“I cannot as an [sic] historian claim to be completely devoid of beliefs, which some might qualify as bias, even prejudice…I know of no historians who have no beliefs and no cultural baggage who could therefore write what lay people too often believe to be perfectly objective history!” (24).

The above statement made by Dr. Jaenen appears in the introduction to his book The Apostles’ Doctrine and Fellowship, portrayed as his documentary history of the early Christian church and various Restorationist movements. The scholarly term for making a statement like this is Reflexivity, which refers to the process of critically evaluating your own personal biases and acknowledging how your own cultural background could negatively influence your research. A related term is confessional bias - this occurs when a historian's personal worldview unconsciously shapes their interpretation of the past. It leads scholars to favor, exaggerate, or even overlook evidence in ways that align with their preexisting convictions. This results in historical objectivity being compromised. It is my contention that Dr. Jaenen’s work lacks sufficient reflexivity as demonstrated in his lack of methodological self-awareness, and I offer the following examples of his bias as proof:

Conflict of Interest: A crucial methodological weakness in his examination of these restorationist movements is the startling fact that he never reveals the degree of his own proximity to the 2×2 Fellowship. Not once does he inform the reader that he was an active member of this group. While historians are not required to maintain complete personal detachment from their subject matter, there needs to be some proof of self-awareness, particularly when advancing such strong claims about religious authenticity. To forego disclosing this detail calls into question how reliably his conclusion is truly supported by his interpretation of historical events.

Sectarian Bias: The concern for bias is heightened by the uneven manner in which competing Christian traditions are treated throughout the analysis. Jaenen’s discussion of the Roman Catholic Church frequently adopts a tone that appears more polemical than analytical, suggesting that his conclusions precede, rather than emerge from, the historical investigation itself. He refers to early Christian writers as “so-called” church fathers (346). He speaks of the Marian “cult” (329) and of “Mariolatry” (328), and he reiterates the “intolerance” of the Catholic Church in history. He says his work was not meant to interact with the various theological positions of other groups, but when it comes to the Catholic doctrines of papal infallibility or baptismal regeneration or the real presence of Christ in the eucharist he confidently asserts that such dogmas were “not based on either scripture or early tradition” (346). He implies that the only reason the Roman Catholic Church grew was because they “had the advantage of appearing during the age of Imperial Rome” (31) and goes further, saying that the narrative describing the early church in the immediate post-apostolic age was not legitimate, but rather “an invented tradition on the part of a few persuasive apologists” (32).  

He appears to have equal antipathy toward mainstream Protestants, saying that the Reformation was “a half-hearted attempt at compromise between the evolutionary and idealistic positions” (32). Such rhetoric creates the impression that he is not operating from a position of neutrality, but rather from within a mental framework not only already predisposed toward the 2×2 Fellowship but also openly hostile to more mainstream religion.

Epistemic Elitism: Jaenen makes the comment that “some are ignorant of the nature of the early church” (29). He doesn’t stop there, saying that when trying to make the decision whether to include scriptural references in his footnotes, “I soon came to the conclusion that many readers today are not familiar with the text of the NT as were many readers belonging to my generation”(28). Darn kids these days, am I right? Even contained within his concluding remarks he says,  “It is sometimes alleged today that in much of Christendom most who acknowledge being Christians do not know the basic teachings of their religion, do not have a life-style much different from non-Christians, and often believe they can sustain their religious life without participating in some fellowship.” (541).

His signaling such a preemptive dismissal of opposing viewpoints undermines his credibility. Given the immense diversity of interpretation among historians and theologians across centuries of Christian thought, it is reflective of a sectarian mindset rather than an intellectually honest method of inquiry. The implication that any disagreement stems primarily from ignorance strictly eliminates the possibility of a balanced exchange of ideas. To put it plainly, there’s nothing more scholarly than telling your audience that they’re essentially just a bunch of biblically illiterate hypocrites who are too stupid to understand history.

Confirmation Bias: In her own review of Jaenen’s book, Cherie Kropp at Telling The Truth makes another important point. Dr. Jaenen neglected to make any reference to Doug and Helen Parker’s 1982 bookThe Secret Sect, nor does he make use of the primary resource of the Enniskillen newspaper The Impartial Reporter. For someone claiming to provide a “documentary history” not to utilize these is, as Cherie put it, truly “astonishing”. As another example, elsewhere in the book when writing about the early Christian belief in the eucharist, his selective quotation of Justin Martyr, particularly the omission of passages that directly contradict his thesis, shows that his motivation was to present only the evidence that appeared favorable to his preferred conclusion while minimizing all the evidence to the contrary.

Reductionism: Throughout his book Jaenen prioritizes two aspects of historical Christianity - private home meetings and an itinerant ministry. He selectively focuses on these superficial resemblances and minimizes any substantial doctrinal differences between the 2x2 Fellowship and historic Christianity because this permits him to present conclusions favorable to the 2×2 Fellowship while avoiding deeper engagement with theological discontinuities. With tongue firmly in cheek I wonder if he would claim a spiritual kinship with Satanists, just as long as they had a history of meeting in someone’s home. As a result of these biases, what he presents as historical inquiry is little more than a partisan reconstruction framed in academic language.

Oblivious to the scholarly shortcomings presented, Dr. Jaenen concludes that “a Christian commitment and perspective did not alter the historical methods I adopted” (25). This is probably the most astonishing statement in the entire book.

Jaenen, C.J. The apostles’ doctrine and fellowship: a documentary history of the early church and restorationist movements. Legas Publishing. 2003.