Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is a sermon by the famous Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards (also a great intellectual, attending Yale at a mere 13 years old) concerning the fate of sinners who step out of line. In it, God is portrayed as a rather cold being who would cast the people he created into hell (because of their sins) without a blink, that the "wicked" deserve to be condemned without a second thought, and that God could impose his wrath on people without repercussion. This morose view is in line with predestination (a view first expressed by John Calvin, who influenced the Puritans), which states that God dictates one's destiny, with some people being condemned to hell and others to heaven. It is dubbed "predestination" because God imposes this fate on people before they are even born. This view coincides with another Puritan view, that they and they alone are "the chosen ones" (other religions and denominations often share similar views about themselves.) For them, it is rare when a non-Puritan goes to heaven, if at all.
The sermon, which was preached on July 8th, 1741 in the midst of the Great Awakening (a Christian movement in the early 1700's that swept Western Europe and the U.S. colonies, with Christians striving to learn more about God and mend their errors), brought a controversial reaction seen even today. Although it is a cherished sermon which addresses the errors of sinners and wakes them up to the possibility of hell, there are a few loose ends. Number one, why doesn't the sermon tell the whole story (God's bad side is more mentioned than his good side)? Also, is he suggesting humans are naturally inclined to commit evil, then good?
So, why didn't the sermon address the good side of God? There are two reasons: tradition and purpose. The Puritans have always set a priority of drawing the line, and talking about the dreadful consequences that ensue if that line is crossed. But their tradition doesn't highlight the goodness of staying inside that line (this can be compared to God commanding us to never stray from our set path, to not commit sins. There is a good side to not committing sins, not just a punishment if we do). Also, the purpose of his sermons was not to portray both sides of the story in a balanced way, nor was it to gloss over the bad parts. His sole purpose was to educate, to tell his fellow congregants that there is indeed a hell, and nothing in the world is more crucial than going to heaven.
Second, and also important, are humans predisposed to do good or evil? Edwards' sermon brings a certain historical character to mind: Sun Tzu, or Sunzi, (a Chinese general who served emperor Wu) believed that humans are inclined to commit evil by nature (his firsthand experience of war doubtless influenced this idea he possessed). On the other side of the spectrum is a famous philosopher named Mencius, who lived a few centuries later than Sunzi. His view on human nature juxtaposed that of Sunzi's, with him advocating the idea that humans are inclined to do good. So who is right? None of them, that is to say both of them. They are both partially right. Humans have an eternal battle raging in their hearts with two sides, the side of good and the side of evil. Neither completely prevails.
Put it this way: both humans and God are a many layered onion we may never fully grasp.
I wouldn't say John Edwards main purpose would be to educate; I think a better word of what he was trying to do was scaring them to not stray from their religion. In the first part of this post you talked about the rise of the Christian faith in this part of America, do you think preachings such as this one may have been a way to keep the Puritans from wanting to convert to another religion?
ReplyDelete