[This is Part 3 of a 6-part study to promote a biblical understanding of church planting.]
Read Acts 13:1-12. What stands out to you as you read about the start of the first missionary journey? What do you think the Holy Spirit wants us to learn from these first missionaries? Consider the following observations.
Some stayed and some were sent (vs.1-3).
This was the clear pattern established by the Holy Spirit, and it remains true throughout the New Testament. In the “Perspectives” course and book, going back to 1973, Ralph D. Winter, Professor of Missions at Fuller Theological Seminary and a very active missionary himself, wrote about “two redemptive structures” calling one type “modal” and one type “sodal.” The “modal” leaders stay—like the men listed in Acts 13:1. They’re gifted to shepherd the local church—elders, deacons, older men, older women. The “sodal” leaders are sent. Like Paul and Barnabas, their focus is global. They’re gifted to participate in the expansion of the church.
If Winter is right, this distinction in leadership gifting is hugely liberating for local churches. Some are gifted and designed to stay and some are gifted and designed to be sent. It’s how the Holy Spirit wired us. We have the same goals—the planting, strengthening and multiplying of local churches everywhere (i.e., the Great Commission). But, we’re not all focused on the same thing. We can celebrate our differences and work together.
The Holy Spirit sent out (lit., “apostled”) the most qualified (v.2,4).
Apparently, the Holy Spirit gifted and designed Saul and Barnabas for “sodal” ministry—these were “sent ones.” They were globally-minded leaders gifted to participate in the expansion of the church. The others stayed and continued to do the work of the local church ministry. This is important in light of the bigger story—the flow of the Book of Acts.
The first 12 chapters of Acts are primarily focused on Peter. The other eleven Apostles are practically ignored while Peter preaches six messages including the climactic presentation of the gospel to Cornelius—a Gentile in Chapter 10. The rest of Acts—from Chapter 13 on—focuses on Paul. The Twelve are almost completely dropped—except when Peter endorsed the ministry of Paul (Chapter 15)! So the flow of Acts, generally speaking, is Peter clarifying the message of the church while Paul clarified the mission of the church.
In our church culture and paradigm, we tend to send out the young and zealous. But when the Holy Spirit chose two leaders to send, He chose the two most qualified. This is an important principle. The most qualified will usually be more effective and probably more persistent (e.g., Acts 15:36-38). The Holy Spirit can obviously and certainly do as He wishes through anyone who is willing to go, but in most cases, the older, more seasoned leaders are the wisest choice. It just makes sense.
The local church at Antioch also sent out the leaders which the Holy Spirit chose (v.3).
In the modern church culture and paradigm, it’s not churches that usually send out missionaries. Typically, individuals “feel called” and choose a mission organization—not a local church—to send them out. The real question is whether this is a practice endorsed by the Holy Spirit, or whether it should be the work of the local church, or a movement of local churches, to choose and send out “missionaries.” What we know for sure is that the first missionaries were sent out by a local church.
The church first “fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them” (v.3).
Have you ever wondered why they fasted and prayed? Protection? Provision? That the Holy Spirit would open doors for the gospel, etc. At the very least, we can say that the church at Antioch was a praying church. They prayed over these first missionaries before they sent them out and most likely after.
“Laying hands” was a public—church community—endorsement of these first missionaries. And, it was a statement. It was a public and corporate agreement with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit had spoken, so the church laid hands on these men and publicly acknowledged that they were one-minded with each other and the Spirit.
They first went to the synagogues (vs.4-5).
Going to synagogues made sense culturally. This was a logical and intelligent strategy on the part of Barnabas and Saul. The Jews already had a biblical worldview and were waiting for the Messiah to come. What better place to start?! Announce to them that Messiah has come! If they believed, they became a more solid base for churches than perhaps Gentile believers were. They already had a biblical worldview.
Is there a principle here for us? What is our “synagogue”? Think culture—cultural Christians. Believers who, for whatever reasons, have strayed from the church. And, there are many unbelievers who are still favorable toward Christ and Christianity. For example, a church in the Kansas City area has grown significantly by starting Bible studies in homes, coffee shops, schools, and other places where there are receptive people. Another church trains its people to go into liberal churches—where the gospel has been lost—and graciously participate in Sunday school and other ministries for the purpose of sharing the gospel.
This “synagogue” mentality requires “going,” rather than simply inviting others to “come.” Perhaps it is time for our churches to ask ourselves, What is our “synagogue”? How can we develop our “synagogue ministry”?
Paul performed miracles (vs.6-11).
“Elymas the magician” opposed them. But, Paul—via “the hand of the Lord” struck him blind (v.11). Then, as a result, the proconsul, Sergius Paulus—a Roman leader—“believed” (v.12).
This leads to a natural question: Should we be doing miracles so that more people will believe? Some believe that the Church is in decline because we aren’t “believing God” for more miracles. When it comes to miracles, it is important to start with their purpose. What was the purpose of miracles in the ministries of Jesus and the Apostles?
Look at Hebrews 2:3,4: “How will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.”
Notice that the miracles of Jesus and His Apostles “confirmed” their message (past tense). The purpose of miracles—sometimes called signs—was to confirm the message of salvation. In fact, right after the miracle in Acts 13, Paul proclaimed the gospel message—documented in detail by Luke. This miracle confirmed the message of Saul and Barnabas. It was the combination of the miracle and the message that led the proconsul to believe.
Look also at Ephesians 2:19,20: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,”
The Apostles had a special role in the history of the Church—including the writing of the New Testament. As it was being written, the miracles confirmed them as Christ’s messengers. After it was written, the gifts were apparently no longer necessary. Like the Old Testament, the New Testament was confirmed by God through signs and wonders and miracle-workers were no longer necessary. This would mean that no people are given miraculous gifts today. Only Jesus and His Apostles, plus those on whom the Apostles laid hands were able to do miracles (See Acts 8:14-17; 19:5-6). So, since there are no Apostles living today (cf., 1 Cor. 15:8), no people have the gift of miracles today. Plus, even the Apostles apparently began to lose their ability to do miracles later on in their ministries (e.g., 1 Tim5:23).
God, of course, can do whatever He wishes, whenever He wishes. We pray to Him all the time—prayer is asking God to do miraculous things in our lives. But, don’t ask Shaun or Aaron or Josh to do miracles because we don’t have the ability to do miracles.
Would people be more likely to believe if we could perform miracles (i.e., “power evangelism”)? In John, Jesus performed many signs but some believed and some didn’t (John 12:37). Many just asked for more signs (John 6:30). Jesus even rebuked the people for requiring signs in order to believe (e.g., John 4:48; cf., Matt 12:39; 16:4). Jesus said, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet” (Matthew 12:39, NASB95). In other words, the resurrection of Christ (i.e., the sign of Jonah) is the ultimate sign. If people will not believe that, then no amount of signs we might be given will do anyone any good.
Principles and Challenges for The Progress of the Gospel:
Leadership is complementary.
Churches need to develop two categories of leaders—“stay” and “send” (sodal and modal, global and local)—who work toward the same goals in different spheres. How many globally-minded leaders do we have in our churches? How many locally-minded? Probably, most churches don’t know. But, our planting efforts should emerge from the development of these leaders.
Qualifications are key.
All leaders—stay or sent—should be the most qualified we can find rather than the most eager. Leadership development is critical for both strength and multiplication. Are you qualified, willing and able? If so, help strengthen the local church using your qualifications. If not, how will you grow in your qualifications and preparedness?
The Church is central.
It is the work of the local church (and church movements) to develop, identify, send and support both global and local leaders who work toward the same Great Commission goals. For a couple centuries, leaders for the local church have come from Bible colleges and seminaries. And much good has been done in and through these institutions. But in our time, there is a great shortage of qualified leaders and many local churches are dying. Perhaps it is time to ask whether Bible colleges and seminaries are better suited to develop pastors or professors. Perhaps it is time to revisit the idea of raising up leaders for the local church through the local church sent by the local church.
Strategy is biblical.
Go back to the “synagogue strategy” of Barnabas and Saul—going to culturally near people. The church should carefully study the Scriptures for the ministry patterns and strategies modeled by the Apostles, then work those out in our own place, time and culture. We must hold our plans and strategies loosely and submit them to the Holy Spirit, but planning and strategizing are good. They are not counter to the leadership of the Holy Spirit. It is part of the reality that God invites us to participate in what He is doing. He is free to change our plans and strategies at any moment, but it is not wrong to plan.
The gospel is primary.
As we seek to wisely follow the ministry patterns and strategies we believe the Holy Spirit has identified—even if we are praying for miracles that will cause people to believe—everything comes down to the gospel. The greatest methods and the wildest miracles won’t save anyone apart from a clear and bold proclamation of the good news that Jesus Christ died and rose again that we might be reconciled with God. We can and should plan. We can and should pray for miracles. But, we must keep the gospel primary.
When was the last time you asked God to use you to win someone to Christ? When was the last time you tried to share the gospel? When was the last time you actually did share the gospel? When was the last time you invited a neighbor into your home, or invited a “culturally near” person to church? Trust the power of the Holy Spirit. Believe in the importance of the gospel. And step out in faith.
