When Pastors Sue Their Churches

When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? … ⁵ I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide between one believerand another, ⁶ but a believer goes to court against a believer—and before unbelievers at that? ⁷ In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?

1 Corinthians 6:1-7, New Testament, The Bible

I recently learned of two churches where the ministers turned to the law against their churches. The apostle Paul clearly feels this is not what one Christian should do against another Christian (see quote above). Are these ministers therefore wrong? Almost certainly their churches would think so. However, in one case, the subsequent Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the minister and fined the church £400,000! The other case is ongoing, but the minister’s lawyers feel confident enough to take the case to tribunal. Clearly, the way the churches behaved as employers, at least in the first case, failed to meet even secular standards let alone what might be expected of a church.

The apostle clearly expects churches to behave to a standard far greater than that of everyday society. This applies not only to grievances between individuals but also to grievances between a church and their employees (in these two instances, the ministers). When it comes to differences between churches (their trustees, who would be the formal employers) and their ministers it is sadly too often the case that the church trustees display the same behaviours as secular employers: they respond to challenge with confrontation; they use the power of the employer to coerce and intimidate; the law is interpreted narrowly and legalistically, ignoring the underlying principles the law seeks to embody. Most importantly, they develop “groupthink” unable to see beyond the tensions of the conflict, they become defensive – circling the wagons. In spiritual terms, they lose prophetic vision and spiritual wisdom as they deal with the situation. The minister becomes demonised and characterised as “difficult”, “uncooperative”, “divisive”, and is isolated and ostracised.

Ministers are especially aware of the apostle’s words so they reach for the legal button only when they feel they have no other recourse (there are, sadly, ministers who are bad actors – but that does not seem to be the case in these two instances). In a way, it is a cry for help, it is a way of saying “Things have gotten out of hand! Please, can we stop, pause, take a step or two back and approach this differently?”.    But, by this time, church trustees are often too unseeing to recognise the cry and see only an hostile act. It is the proof that the minister is now an enemy who has abandoned the spirituality of their office. This is what the apostle means by “shame” and “defeat” when secular law is invoked to settle Christian disputes. The two sides have fallen far outside the standards of Christian fellowship.

Between an employee and an employer the power is held by the employer which is why there are employment laws and tribunals – so that employees have some protection. When the apostle commends accepting loss rather than going to court he does not have in view the unequal power relationship of an employee and employer. Here, different biblical injunctions apply concerning the powerful and the powerless where the powerful should give way.  Church trustees should be willing to seek reconciliation even if it comes at some loss  (the loss would be much smaller than the losses imposed by an Employment Tribunal; regardless, the spiritual gain is actually far greater). Often, the most important loss is loss-of-face if the trustees back away and tacitly agree that they are, at least in part, at fault. It is this that is probably the most difficult for the trustees to accept, but if court is to be avoided and some form of reconciliation achieved – even if there is a separation of ways – then this must be accepted. Choosing this path is what elevates a difficult and sad situation above the secular standard.