Thursday, March 5, 2009

The Synecdoctic Reason For Love

John Winthrop and John Cotton both touch on points of synecdoctic culture in their respective sermons. The reason Winthrop mainly gives for being charitable, which in the context of the time meant to love each other, to other people is that we are all part of one body, the body that connects us all to Christ who is essentially the head of this body. Every p He says that love, encompassing all aspects whether it be just caring about another or helping someone out, are the ligaments that hold this body together. No person is their own separate entity but we are all part of the whole. This is difficult for our current culture to understand because we are very focused on the self. Our self is what matters most to us. Puritan society cannot differentiate between the self and the group because of this connection of the metaphorical body. To care about others is to care about the self because we are all connected. Cotton touches on this towards the end of his sermon when he mentions similar ideas, I believe taken from the same Bible passages, that one should not only looking your things but the things of other. There are a few other instances in the sermon in which there can be a connection made to these ideas, such as the idea of not defrauding creditors. It is important to pay off debts because that is a part of the group well being. Caring for the whole group will bring prosperity. There are many things that we today look on about Puritan culture that is negative. Their intolerance of anything that deviates from what they believe is the right way to live is certainly a negative. However I believe that these views of synecdoctic culture could help us a lot today. Many problems that we now have result from people only caring about individual gain. That viewpoint is responsible for our current economic situation which is threatening to collapse our society which will affect both rich and poor. So by not caring about the group it has the potential to hurt them individually. Winthrop says that there needs to be a rich and a poor, whether that is so is arguable, however he makes it a point that they should both care about each other. Both Winthrop and Cotton touch on the topic of enemies, or people believed to be outside the saved group such as Native Americans. Both say to be kind to these people but it is unclear whether or not these people are part of the body and whether their well being also affects the other individuals. It seems clear that by Puritans actions towards some of these groups that they probably are not considered part of the same body.

3 comments:

  1. I really like the ideas you brought forth, and I would have to agree with some of the ideas that the Puritans bring forth in their whole theory on individuals vs. group. It is quite obvious that the more we work as a group and have each other’s backs, the more we will prosper in the end, but what confuses me is how they can sit there and preach something like that when they believe in God, who is viewed upon as an “individual male”. That seems some what contradictory to me. I mean, yes, God to some people might be a tree, the wind, a car, etc, but according to the movie we watched in class, the Puritans called God a “Him”, and view him as an individual. Now, if that’s the case, then why would they want to push something, such as a connection between individuals becoming one? To me that is the total opposite of what God has done. According to them, God made everything, individually. I don’t agree with most everything that the Puritans believe in, but I do believe that we could definitely use some of their beliefs in our society today, then again, we could use a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think to consider the view of God as a him would be jumping to conclusions a little bit. While I do think any images the Puritans or Pilgrims may have had of God would be of a male figure, both groups would realize they can not truly imagine an image of God. The two groups do not want to actually try to say what it is that God is or does. This would be a part of the presumption they try desperately to avoid. I do think the society is a patriarchal society and the view of God as masculine would be what they believe, but I don't think they would actually say God is a man or a male. They would believe Him to be something much more. The idea of God as an individual is also a little off, as He is part of the Holy Trinity, and which is a part of the whole (though He is also the whole as well). Basically the views of God by the Puritans are of something greater than themselves, and would not presume to equate themselves to Him. They realize they are less, and even as a whole they are less than the one that made them. In regard to the Cotton sermon, he does talk about the indians, and what seems to be most interesting is the way he uses religion as a means to justify the displacement and aggression towards them. Much of the goal of the piece seems to be a justification of their actions, which makes you wonder how much guilt was felt within the individuals of the society.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Justin. I don't think that the Puritans viewed God as an individual male, and am not convinced that they call God him because they suppose God to be a man. I think they call God Him because of the way the bible was written, and being bible literalists, they would refer to God the same way. As it relates to synecdoche, I don't think that the Puritans themselves really viewed themselves as individuals so therefore, they probably didn't view God as an individual the way we might today. Winthrop himself says they are all connected in the body of God, becoming a whole through the community.

    ReplyDelete