Engaging the Apostle Paul: Reading for Ministry and Leadership
Bible Engagement and the Apostle Paul
Engaging the questions of ministry and leadership in Paul emerges from my own engagement in the Latino/a Pentecostal church in New York City. As a Puerto Rican raised in New York City, I know persons, especially in the storefront Pentecostal churches of my youth, who lacked access to traditional opportunities for training and leadership. Nonetheless, they exercised significant leadership roles within the Latino Christian church, as well as other community institutions. I am intrigued by the question: Is there a biblical perspective relative to the issue of access and opportunity for leadership? Thus I explore the question of who became leaders in the churches founded by Paul and what was the social status of those leaders with respect to the strict, hierarchical social structure of Greco-Roman society. I believe the relationship between life experience and biblical exploration to be one important aspect of what biblical scholars and preachers mean by “Bible engagement.”
The Context in which Paul Engages Ministry and Leadership
Although the Apostle Paul’s ministry takes place in the same overall climate of first century Roman imperial hegemony in which Jesus carries out his ministry, there are significant differences. Paul takes the Jesus movement (albeit he is not the only one, but certainly the best attested one) out beyond its immediate beginnings in a relatively small corner of the Empire– Palestine –into much larger geographic areas of the Mediterranean world. In particular, Paul engages a strategy in which he will preach and establish Christian communities in the major cities of the Empire, including Thessalonica, Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, and Colossae. He also expects to visit Rome after completing his ministry in the eastern Mediterranean, for the churches there to finance his mission trip west to Spain (Rom 15:23-24). Strategically, Paul employs all the benefits of the Roman imperial hegemony–good roads with military security, relatively prosperous cities, and individuals with financial means to support and enhance his Christian gospel mission.
Secondly, Paul, like Jesus, does not engage in his mission alone. He surrounds himself with associates, whom he calls “co-workers” (Rom 16:3, 9, 21; 2 Cor 8:23, Phil 2:25, 4:3; 1 Thess 3:2; Phlm 1, 24), and upon whom he depends in order to nurture and instruct the congregations he founded. In my book, Servant Leadership, I study the qualities Paul expects of his leaders. We will see that Paul does not rely on typical Greco-Roman expectations of class and status to select his associates or endorse their church leadership. Rather, like Jesus, Paul selects leaders from among those whom he serves. He expects them, as he does of himself, to serve the Pauline congregations, even to the point of risk and sacrifice.
Thirdly, Paul’s leadership is based on an apostolic calling to take the gospel to places where it has not yet taken root. Therefore, “apostolic ministry” today, as then, should be missional and groundbreaking. Paul exercises pastoral ministry at a distance, through letter writing when needed, although sometimes personal visits or that of envoys is preferred. Occasionally, a letter will work better than a personal visit, and an envoy will work better than a visit by Paul himself (see Titus in 2 Corinthians for a prime example of this pattern).
Finally, Paul’s theology is forged in the heat of apostolic and pastoral ministry to his assemblies. J. Christiann Beker showed us three decades ago that Paul’s “coherent theology,” whether “Christology,” “soteriology,” “pneumatology,” “justification,” “reconciliation,” or “eschatology” (or any of our attempts to organize early Christian thought in ideal, abstract terms rather than contextually) is imbedded in his letters as he responds to the “contingent” situations of his congregations. Thus many Pauline scholars, me included, consider Paul a “praxis theologian,” i.e., his theology is pastoral and contextual, rather than systematic and abstract. He is an “engaged scholar, or theologian,” that is, one who reflects on the gospel and the theology of the good news about Jesus the Christ in light of close engagement with his communities, not an abstract divorcing from them. Paul contextualized his theology to the needs of his communities. We only have Paul’s theology in context and not as an abstract compendium of ideas. His theology of ministry and leadership, to whatever extent we can discern it, must be constructed and understood as a function of engagement with communities. This, of course, is how pastors and preachers engage their communities–by addressing immediate needs through fresh reading, interpretation, and application of the biblical witness to new and pressing, usually local, situations, and contexts.
Given the urban context of the Roman imperial order and his apostolic calling to create new communities of faith in Jesus as the Christ in those contexts, and doing so together with associates, what does Paul say about leadership and how is that helpful for our gospel leadership today, in some very different contexts?
Aspects of Leadership in Paul: Integrity
Paul alludes to the nature of his leadership in a variety of places in his letters. First, early in his ministry he defends the integrity of the Pauline mission, including himself and his associates. As he writes to his church in Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:1-9)
First, Paul and his missionary associates were willing to suffer on behalf of the gospel mission. Paul also expects his leaders to confront similar mistreatment on behalf of the gospel with courage and integrity. No one, not Paul, not his associates, not us, seek to suffer, but we all recognize that it is often the cost of doing God’s work; certainly Paul understood that. Integrity represents the second emphasis in this passage. Neither “deceit,” “impure motives,” or “trickery” motivates the missionary enterprise, writes Paul, but rather the desire to serve God’s people. Ultimately, Paul believed, God stands behind the motivation for the Pauline missionary enterprise, not personal gain or greed.
The passage from Thessalonians also refers several times to the missionary’s love for their constituents. Their love and concern, “like a wet nurse caring for her own children” (1 Thess 2:7, my translation) for the Thessalonians and their spiritual well-being lies behind their missionary activity, so much so that they did manual labor to support the ministry and not be a financial burden to the Thessalonians (v. 9).
Early in Paul’s ministry, then, the issues of suffering, integrity, and finances confronted his missionary efforts, and therefore demanded a defense, which he does here in 1 Thessalonians (most likely his first extant letter). He affirms honest efforts in doing God’s will through his preaching ministry, genuine love for his converts, including not wanting to be a financial burden, and willingness to confront opposition in all shapes and forms. Paul expects similar actions and attitudes from the leadership of his associates and fellow-workers.
Defining Leadership: Service
In addition to defending the integrity of his leadership, how does Paul define the nature of leadership? Perhaps the Corinthian correspondence has the best answers. First, according to Paul, the Corinthians needed to understand that gospel leadership must be defined in terms of both human humility and divine power.
Paul asserts in 1 Cor 2: 1-5, that if the power of God and not just human ability did not lie behind Paul’s missionary efforts, the enterprise would fail. The gospel leader, argues Paul, must be willing to exercise “cruciformity”–following the example of Christ even to the point of suffering and death–for the cause of the good news God has to offer to humanity. Such an attitude entails humility and ultimate reliance on divine power, especially when times are tough. Paul often asserts this throughout his letters. Difficulties that come to a gospel leader are not the sign of weakness or failed leadership, as some in Corinth seemed to believe with regard to Paul’s apostolic sufferings (for example, 4:8-13), but rather how one responds to crisis. Hopefully, one responds with faith, hope, love, and skill. Responding with these qualities serves as a mark of authenticity for one’s leadership calling and capacity.
Second, Paul consistently defines leadership in terms of service or diakonia, much like Jesus did (see, for example, Luke 22:24-27). A few paragraphs after his call for humility and divine dependence in 1 Cor 2:1-5, Paul describes the nature of gospel leadership (3:5-9).
Paul affirms the ultimate divine role in gospel leadership. Each gospel leader, as a servant of God, has a role to play in the gospel mission, but it is God who gives “the growth.” Reward for gospel service depends not on who is on top, but who carries out his or her role according to the “common purpose” that is the gospel mission. This vision represents a somewhat upside down expectation for leadership compared to the hierarchy of the Roman imperial society in which Paul’s congregations are imbedded. Nonetheless, an upside down leadership, with God at the top, and everyone else equal servants of Gods’ divine purpose, functioned as the modus operandi in Paul’s vision of leadership for his congregations and the gospel mission, at least as we read Paul’s uncontested letters to places like Thessalonica, Corinth, and Philippi.
In fact, in his confrontation with an elite core of leaders who opposed Paul in Corinth, Paul seems to suggest that those with less status in the outside world should have access to leadership inside the gospel community: (1 Cor 1:26-29).
In many ways, these lower status individuals in the gospel community have the right ideas about how leadership should be exercised, not based on status but on service, and Paul extols them, over against some high status leaders in the community, those who supposedly “are” somebody in the outside world. Of course, this was not everyone’s vision for leadership in Paul’s congregations. Some in Corinth sought social status enhancement out of their role as leaders in the Corinthian congregation, to which Paul responds with dripping irony: “Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Quite apart from us you have become kings! Indeed, I wish that you had become kings, so that we might be kings with you!” (4:8). Paul has to mollify their search for glory by citing apostolic suffering: (vv. 9-13).
Paul uses several of these “hardship lists” throughout the Corinthian correspondence in order to correct an overly glorified vision of gospel leadership by a core group of leaders in the Corinthian congregation. They think Paul’s hard times are indications of weak leadership. Paul counters, several times throughout 1-2 Corinthians, that hardships are part and parcel of gospel leadership. In fact, though one does not seek them nor relish them, Paul argues that such difficult moments as illness, financial stress, imprisonment, and rejection are marks of authenticity: “Therefore I am content with weakness, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor 12:10).
Thus Paul defines ministry and leadership in terms of cruciformity—following the example of Christ, diakonia—service to God’s people, and suffering–being willing to serve in harsh times and face difficult circumstances on behalf of the cause of the gospel. These are not easy criteria for leaders today and one needs to be careful not to make martyrs of religious leaders. None-the-less, if we could keep in mind these basic characteristics of following good models, serving people in need, and working our way through conflict and difficulty with our “eyes on the prize,” we have articulated something of a Pauline vision for religious leadership today.
Commending Good Leadership: Paul’s Self-Commendation
Finally, Paul uses Greco-Roman practices of commendation for local leaders and his associates when he wants them to be well received and recognized as authentic leaders by local congregations. Here, I want to point out that when it comes time to commend his own leadership, Paul uses rather unique criteria (2 Cor 3:1-6). While others in the Greco-Roman world depended on commendation letters to support their leadership, Paul depends on the actual existence of a thriving gospel community to demonstrate the authenticity of his ministry. “You yourselves are our letter,” he claims. Further, he once again shows that any competence for his leadership comes from divine prerogative and the presence of God’s life-giving Spirit.
What do we look for in good leadership and how do we commend it in others? Having a “track record” of doing good regardless of superficial credentials that only point to “jumping hoops” might be an important thing to consider. We do not eschew a good education or valuable experience, obviously, as we look for good leaders for our churches, religious organizations, and community outreach, but we certainly should be interested as well in the demonstrated passions and concerns that a potential leader has already shown for the community it seeks to serve. Paul asked for the Corinthians to look at the “proof in the pudding” to find the proper criteria for commending him. Their very existence as a community of faith, even in the face of struggle and difficulty, was a testament to the authenticity of Paul’s leadership. His self-commendation relied on the work that stood alive and well, if slightly flawed, in Roman Corinth in mid-first century C.E.
Conclusion: The Marks of Gospel Leadership
Thus in this overview of various statements by the Apostle Paul about the nature of ministry and leadership, we must conclude that he depended on God for his assignment as an apostle and missionary, that suffering and cruciformity was an integral part of the nature of his leadership on behalf of the gospel communities, and that his love and concern for these communities overruled any personal gains or interests that he or any gospel leader might seek from such an assignment. For Paul, gospel leadership was about service, even if that service entailed suffering, hard labor, and criticism from those who misunderstood the nature of the ministry. The ministry may not bring much earthly glory, but satisfaction is derived from knowing one was responding to God’s call, serving with God’s power, and rewarded with a viable, thriving gospel community.
None of us in ministry and leadership today can lay claim to all of these criteria as marks of our success all the time. We strive to achieve them, fall short in one or another, whether it be shying away from conflict and difficult moments, even as we are needed to step forth and take a stand, however unpopular, or thinking too highly of our positional strength to get things done rather than relying on keeping good and open relationships with those whom we serve so together we can march forward freely on behalf of the gospel.
Paul took some hard criticisms as leader of his communities, some more warranted than others. There can be no doubt of his firm conviction that his understanding of leadership was the right one for the communities he served, and the gospel he preached. In fact, there are times when we read his letters and especially his passages of self-defense that we think he harbors the notion that if his apostleship is rejected, the gospel witness is compromised. Today we should harbor no such notions of grandeur. However, the urgency of Paul’s convictions, given his belief in an imminent return of Christ and “passing away” of “the present form of this world” (1 Cor 7:31), seems to have precluded anything less than a strong stance of apostolic self-defense when needed. Our challenge is to define the nature of religious leadership needed for our day, in light of some basic elements that Paul teaches and still remain relevant: service, humility, commitment, the courage of our convictions, and ultimate dependence on the transcendent presence of God.
