Justifications for the Appeal

[Part 4 of a series entitled, "The Perversity and Inconvenience Righteousness and Necessity of Lawsuits against Christians Us Evildoers."]

I’m not privy to super-secret Synod communiqués, so I’m not sure what the “official” word is on our justification for appealing the injunction. I’m pretty sure I have a few ideas though. Pick any one (or multiple ones) of the following:

1. Paul never mentioned appeals in his prohibition against lawsuits against Christians
2. Erskine is not composed of Christians, so the prohibition does not count
3. The initial lawsuit was against God’s law, so we are just righting the wrong
4. What we do in sin now, we do for the greater good and God’s glory
5. Who cares? The End Justifies the Means.

Personally, I think DeWitt & Company will rely most heavily on #3 – that once a lawsuit is in the courts the prohibition stops working. Because, you know, that makes perfect sense. The court has ruled that Synod broke the law, and in this they have wronged us.* We need to continue suing our Christian brothers in civil courts for as long as it takes to get the court to agree with us, even though it means spending the money we would have sent to fund Erskine and tarnishing Erskine’s reputation further in the eyes of the world. But we’ll get the Courts to agree with us yet (or bankrupt Synod trying)!

The implications in this appeal are numerous; I’ll be covering some in the coming days.

 

*This sounds eerily similar to the argument used by the Plaintiffs, namely, “Synod broke the law and wronged us, so we will sue to right the wrong.” We roundly lambasted this foolish argument. Synod was not wrong here! It’s the Courts that are wrong – and that’s why we need to sue! Isn’t it obvious? Lawsuits are fine as long as you are right…