What has to happen? Reforming our culture

[RZehr]

Either we believe it is the correct way to operate or we don’t.
For me, I want to do it. And if, as you mentioned, a church decision is actually just a “church” decision, meaning it really isn’t a church decision, well that is a church problem, not a Matt 18 procedural error which in turn means we can’t practice Matt 18.
Matt 18 is right. And if people botch it, that is a people problem that isn’t fixable by tinkering with Matt 18 or making procedural loop holes and work arounds in leu of fixing the people.

[Robert]

I wish our churches would actually follow Matthew 18.

I find it interesting that many conservative Anabaptist churches do not, yet they claim to follow Jesus' teachings very literally. I find inconsistency in this.

Jesus gave us guidelines to follow. He did not parse this teaching. It was quite clear. We do need to bring in culture and context, but we still find a strong teaching directly from Jesus to be upfront, involve others as we work though issues. If that does not work, then we can "tell it to the church" would be more like making it public.

How do you justify not following it when you are so adamant that others follow teachings about lifestyle?

[joshuabgood]

I once, in a ministry setting, had a rather slow young adult man confess to a subordinate of mine inappropriate contact with two underage girls. As mandated reporters we decided we needed tell both the pastor of the Mennonite church he attended and the local authorities from the young man's home community. I contacted the pastor first so he could have a heads up for pastoral care reasons. The pastor implored me not to take it to the authorities. He said he knew the young man and all the families involved, and he didn't think there was anything to it. He felt strongly that it should be handled at the local church level. Against his objections, I told the pastor that we wanted to have the church involved, and that's why I called him first, but that as a mandated reporter I had no choice but to alert authorities for an investigation. The pastor became quite angry, felt undermined and betrayed, and said that this would create much unnecessary conflict within the church.

In the end, the police investigated, and the pastor's assessment appeared to be right - the inappropriate contact was apparently imagined not real. I was honestly glad to hear this for the sake of all - but this outcome didn't change my mind at all regarding my reporting to the police. I would do it again the same way, and have actually had to make that call a number of times in my career in ministry to young people. I always call both pastor and authorities, in that order if possible.

This is actually a good outcome. Our job isn't to determine guilt/innocence but to report items like this and let the investigators investigate. As a school principal there are times when, as the situation needs, we report things like this. It is relieving in a way to know that when it comes to possible legal infractions it isn't on us to assess legal issues.

[Ms. Izzie]

I agree Matt 18 is right, but I also think we need serious reformation in how it is done.

As far as justifying the inconsistency, I'm not sure, Robert, if you meant RZehr or conservative Anabaptists in general, but I don't think we should justify it. I think we should change what we practice when inconsistencies are pointed out.

Thanks for pointing it out. I see it too and that's why I think we need to talk about Matt 18.

[Josh]

Either we believe it is the correct way to operate or we don’t.
For me, I want to do it. And if, as you mentioned, a church decision is actually just a “church” decision, meaning it really isn’t a church decision, well that is a church problem, not a Matt 18 procedural error which in turn means we can’t practice Matt 18.
Matt 18 is right. And if people botch it, that is a people problem that isn’t fixable by tinkering with Matt 18 or making procedural loop holes and work arounds in leu of fixing the people.

For what it’s worth I’ve practiced Matthew 18 several times.

A few questions:

(1) Why do most Mennonites tell me to just “drop it” or “let it go”? (RZehr, you may remember giving me this advice when we met in Brisbane.)

(2) Exactly how does one practice Matthew 18 with Jeriah Mast and CAM? I can’t fly down to Haiti to follow the Matt. 18 process, and CAM wouldn’t return my phone calls. Yet I’ve been asked multiple times by folks why I won’t follow Matthew 18.

I feel like Matt. 18 gets promoted way ahead of other clear scripture like 1 Cor. 5. On judgment day, Matthew 18 won’t be an excuse why you went to communion with a known adulterer and serial child molester.

[ohio jones]

Maybe we should start with what Jesus actually said:

If your brother sins against ____, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.

To what extent does this passage apply if we fill in the blank with something other than Jesus did?

[joshuabgood]

Maybe we should start with what Jesus actually said:

If your brother sins against ____, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.

To what extent does this passage apply if we fill in the blank with something other than Jesus did?

I think it applies, because all sins are in a sense against God and against the brothers. For instance, if I happen to see a brother commit adultery, go to a whore-house, see what was open on his phone etc...the sin is not specifically against me but instead against those he took advantage of as well as his wife. Still in a larger sense it is against the community and therefore against me and in my place to confront him on it.

[Josh]

Maybe we should start with what Jesus actually said:

If your brother sins against ____, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.

To what extent does this passage apply if we fill in the blank with something other than Jesus did?

I think it applies, because all sins are in a sense against God and against the brothers. For instance, if I happen to see a brother commit adultery, go to a whore-house, see what was open on his phone etc...the sin is not specifically against me but instead against those he took advantage of as well as his wife. Still in a larger sense it is against the community and therefore against me and in my place to confront him on it.

And if you find out your “brother” is molesting children?

Or abusing his wife and committing adultery?

Those aren’t offences against me. They need dealt with through church discipline. A different process is needed.

[Ms. Izzie]

As a Christian in a church, I think we do have an obligation to do something about sin. Whether the confronting of all sin has to follow Matt 18 is a question I have. I think Matt 18 is for brothers in the church.

If you look at 1 Corinthians 5 it looks like there are sins that if a person is committing them, proves they are not a brother.

What I hear Josh saying is when you go to confront a person committing sexual sins, there is often a strong denial and pushback. If we think about it, some sins by their very nature demand a high level of lying and deceitfulness to accomplish. A person who is trying to appear as on upright brother in the church will haved honed his skills in pulling it off. So it should come as no surprise when he puts these skills into practice when he is confronted.

Maybe we need to go straight to the group with the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 5 since the person has already proven they are not a brother.?? (In the case of abuse, the person who takes it to the group should not be the abused person. To demand that would be ridiculous.) I am still thinking this through.......and if we would do this we better be sure we are right about what he is doing.

[joshuabgood]

I think Matthew 18 applies. I actually think it applies across the board and works even completely outside of Christian circles. It holds an underlying Kingdom Principle. That being dealing directly, honestly, and face to face with one is better. In cases where legal reporting is necessary, then absolutely, the civil law should be involved.

I don't see any church discipline outside of the Matt 18 process. If the offender doesn't return phone calls or is always "unavailable to confront" then obviously the next step of the Matt 18 process, taking additional brothers and confronting, is necessary. And then keep amping up the number of brothers/pressure, til the offender yields or is removed from fellowship.

The idea of discipline or accountability being some thing the "leadership team" does after certain folks are told on or complained against, will make for poisonous relationships all the way around a terrible church brotherhood. Mutual accountability and a flat hierarchy are much better.