The apostle Paul considered it disgraceful for believers with business differences to argue their case before unbelievers (1 Corinthians 6:1). As saints they were destined to rule the world, so could not their differences be resolved by the church? (Psalm 49:14; Luke 22:29,30; Revelation 2:26) Why resort to a civil court? It would diminish the church’s authority over believers in the eyes of nonbelievers and its standing in the wider community, which would come to see the church as an extension of itself.
These words of Paul were the basis of later ecclesiastical courts, presided over by church leaders, that brought down judgements that had the force of law. Sadly, it is sporting bodies such as football tribunals that exercise such power these days, fining, reprimanding and penalizing errant players and officials. Elsewhere in secular society, tribunals that mediate and conciliate deal with cases that would otherwise end up in court. In other words, even the unsaved now see civil courts as last resorts!
Meanwhile, Christians reveal their disunity to the world by taking their cases to a system based more on Roman law than the Bible. All too often a civil court is their first resort. According to Paul, a believer should rather allow himself to be “ripped off” — as many were when defrauded by unbelievers (James 5:6; Hebrews 10:34)
This is rock-solid bible teaching! Israel’s courts were presided over by spiritual leaders whose decisions were based on the Law of Moses – not on precedents made by previous legal judgements (“Smith versus Jones: 1982”). What people see as acceptable changes from one generation to the next.
As society changes, its laws reflect the change. But God’s Law never changes. (Matthew 5:17, 18) God (“theos”) is not democratic (“the rule of the people”) but theocratic. God ruled Moses and Israel through Moses – so much so that Moses eventually became synonymous with the Law that Israel received from God through him (Acts 15:21). Sadly, the church of today is not what it was in the time of the apostles.
Note: This post promotes the high standard of the 1st Century church, not the lack of such in the church during the Middle Ages, which was degraded and corrupt in its decisions, and murderous in its sentences. No one would wish to see a return to that.