I came across a video recently that stopped me in my tracks. It raised a question so fundamental that I felt compelled to share it and invite your honest reflection.
The story goes like this. A group of kidnappers wrote to a church, threatening to attack. On the appointed day they arrived and chaos erupted. In the commotion, an Elder of the church rushed to the pastor and sought permission to employ native traditional measures at his disposal. The pastor gave his approval. The Elder stepped forward, raised his hand, and within moments a swarm of bees descended on the attackers with such ferocity that they fled. Not one church member was harmed.
Four weeks later, the church committee met and expelled the Elder permanently. Their conclusion was that the power he employed was from darkness.
Let us sit with that for a moment.
The committee's objection was specifically to the native and traditional nature of what the Elder employed. But that objection, however sincerely held, cannot survive the most basic test of discernment: what did the Elder's action actually produce? It produced no casualties, protected every life in that building, and repelled evil without bloodshed. That is not the fruit of darkness. And there is a further point worth considering. Darkness does not typically work against its own. The kidnappers who came to terrorise that congregation were clearly the ones operating on the side of darkness. If the Elder's power truly belonged to that same side, one would reasonably expect it to have aided them, not routed them.
The committee also conveniently overlooked something important. The pastor who authorised the action in the heat of crisis bore equal responsibility for the decision. Yet it was the Elder alone who paid the price.
There is also a biblical dimension worth noting. The sacred scriptures are replete with accounts of nature intervening decisively in defence of the innocent. The plagues of Egypt alone tell the story clearly enough. Frogs, locusts, flies, hail, and darkness were all mobilised against an oppressive force to protect a people under threat. None of those interventions were labelled as darkness. They were recorded as deliverance. The record is widely known and needs no elaboration.
There is a deeper truth worth pausing on here. There is only one Creator, and from that one Source flows the single power that animates and sustains everything that exists. This neutral power permeates all of creation. What determines its effect is how it is employed by the one who wields it. A knife can heal in the hands of a surgeon or harm in the hands of an assailant. The knife itself is neither good nor evil. The hand determines that. In the matter before us, the Elder directed that pervading neutral power toward the saving of lives. He put it to good use. And a power put to good use cannot, by any honest reckoning, be condemned as evil.
What this story ultimately reveals is the danger of confusing the unfamiliar with the ungodly. Is it that whatever is native and traditional is automatically to be suspected? The Elder possessed knowledge that others did not. He used it to serve others and to protect lives under threat. To label that darkness is to punish a man for the very gift that saved his community.
The fruit of an action is its truest testimony. A tree that produces good fruit cannot be evil at its root, regardless of how unfamiliar its branches may appear to those who have never climbed it.
The Elder deserved gratitude. He received expulsion. And that verdict says far more about the committee than it does about him. But let us be honest. That committee does not sit in one church alone. It sits wherever people judge what they do not understand, wherever the unfamiliar is condemned without examining what it produced. Perhaps the real question is not what happened to the Elder, but how many of us have, at some point, been the committee.





