1

The matrix of leadership: location, social order and authority in early Christianity
By Simon Jones
All sorts of gatherings were called in the first century voluntary associations, religious groups, even riotous assemblies (Acts 19:39-41)! For this reason scholars have debated how the early followers of Jesus were organised and led

In this paper we will review that debate, paying special attention to the development of leadership language into the Second Century. In particular we will focus on what our extant sources tell us about the way leadership in the movement emerged in a complex matrix of social order, location and competing authority claims.

Locating the Jesus movement in society

The earliest community in Acts was a gathering of mainly Jewish people and god-fearers who met to pray and learn so they resembled a synagogue and maybe the synagogue gave them a pattern to follow. They were also in Jerusalem so they continued to go to the temple for prayers and worship (Acts 42-47, 3:1; 4:32-37; 5:12).

This has led James Burtchaell to propose that 'there is an antecedent likelihood

2 that the first Christians, being Jews, organised themselves in the familiar and conventional ways of the synagogue.'1

But as the movement spread out from Jerusalem and began to take root in the cities around the eastern end of the empire, it is much less clear what kind of animal it is. Scholars have argued that the earliest communities modelled themselves loosely on, variously, philosophical schools, voluntary associations, even mystery religions, as well as the synagogue.2 The problem with this approach is that it assumes that each of these types of organisation had recognisable and uniform structures that differentiated them from other types of organisation across the empire. But this is not the case. For example, Ascough points out that the evidence from the first century C.E. suggests that Jews met in private houses on the Sabbath for meetings focused on personal purity and prayer, and they probably shared a meal together.3 But this could describe any gathering in the empire from a voluntary society established by artisans to ensure they get a decent burial to a philosophical school meeting to discuss the latest ideas.

Indeed Smith has argued that banquets in the ancient world followed a certain pattern and that almost every group that met to eat followed that pattern which makes it very difficult to argue that because the early followers of Jesus eat a
James T Burtchaell From Synagogue to Church: Public services and offices in the earliest Christian communities (Cambridge 1992) p274 2 A good introduction to the debate is found in Richard S Ascough What are they saying about the formation of Pauline Churches (New York: Paulist Press 1998) 3 Ascough op cit p12
1

3 meal when they came together, they must have been a particular kind of organisation. Indeed, they might just have been a group of friends gathering for a semi-formal social organisation.4

The language that the New Testament writers used to describe their gatherings doesnt help us to pinpoint what kind of communities they were. Terms that later because the norm for describing the followers of Jesus notably church and Christian are surprisingly thin on the ground in the canon.

Paul nearly always referred to the recipients of his letters as the holy ones or saints (for example Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 1:2). He occasionally refers to churches (almost never in the singular)5 but never spoke of the followers of Jesus as Christians ().

Indeed this term only appears twice in Acts 11:26 and 26:28. It is a Latin term. Edwin Judge comments: The Greek-speaking synagogues in Rome used the Greek suffix -esioi in their names. The suffix ianus [the Latin rendering of ] constitutes a political comment. It was not used of the followers of a god. It classifies people as partisans of a political or military leader and is mildly

Dennis E Smith From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress 2003) 5 1 Thessalonians 1:1 has in the singular but this could be that there was only one small group of disciples gathered in a workshop, possibly that belonging to Jason. See Richard Ascough The Thessalonian Christian Community as a Professional Voluntary Association JBL 119/2 (2000) p311-328.. 1 Corinthians 1:2 also refers to in the singular, but see Romans 16:23 where Paul makes reference to Gaius offering hospitality to the whole church; but it is by no means certain that this meant he could host a formal gathering of all the Christians in the city and it seems likely that there were several household gatherings in Corinth at the time Paul wrote..

4 contemptuous.6

He adds that the term could have arisen from the question posed for Romans over the political loyalty of the followers of Christ.7 It's possible that what Agrippa is taking exception to in Acts 26:28 is not Paul trying to persuade him of a religious or philosophical view, but his trying to get him to adopt a political stance. Tacitus tells us that when Nero was looking for scapegoats for the fire in Rome in the early 60s, his gaze fell 'on a class of men whom the crowd styled Christians.'8

The only other occurrence of the term in the NT is in 1 Peter 4:16 in the context of persecution possibly by the Roman authorities, certainly by the neighbours of the followers of Jesus. Peter is possibly picking up a term of abuse used by outsiders of the church. David Horrell suggests that the context in which the word appears in 1 Peter is highly significant for understanding the origin and importance of the term in the history of early Christianity.9

The context is clearly one of suffering (Peter refers to the fiery trial in 4:12) that comes from outside the community. It is likely that the term is used by those opposed to the followers of Jesus for reasons that Peter doesnt specify though he does stress that his hearers should not be insulted or prosecuted for criminal
6

E. A. Judge Judaism and the Rise of Christianity Tyn Bul 45.2, 1994 p363 cited in Bruce Winter Roman Law and Society in Romans 12-15 in Peter Oakes (ed) Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (Carlisle/ Grand Rapids: Paternoster/Baker 2002 p70 7 Judge ibid 8 Winter op cit p70 9 David G Horrell The label : 1 Peter 4:16 and the Formation of Christian Identity JBL 126.2 2007 p361-381. The quotes comes from p369

5 behaviour (4:15).

It seems that the communities Peter is writing to were facing suffering simply for being followers of Jesus or, as their neighbours called then, Christians. In the well-known correspondence between Pliny, Governor of the area Peter is writing to, and the Emperor Trajan, similar language is used.

Seeking confirmation that he acting correctly, Pliny writes:

In the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.10

Trajan relied:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are
10

Betty Radice (ed) The Letters of the Younger Pliny (London Penguin 19692 ) Book ten, letter 96, p293

6 not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age. 11

It is clear from this exchange that by the start of the second century, the followers of Jesus were routinely called Christians by outsiders. Horrell points out that at about the same time, some of those followers of Jesus were beginning to adopt the label as a badge of honour, most notably, Ignatius of Antioch.12

The roots of Roman suspicions about a foreign and new movement such as that represented by what they called the Christians lie more than a century earlier than Plinys correspondence with his Emperor. Trajan spoke for most Romans when he said:

When people gather together for a common purpose whatever name we may give them and whatever function we may assign them they soon become political groups.13

11 12

Ibid book ten, letter 97, p295 Horrell Op Cit p380; Ign Magn 4:1 13 Ibid book ten letters 33-34 p272

7 It was for this reason that a century earlier, Augustus had passed laws limiting what associations were able to do. In particular, he decreed that they needed Senatorial approval for being set up in the first place, that they needed to perform some demonstrable public good and that if allowed to form they could meet no more than once a month. The only exceptions to this were Jewish associations namely synagogues which were allowed to gather each Sabbath day. Claudius went further. He banned associations altogether, including synagogues.14

In Rome the Christian community was probably looked on as both an off-shoot of Judaism and as an immigrant cult they spoke Greek in a Latin town, indicating that most of their members were recent arrivals in the city rather than Rome (possibly as slaves judging by the names of those greeted in Romans 1615) born and bred.

Bruce Winter says: The Christian community, gathering as a separate entity from the Jewish synagogues in Rome, would have been unauthorised and therefore an 'illegal' association as there is n o evidence that it sought or secured imperial and then senatorial approval. It would have had to demonstrate that it was not political, but was engaged in that which benefited the public good. If by the time of Nero, the term Christiani was used of Christians in Rome, this would have confirmed that those who gathered could possibly involved in some illegal or
14

For discussion see James Jeffers The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament: Exploring the background of early Christianity (Downers Grove: IVP 1999) especially chapter 6; Ascough op cit Chapter 4 15 See Peter Lampe From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) p153-183

8 clandestine activity. Therefore, it would have been open to suspicion of political activity.16

The language of leadership

If it was difficult and dangerous for small groups mainly made up of poorer people to be seen to be associations with officers and structures, then it's quite likely that the early Christian movement had very little of either.

This raises a question, as we shall see, about the conclusions of those who argue so confidently that they find a three-tier ecclesiastical structure in the writings of Ignatius and his contemporaries. Might such people be reading much later developments back into the second century, which in turn forces them to read rather more into the Pastoral letters which they see as a staging post between the genuinely Pauline letters and what happened in the Second Century than is really warranted.

But first we need to ask about the social location of Christians. Space prevents us from entering fully into this debate. Our interest is in coming to a judgement about where the majority of Jesus followers were located socially and what implications this had for where they gathered, in what numbers and how this affected the development of organisational structures and leadership.17

16 17

Winter Op Cit p74 contra James Jeffers Greco-Roman World p73 There is a vast literature on the social location of the early church. We cannot provide a representative

The earliest groups of Jesus followers met in homes either the homes of those better off people who could act as patrons of the small groups or insulae dwellings in the poorer parts of town where church organisation was even more rudimentary. What clues can we find about how these groups were led and where the teaching that sustained them came from?

While there are similarities between congregational organisation and that of the synagogues on the one hand and voluntary associations on the other, it makes far more sense to look at the influence of household structures on the development of church organisation and ministry. Alastair Campbell says: Of course there are points of similarity between the churches and the synagogues, as between the churches and the associations and clubs that proliferated in the Greco-Roman cities, yet I believe that it is to the household that the churches were primarily indebted.18

Households were more than a model, he argues, they were the context in which congregations gathered but more importantly, in which many people lived. He points to the presence of household code-style teaching in Paul and Peter as

bibliography but for general discussion with the wealth of material cited see Wayne A Meeks The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale 1983), Abraham J Malherbe Social Aspects of Early Christianity (second edition expanded; Oregon: Wipf & Stock 2003); Reggie M Kidd Wealth and Beneficence in The Pastoral Epistles (SBL Dissertation Series 122; Atlanta: Scholars Press 1990); David M Scholar (ed) Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E. A. Judge (Peabody: Hendrickson 2008); Justin J Meggitt Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1998); and Steven J. Friesen Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-called New Consensus (discussion article) JSNT 26.3 (2004) 323-361 18 Alastair Campbell The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1994 P118

10 evidence of how important households were to the early Christians. And most tellingly he argues: There is a striking absence of the kind of titles of office that abound in inscriptions from both synagogue and association...we do not find this in the churches, perhaps because it was foreign to the ethos of the Christian movement, but perhaps also because the household imposed its own quiet hierarchy on proceedings.19

Tracing trajectories across generations

In his analysis of the rise of the Christian churches, James T Burtchaell notes that 'the beguilements of reading later usages back into an undefined past have led to much myth and mischief.' 20

It could be argued that he compounds the myth-making with his argument that the earliest Christian church derived its organizational style and leadership structure (though not its language) from the synagogue, suggesting 'we must suppose the synagogue pattern as normal from the start.'21 From this he asserts that 'It is extremely improbable that those Christians who in so many ways had organized themselves after the viable and familiar order of the Hellenistic Jewish synagogue would have or could have dispensed with the linchpin of the

19

Ibid p119. See Roger W Gehring House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Peabody: Hendrickson 2004) for a full discussion 20 James T Burtchaell From Synagogue to Church: Public services and offices in the earliest Christian communities (Cambridge 1992) p273 21 Ibid p293

11 operation, the community chief'22. And hence argues that he has accounted for the rise of monepiscopacy by the early 100s.

But his suggestion that 'Clement is known to have been community chief of Christians in Rome'23 is overstated. But it illustrates a strong theme in the scholarship on the emergence of ministry in the early church that the pressure for Christian communities all over the empire to both centralize and appoint single powerful leaders over city-wide congregations was all-but irresistible by the turn of the Second Century.

Such a position is confidently argued by Brian Capper in two essays charting the development of the church and its ministry over the first century of its existence which explores how the following assertion came to be true.24

Paul's vision of the church as a mutually nourishing, charismatically inspired community in which each believer as a member of Christ's body has [an] individual, Spirit-inspired contribution to make, practical, oracular, or miraculous, in the public context of worship can hardly be reconciled
Ibid p308 Ibid p309. See James Jeffers Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress 1991) for a more nuanced account of Clements place among the Christians in Rome. 24 Brian Capper Order and Ministry in the Social Pattern of the New Testament Church in C. Hall and R. Hannaford (eds) Order and Ministry Leominster, Gracewing, 1996 pp. 61-103. Accessed on-line on 05/12/07 at http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/arts-humanities/theology-and-religious-studies/staff/dr-briancapper.asp; and Brian Capper Public Body, Private Women: The Ideology of Gender and Space and the Exclusion of Women from Public Leadership in the Late First Century Church in Robert Hannaford and Jannine Jobling (ed.) Theology and the Body Leominster U.K, Gracewing 1999, pp. 123-15. Accessed on-line 05/12/07 at http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/arts-humanities/theology-and-religious-studies/staff/drbrian-capper.asp
23 22

12 with Ignatius of Antioch's conception of the Church in the early second century, in which the community's existence is defined by the threefold order of bishop, elders and deacons and in which it is difficult to imagine the layperson having prominent place or public role at all.25

Capper seems to take Ignatius of Antioch as the norm for the early Second Century church. But this martyr-bishops understanding of leadership and organization was only one among many however strongly he sought to persuade everyone around him he was right. Contemporaries, such as Clement, Hermas and Polycarp suggest alternative, more varied and nuanced readings of the situation as we shall see.

Capper asserts that the church of the second Century was very different from that of the Pauline era. In an era after the apostles, it struggled with heresy; its growth meant that much larger, city-wide groups were gathering to worship; and these twin developments led inexorably to the creation of leaders with increasing amounts of authority.

He suggests that what he describes as the exclusion of the laity was an unintended consequence of other developments26. He argues, for instance, that the Pauline communities of the mid-first Century were small groups gathered in

Capper Order and Ministry p1 (page numbers in both articles refer to the Word document version posted on Cappers website and not to the version published) 26 Ibid p2

25

13 the homes of prominent Christians.27 But the numbers of Christians in the larger cities of the empire were so considerable by the Second Century that such arrangements had been replaced by single larger gatherings overseen by a bishop.

He argues that By the time of Ignatius, Christian worship was taking place on an altogether larger scale. Ignatius depicts the bishop presiding over the eucharist, surrounded by his council of elders, and assisted in his ministry to the gathered laity by numerous deacons. Thus, the clergy themselves of a meeting of Ignatius' congregation may have outnumbered the typical house-church of earlier times. We are dealing with typical Christian meetings not of two of three dozen, but perhaps of two or three hundred souls or more.28

Neither of the passages from Ignatius that Capper cites justifies his suggestion that there was a single congregation in either of the cities Magnesia and Tralles just that clergy should preside whenever the Christians gathered.

Ritva Williams suggests that far from describing the norm for church organisation and leadership, Ignatius is laying claim to prophetic insight and authority when he lays out his novel understanding of the church being overseen by a three-fold
27

Ibid. This is not the place to argue whether all or even most of Pauls communities met in larger homes, sponsored by the few householders who joined the new faith. It is the position argued by many such as Wayne Meeks The First urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven & London: Yale University Press 1983). But it is not without its critics, for example Robert Jewett Tenement Churches and communal meals in the Early Church: The Implications of a Form-Critical Analysis of 2 Thessalonians 3:10 BR 38 (1993) Pp23-43; and Justin J Meggitt Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1998). 28 Ibid p4, citing Ignatius to Magnesians 5 and Trallians 3

14 ministry. She argues that his martyr-elect status gave Ignatius a liminal position with regard to both the world and the churches that in turn gave him an authority he otherwise couldnt have claimed.

She says: Ignatius invokes precisely this aspect of the liminal position to justify his otherwise presumptuous instructions to communities in which he has no personal role or statusIgnatius uses his status as a martyr and a prophet to advocate for greater obedience to and solidarity with church leaders.29

She asserts that Ignatius does not appeal to tradition or precedent but to the Spirit as the one who ultimately legitimates his view of church leadership. This indicates how novel it is at the time he is writing. His appeals suggest that he comes from a Christ-confessing community or circle in which prophets speaking in the Spirit in the name of Jesus introduced this form of leadership.30 This explains why in his letter to the Philadelpians, Ignatius is able to assert that church leadership is appointed by God not human agency.31

So Cappers use of Ignatius as an example of normal church practice by the turn of the Second Century is not without problems. Neither is his argument that Protected physical facilities were certainly now available to allow much larger meetings to occur at all times of the year, regardless of the weather or season. It

29

Ritva H Williams Stewards, Prophets, Keepers of the Word: Leadership in the Early Church (Peabody: Hendrickson 2006) p131 30 Ibid p133 31 Ign Phld 1.1

15 may be that the scale of these gatherings has to do with the sheer success of the Christian mission and the number of believers in each city, adding Believers were gathered into larger groups to hearken to the secure voice of apostolic tradition, rather than remain is smaller house-congregations with separate eucharists.32

Furthermore, Capper argues that women lost their place in the leadership of the church as congregations moved out of domestic space into public space where womens roles were severely curtailed.33 He suggests, for instance, that the prohibition on womens ministry in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1Timothy 2 is because of the transition of Christian worship from the context of the private home into space which was clearly regarded as public according to prevailing norms, and in which public expectations of decency applied.34

But there is no evidence to support the view that the Jesus movement moved out of domestic spaces either domus or insulae into larger public buildings at this early stage. Indeed the evidence suggests quite the reverse.35

32 33

Capper op cit p4 Public Body, Private Women 34 Ibid p12. To make this case, he has to argue that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a late interpolation, a case that does not command widespread support. See the discussion in Gordon Fee The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1987) who argues in favour and in Anthony Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster 2000) who argues against 35 See Bradley Blue Acts and the House Church in David W J Gill and Conrad Gempf (eds) The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting: Volume 2: Greaco-Roman Setting (Grand Rapids/Carlisle Eerdmans/ Paternoster 1994) p119-222 who argues that prior to 150AD the Christian communities everywhere met in private homes, citing a wide range of literature in support of his argument.

16 Campbell demonstrates that seniority in the later New Testament namely the pastorals and to a certain extent beyond, resided in householders because congregations gathered in the homes of those sufficiently well-to-do to host a group of 25-30. Such householders were those designated elder or deacon in the pastorals.36

And as we shall see in the next section, what evidence there is for Rome suggests that the Christian movement still met in domestic space in the time of Clement and Hermas, in relatively small groups, led by different kinds of officers37 Indeed, this is one reason for the diverse models of leadership and organization and the tensions between them that can be discerned in the church at this time.

But maybe the most important thing Campbell does is to remind us that the Pauline churches were not without leaders. It's just that he had a different vocabulary of leadership from other groups notably the synagogues.38

So in 1 Thessalonians Paul speaks of 'those who labour among and are over you in the Lord to admonish you' (5:12). Labour renders a Greek word which he uses elsewhere of his work in preaching and teaching. 5:14 indicates
Campbell op cit p176-205; Kidd Op Cit p83-87 James Jeffers Op Cit, Peter Lampe Op Cit, Harry O Maier The Social Setting of the Ministry as Reflected in the Writings of Hermas, Clement and Ignatius (Studies in Christianity and Judaism, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1991) and Carolyn Osiek Romans Down the Pike: Glimpses from Later Years in Sheila E McGinn (ed) Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology: Essays in Honour of Robert Jewett (Grand rapids: Eerdmans 2004) Pp149-161 38 A feature recognised by Burtchaell who nevertheless goes on to argue that synagogues provided the template for the earliest Christian communities.
37 36

17 that each community member has a role in admonishing, as well as encouraging and helping. But 5:12 suggests here were some who did this more often and more formally than others who were, therefore, over other members of the congregation as leaders (the word Paul uses is ).

This word also appears in Romans 12:8 in the list of gifts of the Spirit and is usually rendered 'leadership' in English. It might have something to do with offering patronage of one sort or another to the Christian communities whether simply by hosting meetings and providing food for communion or by freeing resources for others to engage in service of one kind or another.

Jewett argues that Paul deliberately uses a bland expression to describe this gift and argues that it is different from being a patron (). The expression probably implies appointment to a leadership role in an early house or tenement church whether as presider, administrator of charitable work or pastoral supervisor.39

Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2 is, however, described as a patron (). She is also a which simply means servant and yet is a word which has become charged with all kinds of nuances that it doesn't deserve. Maybe, everywhere it occurs in the New Testament we should translate it servant and

39

Robert Jewett Romans: (Hermeneia a critical and historical commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress 2007) p753

18 then see what that does to our thinking about ministry.40

Perhaps leadership or ministry, Campbell suggests, rests on a mixture of position in the household and a willingness to use that position for the good of others. This certainly seems to be what Paul is saying about Stephanus in 1 Corinthians 16:15-17. Such a man, says Paul, should be known, respected and recognised. Why? Because they have served the saints in some way. He is a fellow worker and labourer, says Paul. Campbell comments: This is the distinctive vocabulary of Pauline mission and implies that Stephanus was prominent in a group of people who were active in preaching and teaching on behalf of the church as a whole.41

James Dunn plays down the role of such people because they did it voluntarily but as Campbell notes, this is to completely misunderstand the voluntaristic nature of most public office in Greek and Roman cities. You couldn't serve the public good unless you could afford it because there were no salaries to go with the jobs.42

It is interesting to note that when Paul writes to the Philippians, he greets the and along with the saints. It is the only Pauline letter to a

40

For a full discussion of the meaning of the term, see John N Collins Diakonia: Re-interpreting Ancient sources (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press 1990). For an assessment see Paula Gooder Diakonia in the New Testament: A Dialogue with John N Collins Ecclesiology 3.1 (2006) p33-56 41 Campbell Op Cit p123 42 Dunn Op Cit p113 ; Campbell Ibid; see Andrew D Clarke Called to Serve the Community and the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Grand rapids: Eerdmans 2000) especially p11-77

19 group of churches that contains this greeting which immediately raises the question, that if some of the churches to which he wrote especially the church at Corinth, for instance were in such a mess, why doesn't he tell the leaders to sort it out? Why does he not demand that the elders, deacons, pastors, overseers, bishops or whatever we want to call them knock heads together and get things back on an even keel? Indeed having mentioned and in the opening greeting of Philippians, he does not suggest that they get involved in sorting out the disagreement between Euodia and Syntyche perhaps because they themselves were or . Only his veiled reference to , almost certainly not a proper name, as one who might help solve the issue between the women, gives a hint that personal mediation might be needed.43

But even to raise these questions is to realise how anachronistic they sound. They come from reading back into the New Testament two thousand years of history during which churches have moved out of the home and become standalone institutions in their own right requiring leadership structures in the same way multi-national corporations do.

Campbell suggests that Phil 1:1 tells us that there were in some Pauline congregations, that in Philippi there was more than one of them, that no single person was in overall control (not surprising since there were a number of
43

For a full discussion see Gordon Fee Pauls Letter to the Philippians (NICTNT Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1995) p389-398 and Davorin Peterlin Pauls Letter to the Philippians in the Light of Disunity in the Church (Supplements to Novum Testamentum LXXIX; Leiden: E.J. Brill 1995) p101-132.

20 house churches in the city) and that the absence of the definite article suggests that the was not a tightly defined group. It could be that all Paul is saying is that he's sending his letter to 'those who lead and serve' as well as the saints, or perhaps 'those who lead by serving' (but that isn't an obvious translation).44 It's entirely possible that Clement, Epaphroditus, Euodia and Syntyche (2:25-30, 4:2-3) are . They possibly served the churches in Philippi in the way Stephanus did at Corinth and Phoebe at Cenchrae.

Andrew Clarke points out that the early Christians designated their gatherings rather than synagogues despite having grown out of Palestinian Jewish soil. He further claims It is clear that these early Christians were already operating with the expectation that the characteristics of leadership within the Christian should parallel those characteristics of leadership in the civic 45

But he goes on to stress that the nature of the Christian demands a different style of leading than its civic counterpart. Perhaps what he means by this is explained by William Lane in his description of Roman house churches: The host who possessed the resources and initiative to invite the church into his or her home assumed major leadership responsibilities deriving from the patronage offered. These included important administrative tasks, such as the provision of the common meals of the community, the extension of hospitality to
44 45

Fee Op Cit p66-69 Clarke Op Cit p153

21 travelling missionaries and other Christians, the representation of the community outside the domestic setting, in addition to pastoral oversight and governance...A position of authority emerged out of the benefits that individuals of relatively higher wealth and social status could confer upon the community.46

This provides a clue as to where into this picture we fit the lists of gifts and ministries that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 and Romans 12.47 The householder hosted the gathering and ensured that there was food for the community meal.48 But the gathering itself appears to have been largely selfgoverning with members offering words, prayers and songs. It is likely that the host would have brought people to order for the breaking of bread that signalled the remembrance of Christ's death on the cross that established the church. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul indicates that such traditions were handed down generally within in the church and 1 Corinthians 11:17ff he reminds the Corinthians of the story of Jesus' supper than had been passed on to him (probably by Peter) ands that these traditions constitute the beginnings of a liturgy to be used at such gatherings.

In Galatians 6 Paul refers to in the context of restoring those who

46

William L Lane Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement in Karl Donfried and Peter Richardson (eds) Judaism and Christianity in First century Rome (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1998) p211 47 The list in Ephesians 4:11 is also pertinent here but debate over the authorship of the letter makes it less useful in this argument. 48 Robert Jewett argues that evidence from Thessalonica suggests that the communal meal in tenement churches was more like a pot-luck supper as the church had no patron or host. See Tenement Churches and communal meals in the Early Church: The Implications of a Form-Critical Analysis of 2 Thessalonians 3:10 BR 38 (1993) Pp23-43

22 have fallen into sin. Does Paul see these people as leaders or as mature Jesus followers able to assist those newer to the faith or simply anyone who has the Spirit? Our answer to this might have a bearing on how we interpret the same word in 1 Corinthians 12:1; in particular do we read it as a masculine plural (and render the word spiritual people) or a neuter plural (and render the word spiritual things or gifts49).

It could be that in the earliest days of the movement, those who had grasped the basics of the faith, demonstrated a maturity of understanding and a concern for others, were the ones who offered advice and help to others in the group perhaps only a handful of others. Such people could be have been seen as spiritual in the sense that they had journeyed further than others and so were seen as leaders.

Rome and Philippi tracing trajectories

What evidence is there for how the language of leadership developed as the apostles died off and the church faced fresh challenges of growth and teaching that not rooted in the apostolic tradition? Well briefly examine late First/early Second Century documents from Rome and Philippi for clues about the organisation and leadership of the Jesus movement in these cities.

49

The translation gift is determined by the subsequent discussion of Pauls preferred term for describing the manifestations of the Spirit that subsequent commentators have called the gifts of the Spirit. For full discussion see Fee Op Cit and Thiselton Op Cit

23 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas offer clues to the social location of Christians, the influence of the Roman social context on the development of these groups and the patterns of authority that enabled them to navigate their way in conditions that were not altogether well-disposed to the new movement. For Philippi Polycarps letter will hopefully round out the picture.

Roman perspectives

James Jeffers has undertaken a careful analysis of the social context in which the Roman followers of Jesus lived. He offers a close reading of two contemporary documents 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas that suggests that not only was there not a single church in Rome at this time, but that there were tensions between different household-based groups.

He argues that both Clement and the author of the Shepherd both came from the populus urbanus group of free-born or freed people. Clement probably came from the more prosperous end of this large social group. Clement himself probably was an imperial freedman. First Clement thus implies the existence of at least one Christian house church which was led by imperial freedmen and drew its members at least in part from descendents of the imperial household and from dependents of other aristocratic families. First Clement says nothing directly about the most numerous members of this class [the populous urbanus],

24 the freeborn Romans or foreigners who supported themselves financially.50

This would make sense in the light of Pauls greetings to congregations in Rome at the end of his letter. Peter Lampe has done detailed analysis on the 26 names listed and suggests the presence of at least five congregations. During the two first centuries the Christians of the city of Rome met separately in privately owned locations scattered around the capital city. Forming a number of house churches, they had no central worship facility a lack of central coordination that matched the profile of the separated synagogues in Rome.51

The author of The Shepherd seems to have come from lower down the social order. There is a lot of criticism of the way rich people even rich followers of Jesus lived. He certainly attacks those who are mixed up with business and riches and heathen friendships and many other occupations with this world (Mand 10.1.4). Jeffers suggests that his target may well have been Clements congregation.52

Clements guiding theological principle is unity and good order. He writes to a Corinthian congregation that has recently deposed its leadership and instated
Jeffers Conflict at Rome p101. It is important to note that he mines Clements letter not for information primarily about the Corinthian situation but for what his writing tells us about him and his house church in Rome. Maier Op Cit chapter 4 investigates what 1 Clement tells about Corinthian Christianity, as does David G Horrell The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1996) especially chapter 6 51 Peter Lampe The Roman Christians of Romans 16 in Karl Donfried (ed) The Romans Debate (rev edition; Peabody: Hendrickson 1991) p229. See Paul McKechnie The First Christian Centuries: Perspectives on the Early Church (Downers Grove: IVP 2001) p137-149 for a thorough discussion of Christianitys imperial links in the First and Second Centuries. 52 Jeffers Op Cit p117-120
50

25 others in their place. This is unacceptable to Clement. Interestingly, he offers no analysis of the actual situation in Corinth and makes no attempt to understand the motives and actions of either side. He condemns the actions of the usurpers solely on the ground that it offends against unity and good order. Clement believes that, just as Rome remains in peace because all obey the emperor, the community will remain in peace when all obey God, the master, by remaining in submission to the congregations leaders.53

Such a benign view of empire is somewhat at odds with what Paul and Peter write (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2-4) and surprising in view of the martyrdom of both men in Rome an event referred to in 1 Clement 5:1-6:1 in rather strange terms: it was jealousy and strife that led to their demise, the very things now threatening to tear the Corinthian congregation apart. But Clements view of empire was not surprising in view of the fact that he strongly allied congregational with household leadership. Clement treated his congregation as a single householdchurch leaders, like the paterfamilias, deserved unquestioning honour and obedience, and followers must know and remain in their proper places in the hierarchy.54

Jeffers argues that such a view of church is derived from the place Clement occupied in the wider Roman society. It appears probable that the higher a Christians social status in Rome, the more likely the Christian was to adopt the

53 54

Ibid p137 Ibid p142

26 values of the surrounding society. Clement, he suggests, sought organisational unity for the church by imposing on the churches an identity in imitation of the Roman elites.55

The author of The Shepherd, on the other hand, sought authority for his teaching not from institutional conformity but from prophetic non-conformity. He challenges the existing leadership in Rome. Hermas is told to rebuke the church leadership: you shall say, then, to the leaders of the church, that they reform their ways in righteousness, to receive in full the promises with great glory (vis 2.2.6).56

Such words suggest that Hermas would have taken a diametrically opposite to Clement on what was happening in Corinth. While Clement argued that leaders were appointed by God and couldnt be removed even with the consent of the congregation, Hermas asserts that leaders are not above criticism. Indeed, if they fail to be the people God wants them to be, they should be removed. This suggests a level of tension and debate about church organisation at the start of the Second Century that the likes of Capper and Dunn have not paid sufficient attention to.

The picture that emerges is of house churches across the city developing in different ways according to the social location of their members and their attitude

55 56

Ibid p143 Ibid p152-153

27 to prevailing social norms. In modern terms, Hermas argues the church should be counter-cultural, whereas Clement urges his congregation to do nothing that would arouse the ire of the authorities against them.

Clement uses various terms to describe the leaders the Corinthians and by implication the congregations in Rome should obey. Pride of place goes to , and (42.4; 44:4; 47:6; 54:2; 57:1). He argues that having properly constituted leadership follows the order set down by the apostles. When Clement states in 42:4, therefore, that the apostles appointed their first converts ( the same term used in 1 Cor 16:15 and Rom 16:15) to be bishops and deacons, there is probably a kernel of historical truth present.57

Maier highlights an issue with the word , however, namely that it is ambiguous. In 1 Clement 1:3, 21:6 and in Hermas vision 3.1.8 it is not clear whether to render it elder men or presbyter, he says, adding that the tension is resolved if one argues that presbyters were in fact elder men.58 He points out that 63:3 suggests a link between age and seniority. He argues that across the empire churches operated in this way not only in Clements time but earlier.

In 1 Pet 5:5 the term i is used simultaneously to describe an agegroup and a class of leaders. Such authority, he argues, comes from contact
57 58

Maier Op Cit p117 Ibid p105

28 with those who founded congregations, whether apostles or members of their teams. The view which regards presbyters as the elder members of the community is also more consistent with the emergence of authority structures from below in the community, a process we [argue] began while the apostle was still alive. 59

Such a view might make sense of the New Testament material especially the pastorals and might be consistent with Ignatius assertion that leadership arises through prophetic word.60 But it hardly squares with Clements view of how leadership is appointed since he is writing to the Corinthian church expressly to rebuke them for removing their leaders and appointing a new group. 1 Clement 42 suggests that some kind of succession from the apostles is essential for there to be legitimate leadership in the church.

Hermas appears to have a more fluid approach to leadership. In Vision 3.5 he speaks of apostles, bishops, teachers and deacons leading because of their purity and reverence (1). He also seems to suggest that those who have suffered for the church have authority within the church (2) perhaps a nod in the direction of those like Ignatius whose liminality confers authority. And in verse 3, he nods towards those who prove themselves through faithful living and purity as having authority that could lead to appointment to office. If this is to read the
59

Ibid. It is also possible that the author of the pastorals was also aware of this ambiguity. Many of those who were heads of households were older men and their social seniority came from that fact. This is why Timothy is cautioned not to be ashamed of his youth and to take care when dealing with those older than himself (1 Timothy 4:12; 5:1) 60 Williams Op Cit p130-133

29 vision correctly, Hermas is arguing that leadership in the church is conferred on those whose lives are exemplary in some way. This is not far from Pauls suggestion that Christians imitate him (1 Corinthians 11:1) and others who follow his teaching and lifestyle (1 Corinthians 4:16-17; Philippians 3:15-17).

A view from Philippi

We have already noted that the only place where Paul uses the terms and in his undisputed letters is in Philippians 1:1. It is clear that the community he is writing to is made up of a number of household congregations and is probably full of mainly poor, non-Roman citizens a congregation more like that of Hermas than of Clement.61 The only other evidence we have relating to the Christian community in Philippi is the letter the bishop of Smyrna sent to the church sometime in the second quarter of the Second Century.62

Polycarp is known to us through this letter, through an anonymous record of his eventual martyrdom and in a number of references in later church fathers. His writing is awash with references to writings that ended up in the New Testament. There are some 48 quotations or strong allusions to such writings, including three from Pauls letter to the Philippians.

61

For a full discussion of the context of Pauls letter see Peter Oakes Philippians: From People to letter (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph series 110; Cambridge 2001) especially p1-76 62 We will use Polycarps letter primarily to seek information on how the Philippian church has developed rather than for what it tells about Smyrna

30 Polycarps life and ministry spanned the time between the end of the apostolic era and the emergence of catholic Christianity, and as a proto-orthodox leader he was deeply involved in the central issues and challenges of this critical era. These included the increasing possibility of conflict with the Roman state, the challenge of the emerging Gnostic movement and its charismatic leaders (such as Cerinthus and Marcion), the development and expansion of the monepiscopal form of ecclesiastical organisation and the beginning of the formation of a canon of early Christian writings.63

Polycarp writes with gentleness and humility to a church that has sought his advice. In 3:1 he says that he is writing about righteousness () because they have asked him to but he immediately observes that they have Pauls letter and the memory of his visit (no doubt handed down in oral tradition with the community) which is of far more value than anything he could write.

A key theme of his letter is about the love of money, a theme that not only echoes 1 Timothy 6:6-10, but also has connections with Hermas emphasis on the rich needing to use their wealth in godly ways. It suggests that the church might be struggling with the issue of money for a very specific reason namely that people are being appointed to roles within the community that carry either financial responsibility for community funds or command a salary of some kind. This is not new. In Galatians Paul urges his hearers to share with those who

63

Michael Holmes Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle to the Philippians in Paul Foster (ed) The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 2007) p109

31 teach them (6:6) and in 1 Corinthians 9 he spoke of the norm which he rejected for reasons he explains that apostles and travelling missionaries are worthy of the support of the congregations in which they minister. In 1 Timothy 5:17 there is a suggestion of paid overseeing ministry already being in place.64

One of the issues Polycarp is concerned about is the situation with Valens. In chapter 11 the author expresses his grief over Valens who was once a presbyter among them.65 It is possible that his failure has to do with Valens mishandling money or being motivated by money, something suggested by the lesson Polycarp seeks to draw out of the episode in 11:1b. Self control is vital in leadership, he says. Yet in 11:3 he says I have not observed or heard any such thing among you. We assume by this he is referring to the rest of the congregation and not to Valens, who needs to repent (4). The end of the chapter gives us the strongest hint that Valens might have been a paid presbyter of the church because he urges them to seek his restoration and in the meantime to be reasonable towards them, possibly a reference to them needing to ensure that he and his family do not starve while the rest of the church leadership works to restore his faith and (possibly?) position. In passing, its interesting to note that just as Paul in his letter did not tell the leaders of the community to sort out the argument between Euodia and Syntyche, so Polycarp does not call on the other leaders to resolve the issue with Valens. Rather it seems to be left to the whole
64

For a full discussion of this see Campbell Op Cit p194-204 where he argues that in the pastorals we have the first firm evidence of single overseeing elders rising to positions of authority over whole towns or cities; in other words the beginnings of monepiscopacy. 65 Chapters 10-12 are only available to us in Latin but we assume that the original described Valens as

32 church to restore him as part of building up the body (4). This seems to be very similar to the advice Paul gave the Galatians over how to treat members who were straying into sin (Galatians 6:1).

Polycarps letter in fact contains very little about formal leadership and a huge amount about every member of the church living quality Christian lives. He does not describe himself as a bishop, though does say that he writing with his presbyters (salutation). He stresses that must be blameless (5:2) as servants of God in a passage strongly reminiscent of the Pastoral Epistles. But it is set the context that all members of the congregation should live worthy of him, picking up the citizenship language that Paul uses in 3:20 in 5:2.

The have a particular ministry to those on the edge of the church (in danger of straying) and to the sick, the widows and poor (6:1). They should serve as the apostles and prophets did before them. In particular, they should be examples of good and godly behaviour (9:1) as others have been. The reference to Valens indicates that presbyter was an office in the church and therefore recognised by the congregation.

Polycarp addresses his letter to but the letter contains no information about how that church is organized beyond it having leadership with the labels and . He gives us no information regarding how and where the church met, whether it was a single entity (unlikely) or met in

33 homes around the city (more likely given the evidence from Pauls letter and other writings from Polycarps contemporaries). And most interestingly in the light of Holmes suggestion that he is a key link in the chain of development of monepiscopacy, he does not once use the word . He does not use that label to describe himself nor suggest that there is a single overseeing leader in the community.

This is all-the-more noteworthy in light of the fact that the only time Paul uses the words and is in his letter to the Philippian community and because Ignatius, that great champion of episcopacy, wrote to Smyrna urging that the congregation be obedient to its bishop and stressing that the bishop has to be at the heart of every gathering (8:1-2); and to Polycarp himself, reminding him of his title (salutation) and urging him to live up to the calling of his office (1:2-3). Furthermore he lays out to Polycarp, as he had already done to his church, the necessity of obeying the bishop, presbyters and deacons.

Peter Oakes suggests in the light of this that Polycarps failure to mention episcopacy at all must be a deliberate strategy on his part. Polycarps explicit encouragement of the Philippians to study Pauls letter, and the way in which his use of New Testament and other texts implicitly calls them to use the resources they have available, suggests that Polycarp wants the bishopless Philippian community to be self-sufficient and not to seek oversight from elsewhere,

34 including him.66

Far from being one of those who urged the churches over which he had influence to adopt the three-fold ministry with a single bishop at its apex, Polycarp seems to approve of the lack of any episcopacy in the Philippian church. Even though he is aware of Pauls letter and therefore would know that Paul greeted the and , Polycarp does nothing to suggest that the Philippians lack of a bishop is a problem that needs to be corrected. Indeed the evidence of the Philippian church is that the development of oversight of congregations was not a smooth path from rudimentary house church leadership based on heads of households to a strict observance of a three-fold, hierarchical model. Episcopacy, it seems, was still seen as contingent: if it helps groups to organise their affairs, then fine; if not, equally fine.

At the very least what this suggests is that even in the mid-Second century, patterns of organisation and authority in the Jesus movement are still extremely fluid. The only consistent terms, arising in the New Testament and still being used by Clement, Hermas, Polycarp and Ignatius, are the terms that gave rise to the so-called three-fold ministry, namely , , and . But as yet those terms are not describing fixed offices.

Frances Young suggests that only the latter two were consistently used from the
66

Peter Oakes Leadership and Suffering in the Letters of Polycarp and Paul to the Philippians in Andrew F Gregory and Christopher M Tuckett (eds) Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostloic Fathers (Oxford 2005) p369

35 apostolic times and that they are very general words describing functions that had to happen if the communities were to be administrated. They referred to rendering service and overseeing organization and they carried authority only in that they performed those functions effectively.67

67

France Young Ministerial Forms and Functions in the Church Communities of the Greek Fathers in Richard Longenecker (ed) Community Formation in the Early Church and in the Church today (Peabody: Hendrickson 2002) p157-176