Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 10/22/2004 3:42 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Puritanism

http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd

(Protestant Liturgics)
    Puritanism which is a general theory about worship, not specifically protestant nor indeed confined to Christians of any kind. It is the working theory upon which all Mohammedan worship is based. It was put as well as by anybody by the Roman poet Persius or the pagan philosopher Seneca in the first century, and they are only elaborating a theses from Greek philosophical authors going back to the seventh century B.C. Briefly, the puritan theory is that worship is a purely mental activity, to be exercised by a strictly psychological 'attention' to a subjective emotional or spiritual experience. For the puritan this is the essence of worship, and all external things which might impair this strictly mental attention have no rightful place in it. At the most they are to be admitted grudgingly and with suspicion, and only in so far as practice shows that they stimulate the 'felt' religious experience or emotion. Its principal defect is its tendency to 'verbalism', to suppose that words alone can express or stimulate the act of worship. Over against this puritan theory of worship stands another the 'ceremonious' conception of worship, whose foundation principle is that worship as such is not a purely intellectual and affective exercise, but one in which the whole man body as well as soul, his aesthetic and volitional as well as his intellectual powers must take full part. It regards worship as an 'act' just as much as an 'experience'. . . .The accidental alliance of protestant doctrine with the puritan theory of worship in the sixteenth century may have been natural, and was as close in England as anywhere. But it was not inevitable.
    • The early Cistercians were profoundly puritan, but they were never protestant.

    • The thorough Protestantism of the Swedish Lutherans, with their vestments and lights and crucifixes, has never been puritan.
Back to Top
 

JEE
Registered Member


Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
 
   Posted 10/22/2004 3:51 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Not necessarily directly related to their views of worship per se, but I have found that many of the Puritan writers were some of the richest and most spiritual authors from within the Calvinist tradition.

Though I honestly can't see how anyone could be truly satisfied and happy with the Calvinistic worldview, theology, and anthropology, from what I can tell many of the Puritans were able to transcend the deterministic presuppositions of their basic theology to write some absolutely superb devotional literature.


http://revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 10/22/2004 4:35 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
That's a wonderful post, JEE.

.


I hesitate to, but I'll repeat here a part of the above site and quote that I'm interested in. (Feel free to mention, JEE, and comment on favorite writers -- with samples, please.)


.


quote:
Its principal defect is its tendency to 'verbalism', to suppose that words alone can express or stimulate the act of worship. . . . . . . . . .The thorough Protestantism of the Swedish Lutherans, with their vestments and lights and crucifixes, has never been puritan.


Back to Top
 

Mayflower
Registered Member


Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
 
   Posted 10/22/2004 4:49 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Fascinating.
Thank you, John and PotOnWheel.

John wrote:
quote:
.....Not necessarily directly related to their views of worship per se, but I have found that many of the Puritan writers were some of the richest and most spiritual authors from within the Calvinist tradition.


Our extended family tree is rife with Puritans; and, a handful of Pilgrims.
Have either of you noted specific differences between the writings of the Puritans; versus the (Plymouth) Pilgrims?

In the Pilgrim group, I am particularly interested in the writings of William Brewster...

Thank you...
Peace & blessings,
<><


.
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 10/22/2004 4:55 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Some of the Mayflower Pilgrims were present at the Synod of Dort. They were liked by the Dutch because they were more civil!
Back to Top
 

Mayflower
Registered Member


Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
 
   Posted 10/22/2004 5:13 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
....They were liked by the Dutch because they were more civil!

Yes, I've heard this ... Big Smile

--------------

PoW -- I'm having difficulty with the link that you posted. Could you please check to see if it opens properly?
http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 10/22/2004 5:17 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
But what was their worship like?
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 10/22/2004 5:21 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Not technically puritanical....but some eternal parallels:

quote:
. . .

Musical instruments and the shofar were considered inseparable parts of the Sabbath service in the Temple; rabbinic law could do nothing regarding their presence there. But the Rabbis could and did prohibit them outside the Temple for fear that playing an instrument on the Sabbath, a permissible act in and of itself, might lead inadvertently to the musician's tuning it, mending it, or carrying it from one public place to another- all of these being forbidden acts of work. Since the main synagogue service took place on Sabbath mornings, no musical instrument could become an integral component thereof. Even the shofar could not be blown, if Rosh Hashanah occurred on the Sabbath.

Mourning over the destruction of the Second Temple led to a rabbinic ban on all secular songs and instrumental music. Quoting Hosea (9:1), "Do not rejoice, O Israel, with merriments like the nations," the Rabbis declared: "An ear listening to songs will surely be cut off.... A song in the house means destruction is at its threshold" (Sotah 48a). Concessions were made permitting music, even instrumental music, for the sake of a religious obligation, such as rejoicing with groom and bride; but the Sabbath ban remained, and, in general, music was not favored.

The only instrument allowed in the synagogue, precisely because of its nonmusical significance, the shofar was blown mainly on Rosh Hashanah, to fulfill the biblical obligation as stated in Leviticus 24:29 and Numbers 29:1. The instrument is also sounded at the end of the concluding service (Ne'illah) on Yom Kippur and after the weekday morning services during Elul, the month preceding Rosh Hashanah. In the Sephardic and Yemenite rites, the penitential services clustered around the High Holy Day season (selichot) feature many shofars blown simultaneously when the thirteen attributes of God (Exod. 34:5-7) are chanted. The awesome sound of the shofar served also to create a mournful atmosphere in services of public fasts, and even to invoke a sense of dread during ceremonies of excommunication.

http://www.liturgica.com/html/litJLitMusDev2.jsp?hostname=null
Back to Top
 

JEE
Registered Member


Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
 
   Posted 10/22/2004 7:47 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel

But what was their worship like?



From what I've read, Puritan worship was pretty staid, with "the regulative principle of Scripture" being the stated standard by which all true worship was judged; anything not specifically commanded in Scripture as a way to worship God was expressly forbidden to the Puritan as "strange fire." (This is in contrast to the more common Christian point of view, in which only that which Scripture specifically forbids in worship should be forbidden, which allowed for much greater elaboration in forms of worship, such as Christmas, Easter, etc., which holidays the Puritans expressly disavowed as inherently pagan).

As to how true Protestant denoms that retained vestments and high church type ceremonies were to Protestant principles, I guess that all comes down to how far one wants to take the basic contra-tradition (and sola Scriptura) Protestant impulse.

My interest is primarily in some of the writings of the Puritans, not their form of worship per se, and so I don't know that I have much of anything to contribute to this line of discussion.

John


http://revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 10/23/2004 3:35 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I've never been a fan of the Puritans. The following book is strenthening this conviction. This book speaks to many issues in the current election and campaigning. Recommend it.


Hellfire Nation: The Politics Of Sin In American History by James Morone

Review from Amazon:
This extraordinary retelling of American political history shows that—despite the clear separation of church and state—religion lies at the heart of American politics. “This is American history the way I like it, prodigiously researched and vivaciously told. Mr. Morone has a knack for peeling off veneers, for locating the surprising fact, for adopting the unexpected and illuminating slant. He is a rarity, a scholar who is never boring.”—Tracy Kidder, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Soul of a New Machine“Hellfire Nation [places] much of our public life in its proper soul-searching context—and its careful anatomy of the hand-in-glove relations between the American state and the American faithful is both welcome and illuminating.”—Chris Lehmann, Washington Post Book World“For better and for worse, as Morone shows in marvelous historical detail, moral fervor has been the wellspring of political change in America.”—Robert D. Putnam, author of Bowling AloneSelected as one of Christianity Today’s top ten books of 2003Named April 2003 book of the month by The History News NetworkJames A. Morone, professor of political science at Brown University, is also the author of The Democratic Wish: Popular Participation and the Limits of American Government, published by Yale University Press.


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

Mayflower
Registered Member


Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
 
   Posted 10/23/2004 9:24 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
.
Greetings, John:

If you have time, could you possibly post the names (and perhaps the specific writings) of some of the authors that you referenced?

I would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you...

Peace & blessings,
<><
.
.
JEE wrote:
quote:

Though I honestly can't see how anyone could be truly satisfied and happy with the Calvinistic worldview, theology, and anthropology, from what I can tell many of the Puritans were able to transcend the deterministic presuppositions of their basic theology to write some absolutely superb devotional literature.

..... My interest is primarily in some of the writings of the Puritans, not their form of worship per se, and so I don't know that I have much of anything to contribute to this line of discussion.

John

.
Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:15 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads