Mat 18:15-17
It is evident from a full consideration of the context, that
the sin here is primarily a matter of personal offence, not of doctrinal
divergence. (Cp v 21: "....sin against me...." and v 35: "if ye forgive not
every one his brother....") However, these vv are often considered to be the
primary guideline to the pursuing and expunging of doctrinal errors from the
ecclesia; so let us carefully consider the passage from that
viewpoint.
"If your brother sins against you", then you -- being by Bible
standard and precept "your brother's keeper" (Gen 4:9) -- are bound to warn the
offender with the express purpose of turning him from his sin (Eze 3:17-21).
Your love, actively manifested in an unpleasant task, may "cover a multitude of
sins" (1Pe 4:8).
In such cases the offender should not be evilly thought of, or
spoken of. His status and feelings will be as fully considered and respected as
one's own. Neither will he be confronted from motives and feelings personal to
the visitor, but solely and purely for his own good who has
transgressed.
With the object of gaining, not of sacrificing his brother,
the careful brother should in the spirit of meekness strive to restore the
faulty; and he should consider his own imperfections and weaknesses and
consequent liability to fall into temptation (Gal 6:1). Every step which might
lead to New Testament disfellowship (or withdrawal) was always intended to
facilitate the repentance and reclamation of the offender. The Son of Man
himself came into the world with the purpose of saving that which was lost (Mat
18:11) -- and well might we be thankful that he did that very thing.
Note the special precise sequence to be followed:
(1) Tell him his fault between you and him alone. How many
falter at the very first step who desire to be "peacemakers", but instead become
"peace-keepers", ie "law enforcement officials" in the ecclesias!
(2) Then -- only if he fails to hear you -- go with one or two
others. And should not the one or two others be those who by experience and
temperament are best able to rectify the division, not simply best able to
support your contention and most likely to take your side no matter
what?
The two or three witnesses confirm every word. This is a
necessary counterbalance to the frequent malicious tendency of the flesh to
believe without verification every evil word spoken against another
brother.
(3) Finally, all else failing, you should go to the ecclesia.
Whose ecclesia? Yours or his? His, of course, because it is the one with primary
jurisdiction in the case. Implicit in the Master's advice is no doubt the final
step: After you tell the ecclesia, you bow out; the ecclesia now being properly
informed has sole authority to pursue the matter. (In our modern-day
inter-ecclesial tangle, with its rapid communications and sometimes volatile
differences, this point and the next become very important.)
(4) One command which is not given, but so often "read into"
Mat 18: "Then tell it to all the ecclesias!" This would serve the dubious
purpose of taking the "sins" (real or imagined) of your brother, whom you
ostensibly sought to help, and broadcasting them to the ends of the world. This
is wrong, it is malicious, and it is also a violation of the spirit of the
commandment here and of the Scriptural basis of all inter-ecclesial
relationships (as in Rev 2 and 3).
We should notice, in any survey of Mat 18, the related passage
in the Ecclesial Guide, entitled "Cases of Sin and Withdrawal" (1949 Edition, p
24). From there we quote:
"There should be a stringent refusal to hear an evil report concerning anyone
until the reporter has taken the Scriptural
course...."
And in another place RR comments on the procedure: "Nothing
tends more to the keeping or the restoring of peace than the observance of this
law; and no law is more constantly broken. The universal impulse, when anything
is supposed to be wrong, is to tell the matter to third persons. From them it
spreads, with the results of causing much bad feeling which, perhaps, the
original cause does not warrant and would not have produced if the aggrieved
person had taken the course prescribed by Christ, and told the fault 'between
thee and him alone.' If good men, or those who consider themselves such, would
adopt the rule of refusing to listen to an evil report privately conveyed, until
it had been dealt with to the last stage according to the rule prescribed by
Christ, much evil would be prevented" ("Between Thee and Him Alone", Ber
54:119).
We note how the full and complete context speaks so
eloquently, not of judgment, nor of condemnation or disfellowship, but rather of
reconciliation, reunion, mercy, and forgiveness:
(1) Verse 14: "It is not my Father's will that any of these
little ones [cp the children of vv 1-6] should perish." Surely these fellowship
matters are dynamite, and when wrongly handled they explode and the weak ones
and the young ones "for whom Christ died" are most in danger of injury or
"death". How many young ones, it may be asked, ever perished spiritually because
of that "dangerous" but little-understood "false doctrine" or improper action
halfway round the globe? But how many truly became disillusioned and ultimately
drifted away from the Brotherhood because of the grievous spectacle -- on their
own doorsteps -- of envious, small-minded brethren, and their internal bickering
and accusatory letters?
(2) How many times should I forgive? "Until seventy times
seven" (v 22). Almost without end! And Jesus adds the parable of the debtors,
with the comment that the Father in heaven will by no means forgive the
unforgiving (vv 23-35). Notice the extreme contrasts in this parable. How
heavily must the balance be weighted on the side of mercy in our
cases!
It may also be noted that in Mat 18 there is no provision for
a disgruntled, dissatisfied individual or minority to withdraw from the ecclesia
because of a difference in judging a case. The ecclesia, as a body, is assumed
to have the greater ability judiciously to weigh the facts and to reach a
Scriptural and just decision. Most of our ecclesial "constitutions" contain a
provision to this effect: "That we mutually engage to submit to the order and
arrangements preferred by the greater number" (Article 5 of the Birmingham
"Constitution").
It may be confidently asserted that nearly every division in
the Christadelphian world since these words were written has been brought about
by a disregard of this very principle, which all have bound themselves to
honor.
Finally, if it be argued that Mat 18:15-17 applies only to
individual cases in one's own ecclesia, and not to cases in other ecclesias,
then I would ask: (1) Should it be easier -- in view of the doctrine of the One
Body and the superlative examples of and inducements to peace and unity -- to
judge and disfellowship thousands at a distance than individuals at home? (2)
Or, put the other way round, do many brethren deserve less love and
consideration than one?
This section closes with a document drawn up by several
brethren in England during the "Berean" division of the 1920s, entitled "A
Series of Rules proposed to govern inter-ecclesial disputes, based on Matthew
18:15-17":
"1. That imputations against brethren affecting their fidelity
to the faith ought not to be made except as commanded by Christ.
"2. That the same rule applies to ecclesias -- especially as
affecting inter-ecclesial co-operation.
"3. So, if a brother is convinced that a brother or brethren
in an ecclesia of which he is not a member is or are advocating heresy, or
otherwise in danger of rejection at the judgment seat of Christ, the proper
course for such a brother to adopt is:
(a) First to see that brother 'and tell him his fault with him
alone'.
(b) If unable to adjust the matter, then it is his duty to ask
the help of one or two more members of the ecclesia to whom the erring brother
belongs, 'that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be
established.'
(c) Failing agreement, the case may then be considered by the
ecclesia to which the erring brother belongs, in which case the brother
originally moving in the matter shall have the opportunity of being present with
full liberty of speech.
(d) If the matter cannot be adjusted in harmony with the
wishes of the brother who has endeavored to help an erring one on his way to the
kingdom, he is then at liberty to consider whether he shall refuse cooperation
with them in their labors and shall respectfully notify his intention to the
said brother and ecclesia in question.
(e) In case no further attempt is made by the ecclesia thus
notified to adjust the matter, he may now ask the ecclesia to which he belongs
to join him in refusal of cooperation.
"4. The above rules may not be possible of observance in
detail where ecclesias are so far separated as to make a personal interview
unfeasible, but in any case, an opportunity should be given for those who are
associated with one who teaches error, to repudiate the same before exclusion
from fellowship" ("So Do Unto Them", Xd 61:455).
With the above agree also the very well-balanced remarks of
Brother Roberts ("A Second Voyage to Australia", Xd 35: 331,332), from which
come the following extracts: "It ought not to be in the power of any ecclesia to
pass judgment on an accused brother in his absence, unless that absence was
willful. This was an elementary principle recognized in every system of law,
ancient or modern, human or divine. It was a feature of British law all over the
world -- that no man should be condemned without the opportunity and invitation
to answer the charge made against him. It used to be the same with Roman law, as
casually comes out in Act 25:16: 'It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver
any man to die before that he that is accused have the accusers face to face and
have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against
him.'
"The Jews observed the same practice: 'Doth our law judge any man before it hear
him?' (Joh 7:15)
"Lastly, Christ enjoined the same thing in the law of Mat 18
for dealing with an offending brother, only that he added the merciful
requirement (absent from all human laws), that public accusation should not be
made until the accused had been approached personally and privately by the
accuser, and a second time with one or two others in case of failure."