- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (11/14)
- Next Post »That Shall Be Known...
The First and Primary Object
- 11/14/08
- 18
It was a couple of years ago now that I read George Marsden’s great biography of Jonathan Edwards. As I read it I was often stopped short by Edwards’ wisdom. Constantly surrounded by conflict, and often facing people who sought to undermine his ministry, Edwards had every opportunity to reflect on the task of a minister. One of these conflicts involved the question of whether sermons should primarily enlighten the mind or whether they should primarily stir the affections. Charles Chauncy, his opponent in this debate, believed that “an enlightened mind, and not raised affections, ought always be the guide of those who call themselves men; and this, in the affairs of religion, as well as other things.” Chauncy, as with many men of his day, believed that the affections were closely related to the passions of one’s animal nature and needed to be restrained by the higher faculty of reason. Intellect was on a higher plane than affection.
Edwards disagreed, teaching that one could not neatly separate the affections from the will. Both the intellect and affections are fallible and unreliable, he insisted, but both are given by God and ought to be exercised by the Christian.
Marsden points out an application of this. “Critics of the awakenings alleged that when people heard many sermons in one week they would not be able to remember much of what they had heard. Edwards countered, ‘The main benefit that is obtained by preaching is by impression made upon the mind in the time of it, and not by the effect that arises afterwards by a remembrance of what was delivered.’” Marsden concludes, “Preaching, in other words, must first of all touch the affections” (Page 282).
I found this a great encouragement. Like every other Christian, I have often sat enraptured in church, having my mind filled and my affections stirred. But sometimes after arriving home I can barely remember a word that was said. The same is sometimes true of books, Bible studies and conferences. What was so meaningful at the time may be nearly forgotten only a short time later, leaving me to question if it was really so important in the first place. This is not to say that nothing sticks in my mind. Certainly I do remember a lot of what I hear and what I read. But when I consider a 500-page book or a series of eight addresses and compare what I read or what I heard to what I now remember, it can be awfully frustrating. It can be discouraging.
But, according to Edwards, if I were to worry in this way I would be placing too great an emphasis on intellect while downplaying the importance of affections. I independently reached a similar conclusion to this not so long ago, though unlike Edwards, my conclusions were based on necessity rather than being argued from Scripture. With the amount of conferences I attend and the number of books I read, I have had to have faith that God is working through them, even if I cannot remember the intimate details of a book or conference even only three short weeks after the fact. I’ve had to trust that the effort is not wasted, even if so much seems to fade away so quickly. I’ve had to trust that the Holy Spirit is at work behind the scenes, doing His work, even when I cannot easily measure any benefit. I’ve had to trust, and this has been a useful exercise to me.
The words of Edwards gave me confidence that the benefit of a book cannot be measured simply by how much I remember a week or two weeks or a month after reading it. The benefit of a sermon may be greater during the hearing of it than in the later reflections upon it. The benefit of a conference may be more in the hearing than in the recounting of it. God uses books, Bible studies, conferences and sermons not just to fill my mind, but also (and perhaps even primarily) to stir my affections, even if a frustrating amount of the benefit seems to fade away far too quickly.
I ran Edwards’ quote through Google and found that others have discussed these words as well. I found one article particularly beneficial. Paul at Expository Thoughts applies them to taking notes during church. He also quotes Martyn Lloyd-Jones who wrote of Edwards, “The first and primary object of preaching is not only to give information. It is, as Edwards says, to produce an impression. It is the impression at the time that matters, even more than what you can remember subsequently…. It is not primarily to impart information; and while you are writing your notes you may be missing something of the impact of the Spirit.”
God was good to allow me to encounter these words. In the couple of years since I first read them, they have often resounded in my heart and given me confidence that the Spirit is at work when my affections are stirred and my heart longs for Him.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (18)
Tim, do you think the pendulum has swung too far the other way with sermons aimed at the emotions with little or no doctrinal meat?
Just yesterday as I was stirred by a Piper sermon (on a subject I’ve heard him preach on before) I was feeling discouraged by how quickly I forget what I have heard and need to be reminded over and over ad nauseum. As I was talking to God about this, I was reminded that it’s no different from taking physical nourishment or exercise. I can’t eat one meal and be done for a week or exercise one day and expect that to be enough to make me fit. For me, both the feelings and the intellect need to be fed spiritually daily or even more often because most things are not retained for long.
All this to say that it was great to hear I am not alone in this! Thanks for the post.
Yes, very good, Tim.
My first thought as I read this was similar to Kim’s. I’ve thought on this subject a lot, because I’m an avid reader and listener to sermons and lectures. I think the food analogy is a good and biblical one. Taking in the Word of God and preaching and teaching is the nourishment of our souls. Like when eating a meal, the main benefits of the food are not clearly evident. It goes into us. The things we need most from it are absorbed, the rest, well, you know. The parts that are absorbed normally go to use in infintesimal ways, ways we may not even entirely recognize or understand. Some benefits will be immediate and noticable, other effects turn up later, gradually, escaping our notice entirely..For the sake of retention, particularly since I am also called from time to time to teach, but also for my own solidity, I try to re-read books, and re-listen to sermons and lectures that I find particularly helpful, so that I can recall specifics and dish them out in a meal for others.
This was an encouraging thought to reflect on as I have also encountered similar times when I was moved during a sermon and then in our small-group discussion about the very same sermon, couldn’t think of anything to say about it. Yet, God is faithful and the preaching of His Word is a primary means of grace to change us. Little by little He is transforming us from one degree to another and who can tell how what we hear is inwardly conforming us to Christ’s image.
I think that re-reading is very important also. I try not to buy so many books, which is a difficult temptation for me to overcome, but re-read the ones that made a deep impact and are well worth the reading. Some books, like Pilgrim’s Progress and On the Incarnation(Athanasius) are annual musts. Certain themes and characters and phrases start to become a part of who you are. Wine is meant to be savored and so are good books. Gouging oneself on constant course fare is not good for one’s health and causes one to develop bad eating habits. So it is with reading. I have to say I don’t envy Tim, reading all those books that come his way for him to review. I appreciate him, doing it so that the rest of us don’t have to, but I certainly don’t envy him.
Thanks. I’ve thought about this myself, and this is indeed helpful.
When asking myself these questions about how much I retain, the thought that has returned to my mind is that, in some respects, the act of discipline involved in being there to listen (or reading or studying something) was as valuable as the information or insights themselves.
That, and I don’t doubt that I have internalized much of what I’ve absorbed, regardless of whether or not I recall it verbatim.
Very interesting, and very profound. Certainly rings true in my life, because although I may enjoy the truths preached to me in a sermon, in a couple hours I will barely remember what I heard.
Tim, Great post as usual! And I’m very thankful that you and your son made it home safely!
The food analogy is a good one, as we often think of good biblically based sermons and teachings as “food for the soul”.
However, with respect to the intellect (Chauncy) -v- affection (Edwards) argument; is it not true that Christ pursues our hearts first, knowing that a heart truly won guarantees that the mind will soon follow? I’m not sure that the opposite can be said? That if you convince the mind, winning the heart is assured.
The bible does not teach that men’s “minds” are deceitful above all things. We are taught that it is the “heart” that is the offending spiritual organ. With this in consideration, does it not make sense that our Lord would take a direct route to the source of the problem?
As was mentioned in your post: Martyn Lloyd-Jones who wrote of Edwards, “The first and primary object of preaching is not only to give information. It is, as Edwards says, to produce an impression. It is the impression at the time that matters, even more than what you can remember subsequently…. It is not primarily to impart information; and while you are writing your notes you may be missing something of the impact of the Spirit.”
The mind is the organ of information. The heart is the organ of impression. One is fickle and volatile. The other is God’s white board. He writes his indelible message upon it with permanent marker (even though the little sign on the board says not to…) While God speaks to us and imparts (puts) information into our minds, when he really wants something to be indelible, or permanent, he writes it on our hearts!
Jeremiah 31:33 NIV “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
If I am understanding Edwards on this issue, I agree with him that genuine affection is a product of ones heart. This drives the outward appearances, the behaviors, and even our mind’s thoughts.
Tim - Thank you so much for this post. I have found these principles apply in lesser things as well. In College I could remember a good lecture for a long while if I didn’t take notes. If I did, all I had left in a few days was the notes!
This post is a great encouragement to give all your affections and will over to enjoying God in the midst of His Word being preached. Great stuff!
I have always taken notes, as our pastor teaches the gospel, especially when something touches my heart. I know the Holy Spirit is telling me to learn this. Going over my notes for that day, I see what the I was to learn, and it stays with me. This is very simple explaination, but it works.Blessings… :)
It is amazing to read this post, Tim, since this subject just was discussed in an interview with John Carrick on the Reformed Forum www.reformedforum.org and I was reflecting on it a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.reformedforum.org/ctc39/
Carrick had just written a book on the Preaching of Jonathan Edwards and this very subject came up in the discussion. But even more coincidentally, they referenced Lloyd-Jones as well and stated that he had the same conclusion.
Then it was stated that Lloyd-Jones did not encourage note taking in his sermons precisely as your research had pointed out.
Small world, I just brought this up on a Sunday School lesson as a comment.
Great subject Tim. As I get older I find it more difficult to remember many of the interesting and important things that I hear and read about. For example, I recently attended a conference on reformed theology at our church that has vitally impacted my life. The subject of the conference was “Growing in Christ” and the speaker was Dr. Joel Beeke.For the past several years I have been concerned about the subject of holiness in a christian’s life and Dr. Beeke really nailed the subject for me during the conference. I also purchased several books from the book table. One of which was written by Willem Teellinck and titled “The Path of True Godliness”. Right now I cannot remember much of what was said by Dr. Beeke or what was written by Willem Teellinck.
Regardless of this the conference and the reading of the book have had a profound influence in causing me to strive to live a more godly life. Perhaps the impression is much more important then I have realized. From now on I will read and listen more intently and not worry about the fact that my memory is failing me.
So the question I am struggling with now is does the heart follow the mind or does the mind follow the heart? Yes, it is true the heart is deceitful - but to be deceitful, doesn’t there have to be a decision making process behind it? Or is it that the mind is really part of the heart…and is it rational part so that both the intellect and the heart are in view with salvation? How can the heart believe unless the mind is clear on the truth?
This may sound like a pile of questions, but this is something I have been chewing on for a few weeks now. Dan’s post on this made me think on it more as it seems Dan is leaning toward the heart being the leader in it all.
Y’all’s thoughts would be appreciated on this subject.
Thanks
Thanks for this, Tim. I can so relate. You and Edwards just encouraged me in something in which I have oft been been discouraged - especially since I just finished reading Marsden’s book and have absolutely no recollection of that section
It is encouraging to see that God has drawn many minds providentially to consider the same issue, even though from varied perspectives. I too am in that group!
I appreciate Dave Matre’s comment and further wonder whether seeking an impression might tend to encourage - in this particular historical moment - an effort to make the message more impressive, or ear tickling, if you will.
Katherine Mary gave the answer I would have offered. I agree wholeheartedly. I take notes knowing that if I do not I will remember very little of the truth the Spirit of God impressed my heart with.
I assume that He is the teacher (John 14,16) and that it is He that directs me to the insights that come to mind. I pray with the Psalmist, “Open my eyes that I may behold wonderful things out of Thy Law.”
Why as students is there no effort to capture that which is learned for future review? Is the mind so powerful that all issues are kept close for prayer and obedience?
If God sees the need to provide man a written record, why should man not write that which God impresses on his heart as a point of growth and obedience? Not as though what man writes is inspired or has any power, but as that which is understood under the ministry of the Holy Spirit and so significant to personal growth.
I wonder whether believers, generally speaking, would do better following James’ admonition to be doers of the word and not hearers only if they took time to write down that pointed area of obedience with which the Spirit of God is patiently seeking to impress them, or if they would be more obedient simply being impressed not having written anything but trusting to that feeling of impression.
Not to denigrate the concept of the power of hearing or of being intent on allowing the truth of the word to impress the mind! I agree that preaching is a work of God and hold J Edwards in high regard. His thoughts on holy affections are powerful. And it does appear that an impression is created by the Spirit of God on the humble receptive heart when God’s truth is declared by the man of God similarly under the Spirit’s direction.
I don’t think it necessary to suppose that writing down some critical thought would interfere either with my thought processes as a complex human, or the work of the Spirit as Omnipotent God. I do think Spirit-filled believers can handle both.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of this article to me is that other believers are concerned over the process of hearing the word preached and taught and interested in determining what the proper response of the righteous student of the Bible should be.
Wonderful article! Wonderful thoughts. Thanks for opportunity to share in turn.
As I read over the comments that this article created, I couldn’t help but wonder where the impression came from that either Edwards or the author of the article itself would be against taking sermon notes.Did I miss something?
Tom Hardy
I just read the article over again and it seems I did miss something. I think that if taking notes distracts from the sermon itself, then perhaps it might be benificial to take notes dirrectly after the completion of the sermon. That way the person would be taking notes based on the complete sermon in it’s full context, rather than a few statements.I do however wonder if it might have more to do with how an individual is wired as to when or if they should take notes.
On the issue of note-taking to aid memory, I’ve often wondered why more preacher-pastors don’t make handouts (outlines of their sermons or even full manuscripts) available after each Sunday service. This would remove any need for parishioners to take notes (which, for many, diminishes affective [and active] involvement during the preaching of the sermon). If recall is as important as often claimed then why not make handouts available? (To be fair, many churches obviously have audio files of sermons for download, but that strikes me as primarily for people who weren’t there, and only secondarily as a retention aid for those who were.)
Great post, Tim.