Lee Strobel 1952-
Read 2000 December 4 – 2001 March 29
Reviewed 2001 April 7
One morning back when I used a clock radio, I awoke to Dr. Dobson interviewing Lee Strobel, author of several contemporary books on faith. I slept through most of the interview, but picked up enough to look up Strobel on amazon.com and read one of his books. For the one, I chose The Case For Faith. I started reading on 2000 December 4, Monday, having just returned from a Thanksgiving visit to Texas. That Saturday, dad died and although The Case For Faith was one of the five books I took on the trip back, I couldnÕt bring myself to read in any of them for a long time, particularly not this one, a struggle for oneÕs faith.
One thing I inherited from dad was a Radio Shack self-setting (60 KHz WWV) clock with alarm features. I donÕt use the clock radio anymore.
I began reading The Case For Faith as one person and finished as another. When I was able to tolerate the discussion at all, I found the arguments thoroughly covered though sometimes on a different focus than one I would have chosen myself.
The eight big questions are:
It wouldnÕt be fair to the impact the book had on me for me
to go back and do research-style quotes to address each of these, but I will
put in my own words what I picked up on each topic, whether it was a major or
minor change to my thinking or just illumination of a troubling point. And, of course, I have to address what
they didnÕt say or ask that I would have.
Each topic is addressed in its own chapter in the form of an
interview with an expert, usually a theologian or pastor, on that particular
topic. But, the book opens with an
interview with Chuck Templeton.
Templeton was an evangelist alongside Billy Graham in the beginning, but
as a result of the cover of a Life Magazine
in which an African woman was shown holding her dead baby, looking at the sky,
wondering why there wasnÕt any rain, Templeton stopped believing in a God who
would allow people, much less babies, to die so readily. It seemed on the whole quite cruel. He split away from evangelism and
became a leading agnostic.
The interview was full of these sorts of condemnations and
provided Strobel with opening blows in many of the follow-on interviews in the
book, most of which were answered by something beginning, ÒWhat Templeton
doesnÕt get is ÉÓ or ÒWhat Templeton misinterprets is ÉÓ or whatever.
Near the end, an amazing thing happened. Templeton, in response to a late
question that IÕve now forgotten, broke down over his lost faith. He missed the Jesus that he had once
known. This was indeed remarkable.
Now, Strobel himself had been an atheist on similar grounds
to those of TempletonÕs with a bent towards his own observation of sin and
despair in the world he saw as a reporter in inner city Chicago. ThatÕs where his eight questions had
come from, that and research among other objectors.
His style is to introduce each chapter, each ÒobjectionÓ
with a couple of quotes, roughly ÒconÓ and ÒproÓ then to move to a personal
anecdote, then to introduce his interviewee then proceed to the salient points
of the recorded interview, then to sum it up as in Òwhat I though on the plane
back.Ó Cut and dried, yes,
engaging, yes, efficient, yes.
So, what are we to say?
Since Evil and Suffering Exist, a Loving God Cannot.
The answer to this boils down to, ÒOK, how would you do
it?Ó God has created a consistent
universe in which 2+2=5 will never be true and he will not make it true for any
expediency. This argument is
presented in a social and spiritual context where free will is paramount and I
was fairly convinced that God, who has the time and breadth to be infinitely
patient, could indeed let us who are in this time-space continuum do as we
pleased. The argument was least
satisfying on the question, ÒWhy not save babies by sending a little rain? Who would know? How was that anybodyÕs fault or choice
or free will to find themselves in a desperate situation without even any rain
from a heavenly father?Ó
[Editorial Note 2007 July 4: This is still the objection to Christianity that I cannot
answer satisfactorily even for myself.]
Since Miracles Contradict Science, They Cannot Be True.
I have to confess a little corruption from Ivan RosenbergÕs
Leadership Workshop here.
Everything we perceive is interpretation. Everything.
Essentially, however a correct understanding of faith and science would
have nearly all miracles occurring in non-scientific domains. Science is a lot less complete picture
of all reality than most scientists think. And, I saw a little C. S. Lewis in this. Many miracles fit well into the order
of things that we understand scientifically, but God just sped things up. Like turning water into wine. All wine was once water. Jesus did in a moment what usually
takes a few years. Time dilation
indeed. A person who does not want
to believe in miracles can explain away any perceived phenomena. A person who wants to believe some
miraculous explanation for something will manage to do so. Dostoevsky dealt with this at length as
well.
Evolution Explains Life, So God IsnÕt Needed.
I could have been a lot more succinct than the author or his
interviewee was on this. The
bottom line is that evolution doesnÕt explain life; it only purports to explain
the progression of life. But Strobel doesnÕt deal with the gaps
and scientific problems in the evolution record and interpretation, he goes
straight to the real problem:
spontaneous generation.
Spontaneous generation was one of the many concepts disproved by early
science. Darwin himself would not
have supported spontaneous generation as it is now understood as the beginning
of the extensive evolutionary process.
He would have found it highly unlikely and so should we. It really looks like we moderns have
such a huge vested interest in denying God that weÕll go to any ridiculous
length to keep the evolutionary standard in place. Even suing teachers who offer Intelligent Design as a
legitimately plausible explanation of reality, more plausible than the widely
accepted, hole-filled evolution.
My incoming bias on this was always that science and religion
were never in conflict. It is more
that big egos on each side of the ÒissueÓ are in conflict and they stridently
push their respective sides way beyond their proper scope to bash each other. This only muddies the waters. My bias now is that science, a child of
Christianity and nephew of Greek Philosophy, is an adolescent and is rebelling
against its parents. The
beginnings of maturity are appearing.
God IsnÕt Worthy of Worship If He Kills Innocent Children.
This chapter deals with some specific cases in the Bible,
like the mauling of 42 young people by bears in the defense of Elisha, as a
mis-translation, or the total annihilation of whole tribes and races in defense
of the ancient Hebrews. It doesnÕt
take the interviewer long to get to the point of saying the usual things: Òtechnically, nobody is innocent, not
even childrenÓ and Òthe childrenÕs fate is with their parentsÓ and so
forth. HeÕs also a firm believer
that everybody has a fair chance, children and otherwise, and God will not be
unfair with anybody in the final judgment. This sounds a lot like, Òwell, nobody really gets killed,
thereÕs always the life after death and the perfect fairness then.Ó
As you can see, I found this chapter least satisfying or
least engaged with the real problem.
So, what about the little rain they could have used in Africa?
ItÕs Offensive to Claim that Jesus Is the Only Way to God.
This chapter boils down to, ÒWell, thatÕs tough, He is the
only way, sorry for the inconvenience.Ó
None of the other religions are coherent or fully, realistically
believable like Christianity is.
Jesus could be crazy but heÕs not, he could be misinterpreted but heÕs
not, he could be God like he said he was and He is. The resurrection proves this. Other religious leaders donÕt claim to be God and
mythologies are made up about them long after the fact. The resurrection was corroborated
nearly on the spot, not hundreds of years later as with other religious
fantasies.
Strobel had already written another book The Case For
Christ in which a lot of this was already
handled. An outline of that book
is given in the Appendix of this one.
A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell.
Or, to paraphrase Templeton, ÒI would never hold a childÕs
hand to a hot stove for a second, not one second.Ó
I found this chapter most helpful of all. Hell is something I donÕt think about
much. I donÕt worry that much
about the devil. The flesh gives
me plenty of troubles without the help of outside evil. Hell is a major objection to the faith
for some, but I donÕt take it seriously as an objection. Still, I have a curiosity as to what
itÕs all about. There are four
good points.
Hell is not a place of exquisite torture as such. These images are all elaboration.
God is so interested in His self being chosen freely, truly
freely, that he hides his explicit self and requires people to seek Him. Of course, He enables and motivates the
seeking. ItÕs all kind of a
mystery from our point of view.
Anyway, he has infinite respect for the self-ness of His creations and
doesnÕt force anything (see Objection #1 above). And, His existence is obvious from just looking around, but
many are blind to that. Some are
going to find him and some arenÕt.
ItÕs nearly fatalistic, nearly Calvinist. The Òonce saved always savedÓ debate is as irrelevant as the
evolution versus faith one. He
allows a lot of people, some of whom wonÕt find Him, to exist so that their
progeny might. It gets kind of
convoluted. Anyway, point two is
that He respects everybody and doesnÕt force anybody to be different from what
they truly are so that they can be in or out with Him with integrity in the
end.
Point three is that God also respects these beings and wonÕt
ever destroy any of His creations.
But, since they have chosen (by nature or whatever) not to have anything
to do with Him and His ways and the life and creation that runs in ways
congruent with His presence, they must be in a place where they are separate
from Him and His influence totally, as they wish and as they are.
The catch here is that, though there is much bad and evil in
our existence here in this time-space continuum, there is a great deal of good
in the influence and working of God that we take for granted. Like oxygen.
This will all seem reasonable and right to us in the end and
those of us who end up on the God side wonÕt want it any other way.
Well, OKÉ.
Church History Is Littered with Oppression and Violence
To which you might say, ÒWhy bring the church into it? Just say ÔHistory Is LitteredÉ.ÕÓ
And thatÕs the basic point of the chapter. Sure, people run the church and they
sometimes appropriate God-like powers and use them for evil. Strobel has a list of five or six
cases, things like the Crusades, Inquisition, Witch Trials, and so forth. These are all shameful instances of
abuse in the name of God, and they donÕt do the cause a lot of good, but
imagine how bad the abuses would be if there was no check or example of
goodness or morality or compassion?
Jesus, teaching people that it was right to be selfless, inspired many
to make the world a tremendously better place (by building hospitals for
example), a fact that we take for granted and instead credit to things like
Òenlightened self interestÓ and Òself evident rightsÓ and such.
Our culture trends this way now, to our detriment.
The weak would never stand a chance without the philosophy
and leadership of Christ. Not
women, not the handicapped, not really anybody but the naturally strong. Certainly not me.
And all of those abuses were ended through true Christian
influence prevailing in the end.
For which not much historical or popular credit seems to be given.
I found this chapter second most helpful. Third most helpful was the last:
I Still Have Doubts, So I CanÕt Be a Christian.
This is nonsense on the face of it. A person who thinks or believes
anything (and all of our understanding, no matter how cold and calculated,
boils down to belief, reproducibility, and so forth) cannot be without doubt,
cannot be without remaining or nagging questions, and cannot be without lack of
complete understanding at some level.
The person goes on to put up more and more ridiculous obstacles to
accepting the preponderance of the evidence that, by this time and for this
author, is heavily conclusive for Christ and Christianity.
Strobel mailed a copy of the completed manuscript to
Templeton, who was dying from AlzheimerÕs, in the hope that there was still
time.
Viannah, impressionable, questioning, bright, will challenge
me with questions of these types weekly.
Often, she would have heard it addressed thoroughly if she had just
attended the sermon the prior Sunday and paid attention.
IÕve asked her to do a book exchange with me. IÕll read one of her choice and sheÕll
read one of mine and weÕll discuss them both. Though it may be a bit middle-aged for her, (Strobel has a Teenage
Case for Christ now), this book will be my
choice.