Not long ago I had a conversation with three Quakers, each from a different part of the US. We talked about Friends in Kenya, the east African country where the largest concentration of Quakers live. I expressed my concerns about an upcoming seminary faculty trip there and how I did not want us to continue the long history of cultural imperialism that dishonors the Other by assuming we have what they need.
We then discussed briefly the denominational body, Friends United Meeting, that provides oversight for many of the yearly meetings (i.e., regional associations) in the country [CORRECTION: 'provide oversight,' was my original phrase but is probably not the best description...perhaps, instead: 'that works in a partnership with']. I commented, as I often do, that given the demographics and population density of global Quakerism, that the denominational office should relocate to Nairobi or, that we should have more Kenyans working in the central offices here in Richmond, Indiana, or at minimal, we ought relinquish US oversight of Kenyans Quakers.
Since we were talking about education, I mentioned the irony that STILL, we (i.e., white, US Quakers) were in leadership of the major Friends theological training institute in the country, Friends Theological College (FTC).
I’m a professor so I am accustomed to having a room full of people disagree with me. It’s part of the job. However, this conversation was startling. Each person, two women, one man, in his or her own way, stated that Friends can’t be trusted…at least Kenyan Friends. I wasn’t prepared for that.
“They’re not ready yet to have leadership.” (Really? FTC was founded in 1942…that’s 68 years ago.)
“There has been so much corruption in the past, I’m not sure it’s time.” (Friends are no stranger to scandals: financial, sexual, political. To suggest, however, that having a white North American in leadership is a guarantee this will not happen in Kenya is nothing short of insulting.)
“They need someone in leadership who has academic credentials the Kenyan government will acknowledge.” (Ok. I understand this argument. For accreditation and for public recognition, academic qualifications are crucial. However, what I do not understand is how in over half a century of involvement we have not been able to do what is necessary to minimize this dependency.)
Then came the final blow. One of my conversation partners said: “They don’t trust each other. They want us to be there.”
I do not know whether this is true, but I suspect it is just another one of the self-assuring justifications that have been used for centuries by those who colonize and who subjugate others in the name of a great ideal. In this case, the “ideal” is a version of Quakerism I simply do not recognize.
I want to state in no uncertain terms that I have a great deal of respect for the persons who have been and who are presently providing leadership in FTC. Some of them are personal friends of mine. My concern is not about the personalities but with the principle. This is, it seems to me, the inverse of the last comment made in my conversation with these three Friends. For some, at least, the principle is: “We do not trust them. We want to be there.”
What do you think?
[...] I’m a… Oct 21st, 2010 by Martin Kelley. // nRelate.domain = "www.quakerranter.org"; //David Johns: Trusting Friends? /**/ Share this:EmailFacebookPosted in: misc. ← Unpresenting workshop style Francis [...]
Thanks David for giving me an opportunity to respond to the statements: “We do not trust them. We want to be there.”, “They don’t trust each other. They want us to be there.” These are statements made by three American Quakers in a conversation with David, which was about the relationship between American and Kenyan Quakers.
In my view, these are attitude statements made on the basis of various experiences, perceptions, or sets of socialization. We need to find some criteria to verify these statements. Such an approach would be suitable for an academic project, since it will generate a great cycle of debate. However, since policy whether public or church policy is not at all times a product of reason; but that of various winning interests, forces, and pressure; such a project will demand very influential prophetic advocacy methods, in order to impact the Quaker system.
The best practical approach to these questions is to find out: What are the implications of this understanding to the American and African partners, as well as the development of missions in Africa. In this regard, I would like to put these statements into perspective. These statements summarize the understanding that influences the partnership between American and African Quakers. In my understanding, these statements are not merely the opinion of individuals; but the values of the system. These values are always passed on from one generation to the next generation of leadership; and are maintained as the measure and determinant of what the system chooses to do or not to do. Some of the questions we can ask as African and American Quakers are: Whether this understanding improves ministry in Africa or just ensures that American donations are secure; and to what extend has this understanding improved ministry in Africa. We can also seek to determine the impact of this understanding on the stakeholders as well as Quaker missions in Africa.
I would also like to give my response to each of the statements. In regard to the statement: ‘Friends cannot be trusted’, I am of the contract opinion. Friends can be trusted. Kenya has about 15 Yearly Meetings; all these yearly meetings have many leaders who serve faithfully at village, monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings levels. Some of the leaders have served quite well in various Quaker International organizations, and have commanded outstanding respect in regard to their faithful service. If Kenyan Quakers can’t be trusted, then we need to think of the best solutions. Christian ministry is a long term process; Jesus described it as a journey from Jerusalem, to Samaria and to the end to the world (Acts 1:8). In other words, the end of the world is a long way to go, both in time and space. In this regard, both American and Kenyan Quakers should think of a power relation that realistically translates into empowerment of the Kenyan Quakers. The current power relation should be restructured, since it breeds and sustains a culture and system of dependency. It is important to remember that Biblical authority is contagious. This authority is shared out of divine love between the Father and the Son; as well as the Son and believers who also become sons of God (John 1:12). Learning from this model of utilizing divine authority can be helpful in transformational leadership.
It is true that some Kenyan Quaker leaders have failed in the past. This is a situation that occurs in every organizational system across organizations and countries. In this regard, this is an organizational management issue, which requires critical analysis, in order to put in place mechanisms that can promote professional values, as well as institutional changes. If we see it as a Kenyan Quaker issue, then we will replace Kenyans with other Kenyans or Americans. If we see it as an organizational issue, then we will focus on redesigning the organizational systems, procedures, and relations, so that the output can be more meaningful as Jesus Christ required, when he called his disciples ‘ the salt and the light (Mathew 5:13-16).
In regard to the statement ‘They are not ready to have leadership’, my opinion is that Kenyan Quakers have been ready for leadership for many years. However there are two critical challenges that give justification to the statement ‘They are not ready for leadership’. The first challenge is that we do not have a strategy and policy for human resource development. As a result, it is impossible to think about developing resources in order to enhance human resource development. I remember in 2004, Patrick Nugent and Mary Kay who were then the principals at FTC came up with a bright idea. They initiated the affiliation of FTC to St. Paul’s. These were the benefits of the affiliation: Quaker students studying at FTC would get valid Diplomas recognized by the Commission of higher education in Kenya. They would be allowed to advance their studies at St. Paul’s or any other university/college for two or three years. This meant that Quaker students would get value for their money. They would also save a lot of resources and time. Before the affiliation, Quaker students seeking further studies would take four years to get a bachelors degree. John Sarrin was largely or fully responsible for meeting the cost of this education. The most surprising part of this story was when some Quakers in America argued that Kenyan pastors did not need higher education. Their allies in Kenya complained that St. Paul’s was catholic and so Quaker pastors would be theologically corrupted. Three years later, Quakers studying at FTC by then were told that FUM had made a new policy that Pastors will not be funded for further studies until they serve for a minimum of three years, after graduating with a Diploma from FTC. The argument for this principle was that pastors need to get experience. These three arguments ignore the following facts. First, most pastors come to FTC when they have served the church for many years. How is such a policy relevant to them? Secondly, while pastors train at FTC or in other universities or colleges, they serve God in various Quaker churches where they are assigned mininstry. What then was meant by experience in this policy? Third, this idea ignored the fact that the Quaker church in Kenya needed pastors advancing in education, so that they could meet the need for African Quaker leaders in higher leadership positions. Fourth, this policy ignored the competitive social, political, and religious context of Kenya, which demands that pastors must be well educated, of sound faith and with the capacity to relate to, and influence the ecumenical nature of Christian context of service in Kenya.
The challenge Quaker pastors in Kenya face as they strive to advance in theological education in Kenya is deeper than the role John Sarrin or any other Quaker fund plays in their education. This is an important point to note, since it contributes to the reason ‘why Quakers are not ready to take leadership’. Here is an example; most pastors in Kenya come from low or middle income socio-economic class. They cannot leave their homes to go and study at FTC. While at FTC, I heard testimonies from pastors who had to resign or who lost their jobs in order to come and study at FTC. After one year, they struggled since they did not have income to support their families, or themselves while studying. This means that to join FTC means to sink into poverty. The more you advance in theological education, the poorer you become. Centralizing theological education at FTC is what limits many pastors to study in this Quaker institution. These pastors cannot accept poverty in order to ‘serve the Lord’, leaving their families impoverished.
Finally, the problem of low pay limits the opportunities for getting highly qualified Quakers to serve in Quaker positions at FTC. If one is a lecturer in Nairobi, he/she can accept moderately low pay, since he/she can teach in several universities and supplement his/her income. This cannot happen when one is at FTC. It is at this point I think we need to congratulate those who have for many years endured low pay at FTC in the name of serving the Lord. Therefore, thinking about whether Kenyan Quakers are ready for leadership should involve factors such as those I have highlighted.
In regard to the statement ‘they want us to be there’, I believe that there is nothing wrong with American Quakers being there. The problem is whether what they are doing there is helpful or not. Since we are talking of partnership, we will need each other. However, I strongly believe that this relationship should be transformative. We should see the changes in power relations. We need to see the African church grow into self reliance. Quakers in Kenya are estimated to be at least 150,000. If each Kenyan Quaker gave Ksh 500 in a Year, (Ksh 45- a month/half OR half a dollar per month). Kenyan Quakers can contribute Ksh 75,000,000 a year. This money can partially fund FTC and other FUM missions. I think the African representative at FUM should focus on strategies which can get this money from Kenyans instead of focusing on the US. There is no poor person in Kenya who can be selfish to the extent of denying God Ksh 50 a month.
Wow, I didn’t realize my name was all over the place so I thought I should comment after I read the original posting by David Johns and all 34 responses. During this time (I’m in Kenya) I was making paper-airplanes for my step-grandsons, one who happens to be named Danny Zarembka–the Zarembka comes from the African custom of naming a child after the grandparent and Zarembka sounds like an African name and now is an African name. (For those who don’t know, my wife, Gladys Kamonya, is a Quaker born in Kenya.)
I remember when we started Friends Peace Teams and were under the care of Baltimore Yearly Meeting, a Friend in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, wondered why he had to send his contribution all the way to Baltimore. With FPT’s office now in St Louis (in the Meetinghouse), people wonder why since St Louis has not been known as a seat of historic Quakerism. Kaimosi today is closer to Philadelphia than Philadelphia used to be from Baltimore–travel time that is.
I have also sat on many different Quaker organizations and committees in the United States. Many a time there has been discussions of getting some wealthy, influential Quaker on the Board so that they will contribute and get their friends to contribute. How is this different from Kenyan Quakers wanting relationships with people who might have the ability to raise funds?
The African Great Lakes Initiative on its Working Group (decision-making body) has 3 Africans (born in Kenya, Burundi, and Zimbabwe) plus one person residing in England (out of 10 members). Five of these are also under 40 years of age. We meet (mostly for free using Skype) by conference call once per month with much email communication in between. There is no longer the need to have “national” bodies.
AGLI’s funding comes from all over. Our biggest single donor is from Australia. We get significant funds from Canada, Great Britain, and elsewhere but we still dwarf by half what Norwegian Quakers get from their government to support Quaker work in the Great Lakes region.
I guess American Quakers are still under British colonialism since Margaret Frazer is British. Perhaps as she is retiring, we can find an appropriate American Quaker for the position.
I once made the mistake of calling a white Quaker South African, British and got a real earful.
I am astounding to see how powerful Ann Riggs is as Principal of Friends Theological College. She seems to control all the education among Quakers in Kenya including the 225 secondary schools, about 750 elementary schools, and many more nursery schools which are under the care of Quakers here. The Chair of the Board of Friends Theological College is a good friend of Gladys and me and she would love to have Anne stay forever and ever. I don’t see one sign of remnant colonialism in this as she is just assessing Anne’s worth to the institution.
I think the whole basis of the discussion which is Kenya versus American is based on this secular world and not the world of God. I consider myself Quaker first and foremost and tolerate all those other identities only because the world forces me in to it.
In the 1940′s, 50′s and early 60′s there were more than 50 foreign FUM Quakers here at any one time. Gladys can remember many of them fondly (or not so fondly) as they have all left their reputations. Edith Radcliffe stayed her for decades until she passed away. Most are beloved.
Here Gladys and I attend Lumakanda meeting. We are members of Bethesda Meeting in Baltimore Yearly Meeting. Am I a missionary here at Lumakanda Church, but Gladys is not a missionary in Bethesda Meeting?
Dave Zarembka
David and Friends, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that
corruption is an issue for African Friends only. Wherever
Friends spend (by our standards) a lot of money, there
must be proper accounting. And there’s no need whatsoever for accountants in Africa to come from
elsewhere. Quakers in Africa can do all the accounting
that must be done there; they are already doing most
of it; but it must be done, just as Quaker accounting must
be done in North America, or Britain, or anywhere.
As for the rules of sexual conduct, I note that Friends
Peace Teams (African Great Lakes Initiative) has the same
rules for its volunteers in Africa as Friends United Meeting.
A volunteer who breaks these rules will be sent home. This
information is published on the AGLI website, aglifpt at org.
All I can take from this is “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” I don’t think that these rules show that
FUM, or AGLI, is dictatorial. The rules simply reflect the
best “sense of the meeting” in their organizations. At least in the case of Friends United Meeting, I believe the major purpose of these rules is to prevent polygamy among the
the staff—-a big deal in Ramallah as well as in Kenya.
But I strongly suspect that even in the wealthiest
African nations, such as Kenya and South Africa, poverty
is a far greater concern of most Friends than the rules
of accounting or the rules of sexual conduct. Most Friends
in Africa are, by our standards, desperately poor; and few
Friends in the U.S.A. seem to understand this, or if we do
understand this, to know what to do about it.
And I feel quite certain that most African Friends have a greater concern even than the poverty that surrounds them. And that concern is continual violence and war.
It is the job of African Great Lakes Initiative, and Quaker
Peace Network, and all the 20 or more groups that are
members of the Quaker Peace Network, to confront the
terrible realities of war in Africa: massacre, mass rape,
homelessness, and widespread trauma. Friends can read the minutes and epistles of the Quaker Peace Network,
because they are posted on-line; just google that phrase,
and you will find them only a few entires down from the top. Here you will find reports from every Quaker com-
munity in Africa, including eastern Congo, which must be
the most distressed Quaker community in the world.
There is also detailed information on the AGLI website.
Friends, please pray for these Friends; don’t carp about
them. Ron Bryan, please pass on our love.
Jeremy Mott
I read with interest all of the posts on this subject concerning Quakerism, African and North American style. I depart in 10 days for a five week trip to Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. I will have opportunity to speak or teach in all of these countries. I would like to add that I have personal friends that I respect and appreciate profoundly from our Kenyan Friends. I do echo the idea that thy day is coming and is coming sooner than some see possible, when the African leaders will be stepping forward, breaking free from or providing leadership to, the rest of the world of Friends. I try to listen intently to the words of my friends from Kenya and measure that with the words of my friends in North America. We are drawing closer to a time when they (Africa) will beging to reveal to us clearly where the Quakers are and will be in the future. Right now, I am told, that they do not wish to be identified as Quaker because of all the liberal, theology/sexuality issues that are brought to them via Europe and US visitors. However, they do want American and European leadership and education as it pertains to mission, evangelism,and finances to support their educational needs. Many of their current leaders plead for us to not abandon them as they try to instill transparency and integrity in oversight and management of the current works overseen by FUM.
It is a complicated and still unraveling issue. I want to be used of God to speak and witness as the Spirit leads to a very warm and receptive people in Africa (this is my fourth trip). I have moved past the point of wanting to show them the right way and more to the listening and sharing what is opened to me by the Spirit of discernment and love. Let me be clear, no matter what we, the supposed more sophisticated anglo’s believe we have the corner on, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. We must love them where they are and help them as they help us to grow in that relationship with the God of this universe,not the god of our personal desire.
Ron,
Blessings to you in your travels!
I think you are right in the growing influence of African leaders (not only within the RSF). It is a challenge, I think, for North Americans to know what to do with such emergence.
In some cases, as you note, theological differences are marked. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference (Anglican), a liberal US Episcopalian bishop uttered the most remarkably racist, colonialist comments about African Christians I had heard come from such a public figure. (Thankfully, then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, gave him an ear-full and demanded a public apology!)
This theological difference has already manifest itself, as you note, between US and Kenyan Friends. How do conversations proceed? …or, is there even a conversation to be had? It could be that some of the processes of theological discussion that hold all things open (that often characterize our western academic style) really take little very seriously and appear more a game to non-US Christians (Quakers and others) for whom these ideas are not the play-things of western capitalist consumption, but the words of life.
I will keep you in my prayers as you travel. Learn much and bring some back to help us understand and grow.
David
I write as the head of Friends Theological College. FTC was indeed founded in 1942, under a different name, and operated for many years at a much lower level of academic expectation than the current programs. The current courses of study almost all presuppose a completion of secondary school. All are currently carried out according to the same requirements as apply to similar institutions of higher education in Kenya and the same standards used by accredited institutions of theological education across Africa.
At the time of Kenyan national independence 1963-4, the college was made a responsibility of East Africa Yearly Meeting. In the 1990s that yearly meeting and the FTC board asked Friends United Meeting to assist them by taking the college under its care. As noted in other posts, Friends United Meeting does not “oversee” its member yearly meetings. Indeed the yearly meetings oversee Friends United Meeting, an organ created by and for the yearly meetings. But FUM does oversee Friends Theological College, in service to all the African FUM yearly meetings. The principal of the theological school – a role that in the US would be called its president – works as a member of the FUM field staff and reports to the FUM general secretary and the chairperson of the FTC board of governors. The FTC board and its chairperson are appointed by the Africa section of the FUM general board. The college is lead by an appointee from the United States, then, because African Friends have requested such care.
The burden of David’s discussion, however, is not entirely addressed by simply stating this datum of historical and institutional information. The faculty and administration of Earlham School of Religion are scheduled to visit FTC in June 2011. How might such a visit be thought of so that it makes sense as a gift rather than an imposition, an instance of a larger relationship that serves the needs and dignity of all? Are there paradigms that might be applicable to broader questions of relationship in the post-colonial era?
First and very importantly, most African Quakers are grateful that someone brought them the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ. While there are exceptions, most are appreciative of the introduction of new technologies and new forms of social life. They value modern medicine, cell phones and the internet, and a greater equality between women and men than their traditional cultural patterns used. My presence in Kenya and the expertise I bring seem to be viewed by many in similar ways – as an importation of desired resources rather than as a resented intrusion.
In a recent conversation I heard a recent graduate of FTC’s bachelors in theology program, who is now an adjunct faculty member at Friends Theological College, and an applicant to the Earlham School of Religion Access program, speak on the relationship he saw among the secular democratic societies and governments of England, the United States, and Kenya. He described England as the mother country of both the US and Kenya and the US as the older sibling of the more recently independent Kenya. There would certainly be other matters on which this man would speak of Kenya in African terms or of his tribe or sub-tribe in ways that made no reference to England or the US. Yet, the vantage point his remark creates is very important for understanding Kenyan Friends. He thought and spoke in terms of relationship not separation. And the root metaphor of his sense of relationship was familial.
How different from both David’s initiating post and the perspective of the conversation partners he references.
The adage made so widely familiar by South African Desmond Tutu makes African sense not just of the inherently relational character of individual human persons but of larger human communities as well: I am because we are. We are because we all are. Kenyan Friends are because the wide community of the Religious Society of Friends is. The teachers and administrators of Friends Theological College are because there is a wider community of theological educators of which the faculty and administration of Earlham School of Religion are also a part.
Kenyan Friends think very much in terms of ordered family relationships. People introduce one another to their “first born” and “last born” children, to their “elder brother” and “eldest brother.” If Friends in the United States are elder, predate the introduction of Quakerism in eastern Africa by two and a half centuries, then there is an expectation that Friends in the US will have some life experience, some accumulated wisdom gained over those centuries that we have a responsibility to share, especially when requested to do so.
Yet, African Friends also expect to be treated with the life-promoting respect and care that the elder sibling is traditionally expected to show to the younger, the parent to the child. Perhaps a reference to the three-fold understanding of community in African Traditional Religion is helpful: the ancestors, the current generation, and those yet unborn. In this understanding, a family, a community is not complete without this last group, without those yet to be born. Those who lie sleeping in the future generativity of our younger siblings’ children are also members of our community now. In this world view the education of students at Friends Theological College is an appropriate concern of all Friends because these students are the future theological parents of the spiritual children of us all.
Are North American Friends able to think less individualistically, more relationally? Are North American Friends able to accept, despite our anxieties about being paternalistic, the family metaphors that Kenyans find so congenial? Might there not be a richer and more abundant life in so wide a family?
Thank you for this thoughtful and context-expanding post, Ann. As you have seen, I’ve also posted it as a separate “Article” to assure it is not buried in this discussion.
Thank you for giving us more to consider.
I will want to return in the future to your important closing questions, particularly about individualism and relationality. This is crucial. As I’m sure you will anticipate already, my question will be whether the interaction Friends have in the world is premised on individualism, as you allude here, or whether it actually IS relational, but relational after a fashion that needs regularly to be evaluated (you use the word “paternalistic”).
I agree wholeheartedly that there is abundant life when we all participate in the wide family of God, as brothers and sisters.
Thanks again for this thoughtful and illuminating piece.
Dear Brad, you’re right that Zarembka
David is now in effect an African Friend, and
neither he nor FPT attempts to control the
outcome of FPT work. The outcome is left
to the Holy Spirit, as it should be.
Nevertheless, FPT has a largely American
board, which decides what to do, or at least
what to raise money for. ( Money is raised
almost altogether in North America. ) And
FPT does audit its funds; it has a half-time
bookkeeper in its St.Louis office, as well as
an office manager.
Right now, FPT is finishing up observing the
conduct of an election in Burundi, the first
in almost 20 years. I believe. They have
been spending plenty of money on this
from the U.S. Institute of Peace, a State
Dept. foundation. Surely they could not do
this if they did not audit, and did not at least
report on the outcome of their work. And
I’m sure that similar considerations apply
when they use AFSC funds and personnel,
and when they seek and receive funds from
private U.S. foundations.
Dave Zarembka is the finest Quaker diplomat
that I know of, and he manages to keep
all sorts of Friends and others all working
together quite happily. But that’s not to say
that the African Friends, who have the single
greatest voice in AGLI, are working completely
independently. They are not. They use
American government money and American
Quaker money and British Quaker money
and Norwegian government money and AFSC
money. I truly believe that FUM is well along
in following a similar path. It won’t satisfy
the anti-colonial purists, but it will be an
excellent partnership.
One of Zarembka’s achievements is the
Quaker Peace Network for Africa. It includes
more than 20 Quaker (and Mennonite) organ-
izations. It is the co-ordinator for the work
overseeing the elections in Burundi.
RSWR has had some major problems in the
past with internal corruption. They seem to
be in much better shape now. Maybe we
should ask Johan Maurer about this. He
was in charge of RSWR for many years.
I note that RSWR seems now to get far
more of its money from FUM Friends than
from FGC Friends. Their money certainly
comes from America, not Africa; so they
too must have control issues. Control
issues must not be used as an excuse
to completely abandon a good institution,
Another Quaker institution in Kenya is the
Africa section of FWCC, with its office in
Nairobi. The staff there has always been
entirely African, ever since it was set up in
1971. However, I believe much of the money
comes from the FWCC world and American
offices. I believe that this FWCC office
had something to do with the creation
of Friends Church Kenya, which unites
all the Kenyan yearly meetings.
There’s a brand-new Quaker organization
called Young Quaker Christian Assn., or
something like that (I don’t recall the exact
name), I believe that the founder was a
man named John Lomuria. At any rate,
this group includes Friends of all sorts from
the entire continent of Africa—-FUM Friends
from Kenya and Tanzania and Uganda;
EFI Friends from Burundi, Rwanda, and
eastern Congo; liberal Friends on the
British model from South Africa and six
neighboring countries; liberal Friends more
on the American model from western
Congo, Cameroun, Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra
Leone, and Liberia. A number of European
and American Friends have attended this
group’s meetings in Africa. As far as I
know, this is otherwise an all-African
organization, including the financing.
African Quakerism is the most important
and flourishing Quakerism in the world,
despite many problems. This includes
FUM in Kenya: two new yearly meetings
are expected to be underway there soon.
It also includes FUM in Tanzania, where
a second yearly meeting is being started,
and it includes Pemba Yearly Meeting,
which is to be revived. Friends United
Meeting, and its predecessor Five Years
Meeting, are responsible more than
anyone else for African Quakerism. I
think we should be grateful to them and
their missionaries, despite the mstakes
that they doubtless made. African
Quakerism makes North American
Quakerism look very sick—–every
branch of it. There are only about
90,000 of us now; in 1970, there were
about 120,000 of us.
In the 1970′s, I too was a member
of Illinois Y.M. Even after Northern Y.M.
broke away, Illinois Y.M. had more
members then that it has now. Some
entire meetings have disappeared:
Decatur, Park Forest, and Quincy.
I don’t take pleasure in this, and I
know that FUM yearly meetings in
the U.S.A. are often in even worse
shape. But we have little right to
complain about what is going on
among Friends in Africa or anywhere
else in the world, unless we are
trying to help out as best we can.
If the best thing we can do is
to stay entirely clear of African
Quaker affairs, so be it; that is what
we must do. However, I suggest
that we try to involve ourselves in
whatever way seems best, whether
FUM or AGLI or RSWR or FWCC.
All of these are forms, in different
ways, of missionary Quakerism, though
most of them do no proselytizing.
Blessings,
Jeremy Mott
Thank you, Jeremy, for your thoughtful comments. There are different kinds of control issues, and the cultural hegemony by the kinds of proselytizing including matters of supporting homophobia in Africa to the detriment of Africans (via HIV) is painful for me to watch.
I have been in ILYM for only 10 years. Within that time we have grown as has my Monthly Meeting in South Bend.
Blessings to thee, too.
Brad
Friends in Kenya have numerous control issues among
themselves. There’s no point in denying that. But Friends from the U.S.A. must not try to decide these matters.
Until recently, African-style worship was pretty much
forbidden among Kenyan Friends, because the American
missionaries disapproved of it. Now, because of the
urging of young Kenyan Friends, this is changing fast.
And Friends in the U.S.A. have several control issues
with Kenyan Friends. This is only to be expected.
American Friends may not approve of Pentecostal-style
worhsip, but we will have to get used to it anyhow.
Many American Friends believe that homosexuality
is okay, and should be permitted and respected; but
most Kenyan Friends disagree. This is an important,
and so far insoluble, control issue. American and
Kenyan Friends must embark on discussions of this,
that may last for generations.
Have others here read Barack Obama’s first auto-
biography, Dreams of My Father? Obama’s father
was a member of the Luo tribe, the tribe just south
of the Luhyas, to which most Kenyan Friends belong.
When he was divorced by Obama’s mother and
returned to Kenya, he married again, with several
wives at once, including another white wife. In
Kenya polygamy of this kind is not unusual. Friends
in Kenya, at the behest of the first missionaries,
always struggled to oppose polygamy. Since
polygamy is so engrained in Kenyan culture—-not
just among Muslims and animists but Christians
as well—Friends have had a hard time struggling.
What does a Friends meeting do when a polygamous
family seeks membership?
About 1930, the issue of polygamy led to a major
schism in the Friends church of Kenya. Those who
approved of it became the Church of the Holy
Spirit, which still exists, with perhaps 30,000
members. Just as Friends in Kenya are resentful
of North American Friends who approve of homo-
sexuality, they doubtless would be resentful of
North American Friends who told them to tolerate
polygamy. After all, Jesus in the gospels is not
reported to have said one word on either topic.
Yet Christians and Quakers have generally thought
until recently that both are moral issues and both
are wrong. Polygamy may also become an issue
for discussion between Kenyan and American
Friends; but it seems unlikely, because on this
issue the general opinion is identical.
It seems to me that Friends in the U.S.A. must let
Kenyan Friends be on the control issues. They can
be trusted to figure them out for themselves. We
also must let them be on the issue of their money—
we are already doing this. However, we cannot
just let them be on the issue of OUR money, when
they are spending it. We must work and plan
towards the day when they do not spend much
of our money. Since North American Friends are
a fast-shrinking group, and Kenyan Friends are
a fast-growing group, that day should come soon.
No matter how much some Friends in the U.S.A.
and in Kenya may want continued American
oversight of Kenyan Quaker work, such oversight
cannot last much longer, so we must plan for an
end to it.
Friends in Kenya are almost all in the extreme west
of the country, along Lake Victoria. Until the British
came, colonialism hardly existed there. Yet, as one
can also read in Obama’s book, British colonialism
had a tremendous and lasting influence, including
such things as drafting Kenyan men during the
world wars and sending them all over the world,
and in the end fighting against Kenyan independence
until 1963, 16 years after India became independent.
Right now, the important matter facing Kenyan
Friends and their Friends in North America and
elsewhere is the elections that will be held in the
year 2012. Friends Peace Teams has just overseen
a series of elections in Burundi, with very favorable
results; in other words, they were fairly peaceful.
Now, Friends must plan to do similar work in Kenya,
where the elections of 2007 turned out so badly.
No doubt Kenyan Quakers will contribute most of
the personnel and money for this effort; but much
money and many people will come from the U.S.A.
and elsewhere outside Kenya. I hope that North
American Friends will help in a big way. I can assure
Friends in North America that Kenyan Friends will
want and appreciate this help; we will not be
re-inforcing colonialism but teaching freedom, which
most African nations do not have yet.
Jeremy Mott
Friends, we should be entirely clear—-as many of thoose who have posted seem not to be—-that FUM makes no
attempt to “manage” the hundreds of thousands of Friends in Kenya, who are in 15 yearly meetings, each
now completely autonomous. These yearly meetings
have banded together in Friends Church Kenya; and I
suspect there was some useful FUM pressure in the
creation of that useful institution (It led Kenyan Friends
through the post-election violence in 2008+.
There are exactly two ex-patriate FUM staff members
at work in Kenya now: Ann Riggs, principal of Friends
Theological College (one of whose main duties is to
preserve the assets of the college, i.e., to prevent
looting), and Eden Grace, a jack-of all-trades in the
new Kisumu office (whose duties also include a great
deal of accounting and auditing, i.e., the prevention
of theft and corruption). No matter what our pleasant
head-in-the-clouds-theorizing may tell us, the reality
on the ground is that FUM needs at least these two
people, and probably a few more, present in Kenya
as auditors of FUM projects only; otherwise FUM will
be stolen blind.
Of course, the principal of FTC need not be the
protector of the property; it might be someone else.
And the auditors and accountants in Kisumu need not
be expatriates; in fact, two of the three employess
at the Kisumu office of FUM are Kenyans right now.
The principle remains: A lot of FUM money is being
spent in Kenya: it must be audited; no one can just
trust that it will be properly spent, without verification.
To do this would simply ensure repetition of some of
the disasters we had in the 1990′s and earlier.
For comparison, let us look at Friends Peace
Teams, whose largest program is AGLI or African
Great Lakes Initiative, which works mainly in Burundi,
Rwanda, and eastern Congo, but also in Uganda
and in Kenya. Zarembka David has announded his
retirement from being Central African co-ordinator
of AGLI this year, in favor of Bucura David, a Rwandan
Friend who was gen.supt. of Rwanda Y.M. So that
willl be one fewer ex-patriate working for AGLI
in Africa (Zarembka David is an American Friend);
but there will be several others remaining there:
Dr. Alexandra Douglas is one of the two doctors
at tne Friends Women’s Assn. hospital in Burundi;
Barbara Wybar manages an orphanage and a school
in Uganda; and Elizabeth Cave (a teacher and a
British Friend) is taking up work among the Twa
(or pygmies) of Rwanda. Furthermore, there are
many missionaries, both short-term and long-term,
mostly from Northwest Y.M., teaching in Rwanda.
I believe that Friends in Burundi, Rwanda, eastern
Congo, and Uganda are happy to have them.)
Friends must face reality. Kenya is one of the
most corrupt countries in the world, and our hospitals
and theological school have already been looted.
Once or twice was enough. The central African
countries where Friends are working are also corrupt,
though far less so than Kenya; they are desperately
poor, unlike Kenya; and they welcome and we should
be glad to send ex-patriates to work there. We also
should be glad to send money to AGLI and its projects,
as well as to FUM and its projedts. Both ot these
organizations audit their funds; and both are far
from being tyrannies. No matter what it may please
some Friends to think, in both FUM (Kenya) and in
FPT (AGLI), African Friends are in charge. The real
problem, I think, is that many Friends despise missionary Quakerism, and would rather destroy it than make it work better. Instead, let us put our shoulders to the wheel;
we can do this work if we know that it is God’s work.
Jeremy Mott
David Zarembka is someone who has eaten in my house, spoken in my Monthly Meeting and Yearly Meeting, has been a member in my Yearly Meeting (ILYM), and who loves Africa. He is a model for FUM. He has largely become African, has African children and an African wife. And now he moves toward retirement with Africans who will take up the FPT mantle. The FGC money that follows this ministry has no intent in controlling those in the program. We send our money and one of our Monthly Meeting’s members without restriction and without control of its outcome: We know the spirit which moves them.
Similarly, Right Sharing of Wold Resources supports programs, funded in part by FGC Friends, but others as well, without our needing to control the outcome. I pray that FUM will let go of outcomes and allow the Spirit to be in charge.
Unless you were born in Africa and grow up African you are not African. We are always bound by the biases and preferences we developed during our formative years (as noted in the work of Thomas Kuhn). Even if a person is acculturated to another culture, and assimilated into that culture, they are not fully of that culture and still “carry” previous biases and preferences. Their enculturation may have taken effect, but their is never a complete mortification of their previous personality.
Jeremy,
Thank you for your contribution to this conversation.
You’re right: I should not have stated that FUM provided oversight of the yearly meetings in Kenya. That is not accurate, any more than to say that they provide oversight of my own Indiana Yearly Meeting. There is a partnership in ministry, but this is not oversight in some episcopal sense.
I also think you are right that for some there is a distaste for the missionary enterprise in general. I have stated before (in the Nov/Dec 2009 Quaker Life, I believe) that for some, global Quakerism is an embarrassment because it is theologically and socially more conservative/traditionalist than US/British Friends AND that it is largely the fruit of missionary efforts.
Certainly there have been careful critiques of this movement– a recent example is Amy Stambach’s, *Faith in Schools: Religion, Education, and American Evangelicals in East Africa* (Stanford, 2009).
Nevertheless, you raise important points concerning the presence of some very talented US Friends in a context that has suffered serious loss due to corruption.
Herein is the sticky point for US Quakers: how can we continue involvement in such projects without contributing to the perception of “the African who is (necessarily) corrupt,” and thus to the attitudes that have led US Quakers to act paternalistically toward African-Americans within the US (see McDaniel & Julye’s unsettling book: *Fit for Freedom, not for Friendship: Quakers, African-Americans, and the Myth of Racial Justice* [Quaker Press, 2009]).
Perhaps we could think along these lines and ponder ways of working together that are life-giving and mutually instructive.
David
A part of the issue is simple the identity of people and the roles they occupy. Identity should never be determined by role. The natural and gifted leadership of any person should be lifted up over the role they play. It is past time for all Christians to give up the illusion of being better leaders than those we serve in mission settings. Once we proclaim Christ and win the hearts and minds of people, we should allow, facilitate and celebrate the leadership of the people.
As for the question of colonial models and identites. It is true that we follow patterns of colonial domination. The challenge is to be Christian rather than colonists. Can we seperate who we are in Christ from who we are a Americans?
I often think that the answer to your last question is, “No!”
I wonder if it is better to be a “human” first before being a “Christian” in our relations with our sisters and brothers? A human is a “child of God” stripped of the accoutrements (biases, jealousies, selfishness, etc.) acquired (as far as possible) from our culture so, perhaps, that is where we should begin when we approach our sisters and brothers. Just a thought!
Being an Anthropologist/Sociologist, notwithstanding my conservative Friend identity, I approach people using etic and emic perspectives. I attempt to study and learn from them by using my “outsider” (etic) status to observe and by acquiring information and understanding from “insiders” (emic) and gaining their perspective. I find that I enter the scene with as little of “myself” as possible (impossible to rid myself completely) so that I may learn from them. When I enter the scene I have little knowledge of what is taking place and what is required. I humble myself and attempt to learn from the people who have the knowledge. I am the student.
Perhaps in approaching Kenyan Friends it is best we leave as much of ourselves behind and come to them to learn and hope to understand. As “emptied” humans we might ask them questions and be their students. The world is a violent and contentious place, as well noted by Jeremy, but the Creator gives the space where problems are resolved. Kenyan Friends and FUM have God spaces where they come together, leveled by, and in God’s love. In those spaces, if problems (latent or visible) exist between Kenyan Friends-FUM, there can be resolution.
I believe, due to God’s love and my humble experiences in war-torn regions of the world and in the oft war-torn regions of my heart and spirit, that what is accomplished under adversity is often stronger than what is accomplished during peace.
I believe David has made the appropriate first step by asking questions and making them public for discussion. I thank David for sharing his concerns in a public forum and for his gracious heart in doing so.
Thank you.
Bruce,
This is the question, isn’t it? How to tease out the ‘who we are in Christ’ from the ‘who we are as Americans.’ It is remarkable how much the patterns of empire mark the kinds of relationships we build within our own cultural contexts, not to mention those of other contexts. There is, in some cases, totalizing visions that are not of the kingdom of God, but of something altogether different.
I’ve recently come across a quotation that captures a different attitude, a different spirit that, if lived into, could make a world of difference in the character of our interactions.
“If you’ve come here to help me, you’re wasting your time. But if you’ve come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” — Australian Aboriginal Elder, Lilla Watson
Dear David,
Thank you for posing this most important and troubling question. First, I believe a cultural theory approach to Neocolonialism might lead to better understanding Kenyan Friends’ disdain for self-leadership and their preference for maintenance of the white FUM overseers system. I use “overseers” not as an insult, but to accentuate the realness, depth, and potential severity of the posed problem. The problem, in my humble opinion, is the possible threat of Cultural Colonialism imposed by FUM in the USA on Kenyan Friends who retain a colonial mentality.
Cultural colonialism generally serves the objectives, often latent, of a developed nation to maintain hegemony of a developing nation’s cultural values and mental representations (i.e., cognitive content) generally for economic motives (but often for, what I term, power motives that may include a “will to dominate”) through religion, language, education, etc. FUM in the USA is engaged in educating Kenyan friends in the USA and, primarily at Friends Theological College in Kenya. Therefore, we can take one of two stances using a cultural theory approach to neocolonialism. First, that FUM in the USA serves the objectives of the nation in serving as a “cog in the machine” of American neocolonialism in Kenya. FUM is imparting American cultural values that aid in maintaining U.S. hegemony in Kenya via FUM’s control of Kenyan Friends education, leadership, direction, etc. I reject this first stance as I do not believe this is FUM’s overt objective. Second, FUM in the USA symbolizes a developed nation (utilizing the fabricated term FUM Nation for the sake of this discussion) seeking, perhaps latently and unknowingly, to maintain hegemony over Kenyan Friends and serve FUM Nation’s power motives. Herein, lies the potential severity of the posed problem. FUM Nation may be, again perhaps latently and unknowingly, maintaining hegemonic control of Kenyan Friends’ cultural values and mental representations as related to Friends’ education, leadership, and direction.
At this point we must ask, “Why don’t, or can’t, Kenyan Friends reject FUM Nation’s control of their education, leadership, and direction and assume control themselves?” A cultural theory approach to neocolonialism can aid in answering this question. Kenyan Friends have, unknowingly, retained a colonial mentality. Kenya experienced hundreds of years of colonial rule from the Portuguese in the 1500s, then the colonial rule of Oman and other Arab nations, and last, British colonial rule ending in 1963. However, freedom from traditional colonial rule did not mean the end of colonialism in Kenya as post-colonialism (or neocolonialism) continues to the present. Kenyans, like other colonized peoples, unknowingly, and sometimes knowingly, accepted the cultural values and mental representations of their former (and current under neocolonialism) colonial rulers. They came to perceive the colonizer, or neocolonizer, as superior and the colonizer/neocolonizer’s intelligence, cultural values, and mental representations as superior to their own. They came to accept themselves as inferior.
“Why is the posed problem laden with potential severity?” In my humble opinion, FUM’s relationship with Kenyan Friends can be perceived as FUM maintaining hegemony. White FUM’s cultural values and mental representations (laden with white American Friends’ biases) may be transmitted to Kenyan Friends who may possess a colonial mentality and act acceptingly. Therefore, the problem carries extraordinary potential severity as Friends seek to level society and ensure that each person is treated equally. “If FUM is not working toward giving Kenyan Friends greater control of their own education, leadership, and training, then what is FUM’s mission in Kenya?”
In my humble opinion, I believe a process of decolonization (“unlearning” or “method of deconstruction”, i.e., see Jacques Derrida) for both FUM and Kenyan Friends may be appropriate. Perhaps there should be a movement in which FUM and Kenyan Friends rethink their relationship and start anew. I am not suggesting a end to the relationship, but perhaps, FUM and Kenyan Friends should lay bare their hopes, biases, and goals for the relationship and individuals within FUM USA should explicitly state their concerns about the relationship. A dialogue might begin and a paradigm shift in this lengthy relationship may occur.
Dear David, my theoretically based answer is, most likely, unsatisfactory. My answer is based on a macro-view of the problem. The problem posed is of dire importance in, and applicability to, global Friends’ relationships and cannot be simply addressed. I only hope my humble opinion on this matter may be of some use to you.
Best wishes,
Robert Koehler
Robert, I believe your comment, if taken seriously within FUM, can do FUM a great service.
Robert,
Thank you for your thoughtful and carefully articulated reply. I am grateful you take the issue seriously enough to give it this attention.
Though the years I have admired Friends willingness, even at great personal cost, to examine, to question, and, when necessary, to challenge the actions and attitudes of individuals, organizations, movements, and systems. This is a great strength. I have never believed it to be a sign of betrayal or impropriety to direct such questions internally.
I am in agreement with the value of decolonialization—that is, the process of “unlearning” that comes from a careful examination of practices and attitudes. There is unlearning to be done on both (and more!) sides of relationships such as the one we’ve been discussing here at Theography.
I would welcome further conversation with you about some of the ideas you mention. Perhaps we could do some of this through email and then return some of the fruit of those interactions here.
Of course, in all things, I want to be open to the perspectives of those good people who are working on the inside of these organizations. There is much I do not know about very complicated political realities in these situations. Thus, in this blog, for instance, I’ve invited the contribution of some of these persons.
David
David,
I would be glad to participate in a continuing dialogue with you and sharing our findings with Friends. Thank you for your kindness.
Robert
My comment is from experience in a different situation and may not be directly relevant. I worked some years ago to establish an Indigenous organization in a region of northern Australia that had previously been under direct central government control – a form of internal colonialism. I left when the organisation was up and running, trusting that local people who had managed that part of the country for tens of thousands of years were capable of doing it today. They chose a non-indigenous CEO to replace me, and after a few years another non-Indigenous person to replace him, because they wanted someone with ‘inside’ knowledge and skills of the dominant culture to work on their behalf. Non-indigenous people have non-indigenous cultural knowledge which was not available in the local indigenous community, and local people saw that as necessary in the role.
Perhaps who has the power to select and oversee an employee is more important than the ethnicity of the candidate chosen.
Principles over personalities is a much more productive and enlarging way of loving. Love is not ownership. Freedom of worship and listening to the inner Light within is the Quaker Way, is it not?
Thanks to whatever angel invited me to view this conversation. Some of it is familiar to me since I have been involved in Friends Peace Teams and in FWCC (peripherally). I find the commitment and analyses well considered. Fortunately (in my opinion), in the Indonesian work, there has been no attempt at evangelizing. Rather, we have attempted to meet the best of the Muslim message and ways with the best of the Christian message and Quaker ways. We find that such an approach has deepened the faith of each culture in the transformative power of the Spirit and has empowered the Indonesians who trust us and are trustworthy to own their own work and responsibilities. We try to own ours. All of us work with patience.
Micah, from my study of sociology, I suggest that going slow on getting out of the colonial mode creates more damage than the inevitable damage from going fast. Get the iron foot off the neck of yearly meetings or grow increasingly problematic (to put it as nicely as I can).
Hello Kim, I’ll try to answer for David, in case he doesn’t.
However, he knows Spanish and has traveled among
Friends in Guatemala, so he may have lot more information of interest.
Except for Cuba and Mexico, in most Latin American
countries Friends are affililated, more or less closely,
with EFI. There are six yearly meetings, at least, in
Bolivia. Three stem from Northwest Y.M. mission activity,
and three stem from Central Y.M. (of Indiana). One of
the children of Central Y.M. of Indiana is Santidad
(Holiness) Y.M. of Bolivia. Another is Central Y.M. of
Bolivia. Central of Indiana has about 300 members.
Central of Bolivia has about 3000 members, and
Santidad has almost 20,000 members. There is also
a new yearly meeting in Peru, formed in the last
40 years or so by missionaries from Bolivia. Most of
these groups have good relationships with FWCC,
whether or not they are members; and many are
in good touch with Quaker Bolivia Link and Bolivian
Quaker Education Fund. So as you can see, the
large Bolivian Quaker community is for practical
purposes independent of foreign direction, though
not without foreign aid. Bolivian Friends have had
their own theological schools for years, and have
also used Quaker seminaries in Central America.
The situatioin is not dissimilar with the somewhat
smaller Quaker communities in Guatemala, Honduras,
and El Salvador. These are all evangelical Friends,
and all members of EFI. They have their own theo-
logial seminaries, with their own principals. Many
of these groups are also associated with FWCC.
There are also both EFI and FUM-like Friends in
Mexico. Cuba Y.M. remains a member of FUM.
El Salvador Y.M. is now furnishing missionaries to
the Cambodian mission of EFI. It’s safe to say that
almost all Latin American Friends feel a great need
to be part of the worldwide family of Friends. FWCC
is working hard to translate Quaker literature into
Spanish.
Remember that there are also about 30 Hispanic
evangelical Friends churches in the United States.
These belong to four of the six different evangelical
yearly meetings in our country (and to one FUM
yearly meeting as well). There are scattered “liberal”
or unprogrammed Friends meetings, both English-
speaking and Spanish-speaking, generally not part of
any yearly meeting, scattered around Latin America.
Jeremy Mott
Thanks for this!
Some of these comments reflect speculation without concrete information about the complex realities involved in FUM’s fifty years of trying to disentangle from colonialism. I don’t know what to do about that lack of information–sometimes we’re protecting individual reputations that MUST be protected, and sometimes we’re probably protecting reputations that don’t deserve such protection. In any case, we’re such a small society that it’s nearly impossible to get very specific about such issues as corruption without damaging reputations that deserve due process.
Granted, more transparency is badly needed. But in the meantime, it’s not fair (although it’s not surprising, given our human tendencies to self-righteousness) to fill the gaps with unwarranted assumptions of top-down “control issues” or paternalistic colonialism. What proof was there? And why dismiss the idea that Kenyan Friends themselves want international involvement in leadership? Motives might be mixed on all sides, but I can personally testify to this repeated request. Often the issue is not “Western” vs “East African” (that is, imported leadership vs local leadership development) but rather the Western tendency to quantify and bureaucratize the ties in the service of theoretical ideals, and the Kenyan priority of human relationships, to risk an oversimplification.
The management-level relationship between FUM and East African Friends at the end of my service at FUM was strictly confined to institutions where FUM was part of the financing. There are no yearly meetings in East Africa where FUM has any authority whatever beyond the authority it has in North America. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of East African Quaker leaders have in fact arisen in these yearly meetings. However, where money is involved, FUM (which includes East Africans in its policy-making structures, of course) now participates in management. The previous “just transfer the money and hope for the best” (again, an oversimplification) may have appeared more progressive but it was in fact ruinous.
I suspect that the hands-off approach was in part driven by regretful attitudes on the part of FUM leaders and constituencies concerning the colonialism of the past; they wanted to be ultra-sure that they were no longer perpetuating those patterns. They may have gone to the opposite extreme, monetarizing relationships that badly needed to remain strong on the level of human relationships and MUTUAL accountability.
When Rich and Sandy Davis were appointed to lead Friends Theological College in Kaimosi, the place was in deep crisis. The issue wasn’t replacing local leadership with white foreigners, the issue was FUM taking action (with constant consultation with FTC’s board), using the resources at hand, to save an institution that deserved saving. At the time, Kenyan Friends explained to me the value of using staff from the “white tribe”–those staff are not under the same political pressures as local Friends were at the time. That’s not the sort of reason that justifies long-term colonialism, but it was the reality that Kenyan Friends themselves asserted at that specific time. We cannot just listen to Kenyan Friends only when they seem to reinforce our progressive theories; we must also listen to them when they want us to take joint common-sense steps to assist their own struggles with corruption, political enmeshments, and so on.
Similar urgent realities confronted us at Lugulu Hospital, Kaimosi Hospital, and Turkana–not as a result of any kind of congenital Kenyan inadequacies, but most likely because FUM in the post-colonial environment seemed to have abandoned normal accountability practices in order to appear egalitarian. In such a vacuum, corruption is just as inevitable in Kenya as it is in Chicago. For several decades, it appears to me, rather than being colonialist and top-down, FUM didn’t even provide the same level of leadership in East Africa that it tried to provide in North America.
At the same time, paradoxically, money had to be raised from the North American constituency to send to East African institutions, and the available model for that fundraising continued to be the missions model, focused on hospitals and schools, even though the East African constituency itself was no longer a mission but a set of fully autonomous yearly meetings. It was a cozy relationship that served appearances even though the lack of genuine management participation (in both directions) and mutual accountability was ultimately ruinous. And the familiarity of that missions funding model probably masked the need to ask two questions that ultimately became central during my time at FUM:
1) What is FUM’s responsibility to participate in managing institutions that FUM helps fund, and what form should that participation take?
2) How can FUM’s relationship with former mission fields be transformed so that all interested yearly meetings participate equally in all FUM policy discussions?
The alternative to these crucial conversations seemed to be to perpetuate the funder-client relationship that had prevailed to that point, and that I discussed here: http://johanpdx.blogspot.com/2008/07/redefining-friends-united-meeting.html …We could no longer be trapped in colonial-era roles; we needed to relate as Christian adults whose nationalities were incidental (while not being naive about the distorting effects of history and resource imbalances).
We still have a long way to go in achieving fully adult, mutually accountable relationships. Communication failures and blind spots will keep haunting us. But let’s not assume there is more racism or top-down management than there actually is.
I think that we must make a distinction between leadership and accounting positions. There’s
no doubt in my mind that Kenyan Friends have
leaders entirely capable of being head of Friends
Theological Seminary. The next principal, I think,
should come from among these Friends.
The African Great Lakes Initiative, the Quaker
group created by Dave Zarembka, an American
Friend who lives in Kenya, is fast moving in
this direction already. According to their maga-
zine, Peaceways, which I received yesterday,
the next AGLI co-ordinator for Central Africa,
i.e., Rwanda, Congo, and Burundi, will be
Bucura David, a Quaker pastor in Rwanda,
a former supt. of Rwanda Y.M. of Evangelical
Friends, and a long-time worker with AGLI.
Presumably the next Kenyan co-ordinator for
AGLI will also be an African Friend, for there are
many good candidates to replace Zarembka
David.
All this leaves open the question of accountants,
especially auditors. So long as so much money
comes from the United States or elsewhere
abroad, it seems natural that some of the
auditors will also come from there. I’m sure
that eventually Kenyan auditors will be
in place. In fact, already two of the three
people working in the Friends United Meeting
office in Kisumu—-basically an accounting
office—-are Kenyans. In Bolivia, the Bolivian
Quaker Education Fund trains accountants
along with other professionals, so within
a few years this question won’t arise. Friends
in Bolivia have provided their own theological
education and leadership for decades.
The fundamental purpose of the FUM office
in Richmond is fundraising for FUM missionary
projects. There is no reason whatever that
American Friends cannot do this in our
own country. Maybe we can start doing some
missionary work in our country too. It certainly
is needed, and it won’t come for free. Though
I can think of only a few cities in the U.S.A.
that really need a new English-language
pastoral Friends meeting, I can think of many
that need a Hispanic or bilingual meeting.
Jeremy Mott
Although one of the reasons I miss FUM is the opportunity to meet Kenyan Quakers from time to time, I agree that having more Kenyans in leadership is an important goal. Are similar scruples arising among EFI Friends, some of whom work in Uganda and elsewhere?
Having written this, I am somewhat shamed by the lack of racial diversity in leadership among liberal unprogrammed Friends… even with some recent changes in various yearly meetings. It seems painfully slow to me, even with the blessing of having mentors from diverse backgrounds.
Hi David,
A couple of questions….
First…which umbrella organization are the majority of Meetings in Latin America a part of?
Second…what is that umbrella organization’s relationship/feelings towards those meetings?
There may be a relationship there or not, but I think it might be worth looking at.
See you in Atlanta.
Jeremy’s post addresses this quite nicely.
This is an intense, plain-speaking post, David.
I share many of your concerns on this topic, and I concur that Friends United Meeting is bogged down in a depressingly colonialist model of missions, despite the best efforts of many. Unfortunately, colonialism has become a two-way street, and it is my understanding that many Friends in Africa greatly desire a continuing North American presence to provide oversight for the projects in East Africa.
As someone who has served on the FUM General Board for the past two years, I don’t know any easy way out of this. Ending a colonial relationship will probably end up making everyone – North American and East African – uncomfortable.
May the Lord lead us to the proper response to these dilemmas.
Micah Bales
http://www.valiantforthetruth.com
http://www.lambswar.com
PS: Check out my latest blog post, which talks at great length about the colonial legacy of Christianity – and how we might begin to move beyond it.
David, This mentality was very evident in 1961 and very few seemed interested in changing this view. Thus the preparation of Kenyans to assume leadership positions was not seen as a priority. As I understand it (from some familial “first hand” stories), some Africans, who had been working with some missionaries who believed and trusted that they had the capability to be true leaders, decided they needed to establish a separate Yearly Meeting somewhat independent of the mission.
The development of further Yearly Meetings does seem to have been somewhat “tribal” in nature and the current situation is extremely complex. However, I agree that there seems to be no reason that there needs to be “outside” leadership involved in Africa. It is obvious, however, that given the long paternalistic colonialism that didn’t end until well into my life time ( and I am not that old) some assistance, not “oversight,” may be useful.
I suspect that much of the concern is with FUM itself and its structure and hierarchy.
My monthly and yearly meetings are not a part of FUM. I follow events there sporadically. I think that FUM might be moving rightly in becoming an association of yearly meetings accountable to them instead of a top down governance instrument. The “control issues” of FUM have made it a place for me, at least, to avoid, until it moves away from trying to control the Holy Spirit’s expression to a position of providing opportunities.