“This is another appalling caricature.”
OK, I’m not commenting on the entire brouhaha, but want to briefly make a point about the defense of the reputation of the Puritans from allegedly being caricatured. If I have time I’ll at some point go through the boring process of proving what anyone knows, but for now I’ll stake my territory:
The “pro-puritan” faction is just as immature and childish as R. T. Kendall’s historiagraphy ever was. It used to be quite common to play Calvin off against the Calvinists. No, I’m not talking about modern Barthians. I’m talking about nineteenth-century Presbyterian stalwarts who sided with the later Calvinists. This “It has been utterly disproven” mantra, is about as accurate as saying that John Gerstner was a world-class Jonathan Edwards scholar.
Which brings me to my point. As much as the “TR” crowd likes to claim that it is the broad Evangelicals that appeal to intellectual sloppiness and emotionalism, their publishing industry is just as much prone to one-sided sloganeering and appealing to popular prejudice as any other group you can name. In a culture that approves of rhetoric like this and this, I don’t see much honesty in sudden demands for scholarly rigor. Seems like a double standard.
Trying to distinguish between fact and myth is a good thing, whether in the face of demonization or hagiography, shaking things up or strengthening the status quo.
I sometimes wonder how helpful it is to talk about “Puritans” in any kind of generalized way. The term can be applied to all sorts of folks, from Anglican bishops and English Presbyterians, to moderate Independents and outright Brownists. Any term that elastic should be taken up with some caution.
I imagine that had I lived in the 17th century, theologically speaking, I would probably have happily kept company with some Puritans whilst being savaged by others.
Wow. That’s an ad hominem smokescreen if ever I saw one. Not sure if it’s worth trying to answer it …
To be clear. I was refering to the linked article, of course.
Gerstner was a decent Edwards scholar, but most of the guild felt that he was a bit too synthetic and ahistorical in his approach, reading Edwards’s corpus more systematically than one should. When I attended the birthday party conference for Edwards at Princeton a few years ago, this was the kind of buzz I picked up about him.
I sometimes find, while reading/listening to the neo-puritains wax poetical about the subject, that my mind keeps thinking of those “lives of the saints” that the RC’s keep reprinting.
Certain of the neo-puritan books (you know the ones) even look like those gaudy “Saint so-and-so the child who saved the world” type of books that fill any RC bookstore.
Clark says: To be perfectly honest, I have a hard time distinguishing between the Federal Visionists and the Socinians, the late Remonstrants, and the New Haven Theologians
David: Man I cant believe that post. I cant believe someone from Westminster would write like that. He is really taking all terribly personally.
David
ack, wording, Correction: He is really taking it in a terribly personal way.”
Kevin, I totally agree. The extollations of the Puritans sound like a Roman Catholic venerating Mary’s perpetual virginity. Amazing.