The usual Puritan controversy

There is a piece at Occidental Observer, written by Ricardo Duchesne, which quotes Kevin MacDonald as the expert on Puritanism and Anglo-Saxon Americans. I usually find myself at odds with MacDonald’s pronouncements on those subjects, based on my own life experiences and observations. I make no claim to be an intellectual or an ‘expert’ but I know what I know.

I believe MacDonald is admittedly averse to Anglo-Saxon Americans and our English-born cousins, so he has little good to say of our Puritan forebears or of us and our contemporaries. This is the case generally; few people think favorably of Puritans nor of their living descendants. We are all supposed to be extinct as the Dodo bird, judging by the way we are spoken and written of by most of those outside the Anglo-Saxon fold.
But here we are. By now the immigrant stock may outnumber us numerically (nobody knows for sure) but we are spoken of as anachronisms or as a ‘vanished’ people.

But as to my differences with the opinions expressed at TOO (lots of anti-Anglo, anti-Protestant/anti-Christian feeling there, which is off-putting) there are lots of untenable statements given as fact. For example, someone states that a belief in a fallen, flawed world is ‘New Testament’ and implies it’s aberrant. The belief is at the very core of Biblical Christianity. I can’t imagine how any educated Christian could say otherwise.

Belief in original sin is basic to Christianity of all stripes.

There are certainly some idiosyncratic beliefs amongst the commenters there.

Frequently, when people are criticizing our Puritan forefathers they assert that ‘Transcendentalism’ was merely an extension of Puritan beliefs. Now, I know enough (actually reading books by the original Puritans) to know that the Puritans were called ‘Puritans’, originally in derision, because they sought a purified form of Christianity, free of ‘traditions of men’ (per the very words of Jesus) free of pomp and cant. So why on earth would the ‘Transcendental’ notions be a natural extension of the original teachings of the Puritans? The idea of transcending their very humanity is utterly alien to the original Calvinistic beliefs of the Puritans.

‘Christians’ in New England or anywhere else had already ceased to be really Christian the moment they strayed into the weird man-made doctrines like ‘Transcendentalism’ with its exotic, non-Western origins. People conveniently forget (if they ever knew) that there was a craze for Eastern religions and ‘spiritualism’ in 19th century America and all over Christendom. I wrote about this in a previous post, and as I recall, a commenter scoffed at the connection I made between the two. I stand by what I said, and here is evidence of a similar point of view on the part of scholars.

“A major scholarly study of the importance of oriental thought on the group of Americans known as the Transcendentalists. It is a study that shows wide and deep reading in comparative religion and philosophy, and it greatly enlightens us with regard to how Hindu and Buddhist ideas came to shape the work of many intellectual thinkers.”–Philip F. Gura, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
[…]
“Arthur Versluis offers a comprehensive study of the relationship between the American Transcendentalists and Asian religions. He argues that an influx of new information about these religions shook nineteenth-century American religious consciousness to the core. With the publication of ever more material on Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, the Judeo-Christian tradition was inevitably placed as just one among a number of religious traditions. Fundamentalists and conservatives denounced this influx as a threat, but the Transcendentalists embraced it, poring over the sacred books of Asia to extract ethical injunctions, admonitions to self-transcendence, myths taken to support Christian doctrines, and manifestations of a supposed coming universal religion.”

It’s glaringly obvious, to those with open eyes, that Transcendentalism is imbued with various mystical Eastern ideas, and it’s no coincidence that the exotic religions were a craze with self-styled intellectuals back in the 19th century.

And the mysticism intrinsic to those beliefs is alien to Biblical Christianity.

There was also a secular element to Transcendentalism, which was very much influenced by philosophers like Locke and various German philosophers, rather than the original Biblical roots of Puritanism. But it’s convenient for some people to try to connect the two, Puritanism and Transcendentalism, when they are chalk and cheese.

How many people identified as Puritans by the 19th century? Few. Very few. The various churches that developed after the Puritans had declined were of the liberal, universalist type, influenced more by secular culture and obsessed with ‘social justice’, hence the Abolitionist frenzy.

I believe the Quakers were also mentioned in the article; the Quakers were yet another sect said to have promoted the so-called ‘pathological altruism’ that is said somehow to be a peculiar affliction mostly of Anglos. The Quakers originated in England I believe, and their doctrine of the ‘Inner Light’ is yet another example of mysticism  appearing anomalously in a Christian sect. I say ‘anomalously’ because that kind of thing, the idea of personal revelations from God taking precedence, is not Biblical Christianity. It comes from some other influence or source.

I’ve known Quakers and they are usually ‘nice’ people but they are not typical of Christians in their belief system. Pantheism, panentheism, Gnosticism, whatever it is, is not mainstream traditional Christianity and in no way can it be traced to Puritanism.

I’ve learned it’s useless to write pieces like this but I can’t endure these tropes that have become so popular and so often repeated despite the lack of proof of their truth. I have to at least present another side. That’s only fair and honest.

6 thoughts on “The usual Puritan controversy

  1. Can’t stand MacDonald or his Journal, Occidental Quarterly. Tradition for them is going back to pagan Rome, maybe Catholicism. Has been for years. Use trope “Pagano-Christianity”, and when discussing scripture are heavily modernist. So, seems like we’re stuck in a dialectic with the Nationalist Right, or naive altright, choosing MacDonald’s formulas. PS. Quakers had their own splinter groups. When you read George Fox, there’s nothing really politically radical there. With the 1688 Toleration Acts, Quakers began to convert back to Church of England. There was pressure to qualify under the Act, so Quakers like George Keith campaigned for a more orthodox and creedal Quakerism. As a result of the Act, English Quakerism more ‘bookish’ than the American counterpart. Quakers were mostly an Independent (congregationalist) sect with far more in common Puritanism than what parades today as Quaker (which for the most part is a meditation scam, Buddhist and New Age). Like the congregationalists of old, they have basically disappeared and nothing left genuine. So, Dr. Kevin is mostly giving an opinion on something he actually knows very little about but some take it as dogma.

    Like

    1. Charles, that’s interesting about the Quaker history. I wasn’t aware of those things. As I mentioned I was acquainted with some Quakers when I was in grad school and they were the stereotype SJW, with their ministry mostly involving POCs, etc. I will have to read more about the Quakers. Still I’ve got stacks of unread books that I am always going to start reading.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. same page. See Keithites or Keithean Quakers. English didn’t want breach, but scolded the American Quakers for inattention to theology. English Friends tended to be more doctrinal and careful for sake of remaining a legal sect under Toleration Act. Keith ended up becoming an early (if not first) missionary for SPCK in the midatlantic colonies after his conversion to the Church. There’s also the methodist quakers who are worth an exam.

      Like

    3. Might also consider Quaker men like G. Whitehead who succeeded in gaining legality under Toleration Act by conference with William III. The Quakers were very loyal to William, and so there’s a monarchist or royalist type that we are unaware of in America. When contention struck, Quakers often bunkered down in their separatist communities, or culture, rather than hold to older doctrinal points. So, trinity was less important than plain dress and quaker speech, etc.. Keith’s hope was to keep both the culture in conjunction with more rigorous theological or apologetic points. Keith was also one of those leading lights among the Quakers (at late 17th cent.), standing alongside Fox and Barclay. I don’t think you can win with MacDonald. You’d be disliked if you argued those enviable points of Quakerism (there once strong, separatist communitarianism) or if you argued for their relative Orthodoxy and conservatism before ‘eastern meditation’ (or the 20th century) overtook them. Either way, he’d find a means to dismiss. Sadly, the altright, as well as the old right (around AmRen) are only good for promoting a ‘Pagano-Christianity’ which is likely more Pagan than it is even medieval catholic.

      Like

    4. Thanks for the information. I would really like to learn more, so I hope I can find the time to do some serious reading on the subject. So much to learn, so little time.
      Oh, I wouldn’t even hope to argue with MacDonald or anyone at TOO. It does seem as if there are a lot of regulars there who are not exactly friendly to, or even tolerant of Protestant Christianity of whatever variety. I find myself getting very vexed with some of the comments there, but if it provokes me to want to learn more, it may be beneficial in the long run.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Both incarnations of the far-right (alt- and so-called old-) rarely, if ever, can say anything bold (and in support) of Christianity, much less American Protestantism. This is a bit odd because the genuine American old-right (or that before the 20th century) could not be expressed without a Protestant point of view. What happened in the 20th c.? Not sure, but if I was forced to guess, I’d say it was the usual suspect– material prosperity and associated decadence. Bible literacy fell to the wayside among the older magisterial churches/denominations to be picked up by forms of Pentecostalism and fringe churches. In time, that was also a causality. Today, it still exists but on the margins, and like the rest of the actual Right, we need to gather our hens and start anew. So, the nRx and alt types can mock us, but they are really in the same boat but without the advantage of native claims and historical accuracy that we possess as colonial and settler Angelcynn.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.