March 31, 2013
Thanks to ESAT Journalists’ efforts from London, I watched the discussion with both those who had been involved in the process of the “amendment of the by-law of the Church’s administrative and managerial affairs” on the one hand, and the three ‘clergymen’ ( priest Abate ,deacon Mengesha and Leyou) who represented the opposite views on the other hand. I have to say that it was with sincere interest and due attention that I listened to what they had to say.
Here is my comment:
1. I do not have much to say about the “drafting committee” members who showed up on ESAT before the appearance of
the three ‘clergymen’.
This is because what they explained on the question of what, why, and how they had been trying to do was clear and issue focused. As I tried to watch and understand carefully, I did not find their explanation and reasoning messing with that or this group, and these or those personalities. It was mainly focused on the problem and the unnecessary consequence it caused. I found those individuals very professional and quite knowledgeable about the issue they were trying to deal with. I want to make myself clear here that I am not talking about what went wrong and who did what which is of course beyond my judgment. I am not either trying to advocate the “committee members” because what they explained about the situation tells me about the whole story, or because I found them blameless. Absolutely not! What I want to once again stress is that the way they presented and explained the troubling situation the Church is facing was issue focused, not subjective and not out of context. And whatever they might have difficulties with the problem they had been dealing with, their ability in substantiating the problem and the hurdle they had to face make a lot of sense. The way they presented themselves in a very gentle manner was impressive and sincerely appreciable.
2. It has been mentioned by the host of the program called “Tikuret” that it was not easy to hear the other side of the story (clergymen). And I want to say that it will not be inappropriate to express my observation in this regard that not making oneself available to a media that informs the public about issues of public concern is not a sign of strength ,but a serious sign of weakness if not a serious lack of self-confidence. Well, the excuse not to do so may or may not because of some sort of ulterior motives that I do not want to speculate. I heard priest Abate Gobena in his introductory statement of response saying, “Although we do not believe that the problem would be solved through media, we say thanks and we are ready to explain about the situation.” Well, it was and is a very common knowledge that one of the main purposes of a genuine media is to inform the public about the issue they concern, not proposing solutions. I do not think priest Abate could miss this very common understanding or knowledge. And if this is a very clear case, I do not know why he wanted to begin his response with that kind of “ironic” expression. I once again want to say that I am not saying he was implying that or this kind of intention. What I am trying to say is that using that kind of expression about what was and is not the role of media in proper at the very beginning of one’s statement does not sound genuine at all.
This said, let me express my brief observation about some of the points made by the three clergymen (Priest Abate and deacon Gebiru Mengesha and deacon liyou ) and the way they presented themselves.
I sincerely believe that it is relevant to quote writer Charles Kimball (When Religion Becomes lethal (2011), a book deals with an age-old and serious problem of the mix between religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) and politics when he says, “We live in a dangerous world in which many people –including many religious people think and talk in terms of “us “and “them.” When he forwards the solution he believes in, he says, “In our religiously diverse and interdependent neighborhoods, nations, and world community; educational dialogue facilitate the much needed final step in the engagement where “we all “are talking with each other about “all of us.” I am sorry to say but I have to say that what I have observed from those three clergymen of Debretsion Mariam Church is very far from this highly desirable way of thinking and behaving. Let me jot down why I am saying this as follows:
The first thing that all the three shared, as Author Kimball says was strongly characterized by the attitude of blaming the other side and defending themselves (their side) with every possible mechanism. That is where they lost their senses of focusing on the issue and presenting their side of the story in a rational, tolerant, humble and constructive manner. And that is why I said the above quoted expressions are powerfully relevant to bring into this specific case.
Although priest Abate, tried to control his emotion and look like well –composed and matured compared with how the two deacons did, he basically shared the highly emotional and very unnecessarily aggressive attitude of the two deacons as far as the content of their explanation and argument is concerned.
All the three have never tried to admit that as any human being, they and their side could make mistakes that contributed to the aggravation of the problem. They rather tried hard to show how the 15 and their sympathizers caused a serious disgrace to the sanctity of the mass (qedassie) and related ceremonies. Priest Abate admitted that those 15 were dismembered from the Church services in proper including “ENTRANCE NOT ALLOEWD!” by the decision of five out of nine members of the “Sebeka Gubae Astedader.” And what was the worst thing with this decision was that those four who were absent were representatives of the innocent members /followers of the Church and those five ones who passed the decision were clergymen and a representative of the Sunday school or singers (mezemeran). I am sorry to say but I have to say that I do not think this is the process to be taken as fair and right let alone to claim that it was led by the Holy Spirit. This comment of mine sounds harsh. But, that is what it is! And as a member/follower of the EOTC, I firmly believe calling something as it is and seeking for a genuine corrective measure is the very gist of being Christian. It is only when we try to pretend that all is fine while all is in trouble that we become victims of vicious circle and cause a serious harm to the innocent followers of the Church, and sadly enough harm to the religion itself.
When the three were asked why they didn’t want to take the issues which they couldn’t resolve to the general assembly (all members of the Church) and let everybody have his or her own say and see if that could help, they out- rightly dismissed the notion of public participation by saying that as the issue is spiritual affair, it has nothing to do with the people. I do not know why discussing about the administrative by-law of the Church should be a religious taboo unless we try to unnecessarily mystify it so that it serves some sort of self-interest in the name of the sacredness of certain religious dogmas and doctrines . I do not think this specific case (problem) of the London Debretsion Mariam Church is mysterious enough to the people themselves leave alone any professional person who has a relevant and relatively better knowledge about it.
Priest Abate tried to make this case much more mysterious /mystified when he said that “those “drafting committee members “can be experts in their own fields but not in this religious matter.” True, they cannot be. But not in this very particular common case the Church is experiencing very unnecessarily. Yes, I am sorry to say but I have to say that it is this kind attitude and tradition from many of our religious people that keeps the innocent followers of the Church religiously illiterate in the real sense of the term. I do not know how we can move forward in this 21st century if we try to keep people’s involvement /participation away from these kinds of very common issues (how to administrate or manage a church) in the name of religious (spiritual) sanctity/secret.
The arguments by the two deacons about the participation of the followers /members of the Church to my understanding is very clumsy and offending .They tried to justify the reason why they do not believe people should have their own say on this problem by saying that their participation is limited to serve the Church by being members of very common service rendering ad hoc and permanent committees /subcommittees. I do not know why and where this kind of arrogance can go with true religious values and humbleness, especially in this 21st century. I agree with the deacons that there are limitations in every organizational duties and responsibilities let alone in a religious institution like ours. But, I have to say that undermining and avoiding the people from issues that directly concern them does not make sense, and I do not think that was the very gist of the teachings of Jesus Christ unless we try to stretch every verse of the Holy Bible so that it justifies our ulterior motives. Is this harsh? Yes, it sounds! But, that is how I believe it should be!
Let me raise another serious question with all due respect. All the three clergypersons vehemently complained about the very unfortunate interruption of the mass service (Qedassie) caused by the disturbance from the very frustrated members /followers of the Church. I agree with them that if there were unnecessary and ugly exchange of words, that has to be vehemently condemned and seriously regretted. But, I do not think we need to over exaggerate it over and over again instead of helping the dust settle and making a constructive way to move forward. Let me pose my question which I want to know in this regard. What would be the answer for a question that might be posed by those who are blamed for the disturbance, which might go like this: “How those clergymen and their sympathizers who had had a great deal of contribution to the worsening of the situation claim themselves as genuine messengers to offer a heart-felt mass service and to bless his flesh and blood in His name?” Is this not a legitimate challenge? I strongly believe it is! I am well aware that so many fellowmen /believers may repeat what we are told at every preaching that we should not worry about the sin of others including the clergies /priests as sin is for self. Well, I understand that under a given context. But, I do not think I should keep quiet and get blessed by someone who messes with certain serious mistakes but blame others. Absolutely not! And I do not think this has something to do with committing a sin or being religiously unethical.
Let me sum up my comment with the question of “what is the way to move forward? “This was posed by the host of “Tikuret.” All the three arrived at a very troubling one –sided conclusion /solution because of their self-defensive and offensive premises and arguments. They sounded very authoritative when they said that the Church will remain closed until everybody understands what Christianity means and deeply regret about what happened. Well, generally this is a good and desirable thing to be done. To my observation, the problem with this general statement is that when they said everybody, they sounded that it won’t include them. As they did throughout their explanations/arguments, they did not indicate their courage to admit that they had contribution to the problem in one way or another, and their willingness to be part of the solution not as blameless but part of the problem too. I do not think the mentality and behavior of making oneself free of blame and a messenger of God to forgive others especially in this particular case holds water leave alone bringing about a real sense of love and peace.
So, the best way to move forward that works both in religious and secular world is to put oneself in an honest, rational, truthful, and mutually responsible and respectful manner, not in a position of give or receive attitude!
January 27th, 2014
by T.GoshuIt is an ABC of modern politics that a state is a state with three basic criteria: wit[...]