Replies

....there was more than one distinctive form of Protestantism in early America: put simply, not every colonial was a Puritan. On the contrary, there were many diverse groups of Protestants within the white population-Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Dutch Reformed as well as Anglicans, Quakers, and Lutherans, to mention only the most numerous. But, in historical terms, the MOST IMPORTANT (because they were the largest and most influential communions) were the Anglicans on the one hand and, on the other, the heirs of the Reformed tradition (i.e., Calvinists like the Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Dutch Reformed, and a host of German "pietist sects" like the Moravians). The division between these two groups marked the GREAT DIVIDE in the religious life of most white colonials. The culture of Reformed groups-the simplicity of their church structures, the emphasis upon the sermon rather than formal rituals and set prayers-contrasted sharply with that of Anglicanism.

Important as these points are, there is an even more telling contrast. While many Reformed churches embraced an evangelical ethos, especially in the mid-eighteenth century as the Great Awakening spread throughout British North America (and revivals simultaneously swept Protestant Europe), most Anglicans (the Methodists in their ranks being the great exception) rejected evangelical influences. Another way of saying this is that, compared to Reformed churches, Anglicans made less stringent demands on the inner resources of individuals. To wit: Belonging to the Church of England did not require individuals to testify to a conversion experience or to submit to an ascetic code of conduct enforced by the clergy and watchful lay members. Nor was any premium placed on strict doctrinal conformity, for, unlike the members of the Reformed tradition, Anglicans had little taste for dogmatism and tolerated differences of opinion on many points of theology. Instead, their clergy encouraged a temperate, practical piety among the laity through liturgical observance and moral admonition. And many colonials found great comfort in this form of Protestantism. Ordinary Anglican lay people found spiritual satisfaction in hearing intoned from the pulpit the familiar, stately cadences of the Book of Common Prayer, the basis of worship services in the Church of England. They were uplifted and sustained by participating in the yearly cycle of rituals commemorating holy days and by savoring the music supplied by choirs and organs. And they took consolation from carefully composed sermons emphasizing the reasonableness of Christianity, the benevolence of God, and the innate capacity of men and women to make proper moral judgments.

Notice the real emphasis here, which is, on the one hand, the Anglicans and RCC emphasizing the innate goodness of man. And the Reformists, on the other hand, rather telling them that they ought to despair in themselves. The difference isn’t really between people who do good and who don’t do good, otherwise the Puritans wouldn’t be Puritans, but rather one side which denies the scriptuere wherein it says “there are none good, no, not one” and “all our righteousnessness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, hath taken us away.” Those who deny these truths, are also the fastest to affirm that salvation can be won by the goodness they vainly believe exists in their hearts.

I oppose the condescension of those who adopt a modern attitude about religion which says in effect that the important thing about religion is that you respect everybody else's. This slops over into a unspoken attitude that all religions are essentially the same, one is not superior to the other, and, ultimately, they are all really the opiate of the masses.

The point of a religion is that it grapples with and identifies ultimate truth. If the ultimate truth claims it is exclusive in character, so be it. We are in danger of losing all self-confidence in our own faith and surrendering to the idea that all religions are of equal value and no religion has superior insight. That is quite a different idea than the practical, this-worldly acceptance of other religions right to exist even though they are in error. There is a difference between tolerance and moral surrender. One is on the political level and the other is on the moral level.

My plea is that we do not confuse the two.

Some time ago on these threads I got into a wonderfully enlightening wrangle about Danny Deutsch's finding insult in Ann Coulter's remarks about Christianity believing that it "perfects" either Jews or the Jewish faith. Of course Ann should express that belief if that is her conviction. What Deutsch is concerned about is a jihad resulting from people acting on that conviction but he frames his objection as one of arrogance on Coulter's part. The confusion can start from either side.

I make the point that to believe Christianity perfects Judaism comes from a belief that Christianity is the one true religion. That belief is no more "arrogant" than the belief by Jews that it is not, that theirs a is a unique and special claim on the truth.

The experience of the Holocaust of the 20th century is so repugnant that we are repelled by a vigorous affirmation of our beliefs and our faith. The judgment should be withheld to oppose political action and active intolerance.