“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)
In a culture where we are often more afraid of offending others than we are passionate to comprehend truth, the claim that Jesus was a great (but merely human) moral teacher seems an easy solution. Unsure of who Jesus really was, or unwilling for various reasons to identify too strongly with one side or another, many will choose this as a middle ground. In doing so, they pay a certain amount of respect to Jesus, who was undeniably a man of great and lasting influence, without committing themselves fully to belief in his claims (let alone adherence to his commands). Thus, they position themselves in a sort of middle ground, neither too close nor too far from opposing poles, in the hopes of avoiding alienation.
This unwillingness to choose can be due also to a dichotomization of the person and teaching of Jesus. Even the most intelligent, most earnest, most eloquent, most sincere individuals can fall into this middle ground when they pick and choose those claims of Christ they are willing to accept. One of these eminently great men writes, “What, then, does Jesus mean to me? To me He was one of the greatest teachers humanity has ever had. To his believers He was God’s only begotten Son. Could the fact that I do or do not accept this belief make Jesus have any more or less influence in my life? Is all the grandeur of His teaching and of His doctrine to be forbidden to me? I cannot believe so.” (Mahatma Gandhi, I Am But a Seeker After Truth) Make no mistake, Gandhi holds Jesus in high esteem and, frankly, pays him more respect than do many Christians. In order to do so, however, he has partitioned Jesus’ teaching about morality from his claims about himself. He is, in effect, accepting the teaching without accepting the teacher. This, in reality, is not to revere Jesus at all, but simply to acknowledge points of agreement and ultimately to set himself, not Jesus, as the final authority in matters of morality.
You have to make a choice. Jesus, after asking his disciples what the perception of him was among the people, makes it more personal. “‘But what about you?’ he asked. ‘Who do you say I am?’” (Matthew 16:15) The implication, of course, is that they are responsible for either allying themselves with Jesus and acknowledging his identity as “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16) or admitting that in their minds he is not only less than divine but deceptive and manipulating as well.
The time for decision is now. We need to hear once again the words of Joshua to the people of Israel, “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.” (Joshua 24:15)
Matt Honstain