Whom Should I Believe?

Someone reminded me today of a C. S. Lewis statement from Mere Christianity. For those of you who don't know, Mere Christianity began as a series of radio talks on the BBC during World War 2. Lewis was asked to talk about his Christian faith and why he believes in God and Jesus. The book provides a wonderful, rational explanation for faith in God. Pretty amazing that such a radio broadcast even existed.

Towards the end of Lewis' discussion on Jesus, he talks about what the biblical term "son of God", really means.  Lewis notes that a lot of people easily accept the historical Jesus, seeing him as a great teacher of moral truth, along the same lines as The Buddha. Lewis says that's a lovely thought, but impossible to defend.  According to Lewis, there are really only three choices we can make about Jesus.  Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic, or, in fact, The Lord.

The New Testament makes it very clear that the writers believed Jesus was God in human form.  Jesus himself made those claims. Who would make such a claim? A liar? A man making such high claims for himself doesn't make a lot of sense, unless there was some payoff, some scheme. A lunatic, mental hospitals have had their share of people claiming to be God or Jesus. But why on earth would we accept the teachings of either?  How could we ever say that those teachings merited our attention at all? Why have people persisted in holding Jesus up as a good teacher, someone to be listened to, if he, at the same time, claimed to be equal with God? Usually we try to distance ourselves from the like.

But if Jesus was indeed God in human form, then it makes sense to believe him, and accept his teachings. He would be The Lord indeed. Any thing less,why would we even care? Lewis says that it's impossible to take Jesus' teachings seriously if we refuse to accept him as God. We'd be taking the words of a mad man or a con man. And if he was either, then his teachings would not be so good.

Of course, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so perhaps he was some crazy man who happened to say some good things.  But Jesus' impact on the world seems a lot greater than that, doesn't it? It's amazing his staying power, in spite of the fact he claimed to be God. The world has tried to ignore those statements and accept the rest. But how can we do that?  Jesus is who he is. Why do we think we can pick and choose? Doesn't that diminish the whole?

Maybe the writers got it wrong. Maybe this man Jesus never made such claims, but his followers did, for whatever reason. In the end, they all died for the cause. Most people wouldn’t die for a lie, but some might. So, maybe it’s the writers who are the liars. If so, why do we believe anything they say? We’re back again to accepting the good teaching, but in search of a good teacher. If they lied about so many things, why would we take these writers’ word at all?

Whether Jesus or the New Testament writers, if they made up the part about Jesus’ being God, how can I be sure what’s true and what’s not? This is all we have. These writers seemed to be pretty sure of what they had seen and heard.  They were willing to die for it. And whatever power they hoped to gain, it certainly wasn’t political. And what of the staying power of their words? 

Perhaps we have accepted the “good teacher” role because the teachings do ring true. What Jesus said makes sense, at least most of it. He told his disciples, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father (God) but by me.” That’s a pretty bold statement. Christians didn’t make this stuff up, it’s been written down from the beginning. Either Jesus speaks the truth, and we should follow him, or not.

As always, the choice is ours.