Inemesit only went to the bank to help. She was a chartered accountant, a member of her church in Uyo for fifteen years, and when the pastor mentioned after a midweek service that the church needed a new account for its school project, she offered to sort out the paperwork during her lunch break.
The bank officer was polite and thorough. She asked for the church’s certificate of incorporation, its constitution and a resolution of the trustees authorising the new account and naming the signatories. Inemesit went back to the church office and, with the administrator’s help, found the certificate in a brown envelope at the bottom of a filing cabinet. It listed five trustees. She read the names twice.
The first was the pastor. The second was the pastor’s late father-in-law, who had died eleven years earlier. The third was a deacon who had moved to Canada in 2015 and now attended a different church. The fourth was a woman nobody in the office could identify. The fifth was the pastor’s younger brother, a businessman who had not attended a service in years.
That evening she found the constitution. It said the church’s accounts were to be audited every year and presented to an annual general meeting of members. There had been no audit for nine years, and no annual general meeting that anyone could remember. The offerings were counted every Sunday by one faithful usher, who took them home overnight and banked them on Monday. The land on which the church stood had been bought in the pastor’s personal name, “to make things quicker” at the time.
Nobody had stolen anything, as far as Inemesit could tell. The pastor was a humble and prayerful man who lived simply. But she sat at her dining table with the documents spread around her and felt a cold weight in her stomach. If anything went wrong, if the pastor died or fell ill, if a dispute arose, if a large donor asked for an account, there was nothing to stand on. The church’s spiritual life was healthy. Its governance had been quietly neglected for a generation.
Order is a spiritual matter
Many believers instinctively feel that governance belongs to the world of business, while the real life of the church lies in prayer, worship and preaching. Constitutions, trustees, audits and board minutes can seem dry and even faintly unspiritual. Some pastors feel that questions about money and structure suggest a lack of trust.
Scripture does not share that view. Paul told the Corinthians, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40). The immediate context is the conduct of worship, but the principle reflects the character of God, who “is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33). The New Testament churches had recognised leaders, defined responsibilities and careful arrangements for money. Far from distracting the churches from spiritual life, these things protected it.
Good governance does two things. It makes responsibility understandable, so that everyone knows who is responsible for what and to whom. And it makes stewardship open to examination, so that the way the church handles its people, its money and its property can be seen and tested. Scripture supplies the values behind both. The particular legal duties that follow from them are a separate matter, and they need attention from qualified people who understand the setting in which a church operates.
PunchlineGood governance makes responsibility understandable and stewardship open to examination. Both are expressions of faithfulness to the Lord who owns the church.
Shared oversight from the beginning
The earliest church in Jerusalem was led by the apostles. But when a serious problem arose over the daily distribution of food to widows, they did not handle it alone. They gathered the whole community, explained the problem and proposed a solution: “look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business” (Acts 6:3).
Notice the combination of roles. The apostles defined the need and the qualifications. The congregation chose the men: “the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen...” (Acts 6:5). The apostles then prayed and laid hands on them. Leaders and members each had a part. The seven were given a specific responsibility over a practical matter, which freed the apostles to give themselves “continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4). And because the seven were men “of honest report”, a community already strained by suspicion could trust them with resources.
That is governance in miniature. A real problem was acknowledged. Responsibility was assigned to people with suitable character. The process was public. Spiritual oversight and practical administration were distinguished without being set against each other. The result was that “the word of God increased” (Acts 6:7).
The pattern of shared leadership continues throughout Acts. Paul and Barnabas “ordained them elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). The word is plural. When a major doctrinal question troubled the church, “the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter” (Acts 15:6). Paul wrote to the church in Philippi “with the bishops and deacons” (Philippians 1:1). The New Testament knows nothing of a church where one person holds every responsibility and answers to no one.
Pastors and elders: oversight of the flock
At Miletus, Paul spoke to the elders of Ephesus with great seriousness: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).
Several things in that verse shape how we understand pastoral leadership. First, Luke calls these men “the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17), and Paul calls them “overseers”. The same group is described by both words. Elder speaks of maturity and dignity. Overseer, which the King James Version elsewhere translates as bishop, speaks of responsibility for watching over. And they are told to “feed” the church, a word that means to shepherd, from which we get the idea of the pastor. In the New Testament, these terms overlap heavily. Paul does the same in Titus:
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre.
He moves from “elders” in verse 5 to “a bishop” in verse 7 without any sense of changing the subject. And notice the phrase “as the steward of God”. An overseer manages a household that belongs to someone else.
Churches have organised these roles in different ways. In episcopal traditions, such as the Anglican and Methodist churches in Nigeria, bishops oversee groups of congregations, and local priests or ministers serve under them. In presbyterian structures, local churches are led by a body of elders, connected to wider councils. In congregational churches, the members themselves hold final authority and call their pastor. Many Pentecostal churches have a founding pastor or general overseer with a board around him. Sincere believers hold different views about which structure best reflects the New Testament, and I will not settle that question here.
But some principles hold in every structure. Pastoral oversight is responsibility for the spiritual welfare of people: teaching, guarding sound doctrine, caring for souls and setting an example. It is exercised “as the steward of God”, under Christ. It is meant to be shared. And it is accountable. Peter, writing as “also an elder”, told his fellow elders to take the oversight “not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2-3).
Deacons: proven servants of practical ministry
The office of deacon is usually traced to the seven of Acts 6, though Luke does not use the title for them. The Greek word diakonos simply means a servant or minister, and the related verb is used in Acts 6:2 for serving tables. By the time Paul wrote to Timothy, deacons were a recognised group in the church, and he described what they should be:
Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
Notice the emphasis on character: grave, honest in speech, self-controlled, free from greed for money. And notice the process: “let these also first be proved.” Deacons were to be tested before they were trusted. Faithfulness in smaller responsibilities came first.
In most Nigerian churches, deacons and deaconesses carry real practical responsibility. They may oversee welfare, manage properties, coordinate ushering and sanctuary keeping, or handle the counting of offerings. In some churches they also share in pastoral visitation and decision-making. Whatever their exact role, the qualifications Paul gives remain essential. Paul’s phrase “not greedy of filthy lucre” deserves particular attention, because deacons so often handle money.
It helps every church to write down what its deacons actually do. Are they advisers or decision-makers? Do they report to the pastor, the elders, the board, or the congregation? Who appoints them, and for how long? The more clearly these things are understood, the fewer disputes will arise later.
Trustees and boards: holding the church’s property in trust
Trustees occupy a different place from pastors and deacons. Their role is largely legal and fiduciary. In Nigeria, many churches are registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission as incorporated trustees under the Companies and Allied Matters Act. Registration gives the trustees a corporate identity in law. The body of trustees can hold land and property, open bank accounts, enter contracts, and sue or be sued on behalf of the church. The trustees do not own the church’s assets personally. They hold them in trust for the purposes set out in the church’s constitution.
That is a weighty responsibility. Trustees are expected to act in the best interests of the church, not their own. They should know what the church owns, ensure that property is properly documented, make sure the church’s finances are recorded and reviewed, and see that the constitution is followed. The law also sets requirements for registered bodies, such as keeping records and notifying the registry of certain changes. Those requirements can change, and their details are a matter for a qualified lawyer or company secretary, not for a sermon. A church should take proper advice and keep it up to date.
Many churches also have a governing board, a church council or a board of elders, which may or may not be the same people as the trustees. Some churches combine the roles. Others separate the legal trustees from the board that makes ordinary decisions. There is no single right arrangement. What matters is that everyone knows how the roles fit together.
Inemesit’s church shows what happens when this is neglected. Trustees who have died, emigrated or lost interest cannot properly act. Land held in one person’s private name may pass, on his death, to his family rather than to the church, however good his intentions. A constitution nobody follows offers no protection when a dispute comes. Such matters sound technical, yet they decide whether a congregation can keep its building, its school or its savings.
A wise body of trustees will include people of proven character with relevant skills, some of whom are not members of the pastor’s family. It will meet regularly, keep minutes, and refresh its membership when trustees die, move away or step down. And it will understand that its whole purpose is to serve the church.
When pastors and boards work together
The most painful governance problems in Nigerian churches are often not about money at all. They are about the relationship between the pastor and the people who share oversight with him. On one side is the board that treats the pastor as an employee to be managed, questions every sermon and delays every decision until he is exhausted. On the other is the pastor who treats his board as a rubber stamp, informs them of decisions already taken and regards any disagreement as disloyalty. Both patterns grieve the Spirit, and both eventually damage the congregation.
A healthy relationship begins with clarity about who decides what. The pastor normally carries the primary responsibility for preaching, teaching and the spiritual direction of the church, within whatever doctrinal standards the church has adopted. The board or trustees normally carry responsibility for property, finance, legal compliance and the oversight of the pastor’s own conduct and welfare. Some decisions, such as calling a pastor, buying land or changing the constitution, may belong to the members as a whole. When these lines are written down, a great deal of friction disappears. When they are not, every decision becomes a contest.
It also requires a spirit that no document can supply. Paul told the Philippians, “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Philippians 2:3). Board members should honour the pastor’s calling and the weight he carries before God. The pastor should honour the wisdom, experience and conscience of those who serve with him. Disagreement in a meeting is not rebellion, and a pastor who receives it graciously will usually find that his board becomes his greatest protection.
One area deserves special mention: the pastor’s own remuneration and welfare. Scripture is clear that those who serve the church should be supported. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:17), and Paul adds, “The labourer is worthy of his reward” (1 Timothy 5:18). Elsewhere he says that “they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14). A church that neglects its pastor’s housing, medical care or old age has failed in a plain duty.
But the person who receives a salary should never be the only person who sets it. A pastor who decides his own allowances, approves his own expenses and signs his own cheques is placed in an impossible position, however honest he is. It is far better for the board or a small committee to agree a fair package, review it regularly, record it in the minutes and report it in the accounts. That protects the pastor from suspicion and the church from resentment. The same applies to anyone employed by the church: written terms, fair pay, and decisions made by people who do not personally benefit.
When serious deadlock arises, and it sometimes will, the church’s constitution should say what happens next. Many churches belong to a denomination or fellowship that can offer mediation. Others may need to invite respected, independent believers to help. What should never happen is that a dispute is settled by whoever controls the bank account or the building keys. Paul urged the Ephesians to be “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). That endeavour requires structures as well as goodwill.
Handling money in the sight of men
When Paul organised a large collection from the Gentile churches for poor believers in Jerusalem, he was extremely careful about how it was handled. He arranged for others to travel with Titus:
And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind: Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.
Three things stand out. First, the brother who travelled with the gift was “chosen of the churches”. He was not simply Paul’s own appointee. The givers had a say in who would carry their money. Paul says something similar in 1 Corinthians: “whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem” (1 Corinthians 16:3).
Second, Paul’s motive was explicit: “Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us.” Paul was an apostle of unquestionable integrity. He still arranged things so that nobody could accuse him of mishandling the gift. Real integrity welcomes transparency.
NuggetThird, Paul aimed at honesty “not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.” A leader who knows in his heart that he has been honest still needs to arrange things so that others can see it.
The Old Testament gives a similar example. In the days of King Jehoash, the money given for repairing the temple had been left in the hands of the priests for years, and the repairs were never done (2 Kings 12:6-8). So a new system was established:
But Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and bored a hole in the lid of it, and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one cometh into the house of the LORD : and the priests that kept the door put therein all the money that was brought into the house of the LORD . And it was so , when they saw that there was much money in the chest, that the king’s scribe and the high priest came up, and they put up in bags, and told the money that was found in the house of the LORD . And they gave the money, being told, into the hands of them that did the work, that had the oversight of the house of the LORD : and they laid it out to the carpenters and builders, that wrought upon the house of the LORD .
The money went into a single chest beside the altar. When it was full, it was counted by two people from different offices, the king’s scribe and the high priest, together. It was bagged, recorded and paid directly to those overseeing the work. A later verse notes that the overseers were trusted with the money, “for they dealt faithfully” (2 Kings 12:15). Trust grew within a sound structure.
In practice, this means:
- Offerings counted by at least two unrelated people, recorded on a signed sheet, and banked promptly.
- Bank accounts requiring more than one signatory, and not all from one family.
- Separate people receiving money, authorising spending and checking the records.
- An annual budget approved by the appropriate body, with regular reports against it.
- Accounts independently audited or examined each year, and a summary presented to the members.
None of these measures implies that anyone is dishonest. They protect the honest. A treasurer whose work is regularly checked can never be falsely accused.
Conflicts of interest and open accounts
A conflict of interest arises when someone who makes decisions for the church also stands to benefit personally from the decision. The pastor’s brother’s company bids to build the new auditorium. A trustee offers to sell the church a plot of land. A deacon’s daughter is to be employed as the church secretary. The treasurer is also the pastor’s wife.
None of these situations is automatically wrong. Sometimes a family member is the best person for the job, or a member offers land at a genuinely fair price. But each one carries a risk, because personal interest can bend judgement without our noticing. The law of Moses warned judges, “thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise” (Exodus 23:8). Blindness is the right word. Deliberate corruption is rare. Far more often, our own interests simply make it hard to see clearly.
Healthy governance handles conflicts openly. The person with an interest declares it. He or she takes no part in the decision. Where money is involved, the church seeks independent quotations or valuations. The decision and the reasons are recorded. That way, the church can benefit from a member’s help without leaving a cloud of suspicion over everyone involved.
Moses, at a moment of fierce challenge to his leadership, could say before the Lord, “I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them” (Numbers 16:15). Every leader should be able to say something similar, and every church should have records that confirm it.
Openness also means members have a proper way to ask questions and raise concerns. A church should not treat every enquiry about money as rebellion. Where serious concerns arise, such as suspected fraud, abuse or safeguarding failures, there must be a clear route to raise them with people who can act independently, and where the law requires, with the authorities. The writer to the Hebrews tells believers to obey their leaders, “for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account” (Hebrews 13:17). Leaders who expect to give account to God should be glad to give account to their people too.
The wisdom of Proverbs supports this kind of shared, accountable leadership:
Where no counsel is , the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.
PunchlineMany counsellors. Not one voice, however gifted. A church that welcomes counsel, examination and shared decision-making is safer than one that depends on a single leader’s judgement.
It took Inemesit and a small committee nearly two years to put things right. The pastor did not resist. When she first showed him the certificate with its list of names, he sat quietly for a long time and then said, “I never knew any of this mattered. Please help me.”
With a lawyer’s guidance, they updated the trustees, adding two members with financial and legal experience who were not related to the pastor. The pastor transferred the land into the name of the incorporated trustees. The offering was now counted by two ushers on a rota, and banked on Sunday afternoon through a night deposit arrangement. They engaged a firm of auditors. And at the end of the second year, the church held its first annual general meeting in living memory.
Inemesit presented the accounts. Some members were surprised to learn how much the church spent on diesel. Others asked about the school project. A few questions were awkward. But when the meeting closed, an elderly deaconess came up to the front, took the pastor’s hand and said, “Thank you for showing us.”
The pastor told me afterwards that he had slept better that year than at any time in twenty years. “I used to carry everything alone,” he said, “and I used to wonder what people were saying. Now it is all in the open, and I carry it with others.”
That is what good governance gives. Responsibility that people can understand. Stewardship that can be examined. And leaders who can say, with Paul, that they have provided for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.
Teaching Companion
For Reflection
- Do you know who the trustees of your church are, and whether its records are up to date?
- In your church, how clearly are the roles of pastors, elders, deacons, trustees and boards understood? Where is there confusion?
- How is money counted, recorded, banked and reported? Where would an independent observer see gaps?
- Are there conflicts of interest in your ministry that have never been openly declared?
- If you lead, how do you respond when someone asks a question about money or structure?
This Week
If you hold any leadership role, find your church’s constitution and registration documents this week and read them. Note who the trustees are, what the constitution requires about accounts and meetings, and whether those requirements are being met. Then raise any gaps, gently and respectfully, with the appropriate leaders, and offer to help put them right. If you are a member, pray specifically for those who carry governance responsibilities in your church.
A Prayer
Lord, You are not the author of confusion, and You have entrusted Your church to stewards. Give the leaders of my church wisdom, humility and integrity. Help us to do all things decently and in order, to handle money honestly in the sight of men as well as in Your sight, and to welcome examination rather than fear it. Protect us from hidden conflicts and careless neglect. Raise up faithful people who will serve as trustees, elders and deacons with clean hands and willing hearts. Let our order serve the growth of Your word and the care of Your people. Amen.
Truth received brings freedom. Truth believed establishes the heart.
Scripture quotations are from the King James Version. · Illustrations using first names only are composites unless stated otherwise.