The public moment was brief: a birthday celebration, a preacher in attendance, an affectionate term of endearment caught on camera. Yet, the reaction to Apostle Joshua Selman calling Sandra Areh “my love” revealed a deep, pre-existing fissure in Nigeria’s religious landscape. This was not the creation of a scandal, but the crystallization of years of public ambiguity into a single, debated symbol. The ensuing discourse transcends gossip, touching on the core ethical obligations of spiritual leadership when personal life becomes public parable.
For years, Selman and Areh have occupied an undefined space—close enough to invite constant speculation, yet vague enough to officially deflect it. This prolonged state of “almost” is the true heart of the matter. The controversy forces a critical question: What are the ethical costs when a leader’s unresolved personal relationship becomes a prolonged public lesson? This is not a question of alleged impropriety, but one of power, responsibility, and the silent curriculum taught by indecision.
To understand the impact, we must examine this dynamic through three interconnected lenses: psychology, scripture, and power analysis. Together, they reveal a structural problem that exists independently of anyone’s intentions.
The Psychological Toll of Relational Limbo
Human neurology is not designed for indefinite ambiguity. Behaviors like emotional closeness, repeated public proximity, and affectionate language are powerful pair-bonding signals. When these signals are not resolved through clear commitment or disengagement, they create a psychological state known as intermittent reinforcement—a powerful driver of attachment built on unpredictable rewards. The brain becomes invested in possibility, not certainty.
In such an asymmetric dynamic, the person with less control (often, though not always, the woman in traditional church power structures) bears a disproportionate burden. Life decisions—career, location, other relational opportunities—can be quietly postponed. Potential suitors may respectfully withdraw, interpreting the visible association as a claim. Thus, “waiting” evolves from a season into a way of life, often accompanied by anxiety masked as spiritual patience.
The leader, holding greater social and narrative power, experiences a different reality: comfort, emotional benefit, and the absence of urgent pressure to define the relationship. This imbalance isn’t necessarily malicious; it’s a function of structure. However, when modeled by a spiritual authority, it teaches a dangerous lesson: that indefinite emotional ambiguity is an acceptable, even spiritual, way to conduct relationships.
The Biblical Mandate for Clarity and Integrity
Scripture is strikingly intolerant of the ambiguity often excused in modern church culture. The standards for leaders are explicitly higher, focusing on optical integrity as much as private morality.
- Above Reproach (1 Timothy 3:2): This qualification for overseers is not about perfection, but about living in such a way that accusations lack a foothold. Prolonged public ambiguity with a member of the opposite sex inherently opens a leader to reproach and misunderstanding.
- Let Your Yes be Yes (Matthew 5:37): Jesus’s command condemns obfuscation. Cryptic language and undefined relationships stand in direct tension with this call to transparent communication.
- Stewardship of Time (Ephesians 5:15-16): The Bible treats time as a sacred resource. To consume another person’s prime years without clarity is poor stewardship, potentially reckless with the life of another.
- Shepherding Responsibility (1 Peter 5:2-3): A shepherd is accountable for what the flock learns from his conduct. When a leader models relational indecision, he teaches the congregation that ambiguity is compatible with spiritual maturity.
Biblically, discernment has a horizon. When “waiting on God” becomes a perpetual state with no movement, it risks becoming spiritualized avoidance.
A Power Analysis: The Asymmetric Cost of Ambiguity
Power in this context isn’t about overt coercion; it’s structural, flowing from spiritual authority, public reverence, and control of the narrative. Selman’s silence itself is an exercise of power, as it controls the timing, meaning, and outcome of the situation.
The costs of this ambiguity are profoundly uneven:
| The Leader (Greater Power) | The Associate (Lesser Power) |
|---|---|
| Authority remains intact regardless of outcome. | Public association narrows life and narrative options. |
| If marriage occurs, he is praised for patience and discernment. | Asking for clarity risks being labeled impatient or “unspiritual.” |
| If disengagement occurs, the narrative can be quietly managed. | Leaving invites intense public scrutiny and speculation. |
| Emotional benefit without decisive cost. | “Waiting” is praised, potentially conditioning passivity. |
This asymmetry is why the ethical onus for clarity rests more heavily on the one with greater power. Church culture often sanctifies this imbalance, celebrating female endurance and male deliberation in ways that can confuse virtue with dysfunctional patterning.
A Pathway to Healthier Leadership Modeling
The solution is not public intrusion, but private courage and structural accountability. A healthier model for leaders involves:
- Pre-emptive Boundaries: Deciding intentionality about marriage before allowing a special emotional connection to deepen publicly.
- Transparency Over Symbolism: If a courtship proceeds into public view, replacing cryptic gestures and language with clear, dignified communication of intent.
- Time-Bound Discernment: Establishing reasonable, private timelines for decision-making, accountable to trusted mentors or elders. Indefinite “discernment” is often indecision in spiritual disguise.
- Aligned Action: Once a decision is reached, behavior must immediately align. If marriage is the goal, a defined courtship protects dignity. If not, compassionate but clear distance protects hearts.
This controversy matters because it highlights a critical gap in modern ministry: the distance between the message of clarity, discipline, and sacrifice preached from the pulpit, and the method of prolonged personal indecision modeled in life. The church doesn’t need perfect leaders, but it desperately needs coherent ones—leaders whose private conduct doesn’t silently contradict their public teaching.
In the end, clarity is an act of pastoral care. For Joshua Selman, and for any leader in a similar position, the courageous next step is a definitive, private decision followed by corresponding public conduct. Distance is not cruelty, and decision is not betrayal; they are forms of profound respect. To do otherwise is to allow a personal ambiguity to become a public lesson in confusion, teaching a generation that in matters of the heart, leadership means never having to define your terms.
