Arius: Heresy and Tradition

Rowan Willliams, currently the Archbishop of Canterbury, provides a detailed examination of one of the major docternal disputes of the early Church. As such, it may be a bit much for those not familiar with (a) the history of the ancient Church, or (b) Scripture. With that said, I was very impressed with the way in which Williams outlined, explained and provided the historical as well as philosophical underpinnings of the controversey. To broadly summarize, the controversy was about the nature of Jesus: One group fo early Christians held that his is nature divine; Arius (and others, primarily from Alexandria and North Africa) believed that only God was divine, and that therefore Jesus' nature was human, and there was a time when Jesus (since he is human) did not exist. The controversey was ultimately resolved through the Council of Nicea (hence the "Nicene Creed" Christians recite during their services), and Arius was proclaimed a heretic. The greatest challenge I had was following the historical background to the controversey - I simply didn't have the historical fluency to follow the divisions and politicing with Christendom at the time. Once Williams began to explain the controversy in detail, however, things began to fall into place, and (with some looking up of specific passages of Scripture) I was able to understand the basis of Arius' position. I recommend the book, but with some reservations - Williams, apparently is writing for fellow theologians or historians of the early Church. For this audience, I highly recommend it. For the general historian (such as myself), it certainly provided much useful insight and detail into a critical matter of theological interpretation - in which case I do recommend. For the lay reader, however, it may be a bit "technical."

Arianism is historically regarded the "archetypal heresy" in the Christian tradition. Arius, a theologian and priest of Alexandria denied the full deity and the eternal existence of the Son of God . He taught that the Son, while being divine does not share the same substance (homoousios) with God the Father. Thus, the Word or Son was created by the Father as the agent through whom he created the universe. Arius said of the Son, "There was (a time) when He was not." In Arius: Heresy & Tradition, Williams forcefully argued that Arius presented both a conservative theology and a conservative understanding of his presbyteral role vis-à-vis the bishop (233); contrary to what is traditionally portrayed of him. He insisted that Arius' hermeneutics aimed at developing a biblically-based and rationally consistent Christian theology (111). Arius was a committed theological conservative, stressed the author. Williams has done a great service to the scholarly community; by providing an alternate way to reevaluate our thoughts on Arius. Although, I do not embrace his view, but I feel that his arguments are compelling and well presented.

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

Now in a newly revised edition with an updated appendix, Arius: Heresy & Tradition by Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Wales) is a thoughtful, scholarly discussion of Arianism, which has been labeled "archetypal Christian heresy" because it denies the traditional views of Christ's divinity. This is a scholarly but highly accessible study of Arius himself, presenting him as a theological conservative who sought to unite the Bible's teachings with philosophical ideals outside the norm. A welcome and highly recommended contribution to religious studies shelves, Arius: Heresy & Tradition is also a fascinating review of the very definition of heresy.

This book is divided into two sections. The first section deals primarily with history. The second(which is by far the majority of the books contents) deals with various views of theology pertaining mostly to The Son and Logos' relation to the Father. This book is not one to point empty accusations at Arius, but on the contrary, it provides detailed views on his theological beliefs and also those of Clement and Origen(in a comparitive way). It does not present itself as a very biased work, but states different views (that dont always agree with one another) and compares them to Arius'. It states some views of Arius' accusers and some points of contraversy that they had with His beliefs. It kinda seems to lay out views and explore them. It seems much more like a theological read for the most part rather than a biography of Arius'. It seems very wordy(too much big vocab, especially in the history part)but I would say well worth the time needed to comprehend the points that are presented. It presents interjected Greek sentence fragments and words within the sentences for a clearer understanding of the texts being quoted. I would reccomend it for one who wants to study Arius. However, for a someone who is looking into Biblical exegesis, I (highly) suggest getting, "Restoring the Biblical Christ: Is Jesus God?" It is to the point and very conclusive.