Ministry and Research

Dear Minister,

The ministry is an excellent place for reviews and research work. Reviews should be done in the same manner Apostle Paul went to Jerusalem to those who were pillars to submit to them his revelation, being mindful of the possibility of running in vain...that was after more than 17 years of ministry.

Also, like Aquila and Priscilla taking Apollos apart to expound to him more perfectly the way of the Lord, such practices are disappearing today because of ego, attitude, and utterances of those who carry reviewed and researched truths devoid of the humility of Apostle Paul and the teachableness of Applollos on the part of those who should receive these truths, leading to unnecessary conceptual tensions, divisions and polarisations in the body.

In the academic world, the beauty of your research work is your ability to compare, contrast, and critique the existing body of knowledge without recourse to abuses and insults.

The beauty of it lies in the ability to research and advance the works of the previous generation using the foundations laid in the previous generation as the foxtrot for greater academic heights, quoting, referencing, and citing authorities in the previous generation, honourably disagreeing, critiquing, and admitting your research limitations (you are not capable of teaching all there is to teach on a subject no matter how accurate you are ) and by default giving the next generation of scholars something to work with.

Once the research element is missing in ministry or is not carried out trans-generationally, the move of God is over in one generation!

Critical research and literature review led to the treatise or thesis of Luke in the two volumes of the Gospel according to Luke and Acts.

Dr Luke started His gospel thesis by acknowledging the efforts of others, he even went further to acknowledge those who from the beginning, were eyewitnesses and ministers, and he then delved into his own private contributions to the literature of the gospel without rubishing Mathew, Mark and John who also wrote their own synopsis of the same gospel.

The four writers wrote about the Lord Jesus without agreeing on every point. In the manner of a researcher, Luke then went ahead to write Acts of the Apostle as the continuation of his research work providing the necessary bridge between the gospels and the epistles...

This is the manner of every genuine kingdom researcher, never out to slander and rubbish all that is previous, and also continually updating and upgrading as the case may be, as seen in his transiting from a former treatise(Luke) to a current treatise (Acts.)

Imagine the danger that could have been if Jerusalem shuts her doors against Antioch and vice versa.

Antioch was birthed as a model New Testament church devoid of the institutional Jewish exuberances of the Jerusalem church and, as such was very dynamic and a typical word church.

The gain here was that they ‘Allowed Barnabas' to come in,they allowed Agabus to come in, and even Peter later visited Antioch.it was this coming in of Barnabas that facilitated the bringing in of Paul to Antioch…moreover, Paul and Barnabas started teaching at Antioch…then Agabus visited, and by the time we get to Acts 13 they were no longer teachers, they became prophets and teachers. That later began the combo of Paul and Barnabas as they were separated to the work of missions to Asia minor and then the rest of the world.

It was this dynamic relationship between Jerusalem and Antioch despite their initial doctrinal divide on the issue of circumcision that led to the birthing of Ephesus which was the final frontier in the book of Acts; this is what research does ;a push from Jerusalem to Antioch and Ephesus.

The revelation of the truth of God is progressive and trans-generational with one generation praising His work to another and not mocking one another.

We must in every generation praise His work to another by extending the frontiers of the knowledge and wisdom of God in the previous generation...we must do this in the spirit of humility knowing fully well that the revelation of today may still be voided by a deeper one in the days to come.

So we can compare

*what has been said before

*is there agreement?

*are there differences in approach?

*differences in style

*differences in outcome

We can also contrast

* emphasise difference

*why do they exist?

*are they crucial to the debate?

*can we characterise both sides to help understand them better

*does emphasising the distinctiveness teach us anything?

We can as well critique by

*weighing the ideas

*not siding with one or the other

*trying to give equal weight to both sides of the divide even when one is far more appealing to us

In every kingdom development, there will always be shared ideas, disagreements and stand-alone ideas.

The body suffers when 2 or 3 generations lock themselves in without the necessary free flow of ideas, critique, and revelation...as there is no room for schism and territorialism in the body.

Many ministers find it difficult to operate with an open mind, like the academia, because we are used to deciding issues based on the evidence without exploring the evidence and two because in most cases our minds are already made up...this is anti-advancement in the kingdom.

Moreover, the ministry does not exist in a vacuum; your work is situated within a broader context of the ministry of the body..We are all contributing to the building of the same kingdom, this is not obvious to many...

You are more grounded as a minister if you are a researcher, a reviewer and a scholar rooted in the Word and led by the Spirit.

Humility is key, Love is key as we research, review and extend the frontiers of the kingdom.

Regards

PD