Routinization of Charisma
in Early Christianity
-------- Table of Contents ---------
Introduction
Charisma
Routinization Of Charisma
Nature Of Community
Sect And Church
Charismatic Community In Jerusalem
Communism Of Love
Intrusion Of Traditionalism
Brotherly Love In The Pauline Community
The Pauline Sect
Routinization Of Pauline Christianity
Institutionalization Of The Christian Church
The Roman Church
Conclusion
Endnote
References
------------------------
INTRODUCTION
This paper analyzes the "routinization" of charisma in the
early Christian community from the viewpoint of Max Weber's
sociology of religion. Sociology of early Christianity has
been studied in detail by many scholars such as Gerad Theissen,
John Schutz, Howard Kee, Wayne Meeks, Begnet Holmberg, Margaret
MacDonald and among others. In particular, Holmberg and
MacDonald discuss institutionalization of charisma in early
Christianity.
In Paul and Power, Holmberg analyzes the "routinization" of
charisma in the primitive Christian Church, employing Peter L.
Berger and Thomas Luckmann's concept of "institutionalization."
He first examined Weber's concept of "charisma" and its
"routinization," and found more usefulness in contemporary
scholars' terms "charisma" and "institutionalization" rather
than Weber's terms. He argues that the early Christian
community from the beginning institutionalized a religious
enterprise developing system of doctrine, cult and organization
(Holmberg 1978: 161-192). He classifies the early Christianity
into primary institutionalization for the movement of Jesus by
itself and secondary institutionalization for the Jerusalem
community and the Pauline community. Holmberg's sociological
analysis of early Christianity is stimulating yet problematic
for my standpoint. First, Holmberg analyzes no hereditary and
virtuoso religiosity in the transformation of charisma.
Weber's routinization implies three ways of depersonalization
of charisma: hereditary, virtuoso, and office; Weber's term
"institution" is only one of characteristics of office charisma
among his categories of "routinization." Second, Holmberg has
no perspective on the tension between charisma and
institutionalization. Rather he attempts to integrate elements
of both charisma and institutionalization: "charisma ._
actively seeks institutional manifestation" (Holmberg 1978:
165). Third, Holmberg lacks an ideal typical construction of
concept. He employes the average type of concept with
cumulative classification, reflecting an timeless
generalization of a ubiquitous phenomenon. Such generalization
does not make sense of understanding a specific significance of
a historical reality.
In The Pauline Churches, MacDonald, on the other hand,
discusses "institutionalization" in more substantial and
sophisticated way. She too employs Berger and Luckmann's
"institutionalization," attempting to harmonize it with Weber's
"routinization." Drawing on Weber's insights on the
routinization of charisma, she views "the transformation from
an apparently structures church to one where bishops made their
presence felt" (MacDonald 15-16). Such transformation is
driven by the forces of economic and social status interests:
"unconscious needs and desires which are inherent in human
interaction, such as the need to secure one's own leadership
position" (MacDonald 16). In contrast to Holmberg's average
type of concept, she uses concept as an ideal type of reality:
"everywhere it is impossible to find a perfect fit between the
ideal type and the historical reality, the ideal type remains
useful as a means of underlining the particularity of the
development which stand out sharply against this constructed
tool for investigation" (MacDonald 15). Yet she lack a
polarized setting of concept, and does not see basic conceptual
distinction between charisma and institution: "there
institution building impulses inherent in the charisma itself"
(MacDonald 14). Her cumulative construction of
institutionalization is not polarized concepts but successive
classifications such as "community-building
institutionalization" for the Pauline community,
"community-stabilizing institutionalization" for the
deutro-Pauline community, and "community-protecting
institutionalization" for the Pastoral community.
Ideal typical concept is constructed in bipolar or
tridimensional setting in order to measure the direction of a
movement among conflicting forces. It goes without saying that
concept is a mere means to fulfill a work. Employed concepts
do not represent the superiority or inferiority of a work per
se., but conversely a work by itself demonstrates the
usefulness of the concepts, i.e., the tools. Old used tools
may do a better and sharper work than new improved tools; it
totally depends on the understandability and clarity of the
work. As a Weberian, I venture to present an analysis of early
Christianity employing Weber's original concepts of charisma
and its "routinization." The point of this paper is not the
question of which concept is correct, Weber's "routinization"
or Berger's "institutionalization," but of how clearly and
understandably the dynamic change of early Christianity can be
analyzed by such concepts. The purpose of this paper is not to
criticize Holmberg's study and MacDonald's, but a counter
presentation attempting to demonstrate the usefulness and
applicability of Weber's "routinization." This paper presents
first an interpretation of Weber's charisma and routinization,
and then an analysis of the routinization of the early
Christian community. In the footnotes, I discuss the
difference between Weber's terms and contemporary scholars'
terms.
CHARISMA
Charisma is an extraordinary quality of an individual
person. The power of religious charisma is mainly revealed by
the demonstration of magic (or miracle), or of the word of
prophecy. Since charisma goes beyond normal human qualities,
it is regarded originally as supernatural. The authority of
charisma rests upon a belief in its extraordinary quality of
its power, revelation or personality; the source of these
beliefs, in turn, is rests on the proving of the charismatic
quality through magic and miracles, or through victories and
other successes. Charisma has been a revolutionary power of
history because the bearers of charisma, the oracles of
prophets, or the edicts of charismatic war lords alone could
create a new order within the world (Weber 1946: 297).
Charisma is genuinely anti-traditional and anti-rational force.
In its height, charismatic followers of the prophet are subject
to anti-economic force of charisma. Yet as soon as their work
is done, original charisma is to be replaced by the rule of
everyday life. Here the process of routinization of charisma
has set in. "When the tide that lifted a charismatically led
group out of everyday life flows back into the channels of
workaday routines, at least the pure form of charismatic
domination will wane and turn into an institution" (Weber 1978:
1121). Since charisma in the pure type is the very opposite of
a continuous institution of everyday life, those who have a
share in charisma must inevitably turn away from the routine
and order of the world (Weber 1978: 1113-4). However, charisma
does not last. "In every case charisma is henceforth exposed
to the conditions of everyday life and to the powers dominating
it, especially to the economic interests" (Weber 1978: 1121-2).
ROUTINIZATION OF CHARISMA
1. The Desire of the Possession of Charisma
All routinization of charisma has basically one and the
same cause: the desire to transform charisma from a unique gift
of extraordinary time and person into a permanent possession of
everyday life (Weber 1978: 1121). In other words, the
interests of concerned people modifies the nature of religious
charisma into acquisitional goods. All who has economic
interest to live off become employees, teachers and other
occupations in the religious enterprise. The lay people, in
turn, become dues-paying members of a religious enterprise.
For the desire to transform charisma into a lasting good, the
first basic problem is to find a successor to the charismatic
prophet. This problem inescapably channels charisma into the
direction of traditionalism or rationalism (Weber 1978: 1123).
[1] If the strong desire to have a charismatic leader at all
times is accommodated, the direction of routinization has been
made to the recurrent incarnation of charisma like the Dalai
Lama, or the temporal representative like the Pope if the
founder is considered a unique incarnation such as Christ. In
all these examples, the designation of a successor or a
representative has been a typical means of assuring the
continuity of a religious enterprise (Weber 1978: 1124).
"Charisma cannot remain stable, but becomes either
traditionalized or rationalized, or a combination for both"
(Weber 1978: 246). The routinization of charisma takes place
in the ways of the depersonalization, that is, the separations
of charismatic quality from a unique personality. It
transforms a unique gift of charisma into a quality that is
either (A) transferable or (b) personally acquirable or (c)
attached to an office or to an institutional structure. By the
routinization, charisma becomes a component of everyday life
and fulfills its social function on behalf of its extraordinary
quality that overshadowed the charismatic lay people (Weber
1978: 1135).
2. Hereditary Charisma
Charisma may be transferred though succession of heredity.
On this belief, charisma is transformed from its
anti-traditional quality into object of tradition. In this
process, the basis of the authority is radically changed from
the belief in the purely personal quality of charisma into the
belief in the sanctity of existing tradition. Thus, charisma
is traditionalized, and becomes hereditary charisma Although
charisma and tradition are fundamentally different in the type
of authority, both rest on a similar basis of their religious
aura, that is, a sense of loyalty and obligation. The external
forms of the two structures of authority are also often similar
to the point of being identical. Both depend upon the spirit
which predominates the community, though not directly visible.
In other words, both depends upon the basis of the leader's
claim to legitimacy: authority sanctified by tradition, or
faith in the person of the prophet (Weber 1978: 1122).
3. Virtuoso Charisma
Charisma may be personally acquirable though means and
method. It is transformed into the object of methodical
practices or ecstatic contemplation. Charisma becomes a
rationalized goal of everyday life. It is transformed from a
state that only few individuals can achieve through their
genuine endowment into a goal that many can reach through
unidentifiable means (Weber 1978: 1169). We need to take into
consideration, however, the fact that the faculty of charisma
is possessed unequally among human beings. Charismatic quality
such as the ecstatic and visionary capacities of shamans,
sorcerers, prophets, ascetics and pneumatics of all sorts,
could not be attained by everyone. Charisma becomes the
faculty of the virtuoso, that is to say, virtuoso charisma. In
accordance with the differences in charismatic qualifications,
the virtuosos distinguish themselves from the lay people, those
who are religiously unmusical yet in need of charismatic
dispensation (Weber 1946: 287). The leagues of sacred dancers,
the status group of the Indian Sramana, the Gnostic pneumatics,
the early Christian ascetics, the Pietist ecclesiola and all
sorts of monk communities are associations of only religiously
qualified persons, that is to say, they are sociologically
genuine "sects." Yet the virtuosos may see themselves
compelled to adjust the demand of the religiosity of masses on
account of maintaining their patronage both materially and
ideologically. The religion of the virtuoso has been a
genuinely exemplary and practical religion. For the lay
person, such exemplary practices of the virtuoso provide
magical enforcement or the efficacy of a living savior for the
needs of lay people (Weber 1978: 1112).
4. Office Charisma
Finally, charisma can be attached to the incumbent of an
office or to an institutional structure. The charisma of
office is "the belief in the specific state of grace of a
social institution" (Weber 1978: 1140). This linkage of
charismatic quality with institutional office, in turn, is
based on the belief that charismatic quality can be transferred
though artificial, magical means such as ordination and
sacrament. The transformation into office charisma completes
the depersonalization of charisma, that is, the separation of
quality of person and function of office. Then, the belief in
the charismatic functionality of office replaces the belief in
the revelation and heroism of charismatic personalities (Weber
1978: 1139). Here charisma becomes part of an established
social "institution," which Weber defines as permanent
structures with established tradition. [2] Institution of
church consist of (1) established system of hierarchal office
with specific duty and rights, (2) rationalized dogma with the
sacred canon, and (3) sophisticated sacraments and corporate
grace (Weber 1978: 1164). [3] Office charisma is a combination
of traditionalism and rationalism; charisma is traditionalized
, for example, in sanctity of the permanent seat of the See of
Rome and in efficacy of sacrament and ordainment, and it is
also rationalized to the hierarchy of office, the dogma of the
teaching, and the codified order and regulation. The struggles
between virtuoso charisma and office charisma which
incorporates with the mass religiosity have always existed.
The religiosity of the Ulema stood against the religiosity of
the Dervishes in Islam; the Lutheran preacher's office against
the Pietists; the Anglican against the Puritans; the Russian
state church against the sects; the Confucian cult against the
Buddhist and the Taoist (Weber 1946: 288).
To end theoretical interpretation of Weber's
"charisma" and "routinization," I would like to
reaffirm that routinization of charisma has three
directions: traditionalization (hereditary charisma),
rationalization (virtuoso charisma), and the
combination of both (office charisma).
Institutionalization of charisma is a process of
office charisma, and only a part of routinization of
charisma. Therefore, we should not confuse
routinization of charisma with institutionalization of
charisma.
NATURE OF COMMUNITY
Before going to analyze the routinization of charisma in
early Christianity, we need to look over the sociological
nature of religious community: whether a congregation is
occasional or permanent, and whether a community is a sect or a
church. These two bipolar perspectives are, of course, ideal
typical concepts to measure the nature of the reality.
Whether a congregation has occasional nature or regulatory
nature is of a basic importance at the initial formation of a
congregation. The sermons of Jesus were held at occasional
congregations, whereas the Christian community at Jerusalem and
the Pauline community had the nature of regulatory and
permanent congregation. Naturally, occasional gathering does
not satisfy the interests of those who conducts the cult or the
preaching, if only because of purely economic considerations.
As a consequence, they endeavor to create a congregation of
permanent organization with regular services of sacrament and
communion, and fixed rights and duties. Such a transformation
from occasional gathering into a permanent community is the
normal process by which the doctrines of the prophets enter
into everyday life. The disciples of the prophets thereupon
become mystagogue, teachers, priests or pastors, serving an
organized congregation of lay persons (Weber 1963: 62).
Primarily, a religious community arises in connection with a
prophetic movement as a result of routinization, i.e., as a
result of the process whereby either the prophet himself or his
disciples secure the permanence of his preaching and the
congregation's distribution of grace, hence insuring the
economic existence of the enterprise and those who man it, and
thereby monopolizing as well as the privileges reserved for
those charged with religious functions (Weber 1963: 60-61).
SECT AND CHURCH
Another basic nature of a religious community is whether it
stands on the principle of a sect or a church. A sect is a
voluntary association in which one becomes a member by own will
proving one's specific religious qualification, whereas a
church is an compulsory organization in which one becomes a
member by birth regardless one's religious qualification (Weber
1978: 56). In other words, a sect is an exclusive community of
the virtuosos, whereas a church is an universal institution for
everyone, organized by office-holders. Every hierocratic and
official authority of a church opposes against all
virtuoso-religion and against its autonomous development. The
holders of institutionalized grace seek to organize the
religiosity of the masses and to monopolize the provision of
the cared values. By its interests of economic foundation, the
church must make the sacred values accessible to the masses.
"This means that the church stands for a universalism of grace
and for the ethical sufficiency of all those who are enrolled
under its institutional authority" (Weber 1946: 288).
At the beginning of routinization of charisma, the
community much likely stands on the principle of sect rather
than the principle of church, though the distinction is fluid
in reality. The principle of sect takes for granted the
personal quality of charisma for the elected, and strong
against the depersonalization of charisma into the goods for
everybody. The principle of church, on the other hand, stands
on functioned charisma in which institutional office bestows
gifts of corporate grace. Only Roman Catholic and, lesser
degree, Tibetan Buddhism reached the level of the church
institution. Both organizations have succeeded to exclude the
hereditary and vis-a-vis nomination of the successor. In
stead, Roman church established the anonymous election of Pope,
and Tibetan church institutionalized the search of the
incarnated child of Dalai lama.
CHARISMATIC COMMUNITY IN JERUSALEM
"An organized group subject to charismatic authority will
be called a charismatic community. It is based on an emotional
form of communal relationship" (Weber 1978: 243). Since the
death of Jesus, the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem were "the
old charismatic disciples and followers, but instead of a
visible hero, the prophet removed to the hereafter is their
invisible leader" (Weber 1978: 1169). [4] The Jewish Christian
community at Jerusalem had kept a charismatic feature of the
community until its end by the Jewish War (66-70 C.E.). It
maintained an emotional form of communal life of consumption
for about 30 years. The staffs of this community did not
consist of officials, i.e., payed and fixed position. They had
no such thing as promotion or dismissal, no career, no
election; they had only a call from the leader on the basis of
the charismatic qualification; they had no hierarchy, or
technically training institution (Weber 1978: 243). Thus,
charismatic staffs are sociologically distinguished from
institutional officials. Disciples and followers did not have
a system of codified rules, of abstract legal principles, and
hence no process of rational judicial decision oriented to
them. Although they chose staffs to judge among themselves,
their judgements were case by case decisions according to
staffs' charismatic divine judgments and revelations.
COMMUNISM OF LOVE
In its charismatic stage, religious community is formed by
the anti-economic force of genuine charisma, affecting the
nature of a permanent religious community. The community of
Jerusalem was a communism of love, in which they lived in
brotherly love, provided consumption by voluntary gift.
Communism of love is directed to reject any this worldly
interest, even land property. Their way of living is not
directed to a desire to maintain their economic and social
status. Weber mentions this situation:
During the charismatic period of a religion, the perfect disciple
must also reject landed property, and the mass of believers is
expected to be indifferent toward it. An expression of this
indifference as that attenuated form of the charismatic communism
of love which apparently existed in the early Christian community
of Jerusalem, where the members of the community owned property
'as if they did not own it' (Weber 1978: 1187).
To be sure, we can find conflicting directions between
following an ideal charismatic life and accommodating everyday
necessity. The sociological characteristic of a community is
determined by not specific phenomena but general movement as a
whole. Until the exodus from Jerusalem by the Jewish war, the
Jerusalem community of Jesus, as a whole, is characterized by
charismatic principle, not everyday need or economic interests
(Weber 1978: 1122). They have never tried to established their
enterprise to earn economic prebend, but they were preoccupied
by the coming of Jesus, the apocalyptic expectation of the end
of this world.
INTRUSION OF TRADITIONALISM
The Jerusalem community had also faced the conflict between
charismatic purity and traditionalism of hereditary charisma.
At the beginning, the family of Jesus apparently occupied
important positions in the community. James, a brother of
Jesus, was called a pillar of the community (Gal. 2:9). After
the death of James (62 C.E.) , however, the influence and
power of the family of Jesus was apparently disappeared. [5]
"It was easier to displace Jesus' family from its originally
important position in the community" because of decisive fact
that Jesus did not have a heir (Weber 1978: 1138). This
community succeeded to restrain followers' desire to have a
living leader.
In addition to the force of hereditary charisma,
traditionalism influenced the Jerusalem community on the
traditional rituals and the Temple cult, and observing the law.
The community favored the traditional handling of
non-circumcised proselytes, and formulated a minimum ethic
(Acts 15:20). [6] James and the elders demanded that Paul
should undergo the purity probe in the Temple because he was
suspicious of misleading full Jews not to observe the ritual
(Acts 21:21 ff.). "The Jerusalemites acceded to Paul's
standpoint only step by step and in part, Peter, apparently
after the death of James. The old Ebonite congregation of
Palestine, however, which continued to observe the law, treated
Paul as an apostate" (Weber 1952: 422). Yet, the Jerusalem
leaders were compelled to meet Paul's claim halfway because
"the converts from the Gentiles were just as well seized by the
spirit and showed the same symptoms as the Jewish Christians"
(Weber 1952: 422). Therefore one could not deny that
uncircumcised converts were equally true Christians. This was
the great transformation of Christianity from a peculiar Jewish
sect to ethnicity-free religion. Here charisma (the power of
pneuma) works. For early Christianity, the spirit was a
standard determining the requisite for membership. To be sure,
the watershed of this transformation did not come until Paul
rebuked Peter for the retraction from the communion with
uncircumcised Christians when the representative of James came
to the community at Antioch from the Jerusalem community (Gal.
2:11-14)
The dynamic tension between charisma and traditionalism in
the Jerusalem community was mainly settled by political
interruptions. In addition to charisma, political enforcement
and migration are major forces to break down the force of
traditionalism. First, James' martyr by the theocratic
Sanhedrin waned the power of hereditary charisma and seniority
based on traditionalism, and thereby the charismatic disciple
took the leadership of the community. Second, the Jewish War
(66-70 C.E.) destroyed the enterprises of the Jerusalem
Christian community as well as the Temple of Jerusalem. The
main body of apostle compelled to leave Jerusalem to Gentle
Christian communities. Finally, the second destruction of the
Temple under Hadrian (76-138 C.E.) terminated the temple
worship and to become the holy church for the pilgrimage as the
Rome church did.
BROTHERLY LOVE IN THE PAULINE COMMUNITY
Like the Jerusalem community, the Pauline community is a
charismatic community subjected to charismatic authority of the
leader and to brotherly love. Paul ruled over his community
authoritatively. This agrees with the nature of charisma as a
source of authority. Charismatic authority doesn't need
democratic procedure, or approval from the followers. The
members of the community are occasionally regarded to Paul's
children, i.e. charismatic subjected believers. More important
is brotherly love as paramount principle in the Pauline
community. Paul always called his followers brethren, which
eventually distinguished his authentic letters from the
deutro-Pauline letters and the Pastoral letters (Meeks 87). [7]
His hymn of love in 1 Corinthians 12 is one of the most
elaborated description of love ethic. Corresponding the
community of a living prophet, the Pauline community is more
intensive in brotherly love than the Jerusalem community, the
community after the death of the prophet. The love ethos of
and discipleship is the only guarantor of the purity of
charisma and community vis-a-vis everyday interests (Weber
1978: 1120). Two hundreds later, brotherly love was still
dominant in the early Christian community.
Yet Paul did not form the communism of love out of the
world, but formed the community of brotherly love in the world.
In so far as the adherents of a religious community cannot live
from patronage or begging, they must live from their own work.
"Work with own hand" was a command of the Pauline community.
"To abide in the same occupation" (1 Cor. 7:20) was exhorted
not because work as such was esteemed, but because economic
independency was necessary to keep the purity of the sect
(Weber 1978: 1187). [8] To be sure, it expresses complete
eschatological indifference toward anything that happens in the
world, just as the prescription "to render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar's" (Luke 20:25).
THE PAULINE SECT
In contrast to Jesus, who never organized a permanent
community of followers, Paul formed his permanent communities,
that is, sects. Although Paul was a charismatic prophet, the
Pauline community was also directed to the principle of the
sect. Paul initiated the formation of permanent community to
secure his preaching. He wrote authoritative letters to his
community in order to establish his doctrine, order and ethic.
At the crisis of taking over his community by other's
leadership, he passionately defended his doctrine, ethic, and
his authority, otherwise his mission and effort was in vain
(Gal. 4:11). Paul's mission and responsibility to God is the
forming of the community of God besides preaching the gospel as
such. Like the Pharisees, the Pauline community had baptism,
the love feast, the support of the poor, the apostolic gifts of
grace, above all prophecy desired as a holy state. Paul made
emphasis on the eschatological actuality, the coercion of
unity, indifference in the worldly matters, the purity of
community, which often employed by the propaganda of a
millennialist sect. "Paul learned the technique of propaganda
and of establishing an attractive community from the Pharisees"
(Weber 1952:387).
Yet Paul never took for granted baptism and the communal
meal as visible and necessary qualifications of sect's
membership, although he presupposed such symbolic practices
within the sect. Paul never thought charisma (pneuma) can be
transferred by such ritual performance per se, although he made
emphasis on the spiritual meaning and significance of such
practices. He thought that the gift of pneuma is exclusively
of individual, and comes directly from God. Charisma has no
human mediator, magical manipulation, influence on the side of
human beings. Every ethical prophecy by its very nature
devalues the magical elements of the priestly enterprise.
Salvation could be achieved only by a distinctively religious
and meaningful relationship to the eternal. All ethical
prophets, by virtue of their rejection of magic, were
necessarily skeptical of the priestly enterprise, as Buddha had
nothing to do with the knowledge and rituals of the Vedic
priesthood in his quest for salvation. Like the Israelite
prophets, Paul addressed not ritual offerings or casuistic of
the law, but obedience to God's spirit, flowing out of love,
and doing justice. Thus, the rejection of magical efficacy of
religious grace identifies the Pauline community as a sect, not
a church, in which the priest enterprises magical provision of
sacraments and corporate grace. The goal of a pure sect is to
share emotional brotherly love, which also distinguishes from a
church, the rational and depersonalized institution.
ROUTINIZATION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY
After Paul's death, unavoidably the Pauline community took
the courses of routinization of charisma, i. e.,
traditionalization and rationalization. Although we can find
initial sings of routinization in Paul by himself and in his
community, his death, i. e., the disappearance of the
charismatic leader, was decisive for the routinization. [9]
For traditionalization , we can find the intrusion of
Jewish traditionalism such as genealogy (1 Tim. 1:4, Tit. 3:9,
cf Matt. 1:1-17), ritual sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10:18), and
the elderly influence in the community (Tit. 1:5). [10] Yet
the Pauline community was not ruled by traditionalism. In
contrast to strong peasantry traditionalism in the Jerusalem
community, Paul's citizenry community was relatively free from
traditionalism; the taboo barriers of ethnicity, occupation,
locality, and religious stereotype. The Pauline community
"rejected the Talmudic law and even the characteristic ritual
laws of the Old Testament, while taking over and considering as
binding--for all their elasticity--various other expressions of
God's will witnessed in the Old Testament." (Weber 1963:260-1).
What is more, the specific qualities of an ethical and personal
piety of Occident Christianity found its real nurture in the
urban environment, in contrast to the ritualistic, or
formalistic religiosity of rural Palestine Christianity (Weber
1978: 472).
Another routinization of charisma took place of rational
and formalistic depersonalization though aristocratization and
institutionalization. Aristocratization here means rational
transformation of the ecstatic state of charisma into
methodical and codified goal, and institutionalization means a
combination of rationalism and traditionalism in the
transformation of charisma into systematic and intellectual
office of magical manipulation of sacrament and corporate
grace. In other words, aristocratization stands on the
principle of virtuoso charisma, leading to particularism of the
religious qualification, whereas institutionalization stands on
the principle of office charisma leading to universalism of
religious qualification on account of the mass religiosity. We
can see the tension between virtuoso charisma and office
charisma already in the Pastoral letters, where the bishop
opposes to virtuoso's celibacy, vegetarianism and anti-drinking
(1 Tim. 4:2-3; 5:23). Thus office charisma of the Pastoral
denounces virtuoso charisma as devilish: "doctrines of devil,_
forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain for meats" (1
Tim. 4:2-3). The more officaldom of priesthood and system of
dogma were established, the more early Christian bishops
opposed against the pneumatics and heroic sectaries. Legalism
in the letter of James is another example of rational
transformation of charisma (puneuma) into formalistic conduct
of life, casuistic dogma and order. Lay people's desire to
have a shepherd (practitioner) of their soul made Paul the
teacher (1 Tim. 2:7), and made Jesus the high priest who
preforms sacrificial ritual for individual's sin (Heb. 3:1).
[11] Even though Paul admonished his followers to maintain the
purity of the spirit, his charismatic messages inevitably
became dogma, doctrine, theory, regulation, law or petrified
tradition after his death (Weber 1978: 1122).
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
At the beginning of its routinization of charisma, Pauline
Christianity cannot be called institutionalization. There are
no paid priest, system of hierarchy and office, established
religious dogma, sacred canon, formulated sacrament and mass.
Of course, there are favorable conditions for the
institutionalization of Pauline Christianity from the
beginning.
For early Christianity presupposed as already extant
certain conception, viz,_ the concept of office, and the
concept of the community as a compulsory organization
(city-state) with specific functions._ particularly in
Hellenistic and definitely in Roman urban law (Weber
1978: 472).
In ancient Greece the word bishop (episkopos) was used for
official titles, in some case as a governor or a local
officials who arrange and appoint the assembly (ekklesia).
(Beyer 608-622). The Pastoral letters already indicate a fixed
position of the office: "the office of a minister" (1 Tim.
3:1), "the office of a deacon" (1 Tim. 3:10), without economic
compensation. At that time, the wandering, charismatic
preachers, the apostles, prophets and teachers, were never
called bishop (episkopoi). "This title arises only where there
are settled local congregations in which regular acts are
performed" (Beyer 615). The Pastoral letters set the
qualifications of the offices: for a minister (1 Tim. 3:2-5)
and for a deacon (1 Tim. 3:8-13). No reference to the Spirit
made for these qualifications, but simply to essential human
qualifications. This shows "how strongly the development is
already affected by everyday needs" (Beyer 617). This is the
beginning of regularly service by professionals, and of the
system of office and organized management of the religious
enterprise.
"Canonical scriptures contain the revelations and
traditions themselves, whereas dogmas are priestly
interpretations of their meaning" (Weber 1978: 458). The
driving force for canonization and dogmatization is simple
interests of the priesthood in securing its own position
against attack by the prophets and against scepticism of the
laity. Canonizations was a consequence of a struggle between
various competing groups and prophecies for the control of the
community (Weber 1978: 459). This direction already took place
in Pauline communities. To secure his community, Paul
endeavored to write letters of revelations and doctrines
against attacks of his opponent Jewish traditionalists, lay
anomie, and Hellenistic mystagogue. Needless to say, there was
no established text of New Testament until 4th century. "The
Christian canon was formalized because of the threat to the
piety of the petty-bourgeois masses from the intellectual
salvation doctrine of the Gnostics" (Weber 1978: 459). [12] As
a products of the priesthood, the closing of canon was
generally conclude with that only a certain period had been
allowed with such prophetic revelations and spiritual writings,
and no more. This is not only the case of New Testament, but
also Old Testament, Pali Canon, Koran and Vegas.
Dogma is a product of priestly rationalization of doctrine
to interpret of priestly meaning. Priest systematize the
content of prophecy or of the sacred traditions by supplying
them with a casuistic, rationalized framework of analysis, and
by accommodating them to their interests, especially needs for
controlling the laity and for their own intellectualism (Weber
1978: 460).
Institutionalization of charisma means the separation of
facility from personal entity. The letter of 1 Timothy
presupposes the separate entity of the house of God from the
ecclesia of God (3:15). Here the separation of the house of
church and the congregation of the believers set in.
Institutionalization also means universalization of charisma
for all men and women. This direction is already found in the
Deutro-Pauline letters; "our Saviour will have all men to be
saved" (1 Tim. 2:1-3). Here also we can see the shift from
Paul's sectarianism into the Pastoral's universalism-- from
Paul statements of "a remnant according to the election of
grace" (Rom. 11:5) and "faith of Jesus Christ to each person
who believe" (Rom. 3:22) to the Pastoral's statements of
"Saviour who will have all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:1-3) and
"God that brings salvation that appeared to all men" (Tit.
2:11). Universalism of salvation is not the rejection of the
world but the acceptance of the world. Paul's warning: "this
present evil world" (Gal. 1:3) and "do not compromise to this
world" (Rom. 12:2) here shifts into the acceptance of the
custom and reputation of this world; "kings, and for all that
are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life
in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable
in the sight of God" (1 Tim. 2:2).
THE ROMAN CHURCH
Weber characterizes the emergence of the Roman church by
four features: (1) a professional priesthood with salaries,
promotions, duties and a distinctive conduct of life; (2)
universal domination overcoming ethnic and national barriers;
(3) rationalized dogma and rites recorded in sacred scriptures;
(4) compulsory organization of office charisma (Weber 1978:
1164). The apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic Church
is secured through episcopal ordination, the indelible
charismatic qualification acquired through the priest's
ordination. After the Donatist controversy, the Catholic
theory of the priest's office-holding was established the
strict distinction between the charisma of office and the
worthiness of the person. This differentiation between person
and function is by no means a civilized phenomenon, but widely
diffused beliefs that all kind of animals, humans and
superhumans can be influenced by magical functionaries. The
Catholic church only put them deliberately in the service of a
great organizational idea: that of bureaucratization (Weber
1978: 1141). As the church administration was bureaucratized
in the hands of the bishops and presbyters, the charismatic
prophets and journey men and women declined. The church
apparatus adapted everyday conditions of technical and economic
operations. As a consequence, the Roman church developed "an
office hierarchy with delimited jurisdictions, regular
channels, reglementation, fees, benefices, a disciplinary
order, rationalization of doctrine and of office-holding as a
vocation" (Weber 1978: 1166). The more the bureaucratization
of office and the rationalization of doctrine become involved,
the more the institutionalization of the church is advanced.
The establishment of the Roman church involves many
elements of historical conditions. The watershed of
institutionalization of Christianity took place when
Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire
in 380 C.E. Preceding persecutions made the Roman church a
strict administrative and hierarchy apparatus. As political
power organized a centralized and highly developed
administration in conquered areas, the hierocratic power of the
Roman church developed under continuous threat of the Roman
gentiles. [13] The strict centralization of Catholic church
and the most radical depersonalization of charisma was
completed in the wake of the French Revolution which destroyed
the power of the local clergy: as ecclesia militants the church
created its technical apparatus though the bureaucratized and
intellectualized church of modern history (Weber 1978: 1140,
1170).
CONCLUSION
Weber distinguishes charisma radically from tradition and
legality because of quite different bases of their beliefs.
The authority of charisma rests on the belief in the
extraordinary quality of power, revelation or personality,
whereas the authority of tradition rests on the belief in the
sanctity of continued presence, and the authority of legality
rests on the belief in the rational and logical persuasiveness.
Routinization of charisma means a radical shift of the belief
in legitimacy from actual extraordinariness to continued
tradition, rational-legal presence, or the combination of both.
Routinization of charisma takes three ways of
depersonalization: hereditary charisma, virtuoso charisma, and
office charisma. Institutionalization of charisma is the
process of office charisma. Therefore, institutionalization of
charisma is not identical with routinization of charisma, but
it is a part of the routinization.
As a whole, both the Jerusalem community and the Pauline
community are charismatic communities, not routinized
communities or institutionalized enterprises. The Jerusalem
community formed a communism of love, and the Pauline community
formed a pure sect of brotherly love. Even if both communities
entailed the initial sings of routinization of charisma, they
cannot be categorized to the community of routinized charisma
such as hereditary charisma, virtuoso charisma, and office
charisma. Charismatic followers and disciples in both the
Jerusalem community and the Pauline community did not become
privileged office-holders, i.e., payed priests, even if there
were some force to establish certain offices and
administrations, these positions were without economic benefit,
and not a permanent coded office, but rather an accommodation
to minimum necessity in everyday life. The turning point of
routinization of charisma always involves economic and social
interests to assure the privileged's well-being and social
status. Jerusalem community was an anti-economic communism,
and the Paul community was a brotherly sect indifferent to
worldly matters. In addition, routinization of charisma
usually takes place soon after the death of the charismatic
leader by the strong desire to have a charismatic leader. The
Jerusalem community avoided having the charismatic leader of
hereditary succession or of election among the disciples, even
if elements of hereditary and seniority traditionalism affected
the direction of the Jerusalem community. After Paul's death,
the Pauline communities did not chose the successor, although
his disciples such as Timothy and Titus took leadership among
the communities. It goes without saying that everyday
existence brings charismatic community nearer to its end under
the heavy weight of material interests (Weber 1978: 1120).
Even though Paul warned the letter kills, and the spirit gives
life, it was inevitable Paul's spiritual teaching became a
doctrine, dogma and ethical teaching. The more the
bureaucratization of office and the rationalization of doctrine
were involved, the more the institutionalization of the
community was advanced.
ENDNOTE
[1] Holmberg poses a question of combing charisma with
traditionalism and rationalism. "It is confusing and self-contradictory to
combine routine and charisma in the one concept, according to Weber, they
are opposites. It would be more appropriate to just talk about the
transformation of charismatic authority into other types of authority
(traditional and rational-legal). As it is one gets the impression that
there remains some fundamental difference between routinized charisma and
traditional, or rational-regal, authority, which is not the case" (Holmberg
1978: 163). The reason why Weber distinguishes the term "routinization of
charisma" from "traditionalization" or "rationalization" lies in quite
different bases of their legitimations. At the beginning of the
routinization of charismatic enterprise, there is not enough tradition or
rationalized system of rules and institutions to assure their economic and
status privileges. The strongest motive for the preservation of charismatic
elements in the depersonalized form is the interests of privileged strata to
legitimize their economic and social conditions, that is, to transform them
from unstable power relationships into acquired rights, and hence to
sanctify them (Weber 1978: 1146).
[2] "Here we find that peculiar transformation of charisma into an
institution: permanent structures and traditions replace the belief in the
revelation and heroism of charismatic personalities, charisma becomes part of
an established social structure" (Weber 1978: 1139).
[3] Thus Weber's definition of "institution" is quite different
from Berger-Luckmann's definition: "Institutionalization occurs whenever
there is a reciprocal typification of habitualized actions by types of
actors. Put differently, any such typification is an institution"; "We can
properly begin to speak of roles when this kind of typification occurs in
the context of an objectified stock of knowledge common to a collectivity of
actors.-- Institutions are embodied in individual experience by means of
roles" (Berger-Luckmann 1967: 54, 73). This difference reflects their
incompatible directions toward sociological conceptualization: the former
directed to ideal-typical construction, and the latter to an average type of
construction for common knowledge. I perceive the usefulness in the
distinction of routinization and institutionalization, instead of Holmberg's
exclusion of routinization. From my stand point, the turning point from the
routinization to the institutionalization in early Christianity came to
third century C.E. when the payed office of bishop was established.
[4] "The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts
11:26). Luke calls both members of the Jerusalem community and Paul's
followers "disciple" including himself (Acts 1:15; 20:7; 21:1).
[5] Josephus speaks of James being sentenced to death in the year
62 C.E. The high priest, Ananos II "assembled the Sanhedrin of Judges and
brought before them the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ, whose
name was James, and some of his companions. And when he had laid an
accusation against them as having broken the law, he delivered them to be
stoned" (Antiquity 20, 9, I).
[6] According Acts 6:6, the Jerusalem community already introduced
the ritual of laying hand. However, in other occasion, Peter denounced a
magician who wanted to manipulate charisma of the spirit by laying hand
(Acts 8:19).
[7] I follow orthodox distinction of Pauline letters: (1) for Paul's
authentic letters, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1
Thessalonians and Philemon, (2) for the deutro-Pauline letters--Ephesians,
Colossians, 2 Thessalonians , (3) for the Pastoral letters, 1 and 2 Timothy and
Titus.
[8] Unlimited, irrationalist sharing with needy brother in the
Jerusalem community forced the missionaries, especially Paul, to collect
alms abroad for the anti-economic central community (Weber 1978: 1187).
This is a reason why Paul formed the community of workers within the world,
as contrast to Jerusalem communism out of the world life.
[9] Keeping the Jewish rituals, especially, circumcision was the
Paul's biggest battle against traditionalism. Paul's new doctrine, the
fulfillment of the law by the faith in Jesus Christ, abolished the
traditional authority of the Jewish law and the practice of Jewish rituals.
For this cause, Paul had to suffer persecution until his death from Jewish
traditionalists.
[10] The Pauline community experienced little tension against
hereditary charisma because of Paul's celibacy. Long after its development,
the Roman Catholic established the celibacy of the priest in order to avoid
hereditary charisma of the Pope as well as to demonstrate priest's charisma
against celibacy monks.
[11] Paul in the letters of Timothy was "ordained" to "a teacher"
besides an apostle (1 Tim. 2: 7, 2 Tim. 1:11), whereas Paul writes himself
only as being "called" to "an apostle" distinguishing from a teacher (Cor.
12:18). The author of 1 Timothy practiced the laying on the hand to the
members of the community, and probably ordained the presbyters by laying on
hand on the head (1 Tim. 2:8;4:14; 5:22).
[12] In contrast to Christian canonization to protect the piety of
lay citizen against Gnosis intellectualism, Buddhistic canonization took
place to protect its intellectual salvation against popular salvation
religion: "the soteriology of the intellectual classes of ancient Buddhism
was crystallized in the Pali canon as a result of the danger posed by the
missionizing popular salvation religions of the Mahayana" (Weber 1978: 459).
[13] "It is no accident that Buddhism evolved the Lamaist
hierarchy, which corresponds even in the ceremonial details to the
Occidental curia, not in India but in Tibet and Mongolia, where it
was continuously threatened by the wildest barbarian peoples of
the world. In the same manner, the Occidental mission produced
the most typical form of Latin monasticism in barbarian countries"
(Weber 1978: 1135).
REFERENCES
Berger, Peter L. Luckmann, Thomas. 1966. The Social Construction
of Reality. New York: Doubleday and Company Inc.
Berger, Peter L. 1967. The Sacred Canopy. New York: Doubleday and
Company Inc.
Beyer, Marianne F. 1964. "Bishop (episdopos)" in Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament. edited by Kittel, Gerhard.
vol. III, p. 608 Grand Rapids: Mich., Eerdmans.
Holmberg, Beng. 1990. Sociology and the New Testament : an
appraisal Minneapolis : Fortress Press,.
________. 1978. Paul and Power : the structure of authority in the
primitive church as reflected in the Pauline epistles.
Minneapolis : Fortress Press
Kee, Howard C. 1980. Christian Origins In Sociological
Perspective:Methods And Resources Philadelphia: Westminster
Press.
MacDonald, Margaret. 1988. The Pauline Churches. Cambridge
(England): Cambridge University Press
Meeks, Wyane A. 1983. The First Urban Christians. New Heaven: Yale
University Press
Schutz, John H. 1975. Paul and the anatomy of Apostolic Authority.
London ; New York : Cambridge University Press,.
Theissen Gerad. 1982. Social Setting of Pauline Christianity.
Philadelphia: Fortress
Weber, Max. 1946. "The Social Psychology of the World Religions."
H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds). From MaxWeber:Essay in
Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press: Originally
(1920) 1972 'Einleitung,' in GARS, vol. 1.
_______. 1952. Ancient Judaism. Translated and edited by Hans H.
Gerth and Don Martindale. New York: The Free Press.
Originally (1920) 1972 'Das antke Judentum,' in GARS, vol. 3.
_______. 1963. The Sociology of Religion. Translated by Ephraim
Fischoff. Boston: Beacon Press.
_______. 1978. Economy and Society. Edited by G. Roth and C.
Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press
Return to Abukuma's Home
May 31. 1996