A Case for Emulating Paul's Church-Planting Pattern
A fog of confusion surrounds the church-planting efforts of the early church. With the Apostle Paul being a central figure of the early endeavors to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8, Rom 15:15-23), many are left asking how exactly we interpret the work of those who saw the risen Lord. While there is little disagreement over the commands in the epistles, disagreement abounds when it comes to Luke’s account of the church’s growth in Acts. It is appropriate to start our investigation with a simple observation: Why would the Apostles’ instructions to the churches they planted be in any way opposed to the patterns and practices they employed to plant those churches? This inconsistency in harmonizing the New Testament record is noted by Peyton Jones in Church Plantology: "While many are careful to ensure orthodoxy in accordance with the doctrinal message of Paul, few are concerned with the actual practices Paul modeled in his missional orthopraxis that was born out of his theology.”
Because much speculation has been stirred up around Acts, modern church planters tend to lean on church history, personal experience, and preference rather than Scripture when considering how to plant a church. Though there have been many abuses with the application of Acts, if misapplication of biblical examples and imperatives causes us to cease our pursuit of proper application, then we would have to throw out preaching and teaching as well. We know that misguided obedience does not mean misguided inspiration. Horror stories are told of faulty applications of church discipline leading to ruin, yet it remains an assertion of the church that proper church discipline is a biblical non-negotiable. Likewise, we should be slow to dismiss the model of Acts due to someone's misguided application. The Apostle Paul exemplifies a broader New Testament pattern of disciple-making and church planting intended to be emulated until Christ returns.
Defining the “Work” of Church Planting
Throughout history, the Church has found instructive practices in Acts. For example, we still point to Acts when defining the church’s mission (Acts 1:8), a healthy congregation (Acts 2:41-47), church polity (Acts 6:1-7), and baptism by immersion (Acts 8:26-42). However, when we get to Paul’s missionary journeys (Acts 13-21), skepticism arises about the applicability of Paul and his team’s approach to church planting.
David Hesselgrave sought to outline the church-planting methodology of the Apostle in what he calls the “Pauline Cycle”. As illustrated by Hesselgrave, when we demystify the work of the Apostle, we’re left with relatively repeatable patterns, fully dependent on the empowerment of the Spirit. With over a decade of experience with the International Mission Board, Jesse S. comes to similar conclusions when observing a commissioned “work” (Acts 13:2) and a completed “work” (Acts 14:26) in his doctoral dissertation: “Luke depicted the pattern of this ‘work’—broadly speaking—in Acts 13 and 14. Paul and Barnabas would travel to a new place, preach the Gospel, gather new believers and teach them, and then travel to another new place to repeat the process. They followed this pattern of “work” in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:13–52), Iconium (Acts 14:1–7), Lystra (Acts 14:8–19), and Derbe (Acts 14:20–21); and concluded the work by having elders appointed in all those churches (Acts 14:23). Their ‘work,’ then, was that of the pioneer church planter”.
A distinction between Paul’s strategy and “work” should bring clarity to the task of church planting. The process of distilling strategy from narrative accounts has more subjective nuances, whereas defining the “work” can accurately be done through objective observation of what the apostles did. Therefore, based on the account of what Paul and his team did, the “work” of church planting should be understood as: 1. Engaging lost people, 2. Sharing the Gospel, 3. Discipling those who believe, 4. Forming them into new communities (churches), 5. Appointing local leadership, and 6. Repeating the process.
Church Planting Flowing from The Great Commission
It’s worth noting that the “work” of church planting is distinct from that of church starting. The primary difference is that church planting necessitates evangelism and disciple-making, whereas church starting can begin with a group of relocated believers and forgo missional activities. Another way to state the difference is, “Church planting is not the cause of anything in the New Testament, but rather the effect of carrying out the Great Commission. It’s the difference between starting a church for evangelism, versus starting a church from evangelism."
The backbone of the “work” is the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20), as demonstrated clearly in the first three stages outlined previously (engaging lost people, sharing the Gospel, and discipling those that believe). Since the foundation of church planting is making disciples, every believer has the potential to plant a church. It is no surprise then that God uses two methods for expanding the Church: The intentional sending of missionary church planters (Acts 13:4) and the divine scattering of disciple-makers (Acts 8:4). The initial “work” is the same for those that are sent and those that are scattered. Throughout Acts, believers engaged in making disciples wherever they went, and the result was the formation of new churches. Even though the Apostles are the central figures of Luke’s narrative, we should recognize that “their life was not the end of their quest, rather they served as an example of one seeking with all his heart and soul to be a disciple of Christ (Phil 3:17, 1 Thess 2:8, 2 Tim 1:13, John 13:15).” Taking the Great Commission as a command rather than an option, the Apostles modeled obedience to the very end (Acts 28:30-31, 2 Tim 4:6-8, 2 Pet 1:12-15), and the early church followed their example by multiplying disciples to subsequent generations.
Hermeneutical Principles Supporting the “Work”
We have to this point established the practical “work” of church planting as observed from the narrative account of the early church in Acts and displayed in the broader New Testament theme of the Great Commission. Now we will consider three hermeneutical principles that support this definition and advocate for modern replication of the “work” pattern seen in Scripture: coherence, recurrence, and transference.
Coherence
When the patterns of the workers in Acts (narrative) align with statements made by the Apostles in the epistles, this demonstrates the significance of those tasks and provides a rationale for the continuing of their patterns and practices. Consider then the six aspects of the “work” and how those aspects cohere with statements made throughout the epistles:
1. Engaging lost people (e.g. Acts 8:4, 13-21, Rom 10:14-15)
2. Sharing the Gospel (e.g. Acts 13-21, Rom 1:16-17, 2 Cor 5:17-21, 1 Peter 2:9-10)
3. Discipling those that believe (e.g. Acts 13-21, Col 1:28)
4. Forming them into new communities (e.g. Acts 2:41-47, 1 Cor 12-14, Eph 4:11-17)
5. Appointing local leadership (e.g. Acts 14:26-27, Ti 1:5, 1 Tim 3:1-13)
6. Repeating the process (e.g. Philip, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Apollos, Epaphras, disciples)
Paul exhorted churches to imitate his example five distinct times (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Phil 3:17; 1 Thes 1:6; 2 Thes 3:7-9). Within view of these exhortations should be the full scope of Paul’s ministry, including his doctrinal commitments, exemplary character, and pattern of “work.” Though there are some unrepeatable aspects of Paul’s life work (like the authoring of Scripture), his broader pattern of making disciples and forming them into churches remains a coherent and necessary model for the Church to fulfill her mandate.
Recurrence
One of the arguments for the ceasing of the apostolic practices of church planting found in Acts is the extraordinary healing stories and the unique role of the Apostles in redemptive history. Even if we determine that signs and wonders are happening at an extraordinary frequency in the ministry of the Apostles, we cannot use this as the basis for negating the totality of the Apostles’ practices. We can see that isolated incidences do not make up normative missional praxis, while at the same time acknowledging that commanded patterns inherent in the Great Commission and coherent with the New Testament should define which practices of narrative are intended to be imitated.
When surveying practices in Acts, we must determine whether aspects of the stories consistently recur (see below for a survey on the practice of baptism). If certain aspects recur in multiple situations and by an array of individuals, then we can be sure that this was the regular practice of the early church.
To illustrate the principle of recurrence once more, let’s look at examples of how the apostles engaged lost people. Looking at Luke’s two-volume account, we can see how the Lord taught His disciples to enter new fields and how they continued to replicate the Person of Peace principle throughout Acts.
Though one-off recurrences of the original instructions do appear (ex. Acts 13:51), we most consistently see the practice of going with more than one person, praying, sharing the Gospel, and staying to disciple those who believe. Considering the amendments given to the original instructions (Lk 22:35-38), this application is a consistent adherence to the Lord’s original commissioning of the 12 and 72 (Lk 9:1-6, 10:1-11). This recurrence coupled with the exegetical evidence is why most commentators endorse the continuation of this apostolic practice for entering new areas. We have looked in this section at the recurrence of apostolic practices; and how the early church carried out aspects of the “work”. When applying the principle of recurrence to the “work” pattern of Acts, it demonstrates the ongoing necessity of those six core elements, for there is no other pattern seen in Scripture by which a church is planted.
Transference
After 10 years serving with the International Mission Board in South Asia, in his doctoral dissertation, David B.E. argues for “Pauline emulation” based on the letters to Timothy and Titus. He establishes that the role of Timothy and Titus was never that of a local pastor, based on three observations: 1. Timothy and Titus had been itinerant missionary co-workers under Paul’s leadership for many years before the writing of the letters, 2. Timothy and Titus are never referred to as pastors or described in pastoral terms in the letters, and 3. the letters describe the roles of Timothy and Titus as temporary assignments.
Recognizing that Timothy and Titus served side by side with Paul in his missionary endeavors, David B. E. points to 2 Timothy as textual evidence for Pauline emulation. In his second letter to Timothy, we observe Paul commending Timothy for following his pattern (2 Timothy 3:10-11), commanding him to continually follow this pattern (2 Timothy 3:14), and charging him to finish the missionary endeavors Paul himself sought to accomplish (2 Timothy 4:1-5). In effect, Paul hands the baton to his most trusted missionary comrade. In view of Paul transferring his missional convictions, patterns, and practices to Timothy, we should read 2 Timothy 2:2 as a repeatable example of Paul’s “work” to proceeding generations.
To ensure we don’t confuse Pauline emulation with papal succession, David B. E. clarifies that “the primary difference between Timothy and Paul’s callings and appointments to the missionary task were that Paul was called and appointed directly by the Lord Jesus (Gal 1:1; 1:11-2:10), while Timothy received his calling and appointment through church and missionary leadership (1 Tm 1:18; 4:14; 2 Tm 1:6). Therefore, Pauline emulation should not be understood as a transfer of apostolic authority, but rather as the following of a missionary model provided by Paul.” Timothy’s calling and appointment took place in the context of his local church; similarly, today church appointments are given for those that are called to the “work” of planting a new church. Consequently, those appointed would do well to follow the planting model of the early church exemplified by Paul.
The principle of transference addresses the question of who else was expected to partake in the church-planting model of the Apostle Paul. As David argues, there was a clear expectation and replication of Paul’s model by Timothy and Titus. Jesse S. further acknowledges the invitation and inclusion of others in the pattern of the Apostles by recognizing the significant number of “co-workers” that Paul includes in his apostolic “work.”,
Conclusion
There should be no denial of both the exegetical validity and the practical necessity of Paul’s pattern of “work.” The contention arises as church planters seek to practically apply this pattern in a modern context. Some will opt for simpler forms of disciple-making and church planting (perhaps modeled after apostolic practices), while others will advocate for more formalized approaches. In both cases, each planter should strive to recognize the genuine heart of the other while also understanding various applications will be used to fulfill the Great Commission.
Some may approach the ministry of the early church as only applicable to “pioneer” fields, causing church planters to disregard the Pauline model as a pattern to follow only in places like India or China. That is detrimental to the cause of church planting because, (1) access to the Gospel should be viewed as personal access to a Gospel proclaiming Christian not simply a commutable distance to a church building, and (2) the only church planting model we are given is to start with lost people and end with local leaders. A coherent approach to the New Testament shows the epistles represent the inerrant correction of the churches planted, and Acts constitutes the inerrant example of how to plant churches. Not that the church planting model of the early church is void of shortcomings; it is inevitably messy when sinners are present. Both Acts and the epistles are filled with messy churches, yet they remain our only definitively inspired examples of planting and correcting churches.
In summary, Acts constitutes our best, and only inerrant (in inspiration, not practice) examples of evangelism, discipleship, and church formation. Through objectively considering the coherence, recurrence, and transference of Paul’s pattern, we come to understand that his “work” is indicative of a broader New Testament example built upon the Great Commission. Therefore, the six elements of Paul’s pattern (engaging lost people, sharing the Gospel, discipling those who believe, forming them into new communities, appointing local leaders, and repeating the process) are meant to be reproduced by modern church planters by the power of the Spirit and for the glory of God.
Editor’s Note: Do you want to learn how to emulate Paul’s church-planting pattern? Get Started here.
Works Cited
Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” Expositor's Bible Commentary: With the New International Version of the Holy Bible: In Twelve Volumes: Volume 8: (Matthew, Mark, Luke), Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1984.
Coleman, Robert E. The Master Plan of Discipleship. Revell, 2020.
Coleman, Robert E. The Master Plan of Evangelism. 2nd ed., Revell, 2010.
David B. E., Doctoral Dissertation Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2021.
David B. E. Personal interview. “What aspects of Paul’s ministry should be seen as reproducible?” 18 Oct. 2021.
Hesselgrave, David J. Planting Churches Cross-Culturally: North America and Beyond. Baker Books, 2001.
Jesse S. Personal interview. “Modern Church Planting” 15 Oct. 2021.
Jesse S. Doctoral Dissertation, 2017.
Jones, Peyton. Church Plantology the Art and Science of Planting Churches. Zondervan, 2021.
Morell, Caleb. “Does The Book of Acts Teach Spontaneous Baptisms?” 9Marks, 10 Mar. 2020, https://www.9marks.org/article/does-the-book-of-acts-teach-spontaneous-baptisms/.
Paul, David. “‘Preach the Word’: Homiletics or Evangelism?” Sentergy, 23 Sept. 2021, https://www.sentergy.us/post/preach-the-word-homiletics-or-evangelism.
Witherington III, Ben. “Acts.” Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry, Lexham Press, 2016, p. 809.