Head to Toe: Men and Their Roles in the First Two Generations of Christianity, by Ross Saunders, Acorn Press, 2014 

This is an interesting book: its twin, published earlier, is Outrageous Women, Outrageous God: Women in the First Two Generations of Christianity. In both books Ross Saunders unpacks the idea that Jesus upended ancient Mediterranean notions of honour, authority, leadership, and servanthood. He offers readable, well-researched word-pictures of Jesus’ first-century disciples as they work out in their personal and communal/ecclesial lives what it means to be truly radical, eschewing privilege and power. The struggles they faced in the first two generations of Christianity are also still ours. 

Ross Saunders (1926-2005) was a Sydney Anglican clergyman best known as a religious broadcaster. But he was also an ‘auto-didact’ – a scholar in the fields of Theology, Ancient History and Communications. 

Anthropologists tell us that Mediterranean cultures were built around honour maintenance; women were recognized only in relationship to some man: a father, an uncle, a grandfather, a brother, a husband, a son. It was almost impossible to better the social position into which you were born. And it’s important to note that only men experienced dishonour, not women. Women without  the benefit of male sponsorship found it almost impossible to survive. Social security as we know it did not exist. The ‘poor’ helped by temple-funds were usually asset-rich males who’d fallen on hard times. The beggars in the streets were poor or disabled males. Women couldn’t easily survive by begging, because passers-by would favour males. Younger women often had no option but to go into prostitution.

Eldest sons invariably followed their father’s craft (so Jesus was a plough-maker, as Joseph was). Peter came from the household of an entrepreneur: he had no status until his father died. Until then he was known as Simon-son-of-Jonas. Jesus had brought shame upon his father’s reputation by leaving the household after his father’s death. (Note that at the cross Jesus hands over his mother to the care of the disciple John. Note also that with Jesus’ death, his brother James became next in line in the household. ‘But Jesus had changed that by entrusting his mother to John, not to James’).

And following Jesus came at a cost. If a junior member of a household became a disciple there would be division in the household, often resulting in that member being disowned. Should Jesus prove to be a fraud, they could not return to their families as though nothing had happened. It was an irrevocable decision.

Socio-cultural result? In contrast to a situation where everybody has a place virtually fixed at birth, in today’s world we regard ourselves primarily as individuals. Christianity changed the way its members found their identity and, in the process, helped to break down the Mediterranean household as the basic unit of society. ‘When households are mentioned [in the NT] in connection with conversions to Christianity, this was the exception and not the norm. This was one of the things that set Christianity off from all other religions at the time.’

Ross Saunders’ main emphasis is on the theme of leadership: Jesus in his life and teachings changed the model of leader-as-director to leader-as-servant. ‘Ultimately, this is what Christian leadership is about: eliminating the chasm between the leader and the led’. Jesus called upon his followers ‘to relinquish their status… [so] women went up a step or two on the social scale, [while] men went down a step or two’. Adult males were to divest ‘themselves of all their pretensions to status, and became like a child – in that society completely without status –[otherwise] they had no hope of membership [in the kingdom]’.When he sent out his disciples [in Mark 6:7-13] they were to wear sandals, the footwear of the peasant. But ‘the concept that honour must be attached to leadership… was [still] strong, and it was something that was to dog missionaries like Paul…’

Saunders’ book does not go beyond the end of the first century: then ‘male bishops took over Christianity, [reverting] to the normal household model for centralising church structures, and lay ministry, both male and female, disappeared almost totally.’  

This book is as interesting in terms of scholarly style as it is thematically. I don’t think he cites one scholar, and there are no footnotes. However an excellent Select Bibliography gives us a clue about his wider reading: here there are listed authors like the Evangelicals F. F. Bruce, I. H. Marshall and E.A.Judge, to scholars with a wider theological stance, like J. Jeremias and G. Theissen. He has, for example, a fairly conservative view of who-wrote-what in the NT, but he is not afraid to cite differences in the four Gospels’ narrative-details – without doing too much explaining about how they can be reconciled. They are simply left, side-by-side, expressing differences in perspective between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Australian colloquialisms are sprinkled throughout:  ‘a dandy dressed up to the nines’; ‘cop all the shame’; ‘they tear out in great consternation to find their leader’; ‘whatever I have in mind for John, even if it is to hang around until I return to earth’; Peter was ‘clapped in irons in prison’…

And twenty-to-thirty more… 

I marked the following, to ponder:

• For Israelites, prayer was always audible, never silent in the mind the way we today tend to pray. The Ethiopian eunuch was reading his scroll aloud: ‘Silent reading was certainly not the process of reading in those days’.

• The ‘laying on of hands’ was never on heads. Human hair was not to be touched by other people for fear of touching dust or sweat. The main greeting method: ‘the two shoulders grasp’.

• ‘Giving to the poor was not counted as maintaining one’s honour in the community. The poor could not repay by having a benefactor’s name written up in the synagogue or temple.’

• Paul was ‘not a consultative or democratic kind of team leader… We must be careful… not to romanticise Paul and smooth over the sharp edges and directive attitudes’.

• ‘Whenever Paul uses “head” with respect to Christ it is always associated with his self-sacrificial love for the church. In other words “headship” here derives from commitment and self-sacrifice and does not entail privilege and the right to be obeyed.’

• ‘I believe it is abundantly clear that there were no orders, of deacons, priests or bishops, during the first two generations of Christianity. In fact, there were no clergy, in our sense, until the turn of the century.’

If there had been a list of discussion starters, this would have been a good one:

‘Prayer and the drawing of straws’ (Acts1:15-26). Does your church elect leaders this way?

Conclusion: ‘For men, neither ascribed nor acquired honour had any place in the congregations. The usual games of challenge and response that occurred when men greeted each other on the street had to stop’. ‘We must have a great deal of sympathy for those first two generations of men in the churches. They had to lose just about everything they had been born with: honour, prestige, position, authority and entitlement to dominion over women and children.’

Rowland Croucher

jmm.org.au

May 6, 2014 

~~

How does a review get written?

My method: I’m an unapologetic ‘marker’ of key passages – seminal, summary, interesting. Then I go back through the whole book again and create a few pages of jottings (in this case 5 quarto pages) which are then reduced to about two pages for the final review-for-publication.

Here’s the five-page rough version of this one:

Head to Toe: Men and Their Roles in the First Two Generations of Christianity, by Ross Saunders, Acorn Press, 2014

This is an interesting book: its twin, published earlier, is Outrageous Women, Outrageous God: Women in the First Two Generations of Christianity. In both books he unpacks the idea that Jesus upended ancient Mediterranean notions of authority, leadership, and servanthood. Jesus’ followers made an uncomfortable journey ‘from head to toe’ – from status-seeking to serving. Ross offers readable, well-researched, word-pictures of Jesus’ first-century disciples as they work out in their personal and communal/ecclesial lives what it means to be truly radical, eschewing privilege and power. The struggles they faced in the first two generations of Christianity are also ours.

Ross Saunders (1926-2005) was an Anglican clergyman best known as a religious broadcaster, and ‘auto-didact’ – a scholar in the fields of Theology, Ancient History and Communications.

This book is as interesting in terms of scholarly style as it is thematically. I don’t think he cites one scholar, and there are no footnotes. Sometimes he’ll make a comment that ‘most scholars believe…’ but we don’t have any quotes from them. However an excellent Select Bibliography gives us a clue about his wider reading: here there are listed authors like the Evangelicals F. F. Bruce, I. H. Marshall and E.A.Judge, to scholars with a wider theological stance, like J. Jeremias and G. Theissen. He has, for example, a fairly conservative view of who-wrote-what in the NT, but he is not afraid to cite differences in the four Gospels’ narrative-details – without doing too much explaining about how they can be reconciled. They are simply left, side-by-side, expressing differences in perspective between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

His essential thesis: Jesus turned the concept of leadership upside down, from the then-prevailing model of leader-as-director, to a model of leader-as-servant. Jesus called upon his followers ‘to relinquish their status… [so] women went up a step or two on the social scale, [while] men went down a step or two’. His book does not go beyond the end of the first century: then ‘male bishops took over Christianity, [reverting] to the normal household model for centralising church structures, and lay ministry, both male and female, disappeared almost totally.’ [I’d be interested to read a modern scholar-bishop’s commendation of this view].

Background: cultural anthropologists tell us – honour maintenance; women recognized only in relationship to some man: a father, an uncle, a grandfather, a brother, a husband, a son.

It was almost impossible to better the social position into which you were born.

COMMUNITY/INDIVIDUALISM. Trying to acquire more furniture or land or sheep or friends or honourable mentions than was appropriate to your status would have been interpreted as trying to push ahead of someone else in the status queue. Becoming rich beyond your status was to take from someone else – which is why the rich are criticised and despised in the New Testament. The rich became rich only at the expense of the poor.

In today’s world we regard ourselves as individuals: vs a world where everybody has a place virtually fixed at birth. Xty changed the way its members found their identity and, in the process, helped to break down the Mediterranean household as the basic unit of society.

HONOUR/DISHONOUR: Only men experienced dishonour, not women.

FAMILY/COMMUNITY: lack of individualism: a person’s identity only in relation to others – in a family, a community, and a village. ‘If a junior member of a household turned to Christ then there would be division in the household, often resulting in that member being disowned. Eldest son invariably followed their father’s craft (so Jesus was a plough-maker, as Joseph was. ‘Albeit reluctantly, Joseph nonetheless assumed his role as the earthly father of Jesus, with loss of honour that it brought to his name. Peter came from the household of an entrepreneur: he had no status until his father died. Until then he was known as Simon-son-of-Jonas.

Following Jesus — should he prove to be a fraud, they could not return to their families as though nothing had happened. Irrevocable decision: so Jesus stressed the cost. Following Jesus — not only a personal cost, but also a cost to the good name of the father, household and village.

Jesus: Kingdom of God as a surrogate family, with God as father and himself as an elder brother. All other members are on an equal footing in terms of authority.

Australian SLANG: ‘a dandy dressed up to the nines’; ‘cop all the shame’; Slang – ‘they tear out in great consternation to… find their leader’ (52) ‘Whatever I have in mind for John, even if it is to hang around until I return to earth… 60 Peter – clapped in irons in prison 64 Zacchaeus would have had nicknames thrown at him – ‘shorty’, ‘pint-sized’ etc.  Rich fool had not taken a scrap of notice of anything Jesus had been saying… 111. Capitalists ‘are wont to claim that wealth creation is good because it provides jobs. ‘he could bank on the youngest one to stay and look after him, but the others (of Philip’s four daughters) were free to marry’ 139 ‘people were on the move’… ‘feeding the mob’ 169 Intermediaries to ‘patch up the problem’ 172 ‘Emergencies as they cropped up’ 176

~~

Background: In societies ‘where every single position of authority required honour to function, the concept of the authorities being slaves was completely confusing and too horrifying to contemplate. How could the kingdom of God ever overcome the world if it was based upon shame and not upon honour’?

Leadership as ‘slave-service’ – best modeled / described by John. ‘He made the journey “from head to toe” in a dignified and uncomplaining manner’.

Tax collectors ‘lumped in’ with sinners – ‘usually a code-word for prostitutes’. Both isolated because of shame from ‘civil society’ – so ‘they were forced to band together in order to have any social life at all.’

With Levi’s expertise in matters financial, why didn’t Jesus appoint him treasurer of the twelve? Judas of Kerioth, as ‘far as we know. had no financial expertise whatsoever’. 80

Methodology: Where there are seemingly irreconcilable differences between the narratives in the Gospels, he doesn’t question the validity of a particular Gospel-writer choosing to craft the history to suit his purpose/audience. For example: Whether it was the mother of the ‘sons of Zebedee’ who requested a special place for her sons in the kingdom (as Matthew tells it (Mt. 20:20-28) or the disciples themselves as Mark tells it (10:35-45), ‘Jesus directs his comments solely to them.’ (p. 68). (Some of the clergy I talk to are still recovering from the – perhaps perceived – cynicism about the integrity of the Gospels they had to cope with in their seminary training).

Jairus’ daughter – brought back to life without the use of any magic words, secret formulae or dance routine 52

For Israelites, prayer was always audible, never silent in the mind the way we today tend to pray 55

Laying on of hands – never on heads. Human hair was not to be touched by other people for fear of touching dust or sweat 63. Method: ‘the two shoulders grasp’ (75)

‘In leaving his household, probably without his father’s permission, John would have been seen as going against his father’s authority, and would have been snubbed by his fellow villagers any time he went there…’ 67

~~

If there had been a list of discussion starters, this would have been a good one:

‘Prayer and the drawing of straws’ (Acts1:15-26). Does your church elect leaders this way?

‘Nazarene’, ‘Galilean’ – insulting. meant to put Jesus in his place 80

Zacchaeus – chief tax collector, ie. had sole rights for his area – employed other toll collectors as sub-contractors

But Jesus was happy to be associated with this tax-rorting midget.

‘Giving to the poor was not counted as maintaining one’s honour in the community. The poor could not repay by having a benefactor’s name written up in the synagogue or temple.’ 87

Thomas has a ‘Gospel accredited to him, a Gospel to which many scholars are determined to give a great deal of credence’. 89

A – aim in the book: ‘furthering the cause of trying to get inside the worldview of these Mediterranean men of the first century’ 90. ‘The concept that honour must be attached to leadership… was strong, and it was something that was to dog missionaries like Paul…’ 121.

Judas – from the Judean village of Kerioth – ‘Iscariot’ means ‘from Kerioth’ – ‘making him the only Judean Israelite among the twelve. Judeans did not believe Galileans were strict enough in their Hebrew faith and practice (eg. Mk. 7:1).

‘A man’s birth name was not sufficient to establish his identity – [that] was established with reference to his father and his village. Christianity was to change all that, giving men and women, as well as children, the right to be named in their own right. Western individualism is the product of Christianity’ – 91

‘Come follow me’ – the rich young ruler knows what that means – ‘no house, no money, no slaves, no family, no honour, taking orders instead of giving them, resigning from his position at the synagogue, mixing with the poor on an equal footing… How could all that lead to endless life with Yahweh?’ 108-9.

Jesus used a strong word to describe the ‘rich fool’ – ‘mindless’. ‘What a great way to describe economic rationalists. “Mindless rationalists” – an oxymoron that should be used more often’ 114.

 

Distribution to ‘any who had need’ (Acts 4:32) ‘was completely radical and would have been regarded with contempt by Jerusalem Israelites. The needy were born in that state and deserved to stay there’ 124

‘Honour-drivenness’ ‘was the greatest challenge for Mediterranean men when they became members of these early Christian communities. Jesus’ leader-as-slave model cut to the core of their Christian identity. Public honours were to have no part at all in Christian congregational life.’ 129

In Mediterranean society, women without  the benefit of male sponsorship – husband, father, brother, uncle, son – found it almost impossible to survive. Social security as we know it did not exist. The ‘poor’ helped by temple-funds were usually asset-rich males who’d fallen on hard times. The beggars in the streets were poor or disabled males. Women couldn’t easily survive by begging, because passers-by would favour males. Younger women often had no option but to go into prostitution.  130

 

In Acts, the apostles showed favouritism to the Hebrew-speaking widows, negelcting the others. ‘There can only be one reason for this discrimination – racial’ 131. Another issue: ‘Peter was virtually saying that serving those widows was beneath his dignity as an apostle. Serving at tables was considered women’s work, or slave work’ 132.

Ethiopian eunuch – reading scroll aloud. ‘Silent reading was certainly not the process of reading in those days’ 137. ‘We have to admire Philip, for he had to overcome much that would offended him about this man. Would Peter have been able to do the same? His experience with Cornelius and his later withdrawal from the Gentiles at Antioch suggest that he might not have been the best person to win this man for Christ’ 139

‘Jesus had brought shame upon his father’s reputation by leaving the household after the death of his father. By walking away from his duty of being head of the household his father had founded, and thus failing to carry out the responsibilities of caring for his mother and younger siblings, Jesus had acted dishonourably…’  Note that ‘at the cross Jesus hands over his mother to the care of the disciple John’. 141 . Note also that with Jesus’ death, his brother James became next in line in the household. ‘But Jesus had changed that by entrusting his mother to John, not to James’ 143
James became ‘bishop’ of Jerusalem with a ‘somewhat patriarchal style’  (‘I have reached a decision’ Acts 15:19-20) – 145

Several of the twelve disciples ‘were perceived to have acted shamefully in leaving their household in order to serve with Jesus’ 192

Paul also was ‘not a consultative or democratic kind of team leader’ 148. ‘We must be careful… not to romanticise Paul and smooth over the sharp edges and directive attitudes’ 151.

‘Men in this honour-driven culture would find it extremely difficult not to hit back and challenge [any] who belittled them in public’ 153

‘Among Israelites, physicians were regarded with a great deal of suspicion. They regularly dealt with sickness, as well as blood, pus and other bodily fluids, so were regarded like those who slaughtered animals and embalmed dead bodies’ 158-9

‘Apart from Paul, Luke is the only really learned man whose writings are included in the New Testament’ 159

‘When households are mentioned in connection with conversions to Christianity, this was the exception and not the norm. This was one of the things that set Christianity off from all other religions at the time… No member of a household could change religion without being exiled from his household. Women, of course, had no right to have any other religion tan that of their male sponsor’ 161. ‘In the household men were always served first, with the children next and the women eating by themselves where the food was made’… 170

–> ‘Jesus taught and modelled [a style] of male leadership [that] was a radical departure from the patriarchal styles of leadership found in both the Gentile and Hebrew cultures of his day’ 165. Unless adult males ‘divested themselves of all their pretensions to status, and became like a child – in that society completely without status – then they had no hope of membership [in the kingdom]’ 172 . When he sent out his disciples [in Mark 6:7-13] they were to wear sandals, the footwear of the peasant. 176

–> Leadership brings responsibilities, not kudos. ‘In fact, social status was to play no part whatsoever in the coming kingdom of God’ 189 ‘Bringing outsiders into the kingdom was to be [the apostles’] whole focus, not arguing over relative status positions inside the kingdom’ 197. ‘Ultimately, this is what Christian leadership is about: eliminating the chasm between the leader and the led’ 198

Leaders and ‘headship’: ‘head’ indicates ‘a team leader, not a boss, as in “head of the research team”. Perhaps the idea of a coordinator is closer in meaning’ 199. ‘Whenever Paul uses “head” with respect to Christ it is always associated with his self-sacrificial love for the church. In other words “headship” here derives from commitment and self-sacrifice and does not entail privilege and the right to be obeyed.’ ‘Does Christ have authority over his church, with the right to be obeyed? Of course he does – as “Lord”, however, not as “head” (Philippians 2: 5-11). Note: there is no mention of all single men being “head” of all single women. In marriage the “headship” of the husband is to be modelled on the headship of Christ. 201 ‘This was radical teaching for early Christian men, both Israelites and Gentiles, to accept. Their household codes firmly entrenched them as sole manager and authority over members of their family and any other members of the extended household’ 204

‘I believe it is abundantly clear that there were no orders, of deacons, priests or bishops, during the first two generations of Christianity. In fact, there were no clergy, in our sense, until the turn of the century.’ 221

Conclusion: ‘For men, neither ascribed nor acquired honour had any place in the congregations. The usual games of challenge and response that occurred when greeted each other on the street had to stop’ 233. ‘We must have a great deal of sympathy for those first two generations of men in the churches. They had to lose just about everything they had been born with: honour, prestige, position, authority and entitlement to dominion over women and children.’ 234