The decision of the founder of the David Christian Centre (DCC), Pastor Kingsley Okonkwo, to make a public display of the Roman numeral tattoo etched on his arm immediately sentenced him to “you go explain tire,” as they say in Nigerian parlance. The pastor has since been preoccupied with justifying his actions and art, to the point where he exclaimed a few days ago that he does not owe anyone an explanation for the tattoo.
However, debates over the body art’s propriety and the identity crisis it provokes have continued to dominate Nigerian social media, to the extent that someone on the street may be forced to ask: “Who send am?” This question in pidgin English is literal, not the colloquial equivalent of “Who cares?” Given the sharp division, inflamed passions, and hoopla generated by the 50-year-old’s unveiling of the ink mark inspired by John 3:16, it has become expedient to ask whether the man of God received express divine instruction or approval to do so.
There is no basis for assuming that every action or inaction of God’s people is Spirit-led. Samuel Ortom, governor of Benue State from 2015 to 2023, used his life lesson to illustrate this less than a week ago. Even while serving as governor, he presented himself as a devout Christian whom many mistook for a pastor. He revealed in October 2019, while declaring open a two-day retreat for Benue State Government appointees, that, “I became born again in 1979 and since then I have professed Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.”
Yet, for all his intimacy with God, Ortom failed to seek His face when confronted with major political decisions. He recently admitted losing the 2023 Benue North-West senatorial election because he did not consult God or seek divine approval. The former Benue helmsman further stated, “The mistake I made in 2023 was imposing a gubernatorial candidate on all of you who are in the PDP. I did not ask God…” As such, we cannot assume or infer that Pastor Kingsley started by asking God whether it was acceptable for him to get a tattoo. If he did so or was led by the Spirit of God, he should unambiguously make this known so that his detractors can rest.
Should such disclosure still fail to appease prevailing sentiments and criticisms, skeptics would then have revealed themselves as bent on disparaging the undeniable impact of Pastor Kingsley’s ministry. Cynics would also be seen as undermining the spirit behind the immense contributions of Pastor Kingsley and his phenomenal wife, Pastor Mildred, to the Body of Christ — particularly the resuscitation of broken homes through counseling and mentorship. They would also be dismissing his many years of labour in the Lord’s vineyard through didactic teaching and books on singleness, marriage, purpose, and emotional intelligence. For Pete’s sake, these impacts cannot be dismissed based on parochial perceptions of tattoos!
God’s directives and assignments do not pander to cultural movements. He can even ask His servants to step into gray areas to shock society and arrest public attention toward the message He intends to convey. He did this with Prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 20:2–3), who had to walk unclad for three years. If the Lord could require His prophet to go this far to press home a message, there is nothing inherently strange about Pastor Kingsley getting a tattoo for evangelical purposes — again, depending on whether the Lord instructed him to do so. It is for him to state this unequivocally.
But then, why should anyone be bothered about a tattoo-wearing pastor when the gospel is not about God trying to salvage the soul from the outside but about recreating the person from within? Our last essay was on Jelly Roll, who courageously declared for Jesus on the Grammy Awards stage. Google Analytics reports that after he held up a Bible and asserted that “Jesus is for everybody,” online searches for “Jesus” and “Bible” surged by 20 per cent. Yet, the emergency evangelist who generated such viral interest in God’s Kingdom has visible tattoos — even on his face.
Curiously, conservative Christians are no longer basing their uncompromising stance against tattoos solely on the isolated commandment in Leviticus 19:28. They have apparently realised that, when contextually situated, “You shall not make any cuts on your body [in mourning] for the dead, nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves” does not apply directly to the New Testament believer. This explains why the counter-argument has shifted to: “All things are lawful unto me, but not all things are expedient.”
Pastor Kingsley’s critics quote this scripture to buttress their argument that a church elder should not engage in actions that could lead those weak in faith astray. They argue that while a pastor may understand his boundaries, younger believers might go beyond merely inking their bodies and descend into profane practices. Proponents of this view, however, do not consider Pastor Kingsley’s defence that he is sent to those who embrace and wear tattoos. Indeed, such nonconformists may readily follow a pastor who identifies with them and refrains from judging them. On this basis, Pastor Kingsley would be acting like the good shepherd Jesus described in Matthew 18:12–14, who left a flock of ninety-nine to search for one lost sheep.
Ultimately, it boils down to strategically advancing the Kingdom of God. It is similar to Paul the Apostle’s statement in 1 Corinthians 9:20: “When I was with the Jews, I lived like a Jew to bring the Jews to Christ…”
Warts and all, Pastor Kingsley has done the Body of Christ in Nigeria a service with this tattoo controversy. He has explained that the intention was not rebellion or clout-chasing but to ignite conversations that would prompt people to ask questions about Scripture and faith. We can liken this to legal activism, where radicals proactively test conventions and entrenched principles in court to ascertain their validity and legality.
By filming and posting his body art on social media, Pastor Kingsley has dragged the perception of tattoos in Christendom into the court of public opinion for adjudication. Consensus is already crystallising, with many admitting that God is not necessarily opposed to edifying tattoos on the body. However, unlike litigation — where judges act as arbiters and counsel chorus “As Your Lordship pleases” — there is no constituted authority in the court of public opinion to whom everyone must defer. Perhaps revered fathers of faith or God’s generals should fill this void, given their wide acclaim for rightly dividing the word of truth and their reluctance to play to the gallery.
These senior overseers have so far kept mum on the trending tattoo conversation. Their silence has become conspicuously loud. While they are understandably not inclined to jump on trends, this is one instance where their thought leadership could provide much-needed clarity. Indeed, the eager audience would not even mind an indirect expression of their point of view regarding the perception of tattoos as taboo.
VIS Ugochukwu is a sage, storyteller, and media trainer who welcomes readers’ thoughts via DMs on X (formerly Twitter) @sylvesugwuanyi.