₦airaland Forum

Are you very sure about men being the guardians of morals and decency in any society? Which gender dey majorly grape small children and even babies? which gender are the bandits? which gender are majorly armed robbers? I await your answers

MrPresident1:
Men are the guardians of morals and decency in any society. Once the men are of poor quality and debased, you can expect their women to be poor quality

Gbadugbakun:
‎One thing I believe men need to understand is that being in a relationship does not automatically make you financially responsible for another adult. Unfortunately, the culture of expecting men to provide everything, regardless of their financial capacity or the woman's own earning potential, is encouraged by men who fail to establish healthy boundaries.

‎Imagine a man earning 350k monthly who willingly gives his girlfriend 150k every month. That leaves him with 200k to cover his own needs, bills, savings, family responsibilities, and emergencies.
‎
‎Yet, tomorrow, the same woman would turn around and ask, What have you even done for me? simply because he refuses to continue spending beyond his means.
‎
‎I had the privilege of attending university, and from my experience, men and women pursue education, complete NYSC, compete for jobs, and build careers. In many workplaces, women are not only employed but also occupy significant leadership positions.
‎
‎Of course, opportunities are not always equal in every industry or circumstance. However, the reality is that many women have the capacity to earn, build businesses, develop careers, and become financially independent.
‎
‎So, if two adults are capable of working and earning an income, why should one person automatically bear the entire financial responsibility simply because they are the man in the relationship?
‎
‎Men need to understand that being a gentleman does not mean abandoning common sense. You can be loving, generous, supportive, and responsible without allowing someone to take your kindness for granted. There is a difference between willingly supporting your partner and being made to feel inadequate whenever you cannot provide money.
‎
‎Men, stop confusing financial sacrifice with proof of love. You do not have to impoverish yourself to prove that you care.
‎
‎Pay attention to her attitude towards money. Does she have personal goals? Is she making any effort to improve her circumstances? Does she appreciate your sacrifices? Can she contribute according to her ability, or does she believe your income automatically belongs to both of you while hers remains exclusively hers?
‎
‎These are important questions to ask before committing to a future together.

@ bold:

The same reason why two people have hands and same schedule yet only one people is expected to run the domestics and child care.

U better abandon scam religion in 2026. There is no God in heaven talkless of the words of pastors (all religious leaders are scammers) meaning anything

Bankowner:
My girlfriend and I discussed this matter yesterday, and I mentioned the very heavy spiritual implication of what Pastor Bolaji did beyond the lighthearted joke the ladies in the congregation thought it to be.

Condemning his own congregation to imminent and certain destruction in today's Christianity, to me, is extreme and uncalled for. The ladies are not people you're ministering to for the first time but the Biblical instruction to dust your shoes is for new territories where they refuse to welcome you and listen to the message you bring.

Yes, which is why wise women with money don't get married.

jericco1:
Yeah right
And wealth for both gender is not a crime

Rebelutionary:
Discipline them into silence you mean?

You never can tell what is in the belly until you give them an opportunity to talk but if you think you want people to nod their head in agreement and then you take that as positive feedback, you will be shocked!

The youths might not be this vocal in certain church circles but it doesn't take away the fact that it's there and it's better you hear it however it is dished and correct it.

As much as this irks a nerve in me, this is feedback-an opportunity to begin to build systems to address it at its core!

If anybody thinks this is a "Pastor Bolaji church problem", think again...look around you! This is a societal problem. This is a wake up call.

At the end "let he that hath an ear hear what the spirit of the lord is saying"

Aside:
I have sat in a class of children between the age of 9 to 16 in church and heard all manner of things that it got the pastors wife crying.

They had an open mic session where you were free to express yourself on issues that bothered you and you heard all sorts-from issues of self esteem (my dad still bathes me as a 12 year old menstruating girl), to molestation that parents were not aware of, to bullying, to contemplating suicide, to relationship pressure!

If they didn't talk, how many will we know?

Let everyone in their own small corner pick the baton to address this-parents raise your boys and girls to always think industry not this entitlement mindset!

Yes. You hit the nail on the head. It's a values problem, not about "pastor said this or that". And it's what we see around us. It's just a mirror into what's in the mind of the average Naija woman. We all know this. The average Nigerian Gen Z/millennial woman is not going to build with a man.

The pastor should be commended for creating an open place for free expression. That's actually what's christ-like, not all this stuck-up men of Mammon.

pgirl123:
U better abandon scam religion in 2026. There is no God in heaven talkless of the words of pastors (all religious leaders are scammers) meaning anything

Rest

The OP have over exaggerated the Pastor's action.

Image123:
The pastor should see/recognize that he's not taking his members anywhere close to God or heaven. It's feedback. He has a lot of work to do as their shepherd. It's another matter if he himself knows what he's doing or where he's going. If it's business or earthly hustle, he's nothing to worry about. But if it's following Jesus, hmmm.

Spot on. He has been feeding them milk and they have become too comfortable to the extent that they make light of any solid word that can transform them.
It's not the fault of the congregation. It's the age we are in.

"Men dey"
Me I no dey oo, if was "dey" that must have been in adolescent years when I was financially depending on someone else.
So I also dust my shoes

pgirl123:
How is it a menace if there are several unmarried women in the society? U should be more worried about losing ur life and belongings to your fellow men who carry out almost all social vices in the society.

Name one single social vice(s) that women aren't involved in this present day

He ended the service in a lighter note. He would have gone more tougher. Than applying humor to a serious issue as such

I was once a regular attendee. I stopped for a reason.

That reason echoed in their response to him. And I can only hope he now sees the obvious in his congregation.

I hope he now sees and realises his congregation needs a different type of message, away from prosperity teachings.

As him dust him shoes,I heard him say “lets pray”
Leave propaganda
Did u see bitter argument with the crowd?
You can take a horse to a river but cant force him to drink .
He didn’t dust his shoes as to “he’s leaving the church or city or congregation “
Leave propaganda
Leave agenda

Without the social vices that are carried out by men, the world will be majorly peaceful. U r more likely to be kpaied by a man than a woman

tiswell:
Name one single social vice(s) that women aren't involved in this present day

Bolaji Idowu is a SCAM

Watching that video gave me goose bumps. Moments like this could effectively generate circumstances one never bargained for in life
Pastor Bolaji has unintentionally "cursed" them without knowing it, and the young ladies were just laughing about it. Ignorance is worse than the Devil. 😎

pgirl123:
Without the social vices that are carried out by men, the world will be majorly peaceful. U r more likely to be kpaied by a man than a woman

Now,that was more of an emotion than logic.

No gender has the monopoly of social vices. Besides, that's not the topic in context.
The mindset of today's ladies towards relationship and marriage will keep a whole lot of them in their father's house for a very long time.

Juoflife1:
The pastor has anger issues. What he did is unacceptable. He cursed them

Do you know the meaning of curse at all? How do you people reason? Because he took of his shoes and dust it means he cursed them?
What he did there was simple, "I have said what needs to said and I won't be held accountable for your errors on the Lord's day". That is not a curse

Men get monopoly of social vices ooo. U don see female bandits team? Women in 2026 dey feed their parents ooo. Go online and see women renting and furnishing houses that may be better than their father's house

tiswell:
Now,that was more of an emotion than logic.

No gender has the monopoly of social vices. Besides, that's not the topic in context.
The mindset of today's ladies towards relationship and marriage will keep a whole lot of them in their father's house for a very long time.

Meerahbel:
I think we need to be careful about stretching the pastor’s action beyond what he actually said.

Yes, Pastor Bolaji deliberately removed his shoes, dusted them and referenced the biblical instruction about shaking the dust off one’s feet. And yes, that is not a random biblical metaphor. Jesus gave that instruction in Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11 and Luke 9:5, and Paul later demonstrated a similar act in Acts 18:6.

But does that automatically mean Pastor Bolaji cursed his congregation or handed them over to judgment? I don't think we can confidently make that conclusion.

The context matters.

When Jesus instructed His disciples to shake the dust off their feet, the action was primarily a symbolic testimony of rejection: “We have brought the message to you; you have rejected it; we will not force it on you.” It was not necessarily a personal curse where the preacher was invoking evil upon the people.

In fact, notice something important about Matthew 10. Jesus wasn't telling His disciples to retaliate against people who rejected them. He told them to leave.

That distinction matters.

So, if Pastor Bolaji's gesture was intended to say, “I've told you what I believe Scripture teaches about relationships and financial expectations; if you choose not to listen, that's your decision,” then I don't think it is fair to automatically interpret it as him cursing his members.

However, I do agree that the gesture was unnecessarily strong, especially considering the pastoral relationship between a shepherd and his flock.

A pastor is not merely another participant in an argument. He has a responsibility to correct, teach and sometimes even endure the resistance of the people he leads.

And honestly, the congregation's response was also unnecessary.

Imagine your pastor is standing before you teaching something he genuinely believes is biblical, and your response is essentially, “Men dey.”

That's not really a theological rebuttal. 😂

You're basically telling the person teaching you, “Whether you agree or not, somebody else will give me what I want.”

That response actually proves the pastor's point more than it disproves it.

At the same time, the pastor could have handled the moment differently. Correction doesn't always require confrontation. He could have laughed it off, continued teaching and allowed the people to wrestle with the message.

Because Christianity isn't about winning arguments with members; it's about transforming people.

And this is where I would slightly disagree with the interpretation that “he should have prayed for them instead.”

He absolutely could have prayed for them. But we shouldn't turn every strong biblical rebuke into a failure of Christianity either. Jesus Himself confronted people strongly. Paul confronted churches strongly. The prophets certainly did.

The issue isn't whether a pastor can express displeasure.

The issue is what his heart and intention were behind it.

If the dusting of the shoes was a humorous but serious way of saying, “I have said my piece; you people can do what you want,” then perhaps we are reading too much into it by calling it a curse.

But if he genuinely meant, “Because you rejected my instruction, I am pronouncing judgment upon you,” then I would have a problem with that.

A pastor should be extremely careful about using his spiritual authority as a weapon against the people entrusted to him.

And perhaps there is another lesson here for both sides.

Women shouldn't approach relationships with the mentality that men are walking ATMs.

But men shouldn't use that conversation as an opportunity to shame women either.

Healthy relationships involve generosity, sacrifice and mutual responsibility. A man may choose to provide for his woman; a woman may choose to support her man. Those are matters that should be discussed within the context of the relationship—not turned into an entitlement backed by “men dey.”

And equally, a pastor's teaching should be received thoughtfully, not met with a slogan designed to dismiss him.

So my conclusion is simple:

The congregation's response was disrespectful, but Pastor Bolaji's gesture should not automatically be labelled a curse. It was a biblical symbolic action, although perhaps an unnecessarily dramatic one in that particular setting.

We shouldn't manufacture a spiritual curse where there may simply have been a pastor saying, in effect:

“I've told you what I believe Scripture says. If you choose not to hear it, I won't force you.”

And frankly, “he that has ears, let him hear” was probably the clearest part of the entire exchange.

excellent write up

clarocuzioo:
What exactly do you want the Pastor to do? He told them the simple truth and the deluded leeches echoed "Men Dey'. Imagine the audacity of telling your pastor in the house of God that you will be jumping through men.
Pastor simply dusted his shoes.

This "Men Dey" mantra is why Nigerian women abroad are losing out in the marriage scene to women from other African countries. In the UK 1 IN 4 Nigerian men is married to a non Nigerian.

pgirl123:
Men get monopoly of social vices ooo. U don see female bandits team? Women in 2026 dey feed their parents ooo. Go online and see women renting and furnishing houses that may be better than their father's house

Of course there are female bandits who aids their male counterparts in crime .

A male bandit's wife/girlfriend is twice as daedly.
We have yahoo girls now who are into more deeper rit.uals than guys.

I really wish I have all the time to go on...

Indication that olosho, hookup babes and olodo uprising full church

airsaylongcome:
Carnal.

Carnal means relating to physical desires, especially sexual desires.

Canal means a man-made waterway or a passage in the body.

No, it goes beyond what you stated. You missed the broader bible definition of carnality. It means responding to the fleshly dictates like pride, selfishness, immorality, covetousness, greed and such likes.

How many cases of yahoo girls way dey do rituals have u heard about in the news compared to una men? How many cases of female bandits have u heard that blocked the road to carry their victims? U have nothing to say, Bros

tiswell:
Of course there are female bandits who aids their male counterparts in crime .

A male bandit's wife/girlfriend is twice as daedly.
We have yahoo girls now who are into more deeper rit.uals than guys.

I really wish I have all the time to go on...

The remove shoe aspects is a fallacy

And the idowu is just being theatrical, content creator

.....

When you are talking silly things like buying iPhone for a woman on a pulpit is that one evangelism or persecution against evangelism

He was expecting them to hero praise him for the fallacy, he got otherwise and na turn it to remove shoe analogy


I don't blame him, na the people that attend such church

Breaker001:
Watching that video gave me goose bumps. Moments like this could effectively generate circumstances one never bargained for in life
Pastor Bolaji has unintentionally "cursed" them without knowing it, and the young ladies were just laughing about it. Ignorance is worse than the Devil. 😎

They should "curse" him back too

Gbadugbakun:
‎One thing I believe men need to understand is that being in a relationship does not automatically make you financially responsible for another adult. Unfortunately, the culture of expecting men to provide everything, regardless of their financial capacity or the woman's own earning potential, is encouraged by men who fail to establish healthy boundaries.

‎Imagine a man earning 350k monthly who willingly gives his girlfriend 150k every month. That leaves him with 200k to cover his own needs, bills, savings, family responsibilities, and emergencies.
‎
‎Yet, tomorrow, the same woman would turn around and ask, What have you even done for me? simply because he refuses to continue spending beyond his means.
‎
‎I had the privilege of attending university, and from my experience, men and women pursue education, complete NYSC, compete for jobs, and build careers. In many workplaces, women are not only employed but also occupy significant leadership positions.
‎
‎Of course, opportunities are not always equal in every industry or circumstance. However, the reality is that many women have the capacity to earn, build businesses, develop careers, and become financially independent.
‎
‎So, if two adults are capable of working and earning an income, why should one person automatically bear the entire financial responsibility simply because they are the man in the relationship?
‎
‎Men need to understand that being a gentleman does not mean abandoning common sense. You can be loving, generous, supportive, and responsible without allowing someone to take your kindness for granted. There is a difference between willingly supporting your partner and being made to feel inadequate whenever you cannot provide money.
‎
‎Men, stop confusing financial sacrifice with proof of love. You do not have to impoverish yourself to prove that you care.
‎
‎Pay attention to her attitude towards money. Does she have personal goals? Is she making any effort to improve her circumstances? Does she appreciate your sacrifices? Can she contribute according to her ability, or does she believe your income automatically belongs to both of you while hers remains exclusively hers?
‎
‎These are important questions to ask before committing to a future together.

There's difference between extortion and giving

And one major way to show love is giving

Your relationship must be defined, you can't be in a premarital sex relationship or being in a relationship with a wayward lady and you don't expect exhortations

That's why men need to be godly, watchful and wise

Watch beautiful and twisted you go understand

Mynd44:
A lot of us have seen the video and there has been different responses to it where Pastor Bolaji Idowu, founder and lead pastor of Harvesters International Christian Centre (HICC) was addressing an issue in church about financial responsibilities of men to women in relationships. This must have hit a sour side of some women who believe that men are responsible for providing them with some level of financial relief and they responded "men dey".

The slogan "men dey" came from afrobeatz, it is a slogan that simply says "if this man or men are not willing to do something or cannot do something, there are men that are able and willing to". Basically when Pastor Bolaji told his congregation that they shouldn't expect men to give them money gifts or buy them iphones, they responded with if some men are not able to afford these things, there are men who will and the pastor's response? He removed his shoes, dusted then and said "do you know what the Bible says about when you reach somewhere and they don't accept your message, you dust your shoes" the he ended with "he that has ears, let him hear".

The action the respectable pastor did was actually a commandment of Jesus which are recorded in Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11, Luke 9:5 and it was applied in Acts 18:6

Lets look at these verses. Note that this is a direct commandmend of Jesus

Matthew 10:14


Mark 6:11


‭Luke 9:5


‭Acts 18:6 ‬


Note that Pastor Bolaji while performing this action of taking off his shoes to dust then also made reference to this verse which he might have join as a joke and not out of anger but, he is their pastor and if you ask me, he somewhat cursed them or gave then up for judgment in that case.

While I do not hold brief for the congregation, I find their action nauseating and needless as to directly say that to the pastor means you are telling him he doesn't know what he is saying.

My question is Pastor Bolaji since cannot claim ignorance of his action, should he be allowed according to Christianity to curse his flock just because they refuse to listen to him? He could have prayed for insight and soft heart but that action he did, fell short a little

many charlatans in pulpit deceiving the simple minded.

Is his message backed by scriptures? Is he talking to married couples or people in a relationship?

Pastor wan trend

The pastor never cursed his members. What he did was not same as cursing.

What he did was like; I have done my part and as adult you're at liberty to agree or disagree with me. So every Ashton has consequence. Whatever you chose, your responsible for it's consequence.
This is not a curse.

Meerahbel:
I think we need to be careful about stretching the pastor’s action beyond what he actually said.

Yes, Pastor Bolaji deliberately removed his shoes, dusted them and referenced the biblical instruction about shaking the dust off one’s feet. And yes, that is not a random biblical metaphor. Jesus gave that instruction in Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11 and Luke 9:5, and Paul later demonstrated a similar act in Acts 18:6.

But does that automatically mean Pastor Bolaji cursed his congregation or handed them over to judgment? I don't think we can confidently make that conclusion.

The context matters.

When Jesus instructed His disciples to shake the dust off their feet, the action was primarily a symbolic testimony of rejection: “We have brought the message to you; you have rejected it; we will not force it on you.” It was not necessarily a personal curse where the preacher was invoking evil upon the people.

In fact, notice something important about Matthew 10. Jesus wasn't telling His disciples to retaliate against people who rejected them. He told them to leave.

That distinction matters.

So, if Pastor Bolaji's gesture was intended to say, “I've told you what I believe Scripture teaches about relationships and financial expectations; if you choose not to listen, that's your decision,” then I don't think it is fair to automatically interpret it as him cursing his members.

However, I do agree that the gesture was unnecessarily strong, especially considering the pastoral relationship between a shepherd and his flock.

A pastor is not merely another participant in an argument. He has a responsibility to correct, teach and sometimes even endure the resistance of the people he leads.

And honestly, the congregation's response was also unnecessary.

Imagine your pastor is standing before you teaching something he genuinely believes is biblical, and your response is essentially, “Men dey.”

That's not really a theological rebuttal. 😂

You're basically telling the person teaching you, “Whether you agree or not, somebody else will give me what I want.”

That response actually proves the pastor's point more than it disproves it.

At the same time, the pastor could have handled the moment differently. Correction doesn't always require confrontation. He could have laughed it off, continued teaching and allowed the people to wrestle with the message.

Because Christianity isn't about winning arguments with members; it's about transforming people.

And this is where I would slightly disagree with the interpretation that “he should have prayed for them instead.”

He absolutely could have prayed for them. But we shouldn't turn every strong biblical rebuke into a failure of Christianity either. Jesus Himself confronted people strongly. Paul confronted churches strongly. The prophets certainly did.

The issue isn't whether a pastor can express displeasure.

The issue is what his heart and intention were behind it.

If the dusting of the shoes was a humorous but serious way of saying, “I have said my piece; you people can do what you want,” then perhaps we are reading too much into it by calling it a curse.

But if he genuinely meant, “Because you rejected my instruction, I am pronouncing judgment upon you,” then I would have a problem with that.

A pastor should be extremely careful about using his spiritual authority as a weapon against the people entrusted to him.

And perhaps there is another lesson here for both sides.

Women shouldn't approach relationships with the mentality that men are walking ATMs.

But men shouldn't use that conversation as an opportunity to shame women either.

Healthy relationships involve generosity, sacrifice and mutual responsibility. A man may choose to provide for his woman; a woman may choose to support her man. Those are matters that should be discussed within the context of the relationship—not turned into an entitlement backed by “men dey.”

And equally, a pastor's teaching should be received thoughtfully, not met with a slogan designed to dismiss him.

So my conclusion is simple:

The congregation's response was disrespectful, but Pastor Bolaji's gesture should not automatically be labelled a curse. It was a biblical symbolic action, although perhaps an unnecessarily dramatic one in that particular setting.

We shouldn't manufacture a spiritual curse where there may simply have been a pastor saying, in effect:

“I've told you what I believe Scripture says. If you choose not to hear it, I won't force you.”

And frankly, “he that has ears, let him hear” was probably the clearest part of the entire exchange.

All these essay because ‘men Dey’ .

IsraeliAIRFORCE:
No, it goes beyond what you stated. You missed the broader bible definition of carnality. It means responding to the fleshly dictates like pride, selfishness, immorality, covetousness, greed and such likes.

Nothing concern me with all these o. My own was to correct that canal incorrect choice of word