An interview with Heikki Räisänen

Fortress Press: In your new book The Rise of Christian Beliefs, you offer an "alternative" to New Testament theology, thus continuing a project begun years ago with your plea for moving "beyond New Testament theology." Could you describe what you seek to move "beyond" and what is at stake for you in that movement?

Heikki Räisänen: While my book bears a "family resemblance" to New Testament theologies, a more proper designation for it is "an overall account of early Christian thought." So I am definitely moving "beyond" New Testament theology.

This means that the boundaries of the New Testament canon are irrelevant to the task. All material produced by Christians during the first two centuries or so is taken into account. No one is excluded because of "heresy." For example, the gnostically oriented Christians who produced the texts of Nag Hammadi are given consideration as Christians in their own right. Even so, prominent New Testament authors (Paul in particular) do get a lion's share of the attention, but they are not treated as normative. Paul is not the highest authority (as he is in many New Testament theologies) but one significant interpreter among others.

Most New Testament theologies are written in a church context and actually preach a religious message; in one way or other they are expected to support traditional Christian faith. I am moving "beyond" this position, wishing to offer food for thought to Christians and non-Christians alike. This involves abstaining from "theological" interpretative concepts: the topic studied is not divine revelation but the experiences and ideas of believers. Such an approach is, of course, nothing new in biblical studies; it is routinely carried out all over the place. There has, however, been a curious gap between this non-confessional "everyday exegesis" and the confession-oriented "New Testament theologies." I have simply tried to work out a synthesizing account that does justice to the former.

FP: Your work has been taken up in the quickly shifting scholarly discussions of Christian origins. What do you consider the most significant new insights that your work brings to that discussion?

HR: I have described early Christian thought in terms of problems and attempts to solve them. A feature that probably stands out is my reading the sources against the grain, at least in part. I openly point out problems, intellectual and even moral, in the sources. A case in point is my emphasis on the ambiguity of much of the New Testament with regard to its Jewish heritage: Many authors wish to maintain continuity, but this amounts to lip service, as they are in effect in the process of drifting away from Judaism. This is not a brand new insight, but it is programmatically present and consistently emphasized in my work. It is almost a fad today to stress the allegedly genuine Jewishness of most versions of early Christianity, including Paul's.

By contrast, I find Paul to be torn between conflicting convictions: He wants to be true both to his tradition and to his new experiences, but in the end his effort to combine the two resembles squaring the circle. There is a "supersessionist" element (faith in Christ is, in effect, taken to have replaced God's covenant with Israel) both in Paul and in John (and even in Matthew), not to speak of the Epistle to the Hebrews. This element is harmful and has had frightening effects in the history of Jewish-Christian relations. It should not be explained away for the sake of dialogue; it should be recognized, admitted, and openly criticized. In summary, I find early Christian thought, including New Testament thought, to present us with a number of unsolved (and perhaps insoluble) theological problems rather than lasting solutions.

FP: In places in The Rise of Christian Beliefs you refer to "grassroots Christianity" as distinct from the religion of the early churches' leadership. How does that shift of focus in your work change the way we imagine the rise of Christianity?

HR: This is tricky! There is one reference to early grassroots Christianity in the book in the context of drawing boundaries between "us" and "them": Many leaders were concerned to draw clear boundaries, but rank-and-file members often tended to be far more careless. In addition, I make a few references to differences between theologians and ordinary people in later church history with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity: in popular imagination, it has found a formidable rival in the veneration of the Virgin Mary; theologians tend to regard the doctrine as indispensable but ordinary Christians are often perplexed. These are casual hints to an important difference, but I wouldn’t speak of a real shift of focus--even though such a shift, or enlargement of scope, would be most significant.

For better or for worse, my work is still focused on the thoughts of leading Christian figures (the difference to New Testament theologies being that I want to take seriously even the thoughts of intellectual leaders traditionally regarded as "heretics"); I will heartily welcome any attempts systematically to glean glimpses of the convictions and beliefs of grassroots believers from the sources. I would regard such enterprises as a continuation and complementation of my program. Scholars interpreting the final success of Christianity in the Empire (a topic beyond my ken in this book) have emphasized the role of ordinary people--their networks, their conduct in their relations with outsiders, and so on--in that process, in which doctrinal theology seems to have played a minor part. Such insights converge with the outcome of my deconstructing the theological achievements of a Paul: What really counts is the lived grassroots religion.

FP: Your understanding of the task of New Testament theology is very different from the understandings that traditionally were dominant in Christian churches. What do you hope Christian readers will take away from your book?

HR: I repeat, the issue here is not my understanding of the task of New Testament theology but my attempt to replace New Testament theology with a somewhat different project. Even so, the question of what Christian readers might take away from the book is highly relevant. I am of course aware that many will reject my approach altogether. On the other hand I think that quite a few could get something from it, even if they may not buy the full package. I hope that Christian readers would get a sense of the rich variety of early Christian convictions and beliefs, including the notion that the subsequent development of doctrine could have taken other roads. That can be a source of anxiety, but it also can give rise to comfort: If we find ourselves amidst fierce conflicts in our churches, it could be reassuring to realize that the same was true of the earliest communities. Some Christians might be inspired by the thought that Christianity has been in a process of change from the very beginning; if it could change then in face of new challenges, why not now? The example of early Christianity could encourage modern Christians to take new steps in new situations with good conscience. I hope that the book could be of some help to those numerous Christians who find themselves in a "frontier zone," unable to internalize all (or any) traditional doctrines of their community but at the same time unwilling to abandon their religious quest and their Christian roots altogether.