A while ago, there was a problem known as the Perry Mason effect. It came from people watching the law show Perry Mason and it's very predictable ending. Every show would end the same way, some last minute piece of proof or some dramatic speech by Perry Mason would cause the defendant to break down on the stand and confess. Pure Hollywood drama.
Until people who watch the show started to act this way in court. They wanted that last minute drama, they wanted the confession and when it didn't happen, they would not find the defendant guilty. They felt from their TV show they needed that "ah ha" moment.
Today's culture knows little about Perry Mason, but they know CSI, one of the most popular shows ever on television. And like Perry Mason, they have changed the court system. In the interest of drama there is always some undeniable piece of proof that appears thanks to the CSI team that causes a conviction.
And now that is expected in court. The jury, these savvy CSI fans, want that hardened piece of proof found by the CSI team. Fourteen witnesses saw the crime, who cares? Where's the DNA evidence to put them at the scene? It is becoming harder to convict a person by jury because the jury wants that 100% undeniable piece of "hard" evidence.
The question is, do we do this to God? Are we waiting for some emotional appeal that moves us to do good for Him? Do we need some piece of "hard" evidence before we believe, witnesses and circumstantial evidence are no longer good enough? Have we turned believing in God and following Him less about faith and more about a waiting game for something to convince us? Something to think about.