RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Willard, Dallas. The Great Omission.
Spiritual Disciplines
He has a beautiful chapter on “solitude” and “silence.” My only concern is that it is completely unworkable to anyone who has kids, a job with pressing demands, or both. This leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that there is “okay” spirituality, which is the basic stuff someone like you does every day (read the bible, pray, etc), and then there is “next level” spirituality for those unhampered by kids or work. Of course, this sounds exactly like monasticism. To be fair, Willard is not arguing for this point, but this is precisely the direction the early church took it.
Towards a Christian Anthropology
In technical language, Willard is a soul-substance dualist, which is generally the Christian position.
The Good in the book
Logic as a spiritual discipline. This was a wonderful chapter, “Jesus the Logician.”
It requires the will to be logical (182).
freedom from distraction
willingness to follow truth wherever it takes
Committed to logic as a “fundamental value” (183). Jesus uses enthymemes. He understates logical points which require the hearer to draw the conclusion--psychologically, this was a very effective move.
As noted previously, his take on anthropology and its suggestions for a Christian psychology was wonderful. And despite his weak soteriology, he upheld the law-gospel distinction (162).
Criticisms
Dangerous models:
Per Laubach: language of ascent to God (200). This is chain-of-being ontology. Note how the Christian “logic” works. We do not ascend to God. Christ descends to us. I understand that “inner” language has Augustinian precedents.
This theme is heavier in Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle. The “rooms” are ways of living in relation to God. Interestingly, Willard notes that this book has become an interfaith manual. Ironically, or perhaps precisely because when the spiritual life becomes “mystical absorption into the One,” then why does it really matter which “One” it is?
And this problem surfaces in many of Willard’s works. He tries to “mix and match” spiritualities, but spirituality cannot be isolated from a larger theology. There is much that is valuable, even outstanding in this work. There is also much that is dangerous.
The biggest problem, though, is Willard’s ambiguity regarding soteriology. Granted, he is responding to the happy-clappy, let go and let God Christian, it remains that he is not always clear on the relation between justification and sanctification.
Spiritual Disciplines
He has a beautiful chapter on “solitude” and “silence.” My only concern is that it is completely unworkable to anyone who has kids, a job with pressing demands, or both. This leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that there is “okay” spirituality, which is the basic stuff someone like you does every day (read the bible, pray, etc), and then there is “next level” spirituality for those unhampered by kids or work. Of course, this sounds exactly like monasticism. To be fair, Willard is not arguing for this point, but this is precisely the direction the early church took it.
Towards a Christian Anthropology
In technical language, Willard is a soul-substance dualist, which is generally the Christian position.
The spirit is a central part of the soul, the part of determination (is this what Dabney called connative powers?). It is the heart or will. This isn’t trichotomism, though. Trichotomism sees the spirit as a separate entity. This view sees it as a subdivision of the soul.
The Good in the book
Logic as a spiritual discipline. This was a wonderful chapter, “Jesus the Logician.”
It requires the will to be logical (182).
freedom from distraction
willingness to follow truth wherever it takes
Committed to logic as a “fundamental value” (183). Jesus uses enthymemes. He understates logical points which require the hearer to draw the conclusion--psychologically, this was a very effective move.
As noted previously, his take on anthropology and its suggestions for a Christian psychology was wonderful. And despite his weak soteriology, he upheld the law-gospel distinction (162).
Criticisms
Dangerous models:
Per Laubach: language of ascent to God (200). This is chain-of-being ontology. Note how the Christian “logic” works. We do not ascend to God. Christ descends to us. I understand that “inner” language has Augustinian precedents.
This theme is heavier in Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle. The “rooms” are ways of living in relation to God. Interestingly, Willard notes that this book has become an interfaith manual. Ironically, or perhaps precisely because when the spiritual life becomes “mystical absorption into the One,” then why does it really matter which “One” it is?
And this problem surfaces in many of Willard’s works. He tries to “mix and match” spiritualities, but spirituality cannot be isolated from a larger theology. There is much that is valuable, even outstanding in this work. There is also much that is dangerous.
The biggest problem, though, is Willard’s ambiguity regarding soteriology. Granted, he is responding to the happy-clappy, let go and let God Christian, it remains that he is not always clear on the relation between justification and sanctification.
