BOOK REVIEW:
Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama. By Michael Horton. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. 351 pp. ISBN 0664225012.

In this provocative study Michael Horton proposes a new paradigm for integrating theology while still remaining faithful to biblical revelation and the confessions of the Reformation. He is adamant that post-Reformation orthodoxy should also be included in the theological dialogue. Harboring reservations toward the mystical and pietistic heritage of the church, he ruefully observes that evangelicalism is sinking into an “experiential-expressive” model of authority. He wishes to affirm biblical authority without falling into biblicism and sectarianism.

Horton proposes the model of a drama, which includes covenant and consummation. While preferring narrative theology over propositional theology, he by no means denies the critical role of propositions in the articulation of the faith. He also raises questions about the viability of narrative theology – whether it compromises the historical basis of revelation. In his view the Bible is not only “history-like” but is firmly rooted in historical events.

I concur with Horton’s critique of both evangelical rationalism and pietism, though he needs to be more cautious in his appraisal of the latter. He rightly contends that the Bible consists not of “eternally true propositions” but of “temporally executed promises.” He complains that conservatives have too often conceived of revelation in terms of “static, immutable, and eternal principles.” In contrast to neo-orthodox interpretations he sees Protestant scholasticism as contradicting rationalism by acknowledging revealed truth that cannot wholly be contained in human language.

The author tends to downplay the experiential dimension of faith in favor of an expositional delineation of the scriptural text. But can we grasp the meaning of the text apart from the evangelical experience of an awakened heart? He reminds us of our indebtedness to Reformed scholasticism for producing some of the greatest works of biblical commentary and devotion. I urge him to take more seriously the legitimate questions that such theological giants as Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Thomas Torrance, and James Torrance have raised concerning the rationalizing thrust of much scholastic theology, especially in the later period. He is right to be concerned about an uncritical embracing of “the great tradition” by evangelicals today. I share his uneasiness about Stanley Hauerwas who moves the locus of authority from the text to the community of interpretation.

This book would have been strengthened had it contained a critique of open theism, which is presently shaping the evangelical conversation. The author also needs to say something about biblical inerrancy, which continues to be a burning issue among evangelicals. A discussion of that subject would have been most appropriate, since his book focuses on method and authority. In his future writing I hope that Horton will include an encounter with Thomas Torrance, Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, and Emil Brunner. Finally, consideration of the Barmen Declaration would also be in order, since, in my opinion, this is the most challenging and relevant confession of faith on the modern scene. Horton’s book is a welcome contribution to the ongoing theological discussion on method and authority.

Donald G. Bloesch
Professor of Theology Emeritus
Dubuque Theological Seminary, Dubuque, IA