This morning in church the pastor quoted C.S. Lewis’ well known “lunatic, liar, or lord,” trilemma during his sermon. I didn’t sleep much last night, so I was primed to chase a rabbit, and this was it.
Immediately this argument, which I had accepted wholeheartedly as a freshman in college and held in the back of my mind ever since, struck me as problematic. It became clear that the problem for me was the assertion that a person isn’t “morally reliable” if they are deceived or deceptive. In either case, it is not only acceptable, but perfectly logical to accept moral teaching from a lunatic or a liar.
In the Modern era morality is not the stable and absolute entity that it is in earlier times, and in the postmodern era it is no longer even broadly coherent. It is understood as a social and cultural construct, and in the pluralistic societies of the Western world, it is also understood as an individual construct. We can, as individuals or societies, develop our own personal or local moral codes through our own invention and through collecting the parts of existing codes that we accept as valid.
Lewis’ argument rests on the belief that if we accept some of a person’s teaching, we have to accept all of it. But people are unreliable—at one moment they are honest, in the next deceptive. So we test and examine each part of their teaching, take the good, and leave the bad. And even crazy people and conmen speak the truth sometimes.
In the view of the non-believer, Christian teaching is no different. You look to the Bible, take what you can agree with, leave what you can’t, and put together your own package. In truth, you could accept Jesus as a “good moral teacher”, and you would be making a logical decision. You’d be wrong…but not illogical.
Logic won’t always lead to a single solution. It should always bring you closer to an accurate answer, but you are still likely to be forced to choose among multiple logical choices. Praise God that as the “postmodern impulse”, as George Knight calls it, grows, we will be able to focus less on logic and more on the beauty and worth of Jesus as our primary apologetic.
———————————————————————–
As I looked into other arguments against this position I found this article and this Google books scan of writings by N.T. Wright that address the subject. What I found there makes me want to get Surprised by Hope down off the shelf and finally finish reading it. Not yet though, I have some work to do…
Jeff
The problem that you are addressing in your post is precisely why the trilemma is put forth. I don’t think the problem is the argument, simply that it isn’t taken seriously. Because the truth is, any cult leader is put to this same test. People assume that the leader is either crazy or a liar precisely because of the claims they make but also because of what they call their adherents to. If the trilemma is dismissible at all, it is because the Church does not live out the radical claims of Christ in the public square. The outside world is able to treat Christ as one way among many because we do.
P.S. Love the links but I think Mr. Wright overstates how the argument works. “Liar, lunatic, or Lord” points to the fact that Christ made repeated and clear claims to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is either right or wrong, but if He is wrong, why listen to Him at all? It is not a proof of divinity but an enticement to stop being lazy in looking at Christ. And isn’t it strange that when people want to ignore Jesus, they don’t call him liar or lunatic. They dismiss Him as nice or helpful to some or even entirely fictitious.
Charles
Don’t forget that some of them also claim he didn’t actually say those things…
The point I was making was that identifying someone as a lunatic or liar doesn’t make everything they say unreliable, just as identifying someone as trustworthy doesn’t mean everything they say is reliable. Even with our elders and pastors and mentors we have to evaluate what they tell us, and decide if it’s true.
Once a non-believer dismisses Jesus as lunatic, liar, or myth, he can still logically accept his moral teaching in isolation, based on its merit.
Maybe a better apologetic would go in the other direction: you accept most of his teaching as true, so why don’t you trust him?
I’m still working through it, but I don’t see the argument as watertight anymore. You’re right though, few step up and call him crazy. It’s like they want him to be good, just not Good.
Jeff
Your last comment brings to mind the rich young ruler. The man comes up to Jesus and calls Him “good teacher.” It was a fine, offhanded compliment and Jesus could have left it at that or ignored it. Instead, He pays special attention and uses it as a point to proclaim His divinity. Even in His answer to the man and His subsequent response to the apostles draws out how it is impossible to attain the kingdom which Christ Himself is drawing them to. Why? Because in everything Christ said and did, even the moral teaching, He is pointing humanity to its need of God, its need of Him. Which is why I don’t think even the moral teaching works without Christ. He set before us that which we are completely unable to do for ourselves with no way to make ourselves right before God, save His body and blood. There is no other sacrifice or penance or good deed that makes us holy before God or grants the peace that we seek. I know of no moral teacher who presents morality without reward, save Christ.
But beyond that, to accept Jesus as simply a moral teacher means you have to do away with the Cross because Jesus didn’t die for moral reasons. He went to His death when He easily could have prevented it because He believed that He was the atoning sacrifice needed to restore relationship between God and men, as He told His disciples time and again. And on this point, He was either crazy, lying, or right.
Charles
Jeff, I’m with you theologically. Even practically.
But from the perspective of a person who rejects Christ as savior, but likes his ideas on morality, there’s no need to consider the reward (or lack of one) when considering his moral teachings. In fact, for many people, the lack of a reward is a bonus — it’s truly altruistic.
And there is an atonement theory that considers Jesus a martyr, who didn’t die for sins, but show how evil his opponents are, or to demonstrate how to live his teaching to its fullest (turning the other cheek and all that). I’m a little hazy on it, since it’s total garbage. Well, it’s garbage when it’s divorced from substitution and good Christology.
Anyway, my whole point is to say this: it is philosophically acceptable to say Jesus was lying or crazy, but his moral teachings were still good. In other words, neither “lunatic” or “liar” precludes “true moral teaching”, since we can judge the teaching on its own merits.
Jeff
Well, let’s talk about the teaching then. What would the non-believer be referring to as “true moral teaching”? “Love your neighbor as yourself;” “turn the other cheek;” “do good to your enemy;” a handful of others. My problems here are many. One, the stuff that I imagine works for the non-believer is pretty much all OT quotes (mostly Deut and Proverbs, I believe). But also, this is a fraction of all that He taught. Most of what He said would have to be tossed out, like Jefferson did or the Jesus Seminar. It would be like if I wrote a comedy that you hated except for a couple quotes of “the Office” or “Monty Python.” That doesn’t mean you like what I have to say, you like my source material.
As far as reward goes, I haven’t met a person who expected no reward for doing good. They are fine with not getting a cookie every time they help an old lady cross the street. But if disaster strikes, the question of “how can bad things happen to good people” usually arises. Karma is the general order of the day, at least in the simple, “My Name is Earl” sort of way. Jesus disagreed with that and said that the righteous would suffer.
And I think that is the basis on which we have to judge anyone’s teachings: what effect will they have on your life and mine. Because the effect that they had on His first students, His hand-picked star pupils, was ridicule, suffering, imprisonment, and death. And it has been that way ever since.
I like the argument. I think it works, but only if the listener is honest and willing to do the work of actually reading what Jesus said. If not, than the listener is just constructing their own, personal, Jesus and is amazed that so many people get him wrong.
P.S. Is it ironic talking about that stupid atonement theory when someone just commented about that Rob Bell post from a year ago or is it just coincidence. I have such trouble nailing that down.
Charles
It seems like your assumption is that in order for someone to accept the minimal body of Jesus’ moral teaching they would have to accept the whole thing. I disagree, philosophically. They can, and will, accept whatever part “works”. And it all does.
Jesus said the righteous would suffer “on account of [me].” If you choose to be kind, rewind, but don’t take major stands on issues like His divinity then you probably won’t suffer. You’ll also only follow the teaching when it suits you, or you have no other option.
I think you’re right about people constructing their own personal Jesus, but Christians do that plenty.
Jeff
It isn’t that I think that someone has to accept the bulk of someone’s teaching to accept any of it. However, I do think how much of a teaching someone accepts indicates what they actually believe about the teacher. Is that fair? I wouldn’t call anyone a good teacher if I agreed with less than 10% of what they said.
But I think the problem in this discussion is that “good moral teacher” only works if we speak in generalities. The saying itself has only one use (or at least that makes any sense to me), and that is to say that Jesus was important but has no authority over me. It turns Jesus words from commands into suggestions. Which works as an off-handed comment until you actually come face-to-face with Him.
Ethan
Thanks for this treatment of the trilemma. I’ve often had thoughts similar to yours when dealing with Lewis’ logic. However, the weakness in the logic comes in a different place for me. My initial impulse is to say that possibly Jesus was disillusioned, thinking He was someone He was not and therefore making these claims. This allows Him to be a credible, “good” teacher, yet ultimately misguided about His own identity.
Of course that falls apart with the evidence for the resurrection, which I think is very strong. But for a non-believer, who hasn’t come to grips with the resurrection yet, I think the “disillusioned” question is the big one. It’s somewhere in between “liar” – he was lying to Himself, but not intentionally, and “lunatic” – meaning He was disillusioned, but not completely crazy, as the title “lunatic” implies.
More from authorCharles
I see what your saying, but I don’t really see a distinction. Misunderstanding yourself to be God in the flesh is no small thing. It’s one thing to think you are someone you’re not, like some type of leader, or well loved member of your community; thinking you’re God sent to save to world (when you’re not) is on a totally different level.