NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
A Kenyan lesson in faith, politics, and the Christian future
Next Wednesday, Kenyans head to the polls to vote on a new national constitution. It’s intended to ease the political and tribal tensions which erupted in violence in early 2008, leaving more than 1,000 Kenyans dead and some 300,000 displaced. The referendum is being closely followed all across Africa, since Kenya has long been a beacon of hope -- an African society that’s well-educated, economically advanced, and, until recently, stable.
Seen through a religious lens, the interesting point about Wednesday’s vote is that the Constitution appears set to pass despite overwhelming opposition from Kenya’s Christian leaders. There may be an important lesson to be culled from that about the Christian future, especially the intersection of faith and politics.
From the outside, what most Westerners know about religion in Africa is simply that it’s booming. That’s certainly true in Kenya, where the population is one-quarter Catholic and almost 80 percent Christian. Mass attendance rates among the nine million Catholics are astronomic by Western standards, and Kenya is a net exporter of priests. In 2005, I asked then-Archbishop Ndingi Mwana a’Nzeki of Nairobi to describe his most urgent challenges, and he began with a problem that would be the wildest dream of many a Western bishop: “We have so many vocations!”
Faced with such vibrant religiosity, it’s tempting to conclude that Africa today is what the West once was, before the rise of the various “-isms” of modernity: secularism, relativism, positivism, etc. Yet you can’t step into the same river twice, and Africa in 2010 is not Europe in 1010. In particular, the deep religiosity of Africa doesn’t mean the continent is a theocracy, where Christian potentates can snap their fingers and produce political results -- a point which the constitutional referendum in Kenya may well illustrate.
Kenya’s pan-Christian coalition in favor of a “No!” vote includes Catholic and Anglican bishops, as well as pastors and preachers from a staggering variety of Pentecostal and Evangelical churches. Today, as this column is posted, the Catholic Basilica of the Holy Family in Nairobi is hosting an ecumenical prayer service -- praying, that is, for the referendum to fail.
While Christian leaders have a laundry list of objections, they boil down to two points:
- Abortion: The draft constitution would permit abortion if, in the judgment of a medical professional, “the life or health of the mother” is at risk. Christian leaders complain that language could open the door to Western-style abortion on demand, funded by the national government.
- Islamic Courts: Muslims are about 10 percent of the Kenyan population, concentrated in the southern Coast province. Islamic tribunals, known as “Khadi Courts,” have been in existence since independence, enjoying power over matters such as marriage and inheritance, but the courts were recently declared unconstitutional in a case brought by Christian churches. The new constitution retains the courts and exempts Muslims from a wide range of personal and property rights, as well as laws on marriage and divorce. The bishops assert that these provisions “elevate one religion over another.”
Whatever the merits of those arguments, they apparently haven’t persuaded many Kenyans – who, while certainly not pro-abortion or eager for an Islamic take-over, also seem broadly approving of provisions in the draft for land reform, greater checks and balances for the presidency, and a stronger role for local governments. A mid-July poll from the market research company Synovate found that almost 60 percent of voters support the new constitution, a level essentially unchanged from two months ago.
Hence the apparent paradox, at least for those who presume that deeply religious cultures are obliged to follow pre-modern European patterns: While three-quarters of Kenyans are Christian (the vast majority active, practicing Christians), two-thirds appear poised to vote against the advice of their clergy. African observers say the explanation is actually fairly simple. The millennium-long European tradition of churches dictating the political allegiances of their members is basically extraneous to Africa, where people are more accustomed to taking their political cues from their tribal leaders, not their pastors.
Now for the truly intriguing question: Is this something for Christians to rue, or to embrace?
On the one hand, if Christian leaders in Kenya are unable to mobilize public opinion -- especially in defense of core values such as the sanctity of human life and religious equality -- that failure could be interpreted to suggest undeveloped social capital in African Christianity, meaning an inability to evangelize culture, which is supposed to be part of the missionary dimension of the church. In theory, a relatively weak political role for Christian churches could leave African societies more exposed to secularizing pressures from Western governments and NGOs, as well as their own cultural elites. It also means, of course, that Christian leaders are unable simply to impose desirable social outcomes to which they are ostensibly committed, such as ending war or curbing corruption.
There is, however, a more positive way of looking at things.
Even the most pious Christian historians in Europe today would concede that the legacy of theocracy is a strong ingredient in popular anti-clericalism, which breeds a kind of “payback” mentality in many secular circles. (Ask church officials in Belgium or Ireland, for example, what it’s like to be on the receiving end of centuries of accumulated resentments.) One could argue that some anti-Christian blowback in Europe today is a Newtonian, equal-and-opposite reaction to centuries of exaggerated power and privilege. If African Christianity is able to develop free of this historical baggage, any eventual process of secularization may not carry the same anti-clerical edge.
In other words, a certain political impotence may be no bad thing.
Of course, that doesn’t mean Kenya’s Christian bishops, pastors and preachers are wrong in their substantive objections to the new constitution. If they do indeed lose, however, it could at least offer some consolation, and maybe some food for thought.
Editor's Note: Another NCR columnist wrote about Africa and Christianity this week. Read Bill Tammeus' column Reaping what we sow: evangelizing Africa.
[John L. Allen Jr is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]






The Catholic people of Kenya
The Catholic people of Kenya might be different from their co-religionists in the West, but it looks like we share one thing in common: no matter how many of us go to Mass, most of us don't trust our bishops.
There's also the fact that
There's also the fact that many African rank-and-file priests and religious, in spite of whatever their bishops tell them, act out of tribal loyalty when push comes to shove. An extreme example would be those priests and nuns who participated in the Rwandan genocide.
Both church and state fare
Both church and state fare the best when their is a balance of influence and power. Excessive religious power almost always leads to coercion rather than persuasion. The former "Catholic Europe" knows this very well and that is why it will NEVER go back to that level of religious influence.
Abortion to save the life or
Abortion to save the life or health of the mother is apparently against sanctity of human life! Is this an oxymoron or what?
Dear John, Thanks for the
Dear John,
Thanks for the critical article on the forthcoming referendum in Kenya. If the Church`s stand of No looses I dont think the Kenyan population will loose faith in the Church leadership. The opposition of most of the Church leaders is very clear in relation to the clauses you have mentioned. Mainly on moral and Justice grounds. The Church is the moral voice generally of the society and it is these reasons that have driven the Church to say No. Why Kenyans may vote Yes is because they would like to cease hearing of the new constitution over and over again accepting the fact that the proposed draft is most of it okay apart from the two issues mentioned. The Christians trust what the Church is advising them to do on saying NO.Infact recent polls carriedn out on who the people say they trust most, Church leaders have emerged at the top if not the top and this wont change because the faithful know their religious leaders strive to speak the truth.
The Church has always been very outspoken on corruption and other moral societal evils and even this time round even if it is the lone voice it will not fear saying NO on moral ("conditional abortion)" and justice for all grounds (Kadhi courts). I think in either way, whether NO wins or Yes wins, the Church will still be a winner!
God bless Kenya as we go to the polls. May Peace be the main victor come 4th August.
John, keep up your nice well researched coverage.
Remember I interviewed you when I was writing my dissertation on "Vaticanologists"
Fr. Dr. Frederick Njoroge-Associate Chaplain Moi Univ Kenya
Mr. Allen, may I respectfully
Mr. Allen, may I respectfully inform you that your rendition of pre-modern Christian European society is inaccurate and thus the premise for your comparison with contemporary African society is flawed.
You refer to 'theocracy' - but if by that we mean a society governed, supremely or jointly, by clergy, there never was such a society in the Middle Ages (with the sole exception of the Papal States). Whereas Christianity at the time was the religion of the state, and whereas this secured the Church certain privileges, it did not formally secure the Church any influence on state policy.
To be true, the Church often had a significant role in influencing the laws and actions of states, but just as often she did not. The extent of her influence fluctuated heavily with time and depended absolutely on the degree of piety of individual rulers and on the amount of pressure on behalf of the Church they felt from the general populace. The latter, while well-disposed towards the (local) Church, always held a primary allegiance to their local village and region.
This is, in fact, essentially the same situation as in Kenya today.
Thank you for keeping us
Thank you for keeping us informed of what's happening in Africa. This is much appreciated.
The comment made toward the
The comment made toward the end of this article ("In other words, a certain political impotence may not be a bad thing")is really powerful and applicable, not only to Kenya but also to other places. The first thing that comes to mind is the recent health care legislative vote in which the USCCB discovered a bit of "political impotence". As with the Kenyan (Italian, Spanish and a few other national episcopal conferences)this "may be no bad thing".
Well said, Ms. Krebs!
Well said, Ms. Krebs!
If the lack of political
If the lack of political power of the Church is a good thing, then anticlerical campaigners ought not to blame the Church for not being able to stop political evils such as Nazism, Communism, and Liberalism. It is strange, but some people wish the Church NOT to have real influence in politics, but then they blame her for 'not doing enough' when things go really badly. In my view, the Church should not exert influence to settle issues in which many different views are permissible for different Catholics, so that She might have real power to command obedience to all Catholics when things are really a matter of life or death (such as against Nazis and Communists, where so many Catholics simply DID NOT follow the Church, as it is happening now in the pro-life struggle all over the world).
Rock it out Kenya!
Rock it out Kenya!
happy birthday to our fine
happy birthday to our fine American born President who himself is a "Kenyan lesson in faith, politics, and the Christian future"
Post new comment