Biblical Church Discipline, Part Eight

Matthew 18:15-20

We began looking at Matthew 18 two weeks ago. At that time we did a deconstruction of the passage. Since there are so many wrong interpretations of this passage, I thought it was necessary to spend our time tearing down the old before we build a new, much like the missions teams to New Orleans must tear down the rotting houses before they add new construction. One of the false interpretations arises from v. 19, “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.” Christians mistakenly take this verse to mean that God must answer your prayer if you get at least one more person to agree with your prayer. Thankfully the Gordons sold their house last week after five long months on the market. If Jeff and Rheta had misused this verse, they could have have prayed like this. “God, you said that if two of us agree about anything we ask for, you will do it. Lord, we agree that you will sell this house in the first two weeks. You said you would do it and we believe it.” This is a real concern because countless Christians actually pray this way.

Immediately after the service Traci Stalsberg showed the need for correcting this false interpretation. She handed me this Bible which used to belong to a friend of hers. When you open this Bible you can see that her friend taped to the inside cover a list of “Healing Scriptures”. Matthew 18:18-19 is on this list of healing Scriptures, and when you turn to the passage, these two verses are marked with a yellow highlighter. Some pastor or teacher taught Traci’s friend this false interpretation. Because of the way it is marked, she obviously depended on this verse to receive prayers for healing. If she was ever sick, she and one other Christian would claim a healing from the Lord based on this verse. Sadly, her friend died of cancer two years ago. Do you see how false beliefs can lead to tragic consequences?

Now that we have torn down the rotting frame of false interpretations, this morning we will carefully rebuild the frame of Matthew 18. ^15 “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. This is a matter of a private sin between two people. Let’s use this verse to make a distinction between the three different types of confrontation. In Galatians 6:1 we had “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.” This is for the brother who is caught in a sin but the sin is not directed at you. You should love that brother enough to want to free them from their trap. The third type of confrontation comes in Matthew 5:25, If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

Each of these confrontations has their differences but they also share a similarity. The difference is in the type of sin. Let’s say you are the one doing the confronting. In Matthew 18, you are confronting the person who has sinned against you. You believe the person has sinned against you, but maybe it is just a big misunderstanding. Either way the best decision is to talk with them directly. In Matthew 5 you are confronting the person who has something against you. It’s like Matthew 18 turned upside down. Again, maybe you sinned against them or maybe it was a big misunderstanding, but either way, the right decision is to talk with them directly. In Galatians 6, you have not sinned against your brother and your brother has not sinned against you, but rather you are helping your brother escape the trap of his own sin.

Do you see what each of these has in common? They all start with a one on one, personal conversation. If your brother is caught in a sin, to whom do you turn first? Do you share this person’s problem with your small group disguised as a “prayer request”? No—we are to go directly to the person, and only to the person. If a fellow believer has “something against you,”, should you complain to your husband or wife about this person?  “Honey, can you believe that Sally! Why is so she so mad at me? What have I ever done to her?” No—we are to go directly to the person, and only to the person. If a fellow believer has sinned against you, should you run to your pastor first to explain the terrible injustice in all its horrific detail? No—we are to go directly to the person, and only to the person. When you put these three commands together it forms the “Relational Triad”. There are three different types of conflict and three different ways of handling the conflict, but all three involve a one on one conversation.

This is one of the reasons that church discipline is a form of discipleship, because if we all practiced this first level of loving confrontation, then most of the bigger issues would resolve themselves and we would rarely have to practice the more difficult types of church discipline. For example, if every Christian practiced the first step in Matthew 18, we would be able to resolve most issues before we moved to steps two or three.  Imagine if we committed ourselves to two things. First we commit to always follow these three direct paths of communication that we will not talk to anyone except the person who is directly involved. That’s the first commitment, and second, that we would not tolerate listening to problems between two other people if this person has not obeyed the first commitment. Let’s say Sally and Suzy are having a problem. If Sally comes and talks to me first, the best thing I can do is to refuse to listen to Sally until she first talks with Suzy. See, what we usually do is one of two things—we listen to Sally and try to help her resolve her problem, or else we listen to Sally and then advise her to go talk with Suzy. What does God want us to do? We should politely refuse to listen to Sally until she talks with Suzy. If we listen to Sally, we allow her to sin by gossiping and we become accomplices to her sin by listening. Let me say this clearly—it is not impolite to refuse to listen to gossip. It is not rude to stop the conversation with Sally and lovingly warn her to go talk with Suzy. Imagine how our relationships could improve if we would all make these two commitments. This is nothing more than simple obedience to basic Biblical commands.

Let me show how hypocritical we can be in this area. I hope that you plan to vote “yes” on the marriage amendment. Most of us have fairly strong feelings about this because we know that God created marriage for one man and one woman and that homosexual behavior is a sin. Which N.T. passage gives us the most clarity on this issue? There is no doubt that Romans chapter one is by far the clearest teaching about homosexuality. “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ^27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”  (Romans 1:26-27)

I have had unbelievers read this passage and say, “You’re right, it seems perfectly clear to me.” They may disagree with what the Bible says, but they don’t disagree about the clarity of the prohibition. Therefore we have decided to vote “yes” on the marriage amendment because the Bible is crystal clear and we want to place ourselves under the authority of the Bible, correct? Let me read what the last part of this chapter which immediately follows the part about homosexuality. “They are full of …envy…strife…and malice. They are gossips [and] slanderers. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

Paul condemns two groups of people—those who practice gossip and slander and those who approve of those who gossip. Whoops—he’s talking about us, isn’t he? When Sally blabs to you about Suzy she is gossiping and when you listen to Sally you are implicitly approving of her gossip. So why is it that we are so passionate about condemning the sin of homosexuality but so passive about allowing the sin of gossip? On the one hand we say that we need to pass a State amendment about marriage because God’s word is the final authority on the subject, but on the other hand we practice gossip and approve of those who gossip—the very sins which are listed right after homosexuality. Either we care about the authority of God’s word or we don’t, but let’s not be selective about what applies and what doesn’t apply. This is hypocrisy of the highest order! We sin by our gossip and we sin by our approval of the gossip and then we add to these sins by our blatant hypocrisy. We passionately declare the authority of Scripture in regard to homosexuality but we remain silent on the authority of Scripture in regard to gossip.

I know some of you think that there is no comparison between gossip and homosexuality because people are fighting for their right to practice homosexuality but no one is fighting for their right to gossip. You are right in one sense—there is certainly no such thing as a gossip-rights group. We may not be actively fighting for the right to gossip, but when we routinely ignore such an explicit command as this, then isn’t it the same thing? If you recall when we started this series on church discipline, one of my main premises was that a lack of church discipline is having a negative effect on our efforts at evangelism. Can you see why this is so true? When we actively condemn the sin of those around us while ignoring the sin within us, we are guilty of gross hypocrisy. I have said many times that we are all hypocrites and the very nature of striving to live a Christ-like life will inevitably lead to some degree of hypocrisy. If I declare that I want to live like Christ but my life does not look like his, then I am a hypocrite. But this does not mean that I should enjoy swimming in my hypocrisy. Either we bow to all of Scripture’s authority or we bow to none of it, but please, let’s not pick and choose according to personal convenience. Let’s not say to those outside the church, “You must obey the authority of Scripture!” while those of us inside the church refuse to heed our own advice. It’s no wonder the church is losing its voice in the world.

I wrote this message before the news of Ted Haggard’s “indiscretions” (as he calls them) were revealed this past week. You may not have heard about this story, but Ted Haggard is President of the 30 million member National Association of Evangelicals and had been leading the fight for the marriage amendment in Colorado. An enormous banner hangs on the front of his church reminding members to vote yes on Colorado’s marriage amendment. I will spare you the details that have emerged so far, but I will say this—if they prove to be true or even mostly true, this will be much bigger than the Jim Bakker scandal from twenty years ago. This will be like 50 nuclear bombs striking Colorado—the shock waves of hypocrisy and damage to the body of Christ will ripple across the nation. The path of destruction will carve a swath right through Viroqua. It will hamper your ability to share the gospel message.

Election Day is Tuesday, but I want you all to cast your vote today. Please take out the “yes-no” ballots in your bulletin. I bet you thought this had something to do with the marriage amendment, didn’t you? I want to propose a Christian Referendum and then have you cast your vote. Here is the wording of the referendum: “According to the New Testament, I agree that gossip is condemned equally with homosexuality. By God’s empowering Spirit, from this day forward, I refuse to engage in gossip and I refuse to allow gossip in my presence. I choose to love my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ by following the Biblical principles contained in the relational triad.” If you agree to this Christian Referendum, then please cast a “yes” vote on your ballot. If you disagree with this statement then please cast your “no” vote. Fold the ballots in half and pass them to the center aisle. I will have someone collect them and count your votes before we finish.

Now we return to Matthew 18. If we follow the Biblical injunction and talk directly to the believer who has sinned against us, often it will have the intended effect. Jesus said, “if he listens to you, you have won your brother over.” This is the best possible scenario and the one that you would have been praying for. But it doesn’t always work out this way, does it? In v. 16 Jesus said, “But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’” What is the purpose of the other people that you bring with you? Our understanding of the purpose of these witnesses is extremely important because it determines the interpretation of the whole passage.

Normally when we ask someone to come with us it is because the task is too difficult for one person. One of Ryan’s favorite summer jobs is helping me put our smelly, maggoty garbage into the bigger bags to haul to the dump. I can’t hold the bag open by myself so I need to ask Ryan for help with this lovely task. Is this what Jesus meant when he said bring others with you—that the job of confronting someone is so difficult that you may need help? Some people are more gifted in the area of wisdom and others are better at getting to the heart of the matter, so maybe Jesus’ instruction was a call to seek relational help from others. This is not bad advice, but Jesus was not telling us to get relational help. Other times what we need is motivational help. Let’s say you are going to start a weight loss program and you would like a good friend to join with you for mutual support and motivation. Again, this is good advice, but Jesus was not calling for motivational assistance. The purpose of the extra one or two people is not relational or motivational, rather it is testimonial.

In the second half of v.16, Jesus directly quoted from an Old Testament law. This is from Deut. 19:15 and reads as follows. “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” This passage governed the laws regarding conviction and punishment for alleged crimes. No person could be convicted of any crime without the presence of at least two witnesses. Where do you think we got our modern standards of criminal justice? They were ripped right from the pages of the Bible. If you lie under oath in a court of law today you can be thrown in jail for perjury, but the O.T. laws for giving false testimony were even greater. If a man was on trial for murder and I gave false testimony in his trial, I would be given the same sentence as that of a convicted murderer—death. If we still had this law today it would prevent a lot a lying under oath, don’t you think?  It is this very O.T. law which gives the foundation to Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 18. Jesus established a N.T., church-based court of law complete with testimony of at least two witnesses. That is why Jesus said take one or two others along—the person who was sinned against would have served as one witness and at least one additional witness would have been needed. This completely changes the typical understanding of this passage. It is not merely about the avoidance of gossip, though that is an obvious principle. It is not merely a dry, legal framework which we can choose to skip over in our modern churches. It is a God-ordained system for maintaining the purity of the church in her Christ-sanctified role as the precious bride of Christ. This is serious business with nothing less than eternal consequences at stake.

With this as an understanding, now again read vv. 19-20 and see if they begin to make sense in this context. “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” What do you think Jesus meant when he referred to two or three coming together in his name? It certainly wasn’t a kumbaya song, was it? The two or three people in vv. 19-20 are the same two to three witnesses from v. 16.

We’ve got to stop there for today. We’ll finish this passage in two weeks, but for now, let me remind you that you have made a pledge this morning. This is a pledge which says that we believe the authority of Scripture and want to place ourselves under this authority. Just by following the principles in this relational triad we will double the level of authenticity in our church family. I hope you understand that this is not just the avoidance of gossip that we have pledged ourselves to, but the active pursuit of right relationships. To God’s glory.

Rich Maurer

November 5, 2006