IMPLICATIONS Implicit Monotheism

One system of theology gaining ground in West Africa may be labelled "A Theology of Peaceful Co-existence". But this feature is found in all the other systems. It may also be called a Theology of "Implicit Monotheism," a phrase coined by Professor Bolaji Idowu to express this concept. This "Implicit Monotheism," or "Diffused Monotheism," is an effort to explain the view that Africans, particularly some Nigerian tribes, believe in one God, and that this one God has "not left Himself without a witness." Idowu does this in contradistinct-ion with the common theory that polytheism is a prominent belief in West Africa. Parrinder's conclusion is undermined by the philosophy of "Implicit Monotheism." Parrinder writes: "It is in West Africa, however, that we find

fully-developed polytheism. Here are pantheons of nature gods, with their temples and priests, like the polytheisms of Egypt, Greece and India."¹

Idowu sees these pantheons as ministers of God according to the religion of the Yoruba of Nigeria. He says:

Let it suffice here to say that the Yoruba are quite convinced that the world and all that is in it owe their existence to Him. They believe, nevertheless, 91

that He has portioned out the theocratic ion of the World among the divinities whom He brought into being and ordained to their several offices. By the functions of these divinities, and the authority conferred upon them, they are almighty within certain limits.²

With this premise of a prevalent belief in one God, the proponents of "Implicit Monotheism" delve into the study of comparative religions. The argument seems to run in this manner. If it is the same God in all religions, it is only a mat-ter of common logic that all religions should seek a peaceful coexistence rather than a "proselytizing" approach. If there should be any desire for influence, it should be sought in the idea of "presence" rather than "proclamation.” In the final analysis, evangelism in the Christian Church will have to be

"shelved" away. Admittedly, no one has suggested this, but it is a necessary corollary of a peaceful coexistence approach.

With all due respect to non-Christian noble ideas of a Supreme Being, the thesis that they are monotheists in the Biblical sense cannot be sustained. The only monotheism the Christian can recognize in this New Testament era is the kind described by the Apostle Paul. He affirms, "Therefore cerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we exist through Him" (1 Cor. 8:4-6).

The implied equality of all religions including Christian Revelation, necessarily leads to universalism as will be shown in the following discussion.

"Orita" Philosophy

The basic philosophy of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Ibadan is given in the ment's journal, Orita: Ibadan Journal of Religious Studies.

It states:

The aim of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Ibadan is to promote the study and understanding of the phenomenon and the social implications of religion in general and religion in 92

Africa in particular. This involves more specifically the fields of history and phenomenology of religions, theology and philosophy, aiming at an interpretation (emphasis mine) and understanding of African ional Religion, Christianity and Islam, separately and in so far as there has been cross-fertilization between them.³

The Orita: Ibadan Journal of Religious Studies contributes to the fulfillment of this purpose. The statement of purpose goes on to indicate, "Every effort will be made to give an equal amount of space to articles and reviews dealing with each of the three faiths: and to encourage articles which treat their interactions."³

On the surface, this is a noble aim for the department. To seek to understand other faiths is not in itself a bad idea. To seek to live at peace with men of other faiths is, in fact, a Biblical injunction. The Apostle Paul pleads, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men" (Rom.

12:18). The many religious wars that have been fought, whether they be Islamic "jihad" or Christian "crusades" have disturbed the Prince of Peace, even Jesus Christ.

We should, however, not lose sight of the fact that the Christian has been called upon to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

Although the Scriptures advocate living at peace with all men, even to the point of sharing material benefits (Gal. 6:10), they are also clear and dogmatic on the matter of separation (Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 Cor. 6:14, 15, 17; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 3:5;

Titus 3:10; 2 John 9-11). The uniqueness of Christian revel-ation knows no compromise for the sake of peaceful coexist-ence (Luke 13:5; Acts 2:36; 4:12). "If possible" can only mean that it is not always possible to "be at peace with all men."

The Journal of the Department of Religious Studies of the University of Ibadan is thought by many to be a Christian publication. But it is not so. Not only does it have a Muslim editor. Dr. Mucizz Goriawala, but it has a title which brings together the three major religions of Africa. The front cover has a diagram showing three roads leading to the center.

Christianity is on the upper left-hand, Islam on the upper right, and African traditional religion, with a lion's share of

the design, stands as the supporting beam of the diagram.

The map of Africa, with Nigeria and Ibadan indicated, is in 93

the middle of the large circle at the intersection of the three roads. The circle begins the Yoruba word Orita (see Append-ix II).

The title "Orita" means, in the Yoruba language, "where the ways meet." Needless to say, the front cover design is a⁴ true description of the philosophy of the department. While the administration of the journal may have in mind only the interaction of these religions, the nature of the contents suggests other presuppositions. It presupposes that adherents of these religions are worshipping the same God. The im-pression one gains is that they have received the same revela-tion, and are bound for the same destiny. Differences tween these religions are recognized, but are to be overlooked for the sake of peaceful coexistence. This being the case, they should live at peace with all men of all religions.

It is in the contents of this journal that the basic philosophy of syncretistic and universalistic approach to the study of religions is best displayed. The concept implicit in the cover design is expressed in some of the early articles.

Independent Movements are excluded from this tion as they belong to the area of syncretism per se. But it is not out of place to make a brief reference here to the study of Aladura, or the Church of the Lord. It shows the ready accommodation that is found in Orita.

The discussion is based on H.W. Turner's book, African Independent Church. Turner is reported to have pointed out the following features among some orthodox ones, which are major beliefs and practices of Aladura:

Among such practices one might mention the ance accorded visions and dreams, observance of Jewish customs and taboos, the use of specially "holy"

names in prayer to God and the peculiar form of alphabet and certain instructions which the founder, Dr. Oshitelu, claimed were transmitted to him in dreams. . . . Turner would not even pronounce thema on Dr. Oshitelu for adding wife to wife and gives greater credit to the church of the Lord than to the "orthodox" Churches for its Christian but matic policy on polygamy.⁵

Dr. E.A. Ayandele, a lecturer in the department, reviewing the article then concludes:

One hopes that in the light of this brilliant and wholly 94

successful book by Turner, self-righteous and cal advocates of their own church as the authentic and legitimate institution that should be planted in all climes and in all societies would perceive their myopia, overcome their inhibitions and recognize in the Church of the Lord (perhaps in other African Churches as well), a legitimate institution through which the Lord is fulfilling His purpose in Africa.⁵

In spite of these unscriptural practices of polygamy by the leader (1 Tim. 3:2), visions and dreams (Heb. 1:1-2), and legalism (Gal. 1:6-9), Aladura is acclaimed as "a

legitimate institution through which the Lord is fulfilling His purpose in Africa." What the Apostle Paul anathematizes

(Gal. 1:9), Turner applauds, and Orita commends.⁵

Writing on "Samuel Crowther's attitude to other faiths during the early period," the former editor of Orita, Dr. P.K.

McKenzie, appears critical of Africa's first bishop for his particularity to Christianity. McKenzie suggests a liberal approach to other faiths.

For his adopted Faith, Christianity, had not yet taken on that unnatural pre-dominance, which, deriving in part from European backing, tends to strengthen the illusion of many Christians, even today, that the other African Faiths need not be taken seriously nor accorded their due respect. ⁶

The author evaluates Crowther's approach to other faiths in light of his view of "respect" for other faiths:

There are many more experiences of this kind to relate; but enough has been said to show that inter-religious encounters form a far more significant feature of Crowther's life-work than has hitherto been recognized. Secondly, Crowther appears to have lacked in all these encounters some concept of religion, which would have enabled a more positive ing of them, while still leaving him free to proclaim his own Faith in all its uniqueness. But this was a lack from which his whole generation suffered. It is only recently that we have begun to overcome it.⁷

The concept of religion McKenzie charges Crowther of apparently lacking, is that of equality of all religions in accord-ance with the spirit of Orita. The author does not like

Crowther's description of Yoruba worship as idolatrous or 95

heathen. He quotes Crowthcr to show the latter's sin of condemning other religions:

Questioning Gollmer's school children about the mons they had heard from him, Crowther was "truly gratified to hear from each boy a simple statement of the discourse of the day and with a tone of conviction of the folly of idol worship related parts which red to the superstition of their parents." This kind of approach was directed at more than effecting changes in the religious systems of society, it was putting a bomb under it. And it was all the more effective for being done, in the Yoruba language.⁸

To McKenzie's view, it was bad enough for Crowther to try to bring some changes to the Yoruba system of worship, but the bishop's effort to make a completely "new creation" or a "new man" out of Yoruba people amounts to placing mite under the system. This becomes unpalatable to the universalist, to say the least. Playing it soft with the so-called other equally revealed faiths, is the path Orita places before the Christian. But is this the position of revealed Christianity?

Does this not contradict the very first and second ments that say, "You shall have no other gods before Me, You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth" (Ex. 20:3-4)? Is it not an thetical rather than synthetical approach to other religions that both the Old and New Testaments present as the approach the people of God should take (Deut. 31:15-20)?

"Christ is not the ally of Belial, nor has a believer anything to share with an unbeliever" (2 Cor. 6:15, Jerusalem Bible).

Bishop Samuel Adjai Crowther was only being obedient to the "heavenly vision."

Idowu's Philosophy

Professor Idowu's Theology implies universalism. His use of Scriptures gives the impression that he does not take the context seriously. One glaring example of such an approach is his interpretation of Micah 4:3-5. He makes Micah say that all worship is valid as a worship of Yahweh. He claims:

Here, in defining "total peace" as the end of religion Micah adds startlingly the acceptance and ing of each people in the religious context in which 96

they lived. This would be as already asserted, because Yahweh was in control everywhere; and maybe that he would like to have added that, therefore, every impulse to worship at all, and the resulting practice of essential worship, was of "the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth."⁹

Idowu puts words in the prophet's mouth in saying "and maybe that he would like to have added" that all worship is Yahweh's. This is in addition to the distortion already given that the peace Micah speaks about amounts to the acceptance of "each people in the religious context in which they lived."⁹ By what principle of exegesis Idowu arrives at such a conclus-ion is hard to tell. Is it not because of the worthlessness of their gods that the heathen nations want to flee to Zion for help?

One further passage twisted to fit a preconceived theory is John 4:23, 24: "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the

true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such people the Father seeks to be His worshippers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth". Obviously, only those who worship Him "in truth and in spirit" please the Father. This fits in with John 14:6, Matt. 7:21, and Acts 4:12.

Idowu quotes the passage and adds the popular liberal cliche that total humanity is one brotherhood under the fatherhood of one God. H.D. McDonald very well sums up the position of Harnack, an arch liberal. He says: "Essential New Testament faith, then, as he saw it, was to believe in the all-inclusive Fatherhood of God made known as such, in the teaching of Jesus."¹⁰

Presenting the modern cast of the same view, McDonald observes:

While much present day theology has changed the figure, its fundamental characterization of what the gospel is has not much changed. If God cannot now be presented by the symbol "Father" He can be

regarded meaningfully, we are assured, as "the Ground of all being.”¹¹

While it is true that all people are children of God by creat-ion (and it is equally true that man has lost the privilege of being God's child). God is no longer a Father to everyone in the same sense, but their Creator and Sustainer. A ruling

97

monarch provides for all the subjects of his Kingdom, but only those born into the royal family naturally or by adoption are really King's sons and daughters. All men have now be-come rebels and can bebe-come children only by spiritual birth or adoption (Rom. 8:14-17). Therefore, when Jesus used the term Father, He either used it in reference to Himself, or to those to whom the Word of God says, "But as many as re-ceived Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12). The only other use of God as Father is in reference to Israel as the chosen people of God (Mark 7:27; Matt. 15:26; 8:12).

Schrenk asks, "Did Jesus go beyond this and think of God as the Father of all men? According to Matt. 5:43-45, His good-ness as Creator extends to all, but this is not fatherhood."¹² The term Father for God occurs about 115 times in John’s Gospel. The phrase, 'our Father' occurs only once, though in the decisive verse 20:17 where it denotes the new status of the disciples after the resurrection." But neither is there¹³ any indication that the Lord wanted it to stand for universal Fatherhood. Rather to the contrary, the Lord chided the unbelieving Jews, "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father" (John 8:44). Any son outside of Jesus Christ, whether a Jew or a Gentile, has Satan for his father. In using the term Father in John 4:23, Christ links it up with the "true worshippers;" such true worshippers were found in Samaria on that occasion (John 4:42). They alone can speak of God as Father. This is the position of Christ and His followers.

The Apostle Paul understood the concept of the hood of God in the same way as Jesus did. Only a centric Father-son relationship by the means of faith is possible (Rom. 4:11, 16, 18; Gal. 3:7). Abraham's faith is the pattern for Christians today in attaining to sonship. Only by this experiential faith can anyone refer to God as "Abba

Father" (Rom. 8:15). In Ephesians 3:14 Paul was addressing those who have assumed the new family name, Christians, so God was their Father. All the beautiful phrases Idowu uses show only one side of the total nature of God. That He is an all-loving Father reveals sympathy. Is God only that? Is He not also described as "a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29)? "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof" (Psa. 24:1) is Scriptural. But do the same Scriptures not also present a bold line of demarcation between the children of God and the children of the Cosmos-the world system (1 John 4:4-6)?

98

Justice is just as much an attribute of God as love. Through justice His holiness will be vindicated.

Idowu's call for mutual understanding between religions is the second concept to be observed. His recognition of other religions, epistemological relativism, and the end of all ions will now be examined. He states:

It is especially vital that we must come to a clear understanding and sincere appreciation of that which other persons with whom we are being brought into contact hold dear, what really "makes them tick,"

that is their basic beliefs, their religions.¹⁴

Man is called upon to recognize that although differences exist between religions, they are still heading in the same direction. The Christian should note that his faith is only

"one homo religiosus as meeting another homo religiosus. "¹⁵ If this is the understanding the Christian is to have, is there still room for seeking to evangelize the non-Christian?

Harold Lindsell has succinctly summed up the outcome to be expected from this kind of understanding of other religions:

Plainly, if all religions are generically the same, it

Plainly, if all religions are generically the same, it