home | board | compass | prayer | eCard

[Main Index]

07/22/2003 Entry: "Christian lawyers?"

In a comment to this post at Bene Diction Blogs On a lawyer named Lisa writes the following

"Christian" is a noun. For some of us, we stretch grammatical rules and also make it a verb. It is not, in my opinion, an adjective.

With the utmost of respect to Dan at Signposts, I disagree with the comment that the writer of the letter to Jamie failed at being both a Christian and a lawyer. Firstly, we can never fail at being a Christian. Thankfully, grace makes that an impossibility. Secondly, I can not fail at being a lawyer. I _am_ a lawyer (by dint of being called to the bar of British Columbia and paying my fees). I can do my lawyerly tasks poorly or I can do them well. If I do the tasks in a manner that would objectively be considered bad, that does not change the fact that I am a lawyer.

When people ask me about my faith and my career, I am always careful to say that I am a lawyer who is a Christian. There is no such thing as a Christian lawyer. There are litigation lawyers, medical malpractice lawyers, estate lawyers....you get my drift. Accordingly, I think it is a misnomer to talk about "Christian" lawyers.

Let's take the heat of lawyers for a bit and talk about motorists instead. Let's say you are a motorist and a Christian. Can there be such a thing as a "Christian motorist"? I think there can. You can drive absolutely within the law, obeying whatever local codes there might be and at the same time display none of the qualities of Christ, pressing your own rights and exploiting every little mistake made by others. Or you can drive with gentleness and compassion. (No really. You can!) If you follow the teaching of Christ in your motoring, then you are a Christian motorist. The same reasoning applies to lawyers, gardeners, teachers and so on. We may never get it absolutely right, either in our motoring or our Christian discipleship but (and here I do agree with Lisa) by the grace of God our failure will never be absolute.

Posted by Mean Dean @ 07/27/2003 01:32 AM CST

No Dean.I haven't argued that the trademark owner wasn't within his rights to ask the-blogger-formerly-known-as... to stop using the name, just that such pressing of personal rights sits uneasily alongside the gospel. I mean, if Apple Records could come to an accomodation with Apple computers over the use of a name, you would think it might just be possible in these circumstances. It isn't about blame shifting, or an over-developed sense of entitlement. It's very much about that sense of proportion that you were asking for in your closing remarks. At least, that's how I see it.

But it's all academic - Jamie himself hasn't made any grumbling about this at all, and I respect him for that. I'm not sure I would have been so reasonabe, especially about the demand to stop using an email address. I mean. For heaven's sake.

Posted by Richard @ 07/25/2003 09:06 PM CST

Gotcha. I see what you mean.

As for what is the 'real' issue here, I think one of the joys of the blogosphere is that in the midst of discussion on one topic, other topics start getting explored. That is my sense of what has happened here. A couple of the issues that I think have come up within the bible geek topic are: how we communicate with one another, what or where is the convergence of church and business, is it important, or even possible, to keep church/business separate and conversely is it important to keep them seamlessl together? I also think it raises the meta topic of whether people can be "right" or "wrong" or simply hold different ideas. And of course, the very obvious discussion on intellectual property.

All of these ideas are tremendously important because of one thing: people are talking. Where people are involved, things are important.

Peace

Posted by Lisa @ 07/25/2003 07:39 PM CST

Lisa, just an observation that on several blogs, I see people who complain about situations they're in ... without coming to grips that many of their situations are of their own making ... or due to an over-developed sense of entitlement.

Look at the current dust-up over "Bible Geek." The owner lawfully applied for the trademark on November 1, 2001 for about $750+ U.S.D. I see from Cruciform's archives only go back to May of 2002 on blogSpot (though I think it goes back a bit further).

The point is, when the lawful owner made application, it appears that there was no appearent conflict.

I mean, otherwise, why not just call myself "Pepsi Cola" ... arguing that I'm using it as a verb because I'm cool, sweed and full of gas?

C'mon guys, in a world of so many big issues, this one is a small issue. Yes, its dissapointing that "Bible Geek" can't be shared, but one party has spent some serious bucks and edured various mountains of paperwork as they obviously intend to use it as a revenue stream.

Or is that the real issue here?

Posted by Mean Dean @ 07/25/2003 07:14 PM CST

Dean, what do you mean about "blame shifting"? I'm interested.....

If you want to explain privately, feel free to use my email address.

Posted by Lisa @ 07/25/2003 06:04 PM CST

I remember being represented by a 'Christian Lawyer' when falsely arrested. After it was all done, case expundged and a happy ending (at least for my side of the legal coin), I asked my attorney about being a Christian and a lawyer, esp. when representing guilty parties.

His reply was quite simple. Since we have such a great advocate in Christ, who will one day represent us before the Holy of Holies, then who are we not to offer the same labor of service to those who in many cases are to face eternal damnation?

As for the "Bible Geek." A cool term that has been trademarked. And if the owners of the trademark want to keep it theirs, then they are obliged to defend it ... or lose it.

I think we as Christians tend to hide behind "we shouldn't sue one another" defense whenever we are on the wrong side of an argument. Then again, I've noticed alot of blame-shifting going on since staring blogs4God.

Posted by Mean Dean @ 07/24/2003 09:07 PM CST

Richard - thanks for picking up this comment and furthering it. I love this about our blogging community - that one discussion can spawn another and another and....

I love Steve's comments. I think he captures the essense of these ideas. As we become more of ourselves, our truest self, may we please God become more like Jesus - the truest Jesus, not our culturally interpreted Jesus.

Perhaps my original comment rises out of my feelings of fear of being labelled a Christian lawyer. Not only are there a lot of preconceived ideas of what that means, it's an enormous burden to live up to. Ah - that's where grace comes in again. Whew.

Let's keep discussing!

Peace

Posted by Lisa @ 07/22/2003 07:26 PM CST

I think both are true! Suely 'Christian' is a noun, from which emerges a verb.

I am a Christian, in the first sense to my very core, as one who knows God, and who is owned by him. From that comes the second sense, of one who follows and seeks to imatate Christ.

Both distinctions are very important to me. I'm wary though of the term Christlike - the only thing I know how to be is Steve-like, and I hope that as i Learn more about myself, and listen more to others, my stev-like behaviour becomes more a reflection of the nature of Jesus.

I'm a Steve-like driver, I can't be anything else, but Steve-like will change as I continue to grow.

Who said somthing about playing with words! :)

Posted by Steve S @ 07/22/2003 06:56 PM CST

To be fair to everyone, I was wickedly deliberate in my title of that post in using it as 'bait.'

In the past I've asked lawyer/bloggers/christians to weigh in on legal issues that effect bloggers and they have had a tendency to decline.

It's a good opportunity for all of us to discuss this, and for many of us, a rather rare one.

Blog on!

Posted by Bene Diction @ 07/22/2003 05:28 PM CST