The Early Church Was Much Weirder Than You Were Taught

If you want to understand how our faith actually formed, you have to look beyond the “approved” reading list

Photo by Josh Withers on Unsplash

Most Christians have a massive gap in their own history. We tend to jump straight from the Book of Acts to the Protestant Reformation, leaving about 1,500 years of “nothing much happened” in the middle.

But if we want to understand how things actually developed in the time following the first century, we have to look at the period known as the Patristics. As one scholar recently put it:

“The patristics are helpful in understanding the great diversity in early Christian thought.”

I agree — but with a major caveat. The reason I specify “after the first century” is that many of these early texts are being dated later by modern scholars. In fact, many are reluctant to say that much of anything belongs close to 90 AD — the traditional start date for the “Fathers.” There are ongoing debates about who actually wrote these works and where they were writing from, but that is a topic for another article entirely.

I tend to use a more expansive definition of the church fathers than most because I think there are a couple of issues with how they are sometimes presented in Christian contexts.

First, the Patristics are often focused only on works written by certain figures. But this is not an exhaustive look at all of the texts that are significant from around the second century.

Second, they are “fathers,” so one has to go outside these traditions to find texts that relate to and center women.

Third, this often excludes the “Gnostic” texts because of the divide that has traditionally been placed between orthodoxy and heresy. However, these are later categories imposed on works.

No one set out to write heretical texts; they simply ended up on the wrong end of history, with those in power writing the narrative and making sure that they controlled the narrative about their works.

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

Why Christians Should Bother With Patristics

The reason that Christians should care about the patristics is that it will help you to become more informed about the reception of the New Testament and other texts among Christians and how the religion began to take shape.

It also gives you an appreciation of the diversity of theological ideas that were present back then, including some ideas that the church has written out of history with the unfortunate label “heretical”.

For example, the incredibly influential author Origen was later declared a heretic. Some of his writings are known through the filter of later writers, who changed what he wrote to suit their own points.

The writings of the fathers were so important that they were copied alongside texts that made it into the New Testament and even are found in major manuscripts of the fourth century that help to shape our modern Bible today, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus.

I find that these readings may be helpful for Christians because they can introduce them to allegorical and spiritual readings that are not at all common knowledge in contemporary church contexts.

From a modern perspective, the Patristics can be weird and hard to understand. In spite of this, I still think it they are the best works to give people an idea of how Christianity developed in subsequent centuries.

They advocate for positions that modern readers may think are strange or are totally different from the Christian viewpoints that we are used to today. In some ways, they may seem normal, but in others, they are quite divergent.

We just have to use them carefully; Christians tend to appeal to them when they agree and avoid the “uncomfortable” parts to make them more palatable.

Photo by Beth Macdonald on Unsplash

What Are the Traditional Fathers?

The writings of the traditional fathers is a good place to go to get acclimated with the beliefs of early Christians in the second (and third) centuries, for a decent core of Christian thought.

I would say a core of Patristic texts is 1st Clement, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle to Diognetus. For authors, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen are a decent start.

This gives you a good idea of the traditional fathers and those who were called “apostolic” in Christian tradition, even though none of them are in fact apostles. Some of them were thought to have closer links to the apostles than later authors.

When you do this, you have to keep in mind that this is just a start for the second and third century texts. In other words, these texts are the traditional ones that are considered most important, but they are by no means the only ones you should read.

It is a shame, in my mind, that many stick to these fathers, sometimes referred to as “proto-Orthodox”. There are so many more solid texts from the time period that can give a fuller picture of Christianity.

However, it is acceptable to start with them and then branch out from there, as long as you are just as committed to the things that you branch out to. Otherwise, you will end up with just one perspective in the end (and importantly, you will lose the texts about women or gnostics).

That is why, even though I named these traditional texts first, I think you should start with a few important texts about women in Early Christianity before you read the ones in this section. This will provide some balance for your journey into Patristics.

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

Important Texts About Women in Early Christianity

I think the most important text with a female main character in the wider category of Patristics is the Acts of Paul and Thecla. It was a tremendously important text, the story of which I have summarized before in the Medium article below.

[embed]The Acts of Paul and Thecla Introducing an Interesting Early Christian Textmedium.com

As a text, I think it is the one of the most important ones for Christians to read. In fact, if you could read only one text, I would have you read this one as opposed to any of the works of the proto-Orthodox fathers.

The reason I think it is so important is that it tells the story of an independent woman who voluntarily leaves a comfortable life because she is so enraptured with the preaching of Paul that she wants to be baptized.

When Paul refuses to baptize her, then she goes through a series of trials which see her give up her engagement and commit herself to a life of celibacy and commitment to the greater Christian cause.

Thecla also is willing to give up her life for Christ and is almost martyred on multiple occasions. She throws herself into the water during one particular episode and baptizes herself in a pool of flesh-eating seals.

(Content warning: sexual assault)

The text has an interesting relationship to sexuality as Thecla resists sexual assault and commits herself to chastity. As a result, she is condemned to execution for embarrassing her potential assailant.

The text speaks about giving up one’s riches and privileges in life to commit oneself to celibacy, as well as the ideas of martyrdom, baptism, extreme devotion and a response to a preaching message. It has all the themes that one associates with second century Christianity in one thrilling story.

Another great text that centers the important role of women in the early church is the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, which has some of the same themes as the Acts of Paul and Thecla as is just as thrilling a tale.

Even better, the work is mostly historical and is a first-person account based on the diary of Perpetua.

This balance is important for Christians to have so that they don’t just read the works of men. Instead, starting with these texts will allow you a good jumping off point from which to view the “proto-Orthodox” and “gnostic” works.

Gnostic Works

I think it is fair to say that there are still some who don’t think that gnostic texts should be included in introductions to the Patristics. However, I think that they are very informative texts that are important to include.

The philosophical frameworks that underlie the New Testament in places, as well as early church doctrines and creeds, can be learned well by studying some Christian gnostic texts from the second century.

I use the phrase “Christian gnostic” because the Gnostics were indeed Christians, and ones who believed themselves to understand things in a more sophisticated way than other people who attended church.

In some ways, they were quite right. There are many interesting theological insights that can be gained from these texts and they are important for Christians to know about and consider in terms of the development of traditional doctrine.

To name a few texts in this category to start from, I would say the gospel of Thomas (although some say this isn’t gnostic, but that’s a topic for a different day), the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Truth, the Pistis Sophia and the Apocryphon of John.

These works have very interesting spiritual ideas and they will stretch the minds of modern Christians. These texts are (I would argue) just as integral for Christians as reading any of the proto-orthodox fathers.

By incorporating all three of these categories, you will come away with a diverse idea of what Christianity looked like after the first century. This will help you to be more informed about the historical development of Christianity.

Conclusion

It is important for Christians to be historically informed about the development of doctrinal ideas, creeds and other things that shape the religion into the many forms that we see in the church today.

Unfortunately, especially among Protestants, there is far too little awareness of the kind of traditions that followed the New Testament and speak about the reception of the texts of the Bible.

For those of you who have read literature from these years, please be patient with my article. There is no way I can name all of the important texts in an article such as this one and I am open to suggestions for other works you have found helpful.

But I did have to paint with a pretty wide brush for those who have never read such literature in order to introduce it. No introduction will seem complete given how many significant works there are in early Christianity.

Given that your average American Protestant has sat down and read exactly none of this literature according to polling, I think that it is fair to say that this article gives people a good enough starting point.

Just to reiterate, start with the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas. From there, you can go to either the traditional church fathers or the Gnostics next, and then the other one subsequently.

You are on your way to understanding more about Patristics! Thanks for being open to considering these early Christian works.