Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity(review)D. Jeffrey Bingham

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 1, Number 1, Spring 1993,pp. 87-88 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/earl.0.0099

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by Oxford University Library Services at 11/27/12 9:42AM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v001/1.1.bingham.html

BOOK REVIEWS 87

James S. JeffersConflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in EarlyChristianity.Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.Pp. viii + 215. $14.95

It is common to relate the development of the Western episcopate to Clement ofRome and the social environment of the early church. The novelty of Jeffers's studyis the connection it makes between Clement, Rome's aristocracy, and the hierarchyof the Roman church. Jeffers' thesis is that the Roman monoepiscopacy evolvedfrom the strict hierarchal structure Clement's church had adopted from Rome'selite class.

In the first two centuries Roman churches both imitated and opposed the societyin their ideology and structure. The minority which adopted the aristocracy'shierarchy did so out of a beneficial relationship with that segment of society. Themajority which opposed both the society and those integrative Christians were oflow status. This disharmony amid the churches caused the elitist, hierarchicalminority to reformulate tradition into a stricter authority structure. By the latesecond century this reformulation developed into the monoepiscopacy which dom-inated the Roman Church.

Jeffers builds a case for such a development through archaeological, literary, andsociological theory analysis. The data analyzed are pertinent to illuminating thesocial status, values, and interrelationships of Clement of Rome, Hermas, and theircongregations. Archaeologically, Jeffers seeks to construct a plausible backgroundfor Clement's association with Roman aristocracy. He attempts to fortify the theoryidentifying Clement as a freedman of Flavius Clemens under the patronage ofClemens' wife, Flavia Domitilla, a Christian or sympathizer. His argument con-nects the warehouse beneath the San Clemente complex with the house church ofClement on first-century Flavian property. This property, the site of Domitilla'scatacomb, is said to have a history of burial plots granted by Domitilla to herdependents. Some of these dependents were probably Christians whose second-century descendants expanded the use of the cemetery.

1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas comprise the literature Jeffers examinesfor evidence of social status and relations among Roman congregations. This exam-ination reveals a polarization of the churches represented in the two documents. 1Clement shows a small group ideologically aligned with the Roman elite throughthe Flavian household. They are comfortable with the world. They recognize theabsolute power of their leaders because they follow the order of Paterfamilias. Theydistinguish sharply between clergy and laity. They value order and unity amongindividuals and other churches. The Shepherd of Hermas, on the other hand,exemplifies that group which because of lower social and economic status definesitself against the world, rejects those churches aligned with it (i.e., Clement's) andelevates the poor's spirituality.

Jeffers employs contemporary sociological theories as models for illuminatingthe authority types (Max Weber) and group types (Bryan Wilson) with which thesetwo churches may be associated. 1 Clement is classified as reflective of a traditional

88 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

authority structure which argues its system from Christian, Jewish, and pagansources. Although having some characteristics of a sect, Clement's church structurehad evolved beyond this to incorporating the society's elitist ideology. Hermas,however, was charismatic in authority, and in opposition to worldly churches.Hermas' church acted more like a sect by separating itself from society and func-tioned without a clerical hierarchy. The more permanent nature of Clement's struc-ture ultimately prevailed against the ecclesiological disunity in Rome.

Jeffers has appropriately emphasized the notion of a developed structure andorder in the congregation of 1 Clement. He helpfully demonstrates that aspects ofthis structure and order are common to the Roman empire's aristocracy. Clement'sconcepts of household, army, and sensitivity to Roman civil authority reveal orga-nizational similarity with Roman elitist society. Nevertheless, structural charac-teristics of Clement's church may also find antecedents elsewhere. General sympa-thy with the Greek city-state, Qumran, the synagogue, and Judo-Christianprecedents all deserve further consideration.

Jeffers also properly captures the element in 1 Clement regarding subordinationto recognized authority. There is a strong vertical relationship of order betweenleaders and congregation. However, he might have balanced this aspect by elucidat-ing further the principle of mutual submission found in Clement's conception ofchurch order. Although it might appear that the leadership is self-perpetuating(54.2), the congregation's consent and continued approval figure prominently(44.3). All members are to be subject to one another and the individual is to obeythe order of the community (38.1; 54.2). This structure lacks correspondence to theorder of paterfamilias and its principle of unquestioned authority. A search forhierarchy in 1 Clement may tend to obscure Clement's more broadly based concernfor order.

Too, one can appreciate Jeffers' sensitivity to Hermas' criticism of the wealthyand the importance Hermas gives to almsgiving and spiritual concerns. But thissensitivity is present in Clement as well. He rebukes the Corinthian church for arebellion linked to misuse of prosperity and encourages the spiritual wealth ofhumility and righteousness rather than earthly riches and ability (3.1-3; 13.1-4).

Clement's affiliation with the Flavian household gains a degree of plausibilitythrough the connection of the San Clemente tradition to Flavian property. Suffi-cient evidence of this affiliation and Domitilla's direct relationship to Christians,however, is still wanting. Evidence from the cemetery lacks any firm Christianidentity until the second century and literary evidence seems to favor Domitilla, thewife of Flavius Clemens, as a Jewish proselyte (P. Keresztes, VC 27 [1973]:128).

Jeffers demonstrates some diversity among Roman churches and shows aspectswhere the first-century church extended its structure beyond New Testament mod-els. Yet, ultimately, he overextends the control of the leaders in 1 Clement and doesnot adequately address other precedents for Clement's structure. This may account,in part, for what seems to be too sharp a polarization between the churches ofClement and Hermas.

D. Jeffrey Bingham, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas