Saints Taking Saints to Court

[Mike Schutz]

I would appreciate the thoughtful opinions of other believers.

While I believe that a careful reading of 1Corinthians 6 does not limit the involvement of Christians in the legal process,it seems to offer a strong argument against Christians taking each other to court, especially involving church conflicts. It selfishly places one person’s rights above those of others and sullies the witness of the church in the community.

Am I being naive in believing that there are very few if any situations where such a course of events should be necessary?

Am I being overly harsh in suggesting that pursuing legal action against other Christians in order to settle disagreements about church issues is not only unscriptural but reflects an unsanctified spirit.

I know some NazNetters have experience in this realm, while I have none. Your wisdom is appreciated.

Grace and peace.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Mike,
I agree with all you have said because you have used the phrase "church issues."

I also believe that in most circumstances a Christian should not take anyone to court. Period. I said most circumstances because I do not walk in other people's shoes.

When someone has harmed me or my family or my property, the legal system takes these people to court. It is "the people vs..."

Years ago we had a group of people leave one of the churches on our district and then sue that church for the tithes they had given and the chandelier they had paid for that hung in the church foyer. Fortunately, they lost the case in court. But unfortunately, they smeared the name of Christ with their actions.

In one of our pastorates two families shared a boundary line. One family took the other one to court over the boundary line between their properties. It was an embarassment to the church and to the name of Christ. Of course, the family doing the suing left the church, but more than those two families were hurt in the situation.

Matthew 18 has Jesus's own words telling us how to handle disputes within the body of believers.

It has to be hard to always know when and how to turn the other cheek, but that is what Jesus says to do.

Barb

[Brad Mercer]

I think it's better to be defrauded. I think a lawsuit over church matters between members of the same congregation especially, and between a local church and its parent denomination to a slightly lesser degree, brings enormously more damage to the cause of Christ and the ability of any church to testify to the world of a suffering Christ who prays "forgive them" for his crucifiers, than any possible damage that could result from the "success" of those we would sue to thwart.

Of course, that's just my opinion and maybe worth what you paid for it.

[Jerry Frank]

I highly recommend the work and books of Ken Sande at http://www.peacemaker.net . If your church has specific problems, you can bring them in to help mediate. They also have course and seminar materials that can be used as "preventative medicine", all thoroughly Biblically based and non-denominational. Excellent online info can be found under the "Resources" tab.

The resources can apply to major church legal issues as well as to simple family conflict.

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod considered the program so important and effective that they developed their own denominational program in cooperation with Peacemakers. They underwrite part of the cost when used in their churches.

Jerry

[Marsha Lynn]

I think it's better to be defrauded. I think a lawsuit over church matters between members of the same congregation especially, and between a local church and its parent denomination to a slightly lesser degree, brings enormously more damage to the cause of Christ and the ability of any church to testify to the world of a suffering Christ who prays "forgive them" for his crucifiers, than any possible damage that could result from the "success" of those we would sue to thwart.

Of course, that's just my opinion and maybe worth what you paid for it.

I think it's better for me to be defrauded. After multiple attempts to convey the "turn the other cheek" concept to other people, I've come to the conclusion that it can only be caught, not taught, and especially not commanded. It's interesting to end up outvoted on this concept in a church discussion. The main impact seems to be that those who are protesting that one can't really live that kind of life without being trampled on by evildoers discover that they have a lot of support in the church. It seems that the only way to convince them otherwise is to demonstrate that such a lifestyle is not only possible but produces great joy. And the only way to demonstrate such a concept is to be defrauded now and then.

As a product of pacifism (generations of Quakers), my observation is that it takes a certain stubbornness to succeed in pacifism. And on occasion that stubbornness is as unholy as the aggressiveness for which it is substituted. Cruciform living goes a step beyond either aggressiveness or passive-aggressive stubbornness to truly giving up one's rights, and it has been known to lead to a cross more than once. This is not something we can push on other people. They have to lay down their life (and their rights) by their own choice, not because we tell them it's the right thing to do. Once we've shared the teachings of Jesus with them, it's up to them to decide how far they're willing to go in conforming their life to those teachings. As teachers, we're responsible to show them what it looks like in real life, which means picking up the burden and going the second mile ourselves.

Yes, it's an embarrassment to the church when one member sues another. It is also an embarrassment to the church when squabbles erupt over the appropriateness of that lawsuit and whether we should rebuke those involved in order to protect our own reputation. Would it not be better to let the world see how much we love even those among us who are doing us injury by their selfish actions than to condemn them? Even if we lose face in the eyes of a critical world? After all, we are all still on the journey and occasionally fall short. Some just do so more publicly than others.

Also just an opinion, and not one that translates easily into real life. I'm still working on this second-mile lifestyle and have thus far mainly learned that there are few guides along the path.

Marsha

[John Kennedy]

Sad though they may be, I believe there are circumstances when there may have to be legal action by a part of the church against another. A church has both a legal and ethical fiduciary responsibility to prevent the misuse and misappropriation of its funds.

If I have been defrauded, the perpetrator is not, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, a 'saint'. For that reason, and also to help prevent him or her from perpetrating injury upon someone else, I would have absolutely no hesitation in seeking full remedy at law.

I would not hesitate to seek legal redress against a non-Christian whose actions are injurious - why should I cut slack for someone who should both KNOW and DO better.

I have seen people professing everything in the book lead fellow Christians to financial ruin and get away with it because a hesitancy toward taking legal action.

To some extent, I and many others, are hesitant to do business with people who use their profession of faith as a selling point. That's one of the reasons I've never been a big fan of the Christian Yellow Pages method of advertising.

[Chuck Millhuff]

When a church member represents another member and they see the other defrauded there needs to be something done about it because you are representing not only your money but the money of others. Of course in most of these cases the one sees the others actions so unchristian that they do not see it as a Christian Vs. Christian affair. There is a mechanism in the church for this kind of thing and in the Bible as well in Matt. 18. Kindness here is a Greek word for stupid !

[Jerry Frank]

I think we as churches, and as individuals, need to be somewhere between the Quaker position and the 'fight it out" position. Jesus did not come to replace the law. He came to fulfill the law. It is His grace that provides that fullfillment. Without law we would live in a world of chaos and anarchy. It is required to deal with certain situations.

I do not accept the extreme Quaker position of backing off regardless of circumstances and taking our lumps. That is not what grace is about. Grace is about relationships and healing. Neither wimpishly backing off nor duking it out for years in court will lead to that.

However, I think that starting with a more "Quakerish" point of view might lead to better results. Aside from the salvation of a soul, I can't think of anything more pleasing to God than two people, Christian or not, sitting down to work out their problems, perhaps with the help of a mediator, within a day or two rather than fighting in courts for years. The healing of broken relationship is far more important than the actual solution to the problem and a Biblical approach will help to bring that about.

The wonderful thing is that the Biblical principals apply not just to legal issues but to family and other relationship problems as well.

Read some of the testimonials on the Peacemaker site I referenced in my previous message and you will see what I mean.


Jerry

[Marsha Lynn]

To some extent, I and many others, are hesitant to do business with people who use their profession of faith as a selling point.

And it's simple steps such as this that allow one to live in litigation-free harmony with fellow believers. The bank has yet to defraud us of our church funds. And there are plenty of related financial institutions who would likewise be trustworthy custodians of our investments if we had any money to invest.

I've heard the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." I'm not sure the first part is entirely true. Perhaps a little more prudence and research would help us avoid being fooled the first time, and we bear partial responsibility for avoiding the traps laid for us, even if they're of a type we haven't seen before. Doesn't the Bible promise us wisdom from God if we but ask?

I'm not saying there's never a need for lawsuits but how many of us have lived how many years without ever finding it necessary to sue anyone? Is it possible that good decisions and a willingness to overlook occasional offenses are involved in living such a charmed life? A healthy lifestyle doesn't guarantee a disease-free existence, but it might be that people who live disease-free lives have more than luck on their side. There are also some lifestyle choices involved.

As for other people who are caught by the charlatans among us: It would be best if we could give them means to protect themselves from fraud. Next best would be to form a hedge around those who can't protect themselves. Doing damage control for fraud already committed means either we have failed to provide the victims adequate means to protect themselves or they have ignored it.

We will always have greedy and unscrupulous people among us. Suing them after being caught in their schemes seems to me to be the least desirable response to them. That should be the absolute last resort, one to be avoided at almost any cost.

In my opinion.

Marsha

[Mike Schutz]

Greetings!

Unfortunately, the situation is not always as simple as someone taking advantage of someone else. When procedures in The Manual (which is legally considered to be our organizational bylaws) are followed, but a group within the church do not like the result, and choose to seek legal measures to intervene, the church presents itself to the world as just another human organization, with no power beyond ourselves to restore relationships.

Such a situation inevitably results in "demonizing" those we disagree with, and calls to punish those who have "hurt" us, as we demand that our rights be guaranteed. One of my mentors, John M. Nielson, used to say that one of the church's problems is that we are so ready to demand our rights while shirking our responsibilities.

Of course, as a human institution, we have legal responsibilities. Membership in itself is a legal status. We are responsible to follow our bylaws, but we are also called to a higher standard. This is what Paul is referring to in 1 Corinthians 6.

Grace and peace,
Mike

[Marsha Lynn]

I do not accept the extreme Quaker position of backing off regardless of circumstances and taking our lumps. That is not what grace is about. Grace is about relationships and healing. Neither wimpishly backing off nor duking it out for years in court will lead to that.


Jerry,

How many pacifists have you known personally? I've lived and moved among them all my life -- having Quaker relatives and living in Amish/Mennonite communities.

My observation is that leading a pacifist lifestyle on a personal level (without addressing the issue of pacifism at a national level) does not mean "backing off" and "taking our lumps." Let me illustrate:

One evening several years ago, as on many evenings during that time, I sat in the bleachers in the local high school gymnasium. On this occasion, my son was in my line of vision to my lower left sitting with friends. He was in high school and had probably never been in a fist fight in his entire life other than with his sisters. A younger, smaller boy, probably junior high age, was sitting behind him and started aggravating him - poking him, slapping at him, just trying to stir him up. Andrew ignored him for a while. That didn't work. He absently swatted the kid's hands away. No luck. A little later he turned partway around and added some words of rebuke to the swatting. That didn't work either. The kid was persistent in his annoying behavior. Finally, Andrew turned full around, took both the boys hands in his own and firmly pressed them together, looked him full in the face, and said something. I'm assuming it was some form of the words, "I want this to stop. Now." He then turned back around and resumed watching whatever was happening on the gym floor. The kid didn't touch him again. Nor did he react negatively to the rebuke.

Now granted, Andrew was older and bigger than this kid, but he had absolutely no reputation for being willing to knock someone down who was annoying him. The kid was never going to get socked in the jaw no matter how annoyingly persistent he was in his aggravation. Yet he stopped. More, I think he was pleased that Andrew had paid attention to him for a few seconds.

This has much less to do with Christianity or faith on Andrew's part and much to do with genetics. He never had to fight. He never learned to fight. Nor did he have to put up with bullies. He wasn't wimpy, he simply knew that he was capable of stopping the unacceptable behavior with much less physical exertion and pain than fighting would require.

That's why pacifists can be pacifists. They have developed other methods to deal with the bullies in their lives. As I said before, stubbornness plays a big role in it for the Quakers. My observation is that it's more a pushiness on the part of the Amish/Mennonites. The Quaker says, "Here I stand, like it or not." The Mennonite says, "Here I come, like it or not." It's hard to fight against someone who doesn't pay any attention to your efforts to move them, who just keeps coming no matter what you do. After all, knocking people flat really isn't acceptable in our culture, particularly people known for their pacifism.

The Christian response goes beyond passive-aggressive resistance and welcomes the aggressor into our world, rids ourselves of enemies by turning them into friends. If my son had been consciously seeking a Christian response to his young tormenter rather than simply seeking an end to the annoyance, he might have turned around and initiated a conversation with him and invited him to move down next to him.

Which is what you said above. Neither the passive response nor the aggressive response is the Christian response. I'm simply pointing out that both have their own methods for thwarting the evildoer and protecting themselves and their loved ones. Neither necessarily leads to casualties on the part of the person practicing them. However, the Christian response goes beyond either. Although both can and do find scriptural support, they fall short of the teachings of Jesus. The Christian response involves grace and love that looks the evildoer full in the face and sees what he can be by the grace of God and responds to that vision. This is not easy and certainly not every disciple of Jesus Christ has mastered such grace. But I still think it should be the ideal at which we aim while not condemning those who fall short of that ideal.

Marsha

[Dave McClung]

I would appreciate the thoughtful opinions of other believers.

While I believe that a careful reading of 1Corinthians 6 does not limit the involvement of Christians in the legal process,it seems to offer a strong argument against Christians taking each other to court, especially involving church conflicts. It selfishly places one person’s rights above those of others and sullies the witness of the church in the community.

Am I being naive in believing that there are very few if any situations where such a course of events should be necessary?

Am I being overly harsh in suggesting that pursuing legal action against other Christians in order to settle disagreements about church issues is not only unscriptural but reflects an unsanctified spirit.

I know some NazNetters have experience in this realm, while I have none. Your wisdom is appreciated.

Grace and peace.

St. Paul seemed to invision a system within the church whereby Christians could get their disputes resolved without having to seek help from those outside the church. I have seen several attempts to accomplish such a system, but so far I have not seen one that works.

Our forefathers tried a church court system in England. Our "Courts of Equity" descended from the Church of England. The result was that in America or forefathers wrote into the constitution that we would keep churches and government separate. The dispute resolution responsibility was given to the government.

I believe the instructions of St. Paul have to be read in the context in which they were given. It was more about attitude than about dispute resolution systems.

I think if two Christian agreed to submit their dispute to a court for resolution, St. Paul wouldn't have had a problem with it. It was the attitude of one Christian forcing another Christian into the Pagen system that was the problem.

I will say that in 35 years of law practice, I have never seen a Christian who was able to maintain a Christ like attitude while being a plaintiff in litigation involving asserting one's personal "rights."

St. Paul said that we would be better off just accepting loss than involving ourselves as plaintiffs in litigation. His advice is consistent with my own observation. That being said, there are times when it isn't a choice between accepting a loss. An example that comes to mind is child custody litigation. I have known a number of Christians who have felt it necessary to file suit to protect a child. Certainly, if the only motive was to protect the child, such litigation would not fall within St. Paul's prohibition.

So, to summarize. The Biblical Model for dispute resolution is:

Step One: Face to Face discussion involving only the person you have a disagreement with.

Step Two: Involve one or two other mature Christians in the discussion -- mediation.

Step Three: Seek assistance from the Chruch Body.

Step Four: If all else fails, accept the loss with a gracious attitude.

[Dave McClung]

In my prior post, I forgot to add a comment before "Step One." There is another scripture that says that we shouldn't raise to a "dispute" matters of no significance. Often it doesn't really matter if we aren't in total agreement on insignificant issues.

[Jerry Frank]

Thanks for the additional comment, Marsha. I think you and I are pretty much on the same wave length.

When I referred to "extreme Quakers", I only meant it in the same context as I might refer to "extreme Nazarenes". I did not want to suggest that all Quakers thought like that. I was also sub-consciously thinking of Brad's previous comment, "I think it's better to be defrauded."

I think that it is important to think of these concepts for other situations as well. Conflicts can vary from simple disagreement to major financial implications. Biblical principals of conflict resolution can help at home, at the office, in our neighbourhood, as well as at our church.

By the way, I don't know Quakers very well but I did grow up in a Mennonite community in southern Manitoba. They were certainly known as pacifists until . . . they started playing hockey. Suddenly pacifistic tendencies went out the window. :basic05


Jerry

[Mike Schutz]

Greetings!

I want to publically thank Dave McClung for his response. I have seen him in adversarial situations - Dave, remember the city council - and he is gracious even in those difficult circumstances.
Thanks for you insight.
Grace and peace,
Mike

[David Cash]

I believe that we should avoid suing other believers in almost all possible circumstances. Defending ourselves in court if they sue us would be a different matter; although, we would do well to try and come to a satisfactory settlement outside of court. A good Christian legal organization could help a church in this type of setting.

One thing really concerns me when one faction of a church dispute takes the other faction to court. Here in the U.S. we treat the separation of church and state almost as a matter of religious conviction. Yet, if I ask the state to settle a church quarrel, who am I putting in charge of the church of Jesus Christ? For our own religious freedom, we all owe it to ourselves (and to our Lord) to keep our internal church conflicts out of court.

My pacificistic friends would be quick to recommend fervent prayer in the face of a legal challenge. I guess the challenge the rest of us face is if we really do have the faith to put our case in a higher court.

David Cash

[John Kennedy]

I don't know whether the situation has changed, but the courts, in intra-church disputes used to scrupulously (sp?) avoid ruling on matters pertaining to doctrinal matters. They would issue a ruling in regard to property matters, etc., but would refuse to make a determination as to whether one party or the other was adhering to the church's doctrines and teachings.