The
Mission of the Church
A paper delivered at the Day Conference, October 1999
By Edward Malcolm
The subject we shall look at together has been one I have long wrestled with.
Having stepped out of the structures of the C of E, we find ourselves in a mission
field situation.
THE AMAZING RESULTS ACHIEVED BY THE APOSTLE PAUL
Our problem is how to multiply. In 1912, a missionary in North China named Roland
Allen wrote a very influential book ‘Missionary Methods St. Paul's or
ours?’ His argument was simple: that in AD 47 there were no churches in
four provinces of the Roman Empire - Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia. A little
over ten years later in AD 57 St. Paul, and he alone, had established churches
in all four provinces. And could pass on to extensive tours of the Far West
without anxiety lest the churches which he had founded might perish in his absence
for want of his guidance and support. It is perfectly clear that his work was
complete, and whatever disasters befell those churches later, it was not because
of any insufficiency or lack of care on his part. He left them because his work
was fully accomplished.
“This is a truly astonishing fact. That churches should be founded so rapidly,
so securely, seems to us today … almost incredible.” If we are to
found churches, we must employ the methods St. Paul used. Like the rest of the
Holy Scriptures this is "for our learning," says Roland Allen. Yet
some leaders seem to act on the assumption that all would collapse without them
being there. In fact some, if honest, might go so far as not really to want or
trust anyone else in on ‘his patch.’
But, it is objected, he was a very remarkable man, and we are not. True, but
he was not the only one in the early church who went about establishing churches,
and not all the others, using his same methods, were men of exceptional genius.
Further, secular reformers outside the Church in every age, have employed the
methods he used. It is only because he is set before us by the Holy Spirit as
the example par excellence that we turn to him to copy. In fact he used the
methods Christ used when on earth. He in turn copied. The acceptance by missionary
societies of his method in the last say 75 years has led to the vast increase
of Gospel churches world-wide. The older churches in Europe who refuse to follow
this method are suffering catastrophic decline, whilst others who are only partly
‘sound’, but who in this are Biblical, prosper. Others copying certain
features of his method bring it into disrepute.
Did he not possess other advantages over us? No, for we possess the whole Bible
whilst he had only the Old Testament. We have medical and travel facilities
which he never enjoyed, power to disseminate our ideas by many means, whilst
he had to rely on hand-written letters sent by messengers.
The reason there is a prejudice against adopting his methods is that some are
too content with the status quo, which they father upon the Apostle. Speaking
more personally, we lack a seriousness of purpose. We are far too easily put-off.
Again, we say, ‘but I've tried that part of what you say, and it didn't
work’. Incorporating parts of Paul's methods into alien systems will
never work. Others say, ‘but was not Roland Allen once challenged that
the important matter was not the method, but being filled with love and the
Holy Spirit, and he is reported to have replied with a sigh that he agreed?
Yes, but to despise the method is the way to fail, even with faith and love.
Acts lays before us a blueprint.
The greatest reason our methods do not work, says Roland Allen, is our outlook.
We are accustomed to do things ourselves for ourselves, to find our own way,
to rely upon our own exertions, and we naturally tend to be impatient with,
even despise, others who are unlike us. Further, we tend to expect converts
to adopt not only essentials, but also accidentals, not only the Gospel but
law and customs. We do not have Paul's spirit, which preferred persuasion
to authority. Paul did not pass on elaborate systems of worship but grasped
fundamental principles with an unhesitating faith in the power of the Holy Ghost
to apply them to his hearers and to work out their appropriate external expressions
in them. Inevitably these appeared dangerous to the Jewish mind of his day and
to such minds today. “The mere fact that they can be made to bear a shallow
resemblance to the methods of no method is sufficient to make the ‘apostles
of order’ suspicious. In spite of the fact that the Catholic Church was
founded by them, they appear uncatholic to those who live in daily terror of
schism. Yet the facts are unquestionable. In a very few years, he built the
Church on so firm a basis that it could live and grow in faith and in practice,
that it could work out its own problems, and overcome all dangers and hindrances
both from within and without.” We need to understand how he did this and
to do it again.
Before we turn to examine the questions this raises, please do not expect a
discussion of Paul's doctrines. I take it we are agreed on these. Even
suppose we were not, say on baptism, our purposes are answered for by the fact
of baptism, not by what is meant by baptism. Our argument is unaffected. God
keep us from anything against sound doctrine.
1. Questions the Apostle's method raise.
First, should we deliberately aim at strategic places because of advantages
they offer? Since the beginning of our enterprise this has been in my mind.
Are we just taking the line of least resistance, or has the Holy Ghost put us
in certain towns and villages? Our positions seem far from ideal.
It seems impossible to maintain that the Apostle first selected certain strategic
points beforehand at which to plant churches, and then actually carried out
his designs. Take the first missionary journey. When the Apostle afterwards
wrote to the churches in south Galatia, he distinctly states in Galatians 4:13 that he preached to them either because he was driven to them or detained
amongst them by an infirmity of the flesh. He did not design to preach to them
when he started out originally from Syria.
In his second missionary journey it is plain that the Apostle was not following
any pre-determined route. His original aim, as far as it existed, was to go
through Cilicia and south Galatia to Ephesus. It is stated that he tried to
preach in Asia and was forbidden by the Holy Ghost (Acts 16:6,7). Thus he found
himself at Troas not knowing where to go and was directed by a vision to Macedonia.
Later, expelled from Athens he went to Corinth, either because it was near Macedonia,
or he was directed thither by the Spirit. There is little sign of deliberate
design. The only other place where he established a church before his first
imprisonment was Ephesus, and from Acts 18:19 it would appear that he called
whilst on his way to Jerusalem, and finding a willingness to listen, promised
to return again.
On his third journey he appears to have laid his plans and carried them out
as far as Ephesus, but after that he was so uncertain of his movements as to
lay himself open to the charge of vacillation (2 Cor. 1:15,18). Only during
this journey do we find express plans for future work (Acts 19:21). Paul purposed
in the spirit when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia to go to Jerusalem
saying: 'After I have been there, I must also see Rome.'
Roland Allen notes first, both Luke and Paul speak constantly of provinces rather
than cities, suggesting that in Paul's view the unit was rather a province
than a city.
Second, he confined his work to the limits of Roman administration. In going
to south Galatia he is clearly evangelising the next Roman province to his own
Cilicia wherein was Tarsus, and already-founded churches. He must have passed
through Lycaonia Antiochi from Tarsus to reach Lystra and Iconium. Yet no record
is preserved of any attempt to preach in that region. His strategy was to preach
in Roman provinces.
Third, he never attempted to evangelise whole provinces, but confined himself
to establishing centres of Christianity in two or three important places. That
would be pointless unless the church possessed sufficient life to be a source
of light to the region around. That meant in turn that the people who came and
went learned the Gospel and in such a way that they could propagate it. The
surrounding countryside was affected. The convert receiving the Gospel learned
that it was entrusted to him for that purpose. So by establishing churches in
two or three centres, Paul claimed to have evangelised the whole region. Thus
ten years after setting out Paul told the Romans in 15:19, 23 that he had fully
preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem and round about Illyricum, and
that he had no more place in these parts. This is of importance to us, with
our severely limited resources.
Fourth, these towns were centres of Roman administration, of Greek civilisation,
of Jewish influence and of some commercial importance, so he missed out many
places lacking certain of these key features. It seems that he wanted Roman
peace and protection under strong government, being himself a Roman citizen,
thus benefiting from toleration and an open field for preaching. The world-wide
nature of Rome, with many countries, races and cultures having in common that
they were Roman subjects, broke down national exclusiveness and prepared hearts
for the kingdom of Christ. Greek culture gave him a language for communicating
the Gospel, and people educated enough to be taught.
Jewish centres gave him, as a Jew, a standing in that community, privileges
under Roman government, and freedom from many disadvantages. His right to enter
the Synagogue on the Sabbath Day gave him an audience possessed of the Scriptures,
and able to follow his arguments. When he was ejected, that gave him acceptance
with the rest of the town, and the advantage of not being expected to join in
idolatry or immorality.
Centres of commerce gave him towns which were of importance, leaders of thought
and policy, not merely narrowly provincial but outward looking to the wider
world and its currents of thought. Its leaders felt it their duty to lead, to
maintain unity, and to spread Roman civilisation. Their whole existence was
bound up with the exchange of goods and of ideas. They were on the great sea
and road routes. We know of one Phrygian who during his lifetime travelled to
Rome at least 72 times.
All that said, the great reason Paul missed out some places and established
churches in places which to us would appear very much the same, was that the
Holy Ghost moved him to do so. And the reason was that God had in his hand a
man capable of seizing the place and making it a centre of evangelistic life.
A strategic centre may be a prison for the Gospel, or give liberty and impetus
to the Gospel, either shut it up, or let it out. Fortifying strategic points
may be our aim, or making them centres of Christian activity. St. Paul was less
dependent on positions of natural advantage than we might suppose.
Second, should we aim to draw in outsiders, or dissatisfied C of E members as
a class? It would appear that St. Paul did aim at a class, in the Jews and their
proselytes, but is this actually so? In fact Judaism quickly rejected Christianity.
Jews and God-fearers did not provide the Apostle with a class of men whose gifts
and influence could be enrolled. Not very many Jews followed him. Any cursory
reading of the story shows that the majority of his converts were Greeks, whose
eagerness to accept his teaching is sharply contrasted with the attitude of
the Jews in rejecting it. St. Paul refers to his converts as men who knew idolatry
by experience.
Further, many disadvantages arose from the Synagogue. Not only was the appeal
largely unsuccessful there, but severe opposition and physical attacks on his
person and a calling in question of his authority and teachings resulted in
sudden suspension of his work. Entering as a Jew and teaching a form of Judaism,
the moment the Jews heard his message, they rose up and expelled him and tried
to kill him as a blasphemer. Rejected teachings are questioned on all sides.
To both Paul and us, our own people and others find this a great stumblingblock,
and a sufficient reason for rejecting our message.
However his converts from the Synagogue were of the greatest importance. They
understood Gospel issues in a way which converted raw heathens did not, and
lived in a way which did not bring disrepute on the Gospel.
He did not just appeal to the disadvantaged, as is so common in the C of E today,
and there is little emphasis on street or open air preaching. There were open
air occasions as in Lystra, but it seems Paul's settled practice when put
out of the Synagogue was to move into the home of a man of good repute, and
it is often carefully recorded in whose he taught and with whom he stayed. He
took care to provide for things honest in the sight of all men. Neither did
he spend his time appealing to intellectuals, philosophers and officials. Lightfoot
holds it was from the middle classes the majority of his converts came. They
had enough education and enlightenment to be open to new ideas. Converts were
from the lower middle classes, commercial, labouring, freed-men, and slaves,
for some slaves were educated. We therefore have as many good and capable converts
as he had. He had no advantage over us there. And as for the illiterate, who
are now said to be many in today's Britain, the Gospel soon opened their
minds to progress. In a very few years an amazing change came over their mental
and moral outlook. Plainly we are not yet trying St Paul's methods, if
we use these things as arguments to bolster up our dread of loss of control
of our work.
Third, do we face moral and spiritual conditions harder than those faced by
St. Paul? When speaking of Roman civilisation we often think of great principles,
high ideals and philosophies. In fact the Empire was home to a vast array of
ideas and religions, from barbarians to the highly civilised. Idolatry was free
from doubt and subtlety amongst the poor, but a philosophy amongst the better
educated who claimed only to honour the gods behind the representations. Agnosticism
also prevailed amongst the educated upper class, with Pilate's question
‘What is truth?’ Four elements of this apply to any comparison with
today.
First, the prevalence of belief in magic, demons, and devil worship. They ruled
life from the cradle to the grave. ‘The whole world lieth in wickedness’
(the Evil One) 1 John 5:19. All, even the highly educated and the Jews believed
in them. Pliny the Elder believed in foul magic. Human sacrifice was not unknown
and witchcraft was universal. Plutarch was a good and a serious man, but believed
in horrid magic associated with lucky and unlucky days. The result was the same
as always, physical and psychical disease, cruelty, bondage and vice. The magic
books worth 50,000 pieces of silver publicly burned at Ephesus were probably
filled with incantations, spells and rites to keep off demons. The operative
religion of the masses was demon worship. These people were Paul's converts,
and were delivered from their demons by the power of the Lord Jesus, not by
a denial of the existence of demons.
Second, the moral character of the religious rites. There were mystery religions
with moral interpretations, but to the vast majority all they saw in the temples
were acted indecencies, quite unfit to be repeated. The temple at Ephesus was
not a home of virtue, and Eph. 4:17 - 19 exactly describes the background from
which the converts came.
Third, Paul had even greater evils to contend with, slavery and the amphitheatre.
The important thing is not to discuss what we all know went on in gladiatorial
bouts and criminals thrown to the wild beasts, but the attitude of the best
men towards the shows. Only about three ancient writers outright condemn these
inhuman shows which were the delight of the populace. Most speak of them with
utter indifference, whilst Pliny and Cicero defend them as ‘splendid training
for the eye’. Read the account of Augustine's friend Alypius as proof
of the extraordinary fascination which they exercised over the minds of those
who considered themselves to be superior to such temptation. Tertullian says
‘No one partakes of such pleasures without their strong excitements, no
one comes under their excitement without their natural lapses.’ One result
was that they made all other entertainments insipid, so theatre became sensuous,
crudely indecent and violent in order to compete. Society became vile.
Slavery was connected with the amphitheatre, as gladiators were slaves. Slaves
were of one race and colour with their masters, the vast majority being men,
their numbers almost unimaginably great. They were educated, often well treated,
but utterly without rights. Only their master's will stood between them
and the lash. A normal convert would have grown up with slaves, as a toddler
absorbing from them gross superstition and as a child pandered to by them. His
education inculcated paganism, and not in the sense of a fairy story, but as
the explanation of life. The better educated then attended rhetoric schools,
where evil things were taught as matters of indifference. Growing up, attending
the games, the theatre and the circus, visiting temples, attended to by slaves
who answered their every wish, was bad enough in Greece. However at least marriage
was the ideal. Not so in Asia Minor where it was held that marriage was an outrage
to the free, unfettered divine nature reflected in the gods and wild animals.
Roman and Greek law only accepted as citizens legitimate children of marriages.
But in Phrygia marriage did not exist.
Today TV gratifies as much audience participation blood lust excitement as the
circus did, and as much indecency as the temple and theatre together. The clock
has been turned back almost 2000 years as we approach the second millennium,
but we face the same as the Apostle. He had no advantage over us.
2. How much of his success was due to his presentation?
Since he could do miracles and we cannot, it is held that his methods can have
little or no bearing on our work today. In fact they show us some things of
constant value in common with us today. Miracles took place, we are told, in five
towns in the Four Provinces. In Iconium ‘the Lord bare witness unto the
word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.’
At Lystra a cripple was healed. At Philippi a spirit of divination was expelled,
and at Ephesus ‘God wrought special miracles by the hand of Paul insomuch
that to the sick were carried away from his body handkerchiefs or aprons and
the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out.’ At Troas,
Eutychus was taken up alive. At Antioch, Derbe, Thessalonica, Beroea and Corinth,
no mention is made in Acts of miracles in connection with the preaching of the
Gospel. Only in Ephesus are we told that miracles led to a great increase of
disciples, whilst at Philippi it stopped the work. In Acts miracles are shown
as furthering the cause of the Gospel. Not all Paul's miracles are recorded
in the Acts (see 2 Cor. 12. 12).
Miracles were not used to convert people, or even to get a hearing from them.
No one healed by St. Paul is said to have believed, except the cripple at Lystra
who in one sense was already a believer. He did not attract people to Christianity
by offering inducements like healing. Yet they helped his mission by attracting
hearers and attesting his preaching. All could see no man could do these miracles
unless God was with him, and even the Council at Jerusalem accepted the attestation
of miracles, what signs and wonders God had wrought amongst the Gentiles by
Barnabas and Paul. Miracles showed that Christ's name brought love, and
saved the oppressed from the bondage of the devil and sin. Tertullian wrote
two centuries later ‘It is mainly the deeds of love so noble that lead
many to put a brand upon us.’ Organised care for widows, orphans, the sick
and disabled, gentle consideration for slaves, prisoners and those suffering
calamities, led to the conversion of the world. As for salvation, Celsus the
heathen intellectual who hated Christianity and mocked it, typified many pagans
when he wrote ‘ Every one, they say, who is a sinner, who is devoid of
understanding, who is a child, and, to speak generally, whoever is unfortunate,
him will the kingdom of heaven receive. Do you not call him a sinner, then,
who is unjust, and a thief, and a housebreaker, and a poisoner, and a committer
of sacrilege, and a robber of the dead? What others would a man invite, if he
were issuing a proclamation for an assembly of robbers?’ All other religions
by contrast invited the clean and pure, excluding the sick, ignorant and underprivileged.
There is no doubt of the value of miracles to Paul's success, yet Paul
does not give them the highest place amongst the gifts of the Spirit. It is
the Spirit, not the working of miracles which is of the greater importance in
his eyes. He does not speak as if his best workers possessed powers to do miracles.
The best gift is love. The miracle is of value as a demonstration of the Spirit
and of power. And we possess the Spirit.
Did he have a financial advantage over us? The answer must be no, if we mean
amount. However three rules guided his practice and helped him succeed, and
will similarly help us if followed. First he sought no financial help for himself.
Second, He took no financial help from those to whom he preached, and third,
he did not administer local church funds.
He did receive unsolicited gifts from his converts, but not from those to whom
he was preaching. He avoided giving the impression he was out to make money.
In this he was in stark contrast to heathen teachers. He also gave no financial
aid to his converts. Each church was financially independent, not subservient
to some richer one. He collected for the distressed poor in Jerusalem, but though
the collection had a serious and important place, he had nothing to do with
ordinary church finance. What each church needed, its members provided.
Did he preach differently to us? The substance of his preaching is found in
three examples given in the Acts. In Pisidian Antioch, Acts 13:16 - 41; at
Lystra, Acts 14:15 - 17; and in Athens, Acts 17:22 - 31. Also we have five
incidental references to its substance. The description by the soothsaying girl
at Philippi, Acts 16:17. A summary of his teaching in the synagogue at Thessalonica,
Acts 17:2,3. A note of the points which struck the Athenians as strange on
Mars Hill, Acts 17:18. The characterisation of his teaching in Ephesus by the
Town Clerk, Acts 19:37. And the summary of the main points of his own teaching
made by Paul to the Ephesian elders, Acts 20:21. Finally his own summary of
his preaching to the Corinthians in 1 Cor:2. 2. These divide naturally into
what he preached in the Synagogue to the Jews and what he said when preaching
to the Gentiles.
In the Synagogue. Luke gives us the account of the preaching in the synagogue
at Thessalonica, and it agrees with that earlier in the synagogue at Antioch,
so we may take it as typical. The sermon
1] deals with the Old Testament and shows how the Gospel is rooted there, and
is not a denial of the Old Scripture, but rather shows that it prepares for
Messiah.
2] He sets forth the Lord Jesus and his rejection and crucifixion. It is startling
with what unhesitating directness Paul deals with the great question troubling
all missionary work, not least ours. That is, the rejection of the missionary's
message by his own people. He neither shrinks from it nor apologises for it
or conceals its importance. He sets it out definitely, clearly, boldly, as part
of the argument for the truth of his message. It is the fulfilment of prophecy.
Then he produces conclusive proof, the Resurrection, witnessed by the apostles,
foretold by the prophets. In section
3] he proclaims the message of pardon for all who will receive it, and solemnly
warns of the consequences of rejection.
The five elements making this up:
1] Appeal to the past to gain a sympathetic ear and approval and to
prepare hearts to receive a new truth from it and in harmony with it. He does
not contradict all the past.
2] Facts are stated in a homely way, as a story easily grasped about life and
death. It is divine, but moves among the familiar things of earth, unjust rulers,
crowd passions, the marvellous recovery and the divine act of God in raising
the dead.
3] He answers the inevitable objection, that the elders of the Jews have decided
against these things. So trustworthy witnesses and proof are carefully presented.
Here is a new truth but in agreement with the old.
4] He appeals to the spiritual needs of his hearers, the craving for pardon,
the need for peace and confidence.
5] He concludes with a grave warning.
The four characteristics are:
1] Sympathy and a readiness to recognise the good in his hearers, put
over simply.
2] Courage in facing the objections and difficulties but directly asserting
unpalatable truth. No attempt to keep the door open by pleasing men and compromise
or concealment of the real issue to make difficult things appear easy.
3] Respect for his hearers.
4] An unhesitating confidence in the truth and power of his message to meet
his hearers' needs.
Amongst the Gentiles there is much more similarity than is sometimes allowed,
to synagogue preaching. The main differences are in obliging a clean break with
their old religion, and a greater emphasis upon the imminence of judgement.
The two examples given at some length are in Lystra and Athens, which are very
different to his sermons to the Jews. However, these are not typical, but can
compare to his ‘sermon on the stairs’ to the Jews, which is also untypical
of his synagogue preaching. He answers the obvious objections and shows adaptability.
Some today attempt to found on these two the idea that Paul gradually led Gentiles
into the light. That is not so, for his emphasis is upon the Cross, or as the
soothsaying girl put it, the Most High God and the Way of Salvation, or as Paul
summarised it, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Summary. He does not attack the things venerated by his hearers. When
Paul attacked idolatry, he was only taking a position commonly taken by thoughtful
men. He does not rail upon their religion. Thessalonians gives the elements
of his Gentile preaching: God is One, idolatry is sinful and must be forsaken.
God's wrath is ready to be revealed against the impure heathen and the
rejecting, opposing Jews, and will come suddenly, unexpectedly. Jesus is the
Son of God, appointed of God to die, raised from the dead, who saves from the
wrath to come. The kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ is now set up and all men
are invited to enter it. Those who believe and turn to God now expect the return
from heaven of the Saviour to receive them. So they must now live pure, useful,
watchful lives, and for this purpose have received the Holy Spirit. He does
not minimise the break with the past that obedience to the Gospel brings, the
offence of the Cross, sudden, near and catastrophic judgement, and that the
whole world is either saved or perishing. Paul expected the power of God to
move his hearers, and always brought his hearers to this point. Roland Allen
says, "It is a question which needs serious consideration whether we ought
to plant ourselves in a town or village and continue for years teaching people
who refuse to give us a moral hearing."