Edwards, Hopkins, and Smith: Self-Love and Disinterested Benevolence

Over at the Acton Institute website and blog, I take a look at some comments attributed to Lord Brian Griffiths, a vice president and advisor at Goldman Sachs: "The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest."

There are a few things wrong with this. First, it doesn't seem to be what Griffiths actually said. And second, the upset over these comments presume that there's no legitimate place for self-interest in Christian morality.

In attempting to correct these problems, I cite Lewis, who puts it very well, I think: "If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith."

Another more proximate source of this confusion in America is the influence of a theologian like Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803), a professed disciple of Jonathan Edwards and founder of the "new divinity" movement, known for his profession of "disinterested benevolence." But on the question of self-love Hopkins departs radically from Edwards, the latter arguably having more in common with the view expressed by Hopkins' contemporary Adam Smith than with Hopkins himself.

One important background for this discussion is the issue of whether a mark of sanctification is the believer's ability to renounce self-interest to such an extent that even if he or she were to be damned, they would still profess love for and glorify God. Hopkins affirms this specific doctrine, asserting that "none are his disciples who have not a heart to love God, even though he is their enemy, and disposed to curse and destroy them; who cannot be an unjust and injurious enemy." This view is renounced by both Edwards ("The more a man loves God, the more unwilling will he be, to be deprived of this happiness") as well as his grandfather Solomon Stoddard. 

This radical kind of self-abegnation is certainly not invented by Hopkins, but it does to me appear to clearly be the minority position, at least in the West. The dominant view is the Augustinian conception of ordered loves, which includes a place for ordinate self-love. I’m curious about those more familiar with Eastern theology whether and how this specific issue (love of God in spite of damnation) or more generally the question of extreme renouncement of self-interest is taken up.

Comments

[Clifford Simon]

Selflessness is a sign of virtue, as smoke is a sign of fire, but some have confused the sign with the thing itself.

And some want to have the self-emptying, "But made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant," without the glory, "For the joy set before him."

[MCModerator]

Comment removed for inappropriate language and tone. Please keep it clean and civil.

[Robert Espe]

There are a small handful of arguments so ridiculous that they deserve no more response than a chuckle, followed by "that's just not true", and then never addressing it again. I think this is one.

[Gian]

if one loves God, then how can one be dammed?

[Peter J. O'Leary]

I posted a very intemperate comment here yesterday. I sincerely apologize for any offense it caused, and I have come to rethink what I wrote, as well.

I shall follow some of Mr. Espe's suggestion and (ouch!) chuckle (ouch!). It hurts to chuckle sometimes. Though this story is far from over, I shall not address it again here, and I will be more careful with my discourse.

Hopefully, MC editors can keep such arguments to a small handful.

[Respectabiggle]

I think a Calvinist like Edwards would call this a false proposition; unless a man is saved, he cannot love God.

As far as what Lord Griffiths said (or is claimed to have said), I think that Lewis had the right of it, seeing self-love (not necessarily self-respect) as a given that should set the bar for our treatment of others.

[Diane]

Consider Christ's admonition to the multitudes: "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26). The word "hate" means just that, a conscious and complete rejection, a dying as it were.

What replaces it, I believe, is something different than the love which was abjured. Our natural loves find their basis in what we perceive to benefit ourselves. In their stead we are given a new love (referenced in John 13:34,35) which is the outflow of God's love. This love does not see the "other" as father or wife or child or even self, but rather as a potential bearer of God's glory.

As I understand it, the process of hating all these people is not a turn toward the diabolical. On the contrary, it is the realization that our complete delight (heart, soul, strength and mind) is to be found in Christ Himself. In that sense it becomes the ultimate self-love, for who benefits us more than He does?

[Rob G]

"One important background for this discussion is the issue of whether a mark of sanctification is the believer's ability to renounce self-interest to such an extent that even if he or she were to be damned, they would still profess love for and glorify God."

I've been Orthodox for 15+ years and have never once heard this mentioned. It seems to me that in the East the highest mark (if there is such a thing) of self-renunciation and sanctification is love of one's enemies.

[Baillie]

"...(love of God in spite of damnation)"

Wasn't that Job's error? A sort of 'I'll be faithful to Him no matter how unfair He is to me'?

[Clark Coleman]

In response to Diane, the word "hate" in the Semitic languages, including Aramaic, was used whenever one had to love one thing less than another. It most certainly does not mean hate in the normal English sense of the word.

[Chris]

If we all were to understand correctly any of our Masters teachings, fast for a week and take the money you would have fed yourself with and go to the streets and lanes of the inner city and feed the homeless. I find many who want to explain what Jesus said and will not lift up one finger to do it. So the next time your express enemy is hungry...feed him