The Notion of Christian Identity in the 1st & 2nd Centuries

In dealing with St. Ignatius' reference to Christian identity, it is of great importance to note the context of his remark, that is, the whole of the sentence:

It is therefore fitting not only to be called Christians, but also to be so, and not to be as some who acknowledge the bishop, but do all things apart from him; but such appear to me not to be of good conscience, since they do not steadfastly assemble themselves together according to the commandment.
(St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Magnesians, 4:1)

Of greatest significance in Ignatius' statement is the contrast he makes between Christians and those "who acknowledge the bishop, but do all things apart from him." Ignatius charges the Magnesians to cohere as a group headed by their bishop, whom Ignatius has been defending and lauding (despite his youth) in the preceding two chapters. Indeed, the problem with the people Ignatius contrasts with "Christians" is their failure to accord with their bishop and "steadfastly assemble themselves together." His concern in this passage, and throughout his letter to the Magnesians, is the coherency and unity of Christians as a defining feature of their movement.

When it comes to the question of the use of speaking of a Christian identity in the first two centuries, however, the answer is not so clear as Ignatius would have it. Indeed, the reason for his stress on unity in his letter is doubtless a lack thereof, be it among the Magnesians or others. It is the presence of those who "acknowledge the bishop, but do all things apart from him" that motivates Ignatius to write, and assert his model of how the situation ought to be (in contrast to what it observably was). If Ignatius' reference to Christian identity as a unitary thing arises from a lack of that very unified identity, is it useful to speak of such an identity?

As with most things, with caution, it is useful. Moreover, we may not have much of any choice, as already Christians were recognized and named as such by non-Christian people during this period - Julian the Apostate for example, takes note of the actions of Christians, as a group, as Stark mentions in his Rise of Christianity (p. 83-84). Whether there was an internal notion of Christian identity, there definitely is evidence for an external one.

The question, then, becomes more specific: is it useful to speak of an internal notion of Christian identity? One must be careful even in asking the question: for if one presumes there to be Christians to have or not have an idea of Christian identity, one has already imposed an identity on a relatively disparate collection of people and groups of people. Yet, it is this very collection that concerns us. And while the borders of the collection are not sharp - are Gnostics Christians? Did they consider themselves so? What of other heresies? - there is a collection. If we are careful to speak of this collection with caution, keeping in mind its fuzzy boundaries and the great variation that may be found within them, we may speak of Christians that think of themselves as Christians. Indeed, certain customs and behaviors necessarily distinguished Christians as a group. "Greet one another with a holy kiss," Paul writes (Romans 16:16). The actual, observable practices of early Christians, and those from which they refrained - eating meat sacrificed to the Roman Gods, offering incense to Caesar, and so forth - would have, and did, stand out in antiquity.

Of course, we must return to the earlier concern that texts which elevate exemplary behavior and demand certain practices do so most likely because those behaviors and practices are not prevalent. Paul, like Ignatius, is also concerned with the coherence of the churches he addresses: "take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them." (Romans 16:17) Martyrologies in which a Christian dies for refusing to recant or offer a pinch of incense may have been widely popularized because (among other reasons) there were many who might be called Christians who were not so exclusively committed.

Finally, then, the question must return to the distinction Ignatius makes: are they Christians "who acknowledge the bishop, but do all things apart from him?" Ignatius asserts that they are not being Christians; but in so doing he implies that they are nonetheless being called Christians. That Ignatius asserts the fittingness of being what one is called evidences the Christian identity we historians are queasy about. That there is a name, and something - certain behaviors or practices, ideas, coherence - that should be true of those so named means that, queasy as we may be, there is indeed a notion of identity that we must address in our studies.