One of the most well-known quotes about the Puritans comes from controversial journalist and critic H.L. Menken, who in 1925 claimed that the Puritans had “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”¹ Recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in the Puritans’ understanding of joy, with essays and even whole books dedicated to the topic.² In the most recent and robust treatment on the subject, Nathaniel Warne rightly points out that the Puritans’ fear was not that someone might be happy, but rather that someone might live and “not experience the true and rich happiness that they were created to experience by God.”³ Indeed, the Puritans may have been more concerned about the happiness of humanity than any other group in the history of the world. They understood that true happiness is not a flippant circumstantial feeling, but a deep and abiding joy in God that draws its source from the fountain of joy: God himself.

While it is easy to pick on secular historians for missing the link between Puritanism and joy, my experience — as someone hailing from the confessional Reformed wing of the Protestant house — suggests something more surprising: whole churches and traditions with Presbyterian and Reformed heritages can sometimes miss the reality that joy in God is a central tenant celebrated in their own confessional standards. The Westminster Shorter Catechism (hereafter WSC) begins with a central question that uses superlative language: “What is the chief end of man?” Answer: “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”

By exploring the historical context behind the crafting of the Westminster Standards and specifically the WSC, this article will argue that the Puritans considered the pursuit of God’s glory and our joy in him to be central to the Christian life. It will also show how this joy-saturated theological tradition was inherited by and continued to spread through later figures, especially Jonathan Edwards. Finally, it will end by drawing out two practical lessons we can learn from the Puritans’ focus on joy in God.

Minutes of a Remarkable Assembly

On July 1, 1643, Parliament convened the first of 1,330 meetings that would take place over the next decade (1643–1652) at Westminster Abbey. This group, known as the Westminster Assembly, was a gathering of “Learned and Godlie divines . . . for the Settling of the Government and the Litturgie of the Church of England.” The publication of the Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly — containing, among other things, a multivolume transcription of the official minutes of the Assembly — has recently provided us the clearest window revealing what went into the crafting of the Westminster Confession and the Larger and Shorter catechisms.

For example, we know that the Assembly delegated the drafting of the WSC to a committee of at least eight members — which included Chairman Herbert Palmer, who had compiled his own catechism — and that the first debate on the Shorter Catechism took place on October 21, 1647, the same day as the last debate on the Larger Catechism.⁴ We also know that, following the completion of a draft of the WSC on November 8, 1647, they debated whether they would “follow the standard format of expounding the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer and Apostles’ Creed, or that those texts would be appended to the shorter catechism” and that the Assembly opted for the second option.⁵ We even know that the WSC was finally approved on November 16, 1647, and that, for final approval, Parliament instructed them on November 26, 1647, “to append Scripture proofs to both catechisms.”⁶

Still, despite shedding light on countless facets of the Assembly previously unknown, there are gaps in our understanding of precisely why they made some decisions. There are whole days in the record where the scribe of the minutes simply records, “Debate of the lesser catechism,” or “Proceeded in the debate of the catechism,” or even shorter “Deb. Catchisme [sic].”⁷ In many cases, then, we must infer — from the historical context and the emphases within the broader theological tradition of the Puritan movement — what motivated them in their various decisions on individual catechetical questions. As we explore the divines’ historical context and broader theological tradition, we get clarity on the importance of joy in God in the WSC and Puritan theology.

Orthodoxy’s Beating Heart

The calling of the Westminster Assembly to redefine and refine orthodoxy in England followed a tumultuous decade of reform under King Charles I and Archbishop William Laud. The king and archbishop persecuted members of the Puritan movement and sought to move the Church of England in a distinctly more Catholic direction. Against this backdrop, the Puritans gathered in 1643 to clarify what they believed were central theological truths of Christian doctrine and life. Among their concerns was to emphasize that Reformed orthodoxy was not merely doctrinal or behavioral, but experiential or affectional; that is, true, vital Christianity embraces love for God and joy in God.

The Puritans had witnessed firsthand a conformist Christianity that was devoid of a vital experiential emphasis. In the 1630s, the conformist clergy in the Church of England had promoted a Christianity that was performative, emphasizing liturgy, ritual, and ceremony. This was most clearly seen in how conformist clergy redefined the central tasks of pastoral ministry. In stark contrast to the Puritans, these ministers claimed that on Sundays pastors were chiefly called by God to lead in liturgy, read Scripture, and administer the sacraments.

The Puritans responded by arguing that pastors are “physicians of souls” and therefore must move beyond a surface-level reading of Scripture and recitation of words. In short, they must pierce the hearts of their hearers with the Scriptures. What were the ministers’ tools, their proverbial scalpel and surgical instruments? God had equipped them and called them to shepherd God’s people through deep experiential preaching to the heart. Through their powerful preaching, the Spirit would take the word, apply it to men’s consciences, transform their hearers’ affections, and give them a new joy in God himself.

“Do not deprive God of his glory by refusing to exult in him while you worship. It is the reason you were created.”

The fact that question 1 of the WSC begins by linking the glory of God and our joy is no accident. Great thought and care were given not only to the content but to the order of these Standards. The order highlights that they believed joy and the pursuit of God’s glory were primary. And the fact that these two key topics were treated in the same catechetical question signals that the Puritans believed the glory of God and the joy of the believer were linked. In the minds of the Puritans, the first duty of believers is to enjoy God and to glorify God. And these two duties are not separate callings but one glorious opportunity — believers glorify God through their very enjoyment of him.

In this way, the first question reflects the Puritans’ pastoral concerns within their historical context. It also shows that joy in God was a central tenant of their entire theological system. For the Puritans, the believer’s joy was not a cherry on top of the ice-cream sundae of the Christian life, but the very cream that permeates the entire dessert. Indeed, the way believers glorify God is by showing that communion with him is both the most satisfying thing in all the universe and the very reason they were created.

Joy Before Westminster and Beyond

The emphasis on personal enjoyment of and communion with Christ goes all the way back to the founding of Puritanism itself. William Perkins, the “father of Puritanism” and author of the first Puritan preaching manual, The Art of Prophesying (prophecy being the old Puritan word for preaching), used the analogy of the preachers as bakers, carefully slicing bread and feeding those in need of spiritual nourishment. What was the end of this feeding? It was not merely transactional, but deeply personal — to discover Christ himself.⁸ Perkins was not alone. Thomas Watson, in his Body of Practical Divinity, says, the “end of Scripture” is to obtain “a clear discovery of Christ” and to “quicken our Affections” to him.⁹ Likewise, John Owen wrote that a believer reads Scripture so that he “might find all that is necessary unto his happiness.”¹⁰

This conviction explains why the Puritans often referred to communion with Christ as delight in “spiritual marriage.”¹¹ Particularly in the sermons and writings on the Song of Solomon, they used the language of “ravishment” to describe the love of Christ for them.¹² Tom Schwanda points out that their reading of the Song of Solomon led them to speak “freely of the intimacy and joys of spiritual marriage with Jesus, as the divine Bridegroom,” as they expressed their “delight and enjoyment of God.”¹³

This theme of joy’s centrality to the Christian life continued in figures like Matthew Henry and his The Pleasantness of a Religious Life (1714). It finds its fullest expression, however, in the writings of America’s greatest theologian, Jonathan Edwards. Toward the end of his life, Edwards wrote a book that was published seven years after he died. In Edwards’s Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World (1765), he argues that a believer’s joy is found supremely in making much of God. The very essence of “joy,” according to Edwards, is “the exulting of the heart in God’s glory.”¹⁴ Edwards argues that three seemingly independent realities — God’s seeking of his glory, his seeking of our joy, and our seeking of our joy by seeking God’s glory — are actually intrinsically connected in God’s ordering of the universe. By seeking his glory and encouraging those he created to do the same, God seeks the everlasting and ever-increasing joy of his creatures.¹⁵

Two Lessons for Today

What can Christians learn from this study of the centrality of joy in Puritanism? The first lesson is for Christians living in an increasingly post-Christian society. The Puritans’ emphasis on finding our joy in God is completely countercultural to our society’s understanding of joy. The message from the culture is that joy comes from being made much of and establishing one’s own self-made identity using the tools of the age (including, first and foremost, social media). The Puritans clear this cultural fog with the sunbeams of the gospel: true joy comes when we make much of God and enjoy our new identity in Christ. They challenge us to see that the pursuit of God’s glory is indeed enjoyable; the greatest joy one can have in life is to make much of him.

The second lesson is for Christians living and ministering in churches that have experientially (at least in part) drifted from their own theological traditions. The Puritans’ emphasis on joy in God contrasts with what some Christians (indeed, some Reformed Christians) think of as the point of worship — namely, to shrug off motivations of self-interest. I have heard many well-meaning Christians say on Sunday mornings, “We are here not for ourselves, but to give worship to God.” While there is indeed a sinful selfishness, the Puritans point us to a holy, God-designed self-interest: Christians are by God’s very design to seek their own good in glorifying God.

Let us never forget this: we walk into worship on Sunday mornings to glorify God by finding our joy in him. As songs are sung, Scripture is read, prayers are prayed, liturgy is conducted, the word is preached, and the sacraments are received, make it your aim to go vertical with God — to be satisfied by God and enjoy him. As Edwards argues, since God’s “happiness consists in enjoying and rejoicing in himself . . . so does also the creature’s happiness . . . [consist] in rejoicing in God; by which also God is magnified and exalted.”¹⁶ Do not deprive God of his glory by refusing to exult in him while you worship. It is the reason you were created. Indeed, the reason we enjoy making much of God is because God designed us this way in his image. Just as he takes great delight in making much of himself, so we follow him and glorify his name.