Friday, December 29, 2006

Doctor, Doctor...Mister...JD?

Q: A law degree is known as a juris doctor. Is it appropriate, then, to call a lawyer, “Doctor?”

A: This is a funny little question that polemics often engage in, it would seem, for shear sport. Those two little letters preceding one’s name bespeaks authority, intellect, and honor.

Lawyers get gypped on that front, I suppose. After all, attorneys put in three years to get a J.D., and follow that up with one of the hardest, quite masochistic, tests known to mankind. What is more, the very degree that we attorneys possess suggests that it would be appropriate to call us, “Dr. Attorney.” After all, M.D. stands for “Medical Doctor” and we call our physicians doctor, do we not?

Surprisingly, the reason why attorneys do not bear this titular prefix is rooted in a notion professional humility.

Dear Sidebar, Please tells us you are starting to tell a joke. Lawyers humble? Seriously, what’s the punch line? Signed, The Society for Protection of the Falsely Humble.

It is no joke. In the earlier part of the twentieth century, the American Bar Association (ABA) considered passing a resolution that would permit us to be titled, “doctor.” But, the committee exploring the idea determined that such a reference would be inappropriate, misleading, and grounded only in “self-laudation.” Still, about a year later, that same ABA committee determined it might be ok, provided the attorney was not using the title to mislead.

Dear Sidebar, We knew it! Signed, the SPFH again.

And that is the crux of the problem. When someone is referred to as “doctor,” generally we do ascribe a certain level of intellectualism or heightened professionalism to the person (whether they deserve it or not). Medical doctors are specialists in health. Ph.D.’s are purported masters within a very narrow realm of academia. Doctor’s of Theology are respected as experts in all things God. But, a juris doctor really is just an attorney.

Now that does not imply that attorneys are lacking in academic ability. It just means that the profession of law is much more a practical profession than it is an academic one. We are counselors, advisors, and advocators, for the most part. What we are “expert” in is the law and how it is to be applied. Because the law is so general, even our title must indicate our professional diversity. To call us doctors –because of cultural norms, historical tradition, or pure arrogance – could be misleading and detract from our representation.

While the title, “doctor” is a rather generic one in professional or academic circles, only one profession is uniquely and ubiquitously known as, “Esquire.” And, yes, I am quite proud of that.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

You Couldn't Pay Me Enough

Q: Is a lawyer’s fee limited to a percentage of the ultimate resolution he achieves for his client, or is it limited just to the hours that he actually works on the case?

A: This is kind of like asking if an orthodontist is paid just for the hardware he puts in your mouth, or the skill and expertise required to make sure your teeth are straight. In other words, lawyers – like every other professional – is in business to make a living. To support themselves, attorneys need to make money.

Sure, there is a certain satisfaction to doing one’s work. There is fulfillment in winning a case or settling a dispute out of court. Some attorneys even find excitement just in the arguing. Other lawyers would rather work for no money and crusade against injustice. But, I would venture to guess that most attorneys are attorneys because (a) they like most of the work they do and (b) it pays the bills.

Lawyers are usually paid in a couple of different ways. The “contingency fee arrangement” suggests that the attorney will take the client’s case and front all the expenses until the case is resolved. In exchange for this, the client agrees to reimburse the attorney out of the settlement, if any, that the he is able to negotiate for the client. That is, the client reimburses those actual costs (e.g., filing fees, postage, travel, overhead, etc.) that the attorney fronted, plus a percentage (traditionally, one-third of the total settlement).

If a contingency is impractical or undesirable, an attorney may agree to be paid based upon the hours he actually works. In such a situation, an attorney becomes an hourly worker, though he is hardly making minimum wage. Most attorneys in private practice today are able to charge between $100 and $300 per hour that they work. Thus, if an attorney billing at an hourly rate works one hour for a client, he will make $100. If that same attorney does some work for a client, but it only takes one-half of an hour, then the attorney only makes $50 for that effort. Once the attorney concludes his representation, the attorney will then bill the client for the total hours he worked on the case.

Interestingly, these two most widely used types of fees are most often used by opposite sides of the bar. Attorneys that usually represent plaintiffs will more often utilize a contingency fee arrangement. Working in that relationship, the attorney does not get paid unless he achieves a resolution for the client. The benefit here is that the attorney will, in theory, work harder, since his paycheck is in direct proportion to the client’s.

On the other hand, defense attorneys usually bill by the hour. Hourly arrangements promote more work for defense attorneys who are working to avoid having their client pay anything (other than the attorney’s bill) in a lawsuit. Billing by the hour encourages the defense attorney to be very thorough in his work.

Of course the natural reaction to all of this is to suggest that attorneys are greedy and make too much money. However, I urge you to look at what you get for your money. Attorneys solve tremendously complex issues and are, in some regards, why we have put to rest the notion of settling disputes with pistols at ten paces.

Plus, attorney fees are quite reasonable, if you really think about it. After all, when was the last time your orthodontist, dentist, or doctor offered to forgo payment unless you got paid for wearing braces, filling a cavity, or drawing blood?


Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Did O.J. Really Do It?

Q: How can O.J. be “not-guilty” in a criminal trial, but found “liable” in a civil trial?

A: Believe it or not, it was a “Calvin and Hobbes” cartoon that I saw earlier this week that reminded me to answer this question. Precocious Calvin is at his desk penning his annual Christmas letter to Santa. In the first frame, Calvin begins, “Dear Santa, This year, please bear in mind that I should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.” He continues in the next bar, “Also, I would encourage you to interpret ‘reasonable doubt’ as broadly as possible.” Tossing the crumpled letter over his shoulder, Calvin ends the comic by remarking, “That’s probably a bad way to start.” Indeed.

Calvin’s colloquy with Santa reminded me of O.J. Simpson because of the burden of proof he hoped that Santa would interpret as “broadly as possible” in determining whether Calvin was good or bad this past year. Likewise, when jurors were faced with determining whether “The Juice” had been naughty or nice, they unwittingly had to undergo a similar analysis to Calvin’s request.

Trials are all about proof. We are al probably quite familiar that in a criminal trial, the prosecutor must prove a case, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A doubt is deemed “reasonable” if it is of “such convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it,” or so says the Supreme Court of Appeals of WV. Were we to assign a percentage to this level of proof, it would be pretty close to 99%. On the other hand, there is proof by a “preponderance of the evidence” meaning that the evidence proves that the given action is “more likely so than not so.” This means that to overcome this standard, in a civil (non-criminal) trial, proof of 50.00000001% is sufficient.

This is how O.J. can be found “not-guilty” in a criminal case, though “liable,” or “guilty,” in a civil trial. In the former, the jury apparently found that they had to acquit because the glove did not fit. That is, the prosecutors failed to remove that “reasonable doubt.” Like it or not, the jurors followed Calvin’s lead and interpreted “reasonable doubt” as broadly as possible.

However, in Orenthal’s civil case, the plaintiffs only needed to prove that the glove more likely fit than did not fit, so to speak. If the plaintiff’s evidence said that it was 50.00000001% likely that O.J. did it, than he was liable.

SIDEBAR: Let’s be sure of one thing – just because a criminal defendant is deemed, “not-guilty” does not mean that he or she is actually “innocent.” O.J. is a good example: does anyone really think he was “innocent?” IF he did it?

These levels or proof are quite important. We demand that proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” be provided because we are talking about someone’s life in a criminal trial. But, in civil cases, the proof can be less because we are merely speaking of money.

Our constitution guarantees us that criminals are presumed innocent, until any reasonable doubt of their innocence is removed. Were it any other way, I suppose Calvin would be right, it would probably be, “a bad way to start.”

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Quick Hits

Many of the questions I receive from my fine readers provide ample fodder for my weekly articles. However, I have come to notice that some questions just need a quick answer. Some of the questions can be entirely answered just that quickly. Some of the questions provide great background material to the rest of our discussions. Others do not. So, I thought I would take time this week to just tick off a couple of quickly answered questions that I have accumulated. Enjoy.

Q: What is a “scofflaw”?

A: Quite literally, a scofflaw is someone who “scoffs” at the “law.” Usually it is a term (not widely used) that describes the person who, recognizing the law, gives it no regard. For instance, a scofflaw would be the guy who blows up an inflatable toy resembling a person and sticks that person in the passenger seat in order to qualify for the carpool lane. Perhaps someone should be scoffing at him.

Q: What is the difference between “libel” and “slander”?

A: Libel and slander each fall under the broader category of defamation. When someone defames another, usually something derogatory and untrue is said of the other, published to a third party, and with the specific intent of causing that other person harm. This is much more than playful joking. “Libel” refers to that category of defamation that is done by the written word. “Slander” is defamation done by the spoken word. Hence, I could libel someone in this column, but I could never slander that person here.

Q: What is a “tort”?

A: Lest we be confused: A “torte” is a delicious cake made up of many delightfully different layers. But, a “tort” (sans “e”) is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. The latter term encompasses many causes of action, but is broadly described as that area of the law that does not deal with crimes, contracts, or real estate (although there is some overlap). Most can understand “torts” as simply the civil side of a court – though that is an incomplete definition, indeed.

Q: When one commits a “tort,” are their actions “tortuous” or “tortious”?

A: Attorneys: Listen up! I have read enough briefs written by attorneys to know that even the most senior partners often confuse these terms. To have engaged in “tortious” conduct means that the person has committed a “tort.” That is a far cry different from “tortuous” conduct which denotes that the actor has engaged in the act of torture. You can see why using precise terms would be important by the following sentence: “The Defendant tortuously/tortiously touched the Plaintiff.” Following the definitions, if the Defendant “tortuously” touched the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has been tortured by the hands of the Plaintiff. If touched only “tortiously,” the Plaintiff has sustained only a civil battery (an unwanted touching). Big difference!

Q: Why do attorneys always use yellow legal pads?

A: Because they do not make pink medical pads and, if they did, using them just seems wrong.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

A Lot of Hot Air

I have had a lot of thoughts regarding two particular topics: Iraq and Global Warming. There's a connection, I swear.

Of late, Katie Couric - aka, "The Perky Katie Couric" - and much of the mainstream media has been quick to begin declaring that the situation in Iraq has become, "A Civil War." I guess words like "quagmire" were used up with Vietnam and no longer grab the attention in the headlines. There is one positive side to this classification: the media finally recognizes that this is a War, something that has been heretofore unacknowledged.

These media wags must be reading the most broad of definitions to conclude that this is, indeed, a war that is civil. A "civil war," loosely defined, is a war between factions of the same country. In truth, I guess Iraq has been in a civil war since the early 1980's considering that during the entire reign of Saddam factions opposed one another, though the Fedayeen always seemed to muster the upper hand. Yes, in this broad definition, there is a civil war.

But, who is the enemy here? The factions opposing one another are really Iraq/Coalition Forces v. Al Qaida/Iran/Syria/Hezbollah. That seems more like a mini-world war to me than it is a civil war. But, again, there's hope: we now know that this is a war.

New Topic: The 2006 hurricane season has just ended. If you recall, pundits were fainting and foaming at the mouth, apoplectic at the potential for apocalyptic type hurricanes that were about to rain down upon the United States. Weather prognosticators predicted 13 to 18 named storms, 6 of which would be massive.

Well, despite all the breathless hand wringing, the hurricane season truly disappointed: only 9 named storms, 5 hurricanes, 2 major, and 0 that walloped U.S. soil. And Steve Cantori's heart broke.

So did Al Gore's.

It is becoming more and more apparent that global warming is a bunch of bunk. Snow in Florida earlier this month, 0 hurricanes threatening our way of life, a rather mild summer - it looks like it is an inconvenient truth: global warming is the stuff of bigfoot legends, not immutable science.

Civil wars and hurricanes usually do not relate to one another, but in this sense they do. In each, the media was more than willing to glom onto the stories. With genuinely disturbed excitement, the media has hammered away these points. Their reporting has been such that the media itself has become the story.

It appears that the only hot air of any real consequence is usually captured on tape, or published on the front page of the NY Times.

Too bad the Kyoto protocols do not include regulations of punditry.

Monday, November 27, 2006

The Source of Our Thanksgiving

Most of us can probably recite the rudimentary elements of the story surrounding the “First Thanksgiving.” Still others can perhaps recollect that it was President Abraham Lincoln on October 3, 1863 that signed a proclamation establishing that national holiday we now enjoy as “Thanksgiving Day.” However, I imagine few of us have stopped to actually read Lincoln’s proclamation.

A copy of this presidential proclamation can be quickly found on the internet, and I urge your review of it. As I read it, I was struck by the introspection recorded amidst the formality. In considering the timing of the proclamation – while the Civil War yet waged on – I was taken aback by how it recognized goodness even in the midst of such division.

Lincoln first noted why his proclamation was necessary. He proclaimed, “To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come. . ..” Have you ever done that? We are surrounded by such wealth, prosperity, and, oft-times, overindulgence that we find ourselves complaining about such things that - were we to be deprived of them - our life would yet carry on unimpeded. Lincoln was right: “we are prone to forget the source.”

What had Lincoln and the nation he led at that time to be thankful for anyway? After all, we understand the Civil War to be the epitome of divisiveness in our country. Brothers battered brothers, neighbors warred against neighbors, kin killed kin. Yet, in his decree, Lincoln notes how the country has had peace with other countries, order yet existed, laws still controlled, and harmony lived on – save for those areas of military conflict. Though war was abundantly present, Lincoln was quick to note that the population had increased, industry was alive and in excellent production, and the Union had a certain future. In short, despite division, the nation had been truly blessed.

But what was the “source” of these blessings that Lincoln urged us to not forget? His Thanksgiving Day Proclamation answers for us: “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”

Lincoln recognized that the efforts by the politicos of his day had worked only woe and destruction upon the nation, yet peace and prosperity remained. Thus, if indeed the country did enjoy such blessings, something beyond human control, beyond our fathoming, beyond our ken, must have been working within the human framework to provide abundance, blessing, and a hope for a peaceful future.

Thanksgiving Day has now passed for this year. Our electoral season also has passed, for the moment. Tomorrow we return to our desks to mete out the labor before us. We live today as citizens in a country, by all political accounts, divided, yet one, by all economic accounts, profusely blessed.

There must be something more to our world that makes things good than the politics that produce the laws governing our society. I suspect that President George Washington might have agreed with Lincoln when, in his Farewell Address, Washington noted, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.”

Our laws, like our blessings, must be derived from something beyond our humanity, from something truly able to bestow upon us “unalienable rights,” lest our laws coincide with whatever fancy occupies the moment. And that is something for which to be truly thankful.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Waiving Goodbye to Liability

Q: Does signing a “waiver” really work to absolve someone from liability?

A: For a good answer to this question, I must relate to you some of the words of wisdom pounded into my head by Professor Tom Cady, the guru of Torts at the WVU College of Law. Every first year law student who has had the pleasure of sitting under the tutelage of Professor Cady can recite – in their sleep – the phrase: “All liability is based on fault.”

It is a short maxim, but one filled with significant meaning. You see, in order for someone to be found liable for a wrongful act they may have committed, “fault” must exist. The discussion about whether or not something is, or is not, a tort, we will leave for another day. Today, we address the issue of whether a signed piece of paper can stop the rushing onslaught of liability.

Let’s use the most classic example of a waiver to which we can all relate: our grade school field trip permission slip. Little Willy brings home a permission slip for Mommy or Daddy to sign. The permission slip says something to the effect of, “I hereby authorize Negligent Nanny School System to take Little Willy on a field trip to Antarctica. I further understand that the Negligent Nanny School System is not liable for the injury or death of Little Willy that may occur while en route to/from Antarctica, or while sightseeing thereon. Signed, Mommy and Daddy.”

To borrow from Professor Cady, if that permission slip actually absolves Negligent Nanny School System from liability, then I am going to get a license plate printed for my car that says, “Not responsible for any injury or death as a result of this vehicle.” After all, class, what is liability based upon? That’s right, “Fault!”

Regardless of what is written on a half sheet of paper, regardless of whether the permission slip bears the notarized signature of Mommy or Daddy, if Little Willy is attacked by a polar bear while snorkeling with penguins, someone is going to be liable.

Well, a permission slip (or some other form of a waiver) may absolve liability, but only if it is not against public policy to do so. In our example, Negligent Nanny School System’s permission slip cannot stand up because why? That’s right, “All liability is based on fault.” While Little Willy is under their care, if a Negligent Nanny school bus runs over him, the permission slip is out the door. Why? Because Negligent Nanny cannot point to the signed permission slip and say, in essence, “Hey, you gave us permission to run over your kid. Tough luck.” Liability is based on fault and waivers that attempt to completely do away with that simple premise are void.

Waivers are an all or nothing proposition, as Professor Cady taught me. Either they act as a complete bar against liability, or they are entirely void because they are against public policy.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Lawyering is No Laughing Matter. Or is it?

Q: What is your favorite lawyer joke?

A: I remember little about my law school orientation – save for being absolutely frightened at what was about to come my way. However, I recall the sage advice one lowly attorney deigned worthy to impart upon us. “As lawyers,” he said, “Everyone will come up to you and tell you their favorite lawyer joke. You must always be prepared with one in return.”

Why is it that lawyers are central to so many jokes? We have been called everything from sharks to snakes to things much worse. These jokes usually have one thing in common: the lawyer dies a horrific death. When was the last time you heard a doctor’s joke? Have you ever heard a joke about an engineer who suffered as horrible a fate as a lawyer? Not very many florist jokes, are there?

Centuries of parents have wanted their children to grow and become lawyers. You would think we would get a little bit of respect. But, somehow we have become better known for our jokes than for our many grand contributions to society.

It must be that lawyers are a rather self-deprecating bunch. We practice a serious trade and daily deal with major life controversies. It is the hallmark of our profession: the ability to provide objective advice to a client caught in the crossfire. I dare say, few other professions can be so blessed as to have had a tome of jokes written in their honor.

My favorite lawyer joke goes something like this: A young man and his betrothed were on their way to their wedding, after years of being engaged. But the lovebirds were tragically killed in an accident involving a run away soda machine and dynamite.

Upon arriving at the pearly gates, the young almost-married couple asked St. Peter, “Pete, we were so in love and were about to be married. Is there any way we could be married here.” St. Peter scratched his head and, understanding the couple’s plight, said, “I will see what can be done.”

Three hundred years go by without word from Peter. Five hundred. Seven hundred. One thousand years go by and finally St. Peter comes by one day and announces, “We are able to get you married after all. Just come by the heavenly sanctuary tomorrow at noon and a preacher will marry you.”

It was a glorious wedding, the one the couple had always dreamed of having. But, they soon discovered that they had made an unwise choice in marriage. “Pete,” the too-soon deceased man said, “I don’t know what we were thinking. Married life does not work for us. Is there any way we could get a divorce?” Peter, understanding the irregularity of such a request, said, “I will see what can be done.”

Five hundred years go by. Nothing. One thousand. Three thousand years later, Pete arrives back at the now old married couple’s doorstep. “We can get you a divorce. Just show up at the lawyer’s office at noon tomorrow.”

“Thanks Pete.” Said the young man, “But, what took so long?” “Well,” Peter answered, “If it took us one thousand years just to find a preacher in heaven, you can imagine how hard it was for us to find an attorney!”

Lawyer jokes: just one more way lawyers help alleviate the pressures of this world.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Who Holds the Power?

Q: Sometimes a legislature will pass a law and then a judge will make a decision that it cannot go into effect. The legislature can override a Presidential veto, can it also override the judiciary?

A: As a good citizen, you know that our government is comprised of three separate, though equal, branches of government: the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judicial. Our United States Constitution vests all the lawmaking powers in the Legislature: the Senate and House of Representatives.

(Sidebar: Did you know you do not have to be a Congressman in order to be the Speaker of the House? In fact, the 105th Congress gave two votes for former Congressman to serve as speaker. It has me thinking of a career change.)

The Legislature, however, is powerless to put those laws into action. The Executive (the Presidency), therefore, exists to implement and enforce the laws passed by the Legislature. The Judiciary cannot make law, nor can it enforce the laws; however, in the words of one venerable U.S. Supreme Court jurist, it can, “say what the law is.”

If the Executive does not like a piece of proposed law, it can reject the work of the Legislature, known as a “veto.” In very rare instances, this will rile the Legislature enough that it will invoke its Constitutional right to override the Executive by a supermajority (a 2/3’s vote). But this seems a far cry different from when a judge declares a certain law – legislated by the Legislature, executed by the Executive – to be “unconstitutional.”

The framers of our Constitution recognized that government must have an independent branch review the law being produced and executed. If the Constitution were to have any effect, it could not be undermined by legislation contrary to its stated goal of forming, “a more perfect Union.” Hence, it falls to the Judiciary to approve of legislation and how it is being executed.

Thus, when a judge declares that a given law is unconstitutional, the court is saying that the law is inconsistent with the standard by which we have consented to be governed: the Constitution.

While the Legislature is not given a veto over the Judiciary, it can change the law that’s been deemed unconstitutional. In other words, the Legislature can fix the fatal defect and, therefore, achieve a quasi-veto over the Judiciary. Or, the Legislature could attempt to amend the Constitution so that the law previously deemed to fall outside of the Constitution would now fall squarely within the ambit of its protection.

This is why your civic duty of voting is so important. It falls to us, the citizens of America, to select representatives and senators who understand our Constitution and who will institute laws consistent with it. Good lawmakers understand the Constitution and their role in making laws that will, “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . ..”

Remember to vote on Tuesday. (And tell your Congressman to vote me in as Speaker of the House!)

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Kerry. Apparrently Someone Didn't Study Hard Enough

Ok, you know I cannot pass up a chance to talk on these comments by Lurch, aka John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry. You know, put aside his constant mispronunciation of "Jenjis" Khan, put aside his horid excuse for a salute when he "reported for duty" at the last DNC national convention, put aside his gallutish bafoonery, and he's just a your typical, intolerant liberal.

On Tuesday, John "Did I mention I was in Vietnam" Kerry said the following: "You know, education, if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you -- you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

This, according to his strongest defense, was a "botched joke." I would hate to see the real joke. The obvious implication of this "joke" was that the military is filled with dummies who could not cut it in the real world; ie, military service is a penalty.

Sidebar: In another report, the Yale University grades of John Kerry and George W. Bush were finally compared - about two years too late. Apparently Kerry is as "dumb" as Bush. While at Yale, Kerry managed more "D's" than W and their final grade average (they did not have GPA's then) were only two points apart.

Here's the point I want to make: Kerry's comments were not as much of an insult to the active military (though it is) as it was a direct insult to the fine ROTC programs throughout our fine nation's campae of higher education. ROTC programs exist to provide men and women a chance to go to college for near to free in exchange, following college, for service in the finest military in the world.

And I can personally attest to how well ROTC works. My brother-in-law is a soldier, a former commanding ROTC student officer of his unit. He worked hard to complete his ROTC training and, in return, was given a tremendous education. What is more, he continued in the Air Force and was given a chance to gain both his Masters and Doctorate degrees while on active duty. My brother-in-law is smarter than I will ever be, and twice that of Senator "Don't forget, I fought in Vietnam" Kerry. He remains, to this day, committed to his work in the Air Force, doing some of the most complex monitoring and research that this world has to offer. To imply that the very military education program that vaulted my brother-in-law's educational development is somehow second best to "education" is an insult of dynamic proportions.

Mr. Heinz-Kerry: keep talking, keep showing us that today's liberals hate the military and are, in essence, rich, snobby white boys from Boston Commons and botoxed women from San Fran.

Your comments, your "botched" attempt at humor reveals exactly one thing: even the most uneducated boatswain's mate is smarter than you.

Even if you did serve in Vietnam.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Stem the Tide

Over the past week, there's been something short of pandemonium surrounding the virtual verbal battle between Michael J. Fox and Rush Limbaugh (with side battles including Kurt Warner, Patricia Heaton, Jim Caviezel, and CNN). The most recent verbal vomitting has come from McFly himself - that's Michael J. Fox for those of you who slept through the 80's. During an interview with Abc News, Fox admitted that he has never read the very amendment for which he has been stumping.

Not reading the fine print may explain why Mr. Fox ever considered embodying, "Teen Wolf."

But, I digress. Interestingly, the amendment appears to endorse human cloning and, rather limitedly, permit for research into embryonic stem cells for various diseases, including Mr. Fox's Parkinson's Disease.

I do not want to comment on the passage of an amendment that I have not read either; however, I did want to highlight one extremely important piece of information that I just recently became aware. Did you know that there has not been one diseases linked to being treated/cured by the use of embryonic stem cells (the harvest of which requires the destruction of pre-born humans)?

Before you argue that such lack of proof is due to lack of research, I must remind you that embryonic stem cell research has been permitted in the realm of those still-born fetuses have been reserved for science. That is, there is a limited supply of embryonic stem cells that have been tested, but none (zero, zilch, nada) have resulted in the advance of science and the attrition of disease.

Please look at this list from www.stemcellresearch.org. The use of adult stem cells has resulted in cures or treatments for more than seventy (70) different diseases. For embryonic stem cells? None (nil, zip, non).

Oh, number 48 on the list? Parkinson's Disease.

Mike, I truly am sorry for your affliction; however, read the fine print and endorse something that is proving highly successful!

Remember Dr. Emmett Brown's warnings against messing with the time-space continuum. Great Scott!

Monday, October 30, 2006

Humans With Chests and No Heart

C.S. Lewis once observed something to the effect that today's humanity is so concentrated on pleasuring their minds and with filling their bellies with all the pleasures this world has to offer that they have become men with bellies, men with brains, yet without chests. Ol' Jack was observing that modernity has pushed its occupents to gratify their senses and the pleasures of today that modern mankind has forgotten the eternal aspect of their humanity and, in so doing, have left themselves devoid of a soul.

Someone else has observed of today's youth that, "They have forgotten what it means to blush." We see it everywhere and, in the midst of a political season, we cannot avoid it. I was disheartened to learn recently that there is a high school system, in the most conservative county one can imagine, that requires its high school freshmen to draw the genitalia of the opposite gender in a coed health class. You read that right: girls are drawing boys' wedding parts and boys are drawing the private areas of girls. Drawing; not labelling a nameless, anatomical cut-away diagram. They pull out their pencil, paper, and high levels of teenage hormones and draw genitalia. Then, seated next to their latest crush, they giggle - as teens are wont to do.

I am certain you are aware of the Mark Foley scandal and what a furor the same-sex, predatory filandering of the ex-congressman has created. The coverage of this grotesque stuff is the subject of kiddy porn and fit only for the burn pile. Yet, it is being read over broadcast and cable airwaves, posted on various blogs and web news rings, and discussed in detail over the watercooler.

Last week, Senator Mark Allen (R-VA)'s campaign released some excerpts from his opponent's - Alex Webb - novels. [Note: As far as I have been able to decipher, Webb's only claim to be able to be a good Senator is that he is: (a) a novelist and (b) a Democrat, hence not Bush. Good strategy.] The words of the novels I dare not repeat for fear that my mother will read them and, knowing that I have actually peeked at them, be rather ashamed of me. Dime-store novels these are not and involve graphic discussions of fellatio between a father and son (defended as "beautiful" and "normal in context" by Webb), descriptions of east-asian whorehouses, and a lurid description of a stripper's ability to slice a bananna without using her hands.

Now that you are back from vomitting in the toilet, let's disect this a bit.

Drawing genetalia by teens, Congressional pages eliciting and being given Congressional assignations, Senatorial candidates praising incestual fellatio - where is their heart? What has become of hummanity's chest?

Has our society become so ruled by its zipper that even our school curriculum - in the name of "health" - demand children draw things that only married women should know how to diagram? Has culture devolved to the point that Congressman, rather than protect innocent children, will take advantage of them? What does it say of a country that an individual who describes insipid sexual behavior is one vote away from becoming a member of the U.S. Senate?

The answer to these questions is nothing new: it has always been so. Culture, society, countries - these are only constructs consisting of individuals, humans - morally deficient beings. No matter how much we insist that we are knowledgeable, no matter how much we say that pleasure is the end-all-be-all to our lives, we must still acknowledge that gnosis and eros must still be grounded in the powerhouse of the human psyche: the heart. And that heart is "deceitfully wicked, above all things."

But to those of you nodding in agreement, shaking you head in disapproval, and uttering a "tisk-tisk" right now, let me ask you this - Do you still blush? What does it take for you to be embarrassed? Have you become so mesmerized by the trappings of the world that you have forgotten that there are some things with which we must be embarrassed?

I hope not.

With such a push for toleration and "love everyone regardless of their sin," I hope you take time to be embarrassed at what you read and see. I hope your collar becomes a bit hot by the blush that creeps into your cheeks. I hope your gut is wrenched and knotted by the depravity around you.

Why? Because I believe that's how a Holy God reacts to what he sees around us.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Constitution not Subject to Evolution

From time to time, this column – ordinarily dedicated to answering your curiosities about the practice and function of the American legal system – will take time to provide some editorial commentary on current events involving the law. Allow the following departure from our usual format.

Earlier this Fall, Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the annual membership conference of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In a conversation that included Justice Scalia and Nadine Strossen, the topic of whether the U.S. Constitution was a living (or evolving) document arose. Countering Strossen’s point that the Constitution was, in fact, evolving, Justice Scalia said the following:

“Once you say it evolves and it doesn’t depend on what the people thought they were doing when they adopted it, somebody’s going to have to decide how it evolves. Why in the world would you want nine people from a very uncharacteristic class of society – to wit, lawyers – to decide how the Constitution evolves?”

Commentators much smarter than I have bandied about these arguments with greater eloquence than my fingers can type. In general terms, usually those of a liberal persuasion view the Constitution as a living, breathing document that evolves with our society and culture. In contradistinction, often those of a more conservative persuasion argue that the Constitution has a specific meaning, one that cannot be changed by society’s evolution.

Suppose Ms. Strossen is correct and the Constitution is a living and breathing document, capable of changing meaning as our culture evolves. Which liberties are protected? If the Constitution changes its meanings as society becomes more enlightened, do we ever actually retain any of our “inalienable rights”?

If you hold to Justice Scalia’s point of view, you might be accused of being an originalist or, worse, an absolutist. If the Constitution does not evolve to meet the needs of our developing culture, then did the Founding Fathers contemplate including a bazooka in our Second Amendment right to bear arms?

The debate between the two jurisprudential philosophies reflects, much the more, the debate about truth: is it relative or is it absolute? Taking our cue from Pontius Pilate’s rhetorical question to Jesus, we must also ask, “What is truth?” Does truth change depending upon the circumstances? Upon a culture’s evolution?

Whether it is relativism or originalism I dare say we cannot allow our answer to simply be, “It depends.” If we were to do so, the rights we once thought were inalienable could become rather . . . well . . . alienable.

Our legislature keeps our laws in lock-step with our so-called, “cultural evolution.” But, it is necessary that we maintain a document that is of immovable stock, defining with a modicum of finality that which we as a nation consent to be governed. Left to redefinition by a committee of nine (and lawyers at that!), I suspect our Constitution would go much the way that Justice Scalia predicts: “It would mean whatever they think it ought to mean.”

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Top 10 Ways to Get Out of Jury Duty

Q: How do I get out of jury duty?

A: As an attorney, I get this question all the time. We live in a democracy that is of, for, and by the people, yet we often cringe when we receive that envelope that carries that ominous “Jury Summons” within. Prospective jurors are like students: they want less time in court (class) for their money!

Let me answer the age-old question once and for all. Let me equip you with the tools you need to get out of jury duty. Here they are, the top ten ways to get out of jury duty:

1. Move to Canada – Take up residency north of the border, renounce your U.S. citizenship, and you’ve just earned yourself freedom from jury duty. Of course, you’ll need to learn to add ‘eh?’ to the end of all your sentences. Hoser.

2. Find Neverland – The fact of the matter is that only those who are 18 years and older get to sit on a jury. Manage to always be one of the “Lost Boys” and never a jury box shall you see.

3. Forget Everything You Ever Learned – Only prospective jurors that can read, speak, and understand the English language can sit on a jury panel. So, forget you ever knew it. You only understand American Sign Language (ASL)? That’s OK. The WV Code specifically provides that knowing ASL is sufficient for jury service.

4. Go Directly to Jail – If you have committed a crime sufficient to revoke your right to vote, you have just disqualified yourself from future service as a juror. Of course, only those who actually look good in blaze orange jumpsuits with silver “cuffs” should actually be this bold.

5. Lie and Get Caught Doing It – But then again, “perjury” still has the word “jury” in it.

6. Serve on a Jury –If you serve on a jury (not just have jury duty) within two years of your most recent summons, you don’t have to serve again…for now!

7. Don’t File Taxes – Tax returns are an avenue from which county clerks pull potential jurors. Of course, the IRS might not like your excuse, “I only did it to get out of jury duty!” (And then you’re back to #4. Without passing go.)

8. Don’t Vote – Another area where prospective jurors are found is the voter registration list. No voter’s registration. No jury duty. And no say in our republican democracy.

9. Don’t Drive – All individuals with a driver’s license are eligible to be called for jury duty. Well, gas prices are high….

10. Retire – Our friends and loved ones over the age of 65 get special dispensation: they get to choose whether they want to serve on a jury. Hey, age has its privileges.

Serve your jury duty. It’s about the only way of participating in a branch of government without actually being elected. “The dog ate my summons!” just will not keep you from being held in contempt.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Returning to the Scene of the Crime

Q: Prosecutors often “seek extradition, implying that they want to bring someone from
one state to another. But, when a criminal “waives” extradition, he is sent from
one state to the other. Just what is meant by the term “extradition”?


A: Extradition basically means that there is a criminal that has been detained in one jurisdiction, but another jurisdiction gets him first because that state already called “dibs.”

Suppose Jim Bob commits a crime in WV. He is caught, but before he goes to trial, he manages to escape to NJ. But, Jim Bob unwisely decides break into the Hoboken chief of police’s house, only to be caught and arrested. When they check his record, they discover that he has an outstanding warrant for his arrest. After NJ notifies Gov. Manchin via the WV attorney general’s office, the governor issues a “Governor’s Warrant” and extradition procedures are initiated.

Jim Bob is brought to a court in NJ and told that Gov. Manchin wants to try him for his crimes in WV. Jim Bob has two choices: he can waive extradition or he can demand the powers that be prove he is the Jim Bob named in the Gov. Manchin’s warrant.

If he waives extradition, he is basically admitting, “Yep. That’s me. Ya’ got me sheriff!” The judge reads him his rights, provides a waiver form for him to sign. And then he is put in the pokey until a WV patrolman pops over to NJ to procure the perp.

But, if he chooses not to waive extradition, then lawyers from the WV attorney general’s office coordinate with lawyers from the attorney general’s office of NJ in an effort to prove that the Jim Bob sitting in that NJ courtroom is the one and the same Jim Bob wanted for trial in WV. In other words, they are seeking extradition. After this lengthy, lengthy process proves Jim Bob is, in fact, Jim Bob, ol’ JB is consigned to the county clink until a WV constable can collect the crook.

(Dear Sidebar: Abate the alliteration already. Signed, The WV Word Watchers.)

Whether he waives or is extradited, Jim Bob will be tried in WV first and, after extradition proceedings are done in reverse, he is sent back to NJ to face his charges there. Now you can see that extradition can contemplate bringing or sending. In other words, extradition can be sought or be sent.

Do not miss the importance of extradition. If it were not in place, one criminal could be picked up and sent to trial across the country for another’s crime(s). The extradition process is a safeguard built into our republican democracy that ensures that the right wrongdoer is being tried for the correct mistake.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Admission to the 'Bar' Costs a Lot

“What does it mean to be ‘admitted to the bar’?”

Put simply, being admitted to the bar means that someone has performed all the requisite acts to possess a law license and, therefore, practice law. That might be quickly understood, but the significance of the phrase is often overlooked. What is “The Bar” and how does one get “admitted” to it?

Most attribute the origination of the phrase, believe it or not, to a literal bar, or railing. In Olde England, those wishing to be lawyers did not necessarily go to law school (lucky Redcoats!). Instead, they learned by apprenticing in the courts every day. In those courts was a literal barrier, a bar, that separated those law students from the actual court where the English “barristers” (lawyers) would argue before judges with faux white hair. Once the student proved himself, he was then “admitted to the bar,” quite literally, he passed from where the students sat, through the barrier, and into the arena in which the barristers plied their trade.

Fast forward a number of years to when the Supreme Court of the United States was still housed in the U.S. Capitol building. Today, if you visit that basement of a courtroom, you will yet see a barrier. Behind the barrier are two or three sets of desks; in front of it, only one set of desks. In those days, the Supreme Court would hear multiple cases at a time, moving them through one after the other. The active cases would be argued by the lawyers sitting at the tables closest to the bench. When that case finished, the attorneys at the next closest set of tables just behind the “bar,” were called forward and their case was “admitted.” Hence, they were “admitted to the bar.”

Today, the phrase has lost a bit of its historical significance. Many courtrooms still house an actual bar that separates the public from the activities of court, but the phrase typically just refers to the granting of a law license. In WV, one is admitted to the bar when he completes college, survives law school, passes a rigorous bar examination, and is recommended to the Supreme Court of Appeals of WV for “admission.” The attorney then swears an oath and is permitted to practice before that court and any lower courts under its jurisdiction.

Each new attorney in WV must also travel in person to Charleston and sign the “roll” (a book containing the signatures of all attorneys ever admitted to our courts – not unlike the legal equivalent of the “Lamb’s book of life”). After studying, testing, signing, and swearing, then, and only then, can one be deemed, “admitted to the bar.”

There you have it! Far from simply a cover charge that gains you admission to your local watering hole, being “admitted to the bar” is a maxim with a storied past and a practical significance.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Welcome to Sidebar

Welcome, to the premiere of “Sidebar,” a column dedicated to answering your questions about the law.

The idea behind this column is that I will be answering your questions about the law and the legal process – think Andrew Napolitano meets “Dear Abby.” This column is interactive and requires not only your reading, but also your participation.

You see, the name of this column is quite instructive. A sidebar is typically held to the “side” of the “bar” (or judge’s bench) during a trial when an attorney can ask a question, make an objection, or suggest procedure out of the hearing of the jury or any member of the public who may be sitting in back. It is, quite frankly, an opportunity for attorneys and judges to ask stupid questions, without appearing foolish in front of any but the necessary parties.

So it is with this column. You have had these times, haven’t you? You’re watching your favorite legal thriller when, suddenly, just when the perp is about to be sent packing to Sing-Sing, the defense counsel stands, pounds the table, and demands that the case be dismissed for some surprising technicality. As the judge dismisses the case, the prosecutors fume, and the credits roll, you lean to your couch-mate and say, “Can they really do that?!”

Well, dear reader, now’s your chance to find out. Ask me.

You see, we live in, as John Adams once said, “A government of laws and not of men.” As Americans, we proudly trumpet about our unique democracy within a republic, not always understanding exactly what that means. Find out; ask me.

We all know that if we were arrested we have the right to an attorney, the right to stay silent, etc., but do we get a phone call too? Ask me.

When we disagree with something that a politician has said, we critically assert our “freedom of speech,” and yet, we’re horrified when we discover that the freedom is sometimes a qualified one. Talk to me.

If you were paying attention in high school civics, you may remember that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” To live in our country, you have a duty to understand and participate in the actions of government; yet sometimes you have no idea what is going on in government. That’s ok; let me help you.

I have a Doctor of Jurisprudence (that’s fancy-talk for “law degree”) and, now as a practicing attorney before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, I make daily sojourns into our laws. It is my job to research the law and give someone my opinion about it in a way that makes sense.

This column comes with only one rule: while it will hopefully make you a better citizen, it is a not a legal advice column. I’m not going to give you legal advice. So don’t ask.

But, I am ready and willing to answer such questions as, “What does it mean that an attorney is admitted to ‘the Bar?’”, “Do our laws really come from the Judeo-Christian ethic”, “What is a SCOTUS?”, “What does jurisdiction mean?”, “What is hearsay?”, “What are ‘term limits?’”, “Can Congress actually overrule a decision by the Supreme Court?”, “What is meant by ‘separation of powers?’”, “Why do lawsuits take so long to resolve?”, “What is mediation and arbitration?”, or “What’s the weirdest law you have ever heard of?”

Got it? Then send your questions to me at: or put them in the mail addressed to me at: opinion@dominionpost.com.

It is my hope that you will find Sidebar informative and that, together, we can help ensure Lincoln’s prophecy: “that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”


Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

It's Personal

This week, allegations have swirled around now disgraced and former Congressman Mark Foley. As I read in another column, if you haven't read the IM transcripts between this pervert and his teenage victims, then don't. It's disgusting business and it further supports my theory that we are wretched creatures at heart and that will affect everything we will do in life....unless we are changed by the grace of Christ.

There are theories a-plenty regarding Mr. Foley's missteps. Most on the political right belive this to be a hatchet job, designed to undermine an upcoming election. Many on the political left believe this to be a broad, conspiracy, reaching to the highest levels of government. Frankly, I think everyone, if they are being honest, believe this to be exactly what it is: a disgusting adult taking advantage of young individuals in his service for his own sexual gratification.

But, let's step back a moment. Do you remember the Clinton impeachment? Do you remember what the political left kept tramping out to whatever camera would record them? It was the line, "The President's sex life has no bearing on his abilities as President. What he does in his personal life is no business of ours, as long as it does not affect his job." The President's actions, abusing a young person in his charge, was ok so long as it did not affect his ability to create a false economy.

It looks like situational ethics may have struck again.

If what goes on in someone's personal life should never hold someone accountable to the loss of their position (as, some argued, it did in the case of President Clinton), then why has Congressman Foley been ousted? Why all of a sudden the righteous indignation by those on the political left who used to trumpet about the phrase, "What happens in someone's personal life is no business of ours?"

Given the impending election, I think you can answer those questions.

Here's the thing: the problem with situational ethics, or that realm of thought that suggests that there are no absolutes, is that that statement is self-defeating. If there are no absolutes, than that absolute statement is patently false, right?

The fact of the matter is that there is an absolute Truth. There is an absolute moral law-giver. There is an absolute moral law. And there is no way we can possibly keep the entirety of that moral law. In fact, from when we first drew breath, we already failed to live up to the entirety of the law.

That's where the doctrine of grace steps in. Christ recognized that our depravity left us with no chance of obtaining righteousness in and of our own pursuit. We would be tilting at windmills, fighting against the goads, or in some other way imitating the blind ambition of the Man of La Mancha were we to try to make ourselves righteous. It just is not possible. But, Christ made provision for out inability. Through his Son's death and sacrifice on the cross - the requisite penalty for our unrighteousness - we are granted Sonship in God's family.

But the doctrine of grace does not give us further license to sin. We are still told to "be holy as God is holy." We are still given the mandate to pursue righteousness, and flee folly and evil.

And perhaps no where is this action more poignantly noticed than in public office and sex. Sex was designed by God, created by Him for our enjoyment and attachment to our spouse. It is meant to be savored, enjoyed, relished, and hotly pursued - but within the parameters of a life-long, marital relationship. Public office makes brilliant what is done in secret, often at the hands of one's opposition. Thus, when one who occupies public office perverts the intention of sex, scandal ensues.

Whether or not this is a hatchet job by the political left; whether or not this is a broad conspiracy reaching to the highest levels of government; or whether or not what one does in one's private life does or does not have anything to do with one's performance in public office, what remains is one absolute: what one ascribes to in private will affect what one does in public.

Gasp! It's an absolute!

You see, if we hold to nothing, we are accountable to nothing, and so nothing limits our action. If we hold to Christ, we are accountable to Christ, and so Christ's Word limits our action. Well, let's restate that: If we hold to nothing, we are enslaved to everything; but, if we hold to Christ, we are free indeed. Truly, it's a matter of the heart.

It's personal.

Monday, September 25, 2006

Nuh-uh!!

So, I can't pass up an opportunity to comment on Bill Clinton's whinny rant against that harbinger of conservative media sniping, Mike Wallace. You probably know the story: when asked, "Did you do enough to get bin Laden?", Clinton went off!! It was a like that wimpy kid on the playground who was called a name by a bully and all he could muster was, "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me sticks to you!"

But, the one main comment I have to make is a reaction to this quote taken from the midst of Clinton's loony lecture: "We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since." Two comments:

First, taking the latter part - that sure seems convenient to him, doesn't it? Moreover, I'd like to see some hard evidence to back that up. I don't think it counts as "close" to bomb an abandoned training camp or former aspirin plant. Nor do I think it is "close" to refuse to take the Tall One into custody when offered on a silver platter because he did not have sufficient "legal grounds." Blah! Clinton is covering his exposed, milky-white derriere!

Second, "we contracted to kill him?" Are you kidding me? Did an avowed liberal just say that he contracted with an assassin to - gasp - assassinate someone? Seriously, this goes against all things left wing! We can't torture proven terrorists, but we can assassinate them? We have to provide non-uniformed jihadists with all the "rights" of the Geneva Convention, but we can pick them off by the use of a mercenary? Were is Chuck "Smile-for-the-Camera" Schumer decrying such activity?! Were is Ted "Hiccup" Kennedy bemoaning the humanity of it all?! Where is Nancy "Botox" Pelosi calling for impeachment?! (Oh, wait, he already was.)

The media can't help but play these sounds bites over and over, but the one they key in on is where Clinton tells Wallace to wipe the smirk off his face. Wonder why they skipped over the "contract" to kill UBL comment?

Poor Bubba.

Edit (9/27/06): For an excellent side-by-side comparison of what Wild Bill claims now, compared to what was said by him and about him during his presidency, follow this link.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Human Depravity

I see a lot of it. I work in the legal field and so, I've seen mothers 6 months pregnant hooked on crack and heroin. I've seen murderers laugh at their actions of which they stand accused. As one grand juror was heard to remark after hearing and returning "true bills" for a round of 70+ indictments, "I've lived here more than 30 years; I had no idea there was this much crime here!"

Are we really all that surprised? I didn't think I could be. I thought I was more calloused.

Today, a couple of news stories caught my eye. The first is entitled "Harlem Baby Dies After Falling In Bucket of Vomit". If you follow the link, you'll see a story about how an 18 year old mother, left her daughter (in the care of an unknown or, worse, no one) and went out for a night of partying. Coming home drunk, she wisely placed a barf bucket beside her bed and, unwisely, fell asleep on the bed with her 3 month old baby girl. She awoke to find that her daughter had drowned in mommy's vomit.

The second, also from abcnews.com, is "Mom of Boys Tossed in Bay Pleads Insane". I'm not making this up, click the link! Apparently, the mom, Lashuan Harris who, according to the news report, suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, tossed her kids in the San Francisco Bay because God told her to do so. The reporter says it better than I could:

In her videotaped confession to police, Harris described how she struggled with two of her boys as she stripped them and plunged them from Pier 7 in an area where tourists stroll along the waterfront. Her youngest boy laughed, thinking it was a game.
A game? Are you kidding me?

Another report out of St. Louis, I heard on the radio (but I can't find the link to the story). It was of a woman who cut her cousin -- her cousin -- open and removed the baby developing within. She then attempted to pass the baby off as her own. No mention was made of how the mother - the real one - is doing now.

Anyone want to argue that man is generally good? Didn't think so.

We are lost, we have been since Adam and Eve sampled the wrong fruit at the insistence of a slimy serpant. As the Bible says, our "heart is deceitfully wicked, above all things." What wretched humans we are!

We appear to be horrible beings, but wrap your cabeza around this: In comparison to the evil that has been banished to hell, this is nothin'! By the grace of God, we are kept from experiencing the onslaught of evil that our wicked hearts deserve. Evil cannot entertain God and so is eternally separated from him. Eternally separated from him - can you imagine that?

Think of a lifetime and add infinity to that, then you're close to how long eternity is. And, apart from the saving work of Christ, we would spend that length separated from the only Good that there is. No, that wasn't a mis-spelling. God is THE only true good in life; to be separated from good means that we we are in the company of its antithesis: evil.

What's that? You say that you've lived your whole life as a human here, but you had no idea there was this much evil around you?

What is being done about your depravity?

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

All I Needed to Know About September 11, I Learned From Reading Dr. Seuss

Well, it's true!

Yesterday, one could not flip a channel, turn on a radio, or pick up a newspaper without being reminded that it was the 5th anniversary of September 11, 2001. Probably each of us spent some time, be it at 8:46 am or later, quietly remembering those who perished on that fateful day while also reflecting upon the utter import of the day. It was, after all, Patriot's Day.

As for me and the wife, we watched the second half of "The Path to 9/11," the much debated, and wonderfully depicted, mini-series. We were horrifically moved by what the writers, directors, and actors so poignantly displayed to us. Personally, I teared as one of the passengers on board United 93 said his goodbye's to his wife and daughters.

But, frankly, I have not needed the time to remember what happened 5 years ago. Neither did the President. As he so aptly reminded us in prime time, the war on terror, begun in force on 9/11, is ongoing and we are winning. In essence, I heard the President say once again: you cannot kill the American spirit.

He must have read Dr. Seuss.

You have probably read it too: The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. It is one of my favorites, made even more memorable by the deep, surly voices of Boris Karloff narrating and Thurl Ravenscroft (think Tony the Tiger, saying, "They're Grrrrrreat!") singing, "You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch...." It's an American Christmas tradition, to be sure!

So what does the Grinch have to do with September 11? Let me explain.

If you recall, the Grinch, who had a physical malady (tiny heart-itis), hated Christmas. It was his stated goal to stop Christmas from coming. He planned and connived, fumed and fussed. He assembled a team of n'er-do-wells (ok, Max was more of an innocent pawn, but....you get the point) to help him destroy the Whos down in Who-Ville's Christmas.

So, in his Grinchy way, he sloshed down the mountain, stole all the Who toys and even the Roast Beast!! He took every aspect of what he believed to sustain and create the spirit of Christmas for the Whos (who, if you remember, lived down in Who-Ville. Including, Cindy-Loo Who, who was no more than two!).

Yet, when he returned to the top of Mt. Crumpit, as the Whos assembled in the courtyard now, thanks to him, sans decorations, tang-tangas, checkerboards, pop-guns, and, of course, Roast Beast, the Grinch was taken aback by the song that arose to his Grinchy green ear.

"Dah who door-ray, fah whoo for-ray...Welcome Christmas, bring your cheer..."

After all his efforts, after all his terrorizing of Who-Ville, the Grinch failed to stop Christmas from coming.

So too Bin Laden. It has been his stated goal to destroy America and the freedom it represents. For years, the Tall One planned and connived, he jeered and mocked, he fumed and he fussed. He assembled a team of n'er-do-well's - who were not nearly as innocent, nor as loveable as Max - to learn how to fly a plane (not take off or land, just fly). He hid money, stole money, and funneled money to a handful of Saudi radicals who then bought box cutters and plane tickets and changed air travel forever.

But, as the center of the economic world, as two symbols of freedom, of Americanism, of democratic ingenuity lay in a heap, without the human adornments of beauty and patriotism walking its floors or ringing its phones, the Grinch...er...UBL heard a different sound reach his grinchy ear:

"God bless America! Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night, with the light from above. From the Mountains, to the prairies, to the oceans, white with foam! GOD bless America! My home, sweet home. God bless America! My home, sweet home."

The Great Bearded One, in all of his machinations and rantings, plannings and ponderings, had failed to stop freedom's advance. America, so it seemed, was without it's dollars and cents, it's stocks and bonds, it's 401(k)'s and Roth IRA's. In a smoking pit laid the bodies and ruins of a great segment of American society. America's defense was even questioned by the attack on the Pentagon. America, the great invulnerable superpower, had been humiliated. By all accounts, America as we knew it should have imploded.

But it didn't.

You see, our freedom, like the Christmas spirit of the Whos, is not something we wrap in a package and tie on a bow; it is not something to be hung from a tree, or carved at the table; freedom is endowed to us by our Creator. With it we are given certain inalienable rights; meaning, they were given by no man, and by no man can they be taken.

Today, 5 years and 1 day on from September 11, 2001, I remember that our freedom is a gift that cannot be taken by even the vilest of humans. And, if you will join me, we resolve to recognize that evil does exist in this world and it must be opposed.

You see all the American's down in the United States, the large and the small, must all remember that we understand freedom in America only in human terms. But the One who instilled within us the desire to live free is the only One who can make you free indeed.

Mr. Bin Laden, you're a mean one. You're cuddly like an eel. You're a toadstool and artichoke sandwich, mixed with arsenic sauce. And, I wouldn't touch you with a 39 and a 1/2 foot pole!! Given the choice between the two of you, I'd take the seasick crocidile!

But I pray your heart will grow 3 sizes this day.

[Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, 2006. For permission to re-print, please contact the author directly.]

Monday, August 21, 2006

Investor Fears

Is anyone else sick and tired of paying outrageous gas prices because, as the evening news calls it: "Gas prices rose due to investor's fears," or "The price of oil rose today because investors feared 'x'," or "Crude oil prices rose sharply today on investor's concerns for the future of 'x.'"?

C'mon!! What, do we have a bunch of pansy-pants ninnies running around the NY Stock Exchange, wringing their hands and literally cowering in fear of the crude oil boogy man? Seriously, these folks need to stop off at the local cemetary and pick up a new spine! If it is truly over concerns, fear, or questions, then why not simply address the issue by being confident in our lives. If it's truly just a bunch of oil investors that are scared of Ahamedinijad forcing his Hobbit-framed body to jirate in tyrannical contortions, then let's get rid of these investors!

Just once I would like to hear, "Oil prices dropped today because investors confidently ignored the 4 foot nothin' supreme ruler of Iran's rants, daring him to lose his best customer based simply on false ideological grounds." Or even, "Gas prices plummeted today because, even though Middle East turmoil exists, investors confidently invested their money anyway."

Instead, it appears that we simply have a bunch of namby-pambies who are saying, (insert whiniest mental voice you can conjur) "Ooooo, no! Tomorrow my VW Cabriolet might not get to work because Kim Jong (Makes me) Il is having another fashion show, lit with barrels of oil he stole from Mother Russia."

TOUGH COOKIES!! Buck up man!

Or, open ANWR to drilling.

Perhaps this is why Christ taught us, "Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble." (Mt. 6:34) The solution preceded the command: "But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Mt. 6:33).

Don't worry. Be happy. Trust Jesus.

Drill ANWR.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Men and worship

Worship songs and men's repsonse thereto have been bouncing around in my head. On Sundays, I see less than 2/3's of our men actively engaged in "worship," a word that has in modern day come to mean more "singing" than anything else.

To lay my cards out, I think that many of today's choruses are effeminate (see my post, "The Effeminization of Worship" below). Because of this feminacy, men are shrinking from worship or ceasing to attend worship services. Choruses, to be certain, are not alone. There are songs in the hymnal that fall prey to this issue as well, but the higher incidence is in the CCM module adopted by most evangelical churches today.

One song that pretty much typifies my angst is "Jesus, Lover of My Soul." Ugh! Here's a few of the lyrics, "Jesus, Lover of My Soul. Jesus, I will never let you go...I love you, I need you...My savior, my closest friend, I will worship you until the very end." There's a lot of frustration for me in there. First, what man do you know that wants to sing the words, "I love you, I need you" set to the cadence of a top 40 ballad to a male deity?! Men don't like that; so they disengage - conciously or subconciously. Second, most men don't think they need anything or anyone. They don't ask direction, let alone ask for need for their eternal souls. This may not be the right approach to salvation, but it's a fact that we must acknowledge whem ministering to men. Third, "my closest friend?" That's not what men call their "buddies." Fishin' buddy, huntin' buddy, my pal, my "boy" - never my closest friend. It's subtle, but it's a descriptor more commonly ascribed to the female gender. Finally, "I will worship you until the very end." Uh-oh! If men are this apathetic now in worship, do you think it excites them to consider that they might be doing this for all eternity? I don't think so.

There is some good in CCM music, but it is few and far between. We need to get more music that consults the Psalter for inspiration. Many of the Psalms are "flowery" and highly emotional and, therefore, more feminine. However, there are, as I'm sure you know, many different types of Psalms. There are the Royal Psalms which talk about the majesty and power of God, Psalms that record David's confessions, Psalms that essentially teach the doctrine of the faith, Psalms of judgment, Psalms where the writer Pleads for mercy or deliverance, and those Psalms that are simply filled with praise. It seems that those who do solicit songs based on the Psalms usually pull from the last category of Psalms, and leave out many of the others. And even in the more "flowery" ones the more "manly" parts are left out.

For example, let's take Psalm 8.

1 O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory
above the heavens.

2 From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise
because of your enemies,
to silence the foe and the avenger.


This is where most songwriters stop. The focus is on the praise, on the adulation, and the ascribing of glory to our God. Nothing wrong with that, but it is, certainly, incomplete. Oh, and v. 2, if any of it is used, it will quote the first two lines, but leave out the part about avenging and enemies. That's judgment, a more masculine quality. But, isn't it juxtaposed against the praise of babes? When did you last see that in a CCM chorus?

3 When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,


Here the modern songwriter picks up again, includes a bit about how awesome God's creation is, how pretty, how lovely, and how it was started by him. But they leave out....

4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?


This requires self-examination and sincere reflection. That's not often in the modern praise chorus.

5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.


Crowned with glory and honor?! That's pride! That's status! Not something to be sung in a church preaching on humility!

6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:

7 all flocks and herds,
and the beasts of the field,

8 the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.


Ruler? Manager? Forager? Hunter? Farmer? Steward? Aren't these talking about many 'manly' characteristics? The modern songwriter doesn't often include these words. If they do, the focus of the song is more on the buccolic, or couched in a way that suggests that man needs to get along with animals like the quintessential lion and lamb. Why not teach the men and boys of our congregations that not only is it ok to be a manager, here's how to understand your managerial role: God put you in charge; therefore, do it well, b/c you answer to him.

9 O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!


Back to the likeable language. But did you notice the in between? See how wonderfully balanced this Psalm is? Even though this Psalm is well-balanced, what song is going through your head right now? I wager it is that chorus, "O Lord our Lord, how ma-jes-tic is your na-ame in all the Earth....Ohoooo Lord, our Lord, we magnify your na-hame, Prince of Pe-heace, Mighty God, Oh-ho Lo-ord God almi-highty!" (The hyphens are the breath/slides I remember from the Amy Grant version of the song). Maybe that's a different Psalm, but why not include the verses that are in between verse 1 and verse 9 of Psalm 8 in another, new rendition?

Others are like unto it as well. Psalm 149 spends the first 5 verses commanding the people to Praise God for this or that, to rejoice, to make music with instruments, to (gasp!) dance, to be humble. But the bottom half of the Psalm says this:

6 May the praise of God be in their mouths
and a double-edged sword in their hands,

7 to inflict vengeance on the nations
and punishment on the peoples,

8 to bind their kings with fetters,
their nobles with shackles of iron,

9 to carry out the sentence written against them.
This is the glory of all his saints.
Praise the LORD.


WOW!!! God wants to use my voice like a double-edged sword?! He wants to use me to inflict vengeance and punishment? To shackle kings and nobles? And you mean to tell me it's to the glory of God AND part of praise to the Lord to execute his just sentence on sin?!!! WHOOO-BOY!! This is the Christian equivalent of giving a boy a G.I. Joe during a worship service! It says to him that it is ok to have the indignation at sin, it's all right to use your voice and your actions to stand strongly against the most popular rulers of your day in the name of God. In other words, those strong, innately driven emotions of power and strength that the world says that you need to pacify or else your a chauvenist are actually encouraged by God and viewed as a part of praising him. Those innate passions must be focused into doing the work of God. Doing so allows the flame to burn as fuel for the kingdom of God without putting a wet blanket on their essential maleness.

I think those are some good examples and there are more -- there are 150 Psalms!! Then, you can look at Proverbs too, Song of Songs, Ecclesiates for similar content. Look at what the leaders in the OT did when the vanquished an enemy -- they wrote a Psalm praising God for his justice. There's just so much fodder for good, quality worship music! Please, just use it! The men of our congregations need it!

The point, of course, is that the focus has been only on those "flowery" Psalters (or portions thereof), and not on the powerful images of our salvation! That's unbalanced. Combine, as David and others did, the flowery with the powerful and you have one amazing worship service that will really challenge a man, not lull him to sleep and submission.

In Defense of Life

Ok, I couldn't resist writing on this topic. And, it's quite timely. In fact, though rare, I have to tell you that I have something in common with a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Woo-woo!

Irishwoman Betty Williams won the NPP for circulating a petition demanding an end to the ravages of the war in Northern Ireland. It was her brutal descriptions of the violence and the sympathetic portrayal of human suffering - especially the children - in times of war that won her the accolade of the sons and daughters of Nobel. All this from a former receptionist turned CEO of a major nonprofit whose goal it is to be the voice for children. Oh wait. That was supposed to be political voice for children. Hmmm.

As she was visiting Austrialia the other day she addressed a roomful of children and their teachers, The Australian records her words, "It's our duty as human beings, whatever age we are, to become the protectors of human life." Wow! I agree. That makes me feel great, knowing that I see eye to eye with a Nobel Laureate. I think I'll send my donation to Oslo right....huh....what's that? There's more?

Apparently, Ms. Williams, in her Irish brogue also questioned her own non-violence: "I have a very hard time with this word 'non-violence', because I don't believe that I am non-violent." Hmmm, what was her award for? Peace? Huh?! Continuing she said, "I don't know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize, because when I see children die the anger in me is just beyond belief." Well, that's not so bad, it angers me too. I don't like seeing it and I despise that sin has had that effect on our human race.

But this cinched it. Now I know I was wrong. I have nothing in common with a Nobel Laureate after all. For, to thundering applause, shaking the very Brisbane City Hall in which she spoke, Ms. Williams gave word to the virulent, political voice for which she is now committed: "Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." Apparently, her speech writer has spent time working for Al Qaeda and Hizbollah.

I hate the senseless destruction of human life. I stand committed to the proposition that life is sacred, that we must stand for it or find ourselves at risk of being terminated. But here is the fundamental difference between Ms. Williams and me: Whereas Ms. Williams bases her belief in protecting life on the basis of a duty as a human, my conviction to protect innocent life stems from my belief in God and in his command to stand for and against it.

So I can hear the objections now, "Hey, Chief, if you stand so much for life, than why are you ok with war and the death penalty and any other action that takes a life. Shouldn't your God be the one who decides when life ends?" Certainly, if I were simply walking down the streets slashing throats, that would be an offense to God and the dignity of human life. But that's not for what I stand.

I stand to protect innocent life. I give voice to those who have no voice. I stand to execute judgment on those who have intentionally and maliciously taken innocent life. I act to protect life by removing life. It's not contradictory. Babies in the womb have no voice, they are the picture of innocence; I give them their voice and demand that they have dignity as a distinct being, not a wad of flesh attached to a woman's uterus. Capital punishment, to me, is just because that baneful human removed an innocent life and must, therefore, suffer a like consequence - another chance to give voice to the voice that was silenced by the act of the murderer. I support war, especially war that seeks to root out evil, to keep wretched men bent on my destruction from killing me, my family, and my fellow citizens. That is a just reaction to such a careless, cowardly act of taking life in the name of Allah.

Ms. Williams may endeavor to accomplish a good work. But the answer to saving life is not to suggest taking more life, especially the life of a man who has striven to protect our lives. It's interesting to see how blatantly contradictory her words are: "I am a human, I must protect life, I want to take Bush's life."

Christ came so that we might have life and have it more abundantly. He came to take his own life in sacrifice. In other words, he came with the sole intent of killing himself so that he would protect innocent lives, knowing that our lives were not so innocent. He could have addressed a synagogue full of school children and claimed he stood for life and then taken pot shots at the head Levite of his day. But he didn't. He stood for lives drenched in guilt that they might become innocent. What a marvelous contradiction.

For the full article about Ms. Williams, go the The Australian, here.

Friday, June 02, 2006

Eternal Hope

Those of you who know me know that I graduated from Taylor University. TU has been in the news of late due to an unfortunate (understatement of the year) series of circumstances. In April, a 15 passenger van owned by TU was driving back from Ft. Wayne carrying a number of catering staff members. About 10 minutes from campus, an 18 wheeler jumped the median and plowed through the van, killing 4 students, 1 staff member, and injuring others, including putting one student in a semi-comatose state for about 5 weeks. This week, she woke up.

The semi-comatose student was thought to be Laura Vanryn. During her less responsive days, the other families, including the family of Whitney Cerak, buried their siblings, son, and daughters. During that time, the deceased students were eulogized, memorialized, given posthumous degrees, memorial scholarships were set in place, and (since I'm an attorney) probate proceedings were likely begun. But, this week, it became apparent that things were not what they seemed.

The person thought be Laura Vanryn became more conversant and, in the process, started calling people by the wrong nickname and saying things that the family did not understand. Cautiously, the therapist asked her if she knew her name. "Whitney Cerak" she replied. Stunned, the family and the therapist asked her to write her name: "Whitney Cerak," she scribbled. The joy at the knowledge that their daughter had survived a horrific accident was turned to utter dismay at the realization that another family had buried their daughter, another family had eulogized the wrong memory, and they had expended their love and affection upon the wrong woman.

But, here's what has been so striking to me: the Vanryn family has exhibited nothing but joy and grace. Their comments have been filled with the love and understanding that only comes from God. In a word, they have demonstrated hope.

"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope." I Thess. 4:13.

During this time, the Vanryn family has faithfully kept a blog about, who we now know to be, Whitney. Please visit it at http://lauravanryn.blogspot.com. One of the over 1,000 comments left on that blog after the announcement of the mistaken identity was a from a person in Australia who said (in paraphrase), "I wish I had what you had. I know it must be your faith, but I do not have the hope that you have. I want to have it." What that person from Australia seeks, Titus saw fit to explain to us in Titus 2:13, "...waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ..."

Our lives, our work, our play is all subject to that one thing: hope. Minutes from now you, your friend, or loved one may be taken from you, do you have hope? The circumstances involving the Cerak and Vanryn families is tragic, horid, unspeakably painful. But for both, it is overwhelmingly joyful. For the Ceraks, their daughter, whom they thought dead, is alive and will be able to spend more hours here on earth with her. For the Vanryns, their daughter is dead, but alive in Christ. As they said on their blog, "For us, we will mourn Laura's going home and will greatly miss her compassionate heart and sweetness while knowing that she is safe and with her King forever. " Their hope, which instills them with joy, is the knowledge that someday they will meet their daughter again and spend eternity praising their King together.

It's been a painful time for TU students and alumni. But, truly, solo deo gloria - only for the glory of God!

Thursday, May 18, 2006

The Effeminization of Worship

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the lack of masculine involvement in Evangelicalism these days. I suppose it's because of my work with the Men's Ministry at our Church. I have shared with a few my theory: men are not involved in church because worship has become effeminate.

R.C. Sproul has written a piece entitled, "Off with the Skirts. On with the Pants" (found at www.cbmw.org under Web Resources-Articles) wherein he says, "I’m not sure whether our men in the church wear skirts because we worship a god in a skirt, or whether we worship a skirt-wearing god because the men in the church are so weak." Another author, David Murrow, has written a book entitled, Why Men Hate Going to Church. I have not read the book, but I have read excerpts. The book confirms my theory: men don't go to church because it is effiminate.

Interestingly, another article I read somewhere compared a man's role in Christianity with Buddhism and Islam. This is very interesting. In Islam, men are revered, honored, and highly active; but there is a hardness, a lack of compassion within them. Their "rule" is dictatorial, unkind and often radical. In Buddhism, men are also highly active, but characteristically nonconfrontational. But, with Christianity, men are simply not present. Those who are present are really divided into two categories: the active and the apathetic.

Do you need evidence for this? Murrow posts the following stats on his website (www.churchformen.com):

  • The typical U.S. Congregation draws an adult crowd that’s 61% female, 39% male. This gender gap shows up in all age categories.
  • On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America’s churches.
  • This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands.
  • Midweek activities often draw 70 to 80 percent female participants.
  • The majority of church employees are women (except for ordained clergy, who are overwhelmingly male).
  • As many as 90 percent of the boys who are being raised in church will abandon it by their 20th birthday. Many of these boys will never return.
  • More than 90 percent of American men believe in God, and five out of six call themselves Christians. But only two out of six attend church on a given Sunday. The average man accepts the reality of Jesus Christ, but fails to see any value in going to church.

Staggering stuff, isn't it?

While the statistics certainly show a lack of manly presence in churches today, society is proving the effects. Jails are filled with men whose father's neglected them, children are raised entirely by a single parent or grandparent - usually maternal. In mainline denominations, what have been two of the most contentious issues of recent years? Ordination of women and/or homosexuals.

Are we really that surprised? Culturally, this generation of men have been beaten down, told that they are no different than women, they are neanderthal, crude, rude, and stupid. Men are portrayed by society as nothing more than Homer Simpson simpletons, Jim Belushi connivers, and Peter Griffin loafs. Meanwhile, the feminist movement presses for "equality of the sexes." Whatever that means, it does not recognize the innate difference and the absolute necessity of maximizing such differences - an it certainly means a misconstruction of "chain of command" established by God. In short, the feminist movement of the past half century has left men without an identity, without a purpose, and unwilling to stand for who they are.

You see, there's a second dynamic at work: men are inherently lazy. I will not put the blame entirely on women and the women's movement because men have simply abdicated their leadership role simply because they have chosen the easy way out. "You want leadership and the frustration such responsbilities bring, be my guest," said many a man in recent years, "I just don't want to argue anymore."

As much as women have overstepped their roles, men have retreated from theirs. All the while, the Church as acquiesced to the change.

The servant leadership role men are commissioned to fulfill has swayed erratically towards subservience, and away from leadership. Sproul suggests a solution, "The calling to men is to be bold and strong, to lead with courage." Leadership means having the maturity to make a decision; the conviction to stand by it; the articulation to explain it; the ability to execute it; the empathy to encourage those struggling with it; the perseverance to carry it into fruition; and the knowledge to know that it is right. But that's what men are missing.

Christian men are missing the knowledge of the God who created them, who they were created by God to be, and what they were created by God to do. This must be the starting point for men to recapture leadership.

In no way am I advocating a quick swing of the pendulum back to ardent leadership devoid of compassion. That's dictatorship, not service in leadership. I am challenging men (and women) to discover Christ and the purpose for which He created men. I am putting out the gauntlet, daring men to identify their convictions and stand by them. It is my admonition to men to be unwavering in their love for the gospel, their leadership of the home, and - as a result - their leadership of the Church.

At the same time, I challenge the church and its current leadership. Do you want men to be more active in your church? Do you want a living men's ministry that will fuel your congregation? Do you want to see women be who they were created to be because the men are being the men they were created to be? Do you want the use of pornography by 70% of the men of your church to stop? Do you want the illicit sex engaged in by 25% of your congregation to cease? Do you want to see a reduction of crime, unwed pregnancies, abortions, drug use, and abandonment of the faith?

Then challenge your men. Tear down the namby-pamby posters of Jesus with the long flowing Breck shampoo hair and flowing gown, and paint a picture of Jesus doing battle for the souls of men and women around you. Eliminate the wussy worship times that have men standing zombie like while women around them sing "Cum-bay-ya" and "Precious Jesus." Replace it with worship that rocks - not in musical style - but in a way that challenges the head, not just the heart, of men. Structure your sermons to appeal to the mind, not just the heart; put in an accomplishable challenge for the men of your congregation to fulfill. Dare them to be men of God and, if they won't, call them a coward!! Tell them to take off their Nancy skirt and put on a pair of BDU's. Challenge them to lose their garters and put on the belt of truth. Admonish them to kick off their Florsheims and shod their feet with the Gospel of Truth.

It is my firm belief that if those in church leadership will accept this challenge, our churches will change. If our churches will change, our families will improve. If our families improve, our society will be bettered. If our society is bettered, our message will spread. If our message spreads, the Kingdom will come.

But, it must begin with men.

Friday, April 14, 2006