The Reformation
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 60, No. 1 – Fall 2017
Managing Editor: W. Madison Grace II
An Invitation to Analytic Theology. By Thomas H. McCall. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015. 192 pages. Paperback, $22.00.
Within the past few years an increasing number of evangelical Christian theologians have begun to reclaim the rich repository of analytic philosophical resources as an aid in the task of constructive theology. In his recent book An Invitation to Analytic Christian Theology, evangelical theologian Thomas McCall (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) explores this recent resurgence in Christian theology and explicates and defends the burgeoning field known as “analytic theology.”
In the first chapter of the book, titled “What is Analytic Theology?,” McCall aims to get clear on the nature and parameters of analytic Christian theology, what precisely makes such a project analytic and distinctively theological. McCall argues that analytic Christian theology is analytic in so far as it employs the distinctive style and ambition of analytic philosophy in general, in particular a commitment to clarity and conceptual precision, parsimony of expression, and rigorous argumentation with the aim of converging on true explanatory theories that bring unity and coherence to the data of Scripture (17–24). Analytic theology is theological in that “it will be grounded in the Christian Scriptures, it will be informed by the great tradition of doctrinal development, it will be ‘christologically normed’ and it will be culturally engaged” (22). McCall does an excellent job of carefully (and charitably!) addressing many of the most prominent misgivings and misunderstandings to analytic theology commonly voiced by his fellow theologians (25–35).
One of McCall’s central aims in chapter two, titled “Analytic Theology and Christian Scripture”, is to bring clarity to the underexplored interrelationship between philosophical and theological analysis and the task of biblical exegesis. McCall does an outstanding job of critically interacting with the many iterations of the core claim that Christian theology in the analytic mode is an unduly speculative form of theological reflection that proceeds without proper Scriptural mooring (39– 55). Here and throughout the book McCall employs specific theological case studies—including freedom of the will (more below), Christology, and original sin—to rebut this particular charge against analytic theology.
In my estimation, chapter two includes one of the most stimulating discussions in the book, namely McCall’s detailed treatment of what it means for some theological proposal to be either “authorized” (i.e. “consistent”) or “unauthorized” (i.e. “inconsistent”) by Scripture (55–81). What precisely do we mean when we say that certain theological positions such as believer’s baptism are “biblical” and others such as pelagianism are “unbiblical”? It is here that McCall demonstrates the virtues of conceptual clarity and precision in the constructive theological task.
McCall applies this insightful discussion to certain claims made by Reformed theologians that “compatibilism” regarding freedom of the will—the view that human freedom is compatible with causal determinism—is the only biblically authorized option for orthodox Christians (D.A. Carson, John Frame, Scott Oliphint all emphatically make this claim); indeed, as Carson maintains, “compatibilism is a necessary component to any mature and orthodox view of God and the world” (Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, 54).
McCall rightly takes these claims to task by showing that they rest on (1) a deeply misguided understanding “compatibilism” as it pertains to extant debates in free will, and (2) a heavyweight extra-biblical assumption that “divine sovereignty” entails “divine determinism,” i.e. if God is in sovereign control over His creation then He must either causally determine each creaturely event or else that event is entirely unplanned by God (a metaphysical assumption that is underdetermined by the biblical text itself ) (72). At most, what can be claimed for compatibilism about free will is that the teaching of Scripture is consistent with such a view and thus in no way precludes it as a live option for orthodox Christians. But this is a far cry from the much stronger claim that Scripture demands the truth of compatibilism at pains of heterodoxy (McCall actually goes on to argue for the stronger claim that there is good reason to think compatibilism is strictly inconsistent with Scripture, 73–81).
In chapter three, titled “Analytic Theology and the History of Doctrine,” McCall explores the relationship between the task of analytic theology and the historical development of Christian doctrine. While McCall argues that analytic theology cannot properly be reduced to historical theology, it must nevertheless be attuned to the history of orthodox Christian doctrine as a theological norm (norma normata), albeit a norm that is always subordinate to Scripture as the sole ultimate theological norm (norma normans). The bulk of the chapter consists of two case studies that illustrate in detail how the project of analytic theology can aid in clarifying and defending a classical orthodox Christology (91–121).
McCall underscores, and I wholeheartedly agree, that the project of analytic theology is at the very least one of theological retrieval; systematic theology in the analytic key (as understood above) has been the operative mode of theological reflection in many fruitful periods in the history of Christian doctrine (e.g. patristic, medieval, and post-reformation). Prominent Christian theologians as diverse as Athanasius, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, and Jonathan Edwards (among others) can aptly be described as practitioners of analytic theology in the Christian tradition.
The fourth chapter, “Analytic Theology for the Church and the World,” is devoted to showing how analytic theology ought not exist for its own sake as a purely academic exercise but, rather, to uphold the doctrinal integrity of the church in the face of pressing challenges. McCall once again illustrates this thesis by examining a specific case study, namely the recent challenge from evolutionary biology (population genetics) to the traditional understanding of a historical fall involving an original human pair as the progenitors of humanity. McCall demonstrates that many alleged purely scientific theories wielded against traditional Christian doctrines smuggle in a heavy dose of extra-scientific metaphysical commitments that need to be evaluated in their own right (135–50). Christian theology in the analytic mode can help flush out and critically evaluate these tacit philosophical commitments.
McCall closes the book with a delightful discussion of the proper ends and aim of “theological theology” (to adopt the late John Webster’s phrase) in general and analytic theology in particular, chief among them being the glory of God and the life and doctrinal integrity of the church. McCall calls for a broadening of the traditional areas of analytic theology to include both moral and political theolo-gy, and recommends broadening the dialogue to incorporate the ever-expanding global theological context as a way of healing our theological myopia in the West (152–59). The book concludes by echoing the words of Fred Sanders penned in this very journal: “The kind of systematic theology that is heavily informed by biblical exegesis and the history of doctrine would benefit greatly from the conceptual clarity which could be provided by the kind of philosophical theology that concentrates on analytic tasks” (“The State of the Doctrine of the Trinity in Evangelical Theology”, Southwestern Journal of Theology (2005): 170.)
For those interested in exploring the contours of this clarion call to contemporary systematic theologians, the book is highly recommended.
