Christian Taking Another Christian To Court

[heartstrings]

It should be so, up to point: Because when a church member or even a pastor commits a crime, such as child molesting.. The revelation of such almost certainly calls their status as being a "Christian" into question anyway

It's time to call the police and press charges.

[John81]

It should be so, up to point: Because when a church member or even a pastor commits a crime, such as child molesting.. The revelation of such almost certainly calls their status as being a "Christian" into question anyway

It's time to call the police and press charges.

That's a criminal matter, not a matter of a dispute between Christians.

 

Even Paul, while under arrest, said that if he was guilty of some crime he was ready to accept the consequences.

 

Christians are subject to the laws of their land, so if a Christian breaks the law, their arrest and trial is on them.

 

Christians suing one another or taking one another to court on other matters is what the reference in question speaks to, not matters of breaking criminal law.

[DaveW]

Christians should not go to court against another Christian at all. As Paul said, we should rather be willing to suffer loss than for the lost to see Christians opposing one another in a court looking for a lost person to rule between them.

Jesus says we are to sacrifice all for Him. In some instances that could include suffering great worldly loss for the sake of Christ.

As has been pointed out, we can't prevent another Christian from trying to drag us into court, but we should do all we can to settle the matter outside the court, even if that means we suffer loss, because doing so for the sake of Christ is worth it.

Jesus made it clear that following Him can be costly, we have to love Him above all else, be willing to give up all for Him, and we should count the cost to see if we are willing to surrender to Him or not.

Paul said we should be willing to let the least in our church settle our differences rather than to take a matter before a worldly court.

I was too busy earlier to give a full answer, but this is roughly what I would have said. Thanks John.

It can be really hard to accept unjust attacks, and there are times when defense is justified. But remember we are to pray for those who despitefully use us.

It is hard to pray for someone we 'hate', but it is harder to hate someone we pray for. ;)

[Left the Bldg]

Christians should not go to court against another Christian at all. As Paul said, we should rather be willing to suffer loss than for the lost to see Christians opposing one another in a court looking for a lost person to rule between them.

 

Jesus says we are to sacrifice all for Him. In some instances that could include suffering great worldly loss for the sake of Christ.

 

As has been pointed out, we can't prevent another Christian from trying to drag us into court, but we should do all we can to settle the matter outside the court, even if that means we suffer loss, because doing so for the sake of Christ is worth it.

 

Jesus made it clear that following Him can be costly, we have to love Him above all else, be willing to give up all for Him, and we should count the cost to see if we are willing to surrender to Him or not.

 

Paul said we should be willing to let the least in our church settle our differences rather than to take a matter before a worldly court.

I agree.  What if the court issue is not about the two Christians involved but is a means to protect a third party...such as one who has Alzheimer's and cannot protect themselves?  

[Left the Bldg]

That's a criminal matter, not a matter of a dispute between Christians.

 

Even Paul, while under arrest, said that if he was guilty of some crime he was ready to accept the consequences.

 

Christians are subject to the laws of their land, so if a Christian breaks the law, their arrest and trial is on them.

 

Christians suing one another or taking one another to court on other matters is what the reference in question speaks to, not matters of breaking criminal law.

I think this answers my question.  As I mentioned to John below the court case involved a third party whom could not protect themselves because they had Alzheimer's (now deceased).  POA was abused, money and property was stolen.  To make a long story short POA was taken away and an outside guardianship was appointed.

 

Just wanted to make sure the process was done properly and Biblically by the Christian that was trying to protect the third party from the Christian that was POA.

 

Counsel from church was sought out while trying to apply the 3rd step of bringing the one in the wrong before the church but the advice that was given was to prayerfully consider whether to lean toward forgiveness or justice and did not suggest bringing her before the church because they didn't think it would make a difference.  So the "protecting Christian" negotiated outside of court with the POA to agree to an outside guardianship so it would not go to trial.  I think there was some forgiveness and some justice even though there was huge loss to the third party. The Christian protecting the third party did not seek to recover the loss (forgave the debt) then made sure the POA's power was no longer in force to prevent further damages (justice).  

 

Hope this all makes sense.  Ahhh!!!  The trials of life!  Names were changed to protect the innocent.  :-)

[Left the Bldg]

I gave the extra info because I think it was criminal in manner even though the POA is a professing Christian.  I don't want to judge her salvation, although I did question it by her actions, and the third party needed protecting.  I guess we will know when we stand before our Lord.