The New Constitution as a Thorn in the Flesh for Christ’s Church in Kenya:
(2 Corinthians 12:7-10)
1.0 Introduction
After the general Elections in Kenya in 2007: shortly after the announcement of the results the country ran into chaos, the situation almost getting out of hand. The church and other international organizations e.g. AU and UN played a key role towards ensuring that peace normalized by helping Kenya get back into its feet.
Though injured, the political leaders had to agree on a national peace accord. This was embraced through the spirit of give and take. This enabled the government to run smoothly until full reforms were realized, as it was diagnosed that the ills facing Kenya could only come to a halt if a new constitution was put in place before the next general elections 2012.
2.0 Background
To bring about a new constitution required involvement of various institutions such as the civil society, the church amongst others. This however did not happen as these organizations were barred from participating in the process of constitution making. Instead a committee of experts was appointed through the parliament and mandated to synthesize previous constitution draft proposals so that they could come up with a final harmonized document.
This aggravated several home grown would be partners because as felt by many a constitution was to and is expected to be an all inclusive document.
Despite this outcry, the committee of experts’ soldiered on with the support of the appointing authorities, and it seems the tactic of wearing out one’s enemy worked well for them; as many of these civil society groups went mum after they lost their court battles.
But the church did not relent its position it went a step farther to ask their members to reject the document during the referendum. This was the position from the larger Christian fraternity in Kenya.
The philosophy sent across by the church was that, if certain areas of the constitution were not amended before the vote, then the whole document should be voted against.
3.0 The grounds For the Kenyan Church
The Kenyan church disputed the new constitution on the following paraphrased grounds at least as I understand them;
- That the process of constitution making was unprocedural: since Kenya did not have a consituitonal making law including how irregularities could be corrected.
- Some parts of the constitution needed amendment before the referendum: since no one knew how long it may take before any amendments can be reached.
a) Areas of possibility on abortion: which is viewed as murder or killing of the innocent took fore-front. This of course contradicts the Biblical principle that God is the giver of life and the only one who can take it away, which is taught explicitly in the Decalogue Thou shall not Kill. This responsibility is not delegetory and therefore remains in the hands of the one who not only created life but owns it aswell-The church claimed.
b) Unequal treatment of religions; the inclusion of Kadhi courts gives the Muslim faith a milestone ahead of other Religions yet the constitution claims that all religions are equal. This was and is a contradiction that should have been addressed and resolved.
c) The constitution creates a spirit of loose morals within the society and sacred institutions like the family yet weakening moral fiber of the Kenyan society.
- That Christians will not have the freedom they have enjoyed in the past of proclaiming the gospel through crusades and making of converts. This seems to tame the power or the ability to influence the society towards Christianity. It is a barrier to the Great Commission as taught in Matt. 28:16-20.
- There are many other grounds but these were the key.
We need to note here that whether these claims are true or not, is not our focus today but a discussion for another forum but a reading through the new Kenyan constitution will confirm them valid.
As the voting day drew near the church continued with its message for peace and the call for Kenyans to reject the constitution on basis of the above reasons. The prophetic voice was clear that if this document was passed difficult moments awaited Kenyans. Kenyans were also at a crossroad because since independence they have not had a new constitution.
4.0 The Outcome of the Referendum
As the results were trickling in, it was clear that the pro constitution vote was way ahead of those against, and as the clock continued to tick the reality dawned on the church, that Kenyans had embraced a New Constitution despite her continued call for its rejection.
The church knew that it was in for trouble as many politicians even before the elections were already name calling on the clergy. It felt like one of those Old Testament times when God’s prophets like Jeremiah were turned against and almost slain for going against public opinion. (Jeremiah 26).
5.0 The Way Forward
I consider the passage in 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 very appropriate for the Kenyan church at this moment. The context of this passage suggests of the Apostles visions and revelation from God. These raised the position of Paul in the ministry and perhaps he had the human challenge of not only thinking about himself as an apostle but probably as a higher apostle. I guess that is why Paul says that in order for him not to be “too elated” God gave him a thorn in the flesh.
Borrowing from this, the Kenyan church needs to assume the position of the church as the bride of Christ, and be completely humbled in her submission to Christ. This is not to say that the church did anything wrong or sinful just like in the case of apostle Paul, there are things that God allows for the sake of His own name. And maybe we need to ask ourselves whether we attempted taking God’s place in our championing for the no vote. If that is not the case we then are assured that we carried God’s mission faithfully and we must continue in that road until the second coming.
On a more practical ground we again gather from the apostle Paul that even after thorough consultation with God through prayer, God did not remove the thorn Paul had in his flesh. It seems then there was a purpose as to why God allowed that thorn to be in His servants’ body. The most interesting discovery is that this thorn did not stop the apostle from fulfilling his mission even though there were times that it really made him uncomfortable; God provided a way out in those moments.
This was because Paul was aware of his position as a steward not as the owner of the mission he sought to fulfill. We need to come to that realization that as a church we have been mandated by God to share His Kingdom’s agenda of redemption, that way we will stop being viewed as a political entity. It is in that task that God has promised He will accompany us until the end of ages, but any agenda outside His will of redeeming mankind is short-lived.
Lastly as we read through this passage we come to realize of God’s promise to Paul that His grace is sufficient. In other words God is reminding Paul of his eternal attributes, that it is He who holds everything together, He sustains, He watches, in short the thorn in his flesh is not outside God’s sphere of operation. Since Paul belongs to Him and the thorn is not outside his sphere he must remain focused on his duties.
The church consequently belongs to God and so are those whom He has called, despite the challenges or pains that this constitution may pose to the church we must be encouraged by God’s utterance to Paul that “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” As Bob Marley would say, “Time alone will tell” whether we spoke from God or out of our own conscience.