5 Evidential Examples to Help You Embrace Your Calling as a Christian Case Maker
Chapter One
5 Evidential Examples to Help You Embrace Your Calling as a Christian Case Maker
“Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
“The soldier is summoned to a life of active duty and so is the Christian.”
William Gurnall
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”
Nearly one hundred newly sworn police officers and sheriff’s deputies lowered their right hands and took a seat in the front rows of the large civic assembly hall. Our parents and friends were sitting in the upper balcony, proudly watching the graduation ceremony. I was incredibly nervous—not because I just pledged my life to this altruistic cause, but because I was worried about what I might say if called to the stage.
Sure enough, I was about to make an impromptu speech. After a brief description of the award he was about to bestow, the sheriff looked in my direction and said, “The honor recruit of Class 245 is Officer James Warner Wallace.”
As recruits, none of us knew in advance who would receive this award. I took a second to catch my breath, then I walked onto the stage and did my best to say something profound. I didn’t realize until that very moment just how important the achievement was to me. I was the second Jim Wallace to serve at our agency, continuing a tradition that began in 1961 when my father started his career. I had been a police explorer as a teenager, and when I graduated from the explorer academy, I also received a version of this award. I saw the pride in my father’s eyes then, and I wanted to see it again. The third Jim Wallace to serve at our department was also in the auditorium, cradled as a newborn in the arms of my wife, Susie. It would be another twenty-four years before my son, Jimmy, would join our ranks, but on this day, I was glad both Jims were in the audience for the Honor Recruit presentation. I had no idea, however, the challenges this award would cause.
C. S. Lewis graduated from Oxford University where he majored in literature and classic philosophy. As an atheist, he joined an informal group of writers and intellectuals known as the Inklings. He came to faith, in part, based on his conversations with other great thinkers in this group and shortly thereafter became a passionate Christian case maker. While he wrote many well-known fictional books (e.g., The Chronicles of Narnia series), he is perhaps best known for his case-making classic Mere Christianity. Once Lewis decided Christianity was true, he was “all in.” His fictional and nonfictional books reflected his passionate Christian worldview.
In the first five years of my career, I was challenged at every turn. I was “Wallace’s college kid” and an honor recruit, to boot. My peers wanted to test how much I knew about life on the streets. Was I too soft? Could I handle a tough situation? Would I recognize a crime when I saw it? How thoroughly did I know the law? Could I put together a case? The bar was high for me, and at times I feared I would fall short of everyone’s expectations. I had a choice: accept the challenge and rise to meet it, or simply shrink back into irrelevance and obscurity. I chose to accept my public duty as a police officer and my personal calling as a member of the Wallace family. To be successful in this environment, I needed to learn what was essential to the profession of law enforcement and what was required of my professional peers. I discovered something very early in my journey: the demands of a law enforcement career would require me to be “all in” or “all out.” I needed to decide law enforcement was either critically important to me or unimportant to me. I knew I would never succeed if I took a halfhearted approach.
If you’re a member of the Christian family, you face a similar challenge. The bar is high, and the culture is suspicious of both your family affiliation and your status as a believer. You are a son or daughter of the King, and you’ve been awarded the gift of eternal life. The culture is eager to test you. Are you too soft? Can you handle a tough situation? How thoroughly do you know what you believe? Can you put together a case? If you’re going to be successful in this increasingly hostile environment, you’re going to have to learn what is essential to Christianity and what is required by our culture. You have a choice: accept the challenge and rise to meet it, or simply shrink back into irrelevance and obscurity. In a culture that is increasingly suspicious of Christianity and increasingly evidential, we as believers need to be ready to accept our public duty as ambassadors of Jesus Christ as we accept our personal calling as members of the Christian family. We either need to decide our Christian affiliation is unimportant to us or critically important to us. We’ll never succeed if we take a halfhearted approach. C. S. Lewis put it this way:
Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.
With All Your Mind
Duty has two common meanings. First, it describes the obligatory force of something morally or legally required. In this sense, duties compel us to act and do what’s right. Duty also, however, describes the actions or tasks essential to a person’s position or occupation. Police officers, for example, must perform certain duties as part of their job.
I was a police officer long before I was a Christian. When I recited the law enforcement oath, I believed it was one of the most important covenants I would ever make. And after sixteen weeks of preparation at the academy, I understood the nature of my duty. Years later when I became a follower of Jesus Christ, I realized I had an even more important duty as His ambassador. Jesus summarized our calling as Christians when He described the greatest commandment in Scripture. He put it succinctly:
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”
Interestingly, when Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment, He altered the Old Testament reference found in Deuteronomy:
You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
All the gospel authors agree that Jesus used the word “mind” in His summary of this Old Testament verse (instead of the word “strength”). The Greek word used by these authors is dianoia (diajuoia): a word used to describe our “minds,” our “understanding,” or our “intelligence.” Here in Matthew’s gospel, the word is used to describe the “place where thinking occurs.” Jesus’s intentional word exchange raises the bar for us as Christians. We are not only to love God with all our heart, soul, and might, but we are also commanded to use our mind and our intelligence to understand the truth of Christianity. This effort is an act of worship. Most of us, as Christians, know what it is to love God with our hearts and soul, but what does it mean to love God with our minds?
The Christian Difference Is the Foundation of Our Christian Duty
Christianity is distinct in the nature of its claims and the value it places on reason, intelligence, and evidence. Some religious systems are based purely on the doctrinal, proverbial statements of their founders. The wisdom statements of Buddha, for example, lay the foundation for Buddhism. Hinduism is based on the revelations of the ancient sages as revealed in the Vedas and the Upanishads. Confucianism is established from the wisdom statements of Confucius. In all these examples, the statements of these religious leaders exist independently of any event in history. In other words, these systems rise or fall on the basis of ideas and concepts rather than on claims about a particular historical event.
Testimony is described as a statement or declaration of a witness (usually under oath). Eyewitness testimonies are typically used to support a fact or claim. The apostles, for example, testified about the evidence related to the resurrection when making a case for Christianity. As Christians, we typically think of our testimony in terms of our own personal experience of God. While that’s good, our testimony could also include our assessment of evidence beyond our personal experience.
Although Christianity makes its own ideological and philosophical claims, these proposals are intrinsically connected to a singular validating event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why should anyone believe what Jesus said rather than what Buddha, the Hindu sages, or Confucius said? The authority of Jesus is grounded in more than the strength of an idea; it’s established by the verifiability of an event. When Jesus rose from the dead, He established His authority as God, and His resurrection provides us with an important Christian distinctive. The resurrection can be examined for its reliability, and the evidential verifiability of Christianity separates it from every other religious system.
Let me offer an analogy to make the point clearer.
If I told you I had a private vision from God yesterday in which He revealed a number of important truths He wanted me to share with you, how could you ever verify (or falsify) my claim? Personal visions and pietistic wisdom statements are difficult to validate evidentially. You have to accept my story or reject it, but in either case, you’ll have to do so without the ability to investigate my claims evidentially. You can’t, after all, get into my head to see if I am lying about this very personal “revelation.” What if, on the other hand, I told you I had been visited by God physically? God came to me in the form of a man and, in the presence of my friends, had lunch with me in my backyard. While He was here, He helped me dig a trench for my irrigation line and even put some finishing touches on a treehouse for my kids. Can you see how this kind of public claim is categorically different from private claims about visions and divine wisdom? The public claims are about historical events that occurred (or didn’t occur) in my backyard in front of witnesses. As such, they can be investigated forensically and historically. My friends could be interviewed. The irrigation trench could be examined for attributes of “Divine Digging.” The treehouse could be examined for evidence of a “Heavenly Helper.” My claim about a divine public visitation could be examined evidentially and verified in a way private revelatory claims cannot.
The Christian’s claims are public claims. Christianity is established on the basis of an event in history. We can investigate this event like other historical occurrences (including cold-case murders, my particular area of expertise). This kind of verifiability is a Judeo-Christian distinctive.
As a detective I’ve learned that anything that shows a claim to be true can be offered as evidence. When investigating a particular suspect, I consider eyewitness statements, behaviors observed on the part of the suspect, material evidence at the scene (including biological and physical evidence), and statements made (or omitted) by the person I’m investigating. Just about everything has the potential to be an important piece of evidence.
You may be asking yourself, “Hey, wait a minute. Christianity isn’t the only theistic system based on a historical event. What about religions like Mormonism?” While Mormonism, for example, is also based on a historical claim about the past (in this case, an assertion about the early history of the North American continent), these claims are demonstrably false. In fact, the same process I used as a skeptic to test the reliability of the Gospels (as described in Cold-Case Christianity) I also used to test the reliability of the Book of Mormon. The evidence verified Christianity and falsified Mormonism. The distinctive attribute of Christianity is not simply that it is verifiable but that it passes our verification tests. Christianity is both verifiable and verified. It is true.
If thoughtful, evidential verifiability is a Christian distinctive, shouldn’t a thoughtful, evidential approach to the evidence for Christianity be our distinctive Christian duty? Shouldn’t this duty call us to live differently than the adherents of other religious systems? Shouldn’t we, as Christians, be the one group who knows why our beliefs are true and is most willing to defend what we believe? Why, then, are we often uninterested in the evidence? Why do we sound like every other religious group when asked to give a reason for our beliefs? It’s time for the distinctly evidential nature of Christianity to result in a distinctly intelligent, reasonable, and evidential family of believers. This Christian difference ought to form our Christian duty. We are called to embrace a forensic faith and to love God with our minds.
Inconsistent Evidentialists
I was working in an undercover position when I first began to investigate the Gospels as eyewitness accounts. My wife, Susie, asked me to go to church with her, and I was willing to go, even though most of the Christians I knew didn’t seem all that thoughtful. A few of my coworkers were outspoken Christians, and two of them had talked to me on occasion about how much Jesus meant to them. I was an obnoxious and obstinate atheist at the time, and I pushed back with a variety of direct questions designed to test what they believed. I continually asked them for evidence to support their claims: “Why do you think the Bible is true?” “Why do you guys believe Jesus actually rose from the dead?” “Why doesn’t an all-powerful God stop all the evil we have to deal with every day as police officers?”
Their answers weren’t very good. In fact, I was astonished to find they held a relatively unexamined faith. These seasoned investigators would never claim someone was a suspect in a crime without good evidence, yet they claimed Jesus was God on the basis of little more than subjective, personal experience. They seemed to be walking contradictions—inconsistent in their evidential approach to the truth claims of the Bible, even though they, of all people, should have understood the role evidence plays in determining what (if anything) is true.
If that’s what Christianity was all about, I wanted nothing to do with it.
But as I read the New Testament for the first time, I was pleasantly surprised. Christian belief was never intended to be “blind,” even if some of my Christian friends seemed to be unaware of the evidence supporting their beliefs. In fact, Christianity encourages rational exploration and reasonable examination. Believers are encouraged repeatedly to examine what they believe carefully so they can be fully convinced their beliefs are true. Take a look at the following admonitions in the New Testament:
1 Thessalonians 5:19–21
Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Romans 14:5
Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
2 Timothy 3:14
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them.
Christianity is reasonable, and it’s our Christian duty to examine and test what we believe so we can be fully convinced. As a detective, it was often my duty to test the statements of the suspects I arrested. Some of these suspects provided me with alibis in efforts to fool me. But none of them really wanted me to investigate their alibis deeply. None invited me to do so. Why? Because they knew they were lying; they were hoping I wouldn’t follow up on their claims. But that’s not the approach of the gospel authors. Unlike my dishonest suspects, the writers of Scripture encourage us to reason through the evidence in order to investigate their claims. Listen to what Jude, the brother of Jesus, said about the value of reason:
Jude 4, 10
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ … But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.
Jude uses this word for “unreasoning” in a pejorative manner; to be unreasoning is to act like a brute animal. God clearly wants more from beings created in His image. When I first read these words, I wondered if my Christian coworkers were familiar with them. As professional investigators, they were committed evidentialists, but as Christians, they seemed to be unaware of the teaching of their own Scripture.
The Bible calls us to be reasonable. The biblical authors confidently challenged us to investigate their claims. The writers of Scripture had nothing to hide. As a result, Christians are encouraged to be reasonable, evidential investigators.
I grew up in a family that emphasized the importance of using evidence to make a case for what we believe. I was born while my father, James David Wallace Sr., was attending police academy. He raised me to understand the value of reason and evidence. You might say it’s a part of my family tradition. My son, James David Wallace Jr., was born while I was attending the same police academy. Case making is also part of his tradition. We’ve passed this investigative, evidential practice from officer to officer through three generations. Each younger Jim Wallace learned from the example offered by an older Jim Wallace. We understand our role as members of this law enforcement family, and we embrace our evidential, case-making duty as an important part of our identity.
As a member of the Christian family, I also recognize the importance of reason and evidence. It’s part of our Christian tradition. I’ve learned from the examples offered by older Christian role models. I understand my place as a member of this Christian family, and I embrace my evidential, case-making duty as an important part of my Christian identity. The history of Christianity is filled with examples of people who embraced a forensic faith and modeled what it means to be a Christian case maker.
Forensic Faith Evidential Example #1
Christ, the Case Maker
All evidence can be divided into two broad categories: direct and indirect. Direct evidence is simply the testimony of eyewitnesses. Indirect evidence (also called “circumstantial evidence”) is everything else. The Jesus I encountered on the pages of the New Testament was a committed case maker, and He understood these two important categories. He didn’t expect His followers to believe what He said (direct evidence) without good reason (the support of indirect evidence). Jesus continually supported His testimony with the indirect evidence of the miracles He performed. He then made the case for the authority of His testimony from the corroborative evidence of these miracles:
John 5:36
But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me.
John 10:25
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me.”
John 10:37–38
If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.
John 14:11
Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.
Jesus knew His followers needed more than His direct testimony. He offered the evidence of the miracles to corroborate His claims so His hearers would be fully convinced. In fact, Jesus was so committed to this evidential approach that He stayed with the disciples for over a month following His resurrection to give them additional evidence:
Acts 1:2–3
… until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.
Think about that for a minute. Jesus had already demonstrated His deity by rising from the grave. I think that would be enough for me. But it wasn’t for Jesus. He stayed an additional forty days to give many more “convincing proofs.” That’s an exceptional commitment to case making.
I was even more impressed with Jesus’s commitment to evidence, however, when I discovered how Jesus responded to doubt. As a cold-case detective, I’ve learned to evaluate words carefully when considering the statements made by victims, witnesses, and suspects. What someone didn’t say is often more important than what they did say. In fact, I often stop and ask myself, “What were some of the options available when this person made their statement? What could they have said in this particular circumstance and what does their choice of words tell us about their thoughts or the truth of the situation?” As an investigator of the New Testament, I found myself asking the same kinds of questions as I studied Jesus’s response to doubt.
There are two important accounts in the Gospels that describe people close to Jesus who, in spite of everything they had seen, still had nagging doubts about Jesus’s identity and claims to deity. The first involved Jesus’s cousin, John the Baptist. Jesus was incredibly fond of John and once said, “Among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11). John was a godly man raised in a godly home. His mother, Elizabeth, knew that Jesus was “Lord” while Jesus was still in His mother Mary’s womb (Luke 1:39–45). Surely John grew up with this information, and Jesus’s status as Messiah was confirmed to him when he saw God’s Spirit descend on Jesus at Jesus’s baptism (Luke 3:22). If anyone should have been sure of Jesus’s identity, it would have been John the Baptist.
But when John was arrested by Herod, he sent two of his own disciples to ask Jesus a question. In spite of everything he knew about Jesus, John’s query revealed his doubt: “Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?” John, of all people, should have already known the answer. But there he was, asking Jesus to calm his doubt.
When I first read this passage as a detective, I thought about all the things Jesus could have done or said in response to John’s expression of doubt. He could have condemned John, but He didn’t. He could have scolded him for his failure to trust what John’s own mother seemed to know so clearly. Jesus didn’t do that either. Finally, Jesus could have instructed John to simply trust in what he had been taught as a child, or in what he had “experienced” from God in the past. But that’s not how Jesus responded.
Instead, Jesus provided John’s disciples with evidence:
At that very time He cured many people of diseases and afflictions and evil spirits; and He gave sight to many who were blind. And He answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them. Blessed is he who does not take offense at Me.”
Jesus performed miracles as a demonstration of His identity (these miracles were consistent with the messianic expectations found in Isaiah 29:18 and Isaiah 35:5–6). When asked, in essence, “How can we know this is true?” Jesus responded by making a case with evidence.
John the Baptist was not the only person to express his doubt. The apostle Thomas (also known as Didymus) is famous for his own episode of uncertainty. Thomas was one of Jesus’s closest associates and an important member of Jesus’s hand-picked team of twelve. But Thomas had a hard time believing Jesus could actually raise Himself from the grave, and he didn’t believe the other apostles when they reported seeing Jesus alive after the crucifixion. His doubt was reported in John’s gospel:
But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
Jesus provided us with an example of how we ought to live as His disciples. We typically think of Jesus as a role model when it comes to our love of others, our devotion to the Father, or our commitment to moral purity. But how often do we think of Jesus as a role model for how we ought to think or make a case for truth?
Jesus’s response to Thomas’s doubt is similar to His response to John the Baptist. He didn’t expect Thomas simply to trust what he had been told by others or to lean on his own private experiences. Instead, Jesus once again provided a public, evidential demonstration:
After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Thomas, when confronted with the evidence, surrendered his doubt. Now to be fair, the story doesn’t end there, and the next line of Scripture is sometimes cited by people who argue against the kind of evidential approach to Christianity I have described so far. Immediately following Thomas’s confession of faith, Jesus said the following:
Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
At first glance, it almost appears as though Jesus is saying something equivalent to, “Hey, you may have needed some evidence, Thomas, but those who believe without evidence are even more blessed than you!” This isn’t what Jesus means, however, and the next verse makes this clear:
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
In one breath, Jesus said, “Blessed are those who did not see and yet believed,” and in the very next passage, Jesus “therefore” continued to make the case with the “many other signs” He performed in the presence of the disciples. Why would Jesus continue to provide additional evidence after saying those who believe without evidence are blessed? The answer is found, once again, in the gospel of John. In Jesus’s famous prayer to the Father in chapter 17, Jesus prayed for unity and He carefully included those of us who would become Christians long after He ascended into heaven:
I do not ask on behalf of these [the first disciples] alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. (John 17:20–21)
In this prayer, Jesus was talking about all the people (like you and me) who believe in Jesus not because of the evidence we saw with our own eyes but because of the testimony (direct evidence) offered by the disciples (“their word”). Yes, Thomas was blessed to believe based on what he saw, but we are also blessed because we believe based on what he (and the authors of the Gospels) reported as eyewitnesses. That’s why Jesus continued to perform “many other signs” in front of His disciples. He wanted them to have a lot to talk about. Jesus is our example. He repeatedly used evidence to make His case, even when His point was simply to encourage someone in a time of doubt.
Forensic Faith Evidential Example #2:
The Commissioned Case Makers
Jesus’s commitment to case making wasn’t lost on His followers. In fact, the disciples carried Jesus’s message into a hostile world, fully aware of their evidential role as eyewitnesses. The gospel accounts were written as historical narratives. The life of Jesus was chronicled alongside other historical events that located Jesus geographically and historically. Along the way, key eyewitnesses were identified:
John 1:6–7
There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
Throughout the first century, other eyewitnesses provided direct evidence of Jesus’s life, ministry, and (eventually) resurrection. These people were commissioned by Jesus Himself to grow the kingdom on the basis of their eyewitness observations:
Luke 24:44–49
Simon Peter should give all of us, as imperfect followers of Jesus, great hope and encouragement. Although Peter witnessed the miracles of Jesus firsthand, he apparently learned slowly, making mistake after mistake and even denying he knew Jesus when questioned on the night before the crucifixion. But after seeing Jesus raised from the dead, Peter was transformed. The resurrection was an evidential turning point for the disciples, but especially for Peter. He became certain, bold, trustworthy, and able. He emerged as a leader and led the other apostles to testify fearlessly as eyewitnesses of the resurrection.
Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
Acts 1:6–8
So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
Jesus called John and his older brother, James, the “sons of thunder,” based on the zeal they occasionally demonstrated (see Mark 9:38 and Luke 9:54) as passionate defenders of the truth. John revealed his zeal for truth and case making in his own gospel where he used evidential language more than any other gospel author and testified to the evidence of Jesus’s miracles. John cited these miracles repeatedly as evidence of Jesus’s deity. Interestingly, John is traditionally recognized as the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23). He was most likely the youngest of Jesus’s disciples, yet he possessed great boldness that endeared the affection of his Master.
The people who knew Jesus personally, those who observed His miracles and heard His teaching, eventually made the case based on their authority as eyewitnesses. Before Jesus ascended into heaven, He told His disciples to go and “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.” Jesus’s followers then took a very distinctive approach as they evangelized unbelievers. While a variety of evangelism programs have emerged in the church over the years, the first disciples didn’t employ any of the techniques and strategies we sometimes use today. Relying on their evidential status as eyewitnesses, the apostles acted as commission case makers. In nearly every encounter with nonbelievers, the apostles began by simply sharing what they saw with their own eyes. Look at Peter’s first sermon at Pentecost, for example:
Acts 2:23–24, 32
This man [Jesus] was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him … God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
In the days and months following Peter’s first sermon, he and the other apostles continued to take this straightforward case-making approach to evangelism. They relied on the direct evidence of their testimony as eyewitnesses:
Peter’s second sermon, as recorded in Acts 3:15:
You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
Peter and John, as recorded in Acts 4:20:
We cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.
All the apostles, as recorded in Acts 4:33:
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all.
Peter, as recorded in Acts 10:39–42:
We are witnesses of everything he [Jesus] did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead.
Paul, as recorded in Acts 17:2–3:
And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”
Paul, as recorded in Acts 17:30–31:
Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.
Given all the possible ways they could have shared the message of the gospel, the apostles chose to make the case based on the evidence of their own observations. The first hearers of the apostles came to faith on the basis of this evidential approach. If you’re a Christian today, evidence also played a critical role in your conversion, even if you weren’t aware of it at the time. If someone shared scripture with you or told you about Jesus as He was described in the New Testament, they were relying on the eyewitness observations and descriptions of the apostles, just like Jesus described in His prayer in John’s gospel (chapter 17). God sovereignly calls us to Himself, communicating His truth with direct evidence. Blessed are we who did not see and yet believed the testimony of the eyewitnesses.
Forensic Faith Evidential Example #3:
The Canonical Case Makers
The writers of Scripture understood the evidential, case-making importance of their eyewitness authority. In fact, the authors of the Gospels relied on this authority to make their case. The apostle John, for example, closed his gospel by referencing his status as an eyewitness:
John 21:24–25
Paul (also known by his Hebrew name, Saul) was raised as a devout Jew (a Pharisee) and trained at the school of one of the most famous rabbis in history (Gamaliel). In his position of leadership and authority, he hunted Christian believers and “brought them bound to Jerusalem” (see Acts 22:5). In spite of his stubborn intellectual and religious commitments, Paul’s life was forever changed when he became an eyewitness to the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. His own personal observations of Jesus convinced him of the truth. He became a follower of Jesus and went on to write fourteen books of the New Testament.
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
Even Luke, who would later write a comprehensive history of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus, understood the value and authority of the original witnesses. In the opening lines of his gospel, he told his readers he was relying on the testimony of eyewitnesses:
Luke 1:1–4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Evidence mattered to the earliest believers. They trusted the accounts offered by John and Matthew because these men knew Jesus personally. These disciples provided direct evidence (eyewitness testimony) in their gospels. Luke’s gospel was embraced by the early church on the basis of Luke’s evidential, investigative approach. Luke interviewed the eyewitnesses and included their testimony. Even Mark’s gospel was accepted based on its eyewitness value. While Mark may not have known Jesus personally, his gospel, according to the first-century bishop Papias of Hierapolis, was the accurate collection of testimony from an important eyewitness, Simon Peter. The apostles (and the men who wrote about them) understood their evidential, case-making role in the earliest Christian communities.
The gospel authors weren’t the only authors of Scripture who understood the importance of their eyewitness status. Paul, for example, continually referred to his own encounter with Jesus to establish the authenticity of his office and writings. Paul also directed his readers to other eyewitnesses who could corroborate his claims:
1 Corinthians 15:3–8
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
Paul built his case on the indirect evidence of the Old Testament prophecies, confirmed by the direct evidence of eyewitnesses who saw the prophecies fulfilled. As an eyewitness of the risen Christ, he understood the power of eyewitness testimony. The evidential authors of the other New Testament epistles also identified themselves as eyewitnesses when writing to members of the church:
1 Peter 5:1
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed.
2 Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
1 John 1:1–3
What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us.
The New Testament canon of Scripture was written by men who understood their evidential, case-making role. As they approached the ends of their lives, they made sure they left us with a written record of everything they observed and learned so we could also someday make the case.
Forensic Faith Evidential Example #4:
The Continuing Case Makers
Christian history is filled with Christians who made the case based on what the canonical case makers provided on the pages of the New Testament. If there’s one consistent leadership thread throughout the history of the church, it’s the continuing influence of Christian case makers. After the ascension of Jesus and the deaths of those who were eyewitnesses, early Christians continued to make the case. Here are just a few early “standouts”:
Quadratus of Athens (ca. AD 60–129)
Derived from the Greek word euaggelizó (eujaggelivzw), an evangelist is someone who “brings good news.” While early Greek texts used the term to describe the four authors of the Gospels, the word was also applied to anyone who first brought the gospel (the good news of Jesus) to a city, region, or people group.
The earliest believers didn’t hesitate to make the case for Christianity. Quadratus was a disciple of the apostles. He wrote to Emperor Hadrian in an effort to respond to accusations made against the early church. Making the case for the truth of Christianity, Quadratus offered, as evidence, the existence of people healed by Jesus who were still alive in Quadratus’s day.
Aristides of Athens (ca. AD 70–134)
This Athenian philosopher also wrote a defense of Christianity for Emperor Hadrian. He made his case by comparing the worldviews of four cultures well known to the emperor, highlighting the superiority of Christian claims about God and the resulting lifestyles of Christians. He referenced the Gospels as eyewitness accounts and encouraged the emperor to respond to his case and become a Christian.
Ariston of Pella (ca. AD 100–160)
Known as a case maker and “chronicler,” Ariston is the first Christian known to make a written defense for Christianity against Jewish objections. His work took the form of a written dialogue between a Christian and Jewish believer in which the Christian character made the case using messianic prophecies from the Old Testament and demonstrating how Jesus fulfilled those prophecies.
Justin Martyr (ca. AD 100–165)
Born into a pagan family, Justin Martyr identified himself as a Gentile. He authored many important case-making documents, including two in which he made the case for Christianity to Emperor Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate. Justin sought to reconcile the claims of faith and reason for his readers and argued that traces of the truth (“seeds of Christianity”) could even be found in the writings of historical Greek philosophers who predated Jesus.
Apollinaris Claudius (ca. AD 100–175)
Apollinaris Claudius became famous as a case maker, defending the truth of Christianity to Emperor Marcus Aurelius and making the case against early heretics in the church. Apollinaris cited the evidence of answered prayer when arguing for the truth of Christianity with the emperor.
Tertullian (ca. AD 155–240)
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus was a prolific Christian case maker. He wrote to defend the church against heresy and also made the case for the triune nature of God. Tertullian wrote Apologeticus to the magistrates in Rome, in which he made the case for Christianity and argued that freedom of religion was an inalienable human right.
Marcus Minucius Felix (ca. AD 180–250)
Born in Africa, this case maker authored Octavius, a fictional dialogue between a Christian and a pagan. Felix used this dialogue to respond to common objections leveled against Christianity at the time, while making a sophisticated case for monotheism.
If you’re a fan of Christian history, there’s a good chance your favorite Christian case maker isn’t mentioned in my brief list. We could easily fill this book with hundreds of fascinating stories of Christianity’s historic defenders, but that’s not my goal. Instead, I want to illustrate the continuous case-making attitude that permeated ancient believers who were most directly influenced by Jesus and His apostles.
Forensic Faith Evidential Example #5:
The Contemporary Case Makers
Case making was important to these early believers, and it ought to be just as important to those of us who follow these men. We’ve also been commanded to share what we believe as Christians. Maybe that’s why we often feel convicted about our lack of zeal when it comes to evangelism. Not many of us are consistent evangelists.
The New Testament seems to present us with a paradox. On the one hand, we’re given a Great Commission to share the gospel and make disciples. Paul, however, seemed to recognize that not everyone is an evangelist:
Ephesians 4:11–13
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
Paul repeatedly said some of us are designed and given to perform certain functions. Some are apostles, some are prophets, some are evangelists, some are teachers, and some are pastors. Think about that for a minute. The reasonable inference here is that some of us are given to function in this way, and some of us are not. You may be gifted and given by God to be a pastor, or you may not. In a similar way, you may not be an evangelist.
The Christian term apologist can be confusing to nonbelievers and believers alike. Are Christians who study apologetics trying to learn how to apologize? No. The term Christian case maker correctly characterizes the essence of the Greek word apologia (ajpologiva) and describes our duty to make the case for what we believe with gentleness and respect.
How, then, are we all supposed to engage the Great Commission if only some of us are evangelists? The apostle Peter provided us with an answer. As it turns out, there’s another “Great Commission calling” we ought to feel on our lives as Christians, one that we usually ignore altogether. Let’s return to what Peter said in his letter written to “exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia”:
1 Peter 3:15–16
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
Peter used an interesting word here when he told these believers to “give an answer.” The word in Greek is apologia (ajpologiva). It means something akin to “giving a well-reasoned reply” or “providing a thoughtful response to a question offered.” Apologia has nothing to do with being remorseful or apologetic. Instead, it simply describes our duty to “make the case” for what we believe. The word is used (in one form or another) seventeen times in the New Testament (Luke 12:11; 21:14; Acts 19:33; 22:1; 24:10; 25:8; 25:15; 26:1–2, 24; Romans 2:15; 1 Corinthians 9:3; 2 Corinthians 7:11; 12:19; Philippians 1:7; 1:17; and 2 Timothy 4:16). Apologia is used most often in the context of some form of persecution on the part of believers (as Peter used it here when addressing Christ followers who had been dispersed into regions filled with hostile nonbelievers).
Peter was unequivocal in his directive to these Christ followers. Unlike Paul, who clearly said not everyone is an evangelist, Peter made a point to say everyone must be a case maker, particularly when living in a hostile environment. Peter’s words apply to all of us. It’s time for each and every one of us to accept our duty and calling as Christian case makers.
The Coming Case Makers
To this point, I’ve been arguing for Christian case making from the evidence of the past. Now let me take a minute to argue for Christian case making from my expectations of the future. We’re in a growingly hostile environment. Fewer Americans identify themselves as Christians than ever before, more young Christians are walking away from the church than in prior generations, Christian values are more fervently under attack, and atheistic skepticism is more vocal and intense. The trajectory doesn’t favor Christianity, at least here in America. There’s another group of Christians in the diagram I’ve been unveiling in this chapter: our children and grandchildren. Our parents’ generation was far less opposed to the church and the claims of Christianity than ours is today, but our children’s generation will be far more opposed.
Three generations of Jim Wallaces learned the importance of reason and evidence. This tradition was passed down from generation to generation until it became a part of our family identity. If my son, Jimmy, has a child, there might be a fourth Jim Wallace to continue the law enforcement tradition. If that happens, it will be my son’s responsibility to pass on the values and responsibilities he learned from me. If we hope to prepare the next generation of Christians for the upcoming challenge, we need to pass on the values and responsibilities we’ve learned from those who came before us. We must show our children what Christian case making looks like. We need to embrace and model a forensic faith.
What Is Forensic Faith?
We have a duty to know what we believe and why we believe it so we can give an answer, contend for the faith, and model Christian case making for the next generation of believers. Are you ready? If someone challenged you with a few simple objections, could you make a case for what you believe?
The adjective forensic comes from the Latin word forensis, which means “in open court” or “public.” The term usually refers to the process detectives and prosecutors use to investigate and establish evidence in a public trial or debate. You seldom hear the word attached to our traditional notions of “faith,” but given what I’ve already described in this chapter, it seems particularly appropriate when describing the kind of faith Jesus expected from His followers. Jesus did not affirm the notion of “blind faith,” and He didn’t ask us to believe something unsupported by the evidence. Consider the following definitions of “faith”:
Unreasonable Faith
Believing in something in spite of the evidence.
We hold an unreasonable belief when we refuse to accept or acknowledge evidence that clearly refutes what we think is true. The claim “touching a toad will cause warts” is an excellent example. We now have evidence that viruses, not toads or frogs, cause warts, so people who still believe you can contract warts from toads hold an unreasonable belief. In a similar way, unreasonable faith results in believing in something false (because it can be disproved by the evidence). Jesus did not ask His followers to ignore the world around them or to ignore evidence that might refute His claims. In fact, to this day, there isn’t any evidence disproving the eyewitness accounts recorded in the Gospels.
Blind Faith
Believing in something without any evidence.
We hold a blind belief when we accept a claim even though we are completely unaware of any evidence supporting the claim. I believe, for example, that James David Wallace Sr. is my biological father, even though I am unaware of any DNA test results that would prove this definitively. I may be right about our biological relationship, or I may be wrong; I would only know for sure if I were to perform a paternity test. In a similar way, blind faith can sometimes result in believing something that’s true, but it can also result in believing something that’s false if there is actual evidence proving the claim untrue. Jesus did not ask His followers to believe without evidence. In fact, He repeatedly provided evidence to support His claims.
Forensic Faith
Believing in something because of the evidence.
We hold a forensic belief when we believe something because it is the most reasonable inference from evidence, even though we may still have some unanswered questions. I believe, for example, that amoxicillin can help fight bacterial infections. There is laboratory evidence to support this claim, and I’ve personally used it to fight infections. I still don’t know how (or why) this drug works, but I have faith in amoxicillin, even though I have many unanswered questions. In a similar way, Jesus encouraged us to have a forensic faith based on the evidence He provided. He knew we would still have unanswered questions, but He wanted us to be able to defend what we believe (and guard the truth) in a hostile public setting.
If you’re like me, you have friends who embrace one of these three categories of faith. In fact, you may even recognize yourself somewhere in this list. I’ve certainly been in a couple of these categories over the course of my life. When I was an atheist, I believed the universe and everything in it could be explained by (and with) nothing more than space, time, matter, and the laws that govern such things. But I had to ignore the evidence and accept insufficient atheistic explanations for the complex information in the genetic code, the fine-tuning in the universe, the appearance of design in biology, and the existence of nonmaterial minds and mental free agency (more on this in God’s Crime Scene). Despite evidence to the contrary, I continued to trust my naturalistic view of the world was actually true. I believed this in spite of the evidence; I held an unreasonable faith.
I was hesitant to consider Christianity, however, because the few Christians I knew seemed to hold a completely unexamined faith; they hadn’t investigated the evidence at all. They simply trusted Christianity was true on the basis of their upbringing or their own interpretation of personal, private experiences. Now before I go any further, let me make something very clear: I do believe in what some Christians call the “inner witness of the Holy Spirit.” In other words, I believe the experiences Christians have when convicted by the Holy Spirit are, in fact, important pieces of evidence. But given that my Mormon family also cited spiritual confirmation of this sort, I was hesitant to accept these experiences as conclusive proof. After all, everyone can cite some sort of religious experience. As a detective, I needed something to differentiate between the competing claims of the believers I knew. From my perspective, both my Christian friends and my Mormon family members believed something without corroborative evidence; they had blind faith in their own personal experiences.
As I began to read the New Testament for myself, I realized there was a distinctly Christian faith alternative. Based on my limited experience with Christians, I assumed blind faith was a Christian requirement. The New Testament proved me wrong. I was repeatedly encouraged and surprised by the evidential approach taken by Jesus, the apostles, and the writers of the New Testament. Although some Christians may believe Christianity is true without any evidence, Jesus never required this. Instead, Jesus asked His followers to believe because of the evidence; as Christians, we ought to have a forensic faith.
If We Are Relying on Evidence, Why Call It Faith?
Skeptics in our culture often argue faith is the opposite of reason. They also typically characterize themselves as the only “reasonable” people in the debate. How would you respond to this common objection given what you now know about the evidential nature of Christianity? Can you think of two or three things you might say to someone who makes this kind of claim?
Now you might be saying, “If you believe something because of the evidence, why use the word faith at all?” Juries render verdicts on the basis of the evidence and we don’t call their decisions an act of “faith,” do we? If evidence is an integral part of “faith decisions,” what is left for there to have “faith” about?
In all the years I’ve spent in criminal trials, I’ve yet to investigate or present a case in which there wasn’t a number of questions the jury simply could not answer. Although my cases are typically robust, cumulative, and compelling, they always have some informational limit. A recent case was an excellent example; jurors convicted the defendant even though they couldn’t answer the following questions: How precisely did the defendant dispose of the victim’s body? How did he find time to clean up the crime scene? What did he do with the murder weapon? How did he move the victim’s car without being seen?
Some questions simply cannot be answered unless a suspect is willing to confess to the crime (and that doesn’t happen often). The existence of unanswered (and unanswerable) questions is such a common part of jury trials that prosecutors typically ask jurors (prior to their selection) if they require every question be answered before they can render a decision. When potential jurors say they need every question answered, we simply remove them from consideration.
Jurors make decisions even though they have less than complete information, and they aren’t the only people who make decisions in this way. Regardless of theistic (or atheistic) worldview, we all trust something is true, even though we can’t answer all the questions. Today, I am a Christian because the evidence for God’s existence and the reliability of the New Testament are robust, cumulative, and compelling. This doesn’t mean all my questions are answered. They aren’t. But I’ve reached a conclusion based on the evidence I do have in much the same way a jury reaches a decision. In a strict sense, this is actually an “act of faith,” given that I trust in something I can’t fully demonstrate or understand. But my “faith decision” is more akin to “trusting in the best inference from the evidence” than “believing blindly” or “believing in something in spite of the evidence.”
But Why Make the Case, If God Is in Control?
You might also be wondering, depending on your theological position as a Christian, if this evidential approach to Christian belief is necessary if God is sovereign and is solely responsible for calling believers to Himself. If God calls His chosen, can’t He achieve this without any case-making effort on our part? I also pondered this question as a new Christian, and I think the following analogy is helpful, although certainly imperfect.
When my son David was a young boy, he hated mushrooms. If salvation were dependent on voluntarily ordering a mushroom pizza, David would never experience heaven because he would never, on his own accord, order such a pizza. In fact, I once took David to a pizza restaurant and cleverly removed the mushrooms from a pizza in an effort to convince him to eat it. He refused. “I can see the shape of the mushroom right there!” He knew it had been poisoned by “mushroom juice,” and no amount of effort on my part could change his mind, in spite of my best mushroom-pizza case-making efforts.
But what if there was some way to remove David’s hatred of mushrooms prior to entering the restaurant? If David no longer hated mushrooms, he would be open to my mushroom-pizza case-making efforts. Then, if I was able to make a “five-point case for the deliciousness of mushroom pizza,” David would, under his new nature (having had his hatred for mushrooms removed), choose to voluntarily order the mushroom pizza.
In this admittedly imperfect analogy, David’s salvation was clearly dependent first on the role God played in removing his enmity for mushrooms. But once this enmity was sovereignly lifted, David was open to my case making. God allowed me to play my role as a case maker, and David responded to my effort in a way he never would have if God hadn’t first moved.
God’s incredible love for us is evident in this process. God loved my son enough to remove his hostility, and He loved me enough to disciple and encourage me. Even though God is clearly sovereign, He graciously allowed me to play a part in reaching David. I got to make the case for what I know is true about salvation, and in the process, my confidence grew as I mastered the evidence for Christianity. God’s sovereign purposes and amazing love were ultimately expressed both in the son He called and in the son He encouraged.
It’s Our Duty
Every officer on our SWAT, surveillance, and homicide teams knows his or her role. We usually find our place by recognizing our unique gifts and passions. Given my love of communication and the arts, I was called into service every time a suspect needed to be interviewed or a diagram needed to be drawn.
After the graduation ceremony, my family assembled in front of the Civic Center and took pictures on the lawn. My grandfather Warner couldn’t stop smiling. My father pinned a new badge on my uniform. In that moment, as I stood next to my dad wearing the same uniform I’d seen him wear my entire life, I knew I was part of an important team. I was acutely aware of my duty, my family obligation, and my mission. I had just sworn to support and defend the constitution of my state and country from all enemies, and I pledged to protect my community. Although we just completed sixteen weeks of training at the academy, more targeted training was about to begin. Over the next twenty-five years, I would learn how to conduct investigations and communicate the truth convincingly. The hard work was about to begin anew, but I was eager to accept the challenge.
If you’re a Christian, you’re part of an even more important team. You have a duty, a family obligation, and a mission. You’re called to embrace a forensic faith so you can make the case for what you believe and contend for the faith. Now it’s time to begin some targeted training so you can learn how to investigate the case and communicate it to others. It’s time to learn the difference between teaching and training.