The Apostle Paul: Still Our Model or Not? | thebereancall.org

TBC Staff

In 1913 Roland Allen, who labored in China [as a missionary], wrote that “…every unworthy, idle, and slipshod method of missionary work has been fathered upon the Apostle (Paul). Men have wandered over the world, ‘preaching the Word’, laying no solid foundations, establishing nothing permanent, leaving no really instructed society behind them and have claimed St. Paul’s authority for their absurdities.” If this was true in Roland Allen’s day, it is truer now. Except that today there actually are those who say that the incarnational approach that Jesus and Paul modeled and taught is outdated.

One well-known voice in missions states clearly that the current missionary model “… stands in contrast to the incarnational approach of missionary service that has been the staple of cross-cultural work for decades. The model of Jesus, who came to be one of us, has been upheld as a model for learning language and culture, and living long-term among the people in an attempt to identify and understand the culture being reached. The Apostle Paul is presented as the prototypical leader of the New Testament church planting movement and his role as a cultural insider is emphasized.” This author sees the model of Jesus and Paul as outdated and these days he is not alone.

Is there a need to recognize that today’s world is different than Paul’s? Absolutely. Paul did not inhabit the world we live in now…and his model does not address some of the situations we must take seriously. Now we would never get into Turkey, China, India or a host of other countries as a “traveling Christian proselytizer.”….But we also must be careful NOT to set aside the biblical models and principles that Paul DOES give to us, principles that are meant to be carried forward… even today. The power of God’s Word when clearly taught by well-trained communicators cannot be set to the side simply by putting the term “Western" on it.
 
The present-day bent towards egalitarian forms of leadership [essentially, “everyone is a leader”] must not blur the reality that Paul left behind recognized leaders that were tasked with teaching, shepherding, leading, rebuking, and caring for the flock. Some in the missions discussion today would say that such leadership is “Western." Yet in Jerusalem, Antioch, Lystra, Iconium and Derbe we see leaders recognized early on in the church’s history. It would be a stretch to call any of those locations ‘Western’.
 
Paul’s carefulness regarding who he trusted as gospel ministers shows him NOT making use of unsaved men or women to be teachers of God’s word.  Presently the model of carefulness that Paul demonstrates is not adhered to.  The book Stubborn Perseverance clearly endorses the use of unsaved individuals to lead Bible studies.  To quote a recent visitor [to the training center,] Ian Hamilton, “The early church feared heresy more than martyrdom.”  Now such concerns seem outdated.
 
In today’s "free-for-all," the setting aside of Paul’s model must be called what it is: unbiblical chaos. Quoting John:16:13 to support the idea that we should not be teaching the scriptures but now we can trust in ‘self-correction’ is to take that verse out of context and also to do away with the whole of the apostolic model. That is only one current example of the Pauline model being set aside.  It is one thing when Paul is not giving us a model; it altogether another issue when Paul DOES give us a model and we use creative eisegesis [reading into Scripture] to validate a ‘new discovery’.

(Buser, "The Apostle Paul... Still Our Model or Not?”, The Radius Report, April 20, 2018)