Rap attack and "Precious Puritans" discussion (Vanity)

Most of us in conservative Reformed circles are not fans of rap. I'm not either, though I have Korean relatives who are -- the "Gangnam Style" video of Korean rappers which has gone viral has shown to lots of Americans how our culture is affecting lots of places we would least expect it.

The result is that many of us were probably caught unaware by the explosion on the blogosphere which greeted a Reformed man of African-American ancestry who uses rap as his medium of Christian music.

The rapper, who goes by the name of "Propaganda," produced a rap song entitled "Precious Puritans" which can either be interpreted as an attack on the Puritans for being slaveholders or being an attack on anyone who elevates human theology above God.

URC member Matt Tuininga has weighed in on this issue on his own blog, linked here:

http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/anthony-bradley-on-criticizing-the-puritans-the-reformed-tradition-and-racism/#comment-1729

My own comments are mostly over on Matt Tuininga's blog, but some are on Rev. Thabiti Anyabwile's blog. Rev. Anyabwile is a Reformed minister of African-American descent who now pastors in the Cayman Islands but previously served at Capitol Hill Baptist Church and is regularly featured on the Gospel Coalition blogs. He's worth reading, and not just for his comments on this issue.

This is no longer a minor issue confined to a few blogs. Reformed pastors and academics with significant reputations are weighing in on this issue.

Here's the core problem, as one commenter on Rev. Thabiti Anyabwile's blog points out: "I think the claim is not just that the Puritans had good theology they didn’t live out, but that something was flawed in their theology itself that led to their missing slavery."

I have no problem with criticizing people. I have a problem with criticizing the theological system of Puritanism for something which the Reformed confessions never addressed.

Certainly they could have done so. The Westminster Larger Catechism could easily have added a section in its commentary on the Fifth Commandment about the duties of slaves toward their masters. Perhaps we should thank God in his providence that it's not there.

Let's not blame the system for actions of people which were not connected to the system. Furthermore, Baxter's Christian Directory, when addressing Fifth Commandment issues, is pretty severe in its condemnation of people who became slaveowners through manstealing, demanding that the stolen slaves be set free.

As Rev. Anyabwile himself points out in his provocative paper, "Jonathan Edwards and American Racism: Can the Theology of a Slaveholder Be Trusted by Descendants of Slaves?" Jonathan Edwards got a lot of things right but was spectacularly wrong in owning a slave. Despite being a slaveowner, Edwards got the following things correct, according to Rev. Anyabwile:

• He condemned the Transatlantic slave trade, rejecting the idea that other nations had power or right to disenfranchise all the nations of Africa. • He rejected the idea that Israel’s history could serve as precedent and warrant for Colonial abuse of Africa. • He held that under the gospel God would not “wink” at unjust manstealing, but called his people to love their neighbors (writ large) as themselves. • He explicitly denied that Africans and Native Americans were inferior in God’s eyes. He did not deny either their full humanity or the need to seek their spiritual good. He regarded them as equal to Christian nations (read, “White”) in their rights and potential. • He regarded Africans and Native Americans as spiritual equals. He was the first pastor in Northampton to allow full communicant membership to African people. • In the 1740s, he argued that there could be no advance in “Gospellizing” Africans until the slave trade ended.

Those are not minor points, and it seems pretty clear that whatever Jonathan Edwards did wrong by owning a slave, he was right in a lot of other areas in ways that the Southern Presbyterians were most emphatically wrong.

Links: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/04/01/can-we-trust-a-slaveowners-theology/ http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/files/2012/02/Thabiti-Jonathan-Edwards-slavery-and-theological-appropriation.pdf

There is also a factual problem with this rap song. As another commenter on Rev. Anyabwile's blog wrote: "But, the facts remain, puritanism had it’s origin in 17th century England and it’s largely these men who have been reprinted and are quoted. For example, the book Propaganda himself referenced, Valley of Vision, is a collection of largely 17th century English puritans. These men were not chaplains on slave ships and did not own African slaves. This is my point. My concern is not that this discussion is taking place, I am simply concerned that it takes place with understanding, and not promote a blanket condemnation."

Some more comments pointing out that "Puritans" were not uniform in their toleration of slavery:

Richard Baxter: “To go as pirates and catch up poor negroes or people of another land, that never forfeited life or liberty, and to make them slaves, and sell them, is one of the worst kinds of thievery in the world; and such persons are to be taken for the common enemies of mankind; and they that buy them and use them as beasts, for their mere commodity, and betray, or destroy, or neglect their souls, are fitter to be called incarnate devils than christians.”

Jeremiah Burroughs: “Purity of religion in the church cannot stand long with slavery admitted in the state.”

Here's the rappers own Twitter feed where he explains himself: https://twitter.com/prophiphop/status/251350644949151748

Here is his music label's page for him: http://humblebeast.com/artists/propaganda/

Here are comments by Rev. Joe Thorn of Redeemer Fellowship in St. Charles, Ill., which include an interview with the rapper: http://www.joethorn.net/2012/09/24/precious-puritans-pt-1/ http://www.joethorn.net/2012/09/25/precious-puritans-pt-2/

Rev. Anyabwile's article over on the Gospel Coalition board: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2012/10/02/the-puritans-are-not-that-precious/?comments#comments

Puritan Board discussion (mostly critical of the rapper): http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/should-we-condemn-puritans-racist-76118/

Dr. Anthony Bradley's comments; The Aquilla Report: http://theaquilareport.com/puritans-and-propaganda/ Urban Faith: http://www.urbanfaith.com/2012/10/puritans-and-propaganda.html/

(Side point: here is a cast of racist bigots calling for Dr. Bradley's excommunication from the PCA back in 2007: http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2007/02/the-excommunication-of-anthony-bradley-hoped-for-in-memphis.html )

Comments by Dr. Mark Draper of the Jonathan Edwards Institute at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School: http://markwdraper.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/precious-puritans/

Comments by Dr. Owen Strachan, Boyce College: http://owenstrachan.com/2012/09/26/reflecting-on-propagandas-fiery-precious-puritans-rap-song/ http://projecttgm.com/2012/09/provocative-thoughts-on-the-precious-puritans/

Reformissionary, by Steve McCoy: http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissionary/2012/09/missing-the-point-precious-puritans.html

Rev. Marty Duren's comments (social media strategist at Lifeway Christian Resources, the Southern Baptist publishing house): http://www.martyduren.com/2012/10/02/african-american-responses-to-propagandas-precious-puritans/

Comments by J.F. Arnold, editor of the Evangelical Outpost: http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2012/10/propaganda-doesnt-have-an-answer-and-neither-do-i.html

Comments by Rev. Todd Littleton, Snow Hill Baptist Church, Tuttle, Okla. http://www.toddlittleton.net/propaganda-rap-on-or-value-other-voices

Comments by Dr. Nathan Finn, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary http://betweenthetimes.com/index.php/2012/10/04/orthodoxy-orthopraxy-and-puritan-slavery/

Comments by Dr. Marc Cortez, Dean of Western Seminary http://marccortez.com/2012/10/03/flotsam-and-jetsam-103/

Comments by Rev. Dave Dunham of Revolution Church in Portsmouth, Ohio http://christinthecity.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/this-weeks-good-reads-32/

And finally, in regard to this whole matter, a review of Baxter's Christian Directory may be instructive. Baxter severely rebuked the manstealers of his day in the British colonies of the Caribbean, using terms more severe than those of the rapper who set off this discussion. A reading of what Baxter actually wrote in his Chapter XIV on slavery might perhaps be the best antidote to this attack on the Puritans:

http://books.google.com/books?id=H6cOAAAAQAAJ&ots=yep8Gualb8&vq=negroes&dq=richard%20baxter%20slavery&pg=PA218#v=onepage&q&f=false

abercrombie_guy_38, my point really has nothing to do with rap music, but rather with the fact that this particular rap artist, whose stage name is Propaganda, is being perceived as (and attacked for being) an attacker of the Puritans.

I'm still not sure what the intent of the rap artist was. I've read his interview online and it seems clear he's been misunderstood by some of his critics, but even granting that, there are still factual problems with the lyrics of the rap. (Are “lyrics” even the right word for the text of a rap?) For example, to my knowledge none of the Puritans in the Valley of Vision book he cites were slaveowners, and some such as Richard Baxter were severe critics of slavery, blasting those who enslaved Africans apart from a just war as being “fitter to be called incarnate devils than Christians.”

The video I've seen of that South Korean “Gangnam style” rapper seems to indicate he has three people involved, not just one, but I grant your point — maybe I need to say “one South Korean rap group.” K-Pop being what it is, there will likely be a hundred imitators soon if there aren't already.

You asked whether I would prefer that people sing hymns.

Actually, while I will tolerate hymns, I believe we should use the psalms in the worship services of the church, since they're the inspired Word of God. He gave us 150 sets of lyrics, so why not use them?

I've got better things to fight about than exclusive psalmody, however. I guess Calvinists who are stricter than me on the regulative principle would call me a “RefINO” — “Reformed in Name Only” — because I'm not prepared to forbid someone from singing “Amazing Grace” or “A Mighty Fortress is Our God” in the worship service.

Outside of church worship services, we're free to do what we want. If someone likes rap music, that's their business.

Actually, I'll go a step further. There are good reasons based on needless offense not to sing rap music in most churches, but if there's a black Reformed church somewhere that wants to have rap music using the text of the psalms, I can think of no biblical objection, even though that's not my preference. Maybe it works in their culture, however. Elders have enough problems without an outsider like me trying to tell them what to do, and in any case, it's not for me to tell another church what to do apart from the clear teaching of the Word of God.

The bottom line is that if we can't find something in the Bible, we shouldn't find it in the church.

Reformed theology and the regulative principle are inextricably linked, for the simple reason that if we believe what we say we believe about total depravity, any rule made by men rather than God risks introducing man-made sinful rules into the church. Learning and obeying God's law is difficult enough, and only Christ did it perfectly; adding man-made commands to God's commandments is a recipe for disaster.

Ping to the Great Reformed Ping List.

I wasn't initially paying much attention to this blog war over a rap artist, but some heavy hitters have now been drawn into the online discussion, including black Reformed men like Rev. Thabiti Anyabwile (formerly of Capitol Hill Baptist Church) and Dr. Anthony Bradley of Kings College.

Others commenting include Dr. Mark Draper of the Jonathan Edwards Institute at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Dr. Owen Strachan of Boyce College, Dr. Nathan Finn of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Dr. Marc Cortez, Dean of Western Seminary, plus a whole lot of theologically active laymen and pastors.

I think it's time for conservative Reformed Christians to start paying attention. This is no longer a tempest in a teapot, and is becoming a bigger issue than just one rapper's unfortunate wording of a rap song.

Rap music isn't the issue. It's not my style, but God didn't see fit to preserve the ancient tunes for the 150 psalms, and at least theoretically I could imagine an exclusive psalmody church using rap music and criticizing us for paraphrasing the psalms to put them into metrical verse.

Criticizing the Puritans for sinful behaviors isn't the issue, either. They're men, not angels or saints, and we ought not to have any Protestant hagiography in Reformed circles.

The issue, as one commenter on Rev. Thabiti Anyabwile's blog
points out: “I think the claim is not just that the Puritans had good theology they didn't live out, but that something was flawed in their theology itself that led to their missing slavery.” That commenter (a member of Tenth Presbyterian Church, FWIW) goes on to say this: “Maybe an overemphasis on sovereignty? God as a god who makes miserable creatures who should be content with their fate rather than a God who redeems miserable creatures from their oppressors, sin and the world.”

As modern conservative Reformed Christians, we need to follow Richard Baxter's Christian Directory in his severe condemnation of the slave trade and manstealing. Defenses of slavery, at least as it was practiced in America, have no place in the modern Reformed world.

However, I fear there may be another agenda here which is not compatible with the Reformed faith. Some of the things developing in the PCA smack more of political correctness than correct theology, and I'm worried this debate over the text of a rap artist's work could quickly spin out of control and go into places where we should not be going.

You missed Scott Clark's Heidelblog: Puritans, Slavery, and Criticizing Heroes

He comments:

I hope you’ll read these pieces to gain some perspective on the development and degeneration of Reformed theology in the American colonies. If nothing else, this is yet another reminder of the folly of the “golden age” approach to history, the idea that says “if only we could get back to period x.” Such a program will always disappoint because it always depends on a mythologized view of a past, a story about a past that never really existed. Colonial America was not a golden age, not if one was an African bought and sold by “godly men” who, as creatures of their time, were unable to criticize the peculiar institution of American slavery.

You say

Most of us in conservative Reformed circles are not fans of rap.

I'm not opposed to it. It is a very word based style. That's hopeful to me, and a pleasant change from the usual CCM.

(As an aside, every few nights for the whole of this summer our kittycorner backdoor neighbors would have a huge party in their back yard, featuring rap performance. We are in "that kind" of neighborhood.)

here is a cast of racist bigots calling for Dr. Bradley's excommunication from the PCA back in 2007: The Excommunication of Anthony Bradley Hoped For In Memphis

Interesting. I read a while back that there is or has been a nasty racist streak among some in the PCA, coming from the denomination's roots in the southron mainline presbyterian church. Not having at the time any connection to the PCA I set that to one side. Now, I guess I should look at it.

the explosion on the blogosphere

Most such pass quickly. I tend to ignore them.

(I don't have time to follow everybody's blog posts. The death of a thousand digressions. A man and his web browser is like a cat chasing the laser dot, caught in a short circuited reward feedback loop.)

(BTW, HTML Basic.)

14 posted on Sun Oct 07 2012 19:35:41 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by CommerceComet: “While I have a lot of respect for the writings of Edwards, the Mathers, and other Puritan writers, I have always been troubled by something. Despite the godly teaching provided by the Puritans and their devotion, why did their descendants so quickly become Unitarians? It only took 2-3 generations for the transition. It has always made me wonder if there wasn't a serious underlying problem with Puritan practices. It seems like when given a chance their descendants quickly deserted their forefathers’ way of life.”

CommerceComet, you have a point, but it's actually an argument for the importance of maintaining high membership standards.

It is not only Baptists who say that “God has no grandchildren.” That truth needs to be understood by Reformed people as well.

It actually took a lot more than two or three generations for New England Puritanism to descend into proto-Unitarianism of the late 1700s or its explicit form of Unitarianism in the early 1800s. Whether we count New England Puritanism as beginning in 1620 with the Plymouth Colony of Separatists or define it as beginning with the Massachusetts Bay Company about a decade later, it was certainly more than two or three generations from the 1620s/1630s until the Unitarian Schism broke upon in 1805 with the appointment of Henry Ware as Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard. It took a century and a half from 1620 to the 1770s for the early Unitarians to start gaining influence among prominent Boston clergy, and another quarter century until 1805 for the split to become overt rather than covert.

I'm quite aware that the “Old Light” opponents of Jonathan Edwards in the middle third of the 1700s were a mix of traditional Calvinists opposed to revivalism and more radical people who objected to Calvinism entirely (Chauncey being an example of someone who probably can be fairly described as moving from the first to the second category over time), but it's pretty hard to argue that Puritanism had completely ended while men like Jonathan Edwards were still preaching and leading the First Great Awakening.

If people are not personally converted in each generation, one of two problems happen. Either unconverted people leave the church and once-strong churches wither and become large buildings with small congregations, or unconverted people stay in the church and destroy it by bringing in errors in doctrine, errors in life, or both.

When the second problem happens, it's usually accompanied by a slow downgrade in doctrinal integrity. Outright heresy rarely happens in a single generation; more commonly, people push for loose rather than strict subscription to the confessions, not emphasizing doctrine so much in selecting elders and deacons, being “gentle” in ordination examinations for ministers, and replacing rigorous catechism work with broadly evangelical and supposedly more biblical material in Sunday School classes.

My personal view is that the destruction of Puritanism was caused by the rise of the Half-Way Covenant, admitting people to church membership who professed the truth of the Christian religion (i.e., doctrinal orthodoxy) but not personal conversion. Solomon Stoddard, Jonathan Edwards’s father-in-law, bears primary blame for that innovation, but in fairness the roots go back farther to the civil polity of New England in which the “church” and the “society” or “parish” were separate entities. There's no reason to detail that here because we don't have an established tax-supported church in America; the short version is that in New England, everyone who was not a member of an approved non-Congregational church was required to pay taxes to support the local Congregational church, and those people were organized as the “parish” or “society” with legal obligations to pay for the upkeep of the local meetinghouse via taxation, but people joined the “church” only if they met the local membership standards which varied from place to place and from time to time.

The bottom line is that I do not believe Puritanism is in any way the problem of New England, but quite to the contrary, rejection of Puritanism and admitting unconverted people to church membership is the root of the collapse of New England church life.

I know this is a long read for those who are not Reformed, but it may be of some interest for those who are, and especially for those who are interested in New England church history.

I am a member of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church because there is no Reformed Congregational church I could attend within at least a four-hour drive, and I need to pay attention to my membership vows so there are limits to what I can and should say publicly about church government. I absolutely will not raise discord or discontent in a church context by arguing against the confessions of the church of which I am a member.

I do think I can say, speaking as the editor two decades ago of a critical edition of the Cambridge Platform (the historic Congregational church order) and as a former board member of the Congregational Studies Conference who was invited to join the board after Dr. John Gerstner noticed I was in the audience of one of its annual conferences and (to my surprise) singled me out, that I might just possibly have a little bit of knowledge as well as formal study of the subject of Puritan New England.

9 posted on Sat Oct 06 2012 12:51:12 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by darrellmaurina: “Let's just say he's not very happy with my dislike for his ‘Two Kingdoms’ view that Christians ought not to apply the Bible to politics.”

11 posted on Sat Oct 06 2012 22:09:05 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Lee N. Field: “That's not my understanding as to what's being said.”

Lee, I very much wish I could agree with you.

The “Two Kingdoms” view being taught out at Westminster-West is quite clear in teaching that Scripture should not norm our political activism. Their basic viewpoint is that natural law should govern the civil magistrate and Scripture should govern the church. More needs to be said to be fair to them, but that is the gist of the matter, and the root of the problem is that sinful men will never agree on how to correctly read general revelation without being their reading of general revelation being normed by the inerrant Word of God. Natural law theories have a long history, and in a Roman Catholic context I readily grant that they can be used by conservatives, but they're not compatible with a Reformed understanding of total depravity.

The result is that we have strange things going on like Dr. Michael Scott Horton arguing that a Christian case can be made for homosexual unions.

There is something pretty seriously wrong when a Westminster-West professor can write something like this with regard to homosexual relationships: “Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.”

Here are some links documenting the problem, starting with Dr. Horton's own words:

Dr. Michael Scott Horton: “Should We Oppose Same-Sex Marriage?” (May.11, 2012): http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/05/11/should-we-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

Westminster-West prof “could affirm domestic partnerships” for homosexuals: http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/westminster-west-prof-could-affirm-domestic-partnerships-homosexuals-75516/

Role of Magistrate in Upholding Moral Law (split from civil union thread): http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/role-magistrate-upholding-moral-law-split-civil-union-thread-75665/

Free Republic thread: “Should We Oppose Same-Sex Marriage?” (Westminster prof “could affirm domestic partnerships”) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2919093/posts

R2K … “RUBBER MEETS ROAD” by Rev. Brett McAtee: http://ironink.org/2012/08/r2k-rubber-meets-road/

“Talking About Talking About 2K” (an attack by an OPC elder and Iowa lawyer on my views): http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/talking-about-talking-about-2k/

Summary first: I agree with both JBoot and Diamond in their comments below. I would have preferred not to get involved in this dispute about a rap song. My concern is that this war in the blogosphere has now involved some **MAJOR** heavy hitters in the Reformed world, and it's exposed an underlying problem, even in conservative Reformed circles, with people seem to want to use “white guilt” methods of argument.

That needs to stop.

There are voices in the PCA and the Southern Baptist Convention who, because of the heritage of those denominations, may want to use race to accomplish things they cannot accomplish by more direct means. I'll give a pass to black Reformed people who want to say such things if they are conservative Calvinists — honest mistakes need to be dealt with gently, and I want to encourage the spread of Reformed theology in the black community, not beat on someone the first time they say something problematic — but I will give no tolerance or quarter to white “moderates” who use such arguments.

Here's why.

As someone who has lived and worked in inner-city neighborhoods, and who helped a church make the transition from predominantly white to predominantly black, I refuse to be intimidated by that line of argument. A quarter century ago I became convinced that the best and possibly only solution to the problems of the inner city is a recovery of a Calvinist work ethic. I am even more strongly convinced that there's nobody more responsive to the Reformed understanding of salvation than a drug addict or alcoholic or single mother who knows beyond doubt that their only comfort in life and in death is not anything they can do, but rather that they are not their own, but belong with body and soul to their faithful savior Jesus Christ.

To reject the sociological and theological implications of Reformed theology is not being gentle to inner-city residents, but rather wrecking something which can change their lives.

10 posted on Sat Oct 06 2012 15:39:43 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by jboot: “Ordinarily I would not respond to this, but you pinged me to it. Speaking only for myself, I have “dialoged” for the last time for slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and the general sorry history of Black Americans. Done, finis, over and out, forever. That account is deeply and permanently overdrawn. On the other hand, I offer no defense of slavery, theological or otherwise. Nevertheless, what is, is. No amount of penitence can change the past. My advice: Get Over It.”

12 posted on Sun Oct 07 2012 06:32:45 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Diamond: “’Jonathan Edwards and American Racism: Can the Theology of a Slaveholder Be Trusted ...’ Genetic fallacy: A Genetic Fallacy is a line of “reasoning” in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing.”

I think we agree, Diamond and JBoot.

Whatever merits they may once have had, in the year 2012, I can no longer accept the arguments of people who argue that the experience of slavery which ended almost a century and a half ago, and of legally enforced racial discrimination which ended almost half a century ago, should grant special privileges to the heirs of slavery and of racial discrimination.

Unlike most white conservatives, I've lived and worked in an inner-city environment in several cities, sometimes black and sometimes Hispanic. I served a church which successfully made the transition from being predominantly white to predominantly black, reflecting the composition of its neighborhood. I have an interracial marriage myself. On my mother's side, none of my ancestors were ever slaveholders and at least one was a Union soldier who was imprisoned in the notorious Andersonville POW camp; on my father's side, they immigrated from Italy after the Civil War was over. On my wife's side of the family, none of them have any background with slavery at all, and none of them ever set foot on American soil before 1988.

With that background, unlike a fair number of conservatives, I think I can stand up to reverse-racist bigots who want to yell about white guilt. Anyone who accuses me of racism has some pretty serious fire coming back their way.

However, there are limits to what anyone with white skin can do.

Frankly, we need a lot more conservative businessmen from an African-American ethnic background to stand up, rebuke the racists in their own circles, and demand that black ministers preach against cultural voices which say it's somehow being “white” to work hard, to study hard, to respect the institution of marriage, and to try to improve one’s lot in life.

That's why I've been encouraged by the rise of African-American Calvinism in places like the Founders Conference within the Southern Baptist Convention, as well as the “Young Restless and Reformed (YRR)” nondenominational movement. People like Rev. Voddie Baucham, Rev. Thabiti Anyabwile, and Dr. Anthony Bradley, while I don't agree with everything they say (and they don't agree with each other, either), need to be encouraged, not discouraged.

And yes, Lee N. Field, that includes Reformed rap artists like Propaganda. As you pointed out, correctly so, “I'm not opposed to it. It is a very word based style. That's hopeful to me, and a pleasant change from the usual CCM. (As an aside, every few nights for the whole of this summer our kittycorner backdoor neighbors would have a huge party in their back yard, featuring rap performance. We are in ‘that kind’ of neighborhood.)”

While I am not myself a fan of rap music, that is why I am so discouraged by the rapper Propaganda's actions here. He appears to be factually wrong or at least unclear in his lyrics — to my knowledge, not a single Puritan in the “Valley of Vision” book of Puritan prayers was a slaveowner, and some of them were strongly opposed to slavery.

My concern is that this is no longer an unfortunate choice of lyrics. It's becoming an attack on Calvinism in disguise.

When a member of Tenth Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia can write something like this, there's a problem.

“I think the claim is not just that the Puritans had good theology they didn't live out, but that something was flawed in their theology itself that led to their missing slavery. Maybe an overemphasis on sovereignty? God as a god who makes miserable creatures who should be content with their fate rather than a God who redeems miserable creatures from their oppressors, sin and the world.”

Comments like that show a serious underlying problem, right in the heart of one of the "powerhouse" churches of the Reformed world. If not addressed, this is not going to go away.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.