In my previous post - The Basis for an Objective Apologetic - I outlined my desire to find an objective set of criteria to evaluate the authenticity of the story of Jesus Christ. Perhaps the methodology employed by author Lee Strobel in the book “The Case for Christ” seems reasonable. Essentially Strobel, a former journalist for the Chicago Tribune and a once self-proclaimed atheist, uses the typical logic that an attorney would employ in any standard legal case.
The book documents a two-year period of Strobel’s life where he researched the historical, scientific, and religious aspects associated with Jesus Christ. All-in-all I think the book is very well written, and, for the most part, I agree with the conclusions he and many of those he interviewed, have arrived at. Specifics to follow in future posts...
7 comments:
I think that a lawyer would interview witnesses on both sides of an issue.
Curious if you've read the book? I felt he did a pretty good job of bring up the common thoughts offered by synics. Since the premise of the book is the author as an atheist seeking to disprove Christ, he is also the jury.
I'm really interested in your comments!
I have read The Case for Christ and The Case for the Real Jesus and parts of The Case for Faith and The Case for a Creator. Throughout these books, Strobel claims to be using the skills he developed as an investigative reporter covering the legal beat for the Chicago Tribune. He intersperses his interviews with stories from court cases he covered to illustrate the way facts and evidence are used to reach a conclusion about what really happened. He gives his reader the impression that he is engaged in the same sort of fact finding process.
My problem with Strobel is not that he is acting as the jury. Everyone involved in a legal case from the bailiff to judge’s clerk is going to form some opinion about what really happened even if they are not charged with making the ultimate determination of the facts as the jury is. My problem is that Strobel gives his readers the impression that they are getting the same sort of information that a jury would get in deciding a case. He tells them that they can have as much confidence in the conclusions that he reaches in his interviews as they could have in the conclusions reached by a jury after considering the testimony and evidence at a trial.
My objection to Strobel’s approach is that he conveniently ignores the fact that the jury gets to hear both sides of a case. At a trial, both sides have a lawyer advocating their position. Both sides get to present experts to support their case. Both sides get to challenge the other side’s evidence. In Strobel’s books, the only experts are conservative Christians and only the advocate for the conservative Christian position is allowed to ask questions. There is nothing wrong with writing a book this way, but comparing it to the fact finding process of a trial is ludicrous. Any defendant who was convicted in that kind of trial would rightly consider himself railroaded.
Strobel does ask some of the questions that a skeptic might ask, but unlike the skeptic, he is always overwhelmed by the persuasiveness of the answers he gets and he never asks the kind of follow up questions that a skeptic would. A few weeks ago, I heard Lee Strobel on Hank Hanegraaf’s Bible Answer Man program claiming that he cross-examined leading scientists with skeptical questions for his Case for a Creator DVD. I have also read many of the transcripts from Kitzmiller v. Dover School District in which those same experts (at least the ones who did not withdraw from the case before trial) were subjected to real cross-examination in open court. There is no comparison.
Strobel seems to count on his audience’s gullibility when it comes to the legal process. In his sermons, Strobel invites his audience to "imagine" 515 eyewitnesses each testifying for fifteen minutes of direct and cross-examination that they had witnessed the risen Christ. That is more that five full twenty-four hour days of testimony. Imagine, he said, listening to all that testimony and saying "I don't believe it." That sounds impressive, but it’s imaginary. We don’t have 515 eyewitnesses. We have Paul claiming that there were 515 eyewitnesses in 1 Corinthians 15. No court would ever allow Paul to testify about what other people saw.
I have seen enough blog posts from Strobel’s fans to know that many of them are convinced that he is engaged in objective fact finding missions in his books, or at least that his books replicate such fact finding. Many of them are convinced that reading Strobel’s books gives them a good picture of both sides of the argument. I think they are being misled.
I certainly see your point. I think you make valid arguments. I guess the bigger question I was considering was are the following tests objective that Strobel outlines? Granted his execution of these tests in the book may not be objective...
1.) THE INTENTION TEST
2.) THE ABILITY TEST
3.) THE CHARACTER TEST
4.) THE CONSISTENCY TEST
5.) THE BIAS TEST
6.) THE COVER-UP TEST
7.) THE CORROBORATION TEST
8.) THE ADVERSE WITNESS TEST
I wonder if you have any interest in following along with me on my blog as I explore The Case For Christ? My aim is to stay true and evaluate evidence as would a Juror. It might help to be told (nicely and in a Christian like manner) when my comments are unfair and my aim faulty.
I'd be glad to follow along...
Okay... chapter one commentary and summary is done. There are some questions I have. I'm most curious if you think I'm treating the material unfairly, am unreasonably skeptical, and if you still think the analogy of a jury makes sense? My aim is to understand and obviously I'm missing something that may help.
Post a Comment