We are now into more participation with regard to invoking Matt. 18 to resolve conflict: the one who experienced broken fellowship with a brother or sister in the church and desired restoration, has reached an impasse with the person who is the accused wrongdoer. Let us summarize what has transpired to this point:

1. There is the offended party who has averred that someone has caused him/her to feel shame or offense, either through some harsh spoken words, slander, an unkind action, or some significant sin that the offended one has witnessed firsthand.

2. As per the rules of engagement, the offended person is an eyewitness, or the actual victim of some wrongdoing, and not a proxy for another, or the bearer of tales heard in gossip.

3. No malicious gossip has been disseminated, which would nullify the process of Matt. 18. The offended one has not engaged in backbiting or slander, and has told no one of this matter. Because of this discretion, the healing process and opportunity for second chances remain intact. 

4. The offended person, after self-examination, has concluded that the offense is real and is not due to his/her bad attitudes, such as a desire for revenge or being too quick to take offense. The matter has also been judged not to be trivial, but of sufficient weight to justify invoking the Matt. 18 process.

5. The offended person became a "goer," and went in secrecy to confront the one to be accused a breach of biblical principles which has caused significant conflict.

6. Upon hearing this complaint, the accused could have disputed the matter and denied wrong doing and perhaps convinced the "goer" that a misunderstanding is to blame, but this has not happened. The one who has gone remains adamant.

7. The accused may have acknowledged the wrongdoing, and yet refused to abide by the process and thus rejected reconciliation.

8. In either of the last two cases, the "goer" departed with no consensus with the accused.

9. The offended one had the option of dropping the matter but did not do so.

10. The offended one sought "one or two witnesses" to agree to go back — with the offended one — and confront the one suspected of causing the conflict. 

 

As we concluded phase III, the witness(es) dissented and could not support the argument of the "goer." This would end the process; the one who has been pressing this matter must in good faith accept this check and balance on the validity of his/her complaint.

 

The one who has gone and reached no consensus with the accused, has now reached no consensus with one or two witnesses and thus, he/she must cease and desist. Any resolution, any ease of lingering conflict must now be between this person and the Lord. Utmost discretion is permanently observed and no mention is ever made of the situation to another soul. 

 

One or two Witnesses are Convinced

 

We now consider the alternate situation: that one or two witnesses have been approached, and upon hearing the details of the matter, they agree that a serious breach of biblical principles has been committed by the accused one. The one or two witnesses also agree to accompany the "goer" back to the accused and plead the case again...   together... as a united team.

 

The same things can happen now, with one or two witnesses added to the cast, as happened previously with "just the two" in the fray:

 

• The accused may dispute the accusation, now brought by two or three, just as the accused may have disputed it with the original one. This disputation may convince all the accusers, or perhaps just the imported witnesses, that the charge is invalid. It may be a misunderstanding, or a rush to offense, or some other miscue, but if the witnesses become convinced, by the argument of the accused that there is no valid accusation to press, the situation becomes as if the witnesses dissented from the outset: the accuser must give up the case and accept this result as God's gift of justice. This outcome is evidence of yet another solid check and balance in the process to protect innocent people. All then leave the former accused in peace, and no word is ever said to another earthly being.

• The original accuser, with the added support and persuasion of his witness(es), may convince the accused that indeed he/she has committed an offense that has caused a significant conflict; thus an apology, repentance, and perhaps restitution is in order. As forgiveness is sought, it must now be granted by the original "goer," and witnessed by the one or two witnesses. A second chance is bestowed on the one who has repented of some wrongdoing. Sacred vows of full discretion are made and must be kept by all concerned. 

• The above two scenarios are both full consensus reached by all; the next two are  failures, once again, to reach common ground: first, the accused may contest the accusation, but fail to persuade those who have come as a team: an unfortunate but reasonable impasse is reached. 

• Second: the accused may not deny, and may even tacitly admit the wrongdoing, but out of rebellion, anger or some other negative reaction, refuses to apologize, seek forgiveness, or allow the process of Matt. 18 to succeed. In the case of these last two outcomes, the original accuser and the witness(es) with him/her, have no choice but to leave with no consensus and with the conflict unresolved.

 

Variations in the Pattern of Consensus

 

Obviously, there are some variations to the above scenarios. One that immediately comes to mind: as the communication proceeds with the accused person, there may arise a difference of opinions between the "goer" and his/her witness(es). One witness may side with the accused, while the original "goer," and perhaps the second witness remain adamant that the accusation is sound and significant. There is no clear guideline here. All involved must seek wisdom from the Lord to resolve any internal division now that the issue is no longer between "just the two." One always hopes and prays for consensus and an end of conflict. Failing that result, at the very least, one hopes that new internal disputes do not arise between a goer and his/her witness(es), which would add unwanted confusion to an already tense situation.

 

The Third Level of the Process: Even More People Involved

 

Assuming the "goer" and "one or two witnesses" are still of one mind, and this group opinion has been disputed or rejected by the accused person, the accusing party must depart in failure with no resolution. Here, we must see in Holy Writ the third part of the scriptural path of dealing with serious conflict, for we have come to the third level of the process, the first two levels having ended with no resolution: 

 

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." Matt 18:17 (NIV)

 

We are now in danger of drawing a crowd. This new audience that may hear of the wrongdoing and who is accused of it, are for all intents, the very same people that have been denied this information until this proper time: the others in the church. The number of these other hearers is not specified in this case, as it was with "one or two witnesses."

 

What Once Would Have Been Slander is Now Unavoidable 

 

The irony here is a biblical one and full of truth: if this throng, or any single one of them, had gotten wind of this before the precise allowed moment, it would have been an act of sinful slander. Now however, it has become the last resort. Interestingly, malicious gossip is such when it offends the process and is born out of due time. Second chances must be protected with a great and holy resolve until there is, regrettably, no more room left for secrecy.  

 

Now, second chances are redefined as last gasp chances, but with many more people being privy to the matter. This is indeed a regrettable situation in which the accused finds him-/herself, most especially if the accusation remains unjust or erroneous. Now the peril is real of many ears being irretrievably tainted. If after all these checks and balances, it is still the case that the one now on display has been wrongly accused, second chances are perhaps being deleted in direct proportion with the addition of new hearers.

 

On the other hand, if before God, the accusation is and has always been valid, but has either been unrecognizable or unacceptable by the accused, then this unenviable position in front of "the church" is not only warranted, but inevitable. Level three of the Matt. 18 process provides for this trial by ordeal, therefore, it must be just. There can be no doubting of Christ's love of justice in spelling out the process, even to this extreme. 
 

Standing Before "The Church"

 

Who must now hear the whole story is an open number: it may be everybody in the church, or perhaps a body of ruling officers or elders, depending on the church's governing rules for how these situations are to proceed. Some churches have a congregational concept and thus, the accusation might be voiced to the body of believers in open forum. Other churches have a process written into their church governance that would put this matter before a smaller group of representative church officers.

 

First, it may be thorough to mention that, just as in the original case, where the "goer" alone failed to reach a consensus with the accused person, the matter could now be dropped by a mutual agreement between the 'goer" and his witnesses. That is, the decision could be made to not pursue the accusation. Perhaps the spectre of a hearing before many might now force a reassessment of say, the severity of the wrongdoing, considering the added ears and risks involved. It may be that, through all of this angst, the original wrongdoing has rather paled when compared to all the dust that has so far been stirred up into the collective atmosphere. Hopefully, this decision would be made thoughtfully, and the aim is to do the best thing possible, with biblical wisdom and divine guidance. 

 

If the process is to continue, then the original "goer," with his/her witnesses in tow, now takes the matter to "the church," however the rules of church discipline define that word: either the entire body of believers or a smaller board of selected officers.

 

We now reach one of the last validity checks built into the Matt. 18 process: "the church" must agree with the findings and opinions of the accusing two or three. If there is a dissent here, from this larger contingent of hearers, then the "goer" has reached the same end of the line as he/she would have had reached if the witnesses had dissented when first approached. The same dynamics apply: it is over.

 

The Rarity at This Level of the Process 

 

It would be understandable for anyone to exclaim that they have never seen the Matt. 18 process reach this third level in their life in the church. Most church people haven't. It is a rare event indeed, and perhaps that's a good thing, provided the process hasn't been derailed by sinful acts of sabotage along the way. If a hearing before "the church" is rare because consensus is reached on lower levels, this is the right reason for its rarity. Too many times, this third level happens so rarely because the rules of engagement were disobeyed, destroying the process before it played out to this point.

 

Many churches do not have this process in place, and would not arrive at this volatile level by virtue of their church governance. Many churches would not consider such a "trial" to be within their authority and purview, much less within the realm of civility and propriety. There are many reasonable questions about this volatile subject of church discipline. The last paragraphs of this four-part essay on the full process of Matt. 18, will talk about the limits of church authority over any congregant or member, or for that matter, a mere attendee. Obviously, there must be limits: the church cannot presume to become a small tyrannical government.

 

By the "testimony of one or two witnesses," the original 'goer," who has borne valid and significant offense caused by the accused, has presented the case to "the church." The church as a body, whatever that contingent is, as directed by the church's written rules of governance, agrees that the accusation is just, and puts the charge to the accused. It is assumed, of course, that the accused has consented to be present and to undergo this crowded examination, which is a valid scriptural process. If the accused has refused to be examined by "the church," then there could be a hearing in absentia, or some other measure taken. One might be that a group of church officers may press a visit upon the accused. Presumably, the door would be opened to them, but who knows at this point?

 

What Can Happen at Level Three

 

What are the possibilities at this crucial level three, after a person has been officially accused before the church of wrongdoing against another or others?

 

"The Church" can hear the case of the original goer and the recruited witness(es) with or without the accused being present, depending on the particular rules of that church's articles of governance. With the accused absent at this time, whatever decisions are forthcoming by this larger body can be presented at later date to the accused, with all those present who are permitted to attend. For our purposes here, we will shorten the process one step by assuming that the accused is present at the time that the original plaintiff and the accompanying witnesses present their case to the church.

 

The Church Can Dissent

 

Remarkably, there is yet a last resort check and balance, almost rising from the grave, that can be claimed by the accused: he/she may mount a defense to these multiple witnesses that succeeds in nullifying, in the mind of the collective church, the validity of the accusation. Presumably, this is the same defense that has failed to convince either the original accuser, or the recruited witness(es). Of course, the accuser and witness(es) may have words to say in rebuttal, but let us say that "the church," after all discussion ends, is convinced that the accused is free of guilt or culpability. It is over. That it was put to rest only after reaching this public forum is regrettable but scriptural, and therefore, just.

 

The Case May Be Withdrawn

 

This is an unusual variation of the above, but perhaps worth a mention: at this point, after hearing for the third time a defense against the accusation, the original accuser, and/or the witness(es) may reconsider and withdraw the accusation. This is yet another late check against an injustice being wrought. If this happens, "the church" should honor this decision and everyone departs in peace. Again, that this outcome would tarry until multiple hearers were privy to the accusation is the least desired outcome. It is, however, an end that comes to a just conclusion, albeit, one with many observers, all of whom must now keep their minds open and their mouths shut.

 

There May Be a Decision in Absentia

 

If the accused will not submit to this final level of inquiry, decisions must necessarily be made in his/her absence, and this refusal to submit may indeed powerfully influence the final decision. It is possible that the accused may be present and still decline to participate or abide by the rules and expectations of the process. This is still an instance of being absent with respect to proper and scriptural frame of mind and intent.

 

 

The End of Disputation 

 

If the accused does offer submission to this third level of the process, and "the church" concurs with the accusation being made by the plaintiff and the recruited witness(es), then the accused person would be expected to submit also to finally accepting culpability. In other words, it is no longer permissible for the accused to further argue his case and still be true to scriptural principles. The time for argument and disputation is over at the giving of a decision by the church. 

 

Full Submission and Restoration

 

The only two things that can happen now are acceptance or rejection of the decision of the church that the accused is guilty of wrongdoing. If that decision is full submission and acceptance, then the one who must admit guilt, apologize, and repent of the misdeed, does so, and all present offer forgiveness and a promise of discretion regarding any others that were not privy to this hearing.  

 

After Restoration: An End of Words

 

There is a reasonable admonition, at this late point, to cease babbling about the sinner and the sin. Consider: whoever is present must make a vow to put this matter behind them, and a huge part of the spirit of that vow is not to keep the issue living on as fodder to be reignited over and over until everybody in the church sees and smells the fire. There is entirely too much room for slander to occur in an open-ended discussion of the matter until "everybody knows." In fact everybody does not need to know — the fewer the better — in order to satisfy the principles of the process, and then silence must ensue. Anyone who abuses the spirit of discretion, even at this level three, is just as malicious a slanderer as he/she would have been before "the goer" ever went on the first journey.

 

If the accused rejects the decision of the church that ascribes true and valid guilt to him/her, and refuses to submit to church authority in this matter, and in so doing, refuses to acknowledge culpability, withholds an apology, remains unrepentant, and asks for no forgiveness or second chances (such as they are at this point), then the chilling words of the scriptures from Christ himself, must come to pass:

 

The Discipline Administered

 

"...and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." Matt 18:17b (NIV)

 

Different churches will have different sanctions against someone who refuses to accept blame and submit to church discipline in the case of the church's ruling that the person has caused a significant breach of biblical principles, and someone or some people have suffered.  

• Some churches may excommunicate the accused and yet allow this person to remain in the congregation and attend services.

• If the non-submissive accused has any authority or is involved in any intra-church ministry, as the choir, the Sunday School, the board of elders or deacons, etc. they may be relieved of this participation.

• The scriptures, however, seem to go further, and strongly imply that any recalcitrant person accused of wrongdoing who will not repent, should be barred from the body of believers until such repentance is shown. I Cor. 5:2 speaks of removing an offender "from the fellowship." Only in this way can he be treated "like a pagan or a tax collector," who were not allowed to commune and minister with the believers without proof of faith and fruits of repentance.

• The church may also admonish all believers under that roof to avoid communication and contact with this person unless that contact heralds the return of this lost sheep, and repentance, apologies, and full submission to the church's decision is at hand. Otherwise, as long as the rebellion lasts, the separation will last and no longer.

 

What the Church Must Not Do

 

The church can treat this unrepentant one like a "pagan or a tax-collector," but not like a devil or a reprobate. He/she may be seen as outside the fold presently, but not necessarily for always. He/she must be seen with the capacity to be restored again, if a change of mind and spirit should be evident.  

 

Therefore, if he/she is put outside the church doors, then it remains essential that someone be ready to throw open those doors again if the sinner comes back with a submissive and repented spirit. If all in the church are maintaining a proper distance from this accused and recalcitrant one, then also all must be aware of his/her situation with respect to ever having the arms of the church open to receive that person back.  

 

It is therefore obvious that the church must not forget this person. The dust of his/her house is never shaken from your garment. Even though they are not presently treading common ground with the believers in fellowship, all ears are kept to the ground for any sound of a change of heart. The church must never give up on this soul. There but by the grace of God, go any of us.  

 

Many of us have escaped never being meticulously summoned through the stages of the Matt. 18 process because those we have offended have not had the will to confront us. Others of us have been guilty of sin and causing conflict, but have been rather tried in the court of slander rather than under Christ's commandments. The result is the same: we have never found ourselves before the church accused of a sin we may have already twice disputed, or never had a chance to dispute... or accept. It is an unenviable place to be in the church; those who have gone through this ordeal and may have been unable to have their wills broken in submission, need... what?... we can all say it together: "a second chance." 

 

Church Authority in Our Lives

 

Certainly, we all have heard the old complaint from those who do not believe: "How can you let an institution like the church run your lives?" or "Are you a slave or are you the master of your own soul?" Another yammer from the enlightened nations: "Why do you concede this authority to the church to pry and rummage through your sins and words and feelings, etc.?"  

 

The church's authority is limited, of course, but that authority that it does wield is scriptural, just, necessary, and reasonable from a civic and social view. Most civil and public organizations as well as private clubs and sororities have the same authority regarding whom they admit and allow to remain, but only the church is culled out and reproached as being too authoritarian and tyrannical. Why? Read the essay, "Rage."

 

Obviously (but to be thorough), the church does not have the authority to accuse, arrest, detain, try and sentence people to incarceration or execution, or even to exact from them monetary damages. That kind of authority resides only outside the church in the civic and judicial arena. The church's authority is of a different kind: it is a self-preserving, self-cleansing authority to judge personal offenses between the saints, and determine who may join in fellowship and who must not... for the good of the Body.

 

 

What About Civil Crimes?

 

In any of the four parts of this essay, it has not been discussed what the church should do if the wrongdoing seen within the fellowship is also a civil tort. Surprisingly, the N.T. seems to lean toward keeping even the breaking of some civil law within the church's purview, if possible, and of course, this depends upon the severity of the crime.

 

However, one should balance this usurping of civil judgment with the knowledge that, in N.T. times, the civil law was in the hands of stone enemies of the church, who were haters of the faith, and perhaps dangerous to believers, innocent or guilty. Some may quip that these same conditions prevail in the 21st century. 

 

If the church moves to take authority over someone who has broken a civil law, that crime must be of a restricted kind that can be righted by the church with Godly intervention, proper restitution, and provide a satisfying final outcome to the wronged party. The church must also be sure that the person (business, organization, etc.) who suffered  the effects of the crime can and will accept such an intervention, and if it turns out that such healing actions are not sufficient, the church must be ready to withdraw and let civil law take over.

 

An obvious example might be: A believer sees another of his church's fellowship engage in shoplifting. The observer goes in secrecy to the shoplifter and confronts him/her with this sin, which is also a civil crime. If the accused in this case freely admits the sin and crime, repents, is deemed to be sincere, and agrees to go back to the business from which the goods were purloined and make restitution, there is always a good chance that this act of contrition will be rewarded with no civil action. If however, the business opts to call the police, even in the face of these acts of apparent remorse, and apparent attempts to make restitution, then civil law takes over. 

 

A variation might have the observer going back by proxy to make the restitution and apology, and to ask for mercy on the behalf of the guilty party. Some might say that this by-proxy action, while perhaps being safer and more comfortable for the guilty one, is too easy a task of making things right, and that the offender should do the dirty work of cleaning up this mess. There is also the possibility that a proxy might be wrongly suspected of the theft, mucking up the waters more than anyone would dream of, confusing the business, who might then call the law on an innocent person.

 

The point is, the list of civil crimes that could be handled in this manner is quite small, and there are added risks and complications in usurping the civil/legal process. This attempt to substitute the Matt. 18 process must arrive at full justice for everyone: not an easy task in such matters. Before this gambit is tried, perhaps the one who has observed the theft should check with a church elder or the pastor, giving no names or details at this point, and ask for advice or whether to try to keep the matter inside the church walls. 

 

All serious crimes, including crimes of violence against others, or crimes involving great evil intent and criminal premeditation, cannot and should not be kept from civil jurisdiction. One might pose this example: a church member is found to be guilty of physical spousal abuse. Presumably, the abuse would be only known to the church if the abused spouse sought the church's intervention. If this is the case, and the abused spouse chose not to take it to the civil authorities, the church may well be able to invoke the Matt. 18 principles to fully resolve this matter and hopefully insure that it cannot happen again. If the crime did recur, then other decisions on jurisdiction might be made. If the abused one goes to the civil authorities, then the choice has been made by that very person who should decide. 

 

Why Does the Church Have Any Say?

 

The church gets as much say over with whom they will associate as a Moose or Elk's club. Even a lunch counter reserves the right to refuse service to anyone if rules of decorum or requirements of proper attire are not heeded. The church, being also an organization within society, can enforce reasonable rules that will insure peace, harmony, and the adherence to biblical principles among its attendees. It can oust anyone that is boisterous and disruptive in the services; it can address breaches of the peace within its own walls using scriptural precepts. It can demote those in authority for wrongdoing. It can set up a table of restitution and mandate other good deeds that will be counted as a balance to previous sins.

 

Some who view the church and religion cynically might say that the church's spiritual responsibilities to society strip the church of any say in whom it will associate. Not so, and the scriptures do not support any capitulation of the church to the dictates and evil intentions of any and all enemies. A reading of what is called the "small commission," (as opposed to the "Great Commission"), recorded in Matt. 10:1- 42, given only to the twelve Apostles, lays out a code of conduct for those seeking to preach the gospel to different sets of listeners with contrasting attitudes. That code does not include any admonitions from Christ to aid and abet, or ignore those who have no good will toward the gospel and to the message of the church. The church has a right and a biblical mandate to protect itself from evil intruders and those who would be enemies to the faith.

 

In short, the church can do anything other organizations, clubs, fraternities, businesses, associations, and guilds can do in order to protect their interests and preserve their viability to continue to exist. The fact that it's a church asserting this selfsame (but limited) authority, is irrelevant except to enemies of the church. Their not-in-good-faith opinions are skewed with bias, and perhaps hatred, and can be roundly ignored. The church retains authority to deal with internal strife, and Christ certifies this authority in Holy Writ with resounding logic. Now, if only we would take advantage of the Great Solution of Matt. 18.

 

Michael Roy

Dec. 2014