Elders Behaving Badly: Matthew 18 Isn't The Only Way To Deal With Sin

Amidst all the commotion over bloggers who have aired their complaints against so-called abusive leaders, there is the belief that those who have done so have failed to follow the prescription set down in Matthew 18 for confronting their offenders.  This perceived failure to follow the black and white teachings of Jesus on the matter [or red and white as the case may be] have led many to dismiss out of hand any stories told.  Nevermind whether those stories are true, it's that they are told in the first place that is the problem.

Well, there is a flaw in this line of thinking.  The flaw is the assumption that Matthew 18 is the one and only way to deal with sin, even when - or especially when - church leaders are involved.  A good look at Matthew 18 will reveal an important assumption that Jesus makes when he gives this method.  Actually there are a number of assumptions - and I will look at these here - but the overarching assumption is one of accountability.  The sinning offender will be accountable to you, to witnesses and to the church.

First, "If  your brother sins, go and show him..." This first step assumes that the offender is approachable.  Then, "...Show him his fault in private" This makes the assumption that the offender is willing to listen.  Following, "If he listens to you [i.e. agrees with you and decides to repent], you have won your brother"  makes the assumption the offender might just do so.  This first step of confronting one who sins is a step of optimism.  There is the hope that this will restore the sinner.

Next, the second step, "If he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed."  Again, there is the assumption that the offender is even now open to listening further to your argument - open enough to listen to witnesses that further your claim.  The third step is key here.  "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church."  This is a huge assumption.  This assumes the church will be agreeing with you.  Not with the sinner, but with you.  Not only this, but "and if he refuses to listen even to the church..." makes the assumption that not only will the church take your side, but the church as a whole will be confronting the offender.  Each step in the process, Jesus is making optimistic assumptions about the results.

This brings me back to the bloggers who tell the stories of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse.  Their stories are completely different than the optimistic picture Jesus paints about confronting those who sin.  In these cases - and the big stories come to mind; Mars Hill, CJ Mahaney and SGM, Beaverton Grace Bible Church; but there are many, many more small stories - in these cases the church leaders are outside of accountability.  They are unapproachable.  They won't listen, and they don't listen.  In many of the cases of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse, the church leaders hold to systematic sins.  Sins that are taught to their churches as a way of life.  These churches have many people who lack discernment and swallow the teachings of these leaders.  They've already drank the KoolAid.  These churches can't recognize that the offended people realize that the offense really is sin.  These churches won't confront their leaders because they don't see the sin.  Or if they do, they are so afraid of what their leaders will do to them that they keep silent.  This makes it difficult or even impossible to get two or three witnesses to confront somebody who is unavailable in the first place.  In addition, these leaders have peers who have bought into the same system and have taught their churches the same things.  Their peers will not hold them accountable either.

Then to make matters even worse, they use their power to attack the offended people in any way they can, to discredit them, to slander them, to call the church to shun them.

How is Matthew 18 even possible in situations such as these?  I've already gone long here, so discussing other means to address sin - especially the sin of leaders - will have to be left for another post.

Elders Behaving Badly

The following is taken from a Facebook comment by Kevin Johnson, who blogs at ReformedCatholicism.com.  Kevin responds to two FB commenters who state that speaking publicly of one's spirutual abuse stories amounts to the blemishing of the good name of Christ, soiling the reputation of the church, aiding the enemy, and other such things.

Johnson has a much different view and responds to the commenters in what I think is a reasonable fashion, and calls attention to some things not routinely addressed in the blogoshpere over such matters.  I think his comment is valuable for us to read in the light of the many recent stories of authoritarianism and abuse coming out on the internet.  Kevin graciously allowed me to post his comment here on From the Pew.

-------

It is a mistake of course to pretend that passages like 1 Timothy 5:19 and 1 Corinthians 6 woodenly apply to particular situations involving spiritual abuse when no real justice is available for the offended party via traditional means. Really, though, when does the Law of God ever woodenly apply without recourse to godly wisdom? While I agree that we should not go to secular law courts in general to solve Christian-only issues, there are times when such is required as a result of spiritual and/or physical abuse. In our society, aside from civil charges, criminal charges are brought by the State anyway and not by individuals. In the case of sexual and physical abuse on the part of ministers any such activity should be reported and brought to the authorities because that is generally required by law. So, we can't just quote 1 Cor. 6 and say that's the end of the story.

In America, freedom of religion makes real discipline in any Reformed environment absolutely voluntary and well beyond the sort of environment where all parties are able to receive justice at the hands of an ecclesial court. Denominational loyalties also generally preclude any sort of fair trial for laymen when brought against an elder and therefore one should think long and hard before going down that road. Sometimes the only right recourse is just to let people know what happened.

In the case of elders behaving badly and participating in spiritual and other abuse, the church needs to take care of the real widows and orphans caused by such men in the life of the church and not pretend that double honor is due only where an office exists and no real performer of that office is found except in the manifest ways he can display and model wickedness in the community of the faithful. The most severe punishment in the Scriptures is reserved for those who knew better yet still violated the term and intent of their office.

The warnings in Matthew 23 do not appear to be cushioned with the sort of statements wanting to preserve the good name of Jesus Christ, the reputation of the church, or the right of the local church to handle the problem contra making it so public. Rather, Christ matter-of-factly calls out men by name -- those sitting in the seat of Moses -- in a rather small community of people who undoubtedly knew who he was talking about. Furthermore, Christ makes clear to show the community that the system is broken and only prophetic rebuke and his coming is left to fix it. So, there is no need to think this could even be handled by local church discipline as John 9-10 make quite clear. And, the sort of descriptive terms our Lord used generally outweigh any sort of invective we've seen in the likes of testimony against people like Mark Driscoll in the links above.

The prophets of the Old Testament mirror similar concerns in passages like Ezekiel 34 where the messianic promise of Christ is wrapped up in freeing men and women from oppression at the hands of pastors and ministers behaving badly. In other words, the behavior displayed by those who practice spiritual abuse and ministerial malpractice is directly opposed to the mission and work of the gospel in and among the community of the people of God. Paul, too, has no problem excoriating certain men by name when found to be in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ even to the point of wishing them emasculated.

In Reformed circles, we are happy to eject men both out of the ministry and the church on what may seem the smallest of theological technicalities (cf. Frame, "Machen's Warrior Children") but we will not take similar action when similar men abuse their ministerial authority and use the leadership they have in ways that are unfaithful to God. This is a huge inconsistency that shows us where our real loyalties lie as Reformed church men and women. Often, we demonstrate that we care for our doctrines and our pet leaders more than we care for our fellow believers. And, that's just idolatry.

The Reformers of course had no problem speaking against ministerial corruption and naming names. Sometimes, they even used anonymous and very drastic means to do so in ways that would make even the strongest among us today wince. For example, I haven't seen anyone draw a cartoon where Mark Driscoll is ushering demons out of his posterior and other sorts of lambasting sixteenth-century divines had for those who supported the papacy. That's hardly an objective and fair rendering of the truth sufficient for us to make a qualified decision on the matter (as if the real reason for making things public is so we have the right to decide)! Somehow the Reformers knew they were telling the truth and had authority to speak prophetically in the community. Christians have not lost that today either in spite of what [commenter #1] or [commenter #2] might argue. For all their interesting methods, the Reformers valued transparency and consistency in calling a spade a spade and that was most certainly true in exposing ministerial corruption. Why we can't do the same is beyond me.

Telling the truth is not a scandal and does not hurt the name of Jesus Christ. If that were true, the Bible would be so much more bland than it is--filled with the details of corruption prophetically confronted even in the highest of sacred places in both the Old and New Testaments. It is only when we attempt to hide the truth that real scandal comes and continues to be enabled. Providing the truth on the Internet does not aid the enemy. The enemy is aided by works of darkness which elders behaving badly do in spades and under cover of their title and work because many congregants don't take their fellow believers seriously over and above their devotion to their pastoral leaders even when presented with irrefutable evidence from a variety of reliable sources or witnesses.

And, to tell people to be quiet when they speak against their leaders when you have no basis to judge the veracity of their comments can be just as damaging to the truth as not. Since you don't know what the truth is, speaking against outspoken voices can work to unduly silence those whom God has moved to make certain things public quite outside normal means. Rather, we should let anyone speak as they feel led and then the church and community can work to take action as required. After all, how many witnesses did Nathan bring to David? Or, Elijah to Jezebel? Yet, would it not be a mistake to have been there and spoken against God's prophets and his word to David or Jezebel? We have to realize that the call to silence a voice is as much a judgment as one that raises a concern in the larger community of the faithful -- and that's the hypocrisy of the position presented to us by [commenter #1] and [commenter #2] even if they haven't personally come to such conclusions.

Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and curse not. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. - Rom 12:9-16 NASB

Matthew 18 and Confronting Abusive Church Leaders

Kevin Johnson at Communio Sanctorum writes an interesting piece, titled Principles Not Procedures, about dealing with spiritual abuse coming from church leaders.  One of his points is that the Matthew 18 passage we are all so familiar with isn't necessarily the one we need to follow in addressing church leaders.

No one doubts that Matthew 18 is a relevant passage in dealing with resolving offenses between brothers, but the procedure outlined in Matthew 18:15-17 is set in a very specific context that is often overlooked. In churches where spiritual abuse is occurring particularly at the hands of ministers and pastors who rule by fear, intimidation, and the inordinate and inappropriate use of Scripture–passages like this can become a very powerful weapon to accomplish and maintain abuse instead of legitimate repentance and reconciliation...

...The tragedy is that if you don’t follow a procedure like this in many abusive church environments, you will be called on the carpet for disobeying our Lord’s words, acting against his ministers wrongly, and encouraging division in the covenant community.

Johnson also points out that many abusive methods of leadership are simply learned from others, so appeal to higher authorities within church structures may make no difference.  If you have ever been subject to abuse from church leadership, know somebody who has, or are simply interested in the topic, I urge you to read Johnson's post.