I’m slowly plugging my way through Dallas Willard’s The Divine Conspiracy. After all the hype, I thought I’d love this book. As my intern noted, this book is listed by nearly every emerging leader as one of THE books. But I’m not really loving it. I think I figured out why.
I am not a dispensationalist, having left that camp in the early 90’s. It isn’t that he is either. It is that he is often arguing against many mistaken dispensational notions (without calling them what they are). He belabors the folly of trying to park the teaching of Jesus in the earthly millennium. So… I’m not tracking with him, even though, in large part, I agree with him.
But rather than seek to communicate Covenant Theology and/or a Reformed perspective, he seems to be trying to create his own thing. And that ‘novelty’ sounds alot like the New Perspectives on Paul, which sound alot like the Roman Catholicism of my youth, which I fled for the purity of the Gospel of Jesus.
Hopefully I will change my viewpoint of this book by the time I’m done. I want for him to affirm the distinctions between justification, sanctification & glorification. What I see him doing is noticing how dispensational thought often separates them. He seems to move to the opposite error rather than say they are distinct blessings of the Gospel, but also connected blessings of the Gospel. They come as a package, but they are not the same.
Or am I just completely missing something here?
Cavman Considers 
I’m like you with pretty much all of Willard’s stuff. I find that he has some gold nuggets in his writing which are terrific but on the whole I just don’t get where he is going.
He’s not a theologian and I don’t think he reads all that in depth theologically, although he is definitely acquainted with theology. But I don’t expect we’ll be seeing him write too much using standard theological categories.
I tend to struggle with philosophers playing theologians. John Frame is an exception. I guess they are just asking questions that don’t seem to get to the heart of the matter. It’s like they are trying to impress you or something.
Seems like too much categorizing.
Willard is hard to read in one sense but then he has this “wordsmith” quality to him that nails me sometimes. An example is the phrase from “Divine” about “Well-Intenioned Meanness”. I know that just means Meanspirited to some. But for me it was a summary of what so many of us attempt in the name of “managing those closest to us” and it is just wrong.
Catagories are good and necessary if we are to communicate effectively. They are not good if we press them too hard.
In this case, his tendecy to talk theology without using such catagories means that I don’t understand what he’s talking about.
I don’t want to rashly accuse him of departing from the historic doctrine of “justification by faith alone”. Yet, he writes in a way that makes him sound like he does. He sounds more like a proponant of the New Perspectives.
I’ve heard the New Perspectives linked a lot to NT Wright, and of course, the Auburn Avenue bunch, but I admit that I don’t completely understand the concepts. I know it has something to do with lawkeeping. Do you know of any resources to help me out?
And does anybody know what the relationship is between the New Perspectives and theonomy/Christian reconstructionism?
DB,
I’ve since put links to articles on the New Perspectives- here:
https://cavman.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/considering-the-new-perspective-on-paul/
Search my blog for the PCA Report, it has a link to the PCA document on the NPP & FV/AA theology.
Theonomy doesn’t have any direction connections to NPP, though both seem to be traps that Reformed guys are prone to fall into (Arminians fall into the Open Theism trap and neo-nomianism). At least I haven’t seen anyone make a connection. Theonomy is an extension/application of post-millenialism. NPP is rooted in
liberalcritical scholarship that says Luther and Protestants have misunderstood the Judaism of Paul’s day.Hi Cavman. I was searching “the Divine Conspiracy” to be honest to see how high my site was on the search. Because I’ve written about it too. Just curious. Well, yours is higher than mine.
I like his writings, but like I feel you are saying, I find some of the technical stuff to be kind of hard to take. I think that’s because he is trying to express things that are best expressed intuitively, as with art and such, but trying to do it with more technical language. I see him as a pastor/theologian, but also of course a philosopher and philosophy is very technical, written in special technical language.
All that to say this. I find myself while reading “Divine….” wading through dozens of pages only to find gems that touch my heart directly. They are just interspersed in there – you don’t know when you will come to one.
My two cents.
Here’s one of them:
“Our hunger for significance is a signal of who we are and why we are here, and it also is the basis of humanity’s enduring response to Jesus. For he always takes individual human beings as seriously as their shredded dignity demands, and he has the resources to carry through with his high estimate of them.”
At times I can agree with him so much – like the problem of sin management. And other times…. he seems to so miss the point. oh, well.
Sorry I’m ‘ahead’ of you. YOu may pass me by.
I finf the commends so interesting an dnow look even more forward to get down adn read this book……
I like the premise of Willard’s book — the forgotten element of being a disciple of Christ — but I’m hearing it’s a difficult read. Is there someone else who has better captured the ideas in print?
Dallas seems particularly frustrated with “sin management” rather than the putting to death of our sin and growth in obedience.
So, I’d recommend John Owen’s books on Sin and Temptation, and the Mortification of Sin. Kris Lundgaard has produced an accessible summary of that material in The Enemy Within: Straight Talk about the Power and Defeat of Sin.
My advice would be to buy the unabridged audio version. I’ve had to listen to several chapters more than once – but found the audio a lot easier to digest than the book.
I am more of a book person, I like to underline and interact in the margins.
I didn’t find anything important that Willard contributed that wasn’t found, expressed more clearly, in pastor/theologians like Owen, Marshall, Mack & Lundgaard.
I went to a church that had an on going class in the Divine Conspiracy and these church ladies were using it as a launch to introduce Lectio Divina, guided meditations, and eastern thought (all religions have some truth, etc.) and supplanting “what would Jesus say,” with “what would Dallas Willard say?” They didn’t care what your personal relationship with Christ was about, but what Dallas Willard said it was about. I left the class. I felt it was dangerously close to eastern thought, and when the book is used by church lay people, any kind of interpretation might be spoken as truth. I did read the book, and like others, found some nuggets, but over all, it (D.C.) seems like a lot of work to know and love Jesus.
I read the book a couple of years ago and it changed the way I look at Christian life. I’m Indian and wonder why any resembalnce to eastern thought should drive someone away from anything! God reveals his truth to all honest seekers and ppl try to explain their bits of revelation in whichever way they are able to express it. Is there any human language/ thought-process that can adequately expalin God’s heart, except Jesus’ own words? And if we decide to divide the world up as ‘world views’, pl also remember, Jesus was Asian!
David Wayne, just want to point out that Dr. Willard is a theologian. Not only has he done extensive work and article publishing in that category of study, academically he earned a degree from Baylor University (B.A., 1957, Philosophy and Religion).
Theology and philosophy are inextricably linked. Unless you have read his work in entirety or attended a series of lectures on any given topic, it is an unfair statement to say, “He’s not a theologian and I don’t think he reads all that in depth theologically.” In fact it sounds elitist without substantiation.
Also, keep in mind the audience. The Divine Conspiracy was not written as an academic inaccessible dissertation, nor was it meant to be a lay text- try reading some of his articles: http://dwillard.org/articles/chrislist.asp
As a seminarian, I was surprised to read your assessment…particularly based on one book. I would be hard pressed to categorize anyone based on one printed work.
What defines a “theologian” vs. a philosopher for you?
Amanda – wow I had forgotten about this comment. I suppose my tone was disrespectful here toward Dr. Willard so apologies to him and any of his fans. And you are right, even though his specialty is philosophy, I know he is well versed theologically and I am quite sure he knows more theology than I do. As to what I was thinking when I wrote the comment I’m not sure – I just remember slogging through Divine Conspiracy and not getting it. It was the same way with his book on the disciplines – I made it all the way through that one but it was hard. I think it may be the case that I come from a particular theological tradition and have patterns of thinking and reading that go toward particular categories and Dr. Willard frames things in ways I am not used to.
I do know that even though I may not “get” Dr. Willard he has done great work for the kingdom so again, please forgive my disrespect.
As to “theologian vs. philosopher” I would just say that there is a good deal of overlap, but a theologian is one whose main concentration of study is on special revelation, whereas a philosopher’s main concentration is on general revelation.
David Wayne,
Thank you for clarifying. I think your distinction is fair: “a theologian is one whose main concentration of study is on special revelation, whereas a philosopher’s main concentration is on general revelation.”
I was interested to read this post as I came across it (google search for Divine Conspiracy) because it is always good to hav a balanced perspective and thus far had only heard the highest praise of The Divine Conspiracy (which was my text in my Sermon on The Mount class).
I personally felt that Renovation of the Heart was one of the more profound books I’ve ever read. It’s a much more practical read…in fact we used the student edition with a college group my husband led.
Thanks again, for your response.
I was recommended this book by a friend just a few days ago. I checked it out today, and will probably dive into it fairly soon. Let me know what you think of it after you’ve finished!
Dallas Willard is always a hard read. His sentences have so many commas, parenthesis and hyphenated sections that I can’t find the meaning without reading the sentence at least twice.
I have never been able to find the reason so many think he is a good author.
Vince
While I also find that Mr. Willard uses many more words to make his points then I deem necessary – I personally really enjoy his perspectives. I have read all of his books (and several articles) and I have to agree with Amanda that Renovation… is his best work.
While the whole Kingdom perspective has by now been thoroughly dissected and examined to death – when I first read this book it was my introduction to that revelation. I find his chapters on sin management to be quite freeing (“So Im NOT the only one who feels this way!”).
I highly recommend his work.
I’m really glad I stumbled unto your site. I was considering purchasing this book on the recommendation of The Frank Pastore show. I think I’ll hold off for now. I’m curious as to what your opinions are once your done with the book. Cheers!
Never finished it. I grew exasperated and decided to move on to something I found a bit more helpful.
My pastor taught from this book for weeks and I have to admit, I wasn’t “getting” it all, either. I wanted to know the jest of the whole teaching and he recommended that I get the book and read it for myself. I appreciate good writing but when there are too many eloquent, long sentences, I get lost and have to reread to get what is being said. Doing that with the Word of God is necessary sometimes, but doing that with anything is tiring. Can anyone tell me what the jest of the book is? What I did get was that Jesus taught on the beatitudes was that you don’t have to be “poor in spirit”, “merciful”, etc. to be blessed but that if you are, then you, too, will be blessed. Am I off? What I have been sensing is that one cannot be “poor in spirit”, “merciful”, etc. without having been blessed by God in the first place. Just as Peter was blessed and that’s why he believed Jesus was the Christ. Thomas only believed when he “saw” but those God blesses, believe without seeing. Therefore, all believers that didn’t need proof, have been blessed. But even the others are not left out, for God knows what they need to believe.
I have found a video series about 12 x 1.5hrs long recently and quickly became hooked.
I believe that his worldview can be summarized in his explanation of the sermon on the mount – Christians are those who have the ability by the power of the Spirit of Christ inside them, to live as those listed in the beatitudes.
I think that us Christians do not admit often enough that when something pricks us, it is not necessarily because it is offensive to the Holy Spirit but rather offensive to our pride, the flesh that still lives inside
I have been finding this out of myself and doing extra checking when I do feel pricked, asking God to reveal to me the truth, and He does – often contrary to my former “position.”
I have found the Divine Conspiracy to hit the mark when few others come close – The Christianity that he prescribes is a difficult Christianity to live out, but I think that to often we make it liveable, because that’s what we can do.
I think he’s saying scripture – that the point of the Good News, is that the whole thing – Justification, Sanctification and Glorification are all impossible things, things that Judaism tried before us Christians and failed at, because they tried to do them by their own works and not by faith; the only prescription, ever, for righteousness.
I hope I’m somewhat on target. Those are my thoughts
I think that Reformed Theology has a historically tested, exegetically sound, more satisfying answer to these problems that plague evangelicalism.
I have no idea what plague evangelism is, but I do not think you have given Willard his due. I am in the process of re-reading and teaching “The Divine Conspiracy” at my Presbyterian church and the key for me is living the kingdom life now. This means walking with Jesus in all of my life at every moment. It means having the mind of Christ. Now, of course, this is impossible to do all of the time, but Willard’s exposition of the Sermon on the Mount is more than finding a few “nuggets” here and there.
Becoming a disciple of Jesus is not easy and it is impossible without allowing oneself to be led by the Spirit. I believe Dallas Willard is espicially poignant in his treatment of The Lord’s Prayer starting on page 253 up through page 301 where he writes about the elephant in the room (nondiscipleship). The reformed and other main line churches in America are dying for lack of vision and it breaks my heart.
I know lots of Reformed people talking about discipleship. I’m one of them. Yes, there are some Reformed pastors who are not faithful to the Scriptures and their heritage. There is a danger involved- thinking we are saved by following Jesus instead of being saved to follow Jesus. Because his theology of justification is not clear, he leads us into this opposite danger.
I have read and studied a large portion of Dallas Willard’s works. His main emphasis is on “spiritual formation” as a means to effective discipleship. He does seem to tweek ideas that we as western evangelicals do not get right away and he does introduce the thoughts of the early church fathers which most evangelicals have left on the shelf or are completely ignorant of. We have the Bible, as we know it today, because of these “eastern” fathers. God used men, many from the eastern orthodoxy and the ecumenical councils to aid in the preservation, sorting out, canonizing of the biblical writings. Dr. Willard is a brilliant man and well versed in ancient philosophy and an accomplished bible scholar in his own right. Some have said that the science of philosophy is the handmaiden of theology. DW seems to be able to get above the reform or dispensational perspective and give clarity and direction for a more practical christian walk. His emphasis on spiritual formation, knowing Chist and discipleship has helped me immensely.
[…] Why I’m NOT Enjoying The Divine Conspiracy […]
There is a good chance you are missing something considering the way you have described Dr. Willard.
I think that he writes and explains in a way that is foreign to a particular tradition of a Christians.
Google elephant in the sanctuary for a formulation that is at least a little closer to your own tradition of formulating theology.