Theology

Forgive God?

I recall the first time I heard someone talk of forgiving God. I was repulsed. Forgiving presupposes wrongdoing and thus a need for forgiveness—and I was convinced that God did not need mine. The Scriptures clearly teach the sinlessness of God. Jesus, himself, said, “Your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48, NIV).

Still, the idea nagged me. Hadn’t I found God “guilty” of divine lapses leading to disappointments and tragedies in my own life.

To be sure, forgiveness is totally against human nature. We are determined to get revenge, get even, hold a grudge, or quickly condemn. But God encourages, indeed requires, us to forgive. “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Eph. 4:32, NIV).

Moreover, he calls upon us to forget. “I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more,” God says about us (Jer. 31:34, NIV). If we say, “I forgive you, but I will not forget what you have done,” then we have not truly forgiven. God does not do business that way, and neither can we.

Our forgiveness, then, can be like God’s. It is an evidence that we are made in his image, and do certain breathless wonders that could come only from the mind and heart of God. Yet our forgiveness is not God’s, for he adds a dimension to forgiveness we cannot add—the cleansing of the one forgiven. We can erase our judgment against another, but we cannot cleanse that person’s sin.

Rather, forgiveness cleanses us. It permits us to erase from our memory something that eats away at us from within. It may be sin committed against us, or merely sin perceived—something that is perpetrated against us only in a suspicious corner of our mind.

And this is where we get into trouble. Perceived wrongs against us are as pernicious in our minds as the real thing. We even hatch perceptions of God doing evil against us. Which of us has not had that happen when a loved one dies, a crippling disease strikes, a marriage fails, a child rebels, or an economic hardship hits? We begin to ask why God did it—or at least ask why God did not keep it from happening. “If God really loves me,” we argue, “why did he let that happen?”

Our instinct in such circumstances is to summon God before the court of our personal judgment. We condemn him, judge him guilty for what we think he has done, and even imagine that by doing so we are punishing him.

God is innocent, but in our minds he is guilty. A wall of separation appears, built by our perceptions. Poison spreads in our minds and hearts as we judge God and hold him accountable. Such a foolish court scene, of course, does not change God or punish him, but it brings a seductively corrupting presence upon us and ultimately causes our relationship with God to fall apart.

Now here is where I believe we should “forgive” God—not for what he has done (for he has done nothing wrong), but for what we perceive he has or has not done. In other words, we must erase from our minds the grudge, or judgment, or whatever we would call it against our heavenly Father.

This forgiveness is not for God’s benefit, but for ours. It does not cleanse a perfect God, or absolve him of something wrong, for he can do no wrong. But by “forgiving” God we cleanse ourselves, for we cleanse the memory banks of our minds and hearts of something that should not be there.

Henry Ward Beecher once said, “A forgiveness ought to be like a cancelled note, torn in two and burned up, so that it never can be shown against the man.” If any of us has something against God, a grudge or judgment of any kind, it would be well to do the same—tear up the canceled note, or erase the memory banks of our minds, and hold it against God no more.

God is not cleansed, but we are!

Theology

Alcoholism Is Not a Disease

SPEAKING OUT offers responsible Christians a forum. It does not necessarily reflect the views of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

No matter what name we give it, drunkenness is still sin.

Proverbs speaks often about the problems of drinkers. In Galatians, Paul lists drunkenness among the works of the flesh (5:19–21). In 1 Corinthians he lists drunkards among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (6:9–10) and places drunkenness on a list of sins, not on a list of diseases. In the same chapter, Paul reminds us that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (v. 19). Anything, such as alcohol, that harms the body sins against the body. And sin against the body is sin against God.

Contrast this with today’s medical and psychological professionals who have ignored the moral question and have chosen the disease model for dealing with drunkenness. By using alcoholism as a euphemism for drunkenness, they accomplish what lay folk have always done with less sophisticated terms—a fondness for the bottle, a drop too much. With words they reduce the sense of personal moral responsibility for the choice to drink.

Our gentle language insulates us from the reality of the sinful cause of drunkenness. Society has propagated an irresponsible attitude toward drunkenness, and the church has followed suit by removing the blame and soothing the conscience of the guilty party.

We have fabricated physiological, psychological, and sociological causes for the woes—including alcoholism—that beset mankind. We have created a guiltless society in which people are no longer responsible for their actions. We have ignored sin and found either a medical, emotional, or social phenomenon to blame for our problems.

As Christians, we must understand the role of guilt in the plan of salvation. Without guilt, there is no conviction of sin. Without conviction, there is no repentance. And without repentance, there is no salvation.

The disease model for treating alcoholism has skipped that all-important first step. In fact, proponents of this approach say with pride that one of the model’s strong points is that it has liberated thousands from guilt feelings. But without guilt, there is no inward conviction. Instead of conviction by the Holy Spirit, which brings repentance and regeneration, there remains condemnation from family, friends, and employers (if not from professionals), which brings resentment and resignation.

This approach does not really free the drunkard. It merely exchanges the bondage of guilt for the bondage of fear: “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.” The constant threat of “falling off the wagon” is not the freedom the Lord had in mind when he said, “And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32).

More than most forms of ungodliness, the sin of drunkenness destroys both body and soul. To treat one and not the other is an error. The consequences of drunkenness often require medical attention, perhaps even treatment in a detoxification center. But as Christians we must go beyond medical treatment of the symptoms, beyond restoring the physical body. We must take the alcoholic beyond “detox” to the Cross. There, and only there, can the cause of drunkenness, and its resulting physical and emotional problems, be defeated. We must show the drunkard how to live without the bondage of drunkenness. To treat physical and emotional symptoms alone merely prepares the drunk to live with his problem.

Advocates of the disease model admit their inability to cure patients. The reason is obvious: Human beings cannot forgive sin. Treatment facilities can clean up a drunkard, but only the blood of Jesus can cleanse a drunkard.

Many times in my 17 years as a drunkard, well-meaning friends quoted part of Ephesians 5:18 to me: “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery.” Years later, I learned the concluding clause of that verse: “but be filled with the Spirit.”

From my own experience, and from working with alcoholics the past few years, I am convinced now more than ever that the power of the Spirit is the key to overcoming drunkenness or any other sin in our lives. The Spirit of God endues us with power beyond our human ability to resist temptation and maintain our commitment to Christ.

The Lord showed us this important lesson in Matthew 12:43–45, where he talked of an unclean spirit going out of a man and then returning to find the house (that is, the man’s body) swept clean, but empty. That spirit reestablished residence with seven more demons worse than itself. A house filled with the love of Jesus and the power of his Spirit has no room for evil spirits.

Cleaning up a drunkard, restoring his health, and helping him stay sober is not enough. We must see that he is filled with the love of Jesus and the power of the Spirit so the sin of drunkenness can be eradicated. This fullness will provide salvation—not just sobriety.

LARRY M. THOMAS1Mr. Thomas is professor of journalism at Jimmy Swaggart Bible College and research editor for Jimmy Swaggart Ministries in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Eutychus and His Kin: October 4, 1985

A Seminar Junkie

It came as no small shock to me to discover recently that a highly respected member of our church is undergoing treatment for spiritual rehabilitation. This man is a church officer, Sunday school teacher, and tither. But he revealed, at last Sunday evening’s service, that he is a also a seminar junkie. He was quick to add that he is getting help from Seminars Anonymous (SA), a rapidly expanding organization founded to counteract an evangelical epidemic.

None of us knew that Herb had mortgaged his home to obtain money for weekly seminar fixes. We were sobered (if you know what I mean) to hear that he slid into his addiction gradually. “Ah, for the good old days, when a sermon and Bible study could get me through the week,” he lamented.

Herb told us the turning point came when he was on a tour across the Arctic Circle. The church group was studying “The Dangers of Lukewarmness” when, as if enlightened by the rays of the midnight sun, Herb admitted to himself that he was addicted to seminars. He promptly returned to his wife and children (not seen since a seminar last summer on family dynamics). Then he entered an SA Detopicfication Center.

Herb said he could no longer keep his addiction secret when he learned that our pastor was enrolled at a camp near Mount Saint Helens to consider “The Theological Implications of Volcanic Eruptions.” Fearing his faithful shepherd was on the path to seminar addiction, he went public.

It was a courageous step and it has challenged our church. Can we possibly survive without all these outside experts? Several of us have enrolled in next month’s “Spirituality With or Without Seminars” to find out.

EUTYCHUS

A Challenge To The Soul

What an incredibly sensitive illustration on your August 9 cover. Seeing the picture I had to read the article [“The Inexplicable Prayers of Ruby Bridges”]. I keep this issue where I can ponder the cover and let its challenge sink into my soul.

RUTH LYON

Kent, Wash.

Don’T Forget The Living

Tom Minnery’s editorial “Winning Isn’t Everything” [Aug. 9] states that “the antiabortion campaign accords well with the Constitution, which affords protection of life to all.” This may be true; however, would it not also hold true that Christians who challenge the U.S. government and its stockpile of nuclear weapons—with their awful threat to human life around the globe and their terrible drain of resources—are also in accord with the Constitution? Let’s not save the unborn and forget those who already are alive.

KAREN PUST, R.N.

Tucson, Ariz.

Minnery’s editorial expressed the need to keep priorities clear: that spiritual vigor, not political power, is the essential for Christian living. It seems our Constitution-building forefathers knew what we have forgotten: that godly men and women will make decisions and speak out in a manner reflecting attitudes in tune with the sovereign God of the universe. We cannot expect leaders not in communion with God to rule according to the desires of our hearts. Doing so is asking wild trees to bear good fruit.

VIRGINIA LAUTENSCHLATER

Ardmore, S.Dak.

The Gulag Vs. The Free World

Reading “God in the Gulag” [Aug. 9], my heart went out to our brothers and sisters in Soviet labor camps. I envisioned their exodus and the open arms awaiting them in the “free world.” Then I wondered: Would their joy turn into our exploitation? Has life in the Soviet gulag really prepared them for an opportunist, fundamentalist, evangelical, electronic church? When the TV cameras have gone, the evangelical press has wrung out its last successful book, and Yuri has spoken at his last Bible conference, what would we do with him? And what if we discovered that his beliefs about Calvinism or Arminianism or the Lord’s return weren’t exactly like “ours”? Would we allow him to speak at “our” conference or Sunday school or join “our” church? Would Yuri’s deliverance really be only an escape from one gulag to another of a different kind?

JAMES H. DUNDAS

Quakertown, Pa.

The contrast of our lives to that described in “God in the Gulag” shows we are “spoiled.” We pick the mote from each other’s eye, and know not that we are wretched and miserable, poor, blind, and naked.

C. CLARK ALLEN

Raymondville, Tex.

Tangible Appreciation

I was so impressed by Harold Myra’s [Publisher’s] message in the August 9 issue, especially concerning Ken Taylor. Compared to Ken’s light, my little candle barely flickers.

CT is one of the seven wonders of my life; I have looked at every page for more than 25 years. You don’t appeal for donor dollars, but please accept the enclosed check as my little part to help your ministries and to express appreciation for what you have done for me.

W. P. PENNINGTON, M.D.

Athens, Ala.

Dr. Pennington’s generous gift will go to CT’s program to provide free subscriptions to graduating seminarians going into the ministry.

Eds.

Faulty Exposition?

John Stott [“What Makes Leadership Christian?” Aug. 9] makes a slip in biblical interpretation when he cites the proverb (29:18) “Where there is no vision, the people perish” as referring to our “imaginative perception, … insight and foresight.” The Hebrew term here is very specific and technical, reserved in OT use for revelation from God to a prophet. Where God does not give direction, in other words, the people are lost. Many—before Stott—have misapplied this verse.

MILTON C. FISHER

Professor of OT and Academic Dean

Reformed Episcopal Seminary

Philadelphia, Pa.

The Harvey Milk School

Although Warren Bird’s report on our Harvey Milk Off-Site High School Program [News, Aug. 9] did not exhibit the malice we have come to associate with the so-called Christian view, a few points need clarification. The Institute for the Protection of Lesbian and Gay Youth, Inc., is not a “homosexual advocacy” group. It is a social service agency offering a full range of free social services to homosexually oriented youth and their families. The statement that $50,000 in tax money was provided by New York City is incorrect. The Board of Education provides a teacher and supervision for that teacher. All other funding is provided from private contributions.

The possibility of change of sexual orientation is, of course, a matter of religious faith for many and as such is beyond rational discourse. It has absolutely no relevance to our school program, however: 20 youngsters who were hounded from their schools and homes are now off the streets and in a classroom.

A. DAMIEN MARTIN, ED.D.

Institute for the Protection of Lesbian and Gay Youth, Inc.

New York, N.Y.

A Difficult Fight

I appreciate the willingness of CT to discuss homosexuality and the mission of the church [“The Homosexual Lifestyle: Is There a Way Out?” News, Aug. 9], I find it difficult, however, to believe that the battle of the homosexual with sexuality is that much different from that of the heterosexual when the issue of marriage is eliminated. Many honest heterosexual Christians have tremendous difficulty in the disciplining of their sexual desires. In a world of heterosexually oriented advertising, perhaps the fight is even more difficult.

RALPH G. LEVERETT

Nashville, Tenn.

I was pleased with the overall tenor of the article. However, there is no “homosexual lifestyle” per se. To speak of “curing” or “unlearning” a constitutional homosexual makes no sense—as it makes no sense to attempt to “cure” or “unlearn” a constitutional heterosexual. I am sure that Exodus organizations have helped people who thought they were homosexual to overcome whatever distracted them from leading a fully productive, natural (for them) heterosexual lifestyle. I don’t doubt there are some people who, because of externally applied guilt are convinced they have been “cured” in order to assuage their guilt, and are today leading a pseudoheterosexual, but unnatural (for them), lifestyle. I echo John Evans when he says that no true (i.e., constitutional) homosexual has ever completely changed to a heterosexual.

JAMES MCCREA

Piedmont, Calif.

Jesus recommends that when we have need of prayer, we should enter into our closet and shut the door. Perhaps the homosexual should enter his closet and face his problem alone with his Heavenly Father, teaching no other to sin.

JOSEPH G. S. ROBINSON

Worcester, Mass.

Those who have cried out, both literally and in prayer, for God to change us have come to realize that it is not his will, but man’s will; it is not he who is offended by us, but man. The countless hours spent in prayer pleading for that miracle have convinced many of us that we are as much a part of his handiwork as our heterosexual brothers and sisters.

ANONYMOUS

Most Christians are too intimidated by an increasingly militant gay community to take a firm stand and call homosexuality what Paul called it in Romans 1: sin. By what insane methodology does one so twist and torture Scripture as to make it sanction homosexuality as a viable “lifestyle”?

PAUL S. ARDANS

Phoenix, Ariz.

We “Just” Use The Lingo

Thank you, Eutychus, for “Learning the Lingo” [Aug. 9], I might add one word that has become essential to evangelical prayer: just (“Lord, we just …”).

DOUG MORGAN

Richmond Heights, Ohio

Can you explain to me what exactly a Christian cliché is? I would hate ever to use one in mixed company!

CATHERINE S. SHANLEY

Merced, Calif.

Credibility With Evangelicals?

After being thoroughly discredited earlier this year, Ron Enroth and his Spiritual Counterfeits group appear in your August 9 issue as “authorities” [“Cult Specialists Assess Nontraditional Religions in the Mid-eighties”]. You only lose credibility in the evangelical community by quoting these disreputable sources. Perhaps it does not bother you that those who hold to inerrancy are dropping their subscriptions like flies.

DR. R. L. HYMERS, JR.

Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle

Los Angeles, Calif.

It seems to me that so-called cult specialists can’t see the trees for the forest. They are so busy cult watching they are oblivious to the fact that the millions who have left traditional Christian churches did so because of their disillusionment with those who loudly proclaim to love the Lord, yet live in conditions inconsistent with the life of our divine Exemplar.

LILA W. JONES

El Toro, Calif.

History

Jonathan Edwards: A Gallery of Friends, Foes & Followers

George Whitefield (1714–1770)

George Whitefield was a famous friend of Edwards. While American revivalists such as Edwards and Gilbert Tennent limited their activities to relatively small areas, Whitefield enlarged the Awakening into an intercolonial, interdenominational effort aimed at restoring spiritual energy to churches. Whitefield, an Anglican priest, was a fiery preacher and could move vast audiences with his intensely dramatic sermons. The great English actor David Garrick claimed he would give a hundred guineas just to be able to say the word “Oh” the way Whitefield did. Practical-minded Benjamin Franklin came to hear a Whitefield sermon and ended up emptying his purse to help fund a charity Whitefield sponsored. Both the poor and the privileged turned out to hear this orator, whose popularity was unparalleled in the century. However, because many churches were closed to him as they were to his friend and advisor John Wesley, Whitefield often took to preaching in open fields, barns, or courthouses on both sides of the Atlantic. He journeyed to America seven times and impacted colonial society from New Hampshire to Georgia. So great was his popularity in America that, like Edwards Whitefield was criticized by many clergymen who resented the emotionalism and occasional disorders. Charles Chauncy was one of the most vocal critics of both Edwards and Whitefield. Edwards himself was deeply impressed by Whitefield’s presence, and when Whitefield preached in Edwards’ church Edwards wept during most of the service. While Whitefield was no match for Edwards’ skill as a theologian and thinker, his zeal and genuine piety left their mark on Edwards and on the Great Awakening. Without Whitefield the amazing phenomena of 1740–41 might never have come to pass.

Solomon Stoddard (1643–1729)

Even if Solomon Stoddard had not been the grandfather of Jonathan Edwards, he would have a place in the history of Christianity in America. The greatnephew of Massachusetts Governor John Winthrop, Stoddard graduated from Harvard in 1662 and became the college’s first librarian. He went to Northampton in 1669. In the Northampton church he faced an issue that before and after his time caused commotion in New England churches: Should persons who show no evidence of spiritual regeneration be admitted to the Lord’s Supper? Young Stoddard began to urge a relaxation of membership requirements, and finally concluded that open admission to the Lord’s Supper was justified. Convinced that man was unregenerate and depraved by nature, Stoddard insisted that it was unfair to require proof of conversion. He opened the sacraments to persons of every spiritual state except those living openly scandalous lives. The practice became known as Stoddardeanism and was generally adopted throughout all western Massachusetts. Stoddard became the supreme ecclesiastical politician in the area and was known as “the Pope” in Northampton. The awed Indians referred to him as the “White Man’s God.” He was loved and admired by his parishioners, who seemed pleased that he preached hell-fire and damnation. He railed against drunkenness and adultery and worked the people up into frenzies of religious excitement. He led awakenings in Northampton years before his famous grandson was even born. In 1726 Edwards was called to Northampton to serve as assistant pastor to Stoddard who died in 1729. When Edwards tried to abolish his grandfather’s policy of open Communion years later, the Northampton parish asked for his resignation.

Charles Chauncy (1705–1787)

was Edwards’ most notable foe. After Edwards wrote Some Thoughts Concerning The Present Revival of Religion in New England, Charles Chauncy of Boston responded with Some Seasonal Thoughts on the State of Religion. A rationalist, Chauncy held that man’s religion should be governed by enlightened reason, not by the emotions. Thus he ridiculed the emotion generated by the preaching of Edwards, Whitefield, and others involved in the Awakening. (Curiously, Chauncy, like many other clergymen, was initially interested in the revival movement, but he failed in his few attempts at revival preaching and afterwards held the whole movement in contempt.) Like many of his contemporaries on both sides of the Atlantic, Chauncy was interested in revising religion to make it congruent with optimism about human ability. During his sixty years as pastor of Boston’s prestigious First Church he helped shape a liberal theology giving reason the highest place in religious life. For Chauncy, reason and order, symbolized in the church ordinances, were more important than a stress on personal faith and assurance. Besides deriding the emotionalism of the Awakening, Chauncy also came to criticize the whole Calvinistic notion of election. He came to reject the idea of eternal damnation and concluded that after death the wicked would only be punished for a time proportionate to their sin. While the revivalists worked to encourage conversion in their listeners, Chauncy insisted that orderly Christian habits would ultimately fit persons for happy immortality.

Eleazar Wheelock (1711–1779)

was a friend and fellow evangelist. When a group of five ministers descended on Enfield, Connecticut, to start a religious revival there, two of the five men were Jonathan Edwards and Eleazar Wheelock. Like Edwards, Wheelock was often away from his home parish, being invited by other New England pastors to help awaken their congregations out of spiritual lethargy. Wheelock traveled extensively and was a leading figure in the Awakening. Perhaps his most lasting influence lies, however, in the field of education, not evangelism. Wheelock began a charity school designed to drill Indians in the rudiments of religion and send them back to their native cultures as agents of the Christian church. His star pupil, Samson Occom, was evidence that Indians could indeed become civilized and even scholarly Christians. In 1769 Wheelock obtained a charter for the school, which he named Dartmouth College. Dartmouth opened its doors to whites as well as Indians. The institution survived hard times including the disruptions caused by the American revolution. Wheelock, a skilled administrator, helped see the school through hard times and saw it arise as a supplier of preachers for the northeast frontier.

Gilbert Tennent (1703–1764)

was a friend and fellow minister. The son of the famous pastor and theologian William Tennent, Gilbert studied theology and took pastorates in Delaware and New Jersey. While pastoring in New Brunswick, New Jersey, he came under the influence of Theodorus Frelinghuysen, a Dutch Reformed pastor who was already leading revivals in the area. By 1729 Tennent was involved in the revival movement, working by means of personal counseling and pulpit addresses. In 1740 George Whitefield asked Tennent to visit New England to continue the revival started by Whitefield and others. While preaching there, Tennent, like others in the Awakening, tried to convince listeners of their need for regeneration and for something more intense than merely formal religion. However, lacking Whitefield’s oratorical gifts and the more restrained persuasiveness of Edwards, Tennent shouted, raged, stomped, and set listeners’ nerves on edge with his hellfire sermons. Though he preached with the same purpose as Whitefield and Edwards, he focused in his sermons almost exclusively on hellfire and damnation, setting a pattern for some later evangelists in America. He was severely criticized by many of the less revival-oriented clergy, and he in turn criticized them for their spiritual lethargy. Along with Edwards and Whitefield, Tennent set the tone for the Awakening and for the whole pattern of evangelism in America.

Samuel Hopkins (1721–1803)

was Edward’s most famous follower. If Jonathan Edwards can be said to have had a theological successor, Samuel Hopkins was that successor. Hopkins came from Yale in 1741 seeking for spiritual help. Later, when Hopkins was serving his first pastorate in Housatonic, Massachusetts, he became a loyal friend and disciple of Edwards. A more sedentary man than his renowned teacher, Hopkins became the systematizer of Edwards’ theological genius. Never known for his ability as a preacher, Hopkins applied his theological mind to Edward’s Calvinism and created a system now known as the New Divinity movement. Hopkins made his modified Calvinism a weapon of defense against Arminian critics who gave more freedom to human will in their system. Hopkins’ theology lacked the feeling of heartfelt adoration and devotion that permeates Edwards’ best work, but Hopkins was largely responsible for passing on Edwards’ theology to a new generation of ministers. He also produced the first biography of his friend and mentor providing us with numerous details about the Edwards family life that we might otherwise lack.

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Hymn-writer and pastor of a Dissenting church in London, Watts also found time to comment on religious happenings in the English colonies. Hearing of the Northampton revival led by Edwards in 1734–35, Watts wanted to know more. He perceived the “wonderful work of God” in the revivals of America. After Edwards delivered the address “The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God” at the Yale commencement in 1741, Watts sponsored the London publication of this brilliant defense of the Great Awakening. Later, however, he came to criticize the Awakening for some of the emotional excesses and disorder engendered by the evangelists. He also expressed some concern that some of the preachers—including Jonathan Edwards—spoke in their sermons of the American colonies as the new arena for God’s kingdom thus implying that the mother country was spiritually dead. While the Awakening was shaking the colonies. Isaac Watts made his own lasting contribution to Christianity by producing some six hundred hymns, some of which are among the finest in the language. Breaking the stranglehold of psalm-singing on English hymnody, Watts produced beautiful scripturally-based hymns that revolutionized public worship in England and America. “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” “O God Our Help in Ages Past,” “I Sing the Almighty Power of God,” and “Joy to the World” are only a few of his great hymns. Edwards encouraged the singing of Watt’s hymns in churches.

Ezra Stiles (1727–1795)

Ezra’s father Isaac was one of Edwards’ peers at Yale, but unlike Edwards, the older Stiles was generally opposed to the Great Awakening. He did not pass on his antipathy to his son, who looked more favorably on the Awakening and its aftermath. Ezra became a kind of chronicler of his age, making many astute observations that have helped historians view the period more accurately. During his lifetime he was recognized as the most learned man in New England. He studied widely in many fields and was alert to new ideas in the sciences and in theology. He was a kind of enlightened liberal, though he did not support the Old Light Calvinists in their attack on revivalism. In an age of much bitter quarreling among church groups, Stiles adopted a moderating position, hoping that religious truth would benefit from a free exchange of doctrinal opinions. From 1778 to 1795 he served as president of Yale, where he also taught church history. As president of Yale he contributed significantly to religious training in Connecticut and beyond.

David Brainerd (1718–1747)

was a friend and, almost, a family member of Edwards. He died at the home of Edwards, being nursed during his waning months by Jerusha, his fiancee and one of Jonathan Edwards’ daughters. During his short life he espoused the cause of the Great Awakening. His unfavorable comparisons between the zealous work of Edwards and the sedateness of the clergymen at Yale caused him to be expelled from that institution. His zeal to spread the gospel was unaffected, and he found an opportunity in 1742, when the Society in Scotland for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge commissioned him to work among Indians in New York and, later, Pennsylvania. Brainerd traveled over 3000 miles on horseback. A genuine revival occurred among the Indians in New Jersey, though Brainerd was dogged throughout his ministry by poor health. He left to posterity his diary, which has become a devotional classic. Jonathan Edwards published his friend’s diary and added a short biography. He saw. Brainerd as an example of selfless Puritan virtue. Brainerd would probably be forgotten today if Edwards had not helped make his name a byword for missionary zeal.

Timothy Dwight (1752–1817)

the grandson of Edwards, succeeded Ezra Stiles as president of Yale. Renowned as a teacher, preacher, poet, and hymn-writer, Dwight set high goals for Yale, working to raise academic standards and increase the spiritual vitality of the college. He preached to students twice on Sundays and saw himself as pastor to the school. His discourses on religion helped bring about a campus revival, convincing many students to adopt orthodox beliefs and join the ranks of learned Calvinists. Dwight also waged a bold campaign against the deism and rationalism of such writers as Thomas Paine. He proved himself an able defender of traditional theology. Even so, Dwight did not conform strictly to the ideas of his famous grandfather. Rather, he occupied a mediating position between the New Divinity and Old Calvinism. His chapel sermons, expressing a modified Edwardsean theology, were published after his death as Theology Explained and Defended. Like Edwards, he stoutly defended orthodox Christianity, a great task in an age of skepticism and rationalism. He is perhaps best remembered as the author of the hymn “I Love Thy Kingdom, Lord.”

Copyright © 1985 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine. Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

Excerpts from the Life of Jonathan Edwards

In this world, so full of darkenss and delusion, it is of great importance that all should be able to distinguish between true religion and that which is false. In this, perhaps none has taken more pains, or labored more successfully, than he whose life is set before the reader (from the Preface).

He had a strict and inviolable regard to justice in all his dealings with his neighbors, and was very careful to provide for things honest in the sight of all men; so that scarcely a man had any dealings with him, that was not conscious of his uprightness. He appeared to have a sacred regard to truth in his words, both in promises and narrations, agreeable to his Resolutions. This doubtless was one reason why he was not so full of words as many are. No man feared to rely on his veracity….

His conversation with his friends was always savory and profitable: in this he was remarkable, and almost singular.— He was not wont to spend his time with them, in scandal, evil-speaking and back-biting, or in foolish jesting, idle chat and telling stories: but his mouth was that of the just, which bringeth forth wisdom, and his lips dispersed knowledge. His tongue was as the pen of a ready writer, while he conversed about important, heavenly, divine things, which his heart was so full of, in such a natural and free manner, as to be the most entertaining and instructive: so that none of his friends could enjoy his company without instruction and profit, unless it was by their own fault.

His great benevolence to mankind discovered itself, among other ways, by the uncommon regard he showed to liberality, and charity to the poor and distressed. He was much in recommending this, both in public discourses and private conversation. He often declared it to be his opinion, that professed Christians, in these days are greatly deficient in this duty; and much more so, than in most other parts of external Christianity. He often observed how much this is spoken of, recommended and encouraged in the holy Scripture, especially in the New Testament. And it was his opinion, that every particular church ought by frequent and liberal contributions, to maintain a public stock, that might be ready for the poor and necessitous members of that church: and that the principal business of deacons is to take care of the poor in the faithful and judicious distribution and improvement of the church’s temporals, lodged in their hands. And he did not content himself with only recommending charity to others, but practiced it much himself; though, according to his Master’s advice, he took great care to conceal his deeds of charity; by which means doubtless most of his alms-deeds will be unknown till the resurrection, which if known, would prove him to be as great an instance of charity as any that can be produced in this age. This is not mere conjecture, but is evident many ways. He was forward to give on all public occasions of charity, though when it could properly be done, he always concealed the sum given. And some instances of his giving more privately have accidentally come to the knowledge of others, in which his liberality appeared in a very extraordinary degree. One of the instances was this. Upon hearing that a poor obscure man, whom he never saw, or any of his kindred, was by an extraordinary bodily disorder, brought to great straits; he unasked, gave a considerable sum to a friend to be delivered to the distressed person; having first required a promise of him, that he would let neither the person, who was the object of his charity, nor anyone else know by whom it was given. This may serve both as an instance of his extraordinary charity and of his great care to conceal it….

He was a great enemy to young people’s unseasonable company-keeping and frolicking, as he looked upon it as a great means of corrupting and ruining youth. And he thought the excuse many parents make for tolerating their children in it (viz. that it is the custom. and others’ children practice it, which renders it difficult, and even impossible to restrain theirs) was insufficient and frivolous; and manifested a great degree of stupidity, on supposition the practice was hurtful and pernicious to their souls. And when some of his children grew up he found no difficulty in restraining them from this pernicious practice; but they cheerfully complied with the will of their parents herein. He allowed not his children to be from home after nine o’clock at night, when they went abroad to see their friends and companions. Neither were they allowed to sit up much after that time, in his own house, when any came to make them a visit. If any gentleman desired acquaintance with his daughters; after handsomely introducing himself, by properly consulting the parents, he was allowed all proper opportunity for it; a room and fire, if needed: but must not intrude on the proper hours of rest and sleep, or the religion and order of the family.

Samuel Hopkins was a student, friend, and admirer of Jonathan Edwards, and a frequent visitor to the Edwards home in Northampton. Impressed by Edwards and the serenity of the Edwards family, Hopkins penned the first biography of his famous teacher. The full title of the biography is The Life and Character of the Late Reverend Mr. Jonathan Edwards. It was first published in 1765. These excerpts are representative of Hopkins’ style

Copyright © 1985 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine.Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

The Puritans and Edwards

The American Vision of a Covenant People

Questions about the spiritual meaning of America have become especially vital and engaged. In the presidential election of 1984, for example, both major party candidates professed a faith in Christianity and acknowledged the Christian sources of American history. Like their predecessors in high political office, they routinely invoked God’s blessing on America and spoke of American history as that of a “redeemer nation.”

While twentieth-century identifications of America with the “Promised Land” are common, the historical sources of this identity are less clear. Great evangelical leaders of our past are rightly celebrated for their fervent gospel preaching, but their views on America are generally ignored.

This is especially true of Jonathan Edwards, America’s foremost theologian and champion of religious revival. Most studies of Edwards focus on his evangelical preaching. But, Edwards also had a good deal to say about his native New England as a “covenant people” and a “New Israel.” In articulating these themes, he followed the lead of his Puritan predecessors and anticipated much of the language we hear spoken today by political and religious leaders.

Edwards was ordained at Northampton in 1726. Within a year of that date New England experienced the “Great Earthquake” of November 1727. The quake began, according to several accounts, with a “flash of light,” which was then followed by a “horrid rumbling” and “weighty shaking” that continued to reverberate throughout the evening. Weymouth’s Thomas Paine recalled the incident: “The motion of the Earth was very great, like the waves of the sea… . The strongest houses shook prodigiously and the tops of some Chimnies were thrown down…. It affected the People of N-E, especially those near the Center of it, with more Fear Amazement than ever is thought to have befallen the Land since it had that Name.” Awakened sleepers poured into the streets in huddled groups, certain that the day of judgment had come. The aftershocks continued for nine days which, Paine observed, “mightily kept up the Terror of it in the People, and drove them to all possible means of Reformation.”

On the day following the earthquake, fasts were called spontaneously throughout the land and repeated several times in the ensuing weeks. In Northampton, Edwards mounted the pulpit and preached a “fast sermon” from Jonah 3:10: “And God saw their works that they turned from their evil way and God repented of the Evil that he had said he would do unto them and he did it not.” Unlike regular (Sunday) sermons where Edwards’ primary concern was the individual soul, his concern on this occasion was the temporal estate of New England which, he believed, was governed by their corporate covenant with God. Even as his text was devoted to the nation of Nineveh and God’s mercy to them because they repented, so also was his concern that day with the nation of New England and the warning contained in their earthquake.

Like other ministers in 1727, Edwards perceived both natural and supernatural meanings in the great earthquake. On the one hand, he drew from the most recent scientific literature to explain that earthquakes were not, in themselves, miracles but natural convulsions that occurred when bodies of water met with “subterraneous Fires” in underground caverns to produce rumblings at ground level. On the other hand, Edwards explained, earthquakes were also used by God to warn a covenant people: “earthquakes and lights in the heaven may often have natural causes yet they may nevertheless be ordered to be as a forerunner of great changes and Judgments.”

A little later in the sermon, Edwards made plain that he was speaking in temporal and “federal” (national) terms to the people of Northampton, not in eternal terms, and in so doing illustrated the different ends and logics of the two covenants:

If a nation or people are very corrupt and remain obstinate in the Evil way God generally if not universally exercises these threatenings God is more strict in punishing of a wicked people in this world than a wicked person. God often suffers particular persons that are wicked to prosper in the world and discharges them to judgment in the world to come. But a people as a people are punished only in this world. Therefore God will not suffer a people that grow very corrupt and refuse to be reclaimed to go unpunished in this world.

New England “as a people,” was understood by Edwards, then, in temporal terms of rewards and punishments. Corporate morality could not win or merit eternal salvation, but it could insure success on earth.

Edwards considered the earthquake and concluded that “our Land is very much defiled.” In particular Edwards cited an “abundance of cheating and injustice,” an increase in swearing, and insensitivity to the great concerns of religion. Too many of the inhabitants had grown “secure in riches.” Therefore, “God shows us that we are in his hand every moment by this shaking the foundation of the Earth … [He could] plunge us down to the Pit when he pleases.”

Throughout the 1730s and 1740s, most of New England’s grievances, like those deplored by Edwards, were internal. Apart from occasional forays against the Indians, New England’s borders were safe, and the chief concerns in these years were natural calamities like drought, fire, disease, and pestilence, and internal discord over questions of revival and the New Birth.

Despite New England’s precarious peace of that period, however, everyone recognized the possibility of war and presented it as the divine affliction most to be avoided. With the possibility of war ever-present, congregations needed to be constantly reminded of their national standing before God. Edwards was no exception among the Puritan clergy in doing just that.

At a fast sermon delivered in March 1737, Edwards outlined the theology of federal covenants in rich detail. Ancient Israel was the model and prototype for all subsequent covenant people, so Edwards turned to 2 Chronicles 23:16 for his text: “And Jehoiada made a covenant between him, and between all the people, and between the king, that they should be the Lord’s people.” That text, Edwards explained in his opening remarks, occurred at a point in Israel’s history after Judah had worshiped Baal and God allowed the enemy nations to attack his people for their idolatry. Now they had returned to God, renewed the covenant, implored his mercy, and received blessings. In brief compass, Edwards explained to his listeners what was meant by a covenant people:

[S]ome are distinguished of God as a Covenant People. So were the people that were spoken of in the Text. God entered into Covenant with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and brought them out of Egypt and in a Solemn manner entered into Covenant with them in the [desert] and separated them from the [other] nations on the earth to be a Covenant people a peculiar People to the Lord.

As a covenant people, Israel could depend on divine protection and “Temporal Blessings,” as long as they honored the terms of God’s people. Indeed, Edwards went on, it was the enjoyment of “covenant blessings” that partly distinguished covenant peoples from others.

From ancient Israel, Edwards turned to New England, observing that federal covenants did not cease with the Old Testament, but continued throughout history. Citing God’s promise in Exodus 19:6, Edwards assured his listeners that, “if you keep my covenant ye shall be unto me … an holy nation.” Clearly New England was such a people, called of God to be a “peculiar people.”

However, if God’s people were to continue receiving the blessings of the land they must heed the words of their pastors on days of fasting and repent: “You are a People that have been distinguished of God as a Covenant People for a long time. You have for a long time enjoyed the Preaching of God’s Word and the visibility of the Gospel in a steady course.” Only by honoring that word and reforming the evil in their communities could God’s people expect to continue receiving temporal rewards and prosperity. Otherwise, they would surely suffer the same fate as Israel’s at the hands of neighboring enemies. Even now, Edwards warned, there were “great numbers of papists” (the French) to the North, creating in North America an ominous “mixture of dark with light.”

In the face of such a threat, New Englanders believed that, as God’s covenant people, they had a glorious mission to uphold in this world. That mission required the preservation of their civil and religious liberties against external enemies, liberties essential to their corporate identity as the New Israel. It did not matter which was threatened: remove one and the other was sure to follow. When that happened, God’s Word would cease to reign supreme and New England would relinquish its special covenant.

In 1748, when England made a treaty with France, no one saw it as anything more than an armistice, postponing for a time an inevitable conflict. Formal peace did nothing to solve the territorial disputes between France and England, nor did it ease the hatred—both political and religious—that had been accumulating for over a century.

By March of 1755 it was clear to Edwards and other colonial leaders that the armistice with France was about to end. Edwards had left Northampton for Stockbridge in 1751, and to the members of his Stockbridge congregation, set on the outer rim of English civilization, the dangers of renewed war were especially frightening. At a special fast day called in March 1755, Edwards repeated a sermon he delivered in 1744 “on occasion of war with France.” It is, Edwards began, “owing to the protection of heaven that our nation and land have not been destroyed before now by the same kind of Enemies with those that … now oppose [us].” With war approaching, the one lesson the frightened New Englanders had to remember was that “sin above all other things weakens a people in war.” When “vice prevails among a people.” defeats were sure to follow because among professing peoples, success or failure “corresponds to” their covenant keeping. Conversely, a turning back to God in Northampton or in Stockbridge would prompt God to deliver his people.

Within three months of Edwards’ fast sermon, New England’s time of trial appeared. In July 1755, General Edward Braddock and his British regulars were decisively defeated on the banks of the Monongahela River by a combined force of French and Indian allies. In New England, one out of every three men able to bear arms was enlisted for service—a figure far exceeding other regions and other colonies. Before the Seven Years’ War (or “French and Indian War,” as it was known in America) was over, virtually every New England family had at least one member engaged in what would become the largest war fought to that time on North American soil.

The clergy were united in stirring martial resolve and specifying the terms and nature of divine assistance. In this war, as others, they did not discourage armed conflict, but encouraged it for nationalistic and prophetic reasons.

Self-defense represented the major justification of war, and the covenant supplied the essential terms for victory. Despite their many wars, ministers insisted that New England was not a militaristic culture pursuing armed conquest for the sake of vain glory.

But self-defense was not the only theme invoked in weekday sermons. Millennial speculations and predictions also played a significant, if supporting, role in arousing public support for war. Evangelicals believed that the Roman Catholic Church was the dreaded “Babylon” and “Mother of Harlots” associated in the Book of Revelation with the Anti-Christ. “Popery,” Edwards explained. “is the deepest contrivance that ever Satan was the author of to uphold his kingdom.”

Equally clear to Edwards and others was New England’s own identity as the “true witnesses” of Christ. Despite temporary setbacks and smaller armies, Edwards assured his listeners that “the race is not to the swift,” and that even as God delivered his people Israel in time of distress, even so would he provide “a peculiar Encouragement for God’s people [in New England] to look for Help and Victory in war.” Before that would happen, of course, New Englanders must repent of their sins. Genuine repentance and performance of covenant duties could not merit salvation, but they could win battles. And New Englanders could be sure that any immediate losses in battle were not a final sentence of doom because Scripture clearly foretold the downfall of Anti-Christ.

Edwards’ death on March 22, 1758, prevented him from witnessing the final victory over France, though he would not have been surprised. Like other Thanksgiving preachers in 1759 and 1760 he would have ascribed triumph to New England’s ongoing covenant with God. Had Edwards lived to witness the unfolding conflict with England, he would probably have supported the “sacred cause” of liberty and turned his pen to calls for moral reformation and promises of national success.

In fact, New Englanders, like Americans later, never lost the big battles. And as long as they continued to win, the covenant was validated and the myth lived on. The vision of a redeemer nation and a covenant people was dazzling and none, including Edwards, could escape its glare. As one voice among thousands, Edwards helped perpetuate that quintessentially Puritan notion of a righteous city set high upon a hill for all the world to see. That notion apparently has yet to run its course. In this sense, we continue to inhabit a world formed largely by the Puritans and Edwards.

Harry S. Stout is associate professor of history at the University of Connecticut. He has written extensively on Puritanism and the Great Awakening. This article is adapted from an address given at the conference “Jonathan Edwards and the Amencan Expenence,” held at Wheaton College, October 1984

Copyright © 1985 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine.Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

Jonathan Edwards: Recommended Resources

Edwards’ Works:

Edward Hickman, ed., The Works of Jonathan Edwards , 2 vols. (Banner of Truth, 1979).

Vergilius Ferm, ed., Puritan Sage: Collected Writings of Jonathan Edwards (Library Publishers, 1953)

Paul Ramsey and others, eds., The Works of Jonathan Edwards , 6 vols. (other volumes forthcoming) (Yale University Press, 1957–80).

Harold P. Simonson, ed., Selected Writings of Jonathan Edwards (Ungar, 1970).

On Edwards and the Great Awakening:

Elisabeth Dodds, Marriage to a Difficult Man: The Uncommon Union of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards (Westminster Press, 1971).

Conrad Cherry, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Peter Smith, 1974). Reprint of 1966 edition.

Edward H. Davidson, Jonathan Edwards: The Narrative of a Puritan Mind (Harvard University Press, 1969).

Edwin S. Gaustad, The Great Awakening in New England (Peter Smith, 1965). Reprint of 1957 edition.

Alan Heimert and Perry Miller, eds., The Great Awakening (Bobbs-Merrill, 1967).

Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards (University of Massachusetts Press, 1981). Reprint of 1949 edition.

Harold P. Simonson, Jonathan Edwards: Theologian of the Heart (Eerdmans, 1974).

Patricia J. Tracy, Jonathan Edwards, Pastor (Hill and Wang, 1980).

Ola Elizabeth Winslow, Jonathan Edwards, 1703–1758 (Octagon, 1972). Reprint of 1940 edition.

Copyright © 1985 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine. Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

My Dear Companion

In this series

The real Jonathan Edwards, the man, the person, was a tender husband, an effective and affectionate father, a human being quite unlike the image of him as the stern preacher of sermons about sin. His happy marriage to Sarah Pierrepont was more than a loving link between two people: it was Edwards’ link to life—to the practical; to warm fireplaces, good food, attractive surroundings; to devotion, to the dailyness of the Incarnation. What Edwards described as their “uncommon union” bonded them marvelously to one another and it also bonded them to the living God.

They met in 1723 in New Haven, Connecticut, when Edwards was twenty years old, a graduate student and tutor at Yale. Sarah was then thirteen years old, and she was the daughter of James Pierrepont, the mighty minister of the New Haven church. One of her great-grandfathers had been Thomas Hooker, and another had been the first mayor of New York City. Hers was an impeccable social background and Sarah’s burnished manners matched her breeding. When the gawky Edwards first met Sarah, he scared her. Unusually tall, in an era when men tended to be short of stature; abstemious in a society of jolly drinkers: intense and studious, Edwards made an awkward beau. Looking on as Sarah would shine in social situations, Edwards would be conscious of his own shortcomings, and would go home to admonish himself in his journal with such entries as “Have lately erred, in not allowing time enough for conversation.” When he went home to East Windsor, Connecticut, at the end of the school term, he was supposed to be studying for his M.A. degree. He had a great deal of studying to do, but the usually focused Edwards found that his mind was wandering. In the front page of a Greek grammar, he wrote this famous digression:

They say there is a young lady in New Haven …. She has a strange sweetness in her mind, and singular purity in her affections; is most just and conscientious in all her conduct; and you could not persuade her to do anything wrong or sinful if you would give her all the world … She is of wonderful sweetness, calmness and universal benevolence of mind ….

She will sometimes go about from place to place, singing sweetly and seems always to be full of joy and pleasure; and no one knows for what.

Edwards’ journal for the next four years reveals the ups and downs of an introspective young man in love. “If I had more of an air of gentleness, I should be much mended,” he once rebuked himself. In 1725, Yale went through a turbulent reorganization which caused much stress on its overworked tutors. Edwards’ journal entries became distraught:

Dec. 29 Dull and lifeless.

Jan. 9 Decayed

Jan. 10 Recovering.

The body’s wisdom finally intervened and sent Edwards to bed with pleurisy. He had the rest he needed. Mending began.

Jonathan and Sarah married on July 28, 1727. Sarah wore a bright green satin brocade dress. The exuberant design reflected the Puritan view of love. To call persons “puritanical” when we speak of alienation from the flesh is to be imprecise. Some Victorians may have had negative feelings about the human body, but most Puritans celebrated it. They loved robustly and gave marriage an honored place in their social order. America was still young and the whole society needed the stability of the family to give stability to the community. Everyone rejoiced in the establishment of a new household. Wives were protected well by law. For instance, a man could be punished for using “harsh words” to his wife.

The Edwards union was undergirded by the social order and given depth and complexity by the characters of the remarkable people involved. It is no coincidence that one of the words Edwards used most often was “sweetness,” and that one of his most melting sermons was preached on Genesis 2:21–25 (“when Adam rose from his deep sleep God brought woman to him from near his heart”).

The Edwardses moved to the attractive Connecticut River valley town of Northampton, Massachusetts, and began their lives together. The Reverend Samuel Hopkins who lived in the Edwards house as an apprentice preacher has given us an indispensable memoir of them. He assures us “no person of discernment could be conversant in the family without observing and admiring the perfect harmony and mutual love and esteem that subsisted between them.” It was Edwards’ good fortune, and an example of his brilliance, to choose a mate who perfectly supplemented and complemented him. He was stiff, Sarah was socially adept. He was intellectual and abstracted, Sarah the one who remembered when firewood had to be brought in and the garden hoed. Hopkins again:

While she uniformly paid a becoming deference to her husband and treated him with entire respect, she spared no pains in conforming to his inclination and rendering everything in the family agreeable and pleasant.

Though she gave so much to this relationship, Sarah gained much. Her husband treated her as a fully valuable person whose conversation entertained him, whose spirit nourished his own spiritual life, and whose presence gave him repose.

One of their customs was to go out together in the late afternoon for horseback rides. Clopping along a leafy woodland trail, they could talk without interruption and Sarah would not be distracted by the sight of dust on a mantle or by other household duties. Sarah was always welcome to slip upstairs to Jonathan’s study if she wished to speak to him. They had devotions together the last thing at night, before retiring to sleep. Edwards spoke out of experience when he wrote “Heaven is a world of love.”

Their eleven children have been a gift to American cultural history. In 1900 a reporter tracked down 1,400 descendants of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards. He found that they included 13 college presidents, 65 professors, two graduate school deans, 100 lawyers, 66 physicians, 80 holders of public office, including three senators and three governors of states. Members of this clan had written 135 published books, and the women were repeatedly described as “great readers” or “highly intelligent.” These people seem also to have had a talent for making money: their numbers included a roster of bankers and industrialists. Of course there were platoons of missionaries. The report asserted: “The family has cost the country nothing in pauperism, in crime, in hospital or asylum service: on the contrary, it represents the highest usefulness.”

It was extraordinary that all eleven Edwards babies lived. At that time, infant mortality was high. The survival of the small Edwardses in that precarious era says something about Sarah’s instinctive sense of nutrition, her clean house, her good health during pregnancy, and about the remarkable eugenic combination this couple represented.

Edwards had the habit of taking one child along with him when he had to journey out of town. (Thanks to the anecdote told by one daughter, we have the story of the time Edwards was delayed in arriving at a speaking engagement in New Hampshire. When he finally turned up, the flustered presiding officer greeted him with this statement: “They say your wife is going to heaven by a shorter road than yourself.”)

Another of Edwards’ fatherly strategies was to give his full attention to the children for one hour before dinner each evening. He would sit in his high-backed chair, without his awesome wig, smoking the clay pipe which was his one public vice. This was the hour when the children knew they could ask their father to help with their school lessons, or could report problems or adventures that had come about during the day.

Jonathan and Sarah approached the discipline of their brood as a united team. The children noted this, and also saw that their father treated their mother with courtesy and respect. In one sermon about Christian nurture, Edwards proclaimed “There is such a thing as anger that is consistent with good will,” and he practiced what he preached. He also once said “Every house should be a little church,” and that, too, he made real.

In the Great Awakening the house hummed with activity, as parishioners clamored for counsel, and visitors came from many places to see what all the excitement was about. Among the many house guests in that period was the evangelist George Whitefield who went away saying “A sweeter couple I have not seen.” Edwards felt a bidding to spread news of a phenomenon he believed to be “the surprising work of God.” Thus, in addition to his greatly accelerated parish duties, he accepted a heavy schedule of out-of-town meetings.

Here we come to a part of our narrative so unlike anything else in our story that it seems out of place. We do not know what to make of this, but precisely because it was so unusual yet so intractably on the record, we must mention it. In January 1742, after fourteen years of marriage, Sarah Edwards experienced an intense spiritual crisis, brought on by the preaching of visiting minister Samuel Buell. While Edwards was away on a speaking trip, she toppled into episodes of fainting, visions, and religious ecstasy. Neighbors came in and kept the house going, and when Edwards returned, he found the town buzzing about the behavior of his wife. She assured him that she had an assurance of God’s favor she had not had before.

He sat down with Sarah and asked her to tell him everything she could remember about the weeks just past. Using a shorthand he had invented, he took down her story in full. According to Sarah, she had experienced the most intense feelings of spiritual joy and assurance. Edwards was convinced that his wife’s experience was a spiritual crisis to be attributed to the workings of God. The psychologist William James has been fascinated by this event as one variety of religious experience. Both James and Edwards concur that an unmistakable sequel of this episode was Sarah’s consequent “good disposition.” She went back to making jam and hemming pillow cases and rocking babies to sleep, as she always had, but her husband tells us “she did all as the service of love, and so doing it with a continual, uninterrupted cheerfulness, peace and joy.” Avoiding any specific mention of his wife’s name, Edwards included her story in Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion in New England.

Edwards’ dismissal from the church in Northampton was a troublesome time for the family. After lean months of unemployment, Edwards found an unlikely assignment. He and his family moved to the remote town of Stockbridge, Massachusetts, then on the edge of the forested frontier. The mighty philosopher’s new congregation was a tribe of Indians, who came to church wearing bear grease to fend off insects. However, the physical setting was beautiful and the Indians were friendly. The quiet made possible the writing of Freedom of the Will. Each evening, Edwards would read to Sarah, “my dear companion,” the product of the day’s toil at his desk. Years went on. Children married. One daughter moved to New Jersey where her attractive and brilliant husband was organizing a new university at Princeton. Suddenly, in 1757, the young college president died. The trustees invited Edwards to succeed his son-in-law as president of Princeton. When the official invitation came, Edwards astonished everyone by bursting into tears, “which was very unusual for him in the presence of others.”

Edwards went on to Princeton to be with his widowed daughter, while Sarah stayed behind in Stockbridge to finish the packing. A smallpox epidemic struck that spring of 1758. Vaccination was then a new and controversial intervention. Always ahead of his time, Edwards, characteristically, chose to take a chance on the vaccination. As he lay dying from complications that followed the risky procedure, he spoke in a low voice. The doctor and two daughters of the Edwards leaned down to hear the last words of Jonathan Edwards. He spoke of Sarah:

Give my kindest love to my dear wife, and tell her that the uncommon union which has so long subsisted between us has been of such a nature as I trust is spiritual and therefore will continue forever.

Jonathan’s last words suggest the scripture passage that was Sarah’s favorite, Romans 8:35: “Who, then, can separate us from the love of Christ?”

Elisabeth S. Dodds is the author of Marriage to a Difficult Man: The Uncommon Union of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards. She lives in Somerville, Massachusetts

Copyright © 1985 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine.Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

Jonathan Edwards Speaks to Our Technological Age

In this series

How is Jonathan Edwards relevant today? Is he a distant hero, an evangelist, theologian, saint whom we can admire only from afar? Has the passing of time and changes in religious style put insurmountable barriers between us and him? Do we no longer have access to his keen insights except as impressive historical curiosities?

To the contrary, Edwards has a great deal to say to the contemporary world. Not only does he present powerfully the historic doctrines of the Christian faith; but he presents them with insights that specifically address some major tendencies of modern times.

Edwards lived near the beginning of our modern era. He faced the emergence of two of the major trends that have shaped the style of both our Christianity and our culture. These trends were revivalism and the scientific revolution. Because these trends were new in Edwards’ day, he could see more clearly than we do how they were changing people’s conceptions of the world and especially changing their perceptions of God’s relationship to themselves and to the world.

True Christian Experience in the Age of Revivals

We can look first at Edwards’ insight into the character of true Christian experience. The revival to which Edwards himself contributed in New England was part of a wider pietist revival. Pietism emerged in Germany in the later 1600s, spread to other countries through missionary efforts of groups such as the Moravians, and merged with renewal impulses throughout the Protestant world. In Edwards’ day, these forces converged to produce a great revival in the English-speaking world, manifested in the Great Awakening in America, John Wesley’s Methodism in England, and George Whitefield’s work connecting the English and American awakenings. The thrust of Pietism was to re-emphasize the importance of personal religious experience and active commitment evidenced in the Christian life and works. Such emphases, as expressed by various evangelists, could take many forms. The question for Edwards and other New England Calvinists was whether the revival emphases were faithful to the essentials of Reformation theology.

Having been blessed by “surprising conversions” in his own parish, Edwards was a defender of the revival and certainly of personal religious commitment. These he correctly saw as essential to New England’s own Puritan tradition. Nonetheless, he was sensitive to the critics of the Awakening who claimed that the revivalists were irresponsibly manipulating people’s emotions and thus producing counterfeit or superficial religious experiences. This accusation became all the more plausible when, after Whitefield’s famous tour of America in 1739–40, he was followed by imitators who used crowd-rousing techniques that really did seem to produce more emotional heat than spiritual light. Edwards, a defender of revivalism, was thus confronted with one of the major questions that has faced modern evangelicalism ever since. What is the proper place of emotion in Christian commitment?

Edwards answered by pointing out that central to our genuine religious experiences are our affections. By affections he meant our dispositions or loves that incline or disincline toward things. “The holy Scriptures,” Edwards observed, “do everywhere place religion very much in the affections; such as fear, hope, love, hatred, desire, joy, sorrow, gratitude, compassion, and zeal.” Edwards thus defended religion of the heart as opposed to those critics of the revivals who condemned emotionalism to the point of leaving themselves with only a religion of the head, a Christianity that amounted only to believing right doctrines and maintaining proper morals.

As Edwards defended the religion of the heart, however, he warned against two major errors that have plagued the pietist-evangelical-revivalist tradition even more in our day than in his. First, Edwards cautioned against sheer emotionalism. He recognized that revivalists might simply excite the emotions and thus counterfeit genuine conversions. High emotions were neither clear evidence of genuine religion nor of the lack of it. Rather, in his great treatise on Religious Affections Edwards carefully mapped out biblical tests for genuine religious experience. These tests included a focus on God’s gracious work, doctrines consistent with biblical revelations, and a life marked by the fruits of the Spirit.

In the course of delineating the biblical standards for genuine Christian experience, Edwards emphasized another lesson much needed in our day. He pointed out the mistake, so common today, of making human nature and human psychology the primary focus of theological analysis, or even sometimes the object of worship. This trend had already begun in Edwards’ day, shifting theological analysis from looking at God to looking at human responses to God. Today this tendency has many manifestations in evangelicalism, both in theologies that celebrate the self and self-fulfillment, and in testimony meetings where the emphasis may subtly shift from God’s grace to congratulating oneself on one’s own remarkable experiences.

Edwards’ theology would allow none of that. He always made crystal clear that God is the central focus in human religious experience. Edwards’ stress on God’s sovereignty was far from a static doctrine. Edwards’ conception of God centered around God’s love. God’s very purpose in creating the universe was to express his love, to communicate himself to his creatures, to display to them his glory and his beauty. Thus the essence of true religious experience is to be overwhelmed by a glimpse of the beauty of God, to be drawn to the glory of his perfections, to sense his irresistible love. This experience of being spiritually ravished by God’s beauty, glory and love is something like being overwhelmed by the beauty of a great work of art or music. We can be so enthralled by such beauty that we lose consciousness of our self and self-interests and become absorbed in the magnificent object. So also we might be drawn out of ourselves by the power of the beauty of a truly loveable person. God’s sovereign grace works this way. Our hearts are changed by his irresistible power; but this power is not exercised as an alien mechanical force over our wills. Rather, when our eyes are opened so that we are literally captivated by the beauty, glory, and love of God, when we see this love, manifested most powerfully in the beauty of Christ’s sacrificial love for the undeserving, we are gladly forced to abandon love of self as the central principle in our lives and to turn to the love of God.

Edwards describes our side of this regenerating experience as like being given a sixth sense—a sense of the beauty, glory, and love of God. The Bible, he points out, often speaks in a similar way. “Hence the work of the Spirit of God in regeneration is often in Scripture compared to the giving of a new sense, giving eyes to see, and ears to hear, unstopping the ears of the deaf, and opening the eyes of them that were born blind, and turning from darkness unto light.” So the knowledge of God in true Christian experience will be sensible knowledge. It will differ from mere speculative knowledge in the same way that the taste of honey differs from the mere understanding that honey is sweet. True Christian experience then, is built not just on knowing and affirming true Christian doctrines, as important as those doctrines may be. It is affective knowledge, or a sense of the truths the doctrines describe. The Christian, says Edwards in a characteristic statement, “does not merely rationally believe that God is glorious, but he has a sense of the gloriousness of God in his heart.”

Christian Experience in the Scientific Technological Age

Edwards’ analysis of truly God-centered Christian experience in our age of recurrent revivals has its counterpart in his response to another great force shaping our world today—the scientific revolution. Broadly considered, the scientific-technological revolution has changed the way that most modern people think about things, even in much of their everyday experience. The scientific method, highly appropriate to the laboratory, has become the model for the conduct of most of our business and even leisure activities. This model involves, most basically, the attempt to objectify reality. We attempt to eliminate extraneous and distracting subjective and emotional considerations from our important activities. In business and technology our civilization is largely shaped by the irrepressible quest to find the most rational and efficient way to get things done. Rationality and efficiency are typically enhanced if we objectify things rather than personify them. So businesses and governments deal with people most efficiently as abstract numbers.

We modern people easily slip into thinking of our fellow humans as objects, consumers, contributors, numbers to add to our rolls, and so forth. Similarly, we are used to objectifying nature, looking on it as merely something to be used for our technological purposes. The ecology crisis of recent years witnesses to the results of this objectified view of nature as just an extension of our technological systems.

Few of the specific implications of these trends were apparent in Edwards’ day. But the first principles out of which the modern world grew were already present. Eighteenth-century philosophers were clearing the way for the objectification of reality by moving their conceptions of God further away from his creation. God might have been, as the Deists of the day said, a sort of great watchmaker in the sky, long ago building the machinery of the universe that today runs by itself according to natural laws discoverable by science. Such eighteenth-century thinkers had, in effect, retired the creator, rather than denying him. The God of the modern age would not interfere with the really important analyses of reality.

Edwards saw clearly the implications of this revolutionary view of things and insisted in response that God must be on center stage in our entire view of reality, our world view. God’s essence is love, which for Edwards (as we have seen) meant that God is constantly communicating his character, beauty, love, and glory to his creatures. God then is not simply the creator, long ago and far away, but is every moment intimately involved in sustaining the creation and speaking through it. “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth forth his handiwork,” (Psalm 19:1). God thus has a relationship to his creation something like our relationship to our words. God is quite distinct from the creation, yet the creation has a definite personal quality. It is part of God’s own language through which he expresses his goodness and glory to his creatures. Through this divine “light,” as Scripture often refers to God’s glory, all nature is filled with life, beauty, and joy. Regenerate persons are given eyes to see this light of God’s glory and goodness.

Having such a sense of the closeness of God to his creation would not mean that modern Christians would have to abandon scientific-technological pursuits or scientific techniques in the conduct of their businesses and lives. But it would sensitize them to seeing that these objectified ways of dealing with reality, although extremely useful for limited purposes, are artificial and misleading. They are limited methodologies; not at all descriptions of the way reality actually is. With such sensitivities Christians would be constantly reminding themselves, and indeed sensing, that none of our activities can be separated from their spiritual dimensions. We would see that nature is not just an object for our technological exploitation. Rather, even as we use and manage it, we would constantly sense that it is an expression of God’s love and beauty to be valued because of that relationship. We would also look at our fellow humans, not as objects to be manipulated by our marketing or propaganda techniques, but creations of God. Though the cosmos is fallen, and humanity is corrupt and blind, still the light of God’s glory shines through all his creation, if only we have the eyes to see it.

Moreover, if our hearts are changed by God’s love, so must our actions be changed. If we are transformed by seeing the beauty of the love of God, then we shall especially love every act of virtue that reflects God’s loving character. If we are overwhelmed by sensing the light of the glory of God, then we shall see that glory reflected in all of his creation and hence love that which he has created. Although we are far from perfectly transformed in this life, it is only by such a radical expansion of our affections, from our inborn self love, to love of all being because it reflects God’s glory, that we can attain true selfless virtue.

Christ’s own gracious love to us epitomizes such love for all creation, even love for rebellious humanity. If we are spiritually enthralled by such grace, then we can resist the otherwise irresistible power of our self-love. Then our changed hearts will love especially to do the selfless love that reflects God’s love. Our own lives can thus reflect that glorious loving light of the world that can illumine and transform even the drab landscapes and worldviews of our scientific-technological civilization.

Edwards’ message is more than relevant today. It is essential.

George M. Marsden is professor of history at Calvin College. He is the author of Fundamentalism and American Culture, 1875–1925 and an editor of Eerdmans’ Handbook to Christianity in America

Copyright © 1985 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine.Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

Colonial New England: An Old Order, New Awakening

In this series

When Jonathan Edwards reached manhood in the 1720’s, New England had been settled by Englishmen for a hundred years. The area was conscious of its historical roots, and Cotton Mather, the famous Puritan preacher, had produced a monumental history of New England, Magnalia Christi Americana (1702). Mather’s work was intended as a religious history of the colonies, but it reports on every aspect of early New England. For the early New Englanders, religious and social history were inseparable. It was assumed since the landing of the Pilgrims in 1620 that the settlers were (or should be) Christians, and that God would bless the building up of a godly commonwealth in the new land.

Needless to say, the churches of New England were no longer persecuted sects: they had become established churches. The religious groups that settled New England left the old country because of persecution, or because they saw the Church of England as a poor model of biblical faith.

They carved out a place for themselves in the New World, with much hardship and discipline. In time the New Englanders realized that they were no longer the righteous remnant running from an apostate English church establishment. They were now an establishment.

The settlers had begun with the idea that the visible church should be identical with the invisible—that is, the gathered congregations should be bodies of true believers. Nominal Christianity is indeed unthinkable among persecuted sects. If one suffers for one’s beliefs, one will either believe strongly or forsake the beliefs. But in the New World, away from persecution and adjusted to life in new territory, nominal Christianity became a reality. Mingled with devout believers were church members who merely paid lip service to Christian belief. The vision of New England as a righteous city set on a hill never died completely, but realistic observers were painfully aware that many church members gave little attention to building up the kingdom in America. They were far more interested in prospering materially in the vast land with its seemingly infinite possibilities.

This drift from spiritual to material interests is not difficult to understand. New England was basically peaceful and comfortable. Most New Englanders were farmers and made an adequate living. Industries—lumbering, fishing, shipbuilding, and others—did well, and artisans earned a good living. The disciplined work habits of the first settlers were passed down to succeeding generations, who, like their forefathers, did not depend on slavery or indentured servants. They worked hard and created an essentially middle-class society with almost no poverty. The level of education was also relatively high.

Such a society was a far cry from the mother country, where poverty, alcoholism, sexual immorality and other social ills prevailed. Yet the Puritan clergy knew that the people of New England were losing their original spiritual drive. (For more information about the Puritan vision of a Christian America, see the article by Harry Stout, “The Puritans and Edwards.”)

Worldliness and religious apathy were not the only problems affecting the religious life of New England. Historians often call the seventeenth century the Age of Reason. This is more a description of the philosophical climate of Europe than of America, but the colonies were affected by the intellectual life of Europe.

The Age of Reason was characterized by belief in man’s capacities for good, especially when man acted under the guidance of reason. Many European thinkers rejected the idea of a sinful mankind living under the judgment of a wrathful God. Clergymen were affected by the new thought. Strict Calvinism gave way in many churches to religion that emphasized man’s capabilities.

Of course, Puritanism still dominated New England in the 1700’s. Calvinism was the ruling ideology, but was losing ground. When Jonathan Edwards attended Yale (1716–20), he came into contact with the new skepticism there. Harvard likewise entertained new ideas, so it was inevitable that the two colleges would produce some clergymen who (unlike Edwards) rejected or at least greatly modified the Calvinist theology of their forbears.

The old order was changing. Pastors and people prayed for a revival of spiritual energy. Revival came in the form of a Great Awakening, the first event in North American history to stir people of several colonies with a common religious concern.

In Jonathan Edwards’ parish at Northampton, Massachusetts, awakening began in 1734. Earlier sparks of revival had appeared in New Jersey, where Theodorus Frelinghuysen and William and Gilbert Tennent were attempting to arouse people out of spiritual lethargy. And they were succeeding. Revival gathered momentum in Massachusetts and Connecticut fueled in large part by the first evangelistic tour (1740) in New England by the English preacher, George Whitefield. Throughout the colonies Whitefield brought crowds to a religious fever pitch. No speaker ever drew bigger crowds in colonial America. He made some enemies among liberal clergy, but the people loved him, and many American pastors considered him a great blessing on the colonies. Edwards along with many others stirred their own congregations to spiritual renewal and experienced revivals in the churches they visited.

The Awakening, which had receded from public prominence by 1750, has been likened in some particulars to a Second Reformation. Religion had become formal, head-centered—and dull. The outward forms of faith were there, but the reality was hollow. Many hungered for a religion with heart and soul.

The preachers of the Awakening did not abandon the typical Puritan emphasis on doctrine, but they appealed more to the emotions. This was a welcomed emphasis, as it encouraged the individual’s response to a loving God. Edwards never abandoned his love of logic and reason. But he watched the Awakening carefully and concluded that true religion does indeed consist primarily of (to use his own term) affections.

Because of this emphasis on the individual’s heartfelt response to God—an interest that Puritanism had always had, but which had diminished with time—conversion became important. The idea was not new in Christianity, but here it received a dramatic new emphasis. The preachers of the Awakening wanted people to know that outward morality was not enough for salvation. An inward change was necessary. An individual needed to feel deeply sin and unworthiness before a righteous God.

Because of the preaching of the Awakening, the sense of religious self intensified. The principle of individual choice became forever ingrained in American Protestantism and is still evident today among evangelicals and many others.

Not everyone was pleased with these developments. Some preachers overemphasized the physical manifestations associated with religious feelings. Persons stirred by a sermon might faint, scream, writhe, sing, or otherwise respond physically. Edwards and his colleagues taught that these symptoms might indicate a genuine conviction of sin—or, might be only an emotional response to a manipulative preacher. Edwards claimed that the physical manifestations which were not produced by the working of God did not discredit those that were, in fact, produced by the Spirit.

But many rationalist clergymen—Charles Chauncy of Boston was the most famous—resented the enthusiasm of the Awakening. They saw it as a threat to established church authority. They felt that religious subjectivism appealed to man’s lower instincts, since rational man would not need to have his beliefs substantiated by a warm heart, not to mention fainting spells, groaning, or leaping for joy. The anti-revivalist clergy—called the Old Lights—feared a breakdown of religious order and authority. The New Light clergy—those who supported the Awakening—were as aware as their opponents that something alarming was occurring—the Awakening was dividing churches. Many congregations split, and where many small towns had only one church, they now had two. Those who thought their pastor too dry or formal might, under the influence of revivalism, form a new church—and many did. The Awakening presented a choice between religious styles, church affiliations, and pastors. Religious diversity became a reality in New England, and America has continued to live—not always comfortably, but necessarily—with such diversity.

A movement of such importance needs someone to explain it and interpret it, both for his own times and for later generations. The great interpreter of the Awakening was Jonathan Edwards. Born to a devout Congregational minister in 1703 (the same year as John Wesley), Edwards produced one of the most thorough bodies of theological writing in the history of America. Precocious and pious even as a youth, Edwards took his bachelor’s degree at Yale in 1720. He studied further at Yale, served as a tutor there, and briefly served as minister at a Presbyterian church in New York. In 1726 he became assistant to his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, the famous pastor of the church at Northampton, Massachusetts. Edwards married the devout and charming Sarah Pierrepont in 1727. While at Northampton—he became senior pastor at Northampton in 1729 after Stoddard’s death—Edwards participated in the spiritual revival and bent his mind toward interpreting it as well.

Edwards’ examination of religious psychology arose directly out of his experiences in the Northampton revivals and, later, in the Great Awakening as a whole. A letter to Boston’s Benjamin Colman in 1736 (later published as a Narrative of Suprising Conversions) was the first in a series of works examining the nature of awakened religious experience. This letter analyzed events occurring during the local revival in Northampton (1734–35), but soon Edwards published Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion in New England (1742) to take account of the wider movement. (This work is based partly on the experiences of his devoted wife, who herself had passed through a religious crisis.) Edwards responded to charges by anti-revivalists that the revival was all emotion, froth, and disorder. He conceded that the emotionalism of the Awakening could undercut authentic Christianity, but he also defended the revival by pointing to the more intense worship and to the permanently changed lives it left in its wake.

In 1746 Edwards published his most mature examination of this subject, the Treatise on Religious Affections. It argues that true religion resides in the heart, the seat of affections, emotions, and inclinations. The book also details with painstaking scrutiny the kinds of religious emotions which are largely irrelevant to true spirituality. Edwards’ careful analysis of genuine faith emphasizes that it is not the quantity of emotion which indicated the presence of true spirituality, but the origin of such emotions with God.

Edwards, shrewdly observing the revivals that were going on around him, became a religious psychologist of the first order. He is also known to posterity as a notorious preacher—not because he was a great orator, but because of a famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” preached in 1741 to a responsive congregation at Enfield, Connecticut. Edwards’ vivid depiction of the agonies of those who do not plead for God’s forgiveness is often given as an example of the Puritan conception of an angry, wrathful God and a vile, despicable humanity. In truth, the sermon is hardly typical of Edwards’ preaching, and the parallel sermons in this issue (See “From the Archives”) show that Edwards spoke as often of love as of wrath.

Edwards was indeed a Calvinist who emphasized the sovereignty of God and the inability of man to save himself. But Edwards’ theology is not summarized in the Enfield sermon. Indeed, Edwards the theologian was capable of profound theological reflection. He is regarded by historians as probably the most important American theologian. (Richard Lovelace’s article on Edwards’ theology [See “Edwards’ Theology”] shows Edwards’ importance to the world of theology.) Like Edwards’ works on religious experience, his theological works were rooted in the events of his lifetime. He respected the theology of John Calvin and other Reformed leaders, but he did not rely slavishly on their theology. He tried to state the case for God’s sovereignty in a new age.

Edwards spent several hours each day poring over the Scriptures, theological works, and works of secular philosophers. Though diligent in his pastoral duties, he found the time for intense theological reflection. His reflection eventually led to parish troubles, which ironically resulted in his having the leisure to write his greatest theological treatise. Edwards, after much thought, decided to revoke a privilege instituted by his grandfather— the privilege of all persons who were not openly immoral to participate in the Lord’s supper. Edwards decided that only converted persons should participate in the sacrament. He wrote a book Qualifications for Communion ( 1749) stating his case. His Northampton flock ousted him in 1750. Thereupon he became minister and missionary to Indians at Stockbridge. Massachusetts. Here on the New England frontier he produced his monumental Freedom of the Will (1754). In this treatise Edwards painstakingly shows that man is indeed free (a notion gaining ground as the Age of Reason progressed) but that God is still sovereign and still solely responsible for man’s salvation. Edwards tries to show that a sinner—and humans, in the Calvinist tradition, come into the world under the curse of Adam—would never by himself choose to glorify God unless God himself changed that person’s character. Regeneration, God’s act, is the basis for repentance and conversion, the human actions.

It was obvious to Edwards that the Puritan tradition of spirituality might die unless ministers were willing to come to grips with the changing world. Edwards saw the changing philosophical climate of Europe and America, and he knew that religious thinkers had to respond to the new assumptions about human freedom and the power of reason.

He proved himself capable of dealing with the modern world, not only theoretically, but practically. He proved himself to be in many ways forward thinking. In a day when psalm-singing was almost the only music to be heard in congregational churches, Edwards encouraged the singing of new Christian hymns, notably those of Isaac Watts. (Edwards also owned a copy of the Wesleys’ hymns). He advocated harmony or unison singing instead of the (now unthinkable) practice of each person singing whatever note he wished. Edwards was also innovative in Christian education, encouraging the use of different levels of instruction for different age groups. He used catechetical questioning with children, but did so in a casual, conversational style so as not to intimidate the young or to force them into the habit of giving stock answers to questions they often did not even understand. He advocated the use of story-telling as an educational tool, especially among children and youth.

Edwards’ excellence as an educator and his reputation as a theologian and philosopher led to his appointment as president of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton) in 1757. Shortly after he was inaugurated as president in 1758, he was inoculated for smallpox and died a few weeks afterward.

In a relatively short life he produced some of the greatest theological and philosophical writings in America’s history advanced and explained the Great Awakening, and left evidence that traditional orthodox Christianity remains relevant to any age when there are creative and devout thinkers who are aware of the world around them.

Later generations have not always been kind to the memory of Jonathan Edwards. They have often depicted him as an inhuman monster, the stereotyped hell-fire preacher notable for his fanaticism and his contempt for a detestable humanity. They have portrayed him as the essence of Puritanism at its worst—cold, inhuman, completely otherworldly, devoid of any relevance for real people in the real world. In truth, this “monster” was a devoted husband, the proud father of eleven children, and a tireless letter-writer whose favorite words seem to have been love and sweetness. He enjoyed long walks in the Massachusetts woodlands and saw all nature as an evidence of a beautiful loving creator God. He was a diligent pastor and, on occasion, an evangelist who always tempered fiery images with soothing words of the love of God for repentant sinners. He was, to all who knew him a brilliant scholar whose gifts of head combined comfortably with immense gifts of heart. Edwards was no monster and if later American religion has ever suffered from a division of heart and head, it is no fault of Edwards.

J. Stephen Lang is editor of this issue of Christian History and a book editor at Tyndale House, Wheaton, Illinois. Mark A. Noll is professor of history at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois. He is an editor of Eerdman’s Handbook of Christianity in America, and the author of Christians and the American Revolution

Copyright © 1985 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine.Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube