The Paphos Paradigm of ministering to government officials is found at the beginning of Acts 13, and immediately the emphasis on the local church is made. Five men are listed who were teaching in the Antioch church when two of them (Saul and Barnabas) are singled out for a new task. Two important things are evident:
1) The Holy Spirit called Saul and Barnabas – “While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2). There was no strategy session, no committee meeting to express opinions and take a vote. While this staff of teachers carried out their ministries of teaching and prophecy, the Spirit spoke and called out who He wanted to go on the missions trip.
The process of “the call to ministry” has long been a mysterious source of debate in the Church, but at the core of the issue is the working of the Holy Spirit – in the heart of the one called as well as in the church as a whole, who should observe, pray, affirm and commission the called one. There’s something deeply inspiring about seeing someone who’s available to follow this spiritual leading and willingly submits themselves to the oversight and authority of the church who also seeks the Spirit’s leading. This whole endeavor must be initiated and sustained by the Spirit of God.
2) The church sent Saul and Barnabas – “Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away” (Acts 13:3). The “they” in this verse was the Antioch church and it’s a pattern that we must follow today. What a connection, an identification is in this verse. The church is behind this effort because it is an extension of its ministry, just in a different location. Saul and Barnabas aren’t leaving to independently set up their own autonomous work. They are an extension of their church, still connected, supported and encouraged by them. They will later return to Antioch to give a report of the trips and be accountable to the church’s leadership (Acts 14:26, 27).
Missions begins and ends with the local church; that’s the pattern in Acts. Any ministry activity apart from the oversight of the church has no accountability or direction to prevent derailments like discouragement, lack of counsel or doctrinal error. The partnership and support displayed between the First Church of Antioch and Saul and Barnabas is an indispensable example we must duplicate.
From there, the ministry on Cyprus took off, with the eventual opportunity to witness to the governor. When Sergius Paulus came to faith in Acts 13:12, it was the result of the church carrying out the mandate to make disciples, not just two men on an independent gospel expedition. Taking the good news to leaders and everyone else is a responsibility we all share in the church.
May we think of that the next time we see our representatives on TV or in the papers. The onus is on us to care for them spiritually.
Rotunda Reflections 
May 27, 2009 at 11:31 am
Hey, My Brother.
I have enjoyed reading your words – but I’m only leaving tracks on this one. Thanks for putting these things in reachable form. They represent some solid philosophies behind an important part of the church’s function in the world. I agree with your approaches and I understand why this is a burden on your heart. Good words to consider and act upon. Keep it up!
May 27, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Thanks, Greg. That’s the main reason for the blog. It’s a great accessible way to share what Capitol Ministries’ philosophy is by pointing to the precedents in Scripture. When you start looking for them, they’re all over the place.
May 27, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Brent,
Thanks for your comments. I’m thinking about “Any ministry activity apart from the oversight of the church has no accountability or direction to prevent derailments like discouragement, lack of counsel or doctrinal error.”; good point. Maybe you have some pointers regarding how a church leader aware of doctrinal error, should react, both in public and in private? Thanks.
Ted
May 29, 2009 at 2:26 pm
You make some great points, Mark. There are unintended consequences when churches keep piling on missionaries to their support team with no real strategy or plan. I don’t think it’s out of a lack of concern for missions, but it’s so difficult to adequately keep up with all those ministries. You’ve hit on the unfortunate results from that approach. There should be a strong relational bond when a church joins hands with a missionary (like in Antioch). It’s good to hear that you all are thinking through all of that. Thanks for your thoughts!
May 29, 2009 at 11:00 am
Brent,
I think you are spot on with your words, “Missions begins and ends with the local church; that’s the pattern of Acts.” Unfortunately many churches have abdicated this responsibility. This can be seen by the dramatic increase in individual support that missionaries receive in relation to church support. A related problem is when churches carry such a number of missionaries that they are unable to either substantially financially support them or invest adequate prayer and practical support. Often filling your mission board with dozens of missionaries, many of which are unknown to the church, becomes an act of pride.
Churches need to return to the model of Acts. It may mean making some tough choices, reducing the number that a church carries in order to invest in a greater way those that fit the mission of the local church. Churches should reexamine the church of Antioch, featured in Acts 11 & 13. Churches should set specific goals concerning missions. These goals should be both local and worldwide, following the geographic pattern taught in Acts 1:8.
I could rattle on and on, since we, Wakefield Valley Bible Church, are currently overhauling our approach to missions. We hope in 5-10 years, we will no longer be a church that supports a vast number of missionaries with little to no relationship with Wakefield. Rather, we would like to support far less, but with greater oversight and greater support, both in dollars and in prayer/practical.