» Paul and the spread of the Christian movement

Paul and the spread of the Christian movement

Saintpauloftarsus
How important was Paul in the early spread of the Christian movement? He made a major contribution to the New Testament as both a writer and the subject of half of the book of Acts. Yet his direct impact on the spread of early Christianity may have been overstated according to Rodney Stark’s latest book.

Stark examines the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman empire city by city and surprisingly finds that the more Hellenized (Greek language and culture), rather than Roman, the more likely that city was to have a Christian congregation by the end of the first century. If a city had a Hellenized Jewish community (the “Diaspora”) it was also far more likely to have a Christian congregation.

Looking at the data, we see that Paul’s missionizing had no significant, independent effect on Christianization, while the importance of Diasporan communities was quite significant. These results strongly suggest that Paul’s impact on the spread of Christianity was incidental to the general receptivity of the Diasporan communties to Christian missionizing.
Stark is no Paul basher. But he reminds us that
Paul was only one of many traveling professional missionaries, to say nothing at all of the rank-and-file missionaries who circulated from city to city. Indeed, Paul may have been far more important as a trainer, organizer, and motivator of missionaries than as an actual founder of congregations.
Did you read that last line?

“Cities of God: The Real Story of How Christianity Became an Urban Movement and Conquered Rome” (Rodney Stark), 134-5.

One Response to “Paul and the spread of the Christian movement” »»

  1. Comment by Justin Long | 01/08/07 at 2:20 pm

    Hi Steve,
    IMHO this is largely because two streams developed during the Exile: those who sought a pure Judaism (largely those who returned to Jerusalem) and those who remained abroad and were more open to cultural interaction, taking their Jewish faith with them. Those who remained abroad (and to some extent some of those who came home) became more Hellenized because they were more open to other cultures and didn’t reject them. More orthodox Jews (Pharisees, Saducees, Zealots et al) rejected cultural interaction and sought purity. When it came to spreading their faith, the Hellenized Jews did this more through daily life interactions and didn’t demand that new converts be circumcised: it was enough for them to love the One God, worship him, obey his laws, etc. (More in line with the “ger” honored guest/foreigner in the OT—who could participate in the Temple etc.) The orthodox Pharisee-types, on the other hand, insisted that it was the Law itself that saved (this was where this legalism entered) and thus insisted on ritual purity particularly circumcision. There were fewer people interested in this “full conversion” because to the Greeks circumcision was a horrible mutilation. The orthodox Pharisees had fewer interactions with other cultures and Christians coming form this background likewise had less desire to interact with others. Hellenized Greeks, on the other hand, simply moved over natural lines of relationship – their friends, etc. – and made converts. After the destruction of the Temple and the final dispersal of the Jews this became a nil point.

    All of this comes to the point you made. It could be that we would be better off focusing on mobilizing people who are open to other cultures… wherever they are found. Could be this is why Africa/Asia are mobilizing more missionaries…

    Cordially,
    Justin Long

Leave a Reply »»

Google
  Web   SteveAddison.net
Subscribe with My Yahoo! Subscribe in NewsGator Online Subscribe with Bloglines