I’ve been wrestling with the recent decision of my church body to issue a lawsuit against an institution that, despite disagreements over bylaws and governance, is still a part of the church. While it would seem that 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 is clear on its own, the commentary produced by the publishing of my church body further clarifies what is blatantly obvious. Read the entire thing.

The Christian and Courts of Law

Paul’s sharp denunciation of Christians who take one another to court may lead us to ask whether secular courts are to be totally shunned by the Christian. To this the apostle would certainly answer no. On a number of occasions Paul himself appealed to Roman law to come to his defense and the defense of the Christian “way” (Acts 9:2) in the face of unjust treatment at the hands of non-Christians (Acts 16:37; 22:25; 25:11). He regarded the Roman authorities as “ordained of God” and accountable to God (Rom 13:1); thus it was incumbent upon Christians to obey them and proper for him to appeal them. The NT never suggests that the offices of the civil ruler, the magistrate, the tax official, or the soldier are in themselves displeasing to God. Thus the Christian may properly serve in these offices.

Under what circumstances, then, may a Christian or a congregation resort to the civil court? Here the first questions to be asked may be these: Who are the the parties involved? Is it a case of Christian brothers going to the law against one another instead of letting the problem be solved by a competent person within the church? Is it a quest for revenge instead of forgiving the brother? Or is it a case of a Christian or a church, in their capacity as responsible citizens, taking a case to court out of concern for the neighbor? Much depends on the cause and the motive. Is the purpose to harm and defraud one’s neighbor, to “get back at him”? Or does the plaintiff bring his suit with no selfish motives, but simply in order to defend the church and her mission against attacks from those outside the church, or to protect others and promote the welfare of society?

In his exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, Luther has a nice balance:
Now, if someone asks whether a Christian may go to court or defend himself, the answer is simply no. A Christian is the kind of person who has nothing to do with this sort of secular existence and law. He belongs to a kingdom or realm where the only regulation should be the prayer (Matt. 6:12): “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.” Here only mutual love and service should prevail.

On the other hand, Luther adds that for the sake of one’s neighbor, one’s obligation to “some other person,” a Christian may serve as a judge and use a law court “to defend, guard, and protect.” Luther continues, “Thus you are not forbidden to go to court and lodge a complaint against injustice or violence, just so long as you do not have a false heart, but one that remains as patient as it was before, one that is doing this only to maintain the right and to avoid the wrong, out of a genuine love for righteousness.”

Thus Luther upheld the Sermon on the Mount’s injunction to the Christian to turn the other cheek and bear the world’s hatred patiently. At the same time, he rejected the Anabaptist view that civil government was of the devil and could under no circumstances be used by the Christian. In keeping with Luther’s balanced view, it is proper for Christians to serve as judges or lawyers, and it is proper, under some circumstances, for Christians to bring a lawsuit. Examples would be when a church presents a brief as a “friend of the court” in order to forbid abortion or support similar initiatives which promote human welfare and the sanctity of human life, or when a Christian or church appeals to a court to seek protection from violence or criminal acts, or to defend the right to proclaim the Gospel or lead a Christian life.

But it is never proper for a Christian or a church to take fellow Christians or church leaders to a secular court, or to do anything which arises out of selfish motives or ecclesiastical divisions (1:10–17). The church should never wash its dirty linen in public. The proper place for hearing such disputes is before an ecclesiastical judge—someone within the Christian community who is “wise” (σοφος, 6:5).

As [Gordon] Fee observes, our litigious culture has great difficulty “hearing” this text. “Our priorities,” he continues, “tend to be warped toward the values of this age rather than of the age to come. Here we have great need of deep reformation. Most legal actions on the part of Christians are predicated on ‘rights’ and the ‘pursuit of property’ in the present age. Until our thinking is genuinely overhauled on these matters, our approach to the text will be supine neglect, circuitous exegesis.”

Gregory J. Lockwood, 1 Corinthians, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 2000), 194–5.