I remember the first time I saw it off of I-75. I was aghast. It was so over the top. The Touchdown Jesus isn't too terribly far away from where I live. But now people all over the world know about it. The news that it has been struck by lightning and is now no more has been splashed all over the American media. Am I echoing Judas in wishing that they would take the money and give it to the poor? Maybe the church sees it as a perfume offering, like the perfume the woman used to bathe Jesus' feet prior to his death on the cross (that is what Judas thought should be given to the poor). They want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to rebuild it. Yet even unbelievers think the money should be given to the poor. Any opinions? http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/jesus-statue-fire-damages-estimated-at-700-000jesus-statue-fire-damages-estimated-at-700-000-762245.html?cxtype=rss_local-news
3 comments:
agreed.
I didn't realize touchdown Jesus was so close.
Where that money should go depends on where God would be glorified most. Is God glorified by a huge, white, "Jesus" statue on the side of the highway?
I'm not sure that the Judas passage is parallel to the situation at hand. For one thing, Jesus is not physically present (other than in the body of Christ, the church). It may sound trite, but I do think that's an important point.
Another important point: Jeremiah 22:16 says "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD.
I think if the church really wants to demonstrate to the community (and the nation, at this point) that it knows God, then the money should be spent to defend the cause of the poor and the needy.
I can't think of how many times I've heard people say things like "Christians killed God for me. They show no concern for the less fortunate or oppressed but spend their time judging everyone around them."
I say punt that thing and leave the statue making to the Catholics LOL
Post a Comment