52AD Christian Missions History Musings (CMHM). Paul’s Mission Trips to Asia Minor

One of the great Christian missions books in the last couple of hundred years is Roland Allen’s work, “Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? A Study of the Church in the Four Provinces.” It is a wonderful commentary on colonial-style missions, and contrasting it with missions carried out by St. Paul in the book of Acts. The book was published in 1912 and remains a “must read” for those involved in missions today. That book is truly great. Yet there is one problem:

I dislike the title— and I dislike it for multiple reasons.

#1. Missionary Methods. I am not the first to note this, but the book is really about Principles, NOT Methods. This is a bit benign… and I am not even sure if back in 1912 the term terms were defined the way they are now, but methods are context-specific that are (ideally) based on underlying and more universal principles. I don’t want to draw this point out. If you want to update yourself on this: https://thisvsthat.io/method-vs-principle

#2. St. Paul’s. I am not really trying to be controversial here, but it seems pretty evident that the principles (or methods?) used in the first (and arguably second and third) missionary trips of Paul were established by Barnabas and not Paul. What is my basis for this, since the book of Acts gives no indication of who established their plan?

On the first missionary journey, Barnabas appears to be the one in charge. For one thing, Luke lists the missionary team with Barnabas first for the early parts of that trip. Second, when the team reached Lystra, the locals identified the two as pagan gods— Zeus and Hermes. Barnabas was identified as Zeus the chief Olympian, while Paul was identified as Hermes the herald of the Gods. It seems reasonable that the people Barnabas was given that designation because he was seen as being in charge, and/or because he was older. Paul might then be identified as Hermes because he did much of the preaching, and/or because he was younger. Since in the myths, Hermes was the son of Zeus, it seems quite reasonable to suspect that in age and in role Barnabas and Paul appeared to have a bit of a father/son relationship. Earlier on, Barnabas sought out Paul to bring to Antioch to help out suggesting a mentoring role. If Barnabas was a mentor for Paul, it seems likely that the strategy they came up with was from Barnabas. This might be further supported that the first place they went was Cyprus, where Barnabas was from.I will add a second reason I think this— and this is probably even more controversial. I don’t think Paul was a great missions strategist. Paul was a great theologian and a great writer. But we need to avoid the halo effect. By Paul’s own admission, he is only a so-so preacher, and based on the popularity of eloquent Apollos in Corinth, I believe that Paul was not simply being humble. Paul can be a great theologian and writer and still be a mediocre missions strategist. My reason for thinking this is as follows. IF Barnabas was the one that essentially established the pattern of the first three missionary trips of Paul (participating in the first one, and planning the second one), then Paul as a strategist should be judged based on what was done outside of these. First, Paul seemed to have a great desire to minister in Jerusalem. This never really worked out, and it does seem strange that he would keep seeking to even while identifying himself as specially called to reach out to the Gentile world (Jerusalem being the major city with the lowest percentage of Gentiles in the world.) In fact, if one reads Acts 21, it seems as if even Luke (the chronicler of Paul’s ministry) had doubts about Paul’s plan. Second, Paul’s strategy to go to Rome and speak to the Emperor directly, gives us no known fruit, but did take away close to 5 years of his time for ministry. You may disagree, but I think there is plenty of reason to at least wonder if Paul’s main strengths were not associated with missiological principles/methods/strategies.

#3. Allen’s title is actually written as a question— “St. Paul’s or Ours?” My concern for that question is that Allen’s implied answer is absolutely the opposite of what it should be. The answer should be “Ours!!” Paul ministered to Hellenistic Jews, and Pagan Gentiles in the first century Roman Empire. Of course we should not be using his methods. Almost everything has changed between that context and ANY context that exists today. Of course, part of this goes back to point one. Allen is focusing really on principles, NOT methods. But even there, one should be cautious in how one applies principles to a new context. No principle is completely supra-cultural or free from context. Of course, Roland Allen was addressing a huge issue of that time… and an issue that has endured to the present. That issue was colonial missions. While colonialism did in fact open some doors to the spread of the gospel, it came with cost. One of those costs was that some of the presumptions of colonialism seeped into strategies and methods of missions. These include having local ministries managed locally by foreigners and overseen and funded overseas. Roland Allen’s book is a challenge to Colonial missions… and today should be a challenge to us as well. That being said, our goal should never to copy what Paul did. If one does copy what Paul did, it should not be because that is what Paul did but rather because what Paul did is informative to what should be done in the present day in a specific context.

While I did say that I don’t like the title of the book, the original title is not the worst one associated with the book. Since the book is no longer under copyright, some other versions with modified titles have come out. One of them is:

“Missionary Methods: God’s Plan for Missions According to Paul”

I dislike that title much more. First, Paul did not give us a plan. Rather, Luke wrote down what happened in Paul’s missionary work, and out of that, one can gain a sense of the plan or strategy. Second, and this is the bigger problem, the title suggests that Paul’s plan is God’s plan. I know that this is really common. Find something that works and then promote it not simply as a good idea or something that works, but as God’s special and approved method. That is never a good idea. Jesus gave a method for sharing the Good News in Luke 9 and 10. This method is very valuable to study… but I don’t get the impression that Jesus was saying “This, and only this, is God’s approved method to evangelize.” We know that Jesus was not suggesting this since He used multiple strategies. Multiple strategies are good— and should be varied based on the circumstance.

I hope I made clear to you that I strongly cherish this book… and it should be ready by anyone interested in Christian missions. The title I have a problem with… but for me, that just leads to reflection and dialogue… it does not lessen the value of that book. And if you want to gain insight in how Paul (and Barnabas) did missions in the first century, the book is invaluable.