Since the demise of apartheid and the beginning of the democratic order in South Africa, the religious scene became open for all players. Whereas before 1994, one hardly knew that there were other faiths such as Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. because where I grew up there were practioners of these faiths, post 1994 introduced voices we hardly knew existed. The first religious faith I heard about and not in a positive light was Islam. Back in 1993, at a Christian conference, one speaker told the crowd that Muslim countries of the Mid East had embarked on a campaign to Islam-ize South Africa through the use of petro dollars. He further stated that there were Muslim missionaries sent into South Africa to accomplish just that. Of Course later, one came to see here and there, even in a remote area such as the place I grew up in, mosques being erected. Word got around that the Muslims erect Mosques without help from the local communities, run feeding schemes from these newly created mosques and through that ultimately gain adherents. Was that true or not? Well I do not know. But what if that is true? Who would have a problem with that and why?
In answering the above question I think it is important to acknowledge the historical background of this country. South Africa under white rule which spanned three centuries, was percieved as Christian. The indigenous systems were undermined and disregarded. Other faiths were seen and related to as guests in a christian country therefore subservient to Christian State Authority. The many ethnic Africans adopted a syncretistic approach to the religious problem confronting them. It has been documented that most would be Christian by day and by night would practice their customary religious faith. An indigenous movement was born which sought to accomodate African Christian spiritual experiences and aspirations. Thus South Africa has a very strong Christian influence. So with the demise of apartheid, CHristianity lost the power of a favoured state religion. Naturally Christians experienced anxiety brought about by the new order. And those of the evangelical orientation denounced the new order (at least in some quarters). They saw it as exercising an apostacizing influence upon the church. Thus this perspective can and does become aggressive in the undertaking of preaching for the purpose of conversion.
It is that aggressiveness in the undertaking of missionary activity that brings out into the open who would have a problem with the advent of Muslim believers into the field traditionally reserved for the Christian converting machinery by themselves. The problem here is that Muslims seem to be able to respond to felt needs of the people whereas Christian churches in the main have not been seen to respond accordingly. This is not to say that Christians do not respond the human misery. But it serves to drive home a point that when Christians do, they do it not as an ongoing response to the plight of the destitute. Actually the Christian message lost its focus on the real and concrete human being and his situation for some far away comfort. Thus when another faith comes around, and practices compassion, those christians who are active in the conversion of the people feel threatened. This is also understandable, when one has to choose between some eternal comfort and comfort now, chances are that the latter might be chosen.
What I see as a challenge to Christian missions is: The christian church has to integrate proclamation of the Word and participation in welfare of the communities it goes to. Having said that, then one can bring in the question of possibility of Christian - Muslim cooperation. Seeing that both Christians and Muslims whatever their motivations, seek to better the lives of the destitute, how possible is it for them to cooperate in this venture? Or may be a different question needs to be asked: Would any of the two faiths engage in alleviating the plight of the poor if there was no possibility of gaining converts?
No comments:
Post a Comment