May Christians go to court?Ron Payne 1. When one of you has a complaint against another, do you take your complaint to a court of sinners? Or do you take it to God's people? 2. Don't you know that God's people will judge the world? And if you are going to judge the world, can't you settle small problems? 3. Don't you know that we will judge angels? And if that is so, we can surely judge everyday matters. 4. Why do you take everyday complaints to judges who are not respected by the church? 5. I say this to your shame. Aren't any of you wise enough to act as a judge between one follower and another? 6. Why should one of you take another to be tried by unbelievers? 7. When one of you takes another to court, all of you lose. It would be better to let yourselves be cheated and robbed. (1 Corinthians 6:1-7 CEV) In this Chapter we have a complaint against the brethren who were turning to the law, to sort out differences and minor problems amongst themselves. This general complaint is from Paul who asks: Why should one of you take another to court to be tried by unbelievers? On the strength of Pauls complaint, there are many Christians who refuse to appear in court, believing that Paul insists we should not be found guilty of going to secular courts for help. To resolve the problem, a question should be asked: What is Paul really saying? Firstly it must be said, that for a Christian to take another Christian to court, or found to be confronted by another Christian before the law, will do nothing towards the bonding of Christian ties. Therefore Christians should not be found squabbling with each other, particularly in front of non-believers. (Verse 6.) What appears to be the real crux of the matter is that Paul in his question to the Corinthians, asks: Aren't any of you wise enough to act as a judge between one follower and another? (v. 5.) This question, provides some insight to the problem, in that that the problems found in Corinth amongst the brethren, were of a minor nature and could easily be sorted out amongst themselves, without running to non-believers. Verses 2 and 3 confrms this when Paul refers to small problems and Every day matters Furthermore, Paul says in verse 7 It would be better to let yourselves be cheated and robbed. This last statement by Paul strengthens the interpretation that the problems at Corinth were trivial, particularly when Paul declares that it would be better if the one who had been wronged, should rather suffer the wrong, than to take another to court for trivia. But would Paul want any man who had suffered great loss to himself and his family to simply ignore the sin committed against him and do nothing? I doubt it!

Therefore the interpretation, that it was triviality amongst the members at Corinth and not major disputes is correct. There is no doubt that God will place wise men in a Church, yet there are few who have the authority to deal justly in their private capacity to punish one who has committed an offence of some magnitude against another person? A major offence against someone may cost the offender great financial loss and shame. Even the possibility of being placed under custody with a jail sentence pending. This form of confrontation cannot be settled by any wise man in the Church. Very few would have that judicial authority. Another problem may well be that the culprit, having caused a great deal of financial loss to another member and confronted by the Church Leadership; could be expelled from the Church and be instructed to make recompense and restitution to his brother. Unfortunately this may do little to compensate the victim, particularly if the guilty party ignores their instruction and considers the expulsion a means of escape from his guilt. To reiterate. Trivial problems of which Paul complains in verses 2 and 3 may well be settled by the Church Elders or Leadership, but it can confidently be stated, that Paul would not have expected a wise elder to judge between one follower and another when the problem was of such magnitude that it was not within the scope or authority of any Church member. Therefore under these circumstances it would be necessary to turn to and allow those who have been delegated to a position of authority by God, rather than pursue unqualified church elders to deal with the problem.Let us now consider Pauls letter to the Romans as found in Chapter 13.

1. Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and He puts these rulers in their places of power. 2. People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished. 3. Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. 4. After all, they are God's servants, and it is their duty to help you. If you do something wrong, you ought to be afraid, because these rulers have the right to punish you. They are God's servants who punish criminals to show how angry God is. (Romans 13: 1- 4 (CEV) It is important to know that the law is absolute in that no one is above the law. We are told very clearly in the very first verse of Romans chapter 13: The powers that be, are ordained of God. and we are to obey them. Some would argue that the term Rulers is applied to the Governing authorities and not magistrates in a court of law. In reply, this must apply to the law courts because verse 4 speaks of them punishing criminals. The King James Version speaks of them as: A revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Only civil magistrates and Judges have this form of authority. It is given to them by those who govern and all of whom, Rulers or Magistrates have ultimately been given the authority and placed there by God. (Romans 1:13) Mathew Henry in his commentary of this chapter, particularly verse 4 states:

Magistrates are in a more peculiar manner God's servants; the dignity they have calls for duty. Though they are lords to us, they are servants to God, have work to do for him, and an account to render to him. In the administration of public justice, the determining of quarrels, the protecting of the innocent, the righting of the wronged, the punishing of offenders, and the preserving of national peace and order, that every man may not do what is right in his own eyes - in these things it is that magistrates act as God's ministers. The resisting of any magistrate in the discharge of these duties of their place is the resisting of an ordinance of God. (Mathew Henrys Commentary) The Bible teaches elsewhere that there are times when we must not submit to those in authority. Two such examples are:

1) The case of Daniel in Daniel Chapter 6 when he was told not to pray; 2) The case of the early Christians in Acts 5 when they were told by the religious authorities not to preach.In such cases the authorities have intruded into Gods jurisdiction which is a violation of God's will. Consequently when there are conflicting commands. then we are to follow the teaching found in Acts_5:29 "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, we ought to obey God rather than men." Two further examples of disobedience to authorities in order to obey God are: 1) The Hebrew midwives (Exo_1:15-17); 2) The wise men who disobeyed a clear command from Herod. (Mat 2:8, Mat 2:12, Mat 2:16). We conclude then that rulers in authority are there to assist and not to fear. Verse 3. There should be no concern on our part when it is deemed necessary to go to court. In so doing we have the approval of God who has placed the authorities there. Be they governing bodies, judges or magistrates. They are there for our protection. To refuse to go to court, believing that Christians should never undertake such a venture, is to place yourself in a contradictory position according to Scripture. By refusing Gods help and plans in matters of greater concern than mere triviality, one has ignored the fact that the authorities have been delegated into their positions by God Himself .People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished Rom 13:2 (CEV)

To refuse to turn to them for assistance in matters of great importance would leave one without a source to turn to. Also there is the possibility, that by its very nature it may require the authorities to turn to criminal rather than civil law, which a wise man in the Church would have no authority given to him to undertake. After all, they are God's servants, and it is their duty to help you. If you do something wrong, you ought to be afraid, because these rulers have the right to punish you. They are God's servants who punish criminals to show how angry God is. Rom 13:4 (CEV)SUBMISSIVENESS.

In Romans Chapter 13, Paul teaches that SUBMISSION to civil authorities is necessary: "you must obey (be subject). It is necessary and he gives two reasons why we must submit:

1. Threat -- If you do something wrong, you ought to be afraid, because these rulers have the right to punish you. They are God's servants who punish him that doeth evil" Rom 13:4We have a healthy fear of the punishment that will be ours if we break the law. We must respect the law and be aware of that which happens to those who resist and rebel against the laws of the land. There must be a deterrent to crime. Crime MUST be seen to be punished. If the authorities take away the punishment, then they take away the fear, and there will not be a deterrent to crime. To reiterate: Trivia is not in this category. Small matters not beyond their jurisdiction can and should be settled by the church. 2. Conscience -- As Christians we must have a clear conscience. The person with a clear conscience is able to say, "I know that I am a law-abiding citizen. I keep the laws of God and I keep to the laws of the land. I do it because God requires it of me." There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. Rom 13:3 (CEV) Many people submit when threatened by the law, but few will submit to their Conscience. They reason: "as long as I can get away with it and avoid the punishment, then I have no problem breaking the law" (speeding, cheating on income tax forms, lying to avoid discovery. etc. etc.). An interesting question to those who refuse to go to court or the authorities is: What if you were a witness to a Hit and Run incident, or any incident that had caused the victim great financial loss, pain or death? Would you go to court to assist the authorities in bringing the culprit or fraud to face justice? If the answer is: No! I would not go to court. Then that would be a deliberate obstruction to the authorities and to the laws of justice. In fact it would be and act of disobedience against God and not man. The apostle Peter also speaks of the believer's responsibility to civil authorities: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the kin (1Pe_2:13-17) Further to the above, before approaching the authorities for justice and restitution, God has not left the Church and its members, without instruction, as to what form of action should first be taken by a Christian who has been maltreated or defrauded by another member, First if it be a trivial offence, then there should be a wise man in the Church to impart wisdom. Secondly, if it is a major offence outside of the Churchs jurisdiction or a criminal offence, then it may be that the authorities have to be turned to. Should an offence be against another Church member, be it trivial or major, we have Gods instruction in Mathews Gospel, as to the FIRST STEPS that must be undertaken by Christians.

Mathew Chapter 18: 15-17 15. If one of my followers sins against you, go and point out what was wrong. But do it in private, just between the two of you. If that person listens, you have won back a Follower. 16. But if that one refuses to listen, then take one or two others. The Scriptures teach that every complaint must be proven true by two or more witnesses. 17. If the follower refuses to listen to them, report the matter to the church. Anyone who refuses to listen to the church must be treated like an unbeliever or a Tax Collector. INSTRUCTIONS Verse 15.First, Go personally to the offender and point out the fault. Remind the offender of the evil it has caused. Note, People are loath to face their faults head on and to be reminded of them. Do it with good reasoning and fair argument. Where the fault is plain and great, we must with gentleness, tell them of the harm it may bring. Christian reproof is a commandment of Christ to bring those guilty of sin to repentance, and must be managed as such. But do it in private, just between the two of you. Note. Not to speak of our brethrens faults to others, is a good rule, which should be observed among Christians. By telling him his fault in private, is to help save his reputation. (Verse16.) But if he continually refuses to listen. It will serve no purpose to deal privately with him any further. Take with you one or two other members. A. B. To assist you; they may think of something pertinent and convincing to say That may manage the matter with more clarity and persuasiveness. To help him come to his senses. He will more likely be humbled for his fault, when he sees his fault being witnessed by two or three. Note, We should believe it best to repent and reform, when we see our misconduct and guilt becoming a general offence and scandal in the church. If the Offender refuses to listen to them, report the matter to the church. (verse 17). Should the matter be brought before the church, then witnesses to his conduct, will be necessary. No one should come under the censure of the church as obstinate or wilfully disobedient, until guilt is proven by more than one witness. (Verse 17.)

C)

There are some who in an attempt to save face, will stubbornly continue to deny their faults or refuse to accept any proof presented to them. As Christians we need not be ashamed of being encouraged out of our sins which is far better than harbouring them. Our work for God is to be undertaken effectively, but with as little noise as possible. We see then that the offender has in the first instance been confronted privately. If it has not brought closure to the problem then witnesses will have been brought in to assist. Should this also fail then public censure must take place. The church must receive the complaints of the offended, judge between them and rebuke the guilty offender. Report the matter to the Church. It is a sad day that Christians through the corruption of men's hearts, should be subject to censuring others. They are to examine the matter and, if they find the complaint frivolous and groundless, let them rebuke the complainant; if they find it just, let them rebuke the offender, and call him to repentance. It is an awful thing to receive a

reproof from the church and from a minister, who is acting as a Reprover in his office as representative and Shepherd of the flock of Christ. Stubborn behaviour on the part of the offender in denying his faults and refusing to recompense and make restitution, becomes more grievous in that he will lose membership and become as an unbeliever. Also if the offence is not trivial and there is continued refusal to make amends he may find himself facing the Authorities in court brought about by the person whom he offended. Church Refusal. Should a church, when faced with accusations and denial of major proportions, by two or one of its members refuse this responsibility placed on them by God and would rather instruct their membership not to get embroiled. This would be a clear rejection of the commandment given to the church to retain peace amongst all members. Especially in cases where the problem could have been solved and the offender given an opportunity to save face by making restitution and asking for forgiveness. It is far better for unbelievers to hear, see and be aware that justice has been accomplished in the church. Also, other Christians who have impure designs of their own in their hearts, will be hesitant and wary of committing similar acts. For the church to reject intervention, excludes them from the possibility of finding a solution, it would be better to instruct the victim to rather take the problem to the authorities. At least action would have been taken. By their non intervention, it leaves the offender untouched and to remain a member of the church. It also leaves the victim no other choice but to turn to the courts without the churchs blessing. This to the detriment of the church authorities, who, if the offender is found guilty by the courts, may lose two members. One will leave the church in shame, the other in disgust for not having received the support from the church. The Church itself will be guilty of ignoring the instructions from the Lord Himself, by deliberately not wanting to get embroiled. Unfortunately there is also the possibility of favouritism in the church and it may still be necessary for the offended to turn to the magisterial authorities for a just outcome. Once again we call on Mathew Henry to place the problem into proper perspective. Christians should not dare do any thing that tends to the reproach of their Christian name and profession. Here is at least an intimation that they went to law for trivial matters, things of little value; for the apostle blames them that they did not suffer wrong rather than go to law (1Co_6:7), which must be understood of matters not very important. In matters of great damage to families, or ourselves we may use lawful means to right ourselves. We are not bound to sit down and suffer the injury tamely, without stirring for our own relief; but, in matters of small consequence, it is better to put up with the wrong. Christians should be of a forgiving temper. And it is more for their ease and honour to suffer small injuries and inconveniences that seem to be contentious. (Mathew Henry)

Am I my brothers Keeper? In the Christian community the answer in the affirmative should be loud and clear, Yes we are.

To deny witnessing in court on behalf of one who has become a victim or suffered loss, is an act of disobedience to God and the authorities, who without our personal evidence may sadly allow the offender to go free. There is also the fear amongst well meaning Christians that it is not right for Christians to go to court because the church reputation will suffer. They reason that by keeping away from the courts, the sins of Christian would not be exposed and the church would not suffer at the hands of the media If God did not want the reputation of the church to suffer, then members of the media could be in court all day where God would be in control of what He needed them to know and report. It is important to note that when the Saints of God sinned, it was not hidden by God. Noah, Moses, Lot, David, Peter all fell into sin, yet God did not hide their sins. In fact He published their sins in His own Media, the Bible, for the entire world to read. Right throughout all the generations of mankind, men and women have been able to read and wonder at the failures of these saints. It will be read by their children and their grandchildren, right up until God chooses to bring this world to an end. Should God choose to hide the sins of His Saints, He himself would become part of their guilt. This will never happen! When Christians fall into sin, God is not in the business of hiding the sin and forgetting about it. NO! God is in the business of exposing sin and eventually forgiving it. Our Coherent Bible. Should one be emphatic that Christians must not go to court then they have made the Bible appear to be contradictory to itself. It is possible, that without due consideration to the problems and interpretation discussed above, that at first glance, the Bible contradicts itself. One moment the Scriptures instruction appears to reject the attendance of Christians going to the authorities for assistance, while another chapter shows that those in authority are there to render justice for our own good and we should go to court. From all the considerations, that we have looked at, we see that it is God who encourages victims, who suffer major loss or damage, to turn to the those who have Gods authority to render justice against those who would seek to cheat, defraud and cause misery to others. Fortunately the correct interpretation of these two chapters found in two different books of the Bible, enables us to stay away from the error of incorrectly declaring that the Bible contradicts itself, or to insist that Christians MUST NEVER go to court. To further allay fears of attending court to obtain justice, it is important to remember that until they have gathered sufficient evidence, judges and magistrates are impartial to both parties, whether it be the Accuser or the Defendant. Furthermore, if necessary those who have been found guilty, have every right to appeal against the sentence. Before attending a hearing, guilty parties should have sufficient sense to save themselves further embarrassment and settle the dispute out of court. Therefore it is important to give careful thought before taking action. This would save considerable costs. But had he or she confessed the sin to the congregation in the first place and made restitution, it would have saved a loss of face and unnecessary embarrassment.

Author: Ron Payne (ronpayne@telkomsa.net)