Mr President, earlier in this letter, I quoted extensively from a serial written about three years ago making a number of suggestions for the then Onaiyekan-led executive of the association you head today. I shall proceed in this concluding paragraphs to quote a bit more from that serial which, incidentally, can be read in full at http://thegreatcompany.blogsopt.com or made available on request. Thereafter I shall draw your attention to what I consider wonderful new developments from elsewhere worthy of consideration for possible adaptation.
You may recall, sir, that we had made suggestions about the role of chaplains and how Churches should be interested in how they are appointed and how they perform in office. We have made a case for annual retreats for Christian politicians, the need for the establishment of structures for monitoring, liaison with and influencing of the activities of the three departments of governments at all levels, and well articulated Christian platform on issues of national interest including but not limited to a legislative agenda. We shall return to this particular issue presently.
Before that, Mr President, permit me to recall one more suggestion contained in the 2007 serial. And it is on the subject of how our brothers and sisters “find their way into office”. We wrote then:
“I believe this is a very crucial question which if examined critically should assist in addressing the character question among men and women, who in addition to whatever party flags they may fly, are also easily identified with the Christian faith. Look at it this way: a man or woman of God feels the call to serve God in the public or political arena. He tells members of his church family about it. What does he get? Apathy or outright discouragement and in many cases prayers! God answers prayers, but like James said in the Bible, faith without works is dead! A man or woman seeking election into office needs money to run his campaign. When he doesn’t get help from his brethren, he’ll try to get it from other sources. Enter the godfather, with all the consequences, as we saw in the case of Dr Chris Ngige, and his so-called estranged godfather in Anambra state, Chris Uba and; erstwhile Governor Rashidi Ladoja and (garrison commander), Lamidi Adedibu in Oyo State.
“Even where a solo financier is not involved there are usually a variety of sponsors and financiers each waiting in the wings for returns on their investments. That ties the office seeker’s hands long before they become office holders and also whittles, if not eliminate, whatever influences the church could have had upon such people. Arguably, a Christian, well grounded in the word should be able to resist evil wherever it raises its head, but it certainly does become more difficult where the righteous forsake their brothers and sisters to “find their way to office. The need to raise awareness among us about politics and governance is really pressing…”
Those were our words in 2007 and we humbly suggest that they still hold some relevance today and therefore urge you, like we did the Onaiyekan-led executive then, to give them some thought, no matter how idealistic they seem, at first glance. For, indeed, two years after our suggestions, developments outside our shores began to lend credence to the call to action.
As you most probably might have read, a number of Christian leaders in the United States widely recognised for their “public witness on behalf of justice, human rights, and the common good” came together in 2009 and subsequently came up with what has now become known as the Manhattan Declaration. Described as a “Call to Christian Conscience”, the declaration, in the words of one of its proponents, “speaks to the church just as much as it speaks to the larger culture”. Originally signed by about 150 prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders and scholars including Nigeria ’s Most Rev Peter Akinola, and released on November 20, 2009 at a press conference in Washington , DC , its focus was on three issues that the enemy is using powerfully to destroy the Christian heritage of that country.
In the main, the signatories affirm in the 4700-word declaration: “The profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; Marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; Religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.”
As we write this, well over 460,000 persons have signed on to the declaration. But that is not the story. The big deal is that it caught the eyes Christians in the United Kingdom , made so great an impression on them, that on the eve of the last General Elections, they launched the Westminster Declaration of Christian Conscience 2010. A former Archbishop Canterbury, Lord carey, was among 30 senior Christian Leaders, who signed and launched the declaration last Easter Sunday (April 4, 2010).
Both in timing and content, it was widely seen as the Christian Manifesto for the election; deftly designed to send a clear message to all parliamentary candidates that Christians will be supporting only those whose politics do not conflict with Christian beliefs and interfere with their right to live according to those beliefs. Towards this end, the declaration articulated those range of policies around which churches in the UK are united, including support for marriage, opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia, support for the rights of children born and unborn, and support for all those who are sick, disabled, addicted, elderly, poor, exploited, trafficked or exploited by unjust trade, aid or debt. In other words Christians were being galvanised not to vote for candidates whose previous records or current platforms conflict with these minimum.
Mr President, it is my view that CAN, under your leadership, ought to spearhead a Nigerian Christian Charter along these lines, articulating the Christian standpoint on issues such as corruption, violation of voters’ rights through election rigging, freedom of worship and etc with a view to guiding our brethren in the choice of political party to join and candidates to vote for. Thanks for your time, sir. (CONCLUDED)
Sunday, 15 August 2010
Sunday, 8 August 2010
OPEN LETTER TO CAN PRESIDENT ORITSEJAFOR (4)
As I pointed out in the last letter, Mr President, this column has, since inception a few years back, devoted several articles to the subject of the place of the church in the socio-political and economic development of our nation. You characterised this in the biblically apt phase, “being salt and light” to the nation and declared that under your leadership “the church will be more active”. This was why we excitedly offered to present to you some of the suggestions we have made in the past.
As a backgrounder, sir, you may want to know that the serial we are about to quote extensively from was written and published between July 29 and August 19, 2007 against the backdrop of the just beginning trial of ex-Governors who had then just lost their immunity. We had noted then that more Christians were involved in the disgraceful drama than adherents of other faiths. Compared to members of other faiths our interim “ex-Governors-in-Post-Immunity Trial” statistical report then looked like this: Convictions 100%; Arraignments - 80%; Overall - 83.34%...”
Now, Mr President, please read this excerpt from “A Wake-Up Call to Church Leaders(2)”, first published on August 5, 2007:
“…I believe that there is an urgent need for Christian leaders through the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) to seize the opportunity offered by the current nadir into which the moral high ground of the faith has plunged - courtesy of some of these so-called Christians in positions of authority - to rethink our approach to governance in our nation. I believe with all my heart that the situation should be seen as beyond a call to prayer, which is understandably our default setting, as it were. I believe it should be recognised also as a call to prayerfully put structures in place to deliberately begin to engage with the “political class” in the area of godliness, ethics and the common good; keep an eagle eye upon those who get into government proclaiming their love for the Lord Jesus; and continuously and directly engage with government at all levels to ensure that godliness is an overriding factor in policy formulation, direction and implementation.
“Permit me to articulate this a little. Let’s work from the known to the seemingly unknown. Let’s take the case of governors for example. Every Christian governor hopefully has a chapel around Government House manned by a chaplain, who I reckon must have a sort of ringside ticket to what happens in government. When a chaplain begins to catch a whiff of the filthy smell of lucre or the not-so-uncommon recourse to sexual wantonness, what does he do? Does he simply look the other way because he does not want to hurt the boss or; protect his access to comfortable living by steering clear of ministering to the boss on such subjects? Which leads me to the question: how are chaplains recruited? Do they get any kind of protection from the part of the Church family they come from? Where they try and fail to rein in a governor’s propensity to deviate from the Christian path, are they encouraged to alert the church family group so that a kind of early warning system can be put in place? In my view CAN have to consider working along this line.
“The church’s engagement with the political class, that is, those who are currently actively involved in politics can also be structured. It is my view, for instance, that CAN ought to hold annual retreats for Christian politicians where they all have the opportunity to listen to word-based evaluation of governance; exchange views on anti-Christian pressures and satanic influences and together agree to prayerfully resist those things. For ease of management, it can hold at state level.
“I am also fully persuaded that CAN should consider establishing structures for monitoring, liaison with and influencing of the activities of the three departments of governments at all levels. By this I wonder if it were possible to appoint a legislative liaison and monitoring group. Such a group may be armed with a Christian legislative agenda and a check-list of the attributes of just laws. With a legislative agenda of say, three laws that Nigeria Christians would love to see passed in a particular legislative year, this group can liaise with Christian legislators and even powerful non-Christians where necessary. With a well thought-out legislative checklist Christian members can be guided to oppose or support or propose amendments to bills. Through proper monitoring of speeches on the floor and voting patterns, it should be possible to identify those who consistently step out of line and work against them at election time. Such a structure, while not exactly appropriate for the judiciary, should also be considered for the Executive Arm too, while something else is worked for the judiciary.
“All of these bring me to the issue of platform; that is a consistent Christian position on issues of affecting the lives; lifestyle and faith walk of the Nigerian Christian, most of which would have universal application to the Nigerian. For instance there is talk in the air of electoral reform. Is it possible to have a Christian platform? What about the constitution? Is it absolutely impossible to have a position on this? For the avoidance of any doubts, this is not to promote sectarian differences in Nigeria ; it is very simply to lift the underlying values, the fundamentals of governance in Nigeria . Where to start? I am aware that the Catholic Church in Nigeria has the very vibrant Justice and Peace Commission, the PFN, has the Social Security Outreach, the other groups sure have equivalent departments or outreaches. These outfits may be used to begin exploratory talks.
“The new CAN leadership led by Archbishop Onaiyekan, should in the name of Lord, pray about these things before throwing these suggestions out as idealistic, unworkable or inappropriate. Of course, there is the unity question amongst us too! As a kind of Church Unity activist, I know how real this is and how debilitating to the body. But it should not stop us. The fact of sitting together towards formulating and creating the structures will help in the bonding process. Yes the current disunity does recommend caution, so we may need to start small, but start we must.”
A few more suggestions follow in the concluding part of this letter, next. Thanks again, for your time, Mr President. (CONCLUDES NEXT WEEK)
As a backgrounder, sir, you may want to know that the serial we are about to quote extensively from was written and published between July 29 and August 19, 2007 against the backdrop of the just beginning trial of ex-Governors who had then just lost their immunity. We had noted then that more Christians were involved in the disgraceful drama than adherents of other faiths. Compared to members of other faiths our interim “ex-Governors-in-Post-Immunity Trial” statistical report then looked like this: Convictions 100%; Arraignments - 80%; Overall - 83.34%...”
Now, Mr President, please read this excerpt from “A Wake-Up Call to Church Leaders(2)”, first published on August 5, 2007:
“…I believe that there is an urgent need for Christian leaders through the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) to seize the opportunity offered by the current nadir into which the moral high ground of the faith has plunged - courtesy of some of these so-called Christians in positions of authority - to rethink our approach to governance in our nation. I believe with all my heart that the situation should be seen as beyond a call to prayer, which is understandably our default setting, as it were. I believe it should be recognised also as a call to prayerfully put structures in place to deliberately begin to engage with the “political class” in the area of godliness, ethics and the common good; keep an eagle eye upon those who get into government proclaiming their love for the Lord Jesus; and continuously and directly engage with government at all levels to ensure that godliness is an overriding factor in policy formulation, direction and implementation.
“Permit me to articulate this a little. Let’s work from the known to the seemingly unknown. Let’s take the case of governors for example. Every Christian governor hopefully has a chapel around Government House manned by a chaplain, who I reckon must have a sort of ringside ticket to what happens in government. When a chaplain begins to catch a whiff of the filthy smell of lucre or the not-so-uncommon recourse to sexual wantonness, what does he do? Does he simply look the other way because he does not want to hurt the boss or; protect his access to comfortable living by steering clear of ministering to the boss on such subjects? Which leads me to the question: how are chaplains recruited? Do they get any kind of protection from the part of the Church family they come from? Where they try and fail to rein in a governor’s propensity to deviate from the Christian path, are they encouraged to alert the church family group so that a kind of early warning system can be put in place? In my view CAN have to consider working along this line.
“The church’s engagement with the political class, that is, those who are currently actively involved in politics can also be structured. It is my view, for instance, that CAN ought to hold annual retreats for Christian politicians where they all have the opportunity to listen to word-based evaluation of governance; exchange views on anti-Christian pressures and satanic influences and together agree to prayerfully resist those things. For ease of management, it can hold at state level.
“I am also fully persuaded that CAN should consider establishing structures for monitoring, liaison with and influencing of the activities of the three departments of governments at all levels. By this I wonder if it were possible to appoint a legislative liaison and monitoring group. Such a group may be armed with a Christian legislative agenda and a check-list of the attributes of just laws. With a legislative agenda of say, three laws that Nigeria Christians would love to see passed in a particular legislative year, this group can liaise with Christian legislators and even powerful non-Christians where necessary. With a well thought-out legislative checklist Christian members can be guided to oppose or support or propose amendments to bills. Through proper monitoring of speeches on the floor and voting patterns, it should be possible to identify those who consistently step out of line and work against them at election time. Such a structure, while not exactly appropriate for the judiciary, should also be considered for the Executive Arm too, while something else is worked for the judiciary.
“All of these bring me to the issue of platform; that is a consistent Christian position on issues of affecting the lives; lifestyle and faith walk of the Nigerian Christian, most of which would have universal application to the Nigerian. For instance there is talk in the air of electoral reform. Is it possible to have a Christian platform? What about the constitution? Is it absolutely impossible to have a position on this? For the avoidance of any doubts, this is not to promote sectarian differences in Nigeria ; it is very simply to lift the underlying values, the fundamentals of governance in Nigeria . Where to start? I am aware that the Catholic Church in Nigeria has the very vibrant Justice and Peace Commission, the PFN, has the Social Security Outreach, the other groups sure have equivalent departments or outreaches. These outfits may be used to begin exploratory talks.
“The new CAN leadership led by Archbishop Onaiyekan, should in the name of Lord, pray about these things before throwing these suggestions out as idealistic, unworkable or inappropriate. Of course, there is the unity question amongst us too! As a kind of Church Unity activist, I know how real this is and how debilitating to the body. But it should not stop us. The fact of sitting together towards formulating and creating the structures will help in the bonding process. Yes the current disunity does recommend caution, so we may need to start small, but start we must.”
A few more suggestions follow in the concluding part of this letter, next. Thanks again, for your time, Mr President. (CONCLUDES NEXT WEEK)
Sunday, 1 August 2010
OPEN LETTER TO CAN PRESIDENT ORITSEJAFOR (3)
As I was saying, Mr President, the challenge of uniting the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ will call for deliberate action on the part of the new executive under your leadership. We trust that , with the Holy Spirit as your guide, you are up to the task.
On the religious crisis in the North, very little can be added to what you told Segun Otokiti who quoted you in his Nigerian Compass article as follows:
“The second thing is the religious crisis that continues in the North. It is another concern for our administration to look into. I’m very concerned about this and I also strongly believe that we can do something about it. I believe we will find new ways and more ways to dialogue with our brothers on the other side of the religion divide. God will show us more ways and we will dialogue better with them. For example, we see the Nigerian Inter-Religious Council (NIREC), which is the coming together of both religions, as fantastic but I think at the grassroots, there are many of the people who are not educated, they don’t even know what is going on, and they don’t fully understand the fact that there is no religion that preaches violence. So, leaders of both religions must not always come together in big cities, they must begin to go into villages, they must go into mosques in the villages, into churches in the villages and be able to reach out to the people and begin to tell them what the truth is. And then, they must also begin to seriously find ways to influence the very local imams and pastors in the rural areas. And if that is done and done constantly and properly, you will discover that the senior wicked people who caused all these troubles, when they go to grassroots to get those they will use to cause crisis again, they wouldn’t find them because the understanding would have filtered down to those people. I think we need to work more and there are many other thing we must do to make sure that peace comes to stay and also begin to get government to play its part as well.”
I wish however to invite you to deal with the perception that some stakeholders have of you as a hawk. Many have expressed their worry obliquely, but Adamu Adamu, in a piece titled, “CAN and the Book of John,” which you might have read, was very direct. He wrote in the conclusion to his beautiful piece on Onaiyekan and I quote: “Surely, if healing the Christian-Muslim rift is the one of more important items on the agenda of a CAN president—and if it is not, it should be—then Archbishop Onaiyekan is arguably the most successful president of the Christian body. Without the understanding, respect and dialogue pioneered by Onaiyekan, which must be reciprocated, it is to be feared that someone removed from the scene of the crisis and informed only by media reports that are sometimes part of the problem may lead us into a whirl pool of religious disaster. That is why today the challenge on the shoulders of Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, president of the Pentecostal Federation of Nigeria and the new CAN president, is a heavy one, indeed, especially in view of the fact that at times of crises in the past, some of the most unhelpful comments have issued from Pentecostal pulpits, unfortunately, including his own. While wishing Pastor Oritsejafor every success, it is to be hoped that he will take a leaf out of the Book of John Onaiyekan.”
Without losing sight of the irony that the leader those outside the Lord’s flock consider as “arguably the most successful president of the Christian body,” didn’t seem to have made a similar impression within, and was therefore not re-elected, you still have to deal with this perception. Perception, after all is said to be reality; at least to the perceiver. That’s a tight rope given that you cannot also afford to disappoint those who elected you. It is our prayer that God’s grace shall be sufficient for you.
The third item on your agenda is also very, very crucial. As a matter of fact, for someone involved in men’s ministry, like I have had the privilege of being, it seems to me as the issue besides which everyone else pales into insignificance. And I really love the way you put it: being “light and salt of the earth.” Listen with me, to yourself, Mr President: “Then, the third thing is to be light and salt of the earth. And to do that, the church must impact and make input into Nigeria. We must begin to get our Christian brothers and sisters who hold high offices accountable for money that passes through their hands, accountable for wherever God has put them, and they must be held accountable to the people they lead. We must enforce it, we must press for it, we must make sure that it happens and we must begin to teach them that they are accountable for such things. We also need to encourage Christians to get into politics and play their part in any way we think we can be of help to government in moving the country forward in the project of Nigeria. I think the church will be more active and play our part more actively. In addition, Nigerians need to enjoy more of the dividends of democracy and journalists are in the position to influence things more positively and we hope they do that well.”
This column has since inception a few years back devoted several articles to this subject. We have drawn attention to the sad truth that more Christian leaders have fallen foul of basic moral standards in public office than adherents of other faiths. We have made many suggestions that could form basic ingredients for action – to no effect. This declared intention that “the church will be more active” in this respect, offers an opportunity to ventilate those ideas again and we will – next in this letter. Thanks for your time, Mr President. (CONTINUES)
On the religious crisis in the North, very little can be added to what you told Segun Otokiti who quoted you in his Nigerian Compass article as follows:
“The second thing is the religious crisis that continues in the North. It is another concern for our administration to look into. I’m very concerned about this and I also strongly believe that we can do something about it. I believe we will find new ways and more ways to dialogue with our brothers on the other side of the religion divide. God will show us more ways and we will dialogue better with them. For example, we see the Nigerian Inter-Religious Council (NIREC), which is the coming together of both religions, as fantastic but I think at the grassroots, there are many of the people who are not educated, they don’t even know what is going on, and they don’t fully understand the fact that there is no religion that preaches violence. So, leaders of both religions must not always come together in big cities, they must begin to go into villages, they must go into mosques in the villages, into churches in the villages and be able to reach out to the people and begin to tell them what the truth is. And then, they must also begin to seriously find ways to influence the very local imams and pastors in the rural areas. And if that is done and done constantly and properly, you will discover that the senior wicked people who caused all these troubles, when they go to grassroots to get those they will use to cause crisis again, they wouldn’t find them because the understanding would have filtered down to those people. I think we need to work more and there are many other thing we must do to make sure that peace comes to stay and also begin to get government to play its part as well.”
I wish however to invite you to deal with the perception that some stakeholders have of you as a hawk. Many have expressed their worry obliquely, but Adamu Adamu, in a piece titled, “CAN and the Book of John,” which you might have read, was very direct. He wrote in the conclusion to his beautiful piece on Onaiyekan and I quote: “Surely, if healing the Christian-Muslim rift is the one of more important items on the agenda of a CAN president—and if it is not, it should be—then Archbishop Onaiyekan is arguably the most successful president of the Christian body. Without the understanding, respect and dialogue pioneered by Onaiyekan, which must be reciprocated, it is to be feared that someone removed from the scene of the crisis and informed only by media reports that are sometimes part of the problem may lead us into a whirl pool of religious disaster. That is why today the challenge on the shoulders of Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, president of the Pentecostal Federation of Nigeria and the new CAN president, is a heavy one, indeed, especially in view of the fact that at times of crises in the past, some of the most unhelpful comments have issued from Pentecostal pulpits, unfortunately, including his own. While wishing Pastor Oritsejafor every success, it is to be hoped that he will take a leaf out of the Book of John Onaiyekan.”
Without losing sight of the irony that the leader those outside the Lord’s flock consider as “arguably the most successful president of the Christian body,” didn’t seem to have made a similar impression within, and was therefore not re-elected, you still have to deal with this perception. Perception, after all is said to be reality; at least to the perceiver. That’s a tight rope given that you cannot also afford to disappoint those who elected you. It is our prayer that God’s grace shall be sufficient for you.
The third item on your agenda is also very, very crucial. As a matter of fact, for someone involved in men’s ministry, like I have had the privilege of being, it seems to me as the issue besides which everyone else pales into insignificance. And I really love the way you put it: being “light and salt of the earth.” Listen with me, to yourself, Mr President: “Then, the third thing is to be light and salt of the earth. And to do that, the church must impact and make input into Nigeria. We must begin to get our Christian brothers and sisters who hold high offices accountable for money that passes through their hands, accountable for wherever God has put them, and they must be held accountable to the people they lead. We must enforce it, we must press for it, we must make sure that it happens and we must begin to teach them that they are accountable for such things. We also need to encourage Christians to get into politics and play their part in any way we think we can be of help to government in moving the country forward in the project of Nigeria. I think the church will be more active and play our part more actively. In addition, Nigerians need to enjoy more of the dividends of democracy and journalists are in the position to influence things more positively and we hope they do that well.”
This column has since inception a few years back devoted several articles to this subject. We have drawn attention to the sad truth that more Christian leaders have fallen foul of basic moral standards in public office than adherents of other faiths. We have made many suggestions that could form basic ingredients for action – to no effect. This declared intention that “the church will be more active” in this respect, offers an opportunity to ventilate those ideas again and we will – next in this letter. Thanks for your time, Mr President. (CONTINUES)
Sunday, 25 July 2010
OPEN LETTER TO CAN PRESIDENT ORITSEJAFOR (2)
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)
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, 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)