Christians suing Christians?

[Claudden]

I could use some advice regarding this topic. One of my friends lent her (then) best friend thousands of dollars. Only a small fraction of the money has been repaid and my friend and her husband are now in desperate financial straits. I suggested that she take this person to court to try to recoup some of the money. She replied that, according to the Bible, Christians cannot sue Christians. She didn’t say, but I’m assuming that this is the Scriptural reference:

1 Corinthians 6
1 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.

My question is: Would my friend be violating this passage if she sued to get her money back? She does not want interest, just the original amount loaned. She is not Catholic, but she is very concerned about her eternal soul if she does pursue a lawsuit. My response that her former friend is harming her by not making a good faith effort to repay the money isn’t convincing her.

I have been in a similar situation and I let it go because I was able to make up the lost money. My friend and her husband are not in good enough health to work to get this money back, so they are in a bind.

Any and all observations are welcome. Thanks in advance.

 

[grasscutter]

I could be way off base (and I hope someone lets me know if I am), but my thinking is this:

In Mt 22:15-32, Jesus says to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s. So I’m thinking that we are meant to obey society’s law (unless immoral) but to remember that only God will save us from death, so our ultimate loyalty is to God.

So, I think it would be a very cool act of Christian charity for your friend to forgive this debt. However, the person has a legal obligation to repay money owed and the normal course of action for relief is the court.

Does that help at all?

 

[Barbkw]

Your friend’s “friend” is acting more like a fiend than a Christian.

Your friend can take this woman to small claims court without need of a lawyer (check the local codes for determining amount limits). She’ll need documentation of the loans.

All that having been done, it doesn’t mean that the woman will actually see her money.

 

[PerfectTiming]

gotquestions.org/lawsuits-suing.html

Maybe show her this, it may help convince her. It’s not a Catholic site (and I disagree with many of it’s articles) but in this case it may help explain to her that she is within her rights to ask for this money back.

 

[DaveBj]

1 Corinthians 6
1 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

Bear in mind that when this was written, the courts that Paul had in mind were pagan courts. Such is probably rarely the case today. There may be the odd judge who’s an Asatruar or something like that, but I believe we would find that the majority are (at least nominally) Christians.

DaveBj

 

[Gift_from_God]

Thousands? Oh, I’d totally sue to get that back! This person looks like he/she’s using religion as a crutch

 

[John21652]

Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.

 

[Claudden]

Thanks for your insights, everyone. This is a dicey situation.

PerfectTiming, I read that article - I think it is very helpful and I appreciate you finding it.

It would be a real act of charity for my friend and her husband to forgive the debt. Had their financial circumstances not declined recently, they probably would. However, they are now faced with the possibility of losing their home in the future because their financial “back up” plan has fallen apart. So it becomes a difficult decision - make an “iffy” moral decision by suing to get their money back or end up destitute because of their own financial reversals.

I do appreciate all of your comments and welcome any other insights you have. I can only advise my friend, but at least - with your help - I’ll be advising her from a more spiritually grounded position.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Perhaps there is something fundamentally different between a civil court in the first century Empire and your local small claims court.

But regardless, I’d like to see any explanation of why modern civil law about loans and contracts or due process is unChristian.

 

[mdrummer5]

Your friend’s “friend” is acting more like a fiend than a Christian.

Your friend can take this woman to small claims court without need of a lawyer (check the local codes for determining amount limits). **She’ll need documentation of the loans. **
All that having been done, it doesn’t mean that the woman will actually see her money.

Here’s the problem. Even if she presumably wrote a check and can provide that as “proof” it in no way obligates the other party to repayment. I work for a bank and I’ve seen people wiggle there way out of some debts despite piles of signed paperwork acknowledging and accepting the terms of repayment. So with no documentation to that effect it’s probably not worth pursuing. However, the law is not an area of my expertise so a good attorney may see otherwise.

This person looks like he/she’s using religion as a crutch

As I said I work for a bank… I started in our collections area and you’d be amazed at the number of people that would accuse me of not being Christian because I would not “forgive their debts” I wasn’t Christian at the time… but not because of that lol.

Sadly I think this is taken from the Lord’s prayer as some translations read “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” and some people take it literally.

 

[catsrus]

From my experience, it costs as much or more to attempt to collect a debt as what the settlement may be.
Long story short; I let a guy stay in my empty home (I’d moved & put the other place up for sale) until he could settle on his own home.
He never paid me a dime of the utilities or the lot rent (a mobile home). After 2 months, & long after he’d settled on his home, I had to evict him. His excuse for staying was that he wanted to put a new roof on his new home and new carpet. That was also his excuse for not paying me any money at all.
It cost me 1/2 again in lawyer’s fees to collect only 2/3rds of what he owed me.
I learned a very expensive and difficult lesson.
I will never “lend” again. Only give straight out or nothing at all.
That old adage “Never a borrower nor a lender be” is darn excellent advice.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Here’s the problem. Even if she presumably wrote a check and can provide that as “proof” it in no way obligates the other party to repayment. I work for a bank and I’ve seen people wiggle there way out of some debts despite piles of signed paperwork acknowledging and accepting the terms of repayment. So with no documentation to that effect it’s probably not worth pursuing. However, the law is not an area of my expertise so a good attorney may see otherwise…

There might or might not be a note, but the OP stated that some of the money has been repaid, which, along with the testimony of the lenders, will be enough to prove that there was a loan, not a gift.

Depending on the size of the loan, small claims might be the best solution, since there are no attorneys allowed, there are no attorney fees. The court will set some kind of a payment plan that the defendants can afford, and there are other more aggressive ways of enforcing a judgment (levies, etc.) if the deadbeats then continue to ignore their obligations.

Taking a loan without knowing you can repay it is basically theft, and, of course, a sin. Forcing a debtor to repay can, presumably, prevent further sinning.

 

[Claudden]

But regardless, I’d like to see any explanation of why modern civil law about loans and contracts or due process is unChristian.

I’ve been looking for evidence of this; the closest I can find (with thanks to some of you who contributed to this thread) is that Christians should try to work out the dispute with a Christian mediator first; however, if it can’t be worked out, then they can go to court.

I appreciate everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut; to be honest, until this friend mentioned the “no sue” rule, I had never heard of it. Thanks, everyone. Please keep your ideas coming.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I’ve been looking for evidence of this; the closest I can find (with thanks to some of you who contributed to this thread) is that Christians should try to work out the dispute with a Christian mediator first; however, if it can’t be worked out, then they can go to court.

I appreciate everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut; to be honest, until this friend mentioned the “no sue” rule, I had never heard of it. Thanks, everyone. Please keep your ideas coming.

Your local court probably has a low cost or free mediation program. There’s really no good financial reason for fighting over small amounts.

So you know the general terminology, a mediator doesn’t take sides, he or she hears both side and tries to come to fair resolution that both sides agree to and can live with, but its typically not binding and there’s no way of compelling someone to participate.

 

[Claudden]

My friend lives in a different state from me, so I don’t know what her state has in terms of mediation. I think the interpretation of the passage is for two feuding Christians to go through their church to settle the problem rather than through the courts. As I understand it, neither party actually belongs to a church, so I don’t know where they would go to settle the problem. Unfortunately the sum is several thousand dollars - my friend said I would be shocked if I knew how much was involved.

You are right that a mediator couldn’t require a settlement and I’m not sure that a church would provide an arbitrator. That would definitely have to be handled through a secular court situation. I think my friend and her husband may just be stuck with the loss.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

My friend lives in a different state from me, so I don’t know what her state has in terms of mediation. I think the interpretation of the passage is for two feuding Christians to go through their church to settle the problem rather than through the courts. As I understand it, neither party actually belongs to a church, so I don’t know where they would go to settle the problem. Unfortunately the sum is several thousand dollars - my friend said I would be shocked if I knew how much was involved.

You are right that a mediator couldn’t require a settlement and I’m not sure that a church would provide an arbitrator. That would definitely have to be handled through a secular court situation. I think my friend and her husband may just be stuck with the loss.

Google the local court and see what mediation services or small claims courts are available. Or call the state bar and ask about either.

They’re only stuck if they want to be stuck.

Maybe the deadbeats had a come to Jesus moment and discovered Christian charity was due from their creditors, or maybe not. Anyway, I’ve made a living at this, so nothing would surprise me.

 

[PbloPicasso]

What faith is your friend. If you say Church of Christ, then I understand her position. I refused to suit anyone I considered Christian because of the passage when I was a member of the Church of Christ. This includes not suiting the Catholic Church for what happened to me that would probably provide lots of money if I chose to do so. I’ve chosen not to persuit the matter even though an attorney tried to get me to file after mass one day. A priest said something similar. I elaborated that I can not do so because these matters are supposed to be handled outside of the eyes of the world.

Call it funny that I’d forgo becoming a millionaire for the sake of the Gospel, but it is what I still believe as a returned Catholic. Hope this helps. They may just have to chalk it up as a lesson learned and a very charitable act. Hopefully someone will pay it forward to them one day.

 

[John21652]

I could use some advice regarding this topic. One of my friends lent her (then) best friend thousands of dollars. Only a small fraction of the money has been repaid and my friend and her husband are now in desperate financial straits. I suggested that she take this person to court to try to recoup some of the money. She replied that, according to the Bible, Christians cannot sue Christians. She didn’t say, but I’m assuming that this is the Scriptural reference:

1 Corinthians 6
1 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.

My question is: Would my friend be violating this passage if she sued to get her money back? She does not want interest, just the original amount loaned. She is not Catholic, but she is very concerned about her eternal soul if she does pursue a lawsuit. My response that her former friend is harming her by not making a good faith effort to repay the money isn’t convincing her.

I have been in a similar situation and I let it go because I was able to make up the lost money. My friend and her husband are not in good enough health to work to get this money back, so they are in a bind.

Any and all observations are welcome. Thanks in advance.

A long standing and basic tenant of Christian doctrine has been the sanctity of an oath. In early Roman and Justinian Law, later under Canonical and Ecclesiastical Law, the breaking of an Oath was cause for a suit at law for breach of contract. This importance of oath giving has been passed down through all forms of law inherited from ancient times and the breaking of an oath was an affront to God more than it was an affront to the wronged party.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

A long standing and basic tenant of Christian doctrine has been the sanctity of an oath. In early Roman and Justinian Law, later under Canonical and Ecclesiastical Law, the breaking of an Oath was cause for a suit at law for breach of contract. This importance of oath giving has been passed down through all forms of law inherited from ancient times and the breaking of an oath was an affront to God more than it was an affront to the wronged party.

And today, under modern commercial law, there’s no opprobrium in breaching a contract. Its a matter of bottom line, if paying compensatory damages and the loss of good will warrants it, breaching may make sense.

 

[John21652]

And today, under modern commercial law, there’s no opprobrium in breaching a contract. Its a matter of bottom line, if paying compensatory damages and the loss of good will warrants it, breaching may make sense.

That may be the case for faceless, soulless corporations, where a well worded press release may assuage the ‘damage’ done to reputation, but in general terms, it is a risky strategy. A party may decide to breach a contract but in doing so it may incorrectly appear to be the cheaper option. The danger is that the damages awarded by the court may be calculated differently and be significantly greater than contemplated.

In terms of the OP, this point is moot. The question is whether or not Christians can sue Christians and I contend that protection under the law against breach of a contract, or breach of an undertaking, has a long history. It has a long and supported history under Christianity because Oath giving was a serious matter and enforcable under Christian doctrine. The Op tells us that the person who borrowed the money has repaid a little of it. Therefore, Prima Facie, there was an undertaking to repay the loan. Failure to repay the full amount is failure to make good a promise and therefore to sue for recovery is not un-Christian.