Enjoying God Ministries

In my decision to write this book, I also had to overcome the comments of John E. Smith, who edited the version of Religious Affections for the Yale University Press edition of his works (which is now at twenty-five volumes). In his editorial introduction, Smith wrote the following:

"In directing attention to his style, we cannot overlook the fact that many readers have found the Affections difficult going, nor should we ignore what is implied in the activity of the many editors who thought it necessary to rewrite the text. It is admittedly an exacting work; it calls for a reader's best effort. But there are rewards if we are willing to raise ourselves to the level of Edwards' austere standards; nothing is to be gained by bringing him down to a more facile plane in order to make him say what we would like to hear" (Yale, 2:8).

"So, what say ye, Sam?" For the most part, I agree with Smith, at least with his conclusion that it is "difficult going," "an exacting work," shaped by "austere standards." But it would be a mistake to think that this book is an effort to bring him down to a "more facile plane in order to make him say what we would like to hear." My goal is to enable the reader to "hear" only what Edwards himself would want said. I'm simply attempting to bridge a rather cavernous gap between how Edwards said it in the eighteenth century and how I believe he would say it were he alive in the twenty-first century.

It would be all too easy to read Smith's words, nod our heads in agreement, and walk away with a smug complacency for having heeded his warning. But that won't result in more people reading Edwards! Or at least not enough people reading him to justify that sort of well-intentioned but idealistic response.

Many of you will contend that I've done a disservice to Edwards, that I've failed to honor him for all that he has meant to me personally. I hope that's not true. I would rather think that I've honored him in the way he deserves by laboring to make accessible to as many people as possible his marvelous insights into the Christian faith. So what exactly have I done in this book? What is Signs of the Spirit?

As the sub-title indicates, this is an interpretation of the Religious Affections. When it comes to his Personal Narrative, it is more an application, but to include that in the sub-title would make it impossibly cumbersome. So, why do I call it an interpretation?

I had considered describing it as a contemporary rendering, but that strikes me as a bit dishonest. The fact is, I have interpreted the Religious Affections. To think otherwise is both naïve and a failure to recognize that I am rendering his work through my own theological and personal grid. Every time I choose to omit a particular paragraph I am making an interpretive decision that inescapably reflects what I regard as most important in the treatise. There are reasons, both personal and philosophical, that govern my choices as to what is central and controlling in Edwards' work as over against what is secondary and peripheral. Every time I re-write a paragraph or paraphrase an argument or summarize a theological point, my own convictions are in evidence. I think it's important that the reader understand this.

Of course, I wouldn't have undertaken this task if I didn't believe that I truly understood what Edwards was getting at in his argument. But I can only leave it to scholars more adept in Edwards than I to render a judgment on my success. I'm certain that some of you familiar with Edwards will object to editorial decisions I've made as well as theological interpretations that are reflected in my effort to make his lofty ideas not more "facile" but hopefully more intelligible. That's the risk one takes when writing a book like this.

The strategy I followed is really quite simple. I sat down over several months and read and re-read the Affections, each time re-writing or articulating in a more understandable way the substance of Edwards' argument. I would determine, as best I could, what sections to omit, believing them to be tangential to the main argument, or perhaps repetitive in a way that would only bog down the average reader (such as his many extended citations of supporting Scriptural texts and extensive comments thereon). On many occasions, however, I have kept in tact substantial portions of his work. These are indescribably rich and, yes, readable. There are, in fact, places where Edwards is quoted at great length, with only an occasional attempt on my part to interpret his comments. You should have no problem in recognizing the difference between Storms and Edwards, for direct citations together with an occasional colorful and vivid term of his are kept in quotation marks.

One more comment. Contrary to what you may think, I did not write this so that people would read it instead of Edwards, but so that they might be motivated and better equipped to delve deeply into the original. Some may consider this rather idealistic, but no more so than those who would disallow this book in the hopes that people will read the Affections in its entirety. In any case, I strongly encourage you to treat this volume as merely preparatory to your encounter with Edwards or perhaps as a companion guide to be read simultaneous with your reading of the original.

To be continued . . .