Though he lived a century after the original colonists, Jonathan Edwards is a well-known heir of their Puritan Calvinist tradition. His sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," with its terrifying, fire-and-brimstone rhetoric, famously portrays God's merciless wrath toward the unsaved.
The Puritans were definitely conscious of God's wrath, and yet they were equally aware of his mercy in Christ. Edwards' sermon focuses intensely on God's sovereign wrath, with a brief ending reminder of the "door of mercy wide open." In Danforth's "Errand in the Wilderness" sermon, conversely, a short section on wrath is followed by pages about God's abundant mercy.
Whatever the balance be, the two concepts were evidently inseparable for the Puritans. Why expound upon God's wrath, if escape from it were hopeless? Again, what significance does "mercy" retain if there's no impending punishment?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Christine--
ReplyDeleteDo you notice any difference in how the two men refer to their audience? For instance, consider how the two use pronouns in their work: Danforth speaks of a general and collective "you," while Edwards' "you" is pointed and individualized. What might this tell you (singular) about the evolution and possible fragmentation of the Puritan church between the second generation (Danforth), and its seventeenth-century, Great Awakening version?
Great work -- I'm enjoying reading your responses! --jm
The pronouns definitely give insight into the changing concept of the church body. When Danforth says "you," he speaks to a unified congregation. This connects to Winthrop's original vision of "Christian charity," drawn from the "body of Christ" metaphor in Corinthians. The Halfway Covenant, less than a decade old when Danforth spoke, had not yet changed the concept that the congregation was a unit of true believers. Danforth assumes his church members at least served God at one time.
ReplyDeleteEdwards, though, directs most of his rhetoric toward "you that are here present that yet remain in an unregenerate state." It was definitely no longer assumed that, because you're in church, you are a Christian. Compared to Danforth, he's incredibly "pointed," as you say! Salvation is on an individual basis. Punishment is for your (singular) deeds, rather than God's wrath on a community for collective religious laxness.
Thank you for encouraging me to think about context.
Great summary Christine! You certainly can almost see Edwards' finger wagging as he addresses the congregation, despite the fact that he's known to have been a very even and reasoned -- as opposed to histrionic or impassioned -- preacher. George Whitefield would follow Edwards and become the most recognizable face of the Great Awakening, and one who was known as much for his public performances as for his ability to theorize the relationship between God and the elect. Edwards seems to have been less interested in the spectacular effects of the sermon, though still aware of the need to create spectacle with his words.
ReplyDeleteThe Half-way Covenant serves as a particularly interesting question regarding the first- to second-generation divide. As you've mentioned, it's often seen as a falling away from the principles of the first generation and the Great Migration founders of the colonies, and it certainly is constructed as such in the rhetoric of the sermons: mere shadows of their forefathers, the second-generation ministers castigate their followers for their slovenly ways. But there is another possibility, one that is hinted at by the ministers but never explicitly discussed: that the second generation feels the burden of measuring up to the first too intensely, and that they are too critical in their self-examination. This leads to a decrease in church membership not because their aren't enough pious believers, but because those believers are too self-critical in their evaluation of their godliness. Said another way, they take the criticisms of the ministers to dearly to heart, failing to apply for membership not because it's not important, but because they're overawed by the fearful God that is being described from the pulpit.
This is, of course, not an easy debate to resolve, nor one that bears immediately on your reading. Instead, what it demonstrates is the power of the sermon on one hand -- something to which you've alluded, and something that makes this period so interesting -- and, on the other hand, to the potential slippage between elites' articulation of communal purpose versus the lived reality of the populace. The sermon is just one genre, and as dramatic and important as it is, it's not the only way that the community represents itself.
Again, I'm having a great time reading along with you and will be looking forward to more. Happy Presidents' Day! --jm
I'm looking forward to comparing the sermon to other genres and gaining a fuller picture of the community. And I've put the Half-way Covenant debate on my list of "Themes to Follow." Since I'm barely entering on background reading and criticism at this point, your input is invaluable and interesting.
ReplyDeleteAnd, since I'm writing from Louisiana, Happy Mardi Gras!