“Disobedient Cowards”

Jung, Feckless, & Deformed Rap Culture

Table of Contents

Introduction:                                                                                             

Point 1: Our Views of Scripture                                                           

Point 2: The Novel Perversity of Rap                                                

Point 3: Utility, Evangelism, and the Regulative Principle         

Point 4: Rapper’s Departure from the Orthodox Faith               

Point 5: The Light of the World?                                                         

Point 6: “Redeeming Music to a Godly Purpose”                        

Point 7: What is objectively evil about rap music?                        

Point 8: Mixing Worldliness with the Gospel is Evil.                     

Point 9: Considering Examples                                                           

Point 10: A Sampling of the Worldling Apologists                        

Conclusion                                                                                                 

______________________________________________

Introduction

Back in 2013 or so the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches (NCFIC) held a conference in which a panel of Christian “leaders” were asked what they thought of “Christian” Rap music. In a strictly momentary lapse of cowardice, candor and honesty briefly took the stage, and the “panelist’s” reflections went very heavily against rap music. Candid reprobation was all it received, one dissenting voice excepted. However, after all the platformed spiritual prostitutes in the “blogosphere” were done having seizures and foaming at the mouth, both openly and behind the scenes, everyone (Joe Morecraft excepted) lined up and apologized for the audacity of their faithful testimony, and we’ve seen nothing but abject groveling from them ever since for daring to rebuke something any and every Christian culture would have damned to hell prior to 1980. But we mustn’t expect the modern man to be anything like the past. They were all bigots then, and we’re all enlightened. The world is growing godlier all the time. If your god is Satan.

But, what? We have the views of antiquity upon the subject of Rap Music? For any that have any familiarity with antiquity it could not be more perfectly obvious. And if it weren’t, we have it from a Rap Music advocate himself, Paul Washer, chuckling about how former generations would not have concurred with his advocacy of it.[1] But, you see… we all know that. Because the fact is, there exists not one soul on earth who imagines any of such men of the past would have tolerated any of this. No one would want to look that ignorant. But that makes us “Cutting Edge”, and “hip”. And these days, that’s super cool. We’ve unfettered ourselves from any connection with the past, other than the fact that we print their books and celebrate their ministries. We imagine.

But I don’t blame Scott Brown, the leader of the NCFIC. There will always be these types that will prove inveterate servants of Big Eva. It’s the people who can never stand that have egregiously erred here. All people have to do is to start having seizures and everyone stands down, rather than perceiving such an event as a fortuitous opportunity to glorify the truth simply because everyone is having seizures about it. It gives real men of God a chance to glorify God, rather than going limp at the first sign of Big Eva’s displeasure.  Thus, while one of the panelists had called rappers “disobedient cowards”, the pastors themselves were rather the ones who fulfilled this description even more perfectly in wimping out at a golden opportunity to honor God in the face of evil advocacy and pressure to vacate the truth.  

Because what is perfectly obvious is this: these men were plainly speaking their sincere thoughts, who’s oh-so-sincere retractions but manifested how marketable their convictions are, seeing as they will turn chameleon if called upon to lose anything for them. Excepting the one male who stood his ground and didn’t shrivel at the censures, the one and only hero of the story, Joe Morecraft.

So despite the cowardice and “situational ethics”, all but one of them agree that rap music is inconsistent with the message of the gospel. They just had no backbone to stand to it. They answered that question with obvious sincerity and conviction. They weren’t expressing this disgust, and then suddenly they all came up with this sincere appreciation and approbation for what a day earlier they had reprobated. They had disgust, and were shamed into denying it and shutting up. Which is probably why all the degenerate bloggers cannot shut up and forgive them, shaming session after shaming session appearing to eviscerate their former godly testimony.

In my opinion, however, this dialogue has been provocative and profitable, as it provided an occasion for public contemplation of a topic on which serious discussion is as sorely needed as it is typically absent, and also because it has exposed the hireling spirit of compromising “pastors” who will alter or renounce what was obviously their sincere beliefs should people frown at them hard enough. All of that is good to be known, both what they believe, and that they were willing to sell it for (false) peace. However, you can hardly find a word agreeing with their original faithfulness. All you have to do is say “racist” and everyone throws their bible away and gets in line.

So whether “Christian” rappers are disobedient cowards or not, one thing became abundantly clear over the course of these events.  Whatever might be said of the rappers, the panelists most certainly were, and still are, disobedient cowards, because they can’t make an honest confession about what they obviously believe, should suffering attend their good confession.  And thus the title of this article, “Disobedient Cowards”, a reference, not to rappers, but to the spiritually castrated church leadership that hadn’t the manhood to stand firm in what they plainly believed, all being renounced within hours, one excepted. Disobedient, because we are commanded to stand to the truth and suffer for it, and cowards, because they let the slightest degree of such suffering prevail to silence them.

But of course, it’s a much greater subject than that of a mere conference of Reformed Wannabes. Because presently pretty much the whole world is full of pastors who nearly all might be thus described, because “Disobedient Cowards” pretty much would include 95% of the Christian world, who’s cowardice silences them from testifying against any of the regnant evils of the day, and the great majority likely feel just like the Disobedient Cowards at the conference under contemplation, but like them as well will not risk anything for the sake of the church or its sanctity.

So, then, let us address the issue of this novel form of entertainment in a biblical light, under ten points of critique.

First: Our Views of Scripture

Let us consider the manner in which your typical modern Christian views scripture and how he discerns duty from the bible. The first thing the biblical iconoclast will always hear from the worldling professor of the age is that any remonstrance against worldliness (of whatever form) is but a human invention supported only by his private predilection, and not supported by any scriptural prohibition. The objector, however, will perennially be blinded to the fact that his incapacity for considering biblical arguments are fueled by his own prejudices, and a thing being proven unlawful from the bible, and his agreeing that it has been proven, have the same liabilities he only thinks of for others. He himself is full of prejudices which have indeed blinded him to something obviously sinful.

The main prejudice this person has latched on to is when he attempts to assert that anything affirmed to be unlawful must be condemned by name before any believer is obliged to count it unlawful. And there goes the entire section of the Westminster catechism on the ten commandments, (which provides perhaps hundreds of practical applications of the commandments that aren’t named, and as well the section on the Scriptures that says that not only that which is “expressly set forth” in scripture is binding upon the conscience, but as well that “which by good and necessary consequence” can be deduced form scripture. (1:6)  So when these tell us that all things are accounted lawful until explicitly prohibited in scripture, are they ready to agree to the example of their own catechism and allow that principles rule, and not just a command that says “thou shalt not rap”?

As Cunningham so adroitly pointed out, “Heretics, in every age and of every class, have, even when they made a profession of receiving what is expressly set down in Scripture, shown the greatest aversion to what are sometimes called Scripture consequences, that is, inferences or deductions from scriptural statements beyond what is expressly contained in the mere words of Scripture, as they stand in the page of the sacred record.”^[2] If everything were spelled out in black and white it were first, unnecessary to the saint, and second would alter the character of the bible from a spiritual revelation to a law book designed to restrain the wicked, and would take a few thousand volumes.

Typically if moderns aren’t shackled with explicit condemnation from the bible, they are most intolerant to hear of any principle deduced from scripture that may inhibit their liberty to be worldly, and will insist that their love of it is a freedom purchased to them by the blood of Christ. Which is a phrase I’ve never understood. The blood of Christ purchased to us liberty from condemnation from the good and just laws of God; not from arbitrary laws of men. Arbitrary laws of men are null simply upon account that they are not commanded of God. Justice renders us free from them, not the blood of Christ. And when men talk like this it very much reveals their thoughts, that they really do count biblical restraints to be of God, but that the blood of Christ somehow frees them from obedience, rather than from guilt, and that this biblical liberty obliges their grateful obedience.

 But this insistence upon each sin having a name in the bible, would mean that nearly any and every practice will be counted lawful, so long as we give it some other name or unique expression than existed in bible times, and though the plainness of a given practice for ungodliness be perfectly evident and equal, yet the true legalist cares not for purity, but only for what deportment will afford him credit in his thus vain profession. And that’s pretty much the modern ethic…. If we could call it that.

And any and every standard raised against this “ethic” creates a firestorm from those who are rightfully convicted as the worldlings they are, against anyone who tries to reason with them of their blindness and degeneracy, perennially viewing themselves as the defenders of Christian “liberty”, as though there were anything “Christian” about being the slaves of culture with no standard but theirs, and as though there was anything liberating about abusing your own conscience so profoundly that you become not just the ape of modern decadence, but it’s apologist.

Our age is peculiar in this way in that such things as “Christian” rap, or, (to mention but another perverted form of blasphemous music), Christian “screamo” finds anything but moral revulsion and disgust at its wickedness.  What it means is not that it’s not obvious, but that the professing church isn’t what it thinks it is, and has become so perverted and corrupt that it takes its moral blindness for true vision. Unfortunately, as sometimes happens when faithful Christians are attacked for their defense of uprightness, they can get shamed into apologies, and the voice of ecclesiastical secularization prevails…. to some degree. More often than not, however, it is but the manifestation of an unregenerate God-hating people that will have their love of the world at any expense, and no bible or bible believer is going to inhibit their idolatrous fornication of embrace.

There is a sadly typical response from “evangelicalism” to anyone who dares lift up a word against our modernist descent into heathenism and worldliness, where those confessing and living as ever Christians did, are desperately labeled as heterodox, morally demented, or “weak brethren”, adroitly perceiving it’s him or them. And but gaining a consensus, the real believer is ostracized, and those who loath the love of God and all it means are crowned as faithful. Rather than seeing the apologist for corruption for what he is, the God fearing are lampooned as imposing personal preference over the conscience of the church, pharisaically deemphasizing the gospel, and…. and…. yes, I need not elaborate… you’ve either heard it all before, or spoken it all before.

The modern ethic might be briefly summarized by the statement: “Chain me by showing that the bible condemns my sin by name, or I’ll be unrestrainable”. But…. God isn’t looking for those who wish to be chained, but for those who wish to be set free, who accordingly view sin as chains, and obedience as liberty. Accordingly, scripture is not written to chain the rebellious, but to free the chained, first of all by changing their attitude toward God and His authority in revelation. What men count to be their bondage, and what they count to be their freedom, tells you everything about the man.

The Bible doesn’t list for us the tens of thousands of possible instances of worldliness of which man might be capable, not just because it’s grotesquely impractical, but because the bible is not written for those who are only thus restrained. It’s written for God’s people…. for those who have been given life from Him and who then truly possess His Spirit and purpose to depart from evil and who therefore don’t require the thick case-hardened chains of the most explicit verbal restraint upon every potential expression of sin of which they are capable, because they’re looking for a way in; not a way out. Nor do they view themselves as sufficient to defy omnipotence and “run upon the thick bosses of his buckler” and are in earnest in seeking conformity to his will.

Living Christians don’t share the motives of those who demand that the bible catalog and name the thousands of ways they might sin. When it says, don’t conform to the world, it does not demand to see the list of the thousands of ways they might do so, and the fact that God provided none tells us plainly that He has no interest in such interlopers who pretend to conformity by such hypocrisy.  They are yet able to admit to themselves what it means when the bible condemns conformity to the world, and accordingly won’t be wagging their finger in the face of God demanding explicit prohibitions of every form of sin which they like most to be guilty of and every name by which succeeding generations may have been pleased to signify it, dictating to omniscience in exactly what manner scripture must reprove their sin before they will reckon themselves obliged by it in conscience, withal mocking such as descend not with them to the same extent of hypocrisy and Pharisaical exegesis.

 In such a climate as we see in our day, anyone who attempts to retard the progress of the church’s descent into evil is inevitably called any number of epithets designed to embarrass their witness for the church’s sanctification into silence or disregard. And such slanders do serve to weed out many who might be inadequately confident of their message. Besides that of being called a legalist, or judgmental, unloving, and condemning, is the slander against those sent of God to seek to bring repentance; that of the Pharisee. As I recall, even Joe Morecraft was deemed a Pharisee because he thought body piercings were wrong. One wonders if the Jesus these people believe in had tattoos and piercings, and this is why the Pharisees hated him.

However, If you examine scripture with any candor at all, you will see that the Pharisees were known primarily for making much of their orthodoxy while wolfing down iniquity. They did add rules, but did so in order to negate the commands of God. (Mat.15) In short, they were worldly while minutely affecting to appear godly. This analysis can really clear up just who the Pharisees of our day are, or of any other day.

For instance…. Jesus said that “He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” But please…. Where did the Old Testament ever say that, such that Jesus rebuked their sin for so behaving? Had there been no such command, then why was Jesus rebuking their wickedness in not observing it faithfully? The answer is explicit. Jesus named the seventh commandment as that which thus obliges us. And that means that “Thou shalt not commit adultery” contains all of that, and reproved them because any honest man could plainly tell what it required, and it was the Pharisees carping at it.

So who are our Pharisees? It’s obvious. The very one’s calling everyone a Pharisee. It’s reminiscent of Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals”, where  he teaches that “Always accuse your enemy of exactly what you yourself are doing”. And I would not be surprised to discover at the last day that this was exactly how such “Pastors” were trained.

Jesus was expectant that were men not consummate hypocrites they would easily have discerned such a duty from that commandment and enforced it among God’s people instead of becoming the arrogant carnal fakes that they were, with no capacity to see their failures in regard to the obvious intent of God’s law. Precisely as our moderns. Because if every duty is not specifically mentioned by name as sin, then… it’s esteemed a liberty, and any expression of sentiment to the contrary is shown all intolerance and slander.

Exactly what people are arguing for in this matter of rap music, or in a thousand other such instances of godless culture being defended among the people of God, because saying “be not conformed to this world” is of no meaning or weight to them and means basically whatever they wish it to mean…. anything they’re not doing at the time. It’s a command of God, yet omits detailing the thousands of potential infractions, because any actual child of God knows exactly what that is, and only to them is it written. And this renewed nature is exactly what is slandered in all such instances. This calling of evil good, and good evil, has been catastrophic to the church of God, because it has silenced the public conscience of Christendom and sought to shame the voice of God among his people in the sober application of scripture.

Contrawise…. Who are those people in our time who do so acknowledge the supremacy of scripture and apply it faithfully as obliging us by its principle, and not just when we are shackled by some more overt expressions of scriptural mandate? The one’s commonly slandered as Pharisees, because they are seen as adding commandments by following the rule of Christ. Just like all the Pharisees that wrote their Confessions. And thus Christians are Pharisees and Pharisees true Christians in the modern parlance.

But the Pharisees were not the hyper punctilious “righteous overmuch” crowd as is commonly put forth. They were regularly reproved for being ungodly men who used scripture to negate scripture by refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of its authority, in principle as well as in it’s more overt demands. They were the one’s who never thought of “looking the other way” when tempted because it wasn’t an overt command, and yet were death and destruction on lighter matters of mortification like anyone that went over a Sabbath day’s journey.

They were doctrinally straight…. but thus only as a disguise for their worldliness. Punctiliousness in smaller matters while wolfing down evil was the hallmark of the Pharisee. Just like today, when men are all on edge with jealousy for such smaller matters, as they devour that which is evil and have no conscience for it. And these are the types of reproofs applied to anyone who contests modern decadence, and accordingly, to those who seek the church’s repentance in such matters as rap music. That they are majoring upon minors, and etc., as if it were a minor issue that they have no conscience toward such unseemly displays of decadence mixed with the sacred truths of the gospel.  Doubtless the Pharisees of old esteemed the teaching of Jesus as righteous overmuch in demanding that we not only refrain from acts of adultery, but of all inward indulgence of it, and of the acts that lead to it.

The contention here is that’s it’s an evidence of regeneration for people to care again and defend the prerogatives of God over conscience, not as the Pharisees did, or as today is done, (but I repeat myself), but as Jesus and the apostles did, and as true believers have always done. Not as some ostensible accountability free zone where we can be worldly and be saved from the ill repute of our worldliness, but where people are seeking the Lord again in true repentance, sincerity, and transparency, and might even be able to tell when they grieve His Spirit, and leave the raging at sanctification to those impenitent one’s alienated from the life of God and walking where they belong, in the world. And Christians where they belong, in the church. “Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.” Mal. 3:18

Second: The Novel Perversity of Rap

It’s significant to note that this army of New Calvinist apologists for amalgamating Christ with degenerate culture are entirely diverse from anything that has attempted to go by the name “Calvinist” in the past. In a widely circulated sermon Paul Washer, for instance, enunciated an extreme defense of rap, how godly it and it’s performers were, and etc.. In this sermon, he even admitted that it would have been rejected by Reformers, etc., and did so with a chuckle.[3] Yeah, that’s funny, you know…. that we are forsaking centuries of Christian ethics to become worldling degenerates. The room all chuckled with him. Exactly who laughs at that, please? I find it troubling to hear a man who represents himself as Mr. anti-worldly, and castigates whole audiences of hundreds of people as unregenerate fakes for their shallowness[4], but who is now turned advocate for degenerate music and musicians[5], the majority of which have forsaken anything resembling historic Christianity[6]  even by Mr. Washer’s double-standards, but who were all praised by him as such very godly men. We may fairly expect reprobation from Calvin. But you better not say anything if you’re in the audience. Then you’re a legalist and probably a racist as well.

Doubtless for most the consideration of history will be approaching a total impertinence. Sola Sciptura, we will be told! Because… no one ever figured the bible out before this age, so known for it’s fruitfulness and sanctity. Or  … not. For the sober minded such a consideration will be huge. Because they are not conceited enough to imagine that the bible remained a mysterious closed book until they arrived upon the scene to enlighten the darkness of long centuries of benighted legalists, but now that we’re all morally revived, we have the vantage point from which to get the clear view of Christian ethics. There used to be this saying that “If it’s new it ain’t true; and if it’s true, it ain’t new”, and that’s just as true of practice as it is of doctrine. That which Christianity has never been is not Christianity.  Now I hear the voice of the Pharisee aver that we have not the opinions of antiquity upon the virtue or vice of rap music. But they all know it. The fact is that there isn’t a man who has ever read a Reformer, or a Puritan author, or the Evangelical Leaders of the 17^th century, who could suffer himself to imagine Bishop Bradford, John Owen, or John Newton indulging in such perversity and blasphemy.  If they can, let them say so.  They can’t. They won’t. They know they’ve departed.

Third: Utility, Evangelism, and the Regulative Principle

It’s worth asking, in the history of Christianity’s many embraces of degenerate human culture, when has it ever sunk so low as to embrace contemporary evils under the pretense of being some sort of evangelism technique? Because that is regularly pleaded for in regard to rap music, that It’s reaching a generation with the gospel, and etc. It’s almost as though the bible said, “By the foolishness of rapping God hath chosen to save them that believe.”[7]  Man being such as he is, the principles of scriptural evangelism have certainly been trampled in dozens of ways, and the church has certainly shamefully embraced many forms of worldliness, but to overtly employ degenerate culture, mined from among the lowest available forms, only to commit the blasphemy of mixing it with the sanctity of the faith of the gospel as some sort of evangelistic attempt is a thing I’d venture to affirm is a complete novelty of wickedness.

But now we imagine we’re going to reach a generation of black city dwellers who wouldn’t otherwise listen. Certainly all the appeals to ICor.9, “being all things to all men” are misapplied in any number of ways besides that of rap, but we hear this sort of argumentation constantly when dealing with this topic.  When the “blogosphere” erupted over the faithful testimony of the NCFIC panelists, and all the corrupters of Christendom started foaming at the mouth and having seizures over someone daring to state the truth on a national scale, I don’t think I read a one that failed to mention the great evil of obstructing the evangelistic power of rap music, as the savvy way to reach urban blacks. It’s almost like blacks were a different sort of creature that could only be reached by degeneracy, and not by that method ordained of an all-wise Creator… preaching. Like all the other races.

A typical sampling of this sort of excess can be found from the pen of Al Mohler, like this: “I do admire (rap’s) 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 same way that folks who first heard Bach desperately needed to hear the Gospel.[8]” As a Caucasian man, it’s uber-cool to realize that my people were evangelized by Bach. I never knew that before. Oh… wait…I… uh… Non-lyrical music can evidently preach the gospel. And only to Caucasians.  But it worked! Here we are!

But if men of any color can’t hear the simple gospel message, they will not be empowered to believe it by reason of vain cultural embellishments, which we insultingly surmise is the only thing a black man would listen to, as though Caucasians wouldn’t listen the gospel until put in a country music song, or into a Bach Chorale. Are we trying to reach the Chinese with Guoyue tunes and racists if we think that a daft idea?  Our former missionaries didn’t go to Africa and start mutilating their bodies and getting naked in order to be more “contextualized” to those so enslaved. The thing such purblind advocates incessantly forget is, culture is beholden to scriptural review and reproof like any other human character. Paul: “The Cretians are always liars, slow bellies, evil beasts. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.”(Tit.1:12-13) His apostolic authority alone renders him immune from Cultural Marxist condemnation. If you repeat him, you’re not safe.

So, these might consider that Paul didn’t become a drunkard so as to relate to the votaries of Bacchus. And even in respect to things truly indifferent, he didn’t start wearing a toga and playing the mandolin to make his gospel have more appeal among the Greeks. He preached the gospel and didn’t attempt to use human trickery to make it appear wise and powerful. Yet people quote such passages as ICor.9:20-23 to try to make out the embrace every cultural degeneration as some sort of lawful evangelism technique.[9] But didn’t Paul say that he became ALL things to ALL men in order to save some? Ok, great, so to the drunkard Paul became a drunkard, and to the adulterer, he became an adulterer….. that he might win some? It will be objected, yes, but that’s different because that’s sin! Exactly, so you don’t get the “get out of accountability free” card by citing this verse, then, do you? You still must demonstrate whether the thing itself you are advocating for as lawful is in fact itself lawful, or you are but abusing this verse to validate any wicked practice. “Presumption is the mother of error.”

Taking precedence over any such consideration is the truth so beautifully and plainly proclaimed by Paul in ICor.1:17-25, but a few chapters prior that that being thus abused. We do not rightly understand ICor.9:20-23 (Being all things to all men) when we interpret it to repudiate ICor.1:17-25 which states the following:

¹⁷ For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. ¹⁸ For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹ For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. ²⁰ Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ²¹ For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. ²² For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: ²³ But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; ²⁴ But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

So, were Paul a modernist shill like Russell Moore, Al Mohler, John Piper, Ligon Duncan, Ron Burns, and a great many other unhinged “New Calvinists”, he would have reasoned like these do…. “Well, lets see… these Greeks worship wisdom and philosophy. I can reach them then with wise orations and by ascending the heights of philosophic profundity. And these Jews, they worship power. I can reach them by staging great manifestations of God’s power!” You see, the problem with that is … it’s fakery. It’s charlatanism. And it’s not any less so if first century fakes did it than when 21^st century fakes do it.  Discovering and donning the predilections and whims of your community and then running in front of them and saying “follow me, I’m your leader”, is not genuine.  And it’s not biblical evangelism. You’re advertising your fakery. Yes, it may gain you a party, but it won’t build God’s church. It will gather unregenerates and corrupt the church. Which is exactly what it’s done, not only with those gathered, but with those supposing to gather then. Being all things to all men doesn’t mean being a charlatan.

So will this cult of humanism now advocate that we are impeding the progress of the gospel among inner city low-bred Caucasians until we blaspheme God by mixing it with the extreme degeneracy of “Christian” Screamo music? Such schools of thought are so utterly demonic, that the only marvel is that anyone could possibly be so morally blind as not to see the contradiction and revolt at its blasphemy. But we are assured that such blinded souls the ones that are ready to receive the gospel.

This methodology is not what will draw people with to the gospel. And it’s not what will help people reared in a degenerate ghetto culture see the gospel. Taking what is ugly, repugnant, shameful, and degenerate about a culture and making the assumption that an admixture of such abominations with the sacred truths of the gospel is that best calculated to win them to God, is thus insulting both them, and God. Them, as if only evil could attract them, and God as though such extreme spiritual degeneracy could be mixed with that most holy thing in the universe, the gospel of Jesus, and not incur the sin of blasphemy.

But the New Calvinist (misnomer of all misnomers, it’s not Clavinism, and liberalism is not new) has learned his lessons from his bought and sold teachers that he must “contextualize” the gospel to the culture of his hearers or it will not be minded. Paul said he preached Christ to the Greeks foolishness, and to the Jews weakness. That is, he let it be foolishness to his hearers because this is what people do who actually trust God to CALL PEOPLE TO HIMSELF. This idea that the gospel must be “made relevant” is a signal blasphemy of the times. Not only does it perfectly contradict the teaching of ICor.1, but it is a blasphemy so overt, it only serves to frame the spiritual blindness of the age that only the brainwashed couldn’t see. The gospel needs to be made relevant, eh? What spiritual creep ever thought such a thing?

Do tell, please, why the gospel must be “made” relevant by any device, but especially by the wicked device of a degenerate art form? The unifying relevancy of the gospel is the universality of human need, and no one can either add or subtract anything from that, and those who understand it understand that they are called but to proclaim it, because they hope in God for the calling of His own people. No human contrivance, but especially not a degenerate art form, will somehow open the door to a depraved human heart. What? The gospel needs some asinine arrogant prancer to bop around a stage like a conceited fool before some black guy from the inner city can see his need of mercy or the wisdom of the atonement? The exact same need every white, yellow, brown, or purple person has? That’s, frankly, outrageous. And wicked. And truly racist. That is a piece of ignorance and audacity not paralleled by the statements of Joel Olsteen.

Such devices are a means of evangelism completely unwarranted by scripture. Where in the bible do we ever hear of music being used to evangelize? Do we not rather hear…. “How shall they hear without a preacher”?[10] And, “By the foolishness of preaching he’s chosen to save them that believe”?[11] Music is given a role in public worship for “teaching and admonishing”[12] saints, but precisely nowhere as a means of evangelism. And so to all the people that chafed as I’ve made the point above that preaching, not arts, are the means appointed of God for evangelizing all peoples, please hear a voice you will perhaps be more disposed to consider. John Witherspoon observed in reference to the ostensible potential of the stage as being used as a means of evangelism, (no different than people claiming this alien means of evangelism), the regulative principle becomes an issue….. “When a public theatre is defended as a means of public instruction, I cannot help thinking it is of importance to observe, that it is a method altogether uncommanded and unauthorized in the word of God. This will probably appear a very weak argument to many, but it will not appear so to those who have a firm belief of, and a just esteem for that book of life. Such will not expect, that any method will prove effectual to make men ‘wise unto salvation’ without the blessing of God, and they will hardly be induced to look for this blessing upon the stage. And let it be remembered, that it is now pleaded for in a higher light, and on a more important account than merely as an amusement, viz. as proper to support the interest of religion; it should therefore have a positive warrant before it be employed in this cause, lest it should meet with the same reception that all other human devices will meet with, “Who hath required these things at your hands?”^[13] Thus thespianism attempted as a means of public instruction, or music attempted as a means of evangelism, both have the same problem. Neither are warranted by scripture for such an end. I find it humorous that Voddie Baucham faithfully makes this same point in some of his preaching, when all these white dudes are falling all over themselves to prove how inclusive they are.[14]

Fourth: Rapper’s Departure from the Orthodox Faith

Leaving aside the fact that so abusing the gospel by mixing it with the world is itself a forsaking of the truth, yet the longer such performers continue in their abominations the fewer of them seem to stand, which is precisely the fruit we’d expect from charlatans. And of course such reflections are all so uber-meaningful if we speak of such factors in denouncing Charles Finney or Benny Hinn, but perfectly irrelevant when we’re talking about Al Mohler or Paul Washer. Because after all the claims of their doctrinal orthodoxy, when they forsake the basics of the faith, it’s not regarded.  And this is exactly the result we would expect, from those who minimize the true power of God found in the unpowerful, unwise, unpopular GOSPEL OF CHRIST, who’s weakness is what Paul said would win the world. Why? Because GOD was behind it to call His own, not man’s chicanery attempting to call the worldling power junkie, or wisdom worshiper, but calling the ones perennially forgotten in all this vaudeville appeal to degenerate human taste …. God’s elect. Because we are told, these will see the simple Gospel as the wisdom of God and the power of God, be they from any kindred, tribe, or tongue. Because GOD has touched them by His life-giving Spirit, not the charlatan deceiver with his carnal appeals.

And as was obvious to any that had a brain (i.e. not Washer, not Piper, not Mohler, not Burns, not Scott Brown, and etc) this idiotic, worldly, unbiblical method was destined for failure. And it has proven nothing less. All it’s wonderful godly rappers so rapturously deified by Washer have all gone by the wayside. Consider the following summary from the Protestia website:
“I’ve watched the early stars of Holy Hip Hop and Reformed Rap – one after another – show themselves as enamored with the glitz, glamor, and bling-bling of worldly success. They have almost all of them taken on the yoke of celebrity like an ungodly albatross, and each one’s apostasy has been commensurate with their level of success.

“Lecrae, for example, obviously sold-out to the glamor as soon as he made it onto a secular stage. As his star rose, his witness fell. Our first article about his long history of compromises was published in May of 2015. Since then we have reported on Lecrae receiving a degree from TD Jakes and Myles Munroe’s prosperity-driven college,[15] him side-hustling with heretics[16]in various enterprises, his calling for the government to ban guns,[17] his denouncing of All Lives Matter[18]and increasing wokeness, his endorsement of The Shack[19](he called it “dope” if I recall), his increasing potty-mouth and sex-talk[20], his divorce from “white evangelicals,”[21] his endorsement of pro-abortion Stacey Abrams[22], his Critical Theory and White Privilege talk [23](Dan Kathy of Chick fil A shined his shoes – literally – but Lecrae said he wanted stock options as reparations instead)[24], and on and on it goes.

“Andy Mineo is another who whored out whatever fame he got on the “orthodoxy market” in exchange for the glitz. Shai Linne – and this one was a real heart-breaker for me – has also gone full-woke. And my beloved Curt Kennedy, aka Voice, is now pumping his first to the Black Power soundtrack of 2020.

“It has not helped that for nearly a decade, white-guy theologians like John Piper proved themselves cool by having a black rapper on stage with them. Albert Mohler hosted that foul-mouthed pot-head, Sho Baraka, at SBTS chapel. Rappers put James White clips in their songs, which I’m sure he listened to on his podcast at 1.5 speed. Paul Washer even did a conference with Reformed Rappers (although I’m sure they invited him and not the other way around). “And now, Lecrae is blaming white people for his plight when I’m pretty sure it was mostly white people who gave him a stage and a microphone at a million different Big Eva events. I’m sure that younger white men are the ones buying the majority of his albums, but these types rarely let the truth get in the way of their virtue-signal.”

Wow… no one could have seen that coming. Except everyone who did, said so, and were castigated as spiritual Neanderthals. Until their predictions proved true. Then we don’t talk about it.  But many truly evangelical rappers have come in their stead! Being slow to learn is no sin, unless it’s caused by unhinged blinding attachment to an evil agenda. 

But at least all these deceived pastors who advocated for these pathetic worldlings who have now departed from the way are now embarrassed and deeply grieved and apologetic for having done so, and are trying to make amends for the damage they’ve done to the church, and…. Oh… wait, I… Well, no, they haven’t done that at all. They’ve just platformed the next group of worldlings who will abuse the trust of the next generation of susceptible young people betrayed by their pastors, their parents, they’re entire Christian age. Because it’s not a mistake. Its intended.

Fifth: The Light of the World?  

All this Charlatanism screams to the world, not that we are “inclusive” and “die-verse” or “equitable” to all peoples, but that we ourselves are perfectly bankrupt and morally empty in that we have no agenda of our own, but must go about looking for the next worldly thing to ape.  Because when the church becomes the ape of fallen humanity’s vain idiotic customs it is screaming to the world that we are so void of any cause, ethic, or manner of our own, that we have to go to them for ideas. And next tell them we have the right way, follow us. That this entire issue is even being discussed is but evidence of the church’s seared conscience, and of its utter failure to embrace its role as the one who sets the standard by example and teaching as a light for the world as it’s ordained prophetic voice from God, instead of miming the standards of those they’re supposed to be converting, thus proclaiming their only true, enduring standard: Being converted by the world into worldlings is converting the world to Christianity. Somehow. We will be scolded, “But embracing all cultures is the standard! Except that it’s not. Calling all cultures to repent of what is offensive is the standard, and culture is not itself the sacred cow that has to be accepted as the new god of evanjellyfish.

In thus repudiating its role as the light of the world the church has made itself totally irrelevant, has become darkness instead of the light of the world, and has cast itself into the gutter instead of being a light on a hill…. elevated above unredeemed humanity, eminent and exalted, not by its conformity to, but by its contrast to, the world. Scripture affirms of his true people… “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness”, (IJn.5:19). But if “we are of God” and the “whole world lieth in wickedness”, then why are we copying them? Again… can anyone name a historical instance where the church has ever tried to reach the world by mimicking it? Donning it’s mien and air as some sort of evangelistic technique? Or perhaps just to put a spiritual face upon their degenerate taste?

But this is “Euro-centric”, we are told, as if all people’s need to wear a suit and tie, and have an orchestra, right? Were that the only possible alternative to degeneracy, then yes, but that would be quite an assumption for these Marxists to admit. But you see… no one contests that all racial cultures have a peculiar taste in musical style that is unique to their people and I would add that this is founded in DNA which means that it is fundamentally founded in creation, and therefore intended of the creator. But the false and blasphemous assumption being made by such as point out this cultural/racial connection, is that all corruptions of this principle also belong to God. So… Screamo is an endemic emanation of Caucasian DNA, and therefore of God? “Don’t slander my people” would be the appropriate response to that. And this is the response I would expect from any self-respecting black man when someone imagines that the thing that will primally appeal to his kin is pure degeneracy. Thus these are the one’s with racist thoughts, and delighting to speak evil of the true black Christian. 

And if this methodology is what works for one race or culture, we must assume it’s what will work for all. Unless blacks are somehow fundamentally different. But … yes, they don’t wish to go there. Thus, it will be our wisdom to send chaplains into the Ukrainian war for the Azov battalion with swastikas emblazoned on their bibles and tracts, because ….. DNA put this in them. Perhaps punk rock bands will turn Britain to God. Do we get the idiocy yet? 

And more importantly…. Have any of these lying devilish scoundrels ever come to grips with the fact that your lauded nostrum for reaching people … hasn’t reached them? Or does that even matter? Does it only matter that you get to pretend you’re leading the world by adopting all it’s asinine and devilish fads, and can rock out, rap out, essentially tap out of your duty to the hour under this vain-glorious pretense of leading it? And does it even matter that …. You haven’t led it, but culture is not only not redeemed, but steadily, and undeniably is waxing worse and worse?

B b b bu bu but… “Some guy listened to rap and got converted!”[25] An argument made by many, but by Ligon Duncan specifically considered here and footnoted. So, I’m sure someone somewhere has truly found the gospel in a brothel. Therefore ….. ???  Back in the 1980’s I heard of a man that was listening to an atheist mocking the bible, and the verse he was mocking cut to his heart, and he was shortly after a believing Christian man. Are we really going to apply Mr. Duncan’s paradigm as a scriptural warrant? People embrace the gospel through a vast variety of providential causes, but a sound mind would hardly warrant them as biblical for that reason, and build a methodology out of it. It is the prerogative of God to use imperfect means, but the duty of the church to stick to the work God gave it… not trying to use carnal means to build His church, but to proclaim the gospel to men. And it’s by the foolishness of preaching that He’s chosen to save them that believe.

As R. L. Dabney said while arguing against public schooling, “Someone may say that this broad proposition is refuted at the outset by frequent instances of persons who received, at least during a part of their youth, a training perfectly non-Christian, and who yet are very useful, and even Christian citizens. The answer is easy: It is the prerogative of a merciful Providence, and the duty of His children, to repair the defects and misfortunes of His creatures and to bring good out of evil. But surely this comes far short of a justification for us if we willingly employ faulty methods which have a regular tendency to work evil. Surely it is not our privilege to make mischief for God and good Christians to repair!”[26] That God brings Good out of Evil constitutes no argument for being evil. As Paul says, “Let us do evil, that good may come, whose damnation is just”. (Rom.3:8)

Sixth: “Redeeming Music to a Godly Purpose”

We dare not omit one of the grandest of all proofs that rap is of God, appealed to by nearly every one of its advocates. Because, many hymns presently sung in sanctimonious air were once bar room ballads filled with ribald and debauchery, but were converted to glory of God! And how can we not then relent this assault upon rap music, which once was as these hymns, (we’re told), except now has been redeemed by mixing it with gospel words as these once were? But we must ask these apologists of degeneracy one very big question. One they never think of. Why didn’t we know that these hymns were once so used as bar songs? Why did someone have to point it out? The answer could not be more damning to this argument. Because there wasn’t any difference in the style of music! And the reason that there wasn’t this disparity between styles was because the world was once influenced by the church’s separation and their songs were little if any different than the hymns sung at church except for the words, and that is why you can never discern which of these old bar songs were once thus employed, and why it never crossed your mind why it was so different. Let such apologists try singing a rap song next to Amazing Grace, and see if anyone can tell the difference. It is a lamentable ethical vacancy that practically no one in Christendom has arisen to confront such blank stupidity in those advocating evil in its midst.

The only reason you can’t tell the difference in the antiquated example of hymns and bar room songs is because Churches didn’t used to go ape every wicked perversity they saw, but had themselves fulfilled their duty in enlightening the world and setting the standard for them. The art forms of the world were formerly influenced by the church, but apparently reversing the places of influence is supposed to really be a great victory for us to celebrate according to these spiritual “change agents”. But the salt has lost its savor, and the light on the hill is extinguished. And our advocates are celebrating it, and have most of the Christian world celebrating it.

This sort of juvenile argumentation runs through absolutely every defense of rap that I’ve ever seen tendered, and the fact that everyone applauds it is an embarrassment. It’s embracing the wickedness of godless degenerate culture, thinking to “redeem it”, but only end up getting “redeemed” by them. Culture is not redeemed; Christianity is polluted. This is the reality, hidden only to the degenerates who promote it. Maybe.

Seventh: What is objectively evil about rap music?

Is it the music? Can we frame any answer to the aesthetic relativists who taunt: “Show us the evil chords, wicked inversions, devilish intervals, and monstrous cadences that constitute such compositions as verboten! Well, that’s certainly an interesting question, and related to all that is wrong with rap music, but while music itself can certainly be communicative of meaning that is suggestive only of decadence, yet the arrangements in rap “music” typically serve as but a backdrop for the pompous self-aggrandizing vocal inflection, word-play, gesture, pose, and stride of the performer. While music certainly has that capacity, yet the musical character typical in rap doesn’t tend to display anything profoundly objectionable, or parallel to the perversity of its other attributes. Unlike the death-metal, screamo, or other sick satanic forms of music, which could only be described as demonic, the music behind rap, while often meriting an A+ in poor taste or boring composition, doesn’t seem to be characterized by such qualities.

Perhaps it’s just that when compared to more demonic sounding forms of music like the darker forms of Rock, it may just seem mild by comparison, and there are those that point out that certain rhythmic patterns inherent in the genre resemble that of conjurers, etc., and none of that would surprise me, nor would I set them aside, but simply don’t intend to search that out, as it would be far from the major problem with rap music.

I reckon no one would contest the idea that should current rap fans ever have the lyrics and low-life performances omitted, they would be unlikely to ever listen to it, as such tunes rarely have any memorable melody or chord progression to render them appealing, but rather serve as little more than a sound background for the rapper’s degenerate performance. So, while some may like or dislike such tunes, I don’t imagine that such factors would be anyone’s major objection to rap.

But there are several factors that universally characterize “rap” music, which are entirely perverse, and that would be their haughty inflection, self-aggrandizing word-play, gangsta-rap antics, arrogant pose and gesture, and etc., none of which have ever been separated from the “Christian” rap genre. And when it comes to assess such characters that truly are the problem with rap, there’s a fork in the road. Many, would attempt to make the point that such subjective elements as tone, inflection, gesture, and etc., are beyond the realm of objective moral assessment. What dictionary of gesture will be used? Others fully admit all of that, but are so satanically deluded that they see these biblically reprehensible characters as legitimate expressions of art. We will deal with them in this order.

In the first place, then, let us attempt to address such as deny that there is really any objective ground by which one may assess such factors as gesture, inflection, pose, et. al., as reprehensible. The mantra is, “who’s to say” that such and such a stride, or such and such an inflection, or such and such antics and gesture is “decadent” or “degenerate”. But here’s the funny part. The same people who will make such a case, will use that very terminology every day of their life in literally any other application than one they’re needing to legitimize, because it’s utterly unavoidable that a person’s antics, gate, gesture, and inflection will morally color their actions, and it’s obvious that everyone is perfectly aware of this, in as much as they apply it to every other matter of life, yet wish to make such claims merely to parry the reproof of their degeneracy. These are simply not as far along the path to hell in that they remain morally aware of its perversity, or they wouldn’t need such a device to try to hide it. Others simply admit it, accept it, and defend such degeneracy as making some sort of legitimate contribution. The former at least still perceive the need of the hiding place of subjectivity.

So because you can’t go to a lexicon of gestures and there look up “be-bopping lunge” and have it defined in objective terms, therefore you can claim it’s all “in the eye of the beholder”, and “open to interpretation”, or any of the other claims that are frequently made about such performances. Until, of course, this person’s mailman answers him or her in an arrogant tone of voice about putting the mail in the wrong place, and then we’re back to the lexicon certainty that he was acting arrogantly. Or any of the other literally hundreds of ways literally every human being views the actions of others. Because they objectively convey characters, meaning, vices, virtues, sentiments, and etc. And not one person, not one reader reading this right now, will deny that. Until someone tries to apply it to rap music. Then suddenly he will demand the reality-free zone with all confidence. And all hypocrisy.

And of course we might mention as well the fact that there is a reason that William Cowper was poet laureate of England and not someone else. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder doesn’t change objective virtue of form, style, device, and beauty. And in this area, rap is utterly juvenile. Rap is made to be rapped, and not read, but go read such a composition some time. Exceptions will not do. Or just listen to some. Except that the chance you’ll be able to understand it is about nil, as coming links will demonstrate. But it’s converting a generation to Christ, be assured. It’s the gangsta strut that’s doing it we must suppose. Maybe the hand signs.

But try singing Amazing Grace while leaping about with fits and in a tone of rage and see how many people tell you it was a lovely performance. But when they can’t, be sure to lecture them on how the words were godly and to ask them what chords were evil, and what lexicon of gesture you were using. The shameful indifference to the disparate characters between content and antics in such performances would be seen instantly were the same clash of characters presented in someone singing a hymn in a spirit of anger or haughtiness. But seen often enough, doubtless this too would anesthetize the moral sense until it was no more shocking as well. But we don’t have trillion-dollar media budgets, nor army of Jesuit corrupters, to convince you that the raving while singing a hymn is hip.

Such displays of human pride, arrogance, haughtiness, vain tasteless word-play, gansta antics, and shameless foolery, are an abomination to put in the context of the sacredness of the gospel, and such as see not the extreme afront to the infinite sacredness of the gospel can not possibly have beheld it.

Will any affirm that it’s impossible to read Jn 3:16 in a seductive, prideful, or ghoulish tone of voice, or with gestures and pose that display these same evil attributes, or worse? Or will any affirm that such traits are not sin, or that it is no sin to display the gospel in such a sinful demeanor? Or will any try to deny that it’s a non-verbal element which imparts these qualities? Plainly and unavoidably, that which is entirely non-verbal can powerfully communicate moral elements to anything, and are therefore elements that can be and must be assessed and awarded their appropriate character, and granting to men this “discernment free zone” is hypocritical, immoral, and degrading to the practice and conscience of God’s people, and has opened the door to innumerable perversities.

But then we have another class of advocate who fully admit that that such factors communicate moral qualities, but they justify them as being useful, legitimate, and valuable expressions, for making some sort of necessary point. Russell Moore, and others have engaged in such advocacy, as will be contemplated in the section assessing rap’s apologists. But an example here should get us the idea.

Russell Moore in his 2013 “Christianity” Today article on Rap: “Even when it celebrates sin in base ways, secular hip-hop’s swagger points not only to the universal pull to glorify the self, but also to a secularized doctrine of election. The artist announces he is special, evident from his physical power, wealth, and success, and the women who love him. Christian hip-hop doesn’t evaporate this swagger but instead redirects it to Jesus.”
So…. Christian Hip-Hop doesn’t evaporate secular Hip-Hop’s “swagger” eh? A candid admission, that. Certainly that which goes by the name of “Christian” Hip-Hop doesn’t, but then it isn’t Christian either. Redirecting the SWAGGER to Jesus makes it less Christian than secular gangsta Rap, in as much as it doesn’t add the sin of blasphemy to its already lengthy list of evils. Exactly what Moore means by retaining the “swagger” and by “directing the swagger to Jesus”, while uncertain, can only be perverse. Were there anything of Christ it, they’d check their swagger at the door, leave it there permanently, and most certainly not try to direct their wickedness to Jesus. “Announcing you are special” in a Christian way would be announcing you are especially depraved, but that God had a wonderful mercy upon you despite.

Mr. Moore from the same article, again: So can the Sermon on the Mount fit in the genre of hip-hop? Myers is right[27]— it’s hard to imagine the Beatitudes rapped. But it’s also hard to imagine the Sermon on the Mount in an apocalyptic text, or a war-song of David, or an imprecatory psalm. In the multitude of genres, God’s Word points to a kaleidoscopic reality that coheres in a very complicated Person, the Lord Jesus. The gifts of the body, left isolated, result in the chaos of competing self-interests. But used together, they build the church. The various musical expressions of the big themes of God and the world can, left isolated, cramp the prophetic word.”

So Mr. Moore is entirely correct that there is a “kaleidoscope” reality to all the different types and styles of music in the church. But this is far from proving any one such style in particular to be legitimate, which he makes no attempt to do, but merely presumes upon his point. He altogether appears to imagine it to be impossible for any of the Kalaidascope of expressions to be sinful. Assuming that says everything anyone needs to know about Russell Moore.

What is perfectly evident from Mr. Moore’s shameless apologetic for the arrogance of Rap, is that he’s trying to sanctify its most arrant evils, and present it as some sort of spirituality and virtue. But go look at some of the examples and consider exactly what it is that he’s trying to affirm is holiness to the Lord. The man is an unhinged enemy, and what a state of affairs when such as profess the name of Christ can’t see through such an open scandal, pimping for gross evils to be received in the church as some sort of Christian virtue. But no less so than Piper, Wilson, or other idols of modern apostate Christendom.

Applicable to the both of these types of apologists is an invaluable insight found in John Witherspoon’s book against the stage. We will consider this citation in greater detail in the conclusion, but it is so germane here, let us briefly consider his words:

“It were easy to show the unlawfulness of stage-playes, by such arguments as would appear conclusive to those who already hate both them and their supporters: but it is not so easy to make it appear to those who chiefly frequent them, because they will both applaud and justify some of the very things that others look upon as the worst effects of the practice, and will deny the very principles on which they are condemned. The truth is, it is our having different views of the nature of religion that causes different opinions upon this subject.”^[28]

Now let us but insert the words “rap music” in the place of Stage-Playes, and see what it sounds like.

“It were easy to show the unlawfulness of rap music, by such arguments as would appear conclusive to those who already hate both it and its supporters: but it is not so easy to make it appear to those who chiefly patronize it, because they will both applaud and justify some of the very things that others look upon as the worst effects of the practice, and will deny the very principles on which they are condemned. The truth is, it is our having different views of the nature of religion that causes different opinions upon this subject.”

And that, indeed, is precisely the state of the case, both with such as attempt to hide its evils behind the ostensible ambiguity of tone and outward expression, with those who talk about all the degeneracy of rap as some sort of legitimate expression of art. It is our having different views of the nature of religion that brings this fork in the road, because modern Christianity has been high jacked by its enemies, and knows not what spirit it is of, and until such time as the heart and mind of erring saints is revived, and, as in the vast majority of such persons, the unregenerate heart of the lost is renewed, (and the demonic characters who have wriggled into the church to pervert it excised), the gross evil of such matters will never appear to them, no matter how vile and disgusting their practice is, because they have zero offense with what is vile and disgusting, and what’s vile and disgusting is what they love, none of which is contrary to their “religion”. This is as true of those who defend it’s evils, as those who deny them. They both love and accept what is perverse and godless about it, and this love equally displays the fact that a different religion is the cause.

Forthcoming commentary will enter this subject more specifically, but in Russel Moore afore mentioned article in “Christianity” Today, he characterizes Caucasian resistance to rap as irrational white fear of black people, and going into great detail of analysis of all aspects of rap, in a manner I could only compare to that of a cuisine expert reviewing the particulars of a cannibal preparing his prey, as though it were some new delicacy of high culture.[29] And if you don’t swallow the perversity whole, doubtless you’re a racist, have no problem with the performance, but only with DNA. The article subtitle is: “How Christian Hip-Hop Could Call the American Church Back to the Gospel, and Hip-Hop Back to its Roots”. Yeah… that’s going to save American Christianity and convert grangstas. Yes, it’s our having a different religion that ensures different opinions on this subject.

All we have in this entire rap music phenomena is a carefully orchestrated army of charlatans, with John Piper, Russell Moore, Al Mohler, and about a dozen others, being shills to pitch this degeneracy to the Reformed churches. And notice, that the Arminian rap contingent is miniscule by comparison. Why is that? Because Calvinistic churches bear the truth, and are the most biblical and truly conservative element in the Christian world, and therefore need perverting more than anyone else in Christendom.

We have an army of carefully crafted targeted poison for all the various flavors of Conservative Christianity. Middle of the road Reformed Baptist… John Piper. The uber-conservative worldling, and none too doctrinally savvy Reformed, Doug Wilson. The Middle of the Road Reformed, Ligon Duncan. Lefty Reformed, Mike Cosper. Family Oriented, Scott Brown, and so on. Each department has its special shill to seek to inure and delude until the fait accompli is achieved, and the second someone doesn’t get the deplatforming rule, they learn, conform, or disappear. And hence Scott Brown and the NCFIC debacle.

We hear the talk about how sacred rap is from Piper, critique it like fine art like Russell Moore, defend it with the clarity of a Seattle mist, like Wilson, make it a “gospel issue” like half of them, or even racist not to acquiesce to the perversion like Cosper.  It’s all the same… talk about how incredible the Emporer’s Clothes are[30], or you’ll quickly be reckoned a complete outcast, or that you must hate people’s DNA. Because that’s for sure what you objected to. But once acceptance of evil is achieved and the moral sense has been blinded, and the eyes of the church have been put out, then things run much more smoothly for further perversions, and now we have the National Association of Evangelicals stumping for sodomite marriage laws in Congress, and showing up for the signing when they succeed.

The vocal inflection, tasteless wordplay, and personal manners of the performer, are precisely where rap music is conspicuously evil, immoral, and degenerate, and accordingly constitutes a blasphemous mixture of human pride and perversity and the sanctity of the Christian faith. Better would it have been for such performers to have stuck with the degenerate themes that agree with such behavior, and not to have so polluted and defiled the sacred truths of the Christian faith with its unseemly displays. It’s no wonder that they are routinely given over to error, having so provoked the holiness and majesty of heaven.

Now, we are told that it is a wise and virtuous thing to “Redeem” culture, and to see all things bow to King Jesus, and etc. So we will take this evil gangsta-rap and turn it into a godly and Christian thing! But hold… why is this form of performance called “gansta-rap”?  It’s obvious. It’s because the entire thing is a stage for the gate, hand signs, posture, and most of all the vocal inflection unique to that form of degeneracy. So this “Holy Hip-Hop” has been “Redeemed” and “Sanctified”, and so all this degeneracy has been removed! A huge victory for the truth! Except that it hasn’t been. Not in the least degree. In fact, it’s its main feature of presentation. And we’re all supposed to be cool with that because it’s been redeemed. And if we don’t then we hate “black culture” because we’re “Euro-centric” and racially conceited, and would still blow a gasket over someone with the wrong DNA that had properly formed opinions and who loved decency. The thing that can’t be accounted for here is that people are stupid enough to be manipulated by such utter lies.  

Likening this sick perverted phenomenon to “black culture” is to slander black culture, and is making the racist assumption that its worst was the best it had to offer, and that degenerate gangsterism was its moral summit. It’s an attempt to dictate to them what their culture is, and to convince them it’s this sick example, rather than to mark whatever is worthy or noble, and to persuade them that people who stand up for truth and God, and seek their good are their enemies, and the people who have done nothing but abet and facilitate the worse parts of their culture are their enemies.

It would be like saying that because “Screamo” music arose from Caucasians     that this represents white people, and if you say a word against it you’ve engaged in arrant loxism. I’d take great offense to someone taking the very dregs of Caucasian culture and then attempting to present it as epitomizing European social contribution. It’s not just idiotic, it’s slanderous. Do blacks have no more dignity that to accept such a slander against their people, and then defending it like it was defending their racial honor? No sir, you’re defending a slander of your enemies upon your people. Stop being a leftist slave.

We cannot leave this point without answering the question as to what scripture forbids such music. And that is the easy part. The scriptures which command humility, lowliness of mind, self-abnegation, and which condemn arrogance, self-pity, hatred, and conformity to the world. Need I recite them? Do we not all know them as much in theory as we ignore them in application?

Now the army of degenerate apologists would retort, (in the extremely unlikely event that this publication attracted anyone’s attention), that rappers frequently speak of great humiliations and self-renunciation. And that is true.  But it’s quite a sight to see Lacrae rapping words of humility of how he’s the lamest[31], etc., while bopping and prancing about in a spirit of complete arrogance and self-absorption, a contradiction not unlike someone in a fit of rage quoting Ephesians 4:31. “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice”. And this most perfectly exposes the delusion of those who point to words, and forget everything else. You’re more candid rap apologists freely admit that pose, gesture, gate, tone, inflection, etc. do indeed deeply communicate moral content, and then forget all about it when pointing to the words alone in such a performance.

But for those that have not had their moral sense seared by reason of abuse, consider the following biblical references, and ask yourself if there is anything in the genre of “Rap” that displays such virtues, or violates such prohibitions.

First consider these:

“Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” Phil. 2:3

“The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.” Pr.8:13

“For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you.” IPet.4:3-4

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” Rom.12:1-2

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” IJn.2:15

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” IICor.6:14-7:1

“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” James 4:4-6

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” Eph.5:11

Add to these the following reproofs of specific sins:

The sins of: Self-love 2 Timothy 3:2, Self-seeking: Phil 2:2, Pride Jer. 13:15, Corrupt, blind, and indiscreet zeal: Gal 4:17; John 16:2; Romans 10:2; Luke 9:54-55, Making men the lords of our faith and conscience: 2 Cor 1:24; Matt 23:9, Slighting and despising God and his commands, Deut 32:15; 2 Sam 12:9; Proverbs 13:13. Devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; Num 15:39; Deut 13:6–8; Hos 5:11; Mic 6:16; 1 Ki 11:33; 12:33; Deut 12:30–32. Corrupting the worship of God, by adding to it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, or by custom, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; Mal 1:7–8, 14; Ps 106:39; Matt 15:9; Jer 44:17; 1 Sam 13:11–12; 15:21. All neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed. Ex 4:24–26; Matt 22:5; Mal 1:7, 13; Matt 23:13; Acts 13:44–45; 1 Thess 2:15–16.

Also these neglected duties:

Receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has instituted in his Word; Deut 32:46-47; Matt 28:20; Acts 2:42; 1 Tim 6:13-14. The reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; Deut 17:18-19; Acts 15:21; 2 Tim 4:2; James 1:21-22; Acts 10:33. The disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; Acts 17:16-17; Psalm 16:4. According to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry. Deut 7:5; Is. 30:22

Now, the astute student of Reformed literature will have recognized by now that the last couple of paragraphs detailing the sins inherent in this form of debauched music and performance, and the duties to avoid it, are all taken from nothing but the Westminster Larger Catechism’s exposition of the first two commandments, together with their scripture references. The command to have no other God than Jehovah, and the second command not to pervert His worship.[32] Because it’s scriptural denunciations of idolatry are dead on point for this application, as would be about likely two thirds of the Catechism’s input upon the other commandments, were what was said not plentifully adequate to convince any Christian.

It’s evident that such as are so polluted in judgment as to not immediately see the perversity of these performances, (like they did the first time they saw them), will not be able to see the validity of such scriptural application to them. But just as scripture doesn’t concern itself with the blind, but with God’s people, so should the believer maintain his focus. State the scriptures, and God will speak to His own. Wisdom is justified of all her children. Luke 7:35

Eighth: Mixing Worldliness with the Gospel is Evil.  

We are told that the thing that “Redeems” rap music is the words. But, supposing all the words are actually audible, and suppose that those prancing about to the music are actually listening, and supposing that the lyrics are in fact actually godly, then here is what you are still stuck with: you’re mixing the infinite dignity, sanctity, and gravity of the gospel with a most base and degenerate performance, polluting all it’s goodness with revelry and pompous human pride. How much less would it dishonor God but to have profane lyrics that agree with the profane gesture and antics of such performances, and not thus to join the Holy cause of the gospel of Christ to such demonic displays of human degeneracy.

Thomas Scott (John Newton’s associate and bible commentator) said in reference to the stage that attempting its reform was but to add grain and something noxious together for poison, and that the worse part was the best done. And that is exactly the state of this case as well. In other words, the parts that people so much lauded as redemptive were in fact the worst parts, because they were brought in as a vindication of that which was evil and destructive, and the mixture itself was blasphemous and repulsive.^[33] And it’s just so here. Were wicked words joined with wicked music and behavior, then the music, words, and behavior would agree. It would be all vile. But, as it is, it mixes that which is sacred with that which is vile, and in this sense is dishonoring to that which is sacred, and unequal with that which is vile.

That people are not entirely outraged at this blasphemy is a frightful indicator that we have been given over to the blindness of God’s judgment. It would be as though they enjoyed watching bibles be bull-dozed into a garbage pit, or scripture recited amidst the sounds of a brothel. Such outrage will bring judgment, but it also IS a judgment from God. “Thus saith the LORD of hosts; ask now the priests concerning the law, saying, If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.” Hag.2:11-13 The worldliness of such displays only defiles that which is holy. That which is holy will not sanctify that which is wicked. It’s like watching the band Stryper prance around like sodomites singing Christian words.

But its become unfashionable to aver anything to be “worldly” these days. Can anyone really tell us what worldliness even is, since scripture is silent on the particulars? Does this mean that “worldliness” can be anything to anyone, or that … we all know what it is, and it needs no definition to the sincere, to whom the bible alone was written? But should you seek to persuade your average insincere worldling that he might reconsider his ways, and at once you are imposing your private taste upon the conscience of the church, and as such are putting yourself forth as a diabolical antagonist against the faith of the saints, assaying to bring their conscience into bondage, and blinding them to the true worship of God, and etc..

But women are commanded in the bible to wear modest clothing, yes? But it doesn’t give us the list of 587 forbidden articles of immodest clothing, right? So because the list is missing… there is no such command. Or not. Can we see through that? And just so we are told “be not conformed to this world”. It’s a command. Right? Not a suggestion or a pleading, but a command. But again… no specifics as to what this forbidden worldliness even is. Or isn’t. Why, you may ask? Because everyone knows perfectly well what it is, and there is no question about it whatever. Until someone confronts you about your being worldly, and then suddenly, you’re a free man, because there is no 51,587 biblical specifics about what things are worldly and what are not. Except that we all know, until we’re confronted. Then it’s legalism.

And it’s just so with foul language, likewise forbidden in many places, and yet we are never given the 7, 324 profane words we may not use? Why? Because no one needs them.  Should I ask my reader what words are profane there is not a one who does not full well what they are. They simply use this argument as their get out of obedience free card, because they don’t really care about pleasing God at all. And even when such things are specified, the ethical Hudini will find his way around it.

Because of the constant flow of such corruption of reason, the response is parroted to anyone who tries to get the church to repent of aping the world. In fact, I doubt that there is even such a thing existent in the modern mind as “worldliness” or if there is, that it’s something few would dare to risk their reputation at defining. And the reason is because there is this handy little hiding place for the worldling professor that has been vindicated by a generation of seminary-lobotomized preachers and the backslidden believers and unregenerate church members they’ve deluded with their novel nostrum, rather than being reproved and edified by the church’s faithful witness.

How do you prove someone’s being worldly from the bible, when the bible doesn’t provide the exhaustive list? But without utter proof, forged in hardened chain, the modern “Christian” will refuse to acknowledge duty, but will rage against every such biblical restraint as an enemy of his sanctification, and, in his perverted mind, his worldliness will stand as the single most evidence of his “liberty” in Christ, as though the object for which Christ died were his freedom to be restrained by nothing except that which he could by no means possible escape, and then even some of these.

It’s as though Jesus hung upon a cross so that false converts and fallen believers could vindicate their slavery to the asinine and wicked customs of fallen humanity. That’s blasphemous against God to imply that such was His divine intention in providing the sacred and fearful remedy of the Cross. To teach that the bible has nothing to say about evil, and that God wrote it that way, is to slander God and the bible both.

Today we have, not just the new Christian, yet shaking off the defilement of his recent escape from the chains of unregeneracy, and yet unconfirmed in his mind in regard to that narrow way which Jesus said alone will lead to life, but those considered veterans in the faith, emerging as apologists for that which is absolutely vile and blasphemous. And that could not more perfectly describe the corruption occurring within the church in regard to rap music, or a dozen other like abominations.

We have now a party shilling for a corrupting influence in the church that is artisically without merit or taste, in manner, inflection, tone, gate, gesture, and facial expression, entirely inimical to any gospel characteristic whatever, and which one typically can’t even understand the one thing that is supposed to redeem it all, the words. What can we say but that the entire phenomena is but a grand attempt to pervert the church of Christ, and that is something that all those shilling for the devil should consider in time.

Imagine a group of young boys out in the woods trying to belch out the alphabet in one breath, and laughing their heads off in their attempts. Ok…. Funny enough, and in my estimation, harmless, provided it be isolated from distinguished or delicate company, and it’s kind of what you would expect for boys. But switch now to them competing, not to see who could do the whole alphabet, but a whole bible verse. Rom. 5:8 maybe…. “But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”. Would it not be overt and uncontested blasphemy? Of course it would, nor would anyone think otherwise.

And why so? Because of this one sacred overriding truth of all Christian experience: That anything having to do with the gospel of Christ is deserving of the utmost dignity, honor, and reverence, and must never be debased by human frivolity, impertinence, vulgarity, or sin of any kind, but may  only be righteously presented with the utmost, gravity, dignity, and sincere fervent honor. Why? If anyone has to ask that they just revealed why thy like rap. But the answer is this: Because God is worthy, and anything less is infinitely unfitting his honor and dignity, and every normative child of God has a keen sense of this worship in his own heart and experience, without having to be externally constrained by a standard he inwardly despises.

And this is precisely why rap music is an outrage and affront to the honor of God. Because its verbal gymnastics glorifying only the performer, it’s arrogant tone and pompous strut, it’s general style, reveling antics, and gansta character, all scream, not a renunciation of human pride, but a glorying in it, and a blasphemous mixing of it with the sacred message they all love to pretend it’s all about.

Ninth, Considering Examples.

Let us not rest the case by merely making metaphysical arguments. Let us have examples, and look at the performances themselves. Because it will serve to seal the lesson in a way none but the most blinded of minds will further justify. And that will be… most people. The following video links will not be described and footnoted, but put in the main body of the text, and if read in book form, will have the tedious task of typing in an annoying URL full of upper and lower case letters and numbers.

The advocates for this perversity posture as ones discriminating fine art, but once viewed, there will be those yet morally living who will at once perceive that their reflections are tantamount to a chef speaking of a deliacacy in all the verbal finery of their profession, but speaking of the rotting corpse of an elephant baked only by the sun after being butchered by poachers.

Let us begin by pointing out what seems to be the common modus operendi the rap advocate, in their bid to corrupt and pervert the church of Jesus. For their more public offerings they tend to show rap music in its most benign forms, but then in the live performances, there it’s unbridled revelry. So, first, some benign examples taken from formal sources, such as Pied Piper’s site, or Shai Linne’s site. Consider the following two:
Lacrae from Piper’s site: https://youtu.be/Xt9VA3Cxdfo
Shai Linne from his own site: https://youtu.be/7RUciHVpCbw

Now the first thing you think is that these examples are comparatively mellow. The rhyme and meter are characteristically tasteless, the standard arrogance and bravado of vocal tone is comparatively restrained, (though still retaining some of the gangsterism inseparable from the genre), the verbal content certainly expresses some evangelical content, though hindered by these other factors, but there’s no ecstatic writhing and neither example is babbling to ecstatic audiences, leaping about like the priests of Baal on Mt. Carmel. And this is what you see in the “sales literature”, if you will …. The places where they’re trying to make it look benign.

But I must here insert a joke I once heard…  It seems a politician had died, and found himself standing before this powerful and frightful angel of God. The angel looked down and said, “Well… it says here that you’re a politician. We always follow the same policy with all politicians, and so you must spend two weeks in hell, and then two weeks in heaven, but then you will get to decide in which place you spend your eternity.” The politician was elated, that at the least eternity would be good. So he is put into hell, and much to his shock, it was nothing like he had feared. It was not great, but he knew lots of people, and all was reasonably comfortable. He then spent two weeks in heaven, and it was without question better in every way, except that he felt grossly out of place, knew no one at all, and felt profoundly ill-at-ease there. So the time came for him to decide, and as awkward as he felt saying it, he told the angel that he wished to go to that … that… that first place he had visited… to …. hell. The angel calmly escorted him to the door, to usher him in, but when he opened the door it was absolutely nothing like before, but was full of furious lashing flames and of millions of people screaming in agony. As he was being shoved in he started to scream that this was not fair, being that it was nothing at all like the accommodations presented when he was called upon to make his choice. The angel calmly replied…. “That was campaign season”.

And just so here. We must now notice the extreme contrast between such videos as get shown to unsuspecting dad and mom on the public web site, and the wild, ecstatic, extravaganza of carnality, reveling, gangsterism, pride, egotism, self-aggrandizing posturing, and blasphemy that we see in the live performances, that we are incessantly told are winning a generation to the gospel of Jesus.

Lacrae & Swoope, 2017 Tour: https://youtu.be/wOluo1TlnZM

Tripp Lee @ Pied Piper’s “Cross Con” for 18-25 year olds:
https://youtube.com/shorts/rfzjnrVjHrM

And in a parallel performance, Lacrae: https://youtube.com/shorts/snbv5tjcdhA

Shai Linne: https://youtube.com/shorts/0cDRNgCTTsg

Lacrae: https://youtu.be/_QDtKkZDhYk?t=780

Lacrae @ MacArthur’s 2010 “Regeneration” camp. https://youtu.be/hR2jkNk9WBw

Lacrae, “Unashamed” tour 2010 https://youtu.be/dhqYFJQetrE

Another view of 2010 Unashamed: https://youtu.be/upHSG8DP0ts

Another: https://youtu.be/2V7oomMsMDI

Russell Moore interview of Lacrae, end of clip:
https://youtu.be/Y-8BLFmmQMg?t=520

Lacrae @ Piper’s church: https://youtu.be/PDxUw62cRYk?t=44

Shai Linne, Live concert: https://youtu.be/2jUVti6DUjo

Dove Awards, Multiple Performers: https://youtu.be/Q8u8mHzug3w?t=140
This one is quite humorous, because they can’t get the crowd ecstatically leaping around like dope addicts, so the whole thing flops and looks ridiculous.

Another, equally ridiculous: https://youtu.be/_QyXpLSELRE?t=70

Tedashii, Recorded, not live: https://youtu.be/QZn1_R1Gh84

Andy Mineo, Dove Awards: https://youtu.be/JDlBqxm60Pc?t=47

Now much could be said to take each of these separately, and provide some individual critique. But we don’t want to miss the big point. The huge intruding point is that it’s all so utterly obvious that not to immediately perceive this as morally perverse is but to publish one’s moral blindness and this evidence of moral infection should not be patronized with lengthy proofs, as though the performance itself were not proof enough. Providing lengthy critique is but to lend credence to the delusion. It would be reminiscent of someone providing long argumentation in an effort to prove that pornography is provocative of indecent affections. What idiot contests that? Long arguments to prove it only patronize the myth that it’s not obvious. If people don’t see it, it’s because they’re morally perverse and spiritually dark.

I’m reminded of a passage in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, where “Faithful” is tried by Jury in the city of “Vanity Fair”, and is condemned by the jurors to death. Here is their sentence:

“Then went the jury out, whose names were, Mr. Blind-man, Mr. No-good, Mr. Malice, Mr. Love-lust, Mr. Live-loose, Mr. Heady, Mr. High-mind, Mr. Enmity, Mr. Liar, Mr. Cruelty, Mr. Hate-light, and Mr. Implacable; who every one gave in his private verdict against him among themselves, and afterwards unanimously concluded to bring him in guilty before the Judge. And first, among themselves, Mr. Blind-man, the foreman, said, I see clearly that this man is a heretic. Then said Mr. No-good, Away with such a fellow from the earth. Ay, said Mr. Malice, for I hate the very looks of him. Then said Mr. Love-lust, I could never endure him. Nor I, said Mr. Live-loose, for he would always be condemning my way. Hang him, hang him, said Mr. Heady. A sorry scrub, said Mr. High-mind. My heart rises against him, said Mr. Enmity. He is a rogue, said Mr. Liar. Hanging is too good for him, said Mr. Cruelty. Let us despatch him out of the way, said Mr. Hate-light. Then said Mr. Implacable, Might I have all the world given me, I could not be reconciled to him; therefore, let us forthwith bring him in guilty of death. And so they did; therefore he was presently condemned to be had from the place where he was, to the place from whence he came, and there to be put to the most cruel death that could be invented.”

The reason this passage from Bunyan is considered here is obvious, is it not? People little consider the liability of their own depravity when making judgments, and always make the assumption they’re in the right. Right or wrong everyone does this. Its self-evident, else they’d change their opinion. But how to get someone to look at himself? People judge themselves to be Christians. Then they judge that such a display of pompous arrogance and showmanship is all in line with that Christianity. What can be said, but that they have an entirely perverse view of Christianity itself, and certainly a contrary view to what it’s always been perceived to be by its confessors through the ages. The passage from John Witherspoon before considered should be here reconsidered. It’s our having different views of religion itself that brings about disparate assessments of such debauchery.

However, this fact is not appealed to in order to avoid all reflection upon such performances, and some general remarks may perhaps assist any awakening soul. So, first note, that, had not someone told you that this was supposed to be a Christian event, (not that it was), no one could have told the difference between an ostensible Christian event or a nightclub rave. That’s just how “Redeemed” it is. In some cases the words are clear enough to hear some Christian content, but were this wholly obscured, there would be no difference whatever.

Secondly, for all the hype about how meaningful the words are, you can’t understand enough (if any in some cases) of the words to make out any coherent message. A poor-quality private recording? On some of the links, yes, but even the ones that are clear are obscured by the raving manner of vocal performance. Take the first video by Tripp Lee. It wouldn’t matter if the words were understood or not. Tripp Lee is repeating the same word/phrase over and over and not only prancing around like a drugged ecstatic shaman, he is inciting the crowd into the same carnal revelry as himself in the name of Christian worship.[34] Christianity has always been known for opposing such behavior, and is criticized by the world for opposing it.[35] Now it’s all a virtue. Somehow.

Now, I’m sure some enrollee of the Frankfort School will find out what the word was that Mr. Lee was saying over and over, and chide me for assuming the worst, but again, abstracting the word from the performance is sleight of hand, and putting apples for oranges. The more godly or edifying the word/phrase, the worse it’s placement in such a scene of revelry, dishonor, and degeneracy, as we’ve detailed above. Further, this entire practice of saying the same thing over and over and over, is itself witchy, and one of the practices of the evil arts, just like the ecstatic dance is, as the previous two footnotes allude to.
So lets take a quick assessment of these examples. First, lets point out the obvious. The explicit grounds upon which this devilish practice is advocated, above all others, is the lyrics, and this because the lyrics will convert the hearer. But it’s all a complete lie. No one intends this. They extol the verbal content as the salient feature of such performances when trashing actual Christians refuting their excesses, and carry on in pious cant about how the gospel is being preached, and how this can only accrue in honor to God, but once away in the night club and off the podcasts, it’s idiotic gibberish that no one can understand, and could they by reason of English diction and normative speed, yet they wouldn’t anyway for all the ecstatic prancing about of the crowd, and did they hear and understand, it would only serve to blaspheme God for its mixing the gospel with its wickedness of presentation. It’s a scene of pure revelry, and calling this evangelism can only mean they intend to evangelize for hell, and for this, they are doing a stand-up job.

Yet these are they who fervently testify that they have sanctified the practice by abandoning the revelry. This is the revelry, and getting fake Christians to jump in and join the devilish party is all part of the plan to silence the historical faith and replace it with an imposter, which has for many ages been the mode and design of the church’s enemies. And these men are its enemies.

Now, am I calling such gatherings and performances a work of the devil? 100%, yes.  But were that the case, would it not be detected by the church and exposed, and such imposters isolated from its worship and practice? Would to God that were true, and the unwatchful assumption that it must be is at the root of the problem. I recall an NAR meeting where these demonic shammans masquerading as Christian ministers, were reciting the words of warlocks[36] to cast out the spirit of racism[37], and trust that the charade is not detected. And sadly, they’re not mistaken. People are that deceived. But it can’t happen with our enlightened “Reformed” people. Except that it has in the very instance under consideration, among many more.

These rappers revel in carnal ecstatic dance to the incoherent ranting of a man donning all the air and attire of a ghetto gang banger, and expect that no one will see through it. And they’re not mistaken. They trust in the ignorance and moral perversity to have adequately blinded the multitudes they’ve corrupted, and trust not in vain. These performers, these promoters, are servants of the devil. Piper, Mohler, Moore, Cosper, Wilson … any of them. Whoever can look at that and defend it, and promote it among the people of God, you are a child of the devil. These are sent of Satan to dress up evil, and tell you you’re being a racist if you object. They are corrupters and polluters of the church, they are the Zimri’s in need of a Phinehas. It’s the very untouchable repute of such imposters that is that behind which they hide. But when the church won’t listen… and it won’t… it will wholly deserve the judgments it receives of God. 

This is carnal revelry, ascribed to the agency of the Holy Spirit. The person who believes that is lost. Only children of hell are confused about which is which. This is the work of the devil.  In the immortal words of Martin Luther when accused by heretics of blaspheming the Holy Spirit…. “I slap your spirit on the snout”.

Tenth: A Sampling of the Worldling Apologists:

John Piper, Al Mohler, J. Ligon Duncan, Paul Washer, Doug Wilson, Ron Burns, and others have come forward as the apologists for this shameful and embarrassing practice. And we will consider but a very few of these examples of such “apologetics”, and those but briefly, as there are literally dozens that blogged out their hatred for the biblical concepts of sanctification all so grossly contradicted in such performances.  And we would expect that new and inexperienced believers might speak like such men did…… With arguments so utterly empty and void of merit whatever, that you about want to call their kinfolk and have someone check their temperature, because they’re acting delusional. But lets consider just a few.

Like Mohler: Rap is plainly of God. Because people attacked Bach once for departing from the norms and thinking him “worldly”; and yet in time he became respected and his contributions honored. Lacrae is Bach. Makes perfect sense.[38] And we are left to surmise that Bach is to his contemporary Vivaldi for contrast, what Lacrae is to Alan Jackson or Karen Carpenter. I’m sure the parallel is clear. To no one who thinks it over. For anyone desirous of a serious critique of these absurd claims, see the footnote here[39]. One wonders if it ever occurred to him that people attacked Stalin once. Or that people attacked those that were utterly wicked, and yet the wicked prevailed. So what’s his doctrine exactly? Wickedness never prevails, and we may thus discern the truth by which ever competitor gains ascendancy? Ok, so…. Obama is of God, and when Jesus died it proved He was not of God? Such reasoning is profoundly dull in anyone, but in a ruler in Israel? This sort of thought process comes from our supposed best! How weak, then, is that cause that can have no better defense! But what would we expect from the man who platformed Russell Moore in the SBC to promote his Marxist agenda there? Today we have our leading men making this and similarly bizarre apologies for such modern decadence and not only are they too oblivious to even be embarrassed for the inanity of their arguments but have all their devotees, too long reared up under such blinded tutelage, applauding for such replies, and esteeming it some grand piece of apologetics.

Or Ligon Duncan saying that since someone listened to “reformed” rap and became a “reformed” pastor, that means that rap is of God and that you’re resisting His work to oppose it[40]. Time was that “the end justifies the means” dogma was one used only by Jesuits. (Yes, it’s still true). But it’s also objectively a logical fallacy, already considered above. Not every means God may in providence use to bring someone to himself constitutes some divine authorization to the church to use it as a means of evangelism. Else, what of the guy who got converted listening to a man mock the bible?

And under this category we must put Owen Strachan, who faults the NCFIC “panelists” for not rejoicing when the gospel is preached, whether by the sincere or insincere.[41] (Referencing Phil.1:12-18) However, just as Witherspoon points out above, our evangelism, like everything else, must be warranted by scripture, and those who embrace the regulative principle should not be the ones this has to be explained to, else they would be asking with Witherspoon:  “Who hath required this at your hands?” And where the gospel is mixed with the dregs of worldliness, that is blaspheming the gospel, not preaching it. The gospel is not preached where it is blasphemed. And if the incoherent gibberish that constitutes likely 80% of such performances is considered “preaching the gospel”… “Houston, we have a problem”. The gospel has gone missing.

And perhaps the award for the most unhinged to the point of hilarity response would go to Brent Hobbs who critiqued the godly responses of the panelists in detail, (before they repented of them), confirming that if one of the panelists responding wasn’t white he would have had more experience listening to rap, and then all the glamboyant babble of the rapper would be plain to him.[42] It becomes more plain the more babble you take in. This is not an exaggeration, but literally what he said. And the second point was that rappers are not really trying to glorify themselves, any more than a painter who is trying to use their talent to the glory of God! So if you’re really good at glorifying yourself, you definitely should do so … to the glory of… God, oh… wait… I…

Or Washer merely saying that … “Hey… I’ve spent time with these rappers… they’re deep men of God. (This was before they all went commie-woke and forsook evangelicalism) No one from history would ever have done this, but, hey…. that makes it edgy and hip, right?”[43]

Or Mike Cosper from the Marxist “gospel” coalition, affirming that “A bunch of old white men” could make no contribution to something musical involving black people, and next proceeding to charge them with racism.[44] Because … everyone knows that “commenting while white” is racist. And for sure, Cosper would say the same thing to blacks did they try to comment on The Gaithers. Or not. And saying a certain skin color excludes you from teaching anyone anything isn’t racist though. It’s virtue-signaling, so long as White people are the ones being slandered. Behold the moral poverty and spiritual blindness of the antiracist.

This reminds me of a joke I made up: “What do we call people who constantly vilify those of a certain race and culture? Ans: An ANTIRACIST. Because that’s all antiracists do. All they do is rail against Caucasians.But rest assured, black rappers can teach whites faithfully in all the CRT dictates of Marxists, and you’re a racist if you don’t imbibe the lessons that have descended from Gramsci, Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer, and etc.. It’s so amazing to me that people cannot see their hypocrisy…. and racial envy and hatred.

Cosper next moves on to affirm a sort of Christianized pantheism where God is the one behind all cultures, affirming that God is actually the brains behind hip hop. Wow… like that doesn’t beg the question or anything. And if the arrogance, pride, self-centered, self-aggrandizing, flamboyant, shameless character of rap is an endemic expression of black culture…. guess what…. you’re slandering black culture. And if you say that this is the thing most likely to reach them, your double slandering them, as though nothing of decency and taste could possibly appeal to them. But more importantly, you’re also slandering/blaspheming God, in as much as this imputes all these evils to His divine and sacred agency. But what you’re really doing is polluting all cultures to manipulate them into accepting all these ungodly characters as acceptable and normative. I’m bringing to mind the communist who said they put 2k priests into the catholic church in the 60s. It’s not like they stopped, and CRT is their darling idol to worship or die.

And let’s be clear…  no one contests that all racial cultures have a peculiar taste in musical style that is unique to their people and I would add that this is founded in DNA which means that it is indeed fundamentally founded in creation, and therefore intended of the creator. But the false and blasphemous assumption being made by Cosper about this cultural/racial/genetic connection, is that all CORRUPTIONS of this principle also belong to God. So lets apply this to other cultures, and not just African. Screamo music is exclusively a Caucasian phenomena. Is it then an endemic emanation of Caucasian DNA? “Don’t slander my people” would be the appropriate response to that. And this is the response I would expect from any self-respecting black man when someone imagines that the thing that will primally appeal to him is pure degeneracy. Fundamentally, Mr. Cosper is speaking evil of the godly black Christian man.  

And if this methodology is what works for one race or culture, we must assume it’s what will work for all. Or are black different than everyone else? Thus, it will be our wisdom to send chaplains into the Ukrainian war for the Azov battalion with swastikas emblazoned on their bibles and tracts, because ….. DNA put this in them. Do we get the idiocy yet? 

And while we have already above considered the folly of claiming to “redeem” evil for good, yet let us consider an example in the advocacy of Mike Cosper, who affirms that if rap music is evil, then it’s akin to affirming that porn has ruined photography.

Cosper: “If Hip Hop can’t be separated from its cultural milieu, what other forms of communication are defiled and condemned? Did Wagner’s sexual deviancy, antisemitism and German Uber-nationalism defile and condemn all classical music? Did Robert Maplethorpe’s homosexual erotic photography defile and condemn all photography? Has porn ruined the whole internet?” 

Not a category error or anything. Was Wagner an exception for personal beliefs to the rest of the Classical composers? Yes he was. So where is the uniformity of degeneracy from which the discipline arose, and for which sake consistency might demand a parallel nullification? No such uniformity existed. But it did exist with the inception of rap, and in its continuance, and in its very nature. Now Cosper, being a Marxist shill, will probably esteem all of these Caucasian/European composers as racists, so they’re likely all evil anyway. But further, Wagner is an exception to other Classical composers only in belief, and not in style, and were the Classical form of music characterized by people babbling incoherently and prancing about the stage like witches at a séance, then yes, it should be condemned, just like rap should be.

The only parallel here would be if Wagner’s style of music emerged from a uniquely sick, perverse, and degenerate cultural movement that characterized the whole genre, and then Christian’s attempted to “redeem” it. Which of course has exactly zero parallel. Wagner’s music was not unique to his contemporaries at all, nor did it arise as a style from such as shared his views, but had been in existence for centuries.

And perv photographer Maplethorpe…  his style of photography did arise from a sick demonic perverted movement, and for such perversions they were justly condemned. The entire genre is rightly reprobated, because of this entirely valid reason. Just like rap is. No one either created a “redeemed form” of it to mainstream into Christianity, (I hope this doesn’t give Cosper ideas), nor was this “redeemed” form complained about based upon it’s origin. Make the same application of porn and the internet, or of any other category errors this libertine bonehead proposes. There is so much moonstruck babbling in this man’s article, it would be unprofitable to carry on further, and perhaps even as much as I have.

And one common thread that we see consistently in most, if not all of the avalanche of excoriation of the brief moment of fidelity in these “panelists”, is that their views were “Euro-centric”, racist, bigoted, and all the other Cultural Marxist Critical Race Theory buzz-words eternally applied to white skin.  But this is a complete slander, and indeed, is but an attempt to keep all peoples, white, black, or otherwise, from true repentance, and to view a sanctified life as evil, and thus bind all in the arms of Satan.

Those who have taken up the joyful message of the gospel, have also taken up its burdens, and the hatred and slander of the world, when we won’t be cowed by their corrupt truly racist philosophies, is certainly a considerable one. The believer has owned the call to reprove evil wherever it is, and not to cower away, simply because the world has been programmed by Marxists, and will castigate them even for keeping their own creed of judging people by “the content of their character”, and “not by the color of their skin”. Somehow their dream is now a nightmare, and apparently the meaning was, they dream of not being judged by anyone, anytime, anywhere, for anything, as there is complete intolerance of any call of repentance without being accused of hating their genetics, though you never mentioned it, nor cared, and as though had any person walked in the good ways of God, you would have objected to their genetics!

And the church, not content with merely being silenced by the fear of slander, has fully hopped on the band-wagon and joined in the leftist screed-spewing castigation of any that actually take up the burden of calling all nations and peoples to the one standard for all of them, that you yourself strive to enforce upon yourself. And so, if any brother who is black is offended, my response is to say, turn from your sin, and from the justification of evil, and join the true brotherhood of those who confess the truth. Renounce the divisive Marxist hypocrisy of hating other peoples yourself, and stop accusing them of evils of which they are in no way guilty for merely trying to call you to repent. And if you can’t, then peace despite. But those who see the truth of the scriptures won’t shut up for you, or anyone else, because we see, believe, and will confess the one standard of the scriptures to all people, bearing the blinded abuse of such as serve some other standard, and hoping for their restoration. And as Cosper’s diatribe was most conspicuous for this folly, let us provide a few words to this subject.

For the “racist” accusation to be a valid objection two things must be true, neither of which are even close to being true. First, that when black people are godly and find the same age-old repentance and living faith of true believers and reprobate worldliness and evil, that those that make the case against the decadence of rap music will still shun them because they don’t like their genetics. But of course it has nothing to do with the color of their skin, but of the content of their character, and the racist left always forgets that part of their mantra, though emanating from the lips of one of their preeminent gods… MLK. Secondly, that when music associated with white people is sick, perverted, demonic, and degenerate, we have no problem with it, because it’s somehow sanctified by the white skin of the performers. Thus, we all have no problem with the even more demonic example of “Christian” Screamo music, right? But, if there is any discrepancy, we likely hate such abominations even more, in as much as it makes our own race look demonic, and not that of someone else, though thankfully it has never prospered as much as that of Rap. It’s personally embarrassing. I know, I know… we’re all supposed to be part of the great monad, but I still find chagrin in the likes of Jeffery Dahmer, and it reminds me of the universal depravity of man. 

Russell Moore: Russell Moore has published an article in “Christianity” Today in which one may find all the things we’d expect from such an enemy of Christianity. There is so much perversely and even idiotically warped about this article, that one could write a refutation of it three times as long as his article. But let us restrain ourselves to a few choice examples.

Mr. Moore acknowledges the “sub Christian” braggadocio inherent in Rap, but then tries to sanctify it, and aver that in “Christianized” rap, it’s been turned to men glorifying God. Go look at one of those above videos again, and ask yourself if that’s true. So… does he not watch it? Or watch it, and thinks all the braggadocio is cool?  

Moore imagines he presents a parallel between the characteristic violence, drugs, and braggadocio of rap/hiphop and bible stories, and with country music. With bible stories because Moore claims Lamech sang a song about conquering many women, and seeking revenge killings, and Country, because Johnny Cash sang, “I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die”, citing Hank Willliams’ substance abuse as yet another parallel.

And while it certainly reveals Moore’s blank dishonesty to so characterize both the bible and Country music as an accurate parallel in these particulars, yet the blasphemy of this comparison is far more troubling, comparing the drug fueled arrogance and impurity of rap to the bible because of this passage:

“And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.” Gen. 4:23-24

“In the opening pages of Genesis, after the Bible narrates the development of music, we see Lamech singing a song, seeking revenge against his enemies and the sexual conquest of multiple women.”

“Singing a song” eh? That’s plain as mud. It fits his thesis about music though, so why be tethered to reality? And this “song” of Lamech was about what? Moore: It’s about “seeking revenge against his enemies and the sexual conquest of multiple women”. How sick this man is. In this passage Lamech is a murderer, laments his murder, compares himself to Cain (another murderer) and foresees the same revenge against himself as would come to Cain, and announces this lamentation to his two wives… not just a couple of stray waifs hanging around the dead man he just killed. Mr. Moore would have us to see this as a true parallel to a rap song about someone “seeking revenge against his enemies and his sexual conquest of multiple women”. No rational creature sees such things in Gen. 4, unless your name is Russell Moore, or have a PhD in misinterpreting the bible.

Moore invents this fable about Lamech to prove that racist whites don’t understand the bible in thinking that black culture is so violent. See! These Hip-Hop themes are even in your own bible! Sure. Of course they are. Everyone believes you. Now, someone call the nurse and get his meds.

Throughout the entire article Moore incessantly revisits the concept of Rap’s legitimacy as a form of “Rage against a fallen world”. But it happens to matter whether you’re the one justly raging, or of being justly raged at, and American blacks have been fed a media diet of pure self-pity for over a century, raging, for instance, over “inequality” as they turn the country over to its enemies at the voting both in the ninety percentiles, and where some roughly 12% of the population commit some 55% of the violent crime. That is equal to exactly whom? Telling these they have a right to rage is to abandon the church’s call to compel all men to turn to God in renunciation of their sin. No rapper was ever a slave, but the White middle class still living today, and that Moore constantly vilifies, has had to watch the nation his fathers built desconstructed at the voting booth, and filled with rape and murder.

Moore, being the ready cultural Marxist shill that he is, is always ready to turn every matter into a race card extravaganza, and accordingly laments the unfortunate mischaracterization of blacks as being more violent and apt to kill, simply because of the criminal records of rappers murdering each other. This unreasonable paranoia is what he claims to have provoked the “murder” or Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin … remember him? The guy who attacked a neighborhood watch leader and tried to beat him down and take his gun and got shot, and so the defender was acquitted? So…. rappers murdering each other has contributed to white paranoia about blacks and making them go about murdering black people. And who has the racial paranoia here? Evidently to Mr. Moore, it’s quite unfortunate that white people have this irrational idea of the justice of protecting themselves from attack. Which is why Russell Moore walks his dog at midnight in Harlem and South Chicago just to prove these racist fear mongers wrong. Oh…. Wait … I.. uh…  

Throughout this article Moore constantly commiserates with the notion of black persecution, as though no part of their suffering could be self-inflected and thus oblige the merciful biblical accountability of genuine Christians, not the facilitating sympathies of Marxist shills like Moore. Mr. Moore probably thinks that blacks were stolen from prosperous cities full of libraries, roads, architecture, hospitals, and armies, and then brought to the US to be oppressed and held back from these magnificent accomplishments, and if the white man would just repent of his “systemic” oppression he’d be back in his former ivory tower in no time. Like it is in Detroit. “Racist” …. It’s what they call you when they can’t call you a liar.

However, Russell Moore agrees with this social reality when he speaks of white kids in their gated communities all “safely cocooned from the dangers of gang violence, urban poverty, racial injustice, police brutality, domestic violence, and drug trafficking.” Why aren’t the black kids in the hood safely cocooned, Mr. Moore? Are you saying whites are less violent? Yes, you are. You forget your screed. But it is true, White kids don’t suffer racial injustice, unless they wander into a black neighborhood, or take a job as a cop and try to arrest a resisting counterfeiting dope-head with 3x a lethal dose of fentanyl and meth in his system, and then when he dies, get charged with murder, and have blacks torch their own neighborhoods in protest. Because torching your own neighborhood is also a form of white oppression, I’m sure.  And for sure, whites don’t ever have domestic violence. We’re all perfect saints. We don’t do drugs either. SMH

And with Wakanda in his dreams, we can perhaps see why the Frankfurtive Moore affirms that these are the people, and this is the medium that will Christianize the Calvinistic Church. Mr. Moore: “The new Christian hip-hop isn’t so much about Calvinizing Christian music as about Christianizing Calvinist music.” The very subtitle of Moore’s article is: “How Christian Hip-Hop Could Call the American Church Back to the Gospel, and Hip-Hop Back to its Roots”. Commies like Moore in all likelihood know full well they are destroying Christendom, and this is their idea of its salvation.[45] If not, one could hardly imagine any human supposing that such measures will “Christianize” Calvinism. Except Doug Wilson, who said that unless you read Russel Moore article you will be unlikely to rightly understand his own article on Rap, praising this incoherence of Mr. Moore as having the right balance.  Yes, it’s our having a different religion that ensures different opinions on this subject.
So much more could be said about this article. But I trust those that can understand, do.

As mentioned, Doug Wilson has published an article online that briefly deals with the NCFIC debacle, in which he praises Russell Moore’s “Christianity” Today piece, and while attempting to give some mild credit to some of the objections the panelists tendered, he overall rejects their input as imbalanced for rejecting rap music as a whole, and not legitimizing the forms he likes to listen to. These legitimate forms he describes as, among other things, prophetic denunciations, and having your anger knob stuck on eleven.

Prophetic denunciations and anger can be righteous. But it happens to matter what they’re denouncing and what they’re angry about, and he doesn’t say. As he’s praising Russell Moore’s article one might think that he’s intending all the loxism of Moore’s Critical Theory screed, except that Wilson has been quite excellent on such points, in the past. Maybe he’s drunken the Koolaid. It’s all part of the mystery of plausible deniability. No matter what anyone imputes to him, he can just say, “That’s not what I meant”. It appears he forgot to apply to himself the necessity of making “appropriate distinctions”. This is not distinct. Anger is not legitimate if its expressions are directed toward the only place the rapper’s people have ever prospered in world history.

And, of course, Wilson’s appraisal assumes rap’s legitimacy by avoiding any critical assessment of what is true of all of it, thus rendering it down to a mere matter of taste, thus legitimizing all of it’s intolerable characteristics common to the entire genre, and merely objecting to some performances he finds distasteful. Which is really to obfuscate on the whole issue, and to fail to provide the “appropriate distinctions” he affirms are necessary. Which is what we’ve come to expect from Mr. Wilson.

Conclusion

To briefly summarize the above points:

1. Men who change their opinions just because people don’t clap but frown at them should not be in the ministry, and if they are in, they should repent or get out, and let true men of God lead the church who possess genuine mettle, courage, and conviction.

2. Not only that which scripture names, but that which “by good and necessary inference may be deduced from scripture” are alike authoritative over the church, and the church needs to relinquish its pharisaical hypocrisy of clinging to the excuse that practicing something blatantly evil is acceptable because it hasn’t a name in the bible. But it does. Hypocrisy, among others.

3. No other age of the true church would ever have descended into such utter degeneracy, and its so evident that advocates of rap publicly laugh about it, never thinking of what it means. But what it means is that the extreme disparity between them and literally anyone from the entire church of history exposes them as frauds, and that they’ve departed from the good ways of God for which His people have suffered and rejoiced over many ages. May they humbly return.

4. Evangelism is ordained by God to be carried out by the preaching of the word of God, and in no instance would it be lawful to accommodate unregenerate taste in its presentation by whatever means, as this is explicitly forbidden, (ICor.1:21-25), and when men do so, they but show that they are charlatans and mean but to gather uncalled unregenerates into the church, and so provoke the judgments of God.

5. As might be expected, then, such frauds have, one by one, departed that good way of the gospel, and have imbibed, advanced, and defended grotesque racist Marxist views, if nothing else, as a testament from God to avoid them. (Rom.1:17) We may expect the same thing from all the fakes that come corrupt the church in their stead. But of course, there is no “in their stead” because they can be as Marxist and racist as they wish, and no one will ban them.

6. All this Charlatanism screams to the world, not that we are “inclusive” and “die-verse” and “equitable” to all peoples, but that we ourselves are perfectly bankrupt and morally empty in that we have no agenda of our own, but must go about looking for the next worldly thing to ape.  Because when the church becomes the ape of fallen humanity’s vain idiotic customs it is screaming to the world that we are so void of any cause, ethic, or manner of our own, that we have to go to them for ideas. And next tell them we have the right way, follow us.

7. The phenomena of “Rap Music” is advanced upon the explicit pretext that it is the church’s wisdom to “Redeem culture”. But that which could not possibly be more evident never dawns on these benighted apologists, and that is … that it hasn’t. Culture is not redeemed of the church. The Church is perverted and corrupted by the world, and thus the whole excuse is but a defense of destroying the church, under a demonic pretense of blessing it.

8. The fundamental offense of such performances is the gesture, revelry, gangsta mimicry, haughty air, in short, the entire fine-tuned persona of degeneracy that is inseparable from them. Such factors are perfectly self-evident, and the only reason any defend it is for the exact cause that Witherspoon ascribed to similar follies: That of a complete difference of religion. These have a religion in which such displays of pride and revelry are neither offensive, nor contrary to their inner sentiments, and in many cases, likely because they design to affect the inevitable result of the church’s perversion, and it worked. Trying to explain it to them is accordingly “painting pictures for the blind”. They will justify all the things a Christian man will be repulsed by. The grand apology for its usefulness is its lyrics which are typically tasteless, shallow, inarticulate, and in most cases, unintelligible, if not by reason of their pure gibberish, then by the fact that those hearing it live are ecstatically prancing about like the one inciting them on the stage, so that the pretense of lyrical edification is pure hypocrisy. Those edified by such spectacles of human depravity have yet to learn what spiritual food is. That goes for the rappers themselves, all their fans, and all their advocates, including, and especially, Piper, Mohler, Duncan, Moore, Wilson, Burns or the rest of the worldling rabble that shamelessly promote this corruption of the church of Jesus.

9. In those limited instances where the words actually are understood, it serves to defame and degrade the holiness, honor, sanctity, and extreme devotion due unto the matchless sacredness of the Gospel of Christ, so that so far from being a ground of it’s legitimacy, it’s the very worst thing about it. As bad as secular rap music is, it’s far better than the pretense of Christian rap, in that it doesn’t drag the sacredness of the gospel through this pompous and shameless display of human pride and depravity.

The video examples provided above make the case perfectly clear, and if people can’t see it, but see such things as being of God, they should go start some other religion and give it another name, rather than attempting to tell true believers that they are heterodox. This is not Christianity, and never has been. Just ask Paul Washer.  

Those who have arisen in slander and excoriation of the just are filled with the apologetic savvy of a hedgehog, and have made the most idiotic pleas I think I’ve ever seen, and their raving incompetence should itself live as a testament to the poverty of their cause. It’s not that they’re not smarter men. It’s that their cause is indefensible.

Hans Christian Andersen who wrote the parable of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” comes to mind again, and it could not be a more perfect analogy here. Some wise tailors persuaded the Emperor that they could weave him a new suit of clothes made of “special thread” which only a fool couldn’t see, and which he could thereby discern who were true and false men, by who thought him naked, and everyone accordingly saved themselves by praising his new clothing, except for a little child who cried out that he was naked. I think we need more sincere Christian people, who will confess the obvious truth. Surely we are not so utterly forsaken of God that there is no remnant that does not yet clearly see the perfect outrage and blasphemy of such a phenomena being mainstreamed by the church’s enemies.

We’re supposed to feel obliged not to say that our rulers are naked, along with the world of religionists they’ve corrupted, because only those stupid and incompetent can’t see the virtue of such performances. And I’m compelled to ask… is your repute more important to you than the honor of God, or the good of His church that you will be silenced by a mere cross of disfavor? Is not this the very cross we’re called upon in the scriptures to take up  and if we cannot, then we can’t be His disciples? Will men’s slavery to their own esteem bind them hand and foot, and leave them blind and fruitless, all lest someone call them a name, or take away their repute? Is this not what the gospel calls us to? Do you not care about the honor of God or the good of His people. Get called a boomer. Get called a legalist. Get called an aesthetic. Get called a racist. Get eviscerated excoriated by all the demented worldlings who think a mere majority confirmed ethics. But don’t get called to heaven as a saint who didn’t care for God’s honor, or your brethren’s sanctification and true happiness.

In the famous words of Martin Luther, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

Is that you, reader? Have you caved? If you going to fear consequences, fear the right ones. Those from the hand of God. Fear the blindness that comes when you yield to evil, fear your accounting, the ruin of your people, and of your fellow man, and of abetting the dishonor of God. As the hilarious little girl in that viral video said, “Don’t care about what other people think. I mean… have you met other people???” Degenerates are not the one’s to fear. Fear God and find and defend your people.   

Do not be cowed by the worldlings who accuse you have making what is formally a matter of subjective discernment a universal moral issue. Whether or not a rose is beautiful or smells lovely is technically a subjective issue, yet no one would question your claim that it was objectively so. There is no need to prove what none deny, but it makes a point, that Subjective things can be certain things. But how would you prove that? When people deny the obvious, they either blind, or have some ulterior motive to do so. And just as most people still have eyes and noses, so here. There is yet a moral sense that may yet be awakened of God to tell them that such reveling cannot be of God.

The faithful will be typically be charged with attempting to jostle God off His throne by usurping His place as lawgiver. Which is really quite humorous, as this is exactly what they are attempting to do by promoting degeneracy in His name among His people, and they are utterly blind to how perfectly unique wickedness is to any before them. Those seeking to pervert the Church of God trust in its blindness, and in your silence. Defy them.

Those who have failed to separate themselves from cultural declension will be inured to its moral affront, having numbed their potential for outrage and disgust by reason of abuse of sentiment and conscience….. like the disgust they felt the first time they heard rap music.

Just as the poet Alexander Pope once said in an epigram he wrote…

Sin is a monster of such awful mien (appearance)
That to be hated, needs but to be seen…..
But, seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

This degenerating factor of exposure to evil either provokes one’s resistance and rejection of it, or their accommodation and corruption by it. But ultimately at issue is whether people have the life of God, which compels them to honesty, consistency, transparency, and a purpose to know the truth and pay its cost, and to trust God with wherever that leads.

As previously referenced, John Witherspoon obviated this problem as it relates to Christians accepting or resisting evil in regard to the stage:
“It were easy to show the unlawfulness of stage-playes, by such arguments as would appear conclusive to those who already hate both them and their supporters: but it is not so easy to make it appear to those who chiefly frequent them, because they will both applaud and justify some of the very things that others look upon as the worst effects of the practice, and will deny the very principles on which they are condemned. The truth is, it is our having different views of the nature of religion that causes different opinions upon this subject. For many ages there was no debate upon it at all. There were players, but they did not pretend to be Christians themselves, and they had neither countenance nor support from any who did. Whereas now, there are abundance of advocates for the lawfulness, some for the usefulness of plays; not that the stage is become more pure, but that Christians are become less so, and have lowered the standard or measure requisite to attain and preserve that character.”

It is hoped that in the covenant mercies of God to those truly born of Him, that a supernatural gift of repentance will visit them so as they return to their right mind from the blindness of such a condition, or that the natural result of cutting off the corrupting causes of their blindness will beget a return of their senses, and that the abysmal effect of “seeing it too oft” mentioned by Pope will no longer corrupt their reason. It’s the proverbial frog in the water thing…. Turn it up slowly and he won’t hop out, until he’s cooked. In this same way the decadence of modern culture has been advanced slowly, and, yes, the church has been filled with unregenerate fakes, but true believers have also sadly become compromised, and need to judge themselves that they be not judged.  

I doubt I’ll ever forget this event somewhere back in early 1980’s. I had stopped watching television for about six months or so, simply because I kept hearing blasphemous and lewd things on it, and had thus perceived that it was degenerate and degenerating. Around this time I went to some friend’s house to watch a Keith Green video. As I entered, the video was not on yet, but the news was playing on the tv. No harm in that, I figured. So I was seated and waited for it to finish so we could watch the video. As I sat in this room full of Christian people a commercial came on which I will not describe, but to say that it was profoundly lewd, and to a degree that I did not recall ever seeing before. As I was very kindly allowed to find some grace to look away, I noticed that, not only was I the only one doing so, but everyone else had not even seemed to notice that something significantly indecent had just been put in front of their faces, but had that tv glaze to their countenances. I would have been right with them six months prior. I realized then and there that these people would never see the evil of this device unless they put it away as I had, (hopped out), such that their judgment might return to them over time, or unless some repentance from God was afforded them more immediately.

And it’s just so with rap music. People are so defiled in their judgment and affections by reason of the abuse of their reason and affections, that they will never sense the affront to sanctity and the blasphemy to the honor of God such a display represents, with it’s strutting arrogance, haughty showmanship, and overall degenerate tone. It’s one of the many evils of indulging sin, that it has the effect of incapacitating the moral judgment, which will not be restored until repentance is found….. but…. Repentance is dependent upon our moral judgment bringing conviction. Were it not that God regularly rescues us all from this same dilemma in all sorts of areas, there would be no hope for any of us. And may He be mercifully disposed to grant such repentance in this matter at this time.

But because of such factors it can turn the task of “proving” rap music to be objectively disgraceful, repulsive, and blasphemous, into an arduous and inauspicious exercise, in what should have been a simple task. Dependence upon the hand of God to restore moral judgment must be held in view. Proving something, and convincing someone are rarely the same thing, and it is not a vain hope that God will kindly visit His people in this area, like as in any other. It’s like many other matters of abandoned Christian ethics … no one argues about what words are profane, or what attire is provocative… they argue for profanity and provocation as consistent with a Christian walk because they are blind. In the same way, no one argues about what the spirit of such music is… they like it, and what they like often appears to be their god, and that makes it lawful, and they need weigh nothing more.

But exactly right here is the rub, and why a treatment such as this may seem an exercise in futility. Because if someone cannot sense these evils when they hear/see rap music performed, it is often useless to try to intellectually demonstrate it to them. What is needed is a higher view of God, and argumentation about rap is impotent to alter the evils attendant upon that spiritual state.

And this is ultimately what is at stake in this controversy. No one ever used to esteem such displays of human debauchery as consistent with the gospel, and when all the correction and arguments are done, it will be a matter of those who truly do have entirely differing views of what true religion even is, and until that changes, nothing will change. But God can change anything. And may it be His good pleasure to bless and sanctify His people once again, and to again enlighten them to discern “between him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not”, so as to separate them from the wicked rulers they are hindered by, and revive them again in the midst of the days, and in His wrath, to remember mercy.

---

[1] https://youtu.be/LPT9C6Fyu0s

[2] https://www.monergism.com/calvinism-and-its-practical-application

[3] https://youtu.be/LPT9C6Fyu0s?t=228

[4] https://youtu.be/79h7RnmDMEY?t=255

[5] https://youtu.be/LPT9C6Fyu0s

[6] https://protestia.com/2020/10/10/i-was-wrong-to-ever-endorse-christian-rap-that-was-my-bad/

[7] ICor.1:15-

[8] https://albertmohler.com/2013/12/01/thinking-about-thinking-about-rap-unexpected-thoughts-over-thanksgiving/

[9] ICor. 9:19-22 ¹⁹ For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. ²⁰ And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; ²¹ To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. ²² To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

[10] Rom.10:10-

[11] ICor.1:17-

[12] Col.3:16

[13]. Works, pgs. 45-46; “A Serious Enquiry into the Nature & Effects of the Stage”.

[14] https://youtu.be/yQB5Dyws9Ls

[15] https://pulpitandpen.org/2016/03/23/rapper-lecrae-receives-honorary-degree-from-same-college-as-t-d-jakes-myles-munroe-and-john-hagee/

[16] https://pulpitandpen.org/2016/04/18/cruise-with-a-cause-eddie-long-john-hagee-ergun-caner-lecrae-and-johnny-hunt-milk-the-gospel-like-a-cow-of-bashaan/

[17] https://pulpitandpen.org/2016/06/27/lecrae-joins-secular-artists-begging-government-for-gun-bans/

[18] https://web.archive.org/web/20201001151700/https://pulpitandpen.org/2016/07/08/podcast-lecrae-denounces-alllivesmatter/ Deleted, presumably by Pulpit & Pen, and had to be attained on the Way Back Machine.

[19] https://pulpitandpen.org/2017/01/31/lecrae-endorses-the-shack-calls-the-movie-dope/

[20] https://pulpitandpen.org/2017/08/05/lecrae-counts-his-blessings-in-the-midst-of-sex-jokes-and-corrupt-speech-belittles-young-lady-for-questioning/

[21] https://pulpitandpen.org/2017/10/06/lecrae-divorcing-white-evangelicalism/

[22] https://pulpitandpen.org/2018/11/20/lecrae-carl-lentz-fawn-over-pro-abortion-democrat-stacey-abrams/

[23] https://web.archive.org/web/20200927000623/https://pulpitandpen.org/2020/06/18/chick-fil-a-ceo-shines-lecraes-shoes-says-white-people-need-to-repent-of-their-racism/ Again, from the Way Back Machine.

[24] https://pulpitandpen.org/2020/07/01/lecrae-doesnt-want-virtue-signaling-chick-fil-a-ceo-to-shine-his-shoes-he-wants-stock-options-instead/

[25] Ligon Duncan appealed to this.

[26]. Discussions, Vol. 4, pg. 220.

[27] Moore had interacted with one Ken Myers, who had astutely pointed out that the entire spirit of rap was contrary to the gospel.

[28] Works, vol. 2, pg.8-9; “A Serious Inquiry Into the Nature and Effects of the Stage” (“Being an Attempt to show, That contributing to the Support of a PUBLIC THEATRE, is inconsistent with the Character of a Christian”).

[29] “Christianity” Today, May 2013 https://www.christianitytoday.com/magazine/2013/may/

[30] A reference to Hans Christian Andersen’s Story of “The Emporer’s New Clothes”.

[31] https://youtu.be/wgjyySWLv8w?t=219

[32] WLC Q.105-108

[33] “The Thought of the Evangelical Leaders”, Banner of Truth, pg 161.

[34] Hypnosis is a mental state of highly focused concentration, diminished peripheral awareness, and heightened suggestibility. There are numerous techniques that experts employ for inducing such a state. Capitalizing on the power of suggestion, hypnosis is often used to help people relax, to diminish the sensation of pain, or to facilitate some desired behavioral change. Therapists bring about hypnosis (also referred to as hypnotherapy or hypnotic suggestion) with the help of mental imagery and soothing verbal repetition that ease the patient into a trance-like state. Once relaxed, patients’ minds are more open to transformative messages. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/hypnosis

[35] Wikipedia on “Ecstatis Dance”. The musicologist Rupert Till places contemporary club dancing to electronic dance music within the framework of ecstatic dance. He writes that “club culture has elements of religion, spirituality and meaning. Its transgressional nature is partly a reaction to the history of repression of traditions of ecstatic dancing by Christianity, particularly by Puritan and Lutheran traditions.” He notes that the scholars of music Nicholas Saunders and Simon Reynolds both discuss electronic dance music culture “in terms of trance rituals and ecstatic states.”

[36] https://youtu.be/mJZZNHekEQw

[37] https://youtu.be/O8b3yumhMNU?t=284

[38] https://albertmohler.com/2013/12/01/thinking-about-thinking-about-rap-unexpected-thoughts-over-thanksgiving/

[39] https://immoderate.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/contra-mohler-on-bach-hip-hop-and-the-lack-of-discernment-as-a-virtue/

[40] Again, a link that’s been taken down, like most of these, but recovered on the Way Back Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20131205005657/http://www.raanetwork.org/the-holy-hip-hop-hullabaloo/

[41] https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2013/11/did-an-ncfic-panel-really-say-that-reformed-rappers-are-disobedient-cowards/

[42] http://brenthobbs.com/index_files/Christian_Rap.php

[43] https://youtu.be/LPT9C6Fyu0s

[44] https://web.archive.org/web/20131202041847/http://www.mikedcosper.com/home/creation-culture-redemption-and-hip-hop-a-response-the-ncfic-panel The amusing thing about this link…. The article had been removed, perhaps because his racist ranting against white people dawned on him. This link is from “The Way Back Machine” where you can find old deleted articles once posted on the web. Not only is this the only place you can now find it, it immediately goes dark as soon as it loads, I assume to prevent copying. But I just managed a REALLY fast select/copy, and have the entire article.

[45] In his afore cited “Christianity” Today article Moore even vindicates rapper “Propaganda” (so rightly named) for his “knocking the wigs off” of our evil Reformed fathers in his rant called “Precious Puritans”, here: https://youtu.be/UBHrzVBIMgo Also find “Propaganda” in a self-pitying Marxist rant against us evil white people here: https://youtu.be/BuweBjA5aEw