SHOULD A BELIEVER SUE ANOTHER BELIEVER IN COURT?
September 12, 2008
Saint Paul wrote in First Corinthians as
follows:
“Dare any of you,
having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before
the saints?”
This has widely
been interpreted as Paul’s admonition against suing another believer in court
for a civil matter. What is suggested is when one has a dispute with another member of the Church community, one should take the issue to wise members of the Church. The concept of the Church Elders comes to mind. Is this really what Paul meant for people in today's world?
What about a claim
that a crime has been committed by one believer against another? Does being Christian deprive one of the right
to seek justice for a crime? Surely not. Indeed, in Romans 13: 3-4 there is the
suggestion that just and good rulers are
righteous when they are punishing evil doers, presumably this means enforcing
the criminal laws. God obviously knew
that there would be sinners causing evil, and knew that these people would have
to be disciplined in some manner.
But there is nothing
in the language of the passage that suggests it is an admonition against only
civil suits—indeed, it doesn’t even mention the word “court.” In the Old Testament, it is abundantly clear
that a judicial system was not only approved of, it was set up and designed by
Moses himself. The
phrase the passage uses “go to law before the unjust” implies that it is the
act of going to a court of law that is offensive--having a believer's dispute with another believer aired in public.
So, what is a
believer to do? God cannot have intended
for a believer to stand idly by and allow an injustice to take place, with the
only recourse to be after death in heaven. What about an issue that strikes very close to home: allegations of
sexual abuse by members of the clergy? If the widely held interpretation is strictly applied, then the only
recourse one has is to appeal to the very body—the Church—that caused the harm.
Interpretation of
this passage may be assisted by looking at the one that comes before it. In First Corinthians 5, Paul made a
distinction between one who professes faith but whose actions are not in
conformance with this faith:
“But now have I
written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a
railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one know not to eat.”
Thus, one way to
look at the passage is to say that the restriction from taking a dispute to a
court of law only applies to believers—people who not only profess that they
are Christians but who also show they
are through the way they live their lives. Clearly, someone who violates the commandments by killing and stealing
cannot really be considered a Christian in the way they are living. Therefore, it should be acceptable for them
to seek justice in court.
Well, what about
when there is an accident or someone is injured? What about
when a believer injures another believer accidentally? Does the Bible prevent the injured person from getting justice in the
secular courts? I should think not, and
here is why.
First, the personal injury law today is not really between one person and another person--the insurance industry has taken the matter away from the individual. When someone hurts you, when you are injured through the negligence of someone else, it is not the person who hurt you that can make the decision about whether and how to help you. Typically, an insurance adjuster will make all case decisions, even when an attorney is hired by the insurance company to defend a lawsuit. Therefore, the admonition against civil suits does not apply at all by the plain language of the scripture.
Second, most personal injury cases are not even resolved by going to court. Most cases are resolved through negotiations with an insurance company.
Third, and more to the point, the Bible is not a unchanging document. Like all important works throughout history, a proper understanding of the Bible requires an interpretation to the facts of the modern world. God cannot have intended a person to first conduct an investigation of a person's faith, and then to have sought out Church elders for a resolution if the person was a believer. What if a person did not have any assets or funds to pay for the damage caused?
When someone is injured it is acceptable to seek compensation from the person who caused the damage. In today's world, a law suit is usually not caused bgy a desire for revenge or a wish to inflict harm on the other person. Rather, it is simply the efforts of an injured person to get compensated for financial and personal losses caused through no fault of their own. This in no way is viewed as a dishonorable thing, something that would bring shame to the Church--this was one of St. Paul's chief concerns--airing the dirty laundry of believers to the world.
When a believer takes advantage of the legal system, he or she is simply using the system in place designed to allow victims of injuries to be made whole. Thus, a believer may in good conscience use the civil justice system in an effort to seek justice for wrongs done to them. | 
