In Sunday school we're talking about being both citizens of heaven and citizens of the U.S. Although it's easy to say that being a citizen of heaven comes first, I think it's very easy to slide back into being an American first, especially when it comes to legal rights. After our first class I noticed that that's exactly what happened during our discussion. So I planned on writing a post about "Our Rights as Christians" - especially looking at legal rights. I think I'll still write that post (when I get a bit more time) but while Googling around for some ideas, I came across this post: Should a Christian sue an individual? It's on the website of Crown Financial Ministries. I thought they did a good job of bringing up some relevant Scriptures and covering a lot of territory in just a few paragraphs. It's worth the read.
Acts 22:27.
ReplyDeleteFor the larger context, start reading at v:24 thru to v:30.
As to lawsuits ... if the other party is a Believer, then "Binding Arbitration" facilitated by the Elders should be sufficient.
If it's a non-believer... the context of 1 Cor 6 is only between believers; bring on the courts.
Paul used his full legal rights as a Roman Citizen many times when he was being unjustly persecuted.
Acts 25:11 is the most extreme case in point.
Aloha,
Michael.
i thought the article's take on whether a christian should sue non-believers particularly interesting. i think 1 cor 6 makes it pretty clear what our attitude should be with other christians. but it makes sense to me that we should have a similar attitude with non-christians. God's Word teaches us to surrender our rights, even to unbelievers (Luke 6:29-30). That means literally to put others first, even if we feel they are wrong. This attitude sometimes can be costly and can result in personal loss. When the decision is solely ours and the loss is solely ours, the question becomes, “Do we really believe that it all belongs to God?” If so, we must then ask, “Do I trust God? Or do I just say that I trust God?” All means, short of a lawsuit, should be pursued in trying to resolve the situation, including proceeding according to the outline in Matthew 18:15-17. Once these options have been exhausted and the situation is still not resolved, God's Word teaches that the offender should be forgiven, the offense “written off” and forgotten, and then the results left in the hands of God.
ReplyDeleteThe context of Luke 6:29-30 is when you are the one being sued, according to law.
ReplyDeleteRights are not being surrendered, "we" lost the lawsuit.
Just saying.
Aloha,
Michael.
Hmmm, that's not how I read that passage at all. It seems to me that if someone strikes me on the cheek, they're not suing me. They're assaulting me. And the appropriate response is not to "get back at" them. It's to allow them to assault me again on the other side of my face. That seems much closer to surrendering to the abuse of another than it does to losing a law suit.
ReplyDeleteYou need to consider the cultural context.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, look at the taking of the coat... that is pretty hard to ignore if you understand the only way that was going to happen.
Hint: look at the law.
And please keep in mind that the whole Sermon on the Mount is from the point of view of a spiritual person's response to being under the law.
Aloha,
Michael.
I'm not understanding the hint.
ReplyDeleteIf someone takes your coat, what does the law tell you to do?
Other way around.
ReplyDeleteThe context is Deuteronomy 24:11-13.
The idea is, the items of clothing have been seized to pay a debt.
in deuteronomy, a person owes you something, so they hand over their cloak as collateral.
ReplyDeletein luke, a person asks for you cloak (possibly as collateral for a loan, though that's not mentioned) and you offer your shirt as well.
the take away from the deuteronomy passage is that something should be held as collateral, but not to the point where the person will freeze at night.
the take away from the luke passage, in my mind at least, is that if someone asks something of you, offer to give them even more than they ask. be generous.
in the deut. version you could sue to get your collateral returned if you've given back the original loaned item but haven't received your collateral back. in the luke version you could sue that someone has taken your cloak. i suppose to the extent that those are similar, both involve situations in which you could sue, but Jesus pointed out that not only should you not sue, but you should give away even more than has been taken from you.
in other words, i still see this as an argument against suing anyone for anything. i don't at all see it as license to sue a non-christian. :-\
The person taking the cloak is the one doing the suing, you, offering the shirt, are the one being sued. For a definitive exposition on, "To sue or not to sue", though ... 1st Cor 6 is the passage, but the context there is within the church. Outside the church is not as such considered, and we have no firm directive from the Lord.
ReplyDeleteNow as to Citizenship, again I would point back to Paul's experiences when his rights were taken away by false pretense, and at least in a little he went along with it initially, but the law is there to protect us from abuse, and he availed himself of that protection on a number of occasions, and add Acts 16:37 to that list. :)
yes. the article i link to in the opening post clearly explains that paul defended himself, even using roman law to do so.
ReplyDeletebut i still disagree with the sermon on the mount bit. since it was roman law that allowed roman authorities to demand a subject to take something a mile for them, then we're pretty clearly talking about dealing with a gentile. the fact that the directives start out with, "do not resist an evil person" would also theoretically indicate a non-believer. (i say "theoretically" because many evil people call themselves believers.)
i realize now that the word "sue" is used in matthew. it's not in luke. so that helps me to understand where you're getting that. but then that bit would fall under the "can a christian defend himself" bit and not under the "can a christian sue a non-christian" bit.
this all started at:The context of Luke 6:29-30 is when you are the one being sued, according to law.
Rights are not being surrendered, "we" lost the lawsuit.
So, i'm being sued for my cloak. Rather than counter-sue, or rather that fight against the suit that has been brought against me, the directive is to give even more than i have been sued for. I would maintain that the directive is not to respond by going to court but to respond by giving up the right that is being taken, even to the point of giving more than has been demanded. We didn't "lose" the lawsuit. We submitted to the suit without a fight and even gave over more rights than were being demanded.