[This is Part ? of a ?-part study to promote a biblical understanding of church planting called “The Progress of the Gospel.”]
Since the first missionary journey (summarized in Acts 14:21-28) is “the work” of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:1-3), coincides with the Great Commission of Jesus, is repeated in the 2nd and 3rd missionary journeys of Paul and matches the letters of Paul, the first missionary journey holds great significance for all who live during this Church Age.
First, Paul should be imitated.
To obey Paul’s example and teaching is to obey Christ. Acts 1:1 tells us that Luke’s “first account” (i.e., the Gospel of Luke) contained “all that Jesus began to do and teach.” This means Luke’s second account—the Book of Acts—contains what Jesus continued to do and teach through His Apostles. That is why it is called “The Acts of the Apostles.” Their example and teaching are foundational to this age. Since Paul played such a critical role in taking the gospel to the Gentile world, his life and ministry are to be imitated—to imitate Christ is to imitate Paul. Perhaps all Bible-believing churches and movements do so to some degree already, but the decline of the Church in our time suggests the need for a fresh revisitation of Paul’s example and the prayerful willingness to make corrections or even complete reconstructions of churches and ministries.
Second, the New Testament was written to strengthen churches.
Every book and letter of the New Testament was written to strengthen churches. This is a critical correction for our modern church culture—the New Testament was not written primarily for individualized spirituality and theological debates. The letters in particular contain “the teaching” that was delivered to the first churches so they define the discipleship and leadership development process. No doubt, most evangelical teaching and discipleship support the importance of the local church, but since much modern discipleship material has been developed by parachurch ministries, the centrality of the local church is often lost or deemphasized. Curricula must be built based on the mission, purpose, concerns, and needs of the local church—for the purpose of strengthening and multiplying local churches.
Third, the local church is central to what God is doing in this age.
The implications of this are enormous. When the first missionaries were chosen by the Holy Spirit and sent out in intentional missions, they planted, strengthened and multiplied local churches. In other words, the Great Commission the planting, strengthening and multiplying of local churches. The entire missionary enterprise—evangelism, discipleship, leadership development, missions, theological education, good works, Christian publishing, etc.—should serve the purpose of multiplying strong local churches everywhere. All parachurch organizations must revisit their purpose, all curricula must be reread, all missionary endeavors must be reevaluated—in cooperation with local churches and the leaders of church movements—to determine whether they genuinely serve the planting, strengthening and multiplying of local churches. Even local churches need to reevaluate every program, every curriculum, and every resource to determine whether it is truly strengthening them for the purpose of participation in the Great Commission.
Fourth, local churches were networked together in a church planting movement.
Paul and other “sent ones” (sodal; see Part 3) went in and out of the churches as needed to keep them strong. Each church was autonomous, but they were also networked together, sharing resources, sharing leaders, receiving the teaching of the Apostles, the admonishment and guidance of mature, globally-minded leaders, “conducting themselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ… standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.” As our culture and world become more and more negative toward Christianity in our time—especially in the West— the more this implication of the Pauline Cycle will need to be explored. Denominations, church planting movements and various other fellowships will need to rethink what they are doing and how it can be improved. Completely autonomous and isolated churches and movements need to prayerfully consider partnerships in the global family of God’s people.
Fifth, Paul intended for the “Cycle” to continue.
In Paul’s final letter, 2 Timothy, he was passing the baton of leadership to the next generation of church leadership—represented in the person of Timothy. He challenged Timothy to continue the work he had been doing—the work Timothy had been taught to do.
“The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
Paul was the first generation leader—chosen by Christ and called by the Holy Spirit. Timothy was the second generation. He had heard Paul teach many “things…in the presence of many witnesses.” He had watched and helped Paul for many years by the time 2 Timothy was written—planting, strengthening and multiplying churches throughout the Roman Empire. Paul instructed Timothy to “entrust these to faith men.” That’s the third generation. Timothy was to find his own “Timothys”—faithful men who would commit themselves to “the work” the Holy Spirit had called Paul to do—the Great Commission. He was to “entrust” that work to a third generation of “faithful” people “who will be able to teach others also.” That’s a fourth generation.
See the pattern? Do you suppose Paul could have kept going? Do you suppose that fourth generation was supposed to find their own “Timothys” and pass on the teaching and “work” of Paul to a fifth generation? Of course. And then a sixth, seventh, 10th, 100th, 1000th generation.
That’s us. You and me.
The only question in our generation—as in each generation since Paul entrusted his work to Timothy—is, “Will we be faithful?” Faithful to “the things” which Timothy heard from Paul? Which Paul modeled in the Book of Acts and wrote in his letters? Which Timothy entrusted to faithful men.
Will we be the “faithful men” (and women) of our generation?
