Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. – Matthew 6:10
A few days ago I was reading a book by a fairly well-known
modern evangelical minister. The book
has been around for nearly thirty years and widely read, if not taken too
seriously. It is not one I would
recommend – which is why I’m not naming either it or its author – since it is
merely a warmed-over rehash of better works from authors like C.S. Lewis,
William Law, and, especially, the great American thinker, Jonathan
Edwards. Since he mentioned Edwards and
his Treatise Concerning the Religious
Affections so frequently, it occurred to me that I might better spend my time
reading Edwards myself. I don’t mean to
imply that the contemporary author’s work is without value. For some it may be a good starting
point. I found myself underlining
phrases and writing in the margins, but the author sometimes seemed miss his
own obvious points in favor of putting forth a homogenized, pasteurized version of the truth more in keeping with
what is acceptable in modern Christianity.
Edwards’ original version of Religious Affections is heavier going than I have the time for at
the moment, but, fortunately, I have an abridgement from an old Multnomah Press
Classics version republished in 1996 by Bethany House. This is one of those books that really can
benefit by some thoughtful editing.
Edwards was a genius whose mind so overflowed with understanding and
insight that he has a tendency to overwhelm the reader. Even the abridgement deserves to be read slowly
– which I’m doing.
“Affections” are feelings (wo-oh-oh, feelings) in one sense, but they are intertwined with the
will. Edwards explained that we have the
rational faculty which perceives and judges.
We also have the faculty of the soul by which it is inclined to one
thing or another. As he says, “The soul, because of this faculty, does not
want to see things as an indifferent, unaffected spectator.” We like things or we dislike them. When our affective inclination governs and
determines our choices and our courses of action, we call that inclination “the
will”. It may also be called “the heart”
when our mind is involved in consciously making the choice.
I may put up some thoughts on the relationship of affections
and religion as I work my way through the book.
I believe Edwards is correct in his assessment and gives a thorough,
accurate treatment of the subject.
Right now, though, I’m going off on a somewhat related
subject regarding the sovereign will of God.
For a long time, I recited the Lord’s Prayer without giving too much
thought to it. Then one day, I realized
that I was asking for God’s will to be done everywhere in the material universe
as it was being done already in heaven. In
Matthew 18:18, echoing what He said in another context in Matthew 16:19, Jesus
tells His disciples about their authority as believers, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Other translations or marginal readings give
the idea a slightly different twist, saying, in effect, that we are able to
bind on earth what is already bound in heaven and to loose what has already
been loosed – in other words, to manifest the heavenly reality in the earthly
realm. It’s pretty heavy stuff in any
case.
The question I asked, though, is, if God is sovereign upon
earth, why is His will not done on earth as it is in heaven? Why would that even be an issue? Is God in control or not?
There is no power equal to God, not even a viable competing
power:
I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things. (Isaiah 45:5-7)
There is not much room for questioning such a statement. I see little in Scripture that would offer an
alternative view and much that reinforces this concept. The devil looks more like a tool. It is Milton more than the Bible that makes him
look powerful -- God’s nemesis in a dark realm.
Satan’s kingdom and his influence are circumscribed and limited by the
Lord. The devil might be our nemesis, but
he is not in God’s class.
Consider that Jesus was betrayed by Judas and crucified in
accordance with the Father’s will. Jesus
is the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. Every lamb offered from the Exodus the death
of Christ prefigured, foreshadowed, and typified that crucifixion. Yet there is no question that the rejection
and crucifixion of Jesus was an evil act, and those involved who did not repent
of their part in it were held responsible and judged as guilty. The will of man to do evil became a part of
God’s overall plan to accomplish a good end.
Edwards addresses the problem by saying that God has a “will
of command” or a revealed will as well as a “will of decree” or His secret
will. Though worthwhile, this can be a
little boggy:
When a distinction is made between God’s revealed will and his secret will, or his will of command and decree, will is certainly in that distinction taken in two senses. His will of decree, is not his will in the same sense as his will of command is. Therefore, it is no difficulty at all to suppose, that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue, or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended, that virtue, or the creature’s happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature.His will of decree is, his inclination to a thing, not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with respect to the universality of things, that have been, are, or shall be. So God, though he hates a thing as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things. Though he hates sin in itself, yet he may will to permit it, for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality, including all things, and at all times. So, though he has no inclination to a creature’s misery, considered absolutely, yet he may will it, for the greater promotion of happiness in this universality.
Easy for you to say. (Read more of this
HERE, if so inclined.) Sometimes
people will refer to God’s “permissive will” – even those who are not as
committed to the sovereignty of God as was Edwards. Most Christians still believe that God is ultimately
in control, and He will allow us to suffer temporally for a greater eternal
purpose. Thus you might look at the
division as God’s eternal will – which is secret – versus His temporal will –
which is revealed, or as absolute versus relative.
For the Christian, suffering in this world makes sense only
if there is another world. As my
grandmother used to say, “Just this world and one more.” Or, as Paul said, “If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most
to be pitied.”
3 comments:
"The question I asked, though, is, if God is sovereign upon earth, why is His will not done on earth as it is in heaven?"
That is a good question.
I wonder, maybe too often, if our suffering is relative. In other worlds, if He removed 99% of it we might suffer just as much (still find plenty to complain about given our new boundaries; however small it would still be the only our cosmos we know). Then I remember someone suffering a great deal more than me and that idea seems terribly childish. Perhaps suffering is the default position and thanks be to God when we don't.
God's will: maybe this is included past those things that Man can know; that area where if we speak too much about God's nature, as if we know for certain, then God seems smaller somehow for it. Maybe all we can know for certain is that He has a will, as if hearing Job's God who says, "Where were YOU when I made the foundation?" That's the fear of God that is somehow also comforting.
This is a thought provoking post. I've always found "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done" a curious and mysterious "statement". I'm never really satisfied that I understand it. Irritating, almost, but in a good way. Which may be the point. If scripture weren't irritating in this way, would we need it?
I hope it's always irritating :-)
"I may put up some thoughts on the relationship of affections and religion as I work my way through the book."
I look forward to that, Mush.
Thank you.
Perhaps suffering is the default position and thanks be to God when we don't.
I like that.
Yes, when you start digging in stuff like this, it is always more questions than answers, which maybe, as you say, the point.
Whew. Thank God for abridgements of abridgements.
Post a Comment