Hats Off wrote:[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.)
I have experienced what Josh describes above, and yes, it shouldn't be that way. I would also say that some churches have that culture more than others. Some groups are super-critical of each other. Some are the other extreme where everyone "stays in their own lane."
Its sad, but I've had to let people implode on their own, as they couldn't be dealt with.
In my experience Matthew 18 hasn't worked even for the smaller issues and the contributing factor for the breakdown is that the leaders were approached before the rest of the church. I would like to know where we get the idea that leaders need to know about the issue before the rest of the church.
I don't think changing this would be a miraculous fix for every situation, but is there a requirement in Scripture that they know about it before the rest of the church?
Hats Off wrote:
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.)
Matthew 18 does work. One just has to also contact the authorities if a child is in danger also. It is important to go to the person, the elders, and the church. Does it matter if you are called a gossip if you follow the steps? A small price to pay to stop the action. Even if you have to shake the dust off and move on, we should not react only because we get our desired result, but act out of faithfulness and be direct and up front with people. Yes, you will burn bridges of people who are misbehaving or others who are wanting to deny or hide from the problem. Do you really want to have your family around people like that? Your child could be the next victim.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
According to 1 Corinthians 5:11,"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat", and in verse 13, "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."
I understand that to mean he calls himself a brother, but his actions prove he is not. Matthew 18 is for brothers and so Matthew 18 probably doesn't come into action in situations described in 1 Corinthians 5.
Ms. Izzie wrote: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.
There is no way to present it in front of “the church”. One has to ask leaders to convene a members meeting. If I just get up and talk at church, nobody will listen because it’s out of order.
Take a look at how well received me talking about any problem here on MennoNet is.
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.
Hats Off wrote:
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.)
Matthew 18 does work. One just has to also contact the authorities if a child is in danger also. It is important to go to the person, the elders, and the church. Does it matter if you are called a gossip if you follow the steps? A small price to pay to stop the action. Even if you have to shake the dust off and move on, we should not react only because we get our desired result, but act out of faithfulness and be direct and up front with people. Yes, you will burn bridges of people who are misbehaving or others who are wanting to deny or hide from the problem. Do you really want to have your family around people like that? Your child could be the next victim.
Yep. And that’s why I’ve left lots of burnt bridges behind me.
Matthew 18 doesn’t work if you have an assembly that is 1/3 committed to protecting an adulterer, and the other 2/3 is scared to death of their 1/3 will do to them if they speak up.
Dan Z wrote: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.
How would you have handled being accused of disobeying Matthew 18?
I wish our churches would actually follow Matthew 18. I’ve promoted that my church try it. I think it would bring settlement to so many issues.
I’d like to see the church make a final decision and once that is done, each side must accept its decision, or be censored. Or if they don’t like it they can leave. Drop it once the church decides on it. No fussing allowed, it’s done.
I’d we follow the first two steps, but then it gets derailed in leadership instead of the church. That’s not a Matt 18 step. And it also leaves the issue unsettled. Easy to disagree with a leader, not as easy with a church decision.
I agree that when Matthew 18 gets derailed in leadership it is not a Matt 18 step.
A church decision being so cut and dried needs to be cautioned against though. It is the second thing I see in our culture that could contribute to our abuse issues. I have seen some serious bullying and eventual silencing of the few who dare to speak up about things. What happens is there is a small minority who are the bullies, some in leadership and some not. They are the powerful. The majority is silent while the person who speaks up is gossiped about and eventually so side-lined anything they say is thrown into the garbage immediately.
In this type of situation, believe me, there can be some "church decisions" made which on the surface look decisive and mutually agreed on, but underneath have all kinds of corruption involved.
(When we have these things happening it is NOT a safe environment for an abused person to speak up and they know it. Therefore, they are silent.)
