Thank you very much for the privilege of speaking tonight. I greatly appreciate it. I want to look at an area that, until recently has been overlooked in the study of early Christianity. It could be called the sense of worldwide connectedness.

 1. The sense of the “worldwide” in earliest Christianity.

     In early Christian literature, there is a very strong sense of being a worldwide movement or network. This is seen simply in the references to “the world” in passages like this:

 Rom 1:8 “I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the world.”

 Col 1:5-6 “You have heard of this hope before in the word of the truth, the gospel that has come to you. Just as it is bearing fruit and growing in the whole world, so it has been bearing fruit among yourselves …”

 1 Pet 5:9: “Resist him, steadfast in your faith, for you know that your brothers and sisters in all the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering.”

1 Tim 3:16 “[Jesus] was revealed in flesh … proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.”

 These passages show the sense of not just belonging to a local group, or one restricted to a particular ethnic group, but rather, the sense of being a worldwide movement.

 We might take this sense of being a worldwide movement for granted – of course, Christianity has a sense of involving the whole world. Yet, recall how small Christianity was at this time. We do not know how many Christians there were; one recent estimate – and it really is only a sophisticated guess – suggests there were 2,700 Christians in 60 CE, and 10,500 by 100 CE. But on any reckoning, it was a very small group. Yet it had this sense of being “for the world”, and, for example, of the faith of the Romans being proclaimed “throughout the world”.

 Of course, many of the earliest Christians were Jews – and Jewish communities were used to seeing themselves as members together of a people scattered across the world. But the sense of being part of a world-wide people would be unusual for Gentiles. One author writes that we should also note that “Gentile converts were inculturated as Christians into a new social identity that was certainly not purely local.”[1]

 I would suggest that this sense of “world-wideness” was an important element in early Christian identity.

 2. Connections

            Not only did the early Christians see themselves as a worldwide movement, but they also understood themselves to be interconnected, and to “belong together”. I want to look at the evidence for that claim here. The evidence has suggested to one author that we should think of first-century Christianity as “the Holy Internet” – a network of interconnected groups.[2]

This sense of interconnectedness was in part caused by all the contact between Christians in different places. By contrast with what I am suggesting here, it has been common in the past to think of at least some early Christian communities as insulated, isolated, introverted – and unaware of what was going on for other Christian groups in other places. But when we look at what we know of early Christianity from this period, this seems very unlikely. Rather, a strong sense of interconnectedness and of networking emerges.

            Let me start by looking at Romans 16. Here Paul sends greetings to 28 people in Rome. He had not visited Rome – yet he can greet this number of people. Perhaps he knew some only by reputation – but he probably knows a good number of them personally. It is likely that he has met some of them during his travels, when they lived elsewhere – but he has also meet some of them during their travels – perhaps they visited him when he was in Antioch, or Corinth, or Ephesus or Philippi. This is a snapshot of the mobility of the earliest Christians – and a testimony to interconnectedness!

            But what further evidence is there for interconnections in early Christianity?

Firstly, I want to think more about mobility. As one author notes: “mobility and communication in the first-century Roman world were exceptionally high. Unprecedentedly good roads and unprecedentedly safe travel by both land and sea made the Mediterranean world of this time more closely interconnected than any large area of the ancient world had ever been.”[3] (p32) And not only the wealthy travelled – ordinary folk went on trips to healing shrines, to religious festivals and to games. Slaves accompanied masters; soldiers, sailors and brigands all travelled. It was generally on foot, and so was cheap! Even people who did not travel would regularly be meeting people who did. We should think then of the members of the early Christian communities as people who were quite mobile; and frequent contact between Christian communities would have been the norm. Of course, the leaders of the early Christian groups also travelled a great deal – think of the travels we know about for Paul, Timothy, Titus, John Mark, Peter Barnabas, Apollos, Priscilla and Aquila, Andronicus and Junia, Philip the evangelist and his four prophet daughters. Later in the first century we knoe of travelling teachers like John, the author of Revelation – and he speaks of travelling people who call themselves apostles (Rev 2:2). The Johannine letters speak of travelling teachers (2 Jn 10-11; 3 Jn 3-8) as does the Didache (11:1-6).

But ordinary people travelled too – as Rom 16 shows. All of this is the stuff of interconnectedness.

            Secondly, in letters, Christian writers regularly related their readers to the worldwide Christian movement, to Christians elsewhere. In 1 Cor 1:2 Paul writes: “To the church of God that is in Corinth, … called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.” Here Paul is intentionally connecting the Corinthian Christians to all Christians everywhere. In 1 Thess 2:14 he relates the Thessalonian Christians to those in Judea: “For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews”.

 Or note the number of times in 1 and 2 Cor when Paul speaks of “all the churches”.

For example, in 1 Cor 7:17 we read: “let each of you lead the life that the Lord has assigned, to which God called you. This is my rule in all the churches.”

Or 1 Cor. 11:16 “But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”[4] Paul seems often to be deliberately connecting the Corinthians to all the other believers. This is part of his strategy for calling the difficult Corinthians Christians to all Christians everywhere. Take note he says of how all the other Christian communities do things!

            So the sense of belonging together was fostered by many reminders of others, in other places, who shared the same experiences, or who did things in the same way. Again, the implication is that they all belonged together.

             But thirdly, the actual sending of letters was a way of establishing and fostering connections between groups. From the time of Paul and through the second century, the sending of letters from one church to another seems to have been a common practice. Of course Paul is our best example, but there are others. 1 Peter is written by Peter and other leaders in Rome (see 1 Pet 5:13) to churches spread throughout Asia Minor – current day Turkey. John wrote Revelation to seven churches. Around 95, Christian leaders in Rome sent what we call 1 Clement to the church of Corinth. Early in the second century, Ignatius writes to six different churches, and Polycarp of Smyrna writes to the church of Philippi. In the mid second century, Dionysius, bishop of Corinth wrote seven letters to various churches. And the letters that survived are probably only the tip of the iceberg.

            So these letters established strong connections between churches. But letters were carried by people – Phoebe carried Romans for example. So each letter implies a messenger – who is the letters first interpreter, and who probably stayed around for a few days – before going back home. They would be given hospitality, would meet with the whole church for worship, convey news orally that was in addition to what was written down, would receive news to take back home. So letters mean written contacts – but also very tangible people-contacts too, that must have established warm personal relationships. So these letter-carriers forged strong links between churches – and even Christians who did not travel must have gained a strong sense of belonging to a much wider movement from contact with such messengers.

            There is another interesting insight from a book called the Shepherd of Hermas in this regard. Hermas was a Christian prophet in Rome who had a vision. In the vision he is told to make two copies of the book he wrote. One was for someone called Clement who “will send it to the cities abroad, because this is his job” (Vis 2:4:3). Thus, “Clement was the Roman church’s secretary responsible for communications with other churches. This … included having multiple copies made of Christian literature produced in Rome and sending the copies out by messengers to other churches.” (Bauckham, p42). So Hermas provides us with detailed evidence of the way in which Christian literature was deliberately circulated and links between groups were developed. Again – this fosters lots of contact.

            Fourthly, in these letters, the language of the family is regularly used. Thus Paul speaks of all Christians as “brothers and sisters” – this is the most common way of addressing each other. And “brothers and sisters” is used even of people the readers do not know personally. Note 1 Pet 5:9: “Resist him, steadfast in your faith, for you know that your brothers and sisters in all the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering.” You don’t know all these people – they are “in all the world” – but they are your brothers and sisters – you belong together. The language of family, of calling each other brothers and sisters cements these bonds of connectedness. 1 Peter is written to suffering Christians. To a small group which was experiencing suffering, its precarious position would be greatly assisted by that sense of solidarity with other “brothers and sisters” – with others in the family – not only locally, but also “in all the world”. This language of “fictive kinship” encouraged new Christians to replace their natural family bonds (which may have been severed by conversion in any case) with new Christian ties that encompassed “brothers and sisters” everywhere. So the universal early Christian practice of calling each other “brothers and sisters” cements the sense of being a world-wide inter-connected movement.

            Fifthly, we should not think that only peace and harmony was fostered by all of this interconnectedness. There is also much evidence for conflict and diversity in earliest Christianity – but again it is testimony to interaction. The network, the “Holy Internet”, was a vehicle for conflict and disagreement, as well as for support. Think of the evidence for rivalry between leaders – Paul speaks a number of times of other teachers who are, in his view, leading his congregations astray – note Gal and 2 Cor 10-13 in particular. Or note Revelation with its reference to those who think they are apostles but are not, or to the Nicolaitans, and to Jezebel – all travelling teachers. We get the impression of itinerant teachers of a range of persuasions turning up in different places. There are divisions, factions, disputes. Different ideas are circulating. The evidence for conflict and disagreement suggests – not enclaves of isolated churches – but an intense interest in conflicts happening elsewhere, and teachers and leaders promoting different things in different places. This speaks of world-wide inter-connectedness.

            All this carefully fostered contact leads to interconnectedness. Late in the second century, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus could write (Eusebius, HE 5.24.7) “Therefore I for my part, brothers and sisters, who number sixty-five years in the Lord and have conversed with the brothers and sisters from all parts of the world …” Such a claim is credible – and the evidence suggests that many Christians in the first two centuries could have made it.

            With this amount of contact on “the internet” it is unsurprising that Christianity saw itself as a world-wide movement.

Hence we can conclude that there is extensive evidence that early Christianity was not a collection of relatively isolated, introverted communities, but rather a network of communities in close communication with each other, and with a strong, lively and informed sense of participation in a worldwide movement. We do not see enclaves of exclusive, self-sufficient churches out of communication with others. Rather we have quite the opposite: a network of communities with close and constant communication amongst themselves.

 3. Theology

In this final section I want to look at the very significant theological reasons for early Christianity seeing itself as a world-wide movement of inter-connected house churches. For all this evidence for seeing themselves as a “world-wide movement” and for interconnections, is rooted in theology.

            Let me then briefly discuss these theological underpinnings:

 1. Note the discussion of the early Christians as the “Body of Christ” in 1 Cor 12 (12-31) and Rom 12:4-8. Here is a powerful image of connectedness. But we should not think that the language of the body of Christ was taken to refer solely to the “local” body. Rather, I think the early Christians would have taken it to also refer to the world-wide body of Christians.

 2. Note also the use of “In Christ language” – not only in Paul but also in books like 1 Peter (3:16; 5:10, 14). Recall a verse like Gal. 3:28 “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” We might add – and not just in one place, but everywhere. Here is a powerful sense of solidarity with one another as fundamental to their experience. Such a sense of belonging is not just an “add-on”, an additional extra as it were, but rather is at the heart of their new community. Given the experience and belief that all Christians were “in-Christ” together, we can easily see how both a sense of connectedness, and the sense of being a worldwide movement emerged.

 3. Note the language of Jesus as the “second” or “new Adam”, in Rom 5:14 and 1 Cor 15:22, 45. Again, this powerfully speaks of the worldwide implications of early Christian faith. Jesus had created a new humanity, a new human race, spread over all the world.

 And well known passages like 2 Cor 5:19 speak of this Adam-wide, world-wide dimension of Jesus’ work: 2 Cor 5:19 “that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself” …

 But such creation-wide language is found elsewhere. Recall the Johannine Pentecost in John 20:22: “When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” This consciously recalls Genesis 2 – God breathing into Adam. This “breathing” on the disciples by the risen Christ is an event as epochal, as significant, as the first creation – and with creation-wide significance.

 Thus, their theology was of the renewal of humanity as a whole, and of creation – this led to a world-wide mindset, and a fostering of world-wide connections.

 4. Much recent work has emphasised the political nature of the Gospel. When the early Christians confessed that “Jesus is Lord” they were saying that Caesar was not. Now the Emperor claimed universal, world-wide sovereignty over the whole Empire. When Christians proclaimed that Jesus is Lord, they were saying that universal, global sovereignty, claimed by Caesar, was rightfully given only to Jesus. “Every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil 2:10-11). Universal sovereignty belonged to Jesus – his Lordship was over the cosmos. So I suggest there is a direct connection between the most widespread confession of the early Church – Jesus is Lord of all – and the world-wide dimension of the Gospel proclaimed by the early Christians. Again, theology naturally leads to praxis – to seeing themselves as a world-wide movement.

 5. We could go on to speak of the Matthean Great commission, or of Acts 1:8 – taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Or we could talk about the Johannine language of “God so loved the world that he gave …” And this sense of “going to the world” even slips into Mark: “As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; …. And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations.” (Mark 13:9-10)

And with regard to the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet, we read:

Mark 14:9 “Truly I tell you, wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.” This theological sense of the Gospel for the world is all-pervasive.

 But I hope I have said enough to show that the praxis of the early Christians – of being a world-wide movement, which fostered connections across “the Holy Internet” – was rooted in theology. Praxis flowed from theology – and theology reinforced praxis.

 Conclusions and implications:

There are a number of conclusions that I would like to draw for both NT study and today. Firstly, we tend to view NT churches as small and isolated communities. Small yes – isolated no. We need to see them as small but vibrant – geographically dispersed, but with a real sense of connection.

            Secondly, much work has been devoted to the so-called “Gospel Communities” – the Johannine community, the Matthean community and so on. This scholarship has worked with the idea of small and isolated Christian groups – such that the gospel authors wrote with a small community in mind as their audience, and so that the composition of that community could be read off the Gospel. Hence works like Raymond Brown’s The Community of the Beloved Disciple. But if, from the beginning, earliest Christianity was a network of interconnected communities, then a Gospel writer would write a Gospel with all those communities in mind – and the make up of any particular community cannot be read off the Gospel text. The scholarship I have drawn on here then is suggesting we cannot re-construct so-called “Gospel communities” – and much of the work which seeks to do so needs to be re-done.

            Thirdly, NT scholars have often sought to find the unity of the New Testament at a doctrinal level – and I think such doctrinal unity in the NT is real and important. But the material I have covered suggests that what holds the NT together is also a unity of experience, the experience of belonging together as part of a network. One factor then that unifies our NT is that it bears witness to the life of different communities that were themselves in a world-wide network – and so saw themselves as committed to one another – as brothers and sisters. We should not think of the NT then simply as a set of documents to geographically widely scattered groups – but rather to groups that saw themselves as cohering with one another, as belonging together in a real world-wide family. And of course that testifies to their experience of corporate life – of being one body – despite the huge diversity of backgrounds and despite their arguments!

 What consequences might this have for today:

            Firstly, we should not underestimate how strange it was for people with no ethnic connections to see themselves as belonging together in the powerful way I have suggested - particularly when they were from ethnic groups which viewed each other so negatively. For example, bridging the Jew-Gentiles divide in the ancient world was hugely significant. This testifies to the reconciling power of the Gospel – overcoming hatred and creating love and unity between peoples worldwide. I do not need to remind you of how relevant this Gospel of reconciliation – of creating a new community with a powerful sense of belonging and togetherness – is today.

            Secondly, I hardly need to say that, in my experience, the “horizon” of many churches is distinctly local. This is good, provided that this is not the only horizon!

            Thirdly, many congregations today perhaps also see themselves as essentially autonomous. Theologically this is highly questionable – how can “the eye say to the hand “I have no need of you”, nor the head to the feet, “I have no need of you” (1 Cor 12:21). But I suggest that no early Christian house church – even the smallest (perhaps most especially the smallest!) ever saw itself as autonomous. Words like self-sufficient, self-contained, isolated and inward-looking should not be part of our Christian vocabulary then! I have avoided using the word ecumenical up until this point – but of course oi0koumenh in the NT means “the inhabited world” – and it comes to speak of the connectedness of all Christians. It is a vital part of our language – a vital part of being Christian.

            Fourthly, perhaps national church structures and organisation as we have known them need to evolve into a somewhat different form. But whatever happens, we must not lose that sense of belonging to something more than the local – something national and international. A group of Christians can never be a closed group unto itself! The question of how we foster real contact between Christian communities and how we foster that sense of participation in a worldwide movement is a challenge – but one we must take up with enthusiasm.

 What consequences might this have for you graduands! I hope you don’t mind me taking the luxury of speaking generally for most of this address – and just coming to you right at the end.

 You have come to the end of your study – and many congratulations for all you have achieved. But let me suggest that the horizon for all theological graduates should be the world – in fact the whole of creation. And let me suggest that at least one of the points of concentration of your ministry and work – whatever that might be - should be fostering a sense of belonging to a worldwide movement, to a worldwide family of God, with the interconnectedness that that entails. For it seems to me that these are two of the factors that led to the vitality of the earliest Christian communities. If we lose this sense of the wideness of God’s love for all the world and the love that gives us for each other – we have replaced the true God with an idol of our own making. And theological education must always be about faith seeking to understand the true God, revealed to us in Jesus Christ. And theological education must always seek to outline and embody true Christian community – that sense of belonging together throughout the world that we find to be Christ’s gift of reconciliation – for the world. May God be with you in this work.