JO-KANG’ATO

Ecclesial disunity is not unique only to the present time. Church history is littered with instances of disunity among Christians throughout the ages. The Church at various times right from its commencement dealt with this problem in ways which African Christians could emulate in the present. In both the OT and NT dispensations, the Church exhibited very strong familial and communitarian features in its life right from the patriarchal to the mosaic through to the apostolic and patristic periods. These features enhanced intimate connections among Christians that the relationships arising (page 29) from the two models presently are short of as the Western mindset informs them. Whenever the familial and communitarian aspect of the Church was taken away, disunity and problems set in as demonstrated in Adam and Eve’s case; in the relationship between Cain and Abel; in the cessation of Israel from Judah; in quarrels among believers during the Apostolic times; in tussles over doctrinal issues and leadership wrangles during the patristic era; and the schism in the Catholic Church which caused the departure of protestants from it. The severance of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the RCC is also among those moments. The current situation in ecclesial life is a product and the aftermath of historical developments. However, the developments also present familial aspects of relationship among the people of God. The component of jo-kang’ato was there during the patriarchal period when families comprised the Church and handed faith down to the next generations. In the mosaic period, Israel demonstrated jo-kang’ato as a theocratic society and a national Church. At the beginning of the NT Church in the first century AD too, Christians engaged each other as members of one community where spiritual and material resources were shared. In most cases, the disputes that arose were viewed as sibling rivalry, and solutions worked out. For instance, in the misunderstanding between the Hebrew and Hellenistic women, the Apostles formulated the process of resolution, while at the council in Jerusalem, the elders, that is, senior leaders of the Church, heard and determined the theological case presented by delegates from each side of the spectrum. The concept of jo-kang’ato also came to play in the broadened scope of the Church during the apostolic era when extension and inclusivity happened. However, the component of jo-kang’ato was marred during the patristic times by the Arian controversy and subsequent theological conflicts. The situation was aggravated by the rise of the papacy and subsequent denominationalism. (Page 30).   In the first place, it has been established that the values embedded in jo-kang’ato correspond to the relationship expected of Christians in the ecclesial life of the Church as presented in passages of Scripture subjected to exegeses. The collectivism which it advocates for is not only African but Scriptural. It has also emerged that indeed synchrony exists between the Luo’s extended family system with the familial model of the Church offered in the Scripture to inform relationship among Christians (page 142) and help in the realisation of unity within the Church. The relationship prescribed for Christians in the Scripture is one of an extended nature. The Luo’s extended family system injects into the familial model mutual relationship among members which is a necessity in the realisation of Christian unity. It goes beyond and embraces many people, including those that are not related naturally. The study also found that there are points of contact between the Luo’s view and practice of community with the type of communal life which is expected to enhance Christian unity in the ecclesial life of the Church. In the Luo’s concept of jo-kang’ato, values are embedded, which are an incentive to a constructive relationship. These values strengthen biblical propositions on the ideal Christian relationships and spur an enriched understanding of ecclesial unity. (Page 143).   The Luo culture has been brought into the conversation and interrogated in light of Scripture to find if it adds anything to the discussion about ecclesial unity. The fidelity of the concept of jo-kang’ato to Scripture has been noted in the process. Indeed, there are points of contact between the concept of jo-kang’ato and the passages of Scripture studied which aids comprehension of the subject under study. Rather than conflicting with the principles of the Christian faith found in divine revelation, it establishes them. The posteriori arrived at through the biblical and cultural exegeses undertaken by the researcher is that the concept of jo-kang’ato is fit and valid for use in a theological discussion. It is a legitimate African concept whose time of integration into theology has come. (Page 143).   The most important feature found in the concept of jo-kang’ato is that it ensures that the familial and communal models are extended to embrace the “other” and their otherness which could include social and denominational affiliations. (Page 143).