Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gregory]

Christian has asked whether or not that current lawsuit that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton have filed against Gailon Joy and Bob Pickle is in accord with the teachings of the Bible.  This is a complex question that I am going to respond to in parts.  In this part, I am going to discuss the policy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  In another part I will discuss the Biblical teachings, as Christian asked.  In addition, I may add a section on what has happened in the past in regard to attempts to settle the issues outside of civil litigation as that has been attempted several times and without success each time.

For the denomination policy I will refer to the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHRUCH MANUAL, REVISED 2005, 17TH EDITION.  This is the most authorative document available in regard to the general policy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  I will generally reference sections in Chapter 14 which begins on page 185.

In my references I will use “ChM” followed by a page number to reference the above Church Manual and I will use standard citations to reference EGW quotations cited in the ChM.

Some of the interesting comments:

The worlds Redeemer has invested great power with His church.  He states the rules to be applied in case of trial with its members. And He has given explicit direction as to the course to be pursued, . . . .  The Word of God does not give license for one man to set up his judgment in opposition to the judgment of the church,. . .”   ChM 188 and 3T 428

And

Reconciliation of differences within the church and its membership should, in most cases, be possible without recourse either to a conciliation process provided by the church or to civil litigation.”  ChM 190

NOTE: The above quote clearly limits to disputes that are solely within the membership of the SDA Church either by organizational structure or by membership.  And, it also clearly states that this is only possible in most cases but not all.

And

Every effort should be made to settle differences among church members and to contain the controversy within the smallest possible sphere.
 
# # # #

Civil litigation is often carried on is a spirit of contention that results from and reveals human selfishness.  It is this kind of adversary proceedings that must be discouraged by a church that seeks to exhibit the spirit of Christ.

# # # #

While there are, in the modern world, occasions for seeking decrees of civil courts, Christians should prefer settlement within the authority of the church, and should limit the seeking of such decrees to cases that are clearly within the jurisdiction of the civil courts and not within the authority of the church or for which the church agrees it has no adequate process for orderly settlement. . . . Examples of such cases may include, but are not limited to, the settlement of insurance claims, the issuance of decrees affecting the boundaries and ownership of real property, the deciding of some matters involving the administration of estates, and the awarding of custody of minor children.  While the church should set up procedures within the constraints of legal practice to avoid the type of litigation referred to in 1 Corinthians 6, it should constantly be on guard against turning from its gospel mission and taking up the duties of a civil magistrate.   (See Luke 12:13, 14 and TESTIMONIES, vol. 9, pp 216-218.)  ChM 191

 

Folks:  Here is a clear statement that there are areas of conflict that in our society today the Church cannot and/or should not resolve.  There is an area of life in which the Civil authorities, who exist according to the Biblical teaching, exercise authority.  And Christians should live within the rule to those civil authorities along as civil government does not go against the teaching of God.

And

Should the church fail to respond to a member’s request for help in reconciling a difference, or is the church acknowledges that the nature of the case is such that it is not within its authority, it should be recognized that the member has exhausted the possibilities of the biblically outlined procedure for the settlement of differences and that what he/she should do beyond that point is a matter for his/her conscience.  (See also SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 6998) ChM 191-192

Folks, there is a general feeling of sorrow among denominational leadership in regard to the lawsuit that has been filed.  There is a wish that it could be settled by other means.  There is a feeling of pain that these issues have become so public.

But, many believe that this lawsuit is allowed by denominational policy, as I have stated it above for the following reasons:

1)   The church can only exercise authority within the framework of denominational organizations and over people who at that time are SDAs.  3-ABN is not a denominational organization that is controlled by the denomination.  In addition, there are people involved in this situation who are not members of the SDA Church.  The denomination does not have the authority to deal with them.

2)   Several of the issues involved in this litigation are clearly within the prevue of the civil authorities and outside of the authority of the denomination.  E.g.  One issue involves a trademark and its use on the Internet.  That is an issue of civil law.  The denomination has neither the expertise not the authority to rule on a trademark issue.  This is true for other aspects of this lawsuit.

3)   Allegations have been made in regard to IRS issues.  Only the civil government can settle these.  The denomination has no authority to do so.  Do you really want the church to decide whether Danny Shelton (or you, or Bob Pickle) has properly paid their Income Tax?

4)   Issues that involve the conduct of a person who is not a SDA cannot be resolved by the denomination.  It has no authority over a non-SDA.

5)   Some of the litigated issues are outside of the mission of the church and fall into the role of a civil magistrate.  The Church has the mission to preach the gospel.  God has established civil government to handle civil affairs.

Folks I will not minimize the pain to the people involved in this lawsuit and their families.  Perhaps if all involved were fully in harmony with the will of God some issues  could  have been settled outside of litigation.  Even so, there remain issues that could not have been so settled.  The only venue for the resolution of these issues lies with civil government.  That is sad, but true.

NOTE:  I will respond later to the Biblical teaching.




 

[Bob Pickle]

On the other hand, are not improper business dealings grounds for church discipline?

Thus, ASI or the Thompsonville Church could certainly look into such issues as the 1998 real estate deal, and the horse donations.

[Gregory]

On the other hand, are not improper business dealings grounds for church discipline?

Thus, ASI or the Thompsonville Church could certainly look into such issues as the 1998 real estate deal, and the horse donations.

Of course they could.   But, Bob, it would be the IRS that would determine whether or not they were improper business dealings.  The authority to do that rests with the IRS and no one else.  It is a civil matter.

If the IRS were to determine that such were improper business dealings it would be within the pervue of the  local congregation to decide whether to discipline the individual for improper business dealings, or to let the IRS sanctions be the sole discipline.  It would not be proper for the local congregation to determine that they were improper absent a determination of the IRS.

NOTE:  I am not saying that a local congregation can never look at a claimed improper business dealing.  You brought up a specific case where the IRS has the civil right to determine the question.  The Church should not userp that right.

[Bob Pickle]

NOTE:  I am not saying that a local congregation can never look at a claimed improper business dealing.  You brought up a specific case where the IRS has the civil right to determine the question.  The Church should not userp that right.

I would think it inappropriate to require convictions before the church can act in civil matters.

Adultery is a civil matter, but the church doesn't wait around until the civil courts convict on such a matter. So just because it is a civil matter doesn't mean the church can't act before the state does.

The horse donation thing is pretty clear cut. ASI would not have to wait around until the IRS said that Danny said that he had reported a donation of a horse or horses as cash on his 2003 tax return instead of getting the required appraisal(s), since we all know he said that. ASI or the church doesn't have to wait until the IRS tells us what we already know.

The 1998 real estate deal is a matter of public record, and doesn't have to involve the IRS at all. ASI could still determine that it is unacceptable for an ASI member to give away its real estate to directors for token prices.

But maybe we should back up: When the complaint says that we said that directors of 3ABN enriched themselves in violation of the Internal Revenue Code, what specific statements is it referring to?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

"1)   The church can only exercise authority within the framework of denominational organizations and over people who at that time are SDAs.  3-ABN is not a denominational organization that is controlled by the denomination.  In addition, there are people involved in this situation who are not members of the SDA Church.   The denomination does not have the authority to deal with them." - Gregory Matthews

Could you clarify which people involved in this litigation that are not members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

Since Tommy Ray Shelton is not a party to the action, I would like to know what "parties" are not members?

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

"Several of the issues involved in this litigation are clearly within the prevue of the civil authorities and outside of the authority of the denomination.  E.g.  One issue involves a trademark and its use on the Internet.  That is an issue of civil law.  The denomination has neither the expertise not the authority to rule on a trademark issue.  This is true for other aspects of this lawsuit." Gregory Matthews

Are you stating it is YOUR OPINION that trademark is an issue or are you simply parroting this misuse of process that violates the Lanham Act?

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

"5)   Some of the litigated issues are outside of the mission of the church and fall into the role of a civil magistrate.  The Church has the mission to preach the gospel.  God has established civil government to handle civil affairs." regory Matthews

There is the implication here that 3ABN does not have a mission to preach the gospel. Are we admitting the recognition that at all time pertinent hereto that 3ABN was really just a Shelton Business Enterprise?

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Fran]

Thank you, Gailon! 

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Christian has asked whether or not that current lawsuit that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton have filed against Gailon Joy and Bob Pickle is in accord with the teachings of the Bible.  This is a complex question that I am going to respond to in parts.  In this part, I am going to discuss the policy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  In another part I will discuss the Biblical teachings, as Christian asked.  In addition, I may add a section on what has happened in the past in regard to attempts to settle the issues outside of civil litigation as that has been attempted several times and without success each time.

For the denomination policy I will refer to the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHRUCH MANUAL, REVISED 2005, 17TH EDITION.  This is the most authorative document available in regard to the general policy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  I will generally reference sections in Chapter 14 which begins on page 185.

In my references I will use “ChM” followed by a page number to reference the above Church Manual and I will use standard citations to reference EGW quotations cited in the ChM.

Some of the interesting comments:

The worlds Redeemer has invested great power with His church.  He states the rules to be applied in case of trial with its members. And He has given explicit direction as to the course to be pursued, . . . .  The Word of God does not give license for one man to set up his judgment in opposition to the judgment of the church,. . .”   ChM 188 and 3T 428

And

Reconciliation of differences within the church and its membership should, in most cases, be possible without recourse either to a conciliation process provided by the church or to civil litigation.”  ChM 190

NOTE: The above quote clearly limits to disputes that are solely within the membership of the SDA Church either by organizational structure or by membership.  And, it also clearly states that this is only possible in most cases but not all.

And

Every effort should be made to settle differences among church members and to contain the controversy within the smallest possible sphere.
 
# # # #

Civil litigation is often carried on is a spirit of contention that results from and reveals human selfishness.  It is this kind of adversary proceedings that must be discouraged by a church that seeks to exhibit the spirit of Christ.

# # # #

While there are, in the modern world, occasions for seeking decrees of civil courts, Christians should prefer settlement within the authority of the church, and should limit the seeking of such decrees to cases that are clearly within the jurisdiction of the civil courts and not within the authority of the church or for which the church agrees it has no adequate process for orderly settlement. . . . Examples of such cases may include, but are not limited to, the settlement of insurance claims, the issuance of decrees affecting the boundaries and ownership of real property, the deciding of some matters involving the administration of estates, and the awarding of custody of minor children.  While the church should set up procedures within the constraints of legal practice to avoid the type of litigation referred to in 1 Corinthians 6, it should constantly be on guard against turning from its gospel mission and taking up the duties of a civil magistrate.   (See Luke 12:13, 14 and TESTIMONIES, vol. 9, pp 216-218.)  ChM 191

 

Folks:  Here is a clear statement that there are areas of conflict that in our society today the Church cannot and/or should not resolve.  There is an area of life in which the Civil authorities, who exist according to the Biblical teaching, exercise authority.  And Christians should live within the rule to those civil authorities along as civil government does not go against the teaching of God.

And

Should the church fail to respond to a member’s request for help in reconciling a difference, or is the church acknowledges that the nature of the case is such that it is not within its authority, it should be recognized that the member has exhausted the possibilities of the biblically outlined procedure for the settlement of differences and that what he/she should do beyond that point is a matter for his/her conscience.  (See also SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 6998) ChM 191-192

Folks, there is a general feeling of sorrow among denominational leadership in regard to the lawsuit that has been filed.  There is a wish that it could be settled by other means.  There is a feeling of pain that these issues have become so public.

But, many believe that this lawsuit is allowed by denominational policy, as I have stated it above for the following reasons:

1)   The church can only exercise authority within the framework of denominational organizations and over people who at that time are SDAs.  3-ABN is not a denominational organization that is controlled by the denomination.  In addition, there are people involved in this situation who are not members of the SDA Church.  The denomination does not have the authority to deal with them.

2)   Several of the issues involved in this litigation are clearly within the prevue of the civil authorities and outside of the authority of the denomination.  E.g.  One issue involves a trademark and its use on the Internet.  That is an issue of civil law.  The denomination has neither the expertise not the authority to rule on a trademark issue.  This is true for other aspects of this lawsuit.

3)   Allegations have been made in regard to IRS issues.  Only the civil government can settle these.  The denomination has no authority to do so.  Do you really want the church to decide whether Danny Shelton (or you, or Bob Pickle) has properly paid their Income Tax?

4)   Issues that involve the conduct of a person who is not a SDA cannot be resolved by the denomination.  It has no authority over a non-SDA.

5)   Some of the litigated issues are outside of the mission of the church and fall into the role of a civil magistrate.  The Church has the mission to preach the gospel.  God has established civil government to handle civil affairs.

Folks I will not minimize the pain to the people involved in this lawsuit and their families.  Perhaps if all involved were fully in harmony with the will of God some issues  could  have been settled outside of litigation.  Even so, there remain issues that could not have been so settled.  The only venue for the resolution of these issues lies with civil government.  That is sad, but true.

NOTE:  I will respond later to the Biblical teaching.

Wow, what great news. There is no question I am going to become a whole lot more litigious in the future. Like the next time a president at AUC misdirects funds, I think I will pursue a class action case to clean it up.

ANd the next time I have a complaint regarding Hal at Hartland Institute...well let's just say CLASS ACTION HERE I COME...and I can point to Gregory Matthews as the authority that it is just fine with the General Conference.

Now, what if I have a problem with the General Conference? Do I have permission to sue them as well? ANd how about our local pastor...if he wears the wrong tie or speaks the wrong message, can I file suit against him as well? And what if I decide I do not like Mark and Tinnie Finley mailing out all that literature...can I get an injunction based on Gregory Matthews authority?

And, most importantly, what if I just don't like all that celebration music they play at the local church? Do I have permission to sue the entire church? ANd what if a member slanders me? Does this give me authority to sue him as well?

I am telling you, this is sounding just wonderful!!! I can litigate and not mitigate!!! Grandma, watch out!!! You are definitely in my litigation sites!!!

Here is a drink to luscivious litigation...the world is the limit...I HOPE. I wonder, if it rains tomorrow or a meteor comes through the roof, who is going to accept service for the Godhead? Any takers? Maybe Grandma will accept service? How about it Grandma? Or How about Gregory Matthews? Or maybe the General Conference President, after all it is "God's Highest Authority on earth"

Yes, Mr Matthews, or is that Elder Matthews, you have just opened the floodgates of litigation...I feel a lot free-er today!!! My soul is liberated and now I must grant to Mr Pickle the Authority to counterclaim against 3ABN!!!
Go to it, BOB, after all Gregory Matthews has granted permission based upon General Conference Authority!!!

The visions of opportunity are swirling past my eyes like storm clouds over Florida!!!

Thank-you so much for clarifying all that and giving my life new meaning and purpose. Litigate, litigate, Litigate!!! Now we know that the General Conference advocates adversarial law as a primary basis for conflict resolution.
Think I will go down to the courthouse and pick up a hundred or so summons and complaints coversheets. I am going to be busy!!!

Look what thou hast unleashed, Elder Matthews!!!

Gailon Arthur JOY

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

On the other hand, are not improper business dealings grounds for church discipline?

Thus, ASI or the Thompsonville Church could certainly look into such issues as the 1998 real estate deal, and the horse donations.

Of course they could.   But, Bob, it would be the IRS that would determine whether or not they were improper business dealings.  The authority to do that rests with the IRS and no one else.  It is a civil matter.

If the IRS were to determine that such were improper business dealings it would be within the pervue of the  local congregation to decide whether to discipline the individual for improper business dealings, or to let the IRS sanctions be the sole discipline.  It would not be proper for the local congregation to determine that they were improper absent a determination of the IRS.

NOTE:  I am not saying that a local congregation can never look at a claimed improper business dealing.  You brought up a specific case where the IRS has the civil right to determine the question.  The Church should not userp that right.

So, Mr Matthews, We now are suggesting that if I catch someone with his hands in the offering bucket, I am to turn him over to the IRS? And what if it is the pastor? Or the Conference President? And I call the IRS but they can find nothing with which to prosecute...do we ignore it and let it continue? Now that sounds like a great idea...never confront error...it is not your duty to confront clear and obvious error!!! I don't recall my Bible teaching that premise!!! Do you have a new version?

And let's see, if you caught a husband throwing his wife into the street without due process, who were you suppose to go to? Probate Court? I did not see you even on the witness list!!!

Sorry, but I think this boils down to "I See NO EVIL, I HEAR NO EVIL AND I SAY NO EVIL" or better described as put your head in the sand philosophy.

And who are you kidding? Your agenda is simply informative? A sudden urge to reform? Well, you know what they say about reformed alcoholics?

Be assured I am not a buyer!!!

Gailon Arthur JOY

[bonnie]

Wow, what great news. There is no question I am going to become a whole lot more litigious in the future. Like the next time a president at AUC misdirects funds, I think I will pursue a class action case to clean it up.

ANd the next time I have a complaint regarding Hal at Hartland Institute...well let's just say CLASS ACTION HERE I COME...and I can point to Gregory Matthews as the authority that it is just fine with the General Conference.

Now, what if I have a problem with the General Conference? Do I have permission to sue them as well? ANd how about our local pastor...if he wears the wrong tie or speaks the wrong message, can I file suit against him as well? And what if I decide I do not like Mark and Tinnie Finley mailing out all that literature...can I get an injunction based on Gregory Matthews authority?

And, most importantly, what if I just don't like all that celebration music they play at the local church? Do I have permission to sue the entire church? ANd what if a member slanders me? Does this give me authority to sue him as well?

I am telling you, this is sounding just wonderful!!! I can litigate and not mitigate!!! Grandma, watch out!!! You are definitely in my litigation sites!!!

Here is a drink to luscivious litigation...the world is the limit...I HOPE. I wonder, if it rains tomorrow or a meteor comes through the roof, who is going to accept service for the Godhead? Any takers? Maybe Grandma will accept service? How about it Grandma? Or How about Gregory Matthews? Or maybe the General Conference President, after all it is "God's Highest Authority on earth"

Yes, Mr Matthews, or is that Elder Matthews, you have just opened the floodgates of litigation...I feel a lot free-er today!!! My soul is liberated and now I must grant to Mr Pickle the Authority to counterclaim against 3ABN!!!
Go to it, BOB, after all Gregory Matthews has granted permission based upon General Conference Authority!!!

The visions of opportunity are swirling past my eyes like storm clouds over Florida!!!

Thank-you so much for clarifying all that and giving my life new meaning and purpose. Litigate, litigate, Litigate!!! Now we know that the General Conference advocates adversarial law as a primary basis for conflict resolution.
Think I will go down to the courthouse and pick up a hundred or so summons and complaints coversheets. I am going to be busy!!!

Look what thou hast unleashed, Elder Matthews!!!

Gailon Arthur JOY

Gailon,

Is this what Gregory Matthews said? If the answer is yes,can you kindly include the quotes and the date he said them







Edited to complete sentence

[bonnie]

So, Mr Matthews, We now are suggesting that if I catch someone with his hands in the offering bucket, I am to turn him over to the IRS? And what if it is the pastor? Or the Conference President? And I call the IRS but they can find nothing with which to prosecute...do we ignore it and let it continue? Now that sounds like a great idea...never confront error...it is not your duty to confront clear and obvious error!!! I don't recall my Bible teaching that premise!!! Do you have a new version?

And let's see, if you caught a husband throwing his wife into the street without due process, who were you suppose to go to? Probate Court? I did not see you even on the witness list!!!

Sorry, but I think this boils down to "I See NO EVIL, I HEAR NO EVIL AND I SAY NO EVIL" or better described as put your head in the sand philosophy.

And who are you kidding? Your agenda is simply informative? A sudden urge to reform? Well, you know what they say about reformed alcoholics?

Be assured I am not a buyer!!!

Gailon Arthur JOY

Once again, is this what Gregory Matthews said.? I have seen others do this. In fact just yesterday bumped a older topic back to the top, wondering if a certain type of behaviours was indeed a lie.

Exaggerating as to what someone else said,or pretending the posting was not understood so it leaves a way for attention to focus an attack on a person instead of the actual statement.


When I see stuff like this,I automatically write anything further they have as being factual. I don't have the desire or the patience to sift thru messages to try to isolate the truth from a exaggerated statment,said so as to make the other guy look the way they want them to.

Some are better at this little trick than others, but all that do so leave a bad taste

[Bob Pickle]

bonnie,

It does appear to me that that is what Gregory said.

Regarding the horse donations and real estate deal we have definite claims by Danny and/or public records.

Gregory has suggested that the local church cannot do anything until there is first a finding of guilt by a civil agency.

We can apply the same logic to other civil matters, such as divorce and stealing from the offering plate. Unless there is a finding of guilt by a civil government agency, the church cannot do a thing.

I disagree with that logic.

[bonnie]

It does appear to me that that is what Gregory said.

Regarding the horse donations and real estate deal we have definite claims by Danny and/or public records.

Gregory has suggested that the local church cannot do anything until there is first a finding of guilt by a civil agency.

We can apply the same logic to other civil matters, such as divorce and stealing from the offering plate. Unless there is a finding of guilt by a civil government agency, the church cannot do a thing.

I disagree with that logic.

Bob
Can you honestly say that Gregory meant or said what Gailon said in such a "entertaining" fashion.

There is little reason to be so caustic,sarcastic and to exaggerate what someone else has said. It is also a lie in my book to stretch and strain what was said
for the sole purpose of demeaning another.


Another area where the church is almost powerless is when people lie. It would be nice if they could but that would probably be all they got done.

Show me in the following. I have included a few remarks by Gailon

ANd the next time I have a complaint regarding Hal at Hartland Institute...well let's just say CLASS ACTION HERE I COME...and I can point to Gregory Matthews as the authority that it is just fine with the General Conference.

Can you point me to the statement where Gregory has implied or suggested this

Now, what if I have a problem with the General Conference? Do I have permission to sue them as well? ANd how about our local pastor...if he wears the wrong tie or speaks the wrong message, can I file suit against him as well? And what if I decide I do not like Mark and Tinnie Finley mailing out all that literature...can I get an injunction based on Gregory Matthews authority?

Please point me where permission was given to sue a pastor because you did not like his tie.
You also know the examples given here are an gross exaggeration and you are perfectly willing to play the game.

And, most importantly, what if I just don't like all that celebration music they play at the local church? Do I have permission to sue the entire church? And what if a member slanders me? Does this give me authority to sue him as well?

Yes, you could probably sue a member for slander, whether you would win or not would be debatable as long as the tactics shown here were part of your lawsuit. Maybe attributing  exaggerated statements, being very confrontational any time you respond to someone,your lawsuit may not be decided in your favor.
I don't think you would get far filing a lawsuit dealing with the music a church chooses to have. Nor do I believe I read that in Gregory's explaination. If you did, plese show me.
 I believe you knew that reading the above statements. But of course that was not the reason for saying what was did. Many will throw enough half-truths,no truth,exaggerations around , and  hope that doing so enough will cause something to stick. It does frequently,but many times not on the intended.

I am telling you, this is sounding just wonderful!!! I can litigate and not mitigate!!! Grandma, watch out!!! You are definitely in my litigation sites!!!

Please point me to the quote that has anything to do with litigating against Grandma Nettie. Or personally favoring litigation over mitigate.
I know of only one that has shown a exgerrated desire and glee at the prospect of litigation.

Here is a drink to lascivious litigation...the world is the limit...I HOPE. I wonder, if it rains tomorrow or a meteor comes through the roof, who is going to accept service for the Godhead? Any takers? Maybe Grandma will accept service? How about it Grandma? Or How about Gregory Matthews? Or maybe the General Conference President, after all it is "God's Highest Authority on earth"

This is something that for those being even only slightly objective would understand.

Now if you would Bob, please provide the quotes that would show  the  honesty of the above statements and the need to say this

[Bob Pickle]

bonnie, here is an example:

"NOTE:  I am not saying that a local congregation can never look at a claimed improper business dealing.  You brought up a specific case where the IRS has the civil right to determine the question.  The Church should not userp that right."

On any question, therefore, where a civil governmental agency has a right to determine a question, the local church cannot, according to how I read Gregory's statement, deal with the matter one way or the other until there is a finding by that agency.

And earlier he put forth the idea that there are questions that only the courts can deal with, and that if the church doesn't respond to requests for help in settling differences, or doesn't think it has authority to do so (quoting from the Church Manual), then no one can criticize litigation.

I see Gailon's posts as describing various scenarios that off the top of his head he thought could result from those ideas, such as a class action involving Hal Mayer.

If Gailon doesn't like the pastor's tie or sermon, and the church doesn't intervene or think it has authority over such issues, then based on Gregory's posts it would be up to Gailon's conscience whether he sued or not.

Same or about the same with the other issues.