Reflections on Lecrae’s Unashamed Book

Rapper Lecrae Moore’s autobiographical book, Unashamed, is one of the most important books I have read and will read all year. I made so many notes when I was reading, which is usually a sign that I’m reading something fabulous.

hardcover

The title of the book, of course, comes from the Romans 1:16 verse that begins with “For I am Unashamed of the Gospel…” and is the central and underlying theme of basically everything the label Reach Records (which Lecrae owns) does.

The packaging and presentation of the publication has a deliberateness about it which I think is adequately though implicitly explained at the very least by the book’s first two chapters. So, for example, I sincerely hope – and I think this was the intention – that a retailer of this book wouldn’t just dump it in the “Christian literature” section of the bookstore, if it could go in the biography/non-fiction section. As many people as possible, regardless of which faith they ascribe to, should read this book. And I know how limited the audience would be if there were explicit indications on the packaging that it should be placed among Christian lit. It’s not Christian lit. It is, as it says in the paper jacket of the book, “the story of one man’s journey to faith and freedom”.

Lecrae doesn’t call himself a Christian rapper or a person who makes “Christian music”. He goes as far as to deny that there is any such thing as Christian music, but I’ll get to that later. Lecrae is a rapper. He is a Christian. I personally know people who are upset that Crae disclaims the “Christian rapper” label. In their minds, what reason could a Christian rapper possibly have for reflecting the label other than shame in being referred to as one? But then you look at the title of the book and his career motto and then you realize your hypothesis doesn’t make sense. (Or at least I hope that’s what happens to you. Don’t go around thinking wack things!)

One of the reasons reading this was so refreshing to me was the raw honesty with which it is written. It’s not glamorized in the way that commercial biographies are. It’s not a self-help motivational book either. But it also isn’t a fairytale rags-to-riches. The good, bad and absolute ugly is all in there. He writes about his issues in the uninhibited way that I’m only used to reading from myself.

The reason why I say this is no fairytale formula, even though in general, it is a journey from captivity to freedom: I realized there were so many places that the book could have ended at – if it were a Disney fairytale, for instance. You see drudgery. Sex problems, school problems, alcohol and drugs problems, and many more problems prevail. Then Lecrae finds Jesus. The book could have ended on page 87:

“It was like the God of the universe had looked down on that dark rooftop in Atlanta and spoke to his son, Lecrae, saying, “You have the answer to all of your questions…The answer is Jesus.””

The realistic part is that it doesn’t end. Consistently, you see periods where it looks like everything is going to be rosy for the rest of his life. But either a flaw is realized, or life goes all the way downhill again, relapses and all. This is so important to me because one of the most common misconceptions people have is that accepting Jesus Christ is automatically meant to solve all your problems instantaneously. Which is absolutely false. The salvation is instantaneous but the sanctification is a process that is lifelong. When I think of this, I always think of Jackie Hill Perry’s lyrics in I Just Wanna Get There:

“God you’re making me better

You’re making me better

And you choose to do it however, whenever, wherever”

We’re not already perfect. We’re being made better.

Nearly throughout the book, there is a very clear depiction of the evolution of Lecrae’s music based on his experiences and mindset and stage in his spirituality. As for the evolution of his music, I have something personal to say about it.

The first time I met one of my most amazing friends, @EDWVN, we had like a 4-hour long conversation about music. When we were talking about “Christian music” – classically the Reach Records, Humble Beast Records, HGA etc. people, EDWVN had a lot to say about the “boldness” of the content of the music they made. The particular word he used was “safe”. I realized later that, I agree: that for a long time, the content seemed to be stuff that would gain easy acceptance and minimal criticism among the conventional Christian world; that not a lot of it was new, or daring, or relevant, outside of certain spaces, and that only recently had some of them ventured to make risky, challenging music that contained hard truths and values. And here it is, in Unashamed, confirmed by a music maker himself. Which brings us to a very important topical discussion: the reaction of Christians to the content.

“I was still unashamed of my faith – that hadn’t changed – but now I was being bold with my art. Why were people attacking me?” (p. 174)

Well, because they don’t want to hear anything that makes them uncomfortable. (Shout-out to Andy Mineo, who has a whole album dedicated to shaking our comfort zones.) Most of the time, we just want to hear what we already know, what won’t make us think too much or call for radical self-evaluation.

Some pastors are corrupt. Why should Christians get mad if other Christians acknowledge that? Some members of the church are gay. Why do you get mad at someone who’s telling the story of a closeted church choir member? It’s stating facts. To go as far as writing explicit hate comments online, calling someone hurtful names and trying to get them banned from performing, is honestly not what I would call Christian behavior from so-called Christians. It’s this conservative fear that’s been holding us back since the beginning of time – so I’m so glad that rappers like Lecrae are helping us break out of it.

At the same time, an important theme I found within the book is how to influence the culture with grace, rather than being obnoxious. It is acknowledged multiple times how much of an ass Lecrae was, with his obnoxious “evangelism” in his early stages, more often than not, serving to push people away from the faith rather than draw them closer.

But…3 things.

  1. Grace isn’t a compromise on truth.

At some point, he talks about how he doesn’t perform a certain line in a song where he took a shot at some church. And it’s not because what he said about the church wasn’t true; it was because it was ungraceful. And honestly, truth spoken without grace probably won’t have any positive effects. Repulsive effects are far more likely. It’s probably one of the major causes of church hurt. So, I like what he said on page 136:

“I almost never perform that song anymore, and if I do, I don’t sing that line. Not because I don’t still believe the truth of what I said – I do – but because I’ve learned to temper the truth with grace.”

I really hope this speaks to anyone with a tendency to just go off on others in the name of God.

  1. Preaching at people isn’t the only way to spread good news through art.

“Have you checked my lyrics?

What I sing about?

Do you know my message?

Have you heard me out?”

-Adomaa, Born Again

There’s something strange about what we call secular music. It makes me upset that we have typecasted all music with a Christian message to have a particular sound. If it’s not Don Moen or Hillsong, we can’t deal, right? And even when we get past that and acknowledge that some rap lyrics may belong in the church, we don’t want to acknowledge that rap can be edifying even if every other lines does not mention the name Jesus or quote a praise Psalm. =(

“I felt like if I wasn’t teaching, preaching, reciting Scripture, and evangelizing through my music, I wasn’t doing it right. Being theologically educated is a great thing. And using music to explicitly express theology is needed. But I mistakenly believed it was the only way to make music.” (p. 139)

But what happened when he let go and wrote personal music? Suddenly, people could personally identify – duh. Music that speaks to people’s own hearts and struggles can actually do way more for them than preaching to the choir sometimes. There are too many things we feel obliged to hide when we are members of the church. But pretending that problems don’t exist doesn’t make them go away. Lecrae’s honesty about drug abuse, sexual abuse, difficulty with prayer etc. spoke to people going through similar issues in ways preachy lyrics never could.

  1. A division between content is not a division between genre.

By which I mean, hip-hop is hip-hop. It doesn’t suddenly become an entirely different genre because it lacks swearwords or whatever.

Page 193 has my favorite paragraph in the whole book:

“This has changed the way I do music. There is no such thing as Christian rap and secular rap. Only people can become Christians. Music can’t accept Jesus into its heart. So I am not trying to make Christian music or secular music. I’m just making music. Hip-hop, like all music, is a good thing. I could use it for evil by filling it with violence and misogyny and profanity. Or I can use it to glorify God. Every song I write doesn’t have to have the Gospel spelled out or quote Scripture so that people will know I love Jesus. My goal is just to use my gifts to produce great art that tells the truth about the world. If I see the world through a biblical lens, the music will naturally paint a picture that serves people and honors God.”

Wasn’t that beautiful?

The last thing I have to comment on is that there is no point in Lecrae’s life where, as far as I can tell, there was a stark resolution to atheism. Yes, there was a falling in and out of faith cycle, doubt, but never truly an atheistic belief period. It is the reason for this that struck me – particularly because I could identify with it and have even written about it myself before:

“But I was such a mess at this point that the thought of being responsible for my own life was mortifying.” (p. 56)

Exactly. No way could I possibly be expected to rely on my messed-up self to be my own savior, no matter what 21st-century rhetoric you throw at me. This is consistently what keeps me grounded.

I think everyone should read this book, because it’s extremely relevant. If it doesn’t speak to at least one misconception in your life or mind, I will be genuinely surprised.

-Akotowaa

Advertisements

Kintsukuroi

I see the gorgeous in your broken
I see the gold between your clay
You are stronger than you were made
And yet more prone to break
I see the conflict in your identity
And how you can’t be just one thing
I see the gorgeous in your broken
I see the gold between your clay.
-Akotowaa

1984 is Puppets x100.

In November of 2015, I released a PDF file of a story I wrote. It was called Puppets. A significant number of people who read it entered my DMs to ask if I’d read George Orwell’s 1984. At that time, I hadn’t. Now that I have, I understand why they kept coming to me with 1984.

georgeorwellxobeygiantprintset-1984coverbyshepardfairey

I discovered that there is such a genre as social science fiction, and this is the category that I think both Puppets and 1984 would fall within. Social science fiction is almost anthropological in nature, dealing with the society, and human nature in general. Orwell and I both imagined worlds of mental and emotional control. There are 2 major differences (even though there are numerous minor ones): the first is that my society’s control methods were implicit and his were explicit; the second was that mine was a story of liberty and personal freedom, whereas his was the opposite – a story of annihilation.

To be perfectly honest, I think 1984 is just about the most terrifying book I’ve ever read. I suppose what makes it so different and more terrifying than a lot of dystopia for me is the realism of it. There’s a lack of metaphor, magic or brain science that would excuse the state of the future society from being taken as credible, or make it unrealistic. The fact that the world as described in the book was already so relatable/imaginable for me was beyond scary.

The book reminded me of 3 other literary things (other than Puppets):

  1. Incarceron – Catherine Fisher
  2. BZRK trilogy – Michael Grant
  3. Divergent trilogy– Veronica Roth

Incarceron is a creepy book that I don’t really want to read again. It ended somewhat on a cliffhanger, but I never bothered to look for its sequel. I must have read it at about age 11. In an isolated world, like a snow-globe sort of thing, inhabitants live mundane lives. It’s sort of like a kingdom but I don’t remember whether or not its inhabitants were aware that it was all just a huge prison and that they were basically pawns being watched by a mysterious watching eye that could be found nearly everywhere.

Now that I think about it, it’s possible that Fisher got this constant surveillance with an eye thing from George Orwell’s “Big Brother is watching you” scheme from 1984. It is also possible, though, that as it was with me, the idea just occurred to her spontaneously and individually.

BZRK is definitely a sci-fi series. Two rival organizations manipulate biotechnology with the help of neuroscience. One wants to induce “happiness”, “harmony”, and essentially involuntary submission of all humankind. The other is fighting for the retention of the individuality of humankind and the right to choose what to feel, believe and who to follow. This 2nd organization is the one called BZRK. If transposed, BZRK is equal to the mythical “Brotherhood” of 1984. Except, of course, that BZRK is fictionally existent.

There was only a minor portion of 1984 that reminded me of Divergent. Specifically, the fear simulation in the series – where a chemical detects the individual person’s worst fears and then synthesizes a unique “fear landscape” for the person to either conquer, be driven out of their minds, or both. This reference doesn’t really come into play until nearly the end of the book, though. Room 101. Scary stuff.

At some point, I was truly scared for the morbidity of George Orwell’s mind, especially because of how it ended. To come up with the story’s setting itself was evidence of a madly dystopian mind, but to end it the way it was ended…I couldn’t write that without giving myself nightmares. But then my fears were allayed: I found out that 1984 was an English version mirror of a Russian book called We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin, which Orwell had already written about. That made me feel much better. LOL. But Zamyatin’s book still ended on a much more hopeful note than 1984. An essential intellectual apocalypse.

One other difference between Puppets and 1984 was the nature of control. I don’t think my body of antagonists were really in search of personal power; there was some sort-of-general belief that what they did was for the good of the world. They were more obsessed with order than power. The partially enigmatic body of villains in 1984 were in search of power, surprisingly, admittedly, for its own sake; the power that could be found in a body, not an individual. Whatever that nonsense means. (AKA, I don’t agree. Humans aren’t that selfless. Then again, maybe they are. I’m going to write a separate blog post on this soon.)

There were a bunch of things in 1984 that didn’t and can’t make sense to me. Like the feeling of kinship between Winston and O’Brien. Like the authorship of Goldstein’s book. Like the lack of even one sane totalitarian leader. I can’t get it. It doesn’t add up to have a society based on deliberate deception, without even one person who is not deceived in order to be doing the deceiving. That made it feel for me that there was no true antagonist in the story. Also a possibility: the way I perceive villainy (in terms of intention) is flawed.

Another puzzling thing: Orwell’s own political views. He hated totalitarianism and classism. As far as I can feel, he was a socialist. Meanwhile, in his book, the extremes of English socialism (Ingsoc) was portrayed as a root/medium of evil. Orwell was either very confused, or very clearheaded, and I can’t tell which. He died before he could explain it to me, anyway.

Favorite quotes? None. The whole book is quotable. LOL. I also kind of felt this way with Puppets. The whole novella is quotable.

Do I like this book? I don’t know. Do I think you should read it? Do I like George Orwell? Love. =) Would I read this book again? I’m too scared of it right now to say yes.

-Akotowaa