I’m currently reading the lively commentary that ensued from Father Jake’s March 10 blogpiece, “Censure Peter Akinola”, which was written in reaction to the controversial statements made by the ever-controversial Peter Akinola, Archbishop of the Anglican church in Nigeria (“they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation. . . . CAN may no longer be able to contain our restive youths should this ugly trend continue.”) during the infamous Danish Muhammad cartoon crisis. A day after Akinola made that statement, Christians in Onitsha (former capitol of Biafra) and other parts of southeastern Nigeria reacted in equally violent kind to the cartoon-related Muslim violence against Christians in northern Nigeria (where Christians are in the minority), hacking Muslims in the street with machetes and burning/defacing mosques.
Akinola is also known for having objected towards moves to ordain gay clergy in the Anglican/Episcopalian Communion (such as Gary Robinson), and has hinted to the secession of the Nigerian church from under Canterbury’s jurisdiction. He has been decried in the Northern church (Europe, U.S., Australia), but has become quite popular with Nigerians and other Anglican constituencies and denominations based in Africa (save for the South African church and Desmond Tutu) with a conservative bent (even Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, a noted homophobe).
In the following discussion, Chiake from Nigeria debated with Goran from Sweden and other Angliscopalians (who seem to live in the U.S.) on Akinola and the rise of conservative Christianity (Pentecostalism, Prosperity Gospel, Evangelicalism) in the Global South vs. Robinson and the deprecation of conservative Christianity in the Global North. To generalize the discussion, the main point was how the two regions (one which, some 500 years back, imposed the worldview, and the other which took the cock) are diverging into two different directions, one which sees Christianity as a tool for upward elevation (hence Prosperity Gospel) and the other which sees Christianity as an institution for social justice and humanity. The former is becoming much more popular in areas which have experienced enduring economic depression and poverty, while the latter (already popular) is becoming much more nominal in its human relations.
Does this mean that a great schism is in the crosshairs of Christianity, similar to the Great Schism of 1054?
Or, as with the rise of Akinola and the Nigerian church, could this be a shifting of Christianity’s power from North to South?
OK, I’m asking this because of how Buddhism (which was started in India, just like Hinduism and Sikhism, all three of which are, like Judaism and Islam, religions based upon and transmitted through the written word) had once been prominent in South Asia (its place of origin), but once it had been sent over the Himalayas to China and East Asia, Buddhism dwindled down to a tiny minority religion in most parts of India save for modern-day Sri Lanka and Nepal.
Now its seeming that the same is bound to happen with Protestant Christianity, as its numbers and clout gradually dwindles in North America and Europe, while its numbers and clout gradually increases in Africa (particularly in Nigeria). That the Angliscopalian church is readily listening to Akinola is proof enough of this power shift.
So, what if this shift happens, and will it resemble the influence of historic influence and spread of Buddhism in East Asia? Will sub-Saharan, Niger-Congo-speaking Africa, which has been familiar with Christianity for only a few centuries (compared with the much-longer history of Buddhism in East Asia), be able to integrate Evangelical Christianity (which is also heavily influential in the Nigerian church) within its own culture and dialogue? Will, just as in Japan, people in Africa still be able to honor their ancestral spirits alongside Jesus?
I would like to see what will become of this within a few centuries.
Probably, but you’re missing what’s motivating this shift.
Evangelicalism/Pentecostalism/blablabla is falling out of favor with richer, more industrialized nations and regions (which tend to be less conservative), while its gaining favor in poorer, less industrialized nations and regions (which tend to be *more* conservative). This is why its so popular even here in Georgia and the Southern U.S., which is historically less industrialized (and therefore, more conservative and traditionalist) than the Northeast (hell, just look at Atlanta and the rest of Georgia. Funny, ain’t it?).
Therefore, I suppose, the only way to curtail religious fundamentalist tendencies (be it Evangelical Christianity or Jihadist Islam) in any region or state is to bring industrialization and education, and LOTS of both.
It is the Evangelical Christians that are set two Candomble iyawos on fire in Brazil. One was badly burned, the other died. They also perform excorcism which take the “demon” orixas out of people. I don’t think evangelical christians themselves are bad but I find the Catholic and Episcopalian churches to be more tolerant and more willing to allow native traditions to exist. They have realized without this they would lose their congregations. Evangelists on the other hand are more militant.
You’re right, the Catholics and Angliscopalians are accomodating to traditions than are Evangelicals and Pentecostals; however, Catholics and Angliscopalians were historically oppressive against these same traditions (the latter much more so), which (irony) drew from Catholicism and Episcopalism for their paraphernalia (hence the notably-syncretic nature of any Orisha-based spirituality).
Now that Evangelicals and Pentecostals (who’re much more intolerant of traditions….and much more crazy) are rising in prominence, the Angliscopalian and Catholic churches are reversing their stance on ancestral traditions in order to keep what power they have left in Latin America or Africa.
While that may be fine and dandy in terms of interspiritual relations, I fear that practitioners will be turned into tools (in the derogatory sense) of either church, considering that both are still subscribant to Europe-based communions (whereas, to their benefit, Evangelicals aren’t, thus immediately giving them cool points with the population).
So which fate would be better: stomped into oblivion by the Evangelicals, pimped by the Catholics and Angliscopalians, or the Orishas making their own case?
Practicioners haven’t been turned into tools however. If you ever gone to a bembe or tambor or anything in the orisha relgion, you see no evidence of Catholicism. Many people have dropped the Catholic veneer. However, the Church is still used for baptisms, events, or weddings. Things that are social. People keep the two religions seperate. My dear Rayne you are a wonder at academics but these are matters of the spirit and must be experienced. Quanitifying and acadmeic is wonderful but when you hear the beat of the drums calling the orisha or the lwa then you’ll know. Look with your heart and soul 🙂