CODE-SWITCHING GOSPEL WITH SECULAR ENTERTAINMENT

Frank Edwards

The blending of gospel themes with secular lingo, beats or genres to enhance reception has divided opinion in Christian circles.

The development has raised eyebrows among those who fear that the co-opting of “outside influences” compromises gospel purity.

However, code-switching the Bible and secular patterns of expression is in vogue, with proponents arguing that to gain broader appeal, Christian artists must unpack their message in the “language” that most people understand.”

Our question, therefore, is whether this latest form of artistic license, which gospel ministers are indulgent of in the name of evangelical capital, is good or bad for the message?

Does code-switching factor in valuable add-ons or does it distort the essential import of Christian works of art?

There is a danger of approaching the problem from one extreme and readily playing down other views.

So we will desist from assigning one-size-fit-all interpretations to the phenomenon and painstakingly zero in on each case as it dictates.

On the question of genre, is it wrong for someone to praise Jesus with rap, dancehall, rock or jazz – mediums which some have branded as repositories of satanic influence?

Let’s face it, some of these mediums have been used to glorify crime, drugs, violence, sex, nudity and profanity in clear violation of the Bible.

Is Frank Edwards, the genius behind Rocktown Music, then justified to “Rock n Roll” for Jesus justified?” Should Chris Tomlin’s invite to “God’s Great Dancefloor” or Solly Mahlangu’s call to “Praise Him in an African Way” heeded?

Should we “cycle” along to Pastor Charamba’s gospel sungura or wiggle to Sabastian Magacha’s latest rhumba offering.

Is it fitting Tinashe Magacha takes to the podium to “rock dem tunez” using the same genre Seh Calaz uses to glorify the abuse of bronco and “chamba” for cheap applause from ignorant youths or the same beat Platinum Prince uses to promote sex outside marriage?

My answer is an emphatic “Yes!” Like it or not, art is battlefront. It may not be a magic bullet but its influence can only be gainsaid at our own peril.

We need custodians of tradition in the form of conservative gospel artists but we also need to reclaim territories currently in the devil’s control through Christian soldiers like Culture T.

Yes, we need joyful noisemakers in plenty. Only that they must be seen to be “loading every rift with ore” as John Keats puts it.

 In as much as the problem with most secular performers is their wrong message, Christians must weigh in with the right message – even the gospel, which is “the power of God unto salvation.”

One of the problems with code-switching is that it sometimes brings along the unwanted baggage. There are so-called Christian movies, for example, which accommodate nudity and profanity for the purpose of giving sin a more graphical or empirical demonstration.

Such works often appear to tell their message inversely. They ostensibly point to what is right by harping on sin hours on end just to show its ultimate wages in the denouement. From such turn away!

Why should viewers be forced to scrounge for a few morsels of food in a garbage dump? Whether the food is wholesome or palatable is neither here nor there once it is laced up with toxins in the garbage dump.

Going through lewdness, blasphemy and nudity in a movie just to get to the “Halleluiah moment” in the closing scenes is a self-negating formula.

It inadvertently promotes some sins to decampaign others which makes mockery of the biblical math: “10 -1 = 0.”

The same goes with appealing to popular but desperately compromised secular works to reinforce or endorse a Christian message.

A respected pastor recently came under fire for quoting from Chris Brown’s “Loyal” – a song whose lyrics are not only dirty but also grossly derogatory of women.

While the pastor was preaching a biblical message on relationships, his resort to the song was a negative game-changer, wrong spice for the right dish, because what is wrong cannot endorse what is right without insinuating justification for both.

We come to the issue of influence. Without doubt the domineering influence imposes its language, just as we are stuck with English from a historical mistake called colonialism.

Few weeks ago, a charismatic denomination called swept a crusade across my neighbourhood under the banner “Batai Munhu Jehovah Revival.”

The catch-phrase was of course popularised by Suluman and Jah Prayzah’s duets. Acquaintances known to me as party animals attended and possibly had life-transforming experiences.

Some of the songs which were belted from the distant-booming public-address system included a reworked political song by Cde Chinx, in this context rendered “Vaporofita vakanganisa? Aiwa havana kukanganisa!”

In the run-up to Judgement Night 2, Suluman remixed his father’s song into a Judgement Night jingle.

While there is nothing wrong in all this, my attitude is that Christians can be more influential than that.

Why should the church adopt and adapt a song when “the world” has exhausted the flavour out of it in pubs and rallies? These things ought not to be so brethren.

It is alright for patrons in Chikwanha bottle-stores to dance along to Mathias Mhere’s sungura-like psalms and think carefully about what “Number Busy” means when they are alone in moments of conviction.

But it is unbecoming for Christians to “spread butter” or “chicken dance” in church lest they end up considering the less orthodox dances which I tremble to mention in a family paper, let alone these sacred columns.

On a summative scores, Christians must always remember that influence diffuses from the region of higher concentration and roars from top to bottom like a waterfall. We must run the sector and drop the firsts, not the other way round.