Paul famously prohibits Christians from going to court against one another, except that he doesn’t. What he prohibits is taking disputes between Christians before unbelievers. Here is the text:
“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:1–10).
The problem was going to courts run by unbelievers, by pagans, by the unjust. If a nation were explicitly Christian, and the laws were Christian, and the judge were a Christian, it would be inappropriate and sectarian for a church to set up its own court system. Business disputes between Christians ought to be settled in civil court. That is what civil court is for — just not the civil courts when they are dominated by the enemy of our souls. Disputes between Christians ought to be settled in civil court, but the civil court ought to be Christian. And until the civil courts are Christian, you would be better served to have your case heard by all the regional church janitors. When you think you have a really strong case, it would seem to me that one of the last things you should want is for the devil to find in your favor.
To go before the unbelievers, hat in hand, looking for justice, is for Paul a humiliation. Paul didn’t speak German, but what he is talking about here is described perfectly by the German word fremdschämen. This is what occurs when you are embarrassed for someone who ought to be embarrassed for himself, but isn’t. This whole scenario is a shame to the Corinthians, but Paul has to explain to them why it is shameful, with them saying, “What? Why? What?”
To drag disputes between Christians before unbelievers is a functional denial of our eschatological hope. Do you not know, Paul asks, that we will judge the world? Do you not know that we will judge angels? That being the case, we ought to be looking forward to that day, and we should be practicing for it. We need to stretch, limber up. This dispute in our midst should be treated like a scrimmage with pads. We are not at the game yet, but we are training in earnest.
So it is bad enough when any Christian takes another Christian to court, but when postmillennialists do it, it is hard to know where to look. Postmillennialists are the ones who affirm that we will grow up into judging the world, and that we will in fact judge angels, and all prior to the Lord’s Second Coming. Our time living under the rule of unbelievers is our time of training. But it is hard to train for that day if your pious Aunt Maude — the radical Bullingerite dispensationalist — is more postmill in her instincts than you are. If I understand the decreation language of Matt. 24, and its original use in Isaiah 13, but have not love . . .
This whole thing is a really big deal for Paul, so big that he suggests a radical answer to every form of pragmatism. “But if I don’t do this, then I will suffer significant loss.” Paul responds that whatever loss you go through if you don’t sue, it is smaller than the loss that will be suffered by the Church in her testimony if you do sue. The testimony of the Church, in other words, is worth more than your 5 bucks, or 5K, or 50K.
Objections to this Pauline requirement are generally pretty feeble. Usually no arguments have to be made because large sections of the Church have surrendered to the demands of utility, and finding a Christian plausibility structure that accommodates lawsuits is not difficult. Under pressure, if someone does press the point, you get something like “well, I have an attorney friend, a very fine Christian, and he doesn’t see this passage the way you do at all.” He has a different interpretation. Okay, what is it? You say that Paul is not prohibiting Deacon Smith from suing Elder Jones over the lost widget delivery. What is he prohibiting? When would this passage apply to somebody, anybody? When was the last time anyone had to obey it?
Folly doesn’t always wing it. Sometimes folly parses its words very carefully, and we are required not to listen to its instruction. “Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge” (Prov. 19:27).
Exegesis first, and then simple obedience. What constitutes obedience should be settled by the text, by what God revealed to us. It is not settled by the ins and outs of the dispute. It is not settled by expedience. It is not determined by whose ox is being sued. “Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: But a faithful man who can find?” (Prov. 20:6).
Good stuff. Being defrauded by Christians is very hard – for both those inside and outside the Church. Those hurt in this way, and other ways, are often the most bitter people of all. So this is a big call. But the Bible gives us a long history of men mistreated by their brothers. Joseph still amazes me. I am self-employed, and I can get very snaky when clients fail to pay. There might be some sacred architecture here, too, which could reveal some of Paul’s spin. He starts in the Garden, where Adam is willing to defraud, well, everybody… Read more »
I always assumed the rationale for this prohibition to be that family shouldn’t be airing their dirty laundry before the world and making a mockery of the name of Christ. But if the rationale is that unbelieving judges are necessarily incapable of ruling justly–that they will only rule in favor of Satan’s interests–then this would seem to extend to Christians not going to court against unbelievers, either. This would leave Christians with no legal protections against the world at all, since unbelievers wouldn’t submit to any non-binding Christian arbitration. I suppose Paul could be saying that Christians have no legal… Read more »
Doug – Thanks, this is very good. A few practical thoughts on implementation of an alternative system. If such a system were to work, it would require a great deal more voluntary submission to the Church and God’s Word than we currently have in America. Paul assumes that Christians will always need some judges to render judgment in a dispute, but those judges should be Christian. To the extent the church (locally or broadly) desires to implement a Christian alternative dispute resolution system, it strikes me that the first hurdle will be voluntary submission by both parties to the church… Read more »
I wonder about this because I think that there is a further distinction between ecclesiastical and civil courts. Each has different goals and different remedies available. The civil court’s goal is retributive or restitutionary, and its remedies are financial and mandatory. The ecclesiastical court’s goal is restorative, and its remedies are spiritual and voluntary. The civil court will sort out the money matters, but it won’t touch the harmed relationship. The ecclesiastical court is going to focus on the relationship and order reparations to support that goal.
I do think we have to take into account that Paul’s opinion of pagan magistrates is generally favorable, as in Romans 13, which must be considered the locus classicus of his perspective on this subject: “The authorities that exist [manifestly pagan in Paul’s time] are appointed by God.” (13:1) Scripture records that Paul himself appealed to the Chief pagan magistrate, Caesar, to protect himself from the injustice of his own Jewish countrymen. Therefore, it’s difficult to believe that it is always and everywhere sinful in his eyes to seek justice from a heathen judge when it cannot otherwise be obtained.… Read more »
Jack: The situation Paul seems to have in mind in 1 Corinthians is two Christians disputing. That doesn’t mean that a Christian can’t take a nonChristian to a nonChristian judge, or other such combinations. Rom. 13 applies generally, but the one specific instance he is railing against is a Christian taking another Christian to a nonChristian judge. Make sense?
Seth, sorry for the delay–just got back to my computer. Yes, that is the one specific instance. But the question remains, what does this one specific instance entail, specifically? I think Calvin is helpful, in his commentary on I Cor. 6: “Here, he begins to reprove another fault among the Corinthians — an excessive fondness for litigation, which took its rise from avarice. . . What Paul, then, condemns in the Corinthians is this — that they harassed one another with law-suits. He states the reason of it — that they were not prepared to bear injuries patiently. . .”… Read more »
Ok, yeah I don’t think we’re disagreeing. Paul is condemning both a litigious attitude, e. g. McD’s hot coffee burned my lap give me a kajillion dollars, and the specific circumstances, i. e. Christians litigating against Christians in front of nonChristian judges.
In other words, Paul condemns Christians litigating against Christians in front of nonChristian judges, but even if the judge were a Christian, that doesn’t make it automatically alright. Even if all three parties are Christian, you can still have frivolous law suits, if the litigants are having an overly litigious attitude.
I haven’t read this entire document, but I find it helpful on the insurance question: http://www.christian-attorney.net/christians_lawsuits.html
Jack – the insurance policy contract itself is going to have a requirement that the owner cooperate with his own insurance company so that it can recover any money paid from a liable party (or that party’s insurer). Therefore, the injured (and insured) party likely has already made a covenant to cooperate with his insurance company in a lawsuit against a potentially liable Christian driver. So it goes somewhat beyond “protocol” as there are contractual (covenant) obligations between the injured party and his insurer. Just a thought.
Jess, I know that is clear to yourself as a lawyer, but I think you’re assuming too much in this explanation to a layman such as myself. Can you put it on a slightly lower shelf for me? :)
Okay, I think I get it now: The lawsuit avenue is built in to the contract. Yes, I suppose that is beyond what I referred to as the “protocol”, and which I take to further my point that I Cor. 6 cannot be made to walk on on fours in contextual isolation.
What does Pastor Wilson mean when he refers to judging the world and angels *prior* to the Second Coming? That part threw me. Prior?
Doug, if Christians should not settle disputes with each other using the gun of the God-hating legal system, then why do you believe that Christian marriage contracts ought to be established and enforced by this same system? The whole point of creating a marriage contract is to give this system the authority to settle marital property disputes in court.
Ben, I think Marcus Dods is helpful here, in his commentary on this passage: “Did Paul then mean that such legal cases as are now tried in our civil courts should be settled by non-professional men? Did he mean that ecclesiastical courts should take out of the hands of the civil magistrate all pleas regarding property, all disputes about commercial transactions? Did he foresee none of the great evils that have arisen wherever Church or State has not respected the province of the other, and was he prepared to put the power of the sword into the hand of ecclesiastics?… Read more »
Of course Doug was NOT lobbying for ecclesiastical courts replacing civil courts, but I’m still not convinced that we have to wait for sufficiently (?) Christianized civil courts before needing to utilize them.
The author you quoted, in my opinion, lost all credibility by referring to the gun of the State as a necessary evil. It seems self-evident to me that if something is necessary it is not evil, and vice versa. Is there such a thing as necessary rape, murder, or assault? To ask the question is to answer it. Why is it assumed that in order to be considered a “professional” at dispute resolution, your salary must be funded by taxation rather than service fees? Why is it so hard to envision a scenario in which a private Christian marriage contract… Read more »
Ben, it’s a necessary evil only in the sense that it only exists because of sin. Civil government is certainly a positive good as a restraint against sin.
As to your “bypassing the State entirely”, see Romans 13.
Romans 13 doesn’t call the governing authorities a necessary evil. Moreover, it does not mandate that the governing authorities be funded by taxation rather than service fees in order to be legitimate.
Anecdotally, FWIW, my Mock Trial son (immersed in studying for the national competition) expressed to me just last night a depth of appreciation for our legal system, the gist of which was that justice being served in our courts is much more likely than not.
We need to point out there is a distinction between civil lawsuits and criminal complaints.