Chronicles Magazine: "A Tender, Unitarian Christmas"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Haeralis

Puritan Board Freshman
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2001/December/25/12/magazine/article/10826785/

I stumbled across this piece at Chronicles Magazine which is basically a mouthpiece for Roman Catholicism. Still, many of its points should be confronted. Did the Puritans cause Unitarianism to arise as the author alleges?

The subject of this piece is, in a nutshell, how the Puritan disavowal of Christmas led to its usurpation by later heretics such as the Unitarians.

What is PuritanBoard's opinion on these issues? I've often wondered how Puritan New England could have devolved into heretical Unitarians (later Transcendentalists) so quickly. This piece is quite shameless in its rampant anti-Protestantism. He obviously and incorrectly thinks it disgusting that the Puritans disavowed some mystical "organic Church" in favor of the direct words of the Bible. The most hilarious part is his snide, condescending remarks towards the idea that God quickly and actively imparts faith into believers. Obviously, as Calvinists we do not find this surprising or strange in light of Scripture. However, is the author accurate in saying that this emphasis on personal affection led to the hyper-rationalism of Unitarianism?

It is odd that, of all people, Unitarians (such as the Reverend Sears) took to the robust celebration of "Christmas." Unitarianism, after all, draws its very name from its denial of the Incarnation. Furthermore, the New England Puritans—that primordial soup from which Unitarians arise—loathed Christmas, calling it “diabolical.” In their minds, it was a shameful, “popish” innovation from which the Church must be purified. It was a crime to celebrate Christmas in Puritan Massachusetts until 1681. But the hyperrational, Socinian devolution of Puritanism that occurred in New England during the middle of the 18th century, which produced both evangelicalism (through the Great Awakening) and Unitarianism, also marks the beginning of the modem American incarnation of Christmas.

Puritan sermons do include indirect references to the Incarnation, but little mention is made as to its importance in the grand scheme of salvation or its effect on the everyday life of the believer. What counts is an authentic conversion, followed by the living of a godly life. The Puritans eliminated the popish innovation of pericopal readings—the biblical lessons prescribed for each Sunday of the Church year. They also eliminated the Church year. In doing so, they removed the check and balance that kept the sermon focused on the events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of the Incarnate Christ. Thus, they were free to preach abstractly, esoterically, and at length on Providence, the identifying marks of true believers, and “religious affections,” rather than, say, the significance of the Annunciation, the Nativity, or even the Cross of Christ.


While the Puritans spurned the writings of the medieval schoolmen, they were nonetheless obsessed with logic. As the monumental work of the late Perry Miller suggests, the Puritans traded what they perceived to be the syllogistic logic of Aristotle (and St. Thomas) for the aesthetic logic of Petrus Ramus. Ramus, a French humanist who converted to generic Protestantism in 1561, was a Platonist who believed that “science ought to study the lessons that are innate in select minds” and use them as a model to “formulate the rules for those who desire to reason well.” The incarnational philosophy of St. Thomas, whereby man builds his store of knowledge through real-world experience—founded on mankind's historic encounter with the Incarnate Christ—is replaced by the inward-turning pursuit of innate ideas alongside the revealed truths of Scripture, under the alleged guidance of the Holy Ghost. For Aristotle, outward appearances were all we have to go by; for American Puritan divines such as Thomas Hooker, godly men are to judge truth based on the experience of “what is found and felt in the heart.” Hence, the Incarnation as a real-world event did not have a direct influence on the Puritan divines’ pursuit of truth.

Denying that regeneration is wrought by God through the Sacrament of Baptism, the Puritans insisted that God works directly on the mind and the heart, when man looks squarely on the biblical statements of "prophet bards" through the lens of human reason. Thus, they emphasized dramatic conversions, in which the light of God immediately penetrates the darkened mind of the sinner, and he is born from above, henceforth unable to do anything but follow God and obey His will.


Two strains of emphasis were commingled in Puritan thought (both were signs of the enlightened times): on the one hand, the direct, immediate divine working on the heart and mind of the individual to produce a radical conversion; on the other hand, the direct, immediate working of human reason on both nature and the Bible to produce or distill new theological truths. These two contradictory impulses parted company during the so-called Great Awakening of the mid-18th century.
 
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2001/December/25/12/magazine/article/10826785/

I stumbled across this piece at Chronicles Magazine which is basically a mouthpiece for Roman Catholicism. Still, many of its points should be confronted. Did the Puritans cause Unitarianism to arise as the author alleges?

The subject of this piece is, in a nutshell, how the Puritan disavowal of Christmas led to its usurpation by later heretics such as the Unitarians.

What is PuritanBoard's opinion on these issues? I've often wondered how Puritan New England could have devolved into heretical Unitarians (later Transcendentalists) so quickly. This piece is quite shameless in its rampant anti-Protestantism. He obviously and incorrectly thinks it disgusting that the Puritans disavowed some mystical "organic Church" in favor of the direct words of the Bible. The most hilarious part is his snide, condescending remarks towards the idea that God quickly and actively imparts faith into believers. Obviously, as Calvinists we do not find this surprising or strange in light of Scripture. However, is the author accurate in saying that this emphasis on personal affection led to the hyper-rationalism of Unitarianism?

It is odd that, of all people, Unitarians (such as the Reverend Sears) took to the robust celebration of "Christmas." Unitarianism, after all, draws its very name from its denial of the Incarnation. Furthermore, the New England Puritans—that primordial soup from which Unitarians arise—loathed Christmas, calling it “diabolical.” In their minds, it was a shameful, “popish” innovation from which the Church must be purified. It was a crime to celebrate Christmas in Puritan Massachusetts until 1681. But the hyperrational, Socinian devolution of Puritanism that occurred in New England during the middle of the 18th century, which produced both evangelicalism (through the Great Awakening) and Unitarianism, also marks the beginning of the modem American incarnation of Christmas.

Puritan sermons do include indirect references to the Incarnation, but little mention is made as to its importance in the grand scheme of salvation or its effect on the everyday life of the believer. What counts is an authentic conversion, followed by the living of a godly life. The Puritans eliminated the popish innovation of pericopal readings—the biblical lessons prescribed for each Sunday of the Church year. They also eliminated the Church year. In doing so, they removed the check and balance that kept the sermon focused on the events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of the Incarnate Christ. Thus, they were free to preach abstractly, esoterically, and at length on Providence, the identifying marks of true believers, and “religious affections,” rather than, say, the significance of the Annunciation, the Nativity, or even the Cross of Christ.


While the Puritans spurned the writings of the medieval schoolmen, they were nonetheless obsessed with logic. As the monumental work of the late Perry Miller suggests, the Puritans traded what they perceived to be the syllogistic logic of Aristotle (and St. Thomas) for the aesthetic logic of Petrus Ramus. Ramus, a French humanist who converted to generic Protestantism in 1561, was a Platonist who believed that “science ought to study the lessons that are innate in select minds” and use them as a model to “formulate the rules for those who desire to reason well.” The incarnational philosophy of St. Thomas, whereby man builds his store of knowledge through real-world experience—founded on mankind's historic encounter with the Incarnate Christ—is replaced by the inward-turning pursuit of innate ideas alongside the revealed truths of Scripture, under the alleged guidance of the Holy Ghost. For Aristotle, outward appearances were all we have to go by; for American Puritan divines such as Thomas Hooker, godly men are to judge truth based on the experience of “what is found and felt in the heart.” Hence, the Incarnation as a real-world event did not have a direct influence on the Puritan divines’ pursuit of truth.

Denying that regeneration is wrought by God through the Sacrament of Baptism, the Puritans insisted that God works directly on the mind and the heart, when man looks squarely on the biblical statements of "prophet bards" through the lens of human reason. Thus, they emphasized dramatic conversions, in which the light of God immediately penetrates the darkened mind of the sinner, and he is born from above, henceforth unable to do anything but follow God and obey His will.


Two strains of emphasis were commingled in Puritan thought (both were signs of the enlightened times): on the one hand, the direct, immediate divine working on the heart and mind of the individual to produce a radical conversion; on the other hand, the direct, immediate working of human reason on both nature and the Bible to produce or distill new theological truths. These two contradictory impulses parted company during the so-called Great Awakening of the mid-18th century.

There are no doubt multiple causes for the loss of Puritanism. Volumes could be written. As believers I think it is wise to remember what Joel Beeke has said about this from a faith standpoint, "Why did it last so long?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top