Is serving God often synonymous with success in all circumstances or charismatic performance? If the question of success or glory preoccupies many political institutions today, the Church is not excluded. If ever more sophisticated instruments are used to measure individual performance, compare results and classify individuals according to their effectiveness, the ecclesial body is no exception.
In other words, the success of pastoral ministry is often evaluated based on visible criteria such as the numerical growth of the members, the influence of the media, the frequency of charismatic events or the reputation of church leaders. This evolution reflects a gradual shift from biblical criteria to indicators inspired by the culture of performance. Success then tends to become a presumed sign of divine favor, while trials, limitations, or situations of failure are sometimes interpreted as a symptom of insufficient faith or spiritual deficiency. Such a reading, however, raises a major theological question: is the service of God really synonymous with permanent success?
When I read from Genesis to the apocalypse, I discover that the biblical answer to this question is negative. Based on an analysis of several major figures in Scripture – Moses, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and the apostle Paul – the Bible shows that God frequently calls his servants to carry out their mission in contexts of resistance, suffering, and failure. Far from constituting a denial of their vocation, these experiences often participate in the very economy of salvation. The cross of Christ therefore appears as the fundamental hermeneutical principle that overturns the human categories of success and efficacy.
In spite of everything, there is today an opposite tendency: that of a theology that denies the failure of the servants of God[1]. Indeed, failure seems to become the new theological horizon today, a new topic of study that perceives it as a shame or a proof of divine rejection. This perception leads some church leaders to hide their mistakes and deny their limitations. It then becomes difficult to say: " We have failed " or " We have been wrong ". They don't realize that such denial of failure is more destructive than failure itself.
As a result, the dominant doxa — including in evangelical and charismatic circles — has integrated the discourse of fail forward,[2] growth mindset[3], and failure as a path to success. Failure is instrumentalized: it has value only if it produces something useful. It is a soteriology of performance disguised as humility. This is theologically suspect. Why? Because this vision only tolerates failure temporarily. It refuses its irreducible dimension, and failure becomes a scandal.
Finally, the failures of the pastoral ministry are attributed to witchcraft, demonic attacks, or the jealousy of adversaries. In fact, the church leader is unaware that a project can fail due to poor management. A community can be divided because of ethnical leadership. A prophecy can turn out to be wrong because of a lie. Success thus becomes a presumed sign of divine favor, while situations of failure come from insufficient faith or spiritual deficiency.
Yet, there is one truth that cannot be denied: failure is naturally human: we all fail in life, whether in a personal or professional life, or in God's work. From a theological point of view, denial of failure can become a form of spiritual pride. It gives the impression that the servant of God is always victorious in everything and can never be wrong. Such an image is alien to Scripture. For the prophets of Israel almost all failed in their ministry. Jeremiah did not convert anyone. Ezekiel preached in a vacuum. Jonah has failed in his mission. Thus, when there is a failure in the ministry, the theological question is not how to get back up, but: what separates me from God for this failure? For when a spiritual work fails, it is necessary to consider whether a hidden idolatrous form has not turned man away from his dependence on God. This statement, does not mean that all failure is automatically caused by idolatry. However, some failures can indeed reveal hidden idolatry. For idolatry is not limited to the worship of images. It also consists of placing a person, an ambition, a success, a reputation, or even a ministry in the place of God. This means that, from a spiritual point of view, failure can become an instrument of discernment. It forces the servant of God to ask himself: "What really occupies the first place in my heart?" If the answer reveals misplaced trust, then failure becomes an opportunity for repentance, reorientation, and renewal of the relationship with God.
This refers to the idea that in a world where charismatic performance is constantly put forward in the churches, where success is a requirement, the spiritual criterion becomes transactional. To this end, it is not uncommon to see proposals for blessings and success flourish in sermons, such as deliverances that "lead to healing".
Yet, as pointed out above, failure is part of the life of every servant of God, and so the Bible tells the story of it, both in the Old and New Testaments. The Bible is full of examples, including a few: Moses failed in his mission by striking the rock instead of speaking to him (Num. 20:7-12). This mistake cost him entry into the promised land. Elijah, after his victory over the prophets of Baal, fled from Jezebel and asked for death (1 Kings 19:1-4). His discouragement contrasts with his previous victory and becomes a failure. Jeremiah remains faithful to God, but his calls for repentance seem to have no effect. The people did not listen to him, and Jerusalem was destroyed. His ministry appears to be a total failure, even though he fully accomplishes God's will. Ezekiel's message was widely rejected, and God warned him that many would reject his message (Ezekiel 3:7). His ministry illustrates the tension between fidelity to the vocation and the lack of results. Samuel was a remarkable prophet appointed by God, but he failed to educate his children. His sons did not follow His example and defiled the altar of God (1 Sam 8:1-3). King David fails by committing adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11). Solomon, despite his exceptional wisdom, turned away from God under the influence of his many wives (1 Kings 11:1-10). Isaiah and other prophets have spoken God's word, but the majority of the people refuse to listen to them. Indeed, all these examples show that failure was never God's last verdict. As proof, Moses remained the great liberator of Israel. David remained the king after God's own heart despite his failure to lead.
The New Testament refers to the account of the deliverance of the epileptic child in Mark 9:14-29, which illustrates, among other accounts, also a situation of failure for Jesus' disciples. The disciples' difficulty in healing the sick child highlights a conflict between the spiritual authority they received and their legitimacy. However, beyond this narrative defeat, the text raises a deeper question: to what extent is the visible and effective success of the act of deliverance perceived as a criterion of spiritual legitimacy? And how can this perception generate a theological and ecclesial bias? The story invites us to reflect on the doctrine that God's legitimacy rests on performance: when disciples fail, their authority is questioned. However, Ido orient this perspective: it is not performance that establishes legitimacy, but faithin dependence on God.
Indeed, the hypothesis is that the failure of the disciples in Mk 9:1429 denounces a biased conception of spiritual legitimacy based on the visible performance of the charismatic gift. The text shows that spiritual authority cannot be reduced to a criterion of measurable efficacy, but that it is based on an authentic faith and a living relationship with Christ. Thus, the scene becomes paradigmatic: it criticizes the excesses of a charismatic performance theology and proposes a reconfiguration of spiritual authority, where legitimacy is measured not by the immediate manifestation of a miracle, but by fidelity and trust in God.
In the light of this problematic and the hypothesis formulated, it seems necessary to examine in a structured way the issues at stake in the narrative of Mk 9:1429. The episode does not lead to an acknowledgement of failure; It brings into play an implicit conception of theéLegitimité of Godée on the performance of His servant, a conception that the text criticizes and reconfigures. To account for this dynamic, the’SE D analysis will bend over backwards éTapes: first, we must situate ourselves in the narrative context of Mark 9:14-29; Secondly, I am going to speak of a challenge that reveals itself as an implicit criterion of spiritual legitimation; third, I will prove that the failure of Jesus' disciples is indicative of a human limitation; and fourthly, I think it is important to highlight Obviously the derives theological logic of performance, before concluding on the Christological reading of the failur as pedagogy of the Faith.
I. Narrative Background of Mk 9:1429
The story opens with a confrontational scene: the disciples, leftat the foot of the mountain, are unable to free a possessed child. The crowd is agitated, the scribes are arguing, and the authority of the disciples is questioned. In this context, failure is not only an acknowledgement of individual weakness; it becomes a public event, exposed to the gaze of the community and likely to call into question the credibility of the mission entrusted by Jesus. Moreover, the lack of faith of the disciples corresponds to a Marcian theme that can appear, on the one hand, in the accounts of miracles and, on the other hand, in those of the Passion. This is to say that this unique fact of the disciples' failure mentioned in v.18b already suggests that what follows is their incomprehension, illustrated just after by the debate of 9:33-34 and by John's refusal to see those who are not disciples exorcise in Jesus' name, thus putting himself in opposition to Jesus (Mk 9:39). The link between v.18b and 28 is one of the particularities of our pericope: to succeed in expelling a particular species of demons requires prayer and is not a performance as a criterion of spiritual legitimacy. Yet the Twelve chosen by Jesus to "be with Him and to send them out to preach with the power to cast out demons" proved effective in their mission (Mark 6:12), and here they are presented in a situation of failure. The astonishment of this failure inaugurates a new corrective teaching: "this kind of spirit can only come out through prayer".
2. The implicit logic of charismatic performance
It should be noted that, in the religious and social imagination of the time, the visible success of an act of deliverance or a miracle was perceived as a sign of spiritual authority. Charismatic performance thus becomes an implicit criterion of spiritual legitimacy: the one whohealsor works miracles proves by thishis spiritual authority and his closeness to God. Conversely, failure weakens the recognition of this authority and opens the door to contestation. Disciples are therefore caught up in a logic where their status depends on their ability to produce tangible results. Similarly, let us remember that, in the mentality of the time, all illness was put down to demonic possession[4].
Thus, Jesus' relationship with the dumb spirit in this episode is unambiguous. As in all the other exorcism stories studied and many other accounts of miracles, Jesus' intervention always finds a happy outcome. This is why the man who turns out to be disappointed by the disciples brings to Jesus his son possessed by a spirit described as dumb. The narrator presents an unusual spirit: the demon is mute, does not confess the identity of Jesus, holds the disciples in check and wants his victim dead. In fact, in the Gospel narrative as a whole, there is a clear evolution. In Mk 1:21 f., a man has an unclean spirit; the latter shouts and recognizes Jesus. In Mark 5:1, the demon is a Legion, so strong that no chain can hold him bound; it is marked by a regression into bestiality, screaming and self-mutilation. But, at no time does the narrator show us the will of these demons to put their possessed to death. It should also be noted that all demons who confronted Jesus are often referred to as "unclean spirits" (1:24-34; 3:11; 5:7-12). In contrast, in 9:14-29, the demon is referred to as "dumb." He is the only one who cannot speak to Jesus. During the exorcism, Jesus refers to him as the "deaf and dumb" spirit. He is the only demon in the Gospels who puts the disciples in difficulty and receives a particular diagnosis: according to the father, the symptoms of his son's alienation are such that "he destroys him" (9:22a) and "wherever he seizes him, he throws him to the ground, foams and gnashes his teeth and becomes stiff" (9:18a). From a medical point of view, they are read as symptoms of epilepsy.
In the end, the figures of "foaming," "gnashing of teeth," and the devil's intention to "perish" the child illustrate the extreme of possession never reached in the whole of Mark's gospel. As a result, the account of Mark 9:19-29 depicts a surprising failure. Jesus' followers are unable to deliver a possessed child when they have already successfully exercised a ministry of exorcism (Mark 6:13). This episode raises an important question: why did they fail?[5]
The text does not immediately give a technical answer. Rather, Jesus begins with a stern observation: "Unbelieving generation, how long shall I be with you? (Mark 9:19). The disciples' failure is therefore not primarily due to a lack of method, but to a deeper problem related to their faith and their dependence on God[6].
Through this narrative, it is possible to identify what could be called an implicit logic of charismatic performance. This logic emerges when spiritual gifts, displays of power, or pastoral successes gradually become evidence of personal competence. The servant of God may then rely more on his past experience than on his present relationship with God[7].
The disciples seem to have approached this situation as they did before. They had already cast out demons. They knew what to do. They had some experience in the ministry. However, nothing happens. What used to work no longer works. Their spiritual authority suddenly seems ineffective[8].
The problem is not the exercise of the gifts itself. Jesus had indeed given his disciples authority over unclean spirits. The problem arises when the ministry slides from a logic of dependence to a logic of control. The servant then begins to believe, often unconsciously, that he is in control of what belongs only to God. (5) Jesus' final answer is particularly revealing: "This kind can only come out through prayer " (Mk 9:29). Prayer is not an additional technique to improve the effectiveness of the ministry. It reminds us that all authentic spiritual action depends on God. Prayer is the concrete expression of dependence. It recognizes that power belongs neither to the preacher, nor to the prophet, nor to the healer, but to God alone.
These words of Jesus are a permanent criticism of the excesses of charismatic performance. In most African churches, ministerial success is sometimes measured by the number of miracles, the size of gatherings, or the media visibility of religious leaders. Such an approach risks turning ministry into a demonstration of human power rather than a witness to divine grace[9].
Mark 9:19-29 reminds us that spiritual authority does not lie in the abilities of the servant but in his fellowship with God. The failure of the disciples then becomes a pedagogical lesson. God may allow certain limits in order to remind His servants that they are not the owners of spiritual gifts.
Thus, this account invites the Church to examine its practices and criteria for success. Where the logic of performance seeks to produce results, the logic of the Gospel calls us to remain in a living relationship with the Lord. It is in this dependence that the true source of all spiritual authority is found.
3. The Revealing Failure of Jesus' Disciples: "Why Couldn't We Expel Him?"
The failure of the disciples to deliver the child leads to a crisis of legitimacy: their authority, based on the mission received from Jesus, is questioned by the crowd and by the scribes. This failure reveals a notorious limit: it shows that spiritual authority cannot bereduced to an expected performance. By exposing this fragility, the text is preparing for the journey that Jesus will make: true legitimacy does not lie in the efficacy of the spiritual gift, but in faith and prayer.
In fact, Jesus' cry of indignation, "Unbelieving Generation," logically accuses the disciples of their lack of faith. The latter interpretation is preferable. For it should be noted that in Mark, this is not the first reproach of Jesus concerning the lack of faith of his disciples (cf. Mk 4:40; 14:34). Moreover, the connection between the father's saying in verse 18b: "I told your disciples to expel him and they could not" and the disciples' question to Jesus in private , "Why could we not expel him?" (v.28), reveals that the disciples deserve a lesson in faith. It should be noted, moreover, that the expressions "generations" and "until when" already evoke the hardening of the people of Israel who exasperated their Lord during the Exodus (Num. 14:27; Deuteronomy 32:5) or the experience of the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 6:11).
To the question of the disciples saddened by their failure, Jesus answers, in Mark and Mt, by leaving aside the problem of healing and dealing only with that of prayer (Mk) and faith (Mt), necessary to cast out "this kind of demon". Indeed, Mark stages a real crisis of credibility of the nine disciples[10].
In any case, their powerlessness to cast out the devil is recognized by the three evangelists in different terms; Mk and Lk say that the disciples could not "cast out the spirit"; while Mt thinks that they could not "heal[11]". Let us note, in passing, that this variant results from the fact that Mt distinguishes the lunatics from the possessed in Mt 4:24. This Matthean distinction is not radical, since the cure will be effected by the expulsion of the demon, and he will use the word "heal" in relation to demoniacs.
In fact, the disciples' inability to deliver the child causes controversy with the scribes and disappointment among the crowd. For it is all the more surprising that Jesus had already conferred on them authority over unclean spirits. Mark explicitly records that he had given them power over demons, and that they had successfully ministered during their mission to Galilee in Mark 6:7-13[12].
Therefore, their failure appears as an unexpected break with Jesus. A once effective authority suddenly seems to be called into question. Jesus' reaction sheds light on the seriousness of the situation. As soon as he arrived, he declared: " Unbelieving generation, how long shall I be with you ?" (Mark 9:19) This word is probably not only aimed at the crowd or the scribes, but encompasses all the actors present, including the disciples. It denotes that their incapacity reveals a spiritual deficiency that goes far beyond a simple technical failure. The main issue of the story concerns precisely the nature of apostolic authority. The disciples seem to have regarded the authority received as a permanent spiritual authority which they could use at will. Yet the episode shows that spiritual authority is never independent of the relationship with God. It is not an autonomous power but a ministry exercised in constant dependence on the Lord[13].
For this reason, the attitude of the child's father indirectly underlines the questioning of the authority of the disciples. He said to Jesus, " I told your disciples to cast out the spirit, and they could not " (Mark 9:18). This public remark highlights the humiliation suffered by the disciples in front of the crowd. The contrast between Jesus' authority and the failure of the disciples then becomes manifest. When the disciples failed, Jesus immediately delivered the child with his single word: "Dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of this child and do not enter it again."[14].
But the private dialogue between Jesus and his disciples after the exorcism will provide an essential explanation. They will question him: " Why couldn't we chase him away? (v.28). Their question reveals that they still consider the event to be an anomaly. Jesus answers: ' This kind can only come out through prayer ' (v.29). He thus reminds us that spiritual authority cannot be dissociated from communion with God[15]. The mention of prayer does not introduce a particular method designed to increase the effectiveness of the ministry of deliverance. Rather, it recalls the very foundation of all Christian authority. Prayer expresses dependence. It recognizes that the power to deliver belongs to God alone. In the absence of this dependence, the authority entrusted to the disciples loses its true source[16].
Marc therefore presents this episode as a training lesson. Jesus does not definitively withdraw his authority from the disciples. Rather, it leads them to understand that their mission is not based on their past experience or on their status as disciples. Their authority remains derived, received and constantly dependent on the active presence of God. This lesson sets an enriching example for churches today. Any form of pastoral ministry must not confuse spiritual authority with ecclesial power, media influence or pastoral success. Mark 9:19-29 reminds us that authentic authority from God does not lie in the ability of God's servant to perform all kinds of miracles, but in his fellowship with God. The questioning of the authority of the disciples thus becomes a call to humility and spiritual dependence for all those who exercise a ministry in the name of Christ[17].
This approach thus offers a solid theological response to discourses that systematically equate material success, religious performance and divine favor. This logic is reinforced by certain discourses from the theology of prosperity or by certain expressions of the charismatic movement, in which victory, power and success occupy a central place. However, generalizations should be avoided. The Pentecostal and charismatic traditions are extremely diverse and many of their representatives develop a theology that is profoundly Christocentric and faithful to the Scriptures. The criticism proposed in this study is therefore not aimed at charismatism as such, but at certain excesses that gradually substitute a logic of performance for a logic of fidelity. I will mention three abuses, among others.
4. Theological drifts related to charismatic performance
First, Marc sheds a particularly relevant light on these abuses. He highlights the unexpected failure of the disciples in the face of a possessed child. Yet, as pointed out above, their failure seems unacceptable to them. After Jesus' deliverance of the child, the disciples will ask him about the reason for this failure: " Why were we not able to cast out this spirit ?" (Mk 9:28). The question goes beyond the simple observation of their failure. It reveals a conception of ministry in which disciples believe that the effectiveness of ministry automatically flows from the authority already received. For them, the gift of deliverance received is linear, permanent and infallible. This is often seen in many contexts of deliverance, hence the fruitfulness of the ministry, always measured by the miracles performed, the number of people healed or the visibility of extraordinary manifestations during evangelistic crusades. This evolution fosters a true culture of charismatic performance, where results are gradually becoming the main criterion of ministerial legitimacy. Jesus' answer deconstructs this logic: " This kind can only come out through prayer " (Mk 9:29). The emphasis is no longer placed on the mastery of a spiritual technique, but on the quality of the relationship with God. The problem is neither methodological nor strategic. It is theological. The disciples discover that the authority they receive never exempts them from permanent dependence on God. Divine power does not accumulate as religious capital and cannot be manipulated as personal power.
This scene thus highlights a first drift: the confusion between the gift received and the power possessed. When visible results become the primary indicator of ministerial success, the servant may believe that the effectiveness of his or her gift depends on his or her spiritual level, experience, or "anointing." The ministry then ceases to be experienced as a participation in God's work and becomes a demonstration of the minister's abilities. As John Stott reminds us: " The whole Church is called to bear witness to Christ, never to substitute itself for him. This remark emphasizes that the pastor remains an instrument and not the source of the power he wields.
The second drift is what we are seeing today in the field and it seems more worrying: the proliferation of false miracles, one of the cases of which was revealed in a magazine in Côte d'Ivoire:
The faithful, often in precarious situations or illnesses, are attracted by the promise of miraculous healings. Some of these "miracles" are staged to impress crowds, with accomplices playing the role of sick people who suddenly get up from their wheelchairs or supposedly possessed people who find peace after a prayer[18].
Indeed, these miracles, real or false, often become a criterion for evaluating the ministry of certain so-called charismatic pastors. This explains why healings, deliverances or prophecies occupy a disproportionate place today, to the point of becoming the main markers of God's presence in a Christian community. In such a perspective, the Christian faith is simply reduced to the search for extraordinary manifestations. This highlights the growing role of staging and performance in certain contemporary forms of religious worship. Pastors use social media to spread videos of these so-called miracles, attracting even more followers.
However, in Mark 9, Jesus rejects all spectacular logic. His intervention is not intended to strengthen his reputation, but to show God's compassion for a tried father and his son. The miracle remains a sign of the Kingdom, never an end in itself. Thus, Mark reminds us that the Christian vocation presupposes a break with all forms of self-aggrandizement. The disciple renounces making his own success the measure of faithfulness to God. Karl Barth developed a similar perspective by emphasizing that God remains supremely free in his way of acting. Human beings cannot confine divine action to criteria of success elaborated on the basis of cultural or sociological categories. God often acts where man does not expect him, and his work frequently escapes the indicators that human institutions favor to measure effectiveness. This reflection is of particular importance today. Transformations in the global religious landscape, the rise of megachurches, the media coverage of pastoral ministry and the growing influence of digital technologies are inviting churches to question their own evaluation criteria. How can we discern the true fruitfulness of a ministry? What are the authentic signs of God's presence? How can we prevent managerial logics from gradually replacing theological categories?
Karl Barth rightly reminded us that "the miracle never draws attention to itself; it always refers to God[19]." This perspective allows us to place the extraordinary manifestations in their true theological function.
The third drift concerns the excessive usurpation of God's authority. In other words, it is to take the place of God, to abstract from everything that proceeds from the will of God in itself and to replace it with one's own will. It is to decenter God as a source of authority and to monopolize his power. In some evangelical circles, the success of a ministry of deliverance leads to the construction of charismatic figures to whom almost exceptional capacities are attributed. Little by little, the trust of the faithful shifts from Christ to the charismatic leader. This personalization weakens ecclesial life, because it concentrates authority on a person instead of reporting it to the Lord of the Church.
Indeed, these famous charismatic figures are now in the news. Their prescriptions, followed too religiously by the faithful, border on alienation. For example, in South Africa, Pastor Alph Lukau claimed to have resurrected a young man, Brighton Moyo, three days after his death. The false resurrection was mimed on Sunday, February 24, 2019[20]. The pink pole uncovered, the pastor apologized. In the DRC, it is reported that the prophet Joel Tatu found himself in turmoil after a staging of an alleged miracle during a service where one of the preachers, Samy Matanda, visibly in search of a moment of spiritual glory, wanted to demonstrate the "power of divine fire" by pouring water into a container before affirming that, by faith, it would be inflamed. Moments later, a flame did indeed appear, but the alleged manifestation soon turned out to be more than a hoax[21].
It should be noted that the recurrent excesses of these pastors have dramatic consequences. In 2007, in Côte d'Ivoire, the "Behazin affair[22]" arose when a former Vodou follower who had converted to Pentecostalism accused several Pentecostal pastors of using mysticism to increase their pastoral power. In other words, Béhanzin Armand revealed that he had recommended to several pastors of these sects that are very influential in the country of human sacrifices to strengthen their aura among the faithful. He admitted, in these revelations, to having had people born killed for this cause. This means that these so-called pastors are in search of occult forces to compete with each other. In addition to these excesses, the proliferation of "revival churches" generates real competition between pastors to fill their churches and take advantage of the financial benefits. The faithful can thus pay all their income each month, as is the case to the church of Nigerian pastor David Oyedepo, whose fortune is estimated at 150 million dollars[23]. In addition to these few cases cited above, there are several other cases of numerous and multifaceted abuses that cannot be mentioned in this work.
However, it should be noted that Marc takes the opposite view of such a logic. The disciples fail in order to learn that authority does not belong to them. They are neither owners nor managers of divine power; they are its servants. They don't need to look for another source to act on their behalf. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, " the Church is Church only when it exists for others ". To this end, authentic pastoral ministry leads to Christ rather than to the exaltation of the ministry of self. Any mystical step to raise the level of his power cannot find its source in God.
In other words, the logic of charismatic performance cannot be explained by a divine source. For this reason, when the visible results do not come from faithfulness to God, any lack of healing, any stagnation or any ministerial difficulty then seeks to find a reason for guilt : a lack of faith, a hidden sin, a spiritual insufficiency or an absence of anointing. The evangelist Mark rejects such an interpretation. The failure of the disciples does not cause their exclusion or disqualification. Jesus transforms their incapacity into an opportunity for formation. Their weakness becomes a pedagogical space where they learn that mission is not based on their performance, but on an ever-renewed communion with God. This pedagogy is in line with Henri Nouwen's conviction that "the Christian servant exercises his ministry not by his strength, but from his vulnerability offered to God[24] ". This reading is in line with a fundamental intuition of Oswald Chambers: " God does not call us first to succeed, but to be faithful to Him. [25]»
This statement sums up the tension present in Mark 9:19-29. The Gospel does not value a spirituality based on immediate effectiveness, but a fidelity that remains dependent on God, even when the results are slow to appear or seem to be a failure.
Conclusion
The criticism formulated in this study is therefore not aimed at charismatism as such, but at certain excesses that gradually substitute a logic of performance for a logic of loyalty. However, Mark 9:19-29 is a profound criticism of any theology that equates the power of God with the performance of the pastor. The account reminds us that spiritual authority is not measured by personal prestige, nor by the accumulation of miracles, nor by the visible effectiveness of the ministry. It is born of a living relationship with God, nurtured by faith, humility and prayer. More than a story of exorcism, this passage becomes a real school of discipleship. He teaches that the power of the Kingdom is never manifested in religious self-sufficiency, but in constant dependence on God. Where the logic of performance seeks to produce spectacular results, the Gospel calls first of all to the formation of faithful disciples, aware that all authentic fruitfulness proceeds from God's grace and not from their own capacities.
Thus, we can conclude that failure is neither a proof of God's abandonment, nor an automatic sign of unfaithfulness. It becomes a place of revelation, transformation and spiritual maturation. In human logic, failure is associated with weakness, defeat and loss of credibility. Yet the cross represents precisely what seemed to be Jesus' ultimate failure. In the eyes of the religious authorities, Pontius Pilate and even many disciples, the crucifixion meant the end of his mission. Yet the resurrection reveals that what appeared to be a defeat was actually God's chosen means of accomplishing salvation. Thus, the Christian faith affirms that God can transform apparent failure into redemptive victory.
Moreover, the Gospels show that Jesus' disciples are used to failing in several areas: for example, they did not understand the announcements of the Passion, they were unable to cast out certain demons, they abandoned Jesus at the time of his arrest. Peter denied his Master three times. Despite everything, these episodes do not mark the end of their vocation or their ministry. These failures have become, on the contrary, essential stages in their teaching.
Finally, the reading of Mk 9. 14-29 leads us to understand that failure is not necessarily a divine verdict but can become a privileged space for spiritual formation. In Jesus Christ, the cross transforms the meaning of weakness: it is no longer just the sign of defeat, but the place where God manifests his love, his faithfulness and his saving power. Thus, failure in the ministry can be understood as a pedagogy of the faith when it leads the pastor to renounce the quest for glory at all costs, to deepen his trust in God and to conform his life to Christ crucified and risen.
This is to say that the question of success cannot be approached in theology from the point of view of the fruitfulness of a ministry when it exerts an important media influence or manifests extraordinary phenomena likely to arouse the admiration of the faithful. In the Bible, success is never an autonomous value. It depends on the relationship between and his servant. What matters above all is not the result obtained, but fidelity to the will of God. This distinction, according to the study of Mark 9:14-29, leads us to understand that the results of any ministry belong to God and faithfulness to God belongs to His servant. In other words, the success of a ministry is a gift of grace and not the foundation of the servant's legitimacy. To this end, the real question that a called servant of God asks himself is not: " Is my ministry crowned with success ?" but rather: " Have I remained faithful to the call received from Christ ?" It is a question that must guide every pastoral vocation. For the success of a pastoral vocation does not lie in a continuous progression towards victory, but in an obedience that unfolds despite resistance and failures. To do this, spiritual authority does not proceed from personal efficacy, but from the presence of God that accompanies it: " I will be with you " (Ex 3:12). This promise is the true foundation of authentic ministry.
Jimi ZACKA
Bibliographical notes
1. Books consulted
Anderson A., An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014),
Barth,K., Church Dogmatics, vol. IV/2, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958
Chambers, O., My Utmost for His Highest, ed. James Reimann (Grand Rapids, MI: Discovery House Publishers, 1992
Chan, S., Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000),
Edwards,J.E., The Gospel according to Mark, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002),
Evans, C. A., Mark 8:27–16:20, Word Biblical Commentary 34B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001),
Fancello, S., "Pastors and Sorcerers on Trial: The Béhanzin Case (Côte d'Ivoire)." Politique africaine, 2011,
France,R.T., The Gospel of Mark, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002),
Garland, D.E., A Theology of Mark's Gospel: Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2015),
Lane, W. L. The Gospel According to Mark, New International Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974,
Marcus, J., Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible 27A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).
Nouwen, H. J. M, The Wounded Healer: Ministry in Contemporary Society (New York: Doubleday, 1972
Rünacher, C., Croyants incrédules. La cure de l'épileptique (Marc9.14-29), Paris: Cerf, 1994
Stein, r., Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008),
Yarbro Collins,A., Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007
Zacka, J. Demonic Possessions and Exorcisms in the Pentecostal Churches of Central Africa, Yaoundé: CLE, 2010
2. Links viewed
https://www.nasuba.info/sport-culture/proliferation-des-eglises-en-afrique-faux-pasteurs-miracles-truques-et-derives-religieuses accessed 02/07/2026
https://ouragan.cd/2025/10/kinshasa-un-faux-miracle-eclabousse-leglise-de-joel-francis-tatu accessed 02/07/2026
https://www.jeuneafrique.com/190434/societe/nigeria-david-oyedepo-le-pasteur-millionnaire/ accessed 02/07/2026.
https://www.afrik.com/faux-pasteurs-en-afrique-quand-la-religion-devient-un-business?
[1] Indeed, success then becomes the main indicator of divine blessing. Failure is interpreted as a sign of a spiritual deficiency: lack of faith, lack of prayer, hidden sin, or lack of anointing.
[2] The expression "fail forward" aims to present failure in a positive light, suggesting that by failing, one learns useful lessons for one's future projects. We invite you to consider failure as a springboard to success.
[3] The concept we are interested in in this article advocates the idea that our abilities can be developed through effort, good strategy, and the help of others. People with a growth mindset see failure not as a fatality, but as an opportunity to learn and improve
[4] Cf. Jimi Zacka, Demonic Possessions and Exorcisms in the Pentecostal Churches of Central Africa, Yaoundé: CLE, 2010, pp. 129-148.
[5] William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, New International Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 332-336.
[6] Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible 27A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), pp. 678-684.
[7] Simon Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 87-95
[8] R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 380-385
[9] Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 210-219
[10]Cf. C. Rünacher, Unbelieving believers. Healing the Epileptic (Mark 9:14-29), Paris: Cerf, 1994, p. 9.
[11] Mt 17.16.
[12] William L. Lane, op.cit. pp. 331-333.
[13] James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 276-278.
[14] Robert H. Stein, Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 439-443.
[15] Cf. Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 437-440.
[16] David E. Garland, A Theology of Mark's Gospel: Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2015), 415-419.
[17] Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, Word Biblical Commentary 34B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 62-68
[18]https://www.afrik.com/faux-pasteurs-en-afrique-quand-la-religion-devient-un-business? Accessed on 02/07/2026
[19] Cf. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. IV/2, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958), 202–235.
[20] Read https://www.nasuba.info/sport-culture/proliferation-des-eglises-en-afrique-faux-pasteurs-miracles-truques-et-derives-religieuses accessed 02/07/2026
[21] https://ouragan.cd/2025/10/kinshasa-un-faux-miracle-eclabousse-leglise-de-joel-francis-tatu accessed 02/07/2026
[22] To this end, see Sandra Fancello, "Pastors and sorcerers on trial: the Béhanzin case (Côte d'Ivoire)." Politique africaine, 2011, 122, pp.121-143.
[23] Read https://www.jeuneafrique.com/190434/societe/nigeria-david-oyedepo-le-pasteur-millionnaire/ accessed on 02/07/2026.
[24] Cf. Henri J. M. Nouwen, The Wounded Healer: Ministry in Contemporary Society (New York: Doubleday, 1972), 72–88. The author argues that Christian ministry does not find its strength in the mastery or invulnerability of the minister, but in a vulnerability assumed and offered to God, through which the servant becomes an instrument of healing for others
[25] The author emphasizes that the decisive criterion of the Christian life is not visible success, but fidelity lived in the ordinary conditions of life. See Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, ed. James Reimann (Grand Rapids, MI: Discovery House Publishers, 1992)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire
Remarque : Seul un membre de ce blog est autorisé à enregistrer un commentaire.