And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
I have of late
been thinking of transformational ministry.
Why is it that
some missionaries and missions always raise dependents?
And by
dependents I am talking about everything from money to leadership and
oversight.
Like a recent
post I saw on social media of a minister coming from ministry in Africa
complaining that there were no genuine pastors because all he dealt with were
after his money.
The first
question I would have asked him is how he had packaged himself.
You see, many
times, you will be taken as you appear.
And as an
African who has ministered in Africa all my life, I can tell you that Africa is
the centre of hospitality.
This directly
means that you will be received in a way that will make you feel at home
wherever you go. You will be received as you come; and as you have presented
yourself.
I have never had
any qualms being sent anywhere in Africa whether I know anybody or not.
In fact, over
the years, all I will travel with is a phone number that I will call when I get
to the destination, and most times I do not even have any return fare, let
alone money to sustain my stay there.
And I have never
been disappointed.
And it is not a
single community, or even country.
I have been to
Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, DR Congo and Mozambique as well as in most communities
in my country, Kenya.
I will be
invited or even sent by another minister to people I do not know and have never
met and would be with them for a week, two or even longer.
But I won’t risk
that in Europe or America, places where even a child has to make an appointment
to enjoy lunch with his own parents.
But that is not
why I am writing this.
Why is there
inbreeding in many ‘high’ societies?
The main driver
is the exclusive nature of their structures. They will not risk for any
outsider to ‘hack’ into their closeknit communities.
They are too
protective of their structures and may kill them by guarding against
‘defilement’.
A wealthy or
‘royal’ community gets scared that any outsider getting married into their
family is looking to exploit it. Also, the danger that expanding the community could
dilute its influence.
A wealthy person
thinks that any girl or boy loving their own is doing it for the money; that
any love being expressed is directly proportional to their interest in
accessing that money.
What does this
have to do with ministry? I know someone is wondering.
Ministry is
launching out in obedience to God to the place He sends you.
In short, you
are a river flowing into the desert to quench the thirst inherent therein.
That is what I
want us to look at.
What is your
expectation? Where is your faith?
Do you expect
that desert to be transformed into a thriving farmland or do you think you will
always be needed to water it?
Do you expect
the water you provide to be swallowed to create an independent ecosystem that
does not require you or do you always expect to continue flowing to them?
Must you always
be there for your river to function properly? Can your river be sent elsewhere?
In short, can you be given another assignment and leave confident that your
assignment has been completed?
Where are you
anchored at?
At the root of
any ministry is its expectation, and especially the end result.
Many a ministry
dies because the founder refuses to have his influence diluted.
He wants to be
the main guy, if possible, even beyond the grave.
And that is the
problem with much of the church today.
That is the
driver of most of the corruption in churches and ministries.
Let me give two
ways church has been being done.
The first one is
that the leader is a master or lord. And by leader I am talking about the
missionary or founding pastor, evangelist or team.
Think about
Abraham.
He had a very
faithful servant; one he could entrust with the job of looking for a wife for
his son.
Yet what do we
see when he was speaking to God?
And Abram
said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is
mine heir. (Genesis 15:3)
Only children
should inherit their parents, normally.
It was therefore
a sad affair for Abraham then because he did not have an heir.
Personal empires
require the continuity that family produces.
Think also about
a corporation or business.
The CEO is an
employee (like Eleazer)
He will never
own that business, however well he performs.
He will always
be an employee, subject to the owner/s.
What model do
you think the church operates under?
Jesus said that
we are unworthy slaves in His ‘business’. We therefore do only what we are
ordered to do. Only the Master knows and cares for the outcome; simply because
servants do not have any stakes beyond performance.
Wanting to
perpetuate my leadership of ministry or church is therefore counterproductive,
even destructive, to our pursuit. It is rebellion.
And that is
irrelevant whether I am the one who founded that church or ministry or not.
I did what I was
ordered and therefore have no ownership stake in what I was sent to do.
And we see that
with CEOs all over the world.
The only thing
that grows with their impactful and profit-growing leadership will be their
remuneration, unless the owners think they stand to gain more by giving them a
share of their company.
But the owners’
children do not have to prove themselves (though they are raised to pursue
leadership and understand the enterprise). They will eventually take over the
enterprise once their parents’ get out of the picture or decide to retire.
But there is
something else I want us to look at concerning the church.
Though it
unilaterally belongs to Christ, He does not behave like those corporations.
He seeks to
coopt us into His enterprise, though that in no way implies that we have become
co owners.
Henceforth I
call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I
have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have
made known unto you. (John 15:15)
The fact that He
calls us friends does not mean that He stops being our Lord.
And that is the
point of this message.
Why do we find
it difficult to copy our Lord in that aspect?
Of course I will
add another verse to add more emphasis.
Verily,
verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he
do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. (John 14:12)
Why does it seem
like an offense, even sin, if somebody who has grown under you becomes better
than you?
This brings
another dynamic, parenting.
A father is
never threatened when his son outshines him.
In fact, the
heart of a father desires for his son to outshine him.
‘That is my son’,
is the greatest pride of a father when his son thrives.
That is why an
illiterate father has no qualms selling his livestock and/or land to educate
his children.
That is what
Christ is doing in this verse
As adopted
children in His family, He not only wants us to connect to His enterprise, He
expects us to make it accomplish even beyond what He was able to accomplish
when He dwelt amongst us.
Not only that.
He wants us to operate in His Spirit.
Whatever do you
mean? I know someone is wondering.
He wants us to
do ministry as fathers.
And you will
allow me to explain a little.
A father handles
all the weight at the beginning. But that is not his end goal.
As the son
grows, he will slowly start releasing the reins so that the son starts taking
responsibility.
He will
eventually let go of the load for the son to carry alone because he has learnt
to do so.
That is the way
empires are built.
And it is the
same way effective ministry is built.
The father will
initially be the star of the show, but only temporarily because he will start
training his son to grow into it.
Eventually he
will step back and allow his son to shine as he watches from the background,
stepping in only when something requiring his experience or authority is
required.
Peter and John
did it that way.
No wonder in
their epistles they are calling themselves elders instead of apostles.
And Paul did it
the same way when we see him handing responsibilities to Timothy, Titus and
even Philemon.
But the one who
exemplifies that spirit to me is Barnabas.
And that because
he did not wait to get old before doing it.
He takes Paul,
disciples him and releases him when he has grown enough to ‘resist’ ministry to
another prospect.
And he continues
to do the same with Mark.
For
self-important ministers, they may think that Barnabas disappeared from the
picture without realising that this is the way it was meant to become.
Remember this?
He must
increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:30)
Ministry is
about our disappearance after succeeding because then we are able to leave God
with all the glory.
However, that is
so completely opposite to human nature.
We love that
glory and apart from our submitting to the grace that God releases to us are
unable to completely release those reins since we think our value is related to
our relevance and visibility.
I believe this
is the reason the church in Africa has been unable to make enough strides over
the time since we were evangelised.
Our ‘mother’
refused to cut the umbilical cord to release us from ‘her’ role.
And I know that
this is hugely controversial but you will allow me to continue.
Almost any
church you connect with is boasting about where it came from, even the
independent ones, as proof of their greatness, even a hundred years after that
‘mother’ left.
They must as a
consequence recreate that ‘motherhood’ wherever they go for missions.
The sad part is
that some of those pretend that their chords were cut though they are many
times worse than those confessing the presence of the same.
And there is a
case of friends (of course they are not my friends now because I refused to buy
their self-importance)
Look at their
ministry and it is clear who their ‘father’ was from mannerisms to pulpit
delivery.
Some were
recently having an anniversary and interestingly they literally killed some
history of their past to make it appear that they were the only ‘fathers’ in
that structure.
I got to know of
it when some people became uncomfortable with the history being presented and
asked for my input since I had been part of it.
To imagine they
even ‘killed’ the person who opened that door for them!
Yet these people
are terribly offended if they are not acknowledged and acclaimed and fought for
by anybody in that structure.
Calling them
colonial relics appears offensive except for the fact that they embody that.
And now that I
have used that term, I think I may need to say what I think made most
missionaries of the past (of course not all of them) develop that system I have
mentioned.
They had divided
loyalty as they were subjects of an earthly kingdom that they were furthering
even as they sought to make inroads for a heavenly one.
For the most
part, missionaries were the ones who opened up Africa to colonialism.
No wonder it is
said that when the missionary arrived, we had the land and they had the Bible.
Then they told
us to close our eyes in prayer and that after the prayer they had our land and
we had their Bible.
They were
preaching even as they were searching for opportunities for their earthly
kingdom.
Some were better
than others. But their pursuits were not much different.
And I say this
because I have ministered in British, French and Portuguese colonised
(missioned) countries.
That was the
bane of that missionary enterprise because it exported their earthly kingdom
more than it furthered the heavenly one. Remember Jesus saying that you can not
serve two masters?
The church then
became colonial in its operations because of its founding.
No wonder
getting a colonial name became synonymous to being converted. No wonder someone
joining the church having multiple wives had to get rid of all but one to
become a member of the church. No wonder being proficient in the colonial
language appeared more spiritual than actual transformation. No wonder speaking
truth to power became unpalatable.
You see, the
king (or whoever represented him) was the backup for the mission.
Contrast that
with the church in China.
The little or
much I have read about missionaries to China makes one thing very clear.
The missionaries
were kicked out of kingdoms, even ecclesiastical ones, because those structures
did not agree with the calls guiding them.
It means that
they went to China without any external support (the umbilical cord I have
mentioned) because the structures saw only folly in the obedience being
pursued.
This means that
they had no backward glance as they pursued obedience and did missions.
The church
created as a result did not have the strictures the ones I have mentioned had
because they were more or less kicked out of the sending structures.
Their churches
became autonomous for the most part and raised leaders organically without much
outside influence.
This especially
because the missionaries did not impose their culture on the mission field.
No wonder the
church still thrives amidst unrelenting persecution for generations...
What am I aiming
at?
Discipleship.
Raising Christ’s
disciples, not ours.
Releasing
Christ’s ministers, not ours.
Running Christ’s
agenda, not ours.
Because, at the
back of any failing system is a people not completely surrendered to Christ’s
absolute Lordship; a people not totally sold out to Christ’s ownership of
everything they are and have.
Many years ago,
Christ taught me to choose between my name and His by sending me to a ground
that automatically painted me as who I wasn’t.
And for some
time (not a short time) I was looked at as a sinner and backslider because of
my obedience. To the point people were sent to rebuke me for backsliding.
Action was also taken against me for that obedience.
But that opened
doors for ministry and eventually He was able to right what had appeared wrong.
And that is
something we must face all the time as we walk in obedience, especially as we
deal with ministerial, generational and filial peer pressure.
And he said
to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up
his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it:
but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. (Luke 9: 23, 24)
You realise that
it is a daily struggle.
Nature is a very
good explainer of spiritual truths.
You will
therefore allow me to pick another aspect to explain this.
A pregnant
mother is completely connected to the life she is carrying. To the point that
anything happening to one automatically happens to the other.
That is due to
the umbilical cord.
Once the child
is born, the dynamic changes as the connection is loosened as it now requires
choices to function.
The mother must
choose to suckle the child and the child must choose to suck for the
relationship to function right.
But the child
needs the mother in a very huge way, though not as was when he was in the womb.
Then the
exclusive breastfeeding phase passes and the child is introduced to solid food,
slowly. But he is still breastfeeding, though not as much. He is also getting
more nutrition from other feeding than it gets from sucking.
He will
eventually be weaned from the breast altogether.
At this time, he
is completely free from his mother for his feeding, as it is also freeing him
from a lot more of her influence.
Remember that is
the time Moses was taken from his mother?
Why?
Because he could
then live independent of his mother.
I hope you are
getting my drift because I am talking about church growth and missions.
That was how
Christ did it.
You remember He
was initially doing everything?
Then He started
sending out the twelve.
Then the
seventy-two.
Eventually He
went to heaven and left the whole business to those He had invested in.
And as we have
seen, He left with the expectation that there would be more getting done by
those He left than He had been doing when He was with them.
Is that the way
we do missions?
Is that the way
we do church planting and establish church branches?
Is that the way
we raise ministers?
What is God
saying to you?