The New Fundamentalism of “Religious Affections”

[TylerR]

Joel:

If you wish to act as Bixby’s translator, please advice him that he should identify who he is speaking to! I took it that he was speaking to fundamentalism in general. Apparently he had a single ministry in mind. Even at that, I think he came acrosss as very angry and downright enraged.

Many of you here apparently know the man and understand where he coming from. I don’t know him. All I saw was a very angry man who built up straw men and tore them down with wild abandon. No matter your position, this is not a helpful or constructive way to dialogue.

If I wrote a similar screed, railing against the CCM, using the same tone and straw men to impugn the motives and intent of those who advocate it, would it be received favorably here? I doubt it. I would be rightly criticized.

Your problem would be that those who use CCM don’t say that the starchy fundies are doing it wrong. We would not separate with churches or missionaries who chose to use traditional music for worship. Your comparison holds zero weight because there is really only one side here who thinks they have the absolute truth in regards to worship. So I say go for it if you want to make the same case against CCM—it would be fun to pick it apart.

Matthew

[Bob Hayton]

My alma mater still forbids interracial dating, although it is a small college not “prominent.”

But Crown College could claim to be prominent. Here’s their current rule about it from their handbook:

Interracial dating must be approved in writing and
verbally by the parents of both students.

My point isn’t that all of fundamentalism is racist. It is that some think along the lines of a culture that affirms the Bible [namely Western, European culture] produces inherently better musical forms. That position could be open to the charge of racism - it would certainly be good to explore if that could be lurking around the assumption that only particular worship forms (which tend to be the musical patterns of White Europeans) are acceptable for worship around the world.

My point is that it isn’t “playing the race card” to question the race side of the equation in all this. Someone else asked for proof that this mentality exists - that this group or others actually are about European music forms as opposed to others. I tried to demonstrated that this very thing seems to be hinted at in some of RAM’s writings and opinions stated by real people.

As for my point, you’ve helped prove it, in part. Is there not some latent racism in your comments here:

Your approach of constructed so prejudicially that it is ludicrous to begin with.

But since we are on Anglo forms, have you considered the possibility of their superiority? Is that possible? After all, in all other venues of life they seem to have advanced beyond the crudeness of the cultures of others. Tsk tsk, we better not go there, eh?

Elevated culture is not a spiritual phenomenon. It does not require spiritual eyes for one to distinguish simple and beautiful from crude and base or sophisticated, complex but organized and magnificent from busy and complicated but obscure and unrefined.

Don’t misunderstand me. This is probably more an evidence of elitism than racism. But certainly you can see how someone would look at this and see racism there. That doesn’t mean you are speaking from a racist heart - but you have stated things in such a way as to be open to being questioned about it. And to say so isn’t to play a race card. You are advocating the superiority of Anglo forms. Doesn’t that sound like it might be racist?

HAC has the same wording as Crown for their ban on interracial dating. Funny part is that I don’t believe someone who is Caucasian needs permission to date any other race but those who are African American.

Matthew

[Greg Long]

Personally I think the whole racist argument is a distraction from his main points.

You are probably correct. It wasn’t his main point. You have to wonder when that is singled out and defended in such a fierce way, though…

It helps me in seeing that before we get too connected, to a particular form, we should stop and make sure this isn’t involved. Is it about us - as Jay is hinting at above, or is it really about Biblical principles that span all of the world’s varied ethinicities and cultures?

I think I’ll stop with that on this tangent, now. Thanks.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Bob Hayton]

ing form and given to another culture. I don’t think that’s a possibility, nor do I think it happens anywhere in the world.

Now in my view they aren’t explicitly teaching one culture’s view of music only - but they emphasize the one culture and the development of its pristine form (which came to culmination in the time period I mentioned). They come awful close to teaching something like this here - and I’ve seen others who have come out and stated this.

On my blog back in 2006, a pastor who is a prolific blogger, stated this:

I reject 10th to 15th century Euro culture. I reject present American culture. I reject Asian culture. I reject African culture. I accept essentially 16th to 18th century Euro culture and 19th century English culture.

From which you stunningly deduced this is the collective mindset of fundamentalism? You scholarship is absolutely amazingly embarassing here to say the least.

Alex, Bob never said this was the “collective mindset of fundamentalism.” He was responding to someone’s assertion that Bixby’s arguments don’t apply to anyone he knows. Bob merely pointed out one specific example, which disproves the point. Again, he made no assertion that the beliefs Bixby is addressing are characteristic of everyone who calls himself a fundamentalist (nor did Bixby say this, as I have pointed out several times).

You know what is embarrassing? Misspelling “embarrassing.” :)

[Alex Guggenheim]

But since we are on Anglo forms, have you considered the possibility of their superiority? Is that possible? After all, in all other venues of life they seem to have advanced beyond the crudeness of the cultures of others. Tsk tsk, we better not go there, eh?

Elevated culture is not a spiritual phenomenon. It does not require spiritual eyes for one to distinguish simple and beautiful from crude and base or sophisticated, complex but organized and magnificent from busy and complicated but obscure and unrefined.

ROFL. Way to go Alex. Way to prove the point.

…or maybe future is backwards? I can’t keep it straight anymore. :)

I think the racism card is distracting us. Bixby’s point (and I agree with this) is that we tend to read and participate in worship through the voice of culture we were raised in. That does not make him, me, Scott, or any of the RAM board members racists. It does, however, mean that we need to stop equating ‘worship’ with ‘what I do or did in church’ - because there are (hopefully) millions of redeemed of every tribe, nation, people, and tongue who will be able to fulfill Ephesians 5:19-21 perfectly on That Day.

In any case, I happened to come across this old thread on the previous incarnation of SI somehow, and found this post by Shai Linne - yes, that Shai Linne, who was apparently kind enough to join SI and try to defend what he does, even though the thread was about another artist. I don’t remember ever reading this post before, but I thought that it might be worth at least linking to. I’ll quote a section of it that seems most pertinent.

Wow, what a fascinating discussion! With this being my first time posting here, I guess I should introduce myself. My name is Shai Linne. I found this forum because it was linked from a Christian Hip-hop website (yes, they do exist). I’ll come clean immediately and let you know that I am a Christian Hip-hop artist myself and I count Curtis “Voice” Allen as a personal friend and a dear brother in Christ. I’ve followed this thread from the beginning. I was tempted to post when the discussion was still around 4 or 5 pages long. At that point, there had already been so many over-generalizations, false assumptions, factual inaccuracies and downright offensive statements that it would have been almost laughable had it not been so grieving. As the Lord’s providence would have it, I had other obligations to tend to and had to wait until today to post. Little did I know that it would explode into more than 30 pages!

Honestly, it’s a good thing that I didn’t post yesterday, because I would have posted in anger, which obviously would not have been honoring to God. As the thread got longer, I continued to watch in amazement at the things that were being discussed concerning rap by people who were clearly uninformed concerning the genre. People who seemed to be otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable in the Scriptures said some of the most baffling things! I chuckled more than once as nearly everyone prefaced their statements by saying something to the effect of “I don’t listen to rap”, “Personally, I hate rap”, “I’m not defending rap. We would never use rap in our church…”, etc. Even those who sided with Piper were quick to acknowledge their disdain for the genre. So there you have it. If you can’t agree on anything else, you were universally united in your negative opinion of rap! Who said there was no unity here?

As I signed up to post on this site, I gladly concurred with the fundamentalist doctrinal statement. I love Jesus Christ! I am passionate (though not nearly as I should be) about the glory of God, the supremacy of Jesus Christ in all things, sound doctrine, the doctrines of grace and discipleship. I am also passionate about reaching out to those who are either a part of or influenced by Hip-hop culture. In light of that final passion, there is much to be discouraged by in this thread. It was amazing how, among those who have such a high view of Scripture, how biblically uninformed this discussion has been! I’m grateful for the few who at least attempted to bring Scripture to bear on the conversation, even if I disagreed with some of the conclusions. I was also discouraged by how few people actually did any research at all about Hip-hop culture. I mean, If you’re going to reject something with little to no biblical support, I would at least hope that you would do a little research, so as to give an informed opinion about what you’re rejecting. I do appreciate the brother who took the time to look up “hip-hop” in wikipedia, only to come to the (incorrect) conclusion that “holy” and “hip-hop” are mutually exclusive. Very disheartening indeed.

I’m really not here to either present a defense or even address your arguments. That would take more time than I have, considering that the thread is about to close. However, the the more I thought about it, the more I realized that you all have very valid reasons for having the opinions that you do. I absolutely understand why you reject rap and question the integrity of someone who would use it in a Christian context. I understand why many of you consider rap to be “aesthetically bankrupt”. I understand why some of you believe that anyone who could possibly think of using rap to glorify God obviously needs more discipleship. What other conclusion could you come to? Here’s what I mean:

Of course you paint all “rap” with a broad brush. How could you make any differentiation at all? You have no idea that there have been at least 5 distinct eras in rap’s brief, thirty-plus year history. Of course you see rap as a profane medium. What has your exposure been? The only exposure some of you have had is when you’ve walked into the room and caught your teenager watching MTV and told them to cut it off. Or when a car pulls up next to you blasting rap music at an obscenely high level- to the point where you can’t even hear the music in your own car!

Of course you view rap music as “aesthetically bankrupt”. Your ear is not trained to hear the brilliance of the cadences, rhythms and structure of the songs performed by the best Hip-hop lyricists. You haven’t been exposed to the multisyllabic poetic forms of the best rappers that would put some of the best hymn writers to shame, in terms of verbal dexterity and lyrical complexity. All you hear is a loud beat with profanity being shouted over it!

Of course you believe that all rap is “intrinsically erotic in composition”. (By the way, I’ll refrain from telling Curtis that presumably older, caucasian men found what he did at Piper’s church to be erotic. That might be more information than he needs) What are your examples? You’ve only been exposed to the crass, over-sexualized rap songs that typify much of the popular secular rap. Your conclusion is absolutely reasonable, based on how uninformed you are.

I’ll be honest with you guys - this cut me to the core. I can’t discuss rap because I know little about it. So I do wish that guys like Shai would come and participate more, because it’s wrong for all of us to sit here and condemn someone for doing something that we don’t understand. And that was my point a few posts ago…Shai is a believer, and ought to be treated as such, even if I don’t understand or disagree with him.

[Greg Long]

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Bob Hayton]

ing form and given to another culture. I don’t think that’s a possibility, nor do I think it happens anywhere in the world.

Now in my view they aren’t explicitly teaching one culture’s view of music only - but they emphasize the one culture and the development of its pristine form (which came to culmination in the time period I mentioned). They come awful close to teaching something like this here - and I’ve seen others who have come out and stated this.

On my blog back in 2006, a pastor who is a prolific blogger, stated this:

I reject 10th to 15th century Euro culture. I reject present American culture. I reject Asian culture. I reject African culture. I accept essentially 16th to 18th century Euro culture and 19th century English culture.

From which you stunningly deduced this is the collective mindset of fundamentalism? You scholarship is absolutely amazingly embarassing here to say the least.

Alex, Bob never said this was the “collective mindset of fundamentalism.” He was responding to someone’s assertion that Bixby’s arguments don’t apply to anyone he knows. Bob merely pointed out one specific example, which disproves the point. Again, he made no assertion that the beliefs Bixby is addressing are characteristic of everyone who calls himself a fundamentalist (nor did Bixby say this, as I have pointed out several times).

You know what is embarrassing? Misspelling “embarrassing.” :)

As to the rest of your rant, Bob can answer for himself. But the fact remains Bob made the assertion that this is the mindset of collective fundamentalism and has an isolated singular statement from which to draw. He should be embarassed or embarrassed.

[Bob Hayton]

My alma mater still forbids interracial dating, although it is a small college not “prominent.”

But Crown College could claim to be prominent. Here’s their current rule about it from their handbook:

Interracial dating must be approved in writing and
verbally by the parents of both students.

My point isn’t that all of fundamentalism is racist. It is that some think along the lines of a culture that affirms the Bible [namely Western, European culture] produces inherently better musical forms. That position could be open to the charge of racism - it would certainly be good to explore if that could be lurking around the assumption that only particular worship forms (which tend to be the musical patterns of White Europeans) are acceptable for worship around the world.

My point is that it isn’t “playing the race card” to question the race side of the equation in all this. Someone else asked for proof that this mentality exists - that this group or others actually are about European music forms as opposed to others. I tried to demonstrated that this very thing seems to be hinted at in some of RAM’s writings and opinions stated by real people.

As for my point, you’ve helped prove it, in part. Is there not some latent racism in your comments here:

Your approach of constructed so prejudicially that it is ludicrous to begin with.

But since we are on Anglo forms, have you considered the possibility of their superiority? Is that possible? After all, in all other venues of life they seem to have advanced beyond the crudeness of the cultures of others. Tsk tsk, we better not go there, eh?

Elevated culture is not a spiritual phenomenon. It does not require spiritual eyes for one to distinguish simple and beautiful from crude and base or sophisticated, complex but organized and magnificent from busy and complicated but obscure and unrefined.

Don’t misunderstand me. This is probably more an evidence of elitism than racism. But certainly you can see how someone would look at this and see racism there. That doesn’t mean you are speaking from a racist heart - but you have stated things in such a way as to be open to being questioned about it. And to say so isn’t to play a race card. You are advocating the superiority of Anglo forms. Doesn’t that sound like it might be racist?

You begin with the assumption that your view of racism, your definition, is a default reality. Social segregation based on race is not default racism. In other words you have not established any axiom, you have not demonstrated a proof, only an assumption and assertion. These are meaningless without support.

But this is an irrelevant issue and a highly charged one which emotionally and sentimentally oriented people, as opposed to doctrinally and rationally minded people, appeal so as to imagine they have some form of moral high ground. I will leave you to your imagination here, you present a man without remedy and one who has fully purchased the post-modern mindset of the world regarding issues of race and racism.

But to the claim that one can see that someone would look and see racism. I believe that anyone can look and see anything. The underlying principle of your assertion fails, immediately. Your argument is based on what one might see.

So suppose with you I see a willing race-baiting and naive fool (I am not saying I do, rather I am using hyperbole to illustrate the failure of your argument)? Let’s apply your principle which now requires you to acquiesce to what I see, real or imagined. I suspect you are not about to change based on what I see, right? Of course not because ultimately this is not something your really believe, it is a meaningless and weightless point of argumentation that when tested, fails.

Finally, you say I am advocating the superiority of Anglo forms? Really? When and where? I did no such thing. What I did do is present the reality that you are not willing to consider such a possibility which exposes your very prejudicial approach which is to eliminate certain possibilities before ever entertaining them, never mind investigating them.

Finally, your argument is challenged with regard to its integrity. You give two choices, racism or elitism as the cause for arguments that there are superior forms. I am sure you can imagine more than two choices even if you have never encountered them as causes for arguments on the matter. You have quite a ways to go in simply formulating your constructs, never minding establishing proofs for your assertions and assumptions.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Greg Long]

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Bob Hayton]

ing form and given to another culture. I don’t think that’s a possibility, nor do I think it happens anywhere in the world.

Now in my view they aren’t explicitly teaching one culture’s view of music only - but they emphasize the one culture and the development of its pristine form (which came to culmination in the time period I mentioned). They come awful close to teaching something like this here - and I’ve seen others who have come out and stated this.

On my blog back in 2006, a pastor who is a prolific blogger, stated this:

I reject 10th to 15th century Euro culture. I reject present American culture. I reject Asian culture. I reject African culture. I accept essentially 16th to 18th century Euro culture and 19th century English culture.

From which you stunningly deduced this is the collective mindset of fundamentalism? You scholarship is absolutely amazingly embarassing here to say the least.

Alex, Bob never said this was the “collective mindset of fundamentalism.” He was responding to someone’s assertion that Bixby’s arguments don’t apply to anyone he knows. Bob merely pointed out one specific example, which disproves the point. Again, he made no assertion that the beliefs Bixby is addressing are characteristic of everyone who calls himself a fundamentalist (nor did Bixby say this, as I have pointed out several times).

You know what is embarrassing? Misspelling “embarrassing.” :)

A typo is embarrassing? I suppose for one who is petty enough to chase such things down they are likely to project such thoughts and feelings onto others. However, you do remain consistent in your pursuit of the petty.

As to the rest of your rant, Bob can answer for himself. But the fact remains Bob made the assertion that this is the mindset of collective fundamentalism and has an isolated singular statement from which to draw. He should be embarassed or embarrassed.

“Social segregation based on race is not default racism.”

That depends on who’s demanding the segregating in the first place. And as far as ” knowing”if these men or groups are racist or not, I also have sat under , attended, read and discussed this issue with men from some of these institutions and what I can say is that many of them are, in some of their positions, at best inconsistent or at worst racist, but as has been mentioned I don’t want to detract from the main point of Bixby’s article either.

[Jay]

[SamH] Jay,

since all the verbs are plural, and the sense of the passage is not simply exhortation but includes an imperatival force, while being descriptive, if a Christian felt that they could not join in on the songs being sung because of conscience, does that not matter? If we are using this passage and its corrolary to determine what kind of worship God wants, it certainly includes worship in which everyone believes they can join in with having no matters of conscience. Not preference, but a biblically taught conviction. That measure would help to draw a line for each Christian and each local church.

“My beliefs in this area” seem to be a rather important biblical idea, since we are to believe and practice the truth…In other words, what if what I want is for God to be worshiped properly, starting with me? It would seem this goes by the wayside in your description…or I am missing something.

In a case like that - the brother in the Lord who has ‘liberty’ to do the things that they do not find objectionable should take into consideration the fact that he is causing his brother to be ‘offended’ and thereby offend him. He should never just ‘run over’ his weaker brother’s conscience. Again - it’s not about me or what I want…it’s about others and about Christ. Romans 14:10-23 was foundational to that understanding for me.

In many cases I know of, the brothers with the liberty have little regard for the one whose conscience is bothered by the music, and they run him over. Is that the kind of worship God wants? I have yet to meet someone who likes more contemporary music want to or be able to defend that they can’t sing more conservative music because it goes against their conscience—for them it is a preference.

For most conservatives, they would say (that after self-examination) their concerns are rooted in conscience, not preference. If that is so, then the church should honor that and not do that music. (I am going to guess that is rarely the response to their concern—it is more often that the person is a crank, or “maybe you need to find a church more like you.”)

RE: Shai Linne

Jay, thanks for finding that post. I really appreciated that discussion and Shai’s grace in interacting on SI. Through his comments there and on a couple other blogs, he ended up emailing me 3 copies of his CDs (2 were from his friend Timothy Brindle) - very generous of him.

A friend of mine, Nathan Pitchford, did a review of his CDs that reveals more of the poetic intricacy to the lyrics. He also posted a sample of the substantive lyrics on these CDs.

Now I’m not a big listener of this music - but the songs do “preach” and there is a lot of content to consider. And the message of guys like Shai Linne, LeCrae, Brindle and Curtis “Voice” Allen has been pretty consistently challenging and edifying. Just Google LeCrae’s testimony and hear him in his own words, or see the interview John Piper did of him, or the one Mark Dever did of both Shai Linne and Curtis Allen here.

I am going to admit my weakness and sentimentality here, but I still love to sing “In the Garden.” Yeah, I know that it is sissified and sentimental, but when I’m down and discouraged and need to know that God is with me in the person of Jesus, I can’t help but sing the song. Shame on me.

Bixby nailed it. :)

[SamH] In many cases I know of, the brothers with the liberty have little regard for the one whose conscience is bothered by the music, and they run him over. Is that the kind of worship God wants? I have yet to meet someone who likes more contemporary music want to or be able to defend that they can’t sing more conservative music because it goes against their conscience—for them it is a preference.

For most conservatives, they would say (that after self-examination) their concerns are rooted in conscience, not preference. If that is so, then the church should honor that and not do that music. (I am going to guess that is rarely the response to their concern—it is more often that the person is a crank, or “maybe you need to find a church more like you.”)

Then that brother that’s running over the other brother is in sin. Easy enough, right? I mean - is there some other way to take Romans 14?

Realizing this was sometime back but having been reposted by Jay, I will respond to this in part.

[Jay]

Of course you paint all “rap” with a broad brush. How could you make any differentiation at all? You have no idea that there have been at least 5 distinct eras in rap’s brief, thirty-plus year history. Of course you see rap as a profane medium. What has your exposure been? The only exposure some of you have had is when you’ve walked into the room and caught your teenager watching MTV and told them to cut it off. Or when a car pulls up next to you blasting rap music at an obscenely high level- to the point where you can’t even hear the music in your own car!

Of course you view rap music as “aesthetically bankrupt”. Your ear is not trained to hear the brilliance of the cadences, rhythms and structure of the songs performed by the best Hip-hop lyricists. You haven’t been exposed to the multisyllabic poetic forms of the best rappers that would put some of the best hymn writers to shame, in terms of verbal dexterity and lyrical complexity. All you hear is a loud beat with profanity being shouted over it!

Of course you believe that all rap is “intrinsically erotic in composition”. (By the way, I’ll refrain from telling Curtis that presumably older, caucasian men found what he did at Piper’s church to be erotic. That might be more information than he needs) What are your examples? You’ve only been exposed to the crass, over-sexualized rap songs that typify much of the popular secular rap. Your conclusion is absolutely reasonable, based on how uninformed you are.

I’ll be honest with you guys - this cut me to the core. I can’t discuss rap because I know little about it. So I do wish that guys like Shai would come and participate more, because it’s wrong for all of us to sit here and condemn someone for doing something that we don’t understand. And that was my point a few posts ago…Shai is a believer, and ought to be treated as such, even if I don’t understand or disagree with him.

Let me help you.

How do you know I do not know there have been 5 distinct rap eras (you should be clear that some people argue for 4 or did you not know that and some argue the date of its genesis or did that pass you by too)? You don’t know that which is normally called presumption, a form of arrogance.

But what principle are you arguing? That being informed of the eras of something makes it viable, preferable or appropriate for worship? I guess that means it is time for us to learn the eras of punk rock so we can introduce that into worship…oh wait some not so bright people already have. Maybe we just don’t appreciate its pleasant art form, eh? Your argument is irrelevant at best and fails prescriptively (you do understand what that means, right?). Knowing the eras of something does not validate or invalidate it.

But from there you wish to assert with more presumption, that I see rap as profane. Well, Shai, let me help you again. If you are going to represent the arguments of your opponents, do so thoroughly. You see, Shai, not everyone considers it profane, though some, somewhere, might. Some find it simply crude and base as an art form and at best used for the context of entertainment and not worship. It is called a principle, not simply categorizing as you wish to claim as the wholesale rejection of rap for worship. And theology, Biblical wisdom combined with various principles of music lead many to this view, not merely the claim it is “profane” though I am sure it would make your arguments against others much easier were it all so simple.

And still your presumption does not end. Now you wish to claim my only exposure to rap is someone “blasting rap music at an obscenely high level- to the point where you can’t even hear the music in your own car”(your unqualified retort is to those who reject rap as a form for worship, hence if you had anyone other than the whole in mind such as a part of the whole who do not embrace rap for worship, you failed to qualify that), this is presumption #3. Your arrogance is spilling over, Shai.

Maybe, just maybe, some people who reject rap as a viable form for worship not only understand its history and have followed it but have done so before you ever did. And maybe, just maybe, many of us have heard enough of it in its many forms to understand it is a an entertainment genre, not a worship form. But that would go against your narrative, eh? It appears you wish to create a straw man which you can easily blow down. Wrong. But keep telling yourself those who oppose it do so for uninformed reasons, that is much easier to deal with than the reality of the matter.

Now on to your claim that my ear isn’t “trained to hear the brilliance of the cadences, rhythms and structure of the songs performed by the best Hip-hop lyricists”. Well, I read your recent attempt at brilliant lyrics with pretend words such as “biz” and “Peeps”. Brilliant, so Yeats like.

So maybe, Shai, some people are actually trained at the art instead of making up rules and words as they go along and possibly some people have been trained to recognize superior, excellent and high forms and rap simply fails this on its best day. Rhyming at an elementary level with an elementary cadence isn’t what many call brilliance, though you might and it is not because they do not recognize its brilliance, rather they are recognizing the absence of such brilliance. But again, that narrative might not fit yours so let’s leave that possibility out, eh? I grant that you rhyme and have a cadence and for this you wish to have brilliance assigned? Good grief.

Now to the claim that it is because people believe that rap is “intrinsically erotic in composition” as the cause for rejecting it as a form for worship and even lesser, as good art? Really? Is that possible? Have you considered it might be? Or let’s just pretend that such a possibility simply cannot exist without any research, eh?

I have never said that, maybe others have but maybe it is true. How about interacting with their arguments and support instead of simply being upset that such a postulate exists and is asserted. Surely they have arguments and support and are not merely asserting what they say. When and where are you interacting with these? It behooves you to move beyond being offended by things which do not agree with your view.

But let’s erase this context just for argument’s sake (though it, in true discovery must be debated), rap is still, on its best day, simple rhymes and simple cadence and for that you do not get brilliance assigned.