A tough day at the office today, the office being teaching remedial English III to a small class of kids who failed it. A couple are new and one is not happy- at all- to be in school this summer. So I’m earning the big bucks like a real teacher this week. My fan club is small and getting smaller.
Into all this I have the assignment of teaching a short lesson on Jonathan Edwards and “Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God.” (I won’t skip it. Too significant in American Lit.) The excerpt we use is a collection of the most intense metaphors, and I’m supposed to teach Edwards’ linguistic approach, not his theology. So I try to extract Edwards from the stereotypical ditch this sermons puts him into and I hope that someday a student will associate Edwards with the excerpts from his diary I also share with them and not just spiders hanging over flame.
Actually, I’m not an Edwards’ fan. As far as I am concerned, he made the entire Christian faith much more difficult and considerably less Jesus shaped than I believe that it is. Despite his brilliant intellect, Edwards seems to be about more about speculation and revivalism than the Gospel. His desire to awaken unconverted church members sounds very familiar to me, and his rhetorical intensity is familiar ground as well. I heard it all in the front row of fundamentalistic revivalism growing up. An inscrutable angry God demanding we wake up and realize we’re going to hell. Yes, church member who thinks he’s saved, that means you.
It’s bizarre that a man who was the most brilliant mind of his time, and the inspiration for various waves of awakening from Calvinism to Charismata, doesn’t come off to me nearly as impressed by Jesus and the Gospel as he is by the sovereignty of that “Divine Being” he keeps talking about.
While teaching my students about spiders hanging over flame, flood waters about to crash over them and arrows aimed right at their heart- all images for the wrath of God in that famous sermon- I wondered if it ever occurred to Edwards to take those intense and disturbing images and turn them into descriptions of what Christ did for us on the cross? The hell, the flood, the arrow- they all were his, for my sake. When Edwards says that God “abhors” sinners, I wonder why he didn’t make the cross the measurement of that abhorrence, so that the love of God for sinners could shine through?
The balance of the Reformation Gospel is this: we see God best in Jesus. Not in speculations, relentless logic or metaphorical bombshells. God revealed himself in Jesus. It is the kindness of God that appears and saves us when we cannot save ourselves. It is the kindness of God that leads us to repentance. It was the Gospel story of the crucifixion, not of sinners in the hands of an angry God, that caused 3,000 to be “cut to the heart.”
I’m probably not smart enough to write a post on Jonathan Edwards, but I am smart enough to know that too many theological fanboys are impressed with how to turn the Gospel into revivalistic demands or incomprehensible explorations of the divine will. Both are ways to have power over the rest of us. Edwards at least came out humble in his life, so maybe there’s hope.
We are given a very simple message. It may rest on profound and intimidating revelation that only truly great minds can grasp, but any one of us slower types can go to the cross and hear Jesus say, “Father, forgive them….” I don’t understand it, but as theology, it can’t be surpassed.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Agree it cannot be skipped. But imagine that this sermon is of the major and relatively few points of contact between the general populace and Christianity. Sick.
LikeLike
I appreciate Murray’s work and have greatly profited from it, but his bio on Edwards is hagiography. Marsden was quite a revelation and explained a lot.
LikeLike
I have not read Marsden’s bio, but I will tell you that Iain H Murray’s bio is rather inspiring. I will also tell you that I heard John R DeWitt years ago preach an “angry” sermon that was probably 100 percent theologically correct and probably used of God. I turned me off. Millions of people. Millions of sermons. Millions of styles.
LikeLike
FYI for Pastor Chad. Those lyrics are from “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” a beautiful old hymn recently re-arranged by Michael W. Smith.
LikeLike
Roger:
Because I edited it.
Read the FAQ for moderation guidelines.
ms
LikeLike
No one speaks more passionately or eloquently about the love of God in Christ, the glories of the eternal state, or the grace of God extended toward sinners than Jonathan Edwards. He uses vivid description in EVERTHING he preaches – be it hell or heaven. People whose understanding of Edwards is shaped almost exclusively by “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” are getting a distorted portrait.
I wonder if people would think the descriptions Edwards employs of hell, or his theological understanding of God’s angry disposition toward unrepentant sinners would be excessive 30 billion years into eternity when unbelievers are still suffering the just wrath of God in hell? I know that sounds very stark statement, but if hell is a real place, and sinners are not just annihilated, then I feel his sermon is not over the top or unloving at all. Edwards is talking to “multitudes” in his congregation (he had a church of over 1000 people) who are, in his estimation as their pastor, nominal Christians.
LikeLike
“Did he display his kindness to show the brightness of His kindness or is God just kind because he is love.”
To expand on what you were saying, the former description of God is rather… um. Satanic?
A God who deals out mercy capriciously to a few for the purpose of monstrously showing up the rest of His damned Creation, a God whose nature it is to hide His light rather than to be seen and help everyone see, seems to be the antithetical vision of God, indeed the kind of anti-god, that Paul was warning the Corinthians about:
“In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”
In fact, the whole passage (2 Corinthians 4:1-6) describes a God (and a relationship with him, and a responsibility to non-believers) who isn’t randomly good, but desiring to use believers who see to conduct to God all the people who cannot see Him! (2 Corinthians 4:13-14)
LikeLike
Roger du Barry wonders why the noun, Michael, and the phrase, Edwards got it right, were moderated from his post?
Bemused and amused
England
LikeLike
If God is a Calvinistic then I think the discussion of whether or not Edwards is to harsh is unwarranted. God loves His own glory above all things, If he determines a mob of humanity to everlasting agony for the praise of His glorious justice than in my view the puritans were at least consistent in their sermonizing. A vessel of perfect mercy or a vessel of perfect wrath all for His glory, and if He hates perfectly vessels fit for destruction why I am I commanded to love and pray for them. I think are view of the nature of God will reflect the homilies we give in a fundamental way. Are you and object of divine affection or a vessel prepared for destruction. Double predestination will effect how we view God more than how he views us. Did God ultimately create us to share in is defied humanity for love or for his glory. Did he display his kindness to show the brightness of His kindness or is God just kind because he is love.
LikeLike
Have no fear Rob Lofland for there is room here for those that love the Lord. Not only those in their heads.
LikeLike
Sometimes, after, I make one of my shallow and inane comments I go and see who the other commenters are.
I am so far out of my league.
LikeLike
I agree with iggy.
The point is that God’s wrath was poured our on Jesus and we are the beneficiaries of not having to face that wrath, if we so choose.
I say more Jonathon Edwards and a pox on the osteens of the world.
LikeLike
I agree about Edwards often missing the love of God in Jesus. I also agree about his “brilliant intellect.” His FREEDOM OF THE WILL is the work of genius. (I should disclose here that I am an analytic philosopher, which can give some idea of the kind of intelligence I’m most likely to appreciate.)
I grew up in Calvinist (CRC) churches, and was bothered by the predestination/divine determinism. But I knew I would be going to Calvin College (even if life isn’t generally predetermined, that much was: my father went to Calvin & his father before him, and it was clear to me from the get-go that’s where I was going), and I would then study Calvin, have it all explained to me, and my worries would dissipate. Didn’t work out that way. When I read important work with great expectations, I usually find the work to be impressive, as expected (perhaps to some extent I find it impressive because I’m primed to), but reading Calvin’s INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION was a profound disappointment. (Remember that this is coming from a philosopher, and it’s the more philosophical aspects of the work that I was tuned in on.) As I learned a few years later, what they really should have had me read was Edwards’s FofW. Who knows? I might still be a Calvinist today…
But it was too late.
I started thinking of Edwards as “Calvin with a brain.” (Coming from a philosopher, I guess that really means “Calvin with philosophical ability.”)
LikeLike
Let me say again that what affected me most was Marsden’s bio.
LikeLike
iMonk,
Very good points on Edwards. I do think it should be said–and I know you weren’t denying this, I’m just making these remarks to give some balance to what I’m about to say–that he had a lot of good traits. He was consumed for the glory of God, he was a brilliant Christian, led many people to Christ, and wrote some of the more important works of theology in the Reformed arena so far. He was not the austere man many have thought him to be; he loved God and cared about the souls of those he preached to.
However, with that said, I do think that your criticisms are well aimed. I have read the entirety of “Sinners” more than once, and I have to conclude that while his comments about God’s wrath were well placed, Spurgeon was right to remark that “…some of the early Puritanic fathers may have gone too far in describing the terrors of the Lord.” Not only is there little or no mention of God’s redemptive love for sinners, but the Gospel is not clearly presented, even at the end where he appeals for his listeners to seek mercy in Christ. I recall reading the title of another sermon of Edwards’ that was something to the effect of “The Possibility of Salvation is Better Than the Certainty of Damnation.” The “possibility of salvation?” This, along with the severe warnings in “Sinners” is basically a reflection of Edwards’ theology of conversion which, as typical of most of the Puritans, required some sort of law-work in the sinner that put him in a miserable state before being saved.
Contrast, however, “Sinners” with a sermon like Spurgeon’s “Turn or Burn.” In both you find stern warnings about God’s wrath, about Hell, and about damnation. But in “Turn,” you see clear instructions about what people should do to repent, while “Sinners” ends on the more ambiguous note of simply “fleeing.” To sum it up, “Sinners” is good reading, and is mostly accurate, but should be read with caution and Biblical balance.
Spencer
LikeLike
If, in fact, you are only going on the basis of one or two sermons (which, obviously, might not be the case).
LikeLike
Steve (from 11 June, 1:48 p.m.),
I’ve never understood Edwards’ faith to be “too clean” or “too safe.” It has plenty of room for miracle and mystery. That seems to be the paradox with Edwards though… one person thinks that he preaches a distant, mysterious, inscrutable God; another person thinks that he preaches an overly rationalistic God who is more the product of human logic than of Scripture.
From what I have read of his writings/sermons, neither is the case. As Michael said, read Edwards for yourself. If you don’t resonate with his understanding of God and Scripture, that’s certainly ok. I would just encourage you not to base your opinion of him on only one or two sermons though.
LikeLike
……….lol…….lol
LikeLike
Seriously? Have you heard anyone gung-ho on revivalism? I got an ear-full last week IN A LUTHERAN CHURCH!!!! Maybe I’m the one whose angry.
LikeLike
…….who are you calling angry?…………..
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto is probably right. I think it quickly turns into “Sinners in the Hands of Angry Christians”.
When things go wrong, its human nature to fix blame, rather than solve problems. The “awakened” are blaming the “slumbering”. This is the phase evangelicalism is in right now, I think. I think it can get out of it. I hope someone is left by then.
“But if you bite and devour one another, be careful that you don’t consume one another.” – Galatians 5:15.
LikeLike
I don’t want to perpetuate anyone’s stereotype. Please read Edwards for yourselves people. My issue at the point of writing was this sermon.
LikeLike
Thanks for the post, I agree that Edwards can seem harsh, well, be harsh, at times. But I think the characterization of him based on that sermon are missing the mark, though ever so slightly.
We have been conditioned to think that when we go hear a sermon, it should be nicely wrapped up with a bow-tie and include a complete theology, lacking nothing. That if we preach the wrath of God, then in that same sermon we had better preach the Mercy of God. I don’t know… I just am not convinced that it is all that bad that people were left hanging, (if that is the perception). I’ll tell you what though, the people who heard that sermon (Edwards preaching it, not us today) and were truly being humbled and seeking to repent were definately led the rest of the way at some point or another. God is not going to extinguish a smoking flax, or break a bent reed (did I say that right?)No man comes to the Son except the Father draw him. But the Father does draw him.
For those that seem to think that it was Edwards’ sermon that screwed up your life for years and took forever to get over— It wasn’t Edwards’ sermon. That kind of mentality is why sermons about wrath (that is really going to happen by the way) need to be preached. Jude alludes kind of in a way to this kind of preaching as well as more merciful kinds, I don’t remember exactly how it’s said though.
All this being said in seeming defense of Edwards— not a big fan. He was definately used of God in some ways, but I am just growing less and less impressed with what we call ‘brilliance’ today. The Faith is too clever, it’s too clean, too safe. We have to know that Miracle and Mystery are still necessary to the Faith.
LikeLike
Your post is a timely one, Imonk; I thought I was the only one who had trouble teaching Edwards as part of American Lit. Thanks!
LikeLike
A faulty beginning produces a warped conclusion. God’s motive for our redemption I would dare say was for love alone, not to the praise of His glorious mercy. I think we are in the hands of an all merciful Father. If God is love and in Him their is no shadow of change, I don’t even think it is in His nature to hate anything or anyone. I think God is in the hands of angry sinners, but it is His absurd loving kindness that leads us to repentance.Thank God for his beautiful love. I think the hell sinners find themselves is the world of their own creation that has nothing to do with God. Hell is a sort of insanity of life lived without the source of all things good and true, of course it is outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth what else could it be. But God is Love, let us dwell in His unsearchable riches thank you Jesus.
LikeLike
Martha – I couldn’t agree more!
LikeLike
Lex Loizides has made some interesting comments on his blog today about Jonathan Edwards entitled “All You Need is Love”
Please see link below.
http://lexloiz.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/all-you-need-is-love/
LikeLike
I often think that the problem with Edwards is not Edwards, but the bad rap that he has received as a result of the hundreds of faux-Edward imitators who could not carry a sermon or a theology as well as he did. Many of them are the ones who gave hellfire and brimstone sermons a bad name.
LikeLike
“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.”
Having said all I can for Edwards, I have to say I would vehemently disagree with this imagery of God, which is crueller and more vicious than any can find in Scripture, and I think Edwards had no warrant to use it; it reduces God to a god, as in Shakespeare’s “As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods;they kill us for their sport”.
The divine justice is rightly offended by sin and must be satisfied, yet God has a father’s heart, and what father would think even of his erring son as a foul spider to be cast in the fire? Maybe the Parable of the Prodigal Son was left out of Edwards’ copy of the Gospels?
LikeLike
Michael, this is the kind of thing that gave me a Bad Impression of Calvinism 🙂
As with poor William Cowper (who, granted, probably suffered from clinical depression and/or some other mental illness) who was convinced he was one of the Reprobate, eternally damned by the wrath of God, and fore-ordained to be so damned, regardless of his desire to believe and be saved. Poor harmless Cowper! (Some of you may know him better as a hymnodist; he wrote the ones beginning “God moves in a mysterious way” and “There is a fountain filled with blood”).
Definitely this is too strong meat for some minds.
My experience (e.g. Redemptorist missions, in the good old days) is that they start off putting the fear of God into you, then lead you on to the mercy of God. See Joyce’s famous hellfire sermon in “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man”.
Edwards seems to have forgotten the “mercy of God” part, though who knows? He was dealing with a tough-minded sort of people, and some of them probably did need prodding with a pitchfork to be jolted out of their complacency and self-righteousness 😉
LikeLike
In that last sentence, I meant to type, “the magnitude *of* God’s holiness,” and “Edwards’s exhortation to lost sinners…”
LikeLike
Michael,
I’m not an uncritical admirer of Jonathan Edwards. He has his issues; I remember at least one sermon on the neglect of private prayer which seemed to be notably lacking in compassion for struggling believers– basically saying that if you have “left off of” the practice of private prayer, you should “throw away your hope of coversion.” However, Edwards doesn’t even seem to consider, in this sermon, that some genuinely struggling believers may have difficulty approaching God in prayer at times– an unfortunate difficulty, with probably some bad theology in there, but still a real difficulty.
However, having said all of the above, I think it is inaccurate to characterize Edwards’s theology as being unhealthily “God-centered” and not very “Jesus-shaped.” As another person mentioned here, what about his sermon, “The Excellency of Christ”? What about “Pardon for the Greatest Sinners,” a beautifully “Jesus-shaped” sermon which lovingly counsels people with a heavy sense of their sin to come to Christ for forgiveness and relief? I find it very sad that Edwards has a negative, unloving reputation as a preacher, based largely upon one sermon — and wrongly based, I think, as I will explain.
Even “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” repeatedly exhorts its listeners/readers to flee to *Christ.* It is important to remember that this sermon was preached in a very specific context for a specific reason. Much of the visible church in Connecticut had grown complacent, self-satisfied, and lukewarm. Edwards preached this intense, challenging sermon on God’s wrath with an eye toward awakening (or perhaps re-awakening, for some) the consciences of self-satisfied people to God’s holiness and their sin. In Scripture, Christ Himself often has tough words for the complacent, self-satisfied “religious” people of His day.
It is in this spirit that I believe Edwards wrote and preached “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”– and again, he specifically preached, as the *answer* to spiritual complacency and self-satisfaction, not behavior modification or “trying harder” but fleeing to Christ. In light of the seriousness of our sin and the magnitude God’s holiness, Edward’s ehortation to to lost sinners to flee to Christ is actually very loving and “Jesus-shaped.”
LikeLike
What a great teaching opportunity! I often thought my best teaching moments happened when I used a text that both my students and I found difficult. I would pair this sermon with one of Edwards’ disarmingly lovely meditations, such as his famous description of his wife, and ask students to think about how it is that the same person can write two such very different things; whether we are the same person at all times and in every situation; what we think of people who have one opinion we like and another we vehemently dislike (ie, what about all the fine Christians who supported slavery, were viciously anti-Semitic, or believed in torturing heretics). I admire your method of adding excerpts from Edwards’ diary to this assignment. I like that you acknowledge his humility.
“How unsuitable is it for us, who live only by kindness, to be unkind!†– Jonathan Edward
LikeLike
iMonk, thanks so much for this. That sermon had a very bad effect on me as a teen (when I read it for English class), and frankly, it’s taken over 30 years to shake the damage it (and other rants like it) did to my mind and heart and spirit.
I wish something else would be taught for that period, not “Sinners…” It says little or nothing about the God I see in the Gospels.
LikeLike
As for Edwards not being nearly enough impressed by Jesus and the gospel I would point to his wonderful sermon “The Excellencies of Christ”.
He clearly has sermons that resonate with a focus on the excellencies of Christ, God’s glory in the gospel, and the wonder of it. I would just note: “God Glorified in the Work of Redemption,” “He that Believeth Will Be Saved” and “I Know My Redeemer Lives.”
Of course, by no means was Edwards perfect either.
too many theological fanboys are impressed with how to turn the Gospel into revivalistic demands –I totally agree but this seems to me to be more a product of the second great awakening and not the first.
LikeLike
I read somewhere that Isaac Watts, after reading “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” wrote “A most terrible [terrifying] sermon, which should have had a word of Gospel at the end of it, though I think ‘tis all true.†Watts was right on–the sermon missed the Gospel.
Dr. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary has some penetrating criticisms of Edwards in his book, “Recovering the Reformed Confession,” which mirrors some of iMonks’ critiques.
LikeLike
Michael,
I have to admit that I am surprised by your post. I enjoy your blog tremendously but I think your reading of Edwards is way off. Reading ‘Sinners’ in total is usually helpful to dispel the “angry guy” myth that has plagued Edwards due to use of this sermon in American Lit classes. Also, as one reads broadly beyond one sermon or two we begin to see his theology and pastoral rounded into form.
I am sad that you would continue this portrayal of Edwards. He was not perfect but his metaphors in ‘Sinners’ is not the extent of his work or his preaching or even this sermon.
For the rest who stand and applaud I challenge you to pull out a sermon from your young days of preaching and ask yourself, “What would people think of me if this was studied 200 years from now.” A modicum of grace, gentleness, and respect might be the result.
LikeLike
….i dont know anything about Edwards except what im reading here….a couple of posts have made negative reference to his mysticism or being too metaphysical…i take issue with that…its disturbing when we call ourselves followers of God yet not understand His metataphysical nature or that of His Christ….Scripture is chocked full of mysticism and “spiritual” truisms…most just cant “see” it because of “christian programing”…Our God has been compressed-processed-put in box and delivered…any thinking or talk outside this Box is labeled “MYSTICISM” out of Fear of the unknown..yet it is the admission/realization that WE DONT KNOW that opens our minds to contemplative revelation knowledge..the “Pearls” if you will..of God our Father and Jesus The Messiah………..
LikeLike
Man, Edwards is getting a really bad wrap here. Try “Charity and its Fruits,” which was an attempt to deal with the failures of the Revival in Northampton. 16 sermons on love (exposition of 1 Corinthians 13)–not how God hates sinners–trying to help deal with the sins of his people. Edwards was not perfect, and sometimes he might have been too brilliant for his own good, but “Sinners” is by no means the norm for Edwards. And, he didn’t even get to finish that sermon.
LikeLike
I read the “Sinners” sermon about 3 years ago and its probably the most frightening piece of Christian writing I’ve ever read!
I’ve also got a copy of “The Religious Affections” at home too which I guess I will read once I build up the courage!
I guess like with all well known Christians from the past there are certainly lessons we can learn from him for today.
LikeLike
P.S. I am with you on revivalism, but that is a distinct issue.
LikeLike
“It was the Gospel story of the crucifixion, not of sinners in the hands of an angry God, that caused 3,000 to be “cut to the heart.—
Umm, that’s not really true. Peter made no explanation of the cross at all in his Pentecost sermon, except to call it a murder. He simply proves that Jesus of Nazareth is the King of Israel, because the Messiah had to be resurrected according to prophecy, and that he has sat down upon David’s throne at the right hand of God.
God and the Davidic king are now on a war footing – sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool – so they are coming to avenge the murder of King Jesus …..[Mod edit]
It is the thought of the retribution that is coming that cuts them to the heart. [Mod edit] They are not in transports of delight at the contemplation of divine love.
It is only when they ask Peter for his advice on how to escape the coming wrath that he tells them to be baptised for the remission of their sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[Mod edit]
Peace
LikeLike
I’m wondering if threatening the “sleeping” with hell will wake them up. Is that what Paul meant?
This rhetoric concerning pew warmers scares me. I have seen some of the greatest saints accused of being backsliden pew warmers, because they weren’t involved in the right meetings, activities, etc.
On what basis do the “awakened” believe they will be saved? How do they know that their awakened enthusiasm and activities are enough to please God? How many of them stood between Christians being slaughtered in Darfur and their persecutors? Not fair? That’s my point! It’s so easy to use the sheep-and-goats parable against fellow Christians, but look how easy it is to turn it against even the most motivated revivalist.
Revivalism is not going to turn around evangelicalism. It’s tendancy to turn Christians self-righteously against each other and plunge the weak into despair will only thin the ranks that much faster.
Awesome post.
LikeLike
Michael, thank you for addressing Edwards. I’ve had a copy of Piper/Edwards “God’s Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards” sitting on my bookshelf for the past five years, staring me in the face and begging to be read. Every time I pick it up my heart goes cold. I love Piper’s passion, but his unabashed, uncritical view of Edwards really has got me down. I have felt like I’ve been a substandard Christian because I have not understood the God-centeredness of God the way Piper/Edwards have understood it. Like you, I just don’t get Edwards. It’s all too transcendent, other-worldly, and impersonal to me, unrelated to the flesh-and-blood Jesus who walked the earth and cared and died for sinners. I just can’t relate to the view of God that Edwards presents. Thanks for articulating what I’ve thought for quite awhile.
LikeLike
If you find yourself saying, “I don’t know much about Edwards, but if ‘sinners’ is representative of his work…”, then take a few minutes to check out the Johnathan Edwards Center at Yale University.
http://edwards.yale.edu/research/faq
If you wonder about iMonk’s reference to his “brilliant intellect”, check out his bio, which runs counter to the caricature of Puritans as ignorant and superstitious.
LikeLike
I had an arrogant English teacher in high school who seemed to enjoy ripping this sermon apart. I feared for her soul. Whatever one thinks of this sermon, and I agree with iMonk it’s troubling that we see so little of Jesus and the cross in it, how dare we quarrel with what the Holy Spirit chose to do with it? According to my 1973 public school text, “preaching in a simple restrained manner, using no gestures …, his sermons had a powerful effect. A local historian noted, “there was heard such a breathing of distress and weeping that the preacher was obliged to speak to the people and desire silence that he might be heard.” (1973 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Adventures in American Literature)
In comparable modern terms, we would have to imagine all the churches in our town doubling or tripling in size in the span of about 2 years. I will grant that the Great Awakening was accompanied by works of the flesh as well as the works of God, but also say that Edwards spoke against excesses. Great revival was something unprecedented for their times as well it would be for us.
After being voted out by his church, Edwards spent his last years ministering to the Indians in Massachusetts and writing his works of theology. Yes, “Sinners” offends our modern sensibilities, but I am humbled by the breath of God that accompanied it.
Sorry to go on so long, but I have recently rediscovered the fascination of Christian history.
LikeLike
Imonk,
I feel your summer teacher pain. I too am giving up a large part of my summer but i’m teaching drivers ed. Taking 15 year olds on the interstate for two hours etc. Fun stuff. It pays for vacation so I don’t complain.
Anyway,
Two things.
1. I agree with much of your criticism of Edwards, but I think, and it’s not an excuse, that his times and the climate of the day shaped him as much as he shaped it.
2. As a lit teacher and history teacher, i used “Sinners” for years b/c it is important both historicaly and as literature until one student complained (she was one of these young folks that liked to scream church/state all the time) I think she was just lazy and didn’t want to do the work. Anyway the principal said find something else.
Ah, the joys of public school.
LikeLike
iMonk,
I really can’t type much else as a comment on your post…I’m having a hard time doing this while I stand and applaud your comments!
Godspeed…
LikeLike
What bothers me about the sermon is that Jonathan Edwards God is still angry. Many miss that sin was poured out on Jesus at the Cross and also miss that Edwards was pointing to the Cross as a sign of God’s kindness… those I have encountered who love this sermon seem to relish in the “sinners going to Hell” as if it was a happy day for all… and that literally makes me feel ill.
I have read Edwards diary and he seemed a man who truly struggled with the “acceptance” of God for those who believe… it was as if he felt he was never “good” enough…. which of course none of us are and the WHY we need Jesus.
For a Calvinist… I also find the sermon curiously Arminian in tone…
iggy
LikeLike
II Thess 1 has a vivid description of the wrath of God. The issue with me is getting the Gospel where it needs to be. I guess I’m somewhat less than enthusiastic about the “law work” approach.
LikeLike
Every time I hear or read someone trying to pound me and/or others to pieces with the wrath of God, 1 Thessalonians 5:9 thankfully comes to mind.
LikeLike
I used to teach this back when I was a public high school English teacher (switched careers a couple of times since then). It helps greatly to put it in a larger context, both of Edwards’ own works and of the Puritan culture out of which he came and in which his thoughts developed. Those two factors mitigate the harsher aspects and explain a lot. At the same time, I agree that it sadly does not really present the saving gospel, and certainly not the person and work of Jesus.
Perhaps the historical lesson for us is to not repeat this mistake; to always strive to focus on the person and work of Jesus, and to be like him, lest we be remembered for doing or saying something less. God forbid that we should preach a “gospel” that leaves people without hope and a life abundant.
LikeLike
And where has meeting the imonk led you? Muhahahaha.
LikeLike
On a more sentimental note, I was first exposed to Edwards in my high school American Lit class. The next year I decided to do my senior project on him, which eventually led me to Piper (The Supremacy of God in Preaching), and a search on Piper lead me to the imonk in an older article called “The Piper Project.”
LikeLike
Jonathan Edwards was one of the most brilliant Americans of his time, yet all he’s known for today is ONE Hellfire-and-Damnation sermon. A technically-brilliant sermon/essay filled with extreme imagery and impact, but still only a single example of the man. And with the subject matter of Hellfire-and-Damnation; no matter what Edwards was like as a man (even as a clergyman), he’s always going to be known as a Hellfire-and-Damnation preacher.
LikeLike
I re-read parts of Edwards’ sermon recently. Gah. It’s totally different from reading the Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, which still made me fully aware of my sinful state and yet also ever so much more aware of the depth of God’s love for me.
“Father, forgive them…” may indeed be among the most beautiful words ever spoken.
LikeLike
Never would imply that the guy was all bad. Great Christian. Prayerful. Faithful. Brilliant. I just have a couple of criticisms. Not denouncing the man.
ms
LikeLike
Jonathan Edwards did a lot of interesting stuff in moral philosophy that does help to give Sinners some much-needed context. I actually haven’t read Sinners in its entirety – his other writing is way too interesting by comparison.
It’s interesting – I like the guy as a Catholic because I was never subject to any excesses that rely on him as a foundation. I can just see him as an earnest guy writing and talking about God a lot and trying to make theological sense of the same world I live in.
So yeah – he’s not all bad.
LikeLike
If Edwards said that that God “abhors†sinners, then I think his theology is wrong. Jesus came to show us that God LOVES sinners which is what we are were and are. God may hate sin, but not sinners. God destroyed the power of sin on the cross…he did not destroy us. That’s my take on it.
LikeLike
I was really fine with what I knew of Edwards until I read the biography by Marsden. Realized why some of his congregation actually may have committed suicide under the despair induced by his preaching.
LikeLike
I’m not familiar with Edwards, but I’ve sat through my share of fire-and-brimstone sermons (though that particular variety of homily is never encountered nowadays) and I suppose that the problem is, it’s not for the unchurched, but for the lukewarm.
It’s a kick up the backside for those sitting comfortably in the pews, who think “I know all this already. I’m familiar with the Gospel. I don’t need to be taught that anymore.” and who bank on “Well, I’m a good person, I’ve never committed any big sins, I go to church every Sunday and I’m respectable, and besides, God is merciful. I’m not Hell-bound like that guy over there.”
Oh yes, we need to be woken up and reminded what is going on. Like the Pharisee and the Publican.
Though agreed, some of the more fervent Calvinists seemed to delight in the imagery of a wrathful and destroying God who was just looking for an excuse to damn us all.
LikeLike
At the risk of being run off somewhere by someone lurking in the blogosphere, I must say that when I read Edward’s in seminary I thought he was a bit crazy and not a little odd.
LikeLike
Nathan….somewhere in the index of my Lit III book. It’s one of his “walking in nature, delighting in God” passages.
LikeLike
I like you and Jonathan Edwards, theologically I mean. That’s okay, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Well I think it is not completely fair to Edwards to say that he was not Gospel centered. He was certainly better than Whitefield who really used emotionally manipulative techniques to reach persons. I do not appreciate Edwards’ really strange metaphysical speculations from time to time and a quick search on the yale Edwards site (where all his works are available free to search) quickly shows that while Edwards Preached on the reality of hell, he far more preached on the love of God and the cross. A much better preacher in my opinion though at the time would be a Wesley (even though his theology was terrible at times).
LikeLike
I once read that sermon (again) just before leaving the study to go home. I was filled with such a profound sense of shame, guilt, and doubt that I dragged myself home.
I often have a song running through my head, as these tend to stick (just today I began to whistle someone’s ring tone that I had heard earlier in the day). On the way a song took shape in my head. I stopped because I did not know what it was. These were the words:
See from his head, his hands, his feet
sorrow and love flow mingled down
did e’er such love and sorrow meet?
or thorns compose so rich a crown?
I realised at that moment that Edwards had left out the gospel from that sermon, and I see enough of his influence elsewhere to get extremely nervous that all this focus on the holiness of God will cause a major blindness to the good news of Jesus.
LikeLike
iMonk, do you have a citation or link for the diary entries you mention? I would love to share them with my students. I also teach about Edwards occasionally.
LikeLike
A very wise, in my opinion, small town Kentucky lawyer and Methodist (He actually hailed from Mount Olivet in Kentucky’s smallest county) told me upon learning that I was considering a call to ministry that he had seen far too many angry young men called to preach–he said this in the 60s. I have always remembered that remark and have seen it played out in the preaching of some along the way. Not to play psychologist, but wonder what made Edwards and his contemporary admirers focus so much on an angry God, almost, if not totally, to the exclusion of grace?
LikeLike
“… we see God best in Jesus.”
I find it a wonderful gift that we can see God at all. It still provokes to think of a God who created us and then despite our rebellion chose to descend and reveal Himself.
LikeLike