Many residents of the southeastern US, including me, are home-bound today due to a winter storm. This brought to my mind another winter storm, in January of 1636, when Roger Williams fled his home in Salem, Massachusetts to avoid deportation to England. Williams eventually settled in Providence and established a new colony based upon religious freedom, for which he has been honored by many, while still being problematic for many others. I have placed some material on Williams in the discussion area and would appreciate your thoughts on the issues raised. The discussion in the American Puritans can be accessed here:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=12263&uid=136197443392
09/02/2010, 01:57
Ben Wright has initiated the following discussion in the group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=136197443392#!/topic.php?uid=136197443392&topic=12424
These days it seems like Christians/conservatives are very caught up in fighting for causes. Some of these fights are very clearly good, right & biblical - like trying to turn the tide of the genocide on the unborn. However, sometimes it seems like many are caught up in battles that are not necessarily so clearly biblically defensible, at least I don't think, & that brings me to the main question:
Should we fight to make sure our children say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Is putting our hand on our heart & pledging to a flag of an earthly nation, however we phrase it, really a big Christian battle? Would the Puritans, who, in my limited understanding, would not bow to or call any man "lord", pledge to a nation's flag? Should we try to fight to make big retailers call Christmas "Christ"mas, while they peddle their worldly wares & push greed throughout the fall/winter months? Why do some insist the savior's name be used in the context of a greed driven season? I don't think the Puritan's celebrated Christmas, & perhaps someone can fill in my knowledge on their take on it.
I look forward to your thoughts, agreements, disagreements & differing perspectives on this.
03/03/2010, 02:28
What kind of literature did the Puritans give their children? How did it reflect their theology? Their pre-eminent children's book was James Janeway's and Cotton Mather's A Token for Children, which expressed the view that life was serious and conversion urgent even for children. Many have disagreed with that view since then, particularly regarding the way that Janeway and Mather expressed it. Whose views do the most good to Christian children? How are they to be treated regarding their spriritual condition? Let me hear your thoughts.
The link for the discussion is:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=12873&uid=136197443392
22/04/2010, 01:01
I hope that those of you in the American Puritans visit the group often to see the content which is being added frequently to the group wall. During the past month, for example, group member Andrew Meyer in his blog Virginia is for Hugenots dealt with reasons for the great migration of Puritans to America in the 1630's, Thomas Hooker's relationship with his wife, an elaborate love poem of Edward Taylor's, and some spring prayers recorded by Cotton Mather, which have been added as content to the group. In addition, I would like to draw everyone's attention to Christine Pyle's blog. Christine is a student at LSU who started a blog on the American Puritans this semester as part of a school project. You can find it here: http://puritanwriting.blogspot.com/ She has introduced and profitably commented upon some great themes of American Puritan literature. Let us support her in this worthy endeavor, which she plans to continue beyond the semester's end.
Finally, I have added a number of important documents from Puritan New England to the wall, with brief introductions. These include two sermons by Jonathan Edwards (God Glorified in Man's Dependence and Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God), the New England Primer, Benjamin Tompson's poem on King Philip's War (New England's Crisis), and the poem which Christine dealt with in her most recent blog, Michael Wigglesworth's The Day of Doom. They give a good idea of what was read in colonial New England, which we do well to still consider today.
I hope to send out a discussion starter this weekend, the Lord willing.
24/04/2010, 10:15
According to George Willison, Congregationalism is the great contribution of the Pilgrims and Puritans to America. "For the individualistic doctrines and the essentially democratic procedures of the meeting house, their influence radiating far and wide from Massachusetts, have been basic in shaping the ideas, philosophy, manners, customs, ways of life, and moral values of millions of Americans." Was New England Congregationalism an unmixed boon to New England? Was it Biblical? Should we be imitating it today? If you believe that Presbyterianism is a better form of polity, why is that? Now is your chance to weigh in our the strengths and weaknesses of New England's original church government! Let us hear your thoughts here: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=13516&uid=136197443392#!/topic.php?uid=136197443392&topic=13516
23/05/2010, 00:41
The Puritans who settled Massachusetts were big on Bible-reading. They felt that to know God and do His will, you had to read the Scriptures. Desiring the blessings of salvation for their children, they passed a series of laws in 1642, 1647, and 1648 designed to encourage public education in the colony so as to ensure that coming generations would read the Bible and receive its message. The most famous of these laws was the 1647 "Old Deluder" law, the text of which follows:
"It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors. It is therefore ordered that every township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to fifty households shall forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read, whose wages shall be paid either by the parents or masters of such children, or by the inhabitants in general, by way of supply, as the major part of those that order the prudentials of the town shall appoint; provided those that send their children be not oppressed by paying much more than they can have them taught for in other towns. And it is further ordered, that when any town shall increase to the number of one hundred families or householders, they shall set up a grammar school, the master thereof being able to instruct youth so far as they may be fitted for the university, provided that if any town neglect the performance hereof above one year that every such town shall pay 5 pounds to the next school till they shall perform this order."
These efforts are commonly regarded as the start of public education in the United States. The South was slower to embrace public education than the rest of the country. In the 19th century, noted Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert Dabney said this of public education: "I could fill a scrap book, with the reflections of leading Northerners, upon the failure of the system as a diffuser of any real intelligence; upon its tendencies to degrade American literature and obstruct better education (outside the cities) upon the evident increase of crime and incendiary opinions under this system; upon its obvious bearing to rear up an atheistic generation of people and prepare for America a reign of terror; and upon its futility even to diffuse the art and practice of reading among the laboring masses." (p. 260 in Discussions, Vol. 4, Secular). Who then was right, the Puritans who enacted the Old Deluder law to counter Satan, or Dabney, who saw public education as serving Satan? Dabney felt that public education in America would have to be "religiously neutral" because of its mixed constituency and that such an education would never encourage godliness. Is that necessarily the case? If it is and some form of Christian education is requisite for Christians, what should families which cannot afford Christian schools do? Let us hear you thoughts on this.
The following link brings you to the discussion:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=136197443392&topic=13701
30/05/2010, 06:16
I am grateful for all of you who are group members. This month we had a good discussion on government's role in education, following the one last month on church polity. Both of these were suggested by a group member. Although anyone can initiate a discussion, some would prefer that I do so, and I am certainly open to suggestions from the group as to what would be good topics for discussion.
Christian History magazine, while it existed, did a good job of exploring important topics in church history. They did an excellent issue on the American Puritans, to which I have posted a link on the group wall. The issue is both edifying and informative and is worth checking out!
Blessings,
Henry
06/07/2010, 05:43
Stephen G. Hyslop, in a recent post to the History Channel Club wrote the following: “In 1636 a ship’s carpenter in Massachusetts named Edward Johnson, who later wrote the first history of New England, encountered a ‘little nimble tongued woman’ who offered to introduce him to a member of her own sex whose revelations would fill him with ‘such ravishing joy that I should never have cause to be sorry for sin, so long as I live.’” The woman who inspired such enthusiasm was Anne Marbury Hutchinson (1591-1643), who would shortly precipitate America’s first major theological controversy, usually referred to as the Antinomian Controversy. An Antinomian is one who believes that the moral law is of little or no use in the Christian’s life. The term was invented by Martin Luther to describe people like John Agricola who took that position, which Luther opposed, although Antinomians have often wrenched statements by Luther out of context to try to gain support for their views.
Was Anne Hutchinson an Antinomian? We do not have any theological works she wrote, merely the record of her two trials in November 1637 before the ministers and magistrates of Massachusetts and in March of 1638 before the First Church of Boston, as well as statements made by her opponents. I have listed a summary of what opponent Theodore Weld said about her at the discussion site, which is here:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/topic.php?uid=136197443392&topic=13870
The questions for discussion are: Do these propositions constitute Antinomianism? Would such propositions warrant a charge of heresy today if held by someone? If you believe the answer to those questions is yes, would you see contemporary application to these issues in for example the question of whether Jesus can be Savior without being Lord? Is there a danger of reacting too strongly to the position represented by the creed above and emphasizing too much the role of works in the Christian life? Is there anyone on the contemporary theological scene who does that? Let me add that this discussion is not about gender roles in the Christian church, but for those interested in such, a discussion on that topic with Anne Hutchinson as background is planned for the Society of Old Princeton Theology in the near future.
A note regarding Hyslop’s quote, taken from http://www.thehistorychannelclub.com/articles/articletype/articleview/articleid/310/americas-radical-fundamentalists-the-puritans: it implies that the Hutchinson family came to America to England in 1636, whereas in fact they had done so in 1634.
03/08/2010, 05:48
Hugh Fogelman has written an article arguing that the American Puritans were more Jewish than Protestant. It can be found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2558494/posts Did he get it right? What is the basic difference between Judaism and Protestantism? How does the evidence that he brings forward relate to that difference? If Fogelman were correct, some Protestants would be happy because it would discredit the Puritans in their view. Can professing Christians who do not like the Puritans take comfort from this article? Let us hear your thoughts!
The discussion can be found here: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=13972&uid=136197443392 (Please post your comments there rather than at Fogelman's article so as to be available to the American Puritans group.)
01/01/2011, 06:58
It has been some time since we had a discussion in the American Puritans. When I saw the following quotation from Increase Mather in a note by Matthew Lankford, I thought it could serve as a good discussion starter, on the topic of the Puritans and the supernatural:
How many deluded enthusiasts both in former and latter times have been imposed on by Satan's appearing visibly to them, pretending to be a good angel. And moreover, he may be said to transform himself into an angel of light, because of his appearing in the form of holy men, who are the children of light, yea in the shape and habit of eminent ministers of God. So did he appear to Mr. Earl of Colchester in the likeness of Mr. Liddal an holy man of God, and to the Turkish Chaous baptized at London, Anno 1658, pretending to be Mr. Dury, an excellent minister of Christ. And how often has he pretended to be the Apostle Paul or Peter or some other celebrated saint? Ecclesiastical histories abound with instances of this nature. Yea, sometimes he has transfigured himself into the form of Christ. It is reported that he appeared to St. Martin gloriously arrayed, as if he had been Christ. So likewise to Secundellus, and to another saint, who suspecting it was Satan transforming himself into an angel of light had this expression, "If I may see Christ in heaven it is enough, I desire not to see him in this world"; whereupon the spectre vanished. It has been related of Luther, that after he had been fasting and praying in his study, the devil came pretending to be Christ, but Luther saying, "Away thou confounded devil, I acknowledge no Christ but what is in my Bible," nothing more was seen.
The questions to be considered are: Was the view of the supernatural expressed here by Increase Mather (typical of the Puritans in both England and America) Biblical? To the extent that it is, how should that affect us today? The question of should the state punish violations of the first table of the Law (like witchcraft), on the other hand, is not a topic for today’s discussion, although if there is interest, we might do a future discussion on it.
The discussion is here: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=14447&uid=136197443392