Tried By Fire: The Story of Christianity's First Thousand Years

by William J. Bennett

Full of larger-than-life characters, stunning acts of bravery, and heart-rending sacrifice, Tried by Fire narrates the rise and expansion of Christianity from an obscure regional sect to the established faith of the world s greatest empire with influence extending from India to Ireland, Scandinavia to Ethiopia, and all points in between. William J. Bennett explores the riveting lives of saints and sinners, paupers and kings, merchants and monks who together and against all odds changed the world forever. To tell their story, Bennett follows them through the controversies and trials of their time. Challenged by official persecution, heresy, and schism, they held steadfast to the truth of Christ. Strengthened by poets, preachers, and theologians, they advanced in devotion and love. In this moving and accessible narrative, Tried by Fire speaks across centuries to offer insight into the people and events that shaped the faith that continues to shape our lives today."

Genres: History, Christian, Religion, Christianity, Church History, Nonfiction, Christian History

592 pages, Hardcover

First published March 22, 2016

About the author

William J. "Bill" Bennett is a politician and author who served in the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, as chief of National Endowment for the Humanities and later Secretary of Education under Reagan, and Drug Czar under Bush. He is a nationally well-known figure of political and social conservatism and authored many books on politics, ethics, and international relations.

Reviews

[happy · Rating 4 out of 5]

With this book, I feel that Dr. Bennett has produced a very well researched, well written and very readable look at Christianity’s first thousand years. His history spans from the death of the Apostles in the last half of the first century to the Great Schism between Rome and Constantinople in 1054. In this narrative he looks at the events and probably more importantly the people who molded and spread the message of Christ throughout the known world and later most of barbarian Europe.

In writing about the Church in Roman times, he looks at the various official persecutions and the effect they had on church membership. Dr. Bennett makes a point that from Nero thru to Constantine they were mainly local affairs. According to the author there were only 3 empire wide persecutions. However these trials led to some of the first major splits among the Christian communities – what do we do with those who did deny their faith and want to “return to the fold.” Many felt that those who did deny their faith should be forever banned, while other said with an appropriate time of repentance, it was acceptable to have them rejoin. The author also does an excellent job of telling what Constantine’s making Christianity legal did for both the culture, doctrine and spread of the Church.

As the Roman Empire disintegrates, the author looks at how the first major schism in the church, Nicaean vs Arian Christianity affected the church. He does a very good job explaining the difference between the two branches and how they developed. During this discussion, the author looks at how the Bishopric of Rome, the Papacy, became more and more to influence official doctrine.

The author also explores how some aspects of Medieval Christianity had their roots in the era just after the Apostles. This includes the growth of the Monasticism, celibacy for the clergy, deciding what writings would be included in the official Bible among others.

In addition to the expansion with in the Empire, Dr. Bennett explores the expansion of Christianity in the Barbarian world. He tells the stories of the various missionaries, how when the King converted (often for political purposes) his entire kingdom was forced to covert also. I thought the author did a very good job of just how these “soft” conversions affected how both the Christian calendar and mode of worship.

In addition to the great events, the author does a good job of giving short biographical sketches of many of the main players of in the development of both doctrine and the spread of Christianity. Some these include Clement of Rome, Martin of Tours, Augustine of Hippo, the Venerable Bede and many, many others.

In addition to tracking the growth of both the doctrine and membership of the Church, Dr. Bennett looks at some of the excesses that occurred. This includes not only excommunication of those felt to be in error, but out right physical violence against them. He also looks at the state of the Papacy in the 9 and 10th centuries. To say the popes were not worthy to be Holy Men is an understatement. It rivaled any excesses of the Renaissance Papacy!

Dr. Bennett concludes that narrative by discussing the Great Schism and the reasons behind it. These reasons include the fact the Constantinople did not see Rome as the last word on doctrine, the difference in worship services and finally, in spite of both branches accepting the Nicaean Creed on the nature of God, there were differences on just what is the relationship between God and Jesus that could not be reconciled. These differences had built up over several centuries and despite the efforts of many good and worthy men could not be papered over any longer and the schism happened.

I believe Dr. Bennett is a practicing Roman Catholic. In a few spots this shows in his word and phrasing choices. This does not mean he doesn’t criticize when it was warranted. Other than that, I found this an excellent overview of the growth of Christianity and how it became the driving influence behind the rise of Europe. It would give this 4.25 stars if GR allowed.

[David Eppenstein · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a history of the first one thousand years of Christianity covered in 392 pages of text. That's a lot of ground to cover and not a lot of space in which to achieve a meaningful treatment of a very complex subject. The author begins with a Forward whose tone I felt bordered on a call for a renewed Crusade to the Holy Land. I pondered that a bit and realized that he was merely pointing out the fact that Christians are being persecuted today in much the same way they were at the religion's ancient beginnings. Nevertheless, the possibility of being misunderstood is there and the author should have realized that and considered a rewrite. As to the actual recounting of Christian history he does cover the subject but in a very superficial manner. I have read other histories of the Church and I can say that this book is easier to read but only gives what might be considered a brief overview akin to a Christianity's first thousand year highlights. The author lists all the key individuals, events, controversies, and conflicts and treats them all in a page or two and sometimes less. The advantage of that, especially when dealing with controversies over theology, is the brevity. Lawyers have a bad reputation for sophistry, the twisting of words to achieve a desired goal, but lawyers cannot hold a candle to theologians when it comes convoluted arguments. In this book the author has spared us the verbal machinations of the theologians and he simply lays out the basic issue of these esoteric controversies and the positions of each side of these disputes over Christian dogma. For that alone the author should be commended but there is a great deal more in this history that is either left unsaid or only given passing mention. The one area where the brevity is beneficial, however, is in the clear delineation of the reasons for the schism of the Eastern and Western Churches and in demonstrating how Christianity became so inextricably involved in government and thus losing credibility with the faithful that eventually lead to Luther and the Reformation. The book has its good points but on the whole is too superficial to be regarded as a useful treatment of the subject. Either the author need to reduce the scope of his book or the book needed to be longer, much longer.

[Michael O'Brien · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably one of the best, most readable of all the books I've found so far on the history of the early Christian church. Bennett covers the incredible bravery and faithfulness of the Christian martyrs, evangelists, intellectuals, and church fathers. But this is more than just hagiography. This book does not hold back from also covering the petty schisms and excesses, failings, and scoundrels as well who afflicted the early church as well in its first millennium. All in all, this is a well done work --- showing the very best in the early Church to inspire us today and also the flaws with which to learn from and take warning.

[Hekataios Amerikos]

When I first began to read Tried By Fire: The Story of Christianity’s First Thousand Years by William J. Bennett, Pub by Nelson Books, Nashville, TN, I was immediately struck by it’s emphasis upon Christian persecution and martyrdom throughout the centuries. In fact, my basic reaction was “OMG, it’s a response to The Myth of Persecution by Dr. Candida Moss!” I immediately felt as if we were back in the later first century when Pagan apologists attempted to persuade Christians to at least modify their beliefs and positions by writing rebuttals of the gospels and other Christian writings. This, of course, eventually being responded to by Christian apologists in their turn. It seemed, and still does seem, clear to me that we were in yet another round of writings designed to defend and/or disparage one side or the other. It isn’t what I wanted and I felt certain that it also was not what Dr. Moss had wanted, but here we were in any case.
Frankly, I was quite amazed that someone who had earned a Ph.D. would even write something on this level. It seemed at first to lack any objectivity, in my opinion, and didn’t seem very scholarly to me either. For example, with reference to the impact of Christianity, William J. Bennett makes a very absurd statement about Christianity's impact upon both slavery and women in the Western world (p. 7). Of course, the truth is that, as they say, nothing could be further from the truth than this. But society in the West has been lulled into such a state of passivity concerning Christianity that they readily accept such statements with little or no critical analysis of them. The Christians DID NOT sweep into the Western Greco-Roman world with a new and improved set of values and morals which changed society for the better. On the contrary, Christianity brought untold strife and pain and certainly did not improve the position of women in society. And it didn’t cause the end of slavery in the Roman world either. Thus, this statement is total bunk!
The fact of the matter is that literally everywhere monotheism has spread the situation for women has been made worse, not better. In the world of the monotheist, women are barely able to rise to human status and only with great effort! Yes, it is true that women have had, and still have, to worry about even so much as going out in public in many instances for fear of possibly being raped or even killed. This has always been the case, more or less, in every society that has ever existed, as far as is known. But to propose that monotheism has ever made this situation for women any better is nothing more than an unmitigated lie.
To his credit, Bennett does acknowledge, correctly, that the first documented Christian martyrdom (outside of the New Testament) was that of Polycarp (p. 28). This, at least, is in line with scholarly understanding today. But the details given are still probably exaggerations. And so is his inference that both Traianus (Trajan) and Hadrianus (Hadrian) had been violent persecutors of Christianity (p. 31). Nothing could be further from the truth.
Bennett’s treatment of Gnosticism in the third chapter of his book doesn’t even deserve scholarly recognition or rebuttal. The same goes for his treatment of Platon (Plato). Suffice it to say that he only deals with second century Gnosticism and really only deals with the personages within the movement at that, outlining their beliefs along with the Christian tradition concerning these personages. And his treatment of Marcus Aurelius is biased at best.
In citing the “traditions” of Christian martyrdom, Bennett finally unleashes that which I could see coming all along when he targets Dr. Candida Moss (pp. 48-49).” With this statement it became perfectly obvious to me that the contest was indeed personal and the intent was to discredit Dr. Moss (and he didn’t even give her the dignity of referring to her as Dr. Moss or even Professor Moss) and anyone else who did not appear to hold to conservative American Christian values. He had pulled what he considered the big guns out. Too bad he was and is WRONG! And add to this the obvious, that if these “traditions” had been real history they would have been written about by some actual historian. In other words, only the ones that are mentioned by historians are likely to have ever really happened. After all, the Roman historians, Pagan and Christian alike, were not shy about noting the true nature of the Roman emperors in general. So it these historians would note uncomplimentary things about said emperors, surely if they had done such deeds as persecute Christians directly, that would have been noted, for there would be no real reason to leave such historical events out. Yet few are noted or even alluded to in any way by any real historian of the ancient world.
Throughout this work exist many inconsistencies. One of note is the fact that after illustrating the supposedly horrendous situation of persecution that presumably occurred under the reign of Commodus, Bennett cites Eusebius of Caesaria (Church History) stating that under Commodus the church actually grew and found itself in a in a more favorable situation, enjoying peace over the entirety of the world (p. 56). After this he goes on to completely misrepresent the situation of women in the Greco-Roman world, even stating that the New Testament cited that women had been early leaders in the church (which is generally false) and that such was an idea that would have been unheard-of in Roman culture with the sole exception of some of the priestesses of the mystery cults (p. 57). That is patently and absurdly false in every possible way!
Bennett is correct on one important point, however. He states that Christianity had become more intellectual by the time of Tertullian (p. 57). Indeed it actually took about this long, well into the second century CE, for Christianity to exert any real ability with reference to refuting its Pagan critics. One has to presume that they were either distracted by something else of greater importance prior to this time and/or that they were simply unable to compete on an intellectual level prior to this time. And, frankly, both are true. Tertullian was, in fact, one of the very first actual intellectuals of early Christianity. In my opinion, no one before him had really matched him. Frankly, when I was a Christian, he was my favorite “church father”. But, as Bennett himself shows, even Turtullian changed his religious views over time so that by the end of his life he had converted to a “heretical” sect called the Montanists (who were very much like today’s Pentecostal Christians). So it seems reasonable to retort that if even Tertullian could not remain consistent on “correct” Christian theology, how can anyone actually claim that there really is a correct Christian theology? In fact, Tertullian becomes the perfect example of the actual fact that Christianity was NEVER monolithic with a fixed, acceptable belief system that could not be refuted. The church will teach you that this was the case, but it was not.
When Bennett moves on to Clement of Alexandria (p. 70) he shows how the Christians continued to usurp ancient Pagan philosophy in an effort to gain converts, preferably educated ones. But, of course, Clement also did this by perverting ancient philosophy and literature. And the “extraordinary familiarity” that Clement appeared to have with the ancient Greek Sacred Mysteries is something that I have already shown in my first book to be suspect. It seems more like he had documentation to read, but really did not understand the material and was certainly no “mystai”. And the quote that Bennett cites from Clement’s writings, which came from the Odyssey which reads, in part “Let not a woman with flowing train cheat you of your senses” - well, what other passage might a misogynist following a patriarchal religion like Clement choose to try to persuade people to turn to his faith?
Then Bennett proceeds to Origen, who was either the first or among the first to practice self-torture (sleep deprivation, starvation, not bathing, etc.) in the name of Christ. In addition to this, he made himself a eunuch so that he would not be tempted sexually, all because of Matthew 19:12 (p. 75). Still, Origen was pretty close to genius and did much to promote Christianity. Sadly, because all Christians could not agree with his views, he was excommunicated by the church he served with all of his might, the church he had given everything to, some years after his death.
When writing about the Great Persecution Bennett goes out of his way to ascribe sinister motives not only to the emperors, but also to the Pagan populace itself along with Pagan priests. The way he writes about it is naturally slanted to the Christian point of view. Bennett very mutely suggests a truth, that it was really Galerius who wanted to stamp the Christians out completely and not so much Diocletian, but that Diocletian eventually acquiesced to most of what Galerius wanted. This is a fact that is seldom noted in any history today because Christians have become so accustomed to blaming Diocletian for all of it. Frankly, the Great Persecution would have been much, much worse if not for Diocletian. But Bennett makes no effort whatsoever to really explain why the church building in Nicomedia was targeted and burnt down. The fact of the matter is that this church had been deliberately built and situated in the location where it had stood in the first place as a provocation because it could be seen from imperial property. It stood out, intentionally, like a sore thumb and, so, it naturally became a target. That does not mean that it was right for the two co-emperors to have it torn down, but that is the reason that it was done.
In fact, let’s be clear, the Great Persecution was wrong on every level. It should not have happened and only a deliberately blind apologist would suggest otherwise. Many atrocities were committed during this period of persecution against the Christians. All of it was inexcusable. But facts are facts and it did happen. And, as Dr. Candida Moss has astutely pointed out, this was the only real major persecution of Christians. Period.
As Bennett proceeds to Constantine I he relates the story of his victory at Milvian Bridge basically in the same tired fashion as it has been carried down to us for generations - with an almost total lack of recent scholarship on the subject. Frankly, he mutely asserts that Constantine was already at least a pseudo-Christian by this time, which has been shown to be absolutely false. The tale that he saw the cross or even the chi rho in the sky with Jesus promising him victory is rubbish created by Eusebius of Caesarea many years after Constantine’s death. For the real story, the earliest source on the matter states that Constantine saw three “x”s (XXX) in the sky with the god Helios Apollon (the Unconquered Sun) promising him victory. Either way, he did achieve victory.
At least Bennett does site the fact that Constantine initiated persecution of Pagans within his realm (pp. 101-02), something seldom noted in modern popular histories. But the reason Bennett gives for Constantine’s establishment of Constantinople - so he would not have to listen to Romans complaining that he had established his god over the Unconquered Sun - is laughable. Constantine still half-way worshipped the Unconquered Sun even this late as shown by his coins depicting his image (after all, he still knew who had really given him victory) and Constantine’s true motives for establishing Constantinople were more in line with his creating an aristocracy and Senate who would agree to whatever dictates he put forth - something he could not get from the old Roman aristocracy and Senate. And, yes, as noted on page 104, at the same time he moved to demolish many Pagan temples (as well as Jewish Synagogues, by the way) and replace them with Christian basilicas and monasteries. And the Codex Sinaiticus was indeed the likely result of his order to purge the empire of all previous versions of the New Testament books that could be found and replace them with his official version.
Bennett’s treatment of Julian “the Apostate” (pp. 162-65) is poor at best. With so many excellent sources to consult concerning his life, some primary, Bennett seems to have basically ignored practically all of them. So his account of Julian is completely slanted to his, the conservative Christian, point of view. And he over-inflates Julian’s treatment of Christians by calling it a “persecution”. Julian simply moved to set right some abuses that had occurred during the reigns of Constantine I and Constantius II by basically giving the Christians a dose of their own medicine. However, that certain events happened during his reign that should not have taken place is a given. And Bennett states that “Thankfully, Julian’s reign was fairly short” (p. 165).
Still, as Theodosius I took control, he turned the tide yet again in favor of orthodoxy and against Arianism. He decreed, via the Edict of Thessalonica, that ALL subjects of the Roman Empire must profess the Nicene Creed or face severe punishment, including possible execution. Bennett illustrates this on pages 178-80 quite well, showing that even though this decree was promulgated, the Arians still resisted it as far as they were able. His persecution of Arians and others, including (I would say “especially”) Pagans is mentioned on pages 182-83. For anyone who falsely believes the prevailing propaganda that Paganism and Pagan temples simply went out of style and decayed due to disuse (I have found several sites on the internet which purport exactly this), even Bennett shows that this was not the case at all but that a concerted campaign of suppression, persecution and demolition took place under his reign and by his order (not that these things were not previously taking place, but his effort went further than all previous ones).
Of course, Bennett goes on to paint John Chrysostom as a “saint”, which he is generally regarded as being by Christians today. Nothing about his severe hatred of Jews as expressed in his horribly anti-Semitic writings or any of the rest. And Bennett continues with Augustine of Hippo who supposedly turned from a sexual deviant to a Church Father. And Bennett glosses over the fact that Augustine was at first a Manichaean and only turned to orthodoxy when Theodosius began persecuting the Manichaeans so that he could escape execution. And, naturally, when Bennett refers to Augustine’s magnum opus “City of God” (pp. 212-13) he, like many Christian apologists before him, fails to refer to it by it’s complete and proper title “The City of God Against the Pagans”. Once again, this is fairly typical of Christian writers who tend to gloss over the fact that the book was primarily aimed at Pagans in an effort to discredit their religion (although, to his credit, Bennett does allude to this) with seemingly endless diatribes against them and their beliefs (not just the short passage cited on 213). Augustine’s “just war” theory postulated, in part, that God had sent the then Christian barbarians into the Pagan Roman Empire to destroy it and that the Pagans who had been spared should be thankful that they had another chance to repent and accept Christ! It would seem, then, that we have two haters here, the former who hated the Jews and the latter who hated the Pagans. But Bennett, following Christian tradition, paints both as “saints”.
Bennett actually (and unexpectedly) does a fair job with the events surrounding the murder of Hypatia (pp. 224-26), but with some glaring exceptions. First, he essentially seems to paint the Jewish population in Alexandria as, well, degenerate morally because they liked to watch dancing exhibitions. Not a word about what really prompted all of these heinous events - that during one of the dances the Jewish audience was intentionally “burlesqued”, which greatly offended them. Of course, the Jewish and Christian factions were constantly provoking one another during that time period, something that Bennett also does not allude to. The Pagans, for their part, sometimes found themselves caught in the middle of this constant pettiness. Sadly, this was one of those instances.
The illiterate, mentally degenerate, monks who entered Alexandria at this time referring to Orestes as a “Pagan idolator” are the key here. After all, anyone who disagreed with orthodoxy during that time period was referred to as a “Pagan” or a “sorcerer” of some kind. And some sources suggest that it was actually Cyril (the one who stirred up the monks in the first place) himself who set the monks onto a different prey than Orestes because there was someone that he is said to have been jealous of (and who was supposed to have been a friend of Orestes). She was the beautiful and talented Neoplatonic philosopher, Hypatia. As Bennett briefly describes her horrific murder by a Christian mob he neglects to mention that she was a Pagan and also neglects to mention that her books were taken and also burned along with her body! It was she along with her writings that paid the ultimate price for this senseless squabbling between Christians and Jews in Alexandria!
One final point will be made here. Bennett basically follows Christian historians of the past in ignoring the fact that the barbarians, with the exception of the Franks, had been converted to Christianity BEFORE they invaded en masse into the Roman Empire. He states it while at the same time basically skirting around this fact. He states that the Goths converted to Arianism as a sign of respect for the emperor Valens (p. 236) which is accurate. But then Bennett posits that the conversion of these Goths (who became the Visigoths) basically resulted in the conversion of the other Germanic tribes (p. 237), which is really not the way it happened. Then he goes so far as to call the Visigoths “halfhearted Arians” (p. 239) who later converted to orthodoxy. All of this while painting the Vandals as ruthlessly intolerant Arians who slaughtered catholics (which they did). But, frankly, Bennett is actually trying to have it both ways. All of the Germanic tribes which converted adopted Arianism and one tribe's faith was no more superficial than that of another one. If the Vandals were not halfhearted then neither were the Visigoths and that, frankly, is borne out by history. The Romans who lived during the time when Alaric and his Visigoths sacked Roma certainly didn’t think that they were halfhearted anything! And, frankly, neither did the great church father, whom Bennett seems to love, Augustine of Hippo, who described them as God’s punishment on the still predominantly Pagan Roman Empire. No sir, to Augustine the Visigoths, who were Christian, were the very instrument of God himself upon the horrible Roman Empire!
This is as far as I wish to carry this critique other than to say that, while obviously biased, it is an interesting read and does express some historical points rare for a conservative Christian scholar (it is decidedly better than Bill O’Reilly’s “Killing Jesus”), but he should have included some women in his glossary.

[Katie Buckner · Rating 5 out of 5]

An overview of Christianity’s first 1000 years. This is exactly what I wanted to learn about the church. With the timeline in mind, now I can go back and further dig into various people or times. Dr. Bennett also provides an index so I can kind of use this book as a reference to refresh my memory on key people in the early Christianity.

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a well written account of the first thousand years of the Christian Church. My husband read it out loud over the course of several months which was a great way for us to discuss it as we read. I learned a lot about the spread of Christianity from a small regional sect of believers to its place of importance in the Roman Empire, influencing countries from Europe to India to Africa. William J. Bennett presents Church history in an enjoyable, readable style!

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow! I thought I had a good understanding of the history of Christianity, but this book taught me a lot. I have so much to think about and am left with incredible gratitude for an understanding of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ that I have. How anyone could read the heritage of Christianity and not see a deep need for a restoration of Christ's church with modern revelation and scripture is amazing to me. So many bad things have happened over the history of the world in the name of religion that have confused and muddled what it means to follow Christ and live as he lived. Many professing to being Christian during these first 1,000 years lacked a real understanding of what being a Christian meant. Perhaps we all forget at times. My thoughts kept coming back to these two great commandments which surely mark us as Christian 1) a love of God 2) a love of our neighbor as ourselves.

[Misael Galdámez · Rating 4 out of 5]

I learned so much from this book, including: ancient church history, ancient Roman/Byzantine history, about the barbarians and the birth of Europe, and not to mention, the intertwined nature of church/state for long stretches of time.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, which is an extremely useful and helpful primer on church history for the uninitiated. At times, I wished he could have delved deeper into certain questions or people, but there’s only so deep you can go when you’re aiming for concision over 1000 years.

Towards the end of the book (prob from 500 onward) the book tends to focus more on Western Church History, which makes sense given that the author is from the West. I did wish for more on the Byzantine Church later on, aside from their clashes with the west, but overall, very grateful for this book.

[Steve B · Rating 4 out of 5]

William Bennett's 'Tried by Fire' is a very interesting and readable account of the early history of Christianity. Most interesting is Bennett's account of how Christianity spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean area, southern and Western Europe in the first 2-4 centuries after the death of Christ. Bennett also details the schisms in the early church and how they were ultimately resolved but gave rise to furth disputes. Bennett also explains the rise in the power of the papacy and the resulting corruption and later some 'reform'. He does bog the reader down in innumerable names and dates but that is probably to be expected in trying to capture 1000 years of history in 400-500 pages!

[Nick Orman · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first part of this book was really tough to get through (hence this taking me 23 days to read). The detail of how Christians were martyred hit really hard and the history was hard to digest overall. Then the second half of this book flowed much better in my opinion. Maybe it was the lengthier sections on Charlemagne, Constantine, and other bigger names that helped me get through it. Overall very glad I read it but not the kind of book you read again.

[Becky · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hard for me to keep all the people straight, as it went through so many different times of Christianity, but well written and I learned a lot. It's hard to believe the religion survived with the amount of persecution they faced.

[Natalie Lathrop · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was pleasantly surprised. Many books which cover this time period are extremely boring and dull. The author did a good job keeping it interesting. There were many early church stories that I hadn’t heard before told in this book, partially because the author wasn’t afraid to put in Roman Catholic stories and legends in his book.

[Mark Youngkin · Rating 3 out of 5]

William Bennett has written an exhaustive history of the first 1,000 years of the Christian faith in Tried by Fire. But for me it was a book to be admired, more than loved. It is detailed, but there's almost no flair to the way it's presented; in public and TV appearances Bennett is witty. But there's no evidence of that here. The best thing I can say about the book is that there's an excellent 250-page book here. Unfortunately the book runs almost 400 pages.

[Toniann Churches · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very informative book, sometimes slow but easy read. I definitely learned a lot about church history.

[Reader · Rating 3 out of 5]

I got this book so that I could get an introductory survey of Church history, it served that function basically well enough. The book is visually appealing and divided well into easily digestible chapters. It's an easy read and a pleasant experience.

Based on these attributes I shouldn't have expected much in terms of historical rigor and you shouldn't either. William J. Bennett is primarily a journalist, which does not preclude strong historical methodology as seen in the works of David Grann, but in Bennett's case I'm afraid I have to find him lacking.

By the way this book is by and for christians, and I have no problem with that, I wanted that perspective when I sought this book out. The idea of reading church history from the perspective of a cynical atheist sounds exhausting. the issues I do take with this book are threefold

(1) Over reliance on fantastical accounts recorded in john foxe book of martyrs. Foxe's book is cited numerous times in this book in lengthy excerpts and the exercise quickly becomes exhausting. Bennett acknowledges the extremely dubious historicity of these stories but proceeds to rely on them at length in cases where not a scintilla of corroborating evidence exists.
(2) The end note scheme of citation. Bennett (or more likely his editor) has elected to put all citations and speaking notes at the very end of the book in an appendix. While this makes the pages of the chapter look cleaner and likely less intimidating to those not accustomed to history books it goes against common practice, and the practice of using footnotes in books like this is common for a reason. I won't pontificate on this because you probably already agree with me or don't care about citations.
(3) Bennett becomes a victim of his thousand years theme near the end of the book. The title of this book is great, it rolls of the tongue and it grabs your attention. However, Bennett is clearly much less interested in the last 500 years of this millenia than its first. To be fair, so am I so it's not a big complaint but given how different the latter era of this period is I feel like the book would have been stronger if he had just left the middle ages alone and picked a different title.

In conclusion, I like this book but I have a strong suspicion that this work has been better accomplished elsewhere.

[Michael]

This is an interesting, albeit long, history of the first 1,000 years of Christianity. I read about 150 pages then stopped. Three observations.

First, the early Christians took a serious ass-kicking. The Romans just did horrible, horrid, horrific things to them. Like, really, really bad. Gross.

Second, Christians in the world today, especially in the Middle East, but in Africa and India, too, are facing terrible persecution. Awful things are happening to them, and specifically to them. I think there is a reluctance in the Western media to admit this fact.

Third, American Christians, particularly conservative Evangelicals and Catholics, are not being oppressed in any way, shape, or form in this country. There is zero oppression here. Joining the historical suffering of Christians to the current suffering of Christians in the third world to the fact that you can't kick gay people out of your school is intellectually dishonest.

But Bennett is intellectually dishonest in general. This is a man who spent decades talking about virtues, about character, about the importance of moral leadership...then went on to become an apologist for President Trump. Want evidence? Read on:

''In the end,'' Bennett writes, ''the President's apologists are attempting to redefine the standard of acceptable behavior for a President. Instead of upholding a high view of the office and the men who occupy it, they radically lower our expectation.''

-Bill Bennett, "The Death of Outrage" (1999)

And:

https://books.google.com/books?id=HQN...

So, really, Bill: woe unto you, hypocrite. You aren't a philosopher, you're a Republican hack. Enjoy your remarkably consistent world view. Mr. Secretary. Such and inspiration to us all.

[FAD · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ironically just in time for the supposed “Reformation Day”- I finished this history of the first 1000 years of Christian history. Here we go:

Pros:

-very entertaining read
-I appreciate the author, for the most part, trying to utilize the titles of all involved, I.e. Pope, Presbyter, Bishop, etc.
-the span of history covered in this work is commendable and clearly laying out councils and disagreements in the church.

Cons:

-my number 1 complaint of this work is the author needs to avoid casting a wide array of moral pronouncements on the actions of those in history. It is clear that the author feels embarrassed over some of the actions of Christians from the past and felt the need over each negative story to utilize words like “unfortunately” or “contrary to the gospel”- he even goes so far as to speculate that so many of these ancient Christians didn’t “adequately understand the gospel” in order to explain away their actions. This is not necessarily the job of the historian.
-sometimes he is too vague and it leads to misunderstanding. For example, instead of clarifying often that St. Augustine of Canterbury was a particular English saint, he almost makes it sound like this person was St. Augustine of Hippo.
-he went on a sidebar tangent of the Protestant reformation and justifying Luther and Calvin’s breakaway from the church. This is a book on the first 1000 years of the church and these characters had no reason to make an appearance in this work.

[Jennifer · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF.

I don't know what exactly I disliked about this book. It was boring, yes, but readable. I think maybe it was the way the author completely ignored giving any context for the branching off of Christian sects, or the establishment of common religious practices, and instead focused almost entirely on either "great" Christian leaders (most of whom were not great at all, and instead slaughtered in Jesus' name--an act I can't believe Jesus would have approved) or martyrs who literally sought death out rather than do something simple like, say, not show up to a weekly meeting or public place where they were told they'd be arrested.

I appreciate that Christians will face persecution, but actively seeking death instead of seeking to preserve life seems utterly contradictory to most of the message of the gospel. And Bennett gives absolutely zero context to these stories. He writes about martyr after martyr, and gives nothing away as far as WHY this was the mindset of the time. He just makes statements praising their dedication to their religion and starts in on the next one. It was highly frustrating, because I know there IS context to this idea that being killed for Christ was better than living and continuing to preach and spread His message, but Bennett seemed to deliberately leave it out in order to be more shocking.

I forced myself through about 2/3 of this book, and I cannot get any farther. So I'm done. No plans to revisit and try to finish in the future.

[Jackson Posey · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF. Bennett provides a (relatively) concise retelling of the early stars and controversies of Christian history, offering a useful timeline and roadmap for further study.

Unfortunately, the book is written in such an aggressively biased tone that I struggled to trust Bennett’s narration. Seemingly every sentence contained some sort of value judgment on the opinions of historical figures, many (all?) of whom were much more complex than “good” or “bad.” As one fairly representative example, here’s Bennett, a Roman Catholic, setting the stage for the rise of eastern theologian John Chrysostom:

”But, as in every age, the church was not without problems. In the West, the church had to adapt to a new role within the disintegrating Roman Empire. And in the East, the leaders had to contend with churches full of tepid, selfish, wrongly ambitious believers.”

It didn’t take long for these constant value propositions, which consistently elevated the Western party line over any and everything else, to become very grating. Something can be evidently true without constant adulation; something else can be false without ceaseless derision. This book could’ve used a lot more “show don’t tell.” 1.5 stars.

[Rob · Rating 2 out of 5]

Terminated my reading after Chapter 7. It was as if two different writers between Chapters 1-5 and Chapters 6-7.
Fascinating writing in first five chapters, well researched, wrenched my soul - clearly could see the early church being built upon the blood of the martyrs.
Disgusted with the handling of the two chapters (6-7) on Constantine, to the point that I cannot continue reading. Constantine's move (and the leaders of the church at the time) of pagan Eastre celebrations away from Passover, the pagan Sunday (worshiping the "sun god") instead of the Sabbath for worship, and validating the Trinity (no proof of such exists). All of which, in the end, did not unify Christians across the empire.
The author even went so far as presenting some of these points as if they had been in the church all along, but they were not.
It would have been different had these points been included along with the "good" Constantine did (ended the persecution of the Christians, ruled much differently than prior emperors, etc.), but without it - the author does not tell the whole truth (aka "fake news").

[Rob McClintock · Rating 4 out of 5]

An expansive review of the first thousand years of the Christian religion and the major figures in that history. I had heard of many of the characters over the years, but this history was able to provide important context and sequencing behind these individuals, their times, and the key issues they were confronting. While at times I found the book dragging, I think much of that comes from compressing centuries in which often the issues were similar. There was helpful explanation and context about the major theological conclaves, such as the Council of Nicea, and what was behind the development of the Nicean Creed. While there were many obviously devoted religious figures in the pages, one marvels at the corruption within the church that strayed massively from what Christ was teaching. Nevertheless, Christianity continued to grow and take root; the power of the Gospel message always seems to trump human attempts to deviate from its teaching.

[Russell Threet · Rating 4 out of 5]

An Enjoyable History

Church history is important but is often presented in such a way that it is boring and hard to read. This is especially true for a survey type book that covers large periods of time. However, with this book the author did a good job in diving deep enough to keep you interested without bogging down and making it feel like drudgery. This book is a great resource to refresh your memory on the early church councils and major characters in the history of the early church. Much of the later part of the book is dedicated to the divisions forming between the Roman and Byzantine church and the book ends with the great schism between those two groups. For the Protestant you may feel like those issues are unimportant, but you would be wrong. A knowledge of these matters is necessary to understand the rest of church history, particularly the Reformation. This text is a well written and engaging history that is well worth your time.

[Leah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Christianity: The good, the bad, and the downright wacky, from the martyrdom of the Apostles to the Great Schism.

Bennett provides a solid understanding of Christianity's first millennia. Tried by Fire addresses a series of struggles and developments within Christianity by focusing on the people who lived them. Thus, the book has a very biographical bent. Bennett is thorough, at times humorous, and certainly not afraid to pass judgment on Christians of the past. The style is very readable and the book includes a glossary of terms and people, in case the reader gets lost in the middle of all the theological bickering (Who were the Donatists? Arians? Lapsed? Montanists? Gnostics?)

Though the writing is accessible, the structure of the book means that Bennett flips around in time a bit, which can be disconcerting. That's really my only gripe.

[Christy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a library sale grab, and it was a good dip back into church history that I last thought through about 10 years ago. Throughout the ups and downs of the social and political changes, the reality that God is the one who leads his people shone through. I appreciated that Bennett didn't shy away from looking into the absurd or strange parts of our checkered past, even when this hefty volume only looks up until 1000 AD. The lives of those who have gone before us inspire me to live with more dedication, evangelical outlook, and eagerness to study the Scriptures to be able to stand firm upon my foundation no matter what comes.

[Daniel Greear · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was solid. It wasn’t a great academic study into Christianity’s first 1000 years but it did provide a lot of good historical information about the era between the Crucifixion until the Great Schism. If you are looking on a lot of information about a particular person or era, this is not the book. It’s a general overview that covers a lot of ground quickly. I was disappointed that the book didn’t talk about the Roman Catacombs much or the Nestorian (Asian) Church.

[Yvette · Rating 5 out of 5]

William J. Bennett presents one of the most comprehensive compilations on the early years of Christianity. He tells history in an interesting way that is also easy to understand and follow. Bennett is very detailed and thorough without losing the story to the facts. This book is an extremely fascinating and informative read.

[Maribeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is excellent. I had to lay it down several times and really contemplate the long-suffering of God. This book helped me tie together my knowledge of church history in a more chronological order. Bennett shares enough details to be interesting, but not so involved that the storyline loses momentum. Thanks William J. Bennett!

[Allison Jenkins]

I am not going to rate this because I'm not a fan of history. I learned a lot, but can't say I enjoyed it. If you like gorey stories about people repeatedly being terrible to one another and reading through myriad examples of why separation of church and state is a good idea, then this is the book for you.

[Mason Tabor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent history of the Church’s first thousand years! I highly recommend this for beginners to Church history. Bennett’s style makes the book read like a novel, and the interesting details and anecdotes he supplies along the way make each character and event more conceivable. He covers quite a lot of ground and all the major events. Highly recommend!

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a 3.5 star book. It is very good, but it is so complicated, with so many different people and places, that it is a bit hard to follow. Great if you like christian history from that period, but if you don't like history from that period this book would be very boring.

My favorite thing about the book is that it explains the how and why of the spread of Christianity.