Love of Benevolence vs. Love of Complacence

In his Treatise on Grace (and to a lesser extent in Religious Affections), Jonathan Edwards explains the difference between a love of benevolence and a love of complacence.

Love is commonly distinguished into a love of complacence and a love of benevolence. Of these two a love of complacence is first, and is the foundation of the other, if by a love of complacence is meant relishing a sweetness in the qualifications of the beloved...

...That the soul may relish the sweetness and the beauty of a beloved object whether that object is present or absent, whether in possession or not in possession; and this relish is the foundation of love of benevolence, or desire of the good of the beloved. It is the foundation of love or affection to the beloved object when absent; it is the foundation of one's rejoicing in the object when present; and so it is the foundation of everything else that belongs to divine love.

And if this is true, then the main ground of true love to God is the excellency of His own nature and not any benefit we have received or hope to receive by His goodness to us.

Treatise on Grace, p.34

To have a love of benevolence means to love someone for the things they do. In other words you love the gifts that they give, but not necessarily the person itself. As this applies to God, a love of benevolence would be a love that is strictly a love of benefits. You love God because of the job He has provided for you, the family or friends He has placed around you, or the natural abilities He has gifted you with. You enjoy the benefits without thinking deeply about, and finding more excellence in, the Giver of the benefits.

A gratitude for kindness is nothing distinctly Christian. All that is required is a principle of self-love that can be found in any natural, unregenerate, depraved human being. So would you still love God if your house was destroyed? If a friend, child, or spouse died? If you found yourself without the ability to see or to walk? Would you love God simply because He is God and therefore deserves to be loved? This leads us to a love of complacence.

Just as a love of benevolence is to love someone for things they do, a love of complacence is to love someone for the thing that they are; to love them in and of themselves, apart from their actions. To love God because He is God.

A love of complacence is the foundation of any proper love of benevolence toward God (a desire for the good of the beloved, and not simply an appreciation of the good provided). The self-love of benevolence will necessarily point people to that which sweetest to them. But, as Edwards states, "God's perfections must first savor the appetite and be sweet to people... before self-love can have any influence upon them to cause an appetite after the enjoyment of that sweetness" (p.35). It is in that divine taste wherein love of complacence most fundamentally consists, prior to any benevolence that can incline us to God.

Divine love, as it has God for its object, may be thus described: it is the soul's relish of the supreme excellency of the divine nature, inclining the heart to God as the chief good (p.32)

I have tried my best here to present an accurate portrayal of Edward's position. As you ponder the position of Edwards that I have put forward, I encourage you to stay tuned for future blog posts. As great a concept as Edwards has derived (that of love of benevolence and love of complacence) I found myself a little at odds with material, and not quite sold on his definitions. So in some respects, I am still wrestling through whether I completely agree with Edwards or not, and I hope you will join me as I wrestle with my thoughts in a public, steel-cage-like, forum.

(Disagreeing with Edwards? Sniff, sniff... do I detect the smell of heresy? I hope not... but it is scandalous nonetheless).

In God We (still) Trust

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, on voting for the emergency economic rescue bill:

"But even if we pass this bill today, let's not kid ourselves. We're in the midst of a recession. It's going to be a rough ride, but it will be a whole lot rougher ride if we don't pass this bill. I will say to all of you, when this bill passes today, remember those words 'In God we trust,' because we're going to need his help."

It's good to see that Representative Boehner reads the blog.

Proverbs 18:10-11
The name of the LORD is like a strong tower;
the righteous person runs to it and is set safely on high.
The wealth of a rich person is like a strong city,
and it is like a high wall in his imagination.

History of the Work of Redemption

The title is a work by Jonathan Edwards, a collection of 30 sermons, that trace God's redemptive plan throughout the course of the Bible and throughout the history of time. When describing the hermeneutical assumptions that Edwards based his work on, Dr. John Hannah states:

"A significant assumption for Edwards in the work is the providence of God is historiography. History, sacred and secular, is a stage upon which a divine redemptive discourse is played. According to Edwards, the generations of mankind on earth did not begin until the Fall and they will continue to the end of the world; the procession of mankind is thus bound by a beginning in the Fall and by an end in the Day of Judgment. Between these two events God is outworking a redemptive drama on the stage of creation. History cannot be understood, according to Edwards, in terms of individuals alone; there is something larger to contend with (nations, societies, churches). History cannot be the story of individuals because that would involve repetition, not progress. Progress is central, but its significance is not progress-for-progress sake (a materialist view); it is a divine act of self-glorification."

I mention this because of an earlier posting on this blog entitled "An End to the Means." In that post I mentioned how progress is not just for progress' sake. We don't advance our technology, our economy, our society simply to be more advanced. But rather, progress, in any area of history, is ultimately working toward a decided end goal: the return of Christ in glory.

I just thought this served as a good reminder of that fact, coming from much smarter men than me.