Book Review: “Strange Religion” by Nijay Gupta
I had never heard of this book, nor its author until he was on the Preston Sprinkle’s podcast “Theology in the Raw” (Episode 1170). They were talking about Nijay’s new book, “Strange Religion: How the First Christians were Weird, Dangerous, and Compelling.”
I have always wanted to gain a clearer understanding of the early church. I tended to find this difficult. Most attempts to describe the early church tended to have a pretty obvious agenda. Denominational apologists would use the Biblical text to “prove” that the early church was (fill in a faith tradition here). Promoters of a church structure (house church network, multi-site, cell, “simple church”) would seek to show that their own physical or leadership structure is “Biblical,” at least in terms of how the early church existed.
Frankly, much of what we know about the early church is what is found implicitly in Scripture, and explicitly in external sources. This is that the broader society, as the sub-title of this book states, found Christians, “Weird, Dangerous, and Compelling.” Roman and Greek society found Christians to be weird— even more weird than the Jews. But why? And Christians were seen as more dangerous than most of the other religious sects that permeated Roman society. Again, why? And perhaps more perplexing, Roman society found it so compelling that in less than 300 years, this religion mostly of the poor and enslaved became the favored religion of the state, and only a few decades after, the state religion.
Nijay Gupta draws from a large quantity of church and non-church sources of the first two centuries to help us to understand why. In many ways Christian turned religion and society in Roman culture on its head. I will give one example here. Roman state religion (religio) was about action and duty. It was fine to have beliefs, and it was certainly commendable to be virtuous, but the primary purpose of religion was to maintain peace with the gods. This peace was partly individual, but primarily corporate. The Romans didn’t really care what you believed— but they wanted people who were willing to carry out the rituals and sacrifices that will maintain the good relationship between the state and the gods. Early Christians did not do sacrifices, did not have a priesthood, did not have temples, did not have statuary identifying their deity, and had very little that could be called rituals. All of this made them “weird”— but the Roman Empire had many weird groups— especially the Mystery Cults. However, what made them “dangerous” was their unwillingness to participate in the duty to state of ritual and sacrifice for the emperor and the gods. The Jews had a somewhat similar problem but (prior to AD70) they had a temple, priests, rituals, and sacrifices. As such, they were seeking peace “with the gods” as far as the Romans were concerned. With the promise that the Jews would pray for the emperor and empire, they were not seen as dangerous in the same way as the Christians. Christianity was seen as a “superstitio”— where stately decorum, ritual, and sacrifice to maintain peace with the gods is tossed aside for religious excess. The more one sees the contrast between Christians and other citizens of the Empire, things become clearer— like why Nero would blame the fire of Rome on the Christians. Christians, as a secretive people (meeting in homes, not temples), rejecting rituals and sacrifices that maintain peace with the gods, and a fascination with “end of the world” makes them an easy scapegoat. In fact, if Nero did not actually cause the fire, it would not be unreasonable for him to actually believe this.
Personally, I find this book very helpful. One of my favorite early church documents is “The Epistle to Diognetus.” Chapter 5 demonstrates contextualization of the Christian faith— living culturally assimilated in many ways, while still being radically different. The passage, although useful, still leaves some gaps as to how this is worked out. “Strange Religion” does demonstrate how the early church navigated aspects of being thoroughly enculturated in Roman society and yet still radically (even dangerously) different.
That being said, Gupta does not idealize the early church. It had its failings. Many of the failings were a failure to live up their high standards of following Christ. He notes others as well, like their unwillingness to take on the cultural blight of slavery. The author notes that the argument it was an economic necessity or too tightly woven into society to be upended doesn’t really suffice. Even then, there were groups such as the Essenes who did not practice slavery. Additionally, the early Christians gradually gained animosity for their nearest religious brethren— the Jews.
I think most all Christians— especially those who seek to understand the New Testament in its original context— would find the book valuable. It is a shockingly easy read despite its academic depth. I also think that those interested in contextual theology would find the book valuable since it, as noted above, gives a good example of Christians seeking to find that balance of “living in the world but not of the world” or being both assimilated and separated at the same time.
Nijay Gupta, “Strange Religion: How the First Christians were Weird, Dangerous, and Compelling” (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2024).
