Jimmy Odukoya, The Controversy Of Ascension And The Question Of “Acceptable ” Grooming By Akin Fadeyi

Jimmy’s dressing ideally should be GOOD ENOUGH on a pulpit and on a good day. Dressing is a choice. Tattoo is a choice. Dreads are a choice and some dreads even come natural, not everyone locks their hairs to grow dreads. No one should castigate him therefore for wearing dreads. Let me repeat. He is within is right to make his choices. But why is the public up as at virtual swordpoints over his appearance on the pulpit?

Let’s analyze this within the context of the Bible as Christian’s’ age-old irrefutable Textbook.

The Bible says in 1 Timothy Chapter 3 that “anyone that seeks the job of an (Church) Overseer or Bishop must be of good conduct, must be a Husband of one wife, must be sound in mind, must be orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, not a drunkard, not violent, but reasonable, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money”.

Now see this…The same Bible in same chapter also charges  Church Overseers to come to table with fine testimonies and BE MODERATE IN HABITS.

We may now define what “moderate in habits” connote to us when broken down into semantics. But certain things cannot be redefined by our own proposed benchmarks or manipulated by our own biases or extremely liberalized woke generation’s proclivities.

That same Book of Timothy also states that a man of God must be seen by all to be above Board and MUST BE IRREPREHENSIBLE. The moment your appointment or appearance is controversial enough to stir public wagging of tongues, you have lost grip of a certain canonical position of public estimation of impeccable wholeness  into the sweeping swamp of scrutiny.

If I still recall, at the core of Jesus unambiguous, assigned responsibility handed to Christians is to evangelize. Meaning, going from city to city or neighborhood to neighborhood in preaching the word of God. If Jimmy steps out to preach and knocks the door of old order conservative folks or their children who frown at tattoos or dreads or other socially deviant adornments, will he “win their souls” for Christ? If he couldn’t, based on a discretion-lacking turnoff from him, how has he fulfilled his purpose as an Evangelizer? Except we’re arguing that his own brand of evangelism is only for a certain segment of social grouping.

Like I said earlier, whatever anyone chooses to wear is their choice by right. But the argument of self control and quest for circumspection here is why  1 Corinthians 10:23  admonished Christians that “all things are good or lawful, that is, morally legitimate and permissible, but not all things are beneficial or advantageous. All things are lawful, but not all things are constructive…I’ll add, not all things are all all rights we insist on upholds character or are practical for edifying purposes. There cannot therefore, be hazy optics around your calling, your grooming or your the solemnity that is required for your spiritual brand persona. Jesus denied himself, Jesus curtailed himself, Jesus frowws at anything that would invite poked fingers at his earthly Ministry. Jesus was so I compromised that he flogged money changers out of the synagogue. He yelled in anger against the turning of his father’s house into commercial merchandising arena. We won’t stretch this further today, otherwise, we may be upending another Panera Box about what the Churches of today have become where we merchandise anointing oil and where ostentatious living are our Pastors’ “callings”.

But not to lose track on Jimmy Odukoya, all these arguments about ”it is not your dressing that takes you to heaven” are our mere consolatory line of reasoning to appease our conscientious probing.

If the Bible is no longer the basis upon which this faith is founded, then please be free to do whatever you like. No one will accuse you of being “IMMODERATE”. Then the idea of the Bible demanding that you be “moderate in habits” can as well be discarded.

However, if the Bible still remains the foundation upon which the Christian faith is built, then we cannot adjust the standards to suit our predilections. And we don’t have to be so difficult and unbending to superior logic on this. When God (according to Bible stories) was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah over sexual depravity and other forms of perversions, he was not guided by the liberalized articulations of the men of those days. He simply felt they were extremely permissive in objectionable conduct and wiped them out. If this story is true or not is a subject for another debate. But on the basis of the Bible that you all read, you believe this story, don’t you?

Now, Romans Chapter 15 Verse 4 says and I quote: “For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction.

Verse 5 challenges us to have the “same mental attitude that Jesus Christ had”.  What was Jesus Christ’s mental attitude? MODESTY.

For emphasis, Timothy urges a man of God standing on the pulpit to “be irreprehensible”. It means he must be blameless and irreproachable. Let’s face this candidly: The fact that Jimmy is being dragged while some are standing up to defend him is indicative of reproach.  You cannot defend a man of God. His posturing, body language and overall demeanor are the parameters by which he’s measured. Let’s stop deluding ourselves: God has a standard that cannot be bent for man. We cannot be in such a hurry to pursue self satisfaction that we forget we hold a crucial responsibility of being accountable to many people watching us in the choices that we make. The Church is not a Club where a Pastor appears with indulgent recklessness. And we cannot cede the Church to worldly appeal so we can accommodate all persuasions and proclivities.

Finally, the ascension of Jimmy to “power” in his father’s Church is not an issue for me. If the members of the fold are fine with it, it is not our business to stir contention within the fold. The issue here though, is telling the world IT IS A CHURCH OF GOD, building its wealth through the sweat of the people through members’ tithes and contributions but translating succession plan into an “inheritance”. The argument in defence of this does not add up.

Akin Fadeyi