Adventists and "The Bible" Series

          

          Last night as my wife and I were watching the latest episode of The Bible mini-series on the History Channel, she said something to me that was quite profound. She noted that even though she follows many Christians on Twitter, it was only the Adventists that were being overly critical. Hardly any of them had anything positive to say about the series. I noted the same thing on my timeline. Personally, I enjoyed the second episode more than the first because there was more action. I did have issue with the Samson scene with the jawbone only because I thought it could have been more epic, but the scene of him in the temple made up for that. But this raised a pressing question in both of our minds: what is wrong with us (Adventists)? Why can’t we just enjoy things? Are we the self-appointed “factual purity police”? I want to briefly address Adventism as it relates to our biblical criticism and the influence we have as Christians.

            As I said earlier, I have enjoyed The Bible series so far. My only beef with the first episode was that it was a little slow and slightly boring with the exception of a few parts. Last night’s episode was much more entertaining just as far as the action and drama were concerned. Are there some inaccuracies? Yes. Are there some embellishments? Yes. Do they take dramatic license? Yes. Are people watching it?! YES! Are Atheists and adherents of other religions entering a social media dialogue with Christians? YES!! Is there a possibility that people will be drawn to Christ as a result of this series! YES!! Then what is our problem?!?!? Many critics out there feel it is their responsibility to uphold the factual integrity of the Scripture, and that’s ok I suppose…but when our voice is dominantly critical then I believe there’s a problem.

            I learned a lesson several years ago while studying theology at Oakwood University. Young theology majors that are just being exposed to proper study methods of the Bible easily get lost and caught up in the game of pulpit criticism. Every preacher that dared to stand behind that pulpit was under doctrinal, biblical, and factual scrutiny. I was not exempt from this phenomenon. One week for chapel a guest speaker preached and was well received by the student body. Many people gained a real and genuine blessing from what he presented. When I went to lunch I sat with some friends who were raving up and down about how blessed they were by the sermon. I then proceeded to break down all of the errors in the sermon…all the places where he was exegetically inaccurate and where I thought he was stretching the text to make his point. I immediately sensed that I single-handedly brought a cloud over the whole table. The blessing that everybody was raving about receiving was gone. I robbed them of it. I learned after that incident that everything doesn’t need to be critiqued. I learned that my voice did, in fact, have influence and that I had the ability to literally rob people of a genuine blessing they may have received from God.

            If there is blatant doctrinal or theological error then as a pastor I do have the responsibility to address it. But some things just aren’t that big of a deal...for instance, in the first episode, Sarah ran to meet Abraham and Isaac after she figured out what was happening. Now the Bible says that the journey was 3 days to Mt Moriah, so factually she wouldn’t have been able to do that. Ok, small error. Does it matter to the spirit of the story or did it detract from the message of the text? NO! So who cares!?!

            My concern is that all of us Adventists will be mindful of whatever influence we may have in the larger community. This series provides us with a wonderful opportunity to engage people in conversation about the Bible and about JESUS in particular! Let’s not miss that opportunity because of a few factual missteps! Let us not rob people’s blessings by our incessant criticisms! Christianity is not going to crumble because you failed to point out that there weren’t angel ninjas in Sodom…just enjoy that ride and PRAY that God will use this series to bring people to Him. THAT is the point of the series.

Shalom

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

 

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

How Far is Too Far?

                Ok, I cannot hold this blog post any longer. I don’t know how many people will care about this particular post but I have to get it off my chest. The question is, how far do we go in order to reach the lost? To what extent do we make ourselves “available” to the unsaved in order to reach them? Before I endeavor to answer any of these questions let me back up and explain where they come from.

             Christian hip hop artist Lecrae is currently positioned to be perhaps the most important artist in the history of Christian rap. The mainstream exposure he has attained in the larger hip hop world is unprecedented. First, he was a participant in the 2011 BET Hip Hop Awards Cypher, and was the first “Christian” rapper to do so. Several things set him apart from the other emcees: his lyricism and flow were impeccable, and he boldly proclaimed the name of Jesus Christ and was 100% “unashamed” as is his mantra. This was probably the beginning of Lecrae’s mainstream rise. His album sales shot up on iTunes, mainstream hip hop magazines and sites such as XXL, the Source, and allhiphop.com began scrambling for interviews and stories to discover just who this young “Jesus-spitting” artist was and whether or not he was the real deal. All the sudden, this Houston-born rapper who was at the top of his respective totem pole was now placed at the bottom of a much larger pool.

            The next thing that began to catapult Lecrae to mainstream notice was his recent release of a mixtape entitled Church Clothes. What was so special about this mixtape? For starters, the day it was released, it was a trending topic on Twitter. No, not a passing, local trend, but a worldwide trending topic. The next thing that set this mixtape apart was that Lecrae worked with well known secular producers such as Don Cannon, 9^th Wonder and Boi-1da.

            Furthermore, with the release of this mixtape, Lecrae began to proclaim that he no longer wanted to be “boxed in” by being labeled a “Christian” rapper. He wanted to be known as just another rapper in the world of hip hop that rapped according to his particular niche and convictions. His argument stemmed from the fact that artists like Lupe Fiasco and Freeway aren’t known as “Muslim rappers”, nor is the Wu-Tang Clan known as a “Five-Percenter” group. If they aren’t so labeled and categorized he felt it was not fair to box him in as a “Christian rapper”. It is key to understand that Lecrae was not saying he no longer wanted to boldly rap about Christ, but that he didn’t want the label of “Christian rapper” that has, for many years, carried a very negative connotation, to limit the expanse of his message. Church Clothes was still very much a Christian album and the message of the gospel was in no way compromised.

            Now Lecrae is gearing up for the release of his 6^th studio album, Gravity. This is perhaps the most important album of his career. His goal on this album is not to make music just for people that are already believers, but to reach out in a powerful way to non-believers; to make his music accessible to the mainstream while not conforming to it. The big controversy that arose from this album (which hasn’t even been released yet) is that there is a notable collaboration with known secular rapper Big K.R.I.T. Finally, it was revealed this week that Lecrae would be featured on Saigon’s upcoming album.

            So now the stage is set, and we can ask the previous questions again. Lecrae claims that he is not adjusting the content of his albums, but the coloring if you will. The sound is more accessible, and the message is more palatable to the mainstream listener. But has Lecrae gone too far? Is having a popular secular artist featured on his album or agreeing to feature on a secular artist’s album going too far? I say absolutely NOT! I think Lecrae understands what it takes to reach this generation of postmodern, agnostic, church-hating, Christ-lovers. It isn’t preaching and it isn’t a traditional OR contemporary church service. It is relationships. This generation (The Mosaics, Millennials, etc) is HUGE on relationships. In order to get anywhere with them one must first build significant relationships with them. By interacting with secular artists and producers, Lecrae is building relationships and impacting change. Some say this is compromise…I disagree. Jesus too was labeled an infidel for “entertaining” the presence of “sinners” and “undesirables”. But Jesus knew the difference between “hanging out” and reaching people where they were. Christ’s goal was always to engage people in order to bring them the message of salvation and I believe Lecrae’s goal is the same.

            We do not know the long-term effects of Lecrae’s relationship-building endeavors. I mean, what if Saigon or Big K.R.I.T. were to accept Christ like former Clipse member Malice (now No Malice) or 106 & Park freestyle star Jin? If these guys will not seek the council of a typical pastor, why shouldn’t Lecrae be their pastor? I do not doubt that if these guys needed council or help that they would reach out to Lecrae because he has made himself accessible. We should all be accessible enough to reach those in need. Perhaps Lecrae is exactly what hip hop needs. Perhaps he was raised up for such a time as this.