# 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

calgal said:


> 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

mvdm said:


> 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

jogri17 said:


> 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

OPC'n said:


> 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

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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).
Click to expand...


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

NB3K said:


> 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

Tyrese said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understood anything I said.


----------



## SRoper

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you understood anything I said.
Click to expand...


I guess I didn't either.


----------



## a mere housewife

SolaScriptura said:


> 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.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I am interested in hearing how what I said denied that racism was real.


----------



## mvdm

I believe it was Ken who asked: has anyone defined the term "racism"? Would be helpful, for we could then determine whether the the rapper himself is guilty of what he accuses the puritans.


----------



## Mushroom

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.


----------



## Zach

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

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

AThornquist said:


> 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.



Are you sure about that? Here are the lyrics quoted in the Aquila Report article:



> Pastor, you know it’s hard for me when you quote puritans.
> Oh the precious Puritans.
> Have you not noticed our facial expressions?
> One of bewilderment and heartbreak.
> Like, not you too pastor.
> You know they were the chaplains on slave ships, right?
> Would you quote Columbus to Cherokees?
> Would you quote Cortez to Aztecs?
> Even If they theology was good?
> It just sings of your blind privilege wouldn’t you agree?
> Your precious Puritans.
> 
> They looked my onyx and bronze skinned forefathers in they face,
> Their polytheistic, god-hating face.
> Shackled, diseased, imprisoned face.
> And taught a gospel that says God had multiple images in mind when he created us in it.
> Their fore-destined salvation contains a contentment in the stage for which they were given which is to be owned by your forefathers’ superior image-bearing face. Says your precious Puritans.



That certainly sounds to me like the rapper/author is writing the Puritans off as a whole.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

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.


----------



## calgal

AThornquist said:


> 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.



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

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I am interested in hearing how what I said denied that racism was real.





> Which specific brothers in Christ were "racist" (a made-up Modernist term) and which were not?



Putting racist in scare quotes and declaring that it is a "made-up Modernist term" is at best unhelpful.


----------



## kodos

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.


----------



## SRoper

mvdm said:


> I believe it was Ken who asked: has anyone defined the term "racism"? Would be helpful, for we could then determine whether the the rapper himself is guilty of what he accuses the puritans.



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

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.


----------



## py3ak

[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]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

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.


----------

