Conflict Resolution: Whose Responsibility? (Part 2 of 2)

The Biblical Pattern

STEP 1: It always begins with me. If I am guilty of sin, the Lord expects me to follow his directions and seek redemption.¹ If my brother has something against me, the Lord expects me to take the initiative and seek resolution.² If my brother sins against me, the Lord expects me to approach the offending brother first and seek reconciliation.³ If my brother sins, whether it directly affects me or not, the Lord expects me to be my brother’s keeper and seek restoration.⁴

It goes without saying that the directive to “go and tell him his fault between you and him alone” (Matt. 18:15)⁵ is not without implicit exceptions. It presupposes an established relationship, not a “cold turkey” approach. Differences in gender, age, relationship, trust, and maturity would call for wisdom and discretion to avoid the appearance of impropriety, intimidation, or a compromising situation. A mutually respected mediator would then be appropriate (cf. Acts 9:26-28; Phil. 4:2-3).

STEP 2: If implementing the first step does not result in having “gained your brother,” i.e., if he refuses to listen and repent, “take with you one or two more” (Matt. 18:16), preferably, if not presumably, reputable and spiritually mature brethren (cf. Gal. 6:1). Jesus gives scriptural confirmation, quoting Deuteronomy 19:15, a long-established conventional means of corroboration.⁶  Multiple witnesses serve the threefold purpose of (a) confirming the charge, (b) protecting the accused against impulsive, petty, or malicious allegations, and (c) providing additional support and counsel.

STEP 3: If the accused refuses to heed the mutual appeal of concerned brethren, “tell it to the church” (Matt. 18:17a). The body of Christ is not one member but many (1 Cor. 12:14-26), and when one member goes astray, the entire church is affected (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:7-9). A unified plea, and any other disciplinary action, is the corporate responsibility of the congregation as a whole (1 Cor. 5:4-5; 6:1-5; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14; 1 Tim. 5:20).

STEP 4: “But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17b). When a wayward brother defies the collective admonition of his church family and stubbornly persists in misconduct, he himself has severed his spiritual bond with the Lord and the Lord’s people. The rest of the congregation are simply to follow through with his own foolish choices. Likening him to “a heathen and a tax collector” (discussed in more detail below) should be understood from Christ’s perspective and in light of how the early church carried it out.

This latter stage of the disciplinary process is purposeful disassociation: “taken away from among you,” “deliver such a one to Satan,” “purge out,” “do not keep company with,” “put away from yourselves,” “withdraw from” (1 Cor. 5:2-13; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14).⁷ If the impenitent sinner is determined to live for Satan, he is to be turned back over to Satan’s realm; let him experience the world of Satan so he will want to return to the Lord and the Lord’s family. The primary objective is not necessarily punishment or retaliation but to rescue a lost soul, while also maintaining the moral integrity of the church (1 Cor. 5:4-8; 2 Cor. 2:5-11; 2 Thess. 3:14; 1 Tim. 5:20; Jas. 5:19-20).

STEP 5: The disassociation is not the final step, nor is it a complete severance of all interaction: “note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:14-15). This cannot be done unless regular contact is maintained. Disciplinary action, although firm and uncompromising, is not intended to be hateful, malicious, or cruel. The withdrawing does not mean giving up on this brother, and further attempts are to be made to bring him back to faithfulness. The admonishing continues until repentance is forthcoming (cf. 2 Cor. 2:5-11; 7:9-10).

Like a Heathen and a Tax Collector?

Why is the impenitent brother likened to the “heathen” [ὁ ἐθνικὸς] and “tax collector” [ὁ τελώνης], and how would this comparison be viewed from the Lord’s perspective?

In first-century Palestine, the provincial tax collector (or revenue officer) was a local hireling of a wealthy contractor, typically a foreign publicanus, the one retaining the Roman tax-gathering contract. Regular interaction and collaboration with pagan Gentiles rendered the Jewish tax collector ceremonially defiled and a social outcast in the orthodox Jewish community. Characteristically greedy and corrupt, he was despised by the local populace and lumped together with “prostitutes” (Matt. 21:31-32) and “sinners” (Matt. 9:10-11; 11:19).⁸

In Matthew 18:17 the hypothetical tax collector is grouped with ὁ ἐθνικός, variously rendered “heathen” (N/KJV), “pagan” (NIV), “unbeliever” (CEV, ISV), but mostly “Gentile” (CSB, ESV, NASB, NET, N/RSV). The adjectival ἐθνικός appears three times in Matthew’s Gospel, all in the teachings of Jesus (Matt. 5:46-47; 6:7; 18:17), and only once in the rest of the NT (3 John 7). It specifically refers to a foreigner with particular focus on moral or religious defects, comparable to “unbelieving, worldly, polytheistic” (BDAG 276). From a Jewish perspective it would apply to a non-Israelite (Matt. 5:47; 6:7), and from a Christian perspective, to a non-Christian (2 John 7).⁹

How did Jesus respond to and treat the tax collectors of his day and others considered morally and religiously deficient? Although he recognized their disreputable standing in the community (Matt. 5:46-47), he reached out to them, spent time with them, and was considered their “friend” (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34). He certainly did not condone, justify, tolerate, or participate in their sins, yet with compassion he sought to guide, influence, and teach them to turn from their sinful ways (Matt. 9:10-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32; 15:1-32). In general they proved to be receptive to the Lord, more so than the self-righteous religious elites (Matt. 21:31-32; Mark 2:14; Luke 3:12-14; 7:29-30; 15:1-2; 18:9-14).

When Jesus instructed his disciples to view an erring brother like the “heathen” and the “tax collector,” they would know from the Lord’s own example what this meant: no hatred or malice or disdain but loving concern for a lost soul.¹⁰ Neither condoning nor overlooking the sin, discipline is administered by withdrawing cordial association, “Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:14-15).

Ironically, it is only in Matthew’s Gospel that the apostle Matthew is labelled “the tax collector” (Matt. 10:3). He knew firsthand what it was like to be detested and disparaged as an outcast in his own community yet loved by the Lord anyway. What Jesus spoke, Matthew the tax collector recorded.

Conclusion

In dealing with a sinning brother (or sister), it never involves vile castigation or complete avoidance. With Christlike compassionate love we do what is needed, according to Christ’s example and teachings, to win our errant sibling back, seeking recognition of sin, shame, and godly sorrow leading to repentance and restoration: “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5b).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The verb μετανοέω (“repent”) occurs sixteen times in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 11:20, 21; 12:41; Mark 1:15; 6:12; Luke 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 16:30; 17:3, 4) and eighteen times in the rest of the NT (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 26:20; 2 Cor. 12:21; Rev. 2:5[x2], 16, 21[x2], 22; 3:3, 19; 9:20, 21; 16:9, 11). The noun μετάνοια (“repentance”) occurs eight times in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 3:8, 11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3, 8; 5:32; 15:7; 24:47) and fourteen times in the rest of the NT (Acts 5:31; 11:18; 13:24; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 7:9, 10; 2 Tim. 2:25; Heb. 6:1, 6; 12:17; 2 Pet. 3:9). See K. L. Moore, “What Must I Do To Be Saved?” Moore Perspective (30 Jan. 2015), <Link>.

     ² Matt. 5:23-24; 7:3-5; 1 Cor. 10:24; Phil. 2:3-4.

     ³ Matt. 18:15 (ASV, CSB, ESV, N/KJV, RSV); Luke 17:3 (NIV, N/KJV, WEB); cf. Luke 17:4.

     ⁴ Matt. 18:15 (NASB, NET, NIV); Luke 17:3 (ASV, CSB, ESV, ISV, NASB, NET, N/RSV); Gal. 2:11-14; 6:1-2; Jas. 5:19-20.

     ⁵ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the New King James Version (1996).

     ⁶ See also Deut. 17:6; John 8:17; 2 Cor. 13:1b; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28. Among the ancients, from Herodotus (420 BC) to Marcellinus (AD 395), eyewitness testimony was regarded as the most reliable source of information. See David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, LEC (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987): 81.

     ⁷ Cf. also Rom. 16:17; Tit. 3:10-11. “The abuse of discipline has often led to a harsh and intolerant spirit, but neglect of it has proved a danger almost as great” (Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, TNTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991]: 106).

     ⁸ See BDAG 999; cf. also Mark 2:15-16; Luke 5:30; 7:34; 15:1. The term τελώνης appears in the NT only in the Synoptic Gospels and is better rendered “tax collector” or “tax gatherer” rather than “publican” (ASV, Douay-Rheims, JUB, KJV), a transliteration of the Latin publicanus.

     ⁹ In Matthew 5:47, in the broader discussion about enemies, hateful persecutors, the evil and the unjust, instead of οἱ ἐθνικοί, a textual variant reads οἱ τελῶναι (“tax collectors”) (MSB, N/KJV, WEB, YLT). The standard Greek text accepts the οἱ ἐθνικοί reading, variously rendered “Gentiles” (ASV, H/CSB, ESV, NASB, NET, N/RSV), “pagans” (NIV), “unbelievers” (CEV, ISV). In Matthew 6:7, variously rendered “Gentiles” (ASV, CSB, ESV, NASB, NET, N/RSV, WEB), “heathen” (N/KJV), “pagans” (NIV), “unbelievers” (ISV), “idolaters” (HCSB)—cp. 1 Kings 18:26; Acts 19:34. In 3 John 7, variously rendered “Gentiles” (ASV, ESV, ISV, NASB, N/KJV), “heathen” (RSV), “pagans” (CSB, NET, NIV), “nonbelievers” (NRSV). On the noun ἔθνος, see BDAG 276-77; also K. L. Moore, “Until the Times of the Gentiles are Fulfilled,” Moore Perspective (2026), <Link>.

     ¹⁰ If the noun ἔθνη (“nations”) is also considered, the point is even more impactful (Matt 12:18, 21; 21:43; 24:14; 28:19).

Related Posts: Conflict Resolution (Part 1), What Does "Fellowship" Mean?, Church Discipline 

Related articles: Patrick Swayne, Don't Skip That Part 

 

Image credit: https://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/himself-pointing.html 

Is it scriptural for a congregation to withdraw from another congregation?

     The concept of brotherhood (1 Pet. 2:17; 5:9), along with numerous biblical examples, supports the regular association and cooperation among churches of Christ (e.g. 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:19; 11:8-9; et al.). But is Christian brotherhood limited to only pleasant circumstances and enjoyable activities? Does not the “brother’s keeper” principle (Gen. 4:9) enjoin on all members of God’s universal family the responsibility of warning, admonishing, and restoring those who are drifting away from the Lord? (Gal. 6:1-2; James 5:19-20). Does not brotherly love also require the exercise of certain actions which may be somewhat difficult or unpleasant? (cf. Jude 20-23). As fellowship is not limited to the congregational level alone, neither are cooperation, association, warning, admonishing, correcting, or restoring. To suggest that a congregation cannot publicly warn, rebuke, or turn away from a sister congregation that is in error is an attempt to tie the hands of the faithful and to give the devil free course to continue his destructive work. If a faithful congregation cannot withdraw from an apostatizing group, it is therefore forced to continue its association with no means of protecting its members from subversive influences.

     Since the Lord himself cuts off entire congregations when they drift too far away from the prescribed standard of conduct (Rev. 2:5; 3:16; cf. John 15:2-6), should any less be expected from those who remain in fellowship with God? It is true that there were faithful Christians even among the errant congregations of Asia Minor (cf. Rev. 2:24; 3:4), but bear in mind that the Lord did not happily accept the condition of these churches and expect them to maintain their status quo. He called upon them to either repent or face the consequences. Individuals who are true to the Lord, even within the unsound congregations, have the responsibility of admonishing and restoring the unfaithful (Gal. 6:1; James 5:19-20) and severing their affiliation with those who refuse to repent (1 Cor. 5:13; 2 Thess. 3:6; cf. 2 Cor. 6:17). Perpetual silence and toleration in the midst of unrepentant sin are not marks of faithfulness (cf. 1 Kings 18:21; Ezek. 3:17- 21; Rev. 2:20).

     Every Christian and every local congregation belongs to the universal body of Christ. Congregational autonomy does not negate the common bond we all share as a spiritual family. Certainly no single congregation has the right or authority to rule over the affairs of another, but warning, rebuking, and withdrawing from an erring group of Christians is not an infringement on church autonomy. A congregation has both the right and the obligation to refuse association with any person or group that fails to abide within the boundaries set forth by God’s word. Local leaderships will be held accountable for the souls entrusted to their care (Heb. 13:17), for their faithfulness to God or lack of it (Rev. 2:10, 23), and for the messages of approval or disapproval conveyed to their brethren (1 Cor. 11:2, 17).

     A word of caution is in order here. Before an entire congregation (or even an individual for that matter) is excluded from one’s circle of associations, the reasons and motives for such strong measures must be prayerfully scrutinized in the light of God’s word. It is fairly easy to make general allegations of “unfaithfulness” or “false teaching” or “liberalism” or “legalism” or “divisiveness” bolstered by numerous scripture references. But without the substantiation of specific details and reliable information, there is a risk of making illegitimate claims and premature or unwarranted judgments. There is no place for hasty decisions, unbridled emotionalism, or irresponsible proof-texting when dealing with something as precious as the fellowship of God’s people. And because this is such an important matter, sometimes the best course to take is disassociation.

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Church Discipline, Intercongregational Responsibilities

Image credit: http://www.mhmcintyre.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Divisions-300x225.jpg

How do we “not keep company with” someone while continuing to “admonish him as a brother”? (2nd Thess. 3:14-15)

     The word “admonish” is translated from the Greek noutheteô, and whenever this word is used elsewhere in the NT, except once when it was done in writing (1 Cor. 4:14), it applies to something done in person (Acts 20:31; Rom. 15:14; Col. 1:28; 3:16; 1 Thess. 5:12, 14). What, then, does “withdraw from” (2 Thess. 3:6) entail? What is meant by “do not keep company with” (2 Thess. 3:14)?

     The only times the phrase mê sunanameignumi (“do not keep company with”) is used in the NT is in 1 Cor. 5:9, 11 and 2 Thess. 3:14, but in the latter verse the idea of total segregation is not enjoined -- the faithful are still to “admonish him as a brother” (v. 15). This raises some questions that probably cannot be answered with certainty. Does 2 Thess. 3:15 amend the general principle of 1 Cor. 5:11, i.e., is it permissible to eat with an erring Christian as long as some type of admonishing is done? Does 1 Cor. 5:11 amend the injunction of 2 Thess. 3:15, i.e., may one have some degree of contact with an erring Christian as long as a meal is not shared? Do these two passages suggest that the level of association is determined by the nature of the sin involved, i.e., total disassociation for sins such as sexual immorality, covetousness, idolatry, reviling, drunkenness, and extortion (1 Cor. 5:11), while some form of association is permissible when the error involves matters such as laziness, meddling, and freeloading (2 Thess. 3:10-12)?

     Another factor to consider is the difference between incidental and intentional interaction. For example, an unintentional encounter at the supermarket is much different than purposefully going to someone’s home or arranging a meeting with that person. If contact with a disciplined member is intentional, there ought to be some form of brotherly admonition. If, however, the contact is not intentional, the situation may or may not be conducive to a word of admonition, but whatever might be said or done, there is no place for being rude or unkind (cf. Gal. 6:1; 2 Tim. 2:23-26). If the NT provides a blueprint or pattern for church discipline, these passages must be harmonized and judgment calls will have to be made on a case-by-case basis. But obviously regular admonishing can be done without continuous association.

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Church Discipline, When a Family Member is Disciplined by the Church

Image credit: http://www.fuccha.in/assets/timthumb.php?src=http://www.fuccha.in/uploads/post/shutterstock_108066572.jpg&w=893&h=502

What is the responsibility of a Christian when a close family member has been disciplined (withdrawn from) by the church?

     Sometimes a dilemma is faced when it seems that one command of God must be “disobeyed” in order to obey another command of God (e.g. Matt. 12:5; John 7:22-23). The Lord instituted both family obligations and church-discipline obligations, so what happens when the fulfillment of one seems to conflict with the fulfillment of the other? For example, what does a Christian wife do when the church withdraws from her husband? What do Christian parents do when this happens to one of their children? What do the children do when this happens to one or both parents? On one hand there are God-given responsibilities for spouses (1 Cor. 7:3-5, 10-13; Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7), parents (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; 1 Tim. 5:8; Tit. 2:4), and children (Rom. 1:30; Eph. 6:1-3; Col. 3:20; Luke 2:42, 51). Even when children become adults, they still have certain obligations toward their parents (cf. Eph. 6:2; Matt. 15:4-6; Mark 7:9-13; Luke 18:18-21; 1 Tim. 5:4, 8, 16) and vice versa (cf. Gen. 7:1, 7; 24:1-4; 27:1-4; 46:1-7; 49:1 ff.; 1 Sam. 2:22-25; Matt. 22:2; Luke 15:20-32). On the other hand, God has instructed Christians not to associate with brethren who walk disorderly (1 Cor. 5:2-11; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14). This poses a real problem when some degree of association is necessary to fulfill a family duty. Unfortunately the Bible does not specifically address this predicament and there is no easy solution.

     The Lord must be a Christian’s first priority, even before the closest of human relationships (Matt. 10:37; Mark 10:29-30; Luke 14:26-33). When this is the case, at least two things will happen: (1) The Christian will not allow family members to hinder his obedience to the Lord, and (2) he will not neglect his God-given family obligations (which is part of his obedience to the Lord, cf. Col. 3:18-24). When an apparent conflict arises between the two, the Christian must first determine exactly what responsibilities he has toward the disciplined family member and then do his imperfect best to fulfill both without compromising either. In other words, he must try to carry out whatever family duties he might have in such a way that the disciplinary action is not compromised or rendered ineffective.

     The greatest responsibility one has toward a spouse, parent, or child is of a spiritual nature (cf. Deut. 6:5-9; 1 Pet. 3:1). There ought to be no question as to which of the following is most important: (a) temporal associations, or (b) eternal fellowship. The primary purpose of disciplinary action is to make the erring Christian aware of his sinful behavior, emphasize the seriousness of his spiritual condition, and engender shame and godly sorrow to prompt repentance and restoration (1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; 1 Tim. 1:20). It is an attempt to pull him “out of the fire” and to save his soul (Jude 23). 

     While it may not be necessary to discontinue all interaction, since some form of admonishing is to continue (2 Thess. 3:15; cf. Gal. 6:1), a decision must be made as to what is in the best spiritual interest of the one disciplined. If the errant loved one is treated the same as before (as though nothing is wrong) and continues to enjoy an approving relationship, he is not being shown loving concern for his spiritual condition and destiny, nor is he given the incentive to change.

     Emotionally this is without question an extremely difficult situation to be in, and much patience and understanding should be shown toward anyone who may be struggling with this dilemma. If a Christian is involved in family interaction with one disciplined by the church, whatever else might be said or done, the impression should not be left that the current condition of the erring member is forgotten, considered unimportant, or condoned.

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Church Discipline, Not Keep Company With/Admonish as a Brother

Image credit: https://www.americasfootprints.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/brokenfamily.gif