Review: "Invitation to Dogmatic Theology" by Paul McGlasson

The newest book by Paul McGlasson is a welcomed addition to the ongoing conversation about 'canonical theology.' McGlasson is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Sullivan, Indiana and received his Ph.D. from Yale University, having studied under Brevard Childs.
McGlasson arranges his treatment of the topic into five distinct, but interrelated parts:

1) The Authority of Scripture
2) The New World of God
3) Proclamation
4) The Trinity
5) The Divine Imperative

In each section, McGlasson attempts to show historical errors in explaining the given subject matter, moving to make some of his own 'canonical' or 'dogmatic' proposals for a way forward. His overall approach is one of a via media, seeing the 'religious right' and 'religious left' as being unbalanced. McGlasson favors the canonical approach he inherited from Dr. Childs and the postliberals at Yale, though with a more thorough-going appropriation of Barth's theological program. In his form of dogmatic theology, the story of redemption (biblical theology) as the Word of God living, written, and proclaimed governs and dictates the substance and form of all dogma that follows, whether theologically or ethically.

I found McGlasson's suggestions to be thought provoking, especially in his focus upon proclamation, around which he quite literally builds his entire thesis (pgs. 146ff). McGlasson sees the act of preaching as being the event in which the living Christ encounters and is encountered by the Church and the world. The implications for this encounter are many, most notably the proper training of ministers to handle this Word and proclamation of it.

In reading this book, one will quickly peg McGlasson as a neo-Evangelical (whether he'd accept the term or not is irrelevant), cast in the image of Jack Rogers, Donald McKim, Donald Bloesch, et al. In textbook form, he drives what Richard Muller has called "a wedge between Calvin and the Calvinists." McGlasson, like the others, claims Augustine and Luther and Calvin as his own, only to inveigh the theology of classic Calvinists like Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield, frequently calling these men "heretics" (see pg. 29 for one example). These historical portraits leave the same sour taste in one's mouth as the here-today-gone-tomorrow proposal of the aforementioned Rogers and McKim.

Many, many times throughout the book, McGlassons contrasts the 'religious left' with the 'religious right,' sometimes preferring the nomenclature of 'liberalism' and 'evangelicalism,' all the while claiming the correct approach through a tacit via media. However, rarely does McGlasson mention the polyvalence of these respective positions. I questioned whether he sees them as being monolithic. For example, on page 29 (mentioned above), Charles Hodge represents the archetypal evangelical 'heretic.' As it concerns the doctrine of inspiration and illumination, Hodge’s pupil Warfield earns this same title (pg. 58ff). Then, on page 84, McGlasson aligns the 'religious right' with dispensationalism, the Schofield Reference Bible, and Dallas Theological Seminary. Later, it is the 'televangelists' who are the representatives. Yet, throughout this crooked caricature, the author makes no distinction between these vastly different theological traditions and positions (I think of Jimmy Swaggert or even Jerry Falwell who themselves consider Calvinism to be a heresy....maybe they are closer to McGlasson than he'd like to think!). To be blunt, I felt that this classification was dishonest from an historical perspective. While one may not approve of old Princeton’s epistemological approach, to lump them in with classic dispensationalism or televangelism uniformly as 'the religious right' is unwarranted and untenable.

Also, I found McGlasson's use of Scripture to be scant and/or irrelevant. While he endorses ministerial education that includes the mastery of the Biblical languages and history, he seems to abandon such method in his own use of Scripture, using a painfully vague concept of 'canon' to buttress his citation of texts that have little or nothing to do with his subject matter when they are properly seated in their grammatico-historical contexts. For example, on page 103, McGlasson cites Romans 1:16-17 to support his thesis that "God cannot be known by the natural light of human reason." Yet, somehow he fails to mention that just a few verses later, Paul says, "What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. " Paul seems to say that God is in fact known by all people, though this knowledge is suppressed. And while this knowledge may not be salvific, it can rightly be called knowledge. In interpreting the Apostle Paul and this epistle, McGlasson bows the knee to Barth's christomonistic view here, rather than bowing the knee to Christ himself. How is this canonical?

All in all, there are better books on this topic. Kevin Vanhoozer's "The Drama of Doctrine" or Michael Horton's "Covenant and Eschatology" are much more balanced and historically grounded approaches. Neither of these men are uncritical about any source, even if it is Karl Barth. The same cannot be said of Paul McGlasson. His invitation to dogmatic theology is obviously an invitation to be rebaptized in Barthian theology, blessed in the name of Brevard Childs. As I survey the other options and other invitations, I have to decline this one. There are better parties with better conversations and better nourishment to be had. Dr. McGlasson, thanks, but no thanks. Consider this my RSVP.