662
CALVIN IN AMERICA
The Puritan New England Experiment
An Incredible Opportunity
It's not every day that you are given the opportunity to put your religion and your dreams to the test in a completely new land with no law but your own. When the Puritans arrived in what would become 'New England' they were able to put their Calvinism into operation without fear of molestation from a hostile Catholic Church or from secular state authorities. John Calvin had had a go when he established an autocratic society in Geneva, in French-speaking Switzerland. But he did so in the midst of an already very old civilisation. America was somethying entirely different, barren of civilisation or anything comparible to the European experience, a virgin land, on which to experiment with a new Protestant Zion.
Two Other American Experiments
Only Brigham Young was able to attempt anything comparable when he settled Utah and the surrounding territories in the mid 1800's two centuries after the Puritans. By that time, though, the United States was already underway and expanding rapidly westwards not far behind the new State of Deseret, the short-lived Mormon Utopia. They too had an opportunity to experiment and try out their founder Joseph Smith's dream. We can be glad it failed for a number of reasons I won't go into here. There were other smaller experiments like the radical Oneida Community, which practiced sexual communism and mercifully did not survive either though it lasted 40 years in all.
The World Changed Them
The Calvinist experiment didn't result in what those 17th century Puritans had hoped for either though it lasted a lot longer. The world - in this case, the American reality - changed both Mormonism and Puritan Calvinism just as it has always done to every other religious attempt at building a Utopia.
Grand Hopes and Designs
Those earliest Puritans were zionists (not the modern Israeli variety), perfectionists, philanthropists and transplanters - they were 'transplanters' in that they brought with them the ways of the Old World. They had grand plans and purposes but the New World disrupted all of these. And like so much of human planning, things rarely turn out in the way we expect or would like.
Why I am Sharing These Things
I suppose I should explain why I am writing this essay while I am away from my regular ministry on other business. Firstly, being in my autumn years, which may suddenly become my winter ones because of multiple health issues that are life-threatening, I want to pause and reflect on a number of things. Sixty-plus years of experience qualifies and justifies me in doing so, I think, given that my own life - my dreams, hopes and aspirations - has turned out very differently from what I had envisaged or planned.
My Own Utopian Quest
I can relate to the enthusiasm and idealism of those Puritan utopians because I was once brimming with that myself. Mind you, I am not sure what I would have done with a 'Massachusetts Bay' had I even been given one. And though I sought for one, I never did find it - the land was already taken. And now I am too advanced in years and poor in health to be able to ever carry out such a venture. My own zealous quest burned me well and truly out because like the Puritans and others, I was too early on the scene and was naïve about the world. So I desire to warn believers about the many mistakes I have made: premature zeal, presumptuousness, and naïvité about human nature and the world.
The Puritans and the American Sense of Destiny
Those first English Puritans of 1630 under John Winthrop sought to build a City upon a Hill and unbeknown to him, created what Americans regard as their 'sense of destiny' which, had the Calvinists prevailed, would, I am quite sure, have become fanatical and utopian. Yahweh intervened to prevent that and used these utopians in a way they had never dreamed of or planned. That fanatical utopianism, transferred to secular capitalism and republicanism, is still there but it's gradually dying out now as both America (for the first time) and Europe (for the second) hurtle toward the totalitarian socialist big-government abyss.
A Calvinist Paradise in the New World
Those early Puritans, like modern Calvinists, were a people convinced beyond all doubt they were on the right track with the one-and-only true Religion and holy ordinances. They were convinced, like their modern descendants, of whom Spurgeon was probably the foremost and most successful exponent, that Calvinism was the Besorah (Gospel), and that the Besorah (Gospel) was Calvinism, and because they believed that, they were absolutely sure they would prevail and build Paradise in the New World. Clearly, Yahweh had other plans.
The Oxford Martyrs
Between 1983 and 1987 I was a keen student of the Bible League Quarterly, a magazine devoted to Puritanism produced at Larkill House in Abingdon near when I lived in Oxford. I have learned much of value about discipleship and holiness over the years from the Puritans.
Indeed, just down the road from where I lived in Oxford, in Broad Street, is the Martyrs' Memorial where Thomas Cranmer (Archbishop of Canterbury), Nicholas Ridley, and Hugh Latimer, all prelates of the Church of England, were burned at the stake in 1555 (Cranmer a year later in 1556) because they opposed the errors of the Papacy.
My Two Sacred Sites in Oxford
This was, and still is, to me one of Oxford's two most sacred sites, the other being the University Church of St.Mary the Virgin, the official church of the University which I attended (at University College), where the three martyrs were tried and condemned by the Catholic Church. It was at the altar of this church, on my knees, that I entered a sacred covenant with Elohim (God) to search for the emet (truth) and not rest until I had found it, a vow I fulfilled, and continue to fulfil to the best of my ability, to this day. Oxford is rich in history but its greatest witness is to my mind these three Anglican martyrs, honoured by Puritans, of whom it was said by James Collier of St.Ebbe's (Oxford) in an 1841-3 poem:
"Here where the souls of martyrs rose sublime
I wondering tread, and with a weary sight
Gaze on the day-spring through the dusky night."
The Impact of Puritanism on My Life
So Puritanism has had a major impact on my life, more than I at first realised. So I treat it with considerable respect even if I do not obviously agree with any of the Five Points of Calvinism. It is a particularly austere form of Christianity with a view of the love Elohim (God) that I find contradicted by the life and teachings of Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). I have more in common with Methodism, also an Oxford movement (18th century) but with strong American connections, which was a methodical and Arminian view of Anglicanism. With Charles Wesley who wrote in his diary while in Georgia, I can testify:
"I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death."
Both the Puritans and Methodists are very much Scripture-centred, as I am, and always will be.
Applied Puritan Theology
The 17th century New England Puritans were, as Puritans still are today, theology-minded: the doctrines of the Fall of Man, of Sin, of Salvation, Predestination, Election, and Conversion were their food and drink. And though these articles of belief were central, what they were really interested in was applying this theology to everyday life, and especially within society. They wanted to recreate the old biblical Zion but in a New Covenant setting. Puritan New England was an experiment in applied theology.
Puritan America and Israelite Canaan
Once they got to the New World and settled there, their interest in the finer points of theology soon vapourised as they faced daily threats to their very existence. 17th century America was a savage place. They were't taking over a pre-existent civilisation as the Israelites had done - the Caanite agriculture, irrigation, and settlements they inherited were already highly developped. Canaan was a highly advanced land for the time. But in America the Puritans had to start from scratch and almost didn't make it on account of the numerous hardships they faced. Many died. Their communistic-type economy soon failed too, based on the New Testament philosophy, whereby "all the believers were together and had everything in common" (Acts 2:44, NIV). They did not possess the anointing or right spirit for that Order and its being forced on them soon quenched the early enthusiasm with which they had arrived. They weren't anywhere near ready for that level of cooperation. In the end the Puritans returned to 'everyman for himself' which has more or less been the philosophy of old conservative America ever since.
Theological Stagnation in America
In 200 years they hardly produced any important work of speculative theology - they were in the wrong place for that. You don't do speculative theology 'on the frontier' because you don't have the time or inclination - you're too busy surviving! All the great theologising of that era took place in Europe - in Switzerland under John Calvin, in Holland under William Ames and in England under the Cromwellians - where conditions were more conducive to such activity. The environment is an important factor in such things. Yet there was one exception in the person of Roger Williams but then he wasn't part of that mainstream Puritan/Calvinistic 'orthodoxy' anyway.
Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening
Not for two centuries did Massachusetts Bay produce a major figure in theology - Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), the 18th century revivalist preacher, theologian and philosopher, a Congregationalist who played an important part in the 'First Great Awakening' (1730's-1740s) - but by then Puritanism was all but dead. Edwards was part of that movement which formed a common evangelical identity along with George Whitefield and John Wesley. One effect of the Great Awakening was that it caused the Congregationalist and Presbyterian Churches to split whilst strengthening the Methodists and Baptists. Not surprisingly, the Awakening had almost no impact on the Quakers, Lutherans, Catholics and other non-Protestants. Messianic Evangelicals definitely associate themselves with that historical movement, another reason we have ties to the Baptists.
The Baptist Connection
It was why in Oxford I attended Woodstock Road Baptist Church for a while, practically a stone's throw from where I lived in Summertown, while I was transitioning out of the Restoration Movement and into the calling Yahweh had placed on me in 1984. It's just as well as a lot of my relatives in America are Baptists...very hard-headed Calvinist and King James Version-Only folks, many of whom think non-Calvinists like myself are either not saved or 'barely saved'. When I offered a copy of the New Revised Standard Version to one relative for his library he nearly had a cow but eventually admitted to me that he bought other versions to try and make sense of his King James Bible...but he still didn't want an NRSV! (I think he preferred the NIV as his 'explanatory' text). Arminians usually have to extend a lot more grace to Calvinists than Calvinists do to Arminians, ironic, really, as Calvinists claim to be 'into grace' big-time...at least theologically. You have to smile at the silly things that divide us sometimes.
Power, Not Theology
So back to 17th century colonial America. Such disputes as did occur in early New England were not, therefore, theological. The Puritans were more interested in power - how the interests of the different classes should be represented in the community, who should be governor, and so forth. The struggles were all about the prestige of the rulers. This was not a Torah-based society even though it claimed to be a biblcially-oriented one and rebuked 'lawless' Christians. There was no Jubillee Year principle in operation - the thought of redistributing wealth after 50 years, once the communistic system had failed and they had put their hand to capitalism, would probably have appalled them - so they quarrelled over institutions instead.
John Milton and the Puritans of Cromwellian England
Across the Atlantic Ocean in England, meanwhile, Puritans like the poet, polemicist and man of letters, John Milton (1608-1674), famous for his epic poem, Paradise Lost, who became an important figure under Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), were discussing the fine points of their theory: What was the true nature of liberty? When should a true Puritan resist a corrupt civil government? When should diversity be tolerated? Between 1647 and 1649 even the officers in Cromwell's Puritan army, who were not professional intellectuals but 'men of action', debated such things, yet even they stopped to argue the theory of revolution and the philosophy of sovereignty. How very different they were from the American Puritans who lived in a completely different world. Oliver Cromwell himself, who became the Lord Protector of the English Republic from 1653 until his death in 1658 and was regarded by many as a kind of English 'Moses', took a very tolerant attitude toward the Protestant sects of his day.
English Puritanism and Toleration of Sects
It need not be supposed that the American Puritans had one single unified doctrine. There were Presbyterians, Independents and Separatists (who regarded the Anglican Church as completely apostate), Levelers (who believed in equal natural rights) and Millennarians (who believed the world was so corrupt it was about to be destroyed). Which of these lay at the centre of Puritanism in England is hard to say. But England was different to America. The Puritans in the former knew full well that any community they built in England would have to find place for the dozens of sects that already existed - from Quakers to Catholics - who had made England their home. Not surprisingly, English Puritan literature in the 17th century sparkled with polemics.
Which Would You Choose?
Armed with a knowledge of history, I think it is great fun going back in time and deciding which of the various views I would have embraced. Would I have followed Luther or stuck with the Pope? Would I have followed the Methodists or stuck with the Anglicans? Would I have chosen the Baptists over the Methodists? And if Baptist, would I have chosen Calvinist or Arminian Baptist theology? Such quizes, when you know some history and theology, are quite revealing, especially when you ask yourself 'Why?' After all, you might have been born in the 17th century in which case there would have been a limited range of choices, depending what country you were in. So, imagine you're a Puritan living in the 17th century - given the choice, where would you have chosen to live - England or America? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, you had a crystal ball and could look into the future to see how history would unfold. Would you have prefered speculative theological discourse and tolerance of sects, or the dangers of the frontier and a very uniform, conservative, intolerant theology? Into which would you have prefered to expend your life and energy, knowing what the future would bring?
End of the Puritan Theocracies in England and New England
To help you make your choice, assuming you even wanted to, lets go back to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. As you will see, they were not at all like modern Amercians, in case, if you are a US citizen, you are tempted to play the patriotic card. The New England Puritans were orthodox and rigidly conformist, at least in the first generation. Like Calvin's Geneva, dissent was not permitted, though unlike his dictatorship, the Americans didn't burn heretics at the stake, though they did execute witches, as also in Europe. If you, as a Puritan, disagreeed in some point of doctrine or practice, you simply left the community and started another colony further away. But if you were a non-believer, and dabbling in the occult, you took your life in your hands. Indeed, the Salem witchcraft trials of 1692 arguably broke the back of the Puritan theocracy in New England. By then a new merchant class had arisen who were not very religious and disliked the Puritans. Indeed the death of Cromwell in England and the restoration of the monarchy along with the hegemony of the Church of England, had resulted in a major decline in spirituality nationwide. The era of protestant theocracies was over.
Defending Orthodoxy and Modern Equivalents
Backtrack 60 years and to America. In 1637 the General Court passed an order prohibiting anyone from settling within the colony without first having their Puritan orthodoxy approved by the magistrates. The leader, John Winthrop, was bold and clear in defence of that order. To the Puritan way of thinking, why shouldn't they exclude dangerous men, or men with dangerous thoughts? Where do you draw the line? Even as I wrire, such a debate is going on in Europe and America right now, as to whether or not to exclude those of a certain belief system whose lifestyle includes head-chopping, murder and rape. Humans will always ask themselves this question: how liberal and tolerant dare we be? Shall we be liberal or conservative about it? This is a huge dilemma. America's and Europe's left-wing politicians want to be liberal but they are creating a very unstable and dangerous social climate indeed, and people are rising up against it. Indeed Europe today is coming to the boil.
Maintaining Integrity of Vision
This is really one of the questions I want to raise today, and as will become apparent, in a man-made system there are no readily available answers because people will always draw the line in different places. Do we tolerate intolerance? Do we tolerate people with views that would endanger life and limb? And if we are about building a 'Zion', as the American Puritans were, how do we imagine things will be run differently in the Millennium when Yah'shua (Jesus) returns? And if we are to establish communities of refuge with people who believe as we do, as we wait for Messiah to return, where should we draw the boundaries? What about the theological disagreements within in our own spiritual house? How much diversity can be tolerated in order to maintain the integrity of our project - our 'vision'?
The Right to Exclude
First of all we have to be agreed that a community formed by the free consent of its members should have the right to exclude dangerous men, whether the danger comes from physical or spiritual harm. That should go without saying but liberals would likely not agree. Society has been conditioned to tolerate both the insane and the self-destructive. But excluding the physical harmful is a lot easier than excluding those with ideas which are harmful, especially if it is not clear what those ideas will eventually lead to.
Separate Mutually-Respecting Organisations
Church and messianic assemblies have long reserved the right to exclude or excommuniate those who do not meet the mutually agreed standards of a community. If this is true of clubs, political parties, and other organisations, then it must be true of religious bodies too. It would be insane for the American Democratic Party to tolerate members with Republican viewpoints just as it would insane for a Protestant Sola Scriptura Church to tolerate a member with Catholic views that believe Tradition and Papal Authority are equally important. The best way to get on is to be in different organisations with separate rules respecting each other's right to exist. Messianic Evangelicals have good relations with lots of groups precisely because we know where our boundaries are. We have strict rules for our own people but we're not isolationists and want to get on with other believers.
Rules of Association, Bylaws and Constitutions
Accordingly many, like ourselves, have bylaws or a constitution which those voluntarily associating with us are expected to abide or otherwise leave. The freedom to join a particular group without harrassment also implies the freedom to leave it without harrassment in a truly free society, but it also includes the right of that free association to expell those who refuse to comply with its rules of association while trying to remain. Anything else always leads to anarchy, which has always been a goal of the Enemy.
The Day I Got Excommunicated
Though it was a trauma for me at the time, I was once excommunicated from a church for refusing to abide its current doctrine and practice. I did so on the basis of the fact that they had falsely mispresented their history in order to justify the changes they had made. Nevertheless they were perfectly entitled to do what they did. I freely joined that church but refused to abide by what it then stood for. So I don't regret what they did, even if my pride was injured at the time for not prevailing and even though I thought they treated me in an unloving and unfair, dishonest way. It should always be possible to part amicably if you claim to have the same Saviour. Looking back, my excommunication was providential. And though no one likes to be rejected or excluded, it freed me to purse the path Yahweh had called me to. Most of all, one is deeply saddened by the loss of friends.
The Preciousness of Liberty
But that is life. And this is what life down here on earth is like and there's nothing you can do about it. There is a price that comes with the freedom of choice, and it's such a precious thing. And only a handful of nations, including, and especially England and America, have really understood the pricelessness of that liberty which they possess, until now. We are living in days where that freedom of choice is under serious threat. If it goes, we shall enter an era of darkness all over again, as indeed the Bible prophesies.
Voluntary Conformity
As a lover of freedom, as well as a lover of conformity within the borders of a free association, I applaud what the 17th century American Puritans did, even if I do not agree with some of their doctrines and practices. And here is a truth that must be spoken loudly: you cannot muster the energy required to build something strong and enduring if you focus on doubts and insist on your 'rights' to dissent within a group that whose rules you have agreed to conform to. It's impossible. Yet you must have the freedom to dissent within the wider society in which you live provided you understand that it will almost certainly require you to leave, unless, of course, you belong to such a liberal organisation like the modern Church of England which is the home of atheists, agnostics, druids, and committed evangelicals. The thing is, what kind of fellowship or institution do you want to be a part of, if any? That is choice we must all make quite early on. Whatever you choose, you have to agree to certain limitations, just as you must in marriage.
Birthing Denominations
My first truly free ecclesiastical commitment was to an authoritarian, conformist church. It had energy. It had drive. I was fired up for at least the first two of my three-year membership there. Hurt by its blindness, I left it for a more liberal church. At first I enjoyed the 'free air' of tolerance in the new fellowship - and it really was very tolerant of me even though my beliefs didn't exactly gel with theirs. But in the end I was starved for truth and restricted in what I could teach and preach there. I needed the fire that only a conservative church which believed in true doctrine and the spiritual gifts can give. After I left the liberal church, I did what so many believers do who have been through such an experience: I started my own. Which is what the Anglicans, Lutherans, Puritans, Methodists, Baptists and others have all done. That's how they too came into being. And, of course, all claimed it was Yahweh's doing - it was His church that He established...or re-established, in their minds.
Dilemmas and Contradictions in the World
Do you see the dilemma and the contradictions in such a spiritual modus operandi? And yet history does testify that Elohim (God) works through such institutions, however transientory they may be in terms of the vast stretch of time that is earth's history. But this reality is not automatically apparent. It takes a lifetime of experience in order to see it. We are idealistic when we are younger but become more realistic as we get older. Then we start asking different questions, especially when we start seeing similar processes in different institutions like secular politics. And, of course, they are all mixed together anyway. Everything is connected in some way or another, however much you try to hide yourself away on some remote part of the globe, whether it be Massachusetts Bay, Utah, Geneva, Rome, Constantinople or even Jerusalem. Wherever you go, the same human problems will follow you. And when you gather people together, those problems get compounded. But in such a challenging mix, things can start happening - useful things - but they will not be pain-free. If you're trying to avoid pain, then you need to buy a cave and go and live there alone, only there you will encounter a different kind of pain, perhaps even a worse kind, and that's called loneliness.
The High Hopes and Dreams of Any First Generation
So what did those first New Englanders hope to accomplish by their experiment? They wanted to see what their particular brand of 'orthodoxy' - in this case, 'Calvinism' - could accomplish, a noble aspiration. They wanted to be free of the theological bickering of the Old World but didn't understand that 'moving' house, let alone moving to a new continent, would not fix that particular problem in the long-term. Yet the first generation was full of dreams and hopes, as the first generation of any new labour is, until reality finally sunk in. And so Nathaniel Ward of the Massachusetts Bay Colony would declare:
"I dare take upon me, to be the Herald of New England so far, as to proclaim to the world, in the name of our Colony, that all Familists, Antinomians, Anabaptists, and other Enthusiasts, shall have free Liberty to keep away from us, and such will come to be gone as fast as they can, the sooner the better."
The World System Takes Over
Ironic, isn't it? Firstly, the world didn't care what they did - it wasn't remotely interested, at first. The world was content to let those Puritan colonists carve something out in the wilderness by their own sweat and with their own blood. The world isn't interested in Christian achievement or labour, but in any fruit of such labour that it may seize and parasitise. What the world wants to do is to overrun, control and exploit such 'blood- and sweat-soaked labour'. It loves to take from the honest by dishonest means and then devour it.
The Exploitation of the USA
The the United States of America was started by the Puritans and then hijacked by "enemies of the cross" (Phil.3:18). Only later did the Illuminati wolves build Washington DC [1], a den of occult-minded thieves and murderers, a city laid out in such a way as to honour Lucifer, from which to rule not only the territories carved out by the Puritans, but in conjunction with the City of London and with the Vatican, the entire world. It is this wicked Trio, with its globalist agenda, that seeks the planet's subversion and ruin. It has done so by many layers of devious means by pretending to be what it is not, whipping up nationalistic and patriotic sentiments which ever was the excuse of blaggards and swindlers in their quest to create something allegedly 'better'. They are doing it even more vocally today as a parasitic political élite seeks to overthrow, by open violence now, such liberty as still remains in order to found a new Feudalism over which they can be its lords, the very feudalism that the 17th century Puritans were themselves fleeing from in the Old World.
The Unwelcome Truth All Must Learn
So here is an unwelcome truth that all eventually learn, though sadly too late as a rule, when life's mortal span is near its end for them. And it is this: wherever you go to try and escape from it, the world will catch up with you, and you have to deal with it and all its rude unpleasentness and downright evil, except in one instance, and I speak of the Second Exodus, the Judgments of Yahweh, and the Final Gathering, which three notes this ministry has played consistently and in harmony with the high octave which is our witness of the Salvation of Messiah. This is my generation's witness. Those American Puritans wished to build something half a millennium ahead of its time, its incomplete and sometimes erroneous Calvinistic doctrines notwithstanding, so it was bound to fail, but not because it's intention was not good. Unfortunately, we are not very good with our timing as a rule. Yahweh will honour those righteous intentions and most certainly uses them for other purposes thet could not even dream of.
What We Can Learn From the Puritans
And now an important principle we can learn from those early pioneers: because the Puritans kept their community orthodox, focused and uniform, they were extremely successful for a generation. The industriousness that has been the trademark of America has Purtitan, Calvinistic roots. We see the same kind of successes worked out in England, Scotland, Germany, Sweden, and Holland who were all powerful movers in the Protestant Reformation.
American Puritanism's Weakness
But the American Puritans paid a price - they sterilised speculative thought and effectively neutered themselves. Calvinism is very dogmatic and inflexible. I had a Scottish uncle, a former rubber plantation manager in Malaya, who was such a Calvinist. A very decent, hard-working man, who showed me great kindness and to whom I owe an enormous debt in my own development, a man whom I loved and respected dearly. He was as a second father to me. As a Japanese prisoner-of-war who nearly died on the infamous Burma railway, like my Scottish godfather whose name Morris I bear, he knew tragedy but came out the stronger for it. His first wife perished as the result of her incarceration in a Japanese concentration camp in what is now Indonesia, his second wife becoming a second mother to me. That kind of hard-working, highly moral and ethical Calvinist I respect, just as I have always respected Calvinists like John Knox precisely because of the positive, industrious qualities my uncle taught me. He was a good organiser. He encouraged me to be systematic and scientific in my approach to things. Whether he would have fared well in 17th century Massachusetts or England, though, I cannot rightly say.
The Benefits of Boundless Physical Space
I am coming, by small increments, to what I consider to be a very important point about life, so please bear with me. It has taken me nigh on 64 years to learn it so I think it to be an order of wisdom that will benefit any who may not yet have learned it. The first American Puritans had an advantage which we are unlikely to ever see again, except the calamity of war or other calamity create it for us again: they had boundless physical space. And as I said earlier, dissent simply caused a new sect and colony to be raised at some other location other than Massachusetts Bay. When there is lots of space, there is no need to accommodate dissenting views - you can just pack your bags, get in your buggy, and plonk yourself somewhere else. I guess that's one reason I like Sweden so much - there is lots of open space here. The problem, though, is it isn't as fertile as New England - it's mostly rock, a reason so many emigrants left Sweden for the New World. Well, the New World is already taken, and not always honourably, as the natives of that land and their supporters are reminding us of broken treaties and stolen land.
Anne Hutchinson Makes the Break
So when Anne Hutchinson and her followers caused trouble by their heterodox views and unauthorised evening meetings, she was tried and 'excommunicated' by the Colony. So what did she do? She pulled up her roots and went and replanted herself elsewhere, travelling viâ Providence and so to an island in the Naragansett Bay which she and her husband had bought from the Indians.
The Banishment of Roger Williams
And when Roger Williams created a movement within the Massachusetts Bay Colony, he was banished in October 1635. Roger Williams wanted to challenge the Colony's theology but was only able to effectively do so when he at length sailed to England, teamed up with John Milton, and wrote his controversial books. He died in poverty, as so many who lift a prophetic voice must, an outcast from the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and became in the minds of the latter a by-word of heterodoxy and rebellion. The Remnant must be willing to bear that stigma.
Afraid to Fail
Why did the Massachusetts Bay Colony ultimately fail? Because it did not understand history or the world, and if you are to live succesfully on this planet, as you must, once the big empty spaces start filling up with people from every kind of background and belief system that the world can invent, than you HAVE to develop a theory of toleration, no matter how zealous you may be for biblical emet (truth). You have to learn to live together, and get along with, others who to you may seem, or actually be, heterodox. Why didn't those American Puritans learn tolerance like their English counterparts? Because of raw FEAR - they were afraid if they became tolerant, their brand of religion would cease to exist. They were afraid that attempts to suppress error would inevitably suppress emet (truth), about which they were absolutely right, even if you may dispute whether they had the whole emet (truth) or not. They were afraid to become irrelevant. They were afraid to fail. And with that I most certainly resonate.
When Tyranny Rides Roughshod Over Conscience
Therein lies the problem: everyone at some time or another thinks that their version of 'truth' has to be preserved by force, from the Marxist to the Liberal to the Conservative, from the Catholic to the Protestant. Where, then, do you draw the line? has been the agonising question of the ages. What, as Pilate asked, is truth? (Jn.18:38) And who is to establish and maintain it? And how? And even if you agree with me that the Bible is the emet (truth), whose interpretation is the one that shall be protected by force? Who shall decide which interpretation merits the use of force? And then there is another, related fear which is the fruit of any kind of force: it is the creation of tyranny over conscience.
Of Truth and Liberty
One English pamphleteer of the time, in 1645 to be exact, expresses the dilemma succintly:
"I know there is but one truth but this truth cannot be so easily brought forth without this liberty [of conscience]; and a general restraint, though intended but for errors, yet through the unskilfulness of men, may fall upon the truth. And better many errors of some kind suffered than one useful truth be obstructed or destroyed."
A Puritan Uses Titus 3:10
That is a very big and important question, one the American Puritans did not trouble themselves with, for the reasons already given. Contrast this with the words of John Cotton in the Massachusetts Bay Colony (which I am rendering into modern English for the sake of clarity):
"The apostle directs in Titus 3:10 ("Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him" - Titus 3:10, NIV), and gives the reason, that in fundamental and principal points of Doctrine and Worship, the Word of God in such things is so clear, that he cannot but be convinced in Conscience of the dangerous error of his way, after once or twice being admonished, wisely and faithfully dispensed. And then if any one persist, it is not out of Conscience, but against his Conscience, as the apostle says in verse 11 ("You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned"). He is subverted and sins, being condemned by himself, that is, over his own conscience. So that if such a man after such admonition shall still persist in the error of his way, and be therefore punished, he is not persecuted for Cause of Conscience, but for sinning against his own conscience."
A Question of Divisiveness
How this scripture (Titus 3:10) has been abused over the centuries! Almost every denomination had used it to expell those who did not agree with their doctrines. Of course, the key word is "divisive", one who divides or causes division. What issues can one legitimately - in Messiah's eyes, as opposed to disagreeing with a denominational position - be expelled for? Should Calvinists expell Arminians, and vice versa? Or is the issue more in the way we disagree? I have often told my children, once they have started maturing and assuming responsibility in their life, that they are entitled to disagree with me provided they do so in a respectful way. 'It's not what you say but how you say it'. But let's unpack this scripture further by getting more context and finding out more about the nature of the controversy - the previous verse says:
"Avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissentions, and quarrels about the Torah, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful: he is self-condemned" (Tit.3:9-10, ESV).
The Issue is One of Purity and Behaviour
The context here is the many false teachers, rabbinical Jewish converts, on the Greek island of Crete who for "sordid gain" (Tit.1:11, NRSV) were demanding that gentile converts be circumcised (Tit.1:10) and to heed their "Jewish myths" and man-made commandments (v.14, NRSV) - the so-called 'Oral Law' - which would become that huge collection of speculative and often contradictory teachings called the Talmud. Paul then makes it clear exactly what the excommunicatable sin was:
"To the pure, all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure. They profess to to know Elohim (God), but they deny Him by their actions (behaviour). They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work" (vv.15-16, NRSV).
The Problem with Modern Calvinists
Reading through modern Calvinist commentaries like John MacArthur's you get the impression that the sin of those causing dissention or division was something entirely different, like demanding that believers obey the Torah, "a view that assaulted the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone" [2]. In other words, the modern Calvinist teaches (and not a few other Protestants with them, I might add), that if you obey the Torah (Law) - the mitzvot (commandments) - that makes you a legalist because you are denying the doctrine of 'justification by grace through faith'.
What Did the First Century Jews Believe About Salvation?
But that assumes, quite falsely, that Jews of the 1st century AD believed that they could earn their salvation through obedience to the Torah, something modern historians have now conclusively proved is wrong, thus removing one of the undergirding structures of Reformation theology. That is not what 1st century Jews believed and this is not what most Messianics like ourselves believe today either.
The Reasons We Obey Torah are Not Legalistic
When we say we must obey the Torah is is not to be saved but because we are already saved through trusting in the undeserved loving kindness of Yahweh demonstrated through the cross which practically washes away our sin and guilt. Is this not a little ironic given the 17th century American Puritan criticism of "antinomians" or literally 'anti-law' people which I quoted earlier? The Calvinistic Puritans, at least, always insisted on holiness and commandment-keeping, as is right, a reason I respect them, even if they did pick and choose what to obey as all holiness Christians do.
The Excommunication Issue is About Practice and Behaviour
Needless to say, in respect of the excommunication passage, the subject material of Paul's letter to Titus is not about justification by emunah (faith) vs. justification by works, even if he does mention justification, but the inseparable link between faith and practice, belief and behaviour. Paul's issue, aside from doctrinal problems associated with circumcision (not required under the New Covenant, now being replaced by baptism), Jewish myths (all their apocryphal and pseudepigraphical material), and ritul purity (the extra non-biblical rules of the Rabbis), was that the converts from rabbinical Judaism were not living lives of godliness flowing out of the Besorah (Gospel) but instead lived it in a way that proved that they did not know Elohim (God) (Tit.1:16).
The Problem was a Cretan One
This false teaching, which in some way allowed for or encouraged ungodliness, would have particularly found a welcome home in Crete which was proverbial in the ancient world for immorality, much as San Francisco, California - or Miami, Florida - are moral cesspools in today's in America. What did their own nevi'im (prophets) say about Cretans? "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons" (Tit.1:12, NIV). That changes the picture somewhat, doesn't it? We are given a portal through which we can see what the local conditions were like. So the issue, as so often resurfaces in others of Paul's epistles, is one of sexual immorality and related issues. That is why Paul goes to great lengths to tell his co-worker Titus the importance of proper Christian living for new believers in an immoral milieu (Tit.2:1-10; 3:1-2).
The Truly Regenerated are Not Antinomian
Paul was not telling Titus to excommunicate those who did not follow something equivalent to the Five Points of Calvinism or deep Pauline theological concepts like justification and sanctification. This instruction was practical. There is nothing that will more quickly destroy a congregation than promiscuity allowed to run unchecked, which would have been a constant pressure from the surrounding Cretan culture, just as it is in our own in the cities especially. This was a major problem in all cosmopolitan Greek congregations like those in Corinth (1 Cor.1:5; 6:13,18; 10:8), Galatia (Gal.5:19), Ephesus (Eph.5:3), Colossae (Col.3:5), Thessalonica (1 Thes.4:3) and doubtless elsewhere too. Yes, Paul does indeed speak of justification by grace (Tit.3:4-7) but it is precisely those who are justified by grace who do not commit the aforementioned sins which warranted excommunication. Those who are truly saved by grace are regenerated, transformed within, born-again, and cannot commit such immorality because it is not in their new nature. They are by nature repulsed by antinomianism (Torahlessness/lawlessness) and love to live the Torah but now victoriously in the new resurrection power of Messiah.
What if a Wesley Had Arisen in Massachusetts?
I don't know exactly what the early New England Puritans excommunicated people for as I don't know enough about the history, but from what I have read, it seems Massachusetts Bay colonists were expelled for any deviation from Puritan orthodoxy, whether theological or moral. Thus if someone like one of the Wesley brothers had arisen amongst them preaching Methodism, they would undoubtedly have been expelled for not being 'orthodox', i.e. for not being a Calvinist and for not being a Puritan.
An Orthodoxy Without Competitors
The leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony enjoyed the luxury, which was no longer feasible in 17th century England or today, for that matter, of promoting a pure and simple orthodoxy in an environment with few to no competitors. And by 'orthodoxy' I do, of course, mean their own version or interpretation of it - as they saw it. Is that not every denomination's secret dream? Wouldn't every Baptist secretly wish all Christians were Baptists? Or every Adventist that all Christians were Seventh-Day Adventists? Or every Messianic that all believers were Torah-observant Messianics like themselves? Of course. None of us likes to admit the Body of Messiah is hopelessly divided into denominations who contradict one another. This is something that those hostile to Christianity exploit, of course, proving in their minds, that our emunah (faith) is based on false claims. So a couple of questions I want you to keep in the back of your minds are these: why has Yahweh allowed this set-up on earth? And what is it down here that actually matters the most?
A False Dichotomy?
I have to say that I have, in my life, been in both positions and see the virtues of both maintaining denominational 'orthodoxy' (American Puritans) and encouraging free enquirey (English Puritans), however oppsed the two may appear to be to each other. On the one hand, we must not allow our beliefs to become fossilised because our emunah (faith) is supposed to be like a living organism that must have the freedom to breathe. On the other hand, wearing a corset of orthodoxy that is too tight will in the end injure and suffocate us. Believers bounce between these two positions as 'conservative' and 'liberal' and in so doing create a false dichotomy. Or do they?
Orthodoxy vs. Liberty
Here is the dilemma: Liberty leads to creative thinking which beyond a certain point can lead to liberalism, anarchy and apostacy. Set against that, an imposed Orthodoxy and Conformity will lead to a healthy conservatism, industriousness and fiery resolve for evangelism but beyond a certain point will lead to suffocation and spiritual fossilisation. It is right to "test everything" but it's also right to passionately "hold on to the good" (1 Thes.5:21, NIV) provided it is done in the right way - with humility and love. All too often I encounter younger believers who, passionately believing themselves to be right, are quick to judge those who differ from them in doctrine, demanding 'repentance', who then either verbally abuse or shun those they criticise when it is not given to them. I remember years ago when a young man from Tektonics decided, in his zeal, to rip this ministry apart, thinking himself to be superior to everyone else because he just 'knew' he was 'orthodox' and therefore 'right'. The cults are particulary quick to do this, the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons being notorious in this regard, but then, sadly, so are the anti-cultists at times. It's a human flaw.
Finding the Balance
So how is the Besorah (Gospel) to be lived out in terms of 'freedom of enquiry' and simultaneously 'maintaining orthodoxy'? What might have happened if those 17th century English and New England Puritans had been gathered together and deposited on an island? Would they have fought and excommuniced one another? My point is this: life in this world is, by definition, contradictory, and you are forced by circumstances and common sense (if you have any), to find a balance. The bottom line will always be LOVE in a contradictory world. I was once a Utopian, but no longer, because I discovered that all the utopias of history, whether secular, religious or a particular denomination of Christian, tend to be built on the dead bodies of dissenters who had nowhere else to go or who were not allowed to go to those places. Only true ahavah/agapé (love) and chesed (mercy) will, in fact, enable you to find the mid-point where you can balance these apparent contradictions. And without it, you will fail - I guarantee it. This skill, I maintain, is only realisable if you are fully dead to self and are fully relying on Yah'shua (Jesus) for everything.
One Exception
I make one exception as far as 'Utopia' is concerned, but I'm coming to that...
The Risks and Necessity of Gatherings
I am sharing this rather long message today because there is a movement of 'community builders' afoot amongst both Evangelicals and Messianics, those who want to gather groups of people together and separate them out from the world. That I strike a message of alarm may seem a little strange, if not downright hypcrotical, given I have preached a Final Gathering for decades, and still do. But I have always urged caution.
The Rebellious, the Partially Surrendered and the Surrendered
My only point is this: if this isn't truly Yahweh's project - which means, if you aren't authentically anointed by the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) to do this - then you're either going to become the author of a human disaster and tragedy, for which you will be accountable if you're the leader, or you will create something that will fizzle out of its own accord like the Puritan project in Masachussets, which Yahweh can, and will, turn for some other use. In the latter case, you will find that what Yahweh turns your work into is completely disjunctive with your original plans plans and dreams. In the first situation you are operating out of Yahweh's will. In the second, you are in His permissive will, but in neither are you actually operating in his absolute will. And if you're confused between the last two (some deny 'permissive will' even exists and I'll admit that's a tough philosophical issue), I would suggest that most of us operate in His permissive will for the pure and simple reason we are not completely surrendered and dead to self. And Yahweh does use all kinds - the rebellious, the partially surrendered and the fully surrendered. That's just reality.
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
This message is especially important for young people hearing or reading this. You see, the maturer English Puritans realised the importance of sharpening the distinctions between 'compulsive' and 'restrictive' powers in religion, between 'matters essential' and 'matters indifferent'. The New England Puritans were occupied with marking off the boundaries of their new towns, enforcing their criminal laws, and fighting the Indians. Their very orthodoxy strengthened their practical bent but also caused them to ultimately fail because it was their orthodoxy, and not Yahweh's. How much were they to blame? Who can say. We can only act based on what we know. We are not judged for our sins of ignorance even if there are always repercussions for them in this life - Yahweh may not judge us but the devil will certainly exploit any open doors we leave him in our ignorance.
Of Restorers, Moses-Men and Utopians
There is a reason why the Second Coming could not have taken place when our Christian forefathers wanted it to. Many things have to happen, and one of them is that first "the earth [must] be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Yahweh, as the waters cover the sea" (Hab.2:14, NIV) before any "restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21, NKJV) can take place. Many are the claimants to being the 'restorers' from the followers of the American Puritans, the followers of the Mormon 'prophet' Joseph Smith, and the followers of Alexander Campbell (whom the Mormons copied and who founded the Churches of Christ in America). There are many claiming to be 'restorers' today, particularly in the Messianic movement, and are claiming powers and rights invented in their own minds. And, yes, Yahweh is restoring His emet (truth) through multiple people, a little here and a little there, to make sure no one gets too puffed up with pride and suddenly claims to be a Moses-man, though some have made such claims and have fallen (like Joseph Smith), and are still making them and will eventually fall. Such, sadly, possessing one or two gifts, tend to get carried away with an inflated sense of their own importance and think they have many more gifts, anointings and certificates of authority than they actually do.
Whippersnappers Cannot Lead
Lots of things have to come together before we can have our Millennial Utopia but it cannot be the work of man. Remember, remember, too that "the man Moses was very meek (humble), above all the men which were upon the face of the earth" (Num.12:3, KJV). But he wasn't originally that way. He was a brash revolutionary type, deliberately killing an Egyptian taskmaster in defence of one of his people who didn't want his help, and was forced to flee for his life (Ex.2:11-14). He was 40 then with a lot still to learn. Moses had to go through that cleansing in Midian for 40 years of his own. There was a lot more refining to be done before he was ready for his calling, and Yahweh did not call him to lead the First Exodus until he was 80 years old (Ex.7:7). Yahweh does not call young, inexperienced and immature whippersnappers to lead a nation out of servitude unless they are well disciplined and submitted. They must first learn to "flee from youthful lusts" (2 Tim 2:22, NASU) which most, even Christian, are not willing to forego entirely as a rule, for "self control" is usually the one fruit of the Ruach (Spirit) the young usually have the greatest trouble with (Gal.25:22-23). Moses' successor, Joshua, is estimated to have been about 45 when he took over the leadership of Israel, but had proven himself faithful and obedient in all the years of the Exodus itself.
What Needs Restoring?
There's more that needs to be restored in any end-time work than doctrine, important though that is. In many ways, that's the 'easy' part - it's character-refinement that's the toughest. Restoring the divine image in man is the hardest but most important task of all.
The Inadvertant Founding of a Nation
As far as the American experience is concerned - and this really does only apply to America and perhaps to one or two other places, and should not be taken as a general formula that can still be used - the Massachusetts Bay Colony transcended theological occupation precisely because they had no doubts and allowed no dissent. Had they spent as much of their energy in debating with each other as did their English contemporaries, they might have lacked the single-mindedness needed to overcome the dark, unpredictable perils of the wilderness. They might, had they imitatated the English Puritans, have been praised as the precursors of modern liberalism (a dubious honour indeed), but at the same time they might never have helped found a nation, a nation which has ascended to become great in its own time but which has since descended into becoming a globalist-dominated instrument in empire-building and in the destruction of the very version of Christianity the Massachusetts Puritans sought to establish. Nothing in this world is permanent.
Wheat and Tares Living Together
I learn, from the story of America, and indeed other nations - and here is where a sense of history is so important - that in the world the tares have to be allowed to grow up amongst the wheat, as Yah'shua (Jesus) taught. The tares have to be left until the end before being gathered up and burned. Over-zealous Christians have sought to do that ahead of time and got blood on their hands because of it. The devil, of course, wants believers to suppress the tares in the free marketplace of ideas in the same way that he wants the tares to oppress the wheat, which they will do anyway. There is no ultimate 'safety' for the wheat in the temporal sense but there is the safety of a conscience directed by pure emet (truth) and ahavah (love).
The Need for Older and Wiser Mentors
Then the issue becomes - how can I know what the full emet (truth) is and when will I be mature enough to exercise a fully formed conscience? For so much of what passes as 'truth' and 'spirit' is really the fruit of a defiled or immature conscience. And that is why Yahweh has set things up in the Messianic Community (Church) the way He has. It's why children have parents as they are growing up, and it's why the local assembly (church) has maturer elders to teach the wisdom that age alone can bring. We absolutely need mentors. But what if those spiritual elders are teaching false tradition? Then, until Messiah returns and sets up His visible Kingdom in all its millennial perfection, you have the freedom to remove yourself from those elders or that assembly (church) and go elsewhere.
Winding Up
Men (and women) limit themselves principally by their own private aspirations and the demands of their dogma. When that self-imposed limitation begins to stifle them or to destroy personal relationships, then they need to sit back and carefully rethink those aspirations and dogmas. The chances are - and the 17th century American Puritans proved it - if they don't, they will lose more than they gain. Worse, they will lose the most important thing of all: their loving relationship with Yahweh and their relationships with each other. We cannot use Titus 3 as a cudgel to get our own way, however sincere we may be about our beliefs. Dogma is, in any case, fallible man's own finite approximation of the infinite. In the end, all you can do is to choose whether you are going to 'trust and obey' or not, all the while seeking for greater understanding.
The Fruit List and Its Attachments
In the end, we will be judged by the way we treated one another, and not by how accurately we managed to get our theology right (or wrong). The spiritual life speaks for itself and is beyond words anyway. The fruit of the Ruach (Spirit) is its own testimony, and in many ways, it is the ultimate and most important testimony. Theological judicial pontification is not on Paul's fruit list, but morality is definitely appended to it.
"The fruit of the Ruach (Spirit) is ahavah (love), simcha (joy), shalom (peace), patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Gal.5:22-23a, NIV).
Ivory Towers vs. Spiritual Regeneration
It is easy to put yourself in an ivory tower of self-righteous and to justify yourself on the bases of personal doings (works) and grand theological statements and memes - far too easy - but it is another thing to actually be, without being self-aware, what a regenerated soul actually is. Theology is important but it's not ultimately what we will be judged by. There are plenty of theologically-correct souls who are spiritually dead whose destination is not a happy place.
What Will You Have?
Being around like-minded souls who share the same 'orthodoxy' as yourself is easy. That is what the 17th century Massecusetts Bay colonists did, and excluded everyone else. Being around those who aren't likeminded, and who don't necessarily have the same view of orthodoxy, really tests who you really are and proves whether you are in Messiah or not. It reveals what is in you and what is not. The Puritans had to fail, all their excellent points notwithstanding, because the witness of Messiah was something grander than they had understood. The Puritans outlawed Christmas and backed their law up with the musket. They were right about Christmas but wrong in their attempt to regulate it by force outside their homes and assemblies. That's why Cromwell in England ultimately failed too. His suppressions led to a grand party of the flesh after his death because the people had been denied their free choice, something Calvinists don't like because they don't believe Yahweh has given them any. They were the 'chosen' whether they liked it or not and the rest were 'doomed' whether they chose to repent or not. It was enough for them not to be Calvinists to be damned.
Conclusion
We should, and must, have our own Constitution with our own theology, standards, covenants, and bylaws but we cannot limit ourselves to ourselves. The Bible is our narrative, it gives us the Anatomy of Tsiyon (Zion), but it can only point us to the Source of Chayim (Life) itself, showing us how to meet Him. But it is not itself that chayim (life). Yah'shua (Jesus) demands that we go to Him one by one, and then together as a Covenant-fellowship, and to thereafter as echad (one) to widen our circle of love. He does not want us attaching razor-blades or hatchets to to that book. If anyone is going to do any judging of souls outside our Covenant-circle, let Elohim (God) do it. So which will you be? A Bible-thumper or the Radiance of Messiah? May Yahweh's shalom (peace) and ahavah (love) be with you. Amen.
Which will you be? A Bible-thumper or the radiance of Messiah?
Endnotes
[1] See, for example, David Ovason, The Secret Architecture of Our Nation's Capital: The Masons and the Building of Washington, D.C. (Perennial, NY: 2002); Henry Makow, Illuminati 2: Deceit and Seduction (Silas Green, Winnipeg, Canada: 2010)
[2] John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary (Thomas Nelson, Nashville: 2005), pp.1825-1826)
Acknowledgements
[1] Daniel J.Boorstin, The Americans: The Colonial Experience (Vintage: 1958)
This page was created on 23 October 2018
Last updated on 23 October 2018
Copyright © 2018 1987-2018 NCAY - All Rights Reserved
