Gangsta Rap

sag38, it seems you have decided ahead of time and Scripture be danged.

I don't think you even read my post--just decided that you will like whatever music you like in church and anyone who disagrees is doing it only to trash music they do not like and uphold music they like.

You see, I said I had to give up the music that suited my personal preferences. And I didn't say only traditional music is allowed.

So you are defaming my character and telling lies, all so you don't have to give up music you like.

And I am judgemental?

I think I'm arguing with a fencepost, so I'll not answer you again.

 

So Ms. Koda"k when you start to lose you resort to, "I'm not going to respond to you anymore." What I reuially find amusing is you accusing me of demeaning you when you have no problem condemning any Christian genre of music does not meet with your personal approval. Like I said before, I will stick with the Bible and you can keep quoting from your self published book of First Opinions.

 

I don't like rap music because I don't think it sounds good. At the same time, I don't think a genre of music is inherently evil. And for those who play the race card- I like a lot of black music. I love black gospel choirs and Negro spirituals.

I have a very wide range of musical tastes. I just have never been able to enjoy most country or rap.

 

Face it, you're a racist, like me. I know it's true because anyone that doesn't like rap is a racist. Therefore, since you and I don't like rap, we're racists. Hard to argue with that kind of logic, isn't it?

 

Who said "you" were a racist because you don't like rap music? I don't like it. I don't listen to it. Never have and never will. I simply suggested, and then clarified, that many folks I used to know didn't like it because it came from the African American community. In fact, and I'm repented of this a long time ago, but back in the day, it was true of me.

What I detest is the suggestion that a Christian is in rebellion if he or she raps with Chrisitan lyrics. Some want to make genres of music ungoldy without considering the content of the lyrics, the heart of the writer and singer, and the intent. That goes beyond anything close to racism. It's worse. It's called being a pharisee.

 

I must be missing something--I haven't seen anyone excluding genres of music with considering all the facts.

What I do see is some excluding genres IF the entire origin of the genre was expressly pagan or expressly to support sin.

I happen to enjoy country music. Nothing wrong as a genre. However, in the church, I will not do what country fans used to refer to as belt buckle polishing music. The musical style (even with clean lyrics) conveys inducement to sinful behavior.

I happen to enjoy some Native American music. But I will not do circle chants in the church. Circle chants musically convey native american religious belief--musically, not the lyrics. I will not bring paganism into the church.

There is some clean hip hop and rap I enjoy listening to. I will not bring the genre into the church, however, because it was founded as music giving voice to the criminal urban element. Not about race, about rebellion.

So let's turn the question around: with plenty of music available that was not invented with the express purpose of being the musical voice of a sinful or rebellious attitude, why bring it into the church?

At what point does the medium become the message?

What about the typical "stripper" sound? Do we only need clean lyrics to make it ok in church?

When were laws of God against trying to combine paganism and true worship lifted?

What is in the heart of the person who's attitude is "I may be saved but I WILL NOT give up my ____________ music." Insert any music you want: traditional, country, bluegrass, rap, Indian, rock, pop, gospel, whatever in that blank.

It is still an idol.

 

I am confused here. Are you saying that the building (church) needs to be kept holy but outside the building (church) our lives can delve into that which is not?

 

Funny how we still haven't dealt with the specificity of the charges.

Seems it's OK to level unwarranted, non-specific charges, in which we refuse to define our terms...simply to be incindiery.

It seems to me that is just as unscriptural as "using Gangsta Rap at VBS"

Oh...and BTW...who on earth mentioned "racism?" What a profoundly baseless post.

 

freeatlast--not at all!

What I am saying is that there is room for personal discernment outside the worship environment that might not be appropriate inside the worship environment.

Honky tonky music might not draw you back into that lifestyle. So it might be ok for you to listen to it. It might draw me back into it, so might not be appropriate for me to listen to it.

So far so good.

But suppose we attend the same church. Shouldn't you be willing not to have it in the church if it leads me back into any form of idolatry?

By the same token, I might be able to listen to a Navajo station out of Gallup, understanding things about the music that I would not join with but learning more about the culture in order to minister in it. That same station might cause a sister in Christ to be drawn back into attending sings.

So in the privacy of my car, I can listen. But if we attend the same church, why on earth would I risk exposing her to idolatry and drawing her back into it?

You and I both might never have been part of the "rock music is all about rebellion" crowd. So we might be able to listen to clean lyric rock music all day and not be led back into a spirit of rebellion.

But the guy across the aisle at church might have bought the whole package for a while. For him, tattoes may not have been fashion but rather an in your face declaration of war on any value except rebellion. Ditto his clothes, his music, his whole culture.

So he gets saved. He comes to church. For him bringing rock culture into the church would be continuing to walk in a spirit of rebellion.

Why would we expose him to that?

Within that freedom and discernment, however, there is another issue. Not everything about the cultures we are saved out of is evil. But if we are not willing to look at what we do and see if it squares with the Word, we are still carnal.

An example is that honky tonk atmosphere. Would a woman saved out of that really still want to look, dress, act, the same as she did before? Would that really be the best way to represent Christ--the "I'm saved but I can look and act like a hooker if I want to" attitude? Really?

I think most of us can see the blatant extremes and know the answer is of course not.

We just have two problems: picking up on when culture opposes God in less blatant ways, and picking up on it when it is OUR culture, no matter what culture that is.

 

Word to your moms, I came to drop bombs,
I got more rhymes than the Bible's got Psalms.

 

The thread's a month old--and the OP has still not defined his accusation.

I guess, as long as you pick the right "target," it's OK to play by a different set of rules...one can make accusations that are not based in fact, accusations that are vague, etc....



Sad.

THing is...if this was the SBC VBS curriculum from this year, on top of all the other problems with the OP, it's also factually incorrect as well. Ths song in question is not "gangsta rap."