In a frequently ignored passage, Paul commands us not to take our disputes to the secular courts but to resolve them within the church.
(1 Cor. 6:1-8) If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother goes to law against another–and this in front of unbelievers!
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
This passage has some interpretive problems, but it’s not as difficult as some would wish.
Verse 7 does not mean that we should not litigate a dispute with a brother. After all, sometimes we have very honest disagreements and need to have the problem resolved. The rule is stated in v. 4: “appoint as judges even men of little account in the church.” This has perplexed some because of their assumption that only the state can resolve disputes. But this is obviously not true. Men of honor can agree to let anyone settle a dispute and abide by the result.
Also, some have tried to get around the passage by declaring their brother a “liberal,” “anti,” or otherwise “not one of us,” and then suing him. But this misses the point. Paul’s argument proceeds, first, from the premise that Christians would make better judges than anyone else, so we should want to have a Christian decide the matter. Trying to get around this rule means we have no confidence in our brothers! As a result, we should be looking for ways to get the case before a Christian referee rather than looking to avoid that outcome.
Implicit in Paul’s argument is the fact that Christians bring shame on the church when they take their disputes to the secular courts. The classic cases are the many fights over ownership of church property that arose when churches split over the instrument 100 or more years ago. These splits led to several well-publicized cases. The courts often refused jurisdiction, as courts generally refuse to referee internal disputes of a church (a very wise course!)
But some courts held that when the split is over doctrine, the property belongs to the side with doctrine closest to the orthodox creed of the denomination. This led to both sides bringing in prominent preachers and editors to fight over the meaning of the Restoration Movement. Indeed, in a movement supposedly without a creed, the two sides literally litigated which side was truer to our creed!
Now, if Paul wishes for us to not air our dirty laundry in public, it’s hard to imagine a worse example of doing just that! One side might rationalize that the other side is practicing error and so is not their brother, but even if they’re right (they’re not!), the embarrassment to the church is profound and long remembered by the community. “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?”
Some argue that Paul’s concern was with abuse of the courts by fighting over trivial matters, and so when big dollars are involved, recourse to the courts is acceptable. But I just don’t see those words in the 1 Cor. 6.
Coffman argues in his commentary that Paul appealed to Caesar, which justifies recourse to the courts to obtain “justice,” but this was a dispute between Paul and the Roman state–hardly the same as a dispute between brothers.
I’ve personally counseled a number of disputants in exactly the situation Paul describes, and I’ve helped my clients resolve their dispute within the church. Here’s how it’s done.
First, the disputants should bring their dispute before their elders. If they are in different congregations, it gets more complex, but the elders should be given the opportunity to mediate the dispute. “Mediate” simply means to help the parties come to a voluntary settlement.
Both sides should be allowed to retain counsel, but counsel should allow the elders to deal directly with the parties. The attorneys are necessary to make sure all are aware of the law.
If the statute of limitations is about to run, the parties should sign a tolling agreement to keep one party from using the negotiations to get past the statute. The parties might also be asked to sign a mediation agreement that keeps the negotiations confidential and prevents them from being used as evidence in future litigation. These are common practice nowadays even in the secular courts, and most lawyers know how to do this.
The elders may want to bring in a third-party mediator, especially if the issues are complex. There are many attorneys trained in mediation who can be of great help, and the elders may be too emotionally involved or too close to the parties to be able to fairly mediate.
The parties should be reminded that Jesus commanded us to settle our disputes–
(Matt. 5:25) “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge … .”
This is just as much a command as Jesus’ teaching on divorce.
If mediation fails, the dispute should be arbitrated. This means the parties should be asked to sign an agreement to submit their dispute to an independent third-party–a Christian–who will render a binding decision. Not all attorneys have experience with these, and the agreements do require some art.
The arbitration agreement effects exactly what Paul requires: a Christian as judge who makes a truly binding decision. Now, men of honor should not require an agreement, but–sadly–men tend to be more honorable when the agreement is in writing, and if much money is involved, the agreement should certainly be a formal one.
I would advise any eldership or elder against serving as arbitrator for its own members. One party is likely to be unhappy with the decision, and it’s better for them to be mad at someone outside the congregation. Moreover, most elderships do not have the legal skills needed to render a just result. Rather, a Christian lawyer or retired judge from another congregation should be selected.
An arbitration is an actual trial with evidence. Witnesses can be subpoenaed if necessary.
Once the arbitrator rules, there is normally no appeal allowed. The arbitrator’s judgment can be enforced in the courts just like a civil judgment. The case is over. Neither party can file suit to re-litigate the case. The courts will refuse to take it. It’s really and truly over.
