31/12/2025
A SCÅNDÅL IN THE PULPIT!
WHY THIS IMMØRALITY MUST BE CØNDEMNED BEFORE IT IS THEOLOGIZED
Recent events involving Pastor Okafor are deeply troubling. We can't imagine the shame he has to bear, the regret, and the self-blame that weighs on him and we pray that He obtains mercy before God as he retreats. But while personal remorse is important, the church and the congregation are left with serious questions that cannot be ignored. Leadership carries public responsibility, and moral failure in the pulpit has consequences far beyond the individual.
This is not about shaming him further, It is about protecting the flock, preserving the integrity of the pulpit, and upholding biblical standards. A public apology may be a start, but it does not automatically restore authority or erase the need for accountability.
When a man who stands before God’s people, preaching holiness, discipline, and obedience, is found living in contradiction to that message, it is not just a personal issue. It is a viølat1on of trust. It is a betråyål of spiritual authority. It is a scåndål.
The dånger is not only in the sin itself, but in how quickly the church tries to move past it. Apology is offered, emotions are stirred, gestures are made. And suddenly, the conversation shifts from cøndemnåtiøn of sin to defense of office.
Sin in leadership must first be named, cøndemned, and judged as Scripture judges it, before it is ever discussed in terms of restoration. Anything else is sentimental Christianity, not biblical faith.
This is not about håtred, It is about holiness, It is not about canceling a man. It is about protecting the pulpit.
How about the pastoral, theological and moral implications. Leadership in the church is not automatic. It is not sustained by charisma, popularity, or miracle testimonies. Authority is maintained by character, accountability, and obedience. A public apology may address offence, but it does not automatically restore pulpit authority.
Grace does not cancel standards, and forgiveness does not erase qualifications. Leaders must be examined not only for gifting, but for life, discipline, and integrity.
The church must also abandon the dångerøus idea that miracles equal divine approval. Scripture does not support it. Jesus warned:
Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord… did we not do many mighty works? And I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you.’” (Matthew 7:22–23)
Power can exist without approval. Results can appear without obedience. God may bless a flawed vessel, but blessing does not excuse sin. Repentance is not a performance. It is not kneeling or crying. Biblical repentance is proven by fruit, accountability, transformation, and time. Anything else is spectacle.
Morally, private sin in public leadership carries public consequences. This is unavoidable. Apology alone is insufficient for moral restoration. Transparency, submission to authority, and a willingness to step back are not optional, they are necessary. Silence from leadership structures, or rushed reinstatement, sends a dångerøus signal, that performance matters more than character.
The precedent set by this moment is critical. If apology alone restores leadership, future ministers will learn a deåd|y lesson: manage perception, not character. Say the right words, show the right emotion, and return to the pulpit unchanged.
But a biblical precedent demands more; forgiveness, accountability, time, and consistency before authority is restored. Anything less weakens the church and cheapens the gospel.
Pastor Okafor’s apology may be a start, but it is not the conclusion. The real issue is not whether he has apologized, though we understand that he is the founder and senior pastor of the church, We wait to see whether the church and those he sees as spiritual fathers will respond with courage, order, and fidelity to Scripture.