Going to Law

“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” (1Cor 6:1).

Introduction

In North America, and particularly in the USA, we live in an exceptionally litigious society. It is quite hard to conduct our lives without some contact with the legal system: I personally have had much involvement with Patents, with their associated legal requirements and lawyers. I have also been deposed by lawyers in connec­tion with my profession, but fortunately never been required to testify in court.

In North America, it very unusual to come across Christadelphians employed in the legal profession. In the UK, however, I know of many Christadelphian lawyers, although whether this is due to the difference there between solicitors (who cannot in general appear in court) and barristers (who can) I do not know.

So how do the comments of Paul in 1 Corinthians affect our attitude to the law? And what is the impact of clause1in our commonly used Statement of Faith which says “[It is a doctrine to be rejected] that we are at liberty to… recover debts by legal coercion.”? It is a question without easy answers: it is easy to be dogmatic and say we should totally avoid all voluntary contact with the law, but this does not appear to be indicated by the context and clear teaching of either of these guiding principles.

  • Paul in 1st Corinthians is addressing the particular case of a dispute between brethren, which ought to be settled within the ecclesia.
  • Robert Roberts acted primarily to prevent Christadelphians suing at law to recover debts, which is an action seemingly in contradiction to the com­mandments of Christ, where he says “And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also” (Luke 6:29).

Difficult situations2

There are a large number of situations that present themselves, and in many of these the decisions we might make will undoubtedly vary. I can give my thoughts, which are based not only on the scriptures, but on the sage advice of those of our brotherhood who have been confronted with similar situations.

Are we permitted to pursue financial compensation through legal means?

Fortunately, in many cases where we are injured, or our property is damaged, the compensation process is covered by some sort of insurance. Workman’s com­pensation in the USA is an obligation of the employer, and the courts are rarely employed. The Law of Moses provides an example in such cases: we read “And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed” (Exod 21:18-19).

The law in effect provides compensation for the loss of income and medical ex­penses, without appealing to the judges of the land as far as we can tell. Similarly, most home owners are covered by insurance as a requirement of obtaining a mortgage, and few would have any compunction in making a claim in the case of damage to their house, nor in the case of an automobile accident.

In must be pointed out, however, that insurance policies typically have a clause such as “a person… must cooperate and assist us in any matter concerning a claim or suit.” This could potentially require a policy holder to appear in court to help defend the insurer against a fraudulent claim. I have been subject to such a fraudulent episode myself, but fortunately it was settled out of court. It was indeed partly on the basis of such clauses as this, that some brethren have counseled against obtaining insurance. It seems a stretch to extrapolate a prohibition against taking a brother to court to defending against a fraudulent claim, or indeed to say obtaining insurance is not putting ones trust in God.

Are we permitted to take out restraining orders?

There are situations, unfortunately not uncommon, where a sister has an abusive husband (or vice versa). Our Christian response when faced with abusive insults, legal exaction, and official compulsion is to be generous and non-retaliatory. However Paul when faced with torture in Acts 22:25-27 countered with the legal defense that he was a Roman citizen. It could well be argued, I believe, that similar provisions are available under modern law to protect against illegal violence, and I know of situations where indeed such actions have been taken. Whether this is appropriate in any given case is perhaps a matter of individual judgment.

Should we take legal action to recover debts?

As we indicated above, there was a series of incidents in the late 19th century among the brotherhood, of situations where some brethren considered it quite proper to sue non-brethren to recover debts. This is, a first sight, indefensible on the grounds that when the Apostle wrote to the Corinthian brethren in 1Cor 6, he was not limiting his thoughts to the circumstances where brethren were taking each other to court, but using this as an example of how far short of Jesus’ commands they had fallen. He was certainly not advocating that our treatment of the stranger from the covenants of promise should be inferior to our treatment of the brethren.

But what of the brother who finds that because he is suffering himself to be de­frauded, his business is being ruined, his family is going in need, and he is unable properly to remunerate his employees? This is not the only example that might be cited, in which a categorical prohibition against any such action is inappropri­ate. As a general rule, as cited in our Statement of Faith, “the recovery of debts by legal coercion” should not be the practice in the situation where only yourself would profit by such action. In every situation it is of primary importance that the principle should be upheld that we are prepared to suffer to be defrauded, and no action whatsoever should be taken that can be considered retributive.3

Sometimes, however, although you personally might be prepared to suffer yourself, the consequences and harm rendered to others is so extreme that recourse to legal action might well be the only course available.

Are we permitted to defend ourselves from legal attacks?

The scriptural answer to this seems quite clear: as Paul defended himself by ap­pealing to the law of the land, so we should have the same privilege — but the scriptural principle of not seeking vengeance still applies. Defense seems a reason­able course of action: offence (countersuing) is not appropriate. Of course, if we are in any way guilty, we ought to remember the counsel of Jesus:

“Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge de­liver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing” (Matt 5:25-26).

In this case the believer is at fault and Jesus encourages us to pay up or face the full consequences of the law.

Conclusions

These are only some of the legal quandaries that can face us. I could add

  • Should we use a lawyer in refugee, immigration, and conscientious objection cases? (This is an almost universal practice as far as I can tell.)
  • In the case of family break-up due to divorce, are we entitled to seek the ser­vices of the court to ensure any children are brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?
  • What do we do in the case of disaffected members suing the ecclesia, or any other Christadelphian organization?

In all cases, we should prayerfully consider the way our Lord suffered himself to be abused, and consider “vengeance is mine, saith the LORD.” But in many cases there are others to consider, and also the fact that sometimes we are almost compelled to seek help from the law in our legalistic society. There are no easy answers.

  1. This clause was added around 1900, after much controversy over this topic in the pages of The Christadelphian. It is not in the 1883 version, nor in any of the preceding statements.
  2. Some of these situations were discussed in the Australian Lampstand, Jan 2011, p 10 etc.
  3. This situation was considered by Bro. Michael Ashton in The Christadelphian, 1988, p 391. His answer differs somewhat from the conclusions of Bro. Butler in “Dare any of you go to Law?” (Pamphlet c/o the Christadelphian Office).