New Thoughts: (10/30/15-11/1/15)
The jump to matters of litigation seems like an abrupt change of focus. We came into chapter 5 with a change of subject matter: Moving from factionalism to immorality. Looking to chapter 7, it is clear that Paul is not done with that topic. So, what are we doing talking about lawsuits? What is going on here? Indeed, the primary matter of immorality will be back in focus well before we leave this chapter. So, again: Why are we talking about lawsuits all of the sudden?
On the one hand, we must recognize that Paul is dealing with a list of issues that have been brought to his attention in regard to the church in Corinth. This letter is not primarily a theological text on the order of Romans. Yet, Paul is such an organized thinker and writer, I dare not suppose that this is simply a different side of the man, as he deals with the shopping list of problems. If he has brought up litigation in the midst of discussing immorality, I am inclined to think there’s a connection here beyond that of the need for church discipline.
That is, after all, the most immediate connecting thread. He had just instructed them to put the purported brother out of the church unless and until he repented of his sins. Honestly, it’s unclear to me that there was any opening for his return in such a case. What is clear is the hope for his restoration unto Christ. There are, after all, occasions where any attempt to right the wrong we have done would only result in another, perhaps greater wrong. I think again of the example of David’s sin with Bathsheba. The deed itself was clearly irreversible: Certainly so for Uriah. Dead is dead. But, even concerning Bathsheba; having taken her as his wife, however wrongly, it would be doubly wrong to send her away. I think something of the same unfixable nature applies to the man addressed in chapter 5.
Having said that, it is clear that David was not permanently barred from fellowship for his actions, although they assuredly cost him dearly. Indeed, I think it could be said that he continued to pay the price for this particular sin throughout the remainder of his life. Was there a better alternative he could have pursued as the course of true repentance? Was there some proper action this young man in Corinth could undertake that would both demonstrate true repentance and permit of a restoration to the fellowship of the church? It’s not clear to me, but it’s possible.
The question remains: How did we get to litigation from that subject? The stronger thread might be that of purity. Paul will be moving on to note any number of character traits that cannot be supposed to have part in the kingdom of God, with the reminder, “And such were some of you” (1Co 6:11)! Then, his attention returns to the particular seriousness of sexual sin, being as it necessarily enters one into a ‘one flesh’ relationship. That’s not something you work at. That’s a basic fact of the act.
What Paul says in regard to litigation is still looking at matters of purity, certainly. There’s that sense of “Don’t air your dirty laundry.” But, that is not the basic precept here, at least not as it tends to play out in practice. It’s not a question of hiding your crimes, or the crimes of your family. It’s a question of how to deal with them. First and foremost, it seems to me, is to remember who you are, Christian. Remember what you have become, and what tasks lie ahead for you. Second, comes recognition of your relative equality. There is not one among you who is unsuited to the task of weighing this matter, or there oughtn’t to be. The least of believers is sufficiently equipped for the job. Further, the sorts of matters for which you are so quick to run for your lawyer are of so little account in the grand scheme of things that you should simply ignore them. The fact that you don’t demonstrates not the guilt of your brother, but the failure in your own development. Oof!
Perhaps this is our connection: Failure of judgment. In the case of the man addressed in the previous chapter, there was an abject failure of judgment on the part of the whole church in that they accepted that man’s claim of faith in spite of the clear evidence of his life. The least of them should have been wise enough to recognize the problem, but nobody did. We could tie that to the previous subject of factionalism. The least of you should be wise enough to see the problem with this behavior, but nobody did. Now, we are reducing from matters of church discipline to basic, day to day behavior, and the same law is seen to be in action: Any one of you should be up to the task of determining the matter, but nobody does. You’re off to the courts of the land, the legal system of the unbeliever who, by the very nature of being an unbeliever, is demonstrably less suited to offer any judgment, having an insufficient basis for determining right from wrong.
I wonder if there had been some thought of taking legal action against that young man? Is that why Paul has taken this detour? We have no evidence of such. I can’t imagine why that would be the case, really, given that they seem to have welcomed that one as one of their own. Perhaps it was a reflection of bitterness and rivalry flowing out of their factionalism, that they would be so quick to take notice of wrongs done, and to seek as vengeful a redress of grievances as might be had.
Let me draw out one application we might take away from this passage, as it has come to mind. Many of us will find a fleshly remnant within ourselves that is practically waiting for the opportunity to take offense. We will feel every potential grievance deeply. We will take every least disagreement as rejection or worse. We will cry ‘abuse!’ at the most benign of insults. Listen! This is a disease that is near epidemic in the country at present, and it’s not any much better in the church. It is in our nature. But, it is not in the nature of the Spirit. If there is a first lesson to take away, it is this: The Christian should, as best he may, refuse to take offense. It is true in all settings, but it is particularly so within the family of Christ.
There is a shift of perspective that might help us greatly in this regard. It is something the Love & Respect folks like to stress within the marriage relationship, but it’s more general than that. In the family of God, you have good reason to suppose all your kin are good-hearted people. Yes, there may be wolves in amongst the sheep, but they are the exception, not the rule. Our first reaction ought to be that this brother or sister has no intention of offending us, no intention of belittling us. Whatever the impact of their words or actions on us, there is no intent to harm. Yes, they may have their failings – just as we do. Yes, they may slip into past habits – just as we do. But, they are good-hearted people, just as filled with the Holy Spirit of God as are we. They remain as fully involved with the running war between flesh and spirit as are we. Refuse to take offense! Refuse to assume anything but the best. Even if it turns out that your assumptions are wrong, refuse. Love your brother as yourself. If he has proven to be in some wise your enemy, love him anyway. That’s our call.
In every conflict, or perceived conflict, we MUST learn to suppose ourselves at least equally likely to be the one at fault. We may not be wrong about everything, but we can be pretty certain we’re not right about everything. Where there is conflict, pray. Pray that God might gently, lovingly correct WHICHEVER party is in the wrong. Pray that He would guard the hearts and minds of all involved, and preserve the true unity of His true church.
There is one verb which appears repeatedly in this passage, albeit in varying forms: Krino. It is most recognizable in the references to judging: You will judge, others will be judged. The same term is also translated as going to law, or going to court. What is interesting about this term, as I look at Thayer’s definition of it, is that it concerns us more with the process of deciding than on the authority to do so. That’s worth bearing in mind as we look at Paul’s comments here. It’s not a question of having the authority to render judgment that’s in view, it’s a question of having the intellectual capacity to properly weigh the evidence. You are going to be called to weigh the evidence of angels and decide which were good and which evil. Surely you should be able to figure these simple cases out!
There are actually two other terms that show up in this passage which, based on translation, we might suppose to be the same term again. The first is certainly related, but it is actually a noun, although it appears like an infinitive. When you sound out what may appear an unfamiliar word, you may well find it quite recognizable after all. The term is kriteerioon. It appears in verse 2, when Paul speaks of judging the smallest matters. Rather than addressing mental capacity, though, here he is discussing the measure, if you will. You have the basis for decision, for measuring the evidence. Over here is your standard. We call it Scripture. Within you is the Holy Spirit, your Advocate and Counsel. Part of His work in you is to bring to mind the teachings that apply in any given situation. That ‘any’ certainly includes this dispute between brothers.
So, then, both as to a proper definition of right and wrong – the criterion for making a call – and as to the wherewithal to apply that criterion, Paul says even the least developed of believers ought rightly to be acknowledged as fully equipped to make a decision. And that brings us to our third term, diakrinai. This also has clear connection to the underlying term krino, but adds the dia prefix, generally meaning through. Here, the combination imparts the idea of separating things most thoroughly. That is to say, sifting through the arguments and the evidence, and establishing two piles, we might label right and wrong. From this, the wise answer to the disputants ought to be clear.
With that in mind, there are a couple of points where various translations seem to get the point across more effectively than my preferred NASB. Consider the CJB, as it gives us verse 2. “If you are going to judge the universe, are you incompetent to judge these minor matters?” It gives one something of a perspective, doesn’t it? It puts me in mind of the fact that this life is a training ground of sorts. It is, as one past associate of mine liked to say, the spiritual gymnasium. We are learning here what will be needful for our assignment there. If we cannot manage the simple judgments of earthly matters, how can we hope to satisfy our purpose in judging heavenly matters?
Now, let me turn to verse 4. Many translations, in their handling of this verse, come away with the sense that Paul’s issue is that we are allowing unbelievers to render judgment over the church. That is an acceptable concern, and I think the message accords well with Scripture overall. It drives to the intended heart of that somewhat infamous tenet of American governance that is the separation of church and state. The point of that tenet was never to prevent religion from being brought up by governing bodies, and certainly not to prevent religious practices in those who serve. Our faith most assuredly ought to inform our endeavors, whatever they may be, and the founders of the nation’s policies were fully committed to that point, whatever their particulars of faith may have been. Their purpose, which ought to be painfully clear to anybody with even the vaguest sense of history, was to prevent the government from establishing an official state church. That had line at the root of many a migrant’s journey in coming here. Why did we have Pilgrims and Puritans coming? Because they could not pursue their faith at home, it being found in conflict with the official state religion. History has also shown that where there is an official state religion, religion cannot help but become political. Rather than a spiritual boon, it becomes a governmental cudgel. But, in no way was this expected to result in the sort of nonsense we see today.
The thing is, there’s another way to understand the meaning of this particular passage. The NIV, among many others, brings this out. “Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!” The way we take the passage depends on how we understand exoutheneemenous, whether as indicating one utterly despised, or, to borrow the KJV rendering, one least esteemed. At risk of drawing a false connection, let’s deconstruct the term just a bit. It derives from exoudenoo, which in turn is composed of the prefix ek, and oudeis, and this combines yet another couple of terms, oude, combining ou and de, and heis. That’s rather a long chain, isn’t it?
So, let’s start near the bottom of the pile. Ou: absolute negation, not, combines with de: but, or and, to form oude, neither, or not even. This becomes prefix to heis, one, giving us oudeis, not even one, which we might reduce to nobody for our purposes. Finally, let’s tack on the ek prefix, which has the general sense of outward motion: out of, away from. That leaves us with out of nobody or nothing. As I said, sticking with straight derivation is no guarantee of arriving at the intended meaning. It can give guidance, but the overall combination of terms is at risk of leaving one with a jumble that means little to nothing to us: Out of but not one. What would that even mean? It sounds like it should give us a Greek equivalent of ex nihilo, that term for God’s creative work making everything ‘out of nothing’.
Perhaps it will help to recognize that we are dealing with a verb and not a noun. It has the sense of describing an opinion formed. Louw and Nida address it as the act of despising someone on the basis of his being worthless or of no value. One of the other places we find the term is in Romans 14:3, where Paul addresses the attitude of those who eat towards those who refuse food on basis of moral scruples. Let the eater not despise the abstainer. Let him not suppose that one is worthless or to be utterly discounted on the basis of his scruples. Vine’s offers the sense of ‘making of no account’, as describing the case here. That is not, clearly, to impart the quality of being of no account. It is a personal viewpoint, a conclusion drawn. The term, viewed in this sense, is particularly apt in this passage about judging, isn’t it?
I had commented in the last section about a certain desire in us to hear some irony in Paul’s comments. Could it be that this is where we should hear it? In this assessment of your brothers, that you would esteem them of no account, despise them as worthless for any active role in the church, you have acted as judge, and demonstrated a complete failure of applying the criterion for the task. Yet, that one you accounted as nothing is in fact fully equipped to judge this case you have handed off to the civil courts, apparently because it was too hard a case for you to figure out. Isn’t this something? And thus, the tag Paul gives to his point. “I say this to your shame.”
The least of you not only should be able to decide such cases, but in plain point of fact is. Mind, that’s “the least of you” as you measure it. Your failure to recognize this truth might suggest that the reality is quite the opposite; that you are the least, and he not only can, but probably should be rendering a judgment. That judgment is not only in the matter you took to court. That judgment should very likely extend to the very fact that you took the matter to court! For, “This is already an utter and absolute defeat for you”.
Let’s try and pull a more generalized principal out of this if we can. Leave aside the comparative implied in that ‘least of you’ term. As a believer, you ought to be fully capable of deciding disputes. Pure and simple. In truth, if you are a believer, you are capable. The question lies not in capability, but in willingness. That hits us right at the heart. As often as not, though we have a very clear sense of the right and the wrong in the matter, we really don’t want to step up and say so. We’d rather, ‘let go and let God’. Indeed, there’s a place for that, particularly if you are one of the disputants. But, we are given community as a blessing and as a support. We should be able to turn to one another for advice. We should expect one another to be able to see clearly where we have been blinded to ourselves, and we should welcome their assessment, at the very least when we have sought that assessment. On the other side of that, we should be willing to offer our assessment when asked, even if we fear it will not be well received.
We are to be a people committed to speaking the truth in love. We often focus on the love side, and find in that a cause for silence. But, the fact is that in most cases, refusing to speak is not loving. It is self-serving. It is refusing the good work set before us by a good God. So, then, I think our lesson is manifold. One: Beware lest you despise the answer given because you consider yourself more advanced than the brother giving answer. None of us is incapable of discerning right from wrong. Two: Beware the blind spots! We need our brothers to point out the things in us that need repair, and that we have been overlooking. Three: Where there are disputes between us, our every effort should go towards resolving them in house.
The general tenets of Church Discipline make that plain, don’t they? Keep the matter as private as it can be kept and still resolve it. If you can do it one on one, that’s ideal. If you can’t, bring a few more as witness. If absolutely necessary, bring it before the local body. Now, at the time these instructions were given, that’s about as far up the chain as you could go. No, that’s not entirely true. We are seeing the next step, or the results of that step in this letter. If the church cannot, or will not resolve the matter, take it to the council of churches. Here, that council is represented by the Apostle. But, we can’t very well take it to the Apostles anymore, as they are long since passed from the stage. But, we have church councils. In many denominations these are specifically intended as governing bodies. In others, it may be more of a voluntary association. But, it offers the increased scope of wisdom and experience while still guarding the dignity of the believers in question and the church more generally.
I cannot but admit that the system is not without its failures. We have seen those too clearly. The church being composed of fallen beings will yet have fallen tendencies. These tendencies are only exacerbated by degree of power and pomp involved. The higher up the hierarchy, the more political the decisions. The greater the pomp and inherent dignity of the office involved, the more its occupant may find it more advantageous to hide the sin rather than expose it and deal with it. It’s sad, but it’s clearly true. We see it in the shuffling of predator priests or pastors from one location to another, rather than heeding the clear message of this section: Cast them out of the house! They have no business here, even as members, let alone as purported spiritual leaders. Is that shooting our wounded? Not according to Paul. It’s protecting our sheep, and it’s exposing the wolf in their midst as well as removing that wolf from their midst. Now, God in His power may see fit to render that wolf a true sheep in future. That’s another matter for another time. The simple fact is that at present, he is a wolf and mustn’t be granted unfettered access to the sheep. You are a shepherd. You ought to have enough sense to see that much.
Moving on to verse 6, the Message adds a bit of inference as to Paul’s point. That verse concludes the thought begun in verse 5. The tone is somewhere between, “Can this really be the case?” and, “What’s your problem?” Really? There’s nobody in house who could handle this issue, so instead you take one another to court before unbelievers? What’s up with that? To this, the Message adds, “How can they render justice if they don't believe in the God of justice?” Now, it is blatantly obvious that no such message is contained in the text. Nothing is said about the capability of those outside the church to judge. In fact, it could be argued that Paul already excised all such thought from the equation. “What have I to do with judging outsiders” (1Co 5:12)?
More to the point, the wider context of Scripture would seem to support the role of civil courts as part of the civil government that God Himself ordained. If, then, we have civil courts that are incapable of arriving at just decisions, it is so by God’s decree, which would suggest the problem lies not so much with those outside as with the spiritual condition of those inside. But, even that would take a bit of inference.
The thing is, outside the setting of offering a translation of Scripture, I would probably agree with the premise of that insertion. There is a potential issue for the unbeliever. If God is Truth, and the sole arbiter of what defines right and wrong (and He is), then by adhering to His rule we have the criterion for rendering a just verdict. If we have rejected God as such, what shall we turn to for definitions? On what basis shall we determine what is right? Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that these unbelievers are correct and there is no God. What, then, can provide a consistent definition of good and evil? We can simply look around at the modern landscape and perceive the answer: Nothing. Definitions become nothing more solid and lasting than opinions. Truth is reduced to the latest fad in thinking. What is right today may very well be adjudged as wrong tomorrow. This is not justice. It’s barely even mob rule. I’m not sure it would even qualify as proper anarchy. But, one thing’s certain. It’s foundering, baseless, and in the end, utterly destabilizing. It is destabilizing for those ruled by such caprice, who learn only that there is no rule, and fear being caught out on the wrong side of the latest outrage. It’s destabilizing for those who purport to be rulers, for while they may be beyond the reach of their own decisions today, tomorrow could well be an entirely different story. Where truth is only opinion, and right has no firmer basis, today’s hero for the cause can very easily find himself tomorrow’s target.
Now, let me note that while it seems that much of the world is demonstrating exactly this point today, and America is by no means excluded from this particular idiocy, there remains one point the Christian must cling to with all his will and might: However godless the government and however godless the people, the reality is that God remains fully and firmly in control of events. They may have their hour, but He has eternity. The fact of the matter is that those judges who act with such lawless abandon do have somewhat of God’s Law written upon their hearts. Paul makes that very point in another setting – and that, writing to a people particularly enamored of law and justice, at least historically. “They show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secretes of men through Christ Jesus” (Ro 2:15-16). This is written, of course, in that portion of the letter to Rome which nails down the fact that all men are sinners before God, and utterly without hope of rescue outside of Christ.
But, recall the lead up to that statement. The Gentiles instinctively do the things of the Law, even though they never had the Law in hand to read (Ro 2:14). This continues to hold with the unbelievers of our day. The most vocal of atheists cannot evade this point. They can argue it to their heart’s content, but their actions will demonstrate quite clearly that there is a Law and that their own consciences are aware of it. The worst of criminals, not even barring amoral psychopaths, and those with a true mental handicap, still knows right from wrong. They may not care, but they know. If the Law is written on their hearts, it cannot be otherwise. We recognize in both the Law of God and the laws of man that ignorance is no excuse. I think I should have to maintain that insanity is no excuse either. It’s a dodge, and it may stir up a degree of sympathy from judge and jury, but it is no legal defense. At the end of days, the Judge will rule, and however faulty the capacities of the individual, his conscience will indeed give honest answer. There will be no alternative.
In the meantime, to declare that the judicial system outside the church has absolutely no capacity for rendering just verdict is over the top. They may have no inclination, but they have capacity. They may not be fit to render decisions on matters of religion, but nothing here requires us to understand that to be the case. In matters of civil justice, the civil magistrate ought to be supposed fit to fulfill his duties. This ought to be particularly true in an elected, representative government. I know. The government can only be as qualified and effective as the electorate that puts them in power, and that’s rather a sad assessment at present. But, this is not permission for us to entirely ignore their legislation or their rulings. Yes, if those rulings have sought to overturn God’s clear command, insisting that we do what God forbids, or forbidding that we do what God commands, then their authority has terminated at that point. But, where it has not crossed the line, we are to be model citizens.
Let’s get back to Paul’s actual message. The problem is not the incapacity of civil servants to offer just judgments. The problem is that the church has lost its own judgment. The very fact that they would find it necessary to go to a civil court to seek satisfaction is already a problem. The fact that they don’t recognize their own capacity, as a body, to make sound determinations in such issues is already a problem. In fact, Paul says, the fact that they are even concerned with such matters is already a defeat for them. It is not that justice is an unworthy goal, or a matter we can take or leave as we see fit. No, we are called to do justice (Micah 6:8). But, then, we are immediately called to balance that pursuit with another: To love kindness. In both, we must achieve the goal by walking humbly with God.
What is it Paul is getting at with these last two verses? How is this a defeat? Well, before we get there, let’s settle a bit of a translational matter. The NASB gives Paul’s words as, “It is already a defeat for you”. Other translations follow in a similar vein. But, there is an adverb in there that seems to have slipped away in many cases: holoos. That describes this defeat as complete. You are completely defeated. You are altogether defeated, wholly defeated. It’s not just a small setback, it’s an absolute rout. That defeat is not found in the judgment of the court. It’s found in the fact of going to court. The defeat is not a decision rendered as to the facts of the case. It’s a decision rendered as to the moral progress of the one bringing suit. The point is made at the end of verse 7. Why would you not simply accept the wrong? Why not accept having been cheated?
That seems such odd advice, doesn’t it? Where’s the justice in that? Where’s the holding a brother accountable? Shouldn’t we point out the sinner’s sin so that he can repent? Surely that’s what we’re called to do for one another? Well, yes. And if that were the point of this exercise, I doubt there’d be any corrective action necessary. But, we don’t point out a brother’s sin by taking him to court, and we certainly don’t go to a civil magistrate for definition of sin. Now we have exceeded their capacity. They may have a sense of right and wrong, but sin is not for men to decide apart from God, for sin is ever and always against God and God alone. Offense may come against a brother, but sin is against God. Recompense may be made to sin’s victims by the sinner, but repentance and atonement are unto God.
What is happening in the case that sits just off screen in this passage is not a correction of sin, but a seeking of one’s rights. It puts me in mind of that great book I read on the missionary’s role. The title was quite simply, “You Have No Rights”. That is the Christian’s mission statement. It holds in the missionary’s case. It holds in the simple believer’s case. The message of the Gospel is clear. Forgive or remain unforgiven. They will know you are Christians by your love for one another. Let’s hear what Jesus says, and then perhaps Paul’s advice won’t seem so very odd after all. “I tell you, don’t even resist the evil person. If he slaps your right cheek, show him your left. If he would sue you for your shirt, give him your coat as well. If forced to go a mile with him, go two. Give what is asked. Don’t reject the one who would borrow from you” (Mt 5:39-42). Be so wholly agreeable to the wrong done you as will set your opponent in a state of wonder. Accept the indignities, even rejoice in the humiliation, knowing you have been found worthy to share the sufferings of your Savior in some small way.
But, even that represents something of a misguided motive for what we are called to do. No, our concern should be thus: How much greater is the loss of a brother than the losses suffered in whatever matter I might take to law? What is more valuable than his soul? Is it worth no more than the fifty bucks he owes you? Is his soul of less value than your house? What could you possibly put on the table that would out-value his soul? Get some perspective, man! This, I think, is where Paul is taking us.
The whole point of this letter since the beginning has been one of getting your priorities and your perspective straight. That hasn’t suddenly changed going into Chapter 6. You measure the truth of the message by the style of its delivery, but the Gospel isn’t about style, it’s about content. You measure your church by its willingness to tolerate the sinner in your midst, but that tolerance only demonstrates that you don’t even comprehend holiness yet. You trumpet your right to redress against your brother, but this only demonstrates that you haven’t laid hold of the most basic gospel principles yet. Frankly, that theme is going to be with us at least through Chapter 14.
So, we reach the closing point of this section. “You are cheating the very brother you think to charge with cheating. You are wronging the very one you say has wronged you.” Now, that is not to say that this brother hasn’t cheated you or wronged you. He very well may have done so. That does not, however, provide cover for going and doing likewise. How, you may ask, am I wronging my brother? Well, at minimum I might suggest that taking him to court over so minor an infraction, rather than addressing it in private has done significant harm to his character that may very well be utterly undeserved. Suppose he has indeed defrauded you, but done so unintentionally. Suppose there has been a misunderstanding and it merely needed a few words between the two of you to set things to rights? Have you not wronged your brother by jumping to so public a demand for justice? Have you not defrauded him of the mercy you have yourself experienced from God?
I think back to that parable Jesus taught on the matter of forgiveness. In fact, it comes on the heels of Him telling His disciples that they ought to forgive seventy times seven if the offending brother comes expressing repentance. Then, he speaks of that one who was to settle accounts with his king, but the debt was beyond any possibility of repayment. Even another king might have struggled to find sufficient funds. He begged for forgiveness, this debtor, and the king saw fit to forgive him that debt. His response? He came across another who owed him a relatively insignificant amount, although still beyond that one’s ability to repay right away. That one asked this man for patience, as this man had asked the king. But, unlike the king, this man demanded his right. He held for justice over mercy. The king heard of it and had the first man taken into custody to be tortured for his unmerciful ways. The parable concludes, “So shall My heavenly Father also do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart” (Mt 18:22-35).
What is Paul pointing out? You, in taking your brother to court – or even dragging him before the church for so picayune a matter – have set yourself in that place. “My Father shall do the same to you.” Talk about defeat! You may win the suit, but you’ve most certainly lost your own court case. I rather like the heading the NKJV applies to this section. It is simple, forthright advice that we do well to take to heart: “Do Not Sue the Brethren”. That’s it.
I would, however, read that in a fashion akin to reading the Decalogue. It is the pinnacle of a mountain to be avoided. It is the worst-case scenario, but in its prohibition we should find excluded all that leads up to it.
Would you have victory in this Christian life? Start here: Refuse to be wronged. I don’t say let everybody be as unaccountable as they please. For, if we will but keep ourselves accountable, the issue will never arise. But, refuse to be wronged. Ninety percent of our trouble in the church (and now, you know I’m offering generalities) lies with our finding cause to be offended one with another. We are called to love above all things. It is getting ahead of myself in this study, but it’s worth injecting at this point. “Love does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered” (1Co 13:5). See how completely that contrasts with the lawsuit we are considering. You are already utterly defeated! Where is the love that defines true faith? What are you doing but seeking your own, having been provoked and carefully having tracked every wrong suffered? You act in the opposite of love when you take offense at your brother.
Quite frankly, the likelihood is very high that your offense is at nothing, anyway. So often, we jump to the negative conclusion, somehow manage to convince ourselves that everybody hates us, nobody loves us, they’re all talking about me behind my back. Really? Are we discussing church or a teenager’s pajama party? Look, there may be a few who are so ill advanced in their development that they would act this way. Maybe. There may be occasions where somebody slips up and actually says something hurtful for no other reason than to be hurtful. Then, again, they may be responding to exactly the sort of fleshly response that now arises in you. Is the right thing to escalate the matter? Or is the right thing to forgive? Would you have the right of this situation? Would you seek to walk out of it victorious? Then, be the first to forgive. Better still, find nothing in it that needs forgiving. Refuse the offense, because even if that brother has really, truly, and knowingly given cause for offense, it’s not your brother you fight against. It’s spirits and principalities that want nothing so much as to destroy the unity of God’s church. Will you play into their hands, or will you play the man? Do justice. Love kindness. Walk humbly with God. That’s all. Understand that to love kindness is to do justice. They are not two separate matters, but one and the same. That justice done humbly with God will be a kindness. That kindness done humbly with God will be just. Remarkable, isn’t it?
Father God, help us to absorb this. Help us to embrace the love for one another that You have commanded from us. Help us, Lord, to account every brother and sister as more significant than our feelings. Help us harness our feelings to Your truth, that we may feel in safety. Oh, Lord, how hard it is for us to obey that simple instruction to walk humbly with You. How insidious the pride that would infect our every effort on Your behalf. In this regard, I must ask humbly that You would help me in my own pridefulness. I have seen too often and too consistently just how pride infects even my attempts to teach Your truth. Where there is a matter of Truth that needs to be sorted out, let me do so with patience and love, rather than tired, angry frustration. Yes, these matters hit too close to home, and yes, the frustration comes from a place of love. But, it is not a proper expression of love, nor is it a proper defense of Truth. Help me, Lord. Help me protect my charges in accordance with Your instruction, and help me to do so in and from the love You have shown towards me. Let grace abound in my home life as well as my church life.
