Conservative Post

In the most recent post by Wade Burleson entitles “What Christ Says About Christians and Lawsuits”   he makes a poor attempt to justify the current law suit by Sherri Klouda which has made the dispute quite public. What has also made the suit quite public was the willingness of Wade Burleson to speak to the Dallas Morning News in which he said “Sheri Klouda is not a pastor, she has not been ordained or licensed, she does not perform ministerial duties. She is a professor, for heaven’s sake”. I want to address his post point by point.

Mr. Burleson takes issue with the following statement :

“I am unalterably convinced that a significant percent of those who listen on any given Sunday to your message, though they are church members, are in fact lost. I judge that based on much of the behavior of the church member. I cannot imagine a situation occurring among saved people where this one is taking that one to lawsuit in front of the pagan world”.  Dr. Paige Patterson

The snippet was taken from a sermon preached by Dr. Patterson as part of the annual Mullin’s lecture held at Southern Theological Seminary What Preaching Ought To Be. I can say without reservation that I am in complete agreement with Dr. Patterson. I would encourage you to listen to the sermon as a whole rather than rely on a snippet of words. It has become fashionable to act like the lost world in our churches. The church has lost its power and influence because it fails to rely on God. The constant bickering in our churches and the desire to make these issues known to the lost world as a means to garner a larger group of support is not representative of a church of God, filled with the Spirit of God. It is however representative of the lost and hopeless world.

Next Mr. Burleson attempts to further justify ungodly lawsuits between Christians by stating “The courts have been appointed by God for the purpose of justice”. Here he makes the following statement “When Christians follow Matthew 18 and the offending party shuns or refuses to listen to the offense, or where there is not a church (or church court) to sit in judgment, then it seems that I Peter 2:12-17 comes into play”.It appears that even Mr. Burleson sees his position as weak. If I were absolutely convinced that I were standing on the truth of God’s word I would choose a more confident word than “seems”. However God addressed the things that seem right: There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12.It is a shame when men who claim to be called of God do not make more careful attempts to deliver God’s message with a more fearful heart. 1 Peter 2:13 is not in the context of Christian disagreements nor should we make attempts to apply it as such. It does not reflect the heart of God.

Next Mr. Burleson states: “There is biblical precedence to appeal to secular authorities when a religious people or a religious institution is poorly treating a Christian”. Here he makes use of Acts 22:25 where Paul states: “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?”. Mr. Burleson gets this only half right. It can be said that Paul appealed to the secular Roman government, but it was not in the same way that Mr. Klouda is in the process of. When you start out with a presupposition and then go to scripture to find supporting evidence, your ability to discern scripture relies on your natural observation but lacks the supernatural observation that is needed to discover the heart of God. Paul’s appeals were made in defense when he was brought before the Secular Government. The same secular government that he was forced to go before by the lost religious leaders. They may have been religious leaders but they were’nt Christian leaders. The comparison between acts 22:25 and any other law suit between Christians falls short of equality.

Mr. Burleson goes on to make his case with the idea that “In an ideal situation, as was the case in the first few centuries of Christianity, a church court would listen to the grievances between brothers and rule justly. But except in a few, rare situations in certain denominations, all church courts have since been abolished. This leaves only secular civil courts as the final appeal.”. I would argue that this is incorrect the church courts have not been abolished but are largely unused. the elders of the church are the church court and it is very seldom that it is taken advantage of.  He goes on to present a commentary of 1 Cor 6:1-8 that describes this passage as being irrelevant because of a lack of available church courts today. He then goes on to suppose that it is now necessary to appeal to secular courts as a result of this. Even if his first assertion is true of church courts (of which it is not) it still does not lead to his second assertion, that we must then go on to appeal to the secular courts in disputes between Christians. In fact it is addressed in this passage. Verses 7 & 8 instruct us to allow ourselves to be defrauded rather than take our conflicts to civil courts.

In his continuing attempt to justify his incorrect position Mr. Burleson again applies scripture inappropriately by making use of Matt 5:25,26. His conclusion of it was this: “Jesus Christ gives specific instructions regarding lawsuits and He says that those sued should make things right quickly IF they have done wrong. Notice, Jesus pronounces judgment upon the wrongdoer – but He makes no moral judgment regarding the person who sues the wrongdoer”. This is because the context was not about the one who sues. Not addressing the one who sued does not allow for Christians to sue one another. This is eisegesis and continues to lack the appropriate fear of God in delivering His heart to His people.

The unequal comparison Mr. Burleson makes after all of this continues his shameful attempt to justify his ungodly position. And Mr. Burleson would do well to read further in Matt 5 and study verse 40. This whole address in Mat 5 with regards to law suits actually destroys Mr. Burleson’s position. Christ is in effect teaching that we avoid court. And in verse 40 rather than allow yourself to go to the secular court beyond the Sanhedrin court you should settle the dispute and do so by giving more than is just and more than what is being requested. If they request a coat then give them your cloak also. But in all things avoid the court. We see in Mat 5 that even church courts seemed to not be enough to some and the matter would then be taken to a secular court. Christ said do not do this at all costs. Mr. Burleson and Mrs. Klouda are willing to go to a secular court and be judged by the lost, who have no heart for the things of God.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Exodus 19:5,6

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. 

 It appears there is a rather large misconception as to what this doctrine is. I see and hear arguments more and more that it refers to Christian liberty. While it is a number of things Christian liberty is not related to this doctrine. It is being used today to espouse a teaching that scripture can only be interpreted through a communal process. And yet scripture never suggests that Christians must come together as a group to discover God’s intended meaning in His words. When Paul wrote to young Timothy he said  “I charge thee therefore before God….Preach the word!”. The man of God is to take the word of God, filled with the Spirit of God, and deliver His messager as the Angel of God. (Rev 2:1)

This doctrine was established long ago among the OT Saints. Its stated purpose was to make known the responsibilites of God’s “called out” people toward Him and Him alone. Anyone who looks at this doctrine and asserts some form of Christian liberty is engaging in eisegesis that results in a twisting of scipture that allows fro all kinds of erroneous interpretations, substandard doctrines, and a distraction that pulls the minds of men away from the heart of God.

I Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, this simply means we are consecrated by God to do His will, a royal, this denotes our realtionship to God. God is the King of all Kings and the Lord of all Lords and we are born from Him, priesthood, this establishes our responsibility to God not our freedom in our walk with God. It does not speak to our freedom to interpret scripture as a group or as an individual. It does not speak to who is in charge in the church. This portion of this scripture speaks to our sacredotal responsibility toward God. It is all about worship, a holy nation, the word holy speaks to the position in Christ. It signifies our redemption by His blood. Nation speaks to our being separated from this world, we are foriegn and not residents, a peculiar people, we are a people above all people who have a special place in the heart of God, we are redeemed the lost are not, we have a relationship with God, the lost do not, we will spend eternity with God, the lost will not, that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light:, here in lies our roll and calling as a member of the fraternity of the Preisthood of Believers. This doctrine is bout our responsibility toward God and does not speak to our liberty.

We have many who spend way to much time worrying about freedom. This is not the Spirit of God. What we need to focus on is our responsibilty toward God. Paul’s words have been used to prop up an ungodly agenda. The convention recently made a change to the statement on this doctrine. Apparently many think adding an “s” to believer will clarify the reality of the intent of this doctrine. Some are using such to prop up a theory that God leads the church through the church congregation. Some use it to prop up the ungodly notion that scripture must be interpreted in a group rather than have it expounded to them from a pulpit. Niether is correct. Both are in error. The church is in rebellion

Powered by Bookmarkify™