Summary: Roman society thought Christians weird for both their beliefs and practices, and yet oddly compelling.

The early Christians in Roman society were weird. Strange. They weren’t trying to be. But their faith resulted in them standing apart from others in Roman society. Their beliefs and practices broke with religious conventions. Yet some found them strangely compelling and their movement kept growing. nijay K. Gupta transports us back to first and second century Roman culture to help us see why they were thought so strange.

He breaks his study into four parts. The first shows how strange becoming Christian was. In Roman society, the gods just were, and there were lots of them. One didn’t choose to believe in a god so much as did the things to stay on good terms with the gods, pax deorum, or “peace with the gods.” There were regular practices to appease the gods. No one thought about friendship with the gods, just staying on their good side. Then Christians came along talking about believing–that there was one God, that Jesus came as the image of God in human flesh, and thus they made no images. Faith had both content and was personal–people trusted in God because of Jesus, saw them in a covenant friendship with God. What’s more, this Jesus who they worshipped as the image of God died a despised death on a Roman cross and his followers claimed that he physically rose and, because of this, they believed they would one day bodily be resurrected. Strange, huh? They also thought it was dangerous, not a religion but a superstition that could endanger the social order. It was innovative rather than ancient, ecstatic rather than ritualized, individual rather than corporate, and desperate, as in intense in devotion, rather than ritually effective.

Then there was the matter of what they believed–unbelievable things! They believed in the supremacy of Jesus as Lord over all, not one of a company of gods. There was no smoke and blood of sacrifices but simply worship. Rather than believing in shrines and temples as “spiritual hot spots” to connect with the God, they believed themselves indwelt with God through the Holy Spirit, enabling them to worship and connect with God anywhere. Finally, they thought differently about time, not as an annual calendar of festivals to the gods, but in terms of what has been fulfilled in time and what is yet to be fulfilled–is it time yet?

They were strange in how they gathered to worship–privately in houses rather than at appointed times in public at temples. It led to a lot of rumors. There was the language of family–brother and sister. Instead of priest, the were led by the head of the household, who presumably managed his own household well. And these gatherings broke social conventions with rich and poor, slave and free, men and women at table together. It was also a priestless gathering, with Christ their priest, whose sacrifice for them was remembered in the bread and cup of shared meals. They responded to him in offered lives, songs of praise, and prayers as he had taught them. All in these private household gatherings.

Apart from the mystery cults, Romans didn’t want to get too close to their gods. By contrast, Christians sought to become like Christ, to imitate Christ. And what they imitated stood out. They sought to follow Christ in his humility, his love, righteousness, and purity–not qualities sought after by the Romans. The status-toppling life of Jesus from Son to despised servant who died upturned all social hierarchies, leading to a radical equality, as already noted. But Gupta pauses at this point to observe their imperfections. They fought and split. They did not protest the institution of slavery. and they slandered each other and spoke judgmentally, making statements that would later be used to justify anti-Semitism.

So what made these strange people so compelling? Gupta speculates:

“Some say it was the promise of immortality. Some say it was the networking savvy of spreading the religion in an organized across the whole empire. Some say it was the attraction of monotheism. Some say it was the teaching on morality. I am sure all of these are factors. But I can’t help but believe it was the people, the Christians themselves. In the first century a Roman encounter with Jesus was probably going to happen through a small community of Christians. This community had to be compelling.”

One can’t help but reflect on the parallels and differences in our own social setting. It makes me wonder if we are thought strange and weird and dangerous and compelling in ways that reflect the gospel of the kingdom of Jesus. Are we thought strange because we impoverish ourselves to help those with even greater needs in our midst? Are we thought weird because renounce consumerism and unsustainable living on our planet as well as self-promotion for ways of hidden service? Are we thought dangerous because we challenge national pretensions to imperial greatness for the sake of the advance of God’s transnational kingdom, and because we welcome the “others” that our politicians consider dangerous? Are we thought compelling in a society of epic loneliness because we really function as family, especially for those who have none? What troubles me as I write this is that by and large, I don’t think these are the ways we are found to be strange, weird, and dangerous. And I wonder if we are found compelling in consequence?

What strikes me in Gupta’s account is that the early believers weren’t trying to be strange, weird, dangerous, or compelling. They were struggling, imperfectly to be sure, to follow Jesus, to become like him. Their lives, their practices, including their transformed social relationships, were shaped by what they believed, by who they believed. And this makes me ask, quite simply, are we?

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review. ( )

Christians have often encouraged one another to be a “peculiar people,” and we can certainly think of many ways they have imagined to become quite “peculiar” in their society.

But Nijay Gupta does all Christians a great favor in Strange Religion: How the First Christians Were Weird, Dangerous, and Compelling (galley received as part of early review program). He returns to the sources to see what made Christianity so revolutionary in the first and second centuries.

The author is well read and well versed in both Second Temple Jewish and Greco-Roman history and primary sources. He systematically lays out how Christian belief and practice were not only outside the mainstream but easily seen as subversively so, and in ways Christians (or even non-Christians) do not think about twice.

His discussion of Roman religion and what Romans thought of in terms of gods and their service, for instance, is thus illuminating. The fact Christians did not offer sacrifices was quite the departure; even the Jewish people offered sacrifices, and a religious ideology without such sacrifice was unheard of. The creation of a kinship community based on shared belief was also very much outside the mainstream.

Gupta’s book should become the gold standard for consideration of early Christians in their temporal context. He did well at showing how the early Christians did not need to go out of their way to be weird and radical; they did not need to make peculiarity their personality or try to get into the public eye with some reactionary postures. Their confession of Jesus of Nazareth was enough. As Christians we don’t need to go out of our way to be weird. Our confession of Jesus of Nazareth - and making good on that confession - should still be enough. ( )

The book is split into 4 sections, with 12 chapters, an introduction, and a short conclusion. There are end notes at the back. The 4 sections are: Becoming Christian, What the First Christians Believed, How the First Christians Worshipped, and How the First Christians Lived.

I reviewed an advance reader copy from Netgalley, meaning it wasn’t in its final form. My copy had no illustrations, just captions where the illustrations should go. So I cannot comment on their quality, though there were a good number of them and they’re placed to illustrate interesting aspects of the text.

The author used a decent number of quotes from ancient texts in addition to numerous Old and New Testament quotes. He often tied things together with modern examples which I found a bit jarring but might help a general audience better understand the thought process of ancient peoples.

The book has some great aims and asks some excellent questions. These are questions that cannot be fully answered, as sources are limited, but it was frustrating at times how short the discussion was. The author might give a few possible answers but little or sometimes no reasoning on why these answers should be considered.

For example, in the 3rd chapter he questions why Romans would join the new Christian church when it was so radically different from what they were used to. He mentions 4 possibilities: the intriguing idea of monotheism, the promise of eternal life, that the new faith blended religion, philosophy and morality in a way others didn’t, and the concept of loving everyone. He mentions these but has no follow-up discussion about them and simply ends the chapter. Also strange is the absence of Christianity’s idea of equality as one of those possibilities. Many early adopters of Christianity were rich upper class women (women whose houses were gifted to the church to become buildings of worship upon their deaths). While upper class women had more agency than many in ancient Rome, the Christian faith gave them power over belief in ways other religions denied them. The author does cover the stratification of Roman society and how Christians tried to upend that with their idea of everyone being treated equally within the church in a later chapter, but he never posits this as a reason why lower class individuals might have joined the church in the first place. Even in his conclusion, when he again considers the question of what made Christianity so compelling, he neglects to mention it in favour of purely spiritual answers.

Despite my desire to see more discussion, the book is excellent at giving a good idea of how differently ancient peoples thought about concepts like religion. It was very useful learning how Greeks and Romans worshipped. I also appreciated learning more about how early Christian practice was different from the Jewish faith it sprang from. I highlighted numerous passages in the book that I thought were worth reflecting on. Christianity has changed a lot from those early years, so it was interesting seeing what the first Christians believed and how they followed Christ.

Consider this a great introduction to the topic of how early Christians practiced and how their worship and thought patterns differed from those of the people around them. It’s a fairly short, easy to read book that will give you a lot to think about. ( )