Scattered Thoughts on Theology and Ministry…
Agathology
The Doctrine or the Science of the Good. This a sub-discipline in the study of ethics. When one engages in metaethics one is engaging in Agathology because one is asking the question “what is good?” As Christians we believe that good is defined in reference to God.
Used in a sentence: Plato practically founded the study of Agathology in the western world when he asked questions about the form of the good.
Over the last few days (with a few interruptions in between) we have been comparing Jonathan Edwards with Benjamin Franklin. So far we have seen how different they were in their religious upbringings, their attitude towards tradition, and their views on virtue. Today we wrap up this series by comparing their views on science and the universe.
Benjamin the Scientist
As a kid you grow up learning that Ben Franklin was a scientist…. you probably learned that he conducted experiments with lighting. But Ben’s fascination with science isn’t reduced to the tales we learn as a children, Ben was an actual scientist. Check out what the Franklin Institute has to say about his fascination with weather patterns:
In 1743, Ben observed that northeast storms begin in the southwest. He thought it was odd that storms travel in an opposite direction to their winds. He predicted that a storm’s course could be plotted. Ben rode a horse through a storm and chased a whirlwind three-quarters of a mile in order to learn more about storms.
He was much like modern day storm chasers. But he also dabbled in a bit of oceanography.
Since Ben spent so much time sailing to Europe across the Atlantic Ocean, he became very interested in both ocean currents and shipbuilding. Ben was actually one of the first people to chart the Gulf Stream. He measured its temperature on each of his eight voyages and was able to chart the Stream in detail.
As you can see from both of these examples (and his famous electricity experiment), Ben was very much into mechanical science. He was highly influenced by the deistic Newtonian science of his day.
The logic behind Newtonian science is easy to formulate, although its implications are subtle. Its best known principle, which was formulated by the philosopher-scientist Descartes well before Newton, is that of analysis or reductionism: to understand any complex phenomenon, you need to take it apart, i.e. reduce it to its individual components. If these are still complex, you need to take your analysis one step further, and look at their components. (Francis Heylighen)
In essence, Newtonian Science, and the Newtonian Worldview is a worldview characterized by apersonal forces, reductionism, determinism, and materialism. There is no room for agents with wills, hence there is no room for a personal God to be involved with the way the world works. This was how Benjamin Franklin approached science.
Jonathan Edwards the Scientist
Jonathan Edwards was also fascinated by Newtonian Science. Early on in his ministry Edwards wrote, and hoped to publish, a paper on the “wondrous and curious works of the spider.” In it he describe the behavior and mechanics of spider’s movements. He tried to publish it in the London Royal Society’s journal, “Philosophical Transactions,” which was headed up by Newton himself. However someone else beat him to the punch and submitted a paper on spiders right before he did.
Like Franklin, Edwards was an amateur scientist in his own right (in that day almost all scientist were amateurs), however his view on the nature of science and the universe vastly differed from that of Franklin. Here is what Marsden has to say about this:
Edwards saw that the universe was essentially personal, an emanation of the love and beauty of God, so that everything even inanimate matter, was a personal communication from God… Edwards started with a personal and sovereign God who expressed himself eve in the ever changing relationship of every atom to each other. This dramatic insight would be the key to every other aspect of his thought. (A Short Life of Jonathan Edwards 21)
The fact that Edwards was a personal God communicating himself behind every aspect of creation was Edwards motivation for doing science. When he was studying how spiders move he was studying how God interacts with his creation, when he was studying natural phenomenon he was watching how God communicates with his creation. But maybe more importantly, when Edwards was doing science he was seeing how all of creation reveals Jesus Christ.
Check out what Edwards has to say about how creation reveals God:
I expect by very ridicule and contempt to be called a man of a very fruitful brain and copious fancy but they are welcome to it. I am not ashamed to own that I believe that the whole universe, heaven and earth, air and seas, and divine constitution and history of the holy Scriptures, be full of images of divine things, as full as a language is of words; and that the multitude of those things that I have mentioned are but a very small part of what is really intended to be signified and typified by these things.
May we have Edwards’ eyes to see God revealed in all of creation.
I can’t help but laugh, nevertheless this is some serious musical theology lol.
Ben Myers recently wrote a blog post on Origen and the problem of writing, Origen and the problem of writing, within the post he quotes Origen’s stance on apologetics….
When Origen was asked to respond to Celsus, a pagan writer who had attacked Christianity in a book called True Doctrine, Origen observed that a written response was not really appropriate for the Christian faith. “Now Jesus is always being falsely accused,” Origen says in the preface to Contra Celsum. “He is still silent in face of this and does not answer with his voice; but he makes his defence in the lives of his genuine disciples, for their lives cry out the real facts and defeat all false charges.” The only real apologetics is the life of Christ’s followers, not written arguments. Indeed Origen suggests that producing a written defence of the faith might actually diminish the vitality of the Christian community: “I would therefore go so far as to say that the defence which you ask me to compose will weaken the force of the defence that is in the mere facts, and detract from the power of Jesus.“
Do you agree with Origen?
Jonathan Edwards and Benjamin Franklin lived in an era marked by change. People’s view of the natural world was changing, people’s views on religion and theology were changing, and people’s views on the nature of authority and government were really changing. Both men grew up in a particular tradition and they had to navigate their ways between their traditions and these changes. As we saw last time, Edwards and Franklin navigated this challenge in very different ways. This time we turn to another way in which Edwards and Franklin were different – their views on virtue.
Jonathan and Benjamin on Virtue
Both of these men were (mildly) obsessed with becoming virtuous people. Although their desires to become virtuous people had different motivations, Franklin was self-motivated and (at times) Edwards was motivated by a love for God, the way they pursed growing in virtue is quite similar.
Benjamin Franklin set before himself a list of virtues that he wished to attain:
Jonathan Edwards also has a famous set of resolutions, by which he resolved to read over every day of the week:
As you see both of these men were very organized and diligent when it came to the project of becoming virtuous people, however the difference between them lies in their motivations. Franklin’s virtues were designed for self-fulfillment, it was essentially a self-help project. Edwards’ list of resolutions was designed to help him subordinate himself to God’s will. Franklin lived in light of what was most pragmatic, and tacked Jesus on at the end of his list (alongside Socrates). Edwards tried to live all of life in light of God, the gospel, and eternity. He had God at the center of his list, and more importantly of his life. Yes Edwards struggled to keep them and yes they became legalistic at times, but when it became legalistic he recognized it for the legalism that it was. There is nothing wrong with writing out a “change project,” especially if you are a Christian, but ultimately we have to realize that real and lasting change comes only through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Last time we took a look at the difference between Jonathan Edwards’ and Benjamin Franklin’s religious upbringings. Today we will take a look at the difference in their attitudes towards tradition.
Jonathan and Benjamin on Tradition
Benjamin Franklin is known for being a progressive thinker. His progressivism and tendency to break from tradition is especially seen in his attitude towards morality. Like most people of his day, he still placed a high emphasis on virtue, however most of his virtues were individual virtues rather than communal virtues. This is where Benjamin sticks out as a progressive for his age. He was known to reconstruct virtues based upon what was best or most pragmatic for him personally rather than what was virtuous in the eyes of the community. Consider for instance his take on chastity: “Rarely use venery (gratification of sexual desire) but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or injury of your or another’s peace or reputation.” This basically sounds like “sex is between two consenting adults, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else its fine.” His very words could be placed into the mouths of most Americans today. The point is that Franklin still held on to virtues, but they were not religiously based virtues, they were pragmatically derived virtues
Jonathan Edwards on the other hand lived a life of tension between tradition and “modernity.” Edwards grew up in a traditionalist community, which looked back at its Puritan forefathers, for inspiration and guidance. However Edwards was also hungry to learn from the eminent scientists and philosophers of the day, with Locke holding an important position in his mind early on. Edwards was attracted to cosmopolitan, progressive authors, nevertheless he was versed in the Puritan Divines, especially Ames. Edwards never deviated from Orthodoxy, but was constantly at work translating Orthodoxy into terms that were intelligible for the people of his day. He never abandoned his Reformed Theology, but rather he was always reforming in light of what was going on in culture. Edwards could be considered a pioneer of what people today called “theological retrieval.” He worked and did his theology in dialogue with the theological traditions that came before him so that he might effectively address the issues of his own day. He was very aware of the fact the he was part of a tradition and part of a community whose roots were founded upon a certain tradition.
Check out what Josh Moody (Senior Pastor of College Church in Wheaton and PhD from Cambridge) has to say about Edwards interaction with tradition and “modernity/The Enlightenment”:
Edwards neither ignored nor capitulated to the Enlightenment’s materialistic/mechanistic view of life and the universe. Instead he “re-formed” the Enlightenment on specifically biblical terms and constructed intellectual bridges to cultural attitudes, along which the orthodox gospel could more readily transverse.
Or you could imagine his engagement with Enlightenment thinking as sending Trojan horses full of gospel truths into contemporary minds. He carefully used “sense,” “idea” and “light”—Enlightenment buzzwords—in sermons and his more erudite works, and he invested those terms with biblical material and content.
George Marsden loved to study history (I guess he still loves because he is still alive) by comparing major historical figures. In, A Short Life of Jonathan Edwards, George compares Ben Franklin with Jonathan Edwards. Over the next few days I want to highlight some of the comparisons the Marsden makes:
Jonathan and Ben’s Pious Upbringings
Benjamin Franklin
Ben grew up in the typical colonial Calvinist family. He grew up going to church, he grew up learning about the bible, and he grew up saying his daily prayers. Ben’s father had high religious aspirations for him. Ben’s dad was a pious tradesman, and he hoped and prayed that his son would one day enter ministry. In hopes that he would one day become a pastor, Ben’s dad sent him to learn Latin at Harvard. At one point he had to withdraw Ben because they could no longer afford it. As you probably know, Ben never became a pastor. What happened? Well we really don’t know, but there is one episode in Ben’s life that gives us a glimpse into his attitude towards piety.
So one day Ben and his family were at dinner together, his dad prayed for the food. Ben, ever the pragmatist, suggested to his dad that they pray over the pantry (which held their entire supply of food) rather than pray over the food each time. That way they would save some time.
Maybe this story doesn’t reveal much about his spiritual condition, but what it does reveal is that at the outset Benjamin had a mechanistic view of religion. It seems as though he never thought of God in a very personal way…
Jonathan Edwards
Jonathan Edwards was much like Ben early on. He also grew up in a pious Calvinist family. In fact pretty much every man in his family held some sort of ministerial position, his dad Timothy Edwards was a famous preacher and revivalist and his Grandfather Solmon Stoddard was the most influential preacher (and political figure) in New England at the time. Jonathan grew up in a household with 10 sisters, so his dad had very high expectations for his only son. He expected him to join the family business and become a pastor. Early on Jonathan learned Latin and Greek, which was natural because his dad was an excellent teacher of these ancient languages. Jonathan was a natural born student, succeeding in anything and everything academic, even these difficult languages.
Even though Jonathan and Ben shared a lot of similarities when it came to their intellect, Jonathan’s piety was radically different from Benjamin’s. Jonathan was excessively pious as a child. At the age of nine, little Jonathan built a secret prayer fort in the woods. As a kid Jonathan was very much affected by the revivals going on in his dad’s church. However he struggled a lot with his faith. He always doubted his conversion, almost to the point of neurosis. Eventually he came to be secure in his conversion… and the Edwards we know today was “born.”
While at Fuller Seminary one of my favorite professors was George Marsden. George wasn’t on the regular faculty, he was just a visiting professor, nevertheless it was cool to have him come in every year and teach an intensive on Evangelicalism & Fundamentalism or Jonathan Edwards & C.S. Lewis. Learning about Edwards from him was an absolute pleasure, after all he is the number one authority on the life of Edwards.
George was a really nice old guy. Old guys tend to be super cranky (especially if they are really smart) but this old guy was so nice and caring. He loved his students and he loved Jesus. You could really tell that he had a very intimate relationship with Jesus by the way he prayed. I remember walking over to the coffee shop everyday we had class, we would talk about Edwards, Notre Dame football and Duke Basketball, and of course we would talk about the California winter weather. He loved winters in California. I suspect that the only reason he came to teach at Fuller each winter quarter was so that he could escape the freezing cold Michigan winters. I don’t blame him…. I guess that is a perk of being such a distinguished professor; “Hey how about we pay you to come vacation in Southern California for five weeks, oh and by the way can you teach a week’s worth of classes on the thing that you know like the back of your hand? That would be great. Thanks!”
I look up to George Marsden, not only because of his character but also because of his knowledge of Jonathan Edwards, my favorite theologian/philosopher.
I recently picked up his small biography on Edwards, A Short Life of Jonathan Edwards, and in it he starts out by doing something that he really likes to do when working on history, comparing and contrasting contemporary figures. He starts out his bio of Edwards by comparing and contrasting Edwards and the other colonial intellectual giant, Benjamin Franklin.
Next time I’m going to highlight some key differences between these two colonial figures.
From the BBC on 5/22/13 (HT: Scot McKnight)
Coffee Addiction: Do People Consume Too Much Caffeine?
US officials are investigating the safety of caffeine in snacks and energy drinks, worried about the “cumulative impact” of the stimulant – which is added to a growing number of products. Is our tea and coffee-fuelled society too dependent on the world’s favourite drug?
The bubbling kettle, the aroma from the mug, the first bitter mouthful of the morning.
It’s a ritual without which the working day would be, for millions of people, frankly horrifying.
Caffeine is, according to New Scientist, the planet’s most popular “psychoactive drug”. In the United States alone, more than 90% of adults are estimated to use it every day.
But now even the US – home of Coca-Cola, Starbucks and the 5-Hour Energy shot – is questioning the wisdom of adding it to everyday foodstuffs like waffles, sunflower seeds, trail mix and jelly beans.
In a statement, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) highlighted the “unfortunate example” of Wrigley chewing gum producing packs of eight sticks which each contained as much caffeine as half a cup of coffee. Subsequently, Wrigley said it would “pause” production of the product.
The agency is also looking at highly-caffeinated energy drinks, and said it was concerned about the “cumulative impact” of adding stimulants to products.
According to the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the number of people seeking emergency treatment after ingesting energy drinks doubled to more than 20,000 in 2011……
As a result, the FDA has pledged to “determine what is a safe level” of caffeine use.
The agency’s move has been welcomed by those who fear caffeine is already encroaching too much into our daily lives – often in products where it may not be expected.
“Many people just aren’t aware of how much caffeine they are taking,” says Lynn Goldman, dean of the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services.
As a result, she says, they could unwittingly create problems for themselves with insomnia, indigestion, or their blood pressure.
So how much caffeine do you consume on an average day?
In his book, An Essential Guide to Public Speaking, Quentin Shultze Professor of Communication at Calvin College writes about what it means to be a servant speaker. He says that the point of speech is not to serve oneself but rather it is to serve others in love… check out what he has to say:
The essence of speaking life is using language responsibly to serve others. Selfish speech eventually gets us into trouble whereas life-giving speech serves others as we would want to be served. Therefore, the most important question to ask ourselves in preparing a speech is how we intend to serve the audience responsibly as neighbors. We need to write and rewrite that purpose until we are absolutely sure it is clear and focused on our audience.
Although this book is written isn’t written intentionally for preachers there is a ton to draw out from it for preaching. For me this concept, that we are supposed to be servant speakers, has changed the way I think about preaching. My job as I go up on stage to preach is to serve my audience by pointing people to Jesus. If my sermon does not accomplish this explicit purpose in a clear manner, then I am not serving my audience well.
Questions for Reflection:
CWoznicki Think Out Loud 