Socrates had an idea of the way society should be divided in order to secure "the greatest happiness of the whole [State]." Whether or not one agreed with him was of little significance - it was simply an idea he proposed. However, William Perkins took the principles that Socrates introduced and "Christianized" them. All of a sudden, these things that had just been ideas from one man were now the holy "will of God."
William Perkins started his argument with "...I mean to entreat of this point of vocation or calling; considering few men rightly know how to live and go on in their callings, so as they may please God." He then began to explain how God was like a General, who delegated roles and jobs among people and how they should not leave that to which they have been called.
What frustrates me is when Perkins begins to describe each role in life that "is not a sufficient calling" even though he had just said that it was God who designated callings and that we should do those things wholeheartedly, even if we don't particularly enjoy them. He also claimed that beggars and vagabonds should be dropped from society like "rotten legs" because they do not have a calling. It disheartens me to see one man's view doused with "God-language" just to make it seem more credible.
No comments:
Post a Comment