By Joseph Aiyejoto
The Church of God was established to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, nurture the faithful, promote righteousness, defend the truth of the Scriptures and serve as a moral compass to society. It is meant to be a sanctuary of hope, a school of discipleship and a beacon of light in a world increasingly troubled by greed, injustice, division and the pursuit of power. It is, therefore, deeply troubling when those entrusted with the spiritual leadership of the Church become embroiled in bitter disputes that threaten the unity, credibility and mission of the very institution they have been called to serve.
The unfolding crisis in the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), involving the Most Revd Dr. Henry Chukwudum Ndukuba, Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria, and the Most Revd Dr. Alexander Chibuzo Ibezim, Archbishop of the Province of the Niger and Bishop of Awka Diocese, calls for sober reflection, prayerful intervention and a renewed commitment to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is not an invitation to take sides. It is an appeal to our fathers in the Lord to sheath their swords, put the interests of Christ above personal considerations, and remember that the Church belongs to Jesus Christ, not to any individual, regardless of ecclesiastical rank, seniority, influence or financial standing.
The question before the Church is not simply who has the authority to act or who has the right to resist. The more fundamental question is whether our actions, reactions and conduct reflect the faith we profess and the Christ we preach.
The Awka Crisis: A Test of Christian Leadership:
On 13 October 2026, the Primate, Most Revd Dr. Henry Ndukuba, directed Archbishop Ibezim to proceed on six months’ compulsory leave with immediate effect, pending an investigation into allegations and developments concerning the administration of Awka Diocese. He also appointed the Rt. Revd Samuel C. Ezeofor, Bishop of Aguata Diocese, as Supervising Bishop of Awka Diocese and Coordinating Bishop of the Province of the Niger during the period.
The directive has generated considerable controversy. Archbishop Ibezim has challenged the action in court through Suit No. A/371/2026 at the Anambra State High Court. The Awka Diocesan Board, at an emergency meeting held at Ifite-Awka, rejected the directive and the appointment, questioning their legality and threatening that the Diocese could withdraw from the Church of Nigeria and continue with the Church of England if the dispute persisted.
These developments have raised serious questions about ecclesiastical authority, due process, accountability, the administration of church property and the preservation of unity within the Anglican Communion.
It is important, however, to distinguish allegations from established facts. Allegations concerning the unauthorised disposal of church land reportedly valued at over ₦2 billion must be subjected to a fair, transparent and impartial investigation. No individual should be condemned merely because allegations have been made against him. Equally, no individual should be insulated from legitimate scrutiny because of his ecclesiastical position.
The Primate’s action must be assessed against the Church’s Constitution and Canons, while Archbishop Ibezim’s objections must be considered through the appropriate ecclesiastical and judicial processes. The outcome should be determined by evidence, applicable rules and justice, not by public pressure, personal loyalties or institutional intimidation.
Nevertheless, while the legal and administrative issues are being resolved, the spiritual implications of this crisis cannot be ignored. When a disagreement between senior church leaders threatens to divide a diocese and weaken the wider Church, the entire Christian community has a responsibility to ask whether the pursuit of truth is being accompanied by the humility, restraint and love that the Gospel demands.
Defend the Faith, Not Personal Interests:
Our Lord Jesus Christ did not establish His Church to become an arena for personal rivalry, a platform for the exercise of unchecked power or an institution in which material interests take precedence over spiritual responsibilities.
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus declared: “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
The Church belongs to Christ. Its leaders are stewards, not owners. Their authority is entrusted to them for service, not self-preservation. Their offices are sacred responsibilities, not personal possessions to be defended at all costs.
St Paul reminds the elders of the Church in Acts 20:28 to take heed to themselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers, to feed the Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.
This instruction is both an honour and a solemn warning. Those who lead the Church must first examine themselves. Before defending their positions, they must defend the Gospel. Before asserting their authority, they must demonstrate the character of Christ. Before demanding obedience from others, they must show themselves obedient to the Word of God.
Our fathers in the Lord must therefore ask themselves: Are we defending the faith, or are we defending our positions? Are we protecting the Church, or protecting our reputations? Are we seeking justice, or seeking victory over one another?
These questions apply to every party in the present dispute.
If the Primate has acted within his lawful ecclesiastical authority and in the interest of the Church, he should have nothing to fear from a transparent and impartial process. If Archbishop Ibezim believes that the action against him is unjustified or procedurally defective, he is entitled to pursue the remedies available under the Church’s governing laws and the law of the land. But neither authority nor resistance should become a vehicle for pride, vindictiveness or the humiliation of another servant of God. The ultimate objective must be the vindication of truth, the protection of the Church and the restoration of peace.
Biblical Injunctions Apply to Leaders and the Led:
One of the dangers confronting religious institutions is the tendency to preach God’s Word to the congregation while exempting those occupying positions of authority from its demands.
The pulpit condemns pride, greed, dishonesty, bitterness, unforgiveness and the abuse of power. The congregation is admonished to live in holiness, humility and obedience. But do these injunctions cease to apply when a person becomes a bishop, archbishop, primate, priest, church administrator or influential lay leader?
Certainly not.
Romans 2:11 declares that “there is no respect of persons with God.” Similarly, 2 Corinthians 5:10 teaches that we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive according to what we have done, whether good or bad.
Every one of us will give an account to God, the righteous Judge. Ecclesiastical titles will not exempt anyone from divine scrutiny. Seniority will not erase wrongdoing. Wealth will not purchase acquittal. Influence will not silence the judgment of the Almighty.
James 3:1 warns that those who teach will be judged more strictly. This is particularly relevant to spiritual leaders who have been entrusted with the responsibility of teaching others the way of righteousness.
The higher the office, the greater the responsibility. The more influential the leader, the wider the consequences of his decisions. And the more loudly a person proclaims the Word of God, the more carefully his life and conduct should reflect its teachings.
Our fathers in the Lord must remember that the Christian faith is not merely a collection of doctrines to be defended in sermons. It is a life to be demonstrated in character, relationships, leadership and the exercise of authority.
The same biblical standards must govern the Primate, the Archbishop, the Bishop, the priest, the church worker and the ordinary member of the congregation. No one is above correction, and no one should be denied justice.
Pride: When Position Becomes More Important Than Purpose:
Pride is particularly dangerous in religious leadership because it can disguise itself as the defence of principle, the protection of an institution or the preservation of ecclesiastical order.
A leader may become so convinced of his own righteousness that he no longer listens. Another may become so determined to resist what he considers an injustice that every disagreement becomes a battle for personal vindication. In both circumstances, the original issue can become overshadowed by the struggle for supremacy. Proverbs 16:18 warns that pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Our Lord Jesus Christ offered a radically different model of leadership. In Mark 10:42–45, He contrasted the domineering exercise of authority among worldly rulers with the servant leadership expected of His followers. He declared that whoever desires to be great must become a servant.
This teaching should profoundly shape the conduct of those who occupy the highest offices in the Church.
Christian leadership is not measured by the ability to silence opposition, command submission or secure institutional victory. It is measured by the willingness to serve, to listen, to correct with fairness, to accept correction with humility and to place the welfare of God’s people above personal gratification.
The question is not whether a leader has authority. The question is how that authority is exercised.
Authority without accountability becomes dangerous. Resistance without restraint can become destructive. And where pride governs both sides of a dispute, reconciliation becomes increasingly difficult.
The Church needs leaders who are strong enough to uphold principle but humble enough to acknowledge error; courageous enough to confront wrongdoing but compassionate enough to preserve human dignity.
Materialism and the Sanctity of Church Property:
The allegations surrounding the reported disposal of church land in Awka raise another matter that deserves serious attention: the stewardship of church property and resources.
Church land, buildings, investments and other assets are not ordinary personal possessions. They represent the sacrifice of generations of believers, the contributions of faithful worshippers and resources dedicated to the work of God’s kingdom. They are held in trust for worship, evangelism, education, charity, community development and the spiritual nurture of future generations.
If allegations of unauthorised disposal or financial impropriety are established after a fair investigation, the implications would extend beyond financial loss. Such conduct would undermine the trust of church members, weaken the Church’s moral authority and compromise its witness to society.
But these matters must be investigated impartially, with due regard for evidence, established procedures and the rights of all concerned.
The Bible is unequivocal about the dangers of greed and the love of money. First Timothy 6:10 teaches that the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. In Matthew 6:24, Jesus declares that no one can serve two masters, warning against the attempt to serve both God and mammon.
The issue is not whether the Church should own property or manage financial resources. Sound financial management is necessary for effective ministry. The issue is whether such resources are managed faithfully, transparently and in accordance with the purposes for which they were entrusted to the Church.
Our Lord’s question in Mark 8:36 remains relevant: What shall it profit a person to gain the whole world and lose his soul?
No financial transaction, ecclesiastical appointment or institutional victory is worth the loss of spiritual integrity. The Church must not allow material considerations to emasculate its mission, corrupt its leadership or diminish the confidence of the faithful.
Prejudice, Factionalism and the Threat to Christian Unity:
Equally troubling is the tendency for church disputes to generate factions, with supporters treating their preferred leaders as though loyalty to an individual were synonymous with loyalty to Christ.
Once this happens, facts become secondary to allegiance. Legitimate questions are dismissed as persecution, while reasonable calls for accountability are interpreted as hostility. Members begin to defend personalities rather than principles.
This is contrary to the spirit of the Gospel.
In 1 Corinthians 1:10–13, Paul rebuked divisions among believers who were identifying themselves with different leaders. He challenged them with the fundamental question: Is Christ divided?
The Apostle’s message remains a powerful warning to the Anglican Communion today. The Church must not allow personal loyalty to supersede fidelity to Christ. Neither the office of the Primate nor the office of a diocesan Bishop should become the centre around which the entire faith of the congregation revolves.
Our allegiance is first to Jesus Christ and His truth.
The threat by the Awka Diocesan Board to withdraw from the Church of Nigeria and continue with the Church of England should therefore be approached with great caution. Such a declaration, made in the heat of an unresolved dispute, risks transforming an administrative and ecclesiastical disagreement into a deeper institutional rupture.
A diocese is not merely an administrative territory. It is a community of believers whose spiritual lives, ministries, relationships and collective heritage are intertwined with the wider Church. Decisions that may lead to separation should never be treated lightly or used as instruments of pressure in a leadership dispute.
At the same time, unity must not be used as an excuse to suppress legitimate grievances or shield wrongdoing. Genuine Christian unity is not enforced silence. It is a fellowship sustained by truth, justice, mutual respect, accountability and love.
Ephesians 4:3 urges believers to endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The instruction is not to preserve unity at any cost, but to work diligently for the unity that is rooted in the Spirit of God.
The Church must reject both destructive rebellion and unaccountable domination. It must provide room for disagreement without allowing disagreement to become hatred, and it must uphold institutional order without turning authority into an instrument of personal vengeance.
Defending the Faith Requires Courage and Accountability:
There is a distinction between defending the faith and defending the institution’s public image at all costs.
The faith must be defended even when doing so exposes uncomfortable truths about those who occupy positions of authority.
The Church’s integrity is not protected by concealing wrongdoing, silencing questions or dismissing allegations without investigation. Neither is it protected by spreading unproven accusations, conducting trials in the media or mobilising factions against church leaders.
The proper defence of the faith requires courage, fairness and discipline.
First, the allegations against Archbishop Ibezim must be investigated impartially, with all relevant evidence carefully examined. If no wrongdoing is established, his dignity and reputation should be protected, and appropriate steps should be taken to restore any unjustly damaged standing. If wrongdoing is established, the Church must apply its rules fairly and take the necessary corrective action.
Second, the authority exercised by the Primate must be assessed against the Constitution and Canons of the Church of Nigeria. If the administrative measures were properly taken, the basis for them should be clearly communicated through the appropriate channels. If procedural or substantive errors occurred, they should be acknowledged and corrected.
Ecclesiastical authority is strengthened, not diminished, when it operates within established rules and accepts legitimate scrutiny.
Third, all parties must respect the judicial process in Suit No. A/371/2026 and any other relevant proceedings. Public statements and institutional actions should not be used to intimidate parties, prejudice proceedings or prejudge issues awaiting determination.
Fourth, church members must resist the temptation to become instruments of factional conflict. They should pray for their leaders, seek accurate information and encourage peaceful resolution rather than fuel hostility through rumours, insults or partisan declarations.
Finally, the Church should strengthen its financial controls, property-management procedures and accountability mechanisms.
Preventing future disputes requires more than settling the present one. It requires systems that promote transparency, define authority clearly and protect church assets for their intended purposes.
These measures would demonstrate that the Church takes both the spiritual and practical dimensions of accountability seriously.
A Call for Reconciliation Without Compromising Justice:
Our fathers in the Lord, the present crisis offers an opportunity for a profound demonstration of Christian maturity.
The Primate, Archbishop Ibezim, Bishop Ezeofor and all other stakeholders should consider the long-term consequences of their words, decisions and actions.
History will not judge this episode solely by who prevailed in an ecclesiastical contest. It will also judge whether the leaders involved preserved the unity of the Church, upheld justice and acted in a manner worthy of their calling.
Galatians 6:1 instructs those who are spiritual to restore a person caught in wrongdoing in a spirit of gentleness, while taking care that they themselves are not tempted. The passage combines accountability with humility. It does not encourage the concealment of wrongdoing, nor does it endorse humiliation as a method of correction.
Similarly, Matthew 18:15–17 outlines a process for addressing wrongdoing, beginning with direct engagement and progressing through appropriate stages when necessary. The underlying principle is that correction should seek truth, accountability and, where possible, restoration.
I therefore appeal to the parties to embrace a credible, impartial and transparent process for resolving the issues in dispute.
Where dialogue can help restore confidence without compromising the investigation or the judicial process, it should be pursued through appropriate and mutually acceptable channels. Where formal procedures are required, they must be followed without intimidation or prejudice.
Reconciliation does not mean asking the aggrieved to abandon legitimate concerns. Neither does it mean compelling a leader to admit to allegations that have not been established. It means creating the conditions in which truth can emerge, justice can be done and relationships can be repaired.
The Church must be willing to confront uncomfortable questions without becoming consumed by hostility. It must be able to correct its leaders without destroying them, and defend its institutions without sacrificing the truth.
Above all, those involved must remember that the flock belongs to Jesus Christ. Its spiritual welfare must not become collateral damage in a struggle among its shepherds.
The Supreme Judge Awaits Us All:
Ecclesiastical offices are temporary. Human influence is temporary. Wealth, titles, earthly recognition and institutional control are temporary. But our accountability before God is certain.
Hebrews 9:27 reminds us that it is appointed unto human beings to die once, and after that comes judgment. Romans 14:12 similarly declares that each of us shall give an account of himself to God.
These are not merely texts to be read at funerals or preached to ordinary members of the congregation. They are solemn reminders to every bishop, archbishop, primate, priest, church administrator and Christian believer.
One day, every one of us will stand before the righteous Judge. The question will not simply be how many people obeyed our instructions, how many properties we acquired, how many institutions we controlled or how many opponents we defeated. We will also have to account for how we treated people, how faithfully we discharged our responsibilities, how honestly we handled entrusted resources and whether our conduct reflected the Gospel we proclaimed.
Our fathers in the Lord must therefore be willing to examine themselves before demanding that others be examined.
The led must also resist the temptation to excuse misconduct merely because it is committed by a leader they admire.
The same Word that corrects the congregation corrects the clergy. The same standard of righteousness that governs the pew governs the pulpit. The same God who requires obedience from the flock requires integrity from its shepherds.
No one is exempt.
Conclusion: Sheathe Your Sword!
The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has a rich spiritual heritage and a solemn responsibility to proclaim the Gospel, nurture believers, serve society and defend the truth of God’s Word. Its witness must not be weakened by pride, prejudice, materialism, factionalism or an unhealthy attachment to ecclesiastical power.
Our fathers in the Lord, sheathe your sword!
Let the sword of personal rivalry give way to the shield of faith. Let the pursuit of individual vindication yield to the pursuit of truth. Let the desire to prevail over one another be replaced by a determination to preserve the Church and honour its Lord.
Primate Ndukuba, Archbishop Ibezim and every other leader involved must remember that their greatest responsibility is not to themselves but to Christ and His Church. Let every action be measured against the Scriptures, the Church’s governing laws and the demands of justice. Let allegations be investigated, rights be respected, authority be exercised responsibly and accountability be applied without fear or favour.
To the faithful, let us not become cheerleaders for personalities at the expense of principle. Let us defend the faith, insist on accountability and pray for the restoration of peace. Let us refuse to confuse loyalty to a leader with loyalty to Christ.
The Church does not need victors in a contest of egos. It needs shepherds who lead with humility, administer with integrity, correct with fairness and reconcile with love.
As Ephesians 6:12 reminds us, our struggle is not against flesh and blood. The battles that deserve our energy are the battles against sin, corruption, injustice, falsehood, spiritual apathy and everything that undermines the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The time has come to sheathe the swords of personal conflict and take up the armour of God.
Defend the faith, not your pride. Protect the Church, not your personal interests. Uphold justice, not prejudice. Steward God’s resources, not material ambition. Preserve unity, not at the expense of truth, but through truth and love.
For when the shepherds turn their swords against one another, the flock suffers. But when the shepherds humble themselves before the Chief Shepherd, the Church has an opportunity to heal, renew its witness and fulfil its divine mission.
May the Lord grant our fathers in the faith the wisdom to discern His will, the courage to do what is right, the humility to accept correction and the grace to pursue reconciliation.
May the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) emerge from this crisis with stronger accountability, deeper unity, renewed spiritual integrity and an unwavering commitment to the Gospel.
For the Church is Christ’s, the faith is Christ’s, the flock is Christ’s, and to Christ alone must every shepherd ultimately give account.
Amen.
Joseph Aiyejoto is a concerned Anglican faithful.
