On Lawsuits

There was an interesting discussion last week at Pastor James McDonald's Family Reformation blog, regarding the issue of lawsuits.

http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/is-it-lawful-for-a-christian-to-sue-a-christian

As a lawyer, you might imagine that the topic is one of significant interest to me. In my review of 1 Cor. 6, I'm personally of the view that Christians should not sue other Christians, choosing instead to mediate the issue within the church or to just let the matter go, if that's at all possible.

That said, I think there are times when the offending party demonstrates clearly by attitude and behavior that he or she is not a Christian. Undoubtedly, there are people who might be offended by that proposition, along the lines of, "How dare you question another's profession of faith?"

And yet that is EXACTLY what Scripture calls us to do in the passage immedately preceding the passage on lawsuits. We are told in 1 Cor. 5:9-13 to judge those who profess to be a part of the church and not to associate with the immoral people WITHIN THE CHURCH. That is exactly what the church discipline process in Matthew 18:15-17 is about, a discerning and judging of those who claim to be believers. And for people within the same church, it is much easier. The more thorny issue arises when the people go to different churches, or one party isn't a member of a local church at all.

The fundamental issue for me here is, just because someone claims to be a believer, that doesn’t mean he or she is one in truth. Certainly we should exhaust every opportunity to appeal to that brother or sister, including the prospect of allowing respected elders or leaders to decide the dispute. And I’ve actually written a church arbitration clause (both for people in the same church, and people at different churches) for inclusion within contracts between believers, and I’m happy to provide it for free to anyone who e-mails me.

That said, if the professing believer refuses to deal with the situation, and refuses intervention of elders or leaders (even that person’s own elder or leader, along with an elder or leader of the aggrieved party’s church, possibly along with a third person chosen by mutual agreement of the two chosen elders or leaders), I think it’s fair to question the sincerity of the supposed believer’s profession of faith. Refusal to submit to authority, a lack of desire for reconciliation, extreme pride, and vicious pugnaciousness, are all major red flags.

At the end of the day, believers ought to be marked by repentance and humility and a desire for reconciliation. For people who flee from that, out of pride (James 4:6), or isolation (Prov. 18:1), or being unruly (2 Thess. 3:6-15), or being a sluggard (all through the Proverbs), or whatever, they are in sin. And sin has consequences, particularly unrepentant sin.

Again, this would never be something I would consider lightly, and I would always want to make sure the underlying matter is important. Perhaps (although not necessarily exclusively) it would be a fundamental matter of protection of my family or church or other believers per Gal. 6:10. I might be nonchalant about an offense against me, but it would be a different story altogether if someone were to attack or defame my future wife or children! After all, along these same lines, 1 Tim 5:8 states that anyone who does not provide for his own has denied the faith and is WORSE THAN an unbeliever.

Yes, I would want to make sure I had done what I could in order to seek reconciliation and give the offending person every opportunity to repent and make things right, including the intervention of that person's spiritual leaders. And I would want to make every effort to be longsuffering and forgiving and sacrificial, wherever possible, as much as possible.

But for those situations where some Christians determine to proceed in certain limited cases, after much counsel, prayer and study, and after a distinct lack of interest in mediation or repentance of any kind by the offending party? I think the point where a person becomes comfortable in his or her conscience, after MUCH effort to reconcile, that the professing believer is no Christian at all, that is the point where this becomes a matter of Christian liberty in my mind, and ultimately the decision would be a matter of that person's own conscience and accountability before the Lord.

Speaking only for myself, for professing believers who have shown no fruit whatsoever, and/or a pattern of deep and/or unrepentant sin, and/or a complete lack of desire for reconciliation, I believe it's likely that they're not believers at all.

As our Savior says in Matthew 7:13-23, “few” enter through the narrow gate, and there will be “many” who sincerely and earnestly think that they are Christians who will nevertheless hear the terrifying words, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” And that should be a much greater cause for concern for the professing believer described above, than any temporal lawsuit.

I understand that not everyone will feel the same way that I do about this. But from my own study of the Scriptures and understanding of the law, both modern and ancient, I imagine I would be comfortable in my own conscience proceeding, in the limited circumstances I describe above. And I say "imagine" because this particular situation has not yet occurred to me... and I pray that it never will.

Ultimately, if your own conscience disagrees, then as with other matters of Christian liberty, by all means, you should listen to it, for I would certainly never tell anyone to go against his or her conscience.