Growing up in the 1960’s, with only 2 television channels might suggest to the younger folks we could watch everything offered. Those old enough remember those days; no VCR, no DVR, either you watch it now or as a rerun sometime later.
For me, Star Trek, slipped away before I could ever get any real understanding of Gene Roddenberry’s creation. Star Trek competed with Gunsmoke, or some other classic western of the era and those were my father’s favorites. (Mine too, if I’m honest.) I caught a glimpse of this futuristic space romp while visiting friends’ homes with more progressive parents. Seeing Spock’s ears, listening to him reason, eventually declaring something either “logical” or “illogical” didn’t really mean much to my young mind.
In later years, while studying at Valdosta State University, then College, I came upon a class, The Philosophy of Logic. Not knowing what it was didn’t prevent my signing myself up for what I hoped would be an easy elective. After a few classes I really began to enjoy this manner of interpreting tales, arguments, and insights.
Suddenly I gained tools for making sense of what I read and heard! Truth of facts and validity of form became a means of tending the garden of dialogue and learning.
C. S. Lewis, a British Professor at Oxford and Christian Apologist (a defender of the faith) offered an interesting argument for the truth of Jesus’ claims concerning His status as God. He said, in an interview with BBC radio (soon to become the book “Mere Christianity,”)
"“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." (Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, pp. 54 – 56. (In all editions, this is Bk. II, Ch. 3, "The Shocking Alternative.")
So, if we reject He is a lunatic, must we not then worship Him as Lord?