Men Dey! Pastor Bolaji’s Shoe-Dusting Gesture Explained
A viral church exchange over financial expectations in relationships has raised questions about Christian discipleship, pastoral leadership and how ministers should respond when their congregations challenge their message.
Ugochukwu Ugwuanyi (VIS Ugochukwu) is a sage, storyteller and branding specialist. He welcomes feedback at [email protected].
The phrase “Men dey!” has become a talking point in Nigeria’s online conversation about relationships, money and the expectations people bring into marriage. But beyond the humour and social media reactions, the episode involving Pastor Bolaji Idowu of Harvesters International Christian Centre raises a more important question: how should a pastor respond when a congregation appears to resist the message he is trying to teach?
The viral footage showed Idowu conducting a relationship teaching session when a discussion about what women should expect from potential partners turned into a debate over money and expensive gifts. A female congregant described her dislike of financially ungenerous men, while the pastor questioned whether men capable of meeting certain expectations were readily available.
The response from members of the congregation included the now-famous chorus, “Men dey!”, a Nigerian expression suggesting that wealthy, generous men are available to meet such expectations.
Idowu reacted by removing his shoes and shaking dust from their soles, a gesture that appeared to draw on the biblical instruction in Matthew 10:14. The dramatic moment quickly became the focus of online commentary.
Yet the most useful lesson from the incident may not concern whether wealthy men exist or whether women should expect expensive gifts. It may concern what happens when a pastor’s message meets resistance from the people he is trying to guide.
Financial Expectations Must Meet Reality
There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting a financially responsible partner. People entering relationships are entitled to consider financial stability, generosity, compatibility and their expectations for the future.
The problem begins when material gifts become the principal measure of a partner’s worth, or when expectations ignore the financial realities of the people involved.
A car, an expensive phone, shopping allowances or a monthly payment of ₦1 million may be within the reach of some individuals. For many others, such demands would be unrealistic. A healthy relationship requires honesty about income, priorities, responsibilities and what each person can reasonably contribute.
Nigeria’s economic circumstances also make the conversation relevant beyond one church service. The 2026 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index, produced by the United Nations Development Programme and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, found that Nigeria’s multidimensional poverty rate increased from 33 per cent in 2021 to 38.7 per cent in 2024. The report estimated that an additional 17.9 million Nigerians experienced multidimensional poverty over that period.
The figures capture overlapping disadvantages in areas such as health, education and living standards; they do not measure how many wealthy men are available for relationships. They nevertheless underline why conversations about financial expectations should recognise the economic circumstances in which many Nigerians live.
The answer, however, is not to shame women for wanting financial security or to suggest that every man who cannot afford luxury gifts is a poor partner. Financial responsibility is not the same as wealth, just as generosity cannot be measured by the price of a gift alone.
A more useful message would encourage people to distinguish between reasonable expectations, personal preferences and demands that may be incompatible with a prospective partner’s circumstances.
What Does the Shoe-Dusting Gesture Communicate?
The more contentious aspect of the incident was the pastor’s decision to shake the dust from his shoes.
In Matthew 10:14, Jesus instructed his disciples to shake the dust from their feet when people would not receive them or listen to their message. In the passage, the gesture signalled a serious response to rejection during their mission.
Idowu’s action appeared to invoke that imagery in response to the congregation’s reaction. But applying a biblical gesture to a moment of disagreement within a church service raises questions about what the congregation was expected to understand.
A pastor has a responsibility to challenge beliefs and behaviours he considers inconsistent with Christian teaching. That responsibility does not disappear because a message attracts resistance or provokes an uncomfortable response.
However, the relationship between a shepherd and the congregation is different from the encounter between an evangelist and people who refuse to receive the gospel. Church members are also the people a pastor is expected to teach, correct and guide over time.
For that reason, the shoe-dusting gesture risked communicating rejection where continued instruction might have been more productive. It may have created a dramatic moment, but it did not necessarily help the congregation understand the underlying lesson.
The distinction matters. A strong response can attract attention, but attention alone does not establish that the response was the most effective pastoral decision.
A Congregation Is Not a Single Mind
A vocal response from people in a congregation does not establish that every member holds the same view. Nor does a brief exchange reveal the full extent of the church’s teaching, the beliefs of its members or the progress of its discipleship programme.
In his clarification, Idowu said the session concerned expectations for a woman aged 26 and a man at a similar stage of life. He explained that a woman made a comment and that other members echoed it after he asked her to repeat herself. He also stressed that the response did not mean every woman in the church shared that mindset.
That explanation deserves consideration, even if people remain free to question the way he handled the incident.
A pastor can challenge an attitude without condemning an entire congregation. Equally, members can disagree with a minister’s approach without necessarily rejecting every part of the message.
The distinction is important in an age when short video clips can turn a complicated discussion into a contest of competing interpretations. The footage can show what happened in a particular moment, but it cannot by itself establish the beliefs of an entire church.
Difficult Truths Require More Than Dramatic Gestures
There is no single formula for communicating difficult issues. Yet illustrations should serve the lesson, not distract from it. Ministers need to consider whether their language helps a congregation understand a principle or leaves the audience debating the illustration instead.
The same principle applies to the shoe-dusting gesture. If the aim was to confront unrealistic expectations, the most effective response would have been one that returned attention to the lesson and explained its implications.
Romans 12:2 calls Christians not to conform to the patterns of the world but to be transformed by the renewing of their minds. The verse offers a framework for discussing values, priorities and conduct. Applying it meaningfully requires teaching that helps people examine their choices, not merely labelling their responses as worldly.
The biblical call to speak truth does not remove the responsibility to communicate that truth with discernment.
The Shepherd’s Responsibility After the Controversy
Idowu deserves credit for raising a legitimate issue about the relationship between financial expectations and economic reality. Religious leaders should not have to abandon a message simply because it generates uncomfortable reactions.
But standing by a message and reflecting on how it was delivered are not mutually exclusive. A minister can maintain a conviction while acknowledging that a gesture or illustration may have distracted from the intended teaching.
His subsequent clarification should not automatically be treated as evidence of weakness or a retreat from principle. Explaining the context of a controversial moment can be part of responsible leadership, particularly when a short clip has created the impression that a whole congregation shares one position.
The more important question is whether the discussion continues in a way that helps people think more carefully about relationships, money, generosity and personal responsibility.
A pastor’s role extends beyond identifying an attitude he considers wrong. It includes helping people understand why it is harmful, how they can change and what a healthier approach looks like.
That is why the “Men dey!” moment presented an opportunity for more than a dramatic rebuke. It offered a chance to distinguish financial security from materialism, generosity from ostentation, and reasonable standards from expectations disconnected from reality.
The lasting value of the episode will depend less on the gesture that made the video go viral than on whether the conversation produces deeper reflection.
A shepherd must be willing to challenge the flock when necessary. But the purpose of correction is not simply to demonstrate disapproval. It is to guide people towards better judgement, stronger values and more responsible choices.
About the Author
Ugochukwu Ugwuanyi is the Communications Manager at Rhiagano. He can be reached at [email protected].
Public relations practitioners must be adept at anticipating reactions, understanding competing interests and identifying opportunities to connect an organisation’s...
