Gospel music ministers and money: Divine call or paid profession?

In March 2025, the gospel music community has found itself deep in murky waters as debate that has simmered for decades now becomes a contemporary battle of wits: Should gospel music ministers be paid for their talents in the church? The controversy reignited when Pastor Femi Lazarus of Light Nation Church publicly criticized gospel artists for charging fees to perform at church events, sparking a heated exchange with Nigerian singer Timi Dakolo and others. Social media platforms have become the battlefield with opinions, from accusations of commercialization to defenses of artists’ livelihoods.

At the heart of this clash lies a deeper question: Is gospel music a sacred ministry to be offered freely, or a skill deserving of rewards mostly monetarily? This piece is set to explore the controversy, analyzing scriptural references that suggest gospel ministers should not demand payment for their talents within the church.

The heat of the controversy: Pastor Lazarus vs Dakolo

The controversy began with a viral sermon on March 16, 2025, where Pastor Lazarus argued that true music ministers, those called to express God’s message through song—should not treat their craft as a business. “A music minister is not an entertainer,” he declared on YouTube, citing figures like Nathaniel Bassey, who famously refuses fees, as exemplars. “If God didn’t call you full-time, get a job and serve with your gift.” Timi Dakolo fired back on Instagram, defending artists’ rights to charge, noting the costs of production and travel. “You can’t expect us to minister and starve,” he argued, representing the belief shared by many in the industry. The clash split opinions: some hailed Lazarus’s call to purity, while others, like comedian Igosave, countered that only pastors who invest in artists’ growth, like Pastor Chris Oyakhilome, can fairly demand free performances.

This, I see is just another angle of a familiar ground. The 20th century church has been under the the subject of controversies and debates over finances, from the issue of tithes (⅒ of individual earnings), money and ministry have long been uneasy bedfellows. Gospel music, with its roots in spiritual devotion, now seems be aboard the ship of streaming revenue or concert tickets. But what does Scripture say about payment for those who minister through song?

READ ALSO

From church drummer to gospel music star, Damilare Starlite’s inspiring journey

“Why you should not blame the church for the problems in Nigeria,” says popular revivalist

“It started in the church” — Culture custodian George Beke opens up on his journey into music business

Biblical references debating this christian controversy

I cannot explain sufficiently this controversy without referring and quoting the Bible. The Bible offers several passages that frame ministry, including music; but permit me to begin with supporting music as a gift to be shared without charge, particularly within the church. Most prominent in debunking the monetization of gifts is in Matthew 10:8 (NIV): “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.” Jesus instructs His disciples as they embark on their mission, emphasizing that divine gifts, be it healing, preaching, or, by extension, music; come without cost and should be offered likewise. For gospel ministers, this suggests their talents, bestowed by God, aren’t commodities for sale, especially in sacred spaces.

This principle of free payment as described by Apostle Lazarus echoes more in 1 Corinthians 9:18 (NIV), where Paul writes, “What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.” Paul acknowledges his right to support (verses 13-14 cite temple workers eating from offerings), yet he chooses to forgo it to avoid hindering the gospel’s spread. Applied to music ministers, this implies a voluntary sacrifice, serving the church without applying financial gains, to keep the focus on worship, not wallets and pockets. The clergy leaned on this in his sermon, urging ministers to prioritize “relationship over revenue.”

Again in Acts 20:33-35 (NIV). Paul tells the Ephesian elders, “I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak.” Here, Paul models self-sufficiency, working as a tentmaker to fund his ministry. For gospel artists, this could mean balancing secular income; like Dakolo’s mainstream career, with church service, rather than billing the household of the christian faith.

However, Advocates for payment often cite Old Testament Levites, who were supported by tithes for their temple service (Numbers 18:21, NIV: “I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do”). 1 Chronicles 9:33 mentions Levite musicians “responsible for the singing,” implying structured support. In the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 extends this: “Those who serve at the altar share in the altar’s offerings… the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.” Advocates like myself may argue, that music is a business! Artists invest in promotion; why perform for free?

Regardless, context matters. Levites were a designated priestly class, not freelance performers, and their “payment” was communal provision, not negotiated fees. Paul’s “right” to support in Corinthians is tempered by his choice to waive it, suggesting flexibility, not entitlement. Within the church, where the body of Christ serves one another (Galatians 5:13), demanding payment shifts the dynamic from mutual ministry to transactional service, a point Pastor Lazarus initially expressed: “A music artist is for the stage, not the altar.”

The modern dilemma

Away from the scripture into contemporary times, gospel ministers face a reality Paul and the Levites didn’t: a global industry. Recording an album costs thousands, travel isn’t cheap, and streaming royalties don’t always cover bills. Nathaniel Bassey, a trumpet-playing worship leader, acknowledges this tension. “I don’t charge,” he told a 2021 panel, “but I’ve been taken for granted.” He accepts honorariums when offered, a practice echoed by peers like Dunsin Oyekan and Victoria Orenze, who see their music as a calling, not a paycheck. Yet, as Onah Marvel of Lamb Culture Collective notes, “It shouldn’t be contentious, payment is fine if it’s not rigid.”

The controversy skyrocket when churches expect free performances from “big names” while spending lavishly on sound systems or pastors’ luxurious vehicles. Apostle Lazarus admitted, “Some ministries lack a culture of honor,” urging pastors to support artists practically. But he warned against Social media-driven fame and propaganda: “If God hasn’t promoted you, no amount of controversy will.” Critics argue this theory ignores economic realities; a typical Dakolo’s point that “ministry doesn’t pay rent”, but Scripture’s call to sacrifice over self-interest challenges that logic.

Blurring the line, exploring the gray zone

Scripture doesn’t ban payment outright; Paul’s “right” acknowledges practical needs, but it prioritizes a higher standard: offering the gospel freely to avoid burdening the church. Matthew 6:24 (NIV) warns, “You cannot serve both God and money,” a stark reminder for ministers tempted to monetize their altars. For gospel music ministers, this suggests a dual approach: serve the church without charge, trusting God (and perhaps generous offerings) to provide, while pursuing secular avenues for sustenance if needed.

The controversy reveals a tension between calling and cost, kingdom concerns and individual survival. Pastor Lazarus’s vision of pure ministry clashes with Dakolo’s pragmatic plea, but Scripture leans towards sacrifice; freely giving what was freely received. As gospel music evolves, ministers must wrestle with this: Is their song a gift to God’s people or a ticket to profit? In 2025, the answer remains as personal as it is biblical, but the debate ensures one thing: the church won’t stop singing, or arguing, anytime soon.