"Are 'Christian' and 'rap' mutually exclusive? Hardly."
[schaitel] The fact is that Christian rap music has been around since at least 1986, this is nothing new. What is new is that the Christian rap music is getting more doctrinal and theological.You beat me to it—I was just about to say that I prefer a sharp stick in my eye to listening to country/SG/bluegrass!
For people like myself it is the Country music, Southern Gospel and Blue Grass type music that is weird and foreign.
Many of your comments give the impression to Christians of other cultures or age groups that “if you want to be a mature, Biblical Christian, you need to become like us” that is, dress like us, talk like us, listen to our kind of music, etc.
It is about personal preference and there are many different styles that the Christian can enjoy.
Matthew Richards
emphasis mine:
The point is that the standard of beauty is not in the mind of one person, who has the duty to serve as beauty policeman.
Beauty looks different to different people.
In the end, this all boils down to parsing the meaning of cultural elements. We discussed that http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=8591] Theoretically here and http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=8592] Practically here .
“David” makes reference to such ideas in the comments section on his blog:
But to turn to experts, musicologists, to discover this meaning is utterly ridiculous.
If music makes me “angry,” I’ll not use it. If music seems “silly,” I won’t use it for worship. If my friends feel these things though I do not, I will not use it with them. We use worship that we believe is appropriate.
Consider a large cohort of dedicated dedicated, sincere believers who have intelligent understandings of preaching, the authority of Scripture and better-than-average theological understandings. They perceive legitimate and appropriate worshipful meanings in chosen piece of music that accompanies their message. Now a musicologist says that there is a meaning that no one is perceiving.
[“David” at Towards Cons. Christianity] Later on in the interview it is suggested that artistic forms don’t submit to the same kind of absolute judgements as other things do. And this is partially true, but the truth it omits turns the flavour of the argument towards something less than true. Affective, and therefore artistic truth, is not explained in the black-and-white forms of propositional truth. To expect it to be so would be to expect it to be something other than art. However, does that mean it has no standard in God’s universe to be judged by? Is there no such thing as the true, the good and the beautiful? Is it impossible to approve the things that are excellent (Phil 1:10)?First off, no one is arguing that there is “no standard.” Nor are they arguing that there is no such thing as true. Or good. Or beautiful.
The point is that the standard of beauty is not in the mind of one person, who has the duty to serve as beauty policeman.
Beauty looks different to different people.
[“David” at Towards Cons. Christianity] What it fails to deal with is whether those loves are pleasing to God, or whether the culture in which they were shaped was pleasing to God. Some cultures have made a virtue of shrewd betrayal. If you grow up in this culture, you will know doubt love such a thing.“David” argues on the basis of an examle in which a cultural values something that Scripture condemns. But this example is a “black-and-white form of propositional truth.” So it really doesn’t support his contentions about art and culture.
In the end, this all boils down to parsing the meaning of cultural elements. We discussed that http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=8591] Theoretically here and http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=8592] Practically here .
“David” makes reference to such ideas in the comments section on his blog:
Second, we gather all the information we can on the medium we wish to use, so as to parse it for its meaning. This meaning can be simply an assigned meaning; it can be a meaning given by common convention or usage; it can be a meaning by association or it can be an intrinsic meaning. To have this information means going outside the Bible. The BIble gives me information on how to treat my body; I must go elsewhere to find the meaning of crack cocaine. When I bring true information on crack cocaine back to truth from Scripture, I can know how to apply Scripture to crack cocaine. In the same way, we’ll turn to experts: musicologists, composers, musical historians and ask them what particular kinds of music tend to communicate, how they developed, what their associated, conventional and even intrinsic meaning might be. They might even be unbelievers (we’re not asking them to tell us what is acceptable to God, we’re asking them to tell us what a certain piece of music achieves). Once we have this information, we can compare it with the Scriptural principles on communication, and see if the medium is a wise choice.I can agree with the idea that musical styles can convey meaning.
But to turn to experts, musicologists, to discover this meaning is utterly ridiculous.
If music makes me “angry,” I’ll not use it. If music seems “silly,” I won’t use it for worship. If my friends feel these things though I do not, I will not use it with them. We use worship that we believe is appropriate.
Consider a large cohort of dedicated dedicated, sincere believers who have intelligent understandings of preaching, the authority of Scripture and better-than-average theological understandings. They perceive legitimate and appropriate worshipful meanings in chosen piece of music that accompanies their message. Now a musicologist says that there is a meaning that no one is perceiving.
Dan,
I’m not sure why you seemed to make a point of my name with inverted commas at every mention of it, as if my identity is a mystery. Greg posted both my name and surname in his news post, and if you wanted to, you could have easily found me among the list of registered members, along with my church and affiliation. My blog does not focus on my identity only because I think it distracts from the ideas I share. (Besides, I put it up primarily for the members of my local church, who know me.) If more information is needed, simply message me and I’ll be happy to correspond.
The point that conservatives make is precisely what you dispute: that beauty does exist in the mind of someone: God. Even non-Christians like Plato had that idea - that truth, goodness and beauty exist, whether or not ‘the beholder’ is there to render judgement on it. Conservatives believe that truth, goodness and beauty are absolutes in the mind of God, and it is the glory of man to find them out. Post-moderns believe that there may be a sliver of truth in mathematical propositions. Some fundamentalists will grant that propositional truths from Scripture are absolutes. But goodness? Beauty? Never.
As to your dispute with the idea of going to musicologists, our difference seems to be in the area of competent judgement. It seems we both agree that once biblical authority is guiding us, we have to go beyond Scripture to judge what is appropriate. For you, it appears that a form of common sense is what renders the final judgement, if I understand you correctly. When you believe it is appropriate, you use it.
I think I do the same thing, but the issue is, what informs that belief? For me, I’d like to hear from people whose competence exceeds mine before I render a judgement. In other words, I am not an expert myself, but I need to hear from experts to make good and wise judgements. Aaron Copland cannot tell me if Yahweh deserves reverence, but he can help me understand when a piece of music achieves that effect.
Kindly,
David de Bruyn
I’m not sure why you seemed to make a point of my name with inverted commas at every mention of it, as if my identity is a mystery. Greg posted both my name and surname in his news post, and if you wanted to, you could have easily found me among the list of registered members, along with my church and affiliation. My blog does not focus on my identity only because I think it distracts from the ideas I share. (Besides, I put it up primarily for the members of my local church, who know me.) If more information is needed, simply message me and I’ll be happy to correspond.
The point that conservatives make is precisely what you dispute: that beauty does exist in the mind of someone: God. Even non-Christians like Plato had that idea - that truth, goodness and beauty exist, whether or not ‘the beholder’ is there to render judgement on it. Conservatives believe that truth, goodness and beauty are absolutes in the mind of God, and it is the glory of man to find them out. Post-moderns believe that there may be a sliver of truth in mathematical propositions. Some fundamentalists will grant that propositional truths from Scripture are absolutes. But goodness? Beauty? Never.
As to your dispute with the idea of going to musicologists, our difference seems to be in the area of competent judgement. It seems we both agree that once biblical authority is guiding us, we have to go beyond Scripture to judge what is appropriate. For you, it appears that a form of common sense is what renders the final judgement, if I understand you correctly. When you believe it is appropriate, you use it.
I think I do the same thing, but the issue is, what informs that belief? For me, I’d like to hear from people whose competence exceeds mine before I render a judgement. In other words, I am not an expert myself, but I need to hear from experts to make good and wise judgements. Aaron Copland cannot tell me if Yahweh deserves reverence, but he can help me understand when a piece of music achieves that effect.
Kindly,
David de Bruyn
[DaviddB] Aaron Copland cannot tell me if Yahweh deserves reverence, but he can help me understand when a piece of music achieves that effect.David, please explain this statement. How in the world can Aaron Copeland tell me if a piece of music achieves the effect of…(I’m not entirely clear on the meaning of your statement) revering Yahweh?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Greg,
Aaron Copland, as an accomplished musician, can help me understand how various combinations of melody, harmony, rhythm and tone colour combine to achieve various emotional effects. His books (since he is dead) help me understand ‘what to listen for in music’ (as one of them is entitled). He is able (and does) help one identify sounds that are flippant, serious, uproarious, sombre, playful, humourous, majestic, and so forth. So, even though Copland was not a professing believer, as a serious musician, he is qualified to guide one to understand how the iconic nature of music communicates emotions. This knowledge, combined with the Christian understanding of what affections are appropriate in worshipping God, will better help us to worship God musically. I don’t look to Copland to find out what is appropriate in worship. That I find in the Word of God and through the shared Christian tradition. But Copland (and many others) are helpful experts to understand what music does and how it does it.
Aaron Copland, as an accomplished musician, can help me understand how various combinations of melody, harmony, rhythm and tone colour combine to achieve various emotional effects. His books (since he is dead) help me understand ‘what to listen for in music’ (as one of them is entitled). He is able (and does) help one identify sounds that are flippant, serious, uproarious, sombre, playful, humourous, majestic, and so forth. So, even though Copland was not a professing believer, as a serious musician, he is qualified to guide one to understand how the iconic nature of music communicates emotions. This knowledge, combined with the Christian understanding of what affections are appropriate in worshipping God, will better help us to worship God musically. I don’t look to Copland to find out what is appropriate in worship. That I find in the Word of God and through the shared Christian tradition. But Copland (and many others) are helpful experts to understand what music does and how it does it.
Some of what DavidB says makes sense and some doesn’t to me.
It is true that different elements in music communicate different things (primary emotions). There are numerous studies that support this, and it would be easy enough to do other studies. It stands to reason that there are experts who are well versed in this kind of study who can help. Whether Copland is one of those experts is up for debate (I know at least one musicologist who would disagree). And that is the point; finding credible experts is difficult. Where are the experts that should be listened to? David, can you name one in Christianity?
To make things more difficult, music has communicated in different ways at different times and cultures. Music that might have communicated fear a few hundred years ago might communicate something very different today. In other words, there are no absolutes in the way music communicates. At best, we can determine how music communicates within our culture right now.
By the way, note that we are discussing whether music communicates primary emotions. This has nothing to do with whether music communicates morality or not. That is an entirely different discussion. So, what we are really discussing here is whether you can determine whether some music is appropriate for worship because of the emotions it communicates. I believe this is possible. Not easy, but possible.
But on the other hand, this idea of absolute beauty is just indefensible, regardless of what Plato or anyone else wrote. It goes against common sense and nature. It flies in the face of the idea that God created people with different tastes and cultures with different tastes. I can tell you that there is not one expert I will trust to tell me what beauty is. And there will never be any kind of consensus among experts of what beauty is.
That does not mean I reject absolute truth or absolute goodness. I fail to see how beauty fits into the same category. Trying to define beauty for the entire world is a dangerous proposition because there is no way to eliminate bias.
It is true that different elements in music communicate different things (primary emotions). There are numerous studies that support this, and it would be easy enough to do other studies. It stands to reason that there are experts who are well versed in this kind of study who can help. Whether Copland is one of those experts is up for debate (I know at least one musicologist who would disagree). And that is the point; finding credible experts is difficult. Where are the experts that should be listened to? David, can you name one in Christianity?
To make things more difficult, music has communicated in different ways at different times and cultures. Music that might have communicated fear a few hundred years ago might communicate something very different today. In other words, there are no absolutes in the way music communicates. At best, we can determine how music communicates within our culture right now.
By the way, note that we are discussing whether music communicates primary emotions. This has nothing to do with whether music communicates morality or not. That is an entirely different discussion. So, what we are really discussing here is whether you can determine whether some music is appropriate for worship because of the emotions it communicates. I believe this is possible. Not easy, but possible.
But on the other hand, this idea of absolute beauty is just indefensible, regardless of what Plato or anyone else wrote. It goes against common sense and nature. It flies in the face of the idea that God created people with different tastes and cultures with different tastes. I can tell you that there is not one expert I will trust to tell me what beauty is. And there will never be any kind of consensus among experts of what beauty is.
That does not mean I reject absolute truth or absolute goodness. I fail to see how beauty fits into the same category. Trying to define beauty for the entire world is a dangerous proposition because there is no way to eliminate bias.
David,
I appreciate your clear qualifier and beyond the science of music are many disciplines where a “Christian” perspective is not necessary in order for one to point to “higher orders” that certainly, in principle, have a closer approach to the Divine. Nature itself, in its simplest form, still reflects the principles to which you are referring which Copland recognizes and can assist us in formulating values for music, even that which is aimed toward spiritual edification.
There is a recognizable order, fair value assessment and hierarchical structure in every system and this includes music. It is only when one wishes to compensate for the inadequacies of their product that they begin questioning the validity of the process and assigned values. And while all processes need regular auditing or refinement, when wholesale questions about the capacity to even assign values is laid out as a defense for a product, one need no longer look at the product itself but the motivation behind it.
I suspect that one of the issues with music is that many people take the erring position that all assigned values are purely subjective therefore there can be no true measure of poor or excellent, crude or sophisticated and unacceptable or acceptable . And the result is that there is an attempt to are hoist or project personal tastes (often undeveloped) onto or into the science of music hence contentions are made with its objective findings. Of course this is ridiculous but the ridiculous never gets in the way of a foolish mind.
Often, I also suspect that it might indeed be that certain types of music manifest what is already thematic of the overall inferioriority of some cultures and it is simply unbearable for them to once again acknowledge this. This does not mean one should conclude there is absolutely no utilitarian value to Rap, that is not what is being said, rather its true position in regard to all order is being identified.
The reality of the human condition often involves our ego having to admit that either we are part of or enjoy certain forms of lower art and few readily admit this. But it does not mean there is a shame or should be since being lower on an order scale does not make something “bad”. That would be like criticizing the enjoyment of a rollercoaster. However falsely assigning virtues or engaging in a wholesale questioning of the capacity to assign such values to compensate for a product’s inferior nature isn’t health or objective in any context and only keeps a person self-deceived.
I appreciate your clear qualifier and beyond the science of music are many disciplines where a “Christian” perspective is not necessary in order for one to point to “higher orders” that certainly, in principle, have a closer approach to the Divine. Nature itself, in its simplest form, still reflects the principles to which you are referring which Copland recognizes and can assist us in formulating values for music, even that which is aimed toward spiritual edification.
There is a recognizable order, fair value assessment and hierarchical structure in every system and this includes music. It is only when one wishes to compensate for the inadequacies of their product that they begin questioning the validity of the process and assigned values. And while all processes need regular auditing or refinement, when wholesale questions about the capacity to even assign values is laid out as a defense for a product, one need no longer look at the product itself but the motivation behind it.
I suspect that one of the issues with music is that many people take the erring position that all assigned values are purely subjective therefore there can be no true measure of poor or excellent, crude or sophisticated and unacceptable or acceptable . And the result is that there is an attempt to are hoist or project personal tastes (often undeveloped) onto or into the science of music hence contentions are made with its objective findings. Of course this is ridiculous but the ridiculous never gets in the way of a foolish mind.
Often, I also suspect that it might indeed be that certain types of music manifest what is already thematic of the overall inferioriority of some cultures and it is simply unbearable for them to once again acknowledge this. This does not mean one should conclude there is absolutely no utilitarian value to Rap, that is not what is being said, rather its true position in regard to all order is being identified.
The reality of the human condition often involves our ego having to admit that either we are part of or enjoy certain forms of lower art and few readily admit this. But it does not mean there is a shame or should be since being lower on an order scale does not make something “bad”. That would be like criticizing the enjoyment of a rollercoaster. However falsely assigning virtues or engaging in a wholesale questioning of the capacity to assign such values to compensate for a product’s inferior nature isn’t health or objective in any context and only keeps a person self-deceived.
Thanks Greg. If I may respond with some interaction.
And quite frankly, there expression of our culture and of other cultures that are pathetic. Why should that be offensive? Not every cultural expression is good or worthy of thought. There are some things that are so absurd and pathetic that they can be readily dismissed. There are other things that can be considered in a short amount of time and deemed unworthy of further attention. Why is rap “worthy of our time and effort to understand”? I think this is a case where an argument is in order.
I personally find rap somewhat intriguing and creative, particularly Curtis Allen from whom I have heard a few things such as Romans 3. But worthy of a lot of time to study? Worthy of consideration for Christian worship or teaching? I am not sure that we need to put a lot of thought into that, but I will certainly entertain an argument if you make one.
The little secular rap I have heard is largely unintelligible and what little I have understood is often obscene. Why do you think that rap is used to express certain cultural values in the hip hop subculture? Why don’t they choose a style like Beethoven, or Shostakovich, or Dvorak? Is it possible that it’s because those styles of music are incompatible with what they want to communicate? Can you imagine marrying the message of rap with Beethoven? Or Dvorak? Isn’t that laughable? It is to me. But why? Perhaps that is worthy of development.
You say you don’t think anyone is a racist, and I will take your word for it, but the implications of bringing African Americans into it sure clouded that issue. No one said anything remotely connected to race until you brought it up, and it makes it somewhat difficult to think that there was not at least some tacit suggestion that race was in view.
The dismissive remarks from Aaron and Susan would be examples. As if rap is not even worth Aaron’s consideration and is not even music according to Susan.Not to be obtuse, but how is that offensive? What definition of “offensive” is being used? If someone doesn’t find interest in the things that I find interest in, that doesn’t offend me. So I am not sure why you are offended. Are you equally offended if someone doesn’t like Shostakovich and doesn’t think they need to study him to decide why? Or Wagner? Or Air Supply? Or Bon Jovi? I am not just clear on how this is offensive by any meaningful use of the term.
I am sure no one is a racist, but that comes across as implying that music from other cultures is so pathetic, it is not worth our time or effort to understand.Why do you think rap is from another culture? As I understand it rap is mostly an American thing that began in urban centers such as NYC. Over time, there became an east coast/west coast battle of sorts that even resulted in some murders didn it? Rap might be “sub-cultural” but it is not really from a different culture, per se.
And quite frankly, there expression of our culture and of other cultures that are pathetic. Why should that be offensive? Not every cultural expression is good or worthy of thought. There are some things that are so absurd and pathetic that they can be readily dismissed. There are other things that can be considered in a short amount of time and deemed unworthy of further attention. Why is rap “worthy of our time and effort to understand”? I think this is a case where an argument is in order.
I personally find rap somewhat intriguing and creative, particularly Curtis Allen from whom I have heard a few things such as Romans 3. But worthy of a lot of time to study? Worthy of consideration for Christian worship or teaching? I am not sure that we need to put a lot of thought into that, but I will certainly entertain an argument if you make one.
The little secular rap I have heard is largely unintelligible and what little I have understood is often obscene. Why do you think that rap is used to express certain cultural values in the hip hop subculture? Why don’t they choose a style like Beethoven, or Shostakovich, or Dvorak? Is it possible that it’s because those styles of music are incompatible with what they want to communicate? Can you imagine marrying the message of rap with Beethoven? Or Dvorak? Isn’t that laughable? It is to me. But why? Perhaps that is worthy of development.
You say you don’t think anyone is a racist, and I will take your word for it, but the implications of bringing African Americans into it sure clouded that issue. No one said anything remotely connected to race until you brought it up, and it makes it somewhat difficult to think that there was not at least some tacit suggestion that race was in view.
I am no expert on rap. It seems clear that none of us are.I don’t think enough has been said here to demonstrate that. I will accept your word that you are not an expert, but I can’t testify for others here. Furthermore, I am not sure how that is relevant. Rap is the expression of cultural values. The question seems pretty simple: How does the cultural values expressed in rap express the values of God?
I made that statement because in the arts, it is common that people have to understand before they can like. Modern classical music is an example as is some jazz. It sounds like noise until you understand it. If you talk to a rap artist (or listen to that interview), it is quite likely that you will discover that rap is a bit more sophisticated than some might give it credit for. Only when you understand the sophistication can you begin to appreciate it.I don’t think that is always true. Some things are simply clear on their face. There are some things in which a lack of understanding means we enjoy it more than when we do understand it and begin to examine some of the values expressed in it. So that is not to argue that we should eschew understanding, but simply to say that we should not hang too much weight on the argument that until we understand it we can’t dislike it or critique it.
Sorry, Dave, I didn’t see the other thread, which included your name. Your identity was a mystery to me, at least. I didn’t mean an insult by “”. I only meant to point out that we didn’t know whose views we were reading (though the train of thought bears similarity to Dr. Bauder’s address on affections last winter).
Here is from your second paragraph:
Same goes for Copland. As much as I enjoy him, to introduce his evidence, you will have to assert some basis for his expert status. Does he have transcendent revelation? A lot of smarts? Common Sense? Better opinions?
Apologies ahead of time to Joseph, but it seems like the Common Sense argument boils down to a means of foisting secular opinions and making it hard for anyone to say, “Come on people, think.”
I said before that “beauty” was too vague to distribute. You have to distinguish between divine beauty and human expressions that reflect that beauty, and then try to defend the idea that some human expressions most truly reflect divine beauty and are eternally expected from all humans.
Here is from your second paragraph:
[David B] The point that conservatives make is precisely what you dispute: that beauty does exist in the mind of someone: God.I believe you’re using “beauty” here in a a way that is too vague to distribute through the rest of your thinking.
[David B] Even non-Christians like Plato had that idea - that truth, goodness and beauty exist, whether or not ‘the beholder’ is there to render judgement on it.Why would I even need to bother refuting this? Did Plato have revelation? Was he really smart? Did he have more Common Sense?
Same goes for Copland. As much as I enjoy him, to introduce his evidence, you will have to assert some basis for his expert status. Does he have transcendent revelation? A lot of smarts? Common Sense? Better opinions?
Apologies ahead of time to Joseph, but it seems like the Common Sense argument boils down to a means of foisting secular opinions and making it hard for anyone to say, “Come on people, think.”
[David B] Conservatives believe that truth, goodness and beauty are absolutes in the mind of God, and it is the glory of man to find them out. Post-moderns believe that there may be a sliver of truth in mathematical propositions. Some fundamentalists will grant that propositional truths from Scripture are absolutes. But goodness? Beauty? Never.What Never?
I said before that “beauty” was too vague to distribute. You have to distinguish between divine beauty and human expressions that reflect that beauty, and then try to defend the idea that some human expressions most truly reflect divine beauty and are eternally expected from all humans.
A few responses, and then I’ll call it quits for this thread.
Dan:
No offence taken.
I am using beauty in its most general sense, since I’m arguing that beauty could be defined perfectly for us by God. That does not diminish the variety of beauty, or its many forms. It does not take away the fact that we will fail to approximate divine beauty with our very best attempts (which, I’m sure you’ll agree, does not excuse us from the task). It simply suggests that beauty is not a merely subjective psychological experience. I can’t really speak to whether or not anyone likes Plato or Copland. I mentioned those names as examples of the fact that it is possible for unbelievers to know truth. If it is an area where those unbelievers were especially competent, it is lawful and, indeed, prudent to hear them. I trust my dentist to know the truth about dental health. I do not demand he back up his every assertion with Scripture. If God had commanded that shining white teeth be a part of worship, I’d be having a lot more conversations with my dentist, who (in reality)happens to be a Muslim.
Since God has commanded that we use music to worship him, I’m happy to hear the conversations on music that have been going on from ancient times through to the present. I don’t need any of those experts to be a Christian to say true and right things about music. That’s been my point all along. Unbelievers can’t tell me what affections I ought to feel in worshipping God. Unbelieving musicians can tell me how to achieve a musical approximation of whatever emotion is sought. Therefore, once we have an understanding of what God deserves from a Spirit-filled understanding and application of Scripture, it is quite lawful to look to musical experts to hear how to represent those affections musically.
GregH:
I remember sharing your sentiments exactly not too long ago. I’d recommend C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man”. Lewis helps one see that if something is actually beautiful in reality, then it deserves a particular response. If no such beauty exists except as a psychological phenomenon inside a human brain, then all sense of ‘oughtness’ collapses. We cannot rightly praise, if all we are talking about is inward sensations. Also, I commend to your thinking the whole discipline of aesthetics, which is a futile pursuit if it is seeking to define what only neuroscientists will ever do. Again, perhaps get your hands on the smallish book “Beauty” by Roger Scruton, to understand the perspective I’m arguing for.
Blessings on your Lord’s Day,
David
Dan:
No offence taken.
I am using beauty in its most general sense, since I’m arguing that beauty could be defined perfectly for us by God. That does not diminish the variety of beauty, or its many forms. It does not take away the fact that we will fail to approximate divine beauty with our very best attempts (which, I’m sure you’ll agree, does not excuse us from the task). It simply suggests that beauty is not a merely subjective psychological experience. I can’t really speak to whether or not anyone likes Plato or Copland. I mentioned those names as examples of the fact that it is possible for unbelievers to know truth. If it is an area where those unbelievers were especially competent, it is lawful and, indeed, prudent to hear them. I trust my dentist to know the truth about dental health. I do not demand he back up his every assertion with Scripture. If God had commanded that shining white teeth be a part of worship, I’d be having a lot more conversations with my dentist, who (in reality)happens to be a Muslim.
Since God has commanded that we use music to worship him, I’m happy to hear the conversations on music that have been going on from ancient times through to the present. I don’t need any of those experts to be a Christian to say true and right things about music. That’s been my point all along. Unbelievers can’t tell me what affections I ought to feel in worshipping God. Unbelieving musicians can tell me how to achieve a musical approximation of whatever emotion is sought. Therefore, once we have an understanding of what God deserves from a Spirit-filled understanding and application of Scripture, it is quite lawful to look to musical experts to hear how to represent those affections musically.
GregH:
I remember sharing your sentiments exactly not too long ago. I’d recommend C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man”. Lewis helps one see that if something is actually beautiful in reality, then it deserves a particular response. If no such beauty exists except as a psychological phenomenon inside a human brain, then all sense of ‘oughtness’ collapses. We cannot rightly praise, if all we are talking about is inward sensations. Also, I commend to your thinking the whole discipline of aesthetics, which is a futile pursuit if it is seeking to define what only neuroscientists will ever do. Again, perhaps get your hands on the smallish book “Beauty” by Roger Scruton, to understand the perspective I’m arguing for.
Blessings on your Lord’s Day,
David
[Dan Miller] Apologies ahead of time to Joseph, but it seems like the Common Sense argument boils down to a means of foisting secular opinions and making it hard for anyone to say, “Come on people, thinkDan,
I cannot in any way grasp what you’re suggesting here. Are you saying that David’s position is endorsing some form of Common Sense Realism?
[Michael Riley] Dan,I’m not sure. I only mentioned it because David said to me:
I cannot in any way grasp what you’re suggesting here. Are you saying that David’s position is endorsing some form of Common Sense Realism?
[DaviddB (here, post #49] As to your dispute with the idea of going to musicologists, our difference seems to be in the area of competent judgement. It seems we both agree that once biblical authority is guiding us, we have to go beyond Scripture to judge what is appropriate. For you, it appears that a form of common sense is what renders the final judgement, if I understand you correctly. When you believe it is appropriate, you use it.I don’t know if he is referring to Common Sense Realism, or only to common sense.
Either way, David indicates that “common sense” is “beyond Scripture.” So it echos Bauder somewhat:
[Bauder - WWW-7 And Now This] As Christians granted epistemological priority to the immanent order, they lost their sense of the numinous almost completely. Natural observation displaced revelation as the instrument by which they organized their knowledge of the world.So, yeah, I think David is right in what I quoted there. That is, we both rely on natural revelation to know when the things required or prohibited in Biblical Revelation are present in music.
We differ on the extent of weight we’ll put on:
- our own perceptions of meaning in music and that of those we worship with
- what experts (musicologists) tell us about meaning in music.
So, to answer your question (Are you saying that David’s position is endorsing some form of CSR?), if relying on natural revelation means some form of CSR, then yeah, (but we both are).
Wow….I don’t check on sharper iron for a few days, and I miss on a conversation about Rap music and Christianity. I am going to make a few comments to dispel a few misnomers that have been made on this sight in no particular order. First, the comment from Susan that Rap or Hip-Hop is not really music but chantingv (I’m assuming because it has no melodic or harmony). That is not true. Most Hip-Hop artists that are rapping also have several songs that include choruses or bridges where there is singing, usually a form of R&B. In fact, I’ve heard hip-hop/rap artists have the majority of a song be more R&B and only a small portion of it include a rap.
Second, Larry you make the case that why don’t rappers use a medium of classical music like Dvorak?….Well, actually they do but by using sampling. They will take a section of a more famous classical music as the basis and build a beat around it in order to rap to it. Ludicris for example, has a song were he uses both Mozart’s Requiem and Dvorak’s New World Symphony. Kiliis uses Mozart’s magic flute (yes, opera), Coolio uses Pachelbel’s Canon in D, and Mike Skinner (also known as the streets) uses a sample from Bartok’s Concerto for Ochestra.
Third, David in his response to this interview, ends with “I can tell you that what people need is not more of the same, but a transcendant alternative.I can tell you that what people need is not more of the same, but a transcendent alternative.” However, I would argue that if listeners took the time to certain artists such as Shai Linne, Cross-movement, LaCrae, etc…..they would find the transcendent within the poetry. In fact Mark Dever (I believe it is somewhere in the middle of the interview) comments about this when he begins to rave about the theological richness and the play on words that happens in Christian Hip-Hop. The only comparison that I can make is the play on words that many black preachers employ when they preach, such as S.M. Lockridge’s That’s my King. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzqTFNfeDnE However, with Christian Hip-Hop, there is a richness in the poetry even as it is built on a drumbeat and bass (with aspects of R@B, Black Gospel, etc……) I am with Dever on this one.
Fourth, even though Hip-Hop is global and multi-cultural, its roots are African-American and its core audience is African American. For most African-Americans 40 and younger Hip-Hop is not just a music genre, it is a worldview. It is life. Therefore, when people that don’t take the time to really understand the genre and dismiss it as garbage, to most of my godly African-American friends, those comments come across as ethnocentric and they avoid Christians who hold to these views because they don’t want to get into an argument and as one of my friends put it, “be perceived as an “Angry Black Man.” Even older African-Americans that don’t particularly like Hip-Hop remember the arguments made against Soul music in their day feel this way…. I could be wrong, but maybe that is why there are so few self-identifying African-American fundamentalists?
Second, Larry you make the case that why don’t rappers use a medium of classical music like Dvorak?….Well, actually they do but by using sampling. They will take a section of a more famous classical music as the basis and build a beat around it in order to rap to it. Ludicris for example, has a song were he uses both Mozart’s Requiem and Dvorak’s New World Symphony. Kiliis uses Mozart’s magic flute (yes, opera), Coolio uses Pachelbel’s Canon in D, and Mike Skinner (also known as the streets) uses a sample from Bartok’s Concerto for Ochestra.
Third, David in his response to this interview, ends with “I can tell you that what people need is not more of the same, but a transcendant alternative.I can tell you that what people need is not more of the same, but a transcendent alternative.” However, I would argue that if listeners took the time to certain artists such as Shai Linne, Cross-movement, LaCrae, etc…..they would find the transcendent within the poetry. In fact Mark Dever (I believe it is somewhere in the middle of the interview) comments about this when he begins to rave about the theological richness and the play on words that happens in Christian Hip-Hop. The only comparison that I can make is the play on words that many black preachers employ when they preach, such as S.M. Lockridge’s That’s my King. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzqTFNfeDnE However, with Christian Hip-Hop, there is a richness in the poetry even as it is built on a drumbeat and bass (with aspects of R@B, Black Gospel, etc……) I am with Dever on this one.
Fourth, even though Hip-Hop is global and multi-cultural, its roots are African-American and its core audience is African American. For most African-Americans 40 and younger Hip-Hop is not just a music genre, it is a worldview. It is life. Therefore, when people that don’t take the time to really understand the genre and dismiss it as garbage, to most of my godly African-American friends, those comments come across as ethnocentric and they avoid Christians who hold to these views because they don’t want to get into an argument and as one of my friends put it, “be perceived as an “Angry Black Man.” Even older African-Americans that don’t particularly like Hip-Hop remember the arguments made against Soul music in their day feel this way…. I could be wrong, but maybe that is why there are so few self-identifying African-American fundamentalists?
Thank you, Joel. An informative post and a great perspective. I, too, thought some of the posts on this thread were extremely dismissive and would be, to some degree or another, offensive to African-American Christians, but I don’t have the background or knowledge to make that case effectively.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Second, Larry you make the case that why don’t rappers use a medium of classical music like Dvorak?Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I didn’t make that case (at least I don’t think I did and didn’t intend to). I was asking a question hoping that Greg would interact on the issue. I am not sure I have a concrete answer, though I think it is at least somewhat self-evident.
Well, actually they do but by using sampling. They will take a section of a more famous classical music as the basis and build a beat around it in order to rap to it. Ludicris for example, has a song were he uses both Mozart’s Requiem and Dvorak’s New World Symphony. Kiliis uses Mozart’s magic flute (yes, opera), Coolio uses Pachelbel’s Canon in D, and Mike Skinner (also known as the streets) uses a sample from Bartok’s Concerto for Ochestra.But this isn’t really the issue, is it? I am asking about the issue of genre or style. You are responding about the issue of using a sequence of notes from another source. The fact that Coolio uses the sequence of notes in Pachelbel’s Canon does not mean that he is using the style of Pachelbel’s Canon as it has been traditionally performed. And I am not saying necessarily whether one or the other is right or wrong. Again, I am merely pointing out what seems a significant difference.
Many here might remember (and might have though you don’t have to admit it) one of the “Hooked On …” recordings from years ago, where pieces of classical music were performed in a non-traditional style predominantly created by the use of rhythm. The sequence of notes and the timing was virtually identical, but the atmosphere/mood/affect was entirely different. And the difference was noticeable.
So while a rap artist may use a sequence of notes, isn’t he clearly employing it in a different style? And that is what I am referring to.
For most African-Americans 40 and younger Hip-Hop is not just a music genre, it is a worldview. It is life.I think here, perhaps unwittingly, you have hit on the core issue. It is about a worldview, a life. It is not merely a neutral thing for them. It is a style that expresses their values and their life, and the way that they think about life. It is a style that speaks to or grows from a particular view of life.
Is that life from which this music springs and which this music addresses consistent with the gospel? That is really the question that must be answered. I wonder if it is not more complex than some here are allowing. The charge of “dismissiveness” might be equally applied to both sides here.
Therefore, when people that don’t take the time to really understand the genre and dismiss it as garbageWhat about those who don’t really take time to understand it and accept it as good? Is that also bad?
You see, I think there is an assumption here: “Rap is acceptable … now you prove it wrong.” We assume that anyone who disagrees with it does so for cultural and racial reasons. I am not sure that is a valid approach to discussion. Scott Aniol addresses this in a post this morning about cultural preferences being tainted by depravity. I am not on board with everything Scott says, but I think he is at least thoughtful on the issues, and this is a particularly good point. We talk about “mere preference” as if it is French Vanilla coffee vs. regular black coffee (both decaffeinated so we stay away from the drug dependency issue). But is it really “mere preference”? I think that case actually has to be made. Someone (particularly Calvinists) have
… maybe that is why there are so few self-identifying African-American fundamentalists?I am not sure that this is true. I think there are some other factors, including some racial issues from earlier parts of the century. But there are very few that would self-identify as fundamentalists to begin with, and much of who we identify with has to do with our upbringing, our salvation experience, etc. So I think it is more complex than “They don’t like my music.”
Thanks, Joel.
Discussion