November 21, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:WWJD
Thank y'all for bearing with me. . . for the past few days, I've felt like the pulp that's left clinging to the side of the glass after you drink a glass of homestyle orange juice.
Question of the day: why are people making a big deal about this What Would Jesus Drive campaign? (For those who haven't seen it, the answer is apparently "Not an SUV") I mean, I can't fault the people who are poking fun:
One theory is that Jesus would tool around in an old Plymouth because "the Bible says God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden in a Fury." But in Psalm 83, the Almighty clearly owns a Pontiac and a Geo. The passage urges the Lord to "pursue your enemies with your Tempest and terrify them with your Storm." Perhaps God favors Dodge pickup trucks, because Moses' followers are warned not to go up a mountain "until the Ram's horn sounds a long blast." Some scholars insist that Jesus drove a Honda but didn't like to talk about it. As proof, they cite a verse in St. John's gospel where Christ tells the crowd. "For I did not speak of my own Accord..." Meanwhile, Moses rode an old British motorcycle, as evidenced by a Bible passage declaring that "the roar of Moses' Triumph is heard in the hills." Joshua drove a Triumph sports car with a hole in its muffler: "Joshua's Triumph was heard throughout the land." And, following the Master's lead, the Apostles car pooled in a Honda... "The Apostles were in one Accord."
Tee-hee! But I've actually seen commentators, left and right, arguing that they oughtn't to be advocating it. Even one poor host on Fox News trying to get the minister sponsoring the thing to admit that there was nothing supporting his campaign in the bible. His scriptural precedents seemed quite reasonable to me; imposing avoidable and dangerous negative externalities upon your neighbor certainly violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Gospels. The left-leaning interrogators, on the other hand, seemed pleased by the message but outraged that the people sending it were otherwise evangelical Christians, as if to love nature you have to support ripping off your clothes and gamboling through the woods like a young Greek god.
Sigh. Nice to be back to slow news days, isn't it?
Posted by Jane Galt at November 21, 2002 8:24 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>Some of this, I think, is venom left over from the days of Interior Secretary James G. Watt, who, in the eyes of environmentalists, was a despoiler of lands and a destroyer of species - and who, incidentally, was an evangelical Christian. I suspect a lot of people on the Sierra Club's mailing list put these two things together and concluded that the Baptists and their friends are preaching a gospel of massive overdevelopment, a conclusion that is at best one part truth surrounded by ninety-nine parts fear and loathing.
I agree with CGHill.
As an "evangelical" (I know that term carries a lot of baggage), I see every reason why environmentalism is important, and to the chagrin of the Fox News reporter who claims nothing in the Bible supports it, I'd say you start at Genesis 1 & 2, where it clearly states the original couple was placed in the Garden to dress it and keep it. The dominion that man is to exercise (Gen 1:26) is always a benevolent one, a stewardship- and that includes preservation of species and environment, as well as wise and careful use of resources. Documenting that would take more space than I have here, but comes clearly from Christ's example and teachings.
Posted by: Tom on November 21, 2002 12:53 PMPS. - Loved the jokes- had'em all groaning here at the office!
Posted by: Tom on November 21, 2002 12:56 PMJames Watt... James Watt... wasn't he the guy who said conserving rescources wasn't important because the Rapture would happen before they were used up, so what's the big deal? Far be it from me to criticize someone's deeply held religious convictions, but I can see how that sort of talk would stick in the environmentalist craw, if craw is the word I'm looking for.
As for Jesus: He used to ride around on a jackass out of humility, right? So I guess the humblest car would be an AMC Gremlin or something like that.
It's silly to argue about what kind of car Christ would drive. That said, I think it's clear He would drive a Hummer.
Posted by: Benjamin Kepple on November 21, 2002 10:55 PMThe use of the donkey is recorded on one ocassion IIRC, the entry to Jerusalem not long before the crucifixion.
It's kind of silly for the group generating these ads to speculate beyond that, since Jesus is most frequently recorded as traveling the same way anyone else of his means and societal position moved about -- by sandal.
Posted by: anony-mouse on November 22, 2002 9:23 PMMy SUV (which I need to haul my wheelchair and medical supplies) gets better mileage than my brothers minivan.
How come there is no campaign against minivans?
Both the minivan and the SUV get better mileage than the full size station wagon I used to have.
This anti SUV crap is just that.
Posted by: Gary Utter on November 23, 2002 1:50 AMJay Leno, I think, was the source for this: a single man, working as a carpenter, living in a small town in the middle of nowhere -- drives a pickup.
Posted by: Tresho on November 23, 2002 11:38 PMComments are Closed.