Inside the Power Chessboard; How Turmoil in Orange Democratic Movement Could Ultimately Strengthen William Ruto’s Strategic Advantage !

 Inside the Power Chessboard; How Turmoil in Orange Democratic Movement Could Ultimately Strengthen William Ruto’s Strategic Advantage !

......unrest within ODM is not merely about ideology; it is about succession, control, and future positioning.......

The cheerleaders of the disorder within ODM appear either unwilling or unable to see the broader political chessboard at play. Kenyan power brokers are not acting randomly; they are calculating. Their primary concern is a President who seems unbothered by noise, steadily focusing on economic stabilization and recovery. If the economic indicators continue trending upward under President Ruto’s stewardship, his critics risk losing the central plank of their opposition narrative. Performance neutralizes propaganda. And that, fundamentally, is what unsettles them.

The deeper fear is strategic; a structured rapprochement or merger between ODM and UDA would significantly consolidate political capital ahead of future elections. Such a union would not merely be symbolic; it would recalibrate national political arithmetic. Those resisting it understand that a Ruto–ODM alignment could create a formidable electoral machine, potentially eclipsing previous political formations in both reach and cohesion. Their resistance, therefore, is less ideological and more existential.

It is inaccurate to suggest that the turbulence began after Raila Odinga’s demise. The undercurrents predate it. Even while the former Prime Minister was alive, he had begun engaging President Ruto in open, structured dialogue. A formal committee was reportedly constituted to oversee aspects of cooperation and possible convergence. Yet even then, internal resistance was visible. Public dissent from senior party officials, including instances where the SG publicly distanced himself from official party resolutions, signaled fractures that were not accidental but orchestrated. Institutional discipline was already under strain.

The pattern is familiar,  weaken ODM from within while projecting the illusion of ideological purity. Over time, various political actors were floated, repositioned, or amplified in attempts to counterbalance or destabilize emerging alignments,  without achieving decisive traction. Meanwhile, some leaders have shifted toward rhetoric centered on incitement and ethnic profiling rather than presenting coherent governance alternatives. That approach may generate headlines, but it rarely builds durable political capital.

What is unfolding now appears less like spontaneous rebellion and more like the acceleration of an already existing strategy. With Raila’s absence, the internal guardrails have loosened, making ODM more susceptible to factional pressure. Individuals who were previously restrained by hierarchy have become more openly defiant. Yet institutional parties are sustained by structure, discipline, and strategic clarity, not perpetual press conferences.

The role of a Secretary General in any party is fiduciary and administrative, to execute party resolutions, safeguard unity, and maintain organizational coherence. Where irreconcilable differences arise, precedent and political ethics dictate honorable resignation, not public confrontation that erodes institutional credibility. Leadership transitions demand steadiness, not theatrics.

Dr. Oburu, as Party Chairman during this transitional phase, has projected calm continuity. Experience, institutional memory, and measured judgment are assets in moments of flux. Undermining such stewardship for short-term factional gain risks long-term structural damage to the party.

The contradiction is also striking, those who argue that ODM’s engagement with UDA is inherently flawed were largely silent when strategic cooperation occurred with Jubilee in previous political cycles. If coalition-building was pragmatic then, why is it heresy now? Political consistency demands that principles, not personalities, define positions.

Ultimately, the unrest within ODM is not merely about ideology; it is about succession, control, and future positioning. Some actors may perceive diminishing windows of opportunity whether to inherit regional influence, secure nominations, or redefine party direction. But weakening the institution to advance personal timelines is a high-risk gamble. If ODM is to remain relevant, it must prioritize structural cohesion over performative dissent.

In politics, noise is abundant. Strategy is rare. The question is whether ODM will allow noise to dictate its trajectory , or whether it will consolidate, recalibrate, and negotiate from a position of strength. 

Wedding as a Prerequisite for the Partaking of Holy Communion.

 In some churches traditions , wedding solemnization is treated as a prerequisite for receiving Holy Communion, creating the impression that marital status determines spiritual eligibility. This raises an important biblical question; Did Christ make marriage a condition for participation in the Breaking of Bread, or is Communion intended for all believers who have received Him by faith?

In certain settings within the Catholic Church, some believers particularly older couples, sometimes rush into mass weddings primarily to qualify for Holy Communion, since solemnized couples are considered canonically “regularized” and therefore eligible to partake.

 While marriage is honorable and sacred, this practice can unintentionally suggest that matrimony functions as a spiritual gateway to grace. The critical issue, however, is whether Scripture presents marriage as a requirement for Communion.

When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, He addressed His disciples, people who had already believed in Him, and instructed them to “do this in remembrance of Me.” The emphasis was remembrance, faith, and fellowship among believers, not marital qualification (see 1 Corinthians 11:23–26). 

Nowhere in Scripture is marriage presented as the gate through which one must pass before partaking in Communion. The essential biblical qualification is faith in Christ accompanied by a repentant and discerning heart.

Marriage remains a covenantal commitment publicly declared before God and witnesses, but it is not a spiritual license that grants access to God’s grace. Salvation and acceptance before God do not depend on ceremonies. 

The Gospel consistently invites people to come to God as they are; broken, imperfect, and in need of mercy, trusting that transformation follows faith. As Jesus declared in Matthew 11:28, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The invitation is not “come after fulfilling ceremonial conditions,” but “come in faith.”

Therefore, presenting a wedding ceremony as a prerequisite for Holy Communion risks shifting the focus from Christ’s finished work to institutional requirements that Scripture does not explicitly command. Communion is a remembrance for believers; marriage is a covenant for life. One is not the gateway to the other.

Faith brings a believer into the Kingdom of God. Ceremonies, however honorable, do not.

Exclusive Prophetic Claims and the Question of Spiritual Authority: A Historical and Theological Examination

 Exclusive Prophetic Claims and the Question of Spiritual Authority: A Historical and Theological Examination

Self-declared claims of being the “last prophet,” “exclusive messenger,” or “final end-time voice” have repeatedly generated theological and historical controversy across many religious contexts. Such claims concentrate spiritual authority in a single individual, creating environments in which that leader’s teachings are treated as unquestionable and uniquely authoritative. Critics argue that once a leader becomes the sole interpreter of divine revelation, doctrines, prophecies, and practices may go untested, even when they appear inconsistent with established scripture or when predictions later prove inaccurate.

 

In contemporary debates, statements attributed to Prophet David Owuor; such as asserting publicly that he is the only prophet in the world, have intensified discussion about prophetic authority and accountability. Critics contend that exclusive prophetic claims can place followers in a position where faith is tied not only to scripture but also to loyalty to a single personality, sometimes discouraging independent theological reflection. Former adherents and observers have also raised allegations regarding prophetic accuracy and the authenticity of reported miracles, further fueling controversy around the movement’s claims and practices.

 

Historically, similar patterns have appeared in other movements. William Marrion Branham (1909–1965), a major figure in the post-war healing revival, attracted global followers yet faced sustained criticism over prophetic timelines interpreted as pointing to end-time events around 1977 that did not occur. His distinctive doctrines, including the “serpent seed” teaching and his claim to fulfill the Elijah prophecy of Malachi 4, generated deep divisions among churches and continue to shape theological debates about prophetic legitimacy. Ellen G. White (1827–1915), a foundational figure in Seventh-day Adventism, likewise remains a subject of ongoing discussion, with supporters affirming her writings as inspired counsel while critics question issues such as literary borrowing, interpretation of visions, and the extent of prophetic authority in relation to scripture.

 

Across these cases, scholars of religion frequently identify a recurring structural concern: when prophetic authority becomes personalized and absolute, disagreements over doctrine, the verification of miracles, and the fulfillment of predictions become decisive tests for both followers and critics. Claims of exclusive prophetic finality often create systems in which obedience to the leader is framed as obedience to God, alternative spiritual voices are discouraged, and followers may feel spiritually insecure if they question the leader’s pronouncements.

 

Within many theological traditions, a key test of prophetic authenticity has historically been the consistency of teachings with scripture and the reliability of prophetic declarations. When a leader who claims a unique end-time mandate, such as identifying himself as the final Elijah or the only prophet for the generation, issues predictions that fail to materialize, critics argue that such outcomes raise serious questions about the credibility of the prophetic claim itself and, by extension, the authority structures built around it. For this reason, debates about self-declared prophetic finality remain central to broader discussions about religious authority, accountability, and the boundary between legitimate spiritual leadership and high-control religious movements.

Ron Kenoly has passed on at the age of 81.

Ron Kenoly has passed on at the age of 81. Today, we don’t just mourn a man, we celebrate a life poured out as a priceless gift to the Kingdom of God.

Through deeply anointed worship, Ron Kenoly became a global voice that led millions into God’s presence. His music was not just sung; it was taught, lived, and imparted. He helped shape modern praise and worship, reminding the Church that worship is both sound theology and joyful surrender. Generations of worship leaders, choirs, and congregations found language for their praise because he answered the call with faithfulness and excellence.

His legacy lives on in every lifted hand, every joyful shout, and every heart drawn closer to God through worship. Though his earthly song has ended, the echo of his obedience continues to resound in the Church across the world.

We thank God for his life, his ministry, and his lasting impact on the body of Christ.

May his soul rest in eternal peace, and may his legacy continue to point many to Christ.