Last year, my mum wanted me to travel all the way to Kakande in Kampala for prayers from Nairobi. I was actually about to go, but I stopped and thought about it. Over the past few years, I've become increasingly skeptical of many modern pastors because I've noticed that some seem to rely more on emotional manipulation, promises of miracles, and fear than on encouraging critical thinking or personal responsibility.
Around that time, I had also been watching IQ Watson's content, which challenged many of the assumptions I'd grown up with. In the end, I decided not to go.
My mum was furious, and we didn't speak for about a week.
That experience pushed me to study religion from a historical and philosophical perspective rather than simply accepting or rejecting it.
One thing I've also observed, particularly in parts of East Africa, is the contrast between how some religious communities respond to the needs of their leaders versus the needs of ordinary members. In Nairobi and elsewhere, it isn't uncommon to see congregations mobilized to contribute toward a pastor's new car, house, ministry expansion, or other projects. Yet when an ordinary believer is struggling with school fees, medical bills, unemployment, rent, or trying to start a small business, the advice is often simply to "have faith," "pray about it," or "sow a seed" and trust that God will provide.
That contrast raises difficult questions for me. If the church is meant to function as a community that supports one another, why does financial generosity sometimes seem to flow more readily toward charismatic leaders than toward members facing genuine hardship? Is this an isolated problem limited to certain churches, or has it become an increasingly accepted model in parts of modern Christianity? I recognize that many churches do operate food banks, pay school fees, provide emergency assistance, and care for vulnerable members, so this observation certainly doesn't apply to every congregation. But the pattern I've personally encountered has made me question how priorities are sometimes set.
One book that really made me think was *Hard Times Create Strong Men* by Stefano Aarnio. One of his central arguments is that great civilizations weren't built without a strong spiritual or philosophical foundation. He argues that the Roman Republic, during its rise, was heavily influenced by Stoicism, which functioned almost like a civil religion. According to Aarnio, Stoicism emphasized cause and effect, self-discipline, reason, personal accountability, and denying fleeting pleasures in favor of duty and long-term purpose. This mindset helped produce resilient, disciplined leaders who were capable of building and governing an empire.
Aarnio also argues that civilizations decline when they lose this spiritual backbone. As discipline gives way to comfort, instant gratification, materialism, and decadence, societies gradually weaken from within. One of the recurring themes throughout the book is that a strong civilization depends on people developing four pillars: a strong mind, a strong body, a strong spirit, and the discipline to master their environment and leave a lasting legacy.
Reading this made me realize that religion or philosophy isn't inherently the problem. Throughout history, belief systems have often helped create social cohesion, moral values, discipline, and a shared sense of purpose. The bigger question is what kind of religion or philosophy is being promoted.
More recently, I watched James Jani's 2022 documentary, *The Dark World of Megachurches*, which examines the rise of the modern Prosperity Gospel. While it presents a critical perspective and should be understood as one interpretation rather than the final word, it raised several important questions that resonated with concerns I had already been wrestling with.
The documentary argues that the Prosperity Gospel has drifted away from traditional Christian theology and increasingly serves consumer culture and market-driven values rather than biblical teachings. According to the film, this movement:
* Shifts attention away from social justice and structural problems toward individual miracle-centered faith, often placing responsibility for poverty on the individual rather than addressing wider economic realities.
* Presents a view of God that mirrors human desires for wealth, status, and success instead of emphasizing themes such as suffering, grace, humility, and service that are central to much of historic Christianity.
* Encourages a transactional understanding of faith, where giving money, demonstrating sufficient belief, or following a charismatic leader is portrayed as a pathway to financial success and social mobility.
* Suggests that suffering, illness, or financial hardship are evidence of weak faith or hidden sin, a position that stands in tension with biblical narratives such as Job and with Jesus' own teachings about suffering.
Whether one agrees with all of these conclusions or not, the documentary reinforced an important distinction for me: criticizing certain expressions of religion is not the same as rejecting religion itself. It challenged me to ask whether some modern religious movements have shifted away from cultivating virtue and moral character toward offering hope through promised miracles, financial breakthroughs, and emotional experiences.
Recently, I also came across a post on X that said:
I don't necessarily agree with every part of that statement, but it made me think. If religion is supposed to build disciplined, morally responsible individuals—as Stoicism arguably did for Rome—why do some modern religious movements seem to emphasize prosperity, miracles, unquestioning obedience, and financial giving over personal responsibility, discipline, and character? Why is it that raising funds for a pastor's latest project can sometimes appear easier than organizing support for members facing genuine hardship? Has the role of religion changed, or am I only seeing one side of it?
That brings me back to Africa.
Why is religion still so deeply embedded across much of Africa compared to Europe, much of Asia, or North America? Many Western societies have become increasingly secular over the last century, yet they still tend to have relatively strong institutions and high levels of social trust. Meanwhile, religion continues to play a central role in many African countries, but in some cases it also seems to be intertwined with prosperity preaching, miracle culture, and charismatic personalities.
Is this mainly because of economic conditions? Colonial history? Education? Culture? Or does religion simply fill needs that governments and institutions haven't been able to meet?
I'm genuinely curious to hear different perspectives. Do you think religion in Africa today is serving the same role that philosophies like Stoicism once did in Rome—building disciplined, resilient citizens—or has it evolved into something fundamentally different?
Perhaps the deeper question isn't whether religion is good or bad, but whether any belief system—religious or secular—is encouraging people to become more disciplined, compassionate, rational, and responsible, or whether it is merely promising easy answers to difficult realities.!