The President of the United Gospel Churches Association of Nigeria (UGCAN), Bishop Dr. Priscilla Otuya, has added her voice to the ongoing discourse on the Church and its responsibility in national affairs. Her contribution offers a balanced perspective to the opinion of Dr. Wole Olarinde, Publisher of Christian Benefits, who initiated the conversation to awaken Nigerian Church leadership to both their spiritual and civic duties in nation-building.
Below is the UGCAN’s President’s perspective on the discourse.
The Church And National Responsibility – A Balanced Perspective – Bishop Dr Priscilla Otuya
While the concerns raised are valid and thought-provoking, it is important to rightly divide Scripture and clearly define the boundaries between spiritual responsibility and civic governance.
First, Jesus Christ confronted the Sadducees and Pharisees on matters of doctrine, hypocrisy, and the distortion of God’s law—not on national governance or state administration. His focus was the restoration of true worship and alignment with God, not political reform. This is further affirmed when He said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” drawing a line between spiritual and civil obligations.
Secondly, Samuel confronted Saul not as a political critic, but as a prophet addressing disobedience to God’s direct instruction. His rebuke was rooted in covenant accountability, not state policy or governance debates.
Likewise, Moses did not engage Pharaoh on political reforms, but on a clear divine mandate—the release of God’s people. This was not activism; it was obedience to a specific instruction from God.
Furthermore, Scripture also provides a caution in Second Epistle of Peter 2:10–12, where certain individuals are described as those who despise authority and speak evil of what they do not understand, likened to “natural brute beasts.” This warning is important—it highlights the danger of reckless, uninformed, and arrogant speech against authority. However, in context, this refers primarily to false teachers and spiritual rebellion, not responsible or God-led engagement with societal issues.
To maintain balance, Epistle to the Romans 13 also reminds us that governing authorities are ordained by God, and therefore should be approached with honor, wisdom, and understanding.
The key issue, therefore, is not whether the Church speaks—but how and under whose instruction it speaks.
The Church must be careful not to drift into political entanglement under the guise of spiritual responsibility. Our primary assignment remains:
To raise men and women who live by God’s principles
To teach obedience to divine instruction
To model righteousness that naturally influences society
When these are in place, national transformation becomes a byproduct of spiritual alignment, not political activism.
Yes, truth must be spoken—but it must be truth rooted in God’s voice, not human reaction. There is a difference between prophetic instruction and uninformed criticism.
Access to power must not silence conviction—but neither should it replace spiritual accuracy with emotional or reactionary speech.
In closing:
The Church is most effective not when it becomes political, but when it remains deeply spiritual, discerning, and obedient to God’s precise instruction.