REJOINDER: UNICAL CHAPEL OPEN-AIR SERVICE

**PEACE CANNOT BE BUILT ON SELECTIVE OBEDIENCE TO LAWFUL AUTHORITY

By Concerned UCOR Members

We have read with considerable concern the misleading publication credited to one Prof. A. D. Akanem who claims to be the BOT Chairman of UCOR titled “Disobedience Cannot Be Cloaked in Worship.”

Ordinarily, a call for peace in the House of God should be welcomed by every Christian.

But peace must be founded on truth, justice, respect for the rule of law and obedience to legitimate authority.

It becomes difficult to preach obedience to others while avoiding the uncomfortable question of whether those making the accusation have themselves respected the lawful processes and orders governing this dispute.

WHO, REALLY, IS DISOBEYING LAWFUL AUTHORITY?

The central theme of the said Prof. A. D. Akanem’s article is obedience to lawful authority.

That principle should apply equally to everybody. There is a subsisting order of the Federal High Court concerning the Chapel of Redemption dispute.

The court restrained the respondents and persons acting through them from entering, taking over, locking up or otherwise interfering with the Chapel premises and its activities, and further directed that the status quo ante bellum be maintained pending determination of the substantive application.

Therefore, before accusing worshippers of rebellion, the more fundamental questions should be:

Who first departed from the status quo ordered by the court?

Who continued to implement disputed changes in the leadership and administration of the Chapel despite the matter being before a competent court?

Who locked worshippers out of their recognised place of worship notwithstanding an order restraining interference with the Chapel?

It is difficult to preach obedience to “lawful directives” while remaining silent about obedience to a subsisting order of a competent court.

A security directive, however well-intentioned, should not become a convenient mechanism for indirectly achieving what parties to litigation have been restrained from doing directly.

SECURITY CANNOT BECOME A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE RULE OF LAW

Nobody desires violence at  Chapel of Redemption. Nobody should encourage confrontation with the Police, University security or any constituted authority.

But invoking “security” does not answer the underlying question.

What created the confrontation in the first place?

If the constitutional leadership structure of the Chapel is respected, the subsisting judicial orders are obeyed, and no parallel leadership is imposed upon the congregation, what would have been the basis for the anticipated violence?

The solution should not be to create a disputed administrative arrangement, resist judicial intervention, lock the Chapel, and thereafter describe the reaction of displaced worshippers as a security problem.

Security should preserve lawful order; it should not determine an ecclesiastical dispute that is already before a court.

THE OPEN-AIR WORSHIPPERS DID NOT LOCK THE CHAPEL

There is another obvious contradiction.

The congregation did not abandon an available Chapel in preference for an open-air worship.

They worshipped outside because they were prevented from worshipping in their Chapel.

When Christians who have been denied access to their normal place of worship quietly gather elsewhere to pray, sing and hear God’s Word, describing that act as “rebellion” stretches the meaning of rebellion beyond recognition.

Indeed, the very fact that the congregation moved away rather than force entry into the locked Chapel could reasonably be regarded as restraint rather than confrontation.

PLEASE DO NOT WEAPONISE SCRIPTURES

The reference to 1 Samuel 15:23 — “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft” — is particularly unfortunate.

Scripture should not be selectively deployed to condemn fellow Christians in the middle of a leadership dispute.

Romans 13 teaches respect for authority, certainly.

But biblical respect for authority cannot mean that one authority is obeyed while another — particularly a competent court whose order directly concerns the dispute — is treated as though its pronouncements are optional.

If obedience is the standard, let everybody obey.

Let the University authorities obey.

Let the contending leadership groups obey.

Let the congregation obey.

Let everyone affected by the court order obey.

There cannot be one standard of obedience for worshippers and another for those exercising institutional power.

PEACE REQUIRES RESTORATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

The said Prof. Akanem repeatedly calls for peace.

On that point, we agree completely.

But genuine peace is not the silence produced when one side is prevented from worshipping.

Peace is not achieved by maintaining a disputed leadership arrangement while asking those who object to it to surrender.

And peace certainly cannot be founded upon selective obedience to judicial authority.

The pathway to peace is remarkably straightforward:

Respect the subsisting court orders.

Restore and respect the constitutional organs and processes of  Chapel.

Allow the legitimate structures of the Church to function.

Stop unilateral interference in the affairs of Chapel.

Allow the judicial process to determine whatever issues genuinely being disputed.

Then let reconciliation begin from the foundation of truth and justice.

THE CLAIM TO BOT CHAIRMANSHIP ALSO DESERVES CLARIFICATION

The article is signed by “Prof. A. D. Akanem, BOT Chairman.”

Where the legitimacy or continuation of any office is itself disputed or affected by decisions of the appropriate Chapel organs or judicial proceedings, it is inappropriate to simply assume the very title whose legitimacy is contested and then speak from that platform as though the controversy has already been determined.

Those demanding respect for constitutional authority must themselves demonstrate that respect.

For the records, UCOR BOT membership is currently made up of only two members: Prof. Emmanuel Edet and Mrs. Mgbechi Uka. The said A. D. Akanem is an impersonator that should rightly be charged to court for impersonation.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANOTHER FLASHPOINT

On this, again, we agree.

There should be no violence.

There should be no threats.

There should be no confrontation.

There should be no attempt by any worshipper to take the law into his or her own hands.

But equally, there should be no disobedience of court orders, no unilateral alteration of established Church structures, no use of institutional power to settle an ecclesiastical dispute, and no attempt to manufacture a security justification for actions already restrained by the court.

The Chapel belongs to Christ, not to any Chaplain, Vice-Chancellor, Professor,
BOT member/members,
Church Council members or faction.

If we genuinely desire peace, then let us return to the Constitution of the Chapel, respect its legitimate organs, submit ourselves to the rule of law and allow the courts to resolve the matters presently before them.

CONCLUSION

The said Prof. A. D. Akanem concludes that “Disobedience cannot be cloaked in worship.”

Perhaps we should go one step further:

Disobedience cannot be cloaked in security either.

Neither can disregard for constitutional structures be cloaked in administrative authority.

Nor can selective obedience to judicial orders be cloaked in calls for peace.

Those who preach obedience must first demonstrate obedience.

Those who demand respect for lawful authority must respect lawful authority themselves.

Nobody needs violence.

Nobody needs another confrontation.

What the Chapel needs is simple:

Respect the court.
Respect the Constitution of Chapel.

Respect the legitimate organs of the Chapel.
Restore constitutional order.

Allow the people to worship God in peace.

Then we can speak meaningfully about reconciliation.

Peace without justice is fragile.

Peace without truth is temporary.

And peace founded upon selective obedience is no peace at all.