Ecclesiastical courts, hate crimes and moral decadence

1 Corinthians 6 draws attention to a long-lost social function of the church: the church courts. First, some history. Before Rome fell, it was stifled by a backlog of civil disputes in the Roman legal system. Years could pass before a particular case came before a Roman judge. The Roman legal system was choked with rampant immorality and lawlessness that contribute to the rot of empires by generating social conflict. Great nations are often destroyed from within by moral decay long before they fall victim to invading armies. And Rome had been rotting for hundreds of years before the Visigoths sacked it in 410 AD.

At the same time, Christianity had inherited the system of government of the Old Testament elders, in which the local court was superimposed on the ecclesiastical court. We must remember that while Rome had a large and powerful legal system, it pales in comparison to the modern Western legal system in terms of its efficiency and bureaucratization. However, even on the western frontier in early American history, civil courts were often few and far between. And in that context the need required another way to resolve disputes between people.

The structure of the Christian church, until the Modern Era, had a system of courts to adjudicate matters between Christians, precisely because of Paul’s warning to avoid civil courts run by unbelievers. In the modern era, these church courts have, for the most part, fallen into disrepair. As unbelievers (or non-church members) began to outnumber believers in a given area, unbelievers hesitated to use church courts to settle their issues. Unbelievers often think that the church courts are biased against them. And it was often true, but it shouldn’t be true based on personalities. We should not be prejudiced against unbelievers because we do not like them. It doesn’t matter if we like them or not. Justice is not a function of personal preferences.

All courts are subject to jurisdiction, the territory in which they can operate. We often understand jurisdiction as regional: city, county, state, and national. The jurisdiction of the church is completely separate and includes only the members of the church. Therefore, the first problem is that the church courts only have jurisdiction over church members. And when a member is an unbeliever, someone who has gone astray or is unregenerate, Christians are commonly biased against that person in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons, some of which may be biblical and others certainly are not. We are warned in the scriptures not to be prejudiced about personalities.

Deuteronomy 1:17 says, “You shall be no respecter of persons in judgment. You shall hear both the small and the great. You shall not be afraid of the presence of man, for the judgment is of God. And the cause that is too difficult for you, bring it to me, and I will hear it.” This was Moses speaking to the newly freed Israelites. Does this apply to Christians? Peter said, “Truly I see that God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34). Paul said, “Your Master is also in heaven. There is no respect of persons with Him” (Ephesians 6:9). Paul also said, “Whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. Because you serve Christ the Lord. righteousness for the evil which he has done, and there is no respect of persons” (Colossians 3:23-25). James said, “But if you show respect of persons, you commit sin and are condemned by the law as transgressors” (James 2:9 ).

What does it mean to have no respect for people? It means that we should not judge or evaluate people based on their personalities or circumstances, which is exactly what we are always tempted to do. We make all kinds of judgments and evaluations about other people all the time. It can not be helped. It is an integral part of ordinary life. Nowhere does the Scripture advise people to suspend all judgment. Rather, the Scriptures advise people to avoid judgments that are based on personalities and circumstances, that are based on personal preferences or the circumstances of providence. Personal preferences are our likes and dislikes. The circumstances of providence are the social attributes of birth: money, social position, health, geography, nationality. None of these things enter into God’s judgment, and neither should they enter into ours.

The ecclesiastical courts are charged with maintaining the peace and purity of the church. And that is not an easy job because the very things that contribute to the purity of the church often disturb its peace, and those things that contribute to the peace of the church often contribute to its impurity. An emphasis on correct doctrine disturbs many Christians. And an emphasis on “getting on with getting along” often contaminates correct practice.

Most of the things that the ecclesiastical courts deal with are matters of doctrine and morality (or lifestyle). But moral concerns can easily degenerate into civil matters rather quickly. The point is that morality and illegality are related, but they are not always matters of the same jurisdiction. Some things are immoral, but not illegal, and they should be. The opposite of this is that some things that are legal are immoral. The point is that church courts should adjudicate cases involving the moral and doctrinal concerns of church members, in the hope that treating them as moral issues will keep them out of civil courts as legal issues.

But for the last hundred years or so, the ecclesiastical courts have fallen into total contempt, except for a few small (usually) Presbyterian denominations. At least that’s how it is in principle.

Civil courts strive to deal only with violations of civil law: criminal activity. However, current US jurisprudence has crept into the field of so-called “hate crimes”. Legislation has been enacted adding additional punishments for hate crimes. The problem with hate crime legislation is that it is encroaching on areas of morality rather than illegality. It is not illegal to hate because any hate law itself cannot be properly defined or effectively enforced. Laws that cannot be defined or enforced are not laws at all, but only moral mandates. And, in fact, hate is a moral issue. However, this law requires the correct identification of personal motivation. And the true motivation of a person is aware only of God. Let me just say that, in my opinion, hate crime legislation has the potential to undermine the brilliance of the American legal system.

Paul’s point in these verses is to encourage and legitimize church courts by recommending that church members respect them and avoid civil courts. Christians should do everything possible to avoid civil courts, period. Paul even goes so far as to say that it is preferable to be wronged and defrauded by an ecclesiastical court than to appeal to a civil court. And that is a strong statement! While it is true, in the litigious mania that has captured modern Western people, this sentiment has decimated all semblance of church courts, as those less concerned with biblical fidelity took advantage of those who believed and acted on the admonition from Pablo. Those who are willing to be wronged and let down as a testimony of obedience to Jesus Christ are often taken advantage of in this fallen world. Like so many biblical things, Paul’s admonition only works when those involved are faithful. In the wake of infidelity, biblical morality and the social structures it engenders tend to crumble.