Why Jay-Z is not Illuminati

I was having breakfast with my students this morning when one of them started singing a Drake song. I asked her if she was a fan of Drake and she responded that Drake was okay, but she doesn't really like him because he is part of the Illuminati. The charge that rappers are part of the Illuminati is a baffling one to me. If there were such a society, why would they choose people like Jay-Z, Drake, Kanye, Rhianna and Willow as members of their organization.

Here are my main reasons for thinking they wouldn't. First, the Illuminati is supposed to be a secret society. Now, there seem to be two kinds of secret societies. There are those like the Masons and the Black Greek Letter Organizations whose membership is public knowledge though the practices and rituals are not. It's easy to find out that Langston Hughes was a member of the Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc., but it is not easy to find out what Hughes had to do, say or believe in order to become a member of this society or what his duties were. The second kind of secret society is one in which the beliefs, practices, rituals and membership are private. An example of this kind of society is found in the works of Dan Brown. According to Brown, Leonardo Da Vinci was a member of the Priory of Sion whose mission was to protect the secret of the Holy Grail. This was done though symbols, ritual, etc. No one knew that Da Vinci was part of such a group nor did people know what this group was supposed to do. (I suppose there is a third possibility. There could be a secret society where the members are secret, but the rituals, etc. are public. This just seems weird.)

It is my understanding that the Illuminati is supposed to be in the second category. While many believe the Illuminati to be comprised of the world's powerful and wealthy, no one is supposed to know who the actual members are or what they do. Now, Jay-Z is definitely not being secretive about his association with this organization. If the "all-seeing-eye" is supposed to be a secret symbol of the Illuminati, then Jay-Z might as well do a 60 Minutes confessional right now. He would be the only member of this organization to brand the symbol and sell it! If I were a member of the Illuminati and saw Jay-Z wearing our symbol on his extra, long white tee, I'd get one of my paid goons to slip him a few extra ambiens. That's playing too close to the line for the safety of the organization.

Second, if there is an Illuminati, I can't see them allowing Jay-Z to be in charge of new recruits. I would want someone who is going to recruit not only people of power, but also people who will keep the organization's existence a secret. So far, Jay-Z hasn't chosen very good people. Willow is nine years old! If she is Illuminati, she's already told her little friends at her last sleepover! (Of course, her parents have to be Illuminati too so they probably stop her from spilling the beans.)

But maybe Jay-Z isn't in charge. Maybe President Obama is in charge and he recruited Jay-Z. Pres. Obama is definitely influential and wealthy. He looks like he can keep a secret. If so, then Obama is not as astute as he appears to be because he has allowed Drake et al. to be members thereby threatening to expose the existence of the organization.

Or maybe the Illuminati is looking to transition from the second kind of secret society to the first kind. Maybe they are tired of living in the shadows with their super lame parties. Who wants to hear orchestras play Wagner and Mozart all night? Who wants to see stuffy old ladies in sequin dresses eat cucumber sandwiches and drink Moet? Jay-Z and Co. definitely know how to get that thang crunk! Gone are the sequins. Here come the g-strings! Good-bye Das Rheingold and hello Das EFX! Let's make it rain!

Judge Not?

                          

"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7).
"Judge not least ye be judged" (Matt. 7:1).

Both of these statements were made by Jesus and both of these statements have been used to argue that people (or Christians, at least) should not judge the actions, lifestyles and belief systems of others. I however, do not think that Jesus is forbidding judging. If anything, he is cautioning against making quick and improper judgments.

The first quote comes from John's account of a test of Jesus. A group of Jewish, religious leaders try to test Jesus' knowledge of the Jewish law by bringing a woman before him that had been caught in adultery. According to Jewish law, the punishment for her actions was the death penalty. When Jesus responds with the above quote, the Jew leaders drop their stones and walk away. Jesus then turns to the woman, tells her she is free to go, but admonishes her to change her behavior.

What is interesting about this passage is that Jesus agrees with the Jewish leaders' judgment against the woman. By instructing her to, "go now and leave your life of sin" (John 8:11), he is agreeing with the Jewish leaders that she has done something wrong. He passes judgment on her as being a sinner.

The second quote is found in Jesus' famous, Sermon on the Mount. Our quote is located in the middle of the sermon and is the introductory statement on the issue of judging. Here is the passage in context:

Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:1-6, NET)

 When one sees the first statement in context, it becomes clear that Jesus is not condemning all judging. Jesus tells us to first judge ourselves so that we can clearly judge others. In fact, Jesus divides people into two groups-- 1) the those who possess that which is holy and 2) the dogs and pigs. Jesus excepts us to know the difference between the two groups. We should be able to say, "that dude is a pig" or "that dude is good." But doesn't this sound like judging to you?

Incidentally, Jesus makes another statement about judging which is also record in the book of John. Jesus says, "Do not judge according to appearance, but make a righteous judgement" (John 7:24). Here, the Jewish religious leaders and a crowd surrounding Jesus were making bad judgements about who he was and about the source of his miracles. They were particularly upset because Jesus had healed a man on the Sabbath, a sacred day set aside for the worship of God. Jesus rebukes them, not for judging him, but for making a judgement based on the wrong criteria. They were judging him based on how Jesus appeared. Jesus does not explicitly say what the correct criteria for judgement is here, but I suspect it has something to do with comparing his acts and message against the Messianic teachings of the Old Testament. Jesus expected those present to judge him correctly (i.e. righteously, properly, etc) as the promised Messiah. So, it seems like Jesus wants us to not only make ethical judgements, but we are also supposed to make religious ones as well.

The Path to Simplicity

My life is definitely too complex. I am constantly checking email, facebook, twitter, text messages, smoking signals, skywriting, etc. I am so busy with these tasks that many other, more important tasks go undone. So I'm thinking of some ways to simplify my life.

One of the things I am seriously considering is getting rid of my cell phone. Not only would this give me more time to myself (solitude and contemplation are two goods currently missing in my life), but it would also save Janelle and I money each month. I'm also thinking of getting rid of twitter and facebook. Of course I can hear all of my tech-saavy, marketing friends, "How will you ever stay relevant? How will you keep up with your friends and what's going on in their lives? How will you push your apologetics ministry?" Well, my apologetics ministry is virtually non-exist right now so I'm not too worried about that one. I'll still have my blog which will be an outlet for my ministry ideas and thoughts. Staying relevant isn't that difficult because I won't give up the internet. I'm just giving up two of the websites that suck most of my time. I'm not the guy that has tons of self-control and can keep to a schedule. The best course of action, for me, might be to ditch the whole thing. As some dude said, "Know thyself." As far as staying in touch with my friends, I guess I'll have to do it like I did in 1995. I have a home phone with a voicemail. I also have an email account (something I didn't have in 1995). I'll just check my email and voicemail at night when I get home and return phone calls. Also, this would give me a great excuse to meet with people face-to-face which I like doing way more than I like talking on the phone.

Anyway, this isn't a rant against technology. Technology is amazing and I love it! Technology's awesomeness is part of the reason I'm in this situation right now. In my case, technology has added to my happiness (in the Aristotelian sense), but it seems to have taken much more than it has added.

Avoiding the "Appearance" of Evil?

 A great article on 1 Thessalonians 5:22--the verse commonly thought to say, "Abstain from the appearance of evil." I posted back on the other blog, but I thought it needed reposting. In short, Daniel B. Wallace argues that this verse does not say that we should abstain from the appearance of evil, but we should stay away from 1) false doctrine and 2) every kind of evil. If it is not inherently evil, then there is no biblical mandate to stay away from it. This does not mean that there might not be good reasons to avoid some acts (i.e. looking out for the weaker brother, etc.), but to just condemn an act because it appears to be evil is unjustified.

#ThingsIWouldLove2Own

Those who know me, know that the VW Type-2 is my dream vehicle. But there are several reasons why I don't currently own one. First, it is difficult to find one in good condition these days. Many of them are so old that they are beginning to rust and deteriorate. Second, even though there are companies that make parts to repair Type-2s, I am the least handy person in the world (well, maybe not the world, but you feel me). It takes me forever to fix things. If the directions suggest a 30 minutes repair time, it will take me a minimum of four days. Third, they don't have air conditioning and I have to have air. I rode around this summer with one of my good friends who didn't have air. I wanted to stab him every time I glanced his way. Finally, my wife isn't keen on the idea and she makes the rules. But if VW came out with this camper, I'd sell everything to buy one. I absolutely love this design. I might just start a car company and build them myself. Hmmm...Where did I put my dream journal?

Jay-Z and Jesus Christ

So I was thinking the other day about Jay-Z's song "Empire State of Mind" and all the controversy it caused in the Christian community. For example, there is a video which castigates Jay-Z for "dissing" Jesus Christ. Many people were appalled that Jay could just flip his lid and start talking crazy.

The lines in question say:

Mommy took a bus trip/ Now she got her bust out/ Everybody ride her/ Just like a bus route/ Hail Mary to the city/ You're a virgin/ And Jesus can't save you/ Life starts when the Church ends

It seems pretty clear that Jay-Z is denying one of the core beliefs of the Christian faith. He is saying that Jesus is not capable of saving us and that real life happens outside of church. But while I think Jay's critics are on to something here, I want to suggest a way to defend Jay-Z's statements. I want to propose that Jay might not be as crazy as his critics make him appear.

One of the most popular theories for how proper names relate to their subjects is called the descriptive theory of proper names. On this theory―a theory developed by Bertrand Russell―proper names refer to the person who satisfies a set of definite descriptions. Definite Descriptions are phrases like those found in definitions. For example, if I asked you who is Jay-Z, you might respond, "he is―'the writer of the above lyrics,' 'one of the founders of Roc-a-fella Records,' 'the owner of 40/40 club,' 'Beyonce's husband,' 'one of the greatest MCs of all time,' etc." The list of definite descriptions needed to describe him is practically infinite so to simplify things, we just call him 'Jay-Z.' Another way of looking at it is, proper names stand in the place of a list of definite descriptions and refer to the person who fits those descriptions.

Now what about Jay-Z's statement about Jesus? I think one could argue that it is plausible that the definite descriptions Jay-Z attributes to the proper name 'Jesus' might be descriptions which make his lyrics true (if there was a person in history who fits Jay-Z's list). For example, let's agree with Anselm that only a being that is both God and human is capable of satisfying God's justice and thereby provide salvation for all humanity. Second, let's say that Jay-Z does not believe that Jesus is divine. He believers that Jesus was merely a good human being. Jesus was only one of God's prophets. Then it follows that Jay-Z shouldn't believe that Jesus is capable of saving us. In other words, if Jay-Z does not have "Jesus is the God-man" as one of his definite descriptions, then he could logically believe that Jesus couldn't save us. So when Jay stands on stage and says, “Jesus can’t save you,” he is right. The Jesus in his mind is not capable of saving us.

Now the next question would be, "Is it reasonable for me to believe that Jay-Z could fail to have 'Jesus is the God-man' (or any of the other necessary and sufficient conditions for Jesus to be savior) as one his definite descriptions"? I would answer yes. Given the weak education programs at many churches, it wouldn't surprise me that someone like Jay-Z could reject many of the truths of the Christian faith. As a Church, we have done a very poor job of communicating what it is we believe and why it is we believe what we do. I have had ministers, deacons and elders argue with me that while the Bible does claim that Jesus is the Son of God, it does not claim that Jesus is God. These are the leaders who are supposed to be feeding the flock. If the leaders don't have the necessary definite descriptions, then it makes sense why someone like Jay-Z wouldn't have them either.

So, I don’t believe that Jay-Z is crazy or has lost his mind or any of the other claims made about him. I simply believe that Jay-Z is wrong in his beliefs about who Jesus was. 

The Truth Behind "The Truth Behind Hip Hop"

One of the things I promised myself I would do when I got my blog back up was to analyze the book titled, "The Truth Behind Hip-Hop," written by G. Craige Lewis. I was introduced to Lewis' work a number of years ago by my friend Shawn Hayes. Shawn called me and told me that there was a dude going around the country preaching that Hip Hop was an evil spirit and that God had called him (Lewis) to warn the Church about this spirit and to drive it out of the Church. I asked Shawn where I could read what Lewis had written and Shawn told me that Lewis' main form of communication was his DVD set and that these DVDs were $25 dollars each, but if I didn’t have access to the DVDs, Lewis had some articles on his website that I could read. I went to the site and read some of his pieces and was not impressed. They were filled with poorly developed  arguments and tortured hermeneutics. I couldn't see myself paying $25 a pop for something I wasn't sure was even legit.

Well, last year Lewis published a book which contains his main argument against hip hop. I waited a few months so that I could get it used on amazon.com and my copy arrived at the beginning of the summer, but since my summer was hectic, I didn't have a chance to read it. To be honest, I don't have time to deal with it now, but analyzing this book is doing double duty. I've decided to study it as my devotions as well. Since this book is written for the Church, it will mostly likely deal with a lot of Scripture as well as theological themes on which I can meditate and apply (if applicable of course) to my personal walk.

Anyway, my goal is to move through this book chapter by chapter on this blog. This might not happen but this is may goal. So, I’ll be reading the first chapter tonight and commenting on it tomorrow. If you have the book, please read it with me and please comment. Like I said in my very first post, fill free to help me work through these issues. 

Trying this Blog Thing...for the Third Time

Welcome to the third iteration of my blog. My first attempt ended because some dude hacked my service and I wasn't smart enough to stop him even though I have seen the movie "Hackers" about six million times. Where are Zero Cool and Acid Burn when you need them? My second attempt was so weak that I don't think it should be called an attempt but it was an attempt so I'll call it one. Anyway, this third attempt is simply a place for me to get my thoughts and ideas out there and have you good people help me process them. I can't promise that they will all make sense. You will probably find some ill-formed theological and philosophical arguments. I hope you will also find some well-formed arguments too. You will see the other stuff that gets posted on blogs( i.e. videos, photos, etc.). I don't know what else will be here. You just have to wait and see. Some of you will stay. Some of you will never return. Some of you will call the police on me. Whoever you are, you are welcome.