111. We Are Not Puritans, Are We?

August 1st, 2015

The Puritans do not generally enjoy good press. For most people the term Puritanism is synonymous with religious bigotry and judgmental moralism. This is especially true in Neo-Latin cultures where the word “Puritan” is normally associated with a derogatory caricature of Puritanism. In these contexts, Puritan is referred to as a kind of cerebral Christianity, overwhelmingly interested in outward and formal purity at the expense of human warmth and personal proximity. Pope Francis is no exception. On a recent occasion he made an impromptu reference to the Puritans. The term slipped out of his mouth as he was telling a story of a priest with a negative attitude.

What Are We, Puritans?

In delivering a meditation on priesthood to thousands of priests from around the world at the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome on June 12th, the Pope recalled a priest who found it difficult to baptize the child of a single mother who had asked him to do so. The priest had opposed the idea because the woman was not married and the child had been born outside of marriage. The then Archbishop Bergoglio reacted with outrage and vehemently replied: “What are we, Puritans?” In his mind there was no better description of this hypocritical and arrogant approach than naming it “puritan”! Are we Puritans? Absolutely not! “Please” – the Pope went on in his meditation – “let’s not have a Church without Jesus and without mercy. Don’t scare the faithful people. When this happens, when the priest’s heart is bureaucratic and attached to the letter of the law, the Church, which is Mother, is transformed, for so many faithful into a stepmother. Please, make them feel that the Church is always Mother”.[1]

What does Puritan mean according to Francis? Apparently it means to have a church without Jesus, a church that scares people rather than welcoming them, a bureaucratic church obsessed with the letter of the law, a church that is a rigid stepmother rather than a loving mother. In Francis’ vocabulary there was no better term to discredit this merciless form of Christianity than referring to it as “Puritanism”. But is this a fair theological and historical description of Puritanism? Surely not.

There are tons of evidence that support a very different portrait. Here is how C.S. Lewis sketches it: “We must picture these Puritans as the very opposite of those who bear that name today: as young, fierce, progressive intellectuals, very fashionable and up-to-date. They were not teetotallers; bishops, not beer, were their special aversion” (C.S. Lewis,  Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature [On Edmund Spenser], pp. 121-122). Instead of being cold and detached Christians, they were “worldly saints” (L. Ryken), combining a radical biblical faith with a down-to-earth interest in the whole of life.[2] Again C.S. Lewis is helpful here: “To be sure, there are standards by which the early Protestants could be called ‘puritanical’; they held adultery, fornication, and perversion for deadly sins. But then so did the Pope. If that is puritanism, all Christendom was then puritanical together. So far as there was any difference about sexual morality, the Old Religion was the more austere. The exaltation of virginity is a Roman, that of marriage, a Protestant, trait” (C.S. Lewis, English Literature in the 16th Century, p. 35).[3]

An Unsettled Relationship with Historic Protestantism

Against the term Puritan, Francis encouraged the priests to “be merciful, be merciful” – “mercy” being the key word with which to understand the Pope and the program of the fast approaching Jubilee of Mercy – as if Puritanism was opposed to a biblically-defined mercy.

Pope Francis is not new in showing profound uneasiness – even repulsion – towards what historic Protestantism stood for. In his 1985 lecture on the history of the Jesuit order he wrote severe evaluations of Luther (a “heretic”), and especially of Calvin (a “heretic” and “schismatic”) bringing about the “Calvinist squalor” in society, in the church, and in man’s heart.[4] According to that lecture, Protestantism lies at the root of all evils in the modern West. The fact that this lecture was republished unchanged in 2013 in Spanish and translated in 2014 in Italian with his permission, but without a mitigating word of explanation, indicates that this assessment still lingers in the Pope’s heart and mind.

In spite of the much applauded, yet inconsequential “words of apology” recently extended to Pentecostals and Waldensians, Pope Francis still demonstrates he has mixed feelings about the whole of the Protestant Reformation, its main architects (e.g. Luther and Calvin), and some of its historical representatives (e.g. the Puritans). In his impromptu reaction Francis echoed widespread prejudices. Surely the Puritans deserve a much fairer treatment than what the Pope gave his audience. They were not merciless Christians. In J.I. Packer’s words, the Puritans were “God’s giants” who embraced whole-heartedly a version of Christianity that paraded a particular blend of biblicist, pietist, churchly and worldly concerns.[5] The Pope is among those who instead of caricaturing Puritanism should take the opportunity to better grasp it historically, theologically, and pastorally.

[2] Leland Ryken, Wordly Saints. The Puritans as They Really Were (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986).

[3] Other interesting quotes by C.S. Lewis on the Puritans can be found at https://tidesandturning.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/c-s-lewis-defining-and-defending-the-english-puritans/. I wish to thank Greg Pritchard for pointing this website to me.

[4] See my Vatican File (n. 83) “What Francis Really Thinks of the Reformation and of Calvin in particular”: http://vaticanfiles.org/2014/06/83-what-francis-really-thinks-of-the-reformation-and-of-calvin-in-particular/.

[5] J.I. Packer, Among God’s Giants. The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Eastbourne, UK: Kingsway Publ. 1991) p. 433.

    Share Button

    110. A “Green” Pope?

    July 1st, 2015

    As expected, the release of the encyclical Laudato si’ (“Praise be to you”) by Pope Francis was acclaimed as a major contribution to the urgent need for a sustained effort in environmental care. Given the breadth of the issues discussed, with this document the Pope wishes to engage not only the Christians or the like-minded people but “every person living on this planet”. It is possible that Laudato si’ will have an echo in wider circles of the public opinion (e.g. green movements and left-wing political sectors) and for a more prolonged time than a usual papal encyclical. Certainly it is the highest authoritative document that the present Pope has written so far, given that his 2013 first encyclical Lumen Fidei (“The Light of Faith”) was essentially drafted by his predecessor Benedict XVI and that his 2013 Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”) is hierarchically inferior in the ranking of magisterial documents. More than expounding traditional doctrinal points, Francis wants to underline wide-spread concerns and to show the open-mindedness of the Roman Catholic vision to address them. The reference to a well known prayer by Francis of Assisi in the title reinforces the intention to recall a long tradition and to attract a wide attention.

    Environmental Concerns and Roman Catholic Emphases

    In 192 pages (a fairly long length for an encyclical), six chapters, the usual invocation to Mary “the Mother and Queen of all creation”, and two closing prayers, Pope Francis delineates his concerns for the deteriorating health of planet earth and calls humanity to take action in order to stop the degenerating process. The remedy to the downgrade trajectory is the adoption of an “integral ecology” which will lead to a “sustainable and integral development”. After analyzing what is happening at our “common home” in terms of pollution and climate change, access to water, loss of biodiversity, decline in the quality of human life, and global inequality, the Pope touches on the cultural and social distortions that cause the present-day ecological crisis (e.g. pervasive technocracy and distorted anthropocentrism) and suggests the “gospel of creation” based on “common good” principles and applied to the social and cultural levels as the solution for it.

    The document strikes the cords of the wide-spread environmentalist mentality. At the same time it is part and parcel of the Social Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. This means that its analyses and proposals are interspersed with typically Roman Catholic elements. For instance, apart from the Marian title of “Mother and Queen of creation”, there is a strong sacramental language in the final part of the document whereby the Eucharist is presented as the “greatest exaltation” of creation: “Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God. Indeed the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love”. “In the bread of the Eucharist, creation is projected towards divinization, towards the holy wedding feast, towards unification with the Creator himself” (236). Another specific Catholic emphasis in calling for an “ecological conversion” is the insistence on the role of global agencies and organizations while there is little stress on personal conversion. In the papal document sin has more social than individual dimensions. The thoroughgoing reference to the role of education in overcoming the ecological crisis tends to be a humanistic wishful thinking more than a sober Christian comment that has a realist view of humanity’s ability to deal with its problems.

    Evangelical Parallel Resources

    Laudato Si’ will prove to be a useful reading to penetrate what is central in the Pope’s vision: the poor, universal brotherhood, a sacramental vision of the world, and an appeal to the secular public opinion. In coming to terms with this encyclical, Evangelicals should be aware of what their own tradition has already produced on these pressing issues.

    The 1980 Lausanne Occasional Paper “An Evangelical Commitment to Simple Life-style”(http://www.lausanne.org/content/lop/lop-20) is a compelling reminder of our biblical vocation to live soberly and to promote justice. The 2008 document by the World Evangelical Alliance “Statement on the Care of Creation” (http://www.weacreationcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/WEA-Statement-on-Care-of-Creation.pdf) tackles the challenges of being faithful stewards of God’s creation in a biblically responsible way. Finally, the 2010 Cape Town Commitment (http://www.lausanne.org/content/ctc/ctcommitment) is a passionate call to a Christian life-style marked by humility, integrity and simplicity.

    These documents are much better grounded in the biblical doctrine of creation, the fall, and Christ’s redemption than the papal encyclical. They are also framed in the context of an evangelical concern for evangelism and mission, thus reflecting a more biblical and holistic approach than Laudato Sì’. A comparative study between these evangelical documents and Francis’ encyclical will be a good exercise for all those who want to come to terms with what the two main global Christian families are saying and doing about the environment.


      Share Button