Chapter 2, "A Tale of Two Liars." The defense attorney had been brilliant: witness after witness had wilted before his "withering" cross-examination. He had fought the crucial procedural battles like a military tactician. And his closing argument to the jury was delivered with such feeling that several members of the jury were in tears. The jury deliberated only a brief time before rendering their verdict: "Not guilty." Yes, the brilliant attorney had won, but truth had lost.
For the accused man had actually committed the crime. His lawyer had won by suppressing crucial evidence—legally, of course. But to the lawyer, truth was quite irrelevant. The point of the trial was not truth. Rather, the point was to obtain a not guilty verdict from the jury. A trial attorney's methodology is to start out with a biased mind. A mind that has already decided that his or her client is in the right. A trial attorney's task is not to determine the truth.
Rather, it is to line up as much evidence as possible to support his client's case. And if legally possible, to suppress and leave hidden all evidence that would hurt his client's case. The sad fact is that trial lawyers and theologians are twin brothers. Incredibly few theologians start out with a blank slate and a mind open to God's truth. Rather, like trial lawyers, they begin with a preconceived idea that their school of theology is correct.
They look at Scripture as a pool of verses from which to gather statements that support their theology. And they ignore or explain away verses that don't. As Victorian author Samuel Butler observed, "A clergyman, again, can hardly ever allow himself to look facts fairly in the face." It is his profession to support one side. It is impossible, therefore, for him to make an unbiased examination of the other.
And just as trial lawyers try to legally suppress all evidence that doesn't support their case, many theologians have likewise tried to suppress viewpoints and relevant evidence that doesn't support their theology. In fact, compared to theologians, lawyers seemed rather civilized in their treatment of their opponents. In times past, theologians generally silenced an opponent by having him burned at the stake or by torturing him until he recanted his views.
It wasn't just the Roman Catholics who tortured and killed those who opposed their theology. Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and Puritans did the same things as well. Since torture and execution are no longer viable options, today's theologians often try to bury their opponents in a barrage of epithets and denunciations. In doing so, Protestant theologians are simply following the example of the founder of the Reformation, Martin Luther.
In his book "The Bondage of the Will," which was written in answer to Erasmus's book on free will, Luther addressed Erasmus with earthy language and contempt, quoting from that book. So that it seems even superfluous to reply to these your arguments, which have been indeed often refuted by me, but trodden down and trampled underfoot by the incontrovertible book of Philip Melanchthon concerning theological questions.
A book, in my judgment, worthy not only of being immortalized but of being included in the ecclesiastical canon, in comparison of which your book is, in my estimation, so mean and vile that I greatly feel for you for having defiled your most beautiful and ingenious language with such vile trash. In court, no lawyer would be allowed to address his opponent in such contemptible language. But all is fair in theological wars. Luther's methodology reminds me of an anecdote I heard a speaker share at a conference.
The church custodian was cleaning out the church building one Monday morning. As he was dusting off the pulpit, he noticed that the minister had left his sermon notes on the pulpit. So the custodian began to curiously leaf through the notes. He noticed that the minister had written various speaking cues in the margin of his notes. Alongside one paragraph, the minister had scrawled, "Story about mother and baby.
Speak softly and tenderly." Alongside another paragraph, he had scribbled, "Motivational point: Speak confidently and enthusiastically." There were many more such notes written in the margins. However, the note that particularly caught the custodian's attention was one that said, "Weak point: Yell like mad." Unfortunately, there is a bit of truth to that story. Theologians are often the most dogmatic on matters where their scriptural support is the weakest.
And where their ground is the shakiest, they often are the quickest to label their opponents as heretics. Next subheading: "A Different Kind of Law." When I compare theologians to trial lawyers, I do so not out of conjecture, for I am a practicing attorney myself. And I am also an earnest student of Scripture. I have witnessed firsthand how both trial lawyers and theologians function. However, I no longer practice trial law, as I found too many conflicts between it and the teachings of Christ.
So I now limit my practice almost exclusively to title examination. And title examination requires an entirely different type of thinking than does trial work. In Texas, where I practice law, as in most states, obtaining a deed to a tract of land does not assure a buyer that he is actually receiving clear title to that land. In order for a buyer to be certain that he or she is obtaining clear title, he or she must either purchase title insurance or have an attorney examine the chain of title to the land.
My primary client is Texas Utilities Mining Company, a subsidiary of an electric company that purchases land containing deposits of coal and lignite. Before purchasing such land, my client wants to be assured that it is obtaining good title both to the land and to the coal and lignite. My job is to read and analyze every single document that affects title to the land. My client pays me to be absolutely objective, unbiased, and even nitpicking.
In the world of trial law, what the jury "thinks" the truth to be is infinitely more important than the actual truth. However, in the world of title law, the actual truth is what matters. The fact that the seller "thinks" he has good title is fairly irrelevant. I am paid to find out the truth about the title to the land, even if it contradicts what others think. And sometimes what I uncover pleases nobody. Yet my client would have it no other way.
The last thing my client wants is to mine the coal and lignite and then find out that someone else owns title to it. If we humans see the need for objective honesty when land titles are at stake, how much more should we see this need when eternity is at stake? Yet, ironically, when eternity is at stake, we pursue truth by using the methods of a trial lawyer. We begin with our minds already made up, and then we build a case from proof texts to support the verdict that we have already come to.
But if we truly want to please God, we can't approach Scripture in this manner. Instead, we must approach Scripture with the same unbiased, objective honesty that a title lawyer employs in his work. If we don't, we never find the truth. Now, I am going to make a rather bold claim. I would not make such a claim unless I truly believed it with all my heart.
The claim is this: if we Bible-believing Christians would simply use the same common-sense principles of interpretation that title lawyers use, we could all be one body again. We are going to take a look at those principles. But before we do, there are a few things we need to understand about truth.