Cover StoryOpinionPerspectiveReligion

Orthodox Denominations Will Do Better with Doctrine than Dogma

4 Mins read

 

By Ugochukwu Ugwuanyi 

Nostalgia drove yours sincerely to St Andrew’s Church, Ogudu, Lagos, on Wednesday evening for a feel of the good old Passion Week. During the service, I was pleasantly surprised to hear the preacher chide those who cling to religion as a means to salvation. Here I was thinking that religiosity is the currency by which the denomination operates. This man of the cloth must be cut from a different cloth, I muttered to myself.

While preaching on “betrayal and being on the Lord’s side”, the reverend canon warned against recourse to religion, pointing out that those who worship idols are equally religious. Therefore, according to him, Christians who relate with God based on religion aren’t different from the animists. He warned the congregation against being like Judas Iscariot, who, though religious, disbelieved in Jesus and quickly traded the Master for 30 pieces of silver. This and more were unpacked within 15 minutes.

Before going any further, let’s properly situate the caption: I’m essentially saying that the conservative Christian community will do more in expanding God’s kingdom on earth by devoting themselves to doctrine than dogma. Doctrine is the revelation of the Lord Jesus through the Word of God, while dogma refers to vain religious rites, rituals and traditions based on man’s beliefs and philosophy.

Paul, the Apostle, succinctly differentiated the two when he wrote in Colossians 2:8: “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.” (NLT). While dogma illustrates religion, doctrine illuminates the Word of God in man’s heart.

As I was saying, it was heartwarming to hear an avant-garde priest preach the unusual in an Anglican Order, which is deemed to be highly religious. But what can one say? As their liturgy reads: the Spirit moves us in sundry places. It pleased the Holy Ghost to teach the congregation in that instant that God is seeking those who would worship and relate with Him in spirit and truth, not guided by irritating religion.

The spiritual nourishment I came away with from that service sans Holy Communion sharply contrasts with the disappointment of the lady who recently returned from a Mass and went online to express how the homily left her hollow. Here’s partly how she explained her feeling “cheated” (to borrow from NKJV rendition of the above scripture): “Coming back from church, and I feel like my spirit was not fed today. Honestly, the gospel in the Catholic Church doesn’t cut it for me. Catholic priests should go for pastoral teachings to learn how to dissect the Bible in order to satisfy their parishioners spiritually.”

The Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church are believed to be on the same pedestal in terms of high orthodoxy. One of the respondents to the young woman’s POV, @OlusolaAR, noted this much by tweeting: “She is saying the truth and it’s not just Catholic even Anglican, most of the priests there are not biblically sound and don’t know how to pass their message. It’s more of ceremonial events than spiritual these days.” An interesting retort came from @Danielbeloved28, who argued that, “Saying that Catholic priests should go for pastoral school is the funniest joke of the century. So the 10 years they spend in seminary school learning the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin etc. is not enough pastoral school? I think there’s something inhibiting most Catholic priests from crossing their limits perhaps.”

The inhibition is caused by dogma. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the years of training priests undergo in the seminary pale into insignificance before a Spirit-led pastor. This conclusion is because the Holy Ghost has been proven to be the best teacher (John 14:26, Luke 12:12). Actually, prolonged training only yields philosophies that propel the dogma we are discussing. By the way, what’s the essence of studying the Bible in different ancient languages if that knowledge cannot be applied to rightly dividing the Word of Truth for the spiritual nourishment of parishioners?

Given the similarities between both denominations, if an assisting priest in St Andrew’s Archdeaconry could have the latitude to correct how most of the laity serve God (he even cited those who don’t eat meat during the Holy Week as a way of identifying with Jesus’s passion), reverend fathers should as well go off the cuff and be enlivening in their homilies through the Holy Ghost. Thankfully, the popular @FrEvaristus Bassey didn’t consider the lady’s truth as a rebellion but provided incisive insight and context to the matter. He stated by saying, “One thing we learned in school is that we cannot argue with religious experience because it is subjective. So this lady may be speaking her truth. There may or may not be others in the parish who feel the same way.”

The cleric went on to say, “In the Catholic Church, worship is divided principally into two segments: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist (Holy Communion). Most Catholics have grown up being satisfied with the nourishment that comes from the brief sermons and the Holy Communion they receive each time they go to church. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Catholic faith…” There goes dogma being placed over doctrine. The standard flies in the face of Jesus’s preoccupation while he walked the earth. Not even the time He spent working miracles (bread for the children) compares to how engrossed he was with teaching the crowd about the Kingdom of God whenever the opportunity presented itself.

Pray, how do we reconcile the Eucharist being the summit of the Catholic faith with the Master’s assertion that “man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God”? Despite the Lord demanding that we “do this in remembrance of me,” religious ritual can’t override the crux of John 6:63, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Well, it’s relieving to hear that lengthy preaching still features in the Catholic Church during retreats and other programmes.

Father Bassey did the Lord’s work by charging his colleagues to “prepare prayerfully for the sermon, no matter how brief it is. He (the priest) should speak to the soul and spirit of the person, and this can only be done with the unction that comes from the Holy Spirit.” That’s how doctrine can prevail over dogma in the conservative Church so that parishioners won’t feel empathy after coming before the Lord. This calls to mind Apostle Paul’s admonition in 1 Timothy 5:17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.”

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