You have obeyed the scriptural rules of engagement: first and foremost, you have not disseminated malicious gossip about the conflict behind the back of the person to whom you are going. You go, not as a slanderer, not as a backbiter, but as a bearer of second chances. You are the proper person to go, in that you are the offended party, or you are an eyewitness to the alleged wrongdoing in question. You have determined that the issue has sufficient gravity to warrant invoking the process of Matt. 18. Finally, you are going in utmost discretion, having not told any other people about this matter, or even that you are going, so that all that happens will be "between the two of you."  

 

If all these rules have been obeyed, then you can go with the purpose of restoring a Christian brother or sister to fellowship with you and the Lord. You are going for resolution to some conflict that weighs on you and perhaps on the person to whom you go. You are going, not merely to accuse, but to commensurate, communicate, restore, and forgive.

 

In that you have kept this matter between the two of you, the one who will be accused will know that you do not have revenge in mind, but restoration of a Christian brother or sister. You may be going to a surprise in fact, if the conflict is not a conflict at all, but can be explained and/or lessened in some way that makes it fade or disappear. But you are going. What can happen now? These things can happen:

 

Misunderstanding

 

The first possibility is that you may be amazed to learn that the entire "conflict" was instead, a mere misunderstanding. There are many explanations for this outcome: language is always betraying us; words sometimes have elusive meanings and are often misinterpreted, taken out of context, or misheard.  

 

Say you are a member of the choir and you are highly offended because the director, in front of everyone, referred to you as an "elephant," and here you were desperately trying to take off that 20 extra pounds without being insulted in this manner. You "go," and you say: "I am hurt because you told the whole choir that I was a noteworthy elephant in the music program. You shouldn't have called me an elephant!  I am very sensitive about my weight and I...." "Wait," the director says, "I didn't call you a noteworthy elephant, I said you were a noteworthy element in the music program!" You let this sink in. "You didn't call me an elephant?" "No!... an element... a noteworthy one!" You say, "Oh!.. that's different!.. I uh,.. misheard!"

 

If only all misunderstanding and mishearing could be this cut and dried, but unfortunately there are many degrees of complexity and nuance in words in the attempt at salient communication. This rather cardboard cutout example is just that: an example of what can happen in the world of words. If there is a misunderstanding in play, it will likely be more convoluted than merely confusing two similarly sounding words. This is where a face-to-face talk and personal communication are important: to make sure the "conflict" is authentic and not a foul-up of language, context, or intent.

 

If the conflict can be seen, through communication and explanation, to not be real, and to be rather just an unfortunate misunderstanding, then to "go" was a brilliant idea and a way to resolve all things. The goer then can leave with a light heart – and it might be beneficial to cover even this mere misunderstanding in discretion. However, since no sin has been committed, then no slander can be manufactured from the incident. Whether or not  it is kept under wraps can be discussed between "the two."

 

Mitigation

 

Let's say a sin is woven somewhere into the fabric of this coat-of-offense that the goer wears, but it is more a loose thread than a huge rent. If through communication, the conflict can be demoted in rank between the two, then the sin itself has also been mitigated. In fact, personal discussion may even lead to both parties acknowledging the "loose thread" and agreeing to tuck it smoothly back beneath the weave. It may happen that the wrongdoing in question, though perhaps real enough, is no longer sufficiently weighty to rise to the threshold of invoking Matt. 18, and the goer now becomes the departer, and the conflict is resolved by attrition.

 

Mitigation may still leave the need for an apology and seeking forgiveness, but on a much smaller scale than was originally conceived by the "goer." To have a conflict that can be lessened in size and severity is the best scenario other than a complete misunderstanding, and it may even be better than a misunderstanding in the final tally, which is: conflict over. No one need ever hear of this. Godspeed.

 

Restoration 

.

Ah, there is an offense, a real one alas, and it is of a proper weight to warrant all this travel time, angst and confrontation. It is no mere thread, but a ragged rip in the continuum of fellowship and peace between two people and must be repaired by the process.

 

It may happen, that you the "goer," may begin to outline your grievance to that person who has committed the offence and in half-sentence, the guilty one may take over and complete your thought. The accused may have been waiting for this golden opportunity for restoration and fairly completes your accusation, and words it better than you could have. The first thing on the mind of the accused is not to deny, nor to equivocate, but to confess and ask forgiveness, and it takes no effort to get to this good place. 

 

But even if the whole of the conflict must be laid out, and the accused reminded –convinced – brought into conviction – the end result, by any path, is still restoration. The one who has committed the offense proffers a sincere apology. Forgiveness is sought. The apology is accepted and the aggrieved one is no longer aggrieved, and forgives.  

 

There may even be talk, in the future, of seeing fruits of repentance and some restitution, but the healing process ensues, and a brother or sister is restored to fellowship in the Lord with another brother or sister. The one who confesses his sin here also confesses it at the same time to God. The Bible tells us to confess our sins one to another and the very thought is that by this act of naked contrition and repentance we are simultaneously confessing it to God above. Therefore, fellowship is restored to the two on earth and between these and God in a complete spiritual triangle of forgiveness. The goer may joyfully depart and does so making vows of discretion. 

 

It is important to consider what happens now:

 

• The conflict is over. It cannot be brought back as a lumbering reanimated monster that won't die: it is dead and must remain so. Any attempt to make further hay in this abandoned field is an affront to the Matt. 18 process, and is itself a sin. Optimally, no mention is ever made of it again as we follow the example of God to forget the sin and remember it no more.  

• This finished matter cannot be further disseminated except to these people: no one –and only for this long: forever. If this promise of discretion is broken, it becomes malicious slander merely delayed, and destroys the restoration and the promise of second chances. Real second chances only can exist in the uninfected and pathogen-free sanctuary of a holy secrecy. The one who has gone, goes no more, neither back to extract more penitence, nor to a third party to spill the beans.

• Both may rejoice in that the two are restored to one another and to God. This event should then be a lesson on how to live in peace with one another, such that this may not have to happen again. Perhaps this is why this arduous process, this unsavory confrontation that seems so difficult, is necessary: that we may learn how better to live together as members in the Body of Christ – and this rigorous ordeal makes us clamor to avoid it in the future.

 

Reciprocal Restoration

 

The one going to accuse another of an offense may discover that he/she is also going to be accused, and in fact the conflict has blame to spare all around. Often, an unfortunate incident between two people is not simply one-sided, with only one of the two being guilty of harsh words or unkind actions. In this case, both may find it necessary to own up to breaking Biblical principles, and the situation becomes reciprocal: two people telling each other that they regret something done or said that has caused distress. Obviously, the same principles apply except now, both have confessions to make, forgiveness to mete out, and discretion to promise. This reciprocal situation also doubles the chance that a disagreement will arise, and we will now look at those difficult encounters that do not go smoothly but rather cause some sort of disagreement.

 

Disagreement and then Consensus

 

The number of times the "goer" discovers a heartbroken and contrite person awaiting who wants to redress the grievance at hand and yearns for forgiveness is over time matched by the number of times a profound disagreement will arise.  The accused person may dispute the facts or interpretation of the incident, or deny any wrongdoing whatsoever.  Where consensus is the end result, two scenarios are possible: 

1. The accused may persuade the accuser that in fact, there was no intent to commit an offense, and that none was committed, or at least, no conflict worth pursuing with this vigor and resolve. In this first scenario, the situation must be logged under "misunderstanding," and the conflict goes away, and the accuser, now unburdened of an accusation, also goes away.  The same dynamics of a miscue then apply. 

2. The accused one's disagreement that he/she had any intent to do mischief may be hearty, and hopefully, candid and guileless. Eventually, however, the accused, after heartfelt communication, realizes that he/she has indeed caused some conflict that has harmed the one who came to bare the soul.  After the disagreement has been answered, a consensus is reached, and apogies, forgiveness, and discretion are in order, and the situation follows the course of full restoration. 

 

Disagreement With No Consensus

 

This is the pivotal point where the conflict may escalate to involve persons other than "just the two of you."  The discussion has failed to achieve a resolution and there is no restoration.  After a disagreement on the issues on the part of the accused,  no consensus is reached.  There are actually two contrasting scenarios here:

 

1. The accused person has disagreed on the facts or interpretation of the conflict, or denied ill intent, or in some way, has rejected the accusation, and as far as can be ascertained, does this with no guile.  In other words, the accused is honestly saying: "I am not guilty of wrongdoing and disobeying Biblical principles." He/she further seems to be forthright in this denial of guilt.   If no consensus can be achieved, after due communication, the accuser should withdraw with as little of the meat of contention ripped from the bone as possible.  There may be another day to try again, under different circumstances, and the waters must not be further muddied with more discord. The third part of this essay discusses the options available if no consensus is achieved and the conflict is not resolved.

2. This second scenario is the most egregious and the one least desired.  The accused does not disagree as to facts or intent, and in fact tacitly acknowledges guilt in creating some offense and sinning against Biblical principles, and yet refuses to repent out of recalcitrance, anger or rebellion.  It may be that raw words to this effect are not mouthed, but the intent is clear: the accused knows or seems to know he/she is guilty before God and the accuser in this offense, and yet, will not submit to the process to offer an apology and seek forgiveness.  The end result is the same as the first scenario: there is disagreement and no consensus.  Part III takes up the possible escalation of conflict resolution as described in Matt. 18. The relative serenity of "just the two of you" is about to burgeon into a busier ordeal.