William J. Dahaner Jr. The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards. Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
This book is about the role of the Trinity in Jonathan Edwards’s thought.
Some items:
—-Jonathan Edwards employs a psychological analogy for the Trinity, likening it, like Augustine, to the different dimensions of the human soul (i.e., rationality, etc.), which are various, yet one. But Dahaner also seems to show that Edwards has another model for the Trinity: the Father and the Son love each other, and that generates the Holy Spirit, a product of their mutual love. Dahaner has a related discussion about the significance of the filioque in Christian ethics.
—-According to Edwards, the members of the Trinity derive pleasure from their love for one another. Similarly, believers’ love for God is like their taste for honey: they experience God’s sweetness and gain pleasure from that. This reminds me of John Piper’s Christian hedonism. Does this conflict, though, with Edwards’s emphasis on true virtue being disinterested?
—-Edwards seeks to distinguish natural human love from the supernaturally-generated love that believers possess. Natural human love is extended towards one’s friends, loved ones, and acquaintances. Divine love is extended towards the whole and is disinterested. Dahaner discusses Edwards’s thought on this within the context of his contemporaries and also subsequent Christian thinkers. Some, for example, do not see natural human love as necessarily in conflict with divine love but as part of it. Incidentally, Edwards, according to Dahaner, believed that divine grace transformed humans to who they were created to be, their original nature, rather than being something utterly foreign to human nature.
—-The question of whether there is a distinction between natural human love and supernaturally-generated love is of personal interest to me. Edwards does well to ask: if humans can generate acceptable love for others on their own, or if the love that humans naturally show to each other is adequate, then why would God give the believers the Holy Spirit? What does the Holy Spirit contribute, that humans do not already possess on their own? I wonder: How do I, as a Christian, process the love that non-Christians show to me and others, love that is sometimes sacrificial? I am not comfortable dismissing it as sub-standard. I think that such love is an indication of what God’s love is like: concern for other people and their well-being. Moreover, I question whether Christians truly possess the disinterested, holistic love that Edwards sees as a sign of grace: Christians, like everyone, have affection for some people more than others and may even have negative feelings towards certain people.
—-There is also the issue of people loving others in spots, inconsistently. Edwards talks about how the Holy Spirit creates a new ethical foundational principle in believers, one that is loving towards all. I think of Joab in I-II Samuel, though, who, on the one hand, could demonstrate concern towards David, and, on the other hand, could slaughter people (even on his own side) without thinking twice. We are inconsistent. Edwards would probably say that Joab had natural love: he was devoted to David because David was his friend yet lacked the disinterested supernatural love (however that existed in believers in the Old Testament) that is a mark of supernatural grace. At the same time, Edwards sometimes acknowledges that even believers are incomplete in their sanctification and are a mixture of good and bad.
—-There is a lot of emphasis in this book on interpersonal love: doing deeds of love for other people. One might think that this conflicts with Edwards’s reclusive, sometimes misanthropic, tendencies. Thinking back to George Marsden’s biography of Edwards, though, there were good things that Edwards did for people. He counseled people, and he even continued to preach at the church that expelled him, whenever it lacked a preacher. That takes a special kind of love: I would tell the church to kiss off.
—-One thinker Dahaner discusses argued that love for people is part of love for God. Edwards had a similar concept: when God loves the church, God loves the Son that he sees in the church. God marvels at the church’s likeness to his Son and appreciates her beauty. God’s love for the church, and for others, is related to God’s love for Godself. Edwards is known for his depictions of God as a wrathful deity, but Edwards also talked a lot about God’s kindness to all. God’s kindness to all is related to God’s kindness to Godself, among the members of the Trinity.
—-Love for people is part of love for God. Remember Jesus’s statement in Matthew 25 that helping the least of these is helping Jesus. But there are times in Scripture when love for God appears to supersede regard for the well-being of others. Abraham in Genesis 22 was commended for being willing to sacrifice his son out of piety towards God. The Israelites were to turn in idolatrous friends and relatives. God’s holiness supersedes regard for human life, as when Uzzah died for touching the Ark of the Covenant.
—-John Hick treated suffering as character-producing, yet he believed that such an explanation falls short when it comes to especially serious suffering. Dahaner thinks such a concession undermines Hick’s explanation, period. It is a difficult issue: there are incidents of suffering so heinous that one struggles to find any explanation or silver lining in them. How much suffering is truly necessary for humans to develop character?
This book is more involved than my post may imply. Dahaner, if he reads this, may respond that he addresses such-and-such a concern on page such-and-such, and that may be. Reading this book is somewhat like reading Barth: there is a lot of intricacy and complexity, but, overall, I have a general idea about what Edwards is saying and where he is going.
This book is about the role of the Trinity in Jonathan Edwards’s thought.
Some items:
—-Jonathan Edwards employs a psychological analogy for the Trinity, likening it, like Augustine, to the different dimensions of the human soul (i.e., rationality, etc.), which are various, yet one. But Dahaner also seems to show that Edwards has another model for the Trinity: the Father and the Son love each other, and that generates the Holy Spirit, a product of their mutual love. Dahaner has a related discussion about the significance of the filioque in Christian ethics.
—-According to Edwards, the members of the Trinity derive pleasure from their love for one another. Similarly, believers’ love for God is like their taste for honey: they experience God’s sweetness and gain pleasure from that. This reminds me of John Piper’s Christian hedonism. Does this conflict, though, with Edwards’s emphasis on true virtue being disinterested?
—-Edwards seeks to distinguish natural human love from the supernaturally-generated love that believers possess. Natural human love is extended towards one’s friends, loved ones, and acquaintances. Divine love is extended towards the whole and is disinterested. Dahaner discusses Edwards’s thought on this within the context of his contemporaries and also subsequent Christian thinkers. Some, for example, do not see natural human love as necessarily in conflict with divine love but as part of it. Incidentally, Edwards, according to Dahaner, believed that divine grace transformed humans to who they were created to be, their original nature, rather than being something utterly foreign to human nature.
—-The question of whether there is a distinction between natural human love and supernaturally-generated love is of personal interest to me. Edwards does well to ask: if humans can generate acceptable love for others on their own, or if the love that humans naturally show to each other is adequate, then why would God give the believers the Holy Spirit? What does the Holy Spirit contribute, that humans do not already possess on their own? I wonder: How do I, as a Christian, process the love that non-Christians show to me and others, love that is sometimes sacrificial? I am not comfortable dismissing it as sub-standard. I think that such love is an indication of what God’s love is like: concern for other people and their well-being. Moreover, I question whether Christians truly possess the disinterested, holistic love that Edwards sees as a sign of grace: Christians, like everyone, have affection for some people more than others and may even have negative feelings towards certain people.
—-There is also the issue of people loving others in spots, inconsistently. Edwards talks about how the Holy Spirit creates a new ethical foundational principle in believers, one that is loving towards all. I think of Joab in I-II Samuel, though, who, on the one hand, could demonstrate concern towards David, and, on the other hand, could slaughter people (even on his own side) without thinking twice. We are inconsistent. Edwards would probably say that Joab had natural love: he was devoted to David because David was his friend yet lacked the disinterested supernatural love (however that existed in believers in the Old Testament) that is a mark of supernatural grace. At the same time, Edwards sometimes acknowledges that even believers are incomplete in their sanctification and are a mixture of good and bad.
—-There is a lot of emphasis in this book on interpersonal love: doing deeds of love for other people. One might think that this conflicts with Edwards’s reclusive, sometimes misanthropic, tendencies. Thinking back to George Marsden’s biography of Edwards, though, there were good things that Edwards did for people. He counseled people, and he even continued to preach at the church that expelled him, whenever it lacked a preacher. That takes a special kind of love: I would tell the church to kiss off.
—-One thinker Dahaner discusses argued that love for people is part of love for God. Edwards had a similar concept: when God loves the church, God loves the Son that he sees in the church. God marvels at the church’s likeness to his Son and appreciates her beauty. God’s love for the church, and for others, is related to God’s love for Godself. Edwards is known for his depictions of God as a wrathful deity, but Edwards also talked a lot about God’s kindness to all. God’s kindness to all is related to God’s kindness to Godself, among the members of the Trinity.
—-Love for people is part of love for God. Remember Jesus’s statement in Matthew 25 that helping the least of these is helping Jesus. But there are times in Scripture when love for God appears to supersede regard for the well-being of others. Abraham in Genesis 22 was commended for being willing to sacrifice his son out of piety towards God. The Israelites were to turn in idolatrous friends and relatives. God’s holiness supersedes regard for human life, as when Uzzah died for touching the Ark of the Covenant.
—-John Hick treated suffering as character-producing, yet he believed that such an explanation falls short when it comes to especially serious suffering. Dahaner thinks such a concession undermines Hick’s explanation, period. It is a difficult issue: there are incidents of suffering so heinous that one struggles to find any explanation or silver lining in them. How much suffering is truly necessary for humans to develop character?
This book is more involved than my post may imply. Dahaner, if he reads this, may respond that he addresses such-and-such a concern on page such-and-such, and that may be. Reading this book is somewhat like reading Barth: there is a lot of intricacy and complexity, but, overall, I have a general idea about what Edwards is saying and where he is going.