Nigerian here, and yes this is truly happening in my country not just in Lagos state but all around with Ogun state pretty much taking the lead for the position of most mega churches in Nigeria.
It is very nauseating that with all the poverty in my country snake oil prophets; (which is what they majorly are) would rather build mega churches/houses; (as their houses are mostly built with the churches) and schools with outrageous tuition fees from the proceeds of offering and tithes from those same gullible congregants who can't then afford to attend such schools or build such mega churches/houses for themselves.
In the Bible Belt it's hard not to run across snake oil salesman, but an article for a faith and development class stressed how important them and prosperity gospel might actually be for the global south. If you come from nothing and have nothing and it's a massive generational climb to win any kind of power, a fervent if even delusional belief that against all odds god is going to grant you health and riches can actually be an incredible motivator. It leads to effective projects that actually empower the community like the above.
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.
From outside the US, the glaring problem with "prosperity gospel" thinking seems to be that the unfortunate (the "losers") are blamed for their misfortune. It seems like a case of selfish individualism being supported by religious doctrine.
The fix for this is supposedly a certain dose of collectivist thinking, even just recognition of notions like "ubuntu".
Oddly enough, I personally think "prosperity gospel" is almost the antithesis of Christian doctrine as given by the scriptures. I know some Christian articles even go so far to describe it as "heretical".
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...)
This is pretty much it they have developed a way to take credit for whatever good thing that happens to any member of their congregation while effectively blaming those with misfortune as the creators of their misfortune as they either did not pray enough or give their tithes to god.
I find it amusing how much these churches have adopted the very practices that Martin Luther rebelled against. Yet they have no problem casting aspersions upon the Roman church.
You are right about religion being a pretty powerful motivational force in the lives of folks who are stuck deep down one of life's holes. It's interesting to see not just how people are capable of finding hope in terrible circumstances, but how others such a priest or a community member use their faith to help out.
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.
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.
They utilize a system whereby they have convinced people that the level of their prosperity is related to the love and favor that god has for them, they also always praise the wealthy for their generous donations to the church and always bemoan the other congregation to work towards becoming wealthy quoting scriptures in contexts that supports their claim e.g ["we are overcoming","the children of god shall inherit the earth","god is wealthy so we must all be too"] e.t.c.
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.
Ah. That's called "prosperity theology" or "prosperity gospel" in Western Christianity. Joel Osteen, Paula White, and others also subscribe to that in varying ways and to varying degrees.
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.
Christianity in Nigeria is Western Christianity[1]. Moreover, the prosperity gospel churches in Nigeria are directly descended, AFAIU, from the American evangelical movement.
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 goes farther back. People have long thought, "The gods favor people with wealth and power". And similarly that people have thought certain acts (prayers, rituals, spells, sacrifices) would get the gods to do what they wanted. There's a logic to it since that's pretty much how people work.
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.
Yup, it's interesting that the two things Jesus seems to preach the most about is (paraphrased somewhat) do not judge others and do not be a rich dude.
Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you". Matthew 26:11. So according to Jesus poor people are just going to be around no matter what. The problem of economic inequality is not solveable.
> Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you". Matthew 26:11. So according to Jesus poor people are just going to be around no matter what. The problem of economic inequality is not solveable.
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.
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.
It is certainly open to interpretation, but is it fair to say thst Jesus also was against all the buying of various animal's for sacrifice that was common to Judaism at the time because he didn't believe that the commercial aspect of buying and selling these sacrifices for forgiveness was holy?
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.
Not sure if it was the selling itself or the profiteering that was the problem; I lean towards the latter. IIRC Jesus didn't say anything directly, but Hebrews 10:4 is pretty direct on it: "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."
It is indeed fascinating to contrast the ritualism of the Old Testament to the anti-ritualism of the New.
In America this is called "prosperity preaching" and is very popular in the black community, which also happens to be the demographic most affected by poverty in the United States.
Do you have any numbers on that? I don't sense a particular racial component to prosperity preaching in America. I have heard that it's particularly popular in developing countries, though, for what it's worth. That's not to say there aren't many, many prosperity gospel megachurches in the U.S., but they're not especially prominent compared to evangelical, catholic, or mainstream protestant ones.
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.
Prosperity gospel is very popular in Brazil, in fact many politicians are now paying lip service for churches of this kind. Some of the largest new churches in Brazil are prosperity gospel churches, like the IURD of Edir Macedo, the richest Brazilian pastor according to Forbes, and owner of a bank and the 2nd largest (secular) TV network.
No it isn't. prosperity theology is most popular among evangelical whites, social gospel is generally what is considered theologially sound among mainline protestants in America, regardless of race.
There was a good documentary on the overall Nigerian preacher scene a few years ago, by Channel 4. In Australia I think it was broadcast on the ABC as a Foreign Correspondent episode.
“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.
To take the contrarian view, the only difference between this and some alternative kleptocratic dictatorship of any other failing state is the invocation of God.
They seem to be doing a fair job of civilization cut them some slack?
> and some alternative kleptocratic dictatorship of any other failing state
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).
There's a fine line of volition that is arguably crossed when involving tested social constructs that leverage human weakness better than many chemical addictions.
I had a gut reaction to attack that guy but decided to write two other comments first.
About school fees - he's right.
Their schools are bloody expensive in my opinion but not outrageous. They are private schools so it's to be expected. Also other non Christian private universities are priced the same or higher.
About poverty.
I'm not sure how confused the guy is because the cause of the "poverty" is elsewhere - the government.
The rise in the power of churches is arguably because of the widespread poverty.
People react to poverty differently. Some turn to crime, others to politics, police and others to religion.
To gain a glimpse of the massive rape of the country, read the article below.
It can be. The sorts of things Christian churches tend to teach are generally conducive to a well functioning society. It depends on what they're teaching, exactly, and how receptive the people are to the message.
This presents an interesting parallel with many pre-modern and certain modern human societies, in which political and religious power is concentrated in the hands of divinized kings and/or religious bureaucracies.
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?
Closer in time, you have the outsized role still played by the Catholic Church in countries like Italy and Spain, where it runs not just churches and monasteries but social housing, preschools, and savings & loans associations.
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.
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.
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?
No, it's not about burial practices. It's about birth-to-burial without registration, and without any investigation of the context. Mass infanticide by negligence.
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.
I'd upvote but for the call for the last two sentences. It sounds like "if only we could abort these kids, they would have never been treated this way."
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.
The subtext is that many of these children died from lack of proper care. That's what I have heard, so don't quote me on that. Some simple searches should unearth a lot more information.
The Church in Ireland still runs a lot of schools (at least nominally; they're generally mostly or entirely _paid_ for by the state and have to adhere to the national curriculum and so on). Not other social services these days, though, and certainly not social housing.
The Church in Germany (churches actually, the Protestant alliance is about as large as the Catholic church) goes beyond that by not only having their schools, hospitals and so on de facto paid for by the state (always in part, sometimes 100%) but also getting to impose their own laws on their employees instead of having to adhere to the secular labour laws.
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.
This was legal in Ireland until very recently with Church-run schools (for teaching staff only). Though with some restrictions; notably, a gay woman who was a teacher was passed over for promotion to principal because she was gay; when investigated, the school's defense was that she was gay. They lost; the view was taken that while they could have refused to employ her for that reason they couldn't otherwise discriminate against her.
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.
It's outsized for a single organization that tends to attach its own package of values to everything. If a Muslim organization were to provide similar charity at similar scale, I'm pretty sure it would be interpreted as failure of the state.
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.
Hamas being a notable example, where their non-military wing runs hospitals and schools and the like. It's a large part of the explanation for their support. And if the West had paid attention, we might also have realised that the best way of overcoming groups like Hamas is to strip them of the halo that comes from these services: Improve social services in areas where these kind organisations operate - just like we did in the West - and their recruitment base will diminish.
Why would you think it's a matter of lack of comprehension? In such a disproportionate conflict, the vulnerability of the West is local popular opinion. The fact that the population supports Hamas is a great way to justify repressive measures.
Because I regularly come across people who are utterly confused over how anyone could support these groups, because they believe the only thing they do is terror.
And the states where they do it tend to be regarded as failures in the West.
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.
The quote you responded to said "closer in time", not "modern day". Francisco Franco (Spanish fascist nationalist) controlled the country until the late 1970s. The toxic effect on non-Catholics in recent Spainish history was Franco[1], rather than the religion, but it's sometimes hard to make the distinction when non-believers are killed and repressed and the church is silent[2].
Your comment reminds me of Harari's Sapiens. If you follow him in his unusually broad definition of what is a religion, political and religious power is no less concentrated anywhere than it is Redemption Camp.
A simple Google search shows the redeemed camp isn't located in Lagos but Ogun State.
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.
> A simple Google search shows the redeemed camp isn't located in Lagos but Ogun State.
"The Redeemed Christian Church of God’s international headquarters in Ogun state has been transformed from a mere megachurch to an entire neighbourhood"
To be fair, Lagos is far a more recognizable geographic place to an international audience, even if it isn't accurate. Coming from California, I recognized Lagos from the title, but not Ogun State.
The tone of the article is formulaic. [1] In the US, a church built its own state. In downtown Clearwater, Florida (today is probably not a good time to visit) a church has come to dominate the urban fabric of an existing city in more recent times. The states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island were founded as religious communities. San Francisco, San Deigo, San Jose, etc. in California. San Antonio in Texas. St. Louis in Missouri. The association between religious communities and city founding is quite common.
I'm not sure where you're getting your history of Pennsylvania from, but that's not correct.
> Penn established a government with two innovations that were much copied in the New World: the county commission and freedom of religious conviction.
As I read the First section of the Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges, I see a colony founded on religious belief. In part my reading is based in the historical context of Quakers having been persecuted by the English State for the expression of their religious beliefs. That it is possible to see Penn's religious views as more consistent with an outline of contemporary liberal democracy does not, for me, make the document any less a codification of Quaker religious views.
The mention of all of the Spanish/Mexican missions is a little misleading. Yes, they had a religious component, but all of Spanish society did at the time.
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.
"A 25-megawatt power plant with gas piped in from the Nigerian capital serves the 5,000 private homes on site, 500 of them built by the church’s construction company."
"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!!!
With growing uncertainty and economic inequality, it's not hard to harness the will of the people for your own ends. If the gap gets bigger over the next few decades it'll be fun to see if we get a return to religious-military complexes. Or perhaps, when Amazon and Wal-Mart control all means of food production and distribution, military-agricultural complexes?
Your comment reminded me of Midgar in Final Fantasy VII. It wasn't a particularly nice place to live for the dwellers underneath if memory serves.
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.
I think some countries would benefit from large communal living areas. Very basic but it would be impossible to live on the street as everyone has a "back to square one" place to go.
> “Ha-lleluuuu-jah,” booms the distinctive voice of Pastor Enoch Adeboye, also known as the general overseer.
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 suspect the religion and the specific group membership itself is what unites the residents to cooperate and live comfortably together. Better to have the option than not, right? It's not a suicide cult. If anything, it sounds like a perfect manifestation of a libertarian ideal. Don't like Daddy GO? Move with your money to another church-city.
I didn't see any theological details in the article. What is "blurring the line between religion and cult"? Call-and-response group communication (1)? I've considered that an interesting anthropolicial phenomenon, but nothing to eschew. Am I missing something?
I was moreso referring to his alternate title, General Overseer which legitimately sounds like something out of an Orwell novel.
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.
"Overseer" is an alternate translation of "elder" or "bishop" (from the Greek: episkopos), which are recognized offices in most Western Christian churches. "Daddy Go" also sounds strange to my ears, but I'm not Nigerian.
Daddy/mummy/auntie/uncle/cousin/sister/brother pretty much indicate age/seniority/importance/familiarity in Nigeria without necessarily saying much about actual blood relation.
So the use of "daddy" in itself is just cultural and nothing specifically to do with the church.
Why do you say "under the thumb"? People seem to want to be able to live there. They do not see it as oppressive at all and it looks liberating.
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.
It is sad when private organizations take on governmental tasks like infrastructural development because federal and state governance is lacking. It is even more alarming when religious bodies do it and to such a mega scale because their agendas and spheres of influence far exceed that of a business.
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.
> It is even more alarming when religious bodies do it and to such a mega scale because ...
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.
To some. There are also quite a few traveling americian yuppies that trade aid for 'souls', for the sole purpose of bragging about it back home. Its an unfortunate mix.
It isn't sad. Historically that has been the condition in most parts of the world. African governments are constituted of people who for the most part have no legitimacy rooted in historical relationships with their people and no sense of ownership of their environment. For them their roles are franchises to be exploited.
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.
