M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Salvete, omnes!
Are Christians permitted ever to go outside the Church to so-called “secular” or, if you will “non-Christian” courts of law to get justice? Or, rather, must they always get adjudication within the confines of the Church? Or, rather, must they do this for only certain matters such as the lawsuits discussed in 1 Corinthians 6:1 ff.?
Indeed, in this passage, Paul seems practically to yell at the Corinthians for even “daring” to seek justice before the “unrighteous”. He seems to state that those within the Church should be qualified enough to judge between brothers in lawsuits because, after all, they will judge both the world and angels. He almost seems to imply that it is even shameful and embarrassing that Christians who are supposed to be so moral are going before men who were generally less so and who were indeed to be judged by them in future times. H also seems to imply that this could lead to a lack of credibility and reputation among the world and possibly reduce the power of their witness.
So, then, were Christians then and are Christians now permitted ever or at any time to go before secular courts to obtain justice?
Of course, I agree that Christians are well-enough qualified to judge between brothers at the moral level. Still, my concern, if Christians should seek justice only within the Church, is that they may not have adequate representation by legal minds trained in how best to represent them. Christians who would judge are obviously competent enough in a moral sense, but what if they don’t quite hear/understand/even “feel” the evidence enough, since there might not be professional lawyers properly to represent each side (as there clearly were not i the Church of Paul’s time)?
There is also the concern of the application of disciplinary/deterrent justice that is generally done by state authority. If Christians are involved in cases only among themselves, how would such justice be applied?
I mean, who am I to contradict an inspired text, and, of course, I see Paul’s point about the moral competency of Christian judges, but, again, I think you can argue that you do have the deficiencies I mentioned above? If these deficiencies exist, is/was the Christian forced to “settle” for these in favor of remaining judicially within the Church?
And, further, what about when a non-Christian wants to go to court against a Christian or vice versa? Must they be judged by the Church? If the Church is the ultimate authroity on morals, why or why not?
Indeed, was this some kind of early Church “experiment” sort of like I’ve heard the “all property in common” was? I think I’ve heard that there were at least less formal/trained “courts” within the early Church. Were those, at least those pertaining to secular law, disbanded at some point because ofthe issues (and/or others) I mentioned earlier? If there were issues with these early “courts”, why would Paul, in an inspired text, encourage and even demand the sole use of them?
Please help me to understand this.
Gratias.
Are Christians permitted ever to go outside the Church to so-called “secular” or, if you will “non-Christian” courts of law to get justice? Or, rather, must they always get adjudication within the confines of the Church? Or, rather, must they do this for only certain matters such as the lawsuits discussed in 1 Corinthians 6:1 ff.?
Indeed, in this passage, Paul seems practically to yell at the Corinthians for even “daring” to seek justice before the “unrighteous”. He seems to state that those within the Church should be qualified enough to judge between brothers in lawsuits because, after all, they will judge both the world and angels. He almost seems to imply that it is even shameful and embarrassing that Christians who are supposed to be so moral are going before men who were generally less so and who were indeed to be judged by them in future times. H also seems to imply that this could lead to a lack of credibility and reputation among the world and possibly reduce the power of their witness.
So, then, were Christians then and are Christians now permitted ever or at any time to go before secular courts to obtain justice?
Of course, I agree that Christians are well-enough qualified to judge between brothers at the moral level. Still, my concern, if Christians should seek justice only within the Church, is that they may not have adequate representation by legal minds trained in how best to represent them. Christians who would judge are obviously competent enough in a moral sense, but what if they don’t quite hear/understand/even “feel” the evidence enough, since there might not be professional lawyers properly to represent each side (as there clearly were not i the Church of Paul’s time)?
There is also the concern of the application of disciplinary/deterrent justice that is generally done by state authority. If Christians are involved in cases only among themselves, how would such justice be applied?
I mean, who am I to contradict an inspired text, and, of course, I see Paul’s point about the moral competency of Christian judges, but, again, I think you can argue that you do have the deficiencies I mentioned above? If these deficiencies exist, is/was the Christian forced to “settle” for these in favor of remaining judicially within the Church?
And, further, what about when a non-Christian wants to go to court against a Christian or vice versa? Must they be judged by the Church? If the Church is the ultimate authroity on morals, why or why not?
Indeed, was this some kind of early Church “experiment” sort of like I’ve heard the “all property in common” was? I think I’ve heard that there were at least less formal/trained “courts” within the early Church. Were those, at least those pertaining to secular law, disbanded at some point because ofthe issues (and/or others) I mentioned earlier? If there were issues with these early “courts”, why would Paul, in an inspired text, encourage and even demand the sole use of them?
Please help me to understand this.
Gratias.