Anne Bradstreet

By Umbreen

The simplicity in Anne Bradstreet’s writing appealed to me greatly. Also, the strength of her love - both for God and her family - is eloquently depicted. In my response, I want to discuss “The Flesh and the Spirit.”

The poem depicts a conflict of conscience - between the materialistic and spiritual selves. The flesh gives importance to material things. The soul in response, tries to draw the flesh out of this and show that real value does not reside in the object, but in the perception of the individual. Value is not inherent in a worldly object, value is a perception attached to higher ideals. However, the outcome of this conflict is peculiar. Although the promises to combat the flesh until, “Until I see thee laid in th' dust,“ victory appears to be achieved differently. It is not gained by the defeat of one self over the other. Instead it appears that the soul vows to separate itself from the flesh.

“If I of Heav'n may have my fill, / Take thou the world, and all that will."

This is curious, because one would assume that only in the denial of worldly comforts is true victory achieved. Yet here, the flesh is bidden to take what it wants. The only reason this can be, from what I can interpret, is that death will come; and the spirit is preoccupied with that destination, as it says,

“This City pure is not for thee, / For things unclean there shall not be.”

A I read and re-read this poem, I realized that the relationship between the flesh and spirit is not just one of enmity, “Sister we are, yea twins we be, / Yet deadly feud 'twixt thee and me.” Neither side speaks of fighting with the other. In the end, the Spirit seems to be the more powerful one, and thus distances itself from the Flesh, allowing it to remain as it is.

Judith Sargen Murray 1751-1820

Judith Sargent Murray believed that women were intellectually inferior to men because they are not given the same advantages that men are given. She does not believe that women are inferior to me because they do not hold the same intelligence capacity that men hold. She argued that women are disadvantaged from the start because they are conditioned to be housewives and nothing more. When boys reach a certain age, they are given opportunities in science, while girls are taken away and taught how to maintain the house. She argues that because of this inequality, women are conditioned to things such as fashion, gossip, and fiction novels (as opposed to science and mathematic books). Murray's main argument is that if women were given the same opportunities as men were being given, women could become equal to a man's intelligence. If women were allowed to make decisions that men make, they would be choosing their partners instead of being chosen. Murray points out that men fear women receiving an education because it will effect their duties as a housewife. She believes that the chores of a housewife do not exercise any intelligent function of the brain and that there would be plenty of time for women to hold their duties as a housewife while receiving an education. She also brings in religion into her argument. She believes that God created men and women equally and that they have the same souls. A woman's soul is not different than a man's soul. God created us equally and that is how we shall remain.

-Zinaida Ariyev

Jonathan Edwards

If you are a Christian, names like Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, A.W. Tozer, C.S. Lewis, and Oswald Chambers (among many others) are known to be renowned men of God who had great zeal for the Word of the Lord. After reading Jonathan Edwards’ personal narrative, I felt like I could relate to his experience of frustration and “sweetness” in working out his salvation in Christ.

Before truly experiencing the presence of the Lord and the holiness of God personally, Edwards shared his frustration in how he “fell again into [his] old ways of sin” and “returned like a dog to his vomit, and went on in ways of sin” (387). There was such an inward struggle with Edwards in regards to sin that he finally resolves to make “seeking [his] salvation the main business of [his] life”. I think that many so called “Christians” in the 18th Century, and especially today, lack this conviction of sin that brought Edwards to meet God.

When I read Edwards’ personal narrative, his wife’s narrative, his letter to Rev. Dr. Benjamin Colman, and his sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, I can’t help but to wonder “Wow... how did this guy get to this point where he could so boldly challenge the salvation of the majority of ‘believers’ and still be so lost in God’s love that he can describe it as ‘sweet peace’” I tried to circle all the times he wrote forms of “sweet” and “pleasant” in his writing and lost count! I think that is the amazing thing about Edwards’ relationship with God.

He knew what it meant to be in the presence of God. His desire was “to behold the sweet glory of God”, to “be more holy”, “that God might be all”, “that [he] might enjoy Him”, and it’s not because he was a fanatical Christian. Rather, there was a lack of conviction of sin in the generality of Christians then. He knew the attributes of God; that He is majestic, holy, omnipotent, sovereign, and just (400). And THAT is that led him to Christ.

Further, being the in the presence of God gave him the boldness to be a witness of Truth in his generation. People might think he’s too into “preaching hell fire”, but I think in these days, there is a lack of this Truth being presented in churches today. Reading Edwards was like a breath of fresh air for me because he presented the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is biblically.

I think he challenged the people of his time, as well as challenges Christians today to live a life of holiness (according to God’s standard). Because many Christians are too comfortable in their “faith” that they foolishly believe their “salvation” is guaranteed. Edwards stresses (the BIBLE stresses) that we are saved NOT by works or merit, but simply by the grace of God.

-Jane Hwang

Mary Rowlandson (1636-1711): “A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson”

By Yehoshua

In this piece Rowlandson portrays her captivity among the Native American’s during King Philip’s War, begun by the Native Americans as a protestation against English brutality and apathy regarding their culture and way of life.

Rowlandson’s faith and naivety are quite striking. First, she fails to realize the motives of the Native Americans, portraying them simply as brutal, animalistic creatures with scant morals or intellectual insight. She never reflects upon the possible wrong which the English have perpetrated against the Native Americans — the powerful uprooting of the Native American culture, their loss of home and resources, their pervasive illness, their economic disadvantage. She never contemplates the fact that her destroyed home, the English’s destroyed cities, were once the free domain of the Native Americans. She considers the starvation, the immorality, the ever-present fear of rape, the brutality of the Native Americans, instead of these very same conditions that the English colonizers imposed upon the former. I am not defending the Native Americans — but revealing the contemporary reality of their way of life.

Second, Rowlandson attributes every incident that occurs to her as manifestations of God’s every-present supervision and omniscience.

When the English army with new supplies were sent forth to pursue the enemy, and they understanding it, fled before them till they came to Banquaug river, where they forthwith went over safely; that that river should be impassable to the English. I can but admire to see the wonderful providence of God in preserving the heathen for further affliction to our poor country (261),

she says. Yet, too, “Another thing that I would observe is the strange providence of God, in turning things about when the Indians was at the highest, and the English at the lowest” (262). Further, “Though many times [the Native Americans] would eat that, that a hog or a dog would hardly touch; yet by that God strengthened them to be a scourge to His people” (262). The arrival of the English army is God’s salvation; their delay is God’s reprisal. Her travails are evidence of God’s punishment; her recovery is evidence of His reward. The Native American’s savageness is God’s reprimand of her and castigation of the iniquity of the English, while an opportunity to demonstrate His power. Her faith is Rowlandson’s contradiction; for her, there is seemingly no agency possible for people, for all is in God’s hands.

Christopher Columbus.

I thought Jens response to the Christopher Columbus reading was both insightful and informative. I myself remember learning about Columbus in grade school. I was even taught a poem to remember him. The poem was " In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue" It's a cute little poem and because of it I never forgot aboutColumbus.
I was a little surprised about the iformation in the reading about him because from my studies as a child I remember that the theory of the earth being flat was proved wrong but I didn't know that he had four voyages. I only knew about the one and that was the one where he landed in America. Even the whole landing in America thing I was told was an accident. I was told that in reality he left Spain and was intended on going to another place to look for gold and got lost and ended up here in America. I think that's the trouble with history and things where many sides of a story can be told. we never know what the real truth is. All we can do is gather everyone's account of events and put that together. In a way that's what our history is. Just a bunch of diffferent perspectiver of history's events from different people. We can't really know what was exagerated or what was the truth. A major question I always consider when reading about Christopher columbus and other parts of history is Did things really happen the way they say and were things really like that.
I found it facinating that there were letters and some kind of record of how things were then. That way there can't be speculation about certain things. By having those letters there is some kind of actual proof of those events. Just like that book, The Diary of Anne Frank. I surely can't deny the events she described in her diary entries because they were the actual diary entries she wrote while her and her family were in hiding. I wish I could get some perspectives on what it was really like but none of my relatives are not quite that old.