The difficulty was not in seeing what reforms were needed, but in putting those reforms into practice. And at the same time as those views and reforms were gradually being implemented, natural science too began. As the human spirit began to embrace the entire world in the 18th century, England learned to regard religion with Edward Gibbon’s polite contempt.
Jesus freed man’s spirit and imagination; and he prophesied that any man who believed in him would achieve more than ever he had done. How right he was. I think it is common experience that when you fire someone’s imagination, your pupil is likely soon to leave you far behind. A lesson all parents have bitterly to learn. Maybe Bach had to walk 200 miles to listen to Buxtehude, before his imagination in the composition of organ music was aroused; but once aroused he quickly left Buxtehude far behind. It is as though the artist’s creativeness is exhausted by the creation; the development or exploitation of his ideas has to be left to others. The world is full of examples of this. General Guderian, the Panzer Leader, is an uncomfortable example. His imagination was fired by his reading a paper by General Fuller, a tank expert of the First World War. Guderian put the idea into practice with devastating effect in May 1940, and very nearly put the entire British Expeditionary Force “into the bag”, which would have finished the War in Germany’s favour. Jesus too was humble enough to see that anyone who believed in him would overtake his achievements. It is the same idea: anyone whose imagination was fired by his would achieve far more. Maybe it is such a titanic achievement to open the door or reveal the way forward, that it has to be left to others to exploit success. Probably it is condescending to say he could not have achieved more; nearer the truth to say he did enough, and that social conditions at the time did not allow him to do more. He clearly regretted that Bethsaida and Capernaum did not repent; and I suspect his view was it would have avoided the need for his crucifixion. Anyway from our point of view, he set our spirits free, he enables us to walk with a lighter and more joyous step; and in Cranmer’s phrase that is an inestimable benefit.
I myself accept the conventional view that Jesus, the man, tried to share himself with us; that was why he used the gruesome symbolism of the corn and wine gods of antiquity. He wanted to share his godhead, if he had it, and his immortality if he did not. And it hardly matters whether he tried to share a literal immortality, or a metaphorical and poetic one. He tried to share his very self; hoping, trusting, believing that we, his followers, would carry on from where he left off. But many people nowadays may not find it easy to accept such a view. So I have offered an interpretation of the Passion, which is nearer to the scientist’s idea of an evolving world, and which is consonant with our experience of human genius. I hope some people will find it easier to accept this interpretation.
After all, both are only descriptions. That is what an interpretation is: a description of events which have happened. I am old-fashioned enough to think that science describes, but does not explain. This is the traditional view; that a scientific equation tries to correlate the known sense-perceptions, or if you prefer it the measurements from experiments, in the simplest possible way. In this way, it tries to be the best description possible at the moment. I understand, maybe incorrectly, that modern scientists particularly mathematical physicists tend to regard their equations as somehow being “reality”. I fear they are falling into the trap that Plato inadvertently set for them, of thinking that ideas have a permanence that substance does not. My opinion is that their ideas only exist in their imaginations. None the worse for that; but so far from being permanent, scientific research has shown so far, that a better hypothesis always comes along eventually, which is or appears to be a closer approximation to the truth. And no interpretation alters the events which have taken place; it describes them.