In this admirably clear work, Sam Wells provides a doctrinal grounding for the theological insight undergirding his many academic and devotional works: that ‘being with’ is ‘God’s purpose and the eschatological shape of human destiny’ (p. 59). The story he weaves is theocentric and not anthropocentric, so that God’s coming in Christ is no mere circumstantial intervention occasioned by human fallenness. The Word is made flesh because God elected to be with us before the foundation of the world. Thus, creation must be for the sake of the incarnation. Wells restores to the incarnation its eschatological force: in the incarnation the Trinity extends its eternal loving inter-Personal enjoyment to creation so that we too can enjoy participating in that relationship now and eternally.
Wells’ version of the deification exchange formula is: Jesus comes to be with us so that we can be with God. It runs counter to what he calls the ‘redemption story’, the majority report, in which Jesus comes primarily to deal with human sin. Sin is thus prioritized over being with, deficit over abundance, confrontation over vigilant solidarity and solving human problems over entering God’s embrace.
Wells is consciously and emphatically leaning into the canard that Anglican theology is incarnational at the expense of focusing on the atonement. Wells does not dwell on that tradition, but he finds himself in the company of the Lux Mundi group, Eric Mascall, William Temple and Michael Ramsey (although some of them may have baulked at some of his conclusions). Wells writes in an almost Eastern key, focusing on the nature of God – as revealed in Scripture – and letting the doctrines flow from the truth that God is love. He clears the weeds away from a counter-tradition that has been underused in the West, although he plots his antecedents in mediaeval and modern theology, as well as discussing Orthodox theologians. His work shares similar instincts to that of David Bentley Hart, Jordan Daniel Wood and John Milbank, who are similarly working through the implications for creation and eschatology of a God who is transcendent self-giving love.
Wells elucidates being-with in terms of covenant, community and communion, takes us through the resources of tradition, and then draws out the theological implications (Trinity, incarnation, creation, eschatology, Israel, church and God’s reign) before looking at the passion, resurrection, sin, suffering and evil. Throughout, he deploys Biblical narratives and themes, displaying a rich theological imagination that has long been preaching and meditating on God’s being-with, thereby making the book a treasury for any preacher.
The story he tells is persuasive and gathers force as he continues to approach it from different angles. It is who God is eternally, in essence, that must define what God elects to do temporally, in the sphere of our existence. Or, as Wells repeats, God’s ends and God’s means coincide. ‘God does not will to be God without us’ (p. 189), and so creation serves the purposes of the incarnation. That Christ has to suffer our sinfully false stories about creation is, if you like, a side quest, but one that will emphatically demonstrate that God’s desire is faithfully to be with us no matter what. The argument is well sign-posted throughout, and his conclusions, whilst not tentative, hold out areas where further discussion and elaboration may be desirable. It is also wonderfully quotable: ‘Christmas is God in Christ reaching out to humankind. Ascension is humankind in Christ reaching out to God’ (p. 269); and full of proverbial wisdom: ‘Trust does not obliterate fear; it withstands it’ (p. 171).
If the theology is compelling, there are, of course, a number of theological points to be further drawn out or challenged. Using only one theological lens (being-with) will have that effect.
First, if the incarnation is somehow essential to who God is, can Wells also say that there is a ‘moment’ of Trinity without incarnation (p. 173)? More needs to be said about the eternal consonance between divinity and humanity that the incarnation and ascension might imply.
Second, to maintain the centrality of being-with, Wells needs to ensure that there is always some distance, some difference, so that there can be an alongside. If Wells were to err in the way of heresy – which he does not – then the temptations would be tritheism or a Nestorianism that keeps divinity and humanity at one remove from one another. For Wells, the mediation between God and humanity comes about through the human encountering and being embraced by Christ. It is not a mediation within the person of Christ where human nature and divine nature are united. Similarly, he does describe communion as a union with God, but it is primarily about being in God’s presence. Wells seems to shy away from robust accounts of our individual and corporate participation in Christ/Trinity – our being-as or being-in Christ – in order to maintain the priority of being-with. They need not be antithetical, but more could be said. (Moreover, his characterisation of deification in Orthodox traditions as individualist is perhaps unjust).
Most kickback will be from those who find his take on atonement lacking – that Christ chooses to remain with us even to the point of experiencing an isolation that jeopardizes the intra-Trinitarian relations. Although there is a lot to chew on in the accompanying narrative theology of sin – it is the telling of false stories – some may feel that our response to sin, which is how we tell and perform the truer story of being-with (despite the continuance of death, sin and evil), is not quite victorious enough. There is perhaps more one could say about how we, in Pauline fashion, are co-crucified and co-raised with Christ as we participate in the defeat of the power of Sin and Death.
Those who are sympathetic to Wells’ instincts – whatever their hesitations – will benefit from his clarity and daring. It will be a boon to those who have rejected the majority narrative but are seeking another theologically rooted story. For those who are not naturally in accord, there will be much cognitive dissonance, but it will sharpen their own arguments. This is a rich and rewarding book which, as Mascall might say, puts grace and glory front and centre.
