In times like these, Church must decide whom to stand with

What is the role of the Church in moments of political crisis? Some would argue that the Church should be moral enough to stand with what is right, just, or true.

Often, with politics tending to constantly happen within a state of flux, what is right or just may be difficult to discern.

And so some might argue that, rather than take a moral stand on a political question, the Church ought to maintain neutrality, accepting all parties across the political divide without judgment, as judgment is, after all, the Lord’s.

The reality, however, is rarely so straight forward, and the Church often finds itself on the absolute wrong side of a situation.

Rwanda stands out as an example. The Catholic Church, since its establishment in the region, favoured the Tutsi minority, elevating their social standing on the basis of the Tutsis’ approximation to whiteness with their aquiline features.

This was to change after World War II, when criticism prompted the Church to begin taking on Hutus into its ranks.

The change in tact catalysed the Hutu movement towards unification and mobilisation and, by the 1990s, imploded into all-out genocide of the Tutsis.

On its part, by 1994 the Church opted to abandon the country when the going got tough, leaving a situation that it had created for purposes of dividing and conquering to turn bloody.

The Church would commit a similar crime just a year later when, in 1995, it stood by and watched as thousands of Bosnian Muslims were murdered by Serbian forces in the massacre of Srebrenica.

Many argue that the drastic shift from religious tolerance to discrimination and eventual civil war in the former Yugolsavia was fueled by the Serbian Orthodox Church.

The Kenyan Church of present day now finds itself at the precipice of learning the crucial lesson on where it should stand in times of political crisis.

Up until recently, the Church was a place where politicians would rise to interrupt every funeral and fundraiser in order to speak a few words and donate some money, but otherwise remained neutral on political matters.

The Damascus moment that then Deputy President-elect William Ruto had at the Faith Evangelistic Ministry Church in 2013 would change all this.

In working to shake off the shackles of an ICC indictment that many just would not forget, the church became the perfect place for Ruto to finally be cleansed of his sins and accepted as a worthy leader of the nation.

Since then, the Church has become a political battleground which the Kenya Kwanza government, whilst vying for the chance to take charge of the country, utilised to build its reputation as a righteous political party.

Since winning the election in 2022, the President and his deputy have made a point to visit a church in a different county every weekend, and these visits are both publicised and reported in the news.

In fact, it would not be far-fetched to argue that President Ruto would not have won his seat in office without the fervent support of the Church, which sanitised his image and rallied its congregants to vote for the most righteous candidate, even with a literal Minister of the Word also appearing on the ballot.

Luckily for us, Generation Z have swooped in to save the day and, with regard to the current protests against the mismanagement of funds by the government, are demanding that the Church no longer remain neutral at best, or side with the oppressor at worst.

Perhaps this time around, the Church will not only learn from its historical mistakes but also borrow a leaf from its contemporaries.

Whilst Holy Family Basilica was locking out protestors in need of shelter at the beginning of the protests, Jamia Mosque was providing food, water, and medical aid to everyone who walked through their gates.

It’s time the church took a long hard look into its politics, as morals are political after all, and decide whom it stands with.

Ms Gitahi is an international lawyer