Kraichgauer wrote:
I'm afraid I can't provide book and verse, but I do recall that Paul had advised fellow Christians not to take legal action against one another, but to work problems out between themselves. He suggested the aggrieved party to approach the other party with a couple other Christian brothers to discuss matters in such a case.
I've got to think, this pastor is a loony fundie type, no different from Oral Roberts who had sued a tire salesman for claiming God would kill him if people didn't buy tires from him, in a TV commercial.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Paul's idea was that within a litigious society Christians, who ought to live lives unified in purpose and above conflict with each other, should get fellow Christians to intervene to resolve disputes. Christians should govern themselves in that regard, whereas going to a secular body to press charges would threaten to disrupt any sense of unity they might have.
This does not mean, however, that a Christian could bring public charges against a non-believer, though. Nowhere is it ever said that Christians are not allowed at all to ask for justice, not even in Matthew 5. What Matthew 5 refers to is Hebrew law. A strict interpretation of Hebrew law might imply that someone OUGHT to seek justice when they are wronged. But I think Jesus was just trying to put it back into proper perspective for the Jewish audience--you don't HAVE to sue someone who wrongs you, and you might do better to try to work things out WITHOUT taking it to court. "Love your enemies" was clearly designed to have an impact on the Roman occupiers. It also is a reminder of various instances in the OT when the Israelites "loved their enemies" and were blessed for it--for example, Joseph having been sold into slavery by his brothers and later imprisoned on false testimony. Joseph didn't hate Pharaoh's cup-bearer for forgetting about him but instead chose to help Pharaoh. Esther offered no words of condemnation to the king after he signed a death order against her people but rather "loved her enemies." Boaz did not despise Ruth despite her heritage as an enemy of Israel, but chose to love her. Ezra and Nehemiah did not despise their foreign Persian rulers but worked WITH them to help bring a remnant of Jews back to Jerusalem. By seeking to work peacefully with those they may not necessarily have been in agreement with they showed themselves to possess a high level of ethical character and strength. And someone seeking the source of that strength should be pointed to God by the behavior of the believer. I think that's what Jesus was getting at in Matthew 5, not an all-out prohibition on seeking justice.
Back to the point...I wouldn't say that the preacher is necessarily prohibited from Christian teaching on legal action to sue the lady. But I would say that the way he's going about it is terribly mean-spirited. I disagree on the grounds on which you're calling it unChristian behavior, but I would definitely say that it is an unChristian thing to do. Sure, the pastor has a duty to protect his church. But the plain fact is that there will always be people attacking every single church congregation out there, whether it's legit or because someone didn't like that their favorite granddaughter or niece didn't get picked to sing a solo on one particular Sunday, or maybe the church congregation split because nobody would eat Gramma's blackberry cobbler at the pot-luck. I mean, the congregation shunned the lady. What real good do they think suing her is going to do?
I will say this, though, and you know my history in the church fairly well by this point, so I won't bother repeating it. It is extremely difficult to pursue justice inside a church. When my family was going through all that trouble, we were fortunate enough to get the attention of an influential deacon who was genuinely concerned and appalled that things like what we described were going on in the church, especially involving us. He brought it to the pastor's attention, and it wasn't 3 days before the pastor starting INSISTING that we come by the church for a visit. We felt like the matter was merely swept under the rug, but at the same time certain people started behaving radically different towards us. Purely coincidence, of course, but those people were gone shortly after that happened. "Coincidence," I say, because no single human being had anything to do with it, but I'm convinced there had to have been a divine hand in it. The tendency within churches is usually to blame the victim when things like that happen. They will run off entire families and sometimes even half a congregation over lesser matters than what happened to us before they admit to any wrongdoing and apologize for it.
What ultimately happens is that the local church, which SHOULD be in the business of providing justice and peace among its congregants, fails at doing its job and squabbling members are forced to take the matter to the courts. The church should be better prepared in handling disputes than it normally is.
20 May 2012, 11:57 am
