Well, we come tonight to part two of our investigation weighing hip-hop and rap. We saw two weeks ago what hip-hop stands for and where it has come from. We have seen the unacceptability of non-Christian hip-hop for the Christian due to the ungodly lifestyle it holds up for admiration. We have seen the entry of hip-hop into the Christian church. and in particular noted its take up by the new Calvinists. Then we observed the performance and entertainment element that is mixed with the proclamation of truth. We question the use of performance and entertainment for which people are applauded to convey the gospel and spiritual truth. We even more question this in the light of the fact that the cultural props employed are from a world that is opposed to the truth. Those considerations should give pause for thought to those who perform this material and those who listen to it or in any way consume it. But now we come to the music itself. As we've already seen, the music is part of a whole style that we call hip-hop. The dress codes, the way of speaking, and the general style of cool saturate the marketing of the people in the genre. Out of that style has arisen the music itself. The pattern of this works both ways. The music is cool because the people who make it are cool. In turn, the people are cool because the music they produce is cool. The elements of the whole package work together. People consume all or part of this package. So, what do we find in Christian rap music? Well, not surprisingly, we find the same elements that characterize rap out there on the street. It is not divorced from the non-Christian genre. There is the same rapid-fire delivery. One of its exponents puts out 180 words per minute. This is quite impressive and remarkable. Some of the reform rap artists have actually come to the attention of the non-Christian rappers who have admired this skill. So there is the quick-fire mode of delivery. Of course, the content is devoid of the sexual matters and approval of taking drugs. But there is the same aggressive style. It may be toned down, but it is still present. It is an aggressive and violent sounding music. That comment holds true irrespective of how theological and elevated the content might be. It is given in a height and aggressive style. Then there is the same heavy beat. It is a little quieter, but it is relentless. There is the use of the drums or the drum machine driving it along. The beat urges people, when in the concert setting, to move to the music. The instrumentation relies on bass for its effect and helps to produce, as required, the staccato and stuttering rhythm. Again, it is toned down compared to the non-Christian variety, but it belongs to the same family. There are also the same scratching and screeching effects when the music jumps around. The promotional videos do not have quite the same booming sounds, but when one looks at some of the performances, these are definitely loud. There are not the breakdancers, though some do have dance stage acts. The graffiti is absent, although some do film their videos on the graffiti-lined streets, thus staying in touch with one of hip-hop's maxims of keeping it real. The Christian rap singer is sometimes restrained in movement, although their stage presence is sustained by some rocking around or more athletic movements. The audience is not necessarily so restrained, and hips move to the irresistible beat. Hip-hop was designed to make people dance. It may not always be so wild in the Christian gatherings, but it is the same kind of dancing as could be seen in a nightclub or in some definitely secular setting. So those listening, however much they are moved by the words, are most certainly moved by the rhythm and the beat. Syncopated sounds, backbeat, and all the tricks of the trade are on display. So it is appropriate to raise the question here about the acceptability of different kinds of music. Isn't the music just neutral? Isn't it simply musical notation and sound without any inherently right or wrong about it? Indeed, isn't it simply a matter of taste and culture? Isn't it something we can redeem from the culture and refit as a vehicle for evangelism and teaching? This is what many would have us believe. And they try to make us feel very guilty or judgmental or critical if we should question their choice or taste. But is it more than taste? Does the style of some music make it unsuitable for worship or use in a Christian setting? In a way, the effect of the music in its own cultural setting answers the question for us about suitability of hip hop. The music is undeniably sensual. Its purpose is to make people dance and move in ways that emphasize aggression and energetic sexuality. It is designed to express one's own aggressive power and sexuality and communicate this to other people. The music is a stimulant to the casting off of restraint and modesty. It speaks up the loss of inhibitions and speaks down modesty and self-control. Of course, in Christian meetings, things never get quite out of hand. There is no over-the-top indulgence there, and there is no gross sin. But it is the music whose sound and motion is that of aggression, power, twisted self-esteem, sin, and sinful appetites. It is the music for the unleashing of desire and the aggressive expression of power. It is the music for the downgrading of self-control and the casting away of godly thoughts. It is difficult to imagine these performances being conducted without the mood-enhancing accoutrements such as darkness, and something is lost when the people are sitting in pews under conditions of normal ambient light. Without the ability of feeling something of what you would feel as a nightclub, and being able to move, at least in some small measure, like one would in that setting, the appeal of rap would be significantly reduced. If the ability to shout out and clap was denied the participant, as well as the opportunity to cheer the celebrity rapper, something of the occasion is lost. Chemistry that makes Christian hip-hop work is related to the same chemistry that makes non-Christian hip-hop work. The music then is not neutral. Whether the Christian or non-Christian variety, it is designed to produce the same pleasurable experiences and moods. Those who began the genre knew what they were producing and employed their subtle skills to maximize the emotional responses they were looking for. They wanted people to dance. And that purpose is carried forward inevitably, irrespective of whether the words are a distillation of systematic theology, a proclamation of reformed truth, a recital of the periodic table, or a rehearsal of today's shipping forecast. The words are irrelevant. The music is telling you to feel and to do something. The music wins out whatever the words say. Considering the appropriateness, or otherwise, of particular kinds of music for worship, Scott Anuel, a writer in America, makes this observation, and I quote him. Because the very nature of worship is spiritual response to truth, the music used should develop deep affections for God, not simply emotional passions. Those affections will result from the way the text is written, as well as the composition of the music itself. If the text has no solid, concrete basis for the music, and if the musical style communicates emotional, sentimental feelings, it is not appropriate for congregational worship." End that quote there. The music has its language and power to produce feelings whatever the words say. Rap is able to generate sensual and aggressive feelings. It is not helpful. Here is Dan Lucarini, who, having been in the contemporary Christian worship movement, saw through it and now warns against it. Though his particular critique was aimed at rock and roll, hip-hop also meets the criteria for his comments. And this is what he has to say. CCM embraces many different contemporary music styles with a heavily syncopated beat, such as soft rock, smooth jazz, rap and pop rock. But the father of them all is rock and roll. Rock and roll is a musical style that was created for immoral purposes by immoral men and has always been used by the world to express its immoral attitudes and song. Be honest with yourself as I have. We prefer it because we like the beat, the driving rhythms. Rock music and its offspring have the power to make our flesh and our minds do something." End of that quote. He suggests that what it is making us do is tied to the old nature. I quote him again. Christians still have a sinful nature, the old man, that constantly competes against our new spirit-filled nature. Rock music is an example of a former conduct that fulfills the desires of the flesh and mind and feeds the old man that grows corrupt according to deceitful lusts. When it comes to the desires of our flesh, we're supposed to put them off, not put them on. We're supposed to starve the old man, not continue to feed him. Let me quote Scott Anuel again. Listening to music is like hanging around with people. Just like people's moods and morals rub off on those who keep company with them, so the emotions and moods communicated by music rub off on people who listen to it. Therefore, bad music ruins good morals. As Christians, we must avoid all kinds of communication that are corrupt. This includes sinful words of lyrics and sinful emotions of music. I end that quote there. So the music is not neutral. That is also the verdict of those who have been at the forefront of promoting rock and roll. They are not blind to what they are doing. Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones is reported to have said this. I quote him. Ours is a group with built-in hate. We communicate aggression and frustration to an audience musically and visually. That's the end of his quote there. You notice that he did not mention the words. It is the music that is more important. Any number of musicians from the world of pop testify to the links between what they are doing and sexuality. It's not their words that are primarily producing these feelings and moods. It is their music. Hip-hop's migration away from its original cultural setting is a testimony to its universal appeal to sinful human nature. White people in the suburbs may have little connection with the ghetto. They may have no intention of shooting anyone, being a drug dealer, or a hustler, or terrorizing a harem of women. But the urge to dance in the suggestive way of hip-hop runs across the cultures. Its message travels however relevant or not the lyrics are to the experiences of the consumers. The potency of the aggressive musical form, coupled to the undue prominence that the MC necessarily draws to himself, meant that hip-hop was always going to foster the undue sexualization and hyper-male aggression that it seemingly has in the world. It was endemic in the music. However sanitized the version that Christian hip-hop represents, this is the product that we have bought into. The music is the music of aggression and sexual expression, and any other use that it is put to is to swim against the tide. Well, my next heading is this. The attitudes it produces. The attitudes it produces. The logic of the slippery slope is set before us in scripture. This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that he henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them because of the blindness of their heart, who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness to work all uncleanness with greediness. Ephesians 4, verses 17 to 19. There is a greediness that this sort of material spawns. A little leads to a little more. Before one knows it, one is given over to it. Dan Lucarini comments about what he observed when in the world of contemporary Christian worship. It is not a happy tale. This is one of the reasons he gives for leaving that world, and I quote him. To preserve my marriage and to be faithful to God in all things, I needed to separate from the temptations that were ever present in the CCM setting. The ego gratification, an attraction to the female members of the worship team." I end his quote there. The same dangers are there for the hip hop artists and their followers. It is not promising terrain for the cultivation of holiness and the fear of the Lord. One of the particular troubles Dan Lucarini experienced was the downgrade in the standard of the clothes people wore. Standards of decency and modesty were sacrificed as the music placed its expectation on people to dress as they would going to hear a secular band or attend some function in the world. It has been generally observed in the churches that there has been an increasing trend towards wearing clothing that is inappropriate for worship service, and probably anywhere else come to that. The music is part of the process, generating its own expectations and suggesting conformity to what the world would wear if hearing that kind of music. We can couple this likewise to the growing acceptability of inappropriate language and speech in the pulpit, and one would presume in the pew as well. Mark Driscoll has loud music in the church. The level of profanity in his speech and the crude remarks that he makes show that he's adapting to the kind of setting that the kind of music would suggest. For all the talk of being culturally relevant, he has conformed himself to the world at large and offers his mostly young male congregation a mildly sanitized version of what they could have on the streets. Of course, though the assurance may be given that the volume setting will remain low, there is no guarantee that the promise will be honoured in the future. A gradual year-on-increase may leave the congregation after five years with ear-deafening decibels of sound to cope with. Again, the nature of the music requires a conformity to its natural milieu in order to work. terrorized by the accusation that they are old-fashioned or that they will drive the young people away, those of more mature judgment may be reduced to silence. The music generates its own expectations as to how people should behave, and those expectations are not set by the church, but by the world. So there is a subtle override which takes place here, which undermines the efforts to evangelize and to edify the saints. The doctrine may be sound enough, and the intention to preach to the lost sincere enough. But what is being communicated to the people is the acceptability of the culture from which the music comes, and the acceptability of the kind of dance, dress, speech, and behavior that its natural setting suggests. The worst excesses may be avoided, but the direction of travel is towards the world. That is the gravitational pull which has to be worked against. Why take the risk? So my next heading is now this. Some guiding principles in thinking about music. Undoubtedly, music has great power to sway us emotionally in a way that perhaps nothing else can. Therein lies its danger and the need for careful thought. that we are instructed to sing the praises of God is not in doubt. Rejoice in the Lord, O ye righteous, for praise is comely for the upright. Praise the Lord with harp. Sing unto him with a psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. Sing unto him a new song. Play skillfully with a loud noise. Psalm 33, verses one to three. Or Psalm 71, verses 22 and 23. I will also praise thee with a psaltery, even thy truth, O my God. Unto thee will I sing with a harp, O thou holy one of Israel. My lips shall greatly rejoice when I sing unto thee, and my soul which thou hast redeemed. And then in the New Testament, Ephesians 5 verses 19 and 20. Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Colossians 3 verse 16, let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. So there are references from the Old and the New Testaments. Music is to be part of our life as worshipping people. The music is not incidental. Whether we are musical or not, whether we can sing tunefully or not, we are to sing to the Lord. But the music is to be a suitable vehicle to express sanctified emotions. It is not to disable the mind or wrestle it to the floor and disable it. It is, therefore, part of us, worshipping in spirit and in truth, our loving the Lord with heart and soul and strength and mind. Indeed, what we sing should educate and sanctify our emotional life, so we can agree that we are ideally to feel the power of the themes we sing. But what kind of music lends itself to that process? What sort of music rules itself out? How should one choose the style? What renders anything unacceptable? Now, we may not need to be great experts in music, but we do need to be aware of the function and role of musical genres and styles. We need to have a modicum at least of contact with developments out in the world, and to be alert to the impact the world is having on the Church. We are not to be unaware that there is an enemy who is seeking access to the Church and who is looking to destroy the testimony and effectiveness of the Lord's people. We cannot afford to be ignorant of his devices. Firstly, we need to ask some searching questions about the style of music itself. We need to consider, as we have been doing with hip-hop, what the music is intended to do. What is meant to be the effect of the music on us? What emotions is it designed to stir in us? We may need at this point to study the stated intention of the composer. We need to see where the composer has designed the music optimally to be played. In this regard, we may need to see where the composer plays it himself or herself. How do they play it? What is the atmosphere that sustains it, or which it is meant to create? What is the mood? How do they wish, ideally, to see their music played? If the Christian performer or composer is employing a genre of music that is new, we are entitled to study its setting. We who are elders, deacons, church officers, with responsibilities for the spiritual welfare of our churches, need to ask the questions and consider the style and background of the music. Because remember, the music is not neutral. It is geared to producing feelings of one kind or another. Hip-hop was meant to be fun. It was meant to make people party. We have to ask what the nature of fun and the party mood being catered for actually is. The words may enhance that mood. They may be quite irrelevant to it. But the primacy of the music ensures that it will be heard above the words. So if the words have nothing to say, the music will, for good or ill. We need to be alert to this. Secondly, we need to be clear about what kind of emotional states are appropriate in the church and which are not. Not every emotion that man can experience must necessarily be encouraged in the place of worship. This is where there has been some confusion over the years. The expectation is that everyone should be free to express their emotions without any inhibition. While some feelings like anger or anxiety might be ruled out, most of the rest are ruled in. The worship is judged satisfactory to the extent that it has allowed for the expression of these feelings in a satisfying way. This is where we have to make distinctions and set boundaries. The individualistic and subjective culture of our time has been allowed to dictate to the church what it expects and wants. Prevailing musical culture has exactly met that desire, with a pop concert as one of its artefacts. The individual can go and enjoy the music in a world of his own and be carried beyond the normal range of emotional experience. Sadly, people now look for that in the church, and the temptation is to alter the musical ethos of the church to meet that expectation. The standard package of worship in various ways attempts to cater for these tastes that have been shaped by the world. We need to be alert to what kinds of expressions of emotional life are valid in the church and which are not. Here, the pressure is on to wear down the resistance of those who are more conservative by claiming their reluctance to yield this point is due to temperament, Britishness, upbringing, ignorance, prejudice, repression, or something of the like. We need to contend that not every experience is right in the church. Some emotional states are not right anywhere, let alone in the house of God. Take, for example, the up-tempo music that begins so many services. This is the praise element of the praise and worship phenomenon. It stirs people up into a state of excitement and expectation. People are apt to dance around or jump around during it. So the music is there to facilitate this kind of experience. I know about it, I was there for many years. But is this what we should expect? Are we meant to be making room for this kind of expression of emotion? Well, certainly, there should be zeal and enthusiasm for the Lord's house, the Lord's day and the Lord's people. These are virtues. But wild excitement and jumping around does not belong there. This kind of expression of volatile joy and febrile excitement risks unseating our reason and disabling our thinking to a degree that transgresses scripture. Yet much modern music is intended to produce exactly that kind of explosive atmosphere. I have not frequented pop concerts, but the excitement that these generate is replicated in some Christian meetings. Pulsating and loud rhythms, supported by lights and other atmospheric effects, get people moving at the beginning of a meeting. You can see this, for example, at New Frontiers New Day meetings for young people. The style is indistinguishable from a pop concert. With hands held aloft, the young folk are carried away by the music, much as they would be in a secular concert. Comparing pictures and footage of New Day with images from a secular pop concert, there is little to tell them apart. Or take the music, employed by Christian groups like Fatfish, fronted by the undoubtedly talented Lou Fallingham. They too produce the same enthusiasm and crowd-induced ecstasy in exactly the same way as the world does. Again, we do well to stop and consider what emotions a piece of music is designed to produce and whether these are appropriate in a worship service. Because a human being is capable of such experiences does not mean that they must be produced and encouraged in the worship of God. Much of the modern music in the church is designed to replicate this kind of non-Christian atmosphere and unbecoming behavior in the church. Do we realize this? When we incorporate this material into our service, do we understand that this is what the composers intended to reproduce? So we would contend that it's much better to have music of a more stately, reverent and elevated stamp. It's much better to have a more solemn joy that better fits together with a holy and all-glorious God whom we approach to worship. This more classical feel can have livelier tunes and bright tunes, but the joy it is looking to facilitate does not spill over into something that is not sanctified. We also need to be alert to the quite unique worship experience that passes in the contemporary church for coming into the presence of the Lord or encountering God. The slower tempi and the use of reflective mood music have their own peculiar aim, to bring us into a semi-hypnotic state where we might close our eyes. Then with the palms of our hands upraised, we have an encounter with the Lord. These are like the slower numbers which might figure at the end of a disco, when couples smooch together. It does not belong in the worship of God. it is not an appropriate use of the term love when used of a holy and glorious God. In passing, we can observe, along with this kind of music, the proliferation of the term intimacy regarding the believer's relationship with the Lord. It is in vogue among some branches of the New Apostolic Reformation, the latest dominionist movement, to speak of the church as the bride of Christ in ways that go far beyond scripture. Women prepare themselves to meet with the Lord. Some even put on their wedding dresses to meet their heavenly bridegroom. It's not surprising that John Wimber features in this particular story. His early days were spent in the world of pop. He has been widely credited with pairing together the two singers, who later became the Righteous Brothers, with hits like You've Lost That Loving Feeling and Unchained Melody. With contacts and that kind of emotional music, we should not wonder that he reproduced similar sounds in the church. These sounds have since travelled forward among the ranks of Joel's army and the Manifest Sons. But it is the world's idiom for achieving some physical closeness where lovers can embrace. Learnt in the world of pop concerts, Its transfer across the spiritual realities and spiritual experience lands us back in the world of mystical experiences and is an intrusion that will only mislead and produce excesses. So we need to see what function the music plays in the world that it is taken from. What kinds of thoughts and feelings is it meant to engender? Are these appropriate in the house of God? We are indeed to be reflective and to ponder great truths as we worship, but not in a semi-hypnotic state. So we need to be clear about what kinds of emotional states we regard as appropriate in the house of God. For this will then affect our choice of music and the end that we put the music to. A third consideration is to see how much the singing is dependent upon a performance by the musicians. Could it be sung alone at home? Could it be sung unaccompanied if necessary? If the sense of occasion and worship relies upon musicians to produce it, we're using questionable music. Worship is not about performance. We should be able to draw near to the Lord whether we are in a group of three or 300. The song should be able to be sung without high degrees of musical proficiency and without sophisticated musicianship relying on technique. So often churches are people by those who attend gatherings, where there is plenty of music performed by a skilled band or orchestra, which leans heavily on complex technology to produce the right sound. Much modern song writing assumes that there will be a band performing the piece and relies on sophisticated instrumentation to carry the singing along. The singers may often have to pause as some clever playing on the keyboard eventually provides them with the next entree. Too much emphasis is placed on performance, not enough on the singing and therefore the worshipper. Fourthly, we have to ask whether there are any associations which a piece of music has which render it unsuitable. An anecdote is told of an occasion when Newton's hymn, Glorious Things of Thee I've Spoken, was sung in a meeting set to the tune it shares with Deutschland, Deutschland über alles. This caused offence to someone who had served in the armed forces against the Nazis. The connotations were too much for this man, and one would need to be sensitive to this. For many of us, the better output of the charismatic movement is still unpalatable because we know about the lives and the practices of those who are the composers. We know about the churches where they belong and the kinds of things which are taught. We fear their music in its home context functions as a sleeping draught to people, persuading them that they have good spiritual standing when the doctrines and practices of those churches would suggest otherwise. The friendly sounds and the moving tunes, the good jocturne and the powerful poetry, but all of it linked to the deceiving of precious souls. The associations are too great and too overwhelming. Even where the words and the music might be suitable, the distraction of who the songwriter is and what kind of church they belong to makes it impossible to use their material in worship. It is a sore offering. It is a defiled thing. Now we may overlook the doctrinal blemishes of some of the great hymn writers of the past and make allowance for their ecclesiology. But we know they cherish the standards of holiness and good order that reformed churches strive for. They concede to the holiness of God in a way that we do, by which modern writers and the churches and movements they belong to do not. A final and obvious consideration in the selection of music to be sung in church is, of course, the words. Banal and shallow contributions do not belong in the worship of God. Words that are slang are also to be ruled out, especially when these expressions are lifted out of a worldly context. So we do have to consider the words that we sing. While there is plenty of scope for the imaginative use of language, there is a restraint that is to be observed and a dignity that must be promoted. Conclusion. We have to report, as we complete this analysis of hip-hop and the wider analysis of music in the Church, that all is not well. The prevailing mood appears to be that anything we offer to the Lord will be pleasing to Him. Any music transferred from any setting or environment is deemed satisfactory. But is it? God is a holy God, and it is the sense of His glory that is most palpably absent in the Church of today. A lot of talk about His glory, but it is not matched by the commensurate behavior and attitude. A lot of talk about worship, but zeal harnessed to this kind of music risks being viewed as strange fire in the courts of heaven. It did not benefit Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, who offered an unauthorized offering in Leviticus chapter 10 and perished for their pains. The Lord may be extending a period of grace to us to consider our ways. But the dull discernment and sense of the majesty of God that is endemic in the church indicates that misdemeanors may be exacting a heavy toll upon us. We are not learning. We are not listening. It is to be feared that we are forfeiting the Lord's true presence and help in the process. It is slighting to his glorious being when we reckon that music, where the purpose and style of it is to engender opposition to his laws, is thought, in a sanitized version, to bring him pleasure. That is presumption. So we must encourage those who have a gift for writing good poetry. Likewise, we must encourage those who have the ability to set words to good tunes. Our musicians need our encouragement too and the help of the Lord. They have such a responsibility as they seek to assist us in our worship. For we are not looking for the Lord's frown upon us, but his smile. Surely he will take the more delight in our praises and worship, if we bring him an offering unpolluted by the world, but having a fragrance of something sacred. He is worthy of such choice offerings. The doctrines we hold dear reserve him the place of total authority and supremacy. Our worship should match those convictions. May the Lord encourage us to hallow his name in those offerings we bring to him.