Leadership patterns and the development of ideology in early Christianity

Sociology of Religion, Winter, 1997 by David Horrell

On the subject of leadership patterns, as in so many areas of New Testament sociology, Gerd Theissen has drawn our attention to issues of considerable significance. In "Legitimation and Subsistence: An Essay on the Sociology of Early Christian Missionaries," first published in 1975, Theissen proposed the following thesis:

there were two types of primitive Christian itinerant preachers, to be

distinguished as itinerant charismatics on the one hand and community

organizers on the other. The most important difference between them is that

each adopts a distinctive attitude to the question of subsistence. The first

type arose in the social circumstances of the Palestinian region. The

second, represented by Paul and Barnabas, arose in the movement of the

mission into Hellenistic territory. Both types work side by side but come

into conflict in Corinth (Theissen 1982: 28).

The itinerant charismatics, Theissen argued, followed the synoptic mission instructions requiring missionaries to depend entirely upon the generosity of others for their material support. Paul and his co-workers, on the other hand, insisted on working at their own trade to support themselves. While Theissen's sociological reconstructions of the Jesus movement in Palestine and specifically of the role of the wandering charismatics have not gone uncriticized,(1) the essential points of this thesis stand. It is clear from the synoptic mission instructions (Mk 6: 7-13; Mt 10: 5-15; Lk 9: 1-6, 10: 1-12) that Jesus is recorded as commanding his apostles not to take even the minimum of possessions on their travels, not even the bag, staff, and mantle characteristic of the Cynic preacher, and to depend on the support and hospitality offered to them (cf., Mt 10: 40-42; Mk 9: 38-41; Crossan 1993: 117-19; Harvey 1982: 218; Theissen 1978: 14-15; Lucian, Peregrinus 24). It is clear too that Paul knows this instruction of the Lord, even though he himself sets it aside and thereby behaves differently from other itinerant missionaries (Peter and others connected with the Jerusalem church), who were known to the Corinthian congregation (1 Cor 9: 1-23; cf., also, 1 Cor 4: 11-13; 1 Thess 2: 9; 2 Thess 3: 6-13). Moreover, the synoptic evangelists, especially Luke, reveal a tendency to downplay the Lord's command to charismatic poverty and to legitimate the Pauline practice of self-support through manual labor (Mt 10: 8; Lk 22: 35-36; esp. Acts 20: 33-35). Conflict over the issue of material support for itinerant missionaries was evident especially at Corinth, but more widely too (Horrell forthcoming; Horrell 1996, ch 5).

However, while Theissen has drawn our attention to a sociologically significant conflict between patterns of leadership activity, the two types of missionary leader to which he draws attention share one fundamental characteristic in common. They are both, as Theissen recognizes, itinerant forms of leadership. The focus of this paper is the distinction between two forms of leadership which also contrast and conflict in important ways in early Christianity, namely itinerant leadership and resident leadership (that is, leadership from those who are located in a particular community, over which they exercise leadership). I will argue that there are important distinctions to be drawn between these two patterns of leadership, that in general it is legitimate to speak of a development or transformation from itinerant to resident leadership in early Christianity, that there is evidence which reflects the tensions and difficulties which the diverse patterns of leadership caused, and that the transference of power from itinerant to resident leadership is a sociologically significant transformation which may be connected with the development of more socially conservative patterns of ethical instruction (especially the "household codes").(2)

PATTERNS OF LEADERSHIP IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Although our evidence is scarce, and much of it relates to the Pauline churches, it is clear that the major locus of leadership power and authority in the earliest churches was in itinerant apostolic missionaries such as Peter and Paul. However, this bold statement must be clarified and qualified. Peter, James, and John, for example, were based in the Jerusalem community. They were, Paul says, its "pillars" (Gal 2: 9); yet they and others connected with them or with the Jerusalem community engaged in missionary activity over a wide area. "Certain people from James" arrived in Antioch at a time when Peter (Cephas), Paul, and Barnabas were there already (Gal 2: 1.1-13). 1 Cor 9:5 refers to the itinerant missionary activity (note periagein) of "the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas." Jerusalem connections are also evident in the case of those who have come to Corinth and whom Paul denounces as "false apostles" in 2 Cor 11: 12-23. In the early days of their missionary activity, according to Acts, Paul and Barnabas had a specific link with the Antioch community (Acts 11: 25-30, 13: 1-15, 35), although this came to an end, possibly due to the success in Antioch of the Judaizing faction represented by the "people from James" (see Taylor 1992). However in Antioch, as in Corinth, it is clear that the major locus of authority lay with those who were itinerant missionaries. At Corinth Apollos was also influential, such that different people in the congregation claimed allegiance to Paul, to Peter, or to Apollos (1 Cor 1: 10-12).(3)