Kelly Kapic and Randall Gleason have recently attempted definitions of ‘Puritan’ and ‘Puritanism’ in their “Introduction” to The Devoted Life,12 a collection of chapters surveying the life and writings of eighteen significant Puritans. They maintain that ‘Puritanism was a genuine movement that wielded considerable force within seventeenth-century England and New England’.13 They go on to say that—Puritans should not be limited strictly to radical Protestant nonconformists, but rather to a much broader movement of individuals distinguished by a cluster of characteristics that transcends their political,ecclesiastical, and religious differences.14
These ‘characteristics’ are seven in number: (1) Puritanism was a movement of spirituality;(2) it lays stress on experiencing communion with God; (3) Puritans were united in their dependence upon the Bible as their supreme source of spiritual sustenance and guide for the reformation of life; (4) they were predominantly Augustinian in their emphasis upon human sinfulness and divine grace; (5) they placed great emphasis upon the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life; (6) they were deeply troubled by sacramental forms of Catholic spirituality fostered within the Anglican Church; and (7) Puritanism was also, in part, a revival movement.15 These characteristics are the foundation of Kapic and Gleason’s overarching definition—‘a genuine movement that wielded considerable force’—and not their definition itself. But are these qualifications necessary ingredients of a proper definition? As we shall see, no generally acceptable definition of these terms is possible without at least some qualifications.
To read the entire Churchman article, click here.
Another effort by Peter Adam is at:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/achurchhalflyreformed.html
It is a notoriously difficult and misused term--at times.
I just read a work, entitled "Puritanism," re: New England Puritans. A collection of primay documents. Quite a few in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, perhaps 1/3, refused any severence with the C of England although they were in Congregationalist Churches. Some even claimed to be Churchmen of the Church of England. It was a bizarre claim, but it was drawn from primary sources of the period.
Phil,
ReplyDeleteTechnically they were a part of the Church of England even though they adopted a congregationalist polity. The Puritan settlers in Massachusetts were not seperatists. They wanted to reform the Church of England. Archbishop Laud regarded the Puritans in the Massachusetts colony as a part of the Church of England and proposed the appointment of a bishop for the colony. However, the proposal was shelved with the outbreak of the English Civil War.
Thanks, Robin, more little odd, little heralded, and little known facts. What you noted, also, is new about Laud's view.
ReplyDeleteNot sure how it gets mixed up with the BCP in New England, though.
Thanks.