Customer Reviews

Arius: Heresy and Tradition

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The first edition of 'Arius: Heresy & Tradition' was written by Rowan Williams, currently Archbishop of Canterbury, while he was Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford University. Written in the 1980s, it was revised and reissued in 2001 because it had fallen out of print, but remained (and remains) a standard work in the field.

Arianism is, historically speaking, one of the major heresies of the ancient church. It has remained an attractive tendency in theologians ever since the time of Arius in the third and fourth centuries. In brief, the heresy of Arius was that Jesus as the Son of God was not co-eternal of God the Father, that the Father and the Son were not of the same substance (ousia), and that Jesus was a created being. These issues are all addressed contra Arius in the Nicene Creed, which has as part of its construction 'of one being with the Father', 'begotten, not made', and other constructions intentionally directed against Arianism.

Williams' thesis, however, presents a different pictrue from that of the typical 'heretic'. Arius, according to Williams, was in fact a theological conservative wrongly portrayed as a rebel. Williams' first chapter traces images of Arianism in scholarship, from the early John Henry Newman in the 1830s through Harnack, Gwatkin, Elliger, and later scholars too numerous to mention - 'The post-war period has been astonishingly fertile in Arius scholarship,' Williams writes. This has ceased to be as polemical and has become more analytical in nature, 'though the shadow of Arianism-as-Other still haunts modern discussion.'

This is both an historical and a theological text. Theology is not divorced from history or the context in which it is formed. 'Orthodoxy continues to be made,' Williams states. 'What the articulation of doctrinal truth concretely is can be traced only through the detailed reworking and re-imagining of its formative conflicts. That, surely, is the strictly theological point of studying the history of doctrine.' Williams looks at the history of Arius and Arianism in three ways - Arius and the Nicene Crisis, Arius and Theology, and Arius and Philosophy.

With regard to the Nicene Crisis, Williams explores the ambiguities inherent in the Christian world in the time prior to becoming the official religion of the empire. Bishops and other Christian leaders had varying authority, not always well defined and not always in agreement with each other; there was a strong sense of pluralism about the Christian world, and competing ideas for interpretation and expression. Williams argues that to think that Arianism was a monolithic construct, systematised and derivative of one great leader is a very mistaken notion. There were definite political motivations behind the impulse to declare Arianism a heresy.

However, politics were not the only considerations. Theologically, the Christian world was rich with development, including figures such as Origen, Clement, and Philo in Alexandria (one of the leading cities of the empire, and one of the early centres of Christian community). Outside Egypt, the city of Antioch was also a major centre of Christian development and Christian evangelism (being one of the major trade junctions between East and West, North and South, the influence of Antioch on world-wide Christianity was felt for centuries). 'Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian.' However, the Alexandrian school, both in terms of theology and political power, did not become the ascendant one in Christendom.

In the third section, Williams explores Arius and his connection with philosophical schools of the time. Platonic and neo-Platonic ideas were the principal ones influencing the world, and Williams argues that Arius is close to Plotinus, a major neo-Platonic figure. Williams looks at three key issues - creation and beginning, intellect, and analogy and participation. By this last is meant primarily the Platonic participation that is the relation between the particular thing and its ideal form.

Williams concludes this revised text with an essay, 'Arius since 1987', showing both new scholarship and new interpretations. The field continues to be rich with development. Williams includes an appendix of documents related to the creeds, extensive endnotes, a broad and useful bibliography, and a good index.

Many heresies of old might get tolerated today (or dismissed) as differences of opinion that each has every right to hold. In fact, many differences today, internal to churches and between churches, often relate back to ancient controversies. Arianism is one such that recurs on a fairly regular basis.

Williams' scholarship is sound; his theological ideas are interesting (and one can learn something about Williams' ideas on theology, both method and substance, from the way he treats Arius). This is destined to be a standard text in the field for some time to come.

Arianism is historically regarded the "archetypal heresy" in the Christian tradition. Arius, a theologian and priest of Alexandria denied the full deity and the eternal existence of the Son of God . He taught that the Son, while being divine does not share the same substance (homoousios) with God the Father. Thus, the Word or Son was created by the Father as the agent through whom he created the universe. Arius said of the Son, "There was (a time) when He was not." In Arius: Heresy & Tradition, Williams forcefully argued that Arius presented both a conservative theology and a conservative understanding of his presbyteral role vis-à-vis the bishop (233); contrary to what is traditionally portrayed of him. He insisted that Arius' hermeneutics aimed at developing a biblically-based and rationally consistent Christian theology (111). Arius was a committed theological conservative, stressed the author.

Williams has done a great service to the scholarly community; by providing an alternate way to reevaluate our thoughts on Arius. Although, I do not embrace his view, but I feel that his arguments are compelling and well presented.

Rowan Willliams, currently the Archbishop of Canterbury, provides a detailed examination of one of the major docternal disputes of the early Church. As such, it may be a bit much for those not familiar with (a) the history of the ancient Church, or (b) Scripture. With that said, I was very impressed with the way in which Williams outlined, explained and provided the historical as well as philosophical underpinnings of the controversey.

To broadly summarize, the controversy was about the nature of Jesus: One group fo early Christians held that his is nature divine; Arius (and others, primarily from Alexandria and North Africa) believed that only God was divine, and that therefore Jesus' nature was human, and there was a time when Jesus (since he is human) did not exist. The controversey was ultimately resolved through the Council of Nicea (hence the "Nicene Creed" Christians recite during their services), and Arius was proclaimed a heretic.

The greatest challenge I had was following the historical background to the controversey - I simply didn't have the historical fluency to follow the divisions and politicing with Christendom at the time. Once Williams began to explain the controversy in detail, however, things began to fall into place, and (with some looking up of specific passages of Scripture) I was able to understand the basis of Arius' position.

I recommend the book, but with some reservations - Williams, apparently is writing for fellow theologians or historians of the early Church. For this audience, I highly recommend it. For the general historian (such as myself), it certainly provided much useful insight and detail into a critical matter of theological interpretation - in which case I do recommend. For the lay reader, however, it may be a bit "technical."

Now in a newly revised edition with an updated appendix, Arius: Heresy & Tradition by Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Wales) is a thoughtful, scholarly discussion of Arianism, which has been labeled "archetypal Christian heresy" because it denies the traditional views of Christ's divinity. This is a scholarly but highly accessible study of Arius himself, presenting him as a theological conservative who sought to unite the Bible's teachings with philosophical ideals outside the norm. A welcome and highly recommended contribution to religious studies shelves, Arius: Heresy & Tradition is also a fascinating review of the very definition of heresy.

I got Rowan Williams book on Arius after reading countless references to the Arian church, bishops and missionaries in late anitiquity/early middle ages. I had hoped to find out more about these things here. As it turns out, Williams is not interested in any of that, but only in what can be reconstructed of the Arian crisis of the 4th century. In this particular realm, the book is very informative, if excruciatingly detailed, in its discussion of Arius' place within the continuum of the ancient collision between revelation and Greek philosophy. In some ways, this is a refresher course on Plato, Aristotle, Philo, Origen, Plotinus, and a number of other polytheist and monotheist speculators as to how god relates to the world and how this can accord with Judeo-Christian writings. Williams ultimate concern seems to be to get us to orthodoxy, and to relate this controversy to more modern theological concerns. So while it was of some interest historically, the final impact of this book on me was twofold: 1)it made me very glad I had gotten out of the seminary before spending years learning the intellectual gymnastics required of theologians to conceptualize and define the inconceivable and undefinable, and to reconcile the unreconcilable; 2) and it pushed me to finally read the Koran: I now understand where Mohammed was coming from!

This book is divided into two sections. The first section deals primarily with history. The second(which is by far the majority of the books contents) deals with various views of theology pertaining mostly to The Son and Logos' relation to the Father. This book is not one to point empty accusations at Arius, but on the contrary, it provides detailed views on his theological beliefs and also those of Clement and Origen(in a comparitive way). It does not present itself as a very biased work, but states different views (that dont always agree with one another) and compares them to Arius'. It states some views of Arius' accusers and some points of contraversy that they had with His beliefs. It kinda seems to lay out views and explore them. It seems much more like a theological read for the most part rather than a biography of Arius'. It seems very wordy(too much big vocab, especially in the history part)but I would say well worth the time needed to comprehend the points that are presented. It presents interjected Greek sentence fragments and words within the sentences for a clearer understanding of the texts being quoted. I would reccomend it for one who wants to study Arius. However, for a someone who is looking into Biblical exegesis, I (highly) suggest getting, "Restoring the Biblical Christ: Is Jesus God?" It is to the point and very conclusive.

I have to admit that it was random chance that led me to this book. I have a company called Arius3D which was named after a concept. I knew that Arius was one of the first heretics rebuked by "The Church" and at Arius3D we seemed to be viewed as heretics in the world of 3D graphics so the name was born.

It was with great delight that I cam across a book about the original heretic. From cover to cover, the book provides a fascinatring look at the early Chirch and it's gravitation towards dogma and away from the pure Christian message. I was enthralled by the telling of the tale of Arius, the man who stood against the rising tide of the newly founded 'corporate church'. Pre-dating the Cathars, Arius takes us down the road of understanding how the Church began to formulate its approach to creating and maintaining control over the 'Christian message'.

Excellent work.

If I credit Rowan Williams' work with 1 star only, this is not as an appreciation of the quality of his scholarship, but rather as an appreciation of its ethical dimension.
Indeed, the case made by Rowan Williams for Arianism is interesting in several respects.
Arguing that Arius is "conservative" is an indirect way of claiming that early Christians were not trinitarian but clearly unitarian, and that the Trinity is a later doctrine that originates with Greek philosophical ideas. Since the Protestant Reformation is based on the principle of Sola Scritura (Scripture only), it is evident that the Anglican Church and other Protestant Churches have failed to follow this motto by adopting non Christian philosophical ideas into their Creed. The most fascinating is that this is directly implied by the work of Archibishop Williams, the very head of the Anglican Church.
To my knowledge, the last person to be hanged to death for denying the Trinity doctrine was Thomas Aikenhead, a medical student at the University of Edinburgh, in 1697. In England, it is only after 1813 that people who did not believe in the Trinity doctrine could become public servants. Thousands of people, all along the Middle-Ages, have be hunted down and killed for denying it. John Calvin himself prosecuted Michel Servet and had him burnt at stake for denying it. Green wood was used for fire, so as to provide a "slow death" and Calvin made sure he could see the whole process.
Rowan Williams does not seem to apologize for the burning of so called "hereticks" organized by his own Churh. One can't help but detect some dark irony behind the rhetorics of a book acknowledging that early Christians were not trinitarian.