En busca de respuestas para las comunidades y rondas campesinas afectadas por el proyecto Conga

There are opposing sentiments from some lay leaders against the notion of the prosperity gospel advanced by their clergy in regards to health and wealth themes, without striking a balance as advocated by John Wesley. Wesley, as indicated in chapter three, had a balanced notion of health and wealth. The leaders who are against the preaching of the prosperity gospel from their clergy hold the view that ministry is an act of sacrifice, devoid of material benefits, and rendered to the people who are in need of salvation, sometimes at the expense of the clergy. This act of sacrifice is seen among missionaries and the first generation of African clergy, as clearly stated in a letter from Rev Matthew Rusike37 to Rev Andrew Ndhlela38 on 13 May 1971 when he wrote:

…The money you have been giving me from 1960 works to £5/- per week and my wife £5/- per week. Can a married person leave on £10/- per month? Garden boys live on more than that plus rations. From 1960 to 1970 when I was receiving that amount I thought that the church was discouraging me to start the First African Children‘s Home… As I said in my last letter to you that I spent all my life working for the Methodist Church without a minor Synod held for me. And this is the way the church is saying thank you Rusike (Banana 1991: 191). The above letter is the true testimony of a clergy who sacrificed all for the ministry with expectation of better reciprocal treatment by the church in terms of wages, but it never materialised. Even though the content of the letter shows deep complaint, the clergy, at the end of his ministry, gave to the church the Children‘s Home that he started using his resources. This shows a non-materialistic type of ministry rendered by those who adopted the Wesleyan ethic of preferential option for the poor. These are some of the first crop of clergy

37 _{Rev Mathew Rusike was the first black clergy to be appointed Superintendent in 1936 in Makwiro Circuit. He} established the first African children‘s home called Mathew Rusike Children‘s Home

38 _{Rev Andrew Ndhlela was the first black clergy to be appointed District Chairman of the Transvaal District} and the General Superintendent of the Methodist Church in Rhodesia, a position previously held by only whites from 1965 to 1977. He was elected the first President of the autonomous church from 1977 to 1980 when he retired.

158

to be trained at Waddilove, as indicated in chapter two and four, where there was teaching on the history and theology of Methodism. This was not found in the curriculum at UTC until 2016 when it was introduced.

In responding to the message of prosperity from their clergy, Laity 2 (2017) has this to say: …I think we are in times where people are under stress, especially this country, because from the economic point of view, the country is not performing well. There are so many challenges and there are many people who probably if they had any means of survival, they would not be under so much stress. So my view is perhaps like anybody; when they go to a church they are interested in something. There are many challenges at home, no jobs, no prospect of getting it, and when they have something little, now there is these messages of prosperity. They come appealing and they felt they can get resolution to their circumstances. So I see this as a passing phase but the problem is that it can sway a large number of our people not in the correct direction but in the direction of chasing something which they will not get. They will be disappointed along the way and they will probably lose the little that they have and they don‘t develop the hope, faith and trust they should develop especially if one is a Christian.

There is no doubt that some of the lay leaders have listened to their clergy with suspicion and view their message as a survival tool that takes advantage of the people who are under stressful conditions posed by the economic situation in Zimbabwe. The lay leader was able to link the economic conditions with the propagation of the prosperity gospel where, in desperation, the people would want to find solutions in their circumstances through the prosperity gospel that is currently attractive and appealing. For him, it is a passing phase probably because he has hope of the stabilization of the economy in Zimbabwe in the near future. But he is bemoaning the damage that could be caused by the health and wealth gospel. He felt the gospel of prosperity is leading people in a wrong direction, chasing something they will not get from the false promises in the messages from the clergy. Hence the members will be disappointed in the long run and would have lost the little they have. As such, they will lose their faith and trust in God, in the church, as well as the clergy.

In the same vein, Laity 3 (2017) shared the same sentiments as the above by critically analysing the health and wealth gospel. He states:

My honest and earnest view of gospel of prosperity is: that is a concept that arose from the economic challenges facing the generality of the population of Zimbabwe, particularly the poverty suffering among the young people who see the good things floating around but they

159

are totally out of their reach. A few pseudo-theologians sought to take advantage of that deep desire for materialism which has engulfed our nation, to take advantage of poor people by abusing theology as it were; to say that if you are in Christ in toto then you shall always be rich. They do so by carefully quoting half phrases of full sentences in the Bible to suite their own means. They do so by quoting verses in part, never in full, and abusing certain incidents in the Bible as said by Jesus Christ. And yet in reality the Bible states categorically clear that a human being born of a woman is born to suffer. There is nowhere it says you are born to prosper materially. And when they talk about prosperity, it is a very broad concept; when you prosper it does not necessarily mean that it must be accompanied by financial or material accumulation. There is nothing in the Bible which directly or indirectly indicates that I have not found it (Laity 3, 2017).

It is interesting to note that the lay leaders are aware of the economic challenges bedevilling the population of Zimbabwe. They also observe that among clergy there are two groups – those that are faithful to their calling and those he regards as pseudo-theologians who take advantage of the craving for materialism that has swallowed up the nation of Zimbabwe and abuse theology. It seems the laity are aware of counterfeit preaching and the factual gospel because he went on to show how the clergy quote verses as half phrases of full sentences in the Bible to suit their own means. The lay leader has shown that he is well-versed with hermeneutical interpretation of the Bible, probably because he is a preacher himself or because of his academic prowess. This is an indicator to the clergy that they should not take things for granted and thinks that the message they preach is accepted without undergoing critical assessment from among the laity who are also qualified to separate true and false teachings.

Another lay leader who was interviewed indicates that,

…my view on prosperity is that it is misleading in a way, because what people are promised will not happen. Although it is taking long for people to realise that the way they are being taught or the way they are being lured into prosperity gospel is just misleading, there are examples of people who now come back to the church saying that, what we thought will happen is not happening (Laity 4, 2017).

The leader saw prosperity teaching as misleading, with a potential of robbing people of their resources through gimmicks that lure members. And the members never realise the promises made to them by clergy. Leaders see some clergy now taking ―ministry as a blessed profession that must have immediate lucrative benefits‖ (Magezi and Banda 2017: 5), rather

160

than viewing it as negation of the world. There is an innovative interweaving that accommodates worldly things and propagates a materialistic gospel where wealth and health are evidence of blessings from God to those who are tithing and seeding to the pastor. Regrettably, those who leave the MCZ to either go to PHD ministries or other ministries in anticipation of accumulating wealth and who seek instant healing, come back disappointed because they would have not realised what they are promised by the prophet. This is why Laity 5 (2017) is in support of a work ethic principle in attaining prosperity. He says, ―I think prosperity gospel is okay according to some of our clergy who teach that for someone to prosper one has to work hard, not that concept of instant receiving.‖ This is also in line with Wesley‘s principle of gaining wealth, where he emphasizes engaging in work and the biblical principle in Genesis 3:19, ―by the sweat of your brow you will eat your food.‖

Regarding the argument on the benefits of the prosperity gospel and whether it helps the church to grow or not, some of the lay leaders indicate that it helps the church to grow financially and numerical as indicated above from those who support their clergy who are into prosperity. But those who are contrary feel that it is a temporary measure, like a sleeping tablet. Laity 2 (2017), in the interview, states that:

…I do not subscribe to the fact that prosperity gospel is beneficial, but if anything I challenge that; why, because this message especially around prosperity which is not backed by hard work, sweating, I do not think that it will last. This is the only challenge I have, because those that I read in the press here and there are discussions that I sometimes come across and you hear people saying this is benefiting them but I have my doubts and also what I see is something that does not have a good foundation and at some point it disappears into the air. Laity 3 (2017), during the same interviews, also echoes the same objecting sentiments of the idea that prosperity is beneficial to the church when he states:

…the growth of the gospel of prosperity is destroying the core values of Christianity; it‘s not beneficial in any way. It is destroying the very basic tenets which Christianity is born. Jesus Christ himself led by example, he was poor, born poor, he was born actually in a manger not by the teaching of specialist or medical aid from Medics, he did not have that. The mother being pregnant was driven on a donkey to a manger, that is why Mrs Charamba‘s (gospel singer) song says ―it all started in a manger‖, that is a very powerful statement. So there is nothing beneficial; he died on the cross for sin and aside there was someone who chose to die in sin on the cross and luckily one chose to die to sin on the cross.

161

The objections raised by the two lay leaders are premised on their understanding of the Bible. One raises the issue of a work ethic, rather than receiving things from handouts where sometimes God is regarded as an automatic machine that provides people with money without sweating for it – by merely naming and claiming in faith, then it makes God to release all that human heart desires. Second, the lay leaders give us a pointer to emulate Jesus who himself came to live an earthly life though he was of the son of God. Rather, he chose to experience the hardships of life and he associated with the poor. Theologically, the leaders are raising important issues that clergy need to consider as they teach and preach to their congregations – never to spiritualize everything but to approach the Bible with rationale thought and to apply it to human situations rather than remaining in abstract ideas.

Furthermore, the lay leaders further scrutinize clergy who preach the prosperity gospel. One respondent states that:

It does not benefit anyone because it is a dishonest message from some of the ministers. Actually the proponents of this message are the guys who want to maximize the opportunities, they want to take advantage of naïve poor and suffering people. If you have your children who are not working and you come across this gospel where you are asked to buy these anointed bricks for them to be blessed, obviously you are going to buy, but the Lord is not saying that, instead God says, in good health or in calamities, in the mountains and in the valley I will always be with you (Psalm 46:1-3). When you walk on feet, whether you drive or not, I am still your God. Whether staying in Borrowdale or Glenorah, I am still your God, Where is it written that all children must have jobs? That is why people are different; some are black some whites, tall and short, some thin while others are fat, that‘s the will of God. The teaching to have all at equal footing is chicanery, daylight robbery (Laity 3, 2017). The lay leaders who do not subscribe to the health and wealth gospel view regard this gospel as a dishonest gospel, probably because they have seen proponents of this gospel taking advantage of the poor people, instead of alleviating the plight of the poor. It could be that they have seen clergy benefiting more than the parishioners through the sale of anointed commodities such as bricks, water, ball pens, oranges, handkerchiefs and oil. The leaders are encouraging steadfastness, facing the challenges with soberness and without being brainwashed through what they called chicanery and daylight robbery from clergy who are regarding themselves as prophets (see Appendix 12).

The lay leaders who share a different view from those advocating prosperity teaching in its current form, where clergy emphasize on instant healing and instant wealth, subscribe to a

162

holistic approach to prosperity which is balanced and in tandem with Wesleyan teachings. This is clearly shown by the idea given by Laity 2 (2017):

…I want to say I have been privileged to be part of the services where I could see that this is a message of prosperity, and I can recall one occasion where the teaching of that sermon was everybody wants to prosper but if you are to prosper you need to work very hard. While I can recall maybe one other occasion like that. If for me you ask the question what is the Methodist teaching around this, I would say these two occasions were like speaking to each other; they were not saying you can shout ‗I want to prosper‘ and you get it, no. And I think biblical examples, if I recall well, were given. So those two instances I am talking of not far from now, I think suggest to me that the teaching in the Methodist Church has a balance. Yes, it is scriptural and biblical that one can prosper but it does not happen unless you work for it. You need to plan, you need to have input and then prosperity will be at the end.

It is shown from the leader that he views prosperity as a means to an end and not an end in itself. In his remarks, he sees the MCZ as a balanced church that will not succumb to challenges posed by the prosperity gospel. According to the lay leaders, they view the future of the MCZ as a church that will thrive regardless of the threats posed by the current prosperity gospel in Zimbabwe. Their view could be informed by the fact that they are aware that Methodism, from its inception, had elements of prosperity, especially on issues of health and wealth for the marginalised people. All the leaders interviewed agree about the bright future of the MCZ. One member has to say, ―I think the future is bright because it has forced even the preachers to sharpen their skills in response to the challenges coming from the prosperity gospel‖ (Laity 3, 2017). The ways the skills are sharpened are demonstrated by Laity 2 (2017) when he says:

…I think the Methodist Church in Zimbabwe is now in an environment where there is some kind of competition for followers and I think it should also be its concern to say what kind of message they put across, not necessarily to keep people by promising what they will not get at some point, but by putting across I think teaching which empowers the individual to believe in themselves, work for themselves and to get themselves to some point of realisation and each member to think critically about messages preached to them. I think this is something which the church should be concerned with. How does the church, its minister, preachers put across a message which is not necessarily saying ‗do these in order to prosper‘ but illustrates that one has to work hard in order to prosper.

163

The critical point raised is that of teaching as an empowerment tool for members to be fully equipped. This teaching tool has been the force to reckon with dating back to John Wesley when he introduced the class meetings. This also tallies with the focus of this study, to see how the clergy are taught in theological colleges on issues of health and wealth as taught by Wesley, in order for them to also teach their members so that they can withstand the challenges posed by prosperity gospel that is coming with different dynamics. An emphasis on teaching is highlighted by lay leaders strongly as a survival skill to curb the challenges of prosperity teaching. Laity 6 indicates another important component that has enabled the MCZ to withstand the pressure when she said, ―the future is bright for MCZ because there is nothing that hinders the church to continue moving forward because the MCZ is moving with [the] times and has made provisions for its structures that will remain functional‖ (Laity 6, 2017).

Structures are necessary for an organisation to remain stable and functional. Structures provide the polity of an organization and in the case of MCZ, its structures are firm and strong because the church is not individualised. In other words, it belongs to both members and clergy, unlike ministries that are individually owned by a single person and where what he or she says becomes a decree to everyone without any scrutiny. For the MCZ, the church