The latest chapter in the growing controversy involving Dr Abel Damina and the camp of Apostle Arome Osayi has moved beyond theology and into something much more personal: a dispute over whether Damina mocked a man's physical condition.
According to the claim circulating online, one of Apostle Arome Osayi's sons accused Damina of saying that people who are paralysed should not preach the gospel.
Damina has strongly rejected the allegation.
His response was blunt: the claim is completely false.
And he made one point particularly clear — for the record, he said, he would never laugh at anyone's deformity.
That distinction matters.
A theological disagreement can be fierce. Ministers can challenge one another's interpretation of Scripture, doctrine, preaching and religious practices. But turning a person's physical condition into ammunition is an entirely different matter.
The irony of the controversy
Apostle Arome Osayi has publicly spoken about living with facial palsy from birth.
The Remnant Christian Network's official biography says Osayi was born with facial palsy that affected his speech and left half of his face paralysed. It also says he later described a spiritual encounter during his teenage years in which his speech was healed.
A resurfaced video has recently brought that story back into public discussion. In it, Osayi reportedly described visiting a doctor in London and being diagnosed with facial palsy. He also said he had prayed and fasted for healing but believed God had told him the condition would remain.
That history makes any allegation about mocking his physical condition especially sensitive.
But sensitivity is precisely why words should be attributed accurately.
If Damina did not make the statement attributed to him, then the allegation should not become accepted as fact simply because it fits an existing theological or personal disagreement.
Damina's response changes the argument
Damina's position, as reported, is straightforward:
Criticise his theology if you want. Challenge his interpretation. Disagree with his preaching. But do not put words in his mouth and accuse him of mocking someone's disability when he says he did not do it.
His statement that he would never laugh at someone's deformity is significant because it draws a line between theological confrontation and personal humiliation.
The Christian space in Nigeria has become increasingly dominated by public clashes between prominent ministers, online critics and their followers.
The arguments can become vicious.
One preacher attacks another preacher's doctrine.
A follower responds.
Another minister enters the conversation.
Social media clips are extracted from longer sermons.
Then an accusation becomes a headline before anyone has established exactly what was said.
That is how religious disagreements can turn into character battles.
Disagree with the message, not someone's body
There is a legitimate debate to be had about preaching.
There is a legitimate debate about doctrine.
There is a legitimate debate about healing.
There is a legitimate debate about whether physical disabilities should be interpreted as spiritual conditions, divine tests, biological realities or something else.
But a person's body should not become evidence for or against the truth of their message.
If someone is physically disabled and preaches the gospel, the disability does not automatically invalidate the preaching.
And if a preacher is physically healthy, that does not automatically validate what he preaches.
The quality of an argument should be tested by the argument itself.
A person's face is not theology.
A person's paralysis is not theology.
A person's physical appearance is not proof that their doctrine is right or wrong.
That is the fundamental point being obscured by this controversy.
The bigger problem with Christian social media wars
There is something increasingly uncomfortable about the way religious disagreements are being conducted in public.
The language of Christian brotherhood can disappear the moment two ministers disagree.
Then the followers arrive.
One side begins defending its pastor.
The other side begins defending theirs.
Soon, nobody is discussing Scripture anymore.
They are discussing personalities.
Who is more anointed?
Who is older?
Who has more followers?
Who performs more miracles?
Who has the bigger church?
Who has the better testimony?
And eventually, even someone's physical appearance can become part of the battlefield.
That is where the argument loses its moral centre.
Damina's challenge is simple
Damina's reported response effectively puts the burden back where it belongs:
Show the evidence.
If he said it, produce the full statement.
If he mocked Arome's condition, show the context.
If he said paralysed people should not preach the gospel, establish exactly what he said and what he meant.
But if he never said it, then repeating the allegation does not make it true.
This is especially important in the age of viral clips, where a few seconds of video can generate thousands of accusations before the original material is examined.
Christianity should be bigger than personal attacks
The dispute between Damina and Arome's camp is ultimately another reminder of a problem that extends far beyond these two men.
Christianity in Nigeria has produced some of the most passionate public debates in the country.
But passion without accuracy can become destructive.
If ministers are going to criticise one another publicly, then the standard should be higher, not lower.
Quote accurately.
Show the evidence.
Attack the doctrine.
Challenge the interpretation.
Question the theology.
But leave people's disabilities, bodies and personal vulnerabilities out of the fight.
Damina's central message, as reported, is therefore worth separating from the noise:
“For the record, I will never laugh at anyone's deformity.”
That is the line.
Religious disagreement does not require cruelty.
And if someone is going to accuse a public figure of crossing that line, the accusation deserves evidence — not simply repetition.
Comments
Post a Comment