God, Liar or Lunatic?

As I was sitting in church this morning, something that the preacher said sparked a thought (which carried on for quite a while during the service!). He mentioned in passing that Jesus was either God, a liar or a lunatic.

This ‘tri-lemma’ (as it is most commonly referred to) first came into popular consciousness and vocabulary through Christian Apologetic writing such as those of Josh McDowell. It essentially works on the common pre-saved person’s understanding and acknowledgement that Jesus was a good teacher or a good/holy man. Proponents of this tri-lemma argue that one cannot come to the conclusion that Jesus is a good man, good teacher or a holy man without believing or agreeing with his teachings – particularly that he is God. So if you accept that he’s a good teacher, good man or holy man, then you have to accept that he is God. If not, then he was either deluded and therefore a lunatic or that he knew he wasn’t God and therefore would be a liar.

At first glance this argument may sound convincing and rather reasonable. But the problem is that it only sounds fair from the perspective of a Christian. He already accepts that Jesus’ words are authoritative and truthful. However, it does not really change the situation for the pre-saved person.

He could always suggest that it is a matter of semantics and that when he says that Jesus was a good man, he did not intend that to mean he was ‘perfect’ in everything that he said or did i.e. he was a good man like how people would normally describe anyone in the pass who has not been reported as being ‘evil’ or committing any grievous crimes. When he said that Jesus was a good teacher he could possibly be referring to the fact that Jesus seems to be a good communicator or perhaps that he was very influential and commanded great respect. Perhaps it could refer to the fact that his teachings were ‘generally’ good i.e. generally morally good, about living right, caring for others, etc. not that everything he said was right. Holy man could refer to the fact that he tried to follow his believes about God closely and as far as humanly possible was successful (perhaps just a little more than the average person).

None of these actually necessarily requires one to accept the teachings of Christianity or that Jesus was truthful in everything that he said throughout his lifetime, much less that he is God.

On the other hand, the pre-saved person may be saying all this (that Jesus was a good teacher, good man, holy man) merely to be polite or tolerant. In this sense, he’s merely saying it so as not to offend the Christian, certainly not because he really believes it (after all he has never met the man, how will be know for sure?).

In all of these situations, only one thing is clear, that if forced into a corner, the pre-saved person should not have any problems calling Jesus either a liar or a lunatic (although, in wanting to be polite, he may display quite a lot of reluctance to go that far). This should certainly not be regarded by the Christian to be a sign of something supernatural working in this person and convicting him of the truthfulness of the gospel.

In any event, I feel that such methods do not serve any real beneficial purpose. In the end it would necessarily have to be God’s word, the bible, the gospel itself that God will use to convict anyone of the truthfulness of his salvation – not any skilful argument or eloquence of man. The bible is clear on this. God will have it no other way (for to allow arguments as these to succeed would only undermine his effort and steal his due glory/credit). It is unfortunate, however, that many in the church do not appreciate this fact and that such methods will continue.

====================

Are we expected to bear fruit all the time?

Another thought that today’s message in church raised was whether Christians are really expected to be fruitful all the time. In many, in fact probably the majority of, churches today, the idea or the teaching of bearing fruit is being continually emphasised. Christians are constantly being challenged to bear fruit for God. Depending on the particular church or denomination of church, this may take various forms, from being involved in the church’s various ministries to evangelism and mission work. This does still beg the question as to what is ‘fruit’. Is it merely doing some service to God i.e. formal service? Or does it refer merely to the ‘production’ of something good or worthwhile? If so, does the production of good Christian character i.e. more and more living according to biblical principles sufficient?

The message this morning was about ‘abiding in the vine’ and producing fruit. The conclusion was that Christians should strive to bear ‘much’ fruit. The grape vine was used in the passage as the illustration for growth and the production of fruit. However, I wonder whether, barring the fact that no analogy is ever perfect, that this necessarily means that we should be bearing fruit or should be striving to bear fruit all the time – that it should be such a high priority in our lives that we place it far above our job, our family, or any other responsibility we might have. After all, I was thinking, even when it comes to fruit-producing trees, do they not only produce fruit in season? If that is the case, does this apply to us? How do we determine what season means for us? Is it stages of life, or certain periods in the year?

Which ever way we look at the principle, there are many questions still left unanswered. Although I do not presume to know the answers to all these questions, I myself am more inclined towards the understanding that fruit could mean a whole range of things (many of which may not even involve the church). Furthermore, I’m inclined towards the belief that we are not expected to produce all the time – it is more important that we are producing something worthwhile with our lives and in the lives of those around us.