Historical Theology for the Church – a review
Duesing, Jason G., and Nathan A. Finn, eds. Historical Theology for the Church. Nashville: B & H Academic, 2021.
A review by Don Johnson
What is historical theology? “Historical theology is the study of the development of Christian doctrine and tradition from the Bible by the church and for the church.”1 This is the “working definition” provided by a new introductory textbook from B & H Academic. The definition comes from the introduction, written by Jason Duesing. Sixteen authors contribute essays dealing with specific topics through four major periods of church history, including the editors, Duesing and Finn. As mentioned, Duesing provides the introduction and Finn adds a conclusion to complete the work.
Duesing sees historical theology as complementary to both systematic theology and biblical theology, as well as to church history generally. “Church history reviews the history of the theologians; historical theology investigates the theologians’ ideas.”2
The four periods of church history bear these labels: The Patristic Era (AD 100-500); the Medieval Era (AD 500-1500); the Reformation Era (AD 1500-1700); and the Modern Era (AD 1700-2000). The essential idea of the book is to show how theology developed through these periods for the benefit of the church. Each chapter also attempts some application for the church going forward, that is, how should we apply the lessons of historical theology as we continue to serve God in the present.
The survey of theology through each era shows that some aspects of theology are constantly a matter of consideration (if not contention). For example, there is a chapter in each era on Scripture: Ch. 3, “Scripture and Tradition,” Ch. 7, “Scripture and Tradition,” Ch. 8 “Scripture,” and Ch. 11 “Scripture and Authority.” As the foundation of everything we believe is the Bible, it is not surprising that theologians wrestle with its implications in every age. The Scriptures are under attack from unbelief in every age, and those attacks further development of orthodox belief concerning the Scriptures.
In each era, there is an essay about salvation as well. Ch. 4, “Salvation,” Ch.6, “Salvation,” Ch. 9, “Salvation,” and Ch. 14, “The Holy Spirit and Salvation.” (This last one by Owen Strachan has many strengths, although I criticize some of his conclusions in my notes. Strachan seems to waffle on what orthodoxy means when it comes to the Holy Spirit and Salvation: “Whether we affirm cessationism or charismatic theology, the joy of every Christian is to walk in the Spirit and take power over the flesh.” It is true that every Christian must walk in the Spirit, but are there not errors in the doctrine of the Spirit that take you beyond the limits of true Christianity?)
A third topic covered in three of the four eras is the doctrine of the Church. These three topics are foundational to our spiritual life, so it is no surprise there is much discussion of them. The first two chapters cover “Jesus Christ” and “The Trinity.” These topics were the major issues of the Patristic Era and set the tone for the church for two thousand years. Orthodoxy on these points is settled, and only the most liberal professing Christians quibble with these two important topics. Interestingly, in the Modern Era, an additional chapter is “The Trinity and Jesus Christ.” The reason the topic comes up again would be that during the Modern Era these doctrines once again faced heretical challenges, mostly from men professing Christianity.
Overall, I would say that the book is a good introduction to the topic, but the reader should be aware of some weaknesses. First, as an anthology of multiple authors, each chapter will vary in quality, depth, thoroughness, and some are more readable than others. One expects that in this kind of book. The weakest chapter in the book was, “Creation and Humanity,” in the Modern Era section. The writing seemed rushed, with little explanation of theological development. Mostly the writer seemed to list major figures writing in this area with very brief comments on their views. Given the importance of this topic, the chapter seemed a glaring weakness to me.
Another weakness, at least from my perspective, is the Southern Baptist orientation of the book. Again, this should not surprise, given that the publisher and all the authors are Southern Baptists. However, “all roads do not lead to Louisville” (or whatever city one might consider the “capitol” of SBC-dom). This feature is less apparent in the first three sections, but in the Modern Era, there seems to be a tendency to evaluate the history of doctrine in light of the Baptist Faith and Message. To the extent that the author’s take us to this destination, their focus is too narrow.
Having said the authors have a “too narrow” focus, I have to also say that, especially in the Modern Era, there is also a bit too much inclusiveness to get a real settled sense of the development of orthodox theology. The authors are evangelicals, so in the Modern Era, they seem too willing to take at face value the Christian profession of liberal, neo-orthodox, and other thinkers who actually don’t develop Christian doctrine, they tend to degrade it. One complaint I always have of evangelical writers is their willingness to soft-peddle the nefarious influence of serious error as seen in the so-called “bright lights” of recent modern theology. Kant, Schleiermacher, Barth, Bultmann, Bonhoeffer, and others are mentioned as contributors to theological history, but without enough identification of their errors. These men only contribute to orthodoxy as others take up their challenges and refute them.
In addition, the authors are dismissive of fundamentalism (and sometimes portray it inaccurately) in the course of the discussion.3 It is interesting to note that almost every chapter in the Modern Era section does note the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. This episode in church history is far more significant for its theological development considerations than we often think. It wasn’t as big a moment in history as, say, the Reformation, but it significantly shaped theology from the early twentieth century onwards. Its impact continues to this day. Many historical treatments of that period are available, but we should direct more attention to the influence of this controversy on theological trends and subsequent church history.
I suppose one might conclude from my remarks above that I am negative about the book. Overall, I am very pleased with it. It is well done in general and is a worthy introduction to the topic. Someone who is interested in the history of doctrine would want to go beyond this book for more information, but it is a good place to start.
Don Johnson is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.
- Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn, eds., Historical Theology for the Church (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2021), 6. [↩]
- Duesing and Finn, 3. [↩]
- For example, Nathan Finn, who I quite like as a writer, has some unfortunate remarks on fundamentalism, claiming that fundamentalists separated “from other conservative Protestants with whom they shared disagreements over theology and practice.” [Emphasis mine] Separation from conservatives was not over theology. He also asserts that most fundamentalists were King James Only “by the 1960s.” The reality is that even today it is debatable whether most fundamentalists are characterized by this error, and in any case, it couldn’t have been by the 1960s. The KJO movement didn’t get going with any force until the 1970s, and certainly wasn’t dominate or significant until much later. These errors detract from otherwise mostly good work by Finn. [↩]