A Lesson from History

I've mentioned this historical analogy twice in comment streams, but since (a) one of those comment streams I have now inadvertently vaporized, and (b) the other is over 100 comments long and not easy to sort through, I decided to give this thought an entry of its own. Guess how the Jews came to be dominated by the Romans? You'll find the story in this Wikipedia article, and it is all about one of God's people coming to the conclusion that he had been "wronged" and then appealing to an unbeliever for resolution of the conflict. The aftermath benefitted nobody.

Questions About Lawsuits

1. Can we say, "As long as SWBTS hasn't done anything wrong, there's nothing to fear from a lawsuit"? Sure, if you are of the conviction that juries and judges always decide lawsuits correctly. Of course, the only way to hold that view is not to have read a newspaper for the past thirty years.
2. Are 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 and Romans 13:1-7 in tension with one another? Not at all. 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 is precisely, spot-on, exactly about the question of one Christian suing another Christian in a secular court. Romans 13:1-7, on the other hand, is about believers being in submission to legitimate governmental authority. Romans 13 says nothing about and has nothing to do with the question of a believer instigating a lawsuit against another believer. Here's what Romans 13 means with regard to lawsuits: If someone wins a lawsuit against you, the Bible mandates that you should submit to the verdict as unto the authority of God.
3. Is it an odd inconsistency that conservative bloggers have cried foul about the Klouda lawsuit without having criticized the Missouri lawsuits? I can't speak for everyone, but it is not at all strange in my case. I wasn't blogging when the Missouri lawsuits were filed. I don't live in Missouri and have not blogged extensively about Missouri events. I find it not strange at all that I have not mentioned these past events from a foreign land :-) in this blog. Once asked (in the last post), I immediately offered my opinion, and I think it falls right in line with what I've said about the Klouda lawsuit.
4. Are there any circumstances in which a Christian can file a lawsuit? The passage in question addresses the specific issue of Christians suing Christians in secular courts. If one were attempting to redress a grievance with someone who was not a Christian, I could not argue that this passage would prohibit a lawsuit. But I would think very carefully about it nonetheless.
5. But what about when someone acts dishonestly and it looks like they are going to get away with it. A man who pretended to be a friend of my family came and spent long hours visiting with my father. Dad took him throughout the factory, talked about proprietary practices—my Dad was a storyteller and loved to visit. A month later, this "friend" had opened a competing factory in the next town down the road and had launched a campaign to steal our customers. Not long afterwards, we hired a Purchasing Manager. She was a Christian—a Baptist—and very vocal about her faith. She signed an employment agreement promising that she would not leave our firm to go to work for any competing firm. After a couple of years, she left our company and went to work for the competing company that this purported "friend" had started. Her rationale, "[The employment agreement that she had signed] isn't worth the paper it is printed on." My thoughts: It was worth no more than her word was worth. Did we sue her? No. Even lost people refrain from suing someone for a debt of $200. Why? Because the costs of the lawsuit would be more than anyone could hope to gain. I submit to you that, for a Christian, the costs of a lawsuit must be calculated using more than a financial ledger. There is the cost to our witness. There is the cost that any of us bear when we directly contradict God's word and disobey it. Even assuming that the other person is 100% in the wrong...Vengeance is God's, not Judge Wapner's.

The New MD Translation

Today came the announcement that the Memphis Declaration folks are producing a new translation of the Bible. To provide the highest quality translation possible, the group has outsourced much of the translation work to experts. Meet the translation committee for 1 Corinthians 6:1-7.

Not Quite Gone Forever

Very big kudos to Colin, he's the guy who made this possible. I was able to get all of my old posts back from Google's page caches. Whew! I haven't actually posted them all, yet. I will eventually. I posted a few, but I need to get some sleep now.

Oops!

I had set up a blog, "Farmers for Christ", to try to do local blogging in the Farmersville area. It never took off. Tonight I deleted it...well, I meant to delete it. Instead, I deleted Praisegod Barebones. It is all lost. I apologize. I really do. The word of God endures forever, but not the word of Bart. And that's the way it ought to be. But I'm still brokenhearted over all of that work gone forever.

Way Over the Top

Allow me a brief narrative. I promise it is going somewhere. My father had a dear friend who was a native of Mississippi. This man's father had served for many years as a county sheriff in Mississippi. Dad went home with his friend to go hunting with the former sheriff. After a long, successful day of hunting, the threesome started their trek out of the woods. They reached the truck and were placing their game and weapons into the vehicle when the host looked at my Dad and said, as casually as if he were pointing out a favorite childhood playground, "Jimmy, that tree over there is where I hanged my first N-----." Shocked and scandalized, my Dad did not know how to reply, so he didn't. And the three got into the truck and drove home. Lynchings were a very real phenomenon. People died. From his use of the word "first," I infer that this particular man perpetrated several. Teeming scores of black people were trapped in a vigilante society with no realistic hope of escape. Whatever your opinion of speaking in tongues, whatever your opinion of Paige Patterson, whatever your opinion of SWBTS, whatever your opinion of Dwight McKissic, whatever your opinion of me—surely we can all agree that the events transpiring within the trustee board of SWBTS are in absolutely no way whatsoever akin to the actions of that Mississippi Sheriff of yesteryear. To suggest any equivalence between them is, in my opinion, utterly reprehensible. Earlier this week I spoke with a denominational journalist and proffered my opinion that the SWBTS board of trustees was overreacting against Dwight McKissic. After all, at two venues with SBTC since his chapel address (the annual meeting and the evangelism conference), Bro. McKissic made not the slightest effort to use these occasions to fan the flames of controversy. I (yes, even I, known partisan that I am) felt compassion for Dwight McKissic and was saddened to see the possibility that he might be removed from service as a trustee. In a single sentence from him, that compassion evaporated. His comment that the trustees are essentially lynching an independent-thinking black man is plainly sinful. It is a racist statement (would he have said the same about a group of black men with whom he disagreed?). Bro. McKissic, please retract this prejudicial and racist statement. We all say things in the heat of controversy that we come to regret later. Cling tenaciously to your other opinions if you wish, but retract this statement. I will be more than happy to forget that you ever said it, if only you will take it back.

An Ode to "Honorable Men"

As the calendar advances and we all approach the Ides of March, I thought it might be worthwhile to offer an ode to the erstwhile colleagues of Dr. Paige Patterson in iambic pentameter.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: If it were so, it was a grievous fault, And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it. Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest-- For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men-- Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral. He was my friend, faithful and just to me: But Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man. He hath brought many captives home to Rome Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: Ambition should be made of sterner stuff: Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man. You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And, sure, he is an honourable man. I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know. You all did love him once, not without cause: What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him? O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason. Bear with me; My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, And I must pause till it come back to me.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot...some guy named William Shakespeare wrote those words, not me. They're from Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2. Let nobody accuse me of plagiarism.