To share your reaction on this item, open the Amazon app from the App Store or Google Play on your phone.
$62.59
FREE delivery 3 - 4 February
Or fastest delivery Monday, 3 February
Available to ship in 1-2 days
$$62.59 () Includes selected options. Includes initial monthly payment and selected options. Details
Price
Subtotal
$$62.59
Subtotal
Initial payment breakdown
Delivery cost, delivery date and order total (including tax) shown at checkout.
Ships from
Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Ships from
Amazon AU
Sold by
Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Sold by
Amazon AU
Returns
Eligible for change of mind returns within 30 days of receipt
Eligible for change of mind returns within 30 days of receipt
This item can be returned in its original condition within 30 days of receipt for change of mind. If this item is damaged or defective, you may be entitled to a remedy after 30 days. Visit Returning Faulty Items for more information.
Payment
Secure transaction
Your transaction is secure
We work hard to protect your security and privacy. Our payment security system encrypts your information during transmission. We don’t share your credit card details with third-party sellers, and we don’t sell your information to others. Learn more
Kindle app logo image

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet or computer—no Kindle device required.

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera, scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

QR code to download the Kindle App

Follow the author

Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.

Arius: Heresy and Tradition Paperback – 1 January 2002

4.7 4.7 out of 5 stars 26 ratings

{"desktop_buybox_group_1":[{"displayPrice":"$62.59","priceAmount":62.59,"currencySymbol":"$","integerValue":"62","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"59","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"VAvamhCPGH6769EcoeWSOSoRrKbhs3bdGhrs5Y0foat94unL0X%2FeA9rBypyZedhwWDIOz9Ge5%2BUsjdsXmOYWfB%2Ba%2FgNxiYLKfOIRFFzVigJEOnJkVw4HvsgSOH64%2FuvEv1f%2BLODefisdrZtTrr2o5TySBSloEf%2FW","locale":"en-AU","buyingOptionType":"NEW","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":0}]}

Purchase options and add-ons

Arius is widely considered to be Rowan Williams's magnum opus. Long out of print and never before available in paperback, it has been newly revised. This expanded and updated edition marks a major publishing event. Arianism has been called the "archetypal Christian heresy" because it denies the divinity of Christ. In his masterly examination of Arianism, Rowan Williams argues that Arius himself was actually a dedicated theological conservative whose concern was to defend the free and personal character of the Christian God. His "heresy" grew out of an attempt to unite traditional biblical language with radical philosophical ideas and techniques and was, from the start, involved with issues of authority in the church. Thus, the crisis of the early fourth century was not only about the doctrine of God but also about the relations between emperors, bishops, and "charismatic" teachers in the church's decision-making. In the course of his discussion, Williams raises the vital wider questions of how heresy is defined and how certain kinds of traditionalism transform themselves into heresy. Augmented with a new appendix in which Williams interacts with significant scholarship since 1987, this book provides fascinating reading for anyone interested in church history and the development of Christian doctrine.

Frequently bought together

This item: Arius: Heresy and Tradition
$62.59
Get it as soon as Monday, February 3
Available to ship in 1-2 days
Ships from and sold by Amazon AU.
+
$57.50
In stock
Ships from and sold by Amazon AU.
+
$50.15
In stock
Ships from and sold by Amazon AU.
Total Price: $00
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Details
Added to Cart
spCSRF_Treatment
Some of these items dispatch sooner than the others.
Choose items to buy together.

Product description

About the Author

Rowan Williams served as the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury from 2002 to 2012 and is now Master of Magdalene College, University of Cambridge. A Fellow of the British Academy and an internationally recognized theologian, he was previously Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, Bishop of Monmouth, and Archbishop of Wales.

Product details

  • Publisher ‏ : ‎ Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Revised edition (1 January 2002)
  • Language ‏ : ‎ English
  • Paperback ‏ : ‎ 396 pages
  • ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0802849695
  • ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0802849694
  • Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 15.24 x 2.49 x 22.86 cm
  • Customer Reviews:
    4.7 4.7 out of 5 stars 26 ratings

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Rowan Williams
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Rowan Douglas Williams was born in Swansea, south Wales on 14 June 1950, into a Welsh-speaking family, and was educated at Dynevor School in Swansea and Christ's College Cambridge where he studied theology. He studied for his doctorate - in the theology of Vladimir Lossky, a leading figure in Russian twentieth-century religious thought - at Wadham College Oxford, taking his DPhil in 1975. After two years as a lecturer at the College of the Resurrection, near Leeds, he was ordained deacon in Ely Cathedral before returning to Cambridge.

From 1977, he spent nine years in academic and parish work in Cambridge: first at Westcott House, being ordained priest in 1978, and from 1980 as curate at St George's, Chesterton. In 1983 he was appointed as a lecturer in Divinity in the university, and the following year became dean and chaplain of Clare College. 1986 saw a return to Oxford now as Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church; he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Divinity in 1989, and became a fellow of the British Academy in 1990. He is also an accomplished poet and translator.

In 1991 Professor Williams accepted election and consecration as bishop of Monmouth, a diocese on the Welsh borders, and in 1999 on the retirement of Archbishop Alwyn Rice Jones he was elected Archbishop of Wales, one of the 38 primates of the Anglican Communion. Thus it was that, in July 2002, with eleven years experience as a diocesan bishop and three as a leading primate in the Communion, Archbishop Williams was confirmed on 2 December 2002 as the 104th bishop of the See of Canterbury: the first Welsh successor to St Augustine of Canterbury and the first since the mid-thirteenth century to be appointed from beyond the English Church.

Dr Williams is acknowledged internationally as an outstanding theological writer, scholar and teacher. He has been involved in many theological, ecumenical and educational commissions. He has written extensively across a very wide range of related fields of professional study - philosophy, theology (especially early and patristic Christianity), spirituality and religious aesthetics - as evidenced by his bibliography. He has also written throughout his career on moral, ethical and social topics and, since becoming archbishop, has turned his attention increasingly on contemporary cultural and interfaith issues.

As Archbishop of Canterbury his principal responsibilities are however pastoral - leading the life and witness of the Church of England in general and his own diocese in particular by his teaching and oversight, and promoting and guiding the communion of the world-wide Anglican Church by the globally recognized ministry of unity that attaches to the office of bishop of the see of Canterbury.

His interests include music, fiction and languages.

In 1981 Dr Williams married Jane Paul, a lecturer in theology, whom he met while living and working in Cambridge. They have a daughter and a son.

Customer reviews

4.7 out of 5 stars
26 global ratings

Review this product

Share your thoughts with other customers

Top reviews from Australia

  • Reviewed in Australia on 2 June 2020
    Arius: Heresy and Tradition was ground-breaking when it was first released in 1987. Since its publication, the topic of Arius and 4th century Christian theology has received considerable attention. The 2nd edition of Arius (2001) is not a thorough revision; in addition to a new preface, two appendices are added, including a helpful survey of advances in scholarship on Arius and response to criticisms William's book received. The 2nd appendix presents the texts of several important creedal documents from the 2nd century. The book itself is difficult, not easy in style, documentation (giving quotes in several languages), nor argument.
    In Arius, Rowan Williams seeks to look beyond the portrait of Arius and Arianism presented by the pro-Nicene parties, particularly Athanasius. Williams situates Arius and the documents we have that testify to his life and teaching within the events of the 4th century and the philosophical milieu of that time. As John Behr writes, "the great merit of William's work is that it examines the profile of Arius himself, rather than attempting to discern the essence of 'Arianism'" (The Nicene Faith Part 1, 134). The portrait that emerges is that of a "conservative" presbyter using the tools of contemporary philosophy to elucidate the contours of the Father-Son Trinitarian relationship as received from his theological predecessors. In the 1st appendix, Williams acknowledges that by limiting himself to theological and philosophical influences discernable in Arius' surviving writings and those concerning him, he neglects the possible influence of liturgy and popular piety. The historical reconstruction of the events of the Arian controversy and timeline are convincing and have had some staying power in the scholarship up-to and beyond the 2nd edition. However, the philosophical and theological reconstructions of Arius' thought remain, on William's own admission, speculative. Williams' interpretation of Arius's philosophical heritage has been particularly criticized, as Williams notes in the 1st appendix. In addition to the history of events, another lasting contribution of this volume is its contribution towards dismantling the idea of a concrete school of thought in the 4th century that could be called "Arianism." Arius shared similar concerns with other anti-Nicene parities but did not gain a theological following. Williams also argues against the reading that pits Arius as an Antiochene literalist and rigorous logician over-against the more spiritually-minded Alexandrians and the position that sees Arius as a simplistic heir of Origen's thought. Instead, Arius bears continuity with the thought of Origen and other significant scholars of the 3rd century but is not the heir of any one person. Williams argues that Arius, like Origen, exemplifies an "academic" or school-based approach to Christian authority, that attributes authority in spiritual accredited, charismatic teachers, over against the Catholic approach embodied in Nicaea, which places authority in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
    Williams label "conservative" for Arius will appear novel to anyone who has earned that badge in contemporary times; Arius is "conservative" because of his continuity with received tradition. He is not attempting, Williams argues, to present a novel interpretation of Christ but to think through the implications of received theology with the tools available to him, including the Philosophical advances of Neo-Platonism. In this regard, Arius eschews any substantial identity between the Logos and God but sees the former as a product of God's creative will. The Logos cannot know God fully as He is in Himself but knows Him in part and is able to function as a mediator of that knowledge to the rest of creation. Williams emphasizes the apophatic, or "negative," theology characterizing Arius approach, an approach for which he has sympathies and which he identifies throughout the theology of the 4th century (cf. his essay "The Nicene Heritage," in The Christian Understanding of God Today). Williams sees a foreshadow of the firmly Nicene theology of the Cappadocians in Arius's theological balance of God revealed through Christ yet unknowable in himself. In reflection on his study of Arius, Williams sees Arius as an important contributor to the emergence of Nicene Orthodoxy. Nicaea and Arius both involve conceptual innovation on the tradition they received, in Scripture and the fathers before them, so the debate is ultimately about "what kind of innovation would best serve the integrity of the faith handed down" (235). In this way, by seeing the debate as one over theological explanation and innovation on a tradition that itself does not contain the answers to its own questions, Williams rejects a normative orthodoxy functioning before the emergence of what would become orthodoxy. The Nicene vs. Anti-Nicene controversy is not waged against a norm of orthodoxy but is a battle over what ought to constitute orthodoxy. This expansion upon tradition, its ideas and liturgy, is something Nicaea and its aftermath showed the Church to be necessary (236). It is that task of "making difficult" what is received, acknowledging that "what the gospel says in Scripture and tradition does not instantly and effortlessly make sense" (236) The challenge presented by Arius and the Nicene party is to be conservative and innovative, placing oneself in continuity with the tradition received and yet expanding upon and resolving—"making difficult"—its tensions and ambiguities.
    Though the argument of the book itself has merit and will benefit the student wrestling through 4th-century theology and beyond, the reflections Williams offers upon this controversy and the nature of theology itself are untenable and destructive. As our faith, practices, and beliefs are challenged, there is a need for innovation and creativity in theology. However, this innovation is not crafting something new out of the resources received in tradition or ex nihilo from our own reason. Instead, it is an act of engaging with the authoritative Word of God, to learn what God would have us believe and do. That is, we are not without normative authority in this World; God has provided us with His interpretation of human history, the created, order, and His own nature. In the process, we will make genuine applications, saying new things with the Word, but what is new will always be grounded firmly in the words and canonical context of the Biblical text. (I expand upon this "newness" in my books The Gift of Reading – Part 1 & Part 2, where I argue that the Bible has meaning potential, the potential to say new things in new contexts but always constrained by the normative context of the Biblical text in its canonical context.) We may also go farther than what is said or implied in the Word by coordinating the truth of God's Word with natural revelation, yet such exploration will be tentative and open to revision. So, exploration maybe intellectually rewarding but is not a necessary component of robust Biblical faith, a faith sufficient to address the questions and challenges of the daily Christian life. For this faith, God has breathed out a word useful "so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:17).
    If the Bible is, as it claims, a normative authority for the whole Christian life—and for interpreting and living in God's whole creation—then we can read Arius and the ensuing controversies as a cautionary tale of being "conservative," in William's sense, without being firmly committed to the sufficiency and functional authority of Scripture. Arius, Williams contends, is an exegete of Scripture, as is Athanasius and the Nicene fathers; yet in his formulae, he goes far beyond anything said or implied in Scripture. I would contend that it is because William's Arius is willing to expand upon the Biblical doctrine of God with philosophical tools that are themselves alien to the Bible that he ends up in trouble. What is missing is a recognition that Greek philosophy—any philosophy—is not a neutral tool that can be wielded effectively, however carefully, by the Christian theologian. Instead, philosophy, as practised by those who are not followers of Christ involves the attribution of God's character to the created order and the distortion of that character in the process. The god of the philosophers will never be the God of the Bible because knowing that God, they have deliberately suppressed the knowledge of Him and twisted it for their own unrighteous purposes (Rom 1:18ff). If our conservativism means riffing on received tradition, we indeed open ourselves to the dangers Arius encountered, for our traditions were formed in response to and interaction with specific ideas at specific times; they are insufficient to answer the different problems of our times and don't have the resources in themselves to resolve their own problems. We are forced to improvise and draw on more and more sources to expand that tradition. However, if we engage the Scriptures in light of the tradition, allowing our theological heritage to give us a lens for approaching Scripture and yet let the Bible criticize and answer both our tradition and the questions of our age, the normative authority of Scripture and its God-given sufficiency guarantee that such a spiral will give us the answers we need to love God and serve Him faithfully. These may not be the answers we expected or even hoped for, but they are sufficient for the present time. That should give us confidence in the theological endeavour, the endeavour to bring God's Word to bear our on beliefs and practices, and the humility that comes from knowing our traditions—past or present—are not perfect yet nevertheless help us to receive and respond to God's perfect provision. Indeed, they are indispensable for that end.

Top reviews from other countries

  • Jacob
    5.0 out of 5 stars Philosophically amazing
    Reviewed in the United States on 14 January 2014
    Verified Purchase
    Being faithful to church teachings does not mean merely chanting former slogans, but critically receiving the church’s witness and faithfully putting it into a new context in response to a new crisis. Rowan Williams has cogently suggested that we saw such a handling of philosophical issues in the Nicene crisis (Williams 2002). According to Williams’ reading, Arius conservatively employed a number of respected (if pagan) philosophical traditions which compromised the biblical narrative of the Son‟s being with the Father.

    Williams has a very interesting suggestion that there were two models of “communal theology” (my phrase) in Alexandria and Egypt around the time of Arius. There was the model of students gathering around a venerated teacher (Origen is a good example; Williams calls this the Academic model) and the rising church-centered episcopacy model. Williams places Arius in the former, and notes that part of Arius’ failure is that he tried to maintain the former model when both his friends and enemies had switched to the latter model.

    t is tempting to conclude since Athanasius was an Alexandrian, that Alexandrian theology was always pro-Nicene, and, conversely, that Antiochean theology is Arian. Williams provides a brilliant summary of Philo, Clement, and Origen to demonstrate that both Nicene and Arian conclusions were found in earlier Nicene models. We first see this iccn Philo. As Williams notes, “Philo is clearly concerned to deny that there is anything outside God that has a part in creation, and so it is necessary for him to insist upon the dependence of the world of ideas on God” (118). This leads us to the discussion of the Logos. Is the Logos God, part of God, Demiurge, or creature? Philo is surprisingly conservative on this (from our standpoint). He sees the Logos as the arche of existing things…”God himself turned towards what is not God” (119).

    Most importantly for our discussion of Origen is his treatment of the Son’s relationship to the transcendence of the Father. The Father is supremely transcendent because he has no “defining coordinates” (137). He is not a member of any class but above all classes. Origen actually makes several advances in noting that the Son participates in the Father’s glory and is more than simply an instrument connecting God and the world. However, Origen was still an Alexandrian: God-Father is completely unknowable and the source of all. The Logos is the source of the world of ideas. “God is simple and the Son is multiple” (139). To put it another way, “The Father is the arche of the Logos and the Logos is the arche of everything else” (142).

    Did Origen cause Arius? It’s hard to say. Arius certainly took key moves from Origen but not the whole package. Origen’s “Logos” is eternal. Arius’s is not. However, Origen left too many loose ends to prevent something like Arianism from happening.

    if Williams’ reading is even partially correct, Arius was working within a very respectable school of philosophy which had some legitimate and illegitimate Christian predecessors. This leads to Williams’ second conclusion: “Athanasius and the consistent Nicene actually accept Arius’s challenge, and agree with the need for conceptual innovation: for them the issue is whether new formulations can be found which do justice not only to the requirements of intellectual clarity but to the wholeness” of the church (235).
  • S. C. R.
    5.0 out of 5 stars Speaks to both scholars and laymen
    Reviewed in the United States on 11 June 2012
    Verified Purchase
    I came to Rowan Williams' book after first reading a novel titled Arius written by John Rather. I wanted to know more about how historians and theologians view the life of Arius and his influence on post-Nicene Christianity. Williams is certainly one of the most prominent scholars writing on the subject in recent decades.

    I appreciate Williams' ability to write a discourse on complex philosophical and historical issues and then summarize his principal arguments in a way that can be understood by an interested layman like me. I found it helpful to read the Conclusions to Parts I, II, and III, as well as the Conclusion to Appendix 1: Arius since 1987, first, before going back to read each part in its entirety.

    With my question about current perspectives on the role of Arius on post-Nicene Christianity in mind, I read the Conclusion to Appendix 1. In it Williams wrote: "[Maurice] Wiles' own demonstration that Arius' theology of the semi-divine mediator does not survive very well in a cosmology where there are fewer or no intermediate levels of life between this world and God is, in fact, a very suggestive observation. One long-term effect of the Nicene settlement was that it eventually made it impossible for orthodox Christianity to conceive God as an individual" (pp. 266-267). What Rather does in Arius, the novel, is use a fictional story to consider what the impact might be if some of the ideas Williams says were excluded following the Nicene Council--that there may be intermediate levels of life between this world and God, and that it's possible God is an individual--were to reemerge in the 21st century.
  • Jeffry Diamond
    5.0 out of 5 stars Thorough research / well written
    Reviewed in the United States on 2 January 2017
    Verified Purchase
    Rowan Williams gives an excellent account of one of the most significant events in the history of the Church, and the political influences that may have shaped the current divisions between the Orthodoxy (Eastern) and Roman (Western) thought.
  • Kurt Feaster
    4.0 out of 5 stars A difficult read, even more so as I have ...
    Reviewed in the United States on 17 November 2014
    Verified Purchase
    A difficult read, even more so as I have no Greek and very little Latin.

    The dynamics and politics of both the early Church and late Empire are interesting and somewhat illuminating.
  • Thomas Thornton
    5.0 out of 5 stars What a Mess the Church Was into Prior to 325 AD
    Reviewed in the United States on 6 September 2013
    Verified Purchase
    This is probably the best book I have ever read, but I must warn that it's not easy reading - you wouldn't want it to be..Written about 25 years ago and revised around 2000, this is the very best compendium of diverse thought to back up any conversation with a priest or preacher, showing how learned you really are. It is the magnum opus of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. How can a creature like Jesus come from the eternal God? Is He just a metaphor, a Prophet or what? Especially useful in conversations with Muslims and heretics of all stamps throughout the milleniums.