You see, evolutionary theory (specifically, the concept of natural selection...more importantly, the related concept of fitness) tries to tell us, among other things, that living beings adapt and survive at the expense of lesser beings. Before you read any further, what I'm about to say is not an endorsement of Darwinism. Far from it. What I'm referring to rises supremely far above this unproven, inconsistent, unsupportable, and overwhelmingly shaky treatise. What I'm setting forth is in reality a glaring exposition of the righteousness of God, showing that sin has a way of making man more carnal, cannibalistic, and ambitiously egocentric (or egocentrically ambitious) with every step that is intrinsically false-positive. The Holy Spirit, speaking through the Apostle Paul, issued the caveats in Galatians 5.15 and 5.26. This, no matter how you slice it, is not progress.
So there is no surprise that commercial hip-hop has becomes every whit of a microcosm for the overall state of (hu)mankind. And that state has directly underscored how the church is sadly influenced by societal "winds of doctrine" in the worst way...winds that blow open the front door, pass through the foyer into the sanctuary, and obfuscate the pulpit.
I’m first-generation hip-hop. I remember in the late seventies the cries from the pulpit when Wonder Mike, Master Gee, and Big Bank Hank rocked the mic and shot up the charts with “Rapper’s Delight”. To paraphrase the cries, we need to stop our youth in the church from listening, seeing that it’s a shame that they know all the lyrics to this song yet cannot quote any book, chapter, and verse. Even at my young age, I found it odd that this same medium was not wisely leveraged by the preachers of that day to reach adolescents with the time-proven Gospel.
Not to suggest that ministers needed to develop MC skills. This was anathema circa 1979...as opposed to our day and time when evangelists stand on pulpits and hip-hop platforms alike proclaiming God's truth. I’m just saying that church leaders might possibly have discovered a way to harness and cultivate that energy and passion, nurturing it so my cohort would not have been "rap-shamed" out of listening to and ministering using this seminal music genre…which was nowhere near as insidious, pernicious, and seductively destructive to the soul as what is being offered by its contemporary secular offspring.
|The legendary Grandmaster Flash on the wheels of steel...|
You might argue that suggesting that evangelists 30 years ago leverage the raw essence of a grass-roots cultural movement can be seen as progressive...or even "ultra-progressive". I'll give you that. However, that does not minimize the overarching point that I'm trying to drive home: just like real, authentic hip-hop is functionally dead in the commercial/social stratosphere, the hey-days gone by of the church are similarly dead. Trying to relive or resuscitate old forms and methods in a post-Christian society is the equivalent of trying to show '60s-era Hanna-Barbera cartoons to millennials and expecting them to yield a Nielsen rating of 19.5 in prime-time.
We live in a new era where "progressive" is now one of the new buzzwords (either verbal or implicit) for a growing segment of the church populace...and anyone else not moving at warp-5 speed with them is probably not worth slowing down to drag along. It's just too much luggage, no matter what technology you employ. "He Ain't Heavy...He's My Brother" has given way to "Brothers Gonna Work It Out", which has now transmogrified into "Why You Always Hatin'"...
For me, I perceive the danger is not so much the idea of a church context being ultra-progressive (in ministry, worship style, evangelism, preaching, etc.) as it is the way the ultra-progressive mindset treats congregations not like them. Of course, I believe that there is an inherent risk theologically and spiritually in congregations that subscribe to "revisionist hermeneutics" to suit their means to an end. (More about that in another post.) However, I feel it is even more serious when churches of this ilk (especially those "individuals" who mount the pulpit) display a conceited, sucking-teeth, "you-poor-thing" pity move towards the less honorable, “uncomely” parts of the Body...as though the axiomatic red-headed stepchild actually has a better shot than these humble congregations at being loved by their own with the love Jesus directed in John 13.35.
|Don't even ask...I have no idea...|
How much are those of us who operate like this - in the name of or under the guise of Christian, Spirit-led, or just plain church authenticity - willing to sacrifice for the sake of maintaining an ultra-progressive agenda? Is it really worth it? It would make sense for those who are supposedly enlightened in some nouveau, lightweight-Gnostic thought process to skip the pity-serving and share the wealth so the entire Kingdom can be blessed. Instead, hoarding resources, denying authentic relationship-building, "big-timin'" (I think you know what I mean), and, dare I say, reaching down "to help those less fortunate" is not high on the ultra-progressives' radar...because their view of the Kingdom at times fails to be inclusive of all their brothers and sisters, unless their "backwoods" siblings are willing to play by their "rules"...and get the same toys...and (I'm just going to say it) accept them no matter the consequences, collateral Kingdom/fellowship damage, absence of spiritual character and propriety, degree of departure from healthy/responsible teaching, or growing number of affronts to the righteousness of God. And because of all this, the term "unity" now becomes part of the "revisionist hermeneutics" narrative.
This is much of a challenge for the ultra-progressive as it is for the traditional/conservative, or even "ultra-conservative", congregations - some of which remain antithetical or resistant to palpable, necessary change that makes the Word of God relevant in their respective corners of the world. Those who are not seeking to adopt a real paradigm shift that stirs them to disconnect the life-support plug with both hands, and forcefully pull themselves off of the "bed of affliction" to be reinvigorated, and engage a postmodern generation with thought, purpose, and a fresh infusion of the "old paths" (not old methodology), will likely remain puzzled at why the ultra-progressive "plants" have yet to be "plucked up".