The missionary methods of Paul are not too difficult to trace. We note first of all
that the mission begins in a firmly established, mature local church, who took the great
commission seriously. This church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, selected their
most mature, experienced leaders for the mission and sent them out into Galatia, the
neighbouring region.
During this first missionary journey (Acts 13-14) we see Paul going from town to town
throughout Galatia seizing every opportunity to speak the gospel. In each town those who
are receptive to the message and believe are drawn together and taught both the fullness
of the gospel message and the lifestyle that is consistent with it - this process probably
taking a couple of months at each location. Paul then moves onto the next town to speak the
gospel there also. Then after 12-18 months he returns to the churches in each town and
appoints elders over them and commits them to the grace of God (Acts 14:21-23). Paul
continues to instruct and spur these churches on to maturity through letters and visits
from himself or his 'trainees'. These new churches were to continue on with the great
commission from their newly established home base. This pattern could be illustrated in a
cycle as follows:
Although Luke doesn't record all these details in the later missions of Paul, the detail that he does record is strikingly consistent with this pattern in the first journey. You might also note that:
Paul was concerned that the believers both understood the truth and lived a life
consistent with it. He took Our Lord seriously when He says 'teaching them to obey all
that I have commanded you' (Matt 28:20). This strong lifestyle orientation from Paul's
teaching cannot be overlooked. Paul's teaching was not primarily academic study, nor was
it primarily something that could be learned in the classroom. His letters were to be
lived and breathed and acted upon. Paul's teaching was always driving towards an
outcome - obedience.
His letters included things that young believers needed to learn in order to be solid in
their life and faith, things that maturing believers needed to learn in order to strengthen
the church and benefit the mission and things that mature church leaders needed to learn in
order to lead a network of churches to fulfill Christ's commission.
The letters can be categorised as follows:
Young Churches and Young Believers
Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans
The recipients of these letters are roughly 1 to 5 years old (from their spiritual birth)
with the exception of the Roman church. Paul's teaching to young these young believers and
young churches was primarily focussed on gospel content and conduct. He was concerned that
young believers not only understood the gospel but also how it impacted on their lives
individually and as a church. It's in these books that we have:
Maturing Churches and Maturing Believers
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon
The recipients of these letters were roughly 5 to 10 years old (from their spiritual birth).
Paul's teaching to these believers/churches was primarily focused on understanding and
living out the mission of the church. Paul wanted these individuals and churches to
understand the nature of the relationships which bound them into the overall framework of
God's mission on this earth and to live lives consistent with that. The notable 'modules'
within this part of the curriculum are:
Mature Church Leaders
1 & 2 Timothy, Titus
These leaders had roughly 10 to 20 years training alongside Paul.
Paul's teaching to the mature church leaders was mostly concerned about the preservation
of The Faith as it had been handed to them. 1 Tim 4:16 would be the catchcry of these
letters: "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do,
you will save both yourself and your hearers".
It is particularly concerned with:
The instructional material used in the letters in each category is astonishingly similar in content, helping us to understand how Paul went about strengthening and maturing the believers and establishing the churches he planted.
Roles, Responsibilities and Authority of Church Leaders
The mystery of God's church and its functions were revealed by Christ to the Apostles, particularly to Paul (Eph 3:1-12), and were passed down the ages to us through the historical record of Acts and the letters to the first century churches. As we seek to understand roles, responsibilities and the authority of church leaders today it is imperative that we go to these writings for God's mind on leadership within His Church.
Missional (apostolic/prophet) Leadership
Missional (apostolic) leadership within the Scriptures was that leadership which,
under God's authority, led, directed and facilitated large portions or networks of God's
Church throughout the first century. This leader formed a centralised, yet mobile, base
from which the work was led forward (Peter in Acts 8-11, Paul in Acts 13-28). His example
of Christian life and conduct set the DNA of the churches established under his oversight
(1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15 along with all the Letters). He took responsibility for
carefully appointing church leaders and ensuring they led well (Acts 6:1-7, 14:23,
Titus 1:5, 1 Tim, 2 Tim) The major disputes among the churches were bought to this
leadership (along with the elders, brothers) (Acts 11:1;15:6,22-23) and put to rest under
his hand (see Acts 6:1-7,15; 15:22-23 also 1 &2 Corinthians, Galatians).
Paul's aim is to build up the community's ability to look after such matters (disputes), 'working with' the members rather than 'lording it over' them. If he is forced to confront them, the 'rod' that he brings is the rod of the word, and his preference is to come in love and with a gentle spirit. (1)
It may be necessary to clarify the type of authoritative leadership that was exhibited here. It was not Paul's desire to control the churches but rather to selflessly and assertively ensure that the true DNA was set in those churches for which he was accountable.
Control is deciding what people can and can't do. Accountability is rendering an account of what a person has or has not already done. Control is more a power issue. Accountability is more an integrity issue. (2)
The missional leaders work was not a domineering, secretive or self promoting kind of leadership, nor was it a democratic, 'how does everyone feel about that' kind of leadership. He is on a mission from God to see the nations won for the Lord, and he spends his time fulfilling this cause.
Wolfgang Simson's analogy of the prophet and apostle can be helpful as we try to identify this type of leadership :
The prophet is way ahead of the flock of sheep, perhaps five miles beyond the next hill. He is on the lookout. There he hears God's voice and sees visions, enters the throne room of God and glimpses something. It may be actually very good that he is away from the flock, because few really understand him. He is interested not so much in people and what they think of him, but in God's voice for the situation. Added to that he often has a complicated and disorganised personality exactly because he is so uniquely gifted. Can you imagine having a relaxed half an hour drinking coffee with Jeremiah? He would probably tear you and me apart and use the coffee for an illustration... He hears God's voice and mercilessly questions everything, including the pastor, from God's perspective.
The apostle is not as far from the flock as the prophet. He is about three miles away, just on the top of the next hill instead of being on the other side like the prophet. From this commanding point he can see the big picture and study his map, looking for greener pasture. He generally has no time for house visits and small talk; 'the world is his church'. Like Paul he is never really satisfied: after Rome, he wants to go to Spain! His core word is 'strategy', his heartbeat is 'missions': he wants God's plans to come true for the nations. Apostles are very much like generals in an army. They carry the main burden and responsibility for the advancement of the cause. (3)
This type of leadership was not confined to the original apostles only, but also included such people as Timothy, who became the key leader in Ephesus (the base for all the work in Asia and base for the westward movement of the gospel), Titus, who was given the work of ordering the churches throughout the whole island of Crete, as well as Barnabas, Phillip and Epaphroditus.
This form of leadership is essential today if we are to see a genuinely united, missional front for the gospel, forging ahead into today's culture and society. The challenge for the church today is to recognise the hand of God directing such a leader and submit to God's leadership through him, particularly as he sets the DNA of new churches, appoints church leaders, settles disputes and leads the church in the furtherance of the gospel.
Michael Frost and Alan Hirsh make the following comment on this type of leadership as they introduce a chapter of their book 'The shape of things to come' :
In this chapter we want to explore perhaps one of the most significant aspects needed for the transition from Christendom mode to a missional mode of the church; a shift to apostolic leadership. In fact without this (shift) the missional church is unlikely to rise at all, and if it does manage to survive birth, it will not last long because it will lack the leadership structure to sustain it over the long distance. If anything, a new type of leadership must precede any meaningful transition to missional church...
This issue of the development of a new kind of leadership is possibly the single most important question of strategy in this decade, and whether the church responds correctly or not will determine to some extent it's survival as a viable expression of the gospel in years to come. (4)
It may also be helpful to further clarify our point here with a quote from a writer of many years ago who expressed his views on this subject as he grappled with the issues of leadership in a growing network of new churches :
J N Darby writes: "An apostle was sent direct as an architect, authorised by Christ to build His church. ... to found and to build and to establish rules in the church.
But it appears to me, that in a lower sense, there may be apostles and prophets in all ages. Barnabas is termed an apostle. Junius and Andronicus are called apostles, and it is said of them that they were 'of note among amongst the apostles' (Rom 16.7); so that there were others who were not named.
As regards the revelation of God, it is complete; as regard any authority to found the church it no longer exists: neither the twelve nor Paul have any successors. The foundation cannot be twice laid. But one may act under and extraordinary responsibility as sent by God. We may cite as examples, without pretending to justify all that they did, a Luther, a Calvin, a Zwingli and perhaps others. So for prophets; although there be no new revelations of truth, there may be, a proceeding for God himself, a power of applying to the circumstances of the church, or of the world, truths hidden in the Word; such as, in practice might render the ministry prophetic." (5)
Pauline Team
In the 1st century Apostolic (Missional) leaders did not work alone. Each leader had
a small group of 'leaders with potential' that followed them wherever they went. Barnabas
takes Mark (Acts 15:39), Paul takes Silas and Timothy (15:40, 16:3-4) and continues to
pick up men throughout his journeys (Acts 20:4). These men formed what we call the Pauline
team, a team of leaders both leading and being trained for greater leadership. They
recognised God working through Paul and submitted their time, energies and possessions to
the work of God through this man. Paul had them delivering letters (1 Thess), establishing
churches (Titus), planting churches (Acts 18:18-20) and maintaining order in churches,
among other things. Their role was to do what Paul put in front of them to do and to remain
true to the task that Paul had set for them. This team of men ministered with the
authority of God (through the apostle) as they went. It was as though people were dealing
with Paul himself as they talked and discussed with members of the Pauline team
(1 Thess 3, Timothy, 2 Cor 8, Titus).
When visiting churches these colleagues have a role as itinerants, not as residents ... Paul's associates do not have a settled and official role in the congregations but rather an ambassadorial and exemplary one. They do not reside among the congregations but only visit them for a defined period of time and exert spiritual rather than formal authority through the quality of their love and faithfulness to Paul's teaching. (6)
As in the 1st century, developing networks today require this type of leadership to spearhead the work of the gospel. The role of the team is to carry out the tasks assigned by the Missional Leader (Church-planter) under his direction and instruction. They individually input to the team's discussion and decision-making and see that those decisions are filtered through into the life of the churches. Their role, like that of the Missional Leader, is temporary, transitional and terminal as their work is done when the church is established and entrusted to local workers. They then move on to new frontiers, circling back to encourage and monitor the church where necessary.
Elders / Shepherds / Household Leaders
In the first century Elders/Shepherds were men chosen by Paul or members of his Pauline
team to care for and feed a local church under the care and guidance of the church
planting team. These were men who had proven their shepherding capabilities in the
nurturing of their own family relationships and providing pastoral leadership for their
own household (1 Tim 3, Tit 1). Their main role was to extend the love, care, protection
and security found within their own household to the people of a local church
(1 Tim 3:5,15) and in so doing shepherd and feed the people in their flock (1 Peter 5:1-11).
The ordered household relationships naturally overflow with all the love,
others-centeredness, maturity and mentoring necessary for the nurture, feeding,
encouraging and establishing of the church, and this ordered household creates a
perfect environment for such activities to take place.
The pastor, in the charismatic and biblical - not the tradition - sense, is by nature a shepherd: he stands in the midst of the flock of sheep. Everything mills around him; but nowhere in the New Testament do we find a pastor truly leading a congregation. He is by nature a very loving person who can create a family atmosphere. To him relationships are the most important, simply because he is interested in the flock's long-term spiritual well being. The good shepherd knows the names of the dolls of the children of the adults he is caring for; he is interested in every last detail. ... his motto is 'relationships are everything!' The Pastor focuses on redeeming relationships with God and redeeming relationships with each other, and helps others to function in this relational way also. (7)
These activities would included such things as teaching, protecting, sympathising, encouraging and being an example of godliness and faithfulness to all of the individuals under their care (1 Tim 3, Tit 2, 1 Pet 5). They worked with and sometimes under the authority of the Pauline team as they fulfilled their roles in harmony with the advance of the gospel.
Group Leaders (Servants)
This kind of leadership is somewhat obscure in Scripture although would have to have been
present for the churches to function. There is a sense in which these leaders aspire to
this task of Shepherd/Elder/Household leader (1 Tim 3:1). They are in the process of
ordering their household relationships are and accepting some responsibility within
individual churches. Responsibilities are given comparable to their competence as an Elder
(1 Tim 3, Tit 1), particularly the orderliness of their household relationships. They are
given limited authority for particular tasks as assigned to them by the Pauline team or
the local elders.
Rowland Croucher's comments are interesting, if a little challenging:
What of Christ's gift of leadership to his people? Sometimes Brethren assemblies are eldered by people who may be faithful, but lack leadership skills. Is it time for all of our assemblies/churches to look hard at the appointment of pastor- teachers? What authority should they have? (Titus was asked by Paul to 'appoint' elders: should a pastor have that kind of authority today?). The NT seems to have three 'authorities' - episcopal (strong rule by some individuals), presbyterian (rule by elders), and congregational (participation by all in the decision-making process). (8)
