Conflict in Mission: Historical and Separatist Churches

Conflict in Mission: Historical and Separatist Churches

by Christian G. Baëta

290In this essay, which is written against the general background of West Africa, with Ghana particularly in mind, the term historical churches is used to indicate the older, on the whole larger and more firmly established, churches that have resulted from the labors of Western missions over the past century and a half or so. They have been constituted as African churches with preponderantly African leadership. The term separatist churches signifies those bodies that have more recently come into being and exhibit certain special features which make them stand apart from the main stream of Christianity as known and practiced across the world and through the centuries. They are usually referred to as “sects,” but this designation is avoided here because it is known to be repugnant to their leaders, who much prefer them to be known as “churches.”

Of the separatist churches there are those which have been initiated and are still supported, even actually run, by foreign agencies (American and British), while others have arisen from indigenous African prophetism. In order not to blur the confrontation, only the latter are taken into account in the present essay, since they are furthest removed from the historical churches. It is here intended neither to attempt a full characterization of these churches nor to discuss any of the topics of general interest that are usually raised in regard to them, such as their relation to the 291impact of modern Western civilization and to emergent African nationalism. The sole object of this writing is merely to try to clarify some of the problems which confront the historical churches as they consider what their attitude should be toward this other important and rapidly growing group.

On the whole the separatist churches lean so heavily on the strong personalities of their leaders that some have judged them to be only a passing phenomenon. Indeed, several have already come and gone. It must be borne in mind, however, that whatever the stability and duration of particular churches might be, there is no reason to suppose that the end of the separatist movement itself, as such, is anywhere in sight. On the contrary, if the perennial rise and fall of new cults within African paganism is a true parallel, then we are only at the beginning of this sort of development. However, there is immediate and urgent need for the historical churches to make up their minds about the separatist churches and to find a carefully thought-out, acceptable, and Christian modus vivendi with them, quite apart from any considerations relating to the future.:

On this subject a great wealth of friendly good counsel has already been forthcoming. Generally it has been to the effect that the historical churches should do all in their power to preserve or to attain fellowship with the separatists. The nature of most of this advice suggests, however, that perhaps the real points of difficulty have not been spotted or have not been quite fully understood. To be specific, there have been warnings against adopting attitudes of pharisaic self-righteousness and spiritual superiority; exhortations to a greater humility; to Christian love rather than legal-mindedness; to repentance of all the sins, failures and inadequacies that have driven so many, deeply dissatisfied, right into the arms of the separatist churches; to emulation of the latter’s evangelistic zeal and their use of indigenous worship symbols, instead of clinging to quite unsuitable Western These criticisms doubtless. have their justification, but by themselves they can hardly be said to meet the case. As regards the temptation to spiritual pride, in particular, a sufficient chastening and corrective already exists in the sheer apparent success of the groups in question!

This whole matter of what the historical churches are to do about the separatist ones comes to a head, of course, when one or other of the latter seeks admission to a national Christian Council. 292This happened in Ghana in 1957, and the reactions on that occasion are perhaps significant and instructive.

At its May sitting of that year, the Executive of the Christian Council of Ghana had before it applications for membership from two of the most important separatist churches in the country. There was no evidence whatever of any of the unchristian and uncharitable attitudes, which are so often feared, for the historical churches; certainly nothing was said even remotely suggesting that the applications should be rejected out of hand. There was rather a sense of embarrassment, of almost complete unpreparedness for the question, and uncertainty about the best line of answer. A proposal that the applicants should be requested to submit statements of their doctrinal positions was soon abandoned. It was felt that this would not be a fruitful approach since, as a rule, separatist churches simply continued to profess the doctrine taught by the historical church with which their founder was connected, without strict regard to its relation with their practice.

It was emphasized that, whatever the final decision eventually reached on the applications, the Council had a plain and inescapable duty to help these bodies find their way into the main stream of Christian faith and practice, if only they would be willing to accept such help.’ Then, in view of the quite obvious lack of any information on them beyond vague generalizations and impressions, it was decided that the Council should seek, both by observation and by interviewing the leaders, to acquaint itself fully with all the relevant facts before the matter was further discussed.

These applications still await a definite decision and reply. While the Council is eager to exercise Christian charity and to seize the proffered hand of fellowship, it must take into serious considera293tion the far-reaching implications of such an association as is proposed. It is quite clear that, apart from greatly enhancing the standing of the suppliant churches in the eyes of their own people and of the general public, thus lending support to their views, their affiliation with the Council cannot do otherwise than cause ordinary Christians to conclude. that the differences between the two groups of churches are of small importance and may be ignored. Obviously the Council would not be acting responsibly if it permitted this opinion to be formed without itself being fully convinced of its truth.

A closer look would reveal that, although both groups use the common Christian name, the substance of the religion taught by each is so different from the other that the question seems justified: are they even basically engaged upon the same business? The Christianity taught by the historical churches is a message calling men.to repentance of their sin and to a life of faith. If sin is in essence rebellion against God, faith is complete trust in Him through our Lord Jesus Christ, and absolute dependence upon him in all one’s affairs, both for this world and for the hereafter. This faith expresses itself in a life lived in God’s forgiveness and grace (which are made available to man through the atoning work of Christ) and dedicated to the performing of God’s will. Its objective is man’s constant fellowship and communion with God, and the means of its nurture are the Word of God, worship, and (with most churches) the sacraments. As St. Paul sums it up, the “Gospel,” i.e., Christianity, “is the power of God for salvation” (Rom. 1:16), in other words, God’s answer to man’s true and deepest need.

The Christianity offered by the separatist churches may be described as a power for overcoming the ills of the secular aspect of life. Human need is conceived almost entirely in terms of these ills. While such terms as “‘sin,” “grace,” “the precious blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” and other Christian themes are constantly spoken about, the central preoccupation is and remains how to cope effectively with the ills of worldly life. For instance, “sin” is really relevant only in so far as it is a potent cause of bodily, mental, and social disorders; the significance of “the blood of Christ” resides in the fact that, by doing away with sin, it prepares the way for, or itself directly effects, bodily healing; “faith” is to entertain no inward doubt whatsoever that the particular help sought will be received. The “Gospel” here may be summed up in 294the actual words of a very typical separatist-church public invitation:

Bring all your worries of unemployment, poverty, witch troubles, illluck, enemy, barrenness, sickness, blindness, lameness, sorrow. Jesus is ready to save all who come to him in belief and faith. “Let him who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the Water of life 2 without price” (Rev. 22:17). “Him who comes to me I will not cast out” (Jn. 6:37b).

The petitions which are brought to the separatist churches, and with which they concern themselves above everything else, are precisely the same as those traditionally submitted in indigenous African religion, whether in its unadulterated form or in such modern syncretistic forms as the Tigari cult.* Church services of “witness” are regularly held in which members give testimonies about the granting of such requests. The nature of the hopes held out must provide an answer to those who wonder why historical church workers do not appear to be able to attract such large crowds as the separatists can draw. But the far more important questions are, of course: Is this the true essence of Christianity? Is it legitimate to present what are merely some of the beneficial by-products, as the whole thing?

Again the separatist churches observe a large number of special customs, rites, and ceremonies, particularly ecstatic dancing and various fasts and taboos. Now if these were considered as mere aids to worship, or forms of giving expression to religious sentiment, or esthetics, there would not be any difficulty at all, and the only problem presented would be how to “baptize into Christianity” such of them as might not be considered to be quite suitable at first. However, that is not so; rather, a very special meaning attaches to these practices. They are looked upon as necessary techniques whereby the coveted blessings are secured. For example, ecstasy 295is necessary because it is in this condition that contact is made with the supernatural power and the desired healing is obtained. The dance which induces ecstasy is therefore no mere jubilation before the Lord, but a calculated means of obtaining a benefit. These ideas, familiar in indigenous African religion, are regarded by the historical churches as false.

As in African religion, the blame for failure to obtain requests is firmly fixed on some fault in the petitioner himself or in the performance of the observances prescribed for him. With the separatist churches failure is chiefly ascribed to lack of “faith” in the sense above described, or to refusal by the petitioner to confess some secret sin. But it is confidently taught that, if all is in order on the petitioner’s side, then his wish cannot otherwise but be granted.

It must be clearly understood, however, that the separatist churches name and appeal to the Christian God alone, whereas in African religion, naturally, it is the various deities and other supernatural forces recognized that are addressed. This is the big and a very real difference, but it is also perhaps the only one discernible.

Another great stumbling block to fellowship between the two groups of churches is the question of polygamy. This was a sore point when Christianity was first preached in Africa south of the Sahara. It is still a sore point today. As far back as 1938, on the occasion of the Tambaram Conference of the International Missionary Council, the historical churches instructed their delegate to get a clear ruling from this world assembly of Christians on this burning issue. The question went right to the heart of the matter and the answer was unequivocal. At the instance of the churches in the Gold question is

296All the separatist churches admit polygamy,> not indeed as a concession or in order to seduce members from the historical churches, but because they believe that the position of the latter is in this regard, within the African context, entirely mistaken. In a statement of faith one of them, the Musama Disco Christo Church, declares: “We believe that (as an African Church) polygamy is not a moral sin.”

Of course this debate goes on; it has recently called forth some rethinking on the part of missionaries and ex-missionaries. For example, Gunnar Helander writes: “Is monogamy an inalienable. part of Christianity, or is it founded on a historical development, a Roman-European tradition?”, which would appear to be precisely the same question as was put at Tambaram. He goes on to say: “What have we done to the Africans in the name of Christianity? Polygamy, which Christ does not forbid, we have fought against as the greatest of all evils, but divorce and remarriage, which He does forbid, we have introduced.” In a private letter my attention has been drawn to a recent book in German in which Traugott Bachmann, a former missionary to the Nyika in Eastern Africa, appears to have expressed identical or very similar views.’ There have been others who have done the same.

A striking contribution to the discussion, not only of the polygamy issue but also of the main subject of the present essay, was recently made in an interchange of views privately circulated.® Questioning whether polygamy could be more important than other issues between the churches—religious ones such as the ministry and the sacraments, and moral ones such as (“the not-so-distant”) slavery and war—it points out that whereas the churches holding opposing views might regard each other’s positions as defective, dangerous, and in need of improvement, yet they do not for that 297reason unchurch one another by refusing to sit together in joint councils. In other words, on what grounds are polygamists shut out of councils in which Quakers and Church of England, Salvation Amny, pacifist and nonpacifist churches are equally admitted?

If Christian Europe has not yet been able to abandon the system of war, have the churches from Europe (or America, etc.) any clear grounds for demanding that all African churches must abandon the system of polygamy before they can be recognized as churches? If we make this demand, then by what theological criteria are we defining the Church? Are we making monogamy into a new “note” or “mark” of the Church, as One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Monogamous?

This author proceeds, doubtless with his tongue in his cheek:

Recognition of churches as churches must be made at the proper theological level, with due realization that we are churches by the grace of God and in spite of our many defects. In fact, to believe that the Church is One, and to describe it in terms of the Biblical image as the Bride of Christ, invites the devastating suggestion that our very multiplicity is a form of blasphemous polygamy, wherein we are all seeking to be the separate bride of Christ! And if we are so sure of Christ’s attitude to monogamous marriage, are we equally sure of his attitude to our present ecclesiastically polygamous state?

Another writer opines that all the early missionaries needed to do was to get their converts to admit that monogamy was the “goal”; they should never have gone beyond that to attempt to

with and control the matrimonial customs of people of

a different culture.

Of course all this is and At Tambaram the representatives of African churches asked for a thorough research to be undertaken into the whole field of African marriage and its relation to the Christian Church. In due course a scholarly volume was produced.⁹ In the light of the apparent new trend in missionary thinking indicated above, perhaps there is room for a competent reexamination of the entire subject of __ the theology of Christian marriage. For their part, however, the historical churches face two quite simple but very hard facts. In 298the: first place, whatever the early missions should have done, actually they unanimously and consistently taught monogamy as an essential element of the Christian family. In fact this is one of the few points upon which there was no dissension among them at all. It is the heritage, it is that which the historical churches have received and seek to pass on, and this fact is not altered even by pointing out that probably the reason was merely the common Western cultural background.

Secondly, there can be no reasonable doubt that the affiliation of the separatist churches would mean the acceptance of the practice of polygamy for all church members. How could there be an association of churches in the same council, in which some approved polygamy and others did not permit it?

Thus the divergency between the positions of the two groups, both in religious belief and in morality, is very serious indeed. Doctrinally it is not merely a matter of holding different views on certain particular aspects (e.g., the ministry and sacraments) of fundamentally the same faith, rather it is two totally different understandings of what the Christian religion is, to start with, and of precisely what men are about when they set out to practice it. In other words, it is not a case of parting company somewhere along the road and coming together again further on, but one of starting from two entirely different points and never really meeting at all. To represent a minor part as the whole is impermissible because the resulting distortion may be very bad and most harmful. In this case, it threatens to stunt spiritual growth.

Furthermore, in the ethical sphere, dissension on such an allimportant matter as the family, the continuing, God-ordained basis and source of the presence of the human race upon earth, may not rightly be regarded as being of the same level of significance as differences of opinion upon such an abnormal thing as war, or upon a passing economic and social fashion as was slavery, very wicked though it certainly was.

These deep disagreements at utterly crucial points, each by itself and cumulatively, indeed made it seem unlikely that the proposed association will be judged to be feasible at the present stage. Yet the search continues for some answer other than a simple rejection. It is a painful and burdensome thing not to be able to join up with brothers calling upon the same Name, who are so earnest in their 299purpose, so devoted to the Bible, so persevering in many good works, so eagerly expectant for the miracles of God to happen. Hard thinking on these matters must go on, but more needed still are many prayers that God would grant ever deeper insights on both sides, which, working from within each group, will gradually cause the existing barriers to crumble.

Tip: use the ← and → keys to move between chapters; press Ctrl K to search. Share any printed page with index.html?p=<page>.

↑ Back to top ⬇ Download the scanned PDF