Re: An Observation
Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:32 am
Hi Singalphile,
The post was intended to be vague. Westcott was commenting on the general tend of people to be fanatical when they focus on one idea or in some cases a "gimmicky" view. Take for instance the myriad of sects that have built up over these past many centuries. Don't all of them begin with emphasis on some notion or idea that other churches perhaps have failed to notice? Sometimes the idea may be legitimate, sometimes it is a contrivance. Take as an example the person who says believers need to be immersed (maybe even three times) in order to be saved. They highlight one teaching, and sacrifice all else on this particular creedal alter. You may be right that certain types of people tend to lean this way. But I think part of it is codifying and writing down creedal statements. It puts me in mind of another quote in the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin as quoted by Neil Postman:
"In the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, there appears a remarkable quotation attributed to Michael Welfare, one of the founders of a religious sect known as the Dunkers and a longtime acquaintance of Franklin. The statement had its origins in Welfare's complaint to Franklin that zealots of other religious persuasions were spreading lies about the Dunkers, accusing them of abominable principles to which, in fact, they were utter strangers. Franklin suggested that such abuse might be diminished if the Dunkers published the articles of their belief and the rules of their discipline. Welfare replied that this course of action had been discussed among his co-religionists but had been rejected. He then explained their reasoning in the following words:
"When we were first drawn together as a society, it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as to see that some doctrines, which we once esteemed truths, were errors, and that others, which we had esteemed errors, were real truths. From time to time He has been pleased to afford us farther light, and our principles have been improving, and our errors diminishing. Now we are not sure that we are arrived at the end of this progression, and at the perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge; and we fear that, if we should once print our confession of faith, we should feel ourselves as if bound and confined by it, and perhaps be unwilling to receive further improvement, and our successors still more so, as conceiving what we their elders and founders had done, to be something sacred, never to be departed from."
Franklin describes this sentiment as a singular instance in the history of mankind of modesty in a sect. . . . The Dunkers came close here to formulating a commandment about religious discourse: Thou shalt not write down thy principles, still less print them, lest thou shall be entrapped by them for all time.
(Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman; pp. 30, 31.)
Regards, Brenden.
The post was intended to be vague. Westcott was commenting on the general tend of people to be fanatical when they focus on one idea or in some cases a "gimmicky" view. Take for instance the myriad of sects that have built up over these past many centuries. Don't all of them begin with emphasis on some notion or idea that other churches perhaps have failed to notice? Sometimes the idea may be legitimate, sometimes it is a contrivance. Take as an example the person who says believers need to be immersed (maybe even three times) in order to be saved. They highlight one teaching, and sacrifice all else on this particular creedal alter. You may be right that certain types of people tend to lean this way. But I think part of it is codifying and writing down creedal statements. It puts me in mind of another quote in the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin as quoted by Neil Postman:
"In the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, there appears a remarkable quotation attributed to Michael Welfare, one of the founders of a religious sect known as the Dunkers and a longtime acquaintance of Franklin. The statement had its origins in Welfare's complaint to Franklin that zealots of other religious persuasions were spreading lies about the Dunkers, accusing them of abominable principles to which, in fact, they were utter strangers. Franklin suggested that such abuse might be diminished if the Dunkers published the articles of their belief and the rules of their discipline. Welfare replied that this course of action had been discussed among his co-religionists but had been rejected. He then explained their reasoning in the following words:
"When we were first drawn together as a society, it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as to see that some doctrines, which we once esteemed truths, were errors, and that others, which we had esteemed errors, were real truths. From time to time He has been pleased to afford us farther light, and our principles have been improving, and our errors diminishing. Now we are not sure that we are arrived at the end of this progression, and at the perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge; and we fear that, if we should once print our confession of faith, we should feel ourselves as if bound and confined by it, and perhaps be unwilling to receive further improvement, and our successors still more so, as conceiving what we their elders and founders had done, to be something sacred, never to be departed from."
Franklin describes this sentiment as a singular instance in the history of mankind of modesty in a sect. . . . The Dunkers came close here to formulating a commandment about religious discourse: Thou shalt not write down thy principles, still less print them, lest thou shall be entrapped by them for all time.
(Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman; pp. 30, 31.)
Regards, Brenden.