Christopher Hays, in The Widening of God’s Mercy (co-authored with his father, Richard Hays), judges that Jonathan Edwards seems to have paid little attention to God’s love for humankind.  He portrays God, rather, as resplendent in glory, having no need of us, his unworthy subjects.

Not surprising, then, that Edwards, in his (in)famous sermon on ‘Sinners in the hands of an angry God’, writes threateningly of impending doom for unrepentant sinners:

‘The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince: and yet ’tis nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment: ’tis to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you were suffer’d to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep.’

This sermon was preached in 1741, five years after Edward’s preaching:

‘sparked a rash of suicides and suicidal ideations among his congregation in Northampton, Massachusetts.’

One of the suicides was his own uncle, Joseph Hawley II, whom Edwards describes as:

a gentleman of more than common understanding, of strict morals, religious in his behavior, and a useful and honorable person.’

In A Faithful Narrative of the Suprising Work of God (1736), Edwards reflects on this incident, stating this Hawley had become:

‘exceedingly concerned about the state of his soul. . . . The devil took the advantage, and drove him into despairing thoughts.’

Edwards continues:

‘The news of this extraordinarily affected the minds of people here, and struck them as it were with astonishment. After this, multitudes in this and other towns seemed to have it strongly suggested to them, and pressed upon them, to do as this person had done. And many who seemed to be under no melancholy, some pious persons who had no special darkness or doubts about the goodness of their state—nor were under any special trouble or concern of mind about any thing spiritual or temporal—had it urged upon them as if somebody had spoke to them, Cut your throat, now is a good opportunity. Now! now! So that they were obliged to fight with all their might to resist it, and yet no reason suggested to them why they should do it.’

Hays surmises that there was, in fact, a reason that suggested to them why they should do it, namely, Edward’s insistence that they were loathsome to God, and unnecessary to him.

Comment

I think that Christopher Hays is probably correct when he accuses Edwards of paying insufficient attention to God’s love for human beings.

However, with regard to this rash of suicidal thoughts amongst Edwards’ congregants, Hays has attempted to account for this sad turn of events in entirely human terms (it was all Edwards’ fault)., and failed to give any credence to Edwards’ own explanation: ‘the devil took advantage’.

No account of revival is adequate which does not take account of the devil’s opposition to an extraordinary work of the Spirit of God.

Kindly see the linked post.