When applause replaces discernment

There is something about the recent exchanges among some prominent Ghanaian religious leaders that deserves more attention than it is receiving. The focus has largely been on what one pastor said about other prophets, who has responded, who has taken offence and who has insulted whom. But I believe we are overlooking an equally important part of the story: the people sitting in the congregations, listening, clapping, cheering and sometimes appearing visibly delighted as their pastors attack fellow ministers from the pulpit. My question is simple: Who are those clapping? What exactly are they celebrating? Is it the defence of Christianity? Is it the correction of wrongdoing within the prophetic ministry? Or is it simply the pleasure of watching their pastor insult another man of God? The distinction matters. The Otabil controversy and the bigger question Pastor Mensa Otabil, Founder and General Overseer of the International Central Gospel Church (ICGC), recently made strong remarks about people who identify themselves as prophets in Ghana. He questioned the spiritual authenticity and lifestyles of many of them, alleging that some engage in sexual misconduct, make false claims and practise activities he described as occultism, spiritism and necromancy. He also challenged those who consider themselves genuine prophets to speak against individuals whose conduct, in his view, damages the credibility of the prophetic ministry. Importantly, he clarified that he believes in the prophetic gift; his concern was about practices being presented as biblical prophecy when he considers them inconsistent with Christian teaching. I do not claim to possess the spiritual authority, powers or right to pronounce on who is a genuine prophet and who is not. That judgement is not mine to make. Neither am I in a position to verify the percentage of prophets Otabil was referring to. His reported observations should not automatically be treated as established statistical facts. However, I agree with the central concern he has raised: there is a serious need for the Christian community to confront questionable conduct among people who occupy the pulpit and claim spiritual authority. It is not enough to profess Christianity, carry the title of pastor or prophet, command a large congregation and enjoy public recognition. The conduct of those who claim to represent God must be open to scrutiny. What has followed his remarks, however, is revealing. Some religious leaders have responded with sharp personal attacks, insults and statements challenging his own spiritual credentials. Among the reported reactions, Reverend Isaac Owusu Bempah criticised Otabil and made personal allegations, while Prophet Nigel Gaisie expressed disagreement and called for engagement and mentorship among ministers. People may disagree with Otabil. They are entitled to challenge his arguments, question his generalisations and defend the prophetic ministry. That is not the problem. The problem is the manner in which disagreement is sometimes expressed, particularly when personal insults replace reasoned engagement. But even more troubling is the reaction of some congregations. Why are members clapping? Imagine a preacher standing behind the pulpit, supposedly representing Christian values, using the opportunity to insult another pastor. He makes personal remarks, questions another person’s calling, attacks their character and uses language that would ordinarily be considered unacceptable in a civil conversation. The congregation responds with applause, laughter, shouting and cheering. What exactly is happening? Are the members listening to a sermon or watching a confrontation? Have they come to church to receive spiritual instruction or to participate in a public contest between religious personalities? And if the same preacher were to direct those insults at an ordinary member of the congregation, would the reaction be the same? This is the question I want members of such churches to confront honestly. When your pastor insults another man of God and you clap, what are you endorsing? Are you endorsing the substance of his argument, or are you celebrating his ability to humiliate someone else? When your pastor makes personal attacks rather than addressing the issues raised, do you consider that spiritual leadership? When he threatens to expose another minister or makes allegations that have not been substantiated, why does that generate excitement rather than caution? A church congregation should not become an audience that rewards every performance from the pulpit, regardless of its content. The pulpit carries responsibility. It should be a place for teaching, correction, reflection, spiritual guidance and the promotion of values. It should not become a platform for settling personal scores, displaying arrogance or entertaining members with insults directed at other religious leaders. Your pastor is not above scrutiny One of the worrying developments in some religious communities is the extent to which followers appear to have surrendered their independent judgement to the personalities leading their churches. A pastor says something, and members accept it. A prophet makes a declaration, and members celebrate it. A preacher attacks another minister, and the congregation cheers. Someone raises a legitimate question, and that person is immediately labelled an enemy of the church or an agent of spiritual opposition. At what point did religious loyalty become unquestioning personal loyalty to a preacher? A pastor is a human being entrusted with spiritual responsibilities. That position deserves respect, but it does not confer immunity from accountability. The title of Reverend, Apostle, Bishop or Prophet does not place anyone beyond criticism. Members must understand that defending Christianity does not mean defending every person who claims to represent it. Similarly, questioning a preacher’s conduct does not amount to questioning God. There is a dangerous confusion between faith in God and loyalty to a particular religious personality. When the two become indistinguishable, followers may begin to defend behaviour they would ordinarily condemn in any other setting. A person who insults, humiliates, intimidates or makes unsubstantiated allegations about others does not automatically become justified because the behaviour takes place inside a church. The congregation must be able to recognise that distinction. When applause becomes permission Applause may seem harmless. People clap for different reasons: excitement, agreement, encouragement or simply because everyone else is clapping. I am not suggesting that every person who applauds a preacher necessarily endorses everything that person says. But applause has consequences when it repeatedly rewards questionable conduct. When a preacher insults another minister or even members of the congregation and receives enthusiastic applause, the congregation may be reinforcing the idea that such behaviour is acceptable. When members cheer personal attacks, they help create an environment in which aggression becomes a form of religious entertainment. When they defend every statement made by their pastor, regardless of evidence or principle, they weaken the very accountability that religious institutions need. This is not merely a problem of individual behaviour. It is an institutional problem. Churches are institutions. They have leadership structures, responsibilities, resources, members and governing arrangements. They should therefore be guided by principles of accountability, transparency, fairness and responsible leadership. A congregation that never questions its leadership is not necessarily a congregation demonstrating strong faith. It may simply be one in which accountability has become difficult. The same members who applaud their pastor when he insults another may one day find themselves on the receiving end of similar treatment. What happens then? Will they still applaud? Will they still defend the behaviour? Or will they suddenly recognise that spiritual authority does not justify disrespect? Why do followers defend questionable conduct? We must also examine why some members become so invested in defending their pastors, even when the conduct in question deserves scrutiny. For some, the preacher has become the centre of their religious identity. Their loyalty is no longer simply to the church or its teachings but to the personality of the person leading it. Criticism of the preacher is therefore experienced as a personal attack. For others, there is the fear of being spiritually punished or rejected. They may have been taught, directly or indirectly, that questioning the pastor amounts to questioning God. Such an environment makes it difficult for members to raise concerns, even when they have legitimate reasons. There is also the issue of social and financial investment. People give their time, money and emotional commitment to their churches. They develop friendships, build relationships and sometimes organise their entire lives around the ministry. Admitting that a leader may have acted wrongly can be difficult because it raises uncomfortable questions about their own loyalty and judgement. But none of these reasons should justify abandoning personal responsibility. A believer should be able to respect a pastor while disagreeing with him. A member should be able to appreciate a ministry while questioning its practices. And a congregation should be able to defend the integrity of its church without automatically defending every action of its leader. The responsibility of the church member The Christian community must begin to take the responsibility of its members more seriously. Members should not measure the credibility of a preacher solely by the size of the congregation, the dramatic nature of the prophecies, the number of miracles claimed, the expensive lifestyle or the ability to command applause. They should pay attention to character, conduct, humility, truthfulness and accountability. They should ask whether the preacher’s teachings are consistent with the values he professes. They should be concerned about financial transparency and the treatment of members. They should question the use of fear, threats and extraordinary promises to influence people’s decisions. They should also distinguish between disagreement and misconduct. A minister has every right to defend his calling and challenge another person’s statements. But disagreement does not require insults, intimidation or unsubstantiated allegations. There is nothing unchristian about asking a question. There is nothing rebellious about demanding accountability. And there is nothing wrong with refusing to applaud conduct that contradicts the values one claims to believe in. Indeed, sometimes the most responsible thing a church member can do is remain silent when everyone else is clapping. The church must not reward what it should correct I do not expect all religious leaders to agree with Pastor Otabil. I do not expect every pastor or prophet to accept his assessment. The prophetic ministry, like other areas of Christian service, can be discussed, defended and critically examined. But if the debate is genuinely about protecting the integrity of Christianity, then the response should reflect the very values the church teaches. Let those who disagree make their arguments. Let them explain their understanding of prophecy, defend their ministry and challenge generalisations they consider unfair. But let the debate be conducted with dignity, evidence and respect. More importantly, let church members stop confusing the defence of a pastor with the defence of Christianity. A congregation should not be proud merely because its pastor can insult another preacher and command applause. It should be concerned about whether that pastor demonstrates the character, discipline and responsibility expected of someone entrusted with spiritual leadership. The question is not whether your pastor can speak forcefully. It is whether he can speak responsibly. So, who are those clapping? I return to my question. Who are those clapping when their pastor insults another man of God? Who are those cheering when personal attacks replace meaningful arguments? Who are those celebrating threats, humiliation and allegations that have not been established? Who are those who appear more interested in seeing another preacher disgraced than in hearing a message that strengthens their faith? What exactly are they teaching their children and younger members about respect, humility, truth and Christian conduct? Perhaps it is time for church members to understand that they are not merely spectators in the religious activities of their congregations. Their reactions help shape the culture of their churches. Their financial contributions sustain ministries. Their loyalty gives leaders influence. And their willingness to question or excuse misconduct can determine whether accountability is possible. A preacher who behaves irresponsibly must answer for his conduct. But congregations must also examine what they reward, what they tolerate and what they defend. I do not have the authority to determine who is a true prophet or a false prophet. But I believe every Christian has a responsibility to distinguish between spiritual leadership and personal misconduct. The next time your pastor stands behind the pulpit to insult another person, do not be in a hurry to clap. Ask yourself what you are celebrating. Because sometimes the problem is not only the person holding the microphone. It is also the congregation that keeps applauding. Dr. Michael Kubi Scholar-practitioner, author, governance consultant and lecturer, University of Professional Studies, Accra (UPSA). mocorn2013@gmail.com