In Edwards’s greatest sermon, “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” he depicts the beauty of the redemptive love of Christ as a light flowing from the center of reality. Since that light reveals the beauty of a loving person, it can be truly known only affectively. Someone might have just a rational knowledge about that love but not truly sense it. Edwards uses the analogy of our human loves. “There is a difference between believing that a person is beautiful, and having a sense of his beauty. The former may be obtained by hearsay, but the latter only by seeing the countenance” (Works, 17:414).

What about the theological insights of Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) makes them so exhilarating for many who discover them today?
As a Reformed Christian who has long benefited from Edwards’s insights, I have been fascinated by that question. Sixty years ago, when I was a student, Edwards was respected in Reformed circles, but not often celebrated. Within thirty years, however, he had been rediscovered and had become widely revered as the one American theologian who might be mentioned in the same breath with Augustine and Calvin. So, in my studies of Edwards, I have kept asking which of his insights are most valuable for shaping Christian sensibilities today.
How does Edwards speak to us now in the twenty-first century?
Two Worlds Collide
As a historian of American religion and culture, I have been especially interested in how Edwards’s own cultural context helps us understand his continuing relevance. Especially important for that understanding is that Edwards lived at a dramatic turning point in Western culture.
As a precocious teenager, Jonathan struggled passionately with how to reconcile two very attractive worlds. The son of a strict and impressive New England Reformed pastor, he was heir to what had become one of the most formidable intellectual-spiritual traditions of the time. Yet he also was fascinated by the exciting new outlooks arising from the scientific revolution shaped by Isaac Newton, the philosophical insights of John Locke, and what we know as the Enlightenment. We might think of his close New England contemporary Benjamin Franklin, who also was confronted with these two worlds and embraced the Enlightenment.
Edwards recounted that, as a teenager wrestling with these two outlooks, he was full of objections to the “sovereignty of God,” which he thought was a “horrible” doctrine. But then, in a way he could not quite explain, he came to embrace that teaching as “a delightful conviction.” He then goes on to speak of his experiences of an “inward, sweet delight in God and divine things” (Works of Jonathan Edwards, 16:792).
In brief, I think the best explanation for this paradigm shift is that Edwards’s early view of God’s sovereignty was too small. He came to see that if God’s sovereignty is understood properly, it extends to the very essence of all reality. And not only that, but it means that the universe is essentially personal. God’s sovereignty, in biblical terms, is an expression of the language of God. “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1).
God’s language is not identical with God, but it is nonetheless an intimately personal expression. And that language is the language of love. God created the universe and sustains it every microsecond ultimately in order to communicate love to creatures capable of love. And the supreme expression of that love is the sacrificial love of Christ for the undeserving.
Our Impersonal Age
Edwards’s view of the universe as essentially personal offers a view of reality opposite from the direction his enlightened contemporaries — and eventually the whole modern world — were moving.
For Isaac Newton, the physical universe could be understood as interacting impersonal mechanisms. One could add the God of Christianity to this outlook (as Newton himself did), or a vague Providence (as Franklin did), but practically speaking, most things could be understood as the operations of impersonal forces.
Read More
Related Posts:

If the intention of the American revision was to commend a biblical principle of pluralism, then it seems odd that non-pluralistic (theonomic) principles within the American standards were not reworked along with WCF 23.3.

Kevin DeYoung recently wrote that in 1788, American Presbyterians revised chapter 23 of the original Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) because many “grew wary of granting coercive powers to the civil magistrate and were drawn to more robust notions of religious liberty”. DeYoung reasons that by virtue of the revision, “Presbyterians in America rejected an older, European model of church-state relations whereby the magistrate was obligated to suppress heresies, reform the church, and provide for church establishments.” DeYoung goes on to say that “it’s important to recognize that the two versions of WCF 23:3 represent two different and irreconcilable views of the civil magistrate.”
DeYoung cites other changes to the American standards outside chapter 23 and observes that “[the] most significant change is in chapter 23, where the third article was almost completely rewritten, reflecting a new understanding of church and state that allowed for more toleration and gave much less power to the magistrate over the realm of religion.”
First, a clarification is in order, which is not a criticism per se. Given the religious nature of the Westminster standards and sound Presbyterian polity, the church’s subordinate standards neither grant nor deny coercive powers to the civil magistrate. Nor is it true that they “gave much less power to the magistrate over the realm of religion.”
By the nature of the case, confessions are not in a position to do either, though they may acknowledge civil power and declare that it comes from God.
Not to belabor the point but the purpose of the Confession is to put forth the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, which includes general principles pertaining to the duty and power of the civil magistrate. Consequently, whether the civil magistrate has certain dutiful powers over the church or not, such power is not transferred or taken back by the will of the church. The church may only declare the biblical boundaries of such power. If she tries to grant (or give) it because it is not hers, then it is not hers to give. (In other words, it would have already belonged to the civil magistrate and couldn’t be granted to it by the church.) Yet if the church tries to take it back because it is rightfully hers by divine appointment, then it never truly left her. (The church would merely need to recognize her power and act according to it.)
Consequently, we must be careful in saying that our Presbyterian forefathers “gave much less power to the magistrate over the realm of religion” and “grew wary of granting coercive powers to the civil magistrate and were drawn to more robust notions of religious liberty.” If “granting” and “gave” means allowing, permitting, bestowing etc., then hopefully they didn’t think they granted or gave coercive powers to the civil magistrate. If what was intended by “granting” and “gave” is that they got tired of acknowledging the civil magistrate’s coercive powers, then fine. (Again, this is merely intended to be point of clarification given the common confusion over the ministerial and declarative functions of the church.)
With that clarification aside, my focus as it relates to the article will be on the WCF’s revision that pertains to church and state, with particular attention given to the claim that the two versions (England’s and America’s) are irreconcilable on the matter of religious pluralism. That specific concern will be considered in the larger context of Westminster’s civil ethics. (For brevity sake, I won’t spend time on points of agreement or possible agreement as they relate to the principles of civil ethics.)
The American Revision:
The American revision confesses that Protestant denominations should be protected from being prevented to assemble and worship without violence or danger. The standards further state: “It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people… and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.”
Some have tried to maintain that “all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies” refers back to the duty of civil magistrates to protect only Christian denominations and, therefore, may not be applied to non-evangelical assemblies whether trinitarian or not. For instance, some have argued that the revision does not suggest in any context that public synagogue worship as well as the sacrilege of the Romish mass is to be protected under the law. It seems to me that such a reading of the revision is not only strained but would render the American emendation awkwardly superfluous. If so, then the Confession is stating now, by its revision, that false worship is to be protected under the law. Notwithstanding, if that contradicts the original standards, then it necessarily contradicts WCF 19.4 along with Westminster Larger Catechism 108 (WLC 108).
Before delving into the reason why the revision does not contradict the original with respect to religious pluralism, it might be helpful to consider those two portions of the standards (WCF 19.4 and WLC 108) in order to see how they complement both the original and the revision.
The duties required in the Second Commandment are…the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.WLC 108
Surprising to most, elders and deacons who subscribe to the Westminsters standards vow to disapprove of all false worship and seek its removal, even through the civil magistrate. Ordained servants also vow, according to WCF 29.4, to consider the mass a corruption of the Lord’s Supper. Consequently, faithful elders and deacons desire to see the centerpiece of Roman Catholic experience lawfully removed from the land. Consequently, faithful ordained servants are in this sense theonomic and do not advocate for a principle of religious pluralism. Accordingly, I find this troubling:
Gone from WCF 23:3 in the American revision are any references to the civil magistrate’s role in suppressing heresies and blasphemies, in reforming the church, in maintaining a church establishment, and in calling and providing for synods…. In its place, the American revision lists four basic functions for the civil magistrate relative to the church…(4) protect all people so no one is injured or maligned based on his or her religion or lack of religion.Kevin DeYoung
Given WLC 108 (along with WCF 19.4, which will be touched on momentarily), Christian citizens should do all within their influence to ensure that all heresies, blasphemies and false religions are suppressed. Consequently, if DeYoung is correct regarding the American standards, then not only does it contradict the original, it also contradicts itself!
Because of what WLC 108 clearly states, consistent antinomians who have taken up a similar position to DeYoung‘s have been constrained to limit the scope of WLC 108 to families and the Christian church in order to relieve any possible inconsistency between the alleged pluralism of chapter 23 and the theonomic import of WLC 108, which without qualification declares opposition to all false worship. In other words, in order not to allow the revised standards to contradict itself, WLC 108 has been reinterpreted to mean that only heads of family and presbyters may purge false worship in the home and Christian church respectively, but civil magistrates may not do so as WLC 108 plainly teaches when it speaks of removing all false worship and monuments of idolatry.
Additionally, WCF 19.4 must be reinterpreted as to now oppose its originally intended meaning.
To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.WCF 19.4
Ordained servants who subscribe to the Westminster standards have vowed to believe and teach that civil magistrates are obliged to apply Israel’s civil laws according to their general equity.
In order to reconcile WCF 19.4 with the alleged advocacy of the principle of pluralism found in WCF 23.3, the general equity of Israel’s civil sanctions can no longer apply to modern day civil sanctions. Instead, as Rick Phillips, representative of many ordained servants in the Reformed tradition, has unabashedly stated:
While there is an undisputed wisdom contained in this civil law it can not be made applicable to any nation today, since there are no biblically sanctioned theocracies now…They are transformed into the judicious application of church discipline.Rick Phillips
Such a rendering cannot be derived from the standards. The claim is exegetically preposterous and has suffered from philosophically dubious argumentation. The translation defies the plain meaning of words and the proof-texts, while cashing out as an outright abrogation of the civil law as opposed to preserving its general equity in the civil sphere. (See also discussion on William Perkins’ use of general equity, the epistemological conundrum and logical incoherence of R2K, and an overview of the disagreement.)
If the intention of the American revision was to commend a biblical principle of pluralism, then it seems odd that non-pluralistic (theonomic) principles within the American standards were not reworked along with WCF 23.3. It seems highly unlikely that the unambiguous requirement of the second commandment should no longer be applied to the civil sphere without a word of explanation by American Presbyterians. Moreover, if American Presbyterians sought to teach that the plain teaching of WCF 19.4 no longer applies to the civil magistrate but instead applies to the church, then it seems axiomatic that such a bald claim must be deduced from the standards and not just assumed and asserted. (Special Pleading: If x then y, but not when it hurts my position.) However, if revision 23.3 does not contradict the original, then we can continue to take WLC 108 and WCF 19.4 at face value without contradiction. That is the common sense approach, especially if it can be shown that the American revision does not oppose the original Confession on the subject of religious pluralism. However, if the revision denies the original, then the revision is inconsistent with other portions of the Westminster standards (given the plain and unaltered portions of WCF 19.4 and WLC 108).
Read More
Related Posts:

All ecosystems are in need of renewal and revival. Christian ecosystems especially.  And I believe a marker of both renewal and revival is a brave commitment to flush out the toxins within a system whatever the personal cost to you, or the relational ties to others. We need to heed the words of 1Peter 5.

Arcissist NOT Narcissist
I received a lot of feedback concerning my recent post on the difference between  what I now term”‘arcissists” and “narcissists”.
There were a few minor quibbles over why we have such a therapeutic culture, and a concern that the term “narcissist” is overused (hint: it is!). But the term “arcissist? Well it seems to fit the presenting issues I am talking about.
Okay, so the bloke (and it’s usually a bloke) might not be full blown narcissist, but he’s got a nasty habit of shredding and bullying anyone in his orbit who dares to challenge him. Or even if they don’t dare to challenge him.
The “arcissist” has a keen radar on everyone else’s issues, and very little on their own. They will pick and pick at your supposed sinfulness, but their rampant bad behaviour? They are – as I have heard it said – just being a little bit grumpy.
And there is a reason for that. In fact there are a number of reasons. The first reason of course is the lack of emotional intelligence in the arcissist themselves. Or perhaps – in theological terms – the presence of ongoing sin that hardens them and deceives them as to their true behaviour.
Arcissistic Ecosystems
But the arcissist is not the primary problem. “What?” I hear you say!, “How can that be?”  Simply this: Bullying leaders would not be able to do what they do unless they are at the centre of an ecosystem that at the very least permits their behaviour by turning a blind eye, or encourages it by being the gatekeeper against all criticism.
In other words the arcissist needs an ecosystem in order to first survive and then to thrive. The behaviour and the overlooking of it by others, is reinforcing.
In all ecosystems there are macro and micro participants that keep the system going. So naturally this is also the case in the arcissistic ecosystem. Let’s unpack the macro participants today and see what the wider issues are, and we will look at the micro participants in the next post.
Macro: The Culture “Out There”
Throughout history the primary problem in churches has been the infestation of “out there”  values “in here”. In other words the conformity to the world that infects the church. And it’s true of the arcissistic ecosystem as well.
When it comes to church ecosystems the wider culture has too often been allowed to set the tone. Now in a sense this has always been an issue for the church, and it presents in different ways at different times in history.
But in our current time, with its celebrity focus, and its oft-uncritical default commitment to impressiveness over integrity,  and its desire to “get stuff done”, this problem has ramped up. All sorts of arcisissts are not only excused, but feted by church ecosystems. And it is having consequences.
When we see the secular world  give oxygen to self-purposing, self-focussed and selfish behaviours, then it stands to reason that the water from that ecosystem will leak into the church pond. Especially without good Biblical critique.
We have seen this in the recent past with examples such as Mark Driscoll’s increasing volatility and platform rants. His church put up with it because it aped the wider culture’s commitment to the apex leader who “gets things done”. He also held all of the cultural, if not formal, power within the ecosystem, making it almost impossible, or at least very costly, to bring about change.
That we keep coming around to this arcissistic  issue tells us that, unlike 3 John, in which the apostle calls out the toxic leadership of “Diotrophes, who likes to be first”, indicates we have not figured out how to solve it.
With failing attendances, weak leaders, and unclear direction, the modern day Diotrophes is, by contrast, seen as a strong decisive leader (and certainly thinks of himself as one, and is adulated as such by his followers).
But the fruit is so often bitter. The result is so often that other people are hurt and damaged in the process. The ends do not justify the means. It’s hard to see how we get to such leadership from following Christ. But hey, here we are!
Macro: The Culture “In Here”
Of course, just as Jerusalem at its worst back in the days of its idolatrous kings was not such much destroyed from without, as much as hollowed out from within, so too the church ecosystem. Arcissism, where it exists in wider church structures such as denominations, is too often tolerated – and often rewarded – by a system whose aim is to ensure its own survival first and foremost.
Church denominations have to examine themselves, and realise that their own structures may not only be implicitly encouraging such types of leaders, but that they may then be going out of their way to protect such leaders when they behave poorly (again).
There’s a myth that the likes of Driscoll got away with it – and continues to do so – because there are insufficient structures and leadership dynamics to stop him. He’s the biggest player in the house, the house that he himself built.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.