Church for Every Context. Michael Moynagh
Rather than Peter backing down and Paul prevailing in his argument as traditionally assumed, probably most New Testament scholars today believe that the Antioch church sided with Peter (Dunn, 2009, p. 491, n. 312). This view rests on Paul’s failure to tell us he prevailed. When he won the day at the earlier meeting in Jerusalem, he says so (Gal. 2.6–10). If he had been equally successful at Antioch, why did he not say that Peter, Barnabas and the others agreed with him? This would have greatly strengthened his argument to the Galatians.3 Instead of Paul persuading the others, it seems that there was a serious breach.
If we take this view, the succeeding story of the ‘mixed economy’ becomes remarkable. In an astonishing act of magnanimity, Paul after a while suggested to Barnabas, who had sided with Peter, that they go together to visit the churches they had founded (Acts 15.36). Paul must have felt let down by Barnabas and perhaps Barnabas thought that Paul had been unreasonable, yet they were still ready to work together. The partnership broke down because Barnabas wanted to take John Mark, but Paul was concerned about his reliability – he had deserted them on their previous missionary journey (Acts 15.37–9).
Nevertheless, Paul continued his missionary work. Assuming Luke’s chronology, after a period he returned to the Antioch church (Acts 18.22–3), even though – due to the outcome of the earlier dispute – he was unable to identify with its Peter-leaning ethos (Murphy-O’Connor, 2002, p. 170). He then established a second base for mission at Ephesus (Acts 19.9–10).
It seems that the two sides in the Antioch dispute permitted some widening of the distance between them. Paul went to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews (Gal. 2.8),4 each following the Spirit within their mission spheres. Yet both sides maintained good relationships. When famine hit Judaea, Paul organized a financial gift from his new congregations to the Jerusalem church (1 Cor. 16.1–4). Then he ‘tore himself away’ from his missionary work (Acts 21.1) to give an account of his activities to the leaders in Jerusalem.5 The brothers there received him warmly, the elders rejoiced in the fruits of his labour and Paul agreed to the elders’ request to demonstrate, as a Jew, his willingness to observe the Jewish laws (Acts 21.17–26). Despite their differences, both sides of the Antioch debate worked hard to maintain fellowship.
For reflection
Just as the admission of Gentiles without circumcision challenged more conservative Jewish believers, some Christians today feel that new contextual churches are challenging their church identities. Yet for all its strains, the Jewish–Gentile ‘mixed economy’ survived by allowing space for two different notions of Christian identity to exist side by side – one with a Jewish and the other with a Gentile flavour. The two sides allowed diversity and gave priority to preserving magnanimous relationships. Ultimately, when identity-charged practices diverged, what held the believers together – through the Spirit – was their determination to relate well at a personal level.
How far does this provide a blueprint for today’s ‘mixed economy’? It certainly illustrates how different traditions within the church can – and should – maintain fellowship. But does this mean that new and existing types of church must develop relationships within the current denominational structures? While maintaining fellowship has to take some structural form, are those who sit light to the denominations right to question whether fellowship must assume today’s institutions?
Paul’s use of teams
The literature on entrepreneurs contains calls for less focus on the ‘heroic’ entrepreneur and more on entrepreneurial teams (Cooney, 2005, pp. 226–7). Might this apply also to pioneers of church? Paul’s experience is highly suggestive. He was far more than a ‘serial pioneer’ – founding one church after another: he also mobilized other pioneers, and this was one of the keys to the outstanding fruitfulness of his missionary work.
From mission team to centre mission
Paul followed the pattern of Jesus, who both assembled a team of disciples and sent them to announce the kingdom in pairs (Luke 10.1). He had a strong sense of being part of a team. ‘I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow’ (1 Cor. 3.6). ‘For we are God’s fellow workers’ (1 Cor. 3.9). He saw himself as collaborating with others both to initiate church and build it up into a ‘temple’, whose holy living made it a fit place for God’s presence (Barton, 2003, pp. 37–8).
On Paul’s so-called ‘first’ missionary journey,6 he and Barnabas were commissioned as a pair, but they quickly brought in John Mark as a helper (Acts 13.5). It seems that they preferred to work as a three. When they acted as a pair in Galatia, it was because Mark had left them rather than out of choice (Acts 13.13). On his second journey, Paul started with Silas but soon added Timothy (Acts 16.1–2). Being half Greek, Timothy came from a similar background to some of the people Paul was seeking to reach and strengthened the team’s ethnic mix (Hopkins, 1988, p. 12). Later, as Paul’s teams grew in size they became more culturally diverse, which must have further helped them to relate to the diversity of people they encountered (Acts 20.4).
Members joining or leaving the team frequently did so in pairs – Silas and Timothy in Acts 18.5, Timothy and Erastus in Acts 19.22 and presumably Paul and Luke in Acts 20.6 (Hopkins, 1988, p. 12). This highlights again how teams were central to Paul’s approach.
Where possible, Paul seems to have preached the gospel while others on the team did the work of catechesis (Acts 18.5; 1 Cor. 1.14–17). Is this why Luke, on the second and third journeys, became a valued member? Was he perhaps collecting stories about Jesus, which he passed on to the new converts and eventually became his Gospel?7 Paul’s teams expanded as his work matured. On his third journey, he was accompanied by at least eight people for a period.8 Larger teams enabled Paul to keep breaking new ground while still supporting churches recently established. When disputes threatened the church at Corinth, for example, Paul sent Timothy to help resolve the situation (1 Cor. 4.17).
His teams were largely self-funding – Paul was keen not to depend financially on the people he sought to reach (1 Thess. 2.9). On his first journey, Paul stayed scarcely long enough in one place to get established in his leather-working trade, so it may be that he drew on funds from his wealthy background or that he and Barnabas were supported by the Christians at Antioch and Cyprus.9 On his second journey, however, he found work in Corinth (Acts 18.3) and later in Ephesus. In Acts 20.34 Paul reminds the Ephesian elders that his paid work helped to support not only himself, but his companions. At times his fellow workers supported him (2 Cor. 11.9). Resources were pooled within the team.
Being financially self-sufficient had many attractions. It modelled sacrificial support for others (Acts 20.35), the workplace almost certainly contained evangelistic opportunities10 and mission was not held up through lack of funds. Though Paul also received financial gifts from some of his new churches (for example Phil. 4.14–8), it is striking that for much of the time the extraordinary fruitfulness of his ministry depended on activity largely in his spare time (though he might not recognize the language).
The expansion of Paul’s teams as his work progressed was a significant strategic development. They drew on ‘centre missions’ – young congregations,