A Point On Prayer

I was watching the end of the LSU v. Florida football game Saturday evening as the camera focused in on a Florida fan with her eyes closed, apparently praying for a favorable ending to the game.

It reminded me of my college basketball days, when I would pray fervently that we would win games.  I continued the practice into the beginning of my law career, praying before each trial that we would win.  I don’t pray that way anymore.

It’s not because I don’t think God is interested in the outcome of college basketball games or trials.  He undoubtedly is. I don’t pray that way anymore because I now understand about common ground.

C.S. Lewis explained it like this:  If you are walking downhill in one direction, a person walking in the opposite direction must, by necessity, walk uphill. This seems simple enough, but I found myself praying like I didn’t understand it.

Football games, basketball games and trials all occur on common ground, in other words, on a common objective reality.  The outcome of the LSU v. Florida football game probably affected more than a million people. For those watching at home who were watching for entertainment value, the effect was probably minor. For the coaches, and to a lesser degree the players, the effect could be major or career-altering.  How could I possibly know how to pray for the outcome of the game to account for all the people it would affect?

Sure, I could pray completely self-interested, “Lord, I don’t care how the outcome of this game affects a million people, what I want is most important”? How spiritual is that?

The only person who could know how to pray in such a situation, who has the breadth of knowledge to take into account all the variables and persons involved, is God, and I ain’t He.

So I generally don’t pray for outcomes in such situations; I pray for outworkings. For example, going into a trial, instead of praying to win (an outcome) I pray the Lord would work in and through me to enable me to perform excellently (an outworking).

Two things happen. First, it takes the pressure off me because trying to control an outcome creates anxiety. Second, I can pray with more faith because I can be more confident the Lord wants me to do well than I can be about a particular outcome.

Give it a try.  I think you will find it liberating. GS

Why Words Matter

CNN’s Anderson Cooper is worked up because in the trailer for Vince Vaughn’s new movie, The Dilemma, Vaughn’s character refers to a car as being “gay.”

Cooper said, “We gotta do something to make those words…unacceptable, cause those words are hurting kids.”

I guess Cooper is referring to homosexual kids who might take Vaughn’s character’s use of the word “gay” in a negative context and therefore as a moral judgment of their sexual conduct.

To the extent Cooper is condemning the bullying of homosexuals I agree with him 100%, and citizens of the kingdom of God should be the first to condemn such conduct.  The problem is I think Cooper is saying more. I think he’s concerned the word “gay” may take on a negative connotation.

If you’ve seen the clip from the trailer you know Vaughn’s character is not referring to a person but a car. He uses the word “gay” negatively, implying the car is effeminate, not the kind of car the average guy wants.

The irony is the homosexual community has already taken the word “gay,” a perfectly good and positive word, and, by using it synonymously with the word “homosexual,” given it a negative connotation.

Think about it. Do you ever use the word “gay” in a positive context any  more? Do you ever say, “I felt so gay today,” or “I was in a such a gay mood”?  The only time you see “gay” used in a positive light is in old movies, before the word was hijacked by an interest group with a public relations problem.

My point is not to pick on homosexuals.  It’s not just homosexuals who have indulged in this wordplay.  Heterosexuals who call adultery an “affair” are replacing a negative word with a positive one and impliedly redefining the morality of their conduct.

Anyway, that’s the point I wanted to make, you know, the irony. . . oh, and also, that words matter.  Be careful how you use them. GS

Worldviews In The Jury Room

(c)iStockphoto.com/3pod

Yesterday I was in a CLE (Continuing Legal Education) course. CLE is how lawyers keep their skills honed and keep up on this latest changes in the law. Today was a day long mock trial conducted by some of the best trial lawyers in the country, complete with a jury who deliberated at the end of the day in the adjacent room while I and 200 trial lawyers watched via live video.

While the jury ultimately reached the right verdict (juries usually do), how they got there was a bit surprising to me. From the beginning I saw the jury divide in their deliberations according to worldview.

The conservative jurors were obvious and their remarks quickly revealed their inherent trust of companies and distrust of plaintiffs and lawsuits. On the other side were the liberal jurors, who have an inherent distrust for corporations and tend to side with individuals in such disputes. They all heard the same evidence, but they interpreted it very differently, not because of the quality of the evidence but the prism of their worldview.

This shouldn’t have surprised me. I’ve been picking juries for twenty years and have always conducted voir dire based on this assumption. I guess what surprised me was how blatant and conspicuous it was.

Now, here’s where I’m going with all this. There was an objective truth about the evidence, but that truth was distorted by the opposing worldviews through which the jurors viewed it. The key in reaching a true verdict was as much about having the correct worldview as it was about reason. Truth was as much about how they saw as what they saw.

In this respect, what’s true of juries is true of life in general. That’s why I write so much about worldview. If Christians want to see things the way they really are, they don’t need a conservative worldview or a liberal worldview but a Kingdom worldview. That worldview comes first from being obedient to Jesus, which enables one to have the proper worldview, to know Truth. (John 8:32-22).

If you can do that, you are ready to serve on a jury and in life. GS

Why There Are No Prisons In The Old Testament

Yesterday I wrote about Faisal Shahzad, the Muslim terrorist who this week received a lifetime federal scholarship for attempting to blow up Times Square. I noted the irony in Americans having to pay room and board for the next 50 years for the person trying to kill them. I also suggested the Bible had a better solution.

Old Testament law does not provide for prisons. I challenge you to look. There are none, nunca.

It’s not because people were so good they had no need for prisons. Just the opposite, God’s law contained a very detailed framework for addressing criminal conduct, but prisons were not part of that framework, and for good reason.

Think about it. Joe Criminal steals from you. The State brings charges against him, for which you (the taxpayer) pay. It’s not enough Joe’s already stolen from you because when he’s convicted, we then send him to prison where you (the taxpayer) pay $23,000/yr. to house and feed him so he can hang out with other criminals for a few years and learn to be a better criminal.

On top of that, we talk about Joe paying his debt to society, as if the State is the victim, when in fact you are. There is no restitution. There is no rehabilitation. Instead, you become a victim twice and Joe becomes a better criminal, more likely than not to commit another crime when he gets out.

Under Old Testament law, if Joe Criminal stole from you, you would bring the charges against him. If he is convicted he doesn’t go to prison. There are no prisons. Instead he is ordered to pay you, perhaps twofold what he stole from you. If he can’t pay you, then his labor is capitalized, meaning it’s sold to someone else. Under this bondservice contract, the purchaser would pay you, making restitution for Joe Criminal. Joe Criminal would then go and work for the purchaser of his services for the agreed-upon time. The law impliedly presumes if someone has enough money to purchase Joe Criminal’s services for a year or years he must be somewhat successful. So, instead of Joe Criminal learning to be a better criminal, he learns to be productive by working under someone who is.

The Old Testament law also paints a picture of the effects of sin. If you commit a crime, you lose your freedom. If you commit sin, you become a slave to sin. The justice system was a constant reminder of a spiritual principle that he who commits sin is slave to sin.

As much sense as this makes, we are quite a ways from trying something like this in the United States. The horrid sin of race-based slavery continues to cause ripple effects through our culture, and for many bond-service would look too much like slavery, even though it is more humane and effective than our modern alternative form of punishment and rehabilitation, namely prisons.

What do you think? Which system makes more sense? GS

False Oaths And Lifetime Scholarships

Perhaps you saw the story yesterday. Faisal Shahzad, the Muslim terrorist who tried to set off a bomb in Times Square, was sentenced to life in prison. When I read it, I had two concerns.

The judge asked Shahzad about the oath of allegiance to the United States he took when he became an American citizen. Shahzad’s answer, “I did swear, but I did not mean it.”

I suppose this means we now have to hire more INS agents to attend swearing-in ceremonies to ensure immigrants don’t have their fingers crossed behind their back when they take the oath.

The other concern had to do with the sentence: life in prison. Does the irony occur to any other Americans that Shahzad tried to kill you, and now you get to pay $23,000/year for the next 50 years to incarcerate him? He breaks the law and now he’s on scholarship for the rest of his life.

This irony is apparently not lost on God because His solution makes a lot more sense. I’m not referring to capital punishment, although that is a small part of it. Tune in tomorrow and I will explain. GS