Week 53: "It's the principle." (Part 2)

This is part II of The Matthew Principle. Let's take a look at the passage again and do a quick review before we move on - Matthew 18:15-17

If another believer sins against you, go privately and point out the offense. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back. But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses. If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. Then if he or she won't accept the church's decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector.Matthew 18:15-17

Alright - so last week, we said that the Matthew principle and #42 on our list of Fifty Things in no particular order boiled down to

#42 - GO TO THOSE WHO OFFENDED YOU

We start privately, and we're not looking for punishment or retribution or shame - we are looking for confession and a positive change in behavior and ultimately - resolution of conflict and restoration of the relationship. Because love matters. Relationships matter. Conenctions matter. But not at the ongoing cost of somebody's personal well being. In the 70's there was a very famous movie that had the promotional tagline - "Love means never having to say you're sorry." And uh that's a bunch of bull ACCORDING TO JESUS! Folks, we're human, sinful people. We get stuff wrong all the time. Sometimes without even meaning too. Love means saying you're sorry, confessing when you got it wrong, and then working TOGETHER to fix the issue and restore the relationship as best you can.

Now for more info on the first part of the Matthew principle, you can go back and watch part 1. But I want to say something in the interest of clarification that I didn't say in week 1, I don't think. I said this part - The Matthew Principle in the context in which it is presented is a plan for conflict resolution between PEERS. Here's the part I didn't say - when we remove passages of scripture from their overall context, or when we remove them from their historical or cultural context, we can hurt people intentionally or accidentally, and we can encourage behavior that is detrimental and harmful in the name of "doing the right thing." So allow me to make this very clear -

The Matthew principle about going to those who offended you and confronting those who have sinned against you - that is for peers who have beef with one another or you have beef with them. Ordinary interpersonal conflict. Do not apply this in situations of abuse. This is not for those in situations where power is dramatically shifted against you. And this is not saying to 'confront' your abusers. That's not what this set of verses is about. Over and over we have real-world reporting and data from psychologists and therapists and I'm sad to say, crime statistics that will tell you - those who have been abused having to CONFRONT their abusers in whatever arena - is not healthy. It does not go well. So please do not apply these verses in that situation. In those situations where somebody is unsafe, threatening, abusive, predatory or doing something that is criminal - you get the appropriate people involved IMMEDIATELY. That is not what the Matthew principle is about. I am positive based on everything else we've been learning and everything that scripture has to say about Jesus that Jesus would tell you that reconciliation never means having to sacrifice safety. A vulnerable person is not required to put themselves back into danger to give the powerful person another chance to hurt them. Got it?

Okay - so let's move on to the 2nd part since that's what we're talking about today. This part about

But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses.Matthew 18:16

And ladies and dobermans, welcome to one of the most misunderstood and misapplied pieces of scripture that we have. One where we do more damage than good sometimes.

See - sometimes we read this and we go - okay - the first time the person didn't confess to what they were doing. We didn't get anywhere. So now I'm going to bring two other people into it who weren't a part of it to begin with. So what do we do? We go and find two people who already agree with us. And then we schedule "coffee" or something together. And we sit down in front of the person who has offended us and who we can't get a confession out of and we're like, "Hey, Chuck. Thanks for meeting with us. This is Frank and Julia. I've spent the last two weeks explaining to them what a terrible person you are and they'll be helping us reconcile today."

WHAT?! That's not reconciliation. That's not conflict resolution. That's an ambush! "Take one or two others with you and go back again" was not permission for you to go and get your posse to strong-arm somebody. The witnesses are to aid in the reconciliation.

There's that word… I said it again… "witnesses." And this is where so many people applying the Matthew principle get it wrong. Witnesses.. means people who were there. People who know and saw with their own eyes. They have EVIDENCE supporting your position. Witnesses are not just people you plead your case to who are now ganging up on the other person. Witnesses are witnesses to the allegation. That word is used for a reason.

See - let's just use a little logic here for a second. If you allege the other party did something. And then you bring two people who have no evidence into the situation, and the other party that you are making allegations against DENIES those allegations… IE -

"You did heinous thing X"

"No I didn't."

Then WHAT GOOD ARE THE WITNESSES if they DIDN'T WITNESS IT?!

They are an uninformed third party who you have recruited to your side to do what? To win? Probably not win that person back like it says in Matthew 18:15 - probably just to WIN period.

And that's part of the problem that so many of us have when it comes to conflict resolution. It's endemic to our society. It's not about loving one another and winning the other person back - it's about winning the argument. It's about proving the other person wrong. See, it's all in the approach - are we approaching this confrontation, which really should be a conversation - are we approaching it like we're entering the emergency room trying to save the relationship that is on the gurney and requiring a team of surgeons to intervene on behalf of the patient? Or are we approaching it like we're entering the court room - where we will assign guilt or innocence. Where someone wins and someone loses. Where someone gets exposed and sentenced.

I think Jesus would have us approach this more like the emergency room. Find out - "Where does it hurt?" "How did it happen?" "How serious is the wound?" "Can it be repaired?" "Can we stop the bleeding?" "Is it likely to happen again or can we use preventative medicine to save further pain?"

These are entirely different mindsets. One is about creating healing. The other is about assigning blame and punishment.

Before we move on - let me just share another reason why "witnesses" probably doesn't mean two uninformed people that you got on your side. It means "witnesses" who have material evidence to contribute to the discussion about healing.

There is a good chance that Jesus is pulling in a standard judicial procedure that the culture He was addressing would've been familiar with from the Mosaic law. It comes from Deuteronomy 19:15

You must not convict anyone of a crime on the testimony of only one witness. The facts of the case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.Deuteronomy 19:15

When Jesus says

But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses.Matthew 18:16

He is referring to witnesses to the event… not witnesses to the allegation.

But if you DO have witnesses to the event. That's who you bring in step two of the Matthew principle.

IF UNSUCCESSFUL, BRING TWO OR THREE MATERIAL WITNESSES WITH YOU AND GO BACK TO THAT PERSON

Last week we said step 1 where we go privately to those who offended us - we said

WE START PRIVATELY BECAUSE DIGNITY MATTERS

Well in step two, where ACTUAL witnesses are involved - not just people you convinced to be on your side and fed your side of the story - but where we bring actual material witnesses -

WE BRING WITNESSES BECAUSE TRUTH MATTERS

Again, when we do that - the goal is confession and restoration. Again, the goal is winning that person BACK. Not winning the argument, not proving them wrong, not embarrassing them, not being able to tell them what a jackal they really are in front of other people… the goal is to win them back. The objective isn't punishment. It's restoration. That's what this whole passage is about. But part 3 of the Matthew principle says,

If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church.Matthew 18:17

That's step 3 in the process of the Matthew principle

IF STILL UNSUCCESSFUL, TAKE YOUR CASE TO THE CHURCH

Which might make some of us nervous when we read this passage. Because some of us have come from backgrounds where 'church discipline' is a thing and very heavy handed and not at all Christ-like. Where the end result looks more like something out of Game of Thrones instead of the Gospel. (Shame! Shame! Shame!)

And again, if you have PTSD from situations like that, trust issues from situations like that - if the reading of that passage makes you bristle. I want you to know… I get it. I understand. And the reason that I understand is that I have been on both sides of it. As a younger man and a youth pastor who was 'inside the bubble' and who received what I believe was misguided advice - and that is being kind - I messed up in being a representative of the church when it came to conflict resolution and specifically the public facing side of it. And I have regrets about it to this day. I had set in those 'bring two or three witnesses' meetings where the witnesses were not material witnesses and what I was watching was a form of a kangaroo court. And because of my title and association, I was guilty by association.

Speaking of shame - I am ashamed of those moments in my life. Of whatever role - large in some cases or small in some cases - that I played in those events. And I am saddened and embarrassed and have much regret that I got it wrong even when I was "following the Matthew principle" and convinced that I was doing the "right" thing. And this is me publicly apologizing for that. This is me saying "I am sorry" to individuals who I hurt and to individuals who I didn't stand up for when I was afraid or too shell-shocked in the moment. I am fond of poet Maya Angelou's quote - "Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better." That does not excuse when I got it wrong. But I am trying to say "I know a little better" now and it is my goal as an individual and my prayer and goal and hope for the church that we know better and do better than we might've in the past.

I said I had been on both sides… and I have. I've had the Matthew principle misused against me. Which is why I want to make sure we understand it correctly and apply it correctly. All of that to say - I want you to be able to breathe a sigh of relief.

If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church.Matthew 18:17

doesn't mean there's gonna be a day where you get something on the church e-mail list saying, "This Sunday morning, make sure you grab your coffee and be seated early, because at 10:32 am shortly after worshipping Jesus in song, we're going to publicly destroy our brother-in-Christ, Kevin." Okay - not gonna happen. And when Jesus says, "take your case to the church" he's not saying, take it to the church at large - publicly accuse or shame or convict in a court of public opinion. Cause drama with the biggest possible group you can muster and make sure you livestream it and send out a notice to everyone on your mailing list.

Jesus was most likely encouraging this person who is on a path to restoration with their peer, after having been unsuccessful privately and with two or three material witnesses, if they exist, to take it to what we hope, and in the best case scenario would be, wise and trusted leaders in the church who have everybody's best interests in mind and a heart that mirrors the love of Christ. And I doubt you'll be shocked to hear that this third part of the Matthew principle once again mirrors the procedure they would be familiar with - referenced earlier from Deuteronomy 19.

You must not convict anyone of a crime on the testimony of only one witness. The facts of the case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.Deuteronomy 19:15

Well what comes immediately after that?

If a malicious witness comes forward and accuses someone of a crime, then both the accuser and the accused must appear before the Lord by coming to the priests and judges in office at that time. The judges must investigate the case thoroughly.Deuteronomy 19:16

And that's what this is all about. Not public shaming. Taking the case, and I hate to even use that word because of the legal semantics - taking this offense in the relationship to people who have experience. People responsible for protecting the community. And the church is a community. The church - as in "the trusted leaders of the church acting as close to how Christ would as possible" - they are there to bring wisdom into the situation and perspective and fairness and protection and accountability. Their job is not to help you "win." Their job is to counsel and to provide accountability and help EVERYBODY move toward truth and Christ-like love.

You know, I was speaking earlier, talking about the picnic, about how wonderful it is to see the kind of community we've been building take shape. My wife recently gave a message about the banquet table at the Kingdom of God and that everybody's invited and everybody gets a seat. Well because everybody gets a seat and because this community within the Kingdom of God is so sacred and special - we have to protect the table and we have to protect the individuals sitting at the table. And that's where "take your case to the church" comes in. And when it gets to this point in the Matthew principle, there is a certain seriousness implied. Okay - so if one person is sitting at the table and stabbing the people next to them and threatening people and abusing people and whispering hateful gossip about people seated at the table, making marginalized people feel unsafe… loving that person does not mean allowing them to continue hurting people at the table. The goal of church leadership is still to encourage humble confession and restoration and repair relationships at the end of the day, but if it reaches this point then there also must be a plan and a priority to protect vulnerable people and create accountability, sometimes even changing systems to make sure the same harm doesn't happen again. And again, we don't involve church leadership because we're looking to punish people or we're looking to make an offense that was private now public.

WE INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE ACCOUNTABILITY MATTERS

We involve the community (in the form of church leadership) because accountability matters. See, we start privately. But in certain situations, privacy has limitations. If someone's behavior is harming you or harming the community, and they refuse to accept responsibility and change, the community needs to know. People who can help NEED to know. Privacy protects dignity. That's where we always start, but at some point privacy with unresolved malicious behavior or intent becomes secrecy that protects dysfunction. They are not the same thing. When someone's behavior threatens other people's well being, that's when conflict stops being private.

Now again - I just want to make this abundantly clear, the role of church leadership - it's to create accountability but it's not to punish. That is not the goal. The goal, as it has been through this whole process and principle, is restoration and reparation. To figure out the answer to questions like - "what was broken?" "Who was harmed?" "Who's responsible?" "What needs repair?" "What needs to change?" And especially "How do we protect people in our community going forward." People who demonstrate the love of Jesus. People who do unto others and teach others to do the same. People ask "What Would Jesus Do?" That's what Jesus would do!

Accountability protects community.

Now, I'm gonna say something here, and I don't think it's controversial. I think it's unfortunately commonplace. I do believe that part of the role of church leadership being involved in conflict resolution a la the Matthew principle is to minimize damage. But there is a caveat here. It should be to minimize damage to individuals and to the community and its members. And that's official or unofficial members. Family. Ohana. Okay.

But sometimes church leaders get this mixed up and think their job is to minimize damage to the institution. And sometimes they are willing to let people be hurt or let people not be held accountable in order to do it. And I believe that is a violation of the Matthew principle because its a violation of what Jesus teaches. And it is gross every single time. If we prioritize protecting the reputation of the church over the people in it… if protecting the institution requires sacrificing a wounded, innocent person to do so - then we protecting the wrong things and we clearly have our principles out of alignment.

Individuals over institution. Always.

People over policies and politics.

Humanity over hierarchy.

Souls over systems.

Every time. People come first.

So we've been through three steps of the Matthew Principle.

GO TO THOSE WHO OFFENDED YOU

If that's unsuccessful

BRING TWO OR THREE MATERIAL WITNESSES WITH YOU AND GO BACK TO THAT PERSON

And if that's still unsuccessful

TAKE YOUR CASE TO THE CHURCH

You know… a lot of people think the Matthew Principle is three steps. That's how they see it in their mind. But there's actually one more step. And we'll talk about it… next time I'm with you.

Oh, come on… I can't wrap up something that important in 5 minutes. Besides, that wouldn't give me time to talk about one of THE MOST MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISAPPLIED PASSAGES IN ALL OF SCRIPTURE. And it doesn't allow me to share a personal story where all of the stuff we've been talking about kind of plays out practically.

Until next time - "Go in peace. Make things right. Love people. Even the ones you have conflict with. And remember… the goal isn't to win every argument. The goal is to restore the relationship. God bless you, have a great week!