Issues Facing Missions Today 24: Some Methodological Questions for Leadership Studies

Issues Facing Missions Today 24: Some Methodological Questions for Leadership Studies

Introduction

In the following essay, I would like to ask three questions related to the study of ministry and challenge the idea that ‘leadership’ helps us in this study.  The questions are: (1) How should Christian ministry appropriate the social sciences? (2) Is ‘leadership’ an appropriate concept for Christian ministry?, and (3) What exactly are terms for ministry in the Church, and do they involve the notion of leadership?

Three Questions

First, ‘How should Christian ministry appropriate the social sciences?’  The issue here is not whether the social sciences are worth investigating, but how they should be engaged.  One approach might be to adopt a theory from the social sciences as a starting point.  Another, opposite approach might be to try to derive a theory from Scripture.  For example, methodologically one might begin with pedagogical theory from the field of education or one might attempt to discover Jesus’ teaching methods.  Another example might be that one might adopt a counselling theory from the field of psychology or one might try to articulate an approach to counselling that is somehow derived from Scripture.

In either case mentioned in each of these two examples, we need to ask whether Scripture is actually teaching something or whether we are merely using Scripture to illustrate a notion—in which case Scripture is not functioning authoritatively.  If we were to say that we can illustrate facilitative and active learning, analogical reasoning, or the use of figures in rhetoric in Jesus’ teaching, we would not be using Scripture authoritatively.  Jesus would merely be our illustration of teaching methods and communication theory (or rhetoric) that we derived from those fields of study.  If we were to argue that Scripture teaches us something about what it means to be human, that there is a struggle with passions of the flesh and desire, and that we are more than physical beings, we would be working towards an approach to counselling based on the authoritative teachings of Scripture that will certainly challenge reigning ideas in the field of counselling.  As a teacher, I may learn much that is helpful about teaching from the field of adult education.  In fact, I am far more inclined to turn to the field of education than to Scripture to learn about teaching, since Scripture is not a textbook on teaching.

Such examples are offered so that we might consider the idea of leadership when discussing ministry.  When Scripture is engaged in leadership studies, we must ask whether a contemporary author is (1) merely illustrating some notion derived from another field of study altogether (‘Leadership Studies’) or (2) is identifying an essential Biblical teaching.  Even if we have derived a part of our theory from what Scripture actually teaches, we further need to realize that Scripture is not teaching our entire theory.  A collection of different points, even if Biblical, does not make the whole—a theology or theory—Biblical.

The even more basic question to ask with leadership studies is whether leadership is in fact a helpful notion at all for discussing Christian ministry.  It may be an established field of study in the social sciences, but is it relevant for ministry in the church?  For example, a student once asked the question whether we do not need a theory of leadership in our day because we have so many large churches.  We might, I would suggest, rather ask, ‘In what way does a large church strain the Biblical notion of a ‘gathered community’ that experiences spiritual gifts and fellowship?  Is a large ‘church’ really a ‘church’—especially if we find ourselves forced to move from the concept of ministry (service) to leadership because of our new ecclesiological focus?’  I realize that I am pushing hard here, but not inappropriately, against merely accepting categories that come to us already endorsed by our contexts, our present state of learning, our assumptions, and our cultures.  We might find ourselves adopting certain theories from the social sciences, but we need to be careful each step of the way that we have not distorted our reading of Scripture.

As an alternative, for example, consider the consultancy work of Greg Troxell, called Professional DynaMetric Programs or PDP.[1]  Instead of discussing ministry in terms of leadership (although he does use the term on occasion but not in his analyses), he uses the field of psychology to explore ministry discernment and discipleship.  He uses simple testing to clarify a person’s ministry (apostle, prophet, evangelist, shepherd, and teacher),[2] spiritual gifts (prophecy, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, administration, and mercy), availability, experience, talents, Christian spirituality, personal and behavioral style, and motivational needs.  The method of research is not about defining a single category but working with multiple categories: it is not about what makes a good leader but about (1) who makes a good colleague for this team and (2) what various personalities (and other factors) aid or hinder a person in his or her calling to that ministry.  Such a method seems to leave Scripture to define gifts, ministry, the church, and so forth while it uses psychology and testing to facilitate forming a staff and to help persons be more self-aware of their strengths and challenges as they offer their services within certain contexts.[3]

Second, Is ‘leadership’ an appropriate concept for Christian ministry?  One question I would like us to think about long and hard is whether we need the category 'leadership' when we speak about people in various oversight roles. ‘Leadership’ is not the same thing as ‘oversight’.  Think about the difference between the words 'authority' and 'responsibility.'  The former moves us to speak of power and its use, the latter to speak of obligation and obedience.  The former is a 'leadership' term, the latter is a 'servanthood/discipleship' term.  If I have oversight of something, I think of my responsibility in regard to that thing.  For example, if I am entrusted with oversight over a classroom of students and their learning in my class, I am not approaching this task as a ‘leader’ but as a teacher, responsible to educate these students in the right ways with the right curriculum. The concept of 'leadership' is irrelevant to my service or ministry as a teacher.  In fact, it would confuse the ministry I am called to do.  I think about gifting--my gift is teaching.  I do not think about holding an office, wielding power, how to control people, and the like.  I think about responsibility to proclaim the Gospel and to teach students the Scriptures.  So, my question is, if we want to speak about elders, overseers, deacons (the word means 'servants'!), pastors, teachers, etc., would it not just be best to explore what these roles of service are and how to go about them?  Do we need some catch-all concept like 'leadership' to understand them?  And, if we are to have a catch-all term, why ‘leadership’ instead of ‘ministry’ (that is, service)?

Third, What exactly are terms for ministry in the Church, and do they involve the notion of leadership?  When we find persons in some oversight role in Scripture, such as 'apostle’, we need to examine in great detail what in fact is said about this.  So, e.g., Paul is aware that 'apostle' could carry rights and authority (1 Cor. 9; 2 Cor. 11), but he radically undermines this understanding for his own role as an apostle.  He rather turns his role as apostle from being a leadership notion into a responsibility and service notion having to do with faithfully discharging the Gospel (Gal. 1.8) or servicing of others (1 Cor. 9.15-27).  His apostleship is not the exercising of authority over others but the fulfillment of a charge, like an ambassador (2 Cor. 5.20). 

From 1 Tim. 3, we see that the overseer (or elder) and the deacon in the church are entrusted with responsibilities such as teaching, finances, and other ministries of service.  Their roles are understood in terms of responsibility rather than authority, service instead of office, function instead of status, and the qualifications for these ministries have to do with whether candidates have proven themselves over time and can be trusted to fulfill their responsibilities.  There is only the slightest element of authority over others in the qualification that they have control over their own households (vv. 4-5), but even that could be understood more from the perspective of responsibility (‘how will he care for the church of God so that members are guided in the right direction of truth rather than false teaching?’) than how to exercise authority over others. 

Elders are called ‘shepherds’ in 1 Peter 5.  They are not to lord it over others but to be examples to them (v. 3).  In Hebrews 13.7, where the word ‘hēgoumenōn’ is translated as ‘leaders’ in the NRSV and ESV, we should probably have more in mind ‘those who guide you,’ since that is the idea.  The passage goes on to say to those following these ‘leaders’, ‘consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.’  Finally, in Rom. 12.8, the word translated ‘leader’ in various English translations comes from two Greek words: to ‘stand’ ‘before’.  A leader stands before people, but also the person who shows others how to do something.  It likely is to be understood in the same sense as 1 Pt. 5.3 and Heb. 13.7: there are people in the community who set the example for others.  The community recognizes them in this role, and they can carry responsibility.

If we think it appropriate to call this ‘leadership,’ we need to recognize that this is not ‘servant-leadership.’  Servant-leadership is a notion of the use of power to serve others, but such passages have in mind serving and caring for others by showing them the way to live, and being faithful stewards.  Is this Biblical understanding of ministry at all enhanced by speaking rather of leadership and deriving information from leadership studies from the business world?

Conclusion

The way forward in considerations of Christian ministry is to be radically Biblical, avoiding the appropriation and misuse of Scripture in ways that give the appearance of being Biblical while really deriving notions and practices from other sources.  This does not mean jettisoning the use of the social sciences, but it does require us to be clear about what is Biblical and what is not.  Psychology can be used to discuss various types of ministries and ministry settings, for example, without suspiciously trying to implant notions from the sciences in Scripture.  We need to be aware of our assumptions and methods all along the way.  Ultimately, ‘leadership’ proves to be too problematic a concept to discuss Christian ministry, bringing with it misunderstandings at so many levels that it can only distort Biblical teaching.  This is true even where we think that we have ‘leadership’ terminology in the New Testament Church.  An appropriate Biblical understanding of ministry will best be derived from careful study of each ministry role on its own and by understanding these roles in terms of the responsibility, not authority, that each carries.

---

[1] See the description at www.gtroxell.com.

[2] This list comes from Eph. 4.9. It is worth noting that the list of ministries is neither incomplete nor mutually exclusive.  In fact, Paul’s syntax with ‘pastors and teachers’ in the list suggests some overlap between the two.  Still, if such categories are used to probe discussion rather than restrict a person to a certain ministry, they can be helpful.

[3] My purpose in mentioning this is only to offer one way someone might explore things differently that others have tried to discuss under the terminology of ‘leadership’.  I am not sufficiently familiar with Troxell’s actual work to endorse it as such.  I remain wary of simplifications, classifications, and categories that get overused and end up limiting rather than opening up considerations.  For a simple example, Moses had a speech impediment that would have, in his mind, hindered him from the ministry to which he was called.  For God, that was simply an issue to overcome rather than a limitation that disqualified him.

Issues Facing Missions Today: 23 Women’s Ordination: Contextual Considerations

Issues Facing Missions Today: 23 Women’s Ordination: Contextual Considerations

or

‘Why Anglicans Should Probably Oppose Women’s Ordination at This Time and Why Pentecostals Should Continue to Support it: An Enquiry into the Engagement of Scripture for Christian Practice’

Introduction:

I intend to consider some contextual issues in the debate over women in ministry—specifically a teaching ministry.  I will touch on some exegetical issues, but this is not the place to examine all of them.  I will address some hermeneutical issues, but only some.  What concerns me more directly in this essay is how context—our context and the context in Ephesus and in Corinth in the first century—speaks to the issue of women in teaching ministries both then and now.  Our context today is diverse and calls for diverse approaches to a situation such as this.  The sensitivity to culture and context that missionaries hone to be successful in their calling can be a helpful hermeneutical tool for reading and interpreting Scripture.  Indeed, as I will discuss, my own involvement in different contexts in various Christian traditions leads me to accept different views on the issue of women in teaching.

The primary texts to consider exegetically in a larger discussion of this matter all come from Paul: 1 Cor. 11.2-16; 14.33b-36; 1 Tim. 2.9-15; Eph. 5.21-33; and Col. 3.18-19.  None of them speak directly to the issue of ordination.  In fact, ordination itself means different things to different churches today, and we need to be careful in assuming that a contemporary practice of ordination is practiced in a way that it was in the first century churches.  Moreover, some of the passages speaking to the issue of the role and status of women in the Church are more relevant to the relationship between husbands and wives (such as the Ephesians and Colossian passages).  Yet out of all this there are some matters to consider in discussing the question of whether women should be ordained to a teaching ministry.

That is how the question is typically asked: ‘Should women be ordained?’  As we look at contextual issues, we may find that an absolute answer to this may be impossible.  In what follows, I would like to consider contextual issues in these Pauline letters and then turn to contextual issues in our own contexts.  To make this more interesting, I propose the cheeky proposition that Anglicans should, in most contexts, probably oppose women’s ordination at this time while Pentecostals should surely continue to support it.  Others in other traditions will read this with their own traditions in mind and some—I have the Presbyterian Church in America in mind—should probably now begin to move to ordaining women for teaching ministry.  Those considerations belong in the respective traditions—it is not for me to say.  What I do believe, however, is that context does make a difference in this much debated issue.

Paul’s Contextual Arguments

In 1 Timothy 2.12-14, Paul clearly excludes women in Ephesus from teaching.  The paragraph says,

⁸ I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument;  ⁹ also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes,  ¹⁰ but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God.  ¹¹ Let a woman learn in silence with full submission.  ¹² I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.  ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve;  ¹⁴ and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.  ¹⁵ Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty (1 Tim. 2.8-15, NRSV).

Paul supports his argument with a narrative reading from Gen. 1-3 and addresses a very specific although somewhat elusive problem in the church.  Just how contingent is such an argument?

Sandwiched between a word about women not wearing braided hair, gold, pearls, and expensive clothes (v. 9) and a word about a woman being saved through childbirth (v. 15) in 1 Tim. 2.9-15 is what Paul says about women being quiet, not teaching, and not wielding authority over a man.  One would be hard-pressed to find a person who insists that braided hair is always wrong or that women are saved through childbirth today, and so the matter of a contextual reading of the matters press upon the interpreter.  However, Paul’s words appear to involve a transcultural authority when he bases what he says about a woman not wielding authority over a man on the fact that Adam was created first and then Eve.  On the other hand, when Paul says a woman should not teach because Eve, not Adam, was deceived, he seems to be presenting a relative argument that pertains to actual false teaching in the Ephesian church.  We can learn from both of his arguments, the transcultural and the culturally relative.

False Teaching

To appreciate the contextual and culturally relative arguments in 1 Tim. 2.11-14 in particular, we need to understand that false teachers have taught in Ephesus that women should not marry (1 Tim. 4.3, ‘They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods…’).  This helps us understand why Paul draws attention to the fact that a woman, Eve, was saved through childbirth in 1 Tim. 2.15.[1]  In the context of the Ephesian church, some young widows have vowed not to marry and become dependent on church funds.  Subsequently, however, they have found themselves attracted to men and wanted to marry (1 Tim. 5.11-12, ‘But refuse to put younger widows on the list; for when their sensual desires alienate them from Christ, they want to marry,  ¹² and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge’).  In the culture, unmarried women outside their father’s household enjoyed an unusual freedom that must also have been very difficult economically and culturally.  This explains why these young, single widows were turning to church funds for support.  Vows to celibacy also ran counter to many younger widow’s sexual nature, and their unmarried state could lead them into a sexual temptation that Paul says is a turning away to Satan (1 Tim. 5.14-15, ‘So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, and manage their households, so as to give the adversary no occasion to revile us.  ¹⁵ For some have already turned away to follow Satan’).  Furthermore, the young widows gave their time to idleness, gadding about from house to house, gossiping and being busybodies (1 Tim. 5.13, ‘Besides that, they learn to be idle, gadding about from house to house; and they are not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not say’).

Thus, Paul counters this bad teaching against marriage and this bad practice among young widows in Ephesus by saying that the younger widows should not pledge celibacy but should get married, have children, and manage their households lest their freedom be their downfall.  He sees a practical matter of marital status related to the very serious matter of spiritual life.  Paul’s advice regarding women is a concern about women breaking their vows, destroying Christian community, and endangering their souls through sinful practices.  Certain sinful characters, says Paul in his second letter to Timothy, work their way ‘into households and captivate silly women, overwhelmed by their sins and swayed by all kinds of desires, who are always being instructed and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth’ (2 Tim. 3.6-7).  One further contextual issue should be noted here as well: all these matters are taking place in a general cultural context in which the education of women was frowned upon and simply rarely offered in the 1^st century.

Gender Status

In 1 Timothy, there is also a concern on Paul’s part that women remain in their God-given status, a status embedded in creation itself and not susceptible to cultural contexts, even if the expression of this can be cultural.  Women should not wield authority[2] over men, for Adam was created first.  Here, Paul is concerned about a reversal of what God intended in creation, a confusion of gender status.  1 Cor. 11.2-16 is a similar text in what it says about avoiding confusion over genders.  It is a difficult text to interpret in many ways, but Paul is clearly arguing against a confusion of the male and female roles that is expressed in his culture’s view on hair length and covering.  Moreover, in the household codes of Colossians and Ephesians, Paul also sees the man as the authoritative head over the woman—not the ‘source’ of the woman, as some have valiantly but unsuccessfully attempted to argue since the 1980s.[3]  Paul’s arguments against homosexuality in Rom. 1.24-28 also involve a challenge of his culture’s confusion of gender.  In Paul’s cultural context, gender confusion could be expressed in women wielding authority over men in a teaching role.  Yet gender confusion and women teaching men can be separated in other cultures, as we are well aware today.

Our Western Cultural, ‘Liberation’ Reading of Scripture

Perhaps the most prominent cultural lens through which many read Scripture in the West is that of liberation.  One presentation of this modernist, totalizing metanarrative of liberation is that there is a liberation principle in Scripture that can be used to undermine certain practices in the Scripture itself as well as in history and society today.  Thus, it is argued, the liberation principle should be used against the patriarchalism of the Bible, against the practice of slavery, against any inequality for women, against Jesus’ overly strong words on a subject such as divorce and remarriage, against Western colonialism and subjugation of other cultures, against restrictions on women choosing whether or not to have abortions, and now on the issue of homosexuality.  By using a single lens, this perspective is characteristic of modernity instead of postmodernity, and by using this perspective for viewing so much of life and ethics, it is a totalizing metanarrative, as Francois Lyotard pointed out in his description of modernity versus postmodernity.[4]

The connection between these various issues is forced, however. The modernist, liberationist principle for reading Scripture is not necessary to oppose an issue such as slavery.  The view that Scripture supports slavery is simply impossible to hold when one understands that the Old Testament was correcting certain practices of slavery and, especially when one understands how the early Church was responding to the practice of slavery that included about 1/3 of persons in the Roman Empire.  Paul’s approach in the letter of Philemon was not to forbid the practice but completely undermine its abuses.  Other passages, such as 1 Cor. 7.21-22, 1 Tim. 1.10, and Rev. 18.13 also undermine the practice itself.  Moreover, the view in the modern West that Scripture supports slavery is an instance of a culture economically dependent on slavery reading what people wanted to find in the Scriptures—an affirmation of its exploitative and abusive practices.  In this case, texts mentioning the practice of slavery were taken normatively over against texts that undermined that very viewpoint because of the contemporary culture. The use of Scripture in the cultural context of America in the 19^th century to affirm slavery and the use of Scripture to affirm homosexuality in the 21^st century are one and the same.  Both involve a particular culture forcing its perspective on the Biblical text.  While liberation interpreters might imagine that the overarching hermeneutic is one of liberation, in fact the issue is simply the contemporary culture’s imposition of its perspective on the ancient text (whether reading its values into the text or reading against the text).  Hermeneutically, those arguing today in favour of homosexuality are doing what pro-slavery advocates did in the 19^th century: arguing for their cultural values over against the Biblical text.

My Contextual Lenses

I should explain my own inclinations in this matter of women in ministry that can affect and have affected my reading of Scripture.  First, I grew up within the Pentecostal tradition.  My family history almost runs back to the very beginning of Pentecostalism in America.  Pentecostalism grew out of the 19^th century Holiness Movement in America, and both expressions of Christianity accepted women in ministry positions.  My grandmother and mother were missionaries in South Africa, and both would preach and teach as part of their calling in ministry.  They would do so in their own roles as ministers of the Gospel, not because there was a man present or because they only spoke to other women or any other such limitation that we have seen proposed during the 20^th century to distinguish women’s ministry of teaching from men’s.  Thus my own upbringing inclines me to affirm women in any and every ministry, including teaching.

Second, I am also a missionary and have had the privilege to look at issues from a variety of cultures and Christian traditions. My experience of cultures tells me that the role and status of women in society is a highly contextual and socially important matter—not to be overrun by some ethic of ‘rights’.  Growing up as a missionary kid in South Africa, there were times when we, members of the missionary family, were permitted to eat with the man of the house at the table when invited for a meal, but the women who served us had to eat in the kitchen with the children.  This was terribly awkward even as a boy, given my European (as South African whites would call themselves) culture.  I am very aware that social contexts are wildly different from one another, and a ‘human rights’ or ‘feminist’ ideology appears to me to be painfully modernist in its totalizing agenda and to be blissfully ignorant of legitimate, postmodern incredulity towards metanarratives, whether liberation or some a-contextual, redemptive principle.[5]

Why Pentecostals Should Continue to Support Women in Ministry

The Holiness Movement and Pentecostal movement in the American Church supported women in ministry roles over against the culture.  The conviction was that these women had mighty gifts from God to do what they were called to do.  They did not minister because they were equal to men; they ministered because the Holy Spirit had empowered them to fulfill a calling in ministry that they were compelled to fulfill.  The issue of equality or liberation simply did not feature in the discussion.

My mother’s entire life as a missionary was based on a vision that she had while in prayer as a child.  In the vision, she saw herself teaching children underneath a thorn tree in Africa.  Her calling was the basis for her ministry, not some view that she could and should be able to do what men do.  In 1 Timothy, Paul says that women should not teach because Eve was deceived by the serpent (1 Tim. 2.12, 14). Yet he encourages older women to teach younger women in Tit. 2.3-5. He clearly did not believe that women were, by nature, open to deception and false teaching.  In my mother’s case, equality was not the basis for her ministry but a calling from God and an empowering from the Holy Spirit.  As long as the focus is on being gifted and empowered by the Spirit and on opposing false teaching through Scripture, Pentecostals should continue to ordain women to teaching ministry.  That the culture today finds this more acceptable is irrelevant.

Why Anglicans Should Probably Not Appoint Women to Teaching Ministry at This Time

The case was entirely different for mainline denominations, where the culture’s liberationist lens was used to reform culture and, eventually, the Church.  The feminist movement in the US picked up great steam in the 1960s.  Women had already won the right to vote.  Birth control had already been invented.  Women had already entered the work force in cities and had independent incomes from men.  But the social revolution of the 1960s pressed these wins still further and, with this, came increasing calls in mainline denominations to approve women in all ministerial roles.  That trajectory came to affirm abortion as a right for women to exercise, and now it is used to support homosexual marriage and the ordination of homosexuals.

Mainline, Protestant denominations had already hitched their reading of Scripture to the cultural wagon, and yet they were at the same time traditional expressions of Christianity that did not easily change with the culture.  However, once they capitulated to the culture, jettisoning historical orthodoxy and Biblical authority, they became much greater prey to the culture.  They were always a step or two behind culture, but they were nonetheless tethered to it and were eventually pulled along by it.  Pick an issue, any issue, and the mainline denominations were following in step with the liberal elements of Western culture.  They became chameleons of culture.  Their views about Scripture were shaped not through Biblical interpretation but by the culture, and they either read with Scripture or against it, depending on whether their cultural views could be affirmed or not affirmed by Scripture.

Thus, the argument that women should be ordained to parish ministry and be allowed to become bishops comes across for many in global Anglican circles as just another example along the way of how culture determines what one will read in Scripture and what one will practice in the Church.  Anglicans in America have divided between the Episcopal Church, largely a liberal, oldline denomination that has blended into Western culture and thus declined in membership by half over the past fifty years, and the newer Anglican Church of North America that holds to historical orthodoxy.

The discussion of women’s ordination in that context is very different from Pentecostalism.  The discussion comes on the heels of a division centering on whether the Church is shaped by Scripture or the culture.  Having just faced the gender confusion of the homosexual debate in the Episcopal Church in America, it may be premature to press for women’s ordination in the Anglican dialogue on the issue.  If the Anglican Church of North America can accept the Pentecostal view of ordination as the affirmation of spiritual gifts and not the liberationist view of gender equality and sexual permissiveness, the door may open for women’s ordination.  But it is probably too early for most international contexts to address the issue after the wounding of the Anglican Church by so many Western theologians, bishops, and priests.  The danger for orthodox Anglicans is that the orthodox movement of GAFCON will be split apart by pressing the issue at this time of women’s ordination.  As I understand it in Africa, the Nigerian Anglicans are against women’s ordination, whereas Ugandan and Kenyan Anglicans are in favour: and yet all are Evangelical.  In the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, a strong liberationist interpretation (originating in the time of Apartheid) has dominated, such that the discussion of women’s ordination is hopelessly entangled with any liberation agenda, including, it now appears, with the push for the affirmation of homosexual practice.

It seems to me that Paul would say, as he did in 1 Timothy to the Ephesian context and in 1 Corinthians to the Corinthian context, that, as long as there is a heretical teaching about gender, a recent history of rejecting Scripture in favour of culture, and the possibility of dividing a large Christian communion, the better path is at this time is to forego women’s ordination.

Conclusion

The antidotes to a cultural reading of Scripture that is contextually unaware involve, first of all, good exegesis.  We need to do our homework and properly hear Scripture in its context.  A second antidote to cultural interpretation is to ask ourselves whether we are pressing an issue that our culture is also, at the same time, pressing.  Third, we might ask whether an issue in our culture fits into a totalizing metanarrative that cannot appreciate contextual issues and interpretation in Scripture, such as liberation in Western culture.  Fourth, we should also be very wary of any use of general principles or values that are too abstract to bring clarity to ethical issues.  Such general values and principles—liberation, love—can easily be twisted one way or the other to validate certain convictions or practices.  Liberation is far too general a value, as is a redemptive trajectory or some other wobbly tool, to be of any use to guide us in interpretation.  To the extent either is invoked, it must be in conjunction with other compelling reasons that help focus interpretation better and help interpreters see how a Biblical text applies to its original culture and to the present situation.  Fifth, as argued here, we need to realize that there might be alternative practices within the Church around the world even if we favour one over another: the same convictions may lead to different expressions of them in different times and cultures.  Even transculturally normative convictions may find diverse expressions in various cultural contexts.  For one culture or one tradition’s current discussion, women teaching men might not at all be related in people’s minds to a confusion of gender.  For another, the issue of women teaching men might be directly related to a confusion of gender issues, if not also other theological errors and a denigration of Biblical authority.

This leads to one final point about context.  If one church tradition entangled with theological error and confusion over gender should probably not throw into the debate the issue of women’s teaching at this time, and if another tradition’s stand against cultural interpretation and affirmation of God’s calling and gifting for ministry should lead it to continue to affirm women in teaching roles in the Church, then it is possible that some Church traditions should consider moving their practice to affirm women in teaching roles in the Church.  That context would be where women’s ordination to teaching ministries is understood in terms of calling and gifting rather than as a right, where there is no gender confusion between males and females, and where heretical teaching is not tolerated.  In my understanding, this ought to lead some Evangelical denominations that do not ordain women to consider doing so, lest their practice be more an affirmation of a conservative culture than of Biblical views on spiritual gifts and sound teaching in the Church.

---

[1] Note that Paul uses the singular in the beginning of this verse and the plural, ‘they’, in the rest of the verse.  In the beginning of the verse, he still has Eve in view as he is arguing from the Genesis narrative.  From the text’s perspective, she ‘will’ be saved through childbirth even though she was deceived and became a transgressor.  Paul sees this as analogous to the situation that Timothy is facing in Ephesus, since preaching against marriage and the failure to marry in the case of younger widows is endangering the spiritual lives of women in the church.  As he did in v. 10, Paul follows up his contextual argument with a more general statement that is applicable to any context in the second half of v. 15.

[2] The Greek word appears only here in the New Testament and has been understood simply as a synonym for kuriein, the more common word for ‘to have authority over,’ or as a term suggesting abuse of authority.  I take it more in the latter sense: it implies abuse of some sort—which is Paul’s point.  Eve overstepped her status as well as taught the deception of the serpent.

[3] The discussion of the meaning of ‘kephalē’—‘head’—has produced a mound of literature since the 1980s.  Without presenting my argument here, I would simply say that the meaning of the Greek word clearly (I do not see this as disputable) could and did in Paul’s usage entail authority.  This was already evident in the Septuagint and was how Greek speaking Christians in the Patristic era understood the word.

[4] Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. G. Bennington and B. Massumi (Manchester University Press, 1984).

[5] The idea that a ‘redemptive principle’ should be seen in Scripture that helps determine what is transcultural and what is culturally relative was proposed by Robert J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001).

Engaging the Bible in Mission Theology Scholarship: Darryl Jackson’s Challenge of ‘Servant Leaders’ Scholarship

Engaging the Bible in Mission Theology Scholarship: Darryl Jackson’s Challenge of ‘Servant Leaders’ Scholarship

Darrell Jackson, Senior Lecturer in Missiology at Morling College, Sydney, Australia (and former colleague of mine at the International Baptist Theological Seminary in Prague), has published an article in line with my own thinking (albeit independently) on the problems with the language of leadership and servant-leadership that I would like to recommend.  It is entitled, ‘For the Son of Man Did Not Come to Lead, But to be Led: Matthew 20:20-28 and Royal Service.’[1]  The article offers three points that I would like to highlight.

First, Jackson helps us to identify the origin of the ‘servant-leadership’ discussion of Christian ministry.  Robert Greenleaf (1904-1990), a Quaker and a director of management research at AT&T who wrote in the 1960s and 1970s, is apparently the source of the idea of ‘servant-leadership.’  Jackson says that Greenleaf’s ‘understanding of servant leadership emerged intuitively whilst reading the novel Journey to the East by Hermann Hesse in which the leadership of a mythical group of pilgrims is finally revealed to have been in the hands of their servant, Leo. Hesse’s writings were heavily inspired by Buddhism and Greenleaf’s Quaker beliefs readily accommodated insights from Hesse.’

Jackson continues,

The attraction of Greenleaf’s work to practitioners and students of Christian leadership is obvious. He was comfortable with the language of spirituality and faith (albeit in a Quaker accent). Secondly, his attention to the servant nature of leadership resonates with Old Testament passages that make reference to the servant nature of the Messiah as well as to New Testament understandings of the person and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Thirdly, he was encouraged and invited to address his thinking directly to Christian organisations, including theological colleges and seminaries.’

Eventually, with Bishop Bennett Sims, Greenleaf established the Institute for Servant Leadership in North Carolina.

A second contribution that Jackson makes is his examination of a number of authors who have attempted to interpret Christian ministry in terms of servant leadership.  He examines how they differ and how they attempt to use Scripture for their theories.  Jackson helpfully points out the deficiencies in their hermeneutics and exegesis.

Jackson’s third contribution in his essay is a more focussed study of Mt. 20.20-28 (paralleled in Mk. 10.35-45).  With reference to Warren Carter’s Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001), Jackson examines the meaning of Mt. 20.20-28 as a critique of the power and authority witnessed in the Roman Empire.  This is helpful, although Matthew also articulates the problems of religious leadership in Israel (especially Mt. 23 and in the passion story).  Moreover, John the Baptist’s ministry involved a confrontation with Herod Antipas over divorce and remarriage that ended in John’s death.  Yet Jackson is, in my view, correct in his conclusion that ‘Humility and sacrificial service are not steps to greatness, they are greatness that is the hallmark of the Kingdom of God, of Jesus’ messianic rule.’  Again, Jackson says, ‘In referring to the Gentile rulers’ abuse of power (Mat 20:25), Jesus re-conceives status in the messianic community or kingdom (20:21) as bonded service (20:26).’ Jackson’s challenge of servant-leadership studies leads him to suggest understanding ministry in terms of ‘servantship’.

---

[1] Darrell Jackson, 'For the Son of Man Did Not Come to Lead but to be Led: Matthew 20:20-28 and Royal Service,' in Servantship: Sixteen Servants on the Four Movements of Radical Servanship,' ed. Graham Hill (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013). 

Issues Facing Missions Today 22: The Disciples Are Not 'Leaders' But 'Little Ones' in Matthew's Gospel

Issues Facing Missions Today 22: The Disciples Are Not 'Leaders' But 'Little Ones' in Matthew's Gospel

The following article of mine (about 9,000 words) originally appeared in the journal Transformation, a holistic mission studies journal published by the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies.  See: 'Not 'Leaders' but 'Little Ones' in the Father's Kingdom: The character of discipleship in Matthew's Gospel.' Transformation 2004 (21.2): 114-125. With thanks to Transformation, it is republished here as part of my mini-series challenging the leadership and servant-leadership paradigms for Christian ministry.

Not 'Leaders' but 'Little Ones' in the Father's Kingdom:

The Character of Discipleship in Matthew's Gospel

Introduction:

'Leadership' literature and programmes abound in Christian circles today.  Financial supporters want to know that their money will train 'leaders'.  Ministers looking for a change can move up the denominational ladder through some kind of leadership training (e.g., a 'Leadership' track in a Doctor of Ministry degree).  Outside the Church, the local, national and global news is seen through the lens of how leaders are doing.  In a word, 'leadership' is a topic that sells well.  Consequently, it can be rather  difficult to convince someone that it is not a study of leadership per se that he or she needs but a study of the Bible, Church history, theology, ethics, or missions to prepare him or her better for ministry to others.

John Stott ends his book Issues Facing Christians Today with a focus on leadership.  He begins: 'There is a serious dearth of leaders in the contemporary world.'[1]  This leads him into a rhetorically fine piece on the qualities of good leadership: visionary, industrious, persevering, serving, and disciplined.  Such a description of leadership should become a cause for concern in leadership studies, however, as it may be used to describe people from Adolf Hitler to Mother Theresa.

By framing the discussion of ministry in terms of 'leadership'--when did this change from 'ministry' to 'leadership' take place?--Christian educators naturally turn to the social sciences and business education to find out what makes a good leader.  The Bible is then searched for authoritative proof-texts and examples of the leadership theory being promoted.  But such studies invariably beg the question whether Biblical characters are being presented as models for Christian ministry today.  Change the metaphor from 'leadership' back to 'ministry' and one's use of the Bible changes as well, not to mention the whole content or curriculum of such a study.

This essay does not proceed from the general interest in leadership studies to discover what the Bible might say about the topic.  The assumption is that we need to hear the Biblical witness on its own terms before trying to fit it into our predetermined categories.  The larger project requires hearing independent voices in the canon, appreciating development within the canon, and allowing for diversity in the canon if that is what we find.  This study contributes towards this end by attending to one canonical voice: Matthew.  Something might be said about church 'leaders' in other parts of the New Testament, or perhaps even 'leadership' in the Old Testament writings, but Matthew's Gospel offers a strong challenge to this way of framing any discussion of Christian ministry--a challenge which 'Christian leadership' studies need to hear.

The Character of Discipleship in Matthew's Gospel: Introductory Remarks

This study, then, examines Matthew's answer to the question, 'What is it that we are doing when we are being disciples?'  The disciples of Jesus were tempted to answer this question through one of two models on offer in their Jewish and early Christian contexts: discipleship either as rabbinic training within institutional religion (Mt. 23.8ff) or as something more operational (ministerial) or even charismatic (Mt. 7.15-23).  Matthew offers an alternative view of disciples: not leaders but little ones in intentional community and mission.[2]

Jesus' teaching on and example of 'littleness' instead of leadership in Matthew was not a qualification of the leadership notion, such as in the oxymoron 'servant leadership' so often used in Christian circles today.  'Servant leadership' implies the exercise of power for service.  This is not the message of the cross, which is about serving in 'weakness'. In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus posed an all-out challenge to thinking in leadership terms at all.  At its heart, this challenge is to authority structures, balancing and manipulating power resources, seeking advancement, appealing to a magisterial body apart from Jesus (cf. Mt. 23.8-11), and a focus on successful accomplishments (Mt. 7.15-23).  On the other hand, as we shall see, 'littleness' must not be confused with egalitarianism, which has to do with the balancing of power in a community.

The character of Jesus' disciples in Matthew's Gospel is a theme established right at the beginning of Matthew's account of Jesus' ministry in the Sermon on the Mount (5.3-12).  It follows throughout the Gospel as a theme on becoming and being little for ministry.  In this essay, I will comment on this theme through a focus on Mt. 17.24-20.28 and then examine the terms Matthew's Gospel uses for the disciples.

At the outset, though, we need to see that discipleship in Matthew's Gospel must be seen  from an exilic point of view:[3] disciples are those who pray like Nehemiah at the time of the return from exile, confessing their sins, avowing to revere God's name, and calling on Him to restore them (Neh. 1.5-11).  The 'Lord's Prayer' (Mt. 6.9-13) is itself a prayer of exiles anticipating the coming of God's kingdom: it is a prayer of littleness before the greatness of God's restoring His people from their well-deserved exile.  Following the synagogue prayer called the Qaddish, it prays for God's kingdom to come and puts the petitioner into the mindset of the Jewish exiles awaiting God's restoration.[4]  Israel went into captivity because she failed to hallow God's name, but God's restoring his people to His kingdom reign, despite their sins, would entail sanctifying His great and holy name among the nations (Ez. 36.20ff).  The prayers for 'daily bread', not being led into temptation, and being delivered from evil all easily recall to mind Israel's needs and failures when they were first led out of captivity from Egypt.  With this memory brought to mind, the disciple praying the Lord's Prayer (really, the Disciple's Prayer), adopts the posture of a chastened exile wholly dependent upon God's mercy.[5]  Thus the beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer produce a foundational understanding of discipleship on which the rest of the Gospel builds.

Searching for Thematic Structuring in Matthew

Matthew Uses Themes to Structure His Gospel

I must first establish that Mt. 17.24-20.28 is a thematic unit in Matthew.  The typical structuring of Matthew's Gospel places Mt. 18 as a self-contained unit, the ecclesiastical discourse.[6]  Donald Carson sees 18.1-19.2 under the title 'Fourth Discourse: Life Under Kingdom Authority,'[7] and Donald Hagner writes:[8]

[18.1-35] concerns relations between members of the community, dealing in turn with such particular matters as humility, the avoidance of causing others to stumble, and the importance of forgiveness.

I agree with Hagner that the section is more than an 'ecclesiastical discourse', and yet I would like to argue that there is more of a unifying thread than Hagner sees.  Also, I will argue over against most other commentators that ch. 18 is not a self-contained discourse section in Matthew.[9]  Indeed, the influence of B. W. Bacon on structuring Matthew's Gospel into a series of narratives and discourses does no justice to the book whatsoever.[10]

The beginning of our section may be 18.1, or 17.24, or even some earlier pericope.[11]  But arguments that would push the unit's beginning earlier than 17.24 will not be able to rest on the same sort of data on 'littleness' offered here, and so I will begin the section with 17.24.  The section following 17.24-20.28 forms a very clear unit and bears some comment at greater length to establish how it is that Matthew went about his composition when altering Mark's order, expanding Mark's content, and abbreviating Mark's rhetoric.  What we will see is that Matthew used narrative and discourse material together to impose a loose thematic unity on his Markan source.

            Matthew 20.29-23.39: The Temple Conflict Scene Regarding Jesus' Authority

Mt. 20.29-23.39, the section immediately following the one under study here, is a self-contained section focusing on the theme of Jesus' public trial at the Temple.[12]  Somewhat reminiscent of John's structuring technique in John 1-12, Matthew uses events to lead into teaching on a theme.  In Mt. 20.29-21.22, Jesus does certain things (healing the blind, triumphally entering Jerusalem by enacting Zech. 9.9, cleansing the Temple, and cursing the fig tree) that lead to the question of Mt. 21.23: 'By what authority are you doing these things?  And who gave you this authority?'  The subsequent conflict over Jesus' authority runs through chapter 22, which, in the end, returns again to the specific question of Jesus' authority vis-à-vis King David.  Jesus concludes the trial over his authority by declaring that his authority actually exceeds that of David: 'If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?"' (Mt. 22.45).  Chapter 23 (Jesus' verdict at the public trial scene at the Temple) then concludes with Jesus' statement that he would not again return to Jerusalem until the people say 'Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord' (23.39).  This repeats the welcome used by the crowds when he first entered Jerusalem (21.9), but now with no mention of King David.

In producing so nicely balanced a theme over several chapters, Matthew has used a variety of material from Mark and other sources.  His redaction of his sources and composition of the section as a whole produce a sustained focus on the theme of Jesus' authority.  In both Mt. 17.24-20.28 and 20.29-23.39, where there is sustained discourse (Mt. 18 or Mt. 23), the discourse fits into a thematic unit rather than marks off a section of the Gospel from the rest.

            The Theme of Matthew 10.1-17.23: Responses to the Kingdom Ministry

Moreover, the phrase, 'when Jesus finished saying these things' should not be taken as a structuring device but merely as a piece of the narrative.[13]  For example, in both Mt. 11.1 and Mt. 19.1 the phrase does not signal a new thematic section.  As to Mt. 11.1, the material in Mt. 11 continues the theme begun in ch. 10 on responses to Jesus and to the kingdom ministry.  Indeed, the whole section of Mt. 10.1-17.23 seems to fit under this thematic title.  Ch. 10 is not simply a 'missionary discourse': it is a discourse on the reception the disciples will get when sent out to extend Jesus' ministry.  Ch. 13 has to do with more than 'parables of the kingdom'--they are parables on the acceptance of the kingdom.  Pericopae in Mt. 10.1-17.23, including the two discourses, fit into a section on Responses to Jesus and the Kingdom.  All this points to de-emphasising the discourse - narrative structuring of Matthew and to ignoring the phrase 'when Jesus finished saying these things' as a clue to structure (over against narrative flow).

            Matthew 17.24-20.28: Discipleship as Being Little, Not Leaders

I would like to argue that Matthew does the same sort of thing with Mt. 17.24-20.28 as he does with Mt. 20.29-23.39.  Possibly the section should begin with 18.1, but Mt. 17.24-27 does fit nicely into the theme of 18.1ff.[14]  Here Matthew describes discipleship as littleness in the kingdom.  The theme is present in Mark's Gospel as well, and yet Matthew adds material and alters Mark's stories in order to sustain this focus throughout the section.  This theme is clearly stated in 18.1-5 and in 19.13-15: kingdom discipleship is modelled after a child.  In 20.20-28 we find the teaching in 18.1-5 repeated.[15]  If 17.24-27 is part of the section, then the reason it is is similar to that for including 20.29-34 at the beginning of the next section (running through 23.39): it introduces the term to consider throughout the section (in our case, 'sons').  In 20.29-23.39, Jesus is considered in terms of the titles 'Son of David' and 'the one coming in the name of the Lord'; in 17.24-20.28, the disciples are considered in accordance with terms related to the social status of 'sons' (or 'children').

Matthew's Theme of 'Littleness' in 17.24-20.28

The following chart demonstrates the sustained theme of disciples as children or little ones in Mt. 17.24-20.28.  It also shows how Matthew has redacted Mark (through omissions, additions, and alterations) in order to produce this sustained theme over the entire section.  The Greek terms noted in the middle column are ways in which the theme of littleness is kept before the reader's eye.

Matthew	Theme	Redaction of Mark
Mt. 17.24-27: The Temple Tax Coin	u`io,j (son) 2 times	This pericope is unique to Mt.
Mt. 18.1-5: The Greatest in the Kingdom[16]	paidi,on  (child) 4 times	Mk. 9.33-37.  Mt. omits Mk. 9.38-41 in order to keep the focus on this theme.
Mt. 18.6-7: Stumbling blocks before these little ones.	mikro,j (little)	Mk. 9.42.  Mt. expands Mk. with a 'woe' saying.
Mt. 18.8-9: Hand, foot, or eye causes you to stumble, cut it off.		Mk. 9.43-47.  Mt. shortens Mk. by omitting  the conclusion of Mk. 9.48 and the sayings about salt in 9.49-50.
Mt. 18.10: Do not despise one of these little ones.	mikro,j (little)	Here Mt. begins to add material not in Mk. until he again picks up Mk. 10.1ff in Mt. 19.1ff.
Mt. 18.11 is a later manuscript addition to be ignored.
Mt. 18.12-14: Parable of the Lost Sheep	mikro,j  (little) (v. 14)	This is a Q parable (par. Lk. 15.4-7).  The message fits with the next section.
Mt. 18.15-17: Steps of trying to regain someone who sins against you.  Matthew adds a conclusion about the authority of the disciples gathered in judgement--Mt. 18.18-20: Binding, agreeing, Jesus' presence when two or three are gathered in his name.	avdelfo,j (brother)	This is unique to Mt. and serves as an interpretation of the parable of the lost sheep.  Lk. 17.3 has a similar saying (no literary relationship to Mt.).
Mt. 18.21-35: Parable of the indebted slave.	dou/loj (slave, servant) avdelfo,j (brother) (v. 35)	Mt. adds this to Mk., possibly to balance 18.15-20.  Mt. 18.21-22 // Lk. 17.4.  Mt. 18.23-35 is unique to Matthew.
Mt. 19.1-2: Jesus cures large crowds in Judea beyond the Jordan. Mt. 19.3-9 is attached to this introduction and is Jesus' answer to the Pharisees about divorce.		Mk. 10.1.  In Mk., Jesus goes to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and he teaches the large crowds.  Mk. 10.2-9 is Jesus' answer to the Pharisees about divorce and then his repeated answer to his disciples.
Mt. 19.10-12: The disciples ask Jesus about divorce and Jesus answers.	euvnou/coj (eunuch)	Mk. 10.10-12: Mt. changes this exchange from a repetition on divorce to a statement about discipleship as giving up even marriage for the sake of the kingdom.
Mt. 19.13-15: Jesus receives the little children and lays hands on them.	paidi,on (child)	Mk. 10.13-16: Mt. follows Mk.--the theme is the same.
Mt. 19.16-22: A rich man asks Jesus about eternal life.	neani,skoj (young man--a would-be disciple who is not perfect)	Mk. 10:17-22: Matthew changes Mk. slightly to read 'young man' (vv. 20, 22).
Mt. 19.23-30: Jesus follows up the previous incident with a lesson for his disciples, who have given up everything to follow him.  The first will be last and the last will be first.	e;scatoj (last)	Mk. 10.23-31.  Mk. has Jesus call his disciples 'Te,kna' (children) in v. 24.  The theme from Mk. is consistent with Mt.'s sustained emphasis on what it means to be 'little'--both Mt. and Mk. speak of being 'last' instead of 'first' for the sake of Jesus (Mk. also has 'and for the sake of the Gospel').
Mt. 20.1-16: The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard.	e;scatoj (last)	This pericope is unique to Mt.
Mt. 20.17-19: Jesus predicts his being mocked, flogged and put to death in Jerusalem, and that after three days he will be raised up.		Mk. 10.32-34.  Mt. follows Mark as Jesus' suffering and death is consistent with the theme.
Mt. 20.20-28: Rather than looking to be great over the others, a disciple is to be a servant, a slave, just as the Son of Man has come to give his life as a ransom for others.	dia,konoj (servant) dou/loj (slave, servant) over against being me,gaj (great)	Mk. 10.35-40.  Mt. follows Mark (with slight alterations) as the teaching on serving others instead of lording it over them is consistent with the theme.

By examining such a chart, what stands out is that in almost every pericope some term describing discipleship as 'little' is present.  Only a few require a comment to show that they too fit the theme.

(1)   Mt. 18.6-7 and 18.8-9 are clearly related: they are both found in Matthew's source, and they both teach on stumbling blocks.  They therefore form a unit; but even so, the theme of littleness is considered first in terms of others and then in terms of oneself: one must take belittling action so as not to create stumbling blocks.

(2)   Mt. 18.15-20 has an offended disciple think of discipleship in terms of being 'brothers'.  One must not demean or immediately excommunicate an offender, but try to win him or her back as a brother or sister.  This only works if the community of disciples has no hierarchy[17]--something Jesus insists on in Mt. 23.8-11.  Indeed, to be wronged and then be the one to go after the one in the wrong to try to restore him or her is a form of becoming little in discipleship towards others, as the parable of the lost sheep illustrates.

(3)   Mt. 18.21-35 shows how, with the self-understanding of being a forgiven 'slave' and debtor to God, forgiveness of a 'brother' (v. 35) within the community naturally follows.

(4)   Mt. 19.1-12 forms a unit, even though it has three parts (vv. 1-2, 3-9, 10-12).    Matthew's redaction of Mark turns the focus away from a teaching on divorce for both Pharisees and disciples to a teaching consistent with the theme of littleness.  The kingdom of heaven calls disciples to acts of littleness, not for ascetic reasons but for work in the kingdom.  Just as service in a king's home called for eunuchs, so too the disciples' leaving their families to follow Jesus was a kind of 'eunuch' service in the kingdom.  The 'family' is a model for Christian community: God is called 'Father', the disciples leave their families (Mt. 19.29) and call each other 'brothers' (e.g., Mt. 18.21), Jesus refers to the disciples as 'children'.  Disciples who forgo marriage for the sake of the kingdom are, with respect to normal life, 'eunuchs', but they do indeed have new family relationships as disciples of Jesus and an inheritance (cf. Mt. 19.29).

Mt. 19.16-30 is again a unit with two parts, the second driving the point home on discipleship.  Here Matthew is able to keep the text of Mark as he found it: discipleship involves becoming little (passing through the eye of a needle!) with respect to family and possessions in order to follow Jesus.  While Matthew does not follow Mark in Jesus addressing his disciples as 'children' here, the point of littleness is clear in the demands of discipleship.  Possibly Matthew's reference to the rich man as a 'young man' has to do with his being a person who follows the Ten Commandments (a kind of littleness) but still not giving up his heart's desire to follow Jesus (still a man).  At least, he is not an 'elder of the people,' a consistently negative term in Matthew (presbu,teroj, 15.2; 16.21; 21.23; 26.3; 26.47, 57; 27.1, 3, 12, 20, 41; 28.12).  We cannot be certain that Matthew consistently intended to use age terminology metaphorically (e.g., Mark's seven uses of 'elders' is also consistently negative), even if 'child,' 'young man,' and 'elder' fit the argument, but we do see once again in this pericope that the disciples have become 'last for Jesus' and not tried to be first.  The young man wants to be first.

(5)   Mt. 20.1-16 ends the same way as the previous pericope about being last.  But it also contains the logic of the kingdom's call to being last.  Service is not rewarded according to merit but according to grace.  Like the previous pericope, which states clearly that no one can be saved by his or her own work but only by God's work (Mt. 19.26), this pericope only makes sense in an economy of grace.  The objection from those who worked more and were paid the same is an objection in an economy of merit.  People strive to be first in an economy of merit; they strive to serve in an economy of grace.

So, we can see that the theme of 'littleness' is sustained throughout the section from Mt. 17.24-20.28.  There are various ways in which to understand the nature of the littleness of discipleship, as Matthew suggests through his redaction of Mark.  This merits a second chart:

Matthew	The Nature of Littleness
Mt. 17.24-27: The Temple Tax Coin	Here, being 'sons' in the kingdom is a matter of status.  Jesus qualifies the implications of such status by teaching the disciples not to cause offence (v. 27).
Mt. 18.1-5: The Greatest in the kingdom	Be humble.
Mt. 18.6-9: Stumbling blocks before these little ones and yourself.	Do not cause a disciple[18] to stumble.  Do not cause yourself to stumble.  Do not think others or even you yourself are 'big' enough to handle temptation and sin.
Mt. 18.10: Do not despise one of these little ones.	Do not despise other disciples.
Mt. 18.12-20: Parable of the Lost Sheep; Going after the one who sins against you before bringing community judgement.	'Littleness' involves trying to restore sinful people, even when they have sinned against you.
Mt. 18.21-35: Parable of the indebted slave.	Littleness calls on us to forgive others, for we are all indebted slaves and brothers.
Mt. 19.1-12: Jesus' teaching on divorce and marriage.	Being little for the kingdom may mean giving up things that are perfectly good in God's creation, such as marriage.  This is not for ascetic purposes but because the kingdom and discipleship are understood in terms of service and missions.
Mt. 19.13-15: Jesus receives the little children and lays hands on them.	Children are examples of kingdom littleness.  They are in themselves, therefore, to be received.  But this can only be done by those who see themselves as little rather than too important for children.
Mt. 19.16-30: A rich man asks Jesus about eternal life; his disciples ask about who can be saved and comment on leaving all to follow Jesus.	Littleness involves seeking to be last rather than first for Jesus' sake.  This may entail giving up possessions and family.
Mt. 20.1-16: The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard.	Littleness involves understanding service not in order to receive merit but as itself a gift.
Mt. 20.17-19: Jesus predicts his being mocked, flogged and put to death in Jerusalem, and after three days be raised up.	Jesus is the example of littleness in giving his life in Jerusalem.
Mt. 20.20-28: Disciples dispute over greatness.	Littleness involves serving others, not hierarchical authority.[19]  It involves not seeking to be first but to be a slave within the community of disciples, just like the Son of Man.

Terms for Discipleship Elsewhere in Matthew's Gospel

The focus on Mt. 17.24-20.28 can be broadened into the rest of Matthew.  One way to do this would be to focus on another major section which teaches on discipleship, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7).  This would greatly enrich the present study, but it requires a lengthy examination on its own and one which I think calls for a different method of study from the one we are pursuing here.  That is, rather than a focus on reading the text of Matthew, we would do well to read the Sermon on the Mount in light of the historical-theological reading perspective of Israel in exile.  So I will leave the Sermon on the Mount for another study.

Corroborating the thematic emphasis in Mt. 17.24-20.28 on the disciples as 'little ones' is a wider study of terms used in Matthew's Gospel for the disciples.  The following terms and passages are relevant (excluding those already considered in Mt. 17-24-20.28).

mikro,j

Mat 10:42 'And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward' (Revised Standard Version and throughout in this list)

Mat 11:11 'Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.'

nh,pioj

Mat 11:25 'At that time Jesus declared, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes;'

Mat 21:16 'and they said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read, `Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast brought perfect praise'?"'

te,knon

Mat 7:11 'If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!'

Mat 9:2 'And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven."'

 Mat 15:26 'And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."'

pai/j

Mat 12:18 '"Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles.'

`uio,j (used of Jesus and the disciples)

Mat 2:15 'and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."'

Mat 3:17 'and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."'  Cf. Mat 17:5 'He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."'

Mat 5:9 '"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.'

 Mat 5:45 'so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.'

Mat 8:12 'while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."'

Mat 13:38 'the field is the world, and the good seed means the sons of the kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one,'

Vela,cistoj

Mat 25:40 'And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.''

Mat 25:45 'Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.''

dia,konoj( diakone,w

Mat 23:11 'He who is greatest among you shall be your servant;'

dou/loj( douleu,w

Mat 10:24 '"A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master;'

Mat 10:25 'it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.'

Mat 24:45 '"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time?'

Mat 24:46 'Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.'  [Also vv. 48, 50 use this word.]

Mat 25:14 '"For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property;'

Mat 25:30 'And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.''

Mat 6:24 '"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.'

Maqhth,j

The most common word in Matthew for Jesus’ followers is ‘maqhth,j’, ‘disciple.'[20]  This word, as the previous words, also connotes ‘littleness’--one who is following (avkalouqe,w--cf. Mt. 8.19, 22; 9.9; 10.38; 16.24; 19.21, 28) and learning from another.  The mission of the disciples is to replicate themselves by going into the world to make other followers and learners of Jesus (Mt. 28.19-20).

The Place of Peter: An Exception?

One possible exception to this representation of Matthew's understanding of discipleship comes in the character of Peter.  It is sometimes thought that Peter is or represents a hierarchical figure of authority in this Gospel because of his more prominent role and Jesus' words in Mt. 16.17-18.  Donald Senior presents the argument for Peter as not only a representative of discipleship but also a symbol of leadership.[21]  Matthew adds stories about Peter to Mark's account (14.28-31; 16.17-19; 17.24-27; 18.21ff), and Peter has an authoritative role (he is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (16.19), called the 'rock' on which the Church is built (16.18), receives special revelation from the Father (16.17), and he and Jesus share the Temple tax (17.24-27)).[22]

Yet being given keys to the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 16.19) entails a binding and loosing authority that other disciples have as well (Mt. 18.18).  One can interpret Peter's appellation in Mt. 16.18 as giving him some kind of special authority, but if this is so, then here is our only example in Matthew of any kind of hierarchical, ecclesiastical authority among the disciples.  This notoriously difficult verse can be interpreted otherwise: while names can indicate something about the person (e.g., Gen. 17.5), they can also indicate something about events (such as in Is. 8.3; Hos. 1.4, 6, 9).[23]  If 'gates of Hades' means 'death',[24] 'rock' may be used as in Ps. 28.1 as what prevents one from sinking inexorably into the clutches of death.  (Similarly, it is a metaphor for salvation in the sense of a safe place, as in Ps. 18.2, 31, 46.)  'Rock' does not seem to be a metaphor for some sort of authority.  The truth of Peter's confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God (Mt. 16.16) means that Jesus'  impending death in Jerusalem cannot prevail against His restoration of God's people (the Church).  Peter, with his name meaning 'Rock', comes to symbolise this truth for God's people and for Jesus by means of his identification of Jesus: God's salvation will not allow Jesus to descend into the Pit of Death but will bring salvation or restoration through His Messiah.  Jesus, who faces death in Jerusalem, knows that being Messiah means not defeat in death but restoration for the exiles entering God's kingdom.  Thus the twelve disciples, as representative of the twelve tribes of Israel, signify a restoration of God's people, and Peter's being given the keys to the kingdom of heaven represents the certainty of restoration for God's people returning from exile.

Interpreting 'Littleness' for Ministry

Such terms illustrate the nature of discipleship in Matthew's Gospel in terms of 'littleness' rather than high status.  The terms noted above are often present in Mt. 17.24-20.28 as well.  Several points might be made about understanding discipleship in this way.

(1) Jesus is the Paradigm for Littleness: Two of the terms refer to Jesus as well as to the disciples (son, servant): Jesus functions as a model for discipleship, even if his status as 'son' and 'servant' is of a different kind for Matthew.  Jesus may refer to God as his 'Father' or to God as 'Your Father' in speaking to his disciples, but he never includes himself with his disciples in the same relation to God as 'Father.'  His temptation as 'Son of God' is unique, yet his three replies to the devil from Deuteronomy show that he is picking up Israel's role as 'son of God' (ch. 4).  In this way, we might argue, he becomes the paradigm for the disciples facing temptation.  Moreover, his passion offers an example to the disciples of living according to the Sermon on the Mount (being blessed when persecuted, turning the other cheek).  Jesus, therefore, picks up Israel's identity as 'son' and 'servant' but succeeds in these roles where Israel failed, thus making it possible for the disciples to follow his lead in true sonship and servanthood.  A 'leader' needs different qualities from his or her 'followers', but Jesus' littleness is something for disciples to follow.

(2) The Mission is Characterised by Littleness: The disciples' littleness is also like that of Jesus in the sense that both are called to a missionary service, which may require giving up family, marriage, and property for the sake of the mission.  Indeed, in Mt. 17.24-20.28, as we have seen, Jesus' own example of going to suffer in Jerusalem, of serving others, and of giving his life as a ransom for many are examples to his disciples of mission characterised by littleness.  Some of the terms for littleness carry the idea of service.  'Littleness' as an absolute can lead to asceticism; 'littleness for mission' disqualifies the ascetic life as self-indulgent.

A significant passage for Matthean christology is Mt. 12.17-21:

This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.  He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets.  He will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings justice to victory.  And in his name the Gentiles will hope."

Richard Beaton has argued that the passage, as used by Matthew, contrasts Jesus with the Pharisees' leadership (chs. 11 and 12 do offer this contrast).[25]  Beaton favours interpreting Is. 42 in Mt. 12 not in terms of Is. 53’s suffering servant but in terms of Is. 42’s emphasis on an ethical servant.[26]  ‘Servant’ in Matthew is not a title but a description of Jesus’ task.[27]  He continues:[28]

…Matthew [in 12.18-21’s use of Is. 42.1-4] appears to integrate a dynamic ethical component and a high christology.  Thus the compassionate servant is also the agent of universal justice for the nations.    Furthermore, this elevated christology, evidenced in the inclusion of sonship language in the title ‘my Beloved’ and the LXX reading of ‘the nations will trust in his ‘name',' provides a basis for the mission of the servant and establishes Jesus’ identity as central to Matthew’s understanding of the divine mandate.

With this passage, as Beaton argues, Matthew is able to link Jesus' compassionate miracles to his messiahship or kingship and an attack on the leadership of the Pharisees.  But we also see here a christological connection to discipleship.  The disciples are at once the object of this compassionate servant-messiah's ministry and the ones who follow Jesus in such an ongoing ministry of divine justice to the nations.  The meaning of 'divine justice to the nations' is clear from the context in Matthew.  It includes marginalised Jews, particularly those marginalised by the religious institution set up by false leaders in Judaism.  Jesus relieves the heavy yoke of Pharisaic and scribal teaching on the Law and offers a gentler justice, such as healing people on the Sabbath.  He says in this context,

"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Mt. 11.28-30).

Thus the language of littleness for discipleship comports well with the compassionate purpose of the servant's own ministry to the little ones of the world and with the character of his ministry.  A Gospel proclaiming the wonderful results of the cross equally proclaims the wonderful way of the cross.  For Paul, the 'meekness and gentleness of Christ' (2 Cor. 10.1) is as much a part of the Gospel as the message of salvation itself.  Matthew makes this point with reference to Is. 42.1-4.

Another expression of littleness as the character of the mission is 'taking up a cross' (Mt. 10.38; cf.16.24ff).  This stands as a contrast to the other (frequently chosen) option of Jesus' time in establishing the kingdom: taking up the sword.  The choice of cross over sword is a choice regarding the means to achieve the end of kingdom justice and righteousness which applies just as much to today's disciples as it did to Jesus' first disciples.  Jesus went on to show his disciples literally what this meant.  It meant, as Mt. 10.39 clarifies, losing one's life in order to find it.  The way of the sword is the way trying to 'find' life, but Jesus says that this way actually results in losing one's life.

The most extensive clarification of this littleness in ministry comes in Mt. 10, where the disciples are told that they are to go without supplies on a village by village mission to all Israel. The reason for this is that a reception of the kingdom message of Jesus will mean that the disciples too are received (in the sense of meeting their needs).  To turn this around in ministry, the reception of finances and goods from the missionary disciples would mean a rejection of the kingdom message of Jesus.  In a key passage in which Jesus calls his disciples 'little ones', he drives this point home:

"Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet's reward; and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous; and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple-- truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward" (Mt. 10.40-42).

This passage is clearly echoed later in Matthew's Gospel when Jesus describes who will be rewarded as 'sheep' as opposed to 'goats' for the way in which they treated 'the least of these my brethren' (Mt. 25.31ff).  The hungry, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick, and prisoner are the disciples, sent out as missionaries to all nations just as they were sent out to the villages of Israel.[29]  Their littleness in their missionary status is the key to salvation for the nations, whose reception of them with their message will mean a reception of Jesus and the kingdom message.  This, like Mt. 18.18-20, is a powerful passage for the argument that missions is done through the Church.[30]  But it can only happen through a Church that follows the way of Jesus, the way of the cross.  Again, if the Church is to fulfil its mission, it must do so in the power of the cross.  Any interpretation of missions as simply seeking an end of justice becomes distorted if this path does not take the way (means) of the cross but of power.  It is still some kind of mission, possibly even with positive--even just--benefits, but it is not Jesus' mission.

'Littleness', then, must be interpreted in relation to mission in Matthew, and vice-versa.  Discipleship virtues, such as love, forgiveness, faith, humility, and righteousness, relate to both being the Father's little ones and serving in mission.[31]

(3) 'Littleness' is the Key to Our Relationship with God: Being designated 'children' also captures the loving and intimate relationship a Christian has with God.  Ritual and tradition are always secondary to what is primary in the Christian faith: a Father-child relationship with God through Jesus Christ (Mt. 11.25).  Jesus agrees with the prophet in preferring mercy to sacrifice (9.13; 12.7; cf. Hos. 6.6).  He opposes relationships which are regulated through law instead of by the heart (Mat. 5.21-48; 15.18-20; 18.21ff).  He cleanses the Temple, opposes the religious groups, and offers in their place faith in and prayer to God (Mt. 21.19-22).

(4) 'Littleness is the Key to Our Relationships with One Another: The notion of the disciples being little children involves how we relate to one another in the Church in several ways.  This is seen most clearly in an extended section in Matthew on the nature of discipleship as ‘being little,’ Mt. 17.24-20.28.  Disciples are ‘little children’ or humble (18.4) in their relationships with one another.  They realise that they can lead others, even themselves!, into sin and so need to protect one another even as one would a child (18.5-9).  They care for little ones as brothers or sisters left by the Father to baby sit a child (18.10).  They put up with a fair amount of abuse while trying to bring a person who sins back into right relationship within the church, even when that person has sinned against them (18.12-18).  And even if the church acts to punish the person by ostracising or excommunicating him or her from fellowship, on the personal level one always holds out a hand of forgiveness.  The basis for this forgiveness has nothing to do with our being nice people; it is entirely based on the extraordinary grace which God has shown us for our incredible sin against Him (18.21ff).

Conclusion

This essay has explored various ways in which discipleship in Matthew is construed in terms of being little ones.  The particular focus on Mt. 17.24-20.28 as a section on 'littleness' calls attention to how discipleship is modelled on Jesus' way of the cross: the section comes in the midst of Jesus' passion predictions.  Over against construing Christian ministry in terms of leadership studies, this essay suggests we need to hear the specific challenge of discipleship in Matthew's Gospel.  The simple check for Christians in their various relationships and ministries is to ask, 'Is this the way of the cross?'  That, rather than exploring good 'leadership' qualities, will divide the Adolf Hitlers from the Mother Theresas in our understanding!

---

[1] John Stott, Issues Facing the Church Today: A Major Appraisal of Contemporary Social and Moral Questions (Basingstoke: Marshall Morgan and Scott, 1984), p. 327.

[2] Cf. Edward LeRoy Long, Jr., A Survey of Christian Ethics (NY: Oxford University Press, 1967).    Long distinguishes institutional, operational, and intentional community paradigms as alternative moral means in the pursuit of moral ends.  There were Jewish versions of the intentional community model too (Qumran, the Therapeutae).

[3] This point is well made by N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996); cf. Craig Evans, 'Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel,' in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel, ed. C. Newman (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999), pp. 77-100.  The 'twelve' disciples, representing the twelve tribes of Israel, equally represent the restoration of Israel, and therefore an exiled Israel awaiting the Kingdom of God.  The narrative of exile and restoration forms a hermeneutic for reading Matthew which is essential for interpreting the entire Gospel.

[4] Cf. also Tobit 13.

[5] There is a variety of alternative interpretations of the Lord's Prayer or ethics in Matthew.  My reading builds on the argument (footnote 2) that Jesus' ministry needs to be understood in terms of a 'restoration of Israel' from 'captivity'.

[6] Warren Carter does this as well, although his argument that chs. 19 and 20 should be taken together due to their thematic unity of addressing standard household management and structure questions in antiquity (marriage, children, wealth, and slavery).  Cf. Households and Discipleship: A Study of Mt. 19-20, JSNTS 103 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994).  The family serves as the metaphor for discipleship, he argues.  While in agreement, I believe the compositional unity is due to the theme of 'littleness', not 'household'.  Cf. Carter's discussion of scholars taking chs. 19 and 20 together (p. 18, notes 1, 2, and 3).

[7] Donald Carson, 'Matthew,' in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 8: Matthew, Mark and Luke, ed. F. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), p. 395.

[8] Donald Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary 33b (Waco: Word Books, 1995), p. 514.

[9] Alternative structuring that incorporates ch. 18 into a larger section does not support the argument I am making here.  Cf. H. J. B. Combrink, 'The Structure of Matthew's Gospel as Narrative,' TynBul 34 (1983), pp. 61-90.   Combrink sees the discourse of ch. 18 within a larger narrative unit, Mt. 16.21-20.34.  But the overriding theme is Jesus' impending passion and the disciples' failure to understand.

[10] B.W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (NY: Holt, 1930).

[11] Cf. Jack Kingsbury (Matthew as Story, 2^nd rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), p. 139): The leitmotif of the third part of Matthew's story (16.21-28.20) is Jesus' journey to Jerusalem and his passion and resurrection.  In harmony with this, the motif that dominates Matthew's story of the disciples is that servanthood constitutes the essence of discipleship.'

[12] Rollin G. Grams, 'The Temple Conflict Scene: A Rhetorical Analysis of Matthew 21-23,' in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy, ed. Duane F. Watson (Sheffield, 1991).  I now believe the unit begins in Mt. 20.29, not 21.1.

[13] Such a statement, of course, runs against the grain.  For example, David Bauer's 6 pointers for discovering Mt.'s structure include the requirement that this phrase be explained (The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design, JSNTS 31 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), p. 55).

[14] William G. Thompson, S.J., Matthew's Advice to a Divided Community: Mt. 17.22-18.35, Analecta Biblica (Roma: Biblical Institute Press, 1970) takes Mt. 17.22-18.35 as a unit.

[15] David McClister argues that 17.22-23 and 20.17-19, the second and third passion predictions of Jesus, form an inclusio for material that is structurally unified as a large chiasm (17.24-27 // 19.16-20.16; 18.1-7 //19.13-15; 18.8-9 //19.10-12; 18.10-14 //19.1-9; 18.15-17 // 18.21-35, with 18.18-20 at the centre).  Here is a rare example of someone taking almost the same verses together as a unit that I do in this article, although I am not persuaded that chiastic structures work over large units.  The two passion predictions, taken as an inclusio, mean to McClister that 17.22-20.19 is an explanation of Jesus' death.

[16] I have broken down into parts for analysis what I see as a complete pericope in Matthew's Gospel, 18.1-10.  Donald Hagner argues that Mt. 18.5 should be taken with vv. 6-9 (Matthew 14-28, ad loc), and this leaves three pericopes in the text (1-4, 5-9, 10-14).  The parable of the lost sheep (18.12-14) does fit with the sayings using 'mikro,j '.  But I would take vv. 4-10 as all part of the conclusion to 18.1-3, exploring the notion that discipleship is like a child (or perhaps, 'the importance of being little'), with the parable of the lost sheep as an illustrative parable of the teaching.  Supporting this view is the possible chiastic structure of vv. 4-10:

           A             =              whoever humbles himself as this child is the greatest in the kingdom of

heaven (v. 4)

B             =              whoever receives one such child (v. 5)

C             =              whoever causes one of the least of these to stumble (v. 6)

D             =              Conclusion: woe to the world from which stumblings come…woe to the

man from whom stumblings come (v. 7)

                C'            =              The hand, foot or eye that causes oneself to stumble (vv. 8-9)

                B'            =              Do not despise one of the least of these (v. 10a)

                A'            =              Their angels in heaven continually see the face of my Father in heaven (v.

10b)

[17] Surprisingly, there is no taking of an errant member before an eldership.  The Matthean community, unlike the Jerusalem community of Acts, has a congregational arrangement.

[18] I read Mt. 18.6-10's references to 'little ones' not as references to actual children (for a contrary argument, see W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), ad loc) but to the disciples as children, consistent with the entire theme of Mt. 17.24-20.28.  This reading of Mt. 18.6-10 is typical of the commentaries as well; see, e.g., Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, ad loc.  As Mt. 19.15 shows, the symbolic meaning can have implications for the literal children: the mascot requires special care by the team.

[19] K. W. Clark argues that the meaning of [kata]kurieu,ein in Mt. 20.25 is not 'abusive rule' but 'hierarchical rule'--The Gentile Bias and Other Essays (Leiden: Brill, 1980), pp. 207-212.  The prefix 'kata' (including in Matthew) sharpens the negative force of a word, though, and if Clark is correct then we need to insist that not just a form of authority is being rejected but also that it is perceived as an abusive authority.  Moreover, John Elliott's argument against understanding the family in egalitarian terms in the 1^st century is a helpful caution in this overall discussion about the early Church--'The Jesus Movement Was Not Egalitarian but Family-oriented,' Biblical Interpretation 11.2 (April 2003): 173-210.  There is no reason to believe that Matthew was arguing for a social egalitarianism, even within the Church: discipleship as 'littleness' is a far more radical notion which can even be practised in hierarchical arrangements (but not in egalitarian power sharing), even if it undermines its abusive aspects (cf. Paul's approach to slavery in Philemon).

[20] The word in its various forms occurs 74 times; 46 times in Mark; 37 times in Luke and 30 times in Acts; 78 times in John's Gospel; but not at all in Paul or the rest of the New Testament as a designation of believers.

[21] Donald Senior, What Are They Saying About Matthew?, Rev. ed. (NY: Paulist Press, 1996), pp. 95-100.  See also Raymond Brown, 'The Meaning of Modern New Testament Studies for an Ecumenical Understanding of Peter and a Theology of the Papacy', in Raymond Brown and J. Reumann, eds., Peter in the new Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (Minneapolis: Augsburg/New York: Paulist Press, 1973).  Contrast Jack D. Kingsbury, 'The Figure of Peter in Matthew's Gospel as a Theological Problem,' Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979): 67-83.

[22] Also, Senior adds, Matthew's picture of Peter needs to be added to the rest of the NT writings, which present Peter on a trajectory of increasing prominence as pastor, missionary, martyr, confessor of the faith, receiver of special revelation, guardian of the faith, as well as a weak and sinful man (Senior, What Are They Saying About Matthew?, p. 75).  2 Pt. 3.15-16 shows Peter as the interpreter of Paul (p. 76).

[23] Cf. C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock (NY: Walter de Gruter, 1990), who argues, among other things, that Peter is not the object of Jesus' statement because (1) 'on this rock' is used rather than 'on you', and (2) pe,tra rather than pe,troj (which is in the masculine form and would have been a direct play on Peter's name) is used (p. 89).

[24] Cf. Jack P. Lewis, 'The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It' (Matt. 16.18): A Study of the History of Interpretation,' Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38.3 (Sept., 1995): 349-367.

[25] Richard Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

[26] He agrees with B. Gerhardsson, ‘Gottes Sohn als Diener Gottes: Messias, Agape und Himmelsherrschaft nach dem Mathäusevangelium’, ST (1973): 73-106; p. 176.  He also notes that in Judaism this passage was at times given a messianic interpretation: this is not uniquely a Christian reading of messiahship (cf. p. 85).  His evidence is as follows: the passage was read messianically prior to Matthew by 1QIsa(a) [which has an X beside verses 1 and 4 and shows the verses were marked off for independent use, pp. 74f], 1 Enoch [Similitudes of 37-71 use ‘Chosen/Elect One,’ considered to be based on Is. 42.1a’s ‘Elect One’, p. 76; the judicial role of the Elect One seems to be based on Is. 42.1-4 (along with Dn. 7.8, 13) in 1 En. 45.3; 49.4; 61.8; 62; ‘light to the Gentiles’ and compassion to the brokenhearted in 1 Enoch 48.2-7, ‘traditionally associated with Isa. 49.2, 6’ may relate to Is. 42.1-4, since there is a reference to a staff and compassion (p. 77)], Psalms of Solomon [possibly seen in 17.29, 31 and 35, p. 78f] and possibly the Targums [‘servant’ could be taken as messiah, as in 43.10 and esp. 52.13 and 53.10; but Is. 42.1-4 is unclear in the Targum about whether the messiah is indicated] (p. 85).

[27] Beaton, Isaiah's Christ in Matthew's Gospel, p. 175.

[28] Beaton, Isaiah's Christ in Matthew's Gospel, p. 177f.

[29] For a discussion of this interpretation, see, e.g., Donald Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary 33b (Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1995).  Graham Stanton presents a good argument in favour of this position, although he might have paralleled the struggles of the disciples in mission in Mt. 10 more closely with the needs of the least of Jesus' brethren in Mt. 25.31ff (which would explain why visiting 'prisoners' is in the list)--A Gospel For a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992), ch. 9.  Sherman W. Gray, who believes the 'least of these my brothers' refers to Christians in general and not a specific group, offers a useful survey of how this passage has been interpreted through the ages--The Least of My Brothers: Matthew 25.31-46, A History of Interpretation, SBL Dissertation Series 114 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).

[30] Matthew locates mission not in a Kingdom of God above the work of the Church but in a Kingdom of God working through the Church.  Cf. Mt. 28.18-20.

[31] A narrative reading of Matthew, and therefore of Matthean discipleship, methodologically calls attention to mission.  Cf. Terence L. Donaldson, 'Guiding Readers--Making Disciples: Discipleship in Matthew's Narrative Strategy,' in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. R. Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 30-49.