Should Christians sue?

[probinson]

A recent discussion on here with Tamara and something that happened to me a few years back has caused me to wonder again, is there ever a time when it is OK for a Christian to sue someone?

First let me tell you a story. This is a true story that happened to me in January 2005. It was the second week of January, and I came home from work at 5:00 on a Friday evening, only to find that someone had smashed their car into the side of my garage. It was a hit and run because of the icy conditions, but some of the neighbors saw it happen and recognized the driver.

So initially, we called the police and filed a report. Right after the police left, I was out taking pictures of the damage for my insurance company when a car pulled up and a teenage driver who couldn't have been any older than 18 got out and said, "I did that." He then proceeded to ask me if we could just take care of this on the down-low so that he wouldn't have to report it to his insurance. I agreed, knowing the risks involved in doing so, and said that I would get estimates and provide them to him.

Now the estimate to repair my garage was about $1,500. It was an old garage, the damage done to it by the crash hit right at the structural integrity of the garage, and most contractors said that it wasn't worth fixing and they would tell my insurance company that it was a "total loss", but if they did fix it, that's what they would charge. I also carry full replacement value on my homeowner's insurance, so if I had gone the insurance route, I could have had a brand new garage. But, I had promised this kid that I would allow him to pay the damages without involving the insurance companies.

So, I called him up and invited him over, and he came with his dad. I told him that a new garage would cost me about $6,500, but that I was willing to accept $2,000 to have my old garage demolished and get a fully enclosed carport installed. It was at this point that they said they would only give me what the estimate was ($1,500) and no more. I explained to them that I was doing them a favor by allowing them to not report this to their insurance, and that I would still be out $4,500 had I reported it to my insurance company, but they would not budge.

At this point, I had all kinds of people, many who would readily identify themselves as Christians, that had all kinds of advice for me. "Sue them!" "Report it to your insurance!" "This isn't your fault!" "Justice!"

However, even though the kid and his father were not being very gracious or accommodating, I had absolutely no peace in any of that advice. And so, I accepted the $1,500. As a result, I decided to demolish the garage myself, which took 3 days of tearing down and hauling away the remains on my own time and at my own expense, and instead of a nice, enclosed garage, I ended up with a wide open carport, basically 4 posts with a roof on top. In the end, the whole ordeal cost me about $300.

Could I have sued them or reported it to my insurance and gotten a brand new garage out of this ordeal? Yes. Did the world's system of law and justice entitle me to do so? Yes. But still, I did not feel right with any of those remedies.

Some people say, even to this day, that I let those people take advantage of me, but I don't feel that way at all. I feel as though the Love of God prevailed over this world's law and justice system. IOW, even though I could have gotten more out of the world's system, I felt that it was more important for me to remember what Kingdom I am from.

So, what say you? Is there ever an acceptable reason for a Christian to sue someone? And if there is, how can we reconcile that to the message of Love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, etc. that Christ taught?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Yes, I think there are reasons for a christian to sue and think that we should, but only as a last resort.

Right now I could posibly be involved in a future lawsuit if everything doesn't pan out right. Incidently Tamara, if you're reading this, would it be posible if I ask you for some advice with a pm to you? I friend of mine already has his lawyer looking into the matter so it will only be some simple questions.

To make it short, I'm talking about fraud, and or, out right theft. Because I doubt there will be enough evidence gathered for there to be any criminal charges brought, and because someone will be stuck paying double for a bill, I don't think that is right and the person/people/company should have to get in trouble for it, and right now that's all I'm thinking about is getting that company, or person in trouble for this. I do not want anyone else have to go through this, so if sueing accomplishes that then great.

The way I see it, if we don't sue, the person/company will just get away with it and keep doing this to other people.

 

[probinson]

Yes, I think there are reasons for a christian to sue and think that we should, but only as a last resort.

OK. What would you use as a scriptural basis for suing someone as a last resort?

 

[nephilimiyr]

OK. What would you use as a scriptural basis for suing someone as a last resort?

I don't, why should look for specific Bible passages that will allow me to sue someone? Am I under a biblical law that says I can't sue? If anything, I think it's the christian thing to do to protect others from being harmed in the same way my friend and I were harmed and taken advantage of.

I'm not going to not sue just so that I can feel all good inside making me think I'm such a great christian because I didn't sue. I'm not in anyway suggesting that that is what you did, or are doing.

When it comes to fraud, scams, theft, these people need to be stop from harming others. I would feel guilty if I didn't do my duty in helping to stop this from occuring again.

 

[probinson]

I don't, why should look for specific Bible passages that will allow me to sue someone? Am I under a biblical law that says I can't sue?

I'm not asking you to provide scriptures that will allow you to sue. I'm asking you, based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ and letters of the New Testament, why you feel it is OK for us to sue someone. This has nothing to do with Biblical law and everything to do with modeling ourselves after Christ.

Additionally, I am not saying that it's necessarily always wrong to sue. I am asking you what Biblical basis there is for suing someone with the very focused intent to hurt them so that they don't hurt someone else.

If anything, I think it's the christian thing to do to protect others from being harmed in the same way my friend and I were harmed and taken advantage of.

This is what I'm talking about. What Biblical basis is there for this line of thought? You want to hurt the people who harmed you so that they can't hurt someone else. That sounds noble and commendable by the world's standards, but what I'm asking is can you show a Biblical basis for this school of thought. Is it really the Christian thing to do to inflict harm on the one who harms you so that they can't harm anyone else? And what guarantee do you have that the harm that you inflict on them will be sufficient to prevent them from taking advantage of anyone else?

Please don't take offense. I have no idea the circumstances or the situation you find yourself in, nor am I trying to tell you what you should or should not do. I am simply asking questions, not specific to your situation, but as they relate to the topic of the OP.

 

[Faulty]

1 Corinthians 6:1-3 gives guidelines for dealing with other believers in a matter where suing would be the norm, but I'm not aware of any such guidelines when dealing between believers and non-believers.

 

[probinson]

1 Corinthians 6:1-3 (AMP)
DOES ANY of you dare, when he has a matter of complaint against another [brother], to go to law before unrighteous men [men neither upright nor right with God, laying it before them] instead of before the saints (the people of God)? Do you not know that the saints (the believers) will [one day] judge and govern the world? And if the world [itself] is to be judged and ruled by you, are you unworthy and incompetent to try [such petty matters] of the smallest courts of justice? Do you not know also that we [Christians] are to judge the [very] angels and pronounce opinion between right and wrong [for them]? How much more then [as to] matters pertaining to this world and of this life only!
​

The message here seems to be that it is NOT wise to take your complaints before "unrighteous men", but rather that they should be taken to the people of God and judged there.

It doesn't seem that this passage is advocating suing someone in our worldly court system, but rather that believers should try their complaints amongst other believers.

 

[JimB]

Yes, that is the ideal and would likely be more just than a civil court. But I would not let 1 Cor 6 prevent me from suing someone, especially a “brother” unwilling to own up to and be liable for a costly injustice toward me, and if the church proved to be unjust in reconciling the matter. Most modern churches would not serve to mediate a difference and most Christians would not ask the church to do so. Right or wrong, that is the nature of things.

~Jim

Mercy triumphs over judgment. ~James 2.13​

 

[probinson]

Yes, that is the ideal and would likely be more just than a civil court. But I would not let 1 Cor 6 prevent me from suing someone, especially a “brother” unwilling to own up to and be liable for a costly injustice toward me, and if the church proved to be unjust in reconciling the matter. Most modern churches would not serve to mediate a difference and most Christians would not ask the church to do so. Right or wrong, that is the nature of things.

But why is that the nature of things?

I have to wonder when I hear people describe something as an ideal... Is the Bible meant to be a book full of unachievable ideals, where we have to just suck it up and, "right or wrong", accept "the nature of things"?

At what point should we as Christians say that the current nature of things can and should be improved, and strive for those "ideals"? Or should we always just concede that "the nature of things" is an unchangeable and insurmountable obstacle to absolutely prevent the ideal from ever being achieved?

 

[nephilimiyr]

I'm not asking you to provide scriptures that will allow you to sue. I'm asking you, based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ and letters of the New Testament, why you feel it is OK for us to sue someone. This has nothing to do with Biblical law and everything to do with modeling ourselves after Christ.

Additionally, I am not saying that it's necessarily always wrong to sue. I am asking you what Biblical basis there is for suing someone with the very focused intent to hurt them so that they don't hurt someone else.



This is what I'm talking about. What Biblical basis is there for this line of thought? You want to hurt the people who harmed you so that they can't hurt someone else. That sounds noble and commendable by the world's standards, but what I'm asking is can you show a Biblical basis for this school of thought. Is it really the Christian thing to do to inflict harm on the one who harms you so that they can't harm anyone else? And what guarantee do you have that the harm that you inflict on them will be sufficient to prevent them from taking advantage of anyone else?

Please don't take offense. I have no idea the circumstances or the situation you find yourself in, nor am I trying to tell you what you should or should not do. I am simply asking questions, not specific to your situation, but as they relate to the topic of the OP.

Well, if it helps, here's the story. A friend of mine was being evicted from the house he was renting. He is blind, his wife is blind in one eye and doesn't have very good sight in the other, and they have too small children. They needed to be out at the end of July and we were in the last week of July already. I agreed to help him.

He reserved a U-haul truck and called me up saying he wanted to pick it up that night so that we'll be all ready to start the move the next morning. So that evening I took him to get the truck. The guy behind the counter, even though my friend gave him his bank card info the day before to reserve the truck, wanted a credit card to authorized handing over the keys. My friend didn't have anything on him and an arguement insued, because this made my friend mad, I agreed to have my credit card swiped, but only if I was gauranteed by the guy that I wouldn't be charged, he agreed. He said on my statement the charge will show up but it will also show that the charge will be credited, or reversed.

After 2 days, when we were done, my friend returned the truck, gave them his bank card, they swiped it, his wife signed the receit and all was well. Now I don't pay any bills, that's my wifes job, she's the accountant. I told her about this and to make sure that on the next statement to make sure the transaction was reversed, however I never told her what the amount was. Well when we she got the statement all she looked at was the U-haul had credied $22 to my balance, but the whole charge was $192. So U-haul charged me $170.

However this was not known by me. Just last week I decided to make an account on line with my credit card because of some other percieved problems. While I was looking through my transaction history that is when I noticed that U-haul had charged me the $170. I went straight to my friend apartment. He reassured me that he had paid the bill with his bank card. After searching for the receit and finding it, it does show the date and his wifes signature, but it was my credit card # on the receit! He assured me that money was taken out of his account. So then we searched through mailed bank statements of his and it showed that there was a transaction made on that date to U-haul but the statement didn't list the amount of the transaction.

We went to his bank in hopes that they could help us. While we were talking to the teller he was telling us that there are alot of people he knows that has had similar troubles with U-haul. They found the samething, the transaction shows up "invisable", meaning, it shows that a transaction to U-haul on that date was conducted but that the amount is not listed. The teller told us that they have been seeing this more and more and that more and more people are having to pay double for their bills because of these invisable transactions. It's always a result of fraud. Tellers, or company's have found ways in which to make their transactions invisable. His bank has brought this to the attention of their HQ's and they are looking further into this and see if they can't find out what the amount was.

In the meantime, we went to U-haul with this and they say that they will reverse the charge on my credit card but only when we can proved that his bank card was charged the $170 bill. We told them about the invisable transaction so we know that they got paid not only from his bank card but also by my credit card. That wasn't good enough for them, they say they need for us to provide them with more proof. We asked them if there was anyway they can look through their records and they refused to.

This is where it stands today. The bank HQ's says that because of the holidays and because of other investigations they will not get to looking into this until the beginning of the new year. They warned us that so much time has passed that it's posible that it's too late for them to find anything

Tamara, my question to you was going to be, if we can't settle this, what would you're opinion be of us taking this to court and winning? According to what his bank says, there is no reason for transactions to be invisable and it's usually a result of people monkeying around in the system to make them invisable so to steal from people's accounts.

 

[nephilimiyr]

1 Corinthians 6:1-3 (AMP)
DOES ANY of you dare, when he has a matter of complaint against another [brother], to go to law before unrighteous men [men neither upright nor right with God, laying it before them] instead of before the saints (the people of God)? Do you not know that the saints (the believers) will [one day] judge and govern the world? And if the world [itself] is to be judged and ruled by you, are you unworthy and incompetent to try [such petty matters] of the smallest courts of justice? Do you not know also that we [Christians] are to judge the [very] angels and pronounce opinion between right and wrong [for them]? How much more then [as to] matters pertaining to this world and of this life only!
​

The message here seems to be that it is NOT wise to take your complaints before "unrighteous men", but rather that they should be taken to the people of God and judged there.

It doesn't seem that this passage is advocating suing someone in our worldly court system, but rather that believers should try their complaints amongst other believers.

Look at the context Pete, Paul was talking about christians sueing other brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul didn't have to specifically point this out because the context bares it out.

 

[probinson]

We went to his bank in hopes that they could help us. While we were talking to the teller he was telling us that there are alot of people he knows that has had similar troubles with U-haul. They found the samething, the transaction shows up "invisable", meaning, it shows that a transaction to U-haul on that date was conducted but that the amount is not listed. The teller told us that they have been seeing this more and more and that more and more people are having to pay double for their bills because of these invisable transactions. It's always a result of fraud. Tellers, or company's have found ways in which to make their transactions invisable. His bank has brought this to the attention of their HQ's and they are looking further into this and see if they can't find out what the amount was.

I'm not a banker, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. Your friend should know the beginning and ending balances of his bank account, and if this is the only "invisible" transaction, then it should be very simple to determine what amount was taken out of the account.

For example, let's say my bank statement shows the following;

Starting balance: $1,000.00

Wal-mart: $28.00
Shell Gasoline: $32.00
U-Haul:
Taco Bell: $10.00

Ending balance: $900.00

It's a pretty simple math equation to calculate what U-Haul charged;

1000-(28+32+10+X) = 900.
X = $30.00

So something doesn't quite compute here. If U-Haul's amount is the only unknown variable in the equation, it should be quite easy to calculate and prove.

 

[Faulty]

Yes, that is the ideal and would likely be more just than a civil court. But I would not let 1 Cor 6 prevent me from suing someone, especially a “brother” unwilling to own up to and be liable for a costly injustice toward me, and if the church proved to be unjust in reconciling the matter. Most modern churches would not serve to mediate a difference and most Christians would not ask the church to do so. Right or wrong, that is the nature of things.

~Jim

Mercy triumphs over judgment. ~James 2.13​

The primary reason to bring these matters to the church would be to not tarnish the name of the Gospel, in the eyes of the unbelievers. Of course, this is also just something that is not being done these days.

If a fellow brother would not go this route, then the other option it to have the issue resolved in the public domain, potentially bringing shame to the name of the Gospel, or perhaps something along the intents of Matthew 5:40 would be called for.

Perhaps, there are indeed times where a believer might prefer to suffer wrong and/or loss if the resolution of such a matter would damage their witness, or the witness of others. But again, this is all disputes between believers. I see nothing that would affect such a thing concerning non-believers. Of course, the Levitical laws might have something to model.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I'm not a banker, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. Your friend should know the beginning and ending balances of his bank account, and if this is the only "invisible" transaction, then it should be very simple to determine what amount was taken out of the account.

For example, let's say my bank statement shows the following;

Starting balance: $1,000.00

Wal-mart: $28.00
Shell Gasoline: $32.00
U-Haul:
Taco Bell: $10.00

Ending balance: $900.00

It's a pretty simple math equation to calculate what U-Haul charged;

1000-(28+32+10+X) = 900.
X = $30.00

So something doesn't quite compute here. If U-Haul's amount is the only unknown variable in the equation, it should be quite easy to calculate and prove.

I would agree, well, the bank is looking into it. Hopefully it'll be as simple as this and this whole thing will be solved.

Again, as I stated in my first post, sueing someone should always be a last resort. Right now him and I are seeking legal advise just in case.

 

[Faulty]

I would agree, well, the bank is looking into it. Hopefully it'll be as simple as this and this whole thing will be solved.

Again, as I stated in my first post, sueing someone should always be a last resort. Right now him and I are seeking legal advise just in case.

Sounds like a simple small claims matter to me. Time to call Judge Judy.

 

[probinson]

I would agree, well, the bank is looking into it. Hopefully it'll be as simple as this and this whole thing will be solved.

But my point is, this is something your friend should be able to determine quite easily by looking at his last bank statement, his check register and his current account balance. If U-Haul did take $170 out of his account in an invisible transaction, then looking at those 3 things and doing the math would show $170 unaccounted for. You shouldn't have to wait for the bank to do that.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Well, ok, so that is just my situation. The point I made is still valid, if the only way you can stop someone from comitting fraud, scaming people out of money, or whatever, is to sue them, then yes, you take them to court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iTqoDH0vFU

 

[probinson]

Well, ok, so that is just my situation. The point I made is still valid, if the only way you can stop someone from comitting fraud, scaming people out of money, or whatever, is to sue them, then yes, you take them to court.

That sounds like an old advertisement for the People's Court.

Oh Judge Wapner, where art thou?

However, that still doesn't provide me with a Biblical precedent for us to inflict purposeful harm to prevent additional harm from being done, which is really what I'm looking for.

 

[nephilimiyr]

But my point is, this is something your friend should be able to determine quite easily by looking at his last bank statement, his check register and his current account balance. If U-Haul did take $170 out of his account in an invisible transaction, then looking at those 3 things and doing the math would show $170 unaccounted for. You shouldn't have to wait for the bank to do that.

LOL, well, it's kind of hard for him to look at his bank statments when he's blind! Ah, he's a good sport, he loves it when I joke around with him like that.

I understand what you're saying but why on his receit was my credit card number on there and why did both of our accounts get charged? See this isn't just about my friend and I. Like the bank teller told us, they have seen the same type of complaints about U-haul. Seems like they keep doing this until they get caught. Sure they'll pay us back the double payment if we can prove our case but what about the people who either never look into this matter or who can't prove their case with them, well then they just got away with stealing money. And their banking on people never finding this out. They almost got away with it concerning us, but they wont. The point is, but what about the other people who will fall victom?

In fact, the bank teller told us about a specific story of an older couple who ended up having to pay double to U-haul because of a very similar problem. Their original bill was $300 and they ended having to pay $600.

U-haul had no business charging my account when they also charged his. This is odviously a reoccuring problem they have and it sure seems shady to me. What, they didn't know that they got paid twice? They wont even look into it themselves.

 

[nephilimiyr]

That sounds like an old advertisement for the People's Court.

Oh Judge Wapner, where art thou?

However, that still doesn't provide me with a Biblical precedent for us to inflict purposeful harm to prevent additional harm from being done, which is really what I'm looking for.

I don't care if you aren't provided by me with a biblical precedent for this that is good enough for you. I told you that I think it's the christian thing to do to stop people from harming others. If that can only be achieved by taking them to court then so be it.

And if the only way for justice in this world can be done is by sueing them then so be it also. One name, OJ.