Superb! I read Jane Eyre last year and remember hearing all these people speaking of it as an anti-christian feminist awakening and I could not remotely understand this interpretation given the overt and powerful christian passages throughout. Your writing is providentially well timed too. As I will be discussing Jane Eyre this summer with my faith and culture group! Thank you for helping draw out clearly many of the Christian themes running throughout.
Thank you for saying so! I could just finish an article and congratulate myself on a job well done, but chatting with all of you in the comments is a load of fun.
as an aside to your aside "...(This passage clearly notes that sexual promiscuity has historically been a privilege of the rich.)....": rich men, not so much (rich) women. but that's another discussion altogether ;-))
It does seem to me that the brand of Christianity in the book is pretty far the traditional versions of Catholicism, Presbyterianism, etc.
As I recall from my first (none-too-pleasurable) reading last year, the first representative of religion one meets in the book is a hypocritical cleric who preaches the orthodox dogma of damnation, but lacks any trace of charity. Further along, the saintly Helen Burns is a schoolmate of Jane's who espouses the heresy of universalism. The romantic message is clear: religion is primarily a matter of the heart, not something clearly revealed, and certainly not something institutional.
I must admit, I prefer Jane Austen.
Note also that Jane makes the decision to marry Rochester after listening to an "inner voice." I think I agree with your statement; the proto-feminist reading is overblown to some degree. But the Christianity in the novel is a highly Romantic (interior, even dis-incarnate) version; one that is reflected in the well-nigh anti-Austenite marriage that ends the novel.
I think Jane Eyre represents a particularly English form of Protestantism: one that's highly critical of priestly hypocrisy and one that values following one's conscience. It's closer to a low-church Anglican view than one that's more (as you say) institutional. (I also prefer Austen.)
For what it's worth, I am a universalist and there's nothing heretical about universalism. The doctrine comes up a bit in the Bronte's work, and I've been thinking about writing about that.
I would be interested in reading that, whenever you end up writing it.
Perhaps this is a conversation more appropriate to email than to a comment box, but I must disagree on the dogmatic point: for Roman Catholics, at least, Universalism is clearly a heresy. In Xian traditions that lack a magisterial authority, there may be more, (indeed infinite) wiggle-room. However, that is the ground from which I at least approach the question.
Ed Feser has a good miniature compendium of church teaching on the subject; some Magisterial and some magisterial:
I think there are many excellent reasons on the basis of reason alone to reject the teaching, not as heresy but simply as irrational. But again, perhaps the conversation would be best conducted in email form.
Yes, you're right, this is a better subject for emails. I would like to hear why you think universalism is irrational. Please email me at: williampoulos@substack.com
Brilliant! I thoroughly enjoyed reading one of my favorite novels again through your brilliant perspective. The last time I read it, I picked up Wide Sargasso Sea, by Jean Rhys for a post colonial take. That broadened my view even more.
Thank you for reading and for your generous comment! I STILL haven’t read Wide Sargasso Sea - but when I do I might have to write a follow-up to this post about Jane Eyre.
I guess some people think like lawyers in that if they hear someone point out a flaw, contradiction, and/or limitation in something then that can only mean that you must reject out of hand everything that the "something" is or represents.
Certainly I lament that one of the Crusades sacked Constantinople, Ireland's Magdalene Laundries, and other instances of hypocrisy - though I do applaud and contribute to the charity work of various churches - but that doesn't "destroy" Christianity as a faith. No more that a broken ATM "destroys" a bank. [Hmm given what's happened to the Barings, Signature and Silicon Valley banks maybe I should stay away from bank analogies.]
Yes, you're right, but often the most severe criticism of a group comes from people inside it because they care about the group's standards and reputation. (The main example here is the Protestant Reformation, but you can also think about how football fans scold their team's players/coaches when that team isn't doing well.)
With Rugby League I think about how the NRL tried to reinvent itself and hired a bunch PR and marketing people. Unfortunately the PR et al knew little about the game and searched for a model they could copy and, I believe, decide on the US NFL model.
Now the game is not about how skilful a team is but how tough and strong - in a gladiatorial sense - it is. So when South Sydney tried to join their emblem of a rabbit was deemed not strong/tough enough. Still people who actually enjoyed the game of rugby league rallied and Souths were allowed to join.
The new people in charge know only about money (TV rights, entrance tickets...) and care little about the game itself nor even the players' health. If the game failed it would never be because of anything they did.
In a similar vein you can define a religion as something it isn't and then allow others to work to destroy it. The strawman!
Don't tempt me: I could very easily turn this into a Rugby League page. I'd call it "The Seventh Tackle" and there would be a regular feature (called "The Sin Bin") outlining the most stupid thing in the NRL that week - I'd never run out of material. In any case, Souths should be kicked out of the comp again.
Superb! I read Jane Eyre last year and remember hearing all these people speaking of it as an anti-christian feminist awakening and I could not remotely understand this interpretation given the overt and powerful christian passages throughout. Your writing is providentially well timed too. As I will be discussing Jane Eyre this summer with my faith and culture group! Thank you for helping draw out clearly many of the Christian themes running throughout.
Thank you for the comment! Do let me know if your faith and culture group brings out anything I might have missed!
Your reply to James McKee's comment is truly great!
Thank you for saying so! I could just finish an article and congratulate myself on a job well done, but chatting with all of you in the comments is a load of fun.
the same goes for us, readers. substack's great for actually communicating.
as an aside to your aside "...(This passage clearly notes that sexual promiscuity has historically been a privilege of the rich.)....": rich men, not so much (rich) women. but that's another discussion altogether ;-))
Yes, you're right! Thank you for pointing that out.
An interesting and well-written piece.
It does seem to me that the brand of Christianity in the book is pretty far the traditional versions of Catholicism, Presbyterianism, etc.
As I recall from my first (none-too-pleasurable) reading last year, the first representative of religion one meets in the book is a hypocritical cleric who preaches the orthodox dogma of damnation, but lacks any trace of charity. Further along, the saintly Helen Burns is a schoolmate of Jane's who espouses the heresy of universalism. The romantic message is clear: religion is primarily a matter of the heart, not something clearly revealed, and certainly not something institutional.
I must admit, I prefer Jane Austen.
Note also that Jane makes the decision to marry Rochester after listening to an "inner voice." I think I agree with your statement; the proto-feminist reading is overblown to some degree. But the Christianity in the novel is a highly Romantic (interior, even dis-incarnate) version; one that is reflected in the well-nigh anti-Austenite marriage that ends the novel.
Thank you for a thought-provoking read.
Thank you for the comment!
I think Jane Eyre represents a particularly English form of Protestantism: one that's highly critical of priestly hypocrisy and one that values following one's conscience. It's closer to a low-church Anglican view than one that's more (as you say) institutional. (I also prefer Austen.)
For what it's worth, I am a universalist and there's nothing heretical about universalism. The doctrine comes up a bit in the Bronte's work, and I've been thinking about writing about that.
I would be interested in reading that, whenever you end up writing it.
Perhaps this is a conversation more appropriate to email than to a comment box, but I must disagree on the dogmatic point: for Roman Catholics, at least, Universalism is clearly a heresy. In Xian traditions that lack a magisterial authority, there may be more, (indeed infinite) wiggle-room. However, that is the ground from which I at least approach the question.
Ed Feser has a good miniature compendium of church teaching on the subject; some Magisterial and some magisterial:
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/08/popes-creeds-councils-and-catechisms.html
I think there are many excellent reasons on the basis of reason alone to reject the teaching, not as heresy but simply as irrational. But again, perhaps the conversation would be best conducted in email form.
Yes, you're right, this is a better subject for emails. I would like to hear why you think universalism is irrational. Please email me at: williampoulos@substack.com
Brilliant! I thoroughly enjoyed reading one of my favorite novels again through your brilliant perspective. The last time I read it, I picked up Wide Sargasso Sea, by Jean Rhys for a post colonial take. That broadened my view even more.
Thank you for reading and for your generous comment! I STILL haven’t read Wide Sargasso Sea - but when I do I might have to write a follow-up to this post about Jane Eyre.
I guess some people think like lawyers in that if they hear someone point out a flaw, contradiction, and/or limitation in something then that can only mean that you must reject out of hand everything that the "something" is or represents.
Certainly I lament that one of the Crusades sacked Constantinople, Ireland's Magdalene Laundries, and other instances of hypocrisy - though I do applaud and contribute to the charity work of various churches - but that doesn't "destroy" Christianity as a faith. No more that a broken ATM "destroys" a bank. [Hmm given what's happened to the Barings, Signature and Silicon Valley banks maybe I should stay away from bank analogies.]
Yes, you're right, but often the most severe criticism of a group comes from people inside it because they care about the group's standards and reputation. (The main example here is the Protestant Reformation, but you can also think about how football fans scold their team's players/coaches when that team isn't doing well.)
With Rugby League I think about how the NRL tried to reinvent itself and hired a bunch PR and marketing people. Unfortunately the PR et al knew little about the game and searched for a model they could copy and, I believe, decide on the US NFL model.
Now the game is not about how skilful a team is but how tough and strong - in a gladiatorial sense - it is. So when South Sydney tried to join their emblem of a rabbit was deemed not strong/tough enough. Still people who actually enjoyed the game of rugby league rallied and Souths were allowed to join.
The new people in charge know only about money (TV rights, entrance tickets...) and care little about the game itself nor even the players' health. If the game failed it would never be because of anything they did.
In a similar vein you can define a religion as something it isn't and then allow others to work to destroy it. The strawman!
Don't tempt me: I could very easily turn this into a Rugby League page. I'd call it "The Seventh Tackle" and there would be a regular feature (called "The Sin Bin") outlining the most stupid thing in the NRL that week - I'd never run out of material. In any case, Souths should be kicked out of the comp again.
Have you read Jasper Fforde’s The Eyre Affair? It’s fantastic.
I haven't - but I'll have a look for it. Thanks for the recommendation!