(The Capuchin, October 1994, p.3)
It used to be assumed by Europeans that traditional African religion had nothing to say on ethical matters. God, it was thought, was remote and did not reveal himself; there was no Ten Commandments handed down from Mount Sinai. It is only in relatively recent times, and largely under the influence of African thinkers, that it has been demonstrated that there are very substantial links between traditional religion and ethics.
The traditional Zambian ethic could be summed up as: do not offend community or custom, tribe or tradition. The motivating force behind this ethic was belief in ancestral spirits. They were the guardians of society’s codes and practices. To violate the code was to draw down the anger of the spirits, not only on oneself but also on the group. God might be remote, but the spirits were not; they were ever present, in dreams for example, and would not ignore what violated the good of the community of which they were still a part.
This belief created a strong community sense; there was loyalty to the group. It creates continuity with the past, so that change came slowly and could be assimilated easily. Zambians are not individualists; they are community-orientated. Responsibility to the extended family (one’s relatives), and respect for authority are notable qualities. So is patience.
This ethical system, like any other, has its weaknesses. While it is strong on group loyalty, it means that there is little concern for someone who is not part of the group, which, in practice, often means the tribe. And tribalism is racism under another name.
Similarly, group loyalty does not help to develop a sense of individual responsibility. Honesty, truthfulness, and justice demand a strong sense of individuality; a person has to be ready to stand up and be counted – alone, perhaps – against the group. Educated to submerge oneself within the group, it is almost impossible for a person to stand apart and say a firm NO to its pressure.
It has been said that communication is about what has been received rather than what has been given. Applying that principle to the communication of Christian moral teaching to Zambia, it must be said that what has been received is mainly about sexual ethics, drinking and smoking. The ethical implications of doing an honest day’s work, protecting the weak such as the widow and orphan against exploitation, defending civil rights, responsibility to care for children, resisting corruption – these may have been taught, but they have not been caught. The ethic of Christianity has not penetrated the milieu, except in one important area, that of liberating the individual from the dominance of the group by the respect and care it shows for the person. This process is far from complete, but Christianity can legitimately claim the credit for having advanced it substantially.
Perhaps the need is to fuse Zambia’s communitarianism and Christianity’s individualism.