A central element in our Methodist understanding of the church, as indeed of the Christian faith, is partnership.  

In our understanding of God’s grace we do not so stress the sovereignty of God’s grace as to remove human freedom, making men and women into puppets. But equally we do not so stress our human response, as to diminish God’s sovereignty and initiative in our salvation. It is not a partnership of equals, but it is nevertheless a partnership.

               Partnership is a mark also of our understanding of the church and the ordained ministry. We do not so stress the ministry of the ordained as to undermine the ministry of the whole people of God. But equally we do not so emphasize the ministry of all God’s people as to undermine the ministry of the ordained. The Protestant reformers recovered a sense of the ministry of the whole church in the sixteenth century with their stress on the priesthood of all believers. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul expresses that in a different way in the image of the body, in which he brought out the inter-dependence of every part, all of them together being the body of Christ. But in the same chapter he could emphasise the role of the ministry, saying that in the church God had appointed first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers.  He then insists that not everyone is an apostle or prophet or teacher.

As we reflect on the church and its ordained ministry we need to recover a sense of partnership. There can be a tendency of some ministers to see themselves as ordained by God to tell lay people what to do, perhaps with a secular model of business or the academy in their minds. They are, as it were, the manager or chief executive running the company. They are the teachers who possess the knowledge, and lay people are the pupils who should listen and learn.

There can also be a tendency of some lay people, likewise using a business model, to see their role as that of the employer paying the salary, with the minister as the employee who is hired to do what he or she is paid to do. Or, using a different model, the minister is simply doing full time (or what ought to be full time) what local preachers or class leaders are doing part time.

The Methodist and biblical vision is not one of inferiority or superiority. The ministers are set within the church, not over the church in the way we normally use the term over. Indeed, as the term minister implies, he or she is the servant of the members. But the members are not the master. The master is Christ. ‘We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.’ (2 Cor 4:5)

The relationship of the bishop to the church is in many ways parallel with this. The bishop is not set above the church, but within the church. The bishop’s ministry is one of leadership in oversight, preaching, teaching, pastoral care. The bishop does not lead or govern alone, his or her leadership is set within the context of the whole church, expressed, for example, in the Conference, the General Purposes Committee, the Deed of Church Order, and the Standing Orders. The Deed and the Standing Orders express both the powers of the bishop and the partnership of the bishop with the whole church.

In the church there is not only partnership between the ordained ministers and the church, there is partnership within and between congregations. The term connexion expresses this. Congregations are not independent bodies. The Gambia is unusual in that half our circuits have only one congregation, but just as congregations are bound together in a circuit, circuits are bound together in the connexion, that is the Methodist Church The Gambia. At present the partnership between congregations is more structural than personal. The four urban circuits contribute financially to the other two and that is an important expression of partnership. But could we not do so much more, both personally and financially. What a blessing it would be to both sides, if each town church twinned with one or two of our village churches.

A partnership of persons is the fundamental partnership, but we cannot ignore financial partnership. Think of Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 8 about one church’s abundance supplying and meeting the need of another. Let me give you an example. When I read the agenda of the Youth Conference on Saturday I noticed that very few youths could go to the Youth Camp as they could not afford the fees.  But then I noticed that all 40 youths at Wesley and all 35 in Serrekunda were in education or employed, whereas in CRR 56 out of 59 were unemployed and in Kombo Western circuit it simply said most were unemployed.  Can the churches which have more help to sponsor those who have less?

What is true of the financial needs at our congregations in the rural areas is true of our clinics.  They are in a poor and dilapidated state.  The Banjul churches played a vital part in establishing the medical work in Marakissa which then spread to other villages.  But that was fifty years ago.  What about now?  Is it not a challenge to us that almost all the tens of thousands of dalasis spent on drugs in our clinics and the even larger amount given in sponsorship for pupils at school comes not from The Gambia, but from Britain?

Partnership means partnership between rich and poor, but also partnership between old and young.  There is always a risk in the church that old and young are in opposed camps.  The old for the most part want things to stay as they are, and the young want them to change.  It most often happens that as there are more who are old, things stay as they are – and then many of the young leave, feeling that the church is for the old, not for both young and old.  It is a challenge to old and young to have a church that embraces all ages.

In partnership between men and women, we have advanced significantly as a church, not only designating a woman as Bishop but also in the election of women as Assistant Secretary of Conference and as circuit stewards.  Partnership does not necessarily mean having exactly equal numbers of men and women on committees, but it does mean a church in which both men and women can flourish and where the difference of sex does not divide the community, but rather enriches it.

In The Gambia we have a partnership with the other Christian churches and also with the Muslim community.  I spoke of both and our relations with them last year, but I want today to refer to one other partnership and that is our partnership with government.  There has been partnership with government from the beginning, as it was the then governor who invited the Methodist Church to come to The Gambia in 1821.

The relationship has been positive, though government has at points been critical of the church and the church has also been critical of government. Let me instance some positive elements and some critical elements on each side.

The country owes a great debt to the Methodist Church which is often freely and willingly acknowledged. A recent example can be seen in the visit paid by a delegation from the World Council of Churches. When we called on the Vice-President, she spoke so positively and knowledgeably of the work of the Methodist, Church that one of the delegation asked whether she was a Methodist and whether he has misheard my saying that she was a Muslim. Then when we called on the Imam Ratib and the Council of Banjul Elders, they were not only insistent that we should be a member church of the World Council, but one of the leaders spoke with passion of his sense of indebtedness to Methodist High School and another of their appreciation that the church’s schools had always welcomed Muslims.

It is almost impossible to exaggerate the church’s pioneering role in education with the teaching of boys from the very first year that John Morgan and John Baker arrived and the teaching of girls two years later in 1823. To this must be added the concern for agriculture which also goes back to 1823, with the importing of 60 hoes and other implements.  In 1842 we read of a medical boat going up the River Gambia dispensing medicines. We are still today working in these fields of education, agriculture, and medicine.

Alongside this, there was an engagement with the social and political life of the country, even when it meant for the missionaries being critical of the government and their fellow countrymen. There was their strong opposition to slavery and the slave trade and their raising money to buy freedom for slaves. There was criticism of the rations given by the government to a team of liberated slaves which the government lent the church to rebuild the Mission House in 1834. Perhaps even more striking was the challenge not by a missionary but by York Clement, a leader and spokesperson for the liberated Africans, who was stationed at McCarthy’s Island. When the island manager forbade Muslims and Sonnikas from the mainland from visiting the island and refused the King of Katteba and his wives who sought asylum on it, he denounced the policy as ‘equal to murder’. He was arrested and sent to prison.  Benjamin Tregaskis, the Chairman, made representations to the governor. He ordered their release and reprimanded the manager who had to make an apology. We read that the governor also asked ‘in a friendly way’ that missionaries should not be active in local politics, especially in lonely places where the officers had enough difficulties.

It strikes me that though the Methodist Church has maintained its service to the nation in education, health, and agriculture, it has failed in or withdrawn from its role in the political life of The Gambia. There is a proper Christian witness to government on issues that concern the life and livelihood of the people, whether they touch on justice or jobs, on housing or health.

If we turn to the role of government in the partnership, we can see first the positive role. The Christian community is relatively small in an overwhelmingly Muslim country, but the church has the freedom to practise the faith and to preach the faith. It receives some support in its educational work in the payment of salaries in the church’s non- feepaying schools. It is offered gestures of support not only on occasions of pilgrimage but also in the gift, for example, of turkeys at Christmas. It has a place at the heart of national life in the place given to Christian prayers alongside Muslim prayers on national occasions.

Yet there are areas where the government disappoints or does not live up to this positive supporting role. Thus in education this government as its predecessor has not paid the rent for our buildings in our non-feepaying schools. This has increased the financial burden on the church and meant that we cannot maintain our high standards – and yet government does not permit us to take back full responsibility for these schools so that we could maintain them by charging modest fees.

To continue our major contribution to excellence in education we need land to build new schools and to develop old ones. For over twelve years Gambia Methodist Academy, academically the outstanding school in The Gambia, has been seeking in vain for land to expand. The minister’s response has been positive and encouraging but somehow the department never seems to have the document which will give the go ahead.

Again, the Christian community has benefitted from the President’s support of pilgrimages and other activities, and our Methodist Women’s Federation was thrilled with the news that the President would cover the cost of two women attending the World Assembly in August in South Africa. But, again, departmental action has not caught up with ministerial decision, as we are still waiting to receive this generous gift.

Let year at Conference I raised concerns in relation to the courts and hoped for the setting up of a small commission with two judges and two lawyers.  The Chief Justice appointed two judges and I appointed two lawyers.  I regret to say that the judges never seemed to be available.  I am hopeful, however, that a further positive meeting with the Chief Justice, when I was accompanied by one of our lawyers, will bear fruit in the coming year.

Let me give one more example from the prisons. We have been visiting the prisons since we arrived in 1821 and have been holding services in them for almost as long. It is, therefore, hardly believable that after 20 months we are still waiting for a pass for our minister, the only resident minister in Janjanbureh, to visit that prison. There have been positive meetings with the minister, but still no departmental action. As a result, prisoners are deprived of the religious and spiritual ministry which is their need and right, and the Church is prevented from exercising the ministry given to it by God.

I speak in this frank way, as I think that is what the President would expect after the meeting he had with the Imam Ratib and the three leaders of the churches on Day Three following the coup in 1994.  He said, ‘You are the torch bearers of truth and ethics’ and asked them to comment where they judged it was needed.

Conclusion

On one of my early visits to The Gambia, I recall the tour guide asking, ‘Do you know what GMT stands for?’ The answer was not ‘Greenwich Mean Time’, but ‘Gambia Maybe Time’. It means, I have discovered, that 9 o’clock or 9 o’clock prompt means 10, 11, or 12. This relaxed approach to time has a positive side to it, when it means giving priority to what is most important, as when a doctor gives priority to a grave emergency before dealing with a routine medical appointment. But in my experience in The Gambia it has most often simply been a sign of indifference.

We suffer from it in church as we suffer from it in the life of the nation.

Gambia Maybe Time has a sister. One of our members put it like this, ‘In The Gambia: to say is to do.’ When people have said something or passed a resolution, they feel that’s it. It is, as if there is nothing left to do, rather than everything left to do.  It can happen at the highest level in the church – in the General Purposes Committee and the Conference itself. How often at Conference do we pass a resolution, and that is the last we hear of it. This year by printing the resolutions of the last Conference followed by the action taken (or not taken) we hope to move from ‘to say is to do’ to ‘to say and to do’.

               For us, let GMT stand for ‘God means today’ and, instead of ‘to say is to do’, let it be ‘Actions speak louder than words’.