Can Rap be Christian? Evaluating Hip Hop
Scott AniolToday we finally arrive at a discussion of the nature of rap itself. This post will be beneficial for you, however, only if you accept the following assertions on made on Monday:
- Man is completely depraved and thus cannot trust his own preferences implicitly.
- Music is a medium of human communication and thus must be carefully evaluated to determine whether its communication is sinful.
- Cultures are imbedded with values since they are external expressions of value systems.
For the past three days I have further explained and defended these assertions. Tuesday I dealt with the objection that believers are not totally depraved. Wednesday I considered the nature of neutral objects and their uses. Thursday I dealt with the nature of culture.
If you do not agree with these arguments, then evaluating hip hop will make no sense to you. This was essentially the mode of defense taken by Shai Linne in his interview with Mark Dever.
However, as I observed on Monday, Dever, Linne, and Allen implicitly admit that rap does indeed communicate because they discuss the different “flavors” of different kinds of rap, and they argue that rap is actually a fitting medium for the expression of biblical truth.
It is this assertion that I’d like to evaluate today.
Once again, let me ask you to separate personalities from this discussion. We are not evaluating persons or their motives; we are evaluating a culture and a medium of communication.
The Roots of Rap
Rap music is a subset of the culture of Hip Hop, which began in New York in the early 1970s.[1] It was developed in the impoverished, gang-saturated communities of the Bronx at block parties, which incorporated DJs who would play the hit music of the day. DJ Kool Herc, one of the most popular DJs of the early 70s and a Jamaican immigrant, began to recognize that people danced better to the percussive interludes of songs, and so he began to creatively mix together these smaller rhythmic sections in order to motivate the people to dance longer and harder. He combined this practice with the traditional Jamaican custom of “toasting,” or calling out above the music in rhythmic, rhyming chants. Thus rap music was born.
Rap music soon became the voice for expressions of anger and discontent with society. Its heavy rhythmic content and forceful, declamatory presentation provided a perfect vehicle for expressing this angst. Some, such as Afrika Bambaataa, an ex-street gang member, attempted to use hip hop culture as a means for re-channeling the rage of young people away from gang fighting into the music, dance, and art (graffiti) of the culture.
Rap music has developed in some ways since its inception, mostly in terms of complexity. However, its essential elements remain the same:
- aggressive, self-assertive, rhyming declamation
- discontent socio-political commentary
- heavy rhythmic foundation
The Culture of Rap
Today, rap music (and hip hop culture in general) is most often associated with violence, profanity, rebellion, hatred, and sexuality. This is not a Christian analysis by any means, but a common, conventional association that clearly exists today. For example, consider this list of songs from a “Top Essential Hip-Hop Albums” list:
- Murder was the Case (Snoop Dogg)
- Me Against the World (2Pac)
- In Cold Blood (Scarface)
- Stranded on Death Row (Dr. Dre)
- Dead Presidents (Jay-Z)
- Protect Ya Neck (Wu-Tang)
- Ready to Die (B.I.G.)
- Night of the Living Baseheads (Public Enemy)
Or listen to this rap enthusiast:
When you think of artists like Snoop, Dre, Spice 1 or McEight, the first thing to come to mind is violence or gang- banging. It may be true to a certain extent but to me it’s still an art form.
One sympathetic author, writing for The Journal of Negro Education, argues that this association with violence results from the fact that a violent culture birthed the music:
America for all her protests against violent rap lyrics has failed to acknowledge her role in the creation of this relatively new art form. Evidence of America’s preoccupation with violent activity is pervasive and can be found, for example, in virtually all of the entertainment industry. As a result, of the prevalence of violence in music, movies, television and video games, America has nurtured an environment that some have come to call a culture of violence. If there is in fact a culture of violence, the true parent of rap lyrics is America herself, who financially rewards the glamorization of behaviors deemed socially unacceptable. Rap music, in this context, is merely another creative expression that is an outgrowth of prevailing entertainment practices.
Any casual survey of rap lyrics, album titles, or news reports about rap artists or their concerts reveals immediate connection to this kind of sinful activity.
In the interview we’re discussing, both Dever and Linne acknowledge this common connection as well:
Dever: One objection that I’ve heard before about this is that even if you’re persuaded that such music is not in and of itself wrong, what about the fact that for a lot of people they do associate rap as being a form of music that has been so characterized by violence . . . and profanity and materialism, and especially the degradation of women? What makes you then say, I want to use that form to spread the gospel and build the church?
Shai: I’m sensitive to that objection. I would join my brothers and sisters who would take serious issue with the things that are common and most secular forms of this music.
Now these kinds of associations don’t necessarily prove that the music inherently communicates these things (apart from the lyrics), but they should give any Christian careful pause for several reasons.
First, when a medium of communication is birthed out of a certain value system, there is great reason to assume that the medium will naturally express those values. If rap music (a medium of communication) was birthed out of an ethos of violence, drugs, hatred, and sexuality, it would be a far stretch to argue that it does not naturally express those values.
Second, it is instructive that when disturbed, debase people want to express rage, hatred, and violence, they are drawn to this form of music. Why is it that other cultures or musical forms do not have the same kind of magnetism for these values? Why is it that (with few exceptions, I’m sure) no one uses Appalachian folk tunes to express their social angst? Why is it that no one uses music from the Baroque period to express delight in explicit violence? Why is it that no one uses English folk music to express degradation of women?
Third, even if this were all merely conventional associations in our day (which I don’t believe), what is the Christian’s responsibility? Did Paul tell the Corinthians to “redeem” the meat that had negative associations that might cause weaker people to stumble into sin? No, he told them to avoid eating the meat for the sake of the gospel and the weaker brothers.
The Meaning of Rap
When evaluating the meaning of something, we judge its natural connections. What does it look like, what does it feel like, what does it sound like? If we are evaluating the body language or vocal inflections of someone else, we consider what those gestures and tones normally communicate when they are expressed by most humans.
When we evaluate what a form of communication communicates, we must ask what kinds of bodily movements and emotions look or “feel” like what the music sounds like. So, for instance, light bouncy music “feels” like being light and bouncy, i.e. “happy.” So what does rap music naturally “feel” like?
What does rap mean?
First, a basic style analysis by Timothy Shafer, a professor in the Division of Music at Penn State:
As a style, rap music is dominated by rhythm and specifically the backbeat; harmony and melody take a back seat. The sound of the backbeat inherently signifies the motion of the body during the act of sexual intercourse, as any rock musician will readily attest. The relative durations of the spoken rhythms are highly syncopated against the pulse, suggesting agitation and in louder instances, anger. Phrase structures (in terms of the groupings of spoken rhythms) are frequently irregular as well, again suggesting instability and a lack of respite. What harmony there is is extremely minimalistic and repetitive. Melody, for all intents and purposes, is non-existent. It may be claimed that the melody is single tone, but those tones are rarely sustained to the point of qualifying to be sung notes. It is rhymed, rhythmic speech, but not singing.
So basically, as a rhythmic art form, rap is dominated at all levels by syncopation, which is on the emotional spectrum between surprise, through agitation, toward anger/rebellion. The syncopation indicates varying levels (according to dynamic and other contexts) of aggression by virtue of its purpose of conflict against the principal pulse.
I agree with his analysis. The rhythms, sonorities, timbres, and movements of rap all “feel” like (to one degree or another dependent upon the specific song) rage, violence, aggression, sex, agitation, and rebellion. His analysis is based upon a comparison of the objective musical characteristics to natural human behavior. If you were to hear the music at a distance without being able to understand the lyrics, what would you naturally assume the music is expressing? Remember, we’re not talking about the motives of the performer here, we’re talking about what the medium actually says. Just like I could communicate something to my wife without intending it, the same can be true for a musician.
So the kinds of messages the culture of rap is naturally associated with in our society is not due merely to convention, it is due to the sounds and rhythms of the music itself.
Let’s consider the performance styles as well. Of course, there is a certain range among performers, and Christian artists certainly would not perform the more explicit bodily expressions of sexuality or rebellion. But what do the bodily movements and vocal tones of most rap performers naturally communicate? If you were to watch a video of a rap artist (Christian or not) with the volume turned down, what would you naturally assume they were communicating? Once again, rage, self-assertion, rebellion, and aggression.
Add to all this the dress, mannerisms, graffiti, slang, speech styles, and attitudes of hip hop culture, and we come to the unavoidable conclusions that this culture cannot and should not be combined with God’s holy truth.
Now most of the Christian rap I listened to (mostly by Shai Linne and Curtis Allen) was admittedly softer in tone than other secular rap. However, the essential elements of rap remain: aggressive rhymed declamation over a heavy beat.
Now at this point I think it would be helpful to discuss the importance of distinguishing between kinds of emotions. I would assume that when these Christians perform, they intend to express in-your-face, aggressive, assertive proclamation of truth. They actually believe that how rap naturally communicates is actually conducive for gospel proclamation. They say as much in the interview. They believe that the medium of rap is particularly fitting for proclaiming God’s truth (an implicit admission of its ability to communicate in certain ways) because of its capacity for expressing “a lot of information” and its very direct style of declamation.
But what they fail to recognize is that not all emotion is created equal, and some is absolutely incompatible with God’s truth. Remember, mere words are actually inadequate to describe different kinds of emotion. They might insist that what rap communicates is simply direct assertiveness, like preaching, when it actually communicates something more like self-assertive aggression. Fervency for the gospel is different than aggression. Righteous indignation is different than rage. It’s differences like these that we must recognize as we determine what is acceptable for God’s worship or the expression of his truth.
Can Rap be Christian?
Why am I making such a big deal about rap? Because I love the Gospel. And I know that men like Mark Dever, Shai Linne, Curtis Allen, and John Piper love the Gospel as well.
Music is not really the most important issue here, God’s truth is most important.
So I am very concerned with how God’s truth is presented, delivered, proclaimed, and disseminated. If the way that the Gospel is presented contradicts the very message, I am concerned about the integrity of the Gospel.
So where does this leave us? Based upon all of this analysis, the unavoidable conclusion is that rap music, because of what it inherently communicates, is incompatible with the Christian Gospel. It expresses sentiments that contradict the very message that we love.
- Most of the information for this essay is taken from two sources: Can’t stop, won’t stop: a history of the hip-hop generation by Jeff Chang and what is considered the most scholarly collection of essays about Hip Hop, That’s the joint!: the hip-hop studies reader edited by Murray Forman and Mark Anthony Neal. [↩]
Scott, I appreciate this site and your labor to support intellectually a rationale for God-pleasing musical choices. I know it is a difficult endeavor to define right and wrong in this post-modern society. It seems to me that many of your critics are arguing that it can’t be done in the area of music, and therefore we must not judge the musical preferences of others. Their defense of rap illustrates to me the absurdity of their position. I cannot believe they really believe the words they are saying in support of rap but they have to say it because the position they have staked out demands it. I say this not as an argument one way or the other, but just as a reaction from one person in the audience listening to the discussion. Just want to encourage you in your efforts. Thanks.
Actually Paul, what is absurd is the quote from Shafer above. The second sentence destroys all credibility not only because of its ignorance but also because it is flat out wrong. “Any rock musician” will attest to that? If you suggested such a thing to a rock musician that knows anything about music, they will fall over laughing.
Dear Fred,
It’s neither absurd nor ignorant to assert what I have asserted. Dozens upon dozens of citations from both the rock and roll world and the academic world can be provided to corroborate what I’ve said above. Here are a just a few, taken from John Makujina’s book, “Measuring the Music.:
“Rock ‘n’ roll is 99% sex.” – John Oates of Hall and Oates.
“Rock music is sex. The big beat matches the body’s rhythms.” – Frank Zappa
“The throbbing beat of rock-and-roll provides a vital sexual release for its adolescent audience.” – Jan Berry (of Jan and Dean)
“I saw the Beatles on televesion, and I said to myself, ‘I can do that’ – not necessarily the same way, but to touch that same kind of nerve; that hiddne, unknown erogenous zone – which is what rock and roll is all about.” – Paul Stanley, guitarist for KISS
con’t. below
Our music is, and always has been, fueled by a strong sexual undertow. Pop music is partially about sex. The two things can’t be divorced.” – Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys
The only rock musicians who are laughing appear to be those laughing on their way to the bank at what they have done to our willing culture. I can provide many, many more statements such as these to support my assertion above.
con’t below
Makujina also cites additional sociologists and musicologists:
“Of all the mass media rock is the most explicitly concerned with sexual expression. . . . If rock’s lyrics mostly follow the rules of romance, its musical elements, its sounds and rhythms, draw on other conventions of sexual representation.” – Frith and McRobbie (study of sexuality in rock)
con’t below
“The sound of the [Rolling] Stones is sexy because of the totality of the mix and the beat, the way the music hits the body and the hormones instantaneously. This sound, perhaps some of the most definitional sound of ultimately undefinable rock, is coded as unmistakably phallic, and masculine.” – Norma Coates
“Young people know that rock has the beat of sexual intercourse.” – Allan Bloom
So I hope you see, Fred, that it is neither ignorant nor absurd to assert what I’ve stated above. I would speculate that those who do not recognize this simple bioacoustic fact about rock music have been fed such a steady diet of it that its intrinsic sound meaning has become obscured through many additional individual and personal associations with the music. Perhaps desensitization is another way to put it. The Christian rock subculture has appropriated this music without regard for its inherent meaning (i.e. sound without lyrics) and now finds itself in the awkward position of defending the sound of rock music with new spirit-of-the age, relativistic, postmodern, and unbiblical arguments that claim that music is neutral.
That’s what is absurd.
Sorry for the many posts, the website kept rejecting my submission. I don’t think it likes the topic!
Tim
[...] Evaluating Hip Hop [...]
I’ve often said that arguing against rap with those that love it is like taking the food bowl away from a hungry dog. It might be your dog, but when you begin to pull the bowl away, you’ll get a negative reaction.
Fred, what is absurd is denying the self-evident reality of the statement.
It is an undeniable fact that the first (and virtually the only) people to deny the sexual message inherent in the rock beat are professing Christian who want to use it.
Scott, that frankly is a lot of bunk. You and your friend Tim do not know what you are talking about. You look silly when you try to liken a beat to sex. Why don’t you contact some professional rock or rap musicians and run your theory past them. When they stop laughing, they will tell you you are crazy. Oh, I’m sure you will find a musician here and there that will agree with you, but your assertion that everyone but Christians believe that is wrong, wrong.
Dear Fred,
Let’s hold off on calling people silly for a little bit and examine the process.
The assertion doesn’t depend on the testimony of rock “musicians” to be valid.
Do you know the processes by which music communicates emotion?
Can you explain them?
Tim
Fred,
As I’ve been thinking about this conversation, I was wondering what it was that apparently annoyed you so greatly. So I re-read the threads. I think it was my fault.
When I said, “any rock musician. . . ” I was using a conventional phrase from conversational speech. But in writing it shows up as a universal affirmative, as in “all rock musicians think . . . ” Of course, I have no way of knowing what ALL rock musicians think, and did not mean to say that I know what all others of a particular group think. I apologize for that careless use of language in my writing.
So I will amend my assertion from “. . . as any rock musician will readily attest” to say:
“The sound of the backbeat inherently signifies the motion of the body during the act of sexual intercourse, as many prominent rock musicians have openly testified.”
You may still think the assertion itself is a lot of bunk, but hopefully you will not be provoked by my telling you what you or others think. What remains are facts I think can be demonstrably proven.
I still hope we can have a conversation about the way in which sound communicates motion and emotion, Fred.
Tim
Tim
Interesting article. On one hand I agree with much of the analysis, but on the other hand I have seen things with my own eyes that make me take pause before making a final decision. I have been in some pretty bad neighborhoods with a reformed Christian rap group doing street evangelism. We would find a little park, set up a grill, cook some food, and then they would turn on the speakers and perform for a few minutes. It was all theologically sound rap targeted toward evangelism. When the music started, it brought a lot of people over, who then got free food. Once the crowd was good, they would hand the microphone to me to preach. In short, rap was the draw that got them out of their houses and off the basketball courts to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Was I partnering with the world for the cause of Christ? I certainly hope not! Experience is never to be taken over Scripture, but for me making that call will take a bit of prayer and thinking…
Dear ChurchSalt:
My own thought about your experience is that that is fantastic. The more people who hear the Gospel, the better. But at least a couple of distinctions should be drawn by the Christian evangelist:
1. Street preaching (Acts 17 for example) is not corporate worship.
2. Music is not a God-promised and ordained means of grace. Though He may certainly use whatever means He desires to save His people, music is not promised in Scripture as one of those means. Of the commanded elements of worship, music is the only one specifically excluded from the means of grace.
You said, “rap was the draw that . . . got them to hear the Gospel.” Any illegitimate thing might be substituted for ‘rap’ – fighting, nudity, gambling, drinking, etc. That these things ‘draw’ people does not make them a biblical means of grace to be pursued by the evangelist.
These things should give the Christian pause for thought, because people will become followers of that to which they were drawn. If music, then music. If Christ, then Christ.
Tim
When talking about the culture of rap, I find it interesting that only artists that fall into the gangster rap category were used. The very first hip hop song was done by the Sugar Hill Gang and the song itself reflected a culture that was about partying and having fun. Much of the hip hop music that came after that reflected the same style and subject matter. Hip hop (emceeing or rapping, breakdancing, and djing) emerged to help the youth cope with the injustices that were being done in the South Bronx community as a result of commercial construction that was ruining the community and forcing the underclass black and latino populations. Instead of dealing with poverty and injustice by resorting to violence many of the youth would perfect their craft as rappers, djays and breakers. All of this to say, ask any person that knows hip hop, they will tell you that hip hop originally started out as a fun type of music that took over as disco fadedout. Let’s not use examples of hip hop that support the argument of hip hop not being Christian without giving credit to other forms of hip hop.
This discussion is one of those topics that divide believers. You have done a good job of researching this topic. We give so much credit to the enemy by attributing him with the ability to create anything. If Christ is the head of all things created why do we limit the things that he can use to redeem. God has the power to use anything to bring people to confess Jesus as Lord genuinely. I believe that there are many secrets that God desires to reveal to his children and many of His mysteries are reserved for when we go into glory. Let’s look more to Christ’s power and less to our ability to figure out what He can and cannot do with objects that are subject to him anyway.
Dear Gordon,
I’d be glad to listen to any song of your choice to evaluate its intrinsic musical meaning. Do you have the name of a specific song?
You’re missing the point about the means of grace. No doubt the Lord can, as you say, use any means of His choice to bring people to confess Christ. But He has promised in His Word to use, the reading of Scriputre, preaching, prayer, and the Lord’s Supper to do so. When we become dependent on extra-biblical means of grace (such as music in any form), are are guilty of not taking God at His word – not trusting Him. We become dependent on our own means, programs, and techniques.
I’m not so sure I can agree that God redeems all things. Propagation of sinful acts (as explicitly described in Scripture) in the name of Christ would surely not be blessed by God. We are called to use discernment in evaluating activities not explicitly described in Scripture according to biblical principles.
Music is a creation of man and subject to the Fall. It is subject to evaluation in the same manner that literature and art are for its truth, beauty, and goodness. We cannot discern perfectly, but God can and will.
Are you suggesting that we not evaluate music for its suitability because the act of evaluating it divides believers?
Hi All,
Keep the objectivity coming – clarity, based on Biblical truth, is what we are called to pursue. One glance at Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church makes it clear that God has preferences regarding how His people use what He has given them. To say that all things are created by God and, therefore, can be used by US to glorify Him, is simply not supported by scripture. In the Old Testament, the children of God got impatient with Moses being away from them while he was on the Mount. They constructed a golden calf as a representative of the God who brought them out of slavery. They used what God had given them in a sincere attempt to glorify Him. He rejected what they had done because it was contrary to what He instructed. They were as sincere as could be. The lesson here is that sincerity doesn’t count much when the task is offensive to a holy God. Romans tells us to not be conformed to the world. An understanding of what is meant here draws a pretty straight line to the current discussion. Am I conforming to the world when I use “worldly” music? At what point does association with a particular non-Biblical lifestyle identify something as “worldly” and, therefore, something I’m to not be conformed by/to.
Tim’s distinction between evangelism and worship is important. Too much of our corporate worship experience has been hijacked by evangelism. There is a place for both. Maybe not at the same time, though. A lot of the current angst regarding music in the church stems from a blurring of the line between called-body worship and evangelism. What would the music of the church be like if corporate worship was a “closed” house – no unbelievers welcome? Would we lose all the arguments for using popular music styles? But, I digress . . .
A clear understanding of Romans 12 seems to be a necessary starting point for this current thread. Can some of you who are supporting Rap and other worldly forms please help us understand what you would consider “off limits” in the light of Romans 12?
Tom,
It’s interesting that you use that example from Scripture. As they returned from the top of the mountain, the first sign that Moses and Joshua had that the Israelites had been unfaithful was the sound of their singing (Ex. 32:17-18). Yet their festival, as you say, had been dedicated by Aaron as a festival “to the Lord” (Ex. 32:5).
Because of sin, we all deceive ourselves on particular topics. Music is particularly susceptible for use as a tool of deception, since it is a language of the heart, and as scripture tells us, “the heart is deceitful above all things.” (Jer. 17:8-10)
Tim
Hi Tim, Yes, that’s a very insightful point. So, at least as early as Moses, there was a distinguishable difference between music of God and music of the other. Can we safely infer that it was the music, rather than the text, that signaled Moses? If so, that’s a rather large truth.
Tom,
I have no notion of the Hebrew text and can’t give any kind of insight into that. But the English translations seem to imply that there are no audible words from the distance at which Moses and Joshua first hear the sounds. Various translations use more general words such as “noise” and “sound.” In verse 19, the chronology suggests that only *after* hearing this ‘noise’ or ’sound’ Moses “approached” or “came near to” the camp to the point where he was able to see the idolatry. So I think it’s probably reasonable to gather from these English descriptions that the first hearing was too far away to hear specific text, but that only a general noise/sound was audible.
Joshua’s response to the sound was that he thought it was the sound of war. Some commentators here think Joshua could hear that the sound was in fact singing and was trying to determine with his question if the singing was that of the sound of victory songs or the the sound of defeat songs as was apparently the custom after a battle. There may be something in the Hebrew to indicate this – I don’t know. (It seems that I remember that the Hebrew word translated as sound/noise is the same word as the one that is Moses uses that is generally translated as ’singing,’ but I’m not sure about this.) The way it reads in English translations, though, suggests that Moses corrected and refined Joshua’s impression of the sound/noise by identifying it as singing when Joshua was unable to do so. This would imply a cacophonous sound such that Joshua couldn’t even recognize it to be what he knew as singing. Moses already knew, though, that the singing was not that of an obedient people because God had revealed to him that the Israelites were in rebellion (Ex. 32:7) before he and Joshua started down the mountain.
In any case, the passage seems to reveal a kind of foreign singing/music-making that is not indicative of an obedient people. Further, I think there is a strong case to be made that, even without being able to hear the words, there is a kind of singing that bears witness to, and perhaps is a harbinger to, idolatry. First the general sound of idolatry, then upon nearer examination, the verification of idolatry.
Keep in mind, I’m not a trained theologian and do not know Hebrew. But commentaries I have read point in this direction about this passage. In any case, I think this passage is a very important passage for analysis in this debate about sounds that are fitting for worship (I Cor. 14:40).
I think you’re right, Tom. If we can infer that it was the music, rather than the text that not only signaled Moses, but confused Joshua, it’s a very large truth about this issue.
Thank you, Tim. Maybe one of our Hebrew scholars can help us clarify the meaning in the original. Until then, I’m eager to hear from folks regarding examples of what is “off limits” in light of Romans 12. What is “the world” that we are to avoid? Since Romans 12 is the second half of the letter – the first half being concluded with the great summary/doxology found at the end of Chapter 11 – what are the large ideas found in the first 11 chapters that feed the sweeping instructions in the first couple verses of Chapter 12? The “of, through, and to” found at the end of Chapter 11 affirm the idea that all things come from God. The “therefore” that opens Chapter 12 seems to indicate the following: Even though all things come from God, because of the Fall, they are not all good enough to be used to glorify God. Therefore, don’t think in a way that makes all things good and acceptable, but change your mind from that way of thinking to a way of thinking that discerns between good and bad so that you can demonstrate the good, acceptable, and perfect will of God. What is the will of God? Examples are listed in the rest of Chapter 12. Two of these examples are condemn evil and support good (v. 9). Even though all things are of, through, and to, they are not all good. What are the bad and what are the good? What is our basis for discerning the difference? This seems to be the crux of the current thread.
I am enjoying this well thought out and polite discussion. Too little of that between Christian Brothers online. After thinking about this, I think I personally might be slowly settling in the view that one should avoid the use of rap music in any form of ministry, and maybe even entertainment. I am also rejecting the division between corporate worship and evangelism, even though I have been associated with it’s use in evangelism in the past. So why the change of mind and the rejection of the division? Because everything we do should bring glory to God. A big part of that means separation from the world. If there is no dividing line, how shall His people be known as different, thereby bringing glory to His Name? “Be ye not conformed to this world…” and surely there can be no argument that in our culture today rap is seen as very worldy and as a child of both modern pop and gangster culture. To associate with it may bring about (in bystanders eyes) a pollution of His Holy Name. That is unacceptable. Perhaps in 50 years when it is well ingrained in culture and is seen as another art form it may then be a different story, and more suitable for the debate of it’s suitability. But right now the only people who see it as an art form are those who are heavily involved in music. To “Joe Public” it is just hip hop gangster music.
Hi ChurchSalt, I echo your thoughts regarding the objective and polite nature of this discussion. It is very edifying. The division between worship and evangelism I draw is not one of content, primarily, but one of purpose. Yes, everything we do should bring glory to (shine a light on/mirror) God’s character. At the outset, I must make sure that everyting in my bucket is acceptable to God and accurately reflects His character. Once I’ve done that, I choose the most appopriate things from that “discerned items” bucket for the particular task at hand. What I’m drawing a dstinction between is choosing what is appropriate for called-body (worship) use vs. unregenerate (evangelism) use. Yes, both items must, first and foremost, be vetted for their ability to shine a light on/mirror God’s character. Until we establish the Biblical ground rules for that vetting process, we are left with personal preferences. Those preferences are certainly a far distant second to the requirements communicated to us by God in His Word. Now we’re back to identifying what is good and what is bad. Is pragmatism the standard? (If it works, God must be blessing it.) Is personal preference the standard? (If it feels good, do it.) Is the Holy God the standard? (If it is consistent with His character, use it.) Coming back to the initial question of this thread, Scott has concluded that Rap is not consistent with God’s holy character. He outlines the basis for this conclusion. Therefore, he concludes, Rap is not in the bucket of possible items, regardless of the context or purpose.
I suppose the area where I have yet to be convinced, is that the sound is inherently communicating anything immoral.
I think that I understand your argument and I certainly agree with your presuppositions. Culture has been tainted with sin and there is objective truth with which it should be judged. I don’t think Shai intended to disagree with you there, per say, but merely to point out that, in his view, the criticisms are largely based in cultural preference. So, I have seen discussions about this interview at other blogs that really just come down to what people like or don’t like with very little serious biblical consideration. While we want to avoid cultural relativism, sometimes preferences are misappropriated to be God’s will. Honestly, that’s how this issue has often been approached. I appreciate the refreshingly biblical analysis that you have provided here and you bring up an interesting point that content in music is not conveyed merely through propositions. Given all of this agreement, the real point of contention (and I suspect it is the real point of contention that conservatives like Dever, Shai, and Voice would have)…is whether or not the style actually does communicate something immoral? I think Romans 12 is referring worldliness such as that in Romans 1 and the description of godlessness there. I do not think there is anything in the sound of rap that makes it inherently violent or sexual. Certainly, there is a strength expressed in some of its sounds, which lends itself well to expressing spiritual fervor when used for God’s glory.
Basically, I would encourage people to examine their hearts on this issue. If the music causes your heart towards anger or lust, then by all means cut it off! When I became a Christian at 15 and had used rap (and rock) to express anger as a non-Christian, I had to cease listening to secular music. Since I knew of no Christian rap, I listened to only Christian music (some of which may also be objectionable on this blog since it had pop/rock elements which are also often used in relation to violence and sex?). I discovered Shai’s music in the past year through his song “Mission Accomplished”. I was impressed by his defense of limited atonement and have since returned to listening to Christian rap artists. As I search my heart, I’ve noticed that the lyrics can have a huge effect on me, so I do not listen to secular music. However, I see no such effect from Shai’s music. Quite the contrary, it is a help to dwelling on the gospel. Now, I do not say this to claim that experience should be our guiding authority, but simply to note that as far as I can tell the sound does not convey the sort of things you say it does. The argument you give seems to be merely a list of the ways that the style has been misused in sin by the world. How does that misuse prove that the sound is necessarily immoral?
Thank you for your gracious criticism and evident love for the Gospel and seeing it proclaimed!
Dear Kate,
You said, “I suppose the area where I have yet to be convinced, is that the sound is inherently communicating anything immoral.”
For this, you have to have a basic understanding of the two basic ways in which music communicates. Scott has a couple of excellent articles on this on the website, but I’ll give a brief summary.
The most natural and direct way music communicates is through motion. Sound is a portrayal, in real time, of motion. Lots of motions can be depicted: up, down, wide, narrow, slow, fast, smooth, jerky, etc. This is done using combinations of the four basic elements that comprise music: pitch, volume, duration, and timbre. Human beings generally perceive the motions that are depicted in sound and interpret them accurately. The mind then correlates the motions heard in the sound to the motions the body manifests when we experience certain feelings. When we are sad for example, we move in a downward trajectory, smoothly, slowly, and we speak softly. These bodily expressions of feelings are cross-cultural and time-transcendent. Therefore, music that is smooth, slow, soft, and exhibits downward tendencies is understood as sad music. It’s more complex than this, but that’s the gist of it. This manner of communication is sometimes referred to as bioacoustic (bio = life, acoustic = sound). Music of all types can be analyzed for its expression of motion in order to determine its emotional affect in this manner. (It is no coincidence that the word emotion contains the word motion or that when music makes us feel something we say we are moved.) This is what musicians do daily.
The second manner in which music communicates is often called associative. This is an unpredictable manner of communication. It depends on the pre-existing biases the listener brings to the listening experience. For example, if a listener was forced against his will to go to classical music concerts as a child, he may always experiences a deep disgust when classical music is played, no matter what the musical cues are for motion (as described above). In this manner, a listener may legitimately say that a fast, spritely, happy tune by Mozart makes him feel angry, or that a slow, somber, smooth movement also makes him feel angry. The feelings of the listener are legitimate, but highly personal and individual; they are not based on the sound cues of the music itself, but rather on the associations that developed with that music from a previous time in his life. This mode of communication accounts for much disagreement about the emotional meaning of a particular piece or style of music.
When I say that the back beat of rap music suggests the motion of the body during sex, I am referring to the predominant sound of the music itself. The backbeat is nearly always the loudest and most prominent sound of rap music. It dominates the sound of the music. This is the music’s loudest and most pervasive sound. I won’t go into more detail about its correlation to the movement of the body, but I hope you can deduce that for yourself when you imagine the sound and rhythm of the syncopation occurring on the 2nd and 4th beat of every measure. The sound itself (without the lyrics) is highly sensual. It is the sound of sex. This is what Frank Zappa and Jan Berry are referring to in the above quotes. It is the design of rock music and 99% of the lyrics of rock reflect and confirm it.
It’s possible you may not hear this if you are 1) focusing on the lyrics and/or 2) have listened so long that you’ve become desensitized by your own personal associations (as described above) with the sound.
I’m not suggesting that sex itself is immoral. Certainly in the proper biblical context, it isn’t. But even in its proper moral context of marriage, the sound of sex in the form of music does not make a good vehicle for communicating the content of the Gospel.
I hope that helps to convince.
If the culture of the Goths, Visigoths, Franks, Celts and other Western Europeans can become christian, then any culture can become christian……..period.
ICXC NIKA
Hi jnorm888,
What distinguishes these cultures from being non-Christian one year and Christian another? In other words, what are the characteristics that make them non-Christian and, then, what characteristics changed that caused them to be Christian?
Dear Kate,
Paul addressed the issue of examining one’s heart in I Cor 8:4-13 when he taught about meat that had been offered to idols. He declares meat amoral. He declares that since there are no “real” idols, the meat hasn’t really been sacrificed to “anything.” The key to the passage, however, is Paul’s plea for people who find nothing wrong with eating meat offered to idols to put their preference aside for the sake of those who, because of a history of idol worship, find it troubling to eat meat offered to idols. For the sake of the weaker brother, I am to abstain.
In the context of corporate worship, there are any number of potential situations where what is used in the worship becomes a stumbling block to those in attendance. Maybe you don’t associate Rap with sex and rebellion. (Whether or not it is inherently evil is what Scott and Tim S are arguing for here.) The issue in corporate worship is creating an atmosphere where people are drawn away from the world and to the holy God. If there is a single person in the corporate worship room that associates the music with the world, according the Paul’s teaching, the music should not be used. Those responsible for choosing that music are answerable for this sin. Romans 8:12-13 is pretty clear on this. 12 When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
As worship leaders, we are responsible for the thoughts/conscience of each person present at the worship gathering. This truth is quite intimidating.
Scott,
I think this was an interesting article. Certainly a lot of history that was new to me. You do establish that there are a lot of worldly values associated with rap music. You seem to argue from its previous use that this form of music can be used in an evil way. I have to say that’s a pretty obvious argument that pretty much everybody will grant.
Question, then: If we learn from historical use, then why should we not begin to add to that knowledge when otherwise trustworthy people (considered outside their music) like Curtis Allen, Shai Linne, and Mark Dever begin to use it in association with good and for good?
Tim: I appreciate your thoughts, though I think similar arguments could be made for any music. Also, this might be a helpful link into what the “sound” communicates for Shai Linne. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAi1Wb4ypkI (around 5 minutes into part 1, but the whole interview is worth listening to). He is clearly agreeing that the sound communicates something, but differs on what it is communicating. Is it possible that some hip hop sound can communicate in a way that is reverential? I would say, yes.
Tom: I’m not discussing whether hip hop should be used in a church service. I agree with you wholeheartedly that that would be a different discussion. Personally, I prefer a good hymn and congregational singing during church, but that is a preference that developed over time. Initially, I associated that type of singing to the Roman Catholic services that I was raised in and so inherently disliked it. Obviously, the Catholics borrowed later from the Protestants, but I didn’t know that. My point is just that music can be associated in many unhelpful ways. Anyways, 1 Cor 8 would be an important text to consider in a discussion about using hip hop during a service. I think hip-hop would largely be unhelpful in church because it would lend itself more to spotlighting the person leading the rapping, then an emphasis on the whole congregation worshipping God together. That still leaves the question, though, of if it is sin to listen to Shai while driving in your car.
Thanks for everyone’s thoughts!
Dear Kate,
Thank you for posting this.
My heart goes out to this young man. From all appearances, and as much as is humanly possible to discern, he seems genuine and sincere – talking about the things of Christ with biblical accuracy, reverence and awe. Please don’t misunderstand me. I wouldn’t for one minute doubt his sincerity, his salvation, or his testimony regarding his salvation. But . . . I agree with every word he said about the incongruity – the lack of “fit” – of the medium of hip-hop for the Gospel. He said:
Christian rapper Shai Linne: “One of the things I struggle with is that oftentimes in hip-hop the medium is, in my opinion, not appropriate to the gravity of the message. Does that make sense?”
Interviewer: Yeah.
Shai Linne: “It would be like if you’re at a funeral, and like hearing the birthday song, or something – you know what I mean? Like musically, it just doesn’t fit with the mood, you know what I mean? We’re talking about the cross, we’re talking about the gospel and things of deep, grave importance. But oftentimes the backdrop of hip-hop tends to have a trivializing effect. So when you take something that weighty and you put it across the wrong backdrop, it’s just been decreased. It doesn’t seem as weighty anymore.”
But when he sets about ‘fixing’ the problem he has correctly identified, he simply adds violins sustaining a single chord. Again, in his own words:
Shai Linne: “. . . and so with The Atonement, I wanted to choose a musical backdrop that was appropriate to the gravity of the subject. So the album starts off with kind of cinematic string intro that’s almost like, almost feels like a movie, just kind of like I’m moving you into, like this is heavy, this is weighty. Stop what you’re doing and listen, you know what I mean? Throughout the album there’s a lot of interludes that just have nothing but music, just to kind of, again, give you time to reflect on what’s being talked about. And then the actual songs themselves . . . weighty is the only term that even makes sense. Even the more celebratory songs are kind of low key.”
So he has, in his own words, elevated the music of hip-hop to the medium of a movie. Even if he’s accomplished that, (not a given) that’s not a meteoric rise. The fact is, he is simply mistaken. Shai Linne recognizes the sound constructs enough to accurately describe them as not being weighty enough to carry the Gospel. But he’s engaging in wishful thinking when he then changes the sound only minimally and claims that it is now sufficiently weighty. Adding violins to the sound and getting a “cinematic effect” does not change its weightiness sufficiently to now deliver the Gospel. Musically, the addition of the violins playing a single sustained harmony does little to mitigate the dominating force in the sound of the music, which is STILL the backbeat. He’s correctly trying to make the medium of hip-hop more weighty in order to carry the message of the Gospel. But in an objective musical analysis, his efforts fall seriously short. That’s why my heart goes out to him. I think he’s sincere but misguided in his efforts.
Kate, you’re ignoring the information I gave you. When you say that “some hip-hop can communicate in a way that’s reverential,” on what do you base this? What is that way? What is it about the sound is reverential? You have simply said, “I say so,” and end the discussion. Defend it based on the sounds.
I’m not sure I understand your other comment: “similar arguments could be made for any music.” I don’t know to which point I’ve made that you’re applying that statement. Is it that the backbeat simulates the motion of sex? Or is it that music communicates through motion? I’ve read and re-read and can’t figure out the context for your disagreement.
You can’t simply dismiss the argument by placing all of music under the same umbrella (as when you say “similar arguments could be made for any music”). That’s an an intellectual cop-out of the discussion and travels far down the road of relativism. If you’re making that argument, the premise undergirding you is that (I know you didn’t say this, but your argument depends on it) there is no objective beauty and no objective musical communication. The Bible and experience both speak differently on this.
To refute your assertion that “similar arguments could be made for any music,” I need only to say that not all music misrepresents the cross and the Gospel in sound to the degree that hip-hop does. I will grant that no music created by sinful man since the Fall does perfect justice to the Gospel the way I expect we will find in glory, but some music most certainly does more in its sound constructs to trivialize the Gospel than other music. Paul would not have exhorted us to think on things that are excellent if there were no excellent things (Phil. 4:8). Paul didn’t say, all earthly things trivialize the Gospel, therefore don’t bother with it. Instead, Paul prayed that our love might about more and more in knowledge and discernment so that you might approve what is excellent (Philippians 1:9-10). He also commanded that all things in worship be done in a “fitting” or “appropriate” way (I Cor. 14:39). “All things” includes the music used for singing.
Music’s inherent communication is exceedingly varied according to many different musical signifiers (pitch, rhythm, timbre, tempo, volume, etc.) and their interactions with one another. Linne is apparently pointing to these sound signifiers in his condemnation of hip-hop and its inherent ability to communicate the Gospel. Yet you ignore information regarding ‘bioacoustic’ and ‘associative’ models of communication that explain this in detail and instead have defended Shai Linne’s description as valid because of what the sound communicates “for him” (your words) when he opts to use this same sound that he criticizes as insufficient to carry the Gospel. This is relativism. The sound means one thing for him, something else for another person, and yet a third thing for another. This may be, but the associative model described above explains this phenomenon without tossing all of music into the relativistic bucket of “it has no inherent meaning and may mean anything to anybody.”
You’ve not presented a cohesive argument, Kate. In essence, as I understand you, you’ve simply said, “certain kinds of rap are reverent to me because I say so,” and that the information I’ve presented to you could be said “about any music.”
Please tell me if I’m misunderstood your assertions.
From Paul’s writings, could we glean this statement: “I know that he’s involved in false worship, but I don’t at all doubt his sincerity or his salvation.” It seems that Paul doubted someone’s salvation if even one’s communication to people did not adorn the doctrine of God (Titus 2). How can we say that this affects the nature of the gospel, but doesn’t relate at all to the gospel that someone says he believes? Doesn’t Jonathan Edwards judge people’s salvation in his Treatise on Religious Affections? He determines true and false conversion by these very kinds of things. There is such a woeful lack of discernment here to the degree that it doesn’t match up with what we would expect of someone who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Hi Kate,
Sorry for the late reply. The difference between formal hymns and their possible association with the catholic church and the subject of Scott’s original post is the inherent communication found in each. Inherently, the music of formal hymns is consistent with the God’s attributes, as revealed in His word. Rap, on the other hand, has inherent elements that are contrary to the revealed attributes of God. The question of whether or not God is pleased when we worship Him with vehicles that are contrary to His character is the crux of Scott’s original article.
I’m still hoping to hear from someone who supports Rap regarding what is considered off limits when approaching a Holy God. Without some examples of appropriately applied discernment, we are left with an “everything goes” approach. While this is certainly a post-modern way of thinking, the Bible doesn’t support anything close to that world-view. If we conclude that “God is good” and therefore “It’s all good,” we are, at the very least, denying the presence of sin in the world, and, at the most, denying the Holiness of God.
So, basically, the message I’m getting is that since man is evil, rap music is evil. Let me tell you something, though. As a human being, I have absolutely no ability to create anything, except for the ability the Creator gave me. All creativity comes from God. There’s not a single note or beat that was not inspired by the Father. Lots of times, the deceiver comes in and twists the message and distorts the truth that God created, but it doesn’t diminish one iota the fact that God is the one and only creator.
I certainly believe that there is demonic rap, but does that mean that all rap is demonic? Or even that rap was created as a form of demonic communication? I think not. I think that most of the church is like what I’m feeling like you are. They slept through the most important cultural movements of our time, and now that they’re waking up to what’s going on around them, they’re rejecting it instead of using it the way God intended it to be used.
Do you know why the enemy’s hold is so strong over most hip hop? It’s because you and I were asleep in our comfort zones while it was being formed, instead of being at the forefront of the movement and claiming it as God’s.
Dear Clae,
Are you claiming that the pitches and beats of music are inspired by God when you say,
“There’s not a single note or beat that was not inspired by the Father. ” ??
I’m sorry Clae, but you’re guilty of adding to scripture here if that’s what you’re claiming. Do you also believe the words of poets are inspired by the Father? How about novels? Where do you draw the line in claiming divine inspiration for creative works?
You’re seriously misunderstanding this subject by claiming that notes and beats are inspired by God. I would strongly encourage you to read Scott’s article on Pelagianism elsewhere on this website to understand what’s being said about the effects of the Fall on EVERY one of man’s thoughts, words, and actions – including the composition of music.
You can find his excellent article here:
http://www.religiousaffectionsministries.org/articles/aesthetics/musical-relativism-is-pelagian
Brilliant Scott!
Praise the Lord for the mind He has given you. I respect everything that you have written about concerning this topic of “Christian Hip-Hop”, if I can use that term loosely.
God has given us wonderful gifts to use in our life – to enjoy and to glorify Him. Allow me to park here if you will. Music is a gift from God. I don’t think you would disagree with me there. Emotions are a gift from God. Again, you probably agree. So my conclusion follows, are the emotions stirred up by the music outside the blessing of God’s gift to us? Affirmatively, what we do with those emotions or where we let those emotions take us can and often times do counteract God’s desires for us. And frightfully so, we are depraved individuals and without the wonderful gift of salvation we are expected to act as such. So I would hope that unregenerate artists are motivated to make music to stir up emotions that lead to unbiblical thoughts and actions, else my faith is in vain and man can be naturally good. This doesn’t go to say though that man can be moral. But once we introduce that awesomely, wonderful gift of salvation we no longer are chained to the bed of depravity but have been freed to walk fervently in the knowledge and grace of our loving Lord.
I am often reminded of the verse, “…love covers a multitude of sins.” Is this not the truth? When we love the soul and not the soul-bearer we can look past grievances or preferences or faults to understand the compassion that Christ so beautifully exemplified for us in His earthly ministry. That compassion is a key to unlocking true biblical love for mankind.
If we juxtapose this compassion with our biblical studies and evangelism we have turned our ears off to Lady Wisdom calling out to us. Our compassion must fill our life. Am I advocating tolerance? Emphatically No! I am seeking to recalibrate our focus from methods of worship and evangelism to motivation for worship and evangelism. Without that correct view of God our motivation is skewed and will produce extra-biblical methods. However, when our viewpoint is perfectly aligned with Scripture and we have a healthy view of God our life can defy Koyaanisqatsi (Life is out of Balance).
God Bless you Scott and I will be praying the Lord continues to use your brilliant mind to serve His ministry. Keep the Faith!
What I’m saying is that God is the ultimate Creator. He is the only Creator. All that Satan can do is twist what God has already created. I’m not saying that every hip hop artist is ultimately a Christian, only that God invented music, every kind of music, and every song ever written (in it’s pure, untwisted form) is being sung before the throne of God.
What I don’t understand how you can tackle something as subjective as taste in music as though it were objective. What makes classical music any more holy than hip hop, or metal, or bluegrass, or anything else? Surely there is as much unholy classical music or jazz as there is unholy music in any other genre you care to mention.
How about this: ask God yourself, and see what He has to say about it. Disregard the “facts.” Disregard what you think about it. Ask Him what he thinks, and then get back to me.
Also, as a side note, you do recognize that God is more than scripture, right? I believe every word in the bible is infallible, but certainly there’s something more personal to God than words on a page. I don’t know about you, but My God speaks to me every day. I talk to Him just like I talk to you. He’s as real, in fact He’s more real, than you and I are.
If you think that by my saying that God created every note that I’m adding to scripture, then what do you call a sermon? What about a hymn? Are you saying that the song Amazing Grace is by definition unholy, because it doesn’t come directly from the scriptures? How can you even have a conversation without saying something that’s not in the scripture?
“Don’t add to or take away from” is meant to those who would try to use partial scriptures to justify their own evil works. It doesn’t mean that we can’t extrapolate from what we have that since God is the creator, He therefore created music, and every sound is divinely inspired, whether or not once it comes out of the person it goes into it is holy or not.
What I’m saying is that He is the giver, but it’s up to us what we do once we receive it.
Dear Clae,
To be clear, while I believe like you do that every word of Scripture is infallible, I do not believe that God speaks to me verbally in ways other than through Scripture. He has spoken through the prophets, and through His Son, but not through me. This is what Scripture teaches. So I’m careful when I use or hear the words, ‘inspired by God.’ That means something very specific and according to the Bible, it should be used only regarding Scripture. To give anything else this status (the poetry of a hymn, the writings of a theologian, the words of a pastor’s sermon, or the music composed for a hymn) is exceedingly dangerous, as it tends to elevate these things to the status of Scripture. These things are works of fallible men, not divinely inspired, holy “creations” of God.
God gave us the raw elements for music. There are only four: waveform, frequency, amplitude, and duration. They translate roughly to the musician as timbre, pitch, volume, and rhythm. These exist in nature and are found to follow the laws of physics/acoustics. We use these four elements to create music, but our creations are not inspired by God. To the contrary, they are tainted by sin. We can’t ignore these facts as you suggest. Christianity doesn’t ask us to ignore facts, but rather to use our minds to discern from among various levels of sin-tainted, man-made creations. See Philippians 1:9-10, for example. So the best I can do in asking God what He thinks about it, is to scour His Word for explicit and implicit commands, statements, and examples. God reveals Himself through His Word and through His creation – as He states in His Word. I don’t believe He speaks to anyone by any other means since apostolic times. If you believe the Bible to be true, you will find these same claims in it, and no more.
I’m not sure where you get your information about what’s being sung before the throne of God. I don’t find what you’ve said anywhere in the Bible. In fact, I don’t believe that it’s in any way biblical to say as you do that every song ever written is being sung before the throne of God. It appears that you’re elevating music to some sort of mystical, divine status. I’m just not sure why you’ve chosen only music to elevate to this status. You said,
“‘Don’t add to or take away from’ is meant to those who would try to use partial scriptures to justify their own evil works. It doesn’t mean that we can’t extrapolate from what we have that since God is the creator, He therefore created music, and every sound is divinely inspired, whether or not once it comes out of the person it goes into it is holy or not.”
I’m sorry, Clae, but you’ve carried your extrapolations far too far. Why do you not say the same thing about poetry or literature? An analogous statement would go something like this: “God is the creator, He therefore created poetry, and every word is divinely inspired . . . ” Or even, “God is the creator, He therefore created literature, and every word is divinely inspired. . . ” These things (music, poetry, literature, etc.) are works of art created by man. Nothing more. You’ve got to be more careful in your extrapolations.
We’re not speaking about musical taste or musical holiness here. We’re speaking about musical craftsmanship and inherent musical meaning, both of which have objective, factual, components that can be examined, analyzed, and evaluated.
I hope you’ll continue to explore this website.
Just want to congratulate Tim and Clae on a very informative exchange. The two of you are worlds apart in your understanding of scripture – worlds apart in ways that are at the heart of this discussion. If the standard is subjective, e.g., what I hear from God on a daily basis, I am apt to “hear” what pleases me. If the standard is objective, e.g., the revealed written Word of God, I am apt to “read” what pleases me. It is the whole counsel of God that is needed in informing the complete picture of how God intends what He created to be used by whom He created. He has certainly given us all we need to know regarding how to live lives that please Him. The question is whether or not we are willing to submit to this truth apart from our preferences, likes, dislikes, natures, etc. For my part, the truth of God is objective and knowable. An unregenerate PhD in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek should come up with the same translation and meaning of the original biblical texts as a regenerate PhD in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The Spirit is not needed to discern the translation/meaning of the text. The Spirit is needed to discern and enable obedience in the application of the text. To say that the Spirit helps me understand the meaning of the text is to deny any need to go to school to learn how to study the text. So, as we debate the biblical standards for music in the life of the obedient Christian, we are about the business of identifying what the instructions are in the inspired, written, objective, Word of God.
Scott’s original post asks us to consider the undeniable sinful antecedents in Rap music. Tim, as usual, is ready with the objective musical analysis that helps us understand why, from an acoustic absolute, Rap music is contrary to the holiness of God as described in the inspired Word. Like Tim, I’m eager to hear a response to the question “Where do you draw the line?” “In light of the holiness of God, what is out of bounds?”
Because most people are agreeing with the argument that Rap Music Is Of The Devil, few are being bold enough to just come right out with it. Behind the pseudo-science are some really weak ideas. For example:
You can make a neat and tidy line between evangelistic singing and worship singing, can you? Is singing in a service in front of your unsaved child evangelistic? Or is it corporate worship? What about carol singing in the entrance to the church> Shame on you for making ChurchSalt join the no rap club by setting up false divisions. In the Bible Paul wrote about unbelievers attending church.
And this choice specimen:
“When I say that the back beat of rap music suggests the motion of the body during sex, I am referring to the predominant sound of the music itself. The backbeat is nearly always the loudest and most prominent sound of rap music. It dominates the sound of the music. This is the music’s loudest and most pervasive sound. I won’t go into more detail about its correlation to the movement of the body, but I hope you can deduce that for yourself when you imagine the sound and rhythm of the syncopation occurring on the 2nd and 4th beat of every measure. The sound itself (without the lyrics) is highly sensual. It is the sound of sex. ”
Dem drums… dem jungle drums! Perlease! American Christians just embarrass the whole body of Christ with this mucky racist thinking. I am tired of it. Consider Ravel’s Bolero, Carmina Burana – filthy beat, filthy lyrics — so, classical music is all ungodly, right? No, of course not. The sound of sex? The sea sounds sensual, the wind in the trees…
“Inherently, the music of formal hymns is consistent with the God’s attributes, as revealed in His word. Rap, on the other hand, has inherent elements that are contrary to the revealed attributes of God.” Unfortunately for your argument, hymnwriters sometimes used pub songs and music hall tunes for their hymns. But that’s fine because …? Because God is a white man — everyone knows that!
Someone had to say it — the emperor has no undies on. Read Gary Younge’s book No Place Like Home. It’s an ordinary travelogue until he describes going to church. It was chilling account. Until that beam is out of the church’s eye, best leave Shai Linne’s mote in his eye, methinks.
Read it here
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lrfByxOGrgMC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=gary+younge%2Bchurch&source=bl&ots=F9mNQqcl2q&sig=Zt1fJLVAo8xOTyBLmj8_q_lmN_0&hl=en&ei=UgLtSue1L8KrjAeAr_2jDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAg
Dear Anthy,
This is a new one on me. Nobody has ever trotted out the race card before when I’ve been involved in these discussions. It’s amazing to me that you so quickly go there and falsely judge your brothers, rather than to engage in the content of the argument.
You bring up Ravel’s “Bolero” as an example. I don’t think anybody on this side of the aisle would argue that Bolero is not sensual. Of course it is! It doesn’t matter that a European white man composed it. The reason we’re not talking about it and condemning it is that nobody’s making serious attempts at offering it up for worship in the church. It’s just not relevant to this discussion of church music. I would object JUST AS STRENUOUSLY to Ravel’s “Bolero” used as music for worship as I do to rap and for a lot of the same reasons.
You also won’t hear me objecting to the majority of African-American spirituals used in church. That’s because many of them are absolutely musically congruent with the Gospel texts that they carry.
So be careful about going off half-cocked with charges of racism against your brothers before you’ve studied the biblical points behind the argument. Something I’ve read somewhere about bearing false witness comes to mind.
We’re talking about musical facts here – not the continent that from which the composer’s ancestor hails, and most CERTAINLY not the color of anybody’s skin.
By the way, Anthy,
Your ‘proof’ by way of the excerpt of Gary Younge’s book says more about the author than it does about the people with whom he was worshiping. Most of what he describes is going on in his own mind – which is the only thing I find chilling about the passage.
Dear Anthy,
I think I may have taken a wrong trail with what you were saying about “Bolero,” misunderstanding what you were saying. In re-reading, I gathered that you’re expressing frustration with the condemnation of all of rap because some of rap is overtly sensual. You do this by citing Bolero’s and Carmina Burana’s overt sensuality and show how senseless it would be to therefore condemn all of classical music. Sorry for misunderstanding. Let me respond to what I now understand as your criticism:
Classical music has an enormous range of musical affects achieved by an exceedingly large melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic pallet. The tangible musical tools used by rappers are far more limited and in every instance (that I’ve heard) these are dominated by the sound of the backbeat that I described above. So your comparison of generalizing classical music as rap music has been generalized falls demonstrably short on a purely SOUND, not RACIAL level.
Yes, I am indeed saying that all poetry and literature is inspired by God. You are clearly misunderstanding what I mean by that. When I say inspired, I mean that the original purpose for the music, the inspiration, is holiness and worship. Satan is the prince of the powers of the air, and as these divine ideas stream down from heaven, often times they are intercepted by demonic forces. The messages that these songs or books or poems would have had is therefore corrupted by the evil one.
However, you also subscribe to the belief that God doesn’t speak to people anymore, and so with such different ideas about the way God works, I feel that I’ll have a hard time helping you to understand what I’m trying to say, much less convince you that it’s right.
You are right in saying that it is possible to err if I consider that God has spoken to me. However, Abraham was made righteous through faith, and if we go by that logic, I think, and this is my personal theology for the record, that it is better to try to hear God and miss the mark than to live in fear of missing the mark. It’s better to try and fail than not try.
I respect what you have to say, however I believe that you are selling God much too short, and selling man’s sinfulness way too high.
Also, when I said ignore the facts, I was referring to your idea that because rap music is sexual, in rhythm (not just lyrical content), that it is evil. I would ask you then, what are we to do with the Song of Solomon? Because as I read it, it seems to me to be entirely about sex. And it’s in the Bible, so even if God doesn’t speak here and now, you have that.
Dear Clae,
You’re speaking from a theological perspective that I know nothing about, since I can’t find these things in the Bible (divine ideas streaming down from heaven, being intercepted by demonic forces, God speaking to you personally by means other than Scripture, etc.). I believe you are in error in these things, since they are extra-biblical special revelation about God.
I disagree with you that man’s sinfulness can be over-exaggerated. Scripture tells us that the heart is deceitful *above all things.* I know that I’m constantly guilty of “selling God short,” however, though I doubt if I mean the same thing by that that I think you intend.
One last consideration for your theology regarding all songs ever written being continuously sung around the throne of God: Both Amos and Isaiah, among other prophets, teach that God will not listen to some songs, and stamps out others. Consider the following two passages:
Amos 5:22-24 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps.
And also Isaiah 25:4-5
You have been a refuge for the poor, a refuge for the needy in his distress, a shelter from the storm and a shade from the heat. For the breath of the ruthless is like a storm driving against a wall and like the heat of the desert. You silence the uproar of foreigners; as heat is reduced by the shadow of a cloud, so the song of the ruthless is stilled.
I think that this clearly contradicts your notion that all songs ever written are being sung around the throne of God and that all music is divinely inspired by God or pleases Him. I would urge you to study the Bible and pray over these things, Clae. When it comes to knowing the things of God, only Scripture will do.
“Classical music has an enormous range of musical affects achieved by an exceedingly large melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic pallet. The tangible musical tools used by rappers are far more limited and in every instance (that I’ve heard) these are dominated by the sound of the backbeat that I described above. So your comparison of generalizing classical music as rap music has been generalized falls demonstrably short on a purely SOUND, not RACIAL level.”
The ignorance of the musical complexity of drumsbeats that’s in this comment is built on an ignorance of music (outside a very limited range). My husband plays the drums(he learned in the Boys’ Brigade), and he has taken the time to learn about military style, then Afro-Cuban, Berber and West African styles, too. No one who has listened to Berber drumming and music could call it simple — unless that person had already decided as a result of his upbringing and education that classical Western music is always better. All my life I have listened and read nonsense built on a presupposition that black people are simple people who do things simply. Thanks to good Christian teaching (eg Ken Ham) I know that this is social Darwinism ”
This is a new one on me. Nobody has ever trotted out the race card before when I’ve been involved in these discussions. It’s amazing to me that you so quickly go there and falsely judge your brothers, rather than to engage in the content of the argument.”
Tough luck if you don’t like a spade being called a shovel. The content of the argument is built on presuppositions of the inherent superiority of the musical and cultural norms of your background. The content of the argument is racist, no one has mentioned it to you because they mistook you for a genuinely thinking, open-minded person — or were afraid of being told off.
“So be careful about going off half-cocked with charges of racism against your brothers before you’ve studied the biblical points behind the argument. Something I’ve read somewhere about bearing false witness comes to mind.” It’s not false witness if it’s true. Don’t think that a veneer of erudition masks the cultural biases behind the argument — and how do you know that I have not studied? Another presupposition.
In sum, these attacks on rap music are just the same old tired biased prejudices, served up just like overcooked leftovers — only nowadays, the family are not willing to eat them up. Sprinkling a few Bible verses over them won’t make them any more tasty or nutritious. Shame on you. Shame on you.
http://www.nathanrice.org/2007/03/christian-rap-and-john-piper/
You might find this instructive. I agree with Nathan Rice that Curtis Allen’s mature and kindly response puts all of us to shame.
The good news is that thanks to stumbing upon your blog, I found a better one to read.
Dear Anthy,
What’s truly tiresome is hollering ‘racist!’ in the middle of the discussion of the issues. Discuss the issues with me and take me at my word (as one Christian does for another) that I am not a racist.
You imply you have studied. How, then, in your understanding, does music communicate its various emotional affects? What are the mechanisms from composition to perception?
You are putting words in my mouth. Did I say the drumming was simple? No, but you said I did. You are presupposing that my criticisms are based on racism and filling in with the words you want to hear me say to support your presupposition. I said the sounds were more limited than classical music and DOMINATED by the backbeat. I stand by this until you show me differently. Show me differently.
Your entire paragraph demonstrating my “ignorance” is based on words YOU put in my mouth that I didn’t say.
I challenge you to stop reading into my words with your presuppositions about my racism and start reading my words so we can have a coherent conversation.
There are two kinds of people: those that are not racists and racists who won’t admit they are racists. So, we can’t just take your word for it Tim that you are not a racist. We can read what you write and decide for ourselves. And you have to have your head in the sand not to see that conservative Christianity has not been afflicted by racism. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to bring racism into this discussion.
Dear Scott (Roberts),
We’re talking about sound, the communication of sound at a bioacoustic level, and its use in the constructs of music for emotional communication. That these are cross-cultural and time-transcendent is demonstrably biblical if you’re interested. Additionally, there are numerous scientific studies that bear our these assertions (not that the science is needed if it’s biblically true).
The cry of racism is a red herring in this discussion. Use my comments to prove your point or you are guilty of bearing false witness. You compound this false accusation when you accuse me of failing to see that the conservative Christian church has not been affected by racism. I have not said such a thing, nor have I implied it. Again, use my words to prove your accusation.
Scott, either you have not read, do not remember, do not understand, or do not believe I Corinthians 13, where the Apostle Paul exhorts believers who are commanded to love one another to also always *trust* one another. If you are a Christian, you are obligated to give my words regarding my beliefs the benefit of the doubt unless or until you demonstrate them to be false. You cannot simply excuse yourself from that command from the Apostle Paul.
Anthy has accused me of mucky racist thinking because I’ve said that the sound of syncopation on counts 2 and 4 of every measure is the sound of intercourse. You’ve been even more vague Scott, saying you can’t take me at my word that I’m not a racist, but will only “read what I write and decide for yourself.” Please make the connection more apparent for me, since I’m busy with my head in the sand.
It certainly is chic in some circles these days to disagree with people by crying, ‘racist’ with no foundation. It’s also easy.
Your view of the division of the world is not the biblical division, nor is it even accurate from a secular perspective. Plenty of people openly admit to racism, making a third category.
Lots of accusing going on. Not much substantive discussion.
After this comment, I won’t be returning to this website. This discussion is going nowhere, and clearly none of you have any intent of admitting that you’re wrong or biased. You clearly ignored my argument about the song of Solomon. You’re not hearing me, and in all honesty I’m having a hard time hearing you because you are making me angry. I won’t continue this conversation because I do not want to say anything to hurt you. I have no problem offending you, the Gospel itself is an offense, but I have no ill will in my heart towards you, and nor do I wish to say anything to hurt you.
I just have one question: Why? What’s the purpose of serving a God who doesn’t speak to you? I cannot for the life of me understand why you would. If I didn’t believe God spoke, if I didn’t hear him speak to me to get saved, I would not be a Christian. I wouldn’t want to be. It would be a complete and utter waste of time. Why would you want to waste your life gaining an intellectual knowledge of a being you could never know personally? It would be just that: a waste.
All in all, I can’t believe that there are still people in the world who believe that only Southern Gospel is from God, or classical, or whatever. Either He created music or He didn’t. It’s either from Him or not.
Ok, one more. What is wrong with sex? You do realize that God created us to have sex, right? His very first commandment was “Be fruitful and multiply.” Of course, there are biblical guidelines, but my point still stands.
Dear Clae,
I’m sorry to have ignored your comment about the Song of Solomon and I’m sorry to have made you angry. It was not my intent. Certainly the Song of Solomon is a book that addresses God’s gift of intimacy between a man and a woman. Keep in mind that the context of this discussion is music for gathered, corporate worship. While intimacy between a man and a woman have their biblical place within the confines of marriage, I hope you would agree that it is not appropriate during corporate worship, nor is it appropriate to cultivate that feelings that attend it with music that suggests it.
I didn’t say that God doesn’t speak to me. But I believe He speaks in these latter days only through His word. Revelation 22, Hebrews 1, and other passages are typically cited as biblical proof texts by those who, like me, believe that God speaks only through His word. If God is truly speaking through man today, then those who hear His voice should set down these revelations and they should be added to the Scripture. (I do not say this sarcastically.)
No one has said that only one musical style (Southern Gospel, classical, etc.) is from God. (As a matter of fact, no one is arguing that any musical style is from God.) But there is an argument being made here that music speaks in a more or less concrete manner to the affections and that the emotional message inherent in its sound constructs should be congruent with the text that it carries. This can occur in many different musical styles.
I hope you would return and visit this website, Clae. Scott has many excellent articles here that help to explain the position.
Would you care to comment on the scriptural passages cited above that state that God no longer listens to particular songs and stamps out others?
I would. When I speak about songs, I don’t necessarily mean music or lyrics, but that the song itself as it was inspired is being sung. Of course, anything that comes out of man is going to be tainted and imperfect, but the original inspiration is from God. The psalmist said to “Sing unto the Lord a new song.” I believe that this constitutes new sounds, and new lyrical/poetic expressions about who God is.
When man sings a song to or about God, it always comes from his limited understanding of who God is. Therefore, the song we write can never be perfectly in tune with the song of Heaven. However, we do the best we can at expressing the creative gifting that God gives us.
I believe that God is more than scripture. That is, that there is much to be learned about Him in areas outside of scripture. Surely, we weigh these things against scripture, and reject that which is counter-biblical. Still, I think that God can be seen in nearly any form of art not deliberately rejecting Him, and even that isn’t always the case.
To the right eyes, there are clear messages of the Gospel in The Terminator. So why not hip-hop and rap? I don’t think that there is even one kind of music that is inherently ungodly. In itself, there is no music that is evil. The Lord spoke to Peter saying “Do not call unclean what I have cleansed.” If God is using it to reach people, who am I to say He’s wrong? Anything leading people to Christ and not away is alright in my book.
Dear Clae,
I guess I continue to be perplexed by your use of the word “inspired.” The Bible uses this word to describe itself meaning God-breathed, inerrant, and infallible. Is that what you mean by your use of the word?
Certainly Scripture tells us that the heavens themselves declare God’s glory. Paul says that God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen since the beginning of creation and that they are made known to us through what has been created. So I agree with you that there we can learn about God from His creation. But that character of God that can only be known through special revelation – such as His mercy, His plan for salvation, how He would be worshiped, etc. – these things are limited to Scripture.
God’s revelation to the Apostle Peter was in regard to meat – that which the Lord has created. Scripture does not tell us that the things created by man are cleansed by God. In fact, Isaiah tells us that even the best of most righteous of all of our works are as filthy rags before God. The craft of making music is like the craft of wood-working or diamond cutting, or sculpture; music has tools and materials and the craftsman works with these to create a work of art that no matter how beautiful or meaningful, is prone to flaws and the effects of sin just like any other man-made creation.
Our creations – our works of art, poetry, literature, music, etc. – are all tainted with the sin of the Fall. These things then are not inherently clean and require discernment in our use of them (Philippian 1:9-10, 4:8). These works of art are all imbued with meaning – meaning by means of image, words, or sound. That meaning is not neutral, but moral/immoral and that requires discernment. The sound of music has meaning inherent in its sound (apart from any text/lyrics).
For answers to questions like these, Clae, I only trust Scripture. My interpretation of Scripture (its explicit and implicit commands and examples) may be flawed and most certainly is flawed, but Scripture is the only source for special revelation from God. Many claim to have heard God in extra-biblical revelation since the apostles – the Mormons, Christian Scientists, and others. The historic Christian view is that Scripture is the only means by which God has chosen to give special revelation of Himself to His people.
I do talk with God – in prayer; and He talks to me – through Scripture. I hope this helps explain my position, Clae.
Wow, this has certainly taken an interesting turn since I last visited. I offer the following presuppositions in an attempt to refocus and create common ground. 1) God is holy. 2) We are not. 3) The world consists of the sacred and the profane. 4) God calls us, through knowledge of His word and the power of His Spirit, to avoid the profane and embrace the sacred. 5) Some things are inherently profane. 6) Music inherently communicates affective ideas/meaning. 7) Those ideas/meanings are either sacred or profane. 7+1)The means of musical communication can be analyzed through an examination of musical elements as they are manipulated by the composer/performer.
If we can agree on these points, we can return to the purpose of Scott’s initial post. If, however, “it’s all good” and there is no biblical basis for discerning the difference between the sacred and the profane, there is little benefit in continuing.
Analogies often fail, so I apologize if this one doesn’t work. Sex is inherently good. However, in a context outside of marriage, it is sin. Rape is inherently bad. Even in the context of marriage, it is sin. There are identifiable combinations of music elements that are inherently good that, used in the wrong context, become bad. There are identifiable combinations of music elements that are inherently bad that, regardless of the context, remain sin. Scott and Tim S are helping us identify combinations of music elements to avoid. They are basing their arguments on their understanding of music as an acoustic phenomenon and of scripture as the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
Thank you, Tom. That’s a well-said and concisely put enumerated summary above.
I COULD. NOT. figure out what was going on here.
Is this a joke? Is it satire? Is the author trying to make a point by using the absurd? Is Bill Gothard writing under a pseudonym? Then I saw it…degree from Bob Jones University.
Click.
I think this discussion illustrates how powerful the emotional facet of the language of music is. When criticism is leveled against music one has grown to love, ad hominem attacks are easily and irrationally substituted for a substantive discussion of the issue. People who might otherwise engage in reasonable discussion on any other topic instead throw barbs having nothing to do with the essence of the topic or the Bible. It’s one very important reason why the topic of music divides. The emotional power of music (either from a bioacoustic or an associative level) is such that rational discussion becomes nearly impossible to maintain if “you’re criticizing the music I love.”
I think it’s interesting that music has this ability to attach itself so closely to a person affections that any criticism of the music is taken by those who love it as personal insult to the extent that they immediately respond with ad hominem attacks on the original critic.
Debby’s sarcasm notwithstanding, I’d hope that she would return and explain what she thinks is so absurd here.
It’s a demonstration of
In the first comment on this article, I said I found the position of the defenders of rap absurd. Scott and Tim are saying that there is a line between that which is pleasing to God and that which is not. They are attempting to explain which side of the line a particular style of music is on by analysing its musical structure and cultural associations and what they communicate. I find their ideas interesting and pretty convincing though admittedly above my pay grade. Their opponents seem to be saying there is no line. It is wrong, arrogant, racist, etc. to make such judgments. But they are in fact making such a judgment. Everything is on the God-pleasing side of the line. Every form of music this degenerating culture produces can be redeemed by adding lyrics that convey scriptural truth. This seems to me absurd and terribly risky. Perhaps it is difficult to objectively define what is pleasing to God and what is not. Doesn’t this at least argue for caution? It seems to me that a growing segment of the professing church is throwing caution to the wind and rushing headlong to embrace any and every kind of musical expression the world can come up with and offering it God as worship. That scares me and I want to at least listen to the voices that are saying let’s think about this. The voices that are saying do whatever you like arouse my suspicions.
Hi Paul,
Yes, you have summarized this well. The central question seems to focus on how the holiness of God informs a believer’s behavior. Paul (the apostle), talks a lot about denying self. It is this truth that 21st century Western culture struggles with. Tim’s observation regarding the hyper-defense mechanism that goes up when someone’s taste in music is biblically challenged is instructive, too. Why are we so very reluctant to put aside our own desires in our quest to please the holy God of the universe? Scott and Tim have outlined a biblical argument for why Rap offends God’s holiness. If I’m bothered by this argument, I should be bothered because their argument is inconsistent with revealed truth – not because their argument condemns my behavior. (A selfish response in and of itself that only hinders our objective discernment.) If I think Scott and Tim are wrong, I should structure a biblical counter-argument to show where they are wrong. If no biblical counter-argument is offered, their admonition stands. There is no need for hyper-defensive emotion, personal attack, wide-brush condemnation, name throwing, etc. Either there is a biblical counter-argument or they are right. So far, no one has offered that counter-argument. There are examples in scripture of God sanctifying the unholy for holy purposes. (The use of humans as instruments of the Gospel is no small example!) What are the contexts of those examples and how do those contexts/principles impact the question at hand? Can there be sanctification without a “setting apart?” How would one go about “setting apart” Rap? Can Rap be “set apart,” in the biblical (Greek) sense of that term? Does changing the words accomplish this “setting apart?”
I have seen many arguments against Christian Rap/Christian Hip Hop. The more I read these articles, the more I read my Bible and the more I pray. I have come down to one question, How powerful is God? Jeremiah 32:27 says, “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for Me?” I believe that this whole discussion on whether Christian Rap/Christian Hip Hop can or should be used is really a deeper issue with many people. We all need to ask ourselves the above question. Ultimately it comes down to this can God take something that man means for evil and use it for good?
My last question would be, have those who are opposed to the form of rap/hip hop read any of the lyrics? Not with music, but lyrics alone?
The real issue is not with the form of rap/hip hop, your issue is with God’s power.
Thanks to all who have participated in this thread, especially those who did so cordially.
I’m sorry I haven’t been involved as I would have liked. I’ve been swamped lately.
Just one observation here. It is very interesting to me that no one who disagrees with the main argument of this post has engaged the argument itself. We have seen ad hominim attacks, charges of racism, broad generalities; but no serious attempts to engage the argument.
This seems to be the case most of the time in these discussions, unfortunately.
Just an observation.
Dear Jeremy,
Of course God can use something man meant for evil and use it for good. Does the fact that Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery and God used it for good mean that it’s therefore ok for us in God’s eyes to sell our brothers into slavery? Is that the biblical example you would cite as a model? (Exodus 50:20) According to the apostle Paul, “Shall we sin so that grace may abound? Certainly not!” (Romans 6:1)
Your question implies a misuse of God’s grace that Bible doesn’t condone.
Sorry, my reference above is incorrect – I meant Genesis 50:20.
Dear Tim,
No we should not sin so that grace may abound. That was a poor example for me to cite as a “model,” I apologize for that. I also meant to ask if anyone had read the lyrics of any of the Christian Rap/Christian Hip Hop mentioned in the interview not secular rap/hip hop.
Does God judge by appearance or by the heart? 1 Samuel 16:7.
What defiles a man? Matthew 15:18-19
What does the Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul, tell us to let proceed from our mouths? Ephesians 4:29
Man is sinful and what proceeds from his heart is evil. All the things that you have listed for why rap music is inherently evil are things that proceed from the heart. The same things can be said of any form of music. It’s the Holy Spirit that changes your heart. So how powerful is God the Holy Spirit? Jeremiah 32:27
Have you read any of the lyrics by the Christian Rap/Hip Hop artists in Mark Dever’s interview or any other Chrisitan Rap/Hip Hop artists for that matter to see what is proceeding from their mouth and most importantly their heart?
I understand that emotions play an important role in this discussion and it seems that many are believe that only those who agree with Christian Rap/Christian Hip Hop are emotionally attached. But could not those who are opposed to Christian Rap/Christian Hip Hop be opposed because of the emotions invoked by hearing the word rap/hip hop?
I understand that not everyone likes the form of rap/hip hop, but not everyone likes the form of classical, folk or rock. Nor should anyone be expected to like all forms of music, but should we not all love that God’s Word is proclaim and it is proclaimed truthfully? How are we told to worship? John 4:23-24.
I understand that many will disagree with my analysis. Some might say I am not addressing how rap/hip hop music has promoted violence, anger, and sexual immorality. I agree and one should refrain from such things, but these are not caused by the form of music, but these things come from the heart of man. I think that the analysis of this site attributes the evil in rap/hip hop music to the music itself instead of to man’s heart. Many would still say that the roots of the music are what causes it to be evil, but this argument still does not address the heart of man being evil and that being where defilement comes from.
Notice that in the interview, that both men agree that their music should not replace preaching or reading the Bible. But as an evangelism tool it can and does work. If their music causes someone to read the Scriptures more is that bad? If their music causes someone to seek God is that bad? Read their lyrics and ask yourself, are they proclaiming themselves, rap/hip hop music, or God? Matthew 5:16.
Do the ends justify the means? No we should not sin so that grace may abound, but sin does not come from our actions, it comes from our heart, which is in opposition to God. Only God can make our hearts new by sending His Holy Spirit to change our hearts.
I mean no disrespect with the following comments. To me I get the feeling that people here are trying to say that you have to listen or use specific types of music to proclaim God’s Word, this seems like it could easily go down the road of legalism/ritualism. Not saying that anyone here believes that, but it just feels that way because it feels that you are disqualifying a form of music on grounds that do not seem to be supported by Scripture.
I will leave it at that.
Dear Jeremy,
Thank you for engaging in this discussion at a substantive level and in a civil tone. You’re the first who disagrees with Scott’s article to do so and you present interesting questions. I have read the lyrics and listened to the interviews. I am not questioning the propositional content of the lyrics or the testimony of the young men in the interviews (see my earlier post on this).
What Scott is saying in his article (and what I am saying in addition) is that the sound of the music has its own communication (separate and apart from the lyrics) that reaches people on an emotional level. This sound exists with or without the lyrics and communicates with or without the lyrics. You asked if I’ve read the words these songs – yes, I have. I would ask you if you’ve listened to the sound of the music without the lyrics? This sound communicates separately from the lyrics. In some cases the sound of the music may be congruent, or fitting with the content of the lyrics. In other cases it is possible for it to be incongruent, or not fitting. This argument – that music has meaning apart from lyrics – has been made from Scripture by several theologians. Scott and I are arguing that the sound of rap/hip-hop has a musical meaning (apart from the lyrics) that is not congruent with the Gospel.
Music communicates to the part of man known as his affections. It communicates with or without words. If the music has words, then the sound of the music should be congruent with the words.
Jeremy, would you agree that music without words can communicate to the emotions?
Tim
Dear Tim,
I would agree that music without words can communicate to the emotions. But let me ask you this, are you suggesting that all rap/hip hop music without lyrics communicates the same message? Let me ask you this, if a Christian is inspired to create and instrumental rap/hip hop song to honor God and then passes this on to a Christian who composes rap/hip hop lyrics for it that honors God, is the song bad? Does the inspiration not come from my heart where the Holy Spirit resides? Your argument still does not address the heart of man being sinful and that being the reason someone would compose an instrumental song that communicates inappropriate emotions. If my heart is made new by the Holy Spirit can I not compose and instrumental that communicates my emotions about God?
I will end my posts here with this, there are many Christian Rap/Hip Hop artists who do not use instrumentals (beats) from secular composers (producers) because of what you have described and they encourage other Christian Rap/Hip Hop artists to do the same. To say all rap/hip hop music communicates the same message is a generalization that does not address the heart of man being sinful, and needing the Holy Spirit to renew it. The same argument of music without lyrics can be applied to any other style of music. There are many hymns that are actually sung to old drinking tunes, do we then say that old hymns should not be used? I am going to leave here with this, you respect the lyrics and content of the Christian Rap/Hip Hop from the artists interviewed and maybe other artists that you have looked up. But you do not like/prefer/think that the instrumental of Christian Rap/Hip Hop is good. While I think this is bad, I will not become upset over this because I think that I would be trying to force you to like/endorse/promote something that is not comfortable with you and that goes against Scripture. I think that it is fitting to end with a phrase that is constantly used by Shai Linne, one of the artists interview by Mark Dever, Soli Deo Gloria.
Dear Jeremy,
Thank you for answering my question above. I promise to address all of your points in your posts, but for the moment would you indulge me in continuing to answer a couple of questions?
Do you think that music can represent the range of human emotions?
Are there human emotions that are sinful in the sight of God?
Thanks, Jeremy for answering these questions. Meanwhile, I will work to address your points.
Tim
Dear Jeremy,
I’m not addressing the question of the status of the ‘heart’ of any composer. I can’t do that. Only God can do that. I can’t presume to say that a particular composer’s heart was or was not in the right relationship with God when he composed a particular song. The status of the heart is not at issue here. I know of some of the most theologically correct, beautiful music in existence where the composer has admitted he was not a believer. I also can cite numerous examples of sincere believers who ascribe to good doctrine but compose junk (both musically and theologically).
What is at issue is the communication of the sound produced by a given composer. The sound of music is a language that communicates. That’s what I’m examining. Sound can be examined, analyzed, and evaluated for its properties. I’m attempting to evaluate the craft and sound of the music and its potential for communicating certain affects.
I have heard quite a bit of rap. Many of the musical elements in rap are demonstrably the same from song to song. These elements are what give it its distinctive sound and style; without them the music wouldn’t be rap. These musical elements prevent the sound from being congruent with any facet of the Gospel. The musical elements of rap are more congruent with emotions of anger, sensuality, rebellion, agitation, and so forth. Of course, particular songs offer variety, but the general direction these stylistic musical elements take the affect is in the direction of the emotions I mentioned above. When the emotion communicated by the musical sounds does not match the propositional content of the text, then the music is not a fitting match for the Gospel. It violates the Apostle Paul’s command that all things in worship be fitting (I Cor 14:40). And just like when I violate one of God’s commands, it’s a bad thing.
Jeremy, you have put words in my mouth when you say I don’t like rap. I haven’t said that. I haven’t used any language regarding my musical preference or taste in this conversation. I’m talking about objective congruity between the emotions communicated by the musical sounds and the content of the text. There are many musical sounds that are not congruent with the Gospel. Much of the music of Bach, Liszt, Mozart, Chopin, Debussy, Bartok, Joplin, native Americans, Javanese gamelan, African Djembe drumming, traditional Chinese music, and American bluegrass (among many others) is not congruent with the Gospel. This statement does not address the status of the heart of any of the composers of this music, but only addresses the sound that is being produced and its relationship to human emotions and the Gospel.
If you’re interested in the process by which music communicates human emotions, I’d be glad to describe it.
Hi Tim and Jeremy,
It’s so encouraging to see engagement at this level. Thank you for being substantive.
Tim – Could you list for us what you consider the elements of the Gospel with which you believe music must be congruent? Perhaps a comprehensive list is impossible, and I’m not looking for such. What I’m looking for is a more clear understanding regarding Gospel affections that any music seeking to carry the Gospel should mirror. You’ve highlighted music by several composers you consider incongruent. What, specifically, is it in the Gospel you consider this music to be incongruent with? Thoughts?
Dear Tom,
Those are excellent questions. The Gospel is, of course, enormously multi-faceted. Hymn texts might focus on any of dozens (hundreds?) of aspects of the redemption narrative. God’s attributes could be a topic. These could range from majesty, power, strength, and nobility to mercy, tenderness, and lovingkindness, to His eternal qualities, to righteousness, judgment, wrath, and on and on. Christ’s passion might also be a topic for a hymn text. Affects might include sorrow, fear, terror, surprise, excitement, anguish, conquest, victory, glory, transcendence, and many more. Hymn texts might focus on the glory of God’s creation, sinful man’s plight before a righteous God, Christ’s incarnation, etc. Each of these topics, a legitimate topic for a hymn text, would require a composer to consider the specific aspects that attend the topic and to compose music that would support the emotional tone of the text.
When I mentioned these composers and styles in the previous post, I wasn’t condemning all of their music as incongruent with the Gospel. Most of Bach, for instance, is highly congruent with the Gospel; he composed it to be so. But much of the music of his dance suites would not be congruent with any aspect of the Gospel (that I can think of!). Little of Debussy’s music would be congruent with the Gospel or other aspects of the Biblical narrative. His music is highly sensual and much of it melodically fragmented. Little of it would be appropriate for the setting of a hymn text dealing with redemptive issues. Much of the music of Chopin and Liszt is highly sentimental/romantic. These are not appropriate affects for biblical themes that I can think of.
These are broad generalizations. Ideally, every individual text and music pairing should be examined for its affective congruity (among other things). Consider these few verses of Psalm 45, for instance. What should the overall sound of the music be like that would be fitting with the tone of this text? What instruments should accompany the music used to sing this text?
My heart is stirred by a noble theme
as I recite my verses for the king;
my tongue is the pen of a skillful writer.
You are the most excellent of men
and your lips have been anointed with grace,
since God has blessed you forever.
Gird your sword upon your side, O mighty one;
clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.
In your majesty ride forth victoriously
in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness;
let your right hand display awesome deeds.
Should the music that carries the words “your lips have been anointed with grace” have a different sound than the music that carries the words “In your majesty ride forth victoriously”? If so, how would a skilled composer do that? Or, does the the fact that he is riding forth “in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness” have a bearing on how the preceding claus should sound? Would dance music be appropriate for the text above? Or would music in the style of a love song an American pop love song from the 1970s? There are a thousand questions a composer must answer when he begins with the text as his rule, and not a musical style.
The content of the text should be the determining factor in making decisions about the sound.
My purpose in providing the list of composers/styles in the previous post was to demonstrate that it’s not only the sound of rap/hip-hop that contains musical incongruities with the Gospel.
I hope that answers some questions, Tom. The process is incredibly intricate when done well
Dear Tom,
Do I think that music can represent the range of human emotions? Yes, if not all of them then quite a lot of them.
Are there human emotions that are sinful in the sight of God? Yes, but I do think that context can play a role in that sometimes.
“I have heard quite a bit of rap. Many of the musical elements in rap are demonstrably the same from song to song. These elements are what give it its distinctive sound and style; without them the music wouldn’t be rap. These musical elements prevent the sound from being congruent with any facet of the Gospel. The musical elements of rap are more congruent with emotions of anger, sensuality, rebellion, agitation, and so forth. Of course, particular songs offer variety, but the general direction these stylistic musical elements take the affect is in the direction of the emotions I mentioned above. When the emotion communicated by the musical sounds does not match the propositional content of the text, then the music is not a fitting match for the Gospel.”
To say that rap only communicates the emotions in the text above, taken from one of your earlier posts is opinion. Did you not say that some of Bach’s music was not congruent with any facet of the Gospel? But then you did say in your next post, “Most of Bach, for instance, is highly congruent with the Gospel; he composed it to be so.” So the composer composed a song to be congruent with the Gospel correct? Is this not possible for a rap/hip hop composer to do the same? Could they not choose sound elements that invoke emotions that are congruent with the Gospel? Is anything to hard for God? (Jeremiah 32:27)
For you to say that you can not find any facet of the Gospel that is congruent with the Gospel is your opinion. Music without words communicates, correct? Is it possible that rap/hip hop music communicates in a way that you do not understand but others do? Do we still read the Bible in Greek and Latin? To communicate, the sender and receiver must speak the same language or else a translator is needed. Or in the case of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit speaks through certain persons to communicate to unbelievers. So, how powerful is the Holy Spirit? (Jeremiah 32:27)
If we are to follow the command given to us by Jesus before He ascended into heaven (Matthew 28:18-20), do we not need to be able to speak God’s Word in a language that the people we are speaking to understand? Do you speak English to some one who’s native language is Spanish? Is rap/hip hop on the same level as English or Spanish? No, but it does communicate to quite a lot of people in today’s culture, specifically the younger generation and even some a little older.
You make an interesting point in an earlier post when you say, “The status of the heart is not at issue here. I know of some of the most theologically correct, beautiful music in existence where the composer has admitted he was not a believer. I also can cite numerous examples of sincere believers who ascribe to good doctrine but compose junk (both musically and theologically).” But let me ask you this, how are we to worship God? (John 4:19-24) How can you say that the heart is not at issue? Neither of the composers were worshiping God, the first composer’s heart was not right with God and the second did not proclaim truth as revealed in God’s Word.
Tim, your argument is very complex but steeped in your own analysis. God requires to be worshiped in spirit and truth. If the Holy Spirit moves me to compose a song that is steeped in truth revealed in the Scriptures, how can you say that it is not congruent with any facet of the Gospel?
Let us look at this argument from a different angle.
God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Correct?
So God did not choose someone back in eternity past to who sins would be atoned for by Jesus and then be filled with the Holy Spirit to communicate His Word through the medium of rap/hip hop? How powerful is God? (Jeremiah 32:27)
Tim, your real issue is not with rap/hip hop music, it is as I said before with God and how powerful He is. You limit God’s power and reach by saying that rap/hip hop can not be used for His purpose to glorify Himself.
Hi Jeremy,
Would the Spirit ever move someone to compose a song that in incongruent with the truths/affects of the Gospel? This is what Tim is saying, I think. Scott and Tim seem to be trying to create an objective, Scripture-based, paradigm whereby manipulations of musical elements can be discerned as either congruent or incongruent with Biblical truth/God’s attributes. Regardless of how sure we are that we’ve been moved by the Spirit, if what results is incongruent with Scripture, there is strong evidence the Spirit was not at work. The Spirit never moves an individual to act contrary to the truth of Scripture. The question is whether or not there is objective truth that affords discernment regarding musical element manipulation (musical composition).
Hi Tim,
Thank you for providing some further examples of the affective nature of the Gospel. Would it be appropriate to use Rap in an oratorio where the scene in the oratorio was clearly about rebellion?
We have a bit of knowledge regarding the music of the OT Jews. Would you agree that the music of the ancient Jews was less affective than what we are used to today? Would you agree that most of the music in the first century church was chant-based and homophonic? What I’m getting at is whether or not music, prior to the unique treatment and development it received in Western culture (beginning in the Renaissance), was suitable as a vehicle to carry the Gospel as you have outlined for us. Must non-Western cultures learn Western music in order to please God with their musical offerings? What do we do with cultures where tonality is not understood as Western culture understands it? Do you consider modal chant (say Dorian or Lydian, for example) an acceptable vehicle for the Gloria?
Forgot to ask this question . . . Tim, you mention Bach dance suites as examples of incongruence. Why? These forms are highly regular, organized, and, it would appear, exactly the kind of congruence you are advocating. What would the OT music have been like that accompanied worship dance and entertainment dance as outlined in the Psalms an elsewhere? While we’re on the topic of dance, would you say there are objective criteria for discerning dance gestures as either congruent or incongruent with the Gospel? I would imagine so, since the gestures of music and dance parallel each other so closely. Thoughts?
Dear Jeremy,
Thanks for answering my questions, and thanks for responding to the content of the discussion.
First, I’d like to follow up the two questions you answered with another question:
If music can represent the range of human emotions, and if some human emotions are sinful in the sight of God would it not follow that music that conveys those emotions that God finds sinful would not also be sinful? (Lust, rebellion, anger, for example.) I’m ignoring your comment about context for the moment, since I’m not sure what you mean by that.
Jeremy, I don’t think you’re understanding the explanations of musical communication that I’m describing. Maybe that because I’m not being clear about how music communicates. It’s not merely my opinion. It’s the way the sounds composers choose relate to the human psyche. When a composer chooses loud repetitive impulses of sounds that rapidly ascend in pitch, for example, this is perceived by human beings as belonging to a certain narrow band of the emotional spectrum. It may be possible to confuse certain sounds that are close together along this band of the emotional spectrum, but it’s not possible to confuse a sound like I’ve described with feelings of calmness and restfulness.
As another example, the rhythmic phenomenon known as syncopation characterizes all of rap/music. In fact, it is present in virtually all of pop/rock. The sound of syncopation evokes emotions along a particular band of the emotional spectrum and can range from surprise to agitation to sensuality, to anger and rebellion (and other affects along these lines) depending on other musical circumstances (tempo, volume, frequency, rate, pitch distance, harmony, etc., etc.). The very definition of syncopation is that the sound must rhythmically contradict or oppose that which is the rhythmic norm in order to achieve these affects. Its musical/emotional meaning is therefore tied to its very essence. Its presence is defined in sound by rhythmic opposition to the norm and without opposition to the norm appearing in its sound, it is not syncopation. Rap not only uses syncopation pervasively, but syncopation dominates the texture of the sound. By that I mean that the volume of the syncopation is nearly always the very loudest aspect of the sound in rap – there is no hiding it or subduing it. If it weren’t there, it would not be considered rap. It is a defining element of the style and it brings with it these emotional meanings that are rooted in opposition to the norm. So I hope you see that it’s not my opinion, it’s a self-defining musical fact that presents itself in affective communication. You repeatedly refer to it as “my argument” or “my opinion” but in reality, it’s the way music has been understood for centuries until the past 40-50 years when post-modern philosophies influenced musical criticism and the general population saying that any music can mean anything to anybody. Yes it is very complex, which is why it takes years of study to absorb. But one thing it’s not, is “just my opinion.”
You misunderstood my statement about Bach’s music. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. The music I refer to by Bach that is not congruent with the Gospel is found largely in his dance suites – secular forms that he didn’t intend for the church, but as stylized dances. The music that Bach composed to be congruent with the Gospel is music in which he used interval patterns, rhythmic motives, and harmonic sequences that are designed to evoke feelings of lament, joy, majesty, etc. as these feelings manifest themselves in human beings’ patterns of motion when they are feeling these emotions. When these sounds are correctly conjoined to biblical texts or themes, as they are when Bach intends them to be, they are perfectly suited to be sung in worship.
These connections of motion to emotion are easy to observe. When I watch “America’s Got Talent” for example, I never see winners sulking off stage with downward body language. When winners names’ are announced, they universally jump up, their hands go up in the air, their eyes go up – everything about them is UP.) 300 years ago in Germany, Bach knew about this same human attachment of upward motion to the feeling of joy. Good composers learn to approximate it in sound with crescendos, upwardly moving melodies, upwardly moving harmonic sequences, ‘up’-tempos, etc. These upward ideas in music are understood as conveying joy because they match the body’s natural motions when we feel joy. And this is just one example. The number of emotions and they ways to convey them are enormous. Rap and hip/hop composers are limited in their emotional spectrum because of the need to set their ideas in this pervasive, dominating sound of syncopation. Syncopation is a stylistic necessity for all of the broad spectrum of pop/rock. Without it, it’s not understood as pop. Nobody listens to it; nobody understands it as cool; and most importantly, nobody buys it. It is the syncopation (in the form of immediate gratification of motion) that sells the music. So my answer is, “no,” rap/hip-hop composers cannot determine to choose sound elements that are congruent with the Gospel without betraying the style that their customers want. I think your first citation of the Jeremiah quote is misplaced, since God is not the composer of rap/hip-hop.
I think your paragraph that begins, “For you to say . . . ” contains a typo. I’m not sure what you mean in that sentence about finding a facet of the Gospel that is congruent with the Gospel. To answer your question in that paragraph, sure it’s possible that rap communicates in a way that I don’t understand but others do. I am sinful and full of flaws, prone to mistakes and error. But interpreting music is my vocation. I’m paid to do it. I also tend to accept the witness provided in the text content of the vast majority of rap that supports my interpretation that the sound itself is a signifier of anger, rebellion, sex, and lust. Your language analogy is a nice try but it doesn’t hold water. I’ve taught many students whose language I don’t speak and who don’t speak English but who understand the emotional content of the passage we’re working on together because of the sounds of the melodies, the harmonies, the rhythms, and the volumes. That rap communicates to a lot of people is not at issue. What it communicates is. Have you heard the axiom that music is “the universal language”? The reason for this is that people understand the sounds of music at an emotional level according to the motions that the sounds communicate.
Jeremy, if you as a true believer decide to compose a song, that song doesn’t give me an insight into the status of your heart and your relationship with God. It only gives me an insight into your musical craftsmanship and the kinds of emotions you are attempting to communicate through the sounds you choose. I do agree with Tom that the Spirit doesn’t inspire that which is incongruent with His revealed Word. In any case, I cannot judge your heart based on a melody you compose, or the harmonies you select, or the rhythms you choose. One can determine if the text you write is biblical but even that doesn’t confirm the sincerity of your belief (James 2:19) or that you are truly trusting in Christ alone for your salvation.
Of course we are to worship in spirit and truth, no argument here. I did not say that the heart was not an issue in worship, as you imply above. But the heart is not an issue in whether or not a composer can write worship music that believers can use in worship. Unbelievers can write beautiful music with theologically correct lyrics that believers can use for praise in worship. By the same token, believers are capable of writing junky music with poor poetry and bad theology that shouldn’t be anywhere near the church. Music is a skill and must be developed (Psalm 33:3, I Chronicles 15:22). By His common grace, the Lord allows Mozart (who by all accounts was not a believer) to compose as beautifully and theologically correctly as Bach (who by all indications was a true believer). But their compositions are most surely not the indicators of whether they were or were not worshiping in spirit and truth. Only the Lord can judge that. So I reiterate that I’m not judging their hearts, nor am I judging their worship. I am only judging the musical product they produce. Would you insist that the craftsmen who make the chairs you sit on during worship be believers? Or would you insist that those who bottled the wine or grape juice you use in the Lord’s Supper be believers? By the same token, if a composer writes excellent music for a biblically true text, believers may use this product for worship. If you as a believer composed music that communicated rebellion and set it to biblical texts, I would judge its communication against principles revealed about music in Scripture. Is it set apart (Psalm 29:2, 96:9)? Is it fitting (I Cor. 14:40)? Is it skillfully done (Psalm 33:3, I Chron. 15:22)?
I have nowhere said that God couldn’t use music (of any kind) as a means of grace. It’s just that He never promised to do so. Trusting in music as a means of grace is decidedly unbiblical. It elevates music to a status equivalent to that of His Word, preaching, prayer, or the Lord’s Supper – elements of worship which He did promise to use as a means of grace. I think it’s dangerous to step outside of His word and trust music on issues of eternal significance. I don’t believe it’s limiting God to stick to trusting the promises in His word. I think rather it’s a lack of trust to add elements to his promised means of grace.
I hope I addressed all your points, Jeremy. Thank you for the dialogue. I think it’s very profitable.
Dear Tim,
I sense from reading your last post a bit of hostility developing. Let me clear the air, I do not mean any disrespect to you and I will make sure to choose my words carefully.
If I have come off as placing my trust in music as a means of grace, let me apologize for that. That was and is not my intention or belief. I think we might need to ask each other some questions to clarify where we each are coming from, so since I am writing this now and you will not see this until after I post it, I will start. What is your definition of worship? Is music not to be used in/for evangelism?
I understand the argument in terms of musical composition and I understand the characteristics you described. But are the same emotions triggered in me that are in triggered in you when we listen to Bach and Mozart?
This is an opinion, I disagree with the assessment of rap/hip hop only invoking emotions along the spectrum “…surprise to agitation to sensuality, to anger and rebellion (and other affects along these lines)” and I understand that I am going against the norm. There is rap/hip hop on the secular as well as the Christian side that invokes emotions outside of this spectrum. The rap/hip hop to me that it seems like you are describing is “gangster” rap/hip hop. They are distinct sounds within rap/hip hop and maybe you have or have not experienced them. When you compare secular rap/hip hop to Christian rap/hip hop there sounds are different. And maybe I am rebelling against this argument because I listen to too much rap/hip hop, who knows.
God is not the composer of rap/hip hop music, but According to John 1:3, “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” And Colossians 1:16, “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.” How do you interpret these passages of Scripture? But are you saying God is the composer of classical music, such as Bach or Mozart? I think that my reference to Jeremiah 32:27 is valid if everything was created by Him and for Him. Is God not powerful enough to use what He has created to glorify Himself?
Rap/Hip Hop music invokes emotions of rebellion, okay. Well, there is an artist who Shai Linne mentioned, Lecrae, who has an album entitled Rebel. He encourages His listeners to “rebel” against the culture of today. Anger could be used to demonstrate God’s feeling towards sin. Agitation could be used to demonstrate God’s frustration with sinners. Surprise could be used to demonstrate how Christ will return, “…as a thief in the night…” 2 Peter 3:10.
We both agree that music without words communicates and you will admit that it is possible that rap/hip hop communicates something you do not understand. Is it possible that the music of Bach and Mozart communicate a message that is not understood by some of the people today? Maybe a different style is needed for different people, do you agree?
The requirement to worship God is set by Jesus Himself in John 4:19-24. We are to worship in spirit and truth. This can not be refuted. You have admitted that it is possible that you might not understand what is being communicated in rap/hip hop and I admit that I might not understand what is being communicated by Bach and Mozart. The same piece of music can invoke two different emotions in two people, but I have to admit that they are trends. I understand your vocation is to study music, but are you willing to put what your vocation tells you above that of what God tells you? Can you point to a Scripture that tells us that a specific style of music inherently incongruent with God’s message or are you placing that requirement on music yourself? Our ways are not His ways, correct?
Of the verses you cite for music only the last two deal with music in context of scripture. Psalm 29:2 and Psalm 96:9 mention nothing of music, but to worship the LORD because He is holy (set apart). 1 Corinthians 14:40 deals with order during worship in the Church not music. So do we only worship God while at Church? I would gather from the context of the verse from 1 Corinthians that worship involves more than just music, do you agree? The last two passages due address that the composers were skillful, so are you saying rap/hip hop music is not skillful?
Tim we have established that God judges by the heart. God tells us to worship in spirit and truth. There are no verses in scripture which define the style of music to worship God. The studying of music you have done, is from man’s point of view, not God’s point of view. I agree with you, the text of your song along does not determine the sincerity of your belief, but we are talking about worship. And Jesus said we must worship in spirit and truth and only God knows the heart, so only God knows when we or anyone else truly worships. So how can you say that a certain type of music can not be used to worship God, when you can only evaluate half of the requirement? You can make an educated guess based off James 2:26.
For you to say rap/ hip hop can not be used to worship God is unbiblical because you can not determine a man’s heart, only God can. I do believe that rap/ hip hop has restrictions inherent in the way it communicates its message; I do not think it would lend itself well to a congregation using it. But that does not mean that a person can not recite the words of a christian rap/hip hop song or write words to a christian rap/hip hop song and it be worship.
Tim and Tom, this will have to be my last post. I feel that this issue is detracting from our main task, going out into all nations and making disciples and teaching them to obeys the commands Jesus gave us. I will say that you have good arguments Tim, but they seem to flow from your vocation more than from your biblical view. Should it not be the other way around? That last statement and question our my observation, and do not necessarily mean that is the case. I pray God will continue to work in your lives and draw you closer unto Himself. I have enjoyed the dialogue.
Dear Tom,
Thought-provoking questions! All of my comments have been in the context of music for gathered corporate worship. The apostle Paul’s exhortation to think on that which is lovely, noble, pure, excellent, praiseworthy, etc., (Phil 4:8) would seem to have a bearing on our personal choices for reading, music listening, movies, and all our activities. To that end, rap is not the best example of musical craftsmanship. But I wouldn’t be here arguing vigorously for individual preferences what music to listen to in the concert hall or on the stereo.
There’s obviously no notated music from the first century church as notation didn’t begin to develop until the 9th century. Descriptions are sketchy at best. There is one volume by Suzanne Haik Vantoura that has interesting speculation on the sound of the Jewish music of the time, but still, nothing certain. It’s probable that much of the instrumental music of the time was monophonic (one note at a time or no harmony). But melody alone is certainly capable of carrying great emotional affect. When the Bible is specific in its mentions of music it almost always alludes to (or specifically mentions) melody alone. (There is one exception to this in 2 Chron 5:13 where the description of the sound might imply a richer texture than just monophony, but not necessarily). Certainly when the music was under the Lord’s specific direction it was suitable (see all of I and II Chronicles and I and II Kings). I’m sure the hymn that Jesus sang on the night before his crucifixion was suitable, even if it was only melody! In other words, music doesn’t have to have complex harmonies and developed rhythmic motives to have beautiful affects. Much of the 9th century chant is beautiful and highly appropriate to the text it carries from a bioacoustic perspective. But music has continued to develop across the centuries. Polyphony (harmony) was developed in the church, for the church, by the church. The history of western music is inseparable from the history of the church. Ancient modes are absolutely useable by the church (and is even today!). In fact, this morning in church we sang “Wondrous Love” a melody in Dorian mode.
Often (not always), in cultures where tonality is not understood as Western culture understands it, music exists in the form of extended drones or repetitive rhythm patterns for the purposes of chant and meditation. (In fact, much of rap resembles this.) This music has its purpose in a culture where Christ is not, often as a means to induce trance and altered states of being (extended repetition being the primary musical device). When Christ enters the life of an individual, He changes that person. If that person is an author, one would expect his writing to change. If a musician, Christ’s change in the person’s life would necessarily impact all aspects of his being, including his composition. Not right away necessarily, but ultimately and eventually. (Frances Schaeffer has much to say about this in “How Should We Then Live.” Scott has an excellent article elsewhere on this website about this topic.) Consider the change in the works of Michelangelo after his conversion. In fact, one of the reasons music developed the way it has in Western culture is that Western culture is where Christ has been the longest and has therefore had the most influence on culture. As the Gospel now makes big inroads into Asia (Korea first, China, Taiwan, Japan, Malasia) what impact can we expect to see from that region’s artists, authors, playwrites, and musicians? Hopefully, a Christ-centered China will produce different kinds of art, literature, and music than a Confucius-centered China. I don’t apologize for this view, though it might be viewed as imperialistic by some. According to Scripture, Christ-wrought imperialism is on its way inevitably. To become more Christ-like then, before His coming and as informed by His Word, is a privilege. I don’t have a lot of knowledge about dance, either ancient or modern and so can’t speak about that with any certainty.
Dear Jeremy,
Let me begin by stating emphatically that there’s no hostility at all! I apologize if I gave that impression. Sometimes I’m just blunt, but not hostile! So forgive my bluntness. Let me also thank you for your tone and honesty in discussing this matter. I’ve not taken anything you’ve said to be disrespectful. I think you bring up very good points.
The worship I am speaking of is corporate worship. Corporate worship is the gathering of God’s elect as a body to offer praise (both sung and spoken), thanksgiving, confession of sin, prayer, to hear His word read and preached, and to bring tithes and offerings. Though the Lord may use worship evangelistically, it is designed by God for His people to praise Him for what He has done for them through Christ, and not as evangelism (I Cor 14:24). I believe the purpose of evangelism is worship, not that the purpose of worship is evangelism. Music is a commanded element of worship to be used by God’s people as they offer their praise and prayers to God; singing is directed to God and is for God. Here’s a brief list of biblical reasons why God wants us to sing. I didn’t include citations for reasons of length, but the following are all from Scripture.
Because he is highly exalted. To tell of his wonderful acts. To proclaim his salvation day after day. Because of the joy we have in his refuge. Because he has been good to me. To exalt him and praise his might. Because he is our King and Lord. Because he is our fortress and our refuge we sing of his strength and love.
Because he is King of all the earth. Because he is our help. To sing the glory of his name and make his praise glorious. To make his faithfulness known through all generations. Because he makes us glad by his deeds, I sing for joy at the works of his hands. Because he has done marvelous things; his right hand and his holy arm have worked salvation for him. Because all of his commands are righteous. Because the glory of the Lord is great. To celebrate his abundant goodness and joyfully sing of his righteousness. We are to sing to the Lord all our lives; as long as we live. Out of thanksgiving. To let it be known to all the world that he has done glorious things. Because he saves me. Because he has redeemed Jacob and displays his glory in Israel. Because he rescues the life of the needy from the hands of the wicked. To give us a spirit of unity among ourselves as we follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth we may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. To let the word of Christ dwell in us richly with gratitude in our hearts. To declare his name in the presence of the congregation.
A by-product of this is that believers will be edified. The purpose of singing during worship is not as evangelism or to entertain. Nowhere in Scripture does the Lord say that we should use music to evangelize. That doesn’t mean that He won’t/can’t use it, but again, He doesn’t promise it, command it, or model it in Scripture.
“But are the same emotions triggered in me that are in triggered in you when we listen to Bach and Mozart?” Naturally, not everyone will have the same emotional response to a piece by Bach or Mozart. But if you’ve followed my reasoning in previous posts, you will see that the reasons for this can be many. The most common reason is that listeners are capable of bringing their own biases to a listening experience, resulting in associative emotional responses. These are not responses triggered by the sound cues from the composer/performer (as described previously in the bioacoustic model), but rather individual responses brought to the listening experience by the listener. I am arguing that this highly individualistic associative model cannot be the model by which we choose music for worship since it is dependent on the individual rather than the music itself. Though individuals may have radically different reactions to any given music because of these associative models of communication, the church must choose music for worship that is based not on this chaotic, individualistic model. Rather, it must choose music based on the objective and natural sound characteristics of the music itself. I have also previously argued that if you’re unable to hear the natural musical cues in the sound of music – those that suggest the motion that links to our emotions – then you may well be desensitized to the sounds because of your regular musical diet. In your honesty above, you admit as much, saying, “And maybe I am rebelling against this argument because I listen to too much rap/hip hop, who knows.” It’s a bit like eating hot sauce on all your food for years and then being unable to taste the natural flavor of a food when it doesn’t have hot sauce (which for the purpose of this analogy is the backbeat found in all pop/rock music). The sound constructs of rap are very uniform. That’s what makes it recognizable as rap. It’s very difficult for those who listen to such a steady diet of a music like rap, with such uniform and immediately accessible sound constructs, to disengage from their diet to hear music that emphasizes other elements of the sound, such as melody or harmony. There is a desensitization process that occurs when drums accenting beats 2 and 4 are the primary sound in all or most of the music you listen to. I believe the sound of the music should be composed by skilled composers to communicate the affects of the texts. The affect of the text should therefore determine the sound constructs/style of the music. When these texts contain Gospel truths, and the composer has done his job well in correlating the music to the affect of the text, the human heart is taught well how to feel about the propositional content of the text. (Remember that Joshua and Moses first heard the *sound* of idolatry before they saw the idolatrous behavior. Ex. 32:17-18)
Before writing this, I listened another time to Shai Linne’s “The Greatest Story Ever Told.” I first listened to it in another room, where, although I could hear all the sounds, the words were not distinguishable. I’m sorry, Jeremy, but the sound characteristics of this music are as I said: the syncopation of the backbeat is dominant and driving the affect, Shai Linne’s voice is hypnotically and repetitively monotone and loud, and toward the end his voice gets even louder, suggesting increasing anger in the context of the backbeat and the monotone. His voice sounds like the voice of someone yelling at someone else in anger. When I listen more specifically to the content of the words, I am struck even more by the incongruity of the text with the sound. The sound of his voice suggests that he is angry with someone and yelling at them. Additionally, the inflections he uses for the text are not natural; they do damage to the intelligibility of the words, making comprehension much more difficult (by this I mean he mis-emphasizes many words for the sake of perpetuating the syncopation – a stylistic concern of the music that trumps his concern for relaying the text). In texted music that is well-written, the text will be the driving force of the sound, causing composers to choose rhythms, pitches, and dynamics that support, rather than contradict the natural spoken quality of the words. The style of the sound of rap takes precedence over the concern for the listener’s understanding of the text.
I am in no way saying that God is the composer of classical music. God is not the composer of any music that we listen to. Of course, I believe the Scripture that says that all things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made. My understanding of this is that God created the raw physical elements that we use for music: frequency, amplitude, timbre, and duration. But man uses these things to create the organized sound we call music. God no more creates an aria by Bach than He does a rap song by Shai Linne. He has given both men the same raw elements to work with, but they create differently according to their gifts and skill levels. The same is true of authors, poets, painters, sculptors, etc. God creates the clay that man uses to form his statue, but God doesn’t sculpt the statue.
The Scriptures give many instructions for worship and there are hundreds of passages that specifically discuss music (more than 600). No, there is no passage prohibiting specific musical styles. But there are many, many passages among those that discuss worship and music that point to principles by which we should measure what we bring before the Lord in our gathered worship. You quickly dismiss passages regarding worship that don’t specifically mention music, but that have strong bearing on the music we use in worship. Psalm 29:2 and 96:9 command us to worship the Lord not *because* he is holy (though that’s certainly appropriate from other passages, but not the essence of these passages), but to worship the Lord *in* the splendor (beauty) of holiness. Shall worshiping the Lord in holiness include pursuing the inclusion of music from the most debased aspect of a culture? Does that cause you to even ponder the goal of appropriating rap music for use in corporate worship? Translations of I Cor 14:40 include doing everything in worship in a fitting way, an appropriate way, and in good form. Does everything in worship include music? Does music fit into Paul’s exhortation to do everything in worship in a fitting or appropriate way? Or is music exempt from the word ‘everything?’ The musicians described in Scripture studied for years (no one was permitted to lead in worship who was under 30 years of age) under close supervision to develop the skills required before being allowed to lead in music in worship. I Chronicles provides an extended description of the musicians, their training, and their tasks.
I believe our main purpose, Jeremy, is worship. Those evangelized are being evangelized *to worship.* How we worship is prescribed by God and therefore not a detraction. It’s very worth considering what the Lord has to say on these issues.
Here’s a brief example of an associative response to music in Chuck Colson’s message from November 24.
http://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/13594-god-with-us
He describes his associative response to a familiar Christmas tune that has nothing to do with the sound constructs inherent in the music itself. Rather, this particular association is based on a word from the carol and his memory of a small boy.
Associative responses to music can be as varied as individuals. But because they are based on an individual’s own associations with the music, they cannot be the basis on which we choose music for worship. Rather, we should examine the sound constructs of the music itself to determine its inherent affective content. Appropriating music with sound constructs that communicate anything and everything and attaching gospel lyrics is not the solution.
Hi Everyone, Glad the site is back up.
Tim, Thank you for responding to the question regarding Western music development and how one would judge non-Western tonality.
You make a very important statement when you say “A by-product of this is that believers will be edified. The purpose of singing during worship is not as evangelism or to entertain. Nowhere in Scripture does the Lord say that we should use music to evangelize. That doesn’t mean that He won’t/can’t use it, but again, He doesn’t promise it, command it, or model it in Scripture” in your November 23 post to Jeremy. We must all remember that the context of this discussion is the appropriate use of music in worship services attended by believers. Maybe we have hijacked what God intended as believer’s worship and turned it into outreach for unbelievers. Does it really come down to purpose? If one distinguishes between appropriate music for worshiping believers and appropriate music for evangelizing unbelievers, is there really a difference between the two? If so, what are the rationale for such a difference and, more importantly, what are the biblical guidelines for the appropriateness of each? Doesn’t it all come down to mirroring the character, worth, and work of God, for BOTH purposes? Now we are back to the initial question, “Can Rap Mirror God?”
Pardon me, but rap music was created in the west, in America. It is part and parcel of the American experience, and therefore western culture.
Allow me to also say that rap music’s early beginnings was relatively benign in a sense. Its subject matter was indistinguishable from other forms of secular music i.e. partying and romance. However, unlike jazz, country, bluegrass, and rock music (all of which had similar origins) rap music went on its downward spiral because “respectable people” wanted nothing to do with it because it was so associated with the black underclass. As a matter of fact, the biggest criticism of rap music originally came from the black middle and upper classes, who felt that the music and culture threatened their attempts to integrate with a still largely hostile white American mainstream (yes, we are talking about a time when not a few churches did not even allow blacks to join). So, where mainstream and corporate America “tamed” other forms of secular music, rap music was dominated by people on the margins of society: criminals and political radicals. Had mainstream America and/or the black upper class not taken a hostile position towards rap music in its more benign days, the “gangsta” genre would have never flourished, as the “gangsta” element in rap music came along rather late, after the medium had been popular for nearly ten years, and when it did, even most rap music fans hated it for ethical and aesthetic reasons. (Ironically, gangsta rap won out over its critics only because it significantly increased the number of rap fans. Before “gangsta” rap, the number of rap fans were small, and there were few major hit albums by mainstream standards. It was gangsta rap that created the big sellers of the genre, and attracted fans in waves that vastly outnumbered fans of the original less evil rap music.)
So, rap music is nothing more than what many forms of secular music and entertainment would have developed into had they not been tamed by corporate America for the purposes of mass marketing to mainstream middle class consumers. In this respect, it is what other forms of music might have been. (For example, where country music is now considered “all American music” by “traditional values conservatives”, including Christians, the truth is that it was once the “rap music” of underclass whites, and dealt heavily with alcohol, sexual immorality, violence, anger, rage, crime, frustration etc.)
In that context, singling out rap music when other genres are merely sanitized (and again, by corporate America for financial reasons) versions of the same is myopic and unfair. To be consistent historically, culturally and spiritually, you would have to reject all music save traditional forms that originated in the church.
Except … even that is problematic. Though Jamaican forms were very influential in its development, rap music nonetheless the descendant of disco. Disco is the descendant of R&B music. R&B music is the descendant of soul music. And soul music has long been acknowledged to have been black gospel music with secular lyrics. (Incidentally, rock and roll music underwent a similar progression. Only jazz has always been secular.)
Before you take the convenient escape “but that is black culture, which is not truly western per se, but more the product of blacks who were never truly part of western culture due to slavery and Jim Crow.” Not only is that a shockingly liberal statement, a justification for affirmative action if there ever was one, the easy way out still often obscures the truth.
The reason is that even many “traditional western” forms of Christian music either had pagan origins, or were developed by the pagan Roman Catholic cult. Christianity was born in the near east, not the west. It merely spread from the ancient near eastern culture to the west, first the Roman Empire and then to the tribal areas (Angles, Saxons, Celts, Franks, Danes, Vikings, Germanic tribes, etc.) Of course, the Roman Empire was pagan, and the tribal European areas even more so (or perhaps not so much pagan as animist, as tribes generally are). Now by this time, anything pertaining to the original culture of Christianity – which was Jewish and therefore Oriental – had been long cast off. Instead, the Roman Empire Christians simply added the new faith to their pre-existing pagan culture, and the European tribal Christians did the same.
So, what happened was that the pagan Greco-Roman culture and the animist tribal European cultures were “Christianized.” Prior to Constantine, it can only be said that Christianity itself had been “Hellenized” because of the purging of Jewish influences. But after Constantine, it must be said that European pagan and animist culture was “Christianized” because that was the way of “Christendom”, which was the conscious mixing of not only church and state, but church and culture, with any concept of separation between the church and the world gone. Anything that went on in a “Christian nation” was thus deemed “Christian”, and a nation (or tribe) was considered “Christian” upon either its conquest or the “conversion” of its rulers (who often “converted” in the face of inevitable conquest). But the idea that the Roman Catholic Church went about the business of reforming the culture in these pagan and tribal areas is folly. Instead, the Roman Catholic Church simply conformed itself to the existing cultural, political, economic, and yes religious ideas, and only added to it churches and priests. An example: rather than doing anything to transform it, the Catholic Church was one of the most powerful institutions that kept the dreadfully oppressive feudal system in place, and not only that but the Catholic Church benefited from the evils of feudalism greatly.
So, claiming that traditional western worship is the product of God’s special grace is historically untenable, because it presumes that the theology of Eusebius – that it was God’s will to merge Christianity with pagan/animist state and culture – was correct. If that is the position, then it must be asserted as a matter of theology that God for some reason prefers European paganism and animism to African, Middle Eastern and Asian versions of the same. Even better, since – again – black Americans are westerners and rap music was created in and by western culture and is as much a part of it as Mozart symphonies and baroque piano, then it asserts that God prefers white western culture to black western culture.
Specifically, it asserts that God prefers the affluent, well educated white westerners who created and sponsored classical music and art (i.e. “Christian” landed nobles who paid large sums to support and commission composers and sculptors while the serfs and proles around them were starving to death!) to the poor, black inner city denizens whose culture developed in isolated neglect due to slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and the Great Society. Of course, one does not need to be a liberation theologist to realize that such is an inversion of the words of Jesus Christ in Luke 6:20, which is “Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.”
Please consider this before you consider comparing ChurchSalt’s use of Christian rap music in evangelism to “nudity, gambling, drinking.” At the very least, be consistent and apply the same standard to traditional and high church worship components that can be directly traced to the paganism of the Roman Empire or the animism of the European tribes. Thank you.
It is so interesting to me how folks can work themselves up into claiming that someone has said something that hasn’t been said. Job says, “. . . claiming that traditional western worship is the product of God’s special grace is historically untenable. . . .” But I don’t think that he can point to a single instance where someone has claimed that western worship is the product of God’s special grace on this page.
Job, while the history you have provided is interesting, rap’s history and cultural roots are not at the crux of this argument. What is at the core of the argument is the bioacoustic meaning of its sound (apart from any and all lyrics). No one is suggesting that rap be eliminated from worship because it comes from such and such a cultural background. What Scott said in his article was, “. . . the unavoidable conclusion is that rap music, because of what it inherently communicates, is incompatible with the Christian Gospel. It expresses sentiments that contradict the very message that we love.”
“Because of what it inherently communicates.” This phrase refers to the sound of rap apart from lyrics. It is the sound of rap that is incongruent with the affects of the Gospel.