The quarrels in the Christian Church went on for centuries; Origen and Jerome about doctrine, Arius versus Athanasius more about political power. Their quarrels may have shaped the Church we have inherited; but I hardly think anyone outside theological colleges takes their quarrels seriously nowadays. Perhaps we should; but we don’t! Similarly perhaps we should be minutely fascinated by the differing opinions about the speeds and jumps of evolution; but my reaction is to gaze at the wonders of nature, and find these quarrels delightfully absurd.
But the parallel with the sectarian quarrels of the Church prompts the question if this new doctrine of microbiology, that genes explain all, is a new religion? And the answer is, “Of course it is!” It has the hall-marks of religion all over it. Theirs is the only explanation; theirs the only valid theory; there is one true tree of life; anyone who differs is wrong. And this is their sticking point too: that they are unable to argue the merits of their science, without denigrating the Creator. This is the explanation of the biologist’s determination to argue that because he thinks he can explain the basics of Evolution up to date, without invoking the Creator, he can conclude the extraordinary non-sequitur that the Creator therefore does not exist; and he can safely ridicule those who believe in God. The idea that the Creator might have set up matter throughout the Universe in such a way that creation could wend its way through the first 16 billion years of its existence without further interference in the material world, never seems to occur to them. It is surprising, because there is a respectable body of opinion that you will never prove, or disprove, the existence of God; and if this opinion is correct, then of course you will not find the Creator’s finger-prints in the cumulative selection of genetic change. Even if He is a participant in Evolution, my guess is He would have been careful, like any other terrestrial intruder, not to leave them. And if He does not leave his finger-prints around, so as to deny anyone the insolent pleasure of proving His existence, that does not mean He does not exist. It means that after you die, the immortal part of you is likely to wake up with a sickening realism that you have wasted that side of life, and that it is too late to make amends, or put things right. Either that, or the sleep of eternal death will gradually overwhelm you. Sticking points are a realization, I believe, that more may be at stake than one had thought.
And so with the life of Jesus. I do not know if it was realistic to expect Bethsaida and Capernaum to repent; and if it was, whether Jesus could have brought the Kingdom of Heaven down to earth. What I do know is that the most perfect life we are ever likely to see was murdered; not in a back alley either, but with the full panoply of the State. Hieronymus Bosch was correct too in portraying that it was done with cruel relish by most of those taking part. That way of bringing the Kingdom of Heaven down to earth is now barred and bolted.