Trial date set in first of five Missouri Baptist lawsuits

I don't think they're unrelated.

If we can appeal to Caesar's protection in any part of our Christian and Corporate life do we not have the right to appeal to Caesar's protection when it comes to property rights?

If Churches and related entities are going to engage in activities and actions that require the state's approval then to say that we cannot appeal to the state for justice when by the same legal system other brothers attempt to steal from us seems like an inconsistent argument to me.

 

The issue is suing our brothers. There is no issue biblically with suing or being protected from the lost. That principle is clear in scripture.

 

Paul was clear as water on this issue. There is no room for wiggle here. Even if those wronged must suffer with no further recourse, Christians suing in secular courts is against scripture. God said do not do it. Period. To do so fails to rely on God. It says I will get justice even if God is not interested in the justice I want.

Any wrong that is being done by the state convention is shameful. Suing the convention is shameful. But the bigger problem and what is most shameful is that this is made so public and now the ministry of the gospel is hurt.

 

NO, the issue is suing our brothers in the local church. The Missouri Baptist Convention is not a local church.

 

There is nothing in that passage that isolates this biblical principle to just the local church. And that limitation does not even make sense.

 

So the entire letter was not addressed to a local church?

Is Paul not addressing local church discipline? And specifically as applies to the Christians in Corinth?

If Paul is so concerned about a Christian's witness to the Lost World outside of the local church then why did he not allow the Jews in Jerusalem to kill him like they killed Jesus instead of appealing to Caesar?

The truth is that Paul used the Legal System when it benefited his ministry. Are we not then free in Missouri to do the same thing?

 

I thought Hardsheller was pointing out that some of the people criticizing the MBC also incorporate their churches to protect individual members from lawsuits. They are putting themselves under the protection of their State Courts, and would certainly use that protection if their church were "sued".

That does seem to have a connection with the ongoing controversy in the MBC.

I do not believe the MBC should be settling this matter in a secular court, and would point out that Paul told us it would be better to be defrauded than to have a matter settled before a secular court.

I also see where good Christian people will disagree with me on this, and not want to allow several tens of millions of dollars worth of MBC assets be essentially denied to the majority of Missouri Baptists who voted for the conservative change.

peace to youraying:

 

yes

Yes. But you will have to provide the break down to me that suggests this is only for the local church. In Colossians Paul spoke of the preimenance of Christ. That was a letter to the local church. Just how do you suppose that should be applied? I could give an example of every letter Paul wrote. But the truth is these are biblical precepts we are to live by everywhere.

Is scripture not for our example? According to your logic we should only apply this verse of Pauls to the folks in Corinth at the time this letter was written. Therefore it has no application to anyone today anywhere.

There is no equivelant comparison here to Christians suing each other. The principle here is not about using the secular courts. It is about how Christians treat each other. Christians have no business suing each other period. It is important to remember that Jesus was fulfilling prophecy. He was providing salvation. He was submitting to the will of the Father.

No. You also need to remember Paul was sought out by them. He did not go to them. Paul was doing what God called him to do. When God was finished Paul went home.

 

There was no arbitration board because the trustees of the agencies would not even agree on principle to even begin a binding arbitration process.

 

Which has nothing to do with suing another Christian. And while I believe an argument can be made to support that we are not to incorporate. One has nothing to do with the other.

It has no connection. The logic is if we use the state for one thing should we not be then free to use the state for other things including suing a Christian brother. The use of the state in an unrelated matter does not give good reason to use it for another.

I agree. And this whole thing is shameful. Even the writing about publically is shameful. Any publicization of this is shameful.

By good I assume you mean of good intentions. Because scripture is clear good intentions are not possible. (If that is what you meant)

 

Timothy,

I see you are SBC.

If you are convicted that we in Missouri are in error and have departed from scripture then it is imperative that you go to San Antonio this June and make a motion that the MBC Convention be held accountable to the larger national convention.

Anything less is mere stone throwing.

 

So what you are saying is that no one should take part int his conversation in this board unless they agree with what the folks in Missouri are doing. In the end it isn't what I think. It is what God said.

 

Churches should stay out of entanglements such as these. They should focus on their duty, to preach Jesus Christ and him crucified, and avoid all of the state conventions, colleges, etc that can cause strife.

If the church wants to associate with other churches, then form a loose Association, with only minimal amount of money donated for the purpose of carrying out basic business. They do not need Presidents, or Boards, or Newspapers, or Colleges. If there was ever a reason that churches should be separate entities unto themselves, not interfering with the matters of another church, then this is it.

 

You must be referring to the "humble" nature Jesus displayed when he fashioned a whip of cords and drove out the money changers in the Temple, or maybe when he humbly called the pharisees a generation of vipers? Maybe when he addressed the Syrophenecian woman as a dog and not of the children?