52 Sermon Illustrations on Cheating

Sermon version:

Actor James Woods was asked why he did not take professional lessons. His answer: they are too artificial. Everyone knows how to act well by nature -- just look at people who cheat on their spouses.

Actual quote:

"Anybody who has cheated on their spouse - it's astounding how good people are at acting when they want to be."

Charles Swindoll in "Growing Deep in the Christian Life," writes about a man who bought fried chicken dinners for himself and his date late one afternoon. The attendant at the fast food outlet, however, inadvertently gave him the proceeds from the day's business - a bag of money (much of it cash) instead of fried chicken.

"After driving to their picnic site," Swindoll writes, "the two of them sat down to enjoy some chicken. They discovered a whole lot more than chicken - over $800! But he was unusual. He quickly put the money back into the car and drove all the way back. Mr. Clean got out, walked in, and became an instant hero.

"By then, the manager was frantic. The guy with the bag of money looked the manager in the eye and said, 'I want you to know I came by to get a couple of chicken dinners and wound up with all this money here.'

"Well, the manager was thrilled to death. He said, 'Let me call the newspaper. I'm gonna have your picture put in the local newspaper. You're one of the most honest men I've ever heard of.'

"To which the man quickly responded, 'Oh, no. No, no don't do that!' Then he leaned closer and whispered, 'You see, the woman I'm with is not my wife. She's, uh, somebody else's wife.'"

Harder to find than lost cash is a perfect heart.

A husband and wife are talking. The wife says, "Darling, why don't you play golf with Harry any more?"

Husband: "Would you play with a sneak who puts down the wrong score and moves his ball when you aren't looking?"

"Certainly not," she answers.

Husband: "Well, neither will Harry."

#4259

*

Young people are going to do it and there is nothing you or I can do to stop them. As a result, we should instruct them in a way that is amoral, how to do it responsibly. This represents the current conventional wisdom in approaching young people about unmarried sex. It is said to be the only rational and common sense approach to the issue. Anyone suggesting an abstinence message is scoffed at and branded puritanical at best and an irresponsible fool at worst.

It is interesting to note that the "we can't do anything about it" approach is only taken in regard to sex. All other serious issues facing young people are approached in a much more legalistic fashion. Although teens have historically engaged in a variety of risky behaviors with potentially negative consequences, sex is the only activity we surrender to.

Cheating, for instance, is an activity that high school and college students have engaged since chalk was invented. Several recent studies indicate that the deceptive practice is on the rise. With increased competition for admission into top colleges and graduate schools, some students give in to the pressure and cheat. They plagiarize, share answers, steal tests, buy term papers and/or utilize cheat sheets all in an effort to obtain an eye-popping G.P.A.

Students are going to cheat and nothing that can be done about it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply foolish and/or living on another planet. I propose that we take the same conventional "common sense" approach that is currently utilized in reference to unmarried sex and apply it to cheating.

Classes should be introduced and students instructed in the pros and cons of cheating. A variety of effective study methods should be presented and the virtues of each extolled. Care must be taken so this instruction is accomplished in an amoral way. Students should not be given the impression that cheating is somehow inherently wrong while choosing to be studious is virtuous.

Since there will be those who are going to cheat, no matter how much they are told that by choosing to cheat they are only cheating themselves, there should be instruction on how to cheat effectively and discreetly. However, information alone will not be enough. In order to insure that we do not stigmatize those who choose to cheat, an area must be set up where a student can have access to the best in cheat sheets and plagiarized papers. Cheating paraphernalia must be dispensed discreetly and without cost. There should be no barriers to keep students from cheating once they determine that is what they truly want to do.

If a student chooses to access the cheating materials, should the school tell the parents? Of course not! If parents were to find out, they might overreact. They might even revert to the Stone Age practice of grounding the student. Many parents don't realize that just because a student experiments with cheating once or twice it doesn't mean they are cheaters. Who knows, in experiencing cheating a student might realize that he or she is not really ready for the emotional consequences of cheating and will return to studying.

When you apply the current conventional wisdom used in approaching the subject of unmarried sex with people to any other subject -- like cheating, alcohol, drugs or tobacco you see just how foolish it really is.

Any behavior that has the real potential of adversely altering a student's life should be discouraged rather than encouraged. Will we ever stop all students from engaging in unmarried sex -- or cheating? No. There will always be some who will embrace that which is harmful. However, that is no justification for waving the white flag of surrender. All I am saying is give virtue a chance.

*

As many as 60 accounting students from the University of Wisconsin-Madison were accused of cheating on a take-home midterm exam. The instructor allowed the students to take the test at home so they could attend a presentation. There was “overwhelming evidence of collusive behavior” said department chair John Eichenseyer. He says the instructor had been told there was cheating, so he gave a surprise quiz to the class after they turned in the exam. Many students failed on quiz questions they had supposedly just answered on the exam.

The presentation they all attended? It was a speech by Sherry Watkins, the whistle-blower who brought the accounting irregularities at Enron to light.

__________

Wisconsin State Journal

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #5083]

It’s no surprise that people are more honest when they know that they’re being watched. But what about just reminding them of the idea of being watched, without them actually being watched?

For years, people at the University of Newcastle’s Division of Psychology have an honor (or trust) system where they are requested to deposit payment for coffee in an “honesty box.” There was a note saying how much they should pay.

In 2006, Melissa Bateson and colleagues decided to do a little experiment: they placed an image above the note. They alternate between two pictures: one week they would use a picture of eyes and the other week, flowers.

After 10 weeks, they plotted the amount of money received versus drinks consumed and found that people paid nearly three times as much for their drinks when eyes were displayed! The eyes won every time.

*

[The previous illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]

The FBI went into one town to investigate the work of what appeared to be a sharpshooter. They were amazed to find many bull’s-eyes drawn around town, with bullets that had penetrated the exact center of the targets. When they finally found the man who had been doing the shooting, they asked him about the technique he used to attain such accuracy. The answer was simple. He shot the bullet first, and drew the bull’s-eye later.

That may be an easy way to have the appearance of hitting the mark, but it is at best a deception and at worst a lie. So it is with goals. We should use them to direct our work and determine if we have accomplished our purposes, not to defend what we happened to do.

[also see #7816 for a different angle]

A cautionary tale of how bunkum artists exploit true believers.

When swindler Clyde D. Hood went prospecting for investors, he boasted that he had something fancy that Wall Streeters didn’t: a hot line to the divine. Hood, whose pedigree included work as a pool hall manager, claimed the “Supreme Commander” had ordered him to launch a “Christian program” to help “the little people.” While he didn’t mention the pool hall, he said he’d made a pile turning big profits for corporate clients trading something called “foreign bank debentures” offshore.

Every hundred bucks invested with Hood’s Omega Trust & Trading would generate a 51-fold return in 275 days. Roll the stake over and your $100 would beget $225,000 (the arithmetic was off a bit). This joint venture of God and mammon began in 1994 and went on for six years before secular authorities rose up and smote it. By that point Hood and his Omega cronies in Mattoon, Ill. had relieved their believers -- 10,000 victims from as far afield as Australia and China -- of $20 million.

It’s an old and sad story: Investors let down their guard when they get a pitch from a self-proclaimed fellow follower of God. With help from the Internet, religious-based scams hauled in $1 billion last year, estimates Joseph Borg, president of the North American Securities Administrators Association.

In 1983 churchgoing farmers in Washington State lost $60 million to a commodities trading scam perpetrated by one Kenneth Oxborrow, who touted his Christian bona fides and displayed a crucifix on his office wall. More recently the Baptist Foundation of Arizona collapsed amid state allegations of fraud involving a real estate scheme that ensnared 13,000 people and bagged $590 million. Its auditor, Arthur Andersen, took a pre-Enron public pasting from this mess.

The Omega case came to its inglorious conclusion in January when Hood, 68, was sentenced to 14 years on federal charges of fraud and money laundering. Pleading guilty to, or convicted on, similar charges was a passel of 18 henchmen from Mattoon (pop. 18,500), a farm and factory town.

His pals weren’t creepy grifter types with slicked-back hair and pencil-thin moustaches but righteous citizens all -- including a former police officer, a deputy sheriff, a lawyer, a minister. They got a piece of the action for running Hood’s database and manning his phone lines, where they kept track of victims sedated by down-home talk about Jesus and those miraculous bank debentures.

Where did the Omega bunch park its ill-gotten gains? Not in those wonderful debentures, which didn’t exist. Hood and his pals put the money into hard assets, at least giving his victims something to turn to for partial repayment: a dozen local businesses, including a sawmill (timber acreage attached), a construction company, a computer services outfit and the Blue Bird Diner. He paid $420,000 to buy the prefab structure of the now-shuttered Blue Bird through a fake owner and five banks. The final payment to its Florida manufacturer was a hand-delivered $121,000 -- in $20 bills.

Beefy, crewcut and folksy, Hood was a “lot smarter than we took him for, but not as smart as he thought he was,” says Esteban Sanchez, the assistant U.S. attorney who put the scamster behind bars. Careful not to live large, Hood tooled around Mattoon in a 1999 Lincoln but kept his 11 antique autos (a 1907 two-cylinder Metz with a buggy top, for instance) under wraps.

Hood was a master at soothing anxious investors. He taped messages for the investor service phone line that promised “. everything is going fine.” As the years wore on with no payoff, he inveighed against mysterious “enemies.” He begged for daily prayers to help “in this battle against Satan and his disciples.” Meanwhile, he said, “Keep the Lord’s warehouse full.”

In a recent episode of the HBO series SIX FEET UNDER, the youngest daughter, Claire, is waiting to take the college admissions test, the SAT. When she hears her best friend's name called, she turns around to look for her friend and is surprised to see someone else answering, "Here."

She realizes that her friend has paid another student to take the test for her. When confronted by Claire, her friend replies, "Get over yourself," and tells her that this is the way the game is played.

The audience is meant to sympathize with Claire, but, given our culture's ideas about human nature, I wonder if they do.

Evidence of widespread cheating is easy to find. Wall Street is depressed because of fears that Enron and Arthur Andersen are only tips of the iceberg. And there are admissions by several best-selling, well-respected authors that they plagiarized other peoples' work. The author of an award-winning book about gun ownership in pre-Civil War America has been accused of falsifying the data upon which the book's argument is based.

Our culture has no trouble recognizing cheating, but it does have trouble answering the question, "Why do people cheat?" National Public Radio recently put this question to Vivian Paley, a retired kindergarten teacher in Chicago.

Paley is no ordinary kindergarten teacher. She's the winner of the prestigious MacArthur Foundation "Genius" grant and the author of books about the moral and social development of children.

For Paley, competition is the serpent in our children's garden. The problem, she says, lies in the way we define success as being the best. She believes that children enter education "with the highest morality of all: give everyone the same thing."

Cheating enters the picture when this morality is replaced a by new, more competitive set of demands: "Be smart," "Be fast," "Know everything," or at least "Know more than someone else does." That's when our more cooperative and empathetic concerns are set aside in favor of the more competitive demands in life.

Given this explanation, it's easy to see why Claire's friend had someone take the SAT for her. But what Paley's explanation can't tell us is why Claire should be outraged. Her friend was simply acting in accordance with the demands placed on her by society.

Paley's worldview is widely shared by modern liberals. It excuses the individual of all moral responsibility. This idea comes straight out of writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau wrote that human instincts are good, but that it is the restraints imposed by institutions of culture that corrupt us.

This is, of course, an explicit rejection of the biblical idea of Original Sin and individual moral responsibility. People like Paley rightfully insist on the importance of teaching kids to respect rules. But their efforts are inevitably undermined, as we see all around us, because they are mistaken about why it is that people break the rules, and so they cannot apply the right restraints.

Dealing with cheating requires acknowledging that the problem of cheating, like all evil things we do, lies in ourselves -- our wrong moral choices. That's an idea that our culture learned from Christianity. In other words, the answer to dishonesty lies in getting over ourselves, but not in the way Claire's friend meant.

For further reading and information:

Listen to "Playing by the Rules," NPR, 30 April 2002.

J. Budziszewski, THE REVENGE OF CONSCIENCE: POLITICS AND THE FALL OF MAN (Spence Publishing, 2000).

Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, THE CHRISTIAN IN TODAY'S CULTURE (Tyndale House, 1999).

BreakPoint commentary no. 020205, "Do (and Believe) the Right Thing."

BreakPoint commentary no. 020111, "The Wild Lie."

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

A woman who was called to jury duty told the presiding judge that she was not qualified to serve because she did not believe in capital punishment. The judge said, "You don't understand, madam. This is a civil case involving a man who spent five thousand dollars of his wife's money on gambling and other women." To which the woman replied eagerly, "Well, in that case I'll be happy to serve on the jury, and I've changed my mind about capital punishment."

Submitted by Paul Groves

Friday August 31 7:30 PM ET

Little League Strips Bronx Team of Title

WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. (Reuters) - Bronx pitcher Danny Almonte seemed like a man among boys with his 75-mph fastballs at this year's Little League World Series, and with good reason: the Dominican-born youngster was too old to be playing.

The Dominican Republic on Friday declared the boy to be 14, two years beyond the Little League's top age limit, and warned that his father Felipe de Jesus Almonte could face criminal prosecution for filing a false birth certificate suggesting that his son was an eligible 12-year-old.

It was the first time in the 55-year history of the Little League World Series that a player has been confirmed to be ineligible because of age.

Within hours, Little League Baseball, which bills itself as the world's largest youth sports organization, said the Bronx's Rolando Paulino All-Stars would forfeit all their playoff victories, including their third-place World Series standing, which would go to a team from Curacao, Netherlands Antilles.

League officials also removed Bronx Little League founder Rolando Paulino indefinitely from the organization and banned Almonte's father from involvement in the Little League program worldwide.

NO ACTION AGAINST BOY

Officials did not take action against the boy himself but instead welcomed him to participate in a Little League program for teen-agers. League officials also let stand the charter of the local Rolando Paulino Little League as an asset to the children of the inner-city community it serves.

``Clearly, adults have used Danny Almonte and his teammates in a most contemptible and despicable way. Their actions are reprehensible,'' said Little League President Stephen Keener, who blamed Paulino and the senior Almonte for supplying the league with false documents that had claimed the boy was eligible to play.

``We are certainly sad and angry that we were deceived. In fact, millions of Little Leaguers around the world were deceived,'' added Keener, who apologized to teams that were denied a chance to play in the Little League World Series because of the deception.

The Williamsport, Pennsylvania-based Little League spent the week engulfed in speculation about Almonte's age after Sports Illustrated magazine presented it with a Dominican document suggesting the boy had been born on April 7, 1987. Rolando Paulino officials had given the Little League records showing a 1989 birth.

Earlier on Friday, Paulino himself told a news conference that he still believed in the birth certificate that showed Almonte to be 12 years old. ``If there are any parents who lied to the league, that's just not my problem,'' he said.

News of Almonte's age and the Little League's response came just days after members of the Bronx all-star team had been feted as heroes in New York. They took part in a victory parade and were compared to their Major League neighbors, the New York Yankees.

BUSH SAID DISAPPOINTED

Friday's revelation also led President Bush, who had attended the final game of the World Series to underscore the Little League's value as a medium for teaching children about sportsmanship and fair play, to express his regrets about the outcome through an aide.

``The president was disappointed to hear that,'' said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. ``Little League is Little League, and the age is up to 12.''

Almonte, who led his team as far as the U.S. championship in the world tournament that ended last Sunday, threw the first perfect game seen at a Little League World Series in 44 years before the Bronx All-Stars lost to a team from Florida.

The Little League World Series championship ultimately went to a team from Tokyo.

Not only did the Little League welcome Almonte to continue his baseball career in its more age-appropriate Senior League, officials also offered educational assistance for him amid reports that he has not been enrolled in school since he arrived in the United States more than a year ago.

On some political issues involving religion, America's youth seem to be more conservative than their elders, but cheating, stealing and lying by high school students has increased with alarming vigor, according to two separate studies.

A report by the University of California at Berkeley's Survey Research Center says 59 percent of adults ages 27 to 59 want public schools to allow prayer at official school activities such as commencements while 69 percent of teenagers support school prayer.

Thirty-four percent of adults support government restrictions of abortion, the report said, while about 44 percent of youths age 15 to 22 support such restrictions.

Forty percent of adults registered support federal aid to faith-based charities, meanwhile, while 59 percent of college-aged youth and 67 percent of younger teens support such funding.

The UC Berkeley survey, released in September, was funded by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Survey participants were asked to rank their feelings for religious conservatives on a scale from zero for "cold" to 50-100 for varying degrees of "warmth." While no age group showed a significant amount of warmth for Christian fundamentalists, 33 percent of youth gave them a score over 50 while 26 percent of adults gave them a similar rating, UC Berkeley researchers found.

"We were surprised by the greater support among young Americans for some aspects of the conservative cultural agenda," said Merrill Shanks, political science professor at UC Berkeley and one of the lead researchers for the study. "Young Americans show more conservatism on religious politics and abortion even though youths, as a group, appear to be less likely than their elders to attend religious services regularly or consider religion a guide in their daily life.

"If the youth of today maintain these positions on religious politics and abortion as the years go by," he noted, "then the American public as a whole could become more conservative on these issues."

Meanwhile, a recent report by the Josephson Institute of Ethics reports that students admitting they cheated on an exam at least once in the previous year jumped from 61 percent in 1992 to 74 percent in 2002; the number who stole something from a store within the year rose from 31 percent to 38 percent; and the percentage who admit they lied to their teachers and parents also increased significantly.

The Josephson study, released as part of the Oct. 20-26 National Character Counts Week, also indicates alarming deterioration over the past two years. Cheating rose from 71 percent in 2000 to 74 percent in 2002; theft increased from 35 percent to 38 percent; and those who said they would be willing to lie to get a good job jumped from 28 percent to 39 percent.

The survey also found that students who attend private religious schools were less likely to shoplift but more likely to cheat on exams and lie to teachers. Also, students who participate in varsity sports cheated on exams at a higher rate than students who did not play sports.

"The evidence is that a willingness to cheat has become the norm and that parents, teachers, coaches and even religious educators have not been able to stem the tide," said Michael Josephson, president of the Josephson Institute of Ethics, based in Marina del Rey, Calif. "The scary thing is that so many kids are entering the workforce to become corporate executives, politicians, airplane mechanics and nuclear inspectors with the dispositions and skills of cheaters and thieves."

Gender is the most significant differentiating factor among high school students, the Josephson report said. While girls cheat and lie as much as boys in general, they are substantially less likely to steal or engage in other dishonest practices and they have more positive attitudes toward ethics.

Participation in varsity sports did not make a difference in behavior except for the likelihood of cheating on exams. The study also found that students who attend private religious schools do not act much better than those who attend public schools. Generally, students who claimed their religion is essential or very important to them also performed on the national average.

The Josephson report is based on a survey of 12,000 high school students administered by schools throughout the nation. The Josephson Institute of Ethics is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that conducts a national survey of the ethics of American youth every two years.

The UC Berkeley study is based on telephone interviews completed during the latter half of 2001, and most occurred between late April and Sept. 10, according to a Pew Charitable Trusts news report. About 1,250 people were interviewed, a standard sample for academic research.

*

Rubber bands last longer when refrigerated. Then why doesn't the ice cream last? During this Lenten season we are always reminded of the events surrounding the last earthly days of our Lord. When Mary anointed Jesus' feet with expensive perfume, Judas complained that a better use for that amount of money would be to spend it on the poor. Then comes this often overlooked verse in John 12:6 (NLT), "Not that he cared for the poor -- he was a thief who was in charge of the disciples' funds, and he often took some for his own use."

That last phrase tells us a lot about his character. Having him as the caretaker of the funds was about as smart as having a pyrotechnic maniac for your fire chief. He probably figured that the other disciples didn't know how much money he had and wouldn't miss it.

Lest we be too hard on Judas, some folks are guilty of doing the same thing in church, like taking money out of the plate as it goes by. You say, "Nobody would be that brazen." What's the difference whether you take some out or hold back from putting in the plate what you really should. Think about it! Both are stealing from God. In Malachi 3:8 (nlt) we have these searching words, "Should people cheat God? Yet you have cheated me," But you ask, `What do you mean? When did we ever cheat you?' You have cheated me of the tithes and offerings due to me."

You say your defense is that the quote is from the Old Testament -- we aren't bound by that. Really -- that means I no longer have to pay any attention to the 10 Commandments, right? We'll just call them 10 Suggestions. We always need to be smart enough to know when God has established a principle, whether it be in the OT or in the NT.

A principle is a guide for life, and a good lifetime principle is to give to God a proper amount to further his church. Let me get personal. If every member gave the income percentage that you give, would your church survive?

University of Prince Edward Island (Canada) Professor David Weale was “dismayed” that the last class he was to ever teach before he retired after 30 years had 95 students, so he announced a “January clearance,” school administrators say. Weale said he'd give credit to anyone who dropped the class, and even award them a B-minus grade, in return for making the class more “enriching” for those who remained. About 20 students took him up on the deal.

When administrators caught wind of the offer, they said the “Weale Deal” was off, the professor was suspended, and anyone who wanted credit had better come to class. “They just want to send out this message about how strict they are about standards,” Weale complained, “when, dammit, I was the one who was fighting in that class for standards.” Weale complained about “our so-called merit-based society,” adding “It's not a good thing to think that you have to earn everything.”

The class? History of Christianity.

________

Toronto Globe and Mail

Barry Bonds is on the cusp of breaking the most revered, most hallowed record in all of sports. And outside of the hometown loyalists in San Francisco, a lot of sports fans couldn’t care less.

Oh, we see the obligatory stories about the chase for Hank Aaron in the media. We see ESPN break in to show every Bonds at-bat. We hear the talk show hosts discussing the situation on the radio.

But even baseball commissioner Bud Selig couldn’t make up his mind until recently about whether he’d be on hand when Bonds surpasses Hammerin’ Hank. The apathy shown by Selig, and by so many baseball fans, is indeed stunning.

Maybe it’s because the surly Bonds has alienated so many people by the way he behaves himself. He’s a moody man by most accounts.

Maybe it’s because everyone sees the record as a foregone conclusion. There’s certainly no suspense of “if.” Only “when.”

Or, most likely, perhaps the lack of interest stems from the fact that baseball fans see Bonds’ record as artificially enhanced and chemically aided -– and they are frustrated by the lack of justice confronting the Giants’ slugger. They are likewise sympathetic to Aaron, who played the game with integrity and deserved better than to have his most prestigious record broken by a cheater - — assuming that the steroid allegations surrounding Bonds are true.

The whole ordeal violates our sense of fairness, equity and justice. For a man who likely accomplished so much through illegal means to hold such a cherished record -– it’s simply not right.

Justice is a concept embedded within us from an early age. Listen to siblings playing together for long, and you’ll most likely hear, “That’s not fair!” Kids know full well -– and instinctively -- when they’ve been cheated, and they’re not hesitant to proclaim it to anyone who will listen. They also cling to the hope that their protests will invoke the justice of mom and dad, in the form of punishment for the offender.

This innate sense of justice is not merely an American phenomenon –- a whole “truth, justice and the American way” thing. No, it’s much broader than that. It’s a characteristic shared by all of humanity, because we all bear the imprint of our Creator, who is infinitely just. “For I, the Lord, love justice; I hate robbery and wrong,” Isaiah 61:8 tells us.

But despite the fact that our sense of justice reflects one of God’s attributes, we are not perfectly just like He is. God’s justice manifests itself in His hatred of sin. As a God of holiness, His justice demands that sin be punished. He cannot simply look the other way and shrug off sin as no big deal. He must address it and eradicate it.

We, however, conveniently manage to ignore justice when there’s something we want, and when we’re willing to cheat others to get it. Bonds is a classic example, but he’s by no means the only example.

As a nation, we’ve abandoned the concept of justice for the unborn, opting instead to reward the irresponsible with the “choice” to take innocent human life without cause. We fudge on our taxes, forcing someone else to carry a heavier load than they ought. We cheat our employers by not working as hard as we should.

Justice is a concept we’re quick to embrace, as long as it’s someone else we hope will reap the consequences. We want justice when we are the offended, yet we plead for mercy when we are the offender.

Fortunately for us, despite that fact that God is just, God is also merciful. That’s demonstrated clearly in the atoning death of Jesus Christ, where God’s justice met God’s mercy in perfect harmony. It was that act by which a holy and just God redeems fallen sinners -– a group to which we all belong.

So yes, it’s perfectly acceptable to feel angered and cheated by what Bonds is about to do. He has made a mockery of integrity and sportsmanship, and any punishment that comes his way will be too little, too late.

At the same time, Bonds is like the rest of us. As Christianity Today editor Mark Galli once wrote, “Lord, have mercy on Barry; he desperately needs it. But he’s hardly alone.”

“Monogamy, in my opinion, is a failed experiment.” That is the declaration of Noel Biderman, a Toronto businessman who wants to sell you an adulterous affair. As the current cover story of Bloomberg Businessweek reveals, Mr. Biderman is doing a great deal of business.

The magazine describes AshleyMadison.com as “the premier ‘dating’ website for aspiring adulterers.” Biderman says he came up with the idea after serving as an agent for professional athletes. That job required him to negotiate around the adulterous affairs of his clients. Biderman came to the conclusion that adultery could be big business.

Now, Ashley Madison grosses $60 million in yearly revenue and produces $20 million in annual profits. Biderman himself is making millions of dollars a year, and adultery appears to be a growth industry.

The idea behind Ashley Madison is easy enough to understand. Biderman’s plan was to create a website that would appear to cater to women seeking an adulterous partner, while actually attracting men seeking the women for an adulterous liaison. Clients of the site establish a personal profile, check off their “availability status,” and mark their personal preferences. The real money flows to the site when men connect online with women and then have to pay rather steep fees for the privilege of continuing the conversation. If all goes according to plan, adultery soon follows.

Businessweek’s reporter, Sheelah Kolhatkar, describes Noel Biderman as “a lone genius — possibly evil and certainly entrepreneurial.” He serves as chief executive officer of Avid Life Media, the parent company for Ashley Madison. He is also the married father of two young children. In his office the computer monitor flashes his company’s promotional message: “Life is short. Have an affair.”

Biderman’s wife, Amanda, seems unconcerned about both the business and her husband’s chosen role as the captain of the adultery industry. In a statement of almost complete moral evasion, she says: “Really, the business itself doesn’t match who he is as a person — it’s not our lifestyle or value system or any of that.” Well, here’s a clue: if you conceive, establish, and run the business, it is your value system. When “Life is short. Have an affair.” is your motto, adultery is “who you are as a person,” even if you never have an actual affair.

She went on: “I mean, yeah, I’d love it if he were working on a cure for cancer. But it’s a business, and that’s how we look at it.”

The same could be said for a house of prostitution, of course, and at least some observers suggest that prostitution is basically what Ashley Madison is all about. After all, though almost all of the men registered at the site are married, about 20 percent of the women are not.

Interestingly, since adultery has now been transformed into a major business, certain metrics become available. Reporter Sheelah Kolhatkar explains that 20-40 percent of heterosexual married men and 20-25 percent of heterosexual married women will have an affair during their lifetime. She cites University of New Hampshire economist Bruce Elmslie, who claims that men and women commit adultery at about the same rates until the ages of 35 or 40. After that, women are more reluctant to have an affair, and the men surge on.

Biderman explains that women are most likely to have an affair in the workplace with a “work husband” or with the husband of a friend. Men commit adultery under a far wider range of circumstances. Ashley Madison is “drowning in husbands,” Biderman reports.

Biderman launched the site in 2010, but he founded the company back in 2002. He named it Ashley Madison by combining the two most popular names for baby girls that year. He claims just to be meeting a need and rejects the idea that he is actually expanding the numbers of affairs. Nevertheless, anthropologist Helen Fisher accuses Biderman of “preying on human frailty.”

At least in economic terms, Biderman’s idea is paying handsomely. Ashley Madison has already made him a millionaire several times over. David Evans, publisher of Online Dating Insider, remarked that Biderman and his company “certainly own that cheaters’ market.” He added, “It’s quite lucrative and successful.”

Amazingly enough, Biderman actually complains that his business is the target of discrimination. After all, Fox turned down his proposed Super Bowl commercial. As a matter of fact, Biderman seems to complain rather constantly about the opposition his company engenders. On the other hand, some suspect that he is also fueling the opposition, stirring up his own publicity.

Sheelah Kolhatkar describes the company in these terms:

What Ashley Madison does is legal. It’s also illicit, in that it helps users violate their marriage vows and engage in deception and secrecy. This presents enormous branding challenges as well as financial ones: How many fund managers want to go home to their wives and announce, “Honey, I found the perfect investment opportunity!”

It is hard to imagine how this company and its founder would not face “enormous branding challenges.” With understatement, Kolhatkar expresses the obvious: “He is running a budding empire built on an activity that most people would say is wrong.”

That last statement is revealing in more than one sense. It does seem that most people believe that adultery is wrong. Even so, it is rampant. It seems that many human beings will abandon their moral principles when faced with the opportunity to commit adultery. Ashley Madison exists to create even more of those opportunities.

It undoubtedly says a great deal that Bloomberg Businessweek chose this topic for its Valentine’s Day cover story. Why did they run a cover article on a man who declares, “Monogamy, in my opinion, is a failed experiment”? Does this represent the magazine’s agreement with Mrs. Biderman when she says, “ ... it’s a business, and that’s how we look at it”?

________

Sheelah Kolhatkar, “Cheating, Incorporated.” Bloomberg Businessweek, February 10, 2011. [Warning, the article contains sexually explicit language.]

“A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favor rather than silver and gold.” (Proverbs 22:1)

A person with a good name is a person of character with a good reputation. A strong reputation will get you more opportunities than money will - and that’s saying something! And when you choose riches over character, the results can be devastating.

Case Study: The firm of Arthur Andersen was founded in 1913. Andersen was known for an unwavering faith in education as the basis upon which the new profession of accounting should be developed. He was a generous man of good reputation who headed the firm until his death in 1947. He once refused to sign off on flawed accounts of a local rail utility even, “...for all the money in America.” Andersen’s motto was “Think straight, talk straight” and everyone knew his reputation.

With that impeccable reputation, Andersen became the largest business consulting corporation in the world. Then something happened. Their reputation was severely damaged due to their conviction for obstruction of justice in the shredding of documents relating to the Enron scandal. Though the conviction was overturned on technical grounds, this once-mighty firm with 85,000 employees worldwide was quickly whittled down to some 200 employees based primarily in Chicago.

Moral of the story: Always choose a good name over riches. It’s worth far more!

________

© Copyright - WorkLife, Inc.

“If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. … For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sister, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:39-42, 46-48)

In this passage Jesus focuses on generosity — a willingness to give the shirt off our back. It is about the hours and days we spend in the world among people who have no idea who and what Jesus is about, and the generosity they see in our hearts.

Tex Sample has this great story about a man in his hometown that he greatly admired. Tom T. Burns was a successful businessman, personable, funny, and engaging. At fifteen, Tex wanted to be just like this man when he grew up. So you can imagine Tex’s excitement the day Tom asked him if he wanted to ride along as he took care of some business.

“I’ve got to go across town and make this payment on a life insurance policy. It will be good for you to see how business is done,” he informed Tex. They drove across town, Tex sitting up in front seat with him, proud to be seen riding along with Tom T. Burns. It was a few turns before Tex realized they were headed for the “quarters” ... that part of town where “the colored people” lived. They pulled up in front of a row of shotgun houses. Tom motioned for Tex to come with him as he climbed out of the car.

Tex knew he was going into the home of colored people for the first time in his life, but he was not prepared for what he was about to find in that home. There were black people sitting along three walls of a small room in the house. On one wall set a casket, with the man in the casket’s wife sitting in a folding chair at the foot of the casket.

Tom Burns walked over to this woman, shook her hand and said, “I am sure sorry about your husband, Auntie, you have my real sympathy.” He motioned for Tex to come over and shake her hand, which he did in a formal manner, bending at his hips and bowing. Then not knowing what else to do he just stood there in the center of the room while Tom continued to talk to Auntie.

“Auntie, I know this must be a hard time for you. These things are so hard.”

“Yessir, Mr. Burns, it is a mighty bad time. We had been married forty-six years this past May.”

“Well, Auntie, I’m here to help you out in this bad time. I’ve got your husband’s insurance money with me in cash. That will help you out a whole lot.” With that he pulled $600 in ten and twenty dollar bills out of his pocket. It looked huge and was more than likely more money than the people in that room had ever seen.

“Yessir, it will; we do have a lot of bills.”

“Auntie, do you remember that your husband did not want to buy this life insurance? You remember he thought he didn’t need it.”

“Yessir, Mr. Burns, I do remember that.”

“I’ll bet you are glad he bought that insurance now.”

“Yessir, I am.”

“Well, Auntie, I have something here that will help you and your family now. I have here with me a life insurance policy on you that can be paid in full for just $300. That will leave you the other half to pay for his funeral and help you with your bills.”

“Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Burns, but we really needs that money.”

“Now Auntie, that’s just what your husband said when I first tried to sell him this insurance policy. But you are awfully glad now that I did aren’t you.”

“Yessir, I am, but Mr. Burns we really needs that money.”

“Auntie, I have the cash right here. I have a receipt here that you can sign for the money, and I have a new policy right here. All you have to do is make your mark on these two pages and you are all fixed up.”

“Mr. Burns, I know you tryin’ to help and I appreciate that, but we just really need that money.

Mr. Burns raised his voice and spoke with an edge to it. “Auntie, I am here to help you, and I don’t think you understand what we’re doing here. I said you should buy this new insurance policy paid in full. Do you understand what I’m saying?”

“Yessir, Mr. Burns, give me the papers.” He handed her first the new contract. She turned and places the paper on the foot of her husband’s casket and signed her X. The scratching of that X sounded like a muffled scream. Tom Burns then counted out $300 in twenties on the foot of the casket. The faces around the room looked straight ahead as Tex watched the biting contradiction of her signing away her husband’s legacy on his casket. It was not mere thievery but an amputation of his last gift to her.

Tex Sample knew at the age of fifteen that what he observed was wrong. He says it was for him a mystical experience. The room took on darkness. The lights in the room did not change, but there was a void of light. A void of deep relatedness was felt. It was as if he could feel the people in the room on his skin and moral demands took on an embodied tangible cast.

Back in the car, Tex said, “Mr. Burns, that was wrong. That just ain’t right.”

“Boy, you just don’t understand business.”

“She needed that money.”

“That ole nigger woman would have just thrown that extra money away.”

Tex Sample wondered if that woman had ever wasted anything in her entire life. She was more than likely a domestic working for a white family scraping every cent together to buy food and survive.

Now, I ask you. Who in this story had their heart so aligned to the heart of God that it could be purified and intertwined with Christ? The lack of generosity in his heart certainly shows it was not Tom T. Burns. I do not care how many Sundays he shows up at church. He might be willing to give the shirt off his back for a dear friend – but not for an old African American woman who has just lost her husband and is obviously living in poverty. Tom T. Burns only left a void of condemnation and an expanse of morally wrong doings forcing actual needs to go unanswered and unmet. [1]

Jesus doesn’t say that out in the world that we are to just help the people we know or love. Not only are we to not have lust in our hearts or hatred in our souls, we are to give to those who hate us, the shirt off our back. “If an evil doer wants your coat, give your cloak as well.” Auntie may well have gone without a coat that winter — but she did not resist evil with evil. She turned the other check and signed that dammed insurance policy.

Of course, she, more than likely got the drift that she had little choice in the matter. She more than likely had to do what he said — for this was before the Civil Rights movement. Maybe she did not have much choice in the matter, but that teenager who observed her knew who in the room wore the heart of Christ. And who the evangelist was that gave it to him.

Jesus’ focus on generosity — a willingness to give the shirt off our back, is about the hours and days we spend in the world among people who have no idea who and what Jesus is about, and the generosity they see in our hearts when we embrace the enemy — even the Tom T. Burns.

________

[1] Tex Sample, Earthy Mysticism, pp. 21-27.

Charles Swindoll in "Growing Deep in the Christian Life," writes about a man who bought fried chicken dinners for himself and his date late one afternoon. The attendant at the fast food outlet, however, inadvertently gave him the proceeds from the day's business - a bag of money (much of it cash) instead of fried chicken.

"After driving to their picnic site," Swindoll writes, "the two of them sat down to enjoy some chicken. They discovered a whole lot more than chicken - over $800! But he was unusual. He quickly put the money back into the car and drove all the way back. Mr. Clean got out, walked in, and became an instant hero.

"By then, the manager was frantic. The guy with the bag of money looked the manager in the eye and said, 'I want you to know I came by to get a couple of chicken dinners and wound up with all this money here.'

"Well, the manager was thrilled to death. He said, 'Let me call the newspaper. I'm gonna have your picture put in the local newspaper. You're one of the most honest men I've ever heard of.'

"To which the man quickly responded, 'Oh, no. No, no don't do that!' Then he leaned closer and whispered, 'You see, the woman I'm with is not my wife. She's, uh, somebody else's wife.'"

Harder to find than lost cash is a perfect heart.

Four high school boys were late to their morning classes one day. They entered the classroom and solemnly told their teacher they were detained due to a flat tire. The sympathetic teacher smiled and told them it was too bad they were late because they had missed a test that morning. But she was willing to let them make it up. She gave them each a piece of paper and a pencil and sent them to four corners of the room. Then she told them they would pass if they could answer just one question:

Which tire was flat?

-- Paul Harvey

This story, told by Paul Harvey illustrates in a humorous way a facet of our behavior which is not at all funny to God. It has been said, "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."

---------------------------------------------------

Another version, from Rev. Dick Lewis:

At Duke University, there were four sophomores taking Organic Chemistry.

They did so well on all the quizzes, midterms and labs, etc., that each had, up to that point, an "A" for the semester. These four friends were so confident, that the weekend before finals they decided to go up to University of Virginia and party with some friends up there. They had a great time; however, after all the hardy partying, they slept all day Sunday and didn't make it back to Duke until early Monday morning. Rather than taking the final then, they decided to find their professor after the final and explain to him why they missed it.

They explained that they had gone to UVA for the weekend with the plan to come to study, but unfortunately, they had a flat tire on the way back. To make matters worse, they didn't have a spare and couldn't get help for a long time. As a result, they missed the final.

The Professor thought it over and then agreed they could make up the final the following day. The guys were elated and relieved. They studied that night and went in the next day at the time the professor had told them. He placed them in separate rooms, handed each of them a test booklet, and told them to begin. They looked at the first problem, worth 5 points, something simple about free radical formation. "Cool," they thought at the same time, each one in his separate room, "this is going to be easy." Each finished the problem and then turned the page.

On the second page was written: (For 95 points): Which tire?

#4409

*

Rob Mouw played on the soccer team in his senior year at Wheaton Christian High School. In the final seconds of a big game against favored Waubonsie Valley, with his team behind by one goal, Rob was dribbling the ball in front of him, running at full speed toward the opponent’s goal. Just before he shot the ball, though, he caught sight of the scoreboard. The clock read 00.00. But like any good athlete, Rob shot the ball anyway and it went in. The referee signaled that the goal counted, and the game finished in a tie. Rob had a choice to make. He could say nothing and avoid a loss. After all, it was the referee’s job to decide the calls, not his. Or Rob could do what was right. Rob asked the referee whether the official time was kept on the scoreboard or the referee’s stopwatch. The referee said the scoreboard time was official and then ran off the field.

Rob went to his coaches and explained that just before his kick, he had seen zeros on the scoreboard clock. Since he hadn’t heard a whistle, he kept playing. But his goal was late, and he didn’t think it should count. His coaches agreed, and so they went over to the opposing coaches, explained what had happened, and conceded victory to Waubonsie Valley. Listen to what this young man of integrity said after the incident: “Every time in your life you have an opportunity to do right, you should be thankful. For a person to know what right is, and then not to do it — that would be a sin. To have won the game — I mean, really, who cares? Doing the right thing is more important. It lets you have peace.” But that wasn’t the end of the story.

Sometime later Rob received a handwritten letter from a total stranger that said,

“Dear Rob, I read the newspaper story about you. I love sports

and true sportsmen. My faith in our future was renewed and

lifted by the story. Never lose your principles. Always stand

for what’s decent and right. That’s what you told us all when

you refused the victory at that game.”

The letter was signed by former President George Bush.

You know, when we do what’s right — it sometimes gets the attention and approval of the newspaper and even U.S. presidents. It always gets the attention and approval of God. Jerry White reminds us that: Ethics to the government is law. Ethics to the philosopher is a concept. Ethics to religion is morality. But ethics to God is OBEDIENCE.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #2103]

“If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. … For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sister, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:39-42, 46-48)

In this passage Jesus focuses on generosity — a willingness to give the shirt off our back. It is about the hours and days we spend in the world among people who have no idea who and what Jesus is about, and the generosity they see in our hearts.

Tex Sample has this great story about a man in his hometown that he greatly admired. Tom T. Burns was a successful businessman, personable, funny, and engaging. At fifteen, Tex wanted to be just like this man when he grew up. So you can imagine Tex’s excitement the day Tom asked him if he wanted to ride along as he took care of some business.

“I’ve got to go across town and make this payment on a life insurance policy. It will be good for you to see how business is done,” he informed Tex. They drove across town, Tex sitting up in front seat with him, proud to be seen riding along with Tom T. Burns. It was a few turns before Tex realized they were headed for the “quarters” ... that part of town where “the colored people” lived. They pulled up in front of a row of shotgun houses. Tom motioned for Tex to come with him as he climbed out of the car.

Tex knew he was going into the home of colored people for the first time in his life, but he was not prepared for what he was about to find in that home. There were black people sitting along three walls of a small room in the house. On one wall set a casket, with the man in the casket’s wife sitting in a folding chair at the foot of the casket.

Tom Burns walked over to this woman, shook her hand and said, “I am sure sorry about your husband, Auntie, you have my real sympathy.” He motioned for Tex to come over and shake her hand, which he did in a formal manner, bending at his hips and bowing. Then not knowing what else to do he just stood there in the center of the room while Tom continued to talk to Auntie.

“Auntie, I know this must be a hard time for you. These things are so hard.”

“Yessir, Mr. Burns, it is a mighty bad time. We had been married forty-six years this past May.”

“Well, Auntie, I’m here to help you out in this bad time. I’ve got your husband’s insurance money with me in cash. That will help you out a whole lot.” With that he pulled $600 in ten and twenty dollar bills out of his pocket. It looked huge and was more than likely more money than the people in that room had ever seen.

“Yessir, it will; we do have a lot of bills.”

“Auntie, do you remember that your husband did not want to buy this life insurance? You remember he thought he didn’t need it.”

“Yessir, Mr. Burns, I do remember that.”

“I’ll bet you are glad he bought that insurance now.”

“Yessir, I am.”

“Well, Auntie, I have something here that will help you and your family now. I have here with me a life insurance policy on you that can be paid in full for just $300. That will leave you the other half to pay for his funeral and help you with your bills.”

“Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Burns, but we really needs that money.”

“Now Auntie, that’s just what your husband said when I first tried to sell him this insurance policy. But you are awfully glad now that I did aren’t you.”

“Yessir, I am, but Mr. Burns we really needs that money.”

“Auntie, I have the cash right here. I have a receipt here that you can sign for the money, and I have a new policy right here. All you have to do is make your mark on these two pages and you are all fixed up.”

“Mr. Burns, I know you tryin’ to help and I appreciate that, but we just really need that money.

Mr. Burns raised his voice and spoke with an edge to it. “Auntie, I am here to help you, and I don’t think you understand what we’re doing here. I said you should buy this new insurance policy paid in full. Do you understand what I’m saying?”

“Yessir, Mr. Burns, give me the papers.” He handed her first the new contract. She turned and places the paper on the foot of her husband’s casket and signed her X. The scratching of that X sounded like a muffled scream. Tom Burns then counted out $300 in twenties on the foot of the casket. The faces around the room looked straight ahead as Tex watched the biting contradiction of her signing away her husband’s legacy on his casket. It was not mere thievery but an amputation of his last gift to her.

Tex Sample knew at the age of fifteen that what he observed was wrong. He says it was for him a mystical experience. The room took on darkness. The lights in the room did not change, but there was a void of light. A void of deep relatedness was felt. It was as if he could feel the people in the room on his skin and moral demands took on an embodied tangible cast.

Back in the car, Tex said, “Mr. Burns, that was wrong. That just ain’t right.”

“Boy, you just don’t understand business.”

“She needed that money.”

“That ole nigger woman would have just thrown that extra money away.”

Tex Sample wondered if that woman had ever wasted anything in her entire life. She was more than likely a domestic working for a white family scraping every cent together to buy food and survive.

Now, I ask you. Who in this story had their heart so aligned to the heart of God that it could be purified and intertwined with Christ? The lack of generosity in his heart certainly shows it was not Tom T. Burns. I do not care how many Sundays he shows up at church. He might be willing to give the shirt off his back for a dear friend – but not for an old African American woman who has just lost her husband and is obviously living in poverty. Tom T. Burns only left a void of condemnation and an expanse of morally wrong doings forcing actual needs to go unanswered and unmet. [1]

Jesus doesn’t say that out in the world that we are to just help the people we know or love. Not only are we to not have lust in our hearts or hatred in our souls, we are to give to those who hate us, the shirt off our back. “If an evil doer wants your coat, give your cloak as well.” Auntie may well have gone without a coat that winter — but she did not resist evil with evil. She turned the other check and signed that dammed insurance policy.

Of course, she, more than likely got the drift that she had little choice in the matter. She more than likely had to do what he said — for this was before the Civil Rights movement. Maybe she did not have much choice in the matter, but that teenager who observed her knew who in the room wore the heart of Christ. And who the evangelist was that gave it to him.

Jesus’ focus on generosity — a willingness to give the shirt off our back, is about the hours and days we spend in the world among people who have no idea who and what Jesus is about, and the generosity they see in our hearts when we embrace the enemy — even the Tom T. Burns.

________

[1] Tex Sample, Earthy Mysticism, pp. 21-27.

Sermon in Parables series. Luke 16:1-13

CONNING YOUR WAY INTO HEAVEN

============================

I. The "perfect" crime.

II. Summary of the parable of the Dishonest Manager.

III. Two main interpretations.

A. What manager does is kosher and legal.

1) He is cutting interest on loans.

2) Variation: manager is cutting his own commissions.

3) Problems: too complicated, cuts his own throat.

B. What the manager does is crooked. (Traditional view)

1) He is cheating the owner.

2) Problem: why would landowner (or Jesus!) commend stealing?

3) Main point: act shrewdly because a catastrophe is coming.

IV. What Jesus does with the parable. 16:9-13

A. Lie, cheat and buy your way into heaven? 16:9

B. Our use of money shows our spiritual priorities. 16:11

C. Our use of money shows where our true loyalty lies. 16:13

V. What would YOU do if your firing was imminent?

A. Most of us can relate to stories of financial catastrophe.

B. What about spiritual catastrophe?

1) Every single one of us faces a decision for Jesus, or

2) To decide for him, priorities in our lives must change.

3) Where do you stand with Jesus? #2116

*

Rob Mouw played on the soccer team in his senior year at Wheaton Christian High School. In the final seconds of a big game against favored Waubonsie Valley, with his team behind by one goal, Rob was dribbling the ball in front of him, running at full speed toward the opponent’s goal. Just before he shot the ball, though, he caught sight of the scoreboard. The clock read 00.00. But like any good athlete, Rob shot the ball anyway and it went in. The referee signaled that the goal counted, and the game finished in a tie. Rob had a choice to make. He could say nothing and avoid a loss. After all, it was the referee’s job to decide the calls, not his. Or Rob could do what was right. Rob asked the referee whether the official time was kept on the scoreboard or the referee’s stopwatch. The referee said the scoreboard time was official and then ran off the field.

Rob went to his coaches and explained that just before his kick, he had seen zeros on the scoreboard clock. Since he hadn’t heard a whistle, he kept playing. But his goal was late, and he didn’t think it should count. His coaches agreed, and so they went over to the opposing coaches, explained what had happened, and conceded victory to Waubonsie Valley. Listen to what this young man of integrity said after the incident: “Every time in your life you have an opportunity to do right, you should be thankful. For a person to know what right is, and then not to do it — that would be a sin. To have won the game — I mean, really, who cares? Doing the right thing is more important. It lets you have peace.” But that wasn’t the end of the story.

Sometime later Rob received a handwritten letter from a total stranger that said,

“Dear Rob, I read the newspaper story about you. I love sports

and true sportsmen. My faith in our future was renewed and

lifted by the story. Never lose your principles. Always stand

for what’s decent and right. That’s what you told us all when

you refused the victory at that game.”

The letter was signed by former President George Bush.

You know, when we do what’s right — it sometimes gets the attention and approval of the newspaper and even U.S. presidents. It always gets the attention and approval of God. Jerry White reminds us that: Ethics to the government is law. Ethics to the philosopher is a concept. Ethics to religion is morality. But ethics to God is OBEDIENCE.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #2103]

A cautionary tale of how bunkum artists exploit true believers.

When swindler Clyde D. Hood went prospecting for investors, he boasted that he had something fancy that Wall Streeters didn’t: a hot line to the divine. Hood, whose pedigree included work as a pool hall manager, claimed the “Supreme Commander” had ordered him to launch a “Christian program” to help “the little people.” While he didn’t mention the pool hall, he said he’d made a pile turning big profits for corporate clients trading something called “foreign bank debentures” offshore.

Every hundred bucks invested with Hood’s Omega Trust & Trading would generate a 51-fold return in 275 days. Roll the stake over and your $100 would beget $225,000 (the arithmetic was off a bit). This joint venture of God and mammon began in 1994 and went on for six years before secular authorities rose up and smote it. By that point Hood and his Omega cronies in Mattoon, Ill. had relieved their believers -- 10,000 victims from as far afield as Australia and China -- of $20 million.

It’s an old and sad story: Investors let down their guard when they get a pitch from a self-proclaimed fellow follower of God. With help from the Internet, religious-based scams hauled in $1 billion last year, estimates Joseph Borg, president of the North American Securities Administrators Association.

In 1983 churchgoing farmers in Washington State lost $60 million to a commodities trading scam perpetrated by one Kenneth Oxborrow, who touted his Christian bona fides and displayed a crucifix on his office wall. More recently the Baptist Foundation of Arizona collapsed amid state allegations of fraud involving a real estate scheme that ensnared 13,000 people and bagged $590 million. Its auditor, Arthur Andersen, took a pre-Enron public pasting from this mess.

The Omega case came to its inglorious conclusion in January when Hood, 68, was sentenced to 14 years on federal charges of fraud and money laundering. Pleading guilty to, or convicted on, similar charges was a passel of 18 henchmen from Mattoon (pop. 18,500), a farm and factory town.

His pals weren’t creepy grifter types with slicked-back hair and pencil-thin moustaches but righteous citizens all -- including a former police officer, a deputy sheriff, a lawyer, a minister. They got a piece of the action for running Hood’s database and manning his phone lines, where they kept track of victims sedated by down-home talk about Jesus and those miraculous bank debentures.

Where did the Omega bunch park its ill-gotten gains? Not in those wonderful debentures, which didn’t exist. Hood and his pals put the money into hard assets, at least giving his victims something to turn to for partial repayment: a dozen local businesses, including a sawmill (timber acreage attached), a construction company, a computer services outfit and the Blue Bird Diner. He paid $420,000 to buy the prefab structure of the now-shuttered Blue Bird through a fake owner and five banks. The final payment to its Florida manufacturer was a hand-delivered $121,000 -- in $20 bills.

Beefy, crewcut and folksy, Hood was a “lot smarter than we took him for, but not as smart as he thought he was,” says Esteban Sanchez, the assistant U.S. attorney who put the scamster behind bars. Careful not to live large, Hood tooled around Mattoon in a 1999 Lincoln but kept his 11 antique autos (a 1907 two-cylinder Metz with a buggy top, for instance) under wraps.

Hood was a master at soothing anxious investors. He taped messages for the investor service phone line that promised “. everything is going fine.” As the years wore on with no payoff, he inveighed against mysterious “enemies.” He begged for daily prayers to help “in this battle against Satan and his disciples.” Meanwhile, he said, “Keep the Lord’s warehouse full.”