Can Professing Christians Sue Each Other in Civil Court?
Point # 1: The New Testament church was at first a messianic synagogue (James 2:2). As a messianic synagogue, the early church had elders who judged religious issues such as doctrine and morals. In the history of the Jews and the early church, the elders did not rule on civil issues such as violations of the law.
Point #2 According to Matthew 22: 21 and Luke 20: 22-25, we are “to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” i.e. take legal action on matters pertaining to civil law. Just because you’re a professing Christian, this does not negate your responsibility to obey the law.
Point #3 This means that no church may judge civil issues such as:
-
A professing Christian who murders another professing Christian.
-
A professing Christian who rapes another professing Christian.
-
A professing Christian who robs another professing Christian.
-
A professing Christian who destroys the property of another professing Christian.
-
etc.
Point #4 This means that a civil crime requires a civil resolution. But criminals in the church always try to escape legal action by claiming that, since they are Christians, they can’t be sued by fellow Christians! But, whenever civil law is violated, only the civil courts may adjudicate.
Example: A professing Christian was caught molesting a child in the church. What should be the reaction of the parents, the pastor, and the church? Should they call the police because a crime has been done? The molester argued that since he is a professing Christian, they cannot call the police or sue him in court! He should not be punished for what he did. The parents turned him into the police and sued him in the courts for damaging their child.
Example: The book keeper of a church stole church money and, when caught, argued that the church could not sue her or turn her in to the police because she is a Christian! The church turned her over to the police and sued her in court to get back the money she stole.
Point #5 1 Cor. 6: 1-8 has been misunderstood by most Christians. Professing Christians who are criminals use the passage to stop their victims from going to the police or suing them in court. They argue that Christians should not go to court against each other, therefore they should get away with their crimes. Is this what Paul is saying? NO! A proper interpretation of the passage results in the following:
a) 1 Cor. 6 assumes that all the parties in the dispute are: (1.) members in the same local church and (2.) are under the authority of the same elders. When professing Christians belong to different churches, 1 Cor.6 does not apply.
b) If both parties of professing Christians are members of the same congregation and are under the same elders, what religious issues can they submit to the elders of the church? 1 Cor. 6:2 narrows the judgment of the leadership to “insignificant issues.” The Greek word “elaxistwn” means things that are insignificant. They refer to such things as stepping on someone’s toes or jumping ahead in a line or the kinds of insults that people often give to each other. Nowhere in the passage is an ecclesiastical court asked to judge civil issues.
What is in view in 1 Cor. 6 is that they were calling each other names and insulting each other. Paul said that with such “insignificant issues,” we should be prepared to put up with personal insults by fellow members of the church in order to maintain unity in the body of Christ.
Point #6 When professing Christians are dealing with a civil issue such as the failure to fulfill verbal or written contracts or the defrauding of wages or inheritance, that is an issue for the civil courts. While Jesus judged religious issues, He refused to judge civil issues.
Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”
(Luke 12:13-15)
When the apostle Paul “appealed to Caesar” in Acts 25:11, i.e. he took his case to the civil authorities, he did not contradict what he said in 1 Cor. 6.
The conclusion: When one professing Christian defrauds another professing Christian in a civil or criminal action, it is the duty of the victim to take civil action to remedy the issue.
6 Comments, Comment or Ping
Agilius
>> 1 Cor. 6:2 narrows the judgment of the leadership to “insignificant issues.” The Greek word “elaxistwn” means things that are insignificant. They refer to such things as stepping on someone’s toes or jumping ahead in a line or the kinds of insults that people often give to each other. Nowhere in the passage is an ecclesiastical court asked to judge civil issues.
Except that no one goes to court over stepped on toes or insults. Also, verse 3 says that we will judge angels.
The purpose of referring to “small matters” is that the Corinthian church lacked the discernment to judge small matters, when they ought to have had such a keen sense of morality and logic that they could dig out the hidden truths which bear on matters of judgement.
The world should have been able to look to *them* for precision judgements in regard to all matters.
>> While Jesus judged religious issues, He refused to judge civil issues.
This is because that wasn’t what he was here for at the time. Don’t you remember that Revelation describes Jesus’ words as a sharp two-edged sword? Jesus didn’t have a problem with judging all matters, per se.
Mar 25th, 2008
Joey Frascella
Listen and heed to the Word delieverd once and for all to the saints Jude 3. View life through the eyes of scripture and live. Do otherwise and suffer. Sola scripturas. Alehleua Jesus Reigns!!
Mar 26th, 2008
agogley
I didn’t realize that this was even an issue. That section of Corinthians always seemed so straightforward. But I guess it shouldn’t surprise me.
Mar 26th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
I would agree with Morey on this issue. Though one interesting point. The position that he takes (and I take) is not reformed thinking. It is dispensational thinking.
So this begs the question regarding hermenutics. Reformed theologicans claim the literary while the dispensationalists claim the literal.
I don’t often say this but in this case, it’s pure semantics on that point (generally speaking). It would be interesting to see how Morey relates a reformed hermenutic with a dispensational conclusion.
This is not an attack, i’m a nice person. Just an interesting piece.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 11th, 2008
Wick
I am not fully convinced. Look, Dr. Morrey, you are the sharpest razor for the Church I have ever encountered. It is with some degree of trembling I say this but I must say to your conclusion… NO, …maybe.
I am not concerned with how a person can abuse Paul’s chastisement of the Corinthian church found in 1 Cor. 6. That seems, to me, to be the main attack you are defending against; believers getting away with crimes by invoking scripture.
I am focused on Paul’s zeal, concerning the power of the God’s work, toward we who believe. He is defending the work of Christ and and the greatness of His name (always).
Is it possible that Paul is saying these things to shame us (v.5); because even the weighty matters of of our present life, that demand justice, are insignificant (there’s that word!) compared to what we are to be concerned with in Christ; or as Paul says in Romans 8:18 “…the glory which shall be revealed in us?”
The idea is that God has bigger plans for us (v2-3)! Yet, here we are, having all manner of disputes among us! This isn’t about who was supposed to take out the trash and didn’t. It isn’t even about whether Tommy punched Johnny and who started it! Paul is concerned with our lack of ability and understanding about one thing, and one thing only: the glory of God revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord!
Now, exactly how big of an issue YOU can allow your wiser brethren to pass judgement on is up to you! Work it out and don’t be lazy or selfish! Don’t think that a civil court is going to be your friend or even judge a matter correctly! Don’t buck against your elders because you don’t like what judgement was passed! To the law, to the testimony!
By the way, I am pretty sure, that in Paul’s day, in Greece, you had a pretty good chance, if you went to court, of getting judged by blatant homosexuals and murderers!! HELLO!!
I’m done. Sorry to have disturbed you fine people.
No wait, there is more!
To provide a rebuttal to Agilius and Dr. Morrey: I am sure that the Greek word
“elaxistwn” means what you say it means, BUT, look at the context of the passage: we (the saints) will “judge the world” and “judge the angels!” These are very weighty matters; higher than many “insignificant” issues we face presently! Come to think of it, our serious issues of defraudment, theft, vandalism, slander, and assault could be considered such. Put them in the scales! On one side “judging the world”… on the other, “somebody stole my money!” I am deaf from the sound of the scales tipping and slamming into the ground, so to speak!
Unless someone died, or got raped, figure it out. The Lord is capable of raising up some worthwhile judges from among us, don’t you think (I think the harder part might be finding some American Christians who can submit to their brethren)? Well, there are those crazy churches out there, aren’t there? Like I said, consider it, weigh it out, and submit to it.
Peace brethren!
Conclusion: Inconclusive! Work it out! It’s almost like marriage or something… sheesh.
Jul 18th, 2008
Wick
Correction: the rebuttal is only to Dr. Morrey. I re-read Aguilis’ post and see that he is on point. I apologize.
Wick
Jul 18th, 2008
Reply to “Can Professing Christians Sue Each Other in Civil Court?”