Abstract
Background: Since time immemorial, several churches in Zimbabwe have invested in education, health, agriculture and other businesses to advance integral mission and to generate profit for inclusive economic sustainability. Later, native neo-Pentecostals emerged with the gospel of prosperity, and some of them ended up commercialising and commodifying the gospel. Most related literature responded with strong criticism and portrayed all ecclesial entrepreneurship as ill-fated. While churches engaging in commerce attract negative impressions, depending on traditional sources of income is unsustainable in an economically unstable context such as Zimbabwe.
Objectives: This article fills the gap of economic sustainability by troubleshooting church businesses.
Method: This study applied a literature review and the theory of theonomic reciprocity.
Results: The study found that church-owned businesses are essential to sustain the increasing costs of operations and missionary work. However, the opportunity has been spoiled by selfish leaders who commercialised and commodified the gospel at the expense of their gullible followers.
Conclusion: The author concludes that self-serving commerce is a curse for the church. It is fraught with the wrong hermeneutics and theologies, heresies and manipulation as well as diversion of the selfless gospel of Jesus Christ; hence, it must be rebuked and corrected through transformative theological education and Business as Mission (BAM) concepts that correspond with theonomic reciprocity.
Contribution: This article reconciles mission as business with BAM to investigate inclusive missionary and economic sustainability in contexts characterised by poverty.
Keywords: Church; neo-Pentecostalism; mission; business; reformation; sustainability.
Introduction
Classical Pentecostal, evangelical and mainline churches have been establishing and operating schools, clinics, hospitals, farms and other business ventures as a mission to enhance the proclamation and demonstration of the gospel beyond the pulpit through educational, medical, agricultural and economic development, as well as to generate profit to sustain missionary work in Zimbabwe since the coming of European and Western missionaries to the country (Mabwe, Dimingu & Siyawamwaya 2018; Machingura & Kalizi 2024; Muchamiri 2018; Tagwirei & Masango 2023). Sadly, proponents of the prosperity gospel, especially neo-Pentecostals, have distorted the concept of doing business as a mission by commercialising and commodifying the gospel by, for instance, selling what they claim to be anointed, healing, protecting and prospering holy oil, water, wristbands, handkerchiefs, towels, car stickers, denominational regalia, bracelets, audio and video recordings of sermons and other materials for personal enrichment (Huni 2024; Mahohoma 2017; Ncube 2015). When Zimbabwe’s economic crisis reached critical heights and lives and livelihoods were tragically disrupted mid-year 2008–2009, a couple of young charismatic prophets emerged and moved neo-Pentecostalism into overdrive by trading in prophecies, miracles, blessings and health and wealth for personal gain (Chitando, Manyonganise & Mlambo 2013; Madzokere 2018; Vengeyi 2013). In doing so, the emerging prophets manipulated their gullible followers and enriched themselves while impoverishing many. Such self-serving schemes have been criticised and called gosprenuership, which (Marongwe & Maposa 2015):
[C]an be taken to mean the setting of the gospel mission as a platform for profiteering as in a business venture that is as a latter day, money-spinning family enterprise. (p. 15)
Mahohoma (2017) describes church business as God business. Magezi and Manzanga (2016) explain the prosperity gospel as a coping mechanism in the face of the poverty and suffering that is prevalent in Zimbabwe. Bishau (2013) states that a prosperity gospel can resource the church and enhance social influence. Bishau (2013) is not the only scholar to also refer to the negative aspects of the prosperity gospel, such as disturbingly manipulative ecclesiology, literalistic interpretation of the Bible and warped theologies. While appreciating such critiques of a self-serving prosperity gospel and church-owned business, Tagwirei (2022) notes that the argument that doing business is a means to sustain integral mission in poverty-stricken contexts has not been explored much in Zimbabwe. By acknowledging that church operating and missionary costs are increasing rapidly while the majority of Zimbabwean citizens succumb to economic meltdown, Tagwirei (2022) argues that churches that operate without diversified sources of income become incapacitated and are forced to narrow their attention to kerygma and neglect other, equally important dimensions of mission, such as diakonia, thereby defacing the holistic nature of mission. In pursuit of inclusive sustainability, the following section provides the theoretical framework upon which this submission is based.
Theoretical framework: Theonomic reciprocity
Theonomic reciprocity is drawn from two words – theonomy and reciprocity. The term theonomy generally refers to the reign of God. Reciprocity means collaboration (Beltran et al. 2023). Chismar and Rausch (1984) define theonomy, in a theological sense, as a theocratic system of divine guidance and enhancement of human affairs. The theory of theonomic reciprocity was initiated in 1986 by the German theologian Bohren, in a book titled Predigtlehre (1986). Theonomic reciprocity suggests that humanity should utilise, manage and invest God-given resources to achieve sustainability. Bohren (1986) developed the theory of theonomic reciprocity in consideration of the relationship between the Spirit and method. According to Van Ruler (1969), submitting to God and utilising His resources on earth enhance economic sustainability; this view is affirmed by Van Helden (2016). Bohren (1986) observes that sustainability is impossible without strategic investment and management of God-given resources. Butzke (2007) explains that Bohren’s (1986) observations and suggestions can yield collective economic sustainability and save organisations and lives, especially in poverty-stricken contexts. Considering the instability of Zimbabwe’s economy, doing business with God-given resources is something churches should do to sustain themselves, because depending on traditional freewill offerings, tithes and donations is no longer sustainable in the country. However, doing business as a church has been spoiled by some self-serving leaders of neo-Pentecostal churches. This article explores ways to redeem the tarnished goodness of business in line with theonomic reciprocity and, in view of doing Business as Mission (BAM), to promote the gospel. The theory of theonomic reciprocity is apt for this study because it discourages an irresponsible dependency syndrome, merges spirituality with strategy and advocates for responsible use, investment and management – which begets sustainability. The BAM concept supports theonomic reciprocity by promoting the doing of business to enhance integral mission in the marketplace and to generate income to sustain operating and missionary costs of the church in a volatile economy. As BAM is meant to advance the primary mission as business (MAB), the following subsection conceptualises MAB.
Understanding mission as business
The term ‘mission’ is defined by Odhiambo (2025) as participation in God’s redemptive work. Business is defined by Alfonsius (2020:2) as ‘the activity of making one’s living or making money by producing or buying and selling products (such as good and services)’. Firstly, in this case, business is regarded as the primary occupation of the church. Secondly, business will also be used with reference to entrepreneurship that the church can engage in to meet its operating and missionary costs. DeYoung (n.d.) conceptualises the mission of the church as ‘the task given by God for the people of God to accomplish in the world. In simplest terms, the mission of the church is the Great Commission’. The Great Commission (Mt 28:19–20) instructs believers to proclaim the gospel, win new disciples for Jesus Christ, and teach and baptise them in the Trinitarian God. The mission of the church is integral. According to Mbewe (2022), ‘the gospel is the entire foundation on which the church is built and continues to grow’. As Waweru (2015) explains, the gospel must be proclaimed and demonstrated in all spiritual, social, political, economic and environmental areas of life. That, known as integral mission, ‘is the inclusive and multidimensional mission of God to address the entire lives of all human beings in all contexts’ (Tagwirei 2024:2). This view is affirmed by the Christian Bible, which proclaims that believers must be ‘doers of the word, and not hearers only’ (Ja 1:22−25), thereby signifying that talking about the gospel without living it is useless and hypocritical. This is why Kuhn (2005) says that the mission is not just about preaching but involves living out the gospel. Woolnough (2010) explains that the gospel should address the body, mind and spirit of human beings; thereby, the church ensures wholeness, completeness, well-being and the comprehensive salvation of all people and relationships. The same is affirmed by Padilla (2007), who says that the church carries an integral mission to apply scriptures to the lives, situations and communities of an audience. For Padilla (2007), the Christian faith becomes meaningful, understandable and transformational when it is contextualised to address the issues recipients face in life. Therefore, in Zimbabwe, the scriptures must be applied to the issues of poverty, oppression, disease, corruption and despair to make the gospel relevant. Furthermore, John 10:10 states that Jesus came to give humanity abundant life, which can be explained as a totally transformed life that is sustained by the loving, caring, healing, providing, protecting and sustaining reign of God. Therefore, the primary business of the church must be its integral mission. The church is expected to be clearly speaking out and undertaking actions that exhibit the relevance of the word of God in all aspects of people’s lives. Now, in the Zimbabwean context of economic instability, churches that do not strategically multiply their revenue in reciprocal correspondence with God-given resources have been disabled and forced to narrow their missionary focus to proclaiming the gospel and neglecting other dimensions of mission, such as diakonia (Tagwirei & Masango 2023).
A partial focus on the gospel in word without corresponding deeds portrays a more salvationist and less holistic image, which defaces ecclesiastical identity ‘in times that Zimbabwe is anxiously in dire need of a wholesome Church that values and attends to all areas of their lives’ (Tagwirei & Masango 2023). While the primary business of the church is integral mission, it is important to understand the need to engage in BAM for profit-making trades to finance the daily operations and integral mission of the church.
Understanding the Business as Mission concept
There is no one universally agreed definition of the BAM concept. However, there are certain common denominators of the concept, such as missional entrepreneurship, transformational business, missional business and business for transformation. According to Plummer (2024):
[T]he contemporary Business as Mission movement represents a growing intentionality in the global Church to fully integrate business goals with the call to the whole church to take the whole gospel to the whole world. (n.p)
In this article BAM is used with reference to applying entrepreneurship to sustain the integral mission of the church and using business networks and platforms to proclaim and demonstrate the gospel.
According to Rundle and Lee (2022:420), BAM as a concept ‘was coined in the late 1990s to describe intentionally missional businesses seeking to advance the cause of Christ in the less-developed or less-reached parts of the globe’. Albright, Lee and Rundle (2014) explain that BAM was legitimised and popularised at the 2004 Lausanne Conference in Pattaya, Thailand. Tunehag, McGee and Plummer (eds. 2004) report that:
God established the institution and practice of business as a means of fulfilling His creation mandate to steward and care for all of creation. He is releasing the power of business to aid in the task of fulfilling the great commission making disciples of all nations. God longs to be glorified through our business activities. (n.p)
This means that business can and should be used to support and create platforms for integral missions. Albright et al. (2014:4) explain that, ‘while the practice of BAM in various forms can be traced throughout the church’s history, as a field of scholarship, BAM is new and undeveloped’. For these scholars, BAM was preceded by tent-making, which is based on the missionary model of the Apostle Paul and his friends Priscilla and Aquila (Ac 18:3, Rm 16:3, Tm 2 4:19), through which ‘mission experts began experimenting with the idea that one’s professional skills can be used as instruments to advance God’s kingdom, particularly in less-Christianized countries’ (Albright et al. 2014:4). Business as Mission emerged in the late 1990s at a pair of conferences that focused on the redemptive potential of Christian-managed businesses in Central Asia (Albright et al. 2014):
BAM was similar to early definitions of tent-making in that it was self-supporting and laity-driven, but it was also different because of its exclusive focus on business, and its embrace of a more holistic understanding of mission. (p. 8)
By 2004, the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization had identified BAM as an important new development in world mission and had invited about 70 people from around the world to discuss this matter at its conference in Pattaya, Thailand (eds. Tunehag et al. 2004). Tunehag et al. (eds. 2004) report that the Lausanne conference stated that:
[B]usiness is a mission, a calling, a ministry in its own right. Human activity reflects our divine origin, having been created to be creative, to create good things by good processes, for us to enjoy – with others. (n.p)
It is reported, furthermore, that BAM incorporates marketplace and workplace ministry by using business networks and platforms to proclaim and demonstrate the gospel – tent-making – by extending God’s kingdom through business in any context (eds. Tunehag et al. 2004). For Plummer (2022), BAM is ‘an idea, a concept, that is deeply rooted in biblical principles and our Judeo-Christian tradition’. Business as Mission demonstrates God’s kingdom by ‘bringing the “whole gospel” in word and deed, aiming to have a positive environmental, social, economic and spiritual impact’ (Plummer 2022). In the light of BAM, this article finds the entrepreneurial initiatives of neo-Pentecostal churches necessary to sustain the operating and integral missionary costs of the church in a poverty-stricken Zimbabwe. Before exploring ways to redeem church business in Zimbabwe, the following section reviews the negative (cursed) side of neo-Pentecostal church business.
Redeeming the cursed blessing of church business in Zimbabwe
Doing profitable business as, in, with and for the church is entangled in self-serving schemes and has become demonised in Zimbabwe. Scholarly and media publications reveal that most neo-Pentecostals and a few church founders and leaders who represent certain independent churches have adopted a prosperity gospel and, through profiteering church business, have led their churches astray with the wrong hermeneutics and theologies of prosperity, which divert from the selfless gospel to selfish trades; they preach false hope, have diverted their attention from missio Dei to self-serving missions, commercialised and commodified the gospel, manipulated followers and defaced the identity of the church.
Troubleshooting hermeneutics and theologies
It has been observed that most African neo-Pentecostal leaders take the Bible literally, misinterpret it and, thus, develop deviant theologies (Bishau 2013). An example of scripture that neo-Pentecostals usually misconstrue is the passage in the Old Testament, Malachi 3:6–12, ‘which numerous neo-Pentecostals publicly use to legalise tithing, when the New Testament requires cheerful giving’ (Tagwirei 2023:4). Likewise, issues of seeding through ‘men of God’ – that is, congregants being instructed to sacrificially give their pastors cash and in-kind gifts because blessings correspond with their giving – imply an unbiblical theology that trades off blessings. While the concept of ‘seeding’ is biblical, the author agrees with Muyambo (2020:26–27), who argues that ‘most church leaders have been in the firing line for encouraging seeding for their personal gain’, while believers who seed continue to plummet further into poverty. Self-enriching leaders neglect diakonia, while impoverishing their congregations and communities. Bishau (2013) asserts that most neo-Pentecostal leaders interpret the Bible literally by giving special attention to Malachi 3:10 and overemphasising giving as a prerequisite for receiving God’s blessings, health, general well-being and happiness. Bishau (2013:8) adds that most neo-Pentecostal church heads are proponents of ‘very disturbing manipulative ecclesiology, literalistic interpretation of the Bible, careless theology and warped concept of miracles’. Bishau (2013) explains that most proponents of the prosperity gospel start by claiming to be non- or inter-denominational, to entice followers of other denominations; eventually they establish independent denominations:
As the congregation grows again it is deliberate to emphasise the independence of the church and to develop it at least as a vague and amorphous organisation without any discernible system. (p. 8)
As Bishau (2013) describes, neo-Pentecostal church leaders eventually cultivate authoritarian organisations through which they control their followers without accountability to anybody. Magezi and Banda (2017) accuse authoritarian and self-acclaimed neo-Pentecostal church leaders of blasphemously competing with and usurping the mediatory role of Jesus Christ in the Church:
Instead of being channels that lead people to depend only on Christ for their spiritual security, prosperity Pentecostal prophets present themselves as super spiritual authorities who must be relied upon by the believers in addition to Christ. (p. 1)
In addition, neo-Pentecostals’ wrong hermeneutics and theologies lead to a ‘spirituality of short-cuts’ (Chibango 2016:71). According to Chibango, neo-Pentecostalism generally instils rapid, miraculous wealth accumulation that ‘goes against the grain of hard work and the development of a transparent and tested mode of wealth accumulation’. It encourages what may be described as a spirituality (or a culture) of ‘short-cuts’ (Chibango 2016:71). Such a spirituality of short-cuts dispenses with accountability and inspires miracle-based economy that lacks evident explanation. Furthermore, some neo-Pentecostal leaders have a narrow salvific theology of missio Dei and missio ecclesiae. They focus on kerygma and ignore other dimensions of the mission. As explained by Marimbe and Ndawonde (2024), the bulk of neo-Pentecostal leaders enrich themselves while impoverishing their congregations and communities; a reason for doing so could be that they lack a sound theological education. It is argued that:
[V]ery few of them hold diplomas and degrees in theological education … it is believed that those who go through seminaries, Bible schools, theological colleges and universities get enlightened enough to research, interpret, teach, preach, and apply Scripture properly. (Tagwirei 2023:4)
Thus, I argue that theological education can correct their hermeneutics and theology of mission to serve God and others and to work beyond kerygma to diakonia, instead of being selfish.
I am aware that theological education alone may not correct the wrong hermeneutics and theologies, because theological education is also presently weakened by the development of equally self-serving denominational and interdenominational schools. Some neo-Pentecostals have established their own institutions and prophetic and charismatic curriculums and used their loyal subordinates to teach their wrong theologies. Meanwhile, several Zimbabwean tertiary institutions are currently economically constrained and losing experts, who are leaving for greener pastures elsewhere (Masiyiwa 2025).
The remnant of competent theologians is, furthermore, frustrated by insufficient remuneration, and financial constraints mean they cannot give their best attention to students. Although we still have some passionate trainers who continue to equip upcoming leaders and ministers of the church, it cannot be disputed that standards usually decline as economies fall. Therefore, even those who enrol at formerly sound theological colleges may no longer be receiving education of the expected standards.
Furthermore, not all neo-Pentecostal leaders value education. Arguably, they tend to argue that studying theology will not call, anoint, and empower anyone to deliver in ministry (Tagwirei 2023:5). While we can agree that theological education does not guarantee ministerial effectiveness, it has various benefits, such as the provision of hermeneutical skills, sound theologies, doctrines, effective leadership and ministry (Ewool & Diboro 2021).
Because the blessing of church business has been mostly spoiled by the self-enrichment of leaders at the expense of followers, it is believed that, if leaders’ hermeneutics, theologies and character could be corrected to correspond with that of sound biblical teaching, leaders or their successors could pivot to the right way of doing and using church business to resource and advance missio Dei and missio ecclesiae.
Turning from self-serving to integral mission
Doing business as or in the name of a church has been demonised because it allegedly diverts clerical leaders from the gospel to self-serving missions. Ncube (2017) reports that ‘charismatic Pentecostal church leaders have gone astray by concentrating on “prosperity gospel” instead of saving lost souls’. According to a report by Ncube (2017), some neo-Pentecostal leaders overemphasise material prosperity, as if that is the essence of the gospel, by saying that wealth is a sign of God’s blessing. ‘Since the turn of the millennium, scores of wealthy clergymen have emerged, sparking a debate over the preaching of prosperity gospel more than salvation’. Taru and McNeill (2024) report that young neo-Pentecostal proponents of prosperity gospel in Zimbabwe are trading anything that they can, just to enrich themselves. Chibango (2016) asserts that the majority of neo-Pentecostal church leaders abuse church-owned businesses to enrich themselves at the expense of poor and gullible people. Chibango (2016) refers to Prophetic, Healing and Deliverance (PHD) Ministries. A case study unearthed that the church founder and leader, Prophet W. Magaya, built an empire for himself with proceeds from church enterprises. Prophet Magaya now ‘owns several assets, including the Yadah TV Channel for televangelism, guest houses for congregants, a residential estate and a soccer team’ (Chibango 2016:68). Wafawarova (2015) affirms that the pursuit of business is a curse that has led a number of gospel ministers in Zimbabwe to sell anointing oil, bangles, handkerchiefs and similar objects, allegedly for divine healing, protection and blessings. Chitando et al. (2013:96) and Marongwe and Maposa (2015:15) report that the overdrive into economic advancement has triggered commercialisation of the gospel. The scholars agree that the prosperity gospel benefits only a few and leads to the abuse of followers. Instead of inviting and accommodating everyone in open venues, neo-Pentecostal leaders such as Magaya are alleged to be monetising their church services. Chibango (2016) reports that the prophet orders his local and foreign followers to make reservations at his guest houses to meet him for one-on-one prophetic, deliverance and healing encounters. Instead of availing the gospel and his services to everyone, including poor congregants who contributed to build his empire, ‘meeting Walter Magaya in person is gradually becoming a challenge as some people cannot afford the required booking fees’ (Chibango 2016:69). In addition to booking fees, the prophet also charges entrance fees to some of his conferences, thereby denying poor people access to his ministry, although they are the people who contributed to his rise to prosperity through their giving.
Excessive emphasis on a prosperity gospel leads clerics to manipulate their followers for the sake of self-enrichment. Chibango (2016) reports that Magaya prophesied that one of his congregants was going to own an airline and instructed the congregant to pay R 890 000 as a seed offering and US$ 15 000 to guarantee fulfilment of the prophecy – all the money was for the benefit of the prophet. Pongo (2012) affirms that some neo-Pentecostal leaders have diverted from the gospel to focus on self-enriching missions. Sibanda et al. (2024) argue that, instead of fostering a sound gospel, charismatic churches in Zimbabwe sell a false hope of miraculous prosperity and are paid to do so (Barron 2022; Sibanda et al. 2024):
We conclude that prosperity gospel thrives on giving false hope designed to milk Zimbabweans of the little they have left after being ravaged by decades of economic and political turmoil. (p. 8)
When the prosperity gospel is used to manipulate and to support the self-aggrandisement and material enrichment of so-called pastors who are peddlers of their own personality cults rather than purveyors of the Good News about Jesus, this should be firmly rebuked and repudiated as heretical and anti-Christian. But, on the other hand, the prosperity churches – and especially those who teach and practice the Productivity Gospel – have captured a biblical emphasis that speaks into the local cultures of Africa and provides a message of hope to the people. (p. 88)
However, the commodification of the gospel by some ministers of religion should not stand in the way of churches doing business to sustain their operating costs and missionary work, especially in the context of an economic crisis, during which traditional sources of funds are unsustainable. The church can do business as long as the profit is not meant for personal enrichment. Church business profits should be directed towards funding operating costs and advancing integral missions. In order to withstand the temptations brought by commercialisation of the gospel, this submission concurs with Tagwirei (2022) that:
[C]hurches can always create separate arms of business to run their businesses professionally, and establish boards for checks and balances towards avoiding personalisation and abuse (by ecclesial leaders) as well as promoting accountable standardisation of church businesses. (p. 6)
Managing division of attention
It is claimed that doing business as a church can divert the attention from missionary work to economics (Alston 2017). Tsukahira (2003) explains that it is difficult to mix ministry with business by arguing that any business can tempt pastors and elders to end up spending more time on business than ministry. It is undeniable that the attention of church leaders may be divided, which can affect the work of the gospel negatively. However, having one’s attention divided by business engagements is usually a result of a failure of time management. I argue that, for a church to run a business without being distracted from the work of mission, it should establish a separate business unit staffed by qualified personnel and have specialised boards that oversee and operate their businesses professionally, while reserving pastors, elders and other supporting gospel workers to focus on ministry. When a church separates its activities, delegates duties and manages its work strategically, it can own and run businesses effectively without diverting ministry workers from their core business of missio ecclesiae.
Troubleshooting corruption
There are fears that doing business as a church can tempt leaders to fall in love with money and lead them to succumb to corruption and related evils that bedevil commerce in Zimbabwe (Dhliwayo 2024). Such views are reminiscent of observations by Matendere (2025) that business in Zimbabwe is poisoned by corruption and corruptibility. This means that people who get involved in business in Zimbabwe are highly vulnerable to succumbing to corruption. Seet (2000) reports from Singapore that Christians who enter the world of business eventually find themselves at the mercy of market forces and facing keen competition and a variety of temptations, such as cutting corners and being tempted to delve into unethical means used by other successful businesses; this is also a real possibility in contemporary Zimbabwe. However, it should be understood that corruption has always been a choice. Churches can decide to do business with Christian integrity, set a good example, and influence and transform Zimbabwean business from corruption to being the salt and light of the world (Mt 5:13–16). Shumba (2019) reports that Zimbabwe’s biggest telecommunication businessman and a devout Christian, Strive Masiyiwa, once said that business can be done well for the advancement of the gospel, with transparency, accountability and without corruption. In the light of that possibility, churches should not avoid becoming involved in business because they are afraid of corruption. Churches should operate businesses to demonstrate that it can be done with integrity to advance the mission of God on earth for everyone to emulate.
Defacing the identity of the church
We should also take into account that churches doing business could deface the identity of the church. According to Tagwirei (2024), the church in Zimbabwe is currently a mixed and confusing entity because of the various images that are used to portray it. The church in Zimbabwe has been portrayed as a workshop where people’s lives can be fixed, like cars, at a price; as a marketplace where miscellaneous ideas and goods are traded in cash and in kind; as a theatre that charges people to watch and celebrate self-serving comedy and charlatanry; or as a salvationist embassy that attends to kerygma and neglects diakonia and other dimensions of mission. Such negative portrayals, together with Munikwa’s (2011:109) submission that doing business as a church creates the impression that the church is greedy, materialistic and selfish, apply to neo-Pentecostalism in Zimbabwe. Because the church traditionally bears an image of selflessness and limited concern for financial gains, engaging in profit-making business appears inconsiderate, especially in a context where the identity of the church is already tarnished by self-centred behaviour. However, it should be remembered that living the mission of the church is expensive and unsustainable in the Zimbabwean context of prevailing poverty. Thus, neglecting commerce prevents the church from advancing its mission. Yet, if business is done properly, for the good purpose of sustaining the church, negative impressions of greed and materialism can be cleared. Doing business is, actually, contextually responsible and progressive, because it builds ecclesial sustainability and advances the gospel.
A good example is the Zimbabwe Assemblies of God in Africa (ZAOGA), which developed and taught their congregants a theology of doing business as a mission to sustain personal, family and church lives. Tarugarira and Moyo (2020) explain that ZAOGA, through its talents (known in Shona as matarenda) and teaching about investments based on the parable of talents (Mt 25:14−30), ‘instilled hard work, frugality, and penultimate economic empowerment’. Thus, the blessing of business can and must be redeemed by teaching the church to understand and engage in business for the right purpose – that of generating income to sustain integral missio ecclesiae, without breaching biblical and contextual rules.
Conclusion
This article concludes that self-serving commerce is a curse for the whole church. The problem arises from and is sustained by wrong hermeneutics, theologies and heresies, and manipulation and diversion of the selfless gospel of Jesus Christ. Personal enrichment at the expense of the gospel and gullible followers must be rebuked and corrected. However, doing business as a church for a good cause – to diversify sources of income and meet the skyrocketing operating and missionary costs in economically volatile contexts, like that of Zimbabwe – must be encouraged and supported, because traditional sources of ecclesial income – namely, tithes, freewill offerings and donations – are no longer sustainable. Hence, the blessing of ecclesial business should be redeemed through correctional, transformative theological education and the BAM concept and according to theonomic reciprocity.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the Unit for Reformational Theology and the Development of the South African Society, Faculty of Theology, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa, for supporting his research.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
Author’s contributions
K.T. is the sole author of this research article.
Ethical considerations
This article does not contain any studies involving animals performed by any of the authors.
Funding information
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article, as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Albright, B., Lee, M.-D. & Rundle, S., 2014, Scholars needed: The current state of Business as Mission research, Report by the Business as Mission think tank group scholarship and research, BAM Think Tank, viewed 01 August 2025, from https://bamglobal.org/report-scholarship/.
Alfonsius, G., 2020, ‘What is business?’, Universal Journal 6(2), 17. https://doi.org/10.58826/uj.v6i2.17
Alston, E., 2017, ‘Corporatization of the church compromises Christians’ priorities, purpose, and practices’, DMin thesis, Liberty University School of Divinity, viewed 02 July 2025, from https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2579&context=doctoral.
Barron, J., 2022, ‘Is the prosperity gospel, gospel? An examination of the prosperity and productivity gospels in African Christianity’, Conspectus: The Journal of the South African Theological Seminary 33(1), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.54725/conspectus.2022.1.6
Beltran, D.G., Ayers, J.D., Munoz, A., Cronk, L. & Aktipis, A., 2023, ‘What is reciprocity? A review and expert-based classification of cooperative transfers’, Evolution and Human Behavior 44(4), 384–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.05.003
Bishau, D., 2013, ‘The prosperity gospel: An investigation into its pros and cons with examples drawn from Zimbabwe’, Zimbabwe Open University International Journal 1(1), 15.
Bohren, R., 1986, Sermon teaching, Chr, Kaiser, Muchen.
Butzke, P.A., 2007, Theological aspects of church sustainability: The Lutheran World Federation sustainability program contribution to Latin America and the Caribbean, viewed 03 July 2025, from https://sustentabilidad.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/theological-aspects-of-church-sustainability-en.pdf.
Chibango, C., 2016, ‘Prosperity gospel, a pathway out of a socioeconomic crisis? The case of the PHD Ministries of Walter Magaya, Zimbabwe’, Modern Research Studies: An International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3(1), 55–82.
Chismar, D.E. & Rausch, D.A., 1984, ‘Regarding theonomy: An essay of concern’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) 27(3), 315.
Chitando, E., Manyonganise, M. & Mlambo, O.B., 2013, ‘Young, male and polished masculinities, generational shifts and Pentecostal prophets in Zimbabwe’, in E. Chitando, M.R. Gunda & J. Kügler (eds.), Prophets, profits and the Bible in Zimbabwe, Bible in Africa Series, pp. 153–170, University of Bamberg Press, Bamberg.
DeYoung, K., n.d., ‘The mission of the church’, The Gospel Coalition, viewed 15 June 2025, from https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-mission-of-the-church/.
Dhliwayo, I., 2024, ‘When church becomes business!’, TellZim, viewed 30 May 2025, from https://tellzim.com/when-church-becomes-business/.
Ewool, S.A. & Diboro, P.K.E., 2021, ‘The relevance and practice of theological education: A case study of charismatic churches in Santasi-Heman, Ghana’, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 11(10), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i10/10965
Huni, E., 2024, ‘Zimra goes after churches and prophets enriching themselves from selling anointing oil, wrist bands and T-shirts’, My Zimbabwe News, viewed 13 December 2024, from https://www.myzimbabwe.co.zw/news/177840-zimra-goes-after-churches-and-prophets-enriching-themselves-from-selling-anointing-oil-wrist-bands-and-t-shirts.html.
Kuhn, W., 2005, ‘The need for a biblical theology of holistic mission’, Africa Renewal, 04 January, viewed 06 August 2025, from http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/world-mission-pubs/12.
Mabwe, L, Dimingu, C. & Siyawamwaya, F., 2018, ‘The church as a social enterprise: A strategy for economic development’, International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM) 6(3), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v6i2.em08
Machingura, F. & Kalizi, C.S., 2024, ‘Christian education in colonial and post-independent Zimbabwe: A paradigm shift’, Religions 15, 213. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15020213
Madzokere, N., 2018, ‘Prophets or profiteers? An interrogative study of selected contemporary Pentecostal prophets in Zimbabwe in the context of development’, Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 20(1), 276–289.
Magezi, V. & Banda, C., 2017, ‘Competing with Christ? A critical Christological analysis of the reliance on Pentecostal prophets in Zimbabwe’, In die Skriflig 51(2), a2273. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v51i2.2273
Magezi, V. & Manzanga, P., 2016, ‘Prosperity and health ministry as a coping mechanism in the poverty and suffering context of Zimbabwe: A pastoral evaluation and response’, In die Skriflig 50(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v50i1.2076
Mahohoma, T.C., 2017, ‘A theological evaluation of God business: A case study of the Prophetic healing and deliverance Ministries of Zimbabwe’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 73(2), a4529. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v73i2.4529
Marimbe, F. & Ndawonde, N., 2024, ‘Extravagance amidst extreme poverty? A focus on “new religious movements” within the development discourse in Zimbabwe’, Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae 50(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.25159/2412-4265/15296
Marongwe, N. & Maposa, R.S., 2015, ‘PhDs, gospreneurship, globalization and the Pentecostal “new wave” in Zimbabwe’, Afro Asian Journal of Social Sciences 6(1), 1–22, viewed 16 July 2025, from https://www.onlineresearchjournals.com/aajoss/art/171.pdf.
Masiyiwa, G., 2025, ‘As University of Zimbabwe strike drags on, pressure mounts on the country’s higher education system’, Global Press Journal, viewed 05 July 2025, from https://globalpressjournal.com/africa/zimbabwe/university-zimbabwe-strike-drags-pressure-mounts-countrys-higher-education-system/.
Matendere, B., 2025, ‘Corruption getting worse in Zimbabwe: Transparency International report’, NewsHub, 11 February, viewed 12 August 2025, from https://newshubzim.co.zw/2025/02/11/corruption-getting-worse-in-zimbabwe-transparency-international-report/.
Mbewe, C., 2022, ‘Why is the gospel so important to the church?’, The Gospel Coalition, viewed 07 June 2025, from https://africa.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/sermon-podcast/gospel-important-church/.
Muchamiri, H., 2018, ‘Churches venture into business’, The Herald Business Weekly, July 6, viewed n.d., from https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/churches-venture-into-business/.
Munikwa, C., 2011, ‘The Binga outreach: The contextualisation of mission in the Reformed Church in Zimbabwe’, PhD thesis, Faculty of Theology, University of Stellenbosch, viewed 02 August 2025, from https://scholar.sun.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/a38a573a-5787-4beb-9173-0749a9ff6677/content.
Muyambo, T., 2020, ‘Material/spiritual seeding? Problematizing religion and gullibility in Zimbabwe’, Alternation Special Edition 35, 18–34. https://doi.org/10.29086/2519-5476/2020/sp35a2
Ncube, D., 2015, ‘Beware the God barons … Charismatic leaders make a pretty penny selling holy water, oil’, Sunday Mail, viewed 30 August 2015, from https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/beware-the-god-baronscharismatic-leaders-make-a-pretty-penny-selling-holy-water-oil/.
Ncube, D., 2017, ‘Prosperity gospel blasted’, Sunday Mail, viewed 05 February 2017, from https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/prosperity-gospel-blasted/.
Odhiambo, S., 2025, Mission as participation in God’s redemptive work, viewed 02 August 2025, from https://missio.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Mission-as-Participation-in-God.pdf.
Padilla, R., 2007, ‘Holistic mission’, in J. Corrie (ed.), Dictionary of mission theology: Evangelical foundations, pp. 157–162, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Plummer, J., 2022, ‘Business as Mission is a concept, practice and learning, growing movement’, Business as Mission, viewed 07 July 2025, from https://businessasmission.com/business-as-mission-is-a-concept-practice-and-learning-growing-movement/.
Plummer, J., 2024, ‘What is Business as Mission? A short introduction’, Business as Mission, viewed 07 July 2025, from https://businessasmission.com/what-is-business-as-mission-a-short-intro/.
Pongo, B., 2012, ‘Prosperity gospel exploiting the poor in Zimbabwe’, Nehanda Radio, viewed 21 November 2012, from https://nehandaradio.com/2012/11/21/prosperity-gospel-exploiting-the-poor-in-zimbabwe/.
Rundle, S. & Lee, M.P., 2022, ‘The motivations, backgrounds, and practices of Business as Mission practitioners: Insights from an international survey’, Missiology 50(4), 420–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/00918296221087257
Seet, C., 2000, ‘Proverbs 22:1 – Does the Christian have any problems in today’s business world?’, LifeBible Presbyterian Church, viewed 12 August 2025, from https://www.lifebpc.com/resources/treasury-of-sermons/59-proverbs/358-proverbs-22-1-does-the-christian-have-any-problems-in-today-s-business-world.
Shumba, P., 2019, ‘Strive Masiyiwa on corruption’, Chronicle, 10 October, viewed 12 August 2025, from https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/strive-masiyiwa-on-corruption/.
Sibanda, F., Sibanda, O., Ntombana, L. & Jere, T., 2024, ‘False hope religion? Socio-economic turmoil and the rise of prosperity gospel in Zimbabwe’, Pharos Journal of Theology 105(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.46222/pharosjot.105.25
Tagwirei, K. & Masango, M., 2023, ‘Rethinking the identity and economic sustainability of the church: Case of AOG BTG in Zimbabwe’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 79(2), a8129. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v79i2.8129
Tagwirei, K., 2022, ‘Beyond tithes and offerings: Revolutionising the economics of Pentecostal churches in Zimbabwe’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 78(4), a7211. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v78i4.7211
Tagwirei, K., 2023, ‘Serving the needy from the greedy: Reviewing Diakonia in African neo-Pentecostalism’, In die Skriflig 57(1), a2981. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v57i1.2981
Tagwirei, K., 2024, ‘Rebuilding the broken walls of Zimbabwe with the Church, leadership and followership’, Verbum et Ecclesia 45(1), a3054. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v45i1.3054
Taru, J. & McNeill, F.G., 2024, ‘“Faith it, till you make it”: Prosperity gospel and spiritual hustling among young Pentecostal Christians in Harare’, African Studies Review 67(4), 941–966. https://doi.org/10.1017/asr.2024.178
Tarugarira, G. & Moyo, A., 2020, ‘Money dwells in the spiritual pocket! The gospel of prosperity and the empowerment of women through talents (Matarenda) among ZAOGA FIF adherents in Gweru, Zimbabwe’, Journal for the Study of Religion 33(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3027/2020/v33n1a3
Tsukahira, P., 2003, ‘The integration of business and ministry’, in T. Yamamori & K.A. Eldred (eds.), On Kingdom business: Transforming missions through entrepreneurial strategies, pp. 117–126, Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL.
Tunehag, M., McGee, W. & Plummer, J. (eds.), 2004, Business as Mission, Lausanne occasional paper #59, viewed 29 July 2025, from https://lausanne.org/occasional-paper/business-mission-lop-59#foreword.
Van Helden, S., 2016, ‘Theonome reciprocity as key for interpreting the phenomenon of declining numbers in Protestant mainstream churches – A South African study’, Athens Journal of Humanities & Arts 3(4), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajha.3.4.1
Van Ruler, A.A., 1969, Theologisch werk. Deel I [Theological work. Part I], Callenbach, Nijkerk.
Vengeyi, O., 2013, ‘Zimbabwean Pentecostal prophets: Rekindling the “true and false prophecy” debate’, in E. Chitando, M.R. Gunda & J. Kügler (eds.), Prophets, profits and the Bible in Zimbabwe, Bible in Africa Series, pp. 29–54, University of Bamberg Press, Bamberg.
Wafawarova, R., 2015, ‘The curse of prosperity gospel’, The Herald, 11 February, viewed 20 December 2021, from https://www.herald.co.zw/the-curse-of-prosperity-gospel/.
Waweru, R., 2015, ‘Integral mission: An overview of four models and its role in development’, International Journal of Novel Research in Humanity and Social Sciences 2(1), 13–18, viewed 10 July 2025, from https://www.noveltyjournals.com/upload/paper/Integral%20Mission-120.pdf.
Woolnough, B., 2010, ‘Good news for the poor – Setting the scene’, in B. Woolnough & W. Ma (eds.), Holistic mission: God’s plan for God’s people, Edinburgh Centenary Series 9, pp. 3–14, Regnum Books International, Oxford.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
