adminRobert Matikiti
IT must be stated from the onset that the London Missionary Society (LMS) and the Jesuits (SJ), who had accepted large portions of land from Cecil John Rhodes, were tied to the scheme of the white settlers’ political agenda to dominate politics in southern Rhodesia.
Formed in 1903, the Southern Rhodesia Missionary Conference was the first interdenominational body in the country with its main concern for church-state relations affecting African education, health and social welfare.
The missionaries’ stance during the initial stage of colonialism was one of complicity; their mission was linked to politics. In an interview with Mr D. Mafinyani, the General Secretary of the Zimbabwe Council of Churches stated the following: “The missionaries connived with exploiters — the colonisers — in the marginalisation of the indigenous people. There are two sides to the church. This was the bad side.
Remember Lobengula did not want to sign “the X of approval” for Rhodes to rule Matabeleland. He was forced by a missionary Robert Moffat to do so. In good faith he signed, only to realise that he had lost control of his territory. This Moffat approach is still in existence today. The missionaries were part and parcel of the colonisation process.
The other side is that of a few missionaries like Skeleton who worked for democracy and majority rule. (Interview with Mafinyani at the Zimbabwe Council of Churches, May 2 2008.)
Indeed, during the 90 years of colonial occupation, in which a small minority ruled the country to the total exclusion of over 95 percent of the population, only a few missionaries were on the side of good governance and multi-party democracy.
The Unilateral Declaration
of Independence
Laakso (2002:327) points out that the Rhodesian Front (RF) “created the strongest party machinery ever known in the country.” The major aim of the RF was to promote
European interests and to defy domestic and international pressures for change in the minority governance of Southern Rhodesia. In 1965, the Smith government declared a state of emergency in order to allow the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) to take place.
Other laws were enacted, such as the Emergency Powers (Maintenance Law and Order) Regulations, which allowed for detention without trial, banning of public meetings and curtailment of political activity. After the declaration of UDI on November 11 1965, the Christian Council of Southern Rhodesia issued a statement condemning UDI. The Council and Government were antagonistic over the issue of multi-party democracy.
Meredith (1979) argues that the struggle in Southern Rhodesia was no longer confined to a matter of individual rights but involved the wider issue of political power.
After the introduction of UDI, the church and government increasingly found themselves on a collision course.
The church was now caught between the UDI regime and a nationalist movement that increasingly intensified guerrilla warfare.
The church in Southern Rhodesia became one of the strongest bastions of resistance to the government; with church mission schools across the country providing the only education for Africans, therefore offering opportunity for generations of African nationalists.
Until 1963 there was one main political movement known as the Zimbabwe African Peoples’ Union (Zapu).
The party split for many reasons. A new party was called Zimbabwe African National Union (Zanu) was formed. The major leaders of the nationalist movement, whatever their ethnic and political differences, had a church background.
Ndabaningi Sithole was a minister in the American Board Mission Congregational Church, while Abel Muzorewa was a bishop of the United Methodist Church. Joshua Nkomo was a lay preacher in the British-based branch of the Methodist Church, while Robert Mugabe was a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
As conflict between white and black communities deepened, the nationalists looked to the church as a welcome ally.
Church sympathy for the nationalist cause aroused strong resentment among white congregations as well as the government. Priests were frequently told that their duty was to preach the gospel and not meddle in politics.
The churches steadily raised the volume of their criticism of the government’s racial policies the only effect was to increase the gap between the church hierarchy and their white members.
Banana (1996a) argues that colonial rule was a dominant force that decreased the churches’ response; the typhoon of colonial rule overwhelmed churches.
The undisguised behaviour of the dominant class led by Ian Smith’s Rhodesian Front government was to perpetuate a policy of overt racial division. Banana further argued that through all the subjugation and poverty, the church and its servants never ceased to tirelessly work towards the attainment of a truly democratic society.
Several nationalist leaders and politically conscious ministers of the Methodist Church spoke against the unilateral act of defiance by the Smith regime.
Banana (1996a:86) postulates that “the UDI represented a travesty of justice, bastardisation of civilisation and an irreclaimable erosion of Christian values and traditions and its only claim to fame was that it opened the way for purportedly legitimate exploitation of the already oppressed African.”
A Catholic priest, Bishop Donal Lamont, an extremely conservative and outspoken critic of the Southern Rhodesian government, worked continuously to promote majority rule and multi-party democracy. He produced joint pastoral letters, with his fellow churchmen, denouncing racial injustice. In his view, the church had to move into politics only when the government passed laws that infringed upon the rights of man as handed down through the gospel.
The 1969 Constitution
The churches’ entry into politics came largely with their opposition to the 1969 Constitution that entrenched white rule and further strengthened segregation.
Bishop Lamont saw it as a move by the state into the Church’s sphere of influence, for the new laws prevented the churches from carrying out their duty.
The Land Tenure Act, introduced at the same time as the new constitution, made it illegal for either race to enter another’s area without applying for permission from the government. The churches refused to register under the new act or apply for permits to hold land and threatened to close down their schools and hospitals.
After months of argument, they forced a concession from the government; an amendment was issued without the churches needing to apply.
Meredith (1979: 232) states: “Bishop Lamont was the most vociferous critic of the 1969 Constitution”. In Lamont’s view, the constitution amounted to moral violence and terrorism. The Southern Rhodesian government would prepare the way for communism by creating conditions which made communist ideology attractive. Supporting African aspirations through missionary work, the Catholics were the dominant church in the fight against the constitution.
Even the Anglicans and Methodists, with larger white congregations and fewer ties in the vast rural areas, were prepared to join in condemning government policies. Methodist leader Muzorewa urged Africans to set their sights high, warning against apathy and despair, advising them to fight for their political rights.
Some government officials considered the churches to be more a political force than religious organizations. However, their criticism against the Anglicans and Methodists was conducted in a less aggressive manner than against the Catholic hierarchy.
Bishop Lamont lambasted the Southern Rhodesian racial ideology as being in essence the same as that of Nazi Germany, differing from it only in degree of application (Meredith 1979:234). He condemned the government for summary arrest and restriction of political opponents.
Ministers in the Rhodesia Front retaliated by accusing some priests as being partisan and being agents of nationalist movements. As the conflict spread, the guerrillas turned to remote mission stations for food and medical supplies.
Adapted from an academic paper in the book “The Role of the Church in the Struggle for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe”
Online Reporter