The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul: Applied to English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia (Regnum Studies in Mission) 1506477127, 9781506477121

Citation preview

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul Applied to English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

Roger Senior

Roger Senior’s lucid and rigorous examination of the biblical evidence confirms that, though there is no single New Testament blueprint for structures of church governance, there is a consistent emphasis on the need for all patterns of Christian leadership to reflect the servant mind of Christ. Hence, whilst there is ample scope for contextualising models of leadership to suit particular cultural contexts, no style of leadership that exalts its own authority can claim to be authentically Christian. This book will be of wide interest – well beyond the Malaysian context in which its arguments are set. Brian Stanley, Professor of World Christianity, University of Edinburgh Leadership, especially Christian leadership, is a subject that needs clear, biblical, theological and contextual thinking. There is no ‘one size fits all’ model of leadership that will work in every context. Roger’s effort in working out the Apostle Paul’s leadership principles in Malaysia with its multi-cultural, multi- ethnic and multi- religious contexts is commendable. As a Malaysian, it is my prayer that Roger’s book will also serve as a stimulating catalyst towards more research and critical thinking on issues faced by the church in Malaysia. Rev Dr Tony Lim, Vice Principal and Dean of the English Department, Malaysia Bible Seminary In this book, the interplay between biblical studies and the theme of leadership is approached using Flemming's model of contextual theology as an analytical frame. This allows fresh perspectives to emerge from the NT context itself, but also allows a credible extension of these ideas to the context of modern Malaysia. At the heart of the book is an exploration of leadership categories in NT culture in relation to specific churches in Paul's epistles - the contextual analysis allows for creative discussion of leadership patterns in relation to culture and this is done in conjunction with a thoughtful theological reflection on the findings. The book concludes with reflections on the Malaysian context which show a sensitive appreciation of local values filtered through the lens of the research; the findings are presented in an open-ended way and the contextual model at the heart of the study encourages the reader to appropriate them further into their own settings. Rev Dr Warren Beattie, MA Programme Leader, All Nations Christian College, UK

REGNUM STUDIES IN MISSION

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul Applied to English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

Series Preface Regnum Studies in Mission are born from the lived experience of Christians and Christian communities in mission, especially but not solely in the fast-growing churches among the poor of the world. These churches have more to tell than stories of growth. They are making significant impacts on their cultures in the cause of Christ. They are producing ‘cultural products’ which express the reality of Christian faith, hope and love in their societies. Regnum Studies in Mission are the fruit often of rigorous research to the highest international standards and always of authentic Christian engagement in the transformation of people and societies. And these are for the world. The formation of Christian theology, missiology and practice in the twenty-first century will depend to a great extent on the active participation of growing churches contributing biblical and culturally appropriate expressions of Christian practice to inform World Christianity.

Series Editors Paul Woods

Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, Oxford

A full listing of titles in this series appears on the Regnum website

REGNUM STUDIES IN MISSION

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul Applied to English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

Roger Senior

Copyright © Roger Senior 2017 First published 2017 by Regnum Books International Regnum is an imprint of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies St Philip and St James Church Woodstock Road Oxford, OX2 6HR, UK www.ocms.ac.uk/regnum 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The right of Roger Senior to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher or a license permitting restricted copying. In the UK, such licences are issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-506477-12-1 Typeset by Words by Design

Distributed by 1517 Media in the US and Canada

Dedicated to David, whose unfailing support and counsel has encouraged me throughout my ministry, and during the period of my research in particular, and to Jane who has stood beside me, modelling Christ’s love to me, and kept me following Him.

Contents

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Abbreviations

xi

Introduction Contextualisation in the New Testament Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writings Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: God’s Activity and Word, and the Use of Titles Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writings Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia The Stimulation of Contextualised Leadership Today

1 11

Bibliography Appendix

35 63 113 155 183 209 221 239

Abbreviations ANTC BNTC BOM BST DS DTC Gk GLOBE ICC LC LCEC LXX MRT NAC NCB NIBC NICNT NIDNTT NIGTC NIV NT OMF OT PNTC PPRC TDNT TNTC TRAC WBC WCC

Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Black’s New Testament Commentaries Board of Ministry The Bible Speaks Today District Superintendent Discipleship Training Centre Greek Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness International Critical Commentary Local Conference Local Church Executive Committee Septuagint Mission Round Table New American Commentary New Century Bible New International Bible Commentary New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Version (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984, unless otherwise stated) New Testament OMF International Old Testament Pillar New Testament Commentary Pastor-Parish Relations Committee Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Tyndale New Testament Commentary Trinity Annual Conference (Methodist Church in Malaysia) Word Biblical Commentary World Council of Churches

Biblical references follow the abbreviations in the New Revised Standard Version. The abbreviations for countries and American states follow normal custom.

Introduction

‘Leadership’ is a topic of vast interest, not only in politics and business, but throughout society. Training courses and books on the subject abound. In the Christian community too, there is much teaching about it, some based on Scriptural patterns, some building on business models, and most taught from a western perspective. South African missionary David Bremner writes: ‘We have become so adept at matching biblical passages with cultural leadership patterns that one wonders if what is portrayed as biblical leadership is not merely Christian spice added to cultural broths.’1 The challenge therefore, as Malaysian Bishop Hwa Yung states, ‘is to develop leadership and ministry models which are truly rooted in Kingdom values’.2 What approach then should be taken to develop such leadership models? One way is to examine how leadership was contextualised in the New Testament. This project evaluates the factors which affected the contextualisation of leadership as the apostle Paul ministered in a variety of cultural contexts. The aim is to draw out theological principles which may then be investigated in other contexts, and in Malaysia in particular. Specific Research Issues

Dean Flemming in his book Contextualization in the New Testament makes the insightful observation that most theoretical reflection on the contextualisation of the gospel has been based on a study of linguistics, anthropology, cross-cultural communication and contextual theology, with little consideration given to the contributions of biblical scholars.3 He believes that the New Testament provides many ‘stories of contextualization’ which reveal how the gospel message was tailored to suit a variety of different groups.4 He argues that the gospel engages ‘the 1

Cited by James E. Plueddemann, Leading Across Cultures: Effective Ministry and Mission in the Global Church (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 75. 2 Hwa Yung, ‘Leadership or Servanthood?’, in Tan Kang San (ed.), The Soul of Mission: Perspectives on Christian Leadership, Spirituality and Mission in East Asia: Essays in Appreciation of Dr David Gunaratnam (Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: SUFES, 2007), 200. 3 Dean Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission (Leicester: Apollos, 2005), 14-15. 4 Earlier and briefer examinations of contextualisation in the New Testament have been undertaken by Norman R. Ericson (‘Implications from the New Testament for Contextualization’, in David J. Hesselgrave (ed.), Theology and Mission: Papers and Responses Prepared for the Consultation on Theology and Mission, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, School of World Mission and Evangelism, March 22-25, 1976 (Grand

2

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

cultural and social world of the readers in a way that both participates in that world, and at the same time challenges and transforms it’.5 Contextualisation covers every aspect of the church’s mission including the area of leadership.6 It is the aim of this book to identify the theological principles at work in the contextualisation of leadership in Paul’s ministry and writings, and to examine the outworking of these in the Malaysian church context. The research question I am seeking to answer is: What theological principles influenced the process of the contextualisation of leadership in Paul’s ministry and writings, as the New Testament church both built on the understandings of leadership prevalent in the contexts of the time and also challenged and transformed them? In what ways are these principles reflected in English-speaking Methodist churches in Peninsular Malaysia?

There are two main areas of research: the first, and the one to which most attention is given, is the identification of the theological principles underlying the process of contextualisation of leadership in the ministry and teaching of the apostle Paul. By means of an examination of the New Testament writings, particular consideration is given to studying the extent to which existing leadership models within the Jewish and Graeco-Roman cultures were accepted, and the extent to which they were challenged and transformed, under the influence of these theological principles. The second area of research is a consideration of how these principles are reflected in English-speaking Methodist churches in Peninsular Malaysia today in order to show the value of this research for today’s church. The aim is to encourage the development of churches in which leadership patterns are incarnated in a truly appropriate manner. Hwa Yung states that ‘if Asian theology is to be truly contextual, it must help the churches to rethink their authority patterns, and ways of choosing and training leaders’.7 While he suggests that churches should hold Asian cultural characteristics in creative tension with biblical and Christian truths,8 the aim of this research is rather to discover theological principles to show which aspects of culture relating to leadership should be accepted and built upon, and which need to be challenged and changed. The intended

Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978), 71-85); Dean S. Gilliland (‘New Testament Contextualization: Continuity and Particularity in Paul’s Theology’, in Dean S. Gilliland (ed.), The Word Among Us: Contextualizing Theology for Today (Dallas, TX: Word, 1989), 52-73). 5 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 18. 6 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 20. 7 Hwa Yung, Mangoes or Bananas: The Quest for an Authentic Asian Christian Theology (Oxford: Regnum, 1997), 87. 8 Hwa, Mangoes or Bananas, 87-88.

Introduction

3

result is not so much a creative tension, as the stimulation of effective and transformational incarnation of leadership in the context. Significance of this Investigation

The prime significance of this research results from the paucity of other works in which the contextualisation of leadership patterns in the New Testament has been explored. Dean Flemming has undertaken an exhaustive analysis of how the gospel was contextualised in the New Testament,9 but there has been little attempt to study leadership in a similar fashion. In the Christian world there are many books and articles on leadership, and while some have looked at biblical principles or even at theologies of leadership,10 few have examined in depth how these either reflected or challenged existing patterns of leadership. Andrew Clarke, who is a biblical studies lecturer at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, has done the most work in this area. In Serve the Community of the Church, he examines leadership in the Graeco-Roman world and studies how it was exercised in various social contexts.11 He compares these with Paul’s practice and teaching on leadership. In A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership, he examines Pauline leadership in greater depth, considering in particular the titles, status, power, task and tools of leaders.12 However, he has not given detailed attention to drawing out principles of Paul’s contextualisation. In the East Asian context, and in countries influenced by Confucianism in particular, such as those with Chinese, Korean and Japanese cultures, there is some confusion about Christian leadership. Should believers uncritically follow Confucian models which are familiar to the people and seem to be effective? When the leader of a western missionary agency gave 9

Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament. E.g. Efrain Agosto, Servant Leadership: Jesus & Paul, St Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2005; Helen Doohan, Leadership in Paul, Good News Studies, 11 (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984); Leighton Ford, Transforming Leadership: Jesus’ Way of Creating Vision, Shaping Values and Empowering Change (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1991); Don N. Howell, Jr, Servants of the Servant: A Biblical Theology of Leadership (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003); Hwa, ‘Leadership or Servanthood?’; Lawrence O. Richards and Clyde Hoeldtke, A Theology of Church Leadership (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980); Robert Russell, ‘A Practical Theology of Servant Leadership’, in Servant Leadership Research Roundtable (August 2003): www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2003/russell_practical_theolo gy.pdf (accessed 12th July 2010); Edward Schillebeeckx, The Church with a Human Face: A New and Expanded Theology of Ministry (London: SCM Press, 1985). 11 Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000). 12 Andrew D. Clarke, A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership, Library of New Testament Studies 362 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2008). 10

4

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

a Bible-based lecture on servant leadership at a Korean missionary training college, she was told by the college leaders that her lecture was very good, but the growth of the Korean church was a result of the strength of its leadership. While that kind of argument raises serious questions of biblical interpretation and authority, is it right to replace Confucian patterns with a servant leadership model which sometimes leads to a lack for respect for God-ordained authority? This is an important issue which shows the danger on the one hand of uncritically accepting the interpreter’s preconceptions about biblical leadership, and on the other, of following pragmatic arguments where ministry effectiveness controls the interpretation of Scripture. It is necessary rather to interpret Scripture in a nuanced way which takes seriously the contexts of the interpreter, the church and the text itself. Although the English-speaking Methodist churches of Malaysia are less Confucian than their Chinese-speaking cousins, there is still some uncertainty in them about how authority should be expressed. This study aims to provide some contextual principles which will help the church in its task of theologising leadership. Structure

Chapter 1: Contextualisation in the New Testament. The foundation of this work is contextualisation in the New Testament. Dean Flemming is the main scholar who has examined this in depth, and his book Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission forms the basis of my understanding in this chapter. In drawing out some principles of contextualisation which the New Testament church followed, two particular areas are examined: i) How God is involved in the process of contextualisation, through the activity of the Holy Spirit and the teaching of Scripture. ii) The missional context, and the way in which the gospel was incarnated in that context, with the recognition that contextualisation will include both communicating in a contextually appropriate manner (risky though this may be), as well as prophetically seeking to transform that context. Chapter 2: Background to leadership in Paul’s ministry and writings. After an introduction to leadership, this chapter gives a brief overview of the way in which leadership was organised in Judaism and the GraecoRoman world in New Testament times, studying only the main institutions which have been suggested as models on which the leadership of the church was based. Two major influences on leadership in the GraecoRoman context are then introduced: honour-seeking and patronage. Finally, some matters of general application to leadership in the New Testament which influence our interpretation of Paul’s understanding of leadership in

Introduction

5

the church are examined: Christ’s challenge to the status quo concerning leadership, the scholarly consensus of the development of leadership organisation in the early church, and the influence of congregational size on leadership structures. Chapter 3: Pauline contextualisation of leadership: God’s activity and word, and the use of titles. The prime focus of Chapters 3 and 4 is to examine how the factors affecting contextualisation identified in Chapter 1 are exhibited in Paul’s style of leadership in ministry, and in his understanding of leadership as expressed in his writings. The underlying aim of this is to identify the theological influences at work in this process of contextualisation of leadership which will be drawn out in Chapter 5. Focus is therefore concentrated on how Paul was influenced by i) God’s guidance through the work of the Holy Spirit and through Scripture, and ii) the context in which the church operated. Attention is especially given to the missional context which is at the heart of the contextualisation process. This chapter examines the use of titles (including words used of Christian leaders which are related to service), noting how these are employed in the context and to what extent they are used in the Pauline churches of the New Testament. Chapter 4: Pauline contextualisation of leadership: Leadership in practice. This chapter continues to study the missional context, looking particularly at leadership qualifications and leadership style, in order to see how these were contextualised in Paul’s ministry. In conclusion, the research outlined in Chapters 3 and 4 is evaluated to see to what extent the apostle Paul built on the leadership models of the time, and how far he challenged these models and sought to transform them. Paul happily made use of some aspects of existing leadership models: accepting the need for leaders, using existing leadership titles and patterns, showing respect for the elderly, building on household structures and using commendations. However, there were other aspects of existing leadership models that he had to make a prophetic stand against: the importance given to the leader’s appearance, ancestry, honour and status, authoritarian rule,13 building a following, taking a priestly role, patronage and strong leadership. Chapter 5: An analysis of the contextualisation of leadership in Paul’s ministry and writings. This chapter examines the contextualisation of leadership analysed in Chapters 3 and 4, and draws out some general 13

It is acknowledged that the word ‘authoritarian’ does not necessarily carry negative connotations, but in this book it is used to indicate an overbearing leadership style, in common with its usage by many of the scholars cited below, e.g. Robert J. Banks (Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in the Historical Setting, rev. edn (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 178); Clarke (A Pauline Theology, 102, 145); Victor A. Copan (Saint Paul as Spiritual Director: An Analysis of the Imitation of Paul with Implications and Applications to the Practice of Spiritual Direction (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), 212); Howell (Servants of the Servant, 260).

6

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

theological principles which influenced Paul in his ministry and writings. Many of these are christological in content: Christ’s unique position as ruler and mediator, and the example shown in his incarnation and crucifixion. The influence of trinitarian thinking in leadership, based on the social doctrine of the Trinity, is considered, as well as the leaders’ exercise of authority in defence of the truth of the gospel. Chapter 6: Leadership in English-speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia. After giving a brief overview of the historical background of the English-speaking Methodist Church in Peninsular Malaysia, an examination is made of the ways in which the previously studied theological principles affecting the contextualisation of leadership in Paul’s ministry and writings are evident in this church. To help accomplish this, a number of interviews were undertaken among the district superintendents of the Trinity Conference. The interview questions refer to ministerial qualifications, the leader as absolute ruler, the priestly function of the leader, servant leadership, leadership by consensus, leadership hierarchy, and the necessary exercise of strong authority. Chapter 7: The stimulation of contextualised leadership today. In the light of this study’s research, some guidelines for using Paul’s ministry and writings to draw out principles of leadership for application to the presentday church are suggested. This is followed by an evaluation of the contextualisation of leadership in the Malaysian Methodist churches represented by the district superintendents who were interviewed. Some areas in which Paul’s theological principles of leadership are well reflected are outlined, and then some other areas in which it is suggested that contextualisation may be stimulated even more with the aim of encouraging the churches in their incarnation of leadership. These include a reappraisal of the educational requirements for the pastorate, the pastor showing his vulnerability, and challenging the perceptions of some members that the pastor has a priestly role. Finally, some subjects about which further research might be fruitful are proposed. Limits and Boundaries

This work is based on an acceptance of the historicity of the New Testament and its description of life in the Roman empire of the first century. It follows Andrew Clarke’s assessment that ‘Paul presents an account of himself and others that recognizes human fallibility, but he is nonetheless a trustworthy servant of Christ and guide in matters of church structure and governance’.14 No attempt is made to justify this since it is outside the remit of this investigation. The work of scholars who do not

14

Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 33.

Introduction

7

accept this understanding is referred to, but the study is not based on contextual models which are incompatible with this. The Roman Catholic missiologist Stephen Bevans writes that contextual theology takes two things seriously: ‘The experience of the past (recorded in scripture and preserved and defended in tradition) and the experience of the present, that is, context (individual and social experience, secular or religious culture, social location and social change)’.15 However, in practice, when people talk of contextual theology, they tend to give priority to the second of these things.16 For example, Robert Schreiter in his seminal book, Constructing Local Theologies, favours the use of contextual models of theology which he argues ‘begin their reflection with the cultural context’.17 In such an approach, ‘a local theology begins with the needs of a people in a concrete place, and from there moves to the traditions of faith’.18 Since contextual theology commonly gives a higher priority to the context than Scripture, it is not surprising that, although contextual theology has been used in discussions of contextualisation, little attention has been given to using Scripture itself.19 This research does not follow Schreiter’s contextual theological method, but begins with Scripture and then moves to applying its message to the local context.20 The transformation of that context is vital, but Flemming asserts that Scripture 15

Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, rev. edn (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002), xvi. 16 Dean Flemming, ‘The Third Horizon: A Wesleyan Contribution to the Contextualization Debate’, in Wesleyan Theological Journal, 30.2 (1995), 144. 17 Robert J. Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1985), 12. Max Stackhouse (Apologia: Contextualization, Globalization, and Mission in Theological Education (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 81) holds a similar position to Schreiter. 18 Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies, 13. 19 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 14-15. 20 Many theologians today maintain that it is not possible to begin with the text and apply it to a given context. Indeed, because of the contextual nature of Scripture, they doubt whether it is at all possible to use it to judge contemporary contexts (Stackhouse, Apologia, 27). However, Chua How Chuang argues that ‘God’s Word is by its very nature prior to all human understanding, hence all theologizing must in principle begin and end in Scripture’ (‘Hermeneutical Presuppositions in Contextualization: A Bibliographic Survey’, unpublished paper for OMF Mission Research Consultation (Singapore, 2007), 20; see also Bruce J. Nicholls, Contextualization: A Theology of Gospel and Culture (Vancouver, Canada: Regent College, 2003 [1979], 62). Flemming likewise asserts that ‘the starting point for the process [of contextualisation] remains the unchanging gospel message, not the specific and changing context’ (‘The Third Horizon’, 155; see also Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (London: SPCK, 1989), 152). Newbigin rightly argues that one of the fundamental weaknesses of starting with the questions which people are asking in a given context is that the ‘the world’s questions are not the questions which lead to life’ (The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, 119).

8

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

should be ‘the control and norm for all contextualization of the gospel’.21 This approach is appropriate to the applied context of this project since, historically, Methodists have accepted ‘the Protestant principle of the primary authority of Scripture for Christian faith and practice’.22 Furthermore, the English-speaking churches in Malaysia lay great emphasis on the Scripture. For example, the quadrennium theme of the Methodist Church in Malaysia 2009-2012 was ‘Spreading Scriptural Holiness, Transforming the Nation’.23 This investigation therefore starts from a premise of revelation based on Scripture, and a belief in the basic reliability of the New Testament documents and in the Bible’s authority in matters of faith and conduct. This is also the basis on which I consider that it is legitimate to apply New Testament principles to the current day. However, Scripture is not interpreted as if it were a collection of dogmatic supracultural propositions, without giving due importance to the context. After a brief study of the factors affecting contextualisation in the New Testament, these are applied to the apostle Paul’s ministry and teaching about leadership, taking into consideration all the writings traditionally considered to have Pauline authorship, including Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians and the Pastoral Epistles.24 Luke’s material relating to Paul in the Acts of the Apostles is also included.25 21

Flemming, ‘The Third Horizon’, 147. Flemming, ‘The Third Horizon’, 144. 23 See The Methodist Church in Malaysia, The Methodist Church Newsletter (June/July 2011): www.methodistchurch.org.my/newsmaster.cfm?&menuid=6&action=view&retrieveid= 425 (accessed 8th July 2016). This belief in biblical authority is a reflection of Article V of the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church in Malaysia: ‘The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation’ (Methodist Church in Malaysia (eds Hwa Yung, Gopal Sundaram, Cheong Seng Gee, Wong Tik Wah, Hii Ching Chiong, Samuel Ong Boon Leng, Ling Tung Kiing, et al.), in The Book of Discipline of the Methodist Church in Malaysia 2012 (Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: The Methodist Church in Malaysia, 2012), †61). Numbers preceded by the dagger symbol † throughout this work refer to paragraph numbers in The Book of Discipline. 24 The Pauline authorship of the above-named letters was not questioned in the early church, but they are now believed by the majority of modern scholars to be pseudonymous. However, Peter T. O’Brien suggests that ‘the problems created by pseudonymity are greater than the ones solved by it’ (The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 46). See also George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 21-52; Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, WBC 44 (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), xli-xlix; Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 17-28. 25 Steve Walton gives a useful summary of scholarly views of the relationship between the Paul of the Epistles and the Paul of Acts (Leadership and Lifestyle: The Portrait of 22

Introduction

9

Within this subject area there are a number of topics which are not considered in this work: i) Gender. Since this is such a massive area, looking at gender in detail might swamp the rest of the research. Consequently, the decision was made to exclude this from the main research area, leaving it for others to pursue in the future. Many of the principles examined in this study can of course be applied to the leadership of women.26 ii) Itinerant leadership. This study does not distinguish between itinerant and residential leaders but examines leadership principles in both apostolic and local leadership.27 iii) Leadership development, training and effectiveness. The primary focus is put on how leaders exercise their authority, not on how they are trained and prepared, or on what kind of leaders are the most effective. iv) Social science leadership and organisational theory. Although some secular studies of leadership are mentioned, the purpose of this study is to discover the theological process of leadership contextualisation, not to undertake detailed sociological analyses of leadership.28 Paul in the Miletus Speech and 1 Thessalonians, in Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 108 (Cambridge: CUP, 2000), 2-12). 26 Leaders are sometimes referred to by means of male pronouns in this book; these do not exclude female leaders. 27 For further discussion of this, see Gordon D. Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 139; Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004 [1978]), 52; David Horrell, ‘Leadership Patterns and the Development of Ideology in Early Christianity’, in Sociology of Religion, 58.4 (1997), 323-41; Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1978), 8-16). 28 For the use of social studies in examining the early church, see the works of Edwin A. Judge ((ed. David M. Scholer), Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E.A. Judge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008 [1960-92])); Wayne A. Meeks (The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983)); Gerd Theissen (Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity). For a critique of these, see John K. Chow, ‘Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth’, in Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 75 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 12-28. For studies of Confucian cultures, see Gary K.G. Choong, Counter-Cultural Paradigmatic Leadership: Ethical Use of Power in Confucian Societies (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011); Farh Jiing-Lih and Bor-Shiuan Cheng, ‘A Cultural Analysis of Paternalistic Leadership in Chinese Organizations’, in J.T. Li, Anne S. Tsui and Elizabeth Weldon (eds.), Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000), 84-127; Robert I. Westwood (ed.), Organisational Behaviour: Southeast Asian Perspectives (Hong Kong: Longman, 1992). For a detailed examination of leadership theory, see Bernard M. Bass with Ruth Bass, The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 4th edn (New York: Free Press, 2008); and of organisational leadership in a cross-cultural context, see Robert J. House, Paul J. Hanges, Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman and Vipin Gupta (eds.),

10

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

v) The detailed functions of leadership. The main focus of this study is on the leader’s qualifications, authority and leadership style. Little attention is given to the detailed responsibilities of leaders. vi) Leadership titles which do not occur in the New Testament. The Roman empire had a complicated system of government with many different officials and titles. In this study’s examination of leadership titles, no attempt is made to include all of these. Most of those which occur in the New Testament in religious contexts are considered, with particular reference to the Greek titles rather than the Latin, so that a direct comparison can be made with words used in the New Testament documents. vii) The contextualisation of leadership in church history. The centre of this investigation lies in the New Testament period, and space does not permit an examination of how leadership has been contextualised through the ages. The main area of application is Malaysian churches which have been established in Chinese communities. These communities are not homogeneous and are influenced in varying degrees by Confucianism, Chinese religions and other non-Chinese cultures. It is therefore probably not possible to identify unequivocally which aspects of leadership understanding result from which cultural influences. Furthermore, since the Chinese-language and English-language churches of Malaysia are different from one another, the decision has been made to focus on just one of these: the English-speaking Chinese-Malaysian churches. Some churches have Indian leaders and so a further limitation is made by considering only Chinese-led churches. To reduce denominational variables, it was decided to limit this study to the Methodist churches of Peninsular Malaysia. In researching the Malaysian context, I conducted interviews with district superintendents in the English-speaking Methodist churches of the Trinity Conference (TRAC), to investigate their practice and experience of leadership, with the aim of gaining insight into the ways in which the theological principles which influenced the contextualisation of leadership in Paul’s ministry and writings are reflected in the Malaysian church context.

Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004).

Chapter 1 Contextualisation in the New Testament

What is Contextualisation?

The church has been sent into a world marked by a plurality of cultures, which may be delineated on many grounds, including ethnic, social, religious and generational. Whether sharing the Christian faith or engaging in theological thinking, the church needs to relate that faith or theology to each context. Dean Flemming wisely remarks: ‘All theology is contextual theology’, and ‘all theologizing is done from a particular location and perspective whether we are conscious of it or not’.1 The word ‘contextualisation’ was first used in a theological context by the WCC in 1972.2 There is much confusion about the meaning of ‘contextualisation’ and many different definitions of it. This study follows Dean Flemming’s approach: I take contextualization… to refer to the dynamic and comprehensive process by which the gospel is incarnated within a concrete historical or cultural situation. This happens in such a way that the gospel both comes to authentic expression in the local context and at the same time prophetically transforms the context. Contextualization seeks to enable the people of God to live out the gospel in obedience to Christ within their own cultures and circumstances.3

Flemming here helpfully refers to this process as being one of incarnation, and indeed the best example of contextualisation is the incarnation of Christ.4 Since God revealed himself in Christ in a context 1

Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 298; see also Dean S. Gilliland, ‘Contextual Theology as Incarnational Mission’, in Gilliland, Word Among Us, 12; Benno van den Toren, ‘Can We See the Naked Theological Truth?’, in Matthew Cook, Rob Haskell, Ruth Julian and Natee Tanchanpongs (eds.), Local Theology for the Global Church: Principles for an Evangelical Approach to Contextualization (Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 2010), 94. 2 Theological Education Fund, Ministry in Context: The Third Mandate Programme of the Theological Education Fund, 1970-77 (Bromley: Theological Education Fund, 1972), cited in Flemming, ‘The Third Horizon’, 139. 3 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 19. 4 See also Chua, ‘Hermeneutical Presuppositions’, 5; John R. Davis, ‘Biblical Precedents for Contextualization’, in Asia Theological Association Journal 2.1 (1994), 19; Gilliland, ‘New Testament Contextualization’, 53; Dean S. Gilliland, ‘The Incarnation as Matrix for Appropriate Theologies’, in Charles H. Kraft (ed.), in Appropriate Christianity (Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 2005), 493-519; Hwa, Mangoes and Bananas, 62; Van den Toren, ‘Naked Theological Truth’, 102; Charles E.

12

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

with all its particularities, it is likewise necessary for the good news of Jesus to be reincarnated to make it intelligible in every context.5 However, just as Jesus in his incarnation is still ‘the exact representation of [God’s] being’ (Heb. 1:3), right contextualisation also has to be both ‘culturally authentic and authentically Christian’.6 This incarnation applies not only to the gospel but also to all its outworkings, including the structure and leadership of the church. In this work, the term ‘contextualisation’ is used with the understanding that the gospel should not only be communicated in a given context, but also be rooted in it with the aim of transforming it. In other words, it should include both evangelistic and prophetic elements.7 If the process of contextualization does not result in a transformation of the church and wider society, it cannot be said to have been truly effective. However, some scholars, such as the world-renowned missiologist David Hesselgrave, are unhappy with this approach and see contextualisation primarily as crosscultural communication of supracultural divine revelation by the removal of unnecessary cultural obstacles.8 Evangelical anthropologist Charles Kraft’s emphasis too is on communication, although he does allow the importance of cultural transformation.9 If however an incarnational model of contextualisation is followed, not only are obstacles to communication removed, but the gospel and its outworkings also take on a new shape according to the cultural context. The fact that contextualisation is prophetic implies that something about the cultural context needs to be challenged and transformed, and further, that there is an external (divine) authority which demands that the prophetic voice receive a hearing. Wilbert Shenk maintains that in contextualising, van Engen, ‘Five Perspectives of Contextually Appropriate Missional Theology’, in Kraft, Appropriate Christianity, 187; Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996), 26-29; Darrell L. Whiteman, ‘The Function of Appropriate Contextualization in Mission’, in Kraft, Appropriate Christianity, 50-51; Paul Woods, ‘Looking, Learning, and Living: Implications for Missionary Training from the Example of Jesus’, in Rose Dowsett (ed.), Global Mission: Reflections and Case Studies in Contextualization for the Whole Church (Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 2011), 25-31. 5 Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, 12; Walls, The Missionary Movement, 47. 6 Wilbert R. Shenk, Changing Frontiers of Mission, in American Society of Missiology Series 28 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1999), 56. 7 Nicholls, Contextualization, 68. 8 David J. Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally: An Introduction to Missionary Communication (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978), 82-86; see also David J. Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen, Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models (Leicester: Apollos, 1989), 11. Nicholls (Contextualization, 53) also sees contextualisation as cross-cultural communication. 9 Charles H. Kraft, Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979).

Contextualisation in the New Testament

13

the church should not ‘be slavishly or uncritically identified with a culture. On the contrary, it means that the church must be culturally valid precisely in order to bring a radical critique to bear on culture’.10 This is seen even in Jesus’ incarnation. Although he followed many of the conventions of Jewish society, where necessary he was not reluctant to offer a prophetic critique of the culture with the aim of transforming it.11 This prophetic element will be evident later in this study when examining the contextualisation of leadership. There are many different approaches to demarking the ways of contextualising and undertaking contextual theology.12 Stephen Bevans argues that the models which may be followed13 reflect two basic theological orientations:14 i) The first is redemption-centred and is distinguished by the belief that although a culture may not be totally corrupt, it needs ‘radical transformation’, with some proponents arguing that Christ must be brought to it ‘for that culture to have any saving meaning whatsoever’.15 The Word of God has to be adapted to the context, but that context cannot reveal God’s Word. ii) The second orientation is creation-centred. It has a weaker view of sin,16 and a generally positive assessment of human experience and culture 10

Shenk, Changing Frontiers, 57. Dean Flemming, ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, in Matthew Cook, Rob Haskell, Ruth Julian and Natee Tanchanpongs (eds.), Local Theology for the Global Church: Principles for an Evangelical Approach to Contextualization (Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 2010), 2. 12 For an overview of these with special reference to evangelical models, see A. Scott Moreau, ‘Evangelical Models of Contextualization’, in Cook et al., Local Theology, 165-93. He divides these into four models (and methods) which he describes as linear, dialogical, cyclical and organic (172-92). 13 Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology. He describes six different models which may be followed when engaging in contextualisation: translation, anthropological, praxis, synthetic, transcendental and counter-cultural. Dean S. Gilliland divides contextual approaches into seven models covering much of the same ground as Bevans: anthropological, translation, praxis, adaption, synthetic, semiotic and critical (‘Appendix: Contextualization Models’, in Gilliland, Word Among Us, 313-17). 14 Van Engen also divides the methods of contextualisation into two main groups: those which focus on the communication of the gospel to those who have never heard, and those which deal with a focus on ‘intentional two-way conversation between church and Gospel, on the one hand, and the contextual reality, on the other’ (‘Five Perspectives’, 192). Moreau suggests that models which are ‘seen as being more viable by evangelicals’ lie mainly in the first group (‘Evangelical Models’, 168). 15 Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, 21, 22; see also Sherwood G. Lingenfelter, Transforming Culture: A Challenge for Christian Mission, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 15-17. 16 Paul G. Hiebert, ‘Critical Contextualization’, in International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 11.3 (1987), 109. 11

14

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

since God is already at work and this can be used as a foundation for theology.17 In models following this orientation, Christ does not need to be brought into a particular culture; it is necessary rather to find him there.18 In this study, a broadly redemption-centred approach is followed, since it is more consistent with a belief in the authority of Scripture which is accepted by the Malaysian target audience. Some scholars, e.g. Kraft, believe that it possible to discover a supracultural core (or kernel) of truths which may then be re-clothed for a variety of contexts,19 but it is doubtful whether this is possible since such core truths are inaccessible.20 It is my contention that the Bible does not provide us with a single master blueprint for leadership which can readily be applied to all cultures, and it is not the aim of this work to draw up such a blueprint. However, the task of discovering principles of leadership is not hopeless. Paul Hiebert, the former Professor of Mission and Anthropology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, applies the concept of ‘centred sets’ to the membership of a believing community.21 Traditionally, the model of ‘bounded sets’ has been used to define those who belong to the church by insisting that they meet certain fixed requirements, such as baptism, confession of faith. Those who meet the requirements are in the set; those who don’t are out. However, centred sets are defined on a basis of a given member’s relationship to the centre, i.e. Jesus Christ when referring to Christians. In a similar way, I contend that this concept can be applied to contextualisation. For example, when considering leadership, although it may not be possible to define the ‘centre’ of acceptable Christian leaderships, an examination of how leadership changes under the influence of the gospel gives a sense of direction which may be applied to new contexts. This is consistent with Hiebert’s description of some centred sets being defined ‘in terms of elements moving in a field’.22 Just as the character of God can be discovered by the way in which he deals with a variety of people in different contexts, so the task in this research is to

17

Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, 22. See Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies, 29. Even Kraft, whose approach would be to favour the first rather than the second orientation, sees cultural forms and functions as being largely ‘neutral with respect to the interaction between God and man’ (Christianity in Culture, 113). In other words, he sees them as neither ‘inherently evil’ nor ‘good in themselves’. 19 See Kraft, Christianity in Culture. 20 Donald A. Carson (ed.), The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 250; Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 306. 21 Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994), 122-31. 22 Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections, 124. 18

Contextualisation in the New Testament

15

discover the changes brought about by contextualisation which will lead us to underlying theological principles of leadership. Factors Affecting Contextualisation

In the remainder of this chapter, the major factors which affect contextualisation in the New Testament are drawn out. Dean Flemming, Professor of New Testament and Missions at the MidAmerica Nazarene University, is recognised for his in-depth study of New Testament contextualisation, and his analysis will form the main basis for this section of study. One of the first times the early church had to face the question of how or whether to contextualise its practices occurs in Acts 15. John Davis describes this as ‘the prime example of contextualisation in the Christian church’.23 Although the presenting problem was to do with circumcision and law-keeping (Acts 15:1-2), a more fundamental issue was whether Gentiles needed to become culturally Jewish in order to be accepted as members of the people of God.24 To suggest that such cultural change was not required was very difficult for people from a Jewish background who believed that their culture with its rules and regulations was not only of central importance to them, but was also ordained by God. To deal with this problem, the Antioch church sent Paul and Barnabas down to Jerusalem to meet with the church leaders there. After much discussion, it was decided that they ‘should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God’ (Acts 15:19) by demanding that they keep 23

Davis, ‘Biblical Precedents’, 21. Conservative evangelical Don Carson argues that to reduce ‘the unique parameters’ of the Acts 15 debates to ‘the modern debate over contextualization is to distort and trivialize… the biblical evidence’ (The Church in the Bible and the World, 230). If this is perceived to be the only purpose of the Acts 15 account, Carson’s comment is apposite, but that does not rule out the validity of drawing out principles of contextualisation from this event, unique though it may be. 24 See Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 44-45; Whiteman, ‘Appropriate Contextualization in Mission’, 50; Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Nottingham: IVP, 2006), 517. Timothy Wiarda doubts that the main issue under discussion at the Jerusalem Council related to cultural issues which were holding back the mission of the church (‘The Jerusalem Council and the Theological Task’, in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 46.2 (2003), 233-35). However, the church leader James’s response in Acts 15:19 (‘We should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God’) surely showed that he was concerned that Gentiles should not have to enter the Jewish community in order to be saved. Being circumcised in order to enter the believing community is difficult, whereas being circumcised to be saved is impossible. Furthermore, if the only concern was to ensure that Gentiles could be saved by faith alone and not by obeying the law, the council would hardly have agreed to giving them a list of ‘laws’ to follow (Acts 15:20)!

16

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

the law of Moses. The council’s decision ‘liberated the gospel from its Jewish swaddling clothes into being God’s message for all humankind’.25 However, the Gentiles were told to ‘abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood’ (Acts 15:20). The reason for these regulations was to ensure that Jewish Christians could continue to relate to Gentile believers without making themselves unclean, and thus hindering the Jewish mission.26 Flemming argues that Luke sees the story of the Jerusalem Council as a paradigmatic narrative which may be applied to churches in any context.27 In particular, there is much to learn about the theological process of contextualisation which was pursued. I have identified two main factors which influenced the early church as they followed this process, and which were also evident in the process of contextualising leadership in the New Testament. These show the divine and human sides of contextualisation: God’s activity and word, and the missional context.28 These are also evident in the contextualisation revealed in the ongoing mission of the church in the remainder of the New Testament. Both of these factors are introduced in this chapter, before examining them in the context of leadership in Chapters 3 and 4. God’s activity and word THE SPIRIT’S ACTIVITY

In his description of the Jerusalem Council, Luke gives particular emphasis to the ways that God had been working which he saw as foundational to the church’s response to the contextual challenges of the Gentile mission: When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them… After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: ‘Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the 25

John R.W. Stott, The Message of Acts: To the Ends of the Earth, BST (Leicester: IVP, 1990), 241. 26 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 47. 27 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 48. 28 Flemming draws up four criteria which should control contextualisation: i) the biblical witness to what God has done in Jesus Christ, ii) the guidance of the Spirit, iii) the testing of theologies in light of the wider Christian community, and iv) the furtherance of the Christian mission (Contextualization in the New Testament, 302-305). Of these, ‘the testing of theologies in light of the wider Christian community’ is not discussed further since this was not a major factor in the contextualisation of leadership in the New Testament period. It was of course of great importance in succeeding centuries. Today too, interaction with other communities is vital to ensure that the historical and transcultural contexts are considered when contextualising.

Contextualisation in the New Testament

17

heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith’… The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them (Acts 15:4, 7-9, 12).

At the end of the council’s deliberations, the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church said that their decision had been made because it ‘seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us’ (Acts 15:28). John Davis sees this statement as an affirmation of ‘the principle that God Himself is in the business of contextualising the Christian faith’.29 This does not necessarily imply supernatural guidance and may simply refer to an acknowledgement of what the Spirit had been doing in bringing Gentiles to faith.30 An examination of the early chapters of Acts indeed shows how God had been working by his Spirit and helping the people in their work of contextualisation. In Acts 1:8, Jesus told his disciples: ‘You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.’ This refers not only to geography, but also to the need to bring Gentiles into the people of God.31 The Spirit both empowered the early disciples, and also helped them to change their worldview and begin the process of contextualising the gospel for the Gentile context. The role of the Spirit in this process is clearly seen in the Acts of the Apostles: i) Pentecost. The gathering of Jews from many nations on the day of Pentecost, together with the phenomena of Acts 2, and especially the speaking in other tongues, call attention to the way in which the Holy Spirit was revealing God’s purpose to include people from all nations and language groups in the church. But in order for this to be accomplished, the Spirit first had to transform the understanding of the early church leaders. The apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, cited the prophet Joel to show that the Spirit was being poured out ‘on all people’ and not just on the Jews (Acts 2:17). ii) Samaritans. As the gospel spread out from Jerusalem, even the despised Samaritans received the Holy Spirit by the hands of Peter and John (Acts 8:17), thus showing that they really belonged to the same elect community as the Jewish believers.32 iii) The Ethiopian eunuch. The conversion of this eunuch through Philip represents another remarkable step forward for the gospel (Acts 8:26-40). 29

Davis, ‘Biblical Precedents’, 21. David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 439. 31 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 112-13. 32 F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 221. 30

18

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Robert Tannehill observes that the Ethiopian is ‘a very strong representative of foreignness within a Jewish context. He comes from the edge of the known world, of the black race, is a castrated male, and probably a Gentile’.33 The giving of the Spirit to him (shown by his joy upon believing), together with the Spirit’s clear guidance given to Philip, shows the correctness of the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles and those excluded from the Jewish community (Acts 8:26, 29, 39). iv) Cornelius. In the narrative of Peter’s proclamation of the gospel to Cornelius’ household, a special work of the Spirit through visions (Acts 10:11-16) and a direct word of guidance (Acts 10:19) was required before Peter saw that he should not call anyone unclean (Acts 10:28). But it was the pouring out of the Spirit on them that confirmed for Peter the rightness of his change of thinking (Acts 11:17) and enabled him to apply the truth of the Scripture he had cited on the day of Pentecost mentioned above (Acts 2:17). Flemming considers that this narrative is of great importance to Luke: Its sheer length, Luke’s repeated telling of the story [Acts 10:1-48; 11:1-18; 15:78], and its numerous references to visions and miraculous elements, all testify that, for Luke, it is a crucial test case for the acceptance of Gentiles as Gentiles into the people of God. Without this forward leap in the life of the church, the translation of the gospel into new cultures and milieus would not be possible.34

Flemming describes this story as ‘a tale of two conversions’: that of Cornelius and that of Peter. For the latter, a ‘cultural transformation’ was required, a conversion which challenged ‘deep-seated cultural values and Jewish ethnocentrism’. But it was only the work of the Spirit that enabled Peter to see his need for contextualisation by acknowledging that the food laws which were so central to the life of a God-fearing Jew could be set aside for the sake of God’s wider mission. v) Paul. The Spirit was responsible for the sending out of Saul and Barnabas to the Gentiles (Acts 13:2, 4) which resulted in the glad acceptance of the gospel in Asia Minor (Acts 13–14). The Spirit continued to guide the apostles to new areas (Acts 16:6-10). The above brief survey confirms the assertion of David Dilworth and Bruce Metzger that, in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke is showing that ‘the Spirit was the guiding and controlling factor in the early Christian mission’.35 It was the Spirit of God who brought the early church to 33

Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Vol. 2: The Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 108. 34 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 36. 35 David E. Dilworth and Bruce M. Metzger, ‘The Holy Spirit in the New Testament’, in Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, The Work of the Holy Spirit, Report of the Special Committee on the Work of the Holy Spirit to the 182nd General

Contextualisation in the New Testament

19

acknowledge the further contextualisation which was required at the Jerusalem Council to enable it to live and minister in a multicultural context.36 Luke Timothy Johnson describes the process of contextualisation in Acts 15 as follows: Luke interweaves the elements of divine intervention and human discernment, so that the decision of the Church appears finally neither as an abject submission to the divine impetus it cannot understand, nor as a wilful manipulation of religious symbols by politically motivated leaders, but as a dialectical synergism of God’s intrusions and human faith.37

Flemming suggests that the early church ‘responds to its new intercultural challenge not simply on the basis of a priori theological principles or traditional practices, but by reflecting on their experience of God’s work among them’.38 As noted above, Flemming is right to emphasise the church’s experience of God’s working through the Spirit, but any conclusions drawn from such activity can be subjective without any other controls being operative. An emphasis on relying on the Spirit’s guidance should not result in conflict with Scripture which is inspired by the same Spirit. Consequently, Scripture has a vital role to play in contextualising.39 Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (Philadelphia, PA: Office of the General Assembly, 1970), 35. 36 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 48; ‘The Third Horizon’, 160. 37 Luke T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina 5 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 279. 38 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 49. Flemming suggests that James’s use of Amos 9 does not confirm God’s inclusion of the Gentiles since ‘the Scripture is confirmed by “this” action of God’. However, Flemming may be building too much on this. All the text says is that the two are in agreement; the order is secondary (Stott, The Message of Acts, 248). However, Flemming is right to see that there was a hermeneutical process taking place as James allowed the text of Amos to interact with their interpretation of what God had been doing among the Gentiles. Scholars holding a similar position to Flemming include Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner (Types of Authority in Formative Christianity and Judaism (London: Routledge, 1999), 65), Johnson (The Acts of the Apostles, 264), Peterson (The Acts of the Apostles, 430), and James B. Shelton (‘Epistemology and Authority in the Acts of the Apostles: An Analysis and Test Case Study of Acts 15:1-29’, in Spirit & Church, 2.2 (2000), 243). 39 James Shelton argues that the role of the Spirit in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is not simply to help the church to interpret Scripture, but also to provide authoritative guidance through the apostolic leadership of the Jerusalem church (‘Epistemology and Authority’, 242-46). Scripture simply provides ‘ancillary support, not definitive direction’ (242). Timothy Wiarda rightly questions this ‘two-source authority structure’ since in traditional Protestant theology apostolic authority is ‘something very closely tied to Scriptural authority, not as an additional source of teaching separate from Scripture’ (‘The Jerusalem Council’, 239). The main problem with giving the Spirit’s

20

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

THE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE

What evidence is there in the New Testament that the early church made use of the teaching of Scripture as it sought to contextualise the gospel? Returning to Acts 15, it is instructive to examine the significant place that Scripture held as the Jerusalem Council grappled with the issue of Gentile membership of the church.40 This is seen in James using Amos 9 to support the salvation of the Gentiles who are turning to God. Then, as James brings his argument to a close, the importance of Scripture in the process of contextualisation is shown in the strong biblical foundation for the instructions given to the Gentile believers (Acts 15:20).41 The final decision of the council was that the Gentiles do not need to live like Jews to be a part of God’s people. This important contextual principle came from a right understanding of Scripture. Flemming describes the Pharisees’ attempt to force Jewish customs on the Gentiles in Acts 15 as ‘improper contextualisation’. This is an ongoing problem for the church today as it seeks to communicate the gospel in everchanging contexts. All too often, the people communicating the gospel force their own culture (or church culture, or Bible times culture) onto the missional context. However, controls are needed to ensure that contextualisation is done properly, and Scripture has a vital role to play in guarding against syncretism.42 William Larkin critiques Flemming for not viewing ‘Scripture’s meaning as objective and fixed’ as a ‘guard against syncretism’.43 Larkin believes that ‘this reduces the extent and clarity of Scripture’s guidance as the functional authority for the contextualization task’. This criticism may stem from Larkin’s belief, that ‘in both form and meaning, the teaching of Scripture is the authoritative standard for living, unless Scripture itself indicates otherwise’.44 While Flemming does talk in

guidance equal authority to that of Scripture in contextualising is that, without any clear controls, it can easily become subjective. 40 See Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 48. Dean Gilliland asserts that the ‘contextualizing process requires the Spirit-led insight of the people of God and elevates the primary importance of the Word’ (‘Contextual Theology’, 12; see also Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections, 91). 41 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 49. 42 See Chua, ‘Hermeneutical Presuppositions’, 4. A. Scott Moreau defines the traditional understanding of syncretism as ‘the replacement or dilution of the essential truths of the gospel through the incorporation of non-Christian elements’ (‘Syncretism’, in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, A. Scott Moreau (ed.) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 924). 43 William J. Larkin, Jr, ‘Review of Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission, by Dean Flemming’, in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 49.4 (2006), 864. 44 William J. Larkin, Jr, Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics: Interpreting and Applying the Authoritative Word in a Relativistic Age (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988), 314.

Contextualisation in the New Testament

21

terms of multiple meanings, he is clear that Paul’s contextualisation does not ‘run roughshod over the Bible’s original meaning’.45 An examination of Paul’s ministry shows that he was well aware of the limits of contextualisation. For example, when he preaches the gospel at Lystra, his knowledge of the one true God revealed in the Old Testament prevents him from equating God with Zeus.46 Contextualisation in the New Testament stops short of syncretism and violation of biblical controls.47 Ben Witherington, in commenting on Paul’s contextualisation of his own behaviour in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, remarks that he ‘does not say that he became an idolater to idolaters or an adulterer to adulterers’.48 The key biblical control in the process of contextualisation is the revelation of what God has done in Christ, i.e. the gospel itself.49 Contextualisation does not mean a change in content of the gospel message. How that message is to be communicated may vary according to the context,50 but the message itself is inviolable. Paul’s method of contextualisation was ‘to form the message for each audience without compromise to its life-giving content or reduction to a wooden dogma’.51 Two examples from Paul’s letters follow: i) 1 Corinthians. When writing to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 8–10, Paul in some circumstances is willing to permit the consumption of food which has been offered to idols, despite the regulations which had been agreed at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. However, his belief in the worship of the one God and the uniqueness of the gospel results in him taking a firm line against any involvement with cultic meals in pagan 45

Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 169. Although Flemming refers to the ‘appropriate contemporary meaning’, he is perhaps more helpful when he writes of the text’s ‘application in the present’ (168), thus affirming the authority of Scripture (160). 46 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 70. 47 One example is given by Paul Trebilco who suggests that the idolatrous Nicolaitans of Revelation 2:6, 14-16 had actually lost their ‘Christian distinctiveness’ through ‘excessive cultural adaptation’ (‘Paul, Gospel, Culture, and the Public Sphere: Perspectives from the New Testament’, in Evangel, 24.2 (2006), 38). He asserts that, ‘they had gone beyond contextualisation of the Gospel, beyond using the language of the culture as a vehicle for their faith, into actual denial of their faith by following their culture into the worship of other gods’ (39). 48 Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 213. 49 Dean Flemming, ‘Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens: Paul’s Areopagus Address as a Paradigm for Missionary Communication’, in Missiology, 30 (2002), 207; Contextualization in the New Testament, 112, 303-04; Gilliland, ‘New Testament Contextualization’, 57. 50 All references to ‘pp.’ refer to pages in this book. 51 Gilliland, ‘New Testament Contextualization’, 58; see also Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 116.

22

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

temples – a practice he likens to participating with demons (1 Cor. 10:2021).52 ii) Colossians. It is difficult to be sure of the exact nature of the false teaching which Paul opposes at Colossae, but it appears to include a mixture of elements from both Jewish and Greek mystical backgrounds. Although this ‘contextualisation’ to the local context might at first sight seem to represent a permissible way of communicating the gospel, Paul’s understanding of that gospel means that he has to stand against it: The truth of the gospel sanctions no compromise with syncretism or a religiously plural environment. Although Paul is more than willing to become ‘all things to all people’ in matters that are non-essential, he draws a ‘line in the sand’ before anything that challenges the unique supremacy of Jesus Christ…53

This approach is quite different from praxis models of contextualisation which start, not from an unchanging message, but from a belief that God reveals himself primarily in history.54 The danger is that such contextual theologies drift from the anchor of the normative gospel as revealed in Scripture.55 The missional context In the New Testament, the apostle Paul does not completely reject the cultures in which he works and is happy to make use of them in his communication of the gospel and in the theological process of contextualisation he follows. Flemming maintains that Paul recognises that God is at work even in pagan environments and that there are aspects of the culture, such as communication style, vocabulary, concepts, cultural conventions, etc. which can be used and redeemed in the work of contextualisation:56 Paul seems to recognize the breath of God’s Spirit in human culture, and the apostle becomes a catalyst, consciously or otherwise, for the gospel’s enculturation in it. He can therefore draw from a whole variety of cultural materials – from language, religion, politics, ethics, philosophy, rhetoric,

52

See Davis, ‘Biblical Precedents’, 22; Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 191. 53 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 230. 54 Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, 75; Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 117. 55 Flemming, ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, 15; Natee Tanchanpongs, ‘Developing a Palate for Authentic Theology’, in Cook et al., Local Theology, 121. 56 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 126-35.

Contextualisation in the New Testament

23

literature, social institutions or community life – as connecting points for the gospel.57 UNDERSTANDABLE COMMUNICATION

An examination of Paul’s communication of the gospel in the Acts of the Apostles, as well as his theological reflections in his letters, shows his commitment to contextualising his message to make it understandable to the people he addressed. This is shown in four ways: The style of communication

Paul, even without his upbringing in Tarsus, would – in common with most educated Jews – have had a good understanding of Greek culture and thought forms.58 Consequently, it is no surprise that when communicating in the Graeco-Roman context, Paul makes good use of the culture’s writing and speaking conventions.59 For example, when relating to pagans at Lystra (Acts 14:8-20), Paul uses a Greek rhetorical style which would have made for appropriate and effective communication.60 Likewise, when Paul speaks in Athens at the meeting of the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-31), the style of his speech is appropriate for an educated group of Gentiles, with his reasoning similar to that employed by classical Greek orators.61 In his writings too, Paul uses literary styles which were commonly used by first-century philosophers.62 Many rhetorical constructions of the period may be identified in his letters.63 For example, in Colossians Paul uses common forms of persuasion described by Aristotle.64 Even in his ‘boasting’ in his letters to the Corinthians he is following established

57

Flemming, ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, 12. See Judge, Social Distinctives, 87-89. Paul’s ‘style of speech and writing… placed him easily in the mainstream of educated public figures’ (100). 59 Flemming, ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, 11; Christopher Forbes, ‘Paul and Rhetorical Comparison’, in J. Paul Sampley (ed.), Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003), 159. 60 Marianne Fournier, The Episode at Lystra: A Rhetorical and Semiotic Analysis of Acts 14:7-20a (New York: Peter Lang, 1997), 193, cited in Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 68. 61 J. Daryl Charles, ‘Engaging the (Neo)pagan Mind: Paul’s Encounter with Athenian Culture as a Model for Cultural Apologetics (Acts 17:16-34)’, in Trinity Journal, 16 (1995), 52; Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 73; ‘Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens’, 201. 62 Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1987), cited in Richard S. Ascough, What Are They Saying About the Formation of Pauline Churches? (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1998), 30-31. 63 Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 56-73. 64 Flemming, ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, 11. 58

24

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

rhetorical patterns.65 However, Paul’s use of rhetoric is very different from the self-serving orators of his day: It is appropriate that Paul employs the rhetorical conventions only when they serve his purposes, because his purposes are not identical to those envisioned by the handbooks. In the manuals, the goal of the speaker is to win the favour or verdict of the judge, jury or audience. In Paul’s situation, the goal is to bring the hearers to a clearer understanding and fuller living.66

The worldview engaged

A contextualised approach to evangelism relates the message to the worldview of the audience.67 Any effective communication must begin at the level of the culture’s ‘worldview assumptions’ and then build on it.68 Where contextualisation deals only with visible aspects of culture – for example, clothing, language, etc. – without evaluating, and if necessary challenging, worldview presuppositions, such contextualisation is profoundly inadequate.69

65 See Richard A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997), 211-12; Judge, Social Distinctives, 57-71; Rollin A. Ramsaran, ‘Resisting Imperial Domination and Influence: Paul’s Apocalyptic Rhetoric in 1 Corinthians’, in Richard A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2004), 90-91; Duane F. Watson, ‘Paul and Boasting’, in Sampley, Paul in the Greco-Roman World, 82; Witherington, Conflict and Community. J. Albert Harrill, following the work of Hans Dieter Betz, maintains that the style of Paul’s writing in 2 Corinthians 10–13 ‘conforms to an apology within the Socratic-Cynic tradition’ (Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006), 53). 66 J. Paul Sampley, ‘Paul, His Opponents in 2 Corinthians 10–13, and the Rhetorical Handbooks’, in Jacob Neusner, Peder Borgen, E.S. Frerichs and Richard A. Horsley (eds.), The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988), 174-75. John Stott argues that Paul renounced rhetoric and replaced it with the cross. However, it seems clear that Paul was willing to use rhetorical method, but not as an exhibition of personal power (Calling Christian Leaders: Biblical Models of Church, Gospel and Ministry (Nottingham: IVP, 2002), 44). 67 James W. Sire defines worldview as follows: ‘A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being’ (Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 122). 68 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 76, 77; see also Charles, ‘Engaging the (Neo)pagan Mind’, 55; Van Engen, ‘Five Perspectives’, 184. 69 Ruth Julian, ‘Ground Level Contextualization,’ in Cook et al., Local Theology, 61.

Contextualisation in the New Testament

25

Missiologist Andrew Walls argues that, as the gospel spread in the Greek world – it was impossible to ignore the previous system of ideas, or to abandon it, or to leave it as it was. It had to be penetrated, invaded, brought into relation with the word about Christ and the Scriptures which contained it.70

This is seen clearly in Paul’s ministry. When he addresses different audiences, he contextualises his message ‘according to his receptors’ categories, not his own’.71 For example, in Lystra, Paul does not communicate the gospel on the basis of a shared history as was appropriate when preaching to Jews in Pisidian Antioch, but on a basis of a shared humanity. He does not base his message on the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, but on the true Creator God shown in a general revelation to which they can easily relate. This communication of the gospel of the one living God in a totally new context is understandable to the Lystrans, but it is also a subversion of their polytheistic worldview.72 Likewise, in Athens, Luke does not show Paul condemning the Greek poets in order to communicate the truth of the gospel; he recognises that Greek philosophy can become ‘a legitimate conversation partner in the approach to God’.73 Paul especially relates his teaching to the Stoic worldview of some of his hearers, even citing the words of a Stoic philosopher Aratus which were originally written in praise to Zeus.74 Flemming remarks that ‘Paul is willing to risk going to considerable lengths in order to identify with his audience and find common ground’.75 It is only after engaging his audience’s understanding that he deals with areas which challenge the receptor worldview, such as idolatry. However, even then, he positively confesses the biblical God more than attacking pagan beliefs:

70

Walls, The Missionary Movement, 53. Davis, ‘Biblical Precedents’, 25. 72 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 68-71. 73 Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, 319. Trebilco similarly maintains that, ‘Paul translates his message into concepts that Athenian listeners can understand, and so builds a linguistic bridge of communication across which they can travel’ (‘Paul, Gospel, Culture’, 37). See also Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 77; ‘Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens’, 202-03. 74 Charles, ‘Engaging the (Neo)pagan Mind’, 54-57. 75 Flemming, ‘Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens’, 204; see also Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 382. For other possible examples of Paul’s use of Stoic vocabulary and concepts see Rudolf Bultmann, Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting (London: Thames and Hudson, 1956), 185-86. Note however Stanley K. Stowers’ critique of this (‘Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity’, in Novum Testamentum, 26.1 (1984), 62-63). 71

26

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul Paul… challenges the Stoic vision of God as the all-pervasive and impersonal logos, the cosmic principle of reason. In its place, he announces a personal God, the Creator who is transcendent and distinct from his creation, the Lord and Judge who stands over the world instead of being fully expressed within it.

The ultimate aim of this process of contextualisation is not only the conversion of the Athenians but of their worldview too.76 There cannot but be a ‘radical discontinuity’ in worldviews which leads to a call to repentance.77 The vocabulary and imagery used

Paul believed that God had called him to be an apostle to the Gentiles and he was committed to contextualise himself and his message. Even his change of name from the Jewish Saul to the Roman Paul may be part of this conscious desire to identify with the Roman world.78 In order to contextualise the gospel to make it understandable in a variety of contexts, Paul uses many different images ‘to fit the needs and circumstances of his audience’.79 He takes these from arenas as far apart as commerce, agriculture and politics to make the message strike home.80 For example, he uses the picture of redemption in Galatians 3:13-14 in a context where Judaisers were trying to bring Gentile believers into the bondage of lawkeeping as a means of salvation. In Philippians 3:20, he talks of the believer’s citizenship being in heaven, language that is very appropriate to citizens of a Roman colony.81 When discussing the atonement with the Colossians, Paul does not talk of justification and righteousness as he does when teaching to the Romans and Galatians. He rather relates the gospel in images which speak to the Colossian context: redemption, forgiveness, reconciliation, liberation, etc.82 Paul makes use of the language of ‘taking off’ and ‘putting on’ (Col. 3:9b-10),83 and household codes (Col. 3:18-4:1) which were found in contemporary moral teaching,84 but he reworks them ‘and gives them a 76

Flemming, ‘Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens’, 207. Charles, ‘Engaging the (Neo)pagan Mind’, 59; see also Christopher J.H. Wright, ‘The Christian and Other Religions: The Biblical Evidence’, in Themelios, 9.2 (1984), 14. 78 James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, WBC 38A (Dallas, TX: Word, 1988), 6-7. 79 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 106. 80 Flemming, ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, 11; Gilliland, ‘New Testament Contextualization’, 55. 81 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 106, 109, 143-44. 82 Flemming, ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, 8-9. 83 Peter O’Brien accepts that the metaphor of putting off and on is ‘widespread in the ancient world’ but argues that Paul’s use of it is new (Colossians, 189-90). 84 See Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament, 86, 114. Andrew T. Lincoln maintains that the consensus of scholarship shows that these household codes were ‘mediated to early Christianity from Hellenistic Judaism’ (Ephesians, WBC 42 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1990), 77

Contextualisation in the New Testament

27

Christological basis and motivation’.85 This is key to our understanding of Paul’s use of vocabulary and imagery from the context. He is not merely applying these as a Christian veneer on top of pagan understandings, but is using them with the intention of transforming his audience’s worldview at the deepest level. Flemming, when referring to Paul’s speech in Athens in Acts 17, argues that ‘familiar terminology is taken up and infused with new meaning in the light of biblical revelation and the Christ event.’86 Paul not only uses language that was current in the secular arena, he is also happy ‘to ‘convert’ language that was part of pagan belief systems’.87 Flemming gives many examples from Paul’s letter to the Colossians in which he uses the language of ‘the syncretistic religious culture of the day’ (e.g. ‘wisdom’, ‘mystery’, ‘power’, ‘fullness’).88 For example, when Paul states that ‘in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form’ (Col. 2:9), Flemming suggests that Paul might have taken over the term plērōma meaning ‘fullness’ from the Colossian context and imbued it with a Christcentred meaning.89 The Colossian heretics may have considered that the plērōma referred to the totality of supernatural emanations which acted as 357). However, Paul’s use of these when teaching Gentiles would surely have reminded his readers of teaching from their own context, despite the differences (John H. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 170-83). 85 Flemming, ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, 10. Elisabeth S. Fiorenza suggests that the introduction of these household codes was an indication of a movement from an earlier ‘discipleship of equals’ vision of church to a patriarchal one (In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 251; see also Catherine M. LaCugna (God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 392). However, John H. Elliott convincingly argues that the early church was patriarchal throughout its existence (‘The Jesus Movement was not Egalitarian but Family-Oriented’, in Biblical Interpretation, 11 (2003), 173-210). Trevor J. Burke likewise asserts that ‘the social reality of early Christianity was probably more patriarchal and household-like than non-patriarchal’ (‘Pauline Paternity in 1 Thessalonians’, in Tyndale Bulletin, 51.1 (2000), 60, n. 5). 86 Flemming, ‘Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens’, 205. 87 Flemming, ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, 13; see also Norman W. DeWitt, St Paul and Epicurus (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1954), 13, 28; Helmut Flender, St Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History (London: SPCK, 1967), 71-72; Gilliland, ‘New Testament Contextualization’, 56; Nicholls, Contextualization, 48. The commentator should however beware of dogmatism in his or her statements regarding a New Testament writer’s use of vocabulary from the receptor context since ‘conceptual parallels offer no proof of borrowing’ (Calvin J. Roetzel, The World that Shaped the New Testament, rev. edn. (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 2002), 70). 88 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 230. Although Raymond Brown argues for a Semitic origin for the word ‘mystery’ without the need to consider a background from pagan mystery religions (The Semitic Background of the Term ‘Mystery’ in the New Testament (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1968)), Paul’s use of this familiar word in a Greek context would have been a challenge to the people’s worldview. 89 Flemming, ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, 7.

28

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

‘intermediaries between God and the world’.90 However, Paul uses this term not to defend the Colossian view, but to show that since the fullness of the Deity lives in Christ, there is no need for any other intermediaries. This shows that the use of vocabulary taken from a heathen context does not necessarily mean that the reality behind the word is the same in the Christian setting.91 In the Pastoral Epistles, Paul takes a word meaning ‘appearing’ from the Hellenistic religious context: epiphaneia (and other related words). Paul makes use of this word christologically to describe the comings of Jesus, but Trebilco notes that epiphaneia is also used in Graeco-Roman religion of ‘the self-manifestation of a divine being in this world’, including that of the emperor.92 Trebilco maintains that there has been no change in message: ‘this is genuinely the… contextualisation of the same gospel into a new culture’. Sometimes vocabulary is used not only to identify with the context, but also with a prophetic edge to challenge its very basis. This is especially seen in Paul’s challenge to the imperial cult. Richard Horsley claims that, in Paul’s letters – much of his key language would have evoked echoes of the imperial cult and ideology… Insofar as Paul deliberately used language closely associated with the imperial religion, he was presenting his gospel as a direct competitor of the gospel of Caesar.93

For example: i) Romans. When Paul wrote his letter to the church at Rome, it seems unlikely that he was addressing a particular problem which had arisen in the church. However, as Rome was the centre of the empire and its associated cult, it should be no surprise to discover a sub-text challenging the Roman imperial order in this letter. German theologian Dieter Georgi in his examination of the book of Romans maintains that the apostle Paul’s letter clearly shows his rejection of Roman political theology.94 Georgi looks at words such as ‘good news (euangelion)’, ‘faith (pistis)’, ‘righteousness (dikaiosunē)’, and ‘peace (eirēnē)’, and argues that Paul’s use of these terms is a challenge to the existing Roman political order. While, as Georgi acknowledges, these words are found in the Septuagint, their use in the book of Romans may strike a chord with people surrounded by the imperial cult. Georgi also claims that Paul’s description of the origin and significance of Jesus the Messiah in Romans 1:3-4 is a direct challenge 90

O’Brien, Colossians, 52. Flemming, ‘The Third Horizon’, 149, n. 41. 92 Trebilco, ‘Paul, Gospel, Culture’, 38. 93 Horsley, Paul and Empire, 140. 94 Dieter Georgi, ‘God turned upside down’, in Horsley, Paul and Empire, 148. 91

Contextualisation in the New Testament

29

to Rome where Nero had become emperor prior to the writing of Paul’s letter to the Romans. Might Paul not be saying that Jesus is actually the true ruler? Even Paul’s condemnation of worshipping ‘the creature rather than the Creator’ (Rom. 1:25) may actually be an implicit attack on the imperial cult of worship of the emperor.95 ii) Philippians. In the Roman colony at Philippi, Paul may likewise have been challenging the imperial cult. Erik Heen argues that the use of isa Theō (‘like God’) in Philippians 2:6 may be ‘understood as an expression of a hidden transcript that sets Christ over against the Roman emperor’.96 In Philippians 3:20, the use of the word ‘saviour (sōtēr)’ to refer to Jesus could have challenged the Roman belief that the emperor was the saviour.97 iii) 1 Thessalonians. The third example of challenge to the Roman imperial order may be observed in Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians. Abraham Smith maintains that Paul applies words commonly used to describe the meeting between city dignitaries and the emperor, to the return of Jesus.98 By so doing, he focuses on ‘the eschatological battle in which God will bring the imperial order under judgement’. Adolf Deissmann describes the audacity of the church’s contextualisation as follows: The cult of Christ goes forth into the world of the Mediterranean and soon displays the endeavour to reserve for Christ the words already in use for worship in that world, words that had just been transferred to the deified emperors or had perhaps even been invented in emperor worship. Thus there arises a polemical parallelism between the cult of the emperor and the cult of Christ.99

Taking risks

As the early church sought to incarnate the gospel and explain it in terms which related to the worldview of people in the Graeco-Roman context, there was inevitably a risk that the gospel would in some way be misunderstood or confused with cultural concepts which are not consistent with the gospel. Andrew Walls notes that the early church used the title 95

Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007), 49. 96 Erik M. Heen, ‘Phil. 2:6-11 and Resistance to Local Timocratic Rule: Isa Theō and the Cult of the Emperor in the East’, in Horsley, Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, 137. 97 See Trebilco, ‘Paul, Gospel, Culture’, 40. However, this was such a common Old Testament description of God that it is not certain that Paul has a conscious polemic motive in its use. 98 Abraham Smith, ‘“Unmasking the Powers”: Toward a Postcolonial Analysis of 1 Thessalonians’, in Horsley, Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, 48. 99 Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910), 346, cited in David E. Aune, ‘The Influence of Roman Imperial Court Ceremonial on the Apocalypse of John’, Biblical Research, 28 (1983), 21.

30

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

‘Lord (kurios)’ of Jesus among Greeks in Antioch (Acts 11:20), even though the latter used this title for their cult divinities.100 He says that in doing this they ‘risked a dangerous translation’.101 However, there is no true contextualisation without risk, and ‘it is doubtful whether unacculturated pagans in the Antiochene world could have understood the significance of Jesus in any other way’.102 Flemming similarly observes that, in using the expression ‘the mystery of Christ’ (Col 4:3), Paul ‘risks taking over a term that carries religious and cultural baggage within the Graeco-Roman world in order to speak a compelling word to his hearers’.103 The main risk of such contextualisation is that the gospel may in some way be compromised. As John Davis remarks: There remains a fear for those of us committed to contextualisation that in applying these principles we may fall short of communicating distinctive Good News and instead leave a hotchpotch mixture of diluted Christianity with a large dose of paganism as the principal [sic] ingredient.104

Indeed, some scholars, like Martin Dibelius, assert that Paul deliberately accommodated his message to fit his pagan audience with his main ideas being Stoic and not Christian.105 Even though evangelical commentators may not accept such a view, it is true that all contextualisation carries the risk of misunderstanding, and even syncretism. As Davis states, ‘All expressions of Christianity are in some way culture-bound and therefore by definition syncretistic to some degree.’106 Even if we try to avoid contextualising, the likelihood is that we are simply conveying a message which is already shaped by our own cultural and theological history and tradition. Risky though it is, we must make the effort of contextualising in order that the gospel may be truly incarnated in every cultural context. TRANSFORMATIONAL MISSION

Contextualisation is not merely an academic pursuit which is of interest to theologians in their ivory towers. It is only of any value if it results in the transformation of the church and the context in which it ministers. Bruce Nicholls declares: ‘Contextualization can only take place in the context of mission.’107 This has already been seen in the contextualisation 100

Walls, The Missionary Movement, 34. Walls, The Missionary Movement, 52. 102 Walls, The Missionary Movement, 35. 103 Flemming, ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, 7. 104 Davis, ‘Biblical Precedents’, 26. 105 Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, Heinrich Greeven (ed.) (New York: Charles Scribner, 1956), 63; contra Flemming, ‘Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens’, 203. 106 Davis, ‘Biblical Precedents’, 27. 107 Nicholls, Contextualization, 66. 101

Contextualisation in the New Testament

31

accomplished at the Jerusalem Council, where James was concerned that they ‘should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God’ (Acts 15:19). Likewise, Paul’s commitment to contextualisation in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 has as its basic aim that ‘by all possible means I might save some’. When he contextualises the gospel, his desire is not simply to convey factual information about the gospel clearly. His aim is to bring people to a new life in Christ and thus to transform every aspect of their lives, including both their inner attitudes and their outer behaviour, with the result that they in turn will help others to find that same transformation.108 Right contextualisation is therefore necessarily transformational. If theological reflection ‘does not help to shape God’s people in their shared life of discipleship and their participation in God’s mission in the world, it is only a parody of authentic contextualization’.109 However, effective contextualisation will not only result in the transformation of individuals, but will also necessarily lead to challenging and transforming those aspects of the whole culture which are not consistent with the gospel.110 Andrew Walls argues that our attitude to culture should take into account two principles: the ‘indigenising principle’ and the ‘pilgrim principle’.111 The first of these enables the gospel to take root in, and make use of, the culture in which it is proclaimed. Even this does not mean that the culture will be unchanged, since the coming of the gospel will result in a reorienting of the culture around Christ.112 Natee Tanchanpongs indeed argues that ‘a tell-tale sign of religious syncretism is when the church is identical with the society within which she is housed’.113 The pilgrim principle however, will not allow this; as Walls states, ‘to be faithful to Christ will put him out of step with his society’.114 This principle therefore requires a movement which results in the culture being prophetically challenged and transformed.115 This is seen in the way that the New Testament church contextualised the gospel. The early church evangelists recognized that they could build on the thinking of those they sought to reach, since God was present and at work, even if he was not so acknowledged.116 However, there did come a point at 108

Flemming, ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, 4. Flemming, ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, 17. 110 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 52, 305; Gilliland, ‘New Testament Contextualization’, 54. 111 Walls, The Missionary Movement, 7-9. 112 Van den Toren, ‘Naked Theological Truth’, 102. 113 Tanchanpongs, ‘Palate for Authentic Theology’, 120. 114 Walls, The Missionary Movement, 8. Bruce Nicholls similarly states: ‘The gospel is never the guest of any culture; it is always its judge and redeemer’ (Contextualization, 15). 115 Hiebert, ‘Critical Contextualization’, 109. 116 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 83. 109

32

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

which the truth of the gospel had to challenge and indeed confront the sinful pagan worldview.117 Flemming cites David Lim as pointing out ‘that in an environment where religion was viewed in inclusive, not exclusive, terms: “This demand to change one’s faith, ethic and cult entirely was totally new to the peoples in the Graeco-Roman world.”’118 For example, although Paul gladly communicated the gospel to the people of Lystra using a rhetorical method which they would have been familiar with and based his message on their shared humanity, his aim was to challenge them to turn from false gods to the only true living God (Acts 14:15). Paul is happy to engage constructively with his hearers’ beliefs and worldviews, but there is only so far that he is willing to go. He is very flexible in his presentations, but he ‘draws the line where he thinks the gospel might be jeopardized’.119 Ultimately, in order to protect the truth claims of the gospel message, there is a need to challenge and correct those worldviews and in particular their understanding of God.120 However, Paul’s approach is rarely polemic; he prefers to positively confess the God of the Scriptures.121 For example, in 1 Corinthians 2:7 he asserts that all wisdom is hidden in God, the sub-text perhaps being a challenge to Epicureanism which sees Nature as the source of wisdom.122 However, his challenge is ultimately not destructive but rather controlled by a belief that every culture can be redeemed. As Flemming argues in his discussion of Paul’s Athenian speech, ‘the genius of Paul’s context-sensitive preaching in Acts 17 is that he intentionally uses the philosophical language of his audience, not simply to stake out common ground, but in order to transform their worldview’.123 Paul, therefore, is not watering down the gospel in order to ‘make it more palatable to the Greeks’; despite his desire to

117

Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 70; ‘Paul the Contextualizer’,

13. 118

David Lim, ‘Evangelism in the Early Church’, in Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (eds.) Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1997), 354, cited in Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 70. 119 Donald A. Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry: Leadership Lessons from 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), 35. 120 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 77, 82; ‘Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens’, 204. 121 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 78. 122 See DeWitt, St Paul and Epicurus, 10. Some have challenged DeWitt’s assertions, suggesting that he goes too far in seeing an Epicurean philosophical background to Paul’s writings. See Ascough, What Are They Saying About the Formation of Pauline Churches? 43-44. 123 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 79.

Contextualisation in the New Testament

33

contextualise his message, he knows that ‘the gospel’s inevitable offense must stand’.124 In conclusion therefore, the early church’s approach of critical engagement is one which must be followed today too since, as Flemming argues, ‘the gospel, in some ways, is counter-cultural to every culture’.125 The transformation which true contextualisation brings about is not destructive but it is necessarily prophetic and uncomfortable. Conclusion

This study has shown that contextualisation is indispensable to Christian ministry and theology. Just as God was incarnate in the world of the first century, so too God’s people must engage in contextualisation if they are to effectively incarnate the gospel in every community. This will result in the gospel and the church taking on a shape appropriate for every culture. Although some evangelical contextualisation models try to find some kind of supracultural core of truths, the aim of this examination of the contextualisation of leadership is to show how leadership changes under the influence of the gospel to give theological principles which may be applied to new contexts. Dean Flemming has shown the vital importance of a knowledge of New Testament contextualisation: New Testament patterns are analogous to those necessary for the effective contextualization of the gospel in every generation. Such scriptural precedents invite us to discover paradigms that might inform, guide and suggest parameters for the ongoing task of enabling the gospel to come to life in new settings.126

Two main factors which affected contextualisation in the New Testament have been identified: i) God’s activity and word. The Spirit was the key mover in mission and helped the church to see its need to break out of its Jewish cultural straitjacket and bring the gospel to Gentiles appropriately. Scripture, and especially the content of the gospel revealed there, also has a vital role in giving controls to contextualisation to prevent syncretism and improper contextualisation. ii) The missional context. The apostle Paul acknowledged that aspects of the culture, such as communication style and rhetoric, worldview concepts, vocabulary and imagery can be used and redeemed in the work of contextualisation. In each case, Paul used them in such a way that the 124

Flemming, ‘Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens’, 206; see also Charles, ‘Engaging the (Neo)pagan Mind’, 59. 125 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 83. 126 Flemming, ‘Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens’, 199.

34

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

message of the gospel was not compromised. The object of such contextualisation, risky though it may be, was that mission should be furthered and the culture prophetically challenged and transformed.

Chapter 2 Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writings

Leadership in the early church arose in a context in which models of leadership were already well established. The apostle Paul normally began his church-planting ministry in a given city by preaching in synagogues and he would have been very familiar with their leadership structure. He would also have been aware of the variety of patterns of leadership found in synagogues in different parts of the Roman empire which would most likely have made him open to being flexible in the leadership models he accepted or developed. It is therefore important to understand the leadership structures of the first century before drawing out principles from Paul’s ministry. Bengt Holmberg wisely notes the danger of making theological syntheses without fully considering the social structures of the time, especially when reading a later understanding of ‘the ministry’ into New Testament documents.1 Andrew Clarke likewise draws attention to the hermeneutical challenges in the process.2 All interpreters approach the text with their own theological, social and ecclesiastical pre-understandings. Even with the best will in the world it is all too easy for them to interpret the (sometimes contradictory) data about Pauline leadership to fit their own preferred conclusions – for example, by supporting monarchical government, egalitarian structures, feminist aspirations, charismatic freedom or servant leadership. This should not lead to despair, but commentators do need to recognise their pre-understandings and to listen to other perspectives, even when the results of their research go against their natural inclinations.3 This caveat will be borne in mind in the following examination of the leadership context of the New Testament church. In order to understand how leadership was contextualised in Paul’s ministry, Chapters 2-4 study the biblical materials in the light of the prevailing leadership models of the time. This chapter, after introducing the concept of leadership, gives a very brief overview of the way in which leadership was organised in Judaism and the Graeco-Roman world, looking only at the main institutions which have been suggested as models which influenced the leadership of the church. Then two things which profoundly affected leadership in the Graeco-Roman context are considered: honourseeking and patronage. Finally, some matters of general application to 1

Holmberg, Paul and Power, 2. Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 19. 3 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 22-32, 40, 80. 2

36

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

leadership in the New Testament which influence our interpretation of Paul’s understanding of leadership in the church are examined: Christ’s challenge to the status quo concerning leadership, the scholarly consensus of the development of leadership organisation in the early church, and the influence of congregational size on leadership structures. When the contextualisation of leadership in Paul’s ministry is examined in Chapters 3 and 4, these insights will be developed by a more detailed study of leadership in the world of the New Testament. What is Leadership?

Leadership is a word which is commonly used, but its meaning varies widely. In the secular world, Bass and Bass observe that there are many definitions of leadership which vary according to the aspect of leadership which is most emphasized.4 However, in 1994, researchers from 38 countries met together for a ‘Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness’ (GLOBE) research conference and drew up a working definition of leadership as ‘the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members’.5 In the Christian context, Bobby Clinton, a renowned American teacher on leadership, defines Christian leadership as ‘a dynamic process in which a man or woman with God-given capacity influences a specific group of God’s people toward His purposes for the group’.6 This is similar to the definition given by Bass and Bass with the main distinction being its theocentric emphasis. The above understandings come from western contexts. Are they applicable to non-western leadership? The American missiologist James Plueddemann observes that there are many different understandings of leadership and leadership style depending on our cultural presuppositions. He suggests that ‘people from a goal-oriented culture might define leadership as accomplishing the task through other people’, whereas ‘leaders from a relationship-oriented society would prefer to define leadership as the ability to build alliances and friendships’.7 Bringing these two insights together, his own definition is as follows: Good leaders are fervent disciples of Jesus Christ, gifted by the Holy Spirit, with a passion to bring glory to God. They use their gift of leadership by taking 4

Bass and Bass, Handbook of Leadership, 15-23. Robert J. House and Mansour Javidan, ‘Overview of GLOBE’, in House et al., Culture, Leadership, and Organizations, 15. 6 J. Robert Clinton, The Making of a Leader (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1988), 14. 7 Plueddemann, Leading Across Cultures, 14-15. 5

Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writing

37

initiative to focus, harmonize and enhance the gifts of others for the sake of developing people and cultivating the kingdom of God.8

An examination of the above definitions of leadership shows in each case the centrality of leaders influencing and enabling others. In evaluating how leadership was contextualised in the missional context, the nature and style of the leaders’ relationship with those under them, and the extent to which that changed as a result of the process of contextualisation, will be closely observed. Organisation of Leadership in First-Century Judaism9 Councils Each Jewish city community had its own council with varying numbers of members. The Jerusalem council, the Sanhedrin, had seventy members as well as a presiding high priest.10 The high priests took the leading role prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70,11 and being part of the ruling elite, they made every effort to protect their status and their own interests.12 Along with the scribes and high priests, the elders were represented on the ruling Sanhedrin.13 As will be considered later, there is considerable debate about the identity of Jewish elders. A.E. Harvey considers that in the case of the Sanhedrin, the title ‘elders’ ‘was either the technical name for a specific class of aristocratic laymen, or was a more general word, with strong Pharisaic overtones, which was used to refer to scribes both inside and outside the Sanhedrin’.14 It is possible that within the Sanhedrin there was an executive committee of ten men, paralleling similar committees found in Greek city governments.15 The Sanhedrin had power and authority to rule (Acts 9:14), and this was not limited to the religious and theological

8

Plueddemann, Leading Across Cultures, 15. Some caution must be exercised in evaluating things written about Judaism in the first century since some of them are based on later materials which have been ‘read back into the first century’ (Ascough, What Are They Saying About the Formation of Pauline Churches? 13). 10 James T. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge: CUP, 1992), 230. 11 Emil Schürer (rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black), The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC-AD 135) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), II, 212. 12 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 16-18. 13 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 16-17; Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, II, 213. 14 A.E. Harvey, ‘Elders’, in Journal of Theological Studies, 15.2 (1974), 324. 15 Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, II, 213-14. 9

38

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

sphere.16 Since its function was primarily judicial, Harvey maintains that it may not provide a very good parallel to church leadership.17 It is not clear how the members of the Sanhedrin were chosen, but Emil Schürer suggests that they were appointed ‘either by the existing members or by the supreme political authorities’.18 However, James Burtchaell asserts that local assemblies elected their own leaders and officers.19 The synagogue In the first century, Judaism was not uniform or unchanging; there were many differences in the practices of Judaism in the Roman empire, in particular between Palestinian Judaism and diaspora Judaism.20 However, the cultural focus of all but the smallest Jewish communities was the synagogue. The synagogue was not only seen as a religious centre for prayer and study of the law, but it also had an important function as the heart of life for the Jewish community, with social, charitable, hospitable, educational and sometimes civil administrative functions.21 When considering the leadership of synagogues, caution must be exercised since there were many variations, especially between urban and rural, and Palestinian and diaspora practice.22 This is not surprising, given that synagogues were normally autonomous.23 Lee Levine also observes that Hellenised synagogues in Palestine had similar leadership titles to

16 John W. Olley, ‘Leadership: Some Biblical Perspectives’, in South East Asia Journal of Theology, 18.1 (1977), 6; Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, II, 218. 17 Harvey, ‘Elders’, 324. 18 Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, II, 211. 19 Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 211-12. 20 Clarke, Serve the Community, 103-41. 21 There is some debate as to whether the synagogue had such a wide range of functions in the first century AD; see Ascough, What Are They Saying About the Formation of Pauline Churches? 13; R. Alastair Campbell, The Elders: Seniority Within Earliest Christianity (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 47; Clarke, Serve the Community, 12123; Ritva H. Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers of the Word: Leadership in the Early Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), 10. 22 See Campbell, The Elders, 45; Lee I. Levine, ‘Synagogue Officials: The Evidence from Caesarea and Its Implications for Palestine and the Diaspora’, in Kenneth G. Holum and Avner Raban (eds.), Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia, Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 395-98; The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 421-28. Levine emphasises the variety of synagogue practices, and discusses in detail the following synagogue roles: synagogue ruler (archisunagōgos), ruler (archōn), father/mother of the synagogue (patēr/mētēr sunagōgēs), elder (presbuteros), scribe (grammateus), guardian (phrontistēs), assistant (hupēretēs (hazzan)), and teacher (see The Ancient Synagogue). 23 James S. Jeffers, Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991), 40; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 426.

Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writing

39

those in the diaspora, showing the influence of the context on both titles and organisational structure.24 Among those with responsibility in the synagogue were the following people: i) Terms which are also found in the New Testament church • presbuteros (elder). Burtchaell maintains that the synagogue had a college of elders (cf. Luke 7:3) who were seen as ‘guardians of the tradition and of the people’.25 They were responsible for setting synagogue policies by virtue of their position as leaders in the community,26 but they did not necessarily have a formal office,27 or have responsibility for synagogue worship.28 • prostatis (patron). Some synagogues also had a patron who may have had a role similar to the synagogue ruler,29 but who was not necessarily Jewish.30 • hupēretēs (or hazzan) (assistant).31 These were assistants in the synagogue (e.g. Luke 4:20), although they may also have had responsibilities outside it.32 ii) Terms which are not found in the New Testament church • archōn (ruler).33 These seem to have had a ruling function distinct from the elders.34 • archisunagōgos (synagogue ruler). These are thought by some to be in charge of the synagogue religious services,35 but James Burtchaell

24

Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 424. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 204-05. Levine (The Ancient Synagogue, 407) agrees with Burtchaell. However, Banks (Paul’s Idea of Community, 147) and Campbell (The Elders, 112) do not consider that the elders held a leadership role in the synagogue. 26 Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (New York: Paulist Press, 1984), 33; Campbell, The Elders, 49-50. 27 R.W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 101-02. 28 Harvey, ‘Elders’, 325. 29 Clarke, Serve the Community, 133. 30 Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 35. 31 Or νεωκόροι (Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 246). 32 Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 246-49; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 410-17; Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, II, 438. 33 James Burtchaell describes these as ‘notables’ (From Synagogue to Church, 233). Some may also have been archisunagōgoi, especially in smaller synagogues (Luke 8:41, 49) (Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 402). 34 See Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 234. A.E. Harvey notes that synagogue inscriptions in Rome indicate that leaders are far more commonly called archontes than presbuteroi (‘Elders’, 325). 35 Jeffers, Conflict at Rome, 40; Gerhard Kittel (ed; trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley), TDNT (4 vols; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-67), II, 91; David W. 25

40

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

argues that it is better to see them as local community chiefs.36 However, Levine is probably right to maintain that the synagogue ruler had both religious and political/administrative roles.37 This title varies in frequency but it is the one most commonly found in the ancient Jewish world. This shows a recognition of the honour in which the holder is held.38 Levine argues that this title was borrowed from the pagan context where it was used to refer to philanthropists, and it was then used to refer to a rather different office in the Jewish synagogue.39 • gerousiarchai (council president). Although the term does not occur in the New Testament, it is possible that they acted as senior elders or leaders of the council.40 Schürer argues that in areas which were predominately Jewish, the political and synagogue leadership may have been identical, as suggested in the above discussion of the synagogue ruler.41 It is certainly not always easy to say whether a given title referred to the synagogue or to the community as a whole.42 There is some debate about whether leadership titles in synagogues were functional or purely honorary, which they clearly were when applied to children.43 Synagogues did require the presence of a priest for some procedures, although this may only have been the case following the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.44 Synagogues also used teachers, perhaps in a variety of roles.45 Clarke argues that ‘both in urban Palestine and the diaspora, the Jews had adopted a number of practices characteristic of Graeco-Roman culture, not least in the context of community leadership’.46 This is seen in the terminology, organisation and administration of synagogues.47 Their organisation was not dissimilar to that of Graeco-Roman guilds, with leaders chosen on a similar basis to those in the outside world, especially from among wealthy benefactors, but interestingly not from priests or

Miller, ‘The Uniqueness of New Testament Church Eldership’, in Grace Theological Journal, 6.2 (1985), 319. 36 Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 242-44. 37 Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 391-94. 38 Clarke, Serve the Community, 128; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 400. 39 Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 401, 427. 40 See Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 237-40; Campbell, The Elders, 51; Clarke, Serve the Community, 133. Levine considers that the association of the gerousiarchai with the synagogue is uncertain (The Ancient Synagogue, 389). 41 Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, II, 427-29. 42 Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 388. 43 Clarke, Serve the Community, 131, 134-35; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 401. 44 Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 130 citing Megillah, 4:3, 6. 45 Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 417-20. 46 Clarke, Serve the Community, 137. 47 Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 427; ‘Synagogue Officials’, 397.

Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writing

41

rabbis.48 Some of the synagogue officers were elected to their positions,49 but others may have been permanent posts or even hereditary.50 Since the Jewish synagogues contextualised their leadership, it is not surprising that the church did the same. However, as the next two chapters will reveal, the church did not slavishly follow Jewish patterns and it is significant that some of the commonest titles used of synagogue officers containing the arch- root (archōn and archisunagōgos) were not picked up by the early church for their own use.51 The term presbuteros which was used in a variety of Jewish contexts was however used in the church. Organisation of Leadership in the Graeco-Roman World The household The household was of great importance in the Graeco-Roman world since it ‘was viewed as the foundation of the state’.52 It was also ‘the basis of most small group formation in antiquity, including synagogues’ which makes it of great interest in our examination of the early church.53 However, care should be taken not to make dogmatic generalisations, since it was highly influenced by its social and cultural context.54 Bearing in mind this caveat, 48 Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 265-66; Clarke, Serve the Community, 126, 129, 134-38. 49 Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 231, 236. 50 Clarke, Serve the Community, 128, 131; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 400; Roetzel, The World that Shaped the New Testament, 95. 51 Burtchaell however asserts that the early church based their organisational structure on the synagogue (From Synagogue to Church, 352). While he accepts that there was no ‘uniform local model for either synagogue or church’, he suggests that there was probably a ‘shared pattern’ within these communities (xiv). This pattern would include the office of elder, community chief (becoming the episkopos in the church (283)) and assistant, although the titles themselves were more fluid (xv, 339). Much of Burtchaell’s claims are based on surmise and there is very little concrete evidence in the New Testament that this three-fold leadership pattern was widely followed (see Campbell, The Elders, 119, 203; James D.G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997 [1975]), 285; Margaret Y. MacDonald, The Pauline Churches: A Socio-Historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings (Cambridge: CUP, 1988), 215. Richard Ascough (What Are They Saying About the Formation of Pauline Churches? 22-23; see also Campbell, The Elders, 115) is not convinced by Burtchaell’s thesis, and maintains that using synagogues ‘as an analogy for early Pauline communities becomes problematic’ (28). He believes that the differences between the first-century synagogues and the early church are greater than their similarities. It may also be noted that the word sunagōgē is not used of the church in Pauline writings (contra Jas 2:2). 52 Lincoln, Ephesians, 358. 53 Ascough, What Are They Saying About the Formation of Pauline Churches? 21. 54 Roetzel, The World that Shaped the New Testament, 99-107.

42

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

the Roman family usually consisted of the father, mother, children, grandchildren and sometimes, but not always, slaves.55 There has been some discussion in recent scholarship as to whether the Roman family in the first century was principally nuclear or extended in character. However, it is clear that relatives and other lodgers could also be included in the household.56 The structure of the household was hierarchical,57 with the head of the household, including the matron, having nearly unlimited power and authority,58 and the inferior members ‘linked to higher members by relationships that required obedience’.59 Roman fathers even had the power of life and death over their children.60 While Ernest Best argues that the authority of Roman parents was greater than that of today’s parents,61 Clarke maintains that it is erroneous to suggest that the father had ‘absolute dominion of his family’.62 For example, recent scholarship has shown convincingly that by the first century AD, the head of the household exercised authority in his marriage with consensus, and over his children

55

Clarke, Serve the Community, 81; Karl O. Sandnes, A New Family: Conversion and Ecclesiology in the Early Church with Cross-Cultural Comparisons, Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity 91 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1994), 47-48. 56 See Clarke, Serve the Community, 82-86. As compared with the Latin word familia, the word domus usually refers to a larger group of relatives, as well as many others who were attached to the household. See Reidar Aasgaard, ‘My Beloved Brothers and Sisters’: Christian Siblingship in Paul (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 40-41; Peter Garnsey and Richard P. Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society & Culture (London: Duckworth, 1987), 127-28. 57 Aasgaard, ‘My Beloved Brothers and Sisters’, 49; Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 76; Roetzel, The World that Shaped the New Testament, 98. 58 See Campbell, The Elders, 89; E. Anne Castelli, Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 101; Jeffers, Conflict at Rome, 121, 125; David C. Verner, The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 71 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 33, 55; L. Michael White, ‘Paul and Pater Familias’, in Sampley, Paul in the Greco-Roman World, 458. Jürgen Moltmann notes that emperors from the time of Augustus on were called pater patriae (father of his country): ‘His rule is to be fatherly, but his fatherhood is also unlimited rule: he is pater omnipotens [almighty father]’ (History and the Triune God: Contributions to Trinitarian Theology (London: SCM Press, 1991), 6). 59 Cynthia B. Kittredge, Community and Authority: The Rhetoric of Obedience in the Pauline Tradition, in Harvard Theological Studies, 45 (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998), 5. 60 Garnsey and Saller, The Roman Empire, 136-38. 61 Ernest Best, ‘Paul’s Apostolic Authority?’, in Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 9.27 (1986), 17. 62 Clarke, Serve the Community, 92.

Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writing

43

with affection.63 Trevor Burke likewise observes that ‘parent-child relations in antiquity were both hierarchical and affective’.64 As far as household slaves are concerned, a harsher exercise of authority was normal.65 However, with the householder’s leadership authority came significant moral responsibility. He was not to exercise his authority simply to give himself a life of ease.66 In the religious area, it was his responsibility ‘to ensure the co-operation of the household’s gods or patron deities’,67 although all the members of the household would participate in the cult.68 David Verner argues that ‘from the social structure alone, one would have a difficult time distinguishing pagan from Jewish households in the cities of Hellenistic-Roman Diaspora’.69 Although it is likely that the Jewish patriarch was not as authoritarian as the father in a Roman family,70 an examination of Jesus’ teaching shows that even members of the household who rose to positions of influence remained ‘exposed to the arbitrary decisions of the master’.71 For example, if the master demanded the servant repay a debt, he might sell the servant’s wife and children without a second thought. The earliest churches were almost certainly established in households, and inevitably some of their household leadership understandings would have been carried over into the church. Chapters 3 and 4 will include a consideration of whether an authoritarian understanding of household leadership in the church was present in Pauline letters. Voluntary associations72 The church was only one of many non-governmental associations in the Roman empire, and it would be very surprising if its organisation and structure bore no similarity to that of other groups. There were a large number of voluntary associations and trade guilds with memberships most commonly under a hundred, but sometimes much larger.73 Most of the

63 Clarke, Serve the Community, 86-90; see also David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000), 180; contra Garnsey and Saller, The Roman Empire, 139. 64 Burke, ‘Pauline Paternity’, 68. 65 Clarke, Serve the Community, 93-95. 66 DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 179. 67 Clarke, Serve the Community, 98. 68 Clarke, Serve the Community, 99. 69 Verner, The Household of God, 80. 70 Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 22. 71 Judge, Social Distinctives, 20. 72 In Latin these were called collegia. 73 Ascough, What Are They Saying About the Formation of Pauline Churches? 76; Clarke, Serve the Community, 71; Ramsay MacMullen, Roman Social Relations: 50 BC to AD 284 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974), 73.

44

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

information about these associations is obtained from epigraphic sources. Sandra Walker-Ramisch defines a voluntary association as – an organized association of persons who come together on a voluntary, contractual basis (rather than kinship, caste, national or geographic association) in the pursuit of common interests, both manifest and latent. To the association each member contributes, by contractual agreement, a part of his/her time and resources.74

James Jeffers divides these associations into four categories:75 funerary,76 religious, household77 and professional. Even though the last of these were for members of a particular trade, their main purpose was social rather than professional, although on occasion associations could act for the benefit of their members78 – for example, the silversmiths at Ephesus (Acts 19:24-25). Honour was very important in the operation of these associations,79 but they were one of the only areas in the Roman empire in which people of low social status could rise to positions of influence.80 However, that is not to imply that there was equality in the associations since their organisation often reflected the dominant social order, and slave members were punished more severely than free men.81 Furthermore, even though associations could include members from different social backgrounds, unlike the church they tended to be socially homogeneous,82 and they were not international in character.83 Nearly all these associations had a religious dimension, although it should be recognised that in Graeco-Roman society the religious permeated all aspects of social activity.84 Their worship of a 74

Sandra Walker-Ramisch, ‘Graeco-Roman Voluntary Associations and the Damascus Document: A Sociological Analysis’, in John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 1996), 131. 75 Jeffers, Conflict at Rome, 37. 76 Providing funerals for their members (Peter Garnsey and Richard P. Saller, ‘Patronal Power Relations’, in Horsley, Paul and Empire, 101; Jeffers, Conflict at Rome, 38). 77 Voluntary associations were on occasions formed ‘in close conjunction with specific households’ (Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 77). 78 Clarke, Serve the Community, 63; MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 19. 79 MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 76-77. 80 Clarke, Serve the Community, 60; Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 31; Verner, The Household of God, 54. 81 Clarke, Serve the Community, 67, 69, 76; John S. Kloppenborg, ‘Egalitarianism in the Myth and Rhetoric of Pauline Churches’, in E. Anne Castelli and Hal Taussig (eds.), Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 259. 82 Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 79. 83 Judge, Social Distinctives, 31. 84 Ascough, What Are They Saying About the Formation of Pauline Churches? 76; Clarke, Serve the Community, 73-74.

Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writing

45

god ‘gave formal expression to their unity’.85 Many associations were involved with the imperial cult.86 Like much of Graeco-Roman society, patronage was very important in voluntary associations. Such patrons ‘enjoyed even higher prestige and status than the groups’ functionaries’.87 Although members of associations may have paid membership fees, patrons were often responsible for financing the associations’ activities.88 In return, members might celebrate the birthdays of the patron and his close relatives with banquets.89 Associations were ‘stratified in structure’90 and often had a single leader, but they had many other officers with a variety of titles, sometimes using those found in municipal councils.91 However, few of these titles were applied to church leaders in the Pauline letters except for ‘overseer’ (episkopos) and ‘servant’ (diakonos).92 The associations were often republican in constitution, ruled by a board, and they elected their own officials.93 It was not uncommon for there to be competition among members of associations as they each sought honour.94 Influences on Leadership in the Graeco-Roman World Honour-seeking The word ‘honour’ is commonly found in the Roman empire and it is necessary to understand what it meant, and how significant it was in the context, especially as it relates to leadership. Honour is ‘fundamentally the public recognition of one’s social standing’.95 The concept of honour was of 85

Judge, Social Distinctives, 27. Clarke, Serve the Community, 74. 87 Elliott, ‘The Jesus Movement’, 188. 88 See Ascough, What Are They Saying About the Formation of Pauline Churches? 77; Garnsey and Saller, ‘Patronal Power Relations’, 101; Horsley, Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, 15; Jeffers, Conflict at Rome, 37. 89 Efrain Agosto, ‘Patronage and Commendation, Imperial and Anti-Imperial’, in Horsley, Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, 107; John K. Chow, ‘Patronage in Roman Corinth’, in Horsley, Paul and Empire, 119. 90 Elliott, ‘The Jesus Movement’, 175. 91 Ascough, What Are They Saying About the Formation of Pauline Churches? 77; Clarke, Serve the Community, 68; Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 31. 92 Vincent P. Branick, The House Church in the Writings of Paul (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989), 49; Campbell, The Elders, 119; Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 79. 93 Chow, ‘Patronage in Roman Corinth’, 119; Jeffers, Conflict at Rome, 37; Judge, Social Distinctives, 28. 94 Kloppenborg, ‘Egalitarianism’, 258. 95 Halvor Moxnes, ‘Honor and Shame’, in Richard L. Rohrbaugh (ed.), The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 20; see also Brian E. Daley, ‘Position and Patronage in the Early Church: The Original Meaning 86

46

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

vital importance in the first-century world since honour (and dishonour) were the chief foundations of culture in Graeco-Roman society.96 As a result, it is not surprising that ‘within all social classes, traditional male socialization produced human beings who were programmed to pursue a never-ending quest for greater honor and influence’.97 Although a person could be considered honourable as a result of his birth or race,98 very commonly honour was something which was achieved by behaviour or acts of generosity, etc. Some even went into debt in order to maintain this myth of generosity as part of their desire for the esteem of the people.99 This has profound implications for the study of leadership in the New Testament. Clarke states that ‘honour was both root and branch of the system of Graeco-Roman leadership’.100 In public life, the pursuit of honour was central and this was especially seen in the ambition of those in leadership.101 This ‘generated a consuming passion to identify persons publicly according to social status’ – by means of distinct clothing, seating, etc.102 Indeed, as Clarke observes, civic leadership was not a job, but social status.103 J.E. Lendon agrees with this assessment: Offices were social distinctions, and… the hierarchy that was marked to contemporaries was not any official hierarchy, in our sense, but a social hierarchy

of “Primacy of Honour”’, in Journal of Theological Studies, 44.2 (1993), 531; Garnsey and Saller, The Roman Empire, 118. In Greek society, the word ‘time’ was often used to refer to esteem, honour and reverence (Walter Bauer (rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 2000), 1005). Other words used in the same area of meaning include ‘glory’ (doxa) and ‘praise’ (epainos) (deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 27-28). 96 DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 23; Joseph H. Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum, in Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 132 (Cambridge: CUP, 2005), 45. 97 S. Scott Bartchy, ‘Undermining Ancient Patriarchy: The Apostle Paul’s Vision of a Society of Siblings’, in Biblical Theology Bulletin, 29 (1999), 68; see also deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 166. 98 DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 28. 99 Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 1-6 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 31. 100 Clarke, Serve the Community, 52. 101 Jewett, Romans, 50. 102 Joseph H. Hellerman, ‘The Humiliation of Christ in the Social World of Roman Philippi, Part 1’, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 160.639 (2003), 322; see also Reconstructing Honor, 11-33. Clarke (Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 30-31) and deSilva (Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 31-32) show the importance of outward displays of status. 103 Clarke, Serve the Community, 41.

Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writing

47

– a hierarchy of prestige and standing – in which official rank was a vital criterion of ranking.104

Timothy Savage remarks that in the first century Graeco-Roman world, competition for honour ‘encouraged outward expressions of pride and arrogance… Humility, on the other hand, was scorned’.105 Bartchy is right to remark on how counter-cultural Paul is in exhorting the Romans to show honour, and not to seek to gain it (Rom. 12:10).106 Honour was important in all the communities of the Roman empire including the Jewish, but deSilva remarks that ‘each group would fill out the picture of what constituted honorable behavior or character in terms of its own distinctive set of beliefs and values’.107 For example, Jews who kept the Torah were considered honourable within their community, but that same behaviour might bring dishonour from the non-Jewish community.108 This of course would necessarily lead to tension according to whose honour was sought (e.g. John 5:44).109 However, the problem for the Jewish community of the diaspora synagogues was that, as they adapted to the Graeco-Roman institutions around them, they inevitably ‘operated and benefited from the ubiquitous social values of honour and status, rather than reinforcing those values which may have been distinctive to their own culture’.110 Patron-client relationships Patron-client relationships are still of great significance in many societies today, but they were especially important in the Roman empire. Richard Horsley maintains that ‘concrete patron-client networks… constituted the very hierarchical structure of power through which imperial society operated’.111 From the emperor downwards there was a ‘chain of patronclient ties’,112 and although the detailed outworking of patronage varied from place to place, it was ‘an instrument of social control’ and ‘the means of social cohesion’ in Roman society.113 David deSilva claims that the New 104

J.E. Lendon, Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 21. 105 Timothy B. Savage, Power Through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians, in Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 86 (Cambridge: CUP, 1996), 24; see also Witherington, Conflict and Community, 97. 106 Bartchy, ‘Undermining Ancient Patriarchy’, 71. 107 DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 25. 108 DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 38-39. 109 DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 57. 110 Clarke, Serve the Community, 141. 111 Horsley, Paul and Empire, 5. 112 Chow, ‘Patronage in Roman Corinth’, 104. 113 Chow, ‘Patronage in Roman Corinth’, 91.

48

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Testament world ‘was one in which personal patronage was an essential means of acquiring access to goods, protection or opportunities for employment and advancement’.114 Efrain Agosto describes patronage in the Graeco-Roman world as follows: Patronage entailed the reciprocal exchange of goods and services between persons of higher and lower social status to achieve higher status for both. Clients – those with less wealth and status – sought patrons – those with wealth, property and status… Having many clients afforded the patron a measure of increased honor and status.115

Patrons were invariably wealthy, and in the Graeco-Roman context they not only were concerned to give benefits to individuals, but they also often acted as benefactors who helped finance public entertainments, religious festivals, athletic competitions and building projects.116 Prominent people who acted as benefactors (cf. Luke 22:25) obtained honour, respect and influence by their good deeds.117 The ultimate purpose of Roman patronage was indeed to build the patron’s prestige.118 At the highest level of prestige and honour, a patron could even be identified with the gods although, by the end of Augustus’ reign, this was limited to the emperor and his family.119

114 DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 96; see also Dale B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990), 23; Richard P. Saller, Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire (Cambridge: CUP, 1982), 205. However, Agosto warns that ‘we lack sufficient evidence for the more widespread practices of patronage among the non-elites and the poor in the provinces’ (‘Patronage and Commendation’, 106). 115 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 5. 116 See deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 100-01; Claude Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities (Oxford: OUP, 2002), 105; Heen, ‘Phil. 2:6-11 and Resistance to Local Timocratic Rule’, 133; Horsley, Paul and Empire, 95. One New Testament example is the Roman centurion who built the Capernaum synagogue (Luke 7:5) (deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 123; Robert C. Tannehill, Luke, ANTC (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), 124). However, Eilers maintains that such benefaction was not found in the Greek east during the period of the New Testament (Roman Patrons, 98). He also observes that patron (patrōn) and benefactor (euepgetēs) ‘had slightly different, though complementary, meanings’ with the latter being an honorific title (110-11). 117 David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, NAC 29 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 481; Horsley, Paul and Empire, 95; Horsley, Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, 15; Howell, Servants of the Servant, 202, n. 22. 118 Jeffers, Conflict at Rome, 134; Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 24. 119 Heen, ‘Phil. 2:6-11 and Resistance to Local Timocratic Rule’, 128, 133.

Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writing

49

Patronage ‘reigned as the means of exercising leadership’.120 This is supremely seen in the benefactions of kings and emperors shown to cities and even provinces.121 Leadership positions were often filled by means of patronal ties, especially in remote provinces.122 Dale Martin remarks that an ‘individual’s access to power and social progress depended more than anything else on her or his connections to someone higher up in the social pyramid’.123 Although patrons acted on behalf of their clients, the clients too had responsibilities.124 They were expected to support their patron ‘in his public career and help him however they could’.125 The system worked because the client knew that his responsibility was ‘to acknowledge and advertise his benefactor’s generosity and power’126 and, conversely, his own inferior status.127 However, although the elite patrons could be seen as dominating those beneath them, the patron-client relationship resulted in a sense of mutual benefit.128 Peter Lampe argues that ‘power… was much less emphasized than mutual loyalty’.129 Claude Eilers maintains that Roman patronage was not an informal relationship; it was a formal one, with both parties being aware of this fact along with the requirements and responsibilities that the relationship brought.130 It was also usually a personal relationship of some duration.131 The mutual obligation could be likened to that of father and son, and could even be passed down to the next generation.132 One area in which patronage was practised was between masters and their freed slaves. Although the 120

Agosto, Servant Leadership, 87. See deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 101; Eilers, Roman Patrons. It should however be noted that during the imperial period the Latin title patronus when applied to a city patron ‘became increasingly honorific and lost much of its patronal character’ (Eilers, Roman Patrons, 105-108). 122 Agosto, ‘Patronage and Commendation’, 103. 123 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 25. 124 Eilers, Roman Patrons, 92; John H. Elliott, ‘Patronage and Clientism in Early Christian Society: A Short Reading Guide’, in Foundations & Facets Forum, 3.4 (1987), 43. 125 Eilers, Roman Patrons, 95. 126 Garnsey and Saller, ‘Patronal Power Relations’, 97; see also Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 32-33. 127 Agosto, ‘Patronage and Commendation’, 105. 128 John H. Elliott, ‘Patronage and Clientage’, in Rohrbaugh, Social Sciences, 148-49; Heen, ‘Phil. 2:6-11 and Resistance to Local Timocratic Rule’, 129; Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 26, 28. 129 Peter Lampe, ‘Paul, Patrons, and Clients’, in Sampley, Paul in the Greco-Roman World, 493. 130 Eilers, Roman Patrons, 184; contra Chow, Patronage and Power, 32; Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 38. 131 See Saller (Personal Patronage, 1), based on the work of J. Boissevain. 132 Lampe, ‘Paul, Patrons, and Clients’, 491; Sandnes, A New Family, 52. 121

50

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

slaves were now free, they were under obligation to their former masters who were now their patrons. Not only could the freedmen not take out a case against their masters, they were required to continue to serve them.133 Ritva Williams lays emphasis on the role of the broker ‘who acts as an intermediary between client and prospective patron’.134 The broker’s role is to ask for favours from a patron on behalf of a client or, conversely, to convey such favours to potential clients on behalf of the patron. We have seen above the prevalence of leaders seeking honour for themselves as well as the dominance of patronal understandings in relationships between leaders and those they lead. Later chapters will show that Paul had questions about both of these ways of thinking. Leadership in the New Testament

At the heart of this investigation is the study of the contextualisation of leadership in the New Testament. However, when talking about ‘leadership in the early church’, it must not be considered that this only takes on one shape or expression. This is hardly surprising, given the variations in leadership models found in society at large. For example, Roman colonies used a wide range of different patterns of leadership within each city.135 As noted above, this is equally true of synagogues which showed significant differences in Palestinian and Hellenistic contexts, and so it is unremarkable to discover that the early church was far from universal in its leadership understandings and structures. Gordon Fee136 rightly asserts that ‘there are no explicitly revealed church structures that serve as the divine order for all times and in all places’.137 As Robert Johnston states, the shape of the leadership in the early church was ‘fluid and evolving’ with many 133

Chow, Patronage and Power, 70; ‘Patronage in Roman Corinth’, 120-21; Murray J. Harris, Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ, in New Studies in Biblical Theology 8 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1999), 72; Lampe, ‘Paul, Patrons, and Clients’, 489. 134 Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 40. 135 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 9. 136 Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 142. 137 See also Floyd V. Filson, A New Testament History (London: SCM Press, 1965), 346; Plueddemann, Leading Across Cultures, 149. David Miller, writing from a more theologically conservative viewpoint, conversely argues that, since New Testament eldership is different from Hellenistic and Jewish models of eldership, it is not ‘a mere cultural adaptation, but a unique, divinely instituted organization, normative for believers no matter what the prevailing cultural views on governance would be’ (‘The Uniqueness of New Testament Church Eldership’, 315). However, his conclusion (322) that the ‘NT local church has a simple two-level organizational structure of a plurality of elders and a plurality of deacons (Phil. 1:1)’ is a gross over-simplification which does not square with much of the New Testament data. Even in the Pauline churches, it is apparent that there is no single model of leadership in the New Testament.

Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writing

51

different structures.138 Without accepting Dunn’s belief in the ‘scholarly consensus’ of leadership development in the early church, he is surely right in insisting that ‘leadership took several diverse forms’ before structures were clearly defined.139 Andrew Clarke believes that one reason for this was because churches used and developed a variety of leadership patterns independently of one another, often under the influence of dominant personalities in the church.140 However, he does not believe that Paul associated himself with any of the available cultural leadership models.141 Although he is right to argue that the structures of the early churches were not exclusively patterned on any existing organisation in the Graeco-Roman and Jewish contexts,142 it is highly probable that both Paul and indeed any ‘dominant personalities’ in the congregations would be influenced by the leadership models around them. Similarly, while David Miller might be right to point out differences between New Testament and other models,143 that does not mean that aspects of these models were not picked up and contextualised by the early church. Christ’s challenge to the status quo One aim in this study is to discover the reasons why certain models of leadership were accepted and promoted (or not) in the writings and ministry of the apostle Paul. Since Paul’s writings were very Christocentric, it would be surprising indeed if he were not influenced by Jesus’ attitudes to leadership.144 Before examining Paul therefore, passages in which Jesus compares the leadership he desired with that of the Gentiles will be considered briefly. Flemming remarks that Jesus was not only fully incarnated in the firstcentury Palestinian context, but he also had a vision to prophetically

138 Robert M. Johnston, ‘Leadership in the Early Church During Its First Hundred Years’, in Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17.2 (2006), 11. 139 James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity, 3rd edn (London: SCM Press, 2006), 117; see also A.L. Chapple, ‘Local Leadership in the Pauline Churches: Theological and Social Factors in Its Development – A Study Based on 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians and Philippians’, PhD thesis (University of Durham, 1984), 72, EthOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=2&uin=uk.bl.ethos.349895 (accessed 29th March 2012). 140 Clarke, Serve the Community, 169. 141 Clarke, Serve the Community, 209. 142 Clarke, Serve the Community, 169. 143 Miller, ‘The Uniqueness of New Testament Church Eldership’, 327. 144 Kathy Ehrensperger suggests that 2 Corinthians 1:24 shows that Paul was familiar with the traditions of Jesus challenging Gentile leadership styles (Matt. 20:25-26) (Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early ChristMovement (London: T. & T. Clark, 2009), 186).

52

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

challenge and transform that culture.145 This is seen in his willingness to be counter-cultural in many areas – for example, his attitude to the oral law, the way he related to women, his teaching on marriage. When considering his view of leadership, it should not be surprising, then, to see some areas in which he followed the cultural norms, and others where he sought to challenge and transform them. The process which Jesus started in his ministry continued in the early church, as will be examined later in this study. As Jesus prepared to enter Jerusalem prior to dying on the cross, he showed the disciples his radical attitude to leadership. Some of them had been upset by James and John’s desire to have special places in the kingdom,146 and so Jesus replied as follows (Matt. 20:25-28; cf. Mark 10:42-45 which is almost identical in wording): You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over (katakurieuō) them, and their high officials (archōn) exercise authority over (katexousiazō) them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant (diakonos), and whoever wants to be first must be your slave (doulos) – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve (diakoneō), and to give his life as a ransom for many.

In his Gospel, Luke records similar words of Jesus in response to a dispute as to which of the disciples was the greatest (Luke 22:25-30; cf. Mark 9:35; Luke 9:48): The kings of the Gentiles lord it (kurieuō) over them; and those who exercise authority (exousiazō) over them call themselves Benefactors (euergetēs). But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules (hēgeomai) like the one who serves (diakoneō). For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves (diakoneō)? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves (diakoneō). You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

If the events surrounding the Last Supper are recorded in chronological order in the Gospels of Luke and John, this dispute in Luke’s Gospel is highly ironical since it would have followed Jesus’ example of service in 145

Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 22. James and John’s desire was fully understandable, given the special place they had in Jesus’ life and ministry. See John C. Hutchison, ‘Servanthood: Jesus’ Counter-Cultural Call to Christian Leaders’, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 166.661 (2009), 57; Russell, Practical Theology, 3. Furthermore, as people of high social standing (cf. John 18:15), Jesus’ call to a life of slavery would be especially shocking (Hutchison, ‘Servanthood’, 67). 146

Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writing

53

the washing of his disciples’ feet in John 13147 – something so demeaning that even a Jewish slave was not required to do it.148 In John 13:13-15, Jesus tells his disciples: You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord’, and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.

The example which Jesus had given is supremely for leaders.149 Jesus had also just modelled servanthood as he waited on his disciples at the table and passed them bread and wine (Luke 22:17-20).150 Efrain Agosto draws attention to another irony in that – the placement of the disciples’ misguided quest for power just before Jesus is handed over to those who wage unjust political power is a glaring example of how disciples might fail to fully comprehend the sacrificial nature of gospel leadership as Jesus expected it to be exercised.151

In each of the above passages, after describing the leadership style of the Gentile rulers, Jesus says that his disciples are not to be like that. He recognised that their understanding of leadership was seriously deficient in terms of kingdom values and was in need of correction.152 What was it that Jesus was challenging in particular? Before examining Jesus’ main point, I consider that two secondary matters deserve mention: First, Jesus was exhorting his disciples not to lord it over others. He was challenging the leadership of Gentile leaders because they were authoritarian and exercised their authority by unbridled power and manipulation.153 This is not the model of leadership his disciples should be following.

147

Clarke, Serve the Community, 240; Howell, Servants of the Servant, 202; Jey J. Kanagaraj, ‘Johannine Jesus, the Supreme Example of Leadership: An Inquiry into John 13:1-20’, in Themelios, 29.3 (2004), 18. 148 George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1987), 233; Jerry L. Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, in Lexington Theological Quarterly, 37.1-2 (2002), 36. 149 Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 36. 150 Luke T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, in Sacra Pagina 3 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), 349. 151 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 51-52. 152 Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 767; Howell, Servants of the Servant, 223; Hwa, ‘Leadership or Servanthood?’, 197. 153 See Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, WBC 34B (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 118; Howell, Servants of the Servant, 197; Russell, Practical Theology, 4.

54

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Secondly, by referring to Gentiles kings who call themselves benefactors,154 Jesus was challenging the cultural values of patronage, and indeed rejecting the whole patron-client status system.155 There could be no place in the kingdom for those who sought to gain something for themselves by means of their ministry while at the same time putting those in their charge under obligation. What then is the main point that Jesus is making in this teaching? It is my consideration that Jesus’ key concern is that his disciples should grasp the radical nature of leadership in the kingdom of God. In the kingdom, the world’s master-servant dynamic is turned upside down.156 Greatness in the kingdom is defined by servanthood, not in terms of status and glory.157 Jesus is not simply challenging the abuse of authority, but the use of authority as ‘a means for gaining status honor’.158 As examined above, seeking honour was one of the main driving forces of Graeco-Roman culture, and so Jesus’ teaching that leadership in the kingdom should be marked by service of others would have been deeply shocking. John Hutchison claims: This radical call demanded deep, personal humility, and it violated foundational cultural values related to honor/shame and patronage that were embedded in Jewish and Greco-Roman society. Therefore becoming an effective leader… demanded a transformation of one’s view of leadership and authority.159

Jesus’ justification for this radical demand to service is shown by his own example. John Olley observes that, in each of the passages referred to 154

Frederick W. Danker alleges that Jesus is referring to ‘rulers who try to mask their tyranny with a flourish of public works’ (Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a GraecoRoman and New Testament Semantic Field (St Louis, MO: Clayton, 1982), 324). 155 Tannehill, Luke, 317. 156 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 46. R.T. France (The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Leicester: IVP, 1985), 293), Kittel (TDNT, II, 84, 86), and Rudolf Pesch (‘The New Testament Foundations of a Democratic Form of Life in the Church’, in Alois Muller (ed.), Democratization in the Church (New York: Herder & Herder, 1971), 49) also remark on the radical nature of this leadership. 157 See Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC 33B (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1995), 583; Harris, Slave of Christ, 102; Howell, Servants of the Servant, 190; William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, NICNT (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974), 382; Russell, Practical Theology, 4. However, John N. Collins doubts that Mark 10:45 talks of Jesus serving others (Deacons and the Church: Making Connections between Old and New (Leominster: Gracewing, 2002), 28-30; Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources (New York: OUP, 1990), 248-52), but his interpretation depends on him suggesting that this verse a very different meaning from Luke 22:27 where Jesus’ service is clearly likened to table service. 158 Green, Luke, 767-68; see also Tannehill, Luke, 318. 159 Hutchison, ‘Servanthood’, 54.

Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writing

55

above, ‘there is a direct comparison with the actions of Jesus himself’.160 Hermann Beyer remarks that, when Jesus asks who is greater, the one who serves or the one who is served at table (Luke 22:27), the ‘natural man – and especially the Greek – would see no difficulty in answering the question… It is obviously the latter’.161 But on the contrary, Jesus goes right against cultural norms of leadership, and says that those who want to be great should serve others just as he came to serve (Matt. 20:28).162 Jesus came to be the Messiah of God’s people, but he did not conform to the people’s expectations of a royal ruler; he came to serve men and women. If his use of the title ‘Son of Man’ in this verse is an allusion to the authoritative Son of Man in Daniel 7:9-14, his giving of himself to others in humble service is indeed remarkable.163 Immediately prior to the disciples’ dispute over position in the kingdom, Jesus refers to his coming suffering and death (Matt. 20:18-19; cf. Mark 10:33-34). As Jerry Sumney helpfully concludes: This connection between predictions of the suffering service of Jesus and the desire for position and status on the part of the disciples is not accidental. Wanting to claim authority over others is diametrically opposed to the life of imitation of Jesus, diametrically opposed to the kind of leadership to which Jesus calls men and women.164

In drawing a leadership trajectory from Jesus Christ to the church in which the apostle Paul ministered, in the following section the important question of whether the understandings and practices of leadership also changed and developed over the period covered by the letters of Paul will be addressed. The scholarly consensus The role of the Holy Spirit in the establishment of church leadership will be examined shortly. However, at this point it is important to examine the contention that formal church leaders were only recognised in the church

160

Olley, ‘Leadership’, 4. Kittel, TDNT, II, 84. 162 Hutchison, ‘Servanthood’, 64-66; Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 46. 163 Howell, Servants of the Servant, 198. 164 Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 34-35; see also Hutchison, ‘Servanthood’, 57; Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Vol. 1: The Gospel According to Luke (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986), 254. Although in Luke’s account Jesus states that the disciples would one day judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:30), this status is to be shown by servanthood. Indeed, following Jesus’ example, ‘since they possess status, they are to serve others, not to expect deference’ (35). 161

56

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

after a period of institutionalisation.165 According to this hypothesis, in the early days of the church, especially the Pauline churches, there were no official local leaders in any organised sense, but only informal leaders recognised by their charismatic166 credentials.167 The Spirit was ‘the organising principle of the Christian congregation’.168 However, this situation was radically changed by the time of the Pastoral Letters when leadership became institutionalised with the appointment of overseers, elders and deacons using criteria other than the Spirit’s election. For James Dunn, this institutionalisation was a ‘fruit of a growing rapprochement between the more formal structures which Jewish Christianity took over from the synagogue and the more dynamic charismatic structure of the Pauline churches after Paul’s death’.169

165 German theologian and church historian Rudolf Sohm was one of the first scholars to posit this thesis (see Campbell, The Elders, 3-10). Others supporting this approach include Hans von Campenhausen (Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997 [1969])), Dunn (Unity and Diversity), Ernst Käsemann (Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM Press, 1964), 63-94), and Eduard Schweizer (Church Order in the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology, 32 (London: SCM Press, 1961)). Edward Schillebeeckx also accepts a developmental model of leadership, although his emphasis is rather different. He believes that, after the early years of the New Testament church, the structural change is not from charismatic to institutional leaders, but rather from many charismatic leaders to a few charismatic leaders (The Church with a Human Face, 121). Jürgen Moltmann similarly sees this process in the western church leading ‘to the reduction of the “charismatic community” to the charisma of the one ministry’ (History and the Triune God, 63). Burtchaell gives a very good historical overview of how theologians of the different branches of the church have viewed the New Testament model of church officers and leadership structures (From Synagogue to Church). 166 For the concept of charismatic authority, see Max Weber (eds Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich), Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (3 vols; Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1968), I, 241-45; II, 1111-20. In this section I am using the word ‘charismatic’ in a Weberian way – indicating a special empowering from God. For Paul, of course, charismatic gifting includes even routine ministries, as Campbell (The Elders, 103-04, 250-51) and Bengt Holmberg (Paul and Power, 121; ‘Sociological Versus Theological Analysis of the Question Concerning a Pauline Church Order’, in Sigfred Pedersen (ed.), Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie: The Pauline Literature and Theology (Århus: Aros, 1980), 195) rightly observe. 167 See Schweizer, Church Order, 99. Gordon D. Fee, a New Testament scholar from a Pentecostal background, similarly suggests that the early church did have ‘identifiable leadership’, but they were not clergy but ‘simply part of the whole people of God’ (Gospel and Spirit, 122; see also 132; The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 207). 168 Von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 58. 169 Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 124; see also von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 77.

Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writing

57

By the time of Ignatius in the early second century, a monarchical government had developed in some churches with an authoritative bishop presiding over the elders and deacons.170 However, the strength of Ignatius’ defence of the bishop’s authority implies that this was not universally accepted and that the transition to this form of government was gradual.171 By the time of Clement of Rome, leadership began to be even more institutionalised with the promotion of the concept of apostolic succession (1 Clement 44:2). By the fourth century, the church had taken ‘decisive steps… towards aristocratic clericalism’.172 I contend that the above developmental thesis is an important consideration, because if it is true, it is possible that leadership models primarily arose, not as a result of the contextualisation factors already mentioned (God’s activity and word, and the missional context), but by a process of institutionalisation, which is ultimately likely to be a reactionary force limiting and even preventing contextualisation from taking place. The view that the institutionalisation of church offices was a later development in the early church is described by James Burtchaell as the consensus of New Testament scholarship.173 Even though leadership titles are sometimes found in Paul’s earlier letters (e.g. Rom. 16:1; Phil. 1:1), it is considered that these do not represent authoritative offices.174 The real authority is seen to lie in the hands of the charismatic leaders as they follow the Spirit’s enabling. This only began to change by the time of the Pastoral Epistles in which it has been observed that charisma does not seem to be the main factor determining suitability for leadership.175 Efrain Agosto argues that this is symptomatic of a church which has moved away from a charismatic leadership pattern and begun to institutionalise.176

170

See Francis Sullivan for a clear description of this process (From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church (Mahwah, NJ: Newman, 2001)), as well as Ritva Williams for a critique of his theological conclusions (Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 2-3). 171 F.F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame: The Rise and Progress of Christianity from Its First Beginnings to the Conversion of the English (London: Paternoster, 1958), 203-05; Filson, New Testament History, 349; A.T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, NCB (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 33. 172 Alan Kreider, ‘Abolishing the Laity: An Anabaptist Perspective’, in Paul BeasleyMurray (ed.), Anyone for Ordination? (London: Monarch, 1993), 91. 173 Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 180-84. 174 Elders are also found in the Acts of the Apostles (e.g. Acts 11:30; 14:23), although this work is usually dated later than the early letters of Paul. 175 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 347-50. 176 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 4. Elisabeth Fiorenza suggests a variation of this model by arguing that there was a shift ‘from charismatic and communal authority to an authority vested in local officers’, who would be ‘restricted to male heads of households’ (In Memory of Her, 286-87).

58

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Institutionalisation is of course inevitable in any organisation,177 and as time goes by, informal leadership roles tend to become formalised as offices.178 However, not all scholars accept the so-called consensus. Among the concerns they have expressed are the following: i) Swedish scholar Bengt Holmberg, who is renowned for his application of sociology to the study of the New Testament, points to a methodological ‘fallacy of idealism’ in which too much weight is given to Paul’s theological ideas and not enough to the social factors influencing the development of the early church.179 For example, Paul’s teaching on the spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians should not be seen as the only factor which determined the nature of leadership in the Corinthian church; contextual social factors were also very influential. Margaret MacDonald wisely cautions: ‘The leadership structures of Paul’s communities are not shaped in a straightforward manner by his theology; the relationship between the structures and the ideas is dialectical.’180 ii) It is not right to assume that the presence of offices is inconsistent with submission to the Spirit’s rule.181 As Ronald Fung points out, Paul himself exercised charismatic gifts, but he also had official authority as a recognised apostle.182 Johnson draws attention to ‘the conviction attested to Paul’s letters, in Acts, and in other NT writings, that there is no essential incompatibility between a prophetic self-consciousness or a charismatic awareness, and ecclesiastical structure’.183 However, is it fair to argue that the institutionalisation of the church did nevertheless result in a de-emphasising of the charismatic dimension of leadership by the time of the Pastorals? An examination of the letters shows this to be mistaken. Although there are well-defined character qualifications listed in the Pastoral Letters, there is also an emphasis on the Spirit’s role. Timothy’s appointment was clearly connected with prophetic messages (1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14), and his gifting was considered by Paul to be divine in origin (2 Tim. 1:6-7). Paul also emphasised the indispensability of the Spirit’s help in guarding the gospel ministry (2 Tim. 1:14; cf. 1 Tim. 4:1). It does not seem to be fair to argue that the charismatic age had finished by the time of the 177

Holmberg, Paul and Power, 172-75. Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 107, 444. 179 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 201-203; see also Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 37-69; Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 15. 180 MacDonald, The Pauline Churches, 60. Chapple similarly argues that ‘the absence of office in any Pauline church cannot be interpreted solely as a consequence of Pauline theology’ (‘Local Leadership’, 42). 181 Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 44; Kevin Giles, Patterns of Ministry Among the First Christians (North Blackburn: CollinsDove, 1989), 18. 182 Ronald Y.K. Fung, ‘Charismatic Versus Organized Ministry?: An Examination of an Alleged Antithesis’, in Evangelical Quarterly, 52 (1980), 210. 183 Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, 257. 178

Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writing

59

Pastorals. Fung is right to conclude that ‘the Holy Spirit is far from being forgotten or imprisoned as “the ministerial Spirit”’.184 The more formalised offices of the second-generation church context do indeed have a charismatic dimension,185 with the role of the Spirit continuing to be of considerable importance. iii) Andrew Clarke maintains that, although continental protestant scholarship has argued that there was little formal leadership in the earliest Christian churches,186 the lack of mention of offices in the earliest communities does not mean that there were no leaders.187 He believes that ‘an emphasis on the presence or absence of these titles has proved to be a flawed approach to recovering these early ecclesiologies’.188 He maintains that there is evidence in the Pauline letters to suggest that each of the early church communities did indeed have leaders,189 and he argues that the ecclesiology of Paul’s early letters is not as different from that of the Pastorals as is sometimes claimed.190 Margaret MacDonald, a professor at St Francis Xavier University, Canada, who is well known for her study of the social context of the Pauline letters, accepts a process of institutionalisation over time, but does not believe that this means that there was no formal leadership in the earliest churches.191 Furthermore, she does see ‘a certain continuity between earlier and later stages of development in terms of an ongoing process of institutionalization’.192 Clarke, following a study of the use of the word proistēmi (‘to lead’) in the Pauline corpus, concludes that – these leaders who, in large measure share similar duties and qualities, are identified in a number of different Pauline epistles, ranging from the earliest (1 Thessalonians) to the latest (the Pastoral Epistles). This combination of texts suggests the significant possibility that there was remarkable consistency across 184

Ronald Y.K. Fung, ‘Ministry in the New Testament’, in Carson, Church in the Bible and the World, 170. 185 Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 54. 186 Clarke, Serve the Community, 171-72; see also C.K. Barrett, Church, Ministry, and Sacraments in the New Testament (Exeter: Paternoster, 1985), 33; George B. Caird (completed and ed. L.D. Hurst), New Testament Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 233. Fung maintains that some Pauline churches had officers, e.g. Corinth, but not all (‘Ministry in the New Testament’, 165-67). 187 Chapple (‘Local Leadership’, 209, 362) and Burtchaell (From Synagogue to Church, 184-93) also question such arguments from silence. 188 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 42. 189 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 16. 190 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 4; see also Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIBC 13 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 23. Kevin Giles also believes that the evidence of the New Testament indicates ‘that from the beginning, elements of the concept of office began to emerge in the Pauline churches’ (Patterns of Ministry, 18). 191 MacDonald, The Pauline Churches, 203-20. 192 MacDonald, The Pauline Churches, 60.

60

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul the Pauline congregations during the New Testament period… this is not to suggest that there is little institutionalisation in the later contexts, but simply that the later contexts are not as markedly different from the earlier ones as the majority of scholars have held; and certainly that the differences between the later and the earlier letters are not sufficiently clear to demand that the same terms in both should be understood differently… There may have been differences between these churches in terms of the name and number of titled roles that each required; but, nonetheless, such titled roles existed in communities represented by a significant number of the letters, and deriving from a significantly wide time period, and addressed to quite different geographical areas.193

iv) Holmberg questions the scholarly consensus for its over-dependence on the situation in the Corinthian church which, given its disorder, was probably not typical.194 Although Paul makes little mention of church officers in 1 Corinthians, Clarke maintains that his whole letter shows a deep concern at the state of leadership in the community:195 This scholarly ‘consensus’ was put off the scent of leadership in the earliest Pauline communities precisely because of the lack of specific references to leadership in some of Paul’s epistles, not realising that his deliberate avoidance of this term was an eschewing of what it stood for, rather than a signal that leadership did not exist at this stage.196

v) Holmberg proposes that one reason Paul did not put weight on the local church officers was because he himself was still in a position of authority over the churches concerned.197 However, Paul did expect churches to exercise right leadership (e.g. 1 Cor. 6:2), so it does not seem likely that he would have deliberately overlooked local leaders. George Knight is probably right to suggest that there is no reason to refer to officers in the New Testament letters ‘because the letters are ministering directly to the entire congregation through instruction and persuasion’.198 Of course, as the apostles began to be removed from the scene, local leaders would necessarily have to take more responsibility.199 In conclusion, it does seem to be legitimate to argue that there were recognized local leaders all the way through the New Testament period of the early church, and that it is fair to examine the process of contextualisation of leadership throughout this era.

193

Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 73. Holmberg, ‘Sociological Versus Theological Analysis’, 192-95. 195 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 132. 196 Clarke, Serve the Community, 252. 197 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 116. 198 Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 175. 199 Campbell, The Elders, 130; Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 184. 194

Background to Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writing

61

Congregational size It has long been maintained that Pauline letters include household codes (Haustafeln) which reflect an understanding of local congregations as households meeting in the home of a wealthy believer who often acted as a patron of the church.200 Andrew Clarke, building on the work of R.W. Gehring, argues that, throughout the time of the Pauline letters, believers met in homes (e.g. Acts 20:20; Rom. 16:5).201 This has profound implications for our understanding of the size of the communities to whom Paul was writing. Clarke maintains that ‘we ought to presuppose that these early Christian gatherings were normally small, and distributed over a number of domestic settings within a town, as opposed to large, and normally meeting together’.202 It should however be recognised that the factionalism and relationship problems which arose in Corinth do imply a church of several dozen.203 The size of a group affects its leadership.204 In the early church, the size of a given congregation necessarily influenced its leadership structures.205 R.W. Gehring rightly remarks: The smaller the churches, the less they would have distanced themselves from the household unit, the more closely they would have been intertwined with oikos [household] structures, and the greater the potential would have been for the ancient oikos to influence the social reality of the community.206

Clarke argues that churches had different combinations of elders, overseers and deacons, depending on how many churches were located in a given area, and how big they were.207 A church which is basically an extended household meeting in a private house will not need the same leadership structure as a large church meeting.208 There is however little evidence in the New Testament that large congregations were common. Clarke argues that – the contexts reflected in the Pastoral Epistles and Philippians, and perhaps throughout the Pauline congregations, is one where the domestic unit remained

200

Sandnes, A New Family, 107. See also ch. 3, footnote 147, concerning the belief that churches met in tenements. 201 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 44-45; Gehring, House Church and Mission, 119-228. 202 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 45. 203 John L. Hiigel, Leadership in 1 Corinthians: A Case Study in Paul’s Ecclesiology, Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 57 (Lampeter: Edwin Mellen, 2003), 17. 204 Bass and Bass, Handbook of Leadership, 768. 205 Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 88-89. 206 Gehring, House Church and Mission, 25. 207 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 74; see also Campbell, The Elders, 129, 131. 208 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 43.

62

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul dominant, each with their appointed overseer qualified to teach and refute from the word of God, as well as care for those in their group.209

Consequently, in contextualising leadership, care should be taken not to force any one Pauline model onto a very different context today. Clarke wisely questions – whether this Pauline structure can be readily transposed to churches where the primary congregational unit is large, the setting is non-domestic, and where the strategy, enterprise and principal activities of the church have a different focus and are of a different order of magnitude.210

209 210

Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 59. Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 76, n. 148.

Chapter 3 Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: God’s Activity and Word, and the Use of Titles

Books claiming to offer a biblical model of leadership are manifold. As readers assess the variety of approaches espoused by the authors of these books, they unconsciously tend to favour those which are closest to the values favoured in their own cultures.1 Chua Wee Hian cites an African pastor who remarked that ‘some Christian books on leadership were simply echoing secular books on management and “baptizing” certain principles with proof texts from Scripture’.2 To prevent us from falling into such a proof-text theology, it is important to understand how leadership was contextualised in the New Testament church, and in those influenced by the apostle Paul in particular. Plueddemann looks to Scripture for a ‘synthesis of principles’ about leadership,3 but the aim of this research is to go beyond that in order to identify the theology which influenced the process of the contextualisation of leadership. In Chapters 3 and 4, particular attention will be given to examining how leadership was contextualised in Paul’s ministry and writings as the church both built on existing models and challenged them. Given the limited data in the New Testament, some caution must be exercised before building a systematic Pauline theology of leadership contextualisation. Andrew Clarke states that, since the New Testament documents are on the whole reactive rather than prescriptive, it is not always possible to reconstruct the actual leadership situation in the New Testament churches.4 Where leadership was functioning well, Paul had little need to give further instruction.5 It was primarily where there were weaknesses and difficulties in the leadership that Paul gave teaching to address the problems concerned – for example, at Corinth. Furthermore, Clarke argues that the variety of contexts addressed in the Pauline letters adds to the difficulty: ‘Where Paul’s statements about community organization are read without awareness of the situations that prompted them, then a non-contextual reading is likely to ensue.’6 However, the variety of contexts may also be a benefit, because if some of the data about 1

Plueddemann, Leading Across Cultures, 64-65. Chua Wee Hian, Learning to Lead: Biblical Leadership Then and Now (Leicester: IVP, 1987), 10. 3 Plueddemann, Leading Across Cultures, 65. 4 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 5-6; Serve the Community, 170. 5 See Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 139. 6 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 15; see also 6, 7, 18-19. 2

64

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

leadership is repeated in several contexts, the interpreter has more confidence to draw out general principles.7 I acknowledge that on occasion I may make generalisations which are not true in every situation.8 However, the purpose of this book is not to undertake in-depth biblical exegesis but applied theology. It will not be possible to consider the detailed context of every biblical text to which I refer, but the aim of this part of the study is to identify how the contextualisation of leadership was exhibited in a variety of contexts by identifying some of the common patterns and directions of contextualisation. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles records a variety of leadership models with little explanation of how or why they were followed or changed,9 and Paul’s own writings are necessarily limited to his perspective. It must also be recognised that the leadership structures which developed in churches which Paul planted may not have been at Paul’s instigation.10 Even where leadership is discussed in some depth, as in the Pastorals, it is not possible to be sure to what extent these patterns were followed in practice. Clarke is correct to criticise commentators for making little distinction ‘between how church life was actually ordered, as opposed to how it ought to have been ordered’.11 While this is a valid criticism, from a contextual perspective it is not so important. Whether Paul is giving teaching which reveals his understanding of the nature of leadership in 2 Corinthians, or whether the church in Philippi independently decides on a leadership of overseers and deacons, both Paul and the Philippian church are consciously or unconsciously influenced by (or challenging) the cultural norms of leadership. In Chapters 3 and 4, the focus will be placed on describing this contextualisation, with a view to identifying the theological influences at work in this process which will be drawn out in Chapter 5. In Chapter 1, with particular reference to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, the factors which influenced the process of contextualisation were examined, i.e. God’s activity and word, and the missional context. Chapters 3 and 4 consider how these same factors are exhibited in Paul’s style of leadership in ministry, and in his understanding of leadership as expressed in his writings. The main emphasis is put on the missional context since my own examination of Paul’s ministry and writings shows that this is the area where contextualisation is most clearly exhibited. In this current chapter, after exploring how contextualisation in Paul was influenced by the work of the Holy Spirit and through Scripture, the use of titles in the context and in 7

Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 16. See Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 134; Jeffers, Conflict at Rome, 1. 9 Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 121, n. 3. 10 Kloppenborg, ‘Egalitarianism’, 248, 252-53. 11 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 13; see also Chow, Patronage and Power, 14. 8

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

65

the Pauline churches is evaluated, as well as the organisational structures associated with some of these. God’s Activity and Word The Spirit’s activity In the eighteenth century, the book of the Acts of the Apostles was entitled ‘The Acts of the Holy Spirit’ by Johann Albrecht Bengel.12 It is clear from an examination of the New Testament documents that the early Christians believed that the Spirit was God’s instrument in the establishment and growth of the church. It should not be surprising, therefore, to expect the Spirit to be influential in the appointment and development of leadership in the church. Eduard Schweizer, the Swiss New Testament scholar, may be overstating things when maintaining that, in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke ‘refers to the Spirit as determining the Church’s order’.13 However, it is certainly true that the New Testament writers show the Spirit’s involvement in the appointment, organisation and empowering of leaders. For example, the choice of Saul and Barnabas to be sent as missionaries was largely a result of direct guidance by the Spirit of God, first to Saul himself (Acts 26:16-18), then to Ananias (Acts 9:15), and finally to the church at Antioch (Acts 13:2). Although it might be considered that Paul’s qualifications as a Jew brought up in a Gentile context and then trained under Gamaliel were most significant, for Luke (and Paul) the most important criterion was the leading of the Spirit of Jesus. Paul’s history as a persecutor of God’s church (Acts 22:4; 1 Cor. 15:9) might suggest that he was a less than suitable candidate to become a leader of the church. This makes the Spirit’s leading so significant. No church would have had Paul on their short-list for apostolic appointment! However, Paul knew that his authority as an apostle came as a result of the commissioning he had received from the risen Christ (Gal. 1:1; Col. 1:25). When Paul appointed elders in the churches he had planted (Acts 14:23), it is unclear what method or criteria for appointment was followed, but he recognised that it was the Holy Spirit who made the elders in Ephesus overseers (Acts 20:28).14 This was perhaps because the gifts (charismata) they possessed showed that the Spirit had set them apart for ministry.15 In 12

Stott, The Message of Acts, 33. Schweizer, Church Order, 75; see also von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 131. 14 Gehring, House Church and Mission, 202. 15 See Fung, ‘Ministry in the New Testament’, 166. John Koenig argues that ‘the offices of New Testament leaders are determined chiefly by charisma’ (‘Hierarchy Transfigured: Perspectives on Leadership in the New Testament’, in Word & World, 13.1 (1993), 32). Helen Doohan also writes: ‘Leadership in the early church is directed 13

66

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Paul’s letters, leadership gifts are among the charismata he lists (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11-13). Although the development of church government in the early church is complex, the emphasis on spiritual gifts in Paul’s writings suggests that the Spirit’s leading carries a greater weight than adherence to Jewish synagogue structures which would have been most familiar to him.16 Paul exhorts Timothy not to neglect the gift he had received, thus showing the importance he places on gifts in church leadership (1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14), with the Spirit ‘the crucial matter’ in the recognition of Timothy’s ministry.17 Dean Flemming asserts that the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11 are ‘leadership functions’, and not ‘church offices’.18 However, he argues that there is no indication in the New Testament of ‘a two-tiered concept of ministry – one functional and charismatic, and [the] other static and official’.19 Even when official titles are used, ‘their functional and charismatic character is never far from view’.20 The fact that leaders were ordained to a particular office did not necessarily mean that toward the community and often exercised within the community. The community members are asked to discern and to test the authenticity of its manifestations. An underlying conviction is one that understands true leadership to be the work of the Spirit and not merely the reflection of human ability or talent. In fact, authority, so intimately connected with the exercise of leadership, is seen primarily as a gift of the Spirit’ (Leadership in Paul, 22-23). 16 Olley, ‘Leadership’, 16. 17 Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 108. It is however possible that Timothy had not demonstrated particular leadership potential before his ‘ordination’ but was endued with the gift of leadership subsequently (David Harley, personal communication, 5th December 2012; see also Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 288; contra William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC 46 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 261). 18 Dean Flemming, ‘The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy: A New Testament Exegetical and Theological Analysis’, in Asia Journal of Theology, 8.2 (1994), 239; see also Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 619; Johnston, ‘Leadership in the Early Church’, 3. U. Brockhaus ‘sums up the constitutive characteristics of ‘office’ as: (1) duration, (2) recognition by the congregation, (3) the special status of the individual in relation to the congregation (authority, dignity), (4) a well-ordered commission (laying on of hands), (5) legal securing of the function in question’ (Charisma und Amt. Die paulinische Charismenlehre auf dem Hintergrund der frühchristlichen Gemeindefunktionen (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1972), 24, n. 106, cited in James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 566, n. 3). 19 This influential view based on a study of the Didache was made popular by Adolf von Harnack, The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (New York: Putnam), I, 398-461, cited in Horrell, ‘Leadership Patterns’, 324, n. 2). However, it should be remembered that in the Old Testament both the functional ministry of the priests and the charismatic ministry of the prophets are observed (David Harley, personal communication, 5th December 2012). 20 Flemming, ‘The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy’, 240; see also Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 271-72.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

67

they were endowed with authority. Their authority came from being appointed and enabled by the Spirit.21 Charismatic leadership gifts are Godgiven, just like all the other gifts. Robert Johnston argues that by ‘placing apostleship among the charismata, Paul completes its “democratization”, making it available to anyone to whom the Holy Spirit should choose to distribute it’.22 Paul’s emphasis on gifts being given to all the members of the body (1 Cor. 12:7) thus leads to a counter-cultural leadership model.23 Since these gifts are God-given, all are necessary and are not a reflection of any inherent status in their recipients. Although the picture of members of the body seems to imply that some are more important than others, often the gifts which seem to be the least honourable are actually the most important, and all the members of the body participate in the ministry of the church (1 Cor. 12:22-25).24 This metaphor vividly shows that there can be no place for precedence and honour-seeking.25 Paul’s teaching on the body is therefore ‘explicitly anti-hierarchical’.26 As will be seen below, the Spirit’s activity is not the only factor influencing New Testament leadership and its contextualisation. First, gospel messengers are not authorised by their spiritual gifts; their authority comes from that of the gospel they proclaim.27 Secondly, the existing social structures were highly influential in governing how leadership was exercised in the early church. As MacDonald convincingly argues: 21

Flemming, ‘The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy’, 242. Dunn too emphasises that ‘authority in the primitive church was primarily charismatic in character’ (Jesus and the Spirit, 182; see also The Theology of Paul, 586). However, unlike Flemming, he would limit this charismatic influence to the early beginnings of the church prior to institutionalisation of the Jerusalem church under James’s leadership. 22 Johnston, ‘Leadership in the Early Church’, 6. 23 James Plueddemann asserts that Paul’s use of the body metaphor in 1 Corinthians 12 challenged the prevailing high-power-distance leadership understanding (Leading Across Cultures, 107-08). 24 Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 37-38. 25 David L. Bartlett, Ministry in the New Testament (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001 [1993]), 48; deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 222. 26 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 119; see also Bartchy, ‘Undermining Ancient Patriarchy’, 76; Hiigel, Leadership in 1 Corinthians, 104-05. Clarke (A Pauline Theology, 91) cites John Elliott (‘The Jesus Movement’, 182) as arguing that ‘preferential treatment or greater honour accorded to some over others’ shows that the body is not egalitarian. However, this passage actually speaks against giving greater honour to leaders since Paul makes clear that God gives honour to the members of the body that seem to be less honourable – clearly not the leaders (1 Cor. 12:23). Nevertheless, it should be remembered that Paul’s de-emphasis on status was a response to the situation in Corinth where status was given undue weight (Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 135). See also pp. 127-29 for further discussion on Paul’s view of hierarchical leadership. 27 Sandra H. Polaski, Paul and the Discourse of Power (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 34.

68

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul The picture of the organization of the Pauline communities as being purely pneumatic, which represents the starting point for much writing on the development of the church, is deficient because it does not fully take into account the relationship between beliefs, social structures and social setting.28

The teaching of Scripture Scripture is used by many churches as the prime foundation for their doctrine. However, how important was it for the apostle Paul as he contextualised leadership in the early church? Did he simply follow the Spirit’s leading as he sought to use or modify the leadership patterns of the culture, or did Scripture influence the process of his contextualising? An examination of Paul’s ministry and writings shows that, for Paul, contextualisation of leadership was indeed influenced by Scripture, if not explicitly, then implicitly, on account of his thinking being imbued by it, as a result of his upbringing, his rabbinical training and his post-conversion reflection. When Paul’s gospel was under threat, he saw the need to defend it. It is my contention that one of the reasons he could do this so boldly stemmed from his understanding that he was following in the footsteps of the leaders and prophets of the Old Testament. Like Jeremiah, Paul knew that he had been set apart from birth, and that he was sent by God to the nations (Rom. 1:5 (Gk);29 Gal. 1:1, 15; cf. Jer. 1:5). He had similarly been given authority to build up the people of God (2 Cor. 10:4, 8; 13:10; cf. Jer. 1:10). The defence of his apostleship in 2 Corinthians 12:12 in which he refers to the ‘things that mark an apostle – signs, wonders and miracles’ may be an allusion to Moses’ accreditation (Ex. 4:1-9; Num. 14:11; Deut. 34:10-12). His right as an apostle to be paid was based on an application of Deuteronomy 25:4 which teaches that oxen should be allowed to eat while treading out the grain (1 Cor. 9:9). Likewise, he uses the principle of temple workers being fed from the offerings as a model for paid ministry in the New Testament (1 Cor. 9:13). All these things show how Paul allowed Scripture to control his own apostolic self-understanding. As observed above, those in Graeco-Roman society who desired to be leaders made every effort to seek honour. However, Paul rejected this approach to leadership. The reason for this is found in his desire that God should have all the praise and glory.30 In writing to the Thessalonians, Paul contrasted his leadership style with that of others in making clear that he was not looking for man’s glory (doxa) (1 Thess. 2:5-6) (see ch. 2, footnote 95). Likewise, in the Corinthian context, in which parties within the church 28

MacDonald, The Pauline Churches, 60. ‘δι᾿οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ’. 30 See pp. 156-60 for a theological evaluation of this. 29

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

69

had put their favoured leaders on pedestals, Paul warns the church not to take pride in them since it is God who will grant leaders their praise on the judgement day (1 Cor. 4:5-6) – the word for praise (epainos) being another word used to describe honour in the Graeco-Roman context. However, Paul knew that, ultimately, God was the only one to whom praise, glory and honour should be ascribed (Rom. 16:27; Eph. 3:21; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16). Paul did not boast in himself (except of his weakness), but only in the Lord (2 Cor. 11:30-31; 12:5, 9).31 This was a result of Paul’s knowledge of the Old Testament which controlled the contextualisation of his leadership style. He was following the example of the psalmist in Psalm 29:1 who urges the mighty to ascribe to God glory and strength (timē in the LXX meaning ‘honour’). In 1 Corinthians 1:31 and 2 Corinthians 10:17, Paul exhorts the Corinthians by saying: ‘Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.’ Under the constraint of Jeremiah’s prophetic example, Paul is summarising the words of Jeremiah 9:23-24: Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight.32

In Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, the consciousness of his own weakness is consistent with the leadership of many of the Old Testament characters, e.g. Moses (Ex. 3:11–4:17), Gideon (Jdg 6:15; 7:7), Jeremiah (Jer. 1:6).33 Paul’s own apparent timidity in dealing with the Corinthians was based on the traditions he had received about Christ who was meek and gentle (2 Cor. 10:1).34 He contrasts his weakness with the apparent strength of the false apostles who were following a contemporary cultural pattern. Even the weaknesses and deprivations he lists there are more consistent with the lives of Old Testament prophets than with the leaders of his day.35 The sincere motivation in his ministry he exhibited (2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2) was also in striking contrast to the travelling orators of that time,36 as well as to the deviousness of the false apostles. There could be an allusion here to the false prophets of Jeremiah’s time (Jer. 23:25-32). In these ways, Paul 31

Savage, Power Through Weakness, 63. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 63-64. 33 Ehrensperger also draws attention to Psalm 72’s description of the ideal king who cares for the weak and suffering (Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 98-99). 34 Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 106, 112. 35 Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 109. 36 Steve Walton, ‘Paul, Patronage and Pay: What Do We Know About the Apostle’s Financial Support?’, in Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner (eds.), Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology and Practice, Library of New Testament Studies 420 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2011), 224-25. 32

70

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

allowed Scripture to influence his behaviour in a way which would challenge cultural norms very strongly. In Paul’s writings, some of the titles used are the same as those of the LXX, e.g. elder (presbuteros), teacher (didaskolos), servant of God (doulos Theou). Some other titles found in the LXX he did not use of Christian leaders, e.g. ruler (archōn), priest (hiereus), governor (hēgemōn). When examining these in detail below, the influence of the Old Testament on the contextualisation of leadership will be considered further. The Missional Context: The Use of Titles

When the early church appointed leaders, did it uncritically follow leadership structures found in society? Or did it reject them totally and develop its own patterns under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Leon Morris argues for the radical nature of Christian ministry: ‘Christianity was no slick imitation of existing ecclesiastical organizations. It made no attempt to set up a hierarchy modelled on previously existing institutions.’37 However, while it is legitimate to maintain that Paul did not take over any model, lock, stock and barrel, it is not correct to say that Paul made no use of existing leadership models at all. One of the conclusions of this investigation is that Paul often built on existing leadership structures and understandings as he worked with the churches in the Graeco-Roman context. Because he was very familiar with the cultures he encountered, he was well able to contextualise the gospel to make it understandable in the contexts in which he ministered. In order to do this he was willing to make use of the ‘conventions and institutions of Graeco-Roman society in the service of the gospel’.38 This theological study examines how leadership in the New Testament church was contextualised both by Paul himself and by others he related to. The two dominant influences on the church of the day will be considered – Judaism and the Graeco-Roman culture – while recognising that a clear distinction cannot be made since there was much overlapping. Albert Harrill correctly warns of the danger of setting up ‘an artificial cultural dichotomy’ between the two.39 Judaism in the time of the early church was partially Hellenised, and Jewish leadership was also

37

Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: IVP, 1964), 35. Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 133. 39 Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament, 2. 38

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

71

influenced by the Roman world.40 Furthermore, the Graeco-Roman context was also affected by oriental thought.41 As has already been noted, there is no single leadership pattern or church organisational structure which was either applied to, or required in, all New Testament churches.42 On the contrary, what is discovered is a wide variety of leadership patterns, which varied in configuration and operation from place to place according to the given context and its needs.43 Charles Kraft suggests that what is observed is – a series of experiments with cultural appropriateness ranging from a communal approach (Acts 2:42-47) to, apparently, leadership by a council of ‘apostles and elders’ (Acts 15:4, 6, 22), to the more highly structured patterns in the pastoral epistles. In each case the pattern developed in response to the felt needs of the members of the culture and sub-culture in which the particular local church operated.44

For the rest of this chapter and for most of Chapter 4 the influence of the missional context on the contextualisation of leadership will therefore be examined. The purpose of this part of the study is to identify which contextual models were used and built on, and which ones were rejected or transformed in leadership selection, structures and practice. Some of these models may have been consciously pursued; others may have influenced the church and its leadership in a more subliminal way as a result of Jewish

40 See Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, 119. As has been seen above (ch. 2, footnote 9), it should also be remembered that outside the New Testament there are few literary materials describing Judaism before AD 70, although in recent years a clearer picture has been built up as a result of archaeological finds. However, many of these refer to the Diaspora rather than Palestinian Judaism (Clarke, Serve the Community, 103). 41 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, xvii. 42 Schweizer, Church Order, 15. 43 See Bartlett, Ministry in the New Testament, 24, 39; Hans von Campenhausen, Tradition and Life in the Church: Essays and Lectures in Church History (London: Collins, 1968), 131; Doohan, Leadership in Paul, 23, 77; Flemming, ‘The Third Horizon’, 149; Lingenfelter, Transforming Culture, 144; Nicholls, Contextualization, 65; Pesch, ‘The New Testament Foundations’, 58. Miroslav Volf maintains that ‘the New Testament does not contain any unified, theologically reflected view of church organization, but rather only the various witnesses concerning the manner in which the early churches regulated their own lives within various cultural spheres’ (After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 245). Kevin J. Bidwell, writing from an evangelical Presbyterian perspective, suggests that this implies a liberal view of Scripture, but that is not fair unless one comes with a preconceived view that there is only one New Testament church structure (‘The Church as the Image of the Trinity’: A Critical Evaluation of Miroslav Volf’s Ecclesial Model (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 217). 44 Kraft, Christianity in Culture, 323.

72

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

or Graeco-Roman worldview assumptions. Chapter 5 will look more deeply at the theological influences at work in the choices which were made. In examining the influence of the missional context on the contextualisation of leadership, the first area to consider is the use of titles by the church. Wayne Meeks, who is renowned for his study of the social history of the early church, observes the limited number of titles used in the church compared with the ‘positive exuberance in the awarding and holding of offices’ in private associations in the Graeco-Roman context.45 Andrew Clarke likewise remarks that the first-century Graeco-Roman world was preoccupied with the use of titles, as shown by the most influential people being ‘those who had accrued to themselves a string of both religious and political titles of office’.46 Such titles were often honorary and unrelated to the individual’s skill, or sometimes even to the role that the title implied. Clarke maintains that the New Testament indicates that the earliest churches did not adopt a generic term for ‘leader’.47 He argues that throughout his writings, Paul preferred to refer to leaders as co-workers rather than as holders of a formal title, and indeed he does not give much attention to the meaning and significance of titles of office.48 Paul does not seem to address church leaders, except in Philippians 1:149 – and perhaps there because of ‘self-serving attitudes’ that may have ‘had their origin among the leaders of the [Philippian church] community’.50 As was discussed above, some scholars conclude from the lack of references to leaders that they were uncommon in the early churches. For example, James Dunn suggests that the church in 1 Corinthians had few obvious leaders, with Paul not encouraging their appointment.51 Dunn and others, following the scholarly consensus, believe that leadership titles and offices only occurred as the church slipped into institutionalisation.52 However, Clarke has clearly shown that, in the Graeco-Roman context, the paucity of references to leaders does not mean that there were none.53 On the contrary, the first Corinthian letter is dealing with wrong understandings of leadership in the church community. It is also possible that the leaders’ involvement in the church’s problems prevented Paul from

45

Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 134. Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 46. 47 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 1. 48 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 47. 49 Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 135-36; Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 285; Unity and Diversity, 122-23. 50 Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, WBC 43 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1983), 10. 51 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 285. 52 See the discussion on pp. 55-60. 53 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 132. 46

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

73

addressing them directly.54 Clarke furthermore notes that in Corinth and Thessalonica Paul encourages the believers to submit to those in authority over them (1 Cor. 16:16; 1 Thess. 5:12-13), although, interestingly, he gives them no official title.55 Authority did not come from the status that a title brings. Although it is right to emphasise Paul’s reliance on the leadership of the charismatic Spirit, my examination of the New Testament shows that titles are indeed used to describe leadership functions. The church did have recognised leaders, but their titles and organisation varied from church to church as a result of the contextual approach of both Paul and the early church.56 Alastair Campbell argues that this diversity has been exaggerated, but even he acknowledges a development in leadership structures as the churches grew from their household-centred beginnings.57 Although Dunn does recognise that Paul used a large variety of words to describe ministry functions, he asserts that ‘in the early years of the Hellenistic mission there were no specific and well defined ministries apart from those of prophet and teacher’.58 He also remarks that, in Paul’s writings (apart from the Pastorals), the word presbuteros (elder) is never found, and episkopos (overseer) only once (Phil. 1:1).59 However, Clarke rightly observes the tendency by those who follow the scholarly consensus of leadership development to favour some terms while neglecting others.60 Consequently, this study looks widely at the words used to describe leadership in the cultural milieu in which Paul ministered. Leaders carried a variety of titles and designations which were sometimes applied to Christian leaders, and it is interesting to note the multiplicity of terms used to describe leaders and their functions in the lists of charismatic gifts (Rom. 12:6-9; 1 Cor. 12:8-10, 28-30; Eph. 4:11). Only titles relating to leadership which occur in the New Testament are examined in this study. It must of course be remembered that the words used for titles may move away from their historical meaning, or even their meaning in the local context. Just as the English expression ‘government minister’ now commonly refers to a senior government leader, it should not be assumed – for example, that in an early church Christian leadership context – the word diakonos necessarily means ‘servant’. The way a given title is used in the early church may indicate whether leadership understandings of the time are being challenged or not. 54

Campbell, The Elders, 105. Clarke, Serve the Community, 217-18. 56 Schillebeeckx, The Church with a Human Face, 79. 57 Campbell, The Elders, 252. 58 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 290. 59 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 285. 60 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 43. 55

74

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

General titles Ruler (archōn (ἄρχων))

The word archōn is a very common term for leadership in the Septuagint.61 In New Testament times, on its own, archōn means one having ‘eminence in a ruling capacity’ or ‘one who has administrative authority’.62 In the New Testament it refers to a magistrate (Luke 12:58; Acts 16:19), a ruling Pharisee (Luke 14:1), a synagogue ruler (e.g. Matt. 9:18), or indeed any ruler (e.g. John 7:48; Acts 3:17), including members of Sanhedrin, e.g. Nicodemus (John 3:1). In Jewish contexts, archōn was often used in combinations: archisunagōgos (synagogue ruler) (e.g. Mark 5:22), archiereus (chief priest) (e.g. Matt. 2:4), architriklinos (master of the banquet) (John 2:9), architelōnēs (chief tax collector) (Luke 19:2), archipoimēn (chief shepherd) (1 Pet. 5:4), and archangelos (archangel) (1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9). Synagogue leaders (archōn, archisunagōgoi) were not priests or rabbis, but lay people who sometimes held the post on a permanent basis.63 As noted above (pp. 39-40), they were not only responsible for discipline, finance and organisation of synagogue services,64 but probably also held civic leadership, since synagogues were centres of the civic community.65 However, sometimes it seems that the title was purely honorary.66 In the Gentile context, archōn was the general word for ruler (e.g. Matt. 20:25; Acts 16:19; Rom. 13:3; Titus 3:1). It ‘carries negative connotations of being domineering and bossy’.67 In Greek-speaking voluntary associations, the chief officer would be called archōn.68 It was rarely used in Gentile religious contexts.69 John Olley contrasts the frequent use of words related to archōn in both Jewish and secular environments, with the fact that ‘they are never used of relationships between Christians’.70 Clarke maintains that words in the archōn family –

61

Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 1. Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 140. 63 Clarke, Serve the Community, 126, 128, 131. 64 Olley, ‘Leadership’, 3-4. 65 Clarke, Serve the Community, 120-24. 66 Clarke, Serve the Community, 131-32. 67 Hwa, ‘Leadership or Servanthood?’, 196. 68 Jeffers, Conflict at Rome, 37. 69 See Kittel, TDNT, I, 488. In the spiritual realm, archōn could also refer to the prince of demons (Luke 11:15; John 12:31; Eph. 2:2; 3:10; Col. 2:15) or to Jesus (Acts 5:31; Heb. 2:10; 12:2; Rev. 1:5). 70 Olley, ‘Leadership’, 5; see also Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 131; Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 134. The word archōn is however found in the post-New Testament tradition, e.g. 1 Clement 60:4 (Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 299). 62

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

75

have a number of connotations, many of which could well have been viewed by Paul as inappropriate for the church, and especially in a domestic setting. The notion of ‘ruling’ is strong, and is often applied in a sovereign or imperial context.71

Consequently, when Paul wanted to talk of leadership, he avoided words in the archōn family, preferring rather to use those implying leadership as service by using diakonia and other related words.72 This represents a profound difference of leadership understanding from the Old Testament, and a prophetic challenge to both Jewish and Graeco-Roman cultural practice. Leader (proistamenos (προϊστάμενος))

The word proistēmi (προϊστημι) means either ‘to exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct, be at the head (of)’ or ‘to have an interest in, show concern for, care for, give aid’.73 It was used occasionally of ‘official persons in voluntary associations’,74 and although it is not common in the New Testament, it is used to describe church leaders. Clarke notes its use throughout the Pauline corpus and sees it as ‘a descriptive term that identifies the leaders’,75 and indeed in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 as the ‘earliest Pauline reference to leaders’.76 It is used as late as the Pastorals (1 Tim. 5:17) and may include the leadership of both elders and deacons.77 The meaning of proistamenos in Romans 12:8 is unclear, although C.K. Barrett maintains that it does not refer to a particular office, but to a function.78 Bo Riecke sees the proistamenoi of Romans 12:8 as ‘a special group separated by the Spirit for the primary task of caring for others’.79 71

Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 75. Clarke, Serve the Community, 233, 250. 73 Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 870. 74 Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 141. 75 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 73 76 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 71. 77 See Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 128. Jewett suggests that Paul deliberately chose this title to avoid using technical leadership terms such as elder (Romans, 752). However, outside the Pastorals, proistēmi (Rom. 12:8; 1 Thess. 5:12) and prostatis (Rom. 16:2) can hardly be said to be any more prolific than words such as episkopos and presbuteros. 78 C.K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (London: A. & C. Black, 1962), 239. Richard S. Ascough (‘Chaos Theory and Paul’s Organisational Leadership Style’, in Journal of Religious Leadership, 1.2 (2002), 29), Banks (Paul’s Idea of Community, 141), and Lothar Coenen (see Colin Brown (ed.), NIDNTT (3 vols; Exeter: Paternoster, 1975-78), I, 197) have a similar perspective. 79 See Gerhard Friedrich (ed; trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley), TDNT (5 vols; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967-74), VI, 701; see also C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (2 vols; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975-79), II, 626. 72

76

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Fee also sees the use of proistēmi in the New Testament in terms of caring rather than leading.80 However, Jewett’s argument that in Romans 12:8 it refers to leadership is convincing,81 since in its co-text a meaning of caring would be redundant.82 A related word, prostatis (προστάτις), was also used of the patrons of Jewish synagogues in a Greek context, perhaps as a local alternative to archisunagōgos. It is not used in the New Testament in this way.83 When applied to Phoebe (Rom. 16:2), Agosto suggests that this implies a leadership role: Phoebe was a local leader of the church at Cenchreae and a leader in the Pauline movement. The commendation request Paul makes on her behalf to the Romans lends credence to this broader role… Paul may very well have needed the assistance of this leader from Cenchreae to carry out his agenda, especially since she had on occasion, it seems, taken on broader responsibilities in the Pauline mission.84

Edwin Judge, the New Zealand scholar who is renowned for his application of social studies to the early church, argues that ‘Paul is acknowledging his social dependence upon Phoebe’.85 As bearer of the letter to the Romans, she may have had a role in reading and explaining the letter to them.86 James Dunn argues that the natural sense of ‘patron’ is most probable,87 although it is unlikely that she would be Paul’s patron in a formal way,88 except in the sense of supporting his mission, perhaps to Spain.89 However, even this interpretation does not exclude a ruling role for Phoebe.

80

Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 205-06. Jewett, Romans, 753; contra James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, WBC 38B (Dallas, TX: Word, 1988), 731. 82 Agosto sees both leading and caring in this word (Servant Leadership, 130-31; see also Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 220; Friedrich, TDNT, VI, 701; Gehring, House Church and Mission, 198-99). 83 Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 229; Clarke, Serve the Community, 133-34. 84 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 149. Campbell (The Elders, 121) and Robert Jewett (‘Paul, Phoebe and the Spanish Mission’, in Neusner, Borgen, Frerichs and Horsley, The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism, 148-49) adopt a similar position to Agosto. 85 Judge, Social Distinctives, 171. 86 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 151; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 35. 87 Dunn, Romans 9-16, 888; see also Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 143; Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 134, n. 75. 88 Barrett, Romans, 283; Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 224; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, II, 782-83. 89 Jewett, ‘Paul, Phoebe and the Spanish Mission’, 151-55; Romans, 947. 81

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

77

Elder (presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος))

In Greek culture, the word presbuteros was used to indicate those who were older in age, with the resulting honour, ‘respect and authority on the ground of their experience and wisdom’.90 Outside the Jewish context the term was rarely used in the first century to denote those having official authority,91 but within that context it was used of officials, including synagogue officers, local council members, and some of the members of the Sanhedrin92 – without necessarily designating age.93 In the LXX, presbuteros was regularly used to refer to community leaders (e.g. Josh. 8:33; 1 Kings 12:6).94 While elders may not have held formal positions in the synagogue, their age and standing gave them authority. In the New Testament, churches were first established among Jewish communities, and those respected as leaders may have been called elders, in line with Jewish practice.95 Although some doubt such a connection,96 Kevin Giles is surely right to argue that the fact that Jewish elders and church elders are referred to in Acts ‘without any comment or preparation’ suggests that Luke ‘expects some correlation between the two groups of elders to be understood’.97 In the Jerusalem church, leadership seems to have been shared by the apostles and elders (Acts 11:30; 15:6, 22, 23).98 It is likely that James was the chairman of the elders there (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18).99 Even in Gentile churches, the designation of those who had dignity and status as presbuteroi would have been natural.100 When Paul and Barnabas returned from their first missionary journey, they appointed elders in each church (Acts 14:23). There is no reference to presbuteroi in

90

Coenen in Brown, NIDNTT, I, 192. Campbell, The Elders, 67, 76; Harvey, ‘Elders’, 319-20. 92 Campbell suggests that the expression ‘the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law ‘ (Luke 22:66) indicates that all the members of the Sanhedrin could be described as elders (The Elders, 42-43). 93 Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 862. 94 Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1972), 77. 95 See Bartlett, Ministry in the New Testament, 130; von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 77; Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 139, n. 34; Friedrich, TDNT, VI, 663; Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, 32; Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 359; Schweizer, Church Order, 200. 96 e.g. Harvey, ‘Elders’, 326; Miller, ‘The Uniqueness of New Testament Church Eldership’, 318-26. 97 Giles, Patterns of Ministry, 78. 98 Edwin A. Judge, ‘The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community’, in Journal of Religious History, 1.1 (1960), 14; Olley, ‘Leadership’, 16. 99 Friedrich, TDNT, VI, 663; Gehring, House Church and Mission, 101. 100 Campbell, The Elders, 75. 91

78

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Paul’s writings outside the Pastorals,101 but Günther Bornkamm argues that Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:18-35 shows how significant they were.102 Paul exhorts Timothy to let the elders who rule well to be considered worthy of double honour (1 Tim. 5:17). Some suggest that ‘honour’ may here refer to monetary benefit, especially given the reference to wages in 1 Timothy 5:18,103 but it certainly indicates that the church leaders were worthy of respect.104 Unlike Lee Levine, who asserts that there is ‘no question that the presbyter was an integral part of the synagogue officialdom in many locales’,105 Alastair Campbell maintains that ‘elder’ was not an office among the Jews of the New Testament period.106 Although, as respected men of honour, they ‘ran’ the synagogues, they were actually distinct from the officers, i.e. the rulers of the synagogue (archisunagōgoi) and their assistants (hupēretai). Campbell’s work is based on that of Harvey who argues that ‘synagogue-elders provide, at best, a shadowy model for the Christian presbyters’.107 Clarke similarly argues that, unlike episkopos, eldership in the church was ‘not an individual office, but an honoured status, bringing with it membership of an influential and respected body’.108 This body was drawn from heads of households, some of whom who were overseers (teaching elders) of churches that met in their own homes, and some of whom were other heads of households (see pp. 83-84 below for a more detailed discussion).109 For Campbell therefore, elders are not a later development in the church, but were present from the beginning,110 not as official title-bearers, but simply, as Harvey maintains, as ‘senior members of the congregation’.111

101 See Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 293; Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 584. Campbell believes that the fact that the earliest churches consisted of one household explains why leaders did not carry the title ‘elder’ (The Elders, 131). He also argues that if ‘elder’ is not a title but a term of respect, Paul would be unlikely to use it to refer to those who were not the elders in their own community (137). It is however possible that, in the book of Acts, Luke has inserted a leadership title that was current in his own time (see 166 and references in n. 68). 102 See Friedrich, TDNT, VI, 665. 103 See Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 1005; Campbell, The Elders, 202-03; Friedrich, TDNT, VI, 667; Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, 101; Horrell, ‘Leadership Patterns’, 330; Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 232. 104 Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 129. 105 Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 407. 106 Campbell, The Elders, 44, 54. 107 Harvey, ‘Elders’, 326. 108 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 56. 109 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 59. 110 Campbell, The Elders, 174. 111 Harvey, ‘Elders’, 329.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

79

MacDonald also argues that, while the term presbuteros is not used in Paul’s earliest letters, Paul recognizes the importance of the connection between seniority of faith and leadership. He instructs the Corinthians to be subject to the household of Stephanas who were the first converts of Achaia and who devoted themselves to ministry (διακονίαν [diakonian]) to the saints (1 Cor. 16:15-16).112

As the church developed, younger members of churches may have risen to positions of leadership, and would have joined the ‘elders’.113 In time therefore, the title would have begun to ‘take on an official connotation’ in contrast to society at large.114 Consequently, as Dibelius and Conzelmann suggest, by the time of the Pastorals the term presbuteros should not be seen only as ‘a designation of age’.115 Although there may have been a plurality of leadership models, it is likely that the senior members had an important leadership role in most churches until the rise of the monarchical bishop.116 It may therefore be that the leaders were chosen (rather than appointed) from among the senior members of the church (Acts 14:23).117 R.W. Gehring suggests that Paul’s instruction to appoint elders in Crete (Titus 1:5) may be interpreted in the same way.118 The above hypothesis makes sense, but it is does seem likely that the fact that Paul chose (or appointed) elders does imply that they had official standing in the church, even at a comparatively early stage of its development. This would be consistent with the leading role of the Jerusalem elders in Acts 15. Adventist scholar Robert Johnston makes the proposal that the Seven who were set apart to wait on tables in Acts 6:1-6 should actually be seen as elders (presbuteroi).119 While traditionally they are seen as deacons 112

MacDonald, The Pauline Churches, 217. James Plueddemann notes that ‘Paul reminded Timothy not to let anyone look down on him because he was young (1 Tim. 4:12) (Leading Across Cultures, 101). In highpower-distance cultures, Timothy would have less status because of his youth. Paul challenged the high-power-distance culture in its lack of respect for youth’. 114 Harvey, ‘Elders’, 328. Gehring maintains that, at this stage in development, the office of elder ‘can be considered a uniquely Christian innovation’ (House Church and Mission, 281), although he cautions that even in earlier days we ‘cannot exclude a priori the possibility of a uniquely Christian usage of the terminology as an actual designation of office’ (278). 115 Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 78. 116 Harvey, ‘Elders’, 331-32. 117 Campbell, The Elders, 170; Harvey, ‘Elders’, 331. 118 Gehring, House Church and Mission, 270. 119 Johnston, ‘Leadership in the Early Church’, 9-10. Johnston follows Austin Farrer (see Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 123). Miller (‘The Uniqueness of New Testament Church Eldership’, 324) and Ben Witherington III (The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 374) have a 113

80

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

because of their service (diakoneō) in Acts 6:2,120 Johnston notes that diakonia is used in Acts 6:4 to refer to apostolic ministry. He also observes that the elders in Acts 11:30 (the first occurrence of presbuteros to refer to church leaders in Acts) did a similar work to that of the Seven and suggests that the Seven should be seen as an early example of eldership.121 Johnston may be building too much on the elders’ receipt of the famine relief to be sure that their role was the same as that of the Seven. However, the responsibility of Stephen and Philip was certainly much more wide-ranging than simply a church administrative one – as is common in the role of deacons in some churches today which favour a two-level leadership structure of elders and deacons. Johnston believes ‘the church at this early stage knew of only one appointive ministry, which Luke designated “elder”’.122 He suggests that in the book of Acts this single elder-deacon office may be called diakonos to refer to function,123 and presbuteros to refer to dignity.124 Only much later did diakonos refer to a separate appointment. However, there is insufficient detailed evidence of leadership titles in the earliest New Testament documents to be sure without doubt that there was only one appointive ministry in the church. Elders had the responsibility of taking care of God’s church (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:5) – in particular: doctrinal oversight (Acts 15:2, 6; 16:4; 20:2931) and teaching (1 Tim. 3:2, 5:17).125 Jerry Sumney notes that the elders in the Pastoral Epistles have no real job description. He suggests that ‘a primary duty is to be an example which forms the community in the way of the Gospel’.126 Overseer (episkopos (ἐπίσκοπος))

The word episkopos was used to mean ‘one who has the responsibility of safeguarding or seeing to it that some[thing] is done in the correct way’, and it often referred to a ‘fixed office’.127 However, ‘the term is not consistently applied to just one type of role or context’.128 It is unlikely that similar perspective. Gordon Fee argues that ‘the term elders is probably a covering term for both overseers and deacons’ (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 22; see also 78). 120 Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 175. 121 See also Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 277. 122 Johnston, ‘Leadership in the Early Church’, 10. 123 This is conjecture since the word diakonos (deacon) is not found in Acts. Johnston bases his work on the use of the verb diakoneō (to serve) in Acts 6:2. 124 Johnston, ‘Leadership in the Early Church’, 10-11. 125 Also praying for the sick according to James (Jas 5:14). 126 Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 37. 127 Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 379. 128 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 48; see also Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 54. The officers of voluntary societies in the Graeco-Roman world were often called episkopoi although their exact roles are not always clear (Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 147; Kittel, TDNT, II, 612).

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

81

they had religious responsibilities.129 Hermann Beyer, when discussing the use of episkopos and diakonos for church officials, therefore argues that – early Christianity took over words which were predominantly secular in their current usage and which had not yet been given any sharply defined sense. It linked these words with offices which were being fashioned in the community, and thus gave them a new sense which was so firmly welded with the activity thereby denoted that in all languages they have been adopted as loan-words to describe Christian office-bearers.130

Many commentators suggest that the use of the word episkopos in the New Testament is indistinguishable from presbuteros (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; 1 Pet. 5:1-2; cf. 1 Clement 44:1-4).131 The word episkopos is used by Paul four times (Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7), and the related term episkopē once (1 Tim. 3:1). Flemming asserts that episkopos is of Gentile origin, which would explain its use in churches established in Gentile environments.132 Von Campenhausen argues not only that the origin of episkopos is different from that of presbuteros, but that they represent two independent Gentile and Jewish leadership strands in the early church which later merged.133 However, Campbell disputes a uniquely Gentile background to the church leader being called an overseer.134 He maintains that even Aramaic129

Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, 32; Kittel, TDNT, II, 609, 612. See Kittel, TDNT, II, 91. 131 See Barrett, Church, Ministry, and Sacraments, 52; Flemming, ‘The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy’, 240; Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 175. Alastair Campbell lists four ways scholars have explained the relationship between overseers and elders (The Elders, 18293). Johnston (‘Leadership in the Early Church’, 11, n. 22), following Jerome (see Campbell, The Elders, 183), states that ‘originally “bishop” described function and “elder” described dignity’. 132 Flemming, ‘The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy’, 240; see also von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 77; Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, 32. Peter Pilhofer suggests that the term episkopos was used in Philippi as a result of the colony’s special Roman culture (Philippi, Vol. 1: Die Erste Christliche Gemeinde Europas, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 87 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995), 147 (cited in Joseph H. Hellerman, ‘The Humiliation of Christ in the Social World of Roman Philippi, Part 2’, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 160.640 (2003), 422, n. 5)). However, Hellerman argues that the office of episkopos was ‘relatively widespread by the early 60s’ and its use ‘in later literature (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7) weakens Pilhofer’s association of the term solely with the Roman orientation of Philippi’. 133 Von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 77-78; see also Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 124. 134 Campbell, The Elders, 158-59. Indeed, Chilton and Neusner, following Eusebius, see the use of the title episkopos for James as bishop of Jerusalem being a precedent which was followed by other churches (Types of Authority, 63). However, there is no New Testament evidence for James being called episkopos. 130

82

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

speaking churches would have used an equivalent term: mebaqqer.135 Hermann Beyer also observes that, although there is ‘no closely defined office bearing the title ἐπίσκοπος [episkopos] in the LXX’, the term was used of people in leadership positions (e.g. Neh. 11:9).136 A.L. Chapple notes that in ‘the LXX the stem (ἐπισκεπ-) [episkep-] (from which ἐπισκοπος [episkopos] is derived) is linked with the stem ποιμαν- [poiman] in a number of significant passages’, which suggests that if the early church actually took this term from the Jewish background, the leadership of the episkopos would probably have been pastoral in nature.137 The word episkopos was also used at Qumran and in Jewish sectarian circles, especially with ‘the notion of the shepherd or spiritual father of a community’.138 Taking all the above into account, it is not possible to state unequivocally that the title episkopos was purely of Gentile origin. However, there may have been some reluctance to apply the title quickly. As Lothar Coenen argues, it is highly significant that, as the growing band of disciples became a church, they apparently hesitated to apply the title of episkopos to designate an office. OT and secular Greek usage did not stand in the way of this, but Greek usage may have had materialistic overtones and OT associations may have been too reminiscent of authoritarian oversight.139

Apart from the origin of the word episkopos, another issue concerns whether the term is used in the church to refer to an office. Paul addresses his letter to ‘all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons’ (Phil. 1:1). This may imply that the ‘overseers and deacons are to be regarded as a sub-group, but an integral part, of the wider community of saints in Philippi’.140 Paula Gooder proposes that their status may therefore be no higher than that of the congregation as a whole141 – or as Hawthorne suggests, even ‘subject to the church’.142 Robert Banks also asserts that the absence of articles in the phrase ‘overseers and deacons’ (episkopois kai diakonois) indicates that these words did not refer to office135

As used in the Qumran writings (e.g. 1QS VI, 20). See also Hawthorne, Philippians,

8.

136

See Kittel, TDNT, II, 614-15. Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 570. The stem poiman- refers to shepherding. 138 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 48, n. 29; see also Brown, Churches, 33; Campbell, The Elders, 155-59. 139 See Brown, NIDNTT, I, 191. 140 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 48. 141 Paula Gooder, ‘Diakonia in the New Testament: A Dialogue with John N. Collins’, 2006, 5: www.porvoochurches.org/interchange/consultation_on_diaconate_London_2006.php (accessed 20th February 2012). 142 Hawthorne, Philippians, 8. 137

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

83

holders in the church.143 However, Clarke is not convinced by this argument and believes that in Philippi ‘there was an identifiable group known both to the writers and recipients of the letter as “overseers”’ who are similar to the leaders in the churches in Corinth and Thessalonica.144 Chapple also maintains that they refer to rudimentary offices, which seems to be consistent with the overall picture of leadership obtained from the Pauline letters, admittedly with a wide variety of terminology being used.145 Campbell argues that there was a development in the application of the term ‘overseer’ to leaders in the early church.146 At first, the head of the household would be the singular overseer responsible for the church which gathered in his home.147 Later, by the time of the Pastorals, the overseers from the house-churches of the area would gather together as a council of elders (1 Tim. 4:14) to oversee the work of the wider Christian community.148 Eventually the elder who had overall leadership of this city-wide church council would be given the title ‘overseer’, the assumption being that the leaders of the individual house-churches had lost that title.149 Clarke favours 143

Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 144. It is also possible to translate this as ‘overseers who are deacons’ (see Hawthorne, Philippians, 9-10). If this is correct, it may be a challenge to the leaders to have servant hearts in a context marked by selfcentredness (Phil. 2:3-4). 144 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 50. 145 Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 583. 146 Campbell, The Elders, 195-96, 204. 147 Robert Jewett argues from an examination of Romans 16 that many of the churches actually met in tenements which were owned by non-believers (Romans, 65). In such cases there could be no equation between the patron or head of the household and the church overseer. One other general weakness in the details of Campbell’s hypothesis (followed by Clarke) is that there is little documentary evidence that early house church leaders were called ‘overseers’ (Gehring, House Church and Mission, 278). 148 See F.F. Bruce, ‘St Paul in Macedonia: 3. The Philippian Correspondence’, in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 63 (1980-81), 282-83; Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 558; Gehring, House Church and Mission, 206; Giles, Patterns of Ministry, 80; Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, NAC 34 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 109. 149 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 57-60; see also Verner, The Household of God, 149-50; contra Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, 35. A single episkopos is not mentioned in 1 Clement, but his supremacy is emphasised by Ignatius. However, a monarchical bishop was not found in all areas of the empire even as late as the end of the second century (Lampe, ‘Paul, Patrons, and Clients’, 496). Günther Bornkamm (see Friedrich, TDNT, VI, 667) argues that in the Pastorals ‘ἐπίσκοπος [episkopos] is always in the singular while the πρεσβύτεροι [presbuteroi] form a college’. See also the similar arguments of Clarke (A Pauline Theology, 53, n. 51), Dibelius and Conzelmann (The Pastoral Epistles, 56), Gehring (House Church and Mission, 269), and Verner (The Household of God, 147-48). However, Bornkamm’s statement is not true in any of the passages in which both terms are found: in Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5, both ‘elders’ and ‘overseers’ are plural, whereas in Titus 1:6-7 both are singular and probably generic (Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 84). The singular episkopos in 1 Timothy 3:2 may also be

84

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

this hypothesis, but he argues that the sub-group among the elders ‘whose work is preaching and teaching’ (1 Tim. 5:17) should be equated with the overseers who lead the house-churches that meet in their homes;150 the other elders would then be part of the eldership but not responsible for a particular house-church, less influential overall, and perhaps not full-time in ministry.151 Clarke maintains that, since only overseers are required to be able to teach, this proves that the title episkopos should not be equated with presbuteros.152 However, I consider that this argument has two weaknesses: first, if all ‘those whose work is preaching and teaching’ refer to those carrying the title ‘overseer’, why not so designate them in this verse? Secondly, if it is assumed that the two titles in the Pastorals are not equivalent, there is only one verse giving the requirements for elders which can hardly be seen to be exhaustive (Titus 1:6). Is it not possible that all elders should have an ability to teach, even if that is not their main ministry? All elders should have a good understanding of Scripture so that they can lead the churches wisely, even if their main role lies outside teaching, e.g. in pastoral ministry, administration, evangelism. This would agree with Paul’s counsel to all the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28-31 to guard the church from false teachers.153 Overall, while Clarke’s hypothesis may be true, there is insufficient evidence to be sure. However, it does seem likely that the general developmental thesis of housechurch leaders being gathered into a city-wide eldership is sound, even if the titles the members of this group carried may have been variable. Apostle (apostolos (ἀπόστολος))

Walter Bauer argues that, in New Testament times, the word ‘apostle’ refers to messengers, sometimes having no special status, e.g. the delegates generic (Fung, ‘Ministry in the New Testament’, 168; Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, 109). However, Clarke draws attention to the difficulty of the presbuteros in Titus 1:6 being identified with the episkopos in Titus 1:7, given the repeated requirement that they be blameless (A Pauline Theology, 55). Gordon Fee suggests that, in verse 7, Paul is giving ‘reasons why the overseer… must be blameless in the sense of verse 6 (i.e. as a faithful husband and father), namely, because he will also serve as “God’s household manager”’ (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 173). Note too that the plural episkopoi is found in Philippians 1:1, although this may refer to the leaders of many house churches in Philippi (Gehring, House Church and Mission, 207). 150 Campbell however considers that these elders are the episkopoi who each oversee a single city-wide church (The Elders, 202), but it seems unlikely that they are the only ones in the eldership who preach and teach. 151 Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 459-60. 152 Fee follows a similar line to Clarke arguing that although ‘elder and overseer are interchangeable terms… they are not thereby necessarily co-extensive’ (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 22; see also 174). 153 Clarke suggests amongst other possibilities that ‘Paul was momentarily… addressing only those elders who were also overseers’ (A Pauline Theology, 59), but that seems less likely than suggestions that episkopoi and presbuteroi refer to the same officers.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

85

of the churches (2 Cor. 8:23; cf. Phil. 2:25), but often having extraordinary status.154 He believes that the use of this noun in the New Testament was probably a result of ‘the extensive use of ἀποστέλλω [apostellō] in documents relating to persons of merit engaged in administrative service’.155 Jesus named his twelve closest disciples ‘apostles’, which implies that he was giving them an official title.156 However, apart from the Twelve and Paul, it is doubtful whether ‘apostle’ should be seen as a congregational office.157 Apostles such as Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25), Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16:7), and even Jesus himself (Heb. 3:1), are so entitled because of their function as people commissioned by God.158 Judaism had functionaries carrying the title shaliach who were sent out from Jerusalem on missions throughout the Roman empire and beyond, e.g. fund-raising.159 James Dunn considers that this role may be the main source of the concept of apostleship in Corinth.160 However, this is far from certain since it is unclear whether such a practice was present before the destruction of Jerusalem.161 In addition, the role of sh’lichim is secular and very different from that of Christian apostles since it had no missionary function to the Gentiles.162

154

Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 122. A. Katherine Grieb similarly sees the word apostolos being a metaphor borrowed from diplomatic and military fields (‘“The One who Called You…”: Vocation and Leadership in the Pauline Literature’, in Interpretation, 59.2 (2005), 156, n. 5). 156 Johnston, ‘Leadership in the Early Church’, 3. 157 Kittel, TDNT, I, 423; Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 131. 158 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 732. 159 Von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 22; Johnston, ‘Leadership in the Early Church’, 3, n. 5. 160 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 274. 161 Bartlett, Ministry in the New Testament, 28; Dietrich Müller in Brown, NIDNTT, I, 132; Polaski, Paul and the Discourse of Power, 25; John H. Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2007 [1975]), 25, 27-28. 162 Müller in Brown, NIDNTT, I, 128-35; Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 129-30; Kittel, TDNT, I, 418; Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 27. Although the word apostolos is found only in 1 Kings 14:6 in the LXX [3 Kings 14:6], the verb apostellō is extensively used, most commonly with a very general meaning, but also with one indicating God’s commissioning (translating the Hebrew word shaliach, e.g. of Joseph (Ps 105:17), Moses (Ex. 3:10), Saul (1 Sam. 9:16), Elijah (2 Kings 2:2), Isaiah (Is. 6:8), John the Baptist (Mal. 4:5; cf. Matt. 17:12)), and notably of God sending the Messiah (Is. 61:1; cited by Jesus in Luke 4:18). Just as God sent his son, so Jesus sent and authorised his disciples (John 17:18). This may provide the background for Jesus’ choice of the word apostolos (or its Aramaic equivalent), even if he was not relating it to the later (?) concept of Jewish functionaries carrying the title shaliach. 155

86

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Although Theissen argues that the itinerant apostles had a ‘higher reputation’ than local ministers,163 it is not clear that this gave them a universal authority. It seems more likely that their authority was limited to particular areas of ministry (2 Cor. 10:13-16), especially areas where they had founded churches.164 Holmberg believes that Paul (together with Barnabas) was allocated a field for ministry in the geographical area outside Palestine, with the Holy Land being allocated to Peter and the Jerusalem church (cf. Gal. 2:7-9).165 Dunn therefore argues that, when Paul wrote to the Roman church which he had not founded, he did not want to give them the impression that he had the right to exercise authority over them.166 Indeed, Dunn considers that Paul ‘did not think of an apostle as an apostle of the universal church’. However, even in his letter to the Romans, Paul described himself as ‘the apostle to the Gentiles’ (Rom. 11:13; cf. 1:5) which implies that his role was not as limited as Dunn maintains. Clarke similarly asserts that Paul considered that he did have a position of high status because of his calling to be a minister of the gospel – ‘even among those whom he did not know personally or had never met’.167 John Schütz argues that the apostle Paul recognised that his apostolic ‘calling and his authority are not the product of his own natural gifts, but are attributable only to God’ and his grace (1 Cor. 15:8-10).168 In Galatians 2:9, Paul says that the Jerusalem church leaders acknowledged his role as apostle to the Gentiles because of the grace which had been given to him.169 His apostolic authority in the church was divine in origin: ‘Paul, an apostle – sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father.’170 Paul especially used the title ‘apostle’ when it was necessary to exert his authority.171 Burtchaell observes that ‘Paul’s apostolic claims were in direct 163

Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 9. See Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 274, 275; The Theology of Paul, 578; Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 140; Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 132; Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 225. 165 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 30. However, Holmberg argues that some of the leaders of the Jerusalem church had a rather different understanding of the agreement and sought to influence the churches Paul had founded, e.g. at Corinth, Galatia and Philippi (43-50). 166 Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 579; contra Polaski, Paul and the Discourse of Power, 122. 167 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 81. 168 Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 103. 169 Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 148. 170 Gal. 1:1; cf. 2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10. See Agosto, Servant Leadership, 101-02; Doohan, Leadership in Paul, 76; Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 205. 171 See Agosto, Servant Leadership, 102. Note that Paul does not call himself an apostle when writing to the Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon. Ernest Best argues that this implies that his authority did not directly stem from his being an apostle although this is an argument from silence (‘Paul’s Apostolic Authority’, 3-25). If the readers of 164

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

87

proportion to the challenges raised against his controversial policies’.172 However, on occasions he chose not to exercise all the apostolic rights he had (1 Cor. 9:1-18; 2 Thess. 3:7-9).173 Rabbi (ῥαββί), teacher (didaskolos (διδάσκαλος))

The Hebrew word rabbi ‘was used in Jewish society for the teachers of the law who educated and trained their pupils’,174 and as such was ‘an honorary title for outstanding teachers of the law’.175 Although Jesus was called rabbi and had disciples who followed him and learned from him, it is significant that the apostles did not have any. Indeed, Andrew Clarke argues that – Paul distances himself from any who would call themselves his followers or disciples… Thus it is important to note that, although Paul looks to Jesus as a model, there are aspects of Jesus’ ministry which cannot be emulated by the apostle.176

The word didaskolos is not found in the LXX to designate a Jewish teacher, but in the New Testament it is used to describe one who teaches, and is commonly used of Jesus (e.g. Luke 7:40). Teachers were also found in synagogues, especially as teachers of the young.177 Walter Bauer suggests that didaskolos was a title for an official in a Christian assembly (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 1:11).178 James Dunn also asserts that ‘the teaching function had… the character of office’ in the early church and that the teacher’s authority was based on tradition.179 Although this may be a reasonable surmise, there is limited evidence in the New Testament to back up his claim. However, the fact that teachers were paid (Gal. 6:6)180 may suggest that there was a permanent official teaching function in the church,181 although the participial form katēchounti may his letters knew that he was an apostle, he did not need to emphasise the fact unless it had been called into question. 172 Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 292. 173 See pp. 123-47. 174 Kanagaraj, ‘Johannine Jesus’, 19. 175 Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 902. 176 Clarke, Serve the Community, 250. 177 Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 418. 178 Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 241. 179 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 283. It is interesting to note that the church addressed in the book of James, which is considered by many to be one of the earliest New Testament writings, has both elders (Jas 5:14) and teachers (Jas 3:1) who were probably officers in the church (Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 148). 180 Note here that the word which is used is katēcheō (κατηχέω) and not didaskō (διδάσκω). 181 Fung, ‘Charismatic Versus Organized Ministry’, 197; Gehring, House Church and Mission, 204-05; Holmberg, Paul and Power, 111.

88

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

indicate that this did not represent a formal position.182 In Acts 13:1, Luke says: ‘In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers’ which may imply that not all churches had both. Whether leaders were called ‘teachers’ or not, Clarke is right to argue that ‘for Paul, teaching is of supreme importance and a key function of the leader in the church’.183 SUMMARY

i) There is no single title (or combination of titles) mentioned in New Testament documents which was used in all churches. ii) It is not certain at what point formal leadership ‘offices’ were recognised in the church, but it seems likely that this occurred very early in the church’s development and probably long before the time of the Pastorals. iii) The titles above have been taken from general use in a variety of Graeco-Roman organisational contexts, including the secular, and applied to the church without major reservation (with the exception of archōn and its combinations). It is of course likely that the way the terms were used was different in the church, and there may have been changes in understanding over time. iv) The church by preference used existing terms and did not invent new titles or even transliterate Hebrew terms into Greek, such as the way that the Greek-derived words apostle and presbyter have been used in English. For example, the word rabbi was not used in the early church, although this may have been related to Jesus’ teaching about it (Matt. 23:8). The early church was very willing to redeem the cultural forms of the time. v) Although there has been debate about whether different terms were used in Jewish and Gentile contexts, e.g. presbuteros and episkopos, there is insufficient evidence in the New Testament and in its first century context to make any dogmatic assertions. Given the range of titles used, it does seem likely that the church used terms which were in local currency. However, because of the freedom of movement within the Roman empire, not least by Hellenistic Jews, it is possible that there was a lot of crosspollination of terms, just as there occurs in the English-speaking world today. This would have the effect of ironing out some of the contextual peculiarities which may have arisen in the first-generation churches. vi) The one title which seems to have been completely avoided is archōn and its combinations. This is probably a result of the connotations of ‘strong ruling’ in this group of words. The early church may have believed that these terms carried too much negative baggage to be redeemed for the use of the believing community – even though they were used in Judaism. On similar grounds, it is possible that there was some reluctance to use 182 183

Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 142-43. Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 152.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

89

episkopos in the early days. It is also interesting to note that the word telos is not found in the church, perhaps for related reasons.184 vii) The use of the term of presbuteros in the church, although occurring only in the Acts and the Pastorals, shows the importance of respecting senior figures, just as they were revered in society at large. In the Jewish context, this word would also have indicated authority, whether or not the holder of the title held any official position, and it seems likely that this understanding was transferred to the church. viii) Teaching was closely associated with leadership in the early church. ix) Some of the titles used were connected with caring, i.e. proistamenos and episkopos (if taken from a Jewish context). This may imply that a pastoral understanding of leadership was common. Even Paul’s use of presbuteros (along with episkopos) in Acts 20:17-31 is in a caring context. x) Without fully subscribing to the scholarly consensus of leadership development, it seems to be highly probable that the church’s leadership structure and associated titles developed as a result of its growth from a household-centred structure to one including many households. 3.2.2 Cultic titles Priest (hiereus (ἱερεύς)), minister (leitourgos (λειτουργός))

Priests in the Roman empire often had civil functions and were appointed as ‘a reward for high status’, and among them there was a ‘strict hierarchy of positions’.185 Emperors would often appoint priests from among the elite to help them extend their political influence through their patronage networks.186 These priests would then show gratitude and respect to the emperor who had appointed them, as well as copying his example in showing generosity to the people.187 The civic and religious aspects of their activity were intertwined, and the part they played in ‘the maintenance of the sacrificial system was not disinterested but rather a crucial element in their domination’.188 Robert Banks also notes the importance of the priestly class in the mystery religions: The mystery cults were hierarchically sacral in character. A clear distinction was drawn between the initiates, who automatically became priests of the cult, and all those who had not yet been favored by the god with a revelation. Between the

184

Eduard Schweizer notes that telos ‘defines the complete power of office, and is nowhere found in this sense in the New Testament’ (Church Order, 171; see also Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 131; Friedrich, TDNT, VIII, 49). 185 Clarke, Serve the Community, 50. 186 Richard Gordon, ‘The Veil of Power’, in Horsley, Paul and Empire, 131. 187 Gordon, ‘The Veil of Power’, 132. 188 Gordon, ‘The Veil of Power’, 137.

90

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul initiates themselves there existed a graded series of priestly orders that one might ascend.189

In New Testament times, Jewish priests, who were limited to the descendants of Aaron, were responsible for temple worship. Some of the scribes were also priests.190 High priests had authority in the Sanhedrin and were appointed from among ‘a few privileged families’ by Herod and the Roman authorities.191 They could be removed from office by the authorities, and so at any time several ‘high priests’ could be alive at the same time, with the title perhaps also referring to their family members.192 However, the church had no officers carrying the title of ‘priest’. How strange it must have seemed to have a religion without priests! Flemming notes that – despite the Jewish background of the New Testament writers, it is striking that they consciously avoid the Old Testament concepts of the priesthood when describing the ministry or leadership of the Church. They do not view the leadership ministries of the Church as a continuation of the Old Testament priesthood.193

Gordon Fee observes that in the Old Testament the priests (and kings) were considered to have an existence separate from the people as a whole, ‘with their own sets of rules and expectations’.194 However, he argues that, in the New Testament church, this model of leadership has completely broken down, with the leaders not seen as being ‘above the people themselves… but governed by the same set of “rules”’.195 Other words related to the cult are however used by Paul, e.g. prosphora (offering), thusia (sacrifice), aparchē (firstfruit), but they refer to the noncultic lives of all believers, not the cultic functions of a priestly class.196 The only exception is Paul’s use of a word meaning ‘to act as a priest (hierourgeō)’ in Romans 15:16, in which he describes himself as a recipient of God’s grace which enables him ‘to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty (hierougounta) of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit’. This shows Paul’s priestly role in bringing the Gentiles to God,197 and the proclamation of the gospel may 189

Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 130. Olley, ‘Leadership’, 2. 191 Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, II, 228. 192 Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, II, 232-36. 193 Flemming, ‘The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy’, 234. 194 Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 130. 195 Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 131. 196 Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 128. 197 Jürgen Baehr in Brown, NIDNTT, III, 38. 190

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

91

also parallel the teaching role which priests had in the Old Testament (e.g. Ezra 7:11; Jer. 18:18).198 However, this priestly function is not an indication of any leadership role in the church. Words in the leitourgos family were used in a Hellenistic context to refer to public duties.199 However, a more significant usage is that of the LXX where it refers to priestly service (e.g. Ex. 29:30). With that background, the apostle Paul uses this word group to describe his offering both of himself (Phil. 2:17) and also of the Gentiles who had believed (Rom. 15:16).200 The word is likewise used of the Philippian church leader Epaphroditus to describe his sacrificial ministry to Paul (Phil. 2:25).201 However, despite its wide use in the LXX, it is not elsewhere used to refer to Christian ministry, a function which was taken over by the word diakonia.202 Prophet (prophētēs (προφήτης))

The prophet was ‘a person inspired to proclaim or reveal divine will or purpose’.203 In the history of Israel, prophets had an important function, and even in New Testament times the apostle Paul recognises their foundational role (Eph. 2:20; cf. 3:5).204 John Hiigel sees the prophets being impactful as they prophesied, but that alone would not make them leaders in the church.205 Friedrich asserts that New Testament prophets are not as authoritative as their Jewish predecessors,206 and that, for Paul, prophecy ‘has a predominantly ethical and hortatory character’.207 Paul rates prophecy very highly (1 Cor. 12:28; 14:1), although he and later generations showed some caution about the ministry of prophets because of the danger of false prophets. Despite Paul’s consciousness of the Old Testament prophetic model which influenced the contextualisation of his leadership, and despite his calling from among the prophets (Acts 13:1), it is interesting that Paul did not describe himself as a prophet.208 198

David Harley, personal communication, 5th December 2012. Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 590-91. 200 Howell, Servants of the Servant, 16-17. 201 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 143. 202 Schweizer, Church Order, 171-74. 203 Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 890. 204 This verse may refer to the Old Testament prophets (Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 891; Best, ‘Paul’s Apostolic Authority’, 19), but the word order suggests that an identification with New Testament prophets is more likely (John R.W. Stott, God’s New Society: The Message of Ephesians, BST (Leicester: IVP, 1979), 107). Even so, the metaphor of foundations may indicate that ‘the prophetic office is a thing of the past’ (Carl H. Peisker in Brown, NIDNTT, III, 84). 205 Hiigel, Leadership in 1 Corinthians, 32. 206 Friedrich, TDNT, VI, 849. 207 Friedrich, TDNT, VI, 829. 208 Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 300-03; Friedrich, TDNT, VI, 850. 199

92

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

James Dunn claims that the prophet’s authority is based on charismatic authority and because of their office.209 It stems from prophetic inspiration, and even when prophetic words are to be weighed, it is other prophets who weigh them (1 Cor. 14:29). Gordon Fee questions this last point since the chapter is addressed to the whole church and not just to a group of prophets. He also notes that Paul desires that all would prophesy (1 Cor. 14:1, 23).210 His argument is convincing, although the universal availability of the prophetic gift should be held in tension with the fact that in Paul’s writings it seems clear that there is a distinct group of people who are recognised as prophets, presumably in distinction from others who may prophesy from time to time without such recognition (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20; 4:11). Furthermore, Paul’s question in 1 Corinthians 12:29, ‘Are all prophets?’ requires the answer ‘no’ both on grammatical (mē pantes prophētai?), and on co-textual grounds. SUMMARY

i) Since there is now no priestly class, the early church did not have an office of ‘priest’, and indeed made every effort to avoid using cultic language except in a metaphorical way. They preferred to use words which were primarily used in the secular area rather than those which were cultic.211 A.T. Hanson notes that ‘all three traditional offices in the church, bishop, presbyter, and deacon, are indicated by a word which had no necessarily liturgical or cultic associations at all, and above all had no associations whatever with the Jewish cultic system’.212 ii) Leaders are not seen as holding a special mediating position between God and his people. With the New Testament emphasis on the priesthood of all believers, ‘church leaders are no more and no less priests than any other member of the congregation’.213 iii) The hierarchical structure of priests in both the Jewish and (especially) the Graeco-Roman contexts does not seem to be transferred to the leadership structure of the church. The different roles (and titles) in the church are not simply distinguished on a basis of hierarchy and authority.

209

Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 281-82; The Theology of Paul, 581-82; see also von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 62; Peisker in Brown, NIDNTT, III, 84. 210 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 694; see also Schweizer, Church Order, 197. 211 I acknowledge that, strictly speaking, there was no dualistic secular-sacred divide in the Graeco-Roman world, but titles which were primarily used in cultic contexts were avoided in the church. 212 Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, 32. 213 Flemming, ‘The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy’, 235; see also Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 546.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

93

iv) Although prophets played a foundational role in the church, they do not seem to have held leadership positions in it merely by virtue of their prophetic office. Titles related to the household Householder (oikodespotēs (οἰκοδεσπότης))

Robert Banks maintains that ‘it was the household, not synagogues or voluntary associations, that provided the basic model for leadership in the church’.214 The main reason for this was that the New Testament churches often, and perhaps usually, met in homes.215 Consequently, the early church was bound to be influenced by this environment, especially in the way it organised itself and its leadership.216 The metaphor of family or household was also used to describe the church as a whole (Gal. 6:10; Eph. 2:19; 3:15; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 4:17).217 This parallel between household and church is clearly seen in 1 Timothy 3:5: ‘If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?’ This may be an indication that many of the early church leaders were the heads of the houses in which the churches met.218 Indeed, Andrew Clarke convincingly argues that ‘the essential requirement that an overseer is able to ‘manage his household’ is precisely because this is a fundamental element of the job description – and not merely evidence of the potential overseer’s character’.219 Many scholars take a similar view and consider that the head of the household in which the church met would necessarily take some leadership over the congregation, perhaps even in a formal legal sense (cf.

214

Robert J. Banks, ‘Church Order and Government’, in Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel J. Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: IVP,1993), 135. Scholars taking a similar position include Campbell (The Elders, 118), Chapple (‘Local Leadership’, 231), Clarke (A Pauline Theology, 185), Elliott (‘The Jesus Movement’, 187, 204-05), and Verner (The Household of God, 2). Schillebeeckx argues that the structure of the earliest Christian communities followed that of the household, but his strong belief in the egalitarian nature of the early church leads him to suggest that the hierarchical aspects of the household would have been broken up in the church, with the resulting model closer to that of the voluntary associations (The Church with a Human Face, 46-47). See pp. 41-43 for an introduction to the household in the Roman context. 215 Sandnes, A New Family, 96. 216 Gehring, House Church and Mission, 193. 217 Clarke, Serve the Community, 160-61. 218 See Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 82. Campbell argues that this is referring to the requirement that city overseers should already have proved themselves as leaders in their own house churches (The Elders, 199). 219 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 185.

94

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Acts 17:9).220 It is likely, therefore, that where the church was based on a household, its leadership would follow a patriarchal pattern, which may indicate that the early church was not egalitarian but patriarchal from the beginning.221 Margaret MacDonald suggests that Paul may even ‘have actively sought to convert the head of a family who was relatively well-todo and who, most importantly, could provide a house large enough to act as a base for church meetings’.222 Father (patēr (πατήρ))

The apostle Paul describes his relationship with the believers as being like a father to his children (e.g. 1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Thess. 2:11; cf. Gal. 4:19; Phm 10). This probably refers to Paul’s role in leading people to faith.223 Clarke suggests that it appears – that he exclusively applied this title and conceived of this relationship only in regard to communities that he had founded or in whose establishment he had played a major role, and only in regard to individuals whom he had led to Christ, or over whom he had exercised a formative influence.224

Paul uses this father-children picture to exhort the people to imitate him and live right lives. Although this metaphor may reveal Paul’s authority over the church,225 his use of it should not be seen as a means of bolstering his own authority. Indeed, Paul sometimes used his authority as father to challenge other high-status Christians who perceived of themselves as 220 See Bartlett, Ministry in the New Testament, 26, 41; Branick, The House Church, 21; Giles, Patterns of Ministry, 31; Hiigel, Leadership in 1 Corinthians, 16, 36; Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 76; Sandnes, A New Family, 99, 110. 221 See Burke, ‘Pauline Paternity’, 80; Elliott, ‘The Jesus Movement’; Sandnes, A New Family, 81. Conversely, Ritva Williams is one scholar who believes that the church declined into patriarchy as a result of its exposure to the influences of society around (Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 54). 222 MacDonald, The Pauline Churches, 58. Similar positions are also held by Elliott (‘The Jesus Movement’, 202), Gehring (House Church and Mission, 185-87), Holmberg (Paul and Power, 106), Jewett (‘Paul, Phoebe and the Spanish Mission’, 149), and Verner (The Household of God, 180). See also pp. 114-16. 223 See Bartchy, ‘Undermining Ancient Patriarchy’, 73; Best, ‘Paul’s Apostolic Authority’, 16; Burke, ‘Pauline Paternity’, 70; Otfried Hofius in Brown, NIDNTT, I, 619. Roetzel argues that the reason for Paul’s use of the familial metaphor was because many of the believers had become ‘cultural orphans’ as result of being disowned by their natural families when they became Christians (The World that Shaped the New Testament, 101-02). 224 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 140. 225 See Burke, ‘Pauline Paternity’, 72; Castelli, Imitating Paul, 101; Elliott, ‘The Jesus Movement’, 192; Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 208; Graham Shaw, The Cost of Authority: Manipulation and Freedom in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1983), 69.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

95

kings (1 Cor. 4:8-16) to ‘follow his example of social self-lowering’, thus using ‘patriarchal rhetoric to make an anti-patriarchal point’.226 Clarke observes that – although the model of father/child was inherently, and especially at the time of the early Roman empire, a superior/inferior relation, this does not necessarily entail an authoritarian relationship; indeed, in the case of Paul, this dynamic is clearly modified by love. The metaphor of the father includes the notion of authority, but this is combined with an emphasis on the love, concern and pain that a father feels for his children.227

Paul’s love for his spiritual children is clearly seen in his letters. He describes Timothy as ‘my son whom I love’ (1 Cor. 4:17), and he shows tender concern for his Galatian children (Gal. 4:19-20).228 Trevor Burke examines 1 Thessalonians (e.g. 2:8, 17; 3:6, 12) and notes the depth of Paul’s love for the church: ‘Paul’s remarks concerning his fatherly affection for his Thessalonian children closely parallel the love which fathers in the ancient world were expected to show to their children.’229 Furthermore, Paul, far from following an authoritarian paternal model, happily uses both paternal and maternal imagery.230 Victor Copan remarks that the emotive maternal language used in 1 Thessalonians 2:7-12 ‘contains no nuance of authoritarianism’.231 Paul also stresses that he is a father and not a guardian (paidagōgos) (1 Cor. 4:15) – a term having ‘an overtone of derision, suggesting the household slaves employed to teach manners and poise’.232 He could come

226

Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 142. Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 145. Scholars holding a similar perspective include Robert J. Banks and Bernice M. Ledbetter (Reviewing Leadership: A Christian Evaluation of Current Approaches (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 37), Burke (‘Pauline Paternity’, 61), Copan (Saint Paul, 246-47), and Hiigel (Leadership in 1 Corinthians, 118). 228 Doohan, Leadership in Paul, 72. 229 Burke, ‘Pauline Paternity’, 77. 230 See Copan, Saint Paul, 209, 211-13. Burke argues that ‘when Paul wants to emphasis [sic] the nurturing side of his parental responsibility he employs a maternal… metaphor (‘Pauline Paternity’, 72, n. 38). On the other hand, Paul uses the paternal metaphor to stress his educating role’. 231 Copan, Saint Paul, 212. Wanamaker argues that Paul is here drawing ‘on the insights of one of the important schools of thought among the Cynics of his day, which stressed the need for gentleness toward one’s audience if one were to speak with boldness as well’ (The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 101). He also observes that such maternal imagery was also used among philosophers and in the mystery religions. 232 Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 209. 227

96

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

with a whip, but his desire is to come with a gentle spirit (1 Cor. 4:21),233 although as Fee remarks, both actions would be an expression of his love.234 Clarke observes that Paul’s description of himself is not as an exclusive father, since he most commonly describes his fellow-believers as brothers,235 and thus children of a loving Father God (e.g. 1 Cor. 8:13; 16:12; 2 Cor. 2:13; 8:22; 12:18).236 Victor Copan argues that this description ‘emphasizes the mutuality Paul shares with his recipients’.237 It is interesting to note that two of the letters in which Paul addresses the believers with brotherhood language considerably less than others are Romans and 2 Corinthians. The first of these letters was written to a church not planted by Paul and is thus more emotionally distant; the second was written to a church with whom Paul had a very strained relationship.238 Kloppenborg suggests that the use of brotherhood language ‘is perhaps the most striking innovation of Pauline associations’.239 In Greek voluntary associations, such language, especially referring to slaves, as Paul uses to refer to Onesimus (Phm 16), is very rare.240 Kloppenborg sees here ‘the fictive dissolution of the relentlessly vertical character of Graeco-Roman 233

Clarke, Serve the Community, 218-21. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 193. 235 Clarke, Serve the Community, 223. See Aasgaard (‘My Beloved Brothers and Sisters’) for a detailed study of Paul’s use of the sibling motif. 236 E. Earl Ellis argues that ‘brother’ may be a description of Paul’s co-workers, e.g. 1 Cor. 16:19-20; Phil. 4:21 (‘Paul and His Co-workers’, in New Testament Studies, 17.4 (1970), 445-52). He sees parallels in first-century Judaism and suggests that eventually the designation of leaders as ‘brother’ in the church was displaced (451). However, the relationship between ‘brothers’ and ‘co-workers’ is not an unequivocal conclusion from the biblical data. 237 Copan, Saint Paul, 245. Clarke is however right to assert that the concept of brotherhood does not necessarily imply egalitarianism since in the family there was a clear understanding of ranking even among brothers (A Pauline Theology, 93; see also Burke, ‘Pauline Paternity’, 72, n. 36). But this should not be over-emphasised since such ranking is not seen in Paul’s use of the word ‘brother’, e.g. Paul asks Philemon to receive Onesimus as a ‘dear brother’ rather than as a slave (Phm 16). The only exception is Christ who is ‘the firstborn among many brothers’ (Rom. 8:29). Aasgaard also notes that Paul never refers to himself as a brother which may suggest that he preferred to see himself as a father than a brother of the believers (‘My Beloved Brothers and Sisters’, 293). 238 Aasgaard, ‘My Beloved Brothers and Sisters’, 271. 239 Kloppenborg, ‘Egalitarianism’, 259. See also Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 55; Bartchy, ‘Undermining Ancient Patriarchy’, 70; Harris, Slave of Christ, 56; Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 87. It is however possible that Paul’s use of brotherhood language may have been taken from Judaism (Aasgaard, ‘My Beloved Brothers and Sisters’, 112-16). 240 Franz Bomer, Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom, 4 vols. (Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1958-63), 1:17278, cited in Kloppenborg, ‘Egalitarianism’, 259. 234

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

97

social life’. By using this familial picture, Paul is therefore making a strongly counter-cultural statement, as Calvin Roetzel argues: On one level he seems to accept family hierarchies – father, mother, children, hired servants, slaves – but on another level he appears to subvert the social and political hierarchy of the day. With the symbolic language of family, he thus elevated those in an especially weak and powerless position to the noble status of children of the father God. By ranking them above the wise, powerful, nobly born, strong, and honored, he turned the traditional social hierarchy on its head.241

Steward (oikonomos (οἰκονόμος))

The word oikonomos implies a delegated authority which could indicate some status.242 It refers to the ‘manager of the household or estate’, a ‘public treasurer’, or ‘one who is entrusted with management in connection with transcendent matters’.243 The oikonomos is usually a slave or freedman,244 e.g. one to whom the master has given responsibility in the household.245 However, the household is not theirs to organise as they please; as stewards, they had to give account to their masters as to how they had fulfilled the responsibilities entrusted to them.246 They had a derived authority as they acted on behalf of those over them in a variety of management roles in both domestic and civic arenas.247 In the New Testament, this term is used of an overseer (Titus 1:7), and Paul used this word group of his own ministry, especially referring to his role as a steward of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1-2; 9:17; Eph. 3:2; Col. 1:25). The implication is that Christian leaders are entrusted with ‘the 241

Roetzel, The World that Shaped the New Testament, 102; see also Bartchy, ‘Undermining Ancient Patriarchy’, 69. John Elliott argues that the use of household imagery in the church is also actually countering the cultural belief that the emperor was pater patriae (‘The Jesus Movement’, 199). Now believers are children of the merciful heavenly father. Chapple also argues that Paul’s use of brotherhood language ‘constitutes a break with his Jewish heritage’ since Jews would not refer to Gentiles as brothers (‘Local Leadership’, 187). 242 Olley, ‘Leadership’, 11; Gerd Theissen (ed. and trans. by John H. Schütz), The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982), 75-83. 243 Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 698; see also Jürgen Goetzmann in Brown, NIDNTT, II, 254; Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 56. Markus Barth also notes that the title oikonomos was used ‘for an officer in the Serapis sanctuary or in other Hellenistic cultic associations’ (Ephesians: Introduction, Translation and Commentary on Chapters 1-3, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), 86). 244 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 16; Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 62. 245 Friedrich, TDNT, V, 150. 246 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 159; Goetzmann in Brown, NIDNTT, II, 255. 247 Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 62-63.

98

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

administration of [God’s] goods for the benefit of his household’.248 Efrain Agosto maintains that in the co-text of 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, in which Paul calls himself servant (diakonos) (3:5) and assistant (hupēretēs) (4:1), the word oikonomoi should be understood with the meaning of slave stewards.249 Clarke comments that this passage ‘reinforces Paul’s reasoning that the Corinthians should have their perception of leadership in the church turned upside-down. These leaders whom they are exalting should be perceived as household servants of God’.250 SUMMARY

i) With many of the early church congregations being centred on a single household, it is highly likely that household structures profoundly influenced the leadership structures and appointments of the church. ii) The church was probably patriarchal from the start. Leaders would have a parental role in terms of both affectionate caring and authority. Holmberg maintains that Paul’s use of the fatherhood motif is mild in that – it signifies an affectionate relation, but it is also more demanding – when are you free from the obligation of respecting and obeying ‘father’, and when have you repaid the debt of gratitude to the person who has given you life (eternal)?251

However, the New Testament evidence does not support claims that this motif represented a controlling and manipulative style of leadership. iii) While Paul described himself as a father of many believers, this was not an official title (as in the Roman Catholic Church), and does not take away from his belief in a brotherhood of believers who are all children of the one Father God. As such, Paul fundamentally challenged conventional social hierarchies. iv) Church leaders had a serving role in the household of God as stewards who are accountable to God as head of the household. Titles related to service Servant/deacon (diakonos (διάκονος))

The word diakoneō (διακονέω) was traditionally considered to have a basic meaning of ‘to wait at table’,252 and that meaning is sometimes apparent in 248

Judge, Social Distinctives, 27. Agosto, Servant Leadership, 177. 250 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 121. Dale Martin emphasises the high status of Paul as Christ’s steward (e.g. Slavery as Salvation, 117-18), but Harris rightly doubts that Paul’s use of oikonomos in 1 Corinthians 4 can refer to ‘a high-status managerial slave’ in a co-text in which Paul calls himself ‘the scum of the earth’ (1 Cor. 4:13) (Slave of Christ, 129). 251 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 79. 252 Hermann Beyer in Kittel, TDNT, II, 82. 249

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

99

the New Testament (e.g. John 12:2). Words in the diakonia (διακονία) family were also seen to refer generally to ‘serving’.253 They are used by Paul more commonly than any other New Testament writer, and Clarke rightly observes that ‘this is a key semantic domain for Paul’.254 In the church, these words are used to describe apostolic leadership (Acts 1:25), teaching (e.g. Acts 6:4), meeting material needs (e.g. Rom. 15:25), exercise of gifts (1 Cor. 12:5), etc. The English word ‘ministry’ covers this wide variety of meanings.255 Words in the diakonia group are very rare in the Septuagint. John Olley notes that it is significant that the LXX normally translates words meaning ‘service’ not by diakonia but by the cultic words latreia and leitourgia.256 For Schweizer, the use of the diakonia family of words is a counter-cultural choice: The very choice of word, which still clearly involves the idea of humble activity, proves that the Church wishes to denote the attitude of one who is in the service of God and his fellow men, not a position carrying with it rights and powers.257

The use of words relating to service would offer a challenge both to the Graeco-Roman context in which patronal understandings of leadership were common,258 as well to the Jewish culture which favoured ‘gradations of rank’.259 However, Schweizer’s contention about the extra-biblical use of the diakonia family of words has been challenged by John Collins.260 He has widely studied the use of the diakonia word group in Greek contexts, and argues that the dominant meaning in non-Christian (and even religious) sources is not menial service or service of the needy, but ‘activity of an inbetween kind’ with emphasis on the ‘mode of activity’ and not on ‘notions of lowliness or servitude’:

253

Olley, ‘Leadership’, 12; Schweizer, Church Order, 174-75. Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 61. 255 Flemming notes that ‘all believers are viewed as “ministers” by the New Testament writers (Contextualization in the New Testament, 236). The concept of διάκονος [diakonos] (‘minister’, ‘servant’) and διακονία [diakonia] (‘service’) is not reserved for a select group, but applied universally. All members of the Christian community are to minister to one another (1 Pet. 4:10; cf. Eph. 4:12)’. 256 Olley, ‘Leadership’, 12. 257 Schweizer, Church Order, 177. Collins however notes that Josephus uses diakoneō when describing temple worship. This shows that this word group was not given a totally new meaning by the early church (Diakonia, 164). 258 Judge, Social Distinctives, 107. 259 Olley, ‘Leadership’, 12. 260 Collins, Diakonia, 335, see also 63-66, 77-95, 156; Gooder, ‘Diakonia in the New Testament’. 254

100

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

The words do not necessarily involve the idea of ‘humble activity’ at all, and never express the idea of being ‘at the service of’ one’s fellow man with what that phrase implies of benevolence; in commonly signifying that an action is done for someone, the words do not speak of benefit either to the person authorising the action or to the recipient of the action but of an action done in the name of another.261

This view is supported by Bauer in the third edition of his Greek-English lexicon.262 He maintains that the main meaning of diakonos is ‘one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction’, or ‘one who gets something done at the behest of a superior’. The verb diakoneō also includes the meaning ‘to carry out official duties, minister, in cultic context’,263 or ‘care for’ in an administrative context. Clarke considers that the use of the word ‘servant’ for leaders in the Old Testament, and especially in the servant songs of Isaiah, shows that the word ‘servant’ could be a term of honour, and even refer to a ruler.264 In the Christian context, this has profound implications for our understanding of ‘ministry’, with the nuance of meaning shifting from service to delegated authority. Collins therefore argues that words in the diakonia family refer to mandated authority and are ‘applicable to positions of authority and dignity’.265 Dieter Georgi also sees diakonos as usually carrying the meaning ‘envoy’ rather than ‘servant’, and Paul’s description of himself as ‘servant of Christ (diakonos Christou)’ in 2 Corinthians 11:23 (also ‘servants of God (Theou diakonoi)’ in 2 Cor. 6:4), showing that he is not a servant, but rather God’s authorised representative following the Cynic use of the term.266 John Koenig similarly argues that the servanthood exhibited by servants of Christ ‘never means reduction in status’ because of the power manifested in their ministries.267 261

Collins, Diakonia, 194. Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 230-31. 263 Schweizer maintains that these words were ‘non-religious’ in usage in both GraecoRoman and Old Testament contexts (Church Order, 174), but Bauer gives several examples of such use (Greek-English Lexicon, 229-31; see also Collins, Diakonia, 98-109, 166-68; Dieter Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians, in Studies of the New Testament and Its World (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), 28). 264 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 96-97. However, the Septuagint does not use the word diakonos, but pais (παῖς) or doulos. 265 Collins, Diakonia, 336. 266 Georgi, The Opponents of Paul, 27-29. 267 Koenig, ‘Hierarchy Transfigured’, 29. Ritva Williams too argues that while ‘Paul, Apollos and Cephas may be personally quite insignificant, as slaves and servants of one who is much greater, they command the respect and honor due to their master’ (Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 78). Indeed, Paul therefore ‘shares and participates in his master’s honor and status’ (81). David E. Aune even maintains that the ‘designation “servant” had doubtless come to connote one of superior status’ (‘The Social Matrix of the Apocalypse of John’, in Biblical Research, 26 (1981), 17). 262

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

101

How should these assertions be evaluated? It should be remembered that power does not necessarily imply status where that power is delegated by a higher authority. Jerry Sumney argues that, while it is possible that diakonia may on occasions imply elevated status, ‘its basic meaning is that of a servant, though not necessarily one in a servile position or a slave’.268 Clarke similarly challenges Collins’ research and argues that it does not necessarily follow that diakonia in the New Testament was not used in servile contexts, as indeed it was sometimes in non-Christian environments.269 Clarke notes that, in the Gospels, diakonia-related words are often used in clear contexts of service (or slavery), sometimes in contrast to ruling (e.g. Mark 9:35; Luke 12:37; 17:7-10; 22:24-27).270 Jesus likened his own service to waiting at tables in Mark 10:45 and Luke 22:27 – clearly a servile context. Tannehill observes that in Luke ‘this verb διακονέω [diakoneō] is always used of serving meals (with the possible exception of 8:3) and refers to the role which a woman or slave normally fills (4:39; 8:3; 10:40; 17:8)’.271 Clarke therefore concludes: The underlying thrust of the dominical message is clearly addressing the inappropriate assumption of high status. Collins, however, adopts the unsatisfactory conclusion that the original context of the saying underlying these two verses is sufficiently clouded to preclude reaching a clear conclusion as to the sense of διακονία [diakonia] in these synoptic parallels.272

Collins also says that the disciples ‘are not being urged to repeat his kind of service or to carry out practical service in other situations of daily life’.273 This raises fundamental hermeneutical questions about the purpose of narrative. It seems likely that the Gospel writers did expect their readers to take lessons from Jesus’ words.

268

Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 32-33. Clarke, Serve the Community, 238. 270 Clarke, Serve the Community, 239-40. Schweizer maintains that diakonia ‘nearly always denotes something of inferior value’ (Church Order, 174-75). Even Collins admits that half of the references in his extensive study of non-Christian usages of διακονέω [diakoneō] refer ‘to menial occupations’, although he prefers to find the basic meaning elsewhere than in menial service (Diakonia, 75). He further acknowledges that words in this family ‘mainly designate menial attendance of one kind or another’ when used in the Gospels (245). 271 Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, I, 256. John Nolland argues that, since Jesus presided over the Last Supper, he cannot be referring to himself as a table servant (Luke 18:35-24:53, WBC 35C (Dallas, TX: Word, 1993), 1065, contra 1068). But that is to miss the point of the pericope: the one who rightly leads is indeed the one who serves. 272 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 65. 273 Collins, Diakonia, 247. 269

102

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Collins asserts that Paul’s description of himself and Apollos as diakonoi in 1 Corinthians 3:5 is not an indication of their being servants, but mediators who are ‘messengers on assignment from God’.274 However, if that were a correct interpretation, it would destroy the force of Paul’s argument. When Paul asks the Corinthians: ‘What are these people Apollos and Paul?’, if his reply is ‘Special envoys sent by God’, then putting them on pedestals might seem to be appropriate. But surely Paul is questioning the adulation of those who are actually servants – indeed, who are nothing compared with God (1 Cor. 3:7)! The Corinthians’ focus should be on God and not on his servants. Clarke similarly challenges Collins’ assertion by interpreting Paul’s description in the context of the ‘status’ theme of his letter: Rather than saying we are significant emissaries, the emphasis appears to be that these apostles should be viewed, as they viewed themselves, as no more than servants who, consequently, should not be the focus of attention. As such, Paul inverts the contemporary social values which were being adopted by some of the Christian community, and adopts metaphors which were associated with menial and vulgar work, thereby eschewing self-exaltation.275

Alastair Campbell too, while being generally supportive of Collins’ point of view, argues that ‘διάκονος [diakonos] surely points away from any desire to glory in rank’ as illustrated by his use of the word in 1 Corinthians ‘in the course of deflating Corinthian pride’.276 In 2 Corinthians 6:4 and 11:23, where Paul describes himself as diakonos, Clarke similarly challenges Collins’ argument that Paul is emphasising that he is God’s authoritative mouthpiece, since these verses are part of Paul’s description of the sufferings he has faced as an apostle: ‘Paul’s point is precisely that he is boasting about things which show his weakness rather than his status.’277 Collins suggests that Paul’s use of the weakness motif is ironic and that Paul could not possibly ‘hope to sway the Corinthians in such an urgent situation by an argument based on the paradox of weakness’.278 But that is just what Paul is doing in a shocking and counter-cultural way! Collins argues that neither suffering nor 274

Collins, Diakonia, 195. Clarke, Serve the Community, 242. Clarke describes Paul’s willingness to serve others as being an indication of his ‘status inconsistency’ (A Pauline Theology, 105, 110-112). It might be better to describe this not as inconsistency but abnegation, since Paul is not being inconsistent, but like Jesus, is willing to lay aside his status for the sake of others. Copan is right to argue that Paul ‘considered every earthly gain in status to be of no value’ (Saint Paul, 209). 276 Campbell, The Elders, 134. 277 Clarke, Serve the Community, 242; see also Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 179; Watson, ‘Paul and Boasting’, 86. 278 Collins, Diakonia, 199. 275

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

103

weakness would be expected in the credentials of the diakonos.279 He maintains that Paul’s suffering is actually a sign of his strength as an emissary. However, this goes against the whole argument of Paul’s letter. His suffering points not to his own strength, but to his weakness and to Christ’s strength (2 Cor. 12:9). In conclusion therefore, Collins’ arguments do not seem to be strong enough to remove the clear dominical teaching on humble service, and as Clarke maintains, ‘the notion of serving is a clear element of Pauline leadership’.280 Hwa Yung similarly argues: It appears that the emphasis in the Bible’s teaching is that we are call [sic] first and foremost to strive to be servants and not leaders. Until and unless that is clearly taught and internalized into Christian lives, any talk of leadership tends to encourage self-seeking ambition!281

Finally, the office of deacon is considered. The word diakonos occurs 23 times in Paul’s letters, but Clarke maintains that only four of these instances refer to an appointed office (Rom. 16:1 (a female); Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12).282 Care must be taken not to read later church understandings of the role of deacon into the New Testament, but the fact that deacons should be tested (1 Tim. 3:10) shows that they held an official position.283 John Collins maintains that diakonos is an honorific title for a person who is the agent of the church leaders, e.g. the episkopoi, but not of the church as a whole.284 He suggests that its use in religious circles made it a more suitable choice of word than hupēretēs (see pp. 109-110 below) which was more common in bureaucratic usage. Schweizer, while emphasising a more traditional emphasis on service, similarly considers that ‘the ministry of deacon originated among Gentile Christians’ as a service to overseers, since Jewish elders had no servants attached to them.285

279

Collins, Diakonia, 201-202. Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 67. 281 Hwa, ‘Leadership or Servanthood?’, 195. 282 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 47. Dunn argues that ‘it would be premature to speak of an established office of diaconate’ (Romans 9-16, 887), although that is a reflection of his acceptance of the developmental hypothesis of leadership in the Pauline churches (see Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 68, n. 111). 283 Verner, The Household of God, 155. 284 Collins, Diakonia, 236, 337. Campbell (The Elders, 199-200) and Gehring (House Church and Mission, 207) also see the deacons as assisting the leaders. 285 Schweizer, Church Order, 199, n. 745. As was noted above (ch. 2, footnote 51), James Burtchaell (From Synagogue to Church, xv, 317, 339) however maintains that the leadership of synagogues included the office of elder, community chief and assistant (hupēretēs), with the last of these being renamed diakonos in the church context, a title 280

104

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

George Knight argues that initially churches would only appoint elders/overseers, e.g. as in Crete (Titus 1:5), but as the churches grew, and as caring for the needy became too demanding for them, deacons would be appointed.286 Deacons may have served in a husband-and-wife team ministry,287 but the New Testament has little to say about the detailed duties of ‘deacons’.288 Clarke also warns of the danger of either equating (or differentiating) the roles of deacons in Romans 16:1 and Philippians 1:1 with those in 1 Timothy 3.289 He does however argue that: By analogy with the description of the overseer… it may be that the references to the family and household suggest that their function is within the domestic context of the house-church. In this way, both the overseer and the deacons have a duty to lead (προϊστάμενοι [proistamenoi]) within the house-church. On this reconstruction, the role of the deacon is neither menial nor servile, and it concerns the leadership of people, rather than the administration of things.290

Robert Jewett too believes that Phoebe had a leadership role in the congregation.291 Earl Ellis sees deacons ‘to be a special class of co-workers, those who are active in preaching and teaching’.292 Although Jesus’ description of himself as one who serves (diakoneō) (Mark 10:45) is clearly referring to humble service, it is likely that in the course of time, as the word diakonos was used as an official title in the church, it took on a more authoritative meaning, without totally losing its nuance of menial service, as noted above.

that was never used in synagogues (Kittel, TDNT, II, 91). Much of this hypothesis is conjecture, however. 286 Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 175. 287 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 69-70. 288 Flemming, ‘The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy’, 240. 289 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 69. 290 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 70. 291 Jewett, Romans, 944. 292 Ellis, ‘Paul and His Co-workers’, 442. Dieter Georgi also argues that diakonoi in the New Testament refer to ‘proclaimers’ and may even be synonymous with episkopoi, although the verses he quotes are equivocal (e.g. Rom. 11:13; 1 Cor. 16:15; Eph. 4:12; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:12) (The Opponents of Paul, 29-32). Moreover, unlike for overseers, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 there is no requirement that deacons be able to teach. Collins also suggests that Paul’s self-description as diakonos indicates his role as spokesman (Diakonia, 195-203). He also proposes that the role of the Seven in Acts 6 was one of ministering the word of God, not distributing food (Deacons and the Church, 49-58), although it is possible that their role included both activities (Gooder, ‘Diakonia in the New Testament’, 16-17; Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, 111). However, Chapple wisely argues that although some diakonoi ‘may be preachers, διάκονος [diakonos] is not used to mean ‘preacher’ or ‘messenger’’ (‘Local Leadership’, 553).

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

105

Slave (doulos (δοῦλος))

The word doulos is used to indicate a ‘slave as an entity in the socio-economic context’ or ‘one who is solely committed to another… Slaves are duty-bound only to their owners or masters, or those to whom total allegiance is pledged’.293 This is a service which is ‘not a matter of choice for the one who renders it, which he has to perform whether he likes or not, because he is subject as a slave to an alien will, to the will of his owner’.294 Slaves were found in a great variety of social positions: some as managers or tutors in elite households at one extreme, others working as agricultural labourers or miners in harsh circumstances at the other.295 Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller observe that, in the imperial household, slaves who held high positions were extremely influential and could become very wealthy.296 However, the legal status of slaves placed them at the bottom of the social pile as objects of public humiliation especially in upper-class society:297 ‘Because douleuō [to serve as a slave] involved the abrogation of one’s own autonomy and the subordination of one’s will to that of another, the Greek felt only revulsion and contempt for the position of a slave.’298 As such, it is certainly not a description of a role to be sought; Plato questioned: ‘How can a man be happy when he has to serve someone?’299 Slaves were acknowledged to be people,300 but because they had no citizenship, ‘they lacked the essential qualification of humanity’.301 MacLeod describes the low status of the slave in the Roman empire: Slavery… meant the extreme deprivation of rights. A slave was a piece of property to be bought and sold. Slavery denied a person the right to anything – even his own life. Unlike other people, a slave had no inherent rights.302

293

Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 259-60. K.H. Rengstorf in Kittel, TDNT, II, 261. 295 Harris, Slave of Christ, 35; Hellerman, ‘Humiliation of Christ 2’, 425; Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 11-15. 296 Garnsey and Saller, The Roman Empire, 119. 297 See Harris (Slave of Christ, 43, 134-135), Hellerman (‘Humiliation of Christ 2’, 425-26, 430), Hutchison (‘Servanthood’, 67), and the opposing viewpoint of Dale Martin (Slavery as Salvation, 22). 298 Rudolf Tuente in Brown, NIDNTT, III, 593; see also Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, I, 50. Clarke cites Dio Chrysostom as describing it as ‘the most shameful and wretched of states’ (Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 28). Harris observes that ‘the Stoics viewed voluntary slavery as despicable’ (Slave of Christ, 114). 299 ἐπεὶ πῶς ἂν εὐδαίμων γένοιτο ἄνθρωπος δουλεύων ὁτῳοῦν (Plato, Gorgias 491e, cited in Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 132). 300 Harris, Slave of Christ, 37; Martin, Slavery as Salvation, xiii. 301 Judge, Social Distinctives, 19. 302 David J. MacLeod, ‘Imitating the Incarnation of Christ: An Exposition of Philippians 2:5-8’, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 158 (2001), 320; see also Harris, Slave of Christ, 37. 294

106

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Although there were some examples in Hellenistic writing where devotion to God was shown by the use of doulos,303 this was not common.304 However, this concept was much more widespread in the Ancient Near East.305 Just as the Old Testament men of God were referred to as ‘servants of the Lord’,306 so also in the New Testament the word doulos was often used to describe the relationship of the believer to God (or to Christ), e.g. Rom. 1:1; Jas 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1. Don Howell argues therefore that the meaning of doulos in the New Testament, rather than the pejorative Hellenistic one, is closer to that of the Hebrew word ‘ebed which is often translated in the LXX by doulos.307 He is right to stress that the believer’s relationship to God is one of voluntary submission, not a compulsory one.308 However, it is not likely that Paul would have used this word in Gentile contexts without fully realising how shocking it would be to his first-generation Christian readers, who would most likely ‘have understood the Greek term in its common sense of “slaves”’, as Peter O’Brien argues in his discussion of ‘servants of Christ Jesus’ (douloi Christou Iēsou) in Philippians 1:1.309 What is even more remarkable is that Paul not only exhorts people to be slaves of one another (Gal. 5:13), but he also, though a mighty apostle, makes himself a slave of those he reaches out to (2 Cor. 4:5; cf. 1 Cor. 9:19).310 Dale Martin, Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University, who has studied the social history of the Graeco-Roman context, suggests that Paul’s description of himself as a slave of others would have been shocking to educated people of the time.311 Paul’s stance 303

Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 260; Martin, Slavery as Salvation, xiv-xvi. Barrett, Romans, 16; Howell, Servants of the Servant, 11. 305 Harris, Slave of Christ, 140. 306 Occasionally translated in the LXX as doulos kuriou (e.g. Josh. 24:29). 307 Howell, Servants of the Servant, 11. 308 Howell, Servants of the Servant, 13. G. Sass (cited in Harris, Slave of Christ, 127-28) also sees an Old Testament background for doulos in the New Testament, and believes that it is a title of honour (see the discussion on Dale Martin’s views below). 309 Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 45. O’Brien goes on to remark that in ‘a letter that gives prominence to humility, it is more likely that Paul is focusing on the word’s reference to lowly service than its nuance of privileged position’. Harris also emphasises that Jewish, Greek and Roman backgrounds are all influential in the New Testament understanding of slavery (Slave of Christ, 27). 310 See Olley, ‘Leadership’, 11-12; Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 32-33. Ajith Fernando also observes that Paul refers to Timothy working as a slave (douleuō) of the gospel (Phil. 2:22) (‘Jesus: The Message and Model of Mission’, in William D. Taylor (ed.), Global Missiology for the 21st Century: The Iguassu Dialogue (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 213). 311 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 76. Martin argues that this may parallel a less common demagogic or populist style of leadership in Graeco-Roman society in which the leader became a slave of the masses (87-116, 124-26). Although it unclear whether Paul’s Corinthian readers would have recognised Paul as such a populist leader, Martin is 304

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

107

is in great contrast to the false teachers in Corinth who flouted their authority over the church, and expected to be treated with honour accordingly.312 In the co-text of his second letter to the Corinthians, it is highly unlikely that the one who gloried in his weakness and suffering would have used the word ‘slave’ in an honorific way. Paul’s involuntary and unpaid work as a gospel minister (1 Cor. 9:17) may have been a sign of his role as a slave of the gospel.313 Martin argues that by so doing, he was able to reach out to the lower classes – an example he wants others who were strong to follow:314 ‘This is a radical challenge to patronal ideology because following Paul’s example necessitates social self-lowering on the part of these high-status Christians.’315 Martin describes Paul’s advice that the strong lower themselves as ‘disturbing and unacceptable’.316 Although Martin therefore acknowledges Paul’s radical self-lowering in his relationship with others, in contrast to this he considers Paul’s description of himself and other leaders as slaves of Christ (Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:10; Phil. 1:1) to be ‘a title of leadership’.317 While it may originally have had humble connotations, Martin maintains that long use of the expression in the early church led to it indicating leadership status.318 Similar to the arguments employed by Collins regarding Paul’s use of the word diakonos discussed above, Martin believes that Paul’s description of himself as Christ’s slave of Christ actually confirms his authority.319 One reason for this is that slaves of important people had ‘a certain amount of prestige and power, a status-by-association’,320 even if they did not carry all the normal marks of status and authority.321 He therefore maintains that ‘the phrase slave of Christ would have carried, to all but the upper levels of society, certainly right to suggest that Paul ‘throws normal social hierarchy and status indicators into disarray’ (126). 312 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 99; Philip E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 131; Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 33. 313 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 90. 314 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 124. 315 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 147. 316 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 128. 317 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 51. 318 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 52-54. 319 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 84. 320 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, xxii. 321 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 137. Murray Harris, while acknowledging that doulos could indicate privileged leadership (Slave of Christ, 131), rightly critiques Dale Martin by arguing that ‘such “middle-level, managerial slaves” formed such a small minority that we may question whether that particular connotation of slavery would have ousted the dominant notion of slavery as humble subjection to a master in the minds of Paul’s converts. Would not Paul’s Corinthian readers or any typical Greco-Roman urbanites have interpreted the term doulos in light of their own experience or observation of slavery?’ (129-30).

108

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

meanings not of humility but of authority and power’ as Christ’s agent and spokesperson.322 He argues that this self-description is not a sign of selfabasement but ‘establishes Paul’s authoritative role’ as ‘Christ’s managerial slave’ – a great contrast to the benevolent patriarchal leadership model which was most common in society.323 Furthermore, he alleges that the description of the great apostle as a ‘slave of God’ in Titus 1:1 would not have been likely if it had been considered to be shameful or humiliating.324 However, his argument is circular. He assumes that to be an authoritative leader is not to be self-effacing, and therefore that the expression ‘slave of God’ cannot imply humility. If however the apostle, following the example of Christ himself, did see leadership as being exercised in the service of God and others, such a self-effacing title would not be inappropriate. The description of Christ as doulos in Philippians 2:7 would be meaningless if it were seen as a title of authority and power.325 A further example is seen in 2 Corinthians 2:14. Although Paul does not use the word doulos, he indicates that true apostles should be seen as slaves of Christ, and not in a position of status or honour. The metaphor used in this verse would have been familiar to his readers. It concerns a victorious Roman general returning to Rome, followed by his soldiers, together with his booty and many captives chained to the wheels of chariots.326 Paul uses this picture to show that, like captive prisoners-of-war tied to the chariots of the triumphant army, he has become a willing slave of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 4:9, Paul uses a similar picture as he says that ‘God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena’. Steve Taylor remarks: ‘This description is a very different picture to the image a leader or patron 322

Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 56. Ritva Williams similarly argues that, as a slave of Christ, Paul could command very high status in the church, although she does acknowledge that ‘in the wider first-century Mediterranean world, the term would… perhaps even [have] carried a negative meaning’ (Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 82, n. 107). Furthermore, Harris notes that the expression ‘slave of God/Christ’ is not only used of leaders but is used in the New Testament to refer to all believers (Slave of Christ, 128, 133, 138). It cannot therefore simply be a description of a high-status group within the church. 323 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 117. 324 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 254. Martin also maintains that the status of slaves was not viewed negatively by the slaves themselves (42-48). However, Harris is surely more balanced when he argues that in ‘the first century AD, the doulos word group would have generally evoked feelings of repugnance in the hearts of free persons and the vast majority of slaves, although for a small minority of slaves the emotional connotations of slave terminology may have been positive’ (Slave of Christ, 140). 325 Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 515. 326 The word thriambeuō almost certainly means ‘to lead [a conquered enemy] in triumph’ not ‘to make to triumph’. The NIV (2011 edition) translates 2 Corinthians 2:14: ‘But thanks be to God, who always leads us as captives in Christ’s triumphal procession and uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere.’ See Garland, 2 Corinthians, 140-41.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

109

would naturally adopt or portray of himself today. It is a picture of sacrifice, service, disadvantage, vulnerability and humility.’327 Paul, formerly a proud Pharisee, willingly became a despised captive slave of Christ. This understanding of the word fits well with Paul’s description of the hardships and sufferings of the minister of the gospel. It is also in striking contrast to the false apostles’ triumphalistic teaching in Corinth. Clarke states that – the Corinthians’ perception of leadership is dramatically inverted by Paul. In 1 Corinthians 4.8-13, Paul employs colourful imagery to demonstrate that the apostles, who had been the figureheads of the Corinthian party divisions, are in effect placed at the end of the line in terms of secular status.328

Unlike the kind of leaders desired by the Corinthians, who show their authority as agents of God by means of their charisma and selfconfidence,329 Paul shows his authority by following the example of the crucified Christ who exchanged his divine rights for the position of a human slave (Phil. 2:7).330 Assistant (hupēretēs (ὑπηρέτης))

Although traditionally this word was thought to have a literal meaning of under-rower, i.e. the lowest status of galley-slave, this is now disputed.331 In New Testament times, it simply meant a household servant, assistant or official of a higher authority (Matt. 5:25; 26:58).332 It is similar in meaning to diakonos,333 although Collins maintains that the two words are not synonymous.334 In Christian contexts, it was used to mean a servant of the word (Luke 1:2), helper (Acts 13:5), and servant of Christ (Acts 26:16; 1 Cor. 4:1). Although in classical Greek hupēretēs could be applied to the servants of the gods,335 Efrain Agosto remarks that Paul’s use of this word (and oikonomos) for leaders would have been shocking to his readers, and 327

Stephen C.R. Taylor, ‘Patron-Client Relationships and the Challenge for the Thai Church’, Master of Christian Studies thesis (DTC, Singapore, 1997), 70; see also Harris, Slave of Christ, 130. C.K. Barrett ironically remarks: ‘This is indeed a position of privilege, though not when estimated by worldly standards, for it is the position of Christ himself’ (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 2nd edn, BNTC (London: A. & C. Black, 1971), 110). 328 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 122. 329 Witherington, Conflict and Community, 367. 330 Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 83; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 28, n. 81. 331 Friedrich, TDNT, VIII, 533-34. 332 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 177-78; Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 1035; Howell, Servants of the Servant, 15. 333 Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 99. 334 Collins, Diakonia, 84, 174. 335 Friedrich, TDNT, VIII, 531.

110

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

especially to those who were elite leaders.336 Paul’s use of the term hupēretēs and the other words related to service show his deep humility and suggest ‘that he was not motivated by self-serving concerns (pride, aggrandizement, power, etc.)’.337 SUMMARY

i) Jesus clearly associated leadership with service in his teaching as he challenged his disciples not to follow Gentile models. Although words in the diakonos and doulos families cannot be equated in a simplistic way,338 it is interesting to observe how Jesus uses them in parallel: ‘Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant (diakonos), and whoever wants to be first must be your slave (doulos)’ (Matt. 20:26-27).339 ii) While Paul may well have used words commonly translated by service and ministry in more than one way, there is little doubt that in many cases he included the idea of humble service as a challenge to contemporary leadership patterns, both Jewish and Graeco-Roman. Campbell rightly observes that ‘the Christian use of [diakonia] does point away from the sort of titles of honour beloved elsewhere’.340 iii) Words meaning ‘serving’ in the diakonos and doulos groups are used more than any other words for Christian leadership. This is a marked change from Judaism. Hwa Yung asserts: ‘These two terms sum up the thrust of New Testament teaching on Christian ministry as servanthood! The frequency of their usage points to the centrality of the concept and its foundational importance in the minds of the writers!’341 He argues that the New Testament does not encourage us to strive for leadership but it ‘emphasises that we are to strive, first and foremost, to be servants. Whether we become leaders is absolutely secondary. This turns the values of the world upside down… great spiritual leadership is always the product of true biblical servanthood!’342 iv) Using words indicating service and self-lowering in leadership contexts was a challenge to patronal ideas. How could the one who has high status be considered a servant of his clients?

336

Agosto, Servant Leadership, 178. Copan, Saint Paul, 246. 338 Gooder, ‘Diakonia in the New Testament’, 26. 339 Epaphras is described as both ‘servant of Christ (diakonos tou Christou)’ (Col. 1:7) and ‘slave of Christ (doulos Christou)’ (Col. 4:12) (see Harris, Slave of Christ, 179). 340 Campbell, The Elders, 135. 341 Hwa, ‘Leadership or Servanthood?’, 197. 342 Hwa Yung, ‘Transforming the Mind and Heart’, in Asian Beacon (April-May 2011), 26; see also Flemming, ‘The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy’, 245; Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness (New York: Paulist Press, 1977), 13. 337

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership; God’s Activity and Word

111

v) Such service does not mean the absence of hierarchy; it indicates the way in which leadership should be exercised.343 Unlike Graeco-Roman society’s preoccupation with status and rank, Clarke asserts that Paul considered that true leadership is shown by the service of others: Paul’s conception of the Christian leader is one who is the head of a household, and master of domestic slaves, and whose house-church in all probability includes other slaves. Accordingly, the message of servanthood as it appears in the Pauline corpus is not a thoroughgoing servanthood that inverts the normal hierarchy of the home; the head of the household remains the leader. Rather, the context of humility, vulnerability and service sets a context for the exercising of authority, rather than its removal. This is consistent with the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels that shows a figure who was renowned both for his authority and his repudiation of authoritarianism.344

Other titles Governor (hēgemōn) (ἡγεμών), hēgoumenos (ἡγουμενος))

The word hēgemōn refers to ‘one who rules, especially in a pre-eminent position’, as well as to provincial governors.345 For example, the word is used of the princes of Judah (Matt. 2:6), and of Roman governors, e.g. Pilate (Matt. 27: 2), Felix (Acts 23:24), and Festus (Acts 26:30). John Olley remarks that words in this group ‘are used only of political rule’.346 The word hēgoumenos is used to refer to the Messiah (Matt. 2:6) as well of church leaders in Lukan materials and Hebrews (Luke 22:26; Acts 15:22; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24) but not in Pauline letters meaning leader.347 Andrew Clarke notes that Paul may have avoided this word group since in the Septuagint ‘the term is associated with more despotic rulers or national rulers, with connotations of ruling and commanding’.348 Pilot (kubernētēs (κυβερνήτης))

This word is used to mean the pilot or manager of a ship (e.g. Acts 27:11), literally ‘the one who steers’. It may also be used figuratively of ‘one who directs the destiny of humans’:349 for example, Plato used the word of leading statesmen.350 The related word kubernēsis (κυβέρνησις) is found in the apostle Paul’s list of ministries in 1 Corinthians 12:28 (cf. Prov. 11:14 343

Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 186; Hutchison, ‘Servanthood’, 69. Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 102. 345 Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 433. 346 Olley, ‘Leadership’, 7. 347 See Olley, ‘Leadership’, 7. The verb hēgeomai can also be used to mean ‘to engage in an intellectual process’ (Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 434). 348 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 75. 349 Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 574. 350 Coenen in Brown, NIDNTT, I, 193. 344

112

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

LXX), translated as ‘gifts of administration’ in the NIV. Chua Wee Hian considers that this is an important leadership gift.351 However, this word does not refer to an office but a function,352 which is borne by elders and deacons.353 Shepherd/pastor (poimēn (ποιμήν))

The primary meaning of this word group is ‘shepherd’, but secondarily it refers to human leaders, including those of churches, e.g. Acts 20:28; Eph. 4:11.354 This was a common description of leaders in the Old Testament (e.g. 2 Sam. 5:2; Is. 44:28; Jer. 10:21; Ezek. 34:7; Zech. 10:3). This is probably not an official title.355 Joachim Jeremias suggests that pastors and teachers in Ephesians 4:11 refer to a single group,356 but O’Brien considers that teachers may not all be pastors as well, and that it is more likely that ‘the terms describe overlapping functions’.357 Summary The main conclusions of this chapter, together with those of Chapter 4, will be drawn together on pp. 147-54. However, at this stage it is interesting to observe the wide variety of titles which were used in the New Testament church. Although some terms were avoided, especially those indicating strong rule or priestly functions, titles from many social contexts were happily used by the church. There was no one-size-fits-all approach with a uniform application of titles, regardless of the cultural context and size of the church. The fact that many of the early churches were founded in households led to the widespread use of household vocabulary, but one area in which the church strongly stood against contemporary leadership understandings is seen in its use of terms relating to service and slavery. New Testament leadership was neither an unquestioning imitation of the models of the time, nor a complete rejection of them. As will be seen in Chapter 5, the theology of Paul and the early church profoundly influenced the contextualisation of leadership. This resulted in a Christ-centred understanding of leadership which was shown both in the church’s use of titles and structures, as well as in the practice of leadership which is discussed below.

351

Chua, Learning to Lead, 118. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 142. 353 Kittel, TDNT, III, 1036. 354 Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 843. 355 Erich Beyreuther in Brown, NIDNTT, III, 568; Friedrich, TDNT, VI, 497-98. 356 See Friedrich, TDNT, VI, 497. 357 O’Brien, Ephesians, 300. 352

Chapter 4 Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

In order to understand the theological principles which influenced the contextualisation of leadership in Paul’s ministry and writings, Chapters 3 and 4 examine the factors which shaped this process. The beginning of Chapter 3 looked at the role of God’s activity and word, as Paul and the Pauline churches were influenced and guided by the work of the Holy Spirit and Scripture. However, the primary focus of this part of the study concerns the role of the missional context. The second part of Chapter 3 considered how titles and the associated organisational structures were contextualised in the Pauline churches. Areas where Paul and the Pauline churches happily used existing leadership titles and structures were observed, as well as other areas in which they were markedly countercultural. This chapter continues to study the missional context and concentrates on the more practical matters of leadership qualifications and leadership style. As has been noted before, the aim of this study is not to engage in detailed biblical exegesis but applied theology. At the end of the chapter is a summary of how leadership was contextualised, identifying which contextual models were used and built on, and which ones were rejected or transformed in leadership selection, structures and practice. Following this, Chapter 5 moves from a discussion of how leadership was contextualised, to the inner reasons of why it was contextualised in the ways already observed, as the theological principles at work are drawn out. Leadership Qualifications

This section begins by looking at the chief leadership qualifications which were demanded in the Graeco-Roman context (including the world of Judaism), noting whether or not the same criteria were followed in the church. Following this, an examination of qualifications which were especially required for those who would aspire to leadership in the church is made. In most cases, these are different from those sought in general society. The section concludes with a brief summary in which the main differences between the church and the wider context are contrasted.

114

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

The missional context WEALTH

In Graeco-Roman culture, it was considered that a ‘person’s honor or worth is proportionate to his wealth’.1 It is therefore not surprising that although government was practised by a council of wise people in Greek cities, by the first century AD, membership of these councils was ‘often restricted to those who met a stringent property qualification’.2 Ramsay MacMullen asserts that sometimes candidates with sufficient income to become elders in a given village could not be found.3 Priests and magistrates (both having political influence) were also chosen from among the wealthy.4 Consequently, it is not an exaggeration to state that, in Graeco-Roman society, wealth was one of the main qualifications for attaining a position of leadership. Jerry Sumney affirms this: Even the public assemblies of the cities were dominated by the wealthy so that the government worked more like an oligarchy than a democracy. The predominant way one gained a place of status (except for places within the family) was through wealth, particularly using wealth as a means of establishing a network of friends both below and above you in the hierarchy. Those below were dependent on those above in financial and political/legal ways.5

It should however be noted that in the Roman empire, people of wealth who took positions of leadership in local government were also expected to use their wealth for civic projects, since taxation was insufficient to cover all the needs.6 Even in this case, the motivation was not usually generosity, but a desire to receive greater honour.7 1 DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 75. MacMullen similarly claims that ‘wealth seems to earn respect by itself, to the degree it is accumulated’ (Roman Social Relations, 117). 2 Clarke, Serve the Community, 16; see also Horsley, Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, 18. 3 MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 14. Verner similarly maintains: ‘Some towns had trouble finding enough citizens who could meet the financial requirement for decurions’ (The Household of God, 52). 4 Clarke, Serve the Community, 32. 5 Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 28. 6 Lendon, Empire of Honour, 85. 7 Lendon, Empire of Honour, 86. David Verner argues from 1 Timothy 3:1 (‘If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task’) and 3:13 (‘Those who have served well gain an excellent standing’) that church leaders ‘shared the same aristocratic social aspirations’ as those seeking office in Graeco-Roman society (The Household of God, 160; see also 183; Gehring, House Church and Mission, 265). However, Stott maintains that in 3:1 Paul is not condoning selfish ambition but rather emphasising the nobleness of the pastoral ministry (The Message of 1 Timothy and Titus: The Life of the Local Church, BST (Leicester: IVP, 1996), 92). This seems to be more consistent with

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

115

As far as the Jewish context is concerned, Efrain Agosto argues that, by the first century AD, ‘financial success by certain families secured entrance into Jerusalem’s ruling classes, whereas previously ancestral ties and Torah observance were fundamental for such inclusion’.8 For example, synagogue rulers were often appointed as a reward for their patronage, indicating that they were wealthy.9 These qualifications are similar to those of the Gentile Graeco-Roman context, showing that the Jews had adopted some of their practices.10 How influenced was the early church by this understanding? Wayne Meeks suggests that wealthy people were responsible for providing housing for believers, as well as meeting places for congregations.11 It is likely that Aquila and Priscilla, who were probably people of social standing in Rome (Rom. 16:3-5), would automatically have become leaders in the church.12 Another example is Phoebe the deacon who is described as a patron of many (Rom. 16:1-2), which suggests that she was relatively wealthy.13 David Verner also argues that the fact that deacons have to manage their households well implies that prospective church office-holders will have been wealthy enough to possess household slaves.14 However, given Paul’s recognition of God’s choice of those who are not influential (1 Cor. 1:26), Agosto is surely right to maintain that it is not fair to suggest that only welloff householders became church leaders.15 Even Paul experienced some times of affluence, but others of great material need (Phil. 4:12). His leadership was not a result of his wealth, and he counselled against appointing overseers who were ‘lovers of money’ (1 Tim. 3:3; cf. Titus Paul’s exhortation to Timothy in 6:11 to ‘pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness’ rather than harmful desires. Mounce also argues that the excellent standing of the leaders should be contrasted with the reprehensible reputation of Paul’s opponents (Pastoral Epistles, 205). Right aspirations for leadership are something Paul commends, and are not to be confused with worldly ambition. 8 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 17. 9 Clarke, Serve the Community, 129-30, 136; Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 74. 10 Clarke, Serve the Community, 137. 11 Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 73. 12 Clarke, Serve the Community, 190. 13 See Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 47-48; Horrell, ‘Leadership Patterns’, 326; Jewett, ‘Paul, Phoebe and the Spanish Mission’, 149. Judge sees eminent women acting as the apostle’s patrons and running the churches that met in their homes (Social Distinctives, 86, 106). However, the fact that Paul (the client) commends Phoebe (the patron) is the reverse of normal practice which implies that she does not ‘fulfil the traditional role of a patron’ (Justin Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), 148, cited in Agosto, Servant Leadership, 151). Furthermore, given Paul’s concerns about the whole patronal system, it seems unlikely that Phoebe was a patron in the same way as was found in society at large. 14 Verner, The Household of God, 133. 15 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 150.

116

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

1:7). While the wealthy were not thereby excluded, wealth was certainly not a condition for those aspiring to church leadership. One exception to the general rule that the wealthy were those who took positions of leadership is found in voluntary associations. As seen above, although there was some discrimination against those from the lower social classes – for example, in the harshness of punishments meted out – associations did constitute one area in Roman society in which those from outside the elite could rise to positions of leadership. In contrast to leadership in the political sphere, which was largely reserved for those of noble birth, it was not uncommon for those outside the aristocracy to attain positions of honour in the associations.16 IMPRESSIVE APPEARANCE AND LEARNING

In the Graeco-Roman world, an imposing outward appearance and a strong bodily presence were indispensable requirements for leaders.17 Jerry Sumney argues that philosophers thought that those who shared the message of the gods in powerful speech and action were revealing the power of God.18 He sees an example of this thinking in the Corinthian church which Paul addressed in his first letter. This resulted in conflict, with the various social groups within the church ‘claiming superior status based on the ways each was able to meet the cultural expectations for leadership (i.e. what made them look impressive and powerful) in the community of the church’. In an examination of Paul’s second letter, Sumney maintains that those who claimed to be true apostles and who were opposing Paul’s apostleship similarly believed that ministers of the gospel should be powerful in appearance and personality, and able to move their hearers’ hearts by their oratory.19 Philip Hughes argues that ‘to the sophisticated Greek mind, skill in rhetoric and philosophy provided a commendation superior to all others for the man who wished to gain a following’. Such a person was expected to show off the oratorical skill he had perfected though his learning of rhetoric.20 16

Clarke, Serve the Community, 67, 75-77. See, for example, Garland, 2 Corinthians, 448; Savage, Power Through Weakness, 65. However, Harrill notes that not all accepted this physiognomic criterion for leadership and persuasion, e.g. the Socratic-Cynics (Slaves in the New Testament, 36; see also Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 29). 18 Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 29. 19 See also Clarke, Serve the Community, 179, 188. This does not mean that Paul had no rhetorical skill, but clearly his opponents were even more accomplished in the ornamental rhetorical styles of the time (cf. 2 Cor. 11:6) (Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 161, 163). 20 Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 380; see also Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 37-38. In Greek culture, oratory was considered to be as important as the content of the message (Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry, 17, 33). 17

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

117

Consequently, it is likely that Paul was under great pressure to conform to this model of leadership in the churches in which he ministered.21 Andrew Clarke, following the work of A.D. Litfin,22 maintains that Paul’s rhetorical shortfall in their eyes was made all the more apparent by the rather more evident skills of Apollos in oratory. The Corinthians had hoped for an orator who, in the style of the greatest public speakers, could adapt his message in order to achieve the best results in terms of fame, reputation and appreciation. Paul on the other hand was quite unprepared to adapt his message in this way.23

This led in 2 Corinthians 10:10 and 11:6 to some of the Corinthians mocking Paul for his unimpressive appearance, poor speaking, and lack of assertiveness – perhaps even suggesting with the Sophists that Paul’s appearance was like that of a slave and thus unworthy of ruling.24 However, Timothy Savage notes that Paul responds to his Corinthian critics ‘by adopting a position which represents the exact antithesis of what they would have desired in a religious leader’.25 He does not use self-confident boasting, but humbly emphasises his own weakness, and is not ashamed of being poor. Jerry Sumney believes that Paul rejects the leadership understandings which have been taken from the cultural context because they violate the gospel.26 Sumney suggests that the heart of Paul’s argument is found in 2 Corinthians 4:7: ‘We have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.’27 The power of the gospel, therefore, must be seen to come from God and not from the impressiveness of the minister.28 Among high-class Romans, and especially those who desired to become senators, rhetoric was the chief area of learning which was required; other educational achievements were secondary.29 However, in the Jewish teaching context, education was a very important qualification. Rabbis ‘form a professional elite, entered by merit and above all by training’.30 The people were therefore shocked by Jesus’ learning, despite his not having studied and being only a carpenter (Mark 6:2-3; Luke 4:22; John 7:15). In 21

Judge, Social Distinctives, 108. A.D. Litfin, St Paul’s Theology of Proclamation: An Investigation of 1 Corinthians 1-4 in the Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric, unpublished D.Phil. dissertation (Oxford University, UK, 1983), 228. 23 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 104. 24 Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament, 36-44, 56. 25 Savage, Power Through Weakness, 99. 26 Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 30. 27 Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 31. 28 See also Schweizer, Church Order, 179. 29 Susan P. Mattern, Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), 3, 16, 25. 30 Judge, ‘The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community’, 9. 22

118

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

the same way, the Sanhedrin was astonished by Peter’s teaching although he was unschooled (Acts 4:13). Paul was highly educated, but he challenged traditional thinking by asserting that he counted all his learning as nothing compared with the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ (Phil. 3:3-8). COMMENDATION

Another qualification for leadership which was common in Graeco-Roman society was the commendation of patrons or others in positions of leadership.31 Paul’s opponents used letters of commendation (2 Cor. 3:1), and Paul himself commended Stephanas to the Corinthians because of his service (diakonia) (1 Cor. 16:15-18).32 Paul even used this method to commend himself by using the Corinthians themselves as his letter of commendation (2 Cor. 3:2-3). For Paul, the state of people’s hearts shown in their service of others was more important than external status (2 Cor. 5:12).33 In contrasting Paul’s commendation of the Thessalonian church leaders (1 Thess. 5:12-13) with other Roman commendations, Efrain Agosto observes that – instead of focusing on social prestige, financial status and political connections, Paul focuses on the leaders’ role and functions in the community. The most striking contrast with the qualities or functions for which elite protégés would be recommended is Paul’s designation of the leaders commended as ‘those who labour among you’, kopiaō being a term for tiring manual labor and physical struggle, in which no respectable member of the elite would ever engage.34

Agosto also notes in 2 Corinthians 6:4-8 the great contrast between the Graeco-Roman positive criteria for commendation, such as health, wealth and family connections, and Paul’s descriptions of ‘troubles, hardships and distresses’ which he uses as his own personal commendation.35 ANCESTRY

Ancestry was one of the most important criteria for leadership in the Roman empire, especially at a senior level. The Roman emperor Tiberius distributed offices based on noble ancestry, as much as on ‘skill and achievement’.36 In a similar way, in the time of the principate, ‘any senator, 31

Efrain Agosto, ‘Patronage and Commendation’, 107; ‘Paul and Commendation’, in Sampley, Paul in the Greco-Roman World, 110-28; Servant Leadership, 123-64; Holmberg, Paul and Power, 80. 32 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 132-35. The church at Ephesus also wrote a letter commending Apollos to the disciples in Achaia (Acts 18:27). 33 Clarke, Serve the Community, 186-87. 34 Agosto, ‘Patronage and Commendation’, 112. 35 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 127. 36 Mattern, Rome and the Enemy, 20, citing Tacitus, Annals, 4.6.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

119

simply by virtue of his birth and rank, was considered qualified and indeed entitled to lead’.37 From this largely hereditary group of high-class senators of noble birth were chosen all those holding the highest-ranking positions in the Roman empire.38 In addition, the financial requirements discussed above also had the effect of monopolizing leadership ‘by a narrow circle, generation after generation’.39 Since the wealthy were primarily from the elite, it also follows that most of those in leadership were well-born. In Judaism, people could only join the priesthood by being descendants of Aaron, and having no physical defect (Lev. 21:17-23). Edwin Judge maintains that they ‘are manifestly an order of no very great social esteem’, although the chief priests and elders in political power in the Sanhedrin ‘were drawn from an exclusive landed aristocracy’.40 Synagogue rulers were sometimes appointed as a hereditary honour.41 The situation in the early church was very different. James Burtchaell argues that the criteria used for the appointment of elders in the Pastorals and later tradition showed ‘a clear attempt to reform the synagogue tradition: no more aristocracy of heritage, no assured representation of affluent families, no need to provide the political balance or to include men with civic clout’.42 There is no suggestion that ancestry was a qualification for church leadership.43 The church Although some scholars doubt whether any leadership qualifications may be gathered from the New Testament,44 my own examination of Paul’s ministry and writings shows that there were indeed a number of criteria which were followed in leadership appointments. Most of these are quite 37

Mattern, Rome and the Enemy, 16. Mattern, Rome and the Enemy, 14, 15, 16, n. 56. 39 MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 101. 40 Judge, ‘The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community’, 9; see also Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, II, 228. 41 Clarke, Serve the Community, 128; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 400. 42 Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 295. 43 Although Johnston has shown that Jewish Christianity around the beginning of the 2nd century AD regarded Jesus’ blood relatives as respected leaders, New Testament evidence is equivocal as to whether that was true in earlier times (‘Leadership in the Early Church’, 7-8). 44 Richard Ascough asserts that, in Paul’s earlier writings, ‘there is no truly Pauline “model” of leadership in terms of a blueprint for creating Christian leaders; no external control by which one can check off characteristics of Christian leaders’ (‘Chaos Theory’, 40). He suggests that this lack of control may have caused some of the disorder in the Corinthian church. This could also explain why more guidelines were given by the time of the Pastoral Epistles. However, as mentioned below, there are indications that some of these were understood from the early days of the church even if they were not codified in Paul’s earlier letters. 38

120

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

different from those examined above that were evident in the general Graeco-Roman culture. GOD’S CHOICE AND ANOINTING

Since the Spirit’s role in the appointment of New Testament leaders has already been considered (pp. 65-68), it will only be mentioned very briefly in this section. Schweizer argues that the ministry of both apostles and prophets is a gift of the Spirit; it is not up to the church to choose them, but simply to recognise and test them.45 As John Schütz maintains, the claim to leadership of the charismatic (in the Weberian sense of the one who is supernaturally endued) ‘is not derived from the assent of those who follow him, but stands outside them’.46 Although it is clear from an examination of the New Testament that this is not the only criterion followed in choosing leaders, perhaps because of its subjective nature, it is certainly important throughout the New Testament period. Paul claimed that his right to apostleship came from having seen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1), with, as Dunn argues, ‘the appearance itself… the commissioning’.47 Paul knew that his apostleship not only came from God’s calling (Rom. 1:1), but was also confirmed by the Spirit-enabled miraculous signs that he did (2 Cor. 12:12).48 Even by the time of the Pastorals when other criteria become more important, the Spirit’s role through prophecy in the choice of leaders is implied (1 Tim. 1:18; 4;14).49 HOUSEHOLD LEADERSHIP

As already discussed above, many of the early churches followed the model of the household, with the church hierarchy also paralleling that of the household.50 It is likely that heads of households who hosted churches were often seen as the de facto leaders of the church, e.g. Gaius (Rom. 16: 23) and Stephanas (1 Cor. 16:15-17).51 This shows that charismatic criteria were not the only ones applicable to the appointment of church leaders.52 45

Schweizer, Church Order, 197. Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 265. 47 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 114; see also Kittel, TDNT, I, 431. 48 Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 240, 268. 49 Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, 38. 50 Horrell, ‘Leadership Patterns’, 335. 51 See Campbell, The Elders, 117-18, 126, 153; Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 231, 234; deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 228; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 79; Horrell 1997, 326; Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 29. 52 See Campbell, The Elders, 191. Margaret MacDonald asserts that the household codes in Colossians 3:18-4:1 and Ephesians 5:22-6:9 ‘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’ (The Pauline Churches, 121-22). However, Harrill conversely believes that the ‘codes, with their pointed warning to individual patres familias to obey a higher authority’ (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1), were actually 46

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

121

The head of the household would usually be among the oldest in the household, which would make for an acceptable leader, given the great esteem in which elders were held in society at large. These householders could also include women,53 and Andrew Clarke suggests that the fact that overseers need to manage their own family well may not thereby exclude those who are unmarried, but may simply indicate that the kind of skills ‘evidenced by the married head of a household’ are those an overseer should have.54 David Horrell also does not believe that the householders held ‘exclusive leadership’, since the Corinthians, for example, were exhorted to be subject not only to Stephanas as householder, but also to all those who laboured alongside him (1 Cor. 16:15-16).55 CHARACTER

In the Pastoral Epistles, the apostle Paul gives lists of criteria for choosing leaders in the church (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Don Howell summarises these under six areas: reputation with others, character virtues, selfmanagement, family, and two areas only mentioned for elders/overseers: relationships with others and ministry skill, i.e. teaching.56 In great contrast to current ideas of ‘leadership gifting’ which are promoted in countless books, both Christian and secular, most of the criteria given in the Pastoral Epistles relate to character rather than gifting. For the apostle Paul, the leader’s character was of considerably greater importance than his or her leadership skills and abilities. David Horrell notes that these lists are ‘essentially the stock characteristics of decent and respectable well-to-do persons in GraecoRoman society’.57 However, this may be seen as an example of contextualisation. Paul is concerned that, as God’s stewards (Titus 1:7),

a reflection of ‘the struggles of non-household leaders to gain power in early congregations’ (Slaves in the New Testament, 97). There is however no evidence that such leaders were the authors of the codes in these letters. 53 Campbell, The Elders, 126-27. 54 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 51. 55 Horrell, ‘Leadership Patterns’, 327. 56 Howell, Servants of the Servant, 288-93. 57 Horrell, ‘Leadership Patterns’, 330. See also Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 158-60; Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, 35; Verner, The Household of God, 152. However, Clarke notes that ‘the apparently low value placed on the “quieter moral” qualities, such as δικαιοσύνη [(dikaiosunē) righteousness], when compared with the ἀρετή [(aretē) virtue] of the ἀγαθός [(agathos) good], often posed a problem in Greek society. To be “good” was more important than to be “just”; to be successful more important than to be righteous’ (Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 23).

122

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

they should reflect not only the character of their master,58 but also ‘the highest ideals of the culture’.59 One other related qualification was that potential leaders should have proved themselves as faithful ministers of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:2; 2 Cor. 8:22; Phil. 2:22). However, this experience is not simply a measure of time, but an established proof of character, as Agosto argues: When he commends these leaders, as well as emerging local leaders, to his congregations, he cites their track record, which for him must include hard work and sacrifice, already, on behalf of the gospel and of the gospel community. Their social status, and even gender – traditional qualifying criteria for commendation in imperial society – did not seem to matter as much to Paul as their proven sacrificial service to his congregations.60

For the apostle Paul, character proven over time is the most important qualification for leaders. ORTHODOXY

When the early church was looking for an apostle to replace Judas Iscariot, they saw the need for divine guidance (Acts 1:24), but their main condition was that a suitable candidate should have been with Jesus throughout his ministry and, in particular, be a witness of his resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). This is directly related to the Twelve’s orthodoxy, since they had to ‘be guarantors of the whole gospel tradition’.61 In the case of Paul, John Schütz argues that the fact that he was a bearer of the true gospel confirms his apostleship, and gives him the authority to oppose those like Peter who did not act in line with that gospel (Gal. 2:14).62 Ultimately, those who proclaim a false gospel are actually false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13).63 As time went by, this requirement to be able to give a true account of the gospel of Jesus Christ was extended to overseers who had to have the ability to teach 58

Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 86. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 78-79. Charles Kraft, in his dynamic equivalence contextual approach, maintains that the Pastoral Epistles put the focus on function rather than form of leadership (Christianity in Culture, 323-27). Consequently, he argues that the character qualities required may vary from culture to culture. However, in these letters, the apostle is not primarily talking about function. Kraft’s approach leads to him suggesting that the main criterion for choosing which character qualities should be emphasised is leadership effectiveness (325). This seems to miss the whole point of the Pastoral Letters’ emphasis which is that the character of the leader is the most important qualification. Although Paul is happy to build on contextual understandings of good character in his contextualisation, only those character qualifications which are consistent with the gospel are included. 60 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 206. 61 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 127. 62 Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 152. 63 Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 183. 59

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

123

sound doctrine (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9). Deacons likewise were obliged to ‘keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience’ (1 Tim. 3:9). When Paul wrote to his apostolic delegate Timothy, he exhorted him to teach correctly, watch his doctrine, and guard the gospel (1 Tim. 4:6, 16; 6:3-4, 20; 2 Tim. 1:13-14; 2:15). He similarly enjoined Titus to ‘teach what is in accord with sound doctrine’ (Titus 2:1). Faithfulness to the teaching of the gospel was an indispensable condition for leaders in the early church. Robert Banks asserts that only insofar as Paul ‘remains faithful to that gospel, in word and life, does he or any other apostle possess its authority and deserve recognition from others’.64 Summary In the Graeco-Roman context (and sometimes even in Judaism), the chief requirements for those who desired to be leaders were related to their existing status, which chiefly resulted from wealth and birth. In addition, an ability in rhetoric combined with an imposing appearance would gain a following. However, in Paul’s ministry in the New Testament church, God’s anointing on those chosen to be leaders is demonstrated by good character exhibited in practice in the household and church, as well as by faithfulness to the doctrines of the gospel. This is not to exclude the wealthy and eloquent speakers from leadership – indeed, the ability to teach is a requirement for overseers – but wealth and oratorical skill are not prerequisites, and can even become hindrances to godly leadership and an obstacle to the exhibition of God’s power. Commendation was found in the church as well as in the world at large, but the criteria for such commendations were strikingly different: hard work and suffering, as opposed to wealth and friends in high places. Leadership Style

When discussing leadership, and especially poor leadership, considerations of ‘leadership style’ often follow. My research shows that leadership style is one of the key ways in which the unique character of leadership in Paul’s ministry and writings is exhibited. However, what is meant by the phrase ‘leadership style’? It may be defined as the ‘traits, behavioural tendencies, and characteristic methods of a person in a leadership position’.65 In this study, the main focus is not put on issues related to task, such as vision, performance or policies, but on the way in which leaders treat those under them. In particular, some of the key elements of the apostle Paul’s

64

Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 183. ‘Leadership style’, A Dictionary of Business and Management, 2006: www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O18-leadershipstyle.html (accessed 18th April 2012). 65

124

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

leadership style are examined and are compared with leadership styles of the time.66 This study of leadership style is divided into three sections. First, the ways in which Paul seemed to exercise firm leadership are examined, while recognising that there are areas in which this firmness was limited. Secondly, the ways in which Paul was consciously more humble and gentle in his leadership style are considered, in particular his emphasis on weakness and suffering. Thirdly, some other areas in which Paul clearly challenged views of leadership which were current at that time are described. Firm leadership EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY

In the post-modern age, some Christians are reluctant to talk of leadership authority. Gordon Fee, writing from a non-hierarchical perspective on church leadership, claims that leaders ‘do not exercise authority over God’s people’ but rather ‘serve and care for’ them.67 However, it is clear that the apostle Paul did consider that he possessed God-given authority (e.g. 2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10). The exercise of such authority may of course be seen in serving, caring and other ways. What however do we mean by ‘authority’? Bengt Holmberg defines authority as follows: ‘Authority’ signifies a type of social relation between at least two persons where one is the ruler. The relation is based on a latent structural principle called ‘domination’ which places the actors in their respective positions. An authority relation is distinguished from a power relation by the fact that the subordinate is caused to assent to the ruler’s order, not by external constraint or out of sheer calculative interest, but out of conviction.68

Where leaders have authority, they expect that those under them will follow and obey them – although the leaders may choose not to exercise their right to be obeyed.69 In the Jewish context, authority resides in God, but it can then be passed on to his delegates. This is true whether dealing with the king, the magistrate, or the head of the household (Rom. 13:1-6),70 and is exemplified in Jesus’ ministry. He received authority from the Father (John 66

This is not to suggest that Paul had a single leadership style which he exhibited in all situations. His behaviour varied according to the context which does result in some paradoxes, as will be seen below (Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 9). 67 Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 134. 68 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 135. 69 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 129; see also Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 9. 70 Olley, ‘Leadership’, 3.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

125

17:2), which he displayed when teaching (Matt. 7:29) and forgiving sins (Matt. 9:6). Jesus then authorised the Twelve to drive out evil spirits and heal the sick (Matt. 10:1), and to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18-20). It is however interesting to note that the apostle Paul seemed to be reluctant to use the word ‘authority’ (exousia): Only in two places does he use the word in regard to his own position – never in regard to those in leadership in local churches – and only then when his apostolic link with a church is being challenged (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10).71

Banks wisely observes: ‘In view of the widespread use of this term [exousia] in Greek for those in positions of influence over others, Paul’s reticence in using the term can only be intentional.’72 However, even without using the word itself, Paul did recognise that his teaching carried the authority of God.73 It is likely that Paul had a particular authority over the churches which he had founded.74 However, he was cautious in the display of this authority. When he was accused of being two-faced for not keeping his promise to visit the Corinthians, he answered that he did not wish to make a painful visit to them – but even then such a visit would not be a sign of his lording it over their faith since his desire was simply for their joy and upbuilding (2 Cor. 1:15-2:2). David Garland comments on this passage: Paul does not browbeat his churches like an unbending dictator or manage their lives like a meddling parent. He believes in persuasion, not coercion, which is why he writes letters. How he uses his authority over the community’s faith is one of the things that distinguishes him from the interlopers who do act as overlords (11:19-20).75

Furthermore, although Paul was aware of the authority he had been given, on occasion he deliberately chose not to use it. He did not exercise his apostolic authority in Thessalonica while acknowledging that he could

71

Banks and Ledbetter, Reviewing Leadership, 36. Banks, ‘Church Order and Government’, 132. 73 1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Cor. 5:20; 1 Thess. 2:13; 4:8. See Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 344-45; Holmberg, Paul and Power, 74-75. 74 Scholars arguing this include Bartlett (Ministry in the New Testament, 29), Chapple (‘Local Leadership’, 388), Holmberg (Paul and Power, 184), Jeffers (Conflict at Rome, 145), and Verlyn D. Verbrugge (Paul’s Style of Church Leadership Illustrated by His Instructions to the Corinthians on the Collection: To Command or Not to Command (San Francisco, CA: Mellen Research University Press, 1992), 303, 367). 75 Garland, 2 Corinthians, 111 (my emphasis). 72

126

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

have done so (1 Thess. 2:6).76 Paul even exhorted the Corinthians to protect those who held a different view from his (1 Cor. 8:7-13).77 There is no evidence that he sought to push forward his own authority at the expense of Apollos’ (1 Cor. 3:3-7), or to stand on his own rights (1 Cor. 9:12-18).78 He desired rather to be an example to help those who are strong to see their need to have concern for the weak. This is a ‘radical ethic’ which reverses normal statuses, and is indeed a complete contrast to the exercise of rights exhibited in secular society.79 Although Paul had to speak to the Corinthians very firmly and even warn them of his right to punish them, his appeal was based not on his own inherent authority as apostle, but on the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor. 10:1, 6). Even when criticised by others, he did not seek ‘to re-establish a following and enhance his personal power-base’.80 However, in great contrast to the above understanding, Graham Shaw engages in a socio-political analysis of Paul’s leadership and concludes that he was in fact highly manipulative. For example, Shaw asserts that, in Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, there is ‘little room for mutuality in the relationship between the writer and his readers’.81 Even expressions of weakness in 1 Corinthians are seen by Shaw to be only ‘apparent humility’.82 Cynthia Kittredge also judges that the Philippians had to obey the apostle Paul just as they would God, leading to a relationship of fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12).83 How should we evaluate these concerns? I consider that Chapple is right to observe that ‘Paul receives this obedience in an instrumental rather than a personal capacity – he does not seek obedience to himself as such, but to the message he proclaims and the teachings he hands on’.84 This is also seen in Paul’s use of persuasive language. He is not afraid to use strong persuasion in his letters, especially to those he knows well,85 as shown by his use of words like ‘order’ (diatassō, e.g. 1 Cor. 7:17), ‘charge’ (horkizō, 76 Burke, ‘Pauline Paternity’, 75; Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 64, 71. Charles Wanamaker suggests that the reason he did this was because he may have wanted ‘to provide a role model of what true leadership should be in the Christian community’ (The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 98; see also 102). 77 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 123, n. 43. 78 Clarke, Serve the Community, 214-16. 79 Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 141; see also Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 133. 80 Clarke, Serve the Community, 214. 81 Shaw, The Cost of Authority, 29. 82 Shaw, The Cost of Authority, 65. 83 Kittredge, Community and Authority, 85, 86, 109. 84 Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 521. See also pp. 178-81 for an examination of Paul’s exercise of authority in service of the truth of the gospel. 85 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 167-68.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

127

e.g. 1 Thess. 5:27),86 and ‘command’ (parangellō, e.g. 2 Thess. 3:4).87 However, this persuasion is primarily exercised in defence of the church and the gospel. Paul employs the strongest possible language in order to bring their members to their senses. He does not hold back from confronting those who are damaging the church and challenging the truth of the gospel, e.g. the unbelieving in Rome (Rom. 11:20-22), the divisive and the false apostles in Corinth (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:11-13; 2 Cor. 11:12-13), the Judaisers in Galatia and Philippi (Gal. 1:8-9; Phil. 3:2), the apostle Peter who had separated from the Gentiles (Gal. 2:11-12), and the idle in Thessalonica (2 Thess. 3:14-15).88 ENDORSEMENT OF HIERARCHY

In a similar way to the word ‘authority’, the word ‘hierarchy’ tends to become less fashionable as societies and churches become influenced by democratic and egalitarian thinking. What about the early church? Did its leadership have a hierarchical structure?89 Or was there an egalitarian society of equals? Eduard Schweizer argues that Jesus’ twelve disciples should not be seen as leaders in the early church, and that there is no hierarchy among them; such views of leadership only came into the church by the time of the Pastoral Epistles.90 However, Clarke believes that the New Testament provides strong evidence that Paul did accept a hierarchy of leaders in the church, including both himself and local leaders: Paul was certainly aware of the predominance of hierarchies within non-Christian social groupings; and, had he explicitly rejected such hierarchies, we might expect to have seen explicit reference to a contrasting picture of the existence of local hierarchies that is consistently presented elsewhere in the New Testament, and is not evidently rejected by Paul.91

Clarke’s argument of Paul’s acceptance of hierarchies is convincing. However, he also asserts that Paul’s authoritative words with which he opens many of his letters present ‘a picture of a hierarchy in which Paul occupies the senior position; indeed, in comparison, other rankings pale as 86

Charles Wanamaker remarks that when Paul charges the Thessalonians ‘to have this letter read to all the brothers’ the ‘forcefulness of this statement is highly unusual’ in Paul’s letters (The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 209). 87 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 84-86; Howell, Servants of the Servant, 257; Verbrugge, Paul’s Style of Church Leadership, 62. 88 See Howell, Servants of the Servant, 257-59. 89 For a detailed study of hierarchy in Paul’s ministry, see Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 80-88. 90 Schweizer, Church Order, 21, 32; see also Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 51. 91 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 85.

128

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

insignificant, if they are present at all’.92 Although Paul’s authority in the churches he founded is undeniable, Clarke may be overstating the case, since Paul’s use of the body metaphor in 1 Corinthians 12 is not consistent with him holding the supreme position.93 One of the grounds for Clarke’s argument is that Paul gives a list of offices in 1 Corinthians 12:28 ‘within an ordered hierarchy’.94 Although it is fair to see the first three functions listed as being most important, perhaps because of their foundational role in the church,95 it is debatable whether this is an ordered hierarchy since the order of the fourth and fifth items on the list is different from that in 1 Corinthians 12:9-10.96 An over-emphasis on ranking and hierarchy does not fit the metaphor of a body which shows that all the members are important and necessary. The way that leaders exercise their leadership must also be clarified when using the word ‘hierarchy’, since this tends to have domineering connotations to the modern ear. Using this word can be problematic unless its meaning is clear. Clarke himself observes that the word ‘hierarchy’ ‘often conveys negative connotations of subordination and, therefore, domination’.97 Many scholars writing on leadership tend to use it with just that kind of negative meaning. For example, C.K. Barrett writes: ‘There was never a hierarchy’ in the Pauline churches.98 In the same way, the word ‘status’ is often used to imply pride and superiority. This is seen in many of the citations in this study.99 Hiigel is correct to recognise that, while Paul does acknowledge a hierarchy in the church, he is not wanting ‘to set up a 92

Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 81. Victor Copan also suggests that Paul’s introduction of himself in 1 Thessalonians 1:1 as Paul, without any associated title of leadership or authority, may indicate his desire to avoid pretence of position (Saint Paul, 244). 94 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 84. 95 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1013-14. 96 See Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 619. Campbell convincingly argues that the ‘focus is on spiritual gifts, not on church organization, and the “first, second, third” shows the relative value of the gifts, not the hierarchy of the church’ (Elders, 109; see also Hiigel, Leadership in 1 Corinthians, 105). Alan Kreider, writing from an Anabaptist perspective, also asserts that Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 ‘remind us that these gifts of designated leadership were no more spiritually exalted than other gifts’ (‘Abolishing the Laity’, 88). For Paul, there was ‘no ontological distinction between these gifts’ (100). 97 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 81. 98 Barrett, Church, Ministry, and Sacraments, 37. 99 Clarke uses the word ‘status’ in two ways: in Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 1, he refers to Paul’s ‘non-status understanding of Christian leadership’ (using status in a negative way), whereas in A Pauline Theology, 103, he writes that the leader in Pauline texts ‘has a higher status within the hierarchy’ (using status in a more neutral way). Bass and Bass define status as ‘the value that others accord members for their position’ (Handbook of Leadership, 241). 93

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

129

hierarchy in the sense that Corinthian lovers of titles and recognition and vertical accountability to patrons would have thought of hierarchy’.100 On the contrary, Paul shows that he rejects the world’s hierarchical view of leadership by the way he exercises authority (see below for many examples). The importance of the household in many of the early church communities has already been observed. MacDonald suggests that 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’.101 Just as in the hierarchical household structure, so the householder who leads the church has the right to demand the submission of its members.102 Indeed, Clarke suggests that Paul may have deliberately chosen leaders from among those who already had high social status.103 However, this seems debatable, given Paul’s acknowledgment that God’s choice of those of low status (1 Cor. 1:26-29) suggests a reversing and relativizing of status.104 CALL TO IMITATION

One issue of considerable scholarly discussion relates to the significance of Paul’s exhortations that the churches should imitate him (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:7, 9). Elizabeth Castelli, writing from a feminist perspective, argues that Paul’s desire that his readers imitate him is actually ‘a strategy of power’ based on a Graeco-Roman cultural understanding in which mimesis indicates a hierarchical relationship.105 When this is applied to the church community, there can be no place for dissension, and imitation will encourage an unhealthy uniformity.106 How should this view be evaluated? It is better to see imitation in metaphorical terms than in analogical terms, resulting not in uniformity, but in a contextually appropriate application of principles from Paul’s behaviour.107 Furthermore, Marion Carson critiques Castelli for being a ‘child of her time’ under the influence of Michel Foucault’s ‘suspicion of 100

Hiigel, Leadership in 1 Corinthians, 109. MacDonald, The Pauline Churches, 214. 102 MacDonald, The Pauline Churches, 136. 103 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 87. 104 Elliott, ‘The Jesus Movement’, 194. 105 Castelli, Imitating Paul, 15. Koenig argues that Paul’s offering himself as a model is actually a rabbinic pattern (‘Hierarchy Transfigured’, 26-27). Copan also believes that while the Greek world may be the main source of Paul’s use of the imitation motif, it is likely ‘that a number of traditions flowed into Paul’s conception of imitation’, including Judaic understandings (Saint Paul, 44). Without accepting Castelli’s thesis in full, it is certainly true that imitation is most commonly found in hierarchical relationships: ‘parent-child, teacher-student, sage-people, leader-group’ (Saint Paul, 53). 106 Castelli, Imitating Paul, 86, 112-17. 107 Copan, Saint Paul, 241-44. 101

130

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

the idea that power may be held by one person over another’.108 She maintains: Without evidence to the contrary, it is probably safest to take Paul at his word and believe him when he says that his motivation is God rather than personal power… It… appears unlikely that Paul intended to be oppressive in his use of mimesis language. He places himself under the sovereignty of God, his motives being theological rather than personal, and his ambition for the Thessalonians benign and nurturing rather than malevolent and stifling.109

Clarke also argues compellingly that ‘the parental and pedagogical metaphors’ are ‘ones that encourage advancement, in an environment in which the child learns and matures, and which, both the parent and teacher hope, will encourage the child to exceed the abilities of their mentor’.110 Paul is not wanting to build a power-base for himself, but to help people to respond to God’s word and live lives worthy of him (1 Thess. 2:12-13).111 Steve Walton asserts that, when Paul met with the Ephesian church elders at Miletus (Acts 20:18-35), he called them to imitate the model of leadership shown both in Christ’s and his own ministry and teaching.112 Far from being a domineering model, Paul revealed himself as a humble and sensitive leader who lived a life of hardship and suffering, devoted not to building up his own empire, but rather to finishing the task he had received from Jesus. This is seen clearly in Paul’s use of the imitation motif in his letters: i) 1 Thessalonians. In 1 Thessalonians 1:6, Paul is thankful that the Thessalonians imitated him. However, this does not seem to imply any kind of power play on his part. In the first place, his use of a plural form in this verse (‘You became imitators of us’) shows that Paul is not making an exclusive claim to be imitated.113 Secondly, in 1 Thessalonians 1:7, Paul also commends the Thessalonians for becoming a model that others could imitate – just as they had imitated the Judaean churches (1 Thess. 2:14). It seems doubtful that Paul would seek to manipulate the Thessalonians into following him exclusively, if he is happy for them to imitate others.114 Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Thessalonians distrusted or 108

Marion Carson, ‘For Now We Live: A Study of Paul’s Pastoral Leadership in 1 Thessalonians’, in Themelios, 30.3 (2005), 28. See also Andrew D. Clarke (‘“Be Imitators of me”: Paul’s Model of Leadership’, in Tyndale Bulletin, 49 (1998), 329-60) and Copan (Saint Paul, 181-218) for extended critiques of Castelli’s understanding. 109 Carson, ‘For Now We Live’, 31, 32. 110 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 113; see also Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 154. 111 Clarke, Serve the Community, 225. 112 Walton, Leadership and Lifestyle, 200. 113 See Copan, Saint Paul, 79, 253. 114 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 335, 339-40.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

131

feared Paul as would have been the case if they had felt his leadership was oppressive.115 ii) 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 4:16, Paul urges the Corinthians to imitate him. Is this a result of him wanting to dominate and control them? This seems highly unlikely, given the context in which Paul was criticising the selfishness of the rich who were ignoring the needs of the poor, and the pride of the worldly cliques who were seeking position in the church.116 Indeed, the model which Paul was calling the Corinthians to imitate was very different: Imitation of Paul consists not in the boasting or self-congratulation which was endemic to their society, but in being ‘put on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena’ (1 Cor. 4:9) and being ‘the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world’ (1 Cor. 4:13). The Corinthians, in contrast, are those who have focused on power and influence.117

The imitation expected of the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 4:16 relates to Paul’s humble service of them and Christ.118 This is clear in 1 Corinthians 11:1 where Paul tells the Corinthians to ‘Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ’. iii) Philippians. Paul exhorts the believers to follow his example, but only in the co-text of his appeal to have Christ’s attitude of service (Phil. 2:5-11; 3:17). Andrew Clarke is right to comment that ‘the categories of power, control and authority by which Elizabeth Castelli interprets the letter are diametrically opposed to the case which Paul is actually making’.119 Paul is looking for an imitation of his inner attitudes. iv) Galatians. This same principle is seen in Galatians 4:12 where Paul pleads with the church to become like him, as he became like them. In the immediately following verses, he writes of his weakness when he first shared the good news with them, and later of his being persecuted (Gal. 5:11). It seems improbable that he would have presented such a countercultural model of leadership if he was wanting to dominate the Galatian believers. In conclusion therefore, it is not right to suggest that Paul used imitation as a means of asserting his own authority.120 He desired that the churches would follow his example of loving service and commitment to the Lord. 115

See Carson, ‘For Now We Live’, 33-34. She also observes that in the exhortatory sections of 1 Thessalonians there is no evidence of ‘control’ or ‘curtailing of freedom’ which might have shown his intention of oppressing his readers (35). 116 See Hiigel, Leadership in 1 Corinthians, 120. 117 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 345. 118 Copan, Saint Paul, 107-24. 119 Clarke, Serve the Community, 226. 120 See also Copan, Saint Paul, 230-31.

132

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

SUMMARY

i) Paul did have authority over the churches he founded, but he was reluctant to parade this – for example, by using the word exousia. On occasions he deliberately chose not to use his authority, and he avoided giving any impression that he was lording it over the churches. This was a strongly counter-cultural stance in the Graeco-Roman context. ii) When necessary for the sake of the church and the gospel, Paul used strong language but that was not his preferred style. As will be seen in the following section, Burke is surely right to conclude that – Paul can give commands and orders when it is necessary but, as far as authority and his own converts is concerned, this is mollified by his preference to exercise it in a paternal manner, as opposed to using his apostolic credentials and the giving of strict commands.121

iii) There was a hierarchy in the church with a clear recognition that some had authority over others. However, it is highly doubtful that there was a stepped hierarchy, as was found in many secular contexts. Furthermore, any authority represented by this hierarchy was functional rather than status-driven, and did not imply an endorsement of tyrannical domination. iv) Suggestions that Paul was manipulative, especially in his use of mimesis language, are not supported by the evidence of his relationship with the churches, and by his example of sacrificial service. Paul called on the believers to imitate his heart attitudes. Where he did show strong authority, it was in defence of the gospel, not to defend his own position. Humble leadership ENCOURAGEMENT

If leaders are not to lord it over others, how are they to lead? Jesus taught that the main difference between the leadership style of his disciples and the Gentiles was to be an attitude of service. In Paul’s letters, this is shown in his preference for urging and encouraging others rather than issuing commands.122 Don Howell argues that – Though Paul is an authoritative leader, he is not authoritarian, demanding compliance to satisfy a psychological need to lord it over others. He is respectful, gracious and non-coercive, never controlling, manipulative or threatening. Paul is

121 122

Burke, ‘Pauline Paternity’, 76. e.g. Rom. 12:1; 15:30; 16:17; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 2:8; 10:1; Phil. 4:2.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

133

deeply conscious that the apostolic authority delegated to him is for building up the churches, never for tearing them down (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10).123

Paul shows this attitude in his favoured use of the word parakaleō (παρακαλέω) meaning ‘encourage’ or ‘exhort’. There is some scholarly debate about whether Paul’s use of this word is illocutionary (urging on a basis of friendship) or perlocutionary (rhetorical persuasion on a basis of authority). Holmberg maintains that Paul’s use of paraklēsis (exhortation) ‘seems to presuppose a degree of authority in the “sender”’.124 However, after an examination of the literature, Anthony Thiselton argues that parakaleō, as used in 1 Corinthians, ‘draws its force from a relationship of friendship, trust or official status between the writer and the addressee(s), not on socio-rhetorical causal force’.125 An example of this is seen in the apostle Paul’s attitude to Philemon. Paul admits that he could have exercised authority over Philemon, but he refuses to do so. He writes (Phm 8-9): ‘Although in Christ I could be bold and order (epitassō)126 you to do what you ought to do, I appeal (parakaleō) to you on the basis of love.’ As Ascough maintains, ‘Paul refuses to play a possible trump card, that of his authority within the community that he founded.’127 Ascough goes on to assert: We see here that Paul does not apply the model of hierarchical, command and control, top-down leadership. At the same time, Paul does not take an attitude of ‘anything goes’ nor leave Philemon’s decision to chance. With such a critical issue at hand, perhaps even a man’s life at stake, Paul gives strong direction to the one clearly under his authority without demanding obedience [see Phm 21].128

123

Howell, Servants of the Servant, 260. Holmberg, Paul and Power, 83-84. 125 Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 111-14. Thiselton’s conclusion here (114) is based on the work on C.J. Bjerkelund (Parakalô. Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalô Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen (Oslo, Norway: Universitersforlaget, 1967). See also Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 174-77. Reidar Aasgaard maintains that Paul’s use of parakaleō includes ‘a considerable element of authority’ but does not imply a command, rather ‘a firm request’ (‘My Beloved Brothers and Sisters’, 277). James Dunn notes that Paul even uses parakaleō when addressing the Lord (2 Cor. 12:8) (Jesus and the Spirit, 278). 126 This is the only occurrence of this verb in Paul’s writings. But even here his authority is limited by it being ‘in Christ’ (Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 222-23). 127 Ascough, ‘Chaos Theory’, 33; see also Clarke, Serve the Community, 206. 128 Ascough, ‘Chaos Theory’, 34; see also Agosto (Servant Leadership, 118, 154), F.F. Bruce (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1984), 222), and Lampe (‘Paul, Patrons, and Clients’, 501), who have a similar perspective to Ascough. 124

134

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

An examination of Paul’s letters, written to a wide variety of contexts, shows that he is extremely reluctant to force his authority onto others. For example, he urges both the Galatians (Gal. 6:1) and Timothy (2 Tim. 2:24-25; cf. 1 Tim. 3:3) to correct others gently.129 Although he told Titus to rebuke others with God’s commands (epitagē) (Titus 2:15), he himself was reluctant to command others (e.g. 2 Cor. 8:8),130 and preferred to give concessions (sungnōmē) (1 Cor. 7:6) or opinions (gnōmē) (1 Cor. 7:25, 40; 2 Cor. 8:10).131 James Dunn remarks that Paul never uses epitagē of his own commands, even though that was ‘one of the strongest words available to him’.132 Dunn goes on to comment that ‘the great bulk of Paul’s ethical instructions in his letters are more the exhortations of a fellow believer than the commands of an apostle’.133 For example, when Paul encourages (parakaleō) the Corinthian church to forgive a person who had grieved them (2 Cor. 2:8-10), Philip Hughes remarks: ‘the restraint and consideration with which Paul writes here are most noteworthy: he leads the Corinthians, now obedient, by example rather than by command’.134 WEAKNESS AND SUFFERING

We have already examined the importance of leaders’ appearance and strength in the Graeco-Roman context. When considering leadership style, how does this square with Paul’s emphasis on personal weakness and suffering? James Plueddemann argues that, in a co-text in which false teachers in 2 Corinthians showed their high power distance values leading to divisions in the church, Paul’s leadership style in Corinth would indeed have been a great contrast to the culture of the day.135 His opponents showed off their strength and authority according to authoritarian models which were prevalent at the time.136 David Garland, in referring to 2 Corinthians 13:4, argues: ‘The Corinthians understand power is something exerted by assertive, domineering, forceful personalities who boisterously and tyrannically wield authority.’137

129

Clarke, Serve the Community, 201. Best argues that, when Paul says ‘I am not commanding you’, this shows that ‘issuing commands was his normal practice’ (‘Paul’s Apostolic Authority’, 13). However, in the co-text it is more likely that he was contrasting himself with the false apostles who lorded it over the Corinthians. 131 Olley, ‘Leadership’, 8; Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 222. 132 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 278; see also Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 176. 133 See also Chapple, ‘Local Leadership’, 344. 134 Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 71. 135 Plueddemann, Leading Across Cultures, 101-02. 136 Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 103. 137 Garland, 2 Corinthians, 544; see also Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, WBC 40 (Waco, TX: Word, 1986), 476. 130

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

135

In reference to the church Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 4:8-21, Scott Bartchy asserts that – Paul ironically refers to those spiritually arrogant Corinthians as ‘kings’, as ‘wise in Christ’, as ‘strong’ – obvious evidence of patriarchal Mediterranean values. In striking contrast, he refers to his own example as one who blesses when reviled, speaks kindly when slandered, and endures when persecuted. 138

For the Corinthians, this would be hard to accept and they would wonder whether a person who suffers so much can be an authentic leader.139 Can the man who came to Corinth ‘in weakness and fear, and with much trembling’ (1 Cor. 2:3), and who needed a special word of encouragement from the Lord to enable him to continue the ministry (Acts 18:9-10), be a leader worthy of respect? Such disabilities ‘would have disqualified him from succeeding as a sophist or rhetorician’.140 The super-apostles of 2 Corinthians delight in their public-speaking ability, but in great contrast Paul indeed boasts in his weakness since it made him realise he had to rely on God’s strength (2 Cor. 12:9).141 Wayne Meeks describes this as a dialectic of weakness and power: Paul emphasises his visible weakness; that he nevertheless not only survives but flourishes in his accomplishments ‘for the gospel’ he declares to be testimony to the hidden power of God. Further, this dialectic is homologous with his central affirmation about Christ: that he was crucified but raised by God from the dead. Through Paul’s scheme of double imitation, the apostolic career becomes a mimesis of Christ and thus a fit paradigm by which to test what is an authentic mode of authority in the church. 142

However, in the thinking of the Corinthians, not only is weakness inappropriate in a leader, but to affirm one’s weakness is to deny one’s authority.143 Paul, by contrast, believed that right apostolic authority must be shown by such weakness.144 Don Howell notes that Paul’s sufferings not only revealed his identification with Christ, but also authenticated his status 138

Bartchy, ‘Undermining Ancient Patriarchy’, 73. Agosto, Servant Leadership, 103. 140 Stott, Calling Christian Leaders, 55. 141 Howell, Servants of the Servant, 279; Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 244 142 Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 124. Von Campenhausen (Ecclesiastical Authority, 42), Holmberg (Paul and Power, 76-77), and Schütz (Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 245-46) draw attention to the same dialectic. 143 Witherington, Conflict and Community, 143. 144 Pheme Perkins, ‘Paul, Peter and the Shape of Early Christian Leadership’, in New Catholic World, 223.1337 (1980), 214; Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 216. 139

136

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

as a servant of Christ, and as an apostle in particular (1 Cor. 4:9-13).145 As noted above, for Paul, weakness and suffering was his apostolic commendation (2 Cor. 6:4). In 2 Corinthians 11:33, Paul refers to his leaving Damascus in a basket as an example of his weakness – such a contrast to his glorious departure from Jerusalem earlier (Acts 26:12). In Romans 5:3 too, Paul boasts in his afflictions – ‘a revolutionary new form of boasting to replace the claims of honorable status and performance that marked traditional religion in the Graeco-Roman world’.146 Paul is not even afraid to acknowledge his own sinfulness (1 Cor. 15:9; 1 Tim. 1:15).147 DeSilva shows the counter-cultural nature of this attitude: Paul’s decision not to try to hide his weaknesses or work to make his appearance ‘perfect’ and semi-divine as a means of gaining respect and authority (which was the goal of most public speakers) reflects his firm conviction that such a way of valuing and trying to convey value was fundamentally opposed to God’s values (again, revealed most clearly in the extreme case, the case of Jesus).148 GIVING MORAL CHOICE

In speaking to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:28), the apostle Paul exhorts them to exercise a leadership which is marked by shepherding, and not domineering.149 Far from endorsing an authoritarian top-down leadership style, Paul preferred to give people freedom to make their own decisions. Richard Ascough asserts that Paul gave a minimum of directions: ‘Rather than lay down a set of rules, he advocated a few simple concepts (mutual love, mutual slavery, Spirit guidance) and expected that from these the communities would grow and flourish.’150 This is especially evident in Paul’s dealings with the Corinthians, as James Dunn observes: ‘Paul almost seems to fall over backward to encourage the Corinthians to take 145

Howell, Servants of the Servant, 280-82; see also MacDonald, The Pauline Churches, 125. Fernando notes that ‘in eight places covering 23 verses Paul presents suffering as a source of credibility for ministry’ (‘Jesus’, 211). 146 Robert Jewett, ‘Paul, Shame, and Honor’, in Sampley, Paul in the Greco-Roman World, 562. One other example is found in Colossians 1:24 in which Paul rejoices in his sufferings on behalf of the Colossians. Interestingly, this is found in a co-text of Paul’s sense of commissioning to be an apostolic servant (Col. 1:25). 147 See Taylor, ‘Patron-Client Relationships (DTC)’, 71. Edwin Judge argues that Paul’s ‘pursuit of radical self-humiliation’ reveals ‘an attitude in violent reaction to much that was central to the classical way of life’ (Social Distinctives, 97). Ben Witherington similarly comments that ‘Paul scandalously will urge his converts to follow his and Christ’s examples of self-sacrificial behaviour, going against the whole directional flow and social value system that was well established in Corinth’ (Conflict and Community, 97; see also Grieb, ‘“The One who Called You”’, 165). 148 DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 76. 149 Walton, Leadership and Lifestyle, 114-15. 150 Ascough, ‘Chaos Theory’, 32; see also von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 47; Gehring, House Church and Mission, 203.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

137

responsibility for themselves.’151 Even when faced with the Corinthians’ tolerance of incest (1 Cor. 5), he does not simply issue an ex cathedra command telling them what to do. He explains carefully what he hoped they would do with well-argued reasons, before ending with a Bible citation telling them to ‘Expel the wicked man from among you’ (Deut. 17:7 LXX), thus basing his words on God’s authority and not on his own. This approach is also illustrated in his attitude to correcting wrong theology. Dunn notes the striking fact that, even when Paul faced wrong teaching about the resurrection (1 Cor. 15), he does not simply condemn it but carefully argues against it. This is an indication that Paul was happy to trust local leaders and church members. Another example is found in his letter to Philemon, where he did not force him to release Onesimus (Phm 14). This is a great contrast to the Judaisers in Galatia who compelled people to behave in a certain way (Gal. 2:14; 6:12).152 Bengt Holmberg, on the contrary, argues that, although the apostle appears to give freedom of choice to the Corinthians (and others), actually he is applying psychological pressure on them to make them follow a particular choice as a result of the power he has over them.153 However, even though Paul exhorted the Corinthians to submit (hupatassō) to those who had devoted themselves to the service of the saints and to others who joined in the work (1 Cor. 16:15-16), this must be understood in the light of his exhortation to the Ephesians to ‘submit to one another out of reverence for Christ’ (Eph. 5:21), and C.E.B. Cranfield’s argument that hupatassō does not mean ‘obey’ but rather a recognition that the other person has a greater claim on them than they do themselves.154 Furthermore, John Yoder maintains that, when Paul gives ethical instructions in Colossians 3:18-4:1 and Ephesians 5:21-6:9, he does not follow usual Stoic understandings, but he addresses ‘the subordinate person in the social order… as a moral agent’.155 Yoder suggests that Paul could do this because their subordinate status had been challenged by the preaching of the church, and Paul in

151

Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 575. Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 112. 153 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 82-83. Helen Doohan similarly remarks that ‘Paul himself is intolerant of opinions other than his own as these [Corinthian] letters also demonstrate’ (Leadership in Paul, 114). However, although Doohan is critical of Paul’s leadership style in his earlier letters, she does acknowledge that, in his letter to the Romans, he has changed his style: ‘The local Christian churches are expected to make their own decisions and to direct their own development because of the knowledge they possess’ (140). 154 Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, II, 660-63; contra Kittredge, Community and Authority, 51. 155 Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 174. 152

138

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

particular.156 Rather than lording it over the churches, Paul preferred to give them the freedom to make their own moral decisions. CORPORATE MINISTRY157

There is no reference in Scripture to Paul ministering except in the context of a team. The collective nature of the Pauline missionary enterprise was one of the reasons for its effectiveness.158 In Paul’s letters and in the Acts of the Apostles, over a hundred names are associated with him.159 Paul’s leadership model was co-operative and, as such, was very different from the competitive model of the contemporary culture.160 This may be seen in Paul’s fondness for compound words prefixed by sun- (meaning ‘co-’). In the many references in his letters to his colleagues, he often uses the title ‘fellow-worker’’ (sunergos).161 For example, in 2 Corinthians 1:24 when Paul describes the Corinthians as his co-workers (sunergos), he shows his humble understanding of this concept by using it in the co-text of saying that he does not ‘lord it over’ (kurieuō) their faith.162 Anthony Thiselton, in noting the inclusion of a co-sender in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, remarks that ‘Paul does not perceive himself as commissioned to lead or to minister as an isolated individual, without collaboration with co-workers’.163 Indeed, all his letters, except for Romans, Ephesians and the Pastorals, were written in co-operation with others, demonstrating ‘the corporate dimension of the movement’.164 When rebuking others he often uses a plural pronoun.165 Agosto gives some examples, showing how Paul depends on his co-workers: 156

Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 175-78. See Andrew Dawswell (‘A Biblical and Theological Basis for Collaborative Ministry and Leadership’, in Anvil, 21.3 (2004), 165-78) for an examination of the collegiate nature of Christian leadership. 158 Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 133. 159 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 57. 160 DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 76-77. 161 Rom. 16:3, 9, 21; 2 Cor. 1:24; 8:23; Phil. 2:25; 4:3; Col. 4:11; 1 Thess. 3:2; Phm 1, 24. 162 Olley, ‘Leadership’, 6. Robert J. Banks remarks that Paul’s common use of words prefixed by sun- indicates that he ‘viewed these people as partners and colleagues, not as servants or even apprentices’ (Reenvisioning Theological Education: Exploring a Missional Alternative to Current Models (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 115). 163 Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 69. 164 Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 38. The corporate nature of Paul’s writing is clearly seen in 1 Thessalonians 2:18 where he distinguishes himself from his co-writers. This is not to deny Paul’s leading role in the authorial team (John R.W. Stott, The Message of Thessalonians: Preparing for the Coming King, BST (Leicester: IVP, 1991), 71-74). 165 Von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 49. 157

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

139

… without Titus, he could not be reconciled to the Corinthians and attempt to complete their contribution to the Jerusalem collection. Without Timothy, he could not receive news about the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 3:1-10), including the leaders he subsequently commends (1 Thess. 5:12-13). He wishes he could keep Onesimus with him and probably wants Philemon to send him back (Phm 13). Epaphroditus not only delivered an offering from the Philippians to Paul, but also ministered to Paul while present with him during his imprisonment (Phil. 2:25, 30).166

Paul’s delegation of authority and leadership to others such as Timothy and Titus shows that his attitude to authority is not self-centred and controlling, but co-operative.167 It has already been seen that Paul was reluctant to command others. This humility is shown in the corporate decision-making which was followed when he was guided to Macedonia by a vision. After he had shared his vision with the missionary band, they concluded that God had called them to preach the gospel to them Macedonia (Acts 16:10). This practice of corporate ministry is also reflected in church leadership structures which are uniformly plural.168 In commenting on Paul’s appointment of elders in Acts 14:23, John Stott argues that it was ‘plural in that the familiar modern pattern of “one pastor one church” was simply unknown’.169 One example of this is seen in the church at Corinth which was beset by divisions. Paul’s answer to this situation was not to suggest the appointment of a single pastor as might have been expected.170 Indeed, in a wider context in which leadership was often held by a governor, king or emperor, encouraging a plurality of leaders was profoundly counter-cultural. In contrast to this analysis, Burtchaell argues that it is very unlikely that congregations in the early church would not have had a ‘single presiding officer’, in line with the synagogue tradition of an archisunagōgos, even if they used a different title – perhaps episkopos in later generations.171 He 166

Agosto, Servant Leadership, 160. However, Paul’s use of the term ‘co-worker’ does not necessarily imply equality but rather a shared purpose (Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 93-94). Holmberg argues that Paul’s co-workers were actually subordinate to him (Paul and Power, 57-60), although he does emphasise that Paul’s relationship with them was ‘deeply personal’ (60). It is however clear that Paul valued the contribution of his co-workers very highly; he did not set himself up as an egotistical and self-sufficient leader. 168 George Knight concludes that an ‘analysis of the data seems… to indicate the existence of oversight by a plurality of church leaders throughout the NT church in virtually every known area’ (The Pastoral Epistles, 176). See also ch. 3, footnote 149, for a discussion on the plurality of overseers in the church. 169 Stott, The Message of Acts, 236. Kreider (‘Abolishing the Laity’, 90) and Flemming (‘The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy’, 241) both hold this position. 170 Hiigel, Leadership in 1 Corinthians, 104. 171 Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 308. 167

140

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

sees this not as ‘the creation of a new office but the political transformation of a primeval one’.172 The problem with Burtchaell’s hypothesis is that he is arguing from silence. He suggests that since few of the synagogue rulers rose to prominence, there was no need for them to be recorded.173 In a similar way, as has already been noted, Campbell and Clarke both see single overseers leading house-churches in the first stage of the church’s development.174 However, even if the householder was the natural leader, that does not exclude the possibility that his or her leadership was shared with other, senior members of the church (presbuteroi?) soon after the churches were founded and began to grow.175 Gordon Fee likewise believes that, even in house-churches, leadership was ‘from the beginning in the hands of several people’.176 Paul’s emphasis on corporate ministry does suggest that he would not have been comfortable with one-man leadership. Paul’s preference was for a plural and co-operative leadership. ACCOUNTABILITY

To be accountable as a leader is to accept responsibility for one’s actions, and to be answerable and liable for them.177 In the New Testament, leaders are accountable first to God, and secondly to their churches. Paul saw himself, like all believers, as accountable to God as his servant (Rom. 14:12). In 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 and 4:1-5, Paul shows that on the final day each leader will be held to account for how he or she has built on the foundation of Christ.178 As far as the leaders’ responsibility to their churches is concerned, Ritva Williams asserts from 1 Corinthians 4:2-4 that Paul, as God’s steward, ‘is directly responsible to the Lord and not to his congregants’,179 and Thiselton too argues that God alone ‘has competency to judge in an absolute, irrevocable sense’.180 That does not however mean that leaders are 172

Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 312. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 350. 174 Campbell, The Elders, 131, 196; Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 55-60. 175 Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 57. 176 Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 21. 177 Bass and Bass, Handbook of Leadership, 360. 178 See Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry, 78; Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 137; Howell, Servants of the Servant, 265; Stott, Calling Christian Leaders, 116-17. 179 Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 78. 180 Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 341. Burtchaell goes too far in stressing Paul’s independence (From Synagogue to Church, 291). He refers to 1 Corinthians 4:4 to back up his arguments, but in the co-text Paul is not talking about human accountability but rather that as steward he is ultimately responsible to God. Clarke, referring to Paul’s record of his visit to the Jerusalem church leaders in Galatians 2:1-10, also argues that he is not accountable to them since they are ‘only apparently leaders’ (Gal. 2:2) (A Pauline Theology, 121). However, the fact that Paul 173

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

141

beyond human accountability. Peter had to give account for his behaviour in sharing the gospel with Gentiles (Acts 11:1-4, 18). Later, Paul and Barnabas had to do the same (Acts 15:1-2; cf. Gal. 2:2, 8-9). They also had to give account for their ministry to the church at Antioch which had commissioned them (Acts 14:27; cf. 18:22-23; 21:19). Paul himself was angry with the Galatians for accepting false teachers and told them that ‘even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!’ (Gal. 1:8). In 1 Timothy 5:19-20 Paul teaches that elders who sin are to be rebuked publicly, thus showing that they are accountable to the church. One example was the apostle Peter who was rebuked before the church for separating from the Gentiles (Gal. 2:11-14).181 It is therefore clear that Paul, both by example and teaching, emphasised the importance of accountability, and implicitly spoke against domineering leaders who are accountable to no-one. SUMMARY

i) Paul preferred to use gentle methods of persuasion rather than forceful approaches. This is seen in his preference for the word parakaleō as he urged believers and encouraged them in certain courses of action rather than commanding them, even though his status as a church founder could have given him the right to do so. ii) For Paul, authentic leadership was marked by weakness and selfsacrifice, in stark contrast to the powerful, competitive and domineering leadership understandings of his day. Through this weakness, he validated his apostolic authority, as well as revealing the power of God. iii) Paul did not lord it over or control the congregations he had founded, preferring to encourage them to make their own decisions, and to take responsibility for their churches. iv) Paul was an enthusiast for corporate ministry and implicitly rejected the one-man-band model. He worked in partnership with many others, seeing them as ‘co-workers’ and not as underlings. Church leadership structures were usually plural. v) Paul was not a despotic leader but he recognised that he and other leaders are accountable both to God and the church.

feared that he was running or had run his race in vain does imply that he was looking for an acknowledgement from them that his calling was from God. 181 Another example may be found in Paul’s letter to Philemon: Walter C. Wright believes that Philemon was being called to account by Paul for his relationship with Onesimus (Relational Leadership: A Biblical Model for Influence and Service (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 184).

142

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Challenging the status quo DISCOURAGING PATRONAGE

The importance of patronage in Graeco-Roman society has already been observed. It is still common in many societies today. Did Paul accept its necessity and make use of it? It is my contention that Paul had grave reservations about the practice, and made every effort to discourage it in a counter-cultural way. It is likely that patronage was a live issue in the Corinthian church. Andrew Clarke suggests that the different parties within the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 1:10-13) were a reflection of the allegiance shown by secular clients to their patrons, with members of these parties seeking ‘to further the reputation and status of their preferred figure’.182 Although competition for honour was normal in society – for example, in voluntary associations183 – Paul was very unhappy with the divisive effects of allegiances to patronal figures, and rebuked them for boasting about their leaders, himself included.184 In 1 Corinthians 3:21-23, in great contrast to this secular understanding of patronal leadership, Paul presents early church leaders, not as possessors of great status, but as servants who belong to their congregations.185 However, not only does Paul not desire to be seen as a patron of the Corinthian church, he also does not wish others to patronise his ministry. Dean Flemming argues that for this reason Paul refuses to receive any financial support from the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 9:12, 15, 18).186 He 182

Clarke, Serve the Community, 177; see also Hiigel (Leadership in 1 Corinthians, 55, 91) and Jewett (‘Paul, Shame, and Honor’, 557), who hold a similar position. Clarke argues that baptism may also have been perceived as an act of patronage (cf. 1 Cor. 1:13-14) (A Pauline Theology, 129; Serve the Community, 177-78). It is furthermore possible that the Corinthians’ defence of the one guilty of incest in 1 Corinthians 5 may have resulted from their desire to defend the honour of their leader, perhaps showing a patronal understanding of leadership (Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 79, 85-88). 183 Kloppenborg, ‘Egalitarianism’, 258. 184 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 93; Serve the Community, 178; Hiigel, Leadership in 1 Corinthians, 64; Stott, Calling Christian Leaders, 114. 185 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 124-25. 186 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 193-94. See also Paul Barnett, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 8; Lampe, ‘Paul, Patrons, and Clients’, 503; White, ‘Paul and Pater Familias’, 468. Ronald F. Hock suggests that by supporting himself as a tent-maker Paul may have been following the pattern of strict Cynic philosophers, using his workshop as a base for his missionary work (The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1980), 56-57). Some Cynic-Stoic philosophers ‘condemned those who accepted support from a wealthy patron’ (Pheme Perkins, Ministering in the Pauline Churches (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 17). However, Paul did not deny his

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

143

wants to avoid the accusation of his having impure motives for preaching (2 Cor. 11:9; 12:13-18; cf. 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8-9), and he is aware that ‘accepting patronage would place [him] in an inferior client status where he would be under a system of perpetual obligation to his well-off benefactors’.187 Agosto argues that – Paul insists that he would rather do manual labor for some part of his financial support (2 Cor. 11:7) than depend on those who interpreted Paul’s apostleship of the Corinthian congregation as an opportunity to enhance their status by patronizing his ministry.188

Ben Witherington alleges that, in the Greek context, Paul’s working with his own hands would have been considered demeaning.189 Such activity may even have been seen as slavish.190 Moreover, as Horsley rightly asserts: ‘His larger concern may have been to prevent the assembly he was attempting to “build up” from replicating the controlling and exploitative power relations of the dominant society.’191 Paul’s attitude was sharply counter-cultural and would also have been contrary to his former life as a Pharisee in which he would have had experience of patron-client arrangements.192 Even when Paul did accept financial support – for right to be supported by the churches (1 Cor. 9:12) which suggests that he was not actually using a Cynic contextual model. 187 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 194; see also Chow, Patronage and Power, 172; Hiigel, Leadership in 1 Corinthians, 70; Horsley, Paul and Empire, 213; Judge, Social Distinctives, 167; Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 26; Walton, ‘Paul, Patronage and Pay’, 224; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 417. 188 Agosto, ‘Patronage and Commendation’, 115. 189 Witherington, Conflict and Community, 143-44; see also Clarke, A Pauline Theology, 100; Richard A. Horsley, ‘1 Corinthians: A Case Study of Paul’s Assembly as an Alternative Society’, in Horsley, Paul and Empire, 250; Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 508; Walton, Leadership and Lifestyle, 169. 190 See Hock, The Social Context, 35-36; Walton, ‘Paul, Patronage and Pay’, 222. However, Timothy Savage argues that first-century reliefs show that craftsmen were not ashamed of their profession (Power Through Weakness, 85-86; see also Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 45-46). If this is generally true, it could indicate that Paul’s physical labour was not so demeaning in a lower-class context. However, such activity would not be appropriate for one in leadership (69-70). Paul thus shows that ‘normal status indicators are overturned in Christian forms of leadership’ (Martin, Slavery as Salvation, 80). 191 Horsley, ‘1 Corinthians’, 250. Clarke suggests that when Paul urges the Thessalonians not to be dependent on anyone (1 Thess. 4:9-12), he may have been discouraging the patronage of the church leaders (Serve the Community, 199-200). However, it is not certain that he is referring to the leaders here; Richard S. Ascough argues that the leaders (proistamenoi) referred to in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 are not wealthy patrons since their names are not written (‘Chaos Theory’, 29; ‘The Thessalonian Christian Community as a Professional Voluntary Association’, in Journal of Biblical Literature, 119.2 (2000), 317, n. 33). 192 Horsley, Paul and Empire, 213.

144

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

example, from the Philippians – it represented an undermining of ‘the normal understanding of patron/client relationships’ since their partnership with him places them ‘on level ground’ with him.193 Phoebe is described a patron (prostatis) (Rom. 16:1-2). Her receipt of support from the Roman church would ‘lower her status in the eyes of peers’.194 Even though Gehring believes that leaders of household churches ‘served as patrons’, he asserts that their role was quite different from patrons in society since church leaders and members both have a relationship characterised by their relationship to Christ.195 The leader (patron) is called to serve the church in the Lord, and the church members (clients) are ‘[brothers] in the Lord’.196 Paul did not encourage patronage in the church if the implication given was that the leaders had ownership of their members, who would then be under obligation to them. NOT SEEKING HONOUR

The centrality of honour-seeking in the Graeco-Roman culture has already been observed. Even in Jewish society, leaders were honoured in much the same way, especially because of the generosity they showed to their community.197 There was a close relationship between authority and honour: ‘Honour was a source of legitimate social authority, that is, of an authority people were brought up to obey.’198 In the New Testament those who have authority are to receive honour (Rom. 13:7) – whether God (John 8:49; 1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; Rev. 4:9-11; 5:13; 7:12; 19:1), Christ (John 5:23; Heb. 2:9; 3:3; 2 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 5:12-13), the king (1 Pet. 2:17), 193

Walton, ‘Paul, Patronage and Pay’, 228, 229. Clarke argues that, whereas Paul was reluctant to use the principle of patronage in his dealings with the Corinthians, in Philemon 8-14 he was happy to treat Philemon as his client and to call in his debt ‘by urging that he follow Paul’s appeal concerning Onesimus’ (A Pauline Theology, 169; see also deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 124-25; White, ‘Paul and Pater Familias’, 469; Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 51). However, Paul’s relationship with Philemon is very different from a normal patron-client one: he refers to Philemon as ‘dear friend’ and ‘partner’ (Phm 1, 17). His attitude to him is one of love (Phm 9) and gentleness (Phm 14), not one of demanding that a patron-client obligation be repaid. 194 Agosto, ‘Patronage and Commendation’, 121. 195 Gehring, House Church and Mission, 199. 196 In a similar way, Chapple argues that the leadership of the churches at Thessalonica, Corinth and Philippi ‘was patronal in character’ (‘Local Leadership’, 616). However, he too maintains that, in contrast to society at large, the ‘relationship between the προϊστάμενοι [proistamenoi] and the church… is governed by the relationship of both to Christ. Accordingly, the προϊστάμενοι [proistamenoi] are so ἐν κυρίῳ [in the Lord], which means that what they do cannot be directed at securing prestige or power for themselves, but must seek to honour the κύριος by serving his people’ (223). 197 Clarke, Serve the Community, 146. 198 Lendon, Empire of Honour, 69.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

145

parents (Matt. 15:4), or masters (1 Tim. 6:1). However, in Paul’s writings this is very rarely applied to church leaders;199 the only such reference is to elders being ‘worthy of double honour’ (1 Tim. 5:17). Interestingly, in 1 Corinthians 12:24 Paul uses the body metaphor to show that those with outstanding gifts should not be given special honour. And so in a countercultural way, honour is to be mutually shown to one another (Rom. 12:10) and especially to the weak, e.g. needy widows (1 Tim. 5:3). Although honour should be shown to others, it should not be sought in the church. Examining Paul’s hymn in Philippians 2:6-11, Corné Bekker argues that a conflict within the Philippian community arose because of a conflict in values ‘between the Christian call for humble service and the Philippians’ cultural value of pursuing public social honor’.200 The intensity of this conflict is hardly surprising, given the nature of society in the Roman colony of Philippi as a community of veteran soldiers who would be well used to a stratified society.201 The Philippians delighted in showing off their status,202 and they hankered after public honours ‘to a degree apparently unparalleled in the Roman world’.203 Honours were also given to the most privileged members of the religious associations in Philippi, so it 199

Clarke, Serve the Community, 233; Schweizer, Church Order, 171. Corné Bekker, ‘The Philippians Hymn (2:5-11) as an Early Mimetic Christological Model of Christian Leadership in Roman Philippi’, in Servant Leadership Research Roundtable (August 2006), 3: www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2006/bekker.pdf (accessed 30th May 2010). Another example is given by Halvor Moxnes who ‘argues that Paul was opposing, especially in Romans 12:3, 16, disunity within the Christian community which stemmed from Christians who were pursuing a typically Graeco-Roman quest for honour’. See ‘The Quest for Honor and the Unity of the Community in Romans 12 and in the Orations of Dio Chrysostom’, in Troels Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul in his Hellenistic Context (London: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 214-16, cited in Clarke, Serve the Community, 191. 201 Hellerman, ‘Humiliation of Christ 1’, 327. 202 Peter Pilhofer, Philippi, Vol. 1: Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas, in Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 87 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995), 42, cited by Hellerman, ‘Humiliation of Christ 1’, 336. 203 Hellerman, ‘Humiliation of Christ 1’, 321; see also 328; Hellerman, ‘Humiliation of Christ 2’, 422. Hellerman asserts that Paul’s opening address to the Philippian leaders in Philippians 1:1 as ‘overseers and deacons’ is a reflection of the ‘preoccupation with public honors and offices’ in Philippi (‘Humiliation of Christ 2’, 422). He suggests that Paul does this as a sign of his regard for them, while he himself is unwilling to introduce himself as apostle (only thus in Philippians and Philemon) ‘in marked contradistinction to the social values of Roman Philippi’ (‘Humiliation of Christ 2’, 422, n. 5). However, it is questionable whether drawing attention to their titles would have helped the church leaders to see the counter-cultural change in thinking that they needed to make. It seems more likely that Paul is happy to accept the contextualisation revealed in the use of the church leadership titles of the time, while challenging the leadership models they represented later in his letter. 200

146

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

is not surprising that the church in Philippi was also so influenced.204 Hellerman claims that, later in his letter (Phil. 3:4-8), Paul used himself as an example, minimising his ‘pre-Christian résumé’ and negating a life based on the Philippian value system shown in the ‘public parading of honors’.205 Paul challenged his readers – to maintain a worldview diametrically opposed to that of the colony in which they resided. Specifically Paul resisted the idea that his readers should accommodate themselves to the social verticality and pride of honors that so indelibly left their mark on life in Philippi.206

Unlike the Sophists who sought glory from the crowds, Paul was looking for a very different glory – ‘the glory of God in the face of Christ’ (2 Cor. 4:6).207 Consequently, as noted above, in order to maximise God’s glory, Paul is quite happy to boast about his weaknesses (2 Cor. 12:9). In an honour-seeking context, such boasting would be considered foolish indeed.208 But Paul’s own honour was neither the legitimisation nor the driving force and aim of his ministry. His ultimate desire was that God might be honoured even through his own weakness. NO NOOSE

David Fredrickson, in examining the character of Paul’s leadership in 1 and 2 Corinthians, argues that Paul is countering Cynic philosophical views of leadership.209 First, he notes that, after talking about marriage and singleness, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:35: ‘I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.’ However, the Greek expression behind the NIV’s ‘not to restrict you’ is ‘not to throw a noose before you’. Fredrickson argues that an examination of Graeco-Roman traditions of moral exhortation indicate the word ‘noose’ (brochos) was used by Cynic philosophers to show that a harsh attitude was needed in dealing with moral shortcomings. But, in a counter-cultural fashion, Paul seeks to differentiate 204

See Hellerman, ‘Humiliation of Christ 1’, 330, 336; ‘Humiliation of Christ 2’, 423. Corné Bekker sees the hymn in Philippians 2:6-11 as a protest against ‘the tyrannies of the local timocratic leadership of the Roman emperor’ as well as ‘a call for radical values reversal and symbolic inversion that provided the impetus for the construction of alternative social classifications and leadership style in the early Christian community of Philippi’ (‘The Philippians Hymn’, 5; see also Bartchy, ‘Undermining Ancient Patriarchy’, 71; Heen, ‘Phil. 2:6-11 and Resistance to Local Timocratic Rule’, 133-34). 205 Hellerman, ‘Humiliation of Christ 2’, 423, n. 6. 206 Hellerman, ‘Humiliation of Christ 2’, 424. 207 Witherington, Conflict and Community, 101. 208 Watson, ‘Paul and Boasting’, 94. 209 David E. Fredrickson, ‘No Noose is Good News: Leadership as a Theological Problem in the Corinthian Correspondence’, in Word & World, 16.4 (1996), 421.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

147

his style of leadership from that of the Cynics. Far from their harsh approach, Paul considers that leaders should work to build up the dignity and confidence of their church members.210 Fredrickson secondly refers to the Cynics’ domination of those under them. He notes that, in 2 Corinthians 11:20, Paul vilifies the false apostles for enslaving (katadouloō) the Corinthians.211 A related characteristic of the Cynics’ leadership style was self-proclamation. Fredrickson sees an allusion to this in 2 Corinthians 4:5 where Paul says: ‘We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants (douloi) for Jesus’ sake.’ So Paul has a dual proclamation: he proclaims Jesus Christ as Lord and, like the Cynics, he proclaims himself, but not as master, but as ‘the community’s slave’.212 In a nuanced argument, Fredrickson suggests that both Jesus and Paul bring freedom. In 2 Corinthians 3:17-18, Jesus the Lord has brought freedom to the church through the Spirit. And then, just as the labour of slaves allowed their masters to live in freedom, so too Paul’s service of the church creates freedom for them.213 Fredrickson brings these two together, seeing Paul conceptualising leadership as slavery and connecting it with ‘the freedom-bestowing work of Christ through the Spirit’.214 SUMMARY

i) Paul rejected patronal ideas of status-building, and stood against the related competition among leaders. He was also reluctant to accept the patronage of others, and was willing to work to support himself despite the negative image that it would have engendered. Indeed, his teaching and his practice were ‘a radical revision of the pervasive patronage system’.215 ii) Although Paul recognised that some people (indeed, all people) are worthy of honour, he was disinclined to encourage the special honouring of church leaders, or the seeking and parading of such honour. iii) Paul did not follow a harsh Cynic approach to moral exhortation. Nor did he enslave those under him or show off his leadership, as did the Cynics. Conclusion

The last two chapters have examined how leadership was contextualised and many of the main points have been summarised. At this point, some of 210

Fredrickson, ‘No Noose is Good News’, 422-23. Fredrickson, ‘No Noose is Good News’, 423. 212 Fredrickson, ‘No Noose is Good News’, 424. 213 Fredrickson, ‘No Noose is Good News’, 425. 214 Fredrickson, ‘No Noose is Good News’, 426. 215 Walton, ‘Paul, Patronage and Pay’, 233. 211

148

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

the key threads will be drawn out to show how the leadership exhibited in Paul’s ministry and writings both built on and challenged existing models in the culture. The aim of this survey is to prepare the ground for the identification of the theological principles which influenced this contextualisation. These will be discussed in Chapter 5. Building on the leadership models of the time When the gospel takes root in a given context, there are often aspects of the culture which may be used and built upon in order to help establish a church which is appropriate in that context, while still being faithful to the gospel. Although it is common to emphasise the counter-cultural aspects of New Testament leadership, the above examination of church leadership contextualisation has shown ways in which Paul’s teaching and practice were built upon leadership understandings found in the Graeco-Roman context. ACCEPTANCE OF THE NEED FOR LEADERS

The early church recognised that leaders were a necessary part of the church, just as they were in other institutions. They were acknowledged as leaders by their congregations even though recognised leadership titles may not have been employed at first. There is no evidence that the church attempted to set up a society of equals without leadership. It is likely that, at an early stage in the church’s development, some of the leaders were recognised as holding ‘official’ roles similar to those in society at large. In the church today, no matter how egalitarian the culture in which it is placed, some people should be clearly recognised as leaders by the congregation. USE OF EXISTING LEADERSHIP TITLES

As leadership titles began to be used in the church, a variety of titles that were current at the time were used. It was willing to use terms that were primarily seen in secular contexts. It is probable that, as time went by, these terms took on a Christian flavour which may have moved away from their general usage. However, the church did not invent new titles or use foreign words for leaders such as ‘rabbi’. Efforts should be made today in all contexts to use titles which are common in society at large. USE OF EXISTING LEADERSHIP PATTERNS WHICH VARIED ACCORDING TO THE CONTEXT

Leadership structures within the early church, e.g. councils, the variety of offices, etc., had some similarities with those found in contemporary organisations, both secular and religious. However, none was copied in every detail. The large number of terms used to describe leadership roles shows that there was no uniformity but rather a flexibility in leadership structures in the early church. This paralleled the situation in many other

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

149

organisations and institutions in the Graeco-Roman world, especially when different parts of the empire are compared. Although there were clearly local differences in church structures, it is not possible to state unequivocally that such distinctions were a result of the churches being founded in Jewish or Gentile backgrounds. In the church today, it is important to avoid importing leadership patterns from outside the context. This is a particular challenge for established denominations. RESPECT FOR THE ELDERLY

Elderly people were esteemed both in the church and in society at large. Their leadership in the church would be respected by virtue of the dignity which their age gave them as elder statesmen. Some of the ‘elders’ may have had an official standing in the church, especially as the church developed and became more institutionalised. In the West, which often follows the cult of youth, care should be taken to ensure that the elderly have an important role to play in church leadership. BUILDING ON HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURES

Household structures and their leadership were almost certainly accepted in the first stage of the early church. Household and parental terminology was happily used, but not in an authoritarian way. It is probable that in many of the churches which were established, householders took on a leadership role in the church, although others from outside the household who joined the church may have been added to the leadership team as the church grew. USE OF COMMENDATIONS

Commendations were used in leadership recommendations. However, the grounds for those commendations in the church were very different from society at large, with no emphasis on wealth or family background. Character was an important qualification for leaders, both within the church and without, but it was given a higher priority in the church. Challenge and transformation of the leadership models of the time While the apostle Paul happily made use of some aspects of existing models in his contextualisation of leadership, there is no doubt that he was not afraid to be counter-cultural in his exercise of, and teaching about, leadership. Indeed, as has already been noted, right contextualisation is necessarily prophetic. As the gospel is contextualised, Dean Flemming sees this having three effects on culture: culture will be relativized, confronted and transformed.216 If this is not happening, contextualisation is not taking place. At best, it is ineffective; at worst, it is syncretistic. This study has 216

Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 135-50; ‘Paul the Contextualizer’, 12-15.

150

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

shown many ways in which Paul and the Pauline churches challenged the leadership understandings of the day under the influence of the gospel. In drawing these together, some of the directions which contextualisation should follow when applied to new contexts are identified: GOD’S CHOICE, NOT APPEARANCE, ANCESTRY OR HONOUR

Paul’s calling to be an apostle was not a result of his background, but rather a sign of God’s grace, despite his record as a persecutor of the church. The role of God’s Spirit in the selection and recognition of leaders is of great importance in the New Testament church. Paul’s teaching on the Spirit’s gifts given to each member of the body demonstrates that all members are valuable, no matter what their background is. Indeed, the least honourable in the body of Christ are often the most important. This goes right against the leadership understandings of the time. Leaders contemporary with Paul were often chosen on account of their standing in society, and their impressive appearance and rhetoric. These leaders aimed to build up their own honour. Sadly, this perception was sometimes found even in the church, but Paul, knowing that God had appointed him to his leadership position, desired to bring honour to God, and not to himself. Christian leaders were not required to have an impressive appearance or to be gifted in rhetoric and oratory. Today’s church also needs to be careful to follow the Spirit’s leading rather than cultural views of what kind of people are suitable for leadership, e.g. the wealthy, the educated, the eloquent, or those of good family background. Right contextualisation will lead towards a reversal of secular views of status and honour. THE IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP FUNCTION, NOT RANK OR STATUS

The majority of titles in the New Testament church, even those which might be considered to be ‘official’ (with the possible exception of presbuteros), indicate function rather than status.217 The leaders’ authority does not stem from their rank or the titles they carry. This is in great contrast to the honour-driven leadership understandings of the time. The Graeco-Roman preoccupation with glorying in titles and the hierarchical ranking they represented may be compared with the limited numbers of titles used in the church. Furthermore, Paul’s use of menial metaphors for leadership, which Clarke considers to be a ‘deliberate use of non-status 217

Andrew Clarke, in discussing Stephanas’ giving himself to the service (diakonia) of the saints of the saints in 1 Corinthians 16:15-16, argues that ‘where Graeco-Roman society would focus on status and rank, Paul elevates Christian leaders on the grounds of their function’ (Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 126). Dietrich Müller (see Brown, NIDNTT, I, 129; see also Carson, ‘For Now We Live’, 34, n. 30) likewise asserts that apostleship is more a matter of function than authority arising from office.

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

151

leadership vocabulary’,218 would have been unacceptable in society at large for those in leadership positions. In order to show Paul’s counter-cultural understanding of status, today’s church must decide what metaphors of leadership to emphasise, whether in the use of titles or in the practice of ministry. A term which indicates high status in one context may not in another, e.g. ‘Reverend’. The large office used by a leader may be an indication of high status in one culture, but may simply be necessary for the exercise of the leadership function in another. In contextualising, an effort should be made to change the church’s expectations of leadership from one based on status to one of function. REJECTION OF THE ASSOCIATION OF LEADERSHIP WITH AUTHORITARIAN RULE

The Pauline churches did not apply vocabulary to church leaders which was related to ruling, especially words in the archōn or hēgemōn families which imply the strongest rule. Although I cannot agree with Ernst Käsemann who suggests that there was no formal office in the New Testament church,219 I believe that he is right to observe that the New Testament avoidance of words such as archē resulted from a belief that ‘the use of these would have implied the presupposition and recognition of an authoritarian relationship which has no place in the ordering of the Church’. The radical use of brotherhood language also shows the rejection of ruler/servant relationships. Christian leaders in the New Testament did not flout their authority. Although Paul does accept the need for leaders in the churches, he rejects any concept of a domineering hierarchy. In contrast to the leadership of the time, Paul rarely talks of his own authority, and he does not lord it over his congregations. He often holds back from exercising the authority he has. By preference, his leadership style is not overbearing and authoritarian, but gentle and encouraging. He does not follow a harsh Cynic approach to moral exhortation. He is happy to encourage people to make decisions for themselves. Accepting that those who were under him had moral responsibility went against Stoic understandings. Paul also encourages a co-operative and plural leadership style rather than a competitive one which was normal in an honour-seeking context. In many of today’s churches, the biggest leadership challenge lies in this area. Christian leaders are not the lords of those under them! However, changing this pre-understanding is not easy. In many contexts marked by authoritarian leadership styles, change may not occur overnight. It is not only the leaders who must be transformed; church members also must change their thinking. The direction of movement of contextualisation is most important. By careful teaching and modelling, the church must endeavour to move the congregation’s understanding from being under the 218 219

Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 118. Käsemann, Essays, 63.

152

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

rule of their church leaders to that of Christ. One place to start may be in the choice of leadership titles, by avoiding those which have connotations of strong ruling. LEADERS DO NOT MAKE THEIR OWN DISCIPLES

Although Paul did call people to imitate him, he did not seek to make people follow him as his disciples. In the church, there was a rejection of the teacher-disciple model practised by Jewish rabbis and even Jesus. The aim of Christian leadership is to encourage people to follow Christ. In cultures in which empire-building and the cult of personality is common, leaders must take special care to avoid building a personal following. This is important for leaders at every level of the church, whether a senior pastor in a mega-church, or a leader of a small cell group. All leaders must be well trained to ensure that they avoid the temptation of making followers for themselves, rather than for Christ. NO PRIESTLY ROLE BETWEEN GOD AND PEOPLE

Priests were of vital importance in most religions of the time, and indeed in society at large, but the church avoided all terminology connected with priestly activity to explain the role of leaders in relation to those in their care. Christian leaders do not belong to a separate class in the church, nor do they hold a special mediating position between God and his people. In cultures influenced by shamanism, the normal expectation is for the leader to take on the role of mediator between the people and God. This understanding needs to be challenged by those in leadership. Contextualisation must show its prophetic nature as it transforms the religious worldview. The people must be encouraged to look to Christ, and not to their shaman-like Christian leader for prayer, advice and leading into the presence of God. In Buddhist contexts, the church needs to take care lest church leaders are seen as a kind of priestly caste who are superior to other believers. SERVICE, NOT PATRONAGE

At the heart of leadership is the concept of service, rather than patronal understandings of honour. This radical view is based on dominical teaching. Paul’s description of himself as a slave of those he ministered among would have been shocking in the Graeco-Roman context. He chose to serve others rather than claiming his rights as a leader. Indeed, for Paul, leadership is service of others. His emphasis on humble service, perhaps with a menial nuance, was totally different from most contemporary patronal leadership models. Paul was unwilling to become a patron or client of the churches he founded, or to accept the patronage of others. He desired to serve others without expecting any honour in return. He was accountable

Pauline Contextualisation of Leadership: Leadership in Practice

153

to God as his steward, but he also knew that he was accountable to the churches which had commissioned him. In the current-day church, a belief in servant leadership is commonly accepted in theory but rarely practised. Challenging long-held views that leadership is a means of getting others to serve the leader rather than vice versa is not an easy task. However, the work of contextualisation must be given time to change worldviews through reformation rather than revolution. As mentioned above, in Paul’s challenge to views of leadership as authoritarian ruling, both careful teaching and modelling is required in promoting a serving leadership. Many people consider service to be the opposite of leading, and so it is necessary to explain carefully what Jesus did and taught, and how that affected Paul’s understanding too. In each culture, leaders need to think through what a servant looks like in their context, and how that servanthood should be exhibited in the church. LEADERSHIP SHOWN IN WEAKNESS AND SUFFERING

Leaders in the Graeco-Roman context showed their authority by selfconfidence, strength and aggression. However, the mark of Paul the apostle was weakness, self-sacrifice and suffering. Paul shared his physical, emotional and even spiritual weaknesses. This is a complete contrast to the expectations of the time as to what constituted a good leader. Indeed, to suggest that weakness and suffering could be used as grounds for claiming authority in the Graeco-Roman context would give ‘rise to contempt and intimidation rather than recognition and respect’.220 Ben Witherington wisely remarks: Until we learn the meaning of the words ‘when I was weak, then I was strong’, until we learn what it means to be empty of self and full of Christ, we will continue to misread Paul’s theology of leadership, status, power, and wisdom.221

The church today is highly influenced by the society in which it is placed. In many cases, there is a call for strong leadership ‘to get things done’ and to fulfil the commission it has received from Christ. ‘Weak leadership’ is perceived to be the reason that the church is failing. Daniel Law, the Associate Director of Development for the China Graduate School of Theology in Hong Kong, asserts that weak leadership is ‘one of the major issues facing the Chinese church today’ and can result in church stagnation.222 However, an examination of the example of both Christ and 220

Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 98. Witherington, Conflict and Community, 150. 222 Daniel Law, ‘Thoughts on Authority and Leadership in the Chinese Church’, 2012: http://nextgenerasianchurch.com/2012/04/12/thoughts-on-authority-and-leadership-inthe-chinese-church (accessed 22nd November 2012). Mark Brooks, the president of The Charis Group, similarly writes: ‘Churches with weak leadership never grow. To grow 221

154

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Paul reveals not an adulation of weak leadership, but rather a God-reliant leadership which is marked by weakness. Paul was not ashamed to be vulnerable and to share his weaknesses, suffering and needs. Just as he had learned to rely on God’s strength, he desired that his people too would rely on God’s strength and not on his. In contextualising this, it must be remembered that weakness can be shown in many ways according to the context, and care must be taken so that it is not misunderstood. However, like Paul, leaders should not be surprised if this emphasis evokes criticism on the part of their people.

you have to have strong leadership’ (‘Is Your Church Weak and Poor?’, 2012: http://thecharisgroup.org/2010/04/05/is-your-church-weak-and-poor (accessed 22nd November 2012).

Chapter 5 Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul’s Ministry and Writings

Contextualisation is much more than simply communicating the gospel in a way which is understandable in the local context. It is more than setting up structures which are comfortable for local believers. Contextualisation involves a process of theologising, whether the church is conscious of it or not. In order to help us in the task of contextualisation today, we need to see the theological process which was followed by the early church. The ways in which leadership was contextualised in the apostle Paul’s writings and ministry has been examined above, and now more attention will be given to identifying the theological principles which lie behind this process of contextualisation. Although other scholars have examined Pauline leadership patterns, one of the distinctive features of this study is the recognition of the theological influences on Paul’s contextualisation of leadership. This chapter engages with the text of the Bible, not with the aim of undertaking detailed biblical exegesis, but to theologise Paul’s contextualisation. It has already been seen that Paul does not give his imprimatur to any one leadership model. Flemming also wisely questions whether New Testament patterns of church leadership, which had been contextualised for the first-century context, should be considered to be normative for the present day in our many cultural contexts.1 However, he rightly observes that this does not mean that we are ‘free to implement any pattern that we choose’. On the contrary, he argues that we need to discover the ‘underlying principles and paradigms within the New Testament that can guide us in our critical evaluation of church order and that should underpin our church structures, whatever contextual form they take’. The aim is not to look for an ideal platonic leadership model or for ‘timeless propositions’ which suggest that Christian leadership always has a certain shape, or operates in a particular way.2 There is no ‘magic formula’ which can be applied to all churches in all contexts and times. This is what makes the study of New Testament contextualisation so important. Even though the context then was very different, an examination of Pauline contextualisation can help the church today to understand the process of theologising which they should follow as they seek to provide Godpleasing leadership. 1 2

Flemming, ‘The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy’, 245. Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 301.

156

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

This chapter therefore gives attention to discovering the theological principles which affected the process of the incarnation of leadership in churches which were influenced by the apostle Paul. As has already been seen, wherever possible the apostle Paul built on the leadership models of the time. This was consistent with his view that culture may be redeemed and used for the kingdom of God. However, this chapter puts its main focus on areas of leadership understanding which were challenged by Paul and the Pauline churches. The Unique Position of Christ

It has been observed in this study that Paul was not reluctant to question and confront leadership patterns which were current in society. Although in many ways the leadership of the early church paralleled the surrounding culture, in other ways leadership patterns, which were accepted by society at large, were profoundly challenged. What was the main reason for this? An examination of Paul’s writings shows that his ministry and theologising was controlled by his understanding of Christ and by his devotion to him. Where Christ’s character and person were not in line with leadership patterns of the day, Paul challenged and on occasion rejected them. My own study of Paul’s ministry and writings suggests that his Christology governed his whole understanding of leadership – including that of his own. I have determined several ways in which this Christology profoundly influenced the contextualisation of leadership in the Pauline churches. In the coming pages some of the key principles related to Paul’s Christology are identified. Christ the ruler For the apostle Paul, Jesus held a unique position of authority, as shown in his preference for referring to Jesus as the ‘Lord’. Jesus’ lordship not only included all people – ‘the dead and the living’ (Rom. 14:9) – but was also universal in scope as Paul had an earnest desire that ‘at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord’ (Phil. 2:10-11). This not only indicates that Jesus’ lordship would extend over the whole created order, but the allusion to Isaiah 45:23 strongly suggests that Paul was beginning to equate the person of Jesus with Yahweh himself. While Paul may have shown some reluctance in openly describing Jesus as ‘God’,3 his description of Jesus as ‘Lord’ would certainly make people think of God in a Jewish context. Since Jesus has such a high position in Paul’s thinking, it 3

The expression ‘Christ, who is God over all, for ever praised!’ in Romans 9:5 is one possible example, although the meaning of this verse is unclear and it may be better to see this as a doxology to God the Father (see Dunn, Romans 9-16, 535-36).

Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership

157

should be no surprise to discover this truth influencing his opinion of the relative status of human leaders in the church. Indeed, who is the leader of the church? For Paul, the prime answer to the question must be Christ. Paul makes Christ’s unique ruling status very clear in Colossians 1:18 (cf. Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23): ‘He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.’4 Although Paul would acknowledge that God’s authority resides in his representatives on earth, if Christ is the main leader of the church, Paul cannot allow his own leadership authority to take the place of Christ who is the ultimate master. There can be no confusion between Christ’s rule and that of church leaders. It is Christ who is the head of the church, not man. In the Corinthian context, in which the superapostles were forcing their authority on others and taking unfair advantage of them (2 Cor. 11:20), Paul says that he preaches Christ as Lord and not himself, except as the Corinthians’ servant (doulos) for Jesus’ sake (2 Cor. 4:5). Philip Hughes is right to remark that there is only – one Master, and so [Paul] affirms that it is for Jesus’ sake that he assumes the role of the servant of others. The servant of Jesus is also the servant of his fellow men, but always for the sake of Him who is his sole Master.5

When Paul’s contextualisation of leadership titles in the church was examined above, it was highly significant to discover that some words which were commonly used of leaders in the Graeco-Roman context were largely avoided by the early church. However, John Olley makes the interesting observation that words which are only rarely applied to church relationships are used freely to refer to Christ, e.g. words related to kurios (lord), archōn (ruler), exousia (authority), timē (honour), epitassō (to command), keleuō (to order), entolē (commandment), and hupakouō (to obey).6 These words all refer to Jesus’ authority and lordship. Why did Paul exclude these from his church leadership vocabulary? If Jesus is Lord and ruler, ultimately no human can take his place.7 This parallels God’s words in 1 Samuel 8:7 in which he says that the people’s desire to appoint a king is a sign that they have rejected him as king. Jesus also challenged the teachers of the law and the Pharisees for their love of being addressed as

4

See Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 130. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 132; see also Howell, Servants of the Servant, 266. 6 Olley, ‘Leadership’, 10. 7 Paul does acknowledge that believers will have a ruling responsibility in the coming kingdom (1 Cor. 6:2-3; 2 Tim. 2:12), but this teaching refers to all believers, not just to leaders. Until then, leaders are to follow Jesus’ example of service, which is characteristic of his exaltation, not of authoritarian ruling. 5

158

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Rabbi, since he felt that, by so doing, they were taking the place of God their master (Matt. 23:1-11). In the contextualisation of church leadership, what impact should the acknowledgement that Jesus is Lord of the church have on our view of church leadership? i) If Christ is master, leaders should not glory in holding the top position in the church. A knowledge of Christ’s rulership transformed Paul’s understanding of his leadership role. For example, in the Corinthian context in which there were several factions in the church, Paul did not push forward his own credentials as leader, or seek honour for himself or his ‘Paul’ party. On the contrary, he emphasised that all leaders are to be subject to God (1 Cor. 3:5-10; 3:21-4:1).8 The people of God do not belong to their leaders – the leaders belong to them (1 Cor. 3:21-22) and the people belong to Christ. This is a remarkable ordering which goes against the understanding of leadership in almost every culture! God and Christ are at the top of the pyramid, then the Corinthian believers, and finally the church leaders. It is therefore Christ as supreme ruler who should take all honour and glory and not church leaders.9 The apostle Paul modelled this as he refused to seek the praise of men (1 Thess. 2:6), but ascribed all glory to Christ (2 Tim. 4:18). For example, his aim in administering the collection for the poor in Judaea was not to gain honour for himself, but to give glory (doxa) to the Lord (2 Cor. 8:19). Even those who were chosen as representatives (apostoloi) of the churches in taking the collection were described as an honour (doxa) to Christ (2 Cor. 8:23). R.W. Gehring makes a similar point in contrasting the leadership of the Thessalonian church with that of patron-client relationships in the context. He notes from 1 Thessalonians 5:12 that – the relationship of the Christian προϊστάμενοι [proistamenoi] to the Thessalonian church was characterized by the relationship of both to Christ. The patron is therefore ἐν κυρίῳ [in the Lord], in consequence of which he is no longer to seek his own honor but rather the honor of the Lord by serving the church.10

For Paul therefore, it is not the leaders of the churches who should receive special honour, but God through Christ (Rom. 16:27). Ultimately, 8

Clarke, Serve the Community, 216. Paul does say that ‘elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honour (timē)’ (1 Tim. 5:17), but this is the only such reference and it may refer to monetary benefit (see p. 78). 10 Gehring, House Church and Mission, 199. Flemming maintains that, by supporting himself by tent-making, Paul challenged ‘the values that upheld the patronage system of the culture… He radically reframes how his converts should view those social networks in light of the gospel. All human status hierarchies are turned on their head and subordinated to the one true patron or master, God in Christ’ (Contextualization in the New Testament, 194). 9

Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership

159

all will submit to Christ since only his rulership is lasting (Phil. 2:11). Secular leaders, with their exaltation of status, will be brought to nothing (1 Cor. 1:28). Despite their claim to wisdom, they do not understand the ways of God, as shown tragically in their crucifixion of the ‘Lord of glory’ (1 Cor. 2:6, 8).11 They thought they were rulers; in actual fact, it was Jesus Christ who is the true ruler and worthy of all glory and honour. In the church today, leaders need to remember that Christ is master and that he is the one who deserves the chief honour. Leaders do have the right to be honoured by their church members, but the leaders’ responsibility is not to seek this honour, but to promote the glory of Christ who is the senior leader of the church. This will affect their preaching and counselling, and the image of the church that they present to the world. It is Christ’s church, not theirs. ii) Church leaders do not possess the status of authoritarian rulers. It was noticed above that Greek words meaning ‘rule’ are not used to refer to the ministry of church leaders. Since Christ is the only one given the title of ruler or lord, the implication is that leadership in the church is ultimately not about ruling.12 This concept is radical in some Christian contexts today in which it is assumed that the leader of the church or other group has the God-given right to control the lives of their members. Some even describe themselves as God’s ‘anointed’ (i.e. Christ)! However, our examination of Paul’s ministry and writings has shown a very different picture. Far from ruling in the place of Christ, leaders are to help their people to look to Christ as their ruler. For example, when Paul deals with those who were weak in faith in the Roman church (Rom. 14:1-13), it is significant to notice that he does not lord it over them as their ruler. He reminds the church that the Lord is the judge, and that church members should not usurp his position as master. Marion Carson argues that – Paul himself does not issue instructions to others on the basis of his apostleship, or demand compliance on the basis of his own authority. Rather, he continually acknowledges Christ as the higher power, giving instructions ‘in the Lord Jesus’ (e.g. 1 Thess. 4:2; 2 Thess. 3:6).13

In Colossae, Paul similarly deals with those who are being criticised for not keeping ‘rules’ by pointing them to the Lord who is the head of the church and the only one with the right to judge (Col. 2:16-3:2). Paul and other church leaders are only stewards who are answerable to Christ as head of the household. Since Christ is over all, including the leaders of the 11

Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 117. John Koenig maintains that the charismatic qualification for New Testament leadership ‘means that the real archē or rule in the church does not belong to humans but to God in Christ’ (‘Hierarchy Transfigured’, 32). 13 Carson, ‘For Now We Live’, 31, n.23. 12

160

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

church, Paul recognises that this has a profound effect on his relationship with the churches, as Banks observes: The apostle – for all his divine call, diverse gifts and founding labours – does not set himself in a hierarchical position above his communities or act in an authoritarian manner towards them. He refuses to do this since Christ, not he, is their master.14

In conclusion therefore, this study has shown that Paul’s understanding of the lordship of Christ prevented him and the churches he established from promoting or accepting any form of church leadership which placed the leaders in a position of authoritarian ruling. It is Christ alone who is the supreme ruling leader who deserves all glory and honour. Any title used, or leadership style followed, which usurps Christ’s position as supreme ruler is not consistent with the New Testament leadership principles shown in Paul’s ministry. Christ the only mediator The concept of Christ as mediator is at first sight not common in the Pauline writings. Indeed, the word ‘mediator’ is used of Christ only once, with the apostle Paul writing that ‘there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus’ (1 Tim. 2:5).15 However, even if the word ‘mediator’ is not used, the notion of Christ’s mediation between God and mankind is found in many of Paul’s letters. One repeated theme is that of Jesus reconciling mankind to God which is a mediating role par excellence. Paul writes: ‘We also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation’ (Rom. 5:11; cf. 2 Cor. 5:18-19; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:21-22). However, Jesus’ mediating role did not finish on the cross. It continues today as he ‘is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us’ (Rom. 8:34). There is no need for any angelic mediator as was found in Jewish thinking.16 In the church at Colossae, it seems likely that some of the heretical teachers were suggesting that angelic intermediaries were necessary. However, Paul 14

Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 178. But see pp. 127-29 for evidence that Pauline churches did have a hierarchy, albeit with a different understanding from the world’s. 15 Ritva Williams sees Paul’s role at Corinth as that of a broker, with God as patron (Stewards, Prophets, Keepers, 49). However, David deSilva prefers to see Christ as acting as a broker (Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 133), although he too does see Paul in a mediating role (138-39) with the believers therefore being under obligation to him. However, there is no indication that the apostle Paul modelled his own leadership style on such a patron-client understanding. On the contrary, he seems to have been at pains to avoid giving this impression. It therefore seems better to follow Steve Walton in his analysis of Philippians 4:18-20, who sees Paul and the church as ‘fellow-clients of God who provides as patron’ (‘Paul, Patronage and Pay’, 229). 16 Dunn, Romans 1-8, 504.

Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership

161

makes it clear that they are not required, since ‘in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form’ (Col. 2:9), and on the cross he has conquered all such powers and authorities (Col. 2:15). If there is no need for a heavenly mediator apart from Christ, it is not surprising that Paul and the Pauline churches did not see any need for a human priestly mediator either. The reluctance of the church to use cultic language to describe the ministry of those having leadership roles was noticed above. Whereas in Judaism and in the Graeco-Roman world, priests held a prominent role, Schweizer notes that the New Testament church was remarkable in having no priests: Before there has been any theological reflection, all the New Testament witnesses are sure of one decisive fact: official priesthood, which exists to conciliate and mediate between God and the community, is found in Judaism and paganism; but since Jesus Christ there has been only one such office – that of Jesus himself. It is shared by the whole Church, and never by one church member as distinct from others.17

The inimitable priestly role of Christ also affects the church’s use of words commonly found in a cultic context. H. Strathmann maintains that words in the leitourgos family – are never used for the services or offices of leading personalities in the new community such as apostles, teachers, prophets, presbyters, bishops, etc. Such a use could not develop on the soil of primitive Christian thought. For the tasks of Christian office-bearers were not comparable with those of the priestly sacrificial cultus. The cultus had reached its end with the self-offering of Christ… The messengers of Christ and leaders of individual congregations do not have to fulfil a λειτουργία [leitourgia] for the community.18

This unique fact leads to some distinctive emphases of Christian leadership: i) Leaders are not to make their own disciples but disciples of Christ (see pp. 87, 152). This was a big issue in the Corinthian church with parties within the church who each put their favoured leader on a pedestal as the object of their adulation (1 Cor. 1:12). Paul could not accept this state of affairs since Christ was ultimately the only way in which the Corinthians had been brought into the church (1 Cor. 1:13). They should not be boasting in the leaders through whom they came to believe, since their leaders are only servants of the Lord (1 Cor. 3:4-5, 21-4:1; 4:6). Churches today need to remember that the object of discipleship is not to make followers of people, but of Christ. In many cultures, church leaders 17 18

Schweizer, Church Order, 176. See Kittel, TDNT, IV, 228.

162

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

seem to be more concerned to make sure that their members obey them and follow their vision for the church, than to encourage the church to follow Christ faithfully and to live in a way which is pleasing to him. ii) Church members should not depend on their leaders but on the Lord. Paul is not controlling in his leadership, but wants the people to rely on the Lord, and not on him or other human leaders. In the Corinthian context in which leaders were boasting of their authority as super-apostles, Paul does not lord it over the believers’ faith as though everything depended on him, but he reminds them that they stand firm only by relying on God: ‘Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ’ (2 Cor. 1:21; cf. 24). Likewise, in his own experience of suffering, he knows that it was Christ who would guard him until the day of judgement (2 Tim. 1:12). Certainly, Paul would not have denied that God can use others as his instrument of care. In his own testimony which he shared with the Corinthians, he acknowledges that, ‘God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus’ (2 Cor. 7:6). However, he did not want his people to rely on others for their ultimate security. In the same way, Christian leaders today need to be sure that they are not encouraging their church members to put their reliance on them rather than on the Lord. Sometimes leaders, because of their own insecurity or from a desire to control their members’ lives, want them to rely on their leaders more than even Christ. Leaders need to show their church members in humility that they may fail, but Christ will not. iii) The leader must not put himself in the position of a shaman, as if his prayers are more efficacious than those of others (see p. 152). How does Paul show this in his teaching? First, he asks others to pray for him19 – he does not think that he has superior prayer power. Secondly, he exhorts the churches to keep on praying themselves, rather than suggesting that their well-being depends on his own priestly prayers (Eph. 6:18; Phil. 4:6; Col. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:17; 1 Tim. 2:1, 8). Thirdly and most importantly, as we saw above, he is not willing to take the position of Christ who intercedes for the church (Rom. 8:34). It is common in many cultures for believers to consider that the prayers of their leaders, and especially those of ‘ordained’ ministers, are more efficacious than their own prayers or those of others. The leader must be aware of this tendency and make every effort to show by teaching and example that his or her position is very different from that of a shaman or priest. In conclusion, the knowledge that Christ is the only mediator between God and mankind prevented Paul from taking on any role which might lead to people thinking that he had a special mediating position, other than the general priesthood shared by all believers. He likewise sought to discourage 19 Rom. 15:30-31; Eph. 6:19-20; Col. 4:3-4; cf. 2 Cor. 1:11; Phil. 1:19; 1 Thess. 5:25; 2 Thess. 3:1.

Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership

163

the churches he influenced from treating their leaders as if they had any mediating status which rightly belongs to Christ. Many cultures expect religions to provide a professional priest or shaman who can mediate between people and the spirits or god(s). Right contextualisation of leadership as revealed in Paul’s ministry and writings will not allow leaders to take such a position. The Example of Christ

There are some ways in which Christ revealed himself as a leader that cannot be emulated by leaders today. His role as ruler and mediator is unique. According to the Pauline churches’ understanding of leadership which is shown in their contextualisation, any leader who seeks to copy Christ’s example in these areas will be taking away the honour and glory which belongs to God in Christ alone. However, are there other ways in which Jesus may be an example to leaders? While Christ’s lordship is not a model to be followed, this study has shown that there are some aspects of Jesus’ ministry which may be used as examples that may be legitimately followed by Christian leaders, especially in the area of his servanthood. Clearly, some of these examples are more metaphorical than analogical, and may not be followed in every detail. For example, while Christ’s model of incarnation and sacrifice on the cross may be followed by leaders as examples of humble service, the leaders’ application of Christ’s pattern may not be used as an example of their need to make atonement for sin. Bearing in mind this caveat, one of the aims of Christian leadership is to imitate Christ so that others will also do the same.20 As has been noted above, even when Paul calls the Corinthians to follow his example, his exhortation has a clear christological force: ‘Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ’ (1 Cor. 11:1; cf. 1 Thess. 1:6). Although Paul does not often refer to Christ’s earthly ministry, it is clear that Paul’s humble leadership style is consistent with that of Christ. When Paul appeals to the Corinthians by ‘the meekness and gentleness of Christ’ (2 Cor. 10:1), he is following the example Jesus laid down in his dealings with those who were like sheep without a shepherd (Mark 6:34). Christian leaders are to be like Christ in their character, as seen in the lists of leadership qualifications in the Pastoral Epistles. Jesus gave a supreme example of uprightness, selfcontrol, gentleness, etc. – so very different from many leaders in the Graeco-Roman world. Jerry Sumney argues that, in great contrast to the powerful leaders who tried to take over the Corinthian church, Paul –

20

Clarke, ‘“Be Imitators of me”’, 360.

164

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

makes it clear that being a minister is not about being in charge or making certain others recognize your position and defer to your judgement. Rather, ministry is about reflecting the life and death of Jesus in one’s own life.21

It is indeed in Christ humbling himself to come to this earth and die on the cross that his example is supremely seen, and from which theological principles of leadership may be drawn. Christ incarnate We have already observed that the best example of contextualisation is seen in the incarnation of Christ. Christian believers are so familiar with this concept that the they easily forget the shocking nature of what Christ did, not only in being ‘contracted to a span’,22 but also in taking on the nature of a slave (Phil. 2:7) – which will be discussed in the next section. Christ’s incarnation would have been even harder for the believers of the first century to understand, since they were so used to Graeco-Roman cultural values which rebelled against any suggestion that those who aspire to leadership should humble or limit themselves. This is most vividly illustrated in Paul’s letter to the Philippians. In a church context at Philippi which was marked by disunity and selfish ambition, Paul called the church to follow the example of Jesus in the christological hymn of Philippians 2:5-11.23 Paul argues that, in becoming a man, Jesus emptied himself, showing that he ‘did not consider equality with God something to be grasped’ (Phil. 2:6). As a divine figure, Jesus had rights that he could have used for his own benefit (Matt. 26:53), but he chose not to. As Paul makes 21

Sumney, ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry’, 34. From Charles Wesley’s hymn: ‘Let earth and heaven combine’. 23 See deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 55. Ralph P. Martin cites Ernst Käsemann as arguing that this hymn does not give Christ as an ethical example to be followed but rather seeing the phrase ‘in Christ Jesus’ (en Christō Iēsou) (Phil. 2:5) ‘as a technical expression for ‘“in the domain of Christ”’ (Carmen Christi: Philippians ii:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship, rev. edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983 [1967]), 85; see Steven J. Kraftchick (‘A Necessary Detour: Paul’s Metaphorical Understanding of the Philippian Hymn’, in Horizons in Biblical Theology, 15 (1993), 4-7) for another summary of Käsemann’s position). The main issue is not who Christ is but what he did (83). The Philippians needed to ‘recognize that they are those who are in the state of salvation through the One who was in the divine form and emptied Himself and took on Himself in obedience the slave’s form’ (85). Käsemann does not believe that it is possible to imitate the heavenly Redeemer (91) – a view Frank Stagg describes as a ‘caricature, not exegesis’ (‘The Mind of Christ Jesus: Philippians 1:27-2:18’, in Review and Expositor, 77.3 (1980), 342). Many other scholars do not follow Käsemann’s line, and maintain that ‘the example theory remains viable, properly understood’ (340; see also Clarke, ‘“Be Imitators of me”’, 350; Copan, Saint Paul, 241-42; Hawthorne, Philippians, 79; Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor, 129; Kraftchick, ‘Necessary Detour’, 31; MacLeod, ‘Imitating the Incarnation of Christ’, 310, n. 10). 22

Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership

165

clear in this hymn, this was a means, not only of fulfilling God’s purpose for him, but also of providing an example for believers. This would be remarkable – indeed, ‘abject folly’ – in the Philippian context in which the elite were for ever pushing to obtain honours for themselves,24 not to mention a context marked by a tyrannical local Roman leadership.25 What does this passage reveal about the process of theologising the contextualisation of Christian leadership? It seems likely that there was leadership conflict in the Philippian church, illustrated by the broken relationship of two prominent women, Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2).26 The example of Jesus’ self-emptying which Paul gives, speaks directly to such problems of leadership, especially where these have been caused by ‘selfish ambition or vain conceit’ (Phil. 2:3). This picture of Christ giving up the rights and privileges of his deity therefore provides ‘an alternative vision of Christian leadership’.27 As we have seen above, Paul followed Christ’s example and willingly held back from exercising the right he had to exercise his authority over the churches, or to be paid for his labours. His leadership contextualisation was motivated by a desire to ensure that the gospel be spread without unnecessary hindrance (1 Cor. 9:19-23). Christian leaders today are called to that same path of self-sacrifice. Many cultures encourage self-expression and self-fulfilment; the Christian leader needs to lay self-centred desires to one side, and follow Christ’s example of selfemptying, even when this goes against cultural norms. Christ crucified The death of Christ on the cross is the centre of Paul’s theological understanding of church leadership. It is not unknown for people to die for a great cause, perhaps as a mighty warrior in battle. However, the way in which the apostle describes Jesus’ death is astonishing. The christological hymn discussed above reveals that, in order to die on the cross, Jesus willingly took on the nature of a slave (Phil. 2:7). As has been observed before, the status of a slave was the lowest in society. To describe Jesus as a slave, therefore, would have been incredible to the Philippians.28 The example of his incarnation as a slave was – and remains – a challenge to all who claim to be leaders like Christ (Mark 10:43-45). Even in his ministry, Jesus showed his humble service in washing his disciples’ feet which was the duty of a non-Jewish slave, and called on his disciples to follow his 24

Hellerman, ‘Humiliation of Christ 2’, 431. Bekker, ‘The Philippians Hymn’, 2. 26 See David A. Black, ‘The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in TextLinguistics’, in Novum Testamentum, 38.1 (1995), 42, 45. 27 Bekker, ‘The Philippians Hymn’, 9. 28 See Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor, 142; ‘Humiliation of Christ 2’, 424, 427; Howell, Servants of the Servant, 19. 25

166

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

example (John 13:1-17).29 Ultimately, his willing service led to the cross where Jesus suffered the most humiliating of deaths, which even Roman citizens did not normally face.30 Jesus’ sacrificial service on behalf of mankind had a profound influence on Paul’s ministry style, as well as his whole understanding of the nature of leadership – and the style of leadership, in particular. Paul’s example of service as a diakonos and doulos has already been described. In most churches where he ministered this was profoundly counter-cultural. For example, Rollin Ramsaran argues that the Corinthian church leaders patterned ‘their lives, leadership, and rhetoric on a Graeco-Roman domination system rather than the pattern or mind of Christ demonstrated in and through the cross’.31 In 2 Corinthians 5:14-21, Paul’s argument that Christ’s sacrifice was made to reconcile mankind to God is relevant to leadership since it was given in a co-text in which some leaders in the church, most probably the super-apostles,32 were boasting and taking pride in their own appearance (2 Cor. 5:12). In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians also, he had been dealing with leadership problems in the church. Several groups had been pushing forward their own favoured leaders which had given rise to divisions in the church (1 Cor. 1:11-12). In addressing these leadership problems, Efrain Agosto argues that for Paul – the question of the nature of gospel leadership was fundamental to the gospel itself. Christ lies at the heart of the gospel message. Christ was a servant who died on a Roman cross. Gospel leadership needs to model such sacrificial service; it must be ‘cruciform.’33

In other words, Jesus’ example led Paul to a realisation that christological leadership is marked by humble service and sacrifice – and this is vividly illustrated in his Corinthian correspondence.34 In a world in which dynamic and powerful leadership is commended and promoted, what does the cruciform foundation of Paul’s belief about leadership show us? i) Christian leadership is about service and not self-exaltation. It has already been observed that pride was a major issue in the Pauline churches 29

Howell, Servants of the Servant, 14; Kanagaraj, ‘Johannine Jesus’, 18. His death by crucifixion also reinforced his dishonourable slave-like status since this punishment was ‘particularly fitting for a slave’ (Hellerman, ‘Humiliation of Christ 2’, 429; see also MacLeod, ‘Imitating the Incarnation of Christ’, 328), being ‘the lowest stage of humiliation possible’ (MacLeod, ‘Imitating the Incarnation of Christ’, 329). 31 Ramsaran, ‘Resisting Imperial Domination’, 96. 32 Paul Barnett, The Message of 2 Corinthians: Power in Weakness, BST (Leicester: IVP,1988), 106. 33 Agosto, Servant Leadership, 182. 34 Katherine Grieb draws a parallel between Christ becoming a servant (doulos), and the downward mobility of Christian leaders. God’s humiliation of Paul and his co-workers is a sign that they are following Christ’s example (‘“The One who Called You”’, 159). 30

Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership

167

(e.g. Corinthand Philippi), as it was in society at large. Jesus too challenged the pride of the Pharisees (Matt. 23:1-12). However, an understanding of the cruciform nature of church leadership will prevent many of the pridefilled excesses which are all too common in churches today as they have been down the ages. There can be no place for self-exaltation, or even for accepting the adulation of others. It is only when leadership is ‘rooted in the death and resurrection of Jesus’ that the dangers of ‘self-glory, insecurity, and authoritarianism’ will be avoided.35 Where leaders keep away from these dangers, they will focus, like Christ, not on themselves, but on the service of others.36 The Christian leader is called to follow Christ’s example of cruciform service. When the leader’s focus is on Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, it is difficult for them to maintain a selfexalting stance to leadership. This theological principle should also influence the church’s choice of leaders. In discussing the foolishness of the cross, Paul states that God chooses the weak and the lowly (1 Cor. 1:17-31). Candidates for leadership should also be chosen from those who follow that same cruciform pattern and not from those who are outstanding and impressive according to the assessment of the world. ii) Christian leadership is primarily not about personal power but weakness. It has already been noted that a powerful appearance was an indispensable requirement for successful leaders in the Graeco-Roman world. This kind of thinking was also creeping into the Corinthian church, especially as a result of the influence of the super-apostles who wanted a gospel without suffering or weakness. However, Paul’s approach to leadership was radically different. For Paul, what counts is not the leader’s personal power which is shown in his appearance, rhetoric, etc., but the power of the gospel which stands out in bold relief against the background of the personal weakness of the minister.37 Paul’s weakness as a leader forced him to rely on Christ’s resurrection power (2 Cor. 12:8-10). That is why Jesus said to Paul: ‘My power is made perfect in weakness’. Paul learned that weakness is the greatest qualification for a man or woman of God. For this reason, he could delight in his weaknesses and persecutions. Many in Corinth were seeking or relying on personal power and status, but 35

Kanagaraj, ‘Johannine Jesus’, 26. Dale Martin believes that Paul’s theology of the cross was the basis for his exhortation for the strong to care for the weak (1 Cor. 9:11; cf. Rom. 15:1-3). Martin observes that such service went right against patronal ideology and would be ‘perceived as offensive social self-abasement’ (Slavery as Salvation, 141). 37 Paul’s whole apostolic authority is, as Margaret MacDonald maintains, ‘rooted in the fact that his personal strength/weakness echoes the strength/weakness of the crucified/resurrected Christ’ (Pauline Churches, 50; see also Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 138). James Dunn likewise asserts: ‘As the gospel is the gospel of the crucified, so the ministry of the gospel involves living out a theologia crucis rather than a theologia gloriae’ (The Theology of Paul, 580). 36

168

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Paul recognised that ‘the cross reverses any strategy of manipulative power’.38 It is his understanding of Christ crucified which leads him to reject leadership’s normal way of relying on boasting, rhetoric and impressive appearance, but rather to follow the way of weakness and suffering.39 He would of course have been well aware that this kind of theology was alien to the thinking of many in Corinth, as it still is today. As churches seek to contextualise leadership, they need to beware of the danger of relying on the personal power and dynamism of their leaders. Those who know their weaknesses are more likely to rely on the power of Christ. The Trinitarian God

It is clear that Paul’s christological understanding had a major effect on his ministry, including its theological influence on the contextualisation of leadership. However, to broaden the perspective from simply the christological, is it possible that Paul’s understanding of God as Trinity (even if only a latent Trinitarianism) could have influenced his attitude to leadership, and especially the relationships between church leaders? Given that Paul’s view of Christ as ruler affected both his view of the status of leaders in the church and also his understanding of their leadership style, if Paul had any sense of God as a Trinity of persons working in relationship with one another, it is probable that this thinking would also impinge on his theologising of the contextualisation of leadership. In the last century, there has been a massive growth in interest in the study of the Trinity, with particular emphasis being placed on the economic Trinity, if sometimes at the expense of the immanent Trinity.40 Many scholars believe that the church should reflect the trinitarian nature of God.41 One of the most influential scholars in this area of study is Jürgen Moltmann.42 From the 1970s onwards, he has given particular attention to 38

Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 108. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 79-80. 40 David Coffey, Deus Trinitas: The Doctrine of the Triune God (Oxford: OUP, 1999), 4. 41 e.g. David E. Bjork, ‘Toward a Trinitarian Understanding of Mission in PostChristendom Lands’, in Missiology, 27.2 (1999), 233-34; Leonardo Boff, Trinity and Society (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005), 148-54; John Kleinig, ‘The Ordination of Women and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity’, in Lutheran Theological Review, 10 (1997-98), 53; LaCugna, God for Us, 274; Jürgen Moltmann, Trinity and the Kingdom of God: The Doctrine of God (London: SCM Press, 1981), 201-02; Volf, After Our Likeness, 191-257; John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 15. 42 Joy A. McDougall asserts: ‘No contemporary theologian has played a more decisive role in retrieving the practical significance of trinitarian theology than German 39

Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership

169

the Trinity in his thinking, with his theology owing more to insights from the eastern church than the western. His seminal work is The Trinity and the kingdom.43 In this and succeeding works, he builds his theology on a belief in the social doctrine of the Trinity in which the loving relationships between the persons of the Trinity are emphasised.44 To explain these relationships, Moltmann makes use of the term perichoresis which was ‘understood by patristic theologians as the sociality of the three divine Persons’.45 Perichoresis is the mutual interpenetration of the persons of the Trinity.46 Moltmann uses the social doctrine of the Trinity as an archetype of human relationships and nature in general,47 but it may also be applied to the relationships which Christian leaders have among themselves and with those they lead.48

Reformed theologian Jürgen Moltmann’ (‘The Return of Trinitarian Praxis? Moltmann on the Trinity and the Christian Life’, in Journal of Religion, 83.2 (2003), 178). 43 Moltmann, Trinity and the Kingdom. 44 Miroslav Volf who did two doctoral theses under Moltmann follows his doctrine of the social Trinity very closely (After Our Likeness). 45 Moltmann, Trinity and the Kingdom, 198. 46 The Greek word is περιχώρησις. ‘Perichoresis refers to the reciprocal interiority of the trinitarian persons. In every divine person as a subject, the other persons also indwell; all mutually permeate one another, though in so doing they do not cease to be distinct persons. In fact, the distinctions between them are precisely the presupposition of that interiority, since persons who have dissolved into one another cannot exist in one another’ (Volf, After Our Likeness, 209). 47 E.g. Moltmann, History and the Triune God, xiii; Trinity and the Kingdom, 19. 48 Karen Kilby has criticised the way that scholars such as Moltmann use the social doctrine of the Trinity as an analogy for human relationships. First, she claims that proponents fill out the concept of perichoresis ‘with notions borrowed from our own experience of relationships and relatedness’ (‘Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity’, in New Blackfriars, 81.956 (2000), 442). Secondly, she is concerned that they then use the doctrine of the inner nature of God that they have developed ‘to promote social, political or ecclesiastical regimes’ (444). Richard Bauckham also contends that Moltmann’s view that the Trinity can be a model for human relationships is not based on Scripture (The Theology of Jurgen Moltmann (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995), 177). However, Joy McDougall defends Moltmann by showing that his trinitarian doctrine is not simply a projection of his own preferred social agenda, but is based on a firm biblical foundation of God’s trinitarian work of salvation (‘Return of Trinitarian Praxis’, 180-89). Moltmann writes: ‘We understand the scriptures as the testimony to the history of the Trinity’s relations of fellowship’ (Trinity and the Kingdom, 19). Volf also acknowledges that ‘thinking about the Trinity and about social relations in light of the Trinity must be shaped primarily by the scriptural narrative of the triune God’, but he does admit ‘ecclesial and social models and trinitarian models are mutually determinative’ (After Our Likeness, 194). Bidwell rightly notes the danger of theologians justifying church structures according their own doctrine of the Trinity, with the doctrines of the church and the Trinity ‘consciously or subconsciously, inextricably linked’ (‘The Church as the Image of the Trinity’, 33).

170

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Before examining Paul’s ministry and writings to see whether there is any evidence which shows a trinitarian understanding of leadership, there is one caveat to bear in mind. Kevin Bidwell wisely counsels that we should ‘adopt the pursuit of “the church as the image of Christ and of the Trinity”’ to avoid marginalising ‘God’s ultimate self-revelation in Christ’.49 In other words, while it is right to look for reflections of the Trinity in the church, we must not forget that God revealed himself supremely in Christ, and it is therefore his image which should be clearly displayed there (Col. 1:15; cf. Heb. 1:2). Taking this into account, two areas in which it may be possible to see the influence of trinitarian theology in Pauline teaching and practice will be examined: 1. Plurality and co-operation, and 2. Hierarchy with equality. Plurality and co-operation Paul was committed to a corporate ministry and to a plurality of leaders. There do not seem to be any examples in the Pauline epistles of churches having only one leader. What is the reason for this counter-cultural policy? Did Paul’s understanding of the triune God lead him to emphasise corporate ministry? His Corinthian letters suggest that this may be the case. In 2 Corinthians 13:14, Paul offers a trinitarian blessing to the Corinthian church by saying: ‘May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.’ All three persons in the Trinity are involved in the work of salvation,50 and this is clearly revealed in other Pauline writings too. In 1 Corinthians 6:11, Paul writes: ‘You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.’ Given the divine passives of the Father’s washing and sanctifying of the Corinthian believers, Gordon Fee remarks on the ‘latent Trinitarian language’ in this

49

Bidwell, ‘The Church as the Image of the Trinity’, 171 (my emphasis). Gordon D. Fee brings this out in his exposition of 2 Corinthians 13:14 as follows: ‘That the love of God is the foundation of Paul’s view of salvation is stated with passion and clarity in passages such as Romans 5:1-11, 8:31-9, and Ephesians 1:3-14. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is what gave concrete expression to that love; through Christ’s suffering and death on behalf of his loved ones, God accomplished salvation for them at one moment in human history. The participation in the Holy Spirit continually actualizes that love and grace in the life of the believer and the believing community’ (‘Paul and the Trinity: The Experience of Christ and the Spirit for Paul’s Understanding of God’, in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall and Gerald O’Collins (eds.), The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity (Oxford: OUP, 2001), 53). Coffey (Deus Trinitas, 3) and Volf (After Our Likeness, 195) likewise assert the trinitarian nature of salvation. Jürgen Moltmann also maintains that the creation ‘is ascribed to the whole Trinity’ (Trinity and the Kingdom, 112ff.; see also God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation, The Gifford Lectures 1984-85 (London: SCM Press, 1985), 9498). 50

Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership

171

passage describing God’s salvation.51 The soteriological working of the trinitarian God is also seen in 2 Corinthians 1:21-22: ‘Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.’ This understanding is shown even more clearly in Titus 3:4-6: But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour.

The above references reveal Paul’s conviction that the salvation of mankind was the work of all three persons of the Trinity and not simply that of Christ on the cross. However, is there any evidence that Paul applied this trinitarian understanding to the ministry of the church? One place in which such a connection is made is found in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6: There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

In this passage which has clear trinitarian allusions, Paul is not addressing ontological questions about the nature of the Trinity.52 However, Paul here emphasises God’s oneness alongside his triune nature, as well as his manifold working as the triune God. This necessarily leads to Paul challenging the Corinthians to maintain unity in the church. Just as the three persons of the Trinity work together as an expression of God’s unity, so too the gifts of the triune God are to be a reflection of that unity. Given this understanding, is it legitimate to see here any implications relating to Paul’s theologising of leadership? In the co-text of 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, Paul is not only referring to leaders; all members are gifted and are called to service as a reflection of the trinitarian pattern. The people who bear the gifts of the triune God should work together to fulfil his purpose. However, in a church context which was fragmented around favoured leaders, Paul’s teaching would have spoken powerfully to the leadership of the church, and this suggests strongly that Paul had the leaders very much at the forefront of his thinking. As was observed above, Paul did not seek to solve the problems in the Corinthian church by recommending the appointment of a single leader. He recognised that more than one minister was necessary to 51

Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 128. 52 Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 163-64.

172

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

bring people to salvation in all its fullness. In 1 Corinthians 3:5-10, he writes that he and Apollos are only servants of the God who ultimately makes the seed of the word grow. However, Paul also stresses that all these servants are fellow-workers (1 Cor. 3:9)53 who need to co-operate with one another to ensure that the task is completed. There is one purpose, but all have to fulfil their parts in the task to ensure that it is completed successfully (1 Cor. 3:8). Paul, Apollos, and other leaders are all needed in the leadership ministry of the church and must learn to work together in perfect harmony just like the persons of the Trinity. The apostle Paul knew that his ministry required the co-operation of others. He begged Timothy to join him and to bring Mark too (2 Tim. 4:9-11).54 He did not attempt to minister alone. True unity in leadership can only be found by co-operation in diversity. Paul’s recognition of the trinitarian working of God in salvation is clearly paralleled in the co-operative working of Christian leaders in the church. No one leader can possess all the gifts, and only a plurality of leaders can fully accomplish God’s trinitarian work in the church. Moltmann’s words concerning human society may be aptly applied to leadership: ‘The isolated individual and the solitary subject are deficient modes of being human, because they fall short of likeness to God.’55 At the heart of the social doctrine of the Trinity is the mutual love and depth of relationship between the three persons. Moltmann asserts that ‘Father, Son and Spirit are in fact subjects with a will and understanding, who speak with one another, turn to one another in love, and together are “one”’.56 The apostle Paul shows the depth of intimacy within the Trinity in 1 Corinthians 2:10-11: ‘The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God… no-one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.’ In the same way, church leaders should share that same transparency and unity of spirit and purpose. One of Paul’s arguments against the personality cults in the Corinthian church was the fact that Christ cannot be divided (1 Cor. 1:13). If God in Christ cannot be divided, neither should the leaders of the church be. A loving co-operation and mutual accountability among church leaders is a mark of a trinitarian pattern of leadership. 53 Anthony Thiselton argues that the phrase ‘God’s fellow-workers’ probably refers to ‘fellow laborers who belong to God’ rather than labourers who are working together with God (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 306). 54 It is possible that Timothy and Titus had an oversight of several churches as Paul’s representatives, but it is not clear whether they ministered alongside others in co-operative leadership (Gehring, House Church and Mission, 271; Stott, 1 Timothy and Titus, 174). Even if their leadership was not plural, J.N.D. Kelly is probably correct to assert that they were only ‘in temporary charge of the churches’ (A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: Timothy I & II, and Titus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1960), 2). 55 Moltmann, God in Creation, 223. 56 Moltmann, History and the Triune God, 84-85. For John Zizioulas, love in the Trinity is ‘that which makes God what He is, the one God’ (Being as Communion, 46).

Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership

173

In conclusion therefore, just as the three persons of the Trinity co-operate in the work of salvation and in the ministry of the church, so too the leaders of the church must work together to complete the task which God has entrusted to them. If the triune God co-operates in the work of salvation, surely there can be no place for the lone wolf in church ministry. Miroslav Volf argues: ‘Every ecclesial unity held together by a mon-archy, by a “one-(man!)-rule”, is monistic and thus also un-trinitarian.’57 As churches seek to contextualise leadership structures, even where there is an overall leader, they should make every effort to move in the direction of a greater plurality of leaders and meaningful co-operative relationships between them. Hierarchy with equality Another area in which Paul’s understanding of the Trinity may influence his attitude to the contextualisation of leadership relates to the question of hierarchy. It has been argued above that the loving co-operation between the persons of the Trinity may become a model for relationships between leaders in the church. But is it possible that the relational subordinationism within the Trinity may be paralleled by hierarchical relationships between church leaders? Not all scholars accept the doctrine of subordinationism, and some suspect that applying this to the church may lead to the justification of domineering leadership styles. The foremost example of this concern is Jürgen Moltmann who asserts that, since the three persons of the Trinity are equal in rank, there is no subordinationism in trinitarian doctrine.58 He criticises much western theological thinking with its subordination of the Son to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son.59 He believes that an emphasis on God as almighty Father in the West has led to a patriarchal church which follows this pattern of hierarchy and subordination.60 Moltmann argues that this began with the early church fathers. Ignatius of Antioch developed the principle of the episcopate in which the ‘bishop represents Christ to his church just as Christ represents God… The church’s hierarchy is supposed to correspond to and represent the divine monarchy’.61 Moltmann maintains that it ‘is only when the doctrine of the Trinity vanquishes the monotheistic notion of the great universal monarch in heaven, and his divine patriarchs in the world, that earthly rulers, dictators and tyrants cease to find any justifying religious 57

Volf, After Our Likeness, 217. Moltmann, Trinity and the Kingdom, 175-76. 59 Moltmann, History and the Triune God, 57-58, 68. 60 Moltmann, Trinity and the Kingdom, 162-63. He is however happy to refer to God as Father, provided it is in ‘a non-patriarchal way… which is in accord with the gospel and which liberates men and women’ (Moltmann, History and the Triune God, 1; see also Trinity and the Kingdom, 163). 61 Moltmann, Trinity and the Kingdom, 200. 58

174

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

archetypes any more’.62 Consequently, following his understanding of the social doctrine of the Trinity, he uses the example of the triune God, not to justify absolute power, but to model a community of people marked by mutually affirming relationships.63 Like his mentor Moltmann, Miroslav Volf also maintains that, since ‘a hierarchical notion of the Trinity ends up underwriting an authoritarian practice in the church’, what is needed is ‘a nonhierarchical but truly communal ecclesiology based on a nonhierarchical doctrine of the Trinity’.64 Not everyone is convinced by Moltmann’s theology. Kevin Bidwell argues that, by downplaying the homoousios of the three persons, ‘Moltmann comes dangerously close to a wholesale rejection of monotheism’.65 David Westfall also observes that the misuse of a doctrine 62

Moltmann, Trinity and the Kingdom, 197. Although this argument may have some justification when applied to the history of the church, Ted Peters convincingly argues that there is no simple equation between monotheism and oppressive power, either in world history or in the Old Testament (God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in the Divine Life (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 40-41). 63 Moltmann, Trinity and the Kingdom, 198. Catherine LaCugna, an American feminist theologian, also argues that a trinitarian understanding of God’s archē results in a rejection of tyrannical rule and any hierarchy and subordination in human society (God for Us, 388-400). She follows feminist theology in seeing the church as ‘a true icon of God’s relational life’ when it is ‘structured by relationships of equality and mutuality rather than hierarchy’ (274). See Stanley J. Grenz for a detailed examination of those who criticise her approach to trinitarian theology (Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004), 158-62). Another scholar who maintains that a right understanding of trinitarian perichoresis will prevent hierarchicalism in the church is Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff (Trinity and Society, 148-54). 64 Volf, After Our Likeness, 4. Bidwell asserts that Volf has a ‘crusade against all forms of hierarchy’ (‘The Church as the Image of the Trinity’, 118). Volf goes so far as to claim that the ‘only good reasons that can be adduced in support of a hierarchical understanding of church organization are cultural… since they are culturally specific, they cannot be universalized’ (After Our Likeness, 254). 65 Bidwell, ‘The Church as the Image of the Trinity’, 21. Stanley Grenz too remarks that many writers worry that Moltmann’s theology ‘borders on tritheism’ (Rediscovering the Triune God, 85). Miroslav Volf is the object of a similar critique (see Bidwell, ‘The Church as the Image of the Trinity’, 204-05). However, Moltmann maintains that in ‘their perichoresis and because of it, the trinitarian persons are not to be understood as three different individuals, who only subsequently enter into relationship with one another (which is the customary reproach, under the name of ‘tritheism’). But they are not, either, three modes of being or three repetitions of the One God, as the modalistic interpretation suggests’ (Trinity and the Kingdom, 175). Wolfhart Pannenberg does criticise Moltmann for rejecting the concept of monotheism but he does not accept the charges of others that Moltmann is guilty of tritheism: ‘What Moltmann is really rejecting is not a trinitarian monotheism but an abstract monotheism such as the 19th century advocated under the name of theism. The unity of God as such is left intact’ (Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), I, 335-36, n. 217).

Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership

175

of divine authority by oppressive leaders does not necessarily imply that hierarchy is of itself wrong or that a loving God would not exercise good authority.66 Westfall concludes that Moltmann ‘escapes a heterodox subordinationism, but ends up denying any form of hierarchy whatsoever within the Godhead in the process’. From the New Testament evidence it is doubtful whether Moltmann is right to suggest that there is no hierarchy in the Trinity. Paul emphasises Christ’s obedience to the Father, with his death the supreme example (Phil. 2:8; cf. Rom. 5:19).67 Although Christ’s subjection to the Father during his earthly existence is clear in the New Testament, Paul indicates that the exalted Christ is also subject to the one who put everything under him (1 Cor. 15:28; cf. 3:23). Referring to these verses, C.K. Barrett writes: ‘There is eternally a relation of superordination and subordination between the Father and the Son.’68 Does that mean that Christ is not equal with the Father? Although there is a hierarchy in the immanent Trinity, this does not mean that the persons in the Trinity are not equal.69 What then is the nature of this hierarchy? It is a ‘functional and relational one… not about the substance or essence of God, but about his intra-trinitarian relationships’.70 While in traditional Christian theology there is no ontological subordinationism, the Son may be subordinate to the Father in function, if not in status or essence.71 What does this say about the question of leadership in the church? Is there any indication that the apostle Paul’s relationships with the churches and their leaders reflect such a trinitarian understanding of church government which is hierarchical in a functional sense? Paul’s acceptance of hierarchy in the church was discussed above. However, this hierarchy is functional and not status-driven. This is consistent with the relationship of the Father and the Son in the Trinity. Furthermore, Paul’s cautious exercise of authority implies that his understanding of leadership authority was largely functional. While it is apparent that there was a hierarchy in Pauline churches as a whole, there is 66

David Westfall, ‘Review of The Trinity and the Kingdom, by Jürgen Moltmann’, 2012: www.goodreads.com/review/show/297075269 (accessed 18th December 2012). David Coffey also observes ‘that there is no necessary connection between monotheism and monarchy’ (Deus Trinitas, 128). 67 Coffey, Deus Trinitas, 122. 68 Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 97. 69 Anthony Price, ‘Is there a Hierarchy in the Immanent Trinity?’, 1999, 7: www.newcreationlibrary.net/studies/pdf/hierarchy.pdf (accessed 18th December 2012). 70 Price, ‘Is there a Hierarchy in the Immanent Trinity?’, 2. 71 See Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, I, 324-24. However, Millard J. Erickson questions whether it is possible to separate role (i.e. function) from essence since subordination is a necessary characteristic of the Son. If his assertion is valid, this would mean that ‘the essence of the Son is different from and inferior to that of the Father’ (Christian Theology, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 308).

176

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

insufficient evidence in the New Testament to be sure whether this was also true within the leadership of local churches. However, it is possible to examine Paul’s relationships with the delegates he authorised, such as Timothy, Titus and Epaphroditus. Although there is no indication that Paul issued orders to them in a domineering manner, it is apparent that he exercised the right to direct them as he pleased. For example – • He sent Timothy to Macedonia, Thessalonica and Corinth (Acts 19:22; 1 Thess. 3:2; 1 Cor. 4:17), he urged (parakaleō) Titus to go to Corinth (2 Cor. 12:18), and he sent Epaphroditus to Philippi (Phil. 2:25). • He urged (parakaleō) Timothy to stay in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3). • He charged (parangelia) Timothy to keep the instructions he had given (1 Tim. 1:18-19; 3:14-15; 5:21), and to preach the Word (2 Tim. 4:1-2). • He told (diatassō) Titus to appoint elders in Crete (Titus 1:5). It is clear from these examples that Paul held a hierarchical position which was of higher authority than that of his apostolic delegates. However, what is of particular interest is how Paul used his authority in practice in his relationship with co-leaders. One clear example is seen in his dealings with Apollos. It has already been observed that Paul, despite being the leading church-planting missionary, did not pull rank on Apollos, but considered that he was a fellow-worker and fellow-servant (1 Cor. 3:3-7). This strongly suggests an equality of status, without denying his hierarchical seniority. Even when Paul urged (parakaleō) him to go to Corinth, it is clear that Apollos had the right refuse, as revealed in his unwillingness to go at first (1 Cor. 16:12). This shows that, even given the hierarchical relationship between the church founder and a later leader, Paul did not force himself on Apollos or suggest that he had a superior status. The same attitude is shown when addressing the Corinthian church, and by implication their leaders (see pp. 136-37). When looking at the church today, even if it is acknowledged that the trinitarian model of leadership demands a plurality of leaders, how might the hierarchy among the leaders be shown? Just as the Father is head of Christ, there may be a place for a pre-eminent head in the church but not one of superior status (1 Cor. 11:3).72 Anthony Price follows LaCugna in maintaining that in the church there is no place for ‘superiority, inferiority and dominance’ because they are ‘contradictory to the gospel and to the Trinity’.73 However, he disagrees with LaCugna and other feminist theologians who consider that talking of hierarchy necessarily indicates 72 See Thiselton (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 812-22) for his convincing discussion of headship as pre-eminence. 73 Price, ‘Is there a Hierarchy in the Immanent Trinity?’, 1; see LaCugna, God for Us, 400. Bjork has the same perspective. He remarks that ‘we will never live out the perichoretic pouring of ourselves into the other until we are willing to strip ourselves of our ecclesiastical rights and privileges in order to serve the other’ (‘Trinitarian Understanding of Mission’, 241).

Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership

177

relationships of inequality in which one party is superior and the others inferior. There is a place for hierarchy in the church, but this is very different from the world’s understanding of hierarchy, whether in the first century or the twenty-first. John Kleinig argues that, where the church is based on the order of the Trinity, it will be counter-cultural in its relationships with no place for autonomous activity.74 He believes that the believing community should be ‘characterized by willing subordination’, just as Christ willingly subordinated himself to the Father. However, he maintains that the Father-Son relationship is not one of dominance, but of loving harmony. This does not mean that authority and harmony are necessarily mutually exclusive.75 Authority may be exercised by church leaders, but it should be exercised by consensus and not by autocracy. Zizioulas, writing from an Eastern Orthodox theological perspective, supports the presence of a single church leader (unlike Moltmann and Volf), but he does contend that ‘this one minister should be part of the community, and not stand above it as an authority in itself. All pyramidal notions of Church structure vanish in the ecclesiology of communion’.76 Although most of the scholars mentioned above apply the social doctrine of the Trinity to the whole community of the church, one object of this part of the study is to consider the doctrine’s applicability to a group of church leaders. Such a group may include a leader of leaders, but not one who acts as a sole authoritarian leader to whom all others are subject. Just as the persons of the Trinity are united in purpose and equal in status, so too the members of a church leadership team should be one in mind and not be under the domineering control of one overall leader. Volf does however express a concern about seeing the Trinity as model for those in leadership office.77 He believes that it is necessary to see the structure of the Trinity as corresponding to the whole church congregation and not just to its leadership. Otherwise ‘the church would still be conceived ecclesiologically in an overly hierarchical fashion’ with a ‘bipolarity between the now “trinitarianized” determinative office and the congregation that says “amen”’. This is a wise comment and speaks to the need for a humble leadership style to prevent his concern from being realised, without denying the validity of a trinitarian model of corporate church leadership. Hierarchy as such is not inconsistent with a trinitarian model of leadership, but leaders need to recognise their equal status before God, and to combine their hierarchical understanding of leadership with the servant spirit modelled by the Lord Jesus Christ and followed by the 74

Kleinig, ‘The Ordination of Women’, 54. Coffey, Deus Trinitas, 128, n. 88. 76 John D. Zizioulas, ‘The Church as Communion’, in St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 38 (1994), 10. 77 Volf, After Our Likeness, 218. 75

178

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

apostles. Such a style of leadership will be shown not in the leader (or leadership) forcing their views on the church, but in a willingness to listen to the opinions of all. The Truth of the Gospel

Although Paul was not willing to adopt the position and status of an authoritarian ruler which rightly belongs to Christ alone, he did recognise that he had divine authority which at times meant that he needed to be firm in his leadership style. What theological principle gave him the right to exercise that authority? The indispensability of God’s calling for Paul’s apostleship has already been examined. However, the way he received the gospel was not the only important factor; the gospel itself was the source of his authority. His calling did not give him or other church leaders licence to lead as they pleased, if as a result the gospel was in any way compromised. The truth of the gospel provided a limit to the leader’s authority. This is well illustrated in Paul’s letters to the Galatians and the Corinthians: i) Galatians. One of the key themes of Paul’s letter to the Galatians is the nature of the gospel and its supreme authority. Paul was dealing with those who were preaching a gospel which was really not good news. The message of the Judaisers required believers in Christ to keep the Jewish laws and customs in order to attain the goal of salvation (Gal. 2:16; 3:3). However, Paul strongly asserted that anyone who dared to preach such a message was deserving of eternal condemnation (Gal. 1:8-9). Paul included himself in this warning: his leadership authority did not allow him to change the gospel of Christ even though he had been set apart from birth to be an apostle (Gal. 1:1, 15). John Stott correctly remarks that placing himself under this anathema ‘clears him of the charge of personal spite or animosity’.78 His behaviour was an expression of his ‘zeal for the gospel’ and not a desire to stand on his own authority and put down those who held different opinions. His authority should not be considered to be equal with that of the gospel; it was conditional upon it and could only be exercised in its service.79 Paul’s heart was not to build up his own empire, but rather to see the Galatians committed to the one and only gospel of Jesus Christ.80 Those who preached another gospel were merely ‘false brothers’ (Gal. 2:4) and had no authority to which Paul (or anyone else) needed to submit: ‘We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel 78

John R.W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, BST (Leicester: IVP, 1968), 25. See von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 37; Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 572; Ronald Y.K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 46; Polaski, Paul and the Discourse of Power, 26. 80 Timothy George, Galatians, NAC 30 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 97. 79

Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership

179

might remain with you’ (Gal. 2:5). Paul’s firm stand was a result of his commitment to the truth of the gospel which was under threat. Even when the mighty apostle Peter stepped out of line and caused others to stumble as a result of the Judaisers’ pressure, Paul stood against him (Gal. 2:11-14). Ernest Best argues that Paul – does not say that he uttered his rebuke because he was the apostle to the Gentiles but because he spoke for the truth of the gospel. Pushed to the limit, Paul does not fall back on apostolic authority but on his understanding of the gospel.81

The authority of the leader, even one as great as the apostle Peter, was subject to the truth of the gospel. Dunn argues that Paul rebuked Peter so fiercely because he believed that the authority of any apostle depended on the gospel.82 For Paul, when leaders did not follow the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14), they lost any authority and standing. Everything had to be tested (1 Thess. 5:21), and there was no place for uncritical acceptance of a leader’s teaching. Paul did not believe that the status and position of any Christian leader gave them the right to claim that their teaching was beyond criticism. It would have been easy for Paul to give in to Peter as his ‘senior missionary’, but ‘on a matter of principle, when the truth of the gospel was at stake, he stood firm and would not budge’.83 Those ministering in cultures in which it is not permissible for leaders or teachers to be criticised should take special care. They need to be humble enough to accept fair comments about their teaching which they may not like. The truth of the gospel is more important than the face of the leader. ii) Corinthians. Paul’s opponents in the Corinthian church may have interpreted his reluctance to exercise his rights in 1 Corinthians 9 as an indication that he did not possess apostolic status, but Paul was actually showing that he was submitted to an authority greater than his own, that of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:12).84 This is shown in his response to circumstances in 81

Best, ‘Paul’s Apostolic Authority’, 15. Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 572-73; see also Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 156. Clarke argues that Paul’s recounting this story ‘may well have been intended to bolster Paul’s power potentiality’ (A Pauline Theology, 122). Just as Paul had confronted Peter, he now had the right to confront the Galatians. However, given Paul’s defence of the gospel in this letter, it is more likely that he was wanting to make a stand on the one and only gospel than to bolster his own power potentiality. 83 Stott, Galatians, 48. 84 See Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 235. Ernest Best questions Schütz’s assertion that Paul’s authority comes from the gospel since some of his instructions are not connected with the gospel (‘Review of Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, by John Howard Schütz’, in Scottish Journal of Theology, 30 (1977), 87), e.g. appropriate dress for worship (1 Cor. 11:16). However, Paul’s submission to the demands of the gospel would inevitably influence his teaching more broadly and affect secondary areas. 82

180

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

which the very gospel came under attack. On such occasions, Paul became most authoritative, because he believed that the church’s well-being was under threat from any teachings which deviated from the one gospel.85 The Corinthians wanted Paul to show his apostolic authority by means of his strength of character, but Paul would only use it when the truth was in danger.86 Philip Hughes comments that – a powerful demonstration of authority when the truth is established in a church would be a perversion of authority; for such a display of power is justified only when serious error and misconduct are present and require to be driven out so that the cause of the truth may be vindicated.87

Paul therefore exercised authority not to build up a following or to defend his own position, but in order to defend the gospel. Paul’s defence of himself in Corinth (2 Cor. 11:1-4) was not to maintain his own position but to ensure that the Corinthians were not deceived by those preaching another gospel. Paul could not go against the truth of the gospel which was the highest priority (2 Cor. 13:8).88 Don Carson asserts: When Paul criticizes the Corinthians for bowing to a Jesus ‘other than the Jesus we preached’ or for accepting a gospel ‘different from the one you accepted’, he is not claiming that the truth depends on him [2 Cor. 11:4]. He is far from saying, ‘Whatever I preach is right and true, just because I preach it. Just take my word for it and bow to my authority, and all will be well.’ It is not his own authority that captivates Paul, but the objective veracity of the gospel he preaches.89

It was therefore the truth of the gospel which drove Paul to show firm leadership. This has profound implications in the contextualisation of leadership. In cultures in which strong leadership is the norm, leaders need to be careful to ensure that they are expressing their strength in defence of the gospel and not merely to defend their position or status. It is not unknown for church leaders to suggest that accusations of their ministry are signs of their opponents’ rejection of the gospel, although the fault lies in 85

See Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 177; Copan, Saint Paul, 214; Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 276, 278; Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 344. Helen Doohan argues that Paul becomes more authoritative when he himself is attacked, but his motivation seems to reflect a concern to defend the true gospel more than the gospel messenger (cf. Gal. 1:8) (Leadership in Paul, 79, 106). David Garland claims that ‘true apostles are controlled by the truth and not preoccupied with themselves’ (2 Corinthians, 549). 86 Donald A. Carson, From Triumphalism to Maturity: A New Exposition of 2 Corinthians 10-13 (Leicester: IVP, 1986), 181. 87 Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 483. 88 Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 573, n. 38. 89 Carson, From Triumphalism to Maturity, 89.

Theological Analysis of the Contextualisation of Leadership

181

other areas, commonly their own pride or other personality failings. When they then respond to such attacks in a self-righteous way and claim that the gospel is under threat, they may ironically be guilty of using the message of the gospel of Christ crucified to elevate their own position of authority. Conversely, in post-modern cultures, or in cultures which emphasise servant leadership, an easy-going and tolerant approach should not be followed at the expense of the truth of the gospel. While it is good to be gentle with believers in their doubts and struggles of faith, church leaders should not allow their view of the importance of tolerance to hold them back from challenging the beliefs of others – beliefs that would have made the apostle Paul incensed. Uncomfortable though it may be in some contexts, leaders need to be willing to challenge beliefs which deviate from the central tenets of the gospel. Conclusion

This chapter’s distinctive contribution has been the identification of several theological principles which influenced Paul’s contextualisation of leadership. When following the process of contextualisation in a new context, these same principles should be taken into account, while bearing in mind that different aspects may need to be emphasised according to each particular context. It is not surprising that Christ’s role and example is foundational in Paul’s development of the theology of leadership. Paul’s thinking was controlled by his understanding of Christ and the salvation which he accomplished. One of his favourite expressions in his letters is ‘in Christ’. John Stott rightly argues: ‘According to the New Testament – and especially Paul – to be a Christian is in essence to be “in Christ”’.90 Although this is true of all believers, it should be especially true of leaders. If the leader truly lives in Christ, this will have a profound influence on his or her leadership style. This study has shown two almost contradictory applications of this truth. On the one hand, because we are in Christ, there are some ways in which we do not need to imitate Christ because he has become our leader. Because the early church recognised that Christ is Lord with all the implications of that title from the Old Testament context, it was not right for any human leader to usurp his unique position of honour as ruler of the church, or his place as the one and only priestly mediator between God and his people. Although the leader is not to imitate these roles of Christ, there are, on the other hand, ways in which he has set an example for us to follow. In particular, Christ’s humbling himself by taking on weak flesh and submitting himself to death on the cross is an example which led Paul to show a servant leadership style of weakness and suffering 90

Stott, Ephesians, 22-23.

182

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

which was so counter-cultural in the first century – and still is today. Christian leadership, following Christ’s example of the cross, is not ‘a leadership of power and control, but a leadership of powerlessness and humility in which the suffering servant of God, Jesus Christ, is made manifest’.91 The social doctrine of the Trinity does seem to have influenced Paul’s thinking about church ministry. Just as there is a co-operative fellowship among the persons of the Trinity, so too the plural leaders of the church should work together corporately and in harmony. There is a place for hierarchy but it must not be exhibited in a dictatorial way, but in a way which is consistent with the equality of the leaders, and the loving relationships they share. Where leaders follow this pattern among themselves, their leadership style will similarly be seen in loving service and not in autocratic domination. The final theological principle concerned Paul’s commitment to the truth of the gospel. In general, Paul’s leadership style was marked by encouragement rather than by ordering and controlling those under him. However, as a minister of the gospel of truth, Paul did have authority, but that authority was only exercised strongly when the gospel itself was under threat.

91 Henri J.M. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 63.

Chapter 6 Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

Leadership in the church today in an issue of major interest with no shortage of seminars, conferences and training programmes on the subject. However, many of these are based on unspoken presuppositions about the nature of leadership, and especially leadership style. David Bosch notes that many evangelical denominations ‘are struggling to avoid one of two pitfalls: either the minister becomes a little pope whose word is law, or the congregation regards him as their employee who has to dance to their tune’.1 The tendency to fall into one or the other of these pitfalls is greatly affected by the cultural background of the church. As the influence of the founding missionaries lessens, there is little doubt that leadership style tends to follow values which are prevalent in the local culture.2 In this chapter, the Chinese-led English-speaking Methodist churches in Peninsular Malaysia are examined with a view to seeing how the qualifications for leadership (pp. 119-23) and the theological principles of leadership (discussed in Chapter 5) are reflected in them. Although cultural reasons explaining some of these observations are cautiously suggested, it is not the intention of the qualitative research undertaken in this investigation to analyse Chinese-Malaysian culture or to generate social science theory. Even when citing studies of Chinese communities, it is acknowledged that the culture of Malaysian Chinese society may vary considerably from some of these, even if there are some common characteristics.3 Within Malaysia, the cultures of Chinese people from 1 David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991), 470. 2 Bass and Bass, Handbook of Leadership, 989; see also Felix C. Brodbeck, Paul J. Hanges, Marcus W. Dickson, Vipin Gupta and Peter W. Dorfman, ‘Societal Culture and Industrial Sector Influences on Organizational Culture’, in House et al., Culture, Leadership, and Organizations, 664-67; Dale Carl, Vipin Gupta and Mansour Javidan, ‘Power Distance’, in House et al., Culture, Leadership, and Organizations, 534; Robert J. House, ‘Illustrative Examples of GLOBE Findings’, in House et al., Culture, Leadership, and Organizations, 5. 3 Tan Chee-Beng, Chinese Overseas: Comparative Cultural Issues (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2004), 5; Li Ji, Phyllisis M. Ngin and Albert C.Y. Teo, ‘Culture and Leadership in Singapore: Combination of the East and the West’, in Jagdeep S. Chhokar, Felix C. Brodbeck and Robert J. House (eds.), Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007), 967.

184

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

different regions may vary from one another,4 and those who are Englisheducated may be culturally quite different from those who are educated in Chinese or Malay.5 With the impact of globalisation, especially in East Asia, cultures are also changing rapidly which may invalidate the conclusions of past research.6 Consequently, any inferences drawn from this research are tentative and hypothetical. This chapter begins by putting the English-speaking Methodist Church in its context with an examination of the history of the Chinese community and of the Methodist churches in Malaysia. The qualifications for leaders which are favoured by English-speaking Methodist churches are then considered, and these are compared with those identified in the Pauline churches. Following this, attention is given to the ways in which the theological principles which influenced the contextualisation of leadership in Paul’s ministry and teaching are reflected in the English-speaking Methodist Church of Peninsular Malaysia. The Malaysian Context History Although the earliest Chinese contacts with the Malaysian peninsula were made by Buddhist monks, the visits which opened the way for the Chinese to become a resident population occurred as a result of trading missions which began in about the 14th century. Following the foundation of Malacca (ca. 1400), some Chinese began to settle short-term in Malaya as traders and labourers,7 even if continuous settlement in ports such as Malacca, Singapore and Penang did not occur until the time of Dutch control in the mid-17th century.8 Even so, the numbers of Chinese were not

4

Tan Chee-Beng, ‘Nation-Building and Being Chinese in a Southeast Asian State: Malaysia’, in Jennifer W. Cushman and Wang Gungwu (eds.), Changing Identities of the Southeast Asian Chinese Since World War II (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1988), 139. 5 The influence of Malay culture on the Chinese community may be significant (Tan, ‘Nation-Building’, 156). Malay scholar Ahmad Kamar gives one definition of a leader as ‘a person who leads, especially from the front, and initiates social behaviour, by virtue of prestige, power, or position’ (Malay and Indonesian Leadership in Perspective (Petaling Jaya: Ahmad Kamar, 1984), 1). 6 Li, Ngin and Teo, ‘Culture and Leadership in Singapore’, 966. 7 Alan C. Herron, ‘A History of the Protestant Christian Churches in West Malaysia and Singapore’, PhD thesis (Dunedin: University of Otago, 1977), 17; Virginia Matheson Hooker, A Short History of Malaysia: Linking East and West (Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2003), 70; Victor Purcell, The Chinese in Malaya (Oxford: OUP, 1967), 16; N.J. Ryan, The Cultural Heritage of Malaya, 2nd edn (Kuala Lumpur: Longman, 1971), 17. 8 Hooker, A Short History of Malaysia, 92; Purcell, The Chinese in Malaya, 22.

Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

185

large, e.g. rising to 4,100 in Malacca by 1826.9 However, later in the 19th century, large numbers of Chinese migrated to the Malaysian peninsula, especially from the southern provinces of Fujian, Guangdong and Guangxi. These migrants, who mainly spoke Hokkien, Hakka and Cantonese, saw Malaya as a land of economic opportunity, in great contrast to the poverty and social unrest of China.10 Such was the explosion of immigration that, in the period 1881-1900, almost two million Chinese entered the Federated Malay States.11 Indeed, ‘by the end of the [19th] century, the Chinese are the largest community in Perak, Selangor and Johor’.12 While the majority of these returned to China, there was a steady increase in the number of Chinese living in the Malaysian peninsula in the period 1850-1930. Many of these worked in tin mines, agriculture and the building industry, and were able to invest their capital in a variety of local businesses.13 The colonial powers restricted the Chinese to involvement in the commercial world where they prospered as a result of their hard work and entrepreneurial skills, not only in the Straits settlements but also in neighbouring Malay territories.14 As time went by, growing numbers of these Chinese saw Malaysia as their home, and although they wished to maintain their Chinese identity and traditions, they had no intention of returning to China.15 According to the 2010 census, those calling themselves Chinese make up 24.6% of the population of Malaysia.16 English-speaking Chinese Lee Kam Hing, in an article on the English-educated Chinese in Malaysia, remarks that they ‘played a role in business and politics far larger than reflected in their relatively small number’.17 Under the British colonial 9

Ooi Jin-Bee, Land, People, and Economy in Malaya (London: Longmans, 1963), 107. Barbara W. Andaya and Leonard Y. Andaya, A History of Malaysia (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1982), 137; Herron, ‘History’, 22-23; Ryan, Cultural Heritage of Malaya, 18; Tan, Chinese Overseas, 93. 11 Ooi, Land, People, and Economy, 110. 12 C. Mary Turnbull, A History of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1989), 190. 13 Andaya and Andaya, A History of Malaysia, 94, 136-38; Hooker, A Short History of Malaysia, 26. 14 Turnbull, History, 122; Zhang, Pacific Asia: The Politics of Development (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003), 48. 15 Upon independence, the Federation of Malaya was founded in 1957, and with the incorporation of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, ‘Malaysia’ came into being in 1963. 16 Department of Statistics, Malaysia, Official Portal, 2011: www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_content&id=1215 (accessed 24th June 2013). 17 Lee Kam Hing, ‘The English-Educated Chinese in Malaysia’, in Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies, Malaysia Chinese: An Inclusive Society (Kuala Lumpur: Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies, 2011), 57; see also Rita Sim Sai Hoon, Unmistakably 10

186

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

regime, and particularly as a result of English-medium education (which began to be phased out in 1970), growing numbers of Chinese became fluent in English, with some having English as a first language. Even today among the Chinese, speaking English ‘is perceived as less un-Chinese than speaking Malay’.18 Although the English-educated and Chinese-educated had close relationships, the different style of education resulted in communities having very different orientation and values.19 Englishmedium state education has now disappeared, but the English language mass media influence many aspects of the culture of the English-speaking Chinese,20 and it is estimated that 10% of the Malaysian Chinese population are English-literate.21 This group is mainly ‘middle-class and urban’, and so it is likely that more than 10% of urban Chinese are English-literate.22 Although it would not be right to suggest that the English-speaking Chinese are radically different from their Chinese-speaking cousins,23 there is no doubt that there are still significant cultural differences between the two groups,24 which influence the expression of church leadership. For this reason, the research is restricted to English-speaking Methodist churches. The Methodist Church in Malaysia HISTORY

The history of the Methodist Church in Malaysia begins with the appointment of William Oldham as missionary to Singapore by the South India Conference in 1884.25 Oldham was British, but he had been trained and sent out by the Methodist Episcopal Church of America. He arrived in Singapore on 7th February 1885, along with James M. Thoburn, a presiding elder of the South India Conference, who returned to India a few weeks later.26 Oldham’s faithful labour for more than forty years earned him Theodore Doraisamy’s accolade as ‘the human founder of Methodism in Chinese, Genuinely Malaysian (Kuala Lumpur: The Centre for Strategic Engagement, 2011), 3. 18 Tan, Chinese Overseas, 97. 19 Lee, ‘English-Educated Chinese’, 62. 20 Tan, ‘Nation-Building’, 148. 21 Counting those over the age of 15 (Nielsen Media Research (2009), cited in Sim (Unmistakably Chinese, 2)). Those who speak mainly English constitute about 4% of the Chinese population (Nielsen Media Research-Media Index Q2/10 (2010), cited in Sim (Unmistakably Chinese, 57). 22 Sim, Unmistakably Chinese, 35. 23 Tan, Chinese Overseas, 97; Lee, ‘English-Educated Chinese’, 84. 24 Sim, Unmistakably Chinese. 25 Herron, ‘History’, 237. 26 Hwa Yung and Robert Hunt, ‘The Methodist Church’, in Robert Hunt, Lee K.H. and John Roxborough (eds.), Christianity in Malaysia: A Denominational History (Petaling Jaya: Pelanduk, 1992), 148-49.

Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

187

Singapore and Malaysia’.27 In 1888 the areas of Southeast Asia in which Malay is spoken became a Mission separate from the South India Conference,28 and the work soon spread to Penang and other parts of Malaya, especially as a result of Methodist schools.29 By 1902 an annual conference was established.30 In 1964, the Southeastern Asia Central Conference became the Malaysia Central Conference, and following Singapore’s independence in 1965, the Church was renamed ‘The Methodist Church in Malaysia and Singapore’.31 In 1976 ‘The Methodist Church in Malaysia’ was founded when it separated from its sister-church in Singapore.32 THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING CHURCHES

Right from the beginning of the Methodist work in the Malaysian peninsula, English-speaking congregations were established. At first, the members were drawn mainly from the Eurasian community and British soldiers and sailors. However, soon local young people from schools were drawn in through the work of The Epworth League, a Christian youth organization. The women of the Singapore church were also active in reaching out to Straits Chinese women.33 Within the Malaysia Mission, Oldham developed parallel Missions according to the language groups which were targeted, and each of these grew throughout the Malaysian peninsula.34 The English-speaking Mission which he founded later became a separate annual conference, which is called ‘The Trinity Annual Conference’ (TRAC) in the current Malaysian Methodist Church. This conference is subdivided into six Districts: Northern (Kedah, Penang), Perak, Selangor, Federal Territory, Southern (N. Sembilan, Melaka, Johore), and Eastern (Pahang, Kelantan, Terengganu).35 In TRAC there are 39 local conferences, four preaching points, 35 pastors and ministerial staff, and 15,637 confirmed members.36 27

Theodore R. Doraisamy, Oldham – Called of God: Profile of a Pioneer: Bishop William Fitzjames Oldham (Singapore: Methodist Book Room, 1979), 1. 28 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, 1. 29 Herron, ‘History’, 247. 30 Herron, ‘History’, 253. 31 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, 3. 32 Methodist Church in Malaysia, ‘How Methodism Came to Singapore and Malaysia’, 2013: www.methodistchurch.org.my (accessed 25th January 2013). 33 Doraisamy, Oldham, 50-51; Hwa and Hunt, ‘Methodist Church’, 158. 34 Doraisamy, Oldham, 50; Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, 2. 35 Trinity Annual Conference of the Methodist Church in Malaysia, ‘About the Trinity Annual Conference (TRAC)’, 2013: www.trac.org.my/index.cfm?&menuid=2 (accessed 25th January 2013). 36 See Methodist Church in Malaysia (‘The Methodist Church in Malaysia’, 2013: www.methodistchurch.org.my (accessed 25th January 2013)). To put this figure in perspective, according to the 2000 census, 9.6% of all Malaysian Chinese are Christians.

188

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Each district has a district superintendent (DS) with a special responsibility for overseeing ‘the spiritual and temporal affairs of the church’.37 Within the district are several local conferences (LC) which consist of one or more churches.38 Each LC meets at least twice a year and is attended by all those with any kind of leadership responsibility in the church(es), both ordained and lay.39 One of the duties of the LC is to give oversight to the administrative body of each local church which is called the Local Church Executive Committee (LCEC).40 This consists of the pastors and lay leaders of the local church.41 There is one main lay leader who works alongside the pastor to oversee the lay work of the church and to act as a bridge between the laity and the pastor.42 The other committee which has an important role in terms of watching over the pastor’s welfare, and facilitating and monitoring the relationship of the pastor and the congregation, is the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee (PPRC) which consists of a group of lay people elected by the LC.43 Although the English-speaking churches are more multiracial than the Chinese- and Tamil-speaking churches, Tan Kim Sai maintains that in most cases they have a large majority of ethnic Chinese members.44 This study restricts itself to an examination of Chinese leaders in English-speaking Methodist churches. Interviews with Methodist District Superintendents

In order to gain an understanding of the practice of leadership in the TRAC Conference of the Methodist Church of Peninsular Malaysia, it was decided to undertake a number of interviews with significant church leaders. The purpose of these was not to compare church and non-Christian contexts,

By an analysis of church statistics, Tan Kim Sai estimates that approximately 5% of Malaysian Chinese are Protestants (about 350,000), with the remainder Roman Catholics and those who identify as Christians but are not associated with any particular church (‘Chinese Christians in Malaysia’, in Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies, Malaysia Chinese, 111-16). The total number of confirmed Methodist members for all races and languages in all the Malaysian conferences is 114,065 (Methodist Church in Malaysia, ‘The Methodist Church in Malaysia’, 2013: www.methodistchurch.org.my (accessed 25th January 2013)). 37 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †370.1. 38 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †106.1. 39 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †537.2. 40 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †538.2. 41 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †147. 42 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †188.1. 43 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †542. 44 Tan, ‘Chinese Christians in Malaysia’, 117.

Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

189

nor to generate theories (e.g. grounded theory).45 Also, in view of the limited number of participants, no attempt was made to draw statistical conclusions, as quantitative research would do.46 Rather, the interviews were used in an instrumental way to investigate the leaders’ practice and experience of leadership, and to provide illustrative insight into some of the ways in which the theological principles which influenced the contextualisation of leadership in Paul’s ministry and writings are reflected in the Malaysian church context.47 The interviewees were male district superintendents in the TRAC Conference who are responsible for overseeing other pastors. As mentioned in the introduction, it was decided to restrict this study to Chinese-led churches, and so only Chinese superintendents were invited to take part in the interviews. Choosing district superintendents gave added validity to the study since it was possible to interview most of this population: four of the five Chinese superintendents in the conference. All the male DSes were interviewed. Knowing the great experience they bring to the significant leadership positions they hold, and given the in-depth character of the interviews, I considered that their insights would provide sufficient data for the descriptive nature of the research being undertaken.48 The interviewees were each given a participant information sheet explaining the purpose of the interviews and the procedure to be followed. They were also asked to sign an informed consent form to show their understanding of their participation in the research. The interview questions were selected to draw out the superintendents’ views and experiences relating to the leadership qualifications and theological principles which had been identified in Paul’s ministry and teaching. In addition to these seven main questions, other secondary questions were also used to give practical focus to the discussion.49 In answering the questions, the 45 See Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction, 1999) for a description of grounded theory. 46 Monique Hennink, Inge Hutter and Ajay Bailey, Qualitative Research Methods, 3rd edn (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2011), 287. 47 See Pamela Baxter and Susan Jack, ‘Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers’, in The Qualitative Report, 13.4 (2008), 544-59: www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf (accessed 20th February 2013), 549; M. Gluckman, ‘Ethnographic Data in British Social Anthropology’, in Sociological Review, 9 (1961), 7; Hennink, Hutter and Bailey, Qualitative Research Methods, 109-10; J. Clyde Mitchell, ‘Case and Situation Analysis’, in Roger Gomm, Martyn Hammersley and Peter Foster (eds.), Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key Texts (London: Sage, 2000), 170; Johnny Saldana, Fundamentals of Qualitative Research: Understanding Qualitative Research (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 4, 23; Robert E. Stake, The Art of Case Study Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995), 3. 48 Saldana, Fundamentals of Qualitative Research, 34. 49 Copies of the interview questions may be found in the appendix.

190

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

interviewees were asked to focus on English-speaking Trinity Annual Conference (TRAC) Methodist churches in Peninsular Malaysia which are predominately Chinese in membership and leadership. They were free to answer from their own experience and from what they had observed in TRAC churches. The interviews took place on the church premises of each superintendent and were up to two hours in length. They were recorded digitally, and following the interviews, the conversations were transcribed ready for analysis. The resulting data was anonymised.50 Interview Findings

In this section, the findings of the interviews are described. After giving the results of questions concerning the qualifications of leaders, the remaining analysis follows the same order as was outlined in the theological analysis of the Pauline contextualisation of leadership in Chapter 5. Some contextual reasons for the findings are tentatively suggested, and preliminary conclusions are drawn at the end of each section, but the key overall conclusions are listed in Chapter 7. The leader’s qualifications THE TRAC CHURCHES

The Methodist Church in Malaysia follows a system of itinerant ministry in which pastors are appointed by the annual conference.51 Although this might imply that church members have little say regarding the qualifications they seek in their pastor, in practice this is not the case. In the first place, the Board of Ministry (BOM), which consists of a group of ministers assisted by district superintendents and lay leaders, is responsible for ensuring that candidates for the ministry are suitably qualified in a general sense.52 This includes a thorough examination of their doctrine.53 The recommendations made by the BOM must be accepted by a vote of the whole annual conference. Secondly, appointments of ministers to charges are made by the president in consultation with the Board of Appointments which includes all the DSes.54 The president seeks the advice of each church’s PPRC by asking them to describe the needs of their churches, and to state whether the gifts of their current pastor are suited to meet those needs. This feedback is also shared with the relevant DS. The president also asks the pastors similar questions. Thirdly, if particular local churches are 50

None of the DSes are named. Where the views of named individuals (e.g. Hwa Yung, Lucian Pye) are mentioned, these refer not to the DSes but to other scholars. 51 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †303.2. 52 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †327, †532.5. 53 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †325.3, †327. 54 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †532.4.

Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

191

unhappy with their pastors, there is a mechanism whereby the PPRC in consultation with the pastor and the DS can convey their concerns and seek for a change in pastor.55 All the above ways ensure that a given church receives a pastor who is appropriately qualified. Most of the DSes who were interviewed attach importance to the pastor being educationally well qualified as a prerequisite for entering the ministry.56 In the Chinese context, educational qualifications tend to generate respect. Even in the TRAC churches, some of the DSes perceive that larger urban churches with good numbers of highly educated members look up to pastors who are well qualified educationally. However, this is not without its dangers. Hwa Yung considers that one of ‘the biggest problems in the modern church is that we often elect or appoint as leaders at various levels the most educationally or professionally qualified’ – people who may prove to be very poor leaders.57 In imperial China, the dignity of ministers ‘flowed more from their education and merit than from any personal charisma’.58 The apostle Paul placed importance on God’s choice of himself as apostle, and the Spirit’s anointing of others for ministry (see pp. 65-68, 120). It is fascinating to observe the Malaysian Methodist Church’s perspective on this issue. The Church does believe that ‘some members are called and set apart by God’ for the pastoral ministry.59 Local preachers too are examined as to whether they believe that God has called them to preach the gospel.60 Those who claim to be ‘moved by the Holy Spirit’ to become itinerant ministers (pastors) are assessed by means of the following questions:61

55

Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †542.5. Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †327.2. One DS observed that in the Chinese Conference there is a greater emphasis on pastors building up their educational qualifications. This is consistent with the traditional Chinese understanding of scholarship being one of the prime qualifications for leadership. In China, ‘moral authority and power is vested with the scholar-gentlemen’ (Hwa, Mangos and Bananas, 87; see also Chan Wing-Tsit, ‘Chinese Theory and Practice, with Special Reference to Humanism’, in Charles A. Moore (ed., assisted by Aldyth V. Morris), The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Cultures (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1968), 22). 57 Hwa Yung, ‘Contextualising the Church: Inculcating Holiness and Enhancing Discipleship in the Asian Church’, unpublished paper for OMF Mission Research Consultation (Singapore, 2013), 10. 58 Julia Ching, Confucianism and Christianity (Tokyo: Kodansha, 1977), 102. Ching does however note that the qualities of the charismatic personality of the Confucian king were sometimes attributed to him despite his intellectual mediocrity (188). 59 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †301.2. 60 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †310.1. 61 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †325.3. 56

192

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

(a) Do they know God as a pardoning God? Have they the love of God abiding in them? Do they desire nothing but God? Are they holy in all manner of conversation? (b) Have they gifts, as well as grace, for the work? Have they a clear, sound understanding; a right judgement in the things of God; a just conception of salvation by faith? Do they speak justly, readily, clearly? (c) Have they fruit? Have any been truly convinced of sin and converted to God, and are believers edified by their preaching?

The conclusion of this questioning is very significant: ‘As long as these marks concur in anyone, we believe he is called of God to preach. These we receive as sufficient proof that he is moved by the Holy Spirit.’ It is therefore not surprising that most of the DSes who were interviewed perceive that churches put emphasis on the track record of pastors, rather than seeking leaders with a dynamic image and appearance.62 The outworking of the Spirit in the life of the one seeking to be ordained is a sure sign that he (or she) has been called of God. Even though some congregations may like a charismatic character as pastor, one DS pointed out that church members are increasingly aware that some pastors who are charismatic in appearance may not be so charismatic in their daily life! The perception of the DSes is that fruit in ministry, relationship skills and proven life character are rated more highly by churches than outward appearance. The Book of Discipline of the Methodist Church in Malaysia puts great emphasis on the character of those who would become an ordained minister: ‘No person shall be elected to the office of elder except such as are of unquestionable moral character and genuine piety, sound in the fundamental doctrine of Christianity and faithful in the discharge of their duties.’63 The aim is that only those whose conduct is ‘above reproach’ should be approved as ministers,64 something which is greatly stressed by all the DSes who were interviewed. This is consistent with traditional Chinese values. Lucian Pye argues that one of the major characteristics of power in Confucian society ‘was the strong notion that those in power should use their own exemplary conduct as a means for influencing the behaviour of others’.65 Even in business today, Chinese leaders seek to 62

This may be contrasted with the Thai Buddhist context of the Hope of Bangkok Church in which Steve Taylor maintains that ‘the greater the anointing, the more the deference, loyalty and respect’ (‘Patron-Client Relationships (DTC)’, 107). 63 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †327.1; see also †532.5. 64 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †325.4. 65 Lucian W. Pye with Mary W. Pye, Asian Power and Politics: The Cultural Dimensions of Authority (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 88. Confucius taught that a leader should exhibit ‘high morals and be an example to society’ (Choong, Paradigmatic Leadership, 15).

Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

193

maintain ‘good moral character’ in order to earn their followers’ trust.66 The emphasis on the integrity of church leaders is consistent with this traditional Chinese understanding. Hwa Yung notes the importance of age as a source of moral authority in all traditional Asian cultures.67 That is especially true in cultures which are influenced by Confucianism. The perception of the DSes who were interviewed is that even in TRAC churches, pastors who are older and more experienced will be more respected, especially in smaller towns and among the elderly where traditional values are more tightly held. Younger pastors need good supervision by senior pastors and must prove themselves before they are accepted by their members. Although, traditionally, wealth did not open the way to political leadership and power in Confucian cultures,68 the situation among the Chinese of Southeast Asia is rather different. As was seen above, many of the Chinese immigrants hoped to escape from poverty in China and discover wealth in a new land. Consequently, leadership in the Chinese community of Southeast Asia came to be determined by wealth rather than scholarship, as was traditional in China.69 Today therefore, wealth is ‘a dominant value among the Chinese in Southeast Asia, and it defines status and leadership’.70 In discussion with the DSes of the TRAC churches, it appears that in the past lay leaders had on occasion been chosen because of their wealth and influence which sometimes led to problems, especially if they were not spiritually discerning and mature. However, the consensus is that churches have learned to be more careful in their choices to ensure that people of integrity are put into leadership positions. CONCLUSIONS

The section above examined the leadership qualifications, and especially those for pastors, desired by members in the TRAC Methodist churches of Peninsular Malaysia. Chapter 4 looked at this theme in the early church, and in particular the criteria which were followed in the appointment of

66 Sheh Seow Wah, Chinese Leadership: Moving from Classical to Contemporary (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish, 2009), 151; see also Robert I. Westwood and Andrew Chan, ‘Headship and Leadership’, in Westwood, Organisational Behaviour, 135. This moral leadership in not ‘“moral” in the sense of conformance to high or universal principles, but rather of behaving within situations and relationships in culturally required and expected ways’ (Robert I. Westwood, ‘Harmony and Patriarchy: The Cultural Basis for “Paternalistic Headship” Among Overseas Chinese’, Organization Studies 18.3 (1997), 467). 67 Hwa, Mangoes or Bananas, 87. 68 Pye, Asian Power and Politics, 88. 69 Tan, Chinese Overseas, 192. 70 Tan, Chinese Overseas, 204.

194

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

leaders in Pauline churches. To what extent are these criteria reflected in the TRAC churches? i) God’s choice and anointing. It is apparent from The Book of Discipline that God’s calling is a fundamental prerequisite for those who would preach and enter the itinerant ministry. Although it may appear that many TRAC churches are not seeking an outward anointing in their pastors, it is clear that this does not signify a denial of the importance of God’s anointing, but rather that such anointing should be exhibited in the faithful life and ministry of the minister. ii) Household leadership. This has not been considered since it is mainly applicable to a church at an early stage of its development and not to an established denomination such as the Methodist Church. However, in the same way that those of the first century who were senior in years were particularly respected, the DSes who were interviewed suggest that the same is true for older TRAC ministers. iii) Character. The Methodist Church follows both Scripture and its own history in emphasising the importance of the minister’s character. The majority of the DSes who were interviewed support this principle by stressing the need for integrity and a proven track record, especially in the area of personal relationships. iv) Orthodoxy. The Church gives careful attention to this in the initial screening of ministerial candidates.71 Finally, consideration will be given to leadership qualifications which were rejected by the Pauline churches, even though they were evident in the first-century Graeco-Roman context. Two of these are still relevant today: wealth, and impressive appearance and learning. Consistent with the early church’s stance, it appears that the TRAC churches take care to ensure that wealth is not the primary criterion in their choice of lay leaders. While it appears that impressive appearance is not particularly emphasised, the cultural requirement for good education seems to be uncritically accepted, with learning in the form of a university education being a prerequisite. However, obtaining further degrees is not stressed in the TRAC churches. In conclusion, the evidence of The Book of Discipline, supported by the personal observations of the DSes who were interviewed, does suggest that the qualifications sought for pastors are broadly in line with the principles observed in the Pauline churches. The Pauline churches’ respect for age and good character is also consistent with traditional Chinese culture. The emphasis on education may be one area where the acceptance of cultural presuppositions could be in need of a prophetic challenge.

71 As will be seen later, for most of the DSes who were interviewed, doctrine is the number one issue on which pastors are willing to make a strong stand.

Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

195

The leader not taking Christ’s place It was observed in chapter 5 that Paul’s understanding of leadership was Christ-shaped. In some ways, Christ is a model for church leaders to follow – for example, in his humble service. However, in other ways his role is unique and leaders have no right to take his place. Two particular areas in which Christ’s role is inimitable were identified: first, he is the supreme ruler, and secondly, he is the only mediator between God and mankind. The following section looks at the results of the interviews with the DSes to examine the ways in which the TRAC churches in Peninsular Malaysia reflect Paul’s understanding. NOT AN AUTHORITARIAN RULER

The TRAC churches

An examination of Paul’s ministry and writings showed that he avoided any practice of church leadership which placed the leaders in a position of authoritarian ruling, and I suggested that his understanding of the lordship of Christ was the main influence behind this. What about the TRAC Malaysian Methodist churches? Do they reflect Paul’s perception, or is the church leader more commonly seen as an authoritarian ruler? Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov in a survey of IBM employees in 76 countries discovered that Malaysia came first equal in power distance.72 They define power distance as ‘the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally’.73 While the ethnic make-up of these employees is unclear, those surveyed considered that the decisionmaking style of their leaders was seen to be autocratic or paternalistic.74 72

Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede and Michael Minkov, Cultures and Organizations: Software for the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, 3rd edn (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 57. Some have criticised Hofstede et al. for not working with a representative sample of the whole population of a given country (Bass and Bass, Handbook of Leadership, 985; see also Michele J. Gelfand, Dharm P.S. Bhawuk, Lisa H. Nishii and David J. Bechtold, ‘Individualism and Collectivism’, in House et al., Culture, Leadership, and Organizations, 441 for other critiques). The GLOBE study was much broader, being undertaken among 951 organisations in three industries (Robert J. House and Paul J. Hanges, ‘Research Design’, in House et al., Culture, Leadership, and Organizations, 96), although Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov have criticised the formulation of the questions in the survey (Cultures and Organizations, 42, 63). This study placed Malaysia in the second of four bands in power distance (Carl, Gupta and Javidan, ‘Power Distance’, 538). 73 Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, Cultures and Organizations, 61. Carl, Gupta and Javidan argue that ‘the concept of leadership itself may be supported more strongly in high power distance cultures’ (‘Power Distance’, 551). 74 Westwood and Chan define paternalism as ‘a style which combines discipline and authority with fatherly concern and benevolence’ (‘Headship and Leadership’, 132).

196

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Hwa Yung observes that in Asia ‘authoritarianism is much more readily accepted than in the West’.75 However, none of the DSes who were interviewed considers that TRAC churches perceive their pastor to be the absolute ruler of the church.76 One did acknowledge that this concept is more common in Chinese-speaking churches, but most of the DSes feel that English-speaking congregations prefer to be involved in decision-making, perhaps because of their higher educational background. Although ministers who lord it over their congregations are occasionally found, all the DSes consider that such pastors are rare in the TRAC churches.77 The perception of most of the DSes who were interviewed is that the Methodist connectional system78 tends to limit the occurrence of such domineering ministers, since lay leaders have an important role, and ministers know that they can easily be moved on to other churches if they start lording it over their people.79 A wise pastor will be aware that experienced lay leaders may have a better understanding of the situation than a pastor who is only in a given church for a few years. Consequently, it seems likely that the checks and balances of the Methodist system curb the authoritarianism which is common in societies which are influenced by contemporary Confucianism.80

75

Hwa, Mangos or Bananas, 86; see also Westwood and Chan, ‘Headship and Leadership’, 126. In contrast to the general usage of the word ‘authoritarian’ in this book, it is probable that Hwa Yung is using it in a more positive way here. See this book’s Introduction, footnote 13. 76 One lay leader told me that he considers talk about ‘absolute leadership’ as ‘foreign vocabulary to [him] within a Methodist setting’. 77 The GLOBE study compares societies in terms of assertiveness, and places Malaysia in the central band, although the study does not distinguish between the various Malaysian ethnic groups (Deanne N. Den Hartog, ‘Assertiveness’, in House et al., Culture, Leadership, and Organizations, 410). Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov note that some societies are more masculine and others more feminine. The former are marked by assertiveness and toughness whereas the latter are more modest and tender, even among its male members (Cultures and Organizations, 142). Malaysia scores in the middle range which is consistent with Den Hartog’s findings. 78 ‘Refers to the system of organisation of the Methodist Church that includes the episcopacy, superintendence, itinerancy and channels by which coordination and cooperation is maintained between the Annual and General Conferences. Churches in an Annual Conference are “connected” through mutual support and accountability at the level of the local church, district and Annual Conference’ (Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, Glossary). 79 One DS observed that the abuses and authoritarianism found in some of the independent churches would not be possible in the Methodist Church. 80 Gary Choong argues that, in a departure from traditional Confucian leadership practice, ‘authoritarianism is the overriding stance in contemporary Confucian leadership’ (Paradigmatic Leadership, 46; see also 21). This leads to the susceptibility of those in leadership ‘to abuse power and authority’ (47).

Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

197

Although it is probable that TRAC congregations do not in general consider their pastors to be dictatorial rulers, this does not mean that they do not revere them. On the contrary, the DSes perceive that the people do respect their ministers and hold them in high regard, especially if they have earned this right by being caring pastors, good teachers and competent leaders.81 However, churches do not usually go as far as putting them on a pedestal. This may be partially a reflection of the difference between the Chinese-speaking and English-speaking cultures. Rita Sim maintains that Chinese-literate Malaysians ‘tend to regard their bosses very highly’; the non-Chinese-literate ‘are more relaxed about this relationship’.82 This is shown in the minister’s title which is most commonly used in the TRAC churches. Although in an official context the title ‘Reverend’ may be used, the DSes who were interviewed favour the title ‘Pastor’, especially because of its warm shepherding connotations.83 In the perception of these DSes, the title ‘Pastor’ is well understood outside the church, even though it is not taken from the context. Conclusions

Dictatorial leaders are found in most societies and Jesus was well aware of this style of leadership. Hwa Yung, who is a Bishop Emeritus in the Methodist Church in Malaysia, describes the rulers of the Gentiles to which Jesus refers in Mark 10:42 as bossing ‘others around like “Little Napoleons”’. He remarks that for Jesus, ‘such a style of leadership is quite contrary to the ways of the Kingdom of God’.84 Little Napoleons are quite common in Malaysian society, as in government bureaucracy. However, the DSes who were interviewed do not perceive this to be a common pattern in the TRAC churches. In some contrast to contemporary Chinese culture, the TRAC churches, partially perhaps as a result of the Methodist connectional system, do not appear to favour authoritarian leadership. Where such leadership arises, in most cases it is not accepted by the churches. Their leadership does therefore seem to reflect the apostle Paul’s concern that leaders should avoid taking the place of ruling which rightly belongs to Christ.

81 Conversely, some of the DSes who were interviewed do acknowledge that pastors may be opposed in times of conflict in the church, or when they are morally flawed. 82 Sim, Unmistakably Chinese, 48. One DS suggested that Chinese-speaking churches will tend to venerate the pastor more than the English-speaking churches. 83 One DS suggested that, although traditionally the Chinese look up to people with titles, he considered that in churches this is less the case. 84 Hwa, ‘Leadership or Servanthood?’, 197.

198

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

NOT A MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND PEOPLE

The TRAC churches

In chapter 5 I suggested that the reason that cultic language was not used to describe the ministry of New Testament church leaders was because of Paul’s conviction that Christ is the only mediator between God and mankind, a role that leaders should not assume. In the interviews, the DSes were asked to describe the extent to which church members see their minister in the role of a priest who mediates between them and God. The DSes are united in agreeing that believers, and especially the older members of the congregations, do indeed consider that the pastor fulfils a priestly role. This is particularly seen in their preferring pastors to visit and pray for them, rather than lay people, especially in times of crisis, such as sin, sickness or bereavement.85 Many church members consider that the pastor should be the one to lead a loved one’s funeral and do the committal. This attitude is also seen in the belief that the pastor’s prayers are more efficacious than their own or those of other lay people, something which all the DSes who were interviewed had observed. Among the reasons the DSes give for this, is the belief of some people that the pastor is more holy and righteous than they are, and that the pastor is the one who is specially authorised by the church and qualified to act in the proper manner on behalf of God. Most of the DSes who were interviewed suggest a Chinese cultural background to explain this view of their pastors which is held by many church members and especially the older ones. In Chinese religion, the Taoist priest is the one who is able to do the necessary rituals in the supernatural realm. Some traditional Chinese church members may consider that pastors have a similar priestly role. One of the dangers of placing a human leader in a position of mediation between God and people is the tendency to follow that leader rather than God (or Christ). We have already observed the cult of personality in the Corinthian church (in both the cliques of 1 Corinthians and the followers of the false apostles of 2 Corinthians), and how the apostle Paul was unwilling to accept such adulation or to have a personal following.86 In churches planted in societies which are influenced by Confucian philosophy, it is normal for church members to have a strong sense of loyalty to the leader of the church. This stems from Confucianism’s relational centre, in which loyalty is often seen as a personal commitment to a person or persons.87 Consequently, it is not uncommon for church members to follow pastors when they move church, or even to stop attending church altogether. The 85 Some of the DSes note that it used to be common to ask the pastor to be present at significant times of celebration, e.g. birthdays, a child going to college, etc. However, this is becoming less common in comparison with the Chinese and Tamil Conferences. 87

Ching, Confucianism and Christianity, 195.

Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

199

understanding of the DSes who were interviewed is that this may happen in the TRAC Conference, albeit rarely, especially when the pastor has been very close to a group within the church with many years of caring and sacrificial service. However, some of the DSes express the opinion that the Methodist connectional system reduces the possibility of people leaving the church to follow their pastor, since their terms of service at a given church are limited, and they may be transferred to a different part of the country quite suddenly. The strength of the lay leadership may also mitigate some of the negative effects of these situations. Conclusions

The fact that Christ is the only mediator between God and mankind has profound implications for cultures which are affected by shamanistic thinking. Although the TRAC churches are also influenced by Methodist traditions and western culture through the medium of the English language, the perception of the DSes who were interviewed is that some of the church members, and especially the older ones, do tend to look to the pastor as a kind of mediator between them and God. They see the pastor as the one who can do the necessary rites on their behalf, and can pray more effectively than they can themselves. This is in contrast to the emphases of the apostle Paul who encouraged people to look to Christ and to rely on him alone. It is possible that the members of TRAC churches are beginning to move away from viewing their pastor as a special mediator between them and God. However, it is unclear whether this is a result of a conscious contextual challenge, or just a sign of the weakening of traditional Chinese culture among the English-speaking Chinese. The leader as servant of all THE TRAC CHURCHES

The remarkably counter-cultural nature of Jesus’ call to service in leadership has already been noted. The apostle Paul shows this in his willing bond-service of the churches, and I have suggested in chapter 5 that this is a theological reflection of Jesus’ example, supremely shown in his incarnation and crucifixion. John Stott observes that the church today is often very different: Our model of leadership is often shaped more by culture than by Christ. Yet many cultural models of leadership are incompatible with the servant imagery taught and exhibited by the Lord Jesus. Nevertheless, these alien cultural models are often transplanted uncritically into the church and its hierarchy.88

88

Stott, Calling Christian Leaders, 129.

200

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

What about the TRAC churches of Malaysia? In this section, the views of their district superintendents are investigated to see the extent to which church leaders operate as servants and are so perceived by their members. The DSes who were interviewed are united in seeing the pastor’s role as being one of service of the people.89 This is shown in their willingness to be accessible to their members and to give time to them. One of the DSes suggests that Methodist pastors show their servanthood when they incarnate themselves in a new area – one they have not chosen – and serve alongside the people there. However, the perception of the DSes is that church members do not always understand what it means to be a servant leader. Some people consider that if the pastor is described as a ‘servant’, that means that he should do everything in the church. Others, particularly the elderly, are not happy with their leader doing menial jobs. However, most of the DSes perceive that, although many pastors are very willing to do lowly tasks and not take advantage of their leadership position,90 churches are very considerate and guard their pastors’ time to ensure that they do not get side-tracked by too many secondary duties. The DSes maintain that this is especially the case in urban churches with more highly educated middleclass members. In rural settings, there may be an expectation that the pastor should do more of the practical acts of service, e.g. opening the church, driving the van, etc. However, the DSes consider that all pastors, whether or not they need to do these menial tasks, are called to make sacrifices. These include forgoing financial security, time with family, and personal convenience, e.g. when called to stand alongside a grieving church member at any time of the day or night.91 89

As will be seen below, this view is also reflected in the pastor’s willingness to share decision-making with others. This acceptance of servant leadership is in some contrast with other parts of Southeast Asia. For example, Yuzu Imamura maintains that servant leadership is rare in Cambodia ‘because the Cambodian culture of leadership is antithetical to servant leadership’ (‘Contextualising the Church: A Case Study from Cambodia, with Special Reference to the Context of the Hierarchical Society’, unpublished paper for OMF Mission Research Consultation (Singapore, 2013), 10). Stephen C.R. Taylor, writing of the Thai church context, observes that ‘it appears that one is normally either a servant or a leader, but not both’ (‘Patron-Client Relationships: A Challenge for the Thai Church’, MRT 3.1 (2007), 16-21, 16). 90 This may be a reflection of general Malaysian culture. A manager was quoted as saying that ‘Malaysians expect their leaders to behave in a manner that is humble, modest and dignified’ (Robert J. House, Paul J. Hanges, S. Antonio Ruiz-Quintanilla, Peter W. Dorfman, Mansour Javdan, Marcus Dickson, Vipin Gupta and GLOBE Country Co-Investigators, ‘Cultural Influences on Leadership and Organizations: Project GLOBE’, in William H. Mobley, M. Jocelyne Gessner and Val Arnold (eds.), Advances in Global Leadership (Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 1999), I, 178). 91 Hwa Yung asserts that ‘we need pastors and lay leaders who, having been transformed by the study and meditation of the Bible and by the deep work of the Holy Spirit, can be models of faith for the members. Moreover, we need those who serve

Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

201

As was seen above, the connectional nature of the Methodist ministry limits the likelihood of pastors being over-assertive, since they know that they can easily be moved to another church. Although there may be occasions when pastors should take a firm stand on a particular issue, most of the DSes who were interviewed consider that church ministers do not need to be seen as powerful leaders. Conversely, however, is it acceptable for them to show their weakness and vulnerability? It has already been observed that the marks of Paul’s apostleship include weakness, selfsacrifice and suffering – things he talks about very openly, especially in 2 Corinthians. How then do church members view ministers who share their own personal weaknesses, for example, when preaching? The DSes who were interviewed have a variety of opinions about this issue. One of them considers that it would be unwise for him to share his own weaknesses with the congregation. However, most of the DSes believe that, even though it may be appropriate on occasion to show one’s vulnerability and need for growth in discipleship, great care and wisdom should be exercised lest such sharing leads to distrust, unhelpful speculation or even personal attacks. One of the DSes did admit that a reason for showing caution in this area is because of some people’s expectations of a pastor having no weaknesses. This may be a reflection of traditional Chinese paternalistic authority understandings. Lucian Pye argues that a leader in such a context ‘does not have to share his worries with others, nor is he expected to bare his breast and admit to past mistakes’.92 In my own experience of teaching homiletics in Malaysia, I have also observed that many students consider that it is unwise for pastors to show their own weakness.93 CONCLUSIONS

Although the apostle Paul often uses metaphors of service and slavery to describe his ministry, he does not deny his leadership responsibility. Most cultures find it very difficult to marry the concepts of leadership and servanthood, and some of the TRAC church members are also confused, and perhaps need more teaching in this area. However, the DSes who were interviewed do see the importance of servant leadership, and seek to model it. This is in contrast to Chinese cultural understandings of strong and authoritarian leadership. Hwa Yung, in referring to Jesus’ exhortation to his disciples to follow his example of foot-washing, maintains that ‘those who humbly and are not afraid to pay the cost of discipleship. This may well be the greatest need of the Malaysian Church today’ (‘Transforming the Mind and Heart’, 25). 92 Pye, Asian Power and Politics, 198. 93 This is similar to Taylor’s observation of Thai culture in which the leader’s ‘admission of fault, weakness or failure may jeopardise his future credibility’ (Taylor, ‘Patron-Client Relationships (DTC)’, 116).

202

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

are called to leadership in the church must take the lead in humble selfgiving service’.94 Paul followed Christ’s example and was even willing to share his personal weaknesses with the churches. The leaders of the TRAC churches may need to consider how they too can show their weakness and vulnerability appropriately in order to reflect Christ’s self-emptying more fully. Henri Nouwen maintains that ‘the Christian leader of the future is called… to stand in this world with nothing but his or her own vulnerable self’.95 The leader in relationship It was argued above that the apostle Paul’s understanding of God in Trinity may have influenced his perception of how leaders work together, as well as their hierarchical relationships with one another and with their congregations. The following section considers the views of DSes who were interviewed in order to gain some insight into the ways in which the TRAC churches in Peninsular Malaysia reflect Paul’s theological understanding of the leader in relationship. PLURALITY AND CO-OPERATION

The TRAC churches

It has been argued above that Paul was committed to a plurality of leaders who co-operate in loving mutuality in the same way that the persons of the Trinity work together. The TRAC Conference DSes who were interviewed are united in affirming the need to lead by consensus. When important decisions need to be made, they follow a process of wide and transparent consultation in a spirit of prayer, beginning with the lay leaders, the PPRC and the LCEC, and then moving on to the local conference. Although the Methodist Church is not congregational in government, none of the DSes consider that it is appropriate for them to force their own opinions and visions on the church against the opinions of others.96 They aim for

94

Hwa, ‘Leadership or Servanthood?’, 198. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus, 17. 96 One DS strongly asserted that church members must not see their pastor as a CEO. The consultative approach to leadership is a contrast to overseas Chinese family businesses in which, according to S. Gordon Redding, ‘a structure emerges which has strong leadership able to exercise a very large amount of decision-making power without consultation’ (‘Societal Transformation and the Contribution of Authority Relations and Cooperation Norms in Overseas Chinese Business’, in Tu Wei-ming (ed.), Confucian Traditions in East Asian Modernity: Moral Education and Economic Culture in Japan and the Four Mini-Dragons (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 314). Leung Kwok also maintains that Southeast Asian managers are directive in decision-making and do not involve their subordinates (‘Decision Making’, in Westwood, Organisational Behaviour, 358). James Plueddemann observes that ‘for a 95

Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

203

consensus, even though sometimes church members may encourage them to be more directive. Malaysia scores much higher in collectivism97 than individualism compared with most western European countries.98 This is especially true in a specific (in-group) organisational context.99 However, there is now a desire for more individualism, perhaps as a result of increasing affluence.100 Although the majority of TRAC churches are not large enough to have more than one pastor, the DSes who were interviewed were all committed to team leadership. Some churches have a pastoral team who work together (including the pastor(s) and key lay leaders), and all churches have an LCEC which provides team leadership and decision-making. However, the consensus of the DSes is that it is good to have a single senior pastor who carries the final accountability for the leadership of the church. It was observed above that mutual accountability among church leaders is one of the marks of a trinitarian pattern of leadership. The pastors in the TRAC churches have a very well defined accountability structure. This is based on one of the core principles of the Methodist society in which the members were called to ‘watch over one another in love’.101 Ministers are accountable to the annual conference, and the character of each minister has to be passed each year by the Ministerial Session after inquiry into his or her moral and official conduct by the DS.102 The Board of Ministry may also be involved if disciplinary action is required.103 In addition, there is a collegiate accountability with pastors being gathered into small groups which meet at least twice a year with the members holding one another accountable. At the local level, pastors are accountable to their DS,104 as well as to their co-leaders in the LCEC (especially concerning their activities).105 This wide accountability structure is in marked contrast to

leader in a high power-distance culture to ask the advice of a subordinate could signal that the boss doesn’t know how to lead’ (Leading Across Cultures, 95). 97 ‘Collectivism… pertains to societies in which people from birth onward are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty’ (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, Cultures and Organizations, 92). 98 Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, Cultures and Organizations, 95-97. 99 Gelfand et al., ‘Individualism and Collectivism’, 469. 100 Gelfand et al., ‘Individualism and Collectivism’, 481. 101 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †71. 102 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †530.5. 103 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †532. 104 Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †370.8. 105 Apart from mutual accountability among fellow leaders, pastors are also accountable to the local conference (Methodist Church in Malaysia, Book of Discipline, †330.18, †538.3) and the PPRC (especially if there are concerns about their relationship with the congregation) (†542).

204

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

high power distance cultures and Chinese patriarchal society in which leadership cannot be questioned.106 CONCLUSIONS

One remarkable feature of the apostle Paul’s ministry is that he did not encourage churches to appoint sole leaders. The DSes who were interviewed see the importance of team leadership and of developing a consensus in their decision-making. This is consistent with a trinitarian model and is a challenge to high power distance cultural norms. However, there does seem to be an underlying perception of the value of having one pastor who is the overall leader in each church. Hwa Yung discusses Wesley’s use of ‘select societies’ as a means of mutual accountability, and exhorts leaders today to follow this example. He suggests that the need for mutual accountability ‘may be one of the biggest challenges for the Asian church’.107 However, the Methodist tradition in the TRAC churches does result in an emphasis on leadership accountability which is a reflection of trinitarian understandings. HIERARCHY WITH EQUALITY

The TRAC churches

Whether or not a given local church is reflecting a trinitarian view of leadership may be seen in the nature of hierarchy in that church. In the Trinity there is a clear hierarchy but that does not imply an inherent inequality among the persons. In the interviews with the DSes, the extent to which that same concept is found in the leadership of the TRAC churches has been considered. All the DSes argue that there is a clear hierarchy in the TRAC churches. Most commonly this is seen with the senior pastor at the top, then any associate pastors, and finally the lay leaders.108 One of the DSes said that this prevents there being ‘too many tigers on the mountain!’ It is especially necessary for church members to know that the senior pastor is in overall charge. Some of the DSes state that the reason for this is that the pastor is in a different category from the general membership because he is assigned to the church by the annual conference. There is therefore a sense in which he or she is separate from the rest of the church. Dean Flemming suggests that churches which emphasise ‘hierarchy, status and position’ have a ‘corresponding discouragement of lay 106

Pye, Asian Power and Politics, 66; Mansour Javidan, Robert J. House and Peter W. Dorfman, ‘A Nontechnical Summary of GLOBE Findings’, in House et al., Culture, Leadership, and Organizations, 30. 107 Hwa, ‘Contextualising the Church’, 12. 108 One DS shared that sometimes problems may arise when the church lay leader who has been in office for a long time seeks to exert authority over a newly assigned pastor.

Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

205

participation in the church’s ministry’.109 However, although there is a clear hierarchy in the TRAC churches of Peninsular Malaysia, this does not result in a discouragement of lay involvement. The Methodist structures give lay people much authority, with the lay leader of the church holding a vitally important position. Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov argue that the hierarchical system of large power distance contexts is derived from the ‘existential inequality’ of superiors and subordinates.110 Plueddemann notes that people in high power distance cultures ‘assume that the leader has more authority, respect and status symbols’.111 They expect him to have a big car, large office, and higher salary. However, in contrast to this, and unlike some other churches which are influenced by Confucianism, e.g. some mega-churches in Malaysia and churches in Korea, the DSes who were interviewed do not perceive that these hierarchical differences in TRAC churches are reflected by visible status symbols.112 This countercultural situation suggests that there is no visible inequality among the local church leaders in the TRAC Conference. Although there is a hierarchy in each church, the majority of the DSes consider that any hierarchical authority they possess is a result of the role they have, rather than an expression of their place in the pecking order or any gap between them and those below them.113 This corresponds to the functional hierarchy of the Trinity which was discussed above. Although one DS who was interviewed sees the lay leader as being a leader among the leaders, this concept does not seem to be present in the TRAC churches when referring to the senior pastor and his or her co-leaders. In collectivist societies in which the emphasis is on groups rather than individuals, filial piety is very important.114 Hwa Yung observes that, in Confucian culture areas of Asia, authority ‘is modelled upon the concept of filial piety, with leaders and followers cast in the moulds of benevolent 109

Flemming, ‘The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy’, 233. Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, Cultures and Organizations, 73. Hierarchical views of leadership are common in societies influenced by Confucianism and Buddhism (Carl, Gupta and Javidan, ‘Power Distance’, 518, 523; Samuel P. Huntington, ‘Democracy’s Third Wave’, in L. Diamond and M.F. Plattner (eds.), The Global Resurgence of Democracy (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 18; Taylor, ‘Patron-Client Relationships (MRT)’, 16). 111 Plueddemann, Leading Across Cultures, 95. See also Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, Cultures and Organizations, 74; Taylor, ‘Patron-Client Relationships (DTC)’, 9, 28; ‘Patron-Client Relationships (MRT)’, 18-19. 112 Salaries are set by the annual conference and depend on the pastor’s experience and family needs. 113 One DS said that the pastors are ‘one among equals’. This is radically different from Pye’s assessment of the Chinese concept of power in which collegial rule is impossible since ‘someone must dominate, and to be in second or third place is intolerable for pretenders to leadership’ (Asian Power and Politics, 253). 114 Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, Cultures and Organizations, 100. 110

206

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

fathers and dutiful children respectively’.115 According to Confucian teaching, the family is ‘the prototype of all social organizations’,116 and this model is followed even today in Chinese societies by most social organisations and economic entities.117 This results in a paternalistic leadership pattern. Gary Choong observes that this kind of Confucian leadership which is common today has led to some tensions in the Asian church since its values ‘predispose Christian leaders toward paternalistic authoritarianism’ which is manifested in a coercive style.118 There is a danger of the leader taking the place of God and building up his own following at the expense of the unity of the wider church. In paternalistic societies ‘the person at the top of the hierarchy and an inner group’ make all the most important decisions.119 However, as has been seen, the perception of the DSes who were interviewed is that this is not true of TRAC churches. Furthermore, although the DSes acknowledge that church members do respect their pastors, the majority do not believe that this attitude is normally expressed in terms of filial piety.120 Patron-client networks are common in much of Southeast Asia.121 Although they are less common in Chinese societies than, for example, in Thai society,122 they are found among the Chinese as an outworking of dyadic relationships.123 Some of the DSes who were interviewed perceive that members of the TRAC churches show their respect and love for their pastor by means of their generous hospitality, but it is not possible to say whether this stems from a conscious desire to repay them. Conclusions

Based on the views of the DSes who were interviewed, it seems that the leadership structure of the TRAC churches does reflect a trinitarian view of 115

Hwa, Mangos or Bananas, 86. Hwa Yung bases this on the work of Pye (Asian Power and Politics, 73). 116 Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, Cultures and Organizations, 237. 117 See Bass and Bass, Handbook of Leadership, 993; Farh and Cheng, ‘Paternalistic Leadership’, 103-04; Redding, ‘Societal Transformation’, 314; Sheh, Chinese Leadership, 119; Tan, Chinese Overseas, 189, 118 Choong, Paradigmatic Leadership, 77. 119 Choong, Paradigmatic Leadership, 36. 120 One exception which was expressed concerned the case of a pastor who had served in one church for thirty years. 121 Robert I. Westwood and B.L. Chua, ‘Power, Politics, and Influence’, in Westwood, Organisational Behaviour, 166; Zhang, Pacific Asia, 59. 122 In Thai culture, patron-client relationships have a major effect on leadership understandings, whether relating to those in formal leadership positions or those perceived to be in positions of power (Taylor, ‘Patron-Client Relationships (MRT)’, 18). Church members feel obliged to recompense those whom they consider to be benefactors (Taylor, ‘Patron-Client Relationships (DTC)’, 27-28; ‘Patron-Client Relationships (MRT)’, 19). 123 Farh and Cheng, ‘Paternalistic Leadership’, 104-06; Zhang, Pacific Asia, 50.

Leadership in English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

207

hierarchical leadership. Although there is a clear hierarchy, it appears that this is not seen in terms of status, rank and autocracy, but rather in terms of function and relationship. It is not certain whether the leadership structures indicate an innate equality, although such a supposition may be supported by the DSes’ rejection of status symbols, and there does not seem to be any room for a domineering hierarchy in the churches. The leader’s authority in defence of the gospel THE TRAC CHURCHES

It was argued above that the gospel was one of the chief grounds of Paul’s apostolic authority. Indeed, it was when the truth of the gospel was under threat that he became most firm in his exercise of that authority. The perception of the DSes who were interviewed is that there are two main issues about which TRAC church pastors exhibit strong authority: moral issues and doctrinal issues – with all the DSes considering that pastors should make a stand on the latter. Some of the DSes gave examples of pastors needing to be firm in dealing with charismatic excesses which were leading to disorder in the church. As far as the truth of the gospel is concerned, the importance of orthodoxy in the vetting of those who would become pastors in the TRAC churches was observed above. The DSes who were interviewed consider that very few people in the churches reject the authority of the Bible or the truth of the gospel. Consequently, it is very rare to have to deal with this issue.124 As has already been noted, the apostle Paul did not exercise authority in order to defend his own position. In churches today, it is possible for pastors to think that they are standing up for the truth of the gospel when in reality they are pulling rank in order to defend their own position. The DSes who were interviewed acknowledge that, while such examples may occur, they are not common. This is consistent with the counter-cultural leadership style which has already been observed. CONCLUSIONS

The DSes who were interviewed share the apostle Paul’s concern that pastors should be willing to make a stand on doctrinal issues. However, it appears that, in general, the TRAC churches are orthodox in doctrine which means that it is rare for pastors to need to defend the truth of the gospel within the churches.125 124

One senior lay leader remarked that, today, TRAC church pastors are evangelical and Bible-believing, with the days of pastors who question Scripture long gone. If this is true, it could explain why issues relating to the truth of the gospel are uncommon in the churches. 125 It is however more common in wider society, e.g. in defending the Bible as part of the ongoing dispute regarding the use of the word ‘Allah’ in Malaysia.

208

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Conclusion

There have been many cultural influences which have shaped the Englishspeaking Methodist churches of Peninsular Malaysia in their development. Among the most significant are the Chinese-Malaysian culture, Englishlanguage education, the mass media, and the principles and practices of Methodism. Through the interviews with district superintendents of the TRAC Conference, some of the ways in which these have affected the contextualisation of leadership in their churches have been observed. The main purpose of this study has been to examine the ways in which the theological principles which underlie the contextualisation of leadership in Paul’s ministry and teaching are reflected in the TRAC churches. The DSes have indicated that, in their opinion, most of these are indeed manifested in the leadership of the churches. In many cases this represents a significant prophetic challenge to the culture. The next chapter draws out some detailed conclusions, and makes some suggestions to help stimulate this contextualisation even more.

Chapter 7 The Stimulation of Contextualised Leadership Today

The research question delineated in this book’s introduction has two parts: the first and main one is a theological analysis of the contextualisation of leadership in Paul’s ministry and writings; the second is an examination of the ways in which the English-speaking Methodist churches in Peninsular Malaysia reflect the Pauline principles of leadership identified in this work. The first part is of great importance because the contextualisation of Pauline leadership has not been investigated before in such detail. The conclusions of this study are summarised in pp. 147-54, and 181-82. However, an equally significant outcome of this research concerns its application to the church today. This study contends that an examination of the contextualisation of leadership in the Pauline churches of the New Testament can assist the church in its leadership task. The current chapter begins by considering how Paul’s ministry and writings may be used to draw out principles of leadership for the church today, based on the contextualisation and theologising which has already been described. In the remainder of the chapter, conclusions from the second part of the research question concerning the Malaysian context are drawn out, based on the research outlined in Chapter 6. Finally, proposals for possible future research directions are described. The Use of Paul’s Ministry and Writings to Draw Out Principles of Leadership which are Applicable to the Twenty-First Century

It is not a simple task to apply the Pauline theological principles of leadership to new contexts.1 If this is attempted uncritically without really understanding the process which the early church followed, the resultant contextualisation is likely to be flawed. Furthermore, some scholars question whether cultures are directly comparable.2 Is it realistic to apply principles from a New Testament context to a Malaysian one, two thousand years later? However, Paul Hiebert remarks that, if different cultures are incommensurable, ‘there can be no real communication between Christians in different cultures, no comparison between their theologies, and no common foundations of faith’.3 Indeed, how can we even know that other 1

Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 6, n. 29; A Pauline Theology, 189. 2 Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, 43. 3 Hiebert, ‘Critical Contextualization’, 108.

210

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

conceptual schemes exist, if there is no commensurability and translatability?4 Although some things may be unique to one social location, many have sufficient overlap to be translated into different contexts – although painstaking research is needed to achieve this.5 In our study of the contextualisation of leadership in Paul’s ministry and writings, we have seen several points which should be borne in mind if we desire to draw out principles of church leadership from the New Testament: There is no single model of leadership which can be lifted out of Paul’s ministry and writings and applied today It is common for popular authors to seek biblical patterns which should be followed by the church today. However, the use of the word ‘biblical’ is problematic if it implies that Scripture gives a blueprint for church leadership structures analogous to the plans for the temple given in the Old Testament. Dean Flemming wisely remarks: ‘Any attempt to reduce the gospel to a set of prefabricated formulations that can be carried about and unpacked for all situations runs contrary to both the spirit of the New Testament and the nature of the Christian mission.’6 This is true not only of the gospel message, but also of its outworking in the structure and practices of the church. Although some scholars, following a more literalistic hermeneutic, argue that there is a single and normative model of leadership,7 this study has shown that even in the Pauline churches of the New Testament there are many different leadership titles and structures, and even a variety of leadership styles. These depend on the cultural context, as well as the given church’s size, maturity, needs and problems. For example, while the apostle Paul’s preference was, in general, to use a leadership style marked by gentle encouragement, in Galatia he was willing to take a very firm leadership stand when the truth of the gospel was at stake. It has also been observed that the early church used a multiplicity of terms to describe leaders, and there was a variety of leadership structures in which they ministered. Consequently, as has already been seen, it is not wise to transpose uncritically any particular Pauline church model to a totally different context today. On the contrary, a diversity of leadership patterns across the churches of the world is both permissible and even desirable. The variety of cultural contexts and social milieus, as well as the many stages of church growth require a multitude of 4

Donald Davidson, ‘On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme’, in Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 47 (1973-1974), 5-20, cited in Matthew Cook, ‘Contextual but Still Objective’, in Cook et al., Local Theology, 81. 5 Cook, ‘Contextual but Still Objective’, 82. 6 Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 296. 7 E.g. Miller, ‘The Uniqueness of New Testament Church Eldership’; Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, rev. edn (Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth, 1995).

The Stimulation of Contextualised Leadership Today

211

different leadership approaches and structures. Leadership must be marked by flexibility if it is to contribute to sound church development.8 When a church is planted in a new social or cultural context, research is needed to interpret the existing leadership understanding of that context: What leadership titles and structures are used? What are the qualifications for leadership? What styles of leadership are followed? Having evaluated these things under the leading of the Holy Spirit and in the light of the teaching of Scripture, it is likely that any leadership patterns which develop will vary from church to church. This process needs to be followed repeatedly as the church grows and as the context changes with time. Although there is no single leadership model which may be applied to all churches, there are some leadership attitudes which are universal. These have their origin in Christ’s example, and are shown throughout Paul’s ministry and teaching – such as a godly character, a humble serving heart, a willingness to be vulnerable and make sacrifices, and a desire to co-operate with others. Where these could be maintained, the Pauline churches gladly used existing leadership structures and models, and it is legitimate to do the same today. The cultural expression of these characteristics may vary, but their commonalities should be recognisable in churches in every context, and should help the church to show its close connection with the universal church, to grow healthily, and to have a missional impact. Where these leadership attitudes are not present – for example, in domineering leadership styles – the church is allowing the culture to squeeze it into its own mould, without engaging in appropriate contextualisation. Leadership models today must be based on the theology which underpins the patterns found in Paul’s ministry and writings It has been observed that in some cases the early church happily built on leadership models which were practised in the local context. Some of these are as follows (see pp. 148-49): • Accepting the need for leaders • Using existing leadership titles and patterns • Showing respect for the elderly • Building on household structures • Using commendations However, several ways in which Paul challenged existing leadership models in a counter-cultural way have also been identified in this study (see pp. 149-54): • Following God’s choice of leaders rather than favouring those honoured in the context • Emphasising leadership function rather than rank or status • Rejecting authoritarian, empire-building and priestly views of leadership 8

Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 300; Volf, After Our Likeness, 21.

212

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Promoting a leadership marked by service rather than patronage, and weakness and suffering rather than self-confidence and strength For example, in his letter to the Philippians, Paul accepted the need for leadership to be exercised, and was happy to use titles which would have been familiar in the society. However, by his example as a slave of Christ who did not stand on his own dignity (Phil. 1:1; 3:4-8), together with the supreme example of Jesus’ own incarnation (Phil. 2:5-8), Paul showed aspects of leadership which needed to be challenged in order to help the church leaders to move away from a Graeco-Roman honour-seeking model. Behind Paul’s critique is a theological understanding of leadership which influenced his contextualisation of leadership. In Chapter 5 of this book, it has been proposed that the theological principles at work in the early church include Christ’s unique position as ruler and mediator, his example of service and weakness, the sociality of the trinitarian God, and the truth of the gospel. In order to encourage appropriate contextualisation today, it is therefore necessary not only to see how the New Testament church contextualised leadership, but also to understand the theological process it followed (sometimes unconsciously) in doing this. This will show why some aspects of a given leadership culture are accepted and others are challenged. For example, we have observed that some leadership titles, especially those related to the word archōn, were avoided by the early church. However, if other titles happily used in the New Testament, such as elder or bishop, are lifted from the New Testament and used uncritically in today’s church (albeit translated into other languages), it is possible that in some contexts the titles’ significance may actually be very similar to that of the words which were studiously avoided in the early church. It is therefore vital to determine the theological reasons underpinning the contextualisation of leadership which took place in the Pauline churches of the New Testament. If the reason that the early church avoided certain titles and styles of leadership was because Christ is inimitable in his lordship, the church today must follow that same theological process of contextualisation to ensure that Christ’s position is not usurped. If this is not done, the whole theological purpose of contextualisation may be missed. What is required therefore is more than simply building on the local culture or even prophetically challenging it: it is necessary to engage in a process of theologising to discover why the early church acted as it did, and how the church today should reflect those same theological principles. For example, how should we respond to authoritarianism in the church today? Paul spoke against such leadership styles in the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 11:20), and this study has suggested that his understanding of Christ’s rulership led him to take this stance. However, it is not only necessary to examine the theological process which took place in the early church, it is also important to do the same in the church today. A kneejerk negative reaction to apparent authoritarianism observed in a church from a •

The Stimulation of Contextualised Leadership Today

213

Confucian background may well miss the mark. What is needed is to understand why leaders in the context both inside and outside the church behave as they do. The result of this theological analysis may well show that the leadership style which seems authoritarian to outsiders does not actually carry that same significance for those within the context. There may even be other theological processes at work which cause the leaders (and their followers) to behave in a particular way. Having identified these, the church needs to be encouraged to continue to theologise so that their leadership can become even better contextualised. Following the direction of contextualisation is a process which takes time Although the mission practitioner might desire to engage in a high-speed contextualisation which will revolutionise the church’s leadership practice overnight, that is not possible! As has been examined above, contextualisation is a theological process which leads the church in a transformative direction. It is important therefore that the church keeps moving without becoming stuck in a contextual rut. An examination of Paul’s ministry and writings has shown the directions in which leadership was contextualised in line with the theological principles which were identified in Chapter 5. The church today needs to seek to move in the same directions as it contextualises its leadership. The Corinthians were clearly attracted by the false apostles whose impressive leadership style followed a pattern which was familiar to them. Paul did not dictate to them whom they should appoint as leaders, but by means of careful teaching and his own personal example, he indicated which direction their contextualisation of leadership needed to take. In present-day contexts, the same process should be followed. It is likely that churches, and not only first-generation ones (!), will tend to appoint leaders who are similar to those valued in the culture. This is an excellent startingplace, and much better than imposing leadership patterns from an alien context. All church leadership should to some extent reflect the local context, but as we have seen, contextualisation also demands that leadership attitudes and practices begin to be challenged. Where these do not reflect Pauline theological principles, a process of teaching should be followed to help believers to see the need to be transformed in their thinking about leadership, and to encourage them to seek godly practices of leadership rather than favouring those that are honoured in the local context. The role of theological colleges is of vital importance to ensure ongoing and healthy contextualisation. However, when seeking to establish an appropriate model of leadership for churches today, it must be remembered that the process of contextualisation takes time. Churches should be encouraged to move in a direction which reflects Christian principles more and more. This is not something that happens instantly, and different churches may be at different

214

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

points on that trajectory. For example, in the Mongolian church which comes out of an egalitarian communist tradition, some of its Korean missionary pastors have been accused by their Mongolian co-workers of being over-authoritarian. However, in some cases these pastors have actually moved a long way from their Korean cultural norms and would indeed be considered to be very humble in that context. In other words, they are following the right direction of contextualisation, and should be commended for the way they have begun to challenge aspects of their own home culture which are not consistent with theological principles of leadership. The Mongolian church leaders have no need to be complacent, since they too need to keep contextualising their leadership style more and more, and there may be other aspects of leadership which require their attention. Just as the contextualisation of leadership in the New Testament followed a process in each church situation, so too today’s church must be prepared for a gradual change. Outsiders should be slow to criticise churches which are in this process of change, but that does not mean that there is no place for their input. The international and intercultural people of God need one another’s encouragement to ensure that they all continue to move along the path of contextualisation. A church newly planted in an animistic culture may need help to change their members’ perceptions of the pastor as a shaman; conversely, the long-established western church may need help with initiating re-contextualisation of leadership structures which may have been appropriate in former centuries, but which are no longer so. The Stimulation of Contextualised Leadership in TRAC Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia

What does it mean to be a leader in a church which is influenced by the Chinese-Malaysian context? David Pickard, after many years of service in East Asia, observes: ‘In Asian society, where deference is given to seniority and status, it is not difficult to see this translate uncritically into church life.’9 At the heart of this study is the desire to see uncritical translation replaced by a critical one which is in accord with the theological principles illustrated in the Pauline churches of the New Testament. This section summarises the ways in which the TRAC Methodist churches of Peninsular Malaysia reflect Pauline theological principles of leadership, and makes some suggestions as to how the churches might be stimulated to do this even more.

9 David Pickard, ‘The Servant of the Lord and Mission Leadership: Reflections from Isaiah 49:1-7’, in Tan, The Soul of Mission, 40.

The Stimulation of Contextualised Leadership Today

215

The churches’ reflection of Paul’s theological principles of leadership It has been observed that the Pauline churches both built on, and also prophetically challenged, the leadership models of the time. The examination of the TRAC Methodist churches may be more limited in this area since no attempt has been made to undertake an extensive analysis of Malaysian Chinese culture. However, in the study of leadership qualifications it seems likely that the churches have built on traditional Chinese culture in their respect for the elderly, reverence for those in leadership, and in the importance they place on both the pastors’ education and their good character shown by a proven track-record. Conversely, their rejection of any leadership which is determined by impressive appearance and status symbols, and their unwillingness to make wealth a requirement for lay leadership may well be a counter-cultural challenge. Further research is needed to confirm these indications. The main applied area of this study has been an examination of the ways in which the TRAC churches reflect Pauline theological principles of leadership. In evaluating the interviews with the district superintendents, it is encouraging to observe that the principles of leadership which the apostle Paul modelled and taught have been incarnated in the churches in many ways: i) One of the most strikingly counter-cultural emphases of Paul’s leadership which was demonstrated in his teaching and ministry was his conviction that leaders have no right to behave as dictatorial rulers. In Peninsular Malaysia, although TRAC pastors are held in respect by the church members, it appears that authoritarian and domineering leadership styles are not common, with no indication that ‘Little Napoleons’ are at all acceptable in the churches. On the contrary, there is more emphasis on the pastoral nature of leadership, which is perhaps the area in which pastors are most appreciated by their church members. ii) The apostle Paul followed Jesus’ example and teaching by demonstrating the importance of leaders serving their people. Although there are some members in the TRAC churches who do not fully understand what it means to be a servant leader, the perception of the TRAC district superintendents was that the pastors gladly serve those in their charge and unstintingly give time to be with them and to minister to their needs. This servant heart is also shown in their willingness to make practical sacrifices for the sake of their people. iii) It was suggested above that trinitarian theology may have influenced Paul in his leadership thinking. This is seen in his encouraging co-operative relationships in plural leadership structures, as well as in his recognition that hierarchy in leadership is not inconsistent with equality. There are several ways in which such trinitarian patterns are reflected in the leadership of TRAC churches, according to the observation of the DSes.

216

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

One of the most noticeable of these is the commitment of leaders to lead by consensus as they follow a thorough process of consultation when making major decisions. On the pastors’ side, this is backed up by sound accountability structures which are a challenge to Chinese culture, and may also be a reflection of the traditional Methodist emphasis of members ‘watching over one another in love’. A clear hierarchy is evident in the TRAC churches, including both the pastors and lay leaders. However, this does not limit lay involvement in ministry, and it appears that this hierarchy is largely functional rather than indicating an inherent difference in rank or status level. iv) We observed that Paul was strongest in the expression of his leadership authority, not when defending himself, but when the gospel was under threat. Our study suggests that the truth of the gospel was both the source of his authority, and also provided a limit to it. The perception of the DSes who were interviewed was that TRAC pastors rarely pull rank to defend their own position, but in reflection of the Pauline theological principles are willing to make a strong stand on behalf of doctrinal truth. However, the general theological orthodoxy of the churches means that it is rarely necessary to deal with attacks on the truth of the gospel. Some of the above characteristics may be a result of the influence of western culture and its model of church,10 as well as the Methodist heritage. However, even if this is true to some extent, the Methodist churches are to be complimented on their reflection of Pauline principles, even when these go against more traditional leadership patterns in the culture. Stimulating the churches to follow an even more contextualised leadership pattern Contextualisation includes building on aspects of the culture which are consistent with the truth of the gospel. Because the TRAC churches are part of the worldwide Methodist communion, they face some limitations in doing this. For example, the churches are not really able to make use of existing leadership structures and titles because these are largely prescribed by the Methodist Church. Titles such ‘Pastor’ and ‘Bishop’ are traditional English translations of New Testament Greek words and are used in line with the Church’s western heritage. Although it is commendable to show the Church’s close relationship with the Methodist communion and, indeed, with most English-speaking churches, such terms have not come from the local context. These words may be largely understandable in the Malaysian context, but they could also contribute to a certain foreignness for newcomers to the church. While some terms such as CEO may carry connotations which are not consistent with the Pauline leadership principles examined in this study, there may be other more generic terms used of 10

Hwa, Mangoes or Bananas, 87.

The Stimulation of Contextualised Leadership Today

217

leaders in the English-speaking Malaysian culture which could be used with benefit. An analysis of business and other organisations in society at large might generate some possible terms. It might also be helpful to have more flexibility in leadership patterns according to the composition and maturity of the church, e.g. building on household structures in the early stages of church planting, or having leadership structures appropriate to churches consisting primarily of young members. Moving away from traditional methods and patterns of leadership may not be comfortable, but contextualisation requires risktaking if it is to maintain its missional cutting-edge and contribute to the continual transformation of both church and the wider community. However, as has been seen above, in general, the TRAC churches do reflect the theological principles of Pauline leadership. In the light of this, it would be good to encourage them to ensure that contextualisation continues in right direction, and to give some attention to both building on, and challenging the culture in the following areas: i) While there is a place for good-quality academic preparation of church pastors, the emphasis on educational qualifications may tend to preclude some from becoming pastors who are not particularly academically gifted, but have spiritual gifts in practical and pastoral areas which could be of great use, especially in rural contexts.11 Given the Chinese respect for the scholar, it might be appropriate in this context not simply to lower the required educational qualifications, but rather to ensure that ministerial training is open to a range of academic abilities, with some programmes being more practical and applied to ministry.12 In the New Testament, both the highly academically trained Paul, and the unschooled Peter and John, were used in significant apostolic ministries. We need to ask whether opportunities are being lost by preventing Malaysian Peters and Johns from entering the pastoral ministry in the Methodist Church – a dilemma which faces many confessional denominations around the world. ii) For Paul, weakness was a mark of his apostleship, and he was not afraid to boast about his weaknesses, even when that resulted in him being ridiculed by his opponents. In the training of pastors, it is necessary to show them the radical nature of Christian leadership in all cultures, and to help them to see that they should not be reluctant to show their vulnerability. They need thoughtful training to discover appropriate ways of showing this in the Malaysian context. If weakness was Paul’s apostolic commendation, 11 Hwa Yung also suggests that ‘it is arguable that the influence of the Western seminary approach to training has led to an over-emphasis on the academic preparation of Asian church leadership at the expense of the moral and spiritual’ (Mangoes or Bananas, 87). 12 In the Union Bible Theological College in Mongolia, a recognition of this issue resulted in their setting up a very practical Bachelor of Ministry programme with less academic course requirements than the Bachelor of Theology.

218

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

should not all those who take on leadership roles in the church carry that same mark? As pastors acknowledge their weakness, God’s power will be more clearly revealed (2 Cor. 4:7; 12:9). iii) Paul’s reluctance to use cultic language to describe leadership roles stemmed from his belief that Christ has a unique mediating role between God and mankind. However, the DSes perceive that some of the more elderly members of the TRAC churches consider that the pastor does indeed have a priestly mediating role. This is seen in members who are in need of prayer preferring the pastor to attend them, rather than other members or even leaders of the church, other than pastors. Although this understanding is not uncommon in many parts of the world, it is of particular concern in the Malaysian context because of the theological understandings underpinning it, especially from the Taoist and Confucian background. Pastors do not have some inherent goodness, status or special anointing which gives them a mediating role. They need to be aware of the danger of church members putting them on a par with Christ or giving them an allegiance which belongs to Christ alone. The previous section on the leader’s weakness is also relevant, since pastors who are willing to show their vulnerability will point people to Christ as the one who may be relied upon totally. In order to show that no-one can replace Christ in his role as mediator, it is vitally important to give good teaching in the churches on this subject. iv) As has been seen above, the Methodist Church has many great strengths which are consistent with the Pauline theological principles that have been discussed. The checks and balances of the Methodist connectional system and its careful accountability structure ensure that pastors maintain a humble and godly character, and a servant heart. These also provide a means of dealing with leadership problems effectively when they arise. Any church which has been established by a foreign denomination faces the challenge of how much to accept denominational practices (if they have any choice in the matter), and to what extent they should seek to build on the practices and patterns existent in their own context. This is where the theological process is so important. The churches need to undertake careful research into the practices and understandings of leadership in the contemporary culture(s) to ensure that contextualisation continues in a way which is consistent with Pauline theological principles. Alongside this, the churches can continue to build on the traditional strengths of the Methodist denomination, as well as challenging those things which may be holding back effective contextualisation and mission. It is possible that such a process may show up some aspects of Methodist Church structures which are less appropriate to the context, and may even prevent the church from following Pauline principles in the Malaysian context.

The Stimulation of Contextualised Leadership Today

219

In conclusion, the TRAC churches have a very strong foundation on which to build up their ministry. They have shown a commendable adherence to Pauline theological principles of leadership and have built well on the Methodist Church practices which are consistent with these. Because contexts are constantly changing, there is a place for ongoing contextualisation, and the TRAC churches should be exhorted to continue in this process to ensure that they sustain their missional impact in Malaysia and beyond. Further Fruitful Areas for Research

The main focus of this book has been put on the identification of the theological principles which influenced the contextualisation of leadership in the ministry and teaching of the apostle Paul. Although the reflection of these theological principles in the Malaysian Methodist Church context has also been considered by means of interviews with TRAC Conference district superintendents, there is much scope for a more detailed examination of this context in further studies. The following are three areas in which research might prove to be fruitful: The contextualisation of leadership in the TRAC Conference This investigation has compared the leadership shown in Paul’s ministry and writings with the practices of leadership in the Graeco-Roman and Jewish contexts of the time in order to see how leadership was contextualised in the early church. It would be profitable to undertake a similar study in the Malaysian context. Some preliminary suggestions have been made in Chapter 6, but the Chinese-Malaysian culture of leadership could be examined in depth to see how the TRAC Methodist churches have both built on that culture and also challenged it. Research could be undertaken to discover the reasons for the churches’ contextualisation. It would also be interesting to compare leadership in the TRAC Conference with that of the Chinese Conference to try to identify cultural reasons for any differences. Quantitative research Given the multi-dimensional context of the Chinese-Malaysian churches (e.g. city/rural, language/dialect used at home and school), any conclusions which have been drawn out from the interviews with district superintendents in Chapter 6 are hypothetical.13 There would therefore be value for future studies to confirm and develop these conclusions by further 13

Geoff Payne and Malcolm Williams, ‘Generalization in Qualitative Research’, in Sociology, 39.2 (2005), 297; Malcolm Williams, Science and Social Science: An Introduction (London: Routledge, 2002), 68.

220

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

research of a more quantitative nature, perhaps by surveys of church leaders or members. The contextualisation of preaching In considering the practice of leadership in the TRAC churches, one important area which might warrant a separate study would be an examination of the contextualisation of pastors’ preaching, in both churchedifying and evangelistic contexts. It would be especially interesting to evaluate the understandability of the communication of the preaching following the principles of contextualisation discussed in chapter 1: the style of communication, the worldview engaged, and the vocabulary and imagery used. It would also be possible to see whether this preaching has involved risk-taking, and has both challenged the culture and been missionally effective. There is little doubt that leadership will continue to be a subject of debate and study in the worldwide church in the coming years. This study has shown the value of examining the way in which Paul and the Pauline churches contextualised leadership, not just for the sake of expanding our academic understanding, but also to help the church develop appropriately today. It is my hope that the church will give more and more attention to thoughtful contextualisation of leadership, and indeed of all aspects of its ministry, based on New Testament theological principles, so that it may be effectively incarnated in every culture.

Bibliography Aasgaard, Reidar. ‘My Beloved Brothers and Sisters’: Christian Siblingship in Paul. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Agosto, Efrain. ‘Response to James W. Thompson.’ Conversations in Religion and Theology 4.2 (2006), 149-54. ______ Servant Leadership: Jesus & Paul. St Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2005. Andaya, Barbara W. and Leonard Y. Andaya. A History of Malaysia. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1982. Ascough, Richard S. ‘Chaos Theory and Paul’s Organisational Leadership Style.’ Journal of Religious Leadership 1.2 (2002), 21-43. ______ ‘The Thessalonian Christian Community as a Professional Voluntary Association.’ Journal of Biblical Literature 119.2 (2000), 311-28. ______ What Are they Saying about the Formation of Pauline Churches? Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1998. Aune, David E. ‘The Influence of Roman Imperial Court Ceremonial on the Apocalypse of John.’ Biblical Research 28 (1983), 5-26. ______ ‘The Social Matrix of the Apocalypse of John.’ Biblical Research 26 (1981), 16-32. Bailey, Kenneth E. Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians. London: SPCK, 2011. Banks, Robert J. ‘Church Order and Government’. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel J. Reid (eds.). Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993, 131-37. ______ Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in the Historical Setting. Rev. edn. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. ______ Reenvisioning Theological Education: Exploring a Missional Alternative to Current Models. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Banks, Robert J. and Bernice M. Ledbetter. Reviewing Leadership: A Christian Evaluation of Current Approaches. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004. Barnett, James M. The Diaconate – A Dull and Equal Order: A Comprehensive and Critical Study of the Origin, Development, and Decline of the Diaconate in the Context of the Church’s Total Ministry and a Proposal for Renewal. New York: Seabury Press, 1981. Barnett, Paul. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. ______ The Message of 2 Corinthians: Power in Weakness. BST. Leicester: IVP, 1988. Barrett, C.K. Church, Ministry, and Sacraments in the New Testament. Exeter: Paternoster, 1985.

222

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

______ The Epistle to the Romans. London: A. & C. Black, 1962. ______ The First Epistle to the Corinthians. 2nd edn. BNTC. London: A. & C. Black, 1971. Bartchy, S. Scott. ‘Undermining Ancient Patriarchy: The Apostle Paul’s Vision of a Society of Siblings.’ Biblical Theology Bulletin 29 (1999), 68-78. Barth, Markus. Ephesians: Introduction, Translation and Commentary on Chapters 1-3. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974. Bartlett, David L. Ministry in the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001 [1993]. Bass, Bernard M. with Ruth Bass. The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. 4th edn. New York: Free Press, 2008. Bauckham, Richard. The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995. Bauer, Martin W. and George Gaskell (eds.). Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook. London: Sage, 2000. Bauer, Walter (rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edn. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 2000. Baxter, Pamela and Susan Jack. ‘Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers.’ The Qualitative Report 13.4 (2008), 544-59: www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf (accessed 20th February 2013). Beasley-Murray, George R. John. WBC 36. Dallas, TX: Word, 1987. Beasley-Murray, Paul (ed.). Anyone for Ordination? London: Monarch, 1993. Bekker, Corné. ‘The Philippians Hymn (2:5-11) as an Early Mimetic Christological Model of Christian Leadership in Roman Philippi.’ Servant Leadership Research Roundtable (August 2006): www.regent.edu/ acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2006/bekker.pdf (accessed 30th May 2010). Best, Ernest. A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. BNTC. London: A. & C. Black, 1972. ______ ‘Paul’s Apostolic Authority?’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 9.27 (1986), 3-25. ______ ‘Review of Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, by John Howard Schütz.’ Scottish Journal of Theology 30 (1977), 86-87. Bevans, Stephen B. Models of Contextual Theology. Rev. edn. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002. Bidwell, Kevin J. ‘The Church as the Image of the Trinity’: A Critical Evaluation of Miroslav Volf’s Ecclesial Model. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011. Bjork, David E. ‘Toward a Trinitarian Understanding of Mission in PostChristendom Lands.’ Missiology 27.2 (1999), 231-44. Black, David A. ‘The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in TextLinguistics.’ Novum Testamentum 38.1 (1995), 16-49.

Bibliography

223

Boakai, David O. ‘Patron-Client Relationships.’ Evangelical Missions Quarterly 32.3 (1996), 267-68. Boff, Leonardo. Trinity and Society. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005. Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991. Branick, Vincent P. The House Church in the Writings of Paul. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989. Brooks, Mark. ‘Is Your Church Weak and Poor?’ 2012: http://thecharisgroup.org/2010/04/05/is-your-church-weak-and-poor (accessed 22nd November 2012). Brown, Colin (ed.). NIDNTT. 3 vols. Exeter: Paternoster, 1975-78. Brown, Raymond E. The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. New York: Paulist Press, 1984. ______ The Semitic Background of the Term ‘Mystery’ in the New Testament. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1968. Bruce, F.F. ‘St Paul in Macedonia: 3. The Philippian Correspondence.’ Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 63 (1980-81), 260-84. ______ The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. 3rd edn. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. ______ The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1984. ______ The Spreading Flame: The Rise and Progress of Christianity from its First Beginnings to the Conversion of the English. London: Paternoster, 1958. Bultmann, Rudolf. Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting. London: Thames and Hudson, 1956. Burke, Trevor J. ‘Pauline Paternity in 1 Thessalonians.’ Tyndale Bulletin 51.1 (2000), 59-80. Burke, Trevor J. and Brian S. Rosner (eds.). Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology and Practice. Library of New Testament Studies 420. London: T. & T. Clark, 2011. Burtchaell, James T. From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. Caird, George B. (completed and ed. L.D. Hurst). New Testament Theology. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Campbell, R. Alastair. The Elders: Seniority Within Earliest Christianity. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Campenhausen, Hans von. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997 [1969]. ______ Tradition and Life in the Church: Essays and Lectures in Church History. London: Collins, 1968. Carson, Donald A. From Triumphalism to Maturity: A New Exposition of 2 Corinthians 10-13. Leicester: IVP, 1986.

224

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

______ (ed.). The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987. ______ The Cross and Christian Ministry: Leadership Lessons from 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003. Carson, Marion. ‘For Now We Live: A Study of Paul’s Pastoral Leadership in 1 Thessalonians.’ Themelios 30.3 (2005), 23-41. Castelli, E. Anne. Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1991. Castelli, E. Anne and Hal Taussig (eds.). Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996. Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies. Malaysia Chinese: An Inclusive Society. Kuala Lumpur: Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies, 2011. Chapple, A.L. ‘Local Leadership in the Pauline Churches: Theological and Social Factors in Its Development – A Study Based on 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians and Philippians.’ PhD thesis. University of Durham, 1984. EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=2&uin=uk.bl.ethos.349895 (accessed 29th March 2012). Charles, J. Daryl. ‘Engaging the (Neo)pagan Mind: Paul’s Encounter with Athenian Culture as a Model for Cultural Apologetics (Acts 17:16-34).’ Trinity Journal 16 (1995), 47-62. Cheng, B.S., I.P. Chou, T.Y. Wu, M.P. Huang and J.L. Farh. ‘Paternalistic Leadership and Subordinate Responses: Establishing a Leadership Model in Chinese Organizations.’ Asian Journal of Social Psychology 7 (2004), 89-117. Chhokar, Jagdeep S., Felix C. Brodbeck and Robert J. House (eds.). Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007. Chilton, Bruce and Jacob Neusner. Types of Authority in Formative Christianity and Judaism. London: Routledge, 1999. Ching, Julia. Confucianism and Christianity. Tokyo: Kodansha, 1977. Choong, Gary K.G. Counter-Cultural Paradigmatic Leadership: Ethical Use of Power in Confucian Societies. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011. Chow, John K. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 75. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Chua, How Chuang. ‘Hermeneutical Presuppositions in Contextualization: A Bibliographic Survey.’ Unpublished paper for OMF Mission Research Consultation, Singapore, 2007. ______ ‘Perichoresis and Missio Dei: Implications of a Trinitarian View of Personhood for Missionary Practice.’ MRT 7.2 (2012), 2-9. Chua, Wee Hian. Learning to Lead: Biblical Leadership Then and Now. Leicester: IVP, 1987. Clarke, Andrew D. A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership. Library of New Testament Studies 362. London: T. & T. Clark, 2008.

Bibliography

225

______ ‘“Be Imitators of me”: Paul’s Model of Leadership.’ Tyndale Bulletin 49 (1998), 329-60. ______ Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 1-6. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006. ______ Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Clinton, J. Robert. The Making of a Leader. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1988. Coffey, David. Deus Trinitas: The Doctrine of the Triune God. Oxford: OUP, 1999. Collins, John N. Deacons and the Church: Making Connections between Old and New. Leominster: Gracewing, 2002. ______ Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources. New York: OUP, 1990. Conn, Harvie M. Eternal Word and Changing Worlds: Theology, Anthropology, and Mission in Trialogue. Phillipsburg, NJ: R&R, 1984. Cook, Matthew, Rob Haskell, Ruth Julian and Natee Tanchanpongs (eds.). Local Theology for the Global Church: Principles for an Evangelical Approach to Contextualization. Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 2010. Copan, Victor A. Saint Paul as Spiritual Director: An Analysis of the Imitation of Paul with Implications and Applications to the Practice of Spiritual Direction. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975-79. Cushman, Jennifer W. and Wang Gungwu (eds.). Changing Identities of the Southeast Asian Chinese Since World War II. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1988. Daley, Brian E. ‘Position and Patronage in the Early Church: The Original Meaning of “Primacy of Honour”.’ Journal of Theological Studies 44.2 (1993), 529-53. Danker, Frederick W. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field. St Louis, MO: Clayton, 1982. Davis, John R. ‘Biblical Precedents for Contextualization.’ Asia Theological Association Journal 2.1 (1994), 10-35. Davis, Stephen T., Daniel Kendall and Gerald O’Collins (eds.). The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity. Oxford: OUP, 2001. Dawswell, Andrew. ‘A Biblical and Theological Basis for Collaborative Ministry and Leadership.’ Anvil 21.3 (2004), 165-78. Dean, Marcus W. ‘The Contextualization Debate: What About Leadership?’ Common Ground Journal 6.2 (2009), 38-46: www.commongroundjournal.org/volnum/v06n02.pdf (accessed 22nd May 2011). deSilva, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000. ______ The Hope of Glory: Honor Discourse and New Testament Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1999. DeWitt, Norman W. St Paul and Epicurus. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1954.

226

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Diamond, L. and M.F. Plattner (eds.). The Global Resurgence of Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Dibelius, Martin. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Heinrich Greeven (ed.). New York: Charles Scribner, 1956. Dibelius, Martin and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1972. Dollar, Harold E. A Biblical-Missiological Exploration of the Cross-Cultural Dimensions in Luke-Acts. San Francisco, CA: Mellen Research University Press, 1993. Doohan, Helen. Leadership in Paul. Good News Studies 11. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984. Doraisamy, Theodore R. Oldham – Called of God: Profile of a Pioneer: Bishop William Fitzjames Oldham. Singapore: Methodist Book Room, 1979. Dowsett, Rose (ed.). Global Mission: Reflections and Case Studies in Contextualization for the Whole Church. Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 2011. Dunn, James D.G. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997 [1975]. ______ Romans 1-8. WBC 38A. Dallas, TX: Word, 1988. ______ Romans 9-16. WBC 38B. Dallas, TX: Word, 1988. ______ The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. ______ Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. 3rd edn. London: SCM Press, 2006. Ehrensperger, Kathy. Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement. London: T. & T. Clark, 2009. Eilers, Claude. Roman Patrons of Greek Cities. Oxford: OUP, 2002. Elliott, John H. ‘Patronage and Clientism in Early Christian Society: A Short Reading Guide.’ Foundations & Facets Forum 3.4 (1987), 39-48. ______ ‘The Jesus Movement Was Not Egalitarian but Family-Oriented.’ Biblical Interpretation 11 (2003), 173-210. Ellis, E. Earl. ‘Paul and His Co-workers.’ New Testament Studies 17.4 (1970), 437-52. Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd edn. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013. Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27-16:20. WBC 34B. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001. Evans, Grant. Asia’s Cultural Mosaic: An Anthropological Introduction. Singapore: Prentice Hall, 1993. Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. NIBC 13. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988. ______ God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. ______ Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

Bibliography

227

______ The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. ______ The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987. Filson, Floyd V. A New Testament History. London: SCM Press, 1965. Fiorenza, Elisabeth S. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad, 1983. Fleming, Bruce C.E. Contextualization of Theology: An Evangelical Assessment. Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 1980. Flemming, Dean. Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission. Leicester: Apollos, 2005. ______ ‘Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens: Paul’s Areopagus Address as a Paradigm for Missionary Communication.’ Missiology 30 (2002), 199-214. ______ ‘The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy: A New Testament Exegetical and Theological Analysis.’ Asia Journal of Theology 8.2 (1994), 232-50. ______ ‘The Third Horizon: A Wesleyan Contribution to the Contextualization Debate.’ Wesleyan Theological Journal 30.2 (1995), 139-63. Flender, Helmut. St Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History. London: SPCK, 1967. Ford, Leighton. Transforming Leadership: Jesus’ Way of Creating Vision, Shaping Values and Empowering Change. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1991. Fox, Patricia A. God as Communion: John Zizioulas, Elizabeth Johnson and the Retrieval of the Symbol of the Trinity. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 2001. France, R.T. The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Leicester: IVP, 1985. Fredrickson, David E. ‘No Noose is Good News: Leadership as a Theological Problem in the Corinthian Correspondence.’ Word & World 16.4 (1996), 420-26. Friedrich, Gerhard (ed.) (trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley). TDNT. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967-74. Fung, Ronald Y.K. ‘Charismatic Versus Organized Ministry?: An Examination of an Alleged Antithesis.’ Evangelical Quarterly 52 (1980), 195-214. ______ The Epistle to the Galatians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Garland, David E. 2 Corinthians. NAC 29. Nashville, TN: B&H, 1999. Garnsey, Peter and Richard P. Saller. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society & Culture. London: Duckworth, 1987. Gehring, R.W. House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. George, Timothy. Galatians. NAC 30. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Georgi, Dieter. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Studies of the New Testament and its World. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987. Getz, Gane A. Elders and Leaders: God’s Plan for Leading the Church. Chicago, IL: Moody, 2003.

228

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Giles, Kevin. Patterns of Ministry among the First Christians. North Blackburn: CollinsDove, 1989. Gilliland, Dean S. (ed.). The Word Among Us: Contextualizing Theology for Today. Dallas, TX: Word, 1989. Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction, 1999. Gluckman, M. ‘Ethnographic Data in British Social Anthropology.’ Sociological Review 9 (1961), 5-17. Gomm, Roger, Martyn Hammersley and Peter Foster (eds.). Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key Texts. London: Sage, 2000. Gooder, Paula. ‘Diakonia in the New Testament: A Dialogue with John N. Collins.’ 2006: www.porvoochurches.org/interchange/consultation_ on_diaconate_London_2006.php (accessed 20th February 2012). Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Greenleaf, Robert K. (ed. Ann T. Fraker and Larry C. Spears). Seeker and Servant: Reflections on Religious Leadership. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass, 1996. ______ Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press, 1977. Grenz, Stanley J. Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004. Grieb, A. Katherine. ‘“The One who Called You…”: Vocation and Leadership in the Pauline Literature.’ Interpretation 59.2 (2005), 154-65. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14-28. WBC 33B. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1995. Haleblian, Krikor. ‘The Problem of Contextualization.’ Missiology 11.1 (1983), 95-111. Hanson, A.T. The Pastoral Epistles. NCB. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982. Harrill, J. Albert. Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006. Harris, Murray J. Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ. New Studies in Biblical Theology 8. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1999. Harvey, A.E. ‘Elders.’ Journal of Theological Studies 15.2 (1974), 318-32. Hawthorne, Gerald F. Philippians. WBC 43. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1983. Hellerman, Joseph H. Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 132. Cambridge: CUP, 2005. ______ The Ancient Church as Family. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001. ______ ‘The Humiliation of Christ in the Social World of Roman Philippi, Part 1.’ Bibliotheca Sacra 160.639 (2003), 321-36. ______ ‘The Humiliation of Christ in the Social World of Roman Philippi, Part 2.’ Bibliotheca Sacra 160.640 (2003), 421-33. Hennink, Monique, Inge Hutter and Ajay Bailey. Qualitative Research Methods. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2011.

Bibliography

229

Herron, Alan C. ‘A History of the Protestant Christian Churches in West Malaysia and Singapore.’ PhD thesis. Dunedin: University of Otago, 1977. Hesselgrave, David J. Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally: An Introduction to Missionary Communication. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978. Hesselgrave, David J. (ed.) Theology and Mission: Papers and Responses Prepared for the Consultation on Theology and Mission, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, School of World Mission and Evangelism, March 22-25, 1976. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978. Hesselgrave, David J. and Edward Rommen. Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models. Leicester: Apollos, 1989. Hiebert, Paul G. Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994. ______ ‘Critical Contextualization.’ International Bulletin of Missionary Research 11.3 (1987), 104-12. ______ ‘The Flaw of the Excluded Middle.’ Missiology 10.1 (1982), 35-47. Hiigel, John L. Leadership in 1 Corinthians: A Case Study in Paul’s Ecclesiology. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 57. Lampeter: Edwin Mellen, 2003. Hock, Ronald F. The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1980. Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede and Michael Minkov. Cultures and Organizations: Software for the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Holmberg, Bengt. Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004 [1978]. Holum, Kenneth G. and Avner Raban (eds.). Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Hooker, Virginia Matheson. A Short History of Malaysia: Linking East and West. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2003. Horrell, David. ‘Leadership Patterns and the Development of Ideology in Early Christianity.’ Sociology of Religion 58.4 (1997), 323-41. Horsley, Richard A. (ed.). Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997. ______ (ed.). Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2004. House, Robert J., Paul J. Hanges, Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman and Vipin Gupta (eds.). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004. Howell, Don N., Jr. Servants of the Servant: A Biblical Theology of Leadership. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Hughes, Philip E. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.

230

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Hunt, Robert, Lee K.H. and John Roxborough (eds.). Christianity in Malaysia: A Denominational History. Petaling Jaya: Pelanduk, 1992. Hutchison, John C. ‘Servanthood: Jesus’ Counter-Cultural Call to Christian Leaders.’ Bibliotheca Sacra 166.661 (2009), 53-69. Hwa Yung. ‘Contextualising the Church: Inculcating Holiness and Enhancing Discipleship in the Asian Church.’ Unpublished paper for OMF Mission Research Consultation, Singapore, 2013. ______ Mangoes or Bananas: The Quest for an Authentic Asian Christian Theology. Oxford: Regnum, 1997. ______ ‘Transforming the Mind and Heart.’ Asian Beacon (April-May 2011), 24-26. Imamura, Yuzo. ‘Contextualising the Church: A Case Study from Cambodia, with Special Reference to the Context of the Hierarchical Society.’ Unpublished paper for OMF Mission Research Consultation, Singapore, 2013. Jeffers, James S. Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007. Johnson, Earl D. Leadership in the New Testament Church. Bakersfield, CA: Pneuma Life, 1994. Johnson, Luke T. The Acts of the Apostles. Sacra Pagina 5. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992. ______ The Gospel of Luke. Sacra Pagina 3. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991. Johnston, Robert M. ‘Leadership in the Early Church During Its First Hundred Years.’ Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 17.2 (2006), 2-17. Jowers, Dennis W. ‘The Theology of the Cross as Theology of the Trinity: A Critique of Jürgen Moltmann’s Staurocentric Trinitarianism.’ Tyndale Bulletin 52.2 (2001), 245-66. Judge, Edwin A. (ed. David M. Scholer). Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E.A. Judge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008 [1960-92]. ______ ‘The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community.’ Journal of Religious History 1.1 (1960), 4-15; 1.3 (1960), 125-37. Kamar, Ahmad. Malay and Indonesian Leadership in Perspective. Petaling Jaya: Ahmad Kamar, 1984. Kanagaraj, Jey J. ‘Johannine Jesus, the Supreme Example of Leadership: An Inquiry into John 13:1-20.’ Themelios 29.3 (2004), 15-26. Käsemann, Ernst. Essays on New Testament Themes. London: SCM Press, 1964. Kelly, J.N.D. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: Timothy I & II, and Titus. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1960. Kilby, Karen. ‘Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity.’ New Blackfriars 81.956 (2000), 432-45. Kittel, Gerhard (ed.) (trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley). TDNT. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-67.

Bibliography

231

Kittredge, Cynthia B. Community and Authority: The Rhetoric of Obedience in the Pauline Tradition. Harvard Theological Studies 45. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998. Kleinig, John. ‘The Ordination of Women and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.’ Lutheran Theological Review 10 (1997-98), 48-56. Kloppenborg, John S. and Stephen G. Wilson (eds.). Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. London: Routledge, 1996. Knight, George W. III. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992. Koenig, John. ‘Hierarchy Transfigured: Perspectives on Leadership in the New Testament.’ Word & World 13.1 (1993), 26-33. Kraft, Charles H. (ed.), Appropriate Christianity. Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 2005. ______ Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979. Kraftchick, Steven J. ‘A Necessary Detour: Paul’s Metaphorical Understanding of the Philippian Hymn.’ Horizons in Biblical Theology 15 (1993), 1-37. LaCugna, Catherine M. God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991. LaCugna, Catherine M. and Killan McDonnell. ‘Returning from “The Far Country”: Theses for a Contemporary Trinitarian Theology.’ Scottish Journal of Theology 41.2 (1988), 191-215. Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. NICNT. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974. Larkin, William J., Jr. Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics: Interpreting and Applying the Authoritative Word in a Relativistic Age. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988. ______ ‘Review of Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission, by Dean Flemming.’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49.4 (2006), 862-65. Law, Daniel. ‘Thoughts on Authority and Leadership in the Chinese Church.’ 2012: http://nextgenerasianchurch.com/2012/04/12/thoughts-on-authorityand-leadership-in-the-chinese-church (accessed 22nd November 2012). Lea, Thomas D. and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. NAC 34. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1992. Lendon, J.E. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. Li, J.T., Anne S. Tsui and Elizabeth Weldon (eds.). Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000. Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. WBC 42. Dallas, TX: Word, 1990. Lingenfelter, Sherwood G. Transforming Culture: A Challenge for Christian Mission. 2nd edn. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.

232

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Lull, Timothy F. ‘The Trinity in Recent Theological Literature.’ Word & World 2.1 (1982), 61-68. MacDonald, Margaret Y. The Pauline Churches: A Socio-Historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings. Cambridge: CUP, 1988. Mack, Burton L. Rhetoric and the New Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990. Mackey, James P. Power and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: CUP, 2005. MacLeod, David J. ‘Imitating the Incarnation of Christ: An Exposition of Philippians 2:5-8.’ Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001), 308-30. MacMullen, Ramsay. Roman Social Relations: 50 BC to AD 284. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974. Marshall, Peter. Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians. Tübingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987. Martin, Dale B. Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990. Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. WBC 40. Waco, TX: Word, 1986. ______ Carmen Christi: Philippians ii:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship. Rev. edn. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983 [1967]. Mattern, Susan P. Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. McDougall, Joy A. Pilgrimage of Love: Moltmann on the Trinity and Christian Life. Oxford: OUP, 2005. ______ ‘The Return of Trinitarian Praxis? Moltmann on the Trinity and the Christian Life.’ Journal of Religion 83.2 (2003), 177-203. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983. Methodist Church in Malaysia. ‘How Methodism Came to Singapore and Malaysia.’ 2013: www.methodistchurch.org.my (accessed 25th January 2013). ______ ‘The Methodist Church in Malaysia.’ 2013: www.methodistchurch.org.my (accessed 25th January 2013). Methodist Church in Malaysia (eds Hwa Yung, Gopal Sundaram, Cheong Seng Gee, Wong Tik Wah, Hii Ching Chiong, Samuel Ong Boon Leng and Ling Tung Kiing et al.). The Book of Discipline of the Methodist Church in Malaysia 2012. Petaling Jaya: The Methodist Church in Malaysia, 2012. Miller, David W. ‘The Uniqueness of New Testament Church Eldership.’ Grace Theological Journal 6.2 (1985), 315-27. Mobley, William H., M. Jocelyne Gessner and Val Arnold (eds.). Advances in Global Leadership. Vol. 1. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 1999. Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation. The Gifford Lectures 1984-85. London: SCM Press, 1985. ______ History and the Triune God: Contributions to Trinitarian Theology. London: SCM Press, 1991.

Bibliography

233

______ Trinity and the Kingdom of God: The Doctrine of God. London: SCM Press, 1981. Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Moore, Charles A. (ed., assisted by Aldyth V. Morris). The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Cultures. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1968. Moreau, A. Scott. ‘Syncretism.’ Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. A. Scott Moreau (ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000, 924-25. Morris, Leon. Ministers of God. London: IVP, 1964. Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. WBC 46. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000. Muller, Alois (ed.). Democratization in the Church. New York: Herder & Herder, 1971. Nebeker, Gary (ed. Greg Herrick). ‘“Who Packed Your Bags?”: Factors that Influence our Preunderstandings.’ 2002: www.bible.org/assets /worddocs/herrick_preunderstanding.zip (accessed 15th November 2010). Neusner, Jacob, Peder Borgen, E.S. Frerichs and Richard A. Horsley (eds.). The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988. Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. London: SPCK, 1989. Nicholls, Bruce J. Contextualization: A Theology of Gospel and Culture. Vancouver: Regent College, 2003 [1979]. Nolland, John. Luke 18:35-24:53. WBC 35C. Dallas, TX: Word, 1993. Nouwen, Henri J.M. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New York: Crossroad, 1989. O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians, Philemon. WBC 44. Waco, TX: Word, 1982. ______ The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. ______ The Letter to the Ephesians. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Olley, John W. ‘Leadership: Some Biblical Perspectives.’ South East Asia Journal of Theology 18.1 (1977), 1-20. Ooi, Jin-Bee. Land, People, and Economy in Malaya. London: Longmans, 1963. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. Payne, Geoff and Malcolm Williams. ‘Generalization in Qualitative Research.’ Sociology 39.2 (2005), 295-314. Pedersen, Sigfred (ed.). Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie. Århus: Aros, 1980. Perkins, Pheme. Ministering in the Pauline Churches. New York: Paulist Press, 1982. ______ ‘Paul, Peter and the Shape of Early Christian Leadership.’ New Catholic World 223.1337 (1980), 213-16.

234

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Peters, Ted. God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in the Divine Life. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993. Peterson, David G. The Acts of the Apostles. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Plueddemann, James E. Leading Across Cultures: Effective Ministry and Mission in the Global Church. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009. Polaski, Sandra H. Paul and the Discourse of Power. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. The Work of the Holy Spirit. Report of the Special Committee on the Work of the Holy Spirit to the 182nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Philadelphia, PA: Office of the General Assembly, 1970. Price, Anthony. ‘Is there a Hierarchy in the Immanent Trinity?’ 1999: www.newcreationlibrary.net/studies/pdf/hierarchy.pdf (accessed 18th December 2012). Purcell, Victor. The Chinese in Malaya. Oxford: OUP, 1967. Pye, Lucian W. with Mary W. Pye. Asian Power and Politics: The Cultural Dimensions of Authority. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985. Quinn, Jerome D. and William C. Wacker. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Richards, Lawrence O. and Clyde Hoeldtke. A Theology of Church Leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980. Rodan, Garry. Transparency and Authoritarian Rule in Southeast Asia: Singapore and Malaysia. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004. Roetzel, Calvin J. The World that Shaped the New Testament. Rev. edn. Louisville, KY: Westminster, 2002. Rohrbaugh, Richard L. (ed.) The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Russell, Robert. ‘A Practical Theology of Servant Leadership.’ Servant Leadership Research Roundtable (August 2003): www.regent.edu/acad/ global/publications/sl_proceedings/2003/russell_practical_theology.pdf (accessed 12th July 2010). Ryan, N.J. The Cultural Heritage of Malaya. 2nd edn. Kuala Lumpur: Longman, 1971. Saldana, Johnny. Fundamentals of Qualitative Research: Understanding Qualitative Research. New York: OUP, 2011. Saller, Richard P. Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire. Cambridge: CUP, 1982. Sampley, J. Paul (ed.). Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003. Sandnes, Karl O. A New Family: Conversion and Ecclesiology in the Early Church with Cross-Cultural Comparisons. Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity 91. Bern: Peter Lang, 1994. Savage, Timothy B. Power Through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 86. Cambridge: CUP, 1996.

Bibliography

235

Schillebeeckx, Edward. The Church with a Human Face: A New and Expanded Theology of Ministry. London: SCM Press, 1985. Schreiter, Robert J. Constructing Local Theologies. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1985. Schürer, Emil (rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black). The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BCAD 135). Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979. Schütz, John H. Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2007 [1975]. Schweizer, Eduard. Church Order in the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Theology 32. London: SCM Press, 1961. Schwöbel, Christoph and Colin E. Gunton (eds.). Persons, Divine and Human: King’s College Essays in Theological Anthropology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. Shaw, Graham. The Cost of Authority: Manipulation and Freedom in the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1983. Sheh, Seow Wah. Chinese Leadership: Moving from Classical to Contemporary. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish, 2009. Shelton, James B. ‘Epistemology and Authority in the Acts of the Apostles: An Analysis and Test Case Study of Acts 15:1-29.’ Spirit & Church 2.2 (2000), 231-47. Shenk, Wilbert R. Changing Frontiers of Mission. American Society of Missiology Series 28. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1999. Shome, Anthony S.K. Malay Political Leadership. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002. Sim, Rita Sai Hoon. Unmistakably Chinese, Genuinely Malaysian. Kuala Lumpur: The Centre for Strategic Engagement, 2011. Sire, James W. Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004. Small, Mario Luis. ‘‘How Many Cases do I Need?’ On Science and the Logic of Case Selection in Field-Based Research.’ Ethnography 10.1 (2009), 5-38. Stackhouse, Max. Apologia: Contextualization, Globalization, and Mission in Theological Education. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Stagg, Frank. ‘The Mind of Christ Jesus: Philippians 1:27-2:18.’ Review and Expositor 77.3 (1980), 337-47. Stake, Robert E. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995. Stott, John R.W. Calling Christian Leaders: Biblical Models of Church, Gospel and Ministry. Nottingham: IVP, 2002. ______ God’s New Society: The Message of Ephesians. BST. Leicester: IVP, 1979. ______ The Message of 1 Timothy and Titus: The Life of the Local Church. BST. Leicester: IVP, 1996. ______ The Message of Acts: To the Ends of the Earth. BST. Leicester: IVP, 1990.

236

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

______ The Message of Galatians. BST. Leicester: IVP, 1968. ______ The Message of Thessalonians: Preparing for the Coming King. BST. Leicester: IVP, 1991. Stowers, Stanley K. ‘Social Status, Public speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity.’ Novum Testamentum 26.1 (1984), 59-82. Strauch, Alexander. Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership. Rev. edn. Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth, 1995. Sullivan, Francis A. From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church. Mahwah, NJ: Newman, 2001. Sumney, Jerry L. ‘New Testament Perspectives on Ministry.’ Lexington Theological Quarterly 37.1-2 (2002), 27-41. Tan, Chee-Beng. Chinese Overseas: Comparative Cultural Issues. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2004. ______ ‘Chinese Religion in Malaysia: A General View.’ Asian Folklore Studies 42 (1983), 217-52. Tan Kang San (ed.). The Soul of Mission: Perspectives on Christian Leadership, Spirituality and Mission in East Asia: Essays in Appreciation of Dr David Gunaratnam. Petaling Jaya: SUFES, 2007. Tannehill, Robert C. Luke. ANTC. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996. ______ The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Vol. 1: The Gospel According to Luke. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986. ______ The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Vol. 2: The Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990. Taylor, Stephen C.R. ‘Patron-Client Relationships: A Challenge for the Thai Church.’ MRT 3.1 (2007), 16-21. ______ ‘Patron-Client Relationships and the Challenge for the Thai Church.’ Master of Christian Studies thesis. DTC, Singapore, 1997. Taylor, William D. (ed.). Global Missiology for the 21st Century: The Iguassu Dialogue. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000. Theissen, Gerd. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1978. ______ (ed. and trans. by John H. Schütz). The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Thompson, James W. ‘Review of Servant Leadership: Jesus and Paul, by Efrain Agosto.’ Conversations in Religion and Theology 4.2 (2006), 143-49. Tiede, David L. ‘The Kings of the Gentiles and the Leader Who Serves: Luke 22:24-30.’ Word & World 12.1 (1992), 23-28. Trebilco, Paul. ‘Paul, Gospel, Culture, and the Public Sphere: Perspectives from the New Testament.’ Evangel 24.2 (2006), 37-45. Trinity Annual Conference of the Methodist Church in Malaysia. ‘About the Trinity Annual Conference (TRAC).’ 2013: www.trac.org.my/ index.cfm?&menuid=2 (accessed 25th January 2013).

Bibliography

237

Tu Wei-ming (ed.). Confucian Traditions in East Asian Modernity: Moral Education and Economic Culture in Japan and the Four Mini-Dragons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996. Turnbull, C. Mary. A History of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1989. Verbrugge, Verlyn D. Paul’s Style of Church Leadership Illustrated by his Instructions to the Corinthians on the Collection: To Command or not to Command. San Francisco, CA: Mellen Research University Press, 1992. Verner, David C. The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 71. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Walls, Andrew F. The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996. Walton, Steve. Leadership and Lifestyle: The Portrait of Paul in the Miletus Speech and 1 Thessalonians. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 108; Cambridge: CUP, 2000. Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. Weber, Max (eds Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. 3 vols. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1968. Weiss, Meredith L. and Saliha Hassan (eds.). Social Movements in Malaysia: From Moral Communities to NGOs. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002. Westfall, David. ‘Review of The Trinity and the Kingdom, by Jürgen Moltmann.’ 2012: www.goodreads.com/review/show/297075269 (accessed 18th December 2012). Westwood, Robert I. ‘Harmony and Patriarchy: The Cultural Basis for “Paternalistic Headship” Among Overseas Chinese.’ Organization Studies 18.3 (1997), 445-80. ______ (ed.). Organisational Behaviour: Southeast Asian Perspectives. Hong Kong: Longman, 1992. Wiarda, Timothy. ‘The Jerusalem Council and the Theological Task.’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46.2 (2003), 233-48. Williams, Malcolm. Science and Social Science: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 2002. Williams, Ritva H. Stewards, Prophets, Keepers of the Word: Leadership in the Early Church. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006. Witherington, Ben, III. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. ______ The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Wortham, Robert A. ‘Christology a Community Identity in the Philippians Hymn: The Philippians Hymn as Social Drama (Philippians 2:5-11).’ Perspectives in Religious Studies 23.3 (1996), 269-87.

238

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

Wright, Christopher J.H. ‘The Christian and Other Religions: The Biblical Evidence.’ Themelios 9.2 (1984), 4-15. ______ The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Nottingham: IVP, 2006. Wright, Walter C. Relational Leadership: A Biblical Model for Influence and Service. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000. Yeo, Khiok-khng. What has Jerusalem to do with Beijing? Biblical Interpretation from a Chinese Perspective. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998. Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Rev. edn. Applied Social Research Methods Series 5. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989. Yoder, John H. The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972. Zhang, Yumei. Pacific Asia: The Politics of Development. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003. Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985. ______ (ed. Paul McPartlan). Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church. London: T. & T. Clark, 2006. ______ ‘The Church as Communion.’ St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994), 3-16.

Appendix: Interview Question Template

1. In your experience, when churches are looking to appoint a church minister, what are the main qualifications they look for? 2. To what extent do church members perceive the minister to be the absolute ruler of the church? If to some extent, in what ways? 3. From your experience and observations, to what extent do church members see their minister in the role of a priest who mediates between them and God? Can you give any examples? 4. To what extent do church members view their ministers as servants? To what extent do your ministerial colleagues view themselves likewise? 5. How important is it for you and your ministerial colleagues to lead your church by consensus (with their fellow leaders as well as the congregations as a whole)? 6. Let’s think about the relationships between the leaders in a given local church – both clergy and lay. In local churches you have observed, is there a clear hierarchy or pecking order between the leaders, whether clergy or lay? If so, how is this shown? 7. In churches you have observed, what issues make ministers exhibit very strong authority? Some of the following secondary questions were also included as appropriate: 1. The leader’s qualifications: a) What character qualities do church members perceive as important for ministers? b) To what extent do church members look for God’s anointing when appointing ministers? c) How important are educational qualifications in ministerial appointments? d) How do the educational qualifications of ministers affect how they are treated by their people? e) How does the age of ministers affect the respect they receive from their members? Do you see this changing in the coming years? f) How do ministers’ impressive appearance or eloquence affect their likelihood of being appointed to a ministerial position?

240

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul

g) To what extent is wealth a factor in the choice of church lay leaders? 2. Authoritarian rule: a) How common is it to see ministers lording it over their congregations? Can you give an example? Is this a growing problem or one which is becoming less common? b) In what ways have you observed church members putting their minister on a pedestal? c) To what extent do ministers expect their congregations to give them honour and respect? d) What general role-title for the leader of a church do you consider to be most suitable in your context, and why do you think so? e.g. minister, pastor, CEO, other. e) How do ministers’ titles affect how they are treated? e.g. Rev., Dr, etc. f) Are these titles understood outside the church? 3. Mediation between church members and God: a) Are there any reasons from your cultural background why this happens? b) How common is it for ministers to have a personal following, and how is this shown and in what situations? c) To what extent do church members think that the minister’s prayers are more efficacious than their own? In what situations does this occur? Why? 4. Servant of all: a) How do you think that ministers should practically serve their people? b) How do church members view ministers who ‘serve’ them by helping them with mundane tasks? e.g. cleaning, serving food, washing dishes, etc. c) In your opinion, to what extent is it important for church ministers to be seen by their members to be powerful and strong leaders? d) How do church members view ministers who share their own personal weaknesses, e.g. when preaching? Why? e) What sacrifices do you think that ministers should make in caring for their congregation? 5. Plurality and co-operation: a) In churches you have observed, how are important decisions usually made? What consultation process is followed, if any? b) Have you seen any examples of team leadership in Malaysian churches. How do they work? c) Do you think that it is best to have one supreme leader in a church? Give reasons.

Appendix

241

6. Hierarchy with equality: a) To what extent are church ministers treated with filial piety by their members as if they were the head of a household? b) How common is it for church members to become dependent on their ministers? Give examples. c) To what extent do church members feel they have to repay their ministers? If so, what sort of repayment would this entail? d) Have you seen examples of a church in which the members of the leadership team are considered to be equal in status, but with one of them viewed as a leader of leaders? How do the dynamics work? e) To whom are church ministers accountable? How is this accountability seen in practice? f) In churches you have observed, what differences in visible status are there between various levels of leadership whether clergy or lay, e.g. size of office, car, salary, etc.? Why is this important? How do you see this changing in the future? g) Can you give any examples of ways in which ministers you know think they are superior to their people? 7. The leader’s authority under attack: a) How common is it for people to question the church minister’s authority? Or is this completely unacceptable? b) Can you give any examples of ministers standing up strongly for the truth of the gospel when it has been under attack within the church? c) How common is it for ministers you have known to be authoritarian (pull rank) to defend their own position?

The Contextualisation of Leadership in Paul Applied to English-Speaking Methodist Churches in Peninsular Malaysia Leadership and its exercise in different cultures is a major issue in today’s church. To what extent is it legitimate to use the leadership patterns of the local context and can these be challenged? This book examines Paul's ministry and writings to see how the early church contextualised leadership and to identify some of the theological principles which influenced the process. The outworking of these in the leadership of the English-speaking Methodist churches in Peninsular Malaysia is examined. Roger Senior's lucid and rigorous examination of the biblical evidence confirms that though there is no single New Testament blueprint for structures of church governance, there is a consistent emphasis on the need for all patterns of Christian leadership to reflect the servant mind of Christ. Hence, whilst there is ample scope for contextualising models of leadership to suit particular cultural contexts, no style of leadership that exalts its own authority can claim to be authentically Christian. This book will be of wide interest - well beyond the Malaysian context in which its arguments are set. Brian Stanley, Professor of World Christianity, University of Edinburgh, UK Leadership, especially Christian leadership, is a subject that needs clear, biblical, theological and contextual thinking.There is no ‘one size fits all’ model of leadership that will work in every context. Roger’s effort in working out the Apostle Paul’s leadership principles in Malaysia with its multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious contexts, is commendable. As a Malaysian, it is my prayer that Roger’s book will also serve as a stimulating catalyst towards more research and critical thinking on issues faced by the church in Malaysia. Rev Dr Tony Lim,Vice Principal & Dean of the English Department, Malaysia Bible Seminary This book offers fresh perspectives on leadership in the NewTestament by using Flemming's model of contextual theology as a lens. The strong biblical and theological analysis runs throughout the book which challenges both ancient and modern tendencies to take secular approaches to leadership and simply apply them to the church. The final section about Malaysia shows careful appreciation of contemporary contextual approaches to leadership and encourages the reader to assess the findings and contextualize them to their own contexts. Readers will find their understanding of the nature of contextual leadership both deepened and challenged by this study. Rev Dr Warren Beattie, M.A. Programme Leader, All Nations Christian College, UK Roger Senior worked in East Asia with OMF International for over thirty years in the training of pastors and seminary students in Korea, Mongolia, Malaysia and Singapore. He is the former principal of the Union Bible Theological College in Mongolia, and has served on the faculty of Malaysia Bible Seminary and All Nations Christian College in the UK.

regnum

www.ocms.ac.uk/regnum