Paul and His Fellow Workers—Chapter 4

By Bard M. Pillette [1]

Paul’s Less-Than-Modern-Approach to Motivation and Influence

Motivational Technique within Our Culture

One of my summer jobs when I was a college student was in the receiving department of a big company where I spent most of my time driving a forklift. One day the supervisor said, half to himself, “For this job I need a really proficient forklift driver. Oh, hey Bard, you are just the man I need for this job.” Did that motivate me to work harder? Of course it did. I thought to myself, “They are recognizing my contribution to this job.” A few days later, I heard the same supervisor say the same thing to another worker. What a fool I was to be so easily flattered. It was just a gimmick to make people feel good about themselves and to motivate them to work harder.

In all the books on leadership in the business world, there is always a section on motivation. How can we empower employees and make them feel like they are a significant part of the team? How can we make them take ownership for their jobs and capture the company’s vision? Many times their suggestions are universal, proverbial insights into motivating people. Still, these books always leave me with the uneasy feeling that the bottom line is manipulation hidden behind upbeat slogans: “Celebrate the victories.” “Publicly recognize achievement.” “Teach people to say ‘yes, and’ rather than ‘yes, but’.” “Nothing is impossible.” “Reach your full potential.” A sense of team is to be fomented in creative ways. For example, Levi Strauss has its executives work every so often on the plant floor packing pants and shipping them off. [2] This allows leadership to understand the workers’ world and the workers to feel valued. As a result, everyone works better and more contentedly.

Basically, business motivation techniques can be learned at a seminar or by reading a book. It dismays me to see the same approach being taken up by Christian leadership books. After finding out that one has been motivated, even within Christian organizations, by empowerment techniques learned at business seminars, it is difficult not to feel just a little duped.

Contrariwise, Paul’s method of motivation was not based on something learned at seminars. Paul’s “technique” required many years to develop, and it cost him dearly, much more than the usual two-hundred-dollar seminar fee. Furthermore, it was not developed by taking surveys of successful leaders. [3]

Paul’s Motivational Method in Philemon

Public Repercussions

Some of the most intriguing insights into Paul’s powerful influence as a motivator are captured in his letter to Philemon. First, Paul sets the stage by making his request public. [4] The letter is addressed both to Philemon and the church (Philm. 1–2, 25). Everything is out in the open. This public letter forces Philemon to face the fact that his decision will affect the work in Colossae, though it may seem to him to be a personal business matter. There are public repercussions for a leader’s decisions. [5] The church is observing his conduct as a pattern to be followed. The Colossian letter has just been read to the church. In it Paul has said, “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven” (Col. 4:1). Philemon feels the weight of the example he will be giving as a believing master. Leaders cannot separate their private matters from their public role. They are to be motivated by thinking of the precedent or example they are setting.

Reputation of the One Motivating

Second, Paul reminds Philemon just who it is that is making this request (Philm. 8–9). The request comes from an old man who is a prisoner of Christ. [6] With regard to his being the prisoner of Christ, Paul, in so many words, says, “I am no armchair general, no untried, impractical idealist. I make no superfluous requests based on a scholar’s ‘theological reflection’ or self-aggrandizement.” Ultimately, he is not a prisoner of Rome but rather of Christ. He is suffering because of obedience to Christ. It is Christ’s sovereign will that he be in prison. This is proof that he is genuine. He has God’s approval rather than man’s. Philemon is to be motivated by realizing that the request comes from a man not given to trivial matters nor to thinking of his own welfare. In other words, Philemon is being motivated by the purity of Paul’s motives. Can this be learned at a seminar? Can this be translated into a catchy slogan?

Paul never alludes to his great accomplishments as reason to trust him as God’s spokesman. His successes are never used to motivate others. He always points to his hardships as proof of being a worthy spokesman for Christ. [7] It is the lack of popularity and prosperity that, ironically enough, gives him powerful influence with Philemon. Christ Himself taught that popularity was not a good sign: “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for in the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets” (Luke 6:26). Paul uses his imprisonment as proof that he has not chosen to be popular. In so many words, he is saying, “I am genuine, Philemon. My request, like most of what I do, may not be popular, but it is sincere and serves Christ’s interests.”

Paul also refers to his age. It is true that old age makes every hard circumstance worse, but it is not so much that he is an old, decrepit man deserving of special coddling. The point is that he has been hard at work a long time, and even in his older age he has not removed himself from the fray. He has not softened or toned down his message or weakened his resolve over the years. He has not changed his message to make life a little easier.

Can the same claim be made today by gifted Bible teachers as they age? The present trend seems to be headed in a different direction. Many highly visible scholars and church leaders no longer defend their earlier convictions with the same fervency. [8] In order to extend their realm of influence, they have taken a broader, more popular stance within Christian circles. Their approach to doctrinal issues is now more friendly to the culture and provokes less opposition. [9] Paul had not adjusted his message one iota as he grew older. He did not, for the sake of unity, narrow his beliefs to a core of inviolable convictions and leave the rest up for debate. [10] Even secular writers on leadership recognize the value of constancy and reliability. In the book Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge, [11] the authors say that people prefer a leader with whom they disagree but is always the same, rather than a leader with whom they may politically agree but who periodically changes his position on certain issues. And so Paul motivates Philemon by reminding him of his constancy over the years. He does not take the easy way out.

Appeals Based on Long-term Friendship

The third approach Paul uses to motivate Philemon is to remind him of their relationship over the years. They are brothers (Philm. 20), fellow workers (Philm. 1), partners (Philm. 17), and like father and son (Philm. 19, since Philemon’s spiritual birth came through Paul). Philemon is indirectly made to calculate the investment Paul has made in his life. As he considers the great debt he owes Paul, he cannot help but feel the tremendous tug on his sense of loyalty. This approach to motivation requires years of cultivating a faithful friendship. [12]

It has been shown that Paul’s motivation depended on a long-term loyal friendship. It also depended upon genuineness and sincerity, proven by long-term hardship for Christ. There were no gimmicks, no power of positive thinking, no flattery, no inspirational homilies, no pretended friendship, no offers of reward or promotion.

Power of Ethical Convictions

A fourth element in Paul’s motivation of Philemon is to remind him that Paul’s requests are based on an ethically pure foundation. In particular, Paul never benefits financially from his dealings with others (Philm. 13–14). To have kept Onesimus would have been expecting Philemon to pay, because he would have been losing income in Onesimus’ absence. Furthermore, Paul would pay any financial loss (Philm. 18) even though Philemon owed Paul (Philm. 19). Paul goes beyond what are normal or conventional ethics. This became a powerful motivator because everyone owed Paul, and they knew his motives were pure.

When I look at Paul’s desire to go above and beyond conventionally accepted ethics, I wonder what we are to make of modern Christian leadership. In a secular news magazine there was an article about a popular Christian movement among men. [13] The report was quite favorable, but one little detail was disconcerting. It was said that millions were made on the T-shirts and coffee mugs sold at their meetings. Now there is nothing inherently wrong in that. But compared to Paul’s practice, it seems to lack dignity. It does not build the same level of trust and loyalty. It is amazing how the inclusion of one small detail can leave a little bit of doubt about a good organization’s motives.

Appeals Made without Manipulation

The curious element in all this, of course, is that Paul has the authority to demand obedience, but he refuses to resort to pulling rank on Philemon (Philm. 8–9). The reason for not using his position to demand acquiescence is given in Philemon 14 (which parallels his argument in 2 Corinthians 9:7). [14] Forced obedience does not allow the person to demonstrate the genuineness of his actions. His motives are suspect if he has been obligated. There is no value attributed to an action carried out under compulsion. Paul knows that God looks at the intentions of men’s hearts (Phil 1:15–17). Therefore, he believes that his work will be in vain if his fellow workers are moved to obedience for the wrong reasons. [15]

Paul makes his appeal with logical reasons but leaves the final impetus to God. God, not human manipulation or pressure, must convince a man to respond to the appeal. Only in this way can personal conviction grow and deepen. Otherwise, when Paul is no longer present, the person will return to taking the easy road. [16]

It is not too unlike a parent dealing with his children. The child may be obedient, but the reason given to friends for not doing something is, “My dad will not let me.” That is praiseworthy, but a parent wants his child to get to the point of saying, “I will not do it because I am convinced that it is wrong for these reasons.” The child has then internalized his parent’s conviction and understands why such conduct is unacceptable.

Visionary Skills Versus Biblical Convictions

Vision Determined by Culture

Today there is a growing inclination to make the leader’s visionary powers the key to motivating and enthusing people to take hold of a certain task. There is a premium upon being positive, making people feel good, being forward looking, and making things fun. A true leader visualizes the future. The visionary leader gets people excited about setting goals and making a strategy to accomplish great things. [17] He has a sense of where trends are headed and plans to meet the needs of tomorrow.

One Christian writer has said: “The real issue is how the church and the parachurch in the nineties and the next century will handle the torrent of change. Those who handle it poorly will, most likely, not survive the nineties, but those who handle it well will make significant advances for the Savior.” [18] He goes on to say that such a leader must be a voracious reader, keeping himself on the cutting edge of culture, trends, and changes. He must be intuitive to meet the changing needs of people. He should read books by marketplace visionaries like Lee Iacocca, Ross Perot, Mary Kay, and Steven Jobs. He says that “the visionary leader possesses an uncanny sense of being on to something big for God, believing that God is planning something special and that the leader is a vital part of that plan.” [19] People love to align themselves with someone popular, someone who is going somewhere.

Vision Determined by Eternity

As usual, there is a lot of good to be said about the concept of the visionary. But is this really a biblical quality that is key to leadership? [20] How would Paul have measured up to the modern visionary model, especially in his last letter to Timothy?

Timothy, “You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me.” “Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me.” “Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm.” “At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me” (2 Tim. 1:15; 4:10, 14, 16). Does this sound like a winner who motivates people to accomplish significant things for the Savior?

Timothy, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.” “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me” and “entrust them to faithful men” (2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2, 15). Does this sound like an appeal to gather information on future trends and to be culturally astute? After all, information is power. Does this sound like advice to look for visionaries and innovators to carry the message into the future? Even a secular writer with a measure of discernment can see through the vanity of being an information collector. Bennis says, “We worship this information and are dazzled by it more than we use it, and it is often more impressive for its sheer bulk than for its real value. We have more information now than we can use.... The true measure of any society is not what it knows but what it does with what it knows.” [21]

Timothy, “Do not be ashamed, suffer hardship with me” (2 Tim. 1:8; 2:3). Is this a very positive or fun approach for motivating men in ministry?

The pull to acculturate is so strong that Paul motivates Timothy by pointing off into eternity (2 Tim. 1:8–9). “Timothy, do not bend to cultural influences that are fleeting. God had you in mind, Timothy, before there was any society. And he purposed by His grace to rescue you from this world and to make you a leader. Do not be distracted, Timothy, by what is so popular in this short-lived culture. Your treasure is eternal.” Paul is certainly less than modern in his last letter to Timothy.

Conclusion

For Paul, influence and motivational power come from years of being principled rather than pragmatic. He motivates others by setting the example. He has no hidden agenda; it is all out in the open; he has proven his unbending conviction under hardship over a long time; he has invested faithfully in long-term friendships and thus people are indebted to him; he goes higher than the normally accepted level of ethics; he avoids manipulation in order to allow God to be the final or ultimate cause in bringing conviction. In so many words, he motivates others by being a man with his eyes fixed on eternity, not on the cultural conventions of the day.

There I was, a college dropout, fired from my job at the grocery store. I was on the reefs of Guam, sitting on my surfing board, feeling the warm water around my legs, concerned about the shape of the next wave coming in, worried about the knobs on my knees. “Was I starting to look like a genuine surfer? I wonder what the tide will be like in an hour.” My eyes blink and there I am on the high desert of Mexico in a dusty cemetery standing on a mound of dirt, holding up a Bible, speaking a foreign language, concerned that Rodrigo’s family and friends hear about his belief in Christ. God, through many difficult circumstances, had sovereignly and purposefully changed my concerns and my eyesight. This new vision with its focus on eternity now determines my character and my conduct.

What motivates those who work with us? Quite simply, it is depth of character. It can be seen in the eyes-a dogged determination to live with eternity in mind. Do we have forever eyes? “Forever eyes, they never tell lies. Forever eyes. You never have to compromise when you have forever eyes.” [22]

Notes

1. Bard Pillette was for many years a missionary in central Mexico. He is presently involved in an assembly in Medford, Oregon in a ministry of evangelism and Bible teaching to Hispanics. This is the fourth in a series of four articles on Paul and his companions.
2. James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993), 116.
3. Ironically, the majority of books written on leadership in the business world are written by college professors who have no business experience or by motivational experts who have interviewed numerous successful CEOs.
4. F. Forrester Church, “Rhetorical Structure and Design in Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” Harvard Theological Review 71 (January-April 1978): 32-33. Church believes that Paul made the letter public because he wanted to teach the church something of his attitude toward relationships in the body of Christ. J. D. M. Derrett, “The Functions of the Epistle of Philemon,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 79 (January-February 1988): 72-73. Derrett sees Paul’s letter as a manifesto directed to the pagan and Jewish critics. As such Paul set out to deny that the church was becoming a sanctuary to runaway slaves. The churches would side with slave owners in order to be in harmony with the government. In keeping with Deuteronomy 23, the slave would be returned to his believing owner. These reasons for the public nature of Paul’s letter fall short of explaining Paul’s true intentions.
5. Percival Neale Harrison, “Onesimus and Philemon,” Anglican Theological Review 32 (October 1950): 280. Harrison notes the implications for other slave holders in the church if this letter were made public.
6. F. Forrester Church, “Rhetorical Structure in Philemon,” 26. Rather than command, Paul offers an “appeal filled with ethos and pathos that cannot help but affect his hearer.”
7. C. Forbes, “Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric,” New Testament Studies 32 (January 1986): 1-30. J. T. Fitzgerald, “Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardship in the Corinthian Correspondence,” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1984). R. Hodgson, “Paul the Apostle and First Century Tribulation Lists,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (January-February 1983), 59–80.
8. Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 104. Linnemann, a former German liberal scholar who has become a believer, is appalled by the naiveté of evangelicals who think that they personally will be left untouched by prolonged study in schools where historical critical views are dominant. She describes the pressures in the academic world to be broader in one’s thinking. For example, in order to please academia, “the act of thinking is detached from how it personally affects the thinker. Those questions which move the heart and occupy the mind, which bother a person and demand answers, are spurned in favor of ‘scientific questions.’” As a result evangelicals unwittingly are intimidated by culture into being intellectually more “sophisticated.”
9. D. A. Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry: An Exposition of Passages from 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 34, 38–39. Carson, noting this trend in the area of cultural contextualization, reminds the reader of how different Paul was as he took his stand against cultural pressures in 1 Corinthian 2:2. “He ‘resolved’ (2:2) to adopt a more restrictive course, even though he was cutting across the stream of cultural expectations.” As he surveys the so-called successful churches, Carson asks, “Has the smoothness of the performance become more important to us than the fear of the Lord? Has polish, one of the modern equivalents of ancient rhetoric, displaced substance? Have professional competence and smooth showmanship become more valuable than sober reckoning over what it means to focus on Christ crucified?”
10. Rex A. Koivisto, One Lord, One Faith: A Theology for Cross-Denominational Renewal (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1993), 181–211. Koivisto, in his pursuit of unity, has promoted the concept of agreeing on a core of doctrines that are non-negotiable while all other doctrines are considered matters of personal differences in interpretation.
11. Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus, Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1985), 43–54.
12. Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 136. “The relationship between writer and readers is fundamental to the attempt to persuade.”
13. Richard N. Ostling, “Full of Promise,” Time 146:19 (November 6, 1995): 62-63.
14. Keith Nickle, The Collection: A Study of Paul’s Strategy (Naperville, Illinois: Alec R. Allenson, 1966), 126. Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community. The Early House Churches in Their Historical Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 177.
15. John F. Kilner, “A Pauline Approach to Ethical Decision-Making,” Interpretation 43 (October 1989): 375. Paul is reluctant to deprive his friend Philemon of freely exercising his will in choosing to do what is proper. F. Forrester Church, “Rhetorical Structure in Philemon,” 27. “Paul is literally forcing a point of honor. While ostensibly avoiding even the appearance of constraint, his argument is designed to do just that, yet without robbing Philemon of the opportunity to act on his own in a truly honorable fashion.”
16. For further discussion on Paul’s motivational approach, see the following works: R. J. Austgen, Natural Motivation in the Pauline Epistles (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969); Prosper Grech, “Christological Motives in Pauline Ethics,” in Paul de Tarse: Apôtre du Notre Temps, (Festschrift for Pope Paul VI), ed. Lorenzo De Lorenzi (Rome: Abboye de S. Paul, 1979), 541–58; Kazimierz Romaniuk, “Les Motifs Parénétiques dans les écrits Pauliniens,” Novum Testamentum 10 (April-July 1968): 191-207; M. H. Grumm, “Motivation in Paul’s Epistles,” Concordia Theological Monthly 35 (April 1964): 210-18; Albert Sundberg, “Enabling Language in Paul,” Harvard Theological Review 79 (January/April/July 1986): 270-77.
17. Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus, Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, 89.
18. Aubrey Malphurs, Vision for Ministry in the 21st Century (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 24.
19. Aubrey Malphurs, Vision for Ministry in the 21st Century, 36–37.
20. D. A. Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry, 26. After commenting on the growing dependence on ministry goals set by demographic studies, Carson says, “I am not for a moment suggesting that there is nothing to be learned from such studies. But after a while one may perhaps be excused for marveling how many churches were planted by Paul and Whitefield and Wesley and Stanway and Judson without enjoying these advantages.” He continues, “Ever so subtly, we start to think that success more critically depends on thoughtful sociological analysis than on the gospel; Barna becomes more important than the Bible. We depend on plans, programs, vision statements-but somewhere along the way we have succumbed to the temptation to displace the foolishness of the cross with the wisdom of strategic planning.”
21. Warren Bennis, Why Leaders Can’t Lead (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989), 143
22. From the song “Forever Eyes” sung by Twila Paris.

Paul and His Fellow Workers—Chapter 3

By Bard M. Pillette [1]

Paul’s Successes and Failures at Teamwork

The Investment Required for Good Partnerships

My wife Pam and I have been married twenty-six years. She is my friend, confidante, and partner in the work. She has home schooled our three children and raised them to be sincere, committed believers who actively work with us in starting new works. Although not gifted as a teacher, she teaches the women and accompanies me on our evangelistic Bible studies, sometimes five nights a week. She sits next to me, putting her arm on my leg. Often we have stopped after a study at a café for coke or coffee and French fries to talk about our impressions of how a particular couple was responding to the gospel. I have never had a friendship with anyone else like what I have with my wife. There are very few couples who are as like-minded as we are. We make a great team.

Nevertheless, we must periodically struggle to maintain our good working relationship. I would like to have people over all the time for meals. My wife thinks our lives are busy enough as it is and once a week is plenty. She dares me to bring in a third party to give their opinion. I know that the only women who would defend me are bedraggled and worn out, and that would only prove my wife’s point. True partnership is not easy nor automatic. It requires great investments of emotional energy and of humility. Partnerships are painful because they remind us just how difficult we are to get along with.

I am somewhat reluctant to address the issue of teamwork since I have not always enjoyed success in this area — but then of course neither did Paul. Many have experienced disappointment in their attempts at teamwork because they enter into it with unrealistic expectations. Paul’s experience is insightful and encouraging.

Analysis of Paul’s Partnerships

Time Physically Present with Partners

Most Bible students are aware that Paul almost never was alone and that he most often worked with a number of other men. But few have given much thought to how he actually worked together with others.

It may be surprising that Paul worked with a total of forty-one itinerant workers. Yet only fifteen of those itinerants labored with him for any significant time, and only ten maintained considerable contact up until his death. [2] Those ten friends worked with Paul for a minimum of fourteen years and a maximum of twenty-five. [3]

Some perhaps have a general idea of these facts just presented. But few know exactly how much time Paul was physically present with each of these co-workers. Table 1 on the next page will help give a more realistic view of the innerworkings of Paul’s long-term partnerships over the course of his ministry. The years of service in this list are derived from Hoehner’s chronology. [4] The time of service for each worker is a general approximation and is not to be taken as an exact figure. Also the percentage of time physically present is a rounded-off figure.

It is rather surprising that no fellow worker spent more than fifty percent of his time physically present with Paul. Teamwork did not always mean being together in the same city. It is actually possible that the most trusted fellow workers were delegated difficult tasks in other cities and thus spent less time with Paul. Luke and Aristarchus are high on the list for time spent with Paul, but they were not necessarily doing pioneer work. Most of their time with Paul was spent in prison.

Person	Years Associated	Years Together In Same Place	Percentage of Time Physically Present
Titus	25	13	50%
Timothy	19	9	50%
Luke	18	6 ½	30%
Aristarchus	11–17	6 ½	30%
Aquila and Priscilla	17	4	25%
Tychicus	14	4	25%
Trophimus	14	2	15%
Mark	20	2 ½	10%
Erastus	16	2	10%

Table 1

Number of Partners at a Given Time

There is another aspect that is often overlooked. Paul seldom had more than two of these men with him at any given time. Table 2 on the following page gives an overview of the number of workers Paul had with him at any particular phase of his mission work. When Paul was not actually involved in pioneer work or he was settled in one city for an abnormal amount of time, the name of the city is given in parenthesis.

The average number of partners Paul had at any one time was two, but he often had only one co-worker present with him. The curious part in all this is that Paul’s favorite co-workers, Timothy and Titus, were seldom together with Paul as a trio. The three can be put together only a few times for a total of a few months. As a consequence, there was no long-term necessity to meld together the various personalities.

Number of Persons with Paul	Length of Time With Paul	Names
2	3 months	Barnabas, Mark
1	1 year/2 months	Barnabas
1	7 months	Barnabas (Antioch)
1	1 month	Silas
2	2 months	Silas, Timothy
3	4 months	Silas, Timothy, Luke
2	5 months	Silas, Timothy
2	1 month	Aquila, Priscilla
4	1 year/6 months	Silas, Timothy, Aquila, Priscilla
2	6 months	Timothy, Titus (?) (Antioch)
13 (off and on)	3 years/6 months	(Ephesus)
8–11	1 month	(Trip to Jerusalem)
10 (off and on)	2 years	(Imprisonment in Rome)
1	6 months	Timothy (Ephesus)
1	1 year	Timothy (Ephesus)
1	2 year	Titus (Spain ?)
5 (off and on)	4 monthss (?)	Timothy, Tychicus, Artemus, Apollos, Zenas (Asia Minor of Greece)
3 (off and on)	1 year	Titus, Erastus (?), Trophimus (?) (Nicopolis)
8 (off and on)	6 months	(Imprisonment in Rome)

Table 2

Application to Present-Day Teamwork

What are the implications to be drawn from these facts? The concept of a number of couples working together in the same work for a long period of time in one city is not exactly parallel to Paul’s situation. There is nothing anti-biblical about changing the number of fellow workers nor the amount of time spent together. Still, Paul’s example may present us with a few precautions. It should be remembered that the context here is that of itinerant, full-time workers and not local church leaders.

Teamwork is complicated when there are married members. If there are three couples, that means six co-workers. Over a short period, that may work well, but over the long haul difficulties can arise. The men may complement one another well, but the wives and children drastically multiply the number of interpersonal relationships. Marriages operate differently, and the discipline of children widely varies from one family to another. These factors can often lead to unwanted tension within the team. Moreover, by marrying, we already have one fellow worker, and we often are sufficiently occupied learning to adapt ourselves to our marriage partner. As our children grow, they soon become co-workers as well. It is possible that the role a family may play in forming its own team has been undervalued.

The best solution for many, in light of Paul’s approach, may be to work together more loosely, at times separated geographically. They would then periodically help one another in their area of expertise and join together for special projects.

All of this is not to discourage us about teamwork, but to inject a little realism into the whole issue. Paul’s teams usually consisted of one or two others, and they were not physically present with him for long periods of time. Furthermore, they were usually younger, unmarried converts of his who only knew his way of doing things.

Plurality within Paul’s Entourage

Paul’s Example to Local Leaders

There is another facet of teamwork that must be considered. How did Paul actually work with his fellow workers when they were together? He obviously established plural leadership in the churches he founded, both at the beginning and the end of his ministry (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Titus 1:5). Some wish to deny this fact by explaining that there was one elder over each small house church, and there were many house churches in a city, giving a plurality of elders within each city. [5] The argument is basically speculative and driven by the desire to promote the more traditional way of having one man as the head of a church. Paul very clearly promoted a plurality of elders in each congregation. [6] But did he operate this way within his own team while church planting? This is a complicated issue because he was an apostle given special authority to start new works among the Gentiles. He was the “boss.” And yet within his circle of co-workers, he almost never pulled rank but rather treated everyone as his equal. He set an example of how plural leadership ought to function.

Titles Exemplified Plurality

First, he almost never reserved a title for himself alone. [7] There was no attempt to distinguish himself from his co-workers as some might today when they use qualifying phrases such as “senior” and “assistant” to distinguish between pastors. Sometimes it is stated that a certain person is the pastor while other leaders in the same church are called elders or deacons. In contrast to our modern use of titles, Paul used designations that showed his partners were of equal value in the work (1 Thess. 2:6; 3:2). Even the designation apostle is shared with his workers in the sense that they were all messengers. He was uniquely commissioned but did not make that an issue by calling himself the senior apostle.

Decision-Reflected Consensus

Second, he used the first person plural to show consensus (1 Thess. 2:18; 3:1–4). [8] There was no distinction between his will (“When I could endure it no longer, I also sent….” 1 Thess. 3:5), and that of his fellow workers (“When we could endure it no longer…we sent.…” 1 Thess. 3:1–2). He assigned to his partners the same feelings, the same logic, and the same productivity in the work. In fact, he sent Timothy, a convert of just two years and a worker of only a few months, to encourage the Thessalonians to withstand opposition. He also relied on Timothy’s observations there to make a response to issues within the Thessalonian church. That is surely treating others as equals.

Third, Paul seldom had to override his fellow workers’ decisions. In Acts 21:10–14, Paul’s age, experience, and special commission were given preference. In the end, his partners allowed Paul’s convictions to take priority. On the other hand, there are cases where Paul gave preference to a fellow worker’s contrary opinion (1 Cor. 16:12). Paul and Apollos agreed on the need for a trip to Corinth but disagreed on the timing. Paul apparently was persuaded by Apollos’s logic and feelings on the matter. [9]

A Balanced Application of Plural Leadership

These passages show that, although Paul had special authority, he operated on the basis of plural leadership, seeking consensus. Still, as the older, more experienced team member, he naturally and rightly was given preference in the decision-making process. This is a crucial subtlety in plural leadership. Too often there is a tendency toward one extreme or the other. Some want what is called the point man, the mover or shaker, and the visionary to be the head of the team. Such a man may demand to be the CEO, with clear lines of authority drawn. He expects respect based on his gift, education, and business savvy. Quite frankly, this is often a weak man who is unable to submit to anyone else.

Many seminary graduates in my generation were attracted to the concept of plurality until they became involved in church leadership. They felt held back by the elders. Their ideas and training were not properly appreciated. So they decided that plurality was impractical. The real problem is that most of us do not want to wait for respect. We are unwilling to build a good reputation over the years and cultivate our authority based on proven character. We prefer authority based on position, gift, or education.

At the other extreme, some want absolute equality despite disparity in age and experience. They are unwilling to give preference to the one who has proven his ability and character over the years. They are intimidated by anyone with the gift of leading and jealous of any special attention given to any particular individual on the team.

Plurality of leaders should avoid both extremes. There can be equality and, at the same time, deference shown to those who are more experienced. The only reason this arrangement may not work is that humility and spiritual maturity are often in short supply.

Disunity in Teamwork

Conflict between Barnabas and Paul

It might be nice to think that Paul’s approach to leadership and partnership would be immune to conflict. But Bible students know that this is not the case. There is in fact the rather disturbing case of an irreconcilable difference between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36–40). Many suspect that Paul erred in the split-up of the first Gentile mission. He appears to be quite inflexible and unforgiving. After all, a year and a half had passed since Mark had failed them. Furthermore, Paul seems to indirectly admit his error later when he speaks positively of Mark and his contribution (2 Tim. 4:11). Since modern man has a strong and growing distaste for intolerance, Paul is increasingly seen as the mean-spirited one.

Luke would have had trouble with that assessment. The words he used in Acts 13:13, “He left them,” and 15:38, “He had deserted them,” are almost always used in a negative sense referring to unfaithfulness. In the Septuagint, the one word is almost a technical term for religious apostacy. [10] According to Luke’s terminology, Mark’s action was no minor failure. Furthermore, after the team split, Paul was committed by the brethren to the grace of the Lord (Acts 15:40). Then Luke highlighted Paul’s achievements in the rest of Acts. All of this indicates that Luke found no fault in Paul’s obstinacy with Barnabas.

It is helpful to remember that Paul had just recently confronted Peter about withdrawing from the Gentiles at meal times. That Barnabas had joined Peter in that incident was no doubt of considerable concern to Paul. [11] Also, it should not be overlooked that Mark was Barnabas’s cousin. Would it not be natural for Paul to question Barnabas’s objectivity in defending a relative? [12] Paul considered Mark’s failure so serious that one-and-a-half years was not enough time to prove himself to be a changed man.

Unity at All Costs

There are times when team unity must be forsaken for one’s convictions even in non-doctrinal areas. It is possible to make an idol out of Christian unity. Paul’s decision to separate from Barnabas (after seven years together) is a warning signal that sometimes the price for unity is too costly. Paul separated, still able to consider Barnabas a respected colleague in Christ. One’s partners need not be considered carnal or heretical in order to separate from a mission, a school, or a church. Paul separated from Barnabas over an issue of principle and yet could still consider him a brother in Christ.

Spurgeon, upon separating from the Baptist Union, said, “Complicity with error will take from the best of men the power to enter any successful protest against it.” [13] Waiting too long to separate can debilitate one’s moral strength. [14]

Conclusion

Paul’s example points to the following principles of teamwork in pioneer situations: (1) He seldom worked with more than one or two others at any given time; (2) although he had two favorite co-workers, those two were seldom together with Paul as a fixed trio; (3) often there was some geographical distance between Paul and his various co-workers; (4) his working relationship with others taught the principle of plural leadership and consensus; and (5) he did not allow the principle of unity to swallow up every difference of conviction.

Since Paul’s principles of teamwork grow out of a context of mainly single men working together, it is possible to inadvertently overlook how marriage and family may provide a worker with his most important team. My wife complements my gifts and is at my side in all aspects of the work. Her part in raising our children to be committed to Christ gives my teaching authority. But then also my children participate in the work as team members. Tiffera’s respectful and engaging manner of talking with Efraín was the determining factor in his decision to accept an evangelistic study with us. Cabe’s wholesome influence and practical application of Scripture encouraged two teenage boys, Alejandro and Emanuel (and their parents), to believe in Christ. Tamin, the youngest, goes with us to keep the little kids occupied while we have evangelistic studies with people like Efraín and his wife Leti. Perhaps skills in teamwork are best developed in the home (1 Tim. 3:4–5).

Notes

1. Bard Pillette was for many years a missionary in central Mexico. He is presently involved in an assembly in Medford, Oregon in a ministry of evangelism and Bible teaching to Hispanics. This is the third in a series of four articles on Paul and his companions.
2. The five who probably should be considered medium-term itinerant workers are Apollos, Barnabas, Epaphras, Philemon, and Silas. The ten long-term itinerant workers then would be Aquila (with Priscilla), Aristarchus, Erastus, Luke, Mark, Timothy, Titus, Trophimus, and Tychicus. The remaining twenty-six should be considered as short-term itinerant workers.
3. Titus might be considered as having the longest working relationship with Paul, lasting from a.d. 43 to 68. Trophimus was associated with Paul the least, from a.d. 53 to 67.
4. Harold Hoehner, “Chronology of the Apostolic Age” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1965).
5. Vincent P. Branick, The House Church in the Writings of Paul, Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1989), 22–27, 78–96. Floyd V. Filson, “The Significance of the Early House Churches,” Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939): 111-112. Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity, second edition, enlarged (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 70.
6. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, revised and expanded (Littleton, Colorado: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995), 35–50, 101–117.
7. The one exception is his use of master builder (1 Cor.. 3:10). He uses teacher and preacher of himself alone (1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11) but includes others when he uses the verbal forms (1 Tim 4:11; 2 Tim 4:2).
8. William Frederick Lofthouse, “‘I’ and ‘We’ in the Pauline Letters,” Expository Times 64 (May 1953): 241. Lofthouse does not believe that Paul is using an epistolary “we” as some have suggested. Similarly Raymond F. Collins, “Paul, As Seen Through His Own Eyes. A Reflection on the First Letter to the Thessalonians,” Louvain Studies 8 (April 1981): 352-53. A. T. Hanson, The Pioneer Ministry (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), 48. Hanson considers the “we” of 1 Thessalonians 3:1–2 to be epistolary. I. Howard Marshall, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans., 1983), 90. Marshall follows Lofthouse and suggests that the “we” means that Silas, Timothy, and Paul made the decision together.
9. Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 45, 67. If Paul had doubted Apollos’s motives or loyalties, he probably would not have sent him back. Obviously, he was confident that Apollos agreed with his assessment of the situation (1 Cor. 3:1–9) and would himself not tolerate the “Apollos party.” It is possible that Apollos felt it was best that he not go so as not to foment any greater divisions, and Paul’s assurances to the contrary were of no avail. Harris disagrees, interpreting Apollos’s rejection of Paul’s recommendation as proof of his complete independence from Paul. Rendel Harris, “Who Sent Apollos to Corinth?” Expositor 2 (January-July 1916): 175-83.
10. H. Schlier, “ἀφισ́τημι, ἀποστασία, διχοστασία,ς in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 1:512–14. W. Bauder, “ἀφίστημι,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), 1:606–8. From this word are derived the words translated revolt, deserter, political rebel, rebellion, and apostacy.
11. R. Bauckham, “Barnabas in Galatians,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (1979): 61-70.
12. Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, trans. Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971), 474. Haenchen wrongly conjectures that Luke did not reveal Barnabas’ relationship to Mark in order to protect him from “suspicions of nepotism.” Nevertheless, the issue of nepotism no doubt crossed Paul’s mind.
13. C. H. Spurgeon, “Notes,” The Sword and Trowel (October 1888), reprinted in The “Down Grade” Controversy, 66.
14. Warren Bennis, Why Leaders Can’t Lead (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1989), 127. Bennis, who struggled with the issue of resigning from the presidency of the University of Cincinnati, said, “So instead of resigning, we reason to ourselves that the organization could go from bad to worse if we resigned. This may be the most seductive rationalization of all. Meanwhile, we have become more deeply implicated in the policy that we silently oppose, making extrication progressively more difficult.”

Paul and His Fellow Workers—Chapter 2

By Bard M. Pillette [1]

The Kind of Person Who Worked Best with Paul

The Power of Early Influences

Psychological studies show that children’s personalities are formed at a very young age. Their early experiences mold their values and their perceptions of themselves. Often some of the most attractive people consider themselves to be ugly. No matter how often they look in the mirror to assure themselves and no matter how many tell them how beautiful they are, their childhood experience of feeling ugly holds sway over all logic. It is no wonder then that our spiritual lives are often marked by our early experiences as believers. Those who talked to us about Christ and those who taught us or guided us in those first few years as a Christian left an indelible mark on our lives.

I became a believer at the University of Oregon and soon attended Campus Crusade for Christ meetings, but I never went to church. I did not attend church until I went to seminary. As a result, I received almost no systematic teaching in my early years as a Christian. The greatest influence in my life came from another source. I just happened to buy a book entitled Grace by Lewis Sperry Chafer. That book captivated me, so I bought other books by Chafer. Those books forever marked me and set me on a path to a seminary that would teach like Chafer did.

In his book on True Evangelism, Chafer warns against demanding some public action in connection with conversion, such as standing or going forward. [2] He was critical of any actions to hasten a person’s decision and to secure visible results. Because of what I learned from him, I have tended to avoid the common practice of saying, “We had twenty professions of faith.” I never talk about a person having believed in Christ until the person’s words and actions demonstrate true belief. Chafer’s concerns about abuses in evangelism made their mark on me.

The first Christian radio program I ever heard was J. Vernon McGee’s “Through the Bible.” I almost did not stay tuned because of his small-town Texas drawl, but I became hooked by his frankness, his lack of superspirituality when discussing his ordeal with cancer, and the simplicity of his Bible teaching.

Fellow seminary students sometimes made disparaging comments about McGee and Chafer: “They were not real scholars. They did not do serious exegesis.” As I struggled with my colleagues’ assessments and my loyalties to McGee and Chafer, I found the pull of early influence to be surprising. While doing redaction criticism for a class assignment, I could not help but ask: “I wonder what Chafer would think of all this?”

This dogged loyalty to those who early influenced us for Christ is a crucial principle or concept in understanding Paul’s selection of long-term fellow workers. But before we turn to Paul’s powerful influence on his co-workers’ spiritual growth, I would like to make a few observations to help give a broader context to the formation of Paul’s missionary team.

The Formation of a Group of Fellow Workers

Advantages of Paul’s Mobility and Hardships

First, his rather unfavorable working conditions discouraged the mediocre from continuing on with him. If a worker had a change of spiritual attitude, he dropped away. Mark discontinued his travels and returned home (Acts 13:13).

Five workers quit the team in Asia. [3] And Demas dropped out under heavy pressure near the end (2 Tim 4:10). Paul did not have to waste time dealing with the half-hearted. All who accompanied Paul had to work at various times to support themselves as did Paul.4 Opposition was fierce at times and travel was not first class.

It is rather strange that today most mission organizations wish to remove all the stress so as to avoid the loss of new recruits. Stress is removed by assuring recruits of financial security. They then have to raise incredible sums of monthly support to live decently, to travel with ease, and to have computers for the best of communication. Unwittingly, we may be allowing the mediocre to become our fellow workers. The natural consequences of Paul’s hardships weeded out those enamored with the idea of serving Christ so long as it did not involve too much stress.

Second, Paul’s mobility tended to be a convenient way of leaving behind any malcontents.5 They simply did not continue on. For most of us who are in established churches or institutions, we do not enjoy Paul’s advantage. We often must suffer through rather trying and frustrating working relationships. I say this so as to inject a little realism into our rather fuzzy and idealized application of Paul’s model of teamwork to our situation today.

Although his mobility and hardships naturally excluded potentially problematic people, Paul did not purposely plan it that way. In fact, it appears that in the beginning he did not have a fully developed strategy of teamwork. There was a natural evolution in the makeup of his team as he grew older and more experienced.

Evolution in Paul’s Choice of Co-Workers

The first team was formed by mutual consent, not by Paul’s initiative. It was 100 percent Jewish. Barnabas had the same work experience as Paul. Both Barnabas and Mark had stronger ties to the apostles in Jerusalem than to Paul.

Although they worked as equals, Paul did take more initiative (Acts 13:13–16). [6] This pattern was repeated in Lystra (Acts 14:11–12). The people of Lystra actually considered Barnabas to be superior, likening him to the god Zeus, but they saw Paul as Zeus’ spokesman, Hermes, because he took the initiative to speak for the two of them. [7] Paul, no doubt, was by personality more aggressive than Barnabas. But it is also very probable that Paul had the gift of leading. As a result, Paul took more initiative, but he was not the leader. Paul did not foolishly consider himself superior because of his gift of leading. And Barnabas was not jealous of Paul’s abilities and did not attempt to squelch Paul in order to ensure strict equality in the team. Nevertheless, this working relationship was not long-term. It all ended rather abruptly.

The second team formed shows a distinct transition in personnel. This time, Paul chose his workers. No one was sent to work with him, nor was the team formed by mutual consent. Paul chose Silas (Acts 15:40). Although Silas was a Jew tied to the apostles of Jerusalem, he had less experience than Barnabas and, therefore, naturally assumed less leadership. Paul alone (without Silas, Acts 16:3) [8] chose Timothy, a Jew-Greek with no ties to the apostles in Jerusalem. Timothy was very young and a new believer from Paul’s influence in Lystra. In Acts 16:10, the “we” indicates that Luke was also added to the team. Luke was most probably fully Gentile (Col. 4:10–14) and a convert of Paul’s at Troas or possibly Antioch. [9]

Paul now had a racially mixed group with only one person with ties to the apostles in Jerusalem. The majority were his own converts and all had less experience in the work than Paul. Interestingly enough, the only one in this group not to work with Paul long-term was Silas, a man whose early Christian experience was not influenced by Paul.

This transition from experienced Jews tied to Jerusalem to inexperienced Gentiles tied to Paul was completed on the third missionary journey. He added seven more workers, three Jews and four Gentiles. [10] All were the results of his own evangelistic work. [11] There were in all ten long-term partners who worked in close association with Paul up to the very end. Only one of the ten was not a convert or early disciple of Paul. That was Mark, the only one with ties to the apostles in Jerusalem. No doubt his youthfulness and inexperience made him compliant to Paul’s influence.

It would seem that Paul’s most loyal and effective co-workers were those who came to Christ or were greatly influenced in their early Christian experience under his own teaching. Is this just coincidence? Possibly so, but it is highly unlikely.

Qualities of Paul’s Closest Companions

Loyal and Indebted to Him

Now there is another element related to what we have just seen that contributes to the harmonious partnerships Paul enjoyed. In most cases, his co-workers saw the great price Paul paid to bring them the message and to teach them. Paul’s evangelistic and discipleship efforts often occurred under very conflictive and hard circumstances. Timothy saw Paul stoned in Lystra (Acts 14:19–20; 16:1), and Titus saw Paul stand firm for him in a tense situation before the noted leaders in the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:1–5).

A few years back I found myself confronting a very difficult situation. I believed that a very highly respected professor was slowly drifting from the historic doctrinal emphasis of a certain organization. After a period of confrontation and a great deal of tension, it all was coming to a head. Some privately would encourage me, stating that they were glad I was speaking to the issue, but few wanted to personally become embroiled in the matter. At that point, a friend in a high leadership position and with almost thirty years’ experience as a missionary and professor publicly put all of his reputation and long-time friendships in the organization on the line to back me up. It was like Paul standing with Titus. His stand was potentially very costly. I was at once and forever indebted to him. This is the kind of co-worker Paul attracted to himself because of the high price he was willing to pay to bring them to Christ and to defend them.

Now there are some who can gather followers and co-workers based on their charismatic personality and giftedness. [12] People are drawn to winners. Nevertheless, the kind of partnership Paul produced requires time, experience, and a heavy investment. Seminary and Bible school graduates are often inclined to want an immediate and enthusiastic response to their teaching, strategy, and leadership. They tend to expect recognition based on their gift and winsome personality. They fail to recognize that in the beginning they normally work with people who are experienced, are tied to others who influenced their early growth, and who have not seen these new graduates under fire. The new leaders have made no investment yet in these people’s lives.

Strong Similarities in Discernment

The men who worked best with Paul were his converts and early disciples. They were also kindred spirits, which is to be expected, since their first and often only example was Paul. It was not just his teaching, but his attitudes, discernment, and ethics that influenced them.

According to 2 Corinthians 8:16–17, Titus had the same earnestness, the same feel or intuition as Paul. And ultimately, the bond between them was God-produced, God-determined. There is no training program that can produce that kind of partnership. In 2 Corinthians 12:17–18, we see that Titus conducted himself in the same spirit. Titus left the same footprint, the same ethical impression. The same is true of Timothy (Phil 2:19–21), a kindred spirit. Literally, he had an equal soul or mind. Some translate it soul-mates. [13] Timothy could read the subtleties in people’s attitudes. He could read between the lines. That is why Paul sent him to remind the Corinthians of his “ways” (1 Cor 4:14–17). Paul’s “ways” included both doctrine and attitudes or perspective. [14] Many can sign the same doctrinal statement, but they have a different approach to the application of truth. They read certain situations differently. Can you imagine how misdirected Paul’s letters would have been had not Timothy and Titus relayed to him the kind of perceptive, penetrating, and judicious evaluations of the churches that Paul himself would have made if he had gone to those same churches?

Shortly after a Christian function at college, I became convinced I had found my soul-mate. The campus leaders at the University of Oregon were explaining to the students why they were leaving their particular Christian organization to begin the third expression of the church. The traditional church was lifeless and not reaching unbelievers. Their organization was reaching unbelievers but was too authoritarian and restricted. According to them, there needed to be a new expression of the body of Christ. This was an unsettling time for all of us as new believers. After the meeting, I walked a girl to her dorm and asked her what she thought of the meeting. She said that she could not put her finger on it, but something troubled her, perhaps a disturbing element of spiritual pride. Her observation struck a cord deep inside. We were too immature to articulate our observations, but we had the same mind or soul. She became my wife and co-worker for life. I do not have to explain to her every feeling I have about a given situation. She automatically picks up the same signals. Deep and lasting trust is the result. It is indispensable that long-term partners perceive the world about them in the same way. They must interpret the subtleties of life with the same accuracy.

No Doctrinal Differences

Some may be troubled by this method of choosing partners. Does this not lead to having “yes-men” surrounding us? Where is the diversity to keep us healthy? There is a growing desire to encourage diversity of biblical views within a given team to avoid an ingrown environment. [15] For Paul, diversity was to be found in personality and gift but never in doctrine or practice. Timothy was to remind the Corinthians, both by his teaching and conduct, of Paul’s ways, which were the same in every church (1 Cor 4:17). To be effective he had to have the same conviction, ethics, and practice. He could not arrive in Corinth offering various options, claiming that they were all equally valid.

Conclusion

In conclusion, then, what kind of person worked best with Paul? Probably Timothy and Titus represent Paul’s most effective long-term team workers. Both were younger than Paul and both became believers through Paul. Both saw Paul pay a high price for their best interests. Both had discernment like Paul’s. They read churches and the spiritual health of these churches through Paul’s eyes. That is why his letters were right on target. From a distance he was able to zero in on attitudes as well as doctrinal deviation. They were soul-mates with Paul.

I have found that my most faithful and loyal co-workers have grown out of situations of turmoil, conflict, or great upheaval emotionally. Such situations are rare opportunities to show conviction under great heat and pressure. It is God’s sovereign way of using painful circumstances to draw out those with like convictions about Christ.

In San Luis Potosí in the early stages of beginning the new work, we began to have weekly Bible study with two sisters and their husbands, Rodrigo, a construction worker, and Adrian, a head waiter. Within two months they all had believed in Christ. Rodrigo began to visit family members with whom he had not spoken in years. His ten brothers and sisters, all immoral and conflictive, were impressed with the change in him. Four months after becoming a Christian, he fell onto rebar sticking up out of the concrete. One entered the back of his head. The doctors at an antiquated, government hospital ignored the family for twelve hours. Nothing was being done for Rodrigo. I was able to get a private doctor, a specialist, to come and look at him. He was brain dead-no hope. Then came the attacks: “See, this happened because he was unfaithful to the Virgin, and he was studying with those gringos.” We had to deal with superstitious, irate, and drunk relatives for five days in that smelly and inefficient hospital. Death finally came and there were arguments over whether mass should be offered. At the wake, we were going to sing hymns. “Unheard of” was the complaint. I had to travel ten hours through the night to drop off my daughter and another girl to work with a medical caravan. I returned for the funeral at a dusty un-cared-for cemetery. Chaos is the only word to describe the whole situation. I stood on a mound of dirt, holding up Rodrigo’s Bible. He had written, “I believed in Christ March 7, 1990.” Over the wailing, I explained what that meant. All week Adrian had been watching me as I, a stranger among them, attempted to stand for the truth that Rodrigo had embraced and his family worked to destroy. He saw me dealing with feuding relatives, incapable of loving each other. He saw me constantly fighting back tears for a man I had only known six months. In the midst of chaos, emotional trauma, and my own bumbling inexperience, he had a glimpse of the Christ-like fiber that can bring purpose and order in the midst of confusion. Adrian, with deep emotion, expressed his sense of indebtedness. That week a co-worker was born. God had sovereignly provided the painful means by which to make us soul-mates.

Notes

1. Bard Pillette was for many years a missionary in central Mexico. He is presently involved in an assembly in Medford, Oregon in a ministry of evangelism and Bible teaching to Hispanics. This is the second in a series of four articles on Paul and his companions.
2. Lewis Sperry Chafer, True Evangelism: Winning Souls by Prayer, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967), 19. We “find that many methods in evangelism are more a habit than a necessity, or that they have been employed in an effort to produce visible results, rather than to create a means by which sin-burdened souls may find rest and peace through a personal and intelligent faith in Christ as Saviour.”
3. Hymenaeus (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17–18), Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20), Phygelus (2 Tim. 1:15), Hermogenes (2 Tim. 1:15), Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17). These five may never have actually been itinerant workers with Paul, but they were in some way involved in the work with him.
4. Paul worked day and night so as not to be a financial burden to his new works (1 Thes. 2:9; 2 Thes. 3:7–8). The use of the plural we means that Timothy and Silvanus followed Paul’s pattern. Likewise, so did Barnabas (1 Cor. 9:6), Titus (2 Cor. 12:13–18), Aquila and Prisca, Apollos, Sosthenes, and others (Acts 20:34–35) who were in Ephesus with him.
5. Ronald F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 27. Hock calculates the extent of Paul’s travels (and that of his fellow workers) at being around ten thousand miles based on land and sea travels in Acts.
6. Of the eighteen occasions when speaking, praying, encouraging, or commending took place on the first missionary journey, Paul was the spokesman four times (Acts 13:9–10, 16, 45; 14:9). Although Barnabas might speak along with Paul, he never was the spokesman.
7. W. M. Calder, “Acts 14:12,” Expository Times 37 (1925–26): 528. Since he had performed a miracle, he could have been associated with another god, but Paul’s role as spokesman rather than miracle maker resulted in his identification with Hermes, Zeus’ messenger. W. M. Calder, “Zeus and Hermes at Lystra,” Expositor 10 (1910): 5.
8. Edwin Basil Redlich, S. Paul and His Companions (London: Macmillan, 1913), 65. It is possible that Silas, being a prophet (Acts 15:32), gave the prophecy that accompanied Timothy’s commission to work with Paul (1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). So he may not have been totally passive in the selection of Timothy.
9. The Western text of Acts 11:28 inserts “when we were gathered together,” indicating Luke’s presence in Antioch as early as a.d. 44. Also, in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke, the author is described as a Syrian of Antioch. It claims also that Luke was a disciple of the apostles and not Paul. See F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame (London: The Paternoster Press, 1958; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 230; Richard Glover, “Luke the Antiochene and Acts,” New Testament Studies 11 (1964/65): 98-100.
10. Aquila, Priscilla, and Aristarchus were Jewish while Titus, Tychicus, Erastus, and Trophimus were Gentile.
11. Titus probably became a believer in Antioch shortly after Paul’s arrival there (Gal. 2:1; Titus 1:4). Cf. Charles Kingsley Barrett, Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 119. Titus is listed as being in Antioch in Acts 13:1 in a Latin text that originated in the African church in the fourth century. He is described as being the foster-brother of Luke (Lucius) who was supposedly at Antioch as well. See F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 259; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962), 390. Since there is the possibility that Luke was related to Titus, Ramsay suggests that Titus’s absence from Acts (and thus the story of his conversion under Paul) resulted from Luke’s reluctance to name himself or any relatives. Timothy became a Christian through Paul in Lystra (Acts 14:8–20; 16:1–2: 1 Tim. 1:2). Aquila and Priscilla are assumed by many, including Poucouta, to have been believers when they met Paul. P. Poucouta, “Un Couple au Service de l’Évangile: Aquilas et Prisca,” Spiritus [Paris] 28 (107, 1987): 167. The evidence seems to contradict Poucouta’s position. Luke writes that Paul stayed with them because “he was of the same trade” (Acts 18:3), not because they were believers. That would explain why Paul used Titius Justus’s house rather than Aquila’s (Acts 18:7). Furthermore, Luke does not say that they left Rome because of persecution against Christians, but rather against Jews (Acts 18:2). Luke probably became a believer through Paul at Troas or possibly at Antioch. Tychicus was converted during Paul’s Asian work and was thus a representative with Trophimus from the Ephesian church (Acts 20:4; 21:29). Aristarchus probably believed when Paul passed through Thessalonica (Acts 19:29; Col. 4:10–11). Erastus most likely was converted during Paul’s stay in Corinth (Rom. 16:23; 2 Tim. 4:20).
12. There of course is nothing wrong with being gifted, but Carson warns: “As long as people are impressed by our powerful personality and impressive gifts, there is little room for you to impress them with a crucified Savior.” D. A. Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry: An Exposition of Passages from 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 39.
13. H. C. G. Moule, Colossians and Philemon Studies (London: Pickering and Inglis, 1975), 77. Panayotis Christou, “ΙΣΟΨΥΧΟΣ, Phil. 2:20, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951): 294-95. Christou finds parallels to Philippians 2:20 in early Christian and late Byzantine writings. In war-like situations men are characterized not merely as friends, but also as “secret advisers and as completely trustworthy companions.” In combination with ἔχω, ἰσόψυχος becomes one who is in the “confidential service” of some leader. Therefore Christou would like to translate ἰσόψυχος as confidant rather than as like-minded.
14. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 92. Conzelmann understands Paul’s “ways” to refer mostly to his teaching. Fee on the other hand believes that Paul’s “ways” imply “both behavior and teaching, which in Paul are intimately bound together.” See Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 189. Similarly Carson, The Cross and Christian Leadership, 110.
15. Rex A. Koivisto, One Lord, One Faith: A Theology for Cross-Denominational Renewal (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1993), 100. James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993), 104–106. Since diversity of opinion is said to be essential to the health of a company, leaders are to “build dissent and controversy into the decision making process so that people will be willing to speak openly and offer ideas contrary to their own. So look for good people from many molds, and then encourage them to speak out, even to disagree.”