We shouldn’t criticize British Reformed writers of the 16th and 17th centuries but rather than invoking dated, unhelpful, and misleading generalizations as if “everyone knows” about “the Puritans” let us speak about “this writer” or “that writer.” That will slow down our writing by making us go back to sources and to distinguish between this one and that one but that’s a good thing.

My friend Tullian picks up on a post by Trevin Wax, “Beware the Puritan Paralysis” in which the latter cautions us about a tendency to introspection. He makes a very important point:

Too many times, we dress up our introspection with flowery terms like “accountability” and “mortification” and “gospel-centered change.” Even if all these terms and concepts are good and needed, if our gaze is constantly inward-focused, then we are as self-centered as the Christian who is consumed with seeking personal pleasure apart from God.

To this we should all say “Amen!” Where we should dissent, however, is the broad brush with which British Reformed theology of the 16th and 17th centuries is painted.

The first problem is terminological. It was one thing for British Reformed writers to speak of themselves as “Puritans” and another for us to do it. Consider how difficult it is for us to define the noun “evangelical.” In Deconstructing Evangelicalism Darryl Hart has argued that there isn’t any such thing as “evangelicalism,” that there isn’t a sufficient number of commonalities to add up to a unified thing “evangelicalism.” If one wants to start an argument at the Evangelical Theological Society just give a paper reading popular “evangelicals” out of “the evangelical movement.” It was controversial to say that Clark Pinnock (who taught, among other things, that the future is genuinely open to God) is not an “evangelical.”

In a similar way, the universal “Puritan” may be deconstructed so that we need to be cautious about speaking about “the Puritans.” It was a more diverse movement than the expression “the Puritan” suggests. I don’t think it’s possible to speak about “the Puritan” view of very many things. Perhaps the one thing that united them all was a desire for sanctification but how many medieval monks were also deeply concerned about piety, sanctification, moral conformity to Christ, or even a mystical encounter with the risen Christ?

More particularly, there are historical problems in speaking about “the Puritan” tendency to unhealthy introspection. The claim that “the Puritans” were guilty of such has been challenged decisively by (list follows):

Read More