Corruption and Bribery

Scripture's teaching on bribery is clear, consistent and sharp. 'Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous' (Exodus 23:8). Deuteronomy repeats it almost word for word: 'Do not deny justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous' (Deuteronomy 16:19). The ground of the command is the character of God, who is 'showing no partiality and accepting no bribe' (Deuteronomy 10:17). A judge who takes a bribe is not only breaking a rule. He is misrepresenting the God whose justice he is supposed to reflect.

The prophets show what happens when bribery becomes normal. 'You oppress the righteous by taking bribes; you deprive the poor of justice in the gate' (Amos 5:12). 'Her leaders judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets practice divination for money. Yet they lean upon the LORD' (Micah 3:11). Isaiah says of Jerusalem's rulers, 'They all love bribes and chasing after rewards. They do not defend the fatherless, and the plea of the widow never comes before them' (Isaiah 1:23). The pattern is always the same. Those who can pay get justice; those who cannot, the widow, the orphan, the poor, are shut out. Bribery is not a victimless shortcut. Someone else pays for it, and it is usually the person with nothing.

The Old Testament also gives portraits of leaders who refused. Samuel, at the end of his life, stood before Israel and asked, 'From whose hand have I accepted a bribe and closed my eyes? Tell me, and I will restore it to you' (1 Samuel 12:3), in sharp contrast to his own sons, who 'turned aside toward dishonest gain, accepting bribes and perverting justice' (8:3). When Daniel's enemies searched for a charge against him, 'they could find no charge or corruption, because he was trustworthy, and no negligence or corruption was found in him' (Daniel 6:4). Moses' father-in-law advised him to choose leaders who were 'God-fearing, trustworthy men who are averse to dishonest gain' (Exodus 18:21). The righteous person of Psalm 15 'refuses a bribe against the innocent' (Psalm 15:5).

In the New Testament the same concern appears in new settings. John the Baptist told tax collectors, 'Collect no more than you are authorized', and soldiers, 'Do not take money by force or false accusation ... Be content with your wages' (Luke 3:13-14), words that land squarely on a modern customs officer or traffic policeman. Peter rebuked Simon the magician for trying to buy the power to give the Spirit: 'May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!' (Acts 8:20), and the sin of buying church office has been called simony ever since. And Luke records, without comment, that the governor Felix kept Paul in prison 'hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe' (Acts 24:26). Paul did not pay, and stayed in custody for two years (24:27).

Not every payment is a bribe, and a student who calls every gift corruption will not be believed in a culture where gifts are the language of respect. Proverbs knows this: 'A man's gift opens doors for him, and brings him before great men' (Proverbs 18:16). Bringing something when visiting an elder, a chief or a family is honour, not corruption. At the same time Proverbs also says, 'A wicked man takes a covert bribe to subvert the course of justice' (17:23). The task is to tell the difference, and four questions help.

First, is the person receiving it in a position to decide something for me, and is the payment connected with that decision? A gift to a friend's mother is not a bribe; a gift to the magistrate hearing my case is. Second, is it open or hidden? Proverbs' word covert matters: a payment that must be hidden from the employer, the public or the other party usually knows what it is. Third, does it buy me something I am not entitled to, such as a contract over a better bidder, a place ahead of the queue, a pass in an exam I failed, or escape from a fine I owe? Fourth, would it be given if the person had no power over me? If the answers point one way, the honest name for the payment is a bribe, whatever the local word for it.

Every region has its words. In Kenya people speak of kitu kidogo, something small; in Nigeria of the brown envelope; elsewhere of tea money, or a little something for the weekend. The softness of the words is part of how the practice survives. It is worth teaching a congregation to call things by their names.

Two further categories need care. A tip is a small extra payment for a service already given, offered freely and openly, as to a waiter; it decides nothing. Extortion is a demand by someone with power, often with a threat, for payment to do what they are already obliged to do, or to refrain from harming you. A facilitation payment is a small payment to a public official to speed up or secure a routine action to which you are already entitled, such as clearing goods through customs or issuing a permit. Law treats these differently. The United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended in 1988, contains a narrow exception for facilitating payments; the United Kingdom Bribery Act 2010 contains none, and treats them as bribes. That difference in law mirrors a difference among Christians.

Christians who hold scripture's authority agree on a great deal here. It is always wrong to pay an official to pervert justice, to gain an advantage over another person to which you have no right, to escape a lawful penalty, or to harm a third party. It is always wrong to take a bribe in any office, including in the church. It is always wrong to lie about what you paid. The disagreement is narrower and harder: is it ever right to pay an official who demands money before he will do what he is already bound to do, when refusing will cost you dearly?

The first position answers no. Its defenders argue that the person who pays, however reluctantly, is still taking part in the official's sin and strengthening the system that crushes those who cannot pay. Every payment teaches the officer that the demand works, and the next person at the window may be a widow with nothing. Scripture's heroes refused: Samuel took nothing, Daniel gave his enemies nothing to find, and Paul sat two years in prison rather than pay Felix. Paul tells believers to pay 'taxes to whom taxes are due' (Romans 13:7), which implies paying what is owed and not more. The early church faced its own version of the question. During the persecution under the emperor Decius in 250, some Christians obtained from officials, often for money, a certificate saying they had sacrificed to the gods when they had not. Cyprian of Carthage, in his treatise On the Lapsed, counted these libellatici among the fallen, though less guilty than those who actually sacrificed, because a purchased lie from an official was still a denial. The Christian's witness depends on being known as someone who does not pay, and in many places officials stop asking Christians who are known to refuse. This position is held by many evangelical business leaders, anti-corruption campaigners and churches in Africa and Asia, who have seen what one Christian's refusal can begin.

The second position answers that it can be, within strict limits. Its defenders argue that scripture's commands against bribery are directed at the one whose judgment is bought, the judge who takes and so perverts justice, and that a person who pays an extortion demand to obtain what is already his is not buying a perversion of justice but being robbed. The sin lies with the one who demands. Medieval canonists and moral theologians distinguished paying to redeem oneself from unjust harassment, redimere vexationem, from paying to obtain what one had no right to; Thomas Aquinas, discussing church offices, held it lawful to use money to remove unjust opposition to a right one already had (Summa Theologiae II-II, question 100, article 2). The early church provides an example: the account of the martyrdom of Perpetua in Carthage, around 203, records that two deacons paid the soldiers so that the imprisoned Christians could be moved for a few hours to a better part of the prison, and the account calls them blessed deacons. Jesus paid the temple tax, though he said the sons were exempt, 'so that we may not offend them' (Matthew 17:27). Those who hold this view insist on conditions: the payment must not buy an unjust advantage or harm anyone else; every lawful alternative should be tried first; the payer should state his objection, refuse to lie, and report the demand where it is safe to do so; and he should work with others to end the practice. Christian ethicists who have lived and taught in places where demands are routine, such as Bernard Adeney in Strange Virtues (1995), have argued for careful distinctions of this kind.

Each position has an answer to the other's hardest case. The first must face the mother whose sick child will not be admitted to the clinic until the nurse is paid, and its defenders answer that the church should stand with her, pay the official fee, go with her to the supervisor, and find another clinic, rather than pay. The second must face the danger that its conditions will be quietly dropped and every payment will be called extortion, and its defenders answer that the conditions are exactly what keeps the position honest. On one point most on both sides agree: a payment taken from a person by threat to their life or safety is not morally the same act as offering a bribe. No one is required to risk their life at a roadblock to make the point.

Corruption is not a rare temptation for many students. Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index 2023, published in January 2024, scored more than two-thirds of the 180 countries assessed below 50 out of 100, with a global average of 43. Its Global Corruption Barometer Africa (2019) found that more than one in four people who had used a public service such as a clinic, a school or the police in the previous year had paid a bribe. The police were the institution most often seen as corrupt. These are not other people's problems. They are the daily conditions of many congregations.

So prepare before the moment comes, because decisions made at the window, under pressure, are usually bad. Learn the official fees for the things your family will need: a birth certificate, an identity card, a passport, a land search, a business licence, a vehicle inspection. Many governments now publish them online or on a notice board at the office. Carry copies of your documents. Allow more time than you think you need, because delay is the official's main weapon. Go with another person when you can; a witness changes the conversation. Ask politely for an official receipt for any payment, and for the name of the officer or his supervisor. Ask, 'Is there a form for that?' Use online and official channels where they exist, and keep records of dates and conversations.

Paul used the law when it protected him. When he was about to be flogged without trial he asked the centurion, 'Is it lawful for you to flog a Roman citizen without a trial?' (Acts 22:25). Christians may do the same: ask to see the supervisor, cite the regulation, and where they exist use the ombudsman, the anti-corruption commission, the hotline or legal aid. Reporting is not always safe, and a student should judge carefully; but where it is safe, it is a service to the next person. Collective action is often stronger than individual courage. Traders who agree together that none of them will pay, parents who go to the school committee as a group, or businesses who join a common pledge, such as the shipping companies that formed the Maritime Anti-Corruption Network in 2011, are harder to pick off one at a time.

Count the cost honestly, as Jesus told his followers to (Luke 14:28). Refusing may mean a delayed passport, a lost contract, goods stuck at the border, a job that goes to someone else, or harassment. Paul's two years in Caesarea were the price of his refusal. The church must not tell people to refuse and then leave them alone with the consequences. If a member loses income because he would not pay, the church should carry that burden with him, 'Carry one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ' (Galatians 6:2), in prayer, in practical help, and sometimes in money. A congregation that celebrates the businessman who refused a bribe, and helps him when the contract is lost, does more to end corruption than a sermon alone ever will.

The church cannot preach against corruption if it is corrupt itself. Micah's charge, 'her priests teach for a price' (Micah 3:11), lands on any pastor who adjusts his message to please a wealthy donor, any bishop who sells ordinations, and any church that hands out positions according to giving. Peter tells elders to shepherd 'not out of greed, but out of eagerness' (1 Peter 5:2), and Paul requires that an overseer be 'not greedy for money' (Titus 1:7). Elisha refused Naaman's gift after his healing, so that the healing would be seen as God's and not bought, and his servant Gehazi's secret pursuit of the gift brought judgment on him (2 Kings 5:15-27).

A particular temptation arises at election time in many countries. Politicians give generously to churches, pay for buildings, or bring gifts to pastors, and expect in return endorsement from the pulpit or the votes of the congregation. Before accepting any gift from a person who holds or seeks public office, a church should ask the four questions of section 2. A gift given openly with no strings, recorded and acknowledged like any other, may be received. A gift that comes with an expectation of endorsement, or that the church would not want made public, is the shochad of Exodus 23, and it will blind the pastor who takes it.

Paul's handling of the collection for Jerusalem is the model for church accountability. He did not handle it alone. He sent Titus with a brother chosen by the churches, and explained why: 'We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this generous gift. For we are taking great care to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord, but also in the eyes of men' (2 Corinthians 8:20-21). When the Jerusalem church needed people to oversee the daily distribution of food, it chose seven men 'confirmed to be full of the Spirit and wisdom' (Acts 6:3), and the apostles did not handle the money themselves.

From these texts come practical structures any church can adopt, whatever its size. Two unrelated people count every offering and both sign the record. The pastor does not hold the cash or sign cheques alone, and the treasurer is not a member of the pastor's family. Every payment has a receipt. Accounts are presented to the congregation at least once a year, and checked by someone outside the leadership. Leaders declare any business or family interest in a church contract. Gifts to the pastor beyond his agreed support are recorded. Mobile money accounts are in the church's name, not a leader's. These are not signs of distrust. They protect honest leaders from suspicion and make dishonesty hard. The pastor who sets them up is doing what Paul did.

Turn to a new page in your casebook and write: Case 4, Corruption. Use the four headings: The situation. The texts. The positions. What I would counsel, and why.

For the situation, take the event you described in the inquiry, or another real one from your church or community: a member asked for money at a checkpoint, a student told she would pass her exam for a fee, a trader whose goods are held at the border, a church offered a building by a candidate before an election. Describe it in a few sentences, with no names and no detail that would identify anyone. Then run the four questions of section 2 and write down your answers: who decides, open or hidden, entitled or not, would it be given without the power.

For the texts, write out Exodus 23:8 and at least two other passages from this lesson. For the positions, write how a defender of each of the two positions in section 3 would counsel the person in your case, at the strength each would accept. Then write your own counsel, including what the person could do before, during and after the moment of the demand, and what the church could do to stand with them if refusing costs them something.

Finally, take one step of preparation this week. Find, on your phone or at the office itself, the official fee for one document your family will need in the coming year, and write it in your casebook with the date and where you found it. If you are a church leader, write down which of the accountability structures in section 5 your church already has, and choose one to propose to your leaders this month.