It seems that there are some that desire to pull quotes out of context in order to paint something with a broad brush. By doing so they make simple statements become complex and try to make things into something they are not. A prime example of this is the recent post here. It seems that the author has, not only violated his own announced rules of blogging, but he also has taken a little truth and then wrapped untruth innuendo around that truth to lead his readers astray. First, is his innuendo concerning “Mr. Rogers Neighborhood”. Let me tell you that I am one of the founders of the collaborative blog SBC Today. However, that is not my neighborhood. My neighborhood is here. You can be my friend too. :>) Second, I have never stated that we are to never use the court system. As a matter of fact the Bible clearly states that is the reason government was established. I cannot make you love me, but I can establish laws and live in a society where it is wrong for you to kill me. If you decide, because of your hatred of me to come after me, there are consequences you must suffer and the government is responsible for making you suffer those consequences. The author of the above linked post does something as old as the Garden of Eden. He pulls a statement out and then questions the intentionality of the statement without contacting the person making the statement. That is what Satan did to Eve. I want you to see the statement and then I will show you the full statement.
No Christian should be involved in taking another Christian to court.
That statement is used to say that I am trying to encourage never using the court systems if someone ever said they were Christians. However, notice the context of the statement. The following is the statement in full which is found on SBC Today.
No Christian should be involved in taking another Christian to court. We in NC have every right to take the Schools, Baptist Retirement Homes and WMU to court and fight it out suing them for everything we can get our hands on. If that were to happen and we win multi-million $ settlements I would vote to give every cent back to the entities. However, that is not the case. We have agreed to let God be the final judge.
If you will follow the comment stream of over 140 comments, you will notice that my argument has been consistent. I believe you will find the Bible teaches that Christians should not take other Christians to court in order to settle civil matters. If it is matters concerning criminal activity, then Christians should involve themselves and make themselves available in order to bring about justice. Civil matters are different issues. I did not arrive at this conclusion in a vacuum as you will note from the following true events in my life.
I have an older biological brother that was murdered back in 1983. His probation officer called our home one day asking if we had seen him. He lived in Bull Head City, Arizona and we did not know what happened. A Detective with the Police Department told us they suspected he was dead and they had someone they believed was responsible. However, there was not enough evidence to convict and the case became a cold case. In 1989, a Obstetrician was rummaging around some desert washes searching for various treasures. He stumbled across a bone and recognized it as a human pelvic bone. Police were notified and the rest of his remains were found along with his skull. There was a bullet hole in his skull along with bullet holes in his ribs. The dental records proved to be my older brother. We were able to bury his remains, but we have never been able to see his killer come to justice.
Why do I tell you that story? This is a criminal case. I am 100% in agreement that his killer should get justice. If his killer is located, I will push for this killer to be convicted. If it turns out that his killer is a Christian then I will not file a civil suit. If his killer is not a Christian then the civil suit is available for me to file if I deem it necessary to do so.
Back in 1997 my wife was employed at a major private religious university. She was in management and expecting our child. During this time there was a ‘right-sizing’ taking place. She applied for a position that would increase her responsibilities along with her salary. She was brought into a room and told that because she was pregnant they did not believe she could do the job and as such she would withdraw her application. If she withdrew her application, she would be rewarded with the same job making the same pay and benefits. However, if she did not do so, there was no guarantee that she would end up with either job. We went to the EEOC.
Why do I tell this story? The EEOC told us we had a case and it was bordering on criminal. However, if she was not planning to work after the baby they could not prosecute. They told us that if we went to a lawyer he/she would file a civil suit against this university. We sought the Face of God and was driven on our knees to His Word. In 1 Corinthians 6 we found Paul’s admonition for Christians not to take other Christians to court. We sought to work through the system within the religious university, but it was to no avail. We decided it was better to be wronged than to bring something like this into the public arena to be resolved and debated by unbelievers.
What is the difference in these two situations? The first is a criminal situation and the second is a civil. The above linked post seems to present a blanket statement for anyone anywhere to go to court. That post is completely against Scripture. For a Christian to take another Christian to court over a civil matter reveals one’s belief in the sufficiency of Scripture. The post linked in this article reveals something about one’s belief of Scripture. One may say they believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, but to counsel one Christian to take another Christian to court over civil matters, speaks loudly that the sufficiency of Scripture is something that can be thrown out.
Allow me one other statement concerning the post that has taken my statement out of comment and wrapped it in innuendo and false assumptions in order to further his cause. I will leave you to research the methods of the one trying to paint me as a person that is dogmatic and paints me with a broad brush. Here is just one issue where he uses the same tactics–mining quotes. He quotes Matthew Henry and links to this article. I do not know where he got his Matthew Henry quote, but in Matthew Henry’s unabridged commentary, it never says anything like he has quoted. The closest it comes to what he has quoted is the following:
Note, Christians should never engage in law-suits till all other remedies have been tried in vain. Prudent Christians should prevent, if possible, their disputes, and not courts of judicature decide them, especially in matters of no great importance.— Matthew Henry Unabridged
The above quote comes from Matthew Henry explaining his position on the 1 Corinthian 6 text. If you read the commentary you will note that Matthew Henry dogmatically states in the beginning of the section; “Here the apostle reproves them for going to law with one another before heathen judges for little matters; and therein blames all vexatious law-suits.“— Matthew Henry Unabridged (Emphasis mine)
This is just one misapplied quote from the other bloggers quote mining experience. But, if after all of this explanation you still desire to believe that I have said no one should ever involve themselves in the courts, then believe what you would like.
However, there is a danger that should be well noted with this litigious society spilling over into the church. What will happen if the pastor that advocates Christians taking other Christians to court ever believes you and your church has wronged him and his church? I wonder what kind of news storm will be created when two churches go to court after each other?
But, if something like that happens, You can still be my Friend.
Tim,
I understand your desire to defend yourself from a defamation of your character. I have been there myself. However, I would advice you to ignore WB, BSC, and others whose only (pre)occupation seems to be stirring up anger and bitterness all in the name of irenic brotherhood (HA!).
I have respect (even while disagreeing) for Todd Littleton. His posts are considerate and thought out even if I disagree with his conclusions. His argument of “Animal Farm” is quite appropriate since they (BSC and WB) are heading down the same path as those pigs in the story did. My only question is who will end up being the sacrifice (i.e., Trotsky in Orwell’s real life comparison) in order to advance their cause.
In other words, they have more internal worries than they are apt to admit. In my opinion, distracting others by defaming your words and character are simply a smokescreen to hide their own issues. Let it go and persue your task as a pastor and blogging observer for better tasks than responding to their diatribes.
Comment by Prof — March 19, 2008 @ 10;21 am
“Pursue your task” should have been the reading.
Comment by Prof — March 19, 2008 @ 10;22 am
My Brother Tim,
Enid’s flow of skewed sources has no end, I assure. Frankly, I’ve never seen such a concentrated pool of pulling quotes, creating circumstances (recall Enid’s horrid defamation of Professor Grudem by creating a fictitious scenario how he “changed his mind” about baptism), and manipulating data in order to make one’s case.
Prof is correct: your useful tools in writing about issues in the SBC would be better served by allowing Enid to wallow in the sty when personal innuendo is pitched your way. If only we all could live that out…
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Comment by peter — March 19, 2008 @ 11;47 am
Tim,
Great post. Thank you for sharing such personal details.
My wife and I also had to face an issue of suing a fellow believer and chose to follow Scripture as outlined by Paul in his first letter to Corinth. Nearly 17 years ago when my wife was pregnant, our daughter died during labor. It had been a troubled pregnancy from the beginning, but we were finally very close to full term. We saw the doctor the day before, and we were concerned about different symptoms my wife was having. He sent us home, believing everything was OK. My wife went into labor during the night and our daughter died before we made it to the hospital. In speaking with another doctor, he was surprised that we were not sent to the hospital by our doctor the day before, based on the symptoms. Our doctor is a believer. We may or may not have been able to win a lawsuit. I do know that he grieved with us, and when our next pregnancy, with the same troubles again, it was he that saved our youngest son’s life. However, I could not, nor would not pursue a lawsuit, as I will have to stand before the Lord one day and give an account. In this, my conscience is clear and will not have to answer to Him for doing what He has commanded us not to do.
I share this only to say, that I too have not reached my views on this in a vacuum. It is a shame that you are being mocked and have had your words twisted. Unfortunately, it does appear that it has become the modus operandi of some.
Ron P.
Comment by Ron P. — March 19, 2008 @ 11;56 am
Incredible post Tim. Hang in there. Perception is never reality unless we allow it be. You are helping to bring truth where false perceptions exist.
Comment by Tim G — March 19, 2008 @ 1;25 pm
tim,
sadly, this does not shock me in the least. i’ve come to expect this kind of stuff from a certain crowd. it’s sad. i’m sorry that you had to go thru it. i was a constant reader in that comment stream at sbctoday, and i never took you to say that a christian cant ever go to court….that you meant that it was concerning a christian taking another christian to court. for someone to take your clear words and thoughts, and twist them to make a point, and seemingly to make you and the sbctoday crowd look bad, is very upsetting and concerning.
also, didnt you say that the tn vols were gonna win the ncaa tourney? didnt you say that the tarheels would shudder in the orange glow of ut? you did say that. you said it. now, i will make up….errrr….write a post on a tarheel supporting the vols. well, at least, you ought to be a vol fan.
david
Comment by volfan007 — March 19, 2008 @ 2;25 pm
Tim,
Your position on law suits has been consistent both in print and in personal conversations. I have tried to remember how many times in the last year we have conversed with each other by some medium of communication relating to this subject in the last year.
I fail to know how many times. What I do know is you have been consistent in your conviction as have I in mine.
One thing in all of this is becoming a glaring truth to me concerning this whole Klouda-Patterson mess. It has certainly become a point of contention and division between brothers and sisters who normally walk together.
It is a sad thing indeed and I am afraid it is going to get worse.
cb
Comment by cb scott — March 19, 2008 @ 4;49 pm
It will be a divisive point for me. This type of treatment should never be tolerated. Tim, you also forget that all other avenues were exhausted and it cost Sherri’s husband in medical care, it cost her too much. Doesn’t that matter? It will happen again and again. I think some had better know that they can’t just treat someone badly and call it “doctrine.” That is simply not true and it certainly doesn’t fit scripture. God set up the system in order to give justice to the oppressed. That also was the goal of the countries founding fathers whether you believe they were Christian or not.
Comment by Debbie Kaufman — March 19, 2008 @ 5;14 pm
Fellows, seriously, you guys need to quit having pity parties for yourselves. Make your arguments. Stand your ground. But it is unseemly as men to act as if you are being persecuted. Nobody needs our sympathy here – except for people like Sheri Klouda. She is the one who lost her job. She is the one selling blood to pay for expenses. Peter, save your tears for her. Both Tim, save your outrage for her. And prof – have a little courage and identify yourself.
Comment by wade burleson — March 19, 2008 @ 6;05 pm
Wade,
Thank you for being specific in naming the people you say are having a pity party and I certainly appreciate my name not being mentioned.
I still maintain you were too broad in your brush strokes relating to Mr. Rogers and his position on law suits.
It is true I have argued with him a great deal more about his position than I have talked to you about yours due to the fact you and I are in agreement as to the wrongful conduct of SWBTS, it officers and its trustees toward Dr. Klouda.
Yet, I do believe there would not be much difference in your position on law suits than would be Tim’s.
I still maintain the problem is that it seems to be hard for some very good people to admit that Dr. Patterson has done a very wrong thing and the trustees of SWBTS have done far worse by not stopping it.
It also seems that some people want to say all things Patterson are from the pits of Hell. That too, is far from right and I know you have stated as much.
It is due to such as this that I believe this is a very sad thing among us and it will most likely get worse.
Someone quoted Pogo on some comment thread and they were right. The enemy is us.
cb
Comment by cb scott — March 19, 2008 @ 6;32 pm
wade,
why dont you man up and admit that you twisted tim’s view? that you totally misrepresented what tim was saying? and, for what cause?
sniff, sniff,
david
Comment by volfan007 — March 19, 2008 @ 6;40 pm
C.B.
Good words – as usual. And, of course, I was not referring to you as having a pity party.
David, get a kleenex.
Comment by wade burleson — March 19, 2008 @ 7;37 pm
Brother Wade,
The only outrage I have is for you. It is you that has turned my words around and quote mined in order to make things the way you want them. It is you that has broken your standard and wrote a post specifically about me without the first hint that it was going to run. It is you that has pushed this item and it is you that found the lawyer and encouraged Dr. Klouda to allow this to go to court. You tried to bring Wendy Norvelle out and when she would not allow it you pushed her to the curb like yesterday’s trash. You, my Brother, are the one that needs to examine himself and motives. I will turn you over to our Lord who judges the hearts and ask him to have mercy on you.
Brother CB,
I love you. But you know what he has done. Try as you may, you cannot keep riding that fence. I understand your predicament because of the position and the friendship you find yourself. You and I disagree on certain issues. But I would never allow Robin, Wes, Bart, or anyone to post something about you, like Wade posted about me, not defend you to my last breath. I would let them know in no uncertain terms, publicly, they are wrong about you. I have done it on many occasions privately. If they would not listen and rescind what they had said, then I would be standing on my head passing gas to the tune of Yankee Doodle Dandee, if that is what it took to get their attention. I would tell them that they not only mis-quoted you, but they also mined their quotes in order to place you in a bad position. You know that the “Mr. Rogers” spoof was nothing more than his back-handed way of trying to say my argument was juvenile. You are my friend and I love you, and you will still be my friend after this comment. However, for the life of me, I do not believe your defense of me in this comment thread is that great.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — March 19, 2008 @ 8;49 pm
Dear Enid,
It seems, Wade, almost with every response you offer, there ever exists a disconnect. My words here are not teary. Rather, my sole grievance recorded was/is with the documentable skewing of just about any source you attempt to employ. It’s getting harder to accept that it’s completely unintentional on your behalf. Know, though, I continue trying still to view it that way.
With that, I am…
Peter
Comment by peter lumpkins — March 19, 2008 @ 8;56 pm
TIM, TIM, TIM,
I keep telling you that CB Scott is always Right On.
Of all the Bloggers out there,
CB Scott never fails. If CB is Wrong He will CowBoy Up and Apologize.
In His Name
Wayne
Comment by Wayne Smith — March 19, 2008 @ 8;59 pm
Tim,
If I thought you needed defending I would be the first one in line. However, you seem to have handled yourself well. You always do.
Comment by Les Puryear — March 19, 2008 @ 9;22 pm
Peter Lumpkins,
I’m not sure if you know Nancy Drew , but she sure acts like she knows you . Any clue who she is?
Comment by wade burleson — March 19, 2008 @ 10;15 pm
Tim Rogers,
For the life of me, I cannot understand what you wrote above. I’m serious. I reread the post I wrote about what your post and all I did was COPY YOUR SENTENCE WORD FOR WORD. For heaven’s sake. You act like your character is assaulted, your reputation is on the line, and your ministry is in question. Good grief. Then you act as if CB must ‘choose sides.’
Get a grip. Seriously.
Please explain how you think you are being ‘attacked.’ Write clearly – write specifically – and use the exact words that cause offense.
I’ll be happy to help you in the same manner I’ve helped Dr. Klouda if you can show how you have been ‘hurt.’
Comment by wade burleson — March 19, 2008 @ 10;19 pm
Tim’s entire Welcome to Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood post is a response to something that you never said in the first place. He’s responding as if you had said that his view was that no Christian should ever be involved in any type of court proceeding whatsoever, yet your post said nothing of the sort. I’m at a loss in trying to figure out what he thinks you said that supposedly represented his view inaccurately. Your entire post dealt with the issue of whether it is ever permissible for a Christian to take another Christian to court. He seems to be criticizing you for referring to SBC Today rather than his personal blog as “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.” How petty is that?
He explicitly compared you to Satan, saying, “The author of the above linked post does something as old as the Garden of Eden. He pulls a statement out and then questions the intentionality of the statement without contacting the person making the statement. That is what Satan did to Eve.” Yet he and his ilk claim that you and Ben are the ones making “attacks” for daring to publish facts and shine the light on things that would otherwise be swept under the rug.
I have also yet to see him address the series of questions that you posed near the end of your post. He “responded” to something that you didn’t say, and failed to respond to what you did say.
Tim’s entire legal argument (I use that term loosely as Tim is not qualified to be engaging in legal argument in the first place) is premised on his view of the distinction between criminal law and civil law. As best as I can tell (with Tim’s writing skills it’s always difficult to determine exactly what he means with any degree of certainty), Tim’s view is that it’s all right for Christians to lobby the government to prosecute other Christians for violating criminal statutes, but it’s always wrong for one Christian to sue another Christian for committing a tort, breaching a contract, etc.
Tim’s argument is anachronistic. The distinction between criminal law and civil law is relatively recent. There’s a pretty good summary here.
There was no real distinction between criminal law and civil law prior to the Norman Conquest, and the modern phenomenon of having police and prosecutors employed by the state for the purpose of punishing criminal behavior is only 300-400 years old. In ancient times, all offenses (including serious offenses such as murder) were the responsibility of the victim (or the victim’s family). For example, if one person stole from another person, the government would not prosecute the thief. It would be up to the victim to take the thief to court, or in earlier times there would have been some self-help (e.g. eye for an eye) options available to the victim. Even under Roman law, only the most severe crimes were prosecuted by the state.
So Tim is saying that in 1 Cor. 6, Paul intended to distinguish between civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. How could that have been Paul’s intent when the civil/criminal distinction was not invented until over 1000 years after he wrote 1 Corinthians and was not fully developed until over 1500 years after he wrote it? (Not that Tim seems to care about authorial intent in interpreting texts, as demonstrated by his approach to the Garner motion, but that’s another issue for another time.)
Having said all that, my entire discussion of legal history in the previous paragraph is beside the point. Assume for the sake of argument that the distinction between criminal law and civil law was already fully developed when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Tim’s civil/criminal distinction is based on a misunderstanding of how courts work. His argument is that a Christian is not in violation of 1 Cor. 6 by encouraging the government to undertake a criminal prosecution of another Christian, but a Christian would be in violation of 1 Cor. 6 by filing a civil lawsuit against another Christian. What he’s missing is that in BOTH instances, the Christian is asking the government to intervene in a situation and dispense justice because of a wrong committed against him by another believer. Tim is saying that lobbying a prosecutor to exercise his prosecutorial discretion by bringing criminal charges against a fellow believer is just fine, but lobbying a judge or jury to grant relief against another Christian in a civil matter is sinful. So Tim is arguing that the permissibility of asking the government to dispense justice depends on which arm of the government you’re asking to intervene. How is that view supported by the text of 1 Cor. 6?
I don’t say this lightly, but Tim’s view is also ethnocentric. The distinction between criminal law and civil law is different in every country as a result of different policy choices of different nations. For example, many matters that would be dealt with as civil law matters in the United States are instead dealt with by the criminal law and/or government regulations in Europe. In America, we have made a policy choice that we want limited government and free markets. Our legal system is based on the idea that private parties will often do a better job than the government of enforcing social and legal norms.
Our government (that we have chosen) WANTS and EXPECTS private parties to bring lawsuits. If private parties did not deter undesirable conduct through lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits, then the government would have to be much bigger than it is. So under Tim’s theory, the types of wrongs that a Christian would be able to ask the government to remedy without violating 1 Cor. 6 would depend on the country in which the Christian happens to live. For example, in many countries Dr. Klouda would not have had to file a lawsuit because she would have been able to seek the intervention of prosecutors and/or government regulators instead. (This is not to say that she necessarily would get justice in other countries, just that avenues would have been available for her to seek justice without having to file a civil lawsuit.)
Comment by wade burleson — March 19, 2008 @ 10;36 pm
Tim,
You make my point about this thing being divisive and causing contention among brothers and sisters.
I plainly told Wade he was wrong about you and law suits. I have told you the same about the your continual defense of Dr. Patterson for his wrongful acts toward Dr. Klouda.
We cannot justify Dr. Patterson in what he has done anymore than we can justify Wade in wrongly quoting you.
I would like to follow up on something Geoff Baggett said on Wade’s Mr. Rogers post. He asked (or seemed to ask) about why SBC leaders are not speaking to this issue? That is a valid question. Thus far it has been what many of those leaders would call “interlopers” who have been openly vocal about this situation. Yet, many of them speak in guarded whispers the very same things. They know and admit Dr. Patterson was and is wrong in the way he handled Dr. Klouda’s situation, yet they remain silent, protecting their positions and their imaginary credibility.
Tim, I can no more change what I think about the wrongness of Dr. Patterson and the SWBTS trustees toward Dr. Klouda than I can change the fact that I believe a great band of flakes and nuts have attached themselves to Wade and use his blog to vent their hatred for all things orthodox.
Tim, in the end if guys like you and like Wade do not get together and deal with the multitude of problems within the SBC in an honest, straight forward way either the flakes and nuts will take over (again). Or those who have allowed power, privilege, and position to overcome their common sense and character will destroy this convention from the inside out.
Tim, what happened to Sheri Klouda was and is wrong and all the searching to justify the parties involved will never make it right. Even if she does not win in court what happened to her will still be wrong.
I have agreed with you that Wade mischaracterized you in his post. I have said so. I have also said he is right about Sheri Klouda. It really does not matter what his motivation is for exposing this. The fact remains Dr. Patterson and the trustees of SWBTS did the woman wrong and although your heart is good and your motivation is without guile you cannot make this thing right just by saying it is.
We have done that just too may times in the past and it simply will not work anymore. As I said in an earlier comment here; This is a sad thing, indeed and I am afraid it is going to get worse. God help us all.
cb
Comment by cb scott — March 19, 2008 @ 10;48 pm
Wade,
A pity party? My you are getting a little emotional these days. I know that it must be over the fact that Oklahoma does ot stand much of a chance in the “big dance”. So sorry for your grief.
Comment by Tim G — March 20, 2008 @ 12;15 am
Au contraire Mr. Guthrie,
Oklahoma will win it all!
Blessings,
Wade
Comment by wade burleson — March 20, 2008 @ 12;25 am
Brother Wayne,
You said; “CB Scott never fails. If CB is Wrong He will CowBoy Up and Apologize.” I know Brother CB and he will “cowboy up” only if he is able. Brother CB knows much more about this issue than he is able to say. Because he came out in support of this issue in the beginning he cannot back up now. You see Brother CB lives by this code of integrity. Once he signs on he dies, if that is what is necessary, for the cause regardless. The cause here is that a woman has seemingly been taken advantage of. Brother CB will not in any way say something that may place him in a position to even appear that he is in favor of a woman being taken advantage of. That is his code. If you do not believe me, watch how he responds to this.
Brother CB,
Was this lawsuit a result of Dr. Klouda believing she was done wrong or was it a result of a personal vendetta by others and she is just the weapon of choice used to fulfill that vendetta? Does Dr. Patterson, as president of any seminary, have the where-with-all and capable authority to lead that seminary as he believes the Bible teaches? When it is revealed that Dr. Patterson was acting on the advice of the BoT that hired him, concerning Dr. Klouda, will you stand and publicly apologize for placing Brother Wade Burleson in the capable hands of his handler Brother Ben Cole in order for this personal vendetta to be fulfilled. One other question and I am finished. When will you explain to everyone the real reason Brother Ben Cole was released from his duties in the communications office at SWBTS?
Brother CB, I know the answers to these questions, and this information, I have not received from you. As you know, I know some of the same people that you do and that is where my answers come from. There is only one question that I have asked that did not come from “our friends and acquaintances” and that has to do with you and Brother Ben getting together with Brother Wade. That answer is out there on the internet as either you or Brother Ben explained how you called Brother Ben after you read about the IMB, and as Paul Harvey says; “The rest is history”.
Brother Wade,
For the life of me, I cannot believe that you can read Theodore Beza and grasp the understanding of T-U-L-I-P, but cannot read my little discussion and understand what I am saying. It seems that I have “grip” because you are over here commenting.
Brother Les,
I do not believe I have called for you to defend me. However, seeing you showed up and feel I do a great job of defending myself, allow me a statement and a question.
The STATEMENT–If someone quoted you out of context and then spent over 700 words expressing how you were just out of touch, you better believe I would show up and defend you, regardless of succinct job you can do.
The QUESTION–Do you believe Brother Wade quoted me out of context in order to make me look out of touch?
Brother Peter,
Documentable skewing of just about any source you attempt to employ. I like that phrase! You are correct. Whenever I see a quote from him, I spend time finding the source. Most of the time it is not what the source is saying at all.
Sister Irene,
I have removed your comment, because it isn’t a comment. You have copied what I have copied in the main article and you referenced the exact reference. If you would like to comment on the quote, please feel free to re-submit.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — March 20, 2008 @ 8;33 am
Brother Wade,
Your back-to-back comment above needs some clarification on my part. The second of those comments (the one from the Duke Law student) was found in my moderation queue. I just found it an released it. I do not know how it got there, it could be due to the two different links found in the comment. However, I do not have time to respond to this comment yet. I assume it is from Matt, who I know is a law student, and have had comment here before.
I do not have time to engage this comment, but will be glad to when I get the time later today.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — March 20, 2008 @ 8;55 am
wade,
let’s seeeeee….nancy drew is ben cole??
david
Comment by volfan007 — March 20, 2008 @ 8;55 am
Tim,
It would be helpful in dialogue to abstain from perjorative and emotive statements like your comment to Bro. Lumpkins. Your silence on the analysis of what you have written by the attorney from Duke is telling. Your inability or unwillingness to answer the questions I pose in my post is even more revealing. You are attempting to clarify your absolute statement “No Christian should be involved in taking another Christian to court” by making a distinction between ‘criminal’ and ‘civil’ court when the Bible makes no such distinction between the courts, and the attorney shows clearly that is a recent invention even in civilized society.
You spend more time defending yourself against some imaginative attack on your character than you do defending the actions against a fellow sister in Christ who I allege has been irrevocably and unapologetically harmed by men who should be held accountable by the secular courts because men in the convention will do nothing about it.
The courts MUST step in. The Bible gives the courts – called the ministers of God to execute justice – the RIGHT to step in. Sheri Klouda HAS BEEN CALLED BY GOD to take SWBTS to court.
But you say that she – nor any other Christian in similar circumstances – should never go to court.
And then complain that you are being misquoted.
Baffled,
Wade
Comment by wade burleson — March 20, 2008 @ 9;07 am
Tim,
I encourage you again to ignore him. He apparently relishes this controversy. Don’t give him the satisfaction of bringing you down to his level. Let it go. Sometimes there is victory in silence.
Comment by Prof — March 20, 2008 @ 9;30 am
boy, some people like to spin and spin and spin. they even bring “expert” friends into their spin. it makes me to think like prof. maybe some people just like to argue and fuss and stir up strife.
also, wade, is nancy drew…..emily hunter mcgowan? or, is she ben cole? i can see it going either way. also, wade, since you seem to know who nancy drew is, why dont you just tell us? what’s the big secret?
david
Comment by volfan007 — March 20, 2008 @ 9;42 am
Tim,
In regard to your statement, thank you. In regard to your question, I haven’t read the comment thread at SBC Today to be able to answer your question. I will take your word that Wade has quoted you out of context.
Perhaps you and Wade can talk on the phone or through email or something rather than doing this in public. It’s not very becoming to either of you.
Comment by Les Puryear — March 20, 2008 @ 12;16 pm
[...] Surprise, Surprise! 20 03 2008 Here in Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood it seems that many have taken me to task on how I interpret the law. It appears that before long [...]
Pingback by Surprise, Surprise, Surprise! « Southern Baptist In NC — March 20, 2008 @ 12;45 pm
Wade,
Do tell – who is the Christian man who is in law school at Duke University? (who you later refer to as “the attorney from Duke”!) What self-respecting law student would use Wikipedia as a source? He also says “Tim is not qualified to be engaging in legal argument in the first place.” Well, guess what, technically, neither is he!
Comment by Rick — March 20, 2008 @ 12;45 pm
Brother Tim,
Just take a second and sit back and laugh, you need to. This is hilarious. For Mr. Wade “Oklahoma can’t dance” Burleson and his “expert” unnamed law student to try and sort this Klouda issue is so juvenile. It’s funny because he said you weren’t qualified to interpret law. I don’t think any of us are including him–he’s still a student right? That’s what Burleson does. He loves controversy and tries to intimidate. It didn’t work with the IMB, it didn’t work with Dr. Patterson and it won’t work with you. Don’t worry about them. This law student’s analysis stunk like Greg Paulus’ jersey after Danny Green posterized him in Carolina’s domination at Cameron Indoor and a little like their pitiful game against Belmont last night. Question: Isn’t a “Christian” Duke student an oxymoron? Ok, just kidding about that part. I’m sure there are fine Christian students at Duke like there are at all schools.
Comment by PREACHERMAN — March 21, 2008 @ 7;55 am
Oh yeah, forgot one thing. Did he seriously say that she was “called by God” to pursue this lawsuit? Wow! That’s interesting because God never violates His Word and that’s a clear violation of Scripture. Might have been some people telling her to pursue a lawsuit but chances are it wasn’t God.
Comment by PREACHERMAN — March 21, 2008 @ 7;57 am
When I read the OP, I disagreed with the way in which Tim distinguished between criminal law and civil law. However, it wasn’t a big deal to me and I had no intention of responding to it. At Wade’s request, I sent him my analysis.
I’ve noticed that no one has attempted to respond to or refute the substance of my analysis, and frankly that’s fine because this issue is not very important. However, several commenters have been dismissive (without substantively responding) of what I wrote to Wade by trying to diminish my credibility.
It is incorrect that I used Wikipedia as a source. I wrote my analysis from my personal knowledge and added links to Wikipedia because I thought the articles would add helpful explanation for Wade. A Greek scholar would not teach out of the Greek New Testament when explaining a Bible story to children, and likewise I usually don’t use formal legal sources when I’m explaining law to Southern Baptist pastors.
As to the assertions that I’m not qualified to analyze law, I must ask, since when did pastors become competent to pass judgment on who is and is not qualified to analyze law? I can assure you that the members of the law school faculty at Duke certainly believe that the students are qualified to engage in legal analysis. Most seminary students preach while they’re still in school, and most law students are involved in doing actual legal work and analysis while in school.
I’d be happy to discuss the substance of what I wrote with anyone who is interested in doing so.
Comment by Matt — March 21, 2008 @ 8;45 am
Brother Matt,
It has been hectic in my life of the past two or three days. As you can tell by the brevity of the articles, I have not done as much research in the “Surprise” article as I did in this one. While it seems at least one commentor in this comment stream questions my integrity in my time use, I honestly can tell you that I have been too busy to respond. I am still too busy to respond, but because you called the dance for me to respond, I will do so.
First, your argument that Paul was not differentiating between civil and criminal seems to be exactly that–an argument. I am not schooled in the terms of international law and have now idea whether such a differentiation exists. However, Paul clearly advocates in 1 Corinthians 6:4 (HCSB) So if you have cases pertaining to this life, do you select those who have no standing in the church to judge? , which clearly pertains to matters that are no of a criminal nature. The matters Paul speaks about here certainly cannot be argued differently based on history. Why? As you well noted civil and criminal law is only about 300-400 years old. Our legal system was founded on Mosaic law. If not, whose picture is that engraved on the Supreme Court in Washington? Here is where I believe you are straining to make certain that I am proven wrong. I may not know the exact terms concerning the difference in civil and criminal law. However, I do know that Paul is not speaking about something that is settled where we have to take each other to court in order to find resolution. Murder, robbery, rape, and other matters are to be settled by the state. Romans 13:4 clearly states that the duties of the Government is to settle those issues.
Second, you have tried to pin on me as labeling Brother Wade as Satan. That is not what I did. I labeled his tactic as something that Satan did. That means it is a principle he used, not that he is Satanic. The principle he employed was to take one statement and wrap it with innuendo and other mined-quotes to support a false representation of my point.
Third, you say that my argument is anachronistic. It may be that I am reading back through the divisions of laws we have in the country concerning civil and criminal, but I am applying it consistently in a right perspective. It seems that the criminal/civil law, as you say is only 400 years old, would be a great place to differentiate when it comes to legal matters to discern a Christian’s response.
Fourth, you say my argument is ethnocentric. You would be correct because the last time I checked I resided in North Carolina of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I did not know I was responsible for interpreting laws in say, Australia. I do have a Brother Pastor down there that knows the law quite well and I believe I will contact him to see his take on my ethnocentric view. But, you have given one more important nail in this argument. You see we as Pastors have always argued that the USA was established on a Judeo-Christian foundation. You have certainly proven that Paul’s writings concerning law are the legal basis for our laws here in the USA.
Thank you Matt, it seems they are teaching you well at Duke Law School. Now if you want to go to a real good Baptist Law school, Campbell is moving their Law School department to Raleigh and you would not have far to commute. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — March 21, 2008 @ 11;47 am
Tim,
Uh, brother…I’m not sure that Campbell is a much better choice, unless he’s a cary carrying member of the CBF.
Comment by Les Puryear — March 22, 2008 @ 11;55 am