Talk:Puritans

what does that mean: [[16th century|15th]]?

---

Calvinists in the 15th century???

---

Is the quote really nessecary? I don't really see how it adds anything to the page. --Alex S 21:51, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You have corrected a number of annoying errors, AE. Not all the language that you've chosen should survive, however, as at points you express opinions and reveal sympathies, rather than aiming for neutrality. Sorry that I don't have time at the moment to help, beyond this comment. Later, probably. Mkmcconn 17:48, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Comments

Shouldnt the crucible by arthur miller be up in the further reading setion, give me a heads up when it is desided.

---

I moved the following texts here:

Puritans have probably shaped socialism far more than Marxism ever did,

This is utter nonesense.

and also layed down the foundations of the Welfare State, and of modern politics.

Puritanism is just ONE of the flavors of protestanism which contributed to the Soc/Dem welfare state. This is highly Anglocentric POV.

==Misconceptions of Puritanism==

Puritanism is often innacurately described as being "joyless", something based on the Commonwealth's banning of celebrations of Christmas. However at the time in England, Christmas was not an important religious festival(that is a German tradition), but was simply a day that very, very few people in England cared about, and was basically an excuse to have a day off work and get drunk.

More disturbingly, the Taliban and other such extremist Islamic groups(such as the Wahhabis are often described as "Puritan", by ignorant journalists. Not only is this patently false(if the Taliban resemble any Christian group it is the fanatics of the Inquisition), it is also regarded as insulting to non-conformists, who do not like to be compared to fundamentalists of any stripe.

This is highly POV, non-encyclopedic text. I am not even sure if it is worth rewriting. If someone other than the original author wants to have a go at it, feel free...

-- Viajero 00:59, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Maybe this is a pet peeve only of mine, but why no mention of the erroneous idea that Puritans were (and the name arose because they were) particularly focused on sexual immorality, and particularly on sexual immorality by modern standards?

The preceding parqagraph should give an idea of why I haven't added anything like that myself. --Calieber 19:59, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm having a hard time with Methodism being a direct descendant of Puritanism on this page. I don't think Wesley was highly influenced by them; he was of course a lifelong Anglican, but influenced also by the Moravians and Luther. His emphasis on sanctification and personal holiness may have brought people to similar actions as Puritan theology but from different roots. The Puritans were strongly Calvinist; Wesleyans were Arminian (though the average churchgoer today probably could not explain the difference, as worship style is more significant than theology to most). In America, during the holiness revivals of the latter 19th century, of course there was considerable cross fertilization between all the conservative Protestants. Is this where the idea of Puritan roots for Methodists derives? Pollinator 03:58, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Any influence is indirect. Wesley was exposed to the Moravian brethren, and continental pietism; which were influenced (as some think they have evidence) by the Puritans. The descent is not direct, even if any relation can be proven. Perhaps the case can be made that Puritan piety continued in low church Anglicanism, which in turn influenced Whitfield and the Wesleys.

Article re-written as it was diabolical. No complaints I hope? I've been using Wikipedia as a reference tool and have had enough. Al

The article could do with a picture... maybe a black cross? Al

---

I'm not convinced by

"The central tenet of Puritanism was that by following the teachings of the Bible (in particular that of the New Testament), people lived holier lives and would stand a better chance of salvation."

in the Beliefs section. I won't take it out just yet, but I assert that this isn't a Puritan belief. Puritans were strongly Calvinist and this would be heresy to them.

Further more, I haven't a clue what to replace it with! Puritans certainly believed in following the Bible's teaching for believers, but they didn't make morality ⇒ salvation. Wooster 15:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are right that the sentence is a bit a mess, and a miss. I've offered a revision of the paragraph. What do you think? Mkmcconn 19:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You've made a major improvement! Thanks for being willing to tackle it. Pollinator 01:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! Many thanks, Mk. Much better than it was before. I hear Bunyan's stopped turning in his grave : ) Wooster 08:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

The severe pruning of the article has removed a lot of bad stuff but left it looking a little thin. I've tentatively added back a bit more in History - trying not to get anything wrong, though probably not succeeding - and a paragraph in Beliefs about common misconceptions. Hope this is OK. --Hob 18:51, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Argh! No theological history?

• 1. "Puritan" is a word that covers a host of theologies. It's an umbrella term.
• 2. The first P. were Presbyterians (what we'd call Presbyterians), but they didn't know it. They were followers of "the Geneva church" (Calvin). They were distinguished from the "Independents," who were not P. The Independents were what we'd now call Baptists, although they didn't know it. The next jolt to Puritanism was Knox and the generally Scottish church presbytery.
• 3. "Puritan" was a term applied more by the opponents of the group than by the group itself. They wouldn't have called themselves that much -- anymore than contemporaries call themselves Fundamentalists. They called themselves whatever smaller group they were.
• 4. The first major response to the Puritans (again known only as "Geneva" churchmen) was Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, where Hooker has to defend the Established church against them.
• 5. Puritans held Scotland. Hence, James I had been raised around them, and they saw James I as an opportunity.
• 6. The Interregnum and CW, were "P" in a sense, but the fact is that that term was covering about a dozen fractious groups who tore at each other constantly during the Interregnum.

All of this needs to be in the article, IMO, and this doesn't even get to the Puritans fleeing to Holland, the 18th c. responses to them, the P. dominance of banking and stock markets. Seriously, folks, there is theology, theological history, and the group in English political history to consider. Geogre 01:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) (Daunted by the task)

Don't be daunted - you managed to write all of the above, didn't you?  :-) Seriously, why not just add in things one at a time & trust your instincts as to how much to include. All your points sound like they should be in the article, but I, for one, don't know enough to get most of them right - though I've taken a crack at #3, #5, and #6. Also, I suggest moving the Orthography section to the end - History seems a more logical follow-on from the introduction. --Hob 06:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The page says that English Puritans were relevantly tolerant of other faiths. But Spartacus Educational ( http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUpuritans.htm ) says that the Presbyterians disapproved of other Puritan groups and wanted them suppressed. Surely the reason that there was religious toleration in England was that there was no one single dominating faction (there were the Presbyterians, the Independents, and then there were the Army and Cromwell himself). The page mentions that Cromwell imposed "Puritan morality", insisting that people go to church, closing many ale-houses, and fining people for swearing. Isn't it also true that Christmas celebrations were banned, public dancing, etc? Do people really see such a big difference between this and the "theocratic" stance of the American Puritans? Arguably the English Puritans could not set up an actual theocracy because of the competing factions, but to suggest that "Puritan" morality is a meaningless expression, and is nothing to do with intolerance, seems inaccurate.

Whoever posted the above (signing comments makes Talk pages less confusing), when I wrote that passage, I didn't mean to suggest that "'Puritan' morality is a meaningless expression" - and I don't think I did say that - but just that there was a considerable difference between intolerance in the colonies and intolerance in England, which is true: religious dissent that in England might get you imprisoned, or beaten up by a non-governmental mob, could get you executed in Massachusetts. There were severe punishments for "blasphemy" under Cromwell, but that was not new, and the Commonwealth's degree of religious tolerance for the time was very high; of course you can argue that this was because no one extremist faction had absolute control, but you could say the same of (for example) the United States. The other point of that paragraph was just that the Puritans were very far from alone, among radical Protestants of the time, in disapproving of gambling and alcohol, which were to some degree seen as issues of public order and health rather than religious doctrine. But hey, if you have a clearer or more accurate wording in mind, rewrite the article -- be bold! --Hob 18:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some corrections to your points above. Some puritans were Preyterian (believing in a church headed not by an episcopacy, but by a council of elders, as in the Presbyterian church - there are some technical terms I don't remember). Some puritans were Independents/Congregationalist, believing that each congregation should be independent. However, that does *not* mean they were Baptists - what we now call Baptists were Baptists or Anabaptists - that is, they believed in adult baptism (as opposed to infant). They did share some other ideas with the Independent Calvinists, but only the Particularistic Baptists believed in predestination - the General Baptists did not. Both Baptist sects were influenced by Dutch Anabaptism, and flourished in the period of religious upheavel and moderate tolerance of the Commonwealth. Cromwell himself was actually pro-religious freedom, but did not have much support in this. - *jb 05:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Headless Puritans

This article needs a brief introductory paragraph to set the context, circumscribe the meaning and give a capsulation of what follows. Wetman 21:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there something missing?

After the Puritans were procecuted by Charles I (to get rid of their political and church power and influece), didn't they move to another European country, than, distressed by their children becoming to ______________ they received a charter to move to North America. If so, what country was it that they moved to? --64.136.27.229 23:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)-The "beek"

Holland. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

need overhaul for terminological clarity

Geogre is completely correct. I have never crossed evidence that "Puritans" in the 16thC ever called themselves that. It is an insult term. The main problem is that this article notes that the term Puritan is a catch-all for an amorphous group, but then it goes on to use it freehandedly. It needs to be clear that in talking about puritanism as a general category we are talking about many loosley allied or even antagonistic sects. It is only meaningful to specify local and chronological specifics--Separatist Puritans (under Elizabeth/James), Presbyterians, "Church Puritans" (i.e. those who accepted the episcopal system but who wanted other reforms, such as liturgical ones), Early Elizabethan Anti-Vestiarian Nonconformists, etc. Dan Knauss 17:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Compulsive Reverts

What is so wrong about the facts regarding the Puritan relationship with Jews and Judaism? ScapegoatVandal 10:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Provide responsible sources for your interesting theories please. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't want sources. You just want to see me erased. You constantly follow all Jew-related topics(no matter how deeply they affect Christianity) and I will not give you a goddamned concession to prove anything to YOU, fucking bastard! That's right, a JEW-BASTARD! You came looking for some hate and you got it. Now, don't stalk people with your ethnocentric bullying and we can be friends. Until then, stay off my back! Your media friends will not save your ass if you burn me! ScapegoatVandal 15:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I do want sources, and if you don't stop your personal attacks, I'll have to take you to mediation or arbitration. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only if it solves our problems. I won't attack you if you don't haunt each and every article that relates to Jews as if you owned them. I do not expect to seek your permission before editing any such things, just because you are Jewish. I only touch those articles if partly about Jews, when the subject involves Christians as well. I am being literal and limited in definition. ScapegoatVandal 17:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ScapegoatVandal I don't think that how User:Jayjg spends his time is the issue here. I would expect any editor to gravitate toward articles that interest them, more than to articles that do not. The problem is that you are not citing sources, and you aren't reflecting a recognizably accurate understanding of the topic that you refer to. If you did, I'm certain that the substance of your edits would eventually stand. If not, it's nothing personal, or political, or conspiratorial either. If you want to withdraw your extraordinarily cruel remark above, if [User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] or others would not object, I think that it would be for the best. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, because the mother of the child in the case against Michael Jackson was studied in here motives and reasonings and judged upon her character just as harshly as Wacko Jacko himself. Don't tell me to ignore it and incriminate myself. I am going to continue refuting the bullshit that Jayjg keeps throwing at me. ScapegoatVandal 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Template:TrollWarning

Part of what you wrote has factual support, from what I know. The rest, whether you realize it or not, is insulting opinion. To call Puritans "optimistic Judaizers", to label their view as "judaistic Christianity", is insulting to those like myself, who are modern heirs of their views. It is completely false to say that the Puritans believed that the Catholic Church was apostate without the Jewish rituals that the Apostle Paul "sought to extricate". It's so far off the mark in so many ways, that it strikes me as an attempt to start a fight. Mkmcconn (Talk) \

The only sentence that had the faintest ring of truth, was the one which cited Puritan sympathy with Jews, in the belief that they continue under the favor of God for the sake of his covenant - and even that sentence was garbled with some weird speculation about their motives, and is a broad exaggeration of the extent to which this sentiment prevailed. Finally, your list of "See also" was a strange collection of links to articles that had no relationship to this topic, that was obvious to me anyway. There was nothing "Compulsive" about this revert. I reverted because I happen to know something about the topic, none of what I know was reflected in what you wrote, it was contrary to what I know, and the rest was opinion. At best it was an idiosyncratic interpretation so wild that I could not recognize the factual basis in it. You can't just make stuff up, like that. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay thank you thank you thank you Mkmcconn! I finally have some decent guy here. You know too. Which is just a start. You'd have to study a bit broader in your history to see progressions from when Jews weren't allowed to when the Puritans were the ones who had them in open arms. My paternal grandmother's family were Yankees who fled England after the English Civil War and I grew up in that region of the country. My grandmother's family was always a bit "prudish and puritan". When somebody would put their elbows on the table, they were told to go to bed. She always made sure I "cleaned behind the ears". She always taught me how to act proper. Now that she died early in her life which was actually in 96, I am curious about the nonconformist history and who they allied with and fought against. I sure don't like how some of my family experiences were so rigid, but I have no agenda here. I just report what I see. It must be a taboo to mention anything between Christians and Jews that was reconciling, because of neoconservatives in the White House? WTF, that is dumb! If I merely write it out as is found easily online and deduced from other articles of the website, then all I am doing is summarising their friendship. There are a million articles about the nature of Jews, written from a Jewish perspective. Why is it wrong for me to write a small summary of things on the Christian end of things? I find the whol Temple of Solomon, the Freemasons and other things likely a bit interesting. So, I have spent some time knowing things I didn't know before. I didn't know that Christians and Jews had alliances before this Iraq War and I thought they all hated eachother before WWII. I have knowledge gathered that sparked my thoughts into wonder, but all it does is set alarms off because it is "contraversial" to the watchdogs. I am not here for any media organisation or political group. All this stemmed out of family research that never ceases to amaze me and confuse me at the same time. So, I beg of you to reason with the other frenetic rv warmongers here at Wikipedia and tell them you understand what I am trying to say and that this is no POV pushing by me. All I want to do is share the knowledge like in Church we are to spread the Gospel. It feels great to know things that were previously unheard of to me, but for others it can be doomsday to have their worldview challenged. ScapegoatVandal 16:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

puritan - general sense

The word "puritan" in its most general sense means "morally rigorous and strict". In this sense it can be applied to other religious movements unrelated to the Protestant movement. It is used sometimes to describe Islamic movements that seek to "purify" Islam. Can something like this be mentioned, or at least a link included, in the article to direct readers looking for this meaning? --Yodakii 10:58:41, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

question

I have become quite engulfed in this topic. My question (for anyone else who just needed a little background info): Why is it not mentioned (plainly) that Puritans are Calvinists? From my understanding, Puritans are English Protestants impressed with the ideas of Calvin. If this is totally off-base, please post a reply (just stuck it in a paper) or please explain the concrete differences between Puritans and Calvinists.

Though I admit I don't know very much about this topic but I was under the impression that Puritans were NOT Calvinists but simular to them, or originating from them.

I am quite sure that they were Calvinists. Now, what the term means is something different. If you mean "followers of Calvin", then no, they weren't necesseraly Calvinists. But Calvin was one of the first to present the teachings of the Bible in such a clear, persuading, and uniform manner, that those who hold to the same (or similar) teachings as he did, are considered Calvinists (in modern termonology). Generally, now a days, anyone who holds TULIP is considered a "Calvinist" ("Reformed Christian" is now becoming popular). In any case, a Puritan is one of the protestants in England (some would eventually go to America) who wished to reform the Church even more and remove and remnants of the Catholic Church. That is generally, if I am not mistaken, what is meant when the term is used. A Calvinist, as I have stated, is generally considered one who holds to TULIP.

I hope that helps some,
Andy

Predestination?

A central tenet of all Puritan thought was that God, being all knowing, knew whether an individual was going to Heaven or Hell (whether they would accept God's grace or not). Another reading would be that God choses that person X will go to heaven and person Y will not, etc. I do not, however, no enough about Calvin and his teachings and the Puritan beliefs to authoritively label which is correct, or even if one of them is correct.

In any case, predestination is not mentioned here, so the author really missed an important part of Puritanism.

Follow the link in the article to Calvinism. Keep in mind though that this is one of the most complex questions of theology, not necessarily easily explained in a brief article Pollinator 04:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

When Those Puritans Weren't So Very Pure

Any comments on this [1]? If this is so I'd think it could be mentioned. Mathmo 18:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a scholar of 17th century marriage or sexuality, but, like you, I have also seen non-scholarly sources say this. If it turns out this relates to the Puritans in particular rather that 17th century England in general, then if someone does research this and write it up, it would add more colour to the article --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we need an experienced historian to make sense of this. I suspect it is not yet a mature enough area of historical research to include in this article. See these links

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/spring03/branks.cfm

Outlawed were masturbation, fornication, adultery, sodomy, buggery, and every other sexual practice that inched off the line of straight sex as approved by the Bible.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021028&s=taylor102802

Previous scholars also balked at examining colonial sex as its own subject, largely from a fear that the historical sources were insufficient....

He observes that "it was not unusual for early Americans to pass from one cohabitational relationship to the next with scant regard for the formalities of divorce and remarriage." Does "not unusual" mean that most colonists did so?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Modern Puritans?

At 04:08, August 4, 2006 206.74.205.56 removed

"There are to this day people who call themselves Puritans, but much of their original teaching (for instance, their line of reasoning that led to the Salem witch trials) has been left behind."

Anyone any idea if there are people who call themselves Puritans?--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Google does: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Some have also called the recently deceased Martyn Lloyd-Jones the last Puritan,[6] but of course, many Reformed folk consider themselves heirs to the Puritans even if they don't call themselves that explicitly. --Flex 13:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Flex. I don't think Dr. Lloyd-Jones called himself a Puritan. However, very astute Googling to identify the others. I don't feel motivated to revert the sentence that 206 deleted, as it does not seem clear to me that much of their original teaching has been left behind, so I will leave it stand. I would be pleased if someone makes a more reasoned attempt to write about modern Puritans. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy issue w/criticism

"One common criticism is that Puritans are fundamentalists. Many pundits posit a Puritan spirit in the United States' political culture, especially in its historical tendency to oppose things such as alcohol and sexuality."

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone has ever been "opposed to sexuality", save for celibate priests etc. On a more serious note, the Puritans had no issues with alcohol, in fact beer was a staple of the diet on the Mayflower etc. Anti-alcohol attitudes came later from the Methodists as I understand... --66.72.215.225

See also Christian views of alcohol. --Flex 18:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the wording may be a little clumsy. However, a culture that punished a man for kissing his wife on a Sunday, could quite reasonably be considered an influence on modern U.S. culture [7] --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs - cleanup

User:Wikipediarules2221 wrote about the Beliefs section:

tagged section for cleanup for grammar reasons-very incoherent and hard to follow sentence structure with lack of correct punctuation and grammar

Do you mean that a few of the sentences are a bit long with too many sub-clauses? If so, someone please get stuck in and change them and remove the tag (I don't have time today, sorry)

If not, please give specifics, or go ahead and correct the punctuation and grammar. Thanks for your vigilance. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The citationistas have gone too far.

A number of contemporary Unitarian congregations also trace their roots back to English and New England Puritan congregations.[citation needed]

• Looks out bedroom window at First Parish Unitarian in Plymouth Town Square* If you'd ever set foot in New England you would realise how almost comically absurd it is to add your snarky little citation needed to that sentence. In just about every town centre you have the Green with the town hall, and a UU and/or UCC Congregationalist Church, usually of identical design to down hall with the addition of a steeple. In some towns Universalism (and later Unitarian Universalism) caught on, in others Congregationalism, and in others (like Plymouth) both did and caused a schism in the local church, and so a UU and UCC church stand side by side.