“1. About the writer
Bruce L. Shelley has dedicated his life to research and the teaching of Church History. He joined Denver Seminary in 1957 . Since then he has become professor and is now the senior professor of church history and historical theology.
After fifty years of researching and teaching, I believe one can say that he has the experience to be considered an expert in church history. His qualifications are more then enough for sure, but in an addition, it is important to mention one more thing that makes him I believe specifically interesting. Besides, researching, teaching, writing books, editing encyclopedias regularly , he is also a regular writer for Christianity Today . The importance of this is, I believe, the fact of staying in regular contact with the readers, average people. This is key, since he has written the book entitled: Church History in plain language. The plain language truly needs to be plain, and I think that the experience with C.T. more then helped in the language of the book.
2. Background and purpose
With the already mentioned background information, I believe that he was the right person to write this book. It is not a question of “knowledge or pleasure” reading, it is both, indeed a beautiful combination of both. As he says it is designed for the “layman” . His stated purpose in writing this book was to provide a book that covers the historical background of Christianity, to heal the “historical amnesia” that he well says that Christians live in, and to turn this ignorance into knowledge. With this work, Christians would not be so vulnerable to various false teachings, as it is presently the unfortunate case.
The book is written from an unusual point of view, which is the perspective of the present modern/postmodern mindset. It is not just a plain church history book with information…and it is also a church history with an apologetic goal, as he says: the contemporary significance of church history is showing the layman that many of today’s issues are not unique. They have a link with the past.
His thesis is that we can learn much from church history (what to believe/what not to, and in the same way, what to do and what not to) and those involved in making and forming the history of the church. He contends that it is not just worth knowing, but also worth getting deeper into it. I particularly enjoyed the biographical parts of the book. As he says, his goal was communication, and to give a chance to his readers to meet the ones involved with making the history. And again, he has met it. In my opinion this is what made the whole book seem like a novel, that I could not stop reading it.
3. Organization and content
The content and organization are together another interesting area. I have not read many books on Church history before, but I have to admit, that most of them were dry reading material. “He was born here, did this and that, started that movement, he died then, the movement is still existing here and there, next chapter…”
Besides the biographical addition, I think the organization of the content is another definite strength of this particular book. He entitles the “eras” or “ages” differently then the previous books I have read. These title themselves are more descriptive, sometime even challenging for a layman, or an inexperienced student like myself. At the same time, it helps the process of learning and it definitely helps the reader in remembering the information after it is comprehended. I believe it is, another proof of a success, as he states: “Clarity is the first law of learning”.
As an example of a “challenging” and descriptive title, I would like to use the second age he mentions: The Age of Catholic Christianity 70-312. For a theologian or a student of theology it might not be so tricky, but for an average layman, who associates the word catholic with the Roman Catholic Church, it is a challenge through which he teaches them at the same time two different and very useful things. One, meaning universal, while the other meaning could point to the Church that has this name. Later mainly due to the reformation it is not the one, general, universal church…
As an example of the perfectly descriptive title definitely The age of ideologies. That is the twentieth century. And it lays a perfect foundation to describe all the existing movements, churches, Para-church organizations etc.
4. Evaluation and Science
If I would have to evaluate it in comparison to the contents of the previous books that I read on the same subject it covers approximately the same amount of time, but he makes the whole of it much more readable, enjoyable, with the same amount of information. Textually it carries close to the same amount of information if not the same, but somehow it has a postmodern taste because it is based on story. And when I say the same amount of information I mean he puts into approximately 500 pages, seemingly the same amount of information as others put maybe into 2-3 volume books. And again if we add to it the fact that he is writing all of it in “plain language” it’s a miracle book. It is simple and thorough.
5. Strengths and weaknesses
There are at least two strengths. One is the already mentioned facts that it is very readable and enjoyable writing. Let’s face it, to write a book on church history that we can say is not just readable but enjoyable is praise for itself. The other point I would make is that the fact that a book like this can be an excellent book for one is introduction to church history. If not for a Church History class at theological seminary, it is at the same time a fun history book to read; this is a major strength.
Finally I would like to mention the fact that in the entire book I could not find a place where I would sense or hear the author’s opinion; this plays a very important role in allowing the reader to digest the facts for himself.
As of a weakness, it is hard to find any. If there is one it is the fact that in a way it is limited. It does have the information as others have put into two or three volumes, but it is not meant to be a book that covers many researchable areas. It is not meant to be that, therefore it is not a real weakness, but I truly could not find any other criticism than this.
The best description I was able to come up with and would like to remember this book by, is that it is the most enjoyable guideline of what church history is, written in a very enjoyable way. And it is worth reading again.
”
