The Apostle Paul approved of arbitration of disputes between Christians by other believers

The theme of this installment is a question Paul asked the church in Corinth:

While the process Jesus described in Matthew 18:15-20 (see previous series of installments) is the ideal procedure, the one most likely to produce reconciliation–which is the goal of all such procedures–the New Testament is not rigidly inflexible in demanding that only this procedure be used. As I will show below, Paul at least implicitly approved the use of procedures that look a good deal like modern mediation or arbitration where having the offended party and the one said to have offended in the same room speaking directly to each other (as required by the Matthew 18 procedure) is impossible or seriously impractical, or the offended party is unwilling to invoke it. This installment will discuss arbitration; the next, mediation.

The goal of all of this is, as developed in earlier installments, is to bring about reconciliation of the parties, for the good of both parties and of the church. One objection often raised is that reconciliation is usually an impossible goal, and certainly God wouldn’t insist that we take the time, trouble and risks involved in attempting the impossible. But this objection is based on too narrow a reading of the verb “reconcile.” Even the strongest reading of the word–Webster’s definition number 1a– does not require instant restoration of “friendship.” The status quo does not have to be restored.

The definition requires only restoration of “harmony.” Harmony involves various things. Each party has to forgive the other one and be willing that the other party be informed of this, so that all of the limitations imposed by the previously unresolved offense are now mutually released. Each party has to recognize the other one as their brother or sister in Christ again, an equal member of the Body worthy of their care and concern. Each has to stop speaking and acting injuriously toward and about the other. (These components are explained in the earlier installments about Love and Indifference, Offenses and Leprosy, the Lord’s Table, and Infinite Forgiveness, which I won’t repeat here). And each has to be willing to work harmoniously with the other in the church, subject to any limitations they have agreed to or that have been imposed by an arbitrator or the church after hearing both sides. If all of this is true, some degree of “harmony” has been restored.

Webster’s definition 1b of “reconcile” is even weaker in its requirements. It requires only that the parties’ differences have been “settled or “resolved,” even, apparently, if “harmony” has not been restored. But this definition is not consistent with the New Testament picture of Christ as the mediator between us and God, who reconciles us to God by taking our sins upon himself. In this way, Jesus restores our harmony with God and offers us his friendship (which we must continually accept and grow in). This will be discussed further in the next installment.

What the New Testament never condones, however, is the four most common modern approaches used by churches (but NOT by secular courts!), namely,

• 1) simply ignoring the dispute and hoping it will go away all by itself;

• 2) ordering the parties to be quiet about their grievances, then ignoring the dispute and hoping it will go away;

• 3) separating the parties from each other, ordering them to have no contact (and so denying any possibility of reconciliation), then simply ignoring the dispute and hoping it will go away; and

• 4) expelling one of the involved members without investigating both sides or seeking reconciliation at all and then declaring that the dispute has gone away.

The problem with all of these approaches is that the dispute has not gone away and probably won’t until one of the affected members dies. Even the fourth alternative really doesn’t resolve the dispute, because the expelled member is still a member of the Body of Christ and Jesus did not promise to ratify any decision the local church has made in the matter unless reconciliation has first been attempted and has failed (see Matthew 18:17-19, explained in an earlier installment). All these responses accomplish is to hide the dispute from view, leaving the underlying anger, contempt, bitterness and division to fester in the lives of the immediate parties, others around them, and the church (both local and universal). This leads to all of the consequences described in earlier installments (to which more detail will be added in later installments).

The kind of procedure which the theme verse seems to be referring would be called an “arbitration” in modern legal terminology–a procedure in which the parties give a neutral third person, an “arbitrator”–the power to hear what both sides say, then actually decide the dispute. In an arbitration, the parties have agreed in advance to accept and obey the arbitrator’s decision and to count the matter settled once that decision is rendered.

As definition number 1 of Webster’s definition of the word “arbitrate” clearly says, an arbitrator must hear the arguments and opinions of both sides–though not necessarily at the same time–and then has the authority to actually settle the dispute.

Hearing both sides and then making a final decision are both inherent in the role of an arbitrator and always have been. The arbitrator need not hear both parties at the same time and place–an arbitrator may travel between the parties and some commercial arbitrations are conducted entirely in writing. But hearing both sides at some time in the procedure is required.

But the necessity to consider the opinions and arguments of both sides usually implies that, if both parties do not appear before the arbitrator at the same time (or only in writing), the arbitrator must explain each party’s position to the other party in enough detail to permit a response. Generally, an arbitrator is not permitted to base a decision against a party on information given to the arbitrator by the winning party but never disclosed to the losing party. This is inherent in the idea of hearing the arguments of both parties on the same issues.

Because they have the authority to make a final decision binding on the parties, arbitrators are privately-appointed judges of the disputes committed to them. This involves inquiry, consideration of evidence, and deliberation.

Arbitrators may, and often do, attempt to negotiate settlements between the parties during the process of arbitration. If successful, this eliminates the need for the arbitrator to make the decision for the parties and generally leaves both parties more satisfied with the result.

Of course, Jesus commanded me not to judge others and warned that the same standard will be applied to me that I apply to them.

But as the verses immediately preceding the theme verse make clear, this doesn’t prohibit people who have appropriate authority from judging disputes between others in order that they may be resolved. But when the dispute is between Christians, it should be resolved by a wise believer, not a secular court,

In fact, there are cases in which someone else in the church will “have to judge” a dispute between two believers which they have been unable to resolve themselves. This is just this world’s practical reality.

But none of this reflects any approval of the practice of simply hiding disputes between believers, hoping they will go away if ignored. Usually, they don’t, and they cause problems for all involved later.

Link: Write to me

Next (soon): Paul also approved of mediation of disputes between Christians by other believers