The Questioning Christian: We're helping with the Great Project

A Christian's creed should be about life commitment, not belief

The creed of a follower of Jesus should proclaim, not what we happen to believe to be true at the moment (which can and should be provisional, always subject to change as new evidence and insights are revealed to us), but how we commit to living our lives. Here's my attempt at such a creed, inspired by a similar effort by the MadPriest and by the Soldier's Creed. I merely paraphrase Jesus' core teachings, as indicated in the right-hand column below:

We are followers of Jesus. Always and everywhere, to the best of our ability:
we will put God first, and seek the best for others as we do for ourselves;	Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.
we will face up to our mistakes and our misdeeds;	Repent - when you see that you're going in the wrong direction, make a change (that's roughly the meaning of the Greek word metanoia, commonly translated as repentance). And when you sin against your neighbor, fix it.
we will live as if, in God's good time, all things will be well.	Don't fret about the future; instead, trust that things will turn out OK.

Being legally right may not keep you out of prison

(Adapted from an email I sent my teen-aged son earlier this week, with input from my wife.)

Dear [offspring],

You ought to read this AP story and this opinion piece about the district attorney (DA) in North Carolina, one Mike Nifong, who is prosecuting those three Duke University lacrosse players.   Apparently I'm not the only one who's shocked at the way this DA seems willing to suppress evidence, and to keep pressing charges even though his case appears to have fallen completely apart.  From what I've read, it looks to me as though he doesn't give a (hoot) about truth, or following the law, or anything except his own political career.

Here's my first point:  If this DA proceeds to trial, you never know how a random set of 12 jurors will view the evidence.  It may come down to whom the jury believes:  The lacrosse players, or the accuser.  Never forget that the jury usually has the final say about witness credibility.  I can guarantee two things: 

1. The lacrosse players' reputations for telling the truth could turn out to be crucial evidence; and
2. If the lacrosse players have anything in their past that might make them seem less credible, the DA's people will be trying to put that in front of the jury to cast doubt on their testimony.

Remember how the jury in OJ Simpson's criminal trial found him not guilty?  Even though the evidence had convinced a lot of other people that Simpson had done it?   Well, this jury might go the other way.  They might convict the lacrosse players regardless of how flimsy the evidence might seem to outsiders.  If that were to happen, those lacrosse players could end up in prison for a long time.