Ligonier Ministries Lawsuit: Did They Have Other Options?

Conflict resolution. It's something that each of us, to greater and lesser degrees, must routinely participate in. Whether it be in mediating peace between our children, making peace with colleagues at work, making peace with church members, or even with a stranger out on the road who shakes his fist and makes an obscene gesture because we forgot to signal, we daily are called to resolve conflicts. We're called to be peacemakers:

If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Romans 12:18

Some people are very good with conflict resolution and others seem quite adept at taking relatively minor disputes and turning them into virtual scorched-earth civil wars.

Conflicts between people, as well as conflicts with the institutions that people manage, are inevitable. More important than any conflict is the issue of how the people involved in a conflict will work toward a peaceable resolution.

Of all people Christians should be the most adept at the peaceable resolution of their conflicts. But this is often not the case. Of all people Christian leaders, the Pastors, Elders, preachers and theologians, should be especially gifted at conflict resolution. For good or for ill they lead by their example. Sadly too often the example of conflict resolution set by Christian leaders is very poor. In fact the example that some Christian leaders set in conflict resolution is nothing short of deplorable. The Ligonier Ministries vs. Frank Vance lawsuit is an excellent example of that.

Pastors, preachers, teachers and ministry leaders "must be blameless, of good behaviour, temperate, prudent, respectable, not pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money" (1 Timothy 3:2,3,7). A Christian leader who lacks such character will prove himself incapable of managing conflicts well, and may actually make conflicts much worse than they started out to be.

Such a man is likely to find himself frequently at odds with his own church or ministry staff, his church members, and perhaps even with those outside his church or ministry. His testimony for Christ will inevitably suffer, and through the strife that he causes he may even bring reproach to the name of the Lord. It's this very last issue that causes me by far the greatest concern in the civil lawsuit of Ligonier Ministries against me. The major problem here isn't what this lawsuit will do to my reputation, or even what it will do to Ligonier's reputation (albeit it will be far more devastating to theirs than mine). The major concern I have is what this lawsuit will do to the reputation of Reformed Christianity. Even more significant, this lawsuit can in no way bring honor to Christ, and it's very likely to accomplish just the opposite.

Ever since finding out through the Press that Ligonier Ministries has sued me I've found it quite difficult to process what this all really means. It's not that I don't understand how lawsuits work, or the objectives of plaintiffs and defendants. It's that I just can't comprehend how a Bible-professing Reformed Christian ministry, headed by the most well-known and esteemed Reformed theologian of our day, RC Sproul, could blatantly violate the Bible which Ligonier Ministries says it believes:

Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, matters of this life? If then you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that your brethren. 1Corinthians 6:1-8

The reasons why Christians shouldn't sue Christians are self-evident and hardly even needs commentary. Nevertheless there have been many Christian commentaries written condemning the practice of Christian suing Christian. The Reformer John Calvin had quite a bit to say on the subject. Indeed, even RC Sproul himself has had much to say:

1 Cor. 6:1 Paul appears to change the topic from the evils of immorality to the problem of lawsuits among Christians. It is important, however, to notice the connection. In the first place, the topic of immorality has not been abandoned, but will recur in v. 9. Secondly, the failings of the Corinthians with regard to lawsuits are an expression of the problem already discussed in ch. 5, namely, a weak doctrine of the church... If the Corinthians understood the relation between the Israelite community and the Christian fellowship (5:12, 13 note), they would realize it was absurd for believers to go outside the church to solve their disputes.

6:7 Nevertheless, if the Corinthians understood the serious implications of all the improprieties in their church, and if they appreciated the qualities that should characterize believers (cf. 12:4-7), they would much sooner bear injustice than bring disgrace upon the Christian community by publicly exposing their misdeeds in the civil courts.

New Reformation Study Bible, R. C. Sproul General Editor (2005)

Given RC Sproul's own disdain for Christians suing Christians how then can it be that his ministry would now violate the very principles that he espouses? The only conclusion I can come to is that there is a grave moral and logical disconnect between the orthodoxy and their orthopraxy of Ligonier Ministries.

Here's what Matthew Henry had to say of this passage in his commentaries:

"Christians should not contend with one another, for they are brethren. This, if duly attended to, would prevent many law-suits, and end many quarrels and disputes. In matters of great damage to ourselves or families, we may use lawful means to right ourselves, but Christians should be of a forgiving temper. Refer the matters in dispute, rather than go to law about them. They are trifles, and may easily be settled, if you first conquer your own spirits. Bear and forbear, and the men of least skill among you may end your quarrels. It is a shame that little quarrels should grow to such a head among Christians, that they cannot be determined by the brethren. The peace of a man's own mind, and the calm of his neighbourhood, are worth more than victory."

Indeed any alleged harm that I might have caused Tim Dick, and by extension Ligonier Ministries, and by further extension RC Sproul, is a mere "trifle," especially when compared to the enormity of the injury that will come upon the testimony of the Lord Jesus as a result of this lawsuit. Matthew Henry is correct when he says, "They are trifles, and may easily be settled." Why then would Ligonier Ministries choose instead to sue? Did they honestly think that there was no other way -- a biblical way -- to resolve our dispute? If they didn't then it begs the question: How could a Christian ministry that expounds Reformed theology in such a scholarly way be so woefully ignorant in this particular area?

Short of suing me, and therefore violating Scripture with impunity, did Ligonier Ministries have any other options? I can think of two, and perhaps there are more (commenters are welcome to offer additional biblically-based suggestions):

1. Tim Dick could have responded to the allegations.

Had Tim Dick responded rather than altogether evading the allegations that he'd defrauded Don Kistler in Ligonier's "acquisition" of Soli Deo Gloria Ministries, none of this would have ever happened. Tim Dick could have responded in one of two ways, and either response would have steered us down an entirely different path:

A). Tim Dick could have denied the allegations. Had he denied the allegations by simply saying, "Frank you're completely wrong and what you've been told by all those witnesses isn't true," then I would not have, and I could not have in good conscience, gone forward with publishing the Ligonier Ministries Defrauds Soli Deo Gloria Ministries In "Acquisition" story. It would have been an issue of Tim Dick's word versus the witnesses, and in my mind that wouldn't have been sufficient enough to justify going forward with the story. But Tim never did that, and to this day he has yet to deny the allegations.

B). Tim Dick could have admitted to the allegations. Had Tim Dick confessed to the fraud allegations I would have taken this as a very positive sign and, again, I would not have, and I could not have in good conscience, gone forward with the story, provided however that at the same time he would have offered assurances of a prompt and full resolution and restitution with Don Kistler.

Tim Dick however did neither one. He neither admitted any wrongdoing, but neither did he deny it. In fact he just evaded answering the allegations at all. He never evaded talking about other unrelated issues (thereby attempting to change the subject and even stall for time), but never would he so much as even acknowledge that I was alleging that he'd committed a serious fraud, all this in the course of several email exchanges.


2. Tim Dick could have suggested that we resolve the dispute through Christian mediation.

If Tim Dick and Ligonier Ministries lacked the ability and resources to resolve this dispute themselves they should have suggested entering into formal Christian mediation or perhaps arbitration. One organization that offers such services is Peacemaker Ministries, run by Christian attorney Ken Sande. Peacemaker Ministries is committed to resolving disputes between believers biblically, which means without resorting to the civil courts. Other options for Christian mediation are also available, all of which appear to be biblical, and they can even be legally binding in the form of what is known as "binding arbitration." Had this been suggested it's very likely that I would have accepted the offer.

Instead I was hit with a lawsuit with no prior warning, or even any notice after I'd been sued. I find this remarkable in light of the fact that I was more than fair with Tim Dick in issuing him prior notice, a full ten days advanced warning, of the consequences should he fail to address the fraud allegations. Tim Dick only used my fairness against me by immediately filing a lawsuit in which he asked the judge for "prior restraint" (which obviously didn't work). Tim Dick's intentions were clear, to silence me via what can only be construed as a SLAPP lawsuit, going so far as to even petition that the judge issue a "prior restraint" of my freedom of speech.

Not only did Tim Dick not warn me that if I didn't cease and desist that he'd file a lawsuit, but once he filed the lawsuit he didn't even tell me about it! I first heard about it from the Press one week later! To this date neither Tim Dick nor his attorneys have informed me in what court I've been sued, case number, nothing. Not only is this morally unethical it's even legally unethical.

If Ligonier's lawsuit is successful it will only serve to have a chilling effect on free speech for all bloggers and webmasters. It will only serve to intimidate other whistle blowers who serve the public interest by exposing organizational fraud and corruption in organizations that refuse to be held accountable, and that for practical reasons simply cannot be held accountable, through any other methods than this form of public exposure.

But even if Ligonier's lawsuit fails (and First Amendment legal experts have all told me that will likely be the outcome) it still might serve to have a chilling effect because of the fear that many bloggers will now have, because of the publicity of the Ligonier case, that they too might find themselves the subjects of a lawsuit. Even frivolous lawsuits can serve to chill free speech. Multi-million dollar corporations can easily silence (and they often have) a whistle blower by the threat of a lawsuit, even if such a suit had no legal merit.

Ligonier's lawsuit is biblically frivolous and I plan to prove in court that it's also legally frivolous and an abuse of the legal process. This isn't to say that if I had it to do over again that I wouldn't do a few things somewhat differently. It is to say however that there's absolutely nothing here worthy of being sued over and, moreover, biblically it's absolutely forbidden. Those who continue to speak out in support of Ligonier in these efforts are supporting the evisceration of the Bible itself.