Missing the Point of Propaganda's "Precious Puritans"

Discussions surrounding the new song by Propaganda, "Precious Puritans," have been interesting. If you haven't picked the album, Excellent, it's free (or buy it to support his work) and it's great. "Precious Puritans" in particular has gripped me and caused me to ask questions about myself, my preaching, my reading, my idolizing, and the list could go on. I've pointed before to Joe Thorn's two posts about "Precious Puritans." They are a nice introduction to Propaganda and some of the issues raised in the song, and includes song audio and the full lyrics.

Some negative responses have started to crop up to the song, and I felt compelled to post some of my thoughts and some response to the thoughts of others.

Owen Strachan (Assistant Professor of Christian Theology and Church History at Boyce College, also teaches at my alma mater The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) has posted his critique of the song here (or here). Tony Reinke adds a significant comment in agreement to Owen's post. I'll reference some content there in my thoughts here.

Will "Precious Puritans" Stop People From Reading The Puritans?

Owen questions whether the song is dangerous and will lead some people to stop reading the Puritans. He said in the comments, "Critique should not equal demolition." He also says, "If your critique of a Christian who sinned is harsh and uncareful, you’re not living up to the scriptural ideal." I think what Owen does is what he accuses Prop of doing. Owen criticizes Prop without a certain level of care in that he misses the whole point of the song that Prop is doing demolition to all of us and pointing to the God who still uses us in amazing ways. Prop used an artful way to do it (I explain more below) and I assume he was very careful and probably took weeks or months working through this song with friends, producers, etc...knowing exactly what he was saying, how he was saying it, and why. I think he got it right.

In the context of the song, the Puritans are not the point. They are one group, who is very beloved among many in my tribe, including me, which makes them an excellent vehicle for an artist to use to illustrate a larger point. And to miss the forest for the trees is either to misunderstand the artist or to be exactly the person the artist hopes to speak to, one who makes the Puritans too precious. Again, Prop isn't doing "demolition" of the Puritans, but of us all. And that means we are all unquotable, yet all quotable because of Christ.

So does the song tell us not to read the Puritans, even accidentally? Not at all! In fact, it should help those who have made too much of the Puritans to read them better, and quote them more wisely. Though the history of the Puritans isn't new to me concerning slavery, this song has made me think of how to quote them better to those with skin unlike mine, with a history and heritage unlike mine. Why wouldn't we want that?

If you come away from "Precious Puritans" with an "I'm never reading them!" view, you missed the whole point by thinking you are better than them. That point is rejected in the song. And when people miss the point, it's better to teach them about art, to show them what Propaganda is doing, and to point to the lines that make his point clear rather than tell Prop he did it wrong. He didn't. My attempt at explaining the art is below. 

Does Propaganda Strongly Qualify "Precious Puritans" On Joe Thorn's Blog?

Owen has said a couple times that Propaganda strongly qualifies his song on Joe Thorn's blog. That is to say Owen thinks he is trying to soften his point because he was too harsh in the song. I don't know why else Owen could mean by saying he strongly qualifies on the blog, as if we don't read the blog we can't understand Prop isn't anti-Puritans. But on Joe's blog Prop was answering questions, showing his approach to how and why he made the song. I heard the song at least a dozen times before I read Prop's answers on the blog and he told me nothing new concerning the song. I saw (and felt!) the "bait and switch" in the song. It's obvious the Puritans are secondary to his point in the song. I recognized that he was speaking to fact that I can romanticize the past and my heroes. All points Prop made at the blog, and all apparent in the song. Prop isn't qualifying his own words, but helping those who don't have ears to hear. He isn't softening the message of the song. Let me illustrate.

When my family goes to the monthly art exhibit at the Starline Gallery, I will stand in front of a piece of art with the kids and explain what I see. Often they don't and can't see what I see. They are learning to see. And if I have built up an eye for something and have insight as to what the artist is doing, I'll share it with them so they will see it too. In doing that, I'm not making the art more gentle, but helping my children to see it truly. That's all Prop did, and to classify it as a strong qualification is to say the artist even admits he was too strong. Prop's strength was intentional, needed, and useful in delivering his message (as I show in the next section). Owen has this wrong.

How Do We See "Precious Puritans" As Art?

Propaganda uses the angry poet approach to the Puritans to make the historical points (which are true) and to offer up conundrums that are legit (how can we quote slave owners at my church with African Americans in attendance?). The music, the lyrics, all the way to the "step away" line are angry, escalating, poignant, and exactly how some have spoken about the Puritans. My kids (public schoolers) have resonated with the song because that's how their teachers speak about the Puritans in school!

But the POINT of the song is made clear at the end. It's not sorta clear, it's clear as a bell: "God really does use crooked sticks to make straight lines," and the crooked sticks include the Puritans, Propaganda, you, and me. So let's not idolize [as Prop tweeted today: "I'm just sayin don't treat folks like they're inerrant"], which would be to make them too precious. They are deeply flawed at best, and so am I. 

Prop uses the angry, condemning street poet to illustrate his whole point which is not angry, but humbling and grace-filled. And it all hinges on two words: "step away." Follow the song/lyrics and you will see that the anger turns to reflection and self-realization of how awful we all are, and it starts at the point he says "step away." The realities of the flaws of some of the Puritans is put on display, but instead of continuing to rail against them Prop says "step away," which I assume means step back and take a bigger view. [As I edit what I wrote Wednesday to post today, I noticed Prop said on Twitter this morning: "Step away just means look at the big picture."] Step away doesn't mean step away from reading or benefiting from or quoting the Puritans. The context of the song is what makes his point. Look at the lines just before and after (emphasis mine)...

Don’t pedestal these people, your precious puritans partners purchased people.
Why would you quote them?
Step away.
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.

It's anger --> step away --> "think" --> "Are you inerrant?" --> "I get it. But I don't get it." That's the beautiful progression from an artist who knows how to provoke us so that we are open to a larger truth about ourselves (and everyone else!).

Have You Missed The Point?

If you've missed the point of "Precious Puritans," maybe it's because they are too precious to you. Something is wrong when we are more concerned about the Puritans not being read because someone says true things about them than in understanding a cultural perspective in which the Puritans, when quoted, are hard to stomach because of their sin. Propaganda gave us a new set of eyes, and for that I'm thankful.

But AGAIN, it's a bait and switch! It's art! And he tells you to "step away" and look at the bigger picture. You might have missed that because you have reacted defensively, but it's there and it's clear. He tempers what someone might think is too strong and makes it strong against all of us! If you miss that, you miss it all. 

If you've missed the point of "Precious Puritans" because you need a hand understanding it as art, it's ok. I've missed the point of a lot of art in my life. Understanding good art isn't easy. I've benefited from artists and art patrons who have opened my eyes to see art. A lot of the time I still miss it, but I'm learning. 

Start the song again. Allow Prop to play the role of angry poet, to move you to tears as you consider the history of a group of brilliant people who have blessed you so much, to move you to frustration when you realize there are people still repulsed by this part of history, as we should be. And feel his anger and say with him, "How come the things the Holy Spirit showed them in the valley of vision didn’t compel them to knock on they neighbors door and say, 'You can’t own people!'?" And in the middle of that mood and that moment, let him tell you to "step away" and look at the bigger picture. You can't have that anger at the Puritans and not have it at yourself. You aren't any better. For God to use any of us, these crooked sticks, is amazing.

And don't miss the music. Feel the pace. Identify the sounds. And then feel each of them in their place. Remarkable. A real work of art. A real work of truth. Let it change you.

----------

10.10.12 Update: Check out Thomas Kidd's post, "Slavery, Historical Heroes, and "Precious Puritans." Thomas is an historian at Baylor and is currently writing a bio of George Whitefield.

Comments

[Kolt]

Great job man! This was very helpful for me.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks Kolt.

[Ruth]

Very well put. Thanks brother.

[Richardabailey]

Spot on, my friend. Insightful thoughts, as always.

[Bfordham]

Thanks for this. Not too many years ago I would have been offended by the song. I pray your writeup helps folks understand the art of it

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks RB! Counting the days until Milwaukee! (Not really, it's just one of those things you say.)

[Steve McCoy]

Me too. Thanks, bro.

[Daniel j.]

Well put!

I see how tricky a" bait and switch" is with a group like the puritans, but i do feel like clarity regarding Props song is warranted, which is why I appreciated your take on it.

Sufjan Stevens "John Wayne gacy" song was about the epitome of depravity but at the end suggests in he end " I really am just like him". Whereas in this case, the puritans, who are more often than not glossed over as, well, pure do deserve a dose of perspective regardless of how much good they contributed to our theological heritage.

I LOVE the gritty texture of the song, but would've wished a tad more to the final verse explaining the "bait and switch" but really thought he was clear regardless.

I am so happy for his success this week and am very grateful for humble beasts line up this summer. I've enjoyed trip and lecrae but beautiful eulogy and prop are so unique and simply fresh.

[Steve McCoy]

Daniel, I cut the paragraph with the reference to Sufjan & JWG song. Excellent comparison. Thanks for the comment, brother.

[Michael]

For so much misunderstanding, it doesn't seem enough to say "understanding good art isn't easy." Should good art be so difficult to understand that one need blogs and twitter to clarify the message, Steve?

[Joe Thorn]

Michael, the need to explain this piece isn't because of the art's ambiguity, but the inability of some to listen.

[Rparmly]

Very helpful clarification's Steve. I appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts as it helped me understand the song better.

It seems like a lot of misunderstanding comes from failing to interpret "Step away" according to Propaganda's intent. I think the context is more clear seeing the lyrics written out. I echo Michael's thoughts and wonder how helpful a song is if it takes this much discussion to understand exactly what the artist meant. I disagree with Joe's comment below that all of the responsibility is on the part of the listener. I think the process of interpreting and understanding art is enjoyable and no artist should be expected to dumb down his point to the point where he has no creative freedom with how it is presented. However, I don't think it invalidates the need to be sensitive to those who might not come away from the song with the right conclusion.

Steve, in your opinion, what conclusions do you think would be reached by a younger or less mature Christian listener song who is unfamiliar with the Puritans and isn't able to grasp exactly what Propaganda is saying? Do you think Christians have a greater responsibility to make sure their art isn't misinterpreted? Those are the two questions bouncing around in my mind and I'm interested to see how you would answer them.

[Rparmly]

Joe, I don't think that's a fair critique. I listened to this song carefully through a few times before deciding how I felt about it. I don't think it's charitable to assume that all the need to explain is due to an inability to listen.

[Luke]

I appreciate the post, and Prop. I love the brother and his music. I've wrestled w/ this for years (not just the slavery piece, but the pedestal piece, and examining ourselves). As far as puritans, to this day there are certain cats I have trouble reading, and don't feel comfortable quoting. W/ that said, in all historical fairness, at least 2 of the authors of Valley of Vision pieces DID speak out boldly (Baxter and Spurgeon, at great cost to himself). That line isn't accurate. If it causes people to look at the bibliography and think all those men agree w/ slavery that's dangerous and untrue. I've been waiting for this to be brought up, and even though it's simply the means of a greater point, I personally wish it would've been done w/ more care. Peace.

[Steve McCoy]

Michael & Ross, I agree with Joe. I explain in the post why it's helpful to explain art. Some people need it b/c they either can't or won't see. And my post wasn't an explanation of the song as much as a response to a critique.

Sure there is art too difficult to understand. I've listened to artists explain their art only to roll my eyes because they think they are saying a lot more than their art says. But while this piece isn't easy (like all good art), the meaning is clear. I'm not explaining art that's too difficult, I'm responding to someone who created difficulty where it doesn't exist.

Good art should demand we keep thinking and talking about it, still unfolding both meaning and beauty. In this case when someone took it wrong, I was compelled to talk about it at length. I cut 5 paragraphs to get it to this length, and could write more.

If we only make art that is immediately easy to understand and takes no mulling over, we are in trouble. Why would we want that?

[Owen Strachan]

Steve,

You know I appreciate you, though with you and Joe both opposing me I begin to feel like I'm dealing with a modalist entity. Are you two the same person? You're a great one-two punch!

Merriment aside, I'm not sure that I "need a hand understanding" the song is art, as you delicately put it. I wrote this in my blog post: "I fear that, though Propaganda ultimately points the finger on himself in the last verse, he has been harsh against the Puritans, sinful as they were in being racist and not opposing racism in the power of the gospel."

Do you see that? I get the point of the song. I've made a rap cd that some friends have said is too abstract, too metaphorical in places! I "get" symbolism and "bait and switch." My point was that in making his argument, Propaganda hit the Puritans really, really hard. His "step back" comment can be taken different ways when you're listening to the piece.

At any rate, we can disagree on the overall effect of the song. You like it; I have concerns with it. That's fine by me. For the record, I did take pains to point out the necessity of decrying racism. I don't think, though, that I "need a hand" in understanding the piece. I think that the song as a whole ended up distorting Propaganda's important message. I would, furthermore, have loved to see him extend forgiveness to those whose sins he detests.

That, and not anger, is the ultimate end of a Christian calling out a Christian. To get angry makes sense. But to go beyond anger and express forgiveness of the Puritans for their serious sin: that is so otherworldly, so unusual, so unmerited, so undeserved, so frankly weird, so out of touch with the way that the world handles racism, that it has to be Christlike.

[Steve McCoy]

Luke, do you really think Prop meant every Puritan without exception? I don't. Historian Richard Bailey said in Joe's first post (linked in my post), "puritans in general all supported and participated in the African slave trade." I think that's how Prop is using them and it's fair way to use them.

[Wesley]

Having read quite a bit of the Puritans the angst at this exposure of the duplicity and blatant hypocrisy of the Puritans is confusing and brings two questions to mind.

First, Are the Puritan writings that significant that they eclipse the Scriptures or are essential to understanding the Scriptures, which are the source for faith and practice?

Second, Why present the systemic sin of the Puritans, who are dead, in such a way that it offends 37 million African-Americans that are alive today by painting their sin of slavery as culturally acceptable while decrying other culturally acceptable sins like promiscuity, homosexuality, etc.?

Just wondering....

[Spiritualswords]

Hey Steve. On the specific lyric I brought up, whether Prop meant all the Valley of Vision authors or not, I'm not sure. Did he know that some of those very authors actually were outspoken? I'm not sure, either. You encouraged us all to say w/ him, "How come the things the Holy Spirit showed them in the valley of vision didn’t compel them to knock on they neighbors door and say, 'You can’t own people!'?" Well, these things did compel at least some of them. Again, I agree w/ what Prop is doing in this track. I'll let my original post stand on its own. Grace and peace.

[Steve McCoy]

Owen, thanks for the comment. I appreciate you too, brother. A brief response, and this is where I think you are really off and pretty much are calling out a brother for being unforgiving when that's not even possibly on the table.

First, most people who "need a hand" to understand something don't usually realize it at first. I'm not trying to patronize you. I think you have it wrong and I think you do need a hand with what you have wrong. We aren't just talking in a cafe. You put up a post about it on multiple sites that is wrong, not just about a piece of art, but a brother in Christ and his own attitude. I hope if you felt like I was doing something wrong publicly and needed a hand in understanding it better, you would bless me in doing so.

The bait and switch IS the issue and is where you get the whole of it wrong. In legal language, the "bait" is a fraud. It's illegal. It's intentionally wrong in order to achieve gain. It's purposefully insincere! Of course there is a reality to the history of the Puritans (it wouldn't make sense otherwise), but Prop is an actor playing the insincere bait so that you are drawn in and switched to gospel realities of straight lines by crooked sticks. He's using a tactic. If you get "bait and switch" you would have to agree with me at this point.

But then why would you talk about his anger? It's bait! It's using historical facts but using them insincerely so that we would get punched in the gut at our own arrogance, as if we are better than those sinful slave owners! And to keep such focus on the bait (and treat it as if it isn't bait, but real) and not the switch (sure you mentioned it, but then went back to focusing on the bait!) is not only to miss the point of the song or misinterpret art, but to publicly accuse a brother of being "so angry, so authentically steamed."

Owen, let me sum it up this way. It's as if you saw the actor who played the warden on Shawshank on the street and started accusing him of treating the inmates cruelly. It's a role used to open our eyes to a larger story of redemption. Prop played a role and played it well, and then stepped away from the role to tell us the larger truth.

[Jon]

I agree with you here.

[Jon]

...and here.

[Jon]

It would have taken me a long, long time to understand the "bait and switch", if I would have been able to understand it at all. Perhaps certain people, myself included, are not as art savvy as Propaganda, a man who I greatly admire. Is there fault to be found then on any "side" (for we are all on the same "side") if miscommunication exists?

For the record, I was seriously questioning whether or not to continue reading John Owen's "Biblical Theology".

Grace and Peace

[BruthazKeepah]

I wonder of race, history & heritage (etc) also have to with how "clear" Prop's message is. I'm a Black South African, living in London, married to a white woman, with heritage of apartheid... I didn't even catch "step away" line, but I caught the point of the song. Making "step away" the key to unlock the song makes the song too obscure, when it is clear (to me, and many): It is don't pedestal people, whether Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Piper or Rob Bell... Or my pastor, or me. The song is about us! All of us!
The art isn't flawed because its misunderstandable. I'm just saying that the song didn't need blogs & twitter posts to make it understandable to some (who by and large seem to of African descent).

[BruthazKeepah]

Yessir!

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks for the comments. By the way, and I don't think I used the terminology of "step away" being the "key," but it seems clear it's the moment of transition. And I do agree that you can fully get the point without those two words.

[Steve McCoy]

Jon, the bait and switch isn't hidden or even complicated. You can see it in the text apart from actually hearing the song.

[BruthazKeepah]

Steve, I agree.
I asked a friend to download the album. His response to the song, in a text to me was:
I love the song. At first I "where's he going with this; we're all fallen!" But then, BAMM!! Some clever stuff there.

The bait & switch. My friend got it.
Its clear, and clearly the point.

[Rparmly]

It seems to me like the issue boils down to whether or not the bait and switch is clear. I feel like using "step away" as a transitional line is confusing because earlier in the song Propaganda seems to be saying similar things. I didn't get the impression Propaganda was switching roles as I was listening to this song the first few times through. I knew he was switching points and I knew he had more to say than just his comments on the Puritans. But I didn't feel like he was moving from one character to another.

Steve your comments have helped me appreciate the song on a different level, and for that I thank you. I'm just not convinced that the majority of his audience will catch on to this as he intended and feel like the song is dangerous if it's not understood properly. I do realize this is subjective and that there is no real standard to test if the bait and switch is used effectively. It's possible that the majority of listeners will catch on right away and that I'm in the minority. If this is the case I'll have to back down from my comments. My opinion on the song hinges on the fact that I think a large majority of listeners will miss Propaganda's point and come to false conclusions.

[Jwallace]

As a Black woman who aligns with the reformed tradition, I'm just grateful that these discussions are even occuring! To be honest, I didn't realize that the Puritans even owned slaves, though it behooves one to recognize that those who read the scriptures respond to them within their own cultural context... Most people of color saw the Bible as a means of freedom from both spiritual and Earthly oppression. Praise God that He continues to use crooked sticks to make straight lines!!!

[Abradley4]

Wow Owen Strachan, did you really just apply the "angry black man" stereotype to Prop? I can't believe that you would go their. What makes you think that Prop is "angry?" It seems that what you really want is Prop to sugarcoat the critique and explain away the effects and implications of a flawed theological system that made their blindness possible for some many centuries. It seems that this is the elephant in the room that people do not want to admit: the Puritans were not as theologically sound as people romantize them to be. To think otherwise is idolatry. It's becoming more and more clear that the black experience of the Puritans does not seem to weigh heavily as concern for the critics of Prop's song who share your "concerns." Since you're speaking from the limited confines of white privilege it seems that it would be helpful to consider how Prop might sound to a black audience. Prop's song is no where near the stereotype of black anger (not even close). In fact, Prop's content an style in this "Precious Puritans" fits well within the discourse norms of African American poetry (read Paul Lawrence Dunbar). If the intent was to call people to reject the Puritans altogether he would have sounded much more like James Cone. Prop isn't angry, he's just a black.

[Griffin]

To Dr. Bradley and Bros. McCoy and Thorn,

A while back, during the ER2 controversy, I heard Voddie Baucham refer to what he called the 'new black gnosticism'. Basically, he said that these days, when it comes to 'blackness' or black referents in artistry or observation, the only people allowed to talk are blacks. Obviously, this problem isn't going to be one that you necesarily feel seeing as you agree with the 'black' side of the discussion. What I'm wondering is, in discussions like this, how am I ever going to be allowed to disagree reasonably without being accused of speaking from 'white privilege' or 'white blindness' like is so often being lobbied by Dr. Bradley in his comments and even Prop in his lyrics? Don't get me wrong. That exists and happens regularly. But it can't be the case that any time a white man disagrees with a black man on a situation (however mild or heinous it may be) involving both a black and white man, the white man is speaking from privilege and ignorance... he needs a hand. That's the feel I'm getting here. The only way to avoid it is agreement, even if you don't.

Griffin

[Paul Duggan]

What exactly are the flaws in the theological system of the puritans that led to their mistakes and sins on race?

That doesn't seem to be clarified.

[Joe Thorn]

Griffin,

"White privilege" is not something you or I can step in or out of. It simply "is." We have to recognize that as we are discussing this. I have no problem disagreeing with a man, regardless of his color or convictions, but I have to take into account how my own experience may have a bearing on how I see things. When it comes to the issue of race, or issues intensified by race, I need to keep in mind that I am coming from a white man's experience that often greatly differs from my black brothers and sisters. Having grown up in this white-dominant society I know that I'm speaking out of my white-privilege, which makes me much more careful with how I approach all of this. many things can corrupt my perspective on things. This is a big one.

In general, I would encourage you and Owen and others to be quick to listen and slow to speak and slow to become angry. I guess James would say the same.

[Owen]

Steve, Anthony, and Joe,

Thanks for the sharpening comments. Here is my attempt at a response.

"But Propaganda blasts them so hard that, though he’s not ultimately dismissing them, it sounds as if he is." Steve, as you can see from my post, I clearly see the "bait and switch." As Ross has pointed out, my major concern was that people would not get that tactic and would turn away from the Puritans. In other words, I don't "need a hand" understanding this song, and I didn't when I first wrote on it. I was concerned that people wouldn't get that Propaganda does, in the end, implicate himself for personally-driven inerrancy.

Having said that (Jerry Seinfeld voice), I'm not backing away from my concerns about the general tone toward the Puritans. I get the point of the song, but the tone of it continues to concern me. You're free to disagree with me there, but for the record, I think artists who offer critique need to do so carefully. Words matter. Denunciations matter. Even if those denunciations are part of a broader point, they need to be carefully handled. I don't like the tone of this song toward the Puritans. I teach college students who are impressionable, and I want them to learn to critique in both truth and grace.

By the way, at no point did I say I was "angry" as both Steve and Joe have now said. That's not fair. I don't appreciate the rebuke, Joe. I'm genuinely not angry, just concerned. Go back and read the post again if you doubt my characterization of my spirit. It's fine if you disagree with my points, but please don't impute motives or a certain emotional state to me.

In terms of "white man's privilege," I find that statement problematic. If white men were guilty of thinking that black men all think alike, why is it okay to group me as part of a monolithic category? For the record, here's just a bit about me:

1. I was one class away from a minor in Africana Studies in college. I took classes with Eddie Glaude, one of Cornel West's top proteges (now teaching at Princeton), and loved them.
2. I'm from an inter-racial home. My sister faced racism growing up, and I lived through that with her.
3. I have always personally identified with urban culture. I loved basketball and hip hop instinctively, while country music and golf did little for me.
4. In my own little corner of things, I try hard to work AGAINST racism in evangelicalism and to work FOR diversity and equality.

Does any of this make me able to see things exactly as a black man does? No. Does it make me a purveyor of "white guilt"? Perhaps. Could it possibly indicate that I want to oppose racism, challenge my own innate perspective, grow in understanding, and sharpen my fellow Christians? Maybe.

My personal desire is for Christians of all races to be able to listen to one another respectfully and dialogue in grace and truth. That is going to be hard and difficult and sensitive in places. I am thankful that Propaganda is bringing these issues to the table. I do hope, though, that the way we talk to one another is as constructive as it can be, that it loses as few people along the way as is possible.

Whatever you think of these thoughts and my blog, please do not assume a certain emotional level on my part. As I said in my original post--which no one here has made mention of, which is sadly typical for online discussions that take absolutely no notice of nuances and qualifications--I like and respect Propaganda and am thankful that he raised the issues he did. I just want people to hear his critique AND continue to read the Puritans, and I fear that his song could be misunderstood and misapplied.

[Joe Thorn]

Owen,

Like you said earlier I want to say here - I like and appreciate you, brother. Sincerely.

I didn't say you were angry. In fact, I don't think you have been angry in these exchanges at all. Perhaps you are thinking of my of citing James, but I was simply pointing out how to respond to the issue (especially in light of "white privilege")-- be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to be angry. By the way, you have been the one assigning emotional motive to authors, claiming Prop' to be "angry."

On white privilege. I'm not sure you and I agree on what is meant by the term. It doesn't mean all white people think the same way. It means that as white men growing up in a white-dominant culture we have had the privilege of both social advantage and the potential disadvantage of having a perspective on things that favor ourselves, interests, etc. rather than reality.

And Owen, I'm not sure why you continue to credential yourself for everyone re: your hip hop album, college studies, etc. You are not the issue. I am not making you the issue. The issue is Propaganda's track, what he said, what is communicated, how it is to be received, etc.

[Abradley4]

Owen, you said: "In terms of "white man's privilege," I find that statement problematic. If white men were guilty of thinking that black men all think alike, why is it okay to group me as part of a monolithic category?"

Ok, it seems that you don't know what white privilege is then? With all those courses you took you never studied white privilege? Thanks for sharing the 4 points. Very helpful but now I am more confused. It seems to me that if those 4 points were your starting point you would have written a different post about "Precious Puritans." Instead your "concerns" read like a cultural outsider, who's a product of white privilege (and is unaware of it), who lives in the suburbs of Nashville or Knoxville (in a conservative Christian subculture) and has very little (if any) contact with black scholars. I just can't imagine that the black faculty at your school would agree with your "rebuke" of Prop.

I still don't understand why you think Prop was angry?

It's hard to take your concern about people not reading the Puritans too seriously. The people who love the Puritans tend to not love black people, or their perspectives, enough to stop reading them because of a 5-minute rap song. Do you really think a 5-minute rap song is going to stop Puritan-lovers from reading those men? If you're seriously worried about the impact of a 5-minute rap song then, perhaps, there are more concerns about raising up a generation of critical thinkers among Puritan-loving Baptists. The deeper concern is that people dismiss the critique, ignore it, and give a shoulder shrug to the whole analysis as if the black experience with the Puritans should be "no biggie, so let's move on and talk about things that don't make us uncomfortable."

[Steve McCoy]

Owen, Joe & Dr. Bradley said a bunch of what I wanted to talk about, and I'm thankful they brought it up. All the right questions and concerns. And I'm with Joe on my thankfulness for your ministry.

Let me just ask a couple questions.

Can you tell me where I said you are angry? Because I don't remember ever saying that, I couldn't find it in searching through what I've said, and I'm not thinking it. I think you are wrong, but I don't think you are angry.

Can you tell me what a bait-and-switch is? To defend yourself on the bait-and-switch issue, you said, "But Propaganda blasts them so hard that, though he’s not ultimately dismissing them, it sounds as if he is." That is not a statement on bait-and-switch. It's not even close. What you describe is: horrible-not completely worthless-though sounds completely worthless. You are describing him as someone who said hard things but qualified them. He hasn't done that in the song, or on Joe's blog, and that isn't what a bait-and-switch is.

Bait-and-switch is: horrible-actually not any more horrible than me and you-when used by God makes beautifully straight lines. I think you need to step back your accusations of Prop being "angry," "authentically steamed," and "harsh." You can't have your bait and eat it too.

[Hans vanHaven]

Owen; I see that you expected a closed sermon in this song: point out sin against self and forgive. I also fear that you were hurt by the mere fact that the puritans were criticized.

[Brad]

http://owenstrachan.com/about/

[Steve Thompson]

Ummm . . . no disrepect Owen, but your little list of items 1-4 regarding how you're "cool with the brothers of color" is like something from an SNL skit.

Seriously?

[Joseph Stringfellow]

Thank you for your analysis and comments, Steve. I would gather that this very dialogue is the reason Propaganda included this song on his album. If nothing else, "Precious Puritans" is an invaluable contribution to the conversation on race, religion, and politics in the United States. What I find particularly poignant, is that Propaganda almost immaculately displays the tenuous position of American Christianity in the Black American consciousness. I don't pretend to speak for all African Americans, but I would like to offer a defense of Propaganda's work that I haven't yet seen published elsewhere. While the sins of the Puritans are on display here, the song speaks to a broader truth that can be missed in the foray.

I grew up with a stepfather who was a member of the Nation of Islam. For the greater part of my childhood, while being trained in the Christian tradition, I was exposed to books, sermons, and lectures on how Christianity was the "slave masters' religion". You can imagine, then, the cognitive dissonance inherent in defending a faith once used to support the egregious abuse of my ancestors. Propaganda admonishes "Your colorless rhetoric is a cop-out." I hear you Prop. For years I lacked any cogent defense against my stepfather's accusations that I was following in the footsteps of our great-great-grandparents' owners. Propaganda takes an opportunity to speak on this challenge from the perspective of the Gospel (not the perspective of Black Nationalism). This is the value that I see in "Precious Puritans". The anger, the resolve, the confusion, the self-reflection that is born out of an honest review of this nation's history is articulated quite effectively. Thankfully, the conversation doesn't end there.

Some raise the concern that the song may prevent believers from studying the Puritans. My retort? There's a whole host of believers who wouldn't have bothered with the Puritans in the first place. These believers (my younger self included) have been convinced that the Christianity of the Puritans is not the Christianity of the black American. Heck! If their theology allows them to own slaves, then why should we trust that they could rightly teach the descendants of those slaves? Ah, but here is where Propaganda lands the punch: "Are you inerrant?" And the other shoe drops. So my resentment towards the [insert any 17th, 18th, or 19th century Christian group complicit with slavery/racism] is softened by the reminder that I too am sinful. This is the grace that many sons and daughters of the Diaspora need to 1)capture the importance of extending forgiveness, and 2)realize OUR own sinfulness and OUR own need for forgiveness. Well done, Prop. Well done.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks for your comments (with some background) here, Thomas, and for adding to the conversation.

[Jordan Williams1984]

The tone of his voice changes at precisely the same point of the song as the focus of the lyrics change away from the disparity between the Puritans doctrine and practice and onto the disparity in our own lives. I thought this song was masterful.