Talk:John Cumming (clergyman)

Questions of fairness
I feel this article is unfair on John Cumming. Whilst it is a good biography of the man, it says nothing about what he believed and preached - which is what his life was all about. As a result, the impression is given that there was little more to him than dogmatic ranting and that, ultimately, he falls to the superior logic of George Eliot.

However, if one takes the trouble to look up Eliot's article quite a different picture emerges. It's a sad piece of journalism which rarely rises above abuse and character assassination to engage in assessment of any kind. Do go and look at it. Eliot's theme seems to be that Cumming is obsessed with sin and with pointing a finger at the man of sin. She seems to feel he should give more weight to natural human goodness. But this studiously ignores Cumming's premiss that it will not be humans who decide ultimately but rather the will of a deity. Cumming thinks a little humility on our part would not go amiss.

I feel Eliot is unfair to say that Cumming relies upon preachers' tricks. Most of his important lectures and sermons were printed and one can turn the pages to check the consistency of his arguments, whether or not one is convinced by them.

Perhaps Cumming looked in the wrong place for the solution to the human predicament. Historical dating of the end-times has not enjoyed a happy history of its own. But the 150 years since Eliot wrote may not give much confidence in natural human goodness as a force in world affairs either. John Cumming's work sets out the problem as sharply for us as it did for his own contemporaries. Coxparra (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)