Preaching to the Choir

 

            Da Truth is back! He has just released his newest album, Love, Hope & War. I’ve listened through the whole thing and am hard pressed to find a song I don’t like! It’s a very well put together album with solid production and great beats. It stays true to its topic with every song falling under one of the three title categories, love, hope or war.

            What is interesting and unique about this album is that it is markedly different from other recent releases in “Christian” hip hop. Some of my previous posts have been about Christian rappers that no longer wish their music to be labeled “Christian”. These rappers, like Lecrae and Sho Baraka prefer that people think of them as rappers that happen to be Christian rather than “Christian” rappers. Artists like Lecrae and Sho Baraka have decided to give their music a more evangelistic thrust. They make music specifically for the unchurched.

            Da Truth, on the other hand, takes a very different approach. He WANTS to be called a Christian rapper. For him, this title is very essential to who he is, and the music that he makes. Truth has made no qualms about the fact that his music is specifically for the church. But is there a place for this in Christian hip hop? From its inception, Christian rap has been overwhelmingly “street-focused”. It was meant to be an outreach tool to those hip hop heads that wouldn’t go into church or listen to a traditional gospel song. Da Truth, however, believes that there’s also a place for in-reach in Christian hip hop.

            So the question is what is the purpose of Christian music? Is it supposed to be primarily evangelistic, or is there a place for Christian music made just for Christians? Parenthetically, pastors are faced with the same dilemma. We are caught between the realm of shepherd and evangelist. Which is primary? There are voices that would argue for one over the other and voices that would say they are both equal callings. I tend to agree with the later. Da Truth cites the Apostle Paul as an example. He was the missionary of missionaries. He was the “apostle to the Gentiles”. He helped spread the gospel message from Jerusalem and nearly to Spain. However, he is also attributed to have written 70% of the New Testament and his letters were undoubtedly pastoral. He was very much concerned with the well-being of the churches he established and Christianity as a whole.

            With this in mind, I believe one can be both. I think that Da Truth can make music specifically for the church and it still have evangelistic components. I think Truth’s stance is also important. In this day and age it is important for Christians to be vocal about what they believe and who they are, and I don’t believe that this stance is in opposition to Lecrae’s. I believe they can coexist. If Lecrae wants to make music that is more palatable to the secular world and has a more evangelistic focus then he should be able to do that, but he should not insist that everybody take that stance. In the same token, if Truth believes his calling is to directly address the church then so be it! But neither should he enforce this stance on others. The key idea is Christian freedom. There is room for both focuses in Christianity and in hip hop. We should be open enough to embrace both without pitting them against the other.

Shalom

 

Has King’s Dream Been Realized?

 

            Today is being celebrated nation-wide as Martin Luther King Day, and in a coincidence of history, it is also the day that America’s first black president is being sworn in for his 2^nd term. In another coincidence of history, this year is also the 50^th anniversary of the March on Washington where Dr King made his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. Many assert that the fact that we have a ‘President’ Barack Obama shows that King’s dream has indeed come to pass. In some respects I agree, but in others I’m not so sure. I will take some of King’s statements from the speech and explore whether his “dream” has been fulfilled or whether we still have work to do.

            Dr King’s dream was one of liberty, equality, and inclusion of African-Americans in all aspects of society. He dreamed of a society in which everyone would have equal opportunities. It could be argued that in lieu of President Obama’s 2^nd inauguration today that has been fulfilled. But it is a strange irony that in the same era of America’s first black president the poverty rate is higher than ever and is led by African-Americans. 50 million Americans are declared to be under the poverty line with over 60% of those being black. 27% of all blacks in the country are under the poverty line. Is this because 27% have not applied themselves? Are these statistics to be blamed solely on individual responsibility (or the lack thereof), or are there still structural and governmental elements that play a factor? I believe it is partially both, but there are undoubtedly structural elements in place that have perpetuated this cycle. Poverty itself is a cycle that once caught in, is very difficult to escape. Is there equal opportunity? Perhaps. But are there still things that we as a nation need to work on, indeed.

             In the final section of King’s speech which began the series of improvised “I have a dream” runs, King states, “I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” So the question is, is there a sense of true brotherhood between races today? Undoubtedly, it is MUCH better than it was 60 years ago, but in the world I live in, things are still very much separate. King was also famous for saying that “the most segregated hour in America was 11 o’clock on Sunday morning”. As a pastor, this statement most certainly still remains true. In the same religion, in the same denomination, we are still unable to worship together. There are many factors that contribute to this and there is blame on both sides. But it still seems to be the case that even Christians of the same belief system and denomination can’t exhibit “brotherhood”. How much more does this apply to society at large?

            Another aspect of King’s “dream” was that “one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” I recently visited the school associated with my church to do their weekly assembly. They showed the children a video about Dr King and the dream that he had. As I sat there and listened to the above statement I thought to myself, “Most of these kids have probably not even met other white kids; much less have friendships with them”. The school, like our church, is historically black. Many of the kids come right from the immediate Southeast D.C. area which is also predominately black. If these kids remain in the area through high school, chances are that they will go to a dominantly black high school due to district restrictions. When they come to church they see only black faces in their classes and in the pews. Perhaps when they go to college they will be exposed to other races and ethnicities, but that’s still a long way off. In my opinion, while these kids will not have to live through a segregated world, they most definitely live in a separated world.

            Some would argue that this is a good thing, but is it in line with what King dreamed? King’s dream was one where everybody not only lived together in peace, but lived together as brothers and sisters; one where we could celebrate unity in diversity. That dream has yet to be realized, even in the church. Especially in the church! If there is one place that this “dream” should be a reality it should be in our congregations, for it was Christ’s dream as well. Jesus prayed for the church that we would be “one” as He and the Father are one. This doesn’t mean that everybody is the same, but it should at least mean that we be together more than once every 5 years at a General Conference session.

            So my answer to the question of whether Martin Luther King’s dream has been realized is yes and no. In some ways it has, in some ways it hasn’t. We still have work to do to heal wounds, put aside prejudices and stereotypes and fight the good fight for equality and justice.

Shalom

How Far Can Christian Art Go and Still Be Christian?

            About two years ago, Christian rapper Sho Baraka announced that he was leaving Lecrae’s high-profile label, Reach Records. He did so because he claimed that he felt artistically restricted. Indeed, Reach Records is one of the premiere Christian rap labels in the nation, and has a reputation for its “unashamed” stance for Christ. Because of this, Reach, like many other Christian rap artists and labels has a tendency to sound the same. Every album sounds the same. Every artist deals with exactly the same subjects: worship, rebuke to hip hop culture, a song to show a promiscuous girl her worth, etc. Every cd drags on repetitively and boringly. Sho felt like he wanted more artistic control. He was determined to deal with subjects that are considered taboo in the Christian community, like racism, poverty, economic disparity, etc. So he split.

 

            Fast forward two years to this past Tuesday when Sho released his third solo album Talented 10^th. It is a concept album based on an article by W.E.B. DuBois that asserted that it will take 1 out of 10 blacks to get a quality education for the race to excel. He deals with precisely those subjects that were denied him before. The most prominent and poignant of those subjects is racism. Sho deals with it on his highly controversial song “Jim Crow”. In the song Sho repeatedly uses the word “nigga” and even throws a “b***h” in the 3^rd verse. However, the later was used in the context of a rebuke to rappers that use it, not in a glorification of it. Regardless of the context of the song and the context of the verse, this song has produced much controversy, leading to the main question of the hour: “How far can Christian art go and still be Christian? I will approach the question from two perspectives: first from the perspective of an artist, and then as a Christian.

            An artist’s job is self-expression. Whether they are a rapper, musician, poet, or a painter they draw from life experiences, feelings, and emotions to create. One of the most frustrating thing for an artist is to be pigeonholed and censored. For an artist to be told “you can’t write this” or “you can’t say that” is to kill inspiration. Truth be told, musicians and rappers/poets are the only artists that “the church” demands must produce purely “Christian art”. I’ve never heard anyone chastise a painter for painting “non-Christian” portraits. Nor have I heard of anyone demanding someone who draws to only draw pictures of Christ. Why do we put this expectation on musicians?

            Why must musicians, above any other artist, be defined by their Christianity? I don’t believe it’s fair. Furthermore, the church still has a problem with this idea that something “Christian” is always neat, clean, and family-friendly. Let’s face it, if we put the same content limitations on the Bible itself as we put on musicians we would have a very small Bible. The Scriptures are full of R and X-Rated content. Rapes, murders, incest, illicit sexual affairs, prostitution, and countless other things are part of the biblical narrative. Is the Bible’s portrayal of such events glorification or description? I think we would all agree it is description. Therefore, what matters more than content is context. What is the context in which “questionable” material is presented should be the real question.

            So back to Sho Baraka’s dilemma; is Sho’s use of provocative content a renouncement of his “Christian” title? By no means! If those critics of the song “Jim Crow” would actually listen to the song and get a sense of the context in which both words are used I think they would understand a little better. Part of the problem is that the church has ordained musicians, poets and rappers as “ministers” simply because they use words when, in truth, they are simply artists. And even if they were ministers, that does not mean they must censor their content to meet Christian criteria. I wonder what the church would say about the prophet Isaiah walking around naked for 3 years (Isaiah 20:1-3). Sometimes the message God wishes to convey is messy and uncensored and we dare not reject it just because it makes us uncomfortable.

 

Shalom