One thing that surprised me when making initial enquired for my trip to Uganda was how open the pulpits in churches across Uganda seemed to be. A simple enquiring informing a local minister I would in I the area provoked an instant invitation to preach (or “share the word”, as they more commonly referred to it here). No questions, no references, nothing, simply an invitation. Although I had expected it, after previous discussions with other people who had visited and ministered in Africa, “Keep a sermon in your back pocket” was something Uncle Mark had advised, and I don’t think he was wrong.
Here in the west, we seem to be less receptive. If I got an email out of the blue from a African Pastor (who I didn’t have prior knowledge of), I don’t think the first thing I would say is, would you like to preach this Sunday? We have a certain degree of exclusivity to our pulpits, a realm of control in who we put in front of people and allow to teach. We like to know the person, their character, their experience, their knowledge, before we place them in front of a group of willing and open hearts.
Now I think there are disadvantages to both approaches. In the west we can be slow to offer opportunities to emerging teachers/preachers and we can miss out on the wisdom that could be contained in a fleeting unorganised missionary visit. Here is Africa, the disadvantages are more obvious. We can allow false teaching to be shared with people who are effectively endorsed by us, as we have allowed them a platform to preach their message.
For example, we had a discussion at bible study about the first few chapters of Genesis, when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and sin entered the world, we know it as “The Fall”.
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.”
Genesis 3:1-7 ESV
Now the discussion that emerged was around the question of “What was the fruit?” I think the answer is clear – we don’t know. The point of view being brought forward was that the fruit referred to in the above passage was actually referring to sex. That when Adam and Eve “ate the fruit”, that was them sleeping together. This was a point of view that had been preached from a pulpit (by more than one person), and accepted by at least one of the people listening (at another church, not the one I’m working with).
The opinion can only arise when you have a preconceived opinion that you want to read into the passage. The only mention on sex in this section of Genesis is when God tells Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply!”, that alone, would discredit the thought that the fall was brought about by Adam and Eve sleeping together. Sin didn’t enter the world through obedience, it entered through dis-obedience. Alongside the very positive view of sex (in the correct context), we can only throw it out as codswallop!
What’s the right approach? A middle ground. We need to be flexible and avoid being over protective. In most instances, there is time to do some basic research on the person visiting and time to contact where they have ministered before. If any well known preacher walked into a church that hadn’t heard of them before, a few simple checks and they could benefit greatly from the wisdom they have to share, rather than rejecting them completely.
The church I’m placed with here didn’t ask me to speak on my first Sunday here (to which I’m quite glad – adjusting to everything being new is pressure enough). But, as they get to know me and spend time with me they have the opportunity to get to know me, my character, my skill set and my knowledge. I’ve also come with a organisation backing me (Soapbox), which already is highly respected from the work they do here. So despite not being here a long time, I think they have enough evidence to make a good judgment call as to whether they want to allow me to speak into the lives of the people here.
Wisdom is a highly desired trait, and I think we can miss out some of what God is wanting to do by “playing it safe” all the time. But equally so, we can detract from the work God is already doing and create future problems by not being too accepting and open.
