Summary: Let us not bring ourselves nor our God into disrepute by taking our disputes to the public courts.
Scripture focus: 1 Corinthians 6:1-11
Date: Sunday, 14 March 2010 (St. John’s Sutherland, 7pm service)
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
On Wisdom and Community
It is probably not a good way to start my first sermon at St. John’s, but I feel that I must be honest with you and tell you that I am very likely going to end up in prison very soon. In the first instance, I am currently embroiled in a dispute with a local video rental store which is not going to end well, to the embarrassment of both parties.
Disputes are no small matter, especially when they are amongst God’s people, who should know better because appropriate beliefs, values and lifestyle have been both taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Corinthians 6:1-11
Our present sermon series is exploring the theme, “Rules of Engagement”, based on a letter written by the apostle Paul to the Christians at the ancient city of Corinth. Paul established the church at Corinth and was therefore concerned to help them deal maturely with the various issues which naturally arose amongst them. 1 Corinthians then is his attempt to guide them through resolving their questions and arguments between each other —Paul provided them “rules of engagement”.
Our scripture focus, 1 Cor 6:1-11,1 records the apostle’s attempt to guide the Corinthian Christians through the challenging issue of what to do when those disputes degenerate to the level that one member takes another member of the community to the public courts to have their dispute resolved.
It’s worth noting that the church at Corinth was probably not unlike our own congregation here gathered. It had about 50 members and was demographically representative of the surrounding neighbourhood. It was not a poor church; it had some professional persons and community leaders in its midst. While the church gathered corporately, most of the members met in small groups at people’s homes.2
As explained by Rod last week, the moral fibre of the Corinthian Christians was challenged by the presence of “sexual immorality among [them], and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife” (1 Cor 5:1). In coming to our scripture focus for tonight, Paul was not finished giving the Corinthians instructions about sexual life, but while dealing with that issue he wrote about judging those inside the church (1 Cor 5:12) and this brought up the matter of judging disputes among Christians. So, our focus for today is probably more like a tangent, an opportunity for Paul to address another related issue. He would go back to discussing sexual behaviour later in his letter —and Rod is anticipating that topic with a certain measure of glee 
Like 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, last week’s focus, the issue which necessitated Paul’s instructions in this week’s focus was not expressly identified by Paul in his letter because the issue at stake, both this week as with last week, was the poor handling of the situation by the community more than the actual perpetrator and his or her bad behaviour.
Getting to our scripture focus, the theme of the passage is stated in verse 1 in the form of a question, which thus provides its own answer: “If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?” (1 Cor 6:1) In other words, when you have an argument with another member of the church, why would you take the matter to the public courts to be decided by someone who is not necessarily in a right relationship with God? How ridiculous!
Why would having a public judge decide a case between Christians be an issue for Paul? Well, perhaps one need only look at the following video to get a sense of his concerns …
That’s perhaps not entirely fair, to make that comparison, because Paul, when he used the term translated in the NIV as “ungodly”, was not referring to a lack of personal integrity on the part of judges generally, but in a religious sense as a term to contrast the people of this world with God’s people. He didn’t mean to imply that there would be little chance of obtaining justice.
Although, we must also admit that sometimes the chance of finding justice is scant indeed. Let me give you an example, which will highlight the second instance of why I may soon be going to prison: Last year, you might remember a fight that broke out at the Sydney airport, between a small group of members and associates of two rival outlaw motorcycle clubs, that resulted in the death of one man. It was widely and sensationally covered in the papers, as it was no small matter. The NSW police used that incident as an opportunity to advocate for stronger laws and powers against what they allege to be “bikie gangs”. The state government took the opportunity to score some “we’re tough on crime” points with the public and rushed through legislation called the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2009.
Immediately following the brawl at the airport, up until the passing of the legislation, the police made all sorts of arrests and seized all sorts of contraband, and did so with powers available under the then current legislation! The police thus made it clear that they did not need new laws to be brought in as they were then willing and capable to stem the illegal activities of criminals who also happened to ride motorcycles. Unfortunately, the political momentum had already begun to roll and the legislation was passed.
The intention of the new law is to identify criminal organisations and to control their ability to organise themselves towards committing crime. This is perhaps not a bad end-in-itself, but there are a number of problems with the legislation that has led to it being labelled as “another giant leap backwards for human rights and the separation of powers —in short, the rule of law” by many commentators, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery QC, and the Dean of St Andrew’s Cathedral in Sydney, Philip Jensen:
- “[A] judge is not required to provide reasons for making a declaration [that an organisation is a criminal organisation] and the rules of evidence do not apply to the hearing of an application for a declaration (s 13). The applicable standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities (s 32). It is also worth noting that the declaration can be made in the absence of any of the affected members (s 9(3)).”
- “Once the organisation is declared [criminal], the [Police Commissioner] may then seek control orders from the Supreme Court in respect of one of more persons on the basis that they are members of a declared criminal organisation [...] If an order is made, the controlled member is prohibited from associating with another controlled member of the organisation. The maximum penalty for such association is two years’ imprisonment for a first offence and five years for subsequent offences (s 26).”
- “Controlled members of declared criminal gangs will also be stripped of any licence for working in industries that are vulnerable to [...] organised crime infiltration, such as the security, tow truck, car repair and motor trading industries; they will also have to forfeit any firearms licence.”3
- While we may agree in principle that the police and courts should have the power to limit the criminal activities of organised criminal organisations, let us take note that nowhere in the legislation is the term “bikie” or “motorcycle club” used. Therefore, this law can be applied against any club or organisation that the Police Commissioner or Attorney General wishes and, yes, that includes religious organisations.
If this summary seems far fetched, Nicholas Cowdery himself warned that the legislation
does not apply only to bikie gangs but “to any particular organisation” in respect of which the Police Commissioner chooses to make an application. Where will the line be drawn? [...] Why should the responsibility for identifying which organisations warrant being declared under the act be vested in the Police Commissioner, an unelected official? The spectre of a police state lurks here: an unacceptable slide from the separation of powers by linking the powers of the Police Commissioner with those of “eligible” judges.4
You may be thinking that neither the police nor judges nor politicians would ever apply this legislation against religious organisations, but consider the aggressiveness of independent senator Nick Xenophon’s campaign against the so-called Church of Scientology. Would he ever be tempted to have that organisation declared?5
Notwithstanding, this draconian legislation demonstrates the danger inherent when the power of the law is misapplied and manipulated by “ungodly” individuals. Do we want such people deciding our disputes for us?
Getting back to our scripture focus, Paul does not identify the issue over which the Corinthian Christians were taking each other to court. He does perhaps give a hint of the issue when he later outlines a list of vices, for which “the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10). This is a greatly condensed list compared to other lists of virtues and vices that Paul made,6 so we might wonder why he picked those vices and not others, and whether his selection was intentional.
Notwithstanding, Paul’s ambiguity here is itself intentional, to keep us focussed on the real problem: that Christians take their disputes to the public courts instead of dealing with them within the community. The thought that Christians should be able to mediate each others disputes is a hang-over from Jewish tradition. The ancient Jews believed that the people of God would judge the nations and even the angels at the “end of time”.7 It is clear from the NT writings that the early Christians accepted this theological tradition8 and so Paul made his first argument sarcastically from this tradition 1 Cor 6:2-4.
Paul makes another argument for why Christians should not take their disputes to the public courts by appealing to the Corinthians’ vanity over their spiritual gifts and alleged wisdom (1 Cor 6:5-6; cf. 1:5, 7; 3:18; 8:1). Surely, if they were so smart and so gifted then someone in the community should be wise enough to mediate disputes among members. At the very least, the Christian’s faith and grasp of “the truth” (Ps 111:10; 119:33–38; Jn 14:6) should result in a purer wisdom than that obtained by “the world”?
In these opening verses, Paul is here providing support for the formation of a Christian court (cf. Matt 18:15-17), which finds precedence in Jewish tradition. However, even that tradition acknowledged that such courts are only ever concessions to fallen human nature.9 In verse 7 then, Paul continued his instruction by stating that not only should we not take our cases with one another to public courts but we should not need mediation at all. Is it not better to renounce one’s rights in favour of maintaining “right” relationships?
If we are to follow in the way and tradition of Jesus Christ, then we will let the evil committed against us end with us.10 To take the dispute to any court is to worsen the original offense and is thus worse than the original offense, being equated by Paul with “robbing” the person who offended you (1 Cor 6:7b-8).
It goes without saying that Christians should not commit sinful and illegal behaviours of any kind, especially toward one another. That was our way of life before we received the grace of and forgiveness from God through our trust in and obedience to Jesus our Saviour. Our previous sins have been forgiven —and those who have been forgiven much, much is expected (cf. Lk 7:47; 12:48)— so we are to now behave better and operate more wisely in the world, and particularly in our relationships with those within our community of faith (1 Cor 6:9-11).
If we don’t behave better with each other, what might be the result? If one state lawmaker in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, has his way the results could be disastrous. This person has submitted a bill, to that state’s next legislative assembly, to allow people who are legally qualified to carry concealed weapons to bring them to houses of worship, as long as the pastor or church board approves.11 If this proposal is accepted, then I would suggest not ever offending any Christian brother or sister when visiting a church in the American state of Louisiana. Otherwise … boom!
Something to Think About
Ultimately, the apostle is arguing that Christians should not behave badly with each other, if against anyone at all. When it happens, then the offended party should be gracious and wisely resolve the matter. If it cannot be resolved, then let it go, when it is an “ordinary” or “trivial” matter (1 Cor 6:2-3). If the issue requires some mediation, then surely it can be settled by the wise persons amongst us, as per the directions for conflict resolution indicated by Jesus himself (Matt 18:15-20).
If the matter is not trivial —for example, it has crossed over into being a matter of illegal or criminal behaviour— then, of course, it should be brought to the attention of the police and the justice system. But, for all other matters, love should be our guiding principle, since, “by this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn13:35).
Our witness of unity confirms the validity and value of our faith; apparent disunity destroys our witness and demeans God by bringing him into disrepute. It is to our shame that we allow such matters to destroy our fellowship, our unity and our witness.
It’s not that disputes won’t arise amongst the people of God! That is a foregone conclusion; but how we handle those disputes is the key concern. Even the people of this world know this principle to be true, that our disputes need not be taken to the courts, only as a worst case scenario. For example, Philostratus (ca. 170-247 ad) wrote that petty disputes be settled at home (Lives of the Sophists,1.25.2). More recently, the Attorney-General for Australia, The Hon Robert McClelland MP, in a public speech last year, stated that
matters that are resolved through [Alternative Dispute Resolution] processes usually cost less to the consumer and less to the tax payer. Also, the process is generally regarded as significantly less stressful, provides greater flexibility and can obtain outcomes that may go beyond those which a court could formally order.
Despite this, National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council finds that alternative dispute resolution remains significantly underutilised and that a significant barrier is a lack of knowledge and understanding of ADR. This lack of understanding still exists among the profession, litigants and the general public. In our day, more and more cases are being settled out-of-court by various processes of mediation.12
Commonsense tells us that lawsuits for petty matters are an embarrassment to all involved, especially for such a simple matter like forgetting to return a rented DVD on time —hopefully, I won’t end up in jail for this one!
Conclusion
If being embarrassed in the courts does not dissuade us from taking our disputes to the courts, then let us keep in mind the glory of our God. Let us not demean our faith, nor embarrass the One in whom we have faith, by not accepting the instruction of Jesus and his apostles and not learning nor practising our love for one another. It is this love which, above the logic and conviction of our words, will inspire faith from others and lead them to God’s throne of grace.
Let us pray …
Almighty God,
we thank you for the Light of Love and Grace
which you have shone so brightly into our lives.
Now, may that light shine from our lives,
especially through the example of our love for one another,
that the world may see our good deeds
and learn to praise and adore you.
We know that they will praise and adore you
when they see how powerful is your salvation among your people,
able to gloriously transform our beliefs, values and behaviours,
a transformation which is inherently desired by all people,since all know inherently of their fallenness and sin.
We want to live differently and victoriously,
to your glory, honour and praise;
so fill us with your Spirit ever more fully,
that we might have within us
the strength and the courage
to resist taking our disputes into the public realm,
so that we might not belittle ourselves
nor bring your Name and Kingdom into disrepute.
We are but children and we need your help
to live righteously and settle our disputes with maturity and wisdom.
We pray in the name and for the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Endnotes
- Unless indicated otherwise, all biblical references are taken from The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Zondervan, 1996). ↩
- C. H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians (rev. ed.), Reading the New Testament series (Macon, GA, USA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2002), pg 5. ↩
- Lorna Bartels, “The Status of Laws on Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs in Australia”, 2nd edition, Research in Practice (No. 2) (Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010), Retrieved from http://tiny.cc/JCQG8 (accessed 14-May-2010). ↩
- Andrew Clennell, “Bikie laws a threat to rights, says Cowdery”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 16-May-2009 (http://tiny.cc/vhOu3, accessed 2010-03-14). ↩
- Tim Leslie, “Xenophon Ramps Up Anti-scientology Crusade”, ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), http://tiny.cc/lMRE4 (13- Mar-2010). ↩
- See Romans 1:24, 26–27, 29–31; 13:13; 2 Corinthians 12:20–21; and, Galatians 5:19–21 for genuine Pauline lists, and Ephesians 4:31; 5:3–5; Colossians 3:5–8; 1 Timothy 1:9–10; 6:4–5; 2 Timothy 3:2–5; and, Titus 3:3 for deutero-Pauline lists. ↩
- For examples, see Daniel 7:22–23; Wisdom of Solomon 3:7–8; Sirach 4:11, 15; 1 Enoch 13:1–10; and, The Book of Jubilees 24.29. ↩
- For examples see Matthew 19:28; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 3:18–20; and, Revelations 20:4. ↩
- “This verse shows that a Christian court of arbitration is only a concession. ‘The right thing’ would be to renounce the asserting of one’s rights. The setting up of a court is possible, however, because the renunciation of our rights is not a principle. κρίμα here can only mean the point at issue in a lawsuit; there is no evidence elsewhere for this meaning. The word ἄδικος, ‘unrighteous’, which was applied in verse 1 to outsiders, is now turned against the Christians. What we have here is a Christian principle, but also one that is already Greek. As compared with the Greek slogan, ‘Better to suffer wrong than to do wrong’, there is a change of sense inasmuch as what was a general principle has here become a concrete rule for the ordering of a specific community.” —H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, PA, USA: Fortress Press, 1975), pg 105-106.
“This notion of a concession to human sinfulness was a Jewish concept (e.g, in the OT the monarchy was a concession to the people because of the hardness of their hearts; (the Book of) Jubilees says slavery is such; the rabbis generally regard marriage to a Gentile woman captured in war as such; at Qumran marriage was considered such; which was taken over into the Christian community (e.g, Mark 10:5) and employed by Paul (e.g, 1 Cor 7:6).” —Reading Corinthians, pg 37. ↩
- See Matt 5:38–42; Rom 12:17, 19; 1 Cor 4:12–13; and, 1 Pet 2:23. ↩
- Ecumenical News International News Highlights, 3 March 2010, www.eni.ch. ↩
- The Hon. Robert McClelland MP (Attorney-General for Australia), Launch of the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) – Report on Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Civil Justice System (retrieved 14-Mar-2010 from http://tiny.cc/SglJO). ↩
What happen with the video store?
And….
Kudos!
UPDATE: Actually, nothing has happened yet. I haven’t heard from the video store whether they are going to take me to court or not. It would probably cost them more to get their money from me than I allegedly owe them. But thanks for asking.