Wow that’s incredible 22:50 how radical and amazing the gospel is to change our hearts and minds, what a wonderful story about st Johnathan Edwards. It’s so great to think he referred to them as “my people” what a familial and intentionally intimate thing to say
Interesting discussion. We today see slavery in the past as a black-and-white issue (double meaning not intended), but we fail to see the spectrum that runs in between slavery and supposed total freedom. To wit, employees today must report to work and perform tasks someone else dictates, or be fired. Their boss gets to tell them what to do — and how and when — or they get fired, thence unable to buy food and other necessities for their well-being. The employer sets the rules, although those rules of course are limited (no whipping allowed!). Still, one could say these are "soft" human-ownership aspects. But to throw away the capitalist system leads to even worse conditions of life for most people. There is no complete escape from human-over-human control, no 100% disenfranchisement.
Slavery doesn’t equal “racism”. Even the black man stealers in Africa might have deserved the death penalty they MAY have been stealing from a tribal not “race” basis. By the 1800s most slave owners inherited the problem. Economics and greed might be the sin instead in any particular case dealing with slavery.
This should have started out with the history THEN explained his views.
Thank you for a very informative episode. Edwards was a man of his times, like all of us. It is so easy to anachronistically judge people of a different time, with no personal awareness of the worldviews of their period. When we deem our own times as superior to the past, we start from a questionable premise. In my own genealogy from that same time period, I have ancestors that suffered the loss of female family members to Native American/Indian raids. Likewise I have ancestors who were captured as children but rescued later in their lives. I cannot pretend to understand what it was truly like to live during such a period. Thus we must stifle our anachronistic thinking and show grace.
The problem is we do not have a consistent definition of racism (or what it means to NOT be racist) in our public discourse.
One problem is that people conflate prejudice wirh racism. They can be related, but they are not the same. Everyone has prejudice about something (and not just about race!), but it is always a blind spot. It's more of an emotional reaction to something rather than an intellectual position about something. And it can be overcome with time, information, and maturity.
Racism comes from the ideological view that there are separate "races" within the human race, and that some of those races are inherently bad or at least, undesirable, with no particular regard to their individual identity. The opposite of racism would be the idea that all humans, regardless of physical characteristics or nationality, are equal before God, and indeed are created in the image of God. And therein lies the problem. The real solution to racism is rightly understanding anthropology from a Biblical point of view. This doesn't mean every Christian actually realizes this, but if they continue in the faith, they should eventually come to see this. Racism, and particularly becoming hardened in racist views, means you build your anthropology on what was initially just a prejudice, and also represents rebellion against God's Word.
In the atheistic world, where the essence of true virtue is to constantly shift and change wirh the wind, the opposite to one form of racism (anti-Black) can only be replaced by another form of racism (anti-White), because the evolutionary POV naturally lends itself to thinking some of us are better than others of us.
Ironically, today by quickly branding people racist and therefore to be shuned demonstrates a modern sort of prejudice as well, and even an ideology that seeks to brand anyone you disagree with us in subhuman terminology. It's just another form of the ad hominem error, which is how prejudice, racism, and hatred our fellow man is most easily and cheaply sold.
The word racist is not even in early English dictionaries. America abolished slavery; no doubt this triumph has a lot to do Jonathon Edward’s influence.
Thank you for doing and for posting this video. I have a copy of Dr. Lowe's book and appreciate his insights. I'm currently researching the issue of JE and race relations regarding Native Americans, Africans, and colonial African Americans. Edwards seems to have made more progress in his thinking toward Native Americans (from regarding them as "the devil's people" to regarding them as "my people") than he did toward those of African ethnicity. His progression regarding Native Americans is documented; there doesn't seem to be a similar record regarding Africans or African colonials. Why one group and not the others? I wonder whether Dr. Lowe has any thoughts on this.
Edwards and Whitefield are two different cases in my book. I look at historical figures to see which direction they move history. Edwards' teaching did lead to a lot of abolitionist ideas and he never argued for increasing slavery. Whitefield, on the other hand, was instrumental in opening the slave trade in Georgia, and was unrepentant for his whole life, so I don't think we can even have confidence in his salvation, much less in his theology.
A profitable discussion. Noteworthy that Edwards' views on Native Americans became more Biblical with time. Also, a prudent word – learn from what's good in a Christian writer yet reject what's unbiblical while humbly remember we're also at best saved sinners who need correction.
He owned slaves til the day he died. I can't stand this whitewashing we do as Reformed Christians so sometimes. Did Calvin light the fire on Servetus? No. Was he trying to lobby for lesser punishment or anything. No. Did he want him to die. Yes! Why do people try and lessen the wound and downplay these men's faults? The Bible doesn't when it comes to guys like Peter and his denial and Noah and his drunkenness etc… Edwards was a racist. It is what it is. This is kinda off-putting 😢
The problem of modern individuals using their criterion against an historic figure set in another time is a problem. There is a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Moderns could (and do) indict any premodern person they want as “racist” and that is because it is itself a modern term created to deride Biblically derived moral distinctions between cultures (which are definitionally tied to genetics).
2:08 I think he's been very dismissive here. Edwards defended slavery from an economic point of view; he said that if he gave up his slaves, he would be at a disadvantage compared to others, so he thought that either they should abolish it for everyone or they shouldn't. He has a letter talking about it. That does not make it any less wrong, in my opinion. He used a very common argument based on the idea that if something is legal, there is no moral issue with it. But legality does not necessarily mean moral legitimacy. The state of Massachusetts allowed people to own slaves as long as they were treated with dignity, but we know there is no actual dignity in being a slave owner.
If anyone argues that he was a man of his time and that people held certain beliefs back then, that is also a very wrong understanding of history. Edwards was criticized by Christians for having slaves and for defending his social position and his friends who owned slaves, so there was nowhere near a consensus on the issue. On top of that, you can find writings from the Fathers of the Church opposing slavery, so it was not a new thing among Christians to hold an abolitionist point of view.
But for me, the worst thing was using the Apostle Paul to defend it. Edwards appealed to the fact that Paul addressed slaves and masters without explicitly calling for the abolition of slavery, treating this as evidence that the institution itself could be legitimate. But that argument completely overlooks the direction of Paul's teaching. Paul tells slaves that if they can gain their freedom, they should take the opportunity, tells masters to treat their slaves justly and fairly, and in Philemon he asks Philemon to receive Onesimus not merely as a slave, but as a beloved brother in Christ. So, for me, using Paul's relative silence on the abolition of the institution as a defense of slavery is particularly problematic when Paul is clearly transforming the relationship between master and slave from within the Christian moral framework.
I appreciate making this response. I must say that I find the arguments made here lacking. I find that the fact that Lowe could not explicitly say that Edwards was not racist particularly damning.
The rationalizations made for Edwards sin (though his decisions were seldom referred to as such in the video) are honestly unsettling. Would the same defenses be made if he had a life of sexual immorality or murder (1 Tim 1:9-10)? Can people in today's age who say they are Christian while supporting corrupt sexual ethics be excused as people of their time? Are morals subjective or objective?
The concluding argument in support of Edwards is essentially "he who is without sin cast the first stone." Certainly, Lowe and Everhard are not suggesting that historical figures can never be denounced or condemned in light of their sins (no matter how extensive) because all humans sin. My qualm is not that Edward's sinned, but the extent of his sin, and most importantly, that he apparently died unrepentant. If discoveries are made to the contrary, I'll revise my position.
The "good" things Edwards may or may not have said are as irrelevant to me, as the "good" things Ravi Zacharias may or may not have said.
I guess my new morning routine is Coffee, breakfast, Matthew Everhard 💪
Wow that’s incredible 22:50 how radical and amazing the gospel is to change our hearts and minds, what a wonderful story about st Johnathan Edwards. It’s so great to think he referred to them as “my people” what a familial and intentionally intimate thing to say
the r@cism thing is way overplayed. but Melville and Hawthorne had a lot more interesting critiques of the Puritans
Interesting discussion. We today see slavery in the past as a black-and-white issue (double meaning not intended), but we fail to see the spectrum that runs in between slavery and supposed total freedom. To wit, employees today must report to work and perform tasks someone else dictates, or be fired. Their boss gets to tell them what to do — and how and when — or they get fired, thence unable to buy food and other necessities for their well-being. The employer sets the rules, although those rules of course are limited (no whipping allowed!). Still, one could say these are "soft" human-ownership aspects. But to throw away the capitalist system leads to even worse conditions of life for most people. There is no complete escape from human-over-human control, no 100% disenfranchisement.
Slavery doesn’t equal “racism”. Even the black man stealers in Africa might have deserved the death penalty they MAY have been stealing from a tribal not “race” basis. By the 1800s most slave owners inherited the problem. Economics and greed might be the sin instead in any particular case dealing with slavery.
This should have started out with the history THEN explained his views.
Thank you for a very informative episode. Edwards was a man of his times, like all of us. It is so easy to anachronistically judge people of a different time, with no personal awareness of the worldviews of their period. When we deem our own times as superior to the past, we start from a questionable premise. In my own genealogy from that same time period, I have ancestors that suffered the loss of female family members to Native American/Indian raids. Likewise I have ancestors who were captured as children but rescued later in their lives. I cannot pretend to understand what it was truly like to live during such a period. Thus we must stifle our anachronistic thinking and show grace.
The problem is we do not have a consistent definition of racism (or what it means to NOT be racist) in our public discourse.
One problem is that people conflate prejudice wirh racism. They can be related, but they are not the same. Everyone has prejudice about something (and not just about race!), but it is always a blind spot. It's more of an emotional reaction to something rather than an intellectual position about something. And it can be overcome with time, information, and maturity.
Racism comes from the ideological view that there are separate "races" within the human race, and that some of those races are inherently bad or at least, undesirable, with no particular regard to their individual identity. The opposite of racism would be the idea that all humans, regardless of physical characteristics or nationality, are equal before God, and indeed are created in the image of God. And therein lies the problem. The real solution to racism is rightly understanding anthropology from a Biblical point of view. This doesn't mean every Christian actually realizes this, but if they continue in the faith, they should eventually come to see this. Racism, and particularly becoming hardened in racist views, means you build your anthropology on what was initially just a prejudice, and also represents rebellion against God's Word.
In the atheistic world, where the essence of true virtue is to constantly shift and change wirh the wind, the opposite to one form of racism (anti-Black) can only be replaced by another form of racism (anti-White), because the evolutionary POV naturally lends itself to thinking some of us are better than others of us.
Ironically, today by quickly branding people racist and therefore to be shuned demonstrates a modern sort of prejudice as well, and even an ideology that seeks to brand anyone you disagree with us in subhuman terminology. It's just another form of the ad hominem error, which is how prejudice, racism, and hatred our fellow man is most easily and cheaply sold.
Yes he is pure racist.
Yes Edwards was racist and the modern PCA would excommunicate him.
Same with Luther, Calvin, Matthew Henry, and every other respected protestant.
The word racist is not even in early English dictionaries. America abolished slavery; no doubt this triumph has a lot to do Jonathon Edward’s influence.
Thank you for doing and for posting this video. I have a copy of Dr. Lowe's book and appreciate his insights. I'm currently researching the issue of JE and race relations regarding Native Americans, Africans, and colonial African Americans. Edwards seems to have made more progress in his thinking toward Native Americans (from regarding them as "the devil's people" to regarding them as "my people") than he did toward those of African ethnicity. His progression regarding Native Americans is documented; there doesn't seem to be a similar record regarding Africans or African colonials. Why one group and not the others? I wonder whether Dr. Lowe has any thoughts on this.
Any idea if the JE Study Bible notes will make it to Logos in the future?
Great discussion, and look forward to reading the book!
Edwards and Whitefield are two different cases in my book. I look at historical figures to see which direction they move history. Edwards' teaching did lead to a lot of abolitionist ideas and he never argued for increasing slavery. Whitefield, on the other hand, was instrumental in opening the slave trade in Georgia, and was unrepentant for his whole life, so I don't think we can even have confidence in his salvation, much less in his theology.
A profitable discussion. Noteworthy that Edwards' views on Native Americans became more Biblical with time. Also, a prudent word – learn from what's good in a Christian writer yet reject what's unbiblical while humbly remember we're also at best saved sinners who need correction.
He owned slaves til the day he died. I can't stand this whitewashing we do as Reformed Christians so sometimes. Did Calvin light the fire on Servetus? No. Was he trying to lobby for lesser punishment or anything. No. Did he want him to die. Yes! Why do people try and lessen the wound and downplay these men's faults? The Bible doesn't when it comes to guys like Peter and his denial and Noah and his drunkenness etc… Edwards was a racist. It is what it is. This is kinda off-putting 😢
The problem of modern individuals using their criterion against an historic figure set in another time is a problem. There is a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Moderns could (and do) indict any premodern person they want as “racist” and that is because it is itself a modern term created to deride Biblically derived moral distinctions between cultures (which are definitionally tied to genetics).
2:08 I think he's been very dismissive here. Edwards defended slavery from an economic point of view; he said that if he gave up his slaves, he would be at a disadvantage compared to others, so he thought that either they should abolish it for everyone or they shouldn't. He has a letter talking about it. That does not make it any less wrong, in my opinion. He used a very common argument based on the idea that if something is legal, there is no moral issue with it. But legality does not necessarily mean moral legitimacy. The state of Massachusetts allowed people to own slaves as long as they were treated with dignity, but we know there is no actual dignity in being a slave owner.
If anyone argues that he was a man of his time and that people held certain beliefs back then, that is also a very wrong understanding of history. Edwards was criticized by Christians for having slaves and for defending his social position and his friends who owned slaves, so there was nowhere near a consensus on the issue. On top of that, you can find writings from the Fathers of the Church opposing slavery, so it was not a new thing among Christians to hold an abolitionist point of view.
But for me, the worst thing was using the Apostle Paul to defend it. Edwards appealed to the fact that Paul addressed slaves and masters without explicitly calling for the abolition of slavery, treating this as evidence that the institution itself could be legitimate. But that argument completely overlooks the direction of Paul's teaching. Paul tells slaves that if they can gain their freedom, they should take the opportunity, tells masters to treat their slaves justly and fairly, and in Philemon he asks Philemon to receive Onesimus not merely as a slave, but as a beloved brother in Christ. So, for me, using Paul's relative silence on the abolition of the institution as a defense of slavery is particularly problematic when Paul is clearly transforming the relationship between master and slave from within the Christian moral framework.
I appreciate making this response. I must say that I find the arguments made here lacking. I find that the fact that Lowe could not explicitly say that Edwards was not racist particularly damning.
The rationalizations made for Edwards sin (though his decisions were seldom referred to as such in the video) are honestly unsettling. Would the same defenses be made if he had a life of sexual immorality or murder (1 Tim 1:9-10)? Can people in today's age who say they are Christian while supporting corrupt sexual ethics be excused as people of their time? Are morals subjective or objective?
The concluding argument in support of Edwards is essentially "he who is without sin cast the first stone." Certainly, Lowe and Everhard are not suggesting that historical figures can never be denounced or condemned in light of their sins (no matter how extensive) because all humans sin. My qualm is not that Edward's sinned, but the extent of his sin, and most importantly, that he apparently died unrepentant. If discoveries are made to the contrary, I'll revise my position.
The "good" things Edwards may or may not have said are as irrelevant to me, as the "good" things Ravi Zacharias may or may not have said.