For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
For too long we’ve measured ourselves against the standard of the reasonable Christian Lawyer.
This is used much like the “reasonable person” standard. For those readers who may be unfamiliar with first-year torts or contracts classes, the reasonable person is a legal fiction employed to assess the reasonableness of a person’s conduct under a set of circumstances. There is no flesh and blood “reasonable person”; it’s an average, imagined vision of a faceless, ageless, genderless blob at the heart of judging things like a person’s negligence.
Here’s an example:
Hypo: Would a reasonable person down a beer while operating a fork lift on an interstate?
Answer: No. To do so would be a breach of his duty of care to those around him.
And there you have it.
Now, I’ve seen similar use of the reasonable Christian lawyer standard:
Hypo: Would the reasonable Christian lawyer lie in court, rip off a client, or get someone off the hook that they know is guilty?
Answer: Easy. No. To do so would not comport with the conduct to which Christ calls us.
And that’s where the standard is usually used. It helps us rule out heinous (or mildly unsavory) professional conduct that chafes against our sense of Christian propriety. While it can help our moral reasoning, it has some serious failings. Continue reading