Scott, you will not find anywhere where I have said anything that comes even close to proposing that we should adopt "all of what the Puritans" believed or practiced.
Instead, I am proposing that the more we adopt all of what the Bible teaches and put it into practice, it will not only transform our individual lives but it will transform the culture around us unto the glory of God. Christians are not spectators in this world; we are guides.

Scott, I appreciate your viewpoint and thank you for sharing them. It is very helpful to be a student of history. In fact, a proper hermeneutic requires a historical study of Scripture. History is very important when it comes to (1) teaching us the ways of God and (2) teaching us the ways of man.

But as I said above, we must look into history and become optimistic not pessimistic. History reveals the incremental growth of God's kingdom since Noah walked off of the Ark. Sure redemptive history has its alternating periods "ups and downs" but God has never had a setback. He has never failed. He is building His church, His kingdom. God only knows success.

Other the other hand, we look into history from the perspective of our mortality and sometimes we wonder if the world is headed "to hell in a hand basket" (as I once heard a preacher say).

But my faith is in what God has revealed about His mission. My faith is not newspaper clippings or human setbacks and failures. From the perspective of the Bible I see the kingdom of God growing... even when His children are walking in circles in the wilderness of failure.

So, to use your statement above: The only dictatorship I want to live under is that of Christ reigning and ruling over the powers of government ... as He sits upon His throne even now and will continue to live under His rule when He returns and consummates Redemption. So, Scott, why wait... Jesus reigns today and is bringing all things under His Lordship... join us as we pray, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven."

Did you mean to ask "What went right?"
Because every century since the Puritans has been greatly impacted what those people did in their generation.
What would America be like had it not been for the Puritans?
What Atheist/Communist/Barbarian would be ruling a united Europe had it not been for Christianity's cultural (even political) influence?
Where would the world be economically?
What status of life and liberty would women enjoy?
What would have happened to the Liberation Movement had it not been for cultural-transforming power of the Gospel?
What if all countries would have been like China or India or Korea or the Soviet Union?
Where would education be today; where would the arts and sciences be today; where would be philosophy without the great Christian thinkers?
What if Europe would have never had the Westminster Assembly or if America would have never had Christianity reflected in its laws, politics, and policies?

So the question is "What went right?"
Followed by "What lasted?"
and "What can we do better?"

Acros, if you would like to elaborate, feel free to do so. Of course, I believe that Pandeism (in any of its forms) is erroneous. But if you would like to give any support for your belief or if you would like to explain why the above analysis is "reason that Pandeism is" rising, feel free. But do so only if you are willing to engage in a cordial conversation about Pandeism vs the Bible.

I have done my share of traveling in foreign countries, both pagan nations and atheistic nations. I can tell you as an eyewitness that Christianity transforms cultures.

I have seen it also transform the culture of a school and the culture within family units. I have seen it transform governments. I have even seen churches effectually influence the unbelieving population of communities.

The Pharisees saw the power of Jesus upon the entire nation of Israel -- not just individuals but "the whole world" was being affected by Jesus.

The Apostles saw entire cities transformed, even to the point that riots broke out in Ephesus as the economy was being influenced by the gospel.

Rome was affected to its core by the church. The entire city of Geneva was transformed by the John Calvin's ministry. The Westminster Assembly produced the most blessed years in Great Britian's history.

Everywhere Christianity goes it advances the civilization of cultures.

Jesus has come to bring peace and joy to the world. The church is the Body of Christ fulfilling the Messianic ministries of Jesus through the power of His Spirit. Yes, this transformation does not happen apart from the conversion of individuals, but, even more so, Christianity doesn't produce individualism. Rather, it produces community and community produces culture. And the power of the culture of Christianity is more powerful than the influence of any worldly culture.

The gospel transforms an individual from the realm of separation from God's blessings into a personal relationship with God. This personal impact of the gospel is often taught by preachers

But the gospel does more than just have an individual impact on a person. The gospel creates a counter-culture called the church. The church not just a collection of individual Christians but a community, a culture. Those who only believe in an individual gospel often miss the communal implications.

Individual Christianity is quite simple, but living with other Christians in a world that both hates Jesus and needs Jesus is very complex. Such living is the essence of true discipleship and requires a community of grace and truth to achieve.

The Apostle Peter urged the church as "sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation." (1 Pet 2:11-12) Notice, on one hand Peter is urging for abstinence and on the other hand is urging engagement. Thus are the complexities I am talking about.

Peter recognized that there are dangers of both cultural accommodation and cultural withdrawal. No one sees the good deeds of those who withdraw from the world. On the other hand, people who accommodate the culture are never persecuted. We're to go in deeply, but to stay very different.

As a counter-culture we should be both priestly and servant-hearted. Those who want to be legalistic and have an us-against-them mentality tend not to be priestly. Those who are only interested in social issues tend not to talk about hell and wrath.

Thabiti Anyabwile is the senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman and the author, most recently, of The Decline of African American Theology (IVP, 2007).

Thabiti tackles this issue with the following response:

What is primary in the church is preaching, applying, and living the gospel. The church is to make disciples and teach those disciples to observe all the Lord commands. The gospel is central and without the gospel a "church" ceases to be a church. So nothing that comes under the banner of "cultural transformation" is to displace that most central of concerns.

Having said that, does not Christ command his people to do some things that touch upon cultural transformation or social issues? And insofar as the church is to teach disciples to obey all those commands, then I think on some level we’re in the business of "cultural transformation" (though that’s a hideous and misleading label).

I really dislike this question. It’s problematic in two ways. First, the question forces us to make a decision that’s too blunt or sweeping. It’s "all or nothing." And, I think it may suggest that there is a "letter" to be obeyed without necessarily attending to a corresponding "spirit." For example, I can’t think of chapter and verse (which the question seems to call for) that assigns the role of "cultural transformation" to the church qua church. And yet, I can’t reason that there is no role for the church when there are plenty of places where Christians universally are called to do justice in their cultural setting. What does it mean for there to be such a universal call to Christians and there to be no role for the church qua church (a gathering of said Christians in a particular locale preaching, administering the ordinances, and living out the faith)? The distinction the question imposes between the church and individual Christians breaks down, I think, when you’re talking about obligations Christians are universally to observe.

A second way in which the question is problematic: it seems to (a) assume a political and social context where government and perhaps a non-profit sector are intact and responsible for such things as education, and (b) overlook extraordinary social problems. So what is the church’s responsibility regarding cultural transformation in a developing nation (which is most of the world) where there are no basic governmental structures and no non-profit sector as in the United States? And can we comfortably conclude the church has no role to oppose things like the slave trade, sex trafficking, abortion, or provide disaster relief in famine or hurricanes?

We could rule some of these things in by exception. That is, we could say, "of course the church has a role in those limited extraordinary cases." But if it has a role in such cases, why does it not have a role in the more mundane, ordinary, or chronic situations? Are we to organize mercy when the problem is glaring, but remain disorganized and disinterested when they are "every day"? I can’t see that.

So, right now, I’m left to conclude that there is Christian liberty in deciding whether a local church will involve itself in this or that social issue. A great deal of discernment is required, for obviously not every social issue is "close" to the church’s core mission, and there is a long history of social causes displacing gospel order. In my experience, Christians are generally nervous about exercising the liberties that Christ provides. Perhaps this is a corporate exercise in that nervousness.

Stephen Um says: All peoples, institutions, and groups are interested in changing, renewing, or transforming society by impressing their core values on the culture. For that matter, we cannot help but make an impact on our culture. The minute anyone opens his mouth, he is speaking in a particular language, from a particular cultural context, with a particular worldview vision of morality and various definitions of what he believes to be the "true", the "good", and the "beautiful." As such, no one should be led to think that he is not "getting into the public square."

In addressing the question, "Is it the church’s responsibility to embrace or assume the civic responsibility of the state (e.g. education, the poor, social injustice, the arts, etc.)?", we need to consider the following. The church does not have any juridical authority in the city/state public square, but that does not mean that the Church ought to stay out in the periphery. The church does have the responsibility for acts of mercy and for engaging our community with acts of social justice (cf. Jas. 1.27). Paul states that "as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers" (Gal. 6:10). He is clearly referring to a deed ministry that should be shared with all people as they have need. James says that true religion is this: "to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (Jas. 1.27). In other words, it is the church’s responsibility to pursue both public compassion and personal piety. For example, although a failing school system is not the civic responsibility of the church, the church could get involved in "doing good" by perhaps coming along side of the local school in providing after-school tutoring.

Unfortunately, some activist or fundamentalist groups have thought that they should either assume the responsibility of the state (whether conservative or liberal) or impede the government’s involvement in the lives of individuals. However, the gospel calls individuals in the church to pursue the common good in our culture and to enter into the public square by encouraging and promoting gospel values and by engaging in an incarnational/grassroots strategy for cultural renewal and community development. This is not to suggest that social action, political involvement, or pursuing the common good is a replacement for evangelism.

What does this gospel response look like? There is to be an integration of faith and vocational calling in bringing cultural renewal. Thus, the church and its members should cultivate friendships with people in their neighborhoods, join clubs and associations, and partner with organizations that are also involved in acts of mercy and social justice. In other words, because the ministry of the gospel is both a ministry of word and deed, we can actually promote the public witness of the gospel by pursuing the common good and engaging in acts of social justice.

[Stephen Um is the senior minister of Citylife Presbyterian Church in Boston, Massachusetts. ]

___________________

go here for more quotes on 9Marks about this issue. ||here

Speaking of Presbyterians, Philip G. Ryken is quoted as saying: Does Scripture call the local church (by which we mean the local church as the local church, not as individual Christians) to the work of cultural transformation? For example, is a failing school system the responsibility of the local church?

There is a sense in which the answer to this question must be "no." The church's primary calling is to preach the gospel and to worship God in the ministry of the Word, the sacraments, and prayer. While the worship of God and the proclamation of the gospel have a transforming influence on the surrounding culture, this does not happen directly, but indirectly, as the people of God live out the implications of their faith in every aspect of life.

Yet there are also ways in which the answer to this question must be "yes." In its priestly ministry of intercession, the local church prays for the needs of its community—all of the areas where the surrounding culture needs to experience the transforming influence of the gospel. In its prophetic ministry of preaching and teaching God's Word, the local church disciples its members to fulfill their various callings as parents, teachers, artists, students, politicians, business people—callings that have culture-transforming power. In its diaconal ministry of mercy, the local church offers practical service in the name of Christ—service that transforms the lives of the poor, the homeless, and the elderly, as well as children, prisoners, and internationals. In these ways, at least, the local church is called to the gospel work of cultural transformation.

A church that regards such transformation as its primary goal may well miss its more fundamental calling to glorify God in preaching the gospel. Yet a church that minimizes the importance of its legitimate calling to cultural transformation may fail to do the full work of discipleship or of bearing full witness to the kingdom of God.

To take education as an example, a failing school system ought to be a matter of deep concern to Christian people. In appropriate ways, it can also be a legitimate area for local church involvement. Local churches can and should pray for the education of local children. They can and should support local Christian schools through their benevolences. Where permitted, they can and should lead Bible studies, provide Christ-centered religious education, or do other evangelistic work in local schools. Where invited (as is the case in Philadelphia), they can and should respond to the request of the civil government to offer spiritual and educational mentoring to local students.

[Philip G. Ryken is the senior minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and is the author, most recently, of What Is the Christian Worldview (P&R, 2006).]

And, before anyone "goes there" -- this is not a Presbyterian thing: See Michael Horton for an example of a prominent Presby who doesn't believe that the church should worry about transforming the culture.