Scan barcode
markbrisbane's review
Phenommenal academic coverage of the history of the religion so far, but a lot to get through. Coming back to this when I have more spoons.
skitch41's review
4.0
It is easy for Christians, sheltered by their denominations' views on doctrine, to forget the history of our faith that has preceded and succeeded the life of Christ. This book fills a much-needed niche in the any Christian's library by examining the Church's history from its very beginnings. It's scope is truly universal, though admittedly focused on the Latin West. Yet, at the same time, Mr. MacCulloch reveals aspects of Christianity that have been lost to time, like the split-off Christians that found early success in Asia and India, but had practically died off by the time Catholic missionaries arrived in the 15th century. Or how the fall of Constantinople and the Byzantine empire shifted Orthodoxy's center of gravity from there to Russia. I also found his chapters on the Reformation a great condensed version of his longer history of that period, [bc:The Reformation|53946|The Reformation|Diarmaid MacCulloch|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1388206528s/53946.jpg|52597]. Still, there are few problems with this book. First, he some terms, like dyophysite and miaphysite, are used so frequently and so early that you may forget the explanations the author gave for them previously. Also, while Mr. MacCulloch does devote an entire section to the evolution of Orthodox Christianity, he doesn't explain its structure very well, leaving one who is not apart of that church to wonder what the difference s between a patriarch and a metropole is. Also, while it is not overriding, Mr. MacCulloch's skepticism and occasional sarcasm may be off-putting for some Christians, but I don't think it is too much of a detriment. So don't be intimidated by the size of this book. For those who have never studied Church history beyond their own denomination's, or even outside the 20th century, this is an invaluable guide.
archytas's review
3.25
Look, I can, and of course I will, poke holes in lots of things in this book, but it is worth stating at the outset what a magnificent achievement it is. MacCulloch is witty and incisive, he has a gift for summarising complex ideas quickly, and this book may get exhausting, but it is endlessly entertaining and engaging. 1300 pages is a marathon read (it took me a month! A MONTH!), but covering a subject this extensive requires the writing skills of a sprinter (1 page on Wycliff and we're moving on...) and I know very few writers who could have managed it. His explanations of such headache-inducing debates as the nature of the trinity was clear, and relatively easy to follow. His summary of Augustine of Hippo's thought similarly suburb in explaining both the contradictions and the influence. On subject on which I know quite a lot *cough* Mormonism *cough*, I was impressed by to-the-heart-of-the-matter summary the topic gets as McCullough rushed onwards, giving me confidence of his treatment of the topics I was less familiar with.
This rushing *is* exhausting though, and I am simply not sure that a 1 volume history of Christianity was a good idea. Almost all the topics are dealt with rapid fire, and often very superficially. Several areas I am interested in are missing entirely - Milton doesn't get a mention, for example; Peter Abelard is mentioned once, according to the index, but not in any detail; and there is not much on where the Baptist movement actually originated from - they just sort of pop up in the Great Awakening. I found myself looking up many things on Wikipedia to flesh out the detail, or figure out the background. I honestly don't think that could have been remedied without making it a multi-volume work though - there was nothing extraneous in the text, and who could predict what every reader would be interested in?
Some of the topics that did get thorough treatment included the church history in Africa - a clear standout for me throughout the book; the coverage of the development of the various Orthodox churches, and their history in Central Asia/Eastern Europe in particular; the role of music in the church - liturgical in particular - is movingly covered throughout. The Anglican church, unsurprisingly MacCulloch's own home, attracts more insight and passion than other traditions.
But that is not to say that there weren't areas of weakness either. MacCulloch's personality will be an issue for some people - this is a book written by a person, and the wit can be balanced by opinions the reader disagrees with.The biggest for me probably represents a different worldview, and certainly approach to history: MacCulloch describes a world in which theology influences social reality, but not so often the other way around. This is most evident when discussing movements with political ideas embedded in them, such as the Anabaptists & the peasants revolt; the English civil war (MacCulloch baldly states that most people opposed the radicals, and barely covers the ranters, ignoring the Diggers and the Levellers entirely); socialism in general; the emergence of capitalism (MacCulloch *really* doesn't like Max Weber) and the role of various churches in various conflicts - but it carries through in various contexts. My perspective, which remains unchanged, has always been much more, well, Hegelian: seeing theological ideas as representative of broader social realities, ways of expressing political ideas, if you will. Obviously, this leads to a difference in emphasis, but also sometimes to a strange view of the priority order of change. He summarises his view on social change and the church in a passage on medieval Europe: "Now many people found themselves faced with the excitement and terror of new situations, new structures of life; their uncertainties, hopes and fears were ready prey for clergy who might have their own emotional difficulties and quarrels with the clerical hierarchy. This has been a repeated problem for institutional Christianity in times of social upheaval."
Adding to this is MacCulloch's tendency to see the role of the church as decisive in many contexts. From the Treaty of Waitangi, to Marx & the birth of Communism, to Solaridity in Poland and the death of Communism, MacCulloch's claims decisive church involvement or inspiration for many key world developments not usually viewed as such.
On many of the difficult issues where Christian churches have, well, massacred and abused peoples, and those sticky genocidal projects, including the Holocaust, MacCulloch does well, refusing to flinch in looking at the role of clerics in power. He views these as a digression from truth/real Christianity however, which means occasionally his disavowal comes across as "whoops, a mistake"and there is little examination of theological or clerical impulses towards this. His coverage of the Holocaust is one among a few exceptions, where he acknowledges the anti-semitism of contemporary Church culture as a contributing factor. However, a few pages later: "The consequences of this alliance in the wars of the former Yugoslavia are well known, and they are still unravelling. The Serbian Orthodox Church has not yet had the chance or the inclination to stand back and properly consider its part in what happened." is all he has to say on the war in the Balkans. This passage, like others, may be influenced by his current role as a theologian, and the fact that much of the audience of the book are likely to be devout. This may also explain his silence around the historicity of Jesus' claim to be divine, a matter of some debate to historians of Jesus.
In writing this review, I have been flipping through the 450 highlights I made, and realising simply how much, however, I have learned and engaged with. I'm keen to learn more about the Jesuits, the possible role of gay men in the High Anglican (Anglo-Catholic) movement; and early Arabic Christianity, not interests I had before I started. The book has left me much more informed and that alone is worth the read.
This rushing *is* exhausting though, and I am simply not sure that a 1 volume history of Christianity was a good idea. Almost all the topics are dealt with rapid fire, and often very superficially. Several areas I am interested in are missing entirely - Milton doesn't get a mention, for example; Peter Abelard is mentioned once, according to the index, but not in any detail; and there is not much on where the Baptist movement actually originated from - they just sort of pop up in the Great Awakening. I found myself looking up many things on Wikipedia to flesh out the detail, or figure out the background. I honestly don't think that could have been remedied without making it a multi-volume work though - there was nothing extraneous in the text, and who could predict what every reader would be interested in?
Some of the topics that did get thorough treatment included the church history in Africa - a clear standout for me throughout the book; the coverage of the development of the various Orthodox churches, and their history in Central Asia/Eastern Europe in particular; the role of music in the church - liturgical in particular - is movingly covered throughout. The Anglican church, unsurprisingly MacCulloch's own home, attracts more insight and passion than other traditions.
But that is not to say that there weren't areas of weakness either. MacCulloch's personality will be an issue for some people - this is a book written by a person, and the wit can be balanced by opinions the reader disagrees with.The biggest for me probably represents a different worldview, and certainly approach to history: MacCulloch describes a world in which theology influences social reality, but not so often the other way around. This is most evident when discussing movements with political ideas embedded in them, such as the Anabaptists & the peasants revolt; the English civil war (MacCulloch baldly states that most people opposed the radicals, and barely covers the ranters, ignoring the Diggers and the Levellers entirely); socialism in general; the emergence of capitalism (MacCulloch *really* doesn't like Max Weber) and the role of various churches in various conflicts - but it carries through in various contexts. My perspective, which remains unchanged, has always been much more, well, Hegelian: seeing theological ideas as representative of broader social realities, ways of expressing political ideas, if you will. Obviously, this leads to a difference in emphasis, but also sometimes to a strange view of the priority order of change. He summarises his view on social change and the church in a passage on medieval Europe: "Now many people found themselves faced with the excitement and terror of new situations, new structures of life; their uncertainties, hopes and fears were ready prey for clergy who might have their own emotional difficulties and quarrels with the clerical hierarchy. This has been a repeated problem for institutional Christianity in times of social upheaval."
Adding to this is MacCulloch's tendency to see the role of the church as decisive in many contexts. From the Treaty of Waitangi, to Marx & the birth of Communism, to Solaridity in Poland and the death of Communism, MacCulloch's claims decisive church involvement or inspiration for many key world developments not usually viewed as such.
On many of the difficult issues where Christian churches have, well, massacred and abused peoples, and those sticky genocidal projects, including the Holocaust, MacCulloch does well, refusing to flinch in looking at the role of clerics in power. He views these as a digression from truth/real Christianity however, which means occasionally his disavowal comes across as "whoops, a mistake"and there is little examination of theological or clerical impulses towards this. His coverage of the Holocaust is one among a few exceptions, where he acknowledges the anti-semitism of contemporary Church culture as a contributing factor. However, a few pages later: "The consequences of this alliance in the wars of the former Yugoslavia are well known, and they are still unravelling. The Serbian Orthodox Church has not yet had the chance or the inclination to stand back and properly consider its part in what happened." is all he has to say on the war in the Balkans. This passage, like others, may be influenced by his current role as a theologian, and the fact that much of the audience of the book are likely to be devout. This may also explain his silence around the historicity of Jesus' claim to be divine, a matter of some debate to historians of Jesus.
In writing this review, I have been flipping through the 450 highlights I made, and realising simply how much, however, I have learned and engaged with. I'm keen to learn more about the Jesuits, the possible role of gay men in the High Anglican (Anglo-Catholic) movement; and early Arabic Christianity, not interests I had before I started. The book has left me much more informed and that alone is worth the read.
meepelous's review
4.0
A VERY LONG book. I read it for a class, and I think anyone who can get through the whole thing for their own edification probably deserves a gold star or something. That said, a lot of very good information. I will hopefully be able to review it a couple more times in coming years so I can better absorb some of the content.
Due to not only his academic studies, but also his personal history, MacCulloch is very well positioned to write this book. Cut loose from the church of England mid ordination process due to their views on Homosexuality he now describes himself a "candid friend of Christianity". Not anti-Christian as some reviewers (past and no doubt future) attest, but willing to acknowledge the flaws and mistakes made by various church sects throughout history without thinking that the whole thing is rather silly.
Due to not only his academic studies, but also his personal history, MacCulloch is very well positioned to write this book. Cut loose from the church of England mid ordination process due to their views on Homosexuality he now describes himself a "candid friend of Christianity". Not anti-Christian as some reviewers (past and no doubt future) attest, but willing to acknowledge the flaws and mistakes made by various church sects throughout history without thinking that the whole thing is rather silly.
atsundarsingh's review
4.0
ginormous in its scope this book manages all the right details and is still interesting and open-minded. quite the accomplishment.
elzbethmrgn's review
4.0
Despite the intimidating page count, this is a fantastic introduction to the whole history of Christianity. It begins well before Jesus, placing the formation of Christianity into its broader world context, and continues right up to Benedict XVI.
For such a huge undertaking the book is thoroughly researched (and referenced!), easy to read, and wryly humorous. It is entirely non-judgemental on what we might now today call mistakes made by the Church (by the same token there was no crowing about successes, either), but MacCulloch doesn't shy away from tackling those hard topics with the same even-handedness he shows the whole topic.
For an academic student of the Church, without a religious affiliation, it has been an invaluable addition to my collection and my brain.
For such a huge undertaking the book is thoroughly researched (and referenced!), easy to read, and wryly humorous. It is entirely non-judgemental on what we might now today call mistakes made by the Church (by the same token there was no crowing about successes, either), but MacCulloch doesn't shy away from tackling those hard topics with the same even-handedness he shows the whole topic.
For an academic student of the Church, without a religious affiliation, it has been an invaluable addition to my collection and my brain.
jeanm333's review
I got this book from the library to see if it is worth buying (probably will buy used). It's over 1000 pages, maps and illustrations. I read the Introduction and was intrigued. MacCulloch has some interesting ideas and novel thoughts that, if he continues to interest me, I might actually read most of this. For example, he makes the assertion that Christianity moved westward instead of eastward because of the rise of Islam in the East.
In case you wondered about MacCulloch, he says his background is a "three generation family business" of country parishes, and he is currently a "candid friend of Christianity." Since he is Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford University, I'm guessing the book is a compilation of all his lecture notes. There is a BBC series based on the book; I'm getting it through Netflix.
In case you wondered about MacCulloch, he says his background is a "three generation family business" of country parishes, and he is currently a "candid friend of Christianity." Since he is Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford University, I'm guessing the book is a compilation of all his lecture notes. There is a BBC series based on the book; I'm getting it through Netflix.
jamiereadthis's review
4.0
It took three library renewals to get through this book (and thanks to an ice storm, the fifth this year!, I still owe the library a one day fine, a whole nickel that they thank you for and dump in a desk drawer with a bunch of rubber bands, and I love living in the country and having that library), and then work kind of slammed me a little, so it’s just been sitting there languishing on my currently-reading shelf for two weeks. And in all that time I still haven’t come up with something deeply insightful or clever to say.
I keep coming up with jokes, like, “You know what they say, ‘An atheist is just someone who’s studied their religion.’”
Honestly, this book was really very good. It’s history, which I love, and religious history, which utterly fascinates me with the scale and grandeur of brutality people are willing to inflict on other people in the name of charity and salvation. The whole book— which kept switching from the macro to the micro with expert timing, by the way— I just kept picturing all of this three-thousand-year saga, a hiccup on the evolutionary timescale, playing out from the vast vantage point of elsewhere in our galaxy, where we’re not even a blip of starlight in deep space. And if it didn’t seem petty before, well.
Back down on an earthly scale— or not even that, on a continent’s scale, country by country— the epic and the exhaustive scope of MacCulloch’s research has to be praised. I can’t imagine taking on a scholarship of that magnitude. It’s just bewildering in breadth, and meticulous in detail. All told, though, I much preferred Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God; not because it does the subject more justice, but because it deals with the slightly different angle— the actual evolution of the anthropological and sociological aspects of a religion, as well as what is worshipped within it— that is far more fascinating to me.
For a history of the church, though, you couldn’t do much better than this without devoting your time in semester-sized chunks, and maybe not even then.
Honestly, to hold onto the mystery and conviction of a religion: don’t study its history.
I keep coming up with jokes, like, “You know what they say, ‘An atheist is just someone who’s studied their religion.’”
Honestly, this book was really very good. It’s history, which I love, and religious history, which utterly fascinates me with the scale and grandeur of brutality people are willing to inflict on other people in the name of charity and salvation. The whole book— which kept switching from the macro to the micro with expert timing, by the way— I just kept picturing all of this three-thousand-year saga, a hiccup on the evolutionary timescale, playing out from the vast vantage point of elsewhere in our galaxy, where we’re not even a blip of starlight in deep space. And if it didn’t seem petty before, well.
Back down on an earthly scale— or not even that, on a continent’s scale, country by country— the epic and the exhaustive scope of MacCulloch’s research has to be praised. I can’t imagine taking on a scholarship of that magnitude. It’s just bewildering in breadth, and meticulous in detail. All told, though, I much preferred Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God; not because it does the subject more justice, but because it deals with the slightly different angle— the actual evolution of the anthropological and sociological aspects of a religion, as well as what is worshipped within it— that is far more fascinating to me.
For a history of the church, though, you couldn’t do much better than this without devoting your time in semester-sized chunks, and maybe not even then.
Honestly, to hold onto the mystery and conviction of a religion: don’t study its history.