1 Clement and Sect Development
The Social Setting of the Ministry who then began to hold their own celebrations. As stated above, this is a tentative claim. Still, this setting allows one to place the importance on Clement's references to hospitality which Chadwick has pointed out, but without having to appeal to a pre-history of inhospitality with respect to visitors, for which there is no evidence in the text. It also explains why the division involved only a section of the presbyter-bishops (44:6), for not all the house churches were directly involved in the schism.
1 Clement and Sect Development We have suggested that a conflict between house churches is a plausible setting for the Corinthian dispute. We now turn to an analysis of institutional development in this community. Î Clement has often been placed in a schema of ideological or theological development in the early church. But we hope to show that while it is true that there is evidence of development in the Corinthian church, to analyse it strictly as the outcome of the application of theological ideas is misleading. We shall attempt to show in this section that the housechurch setting of the early church provides some important clues concerning sources of institutional development in the Corinthian church. It will be shown further how analysis of contemporary sect development focuses our attention on some of the social forces (overlooked by scholars using other methodologies to assess development in the Corinthian community) which may have been at work in the formation of its leadership institutions.
Some Previous Attempts to Account for Development in the Corinthian Church Since the appearance of Rudolph Sohm's monumental Kirchenrecht, first published in 1892, many scholars have argued that Clement's epistle to the Corinthians represents in differing degrees a departure from the theology of Paul and is evidence of a new stage of theological development in early Christian thought.43 Sohm argued that î Clement represents a shift from a purely charismatic church order typical of the ancient church and, as a result of the Corinthian dispute over the leadership of the community, the introduction of a legal organization to the church.44 Clement's letter brought the charismatic structure of the primitive church, which rested solely on the election of God, to an end.
Through Clement's argument, as interpreted by Sohm, that a bishop's installation bestowed on him a lasting right to exercise the functions of his office, the Holy Spirit was bound to legal forms. Clement's epistle gave birth to Catholicism, where the presence of the Holy Spirit is guaranteed to every individual church only by means of fixed forms which it is bound to adopt45
It is not necessary here to chronicle the famous debate between Harnack and Sohm. 4 6 But while Harnack disagreed with Sohm's analysis that spirit and law were mutually exclusive phenomena in the early church, he went some way towards agreeing with Sohm that 1 Clement represents a theological shift from a genuinely Pauline theology of church order toward a Catholic one.47 According to Harnack it was under Tertullian that Catholicism entered the church. But 1
Clement is evidence that developments in that direction were taking place a cen-
ί Clement
tury earlier. Clement's letter was a fateful first step from a "pneumatic democracy"48 (the universal "ecclesia" with its charismatic organization present in the local community and characteristic of the ancient church) toward the later
"Rechtskirche" (an organization based upon permanent and legally binding institutions). 1 Clement struck a first blow against the church's pneumatic democracy from which it was never to recover.49
The interpretations of Sohm and Harnack concerning ί Clement continued to be echoed in subsequent scholarship. Thus Gerke, a proponent of Harnack's position, argued that while it cannot be stated that Clement replaced Paul's concept of the church as a body (Somasinn) with a legal understanding (Reeftfcinn),50 it is none the less the case that the writing represents an "allmähliche
Umwandlung der Demokratie in eine oligarchische Aristokratie von Amtsträgern."51 But if Harnack had his disciples, so too, if qualifiedly, did
Sohm. Hence Bultmann, while critical of Sohm in certain respects,52 agreed that Clement's letter represents a decisive step toward a legal conception of the church.53 And î Clement, together with the Shepherd, the Pastoral Epistles, and Ignatius' letters, represents "ultimately a transformation in the Church's understanding of itself."54 The church's self-conception as the eschatalogical people of God, alien to the world and living in anticipation of the imminent eschaton, became transformed as time passed into ua new religion"55 among imperial religions as a result of waning eschatalogical expectation and an increasing emphasis on sacraments.56
Bultmann's analysis has been taken up in the work of Käsemann, who, if differing from Sohm in details, agrees that ί Clement is indicative of "early Catholicism," "that transition from earliest Christianity to the so-called ancient
Church, which is completed with the disappearance of the imminent expectation."57 This first appears in Luke, the first writer to propagate theories of tradition and legitimate succession.58
But the differentiation between officials and laity which is present in 1 Clement and the lgnatian correspondence is an important milestone along the way toward fully developed Catholicism.59
In these letters, as in Luke-Acts and the Pastorals, the institutional office, which stands over against the rest of the community, is the bearer of the Spirit.
This distinction between clergy and laity is a departure from the genuine Pauline conception where every Christian receives the Spirit at baptism.60
The shift which Käsemann describes is accounted for by the influence of "the Jewish Christian traditions," which, with its non-Pauline notion of ordination, transforms the Pauline heritage.61 A similar influence is posited by Campenhausen to account for what he regards as a fundamental shift in the theological understanding of the ministry of the early church. Campenhausen, like
Käsemann, argues that the genuine Pauline notion of the ministry is purely charismatic.62 This idea is contrasted with the Jewish-Christian conception which is based on tradition. In the communities which were governed by the latter concept, elders preserved the tradition and acted as the community's leaders.63
Consonant with Käsemann, Campenhausen argues that Jewish-Christian conceptions gradually entered Pauline churches and finally overtook the theo-
The Social Setting of the Ministry logical notions governing them. The Pastorals, written after Clement's letter, weld together Pauline and Jewish-Christian ideas and represent a new stage in the development toward official authority.64 But 1 Clement takes a significant step along the way. The Roman letter for the first time accounts for the presbyteral system "as a datum of tradition."65 By placing the system of elders under the protection of an apostolic injunction it becomes part of the apostolic tradition. "To this extent" comments Campenhausen, "it may be said that here for the first time the structures of canon law are included in the category of doctrines and dogma, and given the same sacral and immutable character."66
A Critique of Previous Accounts of Development in 1 Clement We have rehearsed these arguments because they show the role ί Clement is made to play in the attempt of scholars to account for development in the early church. These writers have not escaped criticism. Sohm was challenged for allowing his interpretation of Paul to be determined by the leading philosophical and religious ideas of his time,67 as was Harnack.6® And the reconstruction of Sohm, Käsemann, and Campenhausen, representative of what has come to be regarded as a consensus point of view,69 has been attacked for an uncritical use of 1 Cor. to describe what is a genuinely Pauline concept of ministry70 and for its contrast between a Pauline and a Jewish-Christian model of ministry.71
But there is a more fundamental criticism which may be made of all of the reconstructions described above. Methodologically these scholars, while differing in details, all begin with what they consider to be Paul's theology of ministry and then attempt to trace a development of thought which, they argue, represents a departure from the original position. Hence Bultmann, in the passage quoted above, can speak of a shift in the church's self-understanding. If there are developments in the early church, these are conceptual transformations which act upon social structures and shape them into new embodiments of theological ideas. For Bultmann the shift is from a self-understanding of the church as the eschatalogical people of God to a self-conception as an institution of salvation.72 The methodology underlying this understanding of early church development is presented by Schweizer, another scholar who finds in Paul's notion of charisma a theological concept of ministry which distinguishes it as a church order from later conceptions.73 In the opening pages of his Church Order in the New Testament Schweizer, describing his method of investigation, explains
My concern is not mainly the historical investigation of the church's development, but rather the theological problem of how the New Testament church understood itself, and how it expressed that understanding in its order. The purely historical question, therefore, about the form of the Church at different times and places, while admittedly necessary, need be asked only insofar as the actual shaping of the Church is always evidence of the concept of its own nature to which it testifies.
Again he writes:
ί Clement
In the following pages . . . we are not concerned only with the purely historical question of events recorded in the New Testament
We are concerned with the much more difficult question of recognizing in the actual ordering of the New Testament Church, and in what is said about it, the theological concerns that caused it to take that form and no other. So when we ask about the Church's order, we must also try to understand the Church's essential nature.74
The ordering of early Christian communities is accounted for by an appeal to the theological concepts which are found in writings associated with them and which shape them.
It is indeed true that self-conceptions pattern behaviour and are an element in the development of institutions. But to grant concepts, whether they be theological or otherwise, a preeminent and crucial significance at the expense or to the virtual exclusion of other factors is to forget that ideas are thought by people: they have their significance in the interactions of persons who belong to communities which have social interests and concerns. It is to forget that the Church's so-called "essential nature" is always in situ and cannot be understood apart from its social context without fundamental distortion or the intrusion of interests which may be theologically profound but force texts or even ideas to do work which goes beyond their proper role. The blood and sweat of history is left behind as we rise to an ideal plane where ideas, presented as the realities infusing the shadows which constitute historical existence, combine, collide, and compete. In order to understand more fully concepts of church structure and the development of institutional forms in the early Christian church we must come down again from the bright heights of theological abstraction and try to understand what social forces were at work in the development of the early church. If we do this we shall have a more accurate appraisal of the role of ideas in shaping early Christian communities and we shall better understand the genesis of certain theories of leadership in the early church,
As the first passage from Schweizer quoted above shows, it would be an exaggeration to argue that he, and indeed those scholars listed above who follow a similar methodology, focus solely on ideas to explain early Christian development. The delay of the Parousia, contact with diverse forms of Christianity, and human nature are presented as forces at work in the shaping of the early church.
But their emphasis on ideas makes it possible to charge them with what Holmberg has called the "fallacy of idealism."75 Holmberg notes that while Sohm,
Bultmann, Käsemann, Campenhausen, and Schweizer analyse historical phenomena and pay close attention to them the methodologically fateful step comes with the next stage of the work, where the historical phenomena are often interpreted as being directly formed by underlying theological structures.76
He argues correctly that what is missing in this methodology is a recognition that ideas and social structures exist in a dialectic relationship: "Social life is determined by social factors, including the opinions and consequently the theology of the actors."77 Ideas and social structures interact with each other to form the social world. If an analysis of the early church is to be accurate it is necessary that it view phenomena occurring within it from an "interactionist perspective."78
The Social Setting of the Ministry The "purely historical question of events" which Schweizer leaves behind too quickly is therefore central to an understanding of the role and formation of theological ideas in the early church. In order to avoid the "methodological docetism"79 of the approach presented by Schweizer, it is necessary to evaluate the social setting in which the development of notions of ministry occurred. In our discussion of the Shepherd of Hermas we found evidence that wealthy household owners of the Roman community played an important role in the leadership of the community to which Hermas belonged. We have tentatively suggested a similar setting for the Corinthian community addressed by the Roman church. If we may adopt this suggested social setting as a plausible description of the Corinthian community at the end of the first century and compare it with the one addressed and referred to by Paul some forty years before, what social developments can we discern? Can we reconstruct the changes that took place in the Corinthian community after Paul's final departure and death? It is the nature of the case that any attempted reconstruction can represent only a possible course of development. But if we are to avoid the methodological shortcomings of the scholars listed above, who regard social development as largely the result of the straightforward application of ideas, then it is necessary to make an attempt to discern possible sources of social development where, in some cases, there are only hints.
Sectarian Development and the Corinthian Church The topic of social development has been given much attention by sociologists in their investigations of sectarianism.80 This literature is valuable for our present investigation because it provides some heuristic tools with which to analyse organizational development in the early church. On the basis of his research into various contemporary sectarian groups Wilson states, "It would seem that, when sects do persist, they always undergo processes of mutation. . . .
Because sects cannot cut themselves off completely from the world they are influenced by external factors."81 Wilson's observation helps us to focus our attention on factors which have been overlooked by other scholars in their attempts to describe the development of the Corinthian church.
Sects tend to be more influenced than they know or care to acknowledge by the prevailing secular facilities of the period of their emergence. Some sects quickly stabilize their life-practices in conformity with these prevailing techniques, and sanctify them to the point of refusing to permit any further change even in styles and arrangements that clearly have no specific religious significance, but which were simply secular styles at the time of the sect's formation.82
Wilson is referring in particular here to the adoption of old-fashioned dress and farming techniques of Amish Mennonites and, to a degree, Hutterites. But as we shall suggest below, an important prevailing secular facility of the nascent church was the wealth and ability of the well-to-do householder who invited the church to meet in his home. This had a great impact on later institutional developments.
ί Clement
The emphasis which Clement places on structures of leadership in the Corinthian community also has a significant parallel in contemporary sect mutation. For Wilson has noted that contemporary sects, when they persist, tend to develop some form of centralized organization and a local elite.83 In a similar vein Stark argues In time sects develop a definite class of ministers who are not, it is true, distinguished in a denomination, as they are in a church from the rank and file by a special grace conveyed through ordination, but who are distinguished from it by a special function through appointment. These ministers may not be priests, but they are assuredly more than mere laymen, however much this may be denied. This fact leads us, significantly, again back to the very inception of the sect. If the sect is to have any coherence at all, it needs some kind of office-bearers; some infringement of the principle of democracy is therefore unavoidable, if the group is to last.84
The reference to denominations in the passage just cited raises a further issue in the contemporary sociological discussion concerning the development of some sects toward centralized organizational structures. Sociologists who investigate sectarianism have noticed that certain sects become denominations over a period of time.85
Like Stark, both Wilson and Yinger have noted that the movement toward a professional ministry, where "functions become institutionally differentiated and specialization of roles occurs" is a significant step toward denominationalism, or in Yinger's case, the church type. 6 This development has been applied to the early church. It was Troeltsch who first argued that the development of a specialized organ of ministers in the early church was a movement away from the sect-type toward the church-type.87 And Yinger, following Troeltsch, noted that the seeds for this development were already contained in Paul's teaching.
The first organization of Christianity, largely under the leadership of the Apostle Paul, moved rather rapidly toward the church type. Paul, a Roman citizen, prized the state which preserved order and justice. Although there were no rankings within the early church, the group did not fight slavery
Out of the duality of the Christian ethic (i.e. the universalism of love and radical religious individualism), those aspects which harmonized with the prevailing politico-economic system were emphasized, and received the expression in the institutionalized form of the religious life — the church.88
But it is precisely at this point, where it is necessary to suggest elements within the Pauline community that gave rise to the particular ministerial structures which arose in the generations after Paul's death, that both Troeltsch and Yinger are disappointingly silent. Instead, the rise of the church from the sectarian origins of the Jesus movement is explained as the logical outcome of the Christian gospel with its dualistic ethical elements referred to in the passage cited above. Universalism, the desire to win the world for God and make the Church co-extensive with civilization, may have had a profound effect on the development of the Christian sect into a Church, but if it is abstracted from the setting in which the characteristics of a universalist ethic were developed, we shall again find ourselves attempting to understand the development of the early church as the result of the straightforward application of ideas. It is necessary to
The Social Setting of the Ministry ask, therefore, what elements in the communities established by Paul helped to give rise to the emergence of a formal body of leaders.
Household Leadership and Sect Development in the Corinthian Church The importance of the wealthy household owners who invited the church into their homes has been overlooked by the majority of scholars as a possible source of centralized leadership in the generations succeeding the apostle Paul. Indeed, many scholars, in order to explain the rise of centralized authority in the period after Paul, have emphasized notions such as the delay of the Parousia and the transformation of self-understanding so much that they have ignored simple factors such as the impact of the apostle's death and the need to fill the gap of authority which it presented to communities dependent upon his instruction and direction.89 But Weingarten, writing in 1881, suggested the importance of household leadership in the development of the early church toward so-called
Catholicism.90
Filson also noticed the possible importance of household leaders after Paul's death when he wrote:
The house church was the training ground for the Christian leaders who were to build the church after the loss of 'apostolic' guidance, and everything in such a situation favoured the emergence of the host as the most prominent and influential member of the group.91
Again he noted:
The development of church polity can never be understood without reference to the house churches. The host of such a group was almost inevitably a man of some education, with a fairly broad background and at least some administrative ability.92
If the role of such household members had an important impact on the shape of community life when the apostle was alive, it is reasonable to suggest that the influence of such members as Gaius, Stephanas, Philemon and Prisca and Aquila would have continued after Paul's death. We argued above that while
Paul was still alive, their roles were largely over shadowed by him.93 For even when he was not physically near, his letters bear testimony to the authority he enjoyed while absent and to the fact that he remained the primary source of direction. As long as the founder was on the scene a fully fledged official structure did not develop.94 But once he had died it is reasonable to suggest that these members quickly gained preeminence as authorities within local communities. While several types of authority probably continued to be exercised for some time — Hermas, himself perhaps a prophet,95 writes both of a false prophet and of true prophets who exercise some role of instruction in the church (Man. 11:1-2, 9) — the evidence regarding the Roman church contemporary with Clement's epistle96 is that wealthy household owners played a preeminent role in the leadership of the community.
ί Clement
A Comparison Between the Corinthian Church at the Time of Paul and of Clement By comparing the level of organization of the Corinthian church while Paul was still alive with that evinced by Clement's letter we shall be better able to recognize evidence of further developments from the original structures. In our discussion of the genuine Pauline epistles97 we argued that communities such as Corinth possessed relatively fluid authority structures while Paul was still alive.
As Paul travelled from community to community, local churches were encouraged to govern themselves. We discussed evidence that suggests that in this situation the well-to-do householder who invited the church to meet in his or her home provided a focal point of stability in a period of institutional adaptation.
Such householders provided the leadership and economic resources necessary for the group's survival We argued that their leadership probably arose "from below," i.e. it was based upon their voluntary service, but that Paul recognized their importance for the survival of the group and exhorted members to be subject to such members. We concluded from this that factors such as the absence of the apostle and the repeated action of members such as house-church patrons
(and patronesses) encouraged the development of organizational forms even in Paul's lifetime. The role of the householder in this development was central and, as we shall see, it had far-reaching implications.
Meeks, commenting on the impact of household organization on the church, states:
The adaptation of the Christian groups to the household had certain implications both for the internal structure of the groups and for their relationship to the larger society. The new group was thus inserted into or superimposed upon an existing network of relationships, both internal — kinship, clientela, and subordination — and external — ties of friendship and perhaps of occupation. . . . The household context also set the stage for some conflicts in the allocation of power and in the understanding of the roles in the community.
The head of the household, by normal expectations of the society, would exercise some authority over the group and would have some legal responsibility for it. The structure of the oikos was hierarchical, and contemporary political and moral thought regarded the structure of the superior and inferior roles as basic to the well-being of the whole society. Yet. .. there were certain countervailing modes and centers of authority in the Christian movement that ran contrary to the power of the paterfamilias, and certain egalitarian beliefs and attitudes that conflicted with the hierarchical structure.98
This lengthy quotation, which highlights the consequences of the adoption of household leadership on the growth of the early Christian sect, echoes the passage cited from Stark above in which it is stated that the development of a class of leaders is an infringement of the democratic ideals of sects, but is unavoidable if the group is to survive. Also of significance is Wilson's comment that sects are influenced by external factors and prevailing secular facilities in their genesis and that they quickly stabilize their practices in conformity with these phenomena.
With this picture of incipient institutionalization before us we are now is a position to assess more precisely the degree of organizational development in
The Social Setting of the Ministry Corinth at the end of the first century. An immediate difficulty arises when one attempts to distinguish where Clement is accurately reflecting an already existing reality and where he is using rhetorical tactics to establish what he regards as a proper state of affairs in the Corinthian church. Bauer is an example of a scholar who argues that there may have been important differences between the picture of the Corinthian dispute as portrayed by Clement and the actual historical events. But on this point he is ambiguous in a way which has certain consequences for his understanding of the conflict in Corinth and which raises important issues for the proper interpretation of 1 Clement. In one passage he argues, "To some extent... t Clement describes the situation satisfactorily, as seen from Rome's perspective."99 Irç another, however, he states
We do not hear what the altera pars has to say ... ; and yet, in the interests of fairness, we really need to know what the members of the Corinthian community who were so severely attacked could adduce, and no doubt did present, in support of their position. However, the picture that faces us of the conditions in Corinth is sketched from the perspective of Rome, which was doubtless one-sided and based on self-interest — to say the very least, a biased picture.100
N o w it is certainly possible that one may present a picture fair to one's own interests and interpretations but biased from the perspective of another's. But it seems that Bauer intends more than this in his treatment of Clement's description of the Corinthian dispute and that his understanding of Rome's bias takes on force which a proper understanding of the text shows unsustainable. For after the quotation immediately cited he goes on to argue that Clement's letter was a propagandizing treatise designed to bring the Corinthian church under the aegis of Roman ecclesiastical control.101 This line of argument seems to suggest that Clement's letter does not accurately describe the true nature of the dispute in Corinth. In fact, according to Bauer, the true facts of the conflict are passed over in silence by Clement Bauer reconstructs the Corinthian schism as arising from the successful revolt of a gnostic-minded majority against a Pauline and Petrine minority, who "brought about a fundamental change and instituted a unified take-over of the church offices in accord with their own point of view."103 Bauer is probably right to note that Clement's letter puts forward a casé which distorts to some degree the aims, motivations, and interests of those causing the schism. But it is more reasonable to assume that even if Clement was improvising themes to achieve a desired end, in order for his goal to be realized his theorizing would have to have had a greater degree of contact with the reality experienced by the Corinthian community than that implied in Bauer's statements quoted above if it were not to be met with puzzlement or even resentment.104 Bauer's argument that Clement's letter was motivated by a concern to gain influence in and assert control over the Corinthian ecclesiastical orbit leads him to exaggerate any distortion in which Clement may have engaged and to lose sight of the true aims of his letter. Clement's intention is put forward most clearly in 57:1-2 where he urges those causing the schism to repent. The motivation of Clement's letter is not to dominate, still less to offend or further to divide members already contending with one another (which would seem a likely consequence if Bauer's thesis of a majority of gnostics in
ί Clement
control of Corinth were correct).105 He hopes rather to convince the Corinthians to end their dispute. Part of the desired end of the letter is to bring about the repentance of those who have, in Clement's terms, initiated sedition.106 For this to occur he had to present the case convincingly, and if convincingly also reasonably accurately lest he incur a charge of intransigence.
Alternatively, one could argue in a slightly different way that Clement read the Corinthian dispute with Roman eyes, interpreting the divisions in Corinth from a perspective in harmony with the ideals and institutional structures of his own church, but not necessarily in keeping with those of the Achaean community.107 Again, as we shall see, Clement may well have contributed to the construction of institutions in the Corinthian community. But the cultural proximity between Rome and Corinth, a city closely allied with Rome, at least makes it possible that there was close contact between these two churches.108 Further, the connection of these two churches with Paul permits one to infer that they followed similar lines of development.109 These arguments are of necessity tentative and speculative, but they gain a small measure of further support from references to the contact with the Corinthian church implied in 1:1-2 and 47:7.110 Even if there were some minor differences between the organization at Corinth and that in Rome it is reasonable to suppose that Clement could have become intimately acquainted with the structures of leadership in his sister church and that references to them in 1 Clement accurately represent prevailing institutions in that community.111
This last point provides us with our first clue regarding the level of general institutional development at this period. For where there was once a relative fluidity of terminology to describe positions of leadership, as may be seen by Paul's use of general nouns in 1 Cor. 12:28, there is now more standardization and precision. Terms such as έπίσκοποι, πρεσβύτεροι, and διάκονοι are used by Clement to refer to distinct groups whom he assumes the Corinthians recognize (42:4; 44:4; 47:6; 54:2; 57:1; cf. Herrn. Vis. 3:5.1). Together with this more formal terminology is evidence that there are particular places which are designated for common worship (40:3; cf. 41:2). We argued above that house churches formed the probable setting of this dispute and it is reasonable to infer from 40:3 that the particular places refer to certain households where the eucharist was celebrated.112 This is in contrast with the Pauline period during which worship arrangements were probably more diverse. There is no evidence in the Roman letter concerning a place set apart for presbyter-bishops in the worship service itself, but if the suggested similarity of organization at Rome and Corinth is a sound conjecture then the reference in Herrn. Vis. 3:9.7 (cf.
3:1.8) may lead us to envisage that in the Corinthian church there also had emerged by this period a special seating arrangement distinguishing "laity" and more official functionaries.113
One may infer further from Clement's letter that there was a distinct group of members set apart from the rest of the community as its formal leaders (40:3;
41:1; 42:4; 43:1; 44:3,4,5; 54:2; 57:1; cf. 37:3; 38:1). Indeed, Clement's use of the order of Levitical sacrifices (40-41) depends on this fact in order to form a coherent analogy. It is because a certain group of persons are set apart as leaders that a parallel may be drawn between them and Levites. The fact that strife has
The Social Setting of the Ministry arisen over the "title" (δνομα) of bishop (44:1) is evidence that not everyone may possess it and that it is an object of competition. The parallel drawn by Clement from Numbers 17 (43:2) illustrates the same point. Also indicative of more highly developed organizational structures is the language of appointment
(καθιστάναι - 42:4; 43:1; 44:3; 54:2; ίδρύεσθαι ~ 44:5). When this is taken together with the reference to what appears to be some form of popular election or ratification (44:3),*14 it seems likely that there was at this date some formal act of investiture which permitted certain members to lead the community.
Further, it is possible to suggest that the reference to the deposed presbyterbishops being appointed by their predecessors (44:3) is a reference to a form of investiture.
The degree of circumscription of functions is difficult to determine from Î Clement alone. A relatively clear reference to a distinct liturgical role is 44:4.*15
Similarly, the use of the terms λειτουργεΐν, λειτουργία, and λειτουργός when referring to the services of the Christian church and those who lead it
(40:2; 44:2,3,6), parallel with the usage of the same terms to describe the sacral functions of leaders in the Jewish community (32:2; 40:5; 41:2; 43:4), is also suggestive of a formal role in the leadership of worship.116 Dix's contention, however, that the reference to the High-priest, priests, and Levites in 40:5 corresponds directly to the celebrant-bishop, presbyters, and deacons probably reads more into the text than is intended.117 The use of the analogy is to show that there are appointed positions for certain functions of leadership, not to demonstrate a one-to-one correspondence between Jewish and Christian orders of ministry.
Hermas states that it is Clement's task to write to cities abroad (Vis. 2:4.3) and this may describe another task reserved for overseers. Ignatius is aware that the Roman church has "taught others" (Rom. 3:1) and we learn from Dionysius of Corinth that the Roman church sent another letter besides 1 Clement to Corinth
(H.R 4:23.10-11). Turner notes that one factor which contributed to the rise of centralized leadership in the early church was the need for communication between churches.118 This observation has a parallel in contemporary sect studies. Wilson has noted that the need for communication between dispersed communities is a significant factor contributing to the growth of centralized authority in contemporary sects.119 While we have only the reference in the Shepherd to the duty of one bishop of the Roman community, it is none the less significant that it is an overseer who has this task. This reference supports a view which sees a distinct group of leaders taking on increasingly defined functions.
Apart from the likelihood that the celebrant overseer, in our estimation the patron of the house church, exercised authority over other presbyters and deacons gathered together with him, there is no information regarding a hierarchy of leadership or the precise relationships between these members. But the reference to extortion of funds by διάκονοι in Herrn. Sim. 9:26.2 is evidence that there was perhaps a formal duty of deacons to distribute common funds to the needy.120
The relation of bishops and deacons to presbyters is more difficult to determine from the Roman letter, as indeed it is from the Shepherd. But this difficulty is compounded by the current tendency, particularly in German scholar-
ί Clement
ship, to argue that the references to presbyters refer to a fusion between synagogal and Pauline forms of church organization.121 As we shall see below, the appearance of presbyters may be accounted for more naturally by a proper understanding of institutionalization in the early church. It is enough to state here that the difficulty presented by the term πρεσβύτεροι in 1:3 and 21:6, as in Herrn. Vis. 3:1.8, where it is not clear whether to render it "elder men" or "presbyters," is resolved more satisfactorily if one argues that presbyters were in fact elder men.122 This interpretation has some further support in other contemporary literature, In 1 Pet. 5:5 the term πρεσβύτεροι is used simultaneously to describe an age-group and class of leaders.123
Clement may have intended a similar usage in 1:3 and 21:6, and if we interpret the passages from Clement's letter and the Shepherd in this way, we will avoid reliance upon the tenuous hypothesis that synagogues possessed a formal group of official presbyters, whose organizational structure was imposed upon Pauline communities from without, in order to account for their sudden appearance in independent contemporary churches (cf. Acts 14:23; 20:17; Tit.
1:5).124 Further, we will no longer need to refer to a somewhat artificial "fusion" theory in order to explain the development of ministerial structures in the generations immediately succeeding the death of the apostle Paul.125 If, instead, we rely for our explanation on the observation that age would have conferred authority in these communities (cf. 1 Clem. 63:3), if for no other reason than because of contact with the founder of the community or his contemporaries, we will have a more natural explanation of an apparently uniform development in many churches across the Roman Empire, and one which is consonant with widely observed processes of institutionalization. The view which regards presbyters as the elder members of the community is also more consistent with the emergence of authority structures from below in the community, a process which we argued began while the apostle was still alive.
A cautious speculation concerning the relationship between bishops and presbyters is to suggest a similar situation to the one we discovered in the Shepherd.
As in Rome, so in Corinth πρεσβύτεροι were probably a group of members from whose number were selected overseers and perhaps even deacons. Whatever the precise relationship, it is likely that these members were distinguished in some cases by certain functions and in all instances by the degree of respect owed them.126
Certain presbyters have a distinctive role of leadership as is evinced by references to obedience in 1:3 and 21:6 (cf. Vis. 3:9.7 for the use of προηγούμενοι to describe church leaders). Harnack argues that through these references, together with 40:5, the so-called pneumatic democracy of the Corinthian church was broken through and suppressed.127 But an appraisal more consonant with our suggested role for household leaders in the early years of the Corinthian church, is to state that these passages are indicative of a process of development toward centralized authority which had begun with the appropriation of household forms for communal needs. It seems likely that in Corinth, as in the Roman community,128 not all presbyters were in a position of household church leadership. But the exhortations to be obedient to the community's leaders, the liturgical role which they are assigned, and the evidence that there is a
The Social Setting of the Ministry form of popular election of leaders are indicative of a state of affairs in which there is a degree of separation between a group of formal leaders, or clergy, and lay persons.129 In 40:4-5 Clement argues that priests and laity have their appointed positions and it is significant that this is the first appearance in Christian literature of the term λ α ϊ κ ό ς to describe members of a Christian community. The priestly language Clement uses is in part determined by the theme which he wishes to develop in 41:1-2, but the description in 40:5 assumes that there is an analogous division in the Corinthian church.130
The Corinthian Church as an Established Sect The evidence in both 1 Clement and the Shepherd suggests a state of affairs in the early church in which authority has become centralized and functions of leadership have become formalized in such a way that leaders and followers behave toward one another according to a set of established norms. These documents are testimony to a stage of sect development toward the official structures of leadership which we saw already forming in Paul's lifetime. But what was still relatively fluid in Paul's day has become a more formal division of the community. In Corinth the Christian sect has become similar to what Yinger calls an "established sect,"131 that is, during the second and third generation of its existence it has undergone a process of transformation in which it has gradually taken on some of the characteristics of the church-type while maintaining sectarian characteristics. In particular, the emergence of a power group, still overshadowed by Paul while he was alive, has resulted in a series of formal distinctions between leaders (who resemble clergy) and laity. As a sect, which still dominates a large part of the life of its members and continues to offer its members a consciousness of being set apart from the rest of the world as an elect group,132 it still shares the characteristic sectarian identity of the first generation.
But as a more highly organized group, probably led by well-to-do patrons, it has become more fully adjusted to its societal situation — not without challenge as the Shepherd attests, but none the less as a consequence of its social needs.
The passage of time and the process of institutionalization, as we will see below, contributed to the sect's accommodation to the world. Wilson notes that the response to the world which the sect founder initiates is difficult for contemporary sects to maintain for successive generations.133 Paul's teaching, when compared to that of Jesus, already represents a movement toward accommodation to the wider society. His recognition of household structures as valid (1
Cor. 7:20-21; 11:2-15), his support for the government, (Rom. 13:1-7), and his validation of economic pursuits (1 Thes. 2:9; 4:11; 5:14) are indications of the beginning of a process whereby the sect is "settling in." And themes which Paul develops as he hands on Christ's teaching are taken up and developed further by successive writers. For Paul these arrangements are still overshadowed by concerns of a more sectarian nature. Household relationships and economic interests have only a secondary importance when compared to the soon expected second advent of Christ (1 Cor. 7:29-31).
But these themes are conspicuously absent in certain later writers. It is true that Hermas exhorts his community and warns them of the relative unimportance of economic gain when compared with God's judgment, but the fact that
ί Clement
economic considerations can have become so out of hand in Hermas' church indicates accommodation to the world and the relaxation of sectarian ideals.
Even Hermas, for all his admonition, is unwilling to upset the household and economic structures legitimated by Paul. There is some evidence in the Roman epistle too to suggest that Clement was unwilling to upset secular social arrangements in favour of a democratic community of goods (38:2-3), and, as in Rome, so in Corinth the preservation of the wider socio-economic order probably contributed to the sect's further accommodation to its social situation.
Like Paul, Clement believes that all secular authority is instituted by God (61:1; cf. Rom.
13:1-7) and he feels obliged to pray for its representatives (60:4). But for Clement there is an emphasis that the hierarchical world order follows from the action of the Creator God (60:1; 61:1-2) and that the divine action which has established the secular order is also responsible for the church order (37:1-38:3). This is a motif only germinally present in Paul's letters.134 It is significant that Clement shifts the emphasis of the motif of the body, used as a paraenetic device by Paul in 1 Cor. 12:21 to emphasize the interdependence of the "pneumatikoi" with those who possess less dramatic gifts, in a way designed to legitimate the institutional order of the third generation Corinthian community (37:5-38:1).
Whereas Paul simply accepted certain conventional norms as a matter of convenience or incidentally, these became for Clement central and indispensable characteristics of the group. This may be seen in the concerns of Clement (and of Hermas) to uphold as a matter of central significance certain patriarchal structures within the church. As Ogletree has noted, whereas existing household arrangements are adopted by Paul as suitable (and we may add only relatively important) spheres for acting out one's Christian life, these same structures are incorporated by Clement into the fundamental framework of the Christian life.135 When he describes the "golden age" of the Corinthian church, the correctly ordered household is presented as a motif central to its wellordered past (1:3), and in 21:6-9 reverence for Jesus is associated with respect for patriarchal authority and, by implication, a well-ordered household. Further, we noted in the previous chapter the importance of the well-ordered household for the sectarian identity of the Roman community as represented by the Shepherd.
The wider social norms concerning household relationships, first accepted by Paul but overshadowed for him by other realities (cf. Gal. 3:27-28) which in turn gave them a lesser significance for the sect's identity, gain an importance in î Clement and the Shepherd which is absent in the apostle's writings. The increased importance of these norms represents a more complete adjustment to the sect's social situation as certain values of the wider society become, to an increasing degree, its own. The emergence in the church of a patriarchal authority structure, a central feature of secular power structures surrounding the sect and embodied in the church in its presbyteral system and adoption of the household code to shape behaviour and relationships, represents a transformation toward a sectarian identity more accommodated to the world. Since it is God who establishes the proper order in both church (37:lf.) and state (61:1), one should expect that formal social arrangements will resemble each other in both arenas.