Abigail
Akin
Religion
319 – Jonathan Edwards
Prof.
Westblade
2
December 2015
True
Religion
In
the early to mid-1700s, two great thinkers came to the forefront of the Great
Awakening, Jonathan Edwards and Charles Chauncy. As
Edwards and Chauncy watched the Great Awakening
unfold before them, a myriad of questions arose for them: was the Great
Awakening from God or Satan? How should membership be determined within the
Church? Yet, underlying these questions a more foundational inquiry existed:
what was true religion? True religion can only be determined by oneÕs view of
man and on this subject, Edwards and Chauncy
disagreed. Chauncy viewed man as dualistic in nature
whereas Edwards viewed man as holistic.[1]
True religion aligns with Scripture and reason under the holistic rather than
the dualistic viewpoint.
To
have a full understanding of Chauncy and Edwards, one
must first recognize the context from which they came and the events that
shaped their childhood. Chauncy and Edwards both grew
up in a heavily Puritan culture. New England was originally
settled in 1620 by Puritans fleeing England in pursuit of religious liberty.
During their first years in the New World, the Puritans formulated and
cultivated their beliefs with little hindrance from others. As the years
passed, others came with different motivations than religious freedom. Those in
the Colonies now had to face new challenges and issues within their churches.
In addition to the surge of immigrants, the Colonies also had to be aware of
the power struggles going on back home in England, especially considering New
EnglandÕs own environment could change relatively quickly depending on who was
in power in England. For this reason the Colonies kept a close eye on the
events in their homeland, for depending on the ruler they would have more or
less freedom for their Puritan beliefs. Struggles often became wars and wars
spread across the water to the Colonies. Many battles were fought against the
Indians and the French. One of the most important wars that had a direct effect
on the EdwardsÕ family was the Queen AnnÕs War which
started in 1702. Edwards was born in 1703, 2 years before Chauncy.
As the boys grew up, fear of attacks and massacres sent the Colonies into
turmoil. In the EdwardsÕ house, Jonathan grew up surrounded by the family
praying and telling stories about the Deerfield massacre in which JonathanÕs
cousins, aunt and uncle were taken by Indians.[2]
The Queen AnnÕs war did not end until 1713. Thus, some of the most formative
years for Edwards and Chauncy were ones of war and
upheaval.
Charles
Chauncy was born in Boston on January 1st, 1705. His
father was a merchant and his motherÕs father was on the Supreme Court of
Massachusetts.[3] At age
seven, ChauncyÕs father died, leaving his mother
alone with three children to raise. The following
year, Chauncy started at Boston Latin
which instructed him in Latin and prepared him to meet the requirements
of Harvard College. Chauncy began his studies at
Harvard in 1717 at the young age of 12. During this time in the Colonies, it
was not unusual for children to attend college at an early age, but the usual
age was 16.[4] Four years
later, he graduated with his undergraduate and after waiting the customary
three years, Chauncy was
awarded his masterÕs degree in divinity. Thus by nineteen, Chauncy
had achieved his masters. He returned to Harvard and was given the award of
ÒScholar of the House.Ó[5]
One important person to note was a man named Wigglesworth. During his years at
Harvard, Chauncy watched and participated in the
college controversy between the Protestants and the Anglicans. Chauncy had friends on both sides of the issue, so he heard
and understood the positions taken by both sides very well. One such friend,
teacher, and mentor was Wigglesworth.[6]
During the controversy, Wigglesworth had been questioned on whether or not he
leaned towards Anglicanism. He was found not to, yet he did lean towards
rationalism. WigglesworthÕs influence in ChauncyÕs
college years played a large role in shaping ChauncyÕs
view of the nature of man. In 1726 a position opened with the First Church of
Boston and by the following the year, Chauncy was
given the position.
In
the early 1730s, Chauncy became known and respected
in Boston.[7]
It was also during this time that the Great Awakening began in Northampton and
started to spread across New England. In Boston, Jonathan EdwardsÕ A
Faithful Narrative was published. Chauncy and his
pastor-friends read and discussed the events taking place in Northampton.[8]
At the beginning of the Great Awakening, Chauncy
supported it, believing that the spiritual revolution was
instigated by God. Yet as the Awakening matured some extremists argued
that ÒÉthe Holy Spirit operated only in spectacular ways, and the more
spectacular the betterÉÓ[9]
As the events unfolded with Tennent, churches,
including ChauncyÕs own, were internally conflicted
over whether or not pastors were truly saved if they did not have great outward
conversion experiences. Chauncy too began to question
what true conversion should look like. From ChauncyÕs
grappling with the question of conversion, the question of what is true
religion followed. To answer that, he had to draw upon his understanding of how
God created human nature.
Chauncy believed God made human nature dualistic
with multiple faculties, some higher and others lower. From the years of study
of Aristotle under Wigglesworth, Chauncy believed
that the mind, or reason, was the highest faculty of a human being, while
emotions were the lowest. He argued that reason is what constitutes man as
intrinsically human. Sin came from Adam and EveÕs act of submitting to emotion
instead of reason.[10]
Thus it makes sense that Chauncy saw ÒÉthe affections
as first of all unruly emotions, which could serve the good only when brought
into submission to properly informed reason.Ó[11]
It would also explain why he wrote that ÒTruth, an enlightened
mind, and not raised Affections, ought always to be the guide of
those who call themselves manÉÓ[12]
Reason, not Òraised AffectionsÓ or emotions, should dictate the actions of the
believer. This is true religion. If true religion is
based on reason, then conversions would naturally not be proven by high
emotional outpourings but by level-headed reason as the base of a manÕs faith
and conversion. EdwardsÕ holistic view stands in sharp contrast.
Jonathan
Edwards came from a family of Puritan pastors. On his fatherÕs side, his
grandfather was a pastor in Wales, his father was a chaplain for England in the
Queen AnnÕs War, later becoming the minister of East Windsor. His motherÕs
father was Solomon Stoddard who was considered almost a pope in the Connecticut
Valley of Massachusetts.[13]
Coming from such a family of strong and influential pastors, it is not
surprising that Edwards became the man he did. Jonathan Edwards was born in
1703. EdwardsÕ father was a Òformidable figure in his own domains – his
home and his churchÉÓ[14]
As Edwards grew from infancy to childhood, like Chauncy,
he heard stories and news about Queen AnnÕs War; by age 11 his father was off
ministering as a chaplain for the war. During this time, his father wrote home
to instruct Edwards and his sisters on what they should be learning. Two years
later in 1716, Edwards attended Collegiate School which by his third year was
renamed Yale. He earned his Bachelor of Arts in 1720 and by 1722 he had earned
his MasterÕs degree. While at Yale, he had a great fascination with science and
in particular, spiders. He studied theology and graduated at the top of his
class. After finishing with his masterÕs degree, Edwards preached at the
Presbyterian Church in New York. From there, he returned to Yale and tutored
until 1726, when he left to become ordained at his grandfather, Solomon
StoddardÕs, church in Northampton.
Throughout
those years, Edwards was constantly questioning whether or not he was truly
saved. He kept a journal in which he recorded what he was feeling concerning
his spiritual life. Even as an adult, Edwards still remained fascinated with
trying to understand what true conversion looked like. As the Great Awakening
began to grow more extreme, ChauncyÕs work titled
Seasonable Thoughts of the State of Religion was printed in 1743. Edwards
understood ChauncyÕs worries about the Great
Awakening but upheld his original belief that the extreme stances were only
taken up by outliers to the movement. In response to the raised questions
concerning what true religion, and thus conversion, looked like, Edwards drew
from his past sermons and years of personal contemplations to write Religious
Affections.
Edwards
understood that true religion is based on the idea that God made man to be
holistic in nature, with reason (the head) and affections (the heart) as
equal—interdependent upon each other. Another might confuse affections
with emotions, but to Edwards they were separate entities. Emotions are
surface-level feelings, whereas affections are the core of the human heart.
Emotions may or may not be linked to an object, but affections are always
linked to an object. One might say that they are angry, yet the emotion may not
be directed towards anything in particular. But when one says that they are
affectionate, the question remains towards what or whom. Affections ÒÉare both
good and bad, non-religious and religious. Religious affections do not function
differently from non-religious affections, but have different objectsÉ
religious affections seek God and Spiritual things.Ó[15]
To Edwards, affections are the core motivations of the human heart, forever
guiding manÕs actions. Yet religious affections must Òinvolve Ôa fervent,
vigorous engagement of the heart in religionÕ that displays itself in love for
God with all the heart and soul [mind].Ó[16]
Only through the Holy Spirit interceding and changing the affections towards
desiring Him is one saved, but this is not at the expense of reason. It is
through reason that God touches the heart. When God changes the heart of a
person, that person is now attracted towards God and the affections will
express a deep love towards Him. To Edwards ÒÉtrue religion consists not of
cold, indifferent speculation, but in an intense inclination of the mind
expressed in terms of attraction which is in its highest and most noble state,
[is] love.Ó[17] Thus,
in EdwardsÕ perspective, God made humanity holistic in nature with reason and
affections as interdependent; one cannot exist without the other.
It
follows then that, for Edwards, true conversion was not based solely on reason
or emotions but rather on something much more difficult to pin down. True
conversion is God changing the affections towards Him, and this is not
something that can easily be judged from the exterior, for it takes place at
the core of the individual. Those who converted in the Great Awakening with
high emotions could be saved as much as those who experienced little emotional
change, for only God knows the heart and mind. For this reason, Edwards was not
against the Great Awakening, but he did caution the extreme sides to rethink
their stances on true conversion and to think about religious affections
instead.
As
seen above, Chauncy and Edwards disagree on the
nature of man and thus true religion. Only one can be correct. It seems that ChauncyÕs argument falls short when faced with Scriptures
and reality. Chauncy argues for a dualistic
understanding of humanity, yet if humanity is made in the image of God, then
would not GodÕs personality be dualistic as well, with some faculties higher
and lower? Would this not also mean that God should only use emotion and
affections sparingly and mainly use reason as it is
the best faculty? Yet, God shows emotions as well as the deepest affections which humans cannot even grasp throughout all of
Scriptures. It is understandable why Chauncy wants to
divide the nature of man, however, when looking to Scriptures. There is only
one God in three Persons working simultaneously with each other in perfect
unity. By looking to GodÕs nature, understanding that God made mankindÕs nature
to align with His, EdwardsÕ argument of the holistic man with interdependent
faculties agree with Scriptures the closest.
Another
aspect of ChauncyÕs argument that seems unscriptural
is one consequence of reason-based religion. Man loses the beauty and joy found
in Christianity. With the understanding of the holistic nature of man, Edwards
combines both reason and the deeper emotions found in the affections. In this,
he retains the argument that reason is needed but creates a fuller picture of
the life of a Christian, for from affections joy and love naturally flow. Chauncy has to deal with a religion that potentially
becomes cold, unfeeling and dead. This seems to go against Scriptures. In
Romans 15:13 Paul asks God to Òfill you with all joy and peace as you trust in
him, so that you may overflow with hopeÉÓ In Psalms 47:1, the verse commands
all the nations to Òshout to God with cries of Joy.Ó If reason is the highest faculty and emotions the lowest, why would
Paul and God both be asking that the people be joyful? But in EdwardsÕ
understanding, if oneÕs affections are towards God, then shouting for joy and
being filled with joy and peace do align with Scriptures.
Chauncy might argue that during the Great
Awakening, many claimed to be converted by Òraised affectionsÓ yet once the
emotional high was gone they had returned to their old ways. Edwards saw this
problem, but was not surprised nor thought that it falsified his argument; for
true religious affections would never wain as time
went by. From his own experience of years of struggling to know if he was truly
saved, Edwards knew firsthand how devious and crafty the devil was and was not
surprised to see non-religious affections that outwardly seemed like real
religious affections. Besides EdwardsÕ personal life experience, he also grew
up with a father and grandfather that experienced small revivals that had
people that seemed converted who returned to their old ways as time passed.
Thus, Edwards was not unfamiliar with false raised affections, but argued that
the devil was responsible and that no true religious affection was ever there
in the first place.
Both
Chauncy and Edwards came from relatively similar
backgrounds – they both grew up in Puritan families, they went to college
and got their BachelorÕs degrees, then went on to get their masterÕs degrees
and became pastors. Yet in spite of their similarities, their conclusions on
true religion were different. Chauncy understood that
God had made man to be dualistic in nature with the reason as the highest
faculty, whereas Edwards argued that religious affections formed the foundation
of for true religion. From the understanding the idea of man being made in
GodÕs nature to the lack of joy, ChauncyÕs arguments
fall apart when analyzed with Scripture and reason. One comes to the conclusion
that EdwardsÕ perspective of the holistic view of man best explains true
religion, since EdwardsÕ argument remains true to Scriptures and reason while
creating a more full and beautiful understanding of Christianity.
Bibliography
Chauncy,
Charles. Enthusiasm described and caution'd
against. A sermon preach'd at the Old Brick
Meeting-House in Boston, the Lord's Day after the commencement, 1742. With a letter to the Reverend Mr. James Davenport. By
Charles Chauncy, D.D. one of the Pastors of the First
Church in said town. [Twenty lines from Luther]. Boston,
MDCCXLII. [1742]. Eighteenth Century Collections Online.
Gale. Hillsdale College. 24 Oct. 2015
Christianity
Today: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1985/issue8/820.html. Online. 3.
Dec. 2015
Griffin,
Edward M. Old Brick, Charles Chauncy of Boston,
1705-1787. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980.
Marsden,
George M. Jonathan Edwards: A Life. New Haven: Yale University Press,
2003.
McClymond,
Michael J., and Gerald R. McDermott. The Theology of
Jonathan Edwards. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Richard
A. Hutch., ÒJonathan EdwardsÕ analysis of religious
experience,Ó Journal of Psychology & Theology 6, no. 2 (Spr 1978): p 123-131, Accessed October 22, 2015.
[1] Fishard A. Hutch, ÒJonathan EdwardsÕ analysis of religious experience,Ó Journal
of Psychology &Theology 6, no. 2 (1978): 123.
[2] George M. Marsden, Jonathan
Edwards: A Life. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003),
16.
[3] Edward M. Griffin, Old
Brick, Charles Chauncy of Boston, 1705-1787.
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980), 13.
[4] George M. Marsden, Jonathan
Edwards: A Life. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003),
13.
[5] Edward M. Griffin, Old
Brick, Charles Chauncy of Boston, 1705-1787.
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980), 20.
[6] Ibid., 20.
[7] Ibid., 27.
[8] Ibid., 38-39.
[9] Ibid., 54.
[10] Fishard A. Hutch, ÒJonathan
EdwardsÕ analysis of religious experience,Ó Journal of Psychology
&Theology 6, no. 2 (1978): 125.
[11] George M. Marsden, Jonathan
Edwards: A Life. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003),
283.
[12] Charles Chauncy,Ó Seasonable thoughts on the State of Religion in
New England: a treatise in five partsÓ. Page 327
[13] George M. Marsden, Jonathan
Edwards: A Life. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003),
11-18.
[14] George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life.
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 17.
[15] McClymond, Michael J., and
Gerald R. McDermott. The Theology of Jonathan Edwards.
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 312.
[16] Ibid., 312
[17] Fishard A. Hutch, ÒJonathan
EdwardsÕ analysis of religious experience,Ó Journal of Psychology
&Theology 6, no. 2 (1978): 128.