Returning alleged dirty money exposes hypocrisy in the Church

Right from the era of Lords and Commons in England, to the times when the clergy was called the first estate while the nobles/politicians were known as the second estate in France, the war between the clergy and nobility/politicians has never ended. Granted, sometimes the two enemies close ranks when they feel their common interest is threatened. Both politicians and clergy ride on the masses, and therefore it is no surprise that they should fight for control of the populace. The first and second estates only unite when they feel their space is being infringed by the third and fourth estates.

Here in Kenya, the Church and the State have had a long hate-love relationship. In the last few weeks, the public has been treated to a very unnecessary war of words between politicians and some clergy. The latest confrontation was triggered by the call for the Church to “return” donations made by politicians. Any right-thinking Kenyan should see through the charade of this nonsensical war between the two estates.

Let us just cut to the chase on this matter. One, the politicians don’t normally invite themselves to church functions. Politicians don’t just show up in church unannounced. Even in the rare instances where they “stumbled” into a gathering, somebody somewhere informed them that there is a likelihood of a sizeable crowd in a certain church, and an invitation was extended, formally or otherwise. So, why would the Church later turn against invited guests? They came on invitation, were given the podium to speak, and were given a chance to give.

Secondly, the donation was received warmly during the function. The congregation clapped as they loudly announced that they were donating millions. When did it suddenly become apparent that the money was “dirty”? The hullabaloo comes later, and it is only after the fourth estate has broken the news to the masses. Then and only then does the realisation dawn that the donation is dirty money, and the church should return it. That in itself is an admission that the system failed to detect Satan in their midst.

If the clergy were sincere, thieves would never have been allowed to address congregants. What happened to protecting the flock from thieves? Invitation letters were sent, emissaries were dispatched to the politicians, they were ushered into churches, given front seats next to the bishop, and a sermon about “giving to The Lord” was delivered. Even the permission to speak to the people was graciously given. All along, there was a pretence of ignorance about the stolen money in their pockets. Maybe the guilt-o-meter needs to be recalibrated.

Let us say that it was not known that these politicians had dirty money. As laughable as that sounds, let us just go along with it for a fleeting second. If that were the case, then the clergy would have to start by repenting in dust and ashes. Repenting because a thief was allowed to defile the sanctuary. Repenting because that would be admitting a lack of discernment to “smell” evil-hearted people in their midst. The fact that the evil is being pointed out by the followers speaks volumes. If the clergy were duped into receiving dirty donations, then an apology is owed to the flock. And some resignations too because it means the shepherds slept on their job.

If dirty money found itself into offering baskets, that is an indictment on the church, not on the giver. It is the work of the banker to detect fake currency during deposits, not to wake up the next day and begin to cry foul. As it is, there seems to be less concern unless the media points out that politicians gave. And even when there is talk about returning the money, there is no announcement that all the “friends” of the dirty politician should also come for their money too. That makes the church very selective on which people are deemed to have given an unholy offering. Worse still, there has been no evidence so far that the dirty money has been returned to the givers.

Church, let us stop this hypocrisy. If someone is believed to be too sinful to be allowed to give, block them from entering the church, or REFUSE to take their offering. To turn around and denounce the same people that were entertained yesterday reeks of hypocrisy of the highest order. For the record, there is no shame in belonging to that so-called first estate.

Rev Mutua is the Senior Pastor of Gospel Outreach Church, Egerton. [email protected]