Here is what Paul says:
Here is what Jesus says:
I have tended to interpret these verse at "face value" and believed that believers should not sue other believers but, rather, should take their grievances to the church. If a believer is being sued by another believer (or by anyone for that matter) he should not "fight" back; he should leave the situation up to God.
I read in the Baptist news about state conventions suing Baptist state colleges and Christian groups suing the ACLU and each other over "evolution" and "school prayer."
I was interested in seeing some comments and alternative interpretations of these Scripture verses.
Should Christians sue other Christians?
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Anleifr, Jan 6, 2005.
Page 1 of 2
-
ACLU is not Christian. Case closed.
-
The cases of State Conventions suing Baptist State Colleges has occurred in recent months in Georgia and Missouri.
Here's why some think it's permissable.
These organizations are incorporated under State Law. If they violate any state code in the way they do business who will call them to task if not State Conventions or member churches or messengers of the convention? -
Our attorney won't take a case to court if he knows the two parties involved are Christians. He advises them to take it to their deacon boards. But that has to do with individuals. When you are dealing with business entities, even "Christian" ones, things must be dealt with legally, in order to be valid in the world's reckoning. Besides, not everyone working for a "Christian" legal entity is necessarily a born-again Christian.
-
Right on LadyEagle.
-
I would respond to those you make the assertion that suing is permissable when there isn't outside accountability that such scenarios do not negate Scriptural prohibitions. The question then is whether or not suing other Christians (or other Christian institutions) is prohibited by Scripture. -
Are you suing or being sued?
Gotta be clear sometimes ... -
Do you not subject yourself to State Law when you incorporate a religious organization?
I think YES. And if you do then you must follow the state's prescribed legal system for resolving legal matters.
In the Missouri Case the Missouri State Convention was open for Christian Arbitration but the agencies refused. In fact the trustees acted like they didn't even know what Christian Arbitration was. -
1 - It will send the message that Christians are patsies and will allow you to walk all over them, and
2 - It will send the message that Christians who wrong other Christians are exempt from being held accountable for their actions legally.
If you're a Christian, and accidentally run your car through my living room window costing $2000 to repair, and you refuse to pay for it, you bet I'm going to sue you for damages. OTOH, if I run my car through another person's window, not only will I pay for your window, but I will probably give you a few extra bucks just for your trouble. Keep in mind that, like most people, I don't have that much money lying around. -
Speaking as a Missouri Baptist, people should know that the agencies involved were instituted, funded, and supported by the Missouri Baptist Convention from their very beginnings. In effect, although God owns all things, the MBC exercized the temporal rights of ownership.
Soon after the beginnings of the conservative takeover in the SBC, there came a point at which each of the agencies "hijacked" themselves (quite illegally, I assure you) from the control of the MBC. This is (as of two years ago) a total of 231 million dollars in material assets, put in place by God through the tithes and offerings of members of the Missouri Baptist Convention.
What else is there to do? Should we just release control of these godly institutions so they can pursue their more liberal agenda? Or do we take steps necessary to restore them back to their rightful stewards - the Missouri Baptist Convention?
Either way, in the eyes of both Christian and secular society, we come out as losers. It's a difficult situation to be sure. For my part, I believe the MBC is doing the right thing in our efforts to restore these agencies to the MBC.
Most people are stuck on the idea of suing, as if anyone is going to profit from this. The MBC, however, is suing to regain control over assets that we already legally own. There's a big difference. -
True, not everyone working for a Christian legal entity is a believer. But we do not know men’s hearts. If they have made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ we have to treat them as such.
With regards to the world, Paul appears to admonish believers from going to court because of unbelievers (1 Cor 6:6)
But if the group is not breaking a state law and secular authorities do not get involved then I do not think we are only left with the option of a lawsuit. I think there are always other options. That is, if suing a Christian group is prohibited by Scripture.
Releasing the institutions is an option. There may be other options. But just because others harm us or don’t play fair do we then have the right to violate Scriptural prohibitions, if that is the case.
We cannot base our Christian duty on what the world or other believers think; we have to do what the Scriptures tell us.
Whether or not one group profits or even whether one group is in the right seems to be beyond the point. We can’t break Scriptural mandates just because we are a part of the right cause. That’s the end justifying the means. I go back to Matt. 5:38-48.
Before I am willing to change my position on this issue I think I will need to see Scriptural rather than anecdotal arguments. -
How about "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's"
If you obligate your church or religious institution with the laws of Caesar by incorporating your entity then you are bound by law and by God's Word to Obey the King.
Why do you think Paul appealed to Caesar? He obviously did not mind asserting his legal rights when it was necessary. -
As usual, I find myself in agreement with your position. I think it would violate scriptural mandates on good stewardship to simply allow these things to happen without challenge.
What many don't understand is that the MBC begged these agencies to submit to binding Christian arbitration - and they flat refused. Why? Because everyone knows they don't have a leg to stand on - scripturally or legally. -
“Appealing to Caesar”, or appealing to the government, is one thing; suing another believer is a far different matter. Again, if we think that a Christian or Christian group is violating state law then I think we can appeal to the state. But if no state law is being broken then we do not have the Scriptural mandate to break Paul’s command to not sue.
Would it not violate the scriptural mandate of 1 Cor 6:1-8 to sue other believers? If not, why?
-
Not normally
-
Anleifr,
If I were a lawyer here's what I would say to you.
The scripture in 1 Cor 6 applies to the local church at Corinth and thus to all other local churches for all time. Christians in local churches are not to sue each other, period, they are to handle all their diffences through local church discipline.
Now you show me how this passage applies to all Christians who are not members of the same local church. Who would be the judge? How can you use Local Church Discipline when there is no church involved? -
I believe if one who claims to be a Christian commits a tort against me and we cannot settle it by other means, that person is not acting as a Christian and I have no qualms against using the legal system agains this person.
Several years ago, a truck driven by me "rear-ended" a stopped car with one occupant.(a minor accident-no one injured.) I was able to reach an amicable settlement by acknowledging it was my fault and offering a cash settlement to repair the other person's car(about $400) and being friendly. I explained I was a CHRISTIAN and therefore wanted to do the HONEST thing.(The other person is NOT a Christian.)
That person and I are friends today.(I'm still trying to lead him to CHRIST.)
OTOH, I loaned a professing Christian some money, which he could easily have repaid in a week, and I finally had to threaten him with a lawsuit. He repaid me, while telling me I wasn't acting as a Christian, etc. Sorry, Sir, I EARNED that money, and had the right not to lend it at all, and I asked for no interest. The CHRISTIAN thing woulda been to have repaid the debt w/o being asked. -
Interesting ...
-
-
Five points:
First, when two or more believers are involved then the church is always involved.
Second, Paul statements about lawsuits among believers comes in a whole passage about immorality and the body (individual and corporate), extending from 1 Cor 5 to 1 Cor 6:20.
Third, it would seem odd that Paul would put a prohibition against individuals believers but allow such action on the part of an aggregate of believers. Here is an extreme example: 1 Cor 6:9-10 gives a vice list following the prohibition against lawsuits among believers. It would seem odd for us to state that such behaviour is wrong among individual believers but alright among a body of individual believers, or this behaviour is wrong among those believers who attend church but alright among believers who do not attend church.
Fourth, while Paul is speaking to a local or regional church in the case of the Corinthian congregation, it is doubtful that the principles he is applying are just intended for the local church. If such were the case then associations and denominations that break fellowship with a church that has a homosexual pastor in accordance with 1 Cor 5:11-13 and 1 Cor 6:9 were applying a microcosmic discipline in an unscriptural macrocosmic manner.
Finally, Paul never seems to make a differentiation between the local church and the whole church. There is one body of Christ and that one body is the whole church in all of its local and regional manifestations (1 Cor 12). One could go so far as to say that the church exists wherever two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name. The church is not an institution, rather it is a composition of people united under the headship of Christ.
At least in 1 Cor, Paul speaks about the individual believers body (6:15-20) and the body of the church, whether local or in its entirety (12:12-31).
In 6:15-20 he speaks about the body of the individual believer associating with immorality. In 5:1-13, he speaks about the body of the aggregate of individual believers that makes up the local church associating with an individual believer who is associating with immorality: “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (5:6). This is interesting logic on the part of Paul. The individual believer’s body is one of many individual bodies that makes up the whole body of Christ, i.e. the church. The same can be said of many local churches making up many associations making up many state conventions making up many denominations that makes up the entire church in all of its manifestations across the globe, across cultures, since its founding at Pentecost.
Paul speaks in 12:22-31 about the whole body of Christ and its many gifts. He speaks that there should not be any division in the body (v. 25). He speaks about the different spiritual gifts given to the many members of the body. He then speaks about apostles, prophets and teachers (v. 28). The reference to apostles in this verse about the church body seems to indicate that he is referring to the church as a whole and not just in its local manifestation in Corinth. There does not seem to be any apostles in Corinth at the time of this letter because if there had been then such church problems would have been dealt with by them and not by Paul via letter, but they are not. Thus, while Paul is speaking to a local congregation, he is speaking to the church as a whole, the whole body of Christ, to which he wishes no division, including lawsuits.
Now in terms of how church discipline should be carried out:
When a local association of local churches finds that one of its member churches is honoring immorality, those local churches break fellowship with that church. When a denominational body of believers finds that one of its member churches is honoring immorality, then those believers break fellowship with that church. This is appears to be the Scriptural method of discipline, the breaking of fellowship.
There are countless scenarios that one can submit for this discussion. Allow me to give a few.
Let’s say you have two believers from two different local churches in a dispute. Well, involve both churches in handling the dispute.
Let us take the MBC situation into account. If MBC agencies are refusing to abide by MBC standards then either remove the leaders of those agencies from their positions or, if either that fails or is not an option, then dissolve those agencies.
In the end it is God who is to ultimately handle disciplinary matters. If the methods stated in the Scriptures are not applicable and the only methods left available are contrary to Scripture, then shake the sand from the souls of your shoes and leave it up to God to handle the situation.
Page 1 of 2