Mohler: "people who would argue about the unworthiness of rap music often think of Bach as the quintessential Christian musician"

I. Good Music Must be True (avlhqh,j—true, truthful, honest; real, genuine)

Truth and truthfulness are the first standards by which we are to judge an artistic work. In secular pop culture many songs croon about the pleasures of one-night stands and sinful relationships while ignoring God’s moral viewpoint of those relationships and the tragic consequences of guilt, illegitimate births, abortion, divorce, violence and the welfare state. We must remember that the so-called “real world” is not the temporal one which will be judged by God and burned with fire, but is the eternal one where we strive for God’s ideal in the present age and will experience in its maturity during the age to come. Truth is what God has said or would say about any fact in the universe.

Truth and truthfulness are particularly necessary in sacred music. Jesus prayed, “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.” We must not communicate in our musical lyrics that man is his own ultimate savior as he arrogantly decides whether or not he will open the door of his heart to a weak and powerless “Jesus”. It is God who ultimately opens hearts and illumines human minds, drawing men and women to His Son through the Gospel and the effectual work of the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:1-4).

A common deception in sacred music is the “easy love” syndrome. Love is described by many Christian artists in every possible way except as obedience to God: “If you love me, you will keep My commandments” (Jn 14:15). Such a shallow and varied understanding of God’s love leads to marital unfaithfulness and emotional sentimentality which has plagued the Christian music industry in particular and the Christian Church in general. Theologian, Alva McClain, once defined biblical love as “That quality in God which moves Him to give of Himself and His gifts to creatures made in His own image – to give sacrificially, eternally, righteously, and unconditionally, without regard as to merit or response.” You seldom hear of Christian love sung in those kinds of terms today on the typical Christian radio station.

II. Good Music Must be Honorable (semno,j— noble, of good character, honorable, worthy, respectable)

Good music goes beyond mediocrity. It has outstanding musical qualities. It is well-crafted, polished, inspiring the hearts of its listeners to noble character and affections. The opposite of nobility and honor is to be shallow, banal, simplistic, and trivial. Too often Christian music aims for the lowest common denominator in a hedonistic pop culture resulting in the loss of aesthetic beauty.

If Christian music fulfills its so-called mission of evangelism by adding salvific Christian cliches to poorly crafted music, then the very question of the quality of the music itself is ignored by Christian leaders today. The assumption is that the Lord has no aesthetic concern for excellence, beauty, loveliness, attractiveness, or an honorable reputation.

III. Good Music Must be Righteous and Just (di,kaioj—conforming to the standard, will, or character of God; upright, righteous, good; just, right; proper; fair, honest; innocent)

Much secular music today could not be considered righteous or just when it comes to social issues, egalitarianism, multi-culturalism, or environmentalism. Nature worship, the noble savage, the insightful street bum are all common themes in pop, rock, and modern country. Popular music in Western society usually reflects the wrong ideas of our culture, the unjust notion of calling good evil and evil good. Right from wrong is mitigated as relativism is propagated resulting in the graying of absolutes. We should not be surprised that suicidal music became very popular in the styles of grunge and metal.

IV Good Music Must be Pure (a`gno,j —pure, holy; chaste; innocent)

Good music should promote purity in thought, word, and deed. The MTV video clearly demonstrates that most pop, rock, modern country is impure. Immodesty, sensuality, vulgarity, and brutality abound in the visual displays of these musical performances. The music videos embody a chaotic, fragmented view of God’s world where the moment is all that matters, and sex and death are what sell best. There is little portrayal of human relationships or the world as God would view them. Art communicates ideas through the mind to the affections and ideas have consequences. One famous secular musician defined MTV as “vulgarians entertaining barbarians.”

V. Good Music Must be Beautiful (prosfilh —lovely, that which causes delight)

This concept applies to well-crafted, poetical lines and to the melody, arrangement, instrumentation, and performance of the piece of music. There has been a neglect of training young people, particularly young men, in music because we have a deep misconception about the true nature of beauty. Young men are well-trained today in a culture of blood, but they are largely ignorant regarding beauty, music, art, and literature. The word on the street is that aesthetic appreciation is at best “for sissies”. However, beauty is beyond sugar and spice and everything nice. Beauty reflects both masculine and feminine qualities. Beauty is born of divine, almighty power. There would be no creation, no flowers, no birds, no mountains, no oceans and no stars were it not for the power of God’s voice calling them into existence and sustenance. Both the rose pedal and the mighty redwood were made and sustained by the beauty of God’s almighty imagination and creative power. The power of God’s voice was so great that the Israelites asked Moses to speak with them himself lest they die (Ex 20:19).

What makes a song lovely, delightful, and beautiful? Melody is the key to the beauty of a song. Arrangement, instrumentation, and performance follow the beauty of the melodic line. Great production cannot redeem a poorly crafted melody. A good melody is gripping and memorable so that it may be recalled for meditation. Beauty which is easily forgotten is not very beneficial.

Secondly, melody must be well crafted into a finished arrangement decently and in order according to the accepted principles of music theory and composition. It takes a great deal of musical skill and training to have dominion over the art of music and thereby produce songs that are lovely.

VI. Good Music Must be Admirable (eu;fhmoj —worthy of praise, commendable, with deference to the transcendent, out of respect for those of high status)

When the standard of Christian music becomes evangelism rather than excellence, then the art is no longer categorized as being good or bad, excellent or mediocre. Rather, it is simply categorized as being secular or sacred. Those who have an appreciation for good art and good music often lose respect for the Christian music world simply because Christian music sometimes lacks excellence in melody, craft, composition, and skillful performance. It is simply not admirable, worthy of praise or deferent to that which is transcendent. Admirable music stimulates one’s thoughts and emotions in edification and sanctification. It captures one’s attention in a positive and relevant way.

VII. Good Music Must be Virtuous (avreth, — moral excellence, goodness) and Worthy of Praise (e;painoj —commendation, approval; a praiseworthy thing)

These two terms summarize the six previous excellencies. Virtuous, praiseworthy music leads man toward God and an appreciation of His attributes. It communicates God’s view of the world as opposed to man’s view of the world. God’s Word provides the spectacles with which we can properly interpret God’s world and thereby accurately reflect the biblical world view in our artistic expressions and appreciation. Rather than pitting God’s Word against God’s World, we should reflect God’s World through the lenses of God’s Word.

In a materialistic universe paintings are mere collections of different molecules. Musical notes are merely different frequencies of sound. For the materialist there are no absolutes at all, no truth, no virtue, no right or wrong, no beauty or ugliness, because in a purely materialistic world there is no Creator. To a secular materialist a cesspool and a garbage dump are theoretically as lovely or unlovely as a rainbow and sunset. Only in a Christian world view can truth, beauty, loveliness, and laws be accounted for as reflections of the character of the God of the Bible.

On account of common and saving grace, both unbelievers and believers can produce good art. The distinction, however, is that good art produced by an unbeliever cannot be considered a good work. Nevertheless, the art itself can still be objectively good. Good works, however, must be done in faith for the glory of God. On the other hand, the believer may at times be deceived by the world in which he lives and actually produce art based on a non-Christian world view, thereby reflecting the meaninglessness, ugliness, and relativism so prevalent in a non-Christian world view. Those who constantly reiterate that artistic expression does not have moral influence over the affections, thoughts, ideas, and values of its audience fall into this category.

Christians should endeavor to produce good art which is also a good work (Col 3:23; 1 Cor 10:31). We need Christians that will work at their craft with intelligence, skill, beauty, creativity, and virtue. John Adams once said, “I must study politics and war that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy … in order to give their sons a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.” Adams knew that in a lawless and pagan society good art and good music do not flourish. Art is religion externalized— a reflection of the values, beliefs, and ideas of a culture. For this reason we must encourage Christian artists to achieve their calling with excellence and virtue.

My post was about worship in general, with an emphasis on music. When I spoke about dress, I wasn’t speaking about rap artists. When I spoke about prayer and preaching, I wasn’t speaking about rap artists. I was speaking about our entire locus of worship (prayer, dress, music, preaching) in general and what our aim should be. My post was not a rant against rap music, nor was I attacking those who disagree with me. Behold my quote here, from my post:

Once we allow this perspective to shape our thinking, then in my experience, this entire issue becomes quite clear. The notion that we must be “relevant” becomes irrelevant. Our whole perspective on worship, beyond just music, will change.

I then proceeded with pertinent examples about how our entire focus of worship, encompassing preaching, dress, music and prayer, needs to be re-examined in light of this new perspective. You misread my entire post and missed the point.

God bless.

Tyler,

I am sorry that I misunderstood you. You realize that you began your post with “Christian Rap? No” and then proceeded to give your view on worship? I assumed that you were explaining the many reasons why you didn’t approve of Christian Rap…..

The same fallen culture that gives us Bach, Jazz and County gives us Rap/Hip-Hop.

Hank Williams, Johann Sebastian, and Tupac came out of different cultures. All were fallen, yes, but they were not the same.

Like eschatology, any discussion of music on a blog forum will inevitably degenerate and become unprofitable. I weighed in against my better judgment, and I shall now bow out of this particular discussion. I am well aware that my opinion is a minority one, which some will erroneously attribute to my allegedly ignorant fundamentalist mindset. To each his own; let each man examine the purpose and aim of corporate worship and come to his own conclusions, prayerfully. Wish all you the best in your various ministries.

Arriverdeci

My Personal Take on Rap and Hip-Hop as Worship Forms

Although he is clearly outside of Christian Hip-Hop and culture, I appreciate Mark’s insight to certain extent (even though I mostly disagree with him) because there is a grain of truth to his 3 culprits. It should serve as a warning of what could happen to those of us that are utilizing Christian Hip-Hop and are ministering among the Hip-Hop culture if we were to make the horizontal primary above the worship of God, if we were to fully embrace a Neo-Kuyperian view of culture, and if we were to embrace a celebrity mentality. The problem with Mark’s insight is that it hasn’t happened yet (maybe a little on the Neo-Kuyperianism) Lets look at his 3 culprits.

Evangelicalism that makes the horizontal of evangelism and edification trump the proper worship of God. In all of our interactions with Christian Hip-Hop artists (which happens a lot because of our commonality of inner-city ministry and many are involved in church plants all over the cities of our nation) they are not only aware of the dangers of pragmatism and culture trumping the authority and sufficiency of scripture, there is an intentionality to make sure God is honored and valued above everything in worship. Many of the artists were turned off by health and wealth COGIC churches in their neighborhood which they completely rejected. Many have studied the regulative and the normative principles of worship. Most are like Shai Linne in their approach,resisting “arguments that are grounded in pragmatism, personal preference or the wisdom of man, if it is in conflict with the plain teaching of Scripture.” Therefore this culprit has not yet happened.

Neo-Kuyperianism. Having lived in Grand Rapids in the shadow of Calvin College for 25+ years, I have first-hand experience with true Neo-Kuyperians. Redeeming Culture is the over-riding motivation for most of the social work and Christian community development work that is being done by much of the Christian community in Grand Rapids, Holland, Muskegon, and etc…. I am blown away by how Neo-Kuyperians don’t seem to know how the gospel even applies to social work and community development. As for those within Christian Hip-Hop? I do not deny that redeeming hip-hop culture is a desire of many. But to most of them, redeeming culture is the fruit of the gospel, (except for the minority Presbyterian wing of the group). As lives transformed by the gospel of Christ, families change. As families change, communities change, as communities change the culture changes. As to Mark’s accusation that these Neo-Kuyperians believe that there is nothing profane in culture and that all cultures equally good or neutral, can you show me where that has been said? Maybe I missed something. Often times the conversations are along the lines of what Shai Linne states in his dialogue with Scot. A. http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-music/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-can-music-be-sinful-rebuttal/

Celebrity-To make the claim that there is no possible way that rap or hip-hop can exists unless it is celebrity rap with a focus on the individual demonstrates the lack of interaction with those of us that incorporate Christian Hip-Hop into worship. It operates like a special music, a testimony in song or as Scott A has stated in his book, “a musical offering.” Whenever someone in our congregation has used hip-hop as an expression of worship in our church, we provide the lyrics on the screen. Some of the most powerful testimonies of how God radically changed a person’s life through the gospel is poetically captured within Hip-Hop at our church. There are now songs within Hip-Hop were a verses are done in rap combined with a chorus sung by the congregation. My question for Mark is, would he also then say that special music such as a vocal or instrumental solo has no place in the church? What about a solo leading into hymn or praise song? If not, why not Christian Hip-Hop in the ways I described above?

I have more to say, I will hold back for now…….

Jay,

I have followed your comments, and hope you won’t mind if I offer some thoughts here.

The reason that we have to start with Phil 4:8 is that we must affirm with Paul the aesthetic that beauty, purity, truth, etc., can be objectively known. If there are things, (such as art), that are lovely, pure, truthful, and honorable, then there must be things that are not, and we can know the difference.

Actually, rappers would not, and do not make the argument that the music in their performances is lovely, morally good or anything else from that list. First, there is little actual music in what they do. Second, like all those who speak in the general idiom of pop culture (i.e., rock music), they don’t make the argument that what they do is morally good. They don’t believe that there is such as thing as objectively knowable moral qualities, in their performances, or in any other. All of them are moral relativists with respect to music. Musical moral relativists, such as rappers and their fans, would say that what they like is good because they like it.

To your question, how do we know what is good (in music), I think we can begin by asserting that the medium as well as the message, the form as well as the content, must conform to the same standards, and those standards must come from Scripture. Let’s keep in mind that rap is one of the rooms in the House of Rock. And when it comes to rock, the medium itself has very clear moral implications. As Time magazine put it, “In a sense, all rock is revolutionary. By its very beat and sound it has always implicitly rejected restraints and has celebrated freedom and sexuality.”

I’m not going to rehearse all the details of this argument here. My point is that the intrinsic qualities of the medium of rap are well known, and they are subject to the same objective scrutiny as are the words. There is no mystery here. Defining “good” and “bad” is really not that difficult once we affirm that praiseworthy, excellent art has objective qualities rooted in creation that allow us to recognize them. For further help on this subject, I recommend, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes by Ken Myers.

You make some pretty far-reaching assumptions about Reformed Rappers. I don’t think they would recognize themselves in your summary of their beliefs about music and theology.
You should read what Reformed rappers have to say about their music, theology, and philosophy. They are seeking to glorify God and they do believe that they can do it with their music. Many of them are very intentional and exact in their process and theology.

http://westernconservatory.com/articles/brotherly-word

Yes, there have been two apologies now from panel members. I guess they saw how misplaced their comments were.

Todd,

You misunderstood. Perhaps I should have been a little clearer that I was not referencing the Reformed rappers’ theology and intentions, which are praiseworthy. No doubt they, like the non-Christian rappers whose style has influenced them, feel that rap “music” is a natural expression of their experience, and for that reason, it is good. I don’t need to assume anything. The standard defense of the Reformed rappers is essentially the same as has always been made of pop cultures music styles: “The style (medium) is neither morally good or bad. It’s good because I like it, or bcause it comes from my culture or because it is an effective vehicle for my words.” This is essentially the position that Shai Linne is taking in his discussion with Scott Aniol.

The premise of that thinking should be graciously but firmly challenged. When Paul wrote Philippians 4:8, he did not say to think on those things that you feel or believe are pure, lovely, honorable, etc., but rather, those things that are pure, lovely and honorable. How can we make sense of what Paul wrote if we do not affirm that cultural expressions have intrinsic qualities that are good or bad in a moral sense that we can know? On what basis can we put musical style in a special category that shields it from any moral scrutiny? To be sure, judgments must be made humbly, carefully and on Biblical rather than strictly cultural grounds, which apparently was not done in the panel discussion at issue.

The discussion going on between Linne and Aniol is a rare and welcome change from the way the topic of musical style is usually discussed. Both brothers are humble, articulate, careful, and serious about reading Scripture well. I l expect this discussion to shed a lot of light and little if any heat, and I look forward to reading it all the way through.

You are still making pretty far-reaching assumptions. Rappers such as Shai Linne and LeCrae have publicly stated the importance of making good art for the glory of God. To play or perform skillfully for God’s glory. I have heard them in person give lectures. Here is even one article where Shai Linne makes this case. http://lyricaltheology.blogspot.com/2011/10/skills-or-message.html

You have created a straw-man to argue against and misinterpreting Shai Linne rather than dealing with what he and others truly believe. Just because you haven’t heard them make certain arguments about the aesthetics of music doesn’t mean they haven’t made them.

Thanks for clarifying, Stephen. However, I don’t think that you’ve really developed your original statements.

You accused Reformed rappers of moral relativism…I understand that to be a direct result of post-modernism….nothing is right or wrong. That is very different from suggesting that objects do not have inherent morality.

I think it is dangerous to assume that objects have inherent morality (without context). For example, a gun is not a moral or immoral object. It takes on morality when used for good or evil. Similarly, I am hard pressed to find music being intrinsically moral. On what basis do we assign morality to a collection of auditory imports? The Hallelujah Chorus arouses certain feelings within modern western society. That collection of sounds did not conjure up the same emotions for Medieval Christianity or for Modern Chinese Christianity.
The problem with using Philippians 4:8 is that it doesn’t solve anything. Philippians 4:8 does state that all things should glorify God through their purity, goodness, etc. Philippians 4:8 does not quantify that in any way. We are forced to make modern day applications of the principles of that passage. Paul most assuredly did not have American gospel songs (or even English hymns) in mind when he wrote this verse.

Principles are timeless; applications are culturally bound. That is the major breakdown in Aniol’s paradigm. He does not make proper allowances for time and culture. Somewhat anachronistically, he assumes that standards of beauty (from his chronological and cultural context) are the same standards of beauty that Paul valued and God ordained. We all agree that music should have beauty and that it should be pleasing to God. But Aniol then conjures up a form of that beauty that fits his context.