Should We Condemn the Puritans as Racist?

[Fly Caster]

http://theaquilareport.com/puritans-and-propaganda/

Is criticizing the racist roots of Puritanism out of bounds? That’s what some Calvinists are debating following Christian rapper Propaganda’s scathing indictment of Puritan history.

Thoughts about this?

Mine aren't especially grateful for the strawmen the author has erected... or, the "rapper," either.

 

[AThornquist]

Thabiti Anyabwile has some helpful thoughts on this. No person, or group of people, is above criticism. While the learned argue back and forth about whether the song was perfectly fair or useful, I will sit back and appreciate it for what it was. It raises an issue that I've never thought about.

 

[mvdm]

Others are getting in on the puritan bashing bandwagon:

The Puritans Are Not That Precious – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile


On the following blog, pay particular attention to Wayne Sparkman's comment setting the historical record straight:

Puritans, Slavery, and Criticizing Heroes | Heidelblog

Historical revisionism is reaching new lows when rap "artists" are being taken seriously in service of an agenda.

 

[calgal]

I listened to the song and kind of liked it (rap is not my thing but this had some valid points). Mark it is not about walking on eggshells: that is unbiblical but it is about iron sharpening iron and realizing where we are sinning. There is a nasty undercurrent of racism in our past and not so distant past that we need to handle better than the patronizing liberal churches do.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Race is the third-rail of Reformed theology.

Of course the author ignores, or is ignorant of, the long-standing stance of the Covenanters, both in Scotland and in the colonies/USA, against racial slavery that goes back ages.

 

[mvdm]

I listened to the song and kind of liked it (rap is not my thing but this had some valid points). Mark it is not about walking on eggshells: that is unbiblical but it is about iron sharpening iron and realizing where we are sinning. There is a nasty undercurrent of racism in our past and not so distant past that we need to handle better than the patronizing liberal churches do.

Of course, the puritans or their followers were not sinless. Yet it is an equally egregious sin when, with the historical record before us, that revisionists would level such generalized accusations that the puritans were racists. While I've heard plenty of repentance for past sins of racism, I'm not holding my breath that I'll hear repentance from the race-baiting revisionists.

For example, it is not fair to brand Edwards a racist when one simply considers his ministry and love of the Stocktbridge Indians. In his biography of Edwards, Ian Murray writes that Edwards care for the Indians was not just seeing them as souls to be saved, but as image bearers of God: " Indifference to their physical needs, as well as injustice in dealing with their grievances, incurred his anger. Possibly he got closer to them than to those in Northampton who complained of his 'unsocialble' ways..." p. 393 "Edwards was fundamentally concerned with the spiritual welfare of others. But it was the same love which prompted that concern wihc also led him to attend patiently to the temporal needs of Indian youths. When war and the scattering of the Mohawk school nullified educational efforts at Stockbridge, Edwards arranged for some Indian boys to to to Bellamy for further help." p. 395.

 

[KMK]

Has anyone in the debate bothered to define the term 'racist'?

 

[OPC'n]

I think being racist means hating a group of ppl, and I have a hard time believing that the Puritans hated any group of ppl. Were the Puritans without sin? I believe they would quote 1John to us faster than we would. I hope no one ever scrutinizes my life a 100+ years from now and says, "Sarah, was sinful bc she did such and such" cuz they would be very busy for a couple of decades listing all my sins.

 

[Fly Caster]

Of course, the puritans or their followers were not sinless...

Of course. One of the infuriating "Straw-men" in the article was this--

The song also challenges those who uncritically treat the Puritans as a protected class that stands outside of the Bible’s command to “test everything” (1 Thess. 5:21).

I don't know of anybody who suggests such a thing. Even the most appreciative of the Puritans see their faults.

What seems to be happening is that some get tunnel-vision and become very selective in what sins to condemn in others. If someone can be construed as "Racist" then they become a special category of sinners that exhibits a wickedness that exceeds all others.

Of course, the rapper doesn't apply the same condemning standard to himself by applying the racism inherent in much of rap music (along with degradation of women and a host of other ills) that is rampant in the rap community. I'm sure that when he discusses Black History he doesn't drag out the facts that Black people in Africa were involved in the slave trade by man-stealing other black people and selling them to the slave traders, or that slave-owning has a history among his ancestors as much as it does among mine. Nor do I expect to hear much about the racism spouted by many of the leaders in the Black community today when the Civil Rights movement is being discussed. Or that Blacks can be as "racist" toward other Blacks as Whites can be-- look at the murder and mayhem that has occurred in African nations over the last few years.

I don't know of any notable Puritans who were chaplains on slave ships-- but if there were, are slave traders such wretched people that they are too vile to attempt to bring the Word of God to? In the name of despising racism, do we condemn those who were trying to bring the gospel to those who need it most?

It's easy to erect Straw-men to burn them down. I don't want to get into impugning motives, but I can't help but think that both Mr. Bradley and the rapper are doing just that here.

 

[ReformedFordham]

Personally I love this album and this song. I take it as a warning to not elevate ANY group of people because no group of people are or were infallible. I think the last part of the song really brings the purpose of it together.

"Think of the congregation that quotes you. Are you inerrant?
Trust me I know the feeling.
It’s the same feeling I get when people quote me.
Like, if you only knew!
I get it. But I don’t get it.
Ask my wife.
And, it bothers me when you quote puritans, if I’m honest, for the same reason it bothers me when people quote me–they precious propaganda.
So, I guess it’s true.
God really does use crooked sticks to make straight lines.
Just like your precious puritans."

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The puritans, arguably, had their priorities wrong in tolerating various forms of racism and were obsessed more with Sabbath observance than protecting the dignity of their brothers in Christ (generalisation of course).

This is the picture of a 9th Commandment violation and is just patently absurd.

Which Puritans are we talking about? Which specific brothers in Christ were "racist" (a made-up Modernist term) and which were not?

Wayne has already shown the major league fallacy in this conversation with his quotation of Richard Baxter on the Heidelblog and on that same blog I quoted from both American/Colonial and Scottish Covenanter men that openly and without qualification blasted the slave trade and those who supported it (which has never been and was not then a purely "African" or "racial" thing).

 

[mvdm]

Were the Puritans without sin? I believe they would quote 1John to us faster than we would. I hope no one ever scrutinizes my life a 100+ years from now and says, "Sarah, was sinful bc she did such and such" cuz they would be very busy for a couple of decades listing all my sins.

Well said, Sarah.

 

[PhilA]

Well said, Josh

 

[Peairtach]

Oliver Cromwell, the great Puritan general and statesman, was very racist in inviting the Jews back into England.

 

[Don Kistler]

The best of men are men at best. I hold the Puritans as precious for those things they did right. Were there some Puritans who were racist? Probably? Were the Puritans as a whole, as a movement, racist? Absolutely not. A blanket indictment is no more helpful than a blanket acceptance.

 

[KMK]

If the Puritans can be condemned for anything it would be their fashion sense.

 

[Phil D.]

In direct response to the question presented in the OP, it would obviously be a gross and slanderous misstatement to simply say “the Puritans should be condemned as racist.” The fact is that, based on their writings and known history, a few would appear to have generally fit into that category while a similar number definitely didn’t. Most never directly addressed or were observed in the context of that issue, and therefore we have no means by which to so judge them.

If and when one encounters a pro-slavery position and any associated abuses among the Puritans, those - as somewhat distinct from the person themselves - should certainly be condemned, though keeping in mind that all people are to some extent a product of the times they live(d) in. At the same time, any contributions that perhaps even some offending Puritans may have made in recovering and furthering true biblical theology and ecclesiology should be considered on their own merits, and thankfully appreciated.

I do think, however, that it is right to be saddened and disappointed that the total abolition of chattel slavery didn’t arise sooner than it did as a leading issue among Puritanism in general, if nothing else as a logical extension of the courageous stands they often did take on other issues affecting social justice and personal sanctification.

I also have to imagine that in some people’s way of thinking most of the anti-slavery statements specifically referenced so far in this discussion (excepting Baxter) would not be among those they would consider “Puritan”. (For example, Matthew Henry [d.1714] is frequently styled "the last Puritan".) In Mr. Bradley’s case, he seems to primarily have the first several generations of Puritans, who produced the most enduring works and are still most revered among conservative Reformed people, in mind.

As for Richard Baxter, while he was one of the most widely published Puritans of his day, he was also one of the most controversial, being roundly condemned by many of his peers for having faulty views on various theological matters. Thus I think it is a bit mistaken to extrapolate the simple fact that he was widely known and heard into the notion that his anti-slavery position was just as widely held. Rather, one would need to examine a broad and representative sampling of writings from across the various strains of early Puritanism before they could make any sweeping generalizations on this issue.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Were they racist? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. While they were profoundly committed to honoring Christ in all they did, they were nonetheless men (and women) of their day.

I think that we need to reject the self-justifying mindset that says if we can find any fault in another then we can dismiss them wholesale. This mindset seems to be behind the drive to "condemn" the Puritans on the issue.

 

[jwithnell]

Were the puritans any more racist than any one else in English society? It's not something I''ve studied beyond knowing that some owned slaves under English law. I'm not making excuses for anyone -- just curious if something makes the puritans stand out.

 

[NB3K]

There was only one vessel in the history of the Church that God sent that was without sin. That one vessel was Jesus Christ our Lord & Savior! Never forget that!

 

[J. Dean]

Were the Puritans racist? Don't know; perhaps some were. As said above, nobody can claim sinlessness. That's not an excuse, that's reality.

That being said, just because one has sin in one area of his life does not mean his theology as a whole is corrupt. If that were the case, then we could trust nobody at all who makes a theological proclamation.

 

[Tyrese]

The puritans, arguably, had their priorities wrong in tolerating various forms of racism and were obsessed more with Sabbath observance than protecting the dignity of their brothers in Christ (generalisation of course).

This is the picture of a 9th Commandment violation and is just patently absurd.

Which Puritans are we talking about? Which specific brothers in Christ were "racist" (a made-up Modernist term) and which were not?

Wayne has already shown the major league fallacy in this conversation with his quotation of Richard Baxter on the Heidelblog and on that same blog I quoted from both American/Colonial and Scottish Covenanter men that openly and without qualification blasted the slave trade and those who supported it (which has never been and was not then a purely "African" or "racial" thing).

It really bothers me when Christians pretend as if racism is just a figment of the imagination. Now I don't believe in abusing race like many liberals do, but if you believe "racist" is a made up term than perhaps we are on different planets.

 

[Tyrese]

There was only one vessel in the history of the Church that God sent that was without sin. That one vessel was Jesus Christ our Lord & Savior! Never forget that!

I completely agree. This has always been my outlook on this issue and will forever remain my outlook.

 

[JMKing]

Just in response to the song, notwithstanding the issue of whether or not "puritans" were racist, this line bothered me:

And taught a gospel that says God had multiple images in mind when he created us in it.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

Is this particular rapper of the "reformed" persuasion?

 

[Unoriginalname]

I think it is absurd to condemn any christian group for anything, please let me qualify that. As Christian's we acknowledge that all of us have sin and as a result all of our movements and reforms will be tainted with that. Yet acknowledging is much different from condemning. It is rather judgmental to condemn a group for a cultural blind spot of their day. We can acknowledge that the some of the puritans and those affected by the puritans were involved in the African slave trade but does that mean they lose the right to speak to today's culture when they are correct about an issue. I have seen no one advocate the puritans' view on Africans or race in general. They are brought up for their concern for doctrine informing piety. They are not above reproach but at the same time I have seen no one hear say they were right on this issue. I love what Sarah said about people going back and scrutinizing people who are long since dead. If you want to talk about race and sin do it with people who are still alive to repent and change their ways. Calling dead men sinners is a cheap way of putting on your robes of self righteousness.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The puritans, arguably, had their priorities wrong in tolerating various forms of racism and were obsessed more with Sabbath observance than protecting the dignity of their brothers in Christ (generalisation of course).

This is the picture of a 9th Commandment violation and is just patently absurd.

Which Puritans are we talking about? Which specific brothers in Christ were "racist" (a made-up Modernist term) and which were not?

Wayne has already shown the major league fallacy in this conversation with his quotation of Richard Baxter on the Heidelblog and on that same blog I quoted from both American/Colonial and Scottish Covenanter men that openly and without qualification blasted the slave trade and those who supported it (which has never been and was not then a purely "African" or "racial" thing).

It really bothers me when Christians pretend as if racism is just a figment of the imagination. Now I don't believe in abusing race like many liberals do, but if you believe "racist" is a made up term than perhaps we are on different planets.

I don't think you understood anything I said.

 

[SRoper]

The puritans, arguably, had their priorities wrong in tolerating various forms of racism and were obsessed more with Sabbath observance than protecting the dignity of their brothers in Christ (generalisation of course).

This is the picture of a 9th Commandment violation and is just patently absurd.

Which Puritans are we talking about? Which specific brothers in Christ were "racist" (a made-up Modernist term) and which were not?

Wayne has already shown the major league fallacy in this conversation with his quotation of Richard Baxter on the Heidelblog and on that same blog I quoted from both American/Colonial and Scottish Covenanter men that openly and without qualification blasted the slave trade and those who supported it (which has never been and was not then a purely "African" or "racial" thing).

It really bothers me when Christians pretend as if racism is just a figment of the imagination. Now I don't believe in abusing race like many liberals do, but if you believe "racist" is a made up term than perhaps we are on different planets.

I don't think you understood anything I said.

I guess I didn't either.

 

[a mere housewife]

Were they racist? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. While they were profoundly committed to honoring Christ in all they did, they were nonetheless men (and women) of their day.

I think that we need to reject the self-justifying mindset that says if we can find any fault in another then we can dismiss them wholesale. This mindset seems to be behind the drive to "condemn" the Puritans on the issue.

Thank you for this.

There surely have been forms of racism throughout history, for Scripture speaks to union in Christ as transcending such divisions. And while we ought to squarely own up to and not glorify the faults of the past wherever they have existed (as Christians we have a special privilege, as well as a special obligation to do this), it makes me wonder what sins of our time I am blind to in my own life.

I haven't been following the discussion but re: the comment above about chaplains on slave ships (comment 9) -- surely, all sins of the times issues aside, that is somewhat like having a chaplain to a strip club? Yes those working in such places need the gospel desperately. But there are ventures to be associated with and ventures to oppose any association with as part of preaching that gospel. The indefensible seems better left undefended if we are going to maintain the gospel we so greatly treasure in our Puritan heritage.

 

[Wayne]

If I may put on my moderator's shoes for a moment:

Ben, if that is your honest concern (and I have to assume it is), then your response needs further explanation. Otherwise it runs the risk of being confrontational. And none of us want that.

Racism is a modern term, but a very old sin.