Actitudes y condiciones para la facilitación del aprendizaje

There have been several attempts to classify AICs. I will only refer to those that are of importance to this study. West (1975:16) stated that “The first and most durable classification has been that of Sundkler (1961:38–59), who distinguished between ‘Ethiopian’ and ‘Zionist’ independent churches”. He defined the Ethiopian-type independent churches (this is explored further in 2.6.1) as those which originated in secession from mission churches, mostly as a reaction against white control, and sometimes from each other, usually as a result of a struggle for power or other disputes. These types of churches are also characterised by their resemblance to the worship patterns of the parent mission churches (Anderson: 2007b:386; Daneel 1971:350; Kiernan 1990:9; M’Passou 1994:16; Sundkler 1961:53–54).

Daneel (1971:350) refined Sundkler’s classification by noting that all Shona Initiated Churches (both Ethiopian-type and Zionist-type churches) were to a greater or lesser extent characterised by dissatisfaction with former white control. Consequently, this characteristic cannot be viewed as a unique characteristic of Ethiopian-type AICs. He therefore only regarded the continuation of the original worship patterns of the parent churches as a characteristic of Ethiopian-type churches. Oosthuizen (1996:311) confirmed this viewpoint by identifying the reaction to white control or colonialism as one of three major reasons for the commencement of all AICs in southern Africa.

39

Sundkler’s Zionist-type initiated churches comprised churches that included the words “Zion”, “Apostolic”, “Pentecostal” and “faith” into their titles. He said that he chose to refer to these churches as the Zionist-type because members of these churches perceived themselves as Zionists (ama-Ziyoni). In contrast to the Ethiopian-type churches he accentuated the syncretistic nature of the Zionist-type churches and their emphasis on the role of prophets, healing and purification rituals, speaking with tongues, and taboos (Sundkler 1961:54–55).

Sundkler (1961:302, 323) later refined his classification by emphasising a messianic- type church as a third type or rather a subsection of the Zionist-type churches. The messianic-type churches are characterised by a charismatic leader who is usually believed to have messianic characteristics. Sundkler emphasised, however, that only a limited number of such churches existed as he was only able to classify one percent of the 1 500 Zionist-type churches he had studied as being messianic in nature. He identified the ZCC as a model of the messianic-type church (West 1975:16–17).

According to Daneel (2007:146–147, 1987:187), Sundkler redefined his term messianic-type church to an iconic leadership-type church in his subsequent 1976 study, Zulu Zion and some Swazi Zionists. Sundkler now argued that his inclusion of the term messiah was a result of his previous more western and dogmatic approach to AICs. He continued that these kinds of charismatic leaders did not try to substitute God or the son of God, as the term messiah might have indicated, but rather tried to mirror and materialise Jesus Christ to their followers. For that reason he suggested that the classificatory term “iconic leader” would be more appropriate.

West (1975:16–20) used Sundkler’s Ethiopian-Zionist dichotomy mainly because he was convinced that a new classification of AICs would not increase knowledge of these churches. He found that members of the Zionist-type AICs had a tendency to differentiate between themselves and the Ethiopian-type AICs by referring to themselves as churches of the spirit (dikereke tsa Moya) and the Ethiopian-type churches, who do not necessarily include the name “Ethiopian” in their titles, as churches of the law (dikereke tsa molau). The main reason for Ethiopian-type churches being known as churches of the law is that they do not claim special manifestations of the Holy Spirit through dreams, prophets and healing rituals. He

40

further identified the use of colour in church attire as a visible distinction. The Ethiopian-type churches are known for using black in their uniform, which is absent in Zionist-type churches where black is perceived as a symbol of death and disease. Zionist-type uniforms are characterised by the colour white, which to them symbolises purity and is mixed with symbolic colours such as green, blue, yellow and red (see Comaroff 1985:221–222; Turner 1968:511–512).

While West (1975:17–18) was conducting his research he noticed that members of the Zionist-type churches in general referred to themselves as Zionist or amaZiyoni, but if they specifically belonged to an Apostolic church they preferred to refer to themselves as Apostolic. He therefore drew a further distinction by differentiating between the Zionist-type and the Apostolic-type AICs even though their characteristics overlapped extensively. This distinction seemed to be important to the members of the Apostolic churches in Soweto who emphasised that they incorporated fewer traditional elements in their doctrines and placed more stress on general education and theological tuition for ministers. He also mentioned that he did not encounter any true messianic-type churches in Soweto and considered it an unnecessary classificatory type.

West (1975:20) concluded by saying that he regarded the Zionist-type/Ethiopian-type distinction as oversimplified and not absolute, because characteristics of particular types of churches overlapped. For example, all the churches in his survey, which included a few Ethiopian-type churches, conducted healing activities, even though this is commonly perceived to be a characteristic of Zionist-type churches. This classification did, however, broadly correspond to the situation of AICs in Soweto (West 1975:20). Several AIC scholars, like Daneel (1987:59), M’Passou (1994:16–17) and Oosthuizen (1996:309) have used this scheme of classification, although they also emphasised the difficulty of indicating a clear-cut division between different types of AICs. M’Passou (1994:16), for example, mentioned that “many of the Ethiopian Churches have become ‘Zionist’ in outlook and practice”, although the historical origins of these churches are quite distinct and can be studied as separate types along these lines (M’Passou 1994:17).

Even though Daneel (1971:285, 350; 2004:182) used the classificatory term “Ethiopian-type” churches, he prefrerred the term “Spirit-type” to Sundkler’s “Zionist-

41

type”, primarily because Zimbabwean members of these churches referred to themselves as maKereke oMweya (churches of the Spirit). Comaroff (1985:186–187) found this same descriptive term among the Tshidi in the former Mafikeng district. She said that Zionist-type churches in this area referred to themselves either as Basione (Zionists) or as dikereke tsa moya, which also translates as churches of the spirit. Personally I favour the classificatory term “Spirit-type AICs” because it avoids confusion concerning the kind of churches that are included under this classification, such as Zionist-, Pentecostal- and Apostolic-type AICs.

Daneel (1971:285, 350; 2004:182) differentiated between the Ethiopian-type and Spirit-type churches by classifying the first as non-prophetic churches and the latter as prophetic churches. According to him, prophetic churches are characterised by the emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit; baptism by means of immersion into a “holy” river; strict taboos with regard to the use of medicine, certain foods and alcohol; protection against witchcraft and evil spirits; and vigorous participation and dancing activities during services that are filled with emotional outbursts. Like Sundkler, he acknowledged a third type or rather a subdivision of the Spirit-type or prophetic churches, which he also referred to as iconic leadership-type or semi-messianic-type churches, indicating Mutendi’s Zimbabwean ZCC, Lekganyane’s ZCC and Shembe’s Nazarene Baptist Church as examples of such churches (Daneel 1988:93, 110).

Kiernan (1990:9–10), although not opposed to Sundkler’s classification of AICs, suggested a more expressive and descriptive classification, namely that of a “Book- type” religion in contrast to a Spirit-type religion, where both represent features of religion and do not have separate histories of origin. The Book-type religion refers to the use of the Bible and other sacred writings, like those of founders or hymns. Within its structured organisation emphasis is placed on literacy, education and an orthodox conservative outlook on life, for example, including female subordination. In contrast, the Spirit-type churches are dominated by the work of prophets, spiritual fervour and enthusiasm, as well as spontaneous participation of members. Women are found in more prominent roles and the emphasis is on the here and now rather than on the hereafter. These two types complement each other and are sometimes kept in balance within one AIC. Usually, however, AICs tend to lean more to the one or the

42

other side of this scale. This classification would thus include some of the Ethiopian- type churches in his Spirit-type religion category and vice versa.

Kiernan (1990:9–10) further categorised AICs by identifying the strength of organisational ties between church headquarters and scattered congregations on the periphery. This centre-periphery scale runs as a continuum from highly centralised control to scattered autonomous congregations weakly linked with their headquarters. Kiernan’s (1990:iv, 11–13) scheme of classification combines both the “Spirit/Book- type” identification and the “centre/periphery” categorisation. He, for example, classified the Zulu Zionist churches in KwaMashu as urban-centred, autonomous, local congregations, which emphasised both Book and Spirit components equally.

Lastly, I am including Anderson’s (1991:2–3; 1993a:26; 2000:8–9, 27) classification system. He first used Daneel’s Spirit-type appellation that includes all African churches that emphasise the work of the Holy Spirit. He came to the view that this category encompassed too many types of AICs. Therefore he created a different classification system using the term “African Pentecostalism”, which included three different types of churches. The first group was the white African Pentecostal Mission Churches initiated in the early 20th century. These churches are still primarily under white control, although most members are black. The second group was the Independent Pentecostal Churches that did not differ much from the previous Pentecostal churches, but were initiated and are controlled by black Africans. He classified the third group as Indigenous Pentecostal-type Churches or just Pentecostal-type Churches. This category included Zionist- and Apostolic-type AICs, which he claimed had historical, liturgical and theological links with Pentecostal movements, are initiated and controlled by black Africans, and are highlighted as the most prominent AICs in southern Africa. He, for example, classified the ZCC as an Indigenous Pentecostal- type Church. Nevertheless, taking into account Hans-Jürgen Becken’s note (in Anderson 2000:9) that South African Zionism and Pentecostal churches have long since developed in different directions, Anderson differentiated between the Zionists and Pentecostals to enable the emphasis of each type’s unique character. He noted though that the semantics of the terms should not unnecessarily detain scholars because all of them were created by outsiders (Anderson’s 1991:2–3; 1993a:26; 2000:8–9, 27).

43

Daneel (2000:xxii; 2004:182, 186–187, 189–190) questioned Anderson’s independent Pentecostal-type churches appellation as it did not reflect an emic (insider viewpoint) categorisation used by the churches themselves. In addition, many of these churches have been influenced not only by European Pentecostal churches, but also by other mission churches such as the Dutch Reformed Church. He added that Pentecostal traits such as their form of worship and their emphasis on the Holy Spirit result from these churches’ own interpretations of Christianity to fit into an African world-view and to satisfy African spiritual needs. Daneel (2004: 186), therefore, perceived this school of thought to be a superficial system of classification.

It is clearly a complicated task to create an adequate system of classification for AICs. Concomitant with all of the above mentioned criticisms, each AIC also has its own unique history of origin and development, and consequently unique characteristics that have direct bearing on their classification. Black African AIC leaders did not or do not necessarily concur with the scholarly or academic classifications that I have presented here. From an emic (and anthropological) perspective their own endo- or original classifications need to be accommodated. Either way, it is difficult to justify any generalisations concerning AICs. While acknowledging the mentioned shortcomings, including the danger of oversimplification, for historical and descriptive purposes I differentiate between the so-called Ethiopian-type churches and the Spirit-type churches, which include Zionist-, Pentecostal- and Apostolic-type churches.