The UMC in Africa: A Vision for the Future

In 2004 I served for the first time as a delegate to the General Conference. It was an eye-opening experience for many Africans, including me. I had not realized how thoroughly the progressive agenda regarding human sexuality had come to reside in large sections of the American church. At that Conference, most Africans were drawn closer to the Confessing Movement and Good News. The divide became clear to African delegates as we would be invited for free breakfasts and lunches as a way of getting us to the table to listen to each side of the theological divide. Most Africans decided to align themselves with the American conservatives. But there was still a huge challenge in that African delegates from the three African central conferences did not know each other, and they had language barriers. There are at least four official languages spoken in their respective central conferences: English, Portuguese, French, and Swahili. We thank God that despite these barriers, we knew what changes to the church’s moral teachings we could not accept.

Some African Bishops told delegates not to share what we had learned with the church back home by reporting unbiblical behavior, which they characterized as "American subculture." We did not see this as a matter of culture, but as a matter of sin and righteousness. Nevertheless most 2004 delegates began to conscientize the African Church of this reality at the general church level. Today we recognize our role in defending the church’s historic faith and moral teachings. Thus we have seen unprecedented reelection of key African delegates to the General Conference. This phenomenon has brought with it a sense of unity of purpose among African delegates as they realized the power in their vote. The coming together of Africans and their alliance with the American conservatives has become the dominant voice in The United Methodist Church, which the progressives desperately want to break.

To strengthen their unity and voice, African delegates formed a caucus group they named the Africa Initiative, consisting of delegates to the General Conference plus a few other Africans deemed strategic, be they in Africa or based in the USA. 

The creation of this group led by its Coordinator, Jerry Kulah of Liberia , Kimba Evariste of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and me, Forbes Matonga of Zimbabwe, has brought a lot of uneasiness not only among American progressives, but among most African bishops who fear this may be another emerging center of power in the church. (This is a separate subject that needs a separate paper to unpack). Suffice it to say, the Africa Initiative has become not only a power to be reckoned with in the global church, but also within The United Methodist Church in Africa . 

I have been privileged to attend every General Conference since 2004 and have seen this debate evolve into a full conflict within the church, leading to the February 2019 special called General Conference in St Louis, Missouri. 

It must be recorded in history books that it was the African delegates who should be given the "man of the match" honor at this unprecedented conference. We defied all manipulation and intimidation to make our position loud and clear. We were not going to allow the progressives to liberalize the denomination’s teachings on human sexuality. 

How do ordinary African United Methodists see the future of The United Methodist Church in the face of this conflict?

Before attempting to answer this question, four things must be highlighted:

First, we Africans are shocked by the unChristian and manipulative approach we have discovered within the American branch of The United Methodist Church. Africans are generally viewed with the same old colonial eye; we are perceived as children incapable of making our own choices. This is despite the fact that today we have significant numbers of educated Africans, mostly educated in American universities and seminaries and capable of making their own judgments and arriving at considered conclusions by themselves.

Second, the governing structures of the church are deliberately ignored for the sole purpose of winning the conflict. As a delegate, I feel the executive branch of the church has taken a side it wants to see prevail at all costs, thereby denying the legislative arm and the judiciary the opportunity to do their work freely and independently.

Third, this manipulative syndrome in the USA has cascaded down to Africa, and thus representatives of the people, the delegates, are not allowed to debate freely or choose which caucuses to be in alliance with because the bishops want a specific outcome.

Fourth, there are African annual conferences (thought not all) that do not have free and fair elections of delegates. In some conferences, delegates are hand-picked by bishops, or delegates are dropped or just left behind as deemed by the bishop.

Should the church split, the position of Africa should, therefore, be well known. We do not accept the progressive sexual ethic so common in the West. We support the current position of the Book of Discipline. 

To everyone's surprise, some influential African bishops, who are in support or sympathetic to this progressive sexual ethic, are trying to foist this viewpoint on the African United Methodists, and they are disguising it as church unity! This manipulation is now creating division among African United Methodists. These few but influential African bishops know in their hearts what the African church has said on this matter. Nevertheless, they seek to secure the financial future of the institutional church, as promised by progressives, at the expense of doctrine and truth as understood by the African Christians.

Africa has chosen to remain conservative, evangelical, and traditional in its theology, ethics, and ecclesiology. For many, the unity of the church should not be based on finances and the institutional church, but on faithfulness to the Lord Jesus as revealed in Scripture.

In general, African Methodists believe their delegates are representing them well. through the Africa Initiative. The statements by the Africa Initiative represent the true African position on this matter. We challenge anyone who believes otherwise to carry out a survey on the subject across the African central conferences. The position we have articulated is the predictable outcome.

If Africa is allowed freely to choose its future, it will definitely go with the conservative side of the church. But given the manipulation, intimidation, and pure dishonesty by a few powerful African bishops, the African church shall split just like what is happening to the American church. This will be the most unfortunate episode in the history of the fastest growing region in the United Methodist connection. 

It is the desire of the conservative African Church to continue to use the name of The United Methodist Church plus the logo, with a qualifier to distinguish it from those who need to side with the progressive wing. We know this is not going to be easy as this would make manipulation almost impossible. As such, the progressive Americans and some powerful African bishops will ensure they monopolize the name of The United Methodist Church as a way of coercing Africans to be part of the “Progressive United Methodist Church.” This is the inherent spirit of the so-called Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation.

On the other hand, the traditionalists are not making life any easier for Africa as they believe the name “The United Methodist Church” has lost its value and appeal to the American conservatives. This gives us a bizarre scenario where we may have one church using two different names and logos!

My prediction is that, should the confusion I have described above be allowed to happen come 2021, where most Africans are manipulated to join the progressive United Methodist Church, this will be a short-lived joy for a quadrennium. The conservative United Methodist Church will start smaller, but will eventually be bigger as we get into the second quadrennium and subsequent years to come. The emphasis on evangelism and upholding of Scripture as the supreme authority of the church will have a huge multiplier effect on this conservative Methodist church in Africa.

We need to point out that Africa is not ready or willing to be autonomous. This is not primarily for financial reasons as assumed by the majority in the progressive wing. The major reason is the very DNA of United Methodism based on John Wesley's view of the world as his parish. Connectionalism is the heartbeat of United Methodism. African United Methodists want to belong to a global church.

African United Methodists enjoy the common polity currently practiced by the worldwide denomination despite its American-centeredness. By belonging to a worldwide denomination, we have good governance structures that do help and guide Africans in such challenging cases as succession of episcopal leaders and leadership in church in general. Africans do not want to lose this.

Financial stewardship is another benefit of belonging to a worldwide denomination.  At least leaders are forced to be financially accountable in this system, though not as perfectly as one would want.

Personnel exchange and cross fertilization of cultures and spiritual gifts are other benefits Africans do not want to lose. 

In short, African United Methodists shall remain conservative and evangelical. Africa shall remain a part of a worldwide Methodist movement. And Africa shall perpetuate the current doctrine and practices of The United Methodist Church.

The Rev. Forbes Matonga is a pastor in the Zimbabwe West Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church and a member of the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s Global Leadership Council.