Edward's Successor at Princeton

The year is 1758. Jonathan Edwards has just died of a small pox vaccination in Princeton, New Jersey. For the purpose of this post, I will pretend (rather arrogantly!) that the College of New Jersey has appointed me to serve on the search committee to find the successor of President Edwards. The question for the college trustees is whether the successor of Edwards should be his theological and philosophical heir, or whether the college should seek someone more in touch with Enlightenment thought. They have sought my opinion in this matter.

You might read Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," John Locke's "Letter on Toleration," and Voltaire’s "Treatise on Toleration" to help you understand the background of this situation.

Here is my opinoin:

To the distinguished trustees at Princeton,

First of all, I want to thank you for this privilege. I am pleased to have the opportunity to give you my opinion concerning the successor of Princeton’s former President, Jonathan Edwards. Since there are many men who I would consider to be much more qualified to give such an opinion, I am greatly honored to have been asked. So without further ado, allow me to address the question at hand.

I am of the opinion that Edwards’ successor ought to be his theological and philosophical heir (in as much as possible) as opposed to someone who is more in touch with Enlightenment thought. This is not to say that conclusions drawn from the arguments for tolerance are not without merit, but that these ideas have a theological basis rather than anthropological basis. The fundamental problem with Enlightenment thought is that its foundation is in the idea that man is able to autonomously judge for himself as to the nature of God and His ordinances. This can be seen in the thought of John Locke. In his Letter Concerning Toleration he wrote, “All the life and power of true religion consists in the inward and full persuasion of the [human] mind.” Further, Locke contends, “the care of every man’s soul belongs to himself and is to be left unto himself.” However, the care of men’s souls does not belong to men; rather it belongs to God. Ultimately, the basis for tolerance is the Word of God which judges all men (Hebrews 4:12). This idea is diametrically opposed to the notion that it is man who is the judge of God’s Word. Therefore, the ideology of the Enlightenment cannot rationally coexist with the orthodox Christian faith. The two are mutually antagonistic.

The progressive nature of the hostility of those of the Enlightenment toward the Christian faith is evident. Locke’s ideas concerning tolerance were primarily focused on bringing an end to the maltreatment of some factions by others. He believed that such factions could hold different religious convictions while at the same time maintain tolerance toward one another. However, the thought prevalent today is that it is religious belief itself that leads to such maltreatment. Hence, it is considered dangerous by those of the Enlightenment to proclaim the truth of hell or the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as man’s Savior from hell. They say that such things have been the source of the violent oppression that has been inflicted upon those who believe in another means of salvation. Ultimately, it is believed by those of the Enlightenment that such oppression is done in order to bring those who are considered heretics into agreement with the doctrines of the oppressing faction.

Unfortunately, those of the Enlightenment have a point. There has been violent oppression carried out in the name of Christianity. However, isn’t such activity a result of the depravity of man rather than the Christian faith? Is there any basis in the Word of God for such activity? Why not legislate a ban on the violent oppression by factions rather than condemn the only intelligible basis for the denunciation of such oppression? Of course it is true that men ought to love their enemies. However, this is in accordance with the Lord’s command and cannot be concluded aside from His command. The folly of those of the Enlightenment is clear. After all, might not one also argue that those of the Enlightenment may come to represent a majority faction who could then inflict violence upon those who hold to such “dangerous superstitions” as the Christian faith? Clearly, it is not the religious ideology of various factions which leads to violent oppression; rather it is the depravity of man and his natural deficiency of the Christian virtue which dictates such intolerance. Ultimately, without the Christian basis for morality—the nature of the God of Scripture—there can be no meaningful objection to the oppression of one faction by another. This is consistent with the theology of Edwards.

Accordingly, the solution to this dilemma can be found only in the God of the Christian faith. While those who hold to the ideology of the Enlightenment might maintain that an abandonment of the Christian faith is in order, the reality is just the opposite. In the same way that Edwards called men to turn and embrace the God of Scripture, so too ought his successor. As has been stated, the basis for the condemnation of violent oppression of some factions by others has its basis in the God of the Bible. And although there may be oppressors who purport to have the support of the Scriptures in their attempts to forcefully compel others to embrace the tenets of their religion, there is a Judge who will bring retribution upon such wicked ones as these. The foolishness of the appalling philosophy of the Enlightenment that asserts that the human being is the final judge in such matters is apparent in this context; for if there is not a common Judge by which the moral actions in question are discerned, then man would be left to reason as to the moral nature of the oppression of his fellow man. And this is what those who hold to the ideology of the Enlightenment are suggesting as a virtue! Nonetheless, if the heinous nature of such oppression is a truth that is self-evident apart from so-called dangerous superstitions of the Christian faith, then such a truth ought to be evident within the context of such so-called superstitions. In other words, an epistemology in which it is believed that certain truths are self-evident can only exist in a reality in which such truth is known. However, these truths are not self-evident; they have been revealed by God. Apart from revelatory and illuminating work of God, men will be left to false doctrine that it is acceptable to oppress others for their individual gain. Therefore, Edwards’ successor ought to be a man who acknowledges the Triune God as the divine basis for morality and who proclaims the truth of God’s revelation so that others might be brought into this truth.