Weighing the Grail Message: God

images

Is the Grail movement a cult? Do Grail teachings have occult underpinnings? Its adherents would vehemently answer “No.” They explain that since they organize public lectures and their works are often publicized, they are not a cult.

This response, apart from being a circular argument, doesn’t make any logical sense.

All cults and occult groups organize public lectures, engage in public relations and also give out their materials to the public – especially, when there is a prospect of gaining converts. From a Christian standpoint, however, the Grail movement is not merely a cult; its beliefs and practices have trappings of the occult.

I have previously highlighted about 6 striking features of the occult. Now, in this series of articles, I will be weighing the Grail message in the light of the Bible, history and logic.

The quotes are taken from Volume 1, Chapter 6 of In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message by Oskar Ernst Bernhardt (a.k.a Abdrushin).

Let’s start with what it says about God:

What is your God? You know He said: “I am the Lord, your God, thou shalt have no other gods beside me!” There is but one God, but one Power. What then is the Trinity? The Triune God? God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

When a mystic is trying to redact a core belief of historic, orthodox Christianity into his own novel, divergent beliefs, he must inevitably run into some problems.

Apart from the biblical evidence that conflicts with his worldview, he must also deal with the historical argument and question of the source of his inspiration.

Though Oskar appealed to the Bible in his Grail writings, it’s clear from the onset that his message is not from the God of the Bible. In fact, it would have been better if he didn’t go near the Bible at all. I must also note in passing his inability to properly define the Trinity.

At the beginning of this chapter, he promised to explain a truth that neither school nor the church has been able to clearly explain. But this statement carries no weight, because he’s trying to turn 19 centuries of Christian theology on its ear without offering a superior argument.

This is the typical “bait and switch” method used by all cults. They borrow Christian terminologies but re-define them.

Cults always base their teaching on their founders and — setting aside the hard evidence — exercise implicit faith in his word.

Therefore, the only way by which any seeker would accept the teachings in the Grail book as divine is by exercising blind faith in its writer: Oskar Benhardt.

When mankind shut themselves out of Paradise by no longer heeding the guidance of the intuitive perception, which is Pure – spiritual and therefore near to God, but willfully chose to cultivate the intellect, subjecting themselves to it and thus becoming slaves of the tool given to them to use, they naturally fell further and further away from God.

This is an attempt of a 20th century mystic to re-write the history of mankind. What shut man from paradise was sin; it was never about failed “intuitive perception.” When Adam and Eve sinned, the relationship they had with God was broken and death resulted (Rom. 5:12).

All members of the human race were represented in Adam in Eden. So when Adam sinned, God counted us guilty as well.

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous (Rom. 5:18-19).

Sin was what brought the separation of mankind from God; that is why Jesus had to come to take the penalty of sin so that man could now have fellowship with God through Him. Jesus – as the representative of all who believed in Him – obeyed God perfectly and God counted us righteous in Him (Rom. 5:12-21).

Furthermore, it must be noted that man was created in God’s image (tselem) and likeness (demût) (Genesis 1:26).

One of the aspects of our likeness to God is our spiritual aspects: we have not only physical bodies but also immaterial spirits. We have a spiritual life that enables us to relate to God as persons.

After the fall, all the aspects of image of God in us (moral, mental, spiritual and relational) were grossly distorted by sin. The New Testament however shows us that it’s by redemption in Christ that mankind can receive a progressive recovering of God’s image or likeness (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10).

Abdrushin, in an attempt to evade the sin question and entice the reader into mysticism, conveniently sets up a Manichean intellect vs. intuition binary. But man’s intuition has been affected by sin and cannot offer man a pure path to God. No man can have a fulfilling relationship with God outside Jesus Christ.

God in His Purity could no longer reveal Himself to the debased intellect bound human beings, because due to their intellectual orientation they were no longer capable of sensing, seeing or hearing His Messengers and the few still able to do so were ridiculed by the materialists, with their limited horizon bound to space and time…

The Grail message has no valid answer to the sin question, so it buries it with the materialists vs. mystics’ dichotomy.

The Bible is clear that man inherited a sinful nature because of Adam’s sin. This is the disposition to sin present within each one of us. “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psa. 51:5).

This is why those who are not in Christ are “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Eph. 2:3) even if they claim to have intuitive perception or “ascent” due to a religious philosophy. It doesn’t change that nature of sin within them, because only those who have been redeemed by Christ can have victory over sin (Rom. 6:14).

Those who have not trusted in Jesus to save them from their sins cannot fellowship with God in His purity because they are “darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to the hardness of their heart” (Eph. 4:18).

They are the ones who reject the revelation of God recorded by his prophets and apostles in the Bible, but are instead seeking mystic groups, alternative spirituality or occult philosophies that will offer them some mental cotton candy and fiction that ultimately end here on earth.

The “Holy Spirit” is Spirit of the Father which severed from Him, works separately in all Creation, and Who like the Son, remains closely connected with the Father and one with Him. The inexorable Laws of Creation which spread through the whole Universe like a network of nerves and bring about the unconditional reciprocal action forming man’s fate or karma … are of the “Holy Spirit!”

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. He is variously described as “the Spirit of the Living God” (2 Cor. 3:3), “the Spirit of His Son” (Gal. 4:6), “the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19), “the Spirit of Holiness” (Rom. 1:5), “the Spirit of Truth” (Jn. 16:13), “the Spirit of Grace” (Heb. 10:29) and “the Eternal Spirit” (Heb. 9:14).

The Holy Spirit didn’t sever from God; He is eternal. He has all the attributes of God the Father. Since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Grace, He is certainly not the author of the fatalistic or karmic laws dreamed up by deluded pagans and occultists.

Before Creation God was One! During the process of creating He severed a Part of His Will to work independently in Creation, and thus became two-fold.

This nonsense is straight out of Gnosticism. Gnostics believed that there were basically two Gods: the lesser and semi-divine “God” (Demiurge) who created the material universe and the transcendent supreme God. It mirrored the dualism of ancient Persian belief in the struggle of Light (Misda) and Darkness (Arima) and the antagonism of body and mind.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has this to say:

Gnosticism (after gnôsis, the Greek word for “knowledge” or “insight”) is the name given to a loosely organized religious and philosophical movement that flourished in the first and second centuries CE … According to the Gnostics, this world, the material cosmos is the result of a primordial error on the part of a supra-cosmic, supremely divine being, usually called Sophia (Wisdom) or simply the Logos. This being is described as the final emanation of a divine hierarchy, called the Plêrôma or “Fullness,” at the head of which resides the supreme God, the One beyond Being.

A scholar of Philosophy of Religion and Systematic Theology has to say about Gnosticism:

The major characteristic of the Gnostic teaching was dualism, their conception that spirit and material are absolutely incompatible. For the Gnostics material or matter is inherently evil … The gnosis of knowledge that the Gnostic leaders claimed to possess was theirs through some illuminating process, giving them understanding of themselves, of the world and of God. Such gnosis, knowledge, they claimed was not within the reach of all. The Gnostics believed in the salvation of a spiritual elite and they divided mankind accordingly … The illumined or spiritual beings … [whereas] the vast majority were earthbound, slaves of matter…” (Gideon A. Oshitelu, A Background to Christian Philosophy, Ibadan: Oputoru Books, 2002, 62-63).

From the quotes provided so far, all you need do is replace the term “Gnostics” with “cross bearers” and it quickly becomes evident that the Grail message is simply a form of Neo-Gnosticism.

The Holy Spirit is Executive Justice, Whose eternal, irrevocable and incorruptible laws pulsate throughout the Universe, and up till now these laws have only been guessed at and variously described as Fate!… Karma! Divine Will!  

The Holy Spirit is not a theory or quality. This earth has a beginning and certainly has an end, so there are no “eternal laws pulsating through the universe.” That’s even the lie of panentheism right there.

Fate and karma are not divine will, not by any means. We will be examining that in the next article.

In conclusion, though the chapter is supposed to present a clearer truth about God, the writer has a hollow understanding of the Divine Trinity and comes short of dealing with the subject matter.

The chapter is more a mish-mash of metaphysical twaddle. Abdrushin starts out appealing to the God of the Bible, but later introduces to the reader, a freakish two-fold Gnostic deity with an impersonal “executive justice” as his hybrid “trinity.”

Advertisements

From the Shack to the Dungeon

When The Shack was published by William Paul Young in 2007, it struck a chord in the hearts of many Christians. By the following year, it had gained an unexpected meteoric rise as a cultural phenomenon. This past year, it was adapted into a movie, to bring its message to a universal audience.

The book was summarily about Mackenzie Philips, a father, who after his daughter’s abduction and gruesome murder, spirals into a deep depression that causes him to question his innermost beliefs. He became unwilling to trust the God he knew before who appeared to have abandoned him in the time of need.

After receiving a mysterious letter from “Papa” (his wife’s pet name for God), inviting him for a meet up at a shack in the woods where Missy was abducted, he meets four characters:

  • God (“Papa”) who is a matronly African American woman who cooks and dispenses words of wisdom and hugs.
  • Jesus, a clumsy Jewish young man who loves gardening.
  • The Holy Spirit, who is a Japanese girl named Sarayu (a Sanskrit word meaning “wind” and also the name of a Hindu river).
  • Sophia, a not-too-veiled reference to the Greek goddess of wisdom before whom Mack stood to be judged about his life.

While at the shack, Mack learns some truths. His “Jesus” is quoted saying:

God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things…” (The Shack, Windblown Media, 2007, p. 112).

Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims … I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into my sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters” (p. 182).

The first quote from this false Jesus teaches panentheism while the second espouses flagrant universalism. This is not a mere work of fiction; it’s an agenda-driven book. The Shack carries a message that is in tune with the worship of the “divine feminine” and it appeals to many hurting people who want God in their own form.

In the movie, “Papa” tells Mack that he had to appear as a woman to him because he couldn’t yet handle a male figure. Notably, some years later, the novel’s author, Paul Young admitted that the story is related to his past. Missy represented his innocence that died at childhood and Mack represents him as an adult, trying to deal with that childhood pain.

Young said he was raised by an unloving, distant father and was sexually molested by several older boys in boarding school as well as several men while in Papua New Guinea where his father was a missionary. He felt let down by conventional Christianity and the God of the Bible, so he embraced another God – a diluted version of God; a feminized god.

During a lecture held in June 2010 at Concordia University in Portland, Oregon, Young told his audience that “the God of evangelical Christianity is a monster.” He was referring to the evangelical belief that God is a God of judgement and will judge the unbelieving.

So what we have here is a man who has rejected the God of the Bible for a false God that might heal the pain of his fans but will certainly damn their souls. Moulding God into our image and likeness to better comfort us is the very definition of idolatry. Like A. W. Tozer said, “The idolater simply imagines things about God and then acts as if they were true.”

God is who He is; His nature and character will not change to make us feel better. “I the Lord do not change…” (Mal. 3:6). He is I AM THAT I AM (Ex. 3:14). He will not appear as Pan, Buddha, Sango, Astarte or something He is not to appeal to the felt needs of the heathen. Truth takes precedence over true healing.

Jesus didn’t appear to the woman at the well in a woman’s form because she has had problems with several men. He didn’t appear to the adulterous woman as a female because she had been betrayed and maltreated by religious men. He didn’t appear to the woman with the alabaster box as a female because she had been abused by men.

In this fallen world, we will always experience pain and losses – much of which we will have no understanding of or explanations for – but instead of converting God into a spiritual drug to deal with our pain and losses, we can simply walk through them with faith in God. We “trust in the LORD with all [our] heart and lean not on our own understanding” (Prov. 3:5).

The Shack, however, presents to its readers a spiritual panacea deity, one stripped of justice, immutability and holiness. It offers many a Trinitarian idolatrous hybrid god that represents whatever will make them feel better about their horrible tragedies. It’s the same concept underlying the visualization and guided imagery utilized by the Inner Healing movement.

If for example, you were sexually abused when you were young; instead of leading you to the cross where Jesus took away our pain, shame and guilt, they will tell you to imagine yourself going back to your childhood and visualizing Jesus coming to you to comfort you and take your pain away. And of course, after some time, this false Jesus takes on a life of its own.

William Young’s next book, Eve, re-told the story of Adam and Eve. It turned up the heat with the proverbial frog in the kettle. It was a book laden with Kabbalistic, occultic and Gnostic themes that would be readily embraced by the Contemplative/New Age movement.

In Young’s non-fiction book, Lies We Believe about God, his Universalist beliefs were clearer: “Every human being you meet … is a child of God” (p. 206). Death doesn’t result in final judgement but simply introduces “a restorative process intended to free us to run into the arms of Love” (p. 187). Therefore, hell isn’t a separation from God, but simply the pain of resisting salvation we have and can’t escape.” (p. 137)

In the light of the Bible, universalism (“all paths lead to God”) is a lie of the devil (John 3:18; 10:7; 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 6:23 etc.). It is the philosophy of the last days that the final antichrist will use to build his one-world religion.

Recently, Eternity News published an article about Young sharing content of an interview that it conducted with the writer as it discussed his part in the new documentary “The Heart of Man” and some of his beliefs:

I think that Jesus is both our salvation and rightful judge, but that judgment is intended for our good, not our harm.” He continues, “I think there is an ongoing relational confrontation between the One who knows you best and loves you best. Potentially forever and, potentially, you could say ‘no’ forever. How someone could do that I don’t know, but definitely that tension is held in Scripture for sure.”

There are a number of lies here. Hebrews 9:27 says it is destined for man to die once and after that face judgement. This judgement is not “an education day” as Jehovah’s Witnesses and other false religionists like William Young teach. There is no other chance for those who have died without repentance.

The Bible also tells us that both heaven and hell are eternal destinations (e.g Matthew 25:46); once you are there, you are there. “For if the words spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?” (Heb. 2: 2-3).

Our realization of what awaits the unsaved is the reason “we try to persuade men” to receive Christ. There is no salvation, pardon or cleansing after death. Thus, “now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 5:11; 6:2).

Young has no problem disseminating his poisonous heresies because he has already introduced a false god; he is merely building on the foundations of that warped theology. When people reject God as He is revealed in the Bible, the next logical step is to reject what He has also said about how to be saved and that implies a rejection of what He has said about eternity.

Through his books, he has succeeded in presenting a dark occult goddess, Sophia, to a generation that is all too keen to worship God as a female figure and is willing to sacrifice truth for whatever resonates with their inner cravings.

The most devastating loss that can ever befall one is to die in a deception. There’s no remedy forever. I pray that William Young and his millions of benighted fans will become truly saved and come to the knowledge of the truth before it’s too late.

Reflections on Christian Apologetics

6a00d8357a3ce869e20147e0c2d10e970b

The word “apologetics” comes from the Greek word apologia, used in the legal sense as a defendant’s response to the charges against him in a court of law. For instance when Socrates was accused of corrupting the youths of Athens and stirring them to sedition, he gave a speech in his own defense which is an apologia.

The word is also used in the New Testament when Paul defends himself against the charges of heresy levied against him before the authorities (Acts 26:2); in Philippians 1:17 and 1 Peter 3:15 which exhorts us to “always be prepared to give an answers to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

Hence, Christian apologetics can be defined as a defense of the truthfulness of Christianity and its truth claims centred on the reality of the Gospel.

It is vital in strengthening the faith of Christians, removing the obstacles of ignorance and/or misinformation which often impede people’s consideration of the gospel and refuting destructive heresies within the Christian fold.

My foray into Apologetics

I’ve been asked by friends time and again, to explain how I developed a passion for what I write and research and how they too can develop skills in these areas. I will do just that.

Apologetics is only a part of what I do; it’s not all I do. I have worked as part of a team at a construction site, but that doesn’t make me an expert in construction work.

My field of study is the Sciences. I actually write on a wide variety of topics besides apologetics (even on secular issues) so in a strict sense, I am not an expert.

Apologetics can have its toll on one’s mental and spiritual health, so one first needs to have a genuine burden for seeing souls being rescued. Suffice it to say that no one should engage in combating errors and refuting the claims of false religions unless he/she has a motivating factor and a thick skin to hide behind.

There are professional Christian apologists; they publish books, devote all their working hours to apologetics and get paid for it.

Some also delve into apologetics because they have a burden to win souls from specific religious systems they were previously involved in e.g. ex-Catholics, ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses or ex-Muslims.

In my case, certain circumstances led me into apologetics. Right from my teenage years, I had this strong desire to know about world religions and mythologies, so from time to time; I would scan through the volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica which my father had, to read about religions like Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Islam, ancient Egyptian religion etc.

I also read Christian works exposing the occult. I basically made up my mind to learn the beliefs and practices of religions and Christian cults and also studied on Christian doctrines and theology as well.

Though I didn’t realize it at the time, what I was learning was gradually changing my outlook on several issues and this reflected in my discussions with other people.

Of course, several Christians tried to discourage me from reading anything “from the other side.” They believed such things would make my faith wane, but I’ve now realized that you appreciate your own faith better and gain essential perspectives when you learn about various religions.

When I tried to share some of what I was learning, I was dismissed as “weird” and “radical.” Many Nigerian Christians are raised to believe that knowledge of religious worldviews besides Christianity is an aberration and that it’s inciting to critique beliefs of false religions or pseudo-Christian groups.

Those in my circle of acquaintances would quickly duck such conversations with a rehearsed line: “Only God knows those serving him. Let’s not judge.”

In 2011, I observed how Muslims were attacking and distorting the Bible and Christianity online and I felt the need to respond to them.

From there, I began to engage them in debates, quoting from the Quran and Hadiths to prove my stance. Their gutless evasion and weak responses strengthened my convictions that Islam is a religion of lies. This extended to other religious systems and these naturally propelled me to study further.

There are different situations that inspire me to write. Sometimes it’s during or after a discussion. Sometimes it’s while listening to people or reading an article or book.

There are times when friends directly request I write on particular topics. And there are times when I feel a piece of information is placed in my mind (even with scripture verses), and I know I’m being led to write on it.

For example, before I wrote The Roots of Sexual Depravity, an idea of 4 popular celebs with a common background of sexual abuse first beamed into my mind one afternoon. I didn’t know how to go about it or develop it. So for 3 months, I “nursed” this part until the other pieces began to fall into place in my mind.

I don’t really have a writing ritual. I just need to be focused and undisturbed in a cool environment.

Tips on effective research

The first key to an effective writing or speaking is reading. You can’t be a good writer without being a good reader.

The reason plagiarism has become so rampant, particularly in this age of social media, is because many don’t want to read, study, think critically or do any kind of research that will exercise their minds, they prefer the easy fool’s way of robbing other people’s intellectual wardrobe and using it to clothe their own deficiencies.

But a Christian who wishes to reach others with the truth must not tour such an ignoble path.

When you study what others have written, listen to other thinkers and engage others having challenges in their Christian walk, ideas on what to write will naturally flow in you.

Here are general guidelines I adhere to:

(a) Before addressing a religion/cult or dialoguing with its adherents, study what they believe. Read from their side and your side.

You need to have your facts about their founder, source of authority, beliefs, attractions, how they win converts, what makes converts stay in it and learn from those who have left it.

There are times when it will be difficult to find people who have left a particular cult or obtain information from them. For instance, when I was researching on the Santeria religion, one major challenge I had was difficulty finding ex-Santerios with their insider views which would differ from some sensational testimonials.

(b) Objectivity is very crucial. It means accurately understanding and representing what others believe, even if you disagree with them. Subjectivity fails to consider major differences between religions and that can diminish one’s motives.

For example, there are clear differences between Wicca and Satanism, even though they both originate from Satan. But when you lump both together without noting their distinctions, your credibility will be undermined.

Hinduism, Buddhism and New Age spirituality all believe in reincarnation, but they differ markedly in their understanding and explanations of it.

(c) Your quotes about the religion’s beliefs should come from primary sources or a source they regard as authentic. It’s unethical to embellish a quote or fabricate a reference.

Sadly, there are some people who do this, plunging their readers to a murky tunnel of “Christian” urban legends and fiction in the name of “defending the faith.”

What I tell people is: if there’s anything you can’t logically or factually defend, don’t say/write it.

Finally, find your own style of writing. You don’t have to become anyone’s clone. If you want people to take your writing seriously, be professional, but then, be free to explore different styles of writing or speaking.

Pitfalls to Avoid

  • The peacock syndrome

Just as a peacock’s world revolves around showing off its beautiful feathers, when an apologist’s primary motive is to impress his audience for fame and applause, he is suffering from this syndrome. Pride is one of the easiest pits for an apologist to fall into because “knowledge puffs up” (1 Cor. 8:1)

When you are more burdened in defending yourself or refuting what others are saying about your person than defending the truth of the Gospel or refuting false teachings, you are becoming a soldier of glory rather than a soldier of the cross.

Last year, I watched as two eminent Christian apologists tore into each other with post after post on social media. Their fans took sides and attacked one another as well, with one party trolling and blocking the other. They became a cheap source of entertainment to the Muslims they were supposed to be engaging. At a point, I began to think both apologists knew too much for their own good.

Most of my serious debates (some of which are published here) are often done in private messaging, because I believe the best way to reach non-Christians is through a one-on-one dialogue. This doesn’t allow for sideshows or cheers from people but makes us focus on the issue at hand.

I’ve had several Muslims plead and even try to bully me into having free-for-all debates on my Facebook wall but when I insist on my private policy, they slink into the night. That even exposes their motives; they are not ready to learn anything but to get some cheap thrill. We need to watch out for arrogant attitudes and carnal motives and seek “the honour that comes from God alone” (Jn. 5:44).

  • The mirror image syndrome

This is an anomaly whereby a Christian slowly takes up the negative tactics, attitude and mindsets of his cult opponents. A person can become a mirror image of the very falsehood, hate and delusion he is contending against. Like Pogo, the cartoon character said, “We have seen the enemy and he is us.” I have cited one example of this pitfall.

Another example is the Shoebats. On the surface, they oppose Islam, but when you look deeper, you will find the same warped Islamic approach to the Bible and Christianity permeating their arguments. Those who soak in their writings can also develop such toxic mindsets as well.

I used to be in an online Christian group in 2013, and I observed that most of its members were always arguing over trivial matters and were impervious to any Biblical correction. It didn’t take me long to find out why: most of them were Christian apologists against Islam. They had apparently picked up the negative spirit of closed-mindedness from their regular Muslim opponents.

The dark side of the social media (and this is a global epidemic) is how it has butchered basic civility by an anonymous collective. The Internet already has the tendency to bring out negative traits in people, but the social media has eroded the last vestiges of verbal filters and restrain.

The moment some people are online, they are completely unshackled from their morals and are quick to descend into primitiveness. Once there’s a disagreement, the tenor and quality of most online conversations (even between Christians) readily take a downward turn; they become demeaning, rhetorically violent and lacking in basic conversational decorum.

This is why we constantly need to examine ourselves so we don’t lose our spiritual bearing and forget the eternal worth of souls all in the name of presenting the truth. The Bible enjoins us to be salt and light and this should always be at the back of our minds. When we stoop to the same level as the unregenerate, we undermine our message.

  • Debate addiction

Debates are good, but not all of them are fruitful, or necessary. Some Christians get into apologetics because they love to argue with others, but the fact is, much of apologetics is teaching. Most of the time people you will be engaging are ignorant (or have a distorted view) about what we believe, so you would need to educate them.

A person can get to a stage where he finds fighting pleasurable. Such a person would daily stroll through various fora to stir up fights; the hotter the debate, the bigger the excitement. Such folks are lonely or in despair and they get “high” on debate Adrenalin rush. They need help.

In apologetics, there is a time to be silent; a time to respond; a time to fight hard and a time to ignore. We must carefully pick our battles with wisdom. We are not to fight “like a boxer beating around the air” (1 Cor. 9:26).

There are times friends invite me over to help “vanquish” an opponent so that he/she would see his/her errors and become a Christian. I usually decline such invitations because they are laced with an unrealistic expectation. Even if some people see the dead rise to proclaim the truth, they will still not believe. Embracing truth usually takes time, personal study and a willingness to believe.

We can learn from Nehemiah who refused to waste his time in fruitless discussions with his opponents but instead channelled his energy into building the Temple. Our personal spiritual lives are also important and we must not jeopardize it.

Finally, apologetics shouldn’t rob us of fun and tenderness. I was recently chatting with a friend after he read one or two of my blog articles and he asked, “Victor, do you still celebrate birthdays?” I knew where he was going with that question because we’ve been friends since 2007.

I wanted to know why he asked and he said, “Many Christian investigators like you fish out the origins of everything!” I quickly corrected him with a Nigerian expression: “I don’t belong to that mould; I don’t carry pagan origins on my head like a bag of cement.” He laughed. But he has a point: apologetics shouldn’t make us rigid, cynical, gruff and unnecessary combative.

We must learn to meet people “where they are” – unless their worldview or practice poses a spiritual danger. We should learn to maintain a balance, enjoy life and sometimes, even laugh at our own selves!