On Bono, Lewis, and levels of style

There's a popular article making the rounds on Facebook right now. {There's always a popular article making the rounds on Facebook}. This one quotes a famous interview Bono gave to Michka Assayas, in which he explains his Christian faith. I'm a big fan of U2. I like Bono, actually, even when he is a (more than a bit) pompous.  His argument has been around for a while;* the point I want to make is about the level of rhetorical style. Here's how Bono puts it:

Assayas: ...Christ has his rank among the world’s great thinkers. But Son of God, isn’t that farfetched?
Bono: No, it’s not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I’m not saying I’m a teacher, don’t call me teacher. I’m not saying I’m a prophet. I’m saying: “I’m the Messiah.” I’m saying: “I am God incarnate.” And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You’re a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don’t mention the “M” word! Because, you know, we’re gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you’re expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he’s gonna keep saying this. So what you’re left with is: either Christ was who He said He was the Messiah or a complete nutcase. I mean, we’re talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we’ve been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had “King of the Jews” on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I’m not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that’s farfetched.

And here's how Lewis puts it:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as 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 the 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. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." (Mere Christianity, Ch. 3)

Just for fun, I went through and underlined some of the distinctive differences between Lewis's middle style and Bono's plain style. Notice how both vocabulary and sentence structure change the tone of the work.

The same argument, made in very different contexts by very different people in very different ways.

*This is actually quite an old argument for the deity of Christ; called the trilemma, or aut Deus aut homo malus, it was popularized by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Lewis, though, was drawing on the work of a fellow named Liddon, who was himself referring to a fellow named Victorinus who lived in the time of Julian the Apostate.