Good evening Robert! Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...
I previously wrote: > >All I am suggesting is that it didn't really > >go much further than New England. To which, you replied: > It did, in that 2nd wave I referred to above. That 2nd wave of the Great > Awakening is still with us today, although maybe I should number 3rd & 4th > waves beginning around 1900 and 1970, respectively. Other than the 7th Day > Adventists and a few other offshoots, the evangelists have long since made > peace with Christmas, but their other plantings came to fruition in the > form of liquor prohibition and the "Religious Right". Much of what I wrote earlier is couched upon historical Christian churches, which is one reason I singled out the hyper-Calvinists in New England. Calvinism, and historically-based Churches based upon traditional Calvinist theology qualify for that distinction in my judgement, as do Lutherans, Anglican, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic traditions, which all accept the three historical ecumenical creeds of Christendom. Much of what passes today, and within the last couple hundred years or so in America, as "evangelicals", do not necessarily fit into this historical context, at least in my judgement. So I guess that didn't bother me at the time I wrote earlier whether or not sub sects who however might hold onto some of the images of Christian history, since large segments of such don't or won't even subscribe to the historical creeds of Christendom. You are correct about the 'waves' thing, but in my judgement anyway there are a lot of other waves that might even be considered religious movements today, that don't necessarily fall under the Christian umbrella. Aside from the puritanical hyper-Calvinists of New England, where could you find religious laws passed prohibiting the celebration of Christmas particularly in 18th and 19th century America, both colonial and post colonial? In most cases, although I could be wrong, segments of Roman Catholics, Lutheran, Anglican and other historical groups certainly must have vigorously celebrated Christmas during this time period. True, it may have been frowned upon by the "evangelicals" and other sub sects derivative from historical Christianity, but I doubt Lutherans et al were necessarily under the scourge of legal abuse for celebrating Christmas in most cases. It can, and has been argued as well, that the atypical Puritanical mutation of Calvinism really didn't follow a theologically consistent orthodox Calvinist line, and certainly differed a great deal from historical mainstream Calvinist churches such as the Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian, and other Reformed groups, which is likely why they felt compelled to migrate to North America in the first place. There is a small caveat to that however. Some of the Puritanical brand of hyper-Calivinism did find its way in the above Reformed Churches and the mainstream Presbyterian churches in America, and this condition has prevailed at least into the mid-20th century. I can only think of a couple of examples today that still show a marked degree of influence from that mutation, that being some of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and to a lesser degree the Reformed Episcopal Church, both of which are extremely miner breakaway sects from the otherwise mainline denominations. I also wrote last time: > >At the same time, the official British government, certainly did not > >despise Christmas, as the Anglican Church put it in the Church > >calendar, just as the Roman Catholics had done before, as well as the > >Lutherans that migrated since had imported. Now you're stuck, or so > >it seems, with defending an idea that Calvinism was REALLY the REAL > >pre revolution and post revolution fashion of that time. > >I strongly doubt that that ever was the case. To which you replied: > You underestimate it. Some analysts if pressed to name a single "ism" that > makes us exceptional in the world would probably consider Calvinism the > defining trait of the USA to this day. I can agree with that only up to a certain point however. During the mid-19th century, after the US Civil War, Church historians were predicting that the Presbyterian Church in the USA would become the largest single denomination in America by the early to mid 20th century! At least at that time, the trend certainly pointed that way. History has shown that prediction to be a false one, and in fact, the combined merger of the northern and southern Presbyterian churches today into one church is far less than what existed in the northern Presbyterian church alone in the late 19th century! However, even so, the mainline Presbyterians never really were consumed by the more rigid Puritanical hyper-Calivinism of New England fame. It influenced some of their thinking, as I wrote above, but there was always a great element within that body that warned against Puritanical influences and that it endangered Reformed theology in which the Presbyterian Church had historically been based. That includes the acceptance of the three ancient ecumenical Christian creeds (mentioned above), and the over stressing by the Puritanical element upon 'good works' in attaining salvation. But to get back on track here a little bit after this digression; Lutherans in America, Roman Catholics, and Anglicans (Episcopalians) and other historical groups have never been plagued with Puritanical hyper-Calivinism -- and I might include here again that only the Presbyterians and Reformed Churches in America were only slightly so influenced. I would suspect that if I might name some groups who were obviously more greatly influenced by the Puritanical bunch, it might be the Baptists, Evangelicals, and Pentecostal and Charismatic groups, which indeed have grown tremendously during the last 100 years. Why do I leave out another large segment of American Christian development, the Methodists? Because they were largely an offshoot and identified chiefly early on as a variant of the Anglican Church. They were never able to develop a clear and distinct historical reference to the larger Christian tradition, as is the case with Baptists and others in the preceding paragraph. They began more as a reaction to what was then perceived as a cold and dead orthodoxy in the Anglican communion. They probably were influenced a great deal, originally at least, with radical Puritanical ideals, particularly those of Jonathan Edwards and others, but they went further out on a limb separating themselves from New England Puritanical Calvinism to the point that the Puritans and Methodists eventually were in theological opposition on major theological issues. And the Methodists originated in England rather than in North America as a reaction to anything in America at that time, although the movement quickly spread here. Again, I wrote last time: > >As I wrote above, most people simply did what their cultural > >orientation assumed that they would do. Nothing like this was ever as > >I recall historically codified into law. At least until prohibition. To which, you replied: > No, the phrase "banned in Boston" exists for a reason. They really did > enact some of their religion into law. They couldn't quite get the degree > of suppression of the Catholics they'd wanted to, but they did manage to > get them to finance the basically Congregationalist (or > Congregationalist-Unitarian) public schools. Okay. Again we are talking about New England, and I didn't argue that early New England certainly did enact intolerant laws that attempted to set up what largely amounted to a theocratic State. The time frame you are imposing here was largely a last ditch effort by psydo-hyper-Calvinists to restore something that was rapidly slipping away. And, as subsequent history reveals, that backfired a great deal in the decades that followed. Although many here might rightfully suggest that this discussion has become off topic here, I appreciate you effort in discussing some of this here. As I wrote weeks ago, in defence of Christmas, that Christmas entails 'real liberty', and for the reasons that I stated back then. But I understand the frustration certainly that some may have here, that although the Son of God, born in a stable to set all men free etc., and then migrating here and talking about American church history and development regarding legal codes as such, might become quite a stretch to justify. So, my sincere apologies here if Robert and I went just a tad bit too far. Warmest and kindest New Years greetings everyone! Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
