As today is Sunday my thoughts turned to spiritual matters (Iyawo has gone to church. Being Muslim I get to stay at home with the little terrors.Bliss). Having spent a lot of time in Naija over the past nine months it occurs to me that we are seeing the fastest growth in "religious services" that has ever happened in the history of the nation. I have no facts to hand but surely Naija must surely have the largest explosion of churches in the world? Kudos to Redeemed. Obviously doing something right.
So what has led to this? Obviously there are the shamen who see it as a good business opportunity - give me all your salary and I will guarantee you a son, promotion, bigger house, kill your enemies and generally make you a bigger dick than you already are. I cannot tell you the number of Pastors, Brothers, Reverends and other such figures I have met recently. It seems out of date now for people to just want to call themselves Mr so and so. Even Chief and Prince are not as fashionable titles. And good luck to them.
But I also feel strongly that a lot of people, especially in Naija, are realising how really fragile life is. We have always been more aware of this than most other countries due to the incidence of armed robbers, car crashes and now plane crashes but I feel people now realise that there is nowhere else to turn (certainly not to the politicians\government who are meant to protect us).
Let me illustrate. On my trips to Naija I always have the privilege of being collected from the airport by an armed undercover policeman in civilian clothes. Due to arriving at 5 am in the morning these trips are usually uneventful. We make our way to the hotel relatively quickly over third mainland bridge (a view which still brings a lump to my throat- to and fro) . On this particular trip I decided to stop over in Suru Lere to say hello to my folks and so we found ourselves arriving into that area by Muson centre where ten lanes of traffic try to blend into one in rush hour.
The general modus operandi here is to move from lane to lane to get yourself into pole position and get out of there as fast as possible. On this day it just so happened that the lane next to where the danfo drivers were illegally picking up passengers was free so our driver headed down the lane as far as possible until we got blocked in.
Along comes an area youth, one of the danfo boys, who takes offence that we dare to be in "their" lane and starts banging on the bonnet. The escort tells him to stop and he wanders off only to do the same on his way back. He is again told to stop, but continues. The escort winds down the window and asks him again to stop (rather politely) I have to add. Naturally he refuses so the escort gets out of the car at which stage he runs off. We think this is the end of the matter. Wrong.
Before the escort can get back in the car the youth reappears from the rear with a broken bottle which he starts jabbing in the direction of the escort. Seeing no alternative ( and as a last resort, trust me these guys are not keen on pulling arms in public places) the escort pulls out his weapon and cocks it. This time the youth scrambles and the escort starts backing towards the car in order for us to get away. Next thing the youth reappears with about half a dozen area boys all bearing cement blocks and broken bottles. I can feel this getting out of hand. One of them yanks open the driver's door and tries top hit him with a brick. The escort is waving the gun wildly only to see them duck behind danfos and reappear with even more boys. Eventually the driver has no choice than to get out and give chase ( he is a copper as well, but unarmed). So basically I am left in the car by myself whilst both of them chase these lunatics off.
Now for the really great part. The driver has chased off one boy in one direction, the escort has chased off another group in a different direction and then a third group appears behind the car and the following conversation ensues. (Bear in mind that the windows are tinted in the rear so they cannot see me). One area boy to another, "I think we should set it on fire." Other area boy "Maybe we should ". Another area boy "There's too much traffic". First area boy " I still think we should set it alight". This goes on for a good two to three minutes whilst I am sitting there like a lame duck (George Bush thinks he has problems!). To get out is not even an option as the "Oga" would have become the target of their anger and "frustration" (look it's almost midday and we have not caused any trouble ? how can we continue to call ourselves area boys? who is going to respect us if this continues ?)".
Anyway they finally decide that setting fire to the car in broad daylight on a main road with lots of traffic around might not be such a good idea and the sight of the armed escort returning helps them to make up their minds as they scatter in all directions. So we got lucky.
Now I imagine that this situation is not unique to me as I am sure most people go through some form of life threatening scenario at least once a week - building collapsing, fires, okada crashes, rapists, danfo and molues without brakes, lack of medical care etc. Based on this I can see why there is a new found fervour to seek out a higher order. After all who can else and where else can you turn to.
I am not ashamed to say that me myself barged right to the front of the queue to get God's attention during this five-ten minutes of madness. I was like yo I need to speak to God and I need to speak to him now!!! Very Jack Bauer like.
God bless Nigeria.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
True most people seek a higher order. But is it just because our leaders have failed us? Or is it because of our 'collective' inner greed?
As I see it, there's a two-stage trap involved with evangelical christianity, once you get to stage-two your locked in:
1. You go through some desperate existential trauma (along the lines of your nearly-being-burnt-to-death story). You go through it again, then again. All anyone can do is look to the skies for help. There are no '12 step' programmes or charities out there to help.
2. In your moment of spiritual despair, you are promised that being 'born again' will solve all the problems. All one need do is pray like mad, tithe generously and love thy pastor. By this stage, any sense of agency or personal responsibility has been eroded.
Dire existential circumstances can either lead to complete theologically-induced paralysis (in Nigeria), or it can lead to violent revolutionary upheaval (think South America).
Christianity has little to do with any of this. In its Nigeria-evangelical form it is simply a means to sedate the people from action. The pastors and the politicans are the same group of people.
More generally, Islam and Evangelical Christianity are the means by which the tiny Northern and Sourthern elites maintain their privilege. It is neo-colonialism straight and simple. There is little hope for genuine change when people en masse have been so battered that they turn to God to explain everything that happens, good or bad. Its worse than a crack epidemic.
Jeremy - your comments sort of remind me of what people used to say, (still say??) about the US govt. using TV to keep their people sedated, in a stupor, inactive, non-thinking therefore easier to "manage".
it's hearing horror stories like this that completely puts me off ever returning to Nigeria! Are you sure you won't change your mind???????
Jeremy, I strongly differ from your opinion about evangelical sedation. There are people who are born-again in UK or even in Nigeria, without an 'existential circumstances'. Contrary to your opinion, there are evangelicals with strong convictions beyond mere escapism. Like everything good, evangelical christian can be exploited, abused and over-used as the case is in Nigeria, but that doesnt mean that there is no more to life than what good politics, 12 steps programme, charity or hollywood morality can offer.
May be you need to find out why the Alpha Course in the UK is growing fast, amidst people without 'some desperate existential trauma'
Darn - just typed a long response to Dotun then lost it thanks to internet downtime. Deep breath - here goes again:
Dotun:
Of course you don't need to go thru an existential crisis to believe the planet is only 6000 years old, despite overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution. There are an estimated 50 million American creationists, most of whom have access to public libraries, broadband internet, big Borders bookshops full of well-informed science books. It goes to show that being informed is not just about access..
But here are my questions to you:
Which evangelical churches in Nigeria actually do stuff for the less privileged, beyond tokenism?
Which don't have pastors who wear fine suits and drive (or rather are driven) in fancy cars?
Which eschew prosperity doctrine (a wholly alien bolt-on to Christianity)?
Which put Matthew 19:24 into practice (eyes, camels, needles, rich men?)
Which preach a distinction between material and spiritual wealth? Which teach that in fact Jesus was spiritually rich but materially poor?
Can't you see it for the con it is? In any society, only a small percentage of the population can become rich, so why would anyone believe teachings that preached that everyone can become so? And why preach that illness and suffering 'is not my portion' - when we know in fact our short human lives are full of illness and suffering? Why run away from what we must face and endure?
Don't misconstrue my questions.
Jesus is up there with Mohammed and the Buddha for me in terms of spiritual leaderership. Who could not read choice passages of the Bible and not love the ethics, and the language?
I just don't recognise the core teachings of evangelism as Christianity, nor do I see Christianity put into practice (loving thy neighbour, giving alms etc) amongst the mushroom churches here
This marks a strong contrast to the more traditional churches in Nigeria, whether Catholic, Presyterian or otherwise, which do do a lot of good work, unbidden and hidden away from the glitz of the camera lights.
Evangelical Christianity could be a force for change in Nigeria, but when will the pastors teach personal responsibility (rather than outsourcing all concerns to God), when will they teach the value of non-material spiritual wealth, and when will they begin to ask critical questions of the status-quo? At the moment, its part of the huge edifice of fallen values as I see it.
Jeremy, against most nerves in me, I’m really tempted to answer some of your questions. I think your assumption about evangelical Christianity is beclouded by some of the charlatan practices you see on display in Nigeria. It is like assuming that democracy is a bad idea just because most Nigeria politicians are corrupt.
If you do not believe in the claims of the Bible about the salvation of humanity through Jesus Christ, I respect your opinion, I really do. But for you to hinge all the socio-economic problems in Nigeria on ‘evangelical drug’ (to use one of your concepts) would be a fallacy.
I am aware of the fact that there are people who exploit religion at the expense of the ignorant masses, but you need to put this into the context of African theological beliefs. Before the advent of the missionary or the Jihadist, the person that lived in the present day Nigeria has always believed in a Supreme Being(s). They have always lived and conducted their lives in the light of such belief system, and of course there have been exploitation of such beliefs too. Religious exploitation is not exclusive to evangelical Christianity. Despite the exploitation by humans, it does not negate the fact that there is a God in heaven (not just ‘up there’) who creates the universe. I strongly believe that.
On your claim that there are people who believe the world is 6000 years old. I have seen this in one of your writings before. Again, it shows your weak assumptions on evangelical Christianity or what the Bible says. While the Bible does not articulate with empirical evidence that the world is millions of years old, it does indicate that this planet is older than the Adam and Eve era (which I believe your assumption is based on). In Genesis 1:1 the bible says the ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’. I agree with many theologians who believed there are several years of gap between that statement and the preceding one which says ‘the earth is without form and void’. This is because a perfect God cannot create a void and formless earth. This, the theologians believe was due to entrance of Lucifer (Satan) and his angels into the world, which was further explained in the book of Revelation. Also, the Bible indicated in the book of Isaiah (I can’t get the exact place now because I’m writing this in a hurry) the kinds of creations (not humans) that existed in that world. This gap explains some of the evolution’s theories and the Jurassic era discoveries. However, I must say here that I do not believe that man evolved from apes as you will want me to admit. If it is true, why have we not evolved into something else since? Is homo sapiens the ultimate?
I wouldn’t spend too much time answering your questions, but I’ll hint on some of them. On evangelical churches doing charity work, I think you might need to get your data correctly before asking such questions. You need to find out about some drug addicts, prostitutes and area boys who have been rehabilitated by some of these churches. When Koma village was discovered on the hills of the old Gongola state, it was discovered by the evangelical youth corp members, and it took the efforts of some of the evangelical churches to provide water, food and basic medical care to the villagers after another 18 years of neglect from the government. I have been part of evangelical university graduates who have stayed in some rural villages without electricity in Nigeria to provide medical care, food and clothing, apart from proselytising. I know some of my friends who are still staying some of the villages, and of course they are not demanding money from the poor villagers. I know of organisations such as Capro, Men of Issachar etc who are doing lots of social works in villages that have not seen any government officials for years. So that answers your next question about wearing expensive suits. However, you need to understand that wearing of expensive clothing by Nigerian pastors is more cultural than evangelical.
On Matthew 19:24……….Jeremy, I need to ask you this question, it’s also in the Bible ‘understandest thou what thou readest?’ I’m sorry I don’t think so. When Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God. He didn’t mean rich people are not going to heaven. That will imply that Christianity equal to pauperism, which will definitely contradicts some of the teachings of Jesus, especially about the talent, which talks about investment.
Jesus made that statement about the needle’s eye after asking a rich man to make a choice between his money and following Him. Having seen how difficult that decision was for the gentle man, Jesus then said it will be hard for a rich man be able to enter the Kingdom of God as it is hard for a camel to enter the needle’s eye. If you take it literally you will think it is impossible. But Jesus was speaking to an audience who understood the concept of the needle’s eye. Jerusalem in Jesus’ days is surrounded by a wall. Camels, which are equivalent of today’s freight, are not allowed through the city’s main gate hence they pass through another narrow gate which is called the needle’s eye. This is because of its smallness and the difficulties the camels pass through in entering. But that doesn’t mean the camels do not enter. In the same light, a rich man who wants to be a true Christian will find it hard shedding off some of the cares, lures and temptations of this world in the course of his discipleship.
I admit that there are cons in evangelical circle, but that does not mean the whole idea is fake. It’s like thinking because there is made-in-Aba version of a particular product it means the product does not really exist. Don’t throw the baby with the water.
By the way did you see the mail I sent to you on documentary idea?
Dotun thank you for your comments. It is reassuring to hear at least one evangelical who is thoughtful and appreciates the work of interpretation. I'm sorry if that sounds a little patronising, but believe me, in my many conversations with evangelicals, it has been exceedingly rare to receive either. This is in sharp contrast to discussions with Catholics (especially those trained in the Jesuit tradition), with whom it is always a pleasure to wander (and wonder) deep into theological depths..
I'm a little surprised that you are not a Creationist - or rather not a Earth-is-6000-years-old Creationist. Does that leave any gap in your belief system for an aspect of evolutionism? You can imagine for someone who believes there is overwhelming evidence for evolution (fossils, genetics etc), to confront someone who earnestly believes the earth is 6000 years old tends to leave the evolutionist laughing (or crying that human minds can be so weak).
However, your response has opened up a new surprising category for me: the thoughtful, critical, interpretative (ie not-always-literal) evangelical. Now that is a position I can respect and neither mock nor slam.
But then there is still a huge image problem with the evangelical churches here - why do they not celebrate the good works you mention, instead of prosperity blather? Why isn't the rhetoric more about transforming the poor man/woman, transforming Nigeria? Why is it so individualist/ego-centric? What can be done to promote the positive productive stuff, and move away from the glitzy illusory promises of immediate deliverance, in favour of the hard work of faith and perseverance?
Regards
Jeremy
Doton,
Excellent response. I won't attempt to add much more to it. Jeremy, I think the problem is one of language. The people you seem to be defining as evangelicals are the loud-mouthed in-your-face types, but this in no way encapsulates all evangelicals or even the majority of them--just those who make the most noise. So, I think our quibbling may be over the word "evangelical," which in your definition is quite narrow and in mine quite broad. I think that what many people (and the mainstream media) do not realize is that there are a multiplicity of voices coming out of evangelicism, there are multiple shades of grey. I would consider myself an evangelical, and I believe the world is in all probability much older than 6000 years old--the beginning and end of the world seem to me to be things that though, we might contemplate them in wonder, are much too mysterious and mythic to say we understand exactly what happened. And does it really matter in our day to day life whether it was 7 days or 7 million years worth of days? No, my faith is not dependent factualizing myth. My dad is a New Testement theologian, and although we disagree on some things, he continually presents many sides to events in the NT--how many interpretations are possible and how we can't know exactly which interpretation is "correct." Probably a little bit of all and none of all. The Bible for most everyone in the world is read in translation--how much more do we miss in the translation? My own translation work has made me realize that even more. When people ask my dad about Revelation (as they often do) he says he doesn't think Revelation is relevant to what we do in our daily lives as Christians. Yes, of course, it is a beautiful literary/poetic work with Truths embedded in it, but to try to read "facts" into a work of such complex and layered metaphor: postmillenialism/premillenialism/Tribulation/rapture etc. is silly. My father and most of my evangelical friends are willing to say that there are quite a few bits of the Bible that we don't understand--and that's ok. Indeed, the reading of the Bible as if it were a drivers education manual is laughable. If someone thinks they have God OR the Bible OR the universe all figured out, that's probably a pretty good indication that know nothing. How could we possibly begin to have a handle on understanding the universe? We must take some things by faith--I'd rather spend my time thinking on the principles of the faith rather than the vacuous little details of how many days it took to bring a world out of nothing. If God is the one who created time, and there were no humans in the beginning, then how are we to know how God determined time before we came along? (Like Doton I too have a hard time thinking we are descended from apes, but I'm not going to hinge my faith around that article. If God wanted to carve us in slow motion through evolution from snail to ape to human, then He certainly is creative and powerful and good-humoured enough to do so. While I admit that a lot of evangelicals seem to be fixated by those details, those things are usually not their main articles of faith either--just the things that they are kind of loud about.)
Of course, there are thoughtful evangelicals who think about issues of interpretation. Many, many, many. In fact, I find that when I teach literature, those students who come from religious backgrounds tend to be much better at interpreting literary texts, understanding metaphor, symbolism, allusion, etc. Almost every Christian I know (and there are a few who have never studied literature who are literalists--bless their hearts--they're not stupid, they just haven't placed the Bible in the context of being a work of literature as well as God's word) realizes that you don't read everything in the Bible literally. There is a a whole range of belief on which parts you do take literally. I'm the sort that would say that the 7 days of creation might be symbolic, that Job might be a literary creation, and maybe even Jonah and Noah. There is Truth in those stories that is not going to be dependent on whether Job actually sat on his ash heap or not--the story of Job is what is important. Storytellers do not spell out all the scientific screws and pins that hold life together--they tell the truth that is at the heart of the story. But the life and works of Christ--I take that literally because I think that in his life he was enacting metaphor--he brought the text he created to life. If he created the rules of the universe, his birth inside of that universe must certainly have caused an explosion--a bending of the rules, ripple effects that still overwhelm us today.(And maybe this sounds too mystical to be logical--but if we really think hard about our existence in the world--how can we avoid a certain amount of mysticism?)
And, yes, as Doton noted, there are plenty of churches who are reaching out and doing social work. Consider the ECWA (Evangelical Church of West Africa) women's ministries, who in their visitation ministries often perform acts of welfare. Look at COCIN, Church of Christ in Nigeria, and the Anglican, Methodist churches. Even some of the Pentecostal churches you dislike so much reach out to the community (and not just to pocketbooks). I'm defining all of these churches as evangelical. Maybe you would disagree, and we'd have to put it down again to a question of terminology and language.
If you go looking for bad Christians, you will certainly find them. But if you look a little bit more for complexity and depth in "evangelicals," you will certainly find that too. The loudest voice is usually never the most representative.
Another thoughtful response to my proddings - thank you TC.
However, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of evangelicals a) are creationists (and that means anti-evolution, anti the overwhelming evidence of genetic correspondence, carbon dating, fossils etc) and b) are not as sophisticated as you at embracing the interpretative and suspending the need for literality. How many evangelicals would see the immaculate conception/Job/feeding of the 500/Revelations etc etc as metaphors?
Also, I would not be happy calling all forms of Christianity evangelical - there are specific aspects of worldwide evangelism (and its Nigerian offshoot) which differentiate it from other denominations. The overriding difference is a distasteful superiority complex - evangelism is based on spreading the word that God/Jesus/the Bible is "Truth". The flipside of this is that other faiths are necessarily less true or untrue.
Other versions of Christianity are not so loud and preeningly superior, or insulting to one's ability to explore spirituality in all its facets.
Even though the Catholic church has its dark history in the Crusades etc as a violent power, when you talk to Jesuits in depth you see that they are far more open about other belief systems than evangelicals. So there is a strong difference between patterns of evangelical belief and other Christians. Although there is an attempt to capture and infiltrate the Anglican Church by a posse of evangelicals, it is not going to happen.
There may be an intellectual/interpretative tradition of evangelism at work in the Church, but it tends to get filtered down to simple minded Creationism/literalism/homophobia/theological intolerance at flock-level. This is patronising and dangerous and insult to people's intelligence.
Faith should be something one can explore critically, rather than via a suspension of disbelief. The moment we stop being critical of our faith is the moment when theological fascism can take root. That is EXACTLY what has happened in Nigeria.. There simply isn't a critical discourse about the mega-pastors or how they distort basic Christian teachings. Until evangelicals rise up and reject false teachings and false prophets/profits, it will continue to be a tainted interpretation of Christianity to the rest of the Church as well as to outsiders.
Jeremy,
You are right to point out that the majority of evangelicals probably do not think as deeply about these matters as the slice of evangelicals who are theologians or intellectuals do. In fact, most people in the world probably go about their day to day life without probing deeply into their own claims of spirituality, no matter which religion. And you are right that there is a lot of close-mindedness that is probably a result of most people not entering into a deep conversation with someone of a different faith.
I'm still convinced that we are quibbling over terminology. No, I wouldn't say that all Christians are evangelicals, but since Vatican II, there has been much more dialogue between Catholics and Protestants, out of which has emerged what I've heard called "evangelical Catholics." I would say that most of the mainstream denominations in Nigeria are "evangelical." Perhaps, I am wrong to be insisting
on using a term that has become so corrupted in the popular imagination. But I am insisting on it because so many people self define as evangelicals, who do not agree with the excesses and extremes of the self-proclaimed "leaders" of evangelicism. And I'm afraid that if people think that everyone who self-defines as evangelical believes what the "nightmare evangelical" believes then attempts at conversation will become difficult because different terminology is being used.
It also seems to me from what I've seen you say on thse issues, that you are making a lot of wide sweeping claims without doing any serious discussion with a wide swath of evangelicals. Why exactly are people like Doton and me less worthy of representing evangelicals than the properity gospel folks you quote? I assure you that there are MANY evangelicals in Nigeria who are critical of the prosperity gospel of those mega-churches. And it seems to me that anyone bent on being critical of a faith to which they do not belong is better served to listen to those reasonable voices, those voices which think deeply and critically about their faith, than the loud ones which take over everything.
I have learned much about this through my conversations with Muslim friends. Through dialogue, through probing the abuses of the extremes of our faith, we are better able to understand and respect each other, even if we cannot always agree.
BTW, I don't think the immaculate conception is a metaphor. I think that's literal (Muslims also believe this, if I'm not mistaken). You see, I don't think that it has to be either extreme: it's possible to read the Bible both literally and metaphorically. The life of Christ from birth to death to resurrection, I read literally. As I stated earlier, if we believe that God was born inside his own creation (which we do), then we would expect there to be a stretching, a carnivalization of the "rules." Yes, probably my training in literature makes me more open to metaphor than others, but I imagine those people who read the Bible more literally than I do are much wiser in other, more practical, areas of life than I am. (to give a facetious example: they are often able to drive cars and offer people rides in them! {-;) Also, yes, as a Christian, I do believe that the way introduced to us by Christ is THE way, but I also recognize that I am not God, and there may be other doors through which people reach Christ that have not been revealed in the Bible. I cannot pretend to understand everything about God, so my calling as a Christian is to practice humility, to live my life and to express my beliefs in such a way that they become appealing to others, along with my attempts to understand other faiths. And don't most proponants of other religions also believe that they have found the best way to God? Such a belief is not limited to "evangelicism."
And, yes, some of the things I've expressed in this series of posts would probably be considered heretical by some evangelicals, perhaps even my mother (LOL). I am probably closer to many Catholics in belief than I am to many evangelicals. And when I am among other evangelicals, I am cuttingly critical of the excesses and stupidities performed in the name of Christ. But, my main point when talking to people who are not Christians is that, yes, there are the obvious abuses on the surface that anyone can see, but there is also a whole lot more complexity and variance of belief than you are giving people credit for. Ultimately, your belief in evolution is based on a foundation of belief in the rationality and "truth" of scientific exploration--and you take those scientific claims on faith, just as their belief in a 7-day creation and a young earth is based on a belief in the literal rationality and "truth" of the Bible, which they also take on faith. What I'd like to see is a blurring of the boundaries between those two beliefs, so that a studied acceptance of certain scientific findings is not mutually exclusive with a studied understanding of Biblical truth--the Bible is not a science textbook, but it does point to ways in which we can "read" and value our world. And actually, there is a whole lot more of this going on within the realm of "evangelicism" than you think.
I laughed when you made the statement to Dotun about discovering "the thoughtful, critical, interpretative (ie not-always-literal) evangelical," because I have grown up around that sort of evangelical and have surrounded myself with a whole host of friends who are that sort of evangelical, and I'm glad we're finally being discovered.
Forgive me if some of this is a bit pompous. Sometimes, when I read back over what I've written, I think that i have that weakness
Ok, I'm going to try to stop taking up space on someone else's blog... sorry...
talatu-carmen finally you spelt my name right.....DOTUN
Dotun... yeah, sorry about that. It drives me crazy when people spell my name wrong too. I noticed it in my last post. sorry...
Post a Comment