David Hall, writing in the New York Times, makes a case that the puritans have been unfairly maligned as self-righteous prigs. We typically think of puritans as legalists-with-a-vengeance. Hall attributes this impression to Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter in which puritans are portrayed as authoritarian, "bent on making everyone conform to a rigid set of rules and ostracizing everyone who disagreed with them."
Actually, the puritans had many democratic impulses and practices, and were suspicious of all heirarchical authority. Authority was vested in the local congregation--indeed, we call it "congregationalism." The denomination which grew out of puritanism was the Congregational Church which later became today's United Church of Christ.
Contrary to Hawthorne’s assertions of self-righteousness, the colonists hungered to recreate the ethics of love and mutual obligation spelled out in the New Testament. Church members pledged to respect the common good and to care for one another. Celebrating the liberty they had gained by coming to the New World, they echoed St. Paul’s assertion that true liberty was inseparable from the obligation to serve others.
They did not, as it turned out, inaugurate the "New Jerusalem" that they desired. All human systems fail. In fact, the human systems which begin with the highest hopes usually are the ones that fall the furthest.
The biblical pharisees were similar. Most people regard the pharisees as traditionalist, conservative, self-righteous legalists, but that is, at the very most, only partially true.
The pharisees were actually a renewal movement within Judaism, and the major rival to the powerful Sadducees, whose base was the Temple priests and the wealthy aristocracy of Jerusalem. The power base of the pharisees was in the countryside among lay people. Issues of class were obviously involved.
The pharisees believed that Judaism was for all the people, not just the priests. Lay people were just as able as priests to love God, and they would do it through observance of the Torah. As God cared for the world 24/7, the pharisees encouraged keeping Torah 24/7. This is how Judaism would be renewed, they thought.
Jesus actually had some points of agreement with the pharisees. He critiqued the Temple, as the pharisees did. He believed in the general resurrection, as the pharisees also did.
Where the pharisees looked to Torah, however, Jesus looked to the prophetic tradition. To put it a different way, where the pharisees tilted toward law, Jesus tilted toward the prophets, emphasizing compassion over law. All four of the gospels portray Jesus in this way.
The problem with both puritans and pharisees was not intent. Indeed, in both cases, their intent was laudable. With the pharisees, it was the renewal of Judaism. With the puritans, it was the "new Israel" founding the New Jerusalem.
The problem is that renewal movements are charismatic and effervescent. The early days are spiritual champagne. After awhile, though, the champagne begins to lose its bubble. The movement becomes a system. The early effervescence hardens and grows rigid.
Paul writes: "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). Unfortunately, many renewal movements, including both puritans and pharisees, begin in spirit, but end in letter.
Woody Hayes was justifiably and correctly fired for hitting a player. Carl Pelini should meet the same fate. The man committed assault. That should be fireable offense.
Posted by: Cheap louis vuitton handbags | April 17, 2012 at 11:10 AM