In a fiery online exchange, Senior Advisor at the Council of Economic Advisors, Moses Kuria, took to social media to vehemently refute claims made by comedian-turned-pastor Benson Gathungu, popularly known as Bishop Kiengei, accusing him of spreading falsehoods about churches being required to submit their sermons to authorities in advance. Kuria did not mince his words, labelling Kiengei a “fake bishop” and criticizing his alleged false narrative, sparking debate about the regulation of churches in Kenya.
Moses Kuria’s Heated Response
Moses Kuria, the former Cabinet Secretary for Trade and Industry and now a senior advisor at State House, was quick to respond to Kiengei’s controversial statements. In a scathing post on X (formerly Twitter), Kuria accused Kiengei of lying, asserting that no church in Kenya would be required to submit sermons to any authorities. His comments were pointed, as he questioned the integrity of Kiengei’s ministry, referring to his church as the “Jambazi Chamber of Money.”
Kuria wrote, “Fake Bishop Kiengei lying that churches will be required to submit sermons to some authorities in advance. Surely, which church can have lies as its foundation? JAMBAZI CHAMBER OF MONEY.”
Kuria’s remarks were aimed directly at dismantling Kiengei’s claims, which had caused concern among religious leaders and worshippers. Kiengei, known for blending humor and religion, had allegedly propagated the idea that the government was seeking tighter control over religious institutions by introducing regulations on sermons, a topic that has long been debated in Kenya.
Background: The Sermon Submission Controversy
The idea of sermon submission first gained traction in Kenya during previous administrations, as authorities expressed concerns about rogue pastors exploiting the public. Some government officials proposed that churches should submit their sermons to prevent harmful teachings and to ensure religious leaders were held accountable. However, such policies were met with strong opposition from religious leaders, who viewed them as an infringement on their freedom of worship.
Kiengei’s recent remarks appeared to revive this debate, causing fear among congregants that the government might clamp down on religious institutions. His claims quickly went viral, leading to public outcry and renewed calls for the government to clarify its position on church regulations.
Kuria’s Defense of Religious Freedom
In his response, Moses Kuria sought to reassure religious communities that the government had no such plans in place. His strong reaction to Kiengei’s allegations highlighted the administration’s commitment to upholding freedom of worship, a key constitutional right in Kenya.
Kuria’s rebuttal is particularly significant given his role as a Senior Advisor at the Council of Economic Advisors, a body that plays a critical role in shaping policies at the highest levels of government. His statement reflects the government’s stance on maintaining a hands-off approach when it comes to regulating religious institutions.
Public Reaction: Divided Opinions
The exchange between Kuria and Kiengei has ignited widespread debate on social media, with many Kenyans taking sides. Supporters of Moses Kuria praised him for calling out what they described as “deceptive tactics” used by some religious leaders to manipulate their followers.
One user commented, “Kuria is right to expose these fake pastors. The church should not be a place for lies and manipulation.”
However, Kiengei’s followers defended him, claiming that his remarks were misinterpreted and that he was merely raising concerns about the growing commercialization of religion in Kenya.
A Kiengei supporter said, “Bishop Kiengei is a man of God who speaks the truth. It is time for people to realize that not all is well in the church.”
The Bigger Picture: Regulation of Churches in Kenya
This online confrontation comes at a time when the regulation of religious institutions in Kenya remains a contentious issue. While the government has occasionally proposed measures to bring rogue pastors to book, efforts to regulate religious teachings have been met with resistance. Many Kenyans believe that the freedom to worship should not be infringed upon, even as concerns about church-related scandals continue to surface.
The relationship between the state and religious bodies is delicate, and any attempt to regulate sermons or religious activities is likely to face legal and public opposition. Kuria’s comments seem to reflect the government’s current stance of non-interference, yet the debate on church regulation is far from over.
Conclusion
Moses Kuria’s fierce response to Bishop Kiengei’s claims about the government controlling church sermons has brought the ongoing debate about the regulation of religious institutions in Kenya back into the spotlight. As Kuria defends religious freedom and calls out what he perceives as deception, the public remains divided on the role of the state in regulating religious practices. The controversy has once again raised important questions about the boundaries of religious freedom in Kenya and the integrity of certain religious leaders.
In the words of Kuria, “Surely, which church can have lies as its foundation?”
