I have nothing against Olson; in fact, I had never heard of him prior to me picking up this book. Nevertheless, upon completion of "The Story of Christian Theology," I had concluded that Olson had successfully offered absolutely nothing new to the understanding of historical theology. His judgments were overly simplistic, and the caricatures he paints quite simply are unfair. A thorough review is not now necessary, but let me perhaps shed some light on what I am talking about.
Olson follows Justo L. Gonzalez down to every yod and iota. He draws from Gonzalez's two volume history of Christianity so closely, his primary sources quotes are mostly pulled from Gonzalez as he himself quoted them. Again, Olson offers nothing new. What is more, is that in reading a historical theology book, one would hope that the author would set out to trace as objectively as possible their understanding of the realm of possible understandings of what best fits the model for how history and theology actually developed. Instead, we hear Olson's anachronistic judgments and condemnatory voice coming down on figures in history in such a terribly historically-fallacious way, that one is hard pressed to take Olson seriously. When one is reading Olson's text, they do not learn about the development of Christian theology, but they do learn a lot about Olson himself; viz., that he is a free-church loving, Calvinistic-hating, Anabaptist-leaning, Arminian. Rather than laying out all his cards on the table before he begins his historical survey, he conceals his cards, and thereupon makes inappropriate, unfair, and anachronistic ejaculatory comments in between his descriptions of the development of historical theology. While this may be "ok" in an oral academic lecture by a professor, it is simply crude and inappropriate in a 'scholarly' book.
On the whole, some of Olson's blunders are as follows. He calls the early Apostolic Fathers "legalistic" who had "lost the gospel of grace." This is the most anachronistic unwarranted judgment I have ever read. In his diatribe against the Apologists and Early Father's use of Greek Philosophy, he literally quotes Tertullian's "What indeed does Athens have to do with Jerusalem" at least five times (54, 84, ff, etc.). What is ironic is that he misinterprets what Tertullian was actually saying which was merely defending Christianity against being subverted and judged by pagan philosophies and their rules and narrow claims for truth (Diogenes Allen, Philosophy for Understanding Theology, 253). His understanding of Greek philosophy is elementary in relation to the Apologists, "the god of Greek philosophy was considered the arche" (56). Olson clumps, for ease, together Stoic, Platonic, Epicurean, Cynic and all of the interrelated schools together and creates one "Greek god" who is impassible, immutable, timeless, simple, etc. The Christian Apologists obviously, Olson assets, succumbed to this conception of God. Olson propounds this false dichotomy all the way throughout his book. "This presupposition seemed obvious to Origen, and that can only be because like most other church fathers and theologians of the Roman Empire, he was unduly influenced by the Greek philosophical theism of the Platonic tradition which attempted to remove everything considered creaturely or imperfect...He seemed to capitulate all too readily to Greek metaphysical assumptions" (107). Again, "Origen can be criticized for failing to see the glaring inconsistencies within his system caused largely by uncritical acceptance of Greek notions of divine being (112). "Absolute static perfection--including apatheia, or impassibility (passionlessness)--is the nature of God according to Greek thought, and nearly all Christian theologians came to agree with this" (143). All of the above has been sufficiently refuted by Gavrilyuk's "The Suffering of the Impassible God: Dialectics of Patristic Thought" among many other monographs that have serious problems with this terribly fallacious understanding of historical theology. "The portrait of the God of traditional Christian theism would seem to be painted with both biblical and Hellenistic colors," etc. (530).
He practically calls Athanasius a heretic (160-172). He treats the Apostolic Fathers, Apologists, and Patristics extremely unfair. After the split of East and West, Olson ignored the East and any developments in their theology. Olson's understanding of the "two schools" of Antioch and Alexandria is simply false. This has been refuted thanks to modern Cyrilian scholarship and new developments in Alexandrian and Antiochean theology. See O'Keefe, "Impassible Suffering? Divine Passion and Fifth-Century Christology," among others. Hence, it is simply wrong to say that Alexandrian theology stressed Christ's divinity whereas Antioch stressed his humanity. This is patently false. He sees the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon not as positive contributions but as settlements and compromises. This is terribly fallacious. See also Fairbairn, "The One Person Who is Christ Jesus: The Patristic Perspective."
His treatment of Augustine is unfair, injecting his own comments trying to pin down the readers' interlocutor, like "then does it not follow inexorably that God is the source of the existence of Evil? Yes" (275). Olson writes that Apostolic Christianity fell because of Constantine, etc. (278). Calvin gets a mere three pages (410-412), whereas Anabaptist theology gets sixteen (412-428), and is not free from Olson's inappropriate anachronistic comments seemingly condemning the man he is supposedly supposed to be objectively surveying. "Calvin's teachings about the Lord's supper appears contradictory...Calvin wanted to have Christ's body in Heaven and eat it in the sacramental meal too!" (412). Olson is not loath to point out Calvin's oversight of Servetus' execution, in fact, he brings it up four times inappropriately, three times outside the small section on Calvin." Clearly he is raking Calvin through the mud. He gives Arminius almost twenty pages(454-472), and writes later in the section on Deism "It became clear to Deists that the Church of England might take the step away from Reformed Theology--a step in the right direction" (531).
On another note, there are multiple misspellings within the book, hardly Olson's fault, however, for bad editing. Dialogue is spelled "dialog" on page 565. And is spelled "ans" on page 603, etc.
There are numerous other problems with this textbook, but I'm sick of rifling through it quite frankly. There are a dozen of quality texts on historical theology: this is not one of them.
Brent