Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Followup to Florida License Plate Blog
The following comic strip was sent to me by a member of the church in light of my previous blog about the new Florida license plates under consideration. I think he said it comes from somewhere in the St. Petersburg, FL, area. Enjoy...
Friday, April 25, 2008
Florida license plates
Some of may have seen the latest idea before the Florida state legislature...they are considering offering a "Christian" specialty license plate that depicts a stained glass window, a cross, and the words "I believe" written across the bottom.
Now, let me preface my comments by saying that I'm not opposed to anyone putting such a license plate on their cars, just as I'm not opposed to those who want to put a fish symbol on the back of their cars. But, I am intrigued at the logic that has gone into this decision, and I am left wondering whether this isn't just par for the course in our 21st century world.
Rep. Edward Bullard, the license plate's sponsor, said the reason why he thinks this is a good idea is that other people already have the opportunity to show that they "believe in their college or university" or "believe in their football team" by putting those things on their license plates. Why can't Christians put a plate on their cars that has "something they believe in"?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this kind of logic. But it makes me shudder to see Christianity lumped together with one's alma mater or one's favorite football team or race car driver. Some people like the Unversity of Texas (not that I have anything against the Longhorns!), some people like Dale Earnhardt, Jr., and some people like Christ! That's the logic. Jesus, you see, is just one among many different options. There is no fundamental difference; one is not more important than the others. You have your option; I have mine. You say po-TAY-to; I say po-TAH-to. Never mind that Jesus either is or isn't the Lord of the universe. Never mind that Jesus either is the MOST important reality in the universe OR the LEAST important one. You see, IF Jesus really is who He says that He is, then He is the singlemost important reality in all the universe, far more important than universities or sports or any other religion's god. And if Jesus is NOT who He says that He is, then He is far less important than universities, sports, and everything else good, because He would then be a liar or a lunatic, or something far worse, for claiming to be what He is not (and for leading millions upon millions astray).
Pick one or the other! But don't give me any business about Him being equal to things like one's alma mater or one's favorite sports hero or one's favorite cause.
This whole thing leaves me wondering why we need to have "Christian" license plates anyway. Why do we need to have fish stickers on the back of our cars? Why can't our lives be our "license plates"? Why can't our lives be our "stickers"? If the church returned to a first century model of living as the church, I wonder whether we would need to do any of these things. If Christians were actually living out their Christianity radically in their own spheres of influence, the way the first century church was--i.e., as those who knew their "first love" and surely hadn't lost their "first love"--I think we would have little if any need to put "I believe" on the back of our cars. We would have little if any need to put fish stickers on the back of our cars. Our neighbors in our communities would know that we are Christians by our love!
But we have privatized Christianity, haven't we? We have made it into a private matter, a matter of belief and not a world and life view. Let us strive to return to an Acts 2:42 model for the church. And, just maybe, if God is pleased so to do, maybe we will see Acts 2:47 results!
Soli Deo gloria!
Now, let me preface my comments by saying that I'm not opposed to anyone putting such a license plate on their cars, just as I'm not opposed to those who want to put a fish symbol on the back of their cars. But, I am intrigued at the logic that has gone into this decision, and I am left wondering whether this isn't just par for the course in our 21st century world.
Rep. Edward Bullard, the license plate's sponsor, said the reason why he thinks this is a good idea is that other people already have the opportunity to show that they "believe in their college or university" or "believe in their football team" by putting those things on their license plates. Why can't Christians put a plate on their cars that has "something they believe in"?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this kind of logic. But it makes me shudder to see Christianity lumped together with one's alma mater or one's favorite football team or race car driver. Some people like the Unversity of Texas (not that I have anything against the Longhorns!), some people like Dale Earnhardt, Jr., and some people like Christ! That's the logic. Jesus, you see, is just one among many different options. There is no fundamental difference; one is not more important than the others. You have your option; I have mine. You say po-TAY-to; I say po-TAH-to. Never mind that Jesus either is or isn't the Lord of the universe. Never mind that Jesus either is the MOST important reality in the universe OR the LEAST important one. You see, IF Jesus really is who He says that He is, then He is the singlemost important reality in all the universe, far more important than universities or sports or any other religion's god. And if Jesus is NOT who He says that He is, then He is far less important than universities, sports, and everything else good, because He would then be a liar or a lunatic, or something far worse, for claiming to be what He is not (and for leading millions upon millions astray).
Pick one or the other! But don't give me any business about Him being equal to things like one's alma mater or one's favorite sports hero or one's favorite cause.
This whole thing leaves me wondering why we need to have "Christian" license plates anyway. Why do we need to have fish stickers on the back of our cars? Why can't our lives be our "license plates"? Why can't our lives be our "stickers"? If the church returned to a first century model of living as the church, I wonder whether we would need to do any of these things. If Christians were actually living out their Christianity radically in their own spheres of influence, the way the first century church was--i.e., as those who knew their "first love" and surely hadn't lost their "first love"--I think we would have little if any need to put "I believe" on the back of our cars. We would have little if any need to put fish stickers on the back of our cars. Our neighbors in our communities would know that we are Christians by our love!
But we have privatized Christianity, haven't we? We have made it into a private matter, a matter of belief and not a world and life view. Let us strive to return to an Acts 2:42 model for the church. And, just maybe, if God is pleased so to do, maybe we will see Acts 2:47 results!
Soli Deo gloria!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Anger, Anger, Anger
I, like many of you, have been shocked at the expressions of unbridled anger that have appeared in the news recently. Over the last few weeks, we have seen at least 2 videos meant for You-Tube that captured young women beating mercilessly other young women. In the most prominent of those videos, something like 8 teenage girls cornered and pummeled another of their peers because of some petty thing she had done or said about them on-line. The video is extremely difficult to watch, because it shows these young girls--just oozing with hatred--absolutely wearing out another young girl, all the while 2 young men "guarded" the door and prevented others from coming to the victim's rescue. In the other video, an Arizona teen actually picked up a metal folding chair and struck a school mate in the head with such force and venom that it knocked her flat.
What are we to say about these things? Well, on the one hand, I would say that we must all realize that anger is nothing new. It has been around since at least the time when Cain killed Abel. The Bible says that ALL people, without exception, are sinful. And each of these videos is a case in point to prove the Bible's claim. People have not changed. We are just as sinful as we have been since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. What has changed is the EXPRESSION of our sinfulness. We now have much greater technology available with which to express our sin. In the first of the abovementioned cases, for instance, it is unlikely that the episode would have happened at all had the internet not existed--or, if it had happened, it probably would not have happened to the extent that it did, and we probably would not have heard about it like we have.
How anyone could watch those videos and not see a problem is beyond me. I would be willing to bet that even the most hardened atheist or agnostic--though I have not spoken with any about this--would still say that what those videos depict is wrong, even downright evil. Of course, that kind of an admission presents an opportunity that Christians ought never let slip by, because, you see, the atheist or agnostic has NO grounds whatsoever upon which to make that claim. The atheist or agnostic has no grounds to say that what these girls have done is wrong. The most that such atheists or agnostics could say is that what these girls have done is not what they themselves would choose to do under similar circumstances.
Let me explain why I say this. In order for atheists or agnostics to be able to say that what these girls have done is "wrong," they have to assume that there is such a thing as "wrongness." And, in order for there to be such a thing as "wrongness," there would also have to be such a thing as "rightness." Wrongness would make no sense and could not exist without there being such a thing as rightness. The existence of wrongness necessarily implies the existence of rightness (the former being the absence or the obverse of the latter).
And if "wrongness" and "rightness" exist, then there would also have to be some sort of STANDARD by which to differentiate the one from the other. We have no way of labeling a certain action as "right" or "wrong" without some sort of standard to tell us that that action is "right" and a different action is "wrong." So, the existence of "wrongness" in the world demands the existence of a standard of right and wrong.
And if there is a standard of right and wrong, then there would also have to be a STANDARD-GIVER, someone who has given the standard to us, someone who transcends us. That someone could not be one of us (a fellow human being), because then that standard would just be "his" or "her" opinion and could not apply to every single one of us universally. This transcendent standard-giver is the very thing that atheists do not believe in and that agnostics don't know for certain exists.
For us to be able to pronounce what these girls have done as "WRONG," which I hope that we all would do, requires us to believe that the God of the Bible exists and has spoken His standards to us.
But, not only so--and this is far more important--these two news events also proclaim the human need for a SAVIOR or REDEEMER. Those of us who would watch these videos and only see what these girls have done need to look into our own hearts and see the same basic roots of anger and sin that are/were present in these young girls. We are not any better than they are, are we? We may not express our anger/sin in the same way that they did (let's hope not, anyway), but the anger/sin is still there, isn't it? Just because the expression of our sin is different, more socially acceptable, doesn't mean that we are basically OKAY and that they are BAD. The same anger/sin that led them to beat these poor girls leads us to do something different. The expression is different (thankfully) but the heart is still the same, still oozing with anger.
Jesus came into the world and died on the cross not just to clean up the expressions of our sins, to make them more socially acceptable. Jesus came into the world and died on the cross to clean up our hearts, to give us new hearts, hearts that are filled with joy rather than anger.
That is the solution--the only solution--not just for these young girls, but for each one of us. We all need Christ. That's what these videos teach us.
What are we to say about these things? Well, on the one hand, I would say that we must all realize that anger is nothing new. It has been around since at least the time when Cain killed Abel. The Bible says that ALL people, without exception, are sinful. And each of these videos is a case in point to prove the Bible's claim. People have not changed. We are just as sinful as we have been since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. What has changed is the EXPRESSION of our sinfulness. We now have much greater technology available with which to express our sin. In the first of the abovementioned cases, for instance, it is unlikely that the episode would have happened at all had the internet not existed--or, if it had happened, it probably would not have happened to the extent that it did, and we probably would not have heard about it like we have.
How anyone could watch those videos and not see a problem is beyond me. I would be willing to bet that even the most hardened atheist or agnostic--though I have not spoken with any about this--would still say that what those videos depict is wrong, even downright evil. Of course, that kind of an admission presents an opportunity that Christians ought never let slip by, because, you see, the atheist or agnostic has NO grounds whatsoever upon which to make that claim. The atheist or agnostic has no grounds to say that what these girls have done is wrong. The most that such atheists or agnostics could say is that what these girls have done is not what they themselves would choose to do under similar circumstances.
Let me explain why I say this. In order for atheists or agnostics to be able to say that what these girls have done is "wrong," they have to assume that there is such a thing as "wrongness." And, in order for there to be such a thing as "wrongness," there would also have to be such a thing as "rightness." Wrongness would make no sense and could not exist without there being such a thing as rightness. The existence of wrongness necessarily implies the existence of rightness (the former being the absence or the obverse of the latter).
And if "wrongness" and "rightness" exist, then there would also have to be some sort of STANDARD by which to differentiate the one from the other. We have no way of labeling a certain action as "right" or "wrong" without some sort of standard to tell us that that action is "right" and a different action is "wrong." So, the existence of "wrongness" in the world demands the existence of a standard of right and wrong.
And if there is a standard of right and wrong, then there would also have to be a STANDARD-GIVER, someone who has given the standard to us, someone who transcends us. That someone could not be one of us (a fellow human being), because then that standard would just be "his" or "her" opinion and could not apply to every single one of us universally. This transcendent standard-giver is the very thing that atheists do not believe in and that agnostics don't know for certain exists.
For us to be able to pronounce what these girls have done as "WRONG," which I hope that we all would do, requires us to believe that the God of the Bible exists and has spoken His standards to us.
But, not only so--and this is far more important--these two news events also proclaim the human need for a SAVIOR or REDEEMER. Those of us who would watch these videos and only see what these girls have done need to look into our own hearts and see the same basic roots of anger and sin that are/were present in these young girls. We are not any better than they are, are we? We may not express our anger/sin in the same way that they did (let's hope not, anyway), but the anger/sin is still there, isn't it? Just because the expression of our sin is different, more socially acceptable, doesn't mean that we are basically OKAY and that they are BAD. The same anger/sin that led them to beat these poor girls leads us to do something different. The expression is different (thankfully) but the heart is still the same, still oozing with anger.
Jesus came into the world and died on the cross not just to clean up the expressions of our sins, to make them more socially acceptable. Jesus came into the world and died on the cross to clean up our hearts, to give us new hearts, hearts that are filled with joy rather than anger.
That is the solution--the only solution--not just for these young girls, but for each one of us. We all need Christ. That's what these videos teach us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
