In June 2026, Prophet Odekunle Epaphras, founder and General Overseer of Comfort Life Mission International, responded publicly to a wave of criticism of his ministry from religious leaders and members of the public.
The substance of that dispute is not the subject of this article, and readers will hold their own views on it. What is worth examining is the shape of his response, because it is unusual — and because almost everyone reading this will face criticism of their own at some point, in a family, a workplace, or a church.
Here is what he said, and what is instructive in it.
The response
Three moves, in order.
He asked not to be judged without context. His appeal was that people should seek to understand an individual’s background and journey before passing judgement, noting that every successful ministry carries behind it a history of sacrifice, hardship, and perseverance.
He located his position in a long process rather than in an event. He described his standing as the result of years of spiritual training, perseverance, and divine guidance — not as something that appeared suddenly.
He thanked his critics. This is the striking part. He expressed appreciation to those opposing him, saying their opposition had strengthened his faith and deepened his commitment to prayer and to Christian service.
Whatever one makes of the underlying disagreement, that final move is not the standard posture in Nigerian religious controversy, where the usual responses are silence, denial, or counterattack.
Why “thank you” is a strategically strong response
Set aside the spiritual framing for a moment and look at the mechanics.
Criticism creates a fork. The person criticised can escalate, defend, ignore, or absorb. Escalation extends the story and hands the critic a second news cycle. Defensiveness signals that the criticism landed. Silence often reads as either arrogance or guilt.
Gratitude does something the other three cannot: it removes the conflict the critic was expecting, without conceding the point. There is nothing to push against.
This is not a trick, and it does not work if it is performed. But as a genuine posture it is remarkably durable, and it is one of the few responses that leaves the criticised person in a stronger position than before.
What Scripture actually says about criticism
The Bible is more nuanced on this than the two common Christian responses suggest — which are usually either ignore your critics, they are attacking your anointing or accept all criticism as correction.
Neither is quite right.
Some criticism is a gift. Proverbs is emphatic and repeated on this: a rebuke to a wise person is worth more than flattery, and the one who hates correction is a fool. The wise person is defined partly by their capacity to receive an unwelcome word.
Some criticism is not. The Psalms are full of accusation, slander, and false witness, and the response modelled there is not to accept it as truth but to bring it to God. Nehemiah, facing sustained public opposition designed to stop the work, neither absorbed it nor answered it — he kept building.
The distinguishing question is not who said it, but whether it is true. This is the hard part, because the temptation is always to assess criticism by its source. A hostile critic can be entirely correct. A friendly one can be wrong.
A practical method
When criticism arrives — publicly or privately — this sequence works better than instinct.
1. Do not respond for twenty-four hours. Almost every damaging response to criticism is issued within the first hour. The urge to answer immediately is strongest exactly when your judgement is worst.
2. Separate the claim from the tone. People often deliver true criticism badly. If you dismiss it because it was rude, you lose the information. Write down the actual claim, stripped of the delivery.
3. Ask one trusted person: is any of this true? Not a supporter — someone who will actually tell you. This is the single most useful step and the one most people skip, because they choose someone they know will reassure them.
4. Concede what is true, plainly and without excessive apology. “That part is fair, and I am dealing with it” ends more conflicts than any defence. Over-apologising, on the other hand, invites further pressure.
5. Answer the rest once, calmly, and then stop. Repeated defence of the same point makes you look less credible with each repetition, not more.
6. Keep building. The work is the answer. Nehemiah’s response to sustained opposition was to finish the wall.
The failure modes
The anointing shield. Treating all criticism as spiritual attack is a way of never being correctable. Ministries and marriages both collapse this way — the person builds a framework in which no feedback can ever reach them.
The collapse. The opposite failure: accepting every criticism as accurate, apologising for things you did not do, and losing the ability to hold a position. This is common among conscientious people and it is not humility, it is an absence of judgement.
The audience response. Answering criticism in order to be seen answering it — playing to supporters rather than addressing the substance. This feels satisfying and it resolves nothing.
The grudge. Retaining a mental list of who said what. It costs the critic nothing and it occupies you for years.
The part most people miss
Here is what the “thank you” response contains that is easy to overlook.
Opposition genuinely does produce something. Not in a sentimental sense — in a practical one. A person under criticism prays more, examines themselves more carefully, works harder, and takes fewer things for granted. Comfort does not produce those effects. Sustained criticism, survived without bitterness, tends to produce a more serious person.
That is not an argument for seeking out criticism, and it does not make unfair criticism fair. But it does mean the experience is not purely a loss, and recognising that is what makes gratitude possible without dishonesty.
If you are the one being criticised right now
Most people reading this are not public figures. You are being criticised by a relative, a colleague, a spouse, or people in your church — and it is smaller than a national controversy and it hurts considerably more, because these are people who know you.
The method still holds. Wait a day. Separate the claim from the tone. Find one honest person and ask whether any of it is true. Concede that part. Answer the rest once. Then get back to work and let time do what argument cannot.
And be careful what you build in response. It is entirely possible to survive criticism and become someone who never listens to anyone again. That is a worse outcome than the criticism was.
This article discusses the form of a public response, not the substance of the disagreement that prompted it. Readers seeking the details of that dispute should consult Nigerian news reporting directly.
