In Defense of Christian Rap

I've been thinking about this subject for some time now. There are people out there, some of them perhaps reading this, that believe Christin rap is sinful.

Christian rap and it's fanbase is growing and gaining popularity. So if Christian rap is sinful, then we should be doing something to stop it. So today I'd like to present some of the main arguments against Christian rap, and we'll weigh each one. And these aren't just arguments made by crazy old grannies: many come from well-established pastors and well-meaning friends of mine. So don't think I'm misrepresenting the anti-rap side.

But before I begin, I want to just share a little bit about my personal experience... When I first heard about the existence of "Christian Rappers," I thought the term was an oxymoron. I scoffed at the idea, and rolled my eyes whenever I heard my friends talking about them. That is, until some friends had me actually listen to some Christian Rap. I loved the lyrics, since they were so full of good theology, and in time, I've grown to love the music style as well. So while reading this, if you are like I was before I heard Christian rap, then keep in mind: I was just like you.

So I did some research, and these were the four main, recurring arguments that I found in support of the idea that Christian Rap is sinful:

It's the Beat
Many argue that Rap (as well as rock, metal, Dubstep, even jazz, and essentially any "beaty" music) is inherently evil. Why? Because of the often fast-paced beat and the drums. The main claim is that the accelerated beat makes people violent, or that it has some sort of sexual element to it. Now, there is a grain of truth to this claim: A fast-paced beat will up your heart-rate, and can make you want to move around to use up that energy. Sex and violence are two ways to expel that energy (it should be noted that sex and violence aren't inherently sinful). And, admittedly, sex and violence are things we see promoted in secular rap. But when we look at Christian rap... Where's the sensuality? Where's the violence? It's not there. Why? Because, as the proponents of this argument seem to miss, there are thousands of completely innocent ways one can move around and expel energy without being sensual or violent.
Four other things must be noted under this argument: First, that not all Christian Rap songs are "beaty". Second, that Christian rappers preach against (sinful forms of) sex and violence in their songs. Third, that the desire to move around and expel energy can be resisted, and quite easily. Fourth, that "more acceptable" forms of music (such as hymns, worship, and classical music-- which I love, by the way) can, even without a fast-paced beat, have the same energizing effect and make you want to move. Are those forms of music inherently sinful as well?

Rap's Origins
Like the last argument, this one claims that rap music is inherently sinful, godly lyrics or not. The reason why is different, though. In this argument, Rap music is evil because of its sinful origins and history. Now, I won't contest the fact that rap's origins are sinful. But to say that its origin makes it evil... well, that I have to disagree with. Mainly, because that is what's known as a genetic fallacy: "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context."
The second reason I reject this argument is because of the Cross. Do you know why and how the cross originated? Pretty evil, huh? And yet, what does the cross mean to us now? One of mankind's vilest inventions was used for God's greatest purpose. Can the same not be done with rap? I don't know about you, but I find that to be pretty profound.

Look at the Rappers
The anti-rap crowd will sometimes point to the rappers themselves to prove that Christian Rap is worldly and sinful. They point to the hoodies, the cocked-back hats, the bling, and the baggy pants worn by some Christian rappers. They point to the attitudes, mannerisms, accents, and vocabulary used by some Christian rappers. "See?" they say. "They look JUST like the worldly, sinful, secular rappers!" However, this is also a fallacy: the ad Hominem or Personal Attack fallacy. Instead of judging Christian rap based on its merits, they judge it based on the merits of the rappers.
Wait, did I say merits? I should've said appearances, because this is really what's going on, and it's very unbiblical. Do some Christian rappers dress just like they do in the hood? Yes. See for yourself:

From left to right: Christian Rappers Trip Lee, Lecrae, Shai Linne, and This'l.

"Eww! Yucky!" You might say. But I bet that's what people said about John the Baptist, in his long beard and camel hide. Long story short, Man looks on the outside, but God looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
As for the mannerisms and vocabulary used by Christian Rappers... well, that's just how most African Americans living in the hood talk. It just makes sense that if that's where you came from, and that's who you're witnessing to, then that's how you should talk. Saying that's sinful could be considered racist, besides being unbiblical and completely unhelpful.
The one thing I do like about this argument is that it can be turned around so easily. If you're going to judge Christan rap based on the merits of the rappers, then look at their fruits (Matthew 7:20), not their appearances. And what are their fruits? Well, most Christian rappers lead missions efforts in urban areas, preaching on the streets, feeding the poor, planting, pastoring, and supporting churches... the list goes on. Through these men, God has saved many people from lives of addiction, abuse, drugs, alcoholism, gang violence, prostitution, and more. I honestly have a really hard time arguing with those kinds of fruits. What about you?

Giving in to the Culture?
This argument makes me kind of sad. Like the last argument, it's not really an argument against rap, but against the rappers themselves: another personal attack fallacy. Those who oppose Christian rap accuse Christian rappers of cowardice, caving in to the culture, and compromising with the world. Wow. If only these people actually knew a thing or two about the people they're making these accusations about. It puts their ignorance on display, in a way. Though --and I will touch on this later-- this is the case with most arguments against Christian rap.
Christian rappers are not caving to the culture. Most of them were raised in the culture of drugs, rape, murder, and gangs. Now that they've been saved by Christ, they're on an all-out war to fundamentally change that culture for Christ, using Christian rap as part of their ministry.
Christian rappers are not cowards. Many of these brave men and women are spearheading missions to the deepest, darkest and most violent hoods, where other Christians --the REAL cowards-- dare not go.
Christian Rappers are not compromising with the world. Instead, they've taken something from the world and have turned it to good use, like the cross mentioned earlier. They have, essentially, plundered the Egyptians. Besides: if these rappers DID compromise with the world, then the world would love them. But that's not the case: the world hates them (John 15:9). As a recent example, Christian Rapper Bizzle made a song that preached against homosexuality. As a result, he has received loads of criticism, hatred, and even many death threats. Doesn't sound like a compromiser or a coward to me.

Now, there are a few common factors visible in each of these arguments, and I'd like to talk about them.

The first is cultural elitism of sorts.
If you're going to make a case that something is sinful, then you should bring up Bible verses, or at least biblical principles, and apply them to the subject. Instead, we talk about music styles, sideways hats, and the use of ebonics to praise God. In other words, the best people can come up with is that Christian rap is evil because it's different. Different from the white, western, civilized, classical culture that we've been raised in. Different from what we're used to. I'm sorry, but if you go around the world and visit Christians in other cultures, guess what? You're going to find a LOT of differences, cultural differences. The Christians you meet will eat differently, speak differently, and have different artistic and musical tastes. Being different doesn't automatically make them all evil.

The second common thread is ignorance.
Many of the people making these arguments have never listened to Christian rap, and (as shown by some of their arguments) know next to nothing about the rappers themselves. Now, that doesn't make them wrong, and I'm not saying they have to meet the rappers and listen to their music before they can make any arguments against them. I mean, I don't need to engage in cannibalism to know that it's wrong. But I should at least know a thing or two about cannibalism (like that it involves the murder and consumption of human beings), so that I can use biblical principles to refute it (like the commandment not to murder). Most people opposing Christian rap do neither of these things, as is clear by their most popular arguments.

The third common factor is a lack of scripture. I've touched on this a little bit already, but the common arguments against Christian rap contain little to no scriptural support. In light of this, I suppose it makes sense that they have to fall back on ignorance and cultural elitism to condemn Christian rap.
"Now now" you say "just because there's no verse against rap doesn't mean rap is okay! The Bible doesn't specifically mention abortion, and yet, you yourself oppose abortion." and you're right, totally. The Bible doesn't specifically address some of these issues. BUT, we should be able to apply basic biblical principles to these things. The Bible doesn't say abortion is wrong, but it does say that murder is wrong, and abortion involves murder, so I can logically conclude that abortion is sinful. No such Biblical principles can be put in a similar logical progression to show that Christian rap is sinful. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

As this long post comes to a close, I want to make a few things clear.
Rap, Christian or otherwise, is not inherently sinful. That should be clear already. However, we should also be careful about making blanket statements. You can't say that ALL rap is sinful, but in the same way, I can't say that ALL Christian rap is gold. I'm sure you could find some that isn't all that great.
But my purpose in this post is not to say that all Christian Rap is great. Nor am I saying that you should all become fans of Christian rap, or that you're a sinner for not doing so. My goal is to show that the arguments against Christian rap fall apart, and like the cross, rap --though created for evil-- can be effectively used for God's Glory.

I'd like to close with a quote from an article by Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

"...I have made many of the same arguments [against Christian Rap] myself. In my head. Thankfully not in public. Am I holding back?
No, I allow myself those arguments in my head when I want to absolutize my preferences and satisfy myself in the righteousness and superiority of my own musical taste and theology. The problem for me is that my theology of music will not allow me to stay self-satisfied on the matter, and by God’s grace I have not made arguments out loud that would violate that theology.
Rap music is not my music. I do not come from a culture in which rap music is the medium of communication and I do not have the ear for it that I have for other forms of music. But I do admire its virtuosity and the hold that is has on so many, for whom it is a first and dominant musical language. I want that language taken for the cause of the Gospel and I pray to see a generation of young Gospel-driven rappers take dominion of that music for the glory of God. I see that happening now, and I rejoice in it. I want to see them grow even more in influence, reaching people I cannot reach with music that will reach millions who desperately need the Gospel."

The Language of Salvation

The nature of salvation, how it is accomplished, and the roles played in it are hotly debated. Scriptures are scoured and finely examined to try and produce a verdict, some conclusion that we can all agree on and that fully explains everything.

Why does it matter? Well, what you believe about salvation effects what you believe about God and His relationship with man, and your conclusions will (or at least, should) determine your entire worldview and the way you live your life. The implications are enormous.

Ultimately, I am of the opinion that we will never fully understand every aspect of salvation and how it works until we reach heaven. How does God change a black and sinful heart of stone into one of flesh? How does God's sovereignty work together with man's will? We don't know how. We just know that it does, and that it works, because we see and feel the effects.

However, there are some basic truths that we can infer about salvation just by looking at the words, examples, metaphors, and analogies that the Bible uses to describe the salvation process. And, not surprisingly, they favor a Reformed view of Salvation. Take a look:

Adopted: Romans 8:15, 8:23; 9:4; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5.
Who does the work in the process of adoption? The adopted, or he adopters? We don't adopt God, He adopts us. God is the one who works salvation, and thus He deserves the glory.

Bought/Purchased: Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23; Revelation 5:9.
What role does an item play in being purchased? Christ purchased us with His blood. What part did we play in that? None.

Inherited: Acts 20:32, 26:18; Ephesians 1:11, 1:14, 1:18, 5:5, Colossians 1:12, 3:24; Hebrews 9:15; 1 Peter 1:4.
The Kingdom of heaven is referred to as our inheritance. An inheritance is something that is given to you whether you want it or not, and is not something you earn. It is bequeathed to you, typically by your parents. In the same way, our heavenly Father who has adopted us, has prepared an inheritance for us.

Made Alive/Raised: 1 Corinthians 15:22; Ephesians 2:1, 2:5-6; Colossians 2:12-13, 3:1.
What can a dead man do to raise himself up? What choice can he make to be raised up? And can He resist being made alive? No, he can do nothing, for He is dead. Who raises Him up? Who does the work? God, of course. Look at the raising of Lazarus or the raising of Jairus' daughter. Jesus says "Come forth" and "Arise" (respectively) and the corpses, made alive, obey. They don't sit and say "You know, it's my choice, I'll make it when I'm good and ready." They come. A dead man cannot choose to be made alive, a dead man cannot make himself alive or play any active part in doing so, and a dead man cannot resist being made alive. It's the same when God goes to make us spiritually alive in Him.

Born: John 1:13, 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 5:18.
A baby does not give birth to itself, nor does his birth hinge upon his decision to be born or not. The same is true of our new birth in Christ.

The list goes on. The scripture is bursting with examples like these. The words used in the Bible to describe the salvation process and man's relationship with God constantly affirm the Five Solas and the Five Points of Calvinism: specifically, that salvation is of God, and not of man.

"The only thing of our very own which we contribute to our salvation is the sin which makes it necessary." --William Temple

Using the Bible to Defend Life

John Barros (left) and Scott Klusendorf (right)

My stomach churned. It always does in situations like that. The donuts I'd had for breakfast weren't helping. Even though it was early December, the light of the sun was warm on my shoulders. But such is Florida.

I was with a group of other homeschooled Christian teens -- all close friends of mine -- helping pastor John Barros to convince people not to kill their babies at an abortion clinic in Downtown Orlando. John Barros had been doing this about six days a week for years now. He had experience. Me? This was my first time.

John Barros uses an interesting method. He reads and quotes scripture, a lot. It's very normal for Pastor Barros to take a megaphone, turn to the book of Revelation, and preach judgement upon those inside the clinic (he let my friend Jacob do the reading on that day). And it gets results: people walk out of there, convicted of their sin, too scared of hell to follow through with killing their baby.

To be honest, I felt uneasy about this method. However, I bowed to Pastor Barros' authority and experience, and went along with it. I mean, come on: He'd been doing this six days a week for years, and this was my first time. He knows what he's doing, I don't.

But one thing Pastor Barros said really stood out to me. My friend Jacob and I had just failed to convince a Haitian man to let his baby live. What had we done wrong? John Barros old us this:

"You can't reason with them. You just need to keep giving them scriptures."

Several months later, I was at a homsechool convention in Cincinatti, Ohio. Scott Klusendorf, pro-life advocate and president of Life Training Institute, gave several talks on how to engage people on the topic of abortion and present a water-tight case for life.

His approach was totally different from Pastor Barros'.

Mr. Klusendorf's argument for life does not involve ANY scripture verses. Instead, he relies almost exclusively on science and logic to make his case. You can see for yourself on his website.

Mr. Klusendorf's method, like John Barros' method, also gets results. He speaks at schools, churches, and conventions, and also debates leading "pro-choice" advocates. Many people are convinced by his flawless logic.

These two prominent pro-life heroes use completely different methods to combat the same evil. Who uses the correct method?

This blog hasn't seen any lively discussion in a while (the forums have been silent for almost a year), and so I'd like for people to post their opinions in the comments and let me know what they think.

Which man has the better method? Are they both right? Are they both wrong? Should we use scripture only and not try to reason with people, or should we reason with them using science and logic and leave the Bible out of things? What do you think?

In my opinion, I think both men are right, but I think Scott's method is more sound. Why? Well, the Bible has little to no weight with the unbeliever. They couldn't care less what a 2,000 year old book says about how they should live their lives. Trying to use the Bible to convince them abortion is wrong would be a waste of time.

Should we still use the Bible? Yes. And Scott does use it to present the gospel --as we always should when engaging unbelievers-- he simply doesn't use it when making his case for life.

I'm still forming my own opinion on the matter, but I would like to hear yours. What part does the Bible play in making the case for life?