Sermon: A Scary Promise from Jesus

Text: Matthew 18:15-20

23^rd Sunday in Ordinary Time (A)

September 7, 2008

Scripture introduction.  Our second reading for this morning comes from the 18^th chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, in which Jesus instructs his disciples how to maintain discipline in the church.  Although Matthew has much in common with Mark and Luke, this is one passage that, except for a verse or two, is found only in Matthew.  It is unusual for another reason: it is one of only two places in all of the four gospels where the word “church” is used.[1]  Since the church did not come into existence until after the resurrection of Jesus, the fact that in this passage the pre-resurrection Jesus is talking about the church requires some explanation. 

Some suggest that these words originally were spoken by Jesus after his resurrection.  If so, he would have been referring to the church that was about to be born on the day of Pentecost.  That would mean that the words of Jesus were his but were placed by the author of Matthew into the pre-resurrection context of chapter 18.  Others maintain these rules for discipline in the life of the church came from another source entirely and were placed on the lips of Jesus to give them greater authority.  A third possibility is that they were a paraphrase of points Jesus had made about some other group and were simply lifted out and applied by the gospel writer to the context of life in the church.  Whatever the origins of the passage, the fact that it was deemed important enough for inclusion in the gospel suggests there was a strong concern for church discipline in the church that was the primary audience for Matthew’s gospel.  Let’s listen now to the rules that are to govern our lives together in the church.

Sermon.  One of my saddest experiences in the service of the Presbyterian Church was a case that came up when I was a member of the committee on ministry of the Mid-Kentucky Presbytery.  In our system this is the committee responsible for the relationships between churches and their pastors.  It happened that one of the best pastors in that presbytery—one with long experience in the church, with superb biblical and preaching skills, and one who truly had the heart of a pastor and a deep love for the people of the church—made a mistake.  During a presidential election—at about this time of the year—he put a bumper sticker on his car that explicitly supported one of the candidates.  Most of the people in the church thought nothing of it, but a few felt deeply aggrieved and asserted that he had overstepped his position and authority. These few began to organize, and soon they had convinced many of their fellow members of the pastor’s error.

When he found out about the issue, the pastor attempted to explain the reasons for his views, referring to the Sermon on the Mount and to Old Testament law.  But this served only to fuel the fire, suggesting to his critics that somehow their politics were less than Christian.  A congregational meeting was called, and the poor pastor attempted again to explain his reasoning; but those members of the congregation opposed to him would not be pacified.  Soon they were calling for his resignation, and the committee on ministry was called in.  We mediated with the congregation, and we gave suggestions to the pastor, but nothing worked.  In every aspect of his ministry he faced opposition from the small but extremely energetic group of his detractors—and he became completely ineffective.  I never saw a person move so quickly from confident competence to bewildered insecurity.  Eventually, even the most supportive members of the committee on ministry agreed that he had to go.  Feeling almost like accomplices, we eased him out of his pastorate.

I hope I learned some lessons from this unfortunate episode.  The first is very practical; I do not want to put political bumper stickers on my car.  Of course, I have political opinions; and if you ask me what they are, I will tell you.  Which candidate I support is my personal belief and is not something I do as pastor of this church.  On the other hand, issues are different from candidates; sometimes a pastor is called to speak about issues but, even then, carefully and respectfully.  The other lesson I learned is just how quickly negative feelings can sweep through a congregation.  When the issue is religion, it can be hard to find suitable compromises.  If Christians are not careful, disagreements can quickly escalate into open conflict, ripping the fabric of the church.

I don’t think humans have changed that much since the first century, so it’s not hard to imagine that the church for which Matthew’s gospel was written had some conflict.  Christianity was a new movement.  During most of the time leading up to when the gospel was written, Jewish Christians probably continued meeting on Saturday with their fellow Jews in the synagogue and then on Sunday had a separate meeting with other Christians.  In about the year 70—probably just before Matthew was written—many Jewish synagogues began to exclude Christian Jews from Saturday services.  If this was going on in the church for which Matthew was written, we may imagine this led to many disagreements, even among the Christian Jews, as they sorted out their new identities and began to operate as a separate assembly.  No wonder, then, that the gospel writer included these verses—rules for discipline in the church.

First rule: If there is a disagreement, if you believe that someone has wronged you, then you should go to the person and speak to them directly.  At first they may not get it; you may have to explain to them why what they did was offensive.  Note that this first rule is probably for the protection of the wrongdoer’s reputation.  It gives the offender the opportunity to correct the problem without the rest of the community even needing to know about it.  But it takes courage to confront someone directly, doesn’t it?  Sometimes, rather than doing the hard work of direct confrontation, which can actually lead to agreement and reconciliation, we are tempted to nurse the offense privately or, even worse, to begin talking to others in the community about what the scoundrel has done.  Soon, the reputation of the offender is ruined even before he realizes he has offended. 

I wonder what would have happened in the example I gave you earlier if one of the persons who was angered by the bumper sticker had gone privately to the pastor and had confronted him.  Maybe the pastor would have seen that he had offended those who favored the other candidate and would quietly have removed the bumper sticker.  Or maybe he would have maintained his right—his responsibility even—to have the bumper sticker.  Who knows? 

That leads to the second rule: If the person does not listen to you when you point out the injury in private, speak to them again, this time taking someone else from the church.  The Matthew passage speaks of “witnesses,” probably based on Old Testament law,[2] but the idea is probably more akin to having a mediator,[3] a neutral party who can hold each person accountable.  Let’s imagine that the pastor had refused after the first meeting to remove the sticker.  What if the aggrieved church member had come back—not with other angry members, but with persons sympathetic to the pastor who could have argued that, even if the pastor felt deeply about this, it was not worth the risk of controversy and open conflict in the church?  Maybe that would have gotten the sticker removed.  And it still would have been a relatively private affair.

Third rule:  If private meetings do not work, then and only then, notify the church community and ask the community to speak to the offender.  The gospel writer does not tell us exactly what this looks like.  In our litigious society, we can imagine sort of a trial going on, in which the church acts almost as a court.  Indeed, in our Presbyterian Book of Order, there is an entire division that deals with disciplinary matters; and except for a few sections that emphasize the importance of reconciliation and love it reads very much like a manual of judicial procedure.  In a way, that’s what happened to the bumper sticker pastor.  He had a sort of trial before the congregation, and they decided they wanted him to leave.  At some point the pastor did agree to remove the bumper sticker, but by that time the angry members were not satisfied with correcting the problem.  They wanted to be rid of him.  I don’t think this is the kind of public meeting with the church that Jesus would approve of.  Even the third rule has restoration and reconciliation as its goal.

In these matters I am reminded of how the Babemba tribe in South Africa deals with wrongdoers.[4]  They put the offender in the middle of the village circle and each person tells the offender his good qualities and that he is loved and valued by the tribe.  This may go on for days, as they recount all the good things he has done.  As they repeatedly profess their love and appreciation, the offender often has a change of heart.  (I wonder if we could add a new section to the Book of Order!?)

If we focus on Rules One and Two, and if we use Rule Three responsibly, we may keep small problems from becoming large.  But if the best efforts of the church fail, then, according to Rule Three, the offender must be excluded from the communion of the church.  I guess it is possible that certain persons are so poisonous that allowing them to remain in the church risks infecting other church members with their poison.  What a hard verse for us to hear on a morning when we are about to celebrate the joys of communion!  The thought that someone would have to be EX-communicated is repugnant. 

These rules are followed in Matthew by Jesus’ promise that because he is present whenever two or three of us are gathered together in his name, whatever discipline we do as a church will be ratified and enforced in heaven.  Truly, that’s a scary promise.  If the church has that much power in its discipline, what a heavy responsibility that places on us any time we even begin to think about judging or correcting someone in our fellowship.  We often quote as a comfort the verse about Jesus’ being present when two or three are gathered; but if we think we are involved in a disciplinary matter, perhaps we should imagine that Jesus is present and looking over our shoulders.  What will he think if we meet in his name and then abuse our responsibility to work hard for reconciliation, even in the midst of correction?  If we are tempted to treat someone, as Matthew says, like “a Gentile and a tax collector,” we should remember that Jesus showed kindness to Gentiles and tax collectors.  Maybe that’s why the author of Matthew’s gospel prefaced this passage with the parable of the good shepherd who seeks out the one lost sheep and followed this passage with a long speech by Jesus about the necessity of forgiveness.

This is a happy congregation, and you all do not take offense easily.  However, we can never predict when disagreements will arise.  Let’s be sure that whenever we come to the Table that Jesus sets for us, we come in a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation, never thinking too highly of ourselves, and always valuing the opinions of our sisters and brothers.