Skip to main content

Emerson's Attitude of Sharing Conscience

Hello,
  Long time no see! :)
  Below is from the Writer's Almanac today...Quite relevant to how the Dialogue operates!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It was on this day  in 1838 that Ralph Waldo Emerson delivered 'The Divinity School  Address' at Harvard. There were about 100 people in the audience,  including six of the seven graduates of Harvard Divinity School, as well as  faculty, ministers, and former graduates. Emerson had graduated from Harvard  Divinity in 1826, and the graduating students had chosen him as the speaker for  this event. The year before, he had given a lecture called 'The American  Scholar' to the Harvard Phi Beta Kappa society. It was controversial but  popular, and the students were eager to have him back.
 Emerson had been a Unitarian minister, but he had resigned a few years earlier. He was skeptical  of the Communion ritual, and of the whole concept of public prayer —  he felt it should be a private, individual expression. Emerson was becoming  more interested in Transcendentalism, and in 1836, two years before his  Divinity School address, he had laid out his philosophy in his now-famous essay  Nature. But Nature was not a big seller at the time —  it took more than 12 years to sell out of its first edition of 500 copies.
 This time his  lecture was too controversial for the authorities at Harvard. Emerson denounced  the current state of Christianity, saying that as it was practiced,  'Christianity destroys the power of preaching, by withdrawing it from the  exploration of the moral nature of man, where the sublime is, where are the  resources of astonishment and power. What a cruel injustice it is to that Law,  the joy of the whole earth, which alone can make thought dear and rich; that Law  whose fatal sureness the astronomical orbits poorly emulate, that it is  travestied and depreciated, that it is behooted and behowled, and not a trait,  nor a word of it articulated. The pulpit in losing sight of this Law, loses its  reason, and gropes after it knows not what. And for want of this culture, the  soul of the community is sick and faithless. [...] The true Christianity —  a faith like Christ's in the infinitude of man — is lost.'
 Many in the audience  were incensed by Emerson's speech, particularly the older faculty and  ministers. Andrew Norton, a powerful Harvard theologian, declared the lecture  'the latest form of infidelity.' It was 30 years before Emerson was  invited back to speak at Harvard. But there were younger audience members who  were inspired by the lecture, like the minister Theodore Parker, who went home  and wrote in his journal: 'Proceeded to Cambridge, to hear the valedictory  sermon by Mr. Emerson. In this he surpassed himself as much as he surpasses  others in the general way. I shall give no abstract. So beautiful, so just, so  true, and terribly sublime was his picture of the faults of the Church in its  present position. My soul is roused, and this week I shall write the  long-meditated sermons on the state of the Church and the duties of these  times.'
 Two weeks later, Emerson wrote a letter to a  friend and mentor, an older minister named Henry Ware, who had been critical of  Emerson's speech. Emerson wrote: 'What you say about the discourse at  Divinity College, is just what I might expect from your truth and charity,  combined with your known opinions. I am not a stock or stone, as one said in  the old time; and could not but feel pain in saying some things in that place  and presence, which I supposed might meet dissent, and the dissent, I might  say, of dear friends and benefactors of mine. Yet, as my conviction is perfect  in the substantial truth of the doctrine of this discourse, and is not very  new, you will see, at once, that it must appear to me very important that it be  spoken; and I thought I would not pay the nobleness of my friends so mean a  compliment, as to suppress my opposition of their supposed views out of fear of  offense. I would rather say to them, these things look thus to me; to you,  otherwise. Let us say out our uttermost word, and be the all-pervading truth,  as it surely will, judge between us. [...] I heartily thank you for this renewed  expression of your tried toleration and love.'

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Re: Science and Christianity--Can these both be believed?

David Moyer Posted:      I am a Christian Engineer/Scientist and I have no problem with conflicts between the facts of science (as opposed to some hypotheses of science) and the teachings of scripture. I know literally dozens of other engineers and people with doctorates in technical fields including medicine, veterinary medicine, biology, etc. who also see no conflict. I was once a staunch evolutionist and I could easily teach a high school or community college course on evolution. There are some aspects of evolutionary theory/hypotheses with which I have no quarrel. But nearly the entire field is a matter of hypotheses with very little of it proven by the scientific method, because so little of it is falsifiable. It certainly does not deserve to be classified as a theory- that is a hypothesis that has been tests by real scientific methods so often that almost no one can devise another test that might disprove it. Remember, that scientific hypotheses are not proven, but rather

Rob Bell, Christianity Popular and Out of Context...

Good Morning    I have been reading about Pastor Rob Bell - Pastor Bell has written a book in which he asserts that there IS NO HELL - while quoting scriptures out of context [and very fluidly] to make his point - Below is a link to a NY TIMES article about him [TIME magazine made it the cover story a week ago].    This stands out for me as one of the greatest problems for the Dialogue, and society; how to approach examples in which a newer "form" of Christianity becomes popular but in total disregard for traditional and even explicit, foundational, Church teaching...there appear to be, in the mind of many, no Essentials to anything...Will science be next? See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/us/05bell.html

State and Religion

Steve - I agree that there is a need for ongoing dialogue about this - in almost every case when the state has a endorsed a "State religion" problems arise...and even in America, where there is a lot of freedom to choose one's religious practice and to carry it out unimpeded, we still see many trying to use courts and legislative actions to limit or remove one or another group's rights [sometimes even private citizens rights] to practice their own religion peaceably.       I certainly do not have any easy answers: this country was designed to allow tolerance of diverse ideas and views, but our international policies and actions seem to me, at times, to belie that. and internally, many of us are very intolerant of other's worldviews...I hope the Dalai Lama's decision plays out as he hopes... As for the USA, If Christians would take the lead in promoting religious tolerance it might help...I find it hardest to be that person when it comes to my closest associa