Faith and integrity: Can the church guide nation correctly this election?

The church in Kenya stands again at a moral crossroads. In the last election, it did not merely pray; it participated. It did not stand at the margins; it made a choice. A substantial part of the church aligned with the hustler government. The warm embrace between clergy and candidate was unmistakable. Money flowed from the political class into sanctuaries and the church responded with gratitude.

But a new generation was watching, and it judged the church harshly. The Gen Z movement, unimpressed by the closeness between pulpit and power, shouted a stinging rebuke: “Occupy the Church!” It was more than a slogan; it was a theological accusation — that the church had lost its prophetic distance and had become too entangled with the very systems strangling the people.

The rebuke still rings. And so the church must now pause and ask itself with all seriousness: What lessons have we learnt? How will we discern better this time? And how can the painful memory of the wheelbarrow disappointment become our teacher rather than our shame?

The last election should be treated as both a political miscalculation and a theological failure. God’s people are called to remember — not selectively, but honestly. Memory is not a nostalgic exercise but a spiritual discipline, forcing the church to reckon with where it leaned too quickly, shouted too loudly or closed its eyes too willingly.

When the church endorsed the wheelbarrow narrative, it did so partly from spiritual optimism and partly from fatigue. Many believed that a candidate who spoke the language of the poor must naturally understand the pain of the poor. But Scripture is relentless in reminding us that a confession of faith is not the same as a life aligned with God’s justice. The tragedy of last time was the church mistaking public piety for private integrity.

But God works through memory. What is remembered can be redeemed. The disappointment should mature the church, not paralyse it. The Gen Z rebuke should deepen the church’s humility, not provoke its defensiveness. The continuing suffering of the people should sharpen the church’s conscience, not silence its voice. If the church holds its memory before God in truth, it can step into the coming campaign season wiser and deeper in its discernment.

Recovering seriousness

Candidates know how the church loves familiar language. But maturity demands that the church move beyond the temptation to rank candidates by how loudly they pray or how generously they donate. True discernment looks for fruit not the theatrics of devotion.

This is where the theological dimension must be reclaimed. Discernment is not guesswork; it is the patient work of the Spirit using both prayer and wisdom. The church must examine conduct, consistency, humility, justice and the ability to carry the burdens of others. It must assess whether a leader’s life draws people toward God or disguises self-interest with religious vocabulary.

The church must therefore pursue a discernment that honours the mystery of God’s guidance but also respects the intelligence God has placed within the body of Christ. A discerning church studies policy, interrogates history, examines economic vision, evaluates temperament, and tests moral courage. To do less is to treat governance as a lottery and theology as an ornament. It is not unspiritual for the church to design a credible, evidence-guided assessment tool.

Such a tool would help the church speak with integrity rather than instinct. It would prevent the mistake of assuming that the most visible Christian is the most virtuous leader. It would help the church resist the flattery of politicians. It would give congregations a basis to understand why the church leans one way rather than another. It would ensure that the next decision is not driven by excitement but by discernment.

The church trembles at one question: “What if we get it wrong again?” It is the right question — but fear must not be the church’s shepherd. Even biblical heroes erred in judgment. Samuel nearly anointed the wrong son of Jesse until the Lord intervened. The early disciples misread Judas entirely. Being wrong is not the sin; refusing correction is. The church was outwitted last time, and when it recognised the nation sliding into pain, many sections courageously changed direction and stood with the protesting youth. 

But we must now ask the more hopeful question: What if the church gets it right?
What if a credible, tested, transparent tool leads the church to identify leaders whose values, temperament and record align with justice? What if the public sees the ranking and finds it reasonable, consistent and morally serious? The church could regain credibility not by shouting louder, but by thinking deeper. It could shape the national conversation not by endorsing personalities, but by defining principles.

The church has the intellectual and spiritual capacity to do this. In its pews sit economists who can interpret budgets, lawyers who can dissect policy, theologians who can interrogate moral fibre and young people who understand where the country is bleeding. The Spirit has never asked the church to choose between prayer and intelligence. Both belong to God. To use one without the other is to operate at half strength.

If the church embraces this calling, it will not only guide the nation; it will heal itself. It will show the youth that faith still has fire. It will demonstrate that Christianity is not a warm handshake with the powerful but a fierce commitment to truth. 

Kenya is entering an intense campaign season and the church cannot hide behind vague neutrality. It must choose — but choose with holiness, intelligence and courage. The church must lift its eyes beyond wheelbarrows, slogans, donations, public piety, and see leaders as God sees them: through the lens of justice, compassion, integrity and truth.

When the church chooses again — and it will — may it choose not from excitement, fear, or reward, but from the deep well of discernment. For in a nation groaning under the weight of its contradictions, the church’s most powerful contribution is not merely a vote, but a vision rooted in God.