We should note that Paul, writing with apostolic authority, repeatedly instructs churches to imitate him (Philippians 4:9; 1 Thessalonians 1:6). He specifically charges church leaders to follow his pattern of life, both his faithful teaching and his sacrificial suffering (Acts 20:17–35; 2 Timothy 1:8–2:3).

In the world of evangelical missions, it’s common to appeal to Paul’s example when developing or defending missionary praxis. Many seek to articulate a Pauline approach or critique others for diverting from it. While Roland Allen wasn’t the first to do this, his classic work on Paul’s missionary methods presented them as the plumb line for contemporary missions.

More recently, some missiologists have questioned the degree to which we’re called to follow Paul’s example, but I’m convinced we have much to learn from the great apostle to the nations (Rom. 11:13). However, whenever we seek to construct missionary methods based on a Pauline model, we encounter various challenges.

Much of Paul’s life and ministry isn’t revealed in Scripture. Even when we can observe what he did, we don’t always know why he did it. Most challenging of all, missiologists must come to terms with how Paul’s calling and world were far different from ours. This doesn’t negate the possibility, or even necessity, of following Paul’s missionary example, but it suggests we must be careful when trying to reconstruct a Pauline approach.

Critical Differences

Any attempt to build a methodology from Paul’s ministry must reckon with the reality that he wasn’t your average missionary. Paul was uniquely called and specifically commissioned by our Lord. While the Bible can use the term apostolos for a variety of people, the church has long acknowledged a defined group of individuals who hold unique authority to transmit Christ’s teaching and thus serve as the foundation for his church (Eph. 2:20). Paul was one of those apostles.

No missionary today can claim a similar apostolic position. We don’t speak on behalf of Christ with the same authority, nor should we expect churches to receive our teaching in the same way. While this truth is rarely debated, it means we can’t always assume a one-to-one correspondence between Paul’s ministry and ours. It’s like comparing a foundation stone to a roof rafter.

Paul didn’t only have a unique role in the founding of the church; certain historical factors also make his example rarely replicable. From what we know, Paul never had to learn another language. Wherever he went, he could operate in Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew. And although culture wasn’t monolithic in the Roman Empire, Paul wasn’t a cultural outsider in the way many missionaries are today. He possessed a deep awareness of social dynamics and could quote popular sources, bringing the gospel to bear on the various groups he encountered.

For most cross-cultural missionaries today, attaining a similar fluency and aptitude in their context could easily take more than a decade. They can’t walk into a global city or a tribal village and immediately communicate the gospel as clearly or effectively as Paul.

Read More