Chapter 8: God Must Remain the Source

One of the central lessons of ministry is dependency upon God.

God may place resources in our hands. He may surround us with gifted people. He may give us technology, facilities, finances, influence, and opportunities. But none of those things can be allowed to become the source of our confidence.

The work remains God’s work.

This is one reason God does not necessarily place everything we need into our hands at once. While He is working through us, He is also working in us.

The process preserves humility. It reminds us of the fact that we need God.

• Not merely to preach.
• Not merely to receive revelation.
• Not merely to pray.
• We need God to accomplish the work He has assigned to us.

If God simply placed every resource at our disposal and allowed us to proceed without ever having to seek Him, trust Him, wait upon Him, or depend upon Him, we could easily begin to attribute the accomplishments of ministry to ourselves. But God will not give His glory to another.

Therefore, He establishes the parameters. He determines when provision comes. He determines how it comes. He determines through whom it comes. And sometimes He deliberately allows us to recognize that what is being accomplished could not have been accomplished by our own power.

The Lesson of Gideon

Gideon began with thousands of men, but God deliberately reduced the number of soldiers who would accompany him into battle.

From the natural perspective, that reduction made no sense. If a man is preparing for war, he ordinarily wants more soldiers, not fewer. But God’s objective was larger than winning the battle. God was concerned with who would receive the glory after the victory. If Israel entered the battle with overwhelming human strength, there was the possibility that the people would attribute the victory to themselves. Therefore,

• God reduced Gideon’s army.
• The weakness was intentional.
• The limitation was intentional.
• The dependency was intentional.
• God was establishing circumstances in which the victory itself would testify:
• God did this.

This principle has enormous implications for ministry. Sometimes we look at what we do not have and assume that the absence represents a deficiency in God’s provision. But there are occasions when God deliberately refuses to allow human resources to become sufficient enough to replace dependence upon Him. The question then becomes: Can God accomplish His purpose with what He has chosen to give us?

The answer demonstrated through Gideon is yes. God does not require the abundance we think He requires. He requires obedience. He requires faith.He requires dependency. And when He produces the victory, He intends for everyone involved to know where the victory came from.

push that individual forward. But we are also instructed to examine maturity and character. Therefore, the purported prophecy was not accepted simply because it was introduced with the words: “God said.” This is an essential lesson for the Church.

The phrase “God said” does not exempt a statement from the scrutiny of spiritual judgment.

Prophecy Must Be Accountable

The discussion became even more serious when the person making the prophetic claim asserted, in effect:

“Everything I say comes to pass.” That assertion created a testable claim. If everything spoken prophetically comes to pass, then the record should demonstrate it. But according to many members of the ministry, previous predictions from this individual attributed to God had not occurred.

In another case, a sister brought me what was supposed to be a “word from the Lord. I was told that specific people were going to die in a matter of months, due to the sin in their lives. Those time periods passed. The individuals remained alive. Some went forward with their lives, married, had children, and continued living, and happily working ministry beyond the predicted time. That history mattered.

These failed “God said” statements could not simply be ignored while new statements continued to be introduced with: “God said.” This establishes an important principle: A prophetic claim does not become true because the speaker is confident.

• Neither does intensity prove divine origin.
• Nor does repetition.
• Nor does spiritual terminology.
• Nor does the speaker’s insistence that he or she possesses a prophetic gift. When a person repeatedly speaks things in God’s name that do not come to pass, leadership has a responsibility to judge the fruit of that ministry.

Furthermore, if the individual is not willing to be corrected, the Scripture therefore rejects the idea that a person should continue exercising unrestricted spiritual authority merely because that person claims to hear from God.

Spiritual Activity Is Not Proof of Divine Approval

This brings us to another important distinction:

Spiritual activity is not necessarily evidence of divine approval.

A person can appear intensely spiritual. They can speak dramatically. They can claim revelation. They can attempt to lay hands upon people. They can behave as though they possess extraordinary spiritual insight. But none of those things, by themselves, prove that God has authorized their ministry. A leader has a responsibility to protect the flock. If someone repeatedly speaks things purportedly from God that prove unreliable, that individual should not simply be allowed unrestricted access to lay hands upon people and pronounce spiritual declarations over their lives.

The issue is not personal dislike. The issue is spiritual accountability. The reason given was equally clear: what had been spoken previously had not come to fruition. Therefore, the claimed anointing could not simply be assumed to be from God.

Protecting the Flock Is Part of Leadership

There is a tendency to believe that love requires leaders to permit everyone to do whatever they claim God has called them to do. But that is not responsible leadership.

A shepherd must protect the sheep. If someone is spiritually immature, the loving response is not to elevate them.

Confusion breeds division and spiritual fallout. If someone is operating in confusion, the loving response is not to grant greater influence or spiritual access to the flock through teaching or counsel. If someone’s prophetic declarations repeatedly prove unreliable, the loving response is not to give that person more people over whom to exercise spiritual authority. Correction is an act of love. Restriction can be an act of stewardship. Requiring maturity is an act of protection.

The leader must be willing to say No. Not because the leader is threatened. Not because the leader wants all the attention. Not because the leader refuses to recognize other gifts. But because God’s people cannot be used as a testing ground for someone’s unproven spiritual claims.

The ministry is about souls. Therefore, the desire of the aspiring minister cannot take precedence over the spiritual welfare of the people.