In our brother's case, being likened to the treatment of unbelievers is an illustration not only of sin, but also of unresolved disagreement.
Fellowship has to do with commonality. 2 cor 6:14-16 says:
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God.
We cannot serve two masters, and being tied to men who are without understanding from God is not profitable. Therefore we no longer do activities "in commonality," with one mind.
Yet the scriptures speak to the placement of light in regard to the darkness. Matt 5:14-16 says that the light is raised up for all to see:
"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."
In fact, Luke 8:16-18 (below) says that the light is placed in such a way so to hold other men responsible to listen, as if to the instructions of God. The sinning brother would have greater understanding if they would permit their offended brother to hold his hearing.
"No one lights a lamp and hides it in a jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. Therefore consider carefully how you listen. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him."
So I would conclude that in the case that "your brother sins against you," and the brother refuses to hear one, refuses to hear three and then refuses to receive even the entire church, they ought to be treated as if they were an unbeliever. We are not yoked to their resolvedly ignorant points of view. However we are there in the midst of their existence, showing them the way to reconciliation by faith again in Christ and to the church and to us as individuals. We woo them with our good deeds, so they might praise the Father and choose to be intimate.
I believe... that when Jesus was commanding us in Matt 18 to regard our non-listening brother as we would the heathens, Jesus was essentially saying that we would be empowered to be as light from God to that brother.
Do you find this disagreeable or uneducated?
9 comments:
I do not find this disagreeable or uneducated - but I do find it rather difficult to practice this with one who is disagreeable. :)
Missy,
Thank you for this encouragement. I think you are right, that once offense has been made, it's hard to... focus beyond it. Is this what you are referring to?
-Michele
Michele,
Once offense is made, yes, it can be hard to focus beyond it. But I find most can, and will, find a way to do so if both parties remain engaged with the issue.
What I find difficult is remaining engaged as a source of light - to refrain from seeing them as an enemy - when the other party seems immovable; disagreeable at every turn.
What I find most disagreeable is when one is regurgitating (cut-n-paste) material in the hopes of convincing me of their view - a view I have confirmed complete understanding of, without acknowledging agreement. I have listened thoroughly - and the other party has made no effort to listen at all.
This is what I see as a brother/sister refusing to hear - not that they are wrong, but that they refuse to listen and interact with what they hear.
In 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, it seems to me to explain the authority of believers to judge one another in disputes, privately - most likely for the very reason you describe here. It is to our shame that we lay it out for non-believers to judge our folly. This is what has led me to quit specific dialogs until the other party(ies) has opted for listening ears - especially in an open environment like a blog.
vs 7: "Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?" I was wronged & defrauded, & chose to turn to silence when I saw this scripture. It's not about me.
But it can be very hard not to feel like we are enemies. It takes great effort internally.
Michele,
this is an important topic, as few churches or individuals practice discipline as instructed by the word. I don't think you're uneducated, but before we settle the question, I think we need to look at some more Scripture.
When our Lord said that we should treat the unrepentant brother like a heathen or a tax-collector, I don't think that was a synonym for unbeliever; it was a description of treatment. And He didn't mean treat them the way He treated them, but how they, in their current practice, usually treated them (They kept their distance; didn't eat or worship with them. Not how He wanted them to be treated -- how they were treated). This takes us to 1 Cor. 5:9-12, which aligns perfectly with what Jesus said in Matthew.
Paul demands that the church not have any fellowship with the unrepentant brother, in no way suggesting that this applies to their treatment of unbelievers, who we are to go among, and try to win.
I believe that this breaking of fellowship has at least two purposes.
1. When the church breaks off fellowship they are mirroring and agreeing with what has already happened in God's eyes: sin has broken fellowship with God, it should also break it with God's people. When fellowship with God is restored, fellowship with the church is restored. See Paul's follow-up in 2 Cor. 2:3-11, after the brother had repented.
2. Because the brother continues willfully in sin, it would seem the Lord does not think he should enjoy the comfort, light, care and other blessings of Chr. fellowship, with the goal of repentance and restoration. He is to experience Satan's company for a while, in hopes that it will bring about repentance. Broken fellowship is not incidental, but rather instrumental to bringing him back. Always, always, always the goal is restoration of the brother. His friends hinder this when they offer him the blessings and privileges of fellowship unconditionally. Love is unconditional, fellowship is not. Many think this is harsh and that they know a higher way, a more loving way to handle the wayward friend. They're wrong. It is not loving to reassure someone in their state of willful disobedience. Church discipline is loving - it was invented by Jesus!
When you put Mt. 18 with 1 Cor. 5, 2 Cor. 2, 2 Th. 3:6, Tit. 3:10-11, you get more of the picture.
your friend,
steve
Missy,
You said:
a view I have confirmed complete understanding of, without acknowledging agreement. I have listened thoroughly - and the other party has made no effort to listen at all.
Yes... I know what you are saying and I can't think of any recourse different than what you said. My thought when this happens is to follow this scripture (it is commanded for wives but I think it can be used by any believer):
1 Pet 3:1 "if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,"
You also said:
In 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, it seems to me to explain the authority of believers to judge one another in disputes, privately - most likely for the very reason you describe here. It is to our shame that we lay it out for non-believers to judge our folly.
I agree. In the case though, of Matt 18 it recommends that if the one who has sinned against you will not listen, take along two or three witnesses and if that doesn't work, tell the church. I translate that to mean the community of believers. Somebody somewhere ought to be in authority over a brother, especially one who has sinned against you. A Christian brother who does not answer to the authority of the believing community, is... I don't know what, but, it is not a good indication of things.
Do you disagree with this caveat for publicity - among fellow believers?
Thanks for the thoughts and scriptures,
Michele
Yes, Michele, I do agree. By privately, I meant within the church or believing community.
I took on a rant there for a moment didn't I, sorry!
Steve,
I feel that Mat 18 and 1 Cor 5 are not very well related.
Anyone in the church can say that their brother has wronged them, and perhaps it is true, perhaps it is not. The point of Matt 18 is not disciplinary, not at first. It's to draw them both together to discuss whether the wrong is justified or necessary, to understand one another better.
1 cor 5, on the other hand, is much worse than the daily offenses and misunderstandings which need a methodology for resolution. 1 cor 5 says that a brother has the audacity to carouse with an identity as a morally-sinning behavior in the midst of the body as if grace covers over it and therefore should be overlooked.
The brother who needs to be "disfellowshipped" in Matt 18 could have found a resolution with his brother but will never know because he never allowed for the hearing in the first place. Nor would they receive three brothers, or the community of believers. He therefore is more interested in maintaining his course of behavior (not matter how irrelevant, no matter if the charges are founded in the end or not), than he is in submission to listening to the body of Christ. This is a man without authority, who is not yoked to the Spirit as manifested in the church (usually).
That is why we say that we treat them as if they are unbelievers -- not yoked (through reconciliation) to the Spirit of God.
The consequences are certainly different, in our engagement, between Matt 18 and 1 cor 5!
Read along further with 1 Cor 5:9-11
I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
You see that in the case of treating one as if they are simply an unbeliever (as Matt 18 depicts), there is NO RESTRICTION described here regarding keeping company with these. Only in the case that a brother becomes openly proclaiming blatant immorality and wishes to be present with the body, he may not be granted this privilege.
It takes both a refusal to meet according to the commands of Matt 18, AND blatant moral sin and calling onesself a brother and wishing to fellowship, that causes a brother to be worthy of "purging" in the way of 1 cor 5.
Little spits and spats and offenses and unintentional insults and neglects, do not fall under the instruction of 1 cor 5, I believe.
What do you think of this??
Thanks so much Steve! This is exactly what I need - someone who knows much better than I and can answer some questions I've had on the brain.
I'm glad you stopped in!
Michele
Michelle,
I think the passages are related because they both deal with a brother that won't be corrected or reconciled. But we can set that aside for the moment.
You seem to make some assumptions about Mt. 18. When you say, "Little spits and spats and offenses and unintentional insults and neglects, do not fall under the instruction of 1 Cor 5, I believe," it sounds if that's what you may have in mind in Mt. 18. Such things are often not even worth bringing up, as they can be easily resolved, or just forgiven and forgotten.
"Sins against you" means just that. It causes a rift, and to reconcile the sinning party will need to hear correction, so they can repent and be restored. If they won't, it is a serious matter. I don't think it's appropriate to think of it as a lesser sin. When you say, "no matter how irrelevant, no matter if the charges are founded in the end or not," you seem to suggest the facts have not even been established. That's what the witnesses in verse 16 have done.
You also assume he is not in authority. Why not? 1 Tim 5:19 seems to apply the same standards for establishing the truth in such cases with an elder: "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses."
I call it discipline because the goal of both passages is to correct a willfully sinning brother or sister, so that their relationship to God and to other believers can be restored to full fellowship.
And I reiterate, that when Jesus said to treat them as they would a heathen and a tax-collector, he was referring to the understanding and practice of the people listening to Him that day. They would have known He did NOT mean: show them affection and kindness, invite them to dinner, witness to them, be their friends. There is no way they would have taken Him to mean that. They were pariahs.
I know to some it seems harsh, but verses 18 and 19 are His assurance that when called upon to put someone out, we have God's full backing when we do so, and Jesus is right there with us.
Post a Comment