I’m learning from Jonathan Edwards’s sermons that I should be able to display the coaster above all over my church or home study. I saw another t-shirt sign, however, that reflects most preaching practice: “Will exegete for food.”
I said in a previous post that most of us think more about exegesis than we do theology. It shows in our sermons. A typical sermon in my theological camp is often exegetically heavy and theologically light. This usually involves in-depth word studies and grammatical insights, plus some cross-referencing for added support.
Edwards’s sermons appear to be exegetically lite and theologically heavy (I might argue that the same goes for Timothy Keller’s sermons too). That doesn’t mean there is no exegesis. It means that the sermon is constructed with minimal exegesis and maximum theological insights.
And I’m not really sure if “theological” is the right word for what I’m seeing. Maybe better to describe Edwards’s sermons as theological-philosophical.
So, in his sermon, Christian Happiness, Isaiah 3:10 is the foundational text: “Say unto the righteous, it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.”
Edwards’s opening sentence displays his theological/philosophical method:
“Reasonable beings, while they act as such, naturally choose those things which they are convinced are best for them…” (p. 296, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 10).
Edwards is quick to point out that God deals with us as reasonable beings. And we are persuaded by this desire for our own good.
Before Edwards gets to any of what I would call pure exegesis of Isaiah 3:10, he highlights how God’s motivation is designed to work. Isaiah doesn’t tell us how, but Edwards goes on to tell us how. That’s one of thousands of examples of Edwards’s exegetically lite and theologically heavy preaching.
Before Sunday, see if there are places in your preaching portion that could benefit from this type of analysis for God’s glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).
Randal
Is there a site to read some of his sermons online?
I haven’t read any of late–so I’m just guessing here–but I’m wondering if they are more synthetic in nature than analytical? I suppose I could also say “applicational”. By application, I don’t mean what is usually meant, “how can I apply this in some concrete way to my life today”, i.e. a “What’s in it for me?” attitude, but more of a “how should I relate to what I’ve heard?” or “How does my life mold to this that I’m hearing?” sort of attitude.
Curious how close I am with my guesses. 😉
I don’t know of any, but would be surprised if none are available some other way. I like your “guessing” about what Edwards is doing, especially the nuancing about application. It appears that Edwards understanding of the workings of God and human nature create theological paragraphs that move beyond what the biblical text provides. I hope to give more concrete examples in the near future. If “synthetic” is appropriate it is Edwards’s ability to synthesize theology, philosophy, and anthropology.
I can’t tell close you are to the bull’s eye because I am still trying to figure out exactly what Edwards is doing (*smile*). It’s been an interesting journey, though. He’s helping me be a better thinker and, I hope, then a better preacher.
As always, thanks for interacting!
I found some sermons, and my! what word bombs they are! Definitely an 18th century writer. 🙂 His sermons are not only full of words, however, but concepts, and there is a flow to them… one has to work out the flow, though, and with all the length, it can get lost. Like you said, though, very theological. And yeah, what you are saying–how he applies various aspects of various disciplines into one whole, that would be synthetic.
Oddly, I also noticed some psychology, at least as we’d call it today:
“Note, by having a reflex or contemplative idea of what passes in our own minds I don’t mean consciousness only. There is a great difference between a man’s having a view of himself, reflex or contemplative idea of himself so as to delight in his own beauty or excellency, and a mere direct consciousness. Or if we mean by consciousness of what is in our own minds anything besides the mere simple existence in our minds of what is there, it is nothing but a power by reflection to view or contemplate what passes.” (from an unpublished essay on the Trinity)
When it comes to synthesis, I like to use a cake analogy. You have the ingredients for a cake. Analysis (exegesis) likes to examine them in isolation from each other. Each ingredient can be examined for its own properties, etc. But synthesis is like baking the cake. (the theology, if you will). If you had to choose which to eat, you probably wouldn’t want to eat the ingredients alone, nor raw, mixed together. It takes baking them to make the cake. Synthesis is, by its nature, relational. Both analysis and synthesis are necessary, but I like to think of analysis the middle step. You start with a relational or synthetic attitude or approach–like examining an apple. You look at its color, its smell, its taste, texture, etc. Then you can examine what it is made out of, the chemical makeup, etc. but oddly, you can’t create an apple. You can only tear it apart. But once you understand how the parts fit into the whole, the whole apple can be enjoyed even more for how it is composed of its composite parts.
But I could just be barking up a tree (apple nonetheless).
Interesting, looking at this topic historically, analytical reasoning came into its own in the Enlightenment, together with empiricism, about the time of Edwards, but it was not yet ubiquitous until the next century. Today, one could say we are slaves to analytical thinking, to the detriment of synthetic reasoning. I think that this is what you are instinctively sensing in Edward’s sermons. But that’s just my own hunch. (look up the contrasts of scientific vs poetic knowledge or empiricism vs transcendentalism–for example)
And I’ve probably said too much–talk about word bombs!
This was extremely helpful! I appreciate you sharing your insights on something that is a bit foreign to me. As I’ve read through Edwards’s sermons, I’ve been struck by how different his sermon structure is to mine. However, it’s his way of thinking and communicating that I’m an interested in highlighting. So, anyone reading your analysis will profit. Again, thanks for adding substance to these posts.
BTW, I should have said that I think you are very good at synthesizing. This is probably one reason why your blog is a must-read for me. I love how you tie all the aspects of a book together, and make it meaningful. 😀
Thanks for kind words. You’re right about Edwards being a bit wordy (understatement?). His way of illustrating concepts is also fascinating to me and will probably come out in future posts.
Looking forward to those posts. 😀