out by their opponents, Paul and Barnabas returned to Lystra and Iconium. Opposition seems to have waned sufficiently for them to stay for a while ‘strengthening’ and ‘encouraging’ the disciples. But they did not remain for long. They appointed elders, even though the believers had been Christians for only a few months, and left.
The direction to Timothy – to entrust what he had learnt to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others (2 Tim. 2.2) – clearly reflects a Pauline principle of growing leaders who would instruct other people. The heart of Allen’s understanding is that the church lives by faith in Christ, whose gifts – including ‘the gift-bearing missionary Spirit’ – are sufficient for its life (Paton, 1968, p. 26, 29).
Paul trusted the Spirit to supply whatever an infant church required, and put in place only the bare essentials before moving on: a ‘tradition or elementary Creed, the Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion, Orders [that is leadership], and the Holy Scriptures’ (Allen, 2006, p. 107). Paul made sure that new leaders had support after he left. ‘Between the Apostle and the elders in every Church were the young men whose names crop up towards the end of the epistles – Timothy, Titus, Epaphras, Luke, Onesimus, Silvanas, and all the rest of them.’ They made available to the local church resources it did not have (Paton, 1968, p. 37).
Pressing forward into new territory, Paul kept a watchful eye on what happened in his new churches and exercised authority through his co-workers. Writing of 1 Corinthians 9.1–2, Dunn notes that the authority of the ‘apostle’ was very much tied in to the apostle’s role in establishing a church: Paul was not an apostle to others because he had not founded their churches, but he was to the Corinthians because through the Spirit he had brought their church to birth (Dunn, 2009, p. 539).
According to Allen, the early church grew spontaneously by organizing little groups as individuals were converted, handing on to them a simple organization that connected them to the wider church, equipping them with all the spiritual power and authority necessary for their corporate existence and authorizing them to repeat the process (Allen, 1997, p. 143). Speedy delegation was accompanied by continuing support.
This picture needs qualifying, however. There were times when Paul was forced to leave his new churches more quickly than he wanted. In 1 Thessalonians 2.17–9 he wrote of ‘making every effort’ to see the Thessalonians, having been ‘torn away from’ them. He was anxious enough to send Timothy to them (3.1–3), and was relieved when Timothy brought back good news (v. 6). When he had the chance, Paul stayed longer in Corinth (for 18 months – Acts 18.11) and in Ephesus (for at least two years – Acts 18.10). Yet even these ‘long’ periods are remarkably short compared to the five years or more that many founders stay with their gatherings today.
Handing over leadership quickly must have been helped by the composition of Paul’s churches. Dunn notes that Paul’s letters were addressed largely to Gentile audiences, yet are peppered with quotations and allusions to the Hebrew Bible. Paul must have assumed that these references would have resonated ‘in the echo-chamber of a much wider knowledge of Israel’s Scriptures’ (Dunn, 2009, p. 563). Presumably, the gospel could take root quickly partly because Jews and God-fearing Gentiles knew their Hebrew Bible.
Church took its shape from future leaders
It is also striking how the New Testament church was sculpted round the most pervasive form of leadership in ancient society – leadership within the household. Whereas synagogues moved out of the home as the congregation grew, there is no sign of this happening in the primitive church.15 Church gatherings remained firmly house bound. Was this partly because finding leaders for new congregations became relatively simple when believers gathered round an existing household, which had leadership already in place?
Gehring, supported by Dunn (2009, p. 571), argues that Paul deliberately concentrated on more wealthy people when he entered a town because they were potential leaders and their homes would provide a base of operations. He did this with Lydia at Philippi for instance (Acts 16.13–5), and also at Corinth. Remarkably, even though most of the Corinthian Christians had comparatively low social origins (1 Cor. 1.26), Paul broke his rule of not baptizing converts only in the case of three households – and these were from the upper economic strata (vv. 14–7).
‘The church in the house came with its leadership so to speak “built in”’ (Gehring, 2004, pp. 185–7; 194). Among the more wealthy, household heads were educated, had experience of teaching their own families and had financial responsibility for the home. They were well equipped, therefore, to lead a gathering based on their households and to share in the leadership of the church city wide.
Most likely, leadership tended to take the form of ‘love-patriarchalism’. The social order was retained, but mutual love based on the gospel was fostered by household heads serving as leaders of the congregations in their homes. In poorer areas, where there was no patron to function as a leader, leadership may have been collective rather than hierarchical (Jewett, 2007, pp. 65–6). Though the author had no connection to Paul, might such a context be in mind in Matthew 18.17, where disputes between brethren are to be taken to the church rather than to church leaders?
For reflection
Knowledge of the Old Testament meant that Paul’s Jewish and ‘God-fearing’ converts had good foundations for Christian faith, which made it easier for Paul to move on rapidly. By contrast in our culture, where increasingly people have little or no knowledge of the Bible, bringing a church to birth is likely to take much longer. Is it realistic to expect church founders to leave anything like as fast as did Paul?
Paul seems to have founded leadership-shaped churches that took their structure in part from the nature of leadership in their contexts. Might communities that fit the available leadership be crucial in birthing sustainable churches today? If new churches take their shape from the available leadership, what difference would it make? How would this work in poor urban areas where there is often an acute shortage of leadership?
Conclusion
Against the background of a swing in emphasis from ‘come’ to ‘go’ mission, Paul strove to maintain good relationships with his fellow apostles and relied on teams. He adopted an ‘incarnational’ strategy based on being attentive to context, loving and serving, building community, allowing individuals to come to faith at different paces and founding, in the midst of life, churches that were self-reproducing. His churches were culture specific with indigenous forms of leadership.
Paul modelled new contextual church. Yet some of the ‘For reflection’ boxes warn against making simplistic links between the New Testament and today. Even so, Paul cannot be ignored. By planting churches that started other churches, he modelled church reproduction, which has inspired numerous church planters and much of the church planting literature. To the extent that he is an example to follow, he has set the bar at a challenging height for church founders today.
Further reading
Banks, Robert, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in their Historical Setting, Exeter: Paternoster, 1980.
Dunn,
