Dr Bruce Winter
Speaker and Author
Secularization of First century Christian Leadership - Inroads of Secular Models
In the first half of the first century a new model of secular leadership arose in the cities in the East. That provided by the philosophers was replaced by that used by those known as the sophists. These were the virtuoso mega star orators. Content in speeches was replaced by performances on the part of the speaker whose aim was to impress audiences with carefully crafted speeches and secure a personal following. It changed the servant syndrome of Jesus into leadership based on this secular model. This new breed posed a problem for the early church with its emphasis on speaking and this impact can be traced in 1 Corinthians 1-4 and 2 Corinthians 10-13. This aping of secular models was not confined to Paul's day. The rise of Christian 'leadership' models in the past 25 years borrowed from secular models is likewise a dangerous Trojan horse for the contemporary church.
Secular change
The demise of the philosophers as the educators and political advisors in the Roman empire occurred in the late first century BC.
The move from the Roman Republic to the empire ruled by an emperor meant the loss of political clout for the members of the Senate in Rome. As a result the traditional use of those trained in philosophy as the leading politicians in the affairs of Rome and its vast empire evaporated.
In their place there emerged a new educator in the person of the orator or better known at the time as a sophist. His coming brought about a totally new style of leadership that profoundly affect rising generations of teachers, lawyers and politicians in what became a cult of leadership.
There were significant differences between the philosophers and the orators. The first difference was known in its day as ‘rhetorical delivery’, a term originally borrowed from the world of acting.
Two things were looked for in the orator. The first was ‘bodily presence’ for which young men strove by pumping iron to give them a great physique. They shaved all the hair off their arms, chest and legs with pitch plasters in order to look godlike, just like the ‘Goochy guys’ do today for ads. They watched how they dressed for stage ‘presence’ was everything.
The second essential characteristic of orator was his speech both in terms of the resonance of his voice and also his ability to do three things regarded as essential in the art of persuasion.
1. He had to learn how to play on the feelings of his audience, making them laugh or cry, feel anger or joy.
2. He had to sound authentic giving the impression of sincerity.
3. He had to use all the tricks of the art of persuasion that were to be found in the handbooks on rhetoric.
The second difference between the philosophers and the orators was the former never charged fees for tuition. The latter group also ran schools for which large fees were demanded from families in order to train their sons in the art of public oratory for teaching, legal and political activities. They also gave demonstration orations in their theatre for which the general public paid admission fees. Their services were used for embassies to governors and emperors to plead the cause of cities.
The pupils of the orators were called ‘disciples’, the same term used in Greek for Christian disciples. They were required to give exclusive loyalty to their teacher who would be in competition with other teachers. So strife and jealousy were normal between teachers as well as pupils. Comparison was the essential weapon used in downing others.
Christian impact
In Corinth we know that the orators thrived in the first century, both from inscriptions as well as literary sources. Were the Christians in any way influenced by the orators of the day in terms of their perception of their own teachers and their own relationship with them?
Paul, the failed preacher
How he looked
In 2 Corinthians 10:10b Paul came under criticism from his opponents in Corinth because of ‘his bodily presence’. He did not look the part as an orator for he was a ‘weed’. Tradition has it that he had bow legs and a hooked nose, a standard description of an orator who would not make it because he lacked one of the two essential characteristics of the public speaker.
It is true that his letters to the Corinthians were acknowledged to be ‘weighty and strong’ (2 Cor. 10:10a). In the secular world he would be put in the backroom to write legal briefs known as ‘N’ documents for the barrister who presented the case. But he would never be put on in the forum or theatre to speak as he simply ‘did not have it’.
How he spoke
Paul’s voice and presentation was described as ‘ineffectual’ (2 Cor. 10:10a), i.e. it lacked the strong resonance required for public speaking. He did not engage in the tricks of ‘the art of persuasion’, making his audience laugh or cry. He used plain style and did not give the orator’s polished performance.
This may not be seen as a catastrophe in our day, for we have an exalted view of Paul as a preacher. However, among his contemporaries in Corinth he would not meet the requirements of the preachers now needed for their church. He would not make the short list for a new pastor.
Don’t have him back
The Corinthians had expressed a preference for Apollos to come back and be the pastor of their church, but not Paul. Apollos certainly was a man of culture and education and a brilliant debater and speaker according to Acts 18: 24-28. He wisely refused the invitation (1 Corinthians 16:12).
The Christian cult of leadership
‘I belong to Paul’, ‘I belong to Apollos’, and others said they were Peter’s disciples, 1 Corinthians 1:12. Some Christians played off Apollos against Paul in terms of their ‘abilities’, and strife and jealousy resulted (1 Cor. 4:6, 3:3).
The workshop will explore further explore this issue in the early Corinthian church looking at Paul’s responses and we will ask the question ‘Has a similar Trojan horse has been wheeled into the contemporary Christian church with the incorporating of secular models of ‘leadership’ into our understanding of contemporary ministry?’
For further reading see my Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement (Eerdmans 2nd ed. 2002) chapters 8, 9, 10
© Dr Bruce Winter 2004
