I’ve been working my way through Michael Horton’s new systematic theology, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. I thought I would share some of my initial thoughts (in no particular order).
1. This book is definitely not an introduction to theology. It would not be a good college intro textbook, nor would it be a good book to recommend to the average layperson at church. This is a smart, philosophically oriented book. In many ways it feels like Horton assumes his readers already know and understand the players (that is the theologians) and the rules (foundational theological categories) as he interacts with them throughout the book.
2. In terms of layout, I really like the wide outside margins. They are great for note taking. On the other hand, I wish there were a few more section headings/breaks, as sometimes it feels like I’m reading a wall of text.
3. Horton is upfront about the fact that this is a Reformed systematic theology. I like that he is upfront. No guessing, and no pretending that this book represents all of evangelical theology. (Just for the record: I am not Reformed, even though I’m spending a lot of time with Barth).
4. Horton moves seamlessly from one theologian to another when talking about the development of theological thought. It makes me realize how much more theology I have yet to read. For example, Zizioulas seems to be Horton’s ‘got-to’ theologian for the EO perspective. I should put him on my ‘to-read’ list.
5. Some of Horton’s interactions with theologians that I have read make me want to go back and re-read them. For example, Horton spends quite a bit of time interacting with Grenz and Franke’s Beyond Foundationalism, and as I read his assessment of the theology in that book, I find myself saying, “Is that what they really said? I don’t remember that?” More books to add to the “to-read” (and in this case the “to-re-read”) list.
6. I’m impressed with how much Horton interacts with Barth. I just finished the chapter on election, and Horton spends a significant amount of time interacting with Barth’s unique doctrine of election. That being said, if I hadn’t have read Barth and already had a basic understanding of Barth’s doctrine, I would have been a little (a lot) lost in how Horton assesses Barth’s position. Again, I think this goes back to Horton assuming his readers already have some theological training.
Now, I am only eleven chapters into this book, but from what I’ve read, this book is best taken in small bits. Read a section at a time, chew it over, and don’t rush or speed read through it.
My two cents.
I would like to hear what he had to say about Grenz’s and Franke’s book as well. I have read it, and I am a Grenz and Zizioulas backer. Big time.
Pingback: Monday Musing | Political Jesus
Pingback: Monday Musing: Horton, Pinnock and the Influence of Theology | Political Jesus