As part of my research study on the history of Christianity in America, I am reading Reformed Theology in America: A History of its Modern Developments, a collection of essays edited by David Wells on the various streams of Reformed theology in the United States. One of the chapters, written by Wells himself, is on Charles Hodge, one of the most significant Calvinist theologians in American history and one of the longest-serving professors at Princeton.

Part of the chapter deals with Hodge's understanding of the atonement, set against that of the New School thinkers (such as Moses Stuart, Albert Barnes, and especially Nathaniel Taylor), whose understanding, among other things, denied the doctrine of imputation. Hodge saw a connection between how one understood the atonement and how they understood God's governance of the world. For Hodge the satisfying of God's justice was central to the work of Christ, and "the atonement made possible the preservation of the moral structure of the universe" (55). In accord with His character, God would treat His creatures as they deserved, showing favor to what is good and disfavor to what is wrong. For Hodge, then, the issue of theodicy was connected to one's understanding of the atonement.

In the view of men like Taylor, God's justice against an immoral society served as a sort of detterent, and for the individual sinner it would be a form of rehabilitation. Hodge, however, understood that God's dealing with His creatures was in accord with what they deserved, and thus "only Christ's interposition could preserve us from the calamity which the vindication of God's character would produce" (55).

Here lay the crux, so to speak, of Hodge's differences with the New School thinkers. For they believed, in most cases, that in God's government of the world punishment was used but the purpose was to prevent sin and to correct the sinner. This attitude naturally led to the assumption that the chief goal of existence is happiness, and holiness is simply the best way to get there. But, countered Hodge, 'we know that holiness is something more than a means; that to be happy is not the end and reason for being holy; that enjoyment is not the highest end of being.' This results in our viewing ethical choices in commercial terms. A choice is made, not because it is the inherently right thing to do, but because it produces profit of some kind and avoids loss. Virtue becomes expediency. The end justifies the means. And human beings are degraded because their moral capacities are reduced to being merely the instruments of happiness (55-56).

Evangelicalism today, in many respects, is largely a witness to the continuing influence of the thought of men like Taylor. There is a pervasive moralism that lurks beneath the surface, one that, while perhaps affirming salvation by grace alone, leaves the individual responsible for doing things that will make them happier or better people—reading their Bible more, praying more, going to church and attending all of its programs throughout the week, listening to Christian radio, giving a little more than the required tithe, and so on. People become quick to attribute their various "sufferings" to their neglect of the performance of any or all of these duties (also prevalent right now is the linking of the economic state of the United States with its collective lack of holiness).

All of this fails, for one, to make the distinction between happiness and joy, the latter of which is something volitional. Paul's letter to the Philippians contains a number of imperatives demonstrating that rejoicing in the Lord is not a feeling that results from doing certain things. Instead, Paul encourages us to be joyful by considering "everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:8), and by glorying in the blessing of being united with him. Additionally, it fails to recognize the holistic work of Christ in our lives. Our salvation, being brought from death to life, includes the ongoing work of sanctification by the Spirit in our hearts, enabling us to grow and mature and increasingly live in a manner worthy of our calling as children of God.

While we should certainly devote ourselves to things like the study of Scripture and prayer, Hodge is right to say that we should not view holiness as a means to an end. Holiness, instead, is a response to the grace of God. The Heidelberg Catechism affirms that "it is impossible for those grafted into Christ by true faith not to produce fruits of gratitude" (Q&A 64). Our happiness is never contingent on the performance of certain holy duties. Hodge would argue that to hold to this understanding would be do a great disservice to the atoning work of Christ.