The Puritan Family

Some Thoughts on How the Puritans Lost their Children

Perhaps the high point of the Christian family in America was the Puritan commonwealth in New England from 1630-1700. The family was central to Puritan theology and practice. Repeatedly in sermons, and personal letters, the Puritans state that their primary motivation in settling the new lands was to provide a future for their children. Preachers loved familial imagery in their sermons. Their political philosophy began with building strong families first, and then went on to church and state.

But within one generation, for all their love and attention to the family, the Puritan experiment failed. By 1662, the Half Way covenant was a tacit admission that they were losing their own children. Covenant theology taught that the promises of the covenant were claimed by church members on behalf of their children through baptism. But the adult children of the first generation could not meet the high standards set for church membership. Now they had children of their own who were not eligible for baptism. Were they now separated from the blessings of the covenant? The Half Way covenant allowed baptism to this third generation despite the fact that the second generation was spiritually deficient. It was a theological compromise that demonstrated a real loss of Puritan vigor. By the latter decades of the 17 century, “Jerimiads” rung from pulpits across New England warning that unless the children embraced the fervor of their grandparents, disaster would strike. By the 18^thentury, despite revivals and revivalism, the Puritan Congregational churches apostatized into Deism and Unitarianism. The Half Way covenant had not been enough, the Puritans had lost their children and with them, their culture.

What went wrong? Why did the Puritans, with so many advantages, fail in this most fundamental task? They left Old England to build their city on a hill to be a light to the world. Yet within two generations, the light was dimmed and the savor lost. There are potent lessons to be learned from the Puritans. They did so many things right, yet ultimately failed. It is possible that pessimillennialism began with the apostasy of Puritan families. Since the family is the beginning of Christian Reconstruction, then we must understand what went wrong with them, so that we can learn from their mistakes.

What They Did Right

Without a doubt, the Christian family in New England in the 17 century stands head and shoulders above the dysfunctional, fractured, atomistic family of today. Even their failures, look pretty good compared to the average Christian family today.

One of the distinctive marks of the Puritan family was a commitment to daily family worship. Fathers were required to lead their families in the knowledge and discipline of the Lord. The churches preached it, the Magistrates enforced it, and the fathers did it. Puritan fathers began and ended each day with singing of Psalms, reading of Scripture and prayer. As a result, from an early age, children imbibed a Christian world view. Even though this dedication did not result in the numbers of conversion experiences necessary for Church membership, entire generations of New Englanders were deeply influenced by Scripture.

The Puritan commitment to family extended to finding good matches for their children. Such marriages were with the children's consent, and often at their behest. Romance was not unknown, but was not the final arbiter of a suitable life mate. Religion was the preeminent consideration when choosing a spouse for their children, with finances coming a close second. Only then was a child asked, "Could you love this person?" Puritan parent's made provisions for both body and soul for their children. It seems that the only occasionally did a child turn down a parent’s choice. In the Puritan family, love was expected to come after marriage, not before. As a result, Puritan families were extremely strong, life decisions were not based on hormones and children were not expected to make the most important decision of their lives at a time when they were least equipped to do so. Furthermore, children were then protected from themselves. While sexual sins were not unknown, they were at least uncommon (until the advent of revivalism where birth records show an interesting tendency for newly wed couples to produce children after 6 months of marriage).

A child’s future vocation was similarly decided. The concept of “calling” was crucial tp Puritan life. While used primarily in the sense of salvation, it was also true that the Puritans believed no man could expect God’s blessing in life unless he understood the calling God had given him for his vocation. Usually, the oldest son was expected to follow the father’s calling. If the father had been a faithful steward, most of his sons could expect to receive a portion of his land or business. However, very large families, and the growing mercantile class, meant that some sons might have to find a calling other than with their fathers. Apprenticeships were common. At fourteen, a boy might be apprenticed to a craftsman or merchant to learn his calling from the ground up. This normally took seven years of hard labor to master the necessary skills, with the apprentice living in the master's home. Parents looked for good opportunities for their children, knowing that once the decision was made, it was very unlikely to change. For the more affluent, college was an option. Hence again, major life decisions were not left to random chance or the ever changing whims of a teenager. Parents worked hard to help their children develop the skills necessary to fulfill their calling.

While the child’s wishes were taken into consideration, it was the parents who made the final decision. Who would know better a child’s strengths, weaknesses, gifts etc. than his parents? Thus Puritan children were not only loved and well disciplined, but productive from a very young age. They were able to exercise dominion through their calling. Indolence, rebelliousness and teenage angst were not a common problem in New England.

The Puritans took their responsibility to the family seriously. Family was important, not just for social reasons, but for business dealings as well. Their commitment extended beyond their own immediate children to include relatives of every degree. Relatives were given preferred prices and subsidized business, just because they were family. The Puritans had a complex series of relationships with cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. Marriage broadened their relationships, with in-laws considered as important as blood relations. Thus the extended family was well set up to meet both social and economic needs. The Puritans believed that “As long as the family was well ordered, as long as men respected the logic of relationships, corruption would be restrained within bounds and society would established.”

With all these things working for the family, what happened? They had strong churches, strong families, they controlled the economic and social institutions and they were in charge of the political order. The Puritan influence was so powerful, it continues to affect American values to this day. But even so, within three generations, the Puritan experiment gave way to an increasing tergiversation. Americans have taken the fruit of Puritan families, while rejecting the root. And now, two centuries later, the fruit is withered and rotten. What went wrong?

Why the Puritans Did Wrong

There are several ways in which the Puritans, as godly as they were, fell short of the Biblical ideal. All of us are in some measure, victims of our culture. Cultural values have an enormous impact on our ability to interpret the world around us (there are no brute facts, only interpreted ones). And the presuppositions we carry, will have an effect on how we understand and apply Biblical principles. Criticism of the Puritans needs to be gracious, they got so much right, those of us blessed with hindsight should not be self righteous in noting what they did wrong. However, though we are victims of our own cultural blinders, we might be able to see some things they missed. And it is in what they missed, that may provide a glimpse for understanding the failure of the Puritan commonwealth.

First, one needs to remember that committed Puritans did not make up the entire New England population. Within just a few years, massive immigration swamped the community of the elect. While the Puritans blazed the trail, many, many other Englishmen soon came after; Englishmen who did not necessarily share the Puritan's same degree of theological and experiential conviction. Sermons during the period repeatedly warned good Puritans of the dangers of allowing their children to associate with the ever larger numbers of immigrants who did not share their religious resolve. Though the Puritans had very strict laws to regulate behavior, nothing could change the hearts of the recalcitrant immigrants. As New England became settled and more civilized, the flow of non-Puritan Englishman increased. No matter how many children the Puritans had, they could not compete with shiploads of new settlers, who did not share their ways. When the edict of William of Orange ended the distinctive Puritan government, the door was opened for non-Puritans to gain control of the culture.

Secondly without being denominationally biased, congregational church government and practice undoubtedly contributed to the loss of Puritan dominance. The autonomy of local churches allowed increasingly deviant pastors to enter Puritan pulpits (Harvard and Yale were specifically started to stem the tide of apostate ministers from England). The only hedge against apostasy was the knowledge and spiritual fervor of the local church. With no higher court of appeals than the local church, there was no mechanism in place to deal with heresy. Furthermore, if a church itself became unreasonably dissatisfied with their pastor, there was no way to appeal their arbitrary decision to dismiss him. This transferred power from the elders, to the congregation as a whole. For example, Jonathan Edwards is a hero today to many Reformed pastors, teachers and educated laymen. Yet he was driven out of his church because he challenged the prejudices of his congregation.

A third problem, has nothing to do with congregationalism per se but does concern covenant theology. The Puritans had such a high view of the family, and of the covenant promises given to their children, that they focused their evangelistic efforts primarily on Christians and their children. Though church attendance was mandatory, church membership was restricted to an elite, to those who could “prove” they had had a conversion experience. Therefore, the "best" prospects for conversion were their own children. Hence there was a real tendency to focus on reproving, exhorting and admonishing their children, to the exclusion of the greater masses of “unconverted.” Thus evangelism centered on the family, rather than on the community. And as a result, they literally allowed the community to “go to hell” while they preached to their kids.

The emphasis on the conversion experience required such high standards, that undoubtedly, a great number of regenerate children (and non-church members) were denied church membership and the sacraments thus weakening their faith. Later on, both groups were admitted to the sacraments, to prepare them for conversion, hence undercutting Puritan theology. Edwards lost his church when he opposed this practice.

The confusion here had significant results. Conscientious members of the community, who doubted they had experienced what their parents, teachers and pastors repeatedly told them was essential for salvation, never grew in their own faith. Furthermore, the misuse of the doctrines of grace may have inadvertently undermined Puritan culture. If a man was not among the elect, and had no reasonable hope of ever being so, then it becomes epistemologically self consistent for him to spend his time and energy of the matters of this life, rather than the life to come. Puritan culture did inhibit overt sin and restrained the worst aspects of man’s rebellion to God in the social realm, but also began a subtle secularization of culture. Since 90% of the community were not church members, religion per force became less and less significant. Increasingly, men found their meaning and purpose in their physical estate. When the requirements for church membership finally loosened up in the 19^th century, it coincided with revivalism and theological heterodoxy.

Finally, the Puritans loved their children so much, that they were often afraid that they would spoil them. A very common practice was to place children at the age of fourteen with friends and neighbors. One primary reason was that boys needed to learn a skilled trade and it was customary for an apprentice to live in the craftsman home, while learning his craft. However, even when this was not necessary for business reasons, the Puritans often had their teenage children raised by others. The reason seems to have been the fear that their own filial affection would cause them to indulge their teenagers, rather than discipline them appropriately. There are many heart breaking letters recording the cries of distraught teenagers as they were given over to friends to rear.

Though their motivations were sincere, this cultural aberration undermined the family during the most important time of child's development. There were obviously some benefits, teenagers are notorious for rebelling against their parents as they seek to establish their own identities. Separating them from their parents and entrusting them to godly homes would teach young people good manners, social skills, etc., without the dangers associated with rebelling against their own parents (or of the parents being indulgent towards their children). Teenagers are also notorious for getting along better with other adults than with their own family.

However, benefits aside, the custom was a product of the English middle class, not of Biblical principles. As long as New England consisted of small communities, with families well known to each other, little damage was done. But separating children during their young adult years cut the emotional and psychological ties that bound them to their families. As the colonies spread out, children moved further and further away from home. Thus without realizing it, the Puritan’s custom, intended to benefit their children, actually contributed to the fragmentation that is now characteristic of American families.

This analysis is necessarily incomplete and simplistic, but it does allow a better understanding of how the Puritans lost their culture. Good people, with sincere motives, can fail, when they fail to apply Biblical principles consistently. The Puritans did the best they could with what they had. If their colonies had not been swamped by hordes of immigrants who did not share their convictions, if their churches had a more realistic concept of church membership, if they had not separated their own children at the time they most needed the love and discipline of their parents, New England might well have accomplished it's founder's vision.

However, we have their mistakes to learn from, and our own failure to motivate us to find the answers. We have lost much, but we have also learned much. May God grant us wisdom, grace and mercy as we reconstruct our families.

-Rev. Brian M. Abshire