target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#litres_trial_promo">Gehring, 2004, pp. 180–2). These bases sent workers to help Paul and his permanent colleagues for a limited time. Temporary workers ranged from householders like Stephanas to the slave, Onesimus, from the house of Philemon. Nearly a fifth were women (Schnabel, 2008, p. 251). Here was a very different approach to mission than the centrally organized team sent out from Antioch, travelling from place to place. Co-workers came and went from a variety of congregations, which often acted on their own initiative (for example Acts 18.27).
Like Ephesus, where a missional centre reached out to its hinterland, congregations increasingly engaged in evangelism. First Corinthians 9.1–2 implies that a number of apostles – church founders – emerged (see Eph. 4.11). Gifts of the Spirit to the church included evangelists (Eph. 4.11) and the witness of individual Christians was assumed to be desirable (1 Cor. 7.16; Titus 2.10; 1 Peter 3.1–2). Howard Marshall concludes:
The strong evidence of Acts is that local congregations expanded and grew through the efforts of their members; the story of the Hellenists who fled from Jerusalem and the growth of the church at Antioch is representative of what must have happened more widely. (Marshall, 2000, p. 263)
In a remarkably short time, Paul’s outreach had evolved from mission team to centre mission, based on a growing number of reproducing congregations. At the heart of centre mission was Paul’s team, involving a complex web of relationships in which over 50 people made various contributions (Dunn, 2009, pp. 566–71). As Dunn notes, Paul must have been a most accomplished leader who inspired personal loyalty and commitment (Dunn, 2009, p. 572).
Keys to effective teamwork
We know little about the day-to-day life of Paul’s teams, but from scattered hints we can detect some practices that made his teams effective. First, Paul took great care over selection. In the dispute about John Mark he was willing to break with Barnabas, with whom he had worked for a long time, to find a companion he could trust. Paul preferred to lose a team (and wait for the right one) than to proceed with the wrong team – a lesson perhaps for church founders today.
Second, if trust was a priority, so were forgiveness and reconciliation. Eventually the relationship between Paul and Mark was put right. Paul later described Mark as being helpful to him in his ministry and sent him to Colossae as his representative (2 Tim. 4.11; Col. 4.10). First Corinthians 9.6 may hint at reconciliation with Barnabas as well. Breakdown in relationships – not untypical in teams – was followed by restoration. Paul urged members of his new congregations to be reconciled with each other (for example Rom. 12.16–19) – and he expected the same of himself and his colleagues.
Third, decision-making was shared. If we take a traditional view of its authorship, the instructions in 1 Thessalonians came from Paul, Silas and Timothy together. Dunn quotes Murphy-O’Connor’s calculation that 74 per cent of 2 Corinthians 1—9 is written in the first person plural and only 26 per cent in the first person singular, which suggests that Timothy played an important role in composing these chapters (Dunn, 2009, p. 593, n. 340). Graham Cray notes how often Paul uses ‘we’ or ‘our’ when challenging the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 10.3–6; 12.19; 13.4–9). These challenges must have come after consulting others (Cray, 2010a, p. 15).
Fourth, team members shared their lives. They put their earnings into a common purse. Paul’s theology of sharing spiritual gifts within the body was presumably forged partly from the experiences of his teams. Hints of 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,