With the ongoing Anglican saga let us start right at the beginning. The world church wanted Kunonga to be as critical of Robert Mugabe as Pius Ncube was.
Acrimony in the church grew to a point where Kunonga split from the mainstream church supposedly over homosexuality. However the bedrock of the split was politics with Kunonga being unwanted for being pro-Mugabe at a time when it was very fashionable in the international community to be rabidly anti-Mugabe.
The church does not erase a person's background and tradition. The church does not mask a person core cultural beliefs. Often it is church practices which are profoundly modified by tradition.
Kunonga and Pius Ncube's completely different approaches to critique of Mugabe are rooted in their different cultural and life experience backgrounds.
I am not trying to be tribalist but the first point of divergence on how the two view Mugabe is that Kunonga is a Shona like Mugabe while Pius Ncube is a Ndebele. That has got nothing to do with religion.
Recently Kunonga related how his family's wealth in the form of cattle was several generations ago expropriated without compensation by the white colonialist regime of the time (kuhesvurwa kwemombe dzekwaKunonga). It is obvious that part of his family history affected his outlook towards Mugabe's land reform which involved expropriating land from the descendants of white colonialists without compensation.
On the other hand Pius Ncube outlook towards Mugabe was more likely profoundly fashioned by the Gukurahundi disturbances of the early 1980s.
In their ignorance of all these things, the world church pushed Kunonga a tard too hard. They now wanted him to criticise expropriation of white land without compensation but where were they when his family's cattle were being expropriated without compensation. He lashed back and we now have an irreparably divided congregation.
Personally I am now a secular humanist, atheist and freethinker. This happened long before the Anglican church rucktions so has absolutely nothing to do with them. However my family have been Anglican church goers for generations.
My own grandfather and his brother Gideon Punungwe made contributions to the Anglican Church at St Marks Zimondi in Manyene. That was long before Kunonga and Gandiya's time. Now let's suppose I decide to go back into the church.
As the Anglican church stands now, if I side with Gandiya, Kunonga says I should not be allowed to go into the church that my grandfather helped build. If I side with Kunonga, Gandiya says I should not be allowed to go into the church that my grandfather helped build.
Who are they to tell me that? Both of them are mafikizolos and none of them ever worked with Anglican greats like the late Arthur Shirley Cripps (after whom Cripps Road in Harare is named) like my grandfather did.
Muri vanaani imi Kunonga naGandiya. (Who are you Kunonga and Gandiya). I know that definitely you cannot be men of God as you claim given the way you want to turn church followers into personal militia. Why do you have to force church goers to make a choice over your persons.
If you want to be politicians go and join the MDC and Zanu-PF openly. It is part of the freedom that the liberators of this country fought for that both of you are allowed to join the political party of your choice. Do not use the congregation to achieve your political ends.
The divisions in the Anglican church have nothing to do with godliness or lack of it. They are all about strong combative personalities unwilling to back down even if it means bringing down the church.
I am glad I am a sensible atheist.
Your position does not show where ownership of Church buildings of the Anglican church is vested. It remains Church of England Property and cannot be passed on in the free for all manner which characterised the Kunonga actions.God uses people to fight struggles and restore his place of worship and Chad Gandiya has become an instant hero and in my pentecostal belief I would be Blessed to start calling him Prophet Gandiya, coz his actions surely are a sign of what is to come in particular regarding the Land Issue
ReplyDeleteMy view takes into account THE SOURCE of that property. Church property usually comes from member contributions in the form of tithes and other voluntary actions. Why should members be denied the fruits of their sweat.
DeleteHauna nyaya.According to church law, Kunonga is wrong.Even Kunonga is well vested in that law.He was ex-communicated.Which means he ceased to be a member of the Mainstream Anglican church,so he is wrong.As a person brought up and educated in that Church Kunonga should have been the first to pack his bags with no incident but he chose to ignore the excommunication and chose to make it a political issue,yet at first there was nothing political about the issue.He is the one who didn't agree with what the church was saying,so he is the one who is to go and not the church.
ReplyDeleteThe church excommunicated Kunonga mainly over his political views. So there is no way anyone with 5 dzakakwana could have expected politics not to be involved in the saga.
DeleteHowever that is beside the point. My main point is that people shouldn't have to be forced to side with either Kunonga or Gandiya. The church made bad politically charged decisions starting in 2001. That is where the issue starts.
The church itself ignored the needs of worshippers and started playing politics. All I am saying is that the worshipper should be considered ahead of everything else
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHie Jupiter, thanks for your piece. I think you are right that the problem started in 2001 after Kunonga was elected, or maybe during the election process. Competing against Tim Neill, the political and race card was played not by Neill but by Kunonga. Then followed a period of sustained victimisation of black priests (Nyatsanza, Matyatya, Mukunga, Musodza, Waziweyi etc) by Kunonga. At that time Kunonga was recruiting from the Roman Catholic Church and appointing such people to influential positions (Dean, Principal at Gaul House etc). Kunonga even appointed Gwedegwe as Diocesan Secretary even though he was not ordained, when he was told it was not possible, he ordained Gwedegwe without training. I am wondering if you ever heard of the ecclesiastical trial of Kunonga, which was frustrated into abortion by state media (Herald). When you look at the charge sheet, it was clear that Kunonga had failed to follow the canons of the church in administering the church in his diocese. It is at this point especially that Kunonga started making overtures to zanu pf, and as zanu pf was searching for some religious legitimating authority, and as such authority was certainly not coming from mugabe's catholic church, the anglican church was not a bad choice, so zanu pf embraced Kunonga. The split in 2007 was not surprising for someone who was following the developments in the diocese, that split was inevitable (The Reign of Nolbert Kunonga, Missionalia 36). It was connected to the retirement of Archbishop Malango who had protected Kunonga from the ecclesiastical trial and the imminent promotion of Albert Chama to acting Archbishop who was under no obligation to protect Kunonga. Kunonga withdrew to pre-empt his dismissal from the church, simple! The issue of homosexuality is a no brainer, it was never the issue because what Kunonga says about it, is the official position of the CPCA! The difference being that the CPCA does not bar its members to associate with homosexual persons, but encourages them to help them seek conversion to heterosexuality or to remain celibate. Coming to your argument about the role of your grandfather in the building of your local church, the point was made clear by the Justice Malaba, when you join a voluntary group and do things under that group, your claim to such things is dependent on your remaining a part of that group. Effectively, if you go with Kunonga as your article suggests, you are no longer part of the group that build your local church, even if one of them was your grandfather. If all members of voluntary groups were to follow your argumentation all hell would break loose! Imagine if one left zaoga and took with him/her the church building, or when Tekere was fired from zanu pf and decided to take party property in manicaland because he was the most senior zanu member there? When dabengwa left zanu pf, imagine him taking zanu pf property in matebeleland? It does not work that way when you look at voluntary organizations. Kunonga broke away from the Anglican church, and he has every right to do that! He however does not have a right to take away property which belongs to the Anglican church's diocese of Harare, which is legitimately led by Bishop Chad Gandiya. That, my friend, is the correct position.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately my Anonymous, that is not the story as it has been told, not in the Zimbabwe state media, but in the international media.
ReplyDeleteThe way you tell the story shows that Kunonga's problem had nothing to do with politics but abuse of power. You also make it clear that political associations only came in when Kunonga was looking for backers.
If you search Google for the work Kunonga most of the news articles you come up with will refer to him as 'Mugabe bishop'. The Wikipedia page on him states that his main problem with Anglicans was 'his ardent support of Robert Mugabe'.
If that was the case then I would have absolutely no hesitation in condemning the Anglican church for trying to impose its political views on its congregation.
However the incidents which you cite about victimization of priests (whose names I am personally seeing for the first time), then the church was absolutely right.
What I would then fault the church with is allowing the issue to be incorrectly characterised in the media for long. It should have been made very clear long ago that Kunonga's problems had nothing to do with politics but his own maladministration of the Church.
I am sure if that had been made clear, even Zanu-PF wouldn't have offered him protection. Much of the world out there believes Kunonga was targeted for supporting Robert Mugabe.
As we speak some some are trying to characterize his current travails as a humiliation of Zanu-PF. Yet judging by Herald reports Zanu-PF has decided to wash his hands of him.
It is the job of the church to make sure its position is clearly communicated.
On the issue of withdrawing from the church I think Kunonga's argument is that he didn't withdraw from the church but withdrew the entire Zimbabwe church from the international Anglican churches. Which is like an entire province trying secede rather than just an individual member resigning and forming another province. Well, that's Anglican politics for you. They seem to have their own way of doing things.