Thoughts on the Movie "The Case for Christ"

Kathy and I went to see the movie "The Case for Christ" this afternoon. It was an excellent movie and well acted. I found myself being caught up in the emotion of it all.

In case you don't know, Lee Strobel is a famous Christian apologist who started out as an atheist. He has written many poplar apologetic books. This movie depicts his journey from atheism to faith. As an investigative journalist for The Chicago Tribune, he was a firm believer in following the facts wherever they led. When his wife becomes a Christian, he sets out to prove the resurrection of Jesus never happened by visiting and interviewing experts in many fields of study. Eventually he realizes that the evidence for the resurrection was strong and he could not disprove it, so he converts to Christianity himself.

I have read several of Strobel's books and used to watch a question and answer TV show he hosted. His story is intriguing, as are other stories like his, such as Josh McDowell's. There have been a number of atheists that have come to believe in the resurrection of Jesus after examining the evidence. But on the other hand, there have been a number of Christians that have become unbelievers upon more thoroughly investigating the evidence. I am one of those people as is Dan Barker, who was an evangelical preacher for 19 years before realizing that he really didn't believe what he was preaching.

So, how can that be? How can two people examine the exact same evidence and come to such radically different conclusions? It's a conundrum, but fascinating. Think about a trial where 12 people are listening to the evidence being presented about the guilt or innocence of an alleged criminal. Sometimes the evidence is overwhelming one way or the other and all 12 vote the same way. However, in other cases, the evidence is not quite so clear. There is some evidence that makes you think the person is guilty, but other evidence that makes you think the person is innocent.

So what makes a person come down on one side or the other? Well, I believe it has to do with how much evidence each individual requires in order to be convinced of something. Some people can be told that friendly space aliens are going to land in Central Park tomorrow to take willing Earthlings to a better planet, and they will be lined up waiting at midnight. Others could actually see aliens land and take people and still not believe it, thinking some sort of delusion had overtaken them.

There's many other factors that can affect someone's decision in the face of conflicting evidence. Past experiences, facial expressions of the witnesses while they were testifying, how often they have been lied to by supposedly trustworthy people, etc. So, getting 12 people to agree on the meaning of the evidence is actually quite a feat.

In my case, I'm hard-nosed. I want to have near ironclad evidence, especially when it concerns supernatural events such as a resurrection. But when I conducted my multi-year investigation of the Bible, I discovered that the evidence for the supernatural events reported in it, especially the resurrection of Jesus, didn't even come close to being ironclad. In fact, the more I studied, the more ironclad it became against the resurrection. But, it never became what I would call conclusive. And that's the problem. I recorded my thoughts concerning my studies in a book entitled, "God Is."

The Bible says that God does not want any to be lost. Yet, it also says that if you don't believe, you WILL be lost. If you had a child that was in danger and you knew exactly what that child needed to be saved from that danger, would you not do exactly what was required of you? So, if God knows what each of us needs to believe and be saved, why does he not provide that for each individual? Why leave some hanging with a lack of evidence? These are the questions I cannot answer, assuming there is really a loving, powerful God in control.

First Contact – Part 9 – Full Gospel Church

Some of you may be asking, “What in the world is a Full Gospel Church?” Well, according to Wikipedia, it is synonymous with the Pentecostal, Charismatic Protestant movement that started in the 19^th century. Basically, I associate Full Gospel with churches that believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts, divine healing, speaking in tongues, etc.

As I was growing up, I used to hear my parents talk about the Pentecostal and the Holiness churches around where they grew up in north Alabama. They were the ones being slain in the Spirit and dancing in the aisles. Some may have even handled snakes. It all kind of blends together in my head, but I think you get the general idea of what I am talking about.

While there are several charismatic churches in my area, the two I became the most familiar with over the years were Faith Tabernacle (now called Faith Church) and Christ Chapel. These are both independent non-denominational churches.

Shortly after becoming a Christian in the Church of Christ I started a quest to understand the differing beliefs of the multitude of churches. One of the earliest ones I investigated was Christ Chapel. At that time they were in a small building near downtown. My roommate, David, who had been a student at the local Bible College and was a part time preacher, decided to join me in attendance at the church one Sunday evening. The service was filled with music, prayer, and preaching. Not that radically different from the Church of Christ except for the use of instrumental music (the C of C sings a cappella) and the occasional speaking in tongues (the C of C services were all in English). Near the end of the service everyone was getting happy, standing up, and singing with all their might. We were told to join hands. This made me a bit uncomfortable, but I did it anyway, as did my roommate. Afterwards, David’s comment was, “My, those folks sure are friendly.”

You have to understand that for many in the Church of Christ the use of mechanical instruments of music is a sin. Also, many believe that the gifts of the spirit such as healing, speaking in tongues, and so on were no longer in effect. So, some would think that what David and I did—actually participating in the service where these things were being done—was sinful. But to tell you the truth, I didn’t feel like I needed to shower after the service.

A few years later, Christ Chapel built a new building north of downtown that served as both a church and a school. I can still recall my wife and me going to see Twila Paris, one of my favorite Christian musicians, at this building.

My son, Andrew, was born in 1991. When he was in K-5, he attended Woodmont Christian School, which was part of Woodmont Baptist Church. My wife, Kathy, had quit her job as a teacher when Andrew was born, but was now ready to start teaching again. She was offered a job at WCS the year Andrew was in K-5. Looking to expand the school the next year, they needed a larger facility. After much searching, Woodmont Christian School started discussions with Northwest Christian Academy, which was the school that met at Christ Chapel. This church was planning to build a bigger church building and convert its current building to a school only. After much talking and praying, the two schools decided to merge into Shoals Christian School at the Christ Chapel building. While there were a few doctrinal differences between Woodmont Baptist Church and Christ Chapel, it was decided that none of them was a deal breaker. Thus, a combined school ministry began and continues to this day. Kathy began teaching at SCS the following year, and Andrew became a first grader there. Kathy still works for SCS; Andrew graduated from there in 2009.

Shortly after Kathy started working for WCS, she decided to attend Woodmont Baptist Church. Andrew attended with her. I had deconverted from Christianity before Andrew was born and by this time I was only attending church sporadically. Kathy ultimately decided to join Woodmont. Andrew joined a few years later and was baptized.

Sometime after Andrew became a teenager, he became more interested in the charismatic movement and joined Christ Chapel’s youth group. He was not yet driving, so on Wednesday evenings I would drive him to Christ Chapel (only a few minutes from home) for the youth meetings and then pick him up afterwards. Later still he actually began attending some Sunday services there. Eventually, Andrew began speaking in tongues and had his own prayer language.

Occasionally, I would attend Sunday services with Andrew at Christ Chapel. I discovered that several people I knew from the Church of Christ were now members there. This was quite a radical change, but I guess not as radical as my change was. My observation was that Christ Chapel’s worship was very similar to Woodmont Baptist’s worship. The main difference seemed to be the preacher in the former breaking into the occasional tongue speaking. The people there were always welcoming and friendly.

Let me now switch gears and talk about Faith Tabernacle. The first contact I remember with this church was in the mid 1980s when Don Wildmon, the founder of the American Family Association and American Family Radio, came to speak one evening. Wildmon was a very outspoken United Methodist minister that was fighting a battle against the increasing immorality in the movies, on TV, and in music. His battle was known as the Campaign for Decency. Faith Tabernacle had decided to host an event where he could voice his concerns. Interestingly, a Church of Christ preacher was also supporting Wildmon and was at the meeting. In the spirit of cooperation, the music before the program was alternately led by a Faith Tabernacle member, then by the Church of Christ preacher. When the former led, instruments accompanied the singing. When the latter led, the singing was a cappella.

When my son was a teenager, he would occasionally attend a once-a-week fellowship at Faith Tabernacle called Hebrew Café. There young people could listen to music, play games, and have snacks and beverages, all within a safe environment.

While I always found the members of both Faith Tabernacle (Faith Church) and Christ Chapel inviting and friendly, I just couldn’t get into the emotional element that was present at their services. I guess I am just a mental type person that is convinced that our beliefs should be based on reason, not emotion. That is why I was intrigued by the Worldwide Church of God and the Church of Christ. Both took a rational approach to understanding the Bible. I liked that. Of course, I eventually came to realize that the Bible was not the reliable source of information I once thought it was. Necessarily, I had to deconvert. I vow to always follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Speaking of evidence, a few years ago Shoals Christian School was contacted by Josh McDowell’s ministry. They were going to be on tour and needed to fill a speaking gap one day. They were going to be near the area, so wanted to know if SCS wanted to host an event. Of course, they jumped on it. McDowell spoke at the school during the day, and then spoke to the community that evening at Christ Chapel. One of the things that endears me to McDowell is his position on faith, reason, and evidence. As you probably know, Josh McDowell is the author of the world famous books on Christian evidences entitled “More Than a Carpenter” and “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”.

At that meeting, McDowell asked the audience why Christian evidences was so important. He answered his own question with words like these, “Anyone can believe anything by faith. All you have to do is choose to believe it, whether it’s true or not. In order to be sure our faith is in something that is true, we must have evidence of its validity.” I almost stood up and shouted, “Amen, brother!” even though I was no longer a Christian at that point. I totally agreed with him. Only believe in that for which the evidence supports. The problem is that when it comes to something like the Biblical text where we can’t go back in time and actually observe the events reported therein, evidence can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Also, different people require differing levels of evidence to be convinced of something. That is why we sometimes have hung juries. Anyway, Josh McDowell has found the evidence he requires to believe the Bible; I have not.

A short time after McDowell spoke at Christ Chapel I was there for a Sunday morning service. The pastor of the church was preaching about faith. I do not remember his exact words, but basically he told the congregants that he didn’t need any evidence for his faith because he could feel it inside. I guess he didn’t agree with Josh McDowell like I did.

A Response to a Commentary by Tim Wildmon

Today on "Today's Issues with Tim Wildmon" on American Family Radio, Tim Wildmon was interviewing Sallie Hite McDaniel. During their discussion about McDaniel's new book Jesus is My Thesis, Wildmon asked some interesting questions. Paraphrasing: "Why are some atheists so militant about debunking the beliefs of Christians given that they do not believe in God and the set of morals given by Him? If there are no absolute morals, why would an atheist care what other people believe?" McDaniel's answer was the typical one. Atheists do not want to be burdened with a lifestyle mandated by God. They want to be able to do what pleases them without any restrictions.

I believe it is true that some atheists oppose religion simply because they do not want other people telling them how to live their lives. But for most of them I believe it only becomes a problem when certain behaviors are banned by law. In other words, I believe most atheists don't really have a problem with religious people expressing an opinion about what is moral and what is not as long as it remains an opinion. But if religious people are able to get a certain behavior banned by law where getting caught results in punishment, the atheist would then object. But even atheists would be opposed to such things as murder, rape, theft, etc., and would want them outlawed. What's the difference? Well, these latter activities involve using force against other people, which essentially everyone agrees should be punishable by law. It's those consensual activities such as homosexuality, premarital sex, and so on, that the atheist believes should remain outside the courtroom.

That being said, I realize that there are also some atheists that are trying to bring religion to its knees. They want religion destroyed. But if they truly believe that no set of morals is any better than another, then indeed this doesn't make any sense. How can a person justify trying to destroy other people's beliefs in the name of protecting his own? Even so, it seems that the justification for these atheists' animosity is that they believe religion as a whole is detrimental to society as a whole. And indeed, this is something I have pondered myself. History and my own observations show that many people do many good things in the name of their religion. But it is also true that much evil has been done in the name of religion. So, does the good outweigh the bad? To me, that is not an easy question to answer. In an overarching sense, I tend to believe it balances itself out. Good people will do good with or without religion. Bad people will do bad with or without religion. It is more a mental issue than a religious issue.

I was glad to hear Wildmon say that he could respect an honest agnostic more than a militant atheist. That is because I am personally an honest agnostic. And not just any ole agnostic. I am a theistic leaning agnostic. By that I mean that I more believe there is a God than not. Specifically, it's 75.314159% theist and 24.685841% atheist. ;>) What I do not believe is that God intervenes in our natural world. Why? Because I have not personally experienced him doing so or seen any credible evidence of him doing so. And yes, I understand that just because I haven't seen any evidence doesn't necessarily make me right. Then why do I still lean toward believing in God? Because our Universe does not appear to be eternal, but cannot explain its own existence. The deeper physicists dig into the nature of the cosmos, the more questions there seem to be about its existence. Given our current state of knowledge, it makes more sense to me that a being outside our natural realm is responsible for creating the Universe than the Universe somehow created itself. Science seems to be good at learning how the Universe works, but not so good at learning why the Universe works.

So, if God exists, which one is it? Which religion got it right? I personally don't think any religion got it right. All religions appear to be based on the writings and thoughts of men. And as we all know, men are fallible and oftentimes believe things that simply aren't true. Since I grew up in a society that is mostly Christian, it was only natural that I spent most of my time reading the Bible. Being in agreement with apologists like Josh McDowell, I realized that my beliefs could not be based purely on faith since any religion can be believed by faith alone. Reasoned evidence must accompany my belief. After becoming a Christian in 1980, I began reading the Bible in earnest. After much study, I concluded that the God of the Bible was not real and that Jesus was not divine. The thought that finally allowed me to say without fear that I was no longer a Christian was, "What if God exists and Jesus was just a man, as the evidence indicates? Would God approve of me worshipping a fellow human being as though he were God himself?" To remain honest with myself, I had to de-convert.

So, based on my many years of study and observation, I have concluded, as did Thomas Paine, that God is only knowable by what he created, not by any revelation given to select individuals.

It is only in the Creation that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, p. 32)

This is a very insightful statement; one that I quote in my most recent book. If you want to learn more about my study of the Bible and the conclusions I drew, please read my book God Is: Exploring the Nature of the Biblical God.