Bruce Bickel

Did You Hear About the Guy Who Is Suing Over a Bible Verse?

Bruce Bickel — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:39:48 -0700

In the “strange but true” category, some allegedly gay guy has sued Christian publishing behemoths Zondervan and Thomas Nelson for a total of $70 million. He claims his constitutional rights were infringed upon because these publishers deliberately caused homosexuals to suffer by misinterpretation of the Bible (deliberating interpreting 1 Corinthians 6:9 to include “homosexuals” in the list of those who are “wicked” and won’t “inherit the kingdom of heaven”). BTW, thanks to jcubed who posted this news story to the ConversantLife community submitted news under the heading “Bible Publishers Sued for Anti-Gay References.”

Here is the article

Some might think that I’m a good candidate to express on opinion on this case because I’m a lawyer. But that probably isn’t true. First of all, I’m trying not to be a lawyer, but I keep getting sucked back into it. Secondly, I’m not a very good lawyer. And, perhaps most importantly, I’m a probate lawyer – which means I’m better qualified to express an opinion about the plaintiff only after he is dead.

Nonetheless, I’m compelled to weigh in on this news story. I find the case bizarrely laughable. Here is a plaintiff who is complaining about infringement of his constitutional rights when he overlooks a little thing I like to call “the constitutional protection for freedom of the press.” That protection is so strong that I believe it would even extend to cover the plaintiff’s claim that Zondervan and Thomas Nelson intentionally sought to cause harm to homosexuals by intentionally misinterpreting the Bible. But the case won’t get to constitutional issues of law. At the outset, the plaintiff overlooks a minor detail. Neither Zondervan nor Thomas Nelson interpret the Bible; they don’t perform the translations. They simply published translations that were the work of someone else (for example, the NIV translation of the Bible is copyrighted by the International Bible Society).

Quick bottom line: Anyone can file a lawsuit. All you need is a few hundred dollars to cover the filing fee. You don’t have to have a meritorious case (or even something close to it) to file a lawsuit.

And before you go off on a rant about the shyster lawyer who would take on such a case, you should know that the plaintiff has filed his lawsuit in pro per. Which means he has no lawyer and is representing himself. Was it Ben Franklin who said that the person who serves as his own lawyer has a fool for a client? (Maybe it was Britney Spears.)

Is My Seeker Church Encouraging Me Toward Minimal Commitment?

Bruce Bickel — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:51:25 -0700

My leanings toward reformed theology make me reject the terminology of a “seeker” church. We don’t seek God; He seeks us. Nonetheless, you know what I mean when I use the label. So, allow me to say that I attend a seeker church. I don’t want to be in a seeker church, but it seems clear to my wife and me that God has directed us to this church. So, we’re staying (for now, knowing that God directs our steps while we can’t always understand the journey – Proverbs 20:24).

I take some solace in the fact that I’m not sure the church wants to be seekerish. I detect evidence of schizophrenia. It wants to go deeper, but I think it feels that it needs to be more seeker-oriented to be perceived as hip and culturally relevant up here in the Pacific Northwest – apparently the most “unchurched” region in the U.S.

So, I’ve been sitting in the sanctuary the last few month’s staring at the church motto that is emblazoned on the proscenium arch: Be, Belong, Believe . . . Become. I don’t agree with the sequence of the words; I think the “Belong” should come after the “Believe.” But here is how the church explains it:

BE: We come to Christ just as we are. Flaws and all. We don’t have to “clean up our act” first. We can come as broken, damaged individuals. No games. No pretending to be something we are not. (“God loved us while we were yet sinners,” to say it in King James phraseology.)

BELONG: As a church, we don’t want to impose any obstacles to someone getting to know Christ. So, we want the non-Christian to feel comfortable in our services. We don’t require anything of these seekers. They can attend as infrequently as they want; no pressure to attend regularly; no “new members” class forced on them; no pressure to plop a few bucks in the offering bucket. (Yes, we use actual galvanized buckets, and sometimes muffin baskets. But I digress.) In other words, if a seeker on a spiritual journey is looking for a spiritually-minded group, we want such seekers to feel like they are welcome, accepted and belong in our church family. We respect that they have questions and aren’t yet at a place of making a decision. What better place than our church to continue on the journey.

BELIEVE: Ideally, the sense of “belonging” will provide connections that keep the seeker returning to our church, and this continued exposure to the Gospel message will result in the seeker’s salvation.

BECOME: Paul calls it the “prize” or the “goal.” The seminary guys call it sanctification. Simply put, it is the process by which we move toward becoming more Christ-like.

In all areas of my life, I have answers for questions that no one is asking me. Church isn’t any different. So, on the subject of the church motto, if I had been asked, I would have said that “Belong” goes after “Believe” -- because it is only after you believe that you belong to the family of God as a child of God. But since they didn’t ask me, I’m forced to concede to the church’s interpretation by which “Belong” precedes “Believe.”

But here is the problem. When the “Belong” is before the “Believe,” there is no accountability required of the seeker. Christ’s mandate of Matthew 22:37 to “love God and love others” applies to those who desire to follow Him. Until the seeker makes this commitment, the seeker is excused from the sacrificial behavior that is appropriate for disciples of Christ. And because we don’t want to scare the seeker out of the pew, we seldom talk about the high cost of following Christ, as in “deny yourself and pick up your cross daily” (Luke 9:23).

So, there is a danger that the seeker will think that the minimal commitment of an occasional visit to church may be all that is necessary as one enters the “Believe” stage. If that happens, we’re guilty of false advertising because you can’t get to “Become” if you enter at “Believe” with the expectation and intention that minimal commitment is all that is required.

Why am I uncomfortable with all of this? Because God is making me squirm in my seat as I feel the weight of my own guilt for moving toward a convenient Christianity. I'm in the process of "becoming," but only in the sense of "becoming a complacent Christian." I find that I've morphed my Christianity into one that fits comfortably into my schedule and circumstances. One that doesn’t require too much of me, yet just enough where I feel spiritual.

I’ve got to stop worrying about how the church motto might mislead seekers, and pay more attention to how I’ve been misleading myself. I’ve got to abandon my rants at the sequence of “Belong” and “Believe.” Instead, I need to focus on the ellipsis in the church motto – those three dots that precede “Become.” That’s the place where I am living, smack dab at the “. . .” of Be, Belong, Believe . . . Become. I’ve passed through the other stages (regardless of whether you put “Belong” or the left or right side of “Believe”). I’m living in the dots.

Although I know the theology behind the dots that represent the process of sanctification, maybe I need something more blatant. Maybe I should ask my church to slightly modify the motto on the proscenium arch. They can keep the sequence of the words according to their established preference, but for my benefit perhaps the ellipsis could be translated into something more definitive. Something like: Be, Belong, Believe, Deny Yourself, Become. It loses the alliteration, but it is a better reminder for me than “. . .”

The Unflattering Reputation of Christians

Bruce Bickel — Mon, 19 May 2008 16:45:52 -0700

Can we start with the premise that Christians are not held in high regard in society? According to my purely anecdotal research, Christians have managed to slide down the societal acceptability chart to a position that is slightly below telephone solicitors and personal injury lawyers. For each notch that they move lower on the chart, Christians raise the respectability of some other annoying segment of society. So, by contrast, they keep looking progressively worse.

I’m sure that I won’t get an argument over this assertion from those who identify themselves as existing outside the circle of Christianity. But it may surprise you to know that Christians don’t argue with this premise either.

I frequently have the opportunity to speak before Christian groups. The audiences usually range in size from 200 to 2,000 people in attendance. As often as possible, I use these forums to conduct an informal survey. I don’t have any formal polling methodology; I just ask this simple question: “What one word best describes the reputation that Christians have in our society?” Here are the most frequent responses:

•   judgmental
•   hypocritical
•   self-righteous
•   ignorant
•   pushy
•   dangerous
•   irrelevant
•   obnoxious

When I review the responses to my question with the members of the Christian audience, there is almost universal agreement that they have this reputation in our society. (Duh! Apparently Christians aren’t as clueless as you might expect. Despite their flaws, at least they can manage to get a blinding glimpse of the obvious.) But here is what I continually find to be amazing: These Christian groups always agree that this unflattering reputation of their own constituency is deserved and accurate. They readily admit that their group is not being falsely accused.

Apparently a lot of Christians somewhere have been working very hard to earn their unflattering reputation. Maybe the rest of us need to concede that as a group Christians are now the most annoying segment of society. Tell them they’ve won. Maybe then they’ll give it a rest.

Unfortunately, their annoyance is so multi-faceted that it won’t be easy for them to cease and desist. Even if we assume that they desire to improve their social standing, the one-word character descriptors only identify the symptoms that are painfully obvious. There remains a much more sinister underlying cause of these symptoms. Treating the symptoms will require dealing with that cause, and the lunatic fringe of Christianity may not be willing to go there. It would require radical surgery. More than amputation (because the ailment is too pervasive). More than a lobotomy (which simply may be a redundancy). We’re talking about a drastic measure: Removing Christians from their self-appointed role as society’s morality police.

Got the Career but Lack the Passion

Bruce Bickel — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:42:14 -0700

In an earlier incarnation, I used to be just like you – sprinting along the pathway of my strategically chosen career. I wanted to have it all – a challenging career that was rooted in my passion for Christ. Oh, blissful ignorance! Little did I know the impending torment that was in store for me. But, wait. My story starts way before this.

As a kid, I always knew I wanted to be a lawyer when I grew up. After all, from a young age I could manipulate the truth to my advantage (usually directing blame to my sisters for some offense I committed). I had an uncanny ability to make statements that were entirely true but conveyed an opposite meaning. So, when mom’s favorite lamp was in shatters on the floor and I was accused of breaking it, I could honestly say, “I never even touched that lamp.” Truer words were never spoken, because it was the football I kicked from the living room that actually touched the lamp. That, my friends, is the essence of being a lawyer – to find ambiguity, and then to exploit it to your own advantage. (The fact that I danced along the Bible’s demarcation of deception as a sin apparently didn’t phase me.)

I enrolled at the University intent on proceeding to law school as quickly as possible. But when I couldn’t get “Rhetoric & Argumentation 101” as a 1st semester freshmen, I took “Theatre Arts 101” as an alternative. (I thought I might as well get a head start on honing my courtroom theatrics.) Alas, this is where the seeds of occupational discontent were planted. By the time I graduated, I was ambivalent about the lawyer gig and wanted to take a stab at show business.

I ventured into the comedy-club scene in L.A. But two unanticipated, insurmountable obstacles prevented any chance of my success as a standup comic. First of all, at a height of only sixty-six inches, people couldn’t really tell that I was standing up. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I wasn’t funny. Consequently, I got out of show business before anyone knew I was in show business.

I was soon enrolled in a prestigious law school, pretending with all of the other soulless automatons that I was going to be a lawyer for “the good of society.” And, as a Christian lawyer, I envisioned myself battling for constitutional religious freedom rights on behalf of my persecuted brethren and sistern. But a short 3-years later I was arguing in Divorce Court that my client should have custody of the yellow bath mat. And when I wasn’t mired in marital dissolution disputes, I was defending a product manufacturer from wrongful death claims, arguing that purchasers knew or should have know that the vegetable chopper would explode when it was plugged into an outlet; thus, they should have anticipated the trajectory of the flying stainless steel blade; so, if they failed to duck, then their decapitation was the result of their own slow reflexes. Oh, I didn’t a little “Christian” lawyering, on cases like writing a letter for my church when neighbors complained about church people parking in front of their driveways on Sundays.

I was a good lawyer, a very good lawyer; but I was also a very unfulfilled person. For more than two decades, I tried to find a home for my Christian passion somewhere in my profession. I even left the mercenary Litigation Department and changed my specialty to Estate Planning and Probate. (Something seemed nobler about helping people plan for death. And, discussions of eternity after death might arise in the process. As a side benefit, the risk of a malpractice lawsuit is less if your client is dead.) Despite shifting my specialty and changing law firms, I was never passionate about being a lawyer. As much as I wanted lawyering to be the vehicle for my faith testimony, it was always merely a way to earn a living. Granted, it was a good living from a monetary standpoint, but for me, lawyering didn’t provide me with a life worth living. I grew increasingly depressed when I realized that I was doing something that I didn’t like to do simply for the money. (There is a strong analogy to prostitution, but I prefer not to dwell on the comparison.)

My malaise as an attorney never made me suicidal (although there were times when my wife want to kill me for my whining). But it did make me more introspective than most lawyers. (For many members of the bar, they can easily ignore their feelings because they don’t have any. That’s what makes them good lawyers.)

After years of self-examination, and a series of post-lawyer ministry endeavors, I’ve begun to understand that you don’t need to find a spiritual passion in your career, just so long as you find it somewhere. Instead of finding a way to express Christian passion in your work, you might discover that your job allows you the ability to express your Christian passion in other ministries. For me, the lawyering gig allowed me a modicum of time and financial flexibility that allowed my to minister through writing books and preaching/teaching (at a church that couldn’t afford to pay for a “real” pastor).

I have come to learn that I could have been an even better attorney if I had given myself the freedom to view lawyering at my “tent making” occupation and hadn’t spent so much time bemoaning the disconnect between my profession and my spiritual passion. Alas, I’ve learned this lesson too late, because my law license has expired and I refuse to take the Bar Exam again. But if my insights can be helpful to you, then I’ll consider my litigation-induced ulcer to be worthwhile.

Hey, Obama! What do you mean “Babies Are A Punishment?"

Bruce Bickel — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:52:01 -0700

Right upfront I want to say that this not intended to be a political blog. I put Obama’s name in the title because he said what I’m going to talk about, but I’m much more interested in the philosophy behind the statement than who said it.

Here’s the back-story (just in case you’ve been living in a media-free cave since the last weekend in March). While campaigning in Pennsylvania, Obama appeared to back a hypothetical abortion by his daughters saying he wouldn't "punish" them with a baby. Here is a transcript of his comments:

"When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

So, a baby is punishment for an unwanted pregnancy. Regrettably, I think this is a common sentiment, so I’m not intending to single out Obama. But the underlying rationale is so offensive to me that I don’t know where to begin. I’ll just give you my present stream-of-conscientiousness:

Shouldn’t we recognize that there is a difference between consequences and punishment? Punishment is imposed on us by others for our alleged wrongdoing. But consequences are brought on ourselves by the choices we make. As a society, we are trying to avoid the responsibility for the consequences of our own actions. Can we dodge the consequences of our actions if we characterize them as unfair punishment?

These comments make “the baby” the thing to be avoided. “The baby” is the problem. “The baby” should not take precedence over the inconvenience or preferences of the parents (especially if they are teenagers). This puts us in the position of placing degrees of value on human life. Some lives have more value than others. If we view babies as a punishment in the discussion of sex education, then it is a quick step to say that they are punishment in the discussion of unwanted pregnancy. The extension of that view takes us to valuing the lifestyle of a teenage parent (who shouldn’t be “punished”) over the value of the life of the unborn child.

If a baby is a punishment to the teenage parent who conceived it, then what about other circumstances when an easily devalued life gets in our way and becomes a burden to us. This is all about how we value human life, and how that value seems to diminish if it interferes with our personal preferences. Let’s see how this attitude plays out at the other end of the age spectrum. What is the value of human life if the person is aged, decrepit, and suffers from advanced dementia. Couldn’t the care of such a person – with its concomitant financial and emotional drain – be considered a “punishment” on the adult child responsible for this elderly parent? In a few decades, I’m sure I’ll be a burden to my kids, but I don’t want them to be able to euthanize me because they claim they are being unfairly “punished” with my care. Just step away from the plug!

I know I haven’t thought this issue through all the way. I’m prematurely writing this blog because my analysis is incomplete. Your comments will be appreciated to help me think through the ramifications. But I felt compelled to respond. Maybe I’m just shocked that someone finally said – in what might have been an unintentional slipup – what many people are privately thinking. Until I heard it voiced, it wasn’t so offensive to me. Now that I’ve heard the words out loud, I’m outraged.

ELIOT SPITZER: "Be sure your sins will find you out" is not the right response

Bruce Bickel — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:03:29 -0700

I’m sitting here in a hotel in Nashville where I’m attending the annual convention of the National Religious Broadcasters. All of the televangelist are here, from the good to the … others. Lots of comb-overs, and most of the rest have high hair. (The unofficial motto here seems to be “the higher the hair, the closer to God.”)

I’m glued to the TV, but I’m not watching a televangelist. I’m watching the news stories about Spitzer’s prostitute fiasco. My mind flashes back to what my mom always told me as a little kid: “Be sure your sins will find you out.”

Political commentators and the friends and enemies of Spitzer are saying similar things. “He should have known that he would get caught, so he shouldn’t have done it.”

But it seems to me that “Be sure your sins will find you out” is a lousy motivation for good behavior. As Mike Erre, my virtual pastor (the guy whose sermons I listen to while on the treadmill), says: We make a mistake in our Christianity when we make it transactional. Transactional faith is premised on the theory that if I do something, then God will react – as in “if I’m good, He’ll bless me” and “if I’m bad, He’ll punish me.” Transactional faith says that we avoid sinning because of the consequences that will eventually follow.

There are two flaws with refraining from sin for fear of discovery. First of all, God knows about it before our sin is committed. So it is already discovered by the One who is most important. Secondly, and most importantly, public knowledge of our sin is the wrong motivation for avoiding it. Instead of a transactional faith that fears the reaction to our sin, I want to be motivated by a relational faith – a faith refrains from sin because I love God so much.

I’m a good enough lawyer and schemer that I, probably like Clinton and Spitzer, could delude myself into thinking that I could pull off adultery without discovery. So, I believe it is my love for my wife (not fear of discovery) that keeps me from cheating on her. And that is how it should be with our attitude toward our sins: Is our love for God our primary motivation for our conduct? Do we refrain from sin because we want to obey God and honor Him?

Conversely, when our sin is uncovered and made public, is our confession motivated by true repentance and sorrow, or are we simply sorry we got caught? But this is a discussion for another day. Right now I have to rush back to the convention floor where some televangelist is shouting, "Jesus wants to save you, but he won't do it for free."

Redesigning the Church Pt 1 (and I don't mean remodeling the building)

Bruce Bickel — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:02:54 -0800

I was bored last Sunday in church during the sermon. My mind started wandering. I couldn’t help it. I found myself wondering what we, as 21st century Christians, are trying to accomplish with church sermons. What follows are a few of the thoughts that occurred to me during this momentary subconscious drifting. Oh, perhaps I should confess that I was the guy who was preaching while these random thoughts ran through my mind.

First, let me clarify that I subscribe to the Long Tail theory for sermons. I know that Chris Anderson was talking about business services and products when he postulated his theory. But the principle applies to churches (and sermons) as well. There will be a few of the mega-churches that serve large congregations, but Christianity is well-served by having lots of smaller churches with a variety of teaching, worship and ministry styles. So, by this and subsequent blogs, I’m not suggesting a complete overhaul of all Christian churches. I’m only talking about my segment of the long tail.

I’m tired of churches that try so hard to make the sermon hip. If “hip” means being culturally edgy, then I want no part of it. The culture seems to be constantly moving away from God, not closer to Him. So, I don’t want to be on the cultural edge, which would put me in a societal position that is enviable, but a spiritual position that is precarious.

I don’t want to see video clips that are shown primarily to provide visual variety. Similarly, I don’t need a drama sketch if it’s purpose is to cater to those who have spiritual ADD.

And, I’m tired of fill-in-the-blank sermon handouts and PowerPoint slides with sermon bullet points. These always seem to constrict the sermon to a collection of sound bites. (I use them when I’m preaching, but I wish I didn’t have to. I wonder if the compulsion to use them is due to the congregation’s intolerance of deep exegesis or due to my inability to preach effectively. Maybe it is a combination of both.)

Basically, I’m tired of sermons that try so hard to be culturally relevant that they have no spiritual impact. I’m so hungry and thirsty for hearing the Word of God explained in a way that allows me to marvel again and anew at the mysteries and magnitude of God.

I’m not suggesting we retrench back to using the King James Version. But I believe that preaching that is deeply rooted in the Bible can have an appeal and transformational power without the necessity of gimmicks, shallowness or clever alliterations to appease the congregational pallets accustomed to biblical pabulum.

I believe that the truths of Christianity are constant and unchanging and applicable for all people, regardless of their generation or geographical location. However, in my own lifespan I have seen enough cultural change to believe that the method by which God’s truth is articulated and practiced is most effective when it occurs in the cultural context. The trick is to make the translation and presentation of God’s truth culturally relevant so that it can be understood and absorbed (1 Cor 9:19-23). without sacrificing solid, convicting and encouraging truth in the process.

No more “sermon lite.” It leads to Christianity lite, and that’s my tendency anyway. So, for my part of the church’s long tail, give me a confrontational presentation of God’s Word that forces me to examine my life in the context of God’s design. I don’t want to be comfortable during a sermon, and I certainly don’t want to be drifting off . . . again.

Christian Martyrs in India Aren't Partying this New Year's Eve

Bruce Bickel — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:59:55 -0800

Here it is, New Year’s Eve Day. Everybody I know is making plans of some sort to celebrate tonight. But as the day begins, I check my email, expecting only to delete the solicitations for online high school diploma courses and for erectile dysfunction medication. (How does the internet know that I’m 55 years old yet not know that I’m a college graduate?)

Imagine my surprise when I get an email from a pastor in East India. My church helps support a church-planting effort in that region. Hundreds of small Christian churches have been established in the last several years. There are over 78,000 Christians in those fledgling churches. It has been spiritually encouraging for me to see the growth of the Christian body in that predominantly Hindu country; and I’ve been pleased that my meager financial contributions have supported the effort.

But the email I received today reports nothing but horror. Those Christians have recently been subjected to dreadful persecution. Their churches and their homes have been burned. Under the threatening chants of “Become Hindus or face death!” they have been forced to flee into the jungle with no possessions or provisions. Family members are separated from each other. The most recent report says that 10 people have been killed, 500 houses burnt and 50 churches destroyed. At one jungle encampment, 300 people have been without food and water for 6 days. Relief efforts are thwarted by violence on the access roads.

And, here I sit this early morning on New Year’s Eve. I’m wearing a second of three sets of new Christmas pj’s, pondering which of several parties I’ll attend tonight.

Somehow, I now longer feel in the mood to celebrate. I didn’t expect to enter the New Year with fasting and prayer. But nothing else seems appropriate.

What I Learned About Theology from Barry Bonds

Bruce Bickel — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:36:36 -0800

I’m not a Barry Bonds fan. And as a lawyer, I cringe at the mistaken notion that he should be presumed innocent (more about that below). But I’m sure glad God takes a different approach with me than I’m taking towards Barry Bonds.

I was in San Francisco last week when the Grand Jury indictment against Barry Bonds was announced. I used to live in San Francisco, and I used to be a Giants fan, so I enjoyed being in the epicenter of the news reporting on this story. If you have been living under a rock and missed the news, Bonds was NOT indicted for taking steroids. His alleged crimes are for lying to the federal grand jury when he said he didn’t KNOWINGLY take steroids. The prosecutors claim that he had actual knowledge that he was using illegal steroids at the time he used them. His denials of the fact during a grand jury investigation of the Balco Company have resulted in four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I believe Bonds is guilty of knowingly taking steroids. World-class athletes know what they are taking and using. Their bodies are highly efficient mechanisms, and they don’t tinker with their physiology in ignorance. Also, the human body doesn’t bulk up like Bonds did without technical enhancements. I think the adjustable baseball cap was invented to accommodate the accelerating growth of his head. Okay, now my bias is on the table.

I took great notice, and some offense, at the many people who say that it is wrong for us to express any negative opinion about Bonds at this juncture because “the law says that he is innocent until proven guilty.” Hey people, that is not what the law says. That rule only pertains to the burden proof at trial. But outside of the courtroom, the rule doesn’t apply. For instance, it there was a universal presumption of innocence at all times, we wouldn’t take a person caught in the act of bank robbery to jail upon his arrest; similarly, we wouldn’t make him post bail as a condition to be released from jail pending his trial. What about all of those times when a judge, at an arraignment hearing, denies bail and requires the criminal defendant to stay in jail before that trail. The judge certainly isn’t presuming the defendant to be innocent.

This whole “presumption of innocence” got me thinking about my own sins. They are not of the steroid variety, as anyone who has seen me at the beach can attest. At first I thought that forgiveness of our sins puts us in a “presumed innocent” position with God. But it is better than that. The presumption of innocence can be overcome at trial by the weight of evidence. As far as my sin is concerned, I have more than enough weight to tip the scale drastically to the “guilty” verdict. In a trial, the weight of my sin would rebut the presumption of innocence.

God gives us something much better than a “presumption of innocence” from our sins. And we have something better than mere immunity from prosecution (which means no penalty but still recognizes the existence of our transgressions). As far as God is concerned, His forgives us put us in the position of beginning declared innocent. It is as if we have never done any wrong. Not only are our sins forgiven, but they are forgotten. Our sin rap sheet is wiped clean.

Christ offers us a much better deal than Bonds gets with the judicial system. Whatever the outcome of his situation, it will be considered “justice.” The outcome of the forgiveness of my sins can only be called “grace.”

Compassionless Christians

Bruce Bickel — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:03:58 -0700

On the user-generated posts, "surferguy" posted an article about the Westboro Baptist Church. This is the church that continues to protest at the grave site of Matthew Shepard on the anniversary of his death with "God Hates Faggots" signs. The church claims that the War (and therefore theses casualties) are God's judgment upon the U.S. for being tolerant of homosexuality. So, they protest at funerals of soldiers -- these aren't necessarily the funerals of gay soldiers, just any soldiers, straight or gay. According to the article posted by surferguy, the church has been stung with an $11 million judgment for protesting at a funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq at which they caused emotional suffering to the parents of the deceased soldier.

How is it possible that Christians, or any thinking person, could engage in such dispicable behavior. Even if homosexuality is a sin, is not the cruel taunting by the Westboro pharisees during a family's grief equally repulsive to God? Can they not see that their conduct is the opposite of everything Christ stands for?

Jesus told his disciples, in the upper room on the night before his crucifixion, that the world will know we are Christians by our love. The Gospel of John didn't have room to include a side comment by Christ: that the world will know the Westboro Baptists by their hate.