In the age of cancel culture where one mistake from the past can cause you to be silence before the public for an indefinite period of time, Trevin Wax (click here for a bio) asks whether prominent theologians should also suffer that fate. It is both a legitimate question to ask as well as a piece of damage control considering the theologians he mentions.
In an article posted on the The Gospel Coalition website (click here for the article ), Trevin asks how we should react to the significant sins committed by Karl Barth, Jonathan Edwards, and Martin Luther. But more importantly, he also asks how those sins might have factored in the theologies of those men.
Karl Barth's sin that merits much public scrutiny was his long-time affair with one of his assistants. Wax goes on to say how Barth employed a torturous theological defense of his affair. Jonathan Edwards's sin was his defense of and participation in slavery. Though Edwards condemned the slave trade, he both defended slavery and owned slaves. Martin Luther is also included because of his later on in life, virulent anti-Semitism. Of course much of how Luther responded to those he disagreed with was virulent.
Before mentioning these sins, Wax starts off well by attacking the all-or-nothing approach that we can take towards famous theologians. For some have treated famous theologians, such as these three, as impeccable authority figures while others have canceled theologians out at the first indication of human weakness or sinfulness. Wax then describes with some detail Barth's affair. Then he discusses the importance of the purity of heart that theologians should have and how one's own sin can affect one's own theology.
Wax then goes on to discuss 3 ways in which theologians, and, in fact, all Christians, could be participating in sin. They are open rebellion against God, practicing sin because one was blinded by their culture, and finally struggling against the sins one is committing. Of course, the third option should be chosen by all of us because we all have a particular set of sins that we struggle most with. However, Wax notes that while Barth's long-time adulterous affair puts his participation in that sin in the first category, he acknowledges that both Edwards and Luther were practicing their sins because of the effects that their own cultures had had on them. Luther grew up in Europe where anti-Semitism had a firm grip on the nations and societies there while, similarly, Edwards grew up and lived in a place and time where white supremacy reigned.
Wax then goes on to talk about the weaknesses of his model of thought here in that people can go from open rebellion to one who is struggling with a given sin.
Wax finishes his article by rightfully telling us that we should look into the details of each time a famous theologian participates in a serious sin. For those three theologians are not the only theologians who have given into a significant sin. We can think of John Calvin and how he had at least one heretic as well as multiple witches killed for their beliefs and/or practices, Or there J. Gresham Machen and his racism. Another that some unbelievers could mention was Billy Graham and his misguided political support for Richard Nixon despite Nixon's racism and anti-Semitism.
Wax finishes his article rightfully talking about the complexity of the human sinful condition. And throughout the article, Wax rightfully cautions us to not take an all-or-nothing approach to how we react to theologians who are involved with serious sins.
Some questions inadvertently come up from Wax's article. The first one is does being a famous theologian merit a hall pass for one's sin from the Church. In other words, would an ordinary believer be automatically excommunicated from the Church should they have practiced adultery as Barth had? Should we discount the faith of those Christians from the South who joined Edwards in defending slavery or those Christians who are anti-Semitic like Martin Luther was while we honor Edwards and Luther as believers?
Another question that could be asked is, are there other factors, besides one's personal sins, that can affect or even corrupt the theology of famous theologians? We might ask this about the writers of the confessions that our denominations cling to so passionately. Just to pick an example, was the theology of the Westminster Devines, those who wrote the Westminster Standards affected by the authoritarian culture that was so prominent in England during their time? In other words, does it take the sinfulness of a theologian for us to step back and take a balanced view of their work and so otherwise put the theologies of others on too high a pedestal?
Another question we could ask here is, does the Gospel we believe allows for some believers to commit any sins they want because their faith has given them a get-out-of-eternal-jail card? And thus, can some of us live any way we want to as long as we know that our sins have been forgiven. The answer to that question is a complex 'no.'
Finally, we should go back to Wax's last paragraph and apply it to ourselves as well as to how we should look at the failings of other fellow Christians. That our human condition brings a complexity to how we should look at ourselves and others as being both believers and still being sinful. Our own sinful condition should curb any tendency to harshly condemn the sins of unbelievers too. Here it would be most important to remember what James said at the end of the second chapter of his epistle: 'Mercy triumphs over judgment.'
