Does 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 Apply to Social Media?
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!
Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
I have been wrestling with this question over the last year or so, especially since I post blog articles once a week.
What is Paul’s point?
Paul is chiding the Corinthians for taking their personal grievances against one another before heathen courts. That part is easy, but what is his reason for condemning this? The stated reason in the text is that even the least respected people in their own fellowship should be arbitrated between believing brothers. To me, the unstated but obvious reason is that taking our internal differences before the lost is simply not their business and damages the cause of Christ. They do not have the values or worldview to judge appropriately.
What are the limitations?
The most common argument is that this principle only applies within the local church and has no regulative principle beyond it. Others would argue that this is just about who judges and not about who is privy to information about the conflict between believers.
There was only one local congregation in Corinth and court battles between people in different cities were almost unheard of in Ancient Near Eastern times. I find it highly unlikely that Paul would have not included other churches if there had been other churches in view.
Our present context is unprecedented.
Paul’s objection to who is judging is clearly the primary issue in the passage. However, that does take us quite quickly to the subject of airing our grievances on social media.
The internet has changed communication so profoundly that we do not often really comprehend it. Religious leaders used to communicate with their constituencies through publications sent to a finite mailing list—there were newspapers like the Sword of the Lord, magazines like Faith for the Family, and newsletters like the Blueprint that Archer Weniger published. These all had a specifically targeted audience.
Today anyone can post anything on a blog, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, or a host of other sites that is immediately searchable and available to every other person on the entire planet. The average human being today has more reach than the major TV networks, newspapers, or other outlets did forty years ago.
The nature of the internet should impact our judgment regarding confrontation. There are times when I might need to confront a brother in Christ, but Is this communication something I want the entire world to see? Would I want to send this to my brother’s local newspaper, CNN, or Fox news? Am I including people in this conversation that really have no business being there?
“But it’s really about the judge, not the notoriety”, some might say. Most of the time when we post online we are appealing to the judge of public opinion. That judge is rarely sufficiently informed, qualified, or just in the judgment it renders.
The internet has created a mob mentality. In recent years, internet mobs have sought to cancel their political opponents. Believers communicate with one another privately, not as mobs. That private conversation provides more accountability and reasonable communication between disagreeing parties.
Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. (Proverbs 27:6)
I was “wounded” this way by a friend about a year ago for something I wrote online. He, in particular, is quite skilled in making words sting. But I needed it. It sent me down this path of considering the importance of 1 Corinthians 6 on media communications. It was faithful communication.
There are times when very public communication is warranted. These are the times when we want everyone—including the lost world—to know where we stand. Usually, those are 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 situations but would also include situations in which the gospel is compromised (Galatians 1:6-10, 2:11-14).
There is a need for a thorough ethical theology of Christians and the internet. It sounds like a good dissertation subject. I have more meditation to do on this.
Very good. In my opinion, Christian ethical principles are routinely violated on social media. As you stated, making private matters public is certainly one. I believe another is anonymity. I appreciate that there are legitimate reasons to remain anonymous online. However, anonymity sometimes allows people to feel at liberty to criticize or attack – a sort of drive-by shooting – with no accountability. Anonymity also permits an unbiblical egalitarianism. At in-person gatherings or even in private conversations such things as age, experience, office, or education are afforded deference and respect. On social media the teenager, the college student, the novice has the same standing and platform as the older, seasoned saint. Your recognition of a need for an ethical theology of the internet is correct. If someone endeavors to produce one (so long as they do not remain anonymous) I will eagerly read it.
David. You are exactly right. Many opinions expressed have value based upon the qualifications of the person offering them. Although that can be overblown as well. I remember a parenting course that we taught years ago. It emphasized the respect we should have for age. “Time has not made us equal.” Respect is so important. Anonymity eliminates personal accountability and in the case of accusers, makes it impossible to verify facts.
Thanks for the post. I do think there are some applicable principles in 1 Cor 6 but also Matt 18. A rule of thumb is that the scope of the confrontation should usually match the scope of the “offense” (in quotes, because we’re often only talking about disagreement, and the “offense” is more perceived than real). I sometimes see leaders and ministries do something very loud and public and then object to being publicly confronted, allegedly because Matthew 18. But the passage argues for the opposite of their claim on that point.
And the ‘scope rule’ doesn’t always work. Someone might secretly do something dastardly, and public rebuke/exposure is necessary to get the matter dealt with. Ravi Z. comes to mind.
But in our populist age, we err at least as often in the other direction, stirring up angry mobs to get result in matters they have no say in… on top of the whole madness of crowds factor. Then there’s double trouble: a low quality result + an inappropriate intrusion.
Yes. Matthew 18 applies as well. Generally speaking, the closer the personal relationship between parties, the more Matthew 18 should apply. Published works do often warrant published responses. However, I remember publishing something kinda on the edge, and I received private admonishment. I was thankful for that. We cannot be perceived as hiding sin either, like with Ravi Z. That is where 1 Corinthians 5 enters in. If we hid, or do not publicly distance ourselves from adultery, immorality, lechery, drunkenness etc, we do damage to the gospel.
I find that the most egregious violations of the 1 Corinthians 6 principles occur not in online articles, but in the comments that follow.
This is an important conversation for us to have.