I was just reading a good little article by Efrem Smith entitled: Holy Hip Hop And Calvinism: An Odd Marriage Indeed (HT: BL). The topic is an interesting one, and one that I think is definitely worthy of developing. Interestingly though, within the development of his post, Smith voices something that I have heard before; it is something that I find somewhat troubling. It is the attempt to marginalize “Calvinism,” because it was primarily developed in the environs of Europe. Here’s what Efrem says (here he is noting how the culture and development of Hip Hop is incompatible with that of Calvinism’s pedigree):

Hip Hop influenced entirely by Calvinism is no Hip Hop at all. Reformed Theology, though it contains some theological elements that I totally agree with should not be the only or primary theology influencing Holy Hip Hop. Calvinism is Eurocentric in nature and in the United States of America has evolved into a theology driven by the privileged. Hip Hop, Holy or Secular is about the engaging and presenting of the issues surrounding a sub-culture of the historically marginalized of urban America. (see full post: here)

Saying that Calvinism is Eurocentric, and thus basically “White” (just say it) — and this is really the point I want to hit on, not the origins of Hip Hop and its original focus — does not then mean that it is necessarily incompatible with Hip Hop, per se. What I see lurking behind Smith’s analysis is that theology is contextual and thus because it is contextual only has relative and particular purchase versus universal force in its proclamation. In other words, because, supposedly, Calvinism developed amongst the rich (let’s not forget that Calvinism developed under persecution in many instances) with Europeans; it is thus necessarily bounded to that people group, and only able to speak to like people (meaning skin color and supposed social status). Efrem Smith’s belief (as you read his whole article) is that in fact the theological program that is actually compatible with Holy Hip Hop is Liberation Theology; since, one would assume, that it developed amongst a minority group of oppressed people in Latin America (and now has been appropriated by “Black Theology” today in America).

It seems like to me that Smith is of the belief that theology is really a political maneuver; one associated with a power game. What makes Liberation Theology, for example, any better than Calvinism? Aren’t both suspect constructs? Don’t both presume upon a certain doctrine of God? Is Black Liberation Theology more proximate to the Christian Gospel because it developed under constraints that were seeking to throw off the oppressor? To me the problem with both of these alternatives is that the Calvinism Smith has in mind suffers from a God of brute power (and thus theocentric while not christocentric); and Liberation Theology suffers from a focus that is horizontal in orientation, and thus man-centered. I don’t think either one of these alternatives actually represent good alternatives for hip-hop artists. Not because one developed in Europe and the other in Latin America, but because neither one actually offers an actually Christian approach, methodologically. So it’s not where a theology was developed, but what, and more importantly Who that theology communicates. Am I denying that locale has no effect on theological development? God forbid! If theology could be marginalized because of its socio-cultural genesis; then to be consistent with this, we would also need to say that Christianity is only really viable for Jewish people. Since, of course, Christianities’ particularization is Jewish and finds its mooring in a first century Jew named, Jeshua.

I see what Efrem Smith is getting at, but I don’t buy his basic premise about the contextualization — meaning marginalization — of theological constructs, and the subsequent force that said theological construct then has on later socio-cultural situations that might want to appropriate it for their articulation of the Gospel.

P.S. It seems as if Smith is also arguing that the Hip-Hop form is a static reality. But as with any linguistic construct it is dynamic and fluid; indeed, contextual and thus able to kick out the doors of its own particularity in order to express universal truth (whether that be found in Calvinism, Liberation Theology, and most likely Evangelical Calvinism ).

This turned out to be somewhat of a rant, and not as coherent as I would like; but I’m blogging.

*Warren G lived just down the street from me when I was growing up in Long Beach/Lakewood, CA . . . “Regulate”