Albert M. Wolters

Al Wolters's book Creation Regained is a helpful introduction to the Reformed worldview. For Wolters, structure and direction comprise the basic framework of a biblical worldview. The former most corresponds to what classically trained theologians and philosophers would call nature or natural law. The latter corresponds to a philosophy of history informed by the redemptive narrative of the Bible. All of creation started off good until man's rebellion brought it under the domain of darkness. show more Sin distorts what God made good. That us until Jesus, God-made-man, ushered in the kingdom of God which brings the possibility of redemption for all things. As members of Christ's church, we participate in that restorative mission by bringing the kingdom of God to bear on all things, renewing them according to God's original design (or structure). Grace does not destroy nature, but restores and perfects it.

Wolters framework is incredibly compelling, and, quite right in many ways. It is worth noting that Reformational worldview is often juxtaposed against "two-kingdoms" frameworks, as if the two are not compatible. However, nothing Wolters really says denies the classic, magisterial Reformed view. As much as Wolters decries dualism, he is perfectly fine distinctions between spheres. Perhaps where he is weakest is in incorporating a robust ecclesiology. He is certainly right that the Bible gives us insight into all matters of creaturely existence--politics, economics, art, etc. But only insofar as the Bible testifies to a created "nature" to these things. Thus, one can certainly agree that the modern divide between sacred and secular is bunk. But there remains a distinction between creaturely and churchly matters (or temporal and eternal spheres). While I think Wolters avoids many of the common errors, many of those who would subscribe to his system often fail to make that important distinction. Thus, they try to run the state or the market or other social institutions like the church. As Wolters points out, this is a basic violation of "sphere sovereignty" but one much too common among the most-committed Kuyperians.

I think Creation Regained is helpful for addressing the particular challenge of modernism. Beyond that, it may be better to rely on more classical texts to 1) be more attuned to the historical development of these ideas and 2) avoid writing off most of the Christian tradition as insufficiently reformational. show less

Al Wolters’s book, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview is worth the read. Wolters, professor emeritus at Redeemer University College, originally wrote the book in 1985 as an introduction to the Dutch philosophers Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd, but it quickly became a generally recognized introduction to Neo-Calvinist thought. In it, he outlines the bare bones of what he calls “Reformational Worldview,” and shows how the paradigm of creation, fall, and show more redemption aids in making sense of the world. The book did not become a staple without reason, although there are elements of it that are dated now. Creation Regained presents a compelling way to view the world, and anyone who wants a basic introduction to reformational worldview engagement should read it.
Wolters’s book could be divided into two sections: theory and practice. The theory section is presented in three major portions: creation, fall, redemption. He might have entitled the chapters “Creation,” “What’s Wrong with Creation,” and “New Creation,” as creation is the central theme of the book and a large part of his thesis, which he expresses pithily as “grace restores nature.” In other words, redemption is bigger than the soul—it extends to the whole of the created order—creation is good, and God is not done with it yet. Or, as Wolters puts it, “God does not make junk, and he does not junk what he has made.” This has massive implications for how we view all things in this stage of redemption. Contrary to what might be described as neo-gnosticism, the echoes of which we can see in songs like “I’ll Fly Away,” where salvation is seen primarily as a spiritual or disembodied reality, the reformational worldview insists on the goodness of the created order and God’s plan to restore all things, in heaven and on earth and under the earth. Wolters does justice to the fact that scripture begins not with the fall (as much of evangelicalism appears to believe) but with creation.
Another crucial aspect of the reformational worldview is the distinction between what Wolters calls “structure” and “direction.” Structure refers to the way that God created all things. Any given created thing is, at its root, good. Which is to say that the structure of all created things is good. Direction, on the other hand, refers to the effects of the fall and redemption, that is, whether a particular thing is directed toward God or away from him. This distinction provides the framework for assessing how Christians ought to think of everything. In approaching any given thing, the Christian can expect to find good in the structure, and a falling short of the mark in direction. The question changes from “Is this thing good or bad?” to the more nuanced “What can we affirm about the structure? How can we redeem the direction?” This line of thought forms the basis of reformational interaction with the world.
Creation Regained laudably broadens the lens of evangelical outlook. However, it is dated in a few respects. It’s worth noting at the outset that Wolters originally intended the book to be an introduction to an obscure branch of Dutch philosophers. As such, his task was not to be complete and comprehensive. He notes in the postscript of the second edition that many of the critiques that have been leveled at the book have not taken this into account. Nonetheless, it could be developed in a few areas.
First, Wolters’ definition of worldview appears to over-emphasize the intellect. He defines worldview as “the comprehensive framework of one’s basic beliefs about things.” He clarifies that “beliefs” do not refer to feelings, opinions, or hypotheses. Instead, beliefs are “cognitive claims,” assertions about reality, “committed beliefs,” convictions. Beliefs are defensible. Naturally, this gives rise to a question: If, to have a worldview, one must have firm, committed assertions or convictions that form a “comprehensive framework” of all things, do all people have a worldview? Anticipating such an objection, he says that most people have strong opinions about any manner of things, and whether or not they can articulate these beliefs, they constitute a worldview. Accordingly, he answers in the affirmative: “In general, therefore, everyone has a worldview, however inarticulate he or she may be in expressing it.” This appears to be inconsistent. If a belief is not just an opinion or feeling, but rather a committed and reasoned conviction, it seems to imply that one is able to articulate it and argue for it. This would in turn mean that few people have a worldview to begin with. Either the definition needs to be clarified to become less intellectual, or Wolters needs to consistently apply it and accept the implications.
Second, Wolters’ use of the word “worldview” is out of step with most modern expressions of the concept. His book would gain little foothold in a philosophy class simply because the term “worldview” is dated. This is not his fault, to be clear: the first edition of Creation Regained was published in 1985, and the second in 2005. The discussion has come a long way since then, and perhaps the book could be improved by an additional update. Wolters’ book is part of the first wave of worldview thinking, so it’s not as relevant to the discussion today. Similarities could be drawn between many first-generation books and the inevitability of their loss of relevance. Wolters had the privilege of being at the front end of a movement, but due to the nature of such things, he no longer occupies that place. In that sense, Creation Regained is a foundational work, but not the last word.
Third, Wolters limits his audience. Again, this is not a fault of his: his intention was to produce an introduction to Dutch philosophy. As such, he writes in an academic caliber to students in a particular track. Obviously, the book is not for everyone. This is unfortunate, because the book carries immense weight for the ordinary evangelical and could be quite beneficial. Many Christians, for lack of knowledge, have a neo-gnostic outlook that rejects the “things of earth” in favor of the “things above.” Unfortunately, they would be unlikely to read the book. So, while one wishes that the book could be recommended to all, it has a limited audience.
Overall, Creation Regained presents a compelling worldview framework that many Christians in the evangelical world interested in learning more about the “Reformational Worldview” would benefit from. The application of the reformational worldview could yield real fruit as Christians critically engage with the world, affirming the God-given goodness of created structure, and seeking to redeem for his glory the direction of all things. show less

“Because of their two-realm theory (seeing all things as either “sacred” or “secular”), Christians have themselves to blame for the rapid secularization of the West.

If political, industrial, artistic, and journalistic life, to mention only these areas, are branded as essentially ‘worldly,’ ‘secular,’ and part of the natural domain of ‘creaturely life,’ then is it surprising that Christians have not more effectively stemmed the tide of humanism in our culture?” -pg show more 54

Excellent, scholarly, philosophical, dry, challenging, convincing. Not for the faint of heart. show less

I have read several Worldview books from the Reformed perspective and this one does add to the discussion. I thought his chapters on Creation, Fall and Redemption were very clear and helpful. He is coming from the Dutch Reformed perspective of people like Kuyper, Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven. While I don't hold to all their views I am more sympathetic than not. His writing of structure and direction was a little confusing particularly the section on Personal Renewal. This book had a extra show more chapter that wasn't as strong as I anticipated. It could be that they referred to N.T. Wright's thinking and I do have issues with some of his writings. show less