‘Christian’ Lawyers at Bene Diction Blogs On

‘Christian’ Lawyers

My apologies to three of my favorite people who happen to have law degrees and who happen to be believers, for putting the title in quotes. :^)

It is one thing to be angry for someone, it is quite another to cross a line and be angry at ‘the other’.

I think most of us understand why we are responding to the situation Cruciform Chronicle finds himself in.
We all know it can happen to us.

I am angry for James, and I am sorry to say I am angry at the lawyer, who has become ‘the other’ in my mind.

Why?
It was the language. Not just the legal language. I am angry at the spiritualising, just as I am angry at the intent.

So I asked Dan at Signposts about this. What a great post.

I am not going to comment on the merits and relative justice/injustice of this because heaps of other people have leapt into this issue with both feet. I am however going to comment on the way that the letter is drafted:

Dan gets to the meat of law and faith quickly, and shows a bit of empathy for the lawyer that I’ve been unable to muster.

This guy is clearly trying to be a christian and be a lawyer at the same time. Even more clearly, he is failing at both. If it ever got to the stage that he did issue proceedings on behalf of his client, I pity him because he would have to rely on a cease and desist demand which included phrases like “to get legal” and “just to get technical”.

Getting involved in legal disputes with other members of your church or your family or your friends is awful. Nobody wants to do it. Really.

It doesn’t take a genius to know why this is to be avoided - it is because there is some other personal relationship or bond which complicates the commercial or legal realities of the dispute.

There is more.

Writing a letter like this is spiritualising a secular issue. And once you start down that slippery slope, it is a short distance to spiritual abuse. Let’s not fool ourselves about this sort of stuff.

Aha. Spiritualising at To Whom It May Concern no less. grrrrr.
Yeah, that pushed a button.

Quite frankly, if anything this confused ever came off my printer, I would be torn a new one by my boss, and my minister.

That’s what we need to keep forefront.
Accountability to the profession and to other believers.
Thank God there are people that understand that.
Most do I think. It’s the ones that don’t that get attention.

Those of us who have faced this, know how frightening it is, and how wounding it can be to our spirit and how disruptive it is to our emotional and mental equilibrium.
Dan is absolutely correct.
This is spiritual abuse, whether it was meant to be or not.

I hope the lawyers client, Mark Hart, the trademarked Bible Geek, answers some of the email bloggers have sent him.
If he is serious about his faith, I think it is time he steps forward.

Sir, would you answer The Gutless Pacifist and Martin Roth?
What would you say to The Sakamuyo Network?
Or asisaid? :^)

Mr. Hart, you have been linked and discussed respectfully on blogs in Wales, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA.
A lot of bloggers and their readers would like to know how you would answer for yourself.

Blog face lifts
It’s great fun to see a blog get a face lift. Wendy Cooper’s is a nice warm green with lots of pics, centred layout, and homey. And Josh Sargent has a new header done by my favorite designer. Sleek, red, contemporary, and masculine.
Nicely done both of you!

The BBC and Dr. Kelley and Tony Blair
I’ve been following this story with interest. Americans have strong opinions and have posted a fair bit on this situation.
However, the post I trust and recommend is connexions. It’s balanced and comes from the UK. Having seen scraps with the BBC and the government before, it makes the most sense.

Underblogs
Dispatches from Outland, Idea Joy and I try to focus from time to time on new blogs that aren’t getting some well deserved attention. Now LivingRoom has coined the term underblog and is introducing us to reader recommendations.
New bloggers can use some encouragement and a link. We all started from scratch, so take a sec and let them know you stopped by.
If you have a bit of time to surf, add your own and check out the underblogs and give them a good word eh? A link can go a long way for newbies. One way to find an underblog is starting at the bottom of Who Links Who.

Digital Quilt
There is still time to add your square to Rachel’s digital quilt.
Looks great doesn’t it?

Published 5 years, 4 months ago

12 Responses to “‘Christian’ Lawyers”

RSS

1 Rhesa on Jul 21st, 2003 at 1:59 pm

Y’know, we’ve been studying about dealing with personal offenses and how to avoid offending others during our Sunday night services for the past couple months. This letter came back to mind last night. I think Theologian Guy did the right thing and handled the whole affair very gracefully, but I still wonder why Bible Geek (TM) chose the route he did.
2 Rhesa on Jul 21st, 2003 at 2:02 pm

P.S. Your Gutless Pacifist and Martin Roth links are the same, Bene. Just an FYI…
3 Bene Diction on Jul 21st, 2003 at 2:06 pm

Hi Rhesa…thanks. Fixed.
4 Theologian Guy on Jul 21st, 2003 at 5:44 pm

Bene:

I am glad you are a friend and not an enemy! Haha!

Thanks again for all your support. I’ve seen your messages in comment boxes all over the internet, and here at your site. I don’t know if any of us will ever hear from Mr. Hart or his lawyer on this one. I don’t think I care. But, I do hope folks will keep coming to my site. I am trying to post quality material. A lot of folks have been exposed to my site by this situation, and I hope they return because I offer something worthwhile or interesting.

Please, give me regular feedback, if you can, on the things I write, and encourage others to do so. So often, I feel like my blogging voice is but a whisper.

Grace and peace from your friendly neighborhood Theologian Guy.
5 Bene Diction on Jul 21st, 2003 at 7:09 pm

ha ha James…I have been tracking your situation around the blogosphere, at least one step behind you!
It’s been quite the busy time, after just returning to this medium, hasn’t it?

I too hope that the people that stopped in to see what the fuss is about will come back to visit you; see the quality, reach out, give feedback, and encourage that whisper. Blog on.
6 Lisa on Jul 22nd, 2003 at 1:20 am

I’ve struggled most of the day with how to word my response to your post. Firstly, thank you for the apology to your three favorite law people. I flatter myself that I’m included in the three.

Apology accepted - and yet I still react _very_ strongly to the quote marks. I am a lawyer. I am also a believer. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps what I’m reacting so strongly to is the use of the term Christian as an adjective.

“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. If you accept my premises that there is no such thing as a Christian (without quote marks) lawyer, then it is simply inflammatory to add the quote marks. Worse, it is belittling. We lawyers screw up the same as the rest of the work force. Unfortunately (perhaps fortunately?) people don’t cut us the slack that they normally cut people such as dentists, teachers, gardeners, web designers and the like.

While I’m getting all my thoughts out on this post, I’d like to briefly address the issue that started the controversy. I’m willing to be the lone voice in the blogosphere in support of the writer. I, like the majority of the rest of you, think the spiritual allusions in the letter were in poor taste. But I support the right to write such a letter. Mark Hart has followed legal channels, likely at the insistence of his publisher, Servant Publications Inc. and has trademarked his handle. It’s unlikely that Mark Hart personally made the decision to obtain the mark. It is a business decision made by the publisher. If it wasn’t the publisher, then the decision was probably made by the production company.

As a society, we have allowed our legislators to introduce and the courts to enforce intellectual property (”IP”) rights. The way our jurisprudence currently works, it would be professional suicide to not protect your IP. There has been a lot of talk in the blogosphere about Christians being different. Amen to that, I say. How does that look in the realities of the corporate world? Often, financing, insurance and other business necessities will be withheld if IP isn’t protected via marks and contracts. What do Christians do then?

As for enforcing trademarks, the letter sent to Jamie really was a standard letter. It contained statements that the courts have said that such letters should contain. Yes, the letter feels threatening. But the writer of the letter did not likely intend to threaten Jamie, one person to another. The writer was simply taking care of business necessities.

The real question that needs to be asked, in my opinion, is how do we response to differences such as this. I think Bene hit it on the head with the comment about being angry, but not at the ‘other’. I have been tremendously impressed with Jamie’s attitude and pray that we all my learn from his graciousness.

Whew!
7 dan on Jul 22nd, 2003 at 4:58 am

Lisa, thanks for your comments. As I have said to you privately, I agree with most of what you have said.

I also agree that my comment about being a Christian and a lawyer and failing at both was flippant.

In a dispute like this there are different ways to go about resolving it - you can go legal or you can attempt to resolve the dispute without legal involvement, as one person (christian, friend, family member etc) to another. A lot of people try the latter and if that doesn’t work, go to the former.

I thought the letter was confusing the two, which just limits the chances that you will resolve the dispute in either way. That is the complex sentiment I was trying to express in those remarks, so you were right to call me on it.
8 Dan Johnson on Jul 22nd, 2003 at 9:33 am

I’ve posted my comments on my blog: http://journeyinsidemymind.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_journeyinsidemymind_archive.html#105883384058164928

I really appreciate Theologian Guy’s heart. Also, to illustrate the absurdity of the situation, I’ve noticed that “The Name That Shall Not Be Named” is similar to “He Who Must Not Be Named” and “You Know Who” from the Harry Potter stories.

I’ve thought about linking to Theologian Guy’s blog on my blogroll, but putting The Name That Shall Not Be Named as the referring text. That might be inviting more trouble, however.

“Love does not keep a record of wrongs.” Amen.
9 Bene Diction on Jul 22nd, 2003 at 10:43 am

Dan and Lisa:

I am glad to see my point was made by putting christian in quotes.
(no intent to harm!) :^)

I have been very fortunate to have worked for companies that would not have made a legal decision regarding my work without my input.

My hope is that Mark Hart becomes aware his publisher may have asked the lawyer to act on his behalf and on behalf of a company. I also hope he is given an opportunity for input, and autonomy to act according to conscience.

Yes, lawyers are the front line and by the nature of the tasks assigned take the flack.

This letter addresses a thing, a trademark.
And the economic bottom line of a company and its author. That is understood.

I agree this is just standard business practise.
Where I continue to have difficulty is in ‘no intent to harm.’

I have three more hopes.

One: that bloggers who have never been in contact with a lawyer have learned a bit about how the job is done and don’t attack ‘the other.’

Two: that James graciousness has permeated this sorry situation all the way to the top, so people in companies can make different decisions in the future.

Three: that the mix of spiritualising and legalize is seen for what it is.

I appreciate both of you taking time to weigh in here at my blog very much. Thank you.
10 Timothy R. Butler on Jul 23rd, 2003 at 4:15 pm

Hi Bene Diction,
Thanks for the link to my Bible geek buttons. I’ve been surprised by my referrer logs seeing different people linking to them. Thanks!
11 Luke on Jul 23rd, 2003 at 10:08 pm

It’s an interesting discussion. I’ve got three law subjects left to finish then I hit the big wide world, and one of them is Legal Practice and Ethics. Allow me to quote from our Chief Justice:

All professions, including the clergy, have their notable failures, but we should not overlook the successes, often quiet and unpublicised, that are achieved, and the good work that is done, day by day, by women and men honourably pursuing their calling.

Cheers. Keep up the good blog!