…for Edwards, true religion consists in obedience to God, in holy practice. However, the only way an individual’s will can be moved to obey is to be affected. Or to put it differently, only as the individual loves–the chief of all affections–will the individual obey. And the only way someone can love–which is an affection–is for the Spirit of God to dwell in his or her heart and shed abroad his love

(Editor’s Note: This article by Sean Lucas is part of a series that has been on the Reformation 21 blog in recent days. Wes White, a writer well know to our readers, gives this summary of the sequence on his blog at www.weswhite.org

This past week witnessed an interesting blogging debate between several important figures in today’s Reformed orthodox world. This debate is about the role of self-examination and personal piety in the Reformed faith. I think this is overly simplistic, but we may call it a debate between experiential Calvinism vs. high church Calvinism. Here’s how it happened:

1. Ligon Duncan launched the opening salvo with a quote from Herman Bavinck under the title “Bavinck vs. Nevin,” Bavinck representing the experiential Calvinists over against Nevin representing the high church Calvinists.
3. Darryl Hart went to the defense of high church Calvinism with his post entitled, “Huh?!?”
5. Darryl Hart then released a counter-attacked entitled, “Edwards is not the Answer” commending an article by Paul Helm who stated concerning Edwards’ Religious Affections that “it would be unwise to take its teaching on what true religion consists in very seriously.” R. Scott Clark linked to the same post.
7. Sean Lucas then joined the fray with a reply to Helm’s article. Lucas, who is about to publish a book on Edwards, alleges that Helm has misunderstood Edwards.
9. The very next blog post on Reformation 21 was a reply to Ligon Duncan by William Evans. He writes that both Nevin and Bavinck are the answer depending on the question.

Now, here is Sean Lucas commentary…)
____________________________________

Ref21 friend Paul Helm has just finished a fascinating series of posts on Jonathan Edwards and his thoughts on true religion. His conclusion was this: “The Religious Affections is an important book, but in my view it would be unwise to take its teaching on what true religion consists in very seriously. It is a book about the importance of emotion, expressed in a public, visible way, being the measure of true religion.”

Obviously, I am not close to the scholar that Helm is and I feel it somewhat presumptuous to correct this. But as someone who has spent a great deal of time with Edwards–now stretching over twenty years–and has a book forthcoming on Edwards’ theology of the Christian life, I feel some need to say that this conclusion (especially the second sentence) is simply not correct.

It is not correct on two counts. First, it is not correct to identify “religious affections” with emotions. Edwards said that “the affections are no other than the more vigorous and sensible exercises of the inclination and will of the soul.” This definition ties back into Edwards’ prior ontological commitments: fundamental to being are the habits or dispositions that move when some sensation is brought to bear upon them. When he said, then, that affections are “sensible exercises of the inclination,” he meant that affections are the exercises of habit or disposition that have been moved to act by sensation (not emotion).

Following Lockean idealism, sensation was a more original kind of knowing than speculative or abstract thought. As the understanding and will evaluated certain sensations, reactions (or judgments) develop: approval or disapproval, approbation or disapprobation. When the sensation affects the judgment to such a degree that the will is engaged, then there is action.

For Edwards, sensation did not necessarily mean a “passionate” or “enthusiastic” reaction. Preaching produced sensations that could be quite “rational” and “unemotional” and still affect the individual to fear or love or worry and move the will to action. However, it is definitely the case that the will does not act unless it has been affected or exercised in some way. Again, this does not mean that the individual must experience intense “emotions,” but he must experience a spiritual or religious sensation that brings about the exercise of one’s will (or habit or disposition) in such a way that the individual obeys God.

This segues to the second point: it is not correct to claim that Edwards’ argued that true religion consisted in emotion expressed in a public, visible way. Rather, for Edwards, true religion consists in obedience to God, in holy practice. However, the only way an individual’s will can be moved to obey is to be affected. Or to put it differently, only as the individual loves–the chief of all affections–will the individual obey. And the only way someone can love–which is an affection–is for the Spirit of God to dwell in his or her heart and shed abroad his love. We must have a “new sense of the heart,” a new sensation or disposition that motivates and moves to holy obedience. As Thomas Chalmers put it, it is the power of a new affection that drives out sin and motivates obedience.

Certainly, there are a range of answers within the Reformed tradition to how we should live the Christian life. And certainly, historical figures like Jonathan Edwards are open to criticism for their models of the Christian life. But in order to claim that Edwards is not the answer, we have at least to understand and state accurately what his answers are first.

For myself, I have gone from thinking that Edwards’ answers were not sufficient or helpful for Reformed faith and practice to thinking that they are. And that has come from the hard, twin tasks, first of understanding what Edwards actually said; and second of dealing with my own and my people’s hearts and pointing them to a deeper love for and obedience to the Savior.

Sean Lucas is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and currently serves as Senior Pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Hattiesburg, MS. This article first appeared in the Reformation 21 blog and is used with permission.

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/04/what-was-jonathan-edwards-real.php