5 Principles to Help You Share What You Believe Like a Good Prosecutor
Chapter Four
5 Principles to Help You Share What You Believe Like a Good Prosecutor
“His voice leads us not into timid discipleship but into bold witness.”
Charles F. Stanley
“There are four things that we ought to do with the Word of God—admit it as the Word of God, commit it to our hearts and minds, submit to it, and transmit it to the world.”
William Wilberforce
The prosecutor stepped up to the jury box and put his left hand on his waist, gesturing to the jury with his right and pointing back in my direction. He’d become very familiar with these jurors over the past six weeks. He learned about each juror from the questionnaires they provided prior to their selection, and he spent weeks studying their facial expressions as each attorney presented evidence. Now, as he prepared to offer his final remarks, the prosecutor drew upon an analogy.
“When Detective Wallace brings me a case, he has the difficult task of releasing it to me for the trial. All the effort he spent investigating and preparing the case for filing is complete. Now he has to hand the case over to me for the jury trial. I know it is difficult for him; it’s hard for him to trust me with his hard work. In fact, I bet he still thinks he could have presented the case better than I did.”
The jury laughed. They had been listening attentively for over a month, and I could tell they liked the prosecutor. By this point in the trial, they understood the work that was involved in investigating and presenting our case. They were also probably glad the trial was coming to a close.
“It’s hard to trust your case to someone else. Detective Wallace did everything he could do, and then he had to trust me to do everything I could do. He did his job, and he hoped I would do mine. I know how difficult that was for him, because I am about to trust you the same way Detective Wallace trusted me. I’ve worked hard to make the case. I did all I could do. I did my job. Now it’s time for you to do everything you can do. It’s time for you to do your job.”
I’ve been working with this particular prosecutor for over fifteen years, so I’ve heard him say this, or something like it, many times. It’s still powerful for me every time I hear it. Why? Because it captures an important truth about the nature of persuasive communication. You can spend a great deal of time investigating, preparing, and communicating a truth claim, but in the end, you need to be comfortable releasing your argument. Do your job, rest your case, then trust your jury to do the right thing.
We’ve been involved in a few tough cases over the years. Some took longer in jury deliberation than we thought they would. As the hours and days passed without a verdict, we began to wonder if the jury doubted the strength of our case. At some point, however, one of us would say, “Remember: we did everything we could do. We did our job. Now it’s up to the jury to do theirs.”
That’s good advice, even if you aren’t presenting a murder case in the Criminal Courts Building in downtown Los Angeles. It’s also good counsel for those of us who hope to present the case for Christianity to our friends and family. In fact, there are a number of things we, as Christians, can learn from professional case makers. The ability to communicate convincingly is the final characteristic of a forensic faith. If you want to be a good Christian case maker, consider the following five principles.
Forensic Faith Principle #1:
Pick a Jury Insightfully
I’m often asked, “What’s the most important aspect of a criminal trial? Is it the opening statement, the presentation of evidence, or the closing argument?” People are surprised to hear my answer. Most cases are won or lost well before the opening statements are made by prosecutors or defense attorneys. Cases are generally decided very early, at the point of jury selection.
You can have a great case but lose miserably if you don’t have the right jury. That’s why prosecutors and defense attorneys specialize in jury selection (or consult with jury experts who do). The procedure used to select jurors is known as voir dire. This Latin term is best translated as “to speak the truth,” and it reflects the goal of identifying competent and capable jurors (from a larger “pool”) by questioning them until they “speak the truth.” Both sides search the jury pool to find impartial jurors who will view their case without undue bias. Potential jurors are questioned and, in more serious cases, asked to complete questionnaires so the attorneys can learn as much as possible. Prosecutors and defense attorneys are allowed a limited number of “preemptory challenges” to exclude jurors they believe to be problematic. Once these challenges have been expended (or both sides are satisfied with the jurors they’ve selected), the panel is set. This process may take several days, and it’s a critical part of the trial.
Jesus selected His twelve disciples, the group to whom He would make the case for three years, with care and precision, and all four authors of the Gospels captured this important selection process (see Matthew 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; and John 1:35–51). Jesus was intentional about His choices. Even though many people became His followers in the early days of His ministry, Jesus thoughtfully (and prayerfully) picked twelve competent and capable men from a larger “pool”:
Luke 6:12–13
It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God. And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles.
Jesus was strategic and selective when choosing the twelve apostles. This group of men displayed many of the characteristics I’ve come to appreciate in good jurors, and as a Christian case maker, I’ve discovered the importance of recognizing these attributes in the people I hope to reach with the gospel. Before I make the case for Christianity, I think about “jury selection.” Just as attorneys are careful to select the right jurors, we need to be careful to select the right hearers. Are the people we’re talking to capable of examining the evidence fairly? Are they interested in hearing what we have to say? If we want to be effective Christian case makers, we need to be careful about who we select for our “jury.”
When it comes to criminal trials, I’ve learned to look for three important characteristics in potential jurors. These are also important attributes for those we hope to reach with the truth of Christianity:
Good Jurors Are Passionate Jurors
Some potential jurors arrive for jury duty with great reluctance. They view jury service as an inconvenience and a burden. As a result, they appear disinterested and disgruntled. After spending years preparing the case for trial, the last thing I want at this critical juncture is a disinterested jury. Instead, I want twelve men and women who see their jury service as a privilege and honor. I want people on my panel who are excited to uncover the truth, glad to be there, and appreciative of their opportunity. Apathy is extremely dangerous on a jury panel. I’m looking for passionate jurors.
As a Christian case maker, I also recognize how devastating apathy can be. I didn’t become a Christian until the age of thirty-five. I was an obstinate atheist prior to that, but after a careful investigation of the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, I changed both my mind and the trajectory of my life. As a new Christian, I was incredibly excited to share what I learned, but I wasn’t always careful about picking my jury. Many of the people I engaged were uninterested in what I had to say. One good friend eventually told me I was wasting my time. “I don’t give a rip, Jim. You’re wasting your time with me. I’m not against what you believe—I just don’t care.” Now I don’t honestly think my efforts were wasted on my friend. In fact, I pray and trust God will cause him to remember our conversations at some point in the future. But the experience only highlighted the importance of continuing to share the gospel with people who are interested in hearing what I have to say.
Jesus understood the importance of selecting passionate people who were interested in His message. Simon Peter, for example, was clearly a passionate hearer. Impulsive and energetic, Peter was quick to volunteer and eager to respond. He was also interested in what Jesus had to say. Peter and his brother, Andrew, had been disciples of John the Baptist (as described in John 1:35–42) and had been listening to John’s teaching about the coming Messiah. One day, Andrew heard John identify Jesus as the Messiah, “the Lamb of God.” Andrew found his brother, Simon, and the two men quickly became Jesus’s disciples. Both were passionate and receptive.
As I travel, work, and play, I’m looking for signs of God’s involvement in the lives of the nonbelievers I know. There are some people I’ve known for years who suddenly become passionately interested in the things of God; when I see that happen, I impanel them on my jury as fast as I can. God is already moving in their lives, and now it’s time for me to make the case. I am only a small part of what God is doing, but I am ready to play my role, helping to remove the obstacles and answer the tough questions.
Good Jurors Are Unbiased Jurors
We ask jurors if they can be fair when making a decision, even though we know they have opinions and biases. As humans, all of us are profoundly affected by our experiences and personal histories. Some jurors, for example, have law enforcement members or prosecutors in their family; some have family members who have been arrested. When these relationships come to light during the jury selection process, we ask jurors if they will be able to make a fair decision based purely on the evidence presented, in spite of the fact they may have had some past experience with law enforcement (either positive or negative). My son, for example, became a juror (and even served as the foreman) in spite of the fact that his father and grandfather were detectives and a close family friend was a criminal prosecutor. Some people are able to put their feelings aside and some are not. If you can’t remain open minded, you won’t be able to serve on a jury. I want jurors who are capable of examining the evidence fairly, regardless of their relationships and past histories. I’m looking for open-minded jurors.
Sometimes it’s easy to identify the “seekers” in your life—the people who are searching for the answers their worldview hasn’t been able to provide. Sometimes it’s more difficult to identify people who are starting to have questions.
When Jesus selected His twelve apostles, He picked men who were open minded. They may have come from a sullied or questionable past, like the apostle Matthew, but their past life wasn’t as important to Jesus as their present state of mind. Matthew was not a disciple of John the Baptist prior to meeting Jesus. Instead, he was a first-century tax collector (who may have been collecting taxes from the Jews for Herod Antipas). Tax collectors like Matthew were typically despised by the Jewish populace, who saw them as little more than traitors and thieves. You might think that someone like this would be closed minded to the righteous teaching of Jesus, but this was not the case. Matthew was open to what Jesus had to say and even invited Jesus to his own home for dinner. Matthew left his life as a tax collector and eventually described his life with Jesus in the gospel bearing his name.
As a Christian case maker, I want to be as effective as possible, even though I know there are people who have deeply entrenched biases they are unwilling (or presently unable) to resist. Some people simply cannot be fair. It would be unwise to place a closed-minded person on a criminal jury, and it may be equally unwise to set your sights on someone like this as the focus of your Christian case making.
You’ve probably encountered your fair share of people who are hostile toward Christianity. Unlike apathetic jurors, people who are unwilling to evaluate our claims fairly have often had a bad experience with Christianity (or, more likely, with Christians). When I encounter people like this, I recognize my responsibility as yet another Christian they’ve encountered. Police officers understand that their actions are under constant scrutiny. In a world of smartphones and personal video devices, everything we do can be captured for closer examination. As a result, we’ve learned the importance of being a consistent and persistent ambassador for our profession and our agencies. As a Christian, I know I am also under the constant, watchful eye of my Master. Am I making Him proud? Am I contributing to the negative perception some atheists have of Christians? Is there something I can do to influence the nonbelievers in my world positively without compromising my role as an ambassador for God? I don’t want to be yet another reason unbelievers dislike Christians; I don’t want to aggravate the problem. I may still take the time to share what I believe, but I am more realistic in my expectations and more sensitive to what’s really keeping them from seeing the truth.
Good Jurors Are Humble Jurors
I’m cautious about impaneling someone who has expertise in an area critical to our case. If we’re going to call an electrical professional as an expert witness, for example, we probably shouldn’t put an electrician on our jury. Why? Because time and time again, we’ve seen jurors become prideful when they encounter testimony within their discipline. Jurors who think they are experts in a particular field sometimes have difficulty accepting the testimony of other experts. It’s often a matter of pride. Good decision making requires a degree of humility, and jurors who think they “know better” can make a mess of your case. I want jurors who are smart but teachable, jurors who won’t allow their pride to stand in the way of the truth. I’m looking for humble jurors.
Humility was also important to Jesus. He was undoubtedly impressed with the humble nature he saw in Matthew, who accepted what Jesus had to say and repented from his prior sinful life as a tax collector. In fact, Jesus may have had Matthew in mind when He later told a story illustrating the importance of humility:
Luke 18:10–14
Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.” But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner!” I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.
Jesus repeatedly told His followers to resist arrogance and pride. As a Christian case maker, I’ve come to recognize the relationship between knowledge and pride. As one increases, so can the other, and no one is exempt from this general rule (including me). The Internet has only complicated the matter for those of us who want to share the truth about Christianity. There’s enough online information available to make just about anyone think they’re an “expert” on any number of theological, scientific, or philosophical subjects, even though this information is often unvetted and unreliable. It can be difficult to share truth with people who errantly think they’ve already mastered a topic by simply surfing the web. These people aren’t hard to spot; most of us recognize arrogance from a distance. When looking for opportunities to share, I try to identify people who are smart but teachable—people who won’t allow their pride to stand in the way of the truth.
Jurors aren’t the only ones in jeopardy from arrogant overconfidence. Case makers also place themselves at risk when we allow excessive pride to characterize our efforts. As the Bible accurately describes, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling” (Proverbs 16:18). When a detective takes the stand in a criminal case and comes off as arrogant or brash, his testimony is likely to be rejected by a jury. In a similar way, prosecutors and attorneys who appear haughty or self-important typically alienate the very jury they are trying to convince. If you’re hoping to make the case for Christianity and encounter a prideful resister, take a minute to examine your own attitude. One sure way to amplify the pride of someone you’re trying to reach is to allow your own arrogance to overtake you. When pride meets pride, nothing good results. If you can be humble, self-effacing, and gracious in your approach, you’re far more likely to draw those characteristics out of the person you are trying to reach.
The 3/4 Principle
In an effort to help you identify and employ these important “jury” characteristics so you can decide where your efforts might be most effective, let me introduce you to something I call the “¾ Principle.” In the many years I’ve been involved in criminal trials, I’ve learned there are two large groups from which juries are typically selected:
Our jury pool is filled with people who are either (1) more supportive of the prosecution team, or (2) more supportive of the defense team. Members of the first group may have had prior positive experiences with law enforcement—or they may have themselves been victims who benefited from the work of a prosecutor. Members of the second group may have had a negative experience with law enforcement or may know someone they think was falsely accused.
These two groups can be further divided into two subsets. If we create a “bias continuum” of sorts, we can chart these four subsets in the following way:
Our two large groups have now been divided into four subgroups: (1) people who inflexibly believe the prosecution is always right, (2) people who lean toward the prosecution but are open minded and more interested in the truth, (3) people who lean toward the defense but are also open minded and interested in the truth, and (4) people who inflexibly believe the defense is always right.
These four groups represent the pool from which we must select our potential jurors. The best juries are assembled from people in groups 2 and 3, so attorneys do their best to identify people in groups 1 and 4 to eliminate them from consideration.
Christian case makers can learn something from the bias continuum we’ve just examined. If you’ve spent much time sharing what you believe with your friends or family, you know they can also be divided into two distinct groups: (1) Christian believers, and (2) nonbelievers.
These two groups can be further divided into four subgroups: (1) believers who are convinced of their position, (2) believers who are starting to have doubts, (3) nonbelievers who are starting to have doubts, and (4) nonbelievers who are convinced of their position. These four groups can be placed in a “belief continuum” of sorts, from those who are most convinced (on the left), to those who are most unconvinced (on the right):
Members of these groups represent the “jury pool” from which we must select our potential “jurors.” As a Christian case maker who has written books, speaks publicly, and continues to make the case for Christianity online, I’ve learned an important truth. Although I am writing and speaking to the members of all four groups, I know only three of these groups are open minded enough to listen to what I have to say. Members of groups 1, 2, and 3 are receptive, while members of group 4 typically are not:
It doesn’t take long to identify where someone is positioned in this continuum. Sometimes you can discover where a person stands by simply being courageous enough to ask a few pointed questions. You probably already know what most members of your family believe, and if you’re lucky enough to have outspoken friends or acquaintances online, their position may also be obvious. In any case, once you’ve determined where people are in this continuum, you’ll be better able to decide how to proceed.
Group 1 – The Convinced Believer
Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone holds a bias. Bias is typically defined as an unfair prejudice in favor of or against one view, person, or group when compared with another. While all of us have a personal preference, jurors are asked to avoid unfair prejudice.
You might not think there’s any reason to share the evidence for Christianity with people who are already convinced Christianity is true, but nothing could be further from the truth. This book, for example, was written for Christians. Those who are already convinced may not even be aware of the strong case supporting their beliefs, and they may not feel any need for evidence beyond their own personal experience of the risen Christ.
However, there’s still good reason for people in this group to master the evidence. Chances are very good they’ve got someone in their immediate family who is struggling in group 2. Most of the parents who ask me for help with their skeptical children are themselves convinced that Christianity is true, even though their kids are not. How can we, as parents, respond to our kids’ questions if we are not prepared with the evidence? If you’re in group 1, it’s still important to master the evidence so you can help your own children who may someday be in group 2. When I identify someone as a convinced Christian, I take the time to ask them if they are ready to help the people they know who are in groups 2 and 3. If they hold something other than a thoughtful, forensic faith, I make the case for a more evidential approach to their Christian belief. People in group 1 also need to hear (and master) the case.
Group 2 – The Doubting Believer
Many young Christians fall into group 2. They may have been raised in the church, but by the time they enter junior high or middle school, young Christians want to know more than what their parents believe: they want to know why their parents believe. If they don’t get good answers at home, they’ll be ready to accept any answer they get in school or college as they shift from convinced to doubting believers. I encounter young doubters all the time, and it’s a privilege and honor to help them find their evidential footing. In my experience, Christian case makers can have the most impact with this second group, and all of us ought to be focused on the future of the church: young people.
At my age, I can easily pick my peers. By the time you enter your fifties, you’ve probably surrounded yourself with people who are a lot like you. But young Christians, especially when they enter the largely hostile environment of the university, find themselves surrounded by people they can’t select; many of these new peers are unfriendly to, or skeptical of, the claims of Christianity. That’s why young Christians in group 2 need to be prepared with the evidence.
Group 3 – The Doubting Nonbeliever
I’ve received hundreds of emails and social media comments from nonbelievers who are beginning to question their nonbelief. Many of these group 3 seekers began by having serious doubts about their commitment to naturalism. When trying to account for some of the evidence I describe in God’s Crime Scene, they discovered the insufficiency of their prior atheistic, naturalistic explanations.
Famed atheist Antony Flew found himself in such a position. Flew was an influential atheist and a self-identified evidentialist. He became a prominent spokesperson for atheism even as he attended C. S. Lewis’s Socratic Club, and although he respected Lewis’s work and character, he remained ambivalent to Lewis’s arguments for Christianity. Flew believed that atheism should be everyone’s default position until an evidential case for God could be made. He eventually began to question his atheism, however, as science provided him with the evidence he’d been looking for. Flew was particularly interested in the origin of information in DNA and the appearance of design in biological organisms. During this time of questioning, he was in contact (professionally and otherwise) with theists like Christian scholar Gary Habermas and author Roy Varghese. In fact, when Flew eventually abandoned his commitment to atheism, he coauthored a book with Varghese entitled There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Flew is an excellent example of the role good case making plays in reaching people in group 3.
Group 4 – The Convinced Nonbeliever
We’ve been talking about the importance of lists; this discipline of list making can help us reach our friends and family. Make a list of all the people you’d like to reach with the evidence for Christianity. We typically include only nonbelievers in a list like this, but now you know why it’s important to include people from all four groups.
If you’ve ever expressed your Christian beliefs on social media, you may have come into contact with someone in group 4. In the early 2000s, spurred by a number of aggressive atheist writers like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, a movement that’s been referred to as “New Atheism” emerged. While the arguments offered by these writers were not innovative or unique, their approach was far more hostile and targeted than ever before. New Atheism is all about a new attitude. Many (but not all) people in group 4 have adopted the approach of the New Atheists, and you’ll observe this in their aggressive interaction. They are convinced of the rationality of their position, and even more importantly, they are equally convinced of the irrationality of Christian belief. They can be sarcastic, condescending, and mean spirited. Until a person in group 4 migrates into group 3, he or she will be far more likely to abuse Christian case makers than listen to the Christian case.
Jesus recognized the nature of people in this fourth group. Matthew described an occasion when Jesus visited His hometown of Nazareth (in Matthew 13:53–58). Jesus met resistance from people who simply refused to accept His claims. In fact, they got angry with Jesus and “took offense at Him.” According to Matthew, the resistance of these “group four” convinced unbelievers was reflected in Jesus’s approach: “He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief” (verse 58).
I make the case to people in all four groups, but once I identify someone is in group 4, I intensify an important aspect of my approach. I pray for them and continue to love them in spite of our differences. There are people I care for deeply who are still committed members of group 4. I was also a member of this group for most of my life. Only after God removed my enmity was I ready to hear what people had to say about Him. Once I became a Christian, several of my Christian friends and coworkers told me they had been praying for me for years. I remained connected to these people during my years of unbelief because they continued to demonstrate the love of God to me through their actions and words. They never gave up; they loved me unconditionally. Whenever I become frustrated with people in group 4 who are unreceptive to Christianity, I ask myself, “When was the last time I prayed for this person and asked God to remove this hostility? Have I been showing them how much I care about them, or have I been distancing myself from them just because we disagree?” I’ve learned to pray and love my friends and family members who are still part of group 4. I’m watching for God’s activity in their lives and waiting for an opportunity to be a good Christian case maker.
The 3/4 Principle has helped me set more reasonable goals and temper my expectations when sharing what I believe with others. Once I understand where people are positioned, I’m better able to select passionate, open-minded, and humble “jurors.”
Forensic Faith Principle #2:
Instruct Your Jury Evidentially
Jesus didn’t simply select the right twelve men to be His apostles; He instructed them specifically so they could better perform their mission. Jesus taught many people over the course of His three-year ministry, but the disciples received special instruction. When the crowds had difficulty understanding His parables, Jesus instructed the twelve disciples to help them comprehend the meaning of each story and analogy (see Matthew 13:1–51). Prior to sending the disciples out to share what they had learned, Jesus instructed them specifically in the manner in which they should travel, engage nonbelievers, and discuss the truth (see Matthew 10:1–23). Jesus chose His disciples carefully and instructed them before entrusting them with the truth.
Criminal jurors are in similar need of instruction. I’ve been present for many voir dire sessions, and I’ve discovered something interesting: during this selection process, attorneys learn a lot about jurors, but jurors also learn a lot about the nature of evidence. Attorneys question potential jurors about what they know related to certain aspects of evidence, and this questioning often serves as a form of instruction.
The voir dire process isn’t the only place where jurors learn about the nature of evidence and the role it plays in assessing truth claims. As evidence is presented at trial, and certainly as the attorneys make their closing arguments, jurors become familiar, either directly or indirectly, with the basic rules of evidence and the nature of good case making. Then, just before jurors are released to deliberate on what they’ve seen and heard, judges provide specific directions to help the jury evaluate the evidence. Every state has “Jury Instructions” that are part of the criminal code.
Criminal jurors benefit deeply from this education, and they aren’t the only evaluators who need to be taught about the nature and role of evidence. The people who hear the case for Christianity could also benefit from some evidential instruction. Richard Dawkins (one of the aforementioned New Atheists), for example, once wrote:
Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm? September 11th changed all that.
It’s easy to live in isolation of people who hold a different view of the world. As a Christian, have you surrounded yourself with like-minded friends and acquaintances? You might be surprised to see or read the level of venom waiting on the Internet for those who want to share the gospel.
When someone claims Christian (or theistic beliefs) “lack all supporting evidence,” either they aren’t familiar with the large body of evidence related to Christianity or they aren’t familiar with what qualifies as evidence in the first place. If we hope to offer something evidentially persuasive, we’ll need to instruct people in the nature and role of evidence prior to citing the evidence itself. The following attributes of evidence are important to jurors assessing criminal cases, and they’re also important to people making and evaluating the case for Christianity.
Evidence Instruction #1:
The Fact the Other Side Can Make a Case Doesn’t Mean It’s True
In Cold-Case Christianity, I wrote an entire chapter entitled “Prepare for an Attack.” In this chapter, I described many of the strategies defense attorneys take when attempting to counter the prosecution’s case. If there’s one thing every Christian case maker needs to understand about the opposition’s response, it’s this: don’t be shocked that the other side can make a seemingly persuasive argument. The fact the opposition can make a case doesn’t mean it’s true.
I’ve heard many stories from young Christians (like the one I cited in chapter 1) who entered the university only to discover a professor who could make a powerful presentation in support of his or her atheistic worldview. Many times, these presentations were openly hostile to the claims of Christianity. Some of these young Christian students, unfamiliar with the objections of atheists, heard this opposing case for the very first time presented authoritatively from the professor’s podium. The impact was dramatic. The opposition offered an articulate, seemingly reasonable presentation, and having never heard such an argument, the Christians in the classroom were caught off guard and unprepared.
Think back for a minute to the case I described earlier. Michael Lubahn’s defense attorney sat patiently through the prosecution’s presentation of evidence, even though it took weeks to complete. When the prosecutor rested, Lubahn’s attorney got to work. He presented his own case, made his own argument, and was just as passionate as the prosecutor. In fact, no one was more certain of Michael Lubahn’s innocence than his defense attorney, and he did his best to deliver an articulate, reasonable argument. Lubahn was convicted in spite of his attorney’s noble effort, and as I described earlier, Michael confessed to the murder at his sentencing hearing. Although his attorney was capable of making a case, the mere fact he made one didn’t make it true.
I’ve learned to expect a strong case from the opposition, but I know an argument is not evidence; a presentation is not a refutation. In fact, juries are specifically instructed about this:
Nothing that the attorneys say is evidence. In their opening statements and closing arguments, the attorneys will discuss the case, but their remarks are not evidence. Their questions are not evidence. Only the witnesses’ answers are evidence. The attorneys’ questions are significant only if they help you understand the witnesses’ answers. Do not assume that something is true just because one of the attorneys asks a question that suggests it is true.
This is an important rule of evidence: don’t assume something is true just because someone with authority says it, suggests it, or makes a case for it. Expect an aggressive rebuttal, and remember that a presentation is not a refutation. Examine the evidence for yourself. Connect the dots. Use your common sense.
Evidence Instruction #2:
Everything Has the Potential to Be Evidence
Many people simply don’t understand the basic categories of evidence (as I described earlier) and mistakenly think prosecutors need a particular kind of evidence to be successful. This simply isn’t true. Must we have DNA or fingerprint evidence to determine if a suspect was involved in the crime? No. Must we have a witness to prove a suspect is involved in the crime? No again. As I described in chapter 1, direct evidence is limited to eyewitness testimony. Indirect evidence (also known as circumstantial evidence) is everything else. When I say “everything else,” I mean precisely that: everything has the potential to be considered as evidence. In our criminal cases, we’ve presented physical objects, statements, behaviors, and much more. Take, for example, another look at the list of potential evidences I listed in chapter 3 (on page 102). Everything must be considered for its evidential value when investigating a crime; sometimes the simplest detail can make the case. As I described earlier, I’ve been involved with successfully prosecuted cases that consisted of nothing more than statements.
When skeptics say the case for Christianity is weak because it can’t be built with scientific, testable, physical, forensic evidence, they simply don’t know how criminal cases are tried every day in America. That’s why we need to help people understand: Everything counts as evidence, including the behavior of the original witnesses; the testimony of those who listened to the statements of these witnesses; the corroborative evidence of archaeology; the internal confirmation of geography, politics, and proper nouns; and the deficiency of alternative explanations. These forms of evidence (or something very similar) are used in criminal trials every day. If convictions were dependent on physical, forensic evidence, very few cases would ever be prosecuted. What qualifies as evidence? Everything.
Evidence Instruction #3:
Whoever Makes the Claim Has the Burden of Proof
Gratefully, people in our country are afforded the presumption of innocence in legal trials. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the standard of proof (the SOP) is much higher in criminal trials than it is in civil trials. The “burden of proof,” the responsibility to prove the defendant is guilty of an offense, lies with the prosecutor who filed the criminal complaint. The prosecutor, after all, is the one who is making the claim of guilt; therefore, the burden is on him or her to prove his or her case. Criminal jury instructions describe this burden:
We typically jump to defend what we believe about God’s existence and the truth of Christianity without stopping to ask the other side how they can account for the universe without God. Discussions about “religion” or “spiritual matters” have the potential of being one-sided defenses of God’s existence.
The fact that a criminal charge has been filed against the defendant[s] is not evidence that the charge is true. You must not be biased against the defendant[s] just because (he/she/they) (has/have) been arrested, charged with a crime, or brought to trial. A defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This presumption requires that the People prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever I tell you the People must prove something, I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt [unless I specifically tell you otherwise].
This “burden of proof” principle is often applied to those of us who make claims about the existence of God. Most atheists believe we, as theists, have the sole burden of proof. A popular atheist website describes it in the following way:
The burden of proof falls on whoever makes a positive claim. If I claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, it is not your duty to disprove me. In fact, that might be impossible. Rather, it is my duty to back up my claim with reasons and evidence. If you claim that Yahweh exists, it’s not my duty to disprove Yahweh.
According to many atheists, Christians are making a positive claim about an invisible Being; the evidential burden is ours to shoulder. I would agree somewhat with this assessment, but I also recognize its limits, given my experience as an investigator.
When detectives enter a crime scene, we are presented with a collection of evidence that must be explained if we hope to determine the ultimate cause of the crime. Detectives sometimes disagree about the best explanation for the evidence or the identity of the suspect. When that happens, we assemble in our conference room and make the case to one another, arguing for the suspect (or cause) we believe best explains the evidence. In that room, each and every detective has the burden of convincing the others that his or her explanation is the best. The burden of proof is shared by everyone who offers a potential “cause” for the evidence in the crime scene.
In a similar way, the universe is filled with evidence that must be explained. How did the universe come into being from nothing? Why does the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life? How did life originate from non-living materials? Why do biological organisms appear designed? How did immaterial consciousness emerge from material processes? How is free agency possible in a purely physical, deterministic universe? What establishes the transcendent, objective, moral truths we all recognize and employ? What is the transcendent standard of “good” we reference when describing the existence of true “evil”? These eight questions represent eight important pieces of evidence in the universe. These realities must be explained just like the evidence in any crime scene.
As it turns out, there are only two possible categories of explanation for the evidence we see in the universe: (1) naturalistic explanations employing nothing more than space, time, matter, and the laws of physics or chemistry that govern such things; or (2) supernatural explanations that employ the existence of a supernatural Being. Atheists believe naturalism can best account for the evidence in the universe; theists (i.e., Christians) believe God is the best explanation. Like detectives in the conference room, each group has an equal burden of proof to demonstrate their “suspect” is the best explanation.
If you’re going to make claims about God’s existence to your nonbelieving friends or family members, be prepared with the evidence needed to make your case. But remember, atheists must also explain what we observe and experience in the universe, and they share an equal evidential burden. Make sure they are called to defend their position, even as they require you to defend yours.
Evidence Instruction #4:
Possibilities Are Irrelevant
There’s a reason why the standard of proof in criminal trials is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” rather than “beyond a possible doubt.” If prosecutors had to establish a defendant’s guilt beyond a possible doubt, no one would ever be convicted of a crime. Most jury instructions recognize the fact that there will always be some form of possible or imaginary doubt, even when jurors return a guilty verdict in a criminal trial:
Whenever I tell you the People must prove something, I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt [unless I specifically tell you otherwise]. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.
When questioning jurors during voir dire, it’s not uncommon for prosecutors to ask, “Are you the kind of person who can’t make a decision unless every possible question has been answered?” If potential jurors say they can’t make a decision in the midst of unanswered possibilities, they’ll be excused from jury duty.
In addition, jurors, once they hear all the evidence in a case, are typically instructed to refrain from speculating about what they don’t know. Instead, they are instructed to focus on what they do know, given what they saw and heard during the course of the trial:
You may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence which you feel are justified in the light of common experience, keeping in mind that such inferences should not be based on speculation or guess.
Jurors are asked to make “reasonable inferences” from the evidence and to resist the temptation to speculate about “possibilities.”
When you stop and think about it, all of us have experience as cumulative case makers. We do it all the time, without even thinking about the evidential principle we’re employing. Next time you’re thinking about your job, hobby, loved one, or an item in the local news, practice your cumulative case-making abilities so you’ll be ready to make a comprehensive case for what you believe as a Christian.
This is also good advice for those of us who are evaluating the reasonable explanations for the evidence in the universe. You’d be surprised to see how much speculation masquerades as reasonable inference, especially in theories related to the origin of the universe. Most of us are familiar with “multiverse theories” that have been offered to explain the fine-tuning we see in the universe. You may also be familiar with “string theories” (related to the nature of quantum physics) that have been offered to explain the origin of the universe.
Both of these naturalistic theories (as I describe in God’s Crime Scene) are popular among atheists, but they are highly speculative. These theories are contested by both theistic and atheistic physicists for their lack of evidential support. Are the theories possible? Absolutely. Anything is possible. But are they evidentially reasonable? No. When talking with your skeptical friends about the existence of God, take some time to ask them why they aren’t skeptical about some of the evidentially unsupported theories promoted by those who deny the existence of God. Remember: possibilities are irrelevant; evidentially reasonable inferences aren’t.
Evidence Instruction #5:
The More Cumulative the Case, the More Reasonable the Conclusion
I’m occasionally asked, “Jim, what was the one piece of evidence that convinced you Christianity was true? When did you have that ‘aha moment’?” When people ask questions like this, I think they are hoping to identify a single “silver bullet” piece of evidence they might use to persuade others. I hate to disappoint them, but my honest answer is: “There wasn’t one piece of evidence that convinced me Christianity was true.”
There were hundreds of pieces. That’s the nature of all my criminal cases as well. When we first began working cold cases as an agency, a partner on the homicide team brought me a case he thought was promising. He had a particular suspect in mind and was disappointed when I remained unconvinced. But after two years of additional investigation, I knew we had the right suspect in our sights. Why? Because we gathered dozens of additional pieces of evidence and these new evidences all pointed to the same suspect. The more cumulative the case, the more reasonable the conclusion.
I am a huge fan of cumulative cases. They are the most effective way to demonstrate something is true. When the standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” jurors are far more comfortable when the case is overwhelming. That’s why we take the time to collect, list, and demonstrate how many pieces of evidence point to a defendant. The more the evidence amasses against a particular suspect, the shorter the jury deliberation.
Cumulative cases also help us understand how to interpret single, less obvious pieces of evidence. Let’s say, for example, a suspect behaves in a certain way the day after a murder. It’s my job to determine if that behavior is an indication of guilt, but there are times when a behavior can be confusing and may not be interpreted as an indication of guilt. So how should I (and later, the jury) interpret this behavior? The other pieces of evidence in the cumulative case can guide us to the correct interpretation. If ninety-nine pieces of evidence are best interpreted as evidence of guilt and one piece of evidence seems confusing, I allow the ninety-nine pieces to inform the one rather than allow the one piece of evidence to inform the ninety-nine.
When we make the case for what we believe as Christians, we need to instruct people on this simple, foundational principle. Let’s say, for example, we are attempting to make the biblical case for a particular doctrine or theological truth. We begin by collecting the evidence in the case: all the biblical verses that address the issue under investigation. Some of these verses will have more than one reasonable interpretation. How will we know which interpretation is correct? By referring to the cumulative case. If ninety-nine verses are best interpreted to support a particular biblical truth and one verse seems confusing, I allow the ninety-nine verses to inform the one, rather than allow the one verse to inform the ninety-nine.
Let’s take a look at an example from a single passage in James’s epistle that some have used to argue our salvation is dependent on “good works”:
James 2:14, 21–26 (ESV)
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? … Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
How are we to interpret this passage? It sounds like James is saying our salvation is dependent on our effort to obey the Law and perform “good works.” But if that’s the case, James’s teaching appears to be in conflict with a rich, robust, cumulative case for salvation by faith alone (i.e., John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:28–30; 4:5; 5:1; 9:30; 10:4; 11:6; Galatians 2:8–9, 16, 21; 3:5–6, 24; Ephesians 1:13; 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9; and Titus 3:5). These latter passages emphatically proclaim that “man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law (Romans 3:28), and that “to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness” (Romans 4:5). If we want to interpret James’s single passage properly, we need to allow the many verses we find in Scripture to inform the one we find here, rather than allow the one verse to inform the many. When read in the context of the larger chapter (remember Greg Koukl’s advice to “Never read a Bible verse”), James appears to be saying that we are saved not by our good works but by the kind of faith that produces good works. That’s a critical distinction. According to James, there are two kinds of faith: one that leads to a godly life and good works and one that doesn’t. One is “dead,” while the other is “alive.” This interpretation is reasonable given the many verses that describe salvation by faith alone.
If we want to become effective Christian case makers, we need to help people understand the overwhelming nature of the evidence for whatever we claim. The lists and summaries we described in the last chapter are excellent examples of how this can be done, but there is one downside to this approach: it requires us to be familiar and facile enough with the evidence to assemble good cumulative cases. That’s why it’s important to start disciplining yourself as a list maker. Cumulative cases are worth your time and energy.
Evidence Instruction #6:
Witnesses Are Reliable Unless Demonstrated Otherwise
Much has been written about the reliability (or unreliability) of eyewitnesses over the years. When a witness provides information in support of an attorney’s position, the attorney is likely to argue the witness should be trusted. On the other hand, if a witness provides information detrimental to the attorney’s case, the attorney will probably argue against the reliability of this witness (or eyewitnesses in general). I’ve been helped and harmed by eyewitnesses, so I’ve learned an important lesson: test your eyewitnesses and trust them—if they pass the test.
Skeptics of the Gospels typically refuse to allow the Gospels to be described as eyewitness accounts, because they prefer to think of them as fictional tales. That’s another reason why it’s important for us to be prepared with an evidential view of the gospel authors and a forensic faith.
In Cold-Case Christianity, I outline a simple four-part template (derived from the California Jury Instructions) for evaluating eyewitnesses. If it can be established that (1) a witness was actually present to see the event, (2) can be corroborated (even in a limited way) by another witness or additional evidence, (3) has not changed his story but has been honest and accurate over time, and (4) doesn’t possess a bias that might cause him to lie, you are to consider the witness reliable.
When making the case for Christianity to your nonbelieving friends and family, take the time to explain why you trust the accounts in the Gospels. Learn enough about these four aspects of eyewitness reliability to be able to instruct others, and help them understand an important truth: an eyewitness can be wrong about a particular detail and still be considered reliable. Jury instructions typically reference this fact:
Do not automatically reject testimony just because of inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently.
As a Christian, I affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. I don’t believe the authors of the Gospels are wrong about any of their claims, and I don’t believe there is an error in the biblical text, even if there may appear to be “contradictions” to those who are unfamiliar with eyewitness testimony. But when making the case to those who are critical of eyewitness evidence, I “lower the bar” a bit and provide them with the jury instruction I’ve described above. Given this legal instruction, even if I didn’t believe the Gospels were error-free, I’d still have to conclude they’re reliable and trustworthy.
Help the people you’re trying to reach learn how to evaluate eyewitnesses. Along the way, take the time to instruct them about three important attributes of true, reliable eyewitnesses. While these characteristics may seem “troubling” at first, they are just the opposite:
Reliable Eyewitnesses Seldom Appear to Agree
Perspective is important, and it’s not just one’s physical proximity that determines what a witness did or didn’t see. When you’re staring down the barrel of a robber’s pistol, you have a tendency to miss certain details that are picked up by the witness who is watching from across the room. There are many factors that contribute to one’s perception of an event, including physical location, past experience, familiarity with a feature of the crime scene, and one’s physical, emotional, or psychological condition. No two people are alike, so no two people experience an event in precisely the same way. Don’t panic; that’s normal. In fact, if three different witnesses tell you precisely the same thing, be suspicious.
Reliable Eyewitnesses Raise Questions
As I mentioned in the last chapter, witnesses often raise as many questions as they answer. We see this in criminal trials, and I demonstrated it in the biblical accounts as well. That’s why multiple witnesses are so valuable, especially when they bring nuanced, perspectival differences to the case, providing “unintentional eyewitness support” for one another. So don’t fret over the differences. Instead, employ the differences to gain a better understanding of what happened. There are times when differing accounts actually give us greater understanding and confidence.
Reliable Eyewitnesses Are Sometimes Incorrect
I’ve seen this repeatedly over the course of my career. Witnesses are people, and people make mistakes. I’ve never met an “inerrant eyewitness”; everyone is wrong about something. If inerrant witnesses were required to convict defendants, we’d never be able to prosecute anyone for anything. When examining the reliability of an eyewitness and encountering some factual error, take the time to (1) determine if the errant aspect of the statement is relevant to the larger issues in the case and (2) understand why the witness got the detail wrong in the first place. Is there a reason why the stress of the situation may have caused the victim to be mistaken about a detail? Does the error change the overall validity of the testimony or make a difference to the larger nature of the case? Are there additional sources we can consult to remedy the discrepancy? Take the time to resolve the issue before jettisoning the testimony.
If you teach your “jurors” about the nature of eyewitnesses before you offer the gospel eyewitness accounts, you’ll remove objections before they arise and lay the foundation for why you trust what the Bible has to say about Jesus.
Jurors receive indirect instruction from the attorneys and direct instruction from the judge over the course of a criminal trial. Without this instruction, the jurors would be unable to understand what qualifies as evidence or how to evaluate this evidence when making a decision. Your hearers are in no less need of instruction. Take the time to learn about the nature of evidence so you can pass on what you’ve learned to others as part of your case-making process. Instruct your “jury.”
Forensic Faith Principle #3:
Make an Opening Statement Enthusiastically
I’ll never forget a case I had many years ago involving a new district attorney in his first year trying felony cases. He was exceptionally bright and articulate. During the preparation for the trial, I grew increasingly excited about what this young attorney might be able to do in front of a jury. My expectations were crushed, however, once he stepped behind the podium and began his opening statement.
When I was an inexperienced Christian case maker, I looked for opportunities to practice in front of the smallest audience possible. So I started in the car, by myself. I listened to cassette tapes and CDs from accomplished Christian apologists, particularly debates featuring Christians and nonbelievers. After one side would finish presenting, I would turn off the audio and either practice responding to the argument I just heard or practice repeating what I had just heard.
It’s one thing to be intellectually capable or academically prepared, but it’s another to confidently and enthusiastically deliver what you’ve prepared to an audience. In a famous Gallup poll that asked Americans what they were afraid of, the fear of public speaking ranked second, just below the fear of snakes and just above the fear of heights. My young attorney colleague can attest to the difficulty many people have when trying to communicate what they believe to others, especially in the opening minutes.
Along the way, however, I met many great orators in the district attorney’s office, and one of my best friends, Deputy District Attorney John Lewin, is perhaps the finest communicator I know. But he wasn’t always a confident, enthusiastic speaker. In fact, I met John very early in both of our careers. His first big cases were my first big cases. I watched him develop as a communicator over the years, and I can now tell you what makes him great. Every jury trial begins with an opening statement from both attorneys, and John specializes in the art of “first impressions.” His enthusiastic opening statements garner the respect and attention of the jury immediately.
Jesus’s “opening statements” were the best ever delivered. No one captured the attention and imagination of an audience like Jesus did. His followers were inspired, even as His adversaries were challenged and convicted. One day, while sitting with James, John, and Andrew on the Mount of Olives, Jesus began to tell His disciples about the future:
See to it that no one misleads you. Many will come in My name, saying, “I am He!” and will mislead many. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be frightened; those things must take place; but that is not yet the end. For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs. (Mark 13:5–8)
Wow, do you think that opening statement got the attention of Jesus’s disciples? Those were the first words of what has come to be known as the Olivet Discourse, one of the most famous and powerful of Jesus’s sermons. Jesus started His presentation dramatically because He understood the power of a good “opening statement.”
As a Christian case maker, I don’t expect to craft an opening like Jesus. I’ll settle for something closer to what John Lewin has been able to accomplish in his career as a prosecutor. If you’re willing to learn from John and other attorneys like him, you can improve your “opening statements” dramatically.
Practice Your Presentation
John became better the more he worked at it. Unsurprising, right? Most of us recognize the value of practice. John practiced his craft indirectly, even when he wasn’t in front of a jury. He and I met dozens of times before each jury trial, discussing the evidence and the best way to present it. In these sessions, we discussed a variety of ways he might make the opening statement. John mulled over his possible approaches, refining them and taking input from me, his harshest (but most affirming) “critic.” He knew he could trust me, and as we bantered back and forth over the importance of specific pieces of evidence, John’s statement was refined and perfected.
There are lots of ways you can practice presenting the case for Christianity. Long before I ever began speaking publicly, I began refining my presentation skills informally with a close friend, Dirk Ringstad, at my dinner table. I knew I could trust Dirk as my harshest (but most affirming) “critic.” We spent hours mulling over doctrines of Christianity and the value of specific Christian evidences. My young sons would listen to us debate and “practice” the case, and they still talk about it to this day. If you’re eager to refine your communication skills, start now. Begin with case-making conversations, then, when you’re ready, volunteer to teach a class at your church or lead a small group. Every setting is an opportunity to practice. The more you talk, teach, and lead, the more you’ll see your skills develop and grow.
Protect Your First Impression
John understands the power of a first impression, and he knows it doesn’t start at the opening statement. By the time the jurors get to hear about the case in John’s opening, they’ve already spent many hours watching and listening to him. Jurors are a captive audience, and they watch the attorneys throughout the jury selection process, in the halls prior to their selection, and during every break along the way. John knows the eyes and ears of the jury are constantly pointed in his direction, so he’s careful not to do or say anything that would jeopardize his ability to connect with them.
Your “jury” is also watching you long before you ever get the chance to share what you know to be true about Jesus. I hope you’ve protected your first impression, because you’ve already started to make it. Have you been the kind of person your friends and family members would want to listen to? Has your life been consistent with your message? Your first impression is critical to your success, and it starts a lot earlier than you think. If you’ve already damaged a relationship with someone you are trying to reach, take the time to admit your failings, repair broken relationships, and start anew before launching into your “opening statement.” For those you still want to reach, remember you’re already reaching them, even though you haven’t yet started sharing what you know about Jesus.
Be Eager and Prepared
John loves opening statements. He’s genuinely excited to start the trial and eager to tell the story. For John, the early moments in front of a jury are invigorating; he’s not afraid or anxious. Why? Because by this time in the process, he knows the case as well as anyone on the planet, and he knows exactly how he’s going to start telling it to the jury. John is prepared and his preparation results in enthusiasm.
If you’ve been making the case for Christianity with nonbelievers, you’ve probably noticed how easy it is to gravitate toward prior successes. Once we discover a successful approach, we’re inclined to do something similar the next time around, especially when it comes to talking to someone about Christianity.
As a Christian case maker, I know it’s not always easy to get started. Spiritual conversations can be intimidating. One way to overcome your anxiety is to do what John does: master the case and know how you want to start. I met a young man many years ago named James Boccardo. He wrote a book entitled Unsilenced: How to Voice the Gospel. James was a consummate spiritual conversation starter. His fearless approach to opening statements rivaled John’s; James was enthusiastic and eager. Why? Because he knew exactly how he was going to start a conversation, and he was ready to answer any question that came his way. James almost always started his conversations by finding a way to ask a version of the following question: “So, what do you think happens to you when you die?” That simple, brief question would typically start much longer conversations about the nature of life, afterlife, and the existence of God. James mastered all the possible responses to the question prior to starting so he was ready to provide an answer regardless of which direction the conversation veered (see his book to learn more). James was eager because he was prepared.
I recently met a man at a speaking engagement in Montana who had a different, but equally effective, “opening statement.” Grover Peterson has been involved in thousands of spiritual conversations and has led many people to Christ. He’s eager and courageous when starting these conversations with strangers because he has his own prepared “opening statement.” Grover usually approaches people and points out something in their immediate environment that’s clearly designed (like a watch or ball-point pen). He then starts by saying, “Everything in life has a design, function, and purpose. What is yours?” This simple, engaging, inoffensive opening has given Grover an opportunity to start a number of spiritual conversations. Some of these help people start thinking about the design and purpose of life; some result in a presentation of the gospel. Grover is eager to deliver his opening statement because he is prepared.
Make Promises You Can Deliver
One of the most important things I’ve learned from John Lewin over the years is the value of keeping your promises. When John delivers his opening statement, he thoroughly presents what he knows about the case and the reason why the evidence points to the defendant’s guilt. John’s opening statement is, in essence, a promise. John makes a claim about the defendant, then pledges to back up his claim with evidence over the course of the trial. But John knows he can’t make promises he can’t later keep. He doesn’t overstate his case because he knows he has to deliver. If he keeps his promises, he’s got an excellent chance to be successful.
If you’re getting ready to make the case for Christianity to your friends or family members, make sure you can deliver on your promises. Never cite something from the Internet you haven’t thoroughly investigated for yourself. Expect your audience to fact-check everything you say, and do your best to be ready with your sources. Also, be careful not to overstate your case. The evidence supporting Christianity is strong enough without embellishment. If one of our juries was to catch John Lewin exaggerating about a single piece of evidence, they might rightly wonder if he also exaggerated about other issues (and simply hadn’t been caught). Knowing this, John never overstates his case. He doesn’t want to erode the confidence of his hearers. In a similar way, it’s important for us to retain a sense of evidential modesty when making the case for Christianity; it will help us gain the trust of our hearers.
Capture the Momentum
John values his opening statements as perhaps the single most important moment in the trial. His goal is simple: present a memorable, thorough, intellectually robust, and emotionally powerful summary of the case. John hopes to overwhelm the jury with the totality of the evidence. He understands an important principle of jury trials: If you win the jury early, all you have to do is keep them. If you don’t win them early, you’re playing “catch up” for the rest of the trial. Momentum is important in opening statements. That’s why John’s openings are powerful and memorable.
If you’re trying to reach a friend or family member as a Christian case maker, create some momentum. A friend of mine, Ryan Moore, told me about a conversation he had with an atheist at his university. This nonbeliever told Ryan he believed the existence of true evil demonstrated the nonexistence of an all-loving and all-knowing God. He challenged Ryan to provide him with a compelling piece of evidence for God’s existence. Ryan knew he was about to give an “opening statement.” After pausing for a moment, he offered evil as the best evidence for God’s existence: “When you describe something as truly (transcendently) evil, you’re unwittingly acknowledging the existence of a true, objective, transcendent standard of good. But if there isn’t a transcendent, objectively good God to act as that standard, ‘evil’ is nothing more than a matter of your personal opinion. True evil requires a true standard of good by which to measure it. That’s why evil is evidence for God’s existence.” Ryan made a memorable, intellectually robust, and emotionally powerful opening statement, and he made it in less than a minute. Ryan’s opening started the conversation moving with momentum.
Don’t underestimate the importance of a fast start, and remember, every conversation about Jesus starts long before you begin to make the case with words. You’ve got time to think about how you approach people, to develop the character required to gain their trust, and to practice what you have to say. Get ready now, so you can jump in eagerly and make a great opening statement.
Forensic Faith Principle #4:
Present the Evidence Powerfully
Once the opening statements are complete, it’s time for each attorney to back up their claims with evidence. Attorneys understand that jurors aren’t likely to trust their opening claims if these claims can’t be supported evidentially. The “presentation of evidence” section of the trial provides each attorney with an opportunity to do just that.
Jesus also understood the expectations of His listeners. He knew they weren’t likely to trust His claims if those claims couldn’t be supported with evidence. That’s one of the reasons why Jesus performed so many miracles. He told His listeners these miracles verified His claims of deity (John 10:25) and warned those who would not believe the evidence of the miracles (Luke 10:13–16). Along the way, He performed at least thirty-seven miracles; approximately twenty-two were recorded by Matthew, twenty by Mark, twenty-one by Luke, and eight by John, who said he recorded the miracles “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). Jesus was a masterful “evidence presenter.”
I’ve given you some examples of words Christians sometimes use with one another that are confusing or offensive to nonbelievers. Over the next two or three weeks, start to sensitize yourself to your own collection of confusing “Christianese.”
Christian case makers also need to be ready to present the evidence for what they believe when making the case for Christianity. I’ve observed some excellent criminal “evidence presenters” over the years, and they all possessed similar attributes. If you are willing to adopt these simple principles, you’ll improve your ability to present the evidence and make the case.
Be Self-Effacing and Gracious
The evidence-presentation portion of the trial is by far the longest. It might take weeks or months for both sides to present the evidence for their cases. During this extended period of time, the jury will have an opportunity to evaluate every aspect of the attorneys, including their character. For this reason, it is incredibly important to avoid arrogance. The most effective communicators are gracious, likeable, and unassuming. They poke fun at themselves, they don’t take themselves too seriously, and they lower their guard when appropriate. They’re self-effacing. In addition, they are gracious but tough. Jurors expect common courtesy to be extended to each witness, even when a witness is testifying against what the attorney claims is true. Each witness is to be treated with dignity unless they’ve perjured themselves by lying. Even when this happens, shrewd attorneys must maintain their character as they expose the motives of the lying witness. Character is important. Juries have been known to make a decision based on how they feel about an attorney rather than what they think about the evidence.
We’re all designed and wired differently, and God uses our collective gifts to accomplish His goals. Your interest is the key to successful communication. But first, you have to identify what you’re passionate about.
Your conversations about Christianity may also take an extended period of time. Some of my interactions with friends or family members have been going on for years. That’s a long time for my “jury” to assess my character; I have to make sure my evidential confidence doesn’t result in obnoxious arrogance. This is always a danger, especially when interacting with people online. The New Atheist movement is replete with aggressive ambassadors who are quick to lose their temper and happy to ridicule. It’s tempting to “fight fire with fire” when interacting with some of these harsh critics of Christianity. Don’t do it. Retain your sense of humor. Be gracious, even if you catch someone lying. Don’t match arrogance with arrogance. Learn to take a punch and laugh it off. You’ll be much more likeable and a much better communicator. You don’t want your friends and family members to make a decision based on how they feel about you rather than what they think about the evidence.
Be Accessible
There are times when the technical aspects of a trial can be overwhelming to a jury. DNA experts, material experts, or behavioral psychologists aren’t always gifted at communicating their expertise to laymen. It’s the job of the attorneys to help these experts avoid esoteric, proprietary language. Attorneys have to help the experts translate their testimony so the jury can understand it. Accessibility is key. Good communicators “throw the ball so people can catch it” and avoid confusing, esoteric, technical jargon.
Christian case makers also need to be good translators. When researching and writing God’s Crime Scene, I quickly realized the challenge I was facing as a translator. How would I communicate incredibly complicated scientific and philosophical concepts without losing the audience I was hoping to reach? I knew I couldn’t simply quote my sources verbatim. Instead, I needed to find a way to avoid mysterious, technical language and recommunicate their statements with accessible analogies and relatable stories. If you’re trying to share the truth of Christianity with a friend or family member, you also need to avoid esoteric Christian language. Christians have their own set of proprietary terms that require translation. Here are just a few terms in need of translation:
“Be born again.” This term is well-known but poorly understood by non-Christians. As an atheist, I wasn’t sure what it meant to be “born again.” Are “born again” Christians different from “regular” Christians? The term needs translating for those who are unfamiliar with the language. One possible translation might be “Reconsider your status before a perfect, holy God, accept the forgiveness offered by Jesus, and begin a new life as a Christian.”
“You need to be repentant.” As an atheist, I found this expression both archaic and offensive. It sounded like a word from the dark ages, and it insinuated that I was bad—long before I knew how bad I was. Here’s a possible translation: “You and I might be ‘good’ at times, but we’re not ‘perfect.’ If God is all-powerful, He has the ability to be perfect. The only way imperfect creatures like you and me can be united to a perfect God is to accept the pardon He’s offering for our imperfection.”
“Invite Jesus into your heart.” This sounds confusing, sappy, and emotional. I know people invite girlfriends or boyfriends into their hearts, but what does that have to do with God? Here’s a translation: “When we admit our imperfections, believe Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for our moral failings, and accept His sacrifice, we can start a new relationship with God.”
“Be washed by the blood of the Lamb.” As a skeptical, unbelieving homicide detective, this expression conjured a number of images for me, but none of them had anything to do with God. Here’s a helpful translation: “The death of one perfect man (Jesus) provides forgiveness for the rest of us.”
If you want to know what the other side is going to say or do “at trial,” you’ll need some “discovery” of your own. Believe me, the other side has been listening to what Christians have been saying for some time now. Have you taken the time to listen to what their culture has to say?
“Be sanctified.” “Sanctified” sounds an awful lot like “sanctimonious” to most people, and it’s a word that’s seldom used outside of Christian circles. This translation may start to move us in the right direction: “Grateful people are selfless people. Christians who understand how much they’ve been forgiven are changed over time.”
Starting to get the idea? If you want your presentation to be accessible to your “jury,” you need to become a good translator. Start “throwing the ball so people can catch it.”
Be Strategic
Not all evidence is created equal. Attorneys must decide which evidences they will (or will not) present to the jury, and which witnesses they will (or will not) call to the witness stand. Not every piece of evidence or potential witness has the same importance to the case. Attorneys have to decide what they will highlight and what they will minimize. Are some of these evidences more confusing than they are persuasive? Are some more prejudicial than convincing? In a similar way, attorneys also have to decide which experts are necessary to make their case. Some cases require doctors, coroners, DNA experts, material evidence experts, or weapons specialists. Good communicators strategically limit the kinds of evidence they present and carefully select the experts they call.
When I first decided to accept my duty as a Christian case maker, I felt overwhelmed by all the diverse disciplines from which I could make the case for Christianity. I was already in my thirties and busier than ever as a homicide detective. I couldn’t imagine how I would ever find the time to master all the philosophy and science. So I decided to specialize. I picked the one line of evidence that most interested me and spent as much time as possible learning everything I could. As a police officer, I resonated with the argument for God’s existence from objective moral truths (commonly known as the Axiological Argument). Here is a good example of how this argument might be formulated:
1. If God did not exist, objective moral values would not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
As a relatively new believer, I focused on this argument when making the case for Christianity. It required me to study so I could defend the claims of the argument. Do objective moral laws really exist? Couldn’t these objective values be the result of something other than God? I knew I needed to articulate the case and respond to objections. Having only one argument in my arsenal, my case wasn’t as cumulative or broad as I would have liked, but it was a start. If you want to be a good communicator and don’t know a lot about all the possible forms of evidence, strategically limit the kinds of evidence you present and carefully select the experts you call.
Be a Good Questioner
When witnesses testify in a case, they do so in response to questions. The best prosecutors and defense attorneys are excellent questioners. In fact, if attorneys don’t ask the right questions during direct and cross examination, jurors won’t have the information they need to make a decision. Attorneys question witnesses in a very intentional way. First, they ask penetrating questions to understand what the witness is claiming and to expose any potential motives or biases. Next, they listen carefully for contradictions or inconsistencies. Finally, they point out the discrepancies in the testimony to either correct misunderstandings or highlight intentional misrepresentations. Good communicators ask good questions and allow the answers to chart their course.
If you want to be a good Christian case maker, you need to understand the value of good questions. No one understands this better than Greg Koukl (the friend I mentioned in the previous chapter). His book Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions is the finest instruction manual for good Christian conversations available today. Greg is a fan of Detective Columbo, the famous fictional detective popularized by actor Peter Falk in the 1970s. Columbo was consistently underestimated by the people he questioned, but he listened carefully to their responses and solved every case. In the spirit of Detective Columbo, Greg suggests all Christian case makers ask two important questions when someone makes a claim about Christianity or God: (1) What do you mean by that? and (2) Why do you think that’s true? These two simple questions will help you clarify what people believe and why they believe it.
Listen carefully for the attributes of truth when people respond to these two questions. Truth isn’t all that hard to recognize, and false ideas are even easier to identify. In God’s Crime Scene, I describe three characteristics of errant case making. When attorneys find themselves trying to defend something untrue, they either (1) make a claim that isn’t supported by the evidence, (2) errantly redefine key terms to conform to their argument, or (3) make claims that are logically inconsistent. Listen for these three characteristics when talking with your friends, and be ready to point out their errors with gentleness and respect.
In a recent conversation with a friend, for example, I used two “Columbo” questions to help her think through her position. My friend told me she had been “pro-choice” her entire adult life. I asked, “What do you mean by ‘pro-choice’?” She told me she thought women should have the right to do what they want with their bodies, including the right to have an abortion. I asked another “what” question: “What, in your opinion, is the unborn?”
“Well,” she said, “I don’t think it’s a person, if that’s what you mean.” I asked her a form of the second Columbo question: “Why do you believe that? Why don’t you think the unborn are human persons?”
“Because they are not independent human beings. They’re completely dependent on their mothers for survival.” I had a choice at this point in the conversation. I recognized that she was errantly redefining human “personhood.” I could have made a counter-claim of my own at this point or simply told her she was wrong. But I wanted to be gentle and respectful, so I used a few questions to point out the error in her thinking: “It sounds like you’re saying physical independence and autonomy are the basis for human identity, am I hearing you correctly? But if that is true, does that mean aging or injured adults who are dependent on pace makers or dialysis machines would also have to be considered less human than others? Does one’s level of dependency really determine one’s personhood?” My goal was to help her see the error in her thinking in the least threatening way possible. Good questions can help accomplish this goal.
Be Preemptive
Prior to starting a trial, each side must release information to the other about the witnesses and evidence they’ll call and present during the trial. This information exchange is called “discovery,” and it’s designed to prevent one side from “ambushing” the other when it’s too late to obtain refuting evidence or too late to fashion a response. “Discovery” allows both sides to know the other’s case before they begin. For this reason, good prosecutors think preemptively and do their homework about the opposition’s case and the team they’ll face in trial. The more they understand how the opponent thinks and behaves in trial, the better they’ll be able to anticipate the objections and strategy the other side may pursue. Prosecutors often address the opposition’s evidence (at least indirectly) even before the defense calls a witness, and they strategically plan for how they might respond to any objections offered. After reviewing the discovery and evaluating what they know about the defense team, good prosecutors act preemptively and anticipate objections.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a formal “discovery” process for our spiritual conversations. If we want to know what our friends or family members are going to say in advance of our discussions, we had better take the time to love and know our hearers and prepare ourselves to answer each and every possible response they might offer. That’s not an easy task to accomplish. But the more you read about the claims of atheism and the more time you take to understand your hearers, the better chance you’ll have to act preemptively and anticipate objections. Are you reading what the opposition has to say about Christianity? Have you thought about how you might respond to the common objections offered by the culture? This may be the only “discovery” you get prior to talking with nonbelievers. How well do you know the people with whom you are sharing the truth? Have you been a good listener? Do you know why they might reject Christianity or have misgivings about Christians? Do you know if their objections are rational, emotional, or volitional? Take the time to review the “discovery” and evaluate what you know about your hearers so you can act preemptively and anticipate objections.
The presentation of evidence is the “nuts and bolts” part of any jury trial. Attorneys make a persuasive opening statement and then spend the majority of the trial making good on their evidential promises by providing the evidence they previewed for the jury. Once this is done, each side has one last opportunity to convince the jury. It doesn’t come in the form of a statement, however. Instead, it is delivered in the form of an argument.
Forensic Faith Principle #5:
Make a Closing Argument Persuasively
Before the attorneys release the jury to deliberate on what they’ve seen or heard, they make one final effort to convince the jury of their position. Opening statements are relatively straightforward previews of the case to come; closing arguments are impassioned pleas for the jury to remember what they’ve seen and to make the right decision.
Unsurprisingly, Jesus was an amazing “closer.” After His most famous message, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus had an opportunity to leave His listeners with something powerful as He summarized the importance of the words He had just spoken. Here’s what He said:
Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall. (Matthew 7:24–27)
The crowds were blown away. Jesus taught with confident authority, referenced the importance of the sermon He had just given, and called His audience to act on His words. Jesus understood the value of a good “closing argument.”
Every good courtroom movie includes a dramatic closing argument. I was asked to play a small role in God’s Not Dead 2, where I appeared in a courtroom scene as an expert witness (I testified on the reliability of the New Testament Gospels). The fictional attorneys in this movie, Prosecutor Tom Endler and Defense Attorney Pete Kane, continue the dramatic tradition of courtroom movies by offering emotional, entertaining closing arguments of their own. While real criminal attorneys aren’t always as theatrical as their cinematic counterparts, we can learn a lot from the way they present closing arguments. Much of what we learn can be applied to our duty as Christian case makers.
Close Confidently
Good communicators close their argument with confidence. After we successfully investigated and prosecuted Douglas Bradford (the defendant I described in the previous chapter), John Lewin was asked a question during the Dateline taping. Bradford had hired Robert Shapiro (the famed defense attorney who first represented O. J. Simpson) as his defense attorney. After the trial was over, Keith Morrison asked John if he was intimidated by having to face Shapiro. John responded succinctly by telling Keith that he was confident because he had an advantage over Shapiro: John’s position was true. John’s confidence was rooted in his evidential certainty, and it’s a lot easier to remain calm when you are certain.
Christian case makers ought to reflect a similar certainty. We have the truth. If we’re familiar with the evidence supporting our case, we ought to allow our certainty to result in confidence. If you’ve ever owned a dog and visited a dog park, you know the difference between Great Danes and Chihuahuas. Danes walk quietly with confidence. They don’t have anything to prove; they are, after all, the biggest dogs in the yard. Chihuahuas, on the other hand, are the loudest dogs in the park, and you know why: they’re typically the smallest dog around. If, as Christians, we have the truth, our worldview is the “big dog” among worldviews. There’s no reason to panic, no reason to “puff up,” no reason to make a lot of unnecessary noise. Our closing argument should be made confidently, based on our evidential certainty.
Now that you’ve seen a few examples of how you might illustrate the truth claims of Christianity, take a minute to be creative. You don’t have to be an artist to illustrate a Christian concept.
Summarize Visually
Every closing argument must summarize the evidence that was presented in trial, and it’s true that a picture is worth a thousand words. When used as part of your closing summary, visual tools help jurors remember the facts, connect the dots, understand the depth and power of the case, and make a reasonable inference. We typically employ images as part of our closing arguments. In Cold-Case Christianity, I provided an example of what a cumulative case might look like when presented visually. Do you remember the case against the man who was accused of bludgeoning his girlfriend in the previous chapter? Go back and take a look at the diagram we used to highlight the cumulative nature of the case. Although you may not be a trained illustrator, I bet you could create an adequate “napkin version” of this diagram to help someone understand the strength of the evidence:
The cumulative case is more obvious when illustrated in this way rather than by simply offering the evidence in list form.
As a Christian case maker, I still rely on images and diagrams to make my case. If I am presenting the case for Christianity to a class or large audience, I project my diagrams and visual images on a screen. If I am talking with a friend in a more intimate setting, I inevitably pull out a napkin or piece of paper to start visualizing the case. Here, for example, is a diagram from Cold-Case Christianity illustrating the cumulative case for Peter as the source of Mark’s gospel:
The following diagram (from God’s Crime Scene) illustrates seven factors we must consider when trying to understand why God might allow any act of evil:
Christians are often called intolerant, especially when we disagree with moral values and ideas held by non-Christians in our culture. Voltaire once wrote: “Of all religions the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.” How might you help people understand the difference between disagreeing and being intolerant? What might you say to help people understand the nature of true tolerance?
In each of these examples, complicated concepts are visualized in an effort to make the evidence (and the arguments) clearer and more compelling.
Offer a “Rebuttal” (with Gentleness and Respect)
After the closing arguments, the prosecution has an additional (and final) opportunity to address the jury in his or her rebuttal. In jury trials, the prosecution gets the final word because it has the burden of proof. In this last argument before the jury, the prosecution focuses in more narrowly on the defense attorney’s closing argument in an effort to point out weaknesses or logical inconsistencies. Prosecutors must be courageous in their rebuttals and squarely address the deficiencies they see in the opposition’s case while carefully retaining an inoffensive character that won’t alienate the jury. This delicate balance between spirited confrontation and professional character is sometimes difficult to gauge and maintain, but it’s important. This is the last chance the attorney has to convince the jury of both the strength of the prosecution’s case and the weakness of the defense’s response. Prosecutors typically treat this final argument as a “now or never” moment. Their goal is simple: address the weaknesses in the opposition’s case and leave the jury with something powerful to think about.
Many of my Christian friends are uncomfortable “rebutting” the claims made by unbelieving friends, coworkers, and family members because they don’t want to be seen as judgmental. In fact, some Christians think we’ve actually been commanded to be nonconfrontational and nonjudgmental. They typically cite Jesus’s words in the Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew 7:1
Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
This statement seems direct and unambiguous, doesn’t it? But remember our principle from the last chapter: we shouldn’t read just one verse of the Bible in isolation. So let’s take a look at Jesus’s words about judgment in their proper context:
Matthew 7:1–5
Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Jesus isn’t telling us we should never judge but that we should never judge hypocritically. If we point out the error in our brother’s life yet possess that same error in our own, the “standard of measure” we use to judge our brother could certainly be used to judge us as well. That’s why Jesus refers to someone like this as a “hypocrite” and tells us to “first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” We are called to point out error in others (“take the speck out of your brother’s eye”), but only after making sure we aren’t guilty of the same error (“first take the log out of your own eye”).
Showing people the weaknesses or logical inconsistencies in their worldview is an important part of Christian case making, but be certain you’ve thought through your own position and haven’t presented it in a way that is logically inconsistent or factually untrue. Take the “log” out of your own case before you take the “speck” out of your brother’s case.
In every conversation I have about the case for Christianity, I hope to leave people with something insightful and illuminating, just like a good prosecutor. Although I don’t expect to have the last word in these conversations, I do hope to make the last memorable statement. If a claim has been offered or an objection has been raised against Christianity, I do my best to offer a gracious rebuttal, seeking a Christlike balance between true tolerance and nonhypocritical judgment. My goal is simple: address the weaknesses in opposing views and leave people with something powerful to think about.
Ask for a Decision Passionately
Passion is incredibly important in criminal case making. If jurors don’t sense urgency and passion on the part of the prosecutor, they’re not likely to feel a sense of urgency or passion themselves. If the attorneys aren’t excited about their cases, why should they expect the jury to be? Prosecutors and defense attorneys possess more than just passion; they have directed passion. They want their impassioned efforts to result in a decision. For this reason, they end their final arguments by asking specifically for the jury to decide in their favor. In fact, they typically remind the jury of the importance of their duty as jurors and the critical nature of the decision they are about to make. When jurors understand what’s at stake and are enthusiastically engaged in the arguments, they are far more likely to come to a decision and come to it quickly.
Spiritual decisions are even more critical than jury decisions because there’s so much more at stake. A jury decision dictates a defendant’s temporal future, but spiritual decisions dictate a person’s eternal future. Given the importance of spiritual decisions, shouldn’t we, as Christian case makers, be passionate and goal directed? I’m always surprised when I hear someone tell me how they were led to Christ by someone who was just courageous enough to ask them for a decision. The best evangelists I know are fearless. They are passionate and unafraid, and they never forget to ask someone if they are ready to change their mind and become a follower of Christ.
I recognize that it’s not always appropriate or possible to offer the gospel or lead someone in a prayer of salvation. And as a new Christian case maker, you may not yet feel confident or courageous enough to ask for the most important decision a person could make. But it’s always possible to leave people with something powerful to think about and challenge them to consider seriously what you’ve just offered. If you’re not yet comfortable to ask for a decision for Christ, at least ask for a decision to think. Remind the people you care about of the importance of the topic at hand and the critical nature of the evidence you’ve presented. If you can help them understand what’s at stake, and can engage them passionately in the arguments, they are far more likely to come to a decision and come to it quickly.
Place the Case in the Hands of the Jury Confidently
Once the presentations are complete, attorneys place the case in the hands of the jury. As I described in the beginning of this chapter, this is sometimes hard to do. The prosecutor and defense attorney have to trust that they’ve done all they could do. Now it’s time for the jury to do their job. One way to weather the inevitable anxiety that often occurs while everyone is waiting for a decision is to simply remember the team effort required to successfully prosecute or represent a defendant. No single attorney usually makes the case alone; instead, they rely on the help of investigators, paralegal assistants, support staff, and interns. It’s a team effort, so the success (or failure) really isn’t resting on any one person in the process. While this truth isn’t always completely comforting, it is helpful to remember when a decision is hanging in the balance.
I’m sometimes tempted to see my spiritual conversations as a solo effort. While I recognize the sovereignty of God in calling His children to Himself, I often struggle to find my own role in evangelism. Like a game of tennis, I occasionally feel like I’m all alone, volleying back and forth with a friend who’s a better athlete. We’re at the French Open, playing on clay. It’s hot and the stakes are high, and the entire world is watching on ESPN. Whatever I do (or don’t do) and whatever I say (or don’t say) will make all the difference. Every shot I miss is my fault; there’s no one else to blame. But this analogy doesn’t actually apply to my efforts as a Christian case maker. Evangelism is more like a game of baseball. It’s a team effort. In every conversation I have with unbelieving friends, I am mindful of the value of singles. I can’t “win” every encounter, and it’s unreasonable to expect to hit a home run every time I step up to the plate. If I get the right pitch, I’ll swing, and if I get on base, great. Singles are important in baseball games because my teammates can turn my single into a winning run.
Every story of conversion typically involves incremental decision making. People rarely make dramatic shifts in their thinking overnight. Instead, they usually move around the bases one base at a time as they consider the truth claims of Christianity and respond to the events in their lives. They may stand on second or third base for an extended period of time before advancing, and you never know where they may be on the base path when you engage them as a case maker. This was my personal experience as someone considering the claims of Christianity. I spent some time “running the bases”; it took a while for me to process and consider the evidence. If you had approached me while I was engaged in this process, you might not have known precisely where I was along the base path. In fact, you might have gotten frustrated with me when I didn’t respond favorably (or immediately) to your efforts to share the truth. But I was listening all along, inching closer to home plate.
Maybe that’s why I’m eager to talk to people and help them overcome an objection or advance their understanding just a “base” or two. I remember my own process as a base runner, and I know this isn’t a game of tennis. I’m part of a team sport and just one in a series of batters trying to move my seeking friends along the base path. I step up to the plate, try to get a sense of what the pitcher is throwing, and do my best to make an appropriate decision on how to respond. On rare occasions, I may swing for the fences, but sometimes the wiser choice is simply to make contact with the ball, get on base if possible, or take a “walk” if the pitcher is throwing wildly. It’s not all on me. I don’t have to win the game all by myself.
Grow, Then Go
I’ll never forget the first time we received a guilty verdict in a high-profile cold case. The local Fox News reporters were waiting on the steps of the court building. It felt like a scene from a movie. Cameramen were everywhere, and the reporters were eager to get an interview. In the midst of all the post-trial chaos, I looked for the family of the victim. I watched them as they answered the reporters’ questions and held back tears of joy and relief. I suddenly realized why I was working these cases.
The best way to learn something is to force yourself to teach it to others. When you know you have to communicate something publicly, you’re far more likely to be motivated to learn it yourself.
I was working for the families.
Each time we successfully made the case in front of a jury, we helped a family find justice. “Closure” as we like to think of it, was usually elusive. But justice was often enough to transform people forever. With every new case, our team grew in its ability to effectively investigate and communicate the truth, and with every new case, we were only more committed to doing it again. We learned an important principle: the more you grow as a case maker, the more you want to go make the case.
Jesus understood this principle. He left His disciples with an important task. They had matured and grown spiritually in the years since first meeting Him. Now it was time to go make disciples:
Matthew 28:18–20 (ESV)
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Jesus told the disciples to go make more disciples. Grow disciples, then go do it again. Jesus wanted His apostles to teach others to do what He had already taught them. That’s why their great commission is now our great commission.
If we want to observe all that Jesus commanded, we need to take an approach similar to the one Jesus taught the apostles. As contemporary Christian case makers, we should follow the instruction of our Master:
Luke 24:46–49 (ESV)
Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you.
Acts 1:8 (ESV)
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.
By the power of the Holy Spirit, the first Christians shared the direct evidence of their eyewitness observations. Making disciples involved making the case. It’s not any different today.
You may not presently be the kind of case maker you’d like to be. Don’t be discouraged; the disciples weren’t the kind of case makers they wanted to be when they first met Jesus. It took them three years, hundreds of life experiences, and thousands of hours sitting at the feet of the Master. It takes time to become a good case maker. How often did Peter falter before he boldly made the case at Pentecost? Think about Simon Peter in the opening chapters of the Gospels; could you ever imagine he would become the confident leader we see in the book of Acts? It didn’t happen overnight. He struggled, made mistakes, learned from his errors, and took incremental steps toward becoming a great Christian case maker.
Now it’s your turn. Don’t be afraid to struggle, make mistakes, learn from your errors, and take incremental steps toward becoming the best Christian case maker you can be.
As you grow as a case maker, you’ll want to go make disciples. There’s nothing more satisfying than partnering with the Holy Spirit to make the case for Christianity. As a criminal case maker, I work for families because I want to see God’s work of transformation, and I want to be a small part of the process. As a Christian case maker, I work for our Christian family for the very same reason. Join me. Become a Christian case maker, and watch God transform the hearts and minds of unbelievers, even as He transforms the nature of our Christian family.