There are many references to agreeing with the other side quickly, which prevents wasted time and effort and can put an end to a dispute before it gets out of control.
Perhaps the scripture in 1 Cor 6 is an exhortation to deal with things that can be dealt with quickly - dealt with quickly! Don't litigate at the smallest thing.
I have practiced in law and now work as a volunteer doing advice work. And I've often said to clients: they might have a case, but how much is the "head space" worth? Not to mention the time and money. How much is it really worth, the emotional involvement in having a fight with the next door neighbour or the ex-wife about some relatively insignificant matter (one ex-wife thing was when husband spitefully wanted custody of ... the sunbed!)
I don't think 1 Cor 6 is a blanket prohibition on never taking legal action where there has been a serious wrong - an abuse, wilfully, by the other party. The "guilty party" (if you like) has abandoned Christian principles and (by TWI definition) has walked out of the hedge of protection (I don't believe that, particularly, just trying to think like TWI might).
Abuse is allowed to flourish where it's not checked. Think of the abuses in the RC church, where nobody ever challenged paedophile priests - and the church itself just moved the abusers to new locations, where they were free to abuse. And abusees found themselves effectively gagged.
I think we at the Cafe - and all TWIers - owe a debt to P@ul @llen, that he and his wife did take legal action against LCM, TWI in respect of the abuse suffered by his wife.
I think we at the Cafe - and all TWIers - owe a debt to P@ul @llen, that he and his wife did take legal action against LCM, TWI in respect of the abuse suffered by his wife.
Exactly!
He took legal action at the "secular" level....and a world of good resulted from it.
I think that scripture was used as a bludgeon over the heads of many. It was quoted to dissuade their victims from "making the Ministry" look bad.
I figure, and this is my own thought, unhindered by wayisms, that if someone does something illegal against me, they are not acting like a Christian and if they don't accept being set aright by me or someone they respect in the church, I will sue them or if a felony has been committed, call 911.
To make a short story long, I don't know exactly what it means, either, but this is my thinkin' on the subject.
There are many references to agreeing with the other side quickly, which prevents wasted time and effort and can put an end to a dispute before it gets out of control.
Perhaps the scripture in 1 Cor 6 is an exhortation to deal with things that can be dealt with quickly - dealt with quickly! Don't litigate at the smallest thing.
I have practiced in law and now work as a volunteer doing advice work. And I've often said to clients: they might have a case, but how much is the "head space" worth? Not to mention the time and money. How much is it really worth, the emotional involvement in having a fight with the next door neighbour or the ex-wife about some relatively insignificant matter (one ex-wife thing was when husband spitefully wanted custody of ... the sunbed!)
I don't think 1 Cor 6 is a blanket prohibition on never taking legal action where there has been a serious wrong - an abuse, wilfully, by the other party. The "guilty party" (if you like) has abandoned Christian principles and (by TWI definition) has walked out of the hedge of protection (I don't believe that, particularly, just trying to think like TWI might).
Abuse is allowed to flourish where it's not checked. Think of the abuses in the RC church, where nobody ever challenged paedophile priests - and the church itself just moved the abusers to new locations, where they were free to abuse. And abusees found themselves effectively gagged.
I think we at the Cafe - and all TWIers - owe a debt to P@ul @llen, that he and his wife did take legal action against LCM, TWI in respect of the abuse suffered by his wife.
Thank you, this is a helpful perspective. One small question; with regard to the exhortation to settle matters quickly, isn't that a parable spoken by Christ? I'm not aware of any other references.
I think that scripture was used as a bludgeon over the heads of many. It was quoted to dissuade their victims from "making the Ministry" look bad.
I figure, and this is my own thought, unhindered by wayisms, that if someone does something illegal against me, they are not acting like a Christian and if they don't accept being set aright by me or someone they respect in the church, I will sue them or if a felony has been committed, call 911.
To make a short story long, I don't know exactly what it means, either, but this is my thinkin' on the subject.
I've seen this played out in both TWI and non-TWI situations, that's why I have a concern. I know of a case where a WOW sucker-punched his fellow WOW and knocked out a tooth. This required dental work and the police were called. Of course, one of the first things police do is ask if you want to press charges. He was strongly "encouraged" not to deal with this through the courts but to involve TWI leadership. It was decided that the perpetrator should pay the dental bill. The individual never followed through on this, and with the knowledge of this incident, he was still permitted to enter the Way Corps. He may even post here for all I know.
As far as felonies, I don't think the prosecution even asks if a person wants to press charges; they just prosecute if I'm not mistaken.
Just a random observation: from what I saw, trusting TWI to mediate fairly was like the proverbial fox in the henhouse! The only time I ever saw them try to resolve an issue was when they had stacked the deck in favor of the majority decision. If they couldn't, they just ignored the issue entirely.
What was the part about Matthew 18:17 and TWI? I remember my fellowship coordinator explaining it as being that if you pursued an issue with another believer all the way to the top and it was still not resolved, or if they refused to recognize the decision, you could disassociate from the other party as they had shown themselves to act like "a heathen and a publican".
Just a random observation: from what I saw, trusting TWI to mediate fairly was like the proverbial fox in the henhouse! The only time I ever saw them try to resolve an issue was when they had stacked the deck in favor of the majority decision. If they couldn't, they just ignored the issue entirely.
What was the part about Matthew 18:17 and TWI? I remember my fellowship coordinator explaining it as being that if you pursued an issue with another believer all the way to the top and it was still not resolved, or if they refused to recognize the decision, you could disassociate from the other party as they had shown themselves to act like "a heathen and a publican".
I really wasn't referring strictly to TWI but you still make a good point. Would a religious organization of any kind be objective? Well, depends on what is being disputed I guess. What if one of the parties is in tight with the leadership of said group? Would they be unbiased then?
I'm glad you brought up "stacking the deck". That's when a group that has in reality reached a consensus but they still need to "sell it" to the public. So they find someone, just one or a few people known to support the opposing viewpoint. Of course, folks are glad to have some of "their people" on the decision making team. Then the team votes what they decided they were going to vote anyway. It gives an appearance of objectivity because the opposing view was represented. In reality the whole thing was a ruse from the start.
It's a powerful ploy, though. An opposer looks bad if he turns down the invitation (most of the time they don't see it for what it really is). In such a case, the opposer looks either like all they want to do is gripe, or they don't really believe their viewpoint is valid. If the opposer accepts the invitation then the team goes ahead and rejects the issue at hand but it seems like they've considered all viewpoints. They haven't considered all viewpoints, they've already decided what they're going to do. People play games like this all the time.
Back to I Cor. 6...One of the things Paul asks is "wouldn't it be better to be wronged?" or something like that. I take this to be in trivial matters. Instead of being about "proving our point" or "getting what's due me", just let it go. I think Twinky alluded to that in her post.
I know I have to watch out for that in my own life. Sometimes I can be all about proving myself right and not being disrespected. That just brings on more misery for me. A mature person just lets certain things go. There are more important things in which to invest my time and energy.
Thank you, this is a helpful perspective. One small question; with regard to the exhortation to settle matters quickly, isn't that a parable spoken by Christ? I'm not aware of any other references.
You're right, BA; it picks up in Mt 5:25 and Luke 12:58 (a different event). There is some expansion of the thought in the rest of Mt 5 in (say) 39-44.
And of course there is 1Cor 6.
There are other references elsewhere about not seeking revenge, not getting upset where people wrong you or abuse you.
I think the essence is not taking offence unnecessarily; being forgiving or at least tolerant; and not exacerbating wrongs, whether intentional wrongs or otherwise. We all have our tolerance limits but many things can be resolved by taking a softly-softly approach, if necessary with a neutral third party's assistance.
That's the kind of approach mentioned in Mt 18:15-17. Bear in mind, of course, that the "church" of that time was also the "court" - which in our society is now a secular authority.
If people are pushed into a position, their attitude necessarily hardens up and negotiated solutions (compromise) become progressively more difficult.
Litigation (resorting to law) should be a last resort, not the first resort, for most things. Is there some other way to deal with the present difficulty?
Sometimes the more patient approach yields better results, long-term.
Deut 1:16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.
17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man
And there are loads of other references in the OT about how judgment is to be exercised, like this:
Leviticus 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
As regards the partiality of TWI, this is relevant:
Deut 16:18 Judges and officers … shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous
This warning about "respect of persons" (= paying attention to a person's status) is widespread through both OT and NT. And how many of Jesus's parable or actions illustrated that?
As well as the culture of "the ministry not being blamed" – TWI suffered from respecting persons and their perceived usefulness or wealth or contacts (their "gift"). If you had what TWI wanted, they accepted your "gift." If you didn't have what they wanted, you and justice for you was a disposable commodity.
Sorry, TWI … no avoiding it. No way did you deal with things impartially. You even abused "grace" to avoid dealing with things appropriately. You wrested "mercy" as "God's withholding of merited punishment" (or whatever) to further your agenda - not to demonstrate God's grace.
1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
There is a purpose for the law in this grace administration. The above verses tell us its purpose.
I figure that I Cor. 6 is written to believers. Screwed up believers (C'mon, we're talking about I Corinthians) But believers nevertheless. The idea is that the two disputing parties are going to accept Paul's reproof.
Now, if someone breaks the law - that's who the law is for.
Recommended Posts
Twinky
There are many references to agreeing with the other side quickly, which prevents wasted time and effort and can put an end to a dispute before it gets out of control.
Perhaps the scripture in 1 Cor 6 is an exhortation to deal with things that can be dealt with quickly - dealt with quickly! Don't litigate at the smallest thing.
I have practiced in law and now work as a volunteer doing advice work. And I've often said to clients: they might have a case, but how much is the "head space" worth? Not to mention the time and money. How much is it really worth, the emotional involvement in having a fight with the next door neighbour or the ex-wife about some relatively insignificant matter (one ex-wife thing was when husband spitefully wanted custody of ... the sunbed!)
I don't think 1 Cor 6 is a blanket prohibition on never taking legal action where there has been a serious wrong - an abuse, wilfully, by the other party. The "guilty party" (if you like) has abandoned Christian principles and (by TWI definition) has walked out of the hedge of protection (I don't believe that, particularly, just trying to think like TWI might).
Abuse is allowed to flourish where it's not checked. Think of the abuses in the RC church, where nobody ever challenged paedophile priests - and the church itself just moved the abusers to new locations, where they were free to abuse. And abusees found themselves effectively gagged.
I think we at the Cafe - and all TWIers - owe a debt to P@ul @llen, that he and his wife did take legal action against LCM, TWI in respect of the abuse suffered by his wife.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Exactly!
He took legal action at the "secular" level....and a world of good resulted from it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I think that scripture was used as a bludgeon over the heads of many. It was quoted to dissuade their victims from "making the Ministry" look bad.
I figure, and this is my own thought, unhindered by wayisms, that if someone does something illegal against me, they are not acting like a Christian and if they don't accept being set aright by me or someone they respect in the church, I will sue them or if a felony has been committed, call 911.
To make a short story long, I don't know exactly what it means, either, but this is my thinkin' on the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Thank you, this is a helpful perspective. One small question; with regard to the exhortation to settle matters quickly, isn't that a parable spoken by Christ? I'm not aware of any other references.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I've seen this played out in both TWI and non-TWI situations, that's why I have a concern. I know of a case where a WOW sucker-punched his fellow WOW and knocked out a tooth. This required dental work and the police were called. Of course, one of the first things police do is ask if you want to press charges. He was strongly "encouraged" not to deal with this through the courts but to involve TWI leadership. It was decided that the perpetrator should pay the dental bill. The individual never followed through on this, and with the knowledge of this incident, he was still permitted to enter the Way Corps. He may even post here for all I know.
As far as felonies, I don't think the prosecution even asks if a person wants to press charges; they just prosecute if I'm not mistaken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DocHoliday
Just a random observation: from what I saw, trusting TWI to mediate fairly was like the proverbial fox in the henhouse! The only time I ever saw them try to resolve an issue was when they had stacked the deck in favor of the majority decision. If they couldn't, they just ignored the issue entirely.
What was the part about Matthew 18:17 and TWI? I remember my fellowship coordinator explaining it as being that if you pursued an issue with another believer all the way to the top and it was still not resolved, or if they refused to recognize the decision, you could disassociate from the other party as they had shown themselves to act like "a heathen and a publican".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I really wasn't referring strictly to TWI but you still make a good point. Would a religious organization of any kind be objective? Well, depends on what is being disputed I guess. What if one of the parties is in tight with the leadership of said group? Would they be unbiased then?
I'm glad you brought up "stacking the deck". That's when a group that has in reality reached a consensus but they still need to "sell it" to the public. So they find someone, just one or a few people known to support the opposing viewpoint. Of course, folks are glad to have some of "their people" on the decision making team. Then the team votes what they decided they were going to vote anyway. It gives an appearance of objectivity because the opposing view was represented. In reality the whole thing was a ruse from the start.
It's a powerful ploy, though. An opposer looks bad if he turns down the invitation (most of the time they don't see it for what it really is). In such a case, the opposer looks either like all they want to do is gripe, or they don't really believe their viewpoint is valid. If the opposer accepts the invitation then the team goes ahead and rejects the issue at hand but it seems like they've considered all viewpoints. They haven't considered all viewpoints, they've already decided what they're going to do. People play games like this all the time.
Back to I Cor. 6...One of the things Paul asks is "wouldn't it be better to be wronged?" or something like that. I take this to be in trivial matters. Instead of being about "proving our point" or "getting what's due me", just let it go. I think Twinky alluded to that in her post.
I know I have to watch out for that in my own life. Sometimes I can be all about proving myself right and not being disrespected. That just brings on more misery for me. A mature person just lets certain things go. There are more important things in which to invest my time and energy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
You're right, BA; it picks up in Mt 5:25 and Luke 12:58 (a different event). There is some expansion of the thought in the rest of Mt 5 in (say) 39-44.
And of course there is 1Cor 6.
There are other references elsewhere about not seeking revenge, not getting upset where people wrong you or abuse you.
I think the essence is not taking offence unnecessarily; being forgiving or at least tolerant; and not exacerbating wrongs, whether intentional wrongs or otherwise. We all have our tolerance limits but many things can be resolved by taking a softly-softly approach, if necessary with a neutral third party's assistance.
That's the kind of approach mentioned in Mt 18:15-17. Bear in mind, of course, that the "church" of that time was also the "court" - which in our society is now a secular authority.
If people are pushed into a position, their attitude necessarily hardens up and negotiated solutions (compromise) become progressively more difficult.
Litigation (resorting to law) should be a last resort, not the first resort, for most things. Is there some other way to deal with the present difficulty?
Sometimes the more patient approach yields better results, long-term.
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
This is how judgment should be carried out:
And there are loads of other references in the OT about how judgment is to be exercised, like this:
As regards the partiality of TWI, this is relevant:
This warning about "respect of persons" (= paying attention to a person's status) is widespread through both OT and NT. And how many of Jesus's parable or actions illustrated that?
As well as the culture of "the ministry not being blamed" – TWI suffered from respecting persons and their perceived usefulness or wealth or contacts (their "gift"). If you had what TWI wanted, they accepted your "gift." If you didn't have what they wanted, you and justice for you was a disposable commodity.
Sorry, TWI … no avoiding it. No way did you deal with things impartially. You even abused "grace" to avoid dealing with things appropriately. You wrested "mercy" as "God's withholding of merited punishment" (or whatever) to further your agenda - not to demonstrate God's grace.
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Thank you Twinky. Your insight on this has been very helpful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
There is a purpose for the law in this grace administration. The above verses tell us its purpose.
I figure that I Cor. 6 is written to believers. Screwed up believers (C'mon, we're talking about I Corinthians) But believers nevertheless. The idea is that the two disputing parties are going to accept Paul's reproof.
Now, if someone breaks the law - that's who the law is for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.