We have been
trying to define a question that will allow us to do an experiment regarding
the existence of God. Here’s the
question as defined so far:
“What would
Jesus have to do to prove to you that He is still alive, still God, still
active in people’s lives, and can be known by those who seek Him?”
However, in
this entry we have to address a key issue that is likely to eliminate most of
our would-be experimenters. This
“experiment” is intensely personal and is not something that can be conducted
in an impersonal, detached manner. This
experiment is not about gaining
information. And, as we mentioned, the
outcome will probably only be relevant to the experimenter personally[1]. If we want to do an experiment to prove that
God exists, with results that would be relevant for all people everywhere,
well…good luck with that. As far as I
can tell, “such a” God doesn’t exist: a
God who is willing to make His presence obvious to everyone for all time. On the other hand, we’ve already discussed
[here] that we wouldn’t accept that particular evidence even if it were
presented to us – we’d classify it as a natural event.
But today
we’re moving on to a personal decision that is going to have to be made by
everyone who conducts the experiment we are describing. To make my point, let me try out an analogy. Let’s say you ask your wife “do you love
me?” She says “yes, I love you.” And then you say “thanks – that’s nice to
know.” Will that work?[2] What if she then says “well – do you love me?” And then you reply
“this conversation isn’t about me – it’s about you!” That would not be an acceptable response. I would not recommend trying out that
experiment to see what happens! A
conversation like that cannot be one-sided, even if you want it to be.
The point is
this: you can’t just ask God to
demonstrate His presence to you and then, when He does, thank Him for His time
and walk away. Unlike most other
experiments, this one can’t be one-sided.
If God is going to demonstrate
Himself to you, His revelation is going to place requirements on you. Before you start the experiment, you have to
be ready for the consequences, no matter how unlikely you think they might be.
If we conduct
an experiment and find out that Jesus is still alive, still God, and still
active in people’s lives, that’s never going to be just “nice to know.” In fact, it means, among other things, that
we are not the one’s calling the shots in our life – He is. To conduct this experiment is to play with
fire. If we take the chance and conduct
the experiment, and Jesus never existed, or is dead now, then…“whew”, you are
fine and you can go on with living your life the way you want to. You just played with fire and didn’t get
burnt. But if, by some miracle, the
answer to your experiment turns out to confirm the hypothesis of the question
(Jesus is still alive…), then you are no longer in control of your own life. You just opened up something that you can
never close again.
I’m going to
combine a couple of my past analogies and hope this helps illustrate the issue,
although my analogy may seem a bit bizarre at first. I’ve talked about how we can “lock and bolt
the door” on God/Jesus. Further, let’s
use the analogy of Jesus as a lion – an analogy not without significant
precedent. But Jesus is “not a tame
lion”.[3] Letting Him in is not safe. He is a wild
lion. He is not domesticated. OK, with that background, let’s try a
conversation…
Me: “There’s a wild lion outside the door.”
You: “There’s no lion outside – we live in rural
America. Lions live in Africa.”
Me: “I saw him – he is right outside the door.”
You: “I don’t see anything. I don’t hear anything roaring or scratching
at the door. There’s no lion.”
Me: “The lion hides unless you open the door.”
You: “I thought you said it was a wild lion. What wild lion hides?”
Me: “Well, it may be a wild lion, but it’s also
smarter than you. The lion will only
come in if you invite him in.”
You: “That’s ridiculous. No lion waits for an invitation. And I suppose the lion will come in and want
to have tea together.”
Me: “No, actually, when the lion comes in, he
will eat you up.”
You: “Eat me?”
Me: “Yes, that’s what lions do. We’re not talking about someone’s pet here.”
You: “You’re crazy – there’s no lion anywhere that
waits for an invitation to come in, and then proceeds to devour you.”
Me: “Well, it’s easy enough to find out. All you have to do is open the door.”
You: “No, I’m not going to open the door.”
Me: “But how can you say there’s no such lion if
you don’t open the door?”
You: “I’m not going to open the door. And there is no lion.”
Me: “If you don’t open the door, you can’t claim
there is no lion.”
You: “OK – I’ll open the door a crack and then
close it quickly.”
Me: “No, the lion only comes in if you open the
door and step back. You have to invite
it in.”
You: “That’s a ridiculous rule – who made that up?”
Me: “The lion.
Remember, he’s not a tame lion.”
You: “Well, as I said, there is no lion and that’s
the end of the conversation.”
Me: “Are you going to open the door then?”
You: “No.”
I don’t know
if that conversation helps clarify my point, but please give it some thought.
So, based on this issue, I’m going
to add another phrase to the question defining our experiment. I think this added phrase is likely to
eliminate many would-be experimenters (as it probably should). Here is my revised question:
“What would Jesus have to do to prove to you that He is
still alive, still God, still active in people’s lives, and can be known by
those who seek Him; proof sufficient that you would live the rest of your life on His terms?”
[1]
Note that because the experiment can’t make any general statements about anyone
other than the experimenter, I changed the final phrase in my proposed question
from previous entries. The last phrase
now refers to the individual experimenter (“…can be known by those…”) rather
than the more general statement (“…can be found by everyone…”).
[2]
It’s a rhetorical question. But in case
you really need help, the answer is
“no”!
[3]
That’s a quote from one of CS Lewis’ Narnia tales.
No comments:
Post a Comment