Enjoying God
A Brief Apologetic for "Signs of the Spirit" (3)
Jun 26, 2007Those of you who have read Edwards are familiar with his style (or, in some cases, the lack thereof!). He had a long-standing love affair with the comma, splashing them pervasively throughout his writing. He used the colon and semi-colon in ways that would be inadmissible in an English prose class today. He was no less infatuated with subordinate clauses, often constructing an elaborate sentence with as many as seven or eight of them. It's not unusual for him to say in five sentences what could as easily be said in one. On quite a number of occasions I have made alterations in his use of punctuation as well as reducing sentence length, again, all for the sake of readability. You alone will be the judge of whether I succeeded.
Edwards also employed, as did virtually everyone in his day, certain abbreviations and grammatically incorrect words. For example, he typically uses "an" rather than "a" before a word beginning with "h". I've left these intact. I've also left unchanged his use of "'em" for "them", "'Tis" for "It is", and "no" when we would expect "not".
Perhaps his most annoying habit is the use of "don't" when grammatical precision would call for "doesn't". However, I have chosen not to change these for it would require a major reconstruction of the sentence in which it appears that would obscure rather than facilitate his meaning. Soon enough, as you read Edwards, you will become accustomed to this particular issue of his style.
There are also a few distinct words of which you need to be made aware. Edwards uses "wont" (don't mistake it for "won't") when he means something like "inclined" or "disposed to", and "actings" where we might prefer "actions". He will often use the word "discovery" when we would expect "revelation". Thus to have something "discovered" to you is to have it "revealed". Likewise, the plural "discoveries" is used instead of "revelations". As for spelling, "Saviour" was changed to "Savior" and "shew" to "show".
In only a few instances I have inserted a word, always bracketed, to fill out the flow of his argument. As noted, his excessive use of commas led me to eliminate many of them to conform to what most today are accustomed to reading. There are a number of places, on the other hand, where I inserted a comma in place of his use of semi-colon, or where I have replaced a colon with a period and then started a new sentence. Most of you, especially those unfamiliar with Edwards, won't even notice when this occurs.
I also made a decision, when quoting Edwards, not to include page numbers in the text from the many versions of the Affections that are available (all of which, by the way, I used alternately, depending on which provided the more helpful rendering). See note 1 in the Introduction to the Affections for a listing of them. This was done simply for ease of reading. Once again, the fewer the distractions, the better.
As for biblical texts cited, Edwards consistently used the King James Version, all of which I retained when citing him directly. In other instances the English Standard Version was used.
My treatment of his Personal Narrative followed many of the same principles, although only slight alteration was made in the original text of this short treatise. I did, however, eliminate certain portions that addressed issues of lesser importance. If you are wondering why I included the Narrative in a work that is primarily concerned with the Religious Affections, I encourage you to read the Introduction to Part Two of the book.
This, then, is my apologetic for Signs of the Spirit. Whether you agree with my editorial decisions or are offended by them, I hope you understand that I did it out of my immense respect for Edwards and my passion that his theological convictions be given a hearing in today's Christian world. We simply cannot afford to live in ignorance of the insights he brought to bear on the nature of spiritual experience. At least, I can't.
Spurgeon on "a little sacred excess"
Jun 25, 2007"Our happiness should be demonstrative; . . . men whisper their praises decorously where a hearty outburst of song would be far more natural. It is to be feared that the church of the present day, through a craving for excessive propriety, is growing too artificial; so that enquirers' cries and believers' shouts would be silenced if they were heard in our assemblies. This may be better than boisterous fanaticism, but there is as much danger in the one direction as the other. For our part, we are touched to the heart by a little sacred excess, and when godly men in their joy overleap the narrow bounds of decorum, we do not, like Michal, Saul's daughter, eye them with a sneering heart" (Treasury of David, 1:85).
A Brief Apologetic for "Signs of the Spirit" (2)
Jun 22, 2007In my decision to write this book, I also had to overcome the comments of John E. Smith, who edited the version of Religious Affections for the Yale University Press edition of his works (which is now at twenty-five volumes). In his editorial introduction, Smith wrote the following:
"In directing attention to his style, we cannot overlook the fact that many readers have found the Affections difficult going, nor should we ignore what is implied in the activity of the many editors who thought it necessary to rewrite the text. It is admittedly an exacting work; it calls for a reader's best effort. But there are rewards if we are willing to raise ourselves to the level of Edwards' austere standards; nothing is to be gained by bringing him down to a more facile plane in order to make him say what we would like to hear" (Yale, 2:8).
"So, what say ye, Sam?" For the most part, I agree with Smith, at least with his conclusion that it is "difficult going," "an exacting work," shaped by "austere standards." But it would be a mistake to think that this book is an effort to bring him down to a "more facile plane in order to make him say what we would like to hear." My goal is to enable the reader to "hear" only what Edwards himself would want said. I'm simply attempting to bridge a rather cavernous gap between how Edwards said it in the eighteenth century and how I believe he would say it were he alive in the twenty-first century.
It would be all too easy to read Smith's words, nod our heads in agreement, and walk away with a smug complacency for having heeded his warning. But that won't result in more people reading Edwards! Or at least not enough people reading him to justify that sort of well-intentioned but idealistic response.
Many of you will contend that I've done a disservice to Edwards, that I've failed to honor him for all that he has meant to me personally. I hope that's not true. I would rather think that I've honored him in the way he deserves by laboring to make accessible to as many people as possible his marvelous insights into the Christian faith. So what exactly have I done in this book? What is Signs of the Spirit?
As the sub-title indicates, this is an interpretation of the Religious Affections. When it comes to his Personal Narrative, it is more an application, but to include that in the sub-title would make it impossibly cumbersome. So, why do I call it an interpretation?
I had considered describing it as a contemporary rendering, but that strikes me as a bit dishonest. The fact is, I have interpreted the Religious Affections. To think otherwise is both naïve and a failure to recognize that I am rendering his work through my own theological and personal grid. Every time I choose to omit a particular paragraph I am making an interpretive decision that inescapably reflects what I regard as most important in the treatise. There are reasons, both personal and philosophical, that govern my choices as to what is central and controlling in Edwards' work as over against what is secondary and peripheral. Every time I re-write a paragraph or paraphrase an argument or summarize a theological point, my own convictions are in evidence. I think it's important that the reader understand this.
Of course, I wouldn't have undertaken this task if I didn't believe that I truly understood what Edwards was getting at in his argument. But I can only leave it to scholars more adept in Edwards than I to render a judgment on my success. I'm certain that some of you familiar with Edwards will object to editorial decisions I've made as well as theological interpretations that are reflected in my effort to make his lofty ideas not more "facile" but hopefully more intelligible. That's the risk one takes when writing a book like this.
The strategy I followed is really quite simple. I sat down over several months and read and re-read the Affections, each time re-writing or articulating in a more understandable way the substance of Edwards' argument. I would determine, as best I could, what sections to omit, believing them to be tangential to the main argument, or perhaps repetitive in a way that would only bog down the average reader (such as his many extended citations of supporting Scriptural texts and extensive comments thereon). On many occasions, however, I have kept in tact substantial portions of his work. These are indescribably rich and, yes, readable. There are, in fact, places where Edwards is quoted at great length, with only an occasional attempt on my part to interpret his comments. You should have no problem in recognizing the difference between Storms and Edwards, for direct citations together with an occasional colorful and vivid term of his are kept in quotation marks.
One more comment. Contrary to what you may think, I did not write this so that people would read it instead of Edwards, but so that they might be motivated and better equipped to delve deeply into the original. Some may consider this rather idealistic, but no more so than those who would disallow this book in the hopes that people will read the Affections in its entirety. In any case, I strongly encourage you to treat this volume as merely preparatory to your encounter with Edwards or perhaps as a companion guide to be read simultaneous with your reading of the original.
To be continued . . .
A Brief Apologetic for "Signs of the Spirit" (1)
Jun 20, 2007[In this and a few subsequent blog entries I want to address why I chose to write "Signs of the Spirit: An Interpretation of Jonathan Edwards' ‘Religious Affections.'" These entries actually are taken from the opening chapter of the book in which I provide what I call "A Brief Apologetic" for having written it. I hope this will adequately explain why I thought writing this book was so important. The book is scheduled to be released by Crossway Publishers on July 13th.]
Aside from the biblical authors themselves, no one has had greater influence on my life than Jonathan Edwards. I first became acquainted with him at the urging of Dr. John Hannah, long-time professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, from which I received my Th.M. in Historical Theology in 1973. John suggested that I undertake an independent studies course in Edwards and that I begin by reading his treatise on the Freedom of the Will (which eventually led to my writing a master's thesis on that volume). My first exposure to Edwards' Religious Affections came when he also insisted that it be included in the list of readings. I will forever be grateful to John for his wise counsel!
Because of the profound and truly life-changing influence that Edwards has exerted on me, I am quick to recommend his works to others, indeed, to everyone. This brings me to my defense of this interpretation of his treatise on the Affections. If it were the case that people heeded my advice, I would hardly have undertaken this project. Nothing grieves me more than to hear that yet another has started reading Edwards only to give up, frustrated by his style or overwhelmed by the complexity of his argumentation.
I can't begin to count the number of times I've been asked for recommended reading, have suggested Edwards, specifically the Religious Affections, only to be greeted with a contorted face or an embarrassed evasion that goes something like this: "Well, I tried reading Edwards. I really wanted to read the Affections, but after about 15 or 20 pages into it, I just quit. For whatever reason, I couldn't follow him. His style was aggravating and, well, to be honest, I just couldn't understand what he was saying."
Such confessions have come not simply from average lay folk, but from well-educated seminary graduates as well. Edwards' penchant for torturously complex sentence structure, together with the abundance of theological "bunny trails" that, at least initially, don't seem to contribute to the point he is making, have tested and all too often triumphed over the determination of even the most avid and intellectual of Christians.
For years I have taken the high ground when it comes to the reading of Edwards, refusing to yield to the insistent demand that someone "tweak his prose" or paraphrase his theological concepts. I have faithfully exhorted countless men and women, again and again, to renew their commitment to working through some of Edwards' more daunting treatises. "Your patience and perseverance will reap a bountiful harvest," I said, again and again, until blue in the face. Alas, to little (or no) avail, I've come to discover. Sure, there are a few, here and there, who've made their way through the Affections and were (justifiably) proud of it. But even in the majority of these cases, they aren't sure they understood, far less appreciated and embraced, what they had read.
I've worked my way through the Affections at least ten times, perhaps more, and I still struggle in places to make sense of him. I'm more than happy to attribute this failure to my shortcomings rather than his (indeed, I still hesitate, at times, to acknowledge that he had any shortcomings!). But I can no longer escape the conclusion that, no matter how passionately I exhort and encourage and rebuke and challenge people to read Edwards, no matter how exuberantly I promise them great treasure at the end of their labors, the vast majority of folk simply won't do it. Or they do it, for at most a few pages, and then set aside the book, forever convinced that Edwards is beyond their grasp. I wish it were otherwise. I pray that it were otherwise. But it isn't and, I fear, never will be.
The theology of Jonathan Edwards and his insight into the nature of religious experience are simply too important, too relevant, and too enriching to sacrifice on the altar of some lofty ideal that it is beneath his (and our) dignity to make his work accessible to a more general audience. I suppose I could go to my grave, proudly congratulating myself for not having yielded to the temptation to do what this book proposes. But I'd go there with the disturbing realization that other people are likewise going there without having reaped the eternal benefits of what Edwards had to say.
Let's be clear about something. I'm not advocating the "dumbing down" of Jonathan Edwards (or any aspect of the Christian faith). Yes, I would much prefer the "smarting up" of the Christian public, equipping them for the task of wrestling with this magnificent theological mind (and others as well). And I will continue to challenge believers of every age and educational background to think and dig deeply into the rich treasures of Christ, his Word, and the resources made available to his Church throughout the last two millennia. My prayer is that Signs of the Spirit will be a helpful tool in the pursuit of that goal.
Nevertheless, I suspect that on reading this many will come to me, protesting: "Sam, you're wrong! I read the Affections. I loved it. Yes, it was really hard, but my perseverance paid off." Praise God for every one of you. But for every one of you there are one-hundred others who tell a different story, whose encounter with Edwards was frustrating and embarrassing. It is for the latter that I wrote this book, not the former.
To be continued . . .
Crossway Interview on "Signs of the Spirit" (10)
Jun 17, 2007Crossway: What one thing, if you had to choose, would you hope your readers will learn and apply from Edwards's Personal Narrative?
I think the one thing that stands out most to me in the Narrative is Edwards' grasp of the beauty of God and the importance of our enjoyment of it for his eternal glory. We use that word "beauty" a lot, but I'm not sure people know what it means. In the Narrative Edwards unpacks the term as he describes his experience of Christ and the impact it had on his struggle with sin and pride and other issues we all face.