Now, for many who grew up in a charismatic environment, the second may not seem all that surprising, and the first, though it may seem a little off, you probably would not have any problem with it as well. There is only one question I’d want to ask in both instances: what exactly are they praying about?

I think these videos linked will help aid my thesis: there’s an elevation of tongues beyond its scriptural recommendation in our churches. It will also go to show that our callous use of the gift of tongues in the Nigerian church is doing much more harm than good to the body of Christ.

Before I begin to make my case, I will link the video that spurred me on to the article in the first place. Apostle Arome Osayi is certainly no stranger to making egregiously fallacious statements that have no scriptural basis, but I feel like this is by far one of his most outrageous:

“If you decide not to receive the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, I assure you, if you’re a very ardent Christian, you will fulfill only 10% of your destiny…”

I want to point out, as I begin my argument, that tongues is not a prayer language. It wasn’t given solely for personal edification, but to benefit the entire body of Christ, and I sincerely hope to show that through this piece. As a side note, I may not be as friendly throughout the article as I may (or may not) have been during this introduction, and I’ll make use of as many rhetorical devices as possible to drive home my point.

Definitions

In order to make any sort of progress, I believe we must get our definitions properly sorted — What is a prayer language? What exactly is tongues?

I think I’d first start by defining tongues, since the definition of a prayer language could be a lot more subjective. I believe every Christian can agree that tongues (as used in Scripture) is synonymous with language. So technically, anytime someone speaks in a tongue, he speaks in a different language (whether that language be human or angelic). For a more formal definition:

The gift of tongues is a supernatural empowerment by the Holy Spirit to communicate in a language which was neither learnt by the communicator nor can be understood by him, without supernatural interpretation by the Spirit as well.

There is no doubt that the bible fleshes out that this is a real gift of the Holy Spirit given for the edification of the church (take note of this; it may be helpful later). However, there are guidelines to how the Bible instructs us to use this gift (more on that to come). The term prayer language may be interpreted to mean a lot of things, but, to give it a proper definition for the sake of this article:

A prayer language is the default means by which a believer commits himself to communicating with God, petitioning Him, and worshiping Him.

The adjective “default” implies that there may be other ways to pray. Certainly, when one reads passages of the Psalms in troubling and difficult situations, he/she may be, in some sense of the word, praying. This is because the petitions made to God in the Psalms can still be applied in the 21st century. This, however, doesn’t mean that one chiefly opens the Psalms whenever he wants to pour out his heart to God. Surely, there’d be time where the Psalms would be found materially insufficient for your current need (and it will be the case most days); you wouldn’t still insist on praying the Psalms exclusively, right?

One may ask why this clarification is necessary. Well, most of the time (as evident by the videos), in Nigerian churches, when one is asked to pray, the means through which that prayer is made is “the language of the spirit”. This, then, will imply that the gift of tongues was given to the body of Christ to be used as the default means of prayer. I believe that this is antithetical to the teachings of Scripture and a gross misunderstanding of the instruction of Paul in the Corinthians.

Does Scripture affirm our use of Tongues?

To see whether or not Scripture affirms the way the gift of tongues is used in Charismatic spaces, we need to first determine whether their assertion on the potency of praying in tongues is correct. According to Apst. Arome:

When we come into spiritual business, we will see how futile human language and human communication are… God knows that in order for us to interact in the realm of the supernatural, you need to have a supernatural vocabulary…

Now, this is a very bold claim. For this to be true, it would mean that when Jesus, while praying on earth, would’ve or should’ve prayed in tongues, to have had the access he did to the realm of the supernatural (working miracles, driving out demons, and healing the sick). The question is, does the scripture ever make such a claim?

In every instance Jesus was recorded praying, it seemed that he prayed in a recognizable language. From the prayers made in the raising of Lazarus (John 11:41-42), to the prayers made in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-44), to the prayers on the cross (Luke 23:34,46), and even to one of the greatest recorded prayers in scripture in John 17, formally called the high priestly prayer.

Now we could assert that there were times when Jesus prayed that his prayers were not recorded, and at those times, maybe he prayed in other languages. This, though, still seems shallow. When his disciples asked Him to teach them how to pray, it would seem like the perfect opportunity for Him to introduce them to praying in other languages. Instead, He teaches them the Lord’s prayer (Matthew 6:9-13), which serves as the template by which a man is to offer prayers to his Father.

I don’t think one can make any sort of scriptural case that Jesus prayed in tongues without trying to invert Scripture to speak where it doesn’t outrightly speak. Hence, if God in the flesh didn’t have to have a supernatural vocabulary to interact with the realm of the supernatural, it’s very likely you don’t have to either.

Just in case you disagree with that conclusion, no part of the New Testament teaches that praying in tongues has any potency over other forms of prayer. All the apostles affirm that we should pray fervently; none of the apostles teach that the manner in which this prayer should be made is in tongues. Even in the instructions given in the epistles concerning prayer (James 4:2-3, 5:13-16, 1 Timothy 2:1-2, Philippians 4:6, etc.), none of them mentioned anything about the specific efficacy of the gift of tongues; as a matter of fact, none of them said anything about the gift of tongues at all.

If Jesus didn't have to pray in tongues to perform supernatural acts and none of the Apostles affirmed praying in tongues as the means by which prayer must or should be made, where could this idea that underpins many of the teachings about the gift of tongues in our modern pentecostal landscape come from? I mean, maybe some charismatics may disagree with Arome’s conclusion, but as evident in the other videos, many still believe it has potency over other means of prayer — or why else would it be the default means of prayer? This leads me to one of the most misunderstood passages in more recent Church history, 1 Corinthians 14.

The Corinthian Problem

There are a couple of reasons why people easily misunderstood 1 Corinthians 14:

1. They read the chapter as an endorsement rather than a correction of poor and improper liturgical practice.

2. They read verses of chapter 14 in isolation from the broader context of Spiritual gifts laid bare in chapters 12 and 13.

3. They divorce the chapter from the proper historical context of the Corinthian church's unique nature.

Now, it will be impossible for a single article to give the proper breakdown of the chapter; I’ll link an article for further reading on the matter, but I want to point out first and foremost that not all will speak in tongues. Let us first analyze the full verse of scripture Arome quoted in his video:

Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up. (1 Corinthians 14:5, ESV)

Now, reading the full verse, one can already realize that this passage doesn't mean exactly what Arome interpreted it to mean(or if it did, he probably forgot to mention that prophecy is also a means of connecting us to the realm of the supernatural). The truth is that anyone who reads chapters 12 and 13 before 14 will tell you the same thing and affirm what I am saying. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul tells us explicitly — not all will receive the same gifts:

Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1 Corinthians 12:29-30, ESV)

If the gifts of God are given by His own sovereign injunction, it means that any sort of preacher that goes around encouraging every single one of his congregation to pray in tongues is trying to play God.

The purpose of 1 Corinthians 14 was to correct the Corinthian church — which had begun to abuse the gift of speaking in tongues (as well as other spiritual gifts) — and to bring the church back to proper liturgical order. To do this, Paul had to describe what it meant to speak in tongues:

For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:2, ESV)

I want to quickly clear up two misconceptions about this verse. This verse does not claim that tongues is a prayer language. It’s simply describing what it means for someone to speak in tongues: that the speech, when it is not interpreted, is not unto man, but unto God. This is not because the intention is to speak to God (the intention is to speak to the congregation), but, since others can't understand, the only person spoken to is God — because God understands every language. Second, mysteries in the spirit doesn’t mean supernatural vocabulary. The word mystery in that context is not the same as mystic. Mystery in this sense means a word whose meaning is hidden from the purview of the audience to which it is spoken; for example, speaking Igbo to a crowd of Yoruba indigenes would be speaking mysteries.

The next thing Paul did was to explain to them which of the spiritual gifts are more desirable to be used in church:

So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. (1 Corinthians 14:12-13, ESV)

Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue. (1 Corinthians 14:16-19, ESV)

Finally, Paul explained how best to utilize these gifts for the benefit of the congregation:

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. (1 Corinthians 14:26-28, ESV)

It is good to note that the verse above, as well as other verses in this chapter (1 Corinthians 14:14-15), affirm that one can pray to God in tongues. These passages do not affirm, however, that there’s any inherent benefit in praying in tongues, nor do they make the case that the gift of tongues is in itself a prayer language, and if anything, show that tongues cannot be used as the primary means of communication.

These passages, however, do show that the practices of praying in tongues in the videos linked above (and in many other Pentecostal churches) completely disregard the instructions given by Paul for proper liturgical worship, whilst still necessitating that every person should pray in other languages, whether or not they may have been given that gift. As you’d expect, blatant disregard for Apostolic instruction is always going to have practical effects.

Practical issues

I think one of the most inevitable issues with doctrines such as this is tying the gift of tongues to receiving the fullness of the faith. Now, even though many charismatics would not say it outrightly like Arome Osayi, they've essentially created a two-tier system of Christians. Those who can speak in tongues and those who can't. Those who can and do speak in tongues are then highlighted as the more superior Christians, the more powerful ones, the ones with more depth. Those who can't are the unserious ones, the ones more likely to fall under the siege of Satan, the ones less likely to tap into the power of God.

Don’t believe me? Well, just take a look at the videos. How many of those who were praying in the congregation spoke in their natural language? How many of them in the wedding prayed in their own language?

The question that one would need to ask is: if someone should have prayed in his given language on that occasion, what would’ve been the reception? It's no secret that part of the essential services of the pastor is to get every person “baptized in the holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues”; would he feel like he has failed in one of his most essential duties?

Whether it is explicitly stated or not, I think it is very safe to say that the doctrine of tongues as it is taught in charismatic spheres will inevitably produce that same two-tier system. When such a makeshift tier list is created, I don’t believe anyone would love to find himself on the lower end of that tier list, resulting in one of the most prevalent issues in charismatic spheres: pretence.

I’ve spoken about this in a previous article, but the issue is almost unavoidable whenever anyone wants to bring up the gift of tongues. One of my favorite writers on Substack, Elewa, in one of his most popular articles—“Why does everyone hate CCI?” interviewed a girl whom he identified as an atheist, who had been attending the church for a while (posing to be Christian). During this interview she mentioned that she spoke in tongues, and could even do so for up to two hours (my personal best). Once more, she did this in the midst of the members of the church, and it was indistinguishable. One will not presume that this lady has been baptized with the Holy Spirit now, right?

If this was a one-off thing, maybe it’d be easier to understand, but there have been many cases like this — some funnier than others. Exhibit B, the case below:

The reason why no charismatic will have an answer to the question of “how will you know whether someone is pretending?” is because they’ve divorced the gift of tongues from the means of verification and confirmation — Interpretation. Paul writes:

If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. (1 Corinthians 14:27-29)

The gift of tongues was to function synonymously with the gift of prophecy if ever it was to be used in the church; hence, the gift must be used alongside an interpreter and was to be judged by the elders of the church. This is to prevent subjective interpretation and personal experience from being the only arbiters of truth while the gift is being exercised. And no, interpretation will not mean any arbitrary sentence made in a human language after “exercising your spirit man”.

The chaos we have in the Pentecostal churches in Nigeria is the fact that it is nigh impossible to discern those who have been genuinely gifted by God. Alas, even the heretics have a claim to the genuineness of their ministry because they speak in tongues as well, and with no system to properly test the substance of these gifts, we have ourselves the glorified circus that is the Nigerian church.

Another practical issue with elevating the doctrine of tongues is that it becomes the all-important gift of the Spirit (well, that and the miraculous sign gifts, but we will get to that in another article). Nobody says anything anymore about the gifts of interpretation, of the utterance of wisdom and knowledge, of even the subtle gifts of administration and of helps (I can even make the case that the gift of prophecy is not even talked about to the same degree as the gift of tongues). They are all relegated, rendered subordinate to tongues.

A lady with whom God has blessed with the subtle gift of administration in many charismatic circles will not be taken too seriously if she cannot pray for long hours in tongues. Why exactly should that be the case? Because they have placed a significance on the gift of tongues so that it is made to be more efficacious and function much differently from any other, so that not having the gift of tongues — even though you may possess all other gifts — is seen as a deficiency.

An even more erroneous doctrine has been developed by many preachers such as Chris Oyakhilome, Paul Eneche, and yes, Arome Osayi, that tongues is the means through which one can hear God and access the other miraculous gifts of the Spirit.

As always, the reason behind a doctrine such as this is the idea of trying to make relevant heterodox practices and bring more significance (that doesn’t exist in the text) to it. I want to repeat: the gift of God is given by His sovereign decree. He has complete and total autonomy as to who gets what gift, and at what time it's given to them. The gifts are not locked up in a vault somewhere in the “realm of God” that one would require to press to a certain degree to activate. That is Gnosticism (at least in form), not Christianity.

The main problem with this elevation of tongues is that it reshapes the body of Christ into a malformed body. Where every gift is to be given to every part of the body so that it will be thoroughly edified, every part of the body desires the same gift, because it is seemingly more important than the other gift which they have been given. How does that make the body of Christ look? Well, just imagine yourself if each part of your body had an eye, or a mouth, or a nose. That abomination you see is the monster that you’ve created out of the body of Christ when every single person desires the gift of tongues — exactly what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12.

I certainly believe these issues which have been raised are bad, but it pales in comparison to what I think is the worst of all — loss of genuine intimacy with God.

Many times, you go to charismatic churches, and you get the same thing. A prayer point is raised that we should thank God for all he’s done, and suddenly everyone immediately starts blasting in tongues. There is almost no prayer point for which the default response from the congregation isn’t tongues. Let us pray for the sick—tongues; Let us intercede for the sinner—tongues; Even to confess your sins and ask God for mercy—tongues!

Many would want to make it subjective. “I was thanking God in my heart, and the tongues is expressing that worship of God; God is hearing my prayer.” The problem with that is: how does that even differ from not praying at all? After all, God sees our heart; he sees all we’re grateful for. Why then do we need to open our mouths to thank him?

There is a form of intimacy that can only come about through communication. Where you tell your father everything that is in your heart, every feeling you felt, every guilt you profess, every burden you lay on him. That can only be done by putting your heart into words. Whether or not it makes sense, whether or not it is well-ordered. The same way a father can pick up the inarticulate cries of his little child, so the Holy Spirit communicates the burdens of your heart that you can’t speak rightly to God. As Paul says in Romans:

And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:27, ESV)

This sort of intimacy can only be produced artificially by tongues. That is why many times in our services, there will be a need for the solemn sound of the keyboard, or the frenetic rhythm of the drum. That is why many times it seems as if the tongues in itself feels dry.

Many will argue that this final reason isn’t true in all cases, and I may agree to disagree with them. However, as far as it is the case that even a few Christians are struggling with prayer due to the influence of this misappropriation of scripture, it is far too many people.

What do I say at the end?

It was not my intent to write an excessively long treatise criticizing the abuse of the gift of tongues in our churches, but here we are, I suppose.

I want to stress that I do not have any problem with many of the ministers outlined in this article. Some of them are sound teachers of the gospel, and I still recommend listening to some of their sermons. However, on the issue of tongues, I think they’ve gotten it extremely wrong.

If you’ve read this article and can acknowledge that there may be some merit to it, or have some follow-up questions, I do appreciate you leaving some comments. Till then, I’ll leave you with a link from a video by Solomon Buchi.

A Turning Point?

It was morning, on the 11th of September, 2025, that I woke up to terrible news; Charlie Kirk had been shot in the neck by an unknown shooter while doing one of his famous college debates. For context, I really didn’t know much about American politics. I knew some conservative influencers, like Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, and Candace Owens (it was 2020, she was still sane then), but I really wasn’t all too familiar with Charlie Kirk (weird, seeing as Charlie was the more popular one). The first I heard of him was probably on Jubilee in their famous surrounded show. When I heard the news, I was disheartened. When it was confirmed, and I actually watched the video clip, I was even more so. And when I heard some of the comments from the American left all over the internet, I was disgusted. I mean, mocking someone who was shot in front of his wife and kids because you disagreed with him? I had resolved to stay out of American politics since the whole Black Lives Matter movement and the inclusion of woke ideology in movies and TV shows, including excessive LGBTQ+, character race-swaps, and sometimes even directly referencing and mocking real-world political figures. This however, was a turning point. I couldn’t keep silent anymore.

The radicalization begins.

Charlie was very popular — more than I thought, even. It didn’t take long for me to see the tributes pour in from left to right. Prayers, statements, and lamentation. It seemed everybody had something to say about him. My first impression of him was that he was a good person, and that he didn’t deserve to be killed (to be fair, no one deserved to be killed like that). That was around 8 in the morning. By noon, after reading the tributes that they wrote about him, after watching the reels and video compilations, and seeing the great things he did not only in defending American values (i.e. the values upheld by most of the founding fathers), but also in fighting against the woke-atheistic-postmodern minds that exist within the American Left, all while keeping his faith at the forefront of everything he stood for, every value he held, every opinion he championed, everywhere he went. This devotion moved me to tears. A man whom I had barely even known for more than a couple of hours caused me to sob bitterly, as if I had lost a dear friend.

Through the week, I was on a mission. I began to search out videos about Charlie Kirk and his debates on college campuses, and let the YouTube algorithm do its work. As aforementioned, many claims had been made about Kirk, and a significant number of them, if not all, were out of context. Given that supporting him was not very popular, and understanding how media rhetoric works —anybody can be made evil with enough manipulation — I needed to be equipped with much more information. My research wasn't to determine whether or not Charlie was a good person (I was convinced he was), it was to gather evidence to defend the sometimes “outrageous” statements that he made.

The more I watched Charlie though, the more I loved him. He was a model man. He preached Christ and was so well-read on everything that he came to defend (south park calls him the “master debater”). He was polite as well, even in hyper-liberal college campuses where many of the kids are uncouth and foul-mouthed, he didn't mind. As a matter of fact, he welcomed the hostility. He would often say in many debates, “disagreements to the front of the line.” He was also an extremely charismatic figure, helped by his frame — he was freaking 6”5 — but more by his eloquence and demeanour. So you could guess, it wasn’t really hard to get me on his side (I was already on his side to start, sha), and many of the things he said, not only did I believe it, I championed it. Many of his fans say they never saw him lose a debate — a bit of an over-exaggeration, he certainly could’ve done better in a couple; However, even the things he said that I didn’t agree with, he had such a way with words that I found myself agreeing with him anyway.

I then listened to what others had to say about him. His wife, his friends and fellow podcasters, many other right-wing commentators (a lot further to the right than Charlie), and even the President and Vice-President of the United States. What they had to say about his life, his character, his dedication. It spoke volumes about the kind of man he was. In a field where it is very easy to lose yourself with that amount of influence, fame, and power, Charlie remained true to himself. He stayed true to what he believed. He stayed loyal to his close friends. He never broke the standard that he set for himself. Being a Christian myself, I was amazed that such a man could be thrust into that field and not give in to the temptations that abound.

After all of that, I did a little bit of self-reflection and found out something crucial - I was a wimp. I was always too scared to challenge people on certain issues because I was afraid to lose friends, and I had so much self-doubt that I was too scared to confront evil ideologies. My faith was so fragile that I was sheltering it, so that it wouldn’t break when exposed. I never wanted to face the discomfort in having to deal with the worldview of another (I didn’t even dare to open a Twitter account). I knew that the truth still stands even before scrutiny, but I didn’t even want to bear the thought of thinking that what I believed could be wrong.

wisdom, understanding, and knowledge - lots of knowledge.

One of Charlie’s most controversial opinions was that college education was a scam. He believed college had been infiltrated by the political left, and continues to feed students a radically politicized agenda that is anti-American, anti-morality, and pro-social justice, whilst leaving them in debt, with no jobs, and no future.

Seeing as he believed this, you’d wonder how he was so knowledgeable. He didn’t go to college, yet he debated students on any and every topic that they brought to him, which they didn’t agree with him on. He gave these students the license to prepare beforehand, and even allowed them opportunities to call a friend or ask AI, while he sat with his microphone and Starbucks coffee. That should’ve given them the upper hand, right? It didn’t. He won so much that most people began to think that it was unfair.

I always admired how intelligent he was. He controlled almost every debate. Anyone could tell at first glance that he was very well educated. I realized that in order for me to be able to fully enunciate my position as he does, I would have to read what he reads. So I took notes of some of the books and authors he recommended. I got into Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, and Adam Smith. I started getting into American history and the Constitution, studying some of the documents of the founding fathers: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. I realized that for me to defend what I believe, there has to be no holding back in my pursuit of knowledge.

In a video reel on YouTube, a young lady asked Kirk, “How are you able to debate so well?” Charlie answered, “It doesn’t begin with debates; it begins with knowledge.” He said the Internet has made a lot of materials available to everyone across the world. He also said that with the advent of Artificial Intelligence, it is very easy for anyone to gain information everywhere, anytime. His recommendation to her was that she should try to read about 15 books a year.

That became my motivation. I started stockpiling books on many topics I wanted to learn about (off the record, but I may or may not have paid for these materials). He spoke on many topics that were outside my scope of knowledge, so I began to look for podcasts that would be able to distill some of these topics, so that I could learn while on the go, and in environments where I really didn’t feel comfortable reading. I took advantage of the age of AI, and began to challenge my positions as well as Steelman them. I realized that for my position to hold water, I would have to face the strongest position of the other side, and what better way to challenge your position than a very polite artificial intelligence with access to petabytes of data.

Charlie also advocated for not trapping yourself in an ideological box. In another video, a liberal Oxford student asked him how she could win him in a debate. He said that to do that, she would have to understand the values of the conservatives. He encouraged her to read books from conservative minds on politics, economics, and culture. He argued that the reason why he was so good at stating his case for conservatism is that he was forced to confront liberal ideologies everywhere. He had read their literature, he had to attend their classes, and he was forced to understand their point of view and why it was wrong.

I realized then that to confront the liberal ideology, I too would have to read the literature and know the framework of their belief, rather than designing a convenient straw man based on what I heard they believe. So to confront feminism, I would start reading feminist literature, from Betty Friedan to Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. To confront Marxism and communism, I would read the communist manifesto. To confront some of the post-modern thought, I read Frederick Nietzsche. While previously I would’ve been too afraid that my worldview would falter under scrutiny, Charlie encouraged me to put my convictions to the test.

It was very clear to see why Charlie was so good at what he did. While seemingly uneducated in terms of degrees and diplomas to his name, he embodied so much wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, as well as charisma, that drew men to him. That is why he was able to rally one of the largest conservative movements of his generation.

There is only one Charlie Kirk

As a Nigerian living in the third world, I would never have thought that a “white man” would exert so much influence over me in a shorter time than any person, political figure, social media personality, or even personal mentor has ever done (to the chagrin of many Pan-Africanists). He was a true American patriot who loved Jesus, his country, his wife, and believed truly that America is the greatest country in the world.

It’s been a while since his passing, and since then, I’ve only become more radical in my beliefs. The further right I go on certain matters, I’m certain Charlie and I certainly would’ve had disagreements of our own. However, that doesn’t take away the fact that he largely inspired me to become the person I am right now. I have also been able to take my ideas to the public space to discuss them. I’m not only on Twitter, but I also have a Substack account as well (which, if you’re reading this, you probably can tell). It’s a small start, but it’s a lot better than where I started from.

This is one of my favorite scriptures:

John 12:24
[24] I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat is planted in the soil and dies, it remains alone. But its death will produce many new kernels—a plentiful harvest of new lives. (NLT)

I always hated the statement, “we are Charlie Kirk”, not only because the leftists turned it into an insane meme to mock and ridicule a dead man, but also because it’s not really true. There can only be one Charlie Kirk.

Rest in peace, Charlie. Thank you for changing my life.

I am not writing this article as an arbiter of “standard practice.” This is simply an internal critique of a movement that has shaped much of my Christian life (I have been a practising Pentecostal for most of my Student life), and the need for the denomination to look inward and examine its current practices. My points could quite easily be rebutted, or maybe the Pentecostal position can be clarified - I am no scholar after all. I do hope that you (the reader) view this article with an open mind, as I will be covering some of my biggest issues with Pentecostalism and its practice.

Pentecostal Pneumatology

Every major Christian denomination has something that makes it unique. Though the foundations remain largely unchanged (all denominations fundamentally agree on what makes us Christian), there is an aspect of doctrine that makes them fundamentally different from every other denomination. For Catholics, it is their view of transubstantiation, for the Calvinists/reformed, it is their doctrine of predestination, and for Pentecostals, it is their pneumatology. Pneumatology is a branch of theology that studies the third person in the Trinity - the Holy Spirit (the ministry, operations, and gifts of the Holy Spirit). Pentecostalism stands out precisely because of its emphasis on the Holy Spirit and its teaching on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and what it means to be “filled” with the Holy Spirit. This doctrinal position was espoused by the Assemblies of God church (and held by many other churches) as the doctrine of initial evidence.

The doctrine of initial evidence is the teaching that the gift of speaking in tongues is a necessary initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is distinct from salvation - they still hold that a person can be saved without speaking in tongues; however, a person cannot come into the fullness of the experience of the Holy Spirit without it. There is a lot of biblical basis for their beliefs, and this article isn't a treatise of my position, but the objections that I will point out largely concern its practice.

For clarity's sake (and to avoid the label of cessationist1), it is important to say, I believe in the gift of tongues (at least to a very large extent). I feel it has a coherent biblical basis, though the application is another matter. Many have argued that the way it was practised in the early church and the way it is currently practised in mainline Pentecostalism are fundamentally different. There is also the xenolalia and glossolalia distinction, but I am not here to make that argument. My main issue with the doctrine is that tying the fullness of the Holy Spirit to the experience of tongues leads to many practical problems. It essentially denies that any of the church fathers who built the structure of our faith, from Augustine of Hippo, to St. Thomas Aquinas, to the early church reformers, had the fullness of the Holy Spirit. That alone leads to a lot of practical issues. Not only that, but superiority is baked into that theological framework. Why wouldn’t a Pentecostal believe he is better than a Catholic because he can speak in tongues? What’s stopping the Pentecostals from thinking that they are the closest denomination to normative early church practice? What’s stopping them from rejecting more than 1900 years of established church teaching?

The truth is, even within the Pentecostal church, many people dedicate themselves to God, hoping and praying for the gift of tongues, yet they don’t receive it. How do we explain this? They didn’t believe hard enough. They weren’t hungry enough. They aren’t praying long enough. Do you see a pattern here? Isn’t the simpler and more honest explanation that God simply doesn’t want to bestow the gift of tongues?

This now leads to the larger issue of pretence (more on this to come), because if you tell someone that they have to behave in a certain way to possess the “fullness of the spirit”, people will eventually start behaving in that way, authentically or otherwise. I once attended a program while I was younger, and the minister desired that all of us pray in tongues. Many who attended the program who didn’t possess the gift were unable to speak in tongues, and I was one of them. The minister just said open your mouth and just say anything, and the Holy Spirit will take control - He will put words in your mouth; I obviously found this absurd, but it encouraged everyone around me, even those who didn’t possess the gift before, to “pray” in tongues. I sincerely wish this were anecdotal evidence, but I believe many other Pentecostals can share the same experience.

Now, am I saying that the Holy Spirit doesn’t bestow a prayer language to those who believe in Him? Not in this article, no. I am simply saying the teaching of initial evidence has a lot of flaws, and it ties directly into every other means of grace, especially our understanding of the sacraments.

Sacraments?

It is very difficult to discuss the topic of sacraments because I’m aware that the average Pentecostal doesn’t know what they are. To be fair, they aren’t talked about (as much) in many protestant denominations as opposed to the Catholic church, where they hold a much higher view of the sacraments.

Sacrament, as defined by St. Augustine, is the visible form of an invisible grace2. It is a means by which divine grace is transmitted through material items. In the Catholic church, they recognise seven (7) sacraments: Baptism, Eucharist (communion), confirmation, penance, anointing the sick, ordination, and matrimony. For most protestants, however, we recognise just the first two sacraments, baptism and the eucharist.

This introduction is to ease us into the contentions that I have against our view of the sacraments. While many Pentecostal churches still hold to the conventional view of the sacraments (the necessity for the practice of communion and baptism), the way it’s practised in our churches looks nothing like how it has been practised beforehand by the reformers. Communion, which is usually practised regularly in mainline protestant denominations are practised on “special” services in Pentecostal megachurches. There is no liturgy, no creeds, and no confessions - nothing that grounds worship in something more than an individual feeling (this results in much larger issues beyond the scope of this article).

There is also online communion, where any piece of bread and juice can serve as the body and blood of Jesus Christ - even the comparatively liberal Huldrych Zwingli would be appalled3. The communion has always been seen as sacred, in every denomination, throughout all of Church history. The elements of bread and wine are sacred, consecrated items, because they are representative (from a memorial perspective) of the body and blood of Christ. The communion itself is administered by a priest to a congregation of God’s people. I cannot sit at home and gather my friends together, and give them a piece of bread and some Fanta, and say that this is the body and blood of Jesus. I really think it is important that we consider the warning of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27.

Our position on baptism is even more absurd. Many Pentecostal churches take baptism as optional. They say, “As long as you believe in your heart, it's fine, look at the thief on the cross.” Meanwhile, Jesus, who serves as our perfect example, was baptised; that’s all the reason why everyone who believes in him needs to be baptised. The early Church from the 1st century practised baptism, the historic church has always practised baptism, and Jesus also explicitly taught baptism. Where then did we get our ideas from?

The reason why I feel we hold onto these positions is clear. They do not uphold the structured and the confessional, but rather the spontaneous and spectacular. Why would one need to confess their faith when they are moving mountains with it? Why is weekly communion necessary when even our normal eating and drinking is in remembrance of Him? This, alongside our very low view of tradition, can be a recipe for disaster. While many protestant denominations will still value scripture over tradition, they still hold tradition just as sacred. You won’t see even the most liberal Anglican churches (in Nigeria) practise communion the way it is practised in the way it is in our churches.

Alongside tradition, our understanding of ecclesiology, and the treatment of our gathering like it is just a normal fellowship gathering is faulty; we feel there’s no need for the dull formalities, no need for the creeds and confessions that make the service boring, that nothing needs to be dedicated to God and used specially for the gathered assembly of believers. All that’s important is the individual - how the heart appears before God; we don’t want anything past that. This leads directly into one of my biggest issues with Pentecostalism - our view of the church.

The Low Church problem

Before I begin to critique the low-church Pentecostal design, I have to acknowledge why it exists in the first place. My biggest problem with orthodox denominations is that worship can become too regimented and structured, such that worship would begin to seem routine. You know what is to happen, at what specific time it will happen, and how it will happen. Unfortunately, what happens in low-church Pentecostal denominations isn’t a solution.

In our churches, worship seems like a concert, ministers are seen as celebrities, and liturgy is non-existent (and many times treated with disdain). The Church building is no longer a sacred space; rather, it is an event centre, used to hold conferences, watch parties, and even modelling shows. You can walk into the average Pentecostal church, and it is as if you’re walking into any production centre; the church has lost its unique feel. For a denomination that places such high esteem on the word of God over and above any tradition, it doesn’t seem to recall Jesus’ statement: “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.”

The arguments for why things are done the way it is annoy me even more. I will not address all of it - that will be for another article, but the one that annoys me the most is the argument that “It is not the building that makes the church, it is the people. Anywhere the people of God are gathered is the church of God.” Let us apply that logic elsewhere and see if it fits. Students can gather anywhere to learn a course; does that make everywhere that students gather a school? A party can be held anywhere as long as there are people, drinks, and good music; does that make any place where people party a club? So then why is the church unique? Also, if we want to follow the “early church” that gathered from house to house, why don’t we hold fellowship in the pastor’s house? Why use the church’s money for a building that isn’t going to be dedicated to God?

In the average low-church, worship seems like a feel-good experience; stage lights, disco lights and fog machines. You want to worship so that you can feel something, so that you can spontaneously break down in tears, so that you can “connect” with God. I don’t doubt that worship does make one emotional, but we shouldn’t be quick to tag every emotional experience as worship (there is also the praise problem, but that rabbit hole is too deep). This isn’t exclusively a low church problem (in Church history, it became sort of mainstream during the Second Great Awakening). However, it is a fact that it is very common in Pentecostal churches. The reason can still be traced back to their foundational theology: to receive the Holy Spirit, something needs to happen - there needs to be an experience.

This creates further problems, and I believe this is one of the most profound in the Pentecostal church, “Holy Ghost ministrations.”

“Holy Ghost!!”

I’ve always believed that God can move. I have always (and still do) believed in miracles, in impartations, in supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit. To believe the Bible, you’ll have to believe that God can manifest supernaturally in very strange ways. So, I find this section very difficult to write because this addresses one of the most profound issues in Pentecostal churches that causes me to doubt whether or not God does work in the way it is “performed” in our churches (the Holy Spirit changes to Holy Ghost, and the act commences).

As I’ve explained before, Pentecostalism is essentially built on the belief that God still works supernaturally and that every Christian (with the ability to speak in tongues) can access the supernatural powers granted to us upon receiving the Holy Spirit (Mark 16:17-18). This sort of pneumatology creates two fundamental problems, from the perspective of the layman and the minister.

As I alluded to in the pneumatology section, the layman is told to go to church with an expectation of receiving some impartation - the minister of God always has something to give out (another realm, portal, or dimension to impart). As long as his heart is open to receive, God will grant him his expectation. In a way, this teaching is not wrong, but it is missing the sovereignty of God. I will refrain from tackling the doctrine because I am looking at the results of the practice - what are the products of this doctrine?

If this layman doesn’t receive, he goes home disappointed; it seems that God hasn’t noticed him. The worst is, even if they do receive something, like a prophetic word or something of the sort, if it doesn’t come dramatically, he will begin to doubt whether or not the word was for him (because how can I be sure I received an impartation if I didn’t fall and roll on the ground?).

When I first became a serving exco in my fellowship, we had an all-night prayer session where we were expected to pray until you receive an impartation that would aid our service. As the former fellowship president ministered, there were dramatic demonstrations everywhere. Although I had already sensed that I had received something from God, I still felt the need to perform for them to be sure I had received something as well. So, as hands were laid on me, I fell spontaneously, not because I felt any sort of impartation, but because that was part of the act (it didn’t help that the prayer in itself was very exhausting, and I was looking for an opportunity to get a bit of rest). I have to mention that there was no expectation for me to fall or for something spontaneous to happen from the minister. It was all subconscious.

Another problem in practice is that the doctrine creates what is known broadly as “Pastor worship”. An “anointed” MoG (man of God) goes to minister at a particular location, and with an expectation to receive from the anointing, the layman goes all the way to that location, regardless of how far it is, regardless of whether or not he can afford it; all of that is secondary, a small price to pay for his destiny. This fits the problem of the commodification of the gospel. A person worships God not for who He is, but because of what He (or the man of God in this case) can give to you. This is the problem of Simon the Sorcerer in the book of Acts.

For the minister, he is pressured to perform spontaneous acts of power (because what do you mean you can only teach the Gospel - you have obviously not gone deep enough). Due to this pressure, he commits to ridiculous chain fasts, excessively lengthy prayer sessions, and somewhat insensible consecrations. Long prayers, fasts, and other consecrations are not wrong in themselves, but relying on prayer and fasting to move the hand of God to work in your favour has never been the teaching of scripture. However, with a desire to carry some sort of “power” and gain a reputation as a minister - and the perks (money, fame, and of course, beautiful women) that come with it - he carries out these borderline insane acts. If all the options above fail, there is a second option for the minister - pretence.

The topic of pretence can have a dedicated section where it is discussed. The fact that there is a whole movie series on YouTube dedicated to exposing the ministerial acts of these fake pastors proves just how profound it is. Pentecostalism is clearly littered with fake pastors, fake ministrations, fake miracles, and fake displays of power, and it is proof that there is something fundamentally wrong with the doctrine. This is why I respect some ministers like Apostle Arome Osayi, who has built his ministry largely on pointing out some of the errors that exist in this ministry.

The biggest problem with fakes is that, if the fakes abound more than the original, how then can one recognise the original? How can a believer who is genuinely seeking God recognise when a Pastor isn’t after his money but genuinely wants to bless him? These fakes don't only draw people away from their church, but from the body of Christ in general, and there is enough consensus for me to believe that this is the worst of all the problems created by Pentecostal theology. In some churches, no one even comes to hear the word of God anymore, but to be touched by the power of the Man of God.

While I can say for certain that, in practice, this is the most dangerous Pentecostal doctrine, a very close second is the Word of Faith movement.

Name it, claim it! (Word of Faith in action)

I have to be very careful in this section because I have listened to a lot of sound Word of Faith preachers. Kenneth E. Hagin Sr. - largely known as the father of the WoF doctrine - was a good bible teacher, and I love listening to his sermons, and some of his books are fantastic. As I said previously, I am not coming after the theology; I am simply just looking at the way it is practised, and the movement has led to one of the damaging aspects of Pentecostalism - the prosperity Gospel.

What do Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, and David Ibiyeomie have in common? I mean, what do they have in common beyond million-dollar houses, cars, private jets, and megachurches? Yes, you guessed it, they are all peddlers of the prosperity gospel. The gospel that believes Jesus died to make us rich while we are on the earth, and that we might also inherit prosperity in heaven. Now, where do you think that idea came from? (Don’t worry, you don’t have to buy my $100 book on “Unlocking the secrets of prosperity” to find out).

It is no secret that WoF is the father of the prosperity gospel. The progression is like this: God made the universe by the authority of His word to be perfect, without sickness, without poverty, without human depravity. As man fell, it distorted the natural order of things and resulted in all of the aforementioned. Jesus Christ came to restore the world to its state before the fall. When we believe in what Jesus did on the cross, we gain freedom from the distortion of the world and function as the image of God. As the image of God, you possess the mind of God, so that everything you lay your hand to do will prosper. Hence, as long as you follow the principles laid down in the scriptures and confess them daily, you are assured to live above poverty - because poverty has never been God’s will for a believer.

The reason why the prosperity gospel is so dangerous is that it follows a very logical progression, and it doesn’t seem to preach what the bible is not preaching. However, practically, there is already an issue - many believers in Nigeria are still living in poverty. What’s the explanation for that? For one, they probably aren’t paying their tithe - that is why every attempt to make money is swallowed up by the devourer. If they are, then their minds have not been renewed. Money doesn’t grow on trees (except for miracle money, of course); there is the idea that you have, that billion-dollar idea, that the people of this world will come running to you for. What is conceivable is achievable! If their idea is not working out, then it’s probably a demonic attack. There is a demon that the family made a contract with, and it’s been hindering progress.

I could continue recycling prosperity gospel talking points, but so I don’t lose the plot, I have to mention that the main danger of the prosperity gospel is that it begins to measure success based on material possessions - metrics that have nothing to do with whether you are a Christian or not. This results in the believer chasing after money, rather than God, and as Jesus said, you cannot serve God and money!

Beyond the prosperity gospel, there is another profound error of the WoF movement, that is: their take on the power of the spoken word. They believe that since we were made in the image of God, and God creates things with his words, then we have the same creative ability with our spoken words. You want to buy a brand new car? speak it into existence. You want to get a good grade on a test you didn’t study for? confess it, and it will happen. You want to stop your spouse from cheating on you? confess righteousness into him (As Pastor Bolaji Idowu claims).

Not only is this absurd, but it creates a lot of practical problems. A believer is no longer allowed to describe his issues to people, because he is confessing negativity about himself. So, if you have a problem with fornication, instead of describing your situation to the pastor to receive proper counsel, you keep confessing the scripture to yourself, and one day, you wake up, and you don’t have the desire to fornicate anymore. So, a poor man cannot say he is poor; he is rich in Jesus name. A student cannot tell you he wrote an exam poorly; he wrote it well in Jesus name. A sick person cannot say he is sick; he is healed in Jesus name, et cetera.

The main practical problem with this is that it makes Christianity seem very similar to some new-age religion. The idea that everything bad happening to the individual is a result of his affirmation, and as long as you only affirm positivity and good vibes, then you will attract the positive energy of the universe. If you put that side by side with the WoF gospel, you merely need to replace God with the universe, and you get the same message. This is not accidental, by the way, the father of WoF theology - E.W. Kenyon - drew directly from New Thought philosophy, the parent of the modern New Age religion, and baptised its ideas in Christian vocabulary (this is still widely debated, so don’t take my word for it, make sure to do your own research).

The question some might want to ask is, is the WoF uniquely Pentecostal? I mean, there are a lot of pastors who reject WoF that are still Pentecostals, right? The answer is, mainstream WoF cannot exist without Pentecostalism. The shift from the structured and ordered, grounded in centuries of creeds, confessions, and much theological rigour, to the outward, results-based gospel that rejects a lot of historic Christianity, is what led to this. So while I’ll admit that not all Pentecostal churches subscribe to the WoF gospel (just like a lot of practices aforementioned are not practised in some Pentecostal churches), the practice results from the framework (foundation) of the Pentecostal movement.

Conclusion

In a recent sermon of his, Rev. Gideon Odoma said, “bad theology produces bad practice.” To truly solve bad practice, we need to go back to the roots to address it. Unfortunately, there are structures that the Pentecostal church has built around, which will ensure that these issues can’t be addressed. This article critiques much of our practice; the next will be focused on what makes the practice sustainable in our churches. Until then.

In case you’re wondering, there has been an issue that has been circulating online about a Pastor, Kingsley Okonkwo, who decided to get a tattoo and post it on his official Instagram page, to mixed reviews from the audience. Some vehemently defend him, and some criticize him.

However, there are some in the mix. The ones that allegedly can bring balance to online issues. Yes, I am talking of the influencers that are neither here nor there, and will rather remain on the neutral side, not because they believe that one side isn’t more correct than the other, but because (probably, I’m not in their thoughts, lol), they would much rather get applauded by the moderates on both sides.

These people are the kind of people I dislike the most. They will tone police, ignore, or consider inconsequential the matters that spark controversy in the body of Christ, because they would rather not be caught on one side or the other.

So yes, this is for you guys. My senior aunties and uncles on X, who have taken away two hours of my reading time to write this stupid article. I won’t even bother about my language at this point; I can’t bother being anything other than cynical about people who, in the name of “spiritual grandstanding,” decide to remain neutral.

What is my opinion on this matter?

If anyone would like to know my opinion on this matter, I could almost bet it is very obvious - As a pastor, you shouldn’t get tattoos. I believe this should also be the opinion of many rational believers. Not particularly because getting tattoos is wrong, but because getting tattoos isn’t expedient. What would one stand to gain if he gets a tattoo? a new look? some aesthetic beauty? maybe. However, I don’t think a man who hadn’t gotten a tattoo 49 years prior to this time believes in any way that getting a new tattoo on his 50th birthday would somehow change his appeal to everyone.

Okay, even if he gets the tattoo, if his sole aim was to look good, he would have just worn it out and maybe taken a few pictures with it. Maybe shared it with his family, his wife, and a couple of friends that matter to him. I mean, even his church members would have gotten to see the tattoos eventually, yeah? So just wait till they see it and explain it to them. Surely, your congregation, with whom you have been preaching to will understand you, and you won’t have to overly explain yourself to them.

explain the reason why he had to post the video of his tattoo on his official social media handle. Abi, na mistake? person accidentally post am? let it make sense for us na?

You posted a video of you getting a tattoo, knowing that it would upset a lot of people, also knowing that there is a tendency of you being dragged, ridiculed, and insulted, but you chose to post it anyway? are you sure you’re not just seeking attention, Pastor?

But my pastor didn’t stop there. He decided to take it a step further in a video he made after he made the tattoo:

I want to invite you all to my 50th birthday party, you people don’t have anything better to do, na tattoo una dey discuss… but don’t worry, on Monday, I will address this issues. You know in Nigeria, we don’t practice true Christianity, we practice what we call, “Afro-Trado-Judeo-Christianity” and not true Christianity, but don’t worry on Monday, I will educate you all, but for now, get ready to party.

Osheyyy, the only true Christian in Nigeria. I salute you, sir. As all of us are uneducated, judgmental bigots, I would love to sit down and hear you preach to your choir on how “the only time tattoos were mentioned in the bible was in the Old Testament, we are free from the Old Testament law,” or the time God got a tattoo of the Children of Israel on His palm. Yes, I suppose that would make good use of my time.

I honestly couldn’t take him seriously after that comment, but it kept on getting worse and worse, so for posterity's sake, I will leave the screenshots below.

I really didn’t even take him seriously. In the 21st century? When I can just meme all his comments? I couldn’t even bother to write a coherent article on this matter on my status because I felt like it was wholly unnecessary to give in to his thirst trap.

What changed?

I saw a couple of posts today concerning this matter from my big brothers and sisters on X. I chose to ignore the first, because I really didn’t have the energy for it, but the second one really pissed me off. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get the full quote, but here is a screenshot of what stood out to me.

So first of all, a pastor decided that he’d get a tattoo, and not only will he do so, he will broadcast it on all social media platforms, knowing that there will be backlash, and you are here blaming the church? For what exactly?

Excuse me for being rude but aunty, he called us fake Christians too. He mocked our intelligence and called us Jews because we felt that the pulpit is to be held with certain standards, and you choose to call us out?

Yes, scripture calls us to correct with love, but what exactly is that love? Because we are correcting in love, we should pamper men of God with soft rhetoric that will make us look demure? And exactly what will that achieve? Or you don’t know that the softer we are on issues, especially those pertaining to ministers of God, all sorts of weird things would be allowed on the pulpit?

It is this spiritual grandstanding that I hate with passion, “If we claim to be disciples of Christ, you will correct in love…”, aunty, have you read Paul’s message to the Corinthians? Eh? Just start with chapter 5, I’m sure you will love how Paul “corrected in love.”

And what is this awful line about?

while we are busy arguing over tattoos, the Devil is thinking of ways to further divide the church. We are losing focus on the things that truly matter.

We were not busy arguing over tattoos; that is the point. It wasn’t just any sort of mindless chatter that spawned the entire Nigerian church internet space; a pastor literally decided to have a tattoo, and spawned this discussion. Going by your own logic, the Devil used the Pastor to divide the church and take away the focus on “things that truly matter.”

By the way, what are these things that truly matter, aunty?

Why do believers in Nigeria always do this to get away from talking about controversial issues?

“The gays are entering the church” - let us focus on things that truly matter.

“Your pastor just committed sexual immorality” - let us focus on things that truly matter.

“The churches are becoming more liberal and feminist” - let us focus on things that truly matter.

I have no idea when these things will matter to you aunty, but I think that a Pastor, a man who God has set to oversee his flock, if we see him deviate, I think it truly matters to us.

conclusion

I really don’t get this idea of grandstanding. What is it supposed to achieve? What do you really want us to do?

I get that you probably hold “true Christians” to a standard where everyone loves each other, holds hands, and if there is any need for correction, it would be a small slap on the wrist.

However, every Christian who commented on his post, rebuking him, questioning his conduct, and calling him fake, was not doing so out of spite for him but out of love for the body of Christ. We no longer want to be associated with Christianity that is doing collabo with the world. Unfortunately, we may have said things out of our emotions or anger, but they serve as a reaction as opposed to a premeditated action.

As I conclude this article, I conclude this whole discussion about whether tattoo good or bad. I am tired of giving attention to a glorified attention seeker.

Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you.

2 Corinthians 6:17 (ESV)

extra

Also, just to add, tattoos might not be a sin, but they actually have some medical and social disadvantages. I will highlight some of them below.

Medical/Health disadvantages

• Unsterile equipment can transmit infectious diseases like hepatitis and HIV, requiring a one-year wait before blood donation

• Common tattoo inks contain heavy metals, carcinogenic compounds, and toxic chemicals that may exceed safe limits

• One in five tattoo inks contains carcinogenic compounds, with most failing to meet international health safety standards

• Can trigger serious skin disorders like sarcoidosis, lichen planus, and lupus-like reactions that cause permanent scarring

• Red pigment tattoos are associated with an increased risk of skin tumors (squamous cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma)

• Tattoo exposure is linked to hepatitis C infection, even in people without traditional risk factors

• Allergic reactions and chronic skin complications are common, especially with colored inks

• Complications occur in 35.3% of unauthorized facilities versus 15.9% in professional studios

Social disadvantages

• Visible tattoos are perceived as unprofessional in careers like law, finance, medicine, and teaching

• 86% of students believe visible tattoos hurt their business prospects and career opportunities

• Tattoos carry a social stigma and are often associated with deviant behavior

• Seeking tattoo removal often stems from feelings of low self-esteem, stigmatization, and anxiety

Stay smart, kids, don’t get tattoos just because Pastor told you.