It was a bolt from the blue. Doing some work around his house, Girta suddenly passed out and remained unconscious for more than an hour. When he awoke, he felt extremely weak and asked his kin to take him to a clinic in the provincial capital. Numerous examinations
and 3000 Birr later, the doctors still had not found anything. Thus, Girta returned to Dell and called some church leaders to ‘take nisa’, i.e. to confess before them. Alongside the leaders, Girta called the representatives of his cell's28 women's group, for it was with this group, he suspected, that his troubles originated.
Some months ago, the women's group and Girta had agreed to work together by way of kotsa (share-cropping). Girta had provided a field and the women had provided onion seeds and labour, and recently they had together harvested 14 large sacks of onions, half of which belonged to the women. Girta had offered to buy their half (hoping to re-sell it at a profit), and he had promised to pay 400 Birr per sack, i.e. 2800 Birr in total. It was agreed that some days later he would meet the women in Gob (two hours’ walk away from Dell) and give them the money. The women would then go on to buy a set of matching clothes for themselves. The new outfit was to be worn on the next day's political holiday Gimbot 20 (‘Downfall of the Derg’), when each of the 16 women's groups from Dell would demonstrate their commitment to and success at development by parading around the main village in new clothes.
But meeting them in town on the appointed day, Girta said he would only give them 350 Birr per sack, since the price for onions had dropped. Angry about Girta breaking his word, the women declined and went back to Dell empty-handed – although this meant having to endure the humiliation of attending the political holiday in their old clothes. After the holiday, during the weekly cell meeting, the women brought up the case, insisting that Girta pay the promised 2800 Birr. They also demanded that he reimburse them for the expenses they purported to have had for food and drink on their unsuccessful trip to town. The cell leaders ruled that Girta should pay 1300 Birr as a reimbursement; and this he did perforce. But he continued to refuse paying 2800 Birr for the onions, and instead proposed that the women take their seven sacks (still stored at his house) and sell them on their own. But when the women went to fetch the sacks, they discovered that Girta had emptied some of their onions into his own sacks. He had done so because as the onions dry, they lose in volume. But in the market one only gets the highest price for sacks filled to the point of bursting. At this point the women said something like, ‘fine, we'll take the difference from God’. And, indeed, a week later, God presented the bill to Girta – striking him unconscious.
This whole story emerged from the slightly rambling account that Girta gave to the church leaders as well as from the explanations provided by the representatives of the women’s group. The church leaders listened carefully. After Girta had finished his confession, they told him that if a Christian promises to pay 400 Birr per sack, that is what he has to pay, no matter if the market price drops in the meantime. And to take away some of the women's onions, of course, was nothing other than theft. Here then lay his transgression and the reason for his illness. To the representatives of the women's group, in turn, the leaders said that it had been wrong to demand reimbursement of their expenses for food and drink (which had moreover been greatly exaggerated). This was nothing other than asking compensation, and hence was a sin, too. The church leaders therefore proposed that Girta should pay an additional 1500 Birr on top of the 1300 he had paid already. This would complete the 2800 he had promised to pay, and it would change the status of the 1300 Birr from compensation to partial payment. Girta agreed and both he and the women asked each other and God for forgiveness.
Here we have a case where illness is interpreted as divine punishment for economic misconduct. Girta tried to best his business partners, but soon after he fell ill, and this was taken as the direct outcome of his sinful acts. Cases like Girta’s, I suggest, play an important educative role in Dell, since they convey a simple message: You cannot gain at God’s expense! After the drop of the price for onions, Girta tried to rescue his profit margin by reneging on his promise to pay 400 Birr per sack. Later, he tried to make up for the loss he had suffered through the compensation payment by stealing some of the women’s onions. But not only did God foil this plot. He also inflicted a heavy loss on Girta, who wasted 3000 Birr at the hospital to be healed of an affliction that only God could alleviate. This was a loss much greater than the few extra Birr Girta could have made, had his plan worked out.29
Note that a similar logic was at play when the aforementioned drought was interpreted as God’s response to people’s failure to tithe correctly. The underlying message here is that if people choose to keep the entirety of their harvest to themselves, God will not give them any harvest next time. Again, one loses much more than one could gain by keeping the 10% for oneself. The same kind of reasoning, finally, was apparent in the conversation I had with Abraham about his response to Muli’s cattle devastating his field.
29 As people were keen to note, this also happened to the man who had tried to kill his brother’s son. While he was arranging the murder, someone had audio-recorded the conversation between him and the killer
For one thing, Abraham suggested that he forgave freely because he trusted that God would not make him go hungry. But a little later in our conversation, he also asserted that to take compensation would have had devastating effects. Passionately Abraham explained that:
‘It was Satan who untied the cattle and drove them into my field. It was Satan who sued for my grain. So if I took grain in compensation, that grain would be useless (meyayinda). It would be food that doesn't satiate (mishayinda). And if I sold it in the market, chances are a thief would take the money… So if I take compensation, hunger will come to my house. But if I forgive, there will be no hunger.’
In short, Abraham here works with the assumption that economically the most rational way to handle damage is to not seek compensation. From the doctrinal point of view – which he here represents – there ‘really’ is no trade-off between economic well-being and being a good Christian. Or, to employ Weber’s categories (1978: 24f.), what is value rational – to tithe, to forgive, to not cheat others – is also instrumentally rational – in ensuring a good harvest, economic recovery, or successful business. Put yet differently, evangelical ideology here seeks to encompass development by suggesting that one can only attain the latter if one excels at being a good Christian.
Cases like Girta’s offer Dell Evangelicals a palpable representation of this message. They are often talked about in the wider community, and in this way certainly have some educative effect on everyone. It is plausible to think, however, that divine punishment above all matters for the one who personally experiences it, and that this experience entails heightened commitment to following Christian doctrine. This is plausible because it has long been theorized that a key way in which cultural ideas become subjectively compelling is when they are communicated in moments of intense experience. Following Durkheim (1974), scholars have mostly made this argument with regard to ‘effervescent’, i.e. strong, positive, enthusiasmic kinds of experiences (Turner 1967, Joas 2000, Robbins 2015b: 220ff.). However, as value theorist Hans Joas argues, negative or ‘traumatic’ experiences can also give rise to value commitment:
‘[I]t is not just galvanizing experiences that give rise to value commitments. Experiences of powerlessness also shape us profoundly. When we come up against our limits and experience how little we can steer our fate or that of others, or when we become radically aware of the finitude of our existence through experiences of illness, disability or the inevitability of death, this too transforms our relationship to ourselves, the world, and our values.’ (Joas 2013: 69)
To suddenly drop unconscious while otherwise in a state of good health, as happened to Girta, surely qualifies as such an experience of powerlessness. In being interpretatively linked to the notion of God's omnipotence, this experience is likely to instil a profound sense that it is important to obey God.
This was a view that amain themselves asserted. There was a common notion that one of the reasons why there was more spiritual ‘weakness’ today – why people were more ready to privilege developmental over Christian values – was that there were many who had converted ‘without having seen a problem’ (kalemi shedkideyk). In the early days of Evangelicalism, as was explained to me, people only converted after long and terrible illness. This was due not least to widespread opposition to Evangelicalism and social pressure to first try out traditional means. Today, by contrast, people converted ‘for nothing more than a common cold’. This was a good thing in principle, people asserted, but it was also true that the earlier converts appeared to be much stronger in their faith than today’s converts who had not personally experienced God’s power to harm and heal.
Conversely, there were cases where experiences of God’s wrath ushered in heightened commitment to evangelical values. Milkias, for instance, at one point had suffered considerable economic damage because a fire set by a neighbour to burn down shrubbery had jumped into his field and devoured his wheat. Breaking with doctrine he claimed compensation. Soon after he was affected by further mishap including the death of two young children and a fire that destroyed his hut. His situation only improved after he returned to the church, from which he had become alienated in the meantime, acknowledging that it had been wrong to take compensation for the burnt wheat. In the following years he became a very dedicated believer and now leads a small group. He has also recovered economically and is now rather well-to-do; and in his understanding this is because he is now very meticulous in his observance of Christian principles. In Milkias case, then, the experience of God’s wrath has led to a heightened commitment to leading a righteous life.