It doesn't make sense to reject donations but allow politicians in pulpits

Metropolitan Archbishop of Nairobi Philip Anyolo during a thanksgiving Mass at St Teresa Parish, Eastleigh on 30th November 2024. Anyolo confirmed that the church returned President Ruto's donated money. He also condemned the recent attack of former deputy president Rigathi Gachagua during a burial in Limiru.[Collins Oduor, Standard]

The Church has always been a critical social institution, an authoritative voice, a source of moral guidance and truth for its followers. Yet recent moves by some congregations to decline government donations, while at the same time inviting politicians to speak in their midst, raise doubts about consistency and ethics.

The Church, which has accused the government of working against the citizens and the spirit of morality, has embraced public resistance by rejecting politicians' assistance. This sounds like a dramatic assertion of autonomy and responsibility. Yet, when you dig deep, you find contradictions that jeopardise the credibility and purpose of the Church.

To denounce the government for its supposed dishonesty and disregard for the Church’s teachings is a damnable accusation. Yet, the very Church that opens its pulpit to these same leaders emits ambivalent signals. How can the organisation accuse politicians of immorality and then permit them to address their flock in moments of sacred silence? This dualism looks less like principled resistance.

In this case, the Church might come across as complicit in the very things it denounces. It inadvertently legitimises its enemy, confuses its supporters and undermines its moral power. The Church, if it truly thinks these leaders are corrupt, must always stand firm, refusing not just their offerings but a privileged presence in its halls.

Refusing politicians' aid can be seen as a principled stand, but is it not a performative move to gain popular support? Symbolic gestures, such as withholding money, make sense only when accompanied by repetition. If the Church wants to emphasise its proclaimed independence from politics, it should break all relationships, including aphoristic gestures such as welcoming politicians at services. Anything less would be seen as a submission to popular impulses rather than sincere effort to uphold moral integrity.

What’s more, such moves could alienate the communities the Church exists to serve. When properly redirected, public donations can go towards the needs of parishioners—be they for education, healthcare or social care. In refusing to offer this help, the Church risks endangering those who depend on its services, and one might wonder if it really values people’s wellbeing.

In the Bible, the emphasis is on walking uprightly and truthfully. For the Church to serve as a moral voice, it must model the way it commands people to behave. There is no sense in accusing the State of dishonesty and shadiness if the Church itself appears hypocritical.

To regain legitimacy, the Church needs to take a coherent stand. And if it is going to distance itself from politics, this must mean denying funding and political bluster during worship. Instead, if it recognises the pragmatic necessity of co-operation with government leaders, it must do so unambiguously and freely.

The power of the Church lies in its capacity to generate transformation through ethical action. But being a leader requires consistency, humility and an openness to truth, even if it hurts. By living what it preaches, the Church can reclaim its reputation as a guide to the country.

The Church needs to re-evaluate and make sure what it does is compatible with its teachings. Then, and only then, will it be the brightest light in a country shrouded in political and ethical uncertainty.

Mr Mohamed is a management consultant