Today’s
Gospel reading has probably prompted more misbehavior than it has curbed. The
first verse alone has justified many a meanness. I imagine there have been pious proclamations
like this:
“Well,
John, Matthew 18:15 clearly says if another member of the church sins, you must
go to them and point that out. So I’m
just following scripture when I tell you, with all the love in my heart, that
you’re making our lives a living hell.”
Or
this:
“Sara
Jane, I don’t mean to hurt your feelings.
But I got inspired by the preacher’s sermon last Sunday, so I need to
tell you, honey, that potato salad you bring to every potluck is a sin against
our taste buds. For God’s sake, next time just pick up a tub of some halfway
decent potato salad at the Winn Dixie.”
And
then there are the truly horrific acts perpetrated against Christians by other
Christians who believe it’s their responsibility to excommunicate the erring
ones from church—and even from family. What’s happening to gay youth in church
settings is also happening in family settings because churches continue to
teach that gay, lesbian, and transgender people must be expelled. Such
soul-killing rejection was secretly captured by 20-year-old Daniel Pierce, who’d
recently come out to his Christian family and whose videotaped disownment went
viral last week. (Please beware of potentially offensive language and extremely disturbing behavior.): (http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/secretly_recorded_coming_out_video_that_is_every_lgbt_child_s_nightmare_goes_viral).
When Daniel’s parents and grandparents ganged up on him with verbal and physical attacks, they justified their disownment because “the Word of God” trumped the biological and psychological evidence Daniel presented that he did not CHOOSE to be gay. His parents and grandparents responded by demeaning him, cursing him, striking him. “What is wrong with you people?” he asked repeatedly, trying to fend off their blows. “What is wrong with you people?” we viewers gasp after witnessing their rage.
When Daniel’s parents and grandparents ganged up on him with verbal and physical attacks, they justified their disownment because “the Word of God” trumped the biological and psychological evidence Daniel presented that he did not CHOOSE to be gay. His parents and grandparents responded by demeaning him, cursing him, striking him. “What is wrong with you people?” he asked repeatedly, trying to fend off their blows. “What is wrong with you people?” we viewers gasp after witnessing their rage.
What
is wrong? Churches are teaching that members of families and faith communities should
monitor one another for group-sanctioned conduct. And the codes of conduct
they’re upholding are archaic.
Maybe
today’s Gospel reading has contributed to this misperception of the Christian
calling. What was Jesus thinking when he uttered words that can so easily be
misconstrued by the self-righteous to authorize self-appointed nitpicking, character
assassination, and worse? What was Jesus thinking when he let loose advice that
could so easily harm rather than help?
Well,
Jesus probably did not offer this advice. It was attributed to Jesus by the
writers of Matthew’s Gospel, but these teachings make sense in the context of
the Matthean community a couple of generations later rather than in the context
of Jesus’s ministry. Remember Jesus was trying to build a reform movement
rather than create a new institution with structures and rules. Matthew is the
only Gospel in which this teaching appears. But similar guidelines
for “reproving members and resolving conflict” were developed by other groups
in the first century Near East. For instance, Greco-Roman city councils or
assemblies—called ekklesia, the Greek
word translated as church in the New
Testament—as well as other voluntary associations “exercised disciplinary power
including exclusion” over their members.[i] Some Jewish groups, drawing from Lev. 19:
15-19, also had practices of expelling members if there were two witnesses to misconduct. Matthew’s instruction is similar to and was likely
influenced by these practices used to maintain group cohesion. But Matthew’s
teachings lack the detailed procedures and penalties of the other groups I’ve
mentioned. Besides, the Matthean community sought, above all, to “restore the
offender to reconciled relationship in the community.” So Matthew borrowed this process from the larger culture but adapted it in a more gracious way. Two
thousand years later our own culture has perhaps reinterpreted these practices but
in a more punitive direction.
Again, Jesus was building a movement, not creating organizational structures and rules. But a generation or two later, his followers, who were by then more organized, were dealing with issues of group identity and internal conflict. They were figuring out how to structure their life together. What we now call the Gospel of Matthew was written for the needs of this particular group of early Christians.
Again, Jesus was building a movement, not creating organizational structures and rules. But a generation or two later, his followers, who were by then more organized, were dealing with issues of group identity and internal conflict. They were figuring out how to structure their life together. What we now call the Gospel of Matthew was written for the needs of this particular group of early Christians.
We,
too, new church, are learning how to be a community—with roles and processes
and traditions and a certain amount of structure for sustainability. We, too,
have to deal with issues of identity and conflict. But like any group, we need
to develop healthy ways to communicate and deal with inevitable issues of conflict. If
we don’t take Matthew’s words too, well, religiously, they may prove helpful.
Let’s
return to verse 15 in the light of Jesus’s overarching concerns of love of
neighbor, care for the marginalized, and practices of forgiveness and see how
we might translate this advice into our setting. We can respect the fact that an
earlier community that followed in the ways of Jesus adopted steps for
dealing with conflict. But we have the freedom and responsibility to interpret
these guidelines for our own needs and context. Three questions may help us unpack the instructions in
verse 15. But first I must admit that I do none of this easily or well myself. Like
most people, my instinct is either to avoid conflict—or respond too
aggressively. I did not learn healthy conflict resolution growing up. But we
can learn together:
“If
another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when
the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that
one.”
We
begin by analyzing the first clause: “If
another member of the church sins against you . . . ." How do we know if someone
has sinned against us? Maybe we should start by suspecting our sense that we've been sinned against.. Just because
I feel hurt doesn’t mean I’ve been injured. Maybe I should check facts if I was injured through hearsay. Maybe I should question my own perception of being aggrieved. Maybe I should ask myself if I’ve been overly
sensitive to an unintended slight or made too
much of an isolated mistake? Maybe this
incident should be ignored. But especially if I feel it’s for the good of the
community to name this injury or if the relationship with this person will
otherwise be in jeopardy or if a real injustice has been committed, I need to take responsibility for the relationship,
for my own feelings, and for preventing further harm.
“Go
and point out the fault when the two of you are alone,” Matthew continues. A
one-on-one conversation implies that I should not draw in others through gossip
or innuendo or talking to that person through a third party. But how exactly do
I point out their fault? First, I need
to be centered in genuine concern for the welfare of this other person—which takes
prayerful preparation. It may also require me to give that other person the
benefit of the doubt. I am going to assume that person has good intentions
toward me unless/until there is strong evidence otherwise. Then I will try to
choose direct words and calm tone to communicate my concern for them and my
understanding of our conflict. I’ll try to use I-language to describe how I
experienced the situation that has caused me concern or harm. I’ll admit I may not have all the information
about the event and invite his or her perspective.
Matthew’s
instructions continue: “If the member listens to you, you have regained
that one.” It's now time for me to put myself in the perspective of the one who is being confronted as the "sinner." How should I respond when someone comes to ME because I have caused hurt? I hope
I will try to LISTEN even when I feel shocked, embarrassed, and hurt to learn they think I
have harmed them. I’ll try to remain nonreactive. I’ll try to listen actively,
which means I’ll try to echo back to them, in a calm voice, what I heard them say
so they feel heard and I can learn if I heard their complaint correctly. I’ll try to consider
their point of view and keep the good of the entire community in mind. I’ll aim for reconciliation. I'll try.
But
what if this one-on-one conversation did not resolve the problem? Maybe the
conversation went badly and only worsened the situation.
Matthew recommends bringing in a team of witnesses to the next
conversation and even bringing the conflict before the entire church:
“But if you are
not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may
be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the
member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender
refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and
a tax collector.”
Thus
an appeals process is established. While it’s hard for me to imagine a scenario
in which our congregation would expel a church member, I suppose there could be
someone so intentionally disruptive and dangerous whom we would bar from our
church. Ironically, if someone prevented our inclusive church from including
others, we might have to exclude that person.
Of
course, Matthew is not writing church bylaws here or creating policies and
procedures. Matthew’s Jesus is speaking
to a fledgling faith community about the importance of community. What the
Jesus community does together is binding both on earth and in heaven. What the
Jesus community agrees to work toward—like our recently discerned focal
ministry—is a way of working together that can give us and others a glimpse of God’s realm. And when you and I—even as a very small
group—gather in God’s name, God is here.
Matthew’s
Jesus was emphasizing that we meet God in community. Sometimes people leave the
church after a petty squabble, a minor disagreement, or a frustrating task. But that’s like dropping
out of school because there are books to read and lessons to learn. The
messiness of being human together provides the church with the curriculum for
learning how to love one another. Church
is the best place to encounter human messiness—and thus opportunity to
learn and grow—together. Church is where we learn
the grammar of grace that allows us to talk meaningfully about this life while
speaking lovingly to one another even when we’ve hurt someone else and even
when we’ve been hurt. If we run from conflict, if we leave the church, we’ll
never learn those lessons. We’ll certainly never experience or offer
grace if we become the morals police.
PRAYER:
O God of grace, help us not simply to behave in church. Help us to behave like
the Church—with love, forbearance, forgiveness, grace. Amen
[i] Carter, Warren. Matthew
and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading. Maryknoll, NY:
Oris Books, 2003, 367
