As I said, in the first part of this letter, Mr President, your plans for the Christian Association of Nigeria upon which we base these letters, came from your response to Segun Otokiti as published in his recent article in the Nigerian Compass. This revolves around what you described as “three major areas…apart from other things” which are: “uniting the body much more”; “the religious crisis that continues in the North” and; being “light and salt of the earth”. It is on this Three-Point-Plus Agenda I wish to engage with you.
According to the report, you said, “the first one is in the area of uniting the body much more. My predecessor tried his best and I would always appreciate him, but I think we can do better and I believe we will do better. We will find more ways and new ways to unite the body and make it stronger.”
Without doubt this is perhaps the most important area of your commission. Unity is very close to the heart of God. The Lord Jesus heart’s cry, if we have ears to hear, is that we be one. In the last chapter of the Book of John, the Lord Jesus prayed a prayer that clearly reveals his heart on this issue. Mr President, please let’s read these few verses together: “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are…Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me” (John 17:11, 20-23).
You will notice, sir, that the phrase “be one” was used four times in these verses. You might also recall that this was the Lord’s last prayer, a kind of “last wish”, the type which most cultures across all climes is never treated with levity. But the Church has so far reacted to this prayer as if it doesn’t concern us. It is as if it was just a conversation between the father and the son of which we have no part. We are busy building personal or group empires; protecting our turfs to ward off all intruders. The result, as one man of God, graphically described it, is many are committing adultery with the Lord Jesus’ bride! Therefore, to work towards the unity of the Church, must be seen as an imperative for any leader who would please the one who owns the church, the only one who has the right to call it “my church”, as he did in Matthew 16:18 - Jesus Christ.
Ironically, although the assignment is clear as crystal, the strategy doesn’t seem so. And in the case of the association that you have just assumed leadership of, it might even seem daunting. But with God all things are possible and we do wish you the very best as you confront the challenge. In addition to wishing you well, however, perhaps a few pointers can help.
The first point, we wish to draw your attention to is so basic that it can be seen as simplistic. Have you noticed, sir, how preachers from across the various artificial enemy-created divides use their pulpits to denigrate and condemn one another? Have you noticed how we seem to have perfected the art of pulling down denominations and wings of the church other than our own? Have you noticed how we have become so arrogant about the efficacy and correctness of our individual teachings that we dismiss everything else as ineffective and flowing from ignorance or error? Significantly this practice flows, like the anointing, directly from the top. Can it be addressed from the top – so it can flow than the line?
It must be pointed out that in many cases, our criticisms of our brethren flow from ignorance of the “whys” and “hows” of what we condemn; some on our experiences of years back, even when denominations and groups have since moved on! It is my opinion that forums need to be created for the express purpose of fostering understanding of practices within individual wings of the church. Just one example will do and it is this: Is it possible, for instance, to hold a National Conference on Christian Prosperity? Does God want Christians to prosper? Is prosperity the same as materialism? Such honest debates across the divides will at least ensure that we understand where each wing of the church stands, and even if we remain in disagreement, it would be based on knowledge. There are several other such contentious issues. I do not mind saying here that these are some of the areas whereKINGDOMPeople, the magazine we are about to resuscitate, plans to be active. But, how much more effective would it be were CAN were to take them on!
We also think there’s need to take a look at the structural composition of CAN. It is widely accepted that the stronger the parts, the stronger the whole. Interestingly, your unit of CAN known as Christian Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria/Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (CPFN/PFN) betrays a level of weakness that was exploited to drag the last electioneering process. Over time, it has become clear that the CPFN seem to feel more comfortable with some other groups within CAN than with PFN and have tended to use their votes to make the point. That needs to be addressed. CPFN feels comfortable elsewhere, why doesn’t your executive encourage them to realign? That way you’ll have two strong bodies contributing to the unity of the whole. Otherwise, you’ll need to confront whatever it is that led to the birth of CPFN in the first place. This is fundamental. In the same way whatever group within CAN requires realignment, or feels the need to create new groups, should be allowed to do so, based on certain criteria. The need to bring those who are currently outside the fold should be addressed as early as possible. (CONTINUES)
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Sunday, 18 July 2010
OPEN LETTER TO CAN PRESIDENT ORITSEJAFOR
Please accept my hearty congratulations on your recent election to office as President of the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN. Your route to the presidency was indeed tortuous and I sincerely believe that you occupy that seat today, by the grace of God, of course, but also because of the courage you brought into the struggle. For, struggle, indeed it was. What with all the intrigues, accusations and counter-accusations of all kinds - an unfortunate replay, almost, of the do-or-die battle we are familiar with on the Nigerian political scene.
But thanks to God, all of that is behind now. Your acceptance speech, in which you extended your hand of fellowship to all and sundry within the Christian fold, urged all to put the elections behind and work together for a stronger Church, and called on all aggrieved persons to forgive one another, has been widely acclaimed as statesmanlike and, helped to reduce tension.
We note most especially your tribute to your predecessor and opponent in the election: “Let me also thank the outgoing president, His Grace Archbishop John Onaiyekan for his leadership of CAN over the last three years. It has been an honour for me to serve under your leadership and I know I speak on behalf of not only myself but on behalf of the whole of this General Assembly when I say we appreciate your dedication and sacrifice to the faith during your just concluded tenure as president of CAN.”
Most noteworthy, from the point of view of this writer, are some declarations contained in that speech. You said: "We continue to face monumental levels of corruption in our society, which translates into poor education for our children, deteriorating infrastructure, poor supply of electric power and a pervasive sense of hopelessness and helplessness among a host of other challenges.”
In many ways, you continued, “the challenges, that we as a nation are confronted with crystallise and find their mirror image in the challenges the body of Christ is confronted with in the north of the country. We must and shall continue to draw attention to the perennial religious crises in Northern Nigeria until we break the vicious cycle of violence and victimisation. There must be no doubt in your minds, my brethren, that if we are bold and courageous and prepared to speak truth to our times and to ourselves, we shall be the arrowhead of changes that Nigeria and Nigerians call out for. We must be as wise as serpents, so that the voice of the church is listened to and heard with clarity and without equivocation."
You couldn’t have articulated the state of the nation and the Church more accurately and more succinctly. But as many observers of the Nigerian space can tell, we’ve never been short of accurate diagnosis of our challenges. We sometimes even hit bull’s eye with our prescriptions, only to flunk it at the application stage, somehow. The umbrella body of Nigerian Christians which you now lead, unfortunately, hasn’t been an exception in this respect, particularly in the years since Olubunmi Cardinal Okogie’s leadership.
It follows therefore clear that your handling of the few issues identified in your acceptance speech, and others adjunct to them, will define your presidency. The courage, creativity and godly wisdom that you bring to bear upon the decision-making process, the decisions, actions and omissions will determine success or failure of your tenure.
Since that speech, you have, expectedly been inundated with congratulatory messages from groups and notable citizens, each seeking to put one thing on the other on your agenda. This has been varied. But, possibly the one that encapsulates them all may well be that from former military Head of State and presidential aspirant, Muhammadu Buhari. Besides joining others in presenting the church and inter-faith unity course, the general placed the Elections 2011 on the menu.
According to reports, the general has enjoined the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) under your leadership to insist on conducting credible elections in 2011. Specifically, he wants CAN to educate its followers to elect credible leaders at all levels and to ensure that their votes count.
His words: “ …I hope that in your new position, your wealth of experience will be used to promote peace and understanding not only between churches but more importantly between Christians and Muslims in the country. In Nigeria we expect no less from you, especially the demand for free and fair election; Nigerians of all faiths recall with gratitude the great contributions made by the Catholic Secretariat in exposing the sham elections of 2003 and 2007. I hope you will use your good office to insist that the authorities concerned conduct credible elections, as well as educating your followers to elect credible leaders at all levels, and to ensure that their votes count.”
From the foregoing it is clear that you have raised the bar and public expectations are high. This is why it’s so urgent that you put a plan of action in place. This you seem to have done, in a sense, through what might be called a Three-Point-Plus Agenda, as reflected in your response to enquiries by a newspaper, the Nigerian Compass, which recently carried a piece by Segun Otokiti headlined, “What to Expect from Oritsejafor’s CAN Presidency.”
Incidentally, in these day and age, you would think that the place to search for that kind of information would be the website of the association, but what you get when you try www.canonline.org is this: “This website has been suspended for non-payment of annual renewal fees. For more info email (withheld). This is disgraceful, to say the least, and it speaks to the contempt with which the immediate past leaders of CAN treat interface with the public. I do hope that you would not allow this to continue for another day.
But I digress. Otokiti gave the “three major areas…apart from other things” …where you hope to do your best as, “uniting the body much more”; “the religious crisis that continues in the North” and; what you called being “light and salt of the earth”. We shall try to examine the thoughts you outlined in these three areas in the next part of this letter. Thanks for your time, Mr President.
But thanks to God, all of that is behind now. Your acceptance speech, in which you extended your hand of fellowship to all and sundry within the Christian fold, urged all to put the elections behind and work together for a stronger Church, and called on all aggrieved persons to forgive one another, has been widely acclaimed as statesmanlike and, helped to reduce tension.
We note most especially your tribute to your predecessor and opponent in the election: “Let me also thank the outgoing president, His Grace Archbishop John Onaiyekan for his leadership of CAN over the last three years. It has been an honour for me to serve under your leadership and I know I speak on behalf of not only myself but on behalf of the whole of this General Assembly when I say we appreciate your dedication and sacrifice to the faith during your just concluded tenure as president of CAN.”
Most noteworthy, from the point of view of this writer, are some declarations contained in that speech. You said: "We continue to face monumental levels of corruption in our society, which translates into poor education for our children, deteriorating infrastructure, poor supply of electric power and a pervasive sense of hopelessness and helplessness among a host of other challenges.”
In many ways, you continued, “the challenges, that we as a nation are confronted with crystallise and find their mirror image in the challenges the body of Christ is confronted with in the north of the country. We must and shall continue to draw attention to the perennial religious crises in Northern Nigeria until we break the vicious cycle of violence and victimisation. There must be no doubt in your minds, my brethren, that if we are bold and courageous and prepared to speak truth to our times and to ourselves, we shall be the arrowhead of changes that Nigeria and Nigerians call out for. We must be as wise as serpents, so that the voice of the church is listened to and heard with clarity and without equivocation."
You couldn’t have articulated the state of the nation and the Church more accurately and more succinctly. But as many observers of the Nigerian space can tell, we’ve never been short of accurate diagnosis of our challenges. We sometimes even hit bull’s eye with our prescriptions, only to flunk it at the application stage, somehow. The umbrella body of Nigerian Christians which you now lead, unfortunately, hasn’t been an exception in this respect, particularly in the years since Olubunmi Cardinal Okogie’s leadership.
It follows therefore clear that your handling of the few issues identified in your acceptance speech, and others adjunct to them, will define your presidency. The courage, creativity and godly wisdom that you bring to bear upon the decision-making process, the decisions, actions and omissions will determine success or failure of your tenure.
Since that speech, you have, expectedly been inundated with congratulatory messages from groups and notable citizens, each seeking to put one thing on the other on your agenda. This has been varied. But, possibly the one that encapsulates them all may well be that from former military Head of State and presidential aspirant, Muhammadu Buhari. Besides joining others in presenting the church and inter-faith unity course, the general placed the Elections 2011 on the menu.
According to reports, the general has enjoined the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) under your leadership to insist on conducting credible elections in 2011. Specifically, he wants CAN to educate its followers to elect credible leaders at all levels and to ensure that their votes count.
His words: “ …I hope that in your new position, your wealth of experience will be used to promote peace and understanding not only between churches but more importantly between Christians and Muslims in the country. In Nigeria we expect no less from you, especially the demand for free and fair election; Nigerians of all faiths recall with gratitude the great contributions made by the Catholic Secretariat in exposing the sham elections of 2003 and 2007. I hope you will use your good office to insist that the authorities concerned conduct credible elections, as well as educating your followers to elect credible leaders at all levels, and to ensure that their votes count.”
From the foregoing it is clear that you have raised the bar and public expectations are high. This is why it’s so urgent that you put a plan of action in place. This you seem to have done, in a sense, through what might be called a Three-Point-Plus Agenda, as reflected in your response to enquiries by a newspaper, the Nigerian Compass, which recently carried a piece by Segun Otokiti headlined, “What to Expect from Oritsejafor’s CAN Presidency.”
Incidentally, in these day and age, you would think that the place to search for that kind of information would be the website of the association, but what you get when you try www.canonline.org is this: “This website has been suspended for non-payment of annual renewal fees. For more info email (withheld). This is disgraceful, to say the least, and it speaks to the contempt with which the immediate past leaders of CAN treat interface with the public. I do hope that you would not allow this to continue for another day.
But I digress. Otokiti gave the “three major areas…apart from other things” …where you hope to do your best as, “uniting the body much more”; “the religious crisis that continues in the North” and; what you called being “light and salt of the earth”. We shall try to examine the thoughts you outlined in these three areas in the next part of this letter. Thanks for your time, Mr President.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
CAN AND CHURCH UNITY: “…DO WE LOOK FOR ANOTHER?” (2)
As you might have heard, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor took office on Tuesday July 6 as President of Christian Association of Nigeria. It was the conclusion of an exercise that started in March, which had featured, for the very first time, a very public display of all that was despicable about elections into public office in our nation.
But thanks to God, it’s all over. Oritsefafor’s main opponent, Archbishop John Onaiyekan did not hesitate to accept defeat and congratulate the new helmsman immediately after the exercise was concluded at the National Christian Centre, Abuja on Monday. His other opponent, Most Rev Daniel Okoh has since joined the new team as Vice President.
All is well that ends well then? Hopefully, yes. But does it make the exercise we began on this page last week unnecessary? No. As we said in the conclusion to that piece, it is necessary to take a closer look at the history, structure, achievements and potentials of this “instrument of unity”, in order to properly understand the interplay of forces in the now concluded election, and which may affect future elections as well.
It’s already well-known that CAN is a product of circumstance. Chroniclers of the origins of the body recall it this way. On Friday, August 27, 1976, the then Obasanjo-led military administration was said to have invited religious leaders to a meeting at Dodan Barracks, Lagos , then the seat of the Federal government. The meeting was hosted by the Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters, equivalent of vice-president in the person of Shehu Yar’Adua, elder brother of the recently demised President Umaru Yar’Adua.
The meeting was called to intimate the religious leaders with, and seek their cooperation for, the government’s plan to introduce a national pledge and salutation of the National flag, into primary and secondary schools across the country. The leaders had no objections to government’s plans provided the salutes would be preceded by the usual morning devotions, during which staff and students worship their Creator. It was a cordial meeting, by all accounts, except for one thing. The meeting opened and closed with prayer the Islamic way. To the Christian leaders’ protest, General Yar’Adua was said to have replied that there were so many denominations represented in their own rights that he wouldn’t know who to invite to lead prayers among them. Unlike the Christians, the Muslims had a leader in the president of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (SCIA), the Sultan of Sokoto.
That, it would seem, was the wake-up call they needed. Immediately after the meeting, they assembled at the nearby Catholic Secretariat for a historic meeting at which the need for a platform under which they could meet regularly to deliberate on and take collective decisions on vital matters affecting the Christian Faith and the welfare of the generality of Nigerians, was discussed. That was how the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) was conceived and eventually birthed.
It is also well known today that the association consists of five blocs. These are, Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria (CSN), for Catholics; Christian Council of Nigeria (CCN), consisting of Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists and First African Church ; Christian Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria/Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, representing the Apostolic and Pentecostal Churches ; Organisation of African Instituted Churches (OAIC) made up of Celestial Church of Christ and Cherubim and Seraphim Churches ; and TEKAN/ECWA and about 15 other denominations.
From the above, it is easy to see that apart from CSN, the other blocs are federations; making the association a confederation. It is one of the internal contradictions of CAN that with the exception of CCN and possibly OAIC, the other blocs do not seem to have common ground on many issues, including some minor doctrinal ones and, virtually no forum for interaction. The result is unspoken frictions within at least two of the federations. It is one of such frictions that the Usu-led Electoral College was accused of trying to exploit to disqualify Oritsejafor of the CPFN/PFN bloc during the just concluded elections. This perhaps explains why the presidency of CAN had until now stayed with the Catholics and two member-denominations of CCN.
Another important feature of CAN’s contemporary reality is the emergence of “CAN politicians”; people who scheme themselves into offices within their bloc with an eye on CAN, and who are not necessarily the best equipped to represent the interest of their bloc or the Christian Faith.
Yet, as a body representing at least half of the population of Nigeria , CAN’s influence, realised and potential is immense. That explains why external interference in its elections is almost inevitable. To illustrate, there is a Nigerian Inter-Religion Council, NIREC co-chaired by the heads of CAN and SCIA, which interfaces with the Federal government. While the leader of the latter holds office for life, the former is tenured. Can chemistry between the two leaders lead to preferences and the temptation to pull the levers of power to resist or effect change? It is instructive that President Goodluck Jonathan’s address at Oritsejafor’s inaugural included a call on him to cooperate with the Sultan.
What do these portend for the future of CAN? Rev Dr Moses Iloh, a respected Church elder statesman thinks it should be disbanded. In a piece published recently, headlined, “Quo Vadis CAN”, the one-time Director of Welfare of the association concluded in these words: “Not too long ago, I posited that the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), as presently composed and functioning, should be terminated and dismantled. It is a purposeless organisation, and one that relishes in “Phariseeism.” Denominations should meet, dialogue, and eventually agree to form a disciplined, humble, purposeful and forward-looking organisation to be known as The Church in Nigeria .”
I think it need not come to that, if Oritsejafor’s team will rise to the challenge of re-engineering the association. First and foremost a redefinition of purpose would be required. The protection of the religious and socio-political interests of Christians remains important, but even more crucial is the pursuit of unity as an answer to the Lord Jesus’ prayer “that they may be one” (see John 17:11). Blocs should be encouraged to begin to cooperate for such specifics as missions and community service. This has great potentials for subsequent mergers as recently demonstrated by the Reformed Church. Where absolutely unavoidable, he needs not shy away from realignment, within and across blocs, provided that doors of cooperation remain open. Courage to think outside the box would be required. And it’s available in Christ. Go for it, Mr President!
But thanks to God, it’s all over. Oritsefafor’s main opponent, Archbishop John Onaiyekan did not hesitate to accept defeat and congratulate the new helmsman immediately after the exercise was concluded at the National Christian Centre, Abuja on Monday. His other opponent, Most Rev Daniel Okoh has since joined the new team as Vice President.
All is well that ends well then? Hopefully, yes. But does it make the exercise we began on this page last week unnecessary? No. As we said in the conclusion to that piece, it is necessary to take a closer look at the history, structure, achievements and potentials of this “instrument of unity”, in order to properly understand the interplay of forces in the now concluded election, and which may affect future elections as well.
It’s already well-known that CAN is a product of circumstance. Chroniclers of the origins of the body recall it this way. On Friday, August 27, 1976, the then Obasanjo-led military administration was said to have invited religious leaders to a meeting at Dodan Barracks, Lagos , then the seat of the Federal government. The meeting was hosted by the Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters, equivalent of vice-president in the person of Shehu Yar’Adua, elder brother of the recently demised President Umaru Yar’Adua.
The meeting was called to intimate the religious leaders with, and seek their cooperation for, the government’s plan to introduce a national pledge and salutation of the National flag, into primary and secondary schools across the country. The leaders had no objections to government’s plans provided the salutes would be preceded by the usual morning devotions, during which staff and students worship their Creator. It was a cordial meeting, by all accounts, except for one thing. The meeting opened and closed with prayer the Islamic way. To the Christian leaders’ protest, General Yar’Adua was said to have replied that there were so many denominations represented in their own rights that he wouldn’t know who to invite to lead prayers among them. Unlike the Christians, the Muslims had a leader in the president of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (SCIA), the Sultan of Sokoto.
That, it would seem, was the wake-up call they needed. Immediately after the meeting, they assembled at the nearby Catholic Secretariat for a historic meeting at which the need for a platform under which they could meet regularly to deliberate on and take collective decisions on vital matters affecting the Christian Faith and the welfare of the generality of Nigerians, was discussed. That was how the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) was conceived and eventually birthed.
It is also well known today that the association consists of five blocs. These are, Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria (CSN), for Catholics; Christian Council of Nigeria (CCN), consisting of Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists and First African Church ; Christian Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria/Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, representing the Apostolic and Pentecostal Churches ; Organisation of African Instituted Churches (OAIC) made up of Celestial Church of Christ and Cherubim and Seraphim Churches ; and TEKAN/ECWA and about 15 other denominations.
From the above, it is easy to see that apart from CSN, the other blocs are federations; making the association a confederation. It is one of the internal contradictions of CAN that with the exception of CCN and possibly OAIC, the other blocs do not seem to have common ground on many issues, including some minor doctrinal ones and, virtually no forum for interaction. The result is unspoken frictions within at least two of the federations. It is one of such frictions that the Usu-led Electoral College was accused of trying to exploit to disqualify Oritsejafor of the CPFN/PFN bloc during the just concluded elections. This perhaps explains why the presidency of CAN had until now stayed with the Catholics and two member-denominations of CCN.
Another important feature of CAN’s contemporary reality is the emergence of “CAN politicians”; people who scheme themselves into offices within their bloc with an eye on CAN, and who are not necessarily the best equipped to represent the interest of their bloc or the Christian Faith.
Yet, as a body representing at least half of the population of Nigeria , CAN’s influence, realised and potential is immense. That explains why external interference in its elections is almost inevitable. To illustrate, there is a Nigerian Inter-Religion Council, NIREC co-chaired by the heads of CAN and SCIA, which interfaces with the Federal government. While the leader of the latter holds office for life, the former is tenured. Can chemistry between the two leaders lead to preferences and the temptation to pull the levers of power to resist or effect change? It is instructive that President Goodluck Jonathan’s address at Oritsejafor’s inaugural included a call on him to cooperate with the Sultan.
What do these portend for the future of CAN? Rev Dr Moses Iloh, a respected Church elder statesman thinks it should be disbanded. In a piece published recently, headlined, “Quo Vadis CAN”, the one-time Director of Welfare of the association concluded in these words: “Not too long ago, I posited that the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), as presently composed and functioning, should be terminated and dismantled. It is a purposeless organisation, and one that relishes in “Phariseeism.” Denominations should meet, dialogue, and eventually agree to form a disciplined, humble, purposeful and forward-looking organisation to be known as The Church in Nigeria .”
I think it need not come to that, if Oritsejafor’s team will rise to the challenge of re-engineering the association. First and foremost a redefinition of purpose would be required. The protection of the religious and socio-political interests of Christians remains important, but even more crucial is the pursuit of unity as an answer to the Lord Jesus’ prayer “that they may be one” (see John 17:11). Blocs should be encouraged to begin to cooperate for such specifics as missions and community service. This has great potentials for subsequent mergers as recently demonstrated by the Reformed Church. Where absolutely unavoidable, he needs not shy away from realignment, within and across blocs, provided that doors of cooperation remain open. Courage to think outside the box would be required. And it’s available in Christ. Go for it, Mr President!
Sunday, 4 July 2010
CAN AND CHURCH UNITY: “…DO WE LOOK FOR ANOTHER? (2)
While I was busy celebrating the many and varied strides of giant proportions being taking globally to achieve the heart of Christ for His Church – THAT THEY MAY BE ONE – the body that could be described as an instrument of church unity in Nigeria was threatening to come unstuck.
While, I was talking excitedly about how thousands of church leaders gathered for Edinburgh 2010 in the Scottish capital to find unity through missions; and how 1300 churches across the earth were participating in global pulpit swap, hearing the same message and raising funds to plant new congregations in China and Cambodia etc through the One Prayer initiative of an US-based church, and gleefully announcing the merger of the Reformed Churches into one big happy family, the Christian Association of Nigeria was pulling in the opposite direction.
While I was thanking God for using Bro Cyprian Agbazue and the ministry of International Foundation for Church Unity to jolt me back from underplaying the church unity mandate of the about-to-return KINGDOMPeople, the magazine for all who name the name of the Lord in truth and scolding myself for nearly missing it, CAN was in the news not for uniting Christ’s Church, but for threatening to tear it apart. How ironic, how so, so tragically so.
But thanks be to God that, as I write this, there were indications that by the time you read it, we would be only two days away from a resolution of the leadership issue that brought the association so very close to the brink.
For those who might not have heard it; yes, leadership, or, if you like, the struggle for office or power was at the centre of the crisis. In other words, flawed elections, which has been the torment of our nation and, for which politicians and umpires have been vilified, has clawed its way into the church’s highest body. In the event, reports of intrigues, external interference, use of operatives of the State Security Service, and umpire partisanship have been making the rounds. Deliberate attempt to exclude one of the aspirants has been alleged. To drive home the unenviable similarity between what’s happening on the political scene and in the church, a newspaper two-part series on the exercise that has been on since March, was headlined “Like PDP, Like CAN? as Succession War Tears Christian Body Apart.”
Now, if you thought that was unfair comparison, let’s review the facts as we have pieced them together from several sources together. The incumbent President, Most Rev John Onaiyekan, Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, wants a second term, which is well within his right under CAN constitution. Two others, the incumbent Vice-President, Archbishop Daniel Okoh, General Superintendent of Christ Holy Church International, CHCI and the president of Organisation of African Instituted Churches (OAIC), and Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, President, Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) wanted a shot at the seat.
According to CAN’s electoral laws, an Electoral College had to meet and by vote reduce the number of aspirants to two. This college was met in March but did not vote. Reason? The Electoral College headed by an OIAC member, Evangelist S.O. Usu, refused to conduct the election unless the PFN candidate, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor was disqualified because Oritsejafor was said to have failed to get a consensus nomination from his CPFN/PFN group.
Those who should know say this position of the Electoral College was strange, because the so-called CPFN arm of the group which had earlier written a letter to the Secretary-General of CAN stating that its members would vote for Onaiyekan, also indicated they were not opposed to the nomination of Oritsejafor. Also, there were precedents and the college chairman was said to have been reminded of the most recent. According to sources, the situation was not different from when Bishop Mike Okonkwo, then PFN president contested the CAN presidency in 2004. He came third in that election. This same Archbishop Onaiyekan returned second while his then Anglican counterpart, Most Rev. Peter Jasper Akinola emerged victorious. Okonkwo went on to serve as vice president Onaiyekan declined the office which was automatically his as the second placer.
It seemed that neither counter argument had any impression on the Electoral College chairman Apostle S. O. Usu, as a result of which the body failed to carry out its assignment on the three occasions it convened. By this time, it was already being insinuated that somebody, somewhere was bent on excluding Oritsejafor from the ballot, in the same way that the then vice-president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Atiku Abubakar, was excluded, until the very last minute, from contesting the 2007 presidential elections.
Why would anyone want to do that, you ask, and those of this persuasion would point out to you that the PFN President was too activist for some people’s comfort! One newspaper report quoted an unnamed stakeholder as stating the case for Oritsejafor, and why he is being opposed by certain powerful elements as saying: “The position of Oritsejafor on the perennial violent eruptions in the North is very well known though it is not popular with very powerful people…The violent killing of pastors and other innocent Christians in parts of the North is religiously motivated…If not, why are political party offices not targeted? If the crisis is political and ethnic, why are pastors and their followers are the prime target always?"
The report also quoted the PFN deputy president in charge of North East, Rev. Steve Agbana as saying that Oritsejafor remains the only Christian leader at the national level, to visit Maiduguri to empathize with the victims of the Boko Haram mayhem of last year. He was there on Easter Monday with relief materials where he also donated the sum of N3 million to them.
Interestingly, while it is being implied that Onaiyekan is the intended beneficiary of the crisis; impeccable sources state that he is personally not overly excited about a second term. If only, they would let me be, he was reported to have told some confidants. It is not clear, who “they” is, but it does imply that external forces might be at work.
To properly understand the interplay of forces in CAN elections, however, it would be necessary to take a closer look at the history, structure, achievements and potentials of this “instrument of unity”. I shall attempt to do so next week.
While, I was talking excitedly about how thousands of church leaders gathered for Edinburgh 2010 in the Scottish capital to find unity through missions; and how 1300 churches across the earth were participating in global pulpit swap, hearing the same message and raising funds to plant new congregations in China and Cambodia etc through the One Prayer initiative of an US-based church, and gleefully announcing the merger of the Reformed Churches into one big happy family, the Christian Association of Nigeria was pulling in the opposite direction.
While I was thanking God for using Bro Cyprian Agbazue and the ministry of International Foundation for Church Unity to jolt me back from underplaying the church unity mandate of the about-to-return KINGDOMPeople, the magazine for all who name the name of the Lord in truth and scolding myself for nearly missing it, CAN was in the news not for uniting Christ’s Church, but for threatening to tear it apart. How ironic, how so, so tragically so.
But thanks be to God that, as I write this, there were indications that by the time you read it, we would be only two days away from a resolution of the leadership issue that brought the association so very close to the brink.
For those who might not have heard it; yes, leadership, or, if you like, the struggle for office or power was at the centre of the crisis. In other words, flawed elections, which has been the torment of our nation and, for which politicians and umpires have been vilified, has clawed its way into the church’s highest body. In the event, reports of intrigues, external interference, use of operatives of the State Security Service, and umpire partisanship have been making the rounds. Deliberate attempt to exclude one of the aspirants has been alleged. To drive home the unenviable similarity between what’s happening on the political scene and in the church, a newspaper two-part series on the exercise that has been on since March, was headlined “Like PDP, Like CAN? as Succession War Tears Christian Body Apart.”
Now, if you thought that was unfair comparison, let’s review the facts as we have pieced them together from several sources together. The incumbent President, Most Rev John Onaiyekan, Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, wants a second term, which is well within his right under CAN constitution. Two others, the incumbent Vice-President, Archbishop Daniel Okoh, General Superintendent of Christ Holy Church International, CHCI and the president of Organisation of African Instituted Churches (OAIC), and Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, President, Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) wanted a shot at the seat.
According to CAN’s electoral laws, an Electoral College had to meet and by vote reduce the number of aspirants to two. This college was met in March but did not vote. Reason? The Electoral College headed by an OIAC member, Evangelist S.O. Usu, refused to conduct the election unless the PFN candidate, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor was disqualified because Oritsejafor was said to have failed to get a consensus nomination from his CPFN/PFN group.
Those who should know say this position of the Electoral College was strange, because the so-called CPFN arm of the group which had earlier written a letter to the Secretary-General of CAN stating that its members would vote for Onaiyekan, also indicated they were not opposed to the nomination of Oritsejafor. Also, there were precedents and the college chairman was said to have been reminded of the most recent. According to sources, the situation was not different from when Bishop Mike Okonkwo, then PFN president contested the CAN presidency in 2004. He came third in that election. This same Archbishop Onaiyekan returned second while his then Anglican counterpart, Most Rev. Peter Jasper Akinola emerged victorious. Okonkwo went on to serve as vice president Onaiyekan declined the office which was automatically his as the second placer.
It seemed that neither counter argument had any impression on the Electoral College chairman Apostle S. O. Usu, as a result of which the body failed to carry out its assignment on the three occasions it convened. By this time, it was already being insinuated that somebody, somewhere was bent on excluding Oritsejafor from the ballot, in the same way that the then vice-president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Atiku Abubakar, was excluded, until the very last minute, from contesting the 2007 presidential elections.
Why would anyone want to do that, you ask, and those of this persuasion would point out to you that the PFN President was too activist for some people’s comfort! One newspaper report quoted an unnamed stakeholder as stating the case for Oritsejafor, and why he is being opposed by certain powerful elements as saying: “The position of Oritsejafor on the perennial violent eruptions in the North is very well known though it is not popular with very powerful people…The violent killing of pastors and other innocent Christians in parts of the North is religiously motivated…If not, why are political party offices not targeted? If the crisis is political and ethnic, why are pastors and their followers are the prime target always?"
The report also quoted the PFN deputy president in charge of North East, Rev. Steve Agbana as saying that Oritsejafor remains the only Christian leader at the national level, to visit Maiduguri to empathize with the victims of the Boko Haram mayhem of last year. He was there on Easter Monday with relief materials where he also donated the sum of N3 million to them.
Interestingly, while it is being implied that Onaiyekan is the intended beneficiary of the crisis; impeccable sources state that he is personally not overly excited about a second term. If only, they would let me be, he was reported to have told some confidants. It is not clear, who “they” is, but it does imply that external forces might be at work.
To properly understand the interplay of forces in CAN elections, however, it would be necessary to take a closer look at the history, structure, achievements and potentials of this “instrument of unity”. I shall attempt to do so next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)