Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I am interested in hearing how what I said denied that racism was real.
Should We Condemn the Puritans as Racist?
- Thread starter Fly Caster
- Start date
- Status
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
Exalt no man of any age but Christ, who alone is worthy. There is no good thing that dwells in them but Christ. Exalt Him and whatever of Himself He decrees to exhibit in His people. "Honor to whom honor is due" has been twisted to mean all manner of things other than that which it clearly implies; that the only honor due men is that which is wrought in them by the "only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords." All else is dross and dung.
Christians aren't a part of any other race, any other 'nation', or any other 'team'. Those that harbor collectivist sentiments of that sort are stunted and compromised Christians, or no Christians at all.
Christians aren't a part of any other race, any other 'nation', or any other 'team'. Those that harbor collectivist sentiments of that sort are stunted and compromised Christians, or no Christians at all.
Zach
Puritan Board Senior
I think we need to be open and honest about the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good is Christ. The Puritans were used mightily by God for a lot of good but their perfection was in Christ alone. That being said, there should be an open and honest historical critique of cultural sins and I appreciated your comments on Heidelblog, Mr. Sparkman, that shed some light on the fact that it probably is untrue to generalize and say that the Puritans were racists. It's important not to throw out the good just because there is some bad as well. We're all sinners saved by a perfect Savior.
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
And just so we're clear on this, the artist in particular and those who agree with his message have never said that the Puritans aren't valuable resources or that they should be rejected wholesale. That's not the point.
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
Are you sure about that? Here are the lyrics quoted in the Aquila Report article:
That certainly sounds to me like the rapper/author is writing the Puritans off as a whole.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I'm still trying to figure out what "Puritans" we are talking about here. I was told on Twitter that it was just "Puritans in New England" that were in focus. If that is the case then the "rapper" is taking a subset of a subset and slandering an entire movement.
Exactly and perhaps the question could be rephrased: should we acknowledge that the puritans or any other group really are not perfect? Why or why not?
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
Putting racist in scare quotes and declaring that it is a "made-up Modernist term" is at best unhelpful.
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
I have seen signs of racism in Christ's Church, sadly. But I do love and cherish the Puritans. This song, simply makes me sad. We need more of the Puritan mindset and not less. Their failings (and I am not claiming that racism was or wasn't one of them) were not because of their goals and pursuits, they were in spite of them.
And so when I talk about being Puritanical, it is that passionate, lusty seeking to understand and follow the precepts of pure, true religion in service of our Lord Jesus Christ. None of us will get it 100% right, but that's the pursuit of Puritanism that is so exciting to me, so wonderful, and so liberating. To follow God's ways, and not my own.
At least that's what I've always taken from reading the Puritans. I would never discount them as a whole because of some blindspot that they might have had based upon the culture and time in which they found themselves in.
And so when I talk about being Puritanical, it is that passionate, lusty seeking to understand and follow the precepts of pure, true religion in service of our Lord Jesus Christ. None of us will get it 100% right, but that's the pursuit of Puritanism that is so exciting to me, so wonderful, and so liberating. To follow God's ways, and not my own.
At least that's what I've always taken from reading the Puritans. I would never discount them as a whole because of some blindspot that they might have had based upon the culture and time in which they found themselves in.
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
I believe in a Christian context racism takes at least two forms. The first says that one's race determines one's God-ordained station in society. Historically this has taken the form that it is contrary to nature or God's appointment for a white man to serve a black a man. The second says that God has foreordained separate races and that it is contrary to God's will for the races to intermingle. There are other subsidiary forms such as the idea that some races are deficient in certain faculties. There was a recent case that appears to have started when one person unrepentantly advanced the idea that Africans are incapable of government. I believe that the first two are sufficient for this discussion.
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
It would probably be more helpful if the "artist" used the term Christian rather than puritan, since many Christians of various stripes participated in slavery (the lion's share, from my researching, being non- or anti-puritan).
With that in mind, how dare any pastor anywhere quote from these cursed white Christians! The only theologian we should hear quotations from is John Newton.
Ben is correct, racism is a modern made-up term; that is a bare linguistic fact. For example, Webster's 1828 contains no such term. It is often used in order to scare opponents into an irrational submission to political ideas that they do not share.
That said, Scott's descriptions are helpful, since God condemns pride based upon one's family heritage, and the welcome of all families of the earth into one body in Christ should sufficiently humble us.
The "Curse of Ham" argument (what I would refer to as familistic pride) did not develop until the late 1700s (if I am not mistaken), and was not universally accepted, even among Southern Presbyterians. To impute this notion to "the Puritans" is childish and foolish, as well as anachronistic. The missions to the Indians in the Americas, and the condemnation of the slave-trade by the Covenanters and others of similar belief should be enough for men of sober judgment to realize that the artist has, indeed, slandered dead men.
With that in mind, how dare any pastor anywhere quote from these cursed white Christians! The only theologian we should hear quotations from is John Newton.
Ben is correct, racism is a modern made-up term; that is a bare linguistic fact. For example, Webster's 1828 contains no such term. It is often used in order to scare opponents into an irrational submission to political ideas that they do not share.
That said, Scott's descriptions are helpful, since God condemns pride based upon one's family heritage, and the welcome of all families of the earth into one body in Christ should sufficiently humble us.
The "Curse of Ham" argument (what I would refer to as familistic pride) did not develop until the late 1700s (if I am not mistaken), and was not universally accepted, even among Southern Presbyterians. To impute this notion to "the Puritans" is childish and foolish, as well as anachronistic. The missions to the Indians in the Americas, and the condemnation of the slave-trade by the Covenanters and others of similar belief should be enough for men of sober judgment to realize that the artist has, indeed, slandered dead men.
[Moderator] I think it would be good for everyone involved in the discussion to take a breath and think about how to engage with modesty, circumspection, and charity.
I spent some time yesterday reviewing the lyrics of the song, and some of the commentary about it.
Whether it was Propaganda's intention or not, some commenters who are saying that they'd rather learn theology from people who love their neighbor than from dead authors seem to feel they are in agreement with him. The concern that some have expressed, then, that words like these have the effect of turning people away from Puritan writings, is not wholly unfounded. And presumably, at least on the Puritan Board, we can all agree that our theology at this time does not, as a whole, need less Puritan influence.
Historical discussions require precision, nuance, distinctions: these things are lacking in many ways in our discussions about race, slavery, and brutality even in venues where they would be expected, let alone in short compositions that could hardly engage them. And the question of Puritan attitudes towards all these points is certainly an historical discussion worth having, with thorough investigation of available source materials. It will be difficult, though - sensitive and painful issues always are.
It should not be hard to understand that quoting Dabney to Mexicans (if they have read his views about themselves) might not be an endearing practice: he may not seem like such a very great authority to them, and that is natural. It is one of the common effects of our sinfulness, that we lose influence with those against whom our sins are directed. And it is certainly worthwhile for us to remember that in quoting from our favorite Puritan authors we have to be aware of groups with whom they may have lost influence. I'm sure that loss of influence is in part based on generalizations that are too broad, perhaps also in part on inaccurate historiography. No doubt it is also true that learning to hold fast what is good when it comes mixed with something bad, especially what is particularly offensive to us, is a vital skill for the Christian life. But so is learning to address people where they find themselves at the moment, not where we think they should be; so is learning to give no offense. Indeed, so is learning that just as we don't need someone to be perfect in order to learn from them, we don't need someone we have learned from to be perfect. Confessing and forsaking seems the only way not to be complicit with the sins of our forebears.
I once upset a lady by quoting Augustine favorably: she had been a catechist for the RCC, and that was the only context in which she'd heard of him. Now clearly she needed to know that Augustine, if not quite totus is still significantly noster. But there was no need for me to take offense: I should be able to sympathize with someone whose conscience has been oppressed by the Roman scheme of salvation, and be willing to explain myself if I bring up something that is tainted by those negative associations.[/Moderator]
I spent some time yesterday reviewing the lyrics of the song, and some of the commentary about it.
Whether it was Propaganda's intention or not, some commenters who are saying that they'd rather learn theology from people who love their neighbor than from dead authors seem to feel they are in agreement with him. The concern that some have expressed, then, that words like these have the effect of turning people away from Puritan writings, is not wholly unfounded. And presumably, at least on the Puritan Board, we can all agree that our theology at this time does not, as a whole, need less Puritan influence.
Historical discussions require precision, nuance, distinctions: these things are lacking in many ways in our discussions about race, slavery, and brutality even in venues where they would be expected, let alone in short compositions that could hardly engage them. And the question of Puritan attitudes towards all these points is certainly an historical discussion worth having, with thorough investigation of available source materials. It will be difficult, though - sensitive and painful issues always are.
It should not be hard to understand that quoting Dabney to Mexicans (if they have read his views about themselves) might not be an endearing practice: he may not seem like such a very great authority to them, and that is natural. It is one of the common effects of our sinfulness, that we lose influence with those against whom our sins are directed. And it is certainly worthwhile for us to remember that in quoting from our favorite Puritan authors we have to be aware of groups with whom they may have lost influence. I'm sure that loss of influence is in part based on generalizations that are too broad, perhaps also in part on inaccurate historiography. No doubt it is also true that learning to hold fast what is good when it comes mixed with something bad, especially what is particularly offensive to us, is a vital skill for the Christian life. But so is learning to address people where they find themselves at the moment, not where we think they should be; so is learning to give no offense. Indeed, so is learning that just as we don't need someone to be perfect in order to learn from them, we don't need someone we have learned from to be perfect. Confessing and forsaking seems the only way not to be complicit with the sins of our forebears.
I once upset a lady by quoting Augustine favorably: she had been a catechist for the RCC, and that was the only context in which she'd heard of him. Now clearly she needed to know that Augustine, if not quite totus is still significantly noster. But there was no need for me to take offense: I should be able to sympathize with someone whose conscience has been oppressed by the Roman scheme of salvation, and be willing to explain myself if I bring up something that is tainted by those negative associations.[/Moderator]
It's interesting that I was talking to my Pastor this past week that we Evangelicals tend to agree hypothetically with the Gospel but then, in many ways, treat our neighbors as if the Gospel was not true. In one sense, it is quite "natural" if we live by the "law" that we'll find plenty with which to indict any cited authority. Outside of Christ, if we are looking for a reason to ignore a neighbor then we certainly can find justification in the sins they commit to simply reject any or all contributions they make. What is sad about such a wholesale rejection of the Puritans is that it really states that every man, apart from Christ, is a man we can ignore. For a certain segment the Puritans are offensive because a party spirit paints the whole class of men as ignorable. What Christian's teaching might they cite that another group may ignore wholesale not for racism but for some other sin?
It's not as if I want to repristinate the Puritans but I think I have a concern that any Christian would express the sentiment that, unless a man is blameless before the Law on any given point, that he may be ignored. Like I stated earlier. we give hypothetical consent to the Gospel but then we treat fellow Christians as if the Gospel is not true. The person who interacts with this lyric might rightly ask the author: "Who might you suggest I listen to?" Were he to provide an answer and I found sins worthy of condemnation am I to conclude that no man, after all, is good enough for me to hear?
I hope what I'm driving at is clear. It is not as if we don't need the reminder that all men have feet of clay but we equally must resist any idea that our progressive ideas have moved us to a place where we have more sensible men that we can listen to than those "..scoundrels of the past." We are collectively blind to the sins that ensare us and a future generation may make sweeping generalizations that our age abided too much with a particular form of wickedness. It's a form of "chronological snobbery" about sin that allows us to deny the Gospel because, in the end, we really don't believe that God can do anything except through sinless men. Then we go back into our Churches and confess the opposite - that is we do so hypothetically - because we leave Church and treat others as worse sinners. Worse yet, we read Paul exhorting Christians of his age to imitate him and we sit in judgment and conclude that Paul had no right to do so because he was complicit in murder. The Gospel is not true after all.
Again, this is a natural conclusion if we are not born again. If we believe in Christ then we need to honor ourselves a bit less and see in our forebears the same indwelling sin that indwells us. Rather than being alarmed that it exists in others let us, instead, be alarmed at our desperate need for Christ and see in our forebears a confidence not in themselves but in a Christ Who conquers sin and death.
It's not as if I want to repristinate the Puritans but I think I have a concern that any Christian would express the sentiment that, unless a man is blameless before the Law on any given point, that he may be ignored. Like I stated earlier. we give hypothetical consent to the Gospel but then we treat fellow Christians as if the Gospel is not true. The person who interacts with this lyric might rightly ask the author: "Who might you suggest I listen to?" Were he to provide an answer and I found sins worthy of condemnation am I to conclude that no man, after all, is good enough for me to hear?
I hope what I'm driving at is clear. It is not as if we don't need the reminder that all men have feet of clay but we equally must resist any idea that our progressive ideas have moved us to a place where we have more sensible men that we can listen to than those "..scoundrels of the past." We are collectively blind to the sins that ensare us and a future generation may make sweeping generalizations that our age abided too much with a particular form of wickedness. It's a form of "chronological snobbery" about sin that allows us to deny the Gospel because, in the end, we really don't believe that God can do anything except through sinless men. Then we go back into our Churches and confess the opposite - that is we do so hypothetically - because we leave Church and treat others as worse sinners. Worse yet, we read Paul exhorting Christians of his age to imitate him and we sit in judgment and conclude that Paul had no right to do so because he was complicit in murder. The Gospel is not true after all.
Again, this is a natural conclusion if we are not born again. If we believe in Christ then we need to honor ourselves a bit less and see in our forebears the same indwelling sin that indwells us. Rather than being alarmed that it exists in others let us, instead, be alarmed at our desperate need for Christ and see in our forebears a confidence not in themselves but in a Christ Who conquers sin and death.
- Status