"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
I began thinking about this issue recently and engaged in a debate with a few other believers. Since I think this is an important issue for these times I decided to post the results of the debate. I really do not think that my position was challenged enough. Furthermore, I did not find that others were really willing to engage the Scriptures in this discussion. It is somewhat odd that those conservatives who claim to venerate the Scriptures to such a degree that “inerrancy” becomes the mark of orthodoxy will not even weigh-in on what the Scripture says about this issue. And I am not just speaking about seminary students either.
I recently perused the text books required for my seminary’s ethics classes. Law suits among believers is not even mentioned, let alone defended. Furthermore, I perused the text book my wife used when she took ethics at Southern Seminary. The absence of this issue at Southern appears to be the same.
Now there are two possible reasons for this absence of dialogue on this issue. Both of which are not mutually exclusive.
First, it may be that this issue is such that all discussion has been resolved among evangelical conservatives and no one thinks that further debate is necessary. Discussion on abortion, euthanasia, birth control, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage needs to be discussed.
Of course, in the text book from Southern, the issue of alcohol is not mentioned either. Now most Southern Baptists decry the use of alcohol even while the Bible is completely okay with its consumption. This is an issue in which the God-breathed, inerrant, infallible, “Word of God” is completely okay with something but Southern Baptists seem to feel that the Biblical mandate is not “sufficient” in this area, so they create their own mandate. Interesting. [Editorial Note: the author of Panis Circenses is not currently imbibing alcoholic beverages as the Bible says while he is in seminary.]
After considering the issue of alcohol and the way conservatives ban something that is Scripturally okay, is it not then possible that they would okay something that is Scripturally banned? Why would they do this?
Well, the reason alcohol is banned despite its Scriptural affirmation is because of cultural reasons. Alcohol is not affirmed in our culture so the believers in our culture give the issue a pass. Now lawsuits are culturally encouraged in our culture. Think about it. How often do you hear a sermon against lawsuits? Well, we often hear about the evils of the ACLU suing a Christian group or a state entity over a religious matter. How often do you hear a conservative pastor preach against a Christian group suing another Christian group?
This is the second reason. We as Americans have become such a lawsuit culture that Christians, especially the conservative evangelical kind, do not believe they can properly function in our society without suing. We hear great expositions of passages about the incipient immorality of our culture, usually of the sexual kind, and we hear about Paul’s condemnation of sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6 but we never hear any sermons on what Paul sandwiched in between these discussions: lawsuits. It appears that Paul saw lawsuits in the same context as sexual immorality. So when you hear a well-known conservative Christian leader speak against sexual immorality and how we have to sue others to keep sexual immorality at bay, then think of “plank eye”.
Yes, it appears that it is too hard not to sue in America today. When a Christian college or agency won’t do as we wish, instead of leaving them to God, we spurn the Scriptures in order to get our way. Yes, we will break the Scriptures in order to save them.
Yes, I do not think that we as evangelical Christians are discussing this issue in any way because lawsuits have become our modus operandi of getting our way. We’d rather be successful than Scriptural. We will only take up the cross if we exhaust all legal options first. We’d rather sue the Kingdom of God into reality. The legally successful will inherit the earth.
Am I wrong on this?
Here is what Paul says:
1 Cor 6:1-8 (KJV) Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.
Here is what Jesus says:
Mat 5:40 (KJV) And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.
I have tended to interpret these verses at "face value" and believed that believers should not sue other believers but, rather, should take their grievances to the church. If a believer is being sued by another believer (or by anyone for that matter) he should not "fight" back; he should leave the situation up to God.
I read in the Baptist news about state conventions suing Baptist state colleges and Christian groups suing the ACLU and each other over "evolution" and "school prayer."
I was interested in seeing some comments and alternative interpretations of these Scripture verses.
Panis 1:
The case of State Conventions suing Baptist State Colleges has occurred in recent months in Georgia and Missouri.
Here's why some think it's permissible:
These organizations are incorporated under State Law. If they violate any state code in the way they do business who will call them to task if not State Conventions or member churches or messengers of the convention?
Circenses:
These organizations are incorporated under State Law. If they violate any state code in the way they do business who will call them to task if not State Conventions or member churches or messengers of the convention?
I understand that they are accountable to no one but the conventions (et al) ... and God. But should the Christian conventions bring sue the Christian colleges? Or should they either assert their accountabiltiy perogative a different (more Biblical?) way or let God take care of them?
I would respond to those you make the assertion that suing is permissable when there isn't outside accountability that such scenarios do not negate Scriptural prohibitions. The question then is whether or not suing other Christians (or other Christian institutions) is prohibited by Scripture.
Panis 1:
Do you not subject yourself to State Law when you incorporate a religious organization?
I think YES. And if you do then you must follow the state's prescribed legal system for resolving legal matters.
In the Missouri Case the Missouri State Convention was open for Christian Arbitration but the agencies refused. In fact the trustees acted like they didn't even know what Christian Arbitration was.
Panis 2:
If someone, Christian or not, wrongs me, and the wrong is not righted via all civil methods in an equitable manner, then I will indeed seek remedies via the civil court system. To refrain from doing so will do one of two things:
1 - It will send the message that Christians are patsies and will allow you to walk all over them, and
2 - It will send the message that Christians who wrong other Christians are exempt from being held accountable for their actions legally.
If you're a Christian, and accidentally run your car through my living room window costing $2000 to repair, and you refuse to pay for it, you bet I'm going to sue you for damages. OTOH, if I run my car through another person's window, not only will I pay for your window, but I will probably give you a few extra bucks just for your trouble. Keep in mind that, like most people, I don't have that much money lying around.
Panis 3:
Speaking as a Missouri Baptist, people should know that the agencies involved were instituted, funded, and supported by the Missouri Baptist Convention from their very beginnings. In effect, although God owns all things, the MBC exercized the temporal rights of ownership.
Soon after the beginnings of the conservative takeover in the SBC, there came a point at which each of the agencies "hijacked" themselves (quite illegally, I assure you) from the control of the MBC. This is (as of two years ago) a total of 231 million dollars in material assets, put in place by God through the tithes and offerings of members of the Missouri Baptist Convention.
What else is there to do? Should we just release control of these godly institutions so they can pursue their more liberal agenda? Or do we take steps necessary to restore them back to their rightful stewards - the Missouri Baptist Convention?
Either way, in the eyes of both Christian and secular society, we come out as losers. It's a difficult situation to be sure. For my part, I believe the MBC is doing the right thing in our efforts to restore these agencies to the MBC.
Most people are stuck on the idea of suing, as if anyone is going to profit from this. The MBC, however, is suing to regain control over assets that we already legally own. There's a big difference.
Circenses:
Our attorney won't take a case to court if he knows the two parties involved are Christians. He advises them to take it to their deacon boards. But that has to do with individuals. When you are dealing with business entities, even "Christian" ones, things must be dealt with legally, in order to be valid in the world's reckoning. Besides, not everyone working for a "Christian" legal entity is necessarily a born-again Christian.
Well, whose reckoning are we more concerned about? the world’s or God’s? I understand what you are saying, though; but if I thought the Scriptures allowed for such a process, I would not mind lawsuits among Christian entities. I am just not sure the Scriptures allow lawsuits among any believers, even believing institutions. If we admit that the Scriptures do not allow individual believers to sue individual believers, is not a group of believers suing another group of believers just as bad or worse.
True, not everyone working for a Christian legal entity is a believer. But we do not know men’s hearts. If they have made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ we have to treat them as such.
With regards to the world, Paul appears to admonish believers from going to court because of unbelievers (1 Cor 6:6)
Do you not subject yourself to State Law when you incorporate a religious organization?
I think YES. And if you do then you must follow the state's prescribed legal system for resolving legal matters.
In the Missouri Case the Missouri State Convention was open for Christian Arbitration but the agencies refused. In fact the trustees acted like they didn't even know what Christian Arbitration was.
If a Christian group or any individual believer is breaking a state law then I think notifying secular authorities is fine. I think that falls under Romans 13.
But if the group is not breaking a state law and secular authorities do not get involved then I do not think we are only left with the option of a lawsuit. I think there are always other options. That is, if suing a Christian group is prohibited by Scripture.
If someone, Christian or not, wrongs me, and the wrong is not righted via all civil methods in an equitable manner, then I will indeed seek remedies via the civil court system. To refrain from doing so will do one of two things:
1 - It will send the message that Christians are patsies and will allow you to walk all over them, and
2 - It will send the message that Christians who wrong other Christians are exempt from being held accountable for their actions legally.
Well, we have to respond in a Christ-like manner. I look at Matt. 5:38-48 and cannot see how lawsuits agree with Christ’s teachings. I am not saying that this is easy or fair (it takes a lot of faith in God to refrain from such actions) but I do think we as believers are called to this high standard.
Speaking as a Missouri Baptist, people should know that the agencies involved were instituted, funded, and supported by the Missouri Baptist Convention from their very beginnings. In effect, although God owns all things, the MBC exercized the temporal rights of ownership.
Soon after the beginnings of the conservative takeover in the SBC, there came a point at which each of the agencies "hijacked" themselves (quite illegally, I assure you) from the control of the MBC. This is (as of two years ago) a total of 231 million dollars in material assets, put in place by God through the tithes and offerings of members of the Missouri Baptist Convention.
What else is there to do? Should we just release control of these godly institutions so they can pursue their more liberal agenda? Or do we take steps necessary to restore them back to their rightful stewards - the Missouri Baptist Convention?
Either way, in the eyes of both Christian and secular society, we come out as losers. It's a difficult situation to be sure. For my part, I believe the MBC is doing the right thing in our efforts to restore these agencies to the MBC.
Most people are stuck on the idea of suing, as if anyone is going to profit from this. The MBC, however, is suing to regain control over assets that we already legally own. There's a big difference.
If these institutions are breaking state laws then notify the state. If they are not breaking state laws or the state will not intervene, then I can’t see how one can Scriptural take them to the state courts.
Releasing the institutions is an option. There may be other options. But just because others harm us or don’t play fair do we then have the right to violate Scriptural prohibitions, if that is the case.
We cannot base our Christian duty on what the world or other believers think; we have to do what the Scriptures tell us.
Whether or not one group profits or even whether one group is in the right seems to be beyond the point. We can’t break Scriptural mandates just because we are a part of the right cause. That’s the end justifying the means. I go back to Matt. 5:38-48.
Before I am willing to change my position on this issue I think I will need to see Scriptural rather than anecdotal arguments.
Panis 1:
How about "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's"
If you obligate your church or religious institution with the laws of Caesar by incorporating your entity then you are bound by law and by God's Word to Obey the King.
Why do you think Paul appealed to Caesar? He obviously did not mind asserting his legal rights when it was necessary.
Circenses:
How about "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's"
If you obligate your church or religious institution with the laws of Caesar by incorporating your entity then you are bound by law and by God's Word to Obey the King.
Why do you think Paul appealed to Caesar? He obviously did not mind asserting his legal rights when it was necessary.
Jesus’ command to “render unto Caesar” neither supersedes nor negates other Scriptural commands. Submitting to secular authorities does not give us the obligation to do as the state says when the state asks us to violate other Scriptural commands. For instance, the state cannot make us stop witnessing. If the state ordered us to cease witnessing, we would not submit because we do not believe that the state is correct. So there are circumstances when we do not “render unto Caesar”, i.e., when “Caesar” orders us to break the commands of God.
“Appealing to Caesar”, or appealing to the government, is one thing; suing another believer is a far different matter. Again, if we think that a Christian or Christian group is violating state law then I think we can appeal to the state. But if no state law is being broken then we do not have the Scriptural mandate to break Paul’s command to not sue.
As usual, I find myself in agreement with your position. I think it would violate scriptural mandates on good stewardship to simply allow these things to happen without challenge.
I would not assert that those who are upset about the situation in the MBC allow unscriptural behaviour to continue. If you feel that something needs to be done then, by all means, do something. My position in this situation is not that something should or should not be done. Rather, I am questioning the way in which something is done. I question the method of “lawsuits” among believers.
Would it not violate the scriptural mandate of 1 Cor 6:1-8 to sue other believers? If not, why?
What many don't understand is that the MBC begged these agencies to submit to binding Christian arbitration - and they flat refused. Why? Because everyone knows they don't have a leg to stand on - scripturally or legally.
Again, even if these agencies are violating Scripture doesn’t give another carte blanche to violate Scripture in response.
Panis 1:
If I were a lawyer here's what I would say to you.
The scripture in 1 Cor 6 applies to the local church at Corinth and thus to all other local churches for all time. Christians in local churches are not to sue each other, period, they are to handle all their diffences through local church discipline.
Now you show me how this passage applies to all Christians who are not members of the same local church. Who would be the judge? How can you use Local Church Discipline when there is no church involved?
Circenses:
If I were a lawyer here's what I would say to you.
The scripture in 1 Cor 6 applies to the local church at Corinth and thus to all other local churches for all time. Christians in local churches are not to sue each other, period, they are to handle all their diffences through local church discipline.
Now you show me how this passage applies to all Christians who are not members of the same local church. Who would be the judge? How can you use Local Church Discipline when there is no church involved?
Excellent questions! I’ll do my best to answer.
Five points:
First, when two or more believers are involved then the church is always involved.
Second, Paul statements about lawsuits among believers comes in a whole passage about immorality and the body (individual and corporate), extending from 1 Cor 5 to 1 Cor 6:20.
Third, it would seem odd that Paul would put a prohibition against individuals believers but allow such action on the part of an aggregate of believers. Here is an extreme example: 1 Cor 6:9-10 gives a vice list following the prohibition against lawsuits among believers. It would seem odd for us to state that such behaviour is wrong among individual believers but alright among a body of individual believers, or this behaviour is wrong among those believers who attend church but alright among believers who do not attend church.
Fourth, while Paul is speaking to a local or regional church in the case of the Corinthian congregation, it is doubtful that the principles he is applying are just intended for the local church. If such were the case then associations and denominations that break fellowship with a church that has a homosexual pastor in accordance with 1 Cor 5:11-13 and 1 Cor 6:9 were applying a microcosmic discipline in an unscriptural macrocosmic manner.
Finally, Paul never seems to make a differentiation between the local church and the whole church. There is one body of Christ and that one body is the whole church in all of its local and regional manifestations (1 Cor 12). One could go so far as to say that the church exists wherever two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name. The church is not an institution, rather it is a composition of people united under the headship of Christ.
At least in 1 Cor, Paul speaks about the individual believers body (6:15-20) and the body of the church, whether local or in its entirety (12:12-31).
In 6:15-20 he speaks about the body of the individual believer associating with immorality. In 5:1-13, he speaks about the body of the aggregate of individual believers that makes up the local church associating with an individual believer who is associating with immorality: “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (5:6). This is interesting logic on the part of Paul. The individual believer’s body is one of many individual bodies that makes up the whole body of Christ, i.e. the church. The same can be said of many local churches making up many associations making up many state conventions making up many denominations that makes up the entire church in all of its manifestations across the globe, across cultures, since its founding at Pentecost.
Paul speaks in 12:22-31 about the whole body of Christ and its many gifts. He speaks that there should not be any division in the body (v. 25). He speaks about the different spiritual gifts given to the many members of the body. He then speaks about apostles, prophets and teachers (v. 28). The reference to apostles in this verse about the church body seems to indicate that he is referring to the church as a whole and not just in its local manifestation in Corinth. There does not seem to be any apostles in Corinth at the time of this letter because if there had been then such church problems would have been dealt with by them and not by Paul via letter, but they are not. Thus, while Paul is speaking to a local congregation, he is speaking to the church as a whole, the whole body of Christ, to which he wishes no division, including lawsuits.
Now in terms of how church discipline should be carried out:
When a local association of local churches finds that one of its member churches is honoring immorality, those local churches break fellowship with that church. When a denominational body of believers finds that one of its member churches is honoring immorality, then those believers break fellowship with that church. This is appears to be the Scriptural method of discipline, the breaking of fellowship.
There are countless scenarios that one can submit for this discussion. Allow me to give a few.
Let’s say you have two believers from two different local churches in a dispute. Well, involve both churches in handling the dispute.
Let us take the MBC situation into account. If MBC agencies are refusing to abide by MBC standards then either remove the leaders of those agencies from their positions or, if either that fails or is not an option, then dissolve those agencies.
In the end it is God who is to ultimately handle disciplinary matters. If the methods stated in the Scriptures are not applicable and the only methods left available are contrary to Scripture, then shake the sand from the souls of your shoes and leave it up to God to handle the situation.
Panis 4:
Let us take the MBC situation into account. If MBC agencies are refusing to abide by MBC standards then either remove the leaders of those agencies from their positions or, if either that fails or is not an option, then dissolve those agencies.
Alright then, how do you go about dissolving those agencies. They were created according to state law, therefore they must dissolved the same way. And that involves a lawsuit.
While suing other Christians is distasteful, sometimes it is necessary.
Circenses:
While suing other Christians is distasteful, sometimes it is necessary.
The question is not whether it is distasteful, but, rather, whether it is Scriptural.
Panis 1:
Haven't had time to answer you point by point but wondered first of all about this paragraph.
You wrote - "Now in terms of how church discipline should be carried out:
When a local association of local churches finds that one of its member churches is honoring immorality, those local churches break fellowship with that church. When a denominational body of believers finds that one of its member churches is honoring immorality, then those believers break fellowship with that church. This is appears to be the Scriptural method of discipline, the breaking of fellowship."
In the case of the Missouri Baptist Convention who would we break fellowship with in the case of The Baptist Home?
Would we break fellowship with each church where a trustee holds membership?
Would we break fellowship with each church were Residents of the Baptist Home hold membership?
Would we break fellowship with each contributing church who donates mission dollars to the Baptist Home?
The only form of discipline available to the MBC in this case is legal in nature.
If you hold to your view that suing another Christian is not scriptural then you must also agree that incorporating a church or a nonprofit religious organization under the laws of a state is also unscriptural. If not then at the very least it would be unethical if you do not intend to abide by State Law which unfortunately includes prescribed legal processes for settling such disputes as the one we are discussing.
Interestingly enough the examples you present about Associations and State Conventions are written into their respective Constitutions and Bylaws which are regarded as legal and binding documents under the state law in the state where those said entities are incorporated.
It is my humble opinion we sacrificed the high Biblical Ground that you are alluding to years ago when the trend began to incorporate all Southern Baptist Churches and Agencies and Entities.
Panis 5:
I just wonder what all you folks think the MBC should do...I mean, there are many that would condemn the MBC for its actions - while offering no real solutions.
Are there any who would hold the 5 rebellious agencies to task? Or should they just "get away with it" in the name of peace - to do with these godly institutions as they see fit?
Panis 1:
Part of the problem goes back in Baptist History to the founding of schools, publishing houses, benevolent organizations and missionary societies - The good organizations that we have created have become more like their secular counterparts than they are like the church. In fact most of them are regulated by state and federal law.
Now we are faced with this dilemna.
How do two Christians or two different groups of Christians who are tied to one of these multi-million dollar religious or denominational organizations settle their differences?
We have no Baptist Bishop who can make a decision, like the Apostle Paul could have made.
All we have is the democratic process of a state convention meeting which is all bark and no bite until you hire a lawyer.
Circenses:
Haven't had time to answer you point by point but wondered first of all about this paragraph.
In the case of the Missouri Baptist Convention who would we break fellowship with in the case of The Baptist Home?
Would we break fellowship with each church where a trustee holds membership?
Would we break fellowship with each church were Residents of the Baptist Home hold membership?
Would we break fellowship with each contributing church who donates mission dollars to the Baptist Home?
The only form of discipline available to the MBC in this case is legal in nature.
Again, I do not think that when our options for a preferred outcome are lessened that we are only left with the option of disobeying Scriptural mandates, if that is in fact the case. It is difficult for me to answer the above questions because I am not that familiar with the MBC situation. Some of the above may be appropriate to the situation and some may not. I am less concerned with discussing the application of Biblical principles than with what the Biblical principle actually is. Your questions are definitely relevant; you appear to be presenting cases to test the relevancy of the application of church discipline, which is good. While these questions might or might not deny the relevancy of “breaking fellowship” as a form of church discipline, even if so it does not disqualify the assumed Scriptural prohibition against lawsuits among Christians.
Perhaps a better application of the above mentioned method would be to present cases to test the relevancy of my interpretation of the lawsuit prohibition. To some extent this has already been done.
If you hold to your view that suing another Christian is not scriptural then you must also agree that incorporating a church or a nonprofit religious organization under the laws of a state is also unscriptural. If not then at the very least it would be unethical if you do not intend to abide by State Law which unfortunately includes prescribed legal processes for settling such disputes as the one we are discussing.
It is quite probable that many Christian groups have worked their way into a corner where their options are so greatly decreased that they can only see lawsuits an appropriate action. It reminds me of the story of King David and his rape of Bathsheba. Now raping Bathsheba was wrong of course, but when Bathsheba became pregnant, instead of confessing his sins and repenting, he continued to dig himself a hole by trying to get Uriah to have relations with his wife at inappropriate times and then eventually murdering Uriah. It was only when he was convicted of his sin by the prophet Nathan that he began to right his wrongs. Basically what I am saying is that we do not right past wrongs by more wrongs, we only dig our graves deeper.
Interestingly enough the examples you present about Associations and State Conventions are written into their respective Constitutions and Bylaws which are regarded as legal and binding documents under the state law in the state where those said entities are incorporated.
I think we can hold to state laws as far as Scriptural principles are not violated. I am a bit concerned at the logical extension of the argument that we have to obey state laws with concern to legal matters even when they contradict Scripture just because we are involved in legal matters. I know this is not what you are advocating though.
It is my humble opinion we sacrificed the high Biblical Ground that you are alluding to years ago when the trend began to incorporate all Southern Baptist Churches and Agencies and Entities.
That may be the case. If so, we do not right ourselves by continuing to disobey the Scriptural mandates.
I just wonder what all you folks think the MBC should do...I mean, there are many that would condemn the MBC for its actions - while offering no real solutions.
Are there any who would hold the 5 rebellious agencies to task? Or should they just "get away with it" in the name of peace - to do with these godly institutions as they see fit?
I do not think anyone here is condemning anyone else. If the MBC is in error about how they are handling the situation, then they certainly are not the first and won’t be the last. All of us everyday mishandle situations. The important thing is to learn from our errors and learn from Scripture and from God about how we can better handle such situations.
If these agencies are in the wrong then God will deal with them as He sees fit. We should never think that anyone ever “gets away with it”. I have no problem with crying out like Job about the “wicked” (Job 21), but we all have to have faith that God will take care of the situation. Now this does not mean that those in the MBC shouldn’t do anything. Far from it! If you believe that you are in the right and need to do something, do it! My thoughts are not concerned about “what you do” not “that you do.”
But if they do “get away with it” because no lawsuit is applied then it will not be in the name of peace but rather in the name of Scripture.
One thing we have to be careful of is not blindly accepting the methods of a movement when we agree with the movement’s motives. Disagreeing with a movement’s methods does not mean we have to disagree with the movements motives. I am not saying that such is the case with the MBC situation but it is a stealth temptation in these times.
No comments:
Post a Comment