Nairobi — The Catholic Church has rejected the first ever African Bible commentary authored by Protestant and evangelical scholars.

The Africa Bible Commentary (ABC) conflicts with certain Catholic teachings and the church's position on Sacred Scripture, the Commission for Doctrine of the Kenya Episcopal Conference, said on Wednesday.

The ABC was launched in Nairobi on July 5. Published by Word Alive (formerly Cana Publishers), the commentary is 1,585 pages long, written by 70 African scholars over a period of five years.

Dr Tokunboh Adeyemo, general editor of ABC and former general secretary of the Association of Evangelicals in Africa, explained that "God sovereignly connected 70 African Christians from 15 African nations, representing 10 different Christian traditions (Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Evangelical, etc.), and a minimum of 15 diverse professional backgrounds, but all united in their love and commitment to Christ to share in a common vision of making the Word of God speak relevantly to African realities today."

Among the aims of ABC, he said, was "to put an end to a phenomenon of ignorance and lack of understanding of God's word in Africa". He hoped that the commentary would "equip grassroots pastors, teachers and lay leaders with abundant resource material for sermon preparation, teaching and counseling."

Following is the full statement of the Commission for Doctrine of the Kenya Episcopal Conference, signed by Archbishop John Njue, chairman of KEC:

"Recently, there was a launch of the Africa Bible Commentary. A number of issues have been raised regarding its contents and whether it is related to The African Bible. Taking the above consideration, we have the following points to put forward:

First of all we should note that this work is in no way connected with "The African Bible" produced by Paulines Publications Africa. The African Bible is a complete Catholic Bible using the biblical text of "The New American Bible" and enriched with a critical apparatus edited by two Catholic Biblical Scholars, namely Rev. Dr Victor Zinkuratire and Rev. Dr Angelo Colacrai. It has the full approval (imprimatur) of the Catholic Church.

The "Africa Bible Commentary" is not a bible, but a commentary of the bible and does not contain the biblical text. All biblical quotes are taken from the New International Version. The Commentary does not deal with the Deuterocanonical books, which are fully canonical for Catholics. Neither does this Commentary discuss the question of canonicity.

There is no introductory statement of the underlying philosophy of commentary - though on page (ix) it is stated that "as part of their contract, contributors to the ABC would be expected to accept the AEA Statement of Faith as a guideline for their work". This is the standard declaration of faith of evangelical Christians.

The inception of the publication was when "participants in the Pan African Christian Leadership Assembly (PACLA II) realised that the bible "needed to be interpreted and explained to the people in familiar language, using colloquial metaphors, African thought-forms and nuances, and practical applications that fitted the African context". (p. viii)

The book contains both a section by section (not verse by verse) commentary on every book of the bible and a series of almost 80 articles, ranging in length from half a page to two pages, on a variety of topics, such as violence, polygamy, HIV/AIDS, Marriage.

There are some specific problems in the articles which the Catholic church cannot accept, for example: a) Homosexuality "Our views on homosexuality should not be derived from human sources but from the Word of God. The Bible clearly defines homosexuality as a sin. We see this in the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah and in Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Pastors and counsellors need to recognise that homosexuality has deep roots in our sinful nature It is, therefore, academic to try to make a distinction between a homosexual person and a homosexual act, as if the latter is sinful and the former not. Both are sinful." (p. 1355) This conflicts with Roman Catholic teaching.

b) The Role of Women in the Church "Where churches have listened to the voice of the Holy Spirit and have accorded women their rightful place in all ministries of the church, women have been ordained to the ministry of the word and sacrament." (p. 1471) This conflicts with Roman Catholic teaching.

c) Marriage Divorce and Remarriage At the end of a lengthy article, which upholds the Christian understanding of marriage, the author concludes: "In such cases, and after vigorous attempt to help the erring one to correct his or her ways, the pastor and the church must stand with the hurting party in seeking a way forward. By recognizing these as special cases, the church allows for such options as separation, divorce and remarriage." (p. 1150-51) This specifically conflicts with Roman Catholic teaching

The article on p 1371 on The Church and the State is another interesting example. It makes the point that evangelical churches understand church and state to be separate and should not interfere with each other. "Others, particularly the mainline denominations (Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Orthodox and Roman Catholics), support transformation. They argue that Christians are called to exert a Christian influence on the state of society and transform it on the basis of biblical values and principles. This attitude can even lead to a situation like that in Zambia where former president Chiluba declared it a Christian nation".

This does not criticise the Catholic position, but surely highlights their difference of position in relation to haki na amani [justice and peace].

The discussion of biblical passages is quite fundamentalist or literal. For example in the commentary on Jonah there is discussion of the exact meaning of "three days" and whether it would necessarily mean seventy two hours. There is nothing wrong in this per se, but the document on The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church produced by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1993 is very cautious about Fundamentalist approaches to interpretation:

The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.

At the launch of the bible, much was made of the use of "African proverbs" by the authors. Proverbs are generally very closely related to linguistic cultures, and are notoriously difficult to translate and apply out of the culture in which they arose. Looking for example at the commentary on Ruth, the use of proverbs is rather forced. In the same commentary a generalised and unsupported statement like the following is unhelpful: "Some Western readers of the text [Ruth 1:16-19] see a gay relationship between Naomi and Ruth. However, no such relationship comes to mind when one is reading the text with African eyes" (pp. 320-321). There are other unsubstantiated and gratuitous statements, for example concerning Saint Paul (p. 1385).

Overall, this book can be a valuable tool in reading the bible in Africa, as an example of a particular point of view. But it must be used critically, by people who understand its stance. It should certainly not be used with an understanding that it is faithful to Catholic teaching. Used uncritically, it is certainly problematic.

This is a preliminary response by the Commission for Doctrine of Kenya Episcopal Conference. A more detailed critique will be provided in due course.