What’s so Difficult About Being Catholic?
It was a cool, crisp morning during the opener of elk hunting season in the Wind River mountain range of Wyoming. Carlos and his buddy snuck out of their tents to crest a ridge well before sunlight, to glass for elk using binoculars, and listen for elk calling to each other.[1] They could see their breath against the faint glow of the rising sun in the distance. With nothing to kill but time, Carlos’ buddy whispered to him, “You know, it doesn’t make sense that the whole world isn’t already Catholic.”
Carlos asked what his friend meant, and he replied, “It’s been 2,000 years since the Church was born, and there are still so many people who aren’t Catholic. It’s not that hard. You get baptized as a kid, get taught the faith, and go to Mass. What’s so difficult?”
They continued this conversation while they hiked and hunted. It kept going strong during the six-hour drive back to Cheyenne.
Carlos realized that he didn’t have the same experience of ease and convenience. To him, being Catholic wasn’t easy, and he grew up in the Church!
Holding on to the Mystery
It is very easy to take the faith for granted, especially if we grew up in the Church. This can lead some to assume that those we evangelize should have an equally easy time understanding what Catholics believe and why. Another potential pitfall is suggesting to someone that becoming Catholic will solve every problem in his life.
Even after 2,000 years, Jesus Christ remains (and should remain) a controversial figure in human history. It’s not a new dilemma. In Matthew 16:13, Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do men say that [I] am?” People will come up with so many different answers, sometimes out of ignorance, other times out of obstinance. The Catholic, however, must know who Jesus is, and never let Jesus’ influence in his heart and mind become so tame that he loses the sense of the Mystery of the Faith.
Holding onto this sense of Mystery will help to keep us more humble and attuned to people as we do the work of evangelization.
“Who Do You Say That I Am?”
So, “who do people say that Jesus is?” Many people in today’s relativistic society have a tendency to think of Jesus Christ as a mere human being — one of many great moral teachers from the pages of human history. Of course, to the practicing Catholic, nothing could be further from the truth! However, to someone who doesn’t know Christ, it seems reasonable to consider Him on par with other founders of the world’s religions.
Evangelists, however, must draw people’s attention to how and why this line of thinking is a gross misunderstanding of Jesus. Here, the “Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or Legend” argument can be very effective. This argument challenges people to think about which of these four terms best fit the Person of Jesus Christ, according to the evidence. As it turns out, the evidence supports the truth that “Jesus Christ is Lord!”
Lord, Liar, Lunatic or Legend?
How does one begin to make the “Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or Legend” argument? One way to begin is by telling a person that the Christian religion is not merely about following the pious teachings of a holy person. The Christian religion believes Jesus Christ to be God — specifically, the Son of God the Father, co-equal and eternal with Him, and with the Holy Spirit.
Then one can point out that if Jesus Christ was not truly God, he could not have been a holy man. After all, throughout the Gospels, and in a great many ways, He reveals Himself to be Divine. Some of the more notable examples are found in His forgiving sins[2] and how He allowed Himself to be worshipped.[3] Lesser known examples, however, are found in parallels between Old Testament imagery and various aspects of Jesus’ public ministry. Dr. Brant Pitre draws out three of these connections.
First, he shows that in the stilling of the waves and the wind,[4] Jesus demonstrates His divinity. In the Old Testament, “the God of the universe displays his power by controlling two of the most powerful forces in creation: the wind and the sea.”[5] Dr. Pitre also points out the significance of Jesus walking on water.[6] In the accounts of the event, Jesus refers to Himself as “I am” which is many times “used for the divine name of God.”[7] Pitre then points out the detail that Jesus intended to “pass by” the Apostles and that such is a parallel with “what God does when he appears to human beings” in the Old Testament.[8] Lastly, Dr. Pitre points out Jesus’ Transfiguration.[9] He notes that it is significant that Moses and Elijah appear to Jesus; that these two Old Testament figures had witnessed God appearing to them. Pitre argues that they are chosen to appear with Christ transfigured because during their earthly lives, Moses and Elijah were not permitted to see the Face of God; now, in the Person of Jesus Christ, they could.[10]
Additionally, Jesus refers to Himself, directly and indirectly, as the bridegroom throughout the New Testament.[11] This title is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to God.[12]
A holy person who is not also God would not claim to be God in either direct or indirect ways. Only liars and lunatics would do that.
In response to this, a person might claim that Jesus did not, in fact, claim to be divine. One may claim that Jesus’ followers falsely claimed that he did, making the Jesus we see in the Gospels a “legend.” In this case, the evangelist can bring out strong arguments which suggest that, on the contrary, the Gospels are reliable accounts of what Jesus Christ said and did.
Dr. Brant Pitre discusses these arguments in terms of genre. Should the four Gospels be considered “folklore” or “biography?”[13] Pitre upholds the four Gospels as biographies in terms of the ancient world’s concept of “lives.” He argues that after some study, one can see that “the closest literary parallels are in fact Greco-Roman biographies.”[14] He provides five points of parallel for consideration (along with an elaboration to explain them):
- Ancient biographies focus on the life and death of a single individual;
- Ancient biographies often average between 10,000 and 20,000 words in length;
- Ancient biographies often begin with ancestry;
- Ancient biographies don’t have to be in chronological order;
- Ancient biographies don’t tell you everything about a person.[15]
Dr. Pitre advances the discussion by looking at why the Gospels should be considered as historical biographies. He points out that both St. Luke and St. John expressly wrote that they were intending to write down the actual events.[16] Pitre then clarifies for his contemporary audience, accustomed to modern-day audio/visual recordings of events, that in the ancient world, an historical biography did not mean a verbatim transcript. Rather, it meant that the ancient writer was faithful to the “substance” of what was said.[17]
These considerations necessarily lead to the question about the dating of the four Gospels. If they came later, how reliable are they? Pitre argues, and provides internal evidence, that there is no serious reason to believe that the four Gospels were written much later and thus not reliable.[18]
There are a lot more directions one could take in considering the reliability of the Gospel accounts. Readers will have to pursue this question further to really be effective with an intelligent interlocutor.
Taken as a whole, the “Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or Legend” argument is “one good reason” to believe that Jesus is Lord, for non-Christian believers in God, and for others.
For a street evangelist, employing the “Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or Legend” argument might sound like this:
Example Dialogue
Evangelist stands near a street corner with rosaries in hand. He smiles & says hello to passerby.
Evangelist (E): Hello! May I pray with you?
Passerby (P): You all are Catholics right?
E: Yes, we are.
P: Yeah, I thought so. You know, I have a lot of respect for Jesus. I don’t find anything wrong with you believing in Jesus. I just don’t see why you say that I have to believe in Him.
E: Why’s that?
P: Well, because many religions are true, and Jesus is just one of a line of many great moral teachers. Why can’t we respect Jesus, and Buddha, and Mohammed, and Moses, and all the great moral and spiritual teachers? Why do we have to make one more important than the others?
E: Can you tell me more about that? How did you come to that conclusion?
P: I’ve always believed in God, and always have been fascinated by religion of all kinds — the great religions of the world all speak to me of God. They all teach many of the same things — like the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And they all teach you to honor and venerate God, the divine mystery at the center of all things. They just have different names for God.
E: Very interesting! Do you read the religious texts from various religions?
P: Yes! It’s kind of a passion of mine …
[P & E talk more about P’s interest in world religions. E “listens and befriends”]
E: I can appreciate a lot of what you’re saying. I haven’t studied the world religions as much as you have, but I have studied a little, and I believe, along with the Catholic Church, that there is truth and goodness present in all of the great world religions. Even so, I still do believe that Jesus Christ is the fullness of truth, because He is God Himself, come in the flesh. Much more than a “great moral teacher.”
P: Well it’s your right to believe that. But like I said I just don’t see why you would demand that others believe the same way.
E: Believe me, I have no desire to force anyone to believe what I believe. I just want to share my reasons for doing so, because if Jesus Christ is the One True God, it should make a huge difference to how we live. If you still have some time, do you mind if I tell you one good reason for why I believe Jesus is more than just a “great, moral teacher?”
P: [smiles] Sure, but don’t expect me to change my mind! [still smiling]
E: I understand! First, let me say that while Jesus is a great moral teacher, He must be more than that.
P: Why’s that?
E: Because, the evidence indicates that some things just don’t add up.
P: Ok, I’ll bite, what doesn’t add up?
E: What Jesus did and taught, if taken seriously, calls into question calling Him a “great moral teacher.” What I mean is that Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is more than just a man, but rather God incarnate. We believe this because He Himself taught it. Part of the reason we take him at his word, is that if he were not God, he’d be a liar or crazy to imply that he was. But the man we see depicted in the gospels, with his sublime miracles and teachings, doesn’t strike us as lying, or crazy.
P: That makes sense, but I think that claims about Jesus became grossly exaggerated over the years following his death. It’s no different than any other legend. Many things that the Bible says about Him are questionable, at best.
E: That is a popular opinion, but it just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
P: Why not?
E: Well, the main sources for Jesus’ life, the gospels themselves, can be shown to be examples of ancient biography, written in the decades following the death and resurrection of Jesus. They are also well-attested in the accuracy of their manuscripts, more so, in fact, than most other documents from antiquity.
P: Ok, fair enough, but I would have to look that up.
E: I can recommend some things to read.
P: Sure. But in the meantime, I find it hard to believe that Jesus actually implied that He was God. It’s all just a legend.
E: Do you mind if we look at that more closely? I have another thought that could be helpful.
P: Sure! I’m enjoying our conversation.
E: I’m enjoying our conversation too! … Anyway, I mentioned earlier the matter of consistency. If you look at what the Catholic Church has historically taught about Jesus Christ, everything has remained the exact same at its core. For example, in terms of the Church’s worship, we can easily look at the celebration of the Eucharist to help illustrate my point for consistency and continuity.
P: What is the Eucharist?
E: It is the ritual at a Catholic service that commemorates what Jesus said and did at the Last Supper and His Crucifixion. It centers around the bread and wine that, during the ritual, becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
P: Ok…and how does this prove your point?
E: The ritual of the Eucharist testifies to the divinity of Jesus, and it always has. The language, garb, and some small details of the ritual of the Eucharist have changed in history, but the essential structure and purpose have not. The Bible and other historical documents demonstrate this fact.
P: How is this a testament to your beliefs about Jesus?
E: What I am driving at is that the heart of Christian worship of Jesus as God, the Eucharist, didn’t develop over time as legends develop. It was there from the get-go. It’s an historical testimony that no “legend” can claim! Our worship of Christ began with Christ, is recorded in the earliest accounts, and continues to this day. If it were a legend there should be real evidence that early Christians were in doubt as to his divine nature. Some thought that he was an angel in those early years, but no Christians seem to have followed him as a mere man, a great moral teacher.
P: Interesting. I look forward to reading more on this.
E: I will be glad to help you with that! Would you like to meet and talk about it after a while, too?
P: Yeah! But first I need to read some of what you have to give me, and see what there is on the other side, too.
E: That’s great. Anyway, I really enjoyed our conversation. Thank you! …
Concluding Thoughts
An important note must be made here. The objective isn’t to prove that the Bible is a literal account of history in all its facets. Rather, the goal is to show that the Gospels are generally reliable accounts of history, and that central Christian beliefs were already firmly in place from the beginning, specifically that Christians believed that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Ultimately, the truth of the matter is that Jesus Christ is not just a talented and charismatic teacher that millions of people decided not only to follow but also to worship because He was so good. And He is not a liar, a lunatic, or a legend. The historical witness to him is solidly founded, and it testifies that Jesus cannot be reduced to any of those things.
Why does this matter? For Catholics, the fact that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, died for our sins, and rose again brings to fulfillment a history of promises that God made to humanity. Even though we could never fully grasp God’s simple but boundless depth and richness, we should not be deterred. Whatever we can grasp of His Divine Beauty, we should proclaim: first and foremost that Jesus Christ is, was, and will be forever, our Lord.
[1] to glass – to look through binoculars for game during hunting.
[2] Matthew 9:2-6; Luke 5:20; 7:48.
[3] Cf. Matthew 8:2; 14:33; 28:9, 17; John 9:38; 20:28.
[4] Matthew 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25.
[5] Brant Pitre The Case for Jesus (New York: Image, 2016), 123. In this regard, Pitre cites Job 26:11-12, Psalm 104:1-7, Psalm 106:8-9 and Psalm 107:23-30.
[6] Matthew 14:22-33; Mark 6:45-52; John 6:16-21.
[7] Pitre, 128, citing Exodus 3:14; Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 42:4; 43:10-11).
[8] Pitre, 129, citing Exodus 33:19, 22; 34:6; 1 Kings 19:11.
[9] Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36.
[10] Pitre, 131-134, citing Exodus 33:18-23 and 1 Kings 19:9, 11-13.
[11] Matthew 9:14-15; 25:1-12; Mark 2:18-20; Luke 5:33-35; John 3:29; Revelation 18:23.
[12] Isaiah 54:5; 62:5; Jeremiah 2:2; 3:20; 31:32; Hosea 2:7; 3:1-3. See also Dr. Brant Pitre’s “God: The Divine Bridegroom” (March 19, 2019).
[13] Folklore, of course, is dubious and full of questions as to historical reliability. Biographies are less so as they purport to present actual details of a person who is living or had lived on earth.
[14] Pitre, 67-70.
[15] Pitre, 71-75.
[16] Pitre, 77-80, citing Luke 1:1-4 and John 21:24-25.
[17] Pitre, 80-82. For some further discussion about Gospels as Greco-Roman biography and their reliability, see Michael R. Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016); Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses 2ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017); Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus, revised edition (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publication Co., 1999).
[18] Pitre, 84-101.