Category: leadership

Can Kenya become a nation, or melt into an apocalypse?

By Canon Francis OMONDI

Kenya is on the brink of plummeting into the abyss of political catastrophe. The government and the opposition are locked up in an existential contest for Kenya’s leadership. Either government will galvanize its hold on power employing all means possible or the opposition-NASA will wrench power, in a way not yet anticipated. Such is a fix that my people would say: “thuol odonjo e ko” (the snake has entered the gourd, would we salvage the milk or the gourd?) Can it be that Kenya is headed for apocalyptic politics?

Critics of this government accuse it of wantonly undermining Kenya’s democratic principles by infringing on democratic accountability, individual rights and the rule of law. It prefers tyranny in its response to pressure from the opposition than dialogue. Toiling to deter and deal with dissidents, the State has turned to its vast repressive apparatus on Kenyans perceived as a threat.

The first victims of the State’s assault are democratic institutions. The opposition politicians are harassed and picked up by police on flimsy charges. Basic freedoms of expression and assembly have been restricted in practice, though not in law. Elections have become choreographed performance that is neither free nor fair. At its core, this assault has been motivated by the regimes’ desire to protect power and much-accumulated wealth. The government purports to run the country according to tenets of Western democracy. What we have, however, is a democratic facade, paying lip service to those tenets even as they are subverted.

 

The repeat election exposed what has been a closely kept secret of a government appearing strong from the outside, yet its power remains brittle at the core. It is apparent that the regime projects a nimbus of invincibility that masks the shallow roots of its public support. What else would necessitate the; massaging of votes upwards; muzzling of civil societies; swamping social media with propaganda; hyping of approval ratings and other forms of manufactured consent?
The opposition’s (NASA’s) hopes of ascension to power have been reliant on the independence of the country’s institutions. They demand that the principles of democracy be applied in toto, for this reason, they seek to firm their establishment. Consequently, when the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) failed to conduct a free and fair election on August 8th, 2017, it implied that avenues for change had been manipulated and made impossible, The opposition threatened to unleash its final bullet, “wacha kiumane” (let hell break loose). This meant that it would arbitrate its case on the streets, thus confronting a government ready to crush protests even if lives were lost.

The opposition has a large, but an increasingly radicalized following, wearing distraught and airs of being aggrieved. Their rights denied and so stuck in between hope. For which reason they are determined to change their situation no matter the consequences- anarchy and death don’t matter. It is an apocalypse for them. This is what happens to politics when it loses patience. Rabbi Jonathan Sachs in his book Not in God’s name explained that: “Apocalyptic politics is the strange phenomenon of a revolutionary movement whose gaze is firmly fixed on the past. It arises at times of destabilizing change and speaks to those who feel unjustly left behind.” It is like Samson in the Temple of the Philistines, bringing down the building on his enemies but destroying himself in the process.

If the event of Raila’s return from the USA trip is indicative of the future, then am certain we are at a crisp of revolt and Armageddon. The disenfranchisement in the country must be addressed, and all should have an opportunity to prosper. With apparent dim prospects for livelihood, health-care and future to harp onto, they cannot be deader (sic) than they are already. It’s already tragic.

Nowhere is this condition as explicit as in the myth of Sisyphus. Condemned by the gods to roll a rock to the top of a mountain, whereupon its own weight makes it fall back down again, Sisyphus was trapped in this perpetually futile labor. He was condemned to everlasting torment and the accompanying despair of knowing that his labor was futile. Efforts for change in Kenya are as futile. Hopes hinged on the Constitution of Kenya 2010 to achieve this are being brutally chiseled. Neither did the promise of changing through the ballot materialize. Besides, the oppressive handling has radicalized the opposition.

Intriguingly, Albert Camus, the French philosopher notices defiance in Sisyphus that moment when he goes back down the mountain. The consciousness of his fate is the tragedy, yet consciousness also allows Sisyphus to scorn the gods, providing a small measure of satisfaction. There is a mingling of satisfaction and tragedy, which exactly reflects in opposition followers’ loaded scorn in the face of police brutality: “I would rather die standing than kneeling.” Camus argues that life is meaningless and absurd yet we can revolt against the absurdity and find some modicum of happiness. What he is proposing is a third way apart from the acceptance of life’s absurdity, which leads to suicide or its denial by embracing dubious metaphysical propositions of a hopeful living. Juxtaposing such stark contrasts reveals an apparent alternative—we can proceed defiantly forward. If followed, Camus’ advice would lead to an embrace of the absurdity of current realities, rejection of speculative metaphysics, and grounding the meaning of our lives in the small part we can play in transforming the world into a more meaningful reality.

 

The opposition’s unexpected decision to go to the Supreme Court shifted the course of events and possibly averted a grave bloody encounter. Supreme Court judges, acting according to their conscience, kept Kenya on the narrow pass between anarchy and tyranny, on the narrow way of peace. In asserting their independence, they ruled to nullify the election and called for repeat polls. This salvaged the country by redirecting energies towards reforms. The opposition recognized that pursuing reform of independent bodies would build lasting peace for the country, and therefore demanded changes and openness with grit on the vilified IEBC.

 

This decision devastated the ruling Jubilee party and President Uhuru Kenyatta in particular. Consequently, they also sought reforms, not of the polls body, but of the laws that the Supreme Court applied to nullify the polls. They opted to regularize the ‘irregularities’ and make illegalities ‘legal’, so to speak. Parliament, without opposition members, made changes in law apparently to make an easy win in the repeat polls. This was a significant and definitive decision that as we shall learn, took the country away from the path of peace back to the sinking sands of uncertainty. The resulting confusion at the IEBC, working under duress and alleged pressure from the State, forced a key member of the commission to quit. The president is believed to have tacitly supported the confusion. A win in the repeat election was sacrosanct, thus the president made these decisions willfully.

 

Yet we delude ourselves to claim that problems facing Kenya are individual politicians. To only heap blame on President Uhuru or opposition leader Hon. Raila Odinga is to trivialize the issues. Ignoring these seismic shifts that undermine the foundations of the country’s democracy and fault Raila and his followers’ street protests is also cheeky dishonesty. Why would we not see the obvious in the President’s decisions? That he first repudiated the faith on which the nation was founded – rule of law and therefore the Judiciary and the Constitution. Then the precepts that governed the country, the independent institutions of the nation: the police force, IEBC, Directorate of Public Prosecution, all which were so systematically strangled that they effectively operate under instruction ‘from anonymous sources’, guessing where is not difficult. The stifling of public freedoms and the vigor with which civil society organizations were haunted threatened the moral framework that gave us the impetus for a free society under the Constitution of Kenya 2010.

 

These are the terrifying decisions he made. They are the kind of decisions we are making all over the world at this time. The entire global monetary crisis of 2008 was based upon a framework that defies the moral law of God – that you can violate the rules; that you can cheat on elections; that you can build your own storehouses while exploiting others in the process and that you can eliminate anyone who stands in your way. Issues of truth have been simplified to the most elemental choice; agree or die. We have desacralized the very essence of human life, which is why the normal rules that restrain people from murdering the innocent are suspended. Very seldom do we talk about the right to be human, and we think we can do all of this with impunity? These are the issues that are strangling Kenya.

Consequently, the opposition lost patience to work for changes. Essentially, it began a search for revolution without the slow process of transformation and change without education of the populace. Its decision to withdraw from the rescheduled election of 26th. October 2017, informed by the failure of the IEBC to act independently and reform, shows this frustration. In the determination to act for change, the opposition resorted to the setting up of People’s Assemblies at the county levels across the nation, as it were, invoking the sovereignty of the people as enshrined in the Constitution. It won’t accept Uhuru as president, instead, demanding to swear in Odinga as the people’s president (initially scheduled for the 12th of December). The details of this and how it will sit in law is still opaque. Here are an ominous sign of imminent legal confrontations and conflicts.

 

These political protagonists look to use power in the place of persuasion, daggers instead of debate. There are no listening ears among them or their followers. The government resorts to tyranny and brutal force, while the opposition to the revolt of the masses and anarchy.

 

What ails Kenya’s politics is not ethnicity per se. It was not, in the run-up to independence. The seismic events of 2002 – when the organized opposition seized power – proved that Kenyans can come round. Such coming together, however, has potential to inflame violence, as we would witness five years later.

 

Prof. James Ogude, a Senior Research Fellow and Deputy Director at the Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria, exposed the popular use of “ethnicity as a means to establishing difference or exclusivity for political expediency”. Holders of power are bent on wantonly wrenching the thin web that binds Kenya. They dutifully ape the nation’s founding fathers, who established the country on the ethnic exclusion of certain communities perceived to be a threat to the State. What Prof. Ogude observed of post-Kenyatta States, can be said of this regime, an increase in what may be called ‘an ethnocratic state’ whose basic political rhetoric is nation-building, while in practice it undermines any real desire for nationhood. It is unfortunate that political leaders guard ethnic hostilities like the bullfighters in Khayeka, Kakamega County, would for a good fight. They have weaponized ethnicity.

 

The real shame has been the failure to transition from ethnic to ideologically-based politics. Aggravating this situation is the absence of concrete class markings, allowing this void to be filled with tribalism. We are ruined when in lieu of proper political ideology, tribalism has filled the vacuum. Prof. Colin Leys, writing in the Institute of Development Studies Bulletin 7(3): Underdevelopment in Kenya. The Political Economy of Neo-Colonialism affirmed this when he said, “‘tribalism’ is in the first instance an ideological phenomenon. Essentially, it consists in the fact that people identify other exploited people as the source of their insecurity and frustrations, rather than their common exploiters. Of course, this does not happen ‘spontaneously’. Kenyans are victims of political leaders who create this situation, besides the actions of State organs and institutions that create isolations of a section of Kenyans. The challenge, therefore, goes beyond individual politicians and tribalism, straight to the refusal of establishing effective democratic institutions to serve all Kenyans. To blame tribalism or Individual politicians is to shift minds away from corruption and economic malaise in Kenya. Instead, we would be activating tribal passions to stifle internal dissent.

 

The book of Genesis in the Bible is about the willingness to accord dignity to the other rather than see them as a threat. This is enabled pathological dualism that, according to Sacks, “divides humanity into children of darkness and of light, all good among us but all evil in the others”. When a section of Kenyans would commit evil just to prevent Odinga from being president, we see an outright refusal to accept the partially good intentions of others and work with them and to whom, according to Thomas Melton, “we are unconsciously proclaiming our own malice, our own intolerance, our own lack of realism, our own ethical and political quackery.” This kind of dualism must be defeated if Kenya is to become a nation. One way out of this is a role reversal. Rabbi Sacks suggests: “The way we learn not to commit evil is to experience an event from the perspective of the victim. That is what (Biblical) Joseph is forcing his brothers to do. He educates them in otherness through role reversal.”

 

Joseph forces his brothers to recognize that just as a brother can be a stranger (when kept at a distance), so a stranger can turn out to be a brother. Cain is able to commit murder because he says, “Am I my brothers’ keeper?” He refuses to feel the pain of Abel but cares only about his rejected offering. On the contrary, in showing that he is his brother’s keeper, Judah’s repentance redeems not only his own earlier sin but also Cain’s. A small wonder then that the nation of Israel begins in Egypt as slaves so that they will know from the inside what it feels like to be on the other side.

 

Going forward, let the truth be the foundation upon which Kenya is built. History is replete with evidence that truth can be betrayed and systems manipulated in service of oppression and injustice. This has been the story of Kenya. But aren’t these the challenges also confronting the human family now, calling us to look beyond those dangers? The opposition needs to remain committed to good governance and resist half-measure application of democratic principles, individual rights and the rule of law. The government that calls on all to respect the Constitution must also be exemplary in adhering to the tenets of the Constitution. That is dealing with each other truthfully.

 

Addressing civil and political leaders and members of the diplomatic corps in the Presidential Palace, Prague, on 26 September 2009, Pope Benedict XVI could have as well been addressing Kenya’s stalemate today when he said: “The thirst for truth, beauty, and goodness, implanted in all men and women by the Creator, is meant to draw people together in the quest for justice, freedom, and peace.” He questions what is more inhuman, and destructive than the cynicism which would deny the grandeur of our human quest for truth, and the relativism that corrodes the very values which inspire the building of a united and fraternal world. It is imperative, therefore, to place confidence in our innate capacity to crave for and grasp the truth and allow this confidence to points us to working for the Kenya we want.

Now, however, we need to also embrace the truth with all its ramifications. Kenyans have a capacity for doing right and upholding the principles of democracy, as demonstrated in the 2002 election and the referendum that yielded the 2010 Constitution. This will ensure an end to election theft. I doubt there is a need for more laws. I also do not imagine that change of people at the helm of failing institutions like the IEBC, without a shift in attitude, will change the situation. Our priority must be to pursue principle above pragmatism. To get there, we must admit that while pragmatism determines the greater part of politics, it must never be at the expense of moral principles. For the professional politician, judge, administrator of justice or manager of the country’s crucial institutions, this means the priority of conscience above mere expediency. This will not be without a cost. Cardinal Ratzinger warns: “To live by the priority of moral principle over pragmatism requires moral courage. To adhere to your (genuinely moral) principles, must bring you into conflict with the powers and principalities of this world.” And for politics to recover its sense of direction, argues Ratzinger, what is needed is the recovery and public recognition of those moral norms that are universally valid.

 

In the end, we need to pursue Truth to its logical conclusion. Attempts to bridge the divide and solve the present crisis have focused on reconciliation. Needless to say, these have so far been futile, for want of honest mediators. The depth of the crisis transcends a simple reconciliation between President Kenyatta and Mr. Odinga. Reconciliation must be grounded in repentance, which means a complete change in attitude, and behavior. A role reversal would be the best way of entering the world of those with “no stake in the economy” and whose rights have been trampled again and again. We must urgently move away from the path of apocalyptic politics and affirm through reforms of the national institutions to accommodate all. The day these conflicts are transformed into conciliation will be the beginning of our journey to a society as a family.

 

The writer is a priest at All Saints Cathedral Diocese, Nairobi. The views expressed here are his own. (canonomondi08@gmail.com)

 

 

Cited works:

Camus, Albert: “The Myth of Sisyphus,” in The Meaning of Life, ed. E.D Klemke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981)

Cardinal Ratzinger, J.: On Conscience (Philadelphia/San Francisco: NCBC/Ignatius Press, 2007)

Leys, Collins: Institute of Development Studies Bulletin 7(3): Underdevelopment in Kenya. The Political Economy of Neo-Colonialism

Forest Jim: Root of War if Fear Thomas Merton’s Advice to Peace Makers: Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York. 2016

Sacks J.: Not in God’s Name: London, Hodder & Stoughton. 2015:

Church-State relations: Kenya of 1969 lessons for today:

by Rev. Canon Francis Omondi

image

 Looking at 1969 from the biography of John Gatu 

 Introduction:

Context

The year 1969 witnessed the end of the first parliament of independent Kenya.  It had not been an easy journey through the first term of Kenya’s life as a nation. The country was due for the first post-independence General Elections.

The political atmosphere was tense and had been simmering since the infamous Limuru Convention of 1966 and the ensuing fallout. The formation of KPU as the opposition party and its nationwide influence was worrying the ruling party. Such developments stoked fears in the ruling party of losing the elections.

During Madaraka Day celebrations, President Mzee Jomo Kenyatta announced that General Elections would be held. The ominous oathing began. The oath was intended to galvanize the support of Mt. Kenya people for the presidency, ensuring that the leadership of the country would not leave the house of Mumbi; the national flag was not to depart from its then current position.

 

These dynamics rendered the Luo people and those who supported them as the enemies of the Gikuyu people. It constituted the very risky prospect of pitting the Gikuyu people (or GEMA) against the rest of the nation. Then came the July 4th killing of the Hon. Tom Mboya by Nahashon Njenga. The resulting riots threatened the breakup of the nation. The fragile efforts that had been made towards building a nation appeared irreparably damaged. The process of Africanisation, which had been intended to bring the country together, became, in the opinion of some people, a process of “gikuyuization.”

 

These acrimonious dynamics continued to the end of the year and concluded with the detention of Jaramogi Oginga Odinga. It is against this backdrop that church-state relationships as recounted by the Rev. Dr. John Gatu in his book, ‘Fan into Flame,’ will be considered.

Church-State Relationships

 

The importance of the year 1969 against the backdrop of the prevailing church-state relationships cannot be over-stated.  The Rev. Dr. Plawson Kuria hints at the importance of the year in the introduction to his dissertation in which he recounts the nature of Kenya’s church-state relationships in general and with the Presbyterian Church of East Africa (PCEA) in particular.  The greatest honour must be reserved for Very Rev. Dr. John G. Gatu for documenting and re-telling this story so bravely and truthfully for posterity. The fact that the church survived this remarkable episode should be applauded. We, the church, should be inspired to stand firmly in times of trial, re-affirming our calling, building on the foundation that Gatu and his contemporaries have laid.

 

We can better appreciate their contributions by comparing experiences with churches elsewhere that faced similar dilemmas. Gatu’s narration of the 1969 experience in Kenya can be helpfully compared with the experience in 1933 of the Protestant Church in Germany in the context of the courageous prophetic contribution made by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

 

 

PCEA POSTURE ON CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIPS 

 

This relationship, observes Rev. Gatu,

“can best be described as checkered and it is best informed by various phases in our history. Sometimes, it was clearly a symbiotic relationship, where each partner depended on the other as the occasion demanded. Then again, it was an ambivalent co-existence or at worst an acrimonious and confrontational relationship” (2016 180).

 

The church’s position can be deduced from several documents that were made public during church-state encounter in 1969. The Covenant Statement of September 15, 1969 provides the best representation of the PCEA’s position.

 

The PCEA COVENANT OF UNITY AND LOYALTY, Article 2:

“Recognizing His command to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and the teaching of the apostles that the authorities that exist have been instituted by God and are due to be given such respect, service and obedience as is compatible with a God-fearing life, we pledge unfailing loyalty to the President, His Excellency Mzee Jomo Kenyatta and his government elected in accordance with the constitution…” (210).

 

This covenant crystalized the position first mentioned in a letter of July 22,1969 addressed to the President, in which Gatu, with other church leaders, affirmed that, “there is no authority (government) but by act of God and the existing authorities are instituted by Him (N.E.B. Romans 15:1-2)” (196).They continued: “Allow us to declare here and now our loyalty to your government and our uncompromising allegiance to your Excellency as a person and as the Head of State. Our prayer books or other prayers offered every Sunday in our churches demonstrate the honour in which your government and your person are held” (196).

 

They perceived themselves as loyal subjects of a legitimate state and as partners in the development of the nation and the people of a new country. In Gatu’s own words:

“…this was a relationship in which mutual respect between partners in human development was manifest, while at others, it was a relationship bereft of understanding and tolerance” (180).

 

PCEA theology, being heir to the reformed tradition, would be quite close to German Protestant doctrinal positions, particularly with regard to church-state relationships.

The Protestant Church in Germany affirmed what has been referred to as Luther’s Two Kingdom Doctrine on church-state relationships. Martin Luther used the phrase, “two governments” rather than “two kingdoms.” Luther’s doctrine, also embraced by Philip Melancthon, was later labeled the “two kingdoms” doctrine affirming that the church should not exercise worldly government, and that princes should not rule the church or have anything to do with the salvation of souls (Gritsch 1986, 48).

 

Augustine‘s church-state model as expounded in his famous tome, The City of God, provided the foundation for Luther’s doctrine (Sockness, Brent W. (1992).

Luther attempted to synchronize seemingly contradictory biblical statements. The Bible contains passages that exhort Christians to obey rulers placed over them and to repay evil with retribution. Other passages, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, call for passivity in the face of oppression.

 

In an attempt to reconcile these seemingly contradictory passages, Luther deviated from the Roman Catholic position, which considered the latter biblical statement as an ideal for a more perfect class of Christians as opposed to radical Christians who rejected any temporal authority.

Thus emerged Luther’s understanding of the church-state relationship: the temporal kingdom has no coercive authority in matters pertaining to the spiritual kingdom. Luther was fully aware of the manner in which the Roman Catholic Church had involved itself in secular affairs, and he was aware of the involvement of the princes in religious matters, especially with regard to the ban on printing the New Testament (MacCulloch 2003, 164).

 

God has ordained the two governments: one of them being of a spiritual nature, which by the Holy Spirit under Christ reigns over Christians and pious people; and one of them with a secular mandate to restrain the unchristian and unregenerate, obliging it to keep the outward or public peace.  We are to be subject to governmental power and do what it bids as long as it does not violate our Christian conscience and as long as it legislates only on matters related to the secular body politic.

However, if the secular government invades the spiritual domain and constrains the conscience, over which God only presides and rules, we should not obey, but choose instead to suffer. Temporal authority and temporal government extend only to matters, which are external and corporeal (MacCulloch: 2003, 238).

 

The position of the German Protestant Church with regard to government authority was clear. But this position changed when the government position regarding Jews was articulated in 1933. The government position became a source of great conflict and posed a moral dilemma for the church. Would the church defy government policy on the Jews?

 

 

image.jpeg

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE CHALLENGE TO RESIST THE STATE: Conflictual Relationships.

 

From time to time, the purposes of the state and the purposes of the church find themselves at odds with each other. Such a situation confronted the Rev. Gatu when the Kenyatta Government asked him and his colleagues to take the Gikuyu oath. In some measure this request reflected the close relationship between the President and the PCEA leadership.

The Gatundu phone call of June 9, 1969 summoned PCEA leaders to take “the Gikuyu Oath” which was being administered to all ” Gikuyu of good will” to solidify the unity of the tribe (188).

The oath had been launched among President Kenyatta’s followers as a means of rendering the GEMA people ready for the general election (189). The Kenyatta regime considered the threat from KPU, the opposition party, a serious issue that required the President’s home front to be politically united. Kenyatta offered terms that he assumed would be acceptable to the clergy: “[We]…will not require the clergy to take a blood oath, but will take it in any other form…including drinking milk,” Gatu explained.

Details of the oath were not divulged to them unless they agreed to take the secret oath, but it was made clear that this was a serious matter and the sooner they complied the better.

“The implication was clear. If we refused to take the oath, it would signify our betrayal of the President and the inability of the PCEA to reciprocate the confidence that the President had in the church we represented. Of all things and of all places, this was the last thing we expected to come from the lips of the one we had come to love so dearly, Our President,” Gatu lamented (189).

 

This decision seriously affected the church, for which reason they requested time to pray. They called on other leaders in the church to assist in the quest for an appropriate decision. Unity of the church body was vital in dealing with the state. For this purpose, the invited leaders were Bishop Obadiah Kariuki of the Anglican Church of Kenya, Rev. Charles Kereri and Rev. Andrew Wambari, head of the Africa Inland Church

 

DECISION: It was wrong to take the Gikuyu Oath. “Unlike the oath we took during the struggle for independence, this oath was totally unnecessary, aimless and offended the traditions and customs of the Gikuyu people, who would ordinarily never administer oaths to women and children. We also found out that people were being forced to part with money during the oathing ceremonies. This also was contrary to the principles of binding oneself to an oath. Furthermore, no one was prepared to give us the exact text of the oath” (190).

 

In addition to moral considerations, they objected to the oath because:

  1. It was of no use and they deemed it purposeless at that point in the history of independent Kenya.
  2. Many people were being coerced into taking the oath.
  3. The oath would have a divisive rather than a uniting effect on Kenyans.

 

In administrating the oath, the government violated the constitution, thus undermining its legitimacy to rule and to be obeyed. Worse still, it was evil in that it excluded its own non-Gikuyu citizens from leadership in the nation. The government had imposed this oath without the consent of some of the citizens. This was stated clearly in the protest letter to Kenyatta and in the meeting of July 22, 1969:

 

“It is now known that many Christians, and ordained ministers included, have been compelled to take the oath which is contrary to their religion and belief in a manner that is contrary to the same …people have been subjected to torture, inhuman degrading punishment and other treatments. Contrary to section 74(1) of the constitution of Kenya and section 78(1) where it is laid out: Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his\her freedom of conscience.” 

 

The church had legitimate reason to protest this intrusion that would undermined its own teachings.

This was stated in a letter to the President dated September 15, 1969:

 

Since the service of God involves loving our neighbors as ourselves, we stretch out our hand of brotherhood and fellowship to people of every tribe and race. Our resolve is to foster unity and combat division and to conduct our lives and work without discrimination or favoritism (210).

 

The oath fomented serious division in the country: Kikuyus vs non-Kikuyus, on one hand, and one Kikuyu district against another, on the other. Undermining the fragile national unity, which had begun taking root, was against government policy of Harambee and against the concept of national unity.

 

Dietrich Bonheoffer’s moment of resistance came to the fore when the Nazi government introduced the Aryan Chapter action against the Jews. Unfortunately the German church began implementing this law by excluding non-Aryan members from its services in compliance with government dictates.

 

Should the church support a government that violates national laws, which also contradict the church’s teaching?

 

 

 

 

image

RESPONSE OF THE CHURCH TO STATE

 

Bonhoeffer was explicit with regard to the church’s obligations to fight political injustice. The church, he wrote, must fight evil in three stages:

 

Firstly, the church must question state injustice and call the state to responsibility;

Secondly, the church must help victims of injustice, whether or not they are church members.

Ultimately, the church might find itself called, “not only to help the victims who have fallen under the wheel, but to help those who fall into the spokes of the wheel itself,” in its effort to halt the machinery of injustice.

 

 

Confronting the State

 

Stage one: By means of memoranda, protest letters and meetings church leaders made their positions and reasons for opposing the oaths clear, personally delivering the documentation to the President, from July 22, 1969 to September 15, 1969.

They sought government protection from forced submission to oath taking and they sought protection from rogue gangs, which were administering the oaths.

 

Stage two: Public protest and exposure.

 

The September 15, 1969 killing of Samuel Gathinji brought the church to keen attention. Meanwhile protests to Parliament were not effective because the Minister of State and the Vice President denied that oathing was taking place. Public prayers in Tumu Tumu, Kikuyu, Chogoria and Nakuru and public denunciation of the oathing forced the government to act. These actions were supported by both local and international press releases, embarrassing the government. The serialization of stories regarding the victims of forced oathing had a huge impact on the government. Kenyatta finally halted the oathing in September 1969.

 

“Kwaria ni kwendana: Gikuyu na Mukabi mangiaririe matingiaruire….” The press pressed Kenyatta out of denial and pretense (233).

 

Gatu Concluded:

“It is important to emphasize that despite the grave nature of the 1969 oathing, the church tried, as much as possible, to engage the political class at the highest possible level, without necessarily attracting media attention. Whether this tactic was right or wrong under the prevailing circumstances, is for the reader to judge. I have combined this private and personal approach for finding solutions to challenges facing the church and society at large with wide consultations before calling on the church to take an informed posture. In retrospect, the most important element is that the church rose to its calling, that of being the conscience and the prophetic voice of the nation. The modus operandi of working quietly behind the scenes has worked well for me and by extension for the PCEA over the years. In this context I speak of myself and to some extent the PCEA, but it does not mean that other churches did not respond to the 1969 oathing with equal vigor in their own ways. I thank God that PCEA played a critical role in resolving a politically motivated, destructive, base ambiguous and subtle challenge that had far reaching repercussions for the church and the nation” (180-224).

 

Stage 3. Being Light.

We have the challenge of building on Gatu’s foundation. We find ourselves called to halt the machinery of injustice, exclusion and tribalism, including but going beyond assistance to victims of state injustice.

The oath was introduced to bind the Gikuyu people together and to keep the leadership of the country among them. This mutated to the “uthamaki concept” in the understanding of those outside the community.  Perhaps there is no oathing taking place today, but the spell of the 1969 oath still casts a shadow over the country’s political atmosphere.

-The tribal-political dynamic was legitimated in the country.

-The Kikuyu-Luo divide became institutionalized.

-Animosity has continued close to 50 years and has also affected the church.

 

Should church leaders have gone beyond protest against the oathing to urge the hearts and souls of Kenyans towards unity and love, and to urge the government towards a greater degree of fairness?

 

Does the state have a right to exclude select communities from leadership of the country?

 

Bonhoeffer’s final point…

 

Ultimately, the church might find itself called “not only to help the victims who have fallen under the wheel, but also those who have fallen into the spokes of the wheel itself” in order to halt the machinery of injustice. With the establishment of the Confessing Church, German Christians withdrew from the traditional Protestant Church and acted against the German government, seeking to stop it from continuing on a destructive path.

 

Conclusion:

 

The prophetic tasks of the church are to tell the truth in a society that lives in illusion,

to grieve in a society that practices denial, and to express hope in a society that lives in despair (Walter Brueggemann).

 

We must rise:

We rise again from ashes,
from the good we’ve failed to do.
We rise again from ashes,
to create ourselves anew.
If all our world is ashes,
then must our lives be true,
an offering of ashes, an offering to you.

Then rise again from ashes,
let healing come to pain,
though spring has turned to winter,
and sunshine turned to rain.
The rain we’ll use for growing,
and create the world anew
from an offering of ashes, an offering to you.

(Words and music by Tim Conry)

 

 

Articles on the same subject by Canon Rev. Francis Omondi’ appeared in:

 

THE PLATFORM – For Law, Justice and Society (Nairobi)

December 2016-January 2017, No. 25/26

Title of article:

‘Why Uhuru Must Free Kenya From His Father’s Oathing’

 

STAR (Nairobi newspaper)

January 8, 2017

Title of article:

‘Why Uhuru Must Free Kenya From His Father’s Oathing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership wrangles split Taita-Taveta

By Renson Mnyamwezi
A row is simmering between the Anglican Church of Kenya, Taita-Taveta Diocese and its faithful over the pending hiring of an assistant Bishop.
The diocese is to spend more than Sh6 million to cater for the establishment of the office of Assistant Bishop in the region, an amount that should be raised by the faithful.
At the same time, the worshippers have rejected a proposed budget for 2013 amounting to more than Sh44.8 million to be raised by eight archdeaconries in the region for the operations of the diocese headquarters.
Documents obtained by The Standard said each parish had been asked to make a payment of at least 50 per cent of the contribution by May 13, this year to enable preparation of the office to take off.
Budget
Last Friday, Rev Dr Bishop Mwaluda chaired a stormy Synod meeting at ACK-sponsored Bartholomew Secondary School in Voi town, where the budget for the assistant Bishop was released to the clergy in attendance.
Pastoral quarters charged to churches within parishes were said to have been raised, an issue that did not go down well with the faithful. The charges depend on the number of faithful, the document said. Owing to the rising poverty, the new demands would not be met and the church needs to rescind its decision, said the faithful.
“Priests in churches that are not able to contribute to the maximum charges have been forced to go without salaries. The appointment of the assistant bishop will further burden the faithful and should be stopped. We have decided to go to the press to air our grievances because the Bishop has failed to listen to us,” complained a faithful.
“We are contributing more than Sh45,000 monthly to the diocese account but our priest, a diploma holder earns a paltry Sh12,000 per month.”
Salaries
The meeting called on the Diocese headed by the bishop to harmonise salaries of priests with other employees in the public service.
“We have decided to go to the Press to air our grievances because the bishop has failed to listen to us. Our priests are underpaid and yet we contribute a lot of money to the diocese,” said another faithful who did not want to be named. 
Updated 8 hrs 39 mins ago
They called for a review of the church constitution saying too many powers were vested in the bishop.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén