‘The Case for Miracles’ Wants To Inspire Everyone — And Satisfies Almost No One
(REVIEW) The issue of miracles is a sticking point for many people, religious and non-religious alike. For many, the absence of God’s apparent divine intervention in their lives is one reason they don’t believe in God.
For many believers, that is a struggle in their faith as well. But for others, one of the reasons they believe in a higher power is because they or those they know have witnessed a miraculous event.
“The Case for Miracles,” a new documentary from best-selling Christian author Lee Strobel, attempts to encourage all of these groups with belief in the miraculous. Unfortunately, it tries to do too much and please too many potential audiences. The result is that, though its heart is in the right place, almost everyone, even those who agree with it, will likely go away unpersuaded and unsatisfied.
READ: Faith Deserves Better News Coverage — And Here’s How You Can Help
Lee Strobel became famous for his book “The Case for Christ,” which chronicled his journey from an atheist to a Christian. What was so compelling about the book was how he used his journalism skills to investigate the claims of Christianity and came to decide, reluctantly, that Christianity was true. It was a “follow the evidence” story where the evidence led a man to faith. As a young man who was really into apologetics growing up, such stories were the kind that I absolutely loved.
Decades later, Lee Strobel turns his attention to the issue of miracles. His new book, “Seeing the Supernatural”, came out in March of this year. And now his new documentary “The Case for Miracles” (taken from the title of his 2018 book), produced by Sandoval Studios and presented by Fathom Entertainment, is releasing just in time for Christmas in a limited release from Dec.15-18.
Set on a road trip with Strobel and the film’s director, Mani Sandoval, the film follows the two friends as they discuss the evidence for miracles and what that evidence has to do with their faith. They share stories of incredible healings, their own personal faith journeys, and the difficult questions about miracles that they bring up, like “What about when God refuses to heal someone you love?”
The idea for this film is definitely right up my alley. I’m someone who believes in miracles as a matter of theology, but is skeptical of them as a matter of practice. I’ve seen far too many supposed miracles that seem to be easily explained some other way, and too few good answers by believers. For example, why is it that most of the miracles that are purported things that could be explained in some other way? Why are there so few amputees with limbs that grow back? That would certainly shut up skeptics like me.
And yet, I do find the sheer number of implausible cases does shake my skepticism. Books like Crag Keener’s “Modern Day Miracles” (which he talked about on my podcast) and documentaries like “Send Proof” make strong cases for the existence of miracles.
And the fact is, most Americans believe in religious miracles. Surprisingly, more Americans believe in religious miracles today than they did in 1991, despite the fact that fewer people consider themselves religious. Why is this? As religious sociologist Ryan Burge has noted, a big part of that is how much American Christianity has changed in that time. Nowadays, more charismatic versions of Christianity that emphasize the miraculous are gaining prominence.
So I am definitely primed to be interested in this documentary, which is why I was largely disappointed in what we got.
There are a lot of good ideas in “The Case for Miracles”. The road trip with two friends is a good setup for discussions about miracles and evidence that can keep such discussions from becoming dry. Moments where the film feels like two friends just having a heart-to-heart really work. Where the documentary goes back and forth with the evidence for miracles and rebuttals is effective. And there are a lot of really beautiful shots of the wide open spaces, compelling the viewer to contemplate the divine.
But the film seems constantly confused about what kind of documentary it wants to be. All these pieces I describe seem to compete for space with each other. Is it a sober analysis of the evidence for miracles? Is a road trip movie about two friends discussing their experiences of faith? Is it an inspirational message movie about the love and beauty of God? You might ask, “Why can’t it be all three?” Theoretically, it can. But in this case, the film doesn’t seem to be able to manage it.
The film calls itself “The Case for Miracles”, but barely features any miracles. There are maybe a handful mentioned in the documentary. For the miracles it does feature, it rarely delves deep into how strong the evidence is for them, or responds to any counter-arguments for them. It stays pretty surface-level. Most of the time, they spend giving the typical pat answers to questions about faith. “Every day is a miracle”, “Surrender doesn’t mean giving up”. For people genuinely interested in seeing the strongest intellectual cases for miracles, this movie will largely disappoint them.
Now, one of the rules for critics is to critique the film that the film wants to be. Not the film that you wanted it to be. I would argue that a film called “The Case for Miracles” starring Lee Strobel is setting itself up as a film that is spending more time making, you know, a case for miracles.
Much of the film is a back-and-forth between Strobel and Sandoval. The two of them trade quips and stories. A couple of them are really interesting. Mani discusses how his experience of “Pentecostal Latino Immigrant” Christianity growing up there was more automatic acceptance of miracles and how different that is from Strobel’s mainline background, where people were embarrassed by them, “My people would think you guys need a little more faith, and yours would think we’re a little crazy”. To which Strobel laughs.
But this is a brief moment in the film. Most of the conversations feel like very forced banter or reading lines off a script, going through canned, expected topics. A lot of times, they seem like they’re trying to “act” natural when they’re clearly being anything but. So if the film is primarily trying to be about these two men and their personal questions and dynamics, it doesn’t really work on that level.
A great deal of the film is spent on b-roll of them driving or standing in wide open spaces where you can see the grandeur of God’s creation. And these shots are beautiful, but in the context of the film itself, they seem like filler. There aren’t enough of them to really satisfy people who go to a film like this for the beautiful shots.
It’s a challenge to figure out who the intended audience was for this film.
The best I can determine is that the person who would enjoy this movie is a person who is unfamiliar with the debates and discussions around miracles, so this is their very first introduction. Even in that case, they will likely go away unsatisfied, but maybe they will be excited to look deeper. Or a person who is super-familiar with these conversations and is just looking for an easy comfort movie to watch on the holidays to remind them of God’s goodness and beauty.
If either of those describes you, you might enjoy this film. (Although there are probably plenty of other films that can do it better). It’s disappointing to know that the film could have easily done that and been so much better, particularly on such an important topic.
“The Case for Miracles” had a lot of potential and means well. But the end result is one that will likely only encourage those who need it the least.
“The Case for Miracles” will be in theaters nationwide Dec. 15-18.
Joseph Holmes is an award-nominated filmmaker and culture critic living in New York. He is co-host of the podcast “The Overthinkers” and its companion website theoverthinkersjournal.world, where he discusses art, culture and faith with his fellow overthinkers. His other work and contact info can be found at josephholmesstudios.com.