Rating: 
Summary: Ye shall know the truth.
Review: A good friend of mine suggested this book, and when I read it the first time, I did it in a day. It is very readable and very intelligent. As a life-long Christian, I had never paused to think about how a new religion on one end of the Mediterranean Sea spread to the whole of the Roman world in as little as 300 years. Stark makes some very credible arguments about how this was done. The mechanisms described do not require "magic", however that does not make the result any less miraculous.Church leaders and theologians would do well to read this book and ponder for themselves. For the thinking person who is open to arguments that actually use numbers in an intelligent way (no Bible Code here!), this is a book that offers insight into the mechanisms of church growth, the practical consequences of sexual immorality, and the positive effect of having a high value on women.
Rating:
Summary: A stunning, science-based portrait of early Christianity
Review: Accused of superstitious atheism, and persecuted to the death, early Christians overcame all challenges to overwhelm the pagan world with superior morality and ethical behavour. Rodney Stark combines historical evidence with current sociological theory to explain how. Chapters on the mission to the Jewish diaspora, the role of women in the early church, how social networks functioned during epidemics, and the rationality of martyrdom demonstrate the deeply transforming nature of the Christian religion on Greco-Roman civilization. For anyone who wonders what difference Christianity made in the beginning, and what difference it can make today, this book is a must read.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Work by Stark
Review: Combining the knowledge of an Einstein and the gifts of a Feynman, Rodney Stark makes a compelling case for the rise of Christianity in this book. It is one of the most authoritative yet simple accounts that I have read, in which essential facts are presented unobfuscated by uneccessary details. One of the books that leave a lasting impression on the reader, The Rise of Christianity is a great work in itself, comparable to Bertrand Russell's The Principles of Philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: Agrees 100% with the Scriptures, 0% with Hollywood
Review: Do you ever wonder what really happened in the Bible? Miracles, yes; conversions, yes; but for 2000 years most people have been afraid to ask history and sociology what was going on in the atmosphere of the New Testament as it was happening... of course we love to hear this stuff, because we've made movie after movie diagnosing the Romans and the New Testament. Yet their comes a point where we want more advanced knowledge than "Romans & Jews bad." Those movies were written to sell, _only "based_ on a true story." Did you know there's NO historical mention of Christians being fed to the lions before at least 100 years after the New Testament? It's really a common joke about how fast you can separate a NT scholar from an Elizabeth Taylor scholar... by asking him how many Christians were fed to the lions. I have READ both the Bible and Stark's book (not skimmed, like 90% of the reviewers...) I've also read the New Testament in Greek and Latin, and have actual university certifications in Religion and in Latin. I can verify that _there is nothing Stark says which in any way disagrees with the Bible._ I dare anyone to email me and show me otherwise (mrcolj@populus.net). He has written a standard text of Early Christianity classes and which flows like a novel. Sure, he may be coming at it from a different paradigm; he writes to question our assumptions. But that is a healthy process. If you're seeking truth, you don't trust the movies or your mommy's stories more than God! You first read the scriptures and see (and feel) what they say, then, and only then, _as step two,_ consult the secondary sources that can point out some of the cultural assumptions you may have made based on not knowing history or Roman law or whatever. I am deeply embarrassed at most of these "reviews," written by gospel-hobbyists pretending to be "academic" and "truth-seekers," then instantly condemning anyone who questions their pre-judgments. This is gigglingly evident as we read innumerable comments ending with "Stark is off the mark in many points." Now ask yourself, "Who am I going to trust? This published standard of Christian studies, or a reviewer who posts himself anonymously?" There's a real difference between those who aim to shake your faith, and those who ask you if you're willing to face uncomfortable questions, staying carefully away from hurting anyone's faith. All knowledge must be built on faith, and all faith built on knowledge. So the scriptures say. If you're not willing to risk your comfort (faith), the Lord will never tell you the answers to your questions (knowledge). Believe me, all the standards, including WC Frend, CS Lewis, and David Daube were just as unorthodox in their day, only those books now are "old" and have movies made from them, "so obviously what's in them must be true." :) Really a fantastic book for those who are looking for the real truth in accordance with the scriptures.
Rating: 
Summary: Fresh thinking, some of it mistaken.
Review: I find myself agreeing with the points both those who liked the book and those who didn't like it made. The man makes many good ideas. His discussion of how the Gospel transformed the role of women is itself worth the price of the book, and his insights about the courage believers showed during epidemics and martyrdom is also helpful. But, at the same time, the hubris of social science, a reliance on theories which are most persuasive within the narrow, modern framework in which most of Stark's direct research appears to have been conducted, often brings him to overreach himself badly. He argues, for example, that new religious movements are alway "based on the more privileged classes." He also argues we do not "need" miracles or mass conversions to explain the growth of the church. Finding a growth rate over three centuries close to the 43% that Mormonism has maintained for the last century, he is encouraged to think he has discovered a scientific principle, which negates the need for "exceptional explanations." But the fact that an explanation for a given event credible to one's apriori theories of life can be found, or imagined, in no way renders incredible reports which assert (with great force of eyewitness evidence) that in fact something else happened! Those who do not with to believe in miracles may find comfort in Stark's theories. But they should not be confused for a serious argument against the events related in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. I just returned from a small town in China which, before the revolution, had about 20 Christians, but now has over a thousand. This is a 110% growth rate per decade, without the advantages of higher birth and survival rates of the Roman Christians, or of birth rates and obligatory 2-year preaching apprenticeships of the Mormons. In fact, for most of that time, preaching was extremely dangerous, and martyrs were seldom allowed to be treated as public heros as Stark described them. Yet this growth rate has been typical in many parts of China. In Anhui province, the church has grown about a hundred times (not percent) in just two decades! However they may confuse sociological theory, in practice miracles, mass conversions, and the supernatural preparation of Chinese culture for the Gospel (as Paul and Augustine found in Greco-Roman culture) seem to playing a tremendous role in these events. I have met people involved in mass conversions and miracles myself. Furthermore, while intellectuals are also converting, peasants are probably the strongest conduit for Christian faith in China today. And China is not alone in this respect. When I first took a social science course at the University of Washington where Stark teaches 20 years ago, my immediate reaction was, "What this man is teaching, when translated into ordinary English, seems to reduce to either to common sense or to nonsense." Give Stark credit. His ideas do not need translating, his style is lively and his thoughts clear. Better yet, his "discoveries" lean strongly towards the first category as opposed to the second. But most of them are not really surprising, on careful reading of the Bible. And some are simply mistaken. Read the book with an open mind and pinch of salt. (d.marshall@sun.ac.jp) Author, True Son of Heaven: How Jesus Fulfills the Chinese Culture
Rating:
Summary: Social science done right.
Review: If one wants to understand the rise of Christianity this book does a masterful job of explicating this as a process without belittling the religion as a religion. If one wants to understand the process of doing good social science this book is also very useful. Stark makes skillful use of a number of methods but never loses sight of his problem. By contrast, far too much of the research I read either lacks any methodological sophistication at all or is so focused on the technique that it loses the point in the mess of details. I would like to use this book in a methodology of the social sciences class as an illustration of what is possible given some fairly simple methods that are taught to most first year graduate students (or even undergraduates), but, most of all--and hardest of all--intense clarity of thought and careful reflection on the problem at hand.
Rating:
Summary: George Ellis
Review: Lively, enjoyable history written for the non-professional. The author is a sociologist rather than a historian, giving him a fresh perspective on this most interesting period of Christian history. Stark makes clear arguments and presents considerable evidence to back his point of view. The references are substantial for a book in this class.
Some believers may have mixed emotions about the book. On the positive, Stark's accounts of early Christians give reason behind their enormous success in the West. On the other hand, his attempts to reduce the miraculous behavior of early believers to a purely ration exchange is unconvincing. Many of us will continue to believe that those people had a miraculous change in their lives that allowed them to meet martyrdom without care and nurse others during plague at great risk of contracting disease.
Rating:
Summary: How did Christianity become? the first 400 years
Review: Never have I encountered so much good solid data packed into so few pages that are written so well. The solid scientific evidence concerning the growth of Christianity from less than 1000 in 40 CE to only 40,000 in 150 CE and exploding to 33 million only 200 years later is breathtaking. And unlike other secular sociologists who squirm at the mere mention of the supernatural, Stark is willing to use "faith" as an important factor: Christian dogmas against abortion and girl-baby infantcide, and in favor of helping one's neighbor, all contributed to a mammoth population explosion within the Christian support groups. Unlike Gibbons, Stark is neither a historian nor a theologian nor a Bible scholar, he is a sociologist who gives the evidence, and lets all of facts fall where they may, including the "I don't knows." Stark does for early Christianity what Andrew Greeley is doing for millenium Catholicism. If you admire Greeley, and I do, you will love and respect Stark. And vice versa. Both show us that emperors have no clothes and beautiful rich vestments, if we will only let Stark and Greeley show us the facts.
Rating: 
Summary: thought-provoking, though not completely convincing
Review: Rodney Stark sets out to give us a "revsionist" view of the emergence and eventual triumph of Christianity-no "irrationality" here, no credulity, no superstition, all of it a clean and rational affair. As a matter of fact, the early Christians had any reason to be proud of themselves: they were taking part in a successful enterprise. This of course does not mean that Christianity complete with all its doctrines and beliefs is a rational religion (if there is such a thing), it simply means that joining the Christian movement might have been a rational decision. Slavery is not based on a rational theory of human nature, but under certain circumstances the decision to keep slaves might be quite rational (at least in terms of the game theory that Mr Stark so aptly utilizes for his historical explanations). And so Mr Stark builds up his argument that Christianity would have won the day even without imperial support, somewhat like a succesful insurance company with attractive policies might have outcompeted its rivals in the market. While the main line of the argument for the success of Christianity is rather convincing-or at least worth second thought-the final upshot of his thesis: that Constantine's conversion and subsequent state support for Christianity did not make all that much of a difference, certainly needs modification. Here Mr Stark's approach is somewhat biased in that he studiously neglects to mention any of the weaknesses of the early church, in particular its most glaring flaw (so perceptively noticed by this inspired opponent of the Christians, the emperor Julian): its bitter internal factionalism, due to its intolerance of dissenting opinion. If imperial authority since and after Constantine had not enforced doctrinal unity on the church, it would almost certainly have disintegrated into vigorously feuding sects and heresies-and there is no telling what would have become of Christianity under these circumstances.
Rating:
Summary: Stark's scholarly work reveals much about us today.
Review: Rodney Stark's book is flat-out fascinating. Because of its scholarly basis, there are times it's tougher going than my normal bedside reading, but I would highly recommend it to any thinking Christian. In particular, I would recommend it to anyone who has wondered why some churches appear to grow while others can barely maintain their membership. It appears that human nature and proselytizing haven't changed over the ages. I'm giving a copy to my mainline Protestant pastor and passing my copy around to the friends who've all ready said they want to read it too. But I want it back!
|
