Comparing Arthur Miller And Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God By Jonathan Edwards
Before the official separation of Church and State, religious leaders in America held most of the power. Therefore, religion-bound ideas bled into the natural flow of human thinking, and the two were intertwined. Exploring classic literature can help illustrate the two-strand rope of human thought, especially by studying and interpreting Puritan-era works like The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, “The Crucible” by Arthur Miller, and “Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards. Although theological ethics are significant motivators towards personal choice in these three works, so are humanistic ethics, leading to conflict between the two ideas. Throughout these works, it becomes apparent that not only do individuals judge
…show more content…
the morality of a situation based on God’s will, they also use what they believe to be God’s will to justify the morality of their actions. In The Scarlet Letter, the townspeople are quick to judge Pearl, labeling her as the human form of sin. This leads to her repeatedly being referred to as “an imp of evil,” (Hawthorne 90) and even Hester remarks, “it was as if an evil spirit possessed the child” (Hawthorne 94). This inherent labeling comes from the belief that anything to do with sin is thereby tainted and against divinity, because sin is unlawful in God’s eyes. In “The Crucible,” the belief that the court is merely operating under God is a way to justify the senseless cruelty exhibited by the court. Mary Warren claims, “You must see it, sir, it’s God’s work we do” (2.1.231), and later, the deeds of the court, to seek out accused witches and hang them, are referred to by Danforth as a “sacred purpose” (3.1.462). In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” the premise of the sermon is that God holds ultimate power over all members of the Congregation, and he is extremely angry that they continue to sin. Edwards asserts, "the God that holds you over the pit of Hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire abhors you..." (Miller 176). He is able to take advantage of the inherently fearful congregation and intimidate the members into leading a sinless life because of their strong belief in God’s all-knowing holiness. There are, however, select individuals who illustrate free thought provoked by critical thinking, providing a stark contrast to the believers in strong theological ethics.
In The Scarlet Letter, the theme of passion versus sin appears repeatedly, and at one point, Hester “deemed it her crime most to be repented of that she had ever married [Chillingworth]” (Hawthorne 172). She is shamed her entire life for adultery, a sin that one of the Ten Commandments warns of, and yet she is able to discount this act as her worst. This illustrates the placement of critical thinking above established doctrine. In “The Crucible,” John and Elizabeth Proctor are able to remain skeptical of the truth in the plaintiffs’ testimonies. Elizabeth claims, “the town’s gone wild” (2.1.85) when everyone begins condemning women as witches. John, in an attempt to convince the court of the girls’ misdeeds, questions, “Why do you never wonder if Parris be innocent...? Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God’s fingers?” He is able to look past the facade of divinity the girls are shrouded in, and ventures to expose the truth about the innocence of his wife and others accused. In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” Miller asserts that humans are utterly powerless under God’s wrath. Although he does not advocate humanistic ethics and principles of free will, he acknowledges their existence among men, claiming, “Every one lays out matters in his own mind how he shall avoid damnation, and flatters himself that he contrives well for himself, and that his schemes will not fail” (Miller 87-89). He recognizes that humans attempt to formulate their own destinies, although
unsuccessfully. The simultaneous existence of those who rely on the supposed will of God to make their decisions and formulate their opinions, and those who value critical thinking and evidence over God’s word and divine command is bound to create conflict. In The Scarlet Letter, when Hester stands on the scaffold, she is condemned for her sin against God, and is forced to wear the scarlet A, which stands for adultery. Although she continuously wears the letter while residing in Boston, it takes on the new meaning of “able,” as Hester becomes an upstanding member of society where many “besought her council, as one who had herself gone through a mighty trouble” (Hawthorne 258). By God’s law, she should have been punished forever, but she was able to be defined as more than the sin she had committed. In “The Crucible” and “Sinners in the Hands of Angry God,” the theory of incompatibilism stands, as those who only follow the supposed will of God are blind to the conclusions arrived at by logical reasoning. Reverend Hale is quick to call “nonsense!” (2.1.469-470) when John Proctor offers an explanation as to why so many have confessed yet are innocent. Hale stands by the belief that lying is a sin, and therefore all of those who confessed to witchcraft must not have been lying. Proctor, however, points out, “And why not, if they must hang for denyin’ it?” (2.1.471) Hale eventually begins to believe in Proctor’s reasoning, tossing his own beliefs in theological ethics aside for the moment. Jonathan Edwards, likewise defending incompatibilism, claims that, “So that, whatever some have imagined and pretended about promises made to natural men's earnest seeking and knocking, it is plain and manifest, that ... whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him a moment from eternal destruction” (109-111). This emphasizes that humanistic ethical methods of thinking cannot truly serve any purpose because obeying God’s law is the only truth. The divine command theory, that God’s will can be equated with moral righteousness, falls under the branch of theological ethics. Through movements of independent thinking, humanism developed as well. An alternative to destiny, humanism emphasizes free will and problem solving without looking to the heavens. The two concepts, both present in the literary works of The Scarlet Letter, “The Crucible,” and “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” cause conflict between characters due to drastically different ideals. In The Scarlet Letter, Hester’s characterization changes from theory to theory, as she violates a divine Commandment, but spends her life carrying out selfless acts. In “The Crucible,” one must look away from theological ethics to see the true nature of the charges, instead of merely deeming the girls holy for carrying out God’s work. In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” theological ethics are used to discredit humanism, but the purpose of the sermon would have been unclear without the contrast between the two. Although the two theories in their entireties may be incompatible, they are both necessary, as the different viewpoints often compliment each other.
the morality of a situation based on God’s will, they also use what they believe to be God’s will to justify the morality of their actions. In The Scarlet Letter, the townspeople are quick to judge Pearl, labeling her as the human form of sin. This leads to her repeatedly being referred to as “an imp of evil,” (Hawthorne 90) and even Hester remarks, “it was as if an evil spirit possessed the child” (Hawthorne 94). This inherent labeling comes from the belief that anything to do with sin is thereby tainted and against divinity, because sin is unlawful in God’s eyes. In “The Crucible,” the belief that the court is merely operating under God is a way to justify the senseless cruelty exhibited by the court. Mary Warren claims, “You must see it, sir, it’s God’s work we do” (2.1.231), and later, the deeds of the court, to seek out accused witches and hang them, are referred to by Danforth as a “sacred purpose” (3.1.462). In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” the premise of the sermon is that God holds ultimate power over all members of the Congregation, and he is extremely angry that they continue to sin. Edwards asserts, "the God that holds you over the pit of Hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire abhors you..." (Miller 176). He is able to take advantage of the inherently fearful congregation and intimidate the members into leading a sinless life because of their strong belief in God’s all-knowing holiness. There are, however, select individuals who illustrate free thought provoked by critical thinking, providing a stark contrast to the believers in strong theological ethics.
In The Scarlet Letter, the theme of passion versus sin appears repeatedly, and at one point, Hester “deemed it her crime most to be repented of that she had ever married [Chillingworth]” (Hawthorne 172). She is shamed her entire life for adultery, a sin that one of the Ten Commandments warns of, and yet she is able to discount this act as her worst. This illustrates the placement of critical thinking above established doctrine. In “The Crucible,” John and Elizabeth Proctor are able to remain skeptical of the truth in the plaintiffs’ testimonies. Elizabeth claims, “the town’s gone wild” (2.1.85) when everyone begins condemning women as witches. John, in an attempt to convince the court of the girls’ misdeeds, questions, “Why do you never wonder if Parris be innocent...? Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God’s fingers?” He is able to look past the facade of divinity the girls are shrouded in, and ventures to expose the truth about the innocence of his wife and others accused. In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” Miller asserts that humans are utterly powerless under God’s wrath. Although he does not advocate humanistic ethics and principles of free will, he acknowledges their existence among men, claiming, “Every one lays out matters in his own mind how he shall avoid damnation, and flatters himself that he contrives well for himself, and that his schemes will not fail” (Miller 87-89). He recognizes that humans attempt to formulate their own destinies, although
unsuccessfully. The simultaneous existence of those who rely on the supposed will of God to make their decisions and formulate their opinions, and those who value critical thinking and evidence over God’s word and divine command is bound to create conflict. In The Scarlet Letter, when Hester stands on the scaffold, she is condemned for her sin against God, and is forced to wear the scarlet A, which stands for adultery. Although she continuously wears the letter while residing in Boston, it takes on the new meaning of “able,” as Hester becomes an upstanding member of society where many “besought her council, as one who had herself gone through a mighty trouble” (Hawthorne 258). By God’s law, she should have been punished forever, but she was able to be defined as more than the sin she had committed. In “The Crucible” and “Sinners in the Hands of Angry God,” the theory of incompatibilism stands, as those who only follow the supposed will of God are blind to the conclusions arrived at by logical reasoning. Reverend Hale is quick to call “nonsense!” (2.1.469-470) when John Proctor offers an explanation as to why so many have confessed yet are innocent. Hale stands by the belief that lying is a sin, and therefore all of those who confessed to witchcraft must not have been lying. Proctor, however, points out, “And why not, if they must hang for denyin’ it?” (2.1.471) Hale eventually begins to believe in Proctor’s reasoning, tossing his own beliefs in theological ethics aside for the moment. Jonathan Edwards, likewise defending incompatibilism, claims that, “So that, whatever some have imagined and pretended about promises made to natural men's earnest seeking and knocking, it is plain and manifest, that ... whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him a moment from eternal destruction” (109-111). This emphasizes that humanistic ethical methods of thinking cannot truly serve any purpose because obeying God’s law is the only truth. The divine command theory, that God’s will can be equated with moral righteousness, falls under the branch of theological ethics. Through movements of independent thinking, humanism developed as well. An alternative to destiny, humanism emphasizes free will and problem solving without looking to the heavens. The two concepts, both present in the literary works of The Scarlet Letter, “The Crucible,” and “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” cause conflict between characters due to drastically different ideals. In The Scarlet Letter, Hester’s characterization changes from theory to theory, as she violates a divine Commandment, but spends her life carrying out selfless acts. In “The Crucible,” one must look away from theological ethics to see the true nature of the charges, instead of merely deeming the girls holy for carrying out God’s work. In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” theological ethics are used to discredit humanism, but the purpose of the sermon would have been unclear without the contrast between the two. Although the two theories in their entireties may be incompatible, they are both necessary, as the different viewpoints often compliment each other.