NO BIBLE NO BREAKFAST DAILY BIBLE REFLECTIONS AND MORE

I have been following the arguments regarding the Catholic Church’s decision to reject a $40,000 donation from Kenyan President William Ruto. This action raises critical questions about the ethical and theological considerations surrounding financial gifts to the Church today. My reflection reviews your arguments, evaluates the implications, and concludes whether the Archbishop of Nairobi, Philip Anyolo, acted rightly in declining the donation.

To start with, we have to remember that, the Christian Church serves as both a spiritual sanctuary and a moral compass, addressing societal ills such as corruption, injustice, and exploitation. As the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), the church is tasked with upholding righteousness and being a “light of the world” and “salt of the earth” (Matthew 5:13-16). These roles necessitate that the Church remains untainted by associations that could compromise its prophetic voice. Accepting funds from individuals or institutions perceived as corrupt risks undermining the Church’s credibility, as it could be seen as endorsing their actions, even inadvertently.

The decision to reject President Ruto’s donation exemplifies the courage and conviction required of we Pastors today. The Archbishop acted out of concern for the Church’s moral integrity, recognizing that accepting such a gift could be interpreted as complicity in the very corruption and governance failures the Church has criticized. This aligns with Proverbs 22:1, which states, “A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.” Rejecting the donation ensured the Church retained its moral authority, even at the risk of financial loss.

While Jesus dined with sinners like Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10) and accepted hospitality from diverse individuals without prejudice, context matters. Zacchaeus demonstrated genuine repentance, declaring, “If I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount” (Luke 19:8). His repentance validated his offering and showed a heart transformed by Christ. By contrast, in the Kenyan case, there was no indication of repentance or restitution from the politician. Accepting donations without evidence of such transformation risks the Church being used as a tool for political image laundering. Jesus’ tolerance of Judas wasn’t an endorsement of his theft or betrayal but a reflection of God’s overarching purpose. Sometimes, God allows imperfect situations or people for His greater glory.

The Church’s primary role is to preach the truth and transform lives, but it must also act with ethical consistency. Ephesians 5:11 instructs believers to “have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” By rejecting the donation, the Archbishop exposed the potential misuse of Church platforms for political self-promotion. It reinforced the Church’s prophetic role to speak truth to power, as demonstrated by the biblical prophets, including Nathan confronting David (2 Samuel 12:1-13) and John the Baptist rebuking Herod (Matthew 14:3-4).

Beyond preserving its integrity, the Church’s actions send a powerful message to society. By rejecting questionable donations, the Church conveys that institutions can and must stand firm in advocating for justice and transparency. This aligns with Isaiah 1:17, which calls believers to “seek justice” and “defend the oppressed.” Such principled decisions inspire public confidence in the Church as a moral authority, showing that righteousness cannot be compromised, even under financial pressure.

However, this decision should not be seen as merely a rebuke but as an invitation for reflection and reform. The Archbishop’s refusal of the donation challenges politicians and other leaders to align their actions with ethical and spiritual principles. While declining the funds, the Church can still foster dialogue and provide moral guidance aimed at transforming governance and leadership. This approach mirrors Jesus’ ministry, where He not only confronted sin but also worked to reform hearts and institutions (Mark 2:17). By balancing refusal with engagement, the Church fulfils its dual role of standing for truth and nurturing societal change.

Practical needs should never override ethical principles. Jesus warned against serving two masters, stating, “You can not serve both God and money” (Matthew 6:24). The Church must trust in God’s provision (Philippians 4:19) and prioritize its witness to righteousness. Rejecting funds from questionable sources underscores its commitment to integrity and prevents the erosion of trust among congregants and society at large.

Decisions about accepting donations require Spirit-led discernment and adherence to Scriptural guidance. Romans 12:2 urges believers to be transformed by renewing their minds and discerning God’s will. The Holy Spirit and Scripture work in tandem to guide church leaders in such ethical dilemmas. In this case, the Archbishop’s decision aligns with both biblical principles and the leading of the Spirit, ensuring the Church remains steadfast in its mission.

In conclusion, the Catholic Archbishop of Nairobi’s rejection of President Ruto’s donation was a principled decision rooted in a commitment to ethical integrity, biblical values, and the Church’s prophetic role. While some may argue that rejecting gifts alienates potential donors, the Church’s primary responsibility is to uphold righteousness and maintain its credibility as a moral authority. As Proverbs 10:9 affirms, “Whoever walks in integrity walks securely.” By rejecting the donation, the Archbishop sent a clear message: the Church can not be bought or manipulated for political gain. This act of courage serves as a model for pastors and church leaders today, demonstrating that the mission of the Church transcends financial considerations and is firmly anchored in the pursuit of truth, justice, and righteousness.

Rev. J.H.K Tsitsia is a minister of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Ghana.