-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Robert W Caldwell, Understanding Affections in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards: ‘The High Exercises of Divine Love’. By Ryan J. Martin, The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 71, Issue 1, April 2020, Pages 394–396, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flaa028
Close - Share Icon Share
Extract
We misunderstand Jonathan Edwards if we incorporate the modern notion of ‘emotion’ in his definition of religious ‘affection’. So claims Ryan J. Martin in his very helpful analysis of Edwards’s theology of religious affectivity in Understanding Affections in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Martin argues that the best way to understand the nature of ‘affections’ in Edwards’s theology is to situate it deep in the context of the Christian tradition. As such, Martin forges a compelling case that as Edwards wrote on the topic he drew inspiration primarily from the Christian tradition mediated to him through the medieval schoolmen, the Protestant reformers, and ultimately the Reformed and Puritan heritage. By contrast, the newer psychologies circulating in the early Enlightenment, epitomized by John Locke and others, were not as central to the forging of Edwards’s religious psychology.
Part of the problem with confusing Edwards’s affections with our modern-day notion of emotion is that the latter is largely associated with the body: emotions are corporeal feelings related to the complex biological processes of living organisms (pp. 17–23; see also pp. 195, 229). By contrast, the Christian tradition has normally associated the affections with the soul, not with the body; they are, as Martin mentions throughout the work, ‘inclinations or aversions of the soul’ (pp. 30–31, 56, 88, 229). If we confuse the two concepts, then we not only misinterpret Edwards, but sympathetic readers of Edwards’s works may misapply his theology of religious affectivity. For instance, one could interpret a highly ‘emotional’ religious service full of bodily effects and physical manifestations as evidence of ‘holy affections’ and conclude, based on such observations, that the Holy Spirit is at work in the present situation. Such reasoning runs the risk of inverting Edwards’s argument found in the Religious Affections (see Martin’s insightful conclusion, pp. 233–8).
