The Church at Abeokuta

WP_20140410_072WP_20140410_080WP_20140410_069WP_20140410_081WP_20140410_073WP_20140410_079WP_20140410_085WP_20140410_068WP_20140410_076WP_20140410_083The Cathedral of St. Peter at Ake, Abeokuta, is the oldest church in Ake, the oldest church in Abeokuta, the oldest church in Western Nigeria, and – due to the proximity of the town to the Atlantic Ocean and the coming of the first missionaries – the oldest church in all of Nigeria. Built reportedly in 1898, it served as a rallying ground for a number of initial missionaries to Abeokuta many of who played other roles in the government of indirect rule between the Crown in England and the chiefs in Egbaland. The foundation of the church was laid by one Reverend Andrew Desalu Wihelm around 1846, and completed during the time of Henry Townsend.

One of the most known pastors of the church include the Reverend Josiah J. Ransome Kuti (also known as the grandfather of Fela Anikulapo Kuti, the inventor of Afrobeat), among many others. A hall in the church premises is named after another famous pastor, the Reverend Henry Townsend.

In some ways, it is the Southern equivalent to the Church in Wusasa – also a first in the north, built in 1902 – whose survival depended very much on the hard work of volunteer priests battling a society that – at the time – very much resisted the change it represented. In the account written in Wole Soyinka’s 1981 Autobiograpy Ake – the Years of Childhood, most of the early missionaries faced life-threatening confrontations with the elders of the town to whom Christianity represented a real and present threat. Many churches fell down after being visited by men from the local cults, sometimes while people worshiped inside. In the case of the Wusasa church, the threat came from the Muslim societies in the north who felt threatened by the new religion. That these structures have lasted so long is homage to maintenance, but more importantly, the cultural place they occupy in the societies that own them.

The Church at Wusasa

Today, I want to tell you about Wusasa. I never did tell you about my visit to that little village of one square mile, three miles outside Zaria City in Kaduna state, Nigeria. I was there in July.

This set of pictures is that of the very first church in Northern Nigeria, according to sources, built by missionaries after they were evicted from the Islamic Zaria City in 1929 not just by the Emirate council, but by the British administrators who did not want to offend the indigenous Northern rulers and upset Indirect Rule.

Due to this policy, development in the region became forever stymied with Wusasa rather than Zaria producing the many firsts in indigenous breakthroughs in Northern Nigeria.  The first Northern Nigerian to qualify as a medical doctor (Dr. R.A.B Dikko), the first Nigerian pharmacist (Mallam S.M.Audu), pediatrician (Professor I.S. Audu), BSc in Economics (Amb John M. Garba), among very many impressive others were born, lived in, or educated in Wusasa. Even General Yakubu Gowon (the first Northern Nigerian Head of State) was raised in the city, and the tour guide showed us his father’s house right behind the Wusasa church.

The church (St. Bartholomew’s) was built with local materials and by local architects. It has been attacked a number of times by Islamic extremists during the Northern Nigerian riots, and was even set on fire during those times. The mud materials of the building however withstood the assault, and even got stronger. Prince Charles of Britain, who had visited the church a few years ago, has reportedly been instrumental to its renovation. Now the church has a rug over all the concrete seats, and dozens of fans on its walls. But it retains much of its outward appearance as the oldest church building in Northern Nigeria, and an important one as well to the history and development of the region. Read more about it here.

Special thanks to Zainab Shelley who took me there, and a pastor of the church who gave us a detailed and guided tour on arrival.

At the Cathedral Basilica

Pictures taken from an inside tour of the St. Louis Cathedral Basilica in St. Louis only a few hours ago. The visit was impressive, the tour guide was nice, knowledgeable and warm. She’s a retired chemist.

The mosaics on the walls and ceilings of the building were nothing short of spectacular, telling stories of the church’s history as well as some key aspects of Christianity as well. There are no painting in the building. None at all. All the drawings on the ceiling and the walls were mosaics all handmade from glass and gold sheets. The St. Louis Cathedral Basilica holds one of the world’s largest collection of mosaic drawings, with over 41 and a half million tiles used for the drawings since the building was completed in 1914. The mosaic drawing was “finished in 1988, uses about 7,000 colors, and covers about 83,000 square feet.” (wiki)

It was only incidental that on this same day, I have got to visit a mosque, and also a synagogue in St. Louis (even participating in a Shabbat service, along with moving songs and readings). More on this later. The experience was worth the journey it took to get there.

The Cross and the Crescent: A Short Story

Once upon a time, there lived a cross in front of the Chapel of Resurrection in the University of Ibadan. The cross had been there almost since the University itself started, perhaps due to the fact that colonialists had preferred religion as one of the ways of controlling the  empire. Even in the Faculty of Arts, one of the first departments in the University was Religious Studies. The others were English, Classics and (I’m guessing British) History.  In any case, at considerable distance from the building of the Chapel itself, a cross stood as a symbol of the predominant religion, and everyone went their way.

Then one day, half of the grounds on which the Chapel had stood for years became parceled out to make way for the other now predominant religion in the University, this time, Islam. It made a lot of sense that administration allowed the freedom of worship within academic grounds. It was only logical that such a space be made around the same spot as the Chapel perhaps to make it easy to just call the area “Religious Grounds/Centre.” If you have a sense of humour, you may want to push it further and say that it will make it easier for God to hear everyone at once without having to leave the one place. So the Chapel stayed in its place, and so did the cross at the junction, almost adjacent the Catholic church building across the road. The mosque was a few metres down the area and the rest of the grounds remained open for practise of any form of spiritual contemplation and students have been known to go there to meditate or simply to get away from the bustle of the school area.

One day however, somebody in the adjoining mosque had a bright idea. The cross that had stood in its place for many years had become an obstruction – a sort of spiritual hindrance to their clear view of Mecca where they turned whenever they prayed. Never mind that it was not sited as an afterthought to the mosque, or that it was not really blocking anyone’s view (since, while praying in the mosque, it is really quite impossible to see the cross outside). For the brilliant Moslem student in the academia of those days, there was something inherently discomforting in bowing down in a mosque sited close to the emblem of a (perhaps rival) religion. The solution: demolish the cross or get it transferred to somewhere else. The mosque was there now and nobody had a right to place an obstacle to its religious independence even at such symbolic level. Of course the Chrisitians were not going to have any of that. Either the mosque is relocated, or the worshippers must respect the presence of their respectable symbol of faith since it had been standing in that position perhaps even before the mosque was sited. A true story. God, at that time, if he wasn’t the one pulling the ropes, must have had a cause to break into a smile at this point.

Guessing as can only be possible now from such a considerable time distance from those times, I can only try to picture what the scene must have been like: Christian students writing in campus magazines flaming articles to condemn the Moslems obvious intolerance, and vowing to defend the cross (both literally and figuratively) from vandalism, and the Moslems rallying after the champion of their cause in order to have their way – which they did in the end. Well, not totally. A compromise was reached and another plinth was erected close to the controversial cross. This time, it bore the crescent and the star, and it stood within considerable sight of the mosque, the chapel and the old cross. To “block out” the sight of the cross from the mosque, a large crate of concrete was also erected between the contumacious symbol and the Islamic praying grounds. All those buildings are still there today including the crate of concrete, and, to quote Soyinka on the matter “no earthquake has (yet) been reported within those holy grounds.” There are many more layers to the issue, of course, one of which was that that particular fight polarized the University and ruined old alliances, even within groups of people who believed in neither religion. Such was the level of intolerance that even pacifist on campus started gearing up to fight on one side or the other. The Cross and the Crescent in their heat of the passion contest for the hallowed right to – even if only symbolically – exist simply forgot about all the others and were ready to turn all hell loose if their point of view wasn’t respected.

Luckily, academia survived it – as much as it could – and all has remained calm ever since. Walking through the religious grounds a few weeks ago in company of a (Nigerian) visiting medical researcher from Connecticut, I took these pictures and took time to narrate the story which she, and many people I’ve told afterwards, hasn’t heard before. I promised to blog about it but didn’t make the time to do so until now, and what a time it is. The United States – or at least its airwaves – has become if not multiply polarized because of the testy decision to site a mosque a few blocks away from the old site of the World Trade Centre where in 2001 some fatalistic zealots had committed one of the world’s horrible crimes in the name of religion. On the face of it, it is insensitive, but a little paring will reveal it as only a testing of the true values of the country. Fifty years from now, I believe it would probably have become just another one of those moments in the development of a just and tolerant nation. But for now, let us watch but with our emotions in check, especially for the sake of those who have neither interest nor investment in the matter. I have heard families of victims of the World Trade Centre bombings say that the mosque is a fitting tribute. I’ve also heard from other families who say it is an insult. Nobody has heard from the dead, or from those who might still die if the intolerance is allowed to blur a simple distinction between a place of private worship by moderate and law abiding citizens and a shrine to terrorism sponsored by a faceless terrorist group in the caves of Helmand (where US forces shoot to kill every day). I heard that a Fox news commenter has also vowed to start a gay bar close to the mosque “to cater for the needs of Moslem men.” See? Freedom.

Maybe there is, or maybe there isn’t, a lesson for the divided American opinions in this Nigerian example, and in the paraphrased words of a writer: “Tolerance doesn’t proclaim itself or weave itself into conditions. It’s in itself evident.” Or maybe the answers are not really in religion, or sentiments, but in the constitution (which itself is just common sense); or in the examination of our own individual prejudices, and a sometimes thorough delineation of who the enemy really is. To me, this case appears as such a little test of the enduring values of the society that is America. But of course it is also just a local matter between the owner of the parcel of land, and the owners of the proposed mosque. Nothing to kill ourselves over. It has no bearing on the next direction of the cosmos in which we are all just a very little part: Jews, Hindus, Christians, Atheists, Moslems, Sikhs, pagans and all whoever else!

The End of the World

There are some things I probably shouldn’t be thinking about, especially since they usually don’t lead anywhere beyond the ceilings of my room and the rotating fan. I dose off, wake up again and worry about other things. One of them is the issue of the rapture, or the end of the world, as we were earnestly taught as kids by zealous pentecostal pastors. It is different from the real “End of the World” as prophesied in the book of Revelation where everything is destroyed and “no stone is left on another”. Actually, when I think about it, they are both very different views of the same event, and pretty confusing. The world ends. Time stops. The sun goes dim. In one other account, things get pretty messy and everything is destroyed. In the other, Christ shows up in the sky, and “all eyes (shall) see him.” (Rev. 1.7)

Actually, it is the “all eyes shall see him” part that has often got me pretty confused, and for good reason: The world is not flat. Maybe technically, the bible didn’t mean that all eyes would see him at the same time but the preachers who preached to us before the age of reason made real sure that that was the impression we got. He would come like a thief in the night and he may catch us doing bad, bad things. So we ought to be careful, and clean, and holy at all times. Well, were that possible, there would have been no sinners in the world. No sin, in fact, and no wars, and everywhere would be happy. Unfortunately, we have crushes (which until I was around 18 I thought was a sin), we lust after people, we have affairs, we lie, we steal and we cheat if it suits our purposes. If I’d known that even preachers had crushes, I’d have had a better luck with the first crush of my adult life whom I met in a church. 🙂

So I’ve figured it out, that part about all eyes seeing him. The Lord, if he would come to the world again, would have to deal with the issue of time zones which would really ruin his surprise. If the world were flat, he may appear to all at the same time, and there will be no hitches. But thank providence for CNN and 24 hour cable, as soon as he lands anywhere on this planet, we will begin to have “Jesus spottings” on TV and twitter, and people of the other parts of the world where he has not appeared will have enough time to prepare for him, repenting of their sins, kissing their girlfriends for the last time, or generally being silly in preparation of his coming. In any case, he could turn out to have a better sense of humour than we credit him for. Or maybe he will turn out like the Jehovah’s Witnesses have described him, gentle and wise, come to make peace on earth so we can all live happily ever after. I’d love that, because I’d really really hate the Statue of Liberty to be destroyed by his coming before I have a chance to get to its crown.

PS: The story of the white cross in that picture, and the crate of concrete beside it is an interesting one for another day.