The haze of suspicion

There are people that are clamoring for the proof of Osama Bin Laden’s death.  As if producing a photograph of the leader post-mortem is going to silence those who are suspicious of the event.  No way that is going to happen . . .  because radical ideas can linger in the haze of suspicion. 

You could say that the same kind of thinking is alive and well in the mind of the religious.  People who follow Christ have ignored the ‘fact’ that no one has or ever will raise from the dead.  The idea of faith and of Christianity remains in tact by ignoring this obvious conclusion.  To some, the haze is just as thick.

But we can’t forget the very opposite may also be the case.

Perhaps it is because of knowing about the very fickleness of human nature that God is not in the business of cataloging details about the resurrection.  Perhaps it is the profound unerstanding of human nature that led the entire resurrection planning and event to ignore the need for ‘proofs’ because in the end, it isn’t the objective proofs that really establish anything.

In the end it is what we experience as a result of the resurrection that gains the most credibility – the way it influences the trajectory of our lives.  That is the LIVING proof.

Maybe that is why God is not as impressed with crosses that hanging from our neck as he is with a transformed life.  Where we used to be selfish, now we think of others.  Where we used to get even, we now release and where we once celebrated the death and resurrection of the Son of God we allow His new life to be lived through us.  We are . . . born again.

And in the end, isn't that the proper way to celebrate a man’s death?

#1 "The Proof Please?"

     In 2005, Oregon State Physics graduate Bobby Henderson got tired of attempts by Intelligent Design advocates to get Creation taught in schools.  So he started his own very popular religion - the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM for short).  FSM, also known as pastafarianism, became a quick hit on the internet and FSM disciples across America began to gather to parody the Christian faith.  It's kind of funny.  They have slogans like "He boiled for your sins" or "WWTFSMD?"  or this interpretation of Michelangelo's "Creation of Man:" 
     




     Of course the premise for this comes from  the thought that Christianity is just like any other human-concocted idea . . . you have your Jesus from 2000 years ago and I have my FSM and both have the same amount of evidence.  Where's the proof?
     Now of course when we talk about 'proof' - we need to really put our finger on what it is we mean.  No credible historian would doubt the actual existence of a Jesus from Nazareth.  What is in doubt is whether what He said and did is faithfully preserved for us in a collection of highly biased sacred works we call the Gospels.  So what is it that we are 'proving?'
     Maybe it is the claim to have risen from the dead.  
     Isn't it interesting that the Romans or the religious Jews of Jesus' time who had the power to find His body and expose this whole thing as a sham never did?  Throw the body in a wheelbarrow, run it through Jerusalem and the whole thing is over.  Equally interesting that somewhere around the middle of the first century, story lines explode with the idea of people raising from the dead . . . physically.  According to Wright, this idea was nonexistent for centuries leading up to 50AD.  Suddenly it explodes in popular literature - as if a switch was turned on.  That and a hundred other "hmmm . . .  that's interesting" kind of thoughts we could spend time on.
     But it is actually this idea of 'proof' that is more interesting to deconstruct.  
     So what qualifies as evidence?  Is it enough to see it?  What if one person sees Jesus - is that enough?  Probably not.  For one person to see the proof would only produce a very enthusiastic convert.  Can you imagine?  Everyone else would be like, "so what'd He look like? Can I see too?"  Pretty soon you would have people questioning what it is that he really saw.  In time it would be dismissed.
     So maybe you have ten people witness the evidence of God - directly seeing Him.  Would that be enough?  Well, you would have to have at least five scientists.  The real miracle would be 5 scientists agreeing to the test!  But since scientific law doesn't allow for the supernatural, wouldn't the explanation of what they saw just be some naturalistic mumbo-jumbo?  "My cerebral cortex was highly excited by the positive emission of radiation from an external source" or something like that.  Don't think for a moment that 'proof' is what anyone wants.  It is a sucker's bet.  I mean, the religious Jews just wanted to talk with Jesus and get his story.  


     Yeah right, and half a day later He is hanging on a tree.


     The argument about 'proof' is a continuing illusion that collapses upon itself and I think that is why God is not in the business of obliging us.  I like that God doesn't give us what we want. I am glad that God is above it - that the 'proof' is subjective . . . an inside joke for the downtrodden and those that have no other place to turn.  For the junkie that has no pride to stumble over who has nothing else to lose.   For the kid that has no friends and just wants someone to talk to.  For the single mom that learned that she is getting laid off and that her ex is getting married in the same day.  These kinds of people aren't waiting for proof to discover that a relationship with God is real . . . they just need help . . . and they are ready to put their faith in something that seems ridiculous because they have nowhere else to turn.
     And once they step inside, they receive the proof that they never looked for and could never establish outside of themselves.  
     That is faith - the unproved proof.