I've just posted my notes to PRRD I.46-59. They can be accessed by the button on the sidebar. Enjoy.
Friday, February 3, 2006
Thursday, February 2, 2006
Here is the latest info on the puritan day-conference on 25 Feb at the University of Leicester. The conference is intended to give a brief preview of the forthcoming Cambridge Companion to Puritanism edited by John Coffey and Paul Lim.
The cost for students is a bargain: only £10 (and £20 for non-students - still a bargain). However, spaces are limited, so don't delay. The day is designed to be informal and interactive, so students will be able to talk with the speakers over coffee and lunch. You don't want to miss this opportunity! Here is an outline of the day.
A DAY CONFERENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER
Speakers & Topics:
Professor Patrick Collinson (Cambridge), ‘Anti-Puritanism’
Dr Tom Webster (Edinburgh), ‘Early Stuart Puritanism’
Professor John Morrill (Cambridge), ‘The Puritan Revolution’
Dr John Spurr (Swansea), ‘Restoration Puritanism’
Dr Crawford Gribben (Manchester), ‘Irish and Welsh Puritanism’
Professor Ann Hughes (Keele), ‘Puritanism and Gender’
Dr Paul Lim (Gordon-Conwell), ‘Puritan Ecclesiologies’
Dr John Coffey (Leicester), ‘Puritan Legacies’
Saturday 25th February 2006
Gartree & Rutland Room
4th Floor, Charles Wilson Building
Main Campus, University of Leicester
For further details please contact Dr John Coffey, School of Historical Studies, University of Leicester, LE1 7RH, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Posted by John W. Tweeddale at 2:26 PM
Members of The Conventicle are welcomed to contribute short papers at the International Postgraduate Theological Symposium 2006.
It will take place on May 4-5, 2006, at the International Baptist Theological Seminary in Prague, Czech Republic. This symposium is an exciting opportunity for doctoral students and young professionals located in western and eastern Europe, pursuing subjects in different theological disciplines, to meet with the expressed aim of communicating and exchanging research ideas. The symposium’s interdisciplinary, interdenominational and international ethos exposes each candidate to a wide range of theological positions, academic subjects and personal experiences which will benefit your current academic pursuits.
Participants at this symposium contribute a paper, usually from a current research project. Such research projects may be a summary of a chapter from your doctoral thesis, a short draft from a book chapter that you are working on, or a publication paper. The presentation of your work should not exceed thirty minutes, and it must be made in English. A time to feedback follows each talk. Please drop me a mail for more information.
I presented a paper at last year's conference as a platform for putting down my research material in a coherent form. That paper turned out to be the core of my introductory chapter. Why not take up the challenge and catch more of Europe at the same time?
Posted by Edwin Tay at 11:38 AM
Wednesday, February 1, 2006
'Revisiting Puritanism' Conference at the University of Leicester on Saturday, 25 February 2006. Speakers include P. Collinson, J. Morrill, J. Coffey, C. Gribben, P. Lim (see my summary of his latest article on Owen below) and more!
Click here for more info.
Posted by John W. Tweeddale at 12:58 PM
Oxford's Christopher Haigh has been criticised for his revision of Reformation history. He doesn't believe the Protestant faith was embraced in England as readily as scholars have traditionally portrayed, nor that it ever took possession of the hearts of the majority of the populace.
I believe Haigh's theses have been successfully challenged by the work of Nicholas Tyacke and others. Yet I did appreciate the following statement he makes in the introduction to his English Reformations: Religion, Politics, and Society Under the Tudors (1993). He urges us not to interpret any historical conflict on the basis of its eventual outcome:
Change will appear straightforward if history is reduced to a sequence of reforms, ignoring reactions, reversals, alternatives, and contexts. Change will seem easy if its opponents are left out of the story, or treated as silly old fogeys destined for defeat. But such distilled history is an illusion; it is not how the past was … Reformations were made by Catholics as well as by Protestants, because the Reformations came out of the clashes between them.Haigh reminds us to look honestly at the evidence left to us and to accept the stubborn subtlety that characterizes human behaviour. Sometimes, we will find, it was our confessional opposites who acted more nobly in a particular case than those with whom we share the deepest of religious convictions. So be it. Our pride may suffer repeatedly in the process of research, but in the end we will be no worse for the wear. It is honesty that can never be sacrificed; the truth will set us free, in every context.
Posted by Chris Ross at 8:26 AM
Monday, January 30, 2006
Here is a synopsis of Paul Lim’s “Trinity, Adiaphora, Ecclesiology, and Reformation: John Owen’s Theory of Religious Toleration in Context,” Westminster Theological Journal 67 (2005): 281-300. Lim is Assistant Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, MA.
Contra older historiography which contends that Arminianism (and other “theologically liberalizing tendencies”) was largely responsible for paving the way for modern conceptions of toleration, Lim argues that several theorists of liberty of conscience were Calvinists – not just Arminians (282, 299).
The purpose of his article is to provide a “contextual reading of John Owen’s theology of religious toleration during the Interregnum and the Restoration” (283). Central to his argument is lodging Owen’s views of toleration (especially after the Restoration) in his theory of the liberty of conscience (especially as developed during the Interregnum).
Lim provides three criteria for understanding Owen’s tolerationists writings (283-284): 1) rhetoric against the imposition of adiaphora upon the conscience, 2) development and vision of Congregationalism, and 3) the desire to complete the reformation.
Let’s briefly look at each of these.
1. Rhetoric against the imposition of adiaphora upon the conscience
The matter of adiaphora (that which is neither good nor bad, neither commanded nor proscribed in the Bible) arose in the early years of the English Reformation, as magisterial imposition of liturgical ceremonies heightened in the Tudor Church of England (287). Likewise, dissenters like Owen were equally concerned with the place of the magistrate after the Restoration. While conceding that magistrates ought to maintain and uphold Christianity, Owen argued that magistrates had no right to direct the specifics of worship. That right was consigned to God alone (who is Lord of the conscience, cf. WCF 20.2). When discussion of the comprehension of dissenters by the established church emerged, Owen resisted by re-emphasizing the liberty of conscience and autonomy of the local church. He not only thought ecclesiastical uniformity ill-advised but vehemently opposed the co-extensive nature of church and state (291).
However, there was a dilemma. Owen acknowledged that the doctrinal basis of the Church of England (39 Articles) was soteriologically sound. Therefore, was separation by dissenters schismatic? Not for Owen. But he could not argue for toleration on purely theological grounds. Another strategy was needed.
2. Development and vision of Congregationalism
Owen based his argument for toleration on 1) issues of worship and 2) the pastoral negligence of the established church (i.e. lack of pastoral discipline). In other words, the purity of gospel worship was ultimate. Worship was central to his theory of toleration. Here is where Owen’s ecclesiology steps in.
Lim states, “This pursuit of the purity of worship required less than what was considered important for prayer-book Anglicans: no Prayer Book, no ceremonies, and no altar. Owen had argued that one of the characteristics of the primitive church was not liturgical uniformity, but precisely the opposite: flexibility and freedom, mutuality and multiplicity of perspectives. Citing Origen for support, Owen argued that the early Christians recognized the intrinsic inevitability of flexibility over secondary and tertiary issues, one of which was over outward ceremonies and rites” (294).
3. The desire to complete the reformation
Not only was Owen convinced of Congregationalism but he was also convinced that “the English diocesan system was a positive impediment to a true reformation” (295). For Owen, religious persecution was contrary to the reformation. For reformation to be achieved, the imposition of matters of indifference (e.g. liturgical ceremonies and rites) could not be allowed. Owen turned the tables of the argument by stating that the failure of the Church of England to properly emphasize the purity of worship, the conversion of sinners, and the edification of the saints was the fundamental cause of the division! Lim then gives a fascinating discussion comparing the Protestant’s separation with Rome and the Dissenters separation with the Church of England as articulated by Owen. He highlights three common theological themes: sola scriptura, priesthood of the believers, and anti-popery polemic.
I have only tried to recap the main points of Lim’s article. I have not even mentioned his interaction with primary sources. I leave that for you to discover. However, I should note that he gives particular attention to Owen’s debates with Samuel Parker and Edward Stillingfleet.
Overall, this is an outstanding article. Despite little interaction with the doctrine of the Trinity (a passing reference to Owen’s controversy with John Biddle), his title is a fitting summary, “The Trinity, Adiaphora, Ecclesiology, and Reformation: John Owen’s Theory of Religious Toleration in Context.” His contextual analysis of Owen, interaction with primary sources, and development of his thesis is exemplary. This article is a model for research students. I recommend this article for anyone with an interest in 1) John Owen, 2) theories of toleration, and 3) 17th century Puritanism.
Posted by John W. Tweeddale at 3:58 PM