| by Arlan Weight (Bismarck, North Dakota) |
|---|
| From my first encounter with the Worldwide Church of God in the late 60’s and early 70’s ‘suspension’ and disfellowshipping’ were common practices. Prior to either one of these measures being taken, there was an effort to reconcile with the one involved in the infraction. From my perspective the effort usually involved the ministry, maybe not always, but usually. Over the years I have always had this nagging thought that many people were never reconciled or encouraged in a right way such that they would return and consequently were disfellowshipped. Once disfellowshipped they rarely ever returned. Again, this is my view of things. How about you? How many people have you ever seen return to the local church congregation once they had been officially disfellowshipped? In Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus gives a short and clear guide to solving problems in the church between brethren. Does the prescribed method work? Has it worked for you? If it works, why didn’t the majority of cases become reconciled, or so it seems to me. Could it be we may have overlooked some things in the instruction that would have made all the difference? Let us take a close look at what Jesus said. “Moreover, if your brother shall trespass against you, go, and tell him his fault between you and him alone: if he shall hear you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you then take with you one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglects to hear the church, let him be unto you as a heathen man and a publican. (Mat. 18:15-17) Notice the word “Moreover” beginning the verse, which seems to indicate this instruction is adding to some previous discussion. The discussion in this chapter is dealing with offenses so you have to back up to verse 1. Here Jesus is explaining to his disciples that they need to be very careful not to offend the “little ones”. He is letting them know how serious an infraction that is. In fact, it is so serious he covers it twice in the same setting; verse 6 and verse 10. Then in verse 15 He launches into the discussion again of offenses and how to handle them. Jesus stresses the importance and how to deal with a problem with your brother… or sister, which seems to imply someone close to you, maybe a family member, or from the context someone who has been called to the same hope… another church member. In a general sense, though it can also mean anyone because we are all brothers and therefore the prescribed guidance is for anyone. Notice the most important aspect of dealing with issues of people having problems with other people and that is it should be between the two parties only and no one else. This seems to be the most vital part of the equation to guarantee the success of the reconciliation… keep the matter private… between you and the other person. Talebearing Of course, I was not close to many of the cases, but it always seemed to me that too many people knew of the problem early on. There were sometimes when I knew for certain, there could be no possible way the minister could know of the goings on, unless someone else informed him. Therefore, this appears to be a clear violation of the instruction given. Even if it only involved one other person, namely the minister, this violates the instruction. So, could it be this was the first thing that limited the success of the reconciliation? It most assuredly hinders the success, especially if the first time the person involved in the infraction, finds out, is when the minister shows up at his or her doorstep. How often has this occurred? And then we wonder why the bad attitude. How would you feel if you are confronted by the minister of some perceived problem and it is the first time you became aware of it? What kind of thoughts would run through your mind? What kind of feelings would it generate toward the people you suspect informed the minister? Would you have a bad attitude? Look at what Proverbs 18:8 says “The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly” …kind of like an ulcer. If you have ever had one, you know it is always a touchy thing from then on. So also, is talebearing, it is always in the back of your mind of what someone else said about you. They may have thought they were doing right when they told the minister, but again it is not what the instruction says. It says, “go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.” In fact, the problem may just go away by itself if we give it a little time to let the dust settle. Take a look at Proverbs 26:20. “Where no wood is, there the fire goes out: so, where there is no talebearer, the strife ceases.” So, this is the first thing that went wrong in trying to reconcile a brother over some perceived problem. Instead of helping the situation, telling the minister introduced another problem, and maybe involved more people now. It is not hard to see how some simple little thing can grow and grow when this kind of thing takes place. Let us be honest about it, can we admit that this has happened, maybe we were even involved in the telling. Gaining Your Brother… Going to your brother, one on one is for the purpose of ‘gaining your brother’. One can see this from the context and the way it is written. If it is just for the sake of airing out your grievance with him, there would be no need to do the next phase of taking one or two others with you. When coupled with Matthew 5:24 one can see Jesus’ strong emphasis is on reconciliation and nothing less. One can see it is so important that unless you have spent effort to reconcile, you might as well forget your prayers being answered. He is saying don’t even think about talking to me until you’ve settled matters with your brother. With that understanding one can also see the frame of mind we should be in when going to our brother. Have we always gone with the frame of mind of Galatians 6:1-3? Have we always approached our brother by admitting our faults to him as well? How strongly have we desired him to be back in good terms with us? Let us be honest, and I think if we are really honest about it, we would have to admit many times we went to him in a grudging manner, where we say to ourselves “it says tell him his fault” and so here I am, I told him his fault and now it’s up to him. Well now… really… did we really live up to the intent of the instruction? hardly. I think we can safely say, unless we recognize the ‘beam in our own eye’ …when speaking with our brother, the chances are slim on our reconciliation progress. But if we do go… acknowledging our own faults, we will be successful 99% of the time. If we do it right, there will not be a need to take one or two others with you. You will have gained your brother the very first time you go. “Take One or Two More” … If you are not successful when you privately go to your brother, then tell it to the minister and take him with you. Is this what Jesus is saying? Let us read it again. “But if he will not hear you then take with you one or two more.” What? One or two more… no mention of a minister, not even a deacon? But most often isn’t this the way it happens? If at first you did not succeed, the idea is to let the minister know and he then, if he wants to, can bring a deacon along? Isn’t this the way it usually is done? Isn’t this the way you remember it? Maybe you have personally experienced this scenario. This is just another area where we fail to follow explicitly the instruction. If it does not say take the minister, it means just that. Sometimes the Bible speaks as eloquently in what it does not say, as well as what it does say. We must not read into it something that is not there! It says, “one or two more”, not necessarily the minister. But why not? Why not take the minister? Why not take a deacon? Let us ponder this question for a moment by putting ourselves in the shoes of the person who committed the ‘trespass’ …the person with whom we are trying to reconcile with. How does he or she view your coming to him? Does he view it with disdain in that your coming to him is to simply point out his mistakes or shortcomings? How did you present your case to him when you went to him privately? Did you do it with ‘meekness, considering your faults’ also? As was mentioned above, most often if it has been done this way, your success to reconcile is most often guaranteed. But because you went to him merely to point out his faults you were not well received. And now your coming with someone who is viewed as having authority… the minister. It can be intimidating. Again, try to think of it in this way, by taking the other side. How would you want to be entreated? With a show of force? Or gently? By taking the minister are we coming to him gently? Think about it… if we take the minister, deacon, or someone viewed by everyone to be an authority… are we coming with meekness? Hardly! So, this is the first thing. How are we approaching our brother, with meekness or with force? The second thing is this. What is the purpose of taking one or two others? Is it to make sure you have enough fire power? Is it an effort to make sure the one who trespassed is firmly convinced of his trespass? Let us look at the instruction again. “Take one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established”. Read it again. It is simply to witness… to record the words being said. As far as we can tell here the witnesses are not even needed to help out in the dispute. They are meant to be objective bystanders… to make sure “every word is established”. Maybe some of the fault is with the one going to the brother. Maybe they can see some of the ‘beam’ in his own eye. So, let us say, up to this point you’ve done everything explicitly the way the instruction says. You have gone to your brother privately first. As far as you know, no one even knows there is a trespass. And you considered your own faults and you really want to be on good terms again, but the person simply rejected you. So, you persisted and took one or two others, maybe even friends of the person who committed the trespass, and still, he or she is not hearing you. So, what then? Tell It to The Church” … “And if he neglects to hear them, tell it to the church”… The word ‘church’ comes from the Greek word ‘ekklesia’ meaning ‘that which is called out’. Over the years we have all been taught that this is the time when you bring in the ministry. This is the time when you turn it over to him. But is it really? Look closely. The word ‘ekklesia’ is used 115 times in the New Testament. Three times it is translated ‘assembly’ and 112 times ‘church’. It is the same word as ‘church’ in Acts 2:47 “The Lord added to the church”… Acts 5:11, “great fear came upon all the church”… Acts 7:38, “This was he that was in the church in the wilderness”… In every case the word ‘church’, from its context, cannot be viewed in any other way but by that of an assembly of people ‘ekklesia’, the called-out ones. Could it be… could it really be that we have had a bit of misunderstanding here? All these years we thought, or so we have been taught that the ‘church’ was to be the ministry. Could it really be that we have been wrong about this? Could it really mean tell it to the congregation of believers? Telling it to the minister alone is like seeing him as representing the church. But does he? What is the church anyway? Is it not the body of Christ, (Eph. 1:23) having many members? (1 Cor. 12:12) Again let us not try to read into it something that is not there. So, in revealing the problem to the church how should it be done? Let us try to envision it this way as to an assembled group and as an effort to reconcile, not to establish your own position. What could be the advantage of this? First of all, everyone hears the same word spoken. Secondly you have now harnessed the entire assembly in this effort, other friends, and acquaintances, who are as interested as you are, to see the person back in the fellowship. Everyone knows the whole story, not bits and pieces and not done behind anyone’s back. Take a look at Galatians 6:1-2. Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ”. Yes, indeed it makes good sense to tell it to the ‘ekklesia’… the called-out ones. There may indeed be someone in the entire group who is more qualified to go to him or her. Someone least expected who may be more spiritual who can make all the difference, maybe a more personal friend, not to mention now you’ve opened it up so everyone can pray for the reconciliation. So now what? What if all the effort is to no avail, the trespasser still remains cold? What then? “Let Him Be to You as A Heathen Man and A Publican” … The key word here is Let. Cut him some slack. Let him have his own life. Do not force him into trying to be or do something he just doesn’t want to do. Let him live his life in freedom to choose. This is God’s way. So, then what should be our relationship to the person? How should we relate? Should we shun or avoid him or her? Think long and hard about this issue. What kind of thoughts does it engender in the other person? Years ago, I can remember it being said, if we avoid contact with persons disfellowshipped, it will make them feel ashamed or put them in a repentant mood and they will want to return. Think again!… Instead of pointing them in the direction of apology, it only hardened their resolve to stay away. Shunning or avoiding people sends a clear message to them. It says “Don’t come too close, you’ll defile me! For I am holier than you!” (Isa. 65:5) What does God think of it? “They stifle me. Day in and day out they infuriate me.” So then “Let him be to you as a heathen man and a Publican” Publican simply means let him alone but treat him with the same dignity and respect you should have for all human beings. Do not shun him and do not carry a grudge. “Don’t take the law into your own hands. Instead, feed your enemy if he is hungry. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink and you will be heaping coals of fire on his head. In other words, he will feel ashamed of himself for what he has done to you. Don’t let evil get the upper hand but conquer evil by doing good.” (Rom. 12:20-21) If the intent is to bring awareness of the wrongdoing to the one who has trespassed, this is the way it is to be done, by doing good to them, not by shunning or avoiding them… just the opposite. Even after you have done all of the above steps, this last approach remains and is to be in force as long as you both shall live. It is the last attempt, but who can tell, if after a long time, the offender will really come to himself and he or she will have a change of heart. Was all the effort worth it? Indeed, it was! If, after a lifetime of effort… if it takes that long, will it have been worth it? Absolutely. Reread again God’s will in seeking out them that go astray. What is the final end? … Great Joy!… greater than that of the one who went not astray. “If a man has a hundred sheep, and one wanders away and is lost, what will he do: Won’t he leave the ninety-nine others and go out into the hills to search for the lost one? And if he finds it, he will rejoice over it more than the ninety-nine others safe at home! Just so, it is not my Father’s will that even one of these little ones should perish.” Summary When we look at Christ’s instruction and compare it to our actual performance, we can see why people feel jaded or betrayed. It comes down to the fact of not carrying out the instruction explicitly. Often, we put our own twist on it or read into it something that is not there. If we deeply value the fact that it is God who does the calling and causes the repentance, and if we deeply recognize our own failures and need for forgiveness, we can then be useful tools in God’s hands to… “Go to your brother”. (This article has been updated and re-printed from “The Church of God Messenger” March/April 2001—Issue No. 2.) |
Views: 0
Sign up to Receive [The "New" Church of God Messenger] weekly newsletter: