The Man Can Dance, But He Can't Hit

I'm currently reading Michael Horton's "Covenant and Eschatology," which is a sort of "Prolegomena to Any Future Systematics." It's an intriguing book, especially if one happens to be both Reformed and orthodox. Horton seeks to go behind the standard topics of a typical prolegomena in order to discuss the basic possibilities of doing theology in the current intellectual milieu. His thesis: the viable way to do theology now is to recast orthodoxy in the mould of the redemptive-historical approach. Horton believes that a redemptive-historical orthodoxy, where redemptive action in history is understood in terms of a cosmic drama, can re-invigorate the schizophrenic and decrepit corpus of current theological reflection. (At least that's what I've gotten from the first half of the book.)

"Covenant" is unusual, especially as an orthodox book, for the extent of its author's familiarity with post-modern and modern theologies. Horton's erudition is massive (and sometimes excessively displayed), but the man knows who his opponents are, and what he's up against in the form of inimical ideas. He also manages to find some very interesting allies (Paul Riceour stands out as an example).

I got very excited at the beginning of the book. Here's a guy who's now the professor of both theology and apologetics at a major Reformed seminary (Westminster in Escondido, CA) who's obviously intellectually intimate with anybody who's anybody in the last 150 years of Western thought. He's taking everybody on, and not just in general: he wants to take out the fine soil of particular ideas, mix in the water of current developments, and then mud-wrestle with Bultmann, Pannenberg, G.E. Wright, and Lindbeck, not to mention Hegel and Nietzche. Rock on!

Though Horton definitely makes some good points along the way, his argued objections to competitor systems tend to be limited to the reductio. Some of his less happy moments make me think I'm reading Rushdoony or Francis Schaeffer. Are there any other orthodox people in the universe who are tired of hearing contempory ideas condemned for "guilt by similarity" to ancient heresies or discredited philosophies? Guilt by association is not a legitimate tool for dismantling an opponent's viewpoint. That said, Horton does a fairly good job of showing up faults in major non-orthodox approaches.

Though Horton can bob and weave to avoid the left hook of modernist theologies and the uppercut of postmodernist narratives, he hits like a girl when it comes to offering his own propositions. He scarcely gets beyond stating his proffered alternatives; he barely even mentions why he thinks they are superior. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that he makes a comeback in the second round of the book, but right now it looks like he needs to be sent back to the gym.