Mt 18:15-20
7 September 2008
“The Right Way to Get in Somebody’s Face”
If you were here last week, you may recall my description of myself as a freshman in college. I said that I was a real bonehead, even though I imagined that I was very intelligent. I spoke of my letters to the campus newspaper, in which I voiced my opinion on government, saying we need as little of it as possible. Even though Reagan wanted to deregulate everything (except drug laws), I felt he was too liberal. My letters were smugly defiant.
Then I mentioned my kind, old, grandfatherly professor, who I encountered on the steps outside a building. He told me that he’d read what I’d written. And all he said was, in his soft-spoken way, “You know, you have to care about people.” Then he continued ambling down the steps.
He could have handled the situation in a number of ways. He could have avoided addressing the issue, either by ignoring me entirely or by limiting his comments to small talk. He could have engaged me in a discussion / debate of my ideas. (That’s the option I probably would have welcomed!) He could have talked about me to other people: “One of my students is truly a moron.” And I’m sure we can imagine other courses of action!
Instead, he dealt with me in the way most closely resembling our reading in Matthew’s gospel.
I say it resembles our text, since saying that my letter constituted a “sin” might be pushing it a bit. (Calling it a display of ignorance would certainly hit the mark!) And while my professor was definitely a member of the church, I’d have a hard time saying exactly what I was! Still, his behavior was very much in the spirit of what we hear Jesus saying.
The passage begins, “If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one” (v. 15). Here are a couple of quick points. The Greek has if “your brother” sins against you. The NRSV is making the point that this isn’t just about men.
And second, there are some reliable manuscripts that lack the phrase sinning “against you.” So it’s possible that Jesus isn’t limiting his comments to bad stuff directed against his hearers. He might be talking about offenses in general. So my professor would have had even better standing, if you think of my letters as offensive in general!
In the New Jerusalem Bible, the passage begins this way: “If your brother does something wrong, go and have it out with him alone, between your two selves.” That points an even sharper point on it. Go and have it out. It’s more or less telling us to go and get in somebody’s face! Of course, there is a right way to get in somebody’s face.
If we care about people, there are times when we will feel the need to get in their face, so to speak. My professor cared enough about me to demonstrate the right way to do it. So some degree of spiritual maturity is required.
Clearly, this isn’t a rule for all situations. For example, expecting people to sit down with their abusers one-on-one is not only unfair, but it’s stupid—and in some cases, it would be illegal. So some degree of common sense is required.
This process has been called “first century conflict management. If you have a problem with someone’s behavior, go and see them and talk with them about it. By implication, don’t go and gossip to someone else about it.”[1] And here’s something similar to that: don’t triangulate someone else into taking your side.
What that means is finding an ally in someone who really has no business butting in. The third person forms the “triangle.” I have a beef with you, but instead of talking with you about it, I go and recruit Joe Six-pack to do it for me. Believe it or not, church members are not immune to this temptation! There have been times when I’ve been asked to play the role of Joe Six-pack!
Verse 16 might sound like we’re being encouraged to do that very thing. “But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.” So what’s the difference here? Aren’t we still being asked to triangulate? Aren’t we still being encouraged to drag someone else into something that’s not their business?
This idea is based on the principle in Deuteronomy 19 that states, “A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing…Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained” (v. 15). This idea is alluded to several times in the New Testament (Jn 8:17, 2 Co 13:1, 1 Tm 5:19, He 10:28, 1 Jn 5:7).
In today’s scripture, it’s not that the person is being put on trial. That’s not why the witnesses are needed. They’re needed to show that a good faith effort at reconciliation is being made. In addition, this provides another chance for a meeting of the minds before things get ugly.
And by ugly, I mean this: “If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (v. 17). It’s bad enough if the situation gets this far, but what really looks bad is that phrase at the end.
Why would Jesus say such derogatory things about Gentiles and tax collectors? Let’s not forget that Matthew himself was a tax collector.
Francis Beare is rather blunt on the matter. “There is not the least likelihood that Jesus himself ever spoke with such disparagement of Gentiles or tax collectors. These are quite evidently the words of a Jewish-Christian group which still thinks of Gentiles as ‘common’ (unholy) or ‘unclean.’”[2] These are not the words of Jesus.
I would tend to agree. Jesus was well-known for not sharing his fellow Jews’ disgust for Gentiles and tax collectors. I think this is a “textbook case,” so to speak, of the written word obscuring the living Word. We can see this many times throughout the Bible.
It’s important to see how local conditions, particular places and times, affect the way we relate to God and to each other. We have to keep in view the living Word. That’s how to interpret the written word, especially these problematic passages. Otherwise, even the most elegant and inspiring writings can become poisonous.
I believe that, without intending to, this verse demonstrates the need for what it was intended to do: conflict resolution! It shows how our prejudices, our biases—especially the unacknowledged and unexamined ones—do in fact affect our behavior. The phrase “Gentiles and tax collectors” represents people who are despised. Every culture can plug in its own names. We can do the same for ours.
Still, flawed though we may be, we in the church have been empowered by our Lord to deal with this stuff. “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (v. 18). That line is also in chapter 16, where Jesus tells Simon that he is Peter, the rock.
The language of binding and loosing, which the people of that day understand, is about forgiving and retaining sins. Jesus gives that authority to the church. The third part of our Book of Order is the rarely discussed Rules of Discipline. In the preamble to the Rules of Discipline, we see this (D-1.0102):
“The power that Jesus Christ has vested in his Church, a power manifested in the exercise of church discipline, is one for building up the body of Christ, not for destroying it, for redeeming, not for punishing.” The point is that God isn’t compelled to obey our decisions; the challenge is to seek the mind of Christ so that we do understand how to behave.
There’s an underlying theme here, one that I hope I’ve pointed out, but it’s something I should emphasize. From the start of this passage—and going through each of the steps—there’s a sense of being proactive. Look at the words used: “go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone.” If there’s no progress, “take one or two others.” They’re in the form of commands.
Jesus does not say, “Just wait around long enough, and everything will take care of itself. You don’t need to say or do anything. After all, isn’t it clear how you feel about it? Can’t they read your mind?”
Rev. Bill Loader, a professor in Australia, comments on this. “Honesty in confronting issues [helps make] restoration possible, whereas half dishonest failure to name things leaves untended wounds which fester and, even in apparent reconciliation, the pain will be disruptive and is frequently destructive for all. Unfortunately, Christians have been particularly good at replacing honest open love with being nice.”[3]
Sometimes (not always, but sometimes) we say that we don’t want to offend somebody, but the truth is we’re too chicken to risk ruffling someone’s feathers! I don’t exclude myself; I do say “we.”
Some people seem to feel like disagreeing with someone makes them an enemy. Those who watched very much of the Democratic and Republican party conventions got a big dose of that nonsense. I understand what the talking heads in the media say about rallying your core supporters, but must it be done in such a brainless and immature way?
Our scripture reading is directed to the church, but does it have anything to say to the nation at large? Does it address international relationships? There are plenty of “Gentiles and tax collectors” in our world; there are plenty of people who are despised.
In our worship bulletin, I’ve included something adopted by the Presbyterian Church in 1992: “Seeking to be Faithful Together: Guidelines for Presbyterians During Times of Disagreement.”[4] (You’ll notice a photo of a couple of lads who might be in need of such guidelines!)
It’s broken into three major sections: (1) “Give them a hearing…listen before we answer,” (2) “Speak the truth in love,” and (3) “Maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.” You can see how each of those is broken down. I really hope you’ll take this with you and not blow it off. It’s too important.
Some people have said that the last two verses of our passage have been artificially tacked on. Maybe it’s true, since we hear them quoted so often out of their context. (I know I’ve done it on occasion.) “Truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (vv. 19-20).
As I say, people use those verses for all kinds of reasons. But I think the verses fit very well right where they are. How can we hope to live by those guidelines during disagreement—how can we learn the right way to get in somebody’s face—if Christ isn’t active right in our midst?
In a few moments, we’ll be invited to contribute to the offering and come to the table of the Lord. Both of those are essential to worship. We would do well to hear the words of Jesus as recorded earlier in Matthew’s gospel.
“When you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift” (5:23-24).
I’m not sure how strongly to insist on this. Thinking of someone with something against us might lead to a stampede out of this place! Or maybe we’ll trample over each other right here in making the effort! Maybe it’s enough for us to determine within ourselves to make that good faith effort at reconciliation, maybe when we are alone with that other person. Does that sound good?
God knows our hearts. To borrow a verse from last week’s reading in Romans 12, can we agree that “so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (v. 18)? Unless we hide ourselves from the entire world, we will get in people’s faces. The question is: will we do it in the right way?