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!
No comments:
Post a Comment