tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post1973899124277199885..comments2023-08-10T07:18:16.879-04:00Comments on Borrowed Light: The Epic Head vs. Heart ShowdownAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08034192017775511612noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-86607640648962681502013-07-19T15:53:01.304-04:002013-07-19T15:53:01.304-04:00The current idea of “heart” wasn’t known as such b...The current idea of “heart” wasn’t known as such by the human authors of the Bible. For the OT writers, emotion was typically located in the bowels. The term “heart” referred to more to the center of one’s thinking. It is perhaps best understood as our ideological presuppositions. Sometimes we are aware of these and sometimes we aren’t. When you ask a teen why he did something and he says, “I don’t know,” he probably isn’t aware of the motive he had for doing something enough to articulate it. It’s on this level that the Holy Spirit sanctifies us. It can be emotional when our deepest motives are challenged because what is at stake is the way we understand the world.<br /><br />But that’s not what we mean today. Unfortunately, when read the Bible, we import what we understand today. When we talk about “heart” we usually talk about the emotional reaction we have to something as though it’s a moral imperative. So we talk about knowing something with our mind and feeling it with our heart as though knowing something is not real, but feeling it makes it real. This is a romantic idea that was not around until about the 12th century. It’s not part of the Biblical accounts in the least.<br /><br />What is part of the Biblical ideology was written about by the early church fathers. Rome stifled this teaching because they felt it only applied to the church structure and not individual Christians, and Luther didn’t deal with it directly. Calvin picked it back up and Lutheran theologians later followed suit. Poythress and Frame brought it to light and called it “multiperspectivalism.” More recently theologians have called it “triperspectivalism”.<br /><br />Triperspectivalism is based on the offices of Christ and applied to individual believers. For the difference between the “head” and the “heart” in modern parlance, “head” would comport with the office of Prophet and “heart” would most closely align with the office of Priest, although not perfectly according to what I wrote above. What’s missing is the office of King.<br /><br />The office of Priest calls us to the ministry of reconciliation. We must seek reconciliation with others according to the admonitions by Christ and the Apostles. Inasmuch as we have been ontologically reconciled with God, we must existentially practice that reconciliation through worship, prayer, and participation in the ordinances. This is more than simply feeling love for other people or internalizing our faith toward some rank emotionalism. When we don’t feel like it, we must still practice our faith relationally.<br /><br />But we don’t rightly know God nor pursue our relationship with him without acting on it in the fulfillment of the Great Commission. That’s the office of King. We can’t claim “head” and “heart” without including “hands and feet”.<br />Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-31397084969305793652013-07-19T12:58:03.948-04:002013-07-19T12:58:03.948-04:00I've been reading Scripture, something that I ...I've been reading Scripture, something that I have returned to doing since I've strayed from the path, but I don't feel a delight, pleasure, or joy in God as I would like. I don't want to be "all head" like I've done before I strayed. Even though I don't feel a delight in God's Word I guess I should continually read no matter what. Brianhttp://lamptoourfeet.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com