Cover StoryOpinionReligion

Enough of Elevating Prosperity Prebendalism to Gospel

6 Mins read

 

By Ugochukwu Ugwuanyi

Let’s begin by completing the caption: … It’s because “Gospel” means “The Truth” and the unravelling of prosperity preaching has proven that it is anything but the truth! Indeed, key takeaways from the viral panel discussion during Pastor Charles Osazuwa’s SWITCH Conference, themed: EMERGE, show there’s no basis to continue attaching gospel to the pastime of preachers who use the pulpit to propagate crass give-and-take materialism. Calling their preaching the prosperity gospel is a misnomer because it has been established that there’s only one gospel – the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ! This Gospel doesn’t concern itself with prosperity – at least not in the manner that it has been bastardised in Nigeria. We shall return to this later.

As it is the manner of politicians, it will interest you to know that political correctness has unfortunately crept into the Body of Christ in Nigeria. This entails speaking tongues-in-cheek and refusing to speak uncomfortable truths so as not to offend entrenched interests or the establishment. This is why it was heartwarming to hear Pastor Yemi Osinbajo defy this encumbrance, to assert that only the Gospel of Christ obtains. He brought to light what has been relegated in Christian preaching to the extent that people forget it’s one of the cardinal pillars of Jesus’s teaching while He walked the earth!

Osinbajo observed this much by saying at that panel: “If we read the New Testament carefully, the sheer number of times that Jesus spoke about giving to the poor; that giving to the poor means giving to him; even this business of building riches in Heaven means giving to the poor; the number of times Jesus spoke about it. If we are going to be honest with ourselves, how often is it preached? Is it ever preached? I’ve been in ministry myself since 1996; it is rare to find… In almost every service, there is a portion dedicated to giving to the Church before the offering. Why do they not emphasise what the New Testament says, which is giving to the poor?”

The former vice president of Nigeria stated this to counter proponents of the biblical perversion called the prosperity or transactional gospel. He is one of the very few ministers of the Gospel who has come up to say what has been an inconvenient truth to many, probably because they believe it would hurt the major source of funding for their ministries. And that’s the problem – “their ministry,” not Christ’s, because if it’s Jesus’s ministry, He will build His Church and the gate of lack can never prevail against it. But then, I digress.

It’s not as if many Christian leaders don’t know that materialistic teaching is a perversion of God’s Word. They refused to distance themselves from it either because they are beneficiaries or don’t want to be ostracised or ridiculed when the chips are down. You only need to hear the lampooning in some quarters of the senior cleric who borrowed N4bn to complete the building of his church as operating outside the covenant to understand the point being made here. Moreover, these “see no evil” pastors are unabashed wannabes of their wealthy senior colleagues who choose to hold their peace based on the principle of: “you can’t attract what you attack.”

Thankfully, there is one who has all along taken the Apologetics aspect of theology upon himself, like the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, demanding that the way of the Lord be cleared of materialism. Now that the issue has attracted more credible witnesses, let it be known that the prosperity gospel is a scam! “No matter how we slice it, there is no such thing as the prosperity gospel. There is only a gospel, the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the gospel whose words are contained in the scripture. Anything else is a perversion,” those are the words of Prof Yemi Osinbajo, who became born again when he was already a professor of law. No one can say man doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Even if we agree, without conceding, that there is such a thing as biblical prosperity, which, according to its proponents, is activated by giving, the question that begs an answer is: Giving to whom? It’s definitely not to the God of Psalm 50:10-12 who declared: “For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.”

Thankfully, this same God specified where our giving should go for it to really matter. In Matthew 19:21, the Lord Jesus categorically told the wealthy man seeking justification: “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Notice that the Master didn’t ask him to bring the proceeds to Him but to distribute them to the poor. How many of today’s pastors with such influence can selflessly recommend such?

Even in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites in Deuteronomy 15:10 to: “Give generously to them (needy) and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.” It will interest you to know that the reciprocal blessings that come with the prosperity sowing they preach are tied towards giving to the poor, not to the church or pastor. So says Proverbs 19:17 to wit, “Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed.”

From Matthew 25:40, it can be gleaned that you don’t give to God by giving to your pastor. The verse makes this clear thus: “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’ Many biblical verses like this are alien to most Christians because they are rarely preached from in churches. This is why many of them give not unto the Lord but to connect with the grace at work in the life of their man of God.

That is where the so-called prosperity gospel has taken the church in Nigeria. It is virtually the reason most pastors invest in building their charisma, try to be woke, and try to live above lack. Such packaging goes a long way in attracting those who believe they can be like these pastors by sowing into their lives. When they come close, they would be told they’ve come to a fertile ground where their giving yields bountiful harvests. Now you can understand why someone could brag about being “among the few pastors on earth with the oil (anointing) of raising billionaires.” And like someone rightfully replied to him: if he truly has such anointing, why hasn’t he made billionaires of his siblings?

Granted that huge funding is required to run church activities and programmes, ministry overseers must resist the urge to manipulate the Bible lest they fall under the judgment in Revelation 3:14-18. People of the world are increasingly mocking prosperity preachers as taking from the poor while denying them any meaningful benefit from the wealth created by their sacrifices. Men of God shouldn’t give people of the world a reason to say such a thing about them. Rather than resort to exploitation, pastors facing financial difficulties should trust the Source to provide the resource, knowing that He who gives the Vision will always back it with provision – unless they are not called of God! With the Lord’s insistence on helping the poor and needy, wealthy pastors can create dedicated funds to support floundering ministries. That would be a veritable way of helping the poor.

The raison d’être for Jesus’s coming is encapsulated in Luke 4:18 and Matthew 1:21. You won’t find it stated that He’s come to make anyone rich. If there’s such a thing as the prosperity gospel, the Bible would have been among the training manuals in business and economics academies. Christian Religious Knowledge (CRK) would also have been a key subject for admission into economics, accounting, and business management departments. If you think it’s because the subject is too esoteric to be relevant in secular disciplines, Bible Knowledge is basic to law degree programmes.

Meanwhile, in the light of the foregoing expose, Christians must seek to know God for themselves so as not to be misled by the very clergymen they look up to. They can achieve this by studying the Word of God and relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance and insight.

VIS Ugochukwu is a Sage, Narrative Architect and Branding Strategist who responds to feedback via X @sylvesugwuanyi

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com