Reflections on the Ethiopian Orthodox Church: A Commentary by Dr. Ghelawdewos Araia

I am in full accord with Ato Abiye’s reasoning which runs as follows: “any assumption which discounts the habit of thought of Ethiopians in explaining the famine and finding out the solution leads not only to an ill-fated system of ideas, but even more importantly, it encourages a reckless undertaking of social engineering.”

In a similar vein, and corroborating the above rationale, this is what I scribbled in my book, ETHIOPIA: The Political Economy of Transition (UPA, 1995): “During the transition period, the tasks of Ethiopian leaders should have been to fight against medieval vestiges and not against capitalism. The latter in fact should be tolerated in spite of Derg’s policy of collectivization and priority of state farms in agriculture. The Ethiopian dogmatists, far from understanding and learning from the failures and mistakes of land reform of Russia, Vietnam, China etc., they came out with a grandiose villagization program where ¾ of the Ethiopian population, save the town dwellers, would be resettled. Collectivization as understood by the Ethiopian authorities was the simple amalgamation of peasant families into utopia farms where peasants produce collectively.” [Pp. 175-176]

Reinforcing the critique embedded in the above paragraph, I further argued along these lines: “The peasants were expected to create a secular monastery where they sell their produce at a lower price to the state or to go-between officials. No consideration was given to trading and marketing, to incentive, as well as to the psychology and interests of the peasants. The land-hungry peasants, who possessed land during the first phase of the revolution, were expected to transform themselves overnight into hermitage of self-denial, socialist fraternities and classless communes. That couldn’t happen, and it is simply absurd to contemplate the idealist future without properly dealing with the realities of the present. It should be understood that the dynamics of social change is a process and a long one.” [p.176]

I also agree with his thesis of “Max Weber’s celebrated argument that the emergence of capitalist economies owed much to Protestantism, which taught its followers to put a high value on worldly success.” This ‘rational-legal’ Weberian conception, however, needs further elaboration, and for the sake of discussion I will amplify on the fundamentals of ‘rationality’. First, let’s make the generic definition of ‘rationalization’.

Rationalization is the effort to achieve security and efficiency through calculation, by reducing things to calculable elements by which they can be rationally (intellectually) ordered and manipulated. Based on this fundamental notion of rationalization, Weber came up with a more systematic definition of cultural rationalization that first appeared in his book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. On close scrutiny, the latter’s central theme boils down to a psychological makeup conducive for a high degree of capital accumulation. Protestantism, therefore, becomes the most ingenious religious invention of mankind that can suitably serve the interest of capitalism. In a word, it is an epoch religion that can easily be pigeonholed into the ‘work ethic’ and ‘cash for labor’ motto of capitalism. But other major religions like Judaism, Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Islam are also epoch religions. In one form or another, they were either instrumental to various modes of productions or managed to influence and shape the latter. What makes religions different from other ingenious human inventions is their ability to persist and outlive their corresponding socioeconomic and political systems.

Whenever we discuss religion and society (any given society), we must seriously consider the fact that ancient communities (Africans in general with their polytheism and Egyptians with their mysticism and the notion of transmigration of the soul) tried to make sense out of their experience with nature and its vicissitudes, and how their very communities, where relationships are forged, operate, as well as the kind of problems posed to members of society. This being the cornerstone of all religions, the nexus between religion and society can most succinctly be reduced to humans making assumptions about the forces that control nature and the divination process to which they have recourse.

The influences of the major religions that I have alluded to are incorporated in Weber’s four types of rationality: Practical, Theoretical, Substantive, and Formal. Practical rationality is a manifestation of man’s capacity for means-end rational action and this entails the individual’s pragmatic and egotistic (selfish) interests. Theoretical rationality is a conscious mastery of reality and ultimately a potential to introduce patterns of action. Substantive rationality is the adequacy of action for meeting ultimate values that Weber defines as Wertende Postulate. Formal rationality is simply a system of economic activity, essential to every rational economy that is capable of being expressed in numerical calculable terms.

Substantive rationality is often formed by prophets, theologians, and priests and made as ‘salvation doctrine’ and ultimately institutionalized in the Church [or any other religious institution] and then translated into action by the pious congregation. Again, this type of rationality must apply to all major religions.

On top of purely ecclesiastical doctrines, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was involved in secular callings, best exemplified by the Church’s efforts to mobilize Ethiopians against foreign invaders and even sacrificing its own leaders (Abuna Pietros, the massacre of the Debre Libanos monks by Fascist Italy etc.). It is also to be remembered that the tabernacle (Tabot) of Medhanie Alem Church of Addis Ababa was beside the Ethiopian patriots during the Battle of Adwa in 1896. Ever since, the Church was known as Sidetegna Medhanie Alem.

Moreover, as I have argued elsewhere (and no doubt Ato Abiye has already anticipated this in his commentary), the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is the repository of Ethiopian history and we are indebted to the Church for our heritage (yet to be fully explored) and of our glorious past that are chronicled in the Branas. A significant number of early Ethiopian historians were either Church leaders or theologians (Aleka Taye, Aleka Zeneb etc.) Most of the Royal chroniclers and the thousands of school teachers (before the advent of modern education) were priests who were versed in theological (Mezmoor Dawit [Psalms of David], Tsome Duga etc.) and secular (Geez Fidel and Swasu-grammar-) teachings. The ancient Fitha Biher (law of the nation) & Ba’ale Hig (legitimization of law ) that are precursors to modern Ethiopian civil codes were written by Church leaders. It is no wonder, thus, that the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church is the very essence of the social and psychological being of the bulk of its followers.

Given the immense contribution made by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, therefore, it seems to me it is unwise to direct an onslaught against this bulwark of a very important aspect of the Ethiopian tradition. The Church can be criticized and challenged to undertake some reform and exhibit tolerance to other religions, but it should not be pushed into oblivion and obscurity by dint of political fiat or any other social measure.

Going back to the concept of rationality, I like to make passing remarks by demonstrating that Max Weber, despite his thoughtful paradigm, was wrong in assuming that “rationalization is the product of the scientific specialization and technical differentiation peculiar to Western civilization.“(Emphasis mine). This of course is a typical Eurocentric perspective and interpretation of history that disregards or deliberately ignores the great civilizations of Africa and the many rational thinkers who never got a chance to be acknowledged in European academic circles. But we are fortunate enough to have our own Ethiopian Zara Yacob and Ibn Khaldun from Tunisia.

Ibn Khaldun was contemporary to the many genius Moorish thinkers who gave civilization to Spain and the rest of Europe between the middle of the eighth century AD and 1492. Ibn Khaldun, who lived three centuries before Machiavelli, was the first to come up with the theory of prices and the nature of capital (not Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx). He was also the first sociologist (long before Max Weber and Talcott Parsons) who argued that “human social organization is something necessary,” and man as a political animal “cannot do without the social organization for which the philosophers use the technical term ‘town’ (polis).”

Unlike Marx and other materialists, Ibn Khaldun’s interpretation of history, man’s social organization, and human civilization in general are divinely revealed, and his thesis of divinity is skillfully elaborated in his magnum opus The Muqaddimah (Introduction to History). Incidentally, Muqaddimah (Arabic), has the same meaning like our own Meqdim (Ge’ez, Tigrigna and Amharic). The Muqaddimah is a compendium of philosophy, history, geography, themes on civilization, topics on the abundance and scarcity of food, and the nature of man; it is an encyclopedia and a must reading.

Zara Yacob, born around 1592 in Aksum, discovers God through his confinement and meditation. For him, God was the embodiment of reason, and by attributing ‘reason’ to the Creator, he anticipated the Hegelian conception of ‘absolute spirit’ or ‘idea’ that were contemplated in Europe in the middle of the 19th century.

Zara Yacob’s rational thinking can be summarized as follows: celibacy is unreasonable and monastic life contradicts the holy communion of the opposite sexes, and God never intended men to become celibate and deny their essence; marriage is a blessing but it has to be monogamy and not polygamy which engenders inequality of the sexes. God did not superimpose lent or fasting on his human creatures for he knows that food is a necessary fuel to humans; lent is a fabrication by the institutions of the major religions including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Begetting children is a blessing but it should be practiced within the institution of marriage; children should not be born out of wedlock. Faith is rational and not an irrational or dogmatic assertion, but the law of men however rational is incomplete without the law of God (ultimate reason).

Most fascinating of Zara Yacob’s rationality, however, is his contention that autocratic regimes should not suffocate or eliminate rationally endowed members of society. He was of the opinion that autocratic oppression is contrary to the teachings of the Gospel, and in this sense Zara Yacob could be called the protagonist and harbinger of toleration. The late 16th century Ethiopian thinker seems to witness and write about the late 20th and the beginning of 21st centuries-Ethiopian politics. For further understanding and extrapolations of Zara Yacob rationality, I recommend readers to refer to Professor Claude Summner’s “The Treatise of Zara Yacob” and The Source of African Philosophy: The Ethiopian Philosophy of Man. Additionally, readers can make reference to Dr. Teodros Kiros’ Zara Yacob website and his many writings on this wonderful Ethiopian rationality thinker.

In conclusion, I like to bring to the attention of readers that even our hero Zara Yacob was not tolerant to Judaism and Islam. Though I see this as his Achilles heel, and readers may surmise as an inexplicable contradiction in Zara Yacob’s rationality, I must insist that there is a natural proclivity of men of faith and religious institutions not to accommodate other religions, denominations, or doctrines. Given historical circumstances and the complexity of major religions, their conservatism and xenophobia is understandable although not justifiable. This behavior incidentally is not unique to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

All other peoples of faith may or may not tolerate other religions, but their primary vested interests would be to heavily guard their own and ward off others. At best they may wish (and try hard) to convert others into their respective religions (Pentecostal and Jehovah Witnesses are good at this), and at worst they want to eliminate competing religions. A good example of the latter is the massacre of Christians in Japan (conducted surreptitiously) in defense of Shintoism and the national culture. In 1947, Pakistan was severed from main land India just to find an exclusively Islamic State, but the Moslems in India are still greater in number than those in Pakistan. So given the historical circumstances I referred to above, we found it plausible to argue that Hindus and Moslems should tolerate one another for the sake of national unity (and this applies to Ethiopia), but we cannot pose the same argument for Pakistan Moslems and Indian Hindus. What is subjectively desirable is not necessarily objectively feasible.