and the song performed was from his title album, God Win. One must assume that a song titled “God Win” sang in a church setting seemed most appropriate, but these are curious times.
There are many choruses that echo the same sentiment, some using exact same words yet there were a lot of issues raised. The very notion
that a non-gospel artiste had been invited to “minister” in church consternated many. And not
a few were peeved that the artiste in question performed from the “altar” – a most holy place.
And how can an “entertainer” be invited to minister to “the people of God”, some wondered, with righteous and not so righteous indignation.
korede bello church
Even the Pastor was not spared. What was his motivation? There was no shortage of opinion,
aspersions and castigations. And there was no shortage of exegetes misquoting scriptures. Were
Jesus on Earth he would have had to up his signature command of nature to calm the storm.
He couldn’t do a reprise. This was no watery issue. But lurking somewhere in the sea was the leviathan of the fundamental challenge as to
whether a Christian artiste can even do secular music. It’s not exactly a new issue.
The Amy Grants of this world faced that same challenge in the 80s. It’s as if someone somewhere is instigating topical conundrum in generational
cycles.
An analytical perusal of the issues however shows a confliction in knowledge on many levels. The
idea for example that the “altar” is “sacred” betrays a mix-up in understanding between the
concept of the temple in the New Testament and the concept of the temple in the Old Testament.
In the Old Testament the temple was a building.
It was basically partitioned into two parts – the
Outer Court and the Tabernacle. The Outer Court
contained the Table, Lampstand and Altar of Incense. The congregation could enter here. The Tabernacle was in turn divided into two parts by a heavy hanging curtain – the Holy Place in which only priests from the tribe of Levi could enter; and the Holy of Holies in which resided the Ark of the
Covenant. Only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies and he did so once a year, on Yom Kippur or Day of Atonement. The High Priest must
make atonement for himself before he entered the Holy of Holies. He would die otherwise. The sacrifice was his life insurance policy. And since
no one can enter the Holy of Holies to retrieve his body, tradition says a scarlet rope was tied on his ankle. Small bells were also sewed around the
helm of his robe. A priest in the Holy Place tended to the other end of the rope. He would drag him
out by the rope in case something went wrong. If the bells stopped jiggling the priest knew something was wrong. You served God with your life as High Priest.
But something curious happened when Jesus died on the cross. As soon as he gave up the ghost the Bible says the thick curtain separating the
Holy Place from the Holy of Holies was ripped from top to bottom. Paul would later explain to us the significance of that momentous event. He
says we have boldness to enter the Holy of Holies by the blood of Jesus in consequence. That the curtain was figuratively the flesh of Jesus. And so
as they tore into his flesh with those horribleclashes they were ripping apart the curtain in the
Tabernacle, in a manner of speaking (Hebrews 10:19-21).
That curtain-ripping incident would usher in a new dispensation. It was a formal signification of a change in the order of priesthood, something
Jesus had been working on. He had appointed apostles without consideration of tribal identity.
Only Levites could be appointed priests in those days but Jesus appointed non-Levites as apostles. Jesus himself was not from the tribe of Levi. He was from the tribe of Judah yet he became our High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-15).
Indeed, perhaps only Matthew was a Levite. We know Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin
(Romans 11:1). The priesthood thus changed from the Levitical Order to the Melchizedekian Order. This Order of Melchizedek is a curious
order. Unlike the Levitical Order it is a priest-king equation. It takes its name from Melchizedek, the
priest-king who received tithes from Abraham in the Old Testament (Hebrews 7:1-2). Jesusbelongs to this order, and he initiated us into the order (Revelation 1:6). It is because we belong to
this order that we can “minister” to God though not full time priests, and not belonging to the tribe of Levi. It is why we can be priests though
with secular callings. We are priest-kings. And so we have priest-politicians, priest-lawyers, priest-
engineers, priest-fashion designers, priest- models, priest-footballers, priest-computer scientists, priest-accountants, priest-doctors…
And of course priest-musicians.
The death of Jesus and the ripping of that curtain also changed the definition of “temple”. God was
no longer confined to physical tabernacles. He franchised himself into new abodes – us! Our
bodies are now the temple of the living God (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). It’s why we’re advised to abstain from sexual sin. You can’t join God’s
temple to another in fornication. We are spiritual building blocks. The Bible says we’re living stones that God is building into a spiritual temple (1 Peter 2:5-9).
The temple of God in the New
Testament is not a physical building, it is
individuals. The Holy of Holies is now inside us. It’s why the Holy Spirit dwells in us. And so a church can meet in a nightclub, museum, hotel,
civic center, tent, private residence, cinema, school, etc. The building is not the holy place, it is the people in who the holy God resides. And so
the notion of “altar” being a place a secular musician cannot sing from or “minister” from is fallacious. That view does not align with New
estament realities.
And we question the prevailing notion of
“ministration” and ministers. Since all Christians are priest-kings, all Christians are ministers of God. But some have been given special callings,
like pastors. But all Christians are ministers of God in the New Testament. And so the idea that
a Christian who sings “secular” music cannot minister to God or the people of God is unsustainable. It is not in accordance with scriptures.
——
The foregoing leads us to the tendentious issue of
whether a Christian can even do “secular” music.
Must a Christian sing only gospel? Should a
Christian perform only “Christian” songs – “songs
that glorify God and edify his people”?
If we accept that music is a profession, and we
must, that raises these same questions for other
professions. Can a Christian do only “Christian”
doctoring? Is there anything like “Christian
lawyering”, or is there “Christian engineering”, or
“Christian computing”? If we’re not ready to
entertain these questions concerning other
professions then we must lose the moral right to
demand of Christian musicians to do only gospel.
Will a dying Christian reject medical treatment
from a non-Christian doctor in an ideological
demand for “Christian doctoring”?
If we must insist Christian musicians do only
gospel songs then we must extend the imperative
to other arts as well. We must insist on Christian
acting, Christian dance and drama, Christian
fashion, Christian fine art, Christian writing… They
are all creative endeavours, just like music.
Should we then insist a Christian professional
actor cannot participate in a drama presentation
on a church stage because he performed secular
dramas like Wole Soyinka’s Opera Wonyosi, or
acted in Macbeth or Selma? Isn’t he equally
violating God’s “altar”? Why the particularisation
of musicians?
What the Church has done is place a burdensome
limitation on talented young men and women who
otherwise would conquer the world with their
talent. On any given Sunday the vocal dexterity of
the average choir member is incredulous. But it’s
limited to church. These talented young men and
women are living unfulfilled potentials. They
cannot maximize their giftings. And when they
insist on their talent paving their way in the world,
there is a chorus of accusation from a puritanical
mob who purport to defend the sanctity of
church. Pejorative expressions like “sell out” are
often employed, as if there was ever collective
bargaining. It does sound like prejudice, or worse.
In the pursuit of “gospel only” policy the Church
absented herself from the cultural space, but
then turns around to complain about issues in
that spatial dimension. The chief instigator of
these controversies is none other than Lucifer
himself. He understands a thing or two about
music. And he understands talent management
being the first notable musical talent. Some
interpretations of Ezekiel 28:13 allude to that
fact. The passage speaks of embedded tabrets
(tambourines) and pipes in the physiology of
Lucifer. Seemed Satan was a walking orchestra.
Being the first notable managed talent he
understands being a rebel. He rebelled. And he
understands musicians losing control to fame. He
lost control of himself, having become inflated
with pride. He sought after worship like a star (He
was). As it turns out creatures can’t handle
worship. Only the Creator can. Unfortunately we
worship our music stars and those among them
who can’t barrier their core from the perils of
creature-worship begin to malfunction. And that
is now used as corroborative evidence against
“secular” music by isolationists.
Truth is, many of these artistes being young are
merely dealing with the challenges of growth and
maturation – a rite of passage into adulthood.
They get into experimentations, like we all did and
do. Only theirs is amplified because they’re in
public glare. And then there are the challenges of
fame itself. Fame is lonesome and it has major
consequences. If not well managed it generates
distortions. Michael Jackson for example had an
identity crisis. He seemed lost and searching for
meaning and purpose. He suffered from anguish
of soul. In seeking to ameliorate loneliness some
resort to booze, drugs and sex. And we seem to
accept these excesses as part of the package.
They’re stars after all, they can do no wrong.
Thus we are complicit in that which we condemn.
It is hard to minister to those you condemn. Yet
Christ died for all. There ought to be specialized
ministry to stars, those in the public glare and
those battling with fame. If we can have
specialized fellowships for over-40s, widows,
singles and executives why not one for the stars!
They need a confidential system. They need a
spiritual figure they can confide in, someone
who’s not judgmental. They need to be able to
talk about their fears, their challenges, their
struggles, without feeling condemned. And they
need to know their secrets are safe. Perhaps our
pastors should consider such mentoring
programs.
Many of the great musical talents started out in
church. Many were in the choir. Toni Braxton,
Whitney Houston, Tonex, Beyoncé, Fantasia, Chris
Brown, Usher, Jessica Simpson, Diana Ross, R.
Kelly, Kate Perry, John Legend, Aretha Franklin,
Avril Lavigne, Faith Evans, Anthony Hamilton,
Brandy, Carrie Underwood, Kelly Price, Little
Richard, D Banj, Waje, Banky W, MI, Faze,
Chidinma, Praiz, J. Martins, Tiwa Savage, P-
Square, Sheyi Shay, Harry Song, Don Jazzy,
Flavor, Masterkraft, Yemi Alade, Selebobo,
Whizkid, Jesse Jagz, Wande Coal, Korede Bello…
They all had their roots in church. Incidentally
Fela Anikulapo-Kuti was the son of a reverend
gentleman – Rev. Israel Oludotun Ransome-Kuti.
Now, here’s the irony. The Church discovers the
talents but abandons the talents as they make
way through the world. Satan then moves into
the space abdicated by the Church and he soon
destroys many employing concupiscence and
other vices. He even introduces some to
Satanism. And when he has wasted these young
lives he sends their corpses back to church for
burial!
The controversy over secular or non-secular
music is so unnecessary. There are three genres
of music introduced in scriptures – music focused
on God (what we now call Gospel), martial music
and social music. Martial music was employed by
the army in the time of war. The psalms are God
focused, and even when they talk about human
troubles, struggles and inadequacies they still end
up appealing to God. The end-all-and-be-all of
the Psalms is God. The psalms are what we’ll call
rap today. They even followed the production
pattern of today’s rap music. After David had
written the lyrics he’d call a producer – the “Chief
Musician” who set the words to music. One such
producer was Jeduthun aka Ethan (see opening
notes of Psalm 39). David did all classes of
music – worship, dance and instrumentals. He
used to play soothing instrumentals for King
Saul’s depression.
But then we have the musical compositions of
Solomon too. He was a second-generation
musician, philosopher and poet – kind of like an
ancient Bob Dylan. He inherited his father’s
lyrical skills. He wrote the Song of Solomon
popularly known as Song of Songs. It’s a
matrimonial love song, a bit explicit actually –
“You’re so beautiful my darling, so beautiful, and
your dove eyes are veiled by your hair as it flows
and shimmers… Your smile is generous and full,
expressive and strong and clean. Your lips are
jewel red, your mouth elegant and inviting… The
smooth, lithe lines of your neck command notice –
all heads turn in awe and admiration! Your
breasts are like fawns, twins of a gazelle, grazing
among the first spring flowers” (SS. 4:1-5).
Imagine a Christian artiste writing these lyrics
today…
Of course the Song of Songs has figurative
application. It can be used to illustrate the love of
Christ for his bride, the Church. But the truth is,
when Solomon wrote the song he had no
figurativeness in mind. He just wrote a love song.
He wrote it as a man, a mere man. He didn’t
know, and couldn’t have known that the Church
would emerge centuries down the line. The
Church was God’s secret. It is an intercalation.
Solomon didn’t write with the Church in view. It’s
almost as if God is telling us, it’s okay to be
human, to have feelings, to have emotions… And
it’s okay to write about those feelings and put
them in song. God is not against emotional
expression in song.
Some of course would rather expunge Song of
Songs from the Bible if they had their way. They
struggle with it morally and try to explain it away,
as if the language is not plain enough. When we
try to morally sanitise the Word of God we run
into absurdities of reinterpretation. God is the
sanctifier. He is Jehovah Mekaddishkem – the
God who sanctifies. Who will sanctify the words
of the Sanctifier?
The Song of Songs is unlike any other book in
scriptures, but it’s in the Bible. God put it there.
It is one of the “practical” books, like Proverbs
(another Solomon output) and the Book of Job
which talks about trials; and the Book of
Ecclesiastes, which is the philosophical musing of a human in a state of human-ness. It is replete with self second-guessing, frustrations and submission to the incomprehension of this animalvcalled life. It highlights absurdities, like the man with no heir who keeps amassing wealth. To whom would he leave his wealth, Solomonvwondered! In other words the Bible was written from two perspectives: there’s the perspective from above, and we find that in the prophets, the epistles and the like; and there is the perspective from below – the human dimension – Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Job. To the extent that both perspectives make up the Bible God is not against human expressiveness. Therefore in the tradition of the Psalms, a Christian artiste can
sing gospel music. In the tradition of the Song ofvSongs he can sing about love, feelings and emotions. In the tradition of Proverbs, he can lacevhis songs with practical wisdom. And in thevtradition of Ecclesiastes, he can philosophize in song, like Bob Dylan, or the man in black, the late Johnny Cash. And in the tradition of Job he can write about pain, suffering, difficulties and trials.
And in the tradition of Heman and Jeduthun he can prophesy through song.
To imagine that a Christian can only do “gospel”
is our self-imposed limitation. It is not backed by scriptures. Yes, Paul enjoins us to sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, and making melody in our hearts to God (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16), but that is not an exclusive list.
Try and imagine a man proposing to a womanband singing a chorus!
Now here’s another truth. Lucifer didn’t invent music, God did. Nowhere in scriptures is Lucifer credited with invention of music. Lucifer perverts music, just as he perverts everything else. He’s an unrepentant pervert. His corporate mission is to kill, to steal and to destroy (John 10:10).
Music is not the problem. Perversion is theproblem.
But what about the nudity in music videos and the explicit lyrics of some songs? Isn’t that the bane and essence of secular music, you ask? Butbthere are many secular musicians who don’t dobexplicit lyrics, and they’re successful. Just like there are many people who don’t use four-letter words and are successful; just like there arebmany actors who don’t do nude scenes, andbthey’re successful, like Denzel Washington. It’s the personal choice of the musician what hevwants to sing about. To then use someone’s explicitness to tar “secular” music in general is a rather illogical and desperate attempt to permute a conviction. There are many clean rap songs.
And there are music without words. Think instrumentals and instrumental jazz. Doesn’t jazz belong to the “secular” spectrum? Can a Christian
do jazz? If yes, our argument against secular music is inconsistent. And how do we classify music set to movies? Aren’t they secular? YetvChristians watch movies and listen to those music. How about classical music? Handel’s
Messiah instrumentals? Is it gospel or secular?
And what about the national anthem? Isn’t it “secular” music? It’s not gospel, yet it’s sung invchurches. Now you see the absurdities of isolationism emerging.
This is not saying a Christian artiste can’t devote
himself to gospel music. It’s his choice. And gospel has its place and role. If an artiste is naturally disposed to gospel or that’s what Godbhas asked him or her to do, let him do it and let her do it. But those are proprietary decisions.
They should not be extended into collective ethos.
Culture is a powerful thing. It has a huge leverage on society. Culture is zeitgeist. It is the general beliefs, ideas, and spirit of a time and place.
Culture is highly propagated through media. When the Church abdicates the culturo-media space, we might as well pack our bags and go to yonder place. A Church that abdicates cultural influence is well nigh on its way to irrelevance and
generational obsolescence. The Church needs to learn to manage talent. Perhaps it’s time to consider setting up a professionally managed and independent talent agency, lest we continue to lose our brilliant talents to Satan’s agenda, or keep tormenting our young ones with
manufactured guilt.
It’s time we lay the debate over secular/gospel music to rest. It’s a storm in a teacup after all.
0 Response to "Leke Alder Speaks On Christian Artiste Singing Secular Songs"
Post a Comment