Yes, says Keith, it IS a meaningful term.
Defined by a particular mode of piety - theology as scientia affectiva practica.
Why are we talking about them?
A fairly similar theological pedigree to those in this room.
Yet, lived in a very different century than ours.
This, then, provides very helpful perspective for us as we're so enmeshed within our own culture.
Also, have a very good understanding of what makes people tick, and have very sophisticated pastoral technique. They granted a very prominent place to the emotions. For them, unless you engage the emotional part of the human brain people were not going to do what you wanted them to do.
Secondly, because they've had a significant ongoing influence. Ie, J. I. Packer, Banner of Truth reprinting their works, John Piper's debt to Jonathon Edwards, Tim Keller, etc...
Essentially, they were 'warm hearted, without being wacko'. *chuckles in the room*
Part 1: Puritan theological anthropology
Worth recognising their Augustinian and medieval heritage to begin with. Particularly they drew on Aristotelian faculty psychology + the Bible. Combined the science of the day with Biblical truth.
But, of course, we do that too. (ie, reading 'mind' and 'heart' as if the bible means by them the same things that we mean by them. It doesn't.)
Baxter on anthropology:
Three general faculties of the human soul:
- Mental or Rational soul - only in humans
- Sensitive soul - also in animals
- Vegetative or Igneous soul - also in plants and animals
The three distinctive faculties of the rational soul:
- vital active power - it does things. It achieves purposes. Firstly, it kicks the will and intellect into action. Secondly, it does what the intellect and will tell it to do.
- intellect (understanding)
- will
The passions are located in category two, the sensitive soul. The part shared by animals. A lower part of the human being. Thus, the puritans are wary of it and aware of its capacity to distort things away from what God would have.
Though Fenner disagreed, and located them in the rational part of the being. Edwards also locates the affections in the 'vigorous and sensible exercises of the inclination and will of the soul'.
The corruption of the soul's workings due to sin
Baxter took the task of humanity as not to behave like an animal. Milton took the same view in Paradise Lost. 'When our passions take over, that is the loss of human freedom, according to the Puritans.' God's work of sanctification is to allow a right government of the body. Keep all this dangerous bodily and emotional stuff in check.
The soul's relationship to the body
The Puritans had a very literal mapping of each element to a particular area of the body. There could be a literal 'blockage' between your head and your heart!
Also, related to the four humors: black bile, yellow bile, blood and phlegm. The Puritans said that these bodily humors affect your soul. You have to care for your body, lest these bodily humors affect your soul.
Kutz note to self: how heavily does my anthropology (the one i've simply 'inherited' and could be completely rejected in 100 years) affect my application of theology? Good ways? Bad ways?
Part 2: The Puritans and 'emotions'
A breadth of terminology
The Puritans would, as per Augustine, hold that there was a moral content to emotions, but mainly in terms of what they were in response to and how they were directed, again as per Augustine.
Affections central to authentic spiritual life
"The affections are the Soul's horses, that draw her as it were in a coach to the thing that she affects: a man is moved by his affections." William Fenner, A Treatise of the Affections, sig. B2.
Also, Baxter, Sibbs, Edwards.
Puritans figure that you always do what you want. Our affections show us what we are in terms of our religious life.
A breadth of terminology
The Puritans would, as per Augustine, hold that there was a moral content to emotions, but mainly in terms of what they were in response to and how they were directed, again as per Augustine.
Affections central to authentic spiritual life
"The affections are the Soul's horses, that draw her as it were in a coach to the thing that she affects: a man is moved by his affections." William Fenner, A Treatise of the Affections, sig. B2.
Also, Baxter, Sibbs, Edwards.
Puritans figure that you always do what you want. Our affections show us what we are in terms of our religious life.
Edwards: These are located in minds, not body. Recognises that holisticly our body and mind are connected and that they affect each other, yet the proper seat of affections is in the mind. Ie, our spirit. The spirit is capable of affections even when not connected to the body.
Part 3: The pastoral implications
Is the distinction between passions and affections helpful?
If they are all in the mind, then do they function as helpfully in being alarm bells for us? (not sure why this means they can't be that :s )
While the Spirit is at work to re-order our emotional lives, yet our emotional broken-ness, in the context of the gospel, has to be ok at a certain level. Not loving God enough is not a fatal error in our condition. (Wow. Very interesting for me personally.)
Preaching and other pastoral work
Can't tell someone just to stop sinning. They have a love of sin. Must win the heart to a higher love.
Emotional states and spiritual health
You have to take joy in God and love him with all your affections.
So does this lead to judging the quality of someone's spiritual life by the quality of their affections? Does this lead to a mis-judging of someone's emotional state too?
Also, does the experience of down-times in affections leave one a slave to emotions? (Well, Edwards would perhaps have a more nuanced view that would deal with this.)
If people simply hear 'do this, be this', then there will be problems pastorally.
Division between head and heart?
Edwards charts a helpful course between these two extremes. Affirms the unity of our functioning as human persons. Moves past some of the earlier Puritans.
Conclusion
In our world, feelings really matter. Puritans don't have all the answers, but perhaps they are right in drawing a distinction between passions and affections. Placing emotions within a moral framework. Perhaps wrong in anthropology, in locating things in particular parts of the body, which marginalises the role of the body. (?)
They remind us that our great need to know God. not acquaintance or notional knowledge, but to see God as he really is with the eyes of faith.
Their view of faith is deeply emotional, we ought to live as if the truth about God were really true.
Questions:
Q: What would they think of modern anti-depressants, etc ?
A: I think they would have acknowledged the place of medicine and science if it were helpful to deal with the bodily part of our functioning.
Q:
A: Edwards' final mark, however, the greatest one, was actiona dnwhether you were obeying God's will.
Q: Did I hear you endorsing the distinction between passions and affections? Because it can go either way in a lot of parts of Scripture. Is that distinction really a helpful one?
A: Not sure. Because even Puritans would say that not all passions are bad. Passions enable us to do stuff. The problem is that they want to get out of hand. I take Andrew's point that they want to give some moral content to feeling states. Perhaps those two words are not the way to do that.
Comment: This helps, because when I ask 'why' they don't know. When I ask about the emotional reasoning, then things start to tumble out.