This has become a prominent tactic of skeptics who deny the claims of Christianity. There can be no doubt that history is replete with examples of people who claimed to be Christians, yet behaved poorly. In fact, many people have committed great violence in the name of Christianity, claiming that their Christian worldview authorized or justified their actions, even though the teaching of Jesus clearly opposed their behavior. But a fair examination of history will also reveal that Christians were not alone. Groups holding virtually every worldview, from theists to atheists, have been equally guilty of violent misbehavior. Atheists point to the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition when making a case against Christians; theists point to the atheistic regimes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung when making a case against atheists. Death statistics are debated in an effort to argue which groups were more violent, but all this seems to miss the point. The common denominator in this violent misbehavior was not worldview; it was the presence of humans.
If we are going to decide what’s true on the basis of how people behave, we’re in big trouble, because every worldview suffers from examples of adherents who have behaved inconsistently and poorly. I expect that news headlines will continue to feature the apparent hypocrisy of those who claim to be Christians. Jesus certainly predicted that there would be counterfeit Christians (“weeds”) living alongside those who were true followers of Christ (“wheat”) in the parable of the weeds (Matt. 13:24–30 NIV). I also expect that skeptics will continue to use incidents involving “counterfeit Christians” to their advantage, seeking to vilify these people in order to invalidate the evidence itself. Discourse and dialogue related to Christianity seem to become more vitriolic and demeaning with each passing year. Public debates are often less about substantive arguments than they are about ad hominem attacks. In the end, however, it’s all going to come down to the evidence. That’s why prosecutors warn juries about the difference between personal attacks and reasoned explanations. Tactics that rely on sarcasm and ridicule must not be allowed to replace arguments that rely on evidence and reason.
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WANT PERFECTION
Every criminal investigation (and prosecution) is a serious matter, and juries understand this. Defense attorneys sometimes capitalize on the appropriately serious attitude of jurors by criticizing the fact that the prosecution’s case was something less than perfect. Given the grave importance of these kinds of cases, shouldn’t the authorities have done everything conceivable to conduct a perfect, flawless investigation? Shouldn’t every imaginable piece of evidence have been recovered? Shouldn’t every possible witness have been located? By identifying the imperfections and limitations of the investigation, attorneys hope to reveal a lack of concern and accuracy that might undermine the prosecution’s case.
Working with All the Imperfections
Juries must understand that there is no such thing as a “perfect” case. Jurors are told in advance, for example, that they will not have access to everything that could be known about a case. Judges instruct juries that “neither side is required to call all witnesses who may have information about the case or to produce all physical evidence that might be relevant” (Section 300, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006). Juries are not allowed to speculate about what is missing, but must focus instead on the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from what is not.
Something similar occurs when skeptics point to the allegedly “imperfect” or “incomplete” historical evidence supporting the claims of Christianity. Why, for example, don’t we have a complete set of documents from all the apostles who wrote in the first century? Why don’t we have some of the missing letters mentioned in the New Testament, like Paul’s prior letter to the Corinthian church described in 1 Corinthians 5:9 or John’s letter to Diotrephes’s church cited in verse 9 of 3 John? Why isn’t there more evidence from sources outside the biblical record corroborating the events described in the Bible (more on this in chapter 12)?
While expectations of perfection may assist defense attorneys as they attack the prosecution’s case and skeptics as they attack the claims of Christianity, these kinds of expectations are unreasonable. I’ve never seen a “perfect” investigation, and I’ve certainly never conducted one. All inquiries and examinations of the truth (including historical investigations) have their unique deficiencies. Jurors understand that they must work with what they have in front of them. Either the evidence is sufficient or it is not. Jurors can’t dwell on what “might have been” or what “could have been done,” unless they have evidence and good reason to believe that the truth was lost along the way. Juries cannot assume there is a better explanation (other than the one offered by the prosecution) simply because there were imperfections in the case; reasonable doubts must be established with evidence. In a similar way, skeptics cannot reject the reasonable inferences from the evidence we do have, simply because there may possibly be some evidence we don’t have; skeptics also need to defend their doubt evidentially.
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE “POSSIBILITIES”
Alternative Explanations
Judges instruct juries to be wary of explanations that are not reasonably supported by the evidence. Judges advise jurors that they “must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence. However, when considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable” (Section 224, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006).
Defense attorneys do their best to prevent jurors from accepting the prosecution’s version of events. Sometimes it’s not enough to simply “poke holes” in the prosecution’s case in an effort to distract the jury from the totality of the evidence. Defense attorneys will sometimes provide an alternative theory about what happened in a particular crime, building their own evidential case for a completely different explanation. More often than not, however, the defense will simply imply an alternative explanation by asking suggestive questions that open up a number of alternate “possibilities,” even though these “possibilities” are not supported by any evidence. The goal here is to provide jurors with some way to assemble a narrative that does not involve the defendant’s guilt. Prosecutors have to help jurors assess the difference between “possible” and “reasonable” in times like this and encourage jurors to limit their deliberations to reasonable inference from the evidence rather than speculating on unsupported possibilities.
Those who deny the historicity of Jesus sometimes take an approach that’s similar to that of defense attorneys. Some skeptics have denied the existence of Jesus altogether by proposing an alternative possibility. Citing the similarities between Jesus and other “savior mythologies” of antiquity, they’ve argued that Jesus is simply another work of fiction, created by people who wanted to start a new religious tradition. Many of these critics point to the ancient deity Mithras as a prime example of the fictional borrowing they claim occurred in the formation of Christianity. They describe Mithras as a savior who appeared nearly four hundred years prior to the first Christians, and they point to the following similarities:
Mithras was born of a virgin.
Mithras was born in a cave, attended by shepherds.
Mithras had twelve companions or disciples.
Mithras was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
Mithras was called “the Good Shepherd.”
Mithras was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
While these similarities are striking and seem to sustain an alternative theory related to the historicity of Jesus, a brief investigation quickly reveals that they are unsupported
by the evidence. There is no existing “Mithraic scripture” available to us today; all our speculations about the Mithras legend are dependent on Mithraic paintings and sculptures and on what was written about Mithras worshippers by the Christians who observed them between the first and third centuries. Even with what little we do know, it is clear that Mithras was not born of a virgin in a cave. Mithras reportedly emerged from solid rock, leaving a cave in the side of a mountain. There is also no evidence that Mithras had twelve companions or disciples; this similarity may be based on a mural that places the twelve personages of the Zodiac in a circle around Mithras. There is no evidence that Mithras was ever called the “Good Shepherd,” and although Mithras was a “sun-god” and associated with Leo (the House of the Sun in Babylonian astrology), there is no evidence that he was identified with the Lion. There is also no evidence that Mithras ever died, let alone rose again after three days. These claims of skeptics (like the “possibilities” offered by defense attorneys) are not supported by the evidence. It’s important to remember that a “possible” response is not necessarily a “plausible” refutation.
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS EMPLOY A CULTURALLY WINSOME ATTITUDE
A Presentation Is Not a Piece of Evidence
Jurors are also advised that the words of the attorneys are not to be considered as evidence: “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” (Section 104, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006).
Most defense lawyers understand the importance of “first impressions.” I’ve been involved in a number of high-profile cases with prominent defense attorneys. These attorneys were brutally aggressive, sarcastic, and rancorous in the preliminary hearings, while personable, endearing, and charismatic in the jury trials. What’s the difference? The presence of a jury; jurors are not present at preliminary hearings. Defense lawyers understand that style is often as important as substance. How you deliver a claim is sometimes more important than the claim itself. For this reason, defense attorneys are often keen observers of the culture; they borrow mannerisms and language that will effectively endear their persona and message to the jury they are trying to convince. The facts are sometimes of secondary importance.
The skeptics in our midst are equally savvy. Christians are not the only people who take an urgent, evangelical approach to their worldview. Many popular atheists are equally interested in proselytizing those around them. They are keenly aware of what is popular. As a part of the culture they are trying to reach, they understand what people are watching on television and on the Internet. They’ve seen the hit movies and purchased the best-selling music. They’ve mastered the language and are shaping the art, music, and literature of our society. They often portray Christians as antiquated, backward-thinking “dinosaurs” who are out of touch with progressive concepts and the current culture. They recognize and capitalize on the well-intentioned desire of many Christians to resist the things of the world in favor of the things of God (1 John 2:15). Skeptics often have an advantage in communicating their opposition and alternative theories simply because they are more aligned with the culture they are trying to influence.
This is often revealed most glaringly in televised debates between Christians and nonbelievers. The most effective skeptics are those who (like effective defense attorneys) make a winsome connection with the audience. They are endearing. They are entertaining. They understand and highlight the doubts and concerns that people have about Christianity. They use persuasive rhetoric to make their points. I’ve seen a number of debates in which the Christian representative possessed the best arguments and mastery of the evidence, yet seemed less influential from the perspective of communication. In a culture where image is more important than information, style more important than substance, it is not enough to possess the truth. Case makers must also master the media.
When the prosecution presents a case in the courtroom, the defense is left with three possible responses: it can declare, destroy, or distract. On rare occasions, the defense declares a robust alternative theory to explain what happened in a particular case. This is difficult, however, because it requires the defense to substantiate its alternative scenario with evidence. In essence, they’ve got to build their case the same way the prosecution has already built a case against their client. More often than not, defense attorneys take a different approach; they focus on destroying the prosecution’s case by discrediting the evidence. If they can find legitimate shortcomings in the individual pieces of evidence, they can undermine the prosecution’s case, piece by piece. A third tactic is often just as effective in circumstantial cases, however. Using the tactics we’ve discussed in this chapter, defense lawyers can distract the jury from the cumulative impact of the circumstantial evidence.
By attacking the nature of truth, targeting the foundation of the prosecution’s case, focusing on the micro rather than the macro, disparaging the prosecution’s witnesses, raising the expectation of perfection, offering unsupported possibilities, and delivering all of this in a winsome way, defense attorneys attempt to distract juries from the larger picture. They don’t want the jury to see the forest through the trees. They don’t want the jury to see the connected and reasonable nature of the cumulative circumstantial case.
Those who oppose the claims of Christianity often take a very similar approach. Like defense attorneys, they sometimes ignore the larger connected nature of the case for Christianity and focus on possibilities and claims that either are untrue or have no impact on the evidence.
A TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE CHECKLIST
While the tactics of defense attorneys may not seem like tools appropriate for your investigative callout bag, think of them as precautionary principles for your checklist. If these tactics are inappropriate for defense attorneys, they’re equally inappropriate for those of us who are presenting the claims of Christianity. Let’s hold ourselves to a high standard, even as we require our opponents to recognize their own reasonable responsibilities. It’s well known that the “burden of proof” in criminal trials rests upon the prosecution. Defendants are presumed innocent until found guilty; they are under no obligation to mount any defense at all. But if, for example, a defendant in a murder trial wants the jury to believe that he simply committed the homicide in self-defense, the burden to raise this doubt falls on the defense team. Skeptics have long claimed that the burden of proof for the truth of the Christian worldview (e.g., the existence of God or the deity of Jesus) belongs to Christians; naturalism is the default position that need not be proved. That’s fine if they limit their resistance to destruction or distraction tactics, but once they declare an alternative possibility (e.g., that Jesus is a re-creation of Mithras), the burden of raising this alternative doubt clearly shifts. Possible alternatives are not reasonable refutations. If they’re not offering a declaration that can be supported by evidence, they’re probably attempting to destroy or distract. It’s my hope that my skeptical friends will see the deficiencies of these two approaches. Destruction tactics that try to disqualify the Gospels would also disqualify other historical texts. If skeptics applied an equal standard to other documents of antiquity, they would be hard pressed to believe anything about the ancient past. In addition to this, any efforts to distract from the cumulative case for Christianity by redefining truth or vilifying Christians, while potentially effective, does nothing to demonstrate the truth of naturalism. I’ve known many defense attorneys who worked hard because they truly believed that their clients were innocent. I’ve known some who worked hard for other reasons. I have skeptical
friends who are in a similar position. Some reject Christianity because they believe it is evidentially false, and they are prepared to declare (and argue) an alternative case. On the other hand, some reject Christianity for another reason (perhaps some past personal experience or a desire to live their life without religious restrictions). When this is the case, they often resort to destroy or distract tactics. Let’s help our doubting friends examine the character of their objections. All of us ought to be willing to argue the merits of our case without resorting to tactics unbecoming of our worldviews.
While I grew up as an atheist, many of my Christian friends either grew up in the church or lived in areas of the country where they met little or no opposition to their Christian worldview. As a result, some were shaken when they had their first encounter with someone who not only opposed them but also did so tactically and winsomely. For some Christians, their first encounter with atheistic opposition occurs at the university level, as either a student or the parent of a student. The number of young Christians who reject Christianity in college is alarming, according to nearly every study that has been done on the topic. Part of this is a matter of preparation. While we are often willing to spend time reading the Bible, praying, or participating in church programs and services, few of us recognize the importance of becoming good Christian case makers. Prosecutors are successful when they master the facts of the case and then learn how to navigate and respond to the tactics of the defense team. Christians need to learn from that model as well. We need to master the facts and evidences that support the claims of Christianity and anticipate the tactics of those who oppose us. This kind of preparation is a form of worship. When we devote ourselves to this rational preparation and study, we are worshipping God with our mind, the very thing He has called us to do (Matt. 22:37).
Cold-Case Christianity Page 16
