To the editor:

I wrote that people who duck the question “What would Jesus drive” aren’t taking Jesus seriously (Nov. 26 LJW). David Reynolds says that was an “intellectually void,” “ludicrous attempt at exploitation” and “nonsubstantive, self-serving ploy” that “trivializes Jesus” (Dec. 4). He bases this heavy rhetoric on three highly evasive arguments:

1. “Why aren’t all vehicles being questioned versus just SUVs?” Reply: They are being questioned. I never mentioned SUVs in my letter.

2. “Why can’t your argument stand on its technical merits? Why do you need Jesus?”

Reply: All the technical knowledge in the world can’t make you do the right thing. You also need a sense of values.

3. “The whole issue of global warming … is still unresolved.” Reply: Can you say cart before horse?

Reynolds thinks Christians can dismiss the question on technical grounds. To do so, Christians must first become well-versed on the relevant science – because otherwise they risk doing the wrong thing. In other words, Jesus asks them to take the question of global warming – and, yes, the question of what car to drive – at least seriously enough to look at scientifically. (I’ll leave it to other letter writers to explain how thoroughly misleading is Reynolds’ take on global warming science.)

In summary, Reynolds’ letter strikes me as a pretty good example of a Christian evading the deep self-questioning that Jesus encouraged.

David Burress,

Lawrence