What the stupid people who call ZAOGA a cult fail to understand

In the wake of my op-ed on the risks raised by the incident reported to have occurred in a ZAOGA church in Birmingham, United Kingdom, the usual vultures have descended, shrieking “cult” with the confidence of people who neither read theology nor recognise it when it stares them in the face.

Haters and trolls, intoxicated by moral panic and allergic to Scripture, have taken it upon themselves to slander ZAOGA, pretending that my article was an attack on the church, thereby flattening decades of Christian ministry into a cheap insult fit for comment sections and WhatsApp forwards.

What followed was not theological rebuttal but ritualised stupidity. No engagement with doctrine. No wrestling with Scripture. No historical awareness. Just noise. And in the Christian tradition, noise is never a substitute for truth.

Let’s face it, the accusation that ZAOGA is a cult has become fashionable, lazy and intellectually unserious. It surfaces predictably whenever the movement grows, whenever its theology is misunderstood, and whenever an incident is sensationalised beyond recognition.

The recent uproar surrounding claims that congregants in Birmingham saw the spirit of Archbishop Ezekiel Handinawangu Guti during a service has once again provided fertile ground for reactionary judgement masquerading as discernment. Yet Christianity has never been defended by hysteria. It has always been defended by doctrine, Scripture and reason.

At the outset, it must be stated plainly. ZAOGA is a Pentecostal Christian movement firmly situated within the broad stream of Christian orthodoxy. It confesses the Triune God, the authority of Scripture, the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, salvation by grace through faith, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the future return of Christ.

These are not peripheral matters. They are the theological boundaries of orthodoxy itself. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). ZAOGA lays no alternative foundation.

To label such a movement a cult is not merely inaccurate. It is an abuse of language. Historically and theologically, a cult is defined by specific traits. It denies or distorts essential Christian doctrines. It replaces Christ with a human mediator.

It elevates extra-biblical revelation to equal or superior authority over Scripture. It isolates adherents from the wider Body of Christ. It demands unquestioning allegiance to a leader in matters of conscience. It controls information, finances and personal relationships through fear and coercion. Where these marks are absent, the accusation collapses under its own weight.

ZAOGA does not deny the deity of Christ. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). ZAOGA preaches this Christ unambiguously. It does not add to the canon of Scripture.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). It does not proclaim a new gospel. “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). ZAOGA’s gospel is recognisably apostolic.

Much of the confusion arises from a failure to distinguish between honour and worship. Scripture commands honour. “Honour thy father and thy mother” (Exodus 20:12). It commands honour for spiritual labour. “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).

Yet it strictly forbids worship of any created being. “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matthew 4:10). ZAOGA honours its founder without worshipping him. Those unable or unwilling to make this distinction are not exposing heresy. They are exposing theological illiteracy.

The phrase “the God of Ezekiel Guti” has been weaponised as proof of cultic devotion. This is perhaps the most revealing indictment of the critics’ lack of biblical literacy. Scripture itself repeatedly uses this formulation.

“I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exodus 3:6). God is not diminished by being identified through covenantal relationship with a servant. The phrase does not suggest ownership of God by man. It testifies to God’s faithfulness revealed through a life of obedience.

When ZAOGA believers speak of the God of Ezekiel Guti, they are not inventing a private deity. They are invoking the same biblical logic that recognises God’s self-disclosure through chosen vessels. “The LORD God of Elijah liveth” (2 Kings 2:14). This did not make Elijah divine. It acknowledged that God had made His power known through Elijah’s ministry. To pretend this language is alien to Scripture is to argue against the Bible itself.

The Birmingham incident must also be handled with theological sobriety. Christianity affirms the reality of spiritual experience. “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams” (Acts 2:17).

It affirms discernment. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). ZAOGA leadership did not canonise the reported experience as doctrine. It did not demand universal assent to it.

An incident was reported. It was not elevated to dogma. Orthodoxy is not threatened by testimony. It is threatened when testimony replaces Scripture. That did not occur.

The charge of cultism often ignores ZAOGA’s ecclesial openness. ZAOGA fellowships exist alongside and in cooperation with other Christian denominations globally. Its members marry outside the movement. They study in secular institutions. They participate in civil society. Cults isolate. ZAOGA integrates. “For we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another” (Romans 12:5). ZAOGA understands itself as part of that body, not its replacement.

Financial accusations also collapse under scrutiny. Giving in ZAOGA is taught within the broader biblical framework of stewardship. “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give not grudgingly, or of necessity for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7).

Coercion is antithetical to Christian giving. While abuses may occur in any human institution, abuse does not define doctrine. The New Testament does not abolish giving because Judas stole from the bag. It condemns the theft, not the practice of giving.

The deeper issue here is not ZAOGA. It is the modern allergy to disciplined theology. We live in an age where feeling has been enthroned above doctrine and reaction above reason. The early Church confronted heresy not with insults but with creeds, councils and Scripture.

“Earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). Contending requires knowledge. Accusation without understanding is not contending. It is slander.

ZAOGA’s theology of work, discipline, holiness and personal responsibility stands in continuity with Pauline Christianity. “If any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

“Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). These emphases may be uncomfortable to a culture addicted to emotional Christianity devoid of ethical demand. That discomfort is not evidence of cultism. It is evidence of conviction.

Christian orthodoxy has always been broad enough to contain different expressions while remaining narrow on essentials. ZAOGA’s worship style, prophetic emphasis and African context may not appeal to all. Taste is not theology. Preference is not doctrine. “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth” (Romans 14:4). Orthodoxy is measured by confession, not aesthetics.

The cult accusation ultimately reveals a failure to read, to think and to submit judgement to Scripture. “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Proverbs 18:13). ZAOGA deserves critique where critique is warranted. No church is beyond examination. But examination must be rigorous, biblical and honest. Anything less is noise.

ZAOGA stands within Christian orthodoxy not because its founder was revered but because its Christ is preached, its Scriptures upheld and its gospel recognisable. To deny this is not to defend the faith. It is to betray it through ignorance or plain jealousy.