Rating: 
Summary: A history that some would prefer you didn't know
Review: Many modern churchgoers assume that there is an unbroken chain stretching from Jesus and the apostles until our modern day for most of the major doctrines of Christendom. What this book reveals is that in the church's early days stood a group of unprincipled, ambitious, power hungry men so deeply entrenched in political intrigue as to be unrecognizable as "Christians" in the biblical sense. It was the decisions of this group that established much of the doctrinal foundations of Christendom. There are several things that make this book particularly appealing. First, the author's Jewish heritage assures me he "doesn't have a horse in this race". He is completely dispassionate in his examination of this portion of church history; he has no preconceived ideas to prove. He also provides a rich historical context that enables the reader to discern the ever-present political considerations underlying the moves of the factions involved. I also appreciated his brief but poignant reference to the influence of Greek philosophy at this time, particularly among the Alexandrine branch of the church. There are myriad other points as well, which the confines of this space do not allow for. Both the Jewish and Christian scriptures proclaim the truth that good fruitage can not be produced by a rotten tree. This book, above all else, demonstrates the spiritual rot that had taken hold among those claiming to be Christian. Let the reader decide if God would approve the fruitage this tree produced.
Rating: 
Summary: Polemics and Politics in the Early Church!
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed this scholarly but readable review of the historical context of the formation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ. Sometimes it seems as though certain doctrines were handed down from on high, and it's very revealing to look behind the scenes, as it were, to find a very human conflict colored by power struggles and political posturing. If you've ever wondered what all the fuss about "Arian heresy" is really based on, and why the "Athanasian Creed" is so widely accepted today, you'll want to read about the pendulum swings of power, prestige, and persecution attending these two influential thinkers, Athanasius and Arius. I think the author did a tremendous job of making church history come alive, giving personality and flavor to the tumultuous times and great names of the early church. I hope we hear more from Mr. Rubenstein - I'd love to hear his rendition of the history of textual transmission!
Rating:
Summary: Boy, This Is A Good Book!
Review: I mean, how often do you see books having over 25 customer reviews, with only one review less than 4 stars? I have nothing much to add to most of the reviews. The book is very cleanly written so as to be clear, entertaining, and accessible to readers with a range of backgrounds in the area of early church history. Fantastic.
Rating:
Summary: Superbly written journalistic account of doctrinal conflict
Review: One would not have expected a book on early Christian doctrinal controversies by a professor of contemporary conflict resolution to have in the few short years since it was published become almost a bestseller and standard work. One reason for this is the objectivity that an academic outside the normal inner circle of writers on patristics brings to bear on the subject - coupled with the added objectivity that a Jewish (and one suspects agnostic) writer has in treating a controversy that is still live among Christians today. However I feel the real reason for this book's success is in the quality of the writing. Without 'dumbing down' Rubenstein has managed to communicate a substantial amount of information and argument in a compelling, almost novel-like journalistic narrative. This ability to communicate complex ideas and events is where the book really earns its five stars. A third reason why this book has struck a cord is that it fills a void in terms of human treatment of the Arian-Athanasian controversy. Classic historians of dogma such as Harnack concentrate on the ideas to the exclusion of the personalities - which has its place, but not to the point where key events such as Athanasius' murder of Arius by poisoning are ignored (as in some histories of doctrine). Not here - Rubenstein treats the doctrinal battles through the people who fought them. A supplementary reading list in this area would include:
--- Patristic source material:
[1] Rusch W.G. The Trinitarian Controversy (reader) ****
[2] Rusch W.G. The Christological Controversy (reader) ****
--- Orthodox apologia for the Trinity:
[3] Dunn J.D. Christology (essays) ***
--- Egyptology
[4] Griffiths J.G. Triads and Trinity (distinguished egyptologist's account of pagan origins of the Trinity, heavy going) ***
--- Apologia for non-Trinitarian views:
[5] Broughton J.H. & Southgate P.J. The Trinity True or False (the most comprehensive scriptural arguments against both the Trinity and the related doctrine of Preexistence, with, interestingly, two alternative approaches to John 1)*****
[6] Buzzard A.F. & Hunting C.F. The Doctrine of the Trinity (broadly similar to Broughton & Southgate but less comprehensive on the scripture sections, and not as strong in the treatment of Preexistence. The book's plus point is a fuller treatment of historical development)****
[7] Holt B. Jesus God or the Son of God (critique of the concept of Jesus as "god" which goes considerably further down this road than the two previous books, but paradoxically contains an apologia for the literal preexistence of Jesus in heaven before birth).***
[8] Graeser M.H., Lynn J.A., & Schoenheit J.W. One God and One Lord (popularist and unfortunately sloppily proofread critique of the Trinity, no substitute for either Broughton or Buzzard, or both)*
NB: some of these books are currently only available from Amazon's international websites - although shipping rates and times are very reasonable.
Rating:
Summary: blood and guts theology
Review: To the adage 'you don't want to see the manufacturing of law or sausage' add a third: theology. Richard E. Rubenstein's "When Jesus Became God" is the bloody and harrowing tale of the Arian controversy which divided the Church in the fourth century. Arius and his followers believed Jesus was not God, that God was God and Jesus, although very close to God, occupied a somewhat lower level. The anti-Arians argued that Jesus was God, and that Jesus took human form on earth. What could be more irrelevant? Wait. The battle lines were roughly drawn between the eastern and western Roman Empire. Constantine, on his was to reuniting the Empire, fought the battle at Milvian Bridge and regained Rome. Before that battle he claimed to have seen in the heavens a cross and words to the effect, "In this sign you shall conquer." Poor Constantine has a lawsuit for misrepresentation. The sign in the heavens should have continued (even if only in the small print that insurance companies use)... Well, waving a banner with the cross on it, he did win the battle. A few years later he reunited the whole of the Empire and the persecuted Christian Church became the official Christian Church. To the victor belongs the right to spoil it. Rubenstein recounts the theological debates and mob battles that rocked the Empire. Nowhere could three bishops of a similar persuasion meet without excommunicating at least one bishop of a different persuasion. Nowhere could three people gather on a street corner without discussing theology and going off to burn their favorite 'heretic' church. Councils met, made pronouncements, then another council met and pronounced the former council invalid. Kings marched, armies fought, grain collected for the poor was sold to buy arms (Ah! Now you begin to seed some relevance)... Etc. Etc. It's all very exciting. But, why? First off, these theologians had a big ego problem and a certainty about their own ability to understand the precise meaning of obscure concepts... Well, actually, we don't know. They didn't leave any testimony as to why dock workers, bar tenders, and prostitutes felt so involved in theological issues. Yes, prostitutes. One group of bishops snuck a prostitute into the hotel room of a visiting bishop to discredit him. However, she woke the unsupecting bishop and everyone else in the hotel by creaming and told them who had sent her. Apparently she held firm views on the Arian controversy. By the way, she is one of the few women in this story. The Arian controversy was a man's thing. The question that bothers me is: who cares? Or: why did they care? The Gospels don't explain the Son of God/Son of Man thing. Jesus didn't spend the Sermon on the Mount or the Sermon on the Plain explaining the difference between substance and essence. In his regard, the Aian controversy is like today's debate about homosexuality. Fundamentalists and conservatives cite three or four scriptural references which they allege condemn homosexuality. I invite you to pick up a Bible some time (not buy, but lift it, although it's okay to buy) and check its heft. How many pages does it have? How many of those tiny, insurance policy size words on each page? And they want to send people to hell on the basis of their interpretation of three or four phrases? Just like both sides in the Arian controversy. The anti-Arians won. Sort of. Gregory of Nyssa came up with the idea of the Trinity. With no Arians to beat up, the anti-Arians went big time into burning synagogues. So, rumor has it that there was this guy who taught that we should love God, love our neighbors as ourselves, love our enemies and turn the other cheek. He said we should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, visit the sick, console the sorrowful, and visit prisoners. He said when we do those things, we do them also for him and when we don't, we deny him. Well, it's only a rumor. I don't know what made me think about it. Besides, there's no money in the budget for this sort of thing.
Rating:
Summary: THE Introduction to Church History
Review: The Church entered a new era when Constantine came along. The days of persecution were over, everyone thought; the Church was now not only legal, but sanctioned by the Emperor himself. Bishops dined in the Emperor's palace, at his own table, and they later compared it to sitting down with Christ himself to dine. A new golden age had begun. But reaching the top brings its problems. Church politics--nasty enough, at times--had suddenly merged with the politics of Empire. The Emperor's favor came at a price, and Constantine sat in Church councils fully expecting his word to carry authority. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was given great political power--and used it to blackmail Constantine, earning himself exile twice. ``When Jesus Became God'' is a gripping history of the ``Arian controversy'': a theological debate which was bursting with political consequences. Who should rule the church? What is its relation to the state? How should the church deal with its ``heretics''? This debate became a turning point in history: when the church went from illegal to legal; from persecuted to persecutor; from anti-state to a political force which outlived the state itself, reigning as mistress of the world until the 19th century. Rubenstein captures all of this and more in his gripping account, ``When Jesus became God.''
Rating:
Summary: The gritty story behind the rare air of theology
Review: Let me start out with this caveat: for those Christians or other readers who aren't familiar with this whole area of Church history, a little bit of background reading on the Arian controversy might be necessary to be able to follow the names in this conflict. Not a great deal, but just maybe an article from an encyclopedia of religion regarding the Arian controversy. With that in mind, this book is a very engaging account of the proto-Machieavellian tactics that took place (and the outside events that inadvertently played their part) in forging what most Christians accept uncritically as gospel truth. Richard Rubenstein is not a theologian, but a professor of conflict resolution specializing in religous disputes. Rather than hamper his qualifications, this background is ideal for studying the conflict between the Arians, who believed that Jesus was a great man who was adopted by God the Father, and the anti-Arians led by Athanasius, who believed that God the Son (Jesus) preceded all of creation. While this may seem like a rarefied topic of discussion today, 1700 years ago in North Africa and the Near East, it was as hot a topic as any political or religious dispute today. The style of the book, once you are familiiarized with the people involved, is very easy to read. The prose of the book almost reads like an extended magazine article. I mean that as a compliment. Rubenstein depicts many episodes, both ridiculous and tragic, which bring an otherwise dry topic to life. For those who haven't examined their church history, this book should be an eye-opener; the ideological victory claimed by the trinitarians didn't come through ideological means at all. Some theologians and apologists today may talk about the Arian debate as if Arius was a minor rogue, and as if Athanasius on the other side was a hero, and then leave the story at that. This book manages to tell the story without those blinders. For that alone, it's worth the price.
Rating:
Summary: a terrific little book
Review: When Jesus Became God is a perfect primer for the layman on the Arian controversy. Every issue, from the origins of the conflict to the ultimate compromise, to the relationship of the church's organization to the state's, to the central points at dispute in the controversy, to the political context in which the debate played itself out, to geographical considerations and the biographies of the main players, is made plain to the reader simply and without undue fuss. Coming in at 288 pages, the book is an enjoyable and quick read, very well written. The book is set at the time of Christianity's triumph over Rome -- in 312 Emperor Constantine sees a vision of the cross before a battle for control of the Roman Empire and attributes his eventual success to Him. Christianity becomes the religion of the imperial family and Constantine makes decrees favoring the new religion. "His true goal, beyond favoring his co-religionists, was to unite the empire's diverse, quarreling peoples in one huge spiritual fellowship. Paganism was now clearly decadent, but once upon a time it had served this purpose. Why shouldn't the new religion play an equally vital and creative role?" (p. 46) But just as Constantine had solidified control of the empire in 324 a doctrinal dispute -- the Arian Controversy -- had violently erupted in Alexandria and its shock waves had spread to the East. The basics of the dispute were as follows: "Was Christ ... to be considered human? In one sense the answer was yes. Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, not some divine apparition or mask of God. But his moral genius and the importance of his mission raised him high above even the highest prophets. The Savior was sui generis. Many Arians believed that the Eternal had somehow conceived him (or conceived of him) before time began, and used him as an instrument to create the rest of the universe. Even so, they insisted, he could not possibly be God Himself. How could an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good Creator experience temptation, learn wisdom and grow in virtue? How could he suffer on the cross and die the death of a human being? Surely, when Jesus cried out, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' he was not talking to himself! When he admitted that nobody knows the day and hour of Judgment, 'not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only,' he was not just being modest. And when he told his disciples that 'the Father is greater than I,' he meant exactly what he said." (p. 8) The anti-Arian's reply was approximately, "[The Arians] claim to belive that Christ is a creature utterly unlike any other -- that he is not a mere man but a divinity. This produces two possibilities. One, the Son is a second God equal to the Father. There are many ex-pagans who, in their ignorance, probably believe this. Obviously, the idea is as repulsive to Christians as to Jews. Two Gods? Why just two? If Jesus is a second God, why not declare the Holy Spirit a third? And why stop there? Open the floodgates ....
"The Arians hate the idea that God could have suffered on the Cross. But God can obviously do anything He wants to do. The essentially Christian idea -- the idea that the Arians deny -- is that He chose to become a human being and to suffer for our sake. He was a human being. But he was also God -- and if this is hard to understand, it's hard to understand! Who ever said that it was easy to understand God?" (pp. 116 -117) Constantine sent his friend the Bishop Hosius to investigate the outbreak. Hosius decided that: "[A]rian theology implicitly reduced the role of the institutional Church. If Jesus' life and character were supposed to serve ordinary Christians as a usable model of behavior, the principal mission of the clergy would be to help people transform themselves, not maintain theological and political unity throughout the empire. This was another reason [Hosius figured] Constantine would probably favor the doctrine of Alexander and Athanasius. The Church he needed was one that would help him keep order among ordinary folk: people who would never become immortal unless God decided for reasons of His own to save them." (p. 64) Hosius sailed for a church council in Antioch in 325 where an anti-Arian statement of the faith was drawn up and the most important Arian bishops were excommunicated. Then -- if you'll forgive the phrase -- all hell broke loose. When Jesus Became God is, for the most part, the story of this particular hell breaking loose. It is a good one with intrigue, violence, sex, ideas, passion and power - What more could you ask for? There are a couple of places where the narrative is slightly confused, but on the whole, the book is very easy to digest. Highly recommended. You will want to read the endnotes, they contain many interesting asides. The index is solid. The map is helpful as is the bibliography and list of principal characters.
Rating:
Summary: Great survey of the Arian Heresy
Review: This book is a great survey/dramatic retelling of the events that surrounded the council of Nicea, and the Arian Heresy and how it nearly split the Church, and Eastern & Western Rome. Easy to read with enough footnotes to keep one reading for a long time. Well researched. The only problem I had with the book is at times I just thought it was paraphrase of a few books (which the author cites over and over). These books being "Eusebius and Constantine", "Search", "Early Christian Creeds" and a few others. Other than that, great book.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting perspective of a complicated time in church hist
Review: Richard Rubenstein delves into the complicated Arian heresy of the 4th century and writes a readable account of the times and personalities that were part of Roman and church history. Rubenstein does not always quote from letters or council documents at times when the quotation seems critical, but he summarizes well. One criticism I would have is that he develops ten chapters very well, but the last seems to be hurried, like the climax in a novel that the author is rushing to after making painstaking plot developments. Overall I believe that Rubenstein does a good job explaining the context of Roman history in which Constantine was trying to unify the empire through a unifying religion. To today's perspective it may seem that the riots which occurred over phrases, even a single word, that makes such a fine distinction, were extreme. For those who read this book to find out how Jesus became God, they will discover it had to do the Nicene Council. This does not answer how Jesus actually did become God. As a historian, Runbenstein does not deal with this from faith. This faith is what caused the riots, the murders, the excommunications and eventually the split between not only the eastern and western Roman empires, but also between the eastern and western churches. One wonders how this is a work of God - from the faith perspective. Reading this book can help to explain how today's broad spectrum of religious faiths can both unify and divide the world. Still Constantine, Constantius and others probably could name make any other decisions than they did. The complexity of conscience and political realities as well as raw survival is very hard to determine. People so the best they can.
| 
