Anabapt-ish Theology Book Club discussion

As you read, what is sticking out to you? What questions are arising? What are you finding compelling or shocking?

In the first chapter Kreider mentions that church gatherings became “private” in the second and third centuries. I think that this is interesting because it seems to me that these meetings were considered public gatherings in the New Testament. This, at least, seems to be Paul’s problem with the churches in Corinth. I’m wondering what the implications of this switch were. In other words, what is the fundamental difference between a “public” and a “private” church gathering in the early church?

Good question Kevin. I have no idea what an answer might be.

I wonder if its difference in geography. Kreider’s book focuses on North Africa (Tertullian, Cyprian),Rome (Justin Martyr) and Syria/Jerusalem (Origen). Do we have much info on what Christianity looked like in Corinth in the 100s and 200s? It might just be a matter of not having much information.

I also imagine in the New Testament we’re still seeing teeny, tiny churches so while they were open to the public, its not like the public was visiting much. I’d be curious on any sort of scholarly info on the size of the church in Corinth that Paul was writing to. A few dozen people in a city of tens of thousands? Plus, the NT Church was still seen, if it was seen, as a sect of Judaism. During the 100s is when it became seen as its own thing.

Whomever recommended this book has my unending thanks! I’m loving it!

That said, I am also a bit melancholy about what to do with it.

Just thinking of the first few chapters - I am intrigued by the idea the early church didn’t have a “mission strategy” or a big focus on evangelism other than forming people to live like Jesus. I think there is a lot here that contemporary churches could adopt - focus on living like Jesus, living patiently, actions, etc.

Yet, before someone like me tries to take lessons from this, its worth remembering how different our culture is. The early church was situated in a culture where most were unfamiliar with Christianity. Our post-Christian culture is one where everyone is already familiar. Rumors in the early church about Christians were mostly untrue (they weren’t actually incestuous cannibals) while sadly rumors today are often true (abusive pastors, power-hungry leaders).

I think the danger is that we who are privileged can see ourselves being persecuted just like the early church when we actually are not. They were persecuted for not being patriotic and their persecution was actual physical harm; we think we are persecuted because Starbucks has the wrong color cup at Christmas or something. It reminds me of Candida Moss’ book The Myth of Persecution which talks about how lots of Christians today build up this persecution complex, using these old stories to imagine our own persecution.

Maybe my point is, we’re too quick to associate ourselves with who we perceive as the “good guys” in stories like this.

I guess my “take-away” would be to not worry about the harm I think is being done by other Christians. Instead, all I can do is help myself and my community be more like Jesus and seek to dispel rumors about what it means to be a Christian. This may mean explaining that there is a big difference between Christian Nationalists (who may endorse violence) and more Anabaptist Christians (who renounce violence).

Sorry, that’s a lot. But I really am liking this book!

Kevin wrote: "In the first chapter Kreider mentions that church gatherings became “private” in the second and third centuries. I think that this is interesting because it seems to me that these meetings were con..."

I gathered that some of the privatization of the meetings came about because of persecution.

I am really fascinated by the regimen people went through to become Christians. I'm curious what others thought about the catechumen process. A couple of my thoughts/responses:

1) It is fascinating that this came about after the initial "launch" of the church. I wondered if it was a response to the thousands of people that were joining.

2) When wondering if something similar should be implemented today, I ended up thinking "no". For one thing, I'm not sure there is a biblical mandate for it? I mean, Paul had some sort of gestational period after his conversion before his ministry blew up but I don't think we know what it entailed, whether or not it was purposeful, etc, do we?

Secondly,it did not seem to mitigate issues or concerns we deal with with Christians today (i.e. hypocrisy, the pull of materialism and culture, etc).

And lastly, while new converts may have been more shallow, the verse that keeps echoing in mind is the one about not blowing out a dying wick.

I also REALLY wished he had addressed what we refer to as "The Great Commission"in relationship to the early church. I have been struggling recently with what that means. If the traditional interpretation of it is true, how could the church have missed something so imperative?

Anyway, I did finish the book and enjoyed it.

Genni wrote: "I am really fascinated by the regimen people went through to become Christians. I'm curious what others thought about the catechumen process. A couple of my thoughts/responses:

1) It is fascinatin..."

I’ve had the same thoughts about implementing something like this today. It was interesting to read this book at the time the Catholic bishops wanting to deny Biden communion due to his views on abortion was making news. I find the whole thing hypocritical (what about governors who are in states that have the death penalty, that’s also anti-life). Yet, the early church would probably deny the governors and Biden.

In other words, most Christians today would not want to oppose anyone taking communion. I think the early church might oppose all these folks taking communion! At least they were consistent.

I think too, Anabaptists are (were, historically) situated more on the side of calling all believers to this higher level of living. I think lots of Mennonites and Amish wouldn’t allow you to be a member if you were in the military, for example. Yet, of course, this is probably why these sort of churches have always been a bit smaller.

Its why I wonder if there’s something to the whole two tracks that Augustine and the medieval church developed. This is where Kreider’s book touches up with writers like Charles Taylor in his analysis of the rise of modernity. Reformers oppose the medieval Catholic two tracks by calling everyone (all Christians) to live the more intense way. It like, they wanted to way of life (to some degree) without the patience.

David wrote: "Whomever recommended this book has my unending thanks! I’m loving it!

That said, I am also a bit melancholy about what to do with it.

Just thinking of the first few chapters - I am intrigued by t..."




I'm finishing up Part 1 right now and this was one of my takeaways. I do think a community that is living out radical discipleship is going to attract others. I loved Kreiders language of "pushing and pulling." There are plenty of people we all interact with who are turned off by the things that make up our society's habitus (political polarization, individualism, populism, elitism, etc.). They could be pushed from those ways of living if only we offered a powerful vision of discipleship that they would be pulled to. I find it incredibly challenging.

I think DBH’s essay “Christ’s Rabble” is a good read to go along with this book. You can find it in his book Dream Child’s Progress and Other Essays or here:

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/ch...

He writes: ““I think it reasonable to ask not whether we are Christians (by that standard, all fall short), but whether in our wildest imaginings we could ever desire to be the kind of persons that the New Testament describes as fitting the pattern of life in Christ. And I think the fairly obvious answer is that we could not. I do not mean merely that most of us find the moral requirements laid out in Christian scripture a little onerous, though of course we do. . . Rather, I mean that most of us would find Christians truly cast in the New Testament mold fairly obnoxious: civically reprobate, ideologically unsound, economically destructive, politically irresponsible, socially discreditable, and really just a bit indecent” (336).

Hart’s point seems to be, like Kreider’s, that our moral/ethic/way of life is far removed from these early Christians. Yet I imagine Hart’s universalism makes it easier for him to merely lament this and move on. If you think everyone’s going to hell unless they’re radical like the early Christians, then you ought to be a street preacher.

I’d be interested in what Kreider thinks of the early Christians views of nonviolence and hell. It seems hard for me to be “patient” if you think your neighbors are going to burn forever.

The end of Part 2 seems like a good spot to start commenting. The last paragraph of page 61 regarding 'habitus' caught my attention. They interpreted the actions as works of love and said 'look' at what they do, not 'listen' to the message, or 'read' what they write (paraphrase). And it attracted them. How much today to people, look at the actions of Christians now and are turned off so they don't bother listening or reading? Then there was the large section where Kreider emphasized how women were attracted to the church by how it empowered them relative to mainstream culture at that time. Again, how things have changed within much of the church. P97 when Kreider talks about military and how Tertullian may have specifically chosen words to enable military service, just not in a combat role. Desmond Doss of Hacksaw ridge fame comes to mind.
Then I get to the comments of Clement and Origen on pages 124/125 and I think 'same as it ever was'; "When the Christians talked about loving your enemies their neighbours had been interested. But when they found the Christians didn't do as they said, they dismissed Christianity as a myth and a delusion" and "The people come to church, bow their heads … but show no inclination to also improve their habits..."
And the final comment in the section; "they did not engage in frantic action to save those who were not yet baptized; instead they entrusted the outsiders to God." That might partially address the last question that David asks above.

Genni wrote: "I am really fascinated by the regimen people went through to become Christians. I'm curious what others thought about the catechumen process. A couple of my thoughts/responses:

1) It is fascinatin..."

Two things that I am totally in agreement with. First, I agree with you that the catechumen process didn't seem to eliminate the problems that the church leaders really thought that it would.

I also feel like it's diametrically opposed to the radical inclusion that Jesus indicates in the gospels as he heals and tells people that their sins are forgiven. It just feels wrong. I was part of a church for a while where people had to complete a discipleship process before they were allowed to serve in church or anything, and instead of encouraging love and Christlikeness, it encouraged the group to become a bunch of Pharisees who had the "knowledge" they had been discipled to. but no love for sinners. So, I'm probably biased in this area.

I also wished for more discussion of the "great commission." I was sitting in church just last night and our pastor was going on and own about evangelism and how we could support the commission, but in my understanding the historical church took Jesus's word's very differently than we do today. I really wanted more on that here.

Responding on my phone so I can't directly quote those who voice concerns regarding the long gestational period for a prospective member of the church.

Kreider says something on pg 142 that really made me think. Essentially, that their may have been a fear that more public-facing good works and evangelism could have led to an amount of growth that would "outrun the capacity of the community to form new members," which would have robbed the church of the very things that attracted outsiders in the first place.

He's making a bit if a different point but it did make me wonder if a more patient approach to church growth would actually allow for more focused discipleship of new believers.

I love the idea of "living into a new way of thinking." I often hear about being transformed from the inside out, that as we grow in affection and devotion for God we will naturally see our actions impacted. I think both are true but the former is neglected. CS Lewis talks about it this same process in Mere Christianity.