Saturday Book Review: Kyle Strobel

Last updated on: April 22, 2012 at 7:44 pm by Scot McKnight

Saturday Book Review: Kyle Strobel 2012-04-22T19:44:21-05:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Our review today is by Kyle Strobel (@kylestrobel), an Edwards specialist and who engages this big new book by McClymond and McDermott at the level of experts. So enjoy …

The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (OUP, 2012) by Michael J. McClymond and Gerald R. McDermott

Scot has already reviewed several small portions of this behemoth, so I will try and focus on how one should see and understand this impressive volume on Jonathan Edwards. It is worth noting that I am an Edwards scholar, and one with a “horse in this race,” as they say. In the world of Edwards scholarship there is a major divide. On one side are the followers of Sang Hyun Lee, the great Princeton Edwards scholar of this past generation whose book The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards changed the course of the field. McClymond and McDermott fall within the Lee school of thought, even though they would certainly disagree with Lee on minor points of his project. The other side of this debate has no name because it isn’t a distinct school of thought in any real sense. There are a growing number of scholars who disagree with Lee, but don’t necessarily agree with one another either. Not only do I land in this school, but I have written what I hope will become a methodological treatise to help pull together a school of thought that can compete with Lee’s. In other words, although I consider McDermott a friend, we don’t tend to land on the same side of these debates (I don’t know McClymond). For full disclosure, this seemed helpful to state up front.

That said, this is one of the most impressive accomplishments in Edwards studies over the last generation. Following the work by Gerstner, who put together a three volume systematic theology for Edwards called The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, McClymond and McDermott have provided an overview of Edwards’s thought in one volume (albeit a rather large 800 page volume). I can’t fully explain how hard a volume like this is to put together. Edwards’s thought is extremely difficult, and his corpus all the more so. Never having written his great systematic theology (nor his great Biblical Theology), one has to mine Edwards’s notebooks, sermons, treatises, and letters to discover his views. One is helped by the 26 critical volumes that Yale has assembled as “The Works of Jonathan Edwards,” but that makes up only about a third of his actual corpus. Edwards’s views shifted, he rarely let on who he was attacking in his polemical work (and all his work is polemical), and his language was so arcane that people in his own day tended to misread him. The field of Edwards studies is no better. One of the most difficult issues in writing a broad overview of his work is that no one seems to agree on any of it. In approximately a year following the publishing of this volume, no less than four major monographs will be published dealing with Edwards and the Trinity (which all scholars note is the most important doctrine to understanding his thought).

I realize I have painted somewhat of a dismal picture, so let me explain why this volume of so important. The reason why McClymond’s and McDermott’s book should be on the shelf of everyone interested in Edwards is because they provide a framework by which to read Edwards. This can help you place a sermon, a letter, a notebook entry, etc., within a broader understanding of his theology. But let me be clear. The way this book should be used is to read Edwards well. If you think you can just read their volume to “get” Edwards you are wrong. This is not only because I disagree with some of their positions (and I do), but because of the nature of Edwards’s work. Edwards’s work is similar to Barth in the sense that you cannot simply abstract one or two pieces and think you understand them. All of Edwards’s work must be read in light of the whole (or at least as much as you can hold in your mind). This is, furthermore, the downside of a volume like this one. While the authors point to the tight interconnection of Edwards’s thought, that doesn’t necessarily come through in the book itself. There are points where it does, but on a whole I didn’t see a clear picture of this interconnection emerge from my reading (admittedly, this is the main focus of my own work, and we often focus so intently on our own agendas that it is hard to see beyond them, so keep that in mind when you read my critique). What they do really well is to give you a broad picture of where he lands on key doctrines. You can use this information to read Edwards well and therefore come to grasp the interconnection of his thought.

Importantly, this is not to say that McClymond and McDermott neglect this interconnection. In fact, they do a great job of arguing for it. I just don’t think they reveal it. The best way to illustrate this last point is with a brief overview of their incredibly helpful way to talk about Edwards’s theology – a symphony. McClymond and McDermott offer a “parable” to explain their view of Edwards’s theology. In the parable a group of friends go to hear a symphony, but end being scattered to different sections of the hall. As they reflect on the evening, each person focuses on a different aspect of the symphony. Their placement in the hall affected the way each had heard the symphony. Only one of the friends sat front and center, and therefore he/she is the only one who was able to take in the “intricate interplay” of instruments uniting as one. Edwards’s theology, they evince, is similar. People tend towards one aspect of his theology (one set of instruments), and try to relegate everything else around that.

McClymond and McDermott argue for five key aspects of Edwards’s theology that correspond to five sections of instruments in an orchestra. Neglecting any of these, they claim, is failing to hear Edwards well. The five aspects are: Trinitarian Communication – that God is a communicative God; Creaturely Participation – that God is the sort of God who calls creatures to participate in his life; Necessitarian Dispositionalism – that the essence of all being consists of disposition or habit (this is where they are most indebted to Sang Lee); Theocentric Voluntarism – that there is a divine priority in all of reality; and Harmonious Constitutionalism – that salvation is “less like a chain of beads” and more like a “net in which each part of the net holds the rest in place.” Leaving aside whether this is a good reading of Edwards, this is the underlying architecture of their volume. To date, this is the most helpful analysis of addressing the whole of Edwards’s thought, to “hear” the symphony in its entirety rather than in individual fragments.

To close, let me make a critical observation (again remembering that I argue from a different interpretive “school”). I think the five aspects of Edwards’s theology they advance are helpful (minus maybe the “necessitarian dispositionalism”). But ultimately, these are still fragments. The point they are making with the symphony is that these fragments, if heard all at once, create a unity that is not necessarily inherent to the aspects themselves. I just don’t think this is the case. Notice that that first four of their points, if boiled down and focused, are really just different statements about who God is. God is communicative, God is such that he pulls creatures into his own life, God is primarily dispositional – which, on my reading, is just another way of saying that God is fundamentally persons, and therefore personal; and lastly, that the starting point for all things is God. God is the underlying unity of Edwards’s theology, in a way that I don’t believe McClymond and McDermott fully develop. If that is true, what about the last point? What is interesting about Edwards’s soteriology is not, in my mind, that it holds together like a “net” rather than a chain of beads, but where it holds together. It holds together in Christ. Ultimately, even salvation is about God. For Edwards, the underlying unity is the person and nature of God. Pushing forward that understanding, I believe, helps unveil the uniquely Reformed genius of Edwards’s theological project. This volume is a great step in getting there, but only if it is used as a tool used to seek out that underlying unity of all things in the person and nature of God.

Books

Theology

Previous Post

April 21, 2012

Weekly Meanderings

Next Post

April 21, 2012 Buy a Foot of Ireland

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: David killed Goliath with a sword.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE