Christianbook.com Academics

In part 2 of our interview with Michael Horton (read part 1) about The Christian Faith (Table of Contents) we discuss Barth, NT Wright, justification, and even a little antinomianism. A theme that emerges from this interview, and is increasingly apparent across in the broader theological discussion, is the degree to which post-Reformation reformed theology is being caricatured. Is it time to ask just how much of that theology its opponents have read–and read well? I think it may be. Finally, I would like to extend thanks to Dr. Horton for taking the time to participate in this interview. I hope everyone enjoys part 2.

Matthew: Barth, and the scholars who study him, are persistent dialogue partners throughout your book. How significant is Barth in the development of your own theology?

Horton: I would say that Barth is not formative in my own theology. However, wrestling through his Church Dogmatics and other works, I have been amazed at the extent to which I assumed caricatures of his views. Paradoxically, the more of Barth that I have read, the more I have grown both in appreciation of some emphases and in disappointment with some solutions.

Matthew: Do you think the cool reception of Barth by many in the Reformed camp is warranted?

Horton: Barth is his own best interpreter on this. In his Göttingen Dogmatics, he relates how blown away he was by actually reading Calvin and the post-Reformation Reformed theologians.

In many ways, he was inspired in his own program by this period. He had been taught by his liberal professors to dismiss all of this as child’s play, but he found it to be a room filled with treasures. On the other hand, he himself says later that he left hardly any Reformed doctrine standing in its confessional form.

From the doctrine of Scripture to eschatology, Barth used the same terms and categories, but radically revised nearly all of them. I think we’re entering a phase now of more light than heat. There are some terrific critiques of Barth by Reformed evangelicals today that are far more nuanced, informed, and engaging than many of yesteryear.

The reaction against Barth was understandable, especially as many evangelicals were embracing his views as a way of avoiding both fundamentalism and liberalism. However, I get the sense that these days there are more folks who are not fundamentalists, liberals, or Barthians. And that perhaps allows some space for more sympathetically critical analysis.

Matthew: Do you believe he is often misunderstood by more “traditional” Reformed Theologians?

Horton: It depends on which theologian and on what topic. One challenge on our side as conservatives is to assume that we know what someone believes without having to investigate the details. If one believes X, then logically that means he or she must believe Y, and so forth. However, that doesn’t always work and it isn’t really charitable, as we know when we’re accused of believing that human beings aren’t responsible because we believe that God is sovereign.

For example, Barth was not driven by liberalism; in fact, I believe that many of his mistakes were made out of an over-reaction against liberalism. Swinging from romantic-liberal emphasis on God’s immanence, Barth so stressed God’s transcendence that revelation could not be identified directly with any creaturely medium, including Scripture. This even affected his Christology.

If we’re going to critique conclusions, we need to know how they are derived and not just assume that inadequate views of Scripture, for example, are always liberal. Distortions can come from all sorts of different quarters and the “liberal-conservative” way of categorizing things often misses important nuances.

Matthew: Your Theology is  a “top down” methodology that is dependent on revelation. How does your understanding of the trinity play into this paradigm, and specifically how does your understanding of Christology factor into your “top down” construction of a revelatory theological paradigm?

Horton: Great question. “The Word became flesh”: that’s where we begin. Instead of our rising to God in proud speculation, God descends to us in humility and grace.

We start with the particular God who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. When it comes to the doctrine of Scripture, I press the importance of a Trinitarian conception of inspiration. If we make our view of inspiration hang entirely on the fact that the Word is spoken by the Father (and therefore cannot err), we can fall into a mechanical view; if we put all of the weight only on the Son as the content that grounds inspiration and authority, we can adopt a “canon-within-a-canon” approach: only that which preaches Christ (or that we judge preaches Christ) is actually Scripture. Focusing exclusively on the Spirit’s work is susceptible to “enthusiasm”: separating the Spirit from the Word. So I try to show how a robust doctrine of inspiration is based equally on the Father’s speaking in the Son by the Spirit.

Matthew: Most of the modern systematics I have encountered tend to function more as robust statements of faith. By contrast, you follow a structure (following Barth?) that doesn’t simply state what you believe but engages with and evaluating specific movements and specific theologians. What advantage do you think this approach affords you?

Horton: Interesting question. I think my model or at least major influence there would be the post-Reformation theologians, as well as Kuyper, Bavinck, Hodge and Warfield. The example of Barth is certainly appropriate as well, but that’s because he was inspired by the older Reformed theologians to do church dogmatics.

At its best, that means deep engagement with the pre-Reformation West as well as the East, and more recent scholarship. Sometimes in recent theology among conservative evangelicals, there is a tendency merely to restate formal positions more than interacting with the movement and development of theology within and across traditions.

If we simply restate positions, we should not be surprised that some younger evangelicals aren’t listening and are finding other traditions more compelling. Dogmatic assertions don’t actually convince anyone; we have to step into the flow of that long conversation as the church has reflected on God’s Word.

Matthew: In chapter 5, part 2, of The Christian Faith you justify the move from the Scriptural Narrative to Dogma, a practice that some find unfashionable, to say the least, in our broader postmodern context. How important is it that all Christians, whether highly trained in theology, or just regular laypeople, engage in this process of moving from Scripture to Doctrine?

Horton: I’m very encouraged by the growing trend among younger evangelical and Reformed theologians that is often goes by the label “theological interpretation of Scripture.”

Inspired by the likes of Brevard Childs, John Webster, and Kevin Vanhoozer, this group includes writers such as Dan Treier, Michael Allen, Scott Swain, Suzanne MacDonald, Todd Billings, and others I could mention.

There seems to be a desire to get beyond the false choice between narrative and propositions, drama and doctrine. We need to see these as integrated coordinates; neither can live without the other. Propositions without narratives are dead; narratives without propositions are irrelevant.

Matthew: Predestination is, of course, always a hot button topic for Christians of every tradition. You ground your doctrine in the Trinity (following Barth?). What major implication does your grounding of the doctrine in divine ontology have for Christian theology?

Horton: Hmmm. A lot of comparisons to Barth!

However, here as well I’d have to say that it’s the older Reformed theologians who most influence my thinking on this point. The covenant (federal) tradition of Reformed theology begins with the covenant of redemption, made between the Father, Son, and Spirit, before creation. In fact, I point out Barth’s rejection of this motif on the basis of what I take to be an inadequate appreciation for a robust view of the persons of the Trinity as distinct persons.

Calvin emphasizes that predestination can never be discussed safely unless we seek our election in Christ and not in ourselves or in God’s secret councils. Unfortunately, many have heard defenses of predestination that don’t follow this advice and the result is a doctrine that is indistinguishable from Islam. Happily, that does not characterize the confessional theologies of the Reformed tradition, but it circulates in popular presentations—by friend and foe alike.

Matthew: How does your articulation differ from traditional Reformed perspectives which tend to ground the doctrine in God’s attribute of sovereignty and/or decree?

Horton: I argue that traditional Reformed theology does not ground predestination in God’s sovereignty, which would be a denial of the doctrine of simplicity (namely, that all of God’s attributes are simultaneously exhibited in any of his works). Predestination is just as grounded in God’s love and holiness as it is in his justice and sovereignty.

Again, it’s dangerous to talk about this doctrine without making the Trinity the ground—and specifically, Christ as the ground, since he is the mediator from all eternity. In fact, I challenge some of the caricatures of Reformed theology, which are fostered not only by critics but also by inadequate defenses that contrast rather sharply with classic formulations.

Matthew: Since the publication of E.P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977), the so-called traditional Protestant understanding of Paul has been reevaluated by many NT scholars and given rise to the “new perspective” on Paul. How has this scholarship influenced your articulation of forensic justification in Paul?

Horton: The “new perspective” is not as new as advertised. Many of its concerns were anticipated and comprehended in Calvin’s commentaries on Paul’s letters (for example, recognition that some passages do treat “works of the law” as referring to the ethnic boundary markers, while in other cases including the whole system of “works-righteousness” over against faith in Christ.

Nevertheless, it has been a good debate and it has blown the dust off of some aspects of Paul’s teaching that have been eclipsed in more recent exegesis and theology. My goal at least is to wade into that tempestuous and deep water without drowning. Here is another instance where I have come to a greater appreciation both of the exegetical strength of classic Reformed (covenant) theology and of the need to address some of the genuinely fresh insights and emphases from New Testament scholarship.

Matthew: Last spring you published a review of N.T. Wright’s After You Believe in which you criticized his reading of the Reformers. You have obviously read his response at it is posted on the White Horse Inn’s blog.

Will you unpack for us just where you think Wright misread the Reformers, and why you think his critique applied more appropriately to the Wesleyan tradition?

Horton: I have immense respect for Prof. Wright as a historian when it comes to Jesus, but not when it comes to the Reformation. There, he typically dismisses the whole tradition in bold strokes without footnotes or qualifications. It seems clear enough to me that he has not read the reformers, much less the post-Reformation Reformed tradition very closely. (He has conceded as much, so that’s not a slur).

However, half of his thesis is that the Reformation got Paul wrong, but if he caricatures the Reformation on so many points, his critique is left vulnerable. I think he reads the Reformation (especially Luther) through the lens of Bultmann and other liberal German biblical scholars.

Although he has told me that he thinks there never would have been a need for a “new perspective” if Calvin rather than Luther had won the field, I am not at all clear about where he thinks they differed or on what he bases this impression.

In After You Believe, Prof. Wright alternates between representing the Reformation as if it had no concern in connecting initial conversion and justification to life in the world and suggesting that it was responsible for a “let God and let God” kind of passivity. On that point, it sounds to me as if the ideas and slogans he’s criticizing are closer to the Keswick “higher life” movement that has influenced evangelicalism in Britain and North America.

On so many points, like salvation as reduced to “going to heaven when you die,” justification without any connection to sanctification, and so forth, I simply do not recognize the Reformation at all in his sweeping criticisms. I’m not unwilling to critique the tradition to which I belong, but caricatures don’t really move the conversation along.

Matthew: Any chance of a Michael Horton and N.T. Wright “in dialogue” book?

Horton: I’d love to do that. We have had some healthy personal dialogue, even recently, and readers will note how much I’ve drawn on Wright’s work especially with respect to Jesus and his context. In spite of differences on important matters, there is still a great deal of agreement and I have immense respect for his scholarship.

Matthew: Reformed Theology, as Wright points out in his response, is often maligned for consigning ethics to a secondary status (or even antinomianism) which is, in fact, a caricature of the theology. How do you understand the nature and role of “good works” in the Christian life?

Horton: Unless we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, there is no possibility of good works. Of course, there are deeds that we properly respect as noble, good, and loving, but without faith it is impossible to please God.

Since we are justified apart from works, we are free for the first time to pursue loving service to our neighbors without the fear of punishment or hope of rewards as our motivation. God doesn’t need our good works; we don’t need our good works. So where do they go? Out to our neighbors who need them. Righteousness is the fruit of faith. So if you have justification, you not only have peace with God but you get the fruit of faith in the bargain.

The law tells us what is to be done; the gospel tells us what God has done for our salvation. It’s counter-intuitive, but the gospel alone is the power of God unto salvation—not only for justification, but for sanctification as well. Commands direct us, but they cannot empower us.
_______________________________________________________________

Tags: Karl Barth, Michael Horton, Reformed Theology, The Christian Faith, Zondervan Academic