Why Church is angry over repeated terror attacks

“We have often turned the other cheek, but now the cheeks have run out.” This was the angry expression by Church leaders at what they considered incessant and well-orchestrated campaign against Christians in the country.

At the forum that brought together leaders from all major denominations and church umbrella bodies, the clergy took stock of the history of attacks against Kenyans in general and Christians in particular for the last 40 years. Their conclusion was that the rights of Christians have been blatantly violated, not only through carefully planned attacks on its places of worship, but also by the killing and maiming of believers.

In perhaps the strongest and most unguarded statement ever on inter-religious relationships, the Church leaders took issue with their counterparts in the Islamic faith, who they perceived not to have reciprocated the Church’s magnanimity in dealing with terrorist attacks.

They observed that Christians have often endeavoured to nurture cordial relationships with their Muslim brothers and sisters and have been forthright and rational in their approach to inter-religious issues.

However, it was the view of the leaders that there has been a marked lack of commitment by the Muslim leadership in addressing the challenges emanating from their quarters in a forthright manner. The Church leaders were therefore persuaded that “it is naïve for anyone to imply that the so-called terrorism in Kenya is anything other than jihad against Christians.” Thus the leaders conceded that, whereas the Christian faith requires that when one hits you on one cheek you should turn the other, they had now run out of cheeks to turn.

Whereas scoffers may easily dismiss these expressions as mere outbursts of rage following the recent targeted murder of Christian students at the Garissa University College, unfortunately it is a widespread feeling among many Kenyans — even among the most nominal of Christians.

It was intriguing, for example, to see the response of a section of Jubilee legislators to the proposed amnesty for radicalised youth.

Equally telling was their reaction to Aden Duale and the North Eastern leaders’ offer to name suspected financiers and sympathisers of terrorism. Whatever their motivation, it is of significance that leaders who have generally shied away from taking sides on religious matters, have somehow been emboldened to speak their minds on this issue. It is obvious that the ground is shifting.

As many have observed, terrorism is a global challenge that requires concerted efforts of all of us. In Kenya, it clear that there are elements determined to instil fear in the citizens of this nation for their selfish reasons.

Those reasons have been difficult to identify, considering the history of terrorism in this nation. Whereas the current spate of attacks are claimed to be in retaliation for the presence of Kenya Defence Forces in Somalia, several things do not add up.

Foremost of these, is why Christians have been especially targeted in the attacks. The Church neither controls nor mobilised the forces that are in Somalia.

If the attacks had been targeted at government installations, such reasoning would make some sense. Furthermore, KDF went into Somalia only a few years ago, yet the attacks have been there for several years before. This makes the KDF factor perhaps more of an excuse than a reason.

Interestingly, soon after the Garissa attack, Nairobi lawyer, Ahmednassir Abdullahi, threw a spanner into the works. He made passionate claims that the attacks had been carried out by North Eastern networks, well known to local leaders.

He was categorical that this was not the work of Al-Shabaab. Whereas this argument has been lost in the rubble of debate that has since ensured on the matter, it points to some very interesting insinuations. Even without reading too much into Ahmednassir’s arguments, he could be privy to something many of us may not be aware of.

Some pundits have postulated that the incessant attacks in Northern Eastern and Coastal regions of the country — which also happen to host the majority of Muslims — could be aimed at their transformation into exclusive Islamic zones.

This prospect has unsettled the Church, especially because Christians have been generally committed to freedom of worship as enshrined in the Constitution.

That is why the Church has had no difficulty allowing mosques to be erected in every nook and crevice of the nation, even in regions with highest Christian populations. The same cannot be said of reciprocal welcome of the Church in majority Islamic zones.

It is some of these realities and perceptions that are stirring concern among Christians. Many Christians wonder whether they are being placed under siege in their own country. They are thus in search of a leader/leaders who will stand with them.