What do you think?
Rate this book
The Story of Christianity #2
The Story of Christianity: Volume 2: The Reformation to the Present Day
“This crisp retelling of Christian history from the days of the apostles to the eve of the Reformation is filled with insight.” —Mark A. Noll, Wheaton College From Justo L. Gonzalez, author of the acclaimed three-volume History of Christian Thought , comes the fully revised and updated second volume of The Story of Christianity . Gonzalez’s astute scholarship, lucid prose, and impassioned focus tell the narrative history of Christianity, beginning with the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century and leading all the way up to present day.
414 pages, Paperback
First published January 15, 1985
742 people are currently reading
2586 people want to read
About the author
Justo L. González
154 books188 followersJusto L. González, author of the highly praised three-volume History of Christian Thought and other major works, attended United Seminary in Cuba, received his MA at Yale, and was the youngest person to be awarded a PhD in historical theology at Yale. He is one of the few first generation Latino theologians to come from a Protestant background. He helped to found the Association for Hispanic Theological Education and the Hispanic Theological Initiative. Dr González is now on the faculty of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 247 reviews
August 1, 2012
I know Tim Prussic loves these two volumes unabashedly, but I have some reservations. Once González gets going on European political machinations, its hard to make him stop and its hard to be interested. However, he is a very good story teller, so when he concentrates on individuals, it is gold. Also, his neo-orthodoxy is painfully obvious at time. I don't mind people having a point of view, I just wish he would be more up-front about it. Also, it would be better if he were a Calvinist! :-)
If I were teaching a history class, I would use these works as reference, and get other material to be the core of the class. There are numerous times were González repeats himself, so this appears to be better suited for dipping, not reading straight through. I can recommend it for your reference shelf, however, whole-heartedly.
If I were teaching a history class, I would use these works as reference, and get other material to be the core of the class. There are numerous times were González repeats himself, so this appears to be better suited for dipping, not reading straight through. I can recommend it for your reference shelf, however, whole-heartedly.
January 24, 2016
Another excellent survey of Christian history from the Reformation up to the early 21st century. As in his previous volume, Gonzalez is attentive to those voices who have been unrepresented in the Christian narrative, especially women and the Third World. Gonzalez paints a more positive picture of individuals who have often been besmirched but sometimes I suspect Gonzalez goes too far in defending some of these figures. For instance, according to the author, "Roman Catholic Rosemary R. Reuther [sic] - proposed what were essentially orthodox corrections to traditional male theology" (p. 487). Without providing further elaboration, this statement comes across as too generalized and sweeping (the pitfalls of a historical survey); while perhaps SOME of Ruether's thought is acceptable, some of her notable views would be considered heterodox by classic Christianity.
October 15, 2024
This second volume continues with González's fantastic storytelling and sloppy theological summaries. He really shows his true colors near the end when he covers the ecumenical movement and liberation theology. But to his credit, he does not evaluate every era of church history through an economic or liberation grid, but rather he tells the story considering the discussions of their own day.
Near the end, his approach is so broad that I'm not sure we were covering Christian history anymore. Much attention was given to the backdrop of world history (chs. 27-29), the Eastern church (ch. 30), and Catholicism (chs. 32, 34). And the vein of Protestantism followed Schleirmacher, Kierkegaard, and Barth, while Spurgeon and Warfield did not even receive mentions.
Near the end, his approach is so broad that I'm not sure we were covering Christian history anymore. Much attention was given to the backdrop of world history (chs. 27-29), the Eastern church (ch. 30), and Catholicism (chs. 32, 34). And the vein of Protestantism followed Schleirmacher, Kierkegaard, and Barth, while Spurgeon and Warfield did not even receive mentions.
April 25, 2022
非常優秀的一本教史書。最後的結語讓我振奮，即使生活在人們普遍唱衰宗教的年代，作者對未來充滿盼望。作為教史專家，他深諳傳統中心的衰弱無需過分憂慮，畢竟中心的變遷對基督教而言完全是家常便飯。他看到了曾經“邊緣”地區所煥發出的無限生命力，也能預見歐美所將萌發的新的萌芽。
讀教史，兩條主線最教我感動，一條是自使徒、教父、聖師、教改家（Both 新教和公教）這些最為正統的神學家。他們直接塑造了我們的信仰，而這也是西方文明最重要的根基與內核（我不想否認希臘羅馬的傳統，但我堅決反對過分拔高他們）。另一條是近代沒那麼正統的基督教思想家們（同時他們也是偉大的哲學家、政治家、科學家），他們包括伊拉斯謨、笛卡爾、牛頓、休謨、康德、黑格爾云云。他們對神與其受造物的思考，塑造了每一個現代人大腦的思維方式。在當時的西方，最優渥的神學土壤養育了人類最璀璨的文明之花。異教徒就算對耶穌基督是人類救主的福音再不信任，他們也用自己的眼睛見證了沒有基督教就沒有新世界的奇跡。
讀教史，兩條主線最教我感動，一條是自使徒、教父、聖師、教改家（Both 新教和公教）這些最為正統的神學家。他們直接塑造了我們的信仰，而這也是西方文明最重要的根基與內核（我不想否認希臘羅馬的傳統，但我堅決反對過分拔高他們）。另一條是近代沒那麼正統的基督教思想家們（同時他們也是偉大的哲學家、政治家、科學家），他們包括伊拉斯謨、笛卡爾、牛頓、休謨、康德、黑格爾云云。他們對神與其受造物的思考，塑造了每一個現代人大腦的思維方式。在當時的西方，最優渥的神學土壤養育了人類最璀璨的文明之花。異教徒就算對耶穌基督是人類救主的福音再不信任，他們也用自己的眼睛見證了沒有基督教就沒有新世界的奇跡。
April 15, 2020
On the whole, a well-written, fast-paced, and popular-level survey of church history. The author is not always apparently self-conscious of his own bias, but it comes across clear enough to "weed through," in any case.
July 15, 2025
I really enjoy the style of writing. The author gives a great overview of international movements across the Christian faith. The audience sees the expansion of different doctrinal ideas and how culture influences the results. the socioeconomic and political state of the world ahaha, but it was very interesting to see how it impacted Christianity. The author covers a lot of stuff, which is good. Many things I assumed prior to consuming the book were incorrect, and I learned a lot.
Like the first book, I really enjoy how we hear about Christian movements, cultures, and faults of Christians all over the world. I do not know very much about other countries ngl. The faults are very important to mention as well in terms of colonization and imperialism, which I appreciated a lot as well.
The author was a student of Karl Barth and he discusses many Neo-orthodox theologians and their influence. You can tell the author is into them because a lot of other famous theologians in that time period aren't mentioned. However, it was fine and relevant to the topic.
Like the first book, I really enjoy how we hear about Christian movements, cultures, and faults of Christians all over the world. I do not know very much about other countries ngl. The faults are very important to mention as well in terms of colonization and imperialism, which I appreciated a lot as well.
The author was a student of Karl Barth and he discusses many Neo-orthodox theologians and their influence. You can tell the author is into them because a lot of other famous theologians in that time period aren't mentioned. However, it was fine and relevant to the topic.
October 9, 2019
Reading Justo González's monumental two volume work on Christian history is a bit like taking a cruise. You have many stops, but aren't there for long. It's a great work that I will use as a jumping off point for detailed studies of specific time periods, Church leaders and religious groups.
This work provides the history of Christianity using very broad brush strokes on a national and global scale. The author uses the backdrop of geopolitics and socioeconomic conditions to discuss Christianity's influence on humanity and how humanity has shaped the belief. This context wasn't immediately evident from the title or from the discussion of the early days of the Church. Hence I was a bit disappointed as the viewpoint of the story changed from what was happening in the development of the early Church to how Christianity was relating to the Roman Empire and future political entities. Once understood I really began to enjoy Mr. González's work.
I recommend this read for anyone interested in the history of the Church in relation to humanity's development over the ages.
This work provides the history of Christianity using very broad brush strokes on a national and global scale. The author uses the backdrop of geopolitics and socioeconomic conditions to discuss Christianity's influence on humanity and how humanity has shaped the belief. This context wasn't immediately evident from the title or from the discussion of the early days of the Church. Hence I was a bit disappointed as the viewpoint of the story changed from what was happening in the development of the early Church to how Christianity was relating to the Roman Empire and future political entities. Once understood I really began to enjoy Mr. González's work.
I recommend this read for anyone interested in the history of the Church in relation to humanity's development over the ages.
July 28, 2024
"As is usually the case, those who lived at the time did not fully comprehend the enormous consequences of the events they witnessed."
The second volume of Gonzalez's two part history of the Church was as well written, accessible, and informative as the first. While parts of it felt rushed do to the amount of material that needed to be covered, it is still a great overview of what the Church has been up to since the Reformation.
Recommended for those who aren't afraid of page count and want an easy to read introduction to the history of the church.
The second volume of Gonzalez's two part history of the Church was as well written, accessible, and informative as the first. While parts of it felt rushed do to the amount of material that needed to be covered, it is still a great overview of what the Church has been up to since the Reformation.
Recommended for those who aren't afraid of page count and want an easy to read introduction to the history of the church.
April 17, 2018
Just incredible and actually worthy of 5 Goodreads stars. Maybe the best academic book I have encountered at also being accessible/allowing for a quick-ish reading pace. I would highly recommend for anyone interested in church history or history in general- the last 180 pages covering 1900-2010 especially helps make sense of the global quagmire Christianity seems to be in today.
"Our understandings and expressions of Christianity--whatever they may be--are but part of a varied kaleidoscope that includes many lands and cultures, many traditions, many forms of worship, and many theological expressions."
"Our understandings and expressions of Christianity--whatever they may be--are but part of a varied kaleidoscope that includes many lands and cultures, many traditions, many forms of worship, and many theological expressions."
December 2, 2013
Gonzalez presents a forthright history of Christianity in a second volume of two on the history of Christianity. This specific volume spans from the Reformation up until present time. Although the material covered spans over such a long period of time, the author does a great job at organizing his sections into readable and understandable portions of history, and threads a very nice and even thread throughout this book. I would definitely recommend this book as an introductory to church history post-Reformation.
Brent McCulley
Brent McCulley
August 17, 2023
This is a very good overview of the modern Christian history.
February 1, 2021
Ch. 5: Zwingli: His was a parallel movement to that of Luther. Zwingli differed from Luther in that he insisted that all that had no explicit scriptural support must be rejected, whereas Luther was willing to retain traditions that did not contradict the Bible. He believed in predestination like Luther. Zwingli, however, was influenced by a Neoplatonic interpretation of Christianity, i.e. a tendency to "undervalue matter, and to contrast it with spiritual reality." (p. 64) Therefore Zwingli insisted on a simple form of worship. Also, Zwingli did not believe that a divine action occurred during the Eucharist; it was just a sign/symbol. Yet he did accept infant baptism. "But, if the efficacy of the sacrament is merely symbolic, why perform it on those who cannot perceive the symbol?" (p. 64) This would be a question asked by Anabaptists.
Ch. 6: The radical reformation. The Anabaptists rejected infant baptism because they felt the need for a personal decision first. They also felt the community of faith is responsible for disciplining its own members whose purity must be a witness to the gospel, a purity which cannot be enforced by the civil authorities. They also felt that pacifism was essential. The first congregation was founded in Zurich. Anabaptists were persecuted because they were considered subversive; their extreme pacifism threatened the social order, and their contrast between church and civil society implied that the power structures of civil society should not be adopted by the church. Thus it became a forerunner of the "modern spirit of religious tolerance" (state had no authority to determine religion of its subjects). There were "revolutionary anabaptists" who took up arms in Munster at one point as people awaited the imminent last Day of Judgement. Under Menno Simons, a later pacifist movement grew; they believed no Christian should take oaths, and also believed in footwashing. Also, baptism and communion are just symbols.
Ch. 7: Calvin; what distinguished Lutherans from Calvinists was beliefs about communion, not doctrine of predestination. Calvin affirmed that the presence of Christ in communion is real, although spiritual. So there is divine action in it- "in the act of communion, by the power of the Holy Spirit, believers are taken to heaven and share with Christ in a foretaste of the heavenly banquet." (85)
Ch. 12: Catholic Reformation: Isabella of Castile enacted church reforms well before the protestant reformation, but it focused on morals and customs, not doctrine, so "doctrinal deviation would be severely punished." (138) Once the protestant reformation began, the Spanish reformation started to focus on doctrine as well. There was also some monastic reform via St. Teresa and the Jesuits under the leadership of Ignatius Loyola. The Council of Trent called for many reforms: condemned pluralism, ordered the training of clergy (promoted the study of St. Thomas Aquinas), declared the Vulgate translation authoritative in matters of dogma and that tradition has authority parallel to that of Scripture, said there are 7 sacraments and that communion in both kinds (bread and wine) not necessary, ... Council of Trent marked the birth of the modern Catholic Church.
Ch. 13: Waldensians adopted main tenants of protestantism and therefore considered the oldest protestant church (some fled to and flourished in Uruguay and Argentina in the 1800s). In general Poland "followed a policy of greater religious tolerance than most of Europe," so Jews and "Christians of heterodox persuasions" sought refuge there. (159) Some of these refugees developed Unitarian doctrine which denies the Trinity. "But as the national identity of Poland developed in contradistinction and opposition to Russian Orthodox to the east, and the German Lutherans to their west, and as both Russia and Germany repeatedly sought to occupy Polish territory, that identity became increasingly Roman Catholic, so that by the twentieth century Poland was one of the most Catholic nations in Europe." (160)
Ch. 14: In the 16th c. "the conclusion was reached that religious agreement was not necessary for the security of the state, or that, although desirable, its price was too high." "This eventually led to the more modern idea of the lay state" (163) "The sixteenth century also witnessed the collapse of the ancient dream of political unity under the empire." (164) "The medieval foundations--the papacy, the empire, tradition--were no longer solid." "The ancient feudal system was making way for the early stages of capitalism." (165)
Ch. 15: Rationalism took hold of Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries -- it was felt that "natural reason, a faculty common to all human beings, can answer the fundamental question regarding God and human nature?" (174) Why not construct a "natural religion"?
Ch. 16: 30 Years' War: People still don't feel free to believe as they wish; there's persecution of people who don't agree with the local ruler's religion. So war breaks out on Bohemia where the Defenestration of Prague takes place (representatives of the Holy Roman Emperor) are thrown out the window (though they're not severely hurt). Then the Danish, Dutch, and English join together and intervene to protect protestants against the Catholic League, and later Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden intervenes to protect protestants and defeat the Catholic League and the Hapsburgs. Soon it becomes more a political war rather than a religious one as the Catholic Bourbons of France get involved to defeat the Catholic Hapsburgs. In the end: "The principles of tolerance of the Peace of Westphalia were not born out of a deeper understanding of Christian love, but rather out of a growing indifference to religion accompanied by the feeling, even among those of deep religious commitments, that such commitments should remain private, and not be carried into civil and political life." "Thus, the modern secular state began to develop." (184)
Ch. 17: Church of the Desert: In 1622 Cardinal Richelieu was King Louis XIII's most trusted advisor. His main goal was "the aggrandizement of the French crown and of his own personal power." (186). He wanted to "dissolve the Protestant cyst" which led to the siege of La Rochelle. Richelieu's forces won and the catholics took over. Once all fortified cities of Huguenots taken over, he issued an edict of toleration for Protestants which made them no longer a threat to the crown. Louis XIV then came to the throne and tried to stamp out Protestantism. In 1684 the army was used to force the "reunion" (conversion) of many Protesants. In 1685 the Edict of Fontainebleau made it illegal to be a protestant in France. This led to a mass exodus to N. America and elsewhere. This was a great economic loss to France because there were artisans and merchants included. Many inwardly remained protestant and worshiped continued to worship secretly in fields, woods, an d were called Christians of the desert. It developed a radical and visionary wing which led to an armed rebellion on the one hand, and the French Reformed Church on the other in the 1700s. Louis XVI finally decreed religious tolerance. "During those years of persecution and resistance, of horror and glory, the minds were shaped that would later espouse the ideals of the French Revolution." (191)
Ch. 18: The Puritan Revolution: The Baptists arose among independents. An early leader was John Smyth who felt Anglicanism has not reformed enough; he and his followers fled to Amsterdam. Later in England they formed the General Baptists (salvation available to all) and the particular Baptists (only predestined are saved). Anglican church was moderately Calvinist in theology, but retained all worship and governance that did not directly contradict its new theology. But English settlement difficult to maintain, and Puritans thought there was a movement to "Romanism." King James wanted an absolute monarchy and so strengthened the episcopacy to increase his own power. There was growing animosity between House of Commons (with puritans) and more conservative of the bishops. Under Charles I, this would lead to civil war between the king and nobility and parliament and their supporters, mainly lower classes and merchants. The puritan Oliver Cromwell came to the fore, organized strong cavalry, and raised a holy war. They won and Charles was beheaded. Cromwell became Lord Protector and began to reform church and state. He wanted to create a republic but failed. Then Charles II was recalled. His brother, James II, succeeded. English rebelled and invited William and his wife Mary, James's daughter to the throne. They were tolerant. In Scotland Presbyterianism because the official religion and the Westminster Confession its doctrinal norm. John Bunyan and John Milton were also puritans.
Ch. 19: Council of Trent determined catholic orthodoxy for next 4 centuries, but this had opponents within its ranks, because it centralized power in pope...also neglected Augustine's doctrine of the primacy of grace in human salvation. This gave rise to Gallicanism, Febronianism, and Josephism. This weakened the catholic church and mire it difficult to respond to challenge of French Revolution.
Ch. 21: During the 17th century, the reformed church determined its orthodoxy via two assemblies which are seen as the most faithful expression of Calvinism: the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly. The Dutchman, Arminius, believed predestination meant that God knew who would choose to follow Christ. His party issued a Remonstrance which contains 5 articles that dealt with issues under debate. The synod of Dort met to counter this. It lays out the TULIP doctrines of Calvinism. The Westminster Confession was laid out at Westminster Abbey around the time of the English civil war and is much more detailed but also defines orthodox Calvinist doctrine.
Ch. 22: Rationalist option. Reached apex in 17th, 18th centuries. Descartes, empiricism, deism, Hume, Kant. Descartes only accepted what was an undeniable axiom or has been rationally proven. He found undeniable truth in his own existence. This was his starting point. He also tried to prove existence of God: an idea of a more perfect being must have been placed there by God. He then went on to prove existence of world and body. What is relationship between spirit and matter?: occasionalism (only communicate by divine intervention), monism (thought and physical extension are one substance), preestablished harmony (act in seeming interdependence). Empiricism: Locke: all knowledge derived from experience. Deism: true religion must be universal, natural to all mankind, based on natural instincts of all men: existence of God, obligation to worship God, ethical requirements of such worship, need for repentance, reward and punishment in this life and in one to follow. Hume: empiricist, scope of true knowledge much more limited than the rationalists claimed, some simply the result of irrational mental habits. Rousseau taught tolerance, but didn't like the optimistic rationalism then in vogue; wanted to safeguard human rights; monarchies intended for the benefit of the subjects -- one of forerunners of French revolution. Montesquieu sought to apply the principles of reason to the theory of government; he favored republics (since despotism based on terror and monarchy on honor), and since power corrupts, that the powers should balance and limit each other with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Rousseau insisted on return to natural religion. For Kant, there was no such thing as innate ideas, but there are fundamental structures of the mind, "and within these structures we must place whatever data the senses provide us." (246)
Ch. 23: The Spiritualist Option: endless debates on dogma and intolerance of Christians led many to seek refuge in a purely spiritual religion in 17th and 18th centuries. Boehme exalted the freedom of the spirit. George Fox founded the quakers and believed in an "inner light", "a seed that exists in all human beings, and is the true way we must follower in order to find God." (252); it's "the capability we all have to recognize and accept the presence of God." (252) Swedenborg: all that exists is a reflection of the attributes of God.
Ch. 6: The radical reformation. The Anabaptists rejected infant baptism because they felt the need for a personal decision first. They also felt the community of faith is responsible for disciplining its own members whose purity must be a witness to the gospel, a purity which cannot be enforced by the civil authorities. They also felt that pacifism was essential. The first congregation was founded in Zurich. Anabaptists were persecuted because they were considered subversive; their extreme pacifism threatened the social order, and their contrast between church and civil society implied that the power structures of civil society should not be adopted by the church. Thus it became a forerunner of the "modern spirit of religious tolerance" (state had no authority to determine religion of its subjects). There were "revolutionary anabaptists" who took up arms in Munster at one point as people awaited the imminent last Day of Judgement. Under Menno Simons, a later pacifist movement grew; they believed no Christian should take oaths, and also believed in footwashing. Also, baptism and communion are just symbols.
Ch. 7: Calvin; what distinguished Lutherans from Calvinists was beliefs about communion, not doctrine of predestination. Calvin affirmed that the presence of Christ in communion is real, although spiritual. So there is divine action in it- "in the act of communion, by the power of the Holy Spirit, believers are taken to heaven and share with Christ in a foretaste of the heavenly banquet." (85)
Ch. 12: Catholic Reformation: Isabella of Castile enacted church reforms well before the protestant reformation, but it focused on morals and customs, not doctrine, so "doctrinal deviation would be severely punished." (138) Once the protestant reformation began, the Spanish reformation started to focus on doctrine as well. There was also some monastic reform via St. Teresa and the Jesuits under the leadership of Ignatius Loyola. The Council of Trent called for many reforms: condemned pluralism, ordered the training of clergy (promoted the study of St. Thomas Aquinas), declared the Vulgate translation authoritative in matters of dogma and that tradition has authority parallel to that of Scripture, said there are 7 sacraments and that communion in both kinds (bread and wine) not necessary, ... Council of Trent marked the birth of the modern Catholic Church.
Ch. 13: Waldensians adopted main tenants of protestantism and therefore considered the oldest protestant church (some fled to and flourished in Uruguay and Argentina in the 1800s). In general Poland "followed a policy of greater religious tolerance than most of Europe," so Jews and "Christians of heterodox persuasions" sought refuge there. (159) Some of these refugees developed Unitarian doctrine which denies the Trinity. "But as the national identity of Poland developed in contradistinction and opposition to Russian Orthodox to the east, and the German Lutherans to their west, and as both Russia and Germany repeatedly sought to occupy Polish territory, that identity became increasingly Roman Catholic, so that by the twentieth century Poland was one of the most Catholic nations in Europe." (160)
Ch. 14: In the 16th c. "the conclusion was reached that religious agreement was not necessary for the security of the state, or that, although desirable, its price was too high." "This eventually led to the more modern idea of the lay state" (163) "The sixteenth century also witnessed the collapse of the ancient dream of political unity under the empire." (164) "The medieval foundations--the papacy, the empire, tradition--were no longer solid." "The ancient feudal system was making way for the early stages of capitalism." (165)
Ch. 15: Rationalism took hold of Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries -- it was felt that "natural reason, a faculty common to all human beings, can answer the fundamental question regarding God and human nature?" (174) Why not construct a "natural religion"?
Ch. 16: 30 Years' War: People still don't feel free to believe as they wish; there's persecution of people who don't agree with the local ruler's religion. So war breaks out on Bohemia where the Defenestration of Prague takes place (representatives of the Holy Roman Emperor) are thrown out the window (though they're not severely hurt). Then the Danish, Dutch, and English join together and intervene to protect protestants against the Catholic League, and later Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden intervenes to protect protestants and defeat the Catholic League and the Hapsburgs. Soon it becomes more a political war rather than a religious one as the Catholic Bourbons of France get involved to defeat the Catholic Hapsburgs. In the end: "The principles of tolerance of the Peace of Westphalia were not born out of a deeper understanding of Christian love, but rather out of a growing indifference to religion accompanied by the feeling, even among those of deep religious commitments, that such commitments should remain private, and not be carried into civil and political life." "Thus, the modern secular state began to develop." (184)
Ch. 17: Church of the Desert: In 1622 Cardinal Richelieu was King Louis XIII's most trusted advisor. His main goal was "the aggrandizement of the French crown and of his own personal power." (186). He wanted to "dissolve the Protestant cyst" which led to the siege of La Rochelle. Richelieu's forces won and the catholics took over. Once all fortified cities of Huguenots taken over, he issued an edict of toleration for Protestants which made them no longer a threat to the crown. Louis XIV then came to the throne and tried to stamp out Protestantism. In 1684 the army was used to force the "reunion" (conversion) of many Protesants. In 1685 the Edict of Fontainebleau made it illegal to be a protestant in France. This led to a mass exodus to N. America and elsewhere. This was a great economic loss to France because there were artisans and merchants included. Many inwardly remained protestant and worshiped continued to worship secretly in fields, woods, an d were called Christians of the desert. It developed a radical and visionary wing which led to an armed rebellion on the one hand, and the French Reformed Church on the other in the 1700s. Louis XVI finally decreed religious tolerance. "During those years of persecution and resistance, of horror and glory, the minds were shaped that would later espouse the ideals of the French Revolution." (191)
Ch. 18: The Puritan Revolution: The Baptists arose among independents. An early leader was John Smyth who felt Anglicanism has not reformed enough; he and his followers fled to Amsterdam. Later in England they formed the General Baptists (salvation available to all) and the particular Baptists (only predestined are saved). Anglican church was moderately Calvinist in theology, but retained all worship and governance that did not directly contradict its new theology. But English settlement difficult to maintain, and Puritans thought there was a movement to "Romanism." King James wanted an absolute monarchy and so strengthened the episcopacy to increase his own power. There was growing animosity between House of Commons (with puritans) and more conservative of the bishops. Under Charles I, this would lead to civil war between the king and nobility and parliament and their supporters, mainly lower classes and merchants. The puritan Oliver Cromwell came to the fore, organized strong cavalry, and raised a holy war. They won and Charles was beheaded. Cromwell became Lord Protector and began to reform church and state. He wanted to create a republic but failed. Then Charles II was recalled. His brother, James II, succeeded. English rebelled and invited William and his wife Mary, James's daughter to the throne. They were tolerant. In Scotland Presbyterianism because the official religion and the Westminster Confession its doctrinal norm. John Bunyan and John Milton were also puritans.
Ch. 19: Council of Trent determined catholic orthodoxy for next 4 centuries, but this had opponents within its ranks, because it centralized power in pope...also neglected Augustine's doctrine of the primacy of grace in human salvation. This gave rise to Gallicanism, Febronianism, and Josephism. This weakened the catholic church and mire it difficult to respond to challenge of French Revolution.
Ch. 21: During the 17th century, the reformed church determined its orthodoxy via two assemblies which are seen as the most faithful expression of Calvinism: the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly. The Dutchman, Arminius, believed predestination meant that God knew who would choose to follow Christ. His party issued a Remonstrance which contains 5 articles that dealt with issues under debate. The synod of Dort met to counter this. It lays out the TULIP doctrines of Calvinism. The Westminster Confession was laid out at Westminster Abbey around the time of the English civil war and is much more detailed but also defines orthodox Calvinist doctrine.
Ch. 22: Rationalist option. Reached apex in 17th, 18th centuries. Descartes, empiricism, deism, Hume, Kant. Descartes only accepted what was an undeniable axiom or has been rationally proven. He found undeniable truth in his own existence. This was his starting point. He also tried to prove existence of God: an idea of a more perfect being must have been placed there by God. He then went on to prove existence of world and body. What is relationship between spirit and matter?: occasionalism (only communicate by divine intervention), monism (thought and physical extension are one substance), preestablished harmony (act in seeming interdependence). Empiricism: Locke: all knowledge derived from experience. Deism: true religion must be universal, natural to all mankind, based on natural instincts of all men: existence of God, obligation to worship God, ethical requirements of such worship, need for repentance, reward and punishment in this life and in one to follow. Hume: empiricist, scope of true knowledge much more limited than the rationalists claimed, some simply the result of irrational mental habits. Rousseau taught tolerance, but didn't like the optimistic rationalism then in vogue; wanted to safeguard human rights; monarchies intended for the benefit of the subjects -- one of forerunners of French revolution. Montesquieu sought to apply the principles of reason to the theory of government; he favored republics (since despotism based on terror and monarchy on honor), and since power corrupts, that the powers should balance and limit each other with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Rousseau insisted on return to natural religion. For Kant, there was no such thing as innate ideas, but there are fundamental structures of the mind, "and within these structures we must place whatever data the senses provide us." (246)
Ch. 23: The Spiritualist Option: endless debates on dogma and intolerance of Christians led many to seek refuge in a purely spiritual religion in 17th and 18th centuries. Boehme exalted the freedom of the spirit. George Fox founded the quakers and believed in an "inner light", "a seed that exists in all human beings, and is the true way we must follower in order to find God." (252); it's "the capability we all have to recognize and accept the presence of God." (252) Swedenborg: all that exists is a reflection of the attributes of God.
August 29, 2020
This book is not only excellent in terms of content, but also in its structure. Telling such a mammoth history in only 500 pages is not an easy task. Even though author Gonzalez does divide his history over two volumes, one walks away wishing that this was a 10 or a 20 volume set as opposed to only 2. There’s simply too much, but it’s all captivating reading. I read volume 1 about three years ago, and I wisely re-read it before tackling this one. This was a smart move as it refreshed my brain of many of the details. So, yes, I recommend reading these two volumes back to back.
Volume 1 was slightly easier to follow since during the time period, there was only one Christian church. The Protestant Reformation changed all of that, and volume 2 picks up as the reformation gathers steam. So with so many more Christian religions in so many more corners of the globe, the author has to keep several juggling balls up in the air to tell an engaging story.
What this means is that this book is not linear. It simply can’t be. There’s too many movements, too many countries, too many world events that are all happening at once. When the author is detailing a particular movement, quite often the movement lasts well over 100 years and is specific to only one or two geographical areas of the world. So when he introduces the NEXT main movement of the Christian church, often times we have to go to another part of the world and set the clock back a century or so. This can get confusing. Like all history books, this book almost needs to be studied in addition to simply being read. I’ve made a mental note that the next time I read these two volumes (and there WILL be a next time), I’ll go much slower and take detailed notes. There’s too many emperors, popes, kings and countries to keep track. It doesn’t help when there are so many roman numerals after names such as Innocent, Leo, Benedict, Louis, and Pius. So we’ll read about Leo VII on one page, and on the very next page we move forward 50 years ago and are now reading about Leo IX or Leo X. Then, two or three CHAPTERS later, we go back to Leo VII or Leo VIII for proper context. (This is a hypothetical example. I have no idea nor recollection of all of the actual “Leos”.) The author does include “charts” that are somewhat helpful, but I read the e-versions of these books, and such charts are too hard to navigate to and fro.
Please note I’m not complaining. Author Gonzalez does a splendid job keeping his narrative as straight as possible with all of the time travel and geographical switching; it’s just that such things can never assimilate in one’s brain unless a journal for note taking is handy. He does do a wonderful job reminding his readers of this fact as he states things such as “We’ll revisit this fact in more detail in an upcoming chapter”, or “…as we learned about in detail in Chapter xx…”.
I also enjoyed the fact that the author is neutral towards his subject. A Christian himself, Gonzalez doesn’t whitewash the history of the faith. When we read about the ‘leaders’ of the Protestant Reformation such as Luther, Hus, and Wycliffe, he doesn’t brand them as misfits for questioning the mother church. Instead, he clearly communicates their motives and we see how practices such as simony and indulgences were badly abused, and these men simply couldn’t abide such a perversion of the faith. Of course, when Protestantism becomes mainstream, what we witness over several hundred years is a far cry from unity and brotherly love amongst the different denominations. Still, though, the overall theme of the book is one of hope. He concludes by stating that whereas Christianity has been in a slow decline in spots such as Europe and North America over the past century, the world is seeing a massive uptick of the faithful in places such as Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
I highly recommend this wonderful book along with its predecessor. I’m really serious, though, when I suggest that you should read this thing slowly; maybe one or two chapters a week along with a notebook. This really is a fascinating story.
Volume 1 was slightly easier to follow since during the time period, there was only one Christian church. The Protestant Reformation changed all of that, and volume 2 picks up as the reformation gathers steam. So with so many more Christian religions in so many more corners of the globe, the author has to keep several juggling balls up in the air to tell an engaging story.
What this means is that this book is not linear. It simply can’t be. There’s too many movements, too many countries, too many world events that are all happening at once. When the author is detailing a particular movement, quite often the movement lasts well over 100 years and is specific to only one or two geographical areas of the world. So when he introduces the NEXT main movement of the Christian church, often times we have to go to another part of the world and set the clock back a century or so. This can get confusing. Like all history books, this book almost needs to be studied in addition to simply being read. I’ve made a mental note that the next time I read these two volumes (and there WILL be a next time), I’ll go much slower and take detailed notes. There’s too many emperors, popes, kings and countries to keep track. It doesn’t help when there are so many roman numerals after names such as Innocent, Leo, Benedict, Louis, and Pius. So we’ll read about Leo VII on one page, and on the very next page we move forward 50 years ago and are now reading about Leo IX or Leo X. Then, two or three CHAPTERS later, we go back to Leo VII or Leo VIII for proper context. (This is a hypothetical example. I have no idea nor recollection of all of the actual “Leos”.) The author does include “charts” that are somewhat helpful, but I read the e-versions of these books, and such charts are too hard to navigate to and fro.
Please note I’m not complaining. Author Gonzalez does a splendid job keeping his narrative as straight as possible with all of the time travel and geographical switching; it’s just that such things can never assimilate in one’s brain unless a journal for note taking is handy. He does do a wonderful job reminding his readers of this fact as he states things such as “We’ll revisit this fact in more detail in an upcoming chapter”, or “…as we learned about in detail in Chapter xx…”.
I also enjoyed the fact that the author is neutral towards his subject. A Christian himself, Gonzalez doesn’t whitewash the history of the faith. When we read about the ‘leaders’ of the Protestant Reformation such as Luther, Hus, and Wycliffe, he doesn’t brand them as misfits for questioning the mother church. Instead, he clearly communicates their motives and we see how practices such as simony and indulgences were badly abused, and these men simply couldn’t abide such a perversion of the faith. Of course, when Protestantism becomes mainstream, what we witness over several hundred years is a far cry from unity and brotherly love amongst the different denominations. Still, though, the overall theme of the book is one of hope. He concludes by stating that whereas Christianity has been in a slow decline in spots such as Europe and North America over the past century, the world is seeing a massive uptick of the faithful in places such as Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
I highly recommend this wonderful book along with its predecessor. I’m really serious, though, when I suggest that you should read this thing slowly; maybe one or two chapters a week along with a notebook. This really is a fascinating story.
August 18, 2021
The second volume of the set opens with the events immediately preceding the Protestant Reformation and concludes in the 2010’s, when Christianity has essentially outgrown its former dominion. During the approximately six centuries of this book we observe Christendom’s geographic, theological, and organizational center stratify into a host of new areas, cultures, ideas, and churches while also fading where it was once most prevalent. Overall, this book is just as outstanding as the previous volume even though the author loses objectivity the closer it gets to modern times. The set stands on its own as an outstanding history but is also an excellent supplement to other big histories of Europe I’ve read. For example, the religious allegiances of European leaders during and for centuries after the Protestant Reformation had a fascinating synergy with their political allegiances and objectives that was mostly overlooked in the several books I’ve read. The religious beliefs of some leaders were completely dictated by political objectives/realities and others were quite genuine, but in most cases it seemed to be a little bit of both. On one hand, it seems like certain mindsets tending to group together. On the other, it seems like most leaders just had to focus on where their political and religious views converged and try to ignore the cases where they were at odds. Kind of like most people.
The descriptions of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other major contributors to Protestantism were very well done. One of the most interesting aspects of the Protestant Reformation is how much power it had over the ensuing Catholic Reformation. Gonzalez argues convincingly that much if not most of the elements of the Catholic Reformation were just defenses to Protestant criticisms of the Papacy. This seems consistent (in my amateur understanding) with most revolutions and counter-revolutions that I’ve read about. The former sets the agenda and the latter is stuck responding to those issues rather than being able to chart its own course. There is a lot to be said for the consequences of who seizes the initiative. Had the Catholic Church been more proactive in responding to these criticisms as they arose over the previous centuries, then the Protestant Reformation might not have taken off as successfully as it did.
Gonzalez examines the Renaissance, Humanism, and many other cultural/ideological trends and how they impacted Christian thought, but I would have liked to also have seen a section dedicated to Skepticism (which was less thoroughly discussed). Of the Christian movements I had never heard of, German Pietism was by far my favorite to learn about. Pietism was all about Christians challenging themselves to aggressively pursue adherence to Jesus’ radical call to love and service of their fellow man. This pursuit was not motivated by belief that it was necessary to avoid Hell or because it imbued its practitioners with a greater value to God, but just because it’s what Christians were called to do. Gonzalez summarizes it better: “In a sense, what was at stake in the controversy over Pietism was whether the Christian faith should simply serve to sanction common morality, or should rather call believers to a different sort of life. Orthodox preaching took for granted that God requires of believers nothing more than correct doctrine and a decent life. The Pietists insisted on the contrast between what society expects of its members and what God requires of the faithful.” I think that this tension between common practice and the radical principles of Christianity precede German Pietism and will always be there. It captures a dynamic ebb and flow not only on a mass scale between churches and movements but within each individual Christian as they evaluate their own lives. Perhaps I’m projecting.
As the book moves past the explosion of subdivisions which followed the initial Protestant Reformation, Gonzalez takes some time to recount a lot of history to provide context for developments in Christendom. Like most historians, the closer the story gets to modern day, the more their analysis is influenced by their personal politics over professional historiography. Regrettably, Gonzalez is particularly weak to this impulse. His entire recounting of the United States beginning with FDR mirrors the most conventional mythologies of the Democratic Party. For example, the Soviet Union posed no real threat to the United States during the Cold War but “McCarthyism” was some massive threat to the entire American experiment. Another example is his characterization of the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001: “Although the attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City was in fact an attack on all of civilization, the American press and the government almost immediately turned it into an ‘attack on America’”. Gonzalez states as fact what I suspect would come as shocking news to the terrorists who had spent years planning an attack on civilization’s hardest target.
Additionally, as the story approaches modern times Gonzalez makes increasingly less of an effort to acknowledge, let alone articulate, the ideological motivations of conservative stances (whether theological or political). For example, he summarizes Billy Graham, whose work had a massive impact at least in the Southern US, by saying little more than that he was the head of a for-profit ministry. Soon thereafter he devotes a lengthy and entirely uncritical section to the rise of “contextual theologies” based on “culture, class, gender, and ethnicity” and “theologies of liberation” which “seek to interpret the gospel as well as Scripture within the context of social and economic oppression”. I’ll be forthright in admitting that these terms in conjunction usually elicits a mental gag reflex from me, so I’m not without my own biases. I don’t object to his inclusion of these historically relevant movements, but I do wish that he were remotely evenhanded with his presentation of equally relevant movements with which he disagrees. It didn’t ruin the book, it was just really disappointing.
I love one observation Gonzalez concludes the book with: The contemporary trends of Christianity’s decline in the Northern Hemisphere and growth in the Southern Hemisphere suggest that “lands that a century before were considered the ‘ends of the earth’ will have an opportunity to witness to the descendants of those who earlier witnessed to them”. He goes on to plead that Christianity now be thought of in global terms. Believers shouldn’t view their local expressions of faith as the culmination of all Christian history, but as part of a kaleidoscope of expressions that form a universal religion. It’s a compelling case provided it is not taken to absolute terms, which I doubt Gonzalez would.
Despite the letdown of Gonzalez’s coverage of contemporary history, both volumes of this set are absolutely worth reading and I highly recommend.
The descriptions of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other major contributors to Protestantism were very well done. One of the most interesting aspects of the Protestant Reformation is how much power it had over the ensuing Catholic Reformation. Gonzalez argues convincingly that much if not most of the elements of the Catholic Reformation were just defenses to Protestant criticisms of the Papacy. This seems consistent (in my amateur understanding) with most revolutions and counter-revolutions that I’ve read about. The former sets the agenda and the latter is stuck responding to those issues rather than being able to chart its own course. There is a lot to be said for the consequences of who seizes the initiative. Had the Catholic Church been more proactive in responding to these criticisms as they arose over the previous centuries, then the Protestant Reformation might not have taken off as successfully as it did.
Gonzalez examines the Renaissance, Humanism, and many other cultural/ideological trends and how they impacted Christian thought, but I would have liked to also have seen a section dedicated to Skepticism (which was less thoroughly discussed). Of the Christian movements I had never heard of, German Pietism was by far my favorite to learn about. Pietism was all about Christians challenging themselves to aggressively pursue adherence to Jesus’ radical call to love and service of their fellow man. This pursuit was not motivated by belief that it was necessary to avoid Hell or because it imbued its practitioners with a greater value to God, but just because it’s what Christians were called to do. Gonzalez summarizes it better: “In a sense, what was at stake in the controversy over Pietism was whether the Christian faith should simply serve to sanction common morality, or should rather call believers to a different sort of life. Orthodox preaching took for granted that God requires of believers nothing more than correct doctrine and a decent life. The Pietists insisted on the contrast between what society expects of its members and what God requires of the faithful.” I think that this tension between common practice and the radical principles of Christianity precede German Pietism and will always be there. It captures a dynamic ebb and flow not only on a mass scale between churches and movements but within each individual Christian as they evaluate their own lives. Perhaps I’m projecting.
As the book moves past the explosion of subdivisions which followed the initial Protestant Reformation, Gonzalez takes some time to recount a lot of history to provide context for developments in Christendom. Like most historians, the closer the story gets to modern day, the more their analysis is influenced by their personal politics over professional historiography. Regrettably, Gonzalez is particularly weak to this impulse. His entire recounting of the United States beginning with FDR mirrors the most conventional mythologies of the Democratic Party. For example, the Soviet Union posed no real threat to the United States during the Cold War but “McCarthyism” was some massive threat to the entire American experiment. Another example is his characterization of the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001: “Although the attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City was in fact an attack on all of civilization, the American press and the government almost immediately turned it into an ‘attack on America’”. Gonzalez states as fact what I suspect would come as shocking news to the terrorists who had spent years planning an attack on civilization’s hardest target.
Additionally, as the story approaches modern times Gonzalez makes increasingly less of an effort to acknowledge, let alone articulate, the ideological motivations of conservative stances (whether theological or political). For example, he summarizes Billy Graham, whose work had a massive impact at least in the Southern US, by saying little more than that he was the head of a for-profit ministry. Soon thereafter he devotes a lengthy and entirely uncritical section to the rise of “contextual theologies” based on “culture, class, gender, and ethnicity” and “theologies of liberation” which “seek to interpret the gospel as well as Scripture within the context of social and economic oppression”. I’ll be forthright in admitting that these terms in conjunction usually elicits a mental gag reflex from me, so I’m not without my own biases. I don’t object to his inclusion of these historically relevant movements, but I do wish that he were remotely evenhanded with his presentation of equally relevant movements with which he disagrees. It didn’t ruin the book, it was just really disappointing.
I love one observation Gonzalez concludes the book with: The contemporary trends of Christianity’s decline in the Northern Hemisphere and growth in the Southern Hemisphere suggest that “lands that a century before were considered the ‘ends of the earth’ will have an opportunity to witness to the descendants of those who earlier witnessed to them”. He goes on to plead that Christianity now be thought of in global terms. Believers shouldn’t view their local expressions of faith as the culmination of all Christian history, but as part of a kaleidoscope of expressions that form a universal religion. It’s a compelling case provided it is not taken to absolute terms, which I doubt Gonzalez would.
Despite the letdown of Gonzalez’s coverage of contemporary history, both volumes of this set are absolutely worth reading and I highly recommend.
September 20, 2020
What an intense book. This is a essentially a Western Civilization textbook from the perspective and emphasis of the church. I read this book seeing to better understand the differences between Christian denominations, and Gonzalez does an excellent job tracing out the political, theological, and intellectual history that led to various schisms and reformations in the church.
In particular, one point that I came away with from this book is the reason why liturgy and rites seem to be so often at the root of these various schisms. Growing up in a non-denominational Chinese church, such traditions seemed to be less important than the core preachings of the Gospel, in my view. However, this book really illuminates the ways that various rites, from baby baptisms, to the declarations of who can eat the communion, to the way that service is arranged and who can preach, have a much stronger basis in shaping the foundational beliefs of the faith. Those rites are just an outward appearance of central differences of God's nature between these denominations. While I cannot say that I am sufficiently introspective to have figured out exactly how all of this plays in my personal faith life, I definitely do want to spend more time exploring these concepts in particular.
Another thing that surprised me was the extent to which that religious theology is intermixed with contemporary political movements. The tensions of the state and church are most evident in the 15th and 16th centuries, where this book essentially becomes a European history textbook - from the English civil war, to the Nine Years War, to the rise and fall of the Papal states. However, Gonzalez does an excellent job continuing that thread in modern times, with a particular focus on missionary work. To be fully honest, much of what the church did in colonial times still makes my heart incredibly heavy, and I do not know how to fully process through all of what seemed to be prosecution and injustices. Even while there seems to be points of great light throughout the medical and humanitarian missions, it will take me time to comprehend the multitude of ways that this has shaped the church today.
Overall, this is not a light read - I read it on and off for the last three months. But, it is definitely worth it for a deeper understanding of the faith life of so many people around the world.
In particular, one point that I came away with from this book is the reason why liturgy and rites seem to be so often at the root of these various schisms. Growing up in a non-denominational Chinese church, such traditions seemed to be less important than the core preachings of the Gospel, in my view. However, this book really illuminates the ways that various rites, from baby baptisms, to the declarations of who can eat the communion, to the way that service is arranged and who can preach, have a much stronger basis in shaping the foundational beliefs of the faith. Those rites are just an outward appearance of central differences of God's nature between these denominations. While I cannot say that I am sufficiently introspective to have figured out exactly how all of this plays in my personal faith life, I definitely do want to spend more time exploring these concepts in particular.
Another thing that surprised me was the extent to which that religious theology is intermixed with contemporary political movements. The tensions of the state and church are most evident in the 15th and 16th centuries, where this book essentially becomes a European history textbook - from the English civil war, to the Nine Years War, to the rise and fall of the Papal states. However, Gonzalez does an excellent job continuing that thread in modern times, with a particular focus on missionary work. To be fully honest, much of what the church did in colonial times still makes my heart incredibly heavy, and I do not know how to fully process through all of what seemed to be prosecution and injustices. Even while there seems to be points of great light throughout the medical and humanitarian missions, it will take me time to comprehend the multitude of ways that this has shaped the church today.
Overall, this is not a light read - I read it on and off for the last three months. But, it is definitely worth it for a deeper understanding of the faith life of so many people around the world.
January 27, 2020
The second half of an excellent history of Christianity. Extremely well-written and very clear and easy to read. This one starts basically at the Reformation and goes up to the present day. That means there’s a lot to cover, but Gonzalez does a wonderful job keeping it all together.
So many things are noteworthy in this book, but I’ll highlight just a few:
In describing Martin Luther and the struggle he went through before nailing up his theses, the author writes, “Luther hated the very phrase “the justice of God,” and spent day and night seeking to understand the relationship between the two parts of that single verse, which, after declaring that in the gospel “the justice of God is revealed,” affirms that “the righteous shall live by faith.” The answer was surprising. Luther came to the conclusion that the “justice of God” does not refer, as he had been taught, to the punishment of sinners. It means rather that the “justice” or “righteousness” of the righteous is not their own, but God’s. The “righteousness of God” is that which is given to those who live by faith. It is given, not because they are righteous, nor because they fulfill the demands of divine justice, but simply because God wishes to give it. Thus, Luther’s doctrine of “justification by faith” does not mean that what God demands of us is faith, as if this were something we have to do or achieve, and which God then rewards. It means rather that both faith and justification are the work of God, a free gift to sinners. As a result of this discovery, Luther tells us, “I felt that I had been born anew and that the gates of heaven had been opened.”
Another quote that I really loved, from Blaise Pascal, “There is sufficient light for those who wish to see, and sufficient darkness for those of the opposite discretion. Enough clarity to illumine the elect, and enough darkness to keep them humble. Sufficient darkness to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clarity to condemn them and make them inexcusable.”
And finally, something that my religious upbringing never caused me to consider until now, a quote from the author:
“North American Protestants tended to think of the church as an invisible reality consisting of all true believers, and of the visible churches or denominations as voluntary organizations that believers create and join according to their convictions and preferences.”
I really love that. And this two volume set! I highly recommend this to anyone interested in Christian history!!
So many things are noteworthy in this book, but I’ll highlight just a few:
In describing Martin Luther and the struggle he went through before nailing up his theses, the author writes, “Luther hated the very phrase “the justice of God,” and spent day and night seeking to understand the relationship between the two parts of that single verse, which, after declaring that in the gospel “the justice of God is revealed,” affirms that “the righteous shall live by faith.” The answer was surprising. Luther came to the conclusion that the “justice of God” does not refer, as he had been taught, to the punishment of sinners. It means rather that the “justice” or “righteousness” of the righteous is not their own, but God’s. The “righteousness of God” is that which is given to those who live by faith. It is given, not because they are righteous, nor because they fulfill the demands of divine justice, but simply because God wishes to give it. Thus, Luther’s doctrine of “justification by faith” does not mean that what God demands of us is faith, as if this were something we have to do or achieve, and which God then rewards. It means rather that both faith and justification are the work of God, a free gift to sinners. As a result of this discovery, Luther tells us, “I felt that I had been born anew and that the gates of heaven had been opened.”
Another quote that I really loved, from Blaise Pascal, “There is sufficient light for those who wish to see, and sufficient darkness for those of the opposite discretion. Enough clarity to illumine the elect, and enough darkness to keep them humble. Sufficient darkness to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clarity to condemn them and make them inexcusable.”
And finally, something that my religious upbringing never caused me to consider until now, a quote from the author:
“North American Protestants tended to think of the church as an invisible reality consisting of all true believers, and of the visible churches or denominations as voluntary organizations that believers create and join according to their convictions and preferences.”
I really love that. And this two volume set! I highly recommend this to anyone interested in Christian history!!
February 6, 2025
4.5 stars
More or less the same review as part one with the same positives (very readable, no whitewashing but also no browbeating) and negatives (missing some necessary definitions, going over some major events a bit too quick like the Second Vatican Council), but does a better job at telling a more global story, partly through his thorough discussion of Christian missions.
One other nitpick I have is that a few royal family trees inserted into certain sections where said royal families were important parts of the history being discussed (like the Stuarts/Tudors re: the Reformation in the British Isles) would have been useful. Those things are hard to follow without having one there for reference.
More or less the same review as part one with the same positives (very readable, no whitewashing but also no browbeating) and negatives (missing some necessary definitions, going over some major events a bit too quick like the Second Vatican Council), but does a better job at telling a more global story, partly through his thorough discussion of Christian missions.
One other nitpick I have is that a few royal family trees inserted into certain sections where said royal families were important parts of the history being discussed (like the Stuarts/Tudors re: the Reformation in the British Isles) would have been useful. Those things are hard to follow without having one there for reference.
April 12, 2019
1. Salvation is in no way predicated on understanding the history of Christianity and Theology. With that said - learning in those areas has helped me understand how the Gospel eventually came to me and why I believe many of the evangelical 21st century doctrines that are assumed to have been universally believed throughout the last twenty centuries, but really were developed over centuries.
2. The author predicts those areas of the world that received the Gospel from the more traditional Christian centers of the world will return the Gospel to us. It’s their turn to evangelize and disciple us.
3. “The story’s not finished...”
2. The author predicts those areas of the world that received the Gospel from the more traditional Christian centers of the world will return the Gospel to us. It’s their turn to evangelize and disciple us.
3. “The story’s not finished...”
May 6, 2025
The highs were really high, but the lows were really low. The first two-thirds of this book were excellent only betraying some slight Catholic leanings. However, the last third really fell off and some chapters talked about history while failing to mention Christianity for more than a paragraph and the Catholic bias really shone bright here. All that to say it was my favorite book from my Church history class even with its flaws. It was well written and communicated points in more of a story formatting rather than a systematic style.
March 24, 2024
Gonzalez truly is a masterful church historian. I will revisit these two volumes in the future. Throughout the two volumes, I especially appreciated his focus on women as leaders and ministers in church history. His treatment on Barth in this volume is brief, but probably the best starting point for understanding Barth’s theological vision. Part 3 of this volume could feel a little scattered and all over the place at times, though.
January 29, 2024
Overall, Gonzalez’s second volume is weaker than his first. As an overall survey of church history, it remains difficult to find something comparable. However, Gonzalez’s theological biases come out in the inordinate time spent discussing (in positive terms) liberal theologians and the ecumenical movement. I am looking forward to Thomas Kidd’s upcoming church history survey.
September 10, 2021
The only thing that prevents me from giving it 5 stars is his insinuation that orthodox positions are not enlightened to the times and that the Calvinists in between Calvin and Kuyper were a fall from theological grace. Otherwise it was personable and brought the material across professionally
November 11, 2024
Good. After the reformation, Christendom fractures into a million denominations and sects so it’s difficult to write a straightforward story of Christianity. It ends up being an overview of all that has happened since Luther. Regardless it’s still quite good given the size.
December 20, 2018
A very readable church history book. Does a great job of hitting the highlights but yet keeping the book digestable and enjoyable.
April 7, 2024
Normally wouldn’t enjoy history books that are required for school, but this is a really solid read that provides a holistic look at the moves of Christianity throughout the history of the world. There’s not an area this book doesn’t touch and is very well researched.
May 1, 2025
Great overview of church history from the Reformation onward. Gives you enough info to understand the timeline and dive deeper if desired, but not enough to overwhelm the reader.
June 18, 2020
I love the way Justo chooses to finish his masterfully written 2 volumes. In writing about why church history has an impact on our current life, he encourages us to see how a Christian history told from the 21st century must differ from one told at other points in history. He argues that Christian history must be a global one; it must include the voices of those from whom we haven’t heard; and finally, that it must be mission-centered. He continues:
“For decades I have argued that the history of missions should not be a field apart from general church history but must be incorporated into it. There is no reason why the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century should be part of “church history,” while the work that the Jesuits were performing in India at the same time is considered part of the ‘history of missions.’ I remain convinced that we need to combine these two traditionally separate fields; but now I have come to an even broader conclusion that it is time for historians of Christianity to explore the possibility of a narrative, so to speak, not from the center to the periphery but from the periphery to the center” (529).
Thank you, Justo, for your words that inspire and lead others to think critically about the history of missions and of the church. 🙏
“For decades I have argued that the history of missions should not be a field apart from general church history but must be incorporated into it. There is no reason why the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century should be part of “church history,” while the work that the Jesuits were performing in India at the same time is considered part of the ‘history of missions.’ I remain convinced that we need to combine these two traditionally separate fields; but now I have come to an even broader conclusion that it is time for historians of Christianity to explore the possibility of a narrative, so to speak, not from the center to the periphery but from the periphery to the center” (529).
Thank you, Justo, for your words that inspire and lead others to think critically about the history of missions and of the church. 🙏
January 11, 2025
Nothing bad to say about this book other than it was difficult to navigate sources. Really fun read.
August 26, 2019
Gonzalez's second volume in his "Story of Christianity" series begins with the Reformation and concludes with the contemporary church and his thoughts on the future of the church.
Gonzalez's more left-leaning theology is much more evident in this volume than in the first. He does a good job of articulating the positions of that he doesn't agree with. I don't recall thinking him unfair in any of his evaluations, but he is clearly in favor of the ordination of women, very favorable to Karl Barth and his predecessors such as Schleiermacher and Bultmann. He is also very sympathetic with the mission of the World Council of Churches.
These sympathies will give most Reformed Christians pause, but Gonzalez's ecumenism is good for all Christians to hear and consider. His global perspective of the church is instructive, despite our disagreements. All Christians must reckon with the diversity of theology and liturgy, if for no other reason than determining the extent to which we're able to work together to accomplish God's kingdom purposes.
But it is also important to not merely assent to all the positions that Gonzalez assumes and rarely argues. For example, he criticizes those, especially the Roman Catholic church for barring women from ordination, without actually arguing the position biblically.
All in all the book is good and thought-provoking--particularly in understanding how charismatic the global church has become. Many within the Reformed tradition, at least, do not fully understand the implications of this.
Gonzalez's more left-leaning theology is much more evident in this volume than in the first. He does a good job of articulating the positions of that he doesn't agree with. I don't recall thinking him unfair in any of his evaluations, but he is clearly in favor of the ordination of women, very favorable to Karl Barth and his predecessors such as Schleiermacher and Bultmann. He is also very sympathetic with the mission of the World Council of Churches.
These sympathies will give most Reformed Christians pause, but Gonzalez's ecumenism is good for all Christians to hear and consider. His global perspective of the church is instructive, despite our disagreements. All Christians must reckon with the diversity of theology and liturgy, if for no other reason than determining the extent to which we're able to work together to accomplish God's kingdom purposes.
But it is also important to not merely assent to all the positions that Gonzalez assumes and rarely argues. For example, he criticizes those, especially the Roman Catholic church for barring women from ordination, without actually arguing the position biblically.
All in all the book is good and thought-provoking--particularly in understanding how charismatic the global church has become. Many within the Reformed tradition, at least, do not fully understand the implications of this.
July 9, 2017
I learned a lot from this book, but there are some worries:
1. The author falls for the Flat Earth myth, which very much calls into question the author's judgment as a historian and causes me to worry I gave his claims about the Middle Ages from the first volume far too much credence. After all, in the very beginning of Aquinas' magnum opus, he uses as an example that both mathematics and astronomy can prove the sphericity of the Earth to demonstrate the possibility of two separate sciences proving the same proposition from differing premises and methodologies (in order to then show that philosophy and theology can do the same). Did he even read Aquinas? What about all the other thinkers from much earlier in the Middle Ages that talk about this as demonstrable fact?
2. The author often uses class conflict explanations of historical events and trends, but shows absolutely no awareness of the implausibility of this mechanism from a game-theoretic perspective.
1. The author falls for the Flat Earth myth, which very much calls into question the author's judgment as a historian and causes me to worry I gave his claims about the Middle Ages from the first volume far too much credence. After all, in the very beginning of Aquinas' magnum opus, he uses as an example that both mathematics and astronomy can prove the sphericity of the Earth to demonstrate the possibility of two separate sciences proving the same proposition from differing premises and methodologies (in order to then show that philosophy and theology can do the same). Did he even read Aquinas? What about all the other thinkers from much earlier in the Middle Ages that talk about this as demonstrable fact?
2. The author often uses class conflict explanations of historical events and trends, but shows absolutely no awareness of the implausibility of this mechanism from a game-theoretic perspective.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 247 reviews