;)
Bible Interpretation – 1 Corinthians 6:1-7
Posted by Geoff Baggett in Uncategorized
Should Christians sue other believers?
This is a timely topic in Southern Baptist life, in light of the recent high-profile lawsuit brought by Dr. Sheri Klouda against Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and seminary president, Dr. Paige Patterson. Dr. Klouda lost her suit when the seminary and Dr. Patterson were issued a summary judgment. That suit is over, unless Dr. Klouda’s legal team pursues an appeal.
It is not my desire to re-hash all of the issues, evidence, emotions, and innuendo (from both sides) surrounding the Klouda case. That has already been accomplished (to an extreme) on many other blogs … and that discussion continues.
Instead, I would like for us to have a Bible-focused conversation regarding this issue of lawsuits among believers. Setting aside emotion, “justice,” and the rights afforded us through the courts of the United States and our individual home states, let us consider these questions:
- Does the Bible speak definitively on the issue of lawsuits among believers?
- What does the Bible say?
- How do we apply what the Bible says in our modern context?
- Is there ever a time when we, as believers, may disregard the words of the text?
Here is the passage that I would like us to consider today:
1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2Do 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? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!
7The 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? - 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 (NASB)
So, let us seek to interpret this passage. What does it mean? How should it be rightly interpreted? Are there any “fuzzy” nuances of interpretation, or should we exercise a straightforward reading of the text? What are the implications in our everyday lives … and in current Baptist life? What about the notion of “justice?” How do you apply this passage within the life (and discipline?) of your church?
I’m looking forward to the conversation. I simply ask that we have it within the context of the mission and standards of this blog.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Brother Geoff,
I must admit you have taken on a huge one here. :>) Your questions are very relevant as they are exactly what I asked myself years ago when I had the opportunity to take an institution to court. The first question is where I got hung up because the institution, though some may say they are not, claims to be Christian. It is a school of higher learning founded by another denomination. Honestly, I had to view them as fellow believers.
Which brought me to your next question. I believe that the 1 Corinthians passage speaks specifically to issues that we must settle among ourselves. Someone backs into my car and causes damage. No one is hurt, clearly it is an accident. Someone wrongs me in a hiring practice, but it is not a harm that is protected by certain laws that fall under the Romans 13 passage. Someone offends me with words and I have the right to fill suit. etc. etc.
Once I have addressed that and settled it in my heart, I move to the third question. Is there a difference in civil and criminal laws? For the sake of argument, as was pointed out to me by a Duke Law student last week, the US justice system is one that distinguishes between the two. In the time of Paul’s writings there was no such distinction. However, the Scripture is full of various differences, they just are not called criminal and civil. But, because one can see the differences contained in Scripture, one can apply those differences to modern day life.
Once I have those issues settled, there may still be something that comes up that is really gray. What do I do? Well, I fully believe that there never is a time that we should disregard Scripture. Therefore, if it comes up gray, then it is not white. I am a black and white kind of person and if I err, I would rather stand before God and let Him tell me that I mis-interpreted the scripture. Than to stand before Him and He tell me that I did not even try to address the situation Scripturally.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Thank you for your insights and your testimony.
The idea of criminal -vs- civil law, and the lack of distinction in the Scriptures is interesting.
I’m not sure I understand the connection in your reference to the Romans 13 passage.
I realize that today might not be a good day for this post. (Since such a crowd is at Les Puryear’s Small Church Conference today…) But I do hope that some of our Bible interpreters will join in and help us interpret this particular passage.
I am a frequent lurker, but I believe this is my first post.
I agree that in SBC life this is a very timely question.
As we read this passage, we must keep in mind that Paul is writing to a particular church in a particular context. Not that we should disregard any portion of the text, but that we need to interpret in its proper historical/cultural context.
I say that to say this. It is my firm belief that within a body of believers (a church) lawsuits are forbidden by this passage. The problem with Dr. Klouda and SWBTS is that they are not in the context of a church. They are not under a common accountability of a body.
In the preceeding chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul admonishes them to put out the man who had “shacked up” with his step-mother. His point is that the church needs to deal with the sin in its own midst. The church had the authority to appropriately discipline and settle matters among its members. And then Paul gives the teaching on lawsuits quoted above.Thus the text says we are not to sue another church member. We are to take our disputes to the church. In the Klouda vs. SWBTS case, what church should handle the dispute? And just to make my position clear, a seminary is NOT a church in my opinion.
And I don’t think most of the seminaries view themselves this way. They expect their faculty to be involved in local churches.
The church is where dispultes are to be handled. If they parties are not a member of the same church, I don’t know any other option than to take it to the courts.
Tony,
Frequent lurker … I like that.
Welcome to sbc IMPACT! As you have lurked, I hope that you have found our posts and conversations to be edifying and God-honoring.
You bring up some interesting points. Indeed, context must never be ignored. No Scripture was penned in a cultural or situational vacuum.
Yes, 1 Corinthians was written specifically to the local church at Corinth, so its principles are most applicable at the level of the local church. But do you think that Paul had any idea of the possibilities of the present systems that we now have in place at a denominational level?
I quite agree that seminaries, colleges, hospitals, children’s homes, etc… are not local churches per se. But are they not, by nature and definition, extensions of the local church, existing through the collaboration and cooperation of local churches?
From a standpoint of interpretation and practice, can we make such a vivid distinction between local church and extension of the local church?
As we interpret this passage, I think we need to look at the overall thrust … the main point. Why did Paul address this issue of lawsuits, among believers, in pagan courts? I think it was because of their Christian witness (or lack thereof). It seems (to me) that he was correction a behavior that brought reproach upon the church and the faith in front of the non-Christian community.
Anyhow … I’ve rambled on long enough. I hope you will have some further insights.
Brother Geoff,
The text seems to speak quite clearly that the people of God should be the ones who judge in disputes between the people of God. We see the world differently than unbelievers and therefore should not be “unequally yoked” in matters like this.
The application that I would draw for myself and that I pray our local community would draw in the case of a dispute between two members of our family would be: If a brother or sister has wronged me, I should take it to that person first. If this does not satisfy, I should then take it to the Elders and allow them to either judge or appoint other brothers and sisters to judge. Their judgement should be final. This assumes that our family is healthy and the Elders are steeped in the Scriptures and led by the Spirit of God.
Great discussion to have!
His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
FTME,
“The text seems to speak quite clearly that the people of God should be the ones who judge in disputes between the people of God.” I quite agree. But are there any interpretational caveats or nuances? Some tend to think so. I hope they join in this conversation today.
“This assumes that our family is healthy and the Elders are steeped in the Scriptures and led by the Spirit of God.”
What about those times when the actions of leaders do not seem quite so Spirit-led?
Perhaps in this case, Mrs. Klouda and the seminary should agree to appoint an outside mediator (or outside mediators), someone unconnected with the seminary, to resolve the issue. This person (or persons), a Christian and a Southern Baptist, could serve as an appointed “elder” (or elders) to resolve the dispute.
Geoff,
I think the interestig part of this passage is the “Why not rather be wronged” section. I think we can talk all day about the legal options but if we would rather be wronged that put the name of Christ and His people (Church) through a legal proceding, then I think we are following the point of the passage.
In America we have to be right and we are willing to do foolish thing to be shown right. It is a difficult thing this choosing to be wronged over demonstrating our rightness. In the recent SBC case I can see how both sides were given an opportunity to just go on even though they were wronged.
I think that when we refuse to be wronged it says something about our trust in God. It is as if we somehow have to take matters in our own hnds because we can not trust God to handle the situation. I am reminded of Mt. 5:10,11. My preaching professor has said about these verse “you need to experience wrong for the right reason” (Dr. Windsor). That reason is Jesus. Sometimes we will be wronged and we need to be at peace with that
I know that this is easy to say and difficult to live but is that not the story of the Christian life?
Roger,
I’m sure that was attempted … but I don’t want to get into all the Klouda discussions. That ground has already been plowed, and then some.
Richard,
An interesting insight. Indeed, the Scripture does seem to indicate that it is better to be wronged or cheated than to air out Christian disputes in the public forum of the courts. One cannot deny Paul’s statement here and the context in which it was written.
The overall issue is, indeed, complex. Especially when there is an appearance of the use of Christian “power” in the wronging of an individual.
And that beings another thought to mind? Might there be a difference in “lawsuits” between believers and grievances against leadership within the church. Who will point out some Scriptures that speak to that issue?
Richard … good insights, and an excellent comment. Thanks for taking part.
Brother Geoff,
“But are there any interpretational caveats or nuances?”
I really do not see any when considering that we are first and foremost members of His Kingdom. Am I an American according to my passport? Yes. Do I base my decisions primarily on American rules, laws, etc? No. And Paul was saying the same thing to the Corinthians. “You have no need to go outside of the Kingdom to settle disputes such as this!” Over and over Paul says that Jesus is Lord thereby insisting that the concept of Caesar as Lord was not applicable to Community of God. He even went so far as to call the Story of Jesus the “Gospel.” This was a “Royal Proclamation” used when a new Caesar was born or crowned. The point is, we are no longer of the kingdoms of this world, rather we are of the His Kingdom, in His Community, members of His Family. And we function according to His wisdom – not by human wisdom. The courts are for those who desire to be ruled by human wisdom. Why would two Americans go to a South African court to settle a dispute?
“What about those times when the actions of leaders do not seem quite so Spirit-led?”
That is a great question and seems to be precisely the reason Paul was writing to the Corinthians. It was not because of one member’s decision to sue someone, rather a failure of the entire community to act like a community and mediate and judge these disputes. If that is the case, we should go to the leadership (whatever our ecclesiology) and propose this as the solution. If the family of God refuses to mediate/judge a dispute between brothers and sisters so that the secular courts do not have to be involved – and in direct violation of Scripture – … I would say we have some VERY unhealthy family dynamics! What father would refuse to restore health to an injured child? And then refuse to keep one of his children from harming him again?
What to do in this situation? Pray, pray, pray. At some point, we will have to re-evaluate our association with a “family” that refuses to correct injustice and protect the innocent. But what is the individual to do in the meantime if this hard-heartedness on part of an entire community persists? Paul puts two questions to us, “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” Straightforward, but difficult questions. Kind of in the same vein as “bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse.” Easy to swallow? No. Make worldly sense? No. But neither does the Cross.
His mercy be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
FTME,
“If the family of God refuses to mediate/judge a dispute between brothers and sisters so that the secular courts do not have to be involved – and in direct violation of Scripture – … I would say we have some VERY unhealthy family dynamics!”
Very well said.
We think a lot alike.
Awesome response.
Brother Geoff,
Indeed I have found this site to be uplifting as well as challenging. I appreciate the authors always pulling our eyes to God and not attempting to steal His glory.
To the topic at hand: I understand what you are saying about the seminary being an “extension” of the local church; however, which local church are they an extension of? I daresay there are many interpretations of Paul’s teaching on women even amongst the readers/contributors of this blog. So, if a small group of “local” churches can not come to consensus on this topic, how can the “extension” of the local church do so?
I am not just speaking about the Klouda v SWBTS case, but any case where discipline is being applied by the “extension” of the local church with no accountability to the local church. I don’t believe the trustees to be functioning in an “elder” role. So how can it proceed?
I agree that Paul did not envision our current structures. Does that make Paul marginal? No, rather I think it shows the pre-eminence we must give to the local church at the exclusion of the structures not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. If the structure is not mentioned by Paul, how can we apply the principles of Paul to it?
You asked for the conversation. I hope I have contributed in the spirit of this site.
Blessings to you all.
Tony,
Believe me, you are a welcome contribution to the spirit of this site.
You said, “No, rather I think it shows the pre-eminence we must give to the local church at the exclusion of the structures not explicitly mentioned in Scripture.”
I whole-heartedly agree. I am a local church proponent, myself. I fear that, to our detriment, the focus of Southern Baptist life has become our cooperative structures, rather than (and often-times at the expense of) the local church.
But I do think we need to, as much as we possibly can, apply the general principles directed toward the local church to our structures beyond the local church. As to what that looks like, exactly, I’m just not sure.
Thanks for your input and participation.
Geoff,
I don’t wish to plow the ground of the Klouda case any more either; I’m just noting that we should have a system in SBC life for conflict resolution among our agencies so we do not feel we have to resort to the courts. This would be biblical, right, and practical. Do we have such a system beyond the local church?
Roger,
By all means … absolutely right. There should be a system of some kind in place. But I seriously don’t see us having anything like that beyond the local church. (Indeed, some of us don’t even have such a system there … in our local churches!)
We have our trustee system. But is it equipped for such times as this (i.e. the recent Klouda situation), or does it represent only one “side” of any potential conflict.
Anyhow … good point.
Geoff,
The forensic part of my practice is mediation, parenting coordination, and custody evaluations. I mention that, not to set myself up as any kind of expert, but to point out I have some first hand experience in the damage brought about as a result of litigation.
I teach my clients that there are four ways to handle disputes: communication, mediation, litigation, and war. Nobody wins in litigation except the attorneys.
I wrote all the above to say this: I prefer a “straight forward” reading of the passage. Paul wrote “I say this to shame you”. I don’t see that as a firm prohibition against law suits (no “thou shalls” or “thou shall nots”) rather as an illustration of the futility of law suits.
To me the key phrase isn’t found in verse 6 but in verse 7: “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.” The admonition is ‘don’t let things get to this point in the first place’.
Haggling over whether we can or can’t bring suit, whether the dispute is large or trivial, or if it’s a civil or criminal case misses the point.
The point is we’re better than this.
This subject has certainly intrigued me today, enough to do a little research. I don’t know if this contributes anything to the discussion, but here are a few historical and exegetical points that might be pertinent.
First, the passage you cited is incomplete in its context. The entire passage should be 1 Cor 6:1-11, in which verses 1-7 will find more of their meaning. The literary context is actually much greater.
Second, historically, the Corinthian Greek culture (though a part of the Roman empire, it was more Greek than Roman) was highly litigious. William Barclay states, “The Jews did not ordinarily go to law in the public law courts at all; they settled things before the elders of the village or elders of the synagogue; to them justice was far more a thing to be settled in a family spirit than in a legal spirit. In fact, the Jewish law expressly forbade a Jew to go to law at all in a non-Jewish court; to do so was considered blasphemy against the law of God. It was far otherwise with the Greeks; they were characteristically a litigious people. The law courts were one of their chief entertainments…. In a Greek city every man was more or less a lawyer and spent a very great part of his time either deciding or listening to law cases. The Greeks were in fact famous, or notorious, for their love of going to law. Not unnaturally, certain of the Greeks had brought their litigious tendencies into the Christian church; and Paul was shocked.” (Barclay, Corinthians, 49-50). Frankly, this sounds pretty contemporary to me!
Third, the Corinthian church was already in the practice of “judging” people, and failing in their responsibility of “not judging” people. Paul had already chastised them for “judging” outsiders (5:12) whom they should have not, and “not judging” insiders whom they should have (5:12-13). Judgment is one of the responsibilities of the church, but in this age, we should be judging our own. One day the scope of our judgment will be greater (6:2-3).
Fourth, the Corinthian church was filled with some pretty unseemly characters — at least in their past (6:10-11). It is highly unlikely that even though they were now converted and in the church they did not struggle with their pre-Christ sinful nature. Paul actually makes the accusation that some in the Corinthian church were presently guilty of “wrong” and “fraud” (6:8). The sin was presently in the congregation. Gordon Fee states that the term “be wronged” (v. 7) is the verb form of the noun translated “ungodly” (v. 1) and “wicked” (v. 9). Such a person “injures or does injustice to another person.” Whatever sin that characterized outsiders was present in the church. The second term “be cheated/defrauded” involves “robbing, cheating, defrauding someone out of what is rightfully his/hers (cf. 7:5).” As such, some kind of property or business dealing is the problem. This also gives substance to the words “the greedy and swindlers” found in the vice list of 5:10-11 and repeated in 6:10 (Fee, 1 Corinthians, 241). A serious situation within the family was present that God’s holiness and justice demanded be dealt with. If the church is harboring or tacitly approving of such people who would do wickedness and cheat a fellow Christian, then God’s people deserve His judgment. The church should never condone people who are “thieves, covetous, revilers, or swindlers” (6:10).
Fifth, the unity of the Body of Christ should be the goal and the highest value. Richard Hays states, “More important than any private property is the unity of the church” (Hays, First Corinthians, 98). they should act as kingdom citizens, and act together as kingdom citizens, and stop acting like uncoverted pagans. Our values should come from a different place, and as such, we should act as people who have God’s eternal standards in mind, thus making us fit to “judge the world” and “judge angels” (6:2-3). Therefore, our focus should not be upon our “rights” and “pursuit of property” in this present age, but instead let some present injustices fly (6:7) for the sake of the higher value of being a unified and holy community that represents Christ in a world that is characterized by “unrighteousness” and “unbelief” (6:1,6). Taking a brother to court before a pagan judge and in full view of an unbelieving world doesn’t present a good witness.
My conclusions, (1) Christian brethren are not above sin and need to be held account for it. (2) For a Christian, civil litigation should never be a first option towards a brother or sister. It presents a bad witness, it demonstrates disunity in the body, and it betrays temporal values focused upon personal rights and physical property. As bondslaves to Christ, these should not be the focus of our desires. (3) If the church will not fulfill its responsibility to bring righteous judgment and settle internal disputes, when Christians, for whatever reason (righteous or unrighteous), resort to the pagan courts it is to the church’s “shame” (6:5), and all of the church should rightfully bear that scorn. The Father is not pleased. Everyone is at fault: the guilty one should rightfully be punished, the harmed one should be willing to bear the loss, and the church should have taken up its God-given responsibility.
My view, for what it’s worth.
Kevin
Bowden,
“I don’t see that as a firm prohibition against law suits (no “thou shalls” or “thou shall nots”) rather as an illustration of the futility of law suits.”
An excellent point.
We are supposed to be better than this. But the church (and extensions of it) today continues to struggle with the same defeat as the church at Corinth.
Good insights.
Kevin,
I knew we could count on you.
You are, of course, right about the context. I was simply narrowing the focus by posting the first seven verses.
Greek society does, indeed, sound much like ours with our modern infatuation with litigation (as is obvious per our interest in television programming that focuses on the law). And night courts provide lots of entertainment in some cities.
Wonderful insights. Your final paragraph should be “required reading” in Southern Baptist life.
To all my brothers and sisters,
since I have been involved in a costody battle, I came to realise how a legal system prejudice children and support their destruction.
After all the litigation, I simply gave up and there was no way of resolution, and it carries on and on….
At best I try to leave it in the hand of the LORD, but why does innocent children have to suffer so much?
blessings from South Africa / Johannesburg