Clarifications on the Horton/Hahn Post

An exchange of comments occured between me and a friend on facebook. This might help some readers, so I’ve decided to post it:

I’m not seeing this in the same light you are, bro. To endorse a “theological biography” is quite different than endorsing a theology. The book is presented as a summary of Benedict’s Biblical Theology as compiled by Hahn. The fact that Hahn may happen to hold to the same position is incidental.This would be akin to endorsing a book that praises a well researched and helpful survey of Schleiermacher or Bultmann’s theology. Certainly one need not hold to such positions in order to commend the scholarship. This isn’t about Hahn. It is about Benedict’s very insightful contribution to the disicpline, not to mention that he is without a doubt the most influential theologian of our time; like it or not.
Also, to throw in Frame’s critique of Horton along with this is, if i may say so, rather tendentious. The two have nothing in common as to subject matter, if I understood you correctly, and therefore shouldn’t be placed as evidence alongside one another to a perceived “wave” of controversey. It seems unnecessary to use Frame’s critique as fuel for a fire that isn’t burning. Finally, it should be mentioned that Horton is certainly not the only evangelical or even reformed scholar to endorse the book in such glowing rhetoric. Tremper Longman III and Kevin Vanhoozer also endorse the work as being profoundly important and helpful to the field.

Let me know your thoughts. – CD

Well, it seems you’re responding to a series of assertions that I didn’t make in the essay. I explicitly said the endorsement isn’t an endorsement of Hahn’s/RC theology; I put the Frame review in the spotlight because the issue of the essay is more about Horton’s movements than the actual endorsement (you can tell that by the included content), and that being the case, people who find the endorsement surprising should know scholars in the same circle are directly criticizing Horton; Longman III and Vanhoozer are noted post-modern/liberal leaning thinkers and do not belong in the same category as Horton who is distinctly Reformed in his public identity, publications, and public ministry.

Of course, I never directly criticized Horton’s endorsement. I merely asserted that its surprising, if not simply unnecessary.

Do you mean to say they are criticizing Horton for his recommendation or for his book?

I see your point regarding the primary thrust of the article (although the title makes it seem otherwise, hehe.) However, I was merely stating that this “second wave” doesn’t seem to be a wave at all, but rather an attempt at making an issue out of something that isn’t. I would probably agree that the endorsement is rather unnecessary, but not surprising. Plus, if this isn’t about Hahn persay, then why make a list of their comparisons and bring up his relation to Dr. White? That just seems like more unnecessary information that clouds the point you are trying to make. I don’t think you intend to say that Horton is going the way of Hahn, but by showing their similar histories it seems to indicate as much. (At least in my reading of it.) And an endorsement of a book is by no means saying “I’m okay with someone.” Personally, it seems like you are building these bridges, not Horton. He thought that the book was good. Don’t push this further than Horton himself is doing.

By the way, what was your point if this wasn’t about the endorsement or about Horton’s endorsing Hahn’s theology? If it was about how Horton is following in the footsteps of Hahn, I think you really overstepped your bounds (although I don’t think you intended this.) Is it to show Horton aligning himself with Hahn? This also is a huge leap by looking at a single book endorsement where the content isn’t even about the author. 

Maybe I am reading too far into this, but I saw the post and had to comment. haha.

“why make a list of their comparisons and bring up his relation to Dr. White?”

- Because they’re fascinating; and the endorsement was not expected. Do read http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-question-for-michael-horton.html

“And an endorsement of a book is by no means saying “I’m okay with someone.”

- That’s rarely the case; but you could argue it is with Horton, I’m open to that.

“He thought that the book was good. Don’t push this further than Horton himself is doing.”

- I’m not pushing, I’m merely asserting the possibility that we can expect more unexpected things from Horton in the future.

“If it was about how Horton is following in the footsteps of Hahn, I think you really overstepped your bounds (although I don’t think you intended this.) Is it to show Horton aligning himself with Hahn? This also is a huge leap by looking at a single book endorsement where the content isn’t even about the author.”

- It was for neither; the format was a quick news take, for traffic and informative purposes only, not persuasion or argument. I can argue alot better than that