The coming of Christianity and the pioneer column to Southern Rhodesia happened at the same time (Peaden, 1970:1, Hallencreutz, 1998:25), with two Catholic Chaplains accompanying the first Column (Hallencreutz, 1998). The Wesleyan Methodists also came to Zimbabwe during this time but were not part of the first Pioneer Column. Therefore, the expansion of Methodism to Zimbabwe must be seen within the context of Christian missionary enterprise in Zimbabwe (Zvobgo (1991a:2). The following or accompaniment of European settlers by missionaries can be interpreted in two ways. firstly, the missionaries saw an opportunity as the settlers opened the way for them through crushing African regimes that were a hindrance to the preaching of the gospel (Hallencreutz, 1998:7, Zvobgo; 1991a:5). Secondly, the missionaries were used as tools to pacify the Africans through preaching the gospel and to give the European settlers a chance to loot much from the Africans (King, 1959:11). The coming of Methodism to Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) has been linked to South Africa by many scholars (Weller and Linden (1984; Hallencreutz 1998; Zvobgo 1991a; Gondongwe 2011; Mawire 2015). Although most scholars link Methodism in Zimbabwe with the South African and British Methodism (Mawire 2015; Gondongwe 2011;
27
Zvobgo,1991a, 1991b), the important point that they do not make quite explicit is that the Transvaal district of the Methodist Church was directly under the British conference and not under the jurisdiction of the South African conference when it became an autonomous conference in 1882 (Whiteside 1906:5). The Methodist missions in Transvaal and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) were under the control of the British Wesleyan Missionary Society which ruled everything, including granting permission to occupy new lands, and sending out missionaries to these new stations (Whiteside: 1906:414).
Makoti (2012) argues that Methodism came into Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) from South Africa, and that it was by means of a call of Mr Cecil John Rhodes to Rev Isaac Shimmin that the Methodist Church started missionary work in the new country. The above assertion by Makoti suggests that Rhodes, as a colonial Administrator was involved in the sending out of missionaries and the decision on the lands to be occupied. However, it shows that this was the responsibility of the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society based in London (Methodist Book of Order, 2014:22). Madhiba (2000:24) and Makoti (2012) argue that the call of Rhodes brought Methodism to Zimbabwe but Zvobgo (1991), de Gruchy (1999), King (1959) and Peaden (1970), argue that Methodists were among and part of the other missionary societies and were backed by their home missions. So, it was not necessarily the call of Rhodes that brought the Methodists in Rhodesia. Madhiba (2000) and Makoti (2012), see the call by Cecil John Rhodes, the granting of land by the BSAC, and the offer of a hundred pounds per year to support Methodist Mission in Rhodesia, as an act of goodwill toward the Methodist Church. But Peaden (1970:1), and Zvobgo (1991) show that these acts of the BSAC were not unique to the Methodist Church in Zimbabwe but were privileges that all Missionary societies enjoyed. The Methodist Church actually came to Rhodesia when other missionary Societies had already got their share.
The possibility and impact of Cecil John Rhodes’ call cannot be completely dismissed because there is evidence of some applications for the grant and communication in that respect and some follow ups on the grant by the Methodist missionaries (Zvobgo,1991:19). Even if this was government land policy (Peaden, 1970:5), to give the missionaries large tracts of land, it had a bearing on the relationship between the BSAC as the now custodians of the land and individual missionary societies and the missionaries in general who operated in Rhodesia (the country had been claimed as a British territory under the BSAC). The first Methodist Missionary societies
28
were founded by Revd Owen Watkins and they arrived at Fort Salisbury on the 29th of September 1891. The Methodists, like other missionary societies, made full use of the land apportioned to them by the BSAC to build schools, hospitals, and Christian villages. The missionaries across the denominational divide regarded the ministry of the Church as threefold: preaching, teaching, and healing. The three methods were used by all missionary societies simultaneously. The Christian villages on mission farms were meant to be model communities to serve as islands of light in a sea of heathen and superstitious darkness (Peaden, 1970:19; Madhiba, 2000:28; Zvobgo,1991a). Zvobgo (1991a) and Madhiba (2000) present their history as Methodist historians and therefore present the Methodist Church as the pioneer in coming up with the strategy of Christian villages, but for Peaden it was a practice adopted by all missionary societies operating in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). Missionaries viewed these villages as enabling them to have control over the people than in stations outside the villages. According to Peaden (1970:20), the missions formulated rules, not only concerning the general organisation of the villages but also requiring certain behaviour patterns to be observed by the tenants as a condition for tenancy, and the rules varied according to what the individual mission considered to be necessary. The rules and regulations on mission stations were therefore not an invention of the Methodist Church but even Catholics, Anglicans, Salvationists, and many other Churches had their own rules and regulations. Madhiba (2000:28) sees the mission settlement as a tool used by missionaries against African traditional religions and culture because of the strict rules which mitigated against traditional customs and culture. These rules and regulations that were applied by the missionary societies included the banning of widow inheritance and child betrothal, all forms of ancestor worship, banning of polygamy and total abstinence from beer drinking (Peaden.1970:20-21; Zvobgo. 1991a:66; Madhiba. 2000:28).
Mission stations became both attractive and very strict settlements, they could lure people through the incentives they offered and dismissed some through the strictness of rules. People flocked to mission settlements not because they wanted to be uprooted from their culture but because they had discovered the importance of schools and preferred to live closer to schools for the sake of their children (Zvobgo, 1991:67). What is evidently clear is the appeal of material incentives to the African people such that it was possible that they joined mission stations without true conversion. The material incentives offered by the mission settlement included education, which brought with it decent employment and many opportunities, agriculture, which guaranteed food
29
security, the construction of toilets which assured hygiene, and security for those who lived on the farm (Zvobgo, 1991b:67).
Since mission stations were associated with schools and Africans themselves were discovering the importance of education, the missionaries also put their energies in the construction of mission schools. It is important to note that the schools were not only meant to benefit Africans but the missionaries in their endeavours too. The missionaries saw in education a powerful force by which to weaken the influence of indigenous religion, superstition, and witchcraft in the African society and expedite the acceptance of Christianity (Moyo, 1987:62; Zvobgo, 1991b:86; Keteyi, 1998:25). The result, however, was that education could not weaken the influence and grip of African traditional religion because people had not converted in the true sense of the word and therefore, were not totally weaned from their old beliefs and customs. Peaden (1970) and Zvobgo (1991a) argue that initially, the schools’ main objective was religious, meant to strengthen the faith of the converts by enabling them to read the Bible and the Church’s instructions about faith, but gradually, due to pressures from various sources, the curricula widened. One of the sources of pressure was the Department of Education following the decision of the legislative council in 1899 to give grants to certain schools (the department demanded certain standards and certain subjects to be taught as a condition for receiving grants (Peaden, 1970:8). It could be argued that because of the demands of the Department of Education the missionaries were forced to change from offering education for religious purposes to an emphasis on academic and industrial training. There was now competition with schools of other missionary societies and so, for them to remain relevant and attractive to young people, they had no choice but to embrace the new curricula.
The emphasis and target of missionary education was the younger generation rather than the older generation (Aguwa, 2007:135; Mucherera, 2001:37; Keteyi:1998:25). The use of education on the young as a vehicle of evangelism and an attempt to uproot African traditional religion made many African scholars to have a negative attitude toward missionary education. Yet for the missionaries, it was fertile ground for evangelism. Even the Wesleyan Methodist mission report of 1930 also shows how schools were used to undermine the African worldview. It reads: “Education is a most important factor in undermining their (African) old beliefs in witchcraft and is the only practical method of opening up these people and the opportunities which we believe should be given to every man to live a fuller life that God purposes for him. Again, our schools give us our opportunity
30
because of the religious instruction we are able to give through them- to old as well as young” (Zvobgo, 1991b:86-87). The schools therefore became the main vehicles for evangelization, because pupils, and often their parents identified with the Church that controlled the school (Weller and Linden, 1984:89).
The mission farms were not only used as Christian settlements and to build schools, the missionaries also built hospitals meant to help people during illness. Like education, health services were viewed as part of the enlightening programme, the African health care methods and African practitioners were viewed as primitive and unhygienic (Zvobgo, 1991; Madhiba, 2000). The missionaries had assumed that giving health care services to Africans was going to deal a blow to African traditional religion and the N’angas (indigenous ritual and healing specialists). The missionaries were opposed to African traditional healers (N’angas) and these were not allowed on the mission farms because they were viewed as the source of conflict. Although hospitals were built to benefit Africans through the reduction of infant mortality and increase in life expectancy (Madhiba,2000), it appears that for the missionaries, the medical missions would counter the role and activities of the African traditional healers and have a cultural effect (Peaden, 1970:16). Seeing the importance of medical missions, the Methodists were prompted to build their first hospital in Zimbabwe at Kwenda in 1913 and the government offered 200 pounds towards the cost of building the hospital (Zvobgo, 1991a:79). Again, we see the involvement of government with missionaries. It seems, however, that the government was not buying any favours from the missionaries but was interested in development.
The missionaries banned participation of converts in traditional religious and social activities, and the converts were expected to abstain from evil which included, visiting or inviting traditional healers, witchcraft, engaging in traditional rituals, and brewing and drinking beer (Hallencreutz, 1998:46; Fry, 2007:113). The commitment of the Methodist Church to teetotalism had effects on the rituals that depended on beer (Mapira) which could not always be held (Fry, 2007:114). This is evidence of the temperance of the Methodist Church in Zimbabwe towards traditional beer and traditional rituals. Beer in the African society has a prominent place because it is used to celebrate at weddings, funerals, cleansing during illness, communal activities, and during times of calamity or to appease ancestral spirits (Zvobgo, 1991b:71).
31
When the Methodist missionaries utilized the use of Christian villages, schools, and medical services as vehicles of evangelisation, first, they celebrated because they thought they had won the battle against African traditional religion and customs. Regardless of such celebrations by the missionaries, the beliefs in African traditional religion and its grip on African Christians did not wane. Despite the negative attitude and heavy suppression that African traditional religion and customs suffered, they continued to be practiced by most people in (Rhodesia) Zimbabwe (Thorpe, 1951:65; Moyo, 1987:62; Manyoba, 1991:65). The Methodist missionaries are viewed as having contributed both positively and negatively to Africans and their worldview in Zimbabwe. Education, hygiene, and agriculture uplifted the lives of Africans, yet on the other hand, the same positive aspects were used to destroy the African religion and culture.
The literature in this section helps to illustrate that the Methodist missionaries were part of the missionary innovativeness of several, mostly protestant, missionary societies. It also brings out the link between Methodism in Zimbabwe and British Methodism through its link with the Transvaal district of South Africa, which was directly under the British conference. The ambivalent relationship between the Methodist Missionary society and Mr Cecil John Rhodes is also reviewed in the literature. The literature also shows that the Methodists replicated forms of mission from other missionary societies since they came into Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) when other missionaries were already operating. The missionary approach of the Methodists in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) also evolved from mission for servitude to mission for human development and autonomy. The change of approach was due to competition with other missionary societies and government legislation.