# Michael Horton's "People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology"



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 4, 2009)

Before the "Escondido is only rivaled by Geneva" people bring their wrath down upon me I would like to ask a question about Rev. Dr. Horton's book "People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology".

What is his intended audience with the book? Who is he trying to reach with the whole series? 

I ask these questions, in a serious tone, because after reading the above work I wanted to find out if there was an underlying epistemological reason for Dr. Horton's unyielding quotations of Barth, Volf, and Ratzinger as well as many others affiliated with Non-Confessional Churches and Neo-Orthodoxy in general and the paucity of Confessional authors cited in the work. 

Anyone know? 

Blessings,


----------



## Craig (Feb 4, 2009)

Interesting question...I haven't read the book, myself.

IN that book, did Horton's thesis seem to be different than traditional Reformed ecclesiology? Did it seem to be quasi-gnostic?


----------



## CDM (Feb 4, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Before the "*Escondido is only rivaled by Geneva*" people bring their wrath down upon me I would like to ask a question about Rev. Dr. Horton's book ...



 Classic!

Sorry, I have not read it.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Feb 4, 2009)

Who published it? Answer that and I'll venture a go at your question.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 4, 2009)

Classical Presbyterian said:


> Who published it? Answer that and I'll venture a go at your question.



A publisher you are intimately familiar with...

Westminster/John Knox Press


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 4, 2009)

I'm simply going to guess here, and put MH in the camp of the conservative tradition of Green, Warfield, Shedd, Machen, et al., who looked at their vocation as placing them in a cultural milieu with intellectuals who often disagreed widely with them on fundamentals of the faith.

I think MH hopes his book will sit on (and come off) the shelf of students, ministers, and professors in a wide variety of academic and pastoral settings--from conservative to liberal. I think he wants to show the neo-orthodox and the liberals and the post-moderns, as well as the conservatives, that he's read them all. He's familiar with the literature of the entire spectrum of "theological inquiry", even though he doesn't agree completely or mainly outside of a narrowly defined bandwidth.

Note, he's not "critiquing" someone else' ST, but writing his own, and trying to state his view positively. Therefore, he can point to statements he views as "accurate" (as far they go) in other men's writings. Apostle Paul's quotations of Meander doesn't mean that he thought Meander or the myriad Greek poets and philosophers were safe guides in theology.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Feb 4, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Classical Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Who published it? Answer that and I'll venture a go at your question.
> ...



Well, then! There we have it.

I bet Horton is writing to mainlines. It's got to be a big target audience, as the level of dissatisfaction with the mainline denominations from many is at an all-time high. The only question is, has he compromised orthodoxy in what he asserts?

With selective quotes from even Barth one can make a perfectly sound argument. The key is selectivity.

But we better watch out for the tendency in the academic world to 'curry favor' with the Ivory Tower Liberals by only talking to their own anointed ones. Do you smell that coming from Horton?


----------



## dannyhyde (Feb 4, 2009)

This 4-volume series is an academic series intended to express the various loci of theology through the lens of covenant theology. Although volume 4 is a bit more accessible, the series is written to American Christians who think, that is, academic theologians, pastors, seminary students, and educated lay people.

As for his use of sources, Mike is well-read. Besides that, just as the Reformers harvested the patristic and medieval writers to prove their points, so too Horton has done the same.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 4, 2009)

I actually appreciate Horton going out of his way to read the guys who have shaped and determined modern theology. Horton knows we have to read outside our own traditions; otherwise, we simply reinforce our own prejudices. I wish Reformed people would try to read "the hard guys" outside their own tradition and preferences: O'Donovan, Pickstock, Milbank, etc. 

I have my own problems with Horton. Usually at his finest hour he brings in the "less than perfect" material from Kline. His essay "Covenant and Participation" in _Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition_ was incredibly awesome. On the other hand, his essay in _After Modernity: Secularity, Globalization & the Re-enchantment of the World_ was...um...less than masterful.

I respect him because he does more than repeat the status quo mantras (well, most of the time). Even though I disagree with his Klineanism, I respect him because he is a good scholar.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 4, 2009)

I am not saying that Dr. Horton_should not_ be reading and citing outside of our "comfort zone". The point in asking was merely an epistemological question, because in regards to other things I have read from Dr. Horton he does not use these types of sources to buttress his own arguments or critique them in the manner he does in this work.

-----Added 2/4/2009 at 01:10:43 EST-----

Just as an aside being at a liberal PC(USA) Seminary the last three years I can assure you that I have read all of these guys that Dr. Horton cites.


----------



## PresbyDane (Feb 4, 2009)

I think he is great but what do I know I am only a lay-person


----------



## Archlute (Feb 4, 2009)

Bruce and Toby have pretty much gotten it right. The intent, as far as was communicated to us in classroom conversation, was to address the liberal academic community, and to show that traditional Reformed theology could engage their methodologies and theological/philosophical darlings.

I have sometimes been uncomfortable with his rather profuse citations of modern authors to prove his points. I think that one can give too much credibility to them in an attempt to bolster one's own standing in the mind of those who you are attempting to reach. He does not give pointed enough critiques in many places, and incorporates some "trendy" theological/philosophical approaches in a manner that I think would have been frowned upon by older Reformed theologians. We have had disagreements in the past where I felt that CVT would have really taken a theologian to task, and Horton has decided to play soft with them in order to gain strategic points elsewhere. 

I also think that Mike is a bit soft on/overintimidated by the egalitarian crowd. Maybe because the liberal academics to whom the works are primarily addressed are exclusively feminists who will dismiss an argument out of hand that does not show proper deference to their position. That was a bit of a problem at WSC, I felt. We got into a debate in class once over this as he would mark our papers if we persisted in using masculine pronouns, rather than generic. It did not affect the grading, but was unnecessary nevertheless to be coming from a Reformed seminary, in my opinion. During my second year WSC actually went to the trouble to produce a statement for the students regarding how we should retool our writing in order to reflect pressures in modern academia. I do not think that sets a good precedent for future pastors in tackling the issue within their own communities, but I think that a lot of it had to do with accreditation pressures.

So, overall, those works are not something that would be profitable reading for the average member of your congregation, but they do contain some good material for pastors. I have not finished the third or fourth volumes, but have heard that People and Place contains some great material for addressing FV/NPP claims.

-----Added 2/4/2009 at 04:42:51 EST-----

I guess I should add that, while helpful on the technical level, I do not find them particularly edifying reading in sense of say Owen, Calvin, or Newton, as they are primarily dealing with a scholarship of unbelief.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 4, 2009)

Thanks for that Archlute. You pretty much hit the nail on the head as to what I was thinking. I am _*very*_ surprised to hear about the Gender-Neutral language issue at WSC and agree completely with your analysis. 

I just finished Vol. 4, and maybe I missed it (which is possible), but I do not remember any implicit or indirect analysis (since obviously he does not talk about NPP/FV) that would necessarily lead one to think they would be of good use to address NPP/FV.


Not to be nit-picky (sue me if you think I am being so) but I noticed something quite odd that Dr. Horton used the BCE/CE notations when he cited dates, which struck me as quite odd. Especially considering my Lib Pofs at PTS do not even all do that.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 5, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Thanks for that Archlute. You pretty much hit the nail on the head as to what I was thinking. I am _*very*_ surprised to hear about the Gender-Neutral language issue at WSC and agree completely with your analysis.
> 
> I just finished Vol. 4, and maybe I missed it (which is possible), but I do not remember any implicit or indirect analysis (since obviously he does not talk about NPP/FV) that would necessarily lead one to think they would be of good use to address NPP/FV.
> 
> ...



Hmmm. I was pretty certain that it was volume four. It is in the context of addressing NPP scholarship as it is used by N.T. Wright in particular, if I remember correctly, but I was told that some of the stuff on ecclesiology was addressing FV thought as well. 

About the BCE/CE usage, I do not feel comfortable with that either, but it is again being employed in an attempt to avoid offending the academic community. I don't think it wise to give up on your presuppositions just to win a hearing though. There was one other prof who did that, I gather from what was mentioned in class, to gain credibility with his colleagues in the Society of Biblical Literature. Thankfully, that position was not held by others on the faculty, and at least one prof had enough conviction about it to tell us in our preaching courses that "It is _always_ AD, _never_ CE."

I liked that guy


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 5, 2009)

I'll check out Vol. 4 again, like I said I may have just missed it. 

Amen to the preaching Prof!!!

Like I said not even all my Lib Profs at PTS use the BCE/CE nomenclature in lieu of BC/AD.


----------



## dannyhyde (Feb 6, 2009)

Do you guys seriously believe Jesus was born in the year 1 AD? Further, do you seriously believe using BCE/BC or CE/AD has anything to do with "Reformed presuppositions." Talk about straining at a gnat...


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 6, 2009)

I am sure that the BCE/CE convention is in Horton's book because of the publisher. 

Volume 3 actually has much more directly relevant material to the FV and the NPP than volume 4 does, although volume 4 definitely addresses the issue of ecclesiology in helpful ways regarding the FV.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 6, 2009)

dannyhyde said:


> Do you guys seriously believe Jesus was born in the year 1 AD? Further, do you seriously believe using BCE/BC or CE/AD has anything to do with "Reformed presuppositions." Talk about straining at a gnat...



Sorry Danny, I don't buy your "two-kingdom" indifference regarding the latter. Neither did a very well-respected faculty member at WSC. 

You should know better than to act as if there is no underlying anti-Christian hostility behind the pressure to impose secular terminology upon dating. If it were strictly an issue of dating, and not conflicting religious presuppositions that underlie the matter, then why is it only the terminology that is changed, and not the dating system as a whole?

In fact, if it is just straining at gnats, why don't you bring that up with Estelle, Horton, SBL, or WJK press, and tell them that they should just lay off when you decide to keep your BC/AD distinctions? It has nothing to do with "Reformed presuppositions" (if by that you mean a Klinean, 2K position). It has everything to do with Christian presuppositions.


----------



## dannyhyde (Feb 6, 2009)

Archlute said:


> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> > Do you guys seriously believe Jesus was born in the year 1 AD? Further, do you seriously believe using BCE/BC or CE/AD has anything to do with "Reformed presuppositions." Talk about straining at a gnat...
> ...



Hello Adam,

I've never met you so I do apologize if my post came off as mad at you, or Benjamin for that matter. I was trying to ask you a serious question and I all I got back from you was vitriol. Those who know me would not have taken my words as you did. Unfortunately that's the result of this medium of communication.

I asked if you seriously believed Jesus was born in 1 AD. My point was the dating system isn't so above critique given my understanding of when Jesus was most likely born. That's why I said this was straining at a gnat . . . I was not trying to tear you down with that, only trying to say that if Jesus were not born in 1 AD how can you base an entire argument of dating upon that very system? Anyways, maybe you know better than me, but I guess I've always thought the abbreviations BC/AD were created by the Romans and not by Christians, as it seems you are saying. 

Regardless, I think you owe me an apology. Why would you implicate me with this line: "your 'two-kingdom' indifference regarding the latter?" When did I say anything about two-kingdoms and where I am trying to be indifferent? Even more, what do you mean _your_ "two-kingdom..." Have you ever asked me if I held to a two-kingdoms doctrine, and if so, what I mean by that? No, you haven't. If you are going to put in your signature line that you preach in URCNA congregations, you had better become familiar with the Heidelberg Catechism's exposition of the ninth commandment and "judging without a hearing."


----------



## Archlute (Feb 6, 2009)

Dear Danny,

You have my apologies if the intent of your post was truly misunderstood by me. However, I think that you can probably see why those few short statements would have been received in the manner so taken, especially in light of the final statement.

I do not know you personally, but knowing that we studied at the same institution, having heard you preach, and having read some of your posts on the PB I felt that there was sufficient warrant for me to draw those lines out. If you do not indeed hold to those views, then please forgive me for making a statement that was not reflective of reality. However, knowing both the Three Forms and the Westminster Standards, I am also fully aware that, more often than not, the accusation that the Ninth Commandment has been violated (usually the intimation that it may possibly have been violated) is thrown out as a smoke screen to obscure the real issue at hand. 

I make no apologies for my statements if you are indeed sympathetic to Kline and WSC's two-kingdom paradigm as many of our graduates articulate it. No seminary, nor faculty member of a seminary, should be held above critique. I love much of what I received at WSC, and I believe that most of the men who teach there are sincere and outstanding men and ministers. That does not mean that we should never discuss our opinion of things that we believe to be problematic. However, I have found that, for some reason, WSC fans tend to be very defensive of both the institution, and of men such as Horton. He is often viewed as a Reformed superstar of sorts by the younger students. I think that Horton has some good things to say, but I also think that he has some weak spots, as do we all. The first sign that integrity and transperancy has left the building, however, is when people become overly defensive of these men and institutions, and "backroom whisperings" begin to occur.

With that in mind, I would kindly offer to you, or to whoever it was who felt the need to complain to Scott Clark that I was in the business of "bashing WSC on the PB" to shoot me a PM asking for my cell number. I am too busy to talk this weekend, but if there is a sincere desire to discuss these opinions with me I will gladly send you my number on Monday morning. This offer goes for anyone else, at any time, who may take issue with things that I may post here.


----------



## dannyhyde (Feb 6, 2009)

Thanks for this, Adam. And I do apologize for the line that caused offense.



Archlute said:


> Dear Danny,
> 
> You have my apologies if the intent of your post was truly misunderstood by me. However, I think that you can probably see why those few short statements would have been received in the manner so taken, especially in light of the final statement.
> 
> ...


----------

