GENEVA—“Not Kenya. Not Kenya. Not Kenya! It can’t happen in Kenya!” The anguish was palpable in Dr. Agnes R. M. Abuom’s description of her dismay about intertribal violence that left hundreds dead, thousands wounded, and hundreds of thousands displaced following the December 27 election in Kenya. Her deep shock is shared by many who have considered Kenya a model of stability. Abuom, a delegate from the Anglican Church of Kenya, was speaking at a press conference at the World Council of Churches (WCC) Central Committee meeting February 15 in Geneva.
DR. Agnes R. M. Abuom, a representative of the Anglican Church of Kenya, claimed that her country “has been living in denial of fundamental problems.” (Photo © WCC / Peter Williams) |
The distressing violence in Kenya came up many times at the Central Committee’s eight-day meeting, which concluded on February 21. The at-times Christian-versus-Christian aspect of the violence particularly disturbed the WCC delegates and leaders. “I am concerned that many church leaders have taken a political side and seem to be equally partisan,” noted Samuel Kobia, WCC General Secretary and himself a Kenyan. He added that such partisanship made it difficult for the churches to mediate the situation or to offer a calming or conciliatory word. “Churches are needed in Kenya,” he said, “because there is no tradition for the transition of one regime to another.” Kobia even pointed to bishops who refuse to leave when their time is over.
Abuom explained it in this way: “Kenya has been living in denial of fundamental problems.” She enumerated three. First, “a political crisis of power arrangement,” in which there is “a collection of political, economic, and religious power” in one tribe in particular. Second, there was an election crisis, in which a widespread sense of voter fraud and election rigging was felt. The third crisis, according to Abuom, is that youth in particular want accountable leadership. “Kenya is experiencing a youth revolution,” she contended, “a youth rebellion in many ways.”
Christian Contributions to the Problem
“The church in Kenya, on the whole, is aligned ethnically,” explained the Rev. Dr. Mvumelwano Hamilton Dandala, the General Secretary of the All Africa Conference of Churches. Denominations are largely composed of a single tribe and located in a particular region of the country. This arrangement came about historically from a missionary strategy for how best to evangelize the people. In order to avoid competition, the colonial government assigned each denomination’s missionaries their own tribes and regions.
It made good sense in many ways to concentrate on a certain language group in a particular region. Evangelism is nearly always easier among homogeneous units, and logistics are simplified. But what was efficient and even productive for mission work “is not good for nation building,” according to Dandala. When a tribe has a serious difficulty with another tribe, it often turns out to be one denomination opposing another. A single denomination is unlikely to have a significant breadth of peoples within it to function effectively as a reconciling agent, especially if a denomination’s self-interest becomes intertwined with a tribe’s political interests.
An Argument for Ecumenism
Because of the limited ability of any single Kenyan denomination to adequately cross tribal barriers and speak for Christians as a whole to call for cessation of violence, Kenya provides a vivid illustration of the value and utility of truly ecumenical work. Only ecumenism provides the breadth to possibly approach a situation such as Kenya from other than a parochial viewpoint tainted by self-interest.
The Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory claimed that the situation in Kenya is “educating the whole world on the preciousness of Democracy. (Photo © WCC / Peter Williams) |
The Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory, director of the WCC Programme on Public Witness, went to Kenya recently with a WCC “Living Letters” delegation. The Living Letters program sends fellow Christians to trouble spots as living representatives of the larger church. Ivory observed that on that trip, “more biblical Scripture went through my mind than normal.” She pointed to such common passages as “a house divided against itself cannot stand” and “all are members of the same body of Christ.”
Ivory believes that “it is providence that this situation is educating the whole world” about how precious democracy is. Then she spoke positively about U.S. elections and democracy. Until November 2007, Ivory had headed the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office, where her statements were not typically as scriptural or sanguine toward the United States. It was a rare pleasure to be able to agree with Ivory.
Social Witness Done Well
On February 19, the Central Committee approved with no discussion and little fanfare “A Statement on the Crisis in Kenya and the Churches’ Response.” The statement reads as a model of diplomacy and particularly Christian commentary on a political issue with definite implications for Christians and churches.
A few days earlier in the Central Committee meeting, the Rev. Kjell Magne Bondevik from the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs in Norway, noted that in his former role as Prime Minister of Norway, he would often receive statements from church bodies that read like they could have come any secular organization. “When we make statements on international issues and political issues,” he urged his fellow delegates, “let us all try to root them in Christian ethical language.” Apparently the Central Committee took his counsel to heart in this Kenya statement.
The statement realistically takes responsibility, recognizing “that churches were among those implicated in the crisis and, as the NCC [National Council of Churches] Kenya has stated, were ‘unable to effectively confront these issues’ because of partisanship.” It affirms those leaders and members who did advocate for peace. It calls for churches everywhere to learn lessons from Kenya about speaking jointly, promptly, and consistently for the protection of lives.
In particular, the statement:
Affirms the need for church members and leaders to promote a culture of dialogue—in church, between churches and in society—where diverse groups are made welcome, where differences are addressed, and where, as far as conscience permits, partisan political alignments are avoided and the common good prevails; further affirming the hope that relationships between churches may be bridges across dived communities and a safety net in times of crisis.
This kind of statement places the church in the position of seeking the common welfare, not from a partisan political viewpoint but from humility and Christian conviction. This is the kind of statement the Institute on Religion and Democracy seeks in general!
“For Kenya, church unity is not just an optional activity,” pled Dandala. “Whatever democratic inadequacies may have been evident [in Kenya], some democracy remains. Kenya stands as a sign of hope that the new movement [in Africa] toward democracy can succeed.” An ecumenical Christian response within Kenya remains imperative. To allow democracy to collapse would be tragic, damaging hope in all of Africa that democracy can succeed.
No comments yet
Leave a Reply