David Wells’ newest book seeks to examine the
Christ-and-Culture discussion by infusing the “Christ” side with a view of God
in holy-love.
He comments concerning the various volumes he’s authored
over the past 25 years: “I began what would turn out to be five interconnected
volumes. These we all in answer to the question originally posed by Pew: What
is it that accounts for the loss of the church’s theological character?...These
volumes were a sustained cultural analysis” (13).
And he introduces the current volume by stating: “What has
been principally lost in the evangelical church…is our understanding of God’s
character but an understanding in which that character has ‘weight.’ …And now,
in this volume, I have shifted my focus. No longer am I so preoccupied with the
culture part of the equation. Now I am looking out on life from the other side
of things, what is symbolized by ‘Christ’ in the Christ-and-culture
juxtaposition of things. This volume reflects on what we have so often lost in
our work of framing Christ-and-culture. It is the holy-love of God” (14).
We must be sure to catch his intent; otherwise we will judge
the book inaccurately. Wells wants to address the Christ-and-Culture debate by
discussing the holy-love of God. His application and conclusion explain that by
the redeemed persons of the Church portraying the holy-love of God the ‘culture
war’ will fall in favor of Christ. It is interesting to note what is absent
from his conclusion. The Christ-and-Culture debate is not a debate between
Christians and Atheists, but Christians among Christians: how are we as the
covenant people of Yahweh to relate to the surrounding culture? The argument
that Wells offers (both implicitly and explicitly) is that we are to be within
culture as sanctified (holy-love conformed) individuals and that people will
recognize Christ as a result. However, in order for this to be true within culture, we must spend a great
deal of time apart from culture—the greater part of chapter
7 is dedicated to “carving out” time for spiritual disciplines. So Wells wants
to influence the Christ-and-Culture discussion in a rather unconventional way.
Does it work? That awaits to be seen among the lives of those who take his
words to heart.
But how does Wells get from thesis to conclusion? Does he
argue well? Is he convincing? Clear? Unfortunately not as much as we would
hope.
There has been mass amounts of press surrounding this
release, even heralded as his magnum opus—his hearts’ work and gift to the
evangelical world. James Smith shadowed the glory early on in CT’s pre-release
review of the book, but Crossway released a follow-up interview with Wells to
address Smith’s concerns; The Gospel Coalition has done similarly highlighting
the release of the book with praise. Crossway has continued to release
interviews, videos, and a study guide alongside the book. Many well-respected
evangelical leaders have endorsed the book. I mention all of this because it
isn’t easy to say that God in the
Whirlwind is rather unconvincing and commonly confusing in its discourse; I
acknowledge that I am at odds with a great deal of evangelical leaders—at least
ones that have voiced opinions about the book.
I do want to say one thing, however, before I mention my
problems with his discourse:
Wells passionately loves Jesus, and that truth redounds
through every chapter of the book. You simply cannot miss his adoration for our
Savior; it is convicting and encouraging through and through to feel the love
through printed words.
I plan to explain my reservations and then offer a final
commendation (if you would only read a portion, read reservation 3).
Reservation 1: Wells’ Christian-cultural corrective is often over-corrective
This is a time-bound book as all
cultural engagements are necessarily.
This book would be near senseless in many other areas of the world because
Wells is engaging the Western world, and more specifically the United States.
What’s more this book will not be nearly as pertinent twenty years from now as
it is today. That’s not bad, however, that’s actually good! It means Wells has
hit something of today. However, I
fear that many of his assertions and corrections of the attitude today are
over-corrective. Sometimes things are simply too strongly worded, reaching for
an emotive effect, but stretching the truth beyond its equilibrium. And at
times his overstatement actually usurps his own argument.
For example on pages 30 and 31, he
warns of culture’s redefining efforts and how concerned we ought to be, but then
he compares it to the Marxists attempt which “now lies in ruins,” and states,
“One suspects, though, that the outcome will not be very different.” Ought we
to even fear such redefinitions if they will lie in rubble ten years from now? A
common refrain throughout is that God is “objective.” In several places he
further explains that we cannot know God through ourselves that he must be
known outside and external and apart from us only. Truly, God is external, but
we were also created in the image of God and can know God in part by an
internal viewpoint. Our culture today is too self-focused, but that doesn’t
mean an external look is the only
valid option. On page 34, he states that our world “today is deeply,
relentlessly, and only therapeutic.” But it is a bold and unsupported claim.
Perhaps much of the culture is, but by stacking the adjectives together, he
leaves no room for any anomaly. That is a dangerous place to stand. On page 147
he engages in syntactic overload: depending on an ambiguous grammatical
construction for his argument. Chapter 8 laments the current state of
evangelicalism with strong sympathetic tones to the point of despair, but on
the final page (217) he says, “There is a way back. We can come back to what we
ought to be and to what we ought to be doing. And that is what I perceive is
beginning to happen today.”
Reservation 2: Wells’ is occasionally imprecise, unclear, or
unsupported
At times
Wells is philosophically, historically, or otherwise inaccurate. On page 27 he
collapses modernity and postmodernity, but they are quite different. It is
uncertain whether he is using “objective” as meaning ‘pertaining to an object’
or as ‘absolute.’ He states that if John had written I John 4.10 today it
“would have been completed quite differently” (33). But that statement
overlooks the Holy Spirit’s work—assumed, of course, but it doesn’t mean the
statement is precise. He claims that the apostles were perplexed: “as if David
had a deeper and truer knowledge of God without the gospel than we sometimes
have with it” (43). I’ve never read that in Scripture. Were “the works of the
law” a reference to “matters that were distinctive to Jewish national identity”
(46)? Perhaps, but his exposition on page 46 and 47 contains too few and
unrelated verses to convince me. He commonly draws on judicial language for
justification, but he forgets that judicial language in the ancient near east
was magisterial, not judicial in a three-branch sense. Similarly, legislative
language is cultic-legal, not legal alone. The chapter “The Gospel across Time”
seems to promise a phenomenological look at the development of the gospel, but ends up actually taking an eternal
perspective and leaning upon New Testament Scripture to interpret the Old…
though in a dynamic time-bound way! This systematic theology where biblical
theology is required causes self-refuting claims such as Abraham first not
participating in sacrifices, but also—yes—participating in sacrifices; all believers
being regenerate, justified, etc., but not being united to Christ, and yet that
these realities are not possible without Christ having actually entered time. Chapter
4 explains that we cannot know God from down up but he must be known from up
down which sounds like a question of
epistemology, but which Wells turns into a question of justification. Some
statements are explicitly contradictory—in word if not in thought: “There are
not two sides to it” (86, paragraph 1), and “Indeed, we see this two-sidedness
in the very passage…” (86, paragraph 2!). the discussion on imputation is
clouded and unhelpful (142, 143). Page 145 uses “incomprehensible” incorrectly
when the word used should have been ‘unapprehendable.’ He confuses means for
ends in his discussion on reconciliation (147). He first states that redemption
should be taken as slave language rather than war language only to later say
that we should take it as war language over slave language (148). On page 192 he exposits John 17.11 by ‘worship,’
but his claims simply are not found in his base verse. On page 204 he
criticizes Saturday evening services forgetting that Israel measured days by
sundown not hours/sunrise.
Reservation 3: Well’s is predisposed to the number two (2)
even when it is wise to consider others
Unfortunately
Wells often espouses false dichotomies. He is prone to play off the number two:
two sides to a coin, etc. But many times there are three or more possibilities.
The most problematic is foundational to his argument throughout the book. He
frequently foils a “therapeutic” worldview over against a “moral” one,
attaching Christian faith and the Bible to the “moral” one. However, that is
extremely unhelpful for those of us engaging the public square and the lives of
individuals. A moral worldview is not exclusively Christian, and in fact, the
Christian worldview is not primarily moral.
The “war” between Christ and culture, the marketplace of ideas, is not simply a
fight between Christian faith and atheists. It is full of Mormons, Jehovah’s
Witnesses, Muslim persons, agnostics, wiccans, Buddhists, and others. Is there
a psychological-therapeutic worldview? Absolutely, but it is not the only other
one. Mormons have a moral worldview. Moralistic-legalism in fact… some might
argue a more strict moral view than Christians. Muslim’s as well. Wiccans,
Taoists, and Yin-Yang have a positive-negative correspondence as worldview. The
biblical worldview is certainly moral in part, but not anywhere near in whole.
The biblical worldview is three-tiered in relationship, sovereignty, and
character as we image forth the God who has entered into covenant with us. “Morality”
is a subsection of character. By no means is it the whole story. Yes, we ought
to live forth in holy-love as a moral expression of the God whom we serve, but
that is a drastically small point to consider. Returning, therefore, to the
thesis: it is good for us to consider how we might live as holy-love conformed
individuals in the midst of culture, but the question as a whole is far from
answered.
Final commendation:
All reservations explained, I commend this book to a very
particular audience. This book would be best suited in the hands of a recent
high-school graduate as they begin to enter college/university. An
understanding of holy-love is certainly missing from the minds of evangelicals,
and we would do well to remember it—particularly those who have grown up in an
Oprah-saturated world. This book would serve well the young minds who are soon
to encounter persons who believe that love is only emotional and that holiness
is dead and unappealing. I choose this group for a second reason: they are
unlikely to pick up on the reservations I have—most have not read enough
sustained argument to recognize when something is unsupported, and the main
point of the book issues through and will be remembered far beyond the minute
problems.
This book compares with others that you might be interested
in with particular foci
Christ-and-Culture: Leslie Newbigin
or James K.A. Smith
Character/love
of God: Knowing God, Packer
Relation of
love-holiness: God the Peacemaker,
Graham Cole
-----------------------------------------
This review is crosslisted on Amazon.com and Goodreads.com
