by Alexander O. Onukwue

Just before you lash the writer of this piece, do well to confirm the meaning of the word condone.

Because to condone a thing does not necessarily mean you are declaring it as good or acceptable, but that for contingent reasons, we let it pass.

Corruption takes many forms. The doctors who get into public hospitals without proper training and license are corrupt, so are those who enable that process. Civil servants who take bribes to help their clients jump queues are corrupt, and so are those clients. Politicians who loot the treasury with pens are thieves, but they have been raised to the dignity of the corrupt as well.

Why would anyone tolerate any of these? Why would a Pastor, for instance, tolerate a known corrupt individual to make donations and be part of the decision-making structure in the Church?

Charity?

More appropriately, the interpretation of all kinds of giving as good work.

The especially vulnerable and most manipulated teaching is the emphasis on giving in order to receive in greater measure, and the idea that “charity” covers a multitude of sins. The corrupt would find a sense of fulfilment in sharing the bounty with those in the Church, regardless of the possibility that they may have been the major victims of his corrupt actions. Somehow, the principle of giving to gain grace has permeated the main seam of most congregations, providing a readymade outlet for the guilt and pressure may have come with keeping all the spoils of loot to oneself.

Are the receivers guilty too, when they know these persons are corrupt? It’s getting difficult, isn’t it?