What has to happen? Reforming our culture

[Signtist]

Actually, I guess I need to clarify one point in order to be perfectly honest. The abuse issue in question for me was from a previous church I attended, not the fellowship I'm part of now. Having said that, abuse has happened/happens in our (appleman and my) fellowship.

[Hats Off]

And in ours. I know some victims well.

[temporal1]

It’s interesting to me that 3 CM forum members (in Ontario) posting on this topic, in the past and currently, seem in agreement about prevention and response to carnal sins and crimes. appleman, Hats Off, Signtist. i believe they are members of different fellowships, possibly in the same conference?

To me, they represent cultural adjustments in action.
From what i know, none of the 3 has had to deal with abuses in their fellowships, but they are not defensive or in denial about what has happened in the past, and what continues to show up.
That’s a constructive place to be.

I wish it were so. The odds are much greater that all 3 of us have had to.

Thank you. i did not know, and, i am not at all surprised. i know about the human condition.

There really is only 1 perfect God.
(i think) when we really take this in, our disappointments in one another, in earthly life, are so much easier to accept.

[Ms. Izzie]

I have spent a lot of time thinking about what makes it possible in our culture for those in leadership to make judgment calls seemingly on their own about people and situations.

One thing I have seen in my own church that would encourage leaders in making these calls on their own is a lack in following Matthew 18 when it comes to offenses in the church. Granted, the offenses I am talking about are not at the level of abuse, but I do think the way I have seen these offenses handled sets up a culture in which the leaders would make a judgment call on abuse in the same way the other offenses are handled.

Matthew 18 says if you are trespassed against, talk to the brother who trespassed against you; if he won't hear you, then take two or three with you; if he still won't hear you, take it to the church.

What I have seen is a person will go straight to the leaders with an offense or the steps will be followed, but at the third step it is taken to the leaders as if that was the same as taking it to the church. In both of these ways of doing it, the leaders make a judgment call about whether the rest of the church will hear about it. Often, it depends on who brought it to their attention in the first place.

What if we would stand on our own feet and follow the steps when offenses happen instead of hiding behind the leaders and in doing so,giving them power they probably shouldn't have? Yes, I am saying that the third step means the whole church at the same time. Leave the leaders out of it until the third step. They hear about it for the first time when the rest of the church does. In my church this would be a radical difference.

It could protect them from the dire consequences of making the wrong judgment call.

When I say this I don't at all mean an abused person should have to follow Matthew 18. I am still thinking through what a person in those shoes should do. Please don't misunderstand me about this.

I am trying to get at the practices in our culture which put leaders in a position where they are comfortable making judgment calls on their own. (They probably aren't that comfortable with it, but feel their position demands it.)

[Hats Off]

You are being kind with your last comment, Mrs. Izzie, too often more so than warranted.

[Josh]

Matthew 18, in my experience, gets used as an excuse to accommodate and protect abusers.

I will tell a victim to follow Matthew 18 once I see the rest of the church follow 1 Corinthians 5.

[Ms. Izzie]

I believe the people in the pews help create the kind of leaders we have. My younger self wanted to blame it all on the leaders, but I have been around the block a bit now. What we silently observe happening in our churches emboldens those in power, whether they are in leadership or not.

Also, it doesn't surprise me that Matthew 18 is used as an excuse to protect abusers, but could you explain, Josh, exactly how that is done?

[Josh]

I believe the people in the pews help create the kind of leaders we have. My younger self wanted to blame it all on the leaders, but I have been around the block a bit now. What we silently observe happening in our churches emboldens those in power, whether they are in leadership or not.

Also, it doesn't surprise me that Matthew 18 is used as an excuse to protect abusers, but could you explain, Josh, exactly how that is done?

It goes like this.

1. Somebody observes some kind of suspicious behaviour going on. (Yelling at wife, maybe the wife tells you she's being abused, etc., or you observe someone spending a lot of time alone with a much younger woman). You observe a bit more and indeed feel your suspicions confirmed.

2. Per Matthew 18, you go to that brother and confront him.

3. He tells you you have a bad heart, are judgmental, etc. etc.

4. You find another brother to approach him.

5. Same thing as #3.

6. You go to leadership (which is required before going to "the whole church"). The leadership ignores the problem but encourages you to "pray".

7. Over time, you observe more and more problems happening and eventually it's obvious the person is a chronic abuser.

8. Now you can't do anything about it because doing so "violates Matthew 18". If you try to talk to the "entire church", you're accused of being a gossip, etc.

...

9. Eventually the person runs into problems with the law, gets arrested, and so forth.

10. Defenders/enablers of the abuser pick on you as it's "your fault" they got arrested because you had an "accusatory spirit" or a "Jezebel spirit".

Does that make sense?

[Ms. Izzie]

Yes, it makes sense. Thanks for explaining in detail.

The only thing I would like for you to explain further is where you find the requirement to take it to the leaders first. I am open to being told that, but would love to have a basis for it in Scripture.

[Hats Off]

Yes, it makes sense. Thanks for explaining in detail.

The only thing I would like for you to explain further is where you find the requirement to take it to the leaders first. I am open to being told that, but would love to have a basis for it in Scripture.

If I understand Josh correctly, he is saying that what should work, doesn't. In my opinion it works with smaller issues but we are not impartial with the practice so too often it doesn't work with major issues (even though it should.)