Networks and exchanges: Ephesians 4:7-16 and the community function of teachers.

Abstract

Though often recognized as part of a discussion on unity, Ephesians 4:7-16 is seldom considered for its contributions to that discussion. Deviating from the usual focus on possible leadership structures in post-Pauline churches, this study focuses attention on what the passage says about the function of certain individuals in promoting unity. When social network and exchange theories are brought to bear on Ephesians 4:7-16, they illuminate strategies in the passage that underscore the role of teachers who protect the community from "false" information on the one hand and strengthen the community with "true" information on the other. Those strategies coordinate with the overt behavioral message of the passage. When community members respond as they should to those teachers, they are said to promote beneficial behavior that results in a more unified community. The net effect of such analysis is to de-emphasize Ephesians 4:7-16 as a reflector of ecclesiastical practices while re-focusing attention on what the passage is overtly trying to convey.

**********

Commentators normally regard Ephesians 4:7-16 as part of the discussion of unity begun in Ephesians 4:3. Yet, while the behavioral message in Ephesians 4:1-6 is easily recognizable, that in 4:7-16 is not. Consequently, most studies on 4:7-16 tend to focus on what those verses may be saying about early church structure (for recent reflections on that tendency, note Best: 374-76, 388-98; Lincoln: 233; Schnackenburg: 180-82). Theories of structure abound, principally based on historical speculation of how ecclesiastical concerns may have been expressed in the days after Paul (note, especially, Fischer: 40-48; Kasemann: 288, 292-93; Klauck: 81-110; MacDonald: 99, 132-36; Meeks: 135; Merklein: 58, 664-45, 79-80; White 1987: 209-28).

Though it may be interesting to observe in Ephesians 4:7-16 possible portrayals of one phase of early church development of leadership structures, those portrayals themselves tell us nothing of how such structures might promote unity, which is what the passage is really about. It may be more useful from an interpretive standpoint to examine what Ephesians 4:7-16 may be indicating about the social function of certain authoritative individuals in promoting unity.

One approach would be to focus on the social roles of authority figures. Holmberg's modification of Weber's "charismatic authority" model and his application of that model to Paul and his churches would certainly have relevance here, regardless of the letter's disputed authorship (Holmberg: 138, 155-60). He describes how such authority involves recognition by followers that a certain person has divine endowment as those followers accept the influence of that person in helping them to orient their lives to a common perspective.

Another approach, that taken in this study, would be to consider the dynamics involved in the relationship between authority figures and those under them, especially as those dynamics pertain both to the solidarity of the group and the exchange of information. Such an examination need not necessarily contradict studies on the institutionalization of roles. Rather, it would help illumine this passage as an ethical one, interacting with central aspects of the unity encouraged by the writer of Ephesians. With this in mind the present study draws on theories related to network analysis, social exchange and group dynamics.

Ephesians 4:7-16 in the Context of 4:1-6

An obvious relationship exists between 4:1-6 and 4:7-16. Both sections deal with the topic of unity. Yet, as one writer has observed, readers could easily proceed from the comments in v 3 (or for that matter, v 6) to those in v 17 without sensing that anything has been missed (Hamann 1982: 121). Thus, some have viewed 4:7-16 to be more of a digression than an actual ethical exhortation (Berth: 499; Bruce: 354, Patzia: 248). The present study disagrees with this latter view. Yet from that view one can helpfully recognize that each section has a distinctly unique emphasis that is not necessitated by the introduction of the topic of unity itself, even as both sections (4:1-6 and 4:7-16) deal with the same general topic.

There is a shift in the direction of the letter's argument at v 7, signaled both by the adversative but and the change in pronoun from "you" to "us" (Best: 374-76). Though the appearance of the term one in Greek echoes its repeated usage in 4:4-6 (Best: 375), it does so in catchword fashion. The kind of unity being discussed in 4:7-16 differs from that in 4:1-6. Ephesians 4:1-3 urges unity to be "maintained" by recalling elements of the unity said to have been established in 2:11-22 (Gosnell: 41-44). Ephesians 4:7-16 takes the discussion on unity in a different direction by dealing with a specific unity influence. The verses at hand present consequences both of regarding and of failing to regard the ministry of certain important individuals, here identified as "gifts." Those individuals have been given to believers to keep them within the bounds of the "one faith" (v 4) to which they all belong, while leading them toward the "unity of the faith" (v 13) that they will one day attain.

An Overview of the Argument in Ephesians 4:7-16

In contrast to the overt exhortation to unity found in 4:3, the behavioral standards of 4:7-16 are implied (Gosnell: 29-38). Those standards appear in vv 15 and 16 (Best: 375), where the readers are told that they will be involved in "speaking the truth in love" and in edifying the "body" of Christ. Those two activities promote the kind of harmony and unity urged in v 3. They also help the readers' community aim toward an even loftier, eschatological unity based on the faith that the readers have embraced and the knowledge they have of Christ (Lincoln: 255; Mitton 1973: 153-54; pace Bruce: 350; Robinson: 183; Schnackenburg: 184).

In order to engage in those activities, however, the readers must give due attention to certain gift-individuals provided for them by the lordly, ascended Christ (vv 8-11). Rather than rehearse the Pauline theme of unity from diversity in the use of charismata (pace Beare: 687; Best: 374-76; Mitton, 1973: 144; Robinson: 179), the verses focus on the unique responsibilities of a selected category of leaders, singled out in a fashion similar to those in 1 Cor 12:28 (a variant of Lincoln: 229-30 and Schnackenburg: 180-82; pace Masson: 188-99; Merklein: 59-65; Schlier: 190-209). Those individuals perform a primarily instructional function. They equip believers, perform a service and build up the community (v 12; with Masson: 192-93; Meyer: 454-55; Hamann 1982: 124-27; 1988: 42-49; pace Barth: 439-440, 477-84; Robinson: 182). They function until Christ returns (v 13). Their work helps the readers avoid the purposelessness promoted by false teachers (v 14), while showing the readers what is true so that they too can speak of this truth amongst each other as an expression of love (v 15). Further, the readers are enabled by the gift-individuals to make the kinds of contributions that foster the community's self edification, again in an atmosphere of love (v 16). With such an important duty, the gift-individuals deserve the attention they have received from recent studies. However their contribution to the promotion of unity is much more central to the argument of the passage than what sort of ecclesiastical structure they may represent.

Preliminary Considerations on Ephesians' Life-setting

An appeal to social science theories is not motivated by an attempt to bring a novel interpretation to bear on the passage at hand, but by a desire to illumine social possibilities that enhance the passage's central concern with unity. One must cautiously bear in mind that Ephesians is notoriously silent about the occasion for its writing.

A number of different proposals exist for the historical occasion of the letter, both in shorter studies and in monographs. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive and have included: a loss by gentiles of the sense of their indebtedness to Judaism and the overall solidarity of gentile churches with Jewish-Christians (Chadwick: 145-53); a problem of disunity between rival factions within a community or set of communities (Usami: 60-66); a correction to the inroads of gnosticizing tendencies in Asia Minor (e.g. Martin: 300); a reversion on the part of the readers to their former way of life associated with magic (Arnold); a need to string together a series of baptismal confessional statements for liturgical purposes in commemoration of Paul (Kirby: 169); a need, after Paul's death, to introduce Christians to his teaching, but in terms of the current issues of the day (e.g., Mitton, 1951: 14).

Such disparity should give way to some circumspection. Assertions of specific situations having given rise to Ephesians' exhortations are more speculative than definitive. Further, they can potentially distract from understanding what the letter is actually communicating. A validly cautious approach would focus principally on what is stated by the text (e.g., Lincoln 1990: lxxiv-lxxxvii). In Ephesians 4:14, for example, the writer does not discuss an invasion of false teachers, or even of false teaching. He simply says that false teaching exists (i.e., "every wind of doctrine"), noting that this teaching is promoted deceitfully and craftily by people who have been led by some sort of "error." Whether the writer of Ephesians is writing to combat an actual intrusion in his churches' communities is a matter of debate (pace Dahl 138). Regardless of whom that writer may have been, he certainly seems to have been acquainted with the basic corpus of Pauline literature where concrete situations of infiltration of false teaching are addressed (Mitton, 1951). Knowing that false teaching exists, and knowing that it results in disharmony and disunity, the writer of Ephesians can be seen here presenting at the very least a preventative mechanism to hedge against any potential false teaching that could possibly work its way into any church community by any means. The letter here tends more toward idealism, potentiality and generality than historical concreteness.

But the writing does address actual human situations. The writer does not have to invent the concept of disunity, or of unity. One can see that the writer's idealism is based on concrete social phenomena. In 4:1-6 he assumes that people become selfish, self-promoting, harsh and unforgiving over a whole host of items, whether trivial or significant. Consequently, he draws on special ethical concepts to counter those problems--humility, gentleness, patience, loving forbearance--but elevates their significance by relating them to an exhortation to keep an already existing unity said to have been created by the Spirit. He then legitimates his exhortation through a string of confession-like statements that all refer to different facets of unity related to the readers' common beliefs.

Within the discussion of 4:7-16 the writer exhibits other assumptions of a church-like situation. He knows that the community, or communities if he is writing some sort of encyclical, consists of individuals ("to each of us," 4:7) who must interact with each other, and who, as a result, can grow together in Christ (4:15). He knows further that those individuals can receive information about their faith and conduct from different sources, sources mentioned else where as the home (5:20-6:9), or work (4:28) in addition to the gathered community. He wants to ensure the dissemination of correct information through proper channels.

Introducing Social Networks

It is when individuals and their structural relationship with one another come into focus that an awareness of social network theories becomes useful. This short study makes no claim to originality in appealing to social network theories to illumine a biblical passage. There has been growing interest in the usefulness of such theories to provide alternative models to understanding the emergence of early Christianity. Michael White has been among the more prolific, editing a special issue of Semeia devoted to the topic (White 1992a&b and White [ed.]; see also 1985-1986; 1986; and 1987). He is influenced by R.S. Stark and W.S. Bainbridge; Stark himself contributed to the same Semeia issue. In the field of biblical studies, J.K. Chow has drawn on network analysis in exploring patron-client ties observable within the Corinthian correspondence.

The pitfalls of using such theories are obvious. We, today, are dealing with a potential or ideal set of situations that are expressed by a writer from a foreign culture, also separated from us by two thousand years. There is a scant amount of data available, severely limiting the kinds of conclusions one can draw. There are no people to interview, and there is no ongoing entity to observe. But by drawing on observations made of present day situations and generalizations derived from them, certain patterns may appear to coincide with the general type of situation lurking behind the scene in Ephesians 4. Recognition of those patterns illumines the life-like setting the letter does address, highlighting messages within the letter while steering clear of historical speculation.

A Basic Social Network Model

A social network describes a group of connected individuals. A given individual is involved in a variety of relationships as part of several networks functioning for different purposes. Some of those relationships consist of "strong ties;" that is, one individual may rely on another for a series of needs. Others consist of "weak ties" where one person has brief, limited interaction with another individual. Since network ties disclose the range of an individual's existing relationships, they can often help describe dynamics within an identifiable group of individuals such as a household or a club. But most often, particularly in a complex society, one's social networks extend beyond such identifiable boundaries. Large organizations function as a grouping of smaller networks since not every individual will necessarily interact with every other member. Neither is each interaction between individuals equivalent.

Network analysis developed as an alternative way of examining interpersonal relationships (note the useful descriptions of its history in Scott: 7-38, and Wellman: 21-29). Though traditionally, social scientists would analyze formal societal structures such as kinship, occupation, neighborhood or other such visible groups or organizations, gradual discontent with that kind of grouping arose because of the incomplete picture of a society such analysis would often portray (Anderson & Carlos: 31; Mitchell: 281; Shulman: 308-09; Wellman & Berkowitz: 4). In particular, when one analyzes the potential interaction that can take place between two individual members of a church in an urban setting, whether ancient or modern, coupled with those interactions between those of two different church communities or between two individuals one of whom belongs to a church community and the other who does not, one can see that there is potential for a wide range of input of all sorts of competing information, as well as a whole series of possible behaviors that each different interaction would demand. Identification of dynamic relationships of networks describes the flow of information more clearly than static social structures.

The primary difficulty with bringing to bear principles derived from network observations on any group of individuals living nearly 2000 years ago is the sparseness of data. Modern network analysis presupposes that different interactions can be observed first-hand. One can ask a person to list those people he or she comes into contact with for different purposes (Maguire: 13-16) or one can set up elaborate communication experiments to map the flow of information or the nature of relationships (e.g., Freeman: 25-37; Granovetter: 105-30; Rogers: 137-64) or one can simply observe what interactions take place in special situations (for a summary of a wide range of techniques, see Scott). No such options are available for Ephesians the way they are for other moments of church history (e.g., Clark: 79-117; Remus: 146-75). A second difficulty lies in the appeal to network theory itself. Initially, some social scientists questioned whether network theory should really be considered a theory, or whether it is simply a new way of describing the same phenomena observed with other techniques (Anderson and Carlos; Mitchell; Barnes: 403-23; Wellman: 19-20). Though studies have long since validated the scientific viability of Network Theory (e.g., see presentations in Freeman, White, & Romney; Wellman and Berkowitz; Willer), non-scientific propositions can appear to appeal to a more folkloric view based on "lay" terminology (Mitchell: 280; Barnes: 405-06).

Not much can be done about the first difficulty. Enough data do exist to make rough sociological generalizations on urban settings of the Eastern Roman Empire in the first century (Meeks; Theissen; Banks). Though Ephesians itself is unlikely to have been sent originally to the city of Ephesus, some sort of urban setting is not unlikely, given the basic historical trends of nascent Christianity taking hold first of all in urban settings (Meeks: 21). That assumption, coupled with certain others that underlie various statements made in the epistle itself, would appear to make it safe to borrow from the same general conclusions made about urban Christianity.

The second difficulty is more troublesome. Ultimately, one can only draw on theories substantiated by current studies and see the potential situations to which they could be applied in the first century Eastern Roman Empire. In so doing, however, the resulting descriptions will appear to be more in line with more folkloric views of social networks associated with lay terminology. Such is the limitation of dealing with incomplete data.

Social Networks in Ephesians

According to W. Meeks, a basic first century urban church would comprise a variety of households each potentially consisting not only of a nuclear family, but also of others such as slaves, artisans and trades-people (Meeks: 75-76). R. Banks (35-36) suggests thirty to thirty-five as a realistic expectation of the size of a given church, along the lines of known voluntary associations and also in accord with the practical limit of how many could fit inside a home. Though one could also consider the potential range of interactions offered by patron-client relationships, that type of interaction is hard to discern in a letter such as Ephesians where comments on specific relationships are scarce. In general, a given church community would consist of a mix of close and distant relationships.

Such a mixture of relationships may be inferred from Ephesians through exhortations aimed directly at households in discussing wife-husband, children-father, and slave-master responsibilities (5:20-6:9) as well as through the exhortation in 4:28 for certain individuals to work so as to be able to give to a needy person, presumably in the church community. The former implies the existence of "strong ties" such that basic needs are cared for, but that certain relationships need to be spelled out in a Christ-oriented framework. The latter, on the other hand, implies that some believers in the community are not related in such a way that giving to another's needs would appear as a natural activity.

People relate to others in a variety of contexts, frequently interacting with the same person in multiple environments (the complexity of such possibilities is portrayed by Burt & Schott). The writer of Ephesians seems to envisage what in network terms appears as clusters of closely related individuals connected to others who relate to each other in one or two spheres, but do not do so with the same "intensity" and "multiplexity" of a household group. "Intensity" measures the strength or "degree of commitment" of a link between two individuals in a network, while "multiplexity" refers to the number of roles connecting two individuals (Maguire: 14). A head of a household does not usually need an exhortation to work to provide for those under his care, but an artisan may need to know that there are others beside his or her immediate family whom he or she has an obligation to help.

Within that kind of environment, one can imagine the existence of at least two potentially disharmonizing tendencies. Most obviously, those who are more weakly tied to the group could be made to perceive themselves more as outsiders, particularly if those with stronger ties tend to exclude them. But also, the existence of weak ties increases the potential for competing forms of teaching to arise. Strong ties may exist within a household unit, but weak ties more conceivably exist between one individual in a household and another outside of it, as well as between an individual tradesperson and other tradespeople or customers. While strong ties may promote stability within that particular network, network studies show that weak ties are more instrumental in spreading information between networks, or from areas outside of a network (Granovetter: 105-06; Rogers: 155; Erickson: 102-05).

Consider, for example, the case of an itinerant teacher coming to town expounding new ideas. Should that teacher gain a heating from one or more people weakly tied to a church community network, he or she has a means of infiltrating the community itself, since the new ideas have the potential of spreading across the weak ties. Obviously not everyone would embrace each new idea. But there is the possibility that several competing factions could arise centered around the variety of responses to those new ideas. A similar happening could take place when a new convert would bring a strong set of religio-philosophical presuppositions into the community, or when a more established believer recently having moved to the city would introduce a competing set of ideas brought from a group considered to be slightly aberrant.

Such examples are not far-fetched. Nock (77-98) shows the reality of such scenarios not only for the spread of Christianity, but of ideas in general in the Graeco-Roman world. He also emphasizes the attractiveness of public proclamation, the performance of miracles and the spreading of rumor as ways that ideas from the outside took hold within an urban environment. Further, in the Pauline world itinerancy is certainly a valid inference from statements such as Romans 16:1-2 or Galatians 2:12. Outside of that world, it is addressed in places such as 3 John or Didache XI-XIII. Along with this, both Malherbe (92-112) and Meeks (16-20) have demonstrated the importance and significance of Christian travel. The point here is to identify what sorts of viable possibilities exist for the thought world of the writer of Ephesians, not precise historical circumstances. Identifying potentialities is more fitting for the general nature of the letter, which itself is probably only addressing potentialities.

Social Exchange and Group Dynamics in Ephesians

At this point, observations from Exchange Theory are relevant to explore. Exchange Theory overlaps significantly with Network Analysis (Mitchell: 284; Cook: 180). At its heart, it depends on the mutual exchange of benefits between two or more individuals. Two of the "three core assumptions in exchange theory" described by Emerson (31-32) are especially pertinent here: (1) "Beneficial events of all kinds, whether they involve money, goods, smiles or simply `social attention,' are valuable in exactly the same general sense: people for whom they are beneficial act in a way that tends to produce them." (2) "... benefits obtained through social process are contingent upon benefits provided `in exchange.'" Those benefits can consist of anything considered to be positive, from tangible goods to information to facial gestures (Wellman: 40).

As individuals function in a network, the exchange of benefits spreads through the network in identifiable forms. A person "A" receiving a benefit through a person "B" is said to be positively connected to that person. If the benefit originated from a person "C" and had to pass through "B" in order for "A" to receive it, then "A" and "C" are negatively connected to each other, though positively connected through person "B". "B" is considered to be a powerful person, acting as a "broker" of benefits flowing from "A" to "C". If for some reason "A" and "C" decide to get together to by-pass "B," "B" loses out entirely, being negatively connected to both "A" and "C" (for a highly sophisticated analysis of strategic exchanges, note Burt).

Those notions can now be brought to bear on the scenario of new information entering a church community. One could realistically picture a situation where an individual, perhaps in an attempt to strengthen his or her own ties to the group by gaining some sort of special recognition, brings a new form of teaching recently acquired from outside of the group. Some unrecognized teacher would have originally exchanged his or her instruction in return for a receptive audience with that person. That individual might then attempt to "broker" the new form of teaching to others in the community, perhaps even going so far as to bring the actual teacher in person, if possible. The attractiveness of such an outside influence would increase even more if that outside teacher could be considered more authoritative than those teachers currently influencing the community. Holmberg (44-50, 69-72) in fact proposes such scenarios for Paul. He describes how many of Paul's struggles may have been related to competition arriving with envoys from the Jerusalem church, an institution perceived by some to be more authoritative than Paul.

If the group in question already has an accepted practice of disseminating instruction, then potential competition has arrived, particularly if the new teaching is at odds with what has been the group standard, or if the new teacher seems more appealing than those currently responsible for group instruction. A church group could easily polarize around those competing sources of information, be. coming disunited. Further, if the intruding teaching deviates from the previous norm so that it is considered dangerously erroneous, the purpose of the church group's existence becomes threatened.

On seeing such dangers, some recognized leadership source could attempt to restore order. Strategies identified by group theorists for such action include: devaluing the competitor's resources, cultivating alternative resources, forming coalitions to stand against intrusion, and creating special dependencies on the leadership's own resources (Crosbie: 354). Translated into the church situation, the established leadership can denounce or expose the competing teaching for the heresy that it is believed to be. It can describe how its instruction is uniquely received by special revelation or endowment from Christ. It can call on people to close ranks, rallying around some standard of the faith. Or, it can choose a special focus of its own teaching and show how this is the unique but standard way to achieve Christian goals.

Those types of situations and strategies certainly existed in Pauline churches. Though aspects of them can be observed in the Corinthian correspondence, and to a certain degree in Philippians, they are most visible in Galatians. Paul must deal with the intrusion of false teaching as well as a factious church (Gal 1:6-9; 5:13-15; see Barclay). He denounces what he considers to be a false notion of the faith as presented by his competitors. He discusses his source of revelation as a way of showing the superior uniqueness of his instruction (Gal 1:12). He encourages his readers to act in a cooperative way (Gal 5:13-15), which also results in closed ranks against intruding sin or heresy. He also describes a special focus of his teaching that shows his way as the best for attaining what his readers wanted in the first place: "Live by the Spirit" (Gal 5:16, NRSV). According to Barclay (70-72), Galatian believers' concerns about acquiring proper behavioral standards may have prompted their desire to follow the Law in the first place. Gal 5:22-23 consequently comprises part of Paul's alternative to a strict code (Barclay: 119-25). Of course, the issues at hand in Galatians also deal heavily with the acceptability of Paul and his authority, rather than the authority of any leadership structure existing in any of these churches. But as itinerant overseer, Paul is exercising his responsibility on behalf of the Galatian communities.

As already noted, the writer of Ephesians is undoubtedly familiar with Pauline writings and the situations represented by them. Additionally, he may also be aware of other doctrinal dangers on the prowl. The specifics mentioned in Act 20:29 and Rev 2:2 support this at least for the traditional provenance of Ephesians. If, as is generally accepted, Colossians is written prior to Ephesians, the literary relationships between those epistles certainly indicate that the writer of Ephesians is attuned to doctrinal deviation as a genuine possibility. Curiously, though, Colossians emphasizes its readers' spiritual ties to Christ instead of reinforcing human leadership. In Ephesians the writer perceives a threat, whether potential or actual, and tailors his teaching accordingly in 4:7-16. No explicit commands occur in those verses, only implicit directives. The strategy resembles what appears in Galatians, only there, what is scattered by example throughout an entire epistle is concentrated in Ephesians 4:7-16 in a closely articulated, idealistic statement.

Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers are said to have been given by the lordly, ascended Christ to His people (4:8-11). Their teaching is to be valued because they, and by implication their message, come from Christ. As Holmberg (198) notes:

   The most important basis for the legitimate exercise of power or, in other
   words, for the exercise of authority in the Primitive Church is proximity
   to the sacred (Christ and His Spirit) ... The really crucial form of
   proximity to the sacred is that of being in close contact with sacred
   ratio, the divine Word.

Meanwhile, the ministry of some would-be teacher, implicitly not given by Christ, is devalued as a ministry that tosses its adherents around through trickery and error (4:14). The gift-individuals in their instructional activity simultaneously are depicted as better resources for learning about the faith, since their ministry is said to have come directly from Christ himself for the benefit of all believers (4:11-12). Coalition formation is encouraged by describing truth-speaking in love and mutual deeds of love as the consequences of heeding the teaching of those given by Christ (4:15-16). Finally, the writer of Ephesians promotes a dependency on the specially given individuals by showing how adherence to their ministry is the only way to achieve ultimate unity, also equated in highly spiritual terminology with maturity and "the measure of the full stature of Christ" (4:13, NRSV). By learning from those Christ-given individuals, the entire community is enabled both to speak what is true about the faith among themselves and to make "edifying" contributions to the welfare of the group, all resulting in growth in Christ (4:15, 16).

Recognizing such dynamics shifts the focus of this passage to its explicit messages, away from adaptations of Paulinism or delineations of leadership structures. Though promoting an ideology about leadership, the writer's exhibited concern is with normal human situations, whether actually or potentially happening, arising out of everyday life-circumstances. The passage's primary interest is in the behavior of its readers, not the establishment of ecclesiastical practices for a new generation.

Conclusions

For the cause of unity, the writer has displayed a positive, idealistic picture of the function of teachers. Whether the intrusion of false teaching is actual or only potential, the writer has devalued input coming from unrecognized outsiders mostly by intensifying the value of recognized insiders, who all perform as teachers. Simultaneously, he has strengthened the ties between all group members.

If deviant information comes from a new convert rather than from an outsider, the community will have a strongly unified base that works against the acceptance of a deviation from a norm. According to Crosbie (440), "the more similar group members are to each other, the more likely it is that any potential dissident will conform to the group's standards and beliefs" (note also Erickson: 103). If an outside teacher is the direct source, his or her input must demonstrate how it promotes growth in Christ, or even more daunting, how it has a more worthy ambition than the achievement of the collective maturity in Christ that comes from the input of Christ-given teachers. If other teaching is to gain an entrance, it must prove itself to be more valuable than what comes from Christ's own envoys, while at the same time demonstrating how it is not tossing its listeners about or is not from an erroneous source.

Recognition of such dynamics demonstrates that Ephesians 4:7-16 does reflect unique attitudes about leadership structures in first century churches. Certain individuals who teach are given a prominent role in the promotion of group cohesion. But one must not lose sight of the fact that that role was presented by the writer not to promote autocratic leadership, but community well-being. The writer states explicitly that "growth," the ultimate outcome of heeding Christ's "gifts," comes in the end not solely from those teachers, but from all believers. As the ideology expressed by the passage meets the social structures underlying it, Christ-given teachers are put forward as unifying forces to promote actions of solidarity between each believer.

The writer implies that as believers learn from the Christ-given teachers they acquire the right kind of knowledge about the Christian life. That not only helps them to evaluate teaching input from other sources, but enables them to know both what is truthful to speak in love amongst themselves and how to contribute mutually to one another's welfare. By heeding the Christ-given teachers, the believers maintain a positive connection to the divinely endowed sources of information, enabling them to be connected positively to each other in the caliber of fellowship and mutual ministry they can enjoy together.

The gift-individuals promote unity by disclosing what helps the community grow in Christ. Other believers promote unity by receiving and practicing the message of those whom, it is claimed, Christ has given to them for their edification. In the end the passage focuses not on the existence of strong leadership, but on the contribution that those who are given by Christ make toward strengthening the ties between all believers in the community. The dynamics of such a unity are illumined by an awareness of actual human processes as individuals interact within their existing social networks.

Ultimately, this investigation de-emphasizes Ephesians 4:7-16 as an expression of post-Pauline ecclesiastical practices or leadership structures. Competing sources of information existed in Paul's churches. Ephesians' concern with such competitors is not unrealistic. Further, its strategy for dealing with them resembles what actually appeared in the undisputedly Pauline environment. Network analysis describes actual people-to-people interaction. When applied to Ephesians, that analysis uncovers an ideology rooted more in the everyday affairs of routine life than in an attempt to bridge differences between Paul's world and Ephesians'.

Works Cited

Anderson, B. and Carlos, M.L. 1976. What Is Social Network Theory? Pp. 27-51 in T. Bums and W. Buckley (eds.), POWER AND CONTROL. London, UK: Sage.

Banks, Robert. 1994. PAUL'S IDEA OF COMMUNITY. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Barclay, John M.G. 1988. OBEYING THE TRUTH: A STUDY OF PAUL'S ETHICS IN GALATIANS. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark.

Barnes, J.A. 1975. Network Analysis: Orienting Notion, Rigorous Technique or Substantive Field of Study? Pp. 403-23 in Perspectives on Social Network Research, edited by P.W. Holland and S. Leinhardt. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Barth, Markus. 1974. EPHESIANS 4-6. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Beare, Francis W. 1953. The Epistle to the Ephesians. Pp. 597-749 in THE INTERPRETERS BIBLE, edited by GA Buttrick. New York, NY: Abingdon Press.

Best, Ernest. 1998. EPHESIANS. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Bruce, F.F. 1985. THE EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS, TO PHILEMON, AND TO THE EPHESIANS. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Butt, Ronald S. 1992. STRUCTURAL HOLES. THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF COMPETITION. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burt, Ronald S. and Schott, Thomas. 1992. Relational Contents in Multiple Network Systems. Pp. 185-213 in RESEARCH METHODS IN SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS, edited by L.C. Freeman, D.R. White and A.K. Romney. Lanham, MD: George Mason University Press.

Chadwick, Henry. 1960. Die Absicht des Epheserbriefes. ZEITSCHRIFT FOR DIE NEUTESTAMENTLICHE WISSENSCHAFT 51: 145-53.

Chow, John K. 1992. PATRONAGE AND POWER: A STUDY OF SOCIAL NETWORKS IN CORINTH. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Clark, Elizabeth A. 1992. Elite Networks and Heresy Accusations: Towards a Social Description of the Origenist Controversy. SEMEIA 56:74-117.

Cook, Karen S. 1982. Network Structures from an Exchange Perspective. Pp. 177-99 in SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND NETWORK ANALYSIS, edited by Peter V. Marsden and Nan Lin. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Crosbie, Paul V. 1975. INTERACTION IN SMALL GROUPS. New York, NY: MacMillan.

Dahl, Nils Ahlstrup. 1978. Interpreting Ephesians: Then and Now. CURRENTS IN THEOLOGY AND MISSION 5:133-43.

Emerson, Richard M. 1981. Social Exchange Theory. Pp. 30-65 in SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES, edited by Richard M. Emerson and R.H. Turner. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Erickson, Bonnie H. 1997. The Relational Basis of Attitudes. Pp. 99-121 in SOCIAL STRUCTURES: A NETWORK APPROACH, edited by B. Wellman and S.D. Berkowitz. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Freeman, Linton C. 1989. Social Networks and the Structure Experiment. Pp. 11-40 in RESEARCH METHODS IN SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS, edited by L.C. Freeman, D.R. White, and A.K. Romney. Lanham, MD: George Mason University Press.

Freeman, Linton C., White, Douglas R. and Romney, A. Kimball (eds.) 1989. RESEARCH METHODS IN SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS. Lanham, MD: George Mason University Press.

Fischer, Karl Martin. 1973. TENDENZ UND ABSICHT DES EPHESERBRIEFES. Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Gosnell, Peter W. 1992. BEHAVING AS A CONVERT: MORAL TEACHING IN EPHESIANS AGAINST ITS TRADITIONAL AND SOCIAL BACKGROUNDS. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Sheffield.

Granovetter Mark. 1982. The Strength of Weak Ties. Pp. 105-30 in SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND NETWORK ANALYSIS, edited by Peter V. Marsden & Nan Lin. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hamann, Henry P. 1988. The Translation of Ephesians 4:12--A Necessary Revision. CONCORDIA JOURNAL 14: 42-49.

1982. Church and Ministry: An Exegesis of Ephesians 4:1-16. LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 16: 121-28.

Holmberg, Bengt. 1978. PAUL AND POWER. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup.

Kasemann, E. 1966. Ephesians and Acts. Pp. 288-97 in STUDIES IN LUKE-ACTS, edited by Leander E. Keck & J. Louis Martyn. London, UK: SPCK.

Kirby, J.C. 1968. EPHESIANS: BAPTISM AND PENTECOST. London, UK: SPCK.

Klauck, Hans-Joseph. 1973. Das Amt in der Kirche nach Eph 4, 1-16. WISSENSCHAFT UND WEISHEIT 36:81-100.

Lincoln, Andrew T. 1990. EPHESIANS. Dallas, TX: Word Books.

MacDonald, Margaret Y. 1988. THE PAULINE CHURCHES. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Maguire, Lambert. 1983. UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL NETWORKS. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Malherbe, Abraham J. 1983. SOCIAL ASPECTS OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Martin, Ralph P. 1967-1968. An Epistle in Search of a Life-Setting. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES 79: 296-302.

Masson, Charles. 1953. L'EPITRE DE SAINT PAUL AUX EPHESIENS. Neuchatel, France: Delachaux & Niestle SA.

Meeks, Wayne. 1983. THE FIRST URBAN CHRISTIANS. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Merklein, Helmut. 1973. DAS KIRCHLICHE AMT NACH DEM EPHESERBRIEF. Munchen, Germany: Kosel-Verlag.

Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. 1884. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL HAND-BOOK TO THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. Translated by M.J. Evans. Revised and edited by W.P. Dickson. New York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls.

Mitchell, Clyde J. 1974 Social Networks. ANNUAL REVIEW OF AN. THROPOLOGY 3: 279-99.

Mitton, C. Leslie. 1973. EPHESIANS. London, UK: Marshall, Morgan & Scott.

1951. THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS: ITS AUTHORSHIP, ORIGIN AND PURPOSE. Oxford, UK, Clarendon Press.

Nock, Arthur Danby. 1933. CONVERSION. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Patzia, Arthur G. 1990. EPHESIANS, COLOSSIANS, PHILEMON. Peabody, MA: Hendrikson.

Remus, Harold. 1996. Voluntary Association and Networks. Aelius Aristides at the Asclepieion in Pergamum. Pp. 146-75 in VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS IN THE GRAECO-ROMAN WORLD, edited by John S. Kloppenborg & Stephen G. Wilson. New York, NY: Routledge.

Robinson, J. Armitage. 1928. ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. London, UK: MacMillan.

Rogers, Everett M. 1975. Network Analysis of the Diffusion of Innovations. Pp. 137-64 in PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL NETWORK RESEARCH, edited by P.W. Holland & S. Leinhardt. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Schlier, Heinrich. 1957. DER BRIEF AN DIE EPHESER. Dusseldorf, Germany: Patmos-Verlag.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. 1991. EPHESIANS. Translated by Helen Heron. Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark.

Scott, John. 1991. SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS. A HANDBOOK. London, UK: Sage.

Shulman, N. 1976. Network Analysis: A New Addition to an Old Bag of Tricks. ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 19: 307-23.

Stark, Rodney S. 1992. Epidemics, Networks, and the Rise of Christianity. SEMEIA 56: 159-75.

Stark Rodney S. and Bainbridge, William Sims. 1980. Networks of Faith: Interpersonal Bonds and Recruitment to Cults and Sects. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY 85: 1376-95.

Theissen, Gerd. 1982. THE SOCIAL SETTING OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY. Trandslated by John H. Schutz. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Usami, Koshi. 1983. SOMATIC COMPREHENSION OF UNITY. Rome, Italy: Biblical Institute Press.

Wellman, Barry. 1997. Structural Analysis: From Method and Metaphor to Theory and Substance. Pp. 19-6 1 in SOCIAL STRUCTURES: A NETWORK APPROACH, edited by B. Wellman & S.D. Berkowitz. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wellman, Barry and Berkowitz, S.D. 1997. Studying Social Structures. Pp. 1-14 in SOCIAL STRUCTURES: A NETWORK APPROACH, edited by B. Wellman & S.D. Berkowitz. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

White, L. Michael. 1992a Finding the Ties that Bind: Issues from Social Description. SEMEIA 56: 3-22.

1992b. Social Networks: Theoretical Orientation and Historical Implications. SEMEIA 56: 23-36.

1987. Social Authority in the House Church Setting and Ephesians 4:1-16. RESTORATION QUARTERLY 29: 209-28.

1986. Sociologica Analysis of Early Christian Groups: A Social Historian's Response. SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS 47: 249-66.

1985-1986. "Adolph Harnack and the `Expansion' of Early Christianity: A Reappraisal of Social History." Second Century 5: 97-127.

White, L. Michael, ed. 1992. Social Networks in the Early Christian Environment: Issue and Methods for Social History. SEMEIA 56: 23-36.

Willer, David (ed.). 1999. NETWORK EXCHANGE THEORY. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Peter W. Gosnell, Ph.D. (University of Sheffield), is Adjunct Lecturer in Bible and Humanities, University of Arizona; Adjunct Instructor in Religion, Philosophy, and Humanities, Pima Community College; and Adjunct Assistant Professor in New Testament and Biblical Languages, Fuller Theological Seminary (e-mail: [e-mail]). He is the author of Ephesians 5:18-20 and Mealtime Propriety, TYNDALE BULLETIN 44 (1993): 364-71 and is working on a monograph on the moral teaching of Ephesians 4:1-5:20.