BY RITA OYIBOKA/JUDITH OBIANUA
Nigeria is one of the most religious countries on earth. Churches multiply faster than supermarkets, prayer camps rival housing estates, and sermons spill from loudspeakers before dawn. Faith here is not a weekend ritual; it is an operating system. It shapes identity, morality, politics, health choices, and even fashion. At its best, religion provides structure, hope, and community. At its worst, it mutates into fanaticism, unyielding, unexamined, and dangerously allergic to reason.
This is not an attack on Christianity. It is a hard look at what happens when belief becomes immune to questioning, when doctrine replaces discernment, and when faith, meant to give life, begins to justify death.
Few recent stories illustrate this tension more starkly than the saga of Aunty Esther.
The Aunty Esther Saga: Faith Meets the ICU
In late 2025, Nigerians rallied around Mensah Omolola, popularly known on X (formerly Twitter) as Aunty Esther, a member of a religious group, battling advanced cancer. Her story struck a national nerve: illness, desperation, and collective goodwill. Influencers mobilised donations. Nigerians, already overstretched by economic hardship, dug deep. Over ₦30 million was raised to fund her treatment at a Lagos cancer centre.
Then came the pivot.
Aunty Esther reportedly refused a blood transfusion, citing her faith, which prohibits blood transfusions, based on specific biblical interpretations. She insisted on “bloodless alternatives” or divine healing, declaring she would only accept “the blood of Jesus.”
The backlash was swift and brutal.
Donors felt blindsided. Critics accused her of deception. Journalists, influencers, and ordinary Nigerians asked the obvious question: Why raise money for medical intervention if a core part of that intervention is doctrinally unacceptable? The hospital reportedly faced confrontations from family and church members. Social media turned the case into a national referendum on faith versus medicine. Defenders argued she had a right to her beliefs. Critics countered that belief does not absolve accountability, especially when public funds are involved.
But beyond the outrage and online name-calling, the Aunty Esther case exposed something deeper and more uncomfortable: Nigeria’s reluctance to interrogate religious doctrines, even when they collide head-on with common sense and human survival.
When Doctrine Travels, It Changes, except in Nigeria.
One of the most under-discussed ironies of Nigerian Christianity is how doctrines evolve abroad but fossilize at home.
Take dress codes. In Nigeria, some denominations still preach against women wearing trousers, earrings, jewellery, wigs, or makeup, branding them symbols of rebellion or worldliness. The same churches abroad? Women preach in trousers. Earrings sparkle in the pulpit. Makeup is a non-issue. The doctrine quietly adapts to context.
Consider television. Certain denominations once banned TV outright, labelling it satanic, a portal to sin. Members were disciplined for owning one. Fast forward to today: those same churches now livestream services, run 24-hour satellite channels, and dominate YouTube. Television, once demonic, is now a divine tool, when it serves institutional growth.
Offerings and tithes follow a similar pattern. In Nigeria, giving is often rigid, public, and pressure-laden. Tithes are framed as non-negotiable, with poverty spiritualised and questioning discouraged. Abroad, many of these same churches teach voluntary giving, financial transparency, and pastoral accountability.
This inconsistency raises a fundamental question: If doctrine can evolve for convenience, culture, and technology, why is it frozen when human life is at stake?
Faith Against Medicine: A Dangerous Misreading
Nigeria has no shortage of Christians who believe taking drugs, accepting surgery, blood transfusion, or even Caesarean sections undermine faith.
Some women insist on “natural birth by fire” and the “Hebrew Women” delivery, rejecting medically advised C-sections, even when both mother and child are at risk, because “God has spoken.” Some believers refuse insulin, chemotherapy, or dialysis, declaring drugs a lack of faith. Others spiritualise addiction, condemning medical treatment for substance abuse as unchristian and opting instead for deliverance sessions.
This thinking is not faith. It is theological laziness masquerading as spirituality.
The Bible does not glorify preventable death. Scripture repeatedly affirms life as sacred. Medical intervention is not rebellion against God; it is often the means through which preservation happens.
Even within the Bible: Midwives assisted women in childbirth. Luke, a physician, travelled with Apostle Paul. Healing took multiple forms, spoken word, touch, physical actions, and processes.
Reducing faith to a binary choice between prayer and medicine is not biblical. It is simplistic and dangerous.
Religious Fanaticism Defined:
Religious fanaticism thrives on absolutism without accountability. It presents itself as spiritual purity, but operates through fear, coercion, and intellectual shutdown.
Speaking with The Pointer, Catholic and Evangeliser, Sylvester Ilor was blunt: “They believe their way is the only right way. Anyone who disagrees is wrong or evil. They cherry-pick scriptures to justify extreme actions, like refusing blood transfusion. They see themselves as ‘true believers’ fighting perceived enemies.
Extremist preachers promote hate in the name of religion.”
He warned that fanaticism fuels discrimination, human rights abuse, violence, and social unrest, often under the guise of holiness.
Yet, Ilor also acknowledged an important balance: “Some religious teachings promote peace, love, and respect. Fanaticism can be criticised and annulled.”
The keyword here is criticised, a word many Nigerian Christians treat as blasphemous when applied to doctrine.
Any Doctrine That Ignores the Sanctity of Life Must Be Re-Examined – Venerable Amaje
Speaking on where Christians should draw the line between faith and doctrine, and when questioning becomes necessary, Venerable Emmanuel Amaje stressed that every Christian teaching must be rooted firmly in scripture and aligned with God’s priority for life.
In the first place, he said, “every doctrine that has no biblical background cannot be said to be a doctrine of scripture. Every doctrine must have scriptural alignment with what God wants to do in the lives of His people.”
According to him, the preservation of life is a core biblical principle that must never be sacrificed on the altar of rigid religious interpretation.
“The sanctity of life is a biblical value. If you look at the Old Testament, the Word of God says in Deuteronomy 30:19, ‘I have set before you life and death; therefore, choose life.’ So, every doctrine that does not care about, or is not sensitive to the prevention of death or the preservation of life cannot truly be said to be a Christian doctrine.”
Amaje argued that any religious stance that knowingly allows preventable deaths, especially when life-saving treatment is available, must be carefully examined.
“Our religious stance must take into account the fact that God values life as sacred. Preserving life aligns with God’s preventive purpose.
So anything we do in religion that does not prevent or preserve life, or that does not care about the people who are expected to live out that doctrine, should be re-examined.”
Drawing from the life of Jesus, Amaje emphasised that Christ consistently chose mercy over rigid interpretation of the law. “In Matthew 12:7, Jesus chose mercy over strict doctrinal enforcement. There was a time they brought a woman to Him, and said she had committed adultery and should be stoned to death. That was the doctrine. But Jesus chose mercy.
He said, ‘Let him who has no sin cast the first stone.’ In the end, no one was found worthy to carry out the sentence.”
According to him, this sets a clear boundary.
“The line is crossed when doctrine ignores God’s priority for life. Any doctrine that ignores God’s priority for life must be re-examined.”
Responding to questions about the place of faith, especially on issues like childbirth (and the Hebrew Women Conviction) and medical treatment, Amaje stressed the need for balance.
“You hear cases of women saying they must have natural birth even when doctors advise otherwise. They say, ‘My faith will carry me.’ Others say as children of God they should not take drugs, believing faith alone will heal them.
But scripture does not teach recklessness.”
He cited biblical examples to support his position.
“If you remember in Egypt, there were midwives who assisted the Israelite women to deliver their children. Sometimes, those women needed help, even medical intervention, to ensure the child could be delivered safely. All of this was to preserve the life of the mother and the child. That is why professionals like midwives were involved.”
Amaje also pointed out that medical support is clearly acknowledged in the New Testament.
“Paul, in his missionary journeys, had a doctor with him. Luke was a physician and was Paul’s personal doctor. This shows clearly that scripture never taught that there should be no means of saving life.”
He added that the overarching narrative of the Bible is preservation, not destruction.
“Throughout scripture, everything God did was to preserve life. Even when the Bible says the wages of sin is death, God still gave His Son as a ransom so that life could be preserved.”
Addressing doctrines opposing blood transfusion, Amaje explained that such interpretations are often based on misapplied scripture.
“Some people use Leviticus 17:10–14, which says, you should not eat blood. But when you transfuse blood, you are not eating blood. You are not killing someone to eat him. You are saving a life.”
He posed a series of probing questions.
“What kind of religion sees someone dying, has the means to save that person, and allows him to die? If the person dies, where is that person going? What kind of doctrine justifies watching someone die when help is available?”
According to him, such teachings often originate from human authority rather than divine instruction.
“These are doctrines propagated by men and used as a form of captivity, using religion to hold people bound, even at the cost of their lives. Any religion that does not care about the elevation and wellbeing of its members must be re-examined.”
On how Christians can identify dangerous doctrines, Amaje pointed to ignorance of scripture as the major problem.
“The challenge is lack of knowledge of the Word. When people depend solely on doctrines propagated by church leaders, instead of checking what scripture actually says, they become vulnerable.”
Using childbirth again as an example, he explained: “Scripture talks about safe delivery. Safe delivery means the mother is alive and the child is alive. That is what matters. The process, whether there are cuts, stitches, or medical procedures, is secondary to preserving life.”
He stressed that scripture does not dictate medical procedures. “The Bible will not tell you how to conduct surgery or childbirth. That is why medical decisions are allowed.
Medications were used in the Bible. People were advised to take certain things for healing.”
Even Jesus, he noted, used different methods in healing. “Sometimes He laid hands. Sometimes He spoke. Sometimes He spat on the ground, mixed it with sand, rubbed it on the eyes, and told the person to wash. Healing followed different processes.”
Amaje concluded firmly: “You cannot say someone who needs blood to live should die because of one doctrine. Scripture talks about preserving life, not taking life. Any doctrine that allows someone to die when help is available is not godly.”
He added: “It is not godly to allow someone to die because of doctrine, when God has said life is precious. I have not found anywhere in scripture where God instructs us to allow someone to die. Such doctrines must be re-examined.”
The Nigerian Dilemma: Obedience Over Thought
Nigeria’s religious culture rewards conformity, not curiosity. Questioning doctrine is often framed as rebellion. Leaders are treated as infallible. Members are conditioned to obey first and understand later, if ever.
This environment is fertile ground for fanaticism.
And yet, history shows that Christianity itself evolved through questioning. Reform did not destroy the faith; it refined it. The early Church debated doctrine fiercely. Jesus challenged religious authorities relentlessly.
So, when modern Christians are told never to question, one must ask: Who benefits from that silence?
A Call for Mature Faith:
The Aunty Esther saga will fade from timelines. Another controversy will replace it. But the underlying issue remains unresolved.
Nigeria does not suffer from too much faith. It suffers from unexamined faith.
Belief without reflection becomes control. Doctrine without compassion becomes cruelty. Religion without reason becomes dangerous.
Christians must relearn an old discipline: Thinking.
Not cynicism. Not rebellion. Thinking.
Asking: Does this doctrine preserve life? Does it align with the broader message of love and mercy? Is this God’s instruction, or human control dressed as revelation?
Faith that cannot survive questions is not faith; it is fear and a religion that fears questions has already lost its moral authority.
If Christianity in Nigeria must remain relevant, credible, humane, and transformative, it must rediscover balance. Faith and medicine. Prayer and process. Belief and reason.
