WHY GOD WON’T JUDGE ME FOR CRITIQUING ZAOGA
By Gabriel Manyati
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).
I grew up fellowshipping at ZAOGA’s Sakubva Chapel in Mutare as a teenager. Those were formative years filled with fervent prayers, powerful singing and a deep sense of community. I shared spiritual moments with brothers and sisters in the Lord, including the likes of Annah Muchaya and her sister Mojean Mchaya, whom I still remember from our youth services.
Last year, when I raised concerns about reports of a woman in the UK allegedly seeing the spirit of the late Apostle Ezekiel Guti during a service in Birmingham, Mojean advised me in the comments section to “leave things you don’t understand alone.” She suggested that God might judge me for criticising such an episode. To be honest, I always laugh when I see such comments.
This week, after my article on Nehanda Radio examining Joseph Guti’s leadership and the challenges of succession in ZAOGA, Loice Sharon responded with the words, “Aaah ngaamiswe uyo akutambira kunonyudza.” Loosely translated, it means Manyati should stop writing about ZAOGA because he is playing with fire.
These responses reflect a common sentiment in some circles: criticising church leaders or practices invites divine judgement. I reject this notion outright. God will not judge me for critiquing ZAOGA because He moves strictly in line with His Word, not superstition or human intimidation. Scripture provides clear boundaries, and honest critique rooted in biblical truth does not cross them.
First, consider the Birmingham incident that prompted my initial criticism. Reports described a congregant claiming to see the spirit of Apostle Ezekiel Guti appearing on stage, accompanied by angels, with sensations of rain inside the building and declarations of new spiritual powers. This contradicts what the Bible teaches about the state of the dead. The Scriptures are unambiguous: the dead do not return to interact with the living in such ways.
Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 states: “For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.” The dead are unconscious of earthly affairs. They have no portion in what happens here.
Similarly, Psalm 146:4 declares: “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” Once a person dies, their thoughts cease. There is no roaming spirit engaging in church services or imparting abilities.
The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 reinforces this. The rich man in torment begs Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers, but Abraham replies in Luke 16:26: “And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.” A fixed gulf separates the realms. No casual appearances occur.
In the Old Testament, God explicitly forbids consulting spirits of the dead. Isaiah 8:19 asks: “And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?” Seeking or supposedly interacting with the dead instead of God is condemned. Even if well-intentioned, claiming to see the spirit of a deceased apostle risks blurring lines that Scripture draws firmly.
My critique was not born of malice but of concern for doctrinal integrity. ZAOGA’s own historical teachings emphasise inquiring from God rather than spirits. When I pointed this out, responses like Mojean’s implied that questioning equates to spiritual arrogance deserving judgement. Yet the Bible does not support such superstition. God does not judge people for seeking clarity on His Word. He judges based on the heart and alignment with truth.
Consider the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Noble character involves testing teachings against Scripture, not silencing inquiry with warnings of judgement. If the apostles themselves were examined this way, how much more should modern church practices face the same light?
Loice Sharon’s call for me to stop writing because I am “playing with fire” echoes a fear-based culture that treats leaders as untouchable. Writing about Joseph Guti’s role in leading ZAOGA after his grandfather’s passing is not theological aberration. My Nehanda Radio piece highlighted the need for a pioneering spirit amid succession challenges. It was an analysis of leadership transition, power dynamics and the future of a major movement. Scripture encourages such discourse when done with integrity.
Proverbs 27:5-6 states: “Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” Honest critique, even when uncomfortable, can be an act of faithfulness. Suppressing questions under threat of divine fire stifles growth and invites the very deception it claims to avoid.
Some might argue that criticising “anointed” leaders invites judgement, citing 1 Chronicles 16:22: “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” This verse, however, refers to God’s protection of His people, particularly in the context of the patriarchs and Israel as a nation. It does not grant modern church leaders immunity from biblical scrutiny.
The New Testament calls all believers to test spirits and teachings. 1 John 4:1 commands: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”
Even the Apostle Peter faced public correction. In Galatians 2:11, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” Paul opposed Peter openly over hypocrisy regarding Gentile believers. No divine judgement fell on Paul for this; instead, it preserved gospel truth. If an apostle in the Bible could be challenged, surely contemporary apostles, leaders and practices can be examined without automatic penalty.
Those who take criticism of the church and its leaders personally often reveal a hypersensitivity that is not of God. Instead of engaging the substance of the biblical points raised, they rush to personal defence or issue warnings of impending divine wrath. This reaction treats any examination of practices or teachings as an attack on the institution itself or on individual egos rather than an opportunity for collective alignment with Scripture.
Such defensiveness stifles healthy dialogue and maturity within the body of Christ. It confuses loyalty to leaders with loyalty to the truth, forgetting that the church belongs to Christ alone, who is its head. True spiritual maturity welcomes scrutiny that is grounded in the Word, recognising that correction, when biblically sound, refines rather than destroys.
Hypersensitivity that interprets every critique as malice or rebellion does not reflect the Spirit of God, who invites reasoning and examination, but rather a carnal protectiveness that prioritises preservation of the status quo over pursuit of truth.
God does not judge capriciously or based on superstition. His judgements align with His revealed Word. Deuteronomy 28 outlines blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, but nowhere does it say God strikes down those who question doctrinal claims using Scripture.
James 4:17 warns: “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Sin arises from deliberate rebellion, not from sincere critique.
Even if I were out of line in tone or approach, God provides room for repentance. 2 Peter 3:9 declares: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” His character is merciful. He convicts through His Spirit and Word, giving opportunity to turn.
Superstitious fear that any criticism invites instant judgement misrepresents this longsuffering God.
History itself testifies to the patience of God in the face of far greater opposition. Pontius Pilate, who handed Jesus over to be crucified despite finding no fault in Him, and the Jews who clamoured for Christ’s crucifixion, crying out “Crucify him” before Pilate, were not immediately struck down in divine judgement. This was not because their actions were right, but because it is simply not the nature of God to lash out with instant penalties for every act of opposition or misunderstanding.
God extended time for reflection, conviction and potential repentance even to those directly involved in the death of His Son. If the Almighty showed such forbearance toward the very ones who rejected and crucified the Messiah, how much more will He refrain from judging a member of His church who, while still fellowshipping within ZAOGA, raises sincere questions rooted in Scripture about doctrinal consistency?
This pattern reveals a consistent divine character: measured, Word-aligned, and merciful, rather than reactive or superstitious.
I write from a place of love for the church and concern for sound doctrine, not malice. Malice would involve personal attacks, fabrication or bitterness. Scripture addresses that clearly. Ephesians 4:31 instructs: “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice.”
My articles have focused on ideas, practices and biblical consistency, not destruction or lampoonery of individuals.
Critiquing leaders like Joseph Guti or Eunor Guti does not invite penalties because leadership carries accountability. Hebrews 13:17 says leaders watch for souls and must give account, implying they are subject to evaluation. James 3:1 adds: “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.”
Greater responsibility means greater scrutiny is appropriate, not forbidden.
In my teenage years at Sakubva Chapel, we were taught to love the Word and live by it. That foundation compels me today. ZAOGA has blessed many, including me, with experiences of faith and community. Yet growth requires self-examination. When practices appear to contradict core teachings on death and the afterlife, silence is not loyalty; it is complicity in potential error.
God moves in line with His Word. He honours those who seek truth diligently, as in 2 Timothy 2:15: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Critiquing from this posture is not rebellion but obedience.
Mojaen, if you read this, I remember our fellowship fondly. Your caution came from care, but Scripture invites deeper engagement, not withdrawal. Loice, writing is not playing with fire when guided by the Bible; ignoring inconsistencies might be. Fear of man or institutional loyalty must never eclipse fear of God and fidelity to His truth.
True judgement comes when we twist Scripture or act from impure motives. Honest critique, tested against the Word, stands on solid ground. God will not judge me for this because His standards are higher and clearer than human warnings. He calls us to reason together, as Isaiah 1:18 invites: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD.”
The church thrives when members engage thoughtfully, not when criticism is met with veiled threats of divine displeasure. Let us return to the Bible as the final authority. There, I find freedom to speak, examine, and call for alignment with truth without fear of capricious judgement.
#SoundDoctrine
#BiblicalCritique
#ZAOGA
#ScriptureOverSuperstition
#FearGodNotMan