We must consider another variation on “by their tactics ye shall know them.” When controversy erupts in a church, and it is over the color of the carpet in the nursery, the end result can be a personal and/or ecclesiastical mess. But when the stakes are higher, it is not rare for the civil magistrate to get involved. And when this happens, it is almost always the result of at least one party in the dispute ignoring the apostle Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 6.
In that (very clear) passage, the apostle Paul prohibits Christians from going before unbelieving adjudicatories to have their disputes sorted out. And by “prohibits” I mean to indicate that Paul teaches that Christians, to use the theological phrase, “may not do it.”
We must note in the first place that this does not mean that two believers cannot have their dispute resolved by a civil magistrate. He says clearly that the problem is not that it is a civil authority handling the matter. The problem is unbelief. In the first verse, Paul reacts to Christians taking a matter to law “before the unrighteous” instead of bringing it before the saints. In the second verse, he makes a dichotomy between the world and the saints. And in the sixth verse, he clinches the matter by saying in disgust that brother goes to law against brother, and “that before unbelievers.” This means that if we postulate a Christian republic, biblical laws, a Christian judge, and a property line dispute between two Christians, there would be no disgrace in having the civil magistrate settle the matter. In that case, there would an ungodly usurpation of authority if the Church tried to intervene and settle the matter. Property line disputes are not within the ordinary jurisdiction of the Church — although Paul tells believers to have such disputes settled there in an ad hoc way rather than to take the disptures before unbelievers.
One other limitation should be noted. Paul is talking about lawsuits and complaints of that order (pragma is the word). I don’t believe that this restriction applies to calling the cops in cases of murder, rape, or grand theft auto. If someone is peeling out of your driveway with your new car, you need not have a family discussion over the likelihood of the thief being a baptized Christian before you call the cops.
So we are talking about disputes, lawsuits, did-too-did-nots, and the like. In our day, we have a system of civil law that is secular — formally and judicially “unbelieving.” The apostle Paul clearly lays down the law here. Do not take disputes between Christians before them. One response to this would obviously be, from one of the parties, “but I was wronged. If I do as you say, I will have to pay the costs of being defrauded.” And Paul shows how strongly he feels about this when he says that our response should be to willingly embrace that loss rather than to disgrace the Church by airing our dirty laundry in front of unbelievers. If you have to eat it, Paul says, then eat it (v. 7).
Paul assumes here that it is quite possible that one Christian has wronged another, he assumes that it is not wrong for the innocent party to complain, or for his complaint to be adjudicated within the Church. But he declares that the wronged party, for the sake of the Church’s testimony, should be willing to be defrauded instead of appealing to unbelievers for relief. And notice that he does not set a dollar amount on when this willingness to be ripped off should cease.
For those who read the Bible in a straightforward and honest way, the matter is therefore settled. But if a man has a lot of money on the line (or if he is emotionally cantankerous), he will be tempted to get into a few Greek word studies. There is a marvelous phrase in the Westminster Confession, in talking about divorce, when it says that on this matter, men are apt to “study arguments.” Time for a little creative exegesis!
Now it is quite possible for a Christin who was truly wronged to fall into this temptation, especially if the wrong was significant or high-handed. But when there is a reflex action that turns to the unbelieving civil authorities readily and easily, and produces strained arguments for doing it without blushing, this tells you something immediately about the spiritual state of that individual, and the spiritual state of everyone who sides with him.
Say that a couple of Christians in the same church have a property line dispute, and they cannot come to an agreement. After their second (short) discussion, one of them takes the matter to court in high disregard of Paul’s instruction here. The other settles, rather than appear in court, allowing himself to lose. He loses rather than fighting in front of the unbelievers. Now in an ordinary matter like this, it would be very easy for us to assume that it was the guilty party who “settled” rather than being fully accountable. But in this scenario, it is quite possible that it should go the other way. What does high-handed disobedience of the Scriptures by one of the parties tell you about him? It tells you that he clearly doesn’t care what the Bible says about handling and processing disputes. So why should he care what the Bible says about the dispute itself?
Put this another way. When a private dispute boils out into the streets, and you were not there when the dispute began, can you make any assessment at all? Well, sure, at least enough to get your oriented. The fight is now going on in front of you, and if one of the parties is fighting dirty right in front of you, you are allowed to consider the possibility that he was fighting dirty before you laid eyes on him. And if the other party is fighting clean, then that should be significant also. Now, considering everything else we have said about justice, these considerations must be weighed together with all the other scriptural criteria. But if you are watching a fight, and there is bitterness and rancor on one side, and self-restraint and honor on the other, this is not insignificant. And dragging a fight before unbelievers displays a “win at all costs” mentality that is a prime example of fighting dirty.
Over the last few years, we have seen multiple examples of this kind of thing here in our local clashes. Disputes that professing Christians have with other Christians have repeatedly been dragged before various unbelieving adjudicatories — commissions, city councils, courts, and so on. Not only have the deeply disgruntled done this, they have not been challenged on this overt disobedience by others who have publicly gathered by their side in support. And so they gather together, filing complaints and briefs, and in various other ways, figuring out ways to humiliate the apostle. Of course, they would not say that this is what they are doing. That is because they have “studied arguments.”