fyi, I added you to my small blog list (that no one reads anyway) as an expression of my appreciation for your contributions to theological reflection

Thanks for your work on this web site. I Appreciate the book reviews, especially the work with N.T. Wright. How did you land that interview?

Anyway, to the comment at hand. I appreciate your take on Wells. He is quite Old School Reformed, but a needed voice in the midst of the contemporary Church. One thing, you note, “Other times, he makes sweeping generalizations without the documentation to back up his point. For example, he argues (without any documentation) that the overwhelming majority of evangelical pastors have become seeker-sensitive (44).” Wells notes at the beginning of the book that he has intentionally NOT documented this particular book. The reason? This book is a summary of his previous three books (No Place For Truth; God in the Wasteland; Losing Our Virtue; and Above All Earthly Pow’rs.” I assure you, the previous books are documented to the hilt.

Thanks again. And, if you get a chance, do pray for the Presbyterian Church (USA). I was a minister commissioner to that just completed Assembly. You think you have problems in the SBC!

In Christ,
Rev. Cameron Smith

The point I made in the review was that Wells affirms penal substitution the way the Bible affirms substitution. He chooses to use the same language of Scripture. The Bible does not speak of God the Father condemning the Son, but of the Father condemning sin in the flesh of Jesus. (Romans 8:3) That is why in 2 Corinthians 5:21, we see God the Father making Jesus to be sin – the Son who knew no sin.

It might not make much of a difference to some, but I always a appreciate it when a writer seeks to be faithful to the Bible, not only in the concepts it affirms, but in the way the Bible itself describes those concepts.

Thanks for your review. In it you said:

“…he believes we should make the distinction that Christ took upon himself the penalty of our sin, not that he was punished for sin. (201). In other words, God condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus; God did not condemn Jesus”

I don’t really understand what is meant by this distinction or why it’s necessary. Would you mind explaining it to me? Feel free to e-mail me if you’d prefer not to write something here.

Thanks a lot

Ed

Perhaps he is leaving to others the difficult job of deciding where to go from here.

I first chimed in on your blog out of appreciation for your great review of True Story . Thank you also for this even-handed treatment of Wells’ new book, which many wary of the seeker-sensitive and emergent movements will endorse uncritically. However, in the past year-plus I have moved from hostility to amity w.r.t. reformed curmudgeonry, driving me to recommend softening some of the criticisms listed in the review.

1. Wells puts too much stock in surveys and polls.
I haven’t read the book, of course, but is it possible that when Wells cites such results, he allows for ambiguity in explaining them? For example, with the absolutes survey, could it be that whether the results reflect moral relativism, epistemic confusion, or sloppy gut sensitivity to cultural differences in a diverse world (not that these are mutually exclusive!), Wells sees this as a disturbing trend?

2. The absence of pulpits might indeed be due to the market mentality of some mega-churches, but surely the answer to our consumerism is not merely returning to the pulpit!
When I read this, I thought you had misunderstood Wells. I think that, for him, Plexiglas stands and barstools are symptomatic of culture dictating the church’s agenda, of churches falling over themselves to lure and please a clientele. Pulpits on the other hand, are associated with a reverence for teaching from the Bible, reminding the congregation that “the church’s belief and mission come from the Word of God.” I think he would admit the point that pulpits do not inherently guard against consumerism, though; too much of traditional evangelicalism has stunk of spiritual consumerism in a different garb!

3. Though his tone is often pessimistic and he offers little evidence or hope for a resurgence of biblical orthodoxy, Wells’ counsel and instruction are worthy of receiving and hearing.
Striking a wise balance between hope and concern is difficult. Without drawing the issue out, I believe that biblical teaching, historical testimony, and contemporary observation can collectively inform a legitimately bleak outlook on the future of the western church.

Thanks again for the review. Great points about unsupported generalizations, the myth(?) of resurgent secular spirituality, and muddiness about the relationship between God and the Word of God. This blog is a gem.

Thanks for the feedback. The Courage to Be Protestant is the first book of Wells that I have read. Actually, he admits that its a synthesis and summary of the previous books he has written.

I agree with much of Wells’ analysis. However, I am not convinced that evangelicalism was ever as doctrinally-centered as he seems to think. Yes, there were some core doctrines that all evangelicals agreed upon, but I do not believe that what actually united evangelicals fifty years ago was something else – namely, experience. We are reaping today the harvest from the bad seeds that are in our root system.

Wells’ book is worth reading though. Much of what he says is spot on. He is a keen observer of trends.

really appreciate your blog. Enjoy checking it out whenever I can.

Thanks for your helpful review above. Sorry if this comment is somewhat negative but this latest Wells book sounds exactly like the same stuff he’s been writing about for the last 20years. I’ve read a number of his other books and this latest one sounds like yet one more rehash of his ideas. He only has the one point. Our culture and the church have gone down the tubes and our only hope is a good dose of his own Calvinistic Reformed theology. He really does sound like a grumpy old relative longing for a return to the “golden days” of the church/culture (as if they ever existed). He is a church historian after all. I don’t say this to dismiss him but just to point out where he’s coming from and why his conclusions might in actual fact not be surprising at all in light of his own context.

In you conclusion you say “..his tone is often pessimistic and he offers little evidence or hope for a resurgence of biblical orthodoxy…” this is exactly the same take home message you would have got from his earlier books. If you’ve never read Wells before you’ll enjoy this book but if you have then it’ll all be depressingly the same. IMHO not what we need if we’re ever going to live out and proclaim the good news of Jesus in our world today.

Cheers

Rob