An evangelical view of Jonathan Edwards...

Dear Tim: You never mentioned how you liked George Marsden's work. Though I began reading it with a bit of wariness, I ended up enjoying it.

Jonathan Edwards was one of America's most interesting theologians and philosophers. Unfortunately, most students know nothing whatever about him. He is buried in the old cemetary near Princeton University, but the students do not even know that his grave is there. In fact, there is a serious effort in the "academy" to demonize him. Bradley, Beatty and Long, a standard American Literature anthology does acknowledge Edwards' existence, but printed only the first half of his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". Brother Dan noticed the elipsis at the end of the text and decided that no preacher would leave his congregation "hanging over the fires of hell". He went to the University Library (at Michigan) and searched out a complete text of the sermon, which he brought to class. Everyone, including, I fear, the Professor was surprised. It is very sad to see a professed Christian, Allen Guelzo performing the same service. I suggest that thoughtful Christians read Edwards for themselves. He is well worth the effort. Janet MacDougall

Dear Professor Guelzo, If one reads the review, it's hard to see how someone could come away from it thinking the reviewer is an admirer of Edwards. Again, consider this summary of what the review had to say concerning Edward's life and work: Edwards' training was in "scholastic theology," his preaching was "never... particularly scintillating" nor his writing "particularly graceful," it was Edwards' "pastoral ineptness" that triggered the "exasperated" townsfolk to fire him, Edwards made "only a very modest impact on his own contemporaries," Edwards "never knew what it was to duck an argument," and he was a "prig". "Scholastic" is a pejorative term. And the reformed theological tradition you summarize in this way is, in fact, filled with doxology--something true scholastics never ever reach. If all one can find to say summing up Edwards' preaching is that it is not "scintillating," one will be remembered for damning with faint criticism one of the greatest preachers the Anglo world has ever heard. Yes, today's academics won't agree with such a commendation, but it must be kept in mind that today's academics have been reduced to doing remedial instruction of students who should have learned in high school the things they're now taught in college. So oral discourse today must, I suppose, be scintillating, but to our shame. Following this summary of his preaching, Edwards' writing is summarized as not "particularly graceful." One wonders what would be recognized as graceful writing? Hunter Thompson? Erma Bombeck? Gary Wills? Phil Yancey? Max Lucado? Yes, I'm joking. But if Edwards fails the grace test, one would seem to be defining grace in a classic evangelical way, as writing that is man-centered and soft. On ther other hand, if the Cross of Christ is graceful, Edwards is one of the most graceful writers ever to put pen to paper. His focus was always on God's graceful response to man's condition after the Fall. Then we come to the summary of Edwards' pastoral care. It is said to be characterized by an "ineptness" that "exasperated" his parishioners. My guess here is that one would have a different understanding of this matter based upon one's professions. As one whose calling is to the pastorate, reading of the conflicts Edwards had with his parishioners leads me to thank God for his faithfulness in the midst of great persecution. No matter the cost, Edwards was unwilling to be the very chaplain many later scholars accused him of being. Again and again his leaders undercut his spiritual authority yet he soldiered on loving and caring for his flock with great solicitude and godly wisdom. Even in his farewell sermon, Edwards' equanimity and love for his flock shines through the pain of the termination. It does seem to me that the review's criticisms of Edwards in this particular area demonstrate the perspective of one who has not carried the weight of the pastorate and is unfamiliar with the challenges to faithfulness that are constant today, as they have been in the past. Dr. Guelzo, I don't fault you for your summary of this aspect of Edwards' life. Surely it must seem to many who do not bear the burden of pastoral care as if Edwards was a failure, pastorally. But men who have been set apart to pastoral ministry by the laying on of hands and prayer would, I believe, recognize the conflicts Edwards engaged in as being as old as the hills, and if they have not given themselves over to serving simply as their congregation's chaplain--if they have refused to allow their pastorate to be reduced to a sinecure--they admire Edwards precisely at the points others may dismiss as demonstrations of his ineptness. Similarly, when a certain type of pastor reads Edwards' life, he knows how many arguments and conflicts Edwards avoided simply by virtue of how few there are in his life and how critically important the issues are that he chose to use his capital over. As for Edwards having only a modest impact, would to God pastors today had one one-hundredth of the same "insignificant" impact he had. But of course, his impact was primarily spiritual, thus requiring a certain type of wisdom to see it. As for his being a "prig," bunk. No prig is ever loved as Edwards was, particularly by those who knew him best--noting especially his family. This then is what the review said about Edwards' work and character. And the question to be asked is how anyone writing about this great man's life who claims to be an admirer could ever get to the point that he finds nothing good to say about him? For myself, I wonder whether the audience didn't determine the tone and substance of this review? As to whether the content of this review constitutes simply "indicating the slightest bit of humanity on the Edwards' part," I leave it to our good readers to read the review and judge for themselves whether this is an accurate summary of it. For myself, I think not. Rather, I think the review is more accurately described as indicating nothing commendable whatsoever on the part of Jonathan Edwards. If being an inept pastor, a less than scintillating preacher, a graceless writer, pugnacious, and a prig is only to indicate "the slightest bit of humanity," one wonders what indicating a serious bit of humanity would look like? Of course Edwards had many weaknesses and much sin, just as we all do. Later in life he summarized that sin as an infinity upon an infinity. I'm no fan of biographies that fail to give an accurate account of a man's failings. Yet this review neglected to give honor where honor is due. That neglect may have been an oversight, but neglect it was. Agreed that few to none of the scholars who study Edwards today, not to mention evangelicals who pay lip service to him, would find his doctrine congenial to their tastes. And so Edwards joins a long line of suffering servants of whom the world was is not worthy. Yours in our Lord, Tim Bayly