Copyright Notice

By using this service, you are agreeing to uphold the copyright restrictions applicable
to all library materials, whether in paper or digital format. According to Copyright Fair
Use Guidelines, you are allowed only one copy for private study, scholarship, or
research. It is your responsibility to abide by fair use restrictions:
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html.

No further reproduction and distribution of this copy is permitted by transmission or any

other means.
Book Reviews 167

Michael Stewart Robb, The Kingdom Among Us: The Gospel According to Dallas Willard.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2022.

Reviewed by: Keas Keasler, Friends University

DOI: 10.1177/19397909231160310
The result of over a decade of research, Michael Stewart Robb has given us a re-
markable systematic treatment of Dallas Willard’s theology. Totaling 522 pages and
based on his 2016 PhD dissertation at Aberdeen (a mere 246 pages in comparison), it is
the most ambitious project to date on the university professor, speaker, and spiritual
writer who became a decisive figure in the spiritual formation movement among
Protestants and evangelicals over the past half-century. Robb’s monograph is learned
but not inaccessible, lucidly written and impressively argued, stunningly novel yet
faithful to its subject. At his fingertips he has a seemingly endless reservoir of Willard
quotations and citations from obscure audio recordings and unpublished papers, dating
from the early 1970s to 2013, the year of his passing. Simply stated, The Kingdom
Among Us is a landmark work in the study of Willard’s thought.1 For the foreseeable
future, all serious scholarship on his theology will have to go through it. This essay
seeks to guide the reader into Robb’s book, describe some of its main themes and
findings, challenge one of its ideas, and above all, reflect on its importance.
The volume may be categorized broadly as a study of Willard’s soteriology, but it is
more specifically focused on his view of faith, or “pisteology” as it is sometimes
referred to in historical theology. Robb suggests there are “two canonically sanctioned
and wholly orthodox ways of viewing the life of Jesus,” the first being a mature
Christology, which is God’s eye view (53). The second is a ground-level Christology,
from the view of Jesus’ first listeners. Robb chooses the latter route because, he
contends, it best aligns with Willard’s reading of not only the gospel narratives but the
history of redemption as a whole.2
Having chosen his path, Robb proposes, using the Willardian corpus, a three-stage
framework for exploring how Jesus’ first listeners would have progressively appre-
hended the person and message (gospel) of Jesus. In the first stage, Jesus is seen as a
prophet in the tradition of those in the Old Testament who have special relations to God
and act on his behalf; as such, Jesus is perceived to have access to the kingdom of God.
In the second stage, Jesus is understood as an anointed teacher or mediator of the
kingdom, one through whom his listeners themselves can access God’s kingdom. And
in the third stage, Jesus is realized to be the very king of the kingdom, thus the
friendship his listeners have with him is a friendship they have with God. Listeners

1. Michael Stewart Robb, The Kingdom Among Us: The Gospel According to Dallas Willard (Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 2022); hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.
2. Willard’s little-known phrase for this reading of redemptive history is “progressive apprehension,” which
he offers as an alternative to “progressive revelation” common in many theological circles. See pp. 43-47,
53-56. Robb’s retrieval and explication of this theory in Willard’s theology is just one of the many valuable
insights unearthed in his research.
168 Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care 16(1)

perceive Jesus in the first two stages on the “near side” of the kingdom, as in the
creaturely side; in the third stage they recognize him on the “far side” of the kingdom,
that is, the God side; but deliverance or salvation (i.e., life in the kingdom) is happening
on all three levels (364).
To be clear, this three-stage conceptualization is a creative reconstruction of
Willard’s gospel and Christology (from the ground level up), but it is not directly his.
The long, exacting way Robb unfolds his argument for the framework is formidable. He
takes no shortcuts, and his research of Willard is careful, serious, and comprehensive.
Once the three stages are built out and in full view, one realizes how first-century
listeners might have embraced Jesus and his kingdom gospel in knowledge and faith,
for it is the latter by which they are made “regenerate children (stage 1), then disciples
of Jesus (stage 2), and then friends of God (stage 3)” (504).
While these three stages form the basic structure of the book, one must wait
150 pages for the actual analysis of them to begin. What precedes it are three hefty
chapters on the linguistic and mental ontology behind Willard’s approach to Scripture
(chapters 2, 3, and 4). To some, this may present as academic throat-clearing but I
would argue Robb has made the right move. Willard’s particular philosophy of mind,
ideas, and language leads him to read Scripture with realist hermeneutics, so this is
necessary groundwork if his views on Christ, faith, God’s kingdom, and so on are to be
earnestly considered by theologians and exegetes. Though many will find the opening
chapter of the book especially enjoyable with its biographical and vocational sketch of
Willard (including his unique philosophy of ministry and “backward way of pub-
lishing” his works in theology),3 Robb tests his casual readers’ commitment with these
three dense chapters. But again, Willard’s metaphysics and realist biblical hermeneutics
cannot be glossed over if he is to be understood. Robb remarks that if he were on a
sinking boat and had to choose between throwing out Willard’s churchly writings or
philosophy, he would keep his philosophy (26). This is because had Willard left us his
philosophical writings but never produced his theological work, it is conceivable we
could build on the former to eventually arrive at many of the latter’s conclusions.
Conversely, this would be much more difficult, if possible at all, to do moving in the
opposite direction – using his theology to arrive at his philosophy – for the simple reason that
nearly all of his theological writings assume his philosophical positions but do not argue
straightforwardly for them. For those who have read both his philosophy and theology,
it is clear that Willard’s philosophy exerts a gravitational pull over the rest of his work.
The book makes two other contributions to elucidating Willard’s views that deserve
mention. First, Robb makes a convincing case that, despite what some prior interpreters
have said, Willard thinks very methodically and holistically about whatever doctrine or
subject matter is in view. As a result, there is a “remarkable logical coherence in his
thought” (22) and “if one knows where to look, one can find an espoused and often

3. Those who appreciate what Robb has to say on Willard’s philosophy of ministry should consult his more
focused essay on the topic. See Michael Stewart Robb, “Dallas Willard, Philosopher of Ministry, Teacher
of Christlikeness,” Theology Today 79, no. 2 (2022): 239-252.
Book Reviews 169

well-refined view of all major and many minor topics in theology” (23). Implied here is
that Willard’s theological output can and should be studied systematically (and perhaps
also, that it can and should be compared to that of some leading lights in church
history). Robb does not just state this but demonstrates it over the course of the volume.
Willard may be an “odd duck” (3, 497) in twentieth- and twenty-first century theology
(I refer you to my next point), but he has a love for rational congruence and his work
overall reflects how he thinks comprehensively in an orderly way.
Second, Willard’s teaching on the kingdom, as described by Robb, has some teeth. It
is known that the availability of God’s kingdom through Jesus is a hallmark of Willard’s
theology. However, due to the meekness with which he communicated this (he did not,
as a general rule, critique living theologians), one may miss its sharp edge toward a
predominant view in modern scholarship. But for those who have ears to hear – and
Robb certainly does, having listened to all of the known recordings of Willard – the
dissonance reverberates. The kingdom is an eternal reality, says Willard. It is all that
God rules over, beginning with the spiritual order that derives from God’s personality
and action. This means Jesus did not “bring” or “inaugurate” God’s kingdom; it has
existed since before creation and is older than time. What was new in Jesus’ ministry
was, again, the availability of that kingdom, the good news that all may now enter and
experience life under the reign of God through the person of Jesus. Willard recognizes
there is also more kingdom to come, more of the domain of God’s effective will to be in
effect. But he thinks that talk of the kingdom as “already” and “not yet” leads most
people to delay life in the kingdom until the “not yet,” going so far as to say on one
occasion that such talk is “dangerous because it’s false” (50n30).
This may appear as much ado about nothing, since modern scholars advocating an
already-and-not-yet view (George Eldon Ladd, N. T. Wright, etc.) also grant that God’s
kingdom has always existed. What they mean by “not yet” is that it is “not yet fully
realized on earth” due to sin and the fallenness of creation. But Robb insists there are
subtle and not so subtle theological issues at stake in Willard’s emphasis on the
eternality of the kingdom of God: where the kingdom is placed in systematic theology
(for Willard, it belongs to theology proper) and how it relates to personhood and the will
(for humans as well as God), to the continuity in God’s work before Jesus and after
Jesus, and most importantly, to the underlying reality to which the Bible attests, what
Willard calls the “with-God life” or “Immanuel Principle.”
In nearly every substantive respect, I agree with Robb’s representation and analysis
of Willard’s soteriology/pisteology, his hermeneutic (the three stages) for interpreting
it, and the points above about Willard as a systematic thinker and the distinctiveness of
his kingdom theology. The one possible concern I do have with his reading of Willard, I
will explain momentarily. But having commended his main thesis and argument, it may
come as surprise that I do not count the many insights directly gleaned from the thesis as
the key contributions of his study. This is not because those insights are insignificant
(they are not) but because Robb’s research is, as I said before, a landmark work. Its three
key contributions, ordered in terms of importance, are as follows.
170 Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care 16(1)

To begin, Robb’s work is to be lauded if for no other reason than for arguing that the
recordings of sermons and public lectures are crucial for the scholarly study of Willard.
In addition to his professorial duties at the University of Southern California where he
taught for forty-seven years, Willard kept a relentless outside speaking schedule.
Although there is no indication that he ever brought a tape recorder with him or re-
quested that his presentations be recorded, many others felt compelled to do so. As a
result, there exist hours and hours of audio and video recordings of his sermons, Sunday
school lessons, conference talks, seminary teachings, and invited lectures. Before
Robb’s research project, little consideration within the academy was given to these
extant recordings.4 The scholarly study of Willard was limited to his theological books
and essays and philosophical writings. That must change in the wake of Robb’s book.
In the opening chapter he describes, in the style of a detective tale, how he came to
believe in the importance of these recorded talks: “I was making a discovery that would
change how Willard’s mind could be known and lays at the heart of this book” (27).
When he began his research project, he was aware of less than a hundred talks that he
either possessed or could easily access on the Internet. Listening to these talks, a shift
took place in his research method: he went from seeing them as auxiliary to primary. As
he began hunting and accumulating more of these recordings, chronologically orga-
nizing talks that span four decades, he came to conclude that “the primary genre for
Willard’s theology was the spoken word” (28). This zeal for the extant recordings may
lead him to at times overstate their place in the corpus,5 but no doubt, Robb has altered
how Willard’s thought will be studied henceforth.
Closely related to the first key contribution, and possibly of equal or greater im-
portance, is the resulting availability of this catalogue of recordings to the general
public because of Robb’s work. In conjunction with his compilation and organization of
the recordings for his own research, Robb began curating them for the newly formed
Dallas Willard Research Center. In 2019, the Center made the majority of these re-
cordings available online,6 and in 2022, to accompany his book, Robb published a 109-
page bibliography of Willard’s work, which covers all these recorded assets.7 As it
stands now, there are some 1,200 recordings of Willard in the Center’s permanent
collection, with more being added as they are discovered.
The recordings are admittedly a more cumbersome resource for research than those
in printed form. (This will become less so as hopefully more talks are transcribed.) But

4. It should be noted that Gary Black Jr. listened to around 200 recordings while writing The Theology of
Dallas Willard: Discovering Protoevangelical Faith (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013). So, in addition to
producing the first full-length study of Willard, Black deserves credit for incorporating some of the
recorded talks into his study. However, he listened to roughly one-sixth of the recordings that Robb did in
his research, rarely engages them directly in his treatment of Willard, and does not argue for their primacy
in the Willardian corpus.
5. E.g., about these recordings he states, “They, not the books, are where Willard is Willard” (27).
6. See the website Conversatio Divina (https://conversatio.org).
7. Michael Stewart Robb, Something to Say: A Comprehensive Bibliography of Dallas Willard (Munich:
Sanctus, 2022).
Book Reviews 171

in comparison to the other source materials of Willard’s corpus, such as the pentalogy –
his five theological books – these recordings address a wider range of subjects and
many subjects in more detail. This is bound to be the case from the sheer number of
extant recordings that exist. The recordings also provide a better sense of how his
thought developed over time, especially since he was never in the habit of journaling
and thus did not leave behind that sort of personal documentation that can be consulted
for understanding his early thought. Moreover, the recordings help reveal verbally how
he connected the dots, logically arrived at certain conclusions, and the organic con-
nection between related subjects in his thinking not generally spelled out in his
theological writing (except occasionally in footnotes). That is because in his speaking
(as opposed to his writing) he often felt the need to “back up” one or two more steps
when explaining a concept or interpreting a scriptural passage for an audience. All this
to say, present and future scholars of Willard are beneficiaries of Robb’s (and the
Center’s) toil for making this valuable resource available.
The third key contribution is how Robb’s book clears the way for Willard to be taken
more seriously as a theologian in his own right. There is undeniably a practical nature to
Willard’s spiritual writings. They deal with weighty subjects and are not light reading,
yet they were not written as academic monographs. Behind the pulpit and in other
teaching settings, Willard was trying to help ordinary people comprehend the spiritual
realities of God and his kingdom and develop Christlike character through interaction
with them. His books and articles reflect that. This is a main reason he does not show
more of his homework, so to speak, in footnotes and with citations in his theological
writing like he does in his philosophical writing.8 Because of this, he is perceived by
some scholars and exegetes as a theological lightweight. The dearth of scholarly
engagement with his work is empirical proof; more anecdotal is a conversation I had
with N. T. Wright some years ago. He told me he once tried reading Willard but found
himself frustrated and “just couldn’t make it through the book.” As a side note, little did
Wright know that later that evening he would be honored on stage with the Dallas
Willard Lifetime Achievement Award (!) at the conference we were both attending.
Robb’s analysis flips the script on this perspective. He contends that along with a
competence in the fields of philosophy and psychology, Willard read nearly all the
significant thinkers in church history – especially Augustine, Francis, Aquinas, Luther,
Calvin (more on that in a moment), Wesley, and Finney – leaving “very few theological
rocks unturned” in pursuit of becoming “confident in all aspects of gospel ministry” (8).
In a telling section titled “Theological Amateur or Genius?,” Robb explains part of the

8. Another reason is his realist approach in discussing subjects. Rather than citing multiple sources to prove a
point or referencing other possibly relevant discussions, Willard wanted his readers to compare what he
was saying to reality itself. If the goal is knowledge – and it always is for Willard – then he felt it imperative
that persons “go to the things themselves” (the rallying cry of phenomenology), or as close as possible, to
attain knowledge for themselves. There is, in his view, no replacement for firsthand knowledge. Nev-
ertheless, it would have been beneficial, not least for those of us studying his thought, had he shown more
of his homework.
172 Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care 16(1)

methodology he followed when first studying Willard seriously. Curious as to what

great theological thinkers or systems Willard was drawing upon and popularizing, from
2004 to 2011 he read the books referenced in the footnotes of Willard’s main theo-
logical books,9 as well as the books Willard assigned in his famed Fuller Seminary
DMin course (four thousand pages of reading, mind you). What lesson did he learn
from this attempt to reconstruct the sources of Willard’s theology?

I eventually realized that with Willard, this exercise was futile. . . . I had successfully
located and studied many of Willard’s favorite authors. He was not popularizing them. I
came to the conclusion that if he was popularizing anything, he was popularizing his own
complex thought. Though there were discernable influences, these influences had been
carefully and creatively pieced together, often twenty years prior to publication, and
infused with fresh biblical exegesis and critiqued by Willard’s own life experiences (12-
13).

Theologians and exegetes will have to judge for themselves the merit of Willard’s theology,
but Robb’s book convincingly argues that Willard is every bit their peer, not an amateur.10
A few clarifications for potential readers. Those who appreciate Willard’s theory of
spiritual formation and hope to find a sustained treatment of it here may be disap-
pointed. Borrowing phrases from Jonathan Edwards and Oswald Chambers, respec-
tively, Willard spoke of both “the history of redemption” and “the psychology of
redemption” (38). The first concerns the salvific workings of God in human history,
while the latter is God’s salvific workings in the individual soul. Robb forays into the
psychology of redemption at times but is clear his main concern is Willard’s view of the
history of redemption, which is not as well known (410-411). This is due in no small
part to his desire to expand Willard’s appeal beyond the spiritual formation movement
and the three “d’s” which he has become famous for: disciples, discipleship, and
disciplines (18). I should also add that Robb explicitly admits his is an “uncritical”
analysis of Willard.11 The rationale he gives is simple: he says what is needed at this
moment in time is illumination of, not distance from, Willard’s thought (29-30). His
point is valid, and I see no need to contest his decision; in fact, scholars should be
grateful he devotes so much energy to the descriptive task. But moving forward, for
Willard to be engaged constructively by theologians, study of his thought should also
include the critical task.

9. Because Willard does not heavily footnote sources, he is judicious with those he does.
10. That is to say, he is not incompetent in their field. Of course, he was “amateur” in the classical sense, in
that he was not a professional theologian.
11. His only “critique” is that Willard did not curtail his speaking engagements in his later years, so as to give
his best time to writing and publishing for more sophisticated audiences (e.g., seminaries, universities,
and intellectuals). See pp. 20, 505-507. The point is well taken, though this is about as soft of a critique as
one can land on an admired thinker. It is not unlike comedian Jim Gaffigan’s critique of bacon, in the
middle of a five-minute routine on the blessedness of this breakfast food: “the only bad part about bacon is
it makes you thirsty . . . for more bacon.”
Book Reviews 173

The areas where I diverge from Robb’s interpretation are, for the most part, minor
and thus do not warrant mention. But there is one issue more major that should be
addressed here. It concerns his repeated classification of Willard’s theology as Calvinist
and the many ways he insinuates this throughout the book. By now, it should be clear I
find far more with which to agree than to disagree in Robb’s work, so my objection here
may have the appearance of a needless quibble; that perhaps in light of what I have just
said about the critical task, I am hunting for some minor point to dispute to make sure
this review is, indeed, “critical.” This is not my intent. With so little solid scholarly
material on Willard’s theology in existence and given that Robb’s book will prove to be
monumental in the field, I worry this particular “Calvinist” reading of Willard could
become the standard interpretation for the next generation of researchers.12
Willard’s view of the divine-human interchange involved in Christian spiritual
formation that brings about the progressive, sequential transformation of the self is a
major theme in his theological work and deserves its own book-length study. Thus,
much could be said here that must be left aside for the time being. But let it be noted that
Willard was consistently strategically vague on one of the most important questions
about the relation of God’s sovereignty to human volition, namely to what extent
regenerating grace can be resisted by a rebellious will. So, to bluntly categorize his view
as “Calvinistic” (94) or “soft Calvinism” (169) as Robb does, without adding serious
nuance and more importantly, explaining what exactly is meant by these descriptors,
risks mischaracterization.13
While Robb never explicitly states what doctrine(s) he has in mind when referencing
the Calvinistic flavor of Willard’s theology, it is inferred by the topics in discussion:
how faith enters a person’s life (94-95), regeneration (229-230), and to a lesser extent,
divine sovereignty (169-171). His main support for placing him in the Calvinist
tradition is commentary Willard gives in a talk on Ephesians 2. As Willard states,

it is the initiative of God that is the foundation of all the good that comes into our lives.
You’re dead. You can’t do anything. God sends his Word and he sends his Spirit into us and

12. Readers may recall that Edmund Husserl was Willard’s most enduring philosophical conversation
partner. There is a particular interpretation of the phenomenologist that posits there are “two Husserls,”
with the late Husserl recanting the views of the early Husserl. This interpretation eventually won out,
influencing how Husserl was read for an entire generation after his death. It remains the dominant view
today despite some, like Willard, who believe it is wrongheaded. For the same thing to happen in the
study of Willard’s thought would be unfortunate and ironic.
13. Unfortunately, Robb omits in his book a nuanced distinction he makes in his dissertation when first
introducing Willard’s so-called “basic Calvinism.” He writes, “Needless to say, Calvin has been im-
proved upon by the Puritans, the Wesleys and others, which is to say, Willard is not a Gnesio-Calvinist.
All following Calvin’s lead under the great banner of reformata semper reformanda, I struggle to find any
in the Reformed tradition who are.” See Michael Steward Robb, “The Kingdom Among Us: Jesus, the
Kingdom of God and the Gospel According to Dallas Willard” (PhD dissertation, University of
Aberdeen, 2016), 13.
174 Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care 16(1)

things begin to move. . . . The first move in salvation is life. . . . If we have faith, it is
because God has given it to us through his grace (94-95).

This shows, says Robb, Willard’s view on the gratuity of faith – that faith is a
divinely initiated gift. And it does indeed show that. But there is nothing particularly
“Calvinistic” about Willard’s exegesis of this passage. Wesley would have said the
same, as would even Arminius – that faith and regeneration are works of grace and
totally dependent on God’s first move.14
But does this mean Willard believes the human will has no part to play in the
reception of regenerating grace? Consider what Willard says about this Ephesians
passage in a talk delivered a few years later. Rehearsing much of his earlier exegesis,
this time he adds a word about the intimate inward dialogue of grace and freedom:

Paul beautifully describes it in Ephesians 2, “You were dead in trespasses and sin.” Now,
when the will is brought to life, not passively but again, not on its own (the Word and Spirit
come). And some people when they come under conviction, they still say, “No, . . . I would
rather be God myself, thank you,” and they turn away. But the person who says “I give
myself to Christ, I turn my life over” – then it gets interesting, doesn’t it?15

God’s grace and first move are absolutely necessary and essential, because without
such divine enablement the human will would be unable to respond. But the will can
still resist the overtures of the Word and Spirit. Even with regeneration the will has
some agency, even if it is tiny; it must either receive or resist the gift of enlivening grace.
It is true that, as Robb points out, Willard did once say in a 2002 interview, “If you
were to get to the bottom of my theology, you would find me pretty Calvinistic” (94).16
But the problem is that read in the larger context of the conversation – let alone his
corpus – it is not all that clear what he means by this one liner. And we might also ask, if
he is “pretty Calvinistic,” in what sense is he not “thoroughly Calvinistic”? In a
different interview given that same year, after stating that “while grace works in many
ways, it does not obliterate a person’s will,” Willard is asked if his thinking on this
doctrine has changed over the years. He replies,

Well, I guess I was raised in a theological context where the battle was often fought out in
that way, between people who tended to think that one’s will was totally immobilized by
sin and others who thought that was not true, and normally those people were charged with

14. For Wesley’s view on this, see Thomas C. Oden, John Wesley’s Teachings, Vol. 2: Christ and Salvation
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 61, 142-143, 180-181. For Arminius’s view, see Roger E. Olson,
Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 137-146.
15. Dallas Willard, “Need, Vision and Strategy for Spiritual Formation,” Spiritual Formation Track (Eu-
ropean Leadership Forum, Eger, Hungary, May 2006), MP3, 36:00.
16. He was also known to have referred to himself as a “King James Baptist with a Quaker twist,” which
Robb notes (11), so perhaps neither label should be taken as definitive.
Book Reviews 175

works salvation. But, this is just an unfortunate misunderstanding about the nature of the
will, which, of course, is not forced. We are capable of receiving or not receiving grace. I’m
sure there are actions of God’s grace that go far beyond our consciousness, but at the
moment where we are faced with a decision as to whether or not we are going to give our
lives to Jesus Christ, that is a conscious decision. And there must be a movement of the
will, and it must be supported and met with by grace.

Shortly after, he adds, “Of course, I’ve spent a great deal of my time in philosophy
working on issues around free will and determinism and so on, and it has sharpened my
awareness that you have to have both elements if you’re going to treat this as a personal
transaction and not some mechanical gig.”17
To see his “sharpened awareness” at work, let us consider what Willard says to a
class of seminarians in a dense yet illuminating 2010 lecture on the nature of the will.
Highlighting a problem in William James’s theory of the will – a problem he says can be
solved but not by “dyed-in-the-wool” empiricism or Cartesianism – he states,

Now, I am inclined to take a rather radical view of the metaphysics of the will, which
leaves it free and yet responsible. But my purpose is to try to impress upon you the
importance of treating the will as a reality in your life, which opens up possibilities for
change. And the difficulty with a strongly Calvinist view, which isn’t well thought out (and
often it isn’t), is that it tells you you can do nothing about your condition. . . .

It doesn’t matter what your theory is about that kind of determinism is, you still have to act.
And at the practical level it will make no difference what your theory is unless you become
psychotic and decide that you should just do nothing and see what happens.18

As we see, Willard is not the easiest to pin down on this issue. And, I would argue,
intentionally so. As the last line of the passage indicates, he is concerned with what
makes a material difference in people’s lives. He does a fairly good job of dodging this
issue – especially in his theological writings – because, I contend, he was trying to be all
things to all people. He was trying to convince both Calvinists and non-Calvinists that
effort was needed in sanctification. But this much can be said: his views cannot be
reconciled with divine monergism and in particular, the doctrine of irresistible grace. A
couple of days earlier, commenting on the third book of Calvin’s Institutes (far and
away Willard’s favorite of the four books), Willard lets fly a very revealing statement:
“You know, Calvinism did not become an incredible, world-beating movement by
emphasizing the five points. It became a world-beating movement because it brought
incredible life to people in all kinds of situations. And that is the heart of Calvinism.”19

17. Dallas Willard, interview by Eric Hurtgen, “Q&A with Dallas Willard,” Relevant (October 21, 2002).
18. Dallas Willard, “The Transformation of the Mind: Thoughts and Feelings 1,” Spiritual Formation and
Soul Care (Denver Seminary, Monument, CO, January 7, 2010), video, 4:45
19. Dallas Willard, “Taking 1 Corinthians 13 Seriously: Intending to Do It 1,” Spiritual Formation and Soul
Care (Denver Seminary, Monument, CO, January 5, 2010), video, 2:45.
176 Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care 16(1)

Willard is, I would suggest, Calvinist in numerous ways, but not in the way Robb
seems to imply. Readers of the book may make up their own mind, but I would counsel
they take into account other pervading themes of Willard’s work – such as the primacy
of the will, the notion of genuine human freedom, God’s willingness to modify his
actions in response to prayer, the principle of grace and effort working together, the
“hiddenness of God” (Deus absconditus), and relatedly, how God’s way of working in
human persons is, in a word, gentle – asking how such themes cohere with his supposed
“Calvinism.” Furthermore, one should consider the other major influences upon
Willard’s theology, not least Charles Finney, whom Willard placed at the top of the list
when asked late in life which authors most influenced his thinking,20 and John Wesley,
whose A Plain Account of Christian Perfection Willard considered to be the best
explanation of sanctification he had ever read.21
That I end by challenging this particular interpretation of Willard should not detract
from my overwhelming enthusiasm for and endorsement of The Kingdom Among Us.
To potential readers, I hope this review essay above all else conveys something of the
stunning originality and potential genius of Robb’s engagement with Willard’s the-
ology. I predict Willard will continue to be read and appreciated by those within the
spiritual formation movement for decades to come. Such conjecture is not much of a
gamble. But whether his theology at large will be studied more broadly in the church
and academy – and not just in the next decade but in fifty or a hundred years from now –
is an entirely different set of questions. There are some of us who feel Willard’s work is
worthy of such attention. And if that were to happen, it will owe no small part to the
astounding efforts Robb has made to preserve, re-present, and interpret Willard’s
thought – of this I am sure.

20. Gary W. Moon, Becoming Dallas Willard: The Formation of a Philosopher, Teacher, and Christ Follower
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2018), 65-66.
21. Willard’s daughter, Rebecca Heatley Willard, asked her father in 2004 for a recommended reading list she
could make available on the website that hosts many of his resources (https://dwillard.org). His hand-
written list to her included some brief comments about some of the books, such as this comment about
Wesley’s volume.