Thursday, April 20, 2017

The Case For Christ

     The Case For Christ movie is currently playing in theaters nationwide. The subject of the movie is the evidentiary odyssey of Lee Strobel, an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune, who set out to debunk the Resurrection of Jesus Christ...but wound up becoming a Christian, and eventually a Christian pastor.

     The movie, which largely follows Strobel’s first-person account of his investigation in his book of the same name, is frank about his initial intention, which was specifically to disprove the historicity of the Resurrection. He sought to establish it as a pleasant myth embraced by persons with a need to believe it. That desire arose from his wife’s surprise conversion from atheism to Christianity, which upset him greatly, as is often the case in marriages in which one spouse experiences such a transition. Strobel was certain at first that he could demonstrate objectively that the Resurrection could not have occurred. Ultimately, he amassed such a mountain of evidence for the Resurrection that he could no longer maintain his own atheism.

     Most faith-centered movies are unimpressive. They share the fault of most faith-centered fiction: excessive preachiness. The Case For Christ is free of that flaw. Nor does it exhibit any other flaw of significance. It’s well done in every dimension: script, acting, sequencing, pacing, and conclusion.

     As I’ve written before, propositions such as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ can always be rejected by one determined to do so. Even one who personally witnessed the Resurrection, if sufficiently nimble of mind, could concoct unfalsifiable alternative explanations for the event. What Strobel’s book and movie do for us is to assemble a mass of evidence sufficient to armor a believer against the barbs and scorn of today’s vociferous militant atheists.

     I found one specific segment of the movie particularly impressive: After a number of “false starts,” Strobel seeks to disprove the Resurrection by establishing that Jesus didn’t die on His Cross. In confronting a medical expert deemed an authority on the subject, he tells the expert – himself a Christian – that “You’re hardly an impartial source.” The expert replies that Strobel would find the same to be true of everyone who had undertaken his journey. There’s a lot of food for thought in there.

     Believers will come away from The Case For Christ reassured and refreshed. Non-believers will mostly refuse to see it...which is a great pity, as it would do a lot to soothe the acrimony that exists between Christians and skeptics today.

     Highly recommended.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

1Cor 1:18
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God".
Indeed, there are none so blind...
'having eyes, they do not see;having ears they do not hear".
So we pray for them, in the sincere hope that the Holy Spirit will help them see... - Grandpa

Wanda Sherratt said...

Doctor Johnson said the same thing about those who were determined to argue against the truth:

Talking of those who denied the truth of Christianity, he said, "It is always easy to be on the negative side. If a man were now to deny that there is salt on the table, you could not reduce him to an absurdity. Come, let us try this a little further. I deny that Canada is taken, and I can support my denial by pretty good arguments. The French are a much more numerous people than we; and it is not likely that they would allow us to take it. 'But the ministry have assured us, in all the formality of the Gazette, that it is taken.' -- Very true. But the ministry have put us to an enormous expence by the war in America, and it is their interest to persuade us that we have got something for our money -- 'But the fact is confirmed by thousands of men who were at the taking of it.' -- Ay, but these men have still more interest in deceiving us. They don't want that you should think the French have beat them, but that they have beat the French. Now suppose you should go over and find that it really is taken, that would only satisfy yourself; for when you come home we will not believe you. We will say, you have been bribed. -- Yet, Sir, notwithstanding all those plausible objections, we have no doubt that Canada is really ours. Such is the weight of common testimony. How much stronger are the evidences of the Christian religion?"

Mountaineer said...


Ralph Waldo Emerson spoke this, "God offers to every mind a choice between repose and truth. Take which you please--you can never have both."
When I first read this, many years ago, I was confounded. There was a contrast being drawn between truth and repose. The opposite of truth is falsehood...so repose had to mean false. However, the definition of repose did not fit. However, when I looked up the older definitions -BINGO!

Repose meant trusting someone to tell you the truth. Trusting your eternal soul to someone's teaching, without verification, can cost you your soul.
As Paul said about the Bereans in Acts 17:11 "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." Trust but verify.