In Ghana’s development journey, the Church (the universal body of Christ, not confined to one denomination) has never been a passive observer. From the earliest years of nation-building to contemporary times, religious institutions have remained deeply embedded in the social and developmental fabric of the country.
They have built schools in underserved communities, established hospitals where state capacity was limited, provided scholarships for the vulnerable, and consistently supported social interventions that have improved lives across the country.
These contributions are not hidden. They are visible, widely acknowledged, and often celebrated. In moments of national need, the Church has repeatedly stepped forward, not as a political actor, but as a social and moral partner in development. Yet a troubling contradiction persists.
When the Church supports government and society through development initiatives, its role is embraced without hesitation. But when it raises concerns about national challenges, particularly issues affecting the environment, governance, or social wellbeing, its voice is often met with suspicion, resistance, or outright hostility. This inconsistency is not only troubling; it is deeply disappointing.
If we are quick to welcome the Church’s corporate social responsibility initiatives, then we must also be equally willing to accept its moral voice. The Church does not only exist to build structures; it exists to speak to conscience. And in any healthy society, conscience must be allowed to speak freely, especially when the stakes involve the collective wellbeing of the people.
Constructive criticism should never be mistaken for political opposition. When religious leaders speak on issues such as environmental degradation, corruption, or social decay, they are not declaring political allegiance. They are fulfilling a moral responsibility to society.
It is therefore unfortunate that in recent times, some political actors have been quick to interpret such interventions as politically motivated. Since when did speaking on a national crisis automatically amount to partisanship? At what point did moral concern become a political offence?
Must religious leaders remain silent while rivers are destroyed, livelihoods are threatened, and communities are impacted, simply to avoid being labelled political? Such expectations are inconsistent with both civic responsibility and moral teaching.
Even scripture affirms the responsibility of individuals to speak and act in the face of societal decline. Nehemiah, though far from his homeland, was deeply moved by the devastation of Jerusalem. He did not dismiss it as distant or irrelevant. Instead, he responded with urgency, purpose, and leadership. His example reflects a timeless principle: moral responsibility does not require proximity or permission, it requires conviction.
If the Church can be applauded for contributing to national development through education, healthcare, and social support, then it must also be respected when it raises concerns about the direction of national life. Selective appreciation weakens trust. You cannot celebrate the Church in moments of convenience and silence it in moments of truth. Recent developments have brought this tension into sharper focus.
The Chairman of The Church of Pentecost, Apostle Eric Kwabena Nyamekye, during a State of the Church Address at the Church’s 48th General Council Meeting, raised concerns about the devastating impact of illegal mining (Galamsey). He noted how pollution of water bodies has become so severe that it has affected traditional river baptism, forcing a shift to alternative methods.
This concern is not isolated. Across denominations, members of the clergy have consistently drawn attention to the environmental, social, and economic dangers posed by galamsey. Their interventions form part of a broader national conversation on safeguarding Ghana’s natural resources and future generations. However, the response from some quarters has been less than constructive.
The CEO of the Ghana Free Zones Authority, Dr. Mary Awusi, framed Apostle Chair’s remarks as political in nature. She had gone ahead with what she described as a warning to the Apostle to focus on religious matters, comments that has since generated public debate and criticism. This raises a fundamental question: why are sincere and well-intentioned concerns so quickly reframed through a political lens?
Rather than dismissing or resisting such voices, Ghana stands to gain far more from engaging them. The Church is not an opponent in national development, it is a stakeholder. Its moral authority, grassroots reach, and long-standing presence in communities make it a valuable partner in addressing national challenges.
Issues such as illegal mining cannot be solved in silos. They require collaboration, dialogue, and shared responsibility. Engaging the Church and other faith-based institutions meaningfully could strengthen national efforts rather than undermine them.
Ghana belongs to all of us. Its protection and development cannot be the burden of a single group, institution, or political class. The Church has a role to play. Government has a role to play and so do citizens.
Dear political class, instead of attacking the Church for commenting on national issues, be more constructive by bringing it on board to help address the challenges at hand. The Church is a stakeholder in national development, not an enemy. Peace!
The writer Juliana Odame Asare is a journalist with Citi FM and Channel One TV
