The
current postings of this blog relate a story.
And that story takes place in two locations, England and in early
colonial New England in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. The last posting related how strict the
monarchy in England had become in regard to Puritans and their more radical
version, Congregationalists. The more
radical devotees wanted the English government to grant them not only freedom
to practice their beliefs, but that the government mandate Calvin’s system of
Presbyterian Church government.
That is, in following Calvin’s devised
view of church government, the church is a community or, using its language, a
body in which the head is Christ, and all members are assigned equal status
below Him. That community supervises the
selection of pastors, decides who will be members or dismissed as members, sets
up the schedule of services, and enforces church discipline.[1] And this was a milder form of demands. Even more radical were the Separatists. They wanted political separation from the
non-Puritans.
Of
course, all this was a non-starter for the English crown. With the rule of James of Scotland, relations
with the Calvinists became more strained.
Even though he was brought up a Calvinist, he apparently had had enough
of it and instituted a more rigorous persecution of them. This was followed by his son, Charles I, who
was even more stern in his dealings with the Puritans. As already indicated in the last posting, all
this led to emigration of some Puritans beginning in 1620 (the “Mayflower
Compact” group).
Some nine years later, a major exodus
took place as 400 Puritans followed the initial group to New England. They set up a colony – the Massachusetts Bay
colony – with the intent to follow their more extreme religious doctrine. But in this later exit, a bit of creativity
was involved. According to Guelzo,[2] one
could not just leave England at that time for any reason. One had to demonstrate an inoffensive and reasonably
plausible aim for such a move. So, these
Puritans organized themselves as a commercial enterprise.
Named the Massachusetts Bay Company,
the stated aim was profit. The fact that
this effort was led by well-known Puritans was presented to the government as
just a happenstance. Never mind that the
group had a number of Puritan ministers; they gave a convoluted reason for
their efforts and that succeeded in securing approval from the English
authorities. For whatever reason, this
development proved to be a viable mechanism by which thousands of Puritans were
eventually able to leave England for the Massachusetts Bay area.
The primary center in this new
settlement turned out to be Boston, but around the Boston area various towns
sprung up. In each case, a new organizational
model took hold. They each established a
church that was independent from the other churches and no bishopric was
ordained. That is, each church ran its
own business. Despite that lack of
organizational governance by some central entity, the churches began service
protocols similar to each other. Part of
that commonality was the establishment of membership qualifications they
imposed on accepting new members.
That included that people who applied for
membership had to produce testimonies that they, on an individual basis, were granted
the grace of God (see the “TULIP” explanation from the March 2 posting). They also wanted to honor some of the old
ways from England. For example, towns
were mandated to establish a church and everyone in the town was, by law,
expected to attend its services. But,
and this is an important turn, ministers were not officers of the realm or the
government.
In addition, marriages, beyond any ceremony
in a church, had to be performed by a magistrate that introduced a strong
provision separating church from state.
Having provided for that division, ministers still were influential voices
within the civic community and their opinions were sought even as elections drew
near. They were often and were expected
to take part in the various civic events and celebrations that the townspeople conducted.
A
significant accomplishment of this mix was the establishment in 1636 of Harvard
College in Cambridge (just across the Charles River from Boston).[3] Through this institution, American
religious/political thought developed.
This deserves some closer look since it will help form foundational political
thought during the colonial period.
Of
course, all of this took time to evolve, but it reflects a bit of disagreement
today between those who claim the founding fathers were mostly influenced by
classical philosophic thought (that of the ancient Greeks and Romans) and those
who look to the religiously oriented thinking of the colonial period. One way to approach this divide is to look at
what constituted the colonial thinking one item at a time.
The
judgement here is that that is worthwhile and in accordance, Guelzo identifies
a three-part formula that implemented logical principles derived from classical
thinkers. And here an irony manifests
itself: it turns out, therefore, that classical
thought played a crucial role in the development of a biblically based
theology.
Here
is how a “study” progressed according to the formula: first, a citation or a series of citations
from the Bible were highlighted, quoted, and analyzed – phrase by phrase – for
its meaning using logical argument. Usually,
the meaning supported a predetermined “lesson.”
Second, the citations and their meanings would be used to deduct
religious principles that one could understand and apply. And lastly, the principles would be applied
to everyday life situations or used as points of meditation.
The
application was meant to demonstrate how practical the Bible was to these church
goers. But the irony of the pagan influence
could not be totally forgotten, for they of ancient times provided these more
recent students their models of logic. In
this, one needs to carry the thought that even if these early colonial efforts
to seek universal truths were limited in their accounts by lacking any
empirical evidence – gathered by means of historical study or more scientific
methods – they did have their effects on the ways people defined what
governance and politics should be.
Those
determinations of what should be were still further based on beliefs on what
was the nature of governance and the nature or politics. Yes, these early conclusions can be critiqued
in terms of them being mostly rationalizations and lacking in honest,
objectified study. Preachers and even these
early scholars were out to prove their predetermined conclusions and those
conclusions bolstered whatever the established theology of a given religion was,
in this case, Calvinism.
But
they did sound reasonable and were considered in accordance with the church
goers overarching beliefs. They were
justified by complex arguments that set out to logically counter whatever
doubts existed among the faithful. They
also instructed church goers about what they should do in a trying, challenging
environment.
The
next posting will look at a federalist interpretation of these developments and
make the claim that these early and continuing efforts at addressing questions
of governance and politics, be they sectarian or secular, had a pervasive influence
on the founding of the nation.
[1] “Presbyterian Church Government,” Britannica (n.d.),
accessed March 8, 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/presbyterian .
[2] Allen C. Guelzo, The American Mind, Part I – transcript books – (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company/The Great Courses, 2005). The factual, historical information of this posting is derived from this source.
[3] Harvard, originally, was more a place to study
theology than an academic center for all areas of study. Using logic as its method of study, it would
take a long time before other modes of study would be employed and sought after
in its academic efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment