Chapter 10: PREPARE FOR AN ATTACK
Chapter 10
Principle #10:
PREPARE FOR AN ATTACK
My partner sent me a joke involving a defense attorney and a murder trial; the joke’s been circulating around our police agency for some time:
A defendant was on trial for a murder. There was overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing to the defendant’s guilt, in spite of the fact that the body of the victim was never recovered. After sitting through weeks of the trial, the defendant and his lawyer knew that he would probably be convicted. In an act of desperation, the defense attorney resorted to a trick.
“Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I have a surprise for you,” the attorney proclaimed as he looked down at his watch. “Within sixty seconds, the person you thought had been murdered will walk into this courtroom.”
He turned and looked toward the courtroom door. The jurors, surprised by the proclamation, turned and watched the door in anticipation. A minute passed. Nothing happened.
Finally the defense attorney said, “I need to admit to you that I lied about that last statement. But all of you turned with me and watched that door with eager anticipation. This demonstrates that you have a reasonable doubt in this case as to whether anyone was actually killed in the first place! I, therefore, insist that you return a verdict of not guilty.”
The jury, openly rattled by the clever effort, retired to deliberate on the case. Moments later they returned and promptly delivered a verdict of guilty. The defense attorney was shocked.
“How could you return with a verdict so quickly?” he asked the jury. “You must have had some doubt; I saw all of you watch that door with expectation!”
The jury foreman replied, “Yes, we did look, but your client didn’t.”
I’ve been involved in a number of homicide trials over the years. Some of our cases have been evidentially overwhelming, and others have been more difficult to prove. In each and every case, the defendant has been represented by an articulate, intelligent, and committed defense attorney who carefully crafted a defense for his or her client. Many of these attorneys appeared to be incredibly confident, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that pointed to the guilt of their clients.
I’m never surprised by the enthusiasm and self-assurance of good defense attorneys. It’s been my experience that there are many factors that can motivate an attorney to perform confidently and aggressively in behalf of a defendant. I suspect that some attorneys work diligently because they have a true belief in the innocence of their clients. Some attorneys probably work diligently because they have a true belief in the importance of fair and adequate representation in our criminal justice system, even if they don’t personally believe that their clients are innocent. Some attorneys may work diligently because they have a true belief in advancing their careers. One thing is for sure, defense attorneys present the best case they can, even when they may not believe they are defending the truth.
THE GROWING ATTACK FROM SKEPTICS
I became a Christian in 1996. Until 2001, the Jim Wallace I knew prior to 1996 was the most sarcastic atheist I had ever known. I can remember some of my conversations with Christians prior to becoming a believer, and I am now embarrassed by the way I behaved; many of my coworkers continue to remind me of those days. But my own level of prior sarcasm was quickly eclipsed by the atheists who began to write and speak against religion following the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. A new era in atheistic rhetoric began following that dreadful day, as prominent atheists responded to what they saw as evidence of the evil of “religious fundamentalism.” A number of books flooded the shelves of local bookstores. Sam Harris wrote The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason (2004) and Letter to a Christian Nation (2006). Richard Dawkins wrote The God Delusion (2006), and Christopher Hitchens wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007). The attack from atheists and skeptics grew and took on a new form of immediacy, aggression, and sarcasm.
Many Christians, especially those who had been believers for most of their lives, were caught off guard by the confidence and articulate opposition of these authors and those who shared their negative view of Christianity. The culture quickly seemed to embrace the winsome atheist criticisms; book sales for these three writers were phenomenal. The mere fact that anyone could offer a thoughtful and engaging defense of atheism seemed to shake the confidence of many believers who may have been taking their faith for granted. It wasn’t as though these skeptics were offering anything new. Instead, they were presenting old arguments with new vigor, humor, cynicism, and urgency. They were much like the defense attorneys I had faced over the years.
I’ve discovered that good defense attorneys typically bring out the best in prosecutors and detectives, so I’ve learned to embrace the work of defense lawyers who have caused me to make sure my case is sound and reasonable. The fact that there is a defender on the opposite side of the issue who is arguing vociferously against us is no reason to believe that the defender possesses the truth. Defense attorneys operate that way even when they are defending what turns out to be a lie. The existence of a well-articulated defensive argument alone is no reason to surrender our position, but it ought to encourage us to know our case better than anyone else. Defense attorneys (just like those who oppose the claims of Christianity) ought to bring out the best in us.
THE DEFENSIVE STRATEGY
Defense attorneys approach each case differently, but I’ve noticed a number of general strategies that lawyers have taken when trying to defeat my cold-case investigations. By examining these defensive strategies and comparing them to the approach that is often taken by those who oppose Christianity, we can assess the validity of these tactics.
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS CHALLENGE THE NATURE OF TRUTH
If all truth is simply a matter of perspective and subjective opinion, it’s virtually impossible to convict someone of a crime. We live in a culture that is more and more pluralistic with each passing generation. Many of our young adults have been taught (in universities and colleges and through movies, television, and books) that objective truth does not exist or simply cannot be known. As a result, relativism is a common feature of our cultural worldview. People are less and less comfortable accepting that one particular version of the truth is exclusively correct. In fact, many believe that such a view of truth is arrogant and narrow-minded. To make matters worse, a new cultural definition of “tolerance” has emerged. Tolerance used to be the attitude that we took toward one another when we disagreed about an important issue; we would agree to treat each other with respect, even though we refused to embrace each other’s view on a particular topic. Tolerance is now the act of recognizing and embracing all views as equally valuable and true, even though they often make opposite truth claims. According to this redefinition of tolerance, anything other than acceptance and approval is narrow-minded and bigoted. Defense attorneys are capitalizing on these evolving redefinitions of truth and tolerance. If a lawyer can convince a jury that no version of what happened is better than another (because all truth is simply a matter of personal perspective and opinion), the jury is going to have trouble convicting the defendant with any level of confidence. For this reason, some defense attorneys begin by attacking the nature of truth before they ever attack the nature of the prosecution’s case.
“Objective Truth”
The erosion of the classic view of objective truth and tolerance is also taking its toll on those who hold a Christian worldview. The notion that there might be only one way to God (or only one truth about the identity and nature of God) is offensive and intolerant to many skeptics and nonbelievers. Like prosecutors who face similar misunderstandings about the nature of truth, Christians may also have to expose the logical problems inherent to the new cultural definitions. While some may argue that all religions are basically the same, this is simply untrue. The world’s religions propose contrary claims related to the nature of God. Eastern religions propose the existence of an impersonal god, while the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam claim that God is personal. Judaism refuses to recognize Jesus as anything other than a “rabbi” or spiritual teacher, while Christianity claims that Jesus was God Himself. Islam denies that Jesus died on the cross, while Christianity claims that Jesus died at the crucifixion and then rose from the dead, verifying His deity. All of these claims about God and Jesus may be false, but they cannot all be true; they contradict one another by definition. The logical law of “noncontradiction” states that contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time. Those who are evaluating the claims of the world’s religions, like jurors evaluating a criminal case, must decide which of the views is supported by the evidence, rather than surrender the decision to an errant view of truth.
In addition to this, those who are investigating Christianity may want to rethink the latest cultural definitions of truth and tolerance. Those who claim that truth is a matter of perspective and opinion are proclaiming this as more than a matter of perspective and opinion. They would like us to believe that this definition is objectively true, even as they deny the existence of objective truth. When a statement fails to meet its own standard for being true, it is said to be “self-refuting.” The claim that “objective truth does not exist” is self-refuting because it is, in fact, an objective claim about truth. The current redefinition of tolerance doesn’t fare much better. Those who claim that tolerance requires all ideas and perspectives to be embraced as equally true and valuable simultaneously deny the classic view of tolerance. In other words, the new definition of tolerance is intolerant of the old definition. It cannot follow its own rules. It is just as self-refuting as the new redefinition of truth; we simply need to help people understand that this is the case.
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS FOCUS ON THE BEST THE PROSECUTION HAS TO OFFER
While circumstantial cases are built on many pieces of evidence that are evaluated as a group, some pieces are better (and more important to the case) than others. For this reason, defense attorneys focus their attention on the heart of the prosecution’s case, the prominent and most condemning pieces of evidence that have been presented. If they can discredit or eliminate these key pieces of evidence, the foundation of the prosecution’s case may begin to crumble. In fact, if I want to know what the defense thinks of my case (and what it considers to be the most devastating piece of evidence), I simply have to observe what it is attacking with the most vigor. If my case is thin or weak, the defense will be comfortable attacking the one piece it believes to be critical. If my case is substantial and strong, the defense will find itself trying to attack a much larger number of issues in an effort to limit the cumulative impact of the evidence. I know where my case is strong when I see what the defense has chosen to attack.
What Makes It “Hearsay”?
Skeptics do something similar when they attack the claims of Christianity. The Christian worldview is built on the eyewitness testimony of the gospel writers. For this reason, many skeptics attack the reliability of the Gospels as their primary tactic in trying to defeat the case for Christianity. This focused attack on the Gospels reveals the strength of our case. Like defense attorneys, skeptics recognize our most valuable piece of evidence. As a result, some critics attempt to undermine the reliability of the gospel writers as eyewitnesses (we’ll talk more about that in section 2), while others seek to have this testimony “tossed out” as unreliable “hearsay” before it can even be evaluated. They argue that the gospel accounts fail to meet the judicial standard we require of eyewitnesses in criminal cases. Witnesses must be present in court in order for their testimony to be considered in a criminal trial. This often presents a problem for me as cold-case detective. I have a few cases that are now impossible to complete because key witnesses are dead and can no longer testify in court. It’s not enough that I may have someone who heard what these witnesses once said about an event. If I called those “second level” witnesses into court, their testimony would be considered “hearsay.” It would be inadmissible simply because the original witness was no longer available to be cross-examined for evaluation. This is a reasonable standard to hold for criminal trials; as a society, we hold that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape … than that one innocent suffer.”30 For this reason, we’ve created a rigorous (and sometimes difficult) legal standard for eyewitnesses.
But this standard is simply too much to require of historical eyewitness testimony. The vast majority of historical events must be evaluated in spite of the fact that the eyewitnesses are now dead and cannot come into court to testify. The eyewitnesses who observed the crafting and signing of the Constitution of the United States are lost to us. Those who witnessed the life of Abraham Lincoln are also lost to us. It’s one thing to require eyewitness cross-examination on a case that may condemn a defendant to the gas chamber; it’s another thing to hold history up to such an unreasonable necessity. If we require this standard for historical accounts, be prepared to jettison everything you think you know about the past. Nothing can be known about history if live eyewitnesses are the only reliable witnesses we can consult. If this were the case, we could know nothing with certainty beyond two or three living generations. Once the eyewitnesses die, history is lost. But we have great confidence about many historical events, in spite of the fact that the eyewitnesses have long been in their graves. As we evaluate the writers of any historical account, we must simply do our best to assess them under the four criteria we discussed in chapter 4 (we’ll apply these criteria in section 2). Our goals are the same as we have for living courtroom eyewitnesses, but our expectations are appropriate to the examination of history. This is reasonable, given the nature of events that occurred in the distant past.
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TARGET THE MICRO AND DISTRACT FROM THE MACRO
As we’ve already described, strong circumstantial cases are built on large collections of evidence; the more pieces of evidence that point to the suspect, the stronger the case. For this reason, defense attorneys attempt to distract juries from the larger collection by focusing them on individual pieces. The last thing the defense attorney wants the jury to see is how the pieces come together as a group to complete the puzzle. Instead, a defense lawyer wants jurors to examine each piece of the puzzle in isolation from all the rest, hoping that the item under consideration can be explained in some manner that won’t implicate his or her client. If there is more than one reasonable way to interpret an individual piece of evidence, the law requires that juries decide in favor of the defendant’s innocence. Defense attorneys, therefore, spend time trying to take the jury’s eyes off the larger collection and focus the jury on the minutiae. A single puzzle piece, when examined in isolation, is difficult to understand without seeing the larger puzzle. One little puzzle piece might be part of any number of puzzles; there’s just no way to know until we see how it fits with the rest. It’s the job of defense attorneys to keep jurors from seeing how the pieces fit together.
Those who challenge the claims of Christianity take a similar approach. Let’s take a look at the case for Peter’s influence on the gospel of Mark as an example. Skeptics have noticed that Mark’s account fails to include the fact that Peter got out of the boat and nearly drowned when Jesus was walking on water (as we described earlier, compare Mark 6:45–52 with Matt. 14:22–33). If this part of the puzzle is examined in isolation, it seems reasonable that Peter had no influence on the gospel of Mark at all (as many skeptics claim). How could Mark leave out this detail if he truly had access to Peter? Skeptics have used this passage of Scripture to argue against the eyewitness authorship and reliability of the Bible. But when this individual passage is examined alongside all the other verses involving Peter in the gospel of Mark, the more reasonable explanation emerges. It’s only when examining all these passages as a group that we see Mark’s consistent pattern of respect and stewardship toward Peter. It’s in the larger context where we see that Mark consistently seeks to protect Peter’s reputation and honor. When we combine this fact with the other pieces of the puzzle offered in chapter 5, the case for Peter’s influence on Mark’s gospel is substantial and reasonable. Like jurors in a criminal trial, we need to resist the effort of those who want us to focus on the individual puzzle pieces as though they were not part of a larger puzzle.
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ATTACK THE MESSENGER
“Ad Hominem” Attacks
Nearly every piece of courtroom evidence is submitted through the involvement of a human agent. Eyewitness testimony is one obvious example of this, but even forensic evidence is dependent on human participation: a detective who first observed it or a criminalist who later examined it. Defense attorneys sometimes attack the person presenting the evidence when they don’t like what the evidence says about their client. This is why you often see a vigorous (and critical) cross-examination of key witnesses; defense attorneys typically vilify these witnesses, claiming some bias or highlighting potentially offensive behavior in the witness’s professional or personal life. If the defense can get the jury to hate the witness, it may be able to get the jury to hate the evidence the witness has presented.
This has become a prominent tactic of skeptics who deny the claims of Christianity. There can be no doubt that history is replete with examples of people who claimed to be Christians, yet behaved poorly. In fact, many people have committed great violence in the name of Christianity, claiming that their Christian worldview authorized or justified their actions, even though the teaching of Jesus clearly opposed their behavior. But a fair examination of history will also reveal that Christians were not alone. Groups holding virtually every worldview, from theists to atheists, have been equally guilty of violent misbehavior. Atheists point to the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition when making a case against Christians; theists point to the atheistic regimes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung when making a case against atheists. Death statistics are debated in an effort to argue which groups were more violent, but all this seems to miss the point. The common denominator in this violent misbehavior was not worldview; it was the presence of humans.
If we are going to decide what’s true on the basis of how people behave, we’re in big trouble, because every worldview suffers from examples of adherents who have behaved inconsistently and poorly. I expect that news headlines will continue to feature the apparent hypocrisy of those who claim to be Christians. Jesus certainly predicted that there would be counterfeit Christians (“weeds”) living alongside those who were true followers of Christ (“wheat”) in the parable of the weeds (Matt. 13:24–30 NIV). I also expect that skeptics will continue to use incidents involving “counterfeit Christians” to their advantage, seeking to vilify these people in order to invalidate the evidence itself. Discourse and dialogue related to Christianity seem to become more vitriolic and demeaning with each passing year. Public debates are often less about substantive arguments than they are about ad hominem attacks. In the end, however, it’s all going to come down to the evidence. That’s why prosecutors warn juries about the difference between personal attacks and reasoned explanations. Tactics that rely on sarcasm and ridicule must not be allowed to replace arguments that rely on evidence and reason.
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WANT PERFECTION
Every criminal investigation (and prosecution) is a serious matter, and juries understand this. Defense attorneys sometimes capitalize on the appropriately serious attitude of jurors by criticizing the fact that the prosecution’s case was something less than perfect. Given the grave importance of these kinds of cases, shouldn’t the authorities have done everything conceivable to conduct a perfect, flawless investigation? Shouldn’t every imaginable piece of evidence have been recovered? Shouldn’t every possible witness have been located? By identifying the imperfections and limitations of the investigation, attorneys hope to reveal a lack of concern and accuracy that might undermine the prosecution’s case.
Working with All the Imperfections
Something similar occurs when skeptics point to the allegedly “imperfect” or “incomplete” historical evidence supporting the claims of Christianity. Why, for example, don’t we have a complete set of documents from all the apostles who wrote in the first century? Why don’t we have some of the missing letters mentioned in the New Testament, like Paul’s prior letter to the Corinthian church described in 1 Corinthians 5:9 or John’s letter to Diotrephes’s church cited in verse 9 of 3 John? Why isn’t there more evidence from sources outside the biblical record corroborating the events described in the Bible (more on this in chapter 12)?
While expectations of perfection may assist defense attorneys as they attack the prosecution’s case and skeptics as they attack the claims of Christianity, these kinds of expectations are unreasonable. I’ve never seen a “perfect” investigation, and I’ve certainly never conducted one. All inquiries and examinations of the truth (including historical investigations) have their unique deficiencies. Jurors understand that they must work with what they have in front of them. Either the evidence is sufficient or it is not. Jurors can’t dwell on what “might have been” or what “could have been done,” unless they have evidence and good reason to believe that the truth was lost along the way. Juries cannot assume there is a better explanation (other than the one offered by the prosecution) simply because there were imperfections in the case; reasonable doubts must be established with evidence. In a similar way, skeptics cannot reject the reasonable inferences from the evidence we do have, simply because there may possibly be some evidence we don’t have; skeptics also need to defend their doubt evidentially.
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE “POSSIBILITIES”
Alternative Explanations
Defense attorneys do their best to prevent jurors from accepting the prosecution’s version of events. Sometimes it’s not enough to simply “poke holes” in the prosecution’s case in an effort to distract the jury from the totality of the evidence. Defense attorneys will sometimes provide an alternative theory about what happened in a particular crime, building their own evidential case for a completely different explanation. More often than not, however, the defense will simply imply an alternative explanation by asking suggestive questions that open up a number of alternate “possibilities,” even though these “possibilities” are not supported by any evidence. The goal here is to provide jurors with some way to assemble a narrative that does not involve the defendant’s guilt. Prosecutors have to help jurors assess the difference between “possible” and “reasonable” in times like this and encourage jurors to limit their deliberations to reasonable inference from the evidence rather than speculating on unsupported possibilities.
Those who deny the historicity of Jesus sometimes take an approach that’s similar to that of defense attorneys. Some skeptics have denied the existence of Jesus altogether by proposing an alternative possibility. Citing the similarities between Jesus and other “savior mythologies” of antiquity, they’ve argued that Jesus is simply another work of fiction, created by people who wanted to start a new religious tradition. Many of these critics point to the ancient deity Mithras as a prime example of the fictional borrowing they claim occurred in the formation of Christianity. They describe Mithras as a savior who appeared nearly four hundred years prior to the first Christians, and they point to the following similarities:
Mithras was born of a virgin.
Mithras was born in a cave, attended by shepherds.
Mithras had twelve companions or disciples.
Mithras was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
Mithras was called “the Good Shepherd.”
Mithras was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
While these similarities are striking and seem to sustain an alternative theory related to the historicity of Jesus, a brief investigation quickly reveals that they are unsupported by the evidence. There is no existing “Mithraic scripture” available to us today; all our speculations about the Mithras legend are dependent on Mithraic paintings and sculptures and on what was written about Mithras worshippers by the Christians who observed them between the first and third centuries. Even with what little we do know, it is clear that Mithras was not born of a virgin in a cave. Mithras reportedly emerged from solid rock, leaving a cave in the side of a mountain. There is also no evidence that Mithras had twelve companions or disciples; this similarity may be based on a mural that places the twelve personages of the Zodiac in a circle around Mithras. There is no evidence that Mithras was ever called the “Good Shepherd,” and although Mithras was a “sun-god” and associated with Leo (the House of the Sun in Babylonian astrology), there is no evidence that he was identified with the Lion. There is also no evidence that Mithras ever died, let alone rose again after three days. These claims of skeptics (like the “possibilities” offered by defense attorneys) are not supported by the evidence. It’s important to remember that a “possible” response is not necessarily a “plausible” refutation.
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS EMPLOY A CULTURALLY WINSOME ATTITUDE
A Presentation Is Not a Piece of Evidence
Most defense lawyers understand the importance of “first impressions.” I’ve been involved in a number of high-profile cases with prominent defense attorneys. These attorneys were brutally aggressive, sarcastic, and rancorous in the preliminary hearings, while personable, endearing, and charismatic in the jury trials. What’s the difference? The presence of a jury; jurors are not present at preliminary hearings. Defense lawyers understand that style is often as important as substance. How you deliver a claim is sometimes more important than the claim itself. For this reason, defense attorneys are often keen observers of the culture; they borrow mannerisms and language that will effectively endear their persona and message to the jury they are trying to convince. The facts are sometimes of secondary importance.
The skeptics in our midst are equally savvy. Christians are not the only people who take an urgent, evangelical approach to their worldview. Many popular atheists are equally interested in proselytizing those around them. They are keenly aware of what is popular. As a part of the culture they are trying to reach, they understand what people are watching on television and on the Internet. They’ve seen the hit movies and purchased the best-selling music. They’ve mastered the language and are shaping the art, music, and literature of our society. They often portray Christians as antiquated, backward-thinking “dinosaurs” who are out of touch with progressive concepts and the current culture. They recognize and capitalize on the well-intentioned desire of many Christians to resist the things of the world in favor of the things of God (1 John 2:15). Skeptics often have an advantage in communicating their opposition and alternative theories simply because they are more aligned with the culture they are trying to influence.
This is often revealed most glaringly in televised debates between Christians and nonbelievers. The most effective skeptics are those who (like effective defense attorneys) make a winsome connection with the audience. They are endearing. They are entertaining. They understand and highlight the doubts and concerns that people have about Christianity. They use persuasive rhetoric to make their points. I’ve seen a number of debates in which the Christian representative possessed the best arguments and mastery of the evidence, yet seemed less influential from the perspective of communication. In a culture where image is more important than information, style more important than substance, it is not enough to possess the truth. Case makers must also master the media.
When the prosecution presents a case in the courtroom, the defense is left with three possible responses: it can declare, destroy, or distract. On rare occasions, the defense declares a robust alternative theory to explain what happened in a particular case. This is difficult, however, because it requires the defense to substantiate its alternative scenario with evidence. In essence, they’ve got to build their case the same way the prosecution has already built a case against their client. More often than not, defense attorneys take a different approach; they focus on destroying the prosecution’s case by discrediting the evidence. If they can find legitimate shortcomings in the individual pieces of evidence, they can undermine the prosecution’s case, piece by piece. A third tactic is often just as effective in circumstantial cases, however. Using the tactics we’ve discussed in this chapter, defense lawyers can distract the jury from the cumulative impact of the circumstantial evidence.
By attacking the nature of truth, targeting the foundation of the prosecution’s case, focusing on the micro rather than the macro, disparaging the prosecution’s witnesses, raising the expectation of perfection, offering unsupported possibilities, and delivering all of this in a winsome way, defense attorneys attempt to distract juries from the larger picture. They don’t want the jury to see the forest through the trees. They don’t want the jury to see the connected and reasonable nature of the cumulative circumstantial case.
Those who oppose the claims of Christianity often take a very similar approach. Like defense attorneys, they sometimes ignore the larger connected nature of the case for Christianity and focus on possibilities and claims that either are untrue or have no impact on the evidence.
A TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE CHECKLIST
While the tactics of defense attorneys may not seem like tools appropriate for your investigative callout bag, think of them as precautionary principles for your checklist. If these tactics are inappropriate for defense attorneys, they’re equally inappropriate for those of us who are presenting the claims of Christianity. Let’s hold ourselves to a high standard, even as we require our opponents to recognize their own reasonable responsibilities. It’s well known that the “burden of proof” in criminal trials rests upon the prosecution. Defendants are presumed innocent until found guilty; they are under no obligation to mount any defense at all. But if, for example, a defendant in a murder trial wants the jury to believe that he simply committed the homicide in self-defense, the burden to raise this doubt falls on the defense team. Skeptics have long claimed that the burden of proof for the truth of the Christian worldview (e.g., the existence of God or the deity of Jesus) belongs to Christians; naturalism is the default position that need not be proved. That’s fine if they limit their resistance to destruction or distraction tactics, but once they declare an alternative possibility (e.g., that Jesus is a re-creation of Mithras), the burden of raising this alternative doubt clearly shifts. Possible alternatives are not reasonable refutations. If they’re not offering a declaration that can be supported by evidence, they’re probably attempting to destroy or distract. It’s my hope that my skeptical friends will see the deficiencies of these two approaches. Destruction tactics that try to disqualify the Gospels would also disqualify other historical texts. If skeptics applied an equal standard to other documents of antiquity, they would be hard pressed to believe anything about the ancient past. In addition to this, any efforts to distract from the cumulative case for Christianity by redefining truth or vilifying Christians, while potentially effective, does nothing to demonstrate the truth of naturalism. I’ve known many defense attorneys who worked hard because they truly believed that their clients were innocent. I’ve known some who worked hard for other reasons. I have skeptical friends who are in a similar position. Some reject Christianity because they believe it is evidentially false, and they are prepared to declare (and argue) an alternative case. On the other hand, some reject Christianity for another reason (perhaps some past personal experience or a desire to live their life without religious restrictions). When this is the case, they often resort to destroy or distract tactics. Let’s help our doubting friends examine the character of their objections. All of us ought to be willing to argue the merits of our case without resorting to tactics unbecoming of our worldviews.
While I grew up as an atheist, many of my Christian friends either grew up in the church or lived in areas of the country where they met little or no opposition to their Christian worldview. As a result, some were shaken when they had their first encounter with someone who not only opposed them but also did so tactically and winsomely. For some Christians, their first encounter with atheistic opposition occurs at the university level, as either a student or the parent of a student. The number of young Christians who reject Christianity in college is alarming, according to nearly every study that has been done on the topic. Part of this is a matter of preparation. While we are often willing to spend time reading the Bible, praying, or participating in church programs and services, few of us recognize the importance of becoming good Christian case makers. Prosecutors are successful when they master the facts of the case and then learn how to navigate and respond to the tactics of the defense team. Christians need to learn from that model as well. We need to master the facts and evidences that support the claims of Christianity and anticipate the tactics of those who oppose us. This kind of preparation is a form of worship. When we devote ourselves to this rational preparation and study, we are worshipping God with our mind, the very thing He has called us to do (Matt. 22:37).
CASE NOTES
30. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, quoted in Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2009), 221.