A Comparison Among the Writings of Taylor, Palmer and Emerson - Essay Example

A Comparison Among the Writings of Taylor, Palmer and Emerson Introduction In the development of American religious thought, three authors have contributed greatly to profoundly influence contemporary spiritual views. A perusal of their writings provide interesting contrasts when viewed together. This discussion shall compare the writings of Nathaniel Taylor, Phoebe Palmer and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Nathaniel William Taylor Taylor deals with his ideas on sin, human nature, and freedom. His response appears to be to those people who question why God, if He is all powerful and all good, would allow sin and evil to propagate, unless He designed it that men should be sinful. It is the classic quandary: if an all-powerful God loved us, why does He allow man to be harmed by evil? Taylor’s response reconciles God as all-good, man as moral being, and evil as the result of human choice. Moral depravity is his sinful character, his “state of mind and heart” that pertains to “guilt” and “wrath”. God created man to be good, but at the same time allows man the choice of whether to be obedient to His divine will, or to pursue his own selfish interests. Man is saved if he chooses to follow God’s will rather than his own. Sin, therefore, is seen as an integral part of salvation. By giving in to his moral depravity, man creates the evil, not God. However, because he has a choice, man can rise from this moral depravity and choose God, thereby meriting salvation. God did not create the evil, but by allowing man the freedom to choose evil he also afforded man the chance to choose good. This debunks the notion that God could have prevented all sin or at least the present degree of sin. In Taylor’s works, he speaks of God as a personal Father, with a mind and will whose intentions man tries to understand. God provides the opportunity for man to exercise his moral nature, that is, to choose the virtuous over the evil. The interaction between God and man is onr of dynamic interaction, with God offering the choice and man taking the volition to make the choice. Phoebe Palmer Palmer was more of a mystical writer. She espoused the experience of holiness as road to sanctification. Holiness is seen as a mystical union with God. It is only when one abandons his own efforts and surrenders all to God that he gets to experience the faith necessary for him to live a sinless life. Sanctification is obtained when one is united with Christ, bathed in the blood of Christ, because it is only through Him that man can reach God. However, “though saved from all sin at present, yet the soul brought into the experience of this state well knows that it is not saved to the uttermost.” It is the duty of every believer to attain holiness. Furthermore, Palmer stresses the immediacy and completeness of salvation, that it all occurs in one rush of ecstasy on the day of days. The experience is the key to sanctification. One who has attained holiness is no longer his own, but belong to God; they are not of this world. Also, “the sacrifice must be ceaselessly presented” so that one may “be continually washed, cleansed and renewed after the image of God.” Palmer made no mention of sin in the selection, and seldom dealt on the topic in her writings. Occasionally she would deal with the concept of temptation, but does not mention sin, or the presumably human propensity to sin. Ralph Waldo Emerson Emerson was of the conviction that man may seek God in the everyday circumstances. “Our present state, made up as it is of aids and trials, is worthy of God, and may be used throughout to assimilate us to him.” He made an example of neighbourhood and country, daily exchange of thoughts and feelings, common acts of kindness, daily needs and trials. For Emerson, there are countless occasions that present the best opportunity to know God’s goodness; and “we should make a sad exchange, by substituting for these natural aids any self-invented artificial means of sanctity.” For Emerson, man need not take extraordinary measures to attain sanctity, but merely seek sanctification in daily tasks. For Emerson, man’s salvation is in his own hands. “The good, by affinity, seek the good; the vile, by affinity, the vile. Thus of their own volition, souls proceed into heaven, into hell.” Emerson sees evil as merely the absence of good. “Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute.” He further score two errors encountered in traditional teaching. (1) Christ is man, a prophet, not God. His “unity” with the Father is brought about by his realization that God. He alone estimated the greatness in man, that God incarnates himself in man. This is what he means when he says that he is divine, that God acts through him. The Church distorted this when it ascribed divinity to Christ (2) The Moral Nature is not explored as the fountain of all teaching. “Men have come to speak of the revelations as somewhat long ago given and done, as if God were dead. Preachers cannot teach if they were schooled according to books, synods and “as the fashion guides, and as interest commands. It is only those who have experienced the virtues and realized his moral sentiment. “Preaching is the expression of the moral sentiment in application to the duties of life.” Worthy men should preach the Soul, which Emerson conceives as a living and vibrant truth, not merely a post-mortem to the life of Christ. According to Emerson, man may attain his divinity through “the intuition of the moral sentiment” or the conscience. “This sentiment is divine and deifying. It is the beatitude of man. It makes him illimitable.” In effect, Emerson believes that the key to man’s salvation is contained within himself, by opening himself to union with the supreme Being. Comparison among the three authors Ardent and inspirational as these authors’ writings are, they nevertheless present interesting contrasts in their insights into man’s relationship with God. These comparisons are apparent in several aspects. On the nature of sin. In the selection, Taylor deals almost exclusively on sin, the nature of sin, and why God allows sin as a part of the moral environment. Man’s road to God is dominated by his avoidance of sin and rejection of his sinful nature. In contrast, Palmer did not concentrate on sin, or the avoidance of sin as source of salvation, but the attainment of holiness, upon which people would necessarily live a blameless life. For Palmer, even if a person is good and leads a virtuous life, unless he experiences the ecstasy of holiness, then he does not move closer to God. Emerson, while he does not treat directly on sin in his treatise, viewed evil, and therefore sin, as the absence of good or Godliness. Therefore, sin is not the commission of something bad, but the omission of what is good. On the requisites for sanctification. Emerson is convinced that man’s nature leads him to sanctity, and the key to his salvation is within himself (“Obey thyself”). It is by the natural powers God has given man that he can eventually attain sanctity. Essentially, it is an intellectual enlightenment: “The perception of this law of laws awakens in the mind a sentiment which we call the religious sentiment, and which makes our highest happiness.” Emerson believes that sanctity can be attained by ordinary, lifelong experiences; there does not need to be a special experience to find God. He believes that a person, depending on whether he is inclined towards good or bad, of his own volition goes to heaven or hell. In contrast, Palmer emphasized the sanctifying effect of the ecstatic experience, the mystical union with God. Sanctification happens when God chooses to reveal himself to the virtuous person. It is brought about solely by being awash in the blood of Christ. Sanctification is immediate and complete. Finally, for Taylor, sanctification is, like Emerson’s view, a lifelong experience, but it is in the avoidance of sin. On the divinity of Christ. Emerson did not believe in the divinity of Christ, treating it as a distortion by historical Christianity, “a noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus. He leaned more towards the teachings of Christ as the saving factor, rather than the sacrifice of his death. On the other hand, Palmer believes that Christ is God, and it is solely through His personal sacrifice that all persons are redeemed. Redemption is attributed to Christ’s personal act as Redeemer, not just his teachings or philosophy. On reliance upon Scripture as authority. Palmer quotes extensively from the Bible. Taylor quotes both from the Bible as well as other authorities; he even opens his sermon with a quote from Ephesians. Emerson, on the other hand, warns against teaching from the book as if God were dead, and though he mentions Christ’s words that he and the Father are one, Emerson does not quote directly as to verse and chapter. On the depiction of God and how man relates to Him. Taylor writes that man is allowed by God to exercise his moral judgment in order to find God; the emphasis is on God’s benevolence. Emerson says that man searches for his own Moral Sentiment and through that attains his own divinity; the emphasis is on the individual. Finally, Palmer believes that we are entirely in the mercy of God, who chooses to reveal Himself in His own good time, and though the person lead a virtuous life and seek Him out, unless He chooses it, the person may not experience true union with Him. Conclusion While these authors differ significantly in their perceptions, they have each contributed to to shape America’s spiritual life in the present. In their own ways they have called the faithful to a personal and dynamic relationship with God. The writings they leave behind, though written nearly 200 years ago, still influence the development of religious thought today, and will continue to do so in the future. Read More