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…
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
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