this are in Acts 16.6–10, where Paul and his companions are kept by the Spirit from preaching the word in Asia and Paul is called to Macedonia through a vision. Paul likely shared this vision with his team, who exercised their spiritual gifts in a process of discernment.
Fifth, Paul encouraged supportive delegation. He sent Timothy, for instance, as his representative to the Corinthian church and later to Ephesus (1 Cor. 4.17; 1 Tim. 1.3), and he encouraged team members to take the initiative (2 Cor. 8.17). At the same time, he ensured his co-workers were properly supported. The ‘pastoral epistles’, assuming they were written by Paul, are brimming with instructions and (in 2 Timothy) encouragement. They were the means of mentoring from a distance, as Timothy and Titus ‘learnt on the job’. Jesus had invested heavily in training his disciples, and Paul was a trainer too.
Finally, Paul’s extended network of associate workers became like a ‘holy internet’, exchanging news, advice, encouragement and, in particular, good practice (Thompson, 1998, p. 59). The Macedonians’ generosity became a prod to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 8.1–7). The Thessalonians’ response to the gospel became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thess. 1.6–7). Paul boasted to other churches about the Thessalonians’ perseverance and faith in the face of persecution (2 Thess. 1.4).
For reflection
Ralph Winter (1973) argued that throughout history the church has contained ‘modalities’, believers gathered as congregations, and ‘sodalities’ that have a specific focus, such as a mission agency or a local men’s club. The Spirit has tended to use sodalities to renew the church and increase its involvement in the world, such as the monastic movement and the Wesley revival.
According to Winter, Paul’s churches were a prototype of subsequent modalities, while his mission teams were prototypes of sodalities. Paul pioneered a modality/sodality structure that has been of enduring importance in the life of the church. Some people are seeing new contextual churches, and some of the networks that are starting to link them together, as forms of sodality for today.
However, would Paul have drawn this distinction? Would he have been happy with a description that focused mission on sodalities, as if modalities (or congregations) did not have mission obligations as well? Did not his evangelizing congregations blur the distinction between modalities and sodalities? Should we use language that drives a wedge between those parts of the church that are missional and those that are not?
Paul’s methods
In Hebrews 2.10 and 12.2 Jesus is described as a ‘pioneer’. The word equally means ‘trailblazer’.11 The idea of pioneering is also present in 6.20, where Jesus is described as the one ‘who went before us’. Acts can be read as the pioneer Jesus enabling Paul, through the Spirit, to be a trailblazer too. As well as relying on teams, how did Paul go about this task?
Paul’s strategy
Paul was strategic, as Dunn highlights. First, Paul had ‘a commitment to pioneer evangelism, to pursue his mission only in virgin territory’ (Dunn, 2009, p. 544). In 1 Corinthians 3.6, for example, Paul sees himself as having started something new while Apollos continued the work.
Second, he was determined to take the gospel to Jews first and then to the Gentiles. This was primarily ‘a strategic and principled concern’ that the gospel was the climax of God’s saving purpose for Israel and through Israel (Dunn, 2009, p. 547). But it also made practical sense. In the synagogues were Jews and ‘God-fearing’ Gentiles, who were attracted to the monotheistic faith of Israel but had not converted to Judaism. These God-fearers were likely to be more open to the gospel than their polytheistic compatriots, and – along with the Jews – had some knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures on which Paul and his team could build. Jews and God-fearers were well placed to form churches that would draw in Gentiles from outside the synagogues.
Third, Paul had a ‘grand strategy to fulfil the mission of Israel to the nations and to fulfil Israel’s eschatological hopes in regard to the nations’ (Dunn, 2009, p. 543). In his mission, Paul saw himself as acting on behalf of Israel. Dunn follows Rainer Riesner, who argues that the rough direction of Paul’s mission matched the principal direction of travel envisaged in the list of nations in Isaiah 66.19. As one influence on him, Paul seems to have viewed his mission as a fulfilment of Isaiah 66. He was going out to the nations at the end times. The financial gift from his churches for Jerusalem may have symbolized the nations gathering at Zion (Riesner, 1998, pp. 245–56).
Was this a view that Paul had from the start of his mission from Antioch, or did it emerge gradually in the light of his experience? If the latter, Paul can perhaps be seen as a practical theologian (in today’s language), learning from experience as he reflected theologically upon it.12
Paul’s fourth strategic priority was to breed in his new churches ‘a communal life lived in the light of the coming kingdom – deeply, but not openly, subversive’ (Dunn, 2009, p. 555). Not least, the brotherly and sisterly relationships of equality encouraged by Paul contrasted starkly with the hierarchical patron–client structures of the day.
Within this framework of principles, Paul was pragmatic and opportunist like many church founders today. As Schnabel notes, he did not have a rigid plan or method. Led by the Spirit, Paul responded when doors opened. He preached in synagogues, market places, lecture halls, workshops and private homes as the opportunity arose (Schnabel, 2008, pp. 304–6).
Evangelism was much more than preaching
Churchgoers often think of Paul as an evangelist who addressed public meetings. Although he did this (in synagogues and in a sense at Athens), there was much more to his evangelism than that. When he first arrived in a city, he familiarized himself with the local culture and seems to have become an acute commentator upon it. The obvious example was Athens, where Paul described how he ‘walked around and looked carefully at [their] objects of worship’ (Acts 17.23). Living in people’s homes and working as in Corinth would have given him plenty of opportunities to listen to people and get to know their ways of life.
Paul seems to have spent considerable time sharing the gospel ‘from house to house’ (Acts 20.20). To do this he had to be invited, which meant building relationships; he hung out with people. This included developing relationships with ‘persons of peace’ – people who play a key role in mission by putting the carrier of the gospel in touch with their networks (Luke 10.6). Paul’s breakthrough at Philippi begun by meeting with a group of women who had assembled for prayer, in particular Lydia ‘who was a worshipper of God’ and allowed Paul to use her home as a base (Acts 16.13–5). At Corinth Aquila and Priscilla, Jews who were leather-workers like Paul, provided a bridgehead (Acts 18.1–4). In Ephesus he searched out some ‘disciples’ and baptized them (Acts 19.1–7).
At Corinth Paul broke his rule of not baptizing people and baptized Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas. This may have been because Paul knew they were prominent people ‘who would sponsor his gospel to their dependents . . .’ (Osiek and MacDonald with Tulloch, 2006, p. 212). If true, they were classic examples of persons of
