The congregation should not become a campaign audience by default

A citizen who enters a place of worship should not have to discover halfway through the service that attendance has been counted as participation in a political rally. Nor should a politician’s presence become an excuse to intimidate worshippers or disrupt their religious gathering. Both principles can be defended at once. Kenya’s public conversation becomes poorer whenever one is invoked to cancel the other.

The question is not whether religious institutions may speak about politics. Poverty, public integrity, violence and the treatment of vulnerable people are legitimate subjects of moral concern. The question is who controls the occasion, what those attending have been told and whether the space remains open to people whose political loyalties differ.

The Star’s report of 11 October described heckling during a service at Jesus Is Alive Ministries hosted by Bishop Margaret Wanjiru and attended by Fred Matiang’i. Matiang’i condemned the disruption and alleged that Nairobi leaders had engineered some of it. That allegation should not be treated as an established finding about who organised the incident.

The report is a useful starting point for a broader argument, not a complete record of every exchange in the room. A short account or circulating clip cannot settle every question about the event. What it can prompt is a more consistent standard for politicians, hosts and audiences, one that does not change according to which leader happens to hold the microphone.

Attendance at worship is not a collective political endorsement.

Faith does not erase political difference

Congregations are made up of citizens with different histories, economic interests and political judgments. Some support the government, some oppose it and some are unconvinced by the available alternatives. Sharing a religious service does not establish agreement on a candidate. A cleric’s welcome to a visitor should not be casually converted into a collective endorsement by everyone present.

That distinction matters when campaign teams distribute photographs and video. A room full of worshippers is an attractive image for a politician seeking to demonstrate support. But attendance may show only that people came to worship. Captions, speeches and later campaign material should not imply a political mandate that the gathering never gave.

Religious leaders also need room to criticise public policy without being assigned permanently to a political camp. If a church challenges corruption, that does not automatically make it an opposition institution. If it supports a useful public programme, that does not make it an extension of State House. The strength of its civic voice depends partly on retaining that freedom of judgment.

The same applies to congregants. A worshipper should be able to disagree with a visiting politician without having that disagreement interpreted as hostility to the faith itself. Equally, disagreement should not license threats or prevent others from taking part in the service. Respect for conscience requires room for difference and restraint in how it is expressed.

Make the format clear before the event

The most useful rules would often be voluntary and practical. A religious institution can state whether politicians will be acknowledged briefly, invited to address a specific public issue or excluded from campaign speeches during worship. It can communicate the format in advance to visitors and members. That is easier than trying to improvise a boundary after an event has become a contest for the microphone.

If the institution wants to hold a political forum, it can identify it as such and separate it clearly from the service. People can then decide whether to stay. A moderated discussion with questions and a stated purpose gives citizens a different kind of participation from an unexpected succession of speeches. The label should describe what actually happens, not provide cover for a campaign event.

The rules should apply to the incumbent and the challenger alike. A time limit that binds only an unpopular guest is not a rule; it is a preference. A prohibition on campaigning that disappears when a generous donor arrives will quickly lose credibility. Consistency protects the host’s authority because guests know that the standard is institutional rather than personal.

Politicians should accept those limits without turning compliance into a favour. A leader can attend, worship, listen and leave without claiming a speaking entitlement. Public office and public ambition do not create ownership of every gathering one enters. Sometimes the most respectful contribution a visitor can make is to avoid making the occasion about the visitor.

Do not confuse dissent with intimidation

There is a difference between a critical question, an expression of disapproval and conduct intended to frighten people or prevent a gathering from continuing. Describing all three as the same thing serves neither freedom nor public order. The response should be based on conduct and evidence, including the context in which it occurred.

If threats or violence occur, they should be investigated fairly. If someone alleges organised disruption, the allegation should be tested. Naming supposed organisers without adequate evidence can turn a dispute over an event into a wider cycle of accusation. A politician’s confidence in an explanation does not relieve reporters, officials or the public of the need to verify it.

At the same time, “order” should not become a demand that every audience display enthusiasm. Silence, refusal to applaud and lawful criticism are not proof of a conspiracy. Leaders seeking public support must tolerate the possibility that some people do not support them. The dignity of an office is not measured by the absence of disagreement in every room.

Hosts can reduce conflict through clear moderation, proportionate security arrangements and a way for concerns to be raised without confrontation. These measures cannot prevent every disruption, but they can make the response less arbitrary. The aim should be to protect the gathering and the people in it, not to manufacture a flattering audience for a visitor.

The constitutional conversation is wider than one speech

Kenya’s Constitution protects freedom of conscience and religion in Article 32 and political rights in Article 38. Those protections help explain why a simple demand to remove all public affairs from religious life would be inadequate. They also do not resolve every dispute about access to a particular platform. The rights of worshippers, hosts and visitors must be considered together.

This column is not a legal finding about the incident at Bishop Wanjiru’s church. The argument is about the standards institutions and politicians should adopt voluntarily, alongside the law. They can set a better example without waiting for every disagreement to become a court case. Clear expectations often prevent the conflict that abstract claims of entitlement later struggle to resolve.

There is a serious counterargument: religious institutions have historically been important places for public discussion, especially when other forums are constrained. Requiring them to retreat into purely private devotion would impoverish civic life. That objection is persuasive. It is also compatible with asking them to distinguish public-interest discussion from the promotion of a particular candidate.

A sermon about the cost of living need not become an endorsement speech. A forum questioning several leaders can widen democratic scrutiny. A religious institution can advocate peace, accountability and humane policy without lending its congregation as a ready-made campaign audience. These distinctions require judgment, but abandoning them is not a more principled solution.

Apply the test before choosing a side

The simplest check is to reverse the names. Would the same conduct be acceptable if Ruto replaced Matiang’i, or if an opposition figure replaced a government ally? Would the same explanation of disruption be accepted without evidence? Would the same congregation be described as politically committed if the photographs benefited the other camp?

If the answer changes entirely with the guest, the argument is probably partisan convenience dressed as principle. Independence does not require pretending that every incident is identical. It requires using consistent questions and allowing the evidence to determine the differences. That is a more demanding practice than applauding whichever account embarrasses one’s opponent.

The same care should extend to money and hospitality associated with a visit. Hosts can explain their policies without turning every donation into a public spectacle or an implied endorsement. Visitors can support a legitimate community activity without suggesting that assistance purchases a platform. When expectations are stated beforehand, generosity is less likely to become a source of political obligation. The institution’s independence is easier to protect before a relationship becomes controversial than after competing claims have already taken hold.

The remedy is not silence from the pulpit or immunity for politicians. It is clarity about the occasion, consent about participation and restraint in the use of public platforms. Worshippers should be free to practise their faith, religious institutions should be free to speak on public concerns, and politicians should earn political audiences through honest invitations. A congregation should not become a campaign audience by default.