JO-KANG’ATO: A MODEL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY IN THE ECCLESIAL LIFE OF THE CHURCH IN AFRICA

By Hezron Otieno Adingo

Hezron Otieno Adingo earned his PhD in Systematic Theology from Africa International University in Kenya, an MA in Biblical Studies (Africa International University), and a Bachelor of Theology from Bugema University in Uganda. He has had the opportunity to serve as a Pastor in Kenya and the United Kingdom. While serving as the Ministerial Director of the South England Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists, he was instrumental in guiding, coordinating, supervising, directing, and leading ministerial work within the 26 counties in the United Kingdom. Dr. Adingo continues with his ministry of mentoring Pastors and shepherding. Besides his expertise in Systematic Theology, especially Ecclesiology, his other
areas of research interest are Church History, Biblical Studies, Missions, Inculturation, and African Christian Theology.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Mar 27, 2024
• ISBN: 9798823024211

Book preview

© 2024 Hezron Otieno Adingo. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse  03/25/2024

ISBN: 979-8-8230-2423-5 (sc)

ISBN: 979-8-8230-2422-8 (hc)

ISBN: 979-8-8230-2421-1 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2024906360

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

All scriptures were taken from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

CONTENTS

Foreword

Preface

Acronyms

Introduction

Chapter 1 The History of the Church: Ecclesial Unity and Disunity

1.1 The Commencement of the Church

1.2 The Church through the Ages

1.2.1 The Church during the Patriarchal Period

1.2.2 The Church during the Mosaic Period

1.2.3 The Church in the New Testament Period

1.2.4 The Church during the Patristic Times

1.2.5 The Rise of the Papacy

1.2.6 The Emergence of Denominationalism

Conclusion

Chapter 2 Christian Unity as Understood in Various Ecclesial Traditions

2.1 The Roman Catholic Church Tradition

2.2 The Greek Orthodox Tradition

2.3 The Evangelical Protestant Tradition

Conclusion

Chapter 3 The Notion of Kinship in the African Church

3.1 Previous Scholarship

3.1.1 John Mary Waliggo

3.1.2 Agbonkhianmeghe Orobator

3.1.3 Charles Nyamiti, Bénézet Bujo, and Diane Stinton

3.2 Kinship as an Aspect of the African Family

3.3 The Extended Family System among the Luo

3.4 The Luos’ Perspective of Community

Conclusion

Chapter 4 The Concept of Jo-kang’ato among the Luo of Kenya

4.1 The Origin of the Concept of Jo-kang’ato

4.2 The Impact of the Colonial and Western Missionaries’ Activities on the Luo Unity

4.3 The Ideals Embedded in the Concept of Jo-kang’ato

4.3.1 Solidarity and Support for One Another

4.3.2 A Sense of Belonging

4.3.3 Meaningful Incorporation

4.3.4 Teamwork

4.3.5 Cooperation

4.3.6 Selflessness

4.3.7 Sound Leadership

4.3.8 Intergenerational Connection

4.3.9 Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

4.4 The Relationship between the Concept of Jo-kang’ato and Ubuntu

4.5 Using the Concept of Jo-kang’ato to Solve the Problem of Disunity in the Church

4.5.1 The Effects of Christians’ Engagement and Treatment of One Another as Jo-kang’ato

4.5.2 The Relationship among Christian Denominations Arising from the Treatment of One Another as Jo-kang’ato

4.5.3 Ways through Which the Concept of Jo-kang’ato Could Address the Generational Gap within the Church

4.6 The Weaknesses and Strengths of Jo-kang’ato

4.7 Behavioral Symbols Affecting Christian Unity

Conclusion

Chapter 5 The Familial and Communal Ecclesial Models in Light of Selected Passages of the Scripture

5.1 An Overview of Ecclesial Models

5.2 The Familial Model of the Church

5.3 The Communal Model of the Church

5.4 The Ecclesial Relationship Presented in the Selected Passages of the Scripture

5.4.1 John 17:20–23

5.4.2 1 Corinthians 12:12–27

5.4.2.6 Care for the Weaker and Vulnerable Members (vv. 23–24)

5.4.3 Ephesians 2:12–22

5.5 A Comparative Analysis of the Concept of Jo-kang’ato and the Scripture

Conclusion

Chapter 6 The Implications of the Concept of Jo-kang’ato for Christian Unity in the Ecclesial Life of the Church

Conclusion

Conclusions

Bibliography

FOREWORD

It is now widely accepted that one’s reading of the scripture is shaped by theological and ideological presuppositions. Furthermore, each scholar or interpreter of the Bible has been formed within a certain cultural milieu. Our deep-rooted assumptions about the way things really are have been bred into us by our culture of origin. All Christians mix their culture with their faith and its practices. We can no longer cling to the idea that Christianity’s core is cultureless. Thus, when I read in the scripture about our being adopted into God’s family, my cultural assumptions shape my sense of the meaning of this metaphor. I know what a family looks like. But what if?

Biblical revelation does not provide us with clearly articulated, logical doctrines. Instead, we find stories, metaphors, symbols, images, sermons, songs, letters, and poems. Part of the beauty and richness of the Christian movement is that whenever the Christian teaching is received and assimilated in new cultural situations, new insights and nuances are added. The Spirit sometimes shows us something about Jesus that we haven’t seen before. We discover more about God and his ways when we hear his mighty acts articulated through the cultural lenses of yet another tongue, tribe, and nation. This is very good.

For this reason, I am thrilled to see this doctoral research carried out by Hezron Otieno Adingo being made available to the global theological fraternity. The global church is fortunate to have available the research carried out by a scholar who was socialized in the Luo community of western Kenya. When Dr. Adingo examines the scriptures regarding the unity of the church of God, he interprets the text through the eyes of a Luo. He sees and understands theological ideas based on the lifeworld of the African environment, which nurtured him.

Specifically, he explains to the rest of us an ancient Luo social construct, jo-kang’ato. To people shaped by the community on the shores of Lake Victoria in western Kenya, jo-kang’ato names dynamics that obviously fit the way things really are. I need this understanding.

Dr. Adingo’s work will benefit the entire church. His research combines exegesis of the scripture and historical (Western) theology. It integrates social anthropology and empirical research among the Luo community. Dr. Adingo demonstrates competence in handling the accepted methodologies of theological research but adds a new model to enlighten us as we seek to grasp the rich cluster of metaphors and stories through which the Bible reveals God’s will for the church.

I am happy to commend the book to all who long to see Jesus’s passion for the oneness of the church more fully manifest on earth as it is in heaven. Perhaps the Spirit will allow us to grasp more of God’s vision for the bride of Christ when we look through the eyes of this African brother.

Is Hezron O. Adingo’s proposal that we envision a Christian community through the lens of jo-kang’ato correct? Wrong question. Ultimately, as Jesus tells us, it is by their fruit that the authenticity of a theological model should be assessed.

George Renner, PhD

PREFACE

Disunity remains the dilemma that the church in Africa continues to face. The parsimonious relationship among Christians is a reality at the interdenominational, denominational, and local church levels. The mission of the church in Africa is affected as a result. The anticlimax of the results expected upon the assumption of ecclesial leadership and control by the indigenous people following the departure of Western missionaries testifies to this fact.

Ecclesiologists have proposed a couple of models to address the problem, the prominent ones being the familial model, which has its basis in the scripture and advocates for the mutual relationship found at home as a pattern for ecclesial life, and the communitarian model. The two, however, do not provide a proper understanding of Christian unity in the ecclesial life of the church in Africa because the relationship prescribed by them is not intimate or broad enough in scope to meet the expectations of African Christians.

The misunderstanding arising from the failure of these ecclesial models in their current form contributes to the persistence and escalation of disunity. The lack of proper clarification also culminates in remote relationships among believers and even the disowning of one another. The model of the family itself is laden with Western cultural overtones, which reek of individualism whose characteristics are isolation, prejudice, and exclusion. These are catalysts of conflict among parishioners. The model of the community too distorts the meaning of unity and inculcates a strange kind of engagement that is neither scriptural nor African. It has an assumption as its basis as it leads people to hope that tranquility and meaningful coexistence will be realized even without input to solve outstanding issues. Both models manifest exclusivism, which provides fodder for domination manifested in elitism, clericalism, superiority complexes, mechanical relationships, and alienation among Christians. The limitations presented in the models render a book of this kind necessary.

An attempt has been made in this book to establish the connection between the Luos’ concept of jo-kang’ato (kinship) and Christian unity by pointing out the bearing that the former has upon the latter. An implication for Christian unity by enrichment of understanding would be the outcome. This task involved determining the correlation between jo-kang’ato and the kind of relationship prescribed in the scripture for Christians within the ecclesial life of the church.

The exegeses of particular passages of the scripture and the culture of the Luo people through the interview data collected during my doctoral research from the village elders and church members across several denominations in Migori County, Homa Bay County, Siaya County, and Kisumu County, all found in the Republic of Kenya, facilitated the process. The study also relied on the Luos’ anthropological works. A comparison was drawn, which affirmed the validity of jo-kang’ato in theological reflection. The approach helped enhance the understanding of unity among Christians in the ecclesial life of the church in Africa.

The motivation for writing this book was derived from the impact that African Christian theology continues to make among African believers as the enrichment of various Christian teachings takes place. I add my voice to those of other scholars who have provided an African touch in their theological reflections. The concept under investigation is based on African kinship, which is the fabric of African society. As an insider, I was inspired by the kind of unity that the concept of jo-kang’ato fosters among the Luo, the consequences of which are manifested in the various aspects of life: social, economic, religious, and political.

Jo-kang’ato holds the various social units among the Luo in the form of households, families, lineages, clans, and the entire tribe, and beyond together. The support system prescribed by the concept is also remarkable. The kind of unity it fosters could be a pattern for Christian relationships in the ecclesial life of the church. The concept of jo-kang’ato, therefore, instills a new sense into the understanding of Christian unity. Its themes could be replicated in the ecclesial life of the church to inform and improve the relationship among Christians, leading to unity among them at all ecclesial levels.

Hezron Otieno Adingo

London, March 2024

ACRONYMS

INTRODUCTION

The ecclesial models of family and community enjoy prominence in the discussion of Christian unity as a pattern to relationships among believers in the various levels of the church. However, these models suffer from Western individualism, which limits their scope to the extent that they fail to make sense to African believers whose understanding stretches the same to encapsulate all the relatives, clan and village members, the whole tribe, and even those who are incorporated into their societies. Msafiri—a priest in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) in Tanzania, for instance—points out the weakness of the familial model as follows: When understood or interpreted from an exclusivistic Catholic oriented or Euro-American understanding, the family model can have very negative ecumenical consequences.¹ Tien, on his part, says that the familial model is supposed to demonstrate the universality of the Church because it includes all peoples. Therefore, the new family of Christians should overcome the negative aspects of the human family.² The dominating attitude stemming from the familial model often results in the autonomy of the clergy manifesting in disregard for the priesthood of all believers and the treatment of parishioners in a condescending or patronizing manner.³ Furthermore, certain denominations have used this model to advance an argument that they are more family than the rest. The communitarian model, on the other hand, tends to promote contentment with division rather than promote an intimate relationship among Christians.⁴ According to Schmitt (cited by Radner), they do so with the consciousness of their misgivings outstanding, but somehow regulated, and as a community of enemies, or people who cannot reach agreement on important matters.⁵

Failure to inject this ecclesial model with a new sense could promote deprivation of a sense of belonging since it takes after the typical community where certain members continue to be regarded as aliens even when they have been around for a significant number of years.

The blurring of understanding of Christian unity in the ecclesial life of the church is because in their conventional form, the two models do not take into consideration the Weltanschauung of the African people, which is collectivist. Consequently, disunity manifested in various forms abounds in the church at different levels.

Unless an extension, modification, and even correction of the age-long understanding of these models takes place, the misunderstanding will continue, the consequence of which is the perpetuation of disunity, as the reference of family and community is claimed exclusively by denominations and Christians who then view one another as strangers. However, viewed from the perspective of the African person, they could enhance unity among Christians and save the church from disunity, which presently manifests in tribalism, nepotism, racism, classicism, regionalism, nationalism, clericalism, etc. It also renders needless the desire for a denominational merger as a show of unity as it roots for a mutual relationship amid distinctions. In the process, the need for a mechanism that binds Christians in a way that they would regard one another in sibling terms becomes indispensable. That would involve listening to one another and benefiting from their engagements in a symbiotic manner. At the local church level, interacting that way enables openness, sincerity, and amicable ways of handling differences whenever they arise.

Disunity among Christians manifests in protracted disputes and prolonged bitterness and rivalry among believers, which often turns into breakups and the formation of offshoot groups headed by disenchanted leaders as the brethren feel uncomfortable remaining in the company of one another. Leadership wrangles are usually among the forms of disunity. Some of the major factors attributed to disunity among parishioners in Africa include the misappropriation of church funds, tribalism, and nepotism.

At the onset, certain behaviors are manifested, which include refusing to take part in the ordinances of the church and its other important functions, for instance, the Lord’s Supper; storming out of meetings and holding similar events differently to counteract what the rival party is doing; and withholding tithes and offerings. The acceleration of disputes to higher proportions is usually a result of the failure to act upon them promptly and the refusal to listen to one another or dialogue to find solutions to contentious issues. The more the opportunity to talk to one another is ignored, the deeper the animosity penetrates. The most unfavorable outcomes could include, among other things, lawsuits and physical fights. Tension gets out of hand in most cases and the intervention of government agencies is sought. In many cases, sects and denominations are born out of the situation. All these contribute to the loss of vitality as the consequence of deflected attention from spreading the Gospel to litigations.

At the interdenominational level, the problem of disunity is so critical that hopes of churches ever agreeing again continue to dwindle with time. This state has arisen partly from the Christians’ perception of the Christian message.⁶ However, Christians can still talk to one another and work together toward the realization of what Lonergan refers to as the redemptive and constructive roles of the Christian church in human society.⁷ The main concern, however, is that despite the glaring nature of the phenomenon of ecclesial disunity, a lack of significant scholarly interest in it continues. This is appalling since, from the inception of the Christian church, the problem of division has been receiving attention at different times. Such interests came to the fore in, among other ways, the establishment of heresiology, a theological discipline that looks into the teachings or beliefs of a given body of people who are thought to be propagating unorthodoxy.⁸ According to heresiologists, to believe wrongly is to divide, and to divide is to attack the true faith.⁹ The current dilemma of disinterest and indifference is spelled out by Radner:

The divided Church—to give her a single persona—forgets her division … the forgotten division—which multiplies into manifold divisions—is not for the sake of healing but for the sake of ongoing conflict, for the sake of remaining separate and allowing such separation to be unquestioned, to stand for the whole. Forgetting in the Church is a form of conflict, then, not reordering.¹⁰

Despite the tendency to underestimate ecclesial division, it is a challenge that needs to be addressed. Leithart points out that the Church is divided into various camps defined by their differences from others. To suggest otherwise is a form of ecclesial idealism that easily becomes a form of ecclesial bullying.¹¹ For example, among Protestant denominations who claim to share many things in common—for instance, creed and doctrines—division continues to characterize the way allegiance or subscription to the various tenets is expressed.¹² Disunity also manifests in, among other ways, the predatory relationship, which would sooner or later render churches that cannot cope with the stiff competition for members dysfunctional and inexistent.¹³ In the past, though, the scramble for members, as currently witnessed, was unheard of since believers understood themselves as one body that cannot hunt for itself and as parts of the same body that cannot compete with one another for membership.¹⁴

Parsimonious relationship among Christians in Africa is fueled by an arrogant attitude in the form of a superiority complex over other denominations, for instance, the mentality of being more biblically based in teachings than the rest of Christians.¹⁵ In Waruta’s words, this is tantamount to narrow-mindedness, parochialism and Biblicalism.¹⁶ The other factor is what Cleveland refers to as the right Christian, wrong Christian attitude, the consequence of which is the drawing of a wedge between believers and disapproval of each other.¹⁷ The tendency among Christians is that those belonging to their denominational persuasions are to be dealt with better than the rest who are categorized as outsiders.¹⁸ Viewing other Christian groups as our adversaries, though, results in unkindness toward them.¹⁹ Since some Christians believe that their position is the best and the monopoly of truth abides with them, they seek ways of silencing those with different views. They label them as heretics and black sheep who ought to be dealt with as such rather than as brothers and sisters who need to be loved.²⁰ The labeling of other children of God thus results in a misrepresentation of Him rather than serving Christ’s interests, bearing in mind that He reaches and accommodates all.²¹

Prompted by the misunderstanding of Christian unity in the ecclesial life of the church, which the familial and communitarian models have been unable to address, and the acceleration of disunity resulting from such failure, this piece of work becomes inevitable. The failure of the familial and communitarian models is due to their infestation with Western individualistic elements. The approach to Christian unity taken in this book is different because it utilizes an African concept to shed light on the two models, make them relevant, and use them to create a more biblical understanding of Christian unity. I have attempted to address this problem in a more meaningful manner using the concept of jo-kang’ato among the Luo of Kenya. While jo-kang’ato is familial and communitarian, it presents a terminus a quo from the conventional view of these social units. The concept brings to the fore the African people’s broadened view of family and community, and in the process, the meaning of unity is deepened. With improved understanding, appropriate conduct ensues, and optimum conditions for the thriving of unity are created among Christians.

One of the intentions for producing this work was to identify the implications of the Luos’ concept of jo-kang’ato and show how its adoption could help the church in Africa to achieve unity. There are not many ecclesiological works, especially among the evangelical circles, done with the help of thought-forms of African nature.²² This is among the areas where much work is needed.²³ This work is a contribution toward that effort. This concept continues to bind people together, just like it did in the past. It is posited here that the kind of unity fostered by the concept of jo-kang’ato could be a pattern to Christian relationships in the ecclesial life of the church. The study established the following:

1. There is a positive and significant relationship between the concept of jo-kang’ato among the Luo of Kenya and the kind of relationship prescribed for Christians in the scripture, hence its potential to address disunity within the ecclesial life of the church in Africa.

2. There is a significant relationship between the extended family system (kinship) among the Luo of Kenya and the kind of relationship offered for Christians by the familial model of the church in relation to unity within the ecclesial life of the church.

3. There is a significant relationship between the community as understood and practiced among the Luo and the communal relationship that is expected of ecclesial life as a panacea to disunity within the church in Africa.

CHAPTER 1

The History of the Church: Ecclesial Unity and Disunity

This chapter traces Christian unity in the ecclesial life of the church back to history with specific interest in the church’s commencement and performance over the ages, beginning from the patriarchal period and into the Mosaic period, the New Testament (NT) period, the patristic times, the rise of the papacy, and the emergence of denominationalism.

1.1 The Commencement of the Church

The NT