Jonathan Edwards Owned a Slave (and Other Moral Incongruities Among Church Leaders of the Past) by Chris White

Actual Irishmen not pictured

And so it begins with a story:

 Three Irishmen are sitting in the pub window seat, watching the front  door of the brothel over the road.

 The local Methodist pastor appears, looks up and down the street, and quickly goes inside.

 "Would you look at that!" says the first Irishman. "Didn't I always say what a bunch of hypocrites they are?"

 No sooner are the words out of his mouth than a Rabbi appears at the door, looks up and down the street, knocks, and goes inside.

 "Another one trying to fool everyone with pious preaching and stupid hats!" They continue drinking their beer roundly condemning the vicar and the rabbi when they see their own Catholic priest knock on the door.

 "Ah, now dat's sad." says the third Irishman. "One of the girls must have died."

It’s interesting how we can be so clear about the moral failings of others and yet be blinded to our own or those in our own society.

As someone who has been a serious student and teacher of church history for many years, one of the constant issues I have grappled with is what to make of some of the decisions, behaviors, and ideas of some of the church’s great luminaries.  Here are people of great vision and piety and theological imagination who at the same time do things that seem radically at odds with their Christian commitment.

A few well known examples:

Martin Luther in exile

Martin Luther had a strong tendency towards anti-Semitism that at times was quite vicious.

Constantine, the great Christian emperor, ordered the death of one of his sons and his wife.

John Calvin, no stranger to persecution by Catholics, was responsible for having a teacher holding heretical views burned at the stake in downtown Geneva.

Jonathan Edwards, one of America’s greatest thinkers and theologians, owned at 3 slaves during his lifetime and even justified his holding of them when confronted by other church leaders for doing so.

John Wesley and George Whitefield virtually abandoned their wives to pursue their preaching careers.

Constantine the Christian Emperor

Of course there are more, many more, examples if time and space permitted.

So what are we to make of these things and how should we respond to them towards critics of the faith or the church?  Let me make 3 suggestions:

1.  Approach historic figures charitably and not judgmentally.  It is certainly not my original thought (I think I may have got it from C.S. Lewis or R.C. Sproul) but we must exercise a Christian charity not just to the living, but especially the dead for they are unable to defend or explain themselves.  Brendan Manning speaks to this quite eloquently: “None of us has ever seen a motive. Therefore, we don't know we can't do anything more than suspect what inspires the action of another. For this good and valid reason, we're told not to judge. ..Tragedy is that our attention centers on what people are not, rather than on what they are and who they might become.” With historical figures we often know what they did but are often left without a shred of evidence about why they did something.  Sometimes historical context sheds light, sometimes the person leaves a memoir explaining (or justifying) themselves, but many times it is still conjecture.  We can’t walk a mile in their shoes, we don’t understand their particular sin matrix, we know nothing of the fears and prejudices that fed their thinking.  What we do know for certain is that Christians are people and people are sinners and sinners need the grace of God.

2. Recognize cultural myopia; theirs and your own. Myopia is another word for near-sightedness where things up close are very clear but anything in the distance is quite blurred.  Every one of us is shaped by our times and culture and this does in fact color our sense of ethics and values.  Truth be told, it even shapes the interpretation of scripture.  Mark A. Noll presents a clear example of this in his book The Civil War as Theological Crisis.  How could a nation which was at the time predominantly Christian, Protestant, Bible-reading, and Church-going literally plunge into the dark hole of fratricide over slavery when slavery is clearly unethical by the standards of Jesus?  Among many things, Noll points out that habits of Bible reading and interpretation of the day tended to support slavery because verses were often read in isolation from one another.

To read a summary of this book go to: http://soulepigraph.blogspot.com/2010/03/civil-war-as-theological-crisis-by-mark.html

But this applies to many things besides scriptural interpretation.  We live in a time of consumerism, leisure, sex-saturation, and obsession with choices and independence.  We know these things, but we know them like a goldfish knows it lives it water.  Jonathan Edwards (who lived in colonial America) owned a slave(s) but so did a lot of other ministers in New England.  Unlike George Washington who actually set his slaves free upon his death because his conscience was troubled by his ownership, Edwards did nothing of the sort.  We are grieved by the blindness of this great man of God who had a fierce intellect and was so devoted to preaching and holiness in his community.  But no doubt Edwards would be grieved to meet our generation with so little concern for pleasing God and that wastes so much time fiddling with telephone apps and looking at sex and violence on television.  We think nothing of it!

I'm sure Edwards would be amused with phone apps!

What will future generations say of us when we are the people in the graveyard?  Evil is still evil and Jonathan Edwards (and all the other examples I mentioned) was definitely blind to that species of sin, but that does not mean that God couldn’t or didn’t use them for a good purpose.  We are all works in progress and if anything it reveals the patience and grace of God through all the ages.

3. Learn from their mistakes without justifying their evil.  When we encounter these terrible blemishes on the records of great men, we need not shrug them off or worse yet adopt their sinful behavior.  We should learn the moral lesson their lives offer.  We should be humbled by the fact that if great people who serve Christ are capable of making really bad choices and doing evil things, what of ourselves?  None of us is so faithful as to never fail.

St. Paul exhorts all of us to “examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test? (2 Corinthians 13:5-6).”  Let us not judge one another, but examine our own life that we may be pleasing to Christ in every respect.

For a great practical devotion on how to put this verse into practice go to:
 http://www.raystedman.org/daily-devotions/2-corinthians/how-to-examine-yourself

 

Transubstantiation for "Dummies" by Chris White

Pope Benedict XVI at mass.

I say this ‘tongue and cheek’ because the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is actually difficult to follow without a fairly broad understanding of theology and history.  It is my hope that this article will add clarity for those wanting to understand how the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist ( often called Communion by Christians of all denominations) differs from the Protestant conception.  Just as a point of reference, I make no claims of expertise on Roman Catholic doctrine, having never been Catholic myself.  On the other hand, as an evangelical Christian (and ordained minister) I do recognize the historic debt the church owes to Catholicism for its propagation and perpetuation of the gospel in the world for nearly two millennia.  Because of this, I am committed to a fair-minded and even handed treatment of all things Roman Catholic even if my own faith commitment and understandings differ considerably.

At least part of the reason why the church in general has had different understandings of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist (a Greek word for thanksgiving) is that the words of Jesus on the matter seem to lend themselves easily to a variety of interpretations.  Consider the words of Christ in John 6: ^“ So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.  For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.  Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.  As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread  the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”  In context Jesus was speaking of himself as the true bread of heaven as opposed to the manna that was given Israel as a temporary measure during their wanderings in the wilderness.  But in both cases, the faithful must eat something to survive.  Another passage of greater importance is Jesus’ words at the institution of the Lord’s Supper in Luke 22:14-20: “ And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him.  And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.  For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”  And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves.  For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”  And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”  Once again, where this leads is where you place your emphasis.  Do we take “this is my body” and “do this in remembrance of me” literally or figuratively or both?  I’ll come back to these passages in my conclusion but I hope you can see where there might be room for the minds of godly people to entertain a variety of interpretations on what Jesus meant in His teachings.

In its barest essence transubstantiation refers to a change in the communion elements of bread and wine that occurs when an officially ordained ministrant of the Roman Catholic Church prays the prayer of consecration during the Eucharistic celebration.  While the elements remain in taste, touch, and appearance as bread and wine, they become spiritually transformed and their actual substance becomes the flesh and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as presented by the late Pope John Paul II, this is an un-bloody sacrifice in the present where the once-for-all death of Christ for our sins, is re-presented to the church body.  As they eat of these elements grace is received, the Lord is worshipped, and sanctifying faith is infused.  You can see that Transubstantiation relies heavily on literal understanding of Jesus’ words in John 6 and Luke 22. 

Transubstantiation seems  to be at least a rudimentary  idea that is found in the church of antiquity, but it was not until the Fourth Lateran Council (held in Rome) in 1215 that it became the fully articulated doctrine it is today.  Transubstantiation was later affirmed at the Council of Trent in 1551 and has remained the official position of the Roman Catholic church ever since.  But there are other points of view on communion that sprang forth during the Protestant Reformation.

Within the fold of Protestantism there are essentially two views of the Eucharist, one similar and the other completely dissimilar to the doctrine of Transubstantiation.  The Lutheran view, often called Consubstantiation, but more properly known as Sacramental Union, holds that the consecrated bread and wine are not at all changed in their substance, but the actual body and blood of the Lord are spiritually united to them.  This is closely related to other Christological doctrines such as His dual nature and His Ascension.  When the Lord was incarnated, He had a fully formed human nature (a union of body and soul) that was knit to His divine nature.  They were two natures joined in perfect union.  Even so, the divine presence of the Lord Jesus, now dwelling in heaven, is no longer limited by specific locality, but is able to be spiritually present anywhere, everywhere, at any time.  In the Eucharistic celebration then, when the minister prays the words of consecration over the bread and wine, the spiritual presence of Christ joins the elements that the participants will be eating.  In other words, like Jesus Himself, the consecrated elements have a dual nature.

 The other view, held by Baptists and many other evangelical groups, is called Memorialism.  This view emphasizes Jesus’ words at the institution of the Lord’s supper in Luke 22:19 “do this in remembrance of me”.  In this conception, the bread and wine go through no change but rather are symbols used to bring to remembrance the salvation event of the cross.  Critical to this view is the presentation of Holy Scripture alongside the Lord’s Supper which brings meaning to the event and is used by the Holy Spirit to strengthen the faith of the participating believer.

In evaluating these positions I want to come back to the scriptures that I presented above.  In John 6 Jesus references two breads that came from heaven: the manna and his incarnate life as the son of God.  The manna from God was eaten by Israel in the wilderness, but all who ate it still died.  It was literal food.  Jesus claims that those who eat of his flesh and blood will not die but have eternal life.  Transubstantiation would certainly fulfill this requirement of eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, but what makes this questionable is whether this is what Jesus meant by these words.  When He spoke them He had not yet instituted the Lord’s Supper, that was 1-2 years in the future.  Secondly, this passage is part of several discourses where Jesus likened Himself to something familiar with the phrase “I am the…......(bread of life, good shepherd, the door, the way).  It seems obvious in the larger picture that Jesus is speaking figuratively not literally since we know Jesus wasn’t a shepherd but a carpenter and a rabbi; and he was certainly not a door or a roadway, but a man.  It seems that the type of “partaking” Jesus commands is to believe in Him as the Messiah whom God has sent.  Just so, the eating Jesus is suggesting is the act of partaking of His life by trusting Him as Savior, for the giving of His body and blood was for that very purpose.  In the Luke 22 passage Jesus is actually reshaping a symbolic  “Old Covenant” meal.  The many elements of the Passover were symbols of God’s provision and deliverance in the Exodus that also pointed towards the coming Deliverer.  The elements of bread and wine were the symbols Christ chose because they represent the pouring out of his life for our salvation.  I would also point out that Jesus was physically with them when He said the bread and wine were his flesh and blood and so the more natural understanding of this would be figurative rather than literal.

Does this mean that the Memorialist view is the most Biblical and therefore the right one?  In one sense yes, because the bread and wine symbolize and call our attention back to the great salvation we have received because of the cross.  We eat often because food only nourishes us temporarily.  While I believe a person who has trusted Christ and has been baptized remains in a state of grace, our daily lives, so full of our own sin and touched by the sins of other, regularly puts us in a state of discouragement and forgetfulness of our salvation.  The Eucharistic meal reminds, refreshes, and returns our hearts to the reality that Jesus loves us and gave Himself for us.  But on the other hand, I question whether the Memorialist view completely articulates the fullness of the Eucharist.  When Christ instituted it He was with His disciples and it is He who said “wherever two or more are gathered there I am in their midst (Mt. 18:10)” and “surely I am with you even to the end of the age (Mt. 28:20).”  While these are general promises of his spiritual presence with his Church, would they be any less applicable in the case of the Lord’s Supper?   And so, while I’m uncertain the Bible articulates a full on Spiritual Union (as did Martin Luther) with the consecrated elements, I do believe the Spirit of the Lord is especially present when His people partake of communion in remembrance of Him.