The second installment in our series on suffering. For part one, go here.
According to Ashley Null, the wonderful scholar of the English Reformation, Thomas Cranmer said something close to the following: “What the heart desires, the will chooses, and the mind justifies.” And according to the Prophet Jeremiah “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?” (Jer 17:9 RSV). This is the doctrine of the bound will, and it is at the heart of the Reformation. If it is true (and we confess that it is), then arguments that appeal to the mind are, at best, tertiary. It is also why, in questions such as theodicy and protest atheism, the heart (or the irrational) must be the first item of interest.
Furthermore, it means (and I realize some people may disagree) that appeals to the rational like “presuppositional” apologetics are of limited value. I’m not saying apologetics don’t serve a purpose; certainly, they provide a helpful foundation for many people. But so often, these kind of arguments are presented in a condescending or paternalistic manner, rendering them downright counter-productive. There is nothing more irritating than having someone check your “presuppositions” at every turn. It is more likely to produce a bloody nose than a conversion. At least from me.
It is the heart that lies at the core of the New Yorker article about “theodicy.” It positively screams off the pages when you read the following (supposedly) background information. This first quote is a personal statement from the author of the article, James Wood, and the second is him describing Bart Ehrman, the author of the book under review:
I know this, because it was how I began to separate myself from the somewhat austere Christian environment I grew up in. I remember the day, in my late teens, when I drew a line down the middle of a piece of paper, on one side of which I wrote my reasons for belief in God, on the other my reasons against.
Readers learned that he had been reared in a conservative family in Kansas, was “born again” in high school, attended the fundamentalist Moody Bible Institute, in Chicago, and then Wheaton College, Billy Graham’s alma mater.
Words such as “austere” and “fundamentalist” belie a strong negative reaction against a Christian environment of law rather than grace. They describe an environment that was most likely long on control/superficiality and short on freedom/comfort to sufferers (and probably not much fun to be raised in!). This could be similar to the story of Wes Craven, who graduated from a conservative Christian college resolved to combat Christianity wherever he found it. To borrow a phrase from our friend Rod Rosenbladt, I believe these are people that have been “wounded by the church.”
I certainly hope my saying that doesn’t sound patronizing. I myself have had a long struggle with agnosticism and Christianity that was only decided when I heard the word of grace five years ago in this sermon. Even now, the word “decided” almost seems too strong, especially considering how the things that I value so much, things like grace, freedom, and comfort for sufferers, are so actively opposed/frustrated by elements in the Christian church.
But again, what the heart desires, the will chooses and the mind justifies, and what we have read here is what the mind has justified. In this light, perhaps we can see the two authors as fellow sufferers rather than idealogues to be attacked. This is not to say that Christianity should not be rationally defended. It should. It should only be done, however, with the understanding that the heart ultimately calls the shots. I believe this to be faithful to the insight of the Reformation and would love to hear what you think.
For part three, “Bottom-Up,” go here.
COMMENTS
10 responses to “The Theology of Suffering Part II: Heart Over Mind”
Leave a Reply
I like what M. Horton often says about the Gospel as something which happened ‘out there’ on a hill about a 15 min walk from downtown Jerusalem rather than something which occurs ‘in here’ (pointing to heart) via emotion. I don’t think he means to negate the role of the emotions/mind for the Christian, but is merely trying to recover the importance of a historical event which actually saves regardless of how one feels about or argues for it. It also means that God’s objective grace extends even to those believers who confuse law and gospel.
You are right about apologetics Browder. Pesuppositionalism seems a bit law-based because the apologist imagines him/her self to be in a superior position and vested with the authority to question and probe others like a judge. I think PZ is on the right track when he talks about effective ministry coming from a ‘pureed self’…but I don’t think they teach that concept in presuppositional apologetics.
So here we have two big ideas; first, Horton is correct that the Gospel is an objective act of God in space-time that saves us from the wrath of God against sin, and secondly, with PZ, that the Gospel is also something which is declared BY sinners TO sinners in order to meddle with and console who we are ‘in here’. The problem comes about whenever we approach the cross without expecting both meddling and consolation.
This is great, David. Immensely helpful. Keep it coming.
Dylan,
I think what Horton is guarding against is the whole “it doesn’t matter if Jesus actually rose from the dead… he has risen in my heart” sort of platitude that makes us totally roll our eyes. It is amazing to me that people can say/believe that and still devote their lives to being clergy. I think St. Paul agrees with us several times.
Horton is totally right but it is apparently true that the objective historical veracity doesn’t actually change the heart. It is the totally primary object of faith (and without it there would be nothing.., Zen perhaps) but the conversion of the heart happens when a pureed heart is spoken to in unconditional love.
This is a long way of saying I agree with you 😉 Eat some Haggas for me!
David
Browder,
Simply love the posts. Your insights are so helpful.
Thanks dude,
Sean
Browder,
Great stuff, it’s hard to believe it’s all very thoroughly Anglican! Two cents on presuppositional apologetics. PAs is helpful as a diagnostic, i.e. why do folks end up where they are in their thinking, but in terms of actually bringing someone to Gospel faith it is useless. Useless because it is the heart that calls the shots and as we learned in PZ’s class, if apologetics is not an act of love (rather than an act of the mind, which is what it usually is) then it will never be a truely Gospel endeavor
just want to chime in and say, like others, that this is very, very good stuff browder. thanks.
Great stuff! I am consistently amazed by the giftedness of your thoughts!
Initially, I was a bit concerned with what you were writing–more from the standpoint of being “offended” than from having any insightful disagreement with you–because I live in the world of apologetics. My sermons (the two I’ve done) and some of things I write tend to have an apologetic feel to them.
Another thing that caused me pause, was my own experience with myself as a rational thinker who prefers to suppress the irrational heart/feeler. I consider my mind the gatekeeper to a rather immature and fragile heart; it’s gotta get past the mind before the heart will believe it (or be allowed to believe it).
However, as I read your post, I was forced to re-examine my reactions. When you said, “[Apologetics] should only be done, however, with the understanding that the heart ultimately calls the shots” I saw exactly what you were saying and with this I full heartedly agree. Apologetics, preaching, teaching, whatever, should be done in light of the Cross as the ultimate and only solution to a sick world, a sick humanity, a sick heart; apologetics (etc.) should first tear open the veneer, the shoddy wound covering desperately put on to appear whole and put together (exposing the effects of the Law etc.) while simultaneously and immediately providing the True Cure, the Real Healer (The Cross). It’s at this very intersection of diagnosis and remedy where the heart and the mind are made permeable to the message of apologetics, etc.
Well, I’ve rattled on long enough. There is danger in a non-heart centered approach to apologetics–this doesn’t mean it has to be gushy and mushy (this I hate), but that it has to address the condition of the heart. To agree with Dylan’s closing statements, whether the world likes it or not, or believes it or not, the events of the Cross did happen and it is this good news that we, sinners, proclaim to sinners! It shouldn’t be otherwise.
–lre larkin–
Hey guys. My guess is that apologetics is always going to be fine when it has a strong individualized pastoral component, and it will always go awry when it doesn’t.
So in truth, there really are some people out there who have got some pure intellectual obstacles to Christianity. For example, I have run into a number of people before who I can tell really want to believe the Old Old Story — but they (mistakenly) think that (to take one example) “Science has proven that miracles can’t happen.” They want to believe in a Risen Lord but have been misled into believing that this is like believing that the sun orbits the earth — something we know now is simply untrue.
So I think a lot of the time you have to feel people out, one on one, and figure out what their issue is. It might be appropriate for a person like that above to be given a book like MIRACLES by C.S. Lewis. Maybe that’s the hurdle they need to get over and then they will be able to hear the stuff we all at Mockingbird like to talk about: the problem of human life (bound and suffering sinners who “have no health in them”) and its solution (the cross story and the risen Person of Christ Jesus).
That said I love the basic thrust of what David said. Fitz Alison talks about that a lot in his books THE CRUELTY OF HERESY and THE RISE OF MORALISM. One of the things I loved so much about C.O.H. is that it focuses so much on the pastoral implications of heretical doctrines — why they are ultimately cruel to the people who get sold on them — and also his focus on why the human heart finds any given heresy initially attractive.