What do you think?
Rate this book
Church History in Plain Language
It's about time that someone wrote church history that tells about people, not just about "eras" and "ages." Church History in Plain Language taps the roots of our Christian family tree. It combines authoritative research with a captivating style to bring our heritage home to us.
520 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1982
1,548 people are currently reading
6,357 people want to read
About the author
Bruce L. Shelley
22books49followersDr. Bruce Shelley was the long-time professor of church history and historical theology at Denver Seminary. He joined the faculty in 1957.
He earned a Ph.D. from the University of Iowa and received a theological degree from Fuller Seminary. He also attended Columbia Bible College.
Dr. Shelley wrote or edited over twenty books, including Church History in Plain Language, All the Saints Adore Thee, The Gospel and the American Dream, Theology of Ordinary People, and The Consumer Church. He served on the editorial advisory board of Christian History and published numerous articles for magazines and encyclopedias. He served as consulting editor for InterVarsity’s Dictionary of Christianity in America. He was a corresponding editor of Christianity Today and published articles in Encyclopedia Americana, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, and New International Dictionary of the Christian Church.
He earned a Ph.D. from the University of Iowa and received a theological degree from Fuller Seminary. He also attended Columbia Bible College.
Dr. Shelley wrote or edited over twenty books, including Church History in Plain Language, All the Saints Adore Thee, The Gospel and the American Dream, Theology of Ordinary People, and The Consumer Church. He served on the editorial advisory board of Christian History and published numerous articles for magazines and encyclopedias. He served as consulting editor for InterVarsity’s Dictionary of Christianity in America. He was a corresponding editor of Christianity Today and published articles in Encyclopedia Americana, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, and New International Dictionary of the Christian Church.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 561 reviews
November 3, 2014
I'll begin by saying that this is probably one of the most easily readable church history books available. The writing style is straightforward and non-academic. The chapter lengths are perfect for daily reading. For a survey of the last 2000 years, Shelley manages to put in a lot of detail without getting bogged down in it. There's a lot to like about this book.
There are a few things to dislike about this book though. First, it should be called Western Church History with a Calvinist Bias. There are factual errors and conflations of heretical and orthodox teachings. The Eastern church is, by in large, given fair treatment, but the Great Schism between east and west is hardly mentioned, and all of Eastern Christianity simply disappears immediately after, to reappear only in the 20th century—at least the Russian Orthodox church reappears—first as the victims of, and then as shills for the atheistic Soviet government.
Shelley takes great pains to describe the political climate and machinations that contribute to the rise of Christendom and the Roman Catholic church (as if these political events were the underpinning of the entire movement), but he essentially ignores the politics involved in the spread of the Reformation, leaving one to surmise that Protestantism spread solely by its own merit and Divine Will.
The major problems I found are related to Shelley's bias shining through the text at key points throughout the narrative. Some examples follow:
p. 4 � "[A]n unprejudiced reading of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John reveals Jesus' plans for a company of followers to carry on his work."
This certainly seems to indicate the necessity of Apostolic succession. Shelley makes this bald statement almost as a thesis for the whole work, and then goes on to present a version of history that is highly critical to hierarchical ecclesiology, and which takes for granted the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
p. 13 � "Stephen, however, was a special case. He dared to renounce the law of Moses and attack the temple of God, openly and repeatedly. . . . He spoke of Jewish history, but he argued that men might worship God apart from the temple."
The account of Stephen is given in Acts 6 and 7. Acts 6:13�14 specifically indicate that the accusations of Stephen speaking against the temple and the law are false witness. Furthermore, Stephen's quotation of Isiah 66:1�2 is a charge that the Jewish leaders were trying to subjugate God with their temple authority, not a renouncement of temple worship. Early Christians continued to worship in the temple until it became impossible to do so, after which they created new, sacred spaces, often in the homes of wealthy believers.
p. 17 � "These first Christians came to believe that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, followed by the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, were divine events. . . . In a similar way, the second ceremony, the Lord's Supper, as it was soon called, looked back to Jesus' betrayal and death and found in the events of Calvary and the empty tomb evidence of the 'new covenant' promised by the prophet Jeremiah. . . . This simple meal renewed their covenant with God and with one another."
I doubt that early Christians would have characterized the Lord's Supper as a "simple meal". As early as 155 A.D. Justin Martyr records that Christians considered the Eucharist to be the flesh and blood of the incarnate Christ. Communion as a simple meal is a modern Protestant characterization.
p. 84 � "Among the earliest was a young law student from Asia Minor named Gregory, later nicknamed the Wonder-Worker, because of his unusually successful missionary labors among his own people."
"Wonderworker" is not a "nickname"; it is a title bestowed upon St. Gregory by the Church, and not because he was a decent missionary, but because of the many miracles God performed through him! The idea that someone would be referred to as "the Wonderworker" because of his missionary prowess is ridiculous on its face, and seems to indicate a bias toward Dualism.
p. 85 � "Origen's overriding concern was to allow the whole Bible to speak for itself . . ."
Another ridiculous statement. There was no "Bible" in the time of Origen. To speak of "the whole Bible" as existing at that time is a willful misrepresentation of facts, and only perpetuates the myth that the Bible descended, in bound form, from on high.
p. 102 � Shelley misquotes the Nicene creed by including the filioque ("and the Son") as part of the original text. This phrase (which has deep theological implications as to the personhood of the Holy Spirit) was added by the Roman church at a later date. It was never accepted by the churches in the East, and was one of the major points of contention that led to the Great Schism between East and West.
p. 106 � "It is clear that when we think of the Trinity, we should not try to think of three persons in our sense of the term, but three personal disclosures of God that correspond to what he is really like."
Shelley spends an entire page discussing the difficulty the church had in expressing the nature of the Trinity, and then goes on to sum it up in one, trite statement—a statement which is, in fact, an expression of Sebelianism (or modalism), a heresy dealt with in the 3rd century.
p. 129 � Shelley's discussion of the heresy of Pelagianism is too broad. Not all of what Pelagius taught was condemned, and not all of what Augustine taught was accepted by the whole church, especially in the East. Augustine would remove Man's free will, a will that the early fathers explicitly taught as necessary to understanding salvation. The conflation of Pelagian heresy with standard Christian doctrine of the time reads as a setup for the doctrine of Calvinism some thousand years later.
p. 138 � "The sole and independent leadership of the Eastern church by the patriarch of Constantinople was confirmed."
Shelley would have the Ecumenical Patriarch as some sort of Eastern Pope. This has never been the case. Eastern Church leadership (and until the Great Schism, this included Rome) has always been conciliar, with one patriarch enjoying primacy, but not authority, over the others.
p. 144 � "In the Church of the Twelve Apostles, which he had built, Constantine prepared in the midst of the twelve symbolic tombs of the apostles a thirteenth, for himself. . . . This thirteenth tomb gave rise to the emperor's title as 'equal to the apostles.'"
St. Constantine, Equal to the Apostles is called such because he was instrumental in the spread of Christianity, not because he built himself a tomb. Again, Shelley is attempting to discount, or at least temper, the piety of the Medieval Church.
p. 145 � "Constantine discovered, however, that Christianity itself was divided and torn over differences in traditions of doctrine and practice. He was superstitiously anxious that God would hold him personally responsible for these divisions and quarrels among the Christians."
Is fear of the Lord superstition? Constantine decreed Christianity as the faith his empire. Why would he not be anxious that God would hold him responsible for its practice?
p. 147 � "The state itself was conceived to be the only community established by God, and it embraced the whole life of man. The visible representative of God within it, who performed his will and dispensed his blessings, was the emperor."
This sounds a lot like the Evangelical view of the United States. (Not a criticism, just an observation.)
p. 241 � "Thus, Luther brushed aside the traditional view of the church as a sacred hierarchy headed by the pope and returned to the early Christian view of a community of Christian believers in which all believers are priests called to offer spiritual sacrifices to God."
This is a particularly rosy (and modern) interpretation of how the early Church was organized.
In the first half of the book, discussing the rise of Christendom and the church of Rome, Shelley is careful to point out the political climate and machianations that surround these events, almost as if they are the primary cause. In his discussion of the rise of Protestantism, he makes no attempt to ascribe any political motives to the spread of these new doctrines, assuming they are spread solely by Divine Will and their own merit.
In all the talk of the spread of Christianity, there is no discussion of the Christianization of Kievan Rus in 980, which brought Christianity to almost half the world (geographically). He also fails to mention that the Portugese merchants who brought their faith to India encountered Christianity already established there by Thomas the Apostle over 1,000 years prior. This demonstrates the pervasiveness of of Shelley's Western-centric view of Christianity.
p. 256 � Calvin steps in, right in the middle of the narrative, as the hero of the story. Shelley's enthusiasm for Calvin is palpable.
p. 281 � "During the Middle Ages, however, an important attitude developed among European Christians. The rise of Islam in the seventh century drove a wedge between Christians in Europe and their fellow believers in Asia and Africa. Only a few outposts of Christianity survived in the Islamic countries of North Africa and the Near East. Christianity was confined almost exclusively to Europe."
If anything, the wedge that was driven was because the Western church began to borrow ideas from Islam (strict adherence to a text being one of them). The Eastern church may not have flourished under Islamic rule, but it did survive, and in many cases, coexisted peacefully.
p. 371 � "Early Christians believed that, amid his encircling gloom, the Lord Jesus himself prayed for his disciples: 'Father, . . . My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world' (John 17:15�19, NIV)."
Do later Christians believe something different? I'm not sure what this statement is supposed to mean.
It is clear that Shelley's purpose of writing this book was its second half, the rise and spread of Protestantism, and specifically the history of the denominations in America. It's clear because his level of enthusiasm increases as he draws closer to the present. Shelley does an excellent job of documenting the people and processes that got us from Luther to this point, and anyone looking to quickly increase their knowledge of Church history would do well to read this book, keeping in mind the bias mentioned above.
There are a few things to dislike about this book though. First, it should be called Western Church History with a Calvinist Bias. There are factual errors and conflations of heretical and orthodox teachings. The Eastern church is, by in large, given fair treatment, but the Great Schism between east and west is hardly mentioned, and all of Eastern Christianity simply disappears immediately after, to reappear only in the 20th century—at least the Russian Orthodox church reappears—first as the victims of, and then as shills for the atheistic Soviet government.
Shelley takes great pains to describe the political climate and machinations that contribute to the rise of Christendom and the Roman Catholic church (as if these political events were the underpinning of the entire movement), but he essentially ignores the politics involved in the spread of the Reformation, leaving one to surmise that Protestantism spread solely by its own merit and Divine Will.
The major problems I found are related to Shelley's bias shining through the text at key points throughout the narrative. Some examples follow:
p. 4 � "[A]n unprejudiced reading of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John reveals Jesus' plans for a company of followers to carry on his work."
This certainly seems to indicate the necessity of Apostolic succession. Shelley makes this bald statement almost as a thesis for the whole work, and then goes on to present a version of history that is highly critical to hierarchical ecclesiology, and which takes for granted the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
p. 13 � "Stephen, however, was a special case. He dared to renounce the law of Moses and attack the temple of God, openly and repeatedly. . . . He spoke of Jewish history, but he argued that men might worship God apart from the temple."
The account of Stephen is given in Acts 6 and 7. Acts 6:13�14 specifically indicate that the accusations of Stephen speaking against the temple and the law are false witness. Furthermore, Stephen's quotation of Isiah 66:1�2 is a charge that the Jewish leaders were trying to subjugate God with their temple authority, not a renouncement of temple worship. Early Christians continued to worship in the temple until it became impossible to do so, after which they created new, sacred spaces, often in the homes of wealthy believers.
p. 17 � "These first Christians came to believe that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, followed by the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, were divine events. . . . In a similar way, the second ceremony, the Lord's Supper, as it was soon called, looked back to Jesus' betrayal and death and found in the events of Calvary and the empty tomb evidence of the 'new covenant' promised by the prophet Jeremiah. . . . This simple meal renewed their covenant with God and with one another."
I doubt that early Christians would have characterized the Lord's Supper as a "simple meal". As early as 155 A.D. Justin Martyr records that Christians considered the Eucharist to be the flesh and blood of the incarnate Christ. Communion as a simple meal is a modern Protestant characterization.
p. 84 � "Among the earliest was a young law student from Asia Minor named Gregory, later nicknamed the Wonder-Worker, because of his unusually successful missionary labors among his own people."
"Wonderworker" is not a "nickname"; it is a title bestowed upon St. Gregory by the Church, and not because he was a decent missionary, but because of the many miracles God performed through him! The idea that someone would be referred to as "the Wonderworker" because of his missionary prowess is ridiculous on its face, and seems to indicate a bias toward Dualism.
p. 85 � "Origen's overriding concern was to allow the whole Bible to speak for itself . . ."
Another ridiculous statement. There was no "Bible" in the time of Origen. To speak of "the whole Bible" as existing at that time is a willful misrepresentation of facts, and only perpetuates the myth that the Bible descended, in bound form, from on high.
p. 102 � Shelley misquotes the Nicene creed by including the filioque ("and the Son") as part of the original text. This phrase (which has deep theological implications as to the personhood of the Holy Spirit) was added by the Roman church at a later date. It was never accepted by the churches in the East, and was one of the major points of contention that led to the Great Schism between East and West.
p. 106 � "It is clear that when we think of the Trinity, we should not try to think of three persons in our sense of the term, but three personal disclosures of God that correspond to what he is really like."
Shelley spends an entire page discussing the difficulty the church had in expressing the nature of the Trinity, and then goes on to sum it up in one, trite statement—a statement which is, in fact, an expression of Sebelianism (or modalism), a heresy dealt with in the 3rd century.
p. 129 � Shelley's discussion of the heresy of Pelagianism is too broad. Not all of what Pelagius taught was condemned, and not all of what Augustine taught was accepted by the whole church, especially in the East. Augustine would remove Man's free will, a will that the early fathers explicitly taught as necessary to understanding salvation. The conflation of Pelagian heresy with standard Christian doctrine of the time reads as a setup for the doctrine of Calvinism some thousand years later.
p. 138 � "The sole and independent leadership of the Eastern church by the patriarch of Constantinople was confirmed."
Shelley would have the Ecumenical Patriarch as some sort of Eastern Pope. This has never been the case. Eastern Church leadership (and until the Great Schism, this included Rome) has always been conciliar, with one patriarch enjoying primacy, but not authority, over the others.
p. 144 � "In the Church of the Twelve Apostles, which he had built, Constantine prepared in the midst of the twelve symbolic tombs of the apostles a thirteenth, for himself. . . . This thirteenth tomb gave rise to the emperor's title as 'equal to the apostles.'"
St. Constantine, Equal to the Apostles is called such because he was instrumental in the spread of Christianity, not because he built himself a tomb. Again, Shelley is attempting to discount, or at least temper, the piety of the Medieval Church.
p. 145 � "Constantine discovered, however, that Christianity itself was divided and torn over differences in traditions of doctrine and practice. He was superstitiously anxious that God would hold him personally responsible for these divisions and quarrels among the Christians."
Is fear of the Lord superstition? Constantine decreed Christianity as the faith his empire. Why would he not be anxious that God would hold him responsible for its practice?
p. 147 � "The state itself was conceived to be the only community established by God, and it embraced the whole life of man. The visible representative of God within it, who performed his will and dispensed his blessings, was the emperor."
This sounds a lot like the Evangelical view of the United States. (Not a criticism, just an observation.)
p. 241 � "Thus, Luther brushed aside the traditional view of the church as a sacred hierarchy headed by the pope and returned to the early Christian view of a community of Christian believers in which all believers are priests called to offer spiritual sacrifices to God."
This is a particularly rosy (and modern) interpretation of how the early Church was organized.
In the first half of the book, discussing the rise of Christendom and the church of Rome, Shelley is careful to point out the political climate and machianations that surround these events, almost as if they are the primary cause. In his discussion of the rise of Protestantism, he makes no attempt to ascribe any political motives to the spread of these new doctrines, assuming they are spread solely by Divine Will and their own merit.
In all the talk of the spread of Christianity, there is no discussion of the Christianization of Kievan Rus in 980, which brought Christianity to almost half the world (geographically). He also fails to mention that the Portugese merchants who brought their faith to India encountered Christianity already established there by Thomas the Apostle over 1,000 years prior. This demonstrates the pervasiveness of of Shelley's Western-centric view of Christianity.
p. 256 � Calvin steps in, right in the middle of the narrative, as the hero of the story. Shelley's enthusiasm for Calvin is palpable.
p. 281 � "During the Middle Ages, however, an important attitude developed among European Christians. The rise of Islam in the seventh century drove a wedge between Christians in Europe and their fellow believers in Asia and Africa. Only a few outposts of Christianity survived in the Islamic countries of North Africa and the Near East. Christianity was confined almost exclusively to Europe."
If anything, the wedge that was driven was because the Western church began to borrow ideas from Islam (strict adherence to a text being one of them). The Eastern church may not have flourished under Islamic rule, but it did survive, and in many cases, coexisted peacefully.
p. 371 � "Early Christians believed that, amid his encircling gloom, the Lord Jesus himself prayed for his disciples: 'Father, . . . My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world' (John 17:15�19, NIV)."
Do later Christians believe something different? I'm not sure what this statement is supposed to mean.
It is clear that Shelley's purpose of writing this book was its second half, the rise and spread of Protestantism, and specifically the history of the denominations in America. It's clear because his level of enthusiasm increases as he draws closer to the present. Shelley does an excellent job of documenting the people and processes that got us from Luther to this point, and anyone looking to quickly increase their knowledge of Church history would do well to read this book, keeping in mind the bias mentioned above.
January 1, 2019
0.0
Yes, I did learn some stuff. However, this book is not objective at all. The authors assert their opinions and biases when describing historical events and critiquing people and people groups of the past. For example: the author unnecessarily criticizes the theology of a man from the 3rd century using a quote from a modern day theologian...this was written to a very specific audience with a very specific theology and assumes that not only does every reader have this same brand of Christianity but also lacks any type of brain to think for themselves. In total I threw this book across the room only 3 times.
Yes, I did learn some stuff. However, this book is not objective at all. The authors assert their opinions and biases when describing historical events and critiquing people and people groups of the past. For example: the author unnecessarily criticizes the theology of a man from the 3rd century using a quote from a modern day theologian...this was written to a very specific audience with a very specific theology and assumes that not only does every reader have this same brand of Christianity but also lacks any type of brain to think for themselves. In total I threw this book across the room only 3 times.
October 27, 2023
I was impressed by the authors� ability to condense so much church history into one volume (albeit a very long one!) and I feel like I learned a lot. The language was very clear and accessible. I do feel like there were places where the writers made value judgements about specific pieces of theology that felt a bit biased. I loved the section on the growth of the Christian faith in the global south but I wish that part had been longer!
Read
July 7, 2024Officially DNFing on chapter 6. It's easy to understand and not a bad book. I'm just bored because I don't do well with non-fiction.
March 28, 2010
Two-thirds finished!!! LOVE HISTORY! Just as they say, studying another language improves understanding of your native language....that is what this book has done/is doing for me--religiously!
FINISHED!! What a book. I loved it! The chapters I particulary enjoyed were those about the 18th-21st century. I am crazy-wanting to read a kazillion books now. I feel like this book does an excellent job of outlining Christian history, gives a few juicy details, and then moves on...just enough to make me lick my chops for more! For me the author's style of writing was enjoyable and I liked how he catagorized his chapters---I am amazed that he was able to take so much history and consolidate it into this 500 page book. I can't imagine the research process and then then eliminating and narrowing process.
The thought that came to me the most as I was reading is how grateful I am for all those devout and faithful Christians throughout history who have enabled me to have what I have now. I really enjoyed the book. Now, I hope I retained the parts my professor claims to be "important" so I can do super on my last test!!!
FINISHED!! What a book. I loved it! The chapters I particulary enjoyed were those about the 18th-21st century. I am crazy-wanting to read a kazillion books now. I feel like this book does an excellent job of outlining Christian history, gives a few juicy details, and then moves on...just enough to make me lick my chops for more! For me the author's style of writing was enjoyable and I liked how he catagorized his chapters---I am amazed that he was able to take so much history and consolidate it into this 500 page book. I can't imagine the research process and then then eliminating and narrowing process.
The thought that came to me the most as I was reading is how grateful I am for all those devout and faithful Christians throughout history who have enabled me to have what I have now. I really enjoyed the book. Now, I hope I retained the parts my professor claims to be "important" so I can do super on my last test!!!
January 1, 2020
Although long, this book is broken into short chapters and is written in a style that makes it easy to read. It gives an overview of Church history from Christ to the current age discussing major themes, events, people, etc. It was kind of like drinking from a fire hose, but it was helpful. I'm slowly building on my church history context and this book was a great aid to that.
It's fairly neutral (although it assumes that the reader will be at least sympathetic to the Church; in the end it talks about "who we are" which seems to imply he wrote for the benefit of other believers). There were a couple parts (like when discussing dispensationalism and cessationism) that the author used less than neutral terms and I think readers would probably pick up on biases in the book depending on their own background/beliefs. I read one review that complained that it skewed toward protestantism. The author writes a lot about Catholicism, its developments and it impact over the centuries. Of course, as a protestant, I'm fairly satisfied with how Catholicism was handled in the book, but it probably does lean more heavily in the direction of protestantism (which I would expect from an author who is protestant). This is not a history of the Catholic church.
I'm not sure the best way to read this book. I know I will forget a lot of what I read. It's just too much and the dates, names, events, movements, etc. for 2000 years of history boggle the mind. The author divides the book into different ages and I think it would be useful to spend some time in each of the ages to solidify the main themes before moving on. I didn't have time for that with this reading, but I think it would work well in a classroom where it could be discussed and coordinated with other supplemental material.
A couple things I didn't really like were that there are no notes so things are quoted without reference to the source. I shouldn't say there are no notes. For this size of a book there is an astonishingly small amount of end notes at the back, but since there's no reference to the notes in the chapter itself, you have no idea in the end notes which thought the note refers back to. Each chapter ends with a list of suggested reading titles and I guess I assume that the content from each chapter is for the most part sourced from that reading list. While this system makes the text probably feel more casual and less intimidating, I don't really like not knowing where the author is getting his facts. However, I did like the suggested reading list and that it was specific to each chapter. I think is helpful for developing the material for a class or for choosing certain themes/time periods to study further.
The other thing that I didn't really like (but that is probably inevitable) is that despite the chronological structure of the book, I still felt like things jumped around a little bit with the chapters and sometimes I felt confused about who was doing what and when. I don't really think this can be completely avoided. I've noticed it in lots of other history books, but there were a few times where I got a little lost or felt like I needed to backtrack.
Overall, this provides an easy to read (the "plain language" title really fits), comprehensive (but not exhaustive) history of the church and I appreciated it. I would recommend it across the spectrum although most people will probably have a beef here and there with how certain aspects are covered. I think that is to be expected with this sort of overview.
It's fairly neutral (although it assumes that the reader will be at least sympathetic to the Church; in the end it talks about "who we are" which seems to imply he wrote for the benefit of other believers). There were a couple parts (like when discussing dispensationalism and cessationism) that the author used less than neutral terms and I think readers would probably pick up on biases in the book depending on their own background/beliefs. I read one review that complained that it skewed toward protestantism. The author writes a lot about Catholicism, its developments and it impact over the centuries. Of course, as a protestant, I'm fairly satisfied with how Catholicism was handled in the book, but it probably does lean more heavily in the direction of protestantism (which I would expect from an author who is protestant). This is not a history of the Catholic church.
I'm not sure the best way to read this book. I know I will forget a lot of what I read. It's just too much and the dates, names, events, movements, etc. for 2000 years of history boggle the mind. The author divides the book into different ages and I think it would be useful to spend some time in each of the ages to solidify the main themes before moving on. I didn't have time for that with this reading, but I think it would work well in a classroom where it could be discussed and coordinated with other supplemental material.
A couple things I didn't really like were that there are no notes so things are quoted without reference to the source. I shouldn't say there are no notes. For this size of a book there is an astonishingly small amount of end notes at the back, but since there's no reference to the notes in the chapter itself, you have no idea in the end notes which thought the note refers back to. Each chapter ends with a list of suggested reading titles and I guess I assume that the content from each chapter is for the most part sourced from that reading list. While this system makes the text probably feel more casual and less intimidating, I don't really like not knowing where the author is getting his facts. However, I did like the suggested reading list and that it was specific to each chapter. I think is helpful for developing the material for a class or for choosing certain themes/time periods to study further.
The other thing that I didn't really like (but that is probably inevitable) is that despite the chronological structure of the book, I still felt like things jumped around a little bit with the chapters and sometimes I felt confused about who was doing what and when. I don't really think this can be completely avoided. I've noticed it in lots of other history books, but there were a few times where I got a little lost or felt like I needed to backtrack.
Overall, this provides an easy to read (the "plain language" title really fits), comprehensive (but not exhaustive) history of the church and I appreciated it. I would recommend it across the spectrum although most people will probably have a beef here and there with how certain aspects are covered. I think that is to be expected with this sort of overview.
Read
January 30, 2025Many consider this the best one-volume introduction to Church History. And I can see why. I had not read a church history survey since my seminary days, but found Shelley's work clear and compelling. This book has 48 chapters that each take about 10-15 minutes to read, covering what happened from end of the writing of the New Testament unto today.
It made me marvel at the work of God throughout history, which just like biblical times is often messy, filled with sin. Even so, Christ advances His kingdom throughout the world. The book produced in me humility, awe, gratitude for the freedoms we currently enjoy, and extreme gratitude to have God's Word in our own language so readily available.
It made me marvel at the work of God throughout history, which just like biblical times is often messy, filled with sin. Even so, Christ advances His kingdom throughout the world. The book produced in me humility, awe, gratitude for the freedoms we currently enjoy, and extreme gratitude to have God's Word in our own language so readily available.
April 23, 2024
Absolutely phenomenal. A must read on every level! By “plain language� he means quite literally PLAIN LANGUAGE. Every chapter is engaging and provokes much thought. This book should be required reading for all people!
September 11, 2024
Church History in Plain Language by Bruce L. Shelley {review}
.
.
.
It took me over a year to read this 400+ page volume. Not because it was boring, but because I had a lot going on and ended up putting it down for extended periods of time. Normally, when that happens, I put the book away and hope to start it over again “later.� But I kept on plugging away with this, and it was honestly very enjoyable!
The book is split into different “ages� of the church, and tells the history of Christianity by focusing on the people who made that history happen, for better or for worse. This is not a history textbook! While it certainly can slip into some more academic reports of past events, it was also full of well-written biographies of church fathers, leaders, and persons of note.
The author did a good job over-all of remaining impartial. He praised the good and revealed the bad and the ugly too. I appreciated that! He also was impartial towards denominations.
Each era or age of Church History was explained in enough detail to make it interesting (often even easy to remember!) but not so much detail as to big it down. I definitely learned a lot!
My only issue is that it more or less just covers the Church in the western world. Very little is said about what was happening in the churches of Asia or Africa, or the Middle East. From Pentecost, we move on to Rome, and from there to Germany and throughout Europe, and so on. I really wish more space would've been dedicated to the Church on the rest of the world.
4 ⭐️
.
.
.
It took me over a year to read this 400+ page volume. Not because it was boring, but because I had a lot going on and ended up putting it down for extended periods of time. Normally, when that happens, I put the book away and hope to start it over again “later.� But I kept on plugging away with this, and it was honestly very enjoyable!
The book is split into different “ages� of the church, and tells the history of Christianity by focusing on the people who made that history happen, for better or for worse. This is not a history textbook! While it certainly can slip into some more academic reports of past events, it was also full of well-written biographies of church fathers, leaders, and persons of note.
The author did a good job over-all of remaining impartial. He praised the good and revealed the bad and the ugly too. I appreciated that! He also was impartial towards denominations.
Each era or age of Church History was explained in enough detail to make it interesting (often even easy to remember!) but not so much detail as to big it down. I definitely learned a lot!
My only issue is that it more or less just covers the Church in the western world. Very little is said about what was happening in the churches of Asia or Africa, or the Middle East. From Pentecost, we move on to Rome, and from there to Germany and throughout Europe, and so on. I really wish more space would've been dedicated to the Church on the rest of the world.
4 ⭐️
March 26, 2024
Excellent one volume history of the church from an Evangelical perspective. Well written and highly readable though sometimes the author broad-brushes a bit. I would’ve liked it even better if there had been thorough footnotes for the many anecdotes and quotations.
January 30, 2025
This will be my new go-to suggestion for anyone wanting to get an overview of church history. As the title suggests, Shelley cuts a lot of material from what traditional texts on the subject usually cover. But what lacks in substance is made up for in style. Shelley weaves the through-line masterfully such that each event feels like the immediate catalyst for the next.
March 18, 2018
Best church history material I've come across. Well organized, informative, detailed, and written in a way that won't put you to sleep. Love this books. Highly reccomend.
February 23, 2019
A really good brief summary of the history of the church. Enjoyed reading this book a lot.
March 18, 2022
Very informative and easy to understand…not overly scholarly.
November 7, 2023
A good overview that felt unsatisfactorily forced towards the concluding chapters. The most enjoyable aspect of the story arc presented by Shelly is his ability to draw the reader back to the origins of the Christian faith and the many ways Christians throughout history have applied scripture and built upon the faith tradition. Plenty of other titles (many of which were listed as references) are now added to the “want to read� list.
March 13, 2025
Enjoyed this overview of church history (despite a long break between when I started and finished it 😂). Amazing to see how doctrine was formed, heresies were quelled, and Gods Word sustained through thousands of years. I especially appreciated the analysis of the reformation and denominational differences, contributions and challenges.
April 24, 2025
He gets the Crusades wrong but overall a great overview of Church history and an excellent launching pad for finding periods of history and historical figures you might be interested in exploring more in depth.
December 8, 2024
Took me 1.5 years but finally finished this bad boy. I’m convinced of how important it is for Christians to know the history of the Church
July 18, 2022
I really can't more highly recommend this book for those looking for an overview of Church History. I might even go so far to say it should be required reading for believers at some point in their sanctification journey, at the least, a church history book of some sort, though I think this one is excellent. I commonplaced endlessly and this book really secured my mental historical timeline. I think one of the most living ideas for me that I found in this book was that Christianity as a whole requires navigating the tension of being both a movement and an institution. When the Spirit moves and many come to faith, the organizational and structural needs increase; however, when the institution begins to impede the movement of the spirit, reformation and revival is needed. I can now see this repeated at so many times throughout church history. I think studying church history gives the believer such confidence to navigate whatever historical period that the Lord saw fit to have them born into. The bride of Christ will endure in the midst of heresies, war, ideologies, etc. until His return.
May 13, 2023
My second review
----------------
This is my second time reading this book. (See my former review here.) I continue to be amazed by Bruce Shelley's ability form very punchy, succinct paragraphs over complex periods of church history. As Shelley gets to the last 200 years, it does feel like he is too brief. I suspect he was trying to keep his book as one volume; however, it just doesn't feel as good as the rest of the volume. This is a minor complaint considering the huge success of the rest of the book.
my first review
----------------
I know I might be a little weird, but I just finished this Church History wanting to study church history even more. I think that is the gift of Shelley's writing here. Clearly [pun intended], this church history is to be in plain language and therefore accessible. In order for it to be accessible, it can't be too long, and the big facts of church history have to be handled in paragraphs. Bruce Shelley, page after page, gives us concise overviews of complex situations with insightful perspective.
Some might complain of the lack of details and others unsure of the value of this at all. The former should dig deeper. There are many resources available to them. The later, I will leave you with how Bruce starts his book. I think he settles the matter.
"As a consequence of our ignorance concerning Christian history, we find believers vulnerable to the appeals of cultists. Some distortion of Christianity is often taken for the real thing. At the same time other Christians reveal a shocking capacity for spiritual pride, hubris. Without an adequate base for comparisons they spring to the defense of their way as the best way—their party as the superior party. Finally, many Christians engage in some form of ministry without the advantage of a broader context for their labor. When they want to make the best use of their time or their efforts, they have no basis for sound judgment." [1]
[1] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Updated 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1995), xv.
----------------
This is my second time reading this book. (See my former review here.) I continue to be amazed by Bruce Shelley's ability form very punchy, succinct paragraphs over complex periods of church history. As Shelley gets to the last 200 years, it does feel like he is too brief. I suspect he was trying to keep his book as one volume; however, it just doesn't feel as good as the rest of the volume. This is a minor complaint considering the huge success of the rest of the book.
my first review
----------------
I know I might be a little weird, but I just finished this Church History wanting to study church history even more. I think that is the gift of Shelley's writing here. Clearly [pun intended], this church history is to be in plain language and therefore accessible. In order for it to be accessible, it can't be too long, and the big facts of church history have to be handled in paragraphs. Bruce Shelley, page after page, gives us concise overviews of complex situations with insightful perspective.
Some might complain of the lack of details and others unsure of the value of this at all. The former should dig deeper. There are many resources available to them. The later, I will leave you with how Bruce starts his book. I think he settles the matter.
"As a consequence of our ignorance concerning Christian history, we find believers vulnerable to the appeals of cultists. Some distortion of Christianity is often taken for the real thing. At the same time other Christians reveal a shocking capacity for spiritual pride, hubris. Without an adequate base for comparisons they spring to the defense of their way as the best way—their party as the superior party. Finally, many Christians engage in some form of ministry without the advantage of a broader context for their labor. When they want to make the best use of their time or their efforts, they have no basis for sound judgment." [1]
[1] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Updated 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1995), xv.
May 13, 2023
2023 -- Well here I am 13 years later, and no review written of this book. But, that may happily be addressed as I am reading this book now for a seminary class.
Excellent resource, I've referred to it frequently in understanding some of what is happening in mainline denominations these days. Much can be understood by understanding how each denomination was formed.
****
2020 --I am in a "learn about Christian church history" mode these days. I will be the first to confess also that I am not educated in this area and unfortunately have been brought up in a Christian tradition that does not emphasize much church history unless it is local, American, or protestant. Thus I am reading several books that all have to do with church history, each from a slightly different Christian tradition.
"Church History in Plain Language" is written from a western evangelical Protestant Christian tradition. "Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes" was written by a western evangelical Protestant who has lived and worked in eastern Europe and Russia, and can thus write about Eastern / Russian / Greek Orthodox Christian tradition in such a way as to be understood by western Christians. "Ye Are the Body" is written from a western Anglican Christian tradition.
All three of these books are excellent, and I give them all the highest number of stars I can. I'm working on a review of each book, but have not nailed down all that much because I am in the "processing and thinking" stage about all of what I have read. I'll re-visit these books with reviews when I am able to organize my thoughts!
Excellent resource, I've referred to it frequently in understanding some of what is happening in mainline denominations these days. Much can be understood by understanding how each denomination was formed.
****
2020 --I am in a "learn about Christian church history" mode these days. I will be the first to confess also that I am not educated in this area and unfortunately have been brought up in a Christian tradition that does not emphasize much church history unless it is local, American, or protestant. Thus I am reading several books that all have to do with church history, each from a slightly different Christian tradition.
"Church History in Plain Language" is written from a western evangelical Protestant Christian tradition. "Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes" was written by a western evangelical Protestant who has lived and worked in eastern Europe and Russia, and can thus write about Eastern / Russian / Greek Orthodox Christian tradition in such a way as to be understood by western Christians. "Ye Are the Body" is written from a western Anglican Christian tradition.
All three of these books are excellent, and I give them all the highest number of stars I can. I'm working on a review of each book, but have not nailed down all that much because I am in the "processing and thinking" stage about all of what I have read. I'll re-visit these books with reviews when I am able to organize my thoughts!
August 7, 2023
I enjoyed the first half of the book up to the post-reformation area. There are many good things about this book and I appreciate the author still manages to keep track of the developments of the Roman Catholic church.
It's pretty impressive how the author managed to cover 2000 years of church history in a single volume.
And I understand that biases can't be avoided in evaluating and interpreting history. Here are some of his biases that I disagreed with which I hope others who are reading this book will be more aware of.
1. It seems like the author subtly leans toward egalitarianism.
2. The Calvin and Servertus incident is oversimplified which seems to me that Calvin is portrayed as a villain.
3. It's inaccurate to call Anglicanism a via media between Roman Catholicism and Reformed. It's actually a via media between Lutheranism and Calvinism.
4. The author doesn't have any respect for the reformed confessions, which are the essential doctrinal statements of many Reformed churches. At the same time, the author doesn't have any respect for scholasticism as well.
5. Related to point 4, it seems to me the author doesn't care much about doctrines and theology. Most of his evaluation of church history is based on practical Christian living, revivalism, and evangelism. And it seems like he is quite comfortable with Roman Catholic churches as long they focus on these aspects despite their serious deviation from the gospel and theological errors.
6. The author also seems to be evaluating history from a Baptist's lens which is very much favorable to Pentecostalism.
It's pretty impressive how the author managed to cover 2000 years of church history in a single volume.
And I understand that biases can't be avoided in evaluating and interpreting history. Here are some of his biases that I disagreed with which I hope others who are reading this book will be more aware of.
1. It seems like the author subtly leans toward egalitarianism.
2. The Calvin and Servertus incident is oversimplified which seems to me that Calvin is portrayed as a villain.
3. It's inaccurate to call Anglicanism a via media between Roman Catholicism and Reformed. It's actually a via media between Lutheranism and Calvinism.
4. The author doesn't have any respect for the reformed confessions, which are the essential doctrinal statements of many Reformed churches. At the same time, the author doesn't have any respect for scholasticism as well.
5. Related to point 4, it seems to me the author doesn't care much about doctrines and theology. Most of his evaluation of church history is based on practical Christian living, revivalism, and evangelism. And it seems like he is quite comfortable with Roman Catholic churches as long they focus on these aspects despite their serious deviation from the gospel and theological errors.
6. The author also seems to be evaluating history from a Baptist's lens which is very much favorable to Pentecostalism.
July 12, 2021
A good introduction to church history. Very readable. Although it's quite long, it doesn't go into great depth about any of the events it discusses. But neither does it sweep past them so quickly that they are no longer memorable. Shelley exercises constraint in choosing to discuss a smaller number of events in more detail than to discuss a larger number of events in less detail. I think this is the right approach. My only real complaint comes with the final few chapters where Shelley talks about Christianity in modern times. This part contains very little narrative of specific events and instead contains nebulous summaries of various denominations and trends in the modern world--very dull compared to the rest of the book.
Update: I just finished reading Needham's 2,000 Years of Christ's Power, and that book trumps this one. If you're looking for an accessible and thorough account of church history, go with Needham.
Update: I just finished reading Needham's 2,000 Years of Christ's Power, and that book trumps this one. If you're looking for an accessible and thorough account of church history, go with Needham.
December 30, 2020
I love the goal of this book: to increase the normal non-academic Christian’s historical literacy. The prose is natural and works well read or listened to. I fault it for its Eurocentricity, which was most obvious by my judgement into the 19th and 20th Centuries. The black American church was not given enough consideration, other events in America (culture wars, court cases etc) seem inconsequential in comparison. The global church was considered sporadically and usually as an afterthought.
Read
July 24, 2011A good overview that hits the Big Questions of Christian history in an approachable way. Each chapter's suggestions for further reading also intrigue me.
December 17, 2012
FANTASTIC survey of Church history! Reads like an epic novel. EVERY Christian should invest the time to read this!
May 19, 2024
BOOK REVIEW ✝️
"Church History in Plain Language"
by Bruce Shelley
Every👏🏻Christian👏🏻Should👏🏻Read👏🏻This👏🏻Book! Truly revolutionary to my faith walk! So.Good!!
I've been a Christian since I was a kid, yet my knowledge of church history was so narrow. Now I see how incredibly important it is for Christians and the Church to learn about our history, the good and the bad, so we can continue to become what God wants us to be, not what we think we should be....
First off: I will say that this survey of the Church (from Jesus's ministry to the dawn of the twenty-first century) is refreshingly objective. The author was a renowned Church History professor at Denver Seminary (Baptist), yet he laid the facts out pragmatically. He covers not just the history of Western Christianity but also the emerging Christian populations in Eastern and developing nations! It's so cool and eye-opening!
The evolution from the Apostolic church to the first catholic church (my favorite by far) was encouraging - the pure, courageous faith.The corruption that festered in the Church through the Dark, Middle and Mideval periods truly makes a Christian today shutter - the use of religion as coercion, political expediancy and military force....So encouraging to read indepth about the Reformation and it's undeniable impact on individual grace-filled faith. Fascinating to learn how the Age of Science and Reason upended traditional needs for the church. Informative to have modern times (world wars, economic revolutions, media, etc) reframed within the context of denominational evolution.
In summary, humans have been trying for 2000 years to "get church right".....and haven't yet. But the most beautiful things is: God's truth and saving grace has always remained!! After all this time, it's still there, powrfully at work in our lives! That's the God-thing of it all!
"Church History in Plain Language"
by Bruce Shelley
Every👏🏻Christian👏🏻Should👏🏻Read👏🏻This👏🏻Book! Truly revolutionary to my faith walk! So.Good!!
I've been a Christian since I was a kid, yet my knowledge of church history was so narrow. Now I see how incredibly important it is for Christians and the Church to learn about our history, the good and the bad, so we can continue to become what God wants us to be, not what we think we should be....
First off: I will say that this survey of the Church (from Jesus's ministry to the dawn of the twenty-first century) is refreshingly objective. The author was a renowned Church History professor at Denver Seminary (Baptist), yet he laid the facts out pragmatically. He covers not just the history of Western Christianity but also the emerging Christian populations in Eastern and developing nations! It's so cool and eye-opening!
The evolution from the Apostolic church to the first catholic church (my favorite by far) was encouraging - the pure, courageous faith.The corruption that festered in the Church through the Dark, Middle and Mideval periods truly makes a Christian today shutter - the use of religion as coercion, political expediancy and military force....So encouraging to read indepth about the Reformation and it's undeniable impact on individual grace-filled faith. Fascinating to learn how the Age of Science and Reason upended traditional needs for the church. Informative to have modern times (world wars, economic revolutions, media, etc) reframed within the context of denominational evolution.
In summary, humans have been trying for 2000 years to "get church right".....and haven't yet. But the most beautiful things is: God's truth and saving grace has always remained!! After all this time, it's still there, powrfully at work in our lives! That's the God-thing of it all!
May 25, 2022
As a Baptist pastor, I've read a number of Baptist history books over the years as well as a number of biographies of various men—some Baptist and some not. I knew I needed to read a more general book on Christian history and Shelley's is probably the most widely acclaimed.
Dr. Shelley was a Christian. However, he wrote this book more as an outsider looking in. As a result, he uses the words "church" and "Gospel" more broadly than I assume he'd have used it in either the classroom or the pulpit. He also used "pope" earlier than I think the actual modern day office of "pope" existed. I assume he did this simply because of the point of view from which he wrote. This work is not intended to make theological arguments for or against any certain group, but simply to inform of progress under the "Christendom umbrella" from the days of Christ until now.
This book is a very easy read. It may be the easiest history book I've ever read. I never struggled to pick it up. I appreciated that he started with the ministry of Jesus. The book ends post 9/11. So, it comes all the way up to our present generation. You'll even find men like Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham along with J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis mentioned.
I'm so glad I chose to read this book. Given the Baptist history books I've read, this helped to paint a much bigger picture as it weaved political history and church history throughout the centuries.
If you're looking for a book on the history of the Christian faith from a more general vantage point, this book is worthy.
Dr. Shelley was a Christian. However, he wrote this book more as an outsider looking in. As a result, he uses the words "church" and "Gospel" more broadly than I assume he'd have used it in either the classroom or the pulpit. He also used "pope" earlier than I think the actual modern day office of "pope" existed. I assume he did this simply because of the point of view from which he wrote. This work is not intended to make theological arguments for or against any certain group, but simply to inform of progress under the "Christendom umbrella" from the days of Christ until now.
This book is a very easy read. It may be the easiest history book I've ever read. I never struggled to pick it up. I appreciated that he started with the ministry of Jesus. The book ends post 9/11. So, it comes all the way up to our present generation. You'll even find men like Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham along with J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis mentioned.
I'm so glad I chose to read this book. Given the Baptist history books I've read, this helped to paint a much bigger picture as it weaved political history and church history throughout the centuries.
If you're looking for a book on the history of the Christian faith from a more general vantage point, this book is worthy.
July 6, 2021
An accessible medium length church history written by an evangelical for evangelicals. As such, it focuses on what is of most interest to evangelicals. I did not find it overly biased or apologetic and was surprised at the sympathetic attention given to the Roman Catholic Church. I was looking for a stepping stone between David Bentley Hart's slim and breezy history (which is not at all ashamed of its Eastern Orthodox biases) and the 1200 page volumes by scholars like Latourette, Macullough, and Needham--this was a fine choice.
July 12, 2022
This is an easy overall history of the church. A nice read for a general perspective. I found the beginning of the book very fascinating and helpful. The second half of the book was more difficult to follow. I was disappointed with how he covered the modern church era. I felt like it became political and too general. He seemed to pick random people like Ralph Reed and focused on him when IMO there is much more to modern church history to cover--how about the church in 3rd world nations, the communist church, the orthodox church, etc. He includes random facts that are curious--like John Wesley's wife and marriage, yet glosses over more impactful events like Vatican II or the fundamentalist/modernist controversy of the US Protestants.
I did appreciate the timeline at the beginning of each chapter.
I did appreciate the timeline at the beginning of each chapter.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 561 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.