I came across an interesting segment in Religious Affections tonight. Bear with it, it’s worth reading.
[Among “the evidence that true religion lies much in the affections… is that] it appears from the nature and design of the ordinances and duties, which God hath appointed, as means and expressions of true religion.
To instance in the duty of prayer: it is manifest, we are not appointed in this duty, to declare God’s perfections, his majesty, holiness, goodness, and all-sufficiency, and our own meanness, emptiness, dependence, and unworthiness, and our wants and desires, to inform God of these things, or to incline his heart, and prevail with him to be willing to show us mercy; but suitably to affect our own hearts with the things we express, and so to prepare us to receive the blessings we ask. And such gestures and manner of external behavior in the worship of God, which custom has made to be significations of humility and reverence, can be of no further use than as they have some tendency to affect our own hearts, or the hearts of others.
And the duty of singing praises to God seems to be appointed wholly to excite and express religious affections. No other reason can be assigned why we should express ourselves to God in verse, rather than in prose, and do it with music but only, that such is our nature and frame, that these things have a tendency to move our affections.”
Indeed, these things do have a “tendency to move our affections”. In fact, so much so that I’ve argued against the risks of emotionalism. I’m sure there’s a balance to the whole lot, but it definitely makes me think. With all that scripture commands about emotional response to God, perhaps the emotional response to music and prayer is not only useful but also necessary.
Perhaps, as Edwards has suggested, it’s not so much to move and to bless God, as it is to move ourselves into a position able to receive blessing from God.
Much to ponder, indeed.
