NOTE: The following content is deserving of several careful edits. But that's not how I'm rolling this morning; I'm working against two clocks and I want to get these ideas down before I lose my chance. Perhaps I will edit later. As always, not recommended.
God is all-powerful. In my Spanish-English Parallel Bible, the term for this is "todo poderoso," and based on my limited Spanish, that seems to mean or come from something like "able to do all things."
That God is all-powerful seems like an easy concept, yet sometimes we struggle with this. It is easy to say God is more powerful than the Quran, especially if one does not believe the Quran is anything special. The same can be said if one said God is more powerful than the Book of Mormon.
But what about saying God is more powerful than the Bible? Of course he is, yet to some I am all of a sudden comparing two very similar things. They're not. One is all-powerful; the other is a book, though God-breathed, that is still a thing and not a sentient being. That the Bible is, to me and some others, the primary written authority on who God is does not change that God is ultimately more powerful. Some might say that the Bible defines God, and how else can we learn about him? But clearly God exists even if there wasn't a Bible, simply because God existed before there was a Bible. I mean, he is the subject matter, clearly he predates it.
What does it mean to say that God is more powerful than the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or the Bible? In the very primal sense, it means God will conquer those things, overcome them. More than that, however, it means that God is stronger than the intents and passions of the writers of those books or documents. Meaning, even if the writer meant to convey one thing, God can make it so the reader learns a completely different thing.
Since God is more powerful than these epic tomes, clearly he is also more powerful than a novel, a book written by a Christian author, or a book written by someone who definitely sought truth even if it is unclear if ultimately she found truth.
I use that last strange description because I can't think of a more significant way to describe Simone Weil and her book that God used to change my outlook on one of his most important commandments.
I learned about Simone Weil in a Christian Mysticism class in college, taught by a professor who I felt possessed a clear distaste for modern Christians. Yet, he still had a passion, even if only academically, for Christian mystics, and I learned a lot even if I didn't know how to apply it.
Simone Weil was a compelling individual, and I'm typing this from memory of a course I took almost ten years ago so I apologize if I mess up her short bio. I believe she authored several books, including "Waiting for God" which was required reading in my course. From what I remember, she embraced Jesus but had difficulty accepting that the God of the Old Testament were one and the same. She rejected baptism. She dabbled in and/or embraced Marxism, though not the antireligious aspects of it--what I mean is, I think she believed that Marxism was a better way to run a Godly community... I can't remember. The point is, she is a controversial individual for a number of reasons.
Regardless of what you think about Weil, she wrote a book that I was required to read, though I only read portions. One of the portions so compelled me you would think I would read the rest of it, but that wasn't the way I worked then and I can't say it's the way I work now.
She wrote about what it means to love your neighbor as yourself, and I am paraphrasing from memory, but this is what I remember. When you see a homeless man, and you remember to love your neighbor as yourself, you are compelled to help the man. Some would think "I offer food to this man because I love God." Others might say "I offer food to this man because I love him." Weil said "I offer food to this man because I love myself," and when I am hungry I do not hesitate to feed myself because I love myself. If I am to love this homeless man as myself, I will feed him because he is hungry, period. Because that's what it means to love him as I love myself. That's how you fulfill God's commandment.
(She says it a million times better than that and probably considerably less heavy handed. I'm shooting for a concept here, the one that latched on to me and hasn't let go, though admittedly more in my head than in practice.)
I can't remember much about Weil, as my convoluted paragraph above proves. I don't know if she has any "authority" when speaking about God (I use quotes because I disagree with the concept of someone having authority to speak about God--either God is using that person or he isn't, it has nothing to do with how good they are or how much they have studied or even if they have any idea what they are talking about, which is really my point with all of this); what I do know is what she wrote spoke to me and I believe it was a message from God that I needed to hear.
God can use books that are written by strangers or even enemies to reveal his truths. Yet God does not even have to use a book. God is more powerful than literacy; he can reveal himself to someone who can't read. He can do it in any way, but one of those ways is through their life experience.
The lesson God taught me through Simone Weil's words, as well as the belief that God can use any situation to reveal himself to a person, are just two of the reasons why I work as a public defender.
Several people have asked me, Christian and non-Christian alike, how I can defend someone I know to be guilty. I don't have an answer memorized but it is something like this: I am guilty. I have sinned against God and deserve nothing but punishment. There is nothing I can do to earn my way out of that situation, no amount of good that will cover over my sin. Yet, my sin is forgiven through Jesus Christ, who in spite of my shortcomings and my sin still wants to save me from eternal punishment. These guilty people I defend, I am one of them. If I am to love my neighbor as myself, I must defend them. Not because love God, not because I love them, but because I love myself, and God has commanded me to love my client as I love myself. Which means I must defend them from accusation regardless of their guilt.
In doing so, I hope that they receive less punishment than what they were facing at the outset, and thought the parallel is imperfect, I hope whatever portion of forgiveness they receive only leads them to the ultimate forgiveness that Christ offers. Even if that doesn't happen, I know that God is working in a person's legal situation in ways that I cannot understand. God placed me here to do this work and I am his tool to be used for his purposes. So even if I strive mightily to get my client an acquittal or an incredibly favorable plea agreement, it still might be God's goal to have me fail because of a greater lesson he wants to impart upon my client. Because God is more powerful than this defense attorney, and though I walk away frustrated with a case where it seems I had no impact whatsoever on the outcome, I have to believe that God has a purpose for that, maybe for me, maybe for my client, maybe for all of us or someone else entirely.
Just so it is clear (especially to those who know me in the legal community), it would be unethical from a professional standpoint and incredibly belligerent and assuming from a faith standpoint for me to think that I know what God wants to happen in a particular case or for a particular client. My goal with any case is always the same: get the best outcome for my client, period. For me to act in any other way is unethical and unprofessional, and it means I am placing limits on God because if I were to act that way, it means I don't believe he is more powerful than my own efforts for my client. For this reason, my beliefs do not and will not affect my duties to my client. My actions in my case will always have that one goal in mind: get the best result for my client.
Man, I thought I was going to get out of this without a legal disclaimer, but I think that last paragraph was necessary in the end.
God is all-powerful. In my Spanish-English Parallel Bible, the term for this is "todo poderoso," and based on my limited Spanish, that seems to mean or come from something like "able to do all things."
That God is all-powerful seems like an easy concept, yet sometimes we struggle with this. It is easy to say God is more powerful than the Quran, especially if one does not believe the Quran is anything special. The same can be said if one said God is more powerful than the Book of Mormon.
But what about saying God is more powerful than the Bible? Of course he is, yet to some I am all of a sudden comparing two very similar things. They're not. One is all-powerful; the other is a book, though God-breathed, that is still a thing and not a sentient being. That the Bible is, to me and some others, the primary written authority on who God is does not change that God is ultimately more powerful. Some might say that the Bible defines God, and how else can we learn about him? But clearly God exists even if there wasn't a Bible, simply because God existed before there was a Bible. I mean, he is the subject matter, clearly he predates it.
What does it mean to say that God is more powerful than the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or the Bible? In the very primal sense, it means God will conquer those things, overcome them. More than that, however, it means that God is stronger than the intents and passions of the writers of those books or documents. Meaning, even if the writer meant to convey one thing, God can make it so the reader learns a completely different thing.
Since God is more powerful than these epic tomes, clearly he is also more powerful than a novel, a book written by a Christian author, or a book written by someone who definitely sought truth even if it is unclear if ultimately she found truth.
I use that last strange description because I can't think of a more significant way to describe Simone Weil and her book that God used to change my outlook on one of his most important commandments.
I learned about Simone Weil in a Christian Mysticism class in college, taught by a professor who I felt possessed a clear distaste for modern Christians. Yet, he still had a passion, even if only academically, for Christian mystics, and I learned a lot even if I didn't know how to apply it.
Simone Weil was a compelling individual, and I'm typing this from memory of a course I took almost ten years ago so I apologize if I mess up her short bio. I believe she authored several books, including "Waiting for God" which was required reading in my course. From what I remember, she embraced Jesus but had difficulty accepting that the God of the Old Testament were one and the same. She rejected baptism. She dabbled in and/or embraced Marxism, though not the antireligious aspects of it--what I mean is, I think she believed that Marxism was a better way to run a Godly community... I can't remember. The point is, she is a controversial individual for a number of reasons.
Regardless of what you think about Weil, she wrote a book that I was required to read, though I only read portions. One of the portions so compelled me you would think I would read the rest of it, but that wasn't the way I worked then and I can't say it's the way I work now.
She wrote about what it means to love your neighbor as yourself, and I am paraphrasing from memory, but this is what I remember. When you see a homeless man, and you remember to love your neighbor as yourself, you are compelled to help the man. Some would think "I offer food to this man because I love God." Others might say "I offer food to this man because I love him." Weil said "I offer food to this man because I love myself," and when I am hungry I do not hesitate to feed myself because I love myself. If I am to love this homeless man as myself, I will feed him because he is hungry, period. Because that's what it means to love him as I love myself. That's how you fulfill God's commandment.
(She says it a million times better than that and probably considerably less heavy handed. I'm shooting for a concept here, the one that latched on to me and hasn't let go, though admittedly more in my head than in practice.)
I can't remember much about Weil, as my convoluted paragraph above proves. I don't know if she has any "authority" when speaking about God (I use quotes because I disagree with the concept of someone having authority to speak about God--either God is using that person or he isn't, it has nothing to do with how good they are or how much they have studied or even if they have any idea what they are talking about, which is really my point with all of this); what I do know is what she wrote spoke to me and I believe it was a message from God that I needed to hear.
God can use books that are written by strangers or even enemies to reveal his truths. Yet God does not even have to use a book. God is more powerful than literacy; he can reveal himself to someone who can't read. He can do it in any way, but one of those ways is through their life experience.
The lesson God taught me through Simone Weil's words, as well as the belief that God can use any situation to reveal himself to a person, are just two of the reasons why I work as a public defender.
Several people have asked me, Christian and non-Christian alike, how I can defend someone I know to be guilty. I don't have an answer memorized but it is something like this: I am guilty. I have sinned against God and deserve nothing but punishment. There is nothing I can do to earn my way out of that situation, no amount of good that will cover over my sin. Yet, my sin is forgiven through Jesus Christ, who in spite of my shortcomings and my sin still wants to save me from eternal punishment. These guilty people I defend, I am one of them. If I am to love my neighbor as myself, I must defend them. Not because love God, not because I love them, but because I love myself, and God has commanded me to love my client as I love myself. Which means I must defend them from accusation regardless of their guilt.
In doing so, I hope that they receive less punishment than what they were facing at the outset, and thought the parallel is imperfect, I hope whatever portion of forgiveness they receive only leads them to the ultimate forgiveness that Christ offers. Even if that doesn't happen, I know that God is working in a person's legal situation in ways that I cannot understand. God placed me here to do this work and I am his tool to be used for his purposes. So even if I strive mightily to get my client an acquittal or an incredibly favorable plea agreement, it still might be God's goal to have me fail because of a greater lesson he wants to impart upon my client. Because God is more powerful than this defense attorney, and though I walk away frustrated with a case where it seems I had no impact whatsoever on the outcome, I have to believe that God has a purpose for that, maybe for me, maybe for my client, maybe for all of us or someone else entirely.
Just so it is clear (especially to those who know me in the legal community), it would be unethical from a professional standpoint and incredibly belligerent and assuming from a faith standpoint for me to think that I know what God wants to happen in a particular case or for a particular client. My goal with any case is always the same: get the best outcome for my client, period. For me to act in any other way is unethical and unprofessional, and it means I am placing limits on God because if I were to act that way, it means I don't believe he is more powerful than my own efforts for my client. For this reason, my beliefs do not and will not affect my duties to my client. My actions in my case will always have that one goal in mind: get the best result for my client.
Man, I thought I was going to get out of this without a legal disclaimer, but I think that last paragraph was necessary in the end.
