2008: Year of the Puritans

VirginiaHuguenot · #1 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 07:55 AM

Help make 2008 the 'Year of the Puritans' (HT: Chris Ross at The Conventicle).

As C.S. Lewis said (Introduction to Athanasius' On The Incarnation):

Quote:

There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about "isms" and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.

This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.

Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o'clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why - the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ("mere Christianity" as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook - even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united - united with each other and against earlier and later ages - by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century - the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?" - lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.

bookslover · #2 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 11:03 PM

This is a great and justly famous quote. The first paragraph is very important. Why read some dreary tome about Plato (or whoever) when you can read the man for himself? I like Lewis's contention that a person with average intelligence will be able to pick up most of what Plato (or whoever) has to say.

VirginiaHuguenot · #3 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 04:32 PM

More reasons to read the Puritans.

VirginiaHuguenot · #4 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 06:38 PM

Reformation Heritage Books is doing its part to help make 2008 the Year of the Puritans: The Puritan Challenge 2008: 12 Banner of Truth Puritan Paperbacks.

VirginiaHuguenot · #5 (**permalink**) 01-06-2008, 09:26 AM

Here are some blog posts by our very own Steve Burlew:

Are You Up For "The Timmy Brister Challenge"? (December 14, 2007)
Why Read the Puritans? (December 18, 2007)
This Is Going To Change Some Lives! (December 20, 2007)
Meet Richard Sibbes and the Puritan Paperback, "The Bruised Reed" (January 3, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot · #6 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 03:18 PM

Steve Burlew: The "Puritan Reading Challenge" is GROWING! (January 16, 2008)

MrMerlin777 · #7 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 03:24 PM

Love the Lewis quote.

As has been said it is justly famous.

VirginiaHuguenot · #8 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

This is a great and justly famous quote. The first paragraph is very important. Why read some dreary tome about Plato (or whoever) when you can read the man for himself? I like Lewis's contention that a person with average intelligence will be able to pick up most of what Plato (or whoever) has to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMerlin777

Love the Lewis quote.

As has been said it is justly famous.

VirginiaHuguenot · #9 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 08:38 PM

Here are the suggested books for 2008. Although anyone can choose their Puritan curriculum.

VirginiaHuguenot · #10 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 08:42 PM

For those reading January's selection, or thinking about getting started, here is review of The Bruised Reed by Derek Brown.

More on Richard Sibbes here, including links to online editions of all of his works.

Narnian · #11 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 09:29 PM

I think the Lewis quote can also apptly apply to myself in a slightly different fashion - how often do I read books about the Bible instead of reading the Bible? Too often.

VirginiaHuguenot · #12 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narnian

I think the Lewis quote can also apptly apply to myself in a slightly different fashion - how often do I read books about the Bible instead of reading the Bible? Too often.

It is a good question for all of us to ask ourselves; none of us, I dare say, can say that we read the Bible too much. But, as the Puritans, who fought tooth and nail for the principle of sola Scriptura, point us to the Scriptures above all, it is nevertheless good and profitable to read them (Puritan authors), especially in our age, not in place of the Word, but as those who were well-grounded in it, and who direct us thereto.

It is worth, imho, reading also the words of Thomas Murphy wrt Bible study and wrt the use of commentaries. Though his remarks are directed to pastors, they are applicable, I think, to all. He puts both in their proper place.

VirginiaHuguenot · #13 (**permalink**) 01-22-2008, 09:00 PM

Timmy Brister interviews Mark Dever on Richard Sibbes here.

Blueridge Baptist · #14 (**permalink**) 01-23-2008, 08:36 AM

I got my books yesterday. Read about a third of the way through "the bruised reed" last night. Very uplifting.

Daniel Ritchie · #15 (**permalink**) 01-23-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I got my books yesterday. Read about a third of the way through "the bruised reed" last night. Very uplifting.

That is a lot of reading for one night.

Barnpreacher · #16 (**permalink**) 01-23-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Read about a third of the way through "the bruised reed" last night. Very uplifting.

I got a late start as well, so I'm just through chapter 8. But I must say chapters 7 and 8 were two of the most extraordinary, profitable chapters I've ever read! There was so much spiritual meat to digest in those two chapters that I had to go back and re-read.

Blueridge Baptist · #17 (**permalink**) 01-23-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I got my books yesterday. Read about a third of the way through "the bruised reed" last night. Very uplifting.

That is a lot of reading for one night.

A little over 40 pages thats all brother. Big print.

Daniel Ritchie · #18 (**permalink**) 01-23-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I got my books yesterday. Read about a third of the way through "the bruised reed" last night. Very uplifting.

That is a lot of reading for one night.

A little over 40 pages thats all brother. Big print.

How modest of you.

Blueridge Baptist · #19 (**permalink**) 01-23-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

That is a lot of reading for one night.

A little over 40 pages thats all brother. Big print.

How modest of you.

DMcFadden · #20 (**permalink**) 01-23-2008, 12:03 PM

My books come today or tomorrow. I want to get January read before February comes.

Augusta · #21 (**permalink**) 01-23-2008, 05:56 PM

I don't know if I will get mine until next week.

I think I can do two in one month though. Maybe.