My research about what second-century Christians were like, and the opposition they received, made me see that there is much more in common between the second-century Church and the twenty-first-century Church (at least in the Western world) than I originally thought. Of course such a statement is a truism of sorts — no doubt every generation of Christians can relate to the early Church in some fashion. Yet, it is hard to miss the fact that Christianity in the modern Western world has lost considerable cultural influence over the last generation and is now facing ever-increasing social and legal pressures. While certainly not comparable to the pressures faced by second-century Christians, the modern Church is being seen more and more as a threat to the social stability of modern society — similar to the way the second-century Church was viewed by the Roman elites. And, at least in this way, there is much that the modern Church can learn from our second-century counterparts. If nothing else, we need to learn (again) what it means to be the Church when we lack social or political standing. And there is something that, sadly, has been largely forgotten.

Michael J. Kruger, Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church, viii.