History of African Independent (Churches) and why they flourished
Definition of African Independent (Indigenous) Churches (AIC)
Ghanaian theologian Kofi Appiah-Kubi defined African Independent Churches (AIC) “as a group of churches founded by African religious innovators to meet the spiritual needs of African adherents” (Kondolo, p 4) and Thomas Ondoro Phiri says that” AIC is African initiated and indigenous”. Herald Turner defined AIC as “a church which has been in Africa, by Africans and primarily for Africans” (Phiri, p. 433)
We see here the idea was to have a church that is created by Africans and is useful for them in their way of life and speaks and caters to their needs.
Translation of the Bible into native African languages was crucial for the Christianisation of Africans. The AIC benefited from this immensely, as they pioneered the introduction of African forms of singing, dancing and brought in an African flavour into the liturgy. It also brought about a away preserve African customs which the missionaries regarded as heathen.
The History and Development of AIC
AIC churches started to emerge in the 19th century and are mainly divided into three types: Ethiopian, Zionist, and Messianic. Ethiopian churches are Pan-African and display anti-racist rhetoric while their doctrines retain that of the white protestant church whom they initially separated from. Ethiopian church is similar to mission churches as they mainly retain the liturgy and worship of the missionary church and are regarded as inkolo yencwadi (book religion) their leadership is chiefly in its nature.
The difference is that it has black leadership and does not depend on external donors for funding. The name Ethiopia became a rallying point as Ethiopia is the only African country that was never colonised and they defeated the Italians who tried to invade them in the battle of Idowa so it represents triumph and independence and the country is mentioned both in the Old and New Testament.
Zionists on the other hand are regarded as abantu bomoya (people of the spirit). Their leadership structure reflects one of a prophetic nature: there is usually no formal structure in their worship and liturgy. Zionist churches emphasise miraculous healing, the Holy Spirit, and prophesy. These are a drawcard as they speak to the context of the African and they are in line with their beliefs and practices.
Messianic was later added. Their leadership is viewed as Christ-like examples of these leaders as Shembe of the Nazareth Baptist Church and Barnabas Lekganyane of the Zionist Christian Church (ZCC) as their members believe that they possess Christ-like characteristics. The leaders of these churches are seen as being in a unique and iconic relationship with God that no other member of the congregation can have.
AICs came about mainly as a result of dissatisfaction with Christianity that was inherited from the West (Kondolo, p 6). Paul Makhubu reflects that “Some white missionaries, instead of teaching Christianity, promoted and taught white civilization. The blacks were stripped of their customs, and in exchange were forced into a culture they could never embrace”
It is estimated in 1913 there were 30 AIC different denominations in South Africa but from the 1920s to 30s there was significant growth and that by 1970 the number had multiplied to 3000 in South Africa. The most widely believed view as to why the AIC movement grew so rapidly was that the missionary churches were paternalistic, racism was rife and they were inflexible when it came to acknowledging African culture and identity.
White missionaries were reluctant to give power and control to the black clergy and they also failed to contextualise in light of their surrounding African context. They viewed themselves as superior and that most things which were African were inferior and pagan. The individualistic emphasis on one’s soul conversion by missionaries did not take into consideration the communal aspect of the life of the African towards his community tribe causing all sorts of problems.
People were left very disappointed by the missionary churches as they did not accommodate and provide for their needs. The AIC filled this gap by providing identity, a place of security and belonging, teaching that they could identify with in their own culture, and active worshipping and not the passive one that was displayed by the missionary churches which was a Victorian with hardly any expression and movement involved.
AIC places a great deal on healing and they usually take an alternative route to disease and sickness it is not based on the western physiology approach to health and they blame it on witchcraft, other people, or that the ancestors are unhappy with you.
Critique of AIC mainly the Shembe Church
In this part, I have chosen to critique a specific church the AmaNazaretha(Shembe) Church due to its influence, especially in the province of KwaZulu-Natal where I am based.
Positive Critique
One thing that Shembe Church does well is that they are not shy of who they are. They are proud Zulu people who worship God in a way that largely does not bend over to Western culture. They dance (ukusina) and they blow a unique horn which is shaped like a vuvuzela. This instrument is made of brass and is longer and it makes a unique sound. They use this when they sing and praise.
AmaNazaretha contextualises the gospel and identifies with the indigenous people and their struggle with colonialism. This is similar to the Shembe founder, Isaiah Shembe, who saw his people were oppressed and sought to emancipate them. This made him popular alongside his willingness to reach the marginalized by the colonial authority of his day.
Negative Critique
The problem with AmaNazaretha is that the ancestors occupy a dominant role over Jesus Christ in their everyday life. This includes their religious observation activity and that Shembe and the ancestors seem to have replaced Jesus in terms of a saviour-mediator. Their members call on Shembe and the ancestors when they seek intercession from God and that Shembe mediates between the people and even Jesus.
This is a case of contextualisation gone to the other extremes, where now people’s culture ceding that of the bible as now Shembe’s Christianity is shaped more by the Zulu culture and less by the Bible. This poses a great danger as the Bible is supposed to lead us and set a tone in our belief and not our culture that shapes our Christianity to that now it resembles more culture and does things that the bible speaks against like having ancestors as mediators and a savior other than Jesus Christ.
Conclusion
AIC was formed as a reactionary response. This is because because Africans wanted a Christianity that spoke to their context as well as upheld and embraced their identity as Africans. Africans did not want a Christianity that represented a colonial Victorian-era Europe. It was also in reaction to the racist, paternalistic nature of the missionary church which was dehumanising in how it treated Africans and this treatment was no different from the colonial government of the day.
AIC also gets it wrong sometimes as we see with the Shembe church. Their culture dominated how they did church even at the expense of going against the gospel. For instance, bringing in ancestor worship and the Old Testament being dominant saying very little about the New Testament but it was a reaction to being mistreated and not being treated as equals by the missionary church.
Bibliography
Phiri, I., Werner, D., Kaunda, C., & Owino, K. (2016). Independent Churches in Africa. In T. Oduro, Anthology of African Christianity (pp. 431-440). Oxford: Regnum Books International.
Kondolo, K. (2011) THE SPREAD OF THE AFRICAN INDEPENDENT CHURCHES. 1st edn. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3331932/the-spread-of-the-african-independent-churches-pdf (Accessed: 4 May 2022)
