Uncategorized

What if Jesus were still dead?

What would/could we still believe – with vigor and enthusiasm?

I once led a church in what we called a year of the impossible.  We positioned ourselves to ask whether what we were doing could be done without Jesus.  A great year and a grating year.

First off, we brush our teeth.  I can do that without moving into a meditative state where Jesus guides my toothbrush.  That may be possible, but not necessary.  Seems to me Jesus gave us good teachers to help us understand many things.  We might even call that wisdom. 

So a church runs on the wisdom of God.  We seek to discern through rules and regulations a sense of God’s direction.

And if Jesus had never died, all people should be able to peer into and understand that wisdom (sometimes called general revelation).  God never gave up on us – from the beginning of time, to the exile of the Israelites, to the wars of religion, to . . .

BUT . . . if Jesus were still one of the dead prophets that populate our earth century by century, would his moral teachings remain prominent?  Probably.  Would there be a group of people that gathered to listen for his teachings?  Probably.  Does this look like us today?

What is the difference that happens because Jesus is not dead?

Sorry, I’m not going to answer that right now. 

I’m getting ready to go into the Lenten (forty days) season before Easter (that day we talk about the “I’m no longer dead” time in the Christian calendar).  I want to think anew about that question of “what if Jesus were still dead?”.  Does my life change? 

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus. (Acts 4:13 – English Standard Version of the Christian Bible)

I’ve just finished reading some opinion pieces regarding the latest convoy protests in Canada.  One particularly insightful article by Andrew Coyne (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-our-shared-reality-and-the-knowledge-that-undergirds-it-is-being/) points out that knowledge can come vertically (from the elites) or come horizontally (from peers). 

In this case the idea of vertical knowledge is all about the socialization that happens with observation over time, scientific conclusions and recognized precedents.  But there is no mention of God.  Those who oppose this knowledge are considered to be uneducated and likely to spread misinformation.

For Christians (and most religious groups) this is a problem.  Coyne seems to imply that Christians (a significant part of the convoy) were uneducated and prone to conspiracy theories.  While this may be discerned in some of the protesters, a significant portion are smart and accomplished in  understanding knowledge and wisdom.  But they start, not with the broken and fragmented chips of their peers information, but with a metanarrative that is vertical in nature.  Not the elites, but the creator.  Not the searchers, but the revealer. 

And the question arises – who is the truly knowledgeable one?

In my early years (which I can now say are my teen years), I was the friend of a great enthusiast and passionate evangelist.  He hasn’t really changed – Ron Pearce continues to reach out around the world.  He has a great passion for Bible distribution and indigenous evangelism. 

I ran across a podcast he was a part of talking about the Marks of Revival (on his website at https://ronpearce.org/podcasts?dir=39).  He just reiterated what I have heard him say for a half century.  To me that is wisdom that lasts.

A revival includes people that are re-enthused and getting back into the Bible.  There is a practice of aggressive evangelism, strong discipleship and a stream of new believers.  The unsaved are getting hungry to know God.  AND there is generally a catalyst event that pushes people in their desire for a deep knowledge of God.

I wonder if the last two years – from COVID to unequal wealth to a pending “world war” – we are ready to think more about God?

A tidbit from Gil Langerak (thrown in at the end of a recent podcast I did with him):

“Words do not create reality.  Words can only describe reality”.

Fiction is the making of reality within a prescribed, bounded setting.  The author sets that boundary and challenges you to enter into that space.  I’ve read and watched some Science Fiction where I would love to have made the boundaries more believable.  Is that reality?  It is a construction of reality without the necessity of verification or authentication within “the world in which we live in” (a tip of the hat to some musicians from previous decades).  In this case, words do create the environment of reality.  Or are they merely describing a hoped for reality? 

When you come before a judge in court you are expected to describe what happened.  That is evidence.  Beyond that is the need to conjecture motive and to create a narrative which describes this sensibly.  Once again, words create the picture of reality.  Or are they merely describing the reality as it may have been?

OK, here’s the thing.  Our world today is not so much about whether words create or describe reality.  We are about creating words.  Someone has realized that words can create a new sense and emotion and definition related to the previous understanding of a word.  Take the word “gay” or even the interpretations of the word “Christian”.

So, take a step back before we deal with the question of words creating or describing reality.  The real question is, what do the words mean that are being used to create or describe reality?  And are both the communicator and the one being communicated to reading the same dictionary?