Religious doctrines are often presented as eternal truths. They are seen as unchanging principles handed down from God and preserved by men. Followers are expected to accept them with unwavering loyalty, sometimes at great personal cost. Yet history repeatedly shows that doctrines can and do change. What was once preached as sacred truth may later be revised, softened, or even abandoned altogether. This reality raises an important question: What happens to those who built their lives around doctrines that were later discarded?
For many Nigerians, the story of the Deeper Life Bible Church’s attitude toward television remains a familiar example. In the 1980s and 1990s, television was widely condemned in many conservative Christian circles. It was often described as a “devil’s box” capable of corrupting morals and distracting believers from spiritual pursuits. Members were encouraged to avoid it. Some discarded their television sets entirely, while others hid them away to avoid criticism.
Fast forward several decades, and the picture has changed dramatically. Churches that once condemned television now use it extensively for evangelism. Sermons are broadcast live. Religious programmes occupy television schedules. Services are streamed on YouTube and displayed on large television screens in church auditoriums. Technology that was once considered spiritually dangerous has become an indispensable tool for ministry.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses present another example that has generated even greater controversy. For decades, the refusal of blood transfusions was one of the group’s most recognised doctrines. Many adherents rejected blood transfusions even during life-threatening medical emergencies. Families faced agonizing decisions. Some members reportedly lost their lives because they chose obedience to doctrine over medical intervention.
Over the years, however, the organisation’s position has evolved in significant ways. Various blood-related medical procedures once prohibited have become permissible under certain circumstances. While debates continue regarding the extent of these changes, the fact remains that doctrinal positions once regarded as non-negotiable have undergone revision.
The implications of changing convictions are not limited to religious organizations. The age of social media has produced its own set of influencers, prophets, and ideologues whose followers often embrace their views with near-religious devotion.
A recent example is the social media personality Geh Geh, who built a significant following by criticizing modern relationships, marriage, and women. His commentaries were often laced with warnings about the perceived dangers of marriage and the financial burdens men face in relationships. Many young men embraced his views, shared his content extensively, and regarded him as a voice of reason in a society where marriage remains a major cultural expectation.
Then came the surprise. Reports emerged that Geh Geh had secretly gotten married. The revelation stunned many of his followers. Some felt deceived. Others accused him of preaching one thing while practicing another. Social media was flooded with reactions from supporters who questioned why someone who had consistently spoken against marriage would quietly embrace the very institution he had spent years criticizing.
You may also read;
- Learning to Trust God When Life Makes No Sense
- 10 Bible Verses That Will Strengthen Your Faith During Hard Times
- Faith Without Risk Is Not Faith: Why Many Young Christians Struggle With Consistency
- Why Nigerians Naturally Turn to Prayer During Crisis and Why Action Still Matters
Throughout history, religious institutions, political movements, and ideological organisations have revised beliefs they once defended passionately. This does not necessarily mean that leaders are dishonest or malicious. Sometimes new information emerges. Sometimes social realities change. Sometimes deeper study produces different conclusions. Human beings are not infallible, and organisations are often forced to reassess their positions.
However, these changes carry profound implications.
First, they remind us that institutions can be mistaken. When followers are taught that every pronouncement from leadership is beyond question, they may surrender their ability to think critically. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that leaders can misinterpret facts, overstate conclusions, or hold positions that later prove unsustainable. The possibility of error should encourage humility among leaders and discernment among followers.
Second, changing doctrines can create emotional and psychological burdens. Imagine a member who sacrificed opportunities, relationships, or even health because of a particular teaching. Imagine parents who denied themselves certain experiences because they believed it was God’s will, only to discover years later that the rule has changed. Such individuals may feel confusion, disappointment, or even betrayal.
Third, doctrinal reversals raise questions about accountability. If a policy causes harm and is later abandoned, should there be acknowledgement of the consequences? Organisations often celebrate new directions without fully addressing the cost borne by those who followed earlier instructions faithfully. Yet genuine leadership requires the courage to confront the past honestly.
The broader lesson extends beyond religion. Many people surrender their convictions to institutions, political parties, ethnic groups, social movements, or influential personalities. They stop asking questions. They stop evaluating evidence. Their beliefs become dependent on the opinions of others.
This approach is risky because organisations change. Leaders change. Circumstances change.
What remains essential is the individual’s capacity for independent thought and personal conviction. Having strong convictions does not mean being stubborn or arrogant. It means grounding one’s beliefs in careful reasoning, evidence, and sincere reflection. Strong convictions are not borrowed opinions repeated without examination. They are conclusions reached after thoughtful consideration.
A person with genuine conviction can listen to opposing views without feeling threatened. They can evaluate new information honestly. They can admit mistakes when necessary. Most importantly, they understand why they believe what they believe.
Blind loyalty is different from conviction. Blind loyalty asks no questions. Conviction asks questions and survives the answers. Blind loyalty follows personalities. Conviction follows principles. Blind loyalty changes direction whenever authority changes direction. Conviction evaluates whether the new direction is justified.
This distinction is particularly important in an age of information overload. Social media influencers, religious leaders, politicians, and public intellectuals constantly compete for attention and allegiance. Many people outsource their thinking to others. They adopt opinions because they are popular, not because they are true.
History warns against such dependence.
Every generation has witnessed beliefs that appeared unquestionable until they were questioned. Every generation has seen doctrines presented as permanent truths only to be revised later. The lesson is not that all doctrines are false. Nor is it that institutions have no value. Religious organisations, communities, and leaders provide guidance, structure, and support that many people genuinely need.
Rather, the lesson is that human institutions are imperfect. Because they are imperfect, individuals have a responsibility to think, learn, and examine matters for themselves.
The Bereans in the Bible were praised not because they accepted teachings blindly, but because they examined what they heard to determine whether it was true. That example remains relevant today. Faith should not require the abandonment of reason. Loyalty should not require the surrender of conscience.
When doctrines change, the consequences remind us of a timeless truth: people should never hand over their minds completely to any institution, no matter how respected. A healthy society is built not on unquestioning followers but on thoughtful individuals who can distinguish between enduring principles and temporary interpretations.
The television once condemned as a “devil’s box” now carries sermons. Medical procedures once rejected are viewed differently. These shifts may be explained, justified, or debated. But they all point to the same reality: institutions can revise their positions.
This is precisely why independent thinking remains important. Influencers come and go. Public figures evolve. Social media commentators rebrand themselves. Religious leaders revise doctrines. Political actors switch alliances. But those who have surrendered their judgment entirely to another person’s opinions often find themselves confused when the message changes. The disappointment experienced by some of Geh Geh’s followers mirrors, on a smaller scale, what happens whenever people invest absolute faith in personalities rather than principles.
To this end, it is important to underscore that every person needs something deeper than organisational loyalty. They need informed convictions, critical thinking, and the courage to seek truth even when it is uncomfortable.
For when doctrines change, as they sometimes do, those personal convictions may be the only compass that remains steady.
