neo-puritan
Inactive User
Comments on Puritan Humility
I just published an article about humility in Puritanism, and I wonder if it is permissible to post a note asking for comments -- after all, humility was one of the core ideas of Puritanism. The article is titled "Meek Imperialists: Humility in 17th century England" and it can be found at http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/trinityjournal/? (Or just Google "Meek Imperialists")
Two questions in particular:
1) The bibliometric method.
This approach means using the STC to determine who were the most popular writers and what were their most popular books, and then using those books to find ideas that were widely known and well-liked among book-buying 17th century Englishmen. Is this acceptable?
2) Detailed and particular application of sin.
Most people believe they have fairly good knowledge of concepts such as humility and pride. Paradoxically, English practical divines regarded this "folk knowledge" of sins and virtues as the most serious obstacle to true religiosity. This counterintutive view stemmed from the observation that people's knowledge was woefully inadequate, and using this knowledge they concluded there was nothing seriously wrong with them.
Puritans regarded "breaking the false self-confidence" as a key step in making people religious, and they accomplished it by describing humility and pride in great detail and applying these details to people's everyday lives. Unsurprisingly, people hated this. Yet, the "painful cure" was both absolutely necessary and beneficial because it forced people to notice their pride and lack of humility, and this discovery triggered an effort at personal improvement which often led to the conversion process and to true piety.
The article intentionally uses a style close to the "detailed and particular application" to describe humility. Is this effective/acceptable to modern readers?
I just published an article about humility in Puritanism, and I wonder if it is permissible to post a note asking for comments -- after all, humility was one of the core ideas of Puritanism. The article is titled "Meek Imperialists: Humility in 17th century England" and it can be found at http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/trinityjournal/? (Or just Google "Meek Imperialists")
Two questions in particular:
1) The bibliometric method.
This approach means using the STC to determine who were the most popular writers and what were their most popular books, and then using those books to find ideas that were widely known and well-liked among book-buying 17th century Englishmen. Is this acceptable?
2) Detailed and particular application of sin.
Most people believe they have fairly good knowledge of concepts such as humility and pride. Paradoxically, English practical divines regarded this "folk knowledge" of sins and virtues as the most serious obstacle to true religiosity. This counterintutive view stemmed from the observation that people's knowledge was woefully inadequate, and using this knowledge they concluded there was nothing seriously wrong with them.
Puritans regarded "breaking the false self-confidence" as a key step in making people religious, and they accomplished it by describing humility and pride in great detail and applying these details to people's everyday lives. Unsurprisingly, people hated this. Yet, the "painful cure" was both absolutely necessary and beneficial because it forced people to notice their pride and lack of humility, and this discovery triggered an effort at personal improvement which often led to the conversion process and to true piety.
The article intentionally uses a style close to the "detailed and particular application" to describe humility. Is this effective/acceptable to modern readers?