Revelation and Reconciliation: A Window on Modernity

Written by Stephen N Williams Reviewed By Clark H. Pinnock

Revelation and Reconciliation is a solid piece of academic writing by a well-informed and widely read evangelical theologian. Stephen Williams, currently professor of systematic theology at Union Theological College, Belfast. A scholar’s scholar, Williams is intent on conducting a refined conversation with some of his British theological colleagues concerning the interpretation of developments in the history of ideas vis- … -visthe modern critique of Christianity. The book is for the advanced reader and cannot be called a popular book. Operating on a high level of scholarship, it engages opinions about modern intellectual history in a richly textured and widely ranging way. It constitutes a dialogue with other historians of ideas on the meaning of such important thinkers and Descartes and Pascal. Locke and Nietsche. In conversation with contemporaries like Newbigin, Torrance and Gunton, Williams supplies his own perspective on modernity and why it veered away from the Christian faith. Originally the purpose of the book had been to critique radical theology of the Cupitt type, but in the course of research and writing it took a turn to the interpretation of intellectual history. The book is erudite and aims at a readership of theologians and philosophers.

The content is suggested by the title. The book opens a window into the character of modernity and introduces us to the question whether reconciliation or revelation is the better category for interpreting the modern crisis of faith. For his part, Williams sees the modern attack on Christianity in terms of reconciliation more than revelation. He feels that contemporary interpreters err in overemphasizing issues of epistemology in this context and believes that the story may be better read as a rejection of the need for reconciliation. The aim of the book is to replace an account which focuses on the epistemological objections to revelation with one which focuses on the anthropological objections to reconciliation.

The basic idea is intuitively credible for evangelicals. It is natural for us to suspect that unbelievers would tend to portray their problems with Christianity as intellectual rather than moral and Williams demonstrates that this is indeed the case for many of Christianity’s cultured despisers. The book is somewhat muted at the end by his having to acknowledge (first) that epistemological issues cannot (however) be dismissed and (second) that his own point about reconciliation being important is recognized by his partners in dialogue as well. In the end then, his erudition is more impressive than the actual results of the study. I am certain we will hear from Williams again. He is an able man.


Clark H. Pinnock

McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada