Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!think!rutgers!topaz!hedrick
From: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Puritan Ethics
Message-ID: <6004@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 21:38:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.6004
Posted: Mon Sep 29 21:38:43 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 2-Oct-86 19:41:50 EDT
References: <2758@pogo.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 49

The problem with being imprecise when evaluating people is that you
can end up writing off people who had ideas that are valuable simply
because they have an unsavory label attached to them.  The actual
Puritans were trying to do something that I think is worth looking at.
They were trying to organize their lives as God would want.  Most of
them tried to avoid extremes.  E.g. they did not ban the use of
alcohol.  They considered that a cop-out.  Rather, it was a good that
God had created, and they wanted to use it responsibly.  The movement
ran into a number of serious problems.  But it was one of the most
sustained attempts in our culture to organize society on Christian
principles.  As such it deserves to be looked at carefully to see what
we can learn.

Your comments on Jonathan Edwards represent a similar problem.  I
assume the evaluation isn't yours, but is merely being quoted.
Nevertheless, Edwards is considered by historians of the period to
have been one of the finest minds produced by America.  Several of his
treatises continue to be classic statements of their views.  (I am
thinking specifically of his discussion of free will.)  Hellfire
played only a minor part in his writings.  It is somewhat ironic that
the only writing of his that most people know these days is his sermon
"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God".  I conjecture that it is put
in high school English anthologies primarily as a way to prevent
people from reading his religious writings.  The excuse is that it is
representative of an important type of prose.  However if all they
wanted to do was show his writing (which is in fact very good: his
theological work is far more readable than most), they could have
picked from a variety of work that would have made sense to the
readers.  Instead something is presented (often in excepts -- only the
imagery, without the actual discussion) which is guaranteed to appall
the student, because they are not in a position to realize what he was
talking about.  In fact Edwards says that the sin inside us would
spring into flame of its own accord except that God protects us.  The
most striking image in the sermon is the spider dangling over the pit.
But note that God is holding the spider away, providing it with time
to repent.  The subject of the sermon is God's grace.  The view
actually expressed is one that is being rejected on
net.religion.christian (by non-Christians -- note that most of the
intolerant statements on the net are imputed to us rather than
actually said by us) as being too liberal to be representative of
Christianity, namely that Hell comes out of peoples' own nature, and
is not imposed from the outside by God.  Again, this sermon is not
what Edwards' actual scholarly reputation rests on, but even it is
being misrepresented.  I am not trying to convince you that you will
agree with everything he says, but the stereotype you have quoted will
probably be sufficient to prevent you even from listening to him.

Just be glad you didn't say anything negative about Calvin.  I have
a diatribe prepared against stereotypes about Calvin, too...