Like most people, the only thing I knew about Jonathan Edwards was from an American History survey class discussion of the Great Awakening of the 1720's and 1730's. Citing as an example of the kind of thing a visitor to a service might hear is Edwards' sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". Of course, the entire sermon isn't used, just the part where a lurid portrait is drawn of a pathetic human figure, dangling over the fires of hell, our only hope of rescue being the long-suffering acts of a loving God who should just let us drop because we deserve nothing less.
Edwards' collected papers - diaries, correspondence, pamphlets, and sermons - currently stands around 60 very fat volumes. His writings encompass works on beauty, on the joys of nature, and far more than any other subject, love. Indeed, were he a bit more systematic a thinker, one could almost call him a proto-Romantic, for there are echoes of his work in thinkers as diverse as Thoreau, Emerson, Fichte, and Hegel. Before secular historians discovered that one sermon, out of the thousands he preached, Edwards was known more for his thinking and writing on love than anything else. To be fair, by the way, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is such an example, should one consider Edwards' Calvinist roots. To describe, not so much the horrid thought of God allowing us to fall in to the pit of eternal damnation, but the idea that the only thing keeping us from so falling is the love of God, Edwards is describing, using language we moderns find disturbing, lurid, and a bit over the top, what Grace is. He is talking about the fact that God should let us drop, should be angered enough to condemn us to eternal separation from the divine presence, yet does not. That God acts this way is the mystery of grace, a mystery that gives us hope, and is the root of and model for human love.
Even those who would not acknowledge him, such as Richard Rorty, are still influenced by Edwards' combination of non-systematic thought and desire to see the whole of life through a lens of clarity and honesty. Rather than seek a key to understanding what is really going on, Edwards was more than happy to allow for change in his views as the world around him changed. He gloried in the diversity of life, in the beauty of nature, and in a sincere and deep love for his fellow human beings. Unlike our current crop of non-theologically inclined religious "leaders", Edwards' most abiding character trait was a humility bordering on self-abnegation. He honestly did not accept the many accolades he received during his lifetime as reflecting of what he viewed as his meager achievements. He felt himself always learning more about the ways of God in the world. He was, in many ways, the first American pragmatist, and a great example of what a Christian theologian should be - a servant of the people and God.
His influence is wide and deep, but to link him to our current religious fanatics is, I think, to do dishonor to his legacy. Emerson, Whitman, Niebuhr, even the Roman Catholic feminist Rosemary Radford Reuther are far more recipients of and followers in the footsteps of Edwards than Robertson and Dobson. The latter are more in keeping with Billy Sunday than a serious, profound, deeply fraught man like Jonathan Edwards.
As an aside to Jim Bush-Resko, Edwards' influence during the Second Great Awakening was minimal, and his work largely forgotten until the early twentieth century, accept among New England Congregationalists (of whom Emerson, especially, was most representative, carrying his legacy forward in, first, Unitarianism, then later post-Christian Transcendentalism). American fundamentalism owes more to anti-intellectualism and fear - the hallmarks of Dwight Moody and Sunday - than the depth and passion and humble faith of Jonathan Edwards.
