Art & The "Precious Puritans" Discussion

Now Dr. Joel Beeke has weighed in on the discussion on Propaganda's "Precious Puritans." It's a more critical take. And I LOVE Dr. Beeke and own several of his books on the Puritans, including his new, massive work A Puritan Theology. So while I want to respond here to his post, I want my readers to know I highly recommend his books and benefited greatly from hearing him at Desiring God Pastor's Conference on prayer.

Here's my response to critics who are receiving "Precious Puritans" as Dr. Beeke has: Critics are not hearing the song as art, and not discussing art and how it should be critiqued.

Critics are doing exposition of it as if it's a sermon or merely a message, but it's far more creative than that. Critics are discussing the emotional response to the beginning of the song, but not the all-important end! The beginning is designed creatively to get you to feel emotions about the Puritans as a judge and then to smack you down for being a hypocrite! It's a trick, and if you won't view it as art and allow yourself to be tricked, you miss the whole of it and you write blog posts to defend what you find precious, as if the first part of the song is merely propositional. 

Francis Schaeffer writes that one bad way to view art is to see art as "a vehicle for the propagation of a particular message." That view "reduces art to an intellectual statement and the work of art as a work of art disappears." I think critics of "Precious Puritans" are receiving it through that lens, and therefore aren't receiving it well. It isn't seen as art (even when the critics think they are seeing it that way!), and therefore the artist isn't given ground to point to truth creatively.

What I think is great is that so many have heard the song and just loved it, even when it has unsettled them. Art spoke to truth and it was well received. But when someone criticizes the song and misses the truth because they've missed the art as art, I think that says we need more discussion on how to view art.

Comments

[Mark]

Steve, it seems to me that if someone should not criticize Prop's art as Beeke did, then someone from the other perspective should be held to account for their praise of the same art that glossed over the "all-important end!"

[Steve McCoy]

Who "praised the same art that glossed over the 'all-important end'"?

[PastorTodd78]

Steve, I think you handle this post very fairly. You are not harsh towards Dr. Beeke. You simply raise an important issue about judging things as they are. We, in the Reformed/Evangelical community, are against proof texting of scripture. I would say this falls in a similar vein. We have to criticize and comment within context, and context includes style and genre.

[Steve McCoy]

Todd, agreed. I was reading this to my wife before posting and was telling her about how hermeneutics is a helpful comparison. Prop isn't writing an epistle!

[Mark]

I am speaking generally of the praise for Prop pointing out the Puritans' sins. It seems that such praise does not motivate a like response from you concerning the artistic aspect of the song.

[Kevin Fiske]

Words have meaning and inherently carry a message. This is true whether they are used in a work of art or in an epistle. Thus it is obviously important to pay attention to genre (as in hermeneutics, as was noted). Music often enhances the weight and force with which are heard, understood, and received/internalized. All of that to say, could you give more specific guidelines as to how you believe art could be rightly criticized? I very much appreciated Dr. Beeke's critique.

Appreciate your dialogue!

[Steve McCoy]

Kevin, thanks for the comment. I only have a quick second to respond as I'm headed to an art show (of all things!).

As to genre, you have to think more of a movie or play to get it. He's playing a character. Prop as a person isn't giving a personal rant in the song. It's a kind of acting. To blame him for his anger and/or questions is like blaming the actor who played Tony Soprano for killing so many people. In many ways you could use the song to illustrate how anger toward the Puritans is hypocritical because we are sinners too! You could say, Don't be like the guy in the first half of the song.

By the way (apart from Biblical morals, but another parallel), I don't think Carrie Underwood actually carved her name into the leather seat of a cheating boyfriend, as she says in one song. I don't think she would condone it. It's a character that resonates with angry women who have cheating dudes. Artists do this all the time. It's only when it hits home because it's something (or someone) beloved and we want to defend.

Sorry for the quick and certainly incomplete answer. But I hope that helps a little. Thanks for the question.

[J-TR]

This is an excellent point. Prop has elsewhere in other songs praised the Puritans for their rich theology and otherwise godly character.

[Kevin Fiske]

Thanks for the reply, Steve. I appreciate your perspective and the dialogue.