NCCK: Why churches are poor with solving own disputes

NCCK General Secretary Rev Canon Peter Karanja at an earlier event. [File/Standard]

Inadequate administrative structures and a lack of dispute resolution mechanisms are the main contributing factors to churches flocking the courts for justice, a fact that has been described by the National Council of Churches of Kenya(NCCK) General Secretary Rev Canon Peter Karanja as 'undesirable and regrettable'.

He however insists that the number of cases of church leaders mark timing along the corridors of justice is not that significant in relation to the total number of churches registered in the country.

The best way to resolve disputes, he said, remains within the confines of the four walls of God's house.

"But in the absence of these structures, people will go to court. Let us not forget that Christians are Kenyans like any other and are entitled in the constitution to seek justice in court," said the NCCK general Secretary.

Karanja said no matter the dispute, church leaders and the congregation should not be seeking justice from secular courts and this rise in judicial battles should be a wakeup call to the pulpit leaders.

"In our biblical system if you have a dispute with a person, bring it to the attention of one or two elders. When this does not work, involve the church by registering the problem with the pastor," said Karanja.

However, the lack of elaborate structures within churches has seen members opt for the judicial system.

"These cases are not a reason for alarm but rather a wake-up call to churches," he said.

Karanja however acknowledged that there are some issues in these God's house that may have no spiritual provision of resolving them. This is where an elaborate intra-church dispute mechanism should step in.

"Churches usually have lawyers who can help draft documents to create a dispute resolution system. And if a church does not have one, simply borrow from those who have and adopt," he said.

He added: "The time to create these structures is not when a dispute arises. Of course you must anticipate that there will be a dispute and therefore define what a dispute is and what mechanism will be use to resolve."

Most of the cases, as seen by The Standard, involved wrangles over property, which Karanja said should still be handled under the same dispute mechanism system.

"It should be clear on who is responsible for the property, who are the trustees and how they should be utilised," said Karanja.