Y’all probably don’t have a clue who Art Azurdia is, but he is one of the best preachers I have ever heard. He filled in to speak at one of our winter conferences when I was at The Master’s College. God used him to pretty much bring a revival of sorts to our campus. He is the pastor of Christ Community Church in Fairfield, CA. He is little known by most, but has published a book entitled Spirit Empowered Preaching. Art is an extremely intelligent, well-spoken, warm, and fantastic preacher. Why am I bummed about him you say? I just found out that he accepted a faculty position at Western Seminary in Portland, OR and now his church is dissolving. Their last service will be December 4th. I’m sure this is a wonderful opportunity for him and that he will be a blessing to the faculty and students of Western Seminary. But that bums me out. He is doing the exact opposite of what I would expect him to do. Mind you, I’ve only had one or two conversations with him, but I have listened to many of his sermons and have friends that have sat under his ministry. Some of these friends have relocated just to be a part of the church. That last thing we need in this world is one of our best preachers going back to the seminary world. What a terrible thing. I could only dream for the ministry this guy has at his church. He is friends with big wigs like John Armstrong, D.A. Carson, Greg Beale, and Scott Hafemann. He is sought after for speaking engagements all over the country. Why can’t he just do adjunct work at the seminary? They already give him sabbatical time for writing. I don’t know, it just doesn’t make sense. At least his audio will be moving to www.spiritempoweredpreaching.com. If you get an opportunity, take a listen.

The Puritans view of life was God-saturated and focused on His glory as the chief end of all things. This is due primarily to their adherence and embracing of Reformed Theology. They held firmly to the sovereignty of God in all of life, as He has foreordained all things that come to pass, and what we consider the “doctrines of grace.” But the under girding of the doctrines of grace that really forms their attitudes toward children and parenting is the concept of the covenants[1]: the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace. The covenant of works was the covenant that God made with Adam in Eden that if Adam would obey all of God’s commandments, he would have eternal life. The covenant of redemption is that covenant that God the Father made with Christ that if Christ would remain in obedience to the Father , the Father would give Him a people to redeem for Himself. The covenant of grace is the covenant that God makes with every believer and their children upon faith that He will give them eternal life and be their God. Although these covenants may not be clearly outlined in Scriptures, nonetheless the Puritans used this as their grid or system through which to view the rest of Scripture.

Such theology produced a few different attitudes toward children. As covenants included both blessings and cursings, so children were seen as mixed blessing.[2]  John Robinson said that “[Children] are a blessing great, but dangerous.”[3]  They would affirm Psalm 127, that children are a blessing from the Lord, but that they also bring heartaches physically and spiritually from their birth until eventual marriage. This impressed upon them, though, the importance of their responsibility to their children as belonging to God: “Puritan attitudes toward children were rooted in the conviction that children belong to God and are entrusted to parents as a stewardship.”[4]  Thus they owned their children just as they own any other earthly thing, as a stewardship from God. The difference in “owning” their children with owning any other thing is, however, that their children’s souls are eternal and that is what they were accountable to God for. Also, they were not to love any other thing they owned the way they loved their children. They tried to keep a balanced view of loving their children. Excessive affectionate smothering, or “doting”, of their children was looked down upon.[5]  They observed that even apes killed their young with hugging.[6]  They did not want to be cold toward their children but rather impartial.[7]

---

[1] “The essence of a covenant is the idea of contractual obligation. The framework of covenant theology increased rather than decreased the Puritans’ sense of parental responsibility for their children.” (Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints, p.79).

[2] This idea is perceived best by Daniel Doriani: “Children are a potential blessing in the eyes of godly brethren but the final evaluation of their status depends on their spiritual qualities, not their number or health…The “potential blessing” theme most often occurs in passages where preachers exhort parents to perform their moral and spiritual duties.” (“The Godly Household in Puritan Theology”, 1560-1640, p.391).

[3] The Works of John Robinson, Boston: Doctrinal Tract and Book Society, 1851, Vol. 1, p.244

[4] Ryken, Worldly Saints, p.78

[5] “The extreme in the excess is too much doting upon children: as they do who so unmeasurably love them, as they make reckoning of nothing in comparison of children.” (William Gouge, Of Domestical Duties, Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, Ltd., 1976 [Facsimile, published earlier in London: J. Haviland, 1622], p.500).

[6] ibid.

[7] “Wherefore remember that the parently love must be extended equally to your children. Do not like eagles, which turn some out of their nest, and bring up other some.” (Paul Bayne, An Entire Commentary upon the Whole Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians, Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1866, [published earlier in London: M. F., 1643], p.361

For the next few posts, I’m going post a paper that I did in college on the the Puritan concept of parenting for a class on Puritanism. The title will simply be the heading of each section in the paper. Below is the introduction that about the uniqueness of the Puritan ideal for the family.

Through the demise of modernism, with its false presuppositions and conclusions, most of the world has lost touch with the richness of the Puritan experience. One aspect of their experience that has been misperceived greatly is their concept of family and parenting. This is even true among evangelicals today. Some stereotypes may be that parents beat their children excessively; or that they demanded perfection from their children; or that they sheltered their children from the world; or that wives were their husbands’ servants; or that they arranged all of their children’s marriages. A closer look at the norms of the movement will show that these stereotypes indeed are false. As a matter of fact, there seems to be no group in Church history since the early Church that emulates biblicity and theological depth in their approach to the family. Amidst the smog-saturated air of contemporary family theory and practice, one can look back and breathe the fresh air of Puritan family theology and practice. Prime examples of this are what they saw as the purpose for the family and its leadership.

The Puritans viewed the family as a small church.[1] It was to be the very backbone of the local church. Its sole purpose was to advance the glory of God by instruction in the Word of God, walking in holiness, and worship.[2] This concept should not be foreign to any evangelical today. However, most evangelicals do not embrace this in their families. This purpose of the family being the glory of God means everything. Leland Ryken notes:

What is important about viewing the purpose of the family as the glory of God? In the long run it determines what goes on in a family. It sets the priorities in a spiritual rather than material direction. It determines what a family does with its time and how it spends its money.[3]

This vision and purpose for the glory of God in the Puritan family lasted because it was branded in the consciences of parents and produced a God-centered direction in everything the family did.

One of the areas in which we go wrong today in the pursuit of a God-glorifying household, and which the Puritans focused on like a laser, was the spiritual leadership of the father in the home. They recognized God’s design; that, like the church, the family consists of fallen people and needs the shepherding of a man of God.[4] As the “governor” of the household, the husband/father/master had the duty of leading the family in worship. Oliver Heywood described it as acting as a priest in the family, a role that consisted of the four duties of the Old Testament priest:[5]

1. To instruct the people in the principles of religion, and their duty to God and each other

2. To manage the holy offerings and sacrifices for atonement (confess the sins of the family)

3. To intercede for the people (to stand between the dead and the living)

4. To bless the people

A man that didn’t lead his household was looked upon by the Puritans as a fool and scoundrel, worthy of all scorn. This outlook on family leadership was so overwhelming that it became principle even to the non-Christians that lived in the Puritan communities.

The ideals for the family mentioned above set the stage for an examination of Puritan parenting and child rearing. Parenting is something that the Puritans took very seriously and practiced with sobriety; and for good reasons. It is evident in a historical inquiry of Puritan parenting and child rearing that the root of their understanding and practice was not theoretical but theological. Theology fed and permeated Puritan parenting.

---

[1] “A holy family is place of comfort, a church of God…Oh that God stir up the hearts of people thus to make their families as little churches, that it might not be in the power of rulers or pastors that are bad to extinguish religion, or banish godliness from any land!” (Richard Baxter’s “The Poor Man’s Family Book” in The Practical Works of Richard Baxter, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1996, Vol. 4, p.230, 231).

[2] “The household is as it were a little commonwealth by the good government whereof God’s glory may be advanced, the commonwealth…benefited and all that live in that family may receive much comfort and commodity.” (Robert Cleaver, quoted by Daniel Doriani in “The Godly Household in Puritan Theology, 1560-1640”, Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1985, p.52).

[3] Leland Ryken,Worldly Saints,(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p. 74.

[4] “It was the husbands responsibility to channel the family into religion; to take them to church on the Lord’s Day, to oversee the sanctifying of the entire day in the home; to catechize the children, and teach them the faith; to examine the whole family after each sermon, to see how much had been retained and understood, and to fill any gaps of understanding that might remain; to lead the family in worship daily, ideally twice a day; and to set an example of sober godliness at all times and in all matters.” (J.I. Packer, The Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life, [Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990], p.270).

[5] The Whole Works of Rev. Oliver Heywood, (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1999, published earlier in London: John Vint, 1825), Vol. 4 “The Family Altar”, pgs. 309-311

Last night Kalila and I met with Paul my pastor and Danny O to discuss our future involvement with our church, King of Grace. We met at The Tap in downtown Haverhill and we had a great time. We were able to explain some of the intricacies our what we are working through for the immediate future. I think I walked away very encouraged about the future, even though there seems to be a lot of uncertainly with regards to my ministry/work prospects. The tentative plan has us in the area for the next 2-3 years so Kalila can finish us her Anthropology degree from UMass Boston and I can get a Th.M. at Gordon-Conwell. Last night, much like the barley and hops at The Tap, ideas for involvement were brewing in my head. We did not committ the “sin of light beer” (per the chapter title in The Radical Reformission) last night either, we enjoyed Uncle Willie’s Amber Ale. Kalila and I are also thinking about the prospect of moving to the Haverhill/Methuen area also, since we are 45 minutes from the church area. Our meeting certainly rejuvinated my desire to further fellowship with our body of believers.