2 Corinthians: Leadership and Luxury

Following on from her previous article, Kirsten Mackerras continues exploring the leadership issues in Corinth when Paul wrote to the church there. In this second part, Kirsten focuses particularly on money and power, and shares what we can learn from the Corinthians' situation today.

For some critics, Christianity is a con designed to make money. And, sadly, some leaders do act like their ministries exist to line their pockets. One Instagram account highlights the relationship some western churches have with opulence, displaying pictures from pastors’ social media alongside the retail price of their designer clothing. When Christian leaders present themselves in this way, they show how our culture’s values of image, celebrity, and conspicuous consumption have infected the body of Christ. When pastors become celebrities and services become about soliciting donations to fund luxury lifestyles, the purpose of church gets corrupted.

The church in first-century Corinth would have hired these pastors in a heartbeat. They expected their leaders to look expensive. And the Corinthians’ attitude towards money was a symptom of a much bigger problem in their relationship with Paul. They used a business relationship as the model for their interactions with Paul, and they expected him to make them look good to their image-obsessed neighbours. As we saw in the previous article, the Corinthians wanted leaders who were strong and impressive. They liked flashy speakers who coerced the church and demanded their own way. This article delves deeper into the conflict between Paul and the church in 2 Corinthians, showing how the Corinthians’ idea of leadership was shaped by their culture and not the gospel.

Money and Patronage in Corinth

The Corinthians disliked how Paul handled money, but not because he was greedy. Rather, they were upset that he wouldn’t take their money. The conflict was so bad the Corinthians accused him of not caring about them. Paul had to defend his practice three times (1 Corinthians 9:3-18; 2 Corinthians 11:7-15; 12:13-18). He asked them, ‘did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God's gospel to you free of charge?’ (2 Corinthians 11:7, ESV).

The Corinthians’ anger seems strange to us. They probably expected that, by giving money to Paul, they would become his patrons. In the Graeco-Roman world, a ‘patron’ was a wealthier or more powerful sponsor who would do favours for a less wealthy or powerful ‘client’ in exchange for the client’s loyalty. Sponsoring clients gave a patron social power, while a patron was a client’s best hope for social advancement. These asymmetrical relationships were everywhere in Roman society.

The patron gave their client funds, advocacy, and access to resources. The first-century Greek writer Plutarch described how clients would cluster around their patron’s house in hope of a handout:

In the houses of rich men and rulers, the people see a noisy throng of visitors offering their greetings and shaking hands and playing the part of armed retainers. (On Having Many Friends, 94B, LCL)

In exchange, the client was obliged to support the patron’s interests and advance their social standing. As Cicero, a Roman statesman, said,

To fail to requite [a kindness] is not allowable to a good man . . . the greater the favour, the greater is the obligation. (On Obligations, 1.15, LCL)

These obligations governed how people voted, handled their businesses, and accessed the legal system.

Patronage also gave clients access to their patron’s business network. Patrons could give introductions or recommendations, and these contacts were often made by letter. The Corinthians wanted Paul to provide this kind of reference from other churches to ensure he was a good investment for their social capital. When Paul refused, they concluded that he lacked the proper accreditation (2 Corinthians 3:1-6; 10:12-17). Patron-client relationships dominated the empire’s social fabric. But Paul rejected them as a model of pastoral relationships. He refused to let the Corinthians think they could dictate how he acted.

However, Paul’s refusal of Corinthian money did impact the church. His poverty, evident in the deprivations of his ministry and his working to support himself, shamed them by association (2 Corinthians 6:5-10; 11:7-9, 27). In the ancient world, wealth was a means to social prestige, while poverty was often held in contempt. Corinth was particularly known for its materialism. The geographer Strabo described it as ‘great and wealthy’ (Geography, 8.6.23), while another writer said it was ‘abounding in luxuries’ (Alciphron, Letters of Parasites. 3.24). Corinth’s population had a high proportion of freed slaves, who entered society at its lowest levels, but had the ability to gain prodigious wealth. And many did: the philosopher Seneca said of one wealthy man, ‘he had the bank account and brains of a freedman’ (Epistles, 27.5). Competition for this social mobility was fierce. And wealth brought power. It opened up the important civic offices, which required spending one’s own money for the city. Paul had no interest in climbing this social ladder. But the Corinthian Christians had imbibed their society’s materialism. They didn’t like being associated with someone shabby.

Paul’s Relationships

These expectations coloured and corrupted the Corinthian Christians’ relationship with Paul. Paul’s response was to give new imagery for the church’s relationship with its leaders. He described himself as their parent. This metaphor reminded them that he and not the false apostles planted the church in Corinth. Traditionally, Roman fathers had absolute legal authority over their children’s lives for as long as they lived. One legal expert wrote, ‘there is scarcely any other nation where fathers are invested with such power over their children as at Rome’ (Gaius, Institutes 1.55). But Paul modified his culture’s understanding of parenthood: his authority over the Corinthians was subordinated to his love and self-giving for them. He would not take their money because parents should save up for their children (2 Corinthians 12:14). And as the church’s founder, Paul had given the Corinthians more than mere money. Patron-client relationships are about reputation, but the church is fuelled by love.

Some of Paul’s statements can be misused by unhealthy leaders to justify their behaviour, when they disconnect his words from his cross-centred theology. But unlike these leaders, Paul refused to use his role in the church to create a cult of personality around himself. He was the Corinthians’ servant, not the reverse (2 Corinthians 4:5). Paul refused to mobilise the congregation against someone who wronged him (2:5-8). Unlike today’s toxic leaders, he did not freeze out those who crossed him. Instead, he rejoiced when his relationships with the church were restored (7:7). His authority over the Corinthians was given to build them up, not tear them down (10:8; 13:10).

The Corinthians even benefitted from Paul’s sufferings, though they embarrassed the church. The main theme of 2 Corinthians is that Paul suffered like Jesus to bring the benefits of Jesus’s resurrection to his congregations: ‘Death is at work in us, but life is at work in you’ (4:10-12). Paul was constantly concerned for his churches, feeling their every struggle (11:28-29). He was more empathetic and less authoritarian than his culture’s model of leadership. Bullying leaders build their platform on the backs of others’ suffering, but Paul suffered for his church.

Paul’s Commendation

Paul refused the Corinthians’ sponsorship because he owed loyalty to a higher patron. He conducted his ministry for God’s approval and glory above all else. The Corinthians asked Paul for references from other patrons, but Paul refused to let humans boast about his giftedness. Instead, it was what God has done in the Corinthians’ hearts that accredited his ministry. Many unhealthy ministry cultures develop around the skills of impressive leaders, but Paul knew that God made him competent for ministry, not his own reputation or giftings (3:1-6).

Paul’s Integrity

Finally, while the Corinthians wanted Paul to bolster their image, the apostle prized integrity. His loyalty was not to a human patron, but to Christ. Paul preferred God’s good opinion over that of the status-seeking Corinthians. Consequently, he could say,

We have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

Paul refused to be seduced by human applause or to use his ministry to cultivate his image. He lived for God’s commendation, which made his integrity more important to him than saving face. Most leadership scandals involve leaders whose private lives do not match their public image. But Paul was always conscious that God was his primary audience, and he would face judgment for his actions one day (5:10).

Though Paul refused to cultivate a flashy image, he was careful to make his integrity publicly visible. We see this in how he handled money. While the false apostles ‘peddle[d] the word of God for profit’ (2:17), Paul preached without payment to show that God’s grace is free. He sent the collection for the church in Jerusalem with representatives from multiple churches, including the Corinthians. He explained, ‘we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of humans’ (8:21). And he refused to let the collection be seen as a patron’s gift. The patronage system emphasised the imbalance between donor and recipient. The Corinthians gave to the Jerusalem church so all might have enough and there might be equality (8.13-14). The gospel’s vision is that those with much supply the needs of those without. Ministers who enrich themselves at the expense of their congregations betray that vision.

The Corinthians thought Paul owed them a client’s loyalty; Paul answered that God was his patron. He lived to enhance God’s reputation, even if it brought his own into disrepute. But serving his divine patron required that he also serve the Corinthians. He was their parent and servant, but not as his culture understood these roles. Any authority he had was to be used self-sacrificially; all power is transformed by the cross.

Leadership Today

The Corinthians wanted leaders who were loud, bombastic showmen, and who got things done whatever the cost. Recent history shows this preference is not merely an ancient one. Nor is it unrealistic that Christians might mistake such people for godly leaders. This is a challenge to those of us who want to have and to be non-toxic leaders: have our culture’s definitions of success infected how we evaluate each other?

Instead of being image-focused, putting the brand before everything, healthy churches are people-centred. While domineering leaders rule through fear, churches that embody the gospel are marked by humility, empathy, and forgiveness. And Paul shows that the church’s fate does not depend on the impressiveness of its leaders. Christian ministry is done out of weakness because it imitates the ministry of a crucified saviour. This posture of service distinguished Christian leadership from the other models on offer in Paul’s society. The church does not need more hyper-gifted celebrities; it needs ordinary, faithful servants. If being strong means protecting the church’s image despite the human cost, then, like Jesus, let’s choose weakness.