I think you are right about where the conversation has to go. There is definitely an integration of these concepts in the biblical witness that make a robust anthropology difficult at times. I tend to lean in the opposite direction, and think that Paul’s language about the “inner man”, the heart, and the flesh/spirit dichotomy tends to (just not always), point towards the core of where our action arises from. I think the Spirit’s work then, in part, is a renovation of inclinations and dispositions towards God and his will, which play themselves out in the drama of redemption.

But I am focusing on Jonathan Edwards!

Good thoughts, I appreciate the aim towards worship to shape our doings. Blessings.

Thanks for your response. I’m sure you’re right they’re trying to do what you said – mediate between the inner self and living in the world, or between contemplation and action, etc.

I just don’t think the anthropology that assumes really grasps the scope of the biblical witness – it still priveleges something called ‘the inner self’, which is not, in my view, what Paul means by ‘the soul’ or the Psalmist or evangelists mean by ‘the heart’. Those latter realities are, I think, bound up with ‘the whole self’ insofar as the people whose hearts and midns are set on the kingdom are those who go to Temple, worship God, and as a result, live in certain ways.

My point is not that you have to privelege the heart over action or vice versa, and that I’m arguing for the latter, but that I’m not sure it makes sense to call for a renewal of the heart that is something other than a call to renewed worship of God – which is a set of actions through which we contemplate the kingdom – and to let that worship shape all our doings.

When it comes down to it, what culture “is” as we know it has arisen because of the reality of people’s hearts, in one way or another. Talking about culture then, is talking about our loves, albeit loves as a society, sub-culture, etc.

In light of that, I think they are trying to mediate between the inner self and living in the world in different ways, or to put it a bit more classically, contemplation and action. I imagine, although I am pretty far from their text at this point, that they would argue that cultural exegesis is doing both – it is the contemplation of God and his kingdom, while at the same time, seeking to engage with culture, and therefore the world, in a way that is Christian (however that gets parsed out).

I’m not sure that it is biblical to say that the heart’s desires are bound up with the whole self (although I might be pushing your language too far here), but rather, that the whole self is bound of with the heart’s desires. In other words, I don’t know what it would mean to talk about the heart and the mind separately. The fact that we do so, I think, represents contemporary anthropology more so than biblical (at least, that is my initial inclination).

In any case, I think the author’s point would be something along the lines that contemplation and action are not mutually exclusive, but are, in fact, necessary aspects of kingdom life.

In short, I would ask the authors – what is this emphasis on cultural agency that ‘starts with the heart’ doing? It is one thing if that is a call to the church’s praise of God, which opens up the heart to God’s work by putting our minds and bodies in an appropriate context. It is another if it is suggesting that Christians need to be focussed on their ‘inner self’ rather than focussing on living in the world in different ways. The latter, it seems to me, has often been the strategy of the conservative Christian right.