Fascinating as always Bryce. I'm curious how this plays out in the thought of Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was one of the first colonial Americans to read Locke and Newton, and I'm sure this had impact on his theology in ways I have never had time to research. I've always veiwed Edwards as a transitional theologian from New England Puritanism toward New England Transcendentalism. His theology was stuck between the Soveriegn God and a more dynamic God, which is where his students moved towards. Thanks for an interesting read. I'd add that if you believe in Substitutionary Atonement, that God demands the blood sacrifice, the political julmp can be towards justifying a punitive justice system or defending torture in the name of fighting Communism, terrorism or whatever is deemed to be godless.
Thank you, Todd. I know next to nothing about Edwards. I recently started a bio on John Winthrop, and I want to finish it. I've lived in Virginia almost my whole life, and Virginia wouldn't know what to do with a homegrown theologian. My forebears thought they left political religion in the rearview mirror when the earliest ones sailed here from England in the middle of the 17th century. As you know, the Deist god supported Jefferson's wall of separation, but I don't think we've reckoned the damage to our political life from a god who created but walked away from his creation. I wish we could work a kind of cultural exchange between your Puritan/Transcendentalist New England and my Anglican/Deist Virginia.
Your point about substitutionary atonement is a great addition to this discussion. Your connection reminds me of Stephen Crane's "from War Is Kind": "Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom— / A field where a thousand corpses lie."
That's got to be good! As a friend reminded me on Facebook today, in Judaism and Islam, pictures of God aren't permitted. But my conception of God -- my mind's eye -- began with a kind of Santa Claus figure. I think I've moved past it . . .
Fascinating as always Bryce. I'm curious how this plays out in the thought of Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was one of the first colonial Americans to read Locke and Newton, and I'm sure this had impact on his theology in ways I have never had time to research. I've always veiwed Edwards as a transitional theologian from New England Puritanism toward New England Transcendentalism. His theology was stuck between the Soveriegn God and a more dynamic God, which is where his students moved towards. Thanks for an interesting read. I'd add that if you believe in Substitutionary Atonement, that God demands the blood sacrifice, the political julmp can be towards justifying a punitive justice system or defending torture in the name of fighting Communism, terrorism or whatever is deemed to be godless.
Thank you, Todd. I know next to nothing about Edwards. I recently started a bio on John Winthrop, and I want to finish it. I've lived in Virginia almost my whole life, and Virginia wouldn't know what to do with a homegrown theologian. My forebears thought they left political religion in the rearview mirror when the earliest ones sailed here from England in the middle of the 17th century. As you know, the Deist god supported Jefferson's wall of separation, but I don't think we've reckoned the damage to our political life from a god who created but walked away from his creation. I wish we could work a kind of cultural exchange between your Puritan/Transcendentalist New England and my Anglican/Deist Virginia.
Your point about substitutionary atonement is a great addition to this discussion. Your connection reminds me of Stephen Crane's "from War Is Kind": "Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom— / A field where a thousand corpses lie."
I thought about drawing a circle, but even that presumed too much. My page is a silence.
That's got to be good! As a friend reminded me on Facebook today, in Judaism and Islam, pictures of God aren't permitted. But my conception of God -- my mind's eye -- began with a kind of Santa Claus figure. I think I've moved past it . . .