GINDIRI THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

(Affiliated to University of Jos)

GST. 422. CHURCH AND CONTEMPORARY ISSUES, 2019

BAP 5

Compiled by Rev. Dr. Benjamin J. Pokol

INTRODUCTION

Church and Contemporary Issues is a course that focuses on the newly emerging issues
confronting the biblio-doctrinal or dogmatic posture of the Church. As we all know that all
aspects of the Christian faith that make up the dogma are rooted in the unchanging Word of God
(Bible) and expressed in Christian practice. These issues tend to throw direct challenges to what
the Bible has recorded. However, the Bible is not only a historical or contemporary document;
though its teachings have been as old as the Bible times, it has not been buried in the rubbles of
history because its message remains relevant for all times. Therefore, while the Bible remains
constant in terms of its truth stance, interpreters and hearers live in a changing society and
changing mindsets. This calls for an on-going reflection on how the Bible can withstand the
changing society and remain the Bible. Therefore, while the Bible holds true for every changing
society, there are new issues that tend to challenge its constant truth stance, and Bible readers
and interpreters need to know this. These issues and their impacts on the church is the focus of
this course. The aim is to equip bible students with the necessary information to guide them from
falling cheap preys to such contemporary issues.

Significance of Church and Contemporary Issues as a course

This course is designed to give the students an up-to-date awareness concerning the
contemporary issues that are emerging which have direct and indirect implications on the life,
dogma, and ministry of the church. Many of the Biblical doctrines are being challenged by
contemporary issues; hence, the need for theological Seminaries to equip pastor-trainees to
respond properly to these issues so that Biblical doctrines will not be submerged in the sea of
changes. The inclusion of this course in the Seminary Curriculum also presupposes that the
church does not exist in a vacuum but within the dynamic and globalized village. The church can

1
no longer pretend to find comfort within her parish premises again because she is now part and
parcel of the entire social universe. The ministry of the church must have the streets’ taste
because the church is light and salt of the world. A stagnant Church may fall out with the
realities of society and be left behind. The Missio-Dei therefore, calls on the church and its
leaders to come out of their upper room and engage the streets and corridors of socio-political,
cultural, and economic issues constructively. The course focuses on the new challenges posed to
the church by these new emergencies.

Contemporary issues in this context refer to the emerging phenomena and issues that tend
to constitute challenge to the cardinal values of the Bible and society and the church in
particular. Culture is dynamic and this has serious implications on the immutability of the Word
of God itself; this needs to be discussed as part of pastoral training curriculum to keep church
leaders informed about the emerging happenings. While the Word of God remains immutable,
the church needs to remain open and dynamic on the ways of passing this unchangeable Word to
the people in the changeable context. The church has found itself being challenged by new
emergencies that were not in existence before. The churches have responded to these emerging
challenges in different ways: some have formulated extra policies to curtail the influx of these
challenges, some have denied them as if they were not real, some have closed up completely on
new ways of doing things and have kept embalming the past ways of doing things, and some
have resorted to threatening their members with church discipline as a way of keeping off such
challenges. The question is: How can the church cope with contemporary challenges to keep the
biblical dogma intact and remain the church?

Immediate objective of the course

The course is aimed at creating awareness in theological institutions. This is very true of
COCIN, especially that the Church, has gone international. Apart from the fact that the world has
become a global village, where cultures are intersecting each other, COCIN pastors as well as
others, need to prepare themselves for global relevance. In its interaction with other diverse
cultures out there, COCIN’s local doctrinal position will hardly remained unchallenged.
Ministers of a church like COCIN need a course like this because being a regional church that
stands in need of a universal posture, proper information on global challenges become inevitable.
We shall borrow a lot from the Reformed Theology which sees every sphere of this universe as

2
falling under the lordship of Jesus Christ. If all power in heaven and on earth was given to Jesus
after his resurrection (Matthew 28:18-19), which part of this world should we give to Satan?
None! Therefore, it calls for re-orientation in ministry to see beyond the immediate because the
Word of God still has more to be unveiled. We shall touch the following areas if time permits us:

1. The Church and Gender issues.

2. The Church and Terrorism in the 21st Century

3. The Church and State

4. The Church and good Governance/Corruption

5. The Church and Homosexuality/gay/lesbianism

6. The Church and elitism/officialdom

7. The Church and Ethnicity

8. The Church and Divorce

9 The church and war

10. Conclusion

1. THE CHURCH AND GENDER ISSUES

One of the contemporary issues confronting the church within the 21 st century is gender
issue. Gender is the respective roles constructed for men and women by the society and has
nothing to do with human original creation by God. Societies have decided the role of women
and men in a way that tends to exploit each other. Suzan Anthony (2006: 339) has blamed not
only societies but religions for classifying women as sub-standard human beings compared to
men. Anthony based her argument on the creation narratives in the religious books by describing
them as patriarchal. Women are rising strongly in this century to interrogate their constructed
role in the society including the church because they seem to have been marginalized by
destructive patriarchy. The church ought to promote equality of God’s creation but many

3
churches including COCIN, have not given women their rightful place either in decision making
of ministry. Churches seem to have uncritically inculturated patriarchal worldviews into the
church practices and treat such as part of the gospel truth.

Some of the patriarchal worldviews transported into the life of the church

Right from conception, the pregnant women in some cultures are closely monitored and
observed to see how they behave, which in turn, determines the sex of the fetus in their wombs.
Pokol and Chammah (2015: 27-29) argue that in some cultures when a pregnant woman behaves
abnormally like eating of mud, sleeping on bear floor, and eating bitter fruits, she is likely to give
birth to a female. When a pregnant woman is also always sick during pregnancy, she is likely to
bear a female child. This stereotype also applies when celebrating the arrival of the new born. A
male child is given more and enlarged celebration than a female child. This is a gross abuse of
the intention of God who created both sexes as equal. The Church exists to participate in the
mission of God which focuses on the equality of all creation. There are many cultural
worldviews about gender which have been unhelpfully inculturated into the Church and its
policies which promote gender injustice against women.

The Church ought to be in the forefront campaigning for human rights and equality
before the law. Just as Suzan Anthony argues, religions have failed to do justice to women
because almost all of them have failed to treat them as equal to men. If the church which is called
to promote social justice becomes the vanguard of gender injustice, then no sector of the society
can restore women to their rightful position in the society.

How do we feel about women teaching and preparing pastors for ordination while they
are not qualified for it? If women’s ordination is sin, why are we in fellowship with those
churches that ordain them? If women teach in seminaries to prepare candidates for ordination,
yet they are not qualified for ordination, it means that the product is more important than the
producer. There is gross contradiction in the teaching of the churches who promote gender
injustice because they imply that humanity is not equal.

2. THE CHURCH AND TERRORISM IN THE 21st CENTURY

Terrorism is defined as any organized armed terror unleashed on the citizens for political,
religious, or economic expediency. Terrorism occurs when an individual or group uses, or

4
threatens to use, political violence which is intended to instill terror within a targeted population
and to achieve a political goal (Egan, 2012: 12). Such a goal is motivated by political, economic,
and social or ideological grievances that may be emotionally influenced by fear or hate.
Terrorism occurs in domestic or international settings and includes such actions to intentionally
cause terror, as well as actions that unintentionally cause terror but are not discontinued when
their consequences become known (Egan, 2012: 13).

The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated

against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to
influence an audience. The 21st century has witnessed worst terrorism in the history of humanity
coming from the same creed (Islam) the world over. There are indications that seem to suggest
that most of these terrorist groups are reacting to liberal democracy as a Western form of regime.
The fact that all the terrorist groups come from the same religious camp also suggests that they
are abiding by their prophet’s ideology (Mohammed) of existing to conquer the entire world
under his domain. The church has found itself a victim because she is also classified as a
Western religion by the terrorists. To them, destroying the church is synonymous to destroying
Western culture. The church on her part, may not have been able to live her message of peace
enough to justify her mandate of light and salt of the world. Another issue is when the West is
regarded as Christian, it feeds terrorism against the church because each time there is anything
said or done in the West against Islam, its repercussion affects the church everywhere.

One wonders whether the rise of the 21 st century terrorism is persecution against the
church or it is just a political upheaval. Going through the annihilation of Christians in Iraq,
Egypt, Tunisia, and Nigeria in the recent times, one cannot run away from terming it as
persecution; but Africa has been a battle ground between the West and the Arab world since the
beginning of the 11th century when they competed for slaves and economic resources on the
African continent, with the West defeating the Arabs. The Arabs Nations are still waging war
against the Western World; and Africans are like the grasses suffering.

The church is experiencing life-denying challenges from terrorism nationally and

internationally. Today, the budget of the church has to go up because she is struggle with

5
challenges of insecurity. This has affected many church congregations. One thing keeps baffling
one as to whether the church herself has contributed to the proliferation of terrorism within her
own institution or not: What about the services of the church that have become unbearable for
the poor people in the society? What about the near prophetic silence of the church because of its
desire for social approval? What about devastating internal divisions among Christians
themselves? What about Christians’ gullibility towards accepting everything that comes from the
West, e.g. birth control and over reliance on Western education for economic survival?

The sad prophecy is that the Islamic world will surely rule the world in the next
millennium because population growth and economic power are on their side! However, the
remnants will always remain because of the faithfulness of Jesus and his promise not to allow
any gates of hell prevail against his church. In a terrorist context, what is the church supposed to
do? Go to war or take the path of nonviolent resistance? What about just war or war aimed at
restoring justice in the society or for the oppressed? Is God totally against war? What do you
think is the best approach that the church in Nigeria should take to adequately respond the
challenges of terrorism facing her?

3. THE CHURCH AND STATE/POLITICS

One of the contemporary issues facing the life of the church is her role in politics. The
prevailing circumstance in Nigeria could constitute a dangerous threat to the church because
politicians are busy asking pastors not to touch politics but to go and preach the salvation of
souls. Pastors who do not know their scope of ministry would take this intimidation as an excuse
for silence over political oppression. But pastors who are equipped would know that such
intimidations are a repetition of history (Isaiah 30: 10-11), which is just an expression of
disobedience to godliness in the land. Digging into the historical background of politics will help
the church come to terms with her role in the society.

Prior to the Greco-Roman political era, the Greek world was dominant (Wand, 1937:124;
Boer, 1976: 1). Religion and the State existed together and were expected to promote the well-
being of the State and its citizens. The development of Church-State relations during the Greco-
Roman period was shaped threefold, by a Roman imperial agenda, Greek thought and Jewish

6
religious and cultural traditions (Wand, 1937:125; Boer, 1976:1-2). The Greeks saw both Church
and State combined as an ethical institution, which focused on promoting the common good of
the pólis.1 Richard Kraut (2002:208) argues that “religious Temples were built using public
money because religion was not separated or regarded as sacred from the profane.” Priests were
paid from the public fiscal because religion was almost a department of the State. The Greeks
upheld justice and equity in their religio-political culture. Everyone was thought to be equal in
the community and deserved fair treatment by the religio-political culture (2002:208). However,
during the time of Aristotle, it is claimed discrimination against women, children, labourers, and
harlots replaced the just and equitable religio-political culture as women were excluded from
State participation because Aristotle thought that their faculties were not developed enough for
social functions (2002: 214-215).

The Roman Empire includes peoples from different nationalities and ethnicities including
Palestine, which became a province in the empire in 63 BCE (Boer, 1976:1). Christianity
evolved out of the history and religion of the Jews who lived in Palestine. Although conquered
by the Romans, the Greeks continued to influence the philosophical construct of the people’s
lives in the empire (Wand, 1937:124-126). While Roman power and law controlled the military,
political, social, and economic life of the people of the empire, Greek thinking (i.e., philosophy)
influenced intellectual discourse in education and therefore shaped the religious posture of the
empire (1937:126).

Greek thinking gave rise to various religions forms, including: nature religion, mystery
religion, and state religion (Boer, 1976:1-3). These religions were expected to foster the
prosperity of the State and satisfy the uneducated citizens while philosophy satisfied the
educated class. These religions still had strong political aspects because they were chiefly meant
to make sacrifices to the emperor, who was regarded as a god. The emperor was a symbol of
order and prosperity of the State. As a consequence of this, religious devotees were expected to

1
The Greek word polis [πόλις], (lit: ‘city’) originally referring to the ancient Greek city-states (Baker 1959:1-23),
broadly denotes citizenship or a body of citizens.

7
make sacrifices to him as a means of serving the common good of the society (Muthuraj,
2008:351).

The Roman Empire with its diverse cultural and religious practices found that unity lay in
its ability to control its citizenry. To achieve the unity in the empire, all religions were to direct
their worship to the emperor or face persecution (Muthuraj, 2008:352). Although the various
religions were allowed to worship in their temples, all sacrifices were required to be offered to
the emperor. This meant that any religion that failed to comply was regarded as an unlawful
religion in the empire for refusing to promote the interests of the State (2008:354). This scenario
set the stage for the nature of Church-State relations that prevailed during this period. The
followers of the young Church with their Jewish monotheistic heritage risked being classified as
participants in an illegal religion (2008:356). Church-State relations became hostile Christians
were treated as second-class citizens because of their refusal to worship the emperor was treated
as an act of treason (2008: 356).

The Jews received special status and were exempted from worshipping the emperor in order to
keep peace in their geo-region. According to Boer:

Their population was so large that they were found in all regions of the empire,
they were prosperous, they were well organized by common bonds of race and
religion, and they were influential people in the society even though their
monotheistic religion prevented them from complying to worship another god
(1976 43-45).

Boer further noted that “the Roman Empire was careful not to offend important people in
the empire” (1976: 45).2 However, the minorities were subjugated under them (Barnes,
2007:598). In view of the preferential treatment given to the Jews over Christians, and how the
State marginalized Christians, it appears that Church-State relations during the Greco-Roman

2
This point will be further explored in the chapter in relation to the situation in northern Nigeria where the
colonial government also treated the majority Muslims as special people with special status because they were
believed to have a well-developed system of administration (Gaiya, 2004:352-355).

8
period worked against the interests of the poor, the marginalized, and the common citizens
because they were attracted to religions that were critical of the State (Boer, 1976:103-105).

As people of other nations embraced Christianity, its difference from Judaism became
even more pronounced. The Jews also resented those from their community that converted to
Christianity, regarding them as heretics because they did not follow the laws of Moses (Boer,
1976:45) Christianity was therefore declared religio-illicita (lit: an illegal religion in the empire)
(Muthuraj, 2008:356). The Church experienced persecution because its attraction to the
marginalised peoples within the society threatened the authority of the official religious and
political power.

From 64 CE, the Church became outlawed with Christians becoming victims not
necessarily because they opposed the State, but because they were classified as people that gave
their allegiance to another authority instead of the State. It was not until the fourth century CE
when Constantine came to power that the status of the Church changed (Muthuraj, 2008:357). It
could therefore be argued that the Greco-Roman Church-State model served for the good of the
powerful but for the masses of the people, it did not.

The next period and model to be discussed is that of Constantine which began in the
fourth century CE that functioned without any significant improvement in building social justice
and peaceful co-existence between the poor and the rich (Wand, 1937:134). In this case, the
Church, was co-opted as a strategic partner with the State in further marginalizing minority
religious groups under the pretext of purging the State of paganism (cf. Boer, 1976:101-102).
Although the model is largely attributed to Constantine, this model spilled over and influenced
Ambrose of Milan after Constantine.

The Constantinian Model

In the fourth century CE, through the intervention of Constantine as Emperor, the Roman
State brought an end to the persecution of the Church. Constantine had to overcome many
external and internal threats to his political power in the empire (Boer, 1976:106). The entire
empire was divided along political interests that left the poor at the mercy of political
opportunists and technocrats. Motivated by his desire to unify the empire, Constantine declared

9
Christianity, not only as a legal religion but the official religion of the State (1976:100-105).
Constantine’s strategy (cf. Edit of Milan in 313 CE) (1976:138-139) provided more security for
Christians by aiding the Church and clergy with public grants from the State. This followed his
purported vision on the eve of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 CE which he saw a sign of
the cross and heard a voice telling him to use it (enter into partnership with) in order to defeat his
enemies (1976:102-104). As a result Constantine fought under the protection of the Christian
God. Whether or not Constantine truly converted to the Christian faith is not the concern of this
study. The concern is rather his partnership with the Church to consolidate State power across
the Roman Empire.

As the Roman Emperor, Constantine sought peace with the Church by returning all
Church property that was confiscated during the period of persecution (Muthuraj, 2008:350). He
also relieved the clergy from civic duties and built Churches for Christians. The Church ceased
to be an enemy of the State and instead became an ally of the State. Church membership that had
previously been regarded as a threat became advantageous so that many rich people opted for the
ministry (Boer, 1976:134).

The question that was left unanswered was why many people of high social status within
the society opted for Church membership and to enter its ministry. The Church became an open
community that welcomed all classes of people: the poet, the philosopher, the artist, the
politician, the military officers, the architect, and the banker worshipped openly together with the
labourer, the farmer, and the trader but only the rich could agitate for entering the Church
ministry as clergy (Boer, 1976:134). The Church therefore became very influential and important
in the society because it was no longer persecuted. Accordingly, Christianity became a popular
civil religion.

While the earlier pagan emperors saw the State and the pagan religions as a unifying
factor, Constantine saw the Church and State as the unifying factor and other religions as a threat
to the State and its power. The pagan emperors built pagan temples, Constantine built Churches;
the pagan emperors supported Roman priests, Constantine supported Christian clergy; pagan
emperors suppressed Christianity, Constantine suppressed paganism and heresy; the pagan
emperors persecuted Christianity, Constantine, along with the Church persecuted non-Christian
religious groups (Boer, 1976:135, Muthuraj, 2008:350). The Church and State elites entered into

10
what Stout (1999:178) describes as a “marriage of convenience” in which the Church was
reduced to something like the chaplaincy of society:

When the Church was freed from State persecution, its prophetic voice became
muted within the society as it became more absorbed with inner-ecclesial
controversies about doctrines rather than critical involvement with the daily
struggles of life faced by the ordinary people within the society (Stout, 1999:175).

In the model of Church-State relations under Constantine, the power of the State would
be used to enforce decisions agreed to by the Ecumenical Council (Boer, 1976:139).
Ecclesiastical Bishops had the right to settle disputes between Christians in their courts, and have
their decisions enforced by the laws of the State (Stout, 1999:176). Church leaders and the State
elite became allies in maintaining the social stability within society. While the State was busy
creating a Church-State, the Church was busy creating a State-Church, a situation which Karl
Barth describes as “the particular problem of the Constantinian shift” (Barth cited in Stout,
1999:177). The Church as an ally of the State lost its critical voice in agitating the State to keep
its responsibility to care for the socially and economically weaker members of the society. By so-
doing, actions of injustice and violence against minorities within the society failed to trigger
corrective engagement by the Church (Fernandex, 2004: xi-xii).

Every religion has the potential for injustice and oppression of others when it uncritically
cooperates with a State that is not consistent with just and ethical behaviour. In pluralist contexts,
as Barth has argued (Barth cited in Stout, 1999:178), there should not be a national or State
Church tied to the interests of any particular government. An important lesson emerging from the
above situation is that no Christian society can exist in isolation to the influences of other
competing ideologies. In the same manner, no government can genuinely claim to be
authentically Christian in its identity and practice (Stout, 1999:179).

The Constantinian model of Church-State relationship influenced the erosion of the

spiritual integrity of the Church, which in turn resulted in the rise of the persecution of those that
the Church regarded as non-Christian and heretics (Muthuraj, 2008:350). The Church eventually
became lazy and over-dependent on the State to provide for its material needs. Church leaders
became very influential within the society. The former persecuted the persecuting Church. With

11
the social and economic privileges that came in being a State Church, the status seemed to inflict
an intentional amnesia of their past history of once being a persecuted community. They
persecuted Christians that did not follow strict Church doctrines and people of other faiths. The
Constantinian model of Church and State relations therefore failed to promote the common good
for all citizens because of their discriminatory and corrupting policies. It could be argued that
the ‘marriage’ between Church with the State when Constantine made Christianity as a legal and
official religion of the empire did not result in any fundamental change in improving the
situation of the poor and uninfluential members of the society. Rather, the Church was co-opted
to strengthen the power base of the influential elites. The persecution of the poor during this era
continued but the target group was changed. Other religions groups were deemed to be threats
and were duly persecuted (Boer 1976:136-138; Maluleke 2010:152).

The emerging Church that resisted the temptation to worship the State in the pre-
Constantinian period radically changed course during the Constantinian era of the fourth-century
CE. This experience of Church-State relations seems to suggest that the kind of leadership that
the Church adopts or practices contributes to the model of relations that it maintains with the
State. This is most obvious when the Church does not adhere to a principled and theological
understanding of Church-State relations. Each leader that comes on board may relate to the State
based on personal motivations and interests that may easily succumb to intense political pressure
of the State leadership.

Bishop Ambrose of Milan made some efforts to set down some principles that separated
the powers of the Church from the State (Maluleke 2010:152). However, his actions were
motivated by the Church’s desire for power and control of the State. He alluded to the principles
of the original and primitive State by declaring that:

The original and primitive State was purely democratic, like the community of
birds, wherein ‘the laws are common to all and are observed by all with common
devotion’; wherein ‘what is lawful and unlawful is the same for all without
exception’; and wherein ‘all share the same dwelling place, obey the same
ordinances, and take part in the same counsels…all people observed their turn in
working and in ruling; and none were perpetual workers or perpetual rulers. It was
truly an ideal State. But lust for power in human beings led to monarchy, because

12
 when they had obtained their ruling turn, they refused to lay it down. This ended
in degeneration of the State. Monarchy, thus, is a declension from the ideal State
and was brought about by lust for power. Since the lust for power is sin and of the
devil, monarchy is a consequence of sin (cited in Muthuraj, 2008:52).

Ambrose’s policy sounded as a champion of justice and objectivity, which he regarded as

central to the legitimate State, but he was equally either unconsciously or consciously pulled by
the same lust for power even though he declared that:

The piety of justice is first directed towards God; secondly towards one’s country;
next towards parents; last towards all (cited in Muthuraj, 2008:352).

The piety of justice as being first directed towards God was Ambrose’s tactful way of
subjecting the State under the Church, which was a continuation of Constantine’s Church-State
model. Nevertheless, Ambrose actions seem to support the impression that he did much better
than the Constantinian model of Church-State relations in promoting social justice and the
wellbeing of all its citizenry.

Ambrose also classified the Church as being too good to be associated with what was
merely a human institution (State) and therefore he tried to subject the State to the Church
without emphasizing their distinct spheres of operation (Boer 1976:148-149). Although he spoke
out against social injustice in the society, he was unfair to the State in many instances
(1976:150). Again, power was the core issue when Ambrose challenged the Emperor Theodosius
that: “God has given the palaces to the Emperors; they should leave the Parishes to the Bishops”
(1976:148-150). Ambrose did everything within his power to subject the State to the Church’s
authority through his theological argument that:

God must be preferred to State or country; religion must be preferred to

patriotism; the community of the Church must be preferred to the Roman people;
an absolute sovereign has a duty to God; the emperor is subject to the divine laws;
the emperor, more than ordinary human beings, is under obligation to obey the
supreme Lord; he is indebted to God alone for his empire and victories; for the

13
 emperor is at the head of the Christian laity, and is a son of the Church and must
submit to the authority of the Church (Ambrose cited by Muthuraj, 2008:353).

Ambrose postulated two views of Church-State relations: First that the State should be
dependent on the Church; second, that the Church is independent of the State, and hence the
State should not interfere in the matters of the Church. According to Ambrose, the Chritian State
had two functions:

Protecting the Church against her great enemies, heresy and paganism. Second,
that it was the duty of the State to call for general councils of the Church, and to
endorse and implement their decisions while lacking the right to interfere or
influence the formulation of the decisions, nor has the State a right to interfere in
what has been decided (Ambrose cited in Muthuraj, 2008:353).

Just as the State used the Church during the time of Constantine to achieve its political ends, the
State was being used during the time of Ambrose by the Church authorities to enforce Church
policies and marginalize groups that opposed the policies of the Church within the general
society.

Constantine and Ambrose could well be accused for using religion to subjugate the
people for political ends as well as to oppress groups in the empire that were considered to pose
threats to their authority. Muthuraj (2008:368) accuses Ambrose of injustice against minorities
by using the State to oppress those that were said to be heretics and followers of non-Christian
(Pagan) religions. Accordingly, he misused the Church’s authority to influence the State to deny
the rights of minority religious groups in the empire. The root cause of the political tension
between Church and State can therefore be traced back to Constantine’s strategy for political
expediency and the donation of landed property to the clergy which Cairns (1996:189) considers
to be the seed of political tension between the Church and State.

The lust and competition for power by the religious leaders with the State continued into
the tenth century CE when the German emperors were humbled by having to make the difficult
journey across the Alps to meet the Pope of Rome to re-enforce the notion that emperors were
not sovereign in their nation in religious matters pertaining to the Church and the religious life of
the people (Muthuraj, 2008:368; Cairns, 1996:189-190).

14
 All these events exposed the controversial issues concerning separation between religious
and State authorities. When it came to the functions of the State, the Church sought its protection
and deposition of heretics and dealing with other religious threats and challenges. However, the
playing fields were not level because the State was denied the right to interfere in Church affairs
(Ambrose cited in Muthuraj, 2008:354). There was no reciprocity in the relationship. This
attitude serves as a warning and a signpost to indicate caution that dominant religious institutions
within society are prone to misuse their power and influence so as to exert corrupting favours
from the State and to misuse its authority within the society for narrow political ends that
discriminate against other groups.

The Constantinian model down to the time of Ambrose also failed to promote social
justice in the society because marginalization and exploitation of the minority groups was a
common occurrence in the society. The dynamic of the State co-opting the Church against
minority religions seemed to run throughout. These models of Church-State relations will feature
again during the discussion on the relationship of the COCIN as the dominant religious group in
the context of Jos, Plateau State. It will be argued that part of the deteriorating socio-economic
and socio-political conditions of the people points to the nature of Church-State dynamics with
has a long influential legacy that goes back to the Constantinian model of the fourth-century CE.

THE CHURCH AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

Governance can be defined as “governing or directing the affairs of a group of people

which could be a family, a village, a city, a country, or groups of countries. It is the activity of
rendering stewardship of human and material resources within a given place and time. Governing
is an exercise of constructive power by exercising leadership through persuading and influencing
people towards realizing their goals (Ruwa, 2001:27). Power in this case means diffused power
which is found everywhere instead of the analogue idea of concentrated power in an individual
leader. People who engage in governing are people who are entrusted with responsibilities of
ensuring the well-being of those under them. The governing mandate is a divine one as recorded
in Genesis 1:26-27 NIV. The power to govern does not come from those who govern but from
the governed. Governing implies the exercise of authority, which is a right by virtue of office and
position to command respect (Ruwa, 2001:27). Government is an instrument of the state because
it represents the state in exercising oversight of the wellbeing of the citizens and the resources

15
that the state has. The difference between state and government is that of geographical entity and
the people involved. While all the citizens within a geo-political space constitute the state, only
those who hold political office during a particular period of governance form government.
Government is an instrument of the state, which acts on behalf of the state.

The difference between State and Government

It is necessary to differentiate between what constitutes state; and what constitutes government in
order to give quality understanding of the subjects at hand. Not everyone can be part of
government in a given geo-political zone; but everyone within the given geo-political zone is
part of the state.
State
The state, on the one hand, constitutes the entire citizens within a given geographical or
territorial area. All the citizens who have the right of citizenship within the defined boundaries of
an area make up the state. For instance, all Nigerian citizens are members of the Nigerian state.
By virtue of their citizenship, they make up the state because the sovereignty of that country
depends on them. Whatever laws the government makes for the country are made on behalf of
the citizens; and the validity of those laws depends on all citizens because they are made by their
representatives. The state is territorial because it has to do with a group of people who inhabit a
particular territory with definite boundaries that mark off the group from others. Sometimes state
and government are used interchangeably but they are not the same. Many citizens belong to the
state but not the government. While all those who are in government are also in the state, but not
all those who are in the state are in the government. The state, therefore, is bigger than
government; while government is a few chosen representatives of the state. The state is a
permanent organization because it is territorial with defined boundaries and citizens who are not
expected to move to another location except with legal permission to do so.
Government
Government, on the other hand, comes and goes. Government is a representative of the
state. Ordinarily, government is not supposed to decide the official status of state because she is
delegated by the state. This understanding if pertinent for political leaders because some of them
play politics as if they own the state. In fact, the power of the state is more than that of

16
government because power is reserved in communicative structures of the society. The citizens
who make up the state are the ones who delegate power to those who are in government. This is
because government is an instrument of the state. The political opportunists need to know that
the average citizen in the street has more power than the Member of the Parliament (MP). If the
average citizens cease to exist, government ceases to exist. Political power is not everything in
the world because power is dynamic and relative. Power is everywhere because every human
being has some power. Therefore, concentrating power in government is responsible for the
gross abuse of governance that has characterized the world in the 21 st century. Gone are the days
when power used to be concentrated in individuals but power is everywhere and enshrined in
every act that contributes to make an organization work.
Government is a group of people from the state who govern the state or country. Those
who make up government are the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Others are those
who hold particular positions and ideology of the existing regime within a given regime. Only
those who have the legitimate right for making decisions that are binding on the citizens make up
government. While state is permanent, government is never permanent because it comes and
goes. The state is sovereign but government is not sovereign. Government is accountable to the
state while the state guarantees the power of government. I have heard many masses of people
say “we are the government” when they do not have any decision-making power over anyone.

However, both government and state are servants of God for the good of the citizens
within their jurisdictions. In view of this, they are expected to serve as representatives of God by
promoting social justice and peace for the society. Many government workers have concluded
that since the state is not a religious institution, they are not required to provide godly leadership
in their places of work. They have given a bad name to the state to the extent that state civil
servants are seen as people who have the license to do what they want. This kind of ideology
serves to foster corruption and abuse of power by state officials, which is absolutely not right.
Government is equally accountable to God in the same way that the church is.

Besides the government and state, there are other Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGO) that participate in governance. Some of these are Local Authorities, Parastatals, Cabinet,
and Civil Service through ministries (Ruwa, 2001:27). Some of the Local Authorities include

17
country, municipal, and city councils, which are directly involved in governance (Ruwa,
2001:27-28). For good governance to exist, all these components ought to agree and work
together realizing that they are serving a divine cause. Government can be a servant of God; but
it can also be the servant of Satan if it deviates from the Missio-Dei to other things that are life-
denying. Some basic principles of good and bad governance are discussed below:

Good Governance
Good governance is democratic and grants Christians the right to publicly criticize,
review, debate, and challenge the status quo and policies of government. Good governance
hesitates to give material inducement to religious leaders as a way of silencing their prophetic
voice. When governance is good, it means that it follows the divine way of governing where the
common good is promoted and sustained as the essence of governance. Governance is not good
just because of the material gifts it gives people, but because of how social, political, economic,
and cultural justice is maintained in the society. Good governance is characterized by respect for
individual, family, and community rights, promotion of peace and unity among the citizens,
accommodation of different opinions, promotion of integrity and credibility, and how ready it is
to educate people on their rights (Ruwa, 2001:30-32). Good governance, therefore, is not
measured by the flow of money to the hands of the citizens but by its attitude to social stability,
fair resource sharing, caring for the poor and the needy, and how people’s needs set its agenda.
Good governance is one that governs in accordance with the will of God regardless of what
people say about it. Good governance is not necessarily led by someone who is from my village
or town, but someone whom I do not know but is fulfilling the purpose of governance.

Bad governance is not necessarily the one led by someone I consider as an enemy, but by
someone I love, but is performing badly in governance. We, therefore, must be careful about
how we rate governance. Governance is ordained for a purpose of implementing the will of God,
and once that purpose is achieved, governance is good whether I like it or not. Any governance
that is bent on fulfilling the will of people and not of God is a bad governance. Fulfilling the will
of God in governance may make a government unpopular to the people but that is okay because
good governance does not depend on its goodness to individual beneficiaries but to the entire
citizenry.

18
 The Bible is discerning about government, calling for us to “be subject” to it, to “honour”
it, and to pay our taxes, but it never implies that submission means complete or unquestioned
obedience or that honour is the same thing as fear. Rather, to be subject, to honour, and to pay
taxes means to recognize the standing of government and its legitimate and necessary role in
society. So the purpose of government, especially good government, according to Paul, is to
protect its people from the chaos of evil and to promote the good of the society: to protect and to
promote. Preserving the social order, punishing the wrongdoer, and rewarding the good, and
promoting the common good are all prescribed, and we are even instructed to pay taxes for those
purposes. A government that fails to protect its citizens does not deserve to be paid taxes by its
citizens. From the Biblical point of view, government is supposed to protect its people, which
certainly means protecting its citizens from any destructive phenomena and ideology that serve
to foster violence and crises among them. But where government not only fails to protect its
citizens but serves through corruption to engender violence among its citizens, obedience and
submission to such a government amounts to disobedience to God.

Crime and violence will always be real issues in the world that is why we have the police,
who are meant to keep our streets and neighborhoods safe, but what the police may do to the
citizens in a bad government is another issue that worsens the security of the citizens.
Government is also responsible for protecting its citizens judicially and make sure that our legal
courts and systems are procedurally just and fair. The biblical prophets regularly rail against
corrupt court decisions and systems, in which the wealthy and powerful manipulate the legal
processes for their own benefit and put the poor into greater debt or distress. Arbitrary injustice
is a regular target of the prophets, who hold the state accountable to justice.

Along with protecting lives and property, governments should promote the good of
society. Without this, the church should hold kings, judges, rulers, landlords, employers, and
teachers accountable to justice. Unless the church follows the footsteps of the prophets, she is on
her own. Psalm 72 begins with a prayer for kings or political leaders: “Give the king your justice,
O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son. May he judge your people with righteousness,
and the poor with justice? May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in

19
righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy,
and crush the oppressor”. Good governance ensures that there is justice in the courts, schools,
hospitals, markets, offices, farms, industries, highways, and wherever people are exploited and
marginalized. Good governance also promotes respect for human beings without regard for
social status. A situation where bank staff negotiate with influential individuals to keep the poor
in long queues in the banks in totally unacceptable under good governance.

A situation where Christian teachers sit under the shade from morning to evening while
their pupils are left to play throughout the day is totally unacceptable in good governance. A
situation where greedy pastors, in their hunger to make quick money, raise fragile structures to
kill citizens during religious rituals is totally unacceptable in good governance. There no hiding
places for criminals in good governance. There are no sacred cows in good governance. There is
no shedding of innocent blood in good governance. Good governance is ready to make way for
alternative regimes because it knows that there are others who can perform better. Good
governance does not translate into a dynasty in a pluralistic society. Good governance is indeed
democratic in nature. Good governance dos not value impunity in handling criminals. Good
governance does not discriminate against citizens on grounds of religious and ethnic diversity.
Good governance serves instead of ruling.

Good Subjects

Subjects or electorates in this context refer to the citizens within the state who are
responsible for electing those who govern them during democratic governance. Good subjects
are those who pray and support those in leadership (Romans 13, 1Peter 2:13 and 14, 1Tim. 2).
However, good subjects are good not only because they obey every government policy, but they
are good because they know their rights and can protest when their rights are trampled upon by
oppressive government. Good subjects can promote good governance by electing credible people
regardless of religious, political, racial and sectional affiliations. Good subjects are not greedy
about material dividends; good subjects are aware that those in power are not super-humans so
they do not hold any unrealistic expectation of their performance which may lead to political
gimmicks. Good subjects are aware that government cannot provide everything for its subjects

20
therefore they encourage private sector participation. Good subjects cultivate high sense of
accountability, responsibility, transparency and commitment in their assignments to encourage
those in governance. Good subjects do not mishandle their poverty by trooping to the residential
premises of political leaders; but they give political leaders opportunity to address objective
issues that relate to the common good. Good subjects are not carried away by politicians who use
religions as a cover-up to deceive them during elections. Good subjects do not accept gifts of salt
and wrappers from aspiring politicians because they know that by doing so, they are corrupting
such politicians. Therefore, government may not be good without good subjects; or bad without
bad subjects. Good subjects do not collaborate with or constitute undue liability to political
leaders, but they hold them accountable to social justice.

Fruits of good governance

Good governance is expected to lead to prudent control and management of public

resources. It is also expected to encourage participatory governance, establishment of civil
services and other private organizations that serve as watch-dogs of civil service. Good
governance ensures accountability and transparency in governance; it maintains punitive
measures against corrupt public officers. Good governance is fair to all citizens irrespective of
status, class, gender, and creed. It creates conducive environment for investment and economic
growth and employment opportunities for the youth. Good governance encourages proper
supervision of projects to avoid waste of resources. It focuses on policies that take care of the
less privileged in the society. Good governance does not give money to citizens but it gives
people work to get money. Good governance is people-oriented and not work or system-oriented.
Good governance serves as impartial referee in a pluralistic society. Good governance does not
promote ethnic division among its citizens. Good governance focuses on what God wants the
society to be and do. Good governance creates an environment for religious and cultural
development among its citizens. Good governance provides adequate security for all citizens.
Good governance does not ask for prayers from church leaders as prayer-contractors but from the
church as conscience of society. Good governance does not only request for prayers but it also
request for prophetic confrontation in order to guide it. Good governance does not create a class
of religious leaders for hidden deals behind the curtain. Good governance does not spray money

21
but it sprays vocations and employment for citizens to be permanently liberated from poverty.
Good governance does not further enslave citizens by giving them alms but it creates jobs for
them. Good governance does not insists on more tenures but more productivity and development
of its citizens.

Something is sounding strange in Nigerian politics because it seems as some religious

leaders have quickly jumped ship: they are being used for political ends by politicians and
enjoying their path of prophetic silence, and buying church leaders’ “prayers” with all kinds of
gifts for luxury. Another strange phenomenon is where politicians are able to cultivate
confidence to ask for prayers from religious leaders, yet they are not confident to ask for
prophetic guidance from such religious leaders. This is strange because any politician that asks
for prayers in order to succeed in politics or in elections ought to know that he or she is also
asking for prophetic criticism from such leaders, who may still have clean hands and hearts to
pray for them. However, those politicians who find it easy to ask for such prayers know which
religious leaders to contact because, for instance, no politician would have asked a prophet Amos
for cheap prayers to succeed in politics or a Pandang Yamsat for cheap prayers without
expecting prophetic confrontation because it would not be easy. If politicians truly value the
prayers of religious leaders, they should also value their prophetic voices because they will have
more benefit in listening to prophetic voices than contracted prayers.

But where are the prophetic voices? Where are the men and women of God and not of
bread, jeeps, pilgrimages, and furnished houses? Where is the prophet from the south to
challenge the Amaziahs of the north? Where are the Elijahs who will not mind living in caves
and eating from Ravens provided justice is maintained in the land? Where are the Daniels who
will prefer eating vegetables to kingly food, and being in lions’ den to defiling the name of the
Lord, and still glow more than kings for sticking to obeying the Lord? Where are the Esthers
who will breach administrative protocol if only that will liberate the poor and the political
captives? Where are the Hebrew Midwives, who will prefer to disobey the oppressive presidents
of their countries in order to let the children of the poor access education? Where are the Nathans
who will enter Aso Rock and still have eyes to see injustice? The seemingly uncritical solidarity
that exists between the altar and the throne in Nigeria is responsible for the death-dealing politics

22
that has claimed lives in their thousands without a single civil disobedience staged by the
Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN). The church seems to have reached its highest peak of
social irrelevance in Nigeria because of the rate at which human lives have become cheap things
in the hands of selfish politicians, and under the cover of religious zealotry. Good governance is
not possible without prophetic guidance because God is the owner of the people and how they
ought to be governed.

Bad Governance

Bad governance is one that deviates from what God wants for the society and for his will
in the world. Bad governance leads to discontentment by the citizens, resulting in coups, tribal
clashes, inter-religious violence, shortage of essential resources, and interference with the arms
of and concentrating power to a few. It does not practice participatory democracy, it does not
recognize the rights of the citizens and social groups to freedom of movement, freedom of
association, freedom to own property, freedom to own opinion, and freedom to security. Bad
governance does not have a vision for the country or group, it is not accountable and transparent
to followers, manipulation of electoral processes, abuse of human rights, failure to promote
national unity, high rate of corruption among the elite, and mismanagement of resources for
selfish ends (Ruwa, 2001:33). Other characteristics of bad governance are inefficiency in
governance, high rate of unemployment, wasteful use of resources, wrong prioritization of
national projects, placement of wrong personnel on political grounds, discrimination in
allocation of funds, and encouragement of unhealthy competition and growing rate of insecurity
(Ruwa, 2001:34, Mbigi, 2005). Bad governance takes interest in giving material inducement to
religious leaders as a way of silencing their prophetic voice. Material inducement given to
religious leaders in this context can play dual role: firstly, it may earn them votes from religious
followers; however, the same inducement can deny them of the privilege of getting prophetic
voice, which they need to guide them in governance. Therefore, bad governance is known for its
marriage of convenience with those institutions (religious) that are mandated to hold it
accountable to justice. In this case, governance is not necessarily bad because it hesitates to spray
to money which constitutes alms giving instead of development that will benefit all in the
society. In view of this, bad governance departs completely from the promotion of the common

23
good and the will of God for the society. I need to balance this argument by arguing that
government may be bad because of bad subjects, therefore, the following section explains how
bad subjects can make government bad:

Bad Subjects

Subjects can be bad when they fail to pray and support those in governance (Romans 13,
1Pet. 2:13 and 14). They can also be bad when they elect these leaders on religious, ethnic, and
sectional grounds; which also leads them to demand preferential treatment from such
government officials. This attitude makes governance very difficult for the elected leaders
because they have to work towards satisfying diverse interests. The electorates can also be bad
when they expect government to do everything for them by becoming lazy. A situation where
political leaders’ residential quarters and offices are always full of ‘poor’ people, expecting such
leaders to give them money is totally unexpected because this is the root of corruption among the
ruling elite. This is because power corrupts; political leaders who know that dozens of ‘poor’
people are queuing up for them at their homes and offices will steal from public resources to
keep them. This attitude prevents political leaders from pursuing developmental projects for the
society. It also leads to unjust assessment of political leader’s achievement because the money
meant for developmental purposes ends up in ‘poor’ people’s pockets in the form of alms; yet,
the same subjects will be the first to blame such political leaders for under-performance in office.
In view of this, I strongly advice the subjects to assist those in governance by not over-depending
or mishandling their poverty by littering the residences and corridors of those in political power.
This is because government can become bad when its subjects are bad. Subjects can be bad in
two ways: when they accept alms in form of money sprayed by bad politicians, and when they
fail to resist bad governance peacefully or otherwise.

Fighting for social justice: the way forward for the church in Nigeria

Justice simply means doing the right things and making things right—putting things right again.
It also means fixing, repairing, and restoring broken relationships. And doing justice restores our
relationship with God and makes our worship of God authentic (Wallis, 2013, 2014:246). One

24
thing needs to be recovered from the attitudes of Nigerians whether as politicians or religious
leaders: greed. Nigerians need to work on reducing greed and selfish ambition if the country
must see justice in private and public spheres again. There should be and ideological paradigm
shift initiated by the younger generation of Nigerians. Jim Wallis rightly notes that “the fight for
justice begins when somebody sees that something is wrong” (2013, 2014:246).

The idea is that one person can spark off the process of positive change as Robert
Kennedy once said, “each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of
others, or strikes out against injustice, he [or she] sends forth a tiny ripple of hope…and…those
ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance”
(cited in Wallis, 2013, 2014:247). This is how every movement for justice starts. Movements
for justice often starts when a new generation comes to believe that something is wrong.
Something captures the attention of young people. We always need that from young people,
and indeed, I believe it is always part of the vocation and obligation of the next generation.
When young people believe that something is wrong with the status quo that is the beginning of
fight for justice. But when the younger generation has been incapacitated by lack of
employment to the extent that they have enslaved their minds and psychologies to oppressive
structures for bread, such initiative becomes difficult.

On the other hand, when young people do not see anything wrong with the status quo,
when nothing gets their attention, when their only concern is themselves—how they look, how
they feel, how they think, what they want, how they get what they want, what they want to eat
and drink, how they perpetuate the status quo by aligning themselves with oppressive structures,
who they like, and who likes them—the society is in big trouble (Wallis, 2013, 2014: 247). And
if they are Christian young people, and they are caught up in themselves, then the church and the
gospel are in a big trouble. A new generation is never new until it is able to think anew and
initiate changes that challenge the status quo. When the young people are only happy about
making themselves available for politicians to use during political or religious crises then the
generation is not new. Part of the fruit of good governance, therefore, includes preparation of the
younger generation to think independently and challenge the status quo and injustices that
prevail in the society.

25
 How can a young person who is roaming the streets begging for what to eat make any
impact? When the daughter or son of a governor is able to rebuke his or her father for hoarding
and looting public resources for their future, it sends a ripple to the system; and sparks off fight
for justice. How many young people whose parents are responsible for the gross injustices in our
society are able to resist and rebuke their parents? Why would the oppressive culture stop when
the young people do not see anything wrong with the status quo? The youth wings of the
political parties are supposed to be vanguards of positive change but because of poverty, they are
often more divided on grounds of political party affiliation than the older generation. They are
the weapons used to destroy human lives during political crises. The situation ensures the
perpetuation of the status quo with justice ever abused. Nevertheless, it is only good governance
that guarantees freedom of expression. The young people may want to make some moves for
justice to reign but because of the dictatorial nature of our political authorities, our policemen
and women will shoot all of them calling them rebels.

The role of the church in promoting good governance

Biblically and from the tradition of the church, the church has a duty to ensure that justice
and peace are promoted and maintained among the people of God as well as in the entire society.
This is only possible if God’s plan for the human person to share equally in his happiness is
allowed and fulfilled by the people (Ruwa, 2001:26-27). The role of the church is to denounce
evil and also help the faithful to inculcate the gospel values of truth, honesty, reconciliation,
justice, and love in their daily lives, especially those in political leadership. The church is also
responsible for providing education for justice and pastoral guidance to make justice known
through teaching and working to discourage injustice and discrimination in the society and
encouraging those who are involved in promoting justice (Ruwa, 2001:40). It ought to be
remembered that my usage of church in this context refers to individual believers who are
regarded as organic church represented by believers found all over the world. The church also
supports the state by obeying those in governance to lead a peaceful community (Romans 13).
However, Romans 13 needs to be read along with Revelation 13 to get the balance because not
every governing system is a servant of God.

26
 The church can also encourage civic education, carry out Lenten campaign, participate in
policy making, participate in election monitoring and observation, speak out for the oppressed,
provide literature on good governance, engage in community mobilization, encourage poverty
eradication, and encourage quality education among the masses of the people. The church ought
to discourage her members from taking bribes from politicians in order to vote for them. The
only way that corruption will vanish from the society is when the masses of the people stop
patronizing the greedy and selfish politicians for selfish ends. The masses should desist from
taking alms from politicians if they want government to give them work and development. The
church can do this by avoiding unnecessary involvement of politicians in fundraisings for her
church projects during elections. A church that encourages politicians to sponsor her church
projects is worse than the politicians themselves because apart from taking bribes, her prophetic
vocation is also betrayed. Believers who worship under the roof sponsored by a political aspirant
has lost every prophetic vocation because one cannot bite the finger that feeds them.

The main responsibility of the church towards good governance is prayer and critical
solidarity and distance. This prayer should not be a means of taking sides with any particular
political party or ideology. It should not be an exchange for some unhealthy dealing behind the
curtain. Obery describes what biblical prophecy is by arguing that:

The uncompromising example of the biblical prophets demonstrates that the

purpose of biblical prophecy is never personal comfort or self-aggrandizement.
Nor were the prophets’ proclamations ever directed solely against the personal
habits of rulers; their primary targets were always the practices and policies that
exploited and oppressed those the rulers were supposed to serve. In a word,
prophets took their stand against abuses of power, not personal missteps or
weaknesses. Nevertheless, in many churches today dramatic predictions about
individuals’ unique personal concerns are presented as God-inspired
“prophecies” by clergy who have never spoken out against social injustice,
never uttered a word of political critique, yet still call themselves prophets.
Some even charge fees or request financial “love offering” for their “prophetic”

27
 services. Despite their claims to prophetic powers, these men and women must
be considered false prophets. Yet this is not a new phenomenon; there have been
false prophets throughout history, and there are many today. How can a false
prophet be identified? There are three criteria: (1) they are silent about issues of
social injustice, and (2) they function as uncritical supporters of rulers and
politicians, rather than as their moral conscience and dedicated arbiters of
biblical justice, (3) they tell the rulers what they want to hear. Instead of
challenging political regimes—and all earthly regimes need to be continually
challenged to do right—false prophets either align themselves with them or say
nothing at all (2006:331).

Some Christian leaders have betrayed the prophetic tradition because they have turned it
into a goldmine for their personal aggrandizement or a weapon for blackmail against opposing
politicians who tend not to visit them with brown envelopes. The prophetic voice of the church
should be objective and God-oriented. It is never prophetic voice when it is used as contract for
one politician against another politician. It should not be against a particular political party that is
deemed as an opposition party. The church ought to back her prayers for the state with practical
resistance to election rigging and cutting corners by greedy politicians. The church should screen
those of her members who serve as party agents during elections and hold them accountable for
fair and free elections. The church ought to name sin wherever it is. The church ought also to
continue to serve as a force for dialogue between warring political factions. Unfortunately,
because the clergy is in full control of the electorates in their church congregations, some of
them are bought by greedy politicians either as weapons against one another or serve as gate
keepers for votes to go to those who have “gathered” them and “seen” them (clergy).

It is true that it is part of every minister’s calling to be a pastor to his parishioners, to be a

spiritual leader and teacher and a comforter for the sick at heart and those afflicted in mind, soul,
spirit, or body. Ministers of the gospel must comfort the afflicted, but they also have the
prophetic duty to afflict the comfortable. It is every shepherd’s charge to stand against anything
that would harm his or her flocks, be it by direct or assaults on their well-being or by willful
neglect. Every minister’s prophetic duty as a servant of God of the Exodus is to bring good news

28
to the poor and deliverance to the oppressed, not to bow to the desires of those in power simply
because they are in power. One witnesses the chumminess of today’s religious leaders with those
in authority and wonders if these leaders realize that by catering to powers that be they
compromise their solemn prophetic responsibility and assume the role of false prophets
(Hendricks, 2006:33).

Over-institutionalization of the church and the promotion of good governance

As I discussed the tension between church as organism and church as institute in chapter
four, when the church pays more attention to formal and organizational structures more than its
prophetic vocation within the society, it will require a lot of resources to survive in the society.
As a non-profit-making institution, its over-emphasis on formal structures will definitely pull her
into an uncritical solidarity with government’s support in order to survive financially. The church
does not control any economic resources like government; she does not transact international
businesses like government; she is not one of the stakeholders in the revenue generation or
allocation sectors of the country; she is not an investment company; she only relies on some
petty internal businesses and her members’ offerings and tithes for survival and spreading the
good news of the kingdom, yet she serves as employer of labour also. Over-institutionalization of
the church opens the church to the temptation of competing with government; which is an error.
In view of this, one may not imagine the church competing with government because she has not
been called to compete with government. For instance, once the government fails to pay its
workers their entitlements, the church crumbles because offerings will dwindle and justice is
compromised. A bad government is a sign of church’s failure because when it fails to pay
salaries, the church runs the risk of losing her income as well as failing to uphold justice in the
society. This is why the church is mandated to engage government in a critical solidarity to
promote social justice in the society. The church can only ensure that government runs policies
that encourage fair distribution of resources in such a way that her members continue to get their

29
entitlements in order to support church activities. Therefore, the critical and prophetic voice of
the church also works for the good of the church apart from promoting social justice.

But when the church begins to compete with government as an institution, this will end
up destroying the church as organism because the competition itself will draw her into
compromising her prophetic vocation and spiritual integrity. For instance, when a local church
becomes too involved in establishing capital-intensive institutions like hospitals, universities,
markets, banks, and other social institutions that are terribly expensive, she will become
financially vulnerable to the extent that she will either fall flat with government for financial
assistance or set up substandard structures that will end up as death traps to her members. If
churches want to equate themselves with government in the way they run their institutions, they
will reserve their prophetic vocation which would have helped government to be just in its
policies. This is because churches would not want to guide government while competing with it.
She would rather take the path of prophetic silence in order to take over from government, which
is impossible. Therefore, the church cannot encourage good governance through organizational
competition with government but through prophetic vocation. One of the major reasons why the
church is not making much impact in the society is her competitive attitude with government,
which tends to inhibit her gut to challenge the status quo. The church and state are partners in
progress but not nurturing partners. Their partnership is only in the area of common goal of
promoting social justice; but when it turns symbiotic, then compromise becomes inevitable for
the church. Jesus did not become a king or an emperor in order to promote justice; he confronted
every oppressive system of leadership as his way of building a just society.

The life and ministry of Jesus may not completely work for our society today but it
remains the plumb-line for measuring the prophetic ministry of the church. For instance, Jesus
did not prioritize the establishment a bureaucratic institutions, weekly social gathering, or houses
of religious entertainment. He started a movement that demands that rather than spend our time
establishing ever more luxurious churches, cathedrals, secretariats, and buying of expensive cars
that end up draining the meager resources of the church, we must strive to establish God’s
kingdom of love and justice on earth as it is in heaven. The gospel he lived and died for

30
summons us to treat all people and their needs as holy. This means instituting policies that fairly,
equitably, and lovingly respond to the suffering and needs of all people (Hendricks, 2006:331).

One of the reasons why the church has lost her prophetic integrity and power in the
society is because she has tended to be too institutional to be the church of Jesus Christ. Because
she wants to be involved in establishing all the social institutions, she has not been able to
maintain her prophetic distance from the ways of the world. She has become a stakeholder in
syphoning public resources through government office holders even if they are non-believers. It
appears as if we have come to a time when the church is so desperate for financial assistance to
carry out one project or the other that she accepts such financial assistance from any source
without minding the implications on her prophetic vocation.

If Jesus competed vigorously with the Roman Empire for social status in the society, he
would not have had time to preach the good news and defend the cause of the poor. Jesus’
ministry philosophy (Isaiah 61 and Luke 4:18-19 NIV) had less on structural development or
liberation than human liberation. Structural development are constructive only when it does not
draw the church into uncritical solidarity with the powers that be. Office technicalities are
overtaking the mission of the church. The church is not necessarily a construction company but a
liberating movement. Institutionalization may serve the purpose of orderliness but not when it
takes the center-stage in the mission of the church. The church needs to constantly re-evaluate
her stance in terms of where she is going in relation to the Missio-Dei.

If the church must participate in the Missio-Dei, she must realize that at the root of the
gospel is live simply so that others may simply live, but when the church competes with
government in almost every bit of social infrastructure, then the maxim becomes those who live
in glass houses should not throw stones. This is because over-institutionalization only raises
leaders who look like government personnel, and who want to behave as such, then how will
they be prophetic to oppressive structures when they become oppressive themselves? Therefore,
institutionalization should serve the Missio-Dei and not human agenda. There should be some
disparity between church and government in order for the prophetic vocation to make sense. The
church does not necessarily owe God and the society “institutionalization” but she owes them

31
prophetic voice. Institutionalization does not go without its corresponding power and official
authority which may not be constructive to the mission of God in the world.

Over institutionalization of the church may scare people from the church when they see
what they do not expect happening in the church organization. On the one hand, over-
institutionalization of the church is beginning to open way for government to interfere in church
leadership either directly or indirectly because since the church needs support from government
to execute her many projects, church leadership will want to have the blessing of government in
order for such relationship to flow. On the other hand, government feels that it ought to
encourage religion because of its role in society. But when this encouragement becomes a means
of marginalization against the minority citizens, it ought to be discouraged for the sake of social
justice. The church may seem to be doing too much institutionally than being critical of the
status quo, which is not supposed to be either. The society may not even be in need of many
institutional structures as much as it needs social justice to build people’s lives. Government is
beginning to put a restrain to the over-institutionalization of the church through taxing mega-
church organizations in Nigeria (Reuters) because they have been discovered to be hidden pillars
of economy. If such churches refuse to pay the tax, it becomes an act of injustice since some of
these churches tend to truly operate as financial institutions with their leaders flying all over the
world in private jets (Reuters) which even government officials do always do.

Over-institutionalization of the church also inhibits constructive changes that are

supposed to pull the church forward. Institutional church bureaucracies can constitute a cog in
the wheel of progress of the church and tell negatively on the way forward for the church. This is
because some bureaucratic protocols of the institutional church can be more rigid than
government bureaucracies; thereby exerting negative pressure on the basic responsibilities of the
church. Some of the oppressive policies that are found in the government, which the church is
called to confront and challenge, are also found some church institutions; so one cannot imagine
how fire disaster on the sea can be quenched by water; or a leper curing a leper.
Institutionalization comes with dictatorship, denial of freedom of expression, defense of status
quo, discrimination, and exploitation. Therefore, the over-institutionalization of the church does
not have much to offer in promoting good governance because of her weaknesses.

32
 It is obvious that if some institutional church leaders found themselves in government
offices, they would do worse. This may not necessarily be because they are naturally weak but
because they are influenced by institutionalization. The problem is not necessarily the individual
but the institution is the problem because it promotes inclination to self-will and power; it creates
a desire for respect and all kind of bureaucratic processes that add to the corrupt nature of human
beings (Niebuhr cited in Douglas, 2006:348). This should serve as a warning to churches against
the over-institutionalization of the church because they are not called primarily to
institutionalization but to participation in the Missio-Dei. Over-institutionalization only adds to
the number of oppressive structures of the society and not challenging them with the gospel.

However, the institutional church is one of the social institutions that participate in
governance directly and indirectly. She supplements the effort of government by employing
some of the citizens to serve in her institutions. She offers qualitative services to the society
through her qualitative institutions. She serves to foster orderliness in the society through her
exemplary leadership. She also patronizes and encourages other institutions like the financial
institutions. She also provides extension services to local farmers through her rural programmes.
She serves as a charity organization that helps the needy through her social welfare activities.
But over-institutionalization is doing more harm than good, which some institutional churches
may not even be aware of. When bureaucratic structures become too rigid, they affect the flow of
the Spirit of God; but this is not to wave off the rule of law in running the institutional church.
Whatever the church does, she ought always to bear in mind that she is a spiritual factor that
calls into scrutiny every political system, making sure that they serve the common good (Wallis,
2013, 2014).

5. THE CHURCH AND HOMOSEXUALITY/ GAY

MARRIAGE/LESBIANISM

Postmodernism has emerged strongly to push the love and mercy of God too far so that
God is forced to accept anything because of his love and mercy. The Holy Scripture has also
been mutilated to justify every form of evil perpetrated by man and woman. Liberal theologians

33
have postulated that Naomi and Ruth were lesbians while David and Jonathan were Gay. Very
dangerous in this teaching is that who are we to judge one another, while forgetting our
responsibility of being keepers to one another. Many countries, including Nigeria, have passed
Bills against the ugly practice but Human Rights Activists (HRA) have been challenging this
with very strong support coming from the Western Donor-Countries. Such donor-countries have
threatened to boycott their financial support to conservative nations which pass such anti-gay
bills. All these have implications on the church because they are directly touching its
fundamental doctrines.

The Southern African Countries are the worst-hit when it comes to this inhuman practice because
they seem to be gullible and excessively dependent on such donor-agents. What can the church
do in such matters? Is it not true that the church is a place for all types of people? How can the
church handle this in relation to the parable of the wheat and the weeds? Can the church relax
some of her doctrines to accommodate such contemporary deviations from the path of truth? Can
the church afford to stay clear of politics in this context when destructive and inhuman virtues
are taking over the society? Could this be the time when the church should use her position to
refute such practices by voting only upright people who are firm and resolute on upholding the
right virtues in the society? The saddest thing is that some respected church leaders on the
African Continent are falling to such new ideologies (e.g. Arch-bishop Desmond Tutu).
Universities are making money from teaching and promoting these immoral ideologies because
the West is recolonizing us all over in a different way. The church on the African Continent has a
big responsibility of keeping her members off such destructive innovations which tend to reduce
human beings to animals.

THE CHURCH AND ELITISM/OFFICIALDOM

Elitism is any feeling and or practice of bourgeoisie by church leaders and servants. Officialdom,
on the other hand, is when church leaders push office status too far and forget that church
leadership is not an arm-chair-leadership with executive powers. It is very obvious in many
quarters that church leadership has taken over executive posture instead of its natural simplicity
and servitude. The church has copied too much from the elitist style of worldly status that it has

34
gone too far to be found by those who need her services in a simple way. What seems to be the
common practice looks like that of capitalists and proletariats in a social contraction. All these
have implications on the prophetic voice of the church because one cannot condemn the
condemnable that lie at one’s backyard. For instance, it is an up-hill-task for many church
leaders to confront questionable political leaders in the fashion of Elijah-Ahab or Nathan-David
because more takes place behind the curtain that robs the prophets their prophetic voices. Unless
the church revert back to simple lifestyle, her prophetic voice will continue to grow silent!

35