Sunday, September 28, 2008

"Sinners" Response

Please post as a comment.
Posted by at

23 comments:

Zach Duray said...

It's hard to keep the mentality that the act of God holding someone over a pit of fire was only for sinners. It was mentioned so many times, that I started to forget that the punishment was only for sinners. This sermon is not making an effort to give the sinners a chance to redeem themselves.

September 29, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Ricky O. said...

While Mr. Bruhner was reading it, all I could think was that the whole thing was kind of ridiculous. I understand that at the time, people really didn't view this type religious extremism as anything out of the ordinary, but nonetheless, it's kind of sad to see how the Puritans let ideas like the ones in the sermon guide their entire lives. It makes me wonder if they even had the chance to live like normal human beings.

September 29, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Dani O. said...

Even though it was common of the time to be very forward and blunt about the subject of eternal damnation, I thought this sermon was very intimidating. It probably worked during the time period it was given in, because you didn't really have the option of walking out on the religion without the town shunning you. Since the towns were fairly small and everyone knew each other the accountability level was probably very high, which would make people take this to heart more.
If this sermon were given this past sunday at church, I would expect the whole church to be dead silent and a few would throw around a couple awkward glances at those around them. Most would probably be unhappy with the speech, especially if they had children with them who would find this very scary. Some may leave the church if the attitude was similar to this speech every Sunday. Christianity is portrayed as a loving religion and isn't supposed to have the hateful God that is seen in this piece.
The problem with this common thought is that Christians have become less and less committed to the religion. Even if you have strong faith, the Bible says that you should be praying all the time, something that is not done very often by most teenagers. Stricter faiths such as Islam have require that you pray five times a day. No matter what religion you agree with its easy to see that higher commitment levels are more common in Islam.
Edwards purpose was to raise awareness about the fact that you can die any day and you need to make sure you are prepared for that, that you are on good terms with God. He was saying that most of our life should revolve around God rather than these secular pleasures that we often put on a higher priority than God. None of these wordly things are important once it comes to the point of eternity in hell or heaven. This is the main point that Edwards was trying to make and even though it sounded harsh and cruel, the true (more toned down) message is something that all Christians should take to heart.

September 29, 2008 at 4:36 PM
amandak. said...

I think that the entire thing is ridiculous. I can't stand when someone uses fear to MAKE someone else believe in one certain religion. Edwards' purpose was to make these people so afraid of what would happen to them if they didn't believe in this that they were almost forced into believing exactly what edwards did. The sermon purposfully uses very detailed imagery to describe how horrible life would be if you "sinned."

September 29, 2008 at 4:42 PM
John K said...

Jonathan Edward’s sermon sounded very forceful and contemptuous. His metaphors emphasized God’s hatred and disgust with the human race, and he stressed that God’s hand was the only thing preventing one from falling into the fiery depths of hell. I think that Edward’s manipulation of fear may have been effective during the Great Awakening, but if a priest were to make such an overzealous speech today, it would only serve to drive off churchgoers. In today’s society, the definition of religion is different; refusing to adhere to strict guidelines does not necessarily mean that you aren’t committed to your religion.

September 29, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Dan Szmurlo said...

Edward's sermon was probably very effective in 1741 during the Great Awakening, but in today's society, his sermon would drive people away. In 1741, he would be addressing small and close colonies where the people only had two things to think about - work and religon. Since conditions were so much harsher, people would rely on religon for comfort much more than people today. Since people had terrible human lives, they wanted to make sure that the afterlife was place of eternal happiness. In today's society, conditions for most people are much more favorable, and people don't rely on religon as much for comfort. Also, since today's society is so much more culturally diverse and open, people could look for a more loving religon than Puritism if they don't like what they hear

September 29, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Donald Magnani said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
September 29, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Haley said...

If I were a puritan, listening to Edwards give that sermon, I'd be scared out of my mind. I think its easy to look at this piece and think that it is laughable, but this was all too real back then. They lived in towns where sermons like that were reality and it wasn't to be questioned. Mr. Brewner touched on the point that you couldn't just get up and leave, sermons like that were indisputable and to go against it was blasphemy. I liked the pairing with the article because it showed how just because the outward apperance has changed, the underlying message of evangelical churches then and now are the same: do it our way or burn eternally in a firey inferno.

September 29, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Jane Danstrom said...

This sermon relied so heavily on scare tactics to convince the congregation to be more Christian. Over and over again, Edwards uses imagery like the dangling spider over the fire, and God holding the sinner over the bottomless gulf of hell, ready to drop him at a moment's notice. I think this is one of the most effective pieces of writing we've read in class. The author does an incredible job of portraying the Lord as something to be afraid of, and someone to watch out for, that his purpose of "awakening uncoverted persons" is easily achieved. The fact that the congregation fainted at this sermon and were scared by it make it clear that in their lives, God was the biggest thing. In contrast to our lives that are full of school and TV and modern amenities, the Puritans put much more importance on being the perfect follower of the Lord, which made this sermon affect them in ways it could not affect us. Edwards plays to his audience perfectly, and in a time where we have TVs and computers ruling our lives, it's just not as hard-hitting.

September 29, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Arjun Puranik said...

First of all, personally, I could not possibly disagree more with the message that this sermon conveys. This just seems so hopeless; I don't understand how this could have appealed to people. Edwards portrays life as hell (+ thin air). Basically, he says every single moment is another opportunity to commit a sin and provoke the angry apparently merciless God. (Unless, of course, you do what Edwards tells you to do and are reborn and thus automatically become chosen).

However, considering the audience (and the rest of PAPA), the sermon seems to be effective rhetoric. It incited people, and made them faint too apparently. Since people took sermons as unquestionable truth apparently, Edwards's connotative adjectives and general colorful language achieves the shock effect he seeks.

September 29, 2008 at 7:02 PM
corilin said...

As a christian myself, I find it hard to defend this sermon because basically I don't believe in the way Edwards portrayed his faith. Obviously, in modern times only a select few would find religious stimulation from such a sermon, because now people want to find salvation and security in their faith. However, I am in the play "The Crucible" right now, and let me tell you, people back then were TERRIFIED of God. They were raised sheltered, isolated, and unaware about what was the truth or what was fabricated for effect. I feel as though the pastors lives were so boring that their main form of entertainment was scaring their flock to death.

September 29, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Amber P. said...

Honestly, If i was in the church when that was read, i definitley would've been one of the people who passed out in the audience. It scared me! Even though i am not incredibly religious and i don't take the bible literally, his word choice made me very fearful! If i were living in the Puritan soceity at this time, and had the religious beliefs they did, i would probably try my best to never sin again because i would be scared of going to hell or being shunned.I mean, i try to live my life the right way now, but if i lived in those times and heard that speech i would never dare to be out of line. This is kind of unfortunate because like Ricky said earlier, i feel as though these people must have been so scared to step out of line that they may have lost their identity and chance to live as human beings. The only good thing about this speech is that he gives the people hope that they can possibly someday make it to heaven.

September 29, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Lauren Z said...

To say that Jonathan Edwards's tactics in "awakening the unconverted persons in the congregation" were blunt and rough around the edges would be an understatement. But in all honesty, evangelical churches had, and will always have the same objective. That objective is to convert the unconverted and bring others to Christ. Today, however, religious leaders state their concern for the congregation in a less threatening way. In fact, the Bible says, in Ephesians 4:15, "Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him, who is the Head, that is Christ." So while most people, including me, would not agree with Edward's style of delivery in the discussion of salvation, the message behind his graphic words were meant to speak louder than the words themselves.

September 29, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Mercedes Herrera said...

Honestly, when we began to read Jonathan Edwards' sermon, I couldn't help but think "oh crap, I have an APUSH test tomorrow," so I didn't take the first paragraphs seriously as I freaked out about my test. As we read further into his sermon I just started to feel really uncomfortable. Being a Catholic, I could not imagine my priest presenting a homily similar to Jonathan Edwards. I was also reminded of the book Inherit the Wind when the preacher was proclaiming to the town about the danger carried by the supporters of evolution and how they all deserve to go to hell. Edwards uses a sort of hidden power in his sermon with his use of strong imagery. It was not a surprised people fainted when hearing his sermon. Personally, I would walk out after the first sentence.

September 29, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Kaitlin Fanning said...

If I heard that then I would be really scared. I would watch every move i made, and make sure that I wasn't sinning. If I was sitting in that church when this sermon was given, I would have felt really guilty, and scared thar God was going to drop me into the fiery pits of hell at any moment. Although this sermon may have awakened the "sinners", I dont think this was the best John Edward could have gone about giving this message. I think this only made the people extremely fearful of their god.

September 29, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Lauren Z said...

Though Edwards depicted God as an overseeing bully, his message of love is as clear in warning as a parent warning a child not to drink and drive, for fear that they will destroy their lives.

September 29, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Reagan said...

While I find peace in my faith, I was disturbed to read this sermon and how Edwards portrayed God as an omnipotent power holding us over hell. Because some in the congregation fainted, it’s obvious that they believed every word of this sermon and thus their everyday life was dictated by their fear of damnation (interesting that Edwards never directly used this term).

September 29, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Blaire L said...

Personally, I believe that you don't need God or the bible, or any religion for that matter, to be a good person. But looking at the sermon through the eyes of a Puritan, I definitely can see how they would be scared out of their minds if they truly believed those aspects of religion. I was not affected much at all by the sermon. To me, it just sounded like a bunch of fiction, especially with the metaphors of being held over the fire. Edward's sermon, the way he states sinning as "do it and go to hell", doesn't sound like any idea of Christianity I've ever heard of.

September 29, 2008 at 8:54 PM
Kristine Werling said...

If I had been a puritan listening to this sermon being given I think that I would have felt very afraid and overwhelmed. Edwards’ sermon is like a negative magnifying glass that uses exaggerated evil connotations. I don’t think it’s right to try to scare a group of people into doing something or acting a certain way. To me this sermon is like using a whip to make a horse run faster. The horse only moves out of fear and therefore, I don’t think that the puritans acted the way they did out of love and desire to be genuine, but rather to avoid the flames of hell. In my opinion, I don’t respect people or ideals that try to scare me into acting a certain why. So this sermon caused me to look down upon the puritan ways.
While listening to Mr. Brewner reading this, I was thinking how ridiculous and intimidating this sermon was, but later I realized that it was pulled out of context. This in turn brought questions to my mind about how aspects of my religion would appear to others when pulled out of context. So this piece really left me thinking about my own experiences. Also, on an unrelated note, I loved the imagery in this sermon. Although scary, the metaphors were pretty cool.

September 29, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Ashvin said...

Reading this very thrilling sermon by the Puritan John Edwards was very helpful due to the fact that I have a AP US History Exam the next day. But reading this very critical sermon about damnation gave me some insight about this very biased man. His use of imagery clearly portrays that if you commit a sin or are infact reborn from a sinner, you will go to hell and that his imagery shows that hell is very scary looking. For example, he uses in the last paragraph when he describes hell as a "bottomless pit" or a "great furnace", and he uses connotations of conflagrations. Meaning that he states that there will be flames all around you, or in the second paragraph he states that hell is a dreadful pit of glowing flames of the wrath of God.
There is also a lot of other figurative languages used. There are quite a few similes. For example, "your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead". And, there is some personification. One instance used is that "There is hell's wide gaping mouth open."
Now referring to PAPA, the Purpose was to obviously warn them about the consequences of sin and the vivid descriptions of hell and God's omnipotent power. Which really shocked the non converts that they will go to hell. The audience had to be non believers because they are the ones who are experiencing the full impact of the shock treatment. The persona is a ominous and angry tone because Edwards wants to make sure that sinners will not be forgived by God and that sinners are no match for God's wrath. And finally the argument was to use vivid descriptions of hell and of God's power and wrath to prove a point that Sinners will be punished.
My honest opinion was that I did not like his sermon because he thinks that people should not be given second chances to correct their mistakes. And I believe second chances in reality should always be granted.

September 29, 2008 at 9:58 PM
JenniferLee said...

The sermon by Jonathan Edwards was very harsh. I am a Christian, and I can understand what he is trying to explain but his choice of method was a bad one. I think a lot of people who heard this sermon must have been pretty scared and freaked out. It seems like he tries to make the congregation scared so that they would follow this religion. Back then, this message might've worked-at least for some people. However, if he was to preach this now I believe the effect would've been different. People would stop coming to that church and lose their religion because nowadays, people have come to believe more in individualism and self choice. A method like this would definitely not work with the people of today's society. Perhaps that's why people in our class, during the reading, felt that this sermon was so ridiculous.

September 30, 2008 at 2:12 AM
Yena Hong said...

Edwards' sermon may sound a little harsh and ridiculous to people, but I actually thought it may have a ring of truth to it. At church, we repeatedly hear pastors saying if you don't live the life the way God wants you to live, then you will never go to heaven. Edwards' sermon said the exact same thing except he was stressing it more and putting it in a more realistic view, in order to create a greater impact. Though, if I were a puritan and were listening to sermon at that time, I would probably have been scared to death since religion was a great part of peoples' lives during that time. I think that this sermon, although intense, made a strong point.

September 30, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Chris Corrao said...

The sermon was filled with lots of imagery and metaphors and the like, and was probably frightening to the sheeple of that time period, but to me was just incredibly boring and redundant propaganda. You're going to hell. God hates you. Rinse, repeat. *Yawn*

September 30, 2008 at 10:43 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)