that religion in the ancient world was embedded in society and was not dis-
crete from other areas of life. Some scholars of early Christianity assert
that religion was not an independent institution at all in the ancient world
(e.g., Malina 1997, 594).
Stark assumes exclusivity in religious affiliation. This assumption
stands behind Stark’s discussion of “control theories of conformity” (1996,
75). From the pagan point of view, is constraint against joining other reli-
gious groups even an issue? Paganism generally was a tolerant and non-
exclusive world view, one in which “the more gods, the better” could well
have been a slogan. Constraint and exclusivity belong more to a Christian
agenda (see Beck, chapter 11). In examining Stark’s theses, Keith Hop-
kins makes an insightful assessment of many a pagan convert’s likely
degree of commitment to Christianity:
Ancient Christian leaders (and modern historians) may have chosen to
consider as Christian a whole range of ambiguous cases: occasional vis-
itors to meetings, pious Jewish god-fearers who also attended syna-
gogue, or ambivalent hypocrites who continued to participate in pagan
sacrifices and who saw nothing particularly wrong in the combination
of paganism and Christianity, or rich patrons, whose help Christians
wanted, and whose membership they claimed. (Hopkins 1998, 187)What would the picture be if we applied this insight to pagans attracted to
Christianity because of Christian healings and ministry to the sick? Would
pagans have converted, in the sense of exclusive allegiance to one group,
as Stark suggests? Would they merely be hangers-on, treating Christianity
as a client cult, and dropping out once they were healed? Or, as was typi-
cal in the ancient world, would they have accepted Christian teachings
and praxis, cheerfully combining rituals to a new god with their already
existing religious activities? Would such persons properly be called Chris-
tians?
Other Issues
As Stark sketches possible scenarios for Christian growth based on mortal-
ity rates, he crunches the numbers impressively (1996, 89–90, 91–92). Even-
tually the numbers take on a life of their own, and assume a solidity they
simply cannot have. We have to remember that, unlike usual statistical
presentations, Stark’s discussion is not based on data that have been sci-
entifically collected and analyzed. Rather, this is admittedly hypothetical
material (Stark 1996, 89, 91), based on estimates rather than hard data,
which have been put on the table in order to see if Stark’s assertions about