Kenyan gospel singer Mercy Masika has found herself at the centre of a growing public debate after announcing her upcoming Becoming a Wife Masterclass, an initiative designed to guide women seeking to build marriages based on Christian principles.
The programme has attracted support from people who believe marriage requires preparation, mentorship and continuous learning. However, critics have questioned why women are being taught how to become better wives when similar attention is not always directed at helping men become better husbands.
Among those who have challenged the initiative is media personality Janet Mbugua, who has questioned both its timing and the wider expectations placed on women in relationships.
The discussion has since grown beyond the masterclass itself, touching on gender equality, religious leadership, domestic violence, women’s ambitions and the question of who should carry the responsibility of making a marriage work.
What is Mercy Masika’s Becoming a Wife Masterclass?
Masika announced a seven-session programme titled Becoming a Wife Masterclass: A Guide to Biblical Marriage, scheduled to run from November 21 to December 12, 2026.
The gospel singer presented the initiative as an opportunity for women who want to understand marriage through a Christian perspective. She also announced Lady Bishop Kathy Kiuna as one of the people participating in the programme.
In promoting the classes, Masika explained that mentorship had played an important role in her own marriage journey. She praised Kiuna as an example of an empowered woman who honours God and her husband, expressing excitement about the lessons she hoped participants would gain.
Masika’s position reflects a belief held by some Christian communities that marriage is an institution that requires spiritual preparation, guidance and a willingness to learn.
For supporters, there is nothing unusual about women seeking advice from experienced married women. They argue that a person can benefit from learning about communication, commitment, managing disagreements and navigating the responsibilities that come with building a family.
The controversy, however, has centred on whether such lessons should focus on women alone.
Why Janet Mbugua has questioned the initiative
Janet Mbugua’s criticism has placed the masterclass within a broader conversation about the challenges facing women and girls in Kenya.
In her response, Mbugua questioned whether a marriage-focused programme was addressing the issues she believes deserve greater public attention, including violence against women, sexual abuse and concerns about the safety of children.
She also challenged the role of religious institutions, arguing that churches and influential religious figures should speak more forcefully about injustice and the protection of vulnerable people.
One of her central concerns was the tendency to place the responsibility for maintaining a marriage on women.
Mbugua questioned why women are frequently encouraged to learn how to become better wives while comparable efforts to teach men how to become responsible husbands receive less attention.
Her argument was that a woman can make considerable efforts to improve a relationship, but those efforts cannot guarantee a healthy marriage if her partner is unwilling to contribute.
This is a significant point in a society where discussions about marriage can sometimes emphasise patience, sacrifice, submission and forgiveness without giving equal attention to mutual respect, accountability and personal safety.
Mbugua’s criticism does not necessarily mean that marriage education is unimportant. Rather, it challenges the emphasis placed on women and asks whether marriage guidance should address the responsibilities of both partners.
Mercy Masika’s response and the defence of personal choice
The backlash has not gone unanswered in the wider public conversation. Reports published on October 26 indicate that Masika responded to the criticism with a message that supporters interpreted as a defence of her initiative.
Her supporters argue that a woman should be allowed to teach or mentor others in an area where she believes she has experience, without being expected to address every social problem affecting the country.
Masika has spoken about her own marriage journey and the lessons she has learned. For women interested in Christian relationship guidance, that experience may be a reason to participate in the programme.
Media personality Mashirima Kapombe was among those who defended the singer, arguing that disagreement with a woman’s initiative should not become an excuse to humiliate her.
Kapombe’s position was that people who are not interested in the classes can choose not to attend, while allowing other women to decide whether the programme meets their needs.
The defence introduces another dimension to the debate: the difference between questioning the message of a programme and personally attacking the person organising it.
Criticism of gender expectations can be legitimate without turning into harassment. Equally, the argument that an initiative is voluntary does not mean the public must avoid discussing its message or the social implications of the ideas it promotes.
The exchange has therefore become as much about how women disagree with one another as it is about marriage itself.
Should there also be a masterclass for husbands?
One of the most repeated questions arising from the controversy is whether men should receive the same level of attention when it comes to preparing for marriage.
A healthy relationship requires more than one person’s willingness to make sacrifices. Communication, respect, honesty, financial responsibility and emotional maturity are responsibilities shared by both partners.
If women are encouraged to learn how to manage disagreements, support their partners and nurture family relationships, men should also be encouraged to develop the skills required to be supportive spouses.
This does not mean that every relationship programme must have identical audiences. A women-only class may offer participants space to discuss experiences they feel more comfortable sharing with other women. Similarly, men may benefit from programmes that address the particular challenges they face.
The concern emerges when women are repeatedly told that the success or failure of a marriage depends primarily on their conduct.
No amount of preparation by one partner can substitute for the other partner’s willingness to participate in building a respectful relationship.
The debate has also highlighted the importance of distinguishing between ordinary marital disagreements and situations involving abuse or threats to personal safety. Advice encouraging patience or perseverance should not be interpreted as a requirement to remain in dangerous circumstances.
Marriage mentorship can offer guidance, but it cannot replace professional support or appropriate intervention where serious harm is involved.
Must marriage be the main measure of a woman’s success?
Another issue raised by critics is the place of marriage in discussions about women’s aspirations.
For some people, marriage is a central personal and spiritual goal. Others may prioritise education, career development, financial independence, property ownership or other ambitions, while some pursue several of these goals together.
The disagreement is not necessarily about whether marriage has value. It is about whether women should feel that becoming a wife is an essential measure of their worth or success.
A marriage masterclass may be useful to someone who wants guidance on building a Christian family. But it should not automatically be treated as a universal requirement for every woman, regardless of her circumstances or aspirations.
Likewise, women who choose to seek marriage guidance should not be mocked simply because others have different priorities.
The public conversation is therefore exposing a wider tension between traditional expectations and the increasingly varied ways women understand independence, relationships and personal fulfilment.
A debate that goes beyond Mercy Masika
The controversy surrounding the Becoming a Wife Masterclass is unlikely to be resolved by deciding whether marriage education is good or bad.
The more important question is how such education can encourage healthy partnerships without suggesting that women alone are responsible for keeping relationships together.
Masika’s supporters believe women should have the freedom to seek faith-based mentorship. Mbugua’s criticism highlights concerns about violence, social priorities and unequal expectations placed on women. Both positions have become part of a wider discussion about what marriage preparation should involve.
Ultimately, a meaningful approach to marriage should recognise that both partners have responsibilities. It should encourage mutual respect, honest communication and shared effort while acknowledging that no individual can single-handedly make a relationship work.
As the classes approach, the debate offers Kenyans an opportunity to examine not only what it means to become a wife, but also what it means to become a husband and build a partnership in which both people are valued.
The question now is whether the conversation will remain focused on one celebrity’s masterclass or encourage a broader discussion about relationships, gender expectations and the responsibilities of both partners.
