A Response to Richard Chirombo’s “How is One Called to Serve God”*

Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Neocharismatics seem to be misunderstood by the media in Malawi judging not only by the mostly negative press they engender but also the seeming unawareness as to their distinctions. A case in point is Mr. Richard Chirombo’s “How is One Called to Serve God?” in the religion section of the Sunday Times of May 13, 2012 (http://www.bnltimes.com/index.php/sunday-times/headlines/religion/6345-how-is-one-called-to-serve-god) which I think is illogical, misunderstands and misrepresents Pentecostal and Neocharismatic churches, smacks of elitism, and really denigrates these churches as anti-intellectual without warrant. Mr. Chirombo’s article has as its main point to show that the “consensus in Pentecostal churches is that God, and not academic qualifications, remains the pulley that elevates individuals to church roles” and juxtaposes this against the backdrop of “mainline churches” who are continuing “to offer comprehensive training to laymen aspiring to become officiating clergy”. I find Mr. Chirombo’s article wanting in that the evidence he proffers us does not warrant such a conclusion and, in my opinion, may actually be detrimental to the public perception of Pentecostal and Neocharismatic churches.

The article is illogical on two fronts. First of all Mr. Chirombo want us to believe that his article is based on a “consensus” amongst Pentecostal churches but he only interviews three “Pentecostal” leaders, Bishop Geoffrey Matoga (Faith of God), Reverend Otis Bushiri (Enlightened Christian Gathering), and Rev. Lazarus Chakwera (Malawi Assemblies of  God). How can three church leaders’ opinions – not practices of those churches or at least official positions – form a “consensus” amongst Malawian Pentecostal-Charismatics who may make up about 20% of the Christian population in Malawi, roughly 2 million people? Secondly, Mr. Chirombo confuses qualifications for ordination into pastoral ministry with qualifications to minister. For example, it seems that the officials of “mainline” churches he quotes are speaking of ordination to ministry when they speak of academic training while one of his three “Pentecostals” is speaking of merely exercising one’s ministry as a believer. That is why he quotes Bishop Matoga as saying, “It is God that qualifies one to perform tasks in the church; it has nothing to do with qualifications” (italics mine). Surely there are many members of the “mainline” churches, especially in Protestant circles, who preach on Sundays but have no theological training. In fact, Rev Andrew Mponda of Blantyre Synod clear states in the article that “calling” into ministry is given a priority in the ordination process, insinuating the difference between “calling” and being ordained. Rev. Chakwera’s comments reiterating the need for theological training for ministry seems to be in response to the Rev. Bushiri’s bias against academic theological training which makes it all the more confusing to find that a “Pentecostal” is actually defending theological education in an article which wants us to believe the opposite! It almost feels as if the respondents were asked different sets of questions.

Mr. Chirombo also misunderstands the different groupings amongst what he terms “Pentecostals”. Strictly speaking of the three interviewees, only Rev. Chakwera is Pentecostal and the other two are better termed Neocharismatics. Briefly, Pentecostals are those denominations (like Assemblies of God, Apostolic Faith Mission, Full Gospel Church of God, Church of the Foursquare Gospel, and others) that came out of the 1906 Pentecostal Revival which broke out on Azusa Street in Los Angeles, California and spread throughout the world. The earliest of these churches were invited to Malawi by Malawian matchona (migrant workers) like Robert Chinguwo who was a former member of the Mbare Apostolic Faith Mission in Harare and began a congregation in Jali, Zomba around 1933. Lyton Kalambule, another matchona who had worked in Durban, South Africa, founded both the Full Gospel Church of God in 1931 in Ntcheu and later the Assemblies of God in 1945. It should be stressed that these men of God began Pentecostal congregations before they invited missionaries to join them in their work. On the other hand, Neocharismatic churches arose out the interdenominational charismatic Blantyre Revival of the 1970s and 1980s which spread to other urban centres of Malawi by groups like New Life for All, SCOM, Scripture Union, and other fellowships. Many members of both Catholic and Protestant churches became “born-again”, took part in charismatic fellowships, but remained in their churches. These “born-agains”, I argue, are better termed charismatic as they have remained in their denominations and have been a source of renewal in them. The fellowships turned into ministries which evolved into churches such as Living Waters Church International, Calvary Family Church, and All for Jesus Church, to mention a few. These believers are better termed Neo (new)-charismatic Christians to differentiate them from the Charismatic Christians that are still in Catholic and Protestant churches. Though there are many similarities between Pentecostals and Neocharismatics, they are different in their history and aspects of theology and practice. For example, Neocharismatics tend to recognize apostles and prophets as continuing offices in the church while Pentecostals tend to be more democratically governed. So to lump them both as Pentecostal is to misrepresent them.

Mr. Chirombo does not seem to make distinctions amongst formal, non-formal, and informal training all of which are validly held by educationists as training. He assumes that only formal training is valid training that is why he can refer to the other modes of training as “shortcuts” that are eschewed by the CCAP. Again this is erroneous thinking smacking of elitism that wrongly assumes that only those that have academic qualifications are fit to do pastoral work. Not only did Jesus himself train his disciples non-formally, the rapid spread of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement has proven the opposite true.

Finally, I find Mr. Chirombo’s caricature of “Pentecostals” quite dangerous as it stereotypes all “Pentecostals” as anti-intellectual when in fact only one of his three “Pentecostal” respondents (Rev. Bushiri) seems to hold such a stance. It then begs the question: Can such an anti-intellectual grouping really be beneficial to the development of our society? Judging by Mr. Chirombo’s article at face value one must respond in the negative. Moreover, if Mr. Chirombo can willingly set aside evidence that clearly shows that two of his three “Pentecostals” are actually educated people – Bishop Matoga is a retired Polytechnic mathematics lecturer while Rev. Dr. Chakwera holds a Master of Theology from UNISA and a Doctor of Ministry from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (USA) – and yet still arrive at the opposite conclusion, what are we to say about his intentions vis-a-vis “Pentecostals”? Mr. Chirombo and those that write on Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity in Malawi will do well to get their facts rights especially since this is a considerable social movement. Perhaps a little reading on the many Kachere publications and Religion in Malawi on the topic will do the trick.

*An edited version of this blog appeared in The Sunday Times of 27^th May 2012 in the religion section on page 2 as “Pentecostals are not Anti-intellectual”. The online version had not yet been uploaded as at the time of blogging.