Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A Terrible Presentation of Orthodoxy,
By
This review is from: Council of Nicaea (Dr Who Big Finish) (Audio CD)
I think that this is the first review that I have ever written for Amazon. I apologize for writing something so long. If you read the whole thing, you will see why I am both so irritated and verbose in what follows.
Basically, I really wanted (and expected) to like this CD a great deal. When I heard there was a Doctor Who Big Finish called "The Council of Nicaea," I immediately ordered it and was very excited to receive it in the mail. Unfortunately, after having listened to it very carefully, I am incredibly disappointed at what it has turned out to be and would advise others against buying it. Actually, if you have no knowledge of history, or if you hate traditional Christianity, or if you are a Jehovah's Witness- then you might really love it. Otherwise, you will probably find yourself rather frustrated, particularly if are any kind of orthodox Christian and know something about the Council of Nicaea. Some personal background: I am a tremendous fan of Doctor Who- and I have been for about 15 years- but I am also a teacher of Early Christian History at the university level. The idea of a purely historical Doctor Who on this subject matter was a brilliant one- and really should have been terrific. If both sides were treated equally well, I would have considered it a true success; if the actual historical situation had been presented more carefully and sympathetically, it could have been incredible. Unfortunately, this is not what this CD did. Please note: Extensive (theological) spoilers below! From the beginning, the presbyter Arius of Alexandria is set up as the hero of the tale- and the philosophical/theological explanation of Arius' view of God (and, therefore, of Jesus) is explained in the first part quite well (although it would be slightly more accurate to say that Arius was a more consistent Neo-Platonist than his opponents rather than that he was more of an Origenist than his opponents, as the CD implies; I can forgive concentrating on that element but, in truth, the entire Alexandria Church was deeply indebted to Origen of Alexandria at that point in history and the Nicene Creed's language of "eternally begotten of the Father" is as much a presentation of Origen's language/understanding as anything Arius ever said or believed). Arius himself is made both courageous and caring- which could be historically accurate; there is no evidence for this but I do not have any problem with portraying him to be a good person, because charity is worthwhile in the portrayal of an actual historical figure. Unfortuntely, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, one of the most important and revered saints in all the branches of the Christian community that revere Christian saints, is portrayed as the sort of person who would send a minion out to kill his rival for the sake of his own political ambition (for which there is also no evidence or testimony; true, later Patriarchs of Alexandria sometimes used thugs- but there is simply no evidence that St. Athanasius did so). Additionally, what is missing (theologically) is the soteriological (or "salvation-centered") basis of Athanasius' own explanation of the Incarnation: Basically, according to Athanasius, a created being (even if it were the greatest being in creation, through whom all other things were made) could not obtain an infinite merit for humanity through death and resurrection; only an Infinite Being, the Creator Himself, could obtain the necessary merit (through His Death and Resurrection) in order for all human beings to be Redeemed. In other words, Athanasius' concern was "How are human beings saved?" whereas Arius' concern was "that The God (ho theos) be impassible" and untainted by the world. The difference between these views has implications for all of Christian theology, including the sanctity of the human person, the worthiness of matter, and the degree of God's love for His creation. Of course, in this CD, only Arius' views are explained or given any kind of approval. St. Athanasius' views (which are accepted by the Council of Nicaea, comprise the basis of traditional orthodox Christianity, and are central to all subsequent Christian theological reflection for the next 1700 years) are apparently not worth the time to explain. Furthermore, while Constantine's position is shown to have only minor importance beyond his own political goals (which could be argued), Athanasius' own obstinate certainty in the correctness of his own beliefs is made to appear fanatical and murderous. Instead of allowing this important historical figure, who was himself repeatedly exiled for the next several decades and yet who stood firm in the face of constant imperial oppression, to be the holy and majestic figure that he historically was, St. Athanasius of Alexandria is made into the unrivaled villain of the piece. Additionally, it is made to seem as if the other Fathers of the Council were entirely concerned with a purely political arguments, with no theological foundation (in fairness, there are a few occasions in the audio when people half-heartedly claimed that the Arius' superiors, the bishops, should make the decisions rather than the Emperor, etc... but what one remembers more at the end is Peri's comment that religious issues like that hold no importance- and, since the orthodox understanding is never given, one can only assume that is the author's own opinion) and even the Doctor is made a pawn of historical forces, choosing the side of apparent injustice because "that is what happened" rather than having the moral backbone to fight the "good fight" and help overcome unbridled oppression (which is, of course, the essence of what the Doctor [and, I might add, the Christian Faith] is all about). In addition to making Athanasius the villain, Arius the misunderstood hero, Constantine the semi-villainous/semi-just ruler (who only sees the error his ways a few years later when he changes his support to Arius) and the Doctor himself a wimp, the audio consistently also makes it appear that Arianism was unrepresented at the Council (by ignoring the existence of both Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea) rather than it simply was not the legitimate faith of the Church. Also, the Modalist position is not represented (which could, in fact, have been effective utilized as the villainous position if one was needed) and the great intervention of Constantine (the suggestion of the word "homoousia") is absent, probably because that would have gone against attempt to show that Constantine was not, in fact, in charge. In the end, this story uses Arianism in order to promote a very modern political/ecclesiastical agenda (essentially hijacking what could have been an interesting, exciting, and informative story) and seems entirely lacking in both the spirit of Doctor Who and the spirit of charity. It is filled with poor history and simply fails to present both sides in the central debate (the very thing that the CD continually accuses the Council of Nicaea of doing is the very thing that the CD itself does to Christian orthodoxy!) The CD wishes to make three points- 1. That the people need to be heard in theological decisions (in other words, that having a council of merely ecclesiastical officials is not sufficient to define the faith of the Church); 2. That theological issues are far less important than tolerance/acceptance of other views (in other words, that if the Church is going to make a theological decision, the only valid reason for doing so is Church unity and not the importance of the actual theological concepts under discussion); and 3. That women were not historically given a sufficiently significant role in ecclesiastical society (but, implicitly, it will be remembered that the modern Church of England, into whose clergy the author of the story hopes to one day enter, is less backward than the Catholics and Orthodox; in other words, the Church of England has finally gotten some things right, even if the Apostolic Churches have not). It is very unfortunate that Doctor Who was so naively turned into a vehicle of propaganda for this position.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Strong on story, weak on history,
By Peter Ingemi (Worcester County, Massachusetts United States) - See all my reviews (VINE VOICE) (REAL NAME)
This review is from: Council of Nicaea (Dr Who Big Finish) (Audio CD)
The Council of Nicaea is a mixed blessing.
In terms of a Doctor Who story it is exciting. You see a glimpse of early Christian history and the conflicts within, you also see Erimem caught between her own sense of honor and the urgings of the Doctor and Peri torn between the two. The play of the story the Emperor trying to keep the peace, the tug between the needs of history and the passion of Erimem really make this one of the most dramatic episodes written. It would easily make 5 stars... ...if it wasn't so A-historical. A villain is necessary for this story and the author chooses St. Athanasius, you read that right SAINT ATHANASIUS. The decision to turn Saint Athanasius into a bloodthirsty killer was frankly totally unnecessary. The author could have just as easily had a servant or overzealous follower of Athanasius initiate the dirty deeds in the mistaken belief that he was serving God by that. It would have taken very little effort but alas the author decided against it and in the culture of today frankly that isn't a big surprise after all Orthodox Christianity is not loved in pop culture. However this is a Doctor Who story, The Gunfighters for example didn't follow much of the history of the Gunfight at the OK corral but was still an enjoyable story. Taken in that vein one can enjoy the tale and the fine performances therein while still shaking ones head at the poor history. Since I expect better from Dr. Who Historical tales this cost this one a star in my rating but if you can ignore the faulty portrayal of a great saint, it is worth your time. Maybe Caroline can say a prayer to St. Athanasius, him sure he will be understanding. Buy it anyway.
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Maybe Not Perfect, but still Worth Considering...,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Council of Nicaea (Dr Who Big Finish) (Audio CD)
I have read Matthew G. (Melchizedek137) Minix's Review of this Audio CD several times; and from what He says, (and obviously knows, vis-a-vis his academic background), I'm bound to admit there are probably some historical discrepancies in this dramatization. But I still couldn't help enjoying this CD, and I am interested in history, and not particularly "anti-orthodox Christianity". I also do think it just a bit unfair of Mr. Minix to refer to the Doctor (in this case, the Fifth Doctor, portrayed by Peter Davison) as a wimp, because He doesn't get violently involved with helping Arius, and changing history. One of the most frequently recurring themes in "Doctor Who" is that the Doctor CANNOT CHANGE Recorded History, or major or minor events in Time. And when his companions TRY to do that very thing (Both Barbara Wright in "The Aztecs", and Rose Tyler in "Fathers Day" come IMMEDIATELY to Mind), all Hell breaks loose (in very different ways)! When Adric died at the end of "Earthshock", Tegan begged the Doctor in the first episode of the following adventure "Timeflight", to go back and save Adric. And the Doctor said, quite categorically, that that would alter historical or temporal events, and that is something he cannot do (or is forbidden as a Time Lord to do). But getting back to this story, "The Council of Nicaea", the Doctor and Peri BOTH do try to help Arius as much as they can, (mainly, one supposes, because they don't want any harm to come to Erimem), and the Doctor and Peri both do manage to persuade Emperor Constantine to meet with the followers of Arius, and placate them by publicly acknowledging their point-of-view. Well, as I said before, this may not be a PERFECTLY ACCURATE depiction of the historical events at Nicaea in 325 A.D., but then how often is "Doctor Who" (or any other historical dramatization, from Shakespeare's Plays to Hollywood's Westerns) ever PERFECTLY ACCURATE?! Anyway, I bought this CD Audiobook, and I'm glad I did. I enjoyed it! As a purely "historical" story (as opposed to a more "science-fiction" type of story), I found it intelligent and thought-provoking. I give it somewhere between 3 and 4 stars (closer to 4).
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
