Is an "Appeal to Caesar" Really the Scriptural "Second Principle"??

[kisstheson]

Hello dear ones, beloved brothers and sisters in Christ,

I recently came across the LSM/LC-affiliated web site entitled "FAQs Concerning the Local Churches" at http://www.ltm.org/index.html. One of the FAQs is a well-known bone of contention between LSM/LC and other Christians: "What is your view of lawsuits between Christians?". Of course, we have discussed this topic thoroughly in the past on other threads, but my burden lies not so much with lawsuits themselves but with this question: What is the real teaching of the Scriptures regarding relationships between believers when fellowship has deteriorated and has completely broken down?

I believe that we would all agree that the "first principle" to apply when problems exist between believers is found in the well-known portion in Matthew 18:15-17. Of course, how wonderful it is when every heart involved is soft and there is openness, forgiveness, and reconcilliation! And yet, what to do when there is no forgiveness and reconcilliation, when "your brother" refuses to hear you, refuses to hear you when you take one or two others with you, and refuses to hear the church? What then?

In LSM's FAQ, they state that when reconcilliation through fellowship does not take place, "the second principle" to be followed is found in Acts 25:10-12, which is Paul's famous "appeal to Caesar". But is the "appeal to Caesar" really the "second principle", or do the Scriptures teach another, totally different, approach as the "second principle"? I would very much like to hear anyone's thoughts on this matter! My preliminary seeking on this matter has led me to conclude that the "second principle" to follow amongst believers is to be found in Matthew 18:18-22 and Matthew 5:21-26 and 5:38-48. Call me a dreamy, starry-eyed idealist, but I firmly believe that the Lord's "second principle" among believers is not the law court, but is mercy, forgiveness, and love.

Here is a parital excerpt from LMS's FAQ (the entire FAQ can be found at http://www.ltm.org/lawsuits/index.html):

"In Matthew 18:17, the Lord Jesus Himself anticipated that situations would arise between believers in which the principle of fellowship would be rejected by one of the parties: 'If he [the offending brother] refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile [unbeliever] and a tax collector' (NASB). This word implies that such a situation has deteriorated beyond the scriptural bounds of reconciliation through fellowship, necessitating a second principle, found in Acts. Acts 25:10-12 is an account of Paul's “appeal to Caesar” (the ultimate civil authority of his time) when unlawful actions by unbelieving Jews threatened his ministry."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

... my burden lies not so much with lawsuits themselves but with this question: What is the real teaching of the Scriptures regarding relationships between believers when fellowship has deteriorated and has completely broken down?

Good topic, KissTheSon. My wife just gave me some literature from Peacemaker Ministries, and was very impressed with the scriptural principles by which they arbitrate disputes among believers, their site is at:

http://www.peacemaker.net/site/c.aqK....CB70/Home.htm

I'm just beginning to look this over -- "Rules of Procedure for Christian Arbitration." I'm real interested in whether this matter of "Appealing to Caesar" is in their operations. Part of their ministry is to assist churches who are dividing over doctrines.

The Apostle Paul asked this question, "Is nobody wise among you?" (IC.6.5) Today, I do believe there are many wise brothers in the greater body of Christ. Shouldn't we benefit from them? Since LSM purposely cut themselves off from all outside helps, none of this "wisdom" was available to them or the LC's. I'll try to compose some posts for discussion.

[Cal]

I think LSM's "second principle" is a silly rationalization.

Different Christian groups have been (unfortunately) calling each other names forever. Cite one other that resorted to suing another over it. Imagine if the Catholic Church sued Protestants for calling it a whore. How would that look to the world. Silly and childish.

I think the real second principle includes a heart of forgiveness, but it also includes shaking the dust off one's feet and moving on. Let the court of public opinion decide. Didn't the Lord say it was by the foolishness of the preaching that people would be saved? In other words, the message itself is its own vindication--or not, if it happens to be false, which some of LSM's message is, which is why it doesn't resonate, which is why it is criticized, which is why they can't handle it and sue over it. Whiners.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

I think Witness Lee and his church sue because they have ego problems. He was an egomaniac and so are the current leaders which were trained by him. It is a psychological problem not a biblical one. Although cloaked in "spiritual" costume.

Apparently he was a bully and was accustomed to getting his own way. If someone did something he did not not like or drew a boundary he did not like he would react. Included in his collection of reactions were: public shaming and humiliation techniques, behind the scenes manipulations, quarantines, name calling, blame shifting, suing people etc.

His well learned students behave the same way and let it be made clear for any new people on this site who may not be aware: they sue "outsiders" and "insiders". And they sue for different reasons. E.g. alleged defamation, real estate, etc.

Can anybody imagine Jesus or the apostles suing Christians? I can't. And that is why it is essential to separate the hifalutin "god-talk" of Lee's church with what they actually do. Look at what they do not what they say. When it's all mixed together in one big blob it sounds so spiritual. But when you ask a concrete question: would the Triune God you talk so much about sue a believer for a piece of real estate: yes or no? Clarity will soon set in because the benchmark is not the empty god-talk of Lee's church but God Himself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think LSM's "second principle" is a silly rationalization.

Here is LSM's justification for the "second principle:"

In Matthew 18:17, the Lord Jesus Himself anticipated that situations would arise between believers in which the principle of fellowship would be rejected by one of the parties: “If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile [unbeliever] and a tax collector” (NASB). This word implies that such a situation has deteriorated beyond the scriptural bounds of reconciliation through fellowship, necessitating a second principle, found in Acts 25:10-12 an account of Paul's “appeal to Caesar” (the ultimate civil authority of his time) when unlawful actions by unbelieving Jews threatened his ministry. In contrast to the case in 1 Corinthians 6, such an appeal was neither for personal gain nor to avoid mistreatment, but purely to defend and preserve the ministry entrusted to him by the Lord. The Lord vindicated Paul's use of the civil legal system for this purpose: it resulted in a period of peace for his ministry (Acts 28:30-31) and allowed him to write eight more New Testament Epistles.

The necessity of "appealing to Caesar" can be summarized as follows:

1. Matt 18 directives have not been successful
2. Thus Matt 18 instructs us to treat them as unbelievers
3. Unbeliever conflicts are settled in courts
4. Acts 25 provides an example of Paul's "appeal to Caesar"
5. This appeal must be "purely" on behalf of the ministry, with no incentive for personal gain nor to avoid mistreatment
6. The Lord blessed this endeavor with peace and more scriptures

The above concepts have almost become part of the "normal Christian faith" for LC'ers.

[kisstheson]

Amen, dear brothers. All of your posts have been very helpful.

Ohio - Wow! "Peacemaker Ministries". Has anyone introduced LSM/DCP to Peacemaker Ministries? I too would be interested to know what Peacemaker Ministries has to say about "the appeal to Caeser". "Blessed are the peacemakers . . ."

Igzy - Yes, a point well taken. "The real second principle includes the heart of forgiveness, but it also includes shaking the dust off one's feet and moving on. Let the court of public opinion decide." If believers absolutely can not be reconciled, then they should simply agree to disagree and go their separate ways in peace, not slandering or fighting against each other.

Djohnson - Amen. "But when you ask a concrete question: would the Triune God you talk so much about sue a believer for a piece of real estate: yes or no? Clarity will soon set in because the benchmark is not the empty god-talk of Lee's church but God Himself." Surely the pettiness and meanness of worldly lawsuits are contrary to the loving and long-suffering heart of our God.

[Ohio]

In Matthew 18:17, the Lord Jesus Himself anticipated that situations would arise between believers in which the principle of fellowship would be rejected by one of the parties: “If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile [unbeliever] and a tax collector” (NASB). This word implies that such a situation has deteriorated beyond the scriptural bounds of reconciliation through fellowship, necessitating a second principle, found in Acts 25:10-12 an account of Paul's “appeal to Caesar” ...

The question for me has not been Paul's action to "appeal to Caesar" in Jerusalem during the uproar, but what does the Lord mean here -- "let him be to you as a Gentile." What is the Lord implying by this? To me this was always ambiguous. What does it mean? Is there some Jewish principle that the disciples understood by this? I cannot think of any O.T. precedent where unresolved conflicts among the Jews were to go outside of Israel to the nations, can you?

Why would the Lord be instructing believers or the church to go outside of the fellowship of the church for relief. If this phrase remains open-ended with no clear scriptural guidelines, then ones like LSM can define it as they please. It seems to me that Paul's teaching in I Cor. 6 would negate any thought about the Lord's word "let him be to you as a Gentile," meaning to "sue him like the Gentiles do."

LSM explains away this apparent contradiction by saying that Matt 18 is only for private and personal disputes between brothers and sisters, while none of their lawsuits was personal. By their logic, it is OK to sue the church for meeting halls and furnitures because it is not an individual matter. Their second justification for lawsuits concerns protecting "the ministry" as Paul did.

The life of Christ in us will never agree with that! The life of Christ in us would have us forgive seventy times seven times, would have us be quickly reconciled to our brother, would have us turn the other cheeck, would have us go the extra mile, would have us yield up our cloak to the one who sues us for our tunic, would have us give to all who ask of us, would have us love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, would have us be as perfect in love as our heavenly Father is perfect!!

KissTheSon, I just read your post, and these scriptures here. LSM would agree with your comments, but would add that they don't apply to any of their lawsuits, because these scriptures are of a personal nature like I Cor 6.

.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Tell it to what church? The Lee church sues the authors of the HH book. Did they go to those bros' church and present their case? No. They went to themselves and their lawyers. It is a self referential system. "They measure themselves by themselves." What Paul warned against in 2nd Cor.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The question for me has not been Paul's action to "appeal to Caesar" in Jerusalem during the uproar, but what does the Lord mean here -- "let him be to you as a Gentile." What is the Lord implying by this? To me this was always ambiguous. What does it mean? Is there some Jewish principle that the disciples understood by this? I cannot think of any O.T. precedent where unresolved conflicts among the Jews were to go outside of Israel to the nations, can you?

KissTheSon, I just read your post, and these scriptures here. LSM would agree with your comments, but would add that they don't apply to any of their lawsuits, because these scriptures are of a personal nature like I Cor 6.

Dear brother Ohio,

Thank you for bringing up LSM's viewpoint. I really, really, want to get clear on this matter of "the second principle", so I am more than open to you pointing out any weak links in my own chain of thought. To everyone - don't worry about hurting my feelings! I really want to get clear on this matter, so fire away!

I have what I hope will prove to be a helpful insight for you, dear brother Ohio. You asked a question regarding what the Lord means when He says "let him be to you as a Gentile". I am always amazed at how "internally consistent" Matthew was in his choice of vocabulary when he composed his Gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For example, when our Lord charges us in Matt. 6:20 to "lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven", what does He mean? How, practically speaking, do we "lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven"? The answer is not immediately obvious in Matt. 6:20. Praise God, Matthew uses very similar words in Matt. 19:21 when Jesus says to the rich young ruler: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven". Now, thanks to Matt. 19:21, we have at least one practical way to "lay up treasure in heaven"!

I believe the same principle applies here. In Matt. 18:17 our Lord says "Let him be to you just like the Gentile and the tax collector." What does this mean? Interestingly, Matthew used these same two words "tax collector" and "Gentile" back in Matt. 5:46-47:

"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what better thing are you doing? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?"

It would appear that our Lord defines "Gentiles" and "tax collectors" using the "lens" of love. Gentiles and tax collectors are those who love only those who will love them in return. They greet only those whom they are close to. There is no room in their hearts for a broader love, for a broader circle of fellowship. Sadly, our heavenly Father's heart of unlimited love can not be expressed through such small-hearted ones. I believe that at least a part of the Lord's exhortation to let a brother be to us "just like a Gentile" is to admit that our brother no longer has a heart of love towards us and to recognize that our brother no longer desires us to be in his circle of fellowship. As such, we do not harass our brother; rather, we simply let him be. Our only recourse is to forgive this one from our heart and to gather in love to pray for him, using our prayers to bind the unseen enemy who has bound the heart of our brother.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is LSM's justification for the "second principle:"
The necessity of "appealing to Caesar" can be summarized as follows:

1. Matt 18 directives have not been successful
2. Thus Matt 18 instructs us to treat them as unbelievers
3. Unbeliever conflicts are settled in courts
4. Acts 25 provides an example of Paul's "appeal to Caesar"
5. This appeal must be "purely" on behalf of the ministry, with no incentive for personal gain nor to avoid mistreatment
6. The Lord blessed this endeavor with peace and more scriptures

The above concepts have almost become part of the "normal Christian faith" for LC'ers.

Dear brother Ohio,

Thank you for laying out the steps in LSM's necessity of "appealing to Caesar". This is an excellent framework for going forward.

So, dear ones, what sayeth the Scriptures? Is LSM's logic fully according to the heart and mind of God as revealed in His Holy Word, or is there a "weak link" somewhere in LSM's chain of thought?

The first item in the list is, of course, the starting point for our discussion. Sadly, way too many times throughout Church History Matthew 18 directives have not been successful. The second item in the list is certainly true - if the Matthew 18 directives have not been successful, then Matt. 18:17b clearly states: "And if he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you just like the Gentile and the tax collector." So, at least in their standing and position relative to ourselves, these unreconciled ones are now "just like the Gentile and the tax collector", which is to say, to us their position is just like that of an unbeliever.

It is in going from the second to the third item in the list that I see the first serious defect in LSM's train of thought. Yes, to us these unreconciled ones are now in a position just like that of unbelievers. And yes, unbelievers do, by and large, settle their conflicts in wordly law courts (better they use the law courts rather than settling conflicts with guns and knives!). But herein lies the rub: Simply because these unreconciled ones are "just like unbelievers" to us and simply because unbelievers do tend to use the worldly law courts, none of that gives us believers the right to act like unbelievers!! No! The life of Christ in us will never agree with that! The life of Christ in us would have us forgive seventy times seven times, would have us be quickly reconciled to our brother, would have us turn the other cheeck, would have us go the extra mile, would have us yield up our cloak to the one who sues us for our tunic, would have us give to all who ask of us, would have us love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, would have us be as perfect in love as our heavenly Father is perfect!!