Most of us don’t read difficult books. Many of us who might may stop part way bewildered by what we are reading. Those who persevere may find gold, but only after some pretty serious chipping of rock. What makes books — like Edwards’ Religious Affections so hard to read? Is it my stupidity? I’m willing to accept that. Sort of. But one cannot discount the matter of style as well. His content is marvelous. His style is repetitive and at times obtuse.
In one typical paragraph (randomly selected), I counted six sentences in one 41 line paragraph (about one page). In these sentences, there were 41 commas and ten semicolons, and average of 8 1/2 breaks per sentence. Such a ponderous style can make it VERY difficult to hold in one’s mind the logic and flow of an argument.
This may have been a wonderfully readable style for Edwards’ day. However, it is ponderous now and creates a barrier for those who would try to understand him today.
FOOTNOTE: Sometimes to mine the gold of a great mind, we need to adapt. We need to learn the skills that are necessary to unpack his style if that is a barrier.
But that should not always be necessary. A couple I’m to marry live at some distance and their premarital counseling is being done by a pastor in another denomination and in another city. To get things started, he gave them a book to read… a book on marriage written in 1842.
The bride-to-be’s comment was this: “We have read the first chapter, and well, it was somewhat difficult to say the least. It is all the same original vocabulary and grammar style from back then, making it a long and slow process of understanding its meaning!”
This makes me sad. It may be necessary to invest the labor to gain what one can only gain from Edwards, but wonderful books on marriage emerge with every generation. I hope this couple is given the chance to abandon 1842 and read something they can wrap their hearts around.
MagistraCarminae
I agree with your main point here, Randy: we need to be able to communicate to our own generation in a way that it can understand. The truth of the gospel is clear in all generations: surely we can communicate that clearly!On the other hand, however, we are a people who have in many ways followed our culture’s obsession with visual imagery and sound-bites, and forgotten that we are called to be people of the Word. God chose to communicate to us most clearly through that medium of the written word. That should change the way we think about language, with its abilities and potentialities, and cause us to question our investment in it, or lack thereof. I sometimes see in myself the pull to watch the movie instead of read the book because it is easier. But the medium *is* in some ways, the message. Movies are excellent tools of communication, as are other forms of visual art, but they don’t communicate in the same way literature does. If we all fail to make the investment needed to learn from literature, we are all the poorer for it. And Edwards is a good example. I think it is a noble and worthy goal to make accessible a current and relevant book on marriage in a readily accessible style. But let’s also encourage one another to mine the depths of Edwards, or possibly a book from 1842 on marriage if its content is worthy. Like classical music or fine art, the more you are exposed to its depth and riches, the more accessible its style may become.
Randy Greenwald
Chris,We are not in disagreement, but we may be pulling in slightly different directions. Yes, God has given to us a word, and that does in great respects sanctify written language as a means of communication. However, do we not see in that word God revealing himself through a variety of means, not all of it written? The tabernacle was a visual message, as was the Passover and now the Lord’s supper. The prophets did not just write, they spoke. And sometimes their speaking was dramatized.Jesus never wrote a word. He spoke, and he often spoke in highly visual imagery, accommodating his words to the listeners.We need to take care that we not move from the sanctification of words to an idolatry or tyranny of words. You know that I would love to elevate my own ability to understand great writers, great thinkers, great music, great art. I urge people to read Edwards and Calvin and Owen and others.However, an 1842 book on marriage? That will hold some interest to those of us who want to see marriage issues set in the context of time, but it is of little to no use to a young couple wanting to learn how to love one another. There is only one Edwards. But there are dozens if not hundreds of accessible books on the beauty and challenge of the marriage relationship. Let’s not add a stumbling block for a couple who need desperately to know what to do when their expectations of marriage crash into a reality they never considered. Let’s save exercising their intellect for another day.Thanks for reading and commenting.
Anonymous
I don’t believe the age of the words should be the basis of our judgment of a book. If the author speaks [the] truth, that truth will carry through the generations.The pastor overseeing the counseling must see something in this older book. Perhaps its something that can be uniquely applied by this couple. Assuming he as suggested the book before, he is probably not oblivious to this issue of “relatability”. I would be interested to know what denomination (one area where I’m pessimistic) and what book it was.I don’t mean to take up an antagonistic view but I think we can miss out on a lot if we make judgments based on what things sound like or look like in stead of what they say. I’m not saying accept, I’m saying judge.In the grand scheme of things 1842 wasn’t that long ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842. When I have questions or doubts about marriage the book I turn to again and again was written probably closer to 42.
Randy Greenwald
Anonymous,I confess that I should not rush to judgment regarding the pastor who chose a book with archaic language for his counseling purposes. No doubt he sees something in that book that is worth capturing. But I WAS that guy once, a guy who thought that nothing good ever arose after the Confederacy fell (okay, I’m exaggerating, but not much). In this case, we are not discussing the Trinity, but how a couple relates in the commitments or marriage. On this subject, there is much good that is written that is not only accessible but which also takes into account the modern situation in which this couple will find themselves actually living. Some things do change.As for the Book written closer to 42, I suspect we both share a commitment to it. I’m grateful, though, that we have translations of it, in a style both accurate and readable for modern eyes and ears. Or perhaps we should make all our people learn Greek or, forsooth, forcibly adapt themselves to the Shakespearian English of the KJV.