From Missionary Stewardship to Institutional Wealth, and the Imperative of Returning to the Word
By Lanre Ogundipe
The history of Christianity in Nigeria is also a history of sacrifice, service, institution-building and, at different moments, institutional transformation. Missionaries came with the Gospel, but their work did not remain confined to preaching.
They established schools, medical facilities, publishing activities and structures through which the Christian faith could take root and grow.
Nigerians themselves supplied land, labour, materials, money and leadership. The development of the Church was therefore not simply an imported enterprise. It became a partnership, although one that was not always equal in authority or control.
That history deserves recognition, but not romanticisation. Missionary institutions operated within the political and social conditions of their time, including colonial influence and unequal relationships. Their achievements were substantial, but their structures and decisions must still be examined historically.
J. F. Ade Ajayi’s historical study of Christian missions in Nigeria, covering 1841 to 1891, provides an important account of this formative period. It documents the relationship between missionary expansion, education, the emergence of an educated Christian community and the gradual development of indigenous church leadership.
The history reminds us that the foundations of today’s religious institutions were laid through the combined efforts of foreign missionaries and local communities.
The principle of self-supporting, self-governing and self-propagating churches, associated with the missionary thinking of Henry Venn, also reflected an expectation that local Christians would increasingly assume responsibility for their institutions. That responsibility was never merely financial. It involved leadership, discipline, administration and the capacity to sustain the mission.
The biblical foundation for such responsibility is unmistakable. In Acts 6:1–6, the early Church confronted complaints that some widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. The apostles did not dismiss the complaint as an attack on their spiritual authority. They recognised the administrative problem, invited the congregation to select suitable men and established a clearer arrangement for the responsibility.
The passage is instructive. The men selected were expected to possess good reputations and be full of the Spirit and wisdom. Administration was not treated as an inferior activity to be entrusted carelessly. It was part of the integrity of the ministry.
Paul made the same concern evident in 2 Corinthians 8:20–21. In arranging the administration of financial contributions, he explained the need to avoid blame and to do what was honourable, not only before God but also before people. Spiritual sincerity did not remove the need for transparent handling of resources.
The Revival and Its Changing Environment
The charismatic and evangelical revival movements that gained prominence in Nigeria during the 1970s emerged from a different historical setting. Student fellowships, university Christian groups, Bible study meetings and interdenominational networks provided important platforms for renewed religious commitment.
Their emphasis included repentance, personal holiness, prayer, evangelism, Bible study and the work of the Holy Spirit. Matthews Ojo’s historical research identifies the student and graduate origins of these movements and explains their growth through their response to the religious and social circumstances of the period.
The emergence of Deeper Life Bible Ministry from a Lagos Bible study fellowship in 1973 belongs to this wider history. Other movements also developed, each with its own leadership, doctrinal emphasis and institutional journey.
It would, however, be historically inaccurate to suggest that every church of the period operated without financial structures or that every subsequent development represented a departure from the original spiritual emphasis. Churches collected offerings, raised building funds, supported evangelism and maintained administrative arrangements. The important distinction is not between churches that handled money and those that did not. It is between resources serving the mission and the mission becoming increasingly organised around the acquisition and management of resources.
Nigeria’s economic difficulties during the 1980s and the pressures that followed the introduction of the Structural Adjustment Programme created a difficult environment for ordinary families. Unemployment, poverty, illness and insecurity intensified the search for answers. Religious movements responded to these needs in different ways, including through prayer, healing, deliverance, prosperity teaching and organised social support.
These developments were neither uniform nor necessarily fraudulent. The promise of healing, hope and material restoration cannot by itself establish misconduct. Nevertheless, the growing prominence of prosperity-oriented preaching and the expansion of religious organisations created new questions about the relationship between spiritual authority, money and institutional power.
When Growth Became an Institution
Over time, many churches expanded beyond the local congregation. They developed national and international networks, universities, schools, hospitals, publishing operations, media platforms, residential estates and other ventures.
There is nothing inherently wrong with such development. Religious institutions can contribute meaningfully to education, healthcare, employment, social welfare and community infrastructure. Where they provide services that government and other institutions struggle to deliver, their contribution deserves recognition.
But growth brings obligations. A church that establishes a university must be prepared to meet the standards of educational governance. A hospital must observe professional and regulatory requirements. A commercial enterprise must keep proper records and distinguish its finances from those of other entities. The spiritual identity of a proprietor does not exempt an institution from the responsibilities attached to its operations.
Research by Asonzeh Ukah on the mobilisation and organisation of money in selected West African Pentecostal churches is relevant here. His study found differing approaches to financial mobilisation and organisation among the churches examined. It does not establish that every Pentecostal institution is deficient in accountability. Rather, it demonstrates why the financial practices of religious organisations should be examined individually and empirically.
The issue becomes more difficult when a church’s institutional structure exists formally but is weakened in practice by excessive concentration of authority. Some organisations have constitutions, trustees, governing councils, boards, executive committees, financial regulations and procurement procedures. Yet the existence of these arrangements does not guarantee that they exercise meaningful oversight.
What happens when a founder or General Overseer invokes a personal revelation or divine instruction as sufficient reason to bypass established procedures? What becomes of a governing council if its members are expected to endorse decisions without examining their financial implications? What is the purpose of an audit if its findings cannot influence institutional conduct?
A claim of divine guidance may properly initiate consideration of a proposal. It should not automatically terminate scrutiny of its necessity, affordability, legality, operational implications and consistency with the institution’s mission.
This is not an argument against spiritual discernment. It is an argument against confusing personal conviction with unquestionable corporate authority.
Acts 15:1–22 provides a useful biblical illustration. When a serious doctrinal dispute arose over the obligations to be placed on Gentile converts, the apostles and elders met, heard different contributions, considered the matter and reached a decision. The account does not establish a modern corporate governance code, but it demonstrates that even a matter of great spiritual consequence was subjected to collective consideration.
Similarly, 1 Corinthians 14:29 instructs that prophetic utterances should be weighed by others. The principle is important: a spiritual claim is not beyond discernment merely because it is presented as spiritual.
The Church must therefore distinguish between the authority of Scripture, the spiritual responsibility of its leaders and the legal and administrative authority established by its governing arrangements. These responsibilities should complement one another, not compete for supremacy.
The Danger of Institutional Self-Preservation
The deeper danger arises when the institution gradually becomes the centre of its own existence. Its size, branches, buildings, financial portfolio, media influence and political access begin to serve as measures of spiritual achievement.
But numerical expansion is not necessarily evidence of spiritual maturity. A large congregation may be vibrant and faithful, just as a small congregation may be deeply compromised. Wealth is not proof of corruption, any more than poverty is proof of righteousness.
The biblical warning is against the love of money, not the responsible possession of resources. First Timothy 6:9–10 warns about the dangers of the desire for riches and the love of money. First Peter 5:2–3 instructs those who shepherd God’s people to serve willingly, not for dishonest gain, and not to dominate those entrusted to their care.
Jesus’ condemnation of leaders who devoured widows’ houses in Mark 12:38–40 is particularly relevant. It exposes the abuse of religious authority for personal advantage. The warning is not an invitation to presume guilt against every wealthy minister. It is a reminder that religious authority carries a moral obligation to protect, rather than exploit, those who trust it.
The Church must also confront the temptation to measure divine approval by institutional prosperity. A growing property portfolio, a new auditorium or an expanding university network may represent hard work and effective management. None of these, on its own, establishes that the institution is faithful to the Gospel.
The question is whether the resources are being used for the purpose for which they were entrusted. Are the poor remembered? Are vulnerable members protected? Are designated contributions applied to their stated purposes? Can members ask reasonable questions about institutional finances without being treated as enemies of the faith? Are trustees, pastors, directors, accountants and other officers held accountable according to their actual responsibilities?
First Corinthians 4:2 gives the governing principle: those entrusted with responsibilities must be found faithful. Faithfulness is not measured by the ability to accumulate. It is demonstrated by the integrity with which what has been entrusted is managed.
A Return to the Word
Returning to the Word must mean more than preaching against the sins of the world. It must also mean allowing Scripture to examine the conduct of the Church itself.
It requires ministers to distinguish spiritual service from personal enrichment, trustees to discharge their legal and moral responsibilities, governing councils to exercise genuine oversight, accountants to maintain accurate records and congregations to understand that asking legitimate questions is not an act of rebellion against God.
It also requires institutions to recognise that their founding leaders, however sacrificial their contributions, do not automatically acquire unlimited personal ownership or control over every asset and decision. Legal ownership, trusteeship, institutional authority and personal benefit must be distinguished according to the relevant governing documents, title records and applicable law.
The Church must never become so impressed by what it has built that it forgets why it was established. Its buildings may endure, its institutions may expand and its influence may increase. But these achievements must remain subordinate to the purpose of the Gospel.
The institution exists to serve the mission. The mission does not exist to preserve the institution at all costs.
The Gospel must never become the servant of the institution. The institution must remain the servant of the Gospel.
For those entrusted with the things of God must remember that they are stewards, not owners.
Possession is not the problem. Stewardship is the question.
Ogundipe, Public Affairs Analyst, former President Nigeria and Africa Union of Journalists and itinerant Bible teacher, writes from Abuja
