A review by theologiaviatorum
How to Think Theologically by Howard W. Stone, James O. Duke [Fortress Press, 2013] (Paperback) 3rd Edition [Paperback] by Howard W. Stone

informative fast-paced

3.5

I’ve never been asked to review a particular book before but there's a first time for everything.  A friend asked me to review How to Think Theologically by Howard Stone and James Duke. It just so happens that I had the book so I was happy to oblige. I had read it once in 2014 (?) and have just reread it. They suggest that theology is in some sense like language. We learn to speak before we learn grammar. Our first theology—what they call our embedded theology—is like our first language in that we learn it “from countless daily encounters with [our] Christianity—formal and informal, planned and unplanned” (15). This books tries to get us to move from embedded theology to what they call deliberative theology. This is like learning the grammar of a language. It’s not only being able to use it but knowing why we use it in particular ways. It’s about being able to defend why we worship the way we do and why we make the ethical choices we do (like one may argue for or against the oxford comma or in favor of using the contraction “y’all”). In other words, “Deliberative reflection questions what had been taken for granted” (18). In order to help guide us through the deliberative process the writers suggest different lenses through which to analyze an issue. They suggest that we consider the meaning of the gospel, the human condition, and Christian vocation. They also suggest that theology be done in conversation with Christian community and always permeated by spiritual disciplines. The book provides a number of test cases which spur deliberative reflection. It also includes questions for discussion at be end of each chapter. It was a good introductory text and its difficulty level would probably be suitable for undergraduates in college. The content was good but not particularly inspiring. It wasn’t a book I “couldn’t put down,” nor was it especially dry or boring. Overall I would give it a “B-.”