We came from different churches, cultures and contexts. What made our fellowship possible was not that we were all the same, but that we recognised the same authority.

From 24–26 September, I had the privilege of attending a Great Commission Collective (GCC) vision meeting in Langebaan, Western Cape, hosted by Iziko Missions South Africa. One of the things that struck me during those days was our diversity. We were not all from the same churches. We did not all minister in the same contexts. Our backgrounds and experiences were different. We came with different personalities and perspectives. Yet we could sit together, pray together, talk about church planting and ministry, and enjoy genuine Christian fellowship. That should not surprise us.

Iziko Missions South Africa exists with a burden to see Christ-centred churches planted in South Africa’s townships and cities, led by local leaders and grounded in sound doctrine. GCC describes itself as a collaborative family of churches committed to planting churches and strengthening leaders. I particularly appreciate something GCC says about its international networks: they are to be aligned, autonomous, indigenous and enduring. There is something important there. Biblical unity does not require every church to look culturally identical. The gospel can take root in different places, languages and cultures without producing copies of one particular church.  But if our contexts can differ, something must remain fixed. For us, that must be the Word of God.

A Debate That Started Over Breakfast

That conviction was illustrated for me in a small and rather enjoyable way on our final morning. Over breakfast, among dear brothers, a discussion began about 1 Samuel 28—the strange account of Saul and the medium of Endor. The discussion did not end at the breakfast table. Later that day, we were travelling from Langebaan to Cape Town International Airport, where we would catch our flight home to kuGompo. Mr Mtshali was our driver and did not say much. Pastor Lwandiso Dlokweni, Pastor Yoyo, Pastor Muzi and I were in the car, and the discussion from breakfast came up again. This time it became even more lively. Yoyo and Muzi kept adding to the conversation, raising questions and observations of their own. Lwandiso and I happened to take different positions on one particular detail, but this was certainly not simply a debate between the two of us. And, importantly, the Bible was open.

Before We Disagreed, We Agreed

Before getting to the small point on which Lwandiso and I took different positions, it is worth saying how much we all agreed on. First, Saul was clearly in rebellion against God. God had forbidden Israel from consulting mediums and necromancers. Saul himself had removed them from the land, yet in his desperation he turned to the very thing God had forbidden.

Second, we did not understand the passage to mean that the medium possessed some independent power over Samuel. Samuel’s appearance takes place under the sovereignty of God. The woman herself appears surprised by what happens. The emphasis of the passage is certainly not, “Look at what this medium is capable of doing.” And Samuel does not appear to provide Saul with some secret way out of his situation. His message confirms the judgment of God that had already been announced against Saul.

The tragedy is that Saul desperately wants a word while continuing in rebellion against the God who speaks. So on the big things, we stood together as Reformed evangelical brothers. We believed in the sovereignty of God. We believed in the authority of his Word. We agreed on the sinfulness of Saul’s actions and that this passage gives no Christian justification for attempting to communicate with the dead. Our disagreement was much smaller.

Why Did the Medium Cry Out?

The question concerned verse 12: “When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice.” Why did she cry out? Lwandiso took what may be the most straightforward reading: she cried out because she saw Samuel. It is a strong argument. The verse itself connects the two events. She sees Samuel, and she cries out. Perhaps whatever she normally experienced in her work as a medium was nothing like this. Samuel actually appeared, and she was shocked.

I took a slightly different position. So I opened the Bible and went backwards. Before Samuel appears, the woman is already afraid for her life. She reminds the disguised Saul that the king has removed mediums and necromancers from the land. She asks him, “Why then are you laying a trap for my life to bring about my death?” (1 Samuel 28:9). Her fear is already there. Saul assures her that no punishment will come upon her. Then Samuel appears. She cries out and immediately says, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul.” And Saul’s next words are significant: “Do not be afraid” (1 Samuel 28:13).

That sequence persuaded me that while seeing Samuel triggered everything, her cry was connected to suddenly recognising the man sitting before her. The very king who had driven mediums from the land was sitting in front of her while she was doing what he had outlawed. The mystery the text leaves unanswered is how seeing Samuel enabled her to recognise Saul. But I think the narrative intentionally connects those two events. She sees Samuel. She cries out. She recognises Saul. Saul tells her not to be afraid.

Lwandiso remained persuaded by his reading. I remained persuaded by mine. Yoyo and Muzi continued to contribute, question and make an already lively conversation even livelier. And Mr Mtshali kept driving us towards Cape Town.

The Bible Was Open Between Us

Looking back, that is what I loved most about the conversation. Not that I convinced Lwandiso. I did not. Not that he convinced me. He did not. What I loved was that the Bible was open between us. Lwandiso could point me to the words, “When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out,” and argue that the inspired narrator had already told us why she screamed. I could point him back to verse 9 and then forward to verse 13 and ask why her fear of Saul appears on both sides of verse 12. Yoyo and Muzi could question us, add observations and make the whole conversation more lively. And Mr Mtshali could keep driving.

We could look at the same Bible, hold the same theological convictions and still disagree about a small exegetical detail. That is okay. In fact, there is something healthy about brothers being able to do that. That little debate became, for me, a picture of something much bigger that I appreciated about our time in Langebaan. Christian unity does not require uniformity. Pastors can come from different communities. Churches can minister in very different cultural settings. Methods may need to change from Cape Town to kuGompo, from a township to a suburb, or from South Africa to another country altogether.

Even brothers who share the same theological convictions can occasionally disagree about the interpretation of a particular verse. But none of us has the authority to stand above Scripture. Our cultures do not. Our traditions do not. Our ministry experience does not. Our favourite theologians do not. And our interpretations do not. Scripture judges us all.

Diversity Needs an Authority Outside Ourselves

This is one reason I find the vision represented by Iziko and GCC encouraging. Iziko wants to see local leaders raised up and Christ-centred churches planted in the actual communities of South Africa. That matters. We do not want churches that merely copy foreign cultures with Christian language added to them. GCC similarly speaks about contextual application while maintaining theological alignment. Its international vision recognises that healthy church-planting networks should be indigenous and autonomous, while remaining aligned around shared mission and theology. That combination matters.

Context without biblical authority eventually allows culture to determine Christianity. But biblical conviction without careful attention to context can confuse our own cultural preferences with what Scripture actually requires. We need both: an unchanging Word and faithful application in changing contexts. That is possible because Scripture stands above every one of us.

Keep the Bible Open Between Us

Perhaps that is one small lesson I brought home from Langebaan. We need one another. Churches need other churches. Pastors need other pastors. Brothers need brothers who will occasionally look across the breakfast table, or across the car, and say, “I don’t think that is what the text means.” But those relationships will only remain healthy if there is an authority higher than all of us. For Christians, that authority is God’s Word.

Our discussion began over breakfast in Langebaan and followed us into the car on the way to Cape Town International Airport. Lwandiso and I may return to 1 Samuel 28 one day and continue our particular disagreement. Yoyo and Muzi will probably make it lively again. And perhaps neither of us will change his mind. That is okay. Because Christian fellowship is not built on Lwandiso always agreeing with Siya, or Siya always agreeing with Lwandiso. It is built around Christ, under his Word. Our backgrounds may differ. Our churches may differ. Our cultures may differ. Sometimes even our interpretations will differ. But let the Bible remain open between us. And let the Word of God have the final word.