Why Paul Is a Complicated Missionary Model

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.

Paul didn’t only have a unique role in the founding of the church; certain historical factors also make his example rarely replicable.

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.

Remaining Unknowns

Another major reason it’s hard to form a missionary strategy from Paul’s example is that there’s so much we simply don’t know.

For example, what was Paul doing during the “silent years” of his ministry? Why did he travel to Arabia, and what did he do there? When he visited Jerusalem, did he receive instructions—or even an assignment—from the church or the other apostles? When Paul landed back in his home region of Cilicia for nearly a decade, what was his mission? Through reports of his later travels, we learn of a church (or churches) in Cilicia (Acts 15:41), but we can only speculate about their founding or what part Paul played in them.

This raises another question we can’t fully answer: Did Paul often travel where the gospel had already gone? At Pentecost, we know there were Jews and proselytes in Jerusalem from across the Roman Empire (2:5–11). Many of those Pentecost pilgrims received the gospel and likely returned home. When we read of Paul traveling to some of those same cities and regions (about 15 years later), he appears to encounter those who’ve already believed, such as Apollos or Aquila and Priscilla (18:2, 24). It’s quite possible many of the places Paul visited already had disciples and churches (see 19:1). If that’s the case, it gives us a different perspective on Paul’s pioneer work.

Missiologists sometimes infer certain missiological priorities or ministry timelines based on Paul’s travels. However, it’s hard to discern a self-conscious strategy from Paul’s example since he was so often on the run. We simply don’t know how long Paul may have stayed in a certain place, given the opportunity. In the case of Cilicia, Paul was there 10 years before Barnabas asked for his help in Antioch. In every other city, Paul seems to have been forced out against his will. Even in Ephesus and Corinth, the places where he remained the longest, we have good reason to believe Paul left because of persecution (20:3) or to avoid further escalation (v. 1).

Example to Follow

Given what we know of Paul’s ministry—as well as what we don’t—we must admit reconstructing a Pauline model for missions is incredibly complicated. We’re not able to appropriate everything Paul did, nor can we take one anecdote from his ministry and make it an all-encompassing approach. Biblical descriptions of his mission aren’t necessarily meant to supply us with a blueprint to follow.

It’s hard to discern a self-conscious strategy from Paul’s example since he so often was on the run.

Nevertheless, as we consider Paul’s ministry, we can observe self-conscious priorities and patterns of ministry instructive for us today. For example, wherever Paul goes, we find him “occupied with the word” (18:5), proclaiming the gospel and teaching the “whole counsel of God” (20:27). Paul repeatedly says he desires converts who are sanctified in the Spirit and mature in Christ (Rom. 15:16–18; Col. 1:28); therefore, he prioritizes long-term relationships and deep discipleship—even when he’s forced to leave a place prematurely.

Paul is clearly eager to push into new territories with the gospel (Rom. 15:20), but that ambition doesn’t preempt his concern for the churches in his care (2 Cor. 10:13–16; 11:28). So he constantly writes to and visits those congregations, and eventually he entrusts them to local leaders who will show that same commitment to the gospel and their faith.

Missionaries are right to follow Paul’s example. We should note that Paul, writing with apostolic authority, repeatedly instructs churches to imitate him (Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 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 Tim. 1:8–2:3). And, perhaps most pertinent for this discussion, Paul calls all believers to emulate his evangelistic ambition, doing everything for the glory of God and the salvation of the nations (1 Cor. 10:31–11:1). His is an example we all should follow.

​