341 - Pursuing the Puritan Ethic

Pursuing the Puritan Ethic
By John M. Mulder

IN 1967 the historian Lynn White, Jr., published a famous article suggesting that the historical roots of our ecological crisis lay in the heart of the Christian tradition itself, specifically in the biblical injunction granting human beings dominance over God's creation (Gen. 1:28). Such a command, argued White, contributed to the western attitude that nature had no intrinsic value except in terms of its capacity for human use, and eventually, exploitation.¹ Although White largely restricted his analysis to the medieval period, it was not long before others linked the attitude of exploitation with the rise of Protestantism, capitalism, and modern science ² thus further branding the already discredited "Puritan ethic" with still more opprobrium.

Despite all the efforts of historians and theologians to redeem the reputation of the Puritans, the term, "Puritan," still awakens many of the attitudes of disdain and ridicule that were so common in the 1920's. H. L. Mencken's definition of a Puritan as a person who was worried that someone, somewhere, someplace was having fun continues to have an appreciative, if not an approving, audience. Today the Puritan ethic has been roughly equated with everything from the "Type A" behavior that leads to heart attacks, to manic compulsive activity, to the supposed American preference for bad food ("anything that tastes that good has to be bad").

I

There are, of course, legitimate reasons for criticizing the Puritan ethic. First, it tended to be highly individualistic, emphasizing the necessity of strenuous, solitary effort to tame the wilderness and eventually one's competitors. Second, in its most pernicious forms, it

¹ Lynn White, Jr., "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis," Science, Vol. 155 (March 10, 1967), pp. 1203-1207, reprinted in David and Eileen Spring, eds., Ecology and Religion in History (New York, 1974), pp. 15-31.
² See Ecology and Religion in History, passim.

342 - Pursuing the Puritan Ethic

was static, coercive, and conservative. One was called to be a housewife, carpenter, or laborer, and one had to be happy in completely fulfilling that preordained role. The legacy of this attitude left Protestant social ethics with little appreciation of the institutional forms of oppression in an industrial and technological society. It further contributed to the moral blindness to the divisions created and perpetuated by racism and class. Third, the Puritan ethic encouraged the identification of godliness with success, a devastating reformulation of the deuteronomic formula that has largely seized the imagination of Americans. As Sydney E. Ahlstrom has put it, there is "a steady line of progression from the Puritan doctrine of vocation to the Yankee gospel of work, and from that, in due course, to the Gilded Age's gospel of wealth."³

Ironically, it can be argued that while most Americans may ridicule their pinch-faced Puritan ancestors, it is the tenacious adherence to a secularized version of Puritan ethic that is at the root of so much of our contemporary malaise. Implicit in the American attitude toward work, which was shaped by the Puritan ethic, is the assumption that diligent, disciplined activity would bring not only results but increasing rewards. Minority groups experienced the frustration and denial of this hope long before American society as a whole, but today we are confronted with the bitter realization that the future is not open, but closed. In nearly every area of society, the picture is one of limitations, not promises or new opportunities. Part of the reason for this is undoubtedly the ecological crisis with its attendant problems of energy shortages, population explosions, and diminished raw materials. But for most Americans, the immediate cause has been the rampant inflation of the past several years. For both young and old, the purpose of work has ceased to be "getting ahead" but "staying afloat."

II

Why, then, another look at the Puritan ethic? Surely the best course of action is a decent burial of those values, which have gotten us in so much trouble. I would like to suggest that the prevalence of the Puritan ethic is itself a reason for giving it new and serious consideration. People do not live constructively in a future that has no relationship to the past, and it may be that a recovery and reinterpretation of our attitudes toward work might provide some resources for dealing with a new and quite different age.

First, it should be emphasized that the Puritan ethic was above all an ethic; that is, it was designed to place standards and boundaries upon human activity. Whatever impulse it may have provided to a kind of amoral capitalism or exploitation was ancillary and accidental

³ Sydney E. Ahlstrorn, "Thomas Hooker-Puritanism and Democratic Citizenship: A Preliminary Inquiry into Some Relationships of Religion and American Civic Responsibility," Church History, Vol. 32 (1963), p. 427.

343 - Pursuing the Puritan Ethic

to its primary intent to regulate and harmonize human life. Rather than setting the individual free for unlimited and indiscriminate effort, it sought to impose order, structure, and wholeness.

Second, the Puritan ethic was designed initially not for a society of growth but of limitations. For the most part, it was hostile to many capitalistic business practices, such as charging interest or maximizing profits. The experience of prosperity in America may have changed the emphasis, but Cotton Mather's classic formulation of the Puritan ethic has a persuasive and all-too contemporary ring today. "Suit your Expenses unto your Revenues: Take this Advice, O Christians," he declared. " 'Tis a Sin, I say 'Tis ordinarily a Sin, and it will at length be a Shame, for a man to Spend more than he Gets, or make his Layings out more than his Comings in."⁴

Third, the Puritan ethic placed honesty at the heart of all economic activity. At a time when we are regularly bombarded with exposés of how American corporations have bribed their way to wider markets and have seen the pernicious influence of money in politics, this ideal of moral integrity needs to be recaptured. "Truly, Justice, Justice, must be Exactly follow'd in that Calling, by which we go to get our Living," Mather exhorted. ". . . Let a principle of Honesty in your Occupation cause you to speak the Truth, and nothing but the Truth, on all Occasions. . . . Take no Advantage, either from the Necessity, or from the Unskilfulness, of those with whom you are concerned: It is Uncharitable, it is Disingenuous, it is Inhumane, for one man to prey upon the weakness of another."⁵

Fourth, while it urged people to work "with INDUSTRY," the Puritan ethic specifically refuted the idea that work was an end in itself. Rather, work was always a means toward serving others and glorifying God. Mather rejected the compulsiveness which marks much of our lives and insisted that people should "proportion" their work to their ability. " 'Tis an Indiscreet thing," he said, "for a man to overcharge himself in his Business: For a man to Distract his Mind, to confound his Health, to Lanch [sic] out beyond his estate in his Business, is a culpable Indiscretion. "⁶

Fifth, Mather and the Puritans consistently made a distinction between work and worth, between one's job and the value of one's life. This difference has been obscured and ignored with tragic consequences. Elderly people wonder whether they are "worth" anything since they are retired. Young people are asked what they will be, meaning what they will do. The suffering and pain among the unemployed, the unskilled, the incapacitated, and the elderly that has been caused by this identification of work and meaning are deep and incal-

⁴ Cotton Mather, A Christian at His Calling; Two Brief Discourses, one Directing a Christian in his General Calling; Another Directing Him in his Personal (Boston, 1701), excerpted and reprinted in Michael McGiffert, ed., Puritanism and the American Experience (Reading, Mass., 1969), pp. 125-26.
⁵ Ibid., p. 126.
⁶ Ibid., pp. 124-25.

344 - Pursuing the Puritan Ethic

culable. The Puritans, however, saw life in different terms. "There are Two Callings to be minded by All Christians," said Mather. "Every Christian hath a GENERAL CALLING; which is, to Serve the Lord Jesus Christ…. But then, every Christian hath also a PERSONAL CALLING; or a certain Particular Employment."⁷ In less theological language, what the Puritans insited upon was that all people had intrinsic worth before God which was different from whatever value their "particular employment" may provide to the community.

Finally, at its best, the Puritan ethic was corporate in its concern for the total welfare of society. It assumed that work was not for individual fulfillment but a form of moral stewardship for everyone. "There are two rules whereby wee are to walke one towards another," John Winthrop told the Massachusetts Puritans. "JUSTICE and MERCY." Furthermore, "The ligamentes of this body which knitt together are love," which "is a real thing not Imaginarie" and "absolutely necessary to the being of the body of Christ." In practical terms, Winthrop's ideal of love refuted the attitude that the poor were sinful and the rich were blessed. Instead, he declared, "when there is noe other meanes whereby our Christian brother may be relieved in this distresse, wee must help him beyond our ability, rather than tempt God, in putting him upon help by miraculous or extraordinary meanes."⁸

III

During this Bicentennial era, we should reexamine the values of our past, not to readopt them uncritically but to learn from them and reinterpret them for a new age. The Puritan ethic, despite all its defects, can be one means of recovering our sense of direction and purpose. At least, it involves a renewed commitment to the integrity and morality that should prevail in economic, social, and political life. But for the church, the Puritan ethic provides one resource for proclaiming again that we are saved not by what we do but by what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. Our "two callings" should not be confused. At a time when the future seems closed, the church has an opportunity for reminding people that the future is not ours but God's, that the meaning of our lives is not defined by our jobs but by God's grace.

⁷ Ibid., p. 122.
⁸ John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity, excerpted and reprinted in ibid., pp. 28-30.