic, and justice-oriented response to persistent poverty? Although the Belhar Confession is often treated primarily as a historical response to apartheid or as a basis for ecclesial unity, a wider body of scholarship insists on its continued normative force in changing contexts, especially where injustice persists (Koopman 2007, 2008; Plaatjies-van Huffel 2013, 2017; Modise 2017; Conradie 2017). Building on these insights, this article advances a more specific claim: that Belhar’s justice motif (especially Article 4) can function as a constructive, confessional framework for the church’s public witness to, and practical engagement with, contemporary structural poverty in South Africa. In this way, the article moves beyond historical reception and intra-ecclesial debates to propose concrete implications for ecclesial praxis, accountability, and advocacy in the present. This clarifies the article’s novelty, not simply reading Belhar as a critique of past injustice, but retrieving it as a living confessional resource to orient the church’s response to persistent poverty today.

The article proceeds in four movements. First, it examines the nature of poverty in contemporary South Africa, highlighting its structural and systemic dimensions as the contextual reality the church must respond to. Second, it turns to the Belhar Confession to articulate its theological imperative of justice and its claim that God stands “in a special way” with the poor and the wronged, thereby framing poverty as a confessional concern. Third, the article analyses the church’s confessional responsibility in light of Belhar, exploring why its prophetic voice has weakened and what obstructs the movement from theological conviction to transformative action. Finally, it proposes a reimagined ecclesial praxis, informed by the spirit of Belhar, aimed at cultivating a justice-oriented and publicly credible witness in the face of persistent poverty in post-apartheid South Africa.

Although this article intentionally reads poverty and Scripture through the Belhar Confession in ways that resonate with liberation theology’s preferential option for the poor, it is important to acknowledge the theological roots and contested reception of this paradigm. Liberation theology, as it emerged in Latin America, is classically associated with the work of Gustavo Gutiérrez, whose A Theology of Liberation framed theological reflection as inseparable from concrete historical struggles against poverty and injustice and articulated the “preferential option for the poor” as a Christological and hermeneutical commitment rather than a purely sociological concern (Gutiérrez 1988; Gutiérrez 2009). While the Confession of Belhar arose within the South African struggle against apartheid, its theological witness has been received positively beyond South Africa, particularly within Reformed and ecumenical contexts in Europe and North America, where it has been adopted as a contemporary confession addressing unity, reconciliation, and justice (Pillay 2022). At the same time, critics caution that liberationist and confessional readings may risk overextending historically contextual judgments or reducing biblical theology to sociopolitical categories, a concern raised in both international (Carson 1996; DeYoung and Gilbert 2011) and South African (Bartle 2025; Deist 1983) Reformed scholarship. Acknowledging these debates clarifies that the approach adopted here represents one constructive theological reading, chosen for its particular relevance to persistent poverty in post-apartheid South Africa.

Acknowledging these concerns does not weaken the present argument but clarifies that the approach adopted here is one constructive theological reading among several, selected because of its contextual relevance for post-apartheid South Africa.

2. What’s Wrong with Poverty in a Post-Apartheid South Africa?

According to Kgatle (2017, p. 3), the poverty crisis in post-apartheid South Africa cannot be solely explained as a mere result of limited economic growth, insufficient policy intervention, or the lingering effects of apartheid. While the significance of these factors cannot be denied, they do not satisfactorily explain the prevalence and deepening of poverty in a country that has, since 1994, implemented extensive redistributive policies, social protection mechanisms, and legislative reforms targeted at redressing historical inequalities. The central problem identified in this article lies in structural injustice, which is manifested mostly through acute systematic corruption, elite capture, and the failure of coordinated moral and institutional accountability across government, civil society and the church (Kgatle 2017; Nanthambwe 2022; ProEthics n.d.).

Kgatle (2017, p. 3) warns against overemphasizing on apartheid as a singular explanatory framework for the current poverty situation in the country, pointing out that:

While it is true that apartheid is one of the major causes of poverty, the democratic government cannot continue to blame the apartheid system because that system is no more. After 23 years of democracy, the leaders in a democratic government cannot continue to point to the past, but they need to point them into the future.

Nanthambwe (2022, p. 70) firmly agrees with Kgatle (2017), acknowledging the profound harm inflicted by colonialism and apartheid, yet maintaining that:

In all honesty, colonialism and segregation was a setback for South Africa. The system of apartheid was highly detrimental to the lives of black South Africans. Despite this, this research conducted in 2022, twenty-eight years after apartheid was abolished, does not consider colonialism and apartheid to be the primary reasons the country has such a high poverty rate. This is because a significant amount of time has passed since the eras of colonialism and apartheid.

While the setback in addressing poverty persists, it is evident that the South African Government, civil society, and churches have made genuine efforts to address poverty (Nanthambwe 2024). For example, since the democratic transition, the government has introduced a range of interventions, including social grants, housing programs, expanded access to basic services, and affirmative economic policies such as Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE). These measures have contributed to measurable improvements in access to education, healthcare, and social assistance for many previously marginalized citizens (South African Government n.d.; Stats SA 2025; World Bank 2018).

Likewise, civil society organizations have played significant role in advocacy, service delivery, and poverty alleviation, frequently stepping in to address the gaps in state provision. The research performed by Mchunu and Manicom (2025) demonstrates this where they found out that during the COVID-19 lockdown, civil society organizations were instrumental in advocating for a top-up of the Child Support Grant. Through the strategic use of evidence-based research, media engagement, and coalition building, these organizations successfully influenced policy reform that prioritized the needs of vulnerable households.

The church has also not been silent in addressing poverty, as evidenced by research showing that churches actively participate in programs to address the challenge (Forster 2015; Mkhize 2024; Nanthambwe 2022).

Conversely, the persistence of widespread poverty alongside these interventions points to deeper systemic failures. Recent judicial inquiries, most notably the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture (Zondo Commission) and the Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Impropriety at the Public Investment Corporation (Mandlanga Commission), have laid bare the extent to which corruption, maladministration, and collusion between political and economic elites have undermined public institutions and diverted resources intended for public benefit. These commissions reveal that corruption in South Africa is not merely incidental or individualized, but structural, embedded within governance systems and policy implementation processes (ProEthics n.d.). As a result, funds allocated for development, service delivery, and poverty alleviation have been systematically misappropriated, weakening the state’s capacity to address socio-economic inequality and exacerbating conditions of deprivation.

This structural injustice extends beyond overt corruption to include patterns of elite enrichment and exclusionary economic practices. Policies such as BEE and BBBEE were originally considered as instruments of broad-based reparation and economic inclusion. Yet, in practice, these policies have often facilitated the concentration of wealth among a relatively small, politically connected black elite, while leaving the structural conditions of poverty largely unchanged (FW de Klerk Foundation 2024; Mbeki 2009; Pretorius 2025; Ramphele 2008).

Subsequently, economic privilege has been reallocated in ways that have not fundamentally transformed the socio-economic conditions of the poor. Rather than facilitating broad-based inclusion, such patterns of elite capture have entrenched inequality and eroded public confidence in redistributive policy frameworks intended to promote social justice. In a forceful critique of race-based empowerment policies, Pretorius (2025, n.p.) argues that the structural design and implementation of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) have largely failed to address the material realities of those living in poverty, stating:

Economic empowerment and disempowerment in South Africa, therefore, reveal B-BBEE at its best to be irredeemably elitist, where it is not utterly impotent. The problem for the advocates of all race-based empowerment policies is a fundamental misdiagnosis of the socio-economic obstacles faced by South Africa’s poorest…

As a result, B-BBEE operates less as a ladder for the poor than as an elevator for an elite already on the inside. A genuine empowerment policy would directly target the obstacles to prosperity that do not discriminate on race: the deep, layered impediments to upward mobility.

This account highlights the disjunction between the stated objectives of B-BBEE and its practical outcomes. Rather than dismantling structural barriers to economic participation, the policy has often functioned to consolidate advantage among politically and economically connected groups, leaving the underlying conditions of poverty largely unchanged.

A similar concern is echoed by the FW de Klerk Foundation (2024), which situates the shortcomings of B-BBEE within a broader constitutional and governance framework. While acknowledging the policy’s alignment with the constitutional mandate to redress past injustices, the Foundation contends that its implementation has frequently failed to meet the substantive equality envisioned in Section 9(2) of the Constitution and affirmed in the Van Heerden judgment:

Despite this framework, BBBEE policies often fall short of these constitutional criteria. The Zondo Commission highlighted that BBBEE has been manipulated to advance the interests of a select few, rather than addressing broader economic disparities. Harvard’s Growth Lab and the Institute of Race Relations have similarly criticized BBBEE, arguing that its continuation hampers economic growth and fails to benefit the broader disadvantaged population. Instead of broadly advancing economic equality, BBBEE has sometimes benefited a narrow elite, leaving many disadvantaged individuals with limited gains. This disparity underscores a significant constitutional tension: While BBBEE aims to address historical injustices, its implementation has not fully achieved its goals of poverty reduction and equality enhancement. The persistence of high levels of inequality suggests that BBBEE has not sufficiently met the criteria of advancing substantive equality as envisioned by Section 9(2) and the Van Heerden judgment.

It could be argued, as a counter-position, that poverty persists primarily due to factors such as slow economic growth, global economic volatility, skills shortages, and the long-term effects of apartheid-era spatial and educational inequalities (Kgatle 2017). These explanations cannot be overlooked and must be taken seriously. Yet they do not give the full story of why poverty persists in the country. A good example is Rwanda within the African context. According to the World Bank (2025b), Rwanda has recorded sustained and robust economic growth over the past two decades and is pursuing an ambitious development trajectory aimed at attaining middle-income status by 2035 and high-income status by 2050. This achievement is striking given the country’s history of protracted civil conflict since 1990 and the devastating genocide of 1994. South Africa, by contrast, underwent a democratic transition during the same historical period and inherited significantly stronger economic infrastructure and institutional capacity. Yet, while Rwanda has demonstrated upward developmental momentum, South Africa continues to face economic stagnation, deepening inequality, and persistent poverty (World Bank 2018). This contrast suggests that historical injustice alone cannot sufficiently explain divergent development outcomes; rather, the quality of governance, institutional integrity, and accountability play a decisive role in shaping post-conflict and post-transition socio-economic trajectories (Akinbi 2025).

Economic constraints and historical legacies do not account for the scale of resource leakage, institutional decay, and policy distortion revealed by recent commissions of inquiry. Nor do they explain why, despite significant public expenditure on social development, poverty outcomes remain stubbornly poor. Structural injustice, particularly in the form of corruption and governance failure, acts as a multiplier of existing vulnerabilities, ensuring that even well-designed policies fail to reach their intended beneficiaries (Krsteski 2017, p. 51; Nanthambwe 2022, p. 74).

Additionally, responsibility for this structural injustice cannot be located solely within the state. Civil society and the church, while often vocal in condemning corruption and inequality, have frequently lacked sustained, coordinated, and transformative engagement capable of challenging entrenched systems of power. The church, in particular, occupies a morally significant position within South African society, yet its responses to corruption and poverty have often remained fragmented, reactive, or confined to charitable relief rather than prophetic confrontation of systemic injustice. This failure of coordinated moral accountability across societal institutions has allowed structural injustice to persist largely unchallenged.

What is ultimately wrong with poverty in South Africa, therefore, is not only its persistence, but the fact that it endures despite widespread knowledge of its causes, the availability of material and institutional resources, and a shared moral awareness of its injustice. Poverty is sustained by systems that prioritize elite accumulation over the public good, tolerate corruption, and normalize extreme inequality. This reality reveals poverty not merely as a socio-economic challenge, but as a manifestation of structural and moral injustice that demands theological interrogation.

When injustice becomes entrenched and persistent, it confronts the church with a confessional question: whether its faith commitments are adequately embodied in its public witness and social praxis. It is at this critical juncture that the Confession of Belhar becomes theologically significant. Rooted in an uncompromising commitment to justice, solidarity with the marginalized, and faithfulness to the gospel, the Belhar Confession provides a confessional framework through which the church is called to discern, confess, and resist socio-economic arrangements that deny human dignity.

3. The Belhar Confession and the Theological Imperative of Justice

The Confession of Belhar emerged from a time of deep social and political injustice and church crisis in South Africa (Beukes 2017; Plaatjies-van Huffel 2013). It was drafted in 1982 and formally adopted by the Dutch Reformed Mission Church in 1986. Belhar was a theological response to apartheid, which it saw not just as a political idea but as a theological error that went against the gospel of Jesus Christ (Beukes 2017; Brunsdon 2015, p. 351; Cloete and Smit 1984; Boesak 2008). As a confessional document, Belhar aimed to express the church’s faith at a time when neutrality was no longer an option. It stated that following Christ demanded a clear and public rejection of injustice, exclusion, and oppression. This message was emphasized in the Accompanying Letter to the Confession of Belhar (URCSA 1986, p. 2):

We are aware that in the life of the Church there can be moments of such seriousness that the Church feels the necessity of confessing its faith anew in the light of a specific situation. We are aware that such an act of confession should not be made lightly but only when it is judged that the heart of the gospel itself is at stake and under threat.

Christian Reformed Church (n.d.) states that the Belhar Confession includes three related theological statements: unity, reconciliation, and justice. Each is based on Scripture and focuses on real social issues (Naudé 2010). In the Belhar Confession, unity is seen not as an ideal but as a gift and duty rooted in Christ. It calls the church to be visibly united and to stand against racial and social divisions (URCSA 1986, Belhar Confession, Article 1). Reconciliation is recognized as both a divine act completed in Christ and a duty for the church to fight against alienation, hatred, and conflict in all forms (Article 2). These ideas come together in Article 4, which speaks directly to justice and the church’s duty to care for the poor and the wronged. This places the realities of social and economic issues at the center of Christian faith.

Article 4 of the Belhar Confession (URCSA 1986) clearly expresses the theological necessity of justice. It acknowledges that God is uniquely the God of the destitute, the poor, and the oppressed, and that the church is called to align itself with where the Lord is, specifically against injustice and in solidarity with those who are suffering (Belhar Confession, Article 4) (URCSA 1986). This statement is rooted in the biblical tradition, reflecting scriptural passages that highlight God’s special concern for the marginalized and God’s resistance to structures that foster exploitation and exclusion (cf. Ps 146, pp. 7–9; Isa 1, pp. 16–17; Amos 5, pp. 21–24). In this confessional understanding, justice is not merely an additional ethical consideration but an essential aspect of remaining faithful to the gospel.

A parallel concern is evident within Catholic teaching on Africa. In Ecclesia in Africa, Pope John Paul II (1995) argues that evangelization on the continent must include confronting injustice, corruption, exclusion, and social wounds as part of the Church’s theological mission. Pope Benedict XVI’s (2011) Africae munus likewise interprets the African Church’s vocation in terms of reconciliation, justice, and peace, linking spiritual renewal to the transformation of political, social, and economic structures. These Catholic perspectives echo Belhar’s conviction that the confession of God’s justice requires active solidarity with the poor and resistance to systemic oppression

The theological reasoning presented in Article 4 (URCSA 1986) is crucial to current discussions on poverty because it rejects efforts to isolate faith or to disconnect doctrine from socio-economic conditions (MacMaster 2019, p. 11; Mannion 2009, p. 122). According to Smit (2017), the Belhar Confession exemplifies a confessing theology that mandates that the church voice its concerns, given that the integrity of the gospel is at stake. In this context, justice transcends mere charitable acts or ethical feelings and is seen as fulfilling God’s will in specific historical situations. Consequently, the church’s duty to oppose injustice arises not from political beliefs but from its affirmation of God’s nature and God’s ongoing work in the world (Belhar Confession Article 4) (URCSA 1986).

This confessional emphasis is deeply rooted in Scripture. The biblical narrative consistently portrays justice as integral to covenantal faithfulness. The prophets repeatedly denounce worship that is detached from justice, insisting that true devotion to God is inseparable from the defense of the poor and the marginalized (Isa 58:6–7; Mic 6:8). In the New Testament, Jesus’ ministry is explicitly oriented toward the poor, the excluded, and the oppressed, as reflected in his inaugural sermon in Luke 4:18–19 and his identification with ‘the least of these’ in Matthew 25:31–46. These texts reinforce the claim that concern for poverty is not peripheral to Christian faith but central to the gospel’s vision of God’s reign.

The Belhar Confession offers a theological perspective that frames poverty as a challenge to the church’s faith rather than merely a socio-economic issue, placing socio-economic injustice at the heart of Christian obedience. This is evident in Article 4, which declares that God is “in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged” and therefore calls the church to stand with those who suffer in any form (Belhar Confession, Article 4) (URCSA 1986). As noted by Naudé (2010), the confession asserts that the church’s credibility is directly linked to its unity with the poor and its opposition to injustice. When the church fails to challenge the systems that sustain poverty, it jeopardizes the integrity of its own confession. This understanding is especially significant in post-apartheid South Africa, where poverty continues to exist despite political freedom and constitutional promises of equality and dignity.

Significantly, the Belhar Confession was not meant to serve merely as a historical record limited to the apartheid period (Smit 2017, pp. 269–70). Instead, it expresses lasting theological beliefs that require practical application in evolving circumstances (MacMaster 2019, p. 2). Modise (2017, p. 148) highlights:

The Belhar Confession is relevant to all Christian churches today because it addresses critical issues emphasized in Scripture—unity among the people of God, reconciliation within the church and society, injustices of all kinds, and God’s bias on behalf of those who have been wronged.

In this context, Plaatjies-van Huffel (2017, p. 24) describes the Belhar Confession as a ‘living document’ and a ‘living light’ that guides the church in confronting various forms of injustice. Minimizing the Belhar Confession to merely a historical artifact of the anti-apartheid struggle reduces its radical message and overlooks its continued significance for modern issues of injustice, such as economic disparity, corruption, and systemic poverty. In the post-apartheid landscape, the confession challenges the church to consider whether it is prepared to renew its confession, both in speech and actions, affirming that God’s justice judges all socio-economic systems that undermine life and dignity (Beukes 2017).

Within this framework, the Belhar Confession urges the church in South Africa to rethink its approach to poverty as an act of confessional loyalty. To align with God’s position today, the church must identify poverty as an injustice rooted in both structural and moral shortcomings, challenge complacency and complicity, and engage actively in the quest for socio-economic justice.

The continued normative relevance of the Belhar Confession extends beyond its historical critique of apartheid. Scholars such as Koopman (2008), Naudé (2010), Dames (2012) and Plaatjies-van Huffel (2013, 2017) emphasize that Belhar functions as a living confession whose theological claims remain binding in changing contexts. Article 4 not only denounces injustice but also articulates a constructive ecclesial vocation: the church is called to embody God’s solidarity with “the destitute, the poor and the wronged” and to stand against systems that deny human dignity. As several interpreters argue, Belhar’s justice motif offers not only critique but also positive guidance for contemporary praxis, including public advocacy, policy engagement, coalition-building with civil society, and sustained resistance to corruption and inequality (Koopman 2007; Conradie 2017). In this sense, Belhar provides a constructive theological framework that can orient the church toward political alternatives rooted in dignity, accountability, equity, and the common good, enabling the church to engage not only reactively but proactively in shaping a more just social order in post-apartheid South Africa.

Therefore, the Belhar Confession serves not only as a historical testament of resistance but also as a dynamic confession that calls the church to committed, justice-focused action in response to the ongoing poverty in post-apartheid South Africa.

4. The Confessional Mandate of the Church in Confronting Poverty

Historically, the church in sub-Saharan Africa has been an active participant in addressing socio-political injustices (Nanthambwe 2020; Prinsloo and Dreyer 2024). In various situations, it has been influential in shaping public awareness and challenging systems of oppression. A significant case is Malawi, where the Catholic Church, through its pastoral letter Living Our Faith (Catholic Bishops of Malawi 1992), took a stand against the injustices of the one-party regime and played a crucial role in the nation’s democratic evolution. Likewise, in South Africa, the church took on a notable prophetic role during apartheid, with documents like the Kairos Document (Kairos Theologians 1985) openly rejecting theological justifications for oppression and urging the church to align itself with the marginalized in the face of systemic injustice. These moments demonstrate that the church has, at critical junctures, understood injustice not merely as a political concern but as a theological crisis that demands a confessional response.

In post-apartheid South Africa, a stark contrast is observed. Even though poverty, inequality, and socio-economic exclusion persist and, in some cases, worsen, the church’s public advocacy has become significantly less vocal (Mkhize 2024; Nanthambwe 2022). This lack of outspoken engagement is particularly concerning given the growing evidence that poverty in South Africa is increasingly fueled not only by historical disadvantages but also by modern forms of injustice, such as corruption, elite capture, and institutional failures (Mkhize 2024). Consequently, a critical theological inquiry arises: Why has the church, which once fearlessly addressed injustice, become relatively subdued in response to a poverty crisis that is both systematically supported and morally unacceptable?

To adequately respond to this question, it is crucial to first recognize the actions being taken by the church. Throughout South Africa, churches are actively participating in poverty alleviation through initiatives like food distribution, clothing drives, soup kitchens, and emergency relief efforts. These kinds of interventions are neither trivial nor unnecessary. In situations of severe deprivation, a relief-focused ministry demonstrates compassion and offers immediate support to at-risk communities (Corbett and Fikkert 2012). However, as Bowers Du Toit (2016) and Corbett and Fikkert (2012) warn, when the church restricts its poverty engagement to charitable relief alone, it may address only the symptoms while failing to confront the deeper structures of injustice. While charity is vital, it cannot replace the need for transformative justice.

This inclination to provide relief rather than engage with structural issues raises significant theological questions. In South Africa, poverty is not mainly caused by natural disasters or inevitable economic limitations; it is perpetuated by unjust systems that concentrate wealth, allow corruption to persist, and normalize inequality (Bowers Du Toit 2016). When the church limits its efforts to charitable acts without confronting these systems, it inadvertently endorses the status quo. This perspective aligns with what some scholars refer to as a depoliticized or privatized faith, which prioritizes individual morality and personal devotion while remaining silent about societal injustices (Newman 2021, p. 188).

One possible reason for the church’s silence lies in its altered relationship with political authority. Throughout apartheid, the church frequently opposed a hostile government, making prophetic critique both essential and obvious. In contrast, in a democratic context, many church leaders have chosen a stance of cooperation or accommodation, driven by a wish to assist in nation-building and foster social cohesion (Makofane and Botha 2019, pp. 89–90). Although collaboration between the church and the state is not inherently problematic, it raises theological concerns when it dissuades prophetic critique, particularly when the state itself is involved in wrongdoing. As Mkhize (2024) asserts, the church’s hesitance to address corruption and failures in governance demonstrates a decline in moral clarity and a diminishing of its public theological voice.

The question of the church’s muted prophetic witness raises further theological issues concerning confession, discipleship, and public truth. Boesak’s (2008) reading of Belhar highlights that theological confession is inseparable from political and economic solidarity with the oppressed. Likewise, Protestant public theologians such as Moltmann (1993, 1999) and Volf (1996, 2011) argue that the church’s credibility is measured not by doctrinal precision alone but by its participation in God’s liberating action in history. This means that the gap between belief and praxis is not only an ethical failure but a theological contradiction: the church denies its own confession when it neglects the suffering of the poor. The present analysis, therefore, interprets ecclesial silence not merely as strategic or organizational weakness, but as a deformation of the church’s very identity.

Another aspect to consider is fragmentation within the South African church. The religious landscape following apartheid is marked by a variety of denominations, differing theological views, and socio-economic divisions. Many affluent and middle-class congregations are both socially and physically distant from communities that continue to experience poverty. This disconnection fosters a lack of understanding, leading congregations to support justice ideologically while failing to comprehend the daily realities of poverty (Riley 2014, p. 8). In these instances, poverty is viewed as a theoretical issue rather than a moral imperative that necessitates urgent action.

It is important to recognize that theological research in South Africa has indeed addressed the issue of poverty. An extensive range of studies has investigated how the church might engage with socio-economic challenges, suggesting ways to collaborate, advocate, and uplift communities (Nanthambwe 2022, 2024; Prinsloo and Dreyer 2024). These findings indicate that intellectual resources are available for meaningful engagement. Consequently, the issue is not the absence of theological insights but rather a continual divide between theological discussions and practical application within the church. This disparity poses challenging inquiries: What prevents the church from transforming theological insights about poverty into tangible, collective action? What obstacles hinder the shift from belief to action?

Recent judicial investigations, especially the Zondo Commission, have heightened these concerns. The commission’s findings revealed widespread corruption and the deliberate misallocation of public resources intended to reduce poverty and foster development (FW de Klerk Foundation 2024). Since the ramifications of such corruption mainly impact the poor, many of whom belong to church communities, the church’s relative inaction becomes even more concerning. If the church fails to acknowledge corruption-induced poverty as a crisis requiring confession, then its proclamation of the gospel risks becoming disconnected from the realities of people’s lives.

The significance of the Belhar Confession becomes particularly important in this context. Article 4 of Belhar states that God is, ‘in a special way, the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged,’ (URCSA 1986) and that the church is meant to align itself with God’s position—specifically, opposing injustice and standing in solidarity with those who endure hardship. This assertion is not merely a broad ethical encouragement but a confessional statement that links faith with action. Thus, to confess Belhar while ignoring systemic poverty is to strip the confession of its theological meaning.

Belhar urges the church to view poverty not merely as a social issue but as a theological contradiction to the gospel. If the church claims to follow a Christ who brings good news to the poor and freedom to the oppressed (Lk 4:18–19), yet does not tackle the systems that sustain deprivation, a disconnect arises between what it preaches and what it practices. This disparity can be seen as a confessional inconsistency, a failure to embody the implications of the faith that the church professes.

Importantly, Belhar does not urge the church to take the place of the state or to take charge of economic policy matters. Instead, it calls on the church to embrace moral and prophetic accountability: to identify injustice, to stand with the marginalized, and to hold those in authority responsible. In an environment where corruption is viewed as commonplace and inequality seen as unavoidable, this role is not merely optional but essential to the church’s identity.

The church’s mandate to address poverty rests not mainly on broadening charitable initiatives but on regaining its prophetic boldness. This entails posing challenging inquiries about authority, complicity, and silence. It calls for the church to reflect on whether its theology has turned complacent, prioritizing institutional endurance over being true to the gospel. It also requires a fresh focus on unity within the church, as divided congregations find it difficult to present a consistent public testimony.

The ongoing existence of poverty in South Africa presents a theological challenge that cannot be resolved only through policy evaluation. It challenges the church to consider whether it maintains the conviction that the gospel impacts the public sphere. As emphasized in Belhar, being faithful to Christ requires tangible, lived opposition to injustice. Consequently, the church’s inability to effectively address poverty is not just a tactical shortcoming but a crisis of belief.

This acknowledgment naturally transitions to the following segment of the article, which examines how the church can progress from silence to a revitalized confessional practice. If Belhar is truly relevant, the challenge for the church is not merely to recall it as a historical artifact but to reconceptualize its involvement with poverty in ways that are faithful, bold, and publicly evident in post-apartheid South Africa.

5. Reimagining Ecclesial Praxis: Toward a Belhar-Inspired Engagement with Poverty

If, as this article suggests, poverty in post-apartheid South Africa is not only a socio-economic issue but also a reflection of structural injustice and a moral challenge, then the church’s approach must go beyond just charitable assistance or theoretical theological discussions.

The Belhar Confession urges the church in South Africa not to take a passive role in the face of injustice, but to manifest a tangible, daring, and authentic form of discipleship. In the context of Belhar, confession is never simply a liturgical or doctrinal exercise; it is a lived expression of loyalty that demands real-world implications. Thus, to uphold Belhar is to recognize that being faithful to Christ requires the church to engage actively with the harsh realities of poverty, inequality, and systemic injustice that continue to influence post-apartheid South Africa.

The subsequent question is not whether the church ought to engage but rather how this engagement can be envisioned in ways that are theologically rooted, confessional in nature, and socially credible. Reinterpreting church practice in the spirit of Belhar does not entail creating entirely new actions but instead permitting the confession to reshape the church’s self-perception, priorities, and public testimony.

First, a praxis influenced by the Belhar Confession necessitates that the church acknowledges its essential role in combating poverty (Kakwata 2020, p. 117). This assertion does not imply that the church is technically or politically essential; rather, it serves as a theological statement about its mission. As a moral community shaped by the gospel, the church has a distinct ability to identify injustice, cultivate conscience, and inspire collective action based on shared principles. Although the legitimacy of the church’s public engagement has faced scrutiny in modern South Africa—often due to internal conflicts, ethical shortcomings, or a perceived alignment with those in power—this period of crisis offers a chance for revitalization. By treating poverty as a matter of confession rather than a minor concern, the church can begin to regain its moral influence and show that faith continues to be a source of social change rather than just personal comfort.

Second, a reimagined praxis requires a clear recognition that the South African democratic state has, to a considerable extent, not protected marginalized populations from systemic injustice, especially in light of corruption and the capture of power by elites (Mchunu et al. 2025). Belhar does not allow the church to adopt a stance of political neutrality when authority is wielded in ways that threaten human dignity. To stand where God stands means opposing practices that exploit public assets, solidify inequality, and perpetuate poverty. This does not suggest that the church should take over the role of the state or assume judicial power; instead, it urges the church to fulfill its prophetic duty by calling out injustices, advocating for accountability, and aligning itself with those adversely affected by failures in governance. In an environment where corruption is accepted as the norm, the church’s lack of response amounts to complicity, highlighting a disparity between belief and action.

Third, the Belhar Confession urges the church to reclaim a gospel that is both historical and eschatological, focused on the divine while being actively involved in earthly matters (Sider 2010). The message of the gospel must not be simplified to mere promises of future salvation that are disconnected from present hardships. Jesus’ initial proclamation in Luke 4 explicitly locates good news in the context of poverty, imprisonment, and oppression. When preaching and pastoral care overlook this aspect, the gospel risks becoming overly spiritualized and failing to confront unjust systems. Thus, an ecclesial practice inspired by Belhar necessitates preaching, teaching, and liturgical activities that unmistakably recognize justice as an essential component of the gospel itself. Such a declaration shapes believers who perceive faith not merely as individual commitment but as an invitation to engage in God’s restorative actions throughout history.

Fourth, rethinking ecclesial practices requires reshaping collaborations and public involvement. The church should maintain a critical distance from political authority, yet the Belhar Confession does not advocate isolation. Rather, it promotes a principled, discerning, and justice-focused engagement. Constructive partnerships with government entities, civil society organizations, and corporate initiatives targeting poverty reduction can be beneficial, as long as the church does not compromise its prophetic voice for access or influence (Nanthambwe 2024). In this context, Belhar acts as a theological safeguard, reminding the church that unity and cooperation hold significance only when they further justice and honor the dignity of the marginalized.

At the core of these aspects lies a deeper issue: the necessity of cohesive confession. Reimagined praxis is fundamentally about ensuring that the church’s beliefs align with its actions. The ongoing presence of poverty in pot-apartheid South Africa not only highlights socio-economic failures but also points to inconsistencies within the church itself. Belhar challenges the church with the uncomfortable reality that confession devoid of genuine action is meaningless. To genuinely engage with Belhar in today’s context means allowing it to critique ecclesial complacency, disrupt established traditions of ministry, and steer the church towards those whom God, as stated in the confession, protects and honors.

In this way, Belhar serves not just as a relic of history or a symbolic reminder of former struggles, but also as a dynamic theological resource with the potential to transform the church’s response to poverty in the present. Therefore, reinterpreting ecclesial practice in the spirit of Belhar represents an act of loyalty, aiming to restore the church’s witness by making its confession evident in the pursuit of justice, dignity, and life for everyone in post-apartheid South Africa.

6. Concluding Remarks

This article argues that the ongoing poverty in post-apartheid South Africa cannot be fully resolved without a fundamental shift in how the church understands itself, its public role, and its actions. Instead of treating poverty relief as just another ministry alongside others, the article suggests that poverty is a challenge to the church’s core beliefs. Viewed through the lens of the Belhar Confession, poverty is not only a socio-economic issue to be handled; it also reveals how much the church’s beliefs have been put into practice or diluted in today’s South Africa.

Across its five sections, the article shows how the church’s long-standing connection with systems of exclusion, its uneven prophetic role in democracy, and its frequent retreat into private spirituality have all weakened its ability to respond effectively to widespread poverty. However, instead of simply concluding with the church’s failures, the article highlights that Belhar offers a strong theological resource for renewal. By stressing the inseparability of unity, reconciliation, and justice, Belhar reframes the church’s approach to poverty as essential to being faithful to the gospel.

The main contribution of this article is its idea that confession serves as a helpful framework for the church. Here, strategy is not about technical or management terms; it refers to aligning belief, identity, and action. Belhar provides this type of alignment. It connects the church’s fight against poverty to God’s focus on the poor, calls the church to stand visibly with those who suffer, and allows resistance to systems that undermine human dignity. This confession empowers the church to act not just as a service provider or moral commentator, but as a theologically grounded public entity.

This confessional approach has significant implications for how the church in South Africa addresses poverty. First, it shifts poverty from being a marginal concern to the center of Christian discipleship. Poverty is now seen not only as an object of charity, but as a place where obedience to Christ is tested.

Second, it rejuvenates the church’s prophetic vision by providing clear language for addressing injustice. In an environment marked by corruption, inequality, and governance issues, Belhar supports the church’s responsibility to speak truth to power while remaining answerable to the gospel rather than to political ideology.

Third, the article shows that Belhar supports a way for the church to engage that avoids two common mistakes: withdrawing from public life and uncritically aligning with political or economic power. By basing engagement in confession, the church can work with the state and civil society to tackle poverty while keeping a critical distance and moral clarity. This confessional stance protects the church from irrelevance or co-optation, enabling principled rather than merely pragmatic partnerships.

This article also contributes to ongoing discussions in public and pastoral theology by illustrating that the church’s real strength lies in its ability to create moral communities shaped by a shared theological vision, rather than in its institutional presence or material resources. Belhar serves as a key text that shapes moral understanding, nurtures solidarity, and maintains hope in contexts of deep social and economic despair. In this way, the church’s response to poverty becomes sustainable not because it is efficient, but because it is rooted in its identity.

Finally, the article encourages the church in South Africa to reflect critically on whether it is ready to let its confession challenge comfortable ministry practices and demand costly obedience. The ongoing existence of poverty shows that a neutral Christianity is no longer practical. To confess Belhar today means recognizing that being faithful to Christ has public consequences. The church is called to move beyond simply affirming justice and into actions where unity with the poor, reconciliation based in truth, and justice realized in history become visible.

By reclaiming Belhar as a living confessional resource, this article provides the church not with a detailed plan for eliminating poverty, but with a theological perspective that can reshape its approach to poverty in South Africa. This shift does not promise instant social and economic transformation, but it does renew the integrity of the church’s witness. In a society marked by persistent inequality, this integrity may be the church’s most valuable contribution to the fight for a more just and humane future.