Matthew 18:15-20 is such a helpful passage when you feel someone has sinned against you. It encourages you to talk to them in private to point out the sin or offence. (Maturity now makes me realize that when you do this, there’s the possibility of hearing another side to the story, which makes you reconsider too.) Then, if there’s no repentance, you involve a couple of elder-type Christians. Only in the face of continued defiance would it finally become a public matter for discipline in the church.
Notice there’s no room for gossip or whinging to others! Churches would enjoy improved relationships if we could follow these principles.
For me personally, it was a revolution to discover the Matthew 18 principle of dealing direct with the person with whom I had a conflict. However, in the way of young men, I then became a bit mechanical in applying the principles. You can end up thinking you must raise every little ‘beef’ or gripe you have with another person.
So it was terrific last year to read Proverbs 12:16 in my ‘quiet times’: “A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult”. It put into words what I’d intuitively worked out—that sometimes we just need to let something ‘go through to the keeper’ (to the ‘backstop’ for American readers!) without taking a swing at it.
There are many times now when I can overlook something that annoys or grieves me. But although I may not show my annoyance in words so much, my wife would still tell you I sometimes show it in my facial expressions … and that can be just as powerful. I need to pray for the Holy Spirit’s particular fruit of self-control!
The need often to overlook and forgive an offence is John Macarthur’s first point in this helpful little article on when to confront the sinner and when to forgive and forget. One additional issue that Macarthur does not explicitly deal with here is this: if you need to ‘confront’ someone over a sin, the way you do it is very important. We are to do it with gentleness and humility (see Gal 6:1-3), without quarrelsomeness or resentment and with much prayer (see 2 Tim 2:24-26).
Sandy raises interesting issues for those who live in Medialand. How should Matt 18 affect journalism, especially by christians of other christians?
Would it determine how a book review is written?
Thanks Sandy, excellent insight.
Oh, a link to the passage at bible gateway would be great.
I guess the comment’… with much prayer (see 2 Tim 2:24-26).’ is implied and yes, very true. The rest of that passage is interesting in this respect. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Tim 2:24-26;&version=31. I have had the experience of being on the ‘outer’ by raising an issue of one who sins against the congregation and all processes of the Matthew passage mentioned were persued. It was a year later that the believers in that place realised the full impact of the sin and were totally devastated. It is really very important to be obedient to our Lord, even in things that may cause us pain. Because, in the end, the Lord’s will is done. Prayer was my only way of dealing with this issue in the end because the believers were deceived, but the Lord knew what was going on in secret. Less pain for others if the person who is warned repents so that others are not harmed.
Michael, thanks for the suggestion.
John, interesting question. I’d like your own reflections since you know the industry much better than me!
Matthew 18 is written about Christians addressing Christians and in the context of a band of disciples, and so is most immediately applicable in the similar context of a local church today. Of course, much is applicable to Christians dealing with Christians in other contexts, and probably the principles have some applicability even more widely with non-believers.
However Matthew 18 is not the only material relevant to church discipline and the giving of warning and correction. The NT gives examples of serious and notorious public sins being corrected publicly and immediately (Ananias and Sapphira, and perhaps the man committing incest in 1 Corinthians 5). Paul opposed Peter to his face in Galatians 2. And false teaching seems to be corrected publicly, in strong language and with names named in some cases (e.g. 2 Timothy 2). Public sins and errors seems to be addressed more in the public arena.
In the case of journalism and book reviews, I guess this means that a Christian might legitimately critique another Christian who has spoken or written in the public arena, in what you judge to be error, without first speaking to them in private. It might be a good idea to try, but I do not think it is mandated, and it’s not always possible. If you want to make public pronouncements, or to promote your ideas in public then you can expect to have your ideas critiqued.
Of course, what I said about the manner of the critique in my original post still stands.
<i>if you need to ‘confront’ someone over a sin, the way you do it is very important. We are to do it with gentleness and humility (see Gal 6:1-3), without quarrelsomeness or resentment and with much prayer (see 2 Tim 2:24-26)</i>
It’s hard to argue with the idea of confronting only after much prayer, and doing so humbly. But gently? That has to be the first, and even second response in most cases. But most of the OT prophets, in most of their writings against rank sinners, were not particularly gentle. Amos 4:1!!
Maybe the passages are quoted and there is a typo error, because when I look them up they don’t match the quoted references:
Galatians 6:1-3 Contemporary English Version (CEV) Copyright © 1995 by American Bible Society
Galatians 6
1My friends, you are spiritual. So if someone is trapped in sin, you should gently lead that person back to the right path. But watch out, and don’t be tempted yourself. 2You obey the law of Christ when you offer each other a helping hand.
3If you think you are better than others, when you really aren’t, you are wrong.
2 Timothy 2:24-26 Contemporary English Version (CEV) Copyright © 1995 by American Bible Society
24and God’s servants must not be troublemakers. They must be kind to everyone, and they must be good teachers and very patient.
25Be humble when you correct people who oppose you. Maybe God will lead them to turn to him and learn the truth. 26 They have been trapped by the devil, and he makes them obey him, but God may help them escape.
Sandy,
I came across a book review in which the reviewer commends an author for displaying the characteristics you commend. He puts it better than I could.
Mike Ovey on John Piper on NT Wright (interesting trio):
…..At the same time, Piper’s presentation also models godliness, and in a number of ways. First, his tone is consistently respectful rather than dismissive, and charitable rather than damning. At times, works of refutation can leave a slightly bitter taste in the mouth, with a possible sense that the one being refuted is in fact being hunted. Piper avoids this both by assuming the best about the motives of the writer he critiques, but also by asking NTW simply for greater clarity on some of the matters raised, and stressing that he is writing of the impression created by some of NTW’s work.
Moreover, in sending a draft of the book to NTW, Piper at least tried to ensure his impressions were not mis-impressions. Piper is not trying to paint some-one into a corner, and implicitly, and perhaps unconsciously, challenges his readers to contend without being contentious.
Secondly, Piper’s section on first century Judaism touches on something that goes well beyond the current debate on the New Perspective. The reader is faced with the issue of the perversion even of grace into another form of exaltation of the self, and it would be a brave person who said evangelicals were immune from this fault or the temptation to it.
Thirdly, Piper poses a challenge for any Christian theologian. Given that we are all members of Christ’s body together, how do we talk to one another in ways and in words that minimize misunderstanding? It can be tempting to dismiss some of the terms of the past in one’s efforts to speak of what one thinks the scriptures teach. And perhaps sometimes this should be so. But there can equally be times where one’s own original soundbite does not clarify, but confuses.
Piper has reminded me that the good theologian should have a pastor’s heart, seeking God’s truth as he has revealed it, but seeking to speak it in love, humility and servant-heartedness, rather than egotism and arrogance. I am as grateful to Piper for that reminder as I am for his re-statement of the great truth of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
Mike Ovey
It is currently on the ACL site.
NTTW is gracious back at http://trevinwax.com/2008/04/24/trevin-wax-interview-with-nt-wright-on-surprised-by-hope/#section9
Sorry Sandy, can’t be nice !!
Gentleness, humility, servanthood, lowliness of mind. Not the key traits of Sydney evangelicals in my experience. When I had a dispute in these groups, I would start gently (would be knocked back by a gang of MTS youths with social manipulative bullying, they did it to my fiance in Sydney too behind her back) before we went out. After finding this to be universal behaviour with MTS recruits and converts, I took it to “elders,” MTS leaders, they dismissed everything I said (some of your top people, one in Mathias), I explained what had happened in Sydney, (I was called a slanderer). When I resorted to just outright biblical hard cutting, aggressive facts (I am told to be gentle) and am condemned for being a nut, sinful, and unloving). What to do ? Is that why the Reformation happened ? I expected more from my evangelical brothers.
I tried to stick up for the weak, the people persecuted by the MTS influence. I tried to correct people that were bullying others and putting down Christians not of their genre. And then they bullied me, and I don’t give up easy ! And I tried to spanner the works when they selectively excluded people with great gifts for God, for their bum chums.
These folk have never repented of their sin as far as I know, because these groups self reinforce themselves as being right always. Like Tony says, Why change anything ?
Wake UP and see the light of Jesus.
Reconciliation is beautiful when it is possible. Sadly the number of denominations reflect the inability of Christians to really resolve disputes. Maybe this is part of God’s plan, is it harder to destroy smaller little organisations than one big one ?
I look forward to the day when we can all worship and relate in Spirit and in Truth.
To others, you can see my interaction with Alf on this matter of his hurts with MTS on the thread on Calvinism, where I recognise that MTS is far from perfect and yet also the source of much blessing.
To Alf, I would urge you that just because you feel others have failed in this area of conflict resolution, this is never an excuse to fail in our own gentleness or to ignore scriptural teaching on avoiding a harsh and judgmental spirit.
I also do not think the fairly impersonal nature of the internet is the place to try and go any further in resolving the obvious hurt you feel about MTS, nor really for you to outline/detail your hurts beyond the generalities.
I would suggest that if you do wish to discuss a particular personal example, that in this forum a more appropriate thing would be to disguise the church or organisation you wish to critique. It is very hard to address criticism of un-named individuals in an organisation, and it tends to blacken others associated with the group who may have nothing to do with the situation.
There may be other more personal routes still available to explore the matter if you think it worthwhile. (I notice Paul brought in a third party to help Euodia and Syntyche in Philippians 4:2-3.)
Of course, there comes a time, when two godly (yet sinful) people cannot resolve a conflict. Witness Paul and Barnabas and their “sharp disagreement” over John Mark in Acts 15:36-41. They went their separate ways. Thankfully, Paul was apparently restored to good terms with Mark later (2 Tim 4:11) and did not feel that Mark’s desertion was fatal for all possibilities of future fellowship and co-operation in ministry.
However sometimes, we must go our separate ways for a time.
I found this post on how to work at remaining humble by John Piper very helpful. It’s especially directed to pastors. But it has some relevance to this area of conflict resolution too.
Seems as if conflict causes hurt and also has the capacity to initiate growth. I once read an article about ‘Feeding your Enemy’ Discipleship Journal Issue Sixty Seven One, 1992. The main focus of the article was to do with ‘forgiveness’ and communicating Gods’s character. Of course, it had nothing to do with letting the transgessor get off ‘scot free’ but merely to provide an means of forgiveness that leads to repentance. The passages quoted throughout are: Matt. 6:12-15, 18:21-35, Mark 11:25, Luke 6:37, 7:47, 17:3-4, Romans 12:20-21 with a focus on Jesus’ forgiveness of those who crucified him at the cross. A quote from the article goes as ‘To forgive another means to cancel a debt in order to provide a door of opportunity for (1) repentence and (2) restoration of the broken relationship.
Seriously, from my own experience, I may have found that Christians who are not fanatical on observing the Word of God may generally be warmer and more loving, but they also have been more likely to give in to temptation and in the long run have a negative impact on believers. I have had leaders in liberal churches ostracise me because I studied at Moore College, those same leaders were in adulterous relationships, inclined to be in gay relationships, were lovers of themselves and forgoing their families and they were likely to embezzle, lie and ‘get rid; of effective leaders in the church.
Ultimately in the end, we grow more in the Lord if we are honest with ourselves and accountable to the Word and the church. After all, I believe Jesus was the only one who lived a perfect life.