Listening to the Giants

Jonathan Edwards could have stayed quiet. His reputation was beyond reproach and his theological influence was spreading like “wildfire”.  Yet conviction compelled him to do different, to take a different course. This is the testimony of Edwards explaining the issue and his own position: “A very great difficulty has arisen between my people, relating to qualifications for communion at the Lord’s table (this is the issue). My honored grandfather Stoddard, my predecessor in the ministry over this church, strenuously maintained the Lord’s Supper to be a converting ordinance, and urged all to come who were not of scandalous life, though they knew themselves to be unconverted. I formerly conformed to his practice but I have had difficulties with respect to it, which has been long increasing, till I dared no longer to proceed in the former way, which has occasioned great uneasiness among the people, and has filled all the country with noise.” For Edwards, his Grandfather’s ap...

Every pastor-scholar must spend time in his study. No man who aspires to such a position can avoid it. Undoubtedly, there are some men who thrive on it. Others die trying (one of my older peers in seminary died during finals week). Yet few were like Edwards. Edwards’ first biographer penned the words that would forever define him: “He commonly spent thirteen hours, every day, in his study.” Impressive, huh. Yet many fault Edwards for such diligence. They accuse him of being an “ivory tower” theologian, who was aloof and disengaged with the sheep he was called to “shepherd”. Is this assessment of Edwards correct? No….well, mostly no. Here is a more balanced understanding of Jonathan Edwards: First , Edwards’ study was always accessible to his family and his congregants. Samuel Hopkins (Edwards’ first biographer) writes: “He believed he could do more good conversing with persons under religious impressions in his study where they were treated with all desirab...

Sarah Edwards, like most wives of the “giants”, were basically unknown. The reasons for this are many. They rarely wrote. They were “helpers” to their husbands first, which seemed incongruent to self-promotion. The secular and sacred culture of the previous centuries was typically “patriarchal”, which saw little worth in hearing from a “woman” and to publish anything from a woman would have been almost comical. Finally, families were normally large and women (with the help of servants) did all the domestic duties. Yet, because of the contemporary interest of Edwards during his lifetime, Sarah was integrated through the pages of her husband’s biographies. Here are some observations from Samuel Hopkins (one of Edwards’ first biographer): “She made it her rule to speak well of all, so far as she could with truth and justice to herself and others. Thus she was tender of everyone’s character, even of those who injured or spoke evil of her.” He continues: “In the midst of these comp...

This title is likely to “grate” on some of you, especially for those who are still unconvinced of the “sweetness” of this doctrine. But before you stop reading, please read Edwards’ words below: “From my childhood up, my mind had been full of objections against the doctrine of God’s sovereignty in choosing whom he would to eternal life, and rejecting whom He pleased; leaving them eternally to perish, and be everlastingly tormented in Hell. It used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me. But I have often, since that first conviction, had quite another kind of sense of God’s sovereignty than I had then. I have often since had not only a conviction, but a delightful conviction. The doctrine has very often appeared exceedingly pleasant, bright and sweet. Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God. But my conviction was not so.” The journey of Edwards, in regards to the doctrine of election, may surprise some. For many, he is viewed simply as the man who preached the l...