The restructuring proposal

In 1992 Rev. Peter Mentoor, then minister at Metropolitan AME Church in Mitchell’s Plain, was instructed to prepare a paper on new structures for the AME Church on the African continent. The paper was a discussion document at the Cape Town District Presiding Elders’ Conference held in Mitchell’s Plain during the week-end of 24 – 26 April 1992. Mentoor took the liberty to address some of the pertinent points discussed at the Kraaifontein Consultation meeting.

8.4.1 Seizing the opportunity

In 1987 American districts celebrated the church’s bicentenary year. This celebration was characterised by solemnity and ceremony. At the General Conference of 1984 Bishop Vinton Ralph Anderson was appointed by the Episcopal Committee as ecumenical officer for the sole purpose of organising these celebrations. As part of the celebration a new hymnal and liturgical book for the entire church were produced. No

57 File no. 11.2 of AC Booyse: Content of discussion to be found in Mentoor’s paper Beyond 1996:

New structures for the AME Church on the continent of Africa.

Episcopal Districts outside the boundaries of America participated in the organisational structures, nor did they take part in any festival. Mentoor (1992:1) records that festivities were characterised by sparkle and extreme celebration.⁵⁸ He expressed the sentiments that the forthcoming centenary anniversary of the AME Church in South Africa in 1996 should take place in similar manner.

Mentoor (1992: 3) requested that the centenary celebrations be utilised to address the importance of suitable structures for the AME Church in Africa that would be contemporary in the context in which the church exist. More specifically he called for the establishment of an administrative entity on the African continent for the purpose of monitoring and reviewing the Episcopal work in Africa. There was a need for improved administration and management of the overseas work of the AME Church.

Mentoor (1992: 3) argued that such structures for renewal could not be independently organised by the bishops assigned to overseas Districts, neither could it be allowed to place connectional structures in jeopardy.

Mentoor (1992: 4) cites Chappelle’s proposal to the General Conference of 1992 in which he called for a Modified Episcopal District for overseas districts. A Modified Episcopal District simply means that all overseas districts must be administered as semi-autonomous districts by electing their own structures and having their own General Conference. The idea of a Modified Episcopal District was Chapelle’s attempt at offering a solution to a problem already identified in 1981.

8.4.2 Restructuring the episcopacy

Mentoor (1992: 5) called for the retention of the Episcopal system albeit with some modifications. If the AME Church on the continent of Africa were to be reconstructed, the episcopacy should continue to exist as a permanent part of the new structure. Bishops for Africa should be elected at the seat of the Africa Jurisdictional Conference prior to the General Conference. The General Conference in return should elect bishops who should serve the American Church. It was further proposed that the office of bishop should be a rotating one and only for a specified period. After the

58 Paper delivered by Mentoor at the Cape Town District Conference on 25 March 1992 at Mitchell’s Plain, Cape Town.

specified period as prescribed by the General Conference, the bishop should have the right to stand for re-election or should return to the pastorate.

It was further suggested that the bishop should be accountable to an Episcopal District Committee rather than a committee constituted by the General Conference. Reports should be given to each Annual Conference conducted, where rulings and decisions will be made and the planning of programmes be discussed. This restructuring of the Episcopacy does not, however, affect the bishop’s power of assigning ministers to various congregations.

8.4.3 Retaining connectionalism

The Kraaifontein discussion made it clear that any attempt that threatened the connectional nature would permanently close the doors to all African followers of the AME Church. However, connectionalism should not be equated with American control. Mentoor (1992) commented that African districts cannot be held captive simply because “we are slaves to a crude form of Americanism which we confuse with connectionalism” (Mentoor 1992: 6). He noted that connectionalism could be different to colonialism whereby decisions are made for and on behalf of Africans by a paternalistic American wing of the church. He proposed a new definition of connectionalism as an administrative machine that will be under the control of local leadership.

8.4.4 Developing indigenous leadership

Louw (1987: 9) suggested that it would be most fitting if the 1996 General Conference was held in South Africa and that another African be elected as bishop.

Hinds (1988: 2) argued at the General Conference of 1988 that the AME Church had to express the necessary confidence in African leaders if it was serious about indigenous leadership. He furthermore emphasised that the growth in membership, expansions of ministries, progress in development and the creation of self supporting African districts would eventually emerge if the concept of indigenous leadership was supported.

8.4.5 Implementing smaller Episcopal districts

Mentoor (1992: 8) notes that smaller Episcopal Districts would assist greatly with the effectiveness and control over the church and enhance opportunities for growth and expansion. This allows for easier compilation of information on local congregations and Pastors for decision-making and programmes for the church would then be accumulated more effectively. It would further ensure improved control of the administration of the church. He was of the opinion that the Cape Annual Conference with its seven Presiding Elder Districts and a total membership of more than forty thousand could become an Episcopal District on its own.