Puritan Ideals

[ITS]

Describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Puritans. In your opinion, how can today's church benefit by embracing puritan ideals?

[Joey]

Describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Puritans. In your opinion, how can today's church benefit by embracing puritanical ideals?
The strengths of Puritanism also contained elements of weakness. The fiercly independent nature of Congregationalists served as a strength when seeking to establish frontier churches in the America's, however the localized independence also produced much division. Another strength was missions. The Congregationalists were the first major American group to emphasize missions to Europe. Another of their great strengths was in their theology. They developed a distance from their Calvanist roots by recognizing that the will of man was intact after the fall of Adam. The revivalism of the ninteenth century America was a practical application of this shift in theology.

[Tarabicos]

In an era of post-moderanism the Puritans are seen as the antithesis of todays neo-liberal stronghold. The "City set on a hill" was an ideal that was rooted in Calvinistic doctrine striving for a perfect model of Scriptual obedience. This covenental approach sought a model of purity. The approach of the Puritans and Puritan ideals have made a comeback here in the last 20 years. This reaction to neo-liberalism and the destruction of the family has been significant.

I believe that the problem was not one of narrow mindness but one of conformity. The Puritans should have maintained their course even though they were seeing reduced numbers. Eventually these Puritans by sticking to their initial beliefs would have attracted new believers seeking purity in doctrine. It is said today that "doctrine divides" and splits churches. The reality is doctrine is what the church was built on, reflecting the infallible Word of God. The Puritans initial plan was a Biblical Model of purity and should have not comprimised for conformity.

[Tarabicos]

The founding of such institutions as Harvard, William and Mary, Princeton and other 17th century and early 18th century were based on a Biblical foundation. The purpose of Harvard for instance was to prepare students for a professional life, whether it be a doctor, lawyer or minister. They were groomed to be leaders of their society with a full rounded theological education. The exchange of ideas was of importance not merely religious but secular as well.

Today's Harvard is a secular establishment devoted to liberal indoctrination and the antithesis of religious ideas. Many of our institutions are openly hostile to the Judeo-Christian perspective as they are the strongest promoters of seperation of church and state. Their departments are called Departments of Religion not refering to any specific approach. A country founded on Judeo-Christian doctrine has dissapeared and has been replaced and confiscated by atheists openly hostile towards the founding principals. Today our students are ill-prepared in matters of faith and most prepared to carry false doctrine thus false hope.

[adamduchin]

Describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Puritans. In your opinion, how can today's church benefit by embracing puritan ideals?

Both the strength(s) and weakness(es) of the Puritans are seen even within the second part of this question -- their IDEALS. It was their idealism that led them to the new world, that helped them establish their "cities," and that lay at the heart of their theology (generally and specifically). But it was also this idealism which kept them focused on the "here and now" and eventually led to the splintering of their "cities" (and quite possibly the splintering of their idealism itself). Today, we can benefit by embracing the idealism of the Puritans itself, but by embracing it within our own context(s) of church (growth), missions, and even our understanding of theology. As long as an idelism brings us to the feet of the God of the ideals then it is not only worth embracing, but it serves a positive purpose in the lives of believers, and in the kingdom of God.

[adamduchin]

In an era of post-moderanism the Puritans are seen as the antithesis of todays neo-liberal stronghold. The "City set on a hill" was an ideal that was rooted in Calvinistic doctrine striving for a perfect model of Scriptual obedience. This covenental approach sought a model of purity. The approach of the Puritans and Puritan ideals have made a comeback here in the last 20 years. This reaction to neo-liberalism and the destruction of the family has been significant.

I believe that the problem was not one of narrow mindness but one of conformity. The Puritans should have maintained their course even though they were seeing reduced numbers. Eventually these Puritans by sticking to their initial beliefs would have attracted new believers seeking purity in doctrine. It is said today that "doctrine divides" and splits churches. The reality is doctrine is what the church was built on, reflecting the infallible Word of God. The Puritans initial plan was a Biblical Model of purity and should have not comprimised for conformity.


I would agree for sure with the assessment of the covenantal approach, that approach making a comeback (a great insight for today), and what that approach was based on. What I would have to give a slightly different opinion on is the idea of a "narrow mindedness vs. conformity". I am not sure that it can be so cleanly an either/or here. I cannot say that it was simply an issue of conformity because, given their actual situation in history (as Puritans), as well as their physical location (in a new world), I would say that it WAS their narrow mindedness that placed them where they were in the first place -- they were SO adamant about their dislike of their situation in life that they up and left the world as they knew it (literally) to find a place where life could be as THEY wanted it to be (and if it wasn't that way, they would make it that way).

On top of that, the idea that they should have stayed their course even though they were seeing reduced numbers is almost an imposition of today's "churching" mindset... What I mean is this -- the Puritans realistically would not have eventually attracted more people; think about it, they were in a new world, with no population to draw from, and even their idealistic "city" concept was not working (so much so that even their own children were not coming alongside them). They had separated themselves, and in doing so they shot themselves in the foot (so to speak). I do not see that we are called to a separatist mindset in our Christianity; and this brief study the history of Christianity in America has shown me that most (almost all) of the separatist groups eventually had MAJOR things go wrong with them. Besides, we can only speculate! God used the Puritans in some mighty ways; but he does not seem to be working through that Puritan idealism in the same manner today. Maybe we are due for some sort of comebcak, though. I can only wait in anticipation for what the Lord has in store!

[kmeek]

Describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Puritans. In your opinion, how can today's church benefit by embracing puritan ideals?
To me, there are a number glaring strengths and weaknesses of their ideals and practice of their faith. One strength is their vision of a "city on a hill", a beacon of light for the world of a society run by godly principles, based on their inherited Calvinism. In addition, they set up an outpost of cities and a society that served as the foundation for the early revivals and frontier missions that established our nation as uniquely important in the economy and plan of God. Their emphasis on sound higher education and the highest possible standards of preparation for pastors through the founding of such schools as Harvard is exemplary. Lastly was their fidelity to core Christian doctrine (ecclesiology compromises notwithstanding) and society founded on the same.

However, there were definitely weaknesses, which contributed toward their demise. First, accomodations in both faith and practice were allowed. Examples include the Half Way Covenant and the Stoddardean approach toward what I would consider "watered down" membership, an allowance for non-believers to be both members of and influencers in the church. Even Edwards could not stem that tide, resulting in his expulsion from his Northampton church in 1750. The deeper issue underlying all of this was perhaps a type of merging or intertwining of church and state that was not possible, and was the very sort of thing from which the Puritans were running. Once the compromises of doctrine that inevitably were required ran their course, the church was too diluted to survive.

Today's church can learn, however, from the Puritan's ideals, succeses, and mistakes. Today's church should, like the Puritan's, re-assert itself and claim the vision of being God's City on a Hill, as scripture mandates. We need to be spiritually, morally and visibly "higher" than the world around us. We can also re-embrace the Puritan missionary and revivalistic zeal. The Puritans embraced, expected, prayed for, and experienced revival. So should we. Lastly, the Puritan high standards of pastoral and theological training serve as an example of the standard of excellence toward which today's Christian institutions should strive. We also need to create new Christian institutions of the highest possible caliber, i.e., the Evangelical answer to Harvard, Yale, Brown, Stanford, Michigan, etc. that all serve as a cadre of liberal, anti-Christian factories that shurn out the soulless face of humanistic intellectual elitism.

[kmeek]

In an era of post-moderanism the Puritans are seen as the antithesis of todays neo-liberal stronghold. The "City set on a hill" was an ideal that was rooted in Calvinistic doctrine striving for a perfect model of Scriptual obedience. This covenental approach sought a model of purity. The approach of the Puritans and Puritan ideals have made a comeback here in the last 20 years. This reaction to neo-liberalism and the destruction of the family has been significant.

I believe that the problem was not one of narrow mindness but one of conformity. The Puritans should have maintained their course even though they were seeing reduced numbers. Eventually these Puritans by sticking to their initial beliefs would have attracted new believers seeking purity in doctrine. It is said today that "doctrine divides" and splits churches. The reality is doctrine is what the church was built on, reflecting the infallible Word of God. The Puritans initial plan was a Biblical Model of purity and should have not comprimised for conformity.

I think you are right on. While many secular scholars, and perhaps even some Christians, are quick to condemn the Puritans for their narrow mindedness (though some of these criticisms are certainly well founded), the real issue is the compromise to their ecclesial doctrines that they allowed around the edges of their theology. In an attempt to Puritanize their world, as it were, they instead subsumed the world. This leaven spread to the whole loaf, and you can see how little of Congregationalism (the United Church of Christ) is left to this day.

This serves as an example to the modern church. It seems that the more churches hold to true doctrine and do not compromise, while at the same time presenting the message to the world in a loving, relevant, yet bold way, the more God seems to bring souls in and grow the church. That could be fertile ground for revival. Those churches, statistically, that conform in some way to the world, end up declining or shuttering, more often than not (e.g., look at the statistics of the mainline denominations). While the Puritans didn't necessarily "liberalize", they did compromise. Thus, I agree that it was the exact opposite of narrow-mindedness in compromise of doctrine (i.e., of church membership and voting rights), but combined with a narrow-minded union of church and state that yielded the destruction of Puritanism, in my opinion.

[gscaiano]

The Puritans brought with them a broad, and idealistic vision of how a church, and indeed a nation could function. These highly educated and intensely committed people carried within these ideals, great strengths and weaknesses. All of these would become part of the essence of America.
Strengths:
The emphasis on right doctrine and on the study of the Scriptures was a strength that, for a time at least, ensured an orthodox community.

The Puritan emphasis on education served the early colonies well, and indeed, the American Revolution might not have been possible without the presence of a classically-educated class from which many of the Founding Fathers came. Ironically, this emphasis would ultimately work against the Puritan’s lineal descendents – the Congregationalists. In the 19th century, the very institutions the Puritans founded became completely liberal, and began to produce a clergy that brought these broad views into the churches.

The Puritans faced an untamed wilderness in 17th century New England, and it was in part the Puritan emphasis on work (and vocation), and community that enabled them to survive. The Puritan work ethic would become a key to the success of American experiment.

As noted in previous posts, the Puritan clarity of vision – the “city on a hill” – the belief in a sure and divine destiny, were immense strengths; strengths that, like the above would find their way into the American conscience and sense of Manifest Destiny.

Finally, although in practice they emphasized holy living and obedience to the point of legalism, the Puritans also enjoyed a vigorous and deeply-held piety. Their Word/preaching-centered worship could serve as a model for us today.

At the same time, the Puritan model suffered from some important weaknesses:

The commitment to doctrine also brought with it an intolerance for dissent. This was, in a sense ironic, given the persecution that many Puritans faced in England. The American Puritans weren’t seeking religious freedom in and of itself – rather they sought to enforce their doctrinal view within their communities.

It is the legalism that this doctrinal rigor led to that is most associated with Puritans, and this legalism is ultimately negative in that it leaves little room for grace.

The covenantal theology that formed the foundation of their worldview was also a major weakness (and here I reveal my own Baptist biases). This combined with the blurriness of the division between (local) government and church ultimately led to the crises of the 18th century, the Halfway Covenant, and a more perfunctory faith.

Finally, I think is the key weakness of the Puritan ideals: they believed that government should uphold right doctrine; in a sense, to let its priorities be shaped the Church. They were not troubled with the thought of a theocracy – they simply wanted their type of theocracy, a la Calvin’s Geneva. In a rapidly growing American population, this position simply was not sustainable.

Can some of these ideals benefit the church today? Certainly the time has come for a return to a greater emphasis on Biblical preaching, on the Word as the source of our revelation, and on education within our churches. Whether or not the Puritan emphasized the letter of the law unduly, in many evangelical churches, the Word has become less the basis of God’s revelation to us, and more of a guide to happy living.

Perhaps the most important element of the American Puritan experiment – the clear, compelling and God-centered sense of purpose and mission – should serve as a great example for Christians and churches alike. Thanks to Rick Warren, the concept of Purpose has received great attention, but few churches today can match the Puritans for their commitment to making the Kingdom of God a reality here on earth.

[gscaiano]

It was their idealism that led them to the new world, that helped them establish their "cities," and that lay at the heart of their theology (generally and specifically). But it was also this idealism which kept them focused on the "here and now" and eventually led to the splintering of their "cities" (and quite possibly the splintering of their idealism itself). Today, we can benefit by embracing the idealism of the Puritans itself, but by embracing it within our own context(s) of church (growth), missions, and even our understanding of theology. As long as an idelism brings us to the feet of the God of the ideals then it is not only worth embracing, but it serves a positive purpose in the lives of believers, and in the kingdom of God.

Adam’s insight into the Puritan idealism (even if that idealism was tingled with naïve optimism) is a valuable contribution. The Puritans saw not only what was, but what could be. They believed that “Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven” was a real and attainable purpose. That the Puritan vision contained critical flaws does not diminish the nobility of their idealism and optimism.

I would argue (perhaps contra Tarabicos above) that the Puritan vision was fundamentally flawed in its covenantal elements. The Puritan founders, just like Calvin and the Genevan reformers they admired, failed to appreciate that even in the context of covenant, salvation is individual. It seems ironic that those with the firmest commitment to God’s sovereignty in salvation should overlook that no matter how strictly the community enforced morality, that God could sovereignly choose not to save some. It is this oversight is what ultimately led to the failure of the “city on a hill” – a society and church purified and governed by God’s principles.

Gus

[gscaiano]

...One strength is their vision of a "city on a hill", a beacon of light for the world of a society run by godly principles, based on their inherited Calvinism.

... Today's church should, like the Puritan's, re-assert itself and claim the vision of being God's City on a Hill, as scripture mandates. We need to be spiritually, morally and visibly "higher" than the world around us. We can also re-embrace the Puritan missionary and revivalistic zeal. The Puritans embraced, expected, prayed for, and experienced revival. So should we. Lastly, the Puritan high standards of pastoral and theological training serve as an example of the standard of excellence toward which today's Christian institutions should strive. We also need to create new Christian institutions of the highest possible caliber, i.e., the Evangelical answer to Harvard, Yale, Brown, Stanford, Michigan, etc. that all serve as a cadre of liberal, anti-Christian factories that shurn out the soulless face of humanistic intellectual elitism.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head – you’ve described succinctly what it would mean to engage our world with Puritan ideals. When Jesus said, “a city on a hill cannot be hidden,” he meant that our faith, our love, and the outworkings of these should be visible to all. The Puritans were a bit too literal perhaps in their approach to the “city on a hill” (perhaps a re-read of Augustine’s City of God would have been in order), but certainly they sought to make their faith practical and integrated into their life and world.

Gus

[GrahamG]

Describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Puritans. In your opinion, how can today's church benefit by embracing puritan ideals?

It seems to me that the strength of Puritan faith was its effort to structure life and society around God, undertaking every action ‘for the Glory of God, and the advancement of the Christian Faith.’ This is the commitment which drove them to leave what they saw as corruptions of the Gospel in the English Church, and comfortable yet not settling circumstances in Holland. Indeed their theocentric orientation led the Puritans to sacrifice much, at least in their earliest generations.

The Puritan desire to intentionally honour God is clear in their theology and practice. They emphasized the authority of the Bible and preached from the Word consistently. School curriculum was designed to educate students both with skills and knowledge of the Bible. Puritans held strongly to humanity’s need for God, emphasizing God’s saving action and the importance of individual response.

The effort to honour God through government was an interesting experiment as well. Their logic was strong – if God had intended authorities to rule justly, and if authorities were to uphold God-honouring laws, then why would one not hesitate to ensure that God-honouring men become the authorities by restricting voting to believing men?

While this commitment to a total reform of society and Christianity itself is amiable, it created one of Puritanism’s greatest weaknesses: a tendency towards extremism. In the effort to see God honoured throughout society, the Puritans ran the risk of marginalizing healthy dissention and creating phobic hysteria. Honouring and studying God’s Word is one thing, but insisting on doing only that which one interprets as permissible by the Bible is dangerous at worst and hard to discern at best. Hegemonically enforced conformity can work, but only as long as the ideology sustaining it is dominant.

That leads me to what I see as a second issue: the monopoly of power held by the Puritans. While their society was theoretically for God’s glory, they were the dominant and ruling social group and thus constantly ran the risk of abusing their position. Extremism is easily justified in God’s name in those circumstances. Over time, it seems that the Puritan dream of reforming Christianity from America turned inwards and became more interested in protecting and maintaining its own existence.

It seems to me that this is something to learn from the Puritan experiment. Monopolies of power can weaken the best of believers and we ought to be aware of that reality. Jesus had all the power in the world, and yet He acted as a servant, humbly giving Himself for humanity. Our churches ought to ‘come in last’ materially and in prestige, first in spirituality though.

As Christians today we would do well as well to recapture the Puritan commitment to theocentric life. If only our congregations could be made up of believers who were fully committed to Jesus and willing to act that out in their every waking moment. In today’s society, those congregations would surely be cities on hilltops.

[GrahamG]

In an era of post-moderanism the Puritans are seen as the antithesis of todays neo-liberal stronghold. The "City set on a hill" was an ideal that was rooted in Calvinistic doctrine striving for a perfect model of Scriptual obedience. This covenental approach sought a model of purity. The approach of the Puritans and Puritan ideals have made a comeback here in the last 20 years. This reaction to neo-liberalism and the destruction of the family has been significant.

I believe that the problem was not one of narrow mindness but one of conformity. The Puritans should have maintained their course even though they were seeing reduced numbers. Eventually these Puritans by sticking to their initial beliefs would have attracted new believers seeking purity in doctrine. It is said today that "doctrine divides" and splits churches. The reality is doctrine is what the church was built on, reflecting the infallible Word of God. The Puritans initial plan was a Biblical Model of purity and should have not comprimised for conformity.

I'm not sure that I entirely understand the second paragraph in this posting: does the author mean that the Puritans' problem was conformity to the non-believing world (i.e., allowing non-believers into the fellowship - halfway covenanters) or conformity to one doctrinal framework (presumably Congregational Calvinism)? Based on the rest of the response, I presume that the author intends the former - the Puritan's major weakness was in compromising their commitment to doctrinal purity.

I generally agree with this - as Christians now we do need to remain committed to the Word of God that revealed in Scripture, making decisions for life and church in relation to revelation, not general consensus.

This though is where it becomes tricky practically, and where Tarabicos has perhaps misstated the point. I would propose that 'what the church is built on' is not doctrine (interpretation), but Scripture (revelation) (of course, Jesus Christ and the apostles certainly have biblical authority as foundational too). It seems to me that we can learn from the Puritan commitment to God, without demanding conformity to one interpretation of Scripture. Yes, we should all agree that Jesus is Lord and Saviour and that the Trinity is a reality and that the Bible is God's authoritative Word to us, but beyond that, we lose people and misrepresent God by insisting on staunch doctrinal conformity. Prayer, compassion, and honest teaching about sin and salvation will attract new believers to Jesus.

[GrahamG]

In an era of post-moderanism the Puritans are seen as the antithesis of todays neo-liberal stronghold. The "City set on a hill" was an ideal that was rooted in Calvinistic doctrine striving for a perfect model of Scriptual obedience. This covenental approach sought a model of purity. The approach of the Puritans and Puritan ideals have made a comeback here in the last 20 years. This reaction to neo-liberalism and the destruction of the family has been significant.

I believe that the problem was not one of narrow mindness but one of conformity. The Puritans should have maintained their course even though they were seeing reduced numbers. Eventually these Puritans by sticking to their initial beliefs would have attracted new believers seeking purity in doctrine. It is said today that "doctrine divides" and splits churches. The reality is doctrine is what the church was built on, reflecting the infallible Word of God. The Puritans initial plan was a Biblical Model of purity and should have not comprimised for conformity.

I'm not sure that I entirely understand the second paragraph in this posting: does the author mean that the Puritans' problem was conformity to the non-believing world (i.e., allowing non-believers into the fellowship - halfway covenanters) or conformity to one doctrinal framework (presumably Congregational Calvinism)? Based on the rest of the response, I presume that the author intends the former - the Puritan's major weakness was in compromising their commitment to doctrinal purity.

I generally agree with this - as Christians now we do need to remain committed to the Word of God that revealed in Scripture, making decisions for life and church in relation to revelation, not general consensus.

This though is where it becomes tricky practically, and where Tarabicos has perhaps misstated the point. I would propose that 'what the church is built on' is not doctrine (interpretation), but Scripture (revelation) (of course, Jesus Christ and the apostles certainly have biblical authority as foundational too). It seems to me that we can learn from the Puritan commitment to God, without demanding conformity to one interpretation of Scripture. Yes, we should all agree that Jesus is Lord and Saviour and that the Trinity is a reality and that the Bible is God's authoritative Word to us, but beyond that, we lose people and misrepresent God by insisting on staunch doctrinal conformity. Prayer, compassion, and honest teaching about sin and salvation will attract new believers to Jesus.

I've been reflecting on this concept of doctrine and think that my position needs to be refined. Tarabicos was right in saying that doctrine is a reflection of the infallible Word of God. He is also right in asserting that doctrine is foundational. The synthesis of doctrines held by a church determines their attitudes and actions and how they will interact with each other and the rest of the world.

This reality though shows that there is truth in the saying quoted - 'doctrine divides.' When churches hold different positions on doctrines, they inevitably engage their faith in different ways.

Take for example John Wesley and George Whitefield. We are told that they were good friends and colleagues, but that they split over doctrines regarding salvation (see course texts Ahlstrom, 326-327 and Noll, 91-92). That did not prevent them though from engaging in a common mission to win souls to Christ.

It is on the basis of cases like these that I argue against conformity to a single interpretation of Scripture which I perceive that Tarabicos took as a particular strength of the Puritans. Admittedly, cases like the conflict between Edwards and Chauncy complicate my argument, but I stand by it nonetheless. Humility requires that we hold our doctrinal interpretations carefully; integrity requires that we, after careful consideration, hold them with conviction. If Christians are engaged in the work of the Great Commission, and in the privilege of the Great Commandment, in relationship with and obedience to Jesus, differences in doctrine may be necessary to reach different people in different parts of the world. Doctrinal differences, within the bounds of orthodoxy, may simply be a vibrant and inevitable part of God's diversely 'member'ed Body.

[sjfaris]

Describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Puritans. In your opinion, how can today's church benefit by embracing puritan ideals?

The puritans had great strengths in that they were committed to living holy lives. They wanted to be the “city on a hill” showing God’s kingdom here on earth. They were willing to go to great lengths (leave everything they knew behind and travel across the world) and face unknown dangers to live out their ideals. Their emphasis on education was excellent and they founded several colleges and built many schools. The level of education they expected from pastors and church leaders was also commendable.

However, the puritans had great weaknesses in that they did not allow for freedom and personal choice. Instead of building a society with religious freedom they persecuted anyone that did not share their beliefs. They also could not pass their beliefs on to all their children. This made it necessary for them to introduce measures such as the Half Way Covenant to allow their children to be members of their society.

Churches today could benefit by embracing several of the puritan ideals. Education for every member of society and particularly for the clergy is something that every church and society can benefit from. Christians today could benefit from the same enthusiasm displayed by the puritans regarding personal purity. However we need to ensure that we do not become legalistic about it and try to force it on others.

[sjfaris]

Describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Puritans. In your opinion, how can today's church benefit by embracing puritan ideals?

It seems to me that the strength of Puritan faith was its effort to structure life and society around God, undertaking every action ‘for the Glory of God, and the advancement of the Christian Faith.’ This is the commitment which drove them to leave what they saw as corruptions of the Gospel in the English Church, and comfortable yet not settling circumstances in Holland. Indeed their theocentric orientation led the Puritans to sacrifice much, at least in their earliest generations.

The Puritan desire to intentionally honour God is clear in their theology and practice. They emphasized the authority of the Bible and preached from the Word consistently. School curriculum was designed to educate students both with skills and knowledge of the Bible. Puritans held strongly to humanity’s need for God, emphasizing God’s saving action and the importance of individual response.

The effort to honour God through government was an interesting experiment as well. Their logic was strong – if God had intended authorities to rule justly, and if authorities were to uphold God-honouring laws, then why would one not hesitate to ensure that God-honouring men become the authorities by restricting voting to believing men?

While this commitment to a total reform of society and Christianity itself is amiable, it created one of Puritanism’s greatest weaknesses: a tendency towards extremism. In the effort to see God honoured throughout society, the Puritans ran the risk of marginalizing healthy dissention and creating phobic hysteria. Honouring and studying God’s Word is one thing, but insisting on doing only that which one interprets as permissible by the Bible is dangerous at worst and hard to discern at best. Hegemonically enforced conformity can work, but only as long as the ideology sustaining it is dominant.

That leads me to what I see as a second issue: the monopoly of power held by the Puritans. While their society was theoretically for God’s glory, they were the dominant and ruling social group and thus constantly ran the risk of abusing their position. Extremism is easily justified in God’s name in those circumstances. Over time, it seems that the Puritan dream of reforming Christianity from America turned inwards and became more interested in protecting and maintaining its own existence.

It seems to me that this is something to learn from the Puritan experiment. Monopolies of power can weaken the best of believers and we ought to be aware of that reality. Jesus had all the power in the world, and yet He acted as a servant, humbly giving Himself for humanity. Our churches ought to ‘come in last’ materially and in prestige, first in spirituality though.

As Christians today we would do well as well to recapture the Puritan commitment to theocentric life. If only our congregations could be made up of believers who were fully committed to Jesus and willing to act that out in their every waking moment. In today’s society, those congregations would surely be cities on hilltops.


I agree that their motives for the way they established their government with godly people running things were good. However, I am still surprised that they would try to do something like that considering the reasons why they came to the new world and their diligence in studying the bible. We don’t get the idea from the New Testament that God wants us to establish an earthly kingdom and in fact Jesus seems to contrast earthly kingdoms with the heavenly kingdom as if the two cannot be reconciled. Furthermore, they should have realized that they were creating the same conditions for those with other beliefs that made them leave Europe in the first place.

You said “enforced conformity can work, but only as long as the ideology sustaining it is dominant”. I have to disagree with this because even though it may be dominant there will always be some that disagree. What happens to the people who disagree? Historically they are treated badly and discriminated against. When there is a monopoly of power the group holding the power tends to rot from within and eventually can die. Add to this the fact that religious people tend to think they are right no matter what others say and you have a very bad situation.

[sjfaris]

Describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Puritans. In your opinion, how can today's church benefit by embracing puritan ideals?

It seems to me that the strength of Puritan faith was its effort to structure life and society around God, undertaking every action ‘for the Glory of God, and the advancement of the Christian Faith.’ This is the commitment which drove them to leave what they saw as corruptions of the Gospel in the English Church, and comfortable yet not settling circumstances in Holland. Indeed their theocentric orientation led the Puritans to sacrifice much, at least in their earliest generations.

The Puritan desire to intentionally honour God is clear in their theology and practice. They emphasized the authority of the Bible and preached from the Word consistently. School curriculum was designed to educate students both with skills and knowledge of the Bible. Puritans held strongly to humanity’s need for God, emphasizing God’s saving action and the importance of individual response.

The effort to honour God through government was an interesting experiment as well. Their logic was strong – if God had intended authorities to rule justly, and if authorities were to uphold God-honouring laws, then why would one not hesitate to ensure that God-honouring men become the authorities by restricting voting to believing men?

While this commitment to a total reform of society and Christianity itself is amiable, it created one of Puritanism’s greatest weaknesses: a tendency towards extremism. In the effort to see God honoured throughout society, the Puritans ran the risk of marginalizing healthy dissention and creating phobic hysteria. Honouring and studying God’s Word is one thing, but insisting on doing only that which one interprets as permissible by the Bible is dangerous at worst and hard to discern at best. Hegemonically enforced conformity can work, but only as long as the ideology sustaining it is dominant.

That leads me to what I see as a second issue: the monopoly of power held by the Puritans. While their society was theoretically for God’s glory, they were the dominant and ruling social group and thus constantly ran the risk of abusing their position. Extremism is easily justified in God’s name in those circumstances. Over time, it seems that the Puritan dream of reforming Christianity from America turned inwards and became more interested in protecting and maintaining its own existence.

It seems to me that this is something to learn from the Puritan experiment. Monopolies of power can weaken the best of believers and we ought to be aware of that reality. Jesus had all the power in the world, and yet He acted as a servant, humbly giving Himself for humanity. Our churches ought to ‘come in last’ materially and in prestige, first in spirituality though.

As Christians today we would do well as well to recapture the Puritan commitment to theocentric life. If only our congregations could be made up of believers who were fully committed to Jesus and willing to act that out in their every waking moment. In today’s society, those congregations would surely be cities on hilltops.


I agree that their motives for the way they established their government with godly people running things were good. However, I am still surprised that they would try to do something like that considering the reasons why they came to the new world and their diligence in studying the bible. We don’t get the idea from the New Testament that God wants us to establish an earthly kingdom and in fact Jesus seems contrast earthly kingdoms with the heavenly kingdom as if the two cannot be reconciled. Furthermore, they should have realized that they were creating the same conditions for those with other beliefs that made them leave Europe in the first place.

You said “enforced conformity can work, but only as long as the ideology sustaining it is dominant”. I have to disagree with this because even though it may be dominant there will always be some that disagree. What happens to the people who disagree? Historically they are treated badly and discriminated against. When there is a monopoly of power the group holding the power tends to rot from within and eventually can die. Add to this the fact that religious people tend to think they are right no matter what others say and you have a very bad situation.

[johnt]

The Puritians left Great Britian and the other areas of refuge in Europe to seek out an utopea of Christian ideals based on the teachings and theological views of Calvin. As they came and they found not the perfection they had longed for but a new land filled with religious beliefs different from their own and often the political teriany of the very "Church" of the mother country they had hoped to flee.

The Puritians became their own worst enimies insisting on a seperatist mentality which failed to allow them to find strength in numbers by joing forces with other good solid Christian Faiths.

The movement eventually splintered and while the splinters survive to this day the Puritian does not.

[clergyjack]

Describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Puritans. In your opinion, how can today's church benefit by embracing puritan ideals?

I have read several thousand pages on the Puritans over time and remain convinced that America would never have become the great nation both in terms of religion and economy which it became had they not been an integral part of it.

Their strengths included ardent, pure doctrine at all costs and as a few others have already posted, the independent spirit. This latter willed them through the difficulties of the frontier and enabled them to establish the northeast region largely as we know it today. The former brought a resultant blessing on early America which unfortunately has lost its flower.

Today's church would benefit greatly by reviewing and embracing the long-term blessing and fruitfulness of the Puritan doctrine in lieu of the short-term results that are sought for the sake of apparent success. If the Church would get back in the game for the long-haul through purity of doctrine and truth, she would again realize the long-term blessing and fruitfulness and America would again flower as a result.

We cannot manipulate God to bless us in some other way. He simply won't be conditioned by our actions.

[clergyjack]

The puritans had great strengths in that they were committed to living holy lives. They wanted to be the “city on a hill” showing God’s kingdom here on earth. They were willing to go to great lengths (leave everything they knew behind and travel across the world) and face unknown dangers to live out their ideals. Their emphasis on education was excellent and they founded several colleges and built many schools. The level of education they expected from pastors and church leaders was also commendable.

However, the puritans had great weaknesses in that they did not allow for freedom and personal choice. Instead of building a society with religious freedom they persecuted anyone that did not share their beliefs. They also could not pass their beliefs on to all their children. This made it necessary for them to introduce measures such as the Half Way Covenant to allow their children to be members of their society.

Churches today could benefit by embracing several of the puritan ideals. Education for every member of society and particularly for the clergy is something that every church and society can benefit from. Christians today could benefit from the same enthusiasm displayed by the puritans regarding personal purity. However we need to ensure that we do not become legalistic about it and try to force it on others.


I believe that you are right to a point. The Puritans commitment to and idealism for purity of doctrine and holy living needs to be revisited by Christianity today. Where perhaps you miss the mark is in the recognition that their faith was somehow non-transferable: that is they were unable to pass it on to others, let alone subsequent generations. You are right in saying that we cannot force it on others as they endeavored to do. But this is to miss the point completely, I believe. A faith that is worth living and dying for is a faith worth emulating. Somewhere in the process, I believe inauthenticity became apparent to those outside as well as to the next generation within. Perhaps the 'Puritan Ideal' did become a set of rules, and hence became 'legalistic'. Our faith needs to first of all be authentic. When it is seen to be so, others will want to share in it. The Puritan Ideal went south when it became inauthentic, you can be sure.