Worst Christian Video of the Year

“Like most people, I think oppression is bad. But that is not the basis of an aesthetic argument.”

But your initial argument wasn’t an aesthetic one, but a moral one – in fact it was pretty much the inverse of Piper’s position.

And even judging relative aesthetic merits don’t lead to the conclusions you claim.

Dr. Hart,
Thank you for the feedback thus far. It may seem futile, but you are helping several of us out!

You said: “Rap is inferior to Louis Armstrong and Wes Montgomery. There are classics and standards of jazz, too, you know. And that music is ‘black’ [...] I’m not sure any believer is called to belong to hip-hop or male locker room culture.”

I think this is a similar extension of the previous discussion. Rap differs from classical music in a similar way that it does from jazz. And although jazz is historically “black,” there are indeed other types of musical expression within black culture that are running on a different car frame than jazz. As Andrew says, “Rap and classical music [and I would add jazz] are completely different. Is a car better than a truck? Depends what you’re trying to do with it.” So are rap and jazz trying to do the same thing? Are they attempting to evoke the same set of emotions? I don’t think they are. As Dan noted earlier in this post, “As a form, [rap] is also very well suited to evoking appropriate emotions of poignant sadness and other powerful (and righteous) emotions directed at the dark things in life. That makes it well suited, as a form, to the expression of the gospel. It is also well suited to apologetics, as I mentioned above.” These are areas that jazz music would not be well-suited for. Again, two great illustrations from Lecrae as to the expression of the gospel and use in apologetics:
“Take Me As I Am” — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po3k6sPHeX0
“Truth” — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDHxnd6VFWs

And compared to the standards of form within the rap genre, many of the holy hip-hop artists are making excellent rap music. I don’t know why there can’t be objective standards within rap itself. Why does it have to be broadened to black music as a whole? I understand that I could theoretically argue the same thing about “Doom and Gloom” (or excellence within the elevator music genre) but I think it’s a leap to say that a form of music is inferior when so many would disagree and form of the music (and lyrical emphasis) is complex. For example, any lay person could write a tune to match “Doom and Gloom” but could not do likewise to make a successful rap song. Granted, it would be easier to do so than to compose a symphony, but then a symphony does not require poetic or rhetorical talent.

And as Adam Pelser said earlier, “I suspect that many white American slave owners initially perceived black spirituals as inferior forms of cultural expression simply because they saw the culture out of which such spirituals arose as an inferior culture to their own [...] rap at its best exhibits great poetic and rhetorical talent and it is not at all obvious, as others have pointed out, that rap is unduly suited for Christian expression.” There are many forms of Christian expression, and with no reason to believe that rap is inferior (inherently, at least; preference is a different issue), I believe that rap lies within the realm of Christian liberty. The Gospel Coalition then has the liberty to comment on this unique (and I would say encouraging) Christian movement within hip-hop culture.

Dr. Hart,
You haven’t even begun to make an argument for rap being bad. You’ve only asserted that it was so, as if this observation is so evident that no explanation is needed.

Leaving bluegrass aside, I’ll ask again– is it the harmonic and melodic simplicity that makes rap bad? Is poetry without a beat suitable for communicating doctrine and teaching God’s truth? If so, why is there suddenly a problem when you add a simple bass and drum track?

Dr. Hart,
I’m not arguing for the overall superiority of rap, but I am absolutely arguing for its legitimacy and usefulness to individual believers, and also to the church. Rap is harmonically simple and lyrically complex, and in addition to being able to convey a quantity of content that no other current musical style can, rap is also perfectly suited to address theological conflict in a way that is clear, concise, and intense.

I’ll try to flesh this point about conflict out more, because I think it is very important. Secular post-moderns don’t know how to argue. They complain and accuse, but honest, manly argument and conflict is very rare. As a product of their culture, Christian men in this age are generally poorly equipped to take on the work of rebuking and correcting theological error. Of course there are exceptions, but the general level of competency, commitment, and zeal is low.

Rap is intrinsically conducive to explaining, rebuking, correcting, and even mocking unbiblical beliefs and teachings. Rap can also serve as a modern vehicle for catechising. Can you imagine trying to write a folk song that concisely explains the difference between justification, sanctification and glorification? You would end with a Bob Dylan’esque ballad with 22 stanzas, which neither you nor I particularly want to listen to.

On a slightly different slant, do you expect black Christians to adopt white musical tastes? Why would there be any need to defend rap unless it was being attacked?

I’m not sure I grasp the point of your reference to Billie Holiday. Are you implying that the motivation for defending rap is simply one of racial guilt among educated, white, reformed Christians? If not, what are you trying to say with that?

Couple of observations:

(1) Scripture doesn’t require us to believe that this genre of music or that is superior or inferior, or even that they can be compared. Which is the best fruit?

(2) The question of superiority of genre should not be confused with the question of superiority of composition. Mozart and Beethoven wrote in different genre, but are arguably equal in compositional genius.

(3) If I get to be as utterly subjective as the rest, I would say that rap is superior to 20th century atonal art music. Jes sayin.

Ryan, in case it wasn’t clear, my Jan 8 was a tongue-in-cheek Waltke meets DC Talk meets New Living Translation affair.

Michael,
In view of your response, my statement should have read as follows: “I find incredible that culture–of all things–would be so vehemently defended by some. The church has always been transcultural and cross-cultural. She has instructed us to abstain from worldliness, to set our minds on things above, not below, to seek a better country, and to recognize that we are sojourners and pilgrims, For all the transformationalist rhetoric, you think someone would be concerned with the transforming of ourselves by the renewing of our minds, so we are not conformed to this world but to Christ.

What do you mean that you hesitate to denounce an entire genre of music? Why? Why do you hesitate? Why are you so concerned with culture? It’s rap music! If you like it, good. If you only listen to rap with biblical content, great! But there is nothing special about it. I have no problem rejecting the t.v. even though it is a powerful cultural product. I have no problem. I often feel (and sorry for the judgment) that so many defenders of culture are simply too attached to it and have been too affected by it to recognize that it has such a dangerous stranglehold on them. I also believe it impairs our understanding of the role and function of the church within any given culture. It is not to redeem a bunch of musical or literary genres, arts and crafts, or entertainment, but to grow in sanctification the whole body and to present us complete, not lacking in anything, to Christ in full submission. In some instances, this may include an effect on culture, its structures and forms, and its products, but more importantly, it has a corporate effect on the body of believers.

I have not made the point that rap is inherently bad. If a child is bad, it does not necessarily mean that the child’s grandfather was bad. Pornographic literature is bad, but I do not think that pictures or writing are bad, per se. Obviously, the content, use, and intent are all important considerations. I do not think it is worth belaboring but opera is not as bad as rap, generally. But there could be cases! I do not care much for rap. Also, I think most rap that Christians listen to is awful. Listening to Kanye West, DMX, and others, who claim to be Christians, do much harm. The form itself does not merit a claim that it is bad, but the expression is rarely good. It is not cultural bigotry to speak against certain forms or expressions of culture as wrong. But it confuses me that it is culture that people jump to defend, even when they will admit that the people are doing the wrong thing. People will defend rap music, but not DMX (or whoever is popular!). I cannot take seriously your claim of cultural bigotry! If anything, my belief that one form or expression is not as healthy as others is equally as valid as your opinion that rap as a form of cultural expression is not necessarily inferior. I am not saying my preferences are better than others’. I am saying that preferences are only preferences, not worthy of defense.

Michael,
Thank you and your winky face for the concession!

Andrew,
I understand that Dr. Hart has not been as clear as he could be on rap as an inherently evil form or rap as a preference without an intrinsically inferior expression. I am certainly no mouthpiece of his, but I would wager that his position is not as either-or as many would like. For me, rap is not evil per se. However, it would have to be divorced of much its culture and content. I believe many would agree that most rap characterizes much unworthy of imitation. I think rap is a matter of preference, but that does not make it good. I certainly wouldn’t defend it as superior. I do not intend to paint rap with a broad brush, but rap is generally not the best representation of neutral cultural forms. It has created a perception of its own, by its early proponents and message. Certainly, opera need not overcome such perceptions. I may not like rap or what it generally represents, but that does not mean that I believe that a black male should not write some lyrics to a 4/4 beat and “rap” some Bible verses.

Dr Hart,
I can only infer that you didn’t read my comment. I never said that you called rap “evil.”

“I would claim it is not a fitting vehicle for sound doctrine on doctrinal, cultural, and aesthetic grounds.”

Can you please explain WHY?

I’m especially curious to hear the doctrinal reasons.

Andrew,

I think Dr. Hart is hitting on a fundamental issue of form and function as we communicate doctrinal truth. I grew up in the construction industry, and one of the fundamental axioms of architecture is “form follows function”. This is why a basketball arena is markedly different than a courtroom. An arena (form) is perfectly suitable for a college basketball game (function), whereas a courtroom is wholly inadequate for sporting events. Even if you were to persuade me that all musical forms are basically inert, that they are all equally appropriate for every function. Movie makers know this, if they want you to be deeply moved, they might utilize the 2nd half of “Jupiter” in Holst’s The Planets, but they won’t use Metallica’s “Enter Sandman”. Even if we were to say that forms are inert and that there is nothing inherently sinful about rap as a cultural/musical form, that doesn’t mean it is an appropriate form to communicate fundamental Christian truth. I personally don’t have a problem with rap as a form of musical expression, since some rap does actually have good content and cultural critique.

However, by in large, rap has become a pop-cultural form used to communicate the same banal realities that most pop music does. The multiple genres that comprise the form of pop music have the explicit function of generally mindless or even worse mind-numbing entertainment. You can argue about the fact that the form is sanctified when it communicates Christian truth. This is what the CCM crowd has convinced itself of, and what most conservative Christians have come to believe regardless of denominational affiliation. They have basically accepted that forms don’t matter so long as their use is “sanctified”. The problem with this is that pop culture has amassed it’s ubiquitous status in society by commodifying and trivializing culture with musical forms such as rap, R&B, contemporary country, and rock among a few other styles. Cultural expression in this structure is only valuable for its power to entertain and generate profit. The dilemma for Christians is that when they use these forms to communicate doctrinal truth is that they run the risk of being yet another commodity in the cultural market. They essentially become another product to be bought and sold and their truth is yet another voice competing against Jay-z, U2, Lady GaGa, and any other pop artist out there. Christians will continue to struggle with this until they take a serious look at form-function issues as they pertain to the communication of their message, both internally in the worship within the church, and externally as a means of “outreach”. I think that regardless of where you stand on the issue, you have to answer the question of whether or not Christian truth should be communicated through pop cultural avenues of expression, given these three factors: a) that you risk giving the Christian message the cultural perception of an ideology on par with the general subjects of pop music – sex, drugs, money, and tawdry romance; b) that the truth is just another means of entertainment; and c) that you risk reducing the truth into a commodity to be bought and sold for a profit.

Historically, until the modern era, music has basically served a “lower” folk function, and a “higher” cultic function. In either case, neither were used as products for mass consumption. They were vehicles for reflecting on the human experience, or for worship. The folk forms were accessible to the society at large, the high forms were used for liturgical purposes. There may have been a few additional uses, such as in dramas. But the majority of musical expression throughout history has existed without a “profit motive”. However, music has become another product to sell, and the artistic expressions of human experience became subject to market forces, which usually demands the most obnoxious forms for the sake of entertainment.

This is why folk and high cultural forms have traditionally shaped the worship of the Church. They aren’t prone to the banality of pop culture. The forms aren’t necessarily inherently superior to pop forms in terms of the morality of the musicality, it is just that these forms aren’t as prone to commodification as pop forms are. I personally am inclined to the folk expression because of their accessibility in worship. Some high-church types will use more complex, high cultural forms, as a means of invoking reverence and awe on the part of the worshiper, and these high forms are used to capture the gravity of the truth they communicate. But there are some very valid arguments against the use of music at all, see R. Scott Clark’s Recovering the Reformed Confession as a compelling example.

Jed, you make some excellent observations. I would add that our reception of musical genres is not static. As an example, there is a song in the Blue Trinity Hymnal that goes by the tune of “America the Beautiful.” It would seem inappropriate to so closely associate patriotism and worship, and that’s how I felt the first several times I sang it. Now that I have been singing this hymn for the last 15 years, that association has dissipated and is no longer a distraction. Then consider rock; judging strictly by its roots, it would not seem like an apt vehicle for expressing moral or relgious conviction. However, I know of at least one album (War by U2) in which that medium is used quite well to express moral and religious convictions. The Blues,likewise, would not seem like a fitting vehicle for religious content, but I know of at least one album that pulls it off quite nicely. (BTW, how about a blues album based on Ecclesiastes?)

In the year 2010 we have certain ideas associated with rap because we are close to its birth. Over time those associations may weaken and that vehicle may, in its own way, be able to carry religious convictions.

I do agree with the idea the some media just aren’t fit for carrying certain ideas. I once witnessed some kind of youth group or parachurch group pray over their food to the tune of the Addams Family theme; highly irreverent, IMO. So, there is an objective analyis that can be done, but we have to realize that the suitability of certain genres for certain expressions is a culturally conditioned one that can change over time.

Now for a short anecdote. One early morning my daughter, confused as to the time of day, went downstairs to the piano and played a low note loudly. I immediately woke up in great fear, convinced that something dreadful had happened in our house. Now, why did I think that? Did I have that fear because the note is an inherent vehicle for doom, or because it has been used that way in movies? Culture or inherent property? I think it is a cultural perception, but I am guessing a historian of music would tell us that note has almost always been associated with dark kinds of ideas.

Andrew,

Jed: of course form follows function. I don’t disagree. You said, “Even if we were to say that forms are inert and that there is nothing inherently sinful about rap as a cultural/musical form, that doesn’t mean it is an appropriate form to communicate fundamental Christian truth.”

Does the same argument apply to all forms of music? What makes one more acceptable than another, if we posit that all are theoretically inert?

I wouldn’t argue that forms are inert, that was a hypothetical. But I’ll indulge you here, you would have to evaluate what forms are used for what. What is classical music used for, folk, rock, rap, etc. You will likely see a great divide between “pop” forms, and generally non-commercial forms. The divide will highlight not only stylistic differences, but very different content as well. Then you would have to ask whether or not you are commodifying Biblical truth when using pop forms. Culturally speaking this is why African American forms such as gospel music might be more appropriate than a pop form like rap to communicate biblical truth.

The problem is that you seem to acknowledge the form-function axiom, but then take it away with the other hand, give any form that “communicates God’s truth” a pass. Essentially you haven’t asked about the appropriateness of one form as a vehicle for communicating Biblical truth versus another at all. I am sure you were only trying to answer briefly, but you haven’t interacted with the substance of my response. If you don’t have time, that’s fine, otherwise, I’d be more interested to see how you deal with the points I laid out for you.

Just a quick aside.

Rap is a folk form. Disagree?

Darryl said: “But I’d prefer to have worldliness straight, not cut with Holy Unction.” This was over at the Front Porch Republic web site. I’ll nominate that as the best line I’ve read or heard so far in this new year. I almost fell out my chair with laughter. He was refering to the GC types who have high hopes for redeeming the rap and hip-hop culture. This fellow (his name is Lucretious or something like that) who is a Calvinist rapper has a moving story but one has to wonder if his emphasis is perhaps a bit misguided and more of a distraction from the deeper issues at stake (read: misconstruing the mission of the Church). I think Darryl’s essay at the Front Porch Republic is as many now say these days “spot on.”

The thing you gotta love about Hart is that he has the courage to put himself out there where the neo-Cals, emergents and charismatics can take aim and fire. I do not know any other 2kers (besides Zrim) who are doing that on a daily basis. I have learned more on this site in regards to defending a liturgical-confessional faith than any other. However, I am intrigued by this proto-protestant fellow. His site is well worth taking the time to browse a bit (http://www.proto-protestantism.blogspot.org).

That rappers name is LeCrae not Lucretious. As the lead article of this post stated.