Leadership patterns and the development of ideology in early Christianity

Sociology of Religion, Winter, 1997 by David Horrell

Somewhat later than 1 Clement, the structure of monepiscopacy does develop and is evidenced most clearly in the writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the late first and early second century (see Eusebius HE 3: 22, 3: 36). Also at around this time, and also from Asia Minor, we have an epistle of Polycarp, who was bishop of Smyrna. Ignatius's epistles are particularly interesting in the extent to which they reveal a clear concern to strengthen the position of the established leadership: bishop, presbyters, and deacons.(18) For example, in his letter to the Philadelphians, Ignatius restates his teaching, which he uttered "in a great voice, with the voice of God, `Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbyteri and deacons'" (Philad 7: 1; see Ephes 2: 2, 4: 1; Magn 2: 1-4: 1, 7: 1, 13: 2; Trall 2: 1-3: 1, etc.). Ephesians 6: 1 states, "Therefore it is clear that we must regard the bishop as the Lord himself." The theological legitimation of the position of the established leaders is more fully set out in Trallians 3: 1: "Likewise let all respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as the bishop is also a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of Apostles."

The pattern seen most clearly in deuteropauline epistles, then, in which a resident structure of leadership develops, based upon the structure of the household and with prominent men as the overseers at the top of the ecclesiastical as well as domestic hierarchy, becomes established broadly as the dominant pattern of leadership in what emerges as "orthodox" Christianity. Just as the polemic in the Pastoral Epistles reveals that the "canonical" pattern of teaching was hardly uncontroversial, so also Ignatius's strenuous appeals to strengthen the authority of the established leadership surely suggest that such leadership was not at the time unquestioned. The establishment of this particular pattern of leadership clearly involved power struggles, in which this "orthodox" pattern had to be legitimated. Such legitimation, I suggest, is also found in the so-called "household codes," or Haustafeln, though in these codes the focus is not upon the forms of leadership as such, but is often upon the appropriate submission expected of subordinate social groups. The following section therefore seeks to explore the possible links between the emergence of resident leadership and the socially conservative forms of ethical teaching found in these household codes.

HOUSEHOLD CODES AND RESIDENT LEADERSHIP

The form, function, and origin of the various Haustafeln in the New Testament epistles have been much discussed (Verner 1983; Balch 1981; Yoder 1972: 163-92). Though there are both Greco-Roman and Jewish parallels to this pattern of instruction which may be traced back to Plato and Aristotle (Balch 1981: 23-62 1986: 81; Aristotle's Politics 1.2.1-2 [1253b. 1-14]), the earliest written form of Christian Haustafel is found in Colossians, closely paralleled in Ephesians (assuming the priority of Colossians). The Colossian Haustafel is compact and formalized, which has suggested to many that it represents a traditional form of Christian instruction significantly earlier than the epistle itself (e.g., Carrington 1940; Ellis 1986: 484-85, 492). This may or may not be the case, but we must insist that we have no evidence for an earlier Christian form of the code. 1 Corinthians 7 and 11 cannot be said to reflect elements of a household code, nor do we find such elements elsewhere in the undisputed Paulines (contra Ellis 1986: 492). Indeed, as Peter O'Brien rightly points out, if Paul had known of or approved a form of household code it is most surprising that he did not use it in 1 Corinthians (or 1 Thessalonians) where it might have been expected (O'Brien 1982: 218).