The document challenged the churches' response to what the authors saw as the vicious policies of the apartheid regime under the state of emergency declared on 21 July 1985.
The KD was predominantly written by an ecumenical group of pastors in Soweto, whose names have never (officially) been released to the public.
Many believe it was a conscious decision to make the document anonymous, perhaps for security reasons since the Apartheid regime frequently harassed, detained, or tortured clergy who opposed the government.
It is widely thought though that Frank Chikane, a black Pentecostal pastor and theologian, and Albert Nolan, a white Roman Catholic priest and member of the Dominican Order, belonged to this group.
John W. de Gruchy writes decidedly that Frank Chikane, then General Secretary of the Institute for Contextual Theology (ICT) in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, initiated the process.
The following summary is based on the revised edition, and is designed to focus on the most important aspects of the KD, without comment.
It was addressed to the churches in the context of South Africa at that very moment, and was meant to be understood as a process rather than a definitive statement, "... this was an open-ended document which will never be said to be final" (KD, Preface).
[3] The KD theologians see three broad theological positions within the church, which are discussed in turn in the next three chapters.
Note that, "In the rest of the Bible, God does not demand obedience to oppressive rulers ... Romans 13:1–7 cannot contradict all of this".
[6] The KD theologians argue that the State has no divine authority to maintain any sort of law and order.
[8] The State uses "threats and warnings about the horrors of a tyrannical, totalitarian, atheistic and terrorist communist regime" simply to scare people.
While such a theology tends to reject apartheid in principle, the KD theologians regard it as counter-productive and superficial as they do not analyze "the signs of our times [but rather rely] upon a few stock ideas derived from Christian tradition," which is uncritically 'applied' to the then South African context.
The question one has to ask is: "Why does this [Church] theology not demand that the oppressed stand up for their rights and wage a struggle against their oppressors?
This aspect of Church Theology tends to exclude state-organized, "structural, institutional and unrepentant violence of the State."
[14] "This is not to say that any use of force at any time by people who are oppressed is permissible..."; the problem with such acts of "killing and maiming" is, however, "based upon a concern for genuine liberation".
[17] In the first place, prophetic theology will have to be biblical: "Our KAIROS impels us to return to the Bible, and to search the Word of God for a message that is relevant to what we are experiencing in South Africa today".
[17] It does not "pretend to be comprehensive and complete;" it is consciously devised for this situation, and therefore needs to take seriously the need to read the "signs of the times" (Matthew 16:3).
It is spiritual: "Infused with a spirit of fearless[ness] ... courage ... love ... understanding ... joy and hope".
[18] Reading the bible in this context "what stands out for us is (sic) the many, many vivid and concrete descriptions of suffering and oppression" from Exodus to Revelation.
[20] Of course this social structure is more complex, but the KD authors come to this distinction: "Either we have full and equal justice for all or we don't".
[22] The South African Apartheid government is tyrannical because it consistently demonstrates its hostility to the common good as a matter of principle.
[30] Special church action and campaigns must be in "consultation, co-ordination and co-operation" with the people's political organization, rather than a 'new, third force' that duplicates what already exists.
The Church will also find that at times it does need to curb excesses and to appeal to the consciences of those who act thoughtlessly and wildly".
[32] An Inkatha political magazine, the Clarion Call, similarly attacked it as a theological document that supported the 'violence of the ANC' (African National Congress).
Within the churches in South Africa, and indeed worldwide, the KD led to intense and often heated debates.
[33] For example, Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke make a rather brief, disparaging remark, which seems to be based on a reading of the KD that is significantly at variance with its substance.
In the KD, Barth and Blanke claim, "it is the starved, exploited, oppressed people whose cause, as it were, by definition is righteous, while all political, economical, and ecclesiastical wielders of institutionalized power are depicted as instruments of the devil.
"[34] A crucial part of the debate was the distinction made between state, church, and prophetic theology.
The influence and effect of the KD was such that attempts were made in a number of contexts to create similarly 'revolutionary' documents to challenge the churches' attitude to particular issues.
For example, in South Africa again, a group in the ICT attempted to address the sharply rising and complex violence in 1990 with a 'new Kairos document'.