The Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region
Staffan Grenstedt
(Uppsala University)
Abstract: This paper highlights Qes Gudina Tumsa s efforts in the Kambata/Hadiya
region with special bearing at integrating the Kambata
Evangelical Church 2 (KEC-2), which had broken away from the Kambata Evangelical Church (KEC) in 1954, into the
Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus (EECMY). The
KEC-2 attended the annual Conference of Ethiopian Evangelical Churches (CEEC)
from 1955 to 1961, when the EECMY Home Mission with the Kambata
Home Mission Program (KHMP) was launched. Qes
Gudina s efforts in the region can be divided into two periods. The first was
in 1963 when he tried to integrate the KEC-2 into a synod of the EECMY. As we
will see, this approach generated some problems. His second attempt, together
with the Finnish Missionary Society (FMS) in 1967-69, was more successful.
Notation and Theological
Method
The footnotes at the bottom of the pages refer mainly to my Doctoral
Dissertation (Grenstedt 2000), on which I ground my
paper.[1] The title is: Ambaricho and Shonkolla From Local Independent
Church to the Evangelical Mainstream in Ethiopia. The Origins of the Mekane Yesus Church in Kambata Hadiya, published by Uppsala: Uppsala
University in 2000. For convenience s sake, I let the Ambaricho
Mountain symbolize the Kambata ethnic group and the Shonkolla Mountain, the Hadiya.
I will make use of the Theo logical Typology of the Norwegian scholar
Einar Molland and
elaborate on it for my own purpose. Turner and
Daneel have
employed Molland s typology for independent churches in a similar way.[2]
In order to characterize a Christian community, Molland identifies four basic aspects in his
structural, theological analysis: doctrine, polity, worship, and ethos.[3] There is
an organic correlation between these aspects but different communities display
a characteristic emphasis on one of them. For example, doctrine is the dominating (and unifying)
characteristic of Lutheran churches. Molland furthermore defines ethos as
a characteristic lifestyle linked to a confession. It is thus wider than
ethics. I elaborate on Molland s scheme and add relation to EECMY, ecumenism
and size as further aspects for comparison.
Historical and Ethnical Perspectives
in the Kambata/Hadiya Region
The Kambata/Hadiya
Region
The area between the River Omo in the
west and the River Bilate in the
east, which I call the Kambata/Hadiya region, has its
own complicated history.[4] Originally
the Kambata peoples, in a general sense , were
peasants and the Hadiya were semi-nomads. Their
internal history has to be differentiated into the
history of their sub-groups. The relations between Kambata in a narrow sense and the Hadiya sub-groups Shashogo and Badowacho, for instance, were quite friendly.[5] By the end of the 16th
century one can use Kambata not only as a political
term for a people, drawn together from heterogenous groups, symbolised by the
number seven (sebat
in Amharic; lamala
in Kambatissa)
and with a king at its head.[6]
Relations between the two strongest Hadiya sub-groups, Lemu and Soro, however, have been strained from time to time, the main reason
being their need of grazing land for their herds. Soro and Wollamo became
enemies of the Kambata proper , whose kingdom started to expand c.1810. It is thus too simplistic to
talk about tensions between the Kambata and the
Hadiya just in a general sense. The situation has been more complex than that.
In fact, the Kambata peoples in many cases
complemented the products of the semi-nomadic Hadiya through their skilled
farming techniques.[7]
The good agricultural conditions in the Kambata/Hadiya
region led to a population density up to more than 300 per square km. Many
conflicts in the region were due to scarcity of land. This was also the case in
the conflicts along the southern borderland to Wollamo.[8]
Early Missionary Ventures,
Revivals and Schisms
The Sudan Interior Mission (SIM)
started its work in the Wollamo (Wolayta) region in 1928 and among the Hadiya around
Hosanna in the Kambata/Hadiya region in 1929.[9] In 1933 a station was built in Durame among
the Kambata. The missionaries were forced to leave
the two regions due to the Italian occupation in 1936 (Kambata/Hadiya
region) and in 1937 (Wollamo region). When they left
Ethiopia in 1937-38 just ten converts from the Kambata/Hadiya
region had been baptized by the SIM missionaries. Another twenty had been baptized by
Ethiopians.[10]
When the SIM missionaries resettled in Wollamo (1945)
and in Kambata/Hadiya (1946), they recognized that in
the meantime there had been a remarkable church growth of approximately 15,000
baptized members (adults), in what I hereafter call the Wollamo
Church , and approximately 10,000 in the Kambata Evangelical Church.[11] These remarkable revivals were led
by indigenous Ethiopian Christians in the densely
populated regions in southern Ethiopia.[12]
After the return of the SIM missionaries in 1946, however, there
occurred schisms within the KEC. In 1951 a group of seventeen churches broke
away from the KEC. In 1952 the two dissenting groups were reconciled. Again, in
1954 another group broke away. It is this latter group I identify as the independent KEC-2.
Evangelical Church Formation
As hinted above, annual conferences called the Conferences of Ethiopian
Evangelical Churches (CEEC) were arranged by Ethiopian
Evangelicals from various parts of Ethiopia in 1944-63.[13] They were signs of the ecumenical climate, which prevailed among Ethiopian
Evangelicals after the Italian occupation. Owing main ly to later missionary
influences, causing a growing denominationalism, the importance of the CEEC
decreased. In 1957 the SIM-affiliated groups stopped attending the CEEC
meetings in Addis Abeba. This is a clear indication that the Ethiopian
Evangelical movements went in different directions.[14]
Instead of
firmly establishing one united Ethiopian Evangelical church ( EEC ) or a
federation of Ethiopian Evangelical churches, the road to establish
confessional churches was set. The evolving Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus, which traces its roots via the
CEEC to the Evangelical Pioneers from the 19th century
and to even earlier influences, established itself in 1959.[15]
SIM
missionaries and SIM-related churches, like the KEC and the Wollamo
Church, met in May 1956 and founded the
Fellowship of Evangelical Believers (FEB). The FEB, which from its
inception had a doctrinal statement, started to meet annually and was later
joined by churches connected to the Baptist General Conference Mission.[16] The Fellowship of Evangelical
Believers was registered with the Ethiopian Government in 1964.[17] From 1969 the name the Kale Hiywot Churches (KHC) began to be used by members of
SIM-related churches.[18]
The
Presbyterian Bethel Church, which was initiated by the
American United Presbyterian Mission (AUPM), preserved its Ethiopian
Evangelical legacy and attended the CEEC until 1963. In 1974 it became a part of the
EECMY.[19] A common experience, which both the
EECMY and the KHC share as the two dominant Evangelical churches
in Ethiopia, is a long-felt critique from the venerable EOC.[20]
The KEC-2
Evolves as a New Local Independent Church
As will be recalled, Ato Biru Dubale was the
strong leader in the early Wollamo Church. His new indigenous church in Wollamo started to grow when it received financial support
from the Swedish Mission Bible-True Friends (SMBV) in 1951. In 1954-55 it comprised approximately
thirty to forty congregations.[21] The Norwegian Lutheran Mission
(NLM) policy of paying salaries attracted KEC
members and generated discussions between the KEC and the SIM. Even if an
agreement was reached between the NLM and the SIM in 1953, the situation was
still tense. The presence of the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA) in nearby Shashamene, and its intensified contacts in the region,
and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church s (EOC) attitude towards Evangelicals, did not
improve ecclesiastical relations. To use an understatement: religious dynamics
inside the region were complex in 1953.[22]
A
discontented group in the KEC reacted against the KEC s sharpened discipline on
drinking since 1953. It looked at the church of Ato Biru Dubale, and in 1953
several deputations from Kambata visited the NLM center in Sidamo and
asked for an alliance. They were, however, let down by the Norwegians, who were
more concerned about comity principles than the SMBV.[23]
It seemed
as if the new dissenting group in the KEC was very concerned with gaining an
outside supporter. It was pressed from two sides: the KEC (SIM) and the EOC. It understood that it could hardly
survive on its own and was discussing . . . how to obtain the missionaries who
could support their work .[24]
It was this
discontented groupthat I identify as the evolving Kambata Evangelical Church 2. It had its strongholds around
Dodoba, close to Mt. Shonkolla, and in Mishgida
(Durame), close to Mt. Ambaricho. Two of its early leaders were men
of some wealth: Ato Mersha Tesema from the Dodoba
area and Ato Ashebo Wolecho, a coffee trader from Mishgida
. Ato
Mersha was active in connection with the Addis Ababa Mekane
Yesus (AAMY) reconciliation attempt of the KEC in 1952.
Furthermore, he presented a letter to the Emperor on
religious freedom. He obviously mastered Amharic
and became the new spokesman of the KEC-2.[25]
The
SIM-related churches had probably received special invitations to the 1955 CEEC to discuss and decide on a federation among
Evangelicals in Ethiopia. This was also in the interest of the evolving KEC-2.
The determined preparations of this dissenting group in 1954 to attend the 1955
CEEC in Addis Abeba under the leadership of Ato
Mersha, as a church in
its own right separated from the KEC, marks the final split within the
KEC and the birth of the KEC-2.
The KEC-2
primarily reacted against the KEC (SIM) foreign cultural pressure on drinking, that is on ethos, otherwise it was very similar to
the KEC. Moreover, it was founded in Africa, by Africans,and primarily for Africans. The KEC-2 had
the characteristics of a local African Independent Church fighting for its cultural freedom.[26]
After
breaking away from the SIM-related KEC, the KEC-2 found a platform in the CEEC from 1955 onwards. When the EECMY was founded
in 1959, one of the big challenges of this church was how to relate to the
KEC-2. Describing its engagement in the KEC-2 as a Home Mission , the EECMY deliberately bypassed
missionary comity principles and involved itself in the Kambata/Hadiya region.[27] In 1962 the Kambata
Home Mission Program (KHMP) was launched. It was mainly
financed by the Lutheran World Federation (LWF). The KEC-2 gained a new status as
the Kambata Synod in the EECMY in 1969 and the Finnish
Missionary Society (FMS) became its supporting mission. The
Kambata Synod changed its name to the South Central Ethiopia Synod (SCES) in 1977. It was later amended to the South Central Synod (SCS) in c.1983.[28]
The EECMY s
Home Mission in the Kambata/Hadiya Region
Ethiopian Evangelical Solidarity in Practice
The EECMY Executive Committee was called at short notice for its second
meeting on June 12, 1961. The main issue was to discuss and come to a final
decision on questions relating to the KEC-2. The four founding synods of the
EECMY were represented by eight men. In addition to the five EECMY Church
officers, Qes Badima Yalew had been
invited as a guest.[29]
The history
of the Kambata churches was presented to the EECMY
Executive Committee in four ways:
1.
The EECMY President, Ato
Emmanuel Gebre Selassie, gave a short introduction on
developments from 1947 to 1961. These concerned the conflicts in the KEC and
the Kambata churches petitions to the CEEC and to the EECMY. The final decision on how to
relate to the KEC-2 was now going to be made, he declared.
2.
The report of the Special Commission to Kambata was
handed out to the Executive Committee s delegates and read, probably by Ato Amare Mamo. He was the only one of the Special
Commission attending the meeting.[30]
3.
The CEEC minutes from 1947 to 1961 were read in short.
4.
Qes Badima Yalew was asked to
speak on what he knew of the matter.
This was the background given to the Executive Committee to act upon.
Qes Badima and Ato Emmanuel
were indeed the right men to relate the history of the CEEC contacts with the Kambata
churches. The written report of the Special
Commission to Kambata provided a fresh illustration
of the situation.
The EECMY
presentation provided an elaborate basis for decision-making. The importance of
the CEEC legacy to the EECMY was highlighted by the
reading of the CEEC minutes since 1947. This was the first year of KEC
attendance at the CEEC.[31] The links of the EECMY leaders to
the CEEC, which the Kambata churches were part of,
were spelled out by this elaborate indigenous Ethiopian presentation.
The main
decision of the EECMY Executive Committee was to help the KEC-2 according to
its capacity and to approve of a provisional budget for this purpose.
Another
decision was to call some church leaders from the KEC-2 to Addis Abeba for
education in church administration and an introduction to the constitution of
the church. The Executive Committee
delegates were also encouraged to take a copy of the budget and try to find
support for it in their synods.[32] Lastly the delegates unanimously
decided to inform the SIM of the EECMY decision to help the KEC-2 according to
its petition.
This was
the final step in a row of decisions taken on by the KEC-2 since the EECMY
General Assembly in January 1961. The process of decision-making described
above shows what a delicate and challenging question the KEC-2 s application for membership was to the EECMY. In fact, it
dominated the EECMY second Executive Committee totally. By this decision in
June 1961, the EECMY character of an autonomous all-Ethiopian church was reinforced. The somewhat adventurous
decision by the KEC-2 rekindled the CEEC legacy of an enthusiastic Ethiopian
Evangelical Solidarity in the
EECMY. The caution among EECMY leaders, which had been generated by missionary
comity since the CEEC in 1956 and onwards, was now
definitely on the decline.
Ato Emmanuel Gebre Selassie
Links Kambata with Geneva
Ato Emmanuel Gebre Selassie was a key person in the CEEC and in the AAMY. In 1952 he had been sent to
Hosanna by the CEEC on a reconciliation mission to the
Kambata churches.[33] At the LWF/Commission on World
Mission s (CWM) annual meeting in Berlin July/August 1961 he,
as the first Ethiopian ever, gave the EECMY Field Report on Ethiopia. He did it in the capacity of one of the six
members of the LWF/CWM and as the chairman of the Ethiopia Committee .[34]
Ato
Emmanuel was indeed the right person to present the EECMY Program on Kambata to the LWF. The minutes speak for themselves:
Upon
recommendation of the Ethiopia Committee, CWM, Resolved
a) That CWM encourage
the Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus
in its plan of assistance to the Kambata Christians;
b) That CWM refer to the Budget Committee the request for
$ 14,800 - for 1962 . . . .[35]
This sum was altered to $ 13,754, . . . taking into consideration local
contributions of $ 1,000 . . . It was included in the 1962 LWF/Department of World Mission (DWM)
Program Budget as an expenditure called Educational Program, Kambata, Ethiopia 13,754.00 .[36] This meant that the EECMY request
for the Home Mission Program 1962, which in Ethiopian was $36,885,
had been approved by the LWF/CWM.[37] The detailed budget of the Kambata Program had the following structure:[38]
1.
Evangelist Training Center
(12 months) E$ 16,875.
2.
Elementary School. Elementary School Boarding 7,400.
3.
Six Scholarships - Debre Zeit 1,800.
4.
Bible School (12 students) 7,210.
5.
Teacher-adviser (300x12) 3,600.
First Year
Needs E$ 36,885.
With this budget, one of the fundamental SIM-principles applied in the Kambata/Hadiya region, i.e., not to pay for Ethiopian
indigenous enterprises with foreign money, was abandoned.[39] Salaries for an adviser, two
pastors, two teachers, and guardians had been
included in the budget for 1962.[40]
There had
not been much discussion in the EECMY on this change of principles in the Kambata/Hadiya region, in addition to the deliberations
prepared by Schaefer and Lundgren.[41] They had posed the question on how
to provide help . . . without destroying the self-governing, self-propagating, self-supporting nature of the Christians already there. [42] When discussing church-mission
relations concerning the EECMY on an earlier occasion,
Rev. Lundgren was anxious not to build a church that would depend on mission
budget. All churches and schools should be built by congregations, and all
workers should be employed and salaried directly by
the church. This was what Lundgren opted for, but the principles should be used
wisely.[43]
It seems
that there was neither enough time nor enough interest for such a discussion in
the EECMY, when it came to the point. Here again the EECMY leaders acted
pragmatically and with an Ethiopian purpose. From now on, Ethiopians would pay
salaries to Ethiopians with foreign funds in the KEC-2.
A Picture of the KEC-2 in
1961
In 1961 the KEC-2 had been on its own as an independent church for eight years.[44] As a whole, it still was very
similar to the KEC except on its teaching on moral and traditional issues.[45]
Polity: The KEC-2 consisted
of five sevens (districts). The
two strongest were the Dodoba Seven with Ato Zelleke Luke s congregation in Hawora, and the Abonsa
Seven with Ato Ashebo Wolecho s
congregation in Mishgida. The Endara
Congregation north of Hosanna in the Lemu Seven and the Sorgago
Congregation in the Soro Seven were places of interest, too.[46]
Four times a year, baptisms were held at quarterly meetings.[47] These
meetings can be compared to kinds of KEC-2 General Assemblies . The KEC-2 was
heavily dependent on local elders. The model was
conservative and authoritarian.
Worship: As there were
almost no church buildings, the services were held in private homes and thus
became dependent on the good-will of the house-owner/house-elder.[48] Singing
and prayer in local indigenous manner dominated KEC-2
services and liturgy.
Doctrine: When the link to
the EECMY became stronger in 1961, the interest in following EECMY practices on
baptism increased among KEC-2 leaders. But as no mission or the EEC /EECMY had yet come
to the Kambata/Hadiya region to teach the KEC-2, and
as the educational level of the KEC-2 elders and leaders was
very low, three years of schooling or less, not much teaching was accomplished
in the church.
Instead, the legacy of the SIM, where confession was emphasised in
connection with the sacraments, still lingered in
1961. The KEC-2 form of baptism was immersion in a river and a baptisand
was expected to profess . . . Jesus Christ as his personal Savior publicly . .
. . [49] Then he
also became a communicant.
Because liberalism on moral issues was common, the KEC-2 s legacy of
public confession became formalistic and confusing. The contradiction between
profession and practice made the KEC-2 vulnerable.
Ethos: The KEC-2 attitude
on drinking and polygamy was liberal.
Ecumenism: At a national level, the KEC-2
delegates had been attending each CEEC in Addis Abeba from 1955 to 1961. The CEEC at
this time functioned as a lifeline of moral support to the KEC-2 but the CEEC
representatives did not involve themselves actively in the Kambata/Hadiya
region. Since 1961 the KEC-2 was happily aware of an increasing support from
the EECMY. Ato Zelleke and Ato Ashebo and others met with AAMY elders in Addis Abeba on January 18, 1961. This was
the final step of the KEC-2 open acceptance by the EECMY.[50]
In April
1961, the EECMY Special Commission to Kambata visited
all five sevens of the KEC-2. In June, when the
EECMY support to the KEC-2 received official status, six elders were invited to come to Addis Abeba in July to
study the EECMY Constitution and church administration.[51] These things were anticipation of
what was to come, and filled the KEC-2 leaders with
optimism.
![Text Box: Map 1: The KEC-2 Five Sevens in 1961
[approximate scale 1:1,000,000]](6.Grenstedt,%20The%20Ministry%20of%20Qes%20Gudina%20Tumsa%20in%20the%20Kambata_files/image003.png){kind=small}
At the local level, the KEC-2
leaders opinions of the SIM and the KEC were critical. The KEC-2 felt
discriminated against.
Size: In 1961 the KEC-2 claimed to have twenty
congregations in each one of the five sevens and a membership of 25,000. This
was probably a huge exaggeration as 100 congregations normally would be
estimated to approximately 10,000 members.[52]
Qes Gudina Tumsa s Contribution in the Kambata/Hadiya Region
The Double Strategy of the EECMY
The framework of the Kambata Evangelical Church 2 (KEC-2) since 1962 was the
Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus (EECMY) with its four synods and church officersofficers
in Addis Abeba. In 1962 the EECMY developed what I call a double strategy in
its contact with the KEC-2.[53]
One part of the strategy was to release Qes Gudina Tumsa from the Shoa and Eastern Wollega Synod (Nakamte) for some time and make use of his talents in the KEC-2. His task was
to integrate the independent church KEC-2 as a synod of the EECMY.
This was a primary concern of the EECMY strategy.
The other part of the strategy was to ask Ato Zacheus Edamo
to leave the Wollo -Tigr
Synod and be appointed to the local Kambata Home Mission Program (KHMP)as executive secretary in the Kambata Hadiya region. His task was to implement various
indigenous EECMY projects in KEC-2 within the KHMP budget.
The process of communication between the KEC-2
and the different EECMY representatives would prove vital for the future. In
this next part I will follow developments from 1962 to 1964 on
the basis of EECMY minutes.
Qes Gudina Tumsa s Attempt at Integrating the KEC-2 into the EECMY 1963
As has been mentioned earlier, the EECMY already in July 1961 had begun
to educate KEC-2 elders in church administration and in the EECMY
constitution in accordance with the EECMY Executive Committee s resolution in
June 1961. This indicates an interest from the EECMY side to integrate the
KEC-2 as a synod from the very start of the more active EECMY support.[54]
A year
later, in 1962, Qes Gudina Tumsa paid a first visit to the Kambata/Hadiya region and met with KEC-2 elders.[55] Accordingly, the link between Qes Gudina and the KEC-2 leadership was already well
established when, in November 1962, the EECMY church officers wrote a letter
and asked the Shoa and Eastern Wollega Synod to send him to the KEC-2 for a longer period
of time.[56]
Qes
Gudina proved to be an excellent person to bring
trustworthy information on local developments to the EECMY church officers and,
above all, to start the integration of the KEC-2 into the EECMY. In February
1963 he went to the Kambata/Hadiya region with the
view to prepare the KEC-2 for its integration as a synod into the EECMY. As
aforementioned, this integration was the primary concern of the EECMY with regard to the KEC-2. The KHMP was meant to serve this purpose, too. [57]
Qes
Gudina Tumsa was from Boji in Wollega, born in 1929. He had been working
as the first indigenous pastor in Nakamte since his ordination in 1958. He was a strong preacher referred to
as our Billy Graham by Ato Emmanuel Gebre Selassie. With the Mishgida center in the Abonsa Seven as his base, Qes
Gudina started his new venture, which would go on for about six months.[58]
The
charisma of the tall Qes Gudina, when teaching and preaching, made
a strong impression on KEC elders. But they (and KEC-2 Christians)
were confused because he smoked a pipe. They were told that he had been advised
by his doctor to smoke due to health reasons.[59] Apparently
the theological paradigm of Qes Gudina and
the SIM ethos on worldly
practices differed on this point.[60]
After three
weeks, on March 9, 1963, he returned to Addis Abeba, where a spe cial session
with the EECMY church officersofficers was arranged. Qes Gudina gave a short report on how KEC-2 congregations
were starting to establish themselves and arrange their work properly , as
he put it. Qes Gudina presented a plan on how
congregations should be organized and the work be
directed.[61]
His
ambition was to visit as many congregations as possible in all the sevens and
teach EECMY doctrine and worship. His idea on polity was to
organize the small KEC-2 congregations into larger units. Thus
the dominance of the house-fathers in the family-based churches of the KEC-2
would be broken, and a more democratic system, similar to the EECMY model,
would be introduced. He also aimed to introduce a synod structure of EECMY
model in the KEC-2.[62]
The KEC-2 Elders Speak their Mind
Qes Gudina was accompanied to Addis Abeba by a delegation
of elders from the five sevens of the KEC-2.[63] They were angry and disappointed
with the current development of the KHMP because of two reasons. One was that the EECMY
school was built in Mishgida, close to Durame south of Mt. Ambaricho.
The other was that they felt forgotten by the EECMY as a partner. They asked .
. . why don t you ask us for advice, when you give your support? [64]
The elders, except for the one from the Abonsa Seven , maintained that there had been an
agreement in the KEC-2 to build a school in Dodoba,
northwest of Ambaricho. The elders explained that they had
not wanted to bring this matter up before, as they . . . did not want to
oppose the man, whom the EECMY had chosen and sent. Now, however, was the time
to take an authorised letter from the five sevens of the KEC-2, asking for a Bible
school and a synod center
to be established in Dodoba.[65]
As we saw
above, the two strongholds in the KEC-2 were the Abonsa
Seven and the Dodoba
Seven . The EECMY General Assembly, held
in January 1963, had resolved to buy a centrally located plot of land in the Kambata/Hadiya region. The KEC-2 elders then wanted to challenge the EECMY on that
decision.[66] In fact, Dodoba
is situated in the center of the region and, in 1963,
was in the actual center of the KEC-2. Some of the
elders obviously meant that Dodoba ought to become
the center of the synod-to-be.
This KEC-2
approach to the EECMY was an important event. It was in fact a demonstration of
its local legacy of independence, with links to Ambaricho and Shonkolla. The KEC-2 elders wanted to re-establish a direct contact with
the church officers of the EECMY to regain their authority with
regard to the KHMP representative.[67]
After all,
the real leaders of the KEC-2 were the elders. They had been accustomed to
attending the CEEC meetings since 1955 and to consulting the
EECMY directly. Qes Gudina obviously was in favor
of the direct approach of the KEC-2 elders to the EECMY. He understood that his
plan on integration would not be successful, if it did
not get the support of the majority of the KEC-2 elders.
What is
illustrated here is a failure of the EECMY in its early communication with the
KEC-2 on at least two points:
1. The EECMY
church officersofficers neglected the importance of a
direct contact with the KEC-2 elders instead of unilateral contacts with their own
KHMP representative. This made the KEC-2 elders
frustrated.
2. The relation
between the KHMP Director, Ato
Zacheus, and the KEC-2 elders had not been sufficiently spelled out by the
EECMY. Thus, Ato Zacheus did not base his decisions
on proper consultations with the KEC-2 elders.
The EECMY s
lack of communication had brought the KEC-2 elders to Addis Abeba. As an outsider Qes Gudina sensed their disappointment. Now the KEC-2
elders used Qes Gudina as a spokesman in an
indigenous KEC-2 effort to get things sorted out with the EECMY church officersofficers. I identify their interaction as a test of
Ethiopian Evangelical Solidarity.
Restructured Congregations
Qes Gudina s option provided a comprehensive
attitude towards his attempt to integrate the KEC-2 into the EECMY. He returned
to the Kambata/Hadiya region together with the KEC-2
elders. Soon after, he set up a team in order to implement his plan to reconstruct the KEC-2 into
a less family-dominated form and to introduce democracy in accordance with the
EECMY constitution and by-laws.[68]
The team
was led by Qes Gudina himself. Ato Tamru Segaro was used as
his interpreter, as Qes Gudina spoke Amharic and not
any of the local languages. He could not use his own mother tongue, Oromiffa. Ato
Marqos Gobebo from Dodoba, and the evangelist of the Abonsa
Seven , Ato Mattheos Dattago, were the other members of the
team. Ato Zacheus was just an outside supporter.[69]
An
ambitious visiting program was arranged in order to
preach, teach on the EECMY constitution, and rearrange the KEC-2 at the local
level. The five sevens were visited in turn. However,
neither the effort to rearrange the KEC-2 family churches into larger units
was a success, nor the so-called organisation of the sevens into EECMY
parishes.[70]
As already
mentioned, the KEC-2 congregations usually met in ordinary houses or huts. The house-father accordingly had a strong influence on the
congregation, which he was not willing to discard. If a so-called proper
church was built outside his land and a new set of elders was chosen, he and his colleagues might risk
losing their influence. It seems as if the team members had to abandon the idea
of bringing smaller congregations together, owing to a stubborn resistance to
this enterprise. Instead they concentrated on
rearranging the KEC-2 at a higher level.[71]
A Synod Structure
In April and August 1963 Qes
Gudina arranged two conventions where he tried to
apply a synod structure to the KEC-2. At the first Synod Assembly at Mishgida in April (Miazia
17-19), the purpose was to introduce the constitution and by-laws of the Shoa
and Eastern Wollega Synod in the KEC-2, and to elect a president and a
secretary.[72] From the sources available, I
identify three administrative levels of a kind of EECMY set-up :[73]
1.
A
Synod
Assembly with two representatives from all the congregations in the KEC-2 was
the wider base. The number of delegates could amount to approximately eighty
delegates.
2.
An executive committee, consisting of five
church officers plus eight other delegates. It was called: The Board of the Kambata Church .
3.
The KEC-2 conventions first elected three
church officers, who soon were extended to five.[74] The first church officers of the
KEC-2 were the following:
President Ato Tamru Segaro Abonsa Seven Mishgida
Vice-President Ato Zelleke Luke Dodoba
Seven Hawora
General
Sec. Ato
Marqos Gobebo Dodoba Seven Dodoba
Assistant
Sec. Ato Wondafresh Selato Lemu Seven Endara
Treasurer Ato Erjabo Handiso Dodoba Seven Dinika
We note that the stronger sevens Dodoba (3), Abonsa (1), and Lemu (1) were represented among the church
officers. Qes Gudina s interpreter Ato
Tamru, who was the best educated of the
five men, was elected President.
Most of the
Church officers were probably of Kambata origin, but
as already mentioned, Dodoba created a middle ground for both Kambata and Hadiya. Dinika, for example, is close to Mt. Shonkolla. Ethnic borders were less strict in
such areas and sometimes even hard to define. According to my sources, Ato Erjabo Handiso s father, for example, was Kambata
but his mother Hadiya. Ato Erjabo
speaks both languages well. From a patriarchal point of view, he is a Kambata but one may ask what such
a definition really explains. Mixed marriages and other close relationships
make the picture rather complicated.[75]
With the
new arrangement the KEC-2 elders desire to regain influence had
been satisfied. The outline of an EECMY synod structure had been introduced to
the KEC-2, at least on paper. From now on, the KEC-2 was now and then referred
to as the Synod , by the EECMY.[76]
The
transformation of the KEC-2 into an EECMY synod structure had been a very fast
process. The rearrangement of the KEC-2 congregations into larger units created
new tensions. The future would prove how wise the new measures were.
Ambivalent Primary Concerns
The double strategy of the EECMY influenced the
KEC-2 to a great extent. Its primary concern was to integrate the KEC-2
into the EECMY synod structure. Accordingly, the EECMY strategy favored an integration of the KHMP and its Di rector into the new KEC-2, or
the so-called Synod , and under the KEC-2 Church officers.[77]
Ato Zacheus implemented the KHMP strategy through the support of various
projects. He was a key person in the process of communication between the EECMY
and the KEC-2. He felt content with his position as Director of the KHMP. It
is apposite to suggest that his primary concern was not to reduce his own
influence in favor of the newly elected KEC-2 Church
officers.
Qes
Gudina s arrangements for a KEC-2 synod
model created a new leadership structure in the KEC-2. On the one hand, the
KEC-2 elders were eager to transform the KEC-2 into an
EECMY synod. On the other hand, the KEC-2 had a legacy of a congregation-centered polity and a mobile leadership of elders, which was
appreciated by many. Thus, Qes Gudina s
rearrangements were not happily received by all KEC-2 members. When he left the
KEC-2 in the summer of 1963, he left two strong bodies of the KEC-2 behind him.
One body
revolved around the KHMP leader Ato Zacheus and the Abonsa
Seven . The other body was the new KEC-2
Synod led by the Church officers with a majority of its members from the Dodoba Seven . They were keen to demonstrate the
central importance of Dodoba compared to Abonsa. The former body was then expected to coordinate its
efforts and projects more closely with the latter. In fact
the KHMP was subordinate to the KEC-2 and its Church officers. At that time,
there was also a third disappointed body , i.e. the elders, who had lost their positions
because of Qes Gudina s new arrangements. They were the
losers and fanned the flames of discontent with the new order whenever an
opportunity occurred.[78]
Indeed, the
EECMY double strategy was hard to realize.[79] In fact Qes
Gudi na s short, intense campaign opened up an implicit tension.
An Issue of Relevant Contextualization
The KEC-2 was a church that earlier had reacted to pressures from
outside. Its negative reactions to the KEC (SIM) were mainly generated by
cultural reasons. As already has been mentioned, the KEC-2 evolved as an
independent church owing to such reasons.[80]
The
problems confronting the EECMY in its realization of its double strategy in
the KEC-2 can be described from different perspectives. One perspective is to
describe them as due to a lack of EECMY understanding of the KEC-2 context and
thus a failure of contextualization of the KHMP efforts into the KEC-2 reality.[81]
As already
mentioned, the young EECMY showed little interest in the Schae fer and Lundgren deliberations, which emphasized a
preservation of the KEC-2 s indigenous legacy. The shift of principles from not
paying salaries from external funds to indigenous work, applied by the SIM for
years in the Kambata/Hadiya region, to the opposite,
was not carefully assessed by the EECMY.[82]
The
centralized EECMY approach with a dominant KHMP leader was foreign to the KEC-2 collective polity built on elders. The KEC-2 elders may have asked:
Is it recommendable to let one man employ people and pay their salaries in a
fast-expanding program? The idea of collecting money into a centralized budget
had been a main reason for the KEC split in 1951. When this idea eleven years
later came dressed in KHMP clothes , it did not look much better to the KEC-2.
Why, did the EECMY introduce such a foreign idea
anew? The collecting and sending of money to an unknown place filled KEC-2
Christians with suspicion.
Why, were
some prominent people like the KHMP Director , the KEC-2 President, and the KEC-2
Secretary receiving salaries, while others were not? How could someone believe
that the Kambata/Hadiya farmers would support such a
foreign idea? The KHMP was interested in quick results. The KEC-2 procedure was
slow and demanded considerable time for discussions.
The new
synod structure of the KEC-2 was furthermore foreign to the KEC-2 indigenous
ideas. The KEC-2 elders were used to a mobile system of meetings,
visiting all the sevens in turn. The EECMY approach was to
make one place, Mishgida, a dominating center.
This reinforced tensions with other sevens , especially with the other KEC-2
stronghold Dodoba.
The EECMY
system of a centralized democracy, with five Church officers as dominating
representatives, brought new ideas too fast into the KEC-2 pattern of
collective leadership. The KEC-2 indigenous leadership with all its
shortcomings had the support of the KEC-2 elders and ordinary Christians. This was hardly the
case of the new KEC-2 in its EECMY synod set-up in 1963.[83]
Roots of New Conflicts
It seems as if the centralized approach of the EECMY to the KEC-2 in
1962-64 and the lack of contextualization were major reasons for the problems generated
in the early period of more intense EECMY/KEC-2 relationships. One cannot speak
of a long-range plan on the part of the EECMY in its behavior
towards the KEC-2 in 1962-64. On the contrary, the pace of the EECMY actions
seems to have been guided by the LWF budget process. When money was available,
EECMY chose a suitable man, Ato Zacheus, and appointed him the KHMP Executive Secretary.
Qes
Gudina was sent to the KEC-2 from an unsolved
conflict in Nakamte on his way to studies abroad.[84] He made a concerted effort in the
KEC-2 and used a model familiar to him, that is, the Shoa and Eastern Wollega Synod Constitution and by-laws, as a means of
reorganizing the indigenous independent KEC-2. He was in a hurry as he was
going to leave the country. He probably had little time for reflection on the Kambata/Hadiya context and the KEC-2 legacy.
The lack of
understanding of the KEC-2 legacy and its context on the part of the EECMY at
this early stage proved to be very negative to the KHMP results in 1962-64. The evident problems of
communication experienced by the EECMY Church officers in their contacts with
the KEC-2 and local KHMP representatives were signs of this lack of
contextualization. Ato
Zacheus s central position and his favoring of the Abonsa Seven were already established when Qes Gudina started his mission with a view to implement
EECMY democracy. His arrangements came both too late and too early. Actually, they reinforced an inherent conflict and further
dissonance.
It is
tempting to try to find simple explanations and scapegoats when analyzing conflicts of this kind. This can hardly be done in the complicated
framework of the EECMY - KHMP - KEC-2 interaction with its various aspects.
The idea of the KHMP was to bring educational, administrative
and spiritual support to the KEC-2. Furthermore, the EECMY aimed at integrating
the KEC-2 as one of its synods. Yet, the EECMY Synods in 1961 and onwards were
in fact in need of the same support as the KEC-2 when they now enthusiastically
were trying to bring it into the EECMY.[85]
The KHMP generated positive results, too. Yet there
were obvious weaknesses in the EECMY approach to church problems in the Kambata/Hadiya region. The results of the KHMP were not as
good as the EECMY had expected. From the autumn of 1964, this state of affairs led the EECMY leaders into a period of
analysis and reflection on how to continue its operations in the Kambata/Hadiya region.
The EECMY
change of attitude to the KHMP can be illustrated by the EECMY reports
delivered to the annual CWM meetings of the LWF for the years 1962-64.
Ato
Emmanuel Abraham proudly describes the EECMY involvement for
the year of 1962 in a written report:
Although
the church is a very young church, it has not neglected to initiate its own
home mission program. In the Kambata
area of Ethiopia, it has established, with the help of the LWF a home mission program which is directed by
the church and has no foreign missionary personnel serving in it. There are no
exact figures as to how many are now seeking admittance in the church in this
area, but estimates run from 25 to 45,000 individuals. The church has
instituted a five-year program during which time it hopes to be able to
organise, teach and bring into the church those in Kambatta
who have declared themselves so interested.[86]
The new
EECMY Executive Secretary, Qes Ezra Gebremedhin, made the following presentation
for the year of 1963:
The home
mission program of the church in Kambatta
is proceeding under the leadership of Kambata
Christians. In the year 1963 a synod was organised, a new elementary school
completed and a literacy campaign launched.[87]
The report
for the year of 1964, which was
presented by Qes Ezra, did not mention the KHMP.[88]
A Picture of the KEC-2 in
1962-63
In 1962 the independent church KEC-2 had set out for an unknown destiny. This
Ethiopian church tried to adapt to an EECMY synod structure. This was
especially the aim of some leaders and elders who tried to direct its course. The real
dynamics from our point of view, however, were hidden. This part of the KEC-2
was not that easy to influence.
Polity: The transformation
of the KEC-2 leadership functions, from a more flexible, collective system
based on consensus and long discussions to a more centralized administrative
system based on democratic principles of majority voting, was introduced by the
EECMY pastor in Nakamte, Qes
Gudina Tumsa. In the spring of 1963, he led an
intense campaign that aimed at rearranging the KEC-2 according to EECMY
patterns.
In the summer of 1963, the KEC-2 adopted an EECMY synod structure
consisting of three administrative levels, hence from now on it was
occasionally referred to as the Synod :
A Synod Assembly ,
which corresponded to the former quarterly meetings, consisted of two
members from each congregation in the KEC-2.
An executive
committee consisted of the five Church officers plus eight others. It was
called The Board of the Kambata Church . It corresponded to
a certain extent to the monthly meetings of the KEC-2.
The executive leaders
were five men called Church officers . Most of them were from the Dodoba Seven . The President and
Secretary of the Synod were paid by KHMP budget.
The KEC-2 five sevens were then taught
how to adapt to an EECMY parish (sebaka)
structure with central administrative functions. These were, however, not easy
to implement in the sevens . Instead tensions between
the KEC-2 strongholds, the KHMP-dominated Abonsa Seven and the Dodoba
Seven , increased. The mobile character of the KEC-2
leadership structure was challenged by the KEC-2 new static center
in Mishgida. A new class of paid
KEC-2 church-workers evolved.
At a congregational level, the new ideas of drawing smaller
congregations together after some time met a stubborn and even violent
resistance.[89]
Especially strong was the reaction to collect and send away money for common
purposes. This was probably due to previous experiences of KEC-2 members before
the KEC re-structure in 1952.[90]
The efforts of re-structuring the KEC-2 polity thus led to two ecclesiastical systems
competing for influence in the KEC-2 in the summer of 1963: an independent
congregation-centered collective KEC-2 type and a
centralized administrative EECMY type. The competition fanned the flames of
discontent in an evolving multi-facetted conflict, which was induced by the new
KHMP budget-system introduced into the KEC-2. The
tensions generated a big conflict, which shook the KEC-2 from the summer of
1963.[91] Numerous
conflicts between elders of smaller congregations were reinforced by
former discontented elders, now losers in the new system, and the poor
examples set by the new KEC-2 Synod s top leaders Ato
Tamru Segaro and Ato Zacheus Edamo.[92]
Doctrine: Subjective aspects
of faith dominated KEC-2 doctrine. Qes
Gudina s teaching was actually the first time ordinary KEC-2 Christians and local elders were influenced by a systematic EECMY teaching
on the sacraments. Qes
Gudina, furthermore, emphasised the necessity to start Sunday schools and
confirmation classes in the congregations.[93] When it
was functioning, the Bible school provided traditional basic knowledge in the
Scriptures, probably augmented with some Lutheran doctrine. As the Bible school
itself was a tool in the conflict, its teaching was not effectual, however.
Ethos: The KEC-2 attitude to drinking and
polygamy was liberal.
Relations to the EECMY: At a national level, the KEC-2
elders and Church officers from 1963 took part in
the EECMY General Assemblies and executive committee meetings. At the regional
level, there was a flow of Ethiopian contacts between the KEC-2 and the neighboring NLM-related Sidamo and Gamu Gofa Synod. Scholarships were distributed for
education in different institutions. At the local level, the lack of
contextualization of the EECMY approach led to strong reactions
against the EECMY novelties. This had not been anticipated by the EECMY
representatives.
![Text Box: Map 2: The KEC-2 Five Sevens in 1963
[approximate scale 1:1,000,000]](6.Grenstedt,%20The%20Ministry%20of%20Qes%20Gudina%20Tumsa%20in%20the%20Kambata_files/image008.png){kind=small}
Size: In 1963 the KEC-2 membership was estimated at
about 30,000. As in 1961 this was a gross exaggeration.[94]
There were still five sevens in the KEC-2.
Qes Gudina Tumsa Connects FMS with the KEC-2,
1967-69
After studies at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota 1963-66, Qes Gudina returned to Ethiopia and served the EECMY as its
General Secretary from 1966 to 1979.[95] With his widening perspectives, he
resumed his efforts to support the KEC-2 in becoming a synod in the EECMY.
Heart-searching questions on the continued financing of the
Kambata Home Mission Program (KHMP) and its integration into the KEC-2 had forced Ato Djalatta to begin to contemplate the possibility of the
direct involvement of a new missionary agency in the joint EECMY-KEC-2
enterprise in the Kambata/Hadiya region. Continued
developments resulted in a new venture by the Finnish Missionary Society (FMS).[96]
In Africa
the FMS was hitherto mainly involved in Namibia and Tanzania. The EECMY with its international
connections took the initiative in the contacts with the FMS. In this new
process, the KEC-2 was simply at the receiving end.
It is this
development that will be the main preoccupation of this part of my paper. In
addition to the EECMY minutes, I mainly base my account on primary sources in
Finnish from the archives of the FMS, nowadays called the Finnish Evangelical
Lutheran Mission (FELM).[97]
The FMS Arrives in Ethiopia
On June 5, 1967 the FMS General Assembly decided to let the FMS Board
make arrangements for the start of a new involvement in Ethiopia, but it was
not yet fully committed to the Kambata/Hadiya region.[98]
When the
EECMY prepared the FMS survey in Ethiopia, it planned to present two
options, the Kambata/Hadiya region and the Western Wollega Synod (WWS).[99] However, the LWF preferred the FMS to choose the first. This is
further illustrated by a personal visit paid by Dr. Hellberg to the region in the rainy season of 1967.[100] On August 15, 1967 he
was able to report on his visit in the region to the EECMY Church officers. In
this time, he had actually travelled in the hilly
country from Durame to Hosanna on slippery roads mainly on mule, a distance
of c.60 km. His guides were Qes Gudina Tumsa and Ato Djalatta Djaffero.[101]
Dr Hellberg s impression was . . . that Hosaena would be a suitable location for a future Synod
Office as well as for the Bible school . . . . [102] There were many reasons for this,
but communication and light were the two mentioned. Astonishingly, according to
the EECMY minutes, nothing was said of the KHMP centre in Mishgida/Durame or the consequences for the work when the center was changed from the Kambata
area to Hadiya area. Dr Hellberg just limited himself to suggesting:
. . . that
in case the Finnish Missionary Society would undertake the work in Kambata, CWM would be in a position to give favourable
consideration to the request submitted to CWM/LWF in the five
year plan.[103]
This was a
clear message from the LWF to the EECMY. According to the EECMY, the LWF
had agreed to support the KHMP at the LWF/CWM meeting in April 1967 if a supporting mission was found. In August the FMS was explicitly recommended as such a mission.[104]
A three week trip,
October 16 - November 7, to Ethiopia had been prepared by the EECMY for the FMS delegates Rev. Ojanper and Rev. Remes. October 17-23 was set aside for a
survey of the Kambata/Hadiya region, October 24-31
for the WWS. One week would be spent in Addis
Abeba, including a meeting with the EECMY Church officers on the day before
their departure.[105]
EECMY Leaders Introduce the Kambata/Hadiya
Region to the FMS
On October 17, 1967 the FMS delegation went by plane from Addis Abeba to
Hosanna. The EECMY guides were Qes Gudina and Ato Djalatta.[106] It was stated that one should try
to make Hosanna the new centerof the church, and the
group visited a land-strip . . . reserved for the administration of the
church . Dodoba, which also was visited on the
trip, was not considered interesting for a Bible school any longer, however.[107]
There were
probably several motives for this new interest in Hosanna. As has been
indicated, Hosanna is a central place for the Hadiya ethnic groups, and Durame a central place for the Kambata
ethnic groups. By moving the KEC-2 center from Mishgida/Durame to
Hosanna it was moved from a Kambata centre to a
Hadiya center.
When Dr.
Hellberg in conversation with Rev. Ojanper calls Hosanna . . . a neutral place , this must be
understood as neutral in respect to the KEC-2 sevens .[108] Hosanna was not in the center of the conflicts of the KEC-2. In fact
the town of Hosanna seems to have been more or less an empty spot for the KEC-2
in 1967. In 1962 comity questions were more sensitive to the EECMY
than later on. In that year it would probably have
been complicated to place the KEC-2 center in
Hosanna, close to where the KEC/SIM center was
situated.[109] In 1967 the internal tension
between the KEC-2 sevens was a more problematic issue for the EECMY than
questions of comity, however.
It is
likely that the EECMY wanted a new start for the KHMP and the FMS missionaries to begin in more neutral ground
outside the spheres of influence of the stronger sevens of Abonsa and Dodoba and their mutual and internal conflicts. These
ideas, coupled with the advantages of having a new synod center
situated close to the Awraja center,
became decisive for the choice of Hosanna.[110]
The group
continued to the south of the region by plane, via Soddu, the capital of Wollamo. At the Mishgida center, they visited
the Bible school with its thirteen students. It made a poor
impression on the Finns. The Mishgida School was more impressive with its 450 students.
After the stay in the Mishgida center,
they visited four small congregations in the Abonsa
Seven . These were Ambo, Abonsa, Djore, and Adilo. Then the group returned to Addis
Abeba via Shashamene and the NLM agricultural school in Wondo.[111]
The FMS Delegates Meet
the EECMY Church
officers
When the FMS representatives met the EECMY Church officers
in Addis Abeba to discuss the FMS engagement in Ethiopia, the following persons
received them: Qes Gudina, Ato
Emmanuel Gebre Selassie, Rev. Lundgren (SEM), and Mr. Magnar Mag er y (NLM). The Finnish delegates raised the
question of comity as a possible obstacle to working in the Kambata/Hadiya region.[112] They had been told by Mr. Hod ges of the SIM that concerning comity regulations
the SIM:
. . . did
not want to forbid anyone to come, but would on their
part go on working on their own. He argued that the
Comity committee had allotted Kambata to the SIM.
Naturally there have been confrontations with other missions.[113]
The EECMY s
answer to the FMS delegates reflects
Ethiopian independent mentality, which opposed the missionaries comity constructions. The Finns were accordingly
advised . . . not to bother too much about the SIM-work there, as no mission
has any special rights to the said area. [114] The goal for the work in Kambata was to build a national church. A new missionary
society was not needed, but workers sent by the FMS, were willing to work
under the EECMY.[115]
The
immediate need for personnel was further specified: an adviser, with experience
from another part of Africa, a teacher for the Bible school and a builder for a shorter period. It was
emphasized that there was need for investments both in personnel and economy in
the Kambata/Hadiya region. Rev. Ojanper realized that the EECMY was keen to get the
FMS engaged in the region.[116]
There was a
certain ambiguity as to what was expected from the FMS, however. When confronting the
issue of comity raised by the SIM, and while talking on
integration, it was stressed that the mission was under the EECMY and that
the missionaries were just co-workers in the church. When it came to concrete
expectations, the FMS was expected to make a huge input of money and personnel.
Thus, Qes Gudina stressed that if the EECMY did not invest in
personnel and money as in other synods, one could not expect any better
results. Ato Djalatta, who was not present at the Church
officers meeting, had for his part said that the new five-year plan would be
dependent on what the LWF and the FMS wanted to do. He hoped that the builder, the
adviser, and the teacher would soon arrive.[117]
It seems
that the two men with the closest knowledge of the KEC-2, i.e., Ato Djalatta and Qes Gudina, had quite a pragmatic view of the
FMS enterprise in the Kambata/Hadiya
region. Others were more concerned with ideology. The words above of not
sending a mission to the region and building a national church are vague when
considering the specific needs, which had been presented earlier to the FMS
delegates. They can be specified under the following three headings:
1. Spiritual needs: About 80-100 new evangelists
were needed for the KEC-2. The place of teaching should be in the Kambata/Hadiya region and it was
going to be given on two levels. One for students who had finished the third
class, and the other for students who had finished the sixth class.
2. Educational needs: Hostels were needed in Mishgida and in Hosanna. The other five sevens ought to have a
six-grade school of their own. Scholarships were needed. A vocational school
combined with an agricultural project would be welcome.
3.
Medical needs: A small hospital with fifteen
places was needed, and at least one clinic in each seven .[118]
Nothing had been said about who would meet
these needs except that the EECMY responsibility had been stressed. It is
reasonable to conclude that it was implied that the FMS was to supply the budget for the new projects,
hopefully together with the LWF. The EECMY leaders knew that the
LWF was interested in reducing its involvement in the KHMP-project, and the FMS delegates must
have been realized this by the FMS delegates at the 1967 CWM, too.[119] According to the FMS minutes,
though, the EECMY had agreed with Dr. Hellberg that the LWF would provide the budget at the
initial stage if the Finns sent personnel.[120]
What about the KEC-2?
According to available sources, the KEC-2 kept a low profile during the
FMS explorations of the Kambata/Hadiya
region. The presentation of the region was made by two Oromos - Qes
Gudina and Ato Djalatta. Ato
Geletta Wolteji s name is
also mentioned in the FMS report.[121]
In fact,
not one person from the KEC-2 or one local leader of the region is mentioned by
name in the Finnish report. In a similar way no one from the KEC-2 was present
when the FMS discussed the Kambata/Hadiya
region with the EECMY Church officers. The leader of the KEC-2 Bible school, Ato Leggese Segaro, obviously was English-speaking as
he was a graduate from the Mekane Yesus
Seminary. The KEC-2 President, Ato Erjabo Handiso, was most
certainly around. Neither of them is mentioned by name in the Finnish report.
The short
visit by the team to Dodoba conveys the impression that this place, which
for so long had been planned to be the site for a Bible school, was not of special interest any
longer. After all, this was the place where the majority of
the current KEC-2 pastors had been ordained by Qes Ezra Gebremedhin in 1965. Then, however, it seems
to have been regarded as situated in the middle-of-nowhere.[122]
Was the
move of the KEC-2 center from Durame to Hosanna ever properly discussed with the KEC-2? Or was
it just decided at a higher level ? I suggest that the latter is the case.
Thinking of the prevailing conflicts in the KEC-2, it may have been a wise
decision of the EECMY to let the KEC-2 representatives keep a low profile in
their presentation of the Kambata/Hadiya region.
Anyhow, one must admit that it was not an integrated presentation from a KEC-2
point of view. It was planned and arranged by EECMY officials on a national
level in Addis Abeba.
No strong
objection from the KEC-2 side on this state of affairs
can be traced though. It was then on its way to get a supporting foreign
mission. This was the vital issue for the KEC-2 in 1967.
The FMS Delegation Faces the Challenge
The FMS delegates were challenged by what they had
been introduced to in the Kambata/Hadiya region. They
were not to register as a mission, but to start its work as a part of the
EECMY. This was very much in line with theological discussions on the
integration of missions into the EECMY in Ethiopia in 1967.[123]
The
American Lutheran Mission (ALM) signed a document of such an
integration with the EECMY and the Wollo-Tigr Synod on May 29, 1966. This was well known to the
other synods in 1967. Meetings and deliberations concerning the integration of
the missions into the EECMY were taking place in 1967-68. The Synod Presidents
and the Lutheran Mission Directors listened to lectures on this
subject by Ethiopian speakers such as Ato Emmanuel
Abraham, Qes Ezra, Qes
Gudina, and Ato Djalatta.[124] The FMS had the chance to become an early follower of
the ALM in this respect. This was apparently
important to the FMS.[125]
Furthermore,
the financial engagement of the LWF in the region was regarded as an asset by the
FMS.[126]
The Decision of the FMS
In 1968 the groundwork was made for the integrated FMS approach in the Kambata/Hadiya
region. Parallel arrangements were going on in Ethiopia and Finland. On April
22, 1968 the FMS Board decided to start work in the Kambata/Hadiya region.[127] The EECMY leadership welcomed the
decision at the EECMY Executive Committee meeting in June 1968. The EECMY
looked forward to welcoming two new missionaries in January 1969.[128]
At the same
meeting of the EECMY Executive Committee, the KEC-2 presented a draft
constitution for membership as a synod in the EECMY. This draft was sent to the
EECMY Synods Presidents for comments.[129] Apparently it was still felt
necessary to base important decisions on the KEC-2 within the four synods. As
this new synod would become an important part of the EECMY body with its
reported high membership, the KEC-2 merger with the EECMY had to be well established
among the other synods.
Qes
Gudina Tumsa reports to the Commission on World
Mission (LWF) at Hiller d in Denmark in August 1968:
. . . The Kambata home mission program was one of the areas which has been
absorbing much of the attention of the church. The Finnish Missionary Society
was invited to come out to assist in this challenging undertaking by the
church, and we now rejoice over the fact that our invitation has been accepted
by the FMS to start work in January 1969.
A plan to form a team to organise the Kambata congregations in a synod structure is being carried
out and it is hoped that the Sixth General Assembly of the church in January
1969 will accept the Kambata Synod as a full member of the church, a fact which
will increase the number of synods of the church from four to five and a growth
in membership from seventy-seven thousand to over hundred thousand.[130]
The feeling
of relief and joy can be read between the lines in Qes
Gudina s report. The process of
integrating the KEC-2 as a synod into the EECMY had been initiated by Qes Gudina in the spring of 1963. Now the implementation
was not far away.[131]
On October
22, 1968, the EECMY President Ato Emmanuel Abraham and the FMS Director Rev. Alpo Hukka signed an agreement between the EECMY and the FMS in
Addis Abeba. The FMS s agreement with the EECMY
anticipated the document on integration between the EECMY and its cooperating
missions, which was finally signed on April 7, 1969. The agreement stated that:
The Mission
shall work with and within the Church in accordance with her Constitution and
shall in all its work, until otherwise decided, be directly responsible to the Church
officers.[132]
It should
be noted that the agreement concerned the FMS and the EECMY. Apparently the EECMY Church
officers already considered the KEC-2 an integrated part of the EECMY. However,
the FMS relations to the KEC-2 were yet an unwritten chapter. After all, it was
not in Addis Abeba but in the KEC-2, a church in transition, that the local
integration was expected to be realized.
The FMS appointed five missionaries for work in the Kambata/Hadiya region. The leader was Rev. Kaarlo Hirvilammi. He had experience from six years of integrated
mission work in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania (ELCT).[133] The
decision to choose a FMS-missionary from Tanzania and not from Namibia was probably due to the experiences of the
Tanzanian missionaries working in a church with a similar agreement on
integration as the EECMY was expected to achieve.[134] This experience was considered to
be of great value when trying to work under the
EECMY as an integrated mission .
At the
EECMY executive committee on June 13-14, 1969 the
EECMY members accepted the KEC-2 as the 5th synod of the EECMY. It
got the name the Kambata Synod . Today, in 2011, its
name is the South Central Synod (SCS).
Conclusion
When Qes Gudina Tumsa arrived in the Kambata/Hadiya region in February 1963, there was already
an evolving conflict between the KEC-2 church elders and the KHMP and its
powerful Director, Ato Zacheus Edamo.
It seemed as if one of the sevens , that is the Abonsa seven , had received too much favor
at the expense of the other sevens . The KHMP was experienced as a foreign
body by the KEC-2 elders and was not properly integrated into the KEC-2
ecclesiastical structure. The KEC-2 elders felt that they were losing authority
and were not listened to by the EECMY, which Qes
Gudina (perhaps too late) tried to rectify.[135]
Qes
Gudina s concerted effort to rearrange the polity of the indigenous KEC-2 into what was called a proper
church , that is, into an EECMY Synod model, needed the support of the KEC-2
elders. Qes Gudina s efforts were perhaps a bit too
ambitious in the short time he could spend in the region, just six months. The
small family-based house-churches being rearranged into larger units met
stubborn and even violent resistance. The transformation of the sevens into
an EECMY sebaka (parish) structure was not easy to
implement. The idea of having a static power-center
in line with an EECMY model, instead of a mobile KEC-2 one that promoted long
discussions and great collective participation, was not favored
by many of the KEC-2 members. They seemed to have enjoyed the KEC-2 polity with
sevens , monthly and quarterly meetings , rather than the three-level
structure of the EECMY. Anyhow, by this new structure, the KEC-2 elders (now
Church officers) formally regained their influence over the KHMP (and its Director), an achievement more easily said than done. To
employ some of the Church officers by outside funds was another foreign idea to
the KEC-2 with its legacy of self-support in line with indigenous principles
introduced early on by the SIM. In fact the KEC-2,
though weak, was self-supporting before the LWF program started in 1962. Even
worse was the idea to collect money to a centralized budget. That reminded the
KEC-2 members of one of the crucial motives of the split in the KEC in 1951.[136]
There was
an obvious lack of time, a lack of study of the history of the KEC and KEC-2
from the EECMY side (of which Qes Gudina was a key-person), and thus a lack of proper contextualization.
One result of the changes in the KEC-2 polity and the way the KHMP was
introduced in the region was an intense power struggle between the
representatives of the KHMP and the KEC-2, and also in
the KEC-2 itself. Though there were some positive effects of the EECMY Home
Mission , it was decided that the EECMY approach to the KEC-2 had to be
re-evaluated and rearranged, starting in1964.[137]
The
Lutheran doctrinal teaching of the KEC-2 by the EECMY was
introduced at the regional level by Qes Gudina. This
teaching would take a long time to be grasped and implemented among the KEC-2
members, who had been brought up in a Baptist environment mixed with indigenous
cultural ideas.[138]
In 1967-69 Qes
Gudina, now as General Secretary of the EECMY, once more played an important
part in the process of merging the KEC-2 into a synod of the EECMY. He became
instrumental as the one who linked the KEC-2 with the Finnish Missionary
Society. It is however interesting to notice that the deliberations of the FMS
and the EECMY was conducted at a national level. The KEC-2 was in fact just at
the receiving end of these procedures.[139]
The EECMY
vision from 1961 to support the KEC-2 was thus finalized in 1969 when the KEC-2
was accepted as the 5th synod of the EECMY, the Kambata
Synod . This process had perhaps become more adventurous than the EECMY could
have imagined.
The story
of the KEC-2 EECMY relations is an example of how an autonomous church
(EECMY) supports an African Independent Church (KEC-2) in an indigenous Home
Mission regardless of missionary comity rules. In this venture, Qes Gudina Tumsa was one of the key figures. He must be
admired for his endurance and dedication in this great challenge. Qes Gudina is still well remembered in the Kamabata/Hadiya region as one who transcended barriers of
ethnicity, social status, and denominationalism.
This way of doing mission is in line
with the legacy of the Evangelical Pioneers of the EECMY since the early
Bethel Congregation at Massawa. The early Bethel Congregation functioned as the
yeast of an expanding Evangelical counterculture in Ethiopia at the end of the
19th century, and this counterculture continued in the 20th
century in the EECMY. The concept for this type of attitude in mission can be
called Ethiopian Evangelical Solidarity .[140] Qes
Gudina Tumsa s ministry in the Kambata/Hadiya
region is a good example of this attitude.