journal for the study of the new testament

http://jnt.sagepub.comthe New Testament

Journal for the Study of

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X9301505006 1993; 15; 85 Journal for the Study of the New Testament

David Horrell Pastoral Epistles

Converging Ideologies: Berger and Luckmann and the

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/50/85 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Testament Journal for the Study of the NewAdditional services and information for

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

unauthorized distribution. 1993 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or

by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007 http://jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

85-

CONVERGING IDEOLOGIES: BERGER AND LUCKMANNAND THE PASTORAL EPISTLES*

David Horrell

Wesley House, Jesus LaneCambridge CB5 8BJ

Introduction

In the last twenty years or so New Testament studies have beeninfluenced by a wide variety of new interpretative methods, amongwhich sociological perspectives have been prominent. While a consid-erable range of social-scientific approaches have been employed, bothsociological and anthropological, the sociology of knowledge hasbeen of notable influence. In 1975 Nineham suggested that thesociology of knowledge offered great potential as a partner fortheology, and in 1980, reviewing the state of sociological interpreta-tion of the New Testament, Scroggs stated that For some of us... thesingle most important approach within the field of sociology comesfrom the sociology of knowledge. From this area of sociology the

* A revised version of a short paper read at the British New TestamentConference, Exeter, in September 1992. I am grateful to those who raised questionsand offered comments. I would also like to thank Geoff Thompson and ChrisRowland for their comments on earlier drafts.

1. D. Nineham, A Partner for Cinderella?, in M. Hooker and C. Hickling(eds.), What About the New Testament? Essays in Honour of Christopher Evans(London: SCM Press, 1975), pp. 143-54.

2. R. Scroggs, The Sociological Interpretation of the New Testament: ThePresent State of Research, NTS 26 (1980), pp. 164-79 (175). Assessments of thesociology of knowledge in relation to New Testament study are offered byK. Berger (Wissensoziologie und Exegese des Neuen Testaments, Kairos 19[1977], pp. 124-33) and H.E. Remus (Sociology of Knowledge and the Study of



86

most influential work has almost certainly been Berger andLuckmanns The Social Construction of Reality, first drawn upon, tomy knowledge, by Wayne Meeks, but employed since in a variety ofworks. Also influential is The Social Reality of Religion, authored byBerger alone, which elaborates Berger and Luckmanns theoreticalperspectives specifically in relation to religion. The primary aim ofthis essay is to raise critical questions in relation both to Berger andLuckmanns theory and to the Pastoral Epistles. This dual focusarises from the work of Margaret MacDonald in her book ThePauline Churches, which uses Berger and Luckmanns theory as afundamental resource with which to understand the process ofinstitutionalization.6 I will suggest that a number of critical issues needto be considered when using Berger and Luckmanns sociological

Early Christianity, SR 11 [1982], pp. 45-56).3. P.L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality

(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967). N.B. page numbers are quoted from the Penguinedition which differs from the American original (New York: Doubleday, 1966);W.A. Meeks,The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism, JBL 91 (1972),pp. 44-72 (70); P.F. Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social andPolitical Motivations of Lucan Theology (SNTSMS, 57; Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1987), pp. 16-23; M.Y. MacDonald, The Pauline Churches:A Socio-historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-PaulineWritings (SNTSMS, 60; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988),pp. 10-18.

4. P.L. Berger, The Social Reality of Religion (London: Faber & Faber, 1969).For use of sociology of knowledge perspectives drawing on Bergers work seeJ.G. Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity(Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975), pp. 9-12; H.C. Kee, ChristianOrigins in Sociological Perspective (London: SCM Press, 1980), pp. 23-25, 30-53;G. Theissen, Christologie und soziale Erfahrung. Wissensoziologische Aspektepaulinischer Christologie, in Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (WUNT,19; Tbingen: Mohr, 2nd edn 1983, 3rd edn 1988), pp. 318-30.

5. Taking up the arguments of Prior, Murphy OConnor has recently arguedagainst the assumption that the three Pastoral Epistles constitute a corpus from acommon pen. 2 Timothy, he argues, is significantly different. I am not entirelyconvinced that, given the similarities, the differences cannot as well be accounted foras emanating from the different character of the letters within the small corpus, buttheir arguments deserve closer attention than is possible here. See M. Prior, Paul theLetter Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy (JSNTS, 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1989), pp.61-67, 168; J. Murphy OConnor, 2 Timothy Contrasted with1 Timothy and Titus, RB 98 (1991), pp. 403-18.

6. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, passim, esp. pp. 10-18, 235-38.



87

theory and that these issues are particularly crucial in relation to thePastoral Epistles. It is possible that using Berger and Luckmann as atheoretical perspective with which to interpret the Pastorals resultsessentially in a confirmation of the ideology of the Pastoral Epistles,and a failure to raise the kind of questions essential to any genuinelycritical sociological inquiry.As Berger and Luckmann comment, The term &dquo;ideology&dquo; has been

used in so many different senses that one might despair of using it inany precise manner at all. Its use in this essay therefore requiressome clarification. The word ideology, Thompson points out, is usedin two fundamentally differing ways in contemporary thought. Oneis based on what may be termed a neutral conception of the term,and uses ideology as a descriptive term to refer to any system ofthought or belief. The second is based on a critical use of the term,and links ideology to the process of sustaining asymmetrical relationsof power-that is, to the process of maintaining domination.Following Thompson and Giddens I shall use the term throughoutin this critical sense. For Thompson, as for Giddens, To studyideology... is to study the ways in which meaning... serves to sustainrelations of domination . 10

Berger and Luckmanns ProjectBerger and Luckmanns project consists of an attempt to understandsocial reality as a human construction:&dquo; the reality which peoplegenerally take for granted as the way things are, is in fact ahuman product. Every human society represents an enterprise ofworld-building in which behaviour and interaction are shaped bysocially constructed norms giving order and meaning to life.&dquo; The

7. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, p. 228 n. 100.8. J.B. Thompson, Studies in the Theory of Ideology (Cambridge: Polity Press,

1984), p.3.9. Thompson, Ideology, p. 4.10. Thompson, Ideology, pp. 4, 130-31, 134, 141, 146 (note the general

discussion on pp. 126-47). Cf. A. Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory(London: MacMillan, 1979), pp. 6, 191, 193. See further the discussion of modesof ideology in Thompson, Ideology, p. 131, and Giddens, Central Problems,pp. 193-96.

11. Cf. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, p. 13.12. Cf. Berger, Social Reality, p. 3; P.L. Berger and S. Pullberg, Reification



88

construction of social worlds is a human attempt to make life meaning-ful in the face of the ever-present threat of chaos, anomy and death. 13

Berger and Luckmann identify three inseparable moments in thedialectical process by which human beings produce society whichproduces human beings: externalization, objectivation and inter-nalization.14 In a Feuerbachian sense society is a human projectionwhich is externalized such that it becomes, for each individual,objectified.&dquo; Thus, society confronts man as external, subjectivelyopaque and coercive facticity .16 Through the process of socialization,each individual internalizes this social world, making it their own.This process of internalization is generally unconscious and hiddenfrom critical scrutiny: The social world intends, as far as possible, tobe taken for granted. Socialization achieves success to the degree thatthis taken-for granted quality is internalized.17Every social construction of reality requires legitimation, that is,

ways by which it can be &dquo;explained&dquo; and justified.&dquo; The mostcomprehensive level of legitimation is offered by symbolicuniverses, bodies of theoretical tradition that encompass the institu-tional order in a symbolic totality.9 These symbolic universes have adefinite social significance: They are sheltering canopies over theinstitutional order as well as over individual biography. They alsoprovide the delimitation of social reality; that is, they set the limits ofwhat is relevant in terms of social interaction.&dquo; It is on such a levelthat religion is generally to be understood; as a sacred canopy which

and the Sociological Critique of Consciousness, New Left Review 35 (1966),pp.56-71 (62).

13. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, p. 121: All societies areconstructions in the face of chaos. Cf. Berger, Social Reality, pp. 52, 53-80.

14. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, pp. 78-79, 149; Berger, SocialReality, pp. 3-4, 81-85. Cf. also MacDonald, Pauline Churches, pp. 10-11.

15. Cf. Berger, Social Reality, pp. 89 and 203 n. 20 for his use of the termprojection and its derivation from Feuerbach.

16. Berger, Social Reality, p. 11.17. Berger, Social Reality, p. 24. Cf. Berger and Luckmann, Social

Construction, pp. 149-82.18. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, p. 79; see further pp. 110-46.19. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, p. 113; see further

pp. 113-22.20. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, p. 120.



89

legitimates the social order upon which a society is built and as afundamental provider of meaning.&dquo;Such a hasty sketch can hardly do justice to the breadth and value of

Berger and Luckmanns work, and the critical questions which followshould be seen as an attempt to refine and redirect the use of theirtheory, and not as a rejection of it. Their development of the idea thatreality is socially constructed by human beings is of fundamentalimportance, although it raises difficult questions for any theologywhich seeks to speak of objective truth or ultimate reality.22 Theirfocus on legitimation, taken up particularly by Esler,23 is also ofprofound value: a consideration of the ways in which any ordering ofreality is sustained, explained and justified is deeply significant,particularly, I would suggest, when brought more explicitly intoconnection with the issues raised below.

Critical Concerns

My first concern arises from the extent to which Berger andLuckmann stress the objectivity which the social world attains. Whilethey appreciate the dialectical way in which human beings simultane-ously produce and are produced by society, 14 and stress societys

21. The American title of Bergers book on religion (The Social Reality) was TheSacred Canopy, first published in 1967. See further Berger, Social Reality,esp. pp. 26-28, 32-52, 87-101.

22. Berger himself shows considerable interest in these theological questions.See particularly the appendix in Social Reality, pp. 179-88 and the remarkable bookin which Berger attempts a theological reply to his own sociological perspectives,A Rumour of Angels (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970). The theological interest andimplications of Bergers work are discussed by D. Cairns (The Thought of PeterBerger, SJT 27 [1974], pp. 181-97) and R. Gill (Bergers Plausibility Structures:A Response to Professor Cairns, SJT 27 [1974], pp. 198-207). See furtherR. Gill, The Social Context of Theology (London: Mowbrays, 1975), pp. 29-34and idem, Theology and Social Structure (London: Mowbrays, 1977), pp. 16-22.

23. Esler, Community and Gospel, pp. 16-23.24. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, pp. 78-79, 208-209; Berger,

Social Reality, pp. 3, 18-19, 189 n. 2. Cf. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, pp. 10-11. They share this concern with a number of modem attempts to reformulate therelationship between human action and social structure: see overviews in R. Bhaskar,The Possibility of Naturalism (Brighton: Harvester, 1979), pp. 39-47; D. Gregory,Human Agency and Human Geography, Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers NS 6 (1981), pp. 1-18 (11); A. Pred, Social Reproduction and the



90

humanly constructed nature,25 their concepts of externalization andobjectivation lead to a view of the social order as external to humanactivity. Thus, An institutional order is experienced as an objectivereality.26 Social structure is encountered by the individual as anexternal factici ty .27 Above all society manifests itself by its coercivepower. The final test of its objective reality is its capacity to imposeitself upon the reluctance of individuals.&dquo; In my opinion, this formu-lation obscures the extent to which social order is continuallyreproduced only in and through the activities of human subjects,and hence neglects the important relationship between reproductionand transformation.29 Berger, for example, illustrates the socialworlds objectivity with a reference to language, whose rules areobjectively given.3 While partially true, quite obviously, one maycontrast this emphasis with Giddenss use of the linguistic illustrationas an analogy of social structure: for Giddens, every use of languageboth draws upon the rules of that language and at the same timereproduces them.31 Thus, in every act of reproduction the possibility

Time-Geography of Everyday Life, in P. Gould and G. Olsson (eds.), A Searchfor Common Ground (London: Pion, 1982), pp. 157-86 (158-63).

25. Cf. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, p p. 69-70, 78; Berger, SocialReality, pp. 6-9; Berger and PuUberg, Reification, p. 62. See further the discussionby B.C. Thomason, Making Sense of Reification: Alfred Schutz and ConstructionistTheory (London: Macmillan, 1982), pp. 114-61. Alienation, according to Berger,occurs when people forget that they are the producers of their own social world; seeSocial Reality, pp. 81-101; Berger and Pullberg, Reification, pp. 61, 64.

26. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, p. 77.27. Berger and Pullberg, Reification, p. 63.28. Berger, Social Reality, p. 11; cf. also pp. 24-25.29. This concern is at the heart of Giddenss structuration theory, probably the

most influential contemporary attempt to theorize adequately the relation betweenaction and structure in social life. See esp. Giddens, Central Problems, and idem,The Constitution of Society (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984). A number of recentbooks are devoted to critical discussion of Giddenss work, including D. Held andJ.B. Thompson (eds.), Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens andhis Critics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); J. Clark, C. Modgil andS. Modgil (eds.), Anthony Giddens: Consensus and Controversy (London: TheFalmer Press, 1990); C.G.A. Bryant and D. Jary (eds.), Giddens Theory ofStructuration: A Critical Appreciation (London: Routledge, 1991).

30. Berger, Social Reality, p. 12. Cf. Berger and Pullberg, Reification,pp. 63-64.

31. See A. Giddens, Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory (London:



91

of transformation is at hand.32 Language, like society, is not simplyobjectively given, but is reproduced and transformed in and throughongoing human activity. Such a shift in emphasis is, I believe, ofconsiderable socio-political significance.The concept of an externalized and objectified social world gives

rise to a second concern: namely, that, with such a conceptualizationof the dominant social order, critique and alternative, indeed changeitself, are all too easily conceived of as threatening and destructive.33Ideally, individuals are successfully socialized into the reality whichconfronts them as objective. The dominant social order requireslegitimation and maintenance: its continuance provides security againstchaos and anomy. Such a theory can easily form a legitimation of thestatus quo, suggesting that its maintenance and continuation are essen-tial for human wellbeing. Challenges to the social order are portrayedas marginal activities which threaten to cause chaos, and increase theneed for legitimation. Berger and Luckmann speak, for example, ofthe problem caused by deviant versions of the symbolic universe.3aNote, too, Bergers description of threats to the social world:

All socially constructed worlds are inherently precarious... they areconstantly threatened by the human facts of self-interest and stupidity. Theinstitutional programmes are sabotaged by individuals with conflictinginterests. Frequently individuals simply forget them or are incapable oflearning them in the first place. The fundamental processes of socialcontrol, to the extent that they are successful, serve to mitigate thesethreats.35

Macmillan, 1982), p. 37; idem, New Rules of Sociological Method (London:Hutchinson, 1976), pp. 103-104, 118-29, 161; idem, Constitution, p. 24.

32. Giddens, New Rules, p. 128: Every act which contributes to the reproduc-tion of a structure is also an act of production, a novel enterprise, and as such mayinitiate change by altering that structure at the same time as it reproduces itas themeanings of words change in and through their use; idem, Central Problems,p. 210: with a conception of structuration, the possibility of change is recognised asinherent in every circumstance of social reproduction.

33. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, p. 121: The constant possibil-ity of anomic terror is actualized whenever the legitimations that obscure the precari-ousness [of all societies] are threatened or collapse. The analysis of de-reificationis deemed to be beyond the framework of their concerns (p. 109), though on this,see Berger and Pullberg, Reification, pp. 69-70.

34. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, p. 124.35. Berger, Social Reality, p. 29, my italics; see further pp. 29-32. Cf. Berger

and Luckmann, Social Construction, p. 87.



92

The idea that the continuance of the social order is necessary for thewellbeing of society is all the more dangerous given the insistence thatthe social world intends, as far as possible, to remain unquestionable.It is not enough, Berger writes, that the individual look upon thekey meanings of the social order as useful, desirable, or right. It ismuch better (better, that is, in terms of social stability) if he looksupon them as inevitable, as part and parcel of the universal nature ofthings.36But is such a presentation of the way society works best necessarily

true, or is it in danger itself of ideologically legitimating the dominantsocial order? Think, as an example, of certain environmental pressuregroups, whom some, like Berger and Luckmanns theory, mightportray as a threat to the stability of society. Is it not equally possibleto argue that such pressure groups have actually played a positive rolein the ongoing reconstruction of social reality, so that almost all of us,albeit to greater or lesser degrees, are more environmentally aware?The issue of the portrayal of opponents and alternatives is importantin relation to the Pastoral Epistles.The danger that Berger and Luckmanns work may be taken as

offering theoretical legitimation of the status quo is furthered by theirinsufficient critical attention to issues of ideology and interests. Thus,my third concern may be summarized by Giddenss observation thattheir approach...completely lacks a conception of the critique ofideology .37 In other words, there is no adequate consideration of theideological dimensions of the construction of social reality: whoseinterests are served by the social order and how are inequalities andexploitation concealed as natural in such a construction of reality?Any consideration of the construction of social reality must give dueattention to the ways in which the dominant reality which isconstructed may reflect the interests of certain groups and legitimateand conceal the exploitation of others. Moreover, the emergence andsustenance of a dominant social order is inextricably connected to theissue of power. As Berger and Luckmann themselves comment, Hewho has the bigger stick has the better chance of imposing hisdefinitions of reality.38

36. Berger, Social Reality, p. 24, my italics. Cf. Berger and Luckmann, SocialConstruction, pp. 77-85, 149-57.

37. Giddens, Central Problems, p. 267 n. 8.38. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, p. 127.



93

In short, Berger and Luckmanns theory, for all its strengths, isitself in danger of being ideological. It offers a theoretical formula-tion with which the exploitation and domination sustained by a socialorder may be legitimated and taken for granted by the individualswho are socialized into it, but fails critically to penetrate the interestsand exploitation which such an order may sustain. Moreover, alterna-tives and critiques of such orders are portrayed as a threat to thewellbeing of all, bringing potential chaos.

The Pastoral EpistlesTurning now to the Pastoral Epistles, I suggest that three very similarareas of critical questioning are required for the development of asociological interpretation of these letters.My first concern is with the way in which the Pastoral Epistles

present Pauline teaching as an objective thing which they areconcerned to guard, protect and pass on. They express a clear concernwith sound teaching, and Timothy is urged to guard the deposit(1 Tim. 6.20; 2 Tim. 1.14).39 The Paul of the Pastorals declares thatyou have an example of sound words which you heard from me...(2 Tim. 1.13; cf. 2.2). In Berger and Luckmanns terms, used byMacDonald, the Pastorals are primarily engaged in protecting andsustaining a symbolic universe which was created in the earlier yearsof Pauline Christianity.4 The critical point is almost identical to thatraised in connection with Berger and Luckmanns presentation of thesocial order as objectified: namely, that the claim of the Pastorals tobe preserving and protecting sound teaching, which is the deposit ofPaul himself, obscures the extent to which these epistles evidence adevelopment and transformation of Pauline Christianity.&dquo; The Bergerand Luckmannian notion that a symbolic order is being protected

39. Note the uses of &upsi;&iacgr; and &uacgr;&eeacgr;&sfgr; in 1 Tim. 1.10; 6.3; 2 Tim. 1.13; 4.3;Tit. 1.9, 13; 2.1, 2, 8. See M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), pp. 24-25. A general concern for rightteaching to oppose the false is a major interest in these epistles: see, for example,1 Tim. 1.3-11; 4.1-16; 6.3-5; 2 Tim. 2.14-26; 3.1-15; 4.3-5; Tit. 1.10-14; 3.8-11.

40. Cf. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, pp. 159, 203-204, 220, 228, 235-36(esp. 203-204 and 228).

41. MacDonald (Pauline Churches) does not deny such transformation anddevelopment (see, e.g., pp. 159, 236), but the primary level of interpretation isbased upon the idea of protecting and sustaining the community.



94

tends merely to confirm the view which the author of the epistlesseeks to promote. But it is not only the opponents who arecorrupting, or, more neutrally, changing the faith, as our authorwould have us believe. Pauline Christianity cannot simply be guardedor protected, but must be reproduced in the light of new situationsand contexts. The Pastorals urge upon their readers particular formsof social conduct and respectable behaviour, which, at the very least,reflect changes of emphasis from the advice we find Paul himselfgiving. Women have now been excluded from leadership and areurged to fulfil the role of housewife and mother, a subordinateposition legitimized by the stories of creation and fall (1 Tim. 2.11-1S).42 Younger widows are urged to remarry, and there is little signof the encouragment of singleness which we find in Pauls writing(1 Tim. 5.14; cf. 1 Cor. 7, esp. vv. 39-40). Slaves are urged to besubmissive, respectful and pleasing to their masters (1 Tim. 6.1-2;Tit. 2.9-10). Christian masters are especially worthy of good service,because they are beloved believers (1 Tim. 6.2).43 A religious legiti-mation is produced to undergird this exploitation; the slaves are tohonour their masters so that the name of God and the teaching maynot be slandered (1 Tim. 6.1).44 It is notable, of course, that theauthor addresses no reciprocal instruction to Christian slave-owners.4s

42. See also 1 Tim. 5.11-15 (esp. v. 14); Tit. 2.3-5, where the older womenare to teach the younger women to love and submit to their husbands and work in thehouse (o&iacgr;o&upsi;o&uacgr;&sfgr;).

43. J. Roloff (Der erste Brief an Timotheus [EKKNT, 15; Ziirich: BenzigerVerlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988], pp. 323-34) comments,Nicht obwohl, sondern vielmehr weil die Herren Christen sind, mu man ihnendienen, und zwar ohne Vorbehalt und Einschrnkung. Most commentators mentionthe different addresses of v. 1 (to slaves with non-Christian owners, or a generalinstruction to all slaves), and v. 2 (specifically to those slaves with Christianowners): e.g. C.K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles (New Clarendon Bible; Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 82 (though Barrett argues that this section is addressedto elders who are slaves); A.T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (NCB; London:Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982), p. 105; J.N.D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles(BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1963), p. 131; Roloff, Timotheus, p. 320.

44. This idea is an echo of Isa. 52.5b (LXX), also cited in Rom. 2.24.45. Noted, for example, by S. Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (Zrcher

Grundrisse zur Bibel; Zrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987), p. 608; W. Schrage,Ethik des Neuen Testaments (Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament, 4; NTD; Gttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 5th edn, 1989), p. 273; D.C. Verner, The Household ofGod: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles (SBLDS, 71; Chico, CA: Scholars



95

Could he not at least have added something like: And masters, treatyour slaves fairly and justly; do not abuse them because they arebelievers, in order that you may be a good witness to outsiders(cf. Col. 4.1)? The absence of any such counterbalancing statements,as are at least found in the still socially conservative codes ofCol. 3.18-4.1 and Eph. 5.21-6.9, renders the Pastorals teachingeven more open to the label ideological; in that it presents theChristian faith in such a way as to reinforce the exploitative domina-tion of one social group and to serve the interests of another, whilesimultaneously concealing such partisan interests. Once more, we mustnote that no such calls for the subordination of slaves are found in theundisputedly genuine Pauline letters.46 Indeed, the slave ownerPhilemon is specifically urged to receive Onesimos no longer as aslave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother (v. 16). Paulcertainly was no particular champion of emancipation, but the changein emphasis is nonetheless significant.41An important question, of course, is why the Pastoral Epistles

address the subordinate members of the household without reciprocalinstruction to the superior members. It is often argued that thePastorals instruction of women and slaves should be seen against the

Press, 1983), pp. 140-41. As well as in Col. 3.18-4.1 and Eph. 5.21-6.9, acertain reciprocity is found in Did 4.10-11 and Barn. 19.7.The naivety with which exegetes reiterate the ideology of the author is sometimes

remarkable: referring to Tit. 2.9-10, Quinn comments that the slaves in view herebelong to Christian households and can therefore be directed "to be subject... in allmatters", with the presumption that the Christian master or mistress would notcommand unchristian acts! (J.D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus [AB, 35; Garden City,NY: Doubleday, 1990], p. 146, my emphasis).

46. The debate over the implied meaning of o &eeacgr; in 1 Cor. 7.21 isobviously relevant here, although a whole article and more could be devoted to thediscussion of this topic. However, recent scholarship seems increasingly to favourthe use freedom interpretation. See esp. S.S. Bartchy, MAON XPHAI: First-Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7.21 (SBLDS, 11; Missoula,MT: University of Montana, 1973); P. Trummer, Die Chance der Freiheit. ZurInterpretation des o &eeacgr; in 1 Kor 7,21, Bib 56 (1975), pp. 344-68;G. Dawes, "But if you can gain your freedom" (1 Corinthians 7: 17-24), CBQ 52(1990), pp. 681-97 (689-94).

47. On the ambiguity of Pauls position and the reasons for such ambiguity, seeJ.M.G. Barclay, Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of Christian Slave-Ownership,NTS 37 (1991), pp. 161-86.



96

background of real or potential emancipatory movements,&dquo; whichthe author saw as dangerous to the life of the church. The way thesemovements are described by New Testament scholars sometimesreflects an assumption that they were indeed problematic and that thecanonical author was clearly right to oppose them.49 While this mayor may not be deemed to be the case, we should be more cautious, itseems to me, about reiterating the perspective of the canonical author.The rightness implied by canonicity perhaps needs to be resisted inthe interests of a sympathetic historical understanding of those whoseemancipatory movements were repressed. Certainly the Pastorals arenot merely guarding and reproducing older Pauline teaching, but areenmeshed in the struggles and problems of their own particularsituation.

48. In relation to the Pastoral Epistles, see P.H. Towner, The Goal of ourInstruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup,34; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), pp. 38-45, 212, 243-44; Verner, Household,pp. 175-80, 185-86, who argues that it is womens emancipation which is partic-ularly problematic for the author of the Pastorals. Note also Dibelius andConzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, p. 116. There is a wider debate about the extent towhich Pauline teaching (in 1 Cor. 7; Col. 3.18-4.1, as well as in the Pastorals) is areaction to emancipatory movements among women and slaves; argued, for example,by R. Gayer, Die Stellung des Sklaven in den paulinischen Gemeinden und beiPaulus (Europische Hochschulschriften, 23.78; Bern: Herbert Lang; Frankfurt:Peter Lang, 1976), pp. 112-222, esp. 154-68, 210-12; J.E. Crouch, The Originand Intention of the Colossian Haustafel (FRLANT, 109; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1972), pp. 120-51.

49. So Towner, The Goal, p. 43: Women and slaves had adopted an attitude ofemancipation which can be linked to the over-realized eschatology that was in theair; p. 42: As we will see... the appropriate solution to the social disruption occur-ring in the communities was to be found in adherence to social structures such as thefamily; p.198: Perverted conduct, which included a tendency to engage inbehaviour that challenged the given social structure, would do nothing but engendercriticism and disgust among outsiders.

A. Padgett, The Pauline Rationale for Submission: Biblical Feminism and thehina Clauses of Titus 2:1-10, EvQ 59 (1987), pp. 39-52 (50-52): It was thereforenecessary to yield the right of women Christians to equality with men, so that thegospel could go forth... The Pastorals make a choice between two evils: thedestruction of the church as a whole, including women and slaves; or the suffering ofwomen and slaves for the sake of the church and her good news.

Cf. also Crouch, Origin, pp. 160-61 n. 32; B. Witherington III, Women in theEarliest Churches (SNTSMS, 58; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988),p. 118.



97

My second point relates closely to the second concern raised inconnection with Berger and Luckmanns work. As Berger andLuckmanns theory tends to portray anything which opposes thedominant social order as a threat, so the Pastoral Epistles are aconcentrated attempt to stigmatize and marginalize alternatives; toportray them as destructive, threatening and worthless, using a host ofconventional pejoratives.50 The convergence between Berger andLuckmanns theoretical perspective as MacDonald employs it and theperspective of the epistles themselves is again most noteworthy. Theidea that he (as I think we may safely assume) was engaged inprotecting the symbolic universe or stabilizing the life of thecommunity would, I think, have met with the authors approval.5 ABerger and Luckmannian approach essentially confirms the authorsviewpoint; the alternatives are dangerous and threatening.But a genuinely critical inquiry must surely be most wary of

adopting such a viewpoint. Lacking direct textual evidence of anyopponents defence or even teaching, we should at least be open to thepossibility that they equally saw themselves as exponents of the truegospel, and as faithfully continuing the Pauline tradition. We mustconsider carefully what it means to describe them as a threat.The Pastorals are clearly engaged in a dynamic and significant

struggle within the church. The polemic used, however conventional,shows that. Schlarbs recent book opens with a statement to this effect:The Pastoral Epistles are evidence of a massive and intensive disputewith false teaching and false teacher, with heresy and heretics. 12 Butwhat is the nature of the struggle evidenced by the Pastoral Epistles?Is it primarily a theological or doctrinal argument, or is it a strugglebetween social groups with conflicting interests? One of the mostnotable points about the opposition to false teaching in the Pastorals isthat the doctrines and teachings of the opponents are scarcely

50. See 1 Tim. 1.3-11; 4.1-5; 6.3-10; 2 Tim 2.14-26; 3.2-9; Tit. 3.9. On theconventional nature of the polemic in the Pastorals, see esp. R.J. Karris, TheBackground and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles, JBL 92(1973), pp. 549-64; also Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, pp. 21,115-16.

51. Cf. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, pp. 159, 213-14, 220, 228, 236.52. E. Schlarb, Die gesunde Lehre: Hresie und Wahrheit im Spiegel der

Pastoralbriefe (Marburger theologische Studien, 28; Marburg: N.G. Elwert Verlag,1990), p. 14.



98

mentioned.53 It is social conduct which seems to be the authorsprimary concern. As Vemer notes,

in Titus 2.1, Titus is urged to teach that which befits sound teaching. Inthis case the content of the teaching turns out to be the station code of 2.2-10. Similarly, the exhortation teach and urge these things in 1 Tim. 6.2bfollows the instructions regarding various groups in the church in 5.3-6.2a.&dquo;

Moreover, the qualities required of church leaders focus largely uponsocial conduct and good household management.55 But if one of theauthors primary concerns was to oppose social conduct of which hedisapproved, the conduct of women, for example, who claimed theauthority to teach and the right to remain unmarried, and possibly thatof slaves too, who saw some significance in the notion that they andtheir masters were 6c5F-X(poi, then we must surely locate the PastoralEpistles on one side of a social struggle, even a class-based strugglewithin the early church. The fact that the socially conservative sidemay have won the day and emerged as orthodox and canonical is notnecessarily to be explained by the assertion that they were the onesprotecting the community and its symbolic universe, but mayconnect in a more insidious way to differentials of power andinfluence.

Thirdly, and finally, any critical sociological approach must, itseems to me, raise the questions of interests and ideology in connec-tion with every social construction of reality. We must be prepared toask of each text preserved for us, including the Pastoral Epistles,whose interests are reflected here and at what cost to whom?Conflicting forms of the faith must be analysed, not only as theo-logical arguments, but also as expressions of the interests of particularsocial groups and as forms of power struggle.We may thus ask about the extent to which the Christian faith

53. Cf. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, pp. 226-27; Hanson, Pastoral Epistles,pp. 25-26. For attempts to reconstruct the position and doctrines of the opponents,see, for example, Roloff, Timotheus, pp. 228-39; Dibelius and Conzelmann,Pastoral Epistles, pp. 65-67; and Schlarb, Die gesunde Lehre, which essentiallyassumes the Pastorals view: that the opposition are heretical, false teachers.

54. Verner, Household, p. 158.55. See 1 Tim. 3.1-13; Tit. 1.6-11. Cf. Verner, Household, pp. 147-60, esp.

p. 159; Towner, The Goal, p. 241: the approved conduct was that which wasrespectable both inside and outside the Christian community.



99

promoted by the Pastoral Epistles is becoming ideological; that is tosay, about the extent to which the theological and evangelicalresources of the Christian faith are being used to support and justifyforms of social domination. The missionary and apologetic motivesare certainly explicit in the Pastoral Epistles,&dquo; and as we have alreadynoted theological resources from the stories of creation and fall areused to legitimate a particular conception of womans role. It isinteresting to note how in 1 Pet. 2.18-25. Christs sufferings are usedas a theological resource to encourage slaves to bear even unjustsuffering, again with no reciprocal exhortation addressed to the slave-owners.

A potentially subversive faith has come in the Pastoral Epistles quiteclearly to add new religious legitimation to the social roles tradition-ally prescribed for the household context. It has thus become to someextent a religious ideology which supports and legitimates the formsof domination upon which Graeco-Roman society depended. Certainlythis is not all that the Pastoral Epistles are: among their variouselements they preserve many credal formulations,&dquo; they evidence asystem of care for the most needy widows in the community, 58 andthey offer a critique of the love of, and desire for, money(1 Tim. 6.6-10, 17-19). Those who would follow in Pauls apostolictradition are also told of the suffering which faces them (2 Tim. 2.3-13 ; 3.12; 4.5). Clearly the Pastorals do not merely reproducedominant cultural values, nor do they advocate shrinking from suffer-ing in favour of a quiet and peaceful life.s9 However, there is nocondemnation of the dominant social order; no declaration that theword of the cross is a demonstration that the powers that be are being

56. See 1 Tim. 3.7; 5.14; 6.1; Tit. 1.6; 2.5-10; 3.1-2. On 1 Tim. 6.1 Barrett(Pastoral Epistles, p. 82) writes, The decisive motive is missionary. On Tit. 2.9-10 Quinn (Titus, p. 149) comments, The purpose for this thoroughgoing reliability[of slaves] is missionary in character. The missionary motive for the Pastoralsteaching is (over)stressed by Towner, The Goal, pp. 145-257, esp. 222, 232-33,241, 244, 253-57.

57. E.g. 1 Tim. 2.5-6; 3.16; 6.15-16; 2 Tim. 1.9-10; 2.11-13; Tit. 3.4-7.58. 1 Tim. 5.3-16. See the discussion in MacDonald, Pauline Churches,

pp. 188-89 and Verner, Household, pp. 161-66.59. R.M. Kidd (Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles [SBLDS, 122;

Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990]) argues against the idea that the Pastorals represent aparticularly brgerlich form of Christian faith, giving close attention to the themes ofcultural accommodation and unheroic conservatism: see esp. pp. 111-94.



100

destroyed through Gods deliberate choice of the weak, foolishnobodies (1 Cor. 1.18-29); no particular criticism of those who arerich.6 As MacDonald points out in relation to this last point, in1 Tim. 6.17-19, the author is not instructing the wealthy to divestthemselves of their riches, but is exhorting them on how to be rich... aquestion of attitude.6 There is nothing to negate or contradict theideological elements within these epistles.Such a view of the Pastoral Epistles naturally raises a host of ques-

tions, not least, to what extent, if at all, such a social ethos is to befound in the thought of Paul himself. Following Theissen, some wouldargue that a love-patriarchal ethos runs throughout the Paulinecorpus, although it is more clearly evident in the later epistles. 62While some contrasts may be drawn, one might indeed argue thatmany of the ideas developed strongly in the Pastorals find at least anembryonic form in Pauls own letters. 1 Corinthians 11, especiallyvv. 8 and 9, uses the creation story to develop a somewhat hier-archical relation between the sexes;63 1 Cor. 7.20-24 and Philemoncertainly allow the interpretation that a Christian may contentedlyremain a slave, given the knowledge that they are somehow free inthe Lord and a valuable brother or sister; 1 Thess. 4.11 urges theideal of living quietly (~ajX6t~F-tv) in order, partly, to be

60. On wealth and the wealthy Verner (Household, p. 175) argues that the ethicpromoted by the Pastorals encourages an essentially static social situation. For adifferent view, namely that the opponents are among the wealthy, seeL.W. Countryman, The Rich Christian in the Church of the Early Empire:Contradictions and Accommodations (Texts and Studies in Religion, 7; New York:Edwin Mellen, 1980), pp. 152-54, 166-73, and Kidd, Wealth, pp. 75-77, 97-100.

61. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, p. 200. There is debate as to whether thesame group (the rich) are addressed also in vv. 9-10. It seems to me most likely thathere those seeking to become rich are in view; so also MacDonald, PaulineChurches, pp. 198-99; Verner, Household, pp. 174-75; otherwise Kidd, Wealth,pp. 95-97. Barrett (Pastoral Epistles, p. 85) comments that the author is careful notto condemn those who are rich (v. 9), or riches (v. 10).

62. See G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1982), pp. 107-108; MacDonald, Pauline Churches, pp. 43-44,121, 202; Kidd, Wealth, pp. 177-81.

63. I take 1 Cor. 14.34-35 to be an interpolation. I recognize that a lengthydiscussion would be needed to justify this fully, but see esp. G.D. Fee, The FirstEpistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns, 1987), pp. 699-708, and G. Fitzer, Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde (Theologische ExistenzHeute, 110; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1963).



101

EJxqv6vwq np6q to ro (v. 12); and, of course, Rom. 13.1-7urges all Christians to submit to the governing authorities, a passageclearly echoed by Tit. 3.1 (cf. also 1 Pet. 2.13-17).But given that the Pastorals represent a strong development of such

themes, the major question, of course, concerns the reasons for such adevelopment. An exploration of this question, I suggest, must take intoconsideration both internal and external factors. The presencewithin Pauline congregations from the start of socially prominent,wealthy householders may not be without significance for thedevelopment of Pauline teaching, particularly after the death of theapostle himself.64 To what extent did such people take the positions ofleadership within the church and increasingly formulate teachingwhich reflected their social interests? The requirements laid down forchurch leaders in 1 Tim. 3.1-13 (cf. Tit. 1.5-9) restrict leadingfunctions to those who govern their households well. Non- (male)householders, it seems, would be disqualified from such positions.However, the Pastorals also suggest that external factors were of

considerable influence. The prominence of the missionary and apolo-getic motives suggests that at least some of the believers wereconcerned that the faith should not be viewed as a subversive threat, asundermining the fabric of society, due in part to the threat andexperience of persecution. The pressure of suspicion and persecutionshould not be underestimated. But if persecution was a major cause ofthe development in Pauline Christianity, whereby its eventuallyorthodox, canonical form was becoming to some extent a religiousideology, legitimating and sustaining the forms of domination uponwhich society rested, then would we not have to acknowledge thatsuch persecution had indeed achieved its aim? Persecution may haveplayed a significant part in transforming a dangerous new religious

64. The thesis that there were at least a minority of well-to-do Christians withinthe Pauline communities has effectively replaced the old consensus that PaulineChristianity was initially a movement among the lower classes. Overviews of theconsiderable discussion can be found in W.A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians:The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983),pp. 51-73; B. Holmberg, Sociology and the New Testament: An Appraisal(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), pp. 21-76; Kidd, Wealth, pp. 35-75.Important influences upon this new consensus are E.A. Judge, The Social Pattern ofthe Christian Groups in the First Century (London: Tyndale Press, 1960),esp. pp. 59-60, and Theissen, Social Setting, pp. 69-119 (an essay originallypublished in 1974).



102

movement into one which encouraged the subordinate to remain sub-ordinate, prayed for kings and all those in high places (1 Tim. 2.1-2),and generally offered support and legitimation to the established socialhierarchy. Perhaps the power of Rome was such that a new religiongrowing as Christianity was growing could only survive in the longterm by transforming itself in this way. That Pauline Christianitycould become such an ideology may not be insignificant for under-standing its eventual adoption as the official religion of the empire.&dquo;Perhaps, as Bauer suggested, the Roman government finally came torecognize that the Christianity ecclesiastically organized from Romewas flesh of its flesh, came to unite with it, and thereby enabled it toachieve ultimate victory over unbelievers and heretics.66

Conclusion

Given the unavoidable ways in which theoretical perspectives influ-ence and shape interpretation, it is important to look critically at thosewe adopt and to consider their possible shortcomings and omissions. Itmay certainly be possible to use a sociological theory heuristically,as long as we acknowledge that it nevertheless puts a definite shapeupon our inquiry, leading us to ask some questions in certain ways,while omitting others. Critical consideration of our interpretativeperspectives is therefore always important. I hope to have raisedquestions which at least need to be borne in mind when using Bergerand Luckmanns theory in New Testament research. A sociologicalapproach based primarily upon it may ignore or misinterpret some ofthe issues which should be central to critical sociological inquiry. Thisis especially the case when the object of study is texts like the PastoralEpistles, whose ideology converges so closely with that of Berger andLuckmanns theory. To interpret the Pastorals from the perspective ofBerger and Luckmanns theory is to use a theoretical frameworkwhich easily reiterates and legitimates the perspective of the epistles,and thus fails to penetrate them critically. As Castelli points out, the

65. This idea may, I believe, add a significant new dimension to Theissensthesis that the love-patriarchal ethos of Pauline Christianity was a significant factor inits eventual adoption as the religion of the empire. See Theissen, Social Setting,pp. 107-10, 138-40, 163-64.

66. W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (London: SCMPress, 1972), p. 232.



103

failure to raise the critical questions which relate to the issue of powerresults in an uncritical reinscription of the power relations asserted bythe text.6 A critical sociological investigation of the New Testamentmust, I believe, raise the kinds of questions I have dealt with above,and must address them both to the theoretical perspectives which weadopt and to the texts themselves.Adopting such a critical approach, I have tentatively suggested that

we may discern in the Pastoral Epistles the beginnings or thedevelopment of ideological dimensions with Pauline Christianity. Thesymbolic universe of Pauline Christianity in the Pastorals does indeedhave the potential to become a sheltering canopy over the institutionalorder. For whatever reasons, this form of Christian faith offersreligious motives and theological justifications for the subordinationof particular social groups, predominantly women and slaves. Theenduring influence of such religious legitimations can scarcely beestimated, for, as Berger remarks, Religion legitimates social institu-tions by bestowing upon them an ultimately valid ontological status.&dquo;When undergirded by religion, the social order becomes rooted not

. only in human design, but in the will of God.69

,

ABSTRACT

Berger and Luckmanns work has been a prominent resource for sociologicalapproaches to the New Testament. Margaret MacDonald has recently drawn upon itin order to describe and understand the process of institutionalization from the time ofPaul to that of the Pastoral Epistles. This article raises critical questions in relation toboth Berger and Luckmanns theory and the Pastoral Epistles, in the belief that theideologies of the theory and the texts are notably similar. The theory, therefore, is indanger of reinforcing and confirming the ideology of the text, rather than penetratingit critically. A critical sociological approach, Horrell suggests, must raise thequestions concerning the social interests reflected in the texts and the textsideological dimensions. Adopting such a critical approach, it is tentatively suggestedthat the Pastorals represent an ideological form of Pauline Christianity which offersreligious legitimation for the domination of subordinate social groups.

67. E.A. Castelli, Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power (Louisville, KY:Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), pp. 23-33.

68. Berger, Social Reality, p. 33.69. Cf. Berger, Social Reality, p. 37.



journal for the study of the new testament

Documents

new testament study

new testament journal

new testament studies

thesociology of knowledge

remus sociology of knowledge

tomy knowledge

berger andluckmanns

study ofdoi