| Chapter Twelve Relations with Other CCAP Synods 12.1 INTRODUCTION The previous chapter demonstrated how political activities are inescapable; in one-way or another, the government must be encountered. This chapter will show how that within ecclesiastical structures, similar realities, which may be described as political, also exist. The inescapable fact is that Nkhoma Synod is different from its sister synods in some observable ways. It accepts graduates from the evangelical African Bible College as ministers. It has yet to accept women as ministers or as church officers. These distinctives are suggestive of the difficulty with which Nkhoma Synod blends and merges with its sisters. Furthermore it shall be shown how the General Synod (Assembly), always there as a part of Nkhoma Synod�s life since 1926 when it joined the CCAP, has taken on a new fortified meaning. The motives behind the creation of a new constitution, and how it has impacted upon the Synod�s life will be examined and the Policy and Strategic Plan 2000 � 2010 will be described, in order to give insight into the priorities and aspirations of Nkhoma Synod and the CCAP. The Dwanga border dispute will be seen as an example of a wound that refuses to heal, demonstrating how regional and linguistic divisions can cause difficulty in achieving genuine church unity. The other four synods of the CCAP are: 1. Livingstonia 2. Blantyre 3. Zambia 4. Harare 12.2 RELATIONS WITHIN THE CCAP 12.2.1 The Synods Acting Together In his summary of the period between 1926 and 1962, Martin Pauw says, The CCAP was formed out of three Presbyteries. Yet these three presbyteries were independent to such an extent that the Synod could even be said to have been more of a Federated Church than a United Church, each Presbytery retaining its own constitution, liturgy and standing orders. Training of ministers, licensing and ordination were done separately by each, �the licenses of such Ministers to be operative only within the bounds of the Presbytery�. Although the Synod was �the supreme Court of the United Church�, its functions only included �matters pertaining to the general welfare of the Church, for example public worship; Christian life and conduct; such cases, whether of discipline or otherwise, as may be brought before it by way of appeal; the promulgation of rules and regulations for the government of the Church; the control of such monies as have been entrusted to the Synod by the respective Presbyteries�. The Synod had no legislative powers and could not obtain such unless the conditions of the �Barrier Act� had been met (Pauw 1980: 339). In 1956, The CCAP adopted a constitution, and the Nkhoma Presbytery (in those days, �Mkhoma�) became Nkhoma Synod. The draft constitution as amended was then put to the vote, and there voted: for 130; against 0. The Constitution was therefore passed Nom-Con. The Moderator pointed out that was a great decision the Church had reached. The Synod rose in prayer and the Moderator led in a prayer of thanksgiving. It was unanimously agreed to add the following words to the adopted Constitution, �This Constitution on receiving in the Synod approval � majority vote shall come into effect immediately.� At the beginning of the period under study, 1962-2004, congregations in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) were under the jurisdiction of Nkhoma Synod. This relationship ended in 1965 when the Rhodesian (Zimbabwean) congregations formed a separate Synod. In his �Annual General Report for 1969� General Secretary YA Chienda gave an upbeat report regarding Nkhoma�s relationships with other synods. He noted that while there had been a troubling controversy with Blantyre Synod, causing Blantyre to threaten to withdraw from the CCAP Theological College, this matter had been cleared up at the Board meeting held at Chilema on 6 May 1970. The Synodical Committee of Nkhoma Synod held an interview with the Moderator and the General Secretary of the Salisbury Synod (now Harare Synod) in 1971. The purpose of this interview was to discuss the mutual calling of ministers from one synod to another; this was prompted by Salisbury�s acute shortage of ministers. Members of Synod were appointed to draw up a draft agreement and then report to the Moderamen and to the Salisbury Synod. The finalized, formal agreement was completed in late 1973. In 1980, there was a further expression of solidarity between Nkhoma and Salisbury (Harare) synods. Committee heard the letter from Salisbury Synod suggesting the following: 1. That all the funds requested from the mother church in S. Africa must be sent to Nkhoma Synod, that is: Nkhoma Synod should apply for funds on behalf of both Synods. 2. Candidates for Theological Training must be screened and selected by Nkhoma Synod, but if Salisbury Synod has a candidate, his name will be sent to Nkhoma Synod if he has passed the entrance examination. 3. All candidates will, on the completion of their studies, be available for calling in any of the two Synods. The Moderamen recommends that the full Synodical Committee should accept this request. One important issue that came up was that of the pensions of Nkhoma Synod ministers serving in Zimbabwe. The churches of the Salisbury (Harare) synod were reminded to make their contributions. The General Secretary must again write to the Salisbury Synod asking them to send the annual pension contributions for our ministers who are serving there, so that when they return to Malawi they will be receiving their pensions there. At a 1972 Synodical Committee meeting, the Theological Board noted that Chapter II, Article I (�Brief Statement of Faith�) was not being followed by the entire denomination. Therefore, the Committee declared that it was necessary for the unity of the CCAP that all synods interpret Article I in the same sense as Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Larger Catechism of the 1648 Westminster Confession of Faith. The Committee also found that it was necessary for the Order of Worship, Catechism, and various �rules and regulations� be revised and standardized for the use of all four synods. A number of years later, at the 1987 General Synod, the CCAP Moderator, Rev. JGM Maseko said, The second thing General Synod wants to achieve is closer unity of the CCAP by trying to introduce one order of service and also one Catechism for the whole Church. Although the Catechism will take us along way before we come to a final compromise, the exercise is worth while. But I think the first thing to start with is the order of Service, which is very practical rather than Catechism which is doctrinal on which I know there will be some reluctance as they had in the Pres. Church of East Africa in Nairobi whereby a book of common order of service was written, but the church was using it only at times. I don�t think this will happen in our church of CCAP We are all aware of the strongest argument some of us church leaders make, we say we are not after uniformity of things but unity in Christ. That is quite true, but still there are certain things which can bind us together. In 1976 Blantyre Synod sent a letter to Nkhoma Synod stating that they intended to send representatives to various places in Africa to study different church activities, such as Sunday school, catechism class, etc., and they wanted to some people to study at Nkhoma. Nkhoma responded by questioning what specific things did they want to study. That same year, however, Nkhoma did send delegates to the centenary celebration of Blantyre Synod. They also expressed �joy� when Livingstonia Synod marked its centennial the previous year. In 1980 the Moderamen heard a proposal that involved cooperation with a �sister synod� in neighbouring Zambia, Committee was told that (Rev. JGM Maseko) has been invited by the Reformed Church in Zambia to conduct a Church Music Workshop at Chipata Congregation from 25th to 28th September and at Mlhangwe Congregation from 2nd to 5th October. Committee allows him to go and help our sister synod. In 1982 the CCAP General Synod decreed that a new CCAP synod should be formed in Zambia. The report submitted to the General Synod that year listed the following problems: � Exchange of currency � Work permits for Malawian personnel � The question of caring for indigenous Ministers there However, the same report to the General Synod listed some positive aspects. These included: 1. The division of CCAP group in Zambia has now settled down. 2. Training indigenous ministers at Zomba Theological College and plans are there to train more on an emergency course at Livingstonia. Extension of work has grown now that there is possibility to form two new Presbyteries. In addition, at the 1982 CCAP General Synod, Nkhoma Synod gave a report on its ministers. They were dispersed as follows: The Synod has now 75 Malawian ministers sixty of whom are committed to the Lord�s work in congregations and the rest to special Synod posts and other Christian bodies. A good number is serving the Lord in the Synod of Harare (italics are those of the researcher). A question arose in 1983 concerning the boundary between Nkhoma and Blantyre synods. It was settled without undue controversy. Synod decides that the boundary between Nkhoma and Blantyre Synods should remain as it is. The Mlanda congregation should do its work according to the rules laid down by Nkhoma Synod. As further indication of the good relations between Nkhoma and Blantyre synods, Rev. Chinkhadze received an invitation to speak at a Blantyre Synod conference. The Moderamen gave their approval. The committee agrees that Rev. Chinkhadze should go to Blantyre Synod as speaker during their conference. We should pray for him. The CCAP General Synod of 1987 took up the issue of �CCAP Greater Unity�. It stated that, �the Standing Committee should study the Constitution with the aim of reviewing the Rules and Regulations of the Constitution.� It further mandated an Office for the General Synod, to be run by the Senior Clerk. It was agreed to establish a General Synod programme to involve women and youth. It also provided for the transfer of a minister from one Synod to another, while stating that the General Synod lacked the authority to bring about transfers itself. The Standing Committee �Rejected the idea that General Synod has advisory powers only and resolved that the issue of powers of the General Synod and Synods should be referred to a committee on the study of the constitution�. At the next CCAP General Synod meeting, held in Blantyre in 1990, the General Synod simply states that, �After review of the 1987 minutes of the General Synod, the committee noted that issues agreed upon were meant to build a unity.� It went on to say that �the General Synod resolved that the constitution of the CCAP General Synod be an expression of Unity among the CCAP Synods.� At the 1994 CCAP General Synod, the coordinator of the Southern Africa Alliance of Reformed Churches, SD Chiphangwi, sent greetings. This was to mark the seventieth anniversary of the CCAP. When, at times, you were tempted to give up and say, �the unity of the CCAP is impossible,� God encouraged you to give it a second, third and more chances which have made possible these festive celebrations this year. The CCAP constitution of 2002 gives principles by which the unification of the five synods should proceed. This new constitution is discussed in detail in the following section, 12.2, setting up committees that formulate proposals. Its ultimate goal is �total unity�. There remain significant differences, such as: Blantyre and Livingstonia have elders who serve for life; while Nkhoma�s elders serve three-year terms; Nkhoma continues to reject women ministers and officers. �The CCAP is still a confederation, not an organic unity,� says Nkhoma Synod General Secretary Winston R. Kawale. This statement suggests that Nkhoma Synod is not ready to surrender all distinctives and sovereignty in the name of unity. �We are more inclined to be a synod of the CCAP than a synod of the DRC,� said Kawale, meaning that the Synod is moving toward closer ties to the General Assembly of the CCAP. However, �there is no way we can detach ourselves from the DRC, as The Partnership Agreement recognizes the DRC as a special tie, in spite of opening up to other churches. For example, in some of the villages, there are older people who say, �We are Dutch.�� 12.2.2 The Boundary Dispute with Livingstonia Synod In July of 1968, a boundary dispute between Nkhoma and Livingstonia synods led to a formal agreement in writing. It read as follows: After a very long discussion, it was found that it was very difficult to agree on a common boundary because: a. Both Synods Livingstonia and Nkhoma have established many prayer houses, and these are all mixed, each had more than twenty prayer houses. b. There is no straight stream or river between the two rivers, Milenje and Dwanga, which could be used as a boundary. Because of this, it was agreed that the following recommendations be referred to the respective Synods. That the two Synods should stick to the decision agreed upon at the meeting held at Chamakala on the 2nd December Section (b) which reads as follows: �Meanwhile the two Synods shall work together in the area between the two disputed boundaries in a spirit of mutual respect, peace, and goodwill.� The Nkhoma Synod should not cross the Milanje stream, and the Livingstonia Synod should not cross the Dwanga River; they should all work in the area between the two rivers. No prayer house or out post should be built or started near a place where there is already one working from either side. When a member of one Synod would like to transfer to another synod, there ought to be a mutual agreement between the ministers and disjunction certificate ought to be used, no minister shall receive members of either side without a disjunction certificate. All church collection shall be used by a synod whose minister is in-charge of the particular prayer house or out-post. In order to avoid clashes, it was recommended that all ministers sent to work at this area should always be instructed to work at this area with a spirit of good relationship. In late 1979, the Synod still found itself trying to settle the recurring boundary dispute with Livingstonia Synod, this time involving the boundary of Nkhotakota congregation at Dwanga. Believing that Livingstonia had agreed to allow mutual operations in that area, Nkhoma expressed displeasure (to put it mildly) when a Blantyre minister and his elders disrupted the operations of an Nkhoma prayer house. �We inform the General Synod and Livingstonia Synod that we shall now resume our church plans in that area.� At a November 1980 meeting of the General Synod, the border dispute between Nkhoma and Livingstonia synods was apparently resolved, only to flare up again later. �Livingstonia said they had a prayer house at Liwaladzi since 1921, and that the original border was the Bua River right up to Mchinji, and alleged that Nkhoma only became active in the lower Dwanga because of the recent development projects initiated by the Government.� For its part, �Nkhoma stated that the boundary from the days of Dr. Prentice was the Dwanga River, and that when Kasungu Mission was transferred to Nkhoma by Livingstonia in 1923, that then became the boundary between the two Synods. The Standing Committee of the General Synod resolved the issue by stating that Nkhoma Synod must not cross the Dwanga River, Livingstonia Synod must not cross the Bua River, and that neither should build a church or prayer house near that of the other. Both sides appeared to accept the resolution. The �Dwanga Boundary Dispute� continued. At the 1987 General Synod meeting it was stated that, General synod decided to give mandate to the Standing committee to call both (Nkhoma/Livingstonia) Synods representatives and discuss the issue at Dwanga dispute site. If possible the old members who were present at the first Dwanga meeting from both sides be invited. (For this the overtures from Nkhoma and Livingstonia on this were pended for the Standing committee consideration). Again in 1990, the General Synod addressed the issue of the dispute between these two synods. The General Synod received a report from the (General Overtures) Committee and after a lengthy discussion the assembly asked if Nkhoma Synod consider of handling over the Church building at a controversial place (sic) to Livingstonia Synod. Nkhoma Synod therefore under-took to discuss the matter and report back to the standing Committee of the General Synod. In 1994, Livingstonia Synod in frustration withdrew from active participation in the General Synod because of the continuing border dispute issue. However, it reported at the 2000 General Synod meeting that it was ready to come back in. The report to the General Synod added, �However, it is concerned about the border dispute in Dwanga, Dwambazi and Mpasazi�. The boundary between Nkhoma and Livingstonia synods continued to be a point of contention. In 1995, Nkhoma Synod expressed a desire for this issue to be resolved, yet this problem continues to exist . In an interview with the present researcher, Nkhoma General Secretary Rev. Dr. Winston Kawale placed part of the blame upon a difference in culture. He explained that while Nkhoma�s people are Chewa and speak Chichewa, the people of Livingstonia Synod are predominantly Tumbuka, and speak Chitumbuka. This prevents a church that straddles the line from having just one service. He pointed out that there exists a school, one room of which speaks Chichewa while the other speaks Chitumbuka. CCAP General Secretary YA Chienda sheds even more light upon the issue, describing it as primarily a land dispute. At the dividing line between Nkhoma and Livingstonia, there is available land for cultivation. Tumbuka-speakers come form the North to farm. They want to go to a Tumbuka-language Livingstonia CCAP church. At the same time, Chewa-speakers come from the south for the same reason. Not surprisingly, they want a Chewa-language Nkhoma CCAP Church. The presence of these two competing groups in the same territory trying to farm the same land at the same time is what has caused the conflict between the two CCAP synods. Chienda further explains that a similar rift between Nkhoma and Blantyre synods has not developed because they speak the same language, Chewa, and because at their boundary there is no empty land for two rival farm groups to compete over. The difficulty between Nkhoma Synod and Livingstonia Synod began in 1924 when Kasungu was transferred from Livingstonia to Nkhoma, explains Rev. CL Chimkoka. He quickly points out that there are no similar problems with Blantyre, Zambia, or Harare synods. Chimkoka reports that the border dispute with Livingstonia Synod has been sent down from Nkhoma Synod to the presbyteries along the line of demarcation for resolution. 12.3 RECENT CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 12.3.1 The CCAP Policy and Strategic Plan 2000-2010 At the CCAP General Synod held in 2000 in Blantyre, a report from the Standing Committee contained the following comment on denominational unity Synods echoed similar comments that each Synod hanged too much on its missionary historical background. Ethnic fragmentation and geo-political linings were also noted to frustrate any efforts towards closer cooperation. It was again highlighted that General Synod was functioning as an advisory body with no position on any matters affecting the Church. As such CCAP would not speak with one voice when there was need. Some Synod representative described the General Synod as �very ineffective�. Also at the CCAP General Synod held in 2000, an ad Hoc Committee report recommended the approval of the �policy and constitution documents� and then be sent to the Synods as an overture. It further recommended, �an extra-ordinary General Assembly be held in May 2002.� In 2001, the CCAP General Assembly approved the document or report known as the Policy and Strategic Plan 2000 � 2010, emphasizing the necessity of replacing the 1956 constitution. This was needed because of a lack among the various synods of unity in polity and doctrine. It also identified various areas of concern and broadly proposed plans for dealing with them as a unified denomination. It was organized into the following outline: 1. Historical Background 2. Vision 3. Mission Statement 4. Fundamental Principles of Faith and values 5. Basic principles of Faith 6. Objectives 7. Some Basic and Fundamental of Faith a. Fundamental Principles of Faith b. Rule in the Church c. Presbyterian system of Worship and Freedom of conscience. d. Membership e. Altar Call f. Sacraments g. Discipline h. General Synod governance i. Mission Works j. Calling system for Ministers k. Ordination of Women to Church Office l. Organization Structure of the General Assembly Secretariat 8. Strategic Issues a. Unity i) Differences in the Origin ii) Differences in Some fundamental Rules & procedures iii) The 1956 General Synod Constitution iv) Perceived Lack of Benefit from General Synod v) Personality Clashes vi) Perceived Political Inclinations vii) Lack of Recognition of Ministers from Other Synods viii) Mission Work ix) The Dwanga Dispute x) Conclusions b. Financial sustainability of the General Assembly c. The HIV/AIDS Crisis d. Emphasise a Christian Approach to HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care e. The CCAP and Other Churches f. The CCAP and Other Faiths g. Issues and Strategies i) Congregational Ministry in the CCAP ii) Evangelism in the CCAP iii) Theological Training in the CCAP iv) Education in the CCAP v) Health Care in the CCAP vi) (There is no Number Six) vii) Youth Work in the CCAP viii) Women�s Work ix) Family Values x) The Church and Government The contents of this document are given in outline form only at this point. Throughout this study, reference is made to it. 12.3.2 The New Constitution The latest CCAP Constitution went into effect in 2002. One change that it brought about was the changing of the name of the General Synod to �General Assembly�. Article One spells out the name of the denomination and who may use that name and under what circumstances. Article Two decrees that �Church,� �CCAP,� and �General Assembly� shall mean the same thing. Article Three lays down such basic principles as what confessions are to be honoured , that Jesus is head of the Church, and what form of church government shall be in effect. Article Four contains basic statements of faith, giving in detail the 1924 statement of faith mentioned in Article Three. Article Five is an extended mission statement, stipulating that �youth are to be involved at all levels of the Church.� It further states that the Church is to be willing to cooperate with other agencies in order to meet the physical, moral, spiritual, and educational needs of people. Article Six describes the courts of the Church. Each synod is to make its own constitution, rules, and regulations, with reference to the General Assembly. Each Synod sets its own terms for working with partnering churches and fraternal workers. Each synod is free to establish ecclesiastical relations with other churches �under consultation with the General Assembly�. Article Seven mandates that all the Synods shall be uniform in liturgy, order of worship, and Zolamulira (rules and regulations). All synods are instructed to live in harmony with those synods that share a common border � there are to be no boundary disputes. There are to be areas of mandatory uniformity. This article also sets the conditions for pulpit exchanges. The General Synod of 1990 prescribed �freedom of movement among CCAP ministers�. The General Synod resolved that ministers within the CCAP be given freedom to apply in any of the five synods for a vacancy to serve and their benefits to be discussed by the Synods concerned. Article Eight deals with the General Assembly Trustees, outlining their responsibilities and powers. The Trustees are to include the Moderator, Vice Moderator, General Secretary, Vice General Secretary, and the Treasurer. Article Nine specifies the duties and powers of the General Assembly, as well as those of the General Secretary. It is to be the supreme court of the CCAP, with both original and appellate authority, binding upon all the constituent synods. There is to be a General Secretary and two deputy general secretaries. It names �Specialised Desks� such as Youth Work, Women�s Work, and Development Work. Article Ten outlines the work of the General Assembly Standing Committee. Between meetings of the General Assembly, it acts as the executive of the General Assembly, implementing the decisions of the General Assembly. The Standing Committee shall consist of the Moderator, Vice Moderator, General Secretary, and deputy General Secretaries �who shall be counted as commissioners from their synods.� Article Eleven sets the conditions for being a church officer � minister, elder, deacon, evangelist, and specialist functions. It also gives the rules regarding the sacraments. Interestingly, it mandates ordination of women, and that all offices are to be open to them, but does not compel a particular synod, such as Nkhoma, to ordain them if it does not wish to do so. It sets the requirements for church membership. Article Twelve is a brief (one paragraph) �Basic Order and Rules�. It says that the General Assembly is to give very general rules, and that the synods are to fill in the details. Article Thirteen has as its topic �Mission Work.� It defines and establishes the rules for evangelism and discipleship. Mission work can be carried out by the General Assembly, by any court of the Church, or by any member �in accordance with the rules hereunder.� It sets the terms under which a new synod can be organised. Article Fourteen has to do with discipline. It gives in detail how a member or specific category of church officer is to be disciplined. Discipline can take the form of admonition, rebuke, and suspension from the privileges of membership, deposition, or excommunication. It also provides for the restoration of someone who has been disciplined. Article Fifteen gives the conditions under which complaints against church officers or church courts may be brought. It also provides for appeals of decisions. No decision of the General assembly can be appealed. Article Sixteen (�Power to Make Regulations�) is a brief one-sentence statement that says the General Assembly has the power to make any rule in order to put any part of the constitution into effect. Finally, Article Seventeen, �Amendments,� gives the conditions under which changes to the book of confessions can be made. It also sets the conditions under which changes and amendments to the constitution and book of order can be made. The above document undoubtedly represents years of hard labour and thought, yet it appears to be a balancing act. In the midst of language suggesting centralisation, there are some exception clauses, the case of women officers being a notable example. Is the goal of achieving unification and standardization being reached? Veteran PCUSA missionary Nancy Dimmock is under the impression that it is coming about very slowly, that intentions and reality are perhaps not yet being fully synchronised. �The (new) constitution is working,� contends CCAP General Assembly General Secretary Rev. YA Chienda. �Rome was not built in a day.� Little by little, he says, things are moving towards the goal of greater unity. Rev. CL Chimkoka affirms the opinion of Chienda. He insists that the new constitution is bringing about greater unity, particularly in the area of pastoral training. It also permits the CCAP to speak with one voice regarding political and social concerns. He further believes that the 2001 �Policy and Strategic Plan 2000-2010� is being followed, again particularly in the area of the Zomba Theological College, and also in standardization of liturgy. Finally, Chimkoka points out that the new constitution is a �federal constitution, not a unity constitution. 12.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS There has been a smooth transition from the previous chapter to this one, with an easily traceable parallel between relations with the government and inter-synodical relations. Both have called for skilful negotiation. At least as early as 1972 there is on record a drive to bring about a standardization of the Catechism, Order of Worship, and some form of constitution. This was more fully realized in 2003. This is especially welcome as one considers the long-standing boundary dispute with Blantyre Synod, as well as the Synod�s difficulty with participating in a �joint� theological college. It was demonstrated how while moving in conjunction with the rest of the CCAP, it simultaneously carried on a boundary dispute with a sister synod. The inability of the two synods to put it to rest is discomforting. However, the far-sightedness and thoughtful goals of the Policy and Strategic Plan 2000-2010 more than compensate for whatever misgivings arise from the boundary dispute. The Plan shows an enlightened attempt to move forward with vigour and renew society. The fifth of the seven �secondary questions� that this study undertook to answer was, � How does the Nkhoma Synod relate to the other synods of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian?� How it relates to the other synods is the secondary question most directly addressed by the chapter. It has been shown how there is a movement to standardize the order of worship, catechism, and book of church order for all the synods of the CCAP. The latest version of the denominational constitution seeks heightened unification. In developing its self-understanding of being a church, Nkhoma Synod increasingly sees itself as a component of the CCAP and less as a �daughter� of the DRC, inter-synodical tensions and continued contributions from South Africa notwithstanding. Its self-understanding of being a church would also have to include words such as �Reformed�, and �evangelical�. It continues to reject ordination for women and sends students to African Bible College. Both of these distinguish it from its sister synods of the CCAP. It rejects the term �born-again� but calls upon individuals to experience personal salvation. Although it has in recent years joined with other denominations in order to achieve certain political goals, it would be more comfortable with organizing a Billy Graham Crusade than with organizing a political rally. This is a pivotal chapter in that it directly addresses several of the secondary questions. The CCAP (and �CCAP� always includes �Nkhoma Synod�) in its current documents clearly identifies itself as a �confessional Church�. It is clear that at least the intention is to be �self-governing, self-propagating, and self-supporting� (see section 1.2), though the last one may be elusive. In addressing several social concerns, it reveals theological development in a certain direction. Therefore, the answer to the research question, �How has Nkhoma Synod developed its understanding of being a church since 1962?� can emphatically be seen here. It sees itself as a key, yet still semi-autonomous component of a larger whole, that whole being the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian. The Constitution is still in the process of making all of its articles fully operative in the quest for greater unity and standardization. One can see, however, that the trend is toward more, rather than less, united action and polity. The next chapter continues to delve into the process of inter-Church relationships. It shall look at the current state of relations with the DRC, the other Churches of the �Commission For Witness (and how this entity came about),� other Reformed bodies beyond African soil, non-Reformed churches, and ecumenical bodies. As the story unfolds, Nkhoma Synod shall be seen moving ever further away from its origins as a DRC mission. |