The general ends of preaching the word unto believers are:- [1.] The increase of spiritual light, knowledge, and understanding, in them; [2.] The growth of grace, enabling to obedience; [3.] Holy excitation of grace, by impressions of its power in the communication of the mind, love, and grace of God, unto our souls;-which is attended with, [4.] An impression on the affections, renewing and making them more holy and heavenly continually; with, [5.] Direction and administration of spiritual strength against temptations and corruptions; and, [6.] Fruitfulness in the works and duties of obedience.
John Owen, Sin and Grace: Of the Dominion of Sin and Grace, p. 540
Owen’s idea of preaching (to believers) is that it (1) begins by targeting the mind (understanding) (2) in order to enable the will (3, 4) by awakening the affections (5) toward God and against sin (6) resulting in obedience.
Obedience to God is his primary goal, but the will must be reached through the understanding and by the affections. The preacher has to strive to reach the affections and the will, but he must begin by approaching or attacking the mind. When we change the order we become a different sort of preacher altogether.
The implication is that if we preach only to the mind (think academic preaching), then we are forgetting the primary goal – obedience. If we preach only to the affections (think emotionalism), we are forgetting the channel through which Christian affections are actually inspired – the mind – and we are neglecting the call to obedience. And if we preach only to the will (think moralism), we are short-circuiting the entire process. Mind, Affections, Will. Owen would argue that we must reach all three, and attempt to do so in that order.
Do you believe this to be the general way of preaching specifically, or the general way of all learning?
I am a preacher, and I have preaching in mind when I share quotes like this one. I do not think that it necessarily works that way in all learning.
For instance, when I think of children, I realize that in some ways I must begin on an imaginative level with them, trying to reach their emotions before their minds. I want them to love before they understand why they should love. And you must certainly begin teaching the will before the mind with children. They must learn to obey before they learn why they must obey.
But I do not think this is the case first and foremost with preaching. In preaching I want to begin with the mind and move on to the will. The epistles of the New Testament, and especially of Paul, follow the instruction before application pattern. This is usually called ‘indicative and imperative.’ The Christian needs to have the right intellectual firepower to act; his actions need to be informed by what he believes. Therefore I want to instruct his mind first, and then use that instruction to encourage him to action. I want my hearers to see the truth concerning Christ, be moved by that truth, and then act upon it – in that order. That is the balance that I am seeking.
So in summary, I do not think this is a general way of learning; but I do think that it is what the most effective preachers do.
That resonates with me. Thank you for your elucidating.
In reflecting on the Bible as a whole recently, I observed that the Old Testament carries alot more experiential-wisdom, while the letters of the New Testament are marked more by analysis. I find this profound because it would appear that the stories are the basis on which the letters make sense. As such, it appears that life must be lived/embodied/etc so that the mind has something to draw on, the emotions have something to digest, and the will is thus nourished into new healthy action/being (hence Owen’s comments.)
When you started blogging about Polanyi I became very intrigued and have been studying him and mulling over his ideas quite a bit lately. The above comments to me feel supported by alot of Polanyi’s ideas concerning pedagogy. Would you agree?
If what I say is true, it is unfortunate that analytically-trapped adults tend to only want to study the New Testament. The defense I hear for such seems to revolve around some argument for efficiency. As if the New Testament has all the “new” info, as well as any import
I think that there are two primary things we get from Polanyi on the study of Scriptures. The first is that we will never understand something, that is, never have true knowledge of it, without personal commitment. I will not come to know the Scriptures unless I submit to the authority of their teaching. Second, we cannot know without some degree of ‘indwelling.’ That is, we have to enter into the text and look through it as much as I look at it. I use the analogy of a car. I cannot keep on the road (in a car) unless I am indwelling the car in some sense. The same is the case for living the Christian life. I cannot keep on the road unless I indwell Christ and the Scriptures and let them become my frame of reference.
As far as the Old Testament, I certainly think their is a lot of practical wisdom, but there is also a lot of narrative and poetry. The Old Testament is three times as large as the New. I think the New Testament has as much wisdom considering the space that it takes up. James could be considered as a New Testament book of Proverbs in some sense. The main thing with the Old Testament is that we need to see Christ in everything. 2 Corinthians 3 makes this clear (along with other passages).
If we are reading the Bible straight through, we are going to spend 3/4 of our time reading the Old Testament. This means that it is vital that we see how it points to Christ. The New Testament authors almost never quote the Old Testament unless it is in reference to Christ and the gospel. That’s how they read it, that’s how we should read it. Relating it back to Polanyi, we need to submit to the authority of Christ and see all things with him as our frame of reference. If we are doing that, then we will profit greatly from the Old Testament. That means that in my preaching I want to preach the Old Testament in this way: I want them to see that the text points us to Christ (that’s the instructional part); next I want them to see that in pointing us to Christ it shows them something of his beauty and glory (that’s aiming for the affections); and then I want them to see that as such the text makes a claim on them (that’s aiming at obedience) – and that’s not just how I preach it – that’s how I read it as well.
Let me know if I need to clarify.
What you say here about the process of experiencing the Bible, (and knowledge in general,) seems to be further affirmed by the Trivium of Classical Education, (grammar, logic, rhetoric.) Also, in regards to what you say about viewing things through a car reminds me of what C.S. Lewis said in “Meditation in a Toolshed” about looking “along the sunbeam” vs “looking by the sunbeam.”
Thank you for clarifying. It is helping me see further into the ways in which Polanyi’s “submission to authority” plays out in various areas of education, and connect it with Owen’s elucidations. Also, it would seem that both concepts you speak of here are inextricably linked. To “indwell” is to submit to authority, and to submit to authority (personally commit,) is to “indwell.”