a

i e

. ' u r T \ " . \ r \ x v '.

y v ' y KXV

Extracts from the judgm ent delivered

by M r. Justice Edem Koofreh in the
case between A M O R C and ECWA
Productions Ltd.

AMORC V CHALLENGE
T h e M illio n N aira Ju d gm en t

1988 Challenge Pulications, Jos

ISBN 978-137-344-X

Challenge Publications,
P.M .B. 2108, Jos.
Printed by Challenge Press, Jos.

The Million Naira Judgment

Extracts from the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Edem
Koofreh in the case between AMORC and ECWA Produc
tions Ltd.

Introduction
On May 23 1988, the Cross River Chief Judge, Mr. Justice
Edem Koofreh gave his verdict on the NIOm libel suit brought
against ECWA Productions Ltd. (EPL) by the Registered
Trustees of the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC.
AMORC had sued EPL for publishing in their magazine.
Today's Challenge, articles they considered as defamatory of
the Order.
In his judgment, Koofreh said he found the defendants,
EPL, guilty of the libel charges, and awarded Nl,000,000
(One million naira) as general damages, with N405 out of
pocket expenses. He said since the greater claim for special
damages (N8m) have not been proved, he would award only
N500 costs.
It is not possible for us to publish the full text of the
102-page judgment read in six hours. However, in view of
popular demand, we are publishing in this booklet a com
parative analysis of the various issues at stake, the arguments
advanced in court on both sides and the judges decisions on
them. The booklet also contain direct excerpts from the text
of the judgment.

Panorama of Major Issues and the Courts Verdict

Challenge Findings/Opinion

AMORCs Response

Judges Verdict

Secrecy
AM ORC
because:

is

secret

society

* It has certain teachings and

practices every member is
bound by oath to keep
secret o r private.
* Members have secret grips,
secret passw ords, secret
slu ta tio n s and secret signs
o f recognition.
* It has a 144-member body
called The M ilitia which
AM ORC
lite ra tu re
describes as constituting
the real secret organisa-

'ion

within

A MQ R C .

Among its functions.is to

protect the re#l teachings of

* AM ORC
has
s e c re t
teachings but it is not a
secret society
* Secrecy m eans "u n d e r*
cover and has no sinister
con notation.
* Federal Government C ir
cular on secret societies and
the 1979 Constitution do
not support the view that
AMORC is a secret society.
* AM ORC advertizes itself in
th e n e w s m e d ia , its
members are known and it
keeps a register o f members
so it cannot be described as
secret.

Defendants have failed to prove

that AM ORC is a secret society.
* AM ORC
has
s e c re t
teachings but it does not ex
ist for secret purposes.
* Even Christians operated in
se c re t d u r in g R o m a n
persecution but that did not
make Christianity a secret
society.
* Every organisation has its
entry regulations, or do the
defendants expect AMORC
to just throw its doors open
to every Tom , Dick and
Harry?

* People can resign their

membership o f AM ORC
w ithout adverse co n se
quences, though they are re
quired to keep the oath in
terms o f what they were
supposed to keep secret
while members.
* The organisation no longer
u se s
se c re c y
but
privacy in recognition of
changing times. Even the
Bible has various transla
tions because words do
diange meanings.

* Federal Government cir

cular on secret societies did
not consider AM ORC a
secret society.
People can withdraw from
AMORC because 1st defen
dant (Awoniyi) even said lie
talked with ex-members of
AMORC. It is malicious of
defendants not to recognise
the change AM ORC lias
made from secrecy to
privacy.

Uu

the organisation.
* Supreme G rand Secretary
o f W orld-wide AM ORC,
A r th u r
P ie p e n b rin k ,
defines Rosicrucian in the
Merit Student Encyclopedia
(1979 Edition) as a secret
mystical organisation...
* An AM ORC witness said
the organisation used to be
a secret society in the 17th
century because o f official
persecution.
* Even though privacy has
now been substituted for
secrecy , the essence of
the meaning has not chang
ed.
* AM ORC refused to tender
its register o f members in
oourt because it said it is a
secret docum ent.

Occult
AMORC is an occult organisation
because;
* A M O R C d e s c rib e s its
R o s i c r uc i a n
Di gest
magazine as the leading
metaphysical and occult
m agazine...
* AM ORC says the lectures
in its Temple M onographs
contain the most complete
presentation o f all occult
laws and principles as hand
ed down by the masters
through the ages.
* AM ORC witness said be
practises com m unication
with the dead. (Necrom an
cy). AM ORC also endorses
aurology, a form o f divina
tion. Both necromancy and
astrology are forbidden by
the Bible in Deuteronomy
18:9-11.
* AMOKC lias other prac
tices which are abominable
to Biblical C h ristianity:

te le p a th y , p sy c h o m e try ,
clairvoyance, astral projec
tion, and mental sugges
tion-

AMORC Deceives the

Public
AM ORC deceives the public
deliberately regarding its true
teachings
* It says publicly that its
teachings do not interfere
with the religious freedom
o f its members, and that
even Christians can join.
But some o f its teachings
contradict basic Bible doc
trin e s an d a tte m p t to
discredit the Bible. For ex
ample, in direct contradic
tion o f the Bible, AMORC
book says:
- Jesus was born by gentiles
- Jesus did not claim to be
the Messiah
- the genealogy of Jesus in
the Bible is not factual
but contrived
___*

* AM ORC
has
o c c u lt
teachings but it is not an oc
cult organisation.
* Occult as used by AM ORC
does not have any devilish
connotation.
w
* Som e o f t!ie practices
described as satanic are
beneficial to people and
were practised in the Bible.
e.g.
- The three wisemen were
astrologers
- Jesus practised astralprojeclior. when he a p
peared to his disciples in
an enclosure after his
resurrection
- The gift o f prophecy in
the Bible is the same as
AM O RCs psychometry* AM ORC publications were
quoted out o f context.
Defendants cannot m ean
ingfully investigate the

AM ORC
has
o c c u lt
teachings but it is not an oc
cult organisation in the
sense o f dealing w ith
dem ons, e tc . A M O R C
meaning for occult is not
sune as used bv defendants.
The practices condemned
by d e f e n d a n t s
( e .g .
psychometry, clairvoyance,
etc) a re p r o d u c ts o f
research by AM ORC. They
are based on natural
s p ir itu a l la w s w hich
AMORC lias investigated
because the order docs not
believe fa ith a lo n e is
enough. The Bible which
defendants say recommend
faith only is m an-m ade but
d e f e n d a n ts fo llo w
it
slavishly and are therefore
isirron -minded.
* Defendants m isinterpreted,
m isquote and m utilated
p o rtio n s o f A M O R C s

order because they are nonmembers.

books with a malicious in

tent to destroy the Order.

* Even some Jews still do not

believe in Jesus so why
should it sound strange that
AM ORC holds an opinion
different from the Bibles?
* Organisations have various
forms o f ceremonies and
AMORC ceremonies there
fore do not make the order
necessarilv religious

* AM ORC legally registered

with objective to propagate
natural spiritual laws. In so
far as the organisation docs
not deviate from this objec
tive it cannot be said to be
d e c e iv in g th e p u b lic .
AM ORC does not claim to
he a Christian organisation.
So whoever is attracted )>
the organisation is free to
be a member and be taught
AMORC principles.
* The word satan connotes
anti-god and is not ap
p ro p ria te fo r A M O R C
because no AMORC book
condemns God. Members
are instead advised to
follow him.

"Jesus was not the first

son of God to be born
o f a virgin.
* AM ORC says publicly that
it is not a religion, but
privately the order has all
lhe elements o f a religion
including holy tem p le,
p r a y e r s , s e rv ic e s a n d
rituals. The order also
believes in a supreme being
which it calls God or
Cosmic M ind_____ N

* Deliberate lying or deceit is

satanic because satan is the
father o f lies. (John 8:44).

_ ;j 5 >.

-o * *
ys
-3

=
c 5 06
- o ^^

XJ

= S .0-.53

s , * =

s <2 - u

I** =c
l ^

5 = - oc

sAt:

^ 2 3 C hi o ' 3

y E -;2 a -3 i

x:
i

u N __ T3
~ w -o

c -

. 2
Hc

x1 o c
?5 -5 >
S g:
TV
".
s
>-*S

*Q 2

/!= 5 5 g ^ 3 = p .2 IS!

D ? E "E C3
<C
.- =
<u ,S=
iS

51) -
.2 <
<S 2i
c 5tJ C X
O v
v
*S

O' = -=
o "5 ~
nC o'
<N --

rt
i? i

2 .
? -o

Ill

oi/s *C.
T3
2 ti
73 *
'j

AMORC meeiings, doesnl

that suggest that AM ORCs
arm
and objectives are
similar to those of Ogbonis
aid Odd Fellows?

P i= JS < W-S (-

!/!

4) C
U Xi
c y

c3 5 c75 C

Excerpts From the Judgment

* Take the incident in Zaria, the burning o f Odd-Fellows
hall. The defendant had asked a question, Rosicrucian
Order (AM ORC) - Bedfellows with Satanic C ults? He
set out to prove that the plaintiff, AM ORC is a satanic
cult like Odd-Fellows and Ogbonis. That proof con
sisted in his deciding to behave like a busybody to find
out odd things about AM ORC. Firstly, he considered
Odd-Fellows and Ogbonis sinister groups and because
plaintiffs branch in Zaria, the Osiris Lodge, was using
the same hall, he considered them to be a sinister group
also. He went so far to relate the discovery o f human
skull to AMORC by implication and called his friend to
witness that AM ORC books and other equipment were
there. He also asked his architect friend to give him a
plan o f the burnt area. 'All his activities showed interest
beyond that of a Reverend gentleman desirous of infor
ming his reading or hearing public o f certain evil
because nothing was emphasized about Ogbonis or
Odd-Fellows which also used that hall. The plaintiff,
AM ORC was connected to this incident to prove that
and to tell the public that it is satanic.
* Besides, there is no rule that everybody who worships
God must believe everything in the Bible, or that the
plaintiff AM ORC professed to believe in everything the
Bible says.
* W hat the defendants did was not to show that the plain
tiff AM ORC is not doing what it told the public that it
stands for but, to try and destroy the plaintiff
-AM ORC, in the eye o f the public by pretending that
they are trying to save the Christians and portraying the
plaintiff as evil and against G od. The defendants forget
that the world or even the Nigerian or C alabar public is
not limited to Christian occupants but there are dif
ferent shades o f opinions and beliefs. W hat is common
to the public is that it will shun everything known to be

evil or satanic. Therefore to refer to the plaintiff as evil

or satanic, the defendants were inviting the public in
general to shun the plaintiff, AM ORC as demonic and
dreadful.
The 1st defendant had said that he was doing a duty to
his friend who was misled by the plaintiff -AM ORC,
and not m otivated by malice or religious intolerance to
publish the articles against the plaintiff, AM ORC. As a
Christian M inister, he said he was committed to truth
and it was his duty as a minister of Christian Religion
not only to preach the truth but expose falsehood in the
interest of the public. He said that he was m otivated by
the love for his friend
who was misled by
the plaintiff, and love for thousands o f young people
who are being misled by the plaintiff as his friend. He
was further m otivated by his sense o f duty, love and ser
vice to hum anity because he knew that many people
were being misled, hence he wrote the truth about the
plaintiffs - AM ORC. These in my opinion are words
meant to attract members to his church or deprive the
plaintiff o f members but they mean practically nothing
to the ordinary Nigerian.
Besides, who appointed the defendants champion o f the
Christian religion? And in spite of the fact that he ad
mitted that even the Jews, the brothers o f Jesus do not
believe in him or in his doctrine and that there are many
religions in the world today who do not accept Chris
tianity and are still trying to attract members o f the
public to join them, he picked on AM ORC to launch his
attacks. Far from looking into the aims and objectives
of the plaintiffs - AM ORC and trying to find out
whether these are being pursued, the defendants in my
opinion became very narrow-m inded in their views and
are fanatical in their faith and therefore to some extent
intolerant and opposed to other peoples views. Accor
ding to them , the plaintiff ought not to hold a different

view about life, and about the universe as a whole. They

should close their study o f or on everything not recom
mended by the Bible and should not in any way criticise
the Bjble. Unless the plaintiff accepted what-ever they
consider the Bible to say, hook, line and sinker, the
plaintiff - AM ORC is a satan or satanic organisation.
What and who gave the defendants such authority to be
the judge of others in this world or the plaintiff in p ar
ticular?
To say that God has condemned man to faith and tha*
man should not study and have the benefit o f what is
likely to improve his stay on earth, is to say the least, an
unfortunate idea o f a primitive or underdeveloped
mind. After all said and done, the Bible was written by
hum an beings to suit the purpose of the time. No God
spoke to the writers. They studied events and put them
down in readable form . Jesus himself never knew
anything about Christianity if the record called the Bible
is to be taken seriously on this point. Therefore, he was
not a Christian. Christianity could be traced to the
group who believed in the teachings o f Jesus Christ
when he was on earth. Those people belonged then to
the Jewish nation. As such, they were persecuted and
hunted down by the Roman masters and rulers of
Palestine at the time. Even so in later years, the Roman
accepted Christianity, the religion of the slaves as a
natural religion and spread it all over the world, while
building churches to the glory o f God and writing what
has come down to us as Bible and the words of God. If
these facts are right as it may be from history what is all
the talk o f somebody having a different opinion about
Jesus being a satan about? W hat does it m atter if the
Rosicrusians say that Jesus was a Gentile and not a Jew
and that his parents as well as himself were Rosicrucians? It merely adds to the knowledge o f the readers
and give them food for thought. I do not think it has
made them satanic in any way or anti-god organisation
in the eyes o f God.

* None o f the plaintiffs books mentioned and cited by

the defendants counsel sets out to criticise the Bible as a
book. They merely expressed views from their studies
which run contrary to what the Bible says or teaches.
The Bible is built on faith according to the defendants
which usually do not work out in practice or apply to
reasoning or common-sense. The plaintiff publications
according to them are the result of studies o f Natural
Laws and Spiritual Laws. Even though the books appeal
more to reason and to practical test there is no reason
why they should not exist side by side with the Bible, the
one complimenting the other. None o f the plaintiffs
books has set out to prove the Bible wrong. They merely
gave the other side o f the coin while recognising
Jesus as the great master and teacher o f spiritual well
being o f man that ever existed on this ea rth . If'the Bible
liad hidden or left out other facts concerning Jesus, it i.s
not an attack on him or the religion which his followers
founded. It is an extension o f the knowledge o f him
which the plaintiff considered useful for their studies as
distinct from attacks on the religion of the defendants.
That this other view annoyed the defendants to call the
plaintiff nam es some o f which are extrem ely
defam atory is the decision of the defendants who are
not ready to tolerate other views like the Mediaval
Europe on Christianity. If viiat is so then the names he
called the plaintiff which are defam atory cannot be said
to be comments or fair. After all, the plaintiff did not
say that it was writing its books to the Christian public,
then why did the defendant as a Christian (as he said)
feel he was ordained to champion the cause o f the Chris
tians as protector o f the faith?
* That one man can study with better understanding and
another cannot does not mean that the study in itself is
bad. This is what the defendants unfortunately have
done. They condemned the studies with very strong

words not because they have proved the uselessness o f

the studies but because a man-m ade book as the Bible
lias asked that Christians should depend on faith for
everything and not acquire such knowledge. Because the
plaintiff has set itself to study and practise these things
the defendants launched a wild attack on it, called the
studies and the plaintiff satanic, demonic and ungodly.
Even where the plaintiff has said that it is not an occult
society but have occult teachings in their schedule the
defendants still said so long as occult is mentioned in
their books and their teachings they are occult society.
* In the same way the'plaintiff says that it is not an occult
organisation even though it recognizes and teaches it as
a science but because mention is made o f occult in its
books the defendants insist that it is an occult organisa
tion.
* I do not see what duty the 1st defendant had to the
Christians who are not members o f his church more
than the numerous Christian Bishops and Priests all
over the country. His write-up ot and concerning the
plaintiff was no comment but a calculated deliberate a t
tack on the plaintiff without the least provocation. Why
should a citizen o f Nigeria not have different opinion on
anything provided that he keeps within the law p ar
ticularly the law of libel? If the reference to the plaintiff
as satanic organisation or occult is because the defen
dant considered that the Bible forbids man from trying
to acquire the knowledge which it tried to teach or
disseminate is comment (which it is not) that comment is
not fair but mischievous or malicious.
* I do not know what interest the public had if so many
people are already in AM ORC. Therefore what ever the
1st defendant wrote was activated by malice and desire
to destroy and gain from the destruction o f AM ORC.
This attitude o f the 1st defendant permeated all the ar
ticles he wrote o f and concerning the plaintiff.

* On the totality o f the evidence before me, I hold that the

defendants have not proved any o f the allegations
am ounting to unprovoked libel against the plaintiff
AMORC. The hum an 1st and 2nd defendants know
nothing about the world around them and the beauties
o f being created to occupy it. They know nothing about
Christianity if they exhibit ignorance o f the persecution
o f the Christians first, by the Jews who did not accept
them, then the Romans who forced them to operate in
secret places like the cata-combs o f Rome, yet they are
defending Christianity. They did not know that
everything was created by God and man in particular
was created by God in His own image with a free will to
know himself and everything about him in the universe.
In knowledge, they behave like a frog sitting on .the
branch o f a tree dangling its legs about, little knowing
how far those legs are from the ground. They studied
the Bible blindly and follow whatever is in it slavishly.
They cast people e.g. the plaintiff, AM ORC in their lit
tle moulds and in their restricted biblical injuctions ac
cording to them without knowing that this world is a far
more beautiful place for everybody and the Bible still a
worth while friend if properly studied. They did not
ever, know the main religious wars and Christian
persecutions which have led to the founding of many . f
the states of U .S.A . They did not know that some o f the
people whose knowledge the world benefits today were
branded witches and wizards and some stoned and kill
ed and others sent to th e gallows for heresy or given the
hemlock for propounding a philosophical theory
calculated to corrupt the youths like Socrates, yet the
knowledge they had and left for us shows the wonders
and revelation o f God. I dare say if people had listened
to the defendants own brand o f biblical injunctions,
men would not have flown in an aeroplane, sail on the
qceans and fly in and out o f the moon as is being done
today. If the defendant considered that nobody has ac
tually invented anything without studying the law of

nature and getting at the knowledge with which the

thing is discovered as an invention, then they should
realise that there is so much about God and His ways
th at man is given the power to know through studies.
Their attacks on the plaintiff - AM ORC is the result of
undeveloped minds which ascribe to any new thing
which the less inform ed cannot understand and
therefore sees it as the work o f satan, devil, witch or
some lesser gods.
The Counsel for the defendants stated that the plaintiff
have been inviting members o f the public to join their
organisation. That is true but what has not been sup
ported by evidence is that plaintiff, AM ORC had in that
invitation as it calls it, (but which ought rightly to be
called advertisement) invited Christians in particular.
TTiere was no such evidence either by the plaintiff
(AMORC) or the defendants. Even if there was, are all
the Christians under the defendants protection? Has he
got the m andate to decide for them what organisation
they as Christians should or should not join? If the socalled Christians decided to join AM ORC, was it right
for the defendants to publish invectives against the
plaintiffs and immoral and debasing things against its
leader Mr. H . Spencer Lewis? Such publication surely
cannot be considered as being done for public interest.
It was deliberate attem pt to employ foul means to
dissuade or discourage the would-be members of the
plaintiff, AM ORC, from becoming members in the
plaintiffs organisation.
The 1st defendant is too little a man in the Christian
priesthood to talk of defending the faith. If his faith is
against acquisition of knowledge as the plaintiff said,
for the advancem ent, progress and better understanding
of life on earth, then he belongs to another age when
man was a slave to dogmas and decrees o f Christian
bigots or fanatics.

The plaintiff-A M O RC says it believes in God and \v:

Jesus as the greatest m aster. That he was not a Jew or
was born a Gentile or his parents were members o f the
Great B rotherhood with headquarters in Egypt are
either facts or opinion which has nothing to do with the
teachings or activities which made Jesus great. The
defendants are opposed to reason and opposed blindly
everything which answer, they cannot find in man made
Bible which itself is a result of investigations and resear
ches. Are the defendants saying that investigations ana
researches into the Bible have ceased or should cease or
that those who from their researches and investigations
hold different views to what are stated in the Bible, are
satanic and o f satanic cult? The claim o f the defendants
of interest to protect all that is in the Bible cut them out
as narrow-minded and peddlers in blind faith. I do not
believe that m atters on which the plaintiff had written in
their books are religious m atters.
The unlawful method and malicious attacks which the
defendant launched on the plaintiff show that they
know nothing of the plaintiff - AM ORC and were out to
dissuade others with lies and unproved facts from
becoming it members, or to get them tx> join their new
brand o f Christianity. They have adm itted liability for
the libel and have put up defences of truth, faircomments and qualified privilege. They have not been
able to prove any o f these defences to the satisfaction of
this court. They have adm itted that many things stated
in the Bible are not tenable today, they have based their
libellous im putation on the plaintiff on the prohibition
of the Bible as if it has legs, eyes or judgm ent except
what man ascribes to it.

DISAPPOINTED?
As an interested party in the case between AM ORC and
ECWA Productions L td., I was personally present in court
for every session from the day the plaintiffs opened their case,
till the day the judgem ent was pronounced. I heard each
witness testify. I watched each witness cross-examined. I
noted with keen interest the judges comments and reactions.
My first-hand knowledge of the entire proceeding therefore
made me vulnerable to the judgem ent that was read. By the
time I had listened with rapt attention through the first
quarter o f the six-and-a-half hour reading, it was clear what
the conclusion was going to be. My prayer then was: Lord,
what will happen to Your honour - Your mighty and glorious
Name which the defendants profess and rely upon?
Then came the final paragraphs o f the jugdem ent:

Having found the defendants liable for the libel on the

plaintiff, AM ORC, I award Nl,000,000.00 (one million naira)
to the plaintiff as general damages ... Judgem ent is for the
plaintiff, AM ORC.
I was shocked! My spirit drooped. I felt like the disciples
probably felt the night the Jewish authorities seized Jesus and
appropriately dealt with Him, term inating His religious
fanaticism and intolerance by way o f a most humiliating
public execution.
Then the Spirit o f the Lord began to whisper His words o f
comfort and reassurance:
We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed,
but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down
but not destroyed . . . (2 Corinthians 4:8, 9).
"For M y thoughts are not yo u r thoughts, neither are
your ways M y ways, declares the LOUD. For as the
heavens are higher than the earth, so are M y ways
higher than yo u r ways, and M y thoughts than yo u r
thoughts . . .

Then also was a recollection of instances in the scriptures,

where the Lord appeared to delay or withhold a desired ac
tion, plunged His beloved into a state of apparent failure and
hopelessness, only to pull a surprise later, and to re-establish
- more firmly than ever before - His supremacy over the af
fairs of men, and His crushing authority over the forces of
rebellion.
There was the case of Lazarus, brother of Mary and M ar
tha. Word reached Jesus that Lazarus was ill to the point of
death. Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
When therefore He heard that he (Lazarus) was sick, He
stayed then two days longer in the place where He was (John
11:5, 6, 11).
How logical? Jesus loved Lazarus. Therefore when He
received an emergency call to save Lazarus life, He
deliberately delayed for two days. When He was sure that
Lazarus had been certified dead, He then started the journey
in response to the emergency call!
Strange! But purposeful!
Then there was the case of Jesus own crucifixion and
death. His disciples prescription for His self-defence having
been rejected by Him (Matthew 26:50-54), they watched
helplessly as He was arrested, humiliated, tortured and hang
ed on the cross. They believed He was the Holy One of Israel,
their Saviour. They heard passers-by hurl abuses at Him say
ing, If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Yet, nothing happened!
They heard the chief priests and the scribes deride Him say
ing, He saved others, He cannot save H im self . . . He trusts
in God, let Him (God) deliver Him now, i f He takes pleasure
in Him, fo r He'said, 7 am the Son o f G od ' (Matthew
27:39-44). Yet nothing happened.
And He died! Friday, Saturday, then Sunday; yet nothing
seemed to happen!
Cleopas best expressed the dejection and hopelessness of all
the disciples when he stood still, looking sad and told that
stranger :

 We were hoping that it was H e (Jesus) who was going

to redeem Israel. In d e e d ... it is the third day since those
things happened ... (Luke 24:17-24).
In cases cited, Jesus Christ saw it fit to lead His beloved
ones through a period of deep grief and humiliation -a situa
tion He could have prevented, but He didnt!
Strange, but purposeful! After their darkest nights, He
flooded them with the powerful light o f His glorious might.
He lifted their drooping spirits and gave them a brand new
perspective o f who He was and what He could do! Or how
else would He impress upon them that He was (and still is)
able to deliver not only fr o m death, but also through death?
How else would they appreciate Him as the One who reigns
supreme in the affairs o f men?
You prayed. You fasted too. You put up a good defence.
You hoped for well-deserved victory. You were sure of it.
Then you were declared the loser!
Disappointed?
My thoughts are not your thoughts neither are your
ways My ways, declares the L O R D .
Jesus said, ... I will build My Church; and the gates
of Hell shall not overpower it (Matthew 16:18).
It is better to fail in a cause which ultimately suc
ceeds, than to succeed in a cause which ultimately
fails.
Gabriel Abikoye.

AMORC V C H A LLEN G E 912 /5 M /11-88