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 27th 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.
