John B. Wong. Christian Wholism: Theological and Ethical Implications in the Postmodern World. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2002. x + 228 pages.

Reviewed by David R. Larson

With words as short as "a" and as long as "psychoneuroendocrinoimmunology," this Christian study of human nature and well-being is as interesting and as wide-ranging as its author.

John B. Wong is a Seventh-day Adventist vascular surgeon who lives on avocado acreage in Fallbrook, California, less than an hour’s drive north of San Diego. In addition to his medical education, he has a law degree and a doctorate in theology. The University Press of America published his revised Fuller Theological Seminary dissertation two years ago. Its title is The Resurrected Body—Y2K and Beyond.

Alice Wong, his wife, is a clinical psychologist. Together they have parented eight children, four of whom they adopted. Sadly, one of their sons was killed in a bicycle accident when he was a youngster, a loss they have felt each day since. Successful in financial affairs as well as the professions, the Wongs are generous philanthropists. In connection with their U.S-China Christian Institute, they are developing a medical and educational complex in the world’s most populous nation.

Wong’s exposition and applications of what he calls "nonreductionistic transphysicalism" comprise his distinctive contributions. He denies that "all the manifestations and capabilities of the mind are nothing but the physical, biochemical, electroneural manifestations of the brain" (182). Just as an automobile is more than all its elements in an unorganized heap, "the whole brain-mind in integrated function, is greater than the sum of all the brain’s component parts" (182). This is what he means by "nonreductionistic." The term "transphysical" signals his convictions that "the human mind is a gift from our Creator" (182) and that at least some of the problems of René Descartes’ separation of mind and matter can be resolved by "linking the functioning of our mind[s] to a higher being, who is our Creator" (185).

Wong expounds the implications of this view of things for many spheres of life and thought: music, art, literature, personal finances, ethical decision-making, sexuality, spirituality, evolution, ecological responsibility, the problem of evil, God’s omniscience and omnipotence, religious pluralism, faith and reason, the reliability of Scripture, and so forth. In each case he examines and evaluates the primary alternatives and proposes his own. His exposition of "Christian wholism" therefore offers an attractive interpretation of the entirety of human life, not merely the so-called mind-brain problem.

In his discussion of music, for instance, Wong recommends that Christians memorize "at least 40 to 100 hymnal tunes, which at moments of low moods and unexpected trials can automatically spring forth in our heart[s], diffusing faith, hope and assurance of God’s love, power and intimacy" (159, 160). He also discusses the impact of various kinds of music on human neuroanatomy, hormonal functions, and the processing of emotions. This is fascinating material!

My views differ from Wong’s in some respects. To begin, I think we need to acknowledge that heterosexual persons are much more likely to harm and kill homosexual ones than the other way around. Those of us who are heterosexual Christians have an especially sick and sorry record in this regard. Until we put our own moral houses in order, until we treat both homosexual and heterosexual people as the children of God they are, until we stop mocking and murdering gay and lesbian persons, what we say and do can be of little value. Heterosexual violence against homosexuals, both verbal and physical, is a bigger problem in our churches and communities than is homosexual assertiveness. Doctor Wong probably agrees; however, I believe that the time has come for us to make this point emphatically.

In addition, I am more comfortable with "open theism" than is Wong. I think this difference rests on two others. On the one hand, I don’t believe that we limit God when we suggest that God does not know everything the future holds because I believe that God does know everything that can be known. "Open theism" contends that contingencies cannot be understood as unalterable eventualities, but only as the uncertainties they are, just as squares cannot be known as circles but only as squares. I see no way around this except to hold that from God’s point of view there are no contingencies, only fixed eventualities, a stance that would seem to compromise human freedom. Like many others, Doctor Wong holds that this is not so.

On the other hand, I believe that evil will ultimately be conquered, not because God will someday make it impossible for anyone to choose it, something that God could do now if that were all that were required, but when those who could choose it freely refuse to do so. Only then will the Great Controversy about the actuality and character of God be over and evil forever vanquished. If I understand Doctor Wong correctly, this leaves the final defeat of evil too uncertain.

Finally, I am trying to break the habit of using the word "mind" as a noun, as though it were an item that is numerically separate from the brain, in favor of using it as a verb. Just as the eye sees, the ear hears, and the nose smells, I increasingly think that the brain "minds." Because the brain’s capacity in imagination to transcend and then to redirect itself with limited but genuine freedom is far greater than is any other organ’s, the doctrine of epiphenomenalism, which underestimates this capacity, is inadequate. Nevertheless, I doubt that "minding" is something other than the integrated functioning of the entire brain when working well. It is notoriously difficult to avoid the contrary errors of reductionism and dualism, however. Doctor Wong’s exposition does this more successfully than many.

We often treat these topics under the heading of "the state of the dead." As Doctor Wong’s stimulating study demonstrates, we do better to discuss them under the rubric of "the state of the living." How we human beings understand ourselves is of greater importance before we die than after!

© 2002 Spectrum/AAF