1 - To apprehend God in Christ requires/produces an emotional response - reverent fear! 1 Peter 2:17 (and many other NT references as well). It is a response it is appropriate to command, even. 'Requires' in this sense is not a pre-condition of justification.
2. There is also an expectation of joy - an emotion that is often linked to the Holy Spirit. 1 Thess 1:6, Gal 5:22.
3 - It strikes me that we distinguish falsely if we separate the emotions from reason/rationality. The emotions are an epistemological or apprehensional tool as much as the mind is. And, if we fear that a speaker may manipulate the emotions, how much more ought we to fear that a speaker may manipulate us by using rational argument? Impeccable logic can lead to absurd conclusions, indeed. We ought not to avoid or downplay the emotions because the mind is more trustworthy, surely...
20 comments:
Oooh Jonathan Edwards has LOADS to say on this one!
Hi Mike,
I think that our unease regarding the emotions comes from a couple of sources:
1) Culture - I grew up in the bush in an Anglo-Celtic Australian household. This is a culture (particularly for men) that doesn't encourage open displays of emotion, unless you've had too much to drink.
In addition, a large proportion of Moore College graduates are either accountants (like me) or engineers. We tend to be logical and analytical in nature, and so aren't as attracted to the whole emotions side of things.
2) An over-reaction to dodgy theology that over-emphasises emotion. Whether it be the liberal mystics; the charismatics/pentecostals; the meditators continually misusing "be still and know that I am God"; or the Anglo-Catholics like Peter Phillips (beauty is the way to God), there's a lot of dodgy theology out there that de-emphasises the word of God as the means to know God, and over-emphasises the emotions. When faced with this, is it any wonder that we swing back the other way?
I suppose we are to "be on your guard" when examining both rational and emotional appeals.
One might even posit that a 'feeling' of correctness comes before an ability to express the logic behind the idea.
I suppose we tend to slam people who use strong emotional appeals to justify poor intellectual arguments. (And perhaps earn the title of being judgmental and insensitive.)
Just my 2c.
--And, if we fear that a speaker may manipulate the emotions, how much more ought we to fear that a speaker may manipulate us by using rational argument?--
Besides through excessively reifying ideological concepts, I wonder how that could that be illustrated in conduct. I seem to vaguely recall from That Hideous Strength that Lewis presents us therein with a grotesque 'brain in a vat' amongst other instances of extreme attempts to suppress the emotions for the sake of "objectification."
My experience of emotion in our evangelical culture is sort of upside down. The more careful, intellectual and rational the argument is, the more moving I find the truths that emerge, and the more obvious the emotional language and delivery, the less moving I find it, it just sounds like loud bluster no matter how true it is. As a musician accompanying songs, I recall being criticised occasionally that the playing was too emotional - there's this fear, I think, that the music might be a sort of uncontrolled loose canon that will set up emotional competition with the message. One needs to play with the right level of unemotional emotion, so its rousing but not in an unseemly way. Its an inherently enjoyable discourse, pity those less complex church cultures.
Can I contribute a few words from Jonathan Edwards, from an abridged version of "A treatise concerning religious affections"?
"The true Christian feels, because he sees and understands something more of spiritual things than he did before. ... At this point I want to emphasise that there is a great difference between doctrinal knowledge and spiritual knowledge. Doctrinal knowledge involves the intellect alone, but spiritual knowledge is a sense of the heart by which we see the beauty of holiness in Christian doctrines. Spiritual knowledge always involves the intellect and the heart together. We need to understand what a Scripture doctrine means intellectually, and to taste the holy beauty of the doctrine with our hearts."
Good start Michael. When's the book coming out? : )
Seriously, were running an apprentice conference in a few months time and I struggling to find biblical treatments of the place of the emotions in the Christian life. Apart from Edward's Affections and some of Piper's stuff on joy, I'm hard pressed to locate simple to read, but biblical pre-reading for the conference.
Apart from the Bible, what are you reading?
Well, I was hoping for some suggestions actually! Both Andrew Cameron and Richard Gibson have thought a lot about this topic.
I'm half way through Consolations of Theology, which includes chapters by both Andrew and Richard on obsession and anger respectively.
Also, Archie Poulos’ article in the latest Briefing (#366) is pretty good: ‘Worldy passions, holy affections: How to cultivate a discerning mind’.
But there must be other good stuff out there too?!
Two quick thoughts:
1. One of the real benefits of studying at Fuller Seminary a decade or so ago, was the integration between the schools of theology, psychology and mission. The integration b/w theology and psychology was taken very seriously (all PhD students in Psychology had to complete an MA in theol as part of the program). So you had theology lecturers teaching pyschology classes (Ray Anderson and David Ausburger come to mind, both of whom exemplify a careful engagement with emotions from the side of theology). This is in the tradition of Lewis Smedes, another old guard Fuller prof. who was among some pioneering theological reflection on forgiveness, grief and anger in the 70's. I'm less familiar with the Psych lecturers in theol., but Archibald Hart has produced many books on clergy stress, relationships etc. and he was Dean of the school for many, many years, and so represents the "flavour"
2. I wonder whether the idea of "embodied" selves, wouldn't draw such sharp distinctions b/w emotions and rational thought, as reflected in a couple of the comments above? Surely you'd have some clues on this Michael??
--2. I wonder whether the idea of "embodied" selves, wouldn't draw such sharp distinctions b/w emotions and rational thought, as reflected in a couple of the comments above?--
Quite possibly (in retrospect, I've often found in re-evaluating my decisions that I was mistaken in attributing them exclusively to emotive or rational factors.)
If I may offer an observation or two as an outsider (an hopefully not-so-dodgy charismatic) - my conservative evangelical friends who are mature believers often talk about quite emotional encounters with God if you get to know them well enough. Times when reading a particular passage at a particular time in their personal devotionals has been so meaningful that they've found themselves in tears or feeling overwhelming joy.
I'm sure the issue is not whether mature (or brand new) conservative evangelicals feel emotion in their relationship with God. It seems to be more about the difficulty of any hint of this being *public*, in a church setting. Of course if it's not talked about or done in public, younger christians end up thinking its abnormal and become emotionally disintegrated it even in their private walk with God.
This is the gospel: I've been saved from my sin and have a relationship with God - what's not to be emotional about when we preach or pray or sing? There are about 300 people in any one service at my church... there's got to be something wrong that we can sing hymns with such powerful doctrine that affects us all so personally and I never see anyone in deep sorrow or beaming with joy. I've seen you guys watching the rugby... I know you've got it in you!
I know there's a lot of bad theology in some parts of the charismatic world, and that you guys have some of the most obvious examples of the prosperity gospel on your doorstep, but there's some very dodgy theology coming out of certain conservative evangelical quarters that I'm sure you'd want to distance yourself from and say that's not real conservative theology.
It's interesting that the vast majority of evangelicals in the world (think Africa, America, lots of Asia) are actually quite emotional in their corporate worship and have a much more emotionally integrated public relationship with God than we seem to (it would even be fair to say the vast majority of evangelicals in the world are charismatic). They have as many examples of dodgy charismatic churches on their doorstep as we do. I suspect that the issues we have are less about theology and more about cultural baggage (whether that's the Auzzie "men don't cry" or the British middle/upper class "stiff upper lip")... baggage that we must allow to be healed if we are serious about growing in our ecclesiastical-cultural (as well as personal) sanctification.
Even our whole language is flawed! The idea that being "emotional" is something other than what we're doing all the time. As if now we're being objective and we're not manipulating people to feel things. We're affecting the emotions of the believers and nonbelievers who come into our churches all the time, even if we're just emotionally manipulating people to believe that God is dry or contained in neat rational thought boxes.
And (last thought) - Although I think this has to be done in a way that is distinctly Sydney Evangelical (or which ever culture we're in), I find it weird that when we try to rectify this we focus on using logical argument... I think it has to involve this but I'm not convinced we're going to get anywhere until we invest more in our sung worship/liturgy as well.
However we do it though, we've got to learn how to publicly love God with all our hearts...
--I think it has to involve this but I'm not convinced we're going to get anywhere until we invest more in our sung worship/liturgy as well.--
While singing can indeed be well to the good (my repentance was occasioned during rehearsals for Donizetti's La Favorite), I don't consider it a sine qua non of religious practice. Some of the most consoling services I've attended were "bare-bones" BCP or AAPB services in which the congregation and presbyter read the appointed psalms and canticles by alternate verses without artifice.
Michael, I assume you're aware that Josh H is writing on this topic?
Oh sorry I meant corporate acts of worship in general. I really like a bit of BCP as well... no one beats Cranmer for combining great doctrine with expected emotion! - I think there are reasons the Bible commands us to sing to the Lord though - I think it was either Augustine or Edwards who thought it has something to do with stirring our hearts/affections.
I just read my last post through again and I feel I should apologize... it sounds a bit more polemical and long (!) than it was in my head! I'm flattered (and surprised!) that anyone actually got to the end of it!
I also have a huge respect for conservative evangelical culture and how you guys are engaging with all this.
Part of the answer, I think, is to look at the emotions of Christ (I did an honours thesis on Jesus' emotions as connected to his divinity, at the time someone else in OZ was doing something similar for ThD).
HOw about this MPJ:
2 COr 7:11 See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done.
Nice.
It is our culture that separates 'reason' from 'emotion', or focuses only on either separately.
In the history of the church it is interesting that when a 'heresy' arose it actually arose out of just 'reasoning' alone (or intellectualising alone).
Irene
Wow - it's starting to look like the more useful dichotomy is in fact culture and intellect, rather than the categorically correct emotion and intellect.
Seen the book, "Faithful Feelings: Rethinking Emotions in the New Testament". It's a interesting read from Matthew Elliot. I think he's got another book out as well. Chris.
Post a Comment