In our recent Clarus weekend, on “The Convergence of Doctrine and Delight,” several references were made to the thought of Jonathan Edwards and especially his work, Religious Affections (which you can read online for free, or purchase in hardcopy, or you can start with Sam Storms’ excellent summary of it).

Though less famous, Edwards several works on The Great Awakening (nicely combined in Vol. 4 of the Yale edition of his Works) are perhaps equally important for this theme ‚ especially The Distinguishing Marks of Revival (1741) and Some Thoughts Concerning Revival (1742).

Here are a few exemplary paragraphs from the latter work on the relationship of “light” (truth) and “heat” (affections) for preaching:

One thing that has been complained of, is ministers addressing themselves rather to the affections of their hearers than to their understandings, and striving to raise their passions to the utmost height, rather by a very affectionate manner of speaking and a great appearance of earnestness in voice and gesture, than by clear reasoning and informing their judgment: by which means, it is objected, that the affections are moved without a proportionable enlightening of the understanding.

To which I would say, I am far from thinking that it is not very profitable, for ministers in their preaching, to endeavor clearly and distinctly to explain the doctrines of religion, and unravel the difficulties that attend them, and to confirm them with strength of reason and argumentation, and also to observe some easy and clear method and order in their discourses, for the help of the understanding and memory; and ’tis very probable that these things have been of late, too much neglected by many ministers; yet, I believe that the objection that is made, of affections raised without enlightening the understanding, is in a great measure built on a mistake, and confused notions that some have about the nature and cause of the affections, and the manner in which they depend on the understanding. All affections are raised either by light in the understanding, or by some error and delusion in the understanding; for all affections do certainly arise from some apprehension in the understanding; and that apprehension must either be agreeable to truth, or else be some mistake or delusion; if it be an apprehension or notion that is agreeable to truth, then it is light in the understanding. Therefore the thing to be inquired into is, whether the apprehensions or notions of divine and eternal things, that are raised in people’s minds by these affectionate preachers, whence their affections are excited, be apprehensions that are agreeable to truth, or whether they are mistakes. If the former, then the affections are raised the way they should be, viz. by informing the mind, or conveying light to the understanding. They go away with a wrong notion, that think that those preachers can’t affect their hearers by enlightening their understandings, that don’t do it by such a distinct, and learned handling of the doctrinal points of religion, as depends on human discipline, or the strength of natural reason, and tends to enlarge their hearers’ learning, and speculative knowledge in divinity. The manner of preaching without this, may be such as shall tend very much to set divine and eternal things in a right view, and to give the hearers such ideas and apprehensions of them as are agreeable to truth, and such impressions on their hearts, as are answerable to the real nature of things: and not only the words that are spoken, but the manner of speaking, is one thing that has a great tendency to this.

I think an exceeding affectionate way of preaching about the great things of religion, has in itself no tendency to beget false apprehensions of them; but on the contrary a much greater tendency to beget true apprehensions of them, than a moderate, dull, indifferent way of speaking of ’em. An appearance of affection and earnestness in the manner of delivery, if it be very great indeed, yet if it be agreeable to the nature of the subject, and ben’t beyond a proportion to its importance and worthiness of affection, and there be no appearance of its being feigned or forced, has so much the greater tendency to beget true ideas or apprehensions in the minds of the hearers, of the subject spoken of, and so to enlighten the understanding: and that for this reason, that such a way or manner of speaking of these things does in fact more truly represent them, than a more cold and indifferent way of speaking of them. If the subject be in its own nature worthy of very great affection, then a speaking of it with very great affection is most agreeable to the nature of that subject, or is the truest representation of it, and therefore has most of a tendency to beget true ideas of it in the minds of those to whom the representation is made. And I don’t think ministers are to be blamed for raising the affections of their hearers too high, if that which they are affected with be only that which is worthy of affection, and their affections are not raised beyond a proportion to their importance, or worthiness of affection. I should think myself in the way of my duty to raise the affections of my hearers as high as possibly I can, provided that they are affected with nothing but truth, and with affections that are not disagreeable to the nature of what they are affected with.

Though as I said before, clearness of distinction and illustration, and strength of reason, and a good method, in the doctrinal handling of the truths of religion, is many ways needful and profitable, and not to be neglected, yet an increase in speculative knowledge in divinity is not what is so much needed by our people, as something else. Men may abound in this sort of light and have no heat: how much has there been of this sort of knowledge, in the Christian world, in this age? Was there ever an age wherein strength and penetration of reason, extent of learning, exactness of distinction, correctness of style, and clearness of expression, did so abound? And yet was there ever an age wherein there has been so little sense of the evil of sin, so little love to God, heavenly-mindedness, and holiness of life, among the professors of the true religion? Our people don’t so much need to have their heads stored, as to have their hearts touched; and they stand in the greatest need of that sort of preaching that has the greatest tendency to do this.

– Some Thoughts Concerning Revival, Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Volume 4, The Great Awakening (Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University, 2008), pp. 385-388.

The Heidelberg Catechism, Question 45:

Question: How does Christ’s resurrection benefit us?

Answer: First, by his resurrection he has overcome death, so that he might make us share in the righteousness he won for us by his death. Second, by his power we too are already now resurrected to a new life. Third, Christ’s resurrection is a guarantee of our glorious resurrection.

Kevin DeYoung expounds on each of these three benefits.

“Whoa, whoa, whoa, feelings.” Yup, I mean that song (I prefer this version on YouTube, dubbed over a Japanese James Bond-like movie). The song has been in my head ever since I said “feelings” 56 times in my last sermon. Of course, the song doesn’t talk about feelings in the same way that Luke 8 does, but that’s just the oddity of a brain like mine — filled with Bible and pop-art.

So with the pop-art nostalgia out of the way and that song now freshly in your head, let me give you some book recommendations on the Bible and feelings.

I’ve been reading through a new book by Brian Borgman, which is more of an overview and analysis of all the different feelings in the Bible, Feelings and Faith: Cultivating Godly Emotions in the Christian Life. You can see the table of contents here, and from that page you can read each of the 21 chapters online for free (you got to love the people at Crossway, who actually seem to look at Christian publishing as more of a ministry than a money-maker).

During our recent Clarus conference on “The Convergence of Doctrine and Delight” we mentioned several great books on the importance of the affections and how to fight for joy, such as:

• Anything written by our speakers, Ray Ortlund and Sam Storms (see the Clarus Resource page).
• Anything written by John Piper, especially Desiring God and When I Don’t Desire God.

Of course, the references to emotions in Luke 8 are not just the kind of amazement and joy; there are many more references to fear, worry, and sadness. Here are a few books I’d strongly recommend on thinking through and wrestling with our “darker” emotions:

• Ed Welch, Running Scared: Fear, Worry, and the God of Rest
• Ed Welch, When People Are Big and God is Small: Overcoming Peer Pressure, Codependency, and the Fear of Man
• Paul Tripp, A Shelter in the Storm: Meditations on God and Trouble (also which can be read on the Crossway website for free).

That’s the review of last Sunday. On to the preview of this Sunday.

This coming Sunday, Lord willing, we’ll entertain this question: in light of the miracles and emotions in Luke 8 how do we fight for joy and faith when the miracle doesn’t come? How do we move from angst to awe, from fear to faith, and from lament to laughter when the storm-tossed drown, when the sick stay sick, when the dying die?  Do we need miracles to believe? Luke gives us some hints at the answer, but from there we’ll go hunting in the Psalms.

Last Sunday I preached a sermon from Luke 8:26-56, “Miracles, Belief, and Emotions.” The study of the four miracle stories and the dozen-plus references to varying emotions in this passage was our focus. So time did not permit to address what seems like a contradiction in the chapter:

Why is it that, after one healing, Jesus tells the man to “go and describe what great things God has done for you” (v 39), and, after another healing (actually, a resurrection), Jesus instructs them to “tell no one what has happened” (v 56)?

Well, here is the best and most thorough answer I’ve found in my many Luke commentaries:

The command for silence [in v 56] seems a little odd. This contrasts with the instruction to the Gerasene demoniac in Luke 8:39 and the efforts Jesus went to in having the woman with the hemorrhage relate her healing (8:45-47), not to mention an earlier public resurrection in 7:11-17. It seems clear that Jesus is concerned about what aspects of his ministry receive attention (4:41; 5:14).

Jesus knows that he is headed for a different kind of ministry than people will want from him. Excessive focus on his works of power will undermine the type of commitment he will ask from people. He does not need to be raising people on a daily basis. The type of commitment that will be required of them, should they follow him, is one of suffering, not comfort (9:22, 36, 57-62; 10:17-20). People will talk about his works, but they should not be encouraged to focus on elements that only point to deeper issues. There will come a time when the miracles will go public, but their publicity need not be encouraged since they are not at the heart of what Jesus is doing. Rather they point to more significant spiritual realities (11:14-23).  In Luke, miracles are a testimony to the nature of the times; they are not intended to be the focus of Jesus work (7:22).  Rather, they picture deeper realities that Jesus offered, as Acts 2:22-36 suggests.  The call to silence makes clear that Jesus does not regard such acts as the center of his ministry, but as only the evidentiary periphery.

(Darrell Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Luke 1:1-9:50, pp. 804-805.)

In other words, for that time in redemptive history, there is a bit of a razor’s edge to understanding the place of miracles. They verify who this Jesus is and the truth of what he says; they evidence that the Christ and his kingdom have finally come. But, too much attention drawn to the miracles themselves and they could possibly overshadow the very things to which they point. Jesus, in his infinite wisdom, knows exactly when to say “go and tell” and “speak of this to no one.” So v 39 and v 56 are not in contradiction; they represent the complexity of the purpose of miracles in Jesus’ ministry. The difference between the two verses also hints at the sinful temptation to be more focused on and impressed by miracles than the presence of the Christ, the reality of his gospel, and the presence of his glorious kingdom.

Following their previous web resource, The Truth about DiVinci, Westminster Theological Seminary has just launched a similar website for Dan Brown’s newer book/movie: The Truth About Angels and Demons.

The featured articles are written by the uniquely-qualified Vern Poythress (PhD in Mathematics from Harvard; DTh in N.T. from Stellenbosch):

• The Path of Illumination
• Scientist Motivated by God
• Is There Evidence that God Created the Earth?
• What is the Future of Religion?
• Does Religion Fear Science?

Other, more general, articles on the site are:

• What’s the Difference Between Protestants and Catholics?, by William Edgar
• Is the Bible True?, by Peter Lillback

Other matters relevant to the movie — such as the Vatican, the Illumanati, anti-matter, CERN, bio-ethics — are also explained on the (very nicely designed!) site.