Scan barcode
A review by archytas
Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch
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.