Debunking Untruths of Africa Initiative Articles

by

UMC Future

Special to United Methodist Insight

In the past few weeks I have read articles written by members of the Africa Initiative about the future of the United Methodist Church in Africa, and I believe it is important to debunk some untruths expressed in these writings that do not reflect the reality of the African church.

In a recent document circulated to African delegates, Rev. Forbes Matonga advocates for separation as the best option for the United Methodist Church in Africa. I would start by disagreeing with his suggestion and say that Unity with regionalism is the best way forward for the United Methodist Church in Africa.

It is important for United Methodists in Africa to understand why we are in this position as a denomination and what options are available. We are caught in this debate about separation because some people intentionally created this mess. It is not a coincidental situation when Good News in their 2004 strategy paper clearly advocated for separation, the proposal for separation is the culmination of a long term strategy to divide the church through which our friends of the Africa Initiative have been complicit in facilitating it. Unless they deny knowledge of this strategy document, their explanations about where we are today emerges out of dishonesty.

To advocate for separation of the United Methodist Church in Africa to form a new Methodist denomination stems out of misrepresentation of the African reality and experience. African United Methodists have raised clear messages about the Methodist DNA that needs to be sustained beyond our differences. The second point raised is that the UMC in Africa will remain united regardless of what happens in the US. The third point is that African United Methodists will maintain the current language of the church on same-sex marriages. Shouldn’t that provide a satisfactory response to our African Initiative friends whose struggle has been centered around this position? If the African church agrees on these, why should separation even be an option?

The first problem I have with the advocacy for separation of the UMC in Africa is that it is based on circumstances outside the continent. It should be said out loud that the inclusion of our LGBTQI siblings is a missional and ministry priority in the USA and Europe, but not for the African church. The African church is still concerned with basic needs such as access to safe and clean drinking water, basic human rights, peace and justice, access to basic health care and poverty. To transpose the American reality as an African wedge issue is to buy into a colonial view that denies Africans the respect and dignity to prioritize ministry concerns based on their contextual realities. In a global community, truth and justice can’t be traded for political expediency of a few.

The second problem is the mischaracterization of conservative views in the United States of America as espoused by the Wesleyan Covenant Association to be the same with African conservative views. The excesses of American conservative views that borders the rejection of community for self-righteousness isn’t the same as African conservatism that appreciates and values humanity through relationships. The notion of separation challenges the understanding that we are all loved by God who created us in His image, to embracing views of church as a club of self-acclaimed saints with no need for fellowship. If we believe to have the right interpretation of scripture, wouldn’t we be interested in fellowship with others in our continued quest for evangelism? Are we giving up on spreading the gospel of salvation to settle for comfort where our views are of faith and scripture are fixed in an evolving society?

The third aspect is that it is time for the African church to be respected as an equal partner in the denomination, and not as voting mercenaries of allies who reject and undermine African views. Upon publication of the Protocol for Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation, the Africa Initiative raised concerns as to the non-representation of Africans at the negotiating table, yet in the recent press release by conservative leaders in the denomination, not even leaders of the Africa Initiative signed the document. Is this the relationship of the new global Wesleyan movement that Rev. Matonga is advocating for? Does Rev. Matonga believe that the draft discipline of the WCA for the new denomination reflects the African reality? It is time to transform relationships from dependency to equality, and united in mission.

The fourth aspect is that the talk of separation in the UMC in Africa isn’t a new thing. In fact we have experienced separations or breakaways in the past that should serve as a lesson for the present and future. We should share lessons from our experience with the global UMC as we reflect on our future. In 2004, Rev. Daniel Ngoy Mulunda alongside other clergy and laity in several annual conferences in the Congo Central Conference left the United Methodist Church to create the New Methodist Church; a few years later, most clergy and laity moved back to the UMC. In 2011, an experience that Rev. Matonga would recall is the creation of the Methodist Revival Church in Zimbabwe by some United Methodist clergy and laity; years later most of the laity and clergy have moved back to the United Methodist Church with some of the clergy even opting to come back as laypeople. I am sure there are lessons that can be learned through what has become of these churches. I would say that in these two examples, the individuals voluntarily withdrew from the denomination when they didn’t agree with certain actions. In GC19, conservative groups with the help of some Africa Initiative leaders passed what they termed a gracious exit; would it not be wise and faithful for those calling for separation to use the gracious exit or at least follow the example of those who left before them without seeking to weaken the ministry of the United Methodist Church?

A question that I hope Rev. Matonga expands in his communication with the church is, what has happened in the UMC in Africa since GC19 that makes separation an urgent necessity? Does Mufundisi (Pastor) Matonga believe that the current polity and doctrine of The United Methodist Church pose a threat to the vital mission and ministry of the church in Africa such that separation becomes an imperative? Is the option of separation simply based on solidarity with allies or objective analysis of the state of the church in Africa? Given that his views on same-sex marriage is similar to that expressed by African bishops, what else aren’t we saying or seeing about the difference between the views of Africa Initiative and that of bishops?

I believe that the United Methodist Church in Africa would do well in sustaining current relationships and embrace regionalism that wouldn’t force upon us practices and views that don’t reflect our reality. Through regionalism as expressed in the Christmas Covenant, our dignity and humanity is valued as equal partners in the denomination. Solidarity with allies shouldn’t overtake our dignity and rationality; it should help us advance our mission and we can do it well as The United Methodist Church with an anti-colonial relationship.

United Methodist layman Albert Otshudi Longe is a layperson from the West Congo Annual Conference, currently living in the United States. A graduate of Africa University with a keen interest in social justice., he is a co-signer of a statement advocating against separation from the ad hoc group Africa Voice of Unity.