Lagos megachurches building their own cities
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Can I get more details on the "snake oil" and other shenanigans? The article mostly describes a civic phenomenon without really describing the organization's views or behavior, neither inside nor outside the context of Nigeria. Some background on the theology of the group also interests me.
Now what do you think happens after this sort of conditioning, well those who are not wealthy want to become wealthy by force and those who have want to donate more than their peers to be praised and exalted in front of their same peers, the sad part of it all is they always end up praising corrupt politicians, fraudsters and people with suspicious source of wealth. I pretty much stopped caring about it all after getting tired of always having to put on my best clothes to church every Sunday so as not to be looked down upon by others or hearing how i didn't give enough to god and should do better every service. It all just stopped being important plus i discovered other things to focus my time on and also became an atheist, but sadly members of my family still believe in those stuffs though.
It's worth noting that Western Christianity largely opposes that sort of teaching. To the point of throwing the word "heresy" around, which might not sound like much to outsiders, but mainstream Western Christians prefer to be theologically circumspect to a fault.
Prosperity theology attempts to fit that approach into the words of the Bible. It generally relies on out of context quotes, fallacious logic, and errors of omission (John the Baptist ate bugs, Jesus couch surfed, the apostles did chores to earn their keep) to make its case. The New Testament is clearly on the record against showy religious displays, ritual-based theology, and status symbols.
That's ripping a small quote completely out of its context, and neglecting to point out that because it's not completely solveable doesn't mean that we shouldn't try... and to try is an emphasis of much of the gospels.
Here's the context: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26%3A6-...
Reading the 3 parallel stories and noting that Judas was the instigator of the complaint according to John, suggests rather strongly that JC was pointing out the hypocrisy of a man whinging about perfume spilled when "He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it." Sounds just like these prosperity gospel megachurches, actually.
Having read the bible, the amount of burnt offerings and sin offerings and the meticulous cataloging of offenses requiring such offerings struck me as very central to the old testament and the Levitical law that goes with it.
It is indeed fascinating to contrast the ritualism of the Old Testament to the anti-ritualism of the New.
Your point about heresy lacks punch. Relative to Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, every major Christian religion promotes, directly or indirectly, heresy. For example, transubstantiation is either a rejected or optional doctrine in every major Protestant Christian denomination; a doctrinal viewpoint which is per se heretical. It's all downhill from there.
I _think_ some Anglican and even Catholic parishes in Nigeria have adopted prosperity gospel (or at least prosperity gospel light), simply because it's the only way to keep parishioners from defecting. Not all forms of prosperity gospel are necessarily heretical anyhow. Technically speaking, even orthodox Christianity accepts a huge range of beliefs. In my Catholic parish in the Deep South (of the U.S.), a heavily Pentecostal area, there was a prayer group who spoke in tongues. The parish priest thought it was nuts, but it wasn't heresy and he had no choice but to provide at least nominal support for the group's activities.
[1] I define Christianity as Trinitarian Christianity, as it's the easiest characteristic to apply. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses might balk at that, but I can't think of any better, more cogent dividing line. A broader category makes it too difficult to compare & contrast doctrine. A more narrow category makes it too easy to dismiss criticisms of Christian communities by arguing that they're not _true_ Christians, which I think is disingenuous.
It seems like there's a significant racial trend in that survey. Though it's still a small minority of black respondents that give answers in line with prosperity gospel.
Though that may itself may be misleading since prosperity preachers will say things like "wealth is not a sign of God's favor" while teaching tricks (prayers, phrases, "seed offerings") for getting God to favor you with money, good relationships, and health.
“Nigeria’s Millionaire Preachers” with Seyi Rhodes
It doesn't talk about this particular group & only briefly touches on the wider phenomenon - there's one scene where they're denied access to a church because not only is it private property, but all the streets and community around it are owned by the church too.
The documentary focuses mainly on one preacher, Sign Fireman, who drives multiple yellow Hummers and records pop albums. The snake oil is his promise of performing miracles live on stage (including raising people back to life) in return for people donating 10% of their income to him.
Not sure how to feel about it. Joseph Smith for example was a complete charlatan and liar, but some of the most honest and hardworking people in tech and elsewere you will ever meet are Mormons. There's a lot of people on HN who have wrong beliefs about tech but are incredibly productive in spite of (or because of it), so it's hard to judge people too much if it works for them.
The fix for this is supposedly a certain dose of collectivist thinking, even just recognition of notions like "ubuntu".
Others don't go quite that far, but they let their opinion on the philosophy be known pretty clearly. (Take this answer from Billy Graham, who represents sort of the "old school" of American televangelism in many ways: https://billygraham.org/answer/does-god-really-want-everyone...)
Going to file that one away next time I hear someone advocating a prosperity gospel.
People need to study the good stuff religion does, improve it and stand up to the dogma and snake oil where it arises. It doesn't matter which religion you pick. They all exist because human suffering exists. And tech and science has ways to go in addressing human suffering.
I am not Christian nor have I have I read the bible or anything but there was this series of interviews with Joseph Ratzinger (former pope) by Peter Seewald that communicates this idea much better than I ever could.
They seem to be doing a fair job of civilization cut them some slack?
Are you serious? The only alternative to mega Churches is "kleptocratic dictatorship of any other failing state". There are many countries who have done much better without the mega Churches leading their progress (India, China, Japan, X, Y, Z).
I can't help but wonder if this kind of religious city is the "most workable" form of political organization in the absence of a modern functioning nation-state.
Are the any anthropologists here who can shed light on this?
Turning to the really bizarre, we have "The Transhumanist Wager", a supposedly best-selling recent rehash of "Atlas Shrugged" (complete with "A is A") featuring as the main villain a religious movement which builds churches with attached housing where the faithful can live at low or no cost. Not recommended, unless you are meta enough to enjoy atrociously bad writing for the giggles.
Those all sound like laudable charities. What about that is "outsized"?
I'm not opposed to religious charity per se, but when it goes to church-run organizations, there tends to be a bit of missionaryizing on the side.
I was under the impression that Muslim organizations do provide these services at a similar scale.
I was talking more in the context of the European countries named, where the usual expectation is that no charity should be required to provide these services.
People ask "what is wrong with the Church running social institutions", and the answer is the lack of proper accountability. In the worst case you end up with a mass grave of babies.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/03/mass-grave-of-...
Had an abortion? Came out as gay? Got a divorce? If you work for a "Catholic" hospital that can easily result in the termination of your employment even if your salary comes 100% from the state and this discrimination would be illegal if the hospital were secular.
It's a widespread misconception (even within Germany) that Germany is a secular nation or has a separation of church and state. That no single religious group is formally given exclusive privileges or that we're not under the direct rule of any religious leader doesn't change that fact.
Fortunately, the law was changed in 2015; church-run schools can no longer discriminate on 'ethos' in employment. Incidentally, this wasn't just the Catholic Church; any religious organisation who ran a school got to discriminate until then.
The complaint in the linked article is about burial practices. That's a psychological, cultural, or theological complaint, right?
Also, even if the burial practices were unconscionable, why write off all religious institutions with those kinds of anecdotes and ignore the mountains of atrocities committed by state-run institutions?
What happened was that young unmarried women in Ireland were forcibly institutionalised, separated from their children, told the children would be put up for adoption, and not told when the children died due to the neglect of the institution.
Where the children survived, the church tended to hinder contact between adoptees and birth mothers even when it was wanted by both sides.
And this is inseperable from the religious context of punishing the "sinning" women. A problem which is still ongoing in the fight for abortion access in Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Ultimately it comes down to forcing teenage girls to carry pregnancies to term (resulting in a range of potential complications including death) versus the availability of abortion.
Also the incredible cynicism of having a ""pro life"" organization that only cares about unborn lives.
"Savita, pregnant at 17 weeks with her first baby, went to the hospital with her husband Praveen on 21 October 2012 complaining about back pain. Her water broke early on the morning of 22 October and Savita asked if anything could be done to save the baby. She was told that the miscarriage was inevitable. On 23 October, having understood the baby would not survive, she asked for a termination, and was told it was not legally possible in Ireland while there is a foetal heartbeat. Midwife manager Ann Maria Burke attempted to calm an upset Savita and explained that the termination cannot be carried out because Ireland is "a Catholic country", a statement she later said was not meant in a hurtful way and a statement that she was sorry for making if it sounded bad afterward. In preparation for a termination on 24 October, Savita delivered a stillborn girl. At 1:09am, on Sunday 28 October, Savita died.[3][4][5][6][7][8]"
How is it relevant? It was in a university hospital in a country with a secular government that legally allows terminating pregnancies to save the life of the mother. There wasn't a Church-run social institution unless I missed something.
When I think of religion having a toxic effect on a state I think Saudi Arabia, not Spain.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoist_Spain#Catholicism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Spain
Unlike the impression you get from the article, necessity is the master planner behind the redeemed camp.
Imagine schools needed a routine get together in a single location. Small charter schools will be served by small headquarters.
Virtually every church has yearly get togethers - conventions.
However, the redeemed church has the largest number of branches in the country. Hence...
Their current location was bought decades ago for dirt cheap because of its remote location and a den of robbers and kidnappers (I'm self-censoring here).
It looks like the buildings sprang up effortlessly but the author of the article has no idea the place was once filled with thousands of canopies.
The article's a fluff piece.
Replace the article with a story about the size of Amazon, Facebook or Google without the historical context and you'll get a similar article.
"The Redeemed Christian Church of God’s international headquarters in Ogun state has been transformed from a mere megachurch to an entire neighbourhood"
It says as much right there in the article.
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/...
> Penn established a government with two innovations that were much copied in the New World: the county commission and freedom of religious conviction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania#History
There have been a couple religious-based communities in PA, notably the Quakers, but PA was not founded as a religious state.
Most of the missions were accompanied by settlers and military protection and/or "presidios" nearby. They were strategic initiatives by the state, which was intertwined with the Roman Catholic church at the time.
"Outside the Holy Ghost convention, Redemption Camp has the peaceful surroundings and conveniences of a retirement village – in large part because the power plant, fed by its own gas pipeline from Lagos, removes the need for the constant thrum of diesel generators."
Come on, theguardian, get the capital city right. lazy journalist!!!
That being said in this case I don't think the people build underneath the big roof, it's "just" a big hall for the ceremonies. I assume the city is built around it.
Ooooooh boy, this is gonna be a fun read isn't it.
Am I the only one who thinks it's fucking tragic that in so many parts of the world, the safest place to live is under the thumb of some religious leader who seems to be deliberately blurring the line between religion and cult, or under some insane warlord who only keeps you safe because you and everyone else are fucking terrified of them?
I have no beef with religion in general, other than the fact that many religious leaders seem to have picked that job because they weren't qualified to do a single other thing, but hey, to each their own.
So the use of "daddy" in itself is just cultural and nothing specifically to do with the church.
Adeboye was a lecturer. Oyedepo was an architect.
Check out a picture or video of the Faith Terbanacle building. A 50,000 capacity with no visible support pillar. Guess who designed it.
Americans might find this a bit different because of the notion of "Private Religion": that your Faith in God should only be limited to one day out of the week. There are plenty of places in the USA where people go to for camp that are ran by the Church.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride and religion would be severely rationed locally and definitely banned from import in places like Nigeria (and everywhere else, ideally; the post cited has parallels in several places including N. America). People should be free to be choose their spiritual paths (or not at all) but there's such a thing as too much religion.
That describes somewhere between 50% and 95% of all muslim countries, depending on your threshold for calling something religious (and likely to be on the higher end of that scale), including muslim schools in Europe I might add. Add to that at least half of India (and I mean greater India, up to and maybe including PNG), and a decent chunk of Africa.
I just mean to say, even looking at our own history, religious institutions are the early stages of states, not the other way around. The Church had a working bureaucracy (and educational system) more than a millennium before European states even realized they wanted one.
Plus, I must say it depends on the religion. I do not feel especially worried in this case.
Europe developed because the land owners themselves had a vested interest in the towns they were building. They actually owned the towns. What is happening there is that it is profitable for the church leaders to build the towns and develop it themselves for themselves, as has been the case in Europe where towns guilds and traders had incentives to develop the towns themselves.
There is a question which perhaps you should ask yourself. How did the Church in Europe get to own so much land between the decline of Rome and the middle ages? God most certainly didn't hand it to them for free. The Bishops where just as corrupt and venal as any Nigerian megachurch leader, even more so, and they also hard armies and allied with the nobility to acquire even more from the hapless natives, in the case when they didn't swindle the natives out of the land.