Brian Jackson in his interpretation of “Johnathan Edwards Goes to Hell (House)” makes his argument very clear and simple. He believes that using a strategy of fear and guilt is not the way to properly bring someone to salvation. I would have to agree without a doubt that he is correct. Scaring someone into believe and believing after being enlightened by truth are two very different things. In this essay I will discuss the authors main points that are discussed and my thoughts and reactions to them. In this rhetorical review Brain Jackson speaks of two points. First, Johnathan Edwards methods of how he portrays his beliefs and his psycho-aesthetic assumptions in reference to his preaching. Next he discusses George Ratliff’s documentary of …show more content…
Edwards states that he himself believes that these methods of terror are the most effective way to convert people. I would have to agree this is a very powerful way to convert people but that does not make it right. This idea of preaching terror contacts the flight or fight response because of fear and it is because of this fear that people convert. In my opinion this is not what I would consider true faith. True faith is coming to God and trusting him because he has enlightened you to do so. But this simply makes you fear god so much that you have to be on his side. Knowing this information, it is very easy to believe that Johnathan Edwards was really good at psychology. He uses this flight or fight response to make his sermons that much more effective. During these revivals since the attendees could not run away from Edwards and there was no reason to fight Edwards all they could really do is be frozen with fear and adrenalin. After a short time of this fear and adrenaline your body becomes severely in need of a solution. The only solution Edwards gives the attendees is to convert. This is what made him such a powerful