Part 1 - What's Not So Good?

Part 1 – What’s Not So Good? What I thought needed improvement.

Let me say at the outset what I don’t like about the book. Professor McGowan’s semantics and expression is at times ambiguous and potentially misleading. The thing I like least is the word that Dr McGowan has chosen as his banner – the kludgy, cumbersome and hard to pronounce Spiration. I defy anyone to use it in normal sentences without stumbling over it! I hardly think it will be a firm philological contender for replacing the presently used ‘inspiration’ of scripture, no matter what the exegetical shortcomings of that word. A pity, because I feel he had a point there. To many, especially in our post-modern feelings-oriented, experiential society, the use of the English word ‘inspired’ in our translations of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and in our theology of scripture conjures up all sorts of associations Paul and the Holy Spirit never intended. In passing, I have to say I am also unconvinced by his choices of substitutes for other well-worn terms, in his replacing of ‘illumination’ with ‘recognition’ and ‘perspicuity’ with ‘comprehension’. Andrew explains well his reasons for these choices, and they are theologically conservative ones. However, whilst the replacement words may avoid some perceived problems, they almost certainly have their own set of shortcomings. Rowland Ward may be right when he says “to jettison traditional terms might not only cause more confusion and less precision, but contribute to the breaking up of the evangelical tradition McGowan wants to develop.” [review]

I think it is probably more profitable to continue to teach vigorously what the existing terms really do mean in the context of evangelical theology rather than to introduce a whole new terminology.

Second, I think Andrew could have employed a clearer method of argument or writing style in places. His technique of quoting extensively from various sources, including those generally antagonistic to reformed evangelical theology, and then refuting their views only a chapter or two later leaves himself open to misunderstanding by those who do not have the patience to follow the argument all the way through the book. I understand why he does this, in order to give a well rounded picture of the theological climate in which these questions have been discussed, and to canvas various attempts to come to terms with the whole issue of what Scripture is and how it relates to God, the human authors and us as its readers. But in places it gives the initial impression that he is quoting with approval views that later in the book he clearly repudiates or finds wanting. Andrew mentions Barth’s notorious lack of perspicuity caused by his habit of examining things from one perspective and then not returning it to until several chapters later when he gives an entirely different perspective, modifying the former view. But Andrew writes the same way, in my opinion. Like Barth, you have to read everything he says in the context of the whole book, because he does not always immediately flag his real intentions or give his evaluation of the theologian he is dealing with until later.

I also think Professor McGowan could have expressed himself more tactfully in places. Some of his language is perhaps a little unwise, ambiguous, and inflammatory. To call the WCF ‘scholastic’ for example, is like a red rag to a bull – it’s just asking for trouble, and I’m not sure that it even reflects what he is really trying to say at that point. When I hear the word ‘scholastic’ I think of the most negative connotations of medieval Catholic casuistry.

I think it is unfortunate that Andrew has chosen to publish this book in the form it is in. He could have written leaving out the infallible/inerrant controversy entirely for another day, and expanded on the other things that have been overshadowed by it. His call for an examination of the place of the doctrine of Scripture in our systematics and confessions, and for the merits of a more developed Reformed evangelical doctrine of tradition would have been enough controversy for a book of their own and probably more profitable. And his chapters on the Confession and Preaching contain much that is helpful and profitable.

Another criticism that I feel is somewhat justified is that expressed by Martin Downes: ‘For a book on Scripture it is remarkably short on actual exegesis of the relevant texts, and of surveys of the history of exegesis on those passages. Readers looking for a book that adequately covers the relevant texts on the self-attestation of Scripture will need to look elsewhere.’ This is partly valid. However, it may give the impression that the book is without biblical reference at all, which is not the case. Certainly misleading is JR de Witt’s review, which is scathing in its demolition of the book. De Witt dismisses Andrew’s work on the grounds of its lack of scriptural support with the following words: “...if one compares the writings of B. B. Warfield and John Murray with The Divine Spiration of Scripture, one startling fact very quickly becomes apparent. Warfield, Murray, and many others give painstaking attention to the study of the Scriptures themselves, to exegesis. In Dr. McGowan's book one looks in vain for a single exegetical syllable. He compares and contrasts theological writers — chiefly modern but to some degree older ones as well — and engages in dialogue or debate with them, but his thinking is plainly formed under the influence of a school which seems bent upon jettisoning the 'church doctrine of inspiration' and exchanging it for something very different, far less forged on the anvil of an effort to understand what the Bible claims for itself.”

Leave aside the fact that it is unfair to compare one short work which is clearly stated to be merely ‘a contribution towards’ raising the issues for discussion, with the huge tomes of the Princeton men. Leave aside that the nature of the work is largely as a review of historical doctrine, not a bible commentary or systematic theology. Even ignoring all that, the truth is that Dr McGowan DOES in fact interact with Scripture in several chapters, not the least of which is in his chapters on Scripture and Confession and Preaching Scripture. One wonders whether de Witt even read chapters 6 and 7 before writing his kneejerk reaction to chapters 4 and 5, since he actually says nothing about those chapters. He himself says “it is important to be careful and accurate.” Yet I feel that he has been neither in his review. Nevertheless, it is true that Andrew could profitably have extended the work by referring more to scripture than he does, particularly in those middle controversial chapters.

As I said at the beginning, I would not agree with everything Andrew McGowan says. However, my criticisms are mainly semantic and literary rather than of the substance of the book, and I will be disappointed if critics simply take my words above and add them to their criticisms of the substance of Andrew’s argument. That is not what I intend. This is overall a positive review, even if I have started with a few negatives!

In Part 2 that follows I will address some of the criticisms levelled at the book and ask whether, and to what extent, they may be valid.