Leadership patterns and the development of ideology in early Christianity

Sociology of Religion, Winter, 1997 by David Horrell

The Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln address the same social groups in the same order: wives, husbands, children, fathers, slaves, masters (Col 3: 18-4: 1; Eph 5: 22-6:9). Women, children, and slaves are instructed to be submissive, the husbands, fathers, and masters are urged to be loving and just in their actions towards those under their care. While these codes do indeed add theological legitimation to the established patterns of domestic domination, providing an ideology for the household, the demand for subordination on the part of the socially inferior is balanced by the demand for justice and consideration on the part of the powerful (see Horrell 1995: 230-33). The ethos of the instruction may indeed be appropriately labelled "love-patriarchalism," not merely patriarchalism (Theissen 1982: 107; MacDonald 1988: 102-22).

These Haustafeln relate to the domestic structure of the Greco-Roman household and display no explicit connection with church leadership or structure. Nevertheless, as MacDonald points out, "The Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln represent a placing of power more firmly in the hands of the rulers of the households (husbands, fathers, masters), ensuring that leadership positions fall to members of this group" (1988: 121-22). The significance of this is something to which we shall return.

In view of the evidence for the emergence of resident leadership surveyed briefly above, it is significant that forms of household code instruction appear in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 2: 8-6;2; Titus 2: 2-10), in 1 Peter (2: 18-3:7); in 1 Clement (1: 3; 21: 6-8), in Polycarp (Phil 4: 1-6:3), and in Barnabas (19: 7). There are a number of features which are notable in the ways in which this material is used and developed. First, the reciprocality evident in Colossians and Ephesians all but disappears. In 1 Peter, for example, there is an extended admonition to slaves (2: 18-25) but no instruction to masters, an extended address to wives (3: 1-6) but only a short instruction to husbands (3: 7). In 1 Clement the focus is upon the honor and respect to be paid to those who are leaders, instruction of the young in the fear of God, and the quiet submission expected from women. In 1 Tim 6: 1-2 and Titus 2: 9-10 slaves are instructed to be submissive and to please their masters, especially Christian masters, with no reciprocal instruction addressed to these Christian masters. A second observation may help to explain this first one. In these letters it becomes clear that the "household" pattern of instruction informs the pattern for the whole church and for the behavior of its subordinate members in relation to the church's leadership. In 1 Clement it is the men of the community who are addressed and given the responsibility for ensuring that the others, women and children, behave appropriately (Jeffers 1991: 123; Bowe 1988: 102; Lindemann 1992: 29; Horrell 1996 [sections] 6.4). As Campbell has argued, here (and in 1 Peter) the "elders" seem to comprise a group of men who are senior in faith and prominent in social position (1 Peter 5: 5; Campbell 1994: 210-16; cf., Maier 1991: 93, 100). The prominent (mate) heads of households have their responsibility qua leaders of the community. This is most clear in the Pastoral Epistles, especially 1 Timothy, where the main duties mentioned for the bishop and the deacon are their responsibilities for respectable citizenship and good household management (1 Tim 3: 1-13; Titus 1: 5-9). This is where the instruction to the socially prominent men of the community is found. The corollary of these requirements is the instructions in the Pastorals that women and slaves must be submissive and appropriately obedient. Women are forbidden to teach or be, in authority over men; they must learn in silent submission (1 Tim 2: 11-15). The church community is shaped according to the household model; indeed, it is described as the "household of God" (1 Tim 3: 15), and so the ecclesiastical hierarchy mirrors the domestic and social hierarchy. "The role of leaders as relatively well-to-do householders who act as masters of their wives, children, and slaves is inseparably linked with their authority in the church" (MacDonald 1988: 214).