When I read your review of 'The Broken Covenant' on your blogspot, I discovered I had found a friend who would help review my next book; and am already working on it. So, get ready bro!There are a number of issues you raised in your blog that were really some good food for thought. For example, in my opinion you misunderstood and therefore wrongly interpreted the following phrase in the book summary, " In my view and for those who care, there is no any selflessly profitable reason to the Kenyan society as a whole, for an individual to religiously profess support for a public servant or anybody else for that matter, who breaks and abuses the law yet conveniently interprets it in favor of his tribe, stakes or status in the society just because he is relatively wealthy and influential".
Let me break it down further. Raila Odinga for example, enjoys a following that is almost 100% in Luo Nyanza. In fact, when he was in the opposition, he castigated President Moi for using the Provincial Administration (who are Civil Servants) in advancing his (Moi’s) protracted political interests. Granted, Moi’s actions were wrong and illegal and particularly against the Public Ethics Act as enshrined in our law. In 2010 however, during the referendum campaign, the Rt. Hon.Raila Odinga, in his capacity as the nation’s Prime Minister, ordered all the Permanent Secretaries and other civil servants to go home and campaign for the government side – the ‘YES’ side. Ironically, the Public Ethics Act was still in our laws yet, whether during Moi’s era or the coalition government’s era, all members of his tribe agreed with him to the dot as did most of the other Kenyans. And this is just one issue. Overall, this phenomenon nearly creates a religion called "railaism" in the Nyanza part of Kenya . Just like at the moment, there are people from the Rift Valley who have nearly converted William Ruto into a small god. And they almost practice 'rutoism' in the Rift Valley. The same thing happened sometime back with my own people from Bungoma who nearly practiced 'Wamalwaism' as a religion.
And that is what that particular paragraph talks about. The 'religiously profess support' phrase as used in this context and as emphasized in the book itself, specifically targets the general members of the public who blindly support "one of their own" ‘ The phrase was not actually referring to or talking about any church body in particular as you explained in the blog.
Further, in your critique, you observe that the title "The Broken Covenant" was perhaps not the best for the book. I suspect you have your own understanding and definition of the word 'covenant' and would rather (as you suggested) I should have used the word ‘promises’ in its place. Interestingly, your definition of the word ‘covenant’ (as given in the blog) is exactly what happens when our presidents are taking the oath of office. They swear before God and His children while holding the Holy Bible in their right hand, to defend and protect the country, her constitution and citizens and serve all without fear or favor.."so help me God". Then, they proceed to sign this very ‘covenant’ or ‘promise’.
In my view however, this is not and cannot be a promise. They give promises when campaigning. But they take the oath and enter into covenant with God’s people at the swearing in. This is a written commitment that they sign and by them invoking God's name, they must not break the covenant. I thus, elect to proportionately argue that just because politicians elsewhere make and break their promises whenever they feel like, that trend does not necessarily pave way for our leaders to take such a solemn oath, turn against it, yet we choose to mildly reduce the very covenant they signed to be interpreted as promises similar in pattern to those that have been broken anywhere else anyway.
Pastor, I like your thought process and thank you for your review. I am keenly waiting for your actual review based on the book content instead of the summary. Hopefully, I will continue benefitting from your views.