*** it-1 p. 519 Court, Judicial *** "The Christian congregation, while having no secular authority as a court, may take action against disorderly members who require spiritual discipline, and it can even expel them from the congregation. Therefore, the apostle Paul tells the congregation that they, that is, the representative members thereof, those having oversight, must judge those inside the organization. (1Co 5:12, 13) In writing to congregations and to overseers both Paul and Peter point out that the elders should keep a close watch on the congregation’s spiritual condition and should assist and admonish anyone who is taking an unwise or wrong step. (2Ti 4:2; 1Pe 5:1, 2; compare Ga 6:1.) Those who are causing divisions or sects are to be warned a first and a second time before congregational action is taken. (Tit 3:10, 11) But insistent practicers of sin are to be removed, expelled from the congregation. This constitutes discipline, showing to the offenders that their course of sin cannot be tolerated in the congregation. (1Ti 1:20) Paul instructs those men in the congregation having the responsibility to act as judges to gather together to hear such a matter. (1Co 5:1-5; 6:1-5) They are to accept the accusation as true only when there are two or three witnesses, weighing the evidence without prejudgment, doing nothing according to a biased leaning.—1Ti 5:19, 21. Jesus commanded his disciples that if one sinned against another, efforts should first be made to settle the matter personally between themselves. If these efforts failed and the issue was of a serious nature, they should take it to the congregation for settlement (that is, to those appointed to responsible positions in governing the congregation). Paul later admonished Christians to settle difficulties in this manner and not to be taking one another before worldly courts." Mt 18:15-17; 1Co 6:1-8; see *** w97 4/1 pp. 28-29 Questions From Readers *** "After God’s servants ceased to be under the Mosaic Law, they had to deal with secular courts in various lands. The apostle Paul urged “holy ones” in Corinth to settle differences within the congregation. While referring to the judiciary of secular courts as “unrighteous men,” Paul did not deny that such had a place in handling secular affairs. (1 Corinthians 6:1) He defended himself in the Roman judicial setting, even appealing his case to Caesar. It is not as if secular courts are fundamentally wrong.—Acts 24:10; 25:10, 11. Secular courts are a function of “the superior authorities.” Such “stand placed in their relative positions by God,” and they make and enforce laws. Paul wrote: “It is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear: for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword; for it is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad.” Christians do not ‘oppose the authority’ as it carries out such legal functions, for they do not want to ‘take a stand against it’ and receive judgment.—Romans 13:1-4; Titus 3:1." *** w55 2/15 pp. 126-127 Questions from Readers *** Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Does any one of you that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones? Or do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you unfit to try very trivial matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? Why, then, not things of this life? If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down upon in the congregation that you put in as judges? I am speaking to move you to shame. Is it true that there is not one wise man among you that will be able to judge between his brothers, but brother goes to court with brother, and that before unbelievers? Really, then, it means altogether a defeat for you that you are having lawsuits with one another. Why do you not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded? To the contrary, you wrong and defraud, and your brothers at that.”—1 Cor. 6:1-8, NW. If Christian brothers are in a controversy over financial matters that are of such serious proportions that a lawsuit might be considered, they should take their difficulty to mature brothers of the congregation for a judgment between them rather than go to a worldly court and let the world see them squabbling over money matters. That would hurt the reputation of the Christian organization, publicly airing such matters and indicating to the world that the Christian spirit is not present. Rather than bring such reproach upon the organization, Paul argues that it would be better to be defrauded. If brothers are going to judge the world and angels, when associated with Christ Jesus in heaven, can they not judge trivial matters among themselves, without having to call in unbelievers, men looked down upon by the congregation, to settle their difficulties? To have to go out into the world and get such men to judge matters instead of settling it within the congregation would certainly be a mocking defeat for the congregation. Better to be defrauded than let that happen! But suppose the case has been brought before the representatives of the congregation and one of the disputants has been definitely proved in the wrong, shown guilty of working an injurious fraud against a brother, and yet this guilty one will not accept the decision of the congregation and will not repay the amount taken? When the evidence is clear and convincing the congregation cannot ignore it, but must disfellowship the one who is a thief. In this connection Paul said a thief, among other offenders, would not inherit God’s kingdom; neither does he have any right to be in the Christian congregation on earth. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10) So when the evidence is conclusive and the offender shows no repentance and no inclination to repay, he should be disfellowshiped. Now the disfellowshiped thief is on the outside of the congregation. He is no longer a brother. He is no longer involved in Paul’s instructions at 1 Corinthians 6:1-6. For the wronged one still within the congregation to now take the defrauder to court would be no violation of Paul’s counsel, for it would not now be a case of brother going to court against brother, which is what Paul was forbidding. Whether the wronged one would want to, or whether it would be worth the time and trouble and expense of a court case for him to do so, is another matter and one that he must individually decide for himself. The congregation’s role in the matter ends with the disfellowshiping action. The procedure of calling in mature brothers to render decisions when difficulties divide brothers as is here advised by Paul coincides with the counsel Jesus gave: “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” (Matt. 18:15-17, NW) If the sin is serious and cannot be overlooked, try to settle it with the sinning brother first. If this is not successful, take two or three others. If this fails, call in the representatives of the congregation. If the sinning one, faced with proof of his guilt, shows no repentance for a very grievous trespass and rebels against the congregation’s decision, then he is disfellowshiped to become “as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” He is put out of the congregation. This is the logical end of the theocratic procedure launched when the congregation was called in to consider the case, both in the instruction given by Jesus and in that given by Paul.