For Christ’s Sake, Religion’s Opioid Reins Shouldn’t Restrain Rebuttals -By Ugochukwu Ugwuanyi

Deafening silence! That’s what religious organisations get away with amid public scrutiny – something corporates can’t afford to do. One wonders if the brazen equanimity has gone on without repercussions because, as philosopher Karl Max observed centuries ago, religion is the opium of the masses. The silence is alarming in that where major allegations require a rejoinder, mum has been the word. In the last couple of days, at least two such incidents took over timelines without an official counter.

An internet personality, while being featured on the Outside the Box podcast, went down memory lane about how the vicar of an Orthodox parish in the Chevron area of Lagos purportedly tried to take advantage of her vagrancy following an eviction by her uncle. The lady accused the resident reverend father at the time of demanding sex in exchange for shelter – a demand that made her rather spend the night on the streets, securing protection by using her last ₦1,000 to buy weed for area boys. She cited the experience as the reason she stopped worshipping in church.

Moving on to the next, “We’re hired actors” is what a TikToker @vaemonie reportedly posted about herself and other participants of the healing institute run by a seasoned televangelist. She alleged that the man of God staged her healing from sickle cell anemia, stressing that how the school operates makes it difficult to challenge its sophistry. The lady further disclosed that a cousin of one of her spiritual circle leaders passed away from cancer despite deeply believing assurances from the healing school that she was a survivor. And boom! The front cover of a 2004 newspaper issue was exhumed and used to buttress the allegation.

On a lighter note, however, there was the fabulous testimony shared in a charismatic ministry, which goes something like this: “A man in prison in Spain… while pastor was ministering in Nigeria, the prison alarm suddenly began to sound by itself and a voice came through the speakers saying, ‘Release Tobias, release Tobias!’ The officials asked, ‘Who is Tobias?’ He stepped out and they released him.” Netizens found this profoundly preposterous and had a field day deriding the Church and its pastor. Given that Spain is a serious country where system malfunctions are technically sorted out, not the opening of prison gates, the ministry should have formally put the testimony in context.

Without prejudice to the veracity of these claims, shrugging off even a scintilla of character assassination can be inimical on all fours. One could see how an unchallenged assertion from decades back found relevance in reinforcing a claim. Yet, churches don’t seem to care when they are being dragged into the mud. No one is asking them to be violent, aggressive, or prosecutorial, but their own side of the story should be told, and promptly too. There is a reason why the Right of Reply exists and is respected in journalism. It can only be imagined how conversations around the healing school’s condemnation will weaken the faith of prospective participants of subsequent sessions.

Churches can’t claim to be as placid as Isaiah 53:7 said of the Lord Jesus: “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.” Denominational overseers know that the Master didn’t join issues with his traducers because they were actually playing into the hands of His earthly ministry. Their hate and persecution were His purpose, but in the extant instance, the charge is at variance with the church’s essence.

We won’t tabernacle on the substance of the allegations because we don’t have the facts – only the Omniscient and characters involved know who’s to be believed. To be clear, this intervention isn’t driven by bias or the facticity of the claims since the essayist is no arbiter on these matters. I’m only a branding specialist who can spot what erodes brand equity and understands the steep price the Body of Christ has to pay for a popular denomination’s negative perception. It can be a case of one oil-stained finger soiling the whole!

Can you imagine a corporate organisation keeping quiet when its modus operandi or avowed values come under question? If brands and businesses can give an arm and a leg to protect their credibility, religious organisations cannot afford to take theirs for granted. The Lord Jesus cared about His perception in the eyes of the public. This must have prompted the “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” conversation in Matthew 16:13-15. We could see that He wasn’t just complacent with His internal team’s perception of Him, but kinda cared more about His reputation among external audiences. That was His initial question.

Given how esoteric and contradictory the subject matter of faith can be, churches mustn’t compound the confusion of the uninitiated by failing to provide clarity where some explanation is needed. It’s ever so necessary to avert notorious facts from being how the world understands a “nebulous” Christianity. This is the kind of situation that prompted my propounding of the TAC Trifecta in a theoretical treatise – that’s Transparency, Authenticity, and Credibility working together! The Church cannot afford to discountenance any of those values. If the medium is the message, then how the evangelist is perceived goes a long way in determining the acceptance or rejection of the Gospel he brings. In other words, the reputation of the Church is consequential on soul-winning missions.

As it were, the import of the TAC Trifecta is lost on Churches because they rely more on volunteers than engaging professionals to manage their communications and goodwill. Let it be known that it is not in every scenario that silence is golden! Banking on the short news cycle of a malicious rumour isn’t a straitjacket, one-size-fits-all solution to every reputation crisis. Credibility isn’t decimated by one misstep or mischaracterisation but through a combination until the last straw. Who knows if the carmel’s back is now on the verge of being broken?

Churches and their leaders shouldn’t feel too big to challenge damaging tags that are driving feisty conversations online. Paul the Apostle recommends in Philippians 4:5, “Let everyone see that you are considerate in all you do.” (NLT). Feigning ignorance or indifference makes a single story (apologies, Chimamanda Adichie) gather momentum, credibility, and destructive tendencies. This is particularly so as the court of public opinion is wont to eat what it loves and keep the bones.

Not dignifying rumours or allegations from a “nobody” reeks of arrogance and can be destructive. It is like a person standing arms akimbo while being doused with petrol. The day someone eventually strikes a match, combustion will be inevitable. It’s not as much about the authority of the accuser as it is about the credibility of the highly esteemed target. In the conventional judicial system, he who alleges must prove, but inside the porch of public perception, silence is presumed an affirmation. When an allegation strikes at a ministry’s integrity, the burden shifts. The onus is on the accused to find the right channel and set the record straight without overthinking it. A relevant response through the proper platform cannot be an act of condescension. A prompt rebuttal is required, if not for that ministry’s sake, then for the integrity of the Body.

Churches with dioceses and subdivisions should have a decentralised communications architecture staffed by trained professionals – more like the Nigeria police, which have an FPRO and PPROs. With the Mark 16:15 mandate to “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation,” Christians can’t afford to have the same world they are meant to evangelise see us in a bad light, especially when it’s through the lens of others who may have an unholy agenda.

Even if they don’t officially respond to vilification in order not to give them wings, pastors can reference or allude to them in their sermons and homilies, thereby clearing the air. The preacher can count on sundry content creators and curators ever milking Zeitgeist for traffic and engagement to lap up and run with the feed. While this strategy may seem like detracting and distracting from the ministration of the Word, it’s better than glossing over a controversy, which smacks of contempt for the laity.

To be taken seriously, people expect the Church to be as clean as a whistle and priests above reproach, like Caesar’s wife. If corporate entities can keep up with that appearance, it shouldn’t be too much to expect from the light of the world and salt of the earth.

Nonetheless, churches and pastors must be on guard against scandals. And where their best efforts couldn’t avert it, they shouldn’t carry on as if public sentiment doesn’t matter. Controversies go beyond them into affecting devotees who would be taken to task by kin, colleagues and acquaintances. If care is not taken, their faith can fail upon introspection. Religion may have an opioid effect on congregants, but opium does wear off, creating lucid intervals for the sedated to ask critical questions.

VIS Ugochukwu is a sage, storyteller and branding specialist who welcomes feedback via nmiringwu@gmail.com