Accordingly, Nordstokke (2013:290) adds that diakonia is both congregational, ecumenical, local, and global because ‘the misery of distant places has been brought near to us’. Recent problems of natural disasters (like cyclones) and pandemics (i.e. the COVID-19) exposed the indispensability of diakonia as a missionary discipline that needs internal and external attention.

That is why the Lutheran World Federation’s Communion of Churches (2009:26–30) regards diakonia as a fundamental part of the identity of the Church. Taken from leadership designations recorded in the letters of Paul (Rm 11:13; 2 Cor 4:1; Col 4:17), it reflects on empathy and generosity for marginalised widows, orphans, and the poor, which led to the installation of seven deacons in Acts 6. This was not only a caring ministry of the Church, but a deliberate demonstration of the gospel, which Resane (2019:6) presents as the incarnational love of Christ in action. Suitably, Norpel (n.d.) says that the Church is called to serve humanity and ‘unless the Church is servant, she has no justification for her existence. She is nothing without diakonia, her mission.’

The missio ecclesiae in Figure 1; commonly involves kerygma [proclamation of the gospel], leitourgia [worship and sacraments] and koinonia [congregational, denominational, and ecumenical fellowship]. It is complemented by diakonia [demonstration of the gospel through acts of service in communities], such as addressing social, economic, and political issues bedevilling the needy. Without diakonia, the Church is only salvific, and she loses her rootedness in and connectivity with real life. Therefore, she ought to be contextually relevant and inclusive by showcasing the gospel through serving the needy. In my concurrence, the Lutheran World Federation’s Communion of Churches (2009) observes that:

While remaining principally biblical through lovely and gracious selflessness to get mankind to Godliness, diakonia can be effective when supplemented by sociological ideals of Ubuntu, sustainable empowerment, and development towards curbing dependence syndromes. This concurs with the viewpoints of Breed and Semenya (2015:7) that humanity or humanness (Ubuntu) must be realised by identifying with, serving, and empowering each other. Subsequently, diakonia enlightens people to share the love, grace, resources, and sustenance of God respectively. It begets successive discipleship for the sustainability and continuity of missio Dei and missio ecclesiae. Considering that this article reviews diakonia in African neo-Pentecostalism, the following subsection overviews neo-Pentecostalism.

It is observed that most African neo-Pentecostal leaders take the Bible literally, misinterpret it and thus develop wrong theologies. Examples of Scriptures that they misconstrue, include the Old Testament book of Malachi 3:6–12 which numerous neo-Pentecostals publicly use to legalise tithing when the New Testament require cheerful giving. Likewise, issues of seeding through ‘men of God’ (whereby congregants are told to sacrificially give their pastors more cash and kind gifts because blessings correspond with their giving), imply an unbiblical theology that trades off blessings. While the concept of ‘seeding’ is biblical, the author agrees with Muyambo (2020:26–27) who argues that ‘most church leaders have been in the firing line for encouraging seeding for their personal gain’, while believers who seed continue to plummet in poverty. Relatively, such self-enriching leaders neglect diakonia, while impoverishing their congregations and communities. This article detects that most self-serving neo-Pentecostal heads are a mixed bag of theologically trained and untrained founders and leaders. Very few of them hold diplomas and degrees in theological education. In agreement with scholars such as Wahl (2013:267), Hadebe (2017:3), Amanze (2008:2–3), Bowers (2007:138), Brunsdon and Knoetze (2021:278), theological education and training matters to prepare and enhance African gospel ministers to be competent. Accordingly, it is believed that those who go through seminaries, Bible schools, theological colleges and universities get enlightened enough to research, interpret, teach, preach, and apply Scripture properly. Scripturally, training and education augment the work of ministry as the following references reflect:

When leaders misinterpret the Bible, they eventually misuse and abuse it, advance wrong theologies, and manipulate their congregations for self-enrichment. This is why some of them have been selling anointing oils, wristbands, stickers, and handkerchiefs; charging one-on-one counselling, prophetic meetings, and related schemes to enrich themselves as reflected by the following media headlines:

Besides that, some neo-Pentecostal leaders have a narrow salvific theology of missio Dei and missio ecclesiae. They focus on kerygma and ignore other dimensions of the mission. Arguably, theological education can correct their hermeneutics and theology of mission to work beyond kerygma to diakonia. However, theological education may not tackle wrong hermeneutics and theologies alone. This is because theological education is also spoiled by the proliferation of self-serving, ill-resourced denominational and interdenominational schools. Some neo-Pentecostals established their own institutions and prophetic and charismatic curriculums, and used their loyal subordinates to teach their wrong theologies! Meanwhile, several African theological institutions are currently economically constrained and losing experts, who are leaving for greener pastures elsewhere. The remnant of competent theologians is now frustrated by meagre remuneration and is no longer giving their best attention to students. Although we still have a fraction of passionate trainers who continue to equip upcoming ministers of religion, we cannot dispute the fact that standards fall when economies plummet. Thus, even those who enrol at formerly sound institutions may no longer be getting the expected standards. Moreover, some of the neo-Pentecostal leaders do not value education. They secularise knowledge and spiritualise ignorance. ‘Studying theology will not call, anoint, and empower me to deliver in ministry. God calls and equips His own!’, said one of the Zimbabwean Church leaders in an ecumenical WhatsApp group discussion. It is agreeable, as reflected before, that theological education does not guarantee ministerial effectiveness. Generally, this is because education is theoretical, and ministry is practical. That is why there are some uneducated and other less educated gospel ministers who appear to be doing very well in ministry, while some of the educated are failing. Nonetheless, various benefits of theological education, such as hermeneutical skills, leadership know-how, communication skills and philosophical empowerment cannot be nullified.

Studies suggest that the majority of African neo-Pentecostal churches lack leadership accountability, stewardship of resources as well as accommodate autonomy and the abuse of authority. Some of the scholars who have studied this, White and Pondani (2022), find that most neo-Pentecostal denominations are under the leadership of untrained and unaccountable prophets, and say that in the light of the gaps in good stewardship and accountability, one might argue that imposters may have entered into the ‘Church’ because the very absence of regulation makes it easier to engage in fraud without detection.

In agreement with the scholars, mentorship can help. As Graffius (2019) notes:

Defined by Akano (2022:26) by means of discipleship, instructing or training of an individual through the words and deeds for their enlightenment, empowerment and development, biblical examples of mentorship of Joshua by Moses, Elisha by Elijah, the 12 disciples by Jesus Christ, Paul by Barnabas, and Timothy by Paul, signify its importance. When leaders lack mentorship and accountability, they neglect servanthood and become authoritarian, because nobody advises and corrects them. Although some leaders engage with those who do the same as they do to become their ‘spiritual fathers’, they get more of their extremes! Popular examples are such as the Malawian prophet, Shepherd Bushiri, who calls himself ‘Major One’ who publicised his submission to the Zimbabwean prophet, Eubert Angel, who is based in the United Kingdom. Prophet Eubert Angel, who also calls himself Major ‘Prophet’, submits to the Nigerian pastor, Chris Oyakilome. Zimbabwean Emmanuel Makandiwa is mentored by the Ghanaian prophet, Victor Boateng. Such, and related mentees and mentors, are all charismatic prophets, prosperity gospel proponents and well publicised in the mainstream media as controversial, self-centred and commercialising the gospel (Banda 2021:5; Benyah 2018:125–128; Kgatle 2022a:4–5; Moyet 2021:n.p.; Nehanda Radio, 15 April 2016a; The Standard, 01 March 2015). Such a kind of mentorship is arguably ineffective. It only yields their personal interests, such as impartation for prophetic and miraculous exploits. Somehow, having and publicising a foreign spiritual father also decorates and maximises one’s popularity and followers. Genuine mentorship with sound leaders who can provide biblical counselling begets objective discipleship for holistic ministry that encompasses diakonia.

As well observed by Orogun (2020:218), lots of African neo-Pentecostal churches developed family dynasties and monarchical systems in which denominational ownership, trusteeship and royalty are retained within the founder’s family. The generality of neo-Pentecostal leaders appoint their spouses, trusted family members, relatives, and friends into pivotal key leadership positions. Examples such as the Zimbabwe Assemblies of God in Africa (ZAOGA, based in Zimbabwe), Christ Embassy (in Nigeria), Spirit Embassy (in Zimbabwe), Power Chapel Worldwide (in Ghana), Alleluia Ministries (in South Africa) and Be Free church (in Botswana)’s leaders, family members or closest and most loyal friends are the signatories to all their denominational accounts. Additionally, the founders and family members are title deeds holders of all the fixed and movable assets of their churches. Thus, they have turned their churches into family possessions. While such practices are common and acceptable in secular businesses, they are unacceptable in ecclesiology. Although issues of loyalty, calling and ministries are mentioned as the main factors behind their stance, the trend suggests conquest and retention of power, wealth, and security. Appointing family members, relatives, and friends into positions of authority, keeps benefits among themselves. Consequently, they serve themselves instead of serving the people. When they consider giving, relatives and friends will be prioritised. Yet, the diaconal ministry should not be selective. It is arguable that nepotism rises from flawed hermeneutics and wrong theologies because, if God and his Bible are well conceptualised, anybody whom God calls and gifts for ministry, will be taken on board regardless of how close they are to church founders and leaders. When that is respected, missio ecclesiae and diakonia would be inclusively and impartially attended to. Expediently, it is recommendable for ecumenical bodies to counsel neo-Pentecostal church leaders on theological, governmental, and administrative issues through seminars and conferences. Even if some big-headed leaders may not attend, as they can disregard dissenting voices, progressive ecumenical engagements can serve others.

Economic crises and poverty have been worsening in Africa since 2008 (Christensen 2023:n.p.; Jennings & Oldiges 2020:1–2; Maswana 2010:2; Nyika 2005:1). Such a predicament also constrained churches from affording diakonia. Considering that many Pentecostals depend on tithes, freewill offerings, and other congregational gifts, they correspondingly lost much income, as congregants have been losing incomes, especially when COVID-19 crumbled businesses, jobs, and revenues.

Resultantly, a number of economically challenged neo-Pentecostal denominations have been struggling to meet their operating costs (i.e. electricity, water bills and pastors’ support). As such, they got incapacitated and do not afford any missionary work. Besides attending internal leitourgia (worship services) at local venues, affected churches lost the capacity for any external missionary programmes. The costs of fuel, electricity and related essentials rose from the effects of COVID-19, the Ukrainian war and local African political volatility; everything got expensive.

In such a situation, very few churches attended diakonia. Large numbers of neo-Pentecostals narrowed their focus to their congregational and family needs. However, economic difficulties cannot justify inattention to diakonia. Arguably, genuine other-centred disciples can always share the little they have with others. As Jesus Christ exemplified love, selflessness, other-centredness, and generosity (i.e. Phlp 2:5–8; 2 Cor 8:9; Jn 5:30), his followers should always strive to be selfless, as mirrored by Philippians 2:3–4:

Thus, economic excuses cannot rationalise limiting or neglecting diaconal ministry. As Augustine (2016:79) deducts communal economics from Acts 4.32–33, collective sharing enhances sustenance even in harsh times. Ideally, national and international ecumenical bodies should facilitate deliberations on biblical communal economics and diakonia. Such efforts can serve the needy from the greedy when leaders are enlightened to live the gospel diaconal.

Neo-Pentecostal ecclesiologies and governance are pastors-centred. The majority of African neo-Pentecostal founders and leaders claim to be theocratic while using dictatorial and autocratic leadership styles as and when they choose, mostly for the advancement of their own interests. Many times, they micromanage everything.

Sharma (2022:n.p.) conceptualises micromanagement as a management style with direct and total control, supervision, involvement and frequent checking of every detail, work and performance. Consequentially, such management personalises and degrades professional administration. Thereupon, planning, budgeting, mobilisation, and distribution of resources fulfil needs and wants of the leading few at the expense of the followers.

In such scenarios, resources are often exhausted in meeting leaders’ priorities and very little, if any, is left for holistic missio ecclesiae. Generally, kerygma and leitourgia get attention while koinonia and diaconia remain unattended. Observations in some African churches uncovered that most neo-Pentecostal prophets and pastors rarely attend congregants’ funerals, weddings, and related events. They only visit and socialise with selected wealthy congregants who give them much and seldom attend to the masses. For the rest, they sometimes send representatives and generally neglect the unknown needy. Likewise, such leaders’ diakonia is selective. While few of them established diaconal committees to serve their caring ministries, scores of them usually care for their relatives, friends, and/or supporters. Yet, choosy diakonia is ungodly. As the good Samaritan (Lk 10:25–37) embodied Christly diakonia, it should be open for everyone who is in need.

So, it is advisable to shun pastor-centred ecclesiology, authoritarian leadership styles, uphold professional administration and accountancy to realise diakonia in -neo-Pentecostalism. Considering that self-serving leaders may not reform themselves out of power and affluence, an inclusive, independent, and non-governmental regulatory body could help. This is recommendable because existing local ecumenical bodies are exclusive to either evangelicalism, Pentecostalism, or other orientations. Thus, an interfaith regulatory body can be established with representatives from different backgrounds. This is also suggested against State regulation, which is retrogressive in view of religious freedom as Henrico (2019:12) and Pollitt (2017:n.p.) note. All things considered for the sake of impartial engagements, reviews, and enforcement of progressive development of accountable church governance, administration and diakonia, an inclusive and independent body is highly recommendable. As long as pastor-centred ecclesiology, authoritarianism, micromanagement, and maladministration remain unquestioned, self-styled neo-Pentecostals may continue serving themselves instead of serving others.