;)
What Happens in Athens Stays in Athens
Posted by Rastis in Church & Missions, IMPACT Features
One does not to study the life and ministry of the Apostle Paul to realize the transformations his methods went through. Although his methods transformed, there were some facets that remained the same, namely: he continued to focus on cities and existing networks of people (e.g. the synagogue–even after he said he would no longer go to the synagogue).
Certainly this invitation to the market place of ideas is indeed a success. Gospel proclamation whenever, wherever, and however is always gain. Yet, if the areopagus is such a great place why not start there? Why start in the synagogue and in the market where there will be heavy resistance rather than in the area demarcated as a free speech zone? All of these questions are, perhaps, outside of textual explanations. Nevertheless, they are worthy questions. While I cannot offer an authoritative opinion on those questions I do offer some contrasting weaknesses and strengths regarding Paul’s choice to go to the less obvious place and our choices.
Fast over Deep
In the west we are highly motivated over quick results. We want to be able to report numbers back to sending churches and celebrate our success. This is not entirely a bad thing, but we often pass up those who may not be ready and ripe in favor of anyone who may listen. In many places, it is easy to get the cultural outcasts to listen to you and this will often turn quick results. But if we choose fast we often sacrifice people who are deep. These people are harder to reach because they are connected and have more to lose. Conversely they also have more to offer. It is true that God does not only call the wise, but this does not mean that he doesn’t call the wise. It would be a much quicker hearing had Paul simply skipped the market and headed straight to the areopagus. Lets face it: those guys who just sat around and listened to ideas don’t have jobs. Perhaps they were extremely wealthy and thus had the luxury of leisure time. In status driven cultures (which is most of the rest of the world) the rich seldom favor the poor. The guys in the market might be busier and thus harder targets, but a man who just sits around all day and hears ideas probably has little influence in the real world. The men in the market are connected to a vast network of people who buy, sell, trade, supply, build, and transport. The potential for the gospel here is much greater.
Easy over Intentional
We often go after people who are easily drawn to us and willing to listen. In places where this is another majority religion, we choose the people who are more secular, disgruntled, or have been kicked out. While these may come easily, they usually repeat their old sins in the name of their new faith. Someone who just wants money and not the god of his fathers is probably not all that committed to finding our God either. Paul started in the least likely place: the synagogue. These people are religiously opposed to Paul’s theology. If he is finding them in the synagogue then we know they are devout. He had an intentional strategy and way of reasoning with the religiously dedicated that took more time but would yield deeper and longer lasting results.
Followers over Leaders
There are many people looking for a friend and a sense of belonging. There are many people who have great needs and due to the fact that we often ride in on the wagon of humanitarian aid are quick to flock to our mercy. Those who listened to Jesus were no different. He focused the majority of his time on the few he was discipling to be leaders rather than the masses who would show up for bread. Getting a hearing in a circle of philosophers and other talkers isn’t too complicated. If all they do with the message is reason and pontificate about it then Christianity will simply lead them to monasticism. Even in the world of the poor, those who have jobs, menial though they might be, have more ability to lead than those who do not. Thus the market was a good starting point.
The Willing Random over the Critical Connected
Paul could have started with what I presume to be the educated upper class (so I am not misunderstood–it is equally important to preach to the educated upper class just as Paul did here). Those who gathered in the areopagus where there of their own volition, perhaps without any necessary connection to each other. The synagogue and market, however, are places of deep connection. They are existing networks and communities. In the synagogue, they already had a tradition and structure for worship and teaching, they simply lacked knowing Jesus. While the marked does not contain those traditions and structures, it does at least have the sense of community and connection. It has natural channels through which the gospel can travel.
In the country where I work, the local believers were allowed to put on an open air service. There where thousands of people who heard the gospel. On the one hand I praise God that this could happen. Certainly the gospel proclaimed is progress in any sense of the word, not to mention that this never would have happened six months ago. Sometimes restrictive governments force us to become more strategic and intentional. It is astounding that they were able to obtain permission to hold this service. On the other hand, however, the permission could be just as much a trap wherein the local government provides freedom only so it can reestablish its recently lost case files. I don’t think that we have to choose one style or the other. Paul did both the intentional hard target work along with the open access work as well. There is a trend, however, particularly in free countries, to err on the side of only picking the easy targets.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Good post Rastis. When discussing this topic I often hear long explanations of why we should be evangelizing butchers instead of bakers. My response to these kinds of discussions is, ‘Can you imagine Paul speaking to just one guy?’ We can debate on whether all his methods were successful or not and we can debate on whether we should be imitating him or not but one thing for sure, he spoke the Gospel to everyone in town. If anything is a methodological principle for us I think that should be.
A couple of years ago, as an assignment for my studies at SEBTS, I read Paul the Missionary by Eckhard Schnabel. It is a very good study, from a solidly Evangelical perspective, based on top-notch research. He speaks to a number of the issues you bring up here. Here are some relevant quotes from the paper I wrote reviewing Schnabel…
“A key question, for Schnabel, is identifying Paul’s strategy (if he had one), methods, and the various factors that influenced the way he went about his missionary work. On the basis of a careful analysis of both Scripture and the cultural milieu in which Paul worked, Schnabel concludes that, though there were certain general principles that guided everything he did, there was no formal “game plan,” as such, but rather a great deal of flexibility and sensitivity to the direction of the Holy Spirit. In the end, these same principles, as well as the same flexibility and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit, are regarded as normative for missionaries today, as well.”
“Once a missionary has a clear sense of call, and has been sent out, it will be necessary to decide where, in a geographic sense, she is going to carry out her ministry. In the case of Paul, it is a matter of some debate to what degree he had any “grand strategy” that guided his decisions on where to work. Some suggest he took his cues from a specific interpretation of Old Testament passages such as the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, and Isaiah 66:19, finding a parallel of this in his declaration that he had preached the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum (Rom 15:19). Schnabel opts for the view, however, that Paul merely traveled to geographically adjacent locations, as he sensed an open door for proclaiming the gospel to the most people possible. While it is incontrovertible that Paul generally preached in cities, Schnabel does not find convincing evidence to support Roland Allen’s theory that he specifically targeted major metropolitan centers with a view toward establishing a beachhead from which the gospel would naturally “radiate” to surrounding areas. In order for the gospel to reach as many people as possible, it was necessary to specifically equip and mobilize the churches he planted to reach out to neighboring communities.
Once Paul and his coworkers arrived in a particular city, they also faced the question of in what venue within the city they ought to carry out their missionary activities. It appears they made these decisions basing off of practical factors. In order to make contact and maintain evangelistic conversations with Jews, and God-fearing Gentiles, they would seek out the local synagogue. In order to reach mainstream Gentiles, they engaged in open-air preaching and dialogue in the city centers. At times, Paul taught his disciples and proclaimed the gospel in lecture halls. For smaller meetings, both for evangelism, and for discipling believers, private workshops and homes were frequently used. According to Schnabel, the rationale behind these choices was simply going wherever they could find an opportunity to share the gospel. In light of contemporary “house church” rhetoric, it is significant that 90% of the people in Paul’s ministry context lived in apartments that would have been too small to accommodate more than a handful of people, while larger houses would have had space for 30 to 40, and sometimes more, people. From Schnabel’s perspective, though, there was nothing particularly “sacred” about houses as a place for church meetings. It was merely a question of finding places where people were willing to listen to the gospel.”
“One of the issues that Schnabel treats with the greatest conviction is the question of who, specifically, did Paul target as recipients of the gospel message. He makes a convincing argument that he did not show any partiality whatsoever in matters of ethnicity, social class, culture or gender. Although he typically began his gospel proclamation in a new city in the local synagogue, contacting primarily with Jews, he also manifested a clear calling as apostle to the Gentiles, or the various ethnic groups of non-Jews that populated the world in which he ministered. Although there were the occasional educated and influential individuals, such as Sergius Paullus, who responded to the preaching of the gospel, the majority of Paul’s disciples came from the lower, disenfranchised classes who also comprised the majority of the population. Although he understood cultural differences, and social distinctions, and was able to work with them in order to gain a hearing for the gospel, Paul did not specifically target anyone in exclusion of others. Whenever he arrived in a particular city, his ultimate goal was to preach the gospel to all its inhabitants, with a view to establishing a local community of believers that was broadly representative of the population at large.
Paul’s ecclesiological convictions and practices are especially significant, with regard to missionary strategies influenced by “people group” thinking and the “homogeneous unit principle.” Under no circumstances did he conceive of segregated churches of Jews or Gentiles, rich or poor. For Paul, the fundamental unity of the church was a non-negotiable element of the gospel he preached. And he expected that this basic conviction would translate into palpable, practical unity among all the believers in the cities that housed the churches he planted. This is a serious consideration for those with pragmatic strategies, who may be tempted to pander to human tendencies toward racial discrimination and social segregation. It is important, as missionary workers, to respect the unity of the church in the locations in which we work, and to plan our strategies in way that foster greater unity, and not disintegration.
While recognizing Paul’s commitment to do “whatever it was going to take” to win as many for Christ as possible, Schnabel is, at the same time, duly concerned with what he calls “market-driven triumphalism” that places too great of an emphasis on numbers, technology, and techniques. Paul, by all appearances, was not enamored with the latest fad, or with the idea that he was going to win over the majority in the cities in which he worked. He was more concerned with remaining faithful to task that had been assigned to him by the Lord Jesus Christ. In the same way, “missionaries and evangelists, pastors and teachers should not be motivated by what they see everyone else doing or by what ‘works’ in the ministry of a ‘successful’ colleague” (p. 416).
While Paul was driven to preach the gospel to as many as possible, his normal practice was not just to lead people to a “one-off” decision for Christ. Whenever possible, he endeavored to stay with the converts he had made for a sufficient amount of time to instruct them in their Christian growth and consolidate the new churches that had been planted. When it was not possible for Paul personally to be present, he would often send coworkers to assist in this task. The ultimate goal to which Paul diligently worked was to nurture new believers to a stage of maturity in which they could take responsibility for carrying on the evangelistic and discipleship ministries he had begun among them.”
Sorry for my slow reply….
Thanks for the quotes from the paper. I would probably favor Allen’s view of Paul targeting cities. Perhaps it is beyond the point of the text or it is a question not asked by the text at all. Perhaps he started out in the country side, perhaps at the city center, the text simply tells us where he went not what was first according to time or cause and effect. Nevertheless, I do find it instructive that Luke records it the way he does where cities appear to be the primary focus.
In general, however, I think it is easy to get pigeonholed into thinking that our understanding of Paul (read: our organization’s) is implicitly biblical. There are many things I like about CPM and other models, but it is hard to lay that over the text and affirm that this is exactly what Paul did.
“Under no circumstances did he conceive of segregated churches of Jews or Gentiles, rich or poor. For Paul, the fundamental unity of the church was a non-negotiable element of the gospel he preached.”
Been chewing on that one for a few days. I am not sure that I really have the answer–I am sure I dont. The pragmatic side of me looks at a status driven society and through human eyes I am irked by the fact that I dont see the upper classes reaching the lower and vice versa.
So I guess here is the question: While it is a lofty ideal (not to mention biblical) to look at the church as unified regardless of social barriers, how do we practically implement this?
“So I guess here is the question: While it is a lofty ideal (not to mention biblical) to look at the church as unified regardless of social barriers, how do we practically implement this?”
We can’t – He can – He will.
Rob
Eph. 4:3. “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”
We have positional unity, which is guaranteed just be being in Christ. But then, we also have practical unity, which Paul says we must make every effort to keep.
Paul himself was a good model for us in this. He was continually admonishing others, pointing out examples of disunity, and calling them back to the unity that Christ desires.
Also, I think, as we plan mission strategy, we must plan with the ultimate goal (or “end-vision”) in mind being that of a united church. There are certain church-planting strategies that by-pass the importance of unity.
That doesn’t mean we never specifically target specific sub-sectors of society in our evangelistic efforts. For example, if we see that, in a certain city the body of Christ is composed largely of people of one ethnic group, or social class, and under-represented by another, that is a sign that the full unity of the body is not being reflected well. In order to make up for this lack, it may be a good thing to make a special emphasis on reaching out to that sector that is under-represented. But never with the goal of forming a separate church, just for them.
A question this opens up for me has to do with the validity of homogeneous cell groups (or house churches, perhaps). As an evangelistic strategy, I can certainly see the value of reaching people within the confines of their own cultural context. But, there must be a goal, as we baptize them, and teach them to observe everything Christ commanded us (i.e. make disciples), to have them leave their immature divisions based on ethnicity and class behind.
This is, admittedly, tricky. But it is not something, just because it is difficult, that I think we can sacrifice on the altar of quick results and church growth, or even of CPMs.