Product Description

Arianism has been called the "archetypal Christian heresy" - a denial of the divine status of Christ. In his examination, now augmented by new material, Rowan Williams argues that Arius himself was a dedicated theological conservative whose concern was to defend the free and personal character of the Christian God. His "heresy" grew out of the attempt to unite traditional biblical language with radical philosophical ideas and techiniques, and was, from the start, involved with issues of authority in the church. Thus, the crisis of the early 4th century was not only about the doctrine of God, but also about the relations between emperors, bishops and ascetical "charismatic" teachers in the church's decision-making. Williams raises the wider questions of how heresy is defined and how certain kinds of traditionalism transform themselves into heresy. With a fresh conclusion, in which the author reflects on how his views have changed or remained the same, and a new introduction, this book is suitable reading for students of patristics, doctrine and church history.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #395748 in Books
• Published on: 2001-09-01
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 389 pages

Customer Reviews

Heresies Ancient and Modern
The first edition of 'Arius: Heresy & Tradition' was written by Rowan Williams, currently Archbishop of Canterbury, while he was Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford University. Written in the 1980s, it was revised and reissued in 2001 because it had fallen out of print, but remained (and remains) a standard work in the field.

Arianism is, historically speaking, one of the major heresies of the ancient church. It has remained an attractive tendency in theologians ever since the time of Arius in the third and fourth centuries. In brief, the heresy of Arius was that Jesus as the Son of God was not co-eternal of God the Father, that the Father and the Son were not of the same substance (ousia), and that Jesus was a created being. These issues are all addressed contra Arius in the Nicene Creed, which has as part of its construction 'of one being with the Father', 'begotten, not made', and other constructions intentionally directed against Arianism.

Williams' thesis, however, presents a different pictrue from that of the typical 'heretic'. Arius, according to Williams, was in fact a theological conservative wrongly portrayed as a rebel. Williams' first chapter traces images of Arianism in scholarship, from the early John Henry Newman in the 1830s through Harnack, Gwatkin, Elliger, and later scholars too numerous to mention - 'The post-war period has been astonishingly fertile in Arius scholarship,' Williams writes. This has ceased to be as polemical and has become more analytical in nature, 'though the shadow of Arianism-as-Other still haunts modern discussion.'

This is both an historical and a theological text. Theology is not divorced from history or the context in which it is formed. 'Orthodoxy continues to be made,' Williams states. 'What the articulation of doctrinal truth concretely is can be traced only through the detailed reworking and re-imagining of its formative conflicts. That, surely, is the strictly theological point of studying the history of doctrine.' Williams looks at the history of Arius and Arianism in three ways - Arius and the Nicene Crisis, Arius and Theology, and Arius and Philosophy.

With regard to the Nicene Crisis, Williams explores the ambiguities inherent in the Christian world in the time prior to becoming the official religion of the empire. Bishops and other Christian leaders had varying authority, not always well defined and not always in agreement with each other; there was a strong sense of pluralism about the Christian world, and competing ideas for interpretation and expression. Williams argues that to think that Arianism was a monolithic construct, systematised and derivative of one great leader is a very mistaken notion. There were definite political motivations behind the impulse to declare Arianism a heresy.

However, politics were not the only considerations. Theologically, the Christian world was rich with development, including figures such as Origen, Clement, and Philo in Alexandria (one of the leading cities of the empire, and one of the early centres of Christian community). Outside Egypt, the city of Antioch was also a major centre of Christian development and Christian evangelism (being one of the major trade junctions between East and West, North and South, the influence of Antioch on world-wide Christianity was felt for centuries). 'Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian.' However, the Alexandrian school, both in terms of theology and political power, did not become the ascendant one in Christendom.

In the third section, Williams explores Arius and his connection with philosophical schools of the time. Platonic and neo-Platonic ideas were the principal ones influencing the world, and Williams argues that Arius is close to Plotinus, a major neo-Platonic figure. Williams looks at three key issues - creation and beginning, intellect, and analogy and participation. By this last is meant primarily the Platonic participation that is the relation between the particular thing and its ideal form.

Williams concludes this revised text with an essay, 'Arius since 1987', showing both new scholarship and new interpretations. The field continues to be rich with development. Williams includes an appendix of documents related to the creeds, extensive endnotes, a broad and useful bibliography, and a good index.

Many heresies of old might get tolerated today (or dismissed) as differences of opinion that each has every right to hold. In fact, many differences today, internal to churches and between churches, often relate back to ancient controversies. Arianism is one such that recurs on a fairly regular basis.

Williams' scholarship is sound; his theological ideas are interesting (and one can learn something about Williams' ideas on theology, both method and substance, from the way he treats Arius). This is destined to be a standard text in the field for some time to come.

Heavy going!
It is a struggle for a lay person to read this book. Williams assumes a great deal of background knowledge ( and an ability to read Greek ) which the non-scholar may not have, so they may find this book frustrating.