I'm actually quite disappointed with this book. yes, it is correct, for the most part at least, but it's another example of great idea (structure history around the creeds and confessions) executed without much depth.
what was good - I found their telling of high middle ages quite engaging.
what was bad - Byzantine controversy over icons relies completely on one side of the story sources, especially John of Damascus. Ironically he never travelled to Byzantium strictly speaking, all of his information is second hand. And there are scholars today who openly say - there's just s handful of examples where anything was actually destroyed. Less than 10 documented cases... in over century and a half directly preceding Nicea II. Consult Leslie Brubaker and others on it.
Another strike against it is an oversimplification of Congregationalists and Brownists which led to portraying them as one group, that's really the impression one is left with. Who cares about what Savoy says about Brownists then in its preface?
Racovian Catechism is never mentioned, even if it was the MAIN document which all the orthodox argued against. in other words, it shaped much of the theological debates of the 17th century. I say this only because the authors mentioned some other stuff which came from the Socinian camp.
And, I get that it's really those in the west who mainly wrote creeds and confessions, but this book suffers from typical oversight of the history in the east and far east. If not for early Lutheran correspondence with Jerusalem, and a few lines on arbitrarily chosen examples (like the Church of Toraja) in the 20th century, one would not hear about things in the east at all in the last half of millennium.
So I don't know who's the intended recipient of this title. Perhaps, supplementary reading for those doing some kind of course in the religious history? like, those aged 15-18. Definitely NOT a seminary education textbook.
I'm feeling bad about writing so negative review. Perhaps I was expecting too much. And I generally like Ryan Reeves lectures on YouTube, and I do think much of Donald Fairbairn's other books dealing with the church fathers. Perhaps I wanted it go be much better, but now I wonder whether to keep it for my children to read in the future or not. For myself, I won't revisit it for sure.