It seems to me that “Fire and Brimstone” texts like Stimulus Conscious Minor and The Adulterous Falmouth Squire were the beginning of a tradition that has spanned to our generation. As this was during the time of the Lollards, the religious status quo was coming under some serious heat from the public and the Church was having to quell a situation that was threatening to spread doubt and (God forbid) discussion amongst members of the religious community. What was this new idea of a religion to include the laymen? What are the benefits of having a bible written in English that everyone who read English could understand? This was a time when the Catholic Church needed a serious push and revamping. Enter “fire and brimstone” texts. These texts were clearly meant to instill some level of fear in their readers. Their target audience is those who might have been waning in their faith and about what religious doctrine they were going to follow. With texts like Stimulus Conscious Minor and The Adulterous Falmouth Squire, those who had a solid foundation in the catholic tradition would probably have been scared away from Lollards and anyone else that the Catholic Church denounced.
We see this use of “fire and brimstone” texts throughout history when Christianity needs a bit of boost in popularity. We see it with Jonathan Edwards in the 18th century with his infamous “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” and that helped lead to the age of Enlightenment and the First Great Awakening. “Fire and Brimstone” sermons are still used today. I can remember sitting in church and listening to sermons on the dangers of hell and what might happen if we stray too far from the “Word.”
It makes me wonder if members of the church get together and decide that membership has been down lately, so we need to spice it up a bit. You know, scare the word of God into them. I think it certainly works. For people who have a sense of religion, one of these sermons is enough to send you home crying, wiping the dust off of your bible and praying for forgiveness. I think that they’re jarring on purpose. No one is going to be conflicted after a talk about God’s mercy. Everyone wants to hear that message. That’s why Church is always packed on Christmas and Easter. But if you can convince a person that they are going to end up condemned to hell as a result of their adulterous affairs or that they are going to roast in purgatory because they haven’t done enough good deeds on Earth, well, then you have a dedicated congregation.
That’s interesting what you say about fire and brimstone sermons. I just responded to Naomi’s post about this very thing, sort of. I mostly responded to her claim that the texts were didactic, but in response to what your post, I can really only say that what I found in my explication of “The Adulterous Falmouth Squire” is that fire and brimstone is a form of deterrence. And deterrence, as we know, does not keep people from certain actions. People still kill people in the US, knowing that they could potentially be given the death penalty. So, I wonder about the effectiveness of fire and brimstone sermons, of this text. Were people really accepting of this message during the middle ages, or did the text evoke anger at a threat that could not really be backed up? Who is really to say. I mean, because the bible was not accessible to everyone during the middle ages, scripture was not as widely understood. So, maybe this text would have proven effective on some, manipulating what they think about God. Whenever I hear a fire and brimstone text I always think of Isaiah 55:9 which quotes God saying, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (NIV). This may just be a question of theology, but how can anyone claim or suggest that they know what God will do to someone with a statement like that. Depicting a God who is claimed to be the creator of the universe as a parent who tells their children not to do that or else seems a bit simplistic. So I hear you Lesslie, but it’s a shame that fire and brimstone could create a dedicated congregation.
Leslie, I like the way you thought about these texts. It seems almost like a marketing strategy. While I can’t say I think members of the church sit down and decide to scare people into maintaining their faith, I think you are on to something. It does make me wonder where one’s true religious feelings begin and where one’s recruitment incentives end. Are the super religious people really just afraid themselves? I’m always afraid to delve too deep into modern religion because I don’t want to offend anyone, but how can we ever be sure under what mindset the religious lessons (like those fire and brimstone) were created? The answer is we can’t.
But I definitely don’t think we can assume all was created under bad intentions. In times of threat, people need answers and security. I agree that people are more committed with the threat of hell or purgatory, but I don’t think it’s created to scare people into attending church more than it is to instill good values and life practices while on Earth. Living with the hopes of being worthy of admittance to heaven should also mean a happy life on Earth. And while I understand what you are saying about attending church on Christmas and Easter to comforted by the tales of God’s mercy, I don’t think it can be that generalized. People today attend for tradition and too see family, and maybe even to maintain their reputation. People want to be comforted but also to realize the bigger picture of life, if you will. Many of the lessons on Christmas are not that of God’s mercy, but rather of the selflessness of good people and the goodness that lies in man, which in my opinion is a more valuable lesson.
I deffintley see where you are going with this Leslie. I have thought of a lot of these texts that we have read this semester as “Fire and Brimstone” texts. I’ve been lucky enough to not have to sit through too many of those sermons but every time we go to church at my grandmother’s church I always dread the pastor’s stomping, pulpit hitting, yelling at the congregation sermons. I am sure that these types of sermons have an affect on some people but to me they just take things too far.
I do have to wonder though what kind of affect texts like we have been reading in class had on the gentry. Did they make the gentry fearful of God? Did it make them act more pious and humble? Or were these texts made to be reminder to the gentry? Or to be purely for entertainment? I guess that’s something we will never really know for sure.
I’m glad to hear you wondering, Jade, what kind of effect texts taking this particular approach and tone might’ve had on the anthology’s particular initial audience, the gentry of the Midlands in England in the later 15th century. It’s useful for us to consider our own parallel experiences, as you do here, but it’s also equally important to remember that we’re experiencing such moments from a very different cultural position than were the original audience members. From what you can construct of what they seemed to prefer, to enjoy, to feel they need from their texts–based on what you see in Ashmole 61, a rather extensive collection and thus a pretty solid foundation–how do such negative depictions seem to fit in with that?