










































Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  49 

THE MINISTRY OF QES GUDINA TUMSA IN THE KAMBATA/HADIYA REGION 
 
 

Staffan Grenstedt 
(Uppsala University) 

 
 
 

Abstract: This paper highlights Qes Gudina Tumsa’s efforts in the Kambata/Hadiya region 
with special bearing at integrating the Kambata Evangelical Church 2 (KEC-2), which had 
broken away from the Kambata Evangelical Church (KEC) in 1954, into the Ethiopian 
Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus (EECMY).  The KEC-2 attended the annual 
Conference of Ethiopian Evangelical Churches (CEEC) from 1955 to 1961, when the 
EECMY “Home Mission” with the Kambata Home Mission Program (KHMP) was 
launched. Qes Gudina’s efforts in the region can be divided into two periods. The first was 
in 1963 when he tried to integrate the KEC-2 into a synod of the EECMY. As we will see, 
this approach generated some problems. His second attempt, together with the Finnish 
Missionary Society (FMS) in 1967-69, was more successful. 

 
 
 

NOTATION AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD 
 
The footnotes at the bottom of the pages refer mainly to my Doctoral Dissertation (Grenstedt 2000), on 
which I ground my paper.1 The title is: Ambaricho and Shonkolla – From Local Independent Church to 
the Evangelical Mainstream in Ethiopia. The Origins of the Mekane Yesus Church in Kambata Hadiya, 
published by Uppsala: Uppsala University in 2000. For convenience’s sake, I let the Ambaricho 
Mountain symbolize the Kambata ethnic group and the Shonkolla Mountain, the Hadiya. 

I will make use of the “Theological Typology” of the Norwegian scholar Einar Molland and 
elaborate on it for my own purpose. Turner and Daneel have employed Molland’s typology for 
independent churches in a similar way.2 

In order to characterize a Christian community, Molland identifies four basic aspects in his 
structural, theological analysis: doctrine, polity, worship, and ethos.3 There is an organic correlation 
between these aspects but different communities display a characteristic emphasis on one of them. For 
example, doctrine is the dominating (and unifying) characteristic of Lutheran churches. Molland 
furthermore defines ethos as a characteristic lifestyle linked to a confession. It is thus wider than ethics. I 
elaborate on Molland’s scheme and add relation to EECMY, ecumenism and size as further aspects for 
comparison. 

 
  

 
1The footnotes come in a somewhat different order in this paper than in the Dissertation, but can easily be found there. 

The Dissertation can be ordered from “The Swedish Institute of Missionary Research”, P.O. Box 1526, SE-754 41 Uppsala, 
Sweden. It can be downloaded from internet by www.uu.se/en click on: research; search publications; Ambaricho.   

2Molland 1961, p.19; Turner 1968, see Grenstedt 2000, p.24; Daneel 1987. On Weber’s “ideal types”, see Burke 1992, 
pp.28ff. 

3In the English version Molland uses “constitution” and “church order” not polity. Molland 1959, p.6. Turner prefers 
the more comprehensive concept “polity”. Turner 1968. I follow Turner and include Molland’s concepts as part of my concept 
“polity”.  

http://www.uu.se/en


Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  50 

HISTORICAL AND ETHNICAL PERSPECTIVES IN THE KAMBATA/HADIYA REGION 
 
THE KAMBATA/HADIYA REGION 
 
The area between the River Omo in the west and the River Bilate in the east, which I call the 
Kambata/Hadiya region, has its own complicated history.4 Originally the Kambata peoples, in a “general 
sense”, were peasants and the Hadiya were semi-nomads. Their internal history has to be differentiated 
into the history of their sub-groups. The relations between Kambata in a “narrow sense” and the Hadiya 
sub-groups Shashogo and Badowacho, for instance, were quite friendly.5 By the end of the 16th century 
one can use Kambata not only as a political term for a people, drawn together from heterogenous groups, 
symbolised by the number seven (sebat in Amharic; lamala in Kambatissa) and with a king at its head.6  

Relations between the two strongest Hadiya sub-groups, Lemu and Soro, however, have been 
strained from time to time, the main reason being their need of grazing land for their herds. Soro and 
Wollamo became enemies of the Kambata “proper”, whose kingdom started to expand c.1810. It is thus 
too simplistic to talk about tensions between the Kambata and the Hadiya just in a general sense. The 
situation has been more complex than that. In fact, the Kambata peoples in many cases complemented the 
products of the semi-nomadic Hadiya through their skilled farming techniques.7  

The good agricultural conditions in the Kambata/Hadiya region led to a population density up to 
more than 300 per square km. Many conflicts in the region were due to scarcity of land. This was also the 
case in the conflicts along the southern borderland to Wollamo.8 

 
EARLY MISSIONARY VENTURES, REVIVALS AND SCHISMS 
 
The Sudan Interior Mission (SIM) started its work in the Wollamo (Wolayta) region in 1928 and among 
the Hadiya around Hosanna in the Kambata/Hadiya region in 1929.9 In 1933 a station was built in 
Durame among the Kambata. The missionaries were forced to leave the two regions due to the Italian 
occupation in 1936 (Kambata/Hadiya region) and in 1937 (Wollamo region). When they left Ethiopia in 
1937-38 just ten converts from the Kambata/Hadiya region had been baptized by the SIM missionaries. 
Another twenty had been baptized by Ethiopians.10  

When the SIM missionaries resettled in Wollamo (1945) and in Kambata/Hadiya (1946), they 
recognized that in the meantime there had been a remarkable church growth of approximately 15,000 
baptized members (adults), in what I hereafter call “the Wollamo Church”, and approximately 10,000 in 

 
4See below, Map 3, p.3. In 1977-87 the region was called “the Kambata/Hadiya Awraja”. From 1987 it belonged to the 

so-called “Southern Shoa”. Negussie 1988, pp.109, 119. Today the area belongs to “the Hadiya zone” and “the Kembata, Alaba, 
Tembaro zone” in the wider “Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region” (SNNP), or just “Region 7”. Constitution of 
the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) article 47, 1994.12.08. 

5Braukämper 1980, pp.202ff.; 1983, pp.51ff., 61ff., 81, 294ff. The terms Kambata in a “narrow sense” and the 
“Kambata proper”, are used for the Kambata living around the mountain of Ambaricho, in contrast to the three Kambata groups 
with origins from Sidama. 

6Characteristically the districts of the KEC, the KEC-2 and the Kambata Synod were originally called sebats, that is, 
“sevens”. See below, pp.5, 9, 11-15, 17-18, 20-22.  

7Ibid. 
8Braukämper 1983, pp.10, 61ff., 70, 294. 
9Wolayta is from 1976 the name for the former Sidamo sub-province of Wollamo. Before this year I use the latter 

name. Ethiopian Herald 1976.03.10. 
10Italy invaded Ethiopia in October 1935. By “the Italian occupation” I mean the time, from the fall of Addis Abeba in 

May 5, 1936 until May 5, 1941 when the Emperor returned to Addis Abeba. Marcus 1994, pp.147ff.; Prouty 1994, pp.181ff. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  51 

the Kambata Evangelical Church.11 These remarkable revivals were led by indigenous Ethiopian 
Christians in the densely populated regions in southern Ethiopia.12 

After the return of the SIM missionaries in 1946, however, there occurred schisms within the 
KEC. In 1951 a group of seventeen churches broke away from the KEC. In 1952 the two dissenting 
groups were reconciled. Again, in 1954 another group broke away. It is this latter group I identify as the 
independent KEC-2. 

 
 

11Counting 100 members a church. Cotterell 1973, pp.27ff., 170; Braukämper 1983, p.103; Balisky 1997, p.190; Duff 
1980, pp.243, 327. When speaking of baptised members, it should be remembered that the SIM did not acknowledge the EOC 
baptism. A number of the converts were thus “rebaptised”, from an EOC point of view. SG-A: Lundgren to Grenstedt 
1995.06.25. 

12The revivals in southern Ethiopia and in Wollega under and after the Italian occupation support the theory that the 
main agents of Africa’s Christianisation were the Africans. See Sundkler 1987, pp.75ff.; Sundkler & Steed 2000, pp.2f.; Walls 
and Bediako in Bediako 1995 pp.204ff. ; Ogbu U. Kalu quoted in Verstraelen 1996, p.325; see below, p.64. A pertinent example 
in southern Ethiopia is the Wolayta evangelists. Balisky 1997. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  52 

EVANGELICAL CHURCH FORMATION 
 
As hinted above, annual conferences called the Conferences of Ethiopian Evangelical Churches (CEEC) 
were arranged by Ethiopian Evangelicals from various parts of Ethiopia in 1944-63.13 They were signs of 
the ecumenical climate, which prevailed among Ethiopian Evangelicals after the Italian occupation. 
Owing mainly to later missionary influences, causing a growing denominationalism, the importance of 
the CEEC decreased. In 1957 the SIM-affiliated groups stopped attending the CEEC meetings in Addis 
Abeba. This is a clear indication that the Ethiopian Evangelical movements went in different directions.14 

Instead of firmly establishing one united Ethiopian Evangelical church (“EEC”) or a federation of 
Ethiopian Evangelical churches, the road to establish confessional churches was set. The evolving 
Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus, which traces its roots via the CEEC to the “Evangelical 
Pioneers” from the 19th century and to even earlier influences, established itself in 1959.15 

SIM missionaries and SIM-related churches, like the KEC and the Wollamo Church, met in May 
1956 and founded “the Fellowship of Evangelical Believers” (FEB). The FEB, which from its inception 
had a doctrinal statement, started to meet annually and was later joined by churches connected to the 
Baptist General Conference Mission.16 The Fellowship of Evangelical Believers was registered with the 
Ethiopian Government in 1964.17 From 1969 the name “the Kale Hiywot Churches” (KHC) began to be 
used by members of SIM-related churches.18 

The Presbyterian Bethel Church, which was initiated by the American United Presbyterian 
Mission (AUPM), preserved its Ethiopian Evangelical legacy and attended the CEEC until 1963. In 1974 
it became a part of the EECMY.19 A common experience, which both the EECMY and the KHC share as 
the two dominant Evangelical churches in Ethiopia, is a long-felt critique from the venerable EOC.20 

 
THE KEC-2 EVOLVES AS A NEW LOCAL INDEPENDENT CHURCH  
 
As will be recalled, Ato Biru Dubale was the strong leader in the early Wollamo Church. His “new” 
indigenous church in Wollamo started to grow when it received financial support from the Swedish 
Mission Bible-True Friends (SMBV) in 1951. In 1954-55 it comprised approximately thirty to forty 
congregations.21 The Norwegian Lutheran Mission (NLM) policy of paying salaries attracted KEC 
members and generated discussions between the KEC and the SIM. Even if an agreement was reached 
between the NLM and the SIM in 1953, the situation was still tense. The presence of the Seventh Day 
Adventists (SDA) in nearby Shashamene, and its intensified contacts in the region, and the Ethiopian 
Orthodox Church’s (EOC) attitude towards Evangelicals, did not improve ecclesiastical relations. To use 
an understatement: religious dynamics inside the region were complex in 1953.22 

 
13The KEC took part in the annual conferences of the CEEC held in Addis Ababa in 1947, 1948, 1952, 1955 and 1956 

but not in 1949. See Grenstedt 2000, p.89.  
14Grenstedt 2000, pp.89ff., 121ff. 
15By “even earlier influences”, i.e., the 17th century Peter Heyling. Arén 1978, pp.34ff., 409ff. 
16PB-A: Minutes of Meeting held at S.I.M. Headquarters, A.A. on 21st May, 1956; Fargher 1996, p.301, n.6. In 

Amharic it is referred to as “b’wengeil amanyotch andinet”. SG-A: Balisky to Grenstedt 1994.02.17; Cotterell refers to it as 
“andinnet”. Cotterell 1973, p.164. 

17Balisky 1997, p.256. 
18In 1974 all the SIM-related churches agreed on the name the Kale Hiywot Churches, translated as “the Word of Life 

Churches”. In Feb.1994 no official recognition had been received from the Government. SG-A: Balisky to Grenstedt 1994.02.17. 
In 1971 a crucial decision on forming a denomination with this name was made according to Fargher 1996, p.301. 

19EECMY-A: Inception, p.3, n.d. (1982). 
20Movements inside the EOC have often had more positive relations with Evangelicals than official attitudes may 

indicate. Arén 1978, pp.13ff., 409f.; see Grenstedt 2000, pp.220f. 
21Pedersen (Aasebø Rønne) 1989, pp.103ff., 108f.(Danish). 
22Grenstedt 2000, pp.88ff.; 106f. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  53 

A discontented group in the KEC reacted against the KEC’s sharpened discipline on drinking 
since 1953. It looked at the church of Ato Biru Dubale, and in 1953 several deputations from “Kambata” 
visited the NLM center in Sidamo and asked for an alliance. They were, however, let down by the 
Norwegians, who were more concerned about comity principles than the SMBV.23 

It seemed as if the new dissenting group in the KEC was very concerned with gaining an outside 
supporter. It was pressed from two sides: the KEC (SIM) and the EOC. It understood that it could hardly 
survive on its own and was discussing “. . . how to obtain the missionaries who could support their 
work”.24 

It was this discontented groupthat I identify as the evolving Kambata Evangelical Church 2. It 
had its strongholds around Dodoba, close to Mt. Shonkolla, and in Mishgida (Durame), close to Mt. 
Ambaricho. Two of its early leaders were men of some wealth: Ato Mersha Tesema from the Dodoba 
area and Ato Ashebo Wolecho, a coffee trader from Mishgida . Ato Mersha was active in connection with 
the Addis Ababa Mekane Yesus (AAMY) reconciliation attempt of the KEC in 1952. Furthermore, he 
presented a letter to the Emperor on religious freedom. He obviously mastered Amharic and became the 
new spokesman of the KEC-2.25 

The SIM-related churches had probably received special invitations to the 1955 CEEC to discuss 
and decide on a federation among Evangelicals in Ethiopia. This was also in the interest of the evolving 
KEC-2. The determined preparations of this dissenting group in 1954 to attend the 1955 CEEC in Addis 
Abeba under the leadership of Ato Mersha, as a church in its own right separated from the KEC, marks 
the final split within the KEC and the birth of the KEC-2. 

The KEC-2 primarily reacted against the KEC (SIM) foreign cultural pressure on drinking, that is 
on ethos, otherwise it was very similar to the KEC. Moreover, it was founded in Africa, by Africans,and 
primarily for Africans. The KEC-2 had the characteristics of a local African Independent Church fighting 
for its cultural freedom.26 

After breaking away from the SIM-related KEC, the KEC-2 found a platform in the CEEC from 
1955 onwards. When the EECMY was founded in 1959, one of the big challenges of this church was how 
to relate to the KEC-2. Describing its engagement in the KEC-2 as a “Home Mission”, the EECMY 
deliberately bypassed missionary comity principles and involved itself in the Kambata/Hadiya region.27 
In 1962 the Kambata Home Mission Program (KHMP) was launched. It was mainly financed by the 
Lutheran World Federation (LWF). The KEC-2 gained a new status as the Kambata Synod in the 
EECMY in 1969 and the Finnish Missionary Society (FMS) became its supporting mission. The Kambata 
Synod changed its name to the South Central Ethiopia Synod (SCES) in 1977. It was later amended to the 
South Central Synod (SCS) in c.1983.28 

 

 
23SEM-A: Tausjø to Lundgren/Arén 1953.09.27 (Norwegian). Not all the NLM missionaries shared the view of Dr M. 

Tausjø, that is, to discard the Kambata petitions for help. SG-A: Lundgren to Grenstedt 1995.06.25. 
24MYS-A: Beredo Bekalo 1990, p.12. Grenstedt 2000, p.81. 
25GA-A: CEEC minutes 1955, List of Delegates; SG-A: Tarekegn Adebo o.i.1995.07.26. The strongest “sevens” in the 

KEC-2 were later on Dodoba and Abonsa. See Grenstedt 2000, pp.150, 164ff., 169, 185, 191. On Ato Mersha, see Grenstedt 
2000, pp.102, 106; SG-A: Donald to Grenstedt 1998.06.15. Peter refers to Ato Mersha as a neftanya. Peter 1999, p.345. 

26Sundkler 1961, pp.38ff.; Turner 1968, pp.22f. See Grenstedt 2000, pp.23ff.,110, 114ff., 128. On cultural freedom as 
part of Human Rights, see Tergel, 1998. 

27Just like in colonies in Africa and in other continents “spheres of interest” or “comity areas”, i.e., areas which the 
missionaries considered belonged to a special mission and where other missions were supposed not to work were discussed and 
clarified among missionaries in Ethiopia. Ethiopia of course was not a colony but an independent country. 

28From 1984 the English name of the FMS is the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Mission (FELM). Forslund 1993, p.60. 
Throughout this study I indicate translations of quotations etc. from an original source in Amharic, Danish, Finnish, German, 
Norwegian and Swedish by putting this language in brackets after the source, e.g. (Amharic). These translations have been done 
by myself, except from the Finnish language in Part IV, where I have translated from Swedish to English.  



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  54 

THE EECMY’S “HOME MISSION” IN THE KAMBATA/HADIYA REGION  
 
ETHIOPIAN EVANGELICAL SOLIDARITY IN PRACTICE 
 
The EECMY Executive Committee was called at short notice for its second meeting on June 12, 1961. 
The main issue was to discuss and come to a final decision on questions relating to the KEC-2. The four 
founding synods of the EECMY were represented by eight men. In addition to the five EECMY Church 
officers, Qes Badima Yalew had been invited as a guest.29 

The history of the Kambata churches was presented to the EECMY Executive Committee in four 
ways: 

1. The EECMY President, Ato Emmanuel Gebre Selassie, gave a short introduction on 
developments from 1947 to 1961. These concerned the conflicts in the KEC and the Kambata 
churches’ petitions to the CEEC and to the EECMY. The final decision on how to relate to 
the KEC-2 was now going to be made, he declared. 

2. The report of the Special Commission to Kambata was handed out to the Executive 
Committee’s delegates and read, probably by Ato Amare Mamo. He was the only one of the 
Special Commission attending the meeting.30 

3. The CEEC minutes from 1947 to 1961 were read in short. 
4. Qes Badima Yalew was asked to speak on what he knew of the matter.  

This was the background given to the Executive Committee to act upon. 
Qes Badima and Ato Emmanuel were indeed the right men to relate the history of the CEEC 

contacts with the Kambata churches. The written report of the Special Commission to Kambata provided 
a fresh illustration of the situation. 

The EECMY presentation provided an elaborate basis for decision-making. The importance of 
the CEEC legacy to the EECMY was highlighted by the reading of the CEEC minutes since 1947. This 
was the first year of KEC attendance at the CEEC.31 The links of the EECMY leaders to the CEEC, 
which the Kambata churches were part of, were spelled out by this elaborate indigenous Ethiopian 
presentation. 

The main decision of the EECMY Executive Committee was to help the KEC-2 “according to its 
capacity” and to approve of a provisional budget for this purpose. 

Another decision was to call some church leaders from the KEC-2 to Addis Abeba for education 
in church administration and an introduction to the constitution of the church. The Executive Committee 
delegates were also encouraged to take a copy of the budget and try to find support for it in their 
synods.32 Lastly the delegates unanimously decided to inform the SIM of the EECMY decision to help 
the KEC-2 according to its petition. 

This was the final step in a row of decisions taken on by the KEC-2 since the EECMY General 
Assembly in January 1961. The process of decision-making described above shows what a delicate and 
challenging question the KEC-2’s application for membership was to the EECMY. In fact, it dominated 
the EECMY second Executive Committee totally. By this decision in June 1961, the EECMY character of 
an autonomous all-Ethiopian church was reinforced. The somewhat adventurous decision by the KEC-2 
rekindled the CEEC legacy of an enthusiastic Ethiopian Evangelical Solidarity in the EECMY. The 

 
29GA-A: EECMY Executive Committee minutes 1961.06.12, pp.54-55, §62-53 to §66-53 (Amharic) is referred to in 

this section unless indicated by footnotes.  
30The “special commission” of the EECMY in April 1961 consisted of three persons elected to an EECMY delegation: 

Ato Amare Mamo, Qes Gamachu Danu and Ato Zacheus Edamo. They were instructed to study the main cause of the conflict in 
the Kambata churches and the situation in the KEC-2, and bring a report to the EECMY Church officers. Grenstedt 2000, 
pp.140ff. 

31See Grenstedt 2000, pp.89ff. 
32A draft for a budget had already been prepared. At once the Wollo-Tigré Synod enthusiastically was prepared to 

support the project with E$ 300 (!). 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  55 

caution among EECMY leaders, which had been generated by missionary comity since the CEEC in 1956 
and onwards, was now definitely on the decline. 

 
ATO EMMANUEL GEBRE SELASSIE LINKS KAMBATA WITH GENEVA 
 
Ato Emmanuel Gebre Selassie was a key person in the CEEC and in the AAMY. In 1952 he had been 
sent to Hosanna by the CEEC on a reconciliation mission to the Kambata churches.33 At the 
LWF/Commission on World Mission’s (CWM) annual meeting in Berlin July/August 1961 he, as the first 
Ethiopian ever, gave the EECMY “Field Report” on Ethiopia. He did it in the capacity of one of the six 
“members” of the LWF/CWM and as the chairman of “the Ethiopia Committee”.34 

Ato Emmanuel was indeed the right person to present the EECMY Program on Kambata to the 
LWF. The minutes speak for themselves: 

Upon recommendation of the Ethiopia Committee, CWM, Resolved 
a) That CWM encourage the Evangelical Church – Mekane Yesus in its plan of assistance to the 
Kambata Christians; 
b) That CWM refer to the Budget Committee the request for $ 14,800 - for 1962 . . . .35 

This sum was altered to $ 13,754, “. . . taking into consideration local contributions of $ 1,000 . . .” It was 
included in the 1962 LWF/Department of World Mission (DWM) Program Budget as an expenditure 
called “Educational Program, Kambata, Ethiopia 13,754.00”.36 This meant that the EECMY request for 
the Home Mission Program 1962, which in Ethiopian was $36,885, had been approved by the 
LWF/CWM.37 The detailed budget of the Kambata Program had the following structure:38 

1. Evangelist Training Center (12 months)          E$ 16,875. 
2. Elementary School. Elementary School Boarding     7,400. 
3. Six Scholarships - Debre Zeit      1,800. 
4. Bible School (12 students)       7,210. 
5. Teacher-adviser (300x12)       3,600. 
First Year Needs             E$ 36,885. 

With this budget, one of the fundamental SIM-principles applied in the Kambata/Hadiya region, i.e., not 
to pay for Ethiopian indigenous enterprises with foreign money, was abandoned.39 Salaries for an adviser, 
two pastors, two teachers, and guardians had been included in the budget for 1962.40 

There had not been much discussion in the EECMY on this change of principles in the 
Kambata/Hadiya region, in addition to the deliberations prepared by Schaefer and Lundgren.41 They had 
posed the question on how to provide help “. . . without destroying the self-governing, self-propagating, 
self-supporting nature of the Christians already there.”42 When discussing church-mission relations 

 
33On Ato Emmanuel Gebre Selassie’s reconciliation mission, see Grenstedt 2000, pp.118ff., 124. 
34LWF-A: LWF/CWM minutes 1961, pp.2, 10. 
35LWF-A: LWF/CWM minutes 1961, p.27. 
36LWF-A: LWF/CWM, pp.46, 49. 
37The exchange rate used at this time was 2.5, i.e., the Ethiopian $ (Birr) was worth 40 US cents. Ullendorf 1965, 

p.206. U$ 14,800 x 2.5 = E$ 37,000. 
38GA-A: Suggested Budget, n.d., u.s. (1961 Lundgren); see Grenstedt 2000, pp.166f., Appendix IV. 
39Cotterell 1973, pp.70ff. Ethiopians were employed by the SIM in e.g. the SIM school and Bible-school in Durame 

called “Taza”, but this was looked upon as a SIM enterprise not to be mixed up with the indigenous enterprises of the KEC. SG-
A: Teferi Sendabo o.i.1995.05. 30. On the SIM “parallel structure”, see Grenstedt 2000, p.58, pp.223ff. 

40The budget was broken down in three parts under the heading: “Budget Estimate”. GA-A: Suggested Budget, n.d., 
u.s.; see Grenstedt 2000, Appendix IV. 

41Dr. Schaefer and Rev. Lundgren had prepared a four page paper to the EECMY Church Officer’s 9 May 1961 with 
the title: A Program of Help to the People of Kambata. See Grenstedt 2000, pp.144 ff.; Appendix III. 

42See Grenstedt 2000, Appendix III, p.3. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  56 

concerning the EECMY on an earlier occasion, Rev. Lundgren was anxious not to build a church that 
would depend on mission budget. All churches and schools should be built by congregations, and all 
workers should be employed and salaried directly by the church. This was what Lundgren opted for, but 
the principles should be used wisely.43 

It seems that there was neither enough time nor enough interest for such a discussion in the 
EECMY, when it came to the point. Here again the EECMY leaders acted pragmatically and with an 
Ethiopian purpose. From now on, Ethiopians would pay salaries to Ethiopians with foreign funds in the 
KEC-2. 

 
A PICTURE OF THE KEC-2 IN 1961 
 
In 1961 the KEC-2 had been on its own as an independent church for eight years.44 As a whole, it still 
was very similar to the KEC except on its teaching on moral and traditional issues.45 

Polity: The KEC-2 consisted of five “sevens” (districts). The two strongest were the Dodoba 
“Seven” with Ato Zelleke Luke’s congregation in Hawora, and the Abonsa “Seven” with Ato Ashebo 
Wolecho’s congregation in Mishgida. The Endara Congregation north of Hosanna in the Lemu “Seven” 
and the Sorgago Congregation in the Soro “Seven” were places of interest, too.46 

Four times a year, baptisms were held at quarterly meetings.47 These meetings can be compared 
to kinds of KEC-2 “General Assemblies”. The KEC-2 was heavily dependent on local elders. The model 
was conservative and authoritarian. 

Worship: As there were almost no church buildings, the services were held in private homes and 
thus became dependent on the good-will of the house-owner/house-elder.48 Singing and prayer in local 
indigenous manner dominated KEC-2 services and liturgy. 

Doctrine: When the link to the EECMY became stronger in 1961, the interest in following 
EECMY practices on baptism increased among KEC-2 leaders. But as no mission or the “EEC”/EECMY 
had yet come to the Kambata/Hadiya region to teach the KEC-2, and as the educational level of the KEC-
2 elders and leaders was very low, three years of schooling or less, not much teaching was accomplished 
in the church. 

Instead, the legacy of the SIM, where confession was emphasised in connection with the 
sacraments, still lingered in 1961. The KEC-2 form of baptism was immersion in a river and a baptisand 
was expected to profess “. . . Jesus Christ as his personal Savior publicly . . . .”49 Then he also became a 
communicant. 

Because liberalism on moral issues was common, the KEC-2’s legacy of public confession 
became formalistic and confusing. The contradiction between profession and practice made the KEC-2 
vulnerable. 

Ethos: The KEC-2 attitude on drinking and polygamy was liberal. 
Ecumenism: At a national level, the KEC-2 delegates had been attending each CEEC in Addis 

Abeba from 1955 to 1961. The CEEC at this time functioned as a lifeline of moral support to the KEC-2 
but the CEEC representatives did not involve themselves actively in the Kambata/Hadiya region. Since 
1961 the KEC-2 was happily aware of an increasing support from the EECMY. Ato Zelleke and Ato 

 
43Lundgren 1960, pp.189f. (Swedish). 
44This section refers to GA-A: Amare May 1961 unless indicated by footnotes; see Grenstedt 2000, Appendix II. 
45See Abebe Bushero’s argument above, p.128; KM-A: Hodges to Donald 1960.07.18. 
46The Dodoba “Seven” was a middle-ground, where Kambata and Hadiya ethnic borders met. According to one of my 

maps, the Shonkolla Mt. was situated inside the Dodoba “Seven”. It would be too simplistic to refer to this “seven” as only 
Kambata. MP-A: Palmu 1977; see Grenstedt 2000, p.51, pp.164, 219. 

47GA-A: Amare May 1961, p.2; see Grenstedt 2000, Appendix II, p.2. 
48GA-A: Djalatta 1966.01.21. 
49GA-A: Amare May 1961, p.3; see Grenstedt 2000, Appendix II, p.3. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  57 

Ashebo and others met with AAMY elders in Addis Abeba on January 18, 1961. This was the final step 
of the KEC-2 open acceptance by the EECMY.50 

In April 1961, the EECMY Special Commission to Kambata visited all five “sevens” of the KEC-
2. In June, when the EECMY support to the KEC-2 received official status, six elders were invited to 
come to Addis Abeba in July to study the EECMY Constitution and church administration.51 These 
things were anticipation of what was to come, and filled the KEC-2 leaders with optimism. 

At the local level, the KEC-2 leaders’ opinions of the SIM and the KEC were critical. The KEC-2 
felt discriminated against. 

Size: In 1961 the KEC-2 claimed to have twenty congregations in each one of the five “sevens” 
and a membership of 25,000. This was probably a huge exaggeration as 100 congregations normally 
would be estimated to approximately 10,000 members.52 
                                                                                                            

  

 
50The EECMY second General Assembly was Jan.18-22, 1961. GA-A: CEEC 1961, pp.37f. 
51GA-A: EECMY Church officers’ minutes, p.57, §73-53, Hamle 12, 1953 E.C. (July 1961, Amharic); EECMY 

Church officers’ minutes, p.59, Introduction, Pagume 3, 1953 E.C. (Sept.1961, Amharic). 
525 x 20 x 100 = 10,000 using “the rule of thumb”. See Grenstedt 2000, p.67. 

Map 1: The KEC-2 Five “Sevens” in 1961 
[approximate scale 1:1,000,000] 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  58 

QES GUDINA TUMSA’S CONTRIBUTION IN THE KAMBATA/HADIYA REGION 
 

THE DOUBLE STRATEGY OF THE EECMY 
 
The framework of the Kambata Evangelical Church 2 (KEC-2) since 1962 was the Ethiopian Evangelical 
Church Mekane Yesus (EECMY) with its four synods and church officersofficers in Addis Abeba. In 
1962 the EECMY developed what I call a “double strategy” in its contact with the KEC-2.53 

One part of the strategy was to release Qes Gudina Tumsa from the Shoa and Eastern Wollega 
Synod (Nakamte) for some time and make use of his talents in the KEC-2. His task was to integrate the 
independent church KEC-2 as a synod of the EECMY. This was a primary concern of the EECMY 
strategy. 

The other part of the strategy was to ask Ato Zacheus Edamo to leave the Wollo -Tigré Synod 
and be appointed to the local Kambata Home Mission Program (KHMP)as  executive secretary in the 
Kambata Hadiya region. His task was to implement various indigenous EECMY projects in KEC-2 
within the KHMP budget. 

The process of communication between the KEC-2 and the different EECMY representatives 
would prove vital for the future. In this next part I will follow developments from 1962 to 1964 on the 
basis of EECMY minutes. 

 

QES GUDINA TUMSA’S ATTEMPT AT INTEGRATING THE KEC-2 INTO THE EECMY 1963 
 
As has been mentioned earlier, the EECMY already in July 1961 had begun to educate KEC-2 elders in 
church administration and in the EECMY constitution in accordance with the EECMY Executive 
Committee’s resolution in June 1961. This indicates an interest from the EECMY side to integrate the 
KEC-2 as a synod from the very start of the more active EECMY support.54 

 
53“Double strategy” is not an EECMY expression but seems to have been the way followed. 
54GA-A: EECMY Church officers’ minutes, p.59, Pagume 3, 1953 E.C. (Sept.1961, Amharic). See above, p.6. 

Photo 1: Qes Gudina Tumsa, photo by Leif Gustavsson, Upsala 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  59 

A year later, in 1962, Qes Gudina Tumsa paid a first visit to the Kambata/Hadiya region and met 
with KEC-2 elders.55 Accordingly, the link between Qes Gudina and the KEC-2 leadership was already 
well established when, in November 1962, the EECMY church officers wrote a letter and asked the Shoa 
and Eastern Wollega Synod to send him to the KEC-2 for a longer period of time.56 

Qes Gudina proved to be an excellent person to bring trustworthy information on local 
developments to the EECMY church officers and, above all, to start the integration of the KEC-2 into the 
EECMY. In February 1963 he went to the Kambata/Hadiya region with the view to prepare the KEC-2 
for its integration as a synod into the EECMY. As aforementioned, this integration was the primary 
concern of the EECMY with regard to the KEC-2. The KHMP was meant to serve this purpose, too. 57 

Qes Gudina Tumsa was from Boji in Wollega, born in 1929. He had been working as the first 
indigenous pastor in Nakamte since his ordination in 1958. He was a strong preacher referred to as “our 
Billy Graham” by Ato Emmanuel Gebre Selassie. With the Mishgida center in the Abonsa “Seven” as his 
base, Qes Gudina started his new venture, which would go on for about six months.58 

The charisma of the tall Qes Gudina, when teaching and preaching, made a strong impression on 
KEC elders. But they (and KEC-2 Christians) were confused because he smoked a pipe. They were told 
that he had been advised by his doctor to smoke due to health reasons.59 Apparently the theological 
paradigm of Qes Gudina and the SIM ethos on “worldly practices” differed on this point.60 

After three weeks, on March 9, 1963, he returned to Addis Abeba, where a “special session” with 
the EECMY church officersofficers was arranged. Qes Gudina gave a short report on how KEC-2 
congregations were starting to “establish themselves” and arrange their work “properly”, as he put it. Qes 
Gudina presented a plan on how congregations should be organized and the work be directed.61 

His ambition was to visit as many congregations as possible in all the “sevens” and teach 
EECMY doctrine and worship. His idea on polity was to organize the small KEC-2 congregations into 
larger units. Thus the dominance of the house-fathers in the family-based churches of the KEC-2 would 
be broken, and a more democratic system, similar to the EECMY model, would be introduced. He also 
aimed to introduce a synod structure of EECMY model in the KEC-2.62 

 
THE KEC-2 ELDERS SPEAK THEIR MIND 

 
Qes Gudina was accompanied to Addis Abeba by a delegation of elders from the five “sevens” of the 
KEC-2.63 They were angry and disappointed with the current development of the KHMP because of two 
reasons. One was that the EECMY school was built in Mishgida, close to Durame south of Mt. 
Ambaricho. The other was that they felt forgotten by the EECMY as a partner. They asked “. . . why 
don´t you ask us for advice, when you give your support?”64 

 
55GA-A: EECMY Church officers’ minutes, p.83, §75-54, Hamle 10, 1954 E.C. (July 1962, Amharic); see EECMY 

General Assembly minutes 1963, p.52, The President’s Address. 
56Ibid. 
57GA-A: EECMY Church officers’ minutes, p.89, §21-55, Hedar 10, 1955 E.C. (Nov.1962, Amharic); EECMY 

Church officers’ minutes, p.100, Yekatit 30, 1955, E.C. (1963.03.09 Amharic); see above, p.10. 
58MYS-A: Beredo Bekalo 1990, pp.19ff.; Sæverås 1974, p.138; Bakke 1987, p.173; Sæverås 1992, p.30; GA-A: Arén 

1972, p.10. 
59SG-A: Yacob Baffa o.i.1997.06.23; Teferi Sendabo o.i.1993.09.02. 
60On SIM view on “worldly practices” see Grenstedt 2000, pp.57, 83 et.al. 
61GA-A: EECMY Church officers’ minutes, p.100, A Special Session on Kambata 1963.03.09 (Yekatit 30, 1955, E.C. 

Amharic, English). 
62Ibid.; GA-A: Djalatta 1966.01.21, p.6; see MYS-A: Beredo Bekalo 1990, pp.19ff. 
63GA-A: EECMY Church officers’ minutes, p.100, A Special Session on Kambata, 1963.03.09 (Yekatit 30, 1955, E.C. 

Amharic, English). The following section is based on this source unless indicated by footnotes. 
64Ibid. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  60 

The elders, except for the one from the Abonsa “Seven”, maintained that there had been an 
agreement in the KEC-2 to build a school in Dodoba, northwest of Ambaricho. The elders explained that 
they had not wanted to bring this matter up before, as they “. . . did not want to oppose the man, whom 
the EECMY had chosen and sent.” Now, however, was the time to take an “authorised letter” from “the 
five sevens” of the KEC-2, asking for a Bible school and a synod center to be established in Dodoba.65 

As we saw above, the two strongholds in the KEC-2 were the Abonsa “Seven” and the Dodoba 
“Seven”. The EECMY General Assembly, held in January 1963, had resolved to buy a “centrally located 
plot of land” in the Kambata/Hadiya region. The KEC-2 elders then wanted to challenge the EECMY on 
that decision.66 In fact, Dodoba is situated in the center of the region and, in 1963, was in the actual center 
of the KEC-2. Some of the elders obviously meant that Dodoba ought to become the center of the synod-
to-be. 

This KEC-2 approach to the EECMY was an important event. It was in fact a demonstration of its 
local legacy of independence, with links to Ambaricho and Shonkolla. The KEC-2 elders wanted to re-
establish a direct contact with the church officers of the EECMY to regain their authority with regard to 
the KHMP representative.67 

After all, the real leaders of the KEC-2 were the elders. They had been accustomed to attending 
the CEEC meetings since 1955 and to consulting the EECMY directly. Qes Gudina obviously was in 
favor of the direct approach of the KEC-2 elders to the EECMY. He understood that his plan on 
integration would not be successful, if it did not get the support of the majority of the KEC-2 elders. 

What is illustrated here is a failure of the EECMY in its early communication with the KEC-2 on 
at least two points: 

1. The EECMY church officersofficers neglected the importance of a direct contact with the 
KEC-2 elders instead of unilateral contacts with their own KHMP representative. This made 
the KEC-2 elders frustrated. 

2. The relation between the KHMP “Director,” Ato Zacheus, and the KEC-2 elders had not been 
sufficiently spelled out by the EECMY. Thus, Ato Zacheus did not base his decisions on 
proper consultations with the KEC-2 elders. 

The EECMY’s lack of communication had brought the KEC-2 elders to Addis Abeba. As an 
“outsider” Qes Gudina sensed their disappointment. Now the KEC-2 elders used Qes Gudina as a 
spokesman in an indigenous KEC-2 effort to get things sorted out with the EECMY church 
officersofficers. I identify their interaction as a test of Ethiopian Evangelical Solidarity. 
 
RESTRUCTURED CONGREGATIONS 
 
Qes Gudina’s option provided a comprehensive attitude towards his attempt to integrate the KEC-2 into 
the EECMY. He returned to the Kambata/Hadiya region together with the KEC-2 elders. Soon after, he 
set up a team in order to implement his plan to reconstruct the KEC-2 into a less family-dominated form 
and to introduce democracy in accordance with the EECMY constitution and by-laws.68 

The team was led by Qes Gudina himself. Ato Tamru Segaro was used as his interpreter, as Qes 
Gudina spoke Amharic and not any of the local languages. He could not use his own mother tongue, 
Oromiffa. Ato Marqos Gobebo from Dodoba, and the evangelist of the Abonsa “Seven”, Ato Mattheos 
Dattago, were the other members of the team. Ato Zacheus was just an outside supporter.69 

 
65Ibid. 
66Grenstedt 2000, p.158; see above p.8. 
67EECMY-A: Meeting on Kambata, Schaefer 1963.03.09. 
68The section below is based on GA-A: Djalatta 1966.01.21; MYS-A: Beredo Bekalo 1990, pp.19f.; Sæverås 1992, 

pp.50f. 
69GA-A: Djalatta 1966.01.21, p.6. Ato Mattheos is the father of Dr. Misgana Mattheos, teacher at EGST and MYS in 

2011. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  61 

An ambitious visiting program was arranged in order to preach, teach on the EECMY 
constitution, and rearrange the KEC-2 at the local level. The five “sevens” were visited in turn. However, 
neither the effort to rearrange the KEC-2 “family churches” into larger units was a success, nor the so-
called “organisation” of the “sevens” into EECMY parishes.70 

As already mentioned, the KEC-2 congregations usually met in ordinary houses or huts. The 
house-father accordingly had a strong influence on the congregation, which he was not willing to discard. 
If a so-called “proper” church was built outside his land and a new set of elders was chosen, he and his 
colleagues might risk losing their influence. It seems as if the team members had to abandon the idea of 
bringing smaller congregations together, owing to a stubborn resistance to this enterprise. Instead they 
concentrated on rearranging the KEC-2 at a higher level.71 
 
A SYNOD STRUCTURE 
 
In April and August 1963 Qes Gudina arranged two conventions where he tried to apply a synod structure 
to the KEC-2. At the first “Synod Assembly” at Mishgida in April (Miazia 17-19), the purpose was to 
introduce the constitution and by-laws of the Shoa and Eastern Wollega Synod in the KEC-2, and to elect 
a president and a secretary.72 From the sources available, I identify three administrative levels of a kind of 
“EECMY set-up”:73 

1. A  “Synod Assembly” with two representatives from all the congregations in the KEC-2 was 
the wider base. The number of delegates could amount to approximately eighty delegates. 

2. An executive committee, consisting of five church officers plus eight other delegates. It was 
called: “The Board of the Kambata Church”. 

3. The KEC-2 conventions first elected three church officers, who soon were extended to five.74 
The first church officers of the KEC-2 were the following: 

President Ato Tamru Segaro  Abonsa “Seven” Mishgida 
Vice-President Ato Zelleke Luke  Dodoba “Seven” Hawora 
General Sec. Ato Marqos Gobebo  Dodoba “Seven” Dodoba 
Assistant Sec. Ato Wondafresh Selato  Lemu “Seven”  Endara 
Treasurer Ato Erjabo Handiso  Dodoba “Seven” Dinika 
We note that the stronger “sevens” Dodoba (3), Abonsa (1), and Lemu (1) were represented 

among the church officers. Qes Gudina’s interpreter Ato Tamru, who was the best educated of the five 
men, was elected President. 

Most of the Church officers were probably of Kambata origin, but as already mentioned, Dodoba 
created a middle ground for both Kambata and Hadiya. Dinika, for example, is close to Mt. Shonkolla. 
Ethnic borders were less strict in such areas and sometimes even hard to define. According to my sources, 
Ato Erjabo Handiso’s father, for example, was Kambata but his mother Hadiya. Ato Erjabo speaks both 

 
70Ibid.; EECMY-A: Gudina Tumsa, Nehase 6, 1955 E.C. (Aug.1963, Amharic). 
71In June 1971, when commenting on the situation in the Kambata Synod, Qes Gudina states that special efforts are 

needed to pull small congregations together. This needs careful study, a good deal of propaganda and money, he maintains. GA-
A: Gudina Tumsa, June 1971. 

72EECMY-A: Gudina Tumsa, Nehase 6, 1955 E.C. (Aug.1963, Amharic). 
73GA-A: Ezra Jan.1965, p.1; FELM-A: Ojanperä 1967.09.30-11.21, p.27 (Finnish); GA-A: Djalatta May 1965, p.1; 

MYS-A: Beredo Bekalo 1990, pp.20f.; see FELM-A: Kambata Synod 1st Convention 1971.02.12-14, List of Delegates. This 
section refers to these sources unless indicated. 

74Ato Tamru and Ato Marqos were first elected (Apr.1963), then Ato Erjabo (Aug.1963). EECMY-A: Gudina Tumsa, 
Nehase 6, 1955 E.C. (Aug.1963, Amharic). 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  62 

languages well. From a patriarchal point of view, he is a Kambata but one may ask what such a definition 
really explains. Mixed marriages and other close relationships make the picture rather complicated.75 

With the new arrangement the KEC-2 elders’ desire to regain influence had been satisfied. The 
outline of an EECMY synod structure had been introduced to the KEC-2, at least on paper. From now on, 
the KEC-2 was now and then referred to as “the Synod”, by the EECMY.76 

The transformation of the KEC-2 into an EECMY synod structure had been a very fast process. 
The rearrangement of the KEC-2 congregations into larger units created new tensions. The future would 
prove how wise the new measures were. 
 
AMBIVALENT PRIMARY CONCERNS 
 
The “double strategy” of the EECMY influenced the KEC-2 to a great extent. Its primary concern was to 
integrate the KEC-2 into the EECMY synod structure. Accordingly, the EECMY strategy favored an 
integration of the KHMP and its “Director” into the “new” KEC-2, or the so-called “Synod”, and under 
the KEC-2 Church officers.77 

 Ato Zacheus implemented the KHMP strategy through the support of various projects. He was a 
key person in the process of communication between the EECMY and the KEC-2. He felt content with 
his position as “Director” of the KHMP. It is apposite to suggest that his primary concern was not to 
reduce his own influence in favor of the newly elected KEC-2 Church officers. 

Qes Gudina’s arrangements for a KEC-2 synod model created a new leadership structure in the 
KEC-2. On the one hand, the KEC-2 elders were eager to transform the KEC-2 into an EECMY synod. 
On the other hand, the KEC-2 had a legacy of a congregation-centered polity and a mobile leadership of 
elders, which was appreciated by many. Thus, Qes Gudina’s rearrangements were not happily received by 
all KEC-2 members. When he left the KEC-2 in the summer of 1963, he left two strong bodies of the 
KEC-2 behind him. 

One body revolved around the KHMP leader Ato Zacheus and the Abonsa “Seven”. The other 
body was the new KEC-2 “Synod” led by the Church officers with a majority of its members from the 
Dodoba “Seven”. They were keen to demonstrate the “central” importance of Dodoba compared to 
Abonsa. The former body was then expected to coordinate its efforts and projects more closely with the 
latter. In fact the KHMP was subordinate to the KEC-2 and its Church officers. At that time, there was 
also a third disappointed “body”, i.e. the elders, who had lost their positions because of Qes Gudina’s new 
arrangements. They were “the losers” and fanned the flames of discontent with the new order whenever 
an opportunity occurred.78 

Indeed, the EECMY “double strategy” was hard to realize.79 In fact Qes Gudina’s short, intense 
campaign opened up an implicit tension.  
 
  

 
75Grenstedt 2000, pp.25f., 150, n.108; In the 1980’s the Dodoba Sebaka (“Seven”) was divided into two sebakas: The 

Shonkolla Sebaka (Hadiya) and the Ambaricho Sebaka (Kambata). The division was made mainly along ethnic lines. SG-A: 
Mauranen to Grenstedt 2000.06.08. 

76EECMY-A: Gudina Tumsa, Nehase 6, 1955 E.C. (Aug.1963, Amharic); GA-A: Djalatta May 1965, p.1. 
77The section below is based on the following sources, unless indicated. GA-A: Attachment, Suggestions for 

Remedying Problems in the Kambatta Program, n.d., u.s. (Dec.1964); Djalatta May 1965, p.1. 
78GA-A: Ezra Jan.1965, p.3. 
79For the expression “double strategy”, see above, p.10. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  63 

AN ISSUE OF RELEVANT CONTEXTUALIZATION 
 
The KEC-2 was a church that earlier had reacted to pressures from outside. Its negative reactions to the 
KEC (SIM) were mainly generated by cultural reasons. As already has been mentioned, the KEC-2 
evolved as an independent church owing to such reasons.80 

The problems confronting the EECMY in its realization of its “double strategy” in the KEC-2 can 
be described from different perspectives. One perspective is to describe them as due to a lack of EECMY 
understanding of the KEC-2 context and thus a failure of “contextualization” of the KHMP efforts into 
the KEC-2 reality.81 

As already mentioned, the young EECMY showed little interest in the “Schaefer and Lundgren” 
deliberations, which emphasized a preservation of the KEC-2’s indigenous legacy. The shift of principles 
from not paying salaries from external funds to indigenous work, applied by the SIM for years in the 
Kambata/Hadiya region, to the opposite, was not carefully assessed by the EECMY.82 

The centralized EECMY approach with a dominant KHMP leader was foreign to the KEC-2 
collective polity built on elders. The KEC-2 elders may have asked: Is it recommendable to let one man 
employ people and pay their salaries in a fast-expanding program? The idea of collecting money into a 
centralized budget had been a main reason for the KEC split in 1951. When this idea eleven years later 
came dressed in KHMP “clothes”, it did not look much better to the KEC-2. Why, did the EECMY 
introduce such a foreign idea anew? The collecting and sending of money to an “unknown” place filled 
KEC-2 Christians with suspicion. 

Why, were some prominent people like the KHMP “Director”, the KEC-2 President, and the 
KEC-2 Secretary receiving salaries, while others were not? How could someone believe that the 
Kambata/Hadiya farmers would support such a foreign idea? The KHMP was interested in quick results. 
The KEC-2 procedure was slow and demanded considerable time for discussions. 

The new synod structure of the KEC-2 was furthermore foreign to the KEC-2 indigenous ideas. 
The KEC-2 elders were used to a mobile system of meetings, visiting all the “sevens” in turn. The 
EECMY approach was to make one place, Mishgida, a dominating center. This reinforced tensions with 
other “sevens”, especially with the other KEC-2 stronghold Dodoba. 

The EECMY system of a centralized democracy, with five Church officers as dominating 
representatives, brought new ideas too fast into the KEC-2 pattern of collective leadership. The KEC-2 
indigenous leadership with all its shortcomings had the support of the KEC-2 elders and ordinary 
Christians. This was hardly the case of the new KEC-2 in its “EECMY synod set-up” in 1963.83 
 
ROOTS OF NEW CONFLICTS 
 
It seems as if the centralized approach of the EECMY to the KEC-2 in 1962-64 and the lack of 
contextualization were major reasons for the problems generated in the early period of more intense 
EECMY/KEC-2 relationships. One cannot speak of a long-range plan on the part of the EECMY in its 

 
80See above, p. 5; Grenstedt 2000, pp.23ff., 108, 123. 
81A simple definition of the concept “contextualization” in a mission process is that the sender (e.g. a mission) must 

pay careful attention to the receiver’s environment and culture, i.e., his “context”, in order to communicate successfully. Stress is 
put on the appreciation and preservation of this context and its indigenous utterances, when conveying the Christian message. 
The importance of this issue in a mission process is dealt with in brief by the Lausanne Covenant of 1974 (“LC 10”) and more 
fully by the Willowbank Consultation (1978): “The consultation approved the principle that all churches must “contextualize” the 
Gospel in order to share it effectively in their own culture.” Scherer 1987, pp.167ff., 179; see Hallencreutz 1983, pp.127, 145 
(Swedish); Hiebert 1987; Bosch 1991, pp.420ff. 

82As already mentioned above, Rev. Schaefer and Rev. Lundgren had written a report called: “A Program of help to 
the people of Kambata”, in which the EECMY attitude to the KEC-2 indigenous legacy was discussed. Grenstedt 2000, 
pp.143.ff., Appendix III, pp.279 ff. 

83Grenstedt 2000, pp.124f., 150f.; GA-A: Ezra Jan.1965, pp.1ff. The custom of the independent KEC-2 was to have 
monthly and quarterly meetings. The latter alternated between “sevens”. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  64 

behavior towards the KEC-2 in 1962-64. On the contrary, the pace of the EECMY actions seems to have 
been guided by the LWF budget process. When money was available, EECMY chose a suitable man, Ato 
Zacheus, and appointed him the KHMP Executive Secretary. 

Qes Gudina was sent to the KEC-2 from an unsolved conflict in Nakamte on his way to studies 
abroad.84 He made a concerted effort in the KEC-2 and used a model familiar to him, that is, the Shoa and 
Eastern Wollega Synod Constitution and by-laws, as a means of reorganizing the indigenous independent 
KEC-2. He was in a hurry as he was going to leave the country. He probably had little time for reflection 
on the Kambata/Hadiya context and the KEC-2 legacy. 

The lack of understanding of the KEC-2 legacy and its context on the part of the EECMY at this 
early stage proved to be very negative to the KHMP results in 1962-64. The evident problems of 
communication experienced by the EECMY Church officers in their contacts with the KEC-2 and local 
KHMP representatives were signs of this lack of contextualization. Ato Zacheus’s central position and his 
favoring of the Abonsa “Seven” were already established when Qes Gudina started his mission with a 
view to implement EECMY democracy. His arrangements came both too late and too early. Actually, 
they reinforced an inherent conflict and further dissonance. 

It is tempting to try to find simple explanations and scapegoats when analyzing conflicts of this 
kind.  This can hardly be done in the complicated framework of the EECMY - KHMP - KEC-2 
interaction with its various aspects. The idea of the KHMP was to bring educational, administrative and 
spiritual support to the KEC-2. Furthermore, the EECMY aimed at integrating the KEC-2 as one of its 
synods. Yet, the EECMY Synods in 1961 and onwards were in fact in need of the same support as the 
KEC-2 when they now enthusiastically were trying to bring it into the EECMY.85 

The KHMP generated positive results, too. Yet there were obvious weaknesses in the EECMY 
approach to church problems in the Kambata/Hadiya region. The results of the KHMP were not as good 
as the EECMY had expected. From the autumn of 1964, this state of affairs led the EECMY leaders into a 
period of analysis and reflection on how to continue its operations in the Kambata/Hadiya region. 

The EECMY change of attitude to the KHMP can be illustrated by the EECMY reports delivered 
to the annual CWM meetings of the LWF for the years 1962-64. 

Ato Emmanuel Abraham proudly describes the EECMY involvement for the year of 1962 in a 
written report: 

Although the church is a very young church, it has not neglected to initiate its own home mission 
program. In the Kambata area of Ethiopia, it has established, with the help of the LWF a home mission 
program which is directed by the church and has no foreign missionary personnel serving in it. There are 
no exact figures as to how many are now seeking admittance in the church in this area, but estimates run 
from 25 to 45,000 individuals. The church has instituted a five-year program during which time it hopes 
to be able to organise, teach and bring into the church those in Kambatta who have declared themselves 
so interested.86 

The new EECMY Executive Secretary, Qes Ezra Gebremedhin, made the following presentation 
for the year of 1963: 

The home mission program of the church in Kambatta is proceeding under the leadership of 
Kambata Christians. In the year 1963 a synod was organised, a new elementary school completed and a 
literacy campaign launched.87 

The report for the year of 1964, which was presented by Qes Ezra, did not mention the KHMP.88 

 
84Grenstedt 2000, pp.153, 166. 
85Grenstedt 2000, pp.145f. 
86LWF-A: LWF/CWM Field Reports Africa 1963, Emmanuel Abraham, pp.2f. Ato Emmanuel was not attending the 

1963 LWF/CWM in person. LWF-A: LWF/CWM minutes 1963, p.10. 
87LWF-A: LWF/CWM Field Reports Africa 1964, Ezra Gebremedhin, pp.3f. Qes Ezra Gebremedhin was the EECMY 

Executive Secretary (General Secretary) 1963-66. 
88LWF-A: LWF/CWM Church Reports Africa 1965, Ezra Gebremedhin, pp.2f. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  65 

A PICTURE OF THE KEC-2 IN 1962-63 
 
In 1962 the independent church KEC-2 had set out for an unknown destiny. This Ethiopian church tried 
to adapt to an EECMY synod structure. This was especially the aim of some leaders and elders who tried 
to direct its course. The real dynamics from our point of view, however, were hidden. This part of the 
KEC-2 was not that easy to influence. 

Polity: The transformation of the KEC-2 leadership functions, from a more flexible, collective 
system based on consensus and long discussions to a more centralized administrative system based on 
democratic principles of majority voting, was introduced by the EECMY pastor in Nakamte, Qes Gudina 
Tumsa. In the spring of 1963, he led an intense campaign that aimed at rearranging the KEC-2 according 
to EECMY patterns. 

In the summer of 1963, the KEC-2 adopted an EECMY synod structure consisting of three 
administrative levels, hence from now on it was occasionally referred to as the “Synod”:  

• A “Synod Assembly”, which corresponded to the former quarterly meetings, consisted of two 
members from each congregation in the KEC-2. 

• An executive committee consisted of the five Church officers plus eight others. It was called 
“The Board of the Kambata Church”. It corresponded to a certain extent to the monthly 
meetings of the KEC-2. 

• The executive leaders were five men called “Church officers”. Most of them were from the 
Dodoba “Seven”. The President and Secretary of the “Synod” were paid by KHMP budget. 

The KEC-2 five “sevens” were then taught how to adapt to an EECMY parish (sebaka) structure 
with central administrative functions. These were, however, not easy to implement in the “sevens”. 
Instead tensions between the KEC-2 strongholds, the KHMP-dominated Abonsa “Seven” and the Dodoba 
“Seven”, increased. The mobile character of the KEC-2 leadership structure was challenged by the KEC-2 
new static center in Mishgida. A new class of paid KEC-2 church-workers evolved. 

At a congregational level, the “new” ideas of drawing smaller congregations together after some 
time met a stubborn and even violent resistance.89 Especially strong was the reaction to collect and send 
away money for common purposes. This was probably due to previous experiences of KEC-2 members 
before the KEC re-structure in 1952.90 

The efforts of re-structuring the KEC-2 polity thus led to two ecclesiastical systems competing 
for influence in the KEC-2 in the summer of 1963: an independent congregation-centered collective KEC-
2 type and a centralized administrative EECMY type. The competition fanned the flames of discontent in 
an evolving multi-facetted conflict, which was induced by the new KHMP budget-system introduced into 
the KEC-2. The tensions generated a big conflict, which shook the KEC-2 from the summer of 1963.91 
Numerous conflicts between elders of smaller congregations were reinforced by former discontented 
elders, now “losers” in the new system, and the poor examples set by the new KEC-2 “Synod’s” top 
leaders Ato Tamru Segaro and Ato Zacheus Edamo.92 

Worship: The same as in 1961. 
Doctrine: Subjective aspects of faith dominated KEC-2 doctrine. Qes Gudina’s teaching was 

actually the first time ordinary KEC-2 Christians and local elders were influenced by a systematic 
EECMY teaching on the sacraments. Qes Gudina, furthermore, emphasised the necessity to start Sunday 
schools and confirmation classes in the congregations.93 When it was functioning, the Bible school 

 
89GA-A: Djalatta 1966.01.21, p.6; Grenstedt 2000, p.211. 
90Grenstedt 2000, pp.97, 105. 
91GA-A: Ezra Jan.1965, pp.1ff.; Djalatta 1966.01.21, pp.6ff. 
92Ibid. 
93GA-A: Djalatta 1966.01.21, p.6; EECMY-A: Gudina Tumsa, Nehase 6, 1955 E.C. (Aug. 1963, Amharic); Grenstedt 

2000, p.211. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  66 

provided traditional basic knowledge in the Scriptures, probably augmented with some Lutheran doctrine. 
As the Bible school itself was a tool in the conflict, its teaching was not effectual, however. 

Ethos: The KEC-2 attitude to drinking and polygamy was liberal. 
Relations to the EECMY: At a national level, the KEC-2 elders and “Church officers” from 

1963 took part in the EECMY General Assemblies and executive committee meetings. At the regional 
level, there was a flow of Ethiopian contacts between the KEC-2 and the neighboring NLM-related 
Sidamo and Gamu Gofa Synod. Scholarships were distributed for education in different institutions. At 
the local level, the lack of contextualization of the EECMY approach led to strong reactions against the 
EECMY novelties. This had not been anticipated by the EECMY representatives. 

Size: In 1963 the KEC-2 membership was estimated at about 30,000. As in 1961 this was a gross 
exaggeration.94 There were still five “sevens” in the KEC-2. 

 
 QES GUDINA TUMSA CONNECTS FMS WITH THE KEC-2, 1967-69 
 
After studies at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota 1963-66, Qes Gudina returned to Ethiopia and 
served the EECMY as its General Secretary from 1966 to 1979.95 With his widening perspectives, he 
resumed his efforts to support the KEC-2 in becoming a synod in the EECMY.  

Heart-searching questions on the continued financing of the Kambata Home Mission Program 
(KHMP) and its integration into the KEC-2 had forced Ato Djalatta to begin to contemplate the 
possibility of the direct involvement of a new missionary agency in the joint EECMY-KEC-2 enterprise 

 
94See above, p.9. 
95Eide, Ø., ‘Integral Human Development’, pp.41, 51, In: The Life and Ministry of Rev. Gudina Tumsa, Addis Ababa: 

Gudina Tumsa Foundation, 2003.   

Map 2: The KEC-2 Five “Sevens” in 1963 
[approximate scale 1:1,000,000] 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  67 

in the Kambata/Hadiya region. Continued developments resulted in a new venture by the Finnish 
Missionary Society (FMS).96 

In Africa the FMS was hitherto mainly involved in Namibia and Tanzania. The EECMY with its 
international connections took the initiative in the contacts with the FMS. In this new process, the KEC-2 
was simply at the receiving end. 

It is this development that will be the main preoccupation of this part of my paper. In addition to 
the EECMY minutes, I mainly base my account on primary sources in Finnish from the archives of the 
FMS, nowadays called the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Mission (FELM).97 
 
THE FMS ARRIVES IN ETHIOPIA 
 
On June 5, 1967 the FMS General Assembly decided to let the FMS Board make arrangements for the 
start of a new involvement in Ethiopia, but it was not yet fully committed to the Kambata/Hadiya 
region.98 

When the EECMY prepared the FMS survey in Ethiopia, it planned to present two options, the 
Kambata/Hadiya region and the Western Wollega Synod (WWS).99 However, the LWF preferred the 
FMS to choose the first. This is further illustrated by a personal visit paid by Dr. Hellberg to the region in 
the rainy season of 1967.100  On August 15, 1967 he was able to report on his visit in the region to the 
EECMY Church officers. In this time, he had actually travelled in the hilly country from Durame to 
Hosanna on slippery “roads” mainly on mule, a distance of c.60 km. His guides were Qes Gudina Tumsa 
and Ato Djalatta Djaffero.101 

Dr Hellberg’s impression was “. . . that Hosaena would be a suitable location for a future Synod 
Office as well as for the Bible school . . . .”102 There were many reasons for this, but communication and 
light were the two mentioned. Astonishingly, according to the EECMY minutes, nothing was said of the 
KHMP centre in Mishgida/Durame or the consequences for the work when the center was changed from 
the Kambata area to Hadiya area. Dr Hellberg just limited himself to suggesting: 

. . . that in case the Finnish Missionary Society would undertake the work in Kambata, CWM 
would be in a position to give favourable consideration to the request submitted to CWM/LWF in the five 
year plan.103 

This was a clear message from the LWF to the EECMY. According to the EECMY, the LWF had 
agreed to support the KHMP at the LWF/CWM meeting in April 1967 if a supporting mission was found. 
In August the FMS was explicitly recommended as such a mission.104 

 A three week trip, October 16 - November 7, to Ethiopia had been prepared by the EECMY for 
the FMS delegates Rev. Ojanperä and Rev. Remes. October 17-23 was set aside for a survey of the 

 
96Ato Djallata Djaffero was the director of the Yemissrach Dimts Literacy Campaign from 1962 and was working as 

secretary of the EECMY “Advisory Committee” of the KHMP from 1965. Grenstedt 2000, pp.177ff. 
97My mother, Margit L. Grenstedt, born Silfver, has translated FELM (FMS) material from Finnish into Swedish. I 

would like to thank her for this important contribution to my study and for her continuous support! The translations from Swedish 
to English are mine. References to pages in the Finnish reports refer to the Finnish original. I indicate a source in Finnish by 
writing “(Finnish)”. 

98FELM-A: The FMS General Assembly minutes 1967.06.05, §13 (Finnish). 
99FELM-A: Travel Schedule FMS, Oct.16-Nov.7, 1967. 
100Dr. Hellberg was the LWF/DWM Secretary of Africa. 
101GA-A: EECMY Church officers’ minutes 1967.08.18; SG-A: C-J. Hellberg o.i. 1993.08.20. Hellberg humorously 

speaks of the change in means of transportation, which he often experienced when visiting the countryside: from plane to car and 
to mule. The group lost its trail in the darkness and rain. Hellberg fainted from exhaustion and fell off his mule just before 
reaching Hosanna. 

102GA-A: EECMY Church officers’ minutes 1967.08.18. 
103Ibid. 
104GA-A: EECMY Executive Committee, June 1967, President’s Report, p.2. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  68 

Kambata/Hadiya region, October 24-31 for the WWS. One week would be spent in Addis Abeba, 
including a meeting with the EECMY Church officers on the day before their departure.105 
 
EECMY LEADERS INTRODUCE THE KAMBATA/HADIYA REGION TO THE FMS 
 
On October 17, 1967 the FMS delegation went by plane from Addis Abeba to Hosanna. The EECMY 
guides were Qes Gudina and Ato Djalatta.106 It was stated that one should try to make Hosanna the new 
centerof the church, and the group visited a land-strip “. . . reserved for the administration of the church”. 
Dodoba, which also was visited on the trip, was not considered interesting for a Bible school any longer, 
however.107 

There were probably several motives for this new interest in Hosanna. As has been indicated, 
Hosanna is a central place for the Hadiya ethnic groups, and Durame a central place for the Kambata 
ethnic groups. By moving the KEC-2 center from Mishgida/Durame to Hosanna it was moved from a 
Kambata centre to a Hadiya center. 

When Dr. Hellberg in conversation with Rev. Ojanperä calls Hosanna “. . . a neutral place”, this 
must be understood as “neutral” in respect to the KEC-2 “sevens”.108 Hosanna was not in the center of the 
conflicts of the KEC-2. In fact the town of Hosanna seems to have been more or less an empty spot for 
the KEC-2 in 1967. In 1962 comity questions were more sensitive to the EECMY than later on. In that 
year it would probably have been complicated to place the KEC-2 center in Hosanna, close to where the 
KEC/SIM center was situated.109 In 1967 the internal tension between the KEC-2 “sevens” was a more 
problematic issue for the EECMY than questions of comity, however. 

It is likely that the EECMY wanted a new start for the KHMP and the FMS missionaries to begin 
in more “neutral” ground outside the spheres of influence of the stronger “sevens” of Abonsa and Dodoba 
and their mutual and internal conflicts. These ideas, coupled with the advantages of having a new synod 
center situated close to the Awraja center, became decisive for the choice of Hosanna.110 

The group continued to the south of the region by plane, via Soddu, the capital of Wollamo. At 
the Mishgida center, they visited the Bible school with its thirteen students. It made a poor impression on 
the Finns. The Mishgida School was more impressive with its 450 students. After the stay in the Mishgida 
center, they visited four small congregations in the Abonsa “Seven”. These were Ambo, Abonsa, Djore, 
and Adilo. Then the group returned to Addis Abeba via Shashamene and the NLM agricultural school in 
Wondo.111 
 
THE FMS DELEGATES MEET THE EECMY CHURCH OFFICERS 
 
When the FMS representatives met the EECMY Church officers in Addis Abeba to discuss the FMS 
engagement in Ethiopia, the following persons received them: Qes Gudina, Ato Emmanuel Gebre 
Selassie, Rev. Lundgren (SEM), and Mr. Magnar Magerøy (NLM). The Finnish delegates raised the 
question of comity as a possible obstacle to working in the Kambata/Hadiya region.112 They had been 
told by Mr. Hodges of the SIM that concerning comity regulations the SIM: 

 
105FELM-A: Travel Schedule FMS, Oct 16-Nov.7, 1967; see FELM-A: Spehar to Emmanuel 1967.07.17. 
106FELM-A: Ojanperä 1967.09.30-11.21, pp.19-31, 49-54 (Finnish). The following section refers to this source unless 

indicated by footnotes. 
107Ibid. 
108Ibid. 
109The KEC (SIM) centre was just outside Hosanna. Originally in Lambuda, then Dubancho and Bobicho. 
110FELM-A: Ojanperä 1967.09.30-11.21, pp.19-31, p.54 (Finnish). 
111FELM-A: Ojanperä 1967.09.30-11.21, pp.19-31, pp.49-54 (Finnish). 
112FELM-A: Ojanperä 1967.09.30-11.21, pp.52-54 refers to this section (Finnish). 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  69 

. . . did not want to forbid anyone to come, but would on their part go on working on their own. 
He argued that the Comity committee had allotted Kambata to the SIM. Naturally there have been 
confrontations with other missions.113 

The EECMY’s answer to the FMS delegates reflects Ethiopian independent mentality, which 
opposed the missionaries’ comity constructions. The Finns were accordingly advised “. . . not to bother 
too much about the SIM-work there, as no mission has any special rights to the said area.”114 The goal for 
the work in Kambata was to build a national church. A new missionary society was not needed, but 
workers sent by the FMS, were willing to work “under” the EECMY.115 

The immediate need for personnel was further specified: an adviser, with experience from another 
part of Africa, a teacher for the Bible school and a builder for a shorter period. It was emphasized that 
there was need for investments both in personnel and economy in the Kambata/Hadiya region. Rev. 
Ojanperä realized that the EECMY was keen to get the FMS engaged in the region.116 

There was a certain ambiguity as to what was expected from the FMS, however. When 
confronting the issue of comity raised by the SIM, and while talking on integration, it was stressed that 
the mission was “under” the EECMY and that the missionaries were just co-workers in the church. When 
it came to concrete expectations, the FMS was expected to make a huge input of money and personnel. 

Thus, Qes Gudina stressed that if the EECMY did not invest in personnel and money as in other 
synods, one could not expect any better results. Ato Djalatta, who was not present at the Church officers’ 
meeting, had for his part said that the new five-year plan would be dependent on what the LWF and the 
FMS wanted to do. He hoped that the builder, the adviser, and the teacher would soon arrive.117 

It seems that the two men with the closest knowledge of the KEC-2, i.e., Ato Djalatta and Qes 
Gudina, had quite a pragmatic view of the FMS enterprise in the Kambata/Hadiya region. Others were 
more concerned with ideology. The words above of not sending a mission to the region and building a 
national church are vague when considering the specific needs, which had been presented earlier to the 
FMS delegates. They can be specified under the following three headings: 

1. Spiritual needs: About 80-100 new evangelists were needed for the KEC-2. The place of 
teaching should be in the Kambata/Hadiya region and it was going to be given on two levels. 
One for students who had finished the third class, and the other for students who had finished 
the sixth class. 

2. Educational needs: Hostels were needed in Mishgida and in Hosanna. The other five “sevens” 
ought to have a six-grade school of their own. Scholarships were needed. A vocational school 
combined with an agricultural project would be welcome. 

3. Medical needs: A small hospital with fifteen places was needed, and at least one clinic in 
each “seven”.118 

Nothing had been said about who would meet these needs except that the EECMY responsibility 
had been stressed. It is reasonable to conclude that it was implied that the FMS was to supply the budget 
for the new projects, hopefully together with the LWF. The EECMY leaders knew that the LWF was 
interested in reducing its involvement in the KHMP-project, and the FMS delegates must have been 
realized this by the FMS delegates at the 1967 CWM, too.119 According to the FMS minutes, though, the 

 
113FELM-A: Ojanperä 1967.09.30-11.21, p.50 (Finnish). Grenstedt 2000, pp.87f. 
114Ibid. 
115Ibid. 
116Ibid. 
117FELM-A: Ojanperä 1967.09.30-11.21, pp.53f. (Finnish). 
118FELM-A: Ojanperä 1967.09.30-11.21, pp.29-31 (Finnish). 
119Grenstedt 2000, pp.198f. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  70 

EECMY had agreed with Dr. Hellberg that the LWF would provide the budget at the initial stage if the 
Finns sent personnel.120 
 
WHAT ABOUT THE KEC-2? 
 
According to available sources, the KEC-2 kept a low profile during the FMS explorations of the 
Kambata/Hadiya region. The presentation of the region was made by two Oromos - Qes Gudina and Ato 
Djalatta. Ato Geletta Wolteji’s name is also mentioned in the FMS report.121 

In fact, not one person from the KEC-2 or one local leader of the region is mentioned by name in 
the Finnish report. In a similar way no one from the KEC-2 was present when the FMS discussed the 
Kambata/Hadiya region with the EECMY Church officers. The leader of the KEC-2 Bible school, Ato 
Leggese Segaro, obviously was English-speaking as he was a graduate from the Mekane Yesus Seminary. 
The KEC-2 President, Ato Erjabo Handiso, was most certainly around. Neither of them is mentioned by 
name in the Finnish report. 

The short visit by the team to Dodoba conveys the impression that this place, which for so long 
had been planned to be the site for a Bible school, was not of special interest any longer. After all, this 
was the place where the majority of the current KEC-2 pastors had been ordained by Qes Ezra 
Gebremedhin in 1965. Then, however, it seems to have been regarded as situated in the middle-of-
nowhere.122 

Was the move of the KEC-2 center from Durame to Hosanna ever properly discussed with the 
KEC-2? Or was it just decided at a “higher level”? I suggest that the latter is the case. Thinking of the 
prevailing conflicts in the KEC-2, it may have been a wise decision of the EECMY to let the KEC-2 
representatives keep a low profile in their presentation of the Kambata/Hadiya region. Anyhow, one must 
admit that it was not an integrated presentation from a KEC-2 point of view. It was planned and arranged 
by EECMY officials on a national level in Addis Abeba. 

No strong objection from the KEC-2 side on this state of affairs can be traced though. It was then 
on its way to get a supporting foreign mission. This was the vital issue for the KEC-2 in 1967. 
 
THE FMS DELEGATION FACES THE CHALLENGE 
 
The FMS delegates were challenged by what they had been introduced to in the Kambata/Hadiya region. 
They were not to register as a mission, but to start its work as a part of the EECMY. This was very much 
in line with theological discussions on the integration of missions into the EECMY in Ethiopia in 
1967.123 

The American Lutheran Mission (ALM) signed a document of such an integration with the 
EECMY and the Wollo-Tigré Synod on May 29, 1966. This was well known to the other synods in 1967. 
Meetings and deliberations concerning the integration of the missions into the EECMY were taking place 
in 1967-68. The Synod Presidents and the Lutheran Mission Directors listened to lectures on this subject 
by Ethiopian speakers such as Ato Emmanuel Abraham, Qes Ezra, Qes Gudina, and Ato Djalatta.124 The 

 
120FELM-A: Ojanperä 1967.09.30-11.21, p.53 (Finnish). It is maintained that the EECMY and Dr Hellberg had agreed 

that at the initial stage the LWF would provide the budget if the FMS provided personnel. This interpretation was questioned by 
Hellberg. FELM-A: Hellberg to Ojanperä 1969.06.11. 

121FELM-A: Ojanperä 1967.09.30-11.21 (Finnish). This source refers to this section. 
122Qes Ezra Gebremedhin (being the EEECMY General Secretary 1963-66) ordained 18 pastors in his “visiting 

program” from March 3 to April 17, 1965 in the Kambata/Hadiya region. All the 6 “sevens” were visited as well as 36 
congregations. Grenstedt 2000, pp.185, 199f. 

123FELM-A: Ojanperä 1967.09.30-11.21, p.54 (Finnish). 
124Sæverås 1974, pp.142-52. Missionaries and other foreigners also lectured. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  71 

FMS had the chance to become an early follower of the ALM in this respect. This was apparently 
important to the FMS.125 

Furthermore, the financial engagement of the LWF in the region was regarded as an asset by the 
FMS.126 
 
THE DECISION OF THE FMS  
 
In 1968 the groundwork was made for the integrated FMS approach in the Kambata/Hadiya region. 
Parallel arrangements were going on in Ethiopia and Finland. On April 22, 1968 the FMS Board decided 
to start work in the Kambata/Hadiya region.127 The EECMY leadership welcomed the decision at the 
EECMY Executive Committee meeting in June 1968. The EECMY looked forward to welcoming two 
new missionaries in January 1969.128 

At the same meeting of the EECMY Executive Committee, the KEC-2 presented a draft 
constitution for membership as a synod in the EECMY. This draft was sent to the EECMY Synods’ 
Presidents for comments.129 Apparently it was still felt necessary to base important decisions on the 
KEC-2 within the four synods. As this new synod would become an important part of the EECMY body 
with its reported high membership, the KEC-2 merger with the EECMY had to be well established among 
the other synods. 

Qes Gudina Tumsa reports to the Commission on World Mission (LWF) at Hillerød in Denmark 
in August 1968: 

. . . The Kambata home mission program was one of the areas which has been absorbing much of 
the attention of the church. The Finnish Missionary Society was invited to come out to assist in this 
challenging undertaking by the church, and we now rejoice over the fact that our invitation has been 
accepted by the FMS to start work in January 1969. 

   A plan to form a team to organise the Kambata congregations in a synod structure is being 
carried out and it is hoped that the Sixth General Assembly of the church in January 1969 will accept the 
Kambata Synod as a full member of the church, a fact which will increase the number of synods of the 
church from four to five and a growth in membership from seventy-seven thousand to over hundred 
thousand.130 

The feeling of relief and joy can be read between the lines in Qes Gudina’s report. The process of 
integrating the KEC-2 as a synod into the EECMY had been initiated by Qes Gudina in the spring of 
1963. Now the implementation was not far away.131 

On October 22, 1968, the EECMY President Ato Emmanuel Abraham and the FMS Director 
Rev. Alpo Hukka signed an agreement between the EECMY and the FMS in Addis Abeba. The FMS’s 
agreement with the EECMY anticipated the document on integration between the EECMY and its 
cooperating missions, which was finally signed on April 7, 1969. The agreement stated that: 

The Mission shall work with and within the Church in accordance with her Constitution and shall 
in all its work, until otherwise decided, be directly responsible to the Church officers.132 

 
125FELM-A: Hirvilammi 1989, pp.23ff. (Swedish). 
126FELM-A: Ojanperä 1967.09.30-11.21, p.54 (Finnish). The FMS was interested in starting work in the region on the 

condition that the LWF supplied all capital investment except for the costs of the missionaries’ houses. Otherwise the FMS would 
turn to the WWS, it is said. 

127FELM-A: Hirvilammi 1989, p.18 (Swedish). 
128GA-A: EECMY 17th Executive Committee, June 1968, The President’s Report, p.2. 
129GA-A: EECMY 17th Executive Committee minutes, June 1968, §17-30, p.7. 
130LWF-A: LWF/CWM Church Reports 1968, Gudina Tumsa, p.3. 
131See above, pp.11 ff. 
132FELM-A: Hirvilammi 1989, Appendix 3, Agreement, Article 1, no.1, p.1 (Swedish); see FMS Årsbok 1969, p.35 

(Swedish). On Rev. Hukka, see Grenstedt 2000, p.135. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  72 

It should be noted that the agreement concerned the FMS and the EECMY. Apparently the 
EECMY Church officers already considered the KEC-2 an integrated part of the EECMY. However, the 
FMS relations to the KEC-2 were yet an unwritten chapter. After all, it was not in Addis Abeba but in the 
KEC-2, a church in transition, that the local integration was expected to be realized. 

The FMS appointed five missionaries for work in the Kambata/Hadiya region. The leader was 
Rev. Kaarlo Hirvilammi. He had experience from six years of integrated mission work in the Evangelical 
Lutheran Church in Tanzania (ELCT).133 The decision to choose a FMS-missionary from Tanzania and 
not from Namibia was probably due to the experiences of the Tanzanian missionaries working in a church 
with a similar agreement on integration as the EECMY was expected to achieve.134 This experience was 
considered to be of great value when trying to work “under” the EECMY as an “integrated mission”. 

At the EECMY executive committee on June 13-14, 1969 the EECMY members accepted the 
KEC-2 as the 5th synod of the EECMY. It got the name “the Kambata Synod”. Today, in 2011, its name is 
“the South Central Synod” (SCS). 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
When Qes Gudina Tumsa arrived in the Kambata/Hadiya region in February 1963, there was already an 
evolving conflict between the KEC-2 church elders and the KHMP and its powerful Director, Ato 
Zacheus Edamo. It seemed as if one of the “sevens”, that is the Abonsa “seven”, had received too much 
favor at the expense of the other “sevens”. The KHMP was experienced as a “foreign body” by the KEC-
2 elders and was not properly integrated into the KEC-2 ecclesiastical structure. The KEC-2 elders felt 
that they were losing authority and were not listened to by the EECMY, which Qes Gudina (perhaps too 
late) tried to rectify.135  

Qes Gudina’s concerted effort to rearrange the polity of the indigenous KEC-2 into what was 
called “a proper church”, that is, into an EECMY Synod model, needed the support of the KEC-2 elders. 
Qes Gudina’s efforts were perhaps a bit too ambitious in the short time he could spend in the region, just 
six months. The small family-based house-churches being rearranged into larger units met stubborn and 
even violent resistance. The transformation of the “sevens” into an EECMY sebaka (parish) structure was 
not easy to implement. The idea of having a static “power-center” in line with an EECMY model, instead 
of a mobile KEC-2 one that promoted long discussions and great collective participation, was not favored 
by many of the KEC-2 members. They seemed to have enjoyed the KEC-2 polity with “sevens”, 
“monthly and quarterly meetings”, rather than the three-level structure of the EECMY. Anyhow, by this 
new structure, the KEC-2 elders (now Church officers) formally regained their influence over the KHMP 
(and its Director), an achievement more easily said than done. To employ some of the Church officers by 
outside funds was another foreign idea to the KEC-2 with its legacy of self-support in line with 
indigenous principles introduced early on by the SIM. In fact the KEC-2, though weak, was self-
supporting before the LWF program started in 1962. Even worse was the idea to collect money to a 
centralized budget. That reminded the KEC-2 members of one of the crucial motives of the split in the 
KEC in 1951.136  

There was an obvious lack of time, a lack of study of the history of the KEC and KEC-2 from the 
EECMY side (of which Qes Gudina was a key-person), and thus a lack of proper contextualization. One 
result of the changes in the KEC-2 polity and the way the KHMP was introduced in the region was an 
intense power struggle between the representatives of the KHMP and the KEC-2, and also in the KEC-2 

 
133FELM-A: Hirvilammi 1989, pp.28f., Appendix 1, p.1 (Swedish). 
134FELM-A: Hirvilammi 1989, pp.24, 29 (Swedish). M. Hirvilammi sees a wisdom in calling FMS missionaries from 

Tanzania (ELCT), not from Namibia, “. . . where the model was more traditional.” The integration of missions in ELCT was 
made in 1963. Bachmann 1989, p.81. 

135See above, p.12; Grenstedt 2000, pp.153.ff. 
136See above, pp.12-16. On the split in the KEC in 1951, see Grenstedt 2000, pp.95ff. 



Grenstedt, “Ministry of Qes Gudina Tumsa in the Kambata/Hadiya Region” 
 

 

Global South Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (2023):  73 

itself. Though there were some positive effects of the EECMY “Home Mission”, it was decided that the 
EECMY approach to the KEC-2 had to be re-evaluated and rearranged, starting in1964.137 

The Lutheran doctrinal teaching of the KEC-2 by the EECMY was introduced at the regional 
level by Qes Gudina. This teaching would take a long time to be grasped and implemented among the 
KEC-2 members, who had been brought up in a Baptist environment mixed with indigenous cultural 
ideas.138      

   In 1967-69 Qes Gudina, now as General Secretary of the EECMY, once more played an 
important part in the process of merging the KEC-2 into a synod of the EECMY. He became instrumental 
as the one who linked the KEC-2 with the Finnish Missionary Society. It is however interesting to notice 
that the deliberations of the FMS and the EECMY was conducted at a national level. The KEC-2 was in 
fact just at the receiving end of these procedures.139 

The EECMY vision from 1961 to support the KEC-2 was thus finalized in 1969 when the KEC-2 
was accepted as the 5th synod of the EECMY, “the Kambata Synod”. This process had perhaps become 
more adventurous than the EECMY could have imagined.  

The story of the KEC-2 – EECMY relations is an example of how an autonomous church 
(EECMY) supports an African Independent Church (KEC-2) in an indigenous “Home Mission” 
regardless of missionary comity rules. In this venture, Qes Gudina Tumsa was one of the key figures. He 
must be admired for his endurance and dedication in this great challenge. Qes Gudina is still well 
remembered in the Kamabata/Hadiya region as one who transcended barriers of ethnicity, social status, 
and denominationalism. 

 This way of doing mission is in line with the legacy of the “Evangelical Pioneers” of the 
EECMY since the early Bethel Congregation at Massawa. The early Bethel Congregation functioned as 
the yeast of an expanding Evangelical counterculture in Ethiopia at the end of the 19th century, and this 
counterculture continued in the 20th century in the EECMY. The concept for this type of attitude in 
mission can be called “Ethiopian Evangelical Solidarity”.140 Qes Gudina Tumsa’s ministry in the 
Kambata/Hadiya region is a good example of this attitude.  

 
 
 

 
137See above, p.16. The reflections of Qes Gudina on the KEC in 1971 are illuminating; see above, p.13, n.72. 
138Still in 1986 large parts of the EECMY (SCS) members around Durame (Mishgida) had not attended a confirmation 

class. I had myself the privilege to lead the first confirmation class in the Ambo Congreation that year. See Grenstedt 2000, 
p.222.   

139See above, pp.19-22. 
140See above, pp.6, 12; On the early Bethel Congregation at Massawa, see Grenstedt 2000, pp. 25-26. 


	Notation and Theological Method
	Historical and Ethnical Perspectives in the Kambata/Hadiya Region
	The Kambata/Hadiya Region
	Early Missionary Ventures, Revivals and Schisms
	Evangelical Church Formation
	The KEC-2 Evolves as a New Local Independent Church

	The EECMY’s “Home Mission” in the Kambata/Hadiya Region
	Ethiopian Evangelical Solidarity in Practice
	Ato Emmanuel Gebre Selassie Links Kambata with Geneva
	A Picture of the KEC-2 in 1961

	Qes Gudina Tumsa’s Contribution in the Kambata/Hadiya Region
	The Double Strategy of the EECMY
	Qes Gudina Tumsa’s Attempt at Integrating the KEC-2 into the EECMY 1963
	The KEC-2 Elders Speak their Mind
	Restructured Congregations
	A Synod Structure
	Ambivalent Primary Concerns
	An Issue of Relevant Contextualization
	Roots of New Conflicts
	A Picture of the KEC-2 in 1962-63

	Qes Gudina Tumsa Connects FMS with the KEC-2, 1967-69
	The FMS Arrives in Ethiopia
	EECMY Leaders Introduce the Kambata/Hadiya Region to the FMS
	The FMS Delegates Meet the EECMY Church officers
	What about the KEC-2?
	The FMS Delegation Faces the Challenge
	The Decision of the FMS

	Conclusion

