





































Ecclesial Futures
2023

1
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

 

DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

Nigerian Pentecostal Mission in Europe: 
Ecumenical and secular relations in Britain

Bisi Adenekan-Koevoets

Abstract
African churches face diverse obstacles while attempting cross-cultural mission in 
the West. These include the influence of external forces such as racism, lack of under-
standing of European cultures, lack of worship spaces and various perceptions that 
many wider indigenous Europeans have about Africans and their churches, particu-
larly their theological beliefs. These external factors impose real challenges, which are 
beyond the control of the leaders of diaspora African churches and interfere with the 
effort to build relations with the wider white indigenous European host population, 
whether spiritual or secular. This qualitative study explores the different ways through 
which Nigerian-initiated churches in London are engaging with British society, both 
ecumenically and as a social force within the communities. There are indications that 
a few of the larger churches are building ecumenical relations with mainline British 
churches, although this is prevalent at leadership level. Similarly, they are well-enough 
resourced to embark on social community projects which are beneficial to nationals 
of all races and political activities to court the British royal and political elite and are 
therefore establishing their presence within and creating pathways to British society.

Keywords: Cross-cultural mission, Ecumenical relations, Social action, 
Nigerian Pentecostal Churches, Ministry of presence

Introduction
For many academics who are exploring the concept of ‘reverse mission’ of African 
churches in Europe, one challenge involves the dynamics of repositioning themselves 
from ‘migrant enclaves’ into communities able to engage in diverse relationships with 
the wider white indigenous European population they wish to evangelize (Adedibu 
2018: 182; Olofinjana 2020). Although these scholars do not agree on some of the 
challenges to the ‘reverse mission’ agenda, there are some common threads linking 



2
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

their arguments. These external factors impose real challenges, which are beyond 
the control of the leaderships of these diaspora African churches and are consistent 
with some of the observations made in my doctoral research (Adenekan-Koevoets 
2021). However, some large Nigerian-initiated churches or their branches such as 
the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) Jesus House in London, Kingsway 
International Christian Centre (KICC) and Winners Chapel engage in various social 
activities within their locations and have become accepted features of those commu-
nities (Cartledge et al. 2019). The leadership of these denominations cooperates with 
governmental, non-governmental, church and non-church organizations to identify 
and meet community needs while also building ecumenical relations with British 
mainline church denominations such as the Church of England at various societal 
levels, thus establishing cross-cultural relations. Using empirical research methods, 
this article first describes ecumenism, discusses Pentecostals’ ecumenical engage-
ments and the missional benefits of establishing social projects within host commu-
nities. Second, it discusses the approach of the first-generation-led Nigerian churches 
to mission in Britain, the differing view of the Nigerian-British second-generation to 
this approach and the possible relevance of these conflicting views to Pentecostals’ 
ecumenical engagements.

Ecumenism and African Pentecostals: 
A brief historical analysis
Ecumenism or being ecumenical refers to events, actions by individuals and/or 
organizations or ideas that bring Christians from different traditions together to 
dialogue and act in ways that reflect the household of God (Nelson and Reith 2017: 
5–6). It is a coming together that presupposes that all participants share a belief in 
the work and person of Jesus Christ as God incarnate and Lord. The most impor-
tant goal of the ecumenical movement is the building of relationships between the 
followers of Jesus as they encounter each other and seek to spread the message of 
the gospel and envision the unity of God in the world (Robeck 2014: 115). In John 
17.20–26, Jesus is praying for the Church and in verse 21 he says, “that they all may 
be one, as You, Father are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that 
the world may believe that You sent Me”. However, there are reported challenges to 
this hope for structural unification and a widely held opinion within the ecumenical 
debate that the dialogue is stuck in an “ecumenical winter” (Murray 2014: 3; Nelson 
and Raith 2017: 97). This is due to a sense of disappointment among ecumenists 
about the seeming failure of some of the major initiatives to establish visible expres-
sion(s) of church unity. Murray further asserts that the movement has transited from 
the one-way ecumenism of the pre-Vatican II era (which promotes a one-way return 
of Christians to unity in the Catholic Church) to the Life and Work or practical model 



3
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

(which encourages the building of shared relationship and practice across formally 
divided traditions)] of the early twentieth century. Next is the theological dialogue 
model which specifically addresses doctrinal issues and operates at church lead-
ership level with little effect experienced by members at the local level. The main 
aim is to clear misconceptions and establish agreements and disagreements about 
divisive theological topics through bilateral and multilateral dialogues. Then there 
is spiritual ecumenism which started in the 1930s from the work of Paul Couturier 
and focuses on the conversion of the heart required for Christian unity through 
common prayer privately and publicly with little concern for practical work or theo-
logical dialogue. Finally, there is receptive ecumenism which is projected as a way 
to get out of the ecumenical ‘cul-de-sac’. It focuses on developing and modelling a 
fresh strategy in ecumenism that takes contemporary realities seriously as well as 
the abiding need for churches to find an appropriate means of engaging towards 
achieving a more visible structural and sacramental unity. Paul Murray describes 
it as an ecumenism that invites learning from the other on all levels of ecclesial life 
without asking what other traditions can learn from us and without compromising 
one’s own ecclesial identity. It emphasises ecclesial discernment of own imperfec-
tions and the importance of learning and receiving wisdom and gifts from others to 
address them (Murray and Confalonieri 2008: 280; Murray 2014: 1–3; Hawkes and 
Balabanski 2018; Pizzey 2019).

Although sporadic, Pentecostal denominations have been involved in ecumen-
ical conversations from the beginning of the twentieth century although scholars 
suggest that it has existed in Christian antiquity since the era of the apostles 
(Odeyemi 2019: xvii). However, the multiplications and splintering of the movement 
hindered ecumenical work, causing differences in ecumenical attitudes which over 
time underscored the need for Pentecostals to initially focus on building worldwide 
cooperation among themselves. This resulted initially in the formation of national 
Pentecostal fellowships in Europe, North America, Africa, Asia and Latin America and 
later an international fellowship. Following this, a series of Pentecostal World Confer-
ences were organized which resulted in the formation of the Pentecostal World 
Fellowship (PWF). This is a global cooperative body open to all Pentecostals although 
not all Pentecostal groups participate and those from North America and Europe are 
more influential in matters of international cooperation. Through the PWF in cooper-
ation with the WCC, Pentecostals participated in the first official ecumenical dialogue 
with the Roman Catholic Church in 1972 and this has become the model for ecumen-
ical conversations between Pentecostals and other traditions (Vondey 2014: 79–80; 
Stephenson 2018).



4
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

From the perspective of African Pentecostals, ecumenism as presently conceptu-
alized, particularly by the World Council of Churches (WCC), is seen as ideological 
and more focused on liturgy and sacraments as shown by the WCC document The 
Church: Towards a Common Vision. This document portrays the church as a eucharistic 
community, a definition of faith and Christianity dominated by a Western or Catholic 
definition which makes ecumenism that is dominated by a European perspective of 
religion a disincentive for the participation of African Christians (Rausch 2017: 91). 
According to Pentecostal historian Cecil Robeck (2015), who was the only Pentecostal 
on the Working group that drafted the document, the constitution of the delegates 
was slanted toward the ancient churches, which made it difficult, for a represent-
ative of the “free church” tradition to make any substantive contribution. John 
Segun Odeyemi, an ordained Catholic priest, in his book Pentecostals and Catholic 
Ecumenism, notes (and I agree) that African Pentecostals, whether in Africa or the 
diaspora, are hardly focused on weekly celebration of the eucharist or sacraments 
choosing rather to concentrate on biblical authority, demons and spirits, signs and 
wonders, and indigenous leadership. Unlike churches in the Enlightenment-influ-
enced West, African Pentecostal churches emphasize the supernatural, the oneness 
of the spirit, soul and body (holistic approach) and everyday issues of poverty and 
violence confronting their congregations across Africa (Rausch 2017: 92; Odeyemi 
2019: 55).

Many also stress the gospel of prosperity in their context where the majority of the 
population lives below the poverty line and looks to church leaders for political and 
economic direction. Findings from my PhD indicated that although there is growing 
sympathy for ecumenical participation among the more cosmopolitan African 
churches and their leaders in the diaspora, pastoral care of their largely black congre-
gations remains a priority. My interactions suggest that suspicion of the ecumenical 
movement and the WCC persists, particularly among Pentecostal members (Adene-
kan-Koevoets 2022: 359–77). For example, the World Council of Churches document 
does not recognize “church” as a group of Christians living by the example of Jesus 
and witnessing to his reign but rather as a eucharistic community. The new churches 
from the global South including African Pentecostals characterize the document as 
one written from a Catholic perspective, too Western, Eurocentric, and not repre-
sentative of their position (Loughran 2013: 9; Rausch 2017). This is where the teaching 
of “exchange of gifts” by receptive ecumenism becomes relevant. It is a way for the 
post-Enlightenment Western church to see that in addition to their often-abstract 
theological language about faith, there is an experiential aspect to faith through 
the indwelling power of God, the importance of prioritizing mission, and about the 
forgiveness of sin that African Pentecostals (in their various forms) profess (Rausch 
2017: 94). Pentecostal churches, on the other hand, should train upcoming leaders to 



5
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

understand the nature and purpose of ecumenism. As Keshishian (1992: 2) suggests, 
unity should not be taken to mean ecclesial uniformity, so it is pertinent that Pente-
costals maintain the independence of their churches, preserving denominational 
boundaries while addressing unexplored or unexamined assumptions to improve 
ecumenical relations (Robeck 2015: 5–7).

Research Methodology
I adopted an ethnographic approach. Data was collected through participant obser-
vation, in-depth semi-structured interviews and focus groups which ensured that 
the research questions were viewed from different angles to give as well-rounded 
an account as possible. A total of about 80 people and three Nigerian Pentecostal 
churches, the RCCG, House on the Rock (HOTR) and Winners Chapel, participated in 
interviews and group discussions both in Amsterdam and London from 2017 to 2019, 
although this article refers mostly to the London results. The case studies included 
two parishes1 of RCCG – a small parish of about 30 members named RCCGLKP located 
in Southwest London and Jesus House located in Brent Cross, London with about 3000 
members; HOTR, housed in a renovated Anglican Church building, the ‘Rock Tower’ 
in Islington with 100-150 members. There were also branches of Winners Chapel, a 
small branch (WCIL) with 100-150 members and the European headquarters with 
about 2000 member-capacity campus. Congregation size was vital in this study, and 
this will be discussed shortly. In data collection and analysis, one of the challenges is 
the issue of researcher bias, whether as an insider or outsider. As a Pentecostal Nige-
rian migrant, I was an insider, but as a female educated researcher, I was also some-
times an outsider. This is important because the stance of the researcher can affect 
the interpretation of the data and therefore the validity of the study. Since qualita-
tive research cannot be value-free, it is vital to acknowledge own biases and assump-
tions and be as neutral as possible (Gillani 2021). It was not possible to identify with 
the researched group in all cases and sometimes not with the same intensity, there-
fore, I adopted a dialectical (logical argumentation) approach which allows the pres-
ervation of the complexity of differences and similarities (Kawulich 2012: 154; Dwyer 
and Buckle 2009). My positionality as a Pentecostal but also a researcher was made 
clear to participants and I was also very self-aware. In listening to and interpreting 
their stories, the experiences of the sacred were not excluded from the research. 
Rather, I was open to the way in which those being researched, “intersubjectively” 

1 In the RCCG, a parish is a congregation or unit of administration ranging from as little as ten regular 
attendees to large mega-parishes of 4000 members and the number/area is not limited by geograph-
ical distance.



6
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

experience reality and to use that as my reference point. Additionally, ethical consid-
erations around anonymity, confidentiality and freedom to participate were taken 
seriously, discussed and agreed with participants in advance using Consent Forms 
which participants read and signed. Ethical approval was received from the gradu-
ating institution.

Research Findings
In the UK, the RCCG is one of the Churches that is more ecumenically engaged and 
in its ecumenical statement, affirms “its commitment to work with other ecumenical 
partners in the United Kingdom and beyond to promote Christian unity and advance 
the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (RCCGUK 2017) While acknowledging that differ-
ences exist within and between Christian denominations, the RCCG seeks to continue 
to collaborate based on the love of God that embraces difference “as enrichment to 
the various valid expressions of the Christian faith” (RCCGUK 2017). RCCG’s strate-
gies for ecumenical engagement include inter-church worship, knowledge exchange 
and partnership with other churches to enhance Christian social action and services 
to the needy within the communities. As a matter of church policy, parish pastors at 
all levels are motivated to relate in different spheres and cooperate in local prayer 
meetings and mission activities; findings from my study confirmed this cooperation. 
Agu Irukwu, the senior pastor of RCCG Jesus House, while speaking during a Vineyard 
leadership conference acknowledged some interactions, noting:

we have 850 odd churches spread across the nation. I visit those churches, I get the 
report, I hear about prayer meetings being held with the vicar of the Anglican church, 
with the priest of the Catholic Church, with the Reverend of the Baptist Church and 
they are meeting once a month to pray for their community and their cities (Irukwu 
2018).

This statement underscores the fact that there are collaborations between leaders of 
RCCG and mainline churches (Anglicans, United Reformed, Baptists) at local, city and 
regional levels. As Dyer (2019: 110–11) notes, this is particularly successful with the 
mainline churches which have absorbed a flavour of charismatic styles of worship 
used in Pentecostal churches like the RCCG. Nevertheless, the need for increased 
mutual recognition and dialogue leading to a renewed understanding of each other’s 
ecclesiology must not be overlooked. Ecumenism and ecclesiology are linked in the 
work of Christian unity, and it is beneficial for Christian communities to develop 
compatible ecclesiastical operating systems and recognize “church” in one another; 
this could be a key to a truly multicultural church (Gibaut 2015: 222).



7
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

Another observation is that the size of the congregation has implications for the ability 
to engage and the level of engagement in ecumenical discussions. Large churches 
like RCCG Jesus House, with a more diverse congregation not only in stock of human 
capital (having a higher population of young university-educated members) but 
also age, are better positioned to engage in ecumenical relations. During my field-
work, I observed that its members cut across age, gender, economic and educational 
attainment with an average age of 35 years. In that regard, smaller congregations 
like RCCGLKP, made up of much older members, with less stock of human capital (in 
terms of theological/secular educational qualifications) do not have the capability for 
effective participation in ecumenical debates with mainline churches who empha-
size theological training for their clergy and, in some cases, profess different theol-
ogies. This corroborates the findings of Cartledge et al. (2019: 20) in their work on 
London megachurches that size is vital and influences the amount of capital (human, 
social or physical) available for engaging with local communities. Others, like HOTR 
with more members and its own worship premises, face challenges in participating 
in church networks or ecumenical discussions because their resources are more 
focused on pastoral care of members; as its lead pastor explained, “our activities as 
a local church are so consuming” (Pastor T, interview 4/2/2020).

How have leaders like Irukwu become prominently involved in ecumenical conversa-
tions? There may be some attributes that differentiate those who are ecumenically 
engaged from others who are less involved. Irukwu is a former corporate banker, 
well-educated and very cosmopolitan in his approach in both spiritual and secular 
domains. He was sent to the UK as a missionary from his home Nigerian church to 
pastor the then newly-established RCCG London parish. Additionally, Irukwu is one 
of the visible Nigerians who is a prominent leader in ecumenical organizations like 
Churches Together England (CTE) where he was Pentecostal president from 2017 to 
2021. According to Davey and Reardon (2005: 5), CTE has been rooted in inter-de-
nominational consultation and debates at local and national levels since its inception 
and has been at the forefront of inter-church relations in the UK. In a sermon at the 
leadership conference of Vineyard Churches (a movement established by John and 
Carol Wimber in 1977),2 Irukwu revealed his commitment to inter-denominational 
relationships and cooperation in the UK.

2 Vineyard churches are a movement of churches in the UK and Ireland which was started by John and 
Carol Wimber in the United States of America in 1977. Its goal is to plant, or begin, new, healthy, fully 
functioning churches which in turn will plant healthy churches (Vineyard Churches 2012; 2019). It is 
known by many Christians today through its well-known worship songs that are sung in different 
churches.



8
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

When we gather once a year that meeting is a cloud, when I sit in a meeting with 
leaders of the orthodox churches …, now I’m Pentecostal, Orthodox Church leaders 
traditionally think Pentecostals are rascals, they don’t even understand us. Now we 
think they are archaic and dinosaurs so there is no meeting point. … But we are talking 
about Christ, we are talking about revival we are talking about the persecuted church, 
we are praying together. I’m praying with the Archbishop of Canterbury, my wife and I 
…. We are sitting down and talking about strategies for thy kingdom come (Irukwu 
2018).

Irukwu is convinced of an imminent change in the missional, political, social and 
economic situation in the UK and urges the Church to unite and “pray for the cloud 
to cause a rain over the nation”. He has also involved leaders of British mainline 
churches in RCCG’s programmes, despite differences in ecclesiology and theology. 
The RCCG Festival of Life (FOL) has been a platform where individuals like the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, the British Charismatic worship leader Lou Fell-
ingham, and Sam Miller of Open Heavens have participated. The Archbishop of the 
Coptic Orthodox Church in London, Anba Angaelos, was the special guest speaker at 
the 2019 festival (RCCG 2019). Interdenominational collaboration has the potential 
for achieving one of the central objectives of receptive ecumenism, which is, seeking 
what one church tradition needs to learn and can learn from others without compro-
mising its own tradition and thereby developing deepened relationships. This is 
perhaps one way that receptive ecumenism helps towards achieving an ecumenical 
ethic and strategy for living between the times (Murray 2014: 1).

Pastor E explains that ecumenical engagement is relational, and the interested indi-
vidual should be able to network across cultures and church expressions wherever 
they are located. He discussed his ecumenical connections in the UK referring to the 
period when he left his old church to start a new one: “I spent more time with Hugh 
Osgood getting to know him as a person and got quite close to him as a mentor” 
(Pastor E, 11/2/2019). Through this relationship building, his new church became 
actively engaged with CTE, the Free Churches Group and the Evangelical Alliance. 
Pastor E emphasized the interpersonal aspect of inter-church engagement, which, 
he argues, is only possible through close relationships built over time. As Robeck 
(2015: 9) explained, ecumenical encounters begin with personal relationships and 
friendships. Given time, the friendships can grow into genuine love and care for one 
another and the potential to mesh into each other’s lives. When this ability to grow 
into each other’s lives is extended to churches, it results in mutual respect of each 
other’s beliefs and actions. These interactions can be the basis for critical reflections 
on institutional differences and create opportunities for change. Getting to know 
Christians from different traditions, sharing the joy of being Christians, becoming 



9
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

friends, associates and brethren removes the tag of being the “other” and breaks 
walls of tension and alienation erected against each other. Grassroots level engage-
ment where every day Christians engage in “real dialogues” that address the many 
practical problems that churches face could be vital in this process (Murray 2014: 3; 
Rausch 2017: 96).

Rubbing against each other and gravitating towards each other provide the oppor-
tunity for loosening creedal characteristics and bringing Christians closer to their 
original identity as family members. Ecumenism brokers relationships, both at micro 
and inter-church levels, and relationships enable better self-awareness, opening the 
possibility of gaining another perspective; thus people can move outside of their 
comfort zones, creating the likelihood of taking seriously those who are different. 
Developing new ecclesial relationships may begin with leadership but this can shift 
to members if leaders teach it from their pulpits. As Rausch suggests, ecumenical 
engagement needs to be on multiple levels. Finally, it is through ecumenical and 
ecclesial relationships that the Church can demonstrate reconciliation and unity to 
the world and therefore enhance mission (Mladin et al. 2017: 25–26).

Social and political participation
My study also indicated that despite challenges, African Pentecostal churches provide 
different types of support to their host communities. These activities include provi-
sion of groceries indirectly through food banks and directly to the public as during the 
2020–21 lockdowns brought about by Covid-19. Pastor T explained how his church 
had collected (from church members) and donated great amounts of groceries to 
their local food bank and received commendation for their support (Pastor T, inter-
view 4/2/2020). In cases where direct distribution to the public was necessitated, 
the churches cooperate with local governmental and non-governmental agencies to 
identify and support the needy (Burgess 2021: 331). These churches also distribute 
food packs during festive periods like Easter and Christmas. An example is RCCG 
Jesus House “Christmas lunch on Jesus” initiative which started in 2007. Through the 
programme, quality food hampers are delivered to individuals, families and homes in 
communities across the UK who would otherwise face a difficult or lonely Christmas. 
Initially started in North London, it has now been franchised to the south-west and 
in 2021, more than 9000 hampers were distributed across ten London boroughs. 
Others are Abigail’s Court, which organizes regular visits to elderly care homes, and 
the Novo centre, which provides a safe space for families to help combat the causes 
of youth-related offences through mentoring of young people and providing alter-
native social contexts for self-expression (Cartledge et al. 2019: 220–26). In addition 
to providing sustenance and other social services to the vulnerable within British 



10
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

society, migrant churches like Jesus House use these as opportunities for public-
facing engagement at the grassroots to build relationships and do the work of 
mission. For them this is a way of being rooted in the place and context in which they 
are located. It is about being part of the communal life and being present, which is 
deeply human, very personal, communal and God-shaped ( James 2016: 20). Other 
aspects of RCCG UK’s social activism include empowerment programmes, such as 
the African Caribbean Education Project (ACES) aimed at improving the educational 
outcomes of young people of African and Caribbean descent (Cartledge et al. 2019: 
221–8).

There is socio-political activism through which RCCG congregations and leadership 
interact with those in the position of political and civic power in ways that have indi-
cated significant forms of “give” as well as “take”. This implies letting these powers 
see not just what they can do for the Church but what the Nigerian community is 
contributing to British society. Irukwu has been consistent in cooperating with Chris-
tian and secular leaders and has a wide sphere of influence in the UK which has been 
beneficial in RCCG’s efforts at building relations across church traditions albeit mostly 
at leadership levels. For instance, in 2008 Tearfund celebrated its 40th birthday at 
Jesus House with Archbishop Tutu as guest, while in 2015 David Cameron (then Prime 
Minister) made a key speech at FOL (RCCG 2015). Through these connections with the 
seat of power, RCCG Jesus House brings its contributions as a faith-based organiza-
tion into the limelight and public discourse. For example, as member of Parliament, 
Boris Johnson visited the Novo centre (a drop-in centre run by Jesus House to help 
combat the causes of youth-related offences through mentoring of young people 
and provision of alternative social contexts for self-expression), while in 2021, as PM, 
Boris Johnson and Charles the then Prince of Wales visited Jesus House to observe 
the church premises being used as a vaccination centre for the public during the 
Covid-19 pandemic. They both later commended the church as an example of faith-
based intervention that should be emulated ( Jesus House 2021, March 7). African 
churches like Jesus House take social responsibility seriously and operate it in such 
inclusive terms that the British public benefits, including people of other faiths and 
none and those of diverse cultures.

Second-generation Nigerians: Way Forward
In another paper, I highlighted the inter-generational differences observed among 
Nigerian Pentecostal diaspora churches around beliefs and practices and the impact 
on cross-cultural missional engagement (Adenekan-Koevoets 2021). The hierarchic 
power structure, where the first generation constitutes the majority of the leader-
ship, ensures that power is concentrated at the top and trickles down to members 



11
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

including young people. Pastor E describes it as the “very big head and very small 
body” type, the “kwashiorkor” kind of depiction because that is the reality of our 
systems of leadership in the diaspora. He argues that such leadership styles will 
invariably affect the way church missions are planted (interview, 11/2/2019). Both 
hierarchic leadership and power dynamics that concentrate authority in the hands 
of the first-generation, who are mostly influenced by their Nigerian cultural and reli-
gious background, institutes Pentecostal liturgies that are designed along familiar 
“home” beliefs and practices. The second generation is wary of hierarchical leader-
ship structures, arguing that they create unequal power relations which allow limited 
opportunity for youth to influence change. This discourages sincere and constructive 
discussions between the leaders and members, leading to frustration and dimin-
ished participation in church activities (focus group, 23/2/2018). Decisions around 
strategies and practices for evangelism – important for building cross-cultural 
relations – are made by church leaders who are mostly first-generation Nigerians. 
The result is that methods like street evangelism, door knocking and leafleting – 
described as “in your face evangelism” (Catto 2008: 123) – that worked in Nigeria but 
are less effective in western liberal societies, persist. These young Nigerian-British 
citizens are convinced that there is a need for contextualization and adoption of atti-
tudes and strategies that are more inclusive for non-Africans. One of the suggestions 
is “taking the church outside” to meet the people through conversations, demon-
strating the love of God (power evangelism) and building relationships. “Apostle 
Paul did not give out leaflets, they [the apostles] just went into the fold … you [need 
to] make it personal to people. It is about how you make people feel” (focus group, 
23/2/2018). The limited level of success of cross-cultural mission by other African 
migrant churches in the UK is similar as attested to in a study of the Ghanaian Church 
of Pentecost UK (Neate 2022: 33–34).

Social action is seen as another activity which could be beneficial in bringing the 
activities of Nigerian churches to the British public space and has been useful in 
creating public awareness and establishing the presence of Nigerian churches within 
different communities. However, it has had limited success in the aspiration of Nige-
rian migrant churches to build cross-cultural congregations. Most of these young 
people were born in Europe, others migrated as young children, but all of them went 
through both African and European socialization processes so they can be described 
as African Europeans. Their worldview is neither African nor European but a blend of 
both and they are therefore well positioned to be the bridge between cultures and 
begin the process of building cross-cultural denominations in Europe. They have the 
societal reach that the FG does not have but need their seal, zeal, experience and 
resources.



12
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

Conclusion
This article has discussed the external relations of Nigerian Pentecostal churches 
and how their missional aspiration is affected. First, the study indicates that Nige-
rian diaspora churches respond, within their capabilities and available resources, to 
some of the social problems encountered within their host communities. Whether 
through empowerment programmes, such as the African Caribbean Education 
Project (ACES), care for the homeless and the elderly, food donation to the needy or 
hampers at festive seasons, large branches of established churches like the RCCG or 
others like KICC have been at the forefront of community engagement in and around 
London. Second, contextualization of Pentecostal beliefs and practices, both in 
terms of outward-facing evangelism and embedded religious and spiritual activities, 
remain the key to missional success. Street preaching, leafleting and other Nigeri-
an-tested methods are the preferred practices despite their ineffectiveness in evan-
gelizing white British people. Third, although the level of ecumenical engagement 
is limited, through the actions of some of the more cosmopolitan leaders of these 
churches there are ongoing efforts on matters of liturgy, joint evangelism, learning, 
caring and sharing in faith matters and shared worship and prayer sessions. These 
activities are also means of building personal relationships and friendships which 
are vital for receptive ecumenical encounters that are based on mutual respect and 
willingness to learn and accept what the other has to offer. In addition to engaging 
with those in the seat of British power and politics, Nigerian Pentecostal leaders 
also encourage members to serve in various spheres including politics, jury service, 
magistracy, voluntary service, fire service and so on. These are seen as means of 
societal participation and engagement through which they can build cross-cultural 
relations and influence policies that affect their lives. Finally, the second generation 
is a resource that could be the transitional factor towards achieving the aspiration 
for cross-cultural interactions, church growth and territorial expansion of migrant 
churches. As one participant noted, kingdom work is inter-generational, and it is 
important to

train our children who are more integrated in Western societies and straddle both 
cultures in the things of God ... so that they have the skill, our seal, and the fervour we 
have but then they also have the reach we do not have. They in turn can bring their 
friends who cut across all cultures and races and be more effective than us. They can 
use their language and technological skills in combination with the culture of their 
parents as tools to reach the wider community (Pastor E, interview 11/2/2019).

There is need for the means and ways of achieving the missiological agenda of 
African diaspora churches, especially Nigerian Pentecostal churches in this study 
to be more contextual as the audience and context change. The UK is a different 
context compared to Nigeria and evangelizing white British people requires that 



13
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

African Pentecostal churches design evangelistic strategies that take British thought 
and culture into consideration. This will be vital for future ecumenical encounters.

About the author
Adebisi Adenekan-Koevoets received her PhD from the University of Roehampton in 
2022. Her research focused on Nigerian Pentecostals and reverse mission in London 
and Amsterdam. She is passionate about second-generation Africans and their 
engagement in mission and other issues such as identity construction, belonging 
and social mobility. Her publications about young people include “Nigerian Pente-
costal Diasporic Missions and Intergenerational Conflicts: Case Studies from 
Amsterdam and London” in Mission Studies (Brill) and Targeted Evangelism and Knife 
Crime in London: A Case of Corporate/Church Social Responsibility by Migrant Pentecostal 
Churches in the UK (Galda Verlag).
Contact: debisiade@yahoo.com

References
Adedibu, B. 2018. “Mission out of Africa: The case of the Redeemed Christian Church of God in 

London.” In Goodhew and Cooper (eds), 2018: 169–86.
Adenekan-Koevoets, B. 2021. “Nigerian Pentecostal Diasporic Missions and Intergenerational 

Conflicts: Case studies from Amsterdam and London.” Mission Studies 38 (3): 424–47.
–––. 2022. Nigerian Pentecostals and “Reverse Mission” in London and Amsterdam. Doctoral disser-

tation, University of Roehampton.
Burgess, R. 2021. “Religious Spaces of Care in the Postsecular City: Nigerian Pentecostals and 

Civic Engagement in London.” Journal for the Academic Study of Religion 34 (3).
Cartledge, M. J., S. Dunlop, H. Buckingham and S. Bremner. 2019. Megachurches and Social 

Engagement: Public Theology in Practice. Leiden: Brill.
Catto, R. A. 2008. “From the rest to the West: Exploring reversal in Christian Mission in Twen-

ty-First century Britain.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Exeter.
Davey, C., and M. Reardon. 2005. “Not strangers but Pilgrims. The 1980s inter-church process: 

From Councils of Churches to Churches Together.” One in Christ 40 (1): 54–72.
Dwyer, S. C., and J. L. Buckle. 2009. “The space between: On being an insider-outsider in quali-

tative research.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8 (1): 54–63.
Dyer, A. 2019. “Ecumenism and Pentecostals in Britain.” In Aldred, J. (ed.). Pentecostals and Char-

ismatics in Britain: An Anthology. London: SCM Press.
Gibaut, J. S. H. 2015. “The Church: Towards a common vision.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 50 

(2): 216–48.
Gillani, D. 2021. “Can and should Qualitative Research Be Value-Free? Understanding the Epis-

temological Tussle between Positivists and Interpretivists.” Journal of Political Studies 28 (1).
Goodhew, D. and A.-P. Cooper (eds). 2018. The Desecularisation of the City: London’s churches, 

1980 to the present. London: Routledge.
Hawkes, G., and V. Balabanski (eds). 2018. Receptive Ecumenism: Listening, Learning and Loving in 

the Way of Christ. Hindmarsh, SA: ATF Press.

mailto:debisiade@yahoo.com


14
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13424

Irukwu, A. 2018. “Interceding for the nations.” Sermon delivered at the Vineyard national 
leaders’ conference. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/55fmbuwk (Accessed 3/6/18).

James, D. 2016. “Faithful presence: A remerging mission paradigm.” Anvil: Journal of Theology 
and Mission 32 (1): 19–26.

Jesus House. 2021, March 7. Facebook post. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/jesush-
ouselondon/posts/2847823472123193 (Accessed 13/4/2021).

Kawulich, B. 2012. “Collecting data through observation.” In C. Wagner, B. Kawulich and M. 
Garner, Doing Social Research: A global context. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Higher Education: 
150–60.

Keshishian, A. 1992. Conciliar Fellowship: A Common Goal. Geneva: WCC Publications.
Loughran, J. 2013. “World Council of Churches 10th Assembly.” Ecumenical Trends, New York: 42.
Mladin, N., R. Fidler and B. Ryan. (2017). That they all may be one: Insights into Churches Together 

in England and contemporary Ecumenism. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/ywpvdect 
(Accessed 21/11/22).

Murray, P. D. 2014. “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism.”‘ The Ecumenist 51 (2): 1–8.
––– and L. B. Confalonieri (eds). 2008. Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: 

Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neate, J. 2022. “Cultural perceptions: A barrier to the role of cross-cultural friendships in 

mission?” Ecclesial Futures 3 (2): 31–49.
Nelson, R. D., and C. Raith II. 2017. Ecumenism: a guide for the perplexed. New York: Bloomsbury.
Odeyemi, J. S. 2019. Pentecostalism and Catholic Ecumenism in Developing Nations: West Africa as 

a Case Study for a Global Phenomenon. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
Olofinjana, I. O. 2020. “Reverse Mission: Towards an African British theology.” Transformation 

37 (1): 52–65.
Pizzey, A. 2019. “The Path Forward: Receptive Ecumenism and the Renewal of the Ecumen-

ical Movement.” In P. Endean, P. van Geest, P. Murray and M. Sarrot (eds). Brill’s Studies in 
Catholic Ecumenism. Leiden: Brill: 226–34.

Rausch, T. P. 2017. “The Present State of Ecumenism.” Perspectiva Teológica 49 (1): 87–100.
RCCG. 2015. “The Prime Minister of Great Britain Rt Hon. David Cameron at RCCG FOL London.” 

Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt-hB1ROjjg (Accessed 5/6/2020).
RCCG. 2019. Festival of Life: More than Conquerors. 19 July. Available at: https://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=-DbZZ6XChh4 (Accessed 6/6/2020).
RCCGUK. 2017. RCCG Ecumenical statement: Working together to promote Christian Unity 

and advancing the gospel. Available at: https://www.rccguk.church/wp-content/
uploads/2017/01/RCCG-Ecumenical-Statement.pdf (Accessed 14/5/2020).

Robeck, C. M. 2014. “Pentecostal Ecumenism: Overcoming the Challenges –Reaping the 
Rewards.” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 34 (2): 113–32.

 –––. 2015. “Pentecostal Ecumenism: Overcoming the Challenges—Reaping the Rewards: 
Understanding the Nature of Ecumenism (Part 2).” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theo-
logical Association 35 (1): 5–17.

Stephenson, C. A. 2018. “Observations on Pentecostal Participation in Formal Ecumenical 
Dialogue. “ International Review of Mission 107 (1): 130–41.

Vineyard Churches. 2019. Church planting: Training stream for church planters. Available at: 
https://www.vineyardchurches.org.uk/training-streams/church-planting/ (Accessed 
24/6/2021).

–––. 2012. How the Church Began. Available at: https://www.vineyardchurches.org.uk/vine-
yard-vaults/how-the-vineyard-began/ (Accessed 24/6/2021).

Vondey, W. 2014. “The Unity and Diversity of Pentecostal Theology: A Brief Account for the 
Ecumenical Community in the West.” Ecclesiology 10 (1): 76–100.

https://tinyurl.com/55fmbuwk
https://www.facebook.com/jesushouselondon/posts/2847823472123193
https://www.facebook.com/jesushouselondon/posts/2847823472123193
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt-hB1ROjjg
https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-DbZZ6XChh4&data=05%7C01%7C%7C98e97f3a8e364061d53008db4edd0025%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638190483317714095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=InSespRMfQMV3Ua1jx4ikAwenW2nQHpSYp3n1QI8MXs%3D&reserved=0
https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-DbZZ6XChh4&data=05%7C01%7C%7C98e97f3a8e364061d53008db4edd0025%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638190483317714095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=InSespRMfQMV3Ua1jx4ikAwenW2nQHpSYp3n1QI8MXs%3D&reserved=0
https://www.rccguk.church/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/RCCG-Ecumenical-Statement.pdf
https://www.rccguk.church/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/RCCG-Ecumenical-Statement.pdf
https://www.vineyardchurches.org.uk/training-streams/church-planting/
https://www.vineyardchurches.org.uk/vineyard-vaults/how-the-vineyard-began/
https://www.vineyardchurches.org.uk/vineyard-vaults/how-the-vineyard-began/



