Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Why who’s President does matter, example 1 of presumably thousands Previous entry: More martyrs

Bamboo Reviews: The Wordy Shipmates

I finished Sarah Vowell’s new book The Wordy Shipmates nearly a week ago, but I haven’t gotten around to reviewing it, due to the craziness of the past week.  The topic seems sort of weird at first blush—-it’s a history of the Puritans that first settled the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but Vowell makes her case for why it’s relevant upfront.  Vowell argues that the American heritage from our Puritans is not necessarily our work ethic or sexual repression (in fact, she argues that the Puritan obsession with sex is something later people read into their culture—-not that they weren’t patriarchal and repressed, but that they didn’t have the same obsession with it that our current fundies do), but that it’s the belief in inherent moral superiority, that we are god’s new chosen people.  Her explanation of how the Puritans differ from today’s fundies alone makes the book worth reading, and will make you like the Puritans more, because for all that they were practically medieval, at least they strove to be better people, whereas today’s fundies wallow in the art of backsliding anti-intellectualism. 

In fact, one of the most fascinating things about the book is how obvious it is that Puritans of old would be appalled by the fundies of today, and not because of differences on the issue of theocracy (all of the above are for it), but on theology.  Calvinism is pretty damn dead in modern American Christianity, and evangelicals especially differ on that point, with their assurances that they are saved because they’ve come to Jesus.  For a mean-spirited atheist like myself, there’s a delicious irony in the fact that the Puritans started colonies that then became America because they wanted a place where they could press their religious beliefs on the community, only to see their religious beliefs destroyed in the tide of history.  There are still a few Calvinists wandering around these days, but I’m not even sure that there’s an organized church for them.  But that’s the law that drives this book—-the law of unintended consequences. 


In Vowell’s telling, there was a certain inevitability to what happened after the Puritans populated the Northeast, even if they didn’t like it.  The rebellions of Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams that led the latter to form Rhode Island (with its religious freedom) and the former to flee to it and found Providence were the natural next step after insubordinate Calvinists started to criticize the Church of England.  It’s hard to put the genie back into the bottle.  Once it was established that you could criticize authority and even hold ministers accountable to the congregation (the minister positions in Puritan churches were elected positions), then it followed that you could break away from the church (Williams), redefine basic beliefs to move away from predestination into the direction of personal salvation (Hutchinson, who believed in predestination, but was starting to define salvation in terms of feelings, which was one step away from rejecting predestination), and who knows what else, especially when you introduce the shelter that Rhode Island gave to Quakers and Jews.  The end result of all this questioning is our modern era, where more and more people question right into not believing in god at all.  Interesting irony—-the same forces that allow modern evangelicals towards their emotional, anti-intellectual personal salvation style Christianity are the very same forces that allow atheism to flourish.  Luckily for most fundies, they’re not the biggest readers and probably won’t generally figure that out.

The other, more complex thread in the book is the one about the beginnings of American imperialism, disguised always as a desire to help people.  In the Puritan era, it was assumed that Englishmen would help Native Americans, mostly by converting them but it was also assumed that Native Americans would benefit from changing their agricultural styles to the English way.  The dark joke of this is that, as Vowell explains, there wasn’t much “helping” attempted, except perhaps by Roger Williams, who spoke Algonquin and made friends easily with the people living in Rhode Island, which meant he had lots of opportunities to harangue them about Christianity.  Instead, the Puritans ended up getting embroiled in warfare between various Native tribes, in no small part because their allies figured the Englishmen were eventually going to start warring with Native Americans over land, and it was best to cozy up to them instead of get wiped out.  (Those who gambled that way were sadly correct.)  It’s all fascinating history, and Vowell mostly avoids hitting you over the head with it, but the parallels to the war in Iraq should be clear. 

All in all, I can’t recommend this book enough.  It’s a real page-turner, especially for a book about history that’s usually portrayed as lifeless and dreary.  Vowell sees the Puritans as the deeply flawed people that they are, but is also broad-minded and can take them on their own terms and write about them affectionately all the same.  It helps that they’re a bookish crew, and if you’re big on reading, you’ll relate to them the same as Vowell does. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 01:37 PM • (29) Comments

There are still a few Calvinists wandering around these days, but I’m not even sure that there’s an organized church for them.

Well, there’s the Presbyterians and the various Reformed churches. The UCC has Calvinist beginnings, though I don’t think that anybody necessarily holds the UCC as Calvinist anymore. And then you have the various strands of Lutheranism, which is a close cousin to Calvinism.

Comment #1: ploeg  on  11/09  at  01:57 PM

There’s a wonderful biography of Anne Hutchinson called American Jezebel that is well worth a read.  It’s fairly short and to-the-point.  More importantly, Anne Hutchinson was a total badass.  It covers some of the same territory as this book, but maybe gets a little more into theology, and how Hutchinson basically knew the Bible better than the men in her community, and used her greater knowledge to argue with them, and they did not like that AT ALL.

Comment #2: LauraB  on  11/09  at  02:01 PM

Her explanation of how the Puritans differ from today’s fundies alone makes the book worth reading, and will make you like the Puritans more, because for all that they were practically medieval, at least they strove to be better people, whereas today’s fundies wallow in the art of backsliding anti-intellectualism.

I don’t know. Aren’t the fundies so insufferable because they honestly believe you have to be a wingnut asshole to get into heaven? I don’t think wanting to go to heaven, if you believe it exists, makes you a bad person. Jerry Falwell might not have genuinely believed that we have to get rid of gay people to make god love us, but I bet a lot of his followers do.

Comment #3: junk science  on  11/09  at  02:03 PM

The Southwest of Michigan is largely reformed (and largely conservative reformed at that), and Christianity Today had a cover story in 2006, about a resurgence of Calvinist thought (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/42.32.html) in the evangelical community. As Calvinism is not a denomination as much as a systematic theology , it is hard to keep taps on the the number of Calvinists.

I would hesitate to lump Lutherans with Calvinists as the previous poster did; they have some serious theological differences.

Comment #4: Erin  on  11/09  at  02:05 PM

I’ve long thought that the Puritans have been grossly misunderstood in the popular mind, and although there’s been a lot of good academic histories that have reinterpreted the Puritans (for the better, IMHO), that scholarship hasn’t quite gotten out to the general-interest reader (not a surprise).

The Puritans, for all their flaws, weren’t as repressed sexually as they are made out to be.  If you ever run across it, you can read Puritan writings on sex (poetry, etc.) and see that for them, sex wasn’t just something you did to procreate.  The pleasureable aspects were also important; the thing is, you had to do it in the right context:  marriage.  David Hackett Fischer’s book Albion’s Seed talks about this and corrects a lot of misconceptions about the Puritans.

The Puritans were vigorous advocates of education and learning; I think they’d be somewhat baffled by the anti-intellectual attitude that prevails among some segments of the American populace today.

Comment #5: Linnaeus  on  11/09  at  02:06 PM

Amanda, If you enjoyed this book, you may also enjoy “I, Roger Williams” by Mary Lee Settle.  Roger Williams was a remarkable man.  He was on the other side of the wall of separation from Jefferson:  Jefferson advocated that religions should not dictate to government, and Williams advocated that Governments should not dictate to religions.

He reached out to the Native American Indians of the region, treated them as intellectual equals, even wrote a book on their languages. 

He was also the first person in human history to stand up for the religious rights of a woman. 

The language of Rhode Island’s Charter granted by King Charles II is uniquely non-gender specific.  It set forth the religious rights of all “persons”, very unusual in 1663. 

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ri/state/richarter.html

Also, one of the little known facts about the so-called Pilgrims is that one of their disagreements with the Church of England was over the various sacraments:  They argued that marriage was a civil matter only, with no religious significance.  Marriages were not performed by ministers, but by civil servants.  Granted, they were often one-in-the-same person, but the service was performed as a civic function only.

Providence was the first city in the New World without a wall, and free passage through it to all, including the Native American Indians.  Boston, by comparison, had a pale (as in “beyond the pale”) and would admit only Christians of their particular beliefs. 

You can still see the first Baptist Church in America in Providence, founded by Roger Williams.  He later left it because it had become, in his opinion, too dogmatic.  He would weep to see what it has become since then, I think.

Edie
Mayflower Descendant, and doing my best to make up for it.  RI resident for 16 years.

Comment #6: Edie  on  11/09  at  02:23 PM

Actually, this point is exactly the point that the Catholic Church itself regularly makes about Protestantism: that repudiation of papal authority eventually leads to atheism, so while Protestants are Christians, they are not the guarantors of Christianity, precisely because they began as a repudiation of authority.

Comment #7: Mandos  on  11/09  at  03:04 PM

One more link for you, Amanda; 

http://www.ricw.ri.gov/committees/comm_verin.php

The Verin commision is (was?) working on the Jane Verin case I mentioned above. 

Edie

Comment #8: Edie  on  11/09  at  03:17 PM

As some others have already said, Calvinism is more alive and well than you probably realized. For instance, the RCA/Dutch Reformed Church is pretty strong in Iowa, Michigan & Wisconsin.

Comment #9: protected static  on  11/09  at  03:23 PM

Junk, I mean better by standards we understand.  They were big on learning and big on accountability and big on hard work.

Comment #10: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/09  at  03:43 PM

I recommend reading up on the English Civil War where many of these issues came to a head. What we now call ‘puritanism’ was indeed a patchwork of sects, many at odds with each other. The sectaries were rarely united except over major issues such as Laudianism and other symbols of papistry.

The Puritans in their various forms pitched their cause as one of liberty of conscience. Reading their tracts today it is hard not to be drawn to them, giving that they were fighting the heavy hand of established religion, whether it was the Church of England or the Scots Covenanters’ attempts to impress the Presbytery upon England.

No wonder, then that they repudiated authority. That unordained men would scandalize congregations by preaching from the pulpit. That those visual shackles of established religion, such as altar rails, would be torn out. I have a suspicion that had we lived in such interesting times, many of us by temperament would have become puritans.

Oliver Cromwell, who almost became an American, eventually led a coup of the middling sort against the sectaries, denying them power. However, his form of puritanism turned out to be a sort of middle way, eschewing the Laudian prayer book but permitting a certain freedom of conscience. He even was prepared to make concessions to the papists, as was evidenced by his negotiations with that dashing swordsman, celebrity chef and diplomat, Sir Kenelm Digby.

Comment #11: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood  on  11/09  at  03:45 PM

Thanks for the review, the book does sound very interesting and suprisingly topical.

But those Puritans…you really have to wonder about people that persecuted those dangerous subversive radicals: The Quakers.

As an English friend told me: “yeah, we used America as a dumping ground for criminals and religious nutters. Explains your politices, doesn’t it?”

Comment #12: Snarki, child of Loki  on  11/09  at  03:46 PM

Thanks for pointing out that the Puritans weren’t as repressed about sex as they are made to be in popular culture. The sexual repression stuff in fundie Christianity as we know it didn’t really kick into full gear until the 1800s.

Comment #13: Ben D.  on  11/09  at  04:00 PM

The school I went to for high school (and accompanying church that I did not attend) actually taught Calvinist theology. But there was kind of this sense of “This is the sort of thing you won’t hear in most modern American churches.” I even wrote a paper in defense of Calvinism in 10th grade. It was very appealing to me with its focus on doctrine, its high view of God, and its not-dumbed-down view of Christianity. I still like that, even as I question its principles.

Anyhow, this seems like a really interesting book. I’ll definitely have to check it out.

Comment #14: Margaret  on  11/09  at  04:20 PM

Dude.

http://www.calvin.edu/

And to think I almost went to that place ... Brr!

Comment #15: Sarah  on  11/09  at  04:22 PM

“Luckily for most fundies, they’re not the biggest readers and probably won’t generally figure that out. “

hehehe….hehehe..you’re clever Amanda, you know how to insult religious people. Wow, hehehe, heehee, you funny.

Comment #16: Larry  on  11/09  at  04:44 PM

With respect to Lutherans vs Calvinists: they are decidedly not the same. During the reformation when Catholic armies were rampaging about various parts of Europe trying to wipe out the Protestants, there were Calvinist armies battling Lutheran armies as well. Luther and Calvin were very much at odds over matters of theology.

- Hank

Comment #17: Hank  on  11/09  at  05:30 PM

Larry seems to think that fundies= ” religious people”.

Well Avenger, Larry has just proven that the ability to read and the abilities to comprehend and think critically are not one and the same

Comment #19: ol cranky  on  11/09  at  08:19 PM

Edie
Mayflower Descendant, and doing my best to make up for it.  RI resident for 16 years.

Mine was Howland, yours?

Comment #20: Ms Kate  on  11/09  at  10:36 PM

those dangerous subversive radicals: The Quakers.

Don’t mock: the Quakers were badasses in the 17th century.

Dr Faustus is a very Calvinistic play, for weird reasons related to whether it’s actually possible to make a deal with the devil. The basic premise of orthodox Calvinism is to live like you’ve already been saved, thereby showing (but not claiming) what the chosen look like; of course, that can end up as ‘live however the fuck you like, because if you’re saved, God’s already done it’. Total temporal headfuck.

Comment #21: pseudonymous in nc  on  11/09  at  11:25 PM

So everyone in comments is having an interesting discourse about history and theology and how the two intersected to form our nation, and this is all Larry can come up with in response:

hehehe….hehehe..you’re clever Amanda, you know how to insult religious people. Wow, hehehe, heehee, you funny.

Does he even realize that he just proved Amanda’s point?

Comment #22: Mnemosyne  on  11/10  at  01:11 PM

Speaking from a Catholic perspective (which is the religion I was raised in, though I was unable to remain a part of the church because they’re gigantic assholes), I’ve always found pure Calvinism to be incredibly immoral.  The Calvinists are really the polar opposite of Roman Catholics, theologically, since they’re the ones who claim that you don’t have to do any good works as long as you have faith.  Catholicism retains a surprising number of parallels to Judaism, and one of them is that you have to perform good works in order to go to heaven.  (Not that Judaism has a heaven, but it’s the good works being the path to God’s favor that I’m concentrating on here.)

Of course, we also had the tiered system of getting to heaven where you could spend a couple hundred years in Purgatory working off your divine debt.  I always preferred that idea to the black-and-white, either you go straight to heaven or straight to hell construction that a lot of Protestants have.

(Yes, I’m simplifying, but I’m trying to get an argument started here.)

Comment #23: Mnemosyne  on  11/10  at  01:17 PM

I always found it interesting that the two most liberal religious traditions in America (United Church of Christ and Unitarian Universalists) are the direct descendants Puritan congregationalists. Unitarian history is a study of what happens when you slide down the slippery slope of thinking for yourself and following your conscience.  From the original Unitarian controversy in the early 19th century, to the Transcendentalists, to the Humanists to its modern radically inclusive approach, there has always been a thread of rationality, self culture and liberal democratic principals.

Comment #24: centaur  on  11/10  at  01:41 PM

When Mother Avenger did Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You at the local community theater, the local Congregationalist minister was part of the discussion afterwards, and said, “We have our own Sister Marys”.

The funniest part is when MA was quoted in the local paper about being educated in Catholic schools up though high school, one respondent wrote in to point out that the same could’ve been said for Henry VIII.

Another point on the Puritans was that the original Plymouth Colony was supposed to have been a commune (i.e., everything held in common in the spirit of brotherly love), but the ones with the vision didn’t have the money, so they had to let various adventurers come along to help pay for it, and then many of the servants weren’t part of the elect, so the dream was corrupted before they even made landfall.

Mnemosyne, you’ve gotten the good works argument somewhat sideways.  Calvinism holds that good works are insufficient without faith, that you cannot earn your salvation by racking up good deed points.  The acronym TULIP is a handy way of summarizing the main Calvinist points: http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html  Calv.in was the original thinker in time theory, because in order for TULIP to make any sense at all, you have to accept as a basis that God stands outside of time while we experience the passage of time.  So essentially, God knows who the elect are, because he already knows how everything turns out, but you do not know if you’re elect or not, because you are living in time.  What many people see as the immoral part is that Calvin posited that there is nothing you can do to change your elect status, which is misinterpreted as meaning that you can do anything you want and still be saved.  But what Calvin intended was that you shouldn’t worry if you cannot perfectly follow what Jesus told us to do, but instead you should do your best and if you are one of the elect, that’s because God has always known that you will have satisfied his requirements.  IIRC, where the Puritans ended up splitting from their friends in Holland was over the rather fine theological point that you could tell who the elect were because they would be the ones who looked like they were elect (i.e., prosperous, healthy, fortunate, etc.).

Edward Doty descendant (heh).

Comment #26: Original Lee  on  11/10  at  06:00 PM

The major Protestant reformers—Calvin, Luther, Zwingli—were pretty much horrific.

Calvin had his wretched theocracy at Geneva, of course, but Luther was a vicious anti-Semite and boot-licker of royal and aristocratic authority.

Much cooler were Erasmus, Sozzini, Servetus (whom Calvin had burned at the stake, in a crappy change of mind about what to do with ‘heretics’), Castellio. Look up the last three. Too bad they weren’t more popular outside of intellectual circles.

(Predestination, btw, was already well spelled out as a doctrine by Augustine. But there is that pesky point that for the concept of sin to make sense, there needs to some provision for free choice. The major Reformers weren’t big fans of free will, which makes them major dicks in my book.)

Comment #27: wapsie  on  11/10  at  10:40 PM

Here’s the scriptural warrant for Christian communism—inspiring experimental communities from the early 15th century Hussites to the present—if anyone’s interested. This drives my fundie/whackjob students nuts:

Acts 4:32-35 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Comment #28: wapsie  on  11/10  at  10:43 PM

Just to complicate things, there was a Catholic version of Calvinism known as “Jansenism.” I think I read about it in some Catholic book that referred to it as a “heresy.” And IIRC it was particularly popular with exiled Irish clergy.

When I learned of this, in junior high or HS, I finally thought I understood my Dad’s version of Catholicism, and how it was that we were both Catholics and Puritans.

Comment #29: Mark Foxwell  on  11/10  at  11:41 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.