Berry Craig's recent essay comparing
the Confessing Church movement to the Puritans of the 17th
century has attracted lots of interest ... and criticism.
[5-29-02]
These are all the notes we've received so far, but
please feel free to add your own voice to the conversation!
Just
send a note.
(And please include your name and any
other identification you'd like us to include.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj: Berry Craig's article on Puritans, The CCM and
the Layman
Date: 5/28/02
As a pastor of a congregation that is part of the
Confessing Church Movement, I would suggest that Berry Craig
misunderstands both the Confessing Church Movement and Puritans. If the
Witherspoon Society is interested mainly in propaganda then Berry
Craig's article will suffice. If the Witherspoon society is at all
interested in the viewpoint of those within the Confessing Church
Movement and a more positive viewpoint on Puritans I would be happy to
provide a rebuttal argument.
One note on Puritans: The English Puritans -
Presbyterians, as a matter of fact - were some of the most educated
Biblical Scholars of their day. Many 20th Century scholars tended to see
the Puritans through the lenses of the Victorian age. Puritans were a
much more complicated people than their reputation suggests. We tend to
see them as rule obsessed, which was not the case.
Why did the English Puritans lose in England? 1.
Because the Presbyterians in Parliament dithered too long until the Army
was mainly Congregationalist and Cromwell kicked them out and
established religious freedom for all Protestants, (except the Quakers).
2. Because after Cromwell's death Charles II made an agreement with the
Puritans in the Church of England that he would not kick Puritans out of
their pulpits and then proceeded to do so. Anyone who would not submit
to the Episcopalian system was essentially defrocked by the returning
Anglicans with Charles' support. Presbyterians then became part of the
Non-Conformist movement that theoretically was disenfranchised by the
government, meaning that Nonconformists were not allowed to vote or hold
office. In actuality this quickly passed, as a Church History Professor
at Fuller, James Bradley proved by examining burial records, church
records and comparing them to voting records and membership in
parliament.
In many ways the Puritans in England WERE the
Presbyterian Church of their day, from the time of Henry VIII on. Yes,
they were interested in following the Law, but through what we
Presbyterians call the third use of the Law: thankfulness to God.
Puritans had a rich history of careful thought and engagement with God
through the emotions as their diaries both here in America and in
England will attest.
Ultimately the Puritans both in America and in England
fell to the Enlightenment idea of freedom of religion - to all of our
good. Curiously, they were replaced by the Revival movements of the past
300 years.
In Christ,
Robert Campbell, pastor of First Presbyterian Church,
Titusville, NJ.
P.S. Jack Rogers, our moderator and my mentor, is an expert on the
Puritans before and at the time the time of the Westminster Assembly. I
suspect that he would support what I say here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj: Shame, shame
Date: 5/28/02
You print a diatribe like Berry's and then have the nerve to denounce
the Layman? You folks need to do some serious soul searching.
Talk about looking at the speck in another's eye and missing the beam in
your own .....................
______________________________________________
Lift up the name of Yeshua! FREE Messianic e-mail for
life at... http://www.wwyd.com/ - "What Would Yeshua Do?" (tm)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj: Re: The New Puritans
Date: 5/28/02
CCM members don't have or claim to have, "..the final answers to
the big questions about human existence in their grasp..", as you
say; we simply claim to know who does - Jesus Christ.
You also seem to be confused about the goal of the CCM.
It is not to gain members or advance the CCM within the Presbyterian
church. Rather, we seek to honor the one whom we profess to believe in
and to fulfill the commission that He gave to us.
Theologically, your notion of Presbyterianism, like so
many today, is nothing more than universalism. How do you answer Paul's
claim that there is, "no other name in heaven by which men are
saved except Jesus Christ.."? My friend, determining WHO (the
elect) gets saved is not the same as telling people HOW they are saved
(the grace of God through Jesus Christ). The first task is God's. The
second is that of the Christian (Presbyterian or other). Please review
one of the many insightful works on the history of the Reformation to
see just how far your idea of Presbyterianism is from that of Knox,
Calvin, Zwingli, and the other reformers.
As a student of history it amazes me that you have
totally ignored the larger possibility that what is likely to collapse
is the Presbyterian Church USA, rather than the CCM. If the CCM is a
leaky boat, the PCUSA is the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. For the
last 35 to 40 years, membership in this institution has continued to
drop (correlates nicely with the introduction of liberal, new age,
universalistic theology at many Presbyterian seminaries). If you believe
as I do, that God raises up people for His purpose as well as He allows
them to self destruct when they begin advancing their own agenda, it
doesn't bode well for the PCUSA. But then again, I care about serving
God, not the PCUSA or CCM or even someone's idea of what the PCUSA ought
to be. The central issue that faces the PCUSA, the CCM and all of us is
actually quite simple; whom do we obey - God or culture? I'm betting on
God.
Lyle Helvie, elder at Center Grove Presbyterian in Greenwood, Indiana.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj: Response to Berry Craig
Date: 5/28/02
I think he has simplistic, judgemental answers. Not everyone in the CCM
accepts all that the Layman says. The two are not as related as
opponents would like to believe. To associate Puritans/fundamentalists
and communists from the former Soviet Union and say they are all alike
is funny if it wasn't spoken -- I take it -- in seriousness. Or is Berry
simply speaking tongue in cheek? I hope the latter. Anyone teaching
college age kids and giving them that kind of information as factual is
frightening.
Dick Craig
~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is too bad that as a professor of
history, Berry Craig does not show evidence of knowing his subject
(http://www.witherspoonsociety.org/the_new_puritans.htm).
What he tells his students about the purpose (taking
over the church; forcing their views on the rest of the world) and
character ("sizzling with self-righteousness") of the CCM is
incorrect. Either he has not researched it, or did not understand it, or
is deliberately telling untruths about it.
In addition, he does not seem to understand the
meaning of the word "fundamentalist". This term cannot
reasonably be applied to the large majority of CCM churches, as there
are very few fundamentalists at all in the PC(USA.)
Academic integrity should require Craig to familiarize
himself with people and churches in the CCM before presuming to instruct
students about it. Those of us who are evangelicals would appreciate
Craig's using his mind, as he instructs others to do.
Deborah Milam Berkley
Member, First Pres. Bellevue (WA)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
More Craig commentary
Date: 5/30/02
Oh, my; you mean Craig was serious? I was about to
commend the Witherspoon Society for posting such a dandy parody of the
usual anti-CCM polemics. I just naturally assumed that, as a trained
historian, he knew enough about the Puritans to understand that the
comparison is no insult. Too bad. So instead I'll commend you for
posting the responses.
Steve Jones, Deacon
First Church
Kokomo IN
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Two more comments, added here on
6-4-02
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Craig's
propaganda
6/1/02
To the Editor,
Mr. Craig's
article about the Confessing Church movement may properly be considered
propaganda. Alfred McClung Lee, the author of The Fine Art of
Propaganda established seven hallmark tricks of the manipulative
propagandist. Mr. Craig, in a relatively brief article, managed to
employ all seven.
1. Name calling or
hanging a bad label on an idea. Consider Mr. Craig's use of
"Puritan", "fundamentalist" ,
"ideologues", and "self-righteous"
2. Card stacking,
or the selective use of facts and outright falsehoods. Consider his
brief history in which he laid responsibility for the English civil war
on the Puritans without context and without any reference to other
issues such as the abuses of Charles I. He cites the Puritan's
strictness, narrow-mindedness and intolerance as reasons for their
decline after the Civil War, but fails to mention that they allowed
religious freedom for many groups including Jews, Quakers and various
Arminian sects. Nor does he mention as a factor in the Puritan decline
the oppression that the Puritans suffered during the Restoration in
which thousands of Puritan pastors were driven from their pulpits,
imprisoned, exiled or in some cases tortured or killed.
3. Band Wagon, a
claim that everyone like us thinks this way. Consider
his repeated use of the phrase "Most Presbyterians"
4. Testimonial:
the association of a respected or hated person with an idea. Consider
his use of quotes from Eric Sevareid. Shirley Guthrie in support of his
position and his association of a verse filled with wrath with the Layman
and the CCM without any supporting evidence that this is representative
of the ideas held by those organizations.
5. Plain Folks: a
technique whereby the idea and its proponents are linked to "people
just like you and me". Consider these phrases used by Craig:
"Most Presbyterians prefer debate to coercion" (as if the CCM
and The Layman do not); "Presbyterianism
is a thinker's religion...you just need common sense", etc.
6. Transfer: an
assertion of a connection between something valued or hated and the idea
being discussed. Consider his misconceived moral equivalence in which he
equates The Layman and the CCM with a Marxist-Leninist
Soviet Union that killed, imprisoned and oppressed millions of its
citizens.
7. Glittering
Generality: an association of something with a "virtue word"
or a "hate word" to gain approval or disapproval without
examining the evidence: Consider how Mr. Craig claims that the CCM
"demonizes" gays, or that it "sizzles with
self-righteousness" without a shred of evidence.
If the Witherspoon
Society is sincere in its desire to nurture a prophetic voice of the
church through study, action and reflection that will equip the faithful
for responsible participation at all levels of the church, then I would
suggest that its editor be more responsible by publishing articles that
persuade with reason and facts rather than manipulation.
Ron Anderson
Member of
the Presbyterian Church at New Providence
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Berry Craig article
6/2/02
The most hopeful comment in Berry Craig's essay is the
statement "We have enough examples in our past, when love and
compassion have overcome such movements as we are now facing, to be
hopeful about overcoming the current one."
That phrase caught my eye because it goes to the heart
of this problem within our church as well as the fundamentalism which is
brewing globally today around the world and fueling the rage (fear) in
terrorist attacks. Severeid's phrase "dangerously passionate
certainties" is right on, and once any of us gets into in that mind
frame, justice and compassion and mercy and humility are shoved aside.
Fear and all its ugly faces (anger, self-righteousness, power, control,
greed) take center stage.
These are very rapidly changing times, that generate
fear et al in many of our fellow believers. If we can welcome
the changes knowing that a God who loves us, no matter what, faces those
changes with us and will be there to guide us through, we have all we
need for the journey. It is just a matter of hanging on for the ride.
Perfect love casts out fear. None of us imperfect humans can demonstrate
that 24/7, but with God's constant presence, help and love, surely this,
too, shall pass!
Janet Hovis, Grace Covenant, Asheville, NC~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, what would you
like to add?
Please send a note!
