Volume 1, Issue 1, 2018 - Theology of Leadership Journal

Volume 1, Issue 1, 2018

6

PAUL THE TEAM LEADER : STRATEGIC PLANNING, INTRAGROUP CONFLICT, AND TEAM FORMATION Jeffrey J. Singfiel Regent University ABSTRACT: Applying exegetical analysis to ancient texts has become an accepted way of applying the experiences of historical figures to contemporary leadership challenges. This paper explores a brief experience in the life of the apostle Paul as a team leader in Acts 15:35-41 as he and his team developed a plan, came into conflict with one another, and saw the team metamorphize into two new teams. Since the 1990s, there has been increased interest in teams as fundamental units in organizations. This paper contributes to Christian leaders facing uncertain futures, especially those operating on teams. An exegetical analysis using historical-grammatical and socio-rhetorical method is used to fix these events. Cultural and ideological textures help the reader understand that the complex first-century environment brought its own challenges to strategic planning, intragroup conflict, as well as team formation dynamics. KEYWORDS: Ministry, Teams, Decision-Making, Socio-rhetorical Analysis

Volume 1, Issue 1, 2018 This article licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 [email protected]

PAUL, THE TEAM LEADER: SINGFIEL

7

Paul the Team Leader: Planning, Intragroup Conflict, and Team Formation Using sacred texts to illuminate and explore complex human dynamics is a relatively new development outside the church, synagogue or mosque. Ancient texts, by the very fact that they have survived the centuries have much to say about the ways people have collectively organized themselves. Increasingly, people realize that ancient texts are the product of reasonable minds that can be studied for the wisdom and truths their authors discovered (Wildavsky & Hazony, 2005). Wildavsky and Hazony used their insights from political and social science to explain how Moses built one of the longest lasting, stable communities in the history of the world: the Jewish people. Lately, even well-respected leadership journals have published articles that combine rigorous exegesis with organizational theory (Whittington et al., 2005). Similar titles in the popular press appear regularly, including writers like Blanchard and Hodges (2008), Manz (2011), and Jones (2001) all of whom have explored Christian texts to explain themes of organizational theory through the person of Jesus Christ. This study examines a brief event in the life of one of the most famous of biblical figures, the Apostle Paul. It is clear from the makeup of the New Testament that Paul became a chief theologian and spokesperson for the early Christian church. That he constantly worked as a team leader is less obvious. Paul initially demonstrated fierce, hostile resistance to the upstart religious sect that was developing within his native Jewish religion (Acts 8:1). He went so far as to travel 135 miles, several days ride, from Jerusalem to Damascus to find and arrest members of the new sect (Acts 9:1-3). While Peter is in view throughout the Gospels and the early chapters of Acts, Paul is largely credited with the rapid expansion of the movement (Barentsen, 2011). Few biblical stories have generated as many mixed emotions as Paul’s separation from his once mentor, and long-time co-worker, Barnabas in Acts 15:35-41. Within this poignant passage, we find several team dynamics that are ripe for investigation. First, the group engaged in planning and decision-making. Having conducted a long journey together to Cyprus and Asia Minor in Acts 13-14, and Phoenicia, Samaria, and Jerusalem in Acts 15, they now prepare to conduct a second visit to the newly founded churches. Second, intragroup conflict emerged as Paul and Barnabas agree to another journey, but disagree on the personnel who will make up the team. Third, Paul and Barnabas formed two new teams to carry out a second missionary journey, though Acts only records the events of Paul’s team. To be successful, that team must maintain its purpose and vision despite a changing membership. This paper conducts a sociorhetorical analysis of Acts 15:32-41 to further apply the human experiences in sacred Scripture to team leadership. To that end, the methodology applied must make honest use of both the Scripture and of contemporary organizational theory. Doing so will benefit both the theologian and the ecclesial team leader as they attempt to apply the sacred Scripture to their settings.

METHODOLOGY Exegetical analysis has become an increasingly accepted method for interpreting one’s contemporary surroundings. Studying the way ancient people dealt with common human problems is a fruitful way to understand our own. While some may pretend that modern life is full of issues never before seen, it is also full of old ones, observed time and time again as people organize themselves to reach common objectives. Exegetical analysis is the art and science of determining the original intention of an author in an ancient text. Over the last two hundred years, the methods of THEOLOGY OF LEADERSHIP JOURNAL


8

this art and science have multiplied (Osborne, 2006; Vanhoozer, 1998). Historically, the meaning of the text was bound up exclusively in the mind of the author himself which readers accessed through the text (Osborne). Over many years, scholars developed a whole array of exegetical tools to understand the author and his intent. Original language studies, exploration of grammar and semantics, comparative word studies, and others became a part of the exegete’s work (Osborne). As modern literary theory emerged, people shifted and began to consider the text itself apart from the intention of the author (Vanhoozer, 1998). In the twentieth century, the rise of approaches like deconstructionism through the work of writers like Jacques Derrida and others argued that there is no meaning apart from the text itself (Vanhoozer). Later methods emerged which considered the role of the reader and the interpretive community of which he is a member (Osborne, 2006). Today, the contribution of the writer, text, and reader are better understood as part of the exegetical and expositional processes. In the late 1990s, another method of exegesis emerged, providing a framework for accepting the contributions of numerous streams of the academy towards understanding authors, texts, and readers: socio-rhetorical criticism. Socio-rhetorical criticism is a multi-disciplinary approach to interpretation where theologians, psychologists, anthropologists, economists, and others can examine the multiple layers of the tapestry that is the Scripture (Culpepper, 1998). Sociorhetorical method focuses on different dimensions or textures of a text including inner, inter, social and cultural, sacred, and ideological textures (Robbins, 1996). Here, cultural and ideological textures are examined to understand more clearly the way Paul did what he did and why Luke presented it as he did. The interpretation of the passage would not be complete without applying it to contemporary organizational life. Organizational behavior is a multidisciplinary field drawing on psychology, sociology, anthropology, and political science to understand the impact that individuals, groups, and organizational systems have on organizational behavior (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2014). In the same way that socio-rhetorical criticism provides a multidisciplinary approach to exegeting the text, organizational theory provides a multidisciplinary approach to understanding collective human interactions. Both approaches are useful in understanding the complicated relationships and mission of the apostle Paul, the team leader, as the team planned a journey, engaged in conflict, and formed new teams.

ACTS 15:36 – PLANNING AND DECISION MAKIN G The book of Acts is the second volume in a two-volume set written by Luke, a gentile physician who accompanied Paul on his travels (Nolland, 1993). Luke wrote these works with a purpose in mind; ancient texts are by their nature, rhetorical (deSilva, 2006; Robbins, 1996). That is, writers engage readers to convince them of something meaningful; writers want to persuade readers. Likewise, Luke had reasons for writing the two books credited to his name. Luke was attempting to trace the history of the new Jewish movement from its origins in Jesus Christ, the content of his Gospel, to its spread to the Roman capital, the content of Acts (Marshall, 1980). Nolland commented that Luke’s likely readers were first-century God-fearing gentiles who were well acquainted with, and attracted to, the monotheistic, values-oriented religion of Judaism, but who had not yet converted to it. As the Christian canon developed, the book of Acts served to relate the four Gospels with the later epistles that were written to early Christian churches (Bruce, 1988). In Acts 15 the development of the early Christian church is well under way. It has expanded from its geographic origins in the Jewish center of Jerusalem to northeast Africa (Acts 8:39) and THEOLOGY OF LEADERSHIP JOURNAL


9

Asia Minor (Acts 11:19) as well as from its ethnic origins among orthodox Jews, to heterodox Samaritans (Acts 8:5), and to Roman gentiles (Acts 10:1). Paul had been converted from an ultraorthodox Jewish zealot to a leader in the Christian community (Acts 9:1). In Acts 13, that community sent Barnabas and Paul on a journey through Cyprus and Asia Minor to proclaim the new message of Jesus in Jewish synagogues. By Acts 15, Barnabas and Paul have successfully started new churches and gained clarity on the aspects of Jewish ritual that would be adopted by these new communities. They then return to their home base in Antioch along with a delegation from the leading Christian community in Jerusalem. The team was ready to work and they began to plan. EXEGESIS The story picks up in Acts 15:36 as Paul and Barnabas made plans for their next trip. The pair spent some time in Antioch and “after some days” (ESV) Paul took the initiative to suggest a journey to retrace their earlier steps and visit the newly planted churches. Luke often used the expression “after [some number of] days” (meta . . . hēmeras) in his writing, usually to denote a transition of events (Witherington, 1998). Interestingly, all the Gospel writers use this expression, but it is rare in the epistles and appears only once in Paul (Gal 1:18, “after three years”). Witherington also remarked that this is an especially common feature in the second half of Acts, perhaps denoting Luke’s transition from using second-hand sources to using first-hand accounts of his own. This pericope, therefore, marks an inflection point in Luke’s account. Marshall (1980) suggested that this period was not simply some days, but the passing of the winter months awaiting the opening of spring travel. If so, Paul and Barnabas, and the group spent a significant amount of time in Antioch teaching and preaching the word (Acts 15:35) as well as planning their next journey. The relationship between Paul and Barnabas is also significant. Up until Acts 13:7, Barnabas is always mentioned first in the pair. Barnabas was from the island of Cyprus, a member of the Levitical class, and an early convert to the Christian sect (Acts 4:36). When the early church leadership was afraid of the newly converted Paul, it was Barnabas who acted as an intermediary and peacemaker (Acts 9:27). When the early church spontaneously developed in the city of Antioch, the Jerusalem leadership sent Barnabas to oversee the group, who went to find Paul to share the teaching load (Acts 11:22-26). Thus, Barnabas was a pivotal figure in the early church and in Paul’s life, until the thirteenth chapter of Acts. The change in name order may indicate the point at which the author shifts from writing from collated documents to personal accounts and memories (Witherington, 1998). It may also relate to an ideological shift away from Barnabas, who may have been involved in the Galatian theological controversy (cf. Gal 2:13) during this time (Black, 1993; Marshall, 1980; Wedderburn, 2002). Whatever the case, the leadership of the team has now shifted to Paul. Luke’s rhetorical motive, the ideological texture, for this section is important and gives us clues to his ideological intention. Ideology is a belief system which describes the interests, needs, or deficits of a group during a distinct timeframe (Robbins, 1996, p. 193). In considering this texture, the interpreter tries to understand “how the text operates rather than what it means” (Castelli, 1996, p. 18). Luke’s intended readership had interests, needs, and concerns and he wrote these two books to that audience. Luke intended to present the Jewish, rather than the Christian, community as the cause of Jewish-gentile upheaval in the eastern Roman Empire and to present Paul as a law-abiding,

THEOLOGY OF LEADERSHIP JOURNAL


10

legitimate author of Christian theology (Bruce, 1988). Luke may also want to indicate how and why Paul became a leading spokesman for early Christianity as well as a ministry leader. PLANNING AND DECISION-MAKING During their winter stay in Antioch, Paul and the team had plenty of time to conduct planning and decision making. Planning is a broad behavior that includes objectives, behaviors, scheduling, priorities, and responsibilities (Yukl, 2013). Interestingly, there is no explicit mention of any supernatural guidance here, though some (Marshall, 1980) think Luke may have avoided linking God to the disagreement that follows. The reader is left to conclude that first Paul, then Barnabas planned to revisit churches they had recently started (Patzia, 2001). This is not as straightforward a conclusion as might appear. Some authors believe that Paul had no “plan of campaign” and that the spread of Christianity “must have been . . . haphazard and spontaneous” (Green, 2004, p. 356). Others believe that Paul formulated a strategic, church-planting plan, at least in Asia Minor, while staying in Antioch. (Allen, 1962; Hesselgrave, 2000; McGavran 2005). The rest of Acts 15 and 16 give credence to the latter position. Ivancevich et al. (2014) defined a decision as “the process of choosing a particular action that deals with a problem or an opportunity” (p. 401). With spring approaching and the land and sea trade routes opening, Paul and Barnabas saw an opportunity to return to the new churches which required planning. By wintering in Antioch, the team would have had ample time to map a route and gather supplies for an overland journey that would lead through the principal urban centers of Asia Minor. Yukl (2013) said that planning is rarely a one-time event, but a dynamic process over time and this is precisely what happened as the Holy Spirit provided ongoing direction. Christian leaders today sometimes approach planning apologetically as though it is a necessary evil. In some quarters, nothing is done without an explicit word from the Lord or other inspiration. Planning is sometimes viewed as something borrowed from the business world and, therefore, suspect. Yet, while in Antioch at the launch of the second missionary journey, Paul and the team created a plan apart from explicit spiritual guidance. Later in the journey, however, the Lord twice granted specific, positive guidance (Acts 16:6, 9) and negative guidance once (Acts 16:7). While leaders in ministry should take every opportunity to pray, seek counsel from wise people and the Lord, Acts also teaches leaders to have a bias to action, trusting the Lord to provide direction and adjustment to the emerging plan. SUMMARY A superficial reading of the New Testament ignores the human practicalities of issues like relationships, travel, and finances. In this section, these realities loom large as Paul and the team spent the winter in Antioch preaching and teaching, but almost certainly also planning for the next phase of their campaign. This section also brings to light the shifting realities of leadership and influence in any group, something of which first-century people were altogether conscious (Malina, 1996). These shifts in both planning and leadership become more obvious as the story continues.



11

ACTS 15:37-39 – INTRAGROUP CONFLICT Planning by itself is not enough to ensure good outcomes. A team also must be aligned both in purpose and in its internal relationships. Even the noblest and best-intentioned groups will invariably experience some measure of conflict. The next two verses demonstrate how easily a group can experience intragroup conflict and how conflict can trigger group metamorphosis. Anyone leading or serving on a team must be aware of the complex dynamics of group life. Often, what appears to be the main issue is not the main issue. EXEGESIS The account continues in verses 37-39 with the introduction of disagreement between Paul and Barnabas. Barnabas wanted a John Mark included on the team; Paul did not. John Mark had withdrawn from the team during its earlier journey and Paul did not want him included in the new venture (Acts 15:38). The men could not reconcile the differences in team makeup and Barnabas and John Mark left, sailing for Cyprus (Acts 15:39). While there is no mistaking the misalignment between Barnabas and Paul over John Mark, Luke avoids drawing more attention to the event than it warrants, at least in the original language. This smoothing is clear in both the grammar and the vocabulary of the original text. Verse 38 begins with the post-positive conjunction “de” which can be used as an adversative particle or a transitional one (Dana & Mantey, 1928, p. 244). Smyth (1984) stated that the conjunction was originally an adverb which has the sense of “on the other hand” (p. 644). Therefore, the text might also be translated “And Barnabas wanted . . .. And (or on the other hand) Paul kept insisting . . ..” Luke also had at his disposal a less common but stronger adversative conjunction at his disposal, “alla” but did not use it. Next, the English text says “there arose a sharp disagreement (paroxysmos)” (Acts 15:39). This word appears as a noun only here and in Hebrews 10:24 (“stir up”) and as a verb in both Acts 17:16 (“provoked”) and 1 Cor 13:5 (“irritable”). While there was evidently some misalignment between the two figures, the precise nature and intensity of the conflict cannot be conclusively determined on the basis of these three occurrences. Kittle, Friedrich, and Bromiley (1985), for instance, prefer the word irritation. All that can be said is that Luke presents the disagreement in a mild manner even though it had significant implications for Paul, Barnabas, and John Mark. There is something more going on here. John Mark first appeared in Acts 12:12. His mother hosted a church in her home in Jerusalem, and it was this home to which Peter goes after being miraculously released from Prison (Acts 12:7-11). Therefore, John Mark came from an influential family in the early Christian movement. Further, he was the cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10). As Barnabas was likewise a leading character in the Jerusalem church, despite being from the island of Cyprus (Acts 4:36), John Mark was well positioned to work the familial networks. Family networks are an aspect of the social and cultural texture of socio-rhetorical method (Robbins, 1996). These kinship structures refer to the “patterns of social norms that regulate human relationships” (Malina, 2001). John Mark’s place in the early Christian community not only provided him with a range of familial relationships and resources on which to draw but it also likely attributed to him honor, socially attributed worth, as a part of that community (deSilva, 2000; Faulhaber, 2010; Malina). Because of these family relationships, and because of the inherent honor bound up in them, Barnabas would not, and could not, distance himself from his cousin in the disagreement with Paul. Oropeza (2014) wrote extensively about the relationship between patronage, honor, and loyalty in the first century. THEOLOGY OF LEADERSHIP JOURNAL


12

Marshall (1988) commented that the conflict appears so trivial that perhaps there was a deeper theological cause. More likely, as if often the case in family relationships, blood is thicker than water. John Mark went on to have close relationships with other apostles, including Peter. According to Papias, the second-century bishop in Asia Minor, Mark later became a translator for the apostle Peter (Guelich, 2015). He also wrote one of the Gospels, according to church tradition (Guelich). Peter refers to him as his son (1 Pet 5:13), and Paul asks that Mark visit him in his final letter (2 Tim 4:11). It is possible that this earlier conflict had more to do with family, honor, and loyalty, which every first-century person understood than with character or theological faults. Families in the Roman world were bound together by a sense of pietas, that honor and respect due to God, honor, country, and family (Clarke, 2000). Duty to the family was a deep-seated obligation in the ancient world as it is in most of the world today. Barnabas felt responsible for John Mark both as his family member and his patron. The mutual responsibility between patron and client was a powerful social bond (Malina, 2001). While the conflict triggered a group metamorphosis, its cause was rooted in complex cultural values. Conflict in groups is much more nuanced and complex than often appears. Researchers have made significant progress in recent years understanding the nature of intragroup conflict. INTRAGROUP CONFLICT Conflict emerges in different contexts and for various reasons. Authors have pointed to both intergroup conflict (Ivancevich, et al., 2014) as well as intragroup conflict (Jehn, 1995). Conflict also often develops over time. The earlier Barnabas-Paul team began to show potential signs of conflict in chapter 13. Barnabas led the team in Acts 13:1-2 and, based on Acts 13:6-7, traveled for quite some time under his leadership. A change occurs, however, in Acts 13.9 when Paul steps forward to confront the magician Elymas. Following the successful presentation of the Gospel and manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit, “Paul [emphasis added] and his companions set sail” for Asia Minor (Acts 13:13). Evidence of uncertainty or confusion in the roles in the group continued in Acts 14 where, in Lystra, the residents believed Barnabas to be the incarnation of Zeus, the supreme Graeco-Roman deity, while Paul was thought to be the subordinate Mercury (Acts 14:12). By the time Paul and Barnabas arrive back in Antioch in Acts 15, it is likely some disagreement already existed, especially following Mark’s departure in Acts 13:13. Western contemporary Christians are often quick to jump to relatively trivial, selfish, or sinful reasons for intragroup conflict, but this tendency is rooted in western individualism and ignores some of the cultural clues found in the passage. Conflict of whatever type is mediated by cultural factors (Cai & Fink, 2002; Croucher et al., 2012) Broad cultural dimensions such as individualism-collectivism and power distance also affect the way people interact with each other (House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002). All of these dynamics create a complex picture of conflict in the first-century team. While conflict in a relationship is the most obvious sort, it is not the only type of conflict. Researchers identified conflict along the dimension of relationship and task for many years (Deutsch, 1982; Jehn, 1994, 1995; Pinkley, 1990; Priem and Price, 1991; Wall and Nolan, 1986). Later research revealed a third type of conflict in groups: process conflict (Jehn 1997). In the Acts account, there are opportunities for relationship, task, and process conflict. Relationship conflict develops from interpersonal incompatibilities or when strong negative feelings develop in a group including frustration or irritation (Jehn & Mannix, 2001, p. 238). Task conflict revolves around how THEOLOGY OF LEADERSHIP JOURNAL


13

a task should be done (Jehn & Mannix). Process conflict occurs when there are differences in how a task should be done, how a resource should be allocated, or how much duty or responsibility different members of a group have (Jehn & Mannix). Relationship and task conflict are more cognitively oriented than is the affect-oriented relationship conflict. There are differences of ideas, priorities, and sequencing, not about personal likes and dislikes Seen this way, the conflict between Barnabas and Paul could have fallen along any of these three lines. The traditional view is that this was a relational conflict between Barnabas and Paul over John Mark. While this is possible, Luke presented none of the affective nature of relationship conflict. Task conflict is another candidate. Paul’s argument in Acts 15:38 is that John Mark had departed in Pamphylia and “not gone with them to the work” in the cities where they preached the Gospel. This emphasis points to a possible conflict over how the task, visiting the churches, should be done. Namely, perhaps Paul was insisting that the task be done with individuals already known to the young churches. Finally, one might consider this as process conflict. Barnabas and Paul disagreed about what resources, including people, are necessary for the trip. They may also disagree about what cultural scripts should apply. These scripts are cultural resources, like rules regarding familial obligation and pietas, and disruption to that resource network also leads to conflict (Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000). Regardless, contemporary theories of intragroup conflict provide more options to consider than Stott’s (2014) “melancholy disagreement” (p. 235). The resolution of this conflict was straightforward. Paul and Barnabas managed the conflict by allowing the group to metamorphose into two, in the language of Arrow, McGrath, and Berdahl (2000). Both men formed new groups both of which may have included individuals from the previous group. Barnabas explicitly includes John Mark, while Paul includes Silas. The two teams departed in separate directions both ostensibly to carry out the mission of visiting the earlier churches. Leaders of ministry teams must understand that there are multiple, complex reasons for conflict. This is especially true when working on teams with people of different social or cultural backgrounds. When conflict emerges, some leaders are quick to assume a problem in a relationship, but it is also possible that the conflict is due to tasks or processes. Conflict is even more like to emerge when a team is very diverse (Bezrukova, Thatcher, & Jehn, 2007). Numerous, sometimes contradictory, cultural scripts can easily lead a team into believing that conflict exists for one reason when it actually exists for another. Leaders must be careful to understand what generates conflict, how to recognize it in its various forms, and how to take action to settle it. SUMMARY Scholars sometimes put a negative spin on this event: one called it “trivial” (Marshall, 1988, Acts 15:36-41); a “sad story” (Stott, 2014, p. 235); or, said that it “does not make pleasant reading” (Bruce, 1988, Acts 15:36-37). Yet, Luke avoids drawing attention to the dispute with more pointed language, and perhaps the parting was more cordial than commonly believed. Paul certainly would have understood the familial ties between Barnabas and John Mark and the honor that was accorded the later due to the former’s position. Perhaps God did not overrule the decision at all but was satisfied that the mission would go on and that familial ties would be respected and honor properly accorded. Regardless, Paul had to form a new missionary team. There is no indication that Barnabas and Paul did not share the same mission, but now each would go about it with separate teams.



14

ACTS 15:40-41 – TEAM FORMATION Paul obviously figures prominently in the book of Acts and the New Testament. What is not so obvious is that he traveled as a part of a team (Loubser, 2000). Paul regularly mentioned others who are a part of his apostolic team including Epaphras, Philemon, Aristarchus, Gaius, Tychicus and many others (Schnabel, 2010). In fact, the conception of Paul as a lone-ranger individual is a function of modernity (Loubser), not exegesis. In the final verses of this section, Paul forms a new missionary team with the apparent blessing of the Antioch church. EXEGESIS The final verses of the text say that Paul picked Silas and left with the approval of the mother church leadership (Acts 15:40-41). Luke used what was for him, an unusual word to describe Paul’s inclusion of Silas: he “chose” (epilegō). Surprisingly, this is a rare word in the text of the New Testament, used only elsewhere in John 5:2. Luke much more commonly uses its cognate, (eklegō). This was Luke’s preferred word, used for the selection of Stephen (Acts 6:5) and God’s selection of Israel (Acts 13:17). While one can make too much of lexical peculiarities, it is also possible to make too little of them. “The choice of individual words was significant to the writers of Scripture” (Barrick, 2008, p. 19). To Luke, the selection of Silas (epilegō) was different from the selection of Stephen (eklegō) and that the decision advanced his ideology. This shift from Paul and Barnabas to Paul and Silas was important, and it was managed with the blessing of the mother church. Silas was a man of some standing in the early church (Acts 15:22), though often overshadowed by the better-known Paul. It was Silas whom the Jerusalem elders sent as a delegate to the new churches of Syria with a letter about the inclusion of non-Jewish Christ-followers in the church. Those other emissaries included Paul, Barnabas, and Judas (Acts 15:22). Silas likely continued with Paul with that mandate, sharing the Jerusalem letter with the younger churches of Lycia and Galatia, the two provinces in which Paul and Barnabas had previously begun churches (Marshall, 1980). As the new team leaves, Luke mentions that the pair had the imprimatur of the sending church in Antioch, “having been commended by the brothers” (Acts 15:40). However, this is a different commissioning than in Acts 13:2-3 where Barnabas and Paul left on the first missionary journey. Luke is up to something here. In Acts 13.3 the Antioch church fasted and prayed over the Barnabas-Paul missionary team, and they were released (apolyō) or “sent off.” Now in Acts 15:40, the new team was “commended (paradidōmi) to the grace of the Lord” and the team departed. This word “commended” covers an wide semantic field in both the New Testament but also in Luke-Acts. That range stretches from “to commit or commend” to “permit, allow,” “to deliver over to” but also to “betray” (Thayer, 1997). This raises the question of Luke’s ideological intention as part of socio-rhetorical method. How did the church in Antioch view the conflict between Paul and Barnabas and the subsequent departure of Barnabas and John Mark? Further, how did Luke intend to communicate the viewpoint of the Antioch church in that disagreement? This is a question for the ideological texture of the text which deals more with how the text works and the persuasive agenda it carries than what the words mean (Castelli, 1991). As seen earlier, part of Luke’s agenda is to provide an ordered account of the growth of the movement, to portray that it is the Jews, not the Christians who were causing unrest, and that Paul was a faithful, reasonable, spokesman for the movement. THEOLOGY OF LEADERSHIP JOURNAL


15

To that end, Luke must first manage the shift in focus from Peter to Barnabas, earlier in the book, and now from Barnabas to Paul. Not only that, but the author surely wants to communicate honor to both Barnabas and Paul as a key, first-century social currency (Malina, 2001). Thus, Luke demonstrated that Paul and Silas depart and are “commended to (surrendered, given over to) the grace of the Lord,” though not prayed and fasted over. The second team departs differently than the first; the disagreement is recognized, but no value judgment, no dishonor is accorded to either party. Peterson (2009) noted that perhaps this commendation was necessary given the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas and the warm feelings of church members towards both. Luke avoided painting any of the parties, including the church, into a corner. Thus, Paul’s legitimacy is preserved despite the break with Barnabas, who had stronger Jerusalem credentials. Honor is appropriately accorded all around. TEAM FORMATION Managing these dynamics is important in the formation of a new team. Silas had several characteristics that may have made him a good team member. First, he was a Roman citizen like Paul, which gave him certain privileges (Acts 16:37). Second, as Bruce (1988) pointed out, “it would be advantageous to have a leading member of the Jerusalem church as his companion” (Bruce, 1988, Acts 15:40-41). Team member characteristics are important in the establishment of a team. Ivancevich et al. (2014) described a team as a group “who share a common purpose, responsibility, and accountability for achieving performance goals” (p. 267). Paul and Silas shared some overlapping characteristics, if not skills. Both were Jews who had lived in Jerusalem, both were prophets, both Roman citizens, both well regarded by the Jerusalem church leadership, and both members of the delegation that delivered instructions from the Jerusalem church regarding nonJewish church members throughout Asia Minor (Bromiley, 1986). Thus, there was a fair amount of homogeneity to this team which likely increased its effectiveness (Dunaetz, 2012). Arrow et al. (2000) also described the way that groups and teams are embedded in larger systems, like the Antioch church. The proper management of that embedded relationship is important for both team formation as well as performing. While the idea that teams outperform non-teams is today almost axiomatic, it is not always so. Hackman said, “I have no question that a team can generate magic. But don’t count on it” (as cited in Coutu & Bescholss, 2009, p. 100). Coutu and Bescholss went on to articulate some critical conditions for teams, including that they must be real and bounded and that they need a persuasive direction (p. 103). Initially, Luke only explicitly mentions two people on this new team: Paul and Silas. This does not necessarily mean that others are not also present. Later, Timothy and then Luke himself join the team but does not comment on the addition (Acts 16:3-4, 10). Persuasive and dynamic direction also figured prominently in the group. While the initial mission was to visit the previously planted churches and share the Jerusalem church document, the team later expanded the bounds of its geographic parameters, ultimately crossing from Asia Minor to Macedonia and mainland Greece before returning to Antioch. This kind of direction, even amid personal suffering (Acts 16:16ff) assumes a significant degree of group alignment. Being organizationally aligned means that everyone “sees the same basic picture” of where they are, where they are going, and how they are going to get there (Rieley, 2014, p. 6). Leaders who do not understand the importance of alignment should not be leaders (Rieley). Paul’s team maintained its vision and direction despite its shifting scope and membership.



16

Team alignment does not just occur internally within the team; team leaders must also coordinate externally with various stakeholders. Luke’s careful attention to maintaining the relationship between Paul’s new team and the Antioch church is important. Team leaders occasionally become preoccupied with the internal dynamics of their teams and fail to consider external spanning between themselves and their various embedding contexts. Paul later returns to the Antioch church in Acts 18:22-23 spending additional time, a clue to an ongoing healthy relationship. SUMMARY Luke makes a conscious decision about the way he frames this new team. The grammar he uses makes it clear that it is different in some way from the earlier Barnabas and Saul team of Acts 13. Since he traveled extensively with Paul and wrote this book during Paul’s lifetime, he must have had an agenda for positioning this team in the eyes of other early churches. The homogeneity of the new team must have certainly had some advantages and Silas’s credentials both as an emissary from Jerusalem, and a Roman citizen would have been assets. The degree to which Paul and Silas shared a common vision for Asia Minor can only be conjecture. It is likely that Silas wanted to continue to share the Jerusalem letter among the churches previously started by Paul. After they moved into new territory in Acts 16:6, however, Silas’s commitment to the broader vision must be assumed. The new team manifested a common purpose, complementary skills, and characteristics, and shared accountability and responsibility to the Antioch church.

CONCLUSION This paper has examined planning and decision-making, intragroup conflict, and team formation in the light of Acts 15:35-41. Exegetical analysis was performed using both historicalgrammatical and socio-rhetorical methods. Historical-grammatical method anchored the analysis of the text firmly to authorial intent while socio-rhetorical method provided tools for cultural and ideological analysis. Together, the analysis framed the experiences of Paul, Barnabas, John Mark, and Silas so that they could be understood in light of contemporary leadership theory. That theory explains why individual, group, and cultural factors must always be taken into account (House et al., 2002; Kastanakis & Voyer, 2014). Exegetical studies like this one demonstrate that these factors are long-term, human phenomena, not simply recent developments. Some additional conclusions are clear from this analysis. First, planning and decision-making have been important dimensions of ministry teams since the earliest days of the church. While leaders can and should seek wise counsel and spiritual direction, here the Scriptures illustrate an example of ministry planning based on sound thinking and iterative adjustment as God provided direction. Leaders can error in both over- and underspiritualizing their decision-making. Second, while team conflict sometimes arises from relationship issues, it can also develop from task and process issues, as well as from the cultural dynamics within the group. While some commentators paint Paul’s conflict with Barnabas relationally, it is just as likely that the conflict was about the task or the process, including issues of cultural, family, and honor. Team leaders must be careful to avoid jumping to conclusions about conflict. Often, what appears to be the main thing, is not the main thing. Third, when considering the formation of teams, it is important to be mindful of the relational networks, honor, and social standing that new teammates bring to the endeavor, not just their skills. Further, the leader must manage the team’s THEOLOGY OF LEADERSHIP JOURNAL


17

relationship with its multiple embedding contexts. Team leadership often has as much to do with external spanning with the environment as with internal coordination between the members. These principles became very real while leading a multi-agency, multi-national churchplanting team in the Balkans. Our team consisted of both national workers as well as US crosscultural workers with various specialties. In such a diverse group, there were many approaches to planning and decision-making. Some found a general preference for clear goal setting lacking in spiritual finesse or discernment. At these times, it is helpful to turn to Scripture and find God leading his people through a variety of different methods. Sometimes, sanctified human agency seems in the forefront while other times God actively intervenes. This account from Acts includes examples of both. Like all groups, our team also had its share of intergroup conflict. Sometimes subtly different organizational cultures, differences in philosophy of ministry, or decisions from leaders over the ocean created tension. At other times, different cultural scripts jarred the group as justice-guilt oriented Americans worked in an honor-shame Balkan culture. As John Mark’s story illustrated, sometimes the main thing is not the main thing. Our team also became aware of the importance of considering the complex network of relationships with which each member comes. The impact of that network is often vastly more important than their job description. Family and organizational loyalties, the ties of old classmates, and local & international supporters all assert influences on the way a team functions. Aligning the interests of these various external stakeholders is equally as important as aligning team members internally. And in the midst of all this complexity, God accomplished great things. Ministry teams can be extremely complex and that is nothing new. The Hebrew and Christian Scriptures are full of examples of people working together to accomplish collective projects. Acts 15:35-41 illustrates some of these timeless challenges faced by people working together on ministry teams.

REFERENCES Allen, R. (1962). Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=e0HNAABXqm0C Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E. & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Barentsen, J. (2011). Emerging Leadership in the Pauline Mission: A Social Identity Perspective on Local Leadership Development in Corinth and Ephesus. Eugene, OR: Pickwick. Barrick, W. D. (2008). “Exegetical Fallacies: Common Interpretive Mistakes Every Student Must Avoid.” Master’s Seminary Journal, 19(1), 15–27. Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S. M. B. & Jehn, K. A. (2007). “Group Heterogeneity and Faultlines: Comparing Alignment and Dispersion Theories of Group Composition.” In K. J. Behfar & L. L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in Organizational Groups: New Directions in Theory and Practice (pp. 57–92). Evanston, IN: Northwestern University Press.



18

Black, C. C. (1993). “The Presentation of John Mark in the Acts of the Apostles.” Perspectives in Religious Studies, 20(3), 235–254. Blanchard, K. & Hodges, P. (2008). Lead Like Jesus: Lessons for Everyone from the Greatest Leadership Role Model of all Time. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=MUlbh5EC7MsC Bromiley, G. W. (Ed.). (1986). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. [Olive Tree edition]. Bruce, F. F. (1988). “The Book of Acts.” In F. F. Bruce (Ed.), New International Commentary on the New Testament. [Olive Tree edition]. Cai, D. A. & Fink, E. L. (2002). “Conflict Style Differences Between Individualists and Collectivists.” Communication Monographs, 99(1), 67. Castelli, E. A. (1991). Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=e1KFQaZR3kMC&pgis=1 Clarke, A. D. (2000). Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Coutu, D. & Beschloss, M. (2009). “Why Teams Don’t Work.” Harvard Business Review 87(5), 98-105. Croucher, S. M., Bruno, A., McGrath, P., Adams, C., McGahan, …Huckins, A. (2012). “Conflict Styles and High–Low Context Cultures: A Cross-Cultural Extension.” Communication Research Reports, 29(1), 64–73. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2011.640093 Culpepper, R. A. (1998). “Mapping the Textures of New Testament Criticism: A Response to SocioRhetorical Criticism.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 70, 71–77. Dana, H. E. & Mantey, J. R. (1927). A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. NY: MacMillan. deSilva, D. A. (2000). Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=4HOGS3lpOY8C&pgis=1 Deutsch, M. (1982). “Interdependence and Psychological Orientation.” In V. Derlega & J. L. Grzelek (Eds.), Conflict, Interdependence, and Justice: The Intellectual Legacy of Morton Deutsch (pp. 247–271). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-9994-8_11 Dunaetz, D. R. (2012). “Understanding the Effects of Diversity in Missionary Teams: Insights from the Social Sciences.” In B. Moreau, A. S. Snodderly (Eds.), Reflecting God’s Glory Together: Diversity in Evangelical Mission. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Dunaetz/publication/275346963_Understandi ng_the_Effects_of_Diversity_in_Missionary_Teams_Insights_from_the_Social_Sciences/li nks/5539cb220cf226723aba33a1.pdf Faulhaber, J. (2010). “Pilate’s Unjust Condemnation of Jesus in Matthew 27:11-26: How God Brings to Light His Standard of Justice in Governance and Leadership and Overturns Man’s Cultural Understanding of Justice.” Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership, 3(1), 61–80.



19

Green, M. (2004). Evangelism in the Early Church. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books/harvard?id=9F-nnE2dfqUC Guelich, R. A. (2015). “Mark 1:8-:26.” In B. M. Metzger, D. A. Hubbard, & G. W. Barker (Eds.), Word Biblical Commentary (vol 34a). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. [Olive Tree Edition]. Hesselgrave, D. (2000). Planting Churches Cross-Culturally: North America and Beyond. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. & Dorfman, P. (2002). “Understanding Cultures and Implicit Leadership Theories Across the Globe: An Introduction to Project GLOBE”. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3–10. doi:10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00069-4 Ivancevich, J., Konopaske, R. & Matteson, M. (2014). Organizational Behavior and Management (10th ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Jehn, K. A. (1994). “Enhancing Effectiveness: An Investigation of Advantages and Disadvantages of Value-Based Intragroup Conflict.” International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 223–238. Jehn, K. A. (1995). “A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282. Jehn, K. A. (1997). “A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530–557. Jehn, K. A. & Mannix, E. A. (2001). “The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance.” The Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238. Jones, L. B. (2001). Jesus CEO: Using Ancient Wisdom for Visionary Leadership. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=cUhrAwAAQBAJ Kastanakis, M. N. & Voyer, B. G. (2014). “The Effect of Culture on Perception and Cognition: A Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Business Research, 67, 425–433. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.028 Kittel, G., Friedrich, G. & Bromiley, G. (Eds.). (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. [Olive Tree edition]. Loubser, J. A. (2000). “Media Criticism and the Myth of Paul, the Creative Genius, and His Forgotten Co-workers.” Neotestamentica, 34(2), 329-345. Malina, B. J. (1996). Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=PuYo3TWIJY0C Malina, B. J. (2001). The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Manz, C. C. (2011). The Leadership Wisdom of Jesus: Practical Lessons for Today. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=LZUpsPLz-KcC Marshall, I. H. (1980). “The Acts of the Apostles.” In L. L. Morris (Ed.), Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. [Olive Tree edition]. THEOLOGY OF LEADERSHIP JOURNAL


20

McGavran, D. (2005). Bridges of God: A Study in the Strategy of Missions. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=ImJLAwAAQBAJ&pgis=1 Nolland, J. (1993). “Luke 1-9:20.” In B. M. Metzger, D. A. Hubbard, & G. W. Barker (Eds.), Word Biblical Commentary: Vol 35a. [Olive Tree version]. Oropeza, B. J. (2014). “The Expectation of Grace: Paul on Benefaction and the Corinthians’ Ingratitude (2 Corinthians 6:1).” Bulletin for Biblical Research, 24(2), 207–226. Osborne, G. R. (2006). The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. Patzia, A. G. (2001). “The Geographical Expansion, Numerical Growth and Diversity of the Early Church.” In A. G. Patzia (Ed.), The Emergence of the Church. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Peterson, D. G. (2009). “The Acts of the Apostles.” In D. A. Carson (Ed.), The Pillar New Testament Commentary Series ([Olive Tree edition]. Pinkley, R. L. (1990). “Dimensions of Conflict Frame: Disputant Interpretations of Conflict.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 117. Priem, R. L. & Price, K. H. (1991). “Process and Outcome Expectations for the Dialectical Inquiry, Devil’s Advocacy, and Consensus Techniques of Strategic Decision Making.” Group & Organization Studies, 16(2), 206. Rieley, J. B. (2014). “Building Alignment to Improve Organizational Effectiveness.” Global Business & Organizational Excellence, 33(5), 6–16. doi: 10.1002/joe.21559 Robbins, V. K. (1996). The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society, and Ideology. NY: Routledge. Schnabel, E. J. (2010). Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies, and Methods. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=tdIh1AC0nqAC&pgis=1 Smyth, H. W. (1984). Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stott, J. (2014). The Message of Acts. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=BMiuAwAAQBAJ&pgis=1 Thayer, J. (1997). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Ontario, Canada: Online Bible Foundation. [BibleWorks, v.8 version]. Vanhoozer, K. J. (1998). Is There Meaning in this Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Wall, V. D. & Nolan, L. L. (1986). “Perceptions of Inequity, Satisfaction, and Conflict in TaskOriented Groups.” Human Relations, 39(11), 1033–1051. Wedderburn, A. J. M. (2002). “Paul and Barnabas: The Anatomy and Chronology of a Parting of the Ways.” In H. Raisanen, I. Dunderberg, C. C. M. Tuckett, & K. Syreeni (Eds.), Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=cSVNH95ckNUC&pg=PA291 THEOLOGY OF LEADERSHIP JOURNAL


21

Whittington, J. L., Pitts, T. M., Kageler, W. V. & Goodwin, V. L. (2005). “Legacy Leadership: The Leadership Wisdom of the Apostle Paul.” The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 749–770. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.006 Wildavsky, A. & Hazony, Y. (2005). Moses as Political Leader. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=rx5szlNukHQC&pgis=1 Witherington, B. (1998). The Acts of the Apostles. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=2P7zSnM9BjMC&pgis=1 Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
