Quick! Defend Synod against “Attack Blogs!”

The lawsuit against Synod was wholly without merit and “unbiblical,” as we have claimed for weeks. Paul clearly banned lawsuits of Christian against Christian and we were all a bit shaken when Christian men broke their pledges to uphold Synod’s mandates and broke God’s law. There are eternal consequences at stake here. In the words of one ARP minister during this fiasco, “Secular courts should not be relied on to handle church matters.” Thankfully, Erskine dropped its lawsuit to strengthen the peace and purity of the church.

Now as it happened, other parties undertook their own suit against Synod and, as of this point, a temporary injunction is still in effect. The judge ruled Synod's actions were of sufficiently nebulous legality as to warrant a full trial. The judge’s decision may be wise or foolish; this remains to be determined.

Clearly our side (Commission) disagrees with this decision because we now find out that Synod leadership is appealing the lawsuit and motioning to suspend or modify the injunction, or to dismiss it. This might appear to the uneducated to be a tremendous about-face, and young Christians might need help understanding the difference between Synod’s actions and the Plaintiffs’ actions. I hope opponents of the original lawsuit will explain here or on Facebook why they support the new lawsuit against Christians.

It would be silly to throw out Paul's vigorously defended restriction on Christian lawsuits over definitions. We all know Synod’s justification does not rest on the legal definition of "appeal," "lawsuit," and "motion," a distinction Paul never discussed. I would point out that only one of the legal actions taken by Synod is an appeal as such, while the other two legal actions are motions and constitute, in effect, separately heard lawsuits. I would further remind the reader that the original legal action undertaken by the Plaintiff and so strenuously opposed by many supporters of Synod's actions was, and I quote, a "Motion for Temporary Restraining Order." If motions were unbiblical before, why are they not so now? We should clear up this paradox quickly!

Of course our argument is also not "they started it," for obvious reasons. Naturally the Plaintiffs’ might have remarked that “[Synod] started it” as they walked to court with Pink Slips in their hands signed by our Emergency Session of Synod. I’m sure our argument is much more nuanced – and less vindictive – than “they started it.” I hope one more powerful in language than myself can explain why this motion is legitimate whereas the previous motion was not.

These are my thoughts,

Temperance