Music and identity.

For the past year or so, I have had a lot of time on my hands and therefore been able to add a lot of knowledge to what our education system had already offered me.  A prime time to review my goals and ambitions in life and more importantly, my identity. One of the fascinating things about me is that I am a cool guy and a musician but apart from that, an African. At this point, I wish to stress how important it is for me to be an African. I believe that I have better opportunities than any other race (not that I have anything against my international friends), but I just believe so. Primarily because Africa is at a period of self definition. The past fifty years have been spent trying to become someone else other than African and that is the tragedy of our continent. In this tragedy, two observations have been made:

1. Black Africans are not totally proud of being African.
2. White Africans are more proud of being African compared to black Africans.

What does that have to do with anything???

Well, it is common but uncommon knowledge that you cannot be anything else apart from yourself, a concept few human beings seem to grasp. We see it in our dressing, speech, value systems and everything else that touches on our identity. Most musicians are also plagued with this crisis. Looking to every corner of the world for our musical identity except inwards.
I however, do not mean that we are not allowed to admire and be inspired by Switchfoot and Lecrae, there is no crime in that. I just want to suggest the idea that Africans have something to offer from within. It's like inviting someone over for dinner then buying take-away food for the occasion. It beats the purpose of the invite.

A good friend of mine and pastor once told me that Africa is the only region yet to offer up its own sacrifices to God. She had a point there since the rest of the world has given of itself and its potential except for Africa. I figured our identity crisis has a role in this. Same thing musically and economically. So what is it that we have to offer or what have people offered musically as an example?

I used to look at this issue from a perspective of genre, but upon further deduction, I realised a genre is a carrier of a MESSAGE, not the message itself. The message may have several thematic expressions but the message is usually one resounding message. A good example would be reggae. There are many different themes people sing about in this genre; love, peace, emancipation and all that but it carries one message and that is the message of freedom. It is funny because the birth of reggae coincided with the independence of Jamaica. Reggae therefore became a symbol of independence. However, most Jamaicans still sing of coming freedom for they are legally free but still mentally enslaved. Thus preventing them from celebrating freedom.
Black music is another weird one. Full of emotive energy and screams. If you listen to James Brown, he says the screaming is a scream borne out of pain and oppression of the black people in America. Black music as it originally came from the church represented hope for a better day. It's not a vocal technique they purposely pursued, but rather chose to freely express themselves the best way they knew how to. The message from black music is that of hope.

I could go on and on but the rest is upto the inquisitive mind to investigate for oneself.

However, the more fundamental question here is what story does Africa have to tell the world??? I unfortunately do not yet have the answer though it lies somewhere resident within my identity. It lies within us all.

An African movie writer once described Africans as natural storytellers. Every night after supper, African families used to conglomerate around a fire for stories. This culture did not belong to one community only but to the continent as a whole. It probably explains why songs like Malaika did well and other great songs. Most are just simple stories, nothing extraordinary. But told by extraordinary beautiful fellows because it is part of who they are. Just a thought.

Final story.
One of my favourite bands, delirious, once wrote a song titled, "majesty" co-written by Martin Smith and Stu G. Both are English men. That song was their most popular song and many churches still do it. If you listen to the lyrics, you can understand the sense of awe associated with monarchs. Combine the recognition of the English monarchical system and the the gospel and you get a powerful song like that. I am not proposing this as the ultimate formula for songwriting but I hope it summarises this post.

Pride and atheism

The nature of man when presented with the idea of God is to come up with another alternative. That being the basic flaw of man and even of Lucifer himself. Pride.

The foundation above statement is drawn out of a C.S. Lewis teaching, not entirely my original work. However, the rest of this shall be my own work, so not worry, I will not be regurgitating other people's ideas.

The first sin committed wasn't that of rebellion to God's word but of pride. Adam did not sin when he ate the forbidden fruit but when he decided to take on another alternative other than God. That other alternative being his human logic and intuition. Pride!!! Pride in himself, that he could come up with a better alternative than that which God had offered him. And since then, that has been the fundamental flaw of man. The attempt to attribute everything to himself and his ability to create, explain or sustain. The flaw that made man imagine himself to be a god, though not fully omnipotent, a god nonetheless. I could speak about it in depth, for I as a human, have been constantly fighting this on a daily basis. From the moment I wake up and separate me time and God time, trying to own the time given to me by God and calling it my own. Then allocating to him a portion of that time as if it were mine in the first place and all I am trying to do, is do God a favour and remain in his good books because I have bought it with my own property. Pride!!!

What I'm I trying to say? All I am saying is that the carnal nature of man does not allow him to give full glory or recognition to any other being than himself. Man is inwardly predisposed to glorifying and worshipping himself first. Then when he has had enough of that, to probably share what is left over with other people or beings (which I suppose in this case is close to zero due to man's selfishness). Man has never been at one time been more humble than proud on his own volition. He has only been able to do so when something greater than him changes that. He has only been able to give greater reverence to that only which is greater than him upon meeting that greatness. Humility has never been man's strength.
Therefore I would like to propose the following two scenarios for people who challenge the notion that religious piousness is man's creation.

A baby once born is born faithless and has no spirit capable of communing with God. The parents then choose to bring him up as a Christian and inculcate in him a false notion that God exists and that he created us and we should worship him. This coming out of a point that all men are born faithless but due to their unlimited imagination, fear of the unknown coupled with such a great degree of humility causes them to attribute all that they know and do not know to a supreme being. They extrapolate evidence from their surrounding that such a being can exist. Or.....

Man is born with a spirit that inwardly recognises that there is a God and they need to revere this being because He is greater than all men. However, due to the intrinsic flaw of man, pride, he tries to come up with other alternatives and so resorts to the scapegoats of logic and science. They fit in perfectly into the picture since both rely on the human mind, man can use the two to exalt himself. After much reasoning and thought, he concludes that religion is a creation of men birthed out of fear and ignorance. Since the atheist by now has transcended that level of ignorance and.achieved a higher level of self-consciousness, and has become fearless and.somewhat self-sustaining, he concludes that there is no such thing as God.

An atheist once called my argument simple and naive and for the purposes of the following section, I will validate his opinion.

I could only come up with the above two alternatives since life is primarily composed of two choices. And so follows the subsequent questions.

1. Which element best depicts man's character: humility or pride? Are men creatures clothed with pride or are they creatures clothed with white stainless garments of humility?

2. Which is easier for man to do? To beat his own will and in great humility, declare there is a being greater than him who could conceive such a glorious universe or; to try in his pride to rob God of the glory due to him by attributing the myth of creation to science and logic?

Call me naive but I think it is a bit unreasonable and utterly stupid to imagine man in all his pride and glory to willingly declare that he is so humble, humble enough to ascribe the pride and glory he has so long held onto, to an imaginary being. Man is the most imaginary of all creatures, but the least humble of them all. And if an atheist argues that religion is the apex of man's imagination, he must be ready to prove that humility is the greatest virtue in all men.

To believe that men are more humble than proud sounds very naive to me. Even I believe it is impossible as a man, as a Christian, that I am able to attain humility by my  own strength. I need a good deal of the Holy Ghost and the cross for that, and I believe that is the same case as with all Christians, even the holiest of them all.

I stand to be corrected but I think it is possible for man to creatively come up with the notion of deity. However, it is impossible for man in his pride to worship such a being unless there is enough evidence to compel man to humble himself.

To reconcile imagination and humility to the extent of coming up with God and surrendering wholly to him must be the most self-defeating thing man in his state of pride can do.
To come up with the above scenario and validate it is to me, the most naive thing an atheist can do.

Faith and doubt

"In order for a man to test his faith, he must open all possible avenues for doubt" Lelli Mandela.

As human beings we are all aware that the strength of an object or person can only be tested when the object is stretched to its limits. We understand that in every area of our lives, especially school and work where our endurance and patience is tested. Sometimes, even in relationships and courtships leading to marriage agree our love and long-bearing is tested. We understand that when it comes to dealing with children when they push us to our limits. Our devotion to God in our prayer and fasting. In all these areas, we do understand this principle. All these except one: our Faith.

Faith in this sense not being the ability to believe in God's working power, but faith: our salvation; Christianity. Faith for the purposes of this article being a religion.
Do you believe everything the good Lord says in the big black book because it is and has always been there, or do you believe because you are convicted by the truth. The big black book says God will spit out the lukewarm person. The person who has no conviction of where he/she stands. Going by that scripture, it would seem that the Lord would possibly be displeased by our pious following of His word in the event of failure to be hot or cold about it. God in this case would seem to be more tolerant towards the person who wrongly but convictedly interprets God's word as compared to the person who has no opinion about his word, only religious fanaticism towards it. Such a person would on the face of it look like a windy person, able to be tossed here ans there by every wind of doctrine.

Doubt, more often than not, tests our Faith and resolve in the Lord. It reveals our minds and hearts concerning God's words in our lives. Without arousing doubt or suspicion, we can rarely get to know if we really believe God's word and are convicted if its righteousness or we just follow it because it is the letter. Without testing our faith, we can really never determine if we are religious fanatics or true disciples.
A person without true conviction of his faith can never be fit to defend the gospel when called to rise to the occasion. Many Christians are guilty of this since we are too cowardly to ask ourselves the questions atheists ask themselves. If I am not the first person to be convicted by the truth, how else I'm I supposed to disembody the seed of doubt in another unbelieving human being?

The case here isn't being made for the evangelising Christian but for the Christian willing to do a personal audit of their faith. A person ready to test the extent of his faith. That is why I admire Peter when he walked on water. He made the conditions perfect for the testing of his faith. He decided to weigh the Lord's word against doubt and ended walking on water. Many people remember Peter for drowning but I remember him for being mad.enough to test his faith. No wonder God could trust that that he would be the rock upon which the church would be built.

What most people do not realize is that Peter did not walk on water because he was a fanatic but because he had an untethered conviction. How many of us can boldly say I will take up all my fears and doubts and weigh them against my faith in God? How many can say I an ready to test my heart and weigh my beliefs? How many are ready to take that leap from religious fanatics to convicted disciples?