It was not until I started to read through the resolutions of Jonathan Edwards that I found myself drawn to the idea of making such personal resolutions. Here was a man who looked to the Scriptures and gave his earnest attention to obeying them by making the best use of his time on earth. His resolutions were thoroughly Biblical and practical and as we look back on his life, we can see the ways these things shaped his heart and mind. 

For as long as I can recall, I’ve never been one who is given to making New Year’s resolutions. I haven’t faulted those who do—but in my own personal experience, I saw them as relatively pointless. My sentiments behind this were simply that if you earnestly wanted to do these things, you should just do them, rather than make much ado about nothing. That’s not to say the goals in and of themselves are unimportant, but rather, what resolutions often seem to be is an exercise in futility, where people make lofty goals and aspirations, yet fail to follow through on them year after year. We all know there is an incredible spike in gym memberships and attendance this time of year—but give it a few weeks and things will settle back to “normal” and people will go back to eating cheeseburgers.

Where I failed in my understanding was that these goals are not supposed to be a sort of checklist to boast of our accomplishments, but rather, a series of benchmarks on what we aspire to be and do. Of course, these things can be good or bad, depending on the worldview one holds, yet it is likewise beholden to the motivations behind these goals. If our worldview is unbiblical, we may by common grace aspire to something good, but it will still be shrouded in vanity. Likewise, even those who hold Christian convictions can fall prey to faulty motivations on why they seek to do what they do, rather than take every aspect of our life captive, for the glory of God.

It was not until I started to read through the resolutions of Jonathan Edwards that I found myself drawn to the idea of making such personal resolutions. Here was a man who looked to the Scriptures and gave his earnest attention to obeying them by making the best use of his time on earth. His resolutions were thoroughly Biblical and practical and as we look back on his life, we can see the ways these things shaped his heart and mind. In other words, Edwards wasn’t merely a man who made much ado about nothing in his resolutions. He was a man that earnestly desired to glorify God in his life yet realized his own proclivity to fall short of that aim. I believe his resolutions were made for the purpose of refocusing his heart toward eternal things—to remind himself that he was bought with a price—that he is therefore a slave to righteousness, through the grace of Christ.

What evangelicals need most today is actual moral reasoning, one that recognizes complexity; clear distinctions; clarified principles; competing goods; the penultimate and ultimate ends of the civil, ecclesiastical, and domestic societies; a multiplicity of responsibilities and duties; and prudence. Reacting to the unprecedented degree of rancor and acrimony in American evangelicalism today, many evangelicals have called for civility and friendly dialogue. But it is possible, and I think quite likely, that civility in evangelicalism is not enough for a peaceful and principled discussion between differing groups. Though perhaps not immediately obvious, civility in discourse can conceal rhetorical advantages and disadvantages and even strengthen them. Settling only for civility then might be quite naive, for civility in discourse does not necessarily mean equality in discourse.
I’ve argued elsewhere that social justice evangelicals employ certain socio-rhetorical devices, taken largely from the broader public discourse, that advantage them over their opponents. It is not just that these devices conceal a lack of reason; they are substitutes for reason; and they work best in civil public discourse. Civility is therefore not a sufficient condition to preclude all rhetorical advantages in public discourse. In this essay, I uncover one critical advantage enjoyed by the social justice advocates in evangelicalism.
Moral Impressions and Christianizing Devices
The social justice talk in evangelicalism is remarkable for the absence of systematic thinking on the pertinent questions of justice. One rarely encounters precise and detailed theories of justice and careful applications. Rather what we find is very similar to what Thomas Bradstreet identified in his article here on evangelical political theology. Evangelical moral reasoning is very much like their political theology. Rarely does their moral reasoning begin with moral principles and systems and then logically proceed to conclusions. Rather their thinking begins with an impression or reaction of goodness or badness; and then, as part of their moral thinking, they supply a broad principle, which serves only to christianize the impression. That is, the principle (or line), which I will also call the “christianizing device,” elevates the impression into Christian public morality. The actual moral conclusion or determination precedes the moral principle. So their reasoning has a two-step sequence:
1) Have a negative, moral reaction to something, a reaction that one is socialized to perform (perhaps on social media) upon encountering some event.
2) Christianize the moral impression by confidently stating an extremely broad principle or statement from the Bible (“love your neighbor”) or some other Christian-like statement without any attempt to make distinctions or qualifications or systematize or consider competing goods.
This moral thinking does not begin with a nuanced principle and then proceed to a moral conclusion. Rather the conclusion is already decided due to one’s moral socialization and the principle is subsequently supplied. The principle serves however not as a reason for the impression (though it publicly appears as a reason) but to elevate the moral impression or reaction into Christian public morality. The moral conclusion (viz. this is good, bad, or morally indifferent) is already determined inwardly (via socialization) quite apart from reason, and the christianizing device is the outward expression of that inward determination. But again the device does not actually function as the basis for the moral determination; rather it is the means by which that determination is brought into Christian morality.
This means that the basis of the evangelical leaders’ (and also their followers) moral determinations is not a consistent principle or even principles at all, and hence what one considers good, evil, or morally indifferent is ultimately an incoherent set of latent impressions waiting to be triggered by events. And since the principle is logically subsequent to the moral impressions, it doesn’t matter that it could justify practical absurdities. In other words, it is irrelevant that a consistent application of the principle would lead to all sorts of absurd outcomes, policies, actions, etc. For example, if one were to react to a restrictive immigration policy by affirming, without any distinctions or nuance, “the universal dignity of all people” or by saying that Christians ought to “love your neighbor,” then how can any immigration restriction or even the illegality of border crossing stand up to the demands of Christian morality? But the logical consequences of the supplied principle are irrelevant, because it doesn’t function in their reasoning as the determinate of their moral conclusions.
Read More

If we disagree with someone often, we can simply delete or not read their messages.  That is not the same as completely shutting them out or cutting them off.  They are our family, Christ’s family.  How can we even contemplate such unkind, thoughtless, and rude treatment of one Christ loved and died for as He has for us?

Today, Christians deal with many challenges never imagined by those believers who lived in the past.  For one, there are many ideologies infiltrating churches that undermine biblical principles and teachings.  Yet they are somewhat subtle and sentimentally popular in the world that they receive a fair share of sympathy and acceptance by Christians who have not quite or yet conquered biblical apologetics that reveal the falsehoods inherent in them.
However, and most unfortunately, there is another challenge that might be as equal in detriment to Christian testimony related to love and unity to that of false ideologies.  That challenge is social media.  Social media includes the proliferation of Facebook, blogs, e-mail, and more.  They also involve interactions, discussions, and debates.  Just as society has been affected by a coarseness and rudeness in interrelations, so social media has also been greatly affected.  The world around us is less friendly and tolerant of disagreements.  And some of the reactions and responses represent coarseness and rudeness that involve name calling, vulgar language, malice, sarcasm, and even viciousness.  But a more subtle reaction is to block, unfriend, or reject any communications from one another.
I can’t say I’ve seen any Christian respond with vulgar language, malice or viciousness, but I’ve seen and even experienced being blocked, unfriended, or all communications being rejected.  What does this say about Christians who completely cut off other Christians from any communications?  It is impossible to see any of these as positive responses to Christ’s command, “Love one another as I have loved you.”
Such actions are done abruptly to some without any explanation.  Was there something said or done that caused such a reaction?  If so, wouldn’t it be more in keeping with God’s Word to communicate any such concern that caused one to react in such a radical manner to cut off all communication with another believer?  Wouldn’t that allow for perhaps an apology, a change of heart, repentance, and reconciliation?  Was some unforgivable offense committed?  If this is the case, do we remember how much we have been forgiven by our heavenly Father through Christ?  Can we recognize that completely cutting off communication with another believer is indicative of some terrible offense?  The question is in such a case, which is the greater offense and who is the true offender?  Could the greater offense and real offender be the one who fails to love another Christian as Christ commanded us to love them?
I recently read where some Africans questioned African Christians why they should become Christians when they didn’t treat other African Christians Christianly?  It caught my attention, as it goes beyond Africa.  Blocking, unfriending, and cutting people off abruptly and completely is happening among American Christians.  What a poor testimony to the world!
Remember the song, “They Will Know We Are Christians by Our Love?”  How we treat one another is revealing to the world around us.  The Apostle Peter clearly states what we should be known for:
“Since you have purified your souls in obedience to the truth fora sincere love of the brothers and sisters, fervently love oneanother from the heart, for you have been born again not ofseed which is perishable, but imperishable, that is, throughhe living and enduring word of God.”  1 Peter 1: 22-23
Cutting people off or shutting them out contradictorily relates to “fervently love one another from the heart.”
In another passage, Jesus states: “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return . . .”  How can one love one’s enemies when one fails to love fellow believers by cutting off any and all communication?
As Christians, our standards come from above and not from social media or the world.  There is never a need to completely block, unfriend, or reject communications from another believer, even if we cannot totally agree with them.  We must also resist any possible envy of the well-acceptance of believers to others we might not experience.  If we disagree with someone often, we can simply delete or not read their messages.  That is not the same as completely shutting them out or cutting them off.  They are our family, Christ’s family.  How can we even contemplate such unkind, thoughtless, and rude treatment of one Christ loved and died for as He has for us?
Perhaps it’s necessary to address pastors who receive communications from their congregants.  Do you remain open to all in your flock?  Hopefully, you do.  They need to know you care about them as their shepherd.  Even Judas was not cut off or shut out by Jesus.  What a lesson for all shepherds.
We’re living in a different world today from yesterday.  As Christians, our home is elsewhere, and we are just passing through.  The laws of God are higher than the laws of the lands and societies we pass through.  To the natural heart, mind, and spirit, it’s impossible to keep those higher laws.  But God the Holy Spirit is here with us in our trekking through social difficulties.  He fills us with the fruit of the Spirit, which is “love, joy, peace, patience. kindness, faithfulness, goodness, gentleness, self-control . . .” (Galatians 5: 22,23) Possessing His fruit is what enables us to never give up on one another and to “fervently love one another from the heart.”
Let’s obey Christ’s second great commandment to love one another as He has loved us and never allow social media to affect or diminish our Christian behavior either technically or spiritually.
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.
Related Posts: