What God cannot do does not exist’ as catchphrase

The catchphrase, “What God cannot do does not exist” has gained widespread acceptance among Christians, offering hope and reassurance that no situation is beyond God’s transformative power. Scriptural backing for this declaration, such as “For with God nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37) and “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26), underscores the boundless sovereignty of God over creation. However, in recent times, the powerful message of divine omnipotence has been subjected to troubling misinterpretations and distortions, with many bending it to justify actions that are inconsistent with both scripture and sound theology.

The recent marriage of Rev. Fr. Daniel Okanatotor Oghenerukevwe, a suspended Catholic priest from the Diocese of Warri, to Dora Chichah, a single mother of three, has reignited conversations about the meaning and implications of the popular catchphrase. Dora’s testimony about her marriage portrays it as a divine miracle, a long-awaited answer to her prayers. However, this incident raises deeper questions about how divine omnipotence is often invoked to justify actions that may conflict with established doctrines, ethical standards, and societal expectations.

Rev. Fr. Daniel’s marriage to Dora occurred despite his failure to complete the formal process of being released from his priestly vows. According to the Catholic Diocese of Warri, the priest had initiated the process to be dispensed from Holy Orders but contracted the marriage before its conclusion. For Dora, the marriage was the culmination of years of prayer and faith, fueled by declarations of miracles from Pastor Jerry Eze’s NSPPD (New Season Prophetic Prayers and Declarations). She emphatically stated, “What God cannot do does not exist,” framing their union as evidence of divine intervention. “We dey pray, e dey show. My name is Dora, and I’m giving my testimony from Streams of Joy, Dallas…” She went further to reveal how her priest husband has been praying and fasting, asking God to help him locate his lost rib. Then, finally in 2024, she heard God’s instruction, directing her to relocate to Dallas, Texas where Daniel has been waiting in the shadows to tie the nuptial knot with her. After all, she has been dancing, praying, and believing God anytime Pastor Jerry says, “Women in their 30s, women in their 40s, receive your husband!” And, bam! She receives hers! Dora dived into Daniel’s dalliance in Dallas! While one cannot question the sincerity of Dora’s faith or the priest’s personal struggles with his vocation, the situation raises critical concerns about the boundaries between faith, doctrine, and personal desire.

When the angel Gabriel proclaimed to Mary, “For there is nothing that God cannot do” (Luke 1:37), the context was the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ. It signified God’s ability to transcend natural laws to fulfill His divine purpose. This assurance of divine power is meant to inspire faith, obedience, and submission to God’s will, as exemplified in Mary’s response: “I am the Lord’s servant; may it happen to me as you have said” (Luke 1:38). The theological foundation of God’s omnipotence rests on His character – holy, just, loving, and merciful. God does not act contrary to His nature; His power is not a licence for chaos or contradiction. For instance, God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19), and He cannot be tempted by evil nor tempt anyone (James 1:13). Hence, “What God cannot do does not exist” must be understood within the framework of His righteous nature and divine plan. Despite its profound theological roots, the phrase has been hijacked by some individuals to justify actions that undermine Christian ethics and distort biblical principles.

From the pulpit to social media, testimonies abound of people attributing questionable or outright dubious outcomes to God’s intervention, often couched in the language of “What God cannot do does not exist.” A good number has turned the catchphrase into a mantra for material acquisition, status elevation, and shortcuts to success. The focus has shifted to human desires, often bordering on greed and entitlement, rather than emphasizing God’s will and purpose. Some religious leaders and individuals have used the slogan to deodorize and sanctify their odious and odorous actions, even when these are inconsistent with scripture. The Apostle, St. Paul warned against this mindset in Romans 1:25: “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator himself…” From fraudulent practices to manipulative schemes, invoking God’s name has become a convenient cloak for self-serving ambitions. The distortion of this phrase has led to the justification of unethical decisions, including marrying under false pretences, cutting corners in business, and bypassing due process in critical matters. These actions, which are antithetical to Christian teachings, are then presented as “God’s miracles.”

At the heart of this issue is the subtle transformation of God from a sovereign deity to a transactional being who serves human whims. This commodification of God undermines the essence of worship, reducing faith to a tool for personal advancement rather than a relationship of reverence and trust. The age-old institution of the Church has long been a pillar of morality, discipline, and spiritual guidance. However, in contemporary times, this sacred edifice is increasingly being marred by absurdities that test the limits of faith and logic. It is increasingly turning into an avenue for idolatrous absurdities, where self-interest takes precedence over God’s glory. The story of Rev. Fr. Daniel Oghenerukevwe and his wife, Dora Chichah, is a glaring case in point. It exemplifies the convoluted intersection of personal desires, spiritual obligations, and the troubling tendency to invoke God in questionable circumstances.

“What God cannot do does not exist,” while a powerful testament to faith in God’s omnipotence, is increasingly being co-opted in Nigeria as a catch-all justification for questionable actions. It is quite heartwarming that the Catholic Bishop of Nsukka Diocese, Most Reverend Prof Godfrey Igwebuike Onah has introduced a disruptive perspective to the ongoing conversation. In one of his profound homily series, Bishop Onah flipped the catchphrase on its head: “What God cannot do does exist – God cannot satisfy everybody!” This bold statement not only challenges the theological distortions that have accompanied the catchphrase but also invites a deeper reflection on the nature of God, human expectations, and the boundaries of divine omnipotence. Most Rev. Father Bishop Onah’s intervention introduces a necessary disruption to an increasingly one-dimensional interpretation of God’s power, underscoring the reality that God’s actions are governed by divine wisdom, justice, and purpose, not by human whims or desires. His reversal of the phrase tends to reorient the conversation toward a more balanced understanding of God’s character and purpose. Bishop Onah’s assertion aligns with several biblical principles and theological truths: God cannot contradict His nature; God cannot override free will; God cannot please everyone simultaneously; God cannot be manipulated. It is one thing to believe in the miraculous intervention of a higher power; it is another entirely to misuse that belief as a cloak for actions that contradict established norms and ethical standards. Here, the Church’s own rigor in safeguarding the sanctity of priestly vows and the sacrament of marriage has been undermined, not just by an errant priest but also by a culture that increasingly blurs the lines between faith and folly.

The Catholic Church, as an institution, has long upheld strict guidelines for priestly celibacy. These rules are not arbitrary; they are deeply rooted in theological and doctrinal convictions. When a priest feels unable to continue in this vocation, there is a formal process for laicization – a process designed not only to honour the priest’s discernment but also to maintain the integrity of the Church’s sacred commitments. Fr. Daniel’s decision to bypass this process and proceed with marriage raises serious questions about personal accountability and respect for ecclesiastical authority. Equally troubling is the narrative being spun around this event. Dora’s testimony, punctuated by repeated invocations of divine approval, paints a picture of spiritual endorsement for actions that defy the Church’s teachings. Her faith in God’s providence is admirable, but the way it is framed here veers dangerously close to rationalizing disobedience. The Church is left grappling with the fallout, forced to clarify its position while managing the public spectacle created by this unfolding drama.

This trend reflects a deeper crisis within the Church and society at large – a crisis of accountability, where divine intervention is expected to compensate for human failings. When the catchphrase is weaponized to justify actions that are at odds with moral and societal norms; when it is invoked to absolve individuals of responsibility, placing the burden squarely on God; it underscores a troubling disconnect between spiritual fervor and ethical conduct. When faith becomes a tool for self-justification rather than self-examination, the moral compass of a community begins to falter. The Church cannot afford to turn a blind eye to these developments. It is good that the Warri Diocese has done the needful. As the body of Christ, it bears the responsibility of guiding its flock toward genuine faith, not convenient religiosity. This means holding errant members accountable, reaffirming the sanctity of its teachings, and addressing the cultural tendencies that fuel these asininities. It also means re-emphasizing the importance of discernment, integrity, and obedience – values that are at the core of the Christian faith. Dora’s story, while deeply personal, is a microcosm of broader issues facing the Church in Nigeria and beyond. It is a call to action for religious leaders, congregants, and society at large to reflect on the intersection of faith and responsibility. The God who created the universe is indeed capable of miracles, but He is not an accomplice to human folly. The Church must stand firm in this truth, lest it lose its moral authority in the face of wackiness that undermine its sacred mission.

Bishop Onah’s perspective serves as a corrective lens, reminding believers that God’s omnipotence does not negate the need for human responsibility, moral accountability, and adherence to divine order. His homily is a call for Christians to exercise discernment in their faith practices. It invites believers to move beyond a superficial understanding of God’s power and to embrace a deeper, more intelligible theology, bordering on faith and obedience, the limits of human understanding, and upholding sacred traditions. True faith involves trusting in God’s power while also submitting to His will. It requires believers to align their desires with God’s purpose, rather than attempting to bend divine power to fit personal agendas. As finite beings, humans cannot fully comprehend the infinite wisdom of God. Recognizing this limitation fosters humility and encourages believers to seek God’s will above their own. For institutions like the Catholic Church, adherence to doctrine and tradition is essential to preserving the integrity of the faith. Situations like Rev. Fr. Daniel’s marriage highlight the need for clear boundaries and accountability within the Church.

In the end, the phrase “What God cannot do does not exist” should remind believers of God’s omnipotence and inspire them to strive for a life of integrity and obedience. The catchphrase is a powerful reminder of God’s limitless power and ability to transform lives. The Church must reclaim the integrity of this message, guiding believers to a deeper understanding of God’s omnipotence as a call to faith, obedience, and alignment with His purpose. However, when taken out of context or misused, it loses its spiritual essence and becomes a tool for self-promotion and manipulation. It should not become a slogan for justifying actions that contradict the very faith it seeks to uphold. Let this be a time of reflection for all Christians, a moment to return to the heartbeat of our faith and to honour God not only for what He can do but for who He is – the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer of all things. As we await Divine judgment, let us remember that faith is not a shortcut to righteousness but a journey toward it – one that demands accountability, humility, and unwavering commitment to the truth.

Finally, Bishop Godfrey Igwebuike Onah’s assertion that “What God cannot do does exist – God cannot satisfy everybody” is a timely and necessary intervention in a religious landscape increasingly shaped by theological distortions and self-serving interpretations of divine power. His words challenge believers to deepen their understanding of God’s nature and to approach faith with a spirit of humility, obedience, and discernment. Invoking “What God cannot do does not exist” according to the amoral dictates of Dora-Daniel conjugal ballyhoo risks trivializing God’s power and undermining the sanctity of Church traditions. While God’s omnipotence is undeniable, it operates within the framework of His divine wisdom and purpose. Christians must strive to resist the temptation to reduce God’s power to a catchphrase or a tool for personal gain. Instead, let them seek to align their lives with His will, trusting that His plans – though sometimes beyond human understanding – are always for the greater good. As the Church navigates these turbulent times, it must uphold the sanctity of its traditions while extending grace to those who falter. Let this incident be an opportunity for soul-searching and a renewed commitment to aligning faith with the principles of truth, righteousness, and divine order.

Agbedo, is a Professor of Linguistics, University of Nigeria Nsukka, and a Public Affairs Analyst