Holy Hip-Hop?

The druids. Wicca. the Platonists. chants and other such things. (I forgot to mention, that it was actually the Greeks and Romans Paul in your Romans reference to was actually referring to!) There is no evidence from bibical or secular history to suggest that "the godly" used "solemn" sounds only, and only "pagans" used rhythmic sounds. So it is the critics of rock who have long made up their own facts when there are none; counting on the logic SOUNDing "godly" and biblical. (and people being to lazy to check it out).

Right. I was in a rush, and sometimes it's hard to remember some of those words.
But in practice, many "conservative" churchs are dark and gloomy, and these are usually the ones who scream the loudest about new worship.

They were. Ask many of these "rebels" who grew up inder that 50's and earlier society. As I say at http://members.aol.com/etb700/rightwing.html "They preached biblical love, but then practiced racism and sexism. They talked morality and holiness, but didn't live up to it. Then, they sat in armchairs sending this whole generation off to horrible wars, and when they
came back, totally disoriented, and created the hippie and rock phenomena, they simply got mad
at them for 'rebelling' and blasted them as culture-destroying enemies rather than poor lost souls
reacting to a difficult and confusing series of events, and who needed to see the truth (not just
hear it preached at them)". Them "holding up a standard" did not make up for their sins and errors, but this whole argument is based on works-justication. (sins not as bad as others; "good" makes up for them, etc) I wish you could see it for the blatant rejection of the Biblical Gospel it really is!

I'm sorry, but your classical and tradition style is not made God's preference by default of seniority (preference of 20th century parents) Do you REALLY think that is how we determine truth? All cultures have had sin and rebellion. If it weren't for improvisation in light of earlier generation's opposition, we would be using whatever style and songs used in the NT Church (instruments or not), and it wasn't 17th-19th century Western hymns! There is no escape from this fact.

And was Israel in NT times just as debauched as their contemporary Greece, Rome, or even Samaria? No. the Pharisees certainly made a point if this. But whose nation suffered God's [temporal] wrath in a few decades? Which one provoked the most wicked act in history? The entire lesson of this was that NONE were righteous, (the HEARTs were all the same, despite the OUTWARD appearance) and even claims of being "more righteous" than others were illusory and outright deceptive, and would only lead to blindness to one's own sin, and thus missing of God's grace. But we have not learned AT ALL. We repeat, lock, stock and barrel, their error, thinking we top even them, now, because "we have Christ". (that all the more gives us less excuse!)
But WOW; amazing how it's US who happen to be the "better people". (and once again, all the corruption in our society comes from outside). Doesn't that seem just a bit too good to be true?

Just whatever happened to "esteem others better than themselves" (Phil.2:3). I guess that's only for those inferior dog cultures. There is possibly no one better than us!

I'm sorry, but that old "PC" scapegoat won't work. You forget that "interracial dating" WAS a matter of "honoring one's parents", and still is with many. (also, honoring one's school, church, nation, etc) It was the SAME exact issue as the music: Don't "mongrelize" the superior with the inferior! But this is more embarrasing, so we tend to deny it more. Your beef is "traditional correctness" (the right wing counterpart to "PC"), and you just cannot admit its sin, and stop judging people today by their twisted, half-biblical 'only-when-it-benefits-us', "standards".

But you're not saying "not as useful"; you're saying "not good at all". "trash", and going beyond the others, you add "offense to God".

Well others (Cloud and most of the rest of the KJVO's) do, and I have never seen your side disclaiming their positions on that (until now).

I have acknowledges this point on my CCM page. But once again, that is just a misuse of it. Just like marching was used for evil (including the control of people being led into the evil acts).

This eans nothing. Since it is rap we are talking about, no one is using it to replace "psalms, hymns, spiritual songs" in Church, so you cannot even bring your "rhythm denigrates worship of God" argument into that. The same with many forms of rock. You just don't want the style to exist at all!

You need to answer the question. Notice how you just bowed out of this discussion on that "confession of a worship leader" thread, without even trying to prove it anymore!

 

Cross Movement-Extremely good Christian rap... They dont even brag about being the best .. they actually teach and exhort christian teens from following worldly trends chasing tail(before marriage), drinking, smoking up etc..
It has no profanity even...

 

Eric,

Your doing it again.

You said this to SeekingTruth:

Here is the exact quote from SeekingTruths post...

He clearly said that HE THINKS it stinks and is trash.

Why cant you tolerate people expressing their opinion about this rap stuff?

Mike

 

From Aaron: How one discerns between the good and the horrid is the question. Would you care to outline your criteria? What is good rock, and what is horrid rock, and why?

Musically, the good in any genre shows a balance between melody, rhythm, and harmony. Musically speaking, what makes so much rap, hip hop, and rock bad is the concentration on rhythm and/or the boringly repetitive melody line. The one exception to the 'boring' where the repetitive melody line is concerned is in true folk music.

Morally, the good in any genre will be encouraging and uplifting, or, possibly warning. Too much today and yesterday, and probably tomorrow, too, is dragging down and depressing. I love the joke about what happens when you play country music backwards -- you get your dog back, your girl back, your truck back.... It's a joke but it points out that what country music is known for is loss. That makes such classics as "Stand By Your Man" a true classic and one of the best of its type. It has musical balance and it is encouraging and uplifting.

Now, specifically rock and roll -- you may not like this, but there was some classic stuff done by Elvis. "Love Me Tender" is one.

The Beatles came out with an entirely new musical form with "I Want to Hold Your Hand" which is fascinating in terms of chord progression. It is also balanced musically and kind of neutral morally. Musically, I'd consider it good rock.

Groups like the Mamas and the Papas, the Beachboys, the Carpenters had wonderful musical balances and some of their lyrics were lovely. Some weren't, but some were. Abba had incredible music and balance. Some of the lyrics stunk and were morally garbage, but there were also those other songs which will always make me smile -- Chiquatita, Fernando, Waterloo...

I know this is old stuff, old examples, but I am an old lady and prefer speaking about what I know. I don't know the modern stuff too well.

At any rate, I hope that answers your question.

 

Helen,

Oh c'mon now. You dont look old at all in that picture.

Your not missing much.

Mike

 

Good so far. By balance I'm assuming you mean they're in the right relationship.

Musically speaking, what makes so much rap, hip hop, and rock bad is the concentration on rhythm and/or the boringly repetitive melody line.

Yep.

Morally, the good in any genre will be encouraging and uplifting, or, possibly warning. Too much today and yesterday, and probably tomorrow, too, is dragging down and depressing. I love the joke about what happens when you play country music backwards -- you get your dog back, your girl back, your truck back.... It's a joke but it points out that what country music is known for is loss. That makes such classics as "Stand By Your Man" a true classic and one of the best of its type. It has musical balance and it is encouraging and uplifting.

An evaluation of the words, necessary as it is, doesn't make the music itself good or bad. It makes the song good or bad, but not the music itself.

The Beatles came out with an entirely new musical form with "I Want to Hold Your Hand" which is fascinating in terms of chord progression. It is also balanced musically and kind of neutral morally. Musically, I'd consider it good rock.

Groups like the Mamas and the Papas, the Beachboys, the Carpenters had wonderful musical balances and some of their lyrics were lovely. Some weren't, but some were. Abba had incredible music and balance. Some of the lyrics stunk and were morally garbage, but there were also those other songs which will always make me smile -- Chiquatita, Fernando, Waterloo...

You're basically saying that these are all good because you like them. You refer a lot to balance, and all of your examples are on a higher plane than most of what is called garbage today. But the kicker is, how does one know whether something is balanced or not? I'm certain many of your parents' generation would have called the good music from your examples trash.

 

Aaron: ...you attempt to shine a bad light on the parents and present them as hypocritical and unreasonable and unworthy of honor for having any kind of standard at all.

Eric: ...They were. Ask many of these "rebels" who grew up inder that 50's and earlier society. As I say at http://members.aol.com/etb700/rightwing.html "They preached biblical love, but then practiced racism and sexism. They talked morality and holiness, but didn't live up to it. Then, they sat in armchairs sending this whole generation off to horrible wars, and when they
came back, totally disoriented, and created the hippie and rock phenomena, they simply got mad
at them for 'rebelling' and blasted them as culture-destroying enemies rather than poor lost souls
reacting to a difficult and confusing series of events, and who needed to see the truth (not just
hear it preached at them)". Them "holding up a standard" did not make up for their sins and errors, but this whole argument is based on works-justication. (sins not as bad as others; "good" makes up for them, etc) I wish you could see it for the blatant rejection of the Biblical Gospel it really is!

And I rest my case. This is one of the worst examples of gross misrepresentation, overgeneralization, and arbitrary assumption ever seen. And what is worse, you present it as truth. Can anyone here really take this seriously—besides Daniel and Bonga Dale, I mean?

 

Aaron, my father was a musician and I grew up around musicians. I grew up with more music than the spoken word. I learned to read following my grandfather's finger as he moved it along the scores to various Gilbert and Sullivan operettas. By seven years old I was trying to organize the neighborhood kids into a production of Iolanthe! Failed miserably, but thought I would mention that I have a rather ancient and extensive musical background.

So I stand by my post not as a matter of personal opinion, which you asked me to give anyway, but as a matter of accepted professional musicianship. I started out hating the Beatles in high school. It was my father and another musician friend of his who showed me what was going on with them. So, while I have never liked them actually, as a matter of personal preference, I can appreciate what they did with music. "Balance" is an understood musical term if you know music at all. For instance, any of the Strausses tend to show more balance than Wagner. And that has NOTHING to do with anything modern!

 

The whole Christian life is about balance!!!!

 

If it gives the message of Christ to even ONE person who would otherwise have not listened long enough to hear that message - it is a good thing.

The purpose of Christian music is to praise the Lord, or to witness for the Lord.

I don't care if they do it with stones and bear-claws if they do it for the Lord.

 

I agree Texassky

 

Look out, Daniel's about to find something in the Bible about music, i.e. about the proper arrangment of musical elements, e.g. style!

Though I would argue that "balance" is not a fruit of the Spirit and is really a euphemism for "being lukewarm," the fact remains that Daniel is about to apply something he thinks the Bible says we should strive for to musical styles. Something he said God has not spoken on...

 

This is what I'm looking for right here. You're making an appeal to musicology. You're basically saying that music is a science which is governed by certain natural laws existing outside the realm of opinion (for which I didn't ask you in the first place) and personal preference and can be found by men who are looking for them.

"Balance" is an understood musical term if you know music at all.

Then you might want to tell the folks at Virginia Tech. They left it out of their exhaustive dictionary of musical terms.

http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/

But certainly by "balanced," you weren't implying that melody, harmony and rhythm (which are the elements you described with the term) are to be equal in rank. Musicology puts melody as first in rank, governing the harmony and rhythm.

 

This is baloney. First, it's the Spirit, not our own efforts, that gives one ears to hear. Second, God has already told us His chosen method to spread the message, and it's a method which appears weak and foolish to men so man can't share the glory. Third, God is always concerned with the manner in which something is said.

Fruitful or not, there is a right way and wrong way to present the Gospel. What makes something a good thing is what God has said, not what men will respond to.

 

Oh my word! Thanks for the warning! I wouldn't want to fall into that trap, would I?

 

Because, like I said, you all do not sound like you're expressing an opinion, even when you do add "I think". I was aware of that already, but you still insist on reiterating it as if to rub in the utter contempt all the more. You have to admit that "Trash" is a harsh word. It means "worthless". Remember what Jesus said about using a word that means "worthless" (Matt.5). It may not be directed at a person, but, it does kind of call into question that person's tastes if he happens to like it. That's what we should be careful about tossing such words around so liberally. We can have our own "opinions", but in RESPECTing others, we should not be quick to shoot down their tastes and opinions like that. I generally do not even think in terms of "trash", even for stuff I see as having little worth, like the hard rock stuff. The only things I call "trash" are products (especially electronics, and also furniture, etc) that is cheaply made. And even then, I probably would not go up to the designer and call it "trash".

 

No, it's your claim that rock would not exist if it were not for "rebellion against authority"! There were many liberal minded parents back then as well who probably did not object to rock. So their children would not have to "rebel" to listen to it. Since you always reminded us that it started with jazz, that was around even earlier, and pretty much excepted by most, with the exception of the separatistic fundamentalists, and some others (including some "musicologists") who looked down on the culture it came from.

"misrepresentation, overgeneralization, and arbitrary assumption". I guess this means that some things I said had some grain of truth, but were distorted, some things were true, but exaggerated, and some things I just made up. Well, which were which? I wasn't around back then, and I don't think you were either . But my parents were. And their whole generation, which is saying the same things about what the "morality" was really like back then. And it matches clearly what the Bible says about man and sin. There was always rebellion, and no culture was ever able to undo this and keep sin in check. Even Christian writers like Philip Yancey acknowledge this, and they would have no reason to lie or misrepresent your old society.
If you want to suggest all of these people were lying against your godly past society, then why do you deny when I speak hyperbolically about people thinking that society was "sinless"? It must have been, the way you all speak about this sudden "fall" in the 60's, with rock and roll and immorality!

I am sorry, but you have to stop holding up past society as the standard we today are to be judged by. When you do that, you are rehecting the Bible as the standard, and to equate that society with the Bible as if to say that preaching one is the same as preaching the other is to call God a liar!

Your case needs a rest, because it is dead, as we have already seen in other threads!

And you still have yet to prove which is "good", and which is "bad".

And even with just "preaching", or "plain, solemn music", men still end up glorying in it! --often more than any others, since they are the ones who believe only their methods and styles are acceptable to God!
Actually; that's NOT what it says! (1 Cor.1) v.18 and 21 mention "the foolishness of preaching" (and this in contrast to BAPTISM-v17; an excellent proof to use against the Campbellists and catholists here!). Then, beginning v.26, be mentions the contrast between "the wise" versus "the foolish" meaning people who are "called". In THIS context, we get v.29 "that no flesh should glory".
Also contrasted in v.17, is "the wisdom of words(speech)", which would cover even alot of our "preaching", and the way many often manipulate texts to teach what we want. It is WHAT is being preached (the "Cross", or all these other arguments ('acceptable' music, etc), from our own wisdom) moreso than preaching versus some other method.
While I'm not advocating turning the Church into an entertainment show, still, we must be more careful about the way we throw some of these passages out in these debates!

 

Why are people so negative towards Christian rap? You should know something. Not to long ago I listened to Eminem everyday. I went to Ichthus which is a 3 day Christian music festival and heard a guy named KJ-52. He sounded alot better than Eminem. But his voice sounded just like him. You see. Just little things like that in Christian music can change someones life. That was about 1 1/2 years ago. Now I have felt a calling to the ministry and am growing in Christ everyday. I can think the Rap organization for that. So if you still have any negative comments towards the industry please think about this. I am only 1 person who was changed by it. There are 3 in my church that have had the same change. Just in my church.

 

Sorry I took so long to get back to this thread.
I said:

You said

Eric, you do have a hang-up. Just because I didn't use the words you mandate should be used in expressing an opinion does not cause it not to be an opinion. If I were stating afact, I would have said in "In fact, it stinks...".

You do not know what my color is, I have never stated it and do not intend to. You generalized that because I dared to criticize your "music", I am white. Are you so superior in your views and opinions that all who disagree with you are immediately identified as white racists? Is anyone who does not like rap a racist? I had no idea whjat your race is until YOU made an issue of it. Do you honestly believe that the only people who like rap are black, and to dislike rap is to dislike blacks.

Talk about characteristics being applied to an entire group of people with no reason other than your personal beliefs, look to your self first. I will pray that God removes these hangups from you and gives you the peace you desire and deserve.

 

Hangups? You are obviously the one with the hangup. You are reading thigs I never SAID.
My first comment on race, from my first post in this thread was:

.
Then, when one person reacted; I clarified it with:

.

Then, when a person who unashamedly argues for "better cultures" steps in, there is more exchange about race.

Finally; I answer you:
"The way some of you [NOT you or any particular individual in particular, but general] are "giving" your "opinions" does sound like an insult on an entire people, though not one (me) in particular." and

But in no case do you see me say "You all are racist", or "[so-and-so] is a racist". I did not even say "you [so-and-so] hate rap because you are another race". (I do know of whites who like it, and blacks who hate it. That does not change the fact that there are those whose attitudes towards it are influenced by cultural issues, and I do not know you or anyone else enough to know whether that applies (so it's "to whom the shoe fits..."), but WE ALL should be aware of this).

Yet you run off half-cocked, defensively, with what you think I am saying, what I am "generalizing" (I said or presumed, or inquired NOTHING concerning your race. Where on earth did you get that from?), and then from this, build this case that I am the one with the "hangup", and the one "applying characteristics to an entire group of people". You have just made up an entire conversation with yourself, so you should look to yourself first!

Once again, you originally said:

So I give my opinion of what I think may have influenced SOME people's attitudes, and CAUTION everyone about this (Just as we caution anyone who says something that appears to be heading in the way of any false doctrine), and you want to take it as a personal insult to you. Even after I repeatedly tell you it is not.

So in order for it to be a statement of fact; it must be qualified with "in fact..." But in order for it to be an opinion; it doesn't have to be qualified with "My opinion is...". Just the statement "it stinks" by itself automatically suggests opinion?
No; I'm sorry; but that is AT BEST could go either way; and it really leans more toward fact. Such and such IS; no qualification. then, when you take the tone, and emphasis of the statment, that plays into what is communicated as well (whether intended or not). That is why statements like that, about other people's preferences, should be mitigated with a clear statement of opinion. It is not what I mandate how something should be said. Go up to anyone putting down what they like like that, and you will see a lot of people annoyed with you, and you will wonder why or think they are all out to accuse you, or something, apparently.
All I was asking for was a little more respect, (and once again, you take this as a personal attack). Did you read the post a few up on this page where I discuss the Bible's teachings on harsh words? I think we owe each other as Christians more respect, regardless of what the world may do (I for one know that it is common for people to blurt their "opinions" out like this, and when one does it, that is bad enough, but then when a whole bunch of people do it, it gets to be too much already. You should see the debates on cartoon boards and sites, for instance, about the fictional character Scrappy Doo, or the entire animation studio Filmation!).

Just think; if you could get so bent out of shape behind my statements, then how much less "hung up" than me could you be when a whole bunch of people begin trashing something you like like that?