What about Self-reliance? Learning from Emerson

 My previous blog post was about a notable Dutch woman who was born in April 1892. Now I am writing about the core emphasis of a notable American man who died ten years before that, in April 1882. That man was the essayist, lecturer, and philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson. 

In this post, I am giving little biographical information about Emerson, other than to say that he was born in Boston in 1803 and died in nearby Concord four weeks before his 79^th birthday. Other facts about Emerson’s life can be found (here) on Wikipedia.**

The Background of Emerson’s “Self-Reliance”

Emerson’s best-known essay is “Self-Reliance,” first published in 1841 when he was still in his late 30s. Lying behind the public issue of that 30-page essay was the philosophy of transcendentalism.

In 1836, Emerson and some of his friends formed the Transcendental Club. Their core emphasis was derived from German philosopher Immanuel Kant, whose book Critique of Pure Reason (1781) propounded what became known as transcendental idealism.

That idealism held that there is an innate moral law within people that forms their interpretation of life experiences. Emphasizing what Kant called "intuitions of the mind,” transcendentalism was a reaction against the extreme rationalism of the Enlightenment.

Such rationalism had encroached upon Harvard, where Emerson had studied in the 1820s. In 1838, he was invited to address the graduating class at Harvard Divinity School. That talk was highly praised by some, and strongly criticized by others. (He was not invited to speak at Harvard again until 1869!)

Emerson charged the Harvard graduates to turn from the dead dogmas of the past and to seek the immediacy of Truth by mystical contact with God in the present. He declared, “It is the office of the true teacher [or preacher] to show us that God is, not was.”

The Core Ideas of Emerson’s “Self-Reliance”

As is apparently true of many others, I was long under the mistaken idea that Emerson’s concept of self-reliance meant living/acting independently without reliance on other people. But that was not his main point.

Rather, Emerson stressed the importance of trusting one’s own intuition for contact with God rather than relying on that which had been believed and written in the past.

Although he was ordained as a (Unitarian) minister and was a pastor for a couple of years at Boston’s historic Second Church, he left that post in 1832 and never served as a pastor again. Rather, he became a critic of “organized religion,” as evidenced by his 1838 address at Harvard Divinity School.

Although the expression was likely not used back then, Emerson was definitely an early example of a person who was “spiritual but not religious.’ He saw religion as reliance upon a dead past, but he reveled in the presence of God he saw in the present, largely through nature.

Theology has in recent decades been called “faith seeking understanding”—and Emerson likely would not have been averse to that description. His objection was to “theology seeking faith,” that is, reliance on ideas of the past rather than upon one’s direct contact with God in the present.

While there is much in Emerson’s thought with which I disagree, I am in basic agreement with his emphasis on self-reliance.

A Selection of Emerson’s Words

I am ending this post about Emerson with some of my favorite statements he made through the years. The first are oft-quoted words from “Self-Reliance”: 

I have been unable to find the source, but these words about the reality (or danger?) of new ideas are often attributed to Emerson, although they are sometimes said to be from Oliver Wendell Holmes (who was six years younger than Emerson): 

The gist of the following quote is from a letter Emerson wrote his daughter Ellen in 1854: 

There is also no documentation for this quote, but I close with these significant words that are certainly Emersonian, if not directly from Emerson himself: 

_____

** I also enjoyed reading and recommend Self-Reliance: The Story of Ralph Waldo Emerson (2010), a delightful 140-page book Peggy Caravantes authored for junior high school students. 

** For a deeper understanding of Emerson, I also recommend Emerson: The Ideal in America, an informative 2007 video available (here) on YouTube.

TTT #2 The Better We Know God, the Broader and Deeper Will Be Our Understanding of the Universe and Everything in It

Ten days ago, I posted the first of 30 articles of my not-yet-published book titled Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (abbreviated as TTT). This article presents the gist of the second chapter, which is closely related to the first chapter but does not require prior reading of that opening chapter.

An Important Question

Many people seem to think that embracing a religious faith narrows one’s understanding of the world. Some people have even jettisoned religion because they wanted a broader worldview. Such people have viewed belief in God as a straitjacket that limits thought about the world in which we live. But are such views well founded?

It cannot be denied that some types of religion do limit exploration of, and acceptance of, a more comprehensive view of the universe than that has traditionally been held. There has long been, for example, an anti-intellectual bias among some Christians. Such a position, though, is clearly a perversion of what Christianity is, or at least should be.

The Answer of the Early Scientists

Many people have held the widespread perception that “warfare” between science and religion has persisted through the centuries. But investigation into the true nature of the situation reveals that most of the early scientists in the Western world were people of deep faith in God.

As most of you know well, Nicholas Copernicus initiated a massive change in how people understand the nature of the universe. The Polish-born Copernicus (1473-1543) was a first-class astronomer, but he was also a Catholic cleric and an ardent believer in God.

The striking painting below is titled “Astronomer Copernicus: Conversation with God.” It is an 1873 work of the prominent Polish painter Jan Matejko.  

Is Theology the “Queen of the Sciences”?

There was a time, long ago, when theology was widely considered to be the “queen of the sciences.” It was so called because if God is the creator and sustainer of the entire universe from the beginning to the present and on into the vast future, there is nothing that is not related to God.

So theology, the study of God, must include everything since everything is related to God.

Because of various misunderstandings of God – mostly because of parochial views that failed to grasp the greatness of God – and because of a growing secularization which grew partly as a reaction against the narrowness into which religion had fallen, theology gradually lost its place as the “queen of the sciences.”

Now theology is even seen by many in the academic world as an unwanted stepchild.

Nevertheless, the attempt to know God includes the desire to know everything related to God – and as we have seen, the physical sciences were developed as a means not just to understand the universe better but also as a means to know God better. Thus, the study of God includes the theology of science and the theology of nature.

Rightly understood, the idea of theology as the “queen” of our human quest for understanding the universe is a claim worth taking seriously.

God and the Basic Virtues

In both Western and Eastern societies, truth, beauty, and goodness have long been understood as basic virtues. If we accept the “true thing” explicated in the first chapter, then we can consider the likelihood that God is the basis for all truth, beauty, and goodness.

So, it seems clear that the better we know God, the broader and deeper will be our understanding of the universe and everything in it.

Cherry Picking

Earlier this month I received an email from a Thinking Friend about cherry picking. He said that he prefers “the Greatest Common Denominator” in spiritual traditions.

Then he wrote, “Does this make a ‘cherry picker’ of me? But even when I was exclusively Christian, I exercised discernment regarding the Bible, as you do. Of course I cherry pick! I want the ripe, not the unripe and rotten.”

Good point.

But is it legitimate to cherry pick when deciding which verses in the Bible, or which parts of a religion’s doctrinal statements, to accept or reject?

Cherry picking can certainly be used illegitimately. It is listed as one type of fallacious argument—and it is sometimes. But not all cherry picking is wrong or fallacious.

Consider this example.

As most of you have heard, Adrian Peterson, the star running back for the Minnesota Vikings, was indicted earlier this month on charges of reckless or negligent injury to his four-year-old son. He is accused of beating his son repeatedly.

But Peterson’s child abuse indictment has led to some people to hold up for spanking or switching children.

Corporal punishment of children has long been considered as divinely sanctioned by many conservative, “Bible-believing” Christians. After all, the Bible says, “Whoever spares the rod hates their children, / but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them” (Proverbs 13:24, NIV).

The oft-quoted words “spare the rod and spoil the child,” though, don’t come directly from the Bible. They are from a 17^th century poem by Samuel Butler.

Still, the admonition in Proverbs is taken quite seriously by many. But what about Deuteronomy 21:18-21?

That passage says, “If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him,” they are to take him to the elders and then “all the men of his town are to stone him to death.”

Thank goodness for cherry picking!

Many other examples could be given of Bible verses that even the staunchest fundamentalists do not take seriously.

There are, however, many examples of Bible verses that fundamentalists do take literally but which “moderates” (or “liberals”) do not consider normative for contemporary Christians.

One example, of many that might be given, is 1 Corinthians 14:34, which says, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says” (NIV)

Is there any justification for cherry picking and downplaying that verse? And if so, what?

A person’s theological understanding is the basis for determining which Bible verses to follow and which to all but ignore.

Accordingly, as a seminary teacher I long stressed, but perhaps not strongly enough, that systematic theology is more important than biblical studies.

Sound exegesis on the basis of a thorough grasp of Hebrew and/or Greek is important—but not the most important.

Biblical study in and of itself cannot determine which verses/passages are normative. That is the job of systematic theology, formed perhaps by use of the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral.”

That unwieldy term refers to John Wesley’s methodology that said the four sources for theological development are scripture, tradition, experience and reason.

Of those four, scripture is the most, and tradition the least, important. But together they form a good basis for constructing a view of God, humankind and the world that, in turn, helps one interpret and apply the Bible correctly.

So it’s not really cherry picking after all. Rather, it’s theological understanding that guides us in affirming some Bible verses while giving little weight to others.

Why Do We Believe What We Believe?

All of us have a lot of beliefs about a lot of different things. In this article I am writing particularly about the most basic beliefs which we hold. These might be called our presuppositions, those basic beliefs we hold before we start thinking.

Those basic beliefs are rooted in our worldview or faith commitment. But why do we believe what we believe? Where does our faith come from?

Faith/beliefs are the result of what we have learned—from other people or from our own experiences. Our basic beliefs (faith) begin to be formed first at home and then in the primary community of our formative years.

Our early community nexus creates what sociologist Peter Berger calls our “plausibility structure.” That is the framework by which, or the lens through which, we understand the world around us.

Our plausibility structure determines what seems to us to be “common sense.” It is the basis for how we interpret all we see and hear.

Like for many of you readers, my plausibility structure was shaped by regular church attendance. From the time I was about seven years old I attended church activities nearly every Sunday morning as well as on Sunday and Wednesday evenings In addition, during most of those formative years, I read some from the Bible almost every day.

My theological understanding (and please note that theology is basically “faith seeking understanding”) has changed quite a bit through the years. But my basic faith has not changed.

It is important to distinguish between faith, which is closely related to one’s basic presuppositions or worldview, and beliefs. It is possible, and usual, for beliefs to change more than faith.

There are many who have a faith journey similar to mine. But for many of us perhaps, our faith is not as strong as it used to be. That is because our plausibility structure has been gradually re-shaped by things other than a community of faith and the Bible.

For many people today, it may not be erroneous to say that their plausibility structure is now shaped far more by the media—CNN, Comedy Central (Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart), or, Heaven forbid, Fox News—than by the Bible or a faith community.

And, unfortunately, for many who are active church members, that “faith community” may be more like a religious club, or a service club, than a real community of faith.

In reflecting on my own experience, now nearly ten years after leaving my full-time work as an educational missionary and as a pastor, I sense that my faith has weakened somewhat.

I don’t spend as much time studying the Bible, preparing sermons, reading theology books. On the other hand, I spend more time reading and thinking about politics and social issues.

True, I attempt to read and think about politics and social issues from a faith-based or theological viewpoint. I claim, I think validly, that my political views are shaped by my worldview (faith) rather than my worldview being shaped by politics.

Many others, with all the emphasis in contemporary society on entertainment, seem to have fallen into a worldview, or lifestyle, that is predominantly hedonistic.

We believe what we believe because of what we think about the most and/or consider the most important. If our lives are centered on the Bible, worship, devotional and theological books, and on Christian fellowship, our religious faith will be and likely remain strong.

But if politics or entertainment becomes our main focus, our faith will weaken and gradually become inconsequential.

May it not be so.