The Journal Entries of Jonathan Edwards – Lazy Saturday

The Following entry is from Saturday Feb. 23, 1722

I find myself miserably negligent, and that I might do twice the business that I do, if I were set upon it. See how soon my thoughts of this matter, will be differing from what they are now. I have been indulging a horrid laziness a good while, and did not know it. I can do seven times as much in the same time now, as I can at other times, not because my faculties are in better tune ; but because of the fire of diligence that I feel burning within me. If I could but always continue so, I should not meet with one quarter of the trouble. I should run the Christian race much better, and should go out of the world a much better man.

I Chris Woznicki find myself terribly negligent…I have been indulging a horrid laziness a good while….

Its Saturday morning as I write this blog and I find myself resonating with Edwards’ words. If I really set my mind to it, I could accomplish twice the things I set myself to do. But its Saturday, and its Christmas Vacation. I just finished an intense quarter, what with preaching at Church, giving a couple of lectures at EBC, and taking a PhD seminar. I’m entitled to a lazy Saturday right? Reading Edwards it sure seems like I’m not? There is much to accomplish, and sitting around (blogging?) is a waste of time. Well maybe it isn’t…

I think the appropriate question to ask at this point is WWED? What Would Edwards Do?

He starts out by pointing out the fact that he feels he has been neglecting his business. That he has been lazy for quite a while. He seems to be in a funk. Usually he could accomplish seven times as much as he is doing right now! He says usually because on a good day Edwards was an extremely diligent man, especially with his studies. However Edwards was also prone to getting sick and being out of commission for large chunks of time. Regardless, he doesn’t blame his proneness to getting sick for his laziness. Its not as though he is sick right now and has to lay in bed eating (drinking?) chicken noodle soup. No he blames his laziness on the fact that the “fire of diligence” is not burning within him. If he could keep this “fire of diligence burning”  he would be able to be very productive…. But more than that.  For Edwards his laziness isn’t a problem simply because its bad to be lazy, the problem is that its “unchristian” to be lazy. Now this isn’t some strict form of legalism, where performing a certain act (namely being productive) makes you a Christian. Remember Edwards vehemently fought for justification by faith alone. Edwards’ aversion to laziness is rooted much deeper than that.

 “I should run the christian race much better…and should go out of the world a much better man.”

 Edwards is averse to laziness because he sees it as a form of unfaithfulness. God has called him to run a race, a race which for him involves preaching to the best of his God-given abilities, being faithful to God in studying the word, writing theological/pastoral treatises for publication around the world for the sake of the edification of the Church. God has given Edwards many tasks. To ignore them, by spending a Saturday moping around would be to be unfaithful. It would be like Usain Bolt jogging at the Olympic finals. Bolt’s coach would be like “what the heck are you doing?!?! You have so much talent, you have trained so hard, you could have accomplished so much for Jamaica, yet you wasted it all just because you didn’t feel like running? Just because you felt lazy?” The fact that Edwards aversion to laziness is rooted in the concept of faithfulness is shown in the last clause:

 “(I) should go out of the world a much better man…”

 Obviously Edwards knew that he could not leave the world a more righteous man… there are no “better” men; all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Edwards knew this… in fact he wrote about it in Original Sin, so what does he mean “I should go out of the world a much better man?” I believe he means that he will leave the world knowing that he contributed significantly to God’s purposes. That sounds borderline prideful/arrogant… but it really isn’t. Like Paul, Edwards wants to receive the prize that God has for him, he wants to be able to be called “good and faithful servant.” He wants to know that he has been the man that God has called him to be.

So on this lazy December Saturday can I sit at Starbucks and blog about Edwards? If that is what God has called me to do, if that is what it means to be faithful to God’s call in my life? Yes. I can and I must, to do otherwise would be to be lazy and unfaithful. Yet there are other things that I must get done today; to ignore them would be to be unfaithful….

Here are Three Helpful Tips from D.A. Carson  and Andy Naselli on how to stay productive and not be lazy/unfaithful:

Three secrets of productivity, however, are worth mentioning:

  1. Learn to fill in the little empty periods that clutter each day.
  2. Don’t fritter. When you work, work hard; when you are not working, quit entirely.
  3. Discover how different aspects of your work can leverage other aspects of your work. For example, choosing your reading to feed into things that you’ll be preparing over the next six or nine months adds to godly efficiency.”

Preaching in the Tradition of Jonathan Edwards

My hope in writing this post is that you would be encouraged to learn about preaching from one of the greatest American (British!) preachers that ever lived….

As you know I am very interested in the theology of Jonathan Edwards. Over my career as a student at Fuller I have written many papers on Jonathan Edwards. Among these papers I have written about his “battle” against Arminianism and Arianism in pre-revolutionary New England. I have written about his personal spirituality. I have written about his metaphysics and his hamartiology, I have also written about his theology in relation to Hispanic theology. However one subject that I haven’t really delved into is his actual preaching. As I think about this, it’s actually quite ironic, I have delved into some rather obscure aspects of Edwards’ theology but Edwards is probably most well known among lay people and non-Christians for his preaching. Not only was his preaching highly influential in the Great Awakening, but his preaching has also become a part of American literary history. His sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is one of the most famous sermons in American history. In fact most high school students are required to read this sermon in their high school American literature classes. I remember reading this sermon in high school and being stunned by it. As a student who is passionate about theology and as a minister to college students it makes sense for me to study one of my theological/pastoral heroes: Jonathan Edwards. So in this brief blog I will recount what I have learned, (through a project for a communication class) from him and the tradition represented by him.

Before I point out what I learned I want to briefly recount how I went about studying Jonathan Edwards’ preaching and the tradition that followed him. I spent most of my time reading. I began by reading three of Edwards’ sermons: “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” and “A History of the Work of Redemption.” As far as secondary literature goes I read several chapters in Douglas Sweeny’s book Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word and the entirety of John Piper’s book The Supremacy of God in Preaching. In this book Piper highlights the goal of preaching. Piper says that the goal of preaching is expository exultation. He sees this as being in line with Jonathan Edward’s way of preaching. Finally I listened to three of John Piper’s sermons.

Organization

In desiring to find out what is distinctive about Jonathan Edward’s preaching and the preaching of the tradition that follows him I learned several things. One of the first things that I learned about was his organization of sermons. Edwards organized his sermons into three main parts: 1-the text, 2-the doctrine, and 3-the application. The first part exegeted the text. The second part identified and developed the thesis for his sermon. The last part applied the doctrine to his parishioner’s lives. According to Douglas Sweeny this was the typical Puritan way to divide a sermon. As I read Edward’s sermons I realized that his “text” section was significantly shorter than the “doctrine” and even shorter than the “application” section. Thinking back to my own sermons I realized that they follow this same pattern. I usually begin with an introduction/hook to catch the audience’s attention, then I spend the majority of time on the text and doctrine and I wrap things up with a shorter application/conclusion. The lengths of these sections are inverse of the lengths of Edward’s sections. (As I think about why the text section is so much shorter than the other sections, a viable hypothesis is that Christians in Edwards day were much more Biblical literate so he didn’t have to spend as much time explaining what they Bible said because people in his day knew the main contours of Scripture.)

Style of Preaching

I also learned about Edward’s style of preaching. Sweeny says that a common caricature of Edwards is one in which Edwards “read his sermons in monotone, rarely looking up from his notes, putting parishioners to sleep with dry academic droning.”[1] Sweeny says that history does not confirm this stereotype. Citing a biography of Edwards written by Samuel Hopkins he says that “Mr. Edwards had the most universal character of a good preacher of almost any minister in his age.”[2] Hopkins points out that his appearance at the pulpit “was with a good grace, and his delivery easy, natural, and very solemn…He had not a strong loud voice… (but spoke) with a great degree of inward fervor.”[3] Although Edwards relied heavily upon his notes, Edwards realized that this was a deficiency in his preaching and took the effort to memorize them instead of reading them. Like Edwards I have a tendency to manuscript my sermons. I do not try to memorize them but I practice my sermon several times before delivering it so that I can internalize it and preach with “a great degree of inward fervor.” It would be wise for me to heed Edwards’ advice and learn to let go of my notes, however I find it so difficult to deliver impromptu speeches.

Piper on Edwards’ Preaching

In his study of Edwards’ preaching John Piper points out ten characteristics of Edward’s preaching[4]. In my opinion four of the most important characteristics are 1-his aim to stir up “holy affections,” 2-his aim to enlighten the mind, 3-his aim to saturate his listeners with scripture, and 4-his desire to be fully yielded to the Holy Spirit while preaching. In listening to Piper’s sermons it became very apparent that Edwards’ preaching has had much influence upon Piper’s preaching. The first characteristic of Edwards’ preaching is one that I desire to emulate in my own preaching. Edwards says “If true religion lies much in the affections, we may infer that such a way of preaching the word….as has a tendency deeply to affect the hearts of those who attend…is much to be desired.” Edwards did not seek to manipulate people’s emotions but he did aim to stir their hearts. I firmly believe that preaching that touches people’s heart is preaching that changes lives. I would like to delve deeper into Edwards’ sermons to see how he does this.

There is so much more that I learned about preaching from Edwards and the tradition that followed him. Studying this aspect of Edwards’ ministry had the effect of confirming my belief that the study of Edwards is a worthwhile task, and I hope it does the same for you.

edwards-preaching

[1] Douglas Sweeny, Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 75.

[2] Sweeny, Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word, 77.

[3] Sweeny, Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word, 78.

[4] John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 83-105.

Edwards, Sin, and Latino Theology

So I am thinking about writing a paper for the Evangelical Philosophical Society…. Here is what I have so far for an abstract. Comments and thoughts are greatly appreciated!

Jonathan Edwards: America’s Theologian?

A Latino Evaluation of Jonathan Edward’s Hamartiology

Robert Jenson has famously argued that Jonathan Edwards is “America’s theologian” because he meets the problems and opportunities of American Christianity. Jenson has in mind an American Christianity that has the Enlightenment as its defining narrative. However there are other narratives that give meaning to the phrase “American Christianity;” for instance the Latino narrative. This paper examines the claim that Edwards is “America’s theologian” by evaluating one particular piece of his theology, Hamartiology, in light of a Latino context. If Edwards’ theology can be read productively from a Latino context then perhaps we can say that he is “America’s theologian.”

This paper begins by examining Edwards’ metaphysics of sin in light of his Federalist and Augustinian realist tendencies, paying special attention to the role metaphysical antirealism and his doctrine of continuous creation play in his doctrine of Original sin. Then it examines Justo Gonazlez’ “Fuenteovejuna” theology which exemplifies the Latino emphasis on the community. By examining Edwards and Gonzalez it becomes apparent that Edwards and Latino theology have a communal rather than individualistic understanding of responsibility and action. Thus in this particular area Edwards can speak constructively into Latino theology and we can truly say that he is “America’s theologian.”

The Journal Entries of Jonathan Edwards – Pride

The following is a Journal Entry from “Wednesday, Jan. 9. at Night.”

Decayed. I am sometimes apt to think, I have a great deal more of Holiness than I have. I find now and then, that abominable Corruption which is directly contrary to what I read of eminent Christians. How deceitful is my Heart! I take up a strong Resolution, but how soon does it weaken!

We have all had journals like this one (that is if you do journal.) Sometimes I start out with some expletive describe my personal state. I feel like ___________ fill in the blank. Its no surprise Edwards starts off like this. “Decayed.” But the feeling of “decay” doesn’t come because he feels so sinful. No it comes because he feels so prideful. He thinks that he is living way more holy than he actually is. He sees himself as a spiritual superman. I’ve been there. You’ve been there. We have all have those days where we feel like we are the greatest thing since sliced bread (I actually prefer whole loaves…) PRIDE. It’ll get ya.

Edwards recalls all the stories of other “eminent Christians” and sees that his pride is contrary to their ways. He is absolutely correct. Most people we admire for their faith were deeply humble people. We don’t look up to prideful people. It’s the humble ones that catch our attention (maybe not while they are around but after they have died). To tell you the truth, reading through Edwards I don’t see a ton of humility. He struggled with pride his whole life. But who doesn’t? At least he has the guts to admit it. I often don’t.

So there is this book… its fantastic, it’s called Rescuing Ambition by Dave Harvey. In it he argues that ambition is not necessarily prideful. Humility and ambition can go hand in hand. This is a very valuable thing to learn. The one caveat is that humility and Godly ambition go hand in hand. One cannot be ambitious to make a name for oneself or else one has fallen into the trap of pride. However one CAN be ambitious to make a name for God… or better yet to make God’s name famous. This is Christian ambition.

Dave Harvey’s book has helped me out a ton, because I will be the first to admit, I STRUGGLE with pride. Thinking back to when I first read the book I realized what the key to checking one’s pride is. Its remembering the Gospel.

Do you want to stay humble? Remember the Gospel.

Dwelling on the gospel you can’t remain proud. You are a jacked up sinner. You are unworthy. You don’t deserve anything you have. Yet God loved you enough to send his son to die to rescue you. Jesus suffered for your sake. The King of the universe gave his life for you. Without him you were toast…you deserved to walk around in your own filth. It sounds harsh but the beautiful reality is that He loves you even when you didn’t deserve it. If that fact that you are more sinful and broken than you could ever imagine but way more loved and way more accepted and way more valued than you can ever begin to fathom doesn’t keep you humble, then I don’t know what will.

The Journal Entries of Jonathan Edwards – Don’t Let Your Feelings Deceive You

The Following is a Journal Entry from December 18, 1722:

This day made the 35th Resolution. The reason why I, in the least, question my interest in God’s love and favor, is, 1. Because I cannot speak so fully to my experience of that preparatory work, of which divines speak; 2. I do not remember that I experienced regeneration, exactly in those steps, in which divines say it is generally wrought; 3. I do not feel the Christian graces sensibly enough, particularly faith. I fear they are only such hypocritical outside affections, which wicked men may feel, as well as others. They do not seem to be sufficiently inward, full, sincere, entire and hearty. They do not seem so substantial, and so wrought into my very nature, as I could wish. 4. Because I am sometimes guilty of sins of omission and commission. Lately I have doubted, whether I do not transgress in evil speaking. This day, resolved, No.

In this brief journal entry Edwards explains why he questions God’s love and favor in his life. He lists out four things 1-He can’t give a good account of God’s preparatory work towards his regeneration (this was a typical Puritan worry), 2- He doesn’t “remember” experiencing regeneration, 3-he doesn’t “feel” the Christian graces enough, i.e. he doesn’t “feel” as though he has faith, he doesn’t feel as though he has really been growing spiritually, and 4- sometimes he is guilty of sin….

The first two problems that Edwards battled had to do with the Puritan standards for giving one’s own testimony. These are probably issues that don’t concern us as much in the church today. The fourth issue is a “duh” issue. Hey Jonathan you still struggle with sin? Wow you must not be saved… No that isn’t the way things work. We keep on struggling and sinning all of our lives. The fact that we are “sometimes guilty of sins” shouldn’t lead us to question our love towards God and God’s love towards us.

Its apparent that Edwards was a bit off the mark with some of his struggles…however for most of us we tend to be off the mark with our struggles. A lot of times when we struggle about whether or not God loves us or we really love God its because we are believing lies that the enemy is feeding us. One of these lies is that the way we feel is the way things actually are. It’s the lie of subjectivity. We tend to believe our feelings, or lack of feelings, over and above God’s truth…

Edwards says that he couldn’t remember his experience of regeneration. Would an “experience” have convinced him that he is regenerated? What about others who can’t point to an “experience?” I know a ton of people who didn’t “feel” anything when they got saved. Does that mean they aren’t saved? Certainly not. Our feeling of being saved, or being able to point the exact minute when we got saved, isn’t what saves us. It is Christ himself and his declaration of our righteousness in him that justifies and hence saves us.

Edwards also says that he doesn’t “feel” the Christian Graces enough. He says that “they do not seem to be sufficiently inward, full, sincere, entire and hearty.” If you have been a Christian for any amount of time you can resonate with this. I am sure that at some point you have felt as though you didn’t FEEL God and his work in you enough. Maybe you thought there was something wrong with you. I want to tell you don’t worry. Its part of being a Christian to feel that way at times. If Jonathan Edwards himself felt this, I’m pretty sure that you will feel it at times too. Don’t be discouraged! Your feelings don’t dictate reality! In his little book “The Cross Centered Life” C.J Mahaney talks about this. I want to leave you with some things that he said:

 “’We Think with our feelings, Ferguson has said. It’s true. We allow our feelings to guide our thinking, and we shouldn’t. Emotions are a wonderful gift from God, and our relationship with God should bring strong godly affections to our lives. But our emotions shouldn’t be vested with final authority. This should be reserved for God’s Word alone. Let me ask you: Where do you consistently direct your faith? What does it rest on? Is it your emotional state… or the objective realities that the Word of God and the Spirit of God have revealed?….Do you plan on continuing to submit everything ultimately to your feelings? Or will you instead trust God’s testimony?[1]

So today, if you are struggling with a lack of feeling God’s love in your life or if you feel as though you are stagnant, turn to God’s word and see the objective truth of how God really feels about you. Turn to God’s word and see that you have been justified by faith then hold on to that truth because your feelings don’t dictate your status before God.

_____________________________________________

[1] C.J. Mahaney. Cross-Centered Life, pages 41-42.

The Journal Entries of Jonathan Edwards – Introduction

If you have been reading my blog for a while you know by now that I love Jonathan Edwards (for great reasons)…. However I feel as though I have done you, the reader a disservice. I have made him out to be much more than he really is. Edwards was an ordinary believer, like you or me, with lots of problems and issues. At times he dealt with a lack of trust in God, he often dealt with bouts of depression, and at times he strayed towards legalism.

I hope to correct my overly enthusiastic view of Edwards in this blog by balancing it out with some of his journal entries. Over the next few days/weeks I will post a journal entry and comment on it a bit. In writing this series, my hope is that you enjoy reading about Edwards’ life from his own point of view. And I pray that you are encouraged by the fact that even the great Jonathan Edwards struggled to follow Jesus faithfully.

Jonathan Edwards: A Brief Theological Biography (Pt. 2)

Edward’s Theology

There are several key themes in the theology of Edwards, today I would like to take up two. These key themes are the concepts of freedom and divine grace, “which can be regarded as a pivotal notion of his theology.”[1]

A sermon which Edwards preached at his grandfather’s memorial service entitled “Living Unconverted under Eminent Means of Grace” and his valedictory address exemplifies Edwards’ emphasis on Divine grace. During his day English Arminianism was on the rise and the works of Englishmen like Samuel Clarke, John Tillotson, and Isaac Barrow were on the rise in the colonies[2]. “This theology placed a great emphasis on the “conditional” nature of God’s promises and implied that God, in bestowing the promised salvation took account of some value in the fulfillment of the condition on man’s part.”[3] This type of theology can be seen as reflecting American notions of self-sufficiency and independence.

Edwards was very vocal against any type of theology which placed any aspect of salvation in the hands of man. At one point he was even appointed to be the literary spokesman of an organization which sought to combat the Arminianism of the settlement at Springfield.[4] Edwards was firm on his stance that “we are justified only by faith in Christ, and not any matter of virtue or goodness of our own.”[5] Edwards believed that righteousness was imputed to the believer and not earned by the believer. Faith alone was what made imputation of righteousness possible, no action which a person can perform has merit for receiving God’s grace. Yet even in noticing that faith is what makes imputation of righteousness possible makes it seem as though faith is a condition for receiving grace. Edwards vehemently disagrees with this and believes that “faith cannot be called the condition of receiving, for it is the receiving itself; Christ holds out, and the believers receive.”[6] Understanding faith as a condition for receiving grace makes salvation dependent upon our righteousness, if faith is something we do or have then our salvation is based upon us and not the work of Christ. Thus for Edwards faith cannot be a condition for salvation, but is the gift given to us so that believers might receive Christ’s righteousness which is necessary for salvation. Edwards’ theology of salvation illustrates his belief in the absolute dependence of man on God.

If man is absolutely dependent upon God for all things including his salvation, then we might ask to what extent are humans morally responsible? Edward’s theology of dependence and grace demands an explanation for how a person might be held morally responsible before God. It seems intuitive to believe that a person cannot be blamed or praised for a decision they did not freely make. Thus if a person is saved by grace alone and does nothing to merit salvation it is questionable to believe that they were free in being saved. Can moral responsibility and God predestining people to be saved be compatible notions? The Arminianism that Edwards was battling did not believe that this was so. Accordingly, if a person was not free in their decision for or against God they should not be held responsible for that decision. This view is very much in line with the modern view that claims that in order for a decision to be free and not determined it must be uncaused, or contingent[7]. Edwards however would disagree with this definition of freedom. Edwards believed something is free when it is not constrained from doing what it wills; how one comes to perform the particular act of willing has no bearing on freedom[8]. This notion of freedom allowed Edwards to combat Arminianism by maintaining the complete dependence upon God’s grace and human responsibility.

Conclusion

Just like all other theology, Edwards theology was heavily influenced by the culture he was living in. Although we have only covered two areas of his theology, we see that he was highly influenced by theologians and rationalistic philosophers of his day. His theology of grace is the result of his reaction to Arminianism which was gaining popularity in his day. If Arminianism were not gaining popularity in the colonies it is questionable if Edwards would have placed such an emphasis upon grace in his sermons and theology. The other thing which highly influenced Edward’s theology was Newton’s philosophy. Newtonian science was highly en vogue during his day and saw nature as being completely determined.[9] Thus much of Edward’s philosophy of freedom was done in a time in which questions of moral responsibility and freedom were being asked in religious and scientific settings. One last thing should be said about Edward’s theology; Edwards was not a man who did theology for the sake of theology. His theology, which was often the product of controversies[10], was done for the sake of the church. He was a man who was very sensitive to the issues of his day, and how those issues affected the lives of Christians in New England. It is precisely for this reason why Edwards is such an important figure to understand. Edwards did much to shape the nature of Christianity in America. His theology, which was not done in the abstract, was essentially pastoral. His theology of God’s sovereignty and grace and justification by faith alone is what motivated him during the First Great Awakening. The form of Christianity which was birthed out of the Great Awakening in America helped shape evangelicalism around the world.[11] So in order to understand America’s role in shaping world Christianity we must go back to the Edward’s theology and this theology’s influence during the Great Awakening.

__________________________________________

[1] Jonathan Edwards, Treatise on Grace and Other Posthumously Published Writings, edited by Paul Helm (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1971), 5.

[2] Thomas Shafer, “Jonathan Edwards and Justification by Faith,” Church History 20, no. 4 (December 1951): 55.

[3] Shafer, “Jonathan Edwards and Justification by Faith,” 55.

[4] Shafer, “Jonathan Edwards and Justification by Faith,” 56.

[5] Shafer, “Jonathan Edwards and Justification by Faith,” 56.

[6] Edwards, Treatise on Grace and Other Posthumously Published Writings, 96.

[7] Steve Holmes, “Edwards on the Will,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 1, no. 3 (November 1999): 271.

[8] Charles Crittenden, “Edwards, Jonathan,” In The Oxford Guide to Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008,) 235.

[9] Crittende, “Edwards, Jonathan,” 235.

[10] Holmes, God of Grace and God of Glory, 7.

[11] Mark A. Noll, The New Shape of World Christianity (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 15.

Jonathan Edwards: A Brief Theological Biography (Pt. 1)

Jonathan Edwards has been recognized by many as the most important, if not the greatest, American theologian, philosopher, and preacher. His work and writings have been the subject of much academic interest, and it is without a doubt that he did much to shape American Evangelicalism. However, despite his prominence in academic studies most Americans know very little about him. Although almost every student in the United States has read “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” however most Americans, and even most Christians have had little exposure to him aside from this hellfire and brimstone sermon. In this blog series I would like to explore the life and thought of Jonathan Edwards (a theological biography). I’ll begin by giving a brief sketch of his life. Having done that, I will explore some key themes in Edward’s theology in the following blog post.

Edward’s Life

Edwards was born in 1703 in Windsor, Connecticut into a family of ministers. His father was a local pastor and his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, was a preacher of utmost importance in the Connecticut River Valley[1]. At the young age of twelve he was sent off to Yale, then called the Collegiate School[2]. During his studies at Yale he moved to the forefront of the class and even delivered the valedictory address in Latin. Before he was twenty years old Edwards began preaching at a Presbyterian congregation in New York. The reasons why Edwards came to this church were rather complicated, and involved a split in the church, however a year latter these issues were resolved and resulted in Edwards moving on from this position.[3] Having left New York he was assigned to Bolton where he was called to be a minister, however once again he ran into trouble. Due to the fact that the church could not support him, either by salary or with a parsonage to make his home, he never actually began to work in Bolton.[4] Needing some sort of financially support he eventually made his way back to Yale to serve as a tutor, however as was the often the case even this job was short lived. During this time Edwards fell seriously ill and was unable to work for a period of time. However once he recovered he received an invitation from his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard the great preacher of the Connecticut River Valley, to assist him in his work of ministry in Northampton.[5] Stoddard died in early 1729 and was succeeded by Edwards. Five months into his appointment he married Sarah Pierrepont, who during the course of their marriage bore him eleven children[6].

Edwards spent twenty-one years in Northampton[7]. This period was an extremely busy and productive time for Edwards. It has been said that Edwards devoted hours upon hours of his day to studying. His diligence is without comparison today. Another interesting aspect of Edward’s life during his time at Northampton was his involvement during the season of revivals in the mid 1700’s. For instance during 1734-1735 over three hundred people appeared to have been converted, and this spirit of renewal and revival began to spread throughout the Connecticut River Valley.[8] In addition to his ministerial duties Edwards spent much time writing. One such book was the Treaties Concerning Religious Affections in which Edwards analyzed the revivals. This great book “still takes a high place amongst theological (rather than psychological) analyses of religious experience.[9] In 1750, due to a church scandal Edwards was asked to leave his position at the church. Later that year he received an invitation to be a missionary among the Native Americans, and he gladly accepted. His time as a missionary was extremely difficult both financially and emotionally for his family, yet it was during this time that he developed some of his greatest writing[10] including Freedom of Will, True Virtue, and Two Disserations: Concerning the End for which God Created the World. In 1757 Edwards was called to Princeton in order to become the president, he arrived in January of 1758 but died in February of that year due to the side effects of an inoculation for smallpox.[11]

______________________________________________________

[1] Owen Strachan and Doug Sweeny, Jonathan Edwards: Lover of God (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2010), 24.

[2] Stephen R. Holmes, God of Grace and God of Glory (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 1.

[3] Holmes, God of Grace and God of Glory, 2.

[4] Strachan and Sweeny, Jonathan Edwards: Lover of God, 47.

[5] Holmes, God of Grace and God of Glory, 2.

[6] John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 70.

[7] Holmes, God of Grace and God of Glory, 2.

[8] Holmes, God of Grace and God of Glory, 2.

[9] Holmes, God of Grace and God of Glory, 4.

[10] Holmes, God of Grace and God of Glory, 6.

[11] Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching, 74.

Atonement (Part 5): A Wright Account of the Atonement

Today we wrap up our series on the Atonement as well as our mini-series on a Wrightian account of Penal Substitutionary Atonement….

____________________________

Atonement and Substitution

According to the Old Testament, exile is the punishment for sin. Thus a return from exile must mean that sin has been forgiven. If death at the hands of the powers and principalities is the exile that Israel, represented by Jesus, has gone through then resurrection means that Israel has been vindicated and has come out of exile. The resurrection of Jesus means that Israel’s sins have been atoned for.

What does this mean for us today? It means that those who are united with Christ, have vicariously gone through the exile with Jesus himself.  First, those who are united with Christ no longer have to face the consequences for sin. Secondly, in Christ the powers and principalities have been defeated thus they do not have victory over those who are in Christ. Third, it also means that those who are in Christ have vicariously experienced death (this is displayed in baptism).

What does it mean to be united to Christ? We might explain this metaphysically as it has often been done in the Reformed tradition (think Jonathan Edwards), or we might explain it in terms of being “legally” grafted into Israel. However, in explaining it in terms of being a part of Israel, we must be careful to avoid politicized understandings of Israel. We should understand Israel as God’s people, those who are descendants of Abraham, those who have the faith of Abraham.  Thus in virtue of being God’s people, through Christ’s substitutionary atonement, our sins are atoned for.

Conclusion

I would like to end with what I believe are some important strengths of this theory. First, it is rooted in the Reformed tradition of penal substitutionary atonement: Jesus is our substitute taking on the penalty for our sins. Second, it takes seriously the narrative of scripture, especially the covenantal relationship between God and his people and the importance of themes exile and deliverance within the scriptures. Third, it takes seriously the fact that Israel, as called through Abraham, was God’s plan for rescuing creation after the fall. This theory encourages us keep Israel central in redemptive history. Finally, it takes seriously the doctrine of union with Christ.

These four strengths, its keeping with the commitments of a Reformed evangelical atonement theory, and the fact that we can avoid a distorted picture of God makes it seem as though Wright’s Christology and understanding of Scripture provide fruitful ground for thinking about the atonement. Hopefully through this theory, in addition to the other ones within the “kaleidoscope” will provide helpful ways for articulating God’s redeeming and rescuing love for humanity.