Blog

The first modetorial send-off ceremony I attended was in 2016. It was a moment of great joy and celebration as the church came together to honor the outgoing leader of the church in a grand and meaningful way. The event was truly magnificent, with an impressive turnout that included political and ecumenical leaders, ambassadors, and other prominent figures of influence in society. The presence of traditional leaders and leaders from various denominations underscored the church’s dedication to ecumenism, a gesture that deeply resonated with me.

Yet, as I left the ceremony, I grappled with ethical unease. Beneath the splendor of the occasion, questions lingered on my mind about the financial implications of the event. Concerns about ethics, accountability, and stewardship began to take root, casting a shadow over the otherwise joyous celebration.

Those who know me well can attest to my longstanding reservations about how we bid farewell to our church leaders. I have consistently contended that these outwardly celebratory ceremonies often exacerbate economic disparities among ministers and disproportionately serve the interests of a privileged few within the church’s leadership. I believe the time has come for me to openly share these thoughts, to spark meaningful conversations, and to foster transformative dialogue in the church. This blog, in particular, will be longer than usual, and rightly so. As you’ll see, the topic at hand stirs deep – a matter of great weight deserves much attention.

I can already imagine the “Send-to-the-Appropriate-Quarters Association” flooding my inbox and comments section, eager to redirect my post to what they consider the right place. But please, spare me the effort. This blog is not intended as a personal attack on anyone. Instead, it should be viewed as a critique of a system that has outlived its usefulness and only enriches the pockets of a select few.

First, let’s establish some context. For years, my church has elected highly accomplished individuals to lead the church. These scholars, theologians, and seasoned ministers have built remarkable careers even before stepping into their leadership roles in the church. The principal officers I have known and worked alongside are not just leaders; they are luminaries in their fields. Most, if not all, were esteemed professors at reputable universities in Ghana, living lives that many would describe as enviable even before stepping into the weighty boots of ecclesiastical leadership.

I have never doubted their integrity nor believed that any of our leaders took up the mantle of church leadership with financial gain in mind. These individuals are testaments to success: they come to these positions already owning their homes, driving good cars, and enjoying the fruits of their labors. They are not entering the leadership office as novices to success nor are they driven by personal gain; Instead, they bring a wealth of experience and deep commitment to service and are motivated by a sense of purpose, not profit.

But once elected, they step into a system or tradition that, while well-meaning, leaves them vulnerable. After a grand induction ceremony—which often turns into a fundraising affair with gifts meant to “settle them in”–– they are well-compensated for their service. They receive competitive salaries and, rightly so, free utilities, internet, groceries, and travel allowances. But it doesn’t stop there. Two official vehicles are at their disposal. A V8 SUV, the car of choice for their countless travels, is justified by the state of our roads—rough and rugged, a V8 provides safety and durability for the journey ahead. For those quieter moments, a salon car is also provided, primarily for personal use, yet always ready as a backup in case the need arises.

My concern in this blog is not with the benefits they enjoy during their time in office but with how they are sent off once their tenure ends. When these leaders complete their tenure, the church organizes grand and elaborate send-off ceremonies in their honor. These events, while well-meaning, raise profound questions about ethics, stewardship, and justice—issues I feel are too often overlooked.

Let me take you through the typical send-off package:

1. A Salon Car: The car provided to them during their tenure remains in their possession as they exit office—this becomes their parting gift.
2. A Monetary Gift: A sum of money, often in US dollars (why USD? Perhaps the Ghana cedis isn’t strong enough), is handed over to them from the head office of the church. This amount, of course, is in addition to any individual contributions made by the various presbyteries, districts, and local churches.
3. Special Offertory: A special offertory is collected for the outgoing leader during the send-off ceremony, normally held in one of the largest churches in Accra. Things get murky here—this offertory is not counted nor audited. Instead, the funds are placed in a big black bag and handed directly to the leader and their spouse. Considering the high-profile nature of these events, with political leaders such as the president of Ghana, diplomats, and ecumenical guests in attendance, you can guess how much offering is collected for Papa to take home.

But that’s not all. The most interesting—and concerning—part of this whole process is that the church, both the head office and the hosting church, bears every single expense associated with the send-off celebration. From the meals provided for guests to the hotels where dignitaries stay, the printing of invitation cards and brochures, and even funding for media coverage, all of these come at the church’s expense. The church foots the bill for everything.

And here’s where things get particularly troubling: the proceeds raised during the celebration—the special offertory—all the money raised is handed directly to the outgoing leader, leaving the church to cover the entire cost of the event, I don’t know what type of accounting that is.

This creates a rather precarious situation. The send-off becomes more of a spectacle, often fueled by the desire to make the event as grand as possible. Leaders, understandably, want to ensure their departure is marked with significance. However, the result is that the church ends up covering every cost while the leader walks away with all the tax-free money.

What’s the impact of this? The financial burden is enormous, especially for the head office, which already operates on limited resources, and the hosting district and congregation, which are expected to carry a heavy load. In the end, the celebration, intended to honor service, becomes a financial strain that undermines the principles of stewardship, justice, and accountability that the church is meant to embody.

In recent years, we’ve witnessed a rather unusual and, for me, shocking occurrence—a principal officer of the church organized his send-off twice, once in the US and once in Ghana. What struck me, however, was something that had never happened before in the history of our church: a leader was sent off in May, even though the election for his successor was scheduled for August of the same year. Our brothers and sisters in North America held a send-off service for this leader in Manhattan in May 2023—long before a new leader had even been elected, but no one in the church coughed about it! I was shocked to the bone.

It’s hard to ignore the irony in how much we offer our church leaders during their send-offs compared to what Ghana’s Article 71 holders, such as MPs and ministers, receive. MPs and ministers get around 2 million Ghana cedis as ex gratia, yet a church leader who has served God often walks away with even more. How is this justifiable? How can we criticize politicians for their ex-gratia packages when our church leaders receive more send-off packages?

This system needs a serious reevaluation, especially if we claim to lead by example and follow the teachings of Christ. Do we really think the church must buy a departing leader a car or provide such extravagant sums of money as a send-off? Do we think this is the best way to honor their service? Yes, the demands of their roles are immense, which is why we basically pay for everything for them during their tenure, including their fat pension. Besides, as I noted above, many of these leaders are already accomplished individuals before they take on these roles. So why must we give them all these material gifts when they are leaving office? Would Jesus accept such lavish send-offs? This is a question that always lingers on my mind.

Before I wrap up, I want to offer a few suggestions. How can we honor our Papas in a way that reflects justice, ethics, and good stewardship? Let me clarify: I’m not opposed to individuals giving personal gifts to a leader as a token of appreciation for their service—this is something no one can control. My concern, however, is that we should not institutionalize such practices, collecting offertory and handing it over to one person.

As a church, it’s time we explore alternative, more meaningful ways to honor our leaders—ways that align with the values of justice, accountability, and stewardship. One approach could be inspired by practices in other jurisdictions, where the funds raised at such events do not go directly to the individual but are placed in a fund established in their name to serve the community.

For example, we could create a fund that supports scholarships for the children of ministers, catechists, or church leaders in deprived presbyteries like Northern, Central, Sekyere, etc. Alternatively, we could establish a pension fund to support retired ministers who struggle with healthcare and a decent quality of life. Another idea is to channel the resources into community development projects that honor the leader’s legacy while benefiting the wider community. The current system doesn’t support equitable distribution of wealth. In just 24 hours, we hand over tax-free money to these individuals. How is this a fair system? Leadership positions in the church have now become a viable avenue for money-making. It’s no wonder some ministers go to great lengths to tarnish the reputations of their colleagues during elections for their self-aggrandizement. The leadership roles in the church have become juicy for all the wrong reasons.

Let’s be proactive in redefining how we honor our leaders, ensuring that our actions reflect the principles we preach. It’s time for us to lead by example, making decisions that reflect the values of Jesus—values that prioritize justice, service, and the well-being of all. Let’s rise to the challenge and make a real difference.

As always, theology is fine, trust me!

image: pcgonline