Fellowship: What about our imperfections?

In comments following Tuesday’s post, Choose Terms Carefully When Describing What the Church Does with the Gospel, Mr. Baker and Rev. Spencer draw out what seems to be a growing attitude toward doctrinal unity which we all agree is intolerable: “i.e. that of ignoring or belittling doctrinal differences within the WELS simply because there is no such thing as a ‘perfect church body’ here on this earth.” Rather than working toward unity by being vigilant for false teaching in our midst, and acting to admonish erring brothers in order to restore them to the Truth, such an attitude is dismissive of heterodoxy – not by denial that it exists, but by recognizing it and being content with its reality: “Oh well, there is no such thing as a perfect church – ha ha, guess that’s just another example of it.” Heterodoxy is sin. And to tolerate sin amongst one's brothers, is also sin. Like all sins, heterodoxy, and toleration of it, require repentance, not indulgence.

Several years ago, I was party to an extended email exchange with a fellow WELS Lutheran who was frustrated by our diligence in maintaining orthodoxy, disgusted with what he called “splitting hairs.” The issue for him – and for many others having the same frustration – is really that of understanding the broad picture of Fellowship, of appreciating how seriously the Bible takes visible unity and agreement in all matters of doctrine and practice, how it is applied across church bodies as well as individually, and, especially, what we make of imperfections in our unity. In one email during our exchange, I supplied the explanation appearing below, which I think might be helpful in addressing the points brought out yesterday by Mr. Baker and Rev. Spencer. We don’t overlook imperfections, nor are we content to live with them, but out of love for Christ, His Word, and for our brethren, we address the sin of heterodoxy in order to restore its adherents to the Truth as we mutually confess and practice it, thereby “endeavoring to keep unity in the bond of peace... for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.”

---

Dear xxxxxxx,

You bring up many points in your recent email, but I'll stick to the core issue, for now; and it's still Fellowship. And I'll try to keep this short.

Fellowship requires agreement in all matters of doctrine and practice
You ask, "at what point do we stop splitting hairs and start having fellowship, is my real question?" As long as anyone can say "I believe the Bible says X" when we believe it says "Y", we are compelled by love for God and His Word (Jn. 14:23-24) to examine their claim, and either accept it and change our doctrine, or reject it. The Bible is indeed clear, that we are responsible to hold pure every teaching, or doctrine, of Scripture (2 Th. 2:15; 2 Ti. 1:13-14; Tit. 1:9; He. 10:23-25). Starting with the Great Commission, Jesus commanded us to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and "teaching them ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Mt. 28:18-20). Here Jesus defines His doctrine, or teaching, as that which He gave to the disciples to carry to all nations: ALL things whatsoever. These teachings are preserved for us by the Holy Spirit in the cannon of Scripture, which includes the entire Old Testament as well as what the disciples and apostles record by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. When the Bible calls us to be "fellowhelpers for the Truth" (3 Jn. 8), the Truth referred to is the teaching of Christ, that is, God's Word in its entirety ("Thy Word is Truth" [Jn. 17:17]). And it is this body of Truth in which we are beseeched in the name of Jesus Christ to be perfectly agreed and without division (Ro. 15:5-6; 1 Co. 1:10).

Just to make it clear, I'll rhetorically ask "So what teachings of the Bible are not fellowship criteria?" Answer: None. If anyone says anything contrary to the doctrine of Christ, they are not blessed, but accursed (Ga. 1:8-9). That's right, the words used in the Galatians reference are anyone and anything. If anyone does not have the doctrine of Christ, he does not have God (2 Jn. 9). If anyone comes with a religious teaching other than the doctrine of Christ, he is to be avoided (Ro. 16:17). If anyone comes to us with any religious teaching other than the teaching of Christ, the Bible commands that we "receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed" lest we become partaker of his evil deeds (2 Jn. 10-11). Any teaching that is at variance with the pure doctrine of Christ, is a teaching that is contrary to God's Word. Such teaching is divisive of fellowship.

All of these points are expounded in compelling detail in the books I mentioned earlier, Church Fellowship: Working Together for the Truth (John Brug), and Church Fellowship: What Does the Bible Say? (Seth Erlandsson). If you haven't read them, I would definitely recommend them. The former is a rather gentle introduction to the doctrine of Church Fellowship, while the latter is a strong and direct testimony concerning this doctrine, taken from Scripture, the Confessions, and the Church Fathers (it is a shame that NPH is no longer printing this slim, though very helpful, volume, and that it is now unavailable from NPH, since in my opinion it is a far more useful text than the former, as it comes from a strong Confessional perspective). Finally, consider the following quotes from Dr. Luther:

"In the church, however, as far as the Word is concerned, it is not a matter of the forgiveness of sins; but this is the mathematical point and the highest purity. The Word is so irreproachable that not a single iota can err in the Law or the divine promises. For that reason we must yield to no sect, not even in one tittle of Scripture, no matter how much they clamor and accuse us of violating love when we hold so strictly to the Word. The beginning of all love is that the scepter of equity remains. If there is no other way of achieving this, then love or anything else must be broken, be it ever so great, just so the Word remains pure" (in his commentary on Psalm 45).

"We are prepared to preserve peace and love with all men if only they will permit us to keep the doctrine of faith entire and uncorrupted. If they will not promise this, they will demand love from us in vain. Damned be that love which is maintained at the cost of the doctrines of the faith! ...If a single one is set aside, they will gradually all be lost. They form one single, harmonious whole..." (from his commentary on Galatians 5:9).

How do Lutherans get “doctrine” from the Bible?
Thus, Fellowship requires agreement in ALL doctrines of Scripture, and this has been understood at least since the Reformation. So, what's a doctrine? Briefly, doctrine descends to us only through God's Word as it is studied according to sound hermeneutical principles. True Lutheran teaching relies on direct positive statements of Scripture, only. Only direct positive statements in the Bible are clear, and Scripture doctrine, or teaching, which we regard as objective and authoritative, can only come from such clear statements. In addition, we rely on the principle, “Scripture interprets Scripture”; in other words, the more clear statements interpret the less clear statements, putting the less clear statements (like anecdotal and prophetic sections, for example) in a position supporting the more clear statements, rather than one that qualifies them – accordingly, this hermeneutical principle also maintains the unity of the Scriptures. Finally, the role of human reason in true Lutheran teaching is subordinate to the authority of Scripture – reason is the handmaiden of Scripture, not its arbiter, necessarily elevating faith over reason, and teaching humility to the student of the Bible.

Christian doctrine has been developed over the millenia, as challenges to Scripture teaching have required examination of such claims according to what the Bible says
So, to return to the beginning, if someone says "I believe the Bible says X," he is asserting "X" as a Bible doctrine. If I believe the Bible really says "Y," I am compelled by love for God and His Word to examine this claim and either accept it, changing my doctrinal confession, or reject it and give a firm testimony to the truth. And this is really the process of doctrinal development over the millennia. Someone asserts a new teaching, Christians examine it, and they either accept it or reject it. The consequence of such rejection can be the restoration of the errorist to the Truth, or if he persists, separation from the errorist. Thus, as long as we continue to be faced with challenges to pure Biblical teaching, the "hair splitting" must continue. Church Fellowship, as the Bible makes clear, is conditioned on full agreement in all of its teachings. I shake my head at some of the growing challenges we will be facing in coming years, like Process Theology and "the new perspective on Paul." Such doctrinal innovation is nothing but shameless human arrogance, if not the work of the Devil.

Application of Fellowship among church bodies
In its application, Fellowship is practiced in a variety of contexts. Between church bodies, it is relatively cut and dried – doctrine and practice are written down, compared, differences are examined, and either agreement and unity results, or separation results. The point to remember is that in separation we are not only giving a testimony to their error, and warning of the danger of that error, but we must also do so in a way that provides a clear testimony to what is true. The objective of separation, just like excommunication, is to call errorists (sinners) to repentance and back to the pure doctrine, not to punish them.

Application of Fellowship among individuals: How do we deal with imperfections?
Between individuals who share fellowship, however, the objective confessions they publicly agree to serve as the standard of their unity. Between them there will be many imperfections, however – and I think this is the point that many people have trouble with. This imperfection is due to man's sinful nature, weakness of faith, lack understanding, etc. However, this is no excuse for tolerating departures from God's Word! Our love for God and His Word compels us to work to maintain its purity and to defend orthodox teaching. If we are willing to tolerate the error, our love for God and His Word must be questioned (Jn. 14:23-24). If we know of an erring brother within our fellowship, his error is sin, and if that error is a private matter, the process of Mt. 18 applies. We go to that person to seek understanding of what he said or did, evaluate it, and if he is found to be in error, we offer admonition and instruction. Again, we need to go to that person and seek understanding and clarification, not automatically assume they are in error, but also not allowing the possibility that error may exist. They may have misspoken, we may have heard or witnessed something out of context, etc. Likewise in matters of public offense, the process of 1 Ti. 5 applies.

But what about those whose understanding is lacking? Can I have fellowship with my three-year-old son? Yes, I can and do. His conscience is informed by what he believes is true, and I know that everything he believes is true, I also believe is true. I know that everything he believes is false, I also believe is false. In fact, I can say that most of what he believes is true, he probably doesn't understand. But he believes it just the same, which makes it a matter of his conscience, not necessarily his understanding. If I discover that we are at variance, I admonish and instruct him. And as he grows more intellectually capable, I continue to admonish and instruct him, to build him up, out of love and concern for his soul. This is why I stated, in a previous note, that fellowship between brethren is not defined by uniformity of understanding, but by the common conviction of conscience tempered by the humility of a teachable heart. Dr. Luther, at the Diet of Worms, helps us to see this as he singles out conscience as the seat of agreement:

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason ...my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."

I'm sure that there is much in orthodox teaching that I don't fully understand, that would take me quite awhile to wrap my mind around, but I believe it, I made public confession of this belief when I was made a member of my congregation, and I continue to give confession to it in my words and actions – and this belief, or faith, along with the understanding that follows, is worked in me by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace. For this reason as well, my own pastor has even said,

"If someone without a church affiliation walks in and says, 'I know that I don't know everything the Bible says, but I know that I want to believe whatever it says,' then this is grounds to receive that person into fellowship. We continue to admonish and instruct as long as he remains teachable, but if (and only if) at some point we discover that what he believes is at variance with what we believe, and if he persists in his false belief (i.e., is no longer teachable), only then do we separate."

Although belief and understanding are, for the adult, often closely connected, it is the belief that is at issue – and for the purposes of fellowship, by the direction of Scripture, we identify what a person believes by what they say they believe (their confession) and whether their works are consistent with that confession. If people, however, publicly say they believe the confessions of their church body, but secretly reject some of them, their false confession does not change the nature of biblical fellowship; it just makes those people into liars and hypocrites (who, we also know, will always be with us). Since we know that errorists will always be with us, if the love of Christ is indeed within us, our response is not to overlook indications of false doctrine revealed in foreign practices, nor to shrug off false statements, but to act in favor of unity by addressing such issues swiftly and directly.

We must admit that among those who share biblical Fellowship there will be imperfections, but love for God, for His Word, and for our brethren compels us to admonish and instruct, to build one another up, "endeavoring to keep unity in the bond of peace," each member functioning according to his gifting and function, "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God..." (Ep. 4:2-16). Read this section from Ephesians. It is describing how Christians function as a "unit," as a body, building and strengthening one another. If, in private matters, all we do is pick at the errors and failures we observe in our brothers, without actually going to them out of genuine love and concern to address their sin, then we are guilty of sin against our erring brother, and of sin against everyone in our fellowship. Likewise in public matters, if all we do is hiss and cluck our tongues among ourselves, rather than bringing matters of public sin before them and before all who are affected by it, then by our inaction we are sinning against our erring brother and against our entire fellowship. Out of love for Christ, we have no right to overlook mishandling of His Word, nor do we have any right to condemn our brother unless we have first acted out of love and concern – again, love for God, for His Word, and for our brethren – to address his sin, either privately or publicly as the situation requires, and have given him the opportunity to repent and receive absolution.

Blessings,

Mr. Douglas Lindee

Archeologists Discover Letter Written to St. Paul

Word is now coming out that a letter has been discovered that was written to St. Paul, in response to his letter to the churches in Galatia. Here is an English translation.

Parodios, a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, to our brother Paulos.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Our church recently received a copy of the letter that you sent to the church of Galatia. We hope you will not mind hearing our humble concerns. In the past we have noticed you are more interested in confronting people rather than conversing with them, but we hope you will receive this letter as an invitation to further dialogue.

First of all, we are uncomfortable with your tone throughout the correspondence. We know it is difficult sometimes to discern tone of voice from written communication, but you should keep this in mind as well. One could gather from your careless use of words that you are losing your temper. You certainly sound angry. This is unbecoming a spokesperson for the faith. As you say yourself, one of the manifest fruit of God’s Spirit is gentleness.

Aren’t you being a hypocrite to preach grace but not show it to our Judaizer brothers? They may not worship as you do or emphasize the same teachings you do, but our Lord has “sheep not of this fold,” and there is certainly room within the broader Way for these brothers. Their methodology may differ from yours, but certainly their hearts are in the right place.

You yourself know that our Lord required personal contact when we have a grievance against another. Have you personally contacted any of these men? Have you sat down to reason with them personally? Have you issued a personal invitation? Some of them may even reconsider their viewpoints if you had taken a different tack. We know that your position is likely that public teaching is open to public criticism, but we can do better than what is expected, can’t we?

In one portion of your letter, you indicate you don’t even know these persons! “Whoever he is,” you write. Our dear Paulos, how can you rightly criticize them when you don’t know them? It’s clear you haven’t even read their material, because you never quote them. We implore you to see that they are plainly within the tradition of Moses and of the Prophets. They understand the context of the covenant in ways you appear deaf to.

Similarly, we find your tone and resorting to harsh language not in keeping with the love of Christ. “Foolish Galatians.” “Let him be accursed.” “Emasculate themselves.” Really? Can you not hear yourself? You think this is Christlike? Does this sound like something our Lord would say? Do you think this flippant, outrageous, personal, vindictive manner of speech speaks well of God’s love or the church? It is clear you are taking this way too personally. Indeed, you ask the Galatians if you are now their enemy. Does everything have to be so black and white to you?

Paulos, what will unbelievers think when they read this letter? Do you think this will commend the gospel to them? This kind of harsh language just makes us look like a bunch of angry people. They see we can’t even love each other, and over what? Circumcision? This is a terrible advertisement for God’s love to an unbelieving world. You have given plenty of people permission now to disregard Jesus, if this is what his mouthpieces sound like.

We hope you will reconsider your approach. We know that you catch much more flies with honey than with vinegar. We are concerned that your ill-worded letter signals a divisiveness that threatens to fracture the church. We beg you to reconsider how important these minor issues are, and how in the future you may speak in ways that better reflect God’s love.

The grace —and the love!— of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brother.

---

The foregoing was posted on Rev. Paul T. McCain's blog, Cyberbrethren, last week. When we read it, we thought it appropriate as an object of discussion on our own blog, and sought permission to cross-post his blog entry on Intrepid Lutherans. Of course, this piece is satire. We feel compelled to state as much before the reader comments, given that a number of the Cyberbrethren commenters didn't get it.

But what of these criticisms of St. Paul? Face to face communication is required in all circumstances? Really? Is St. Paul's position that "public teaching is open to public criticism" at variance with the teaching of Christ? Really? Is St. Paul not being Christlike when he displays indignance in the face of attacks on the Gospel and pure doctrine? Really? Or, are those who overshadow references like 1 Tim. 5:20 with references like Mt. 18:15, rather than balancing them, in fact pitting Scripture against itself? Wouldn't the natural result of this be a criticism of St. Paul's use of language in the book of Galatians? Or criticism of his "naming of names" in I Ti. 1:19-20, II Ti. 4:14-15 and elsewhere, when, in letters meant to be read in public, he excoriates by name members of the congregation as false brothers? Or even St. John – the "Apostle of Love" – who in III John likewise names Diotrephes, an apparently influential figure in the congregation, as a false teacher? Would the result of such an imbalanced understanding of Scripture's testimony be a confusion of the two Tables of the Law, of placing temporal concerns for one's neighbor ahead of God and His Word?

The devil can quote Matthew 18, too

God’s Word is a weapon against the devil. It is the gladius Spiritus, the “sword of the Spirit,” as the Apostle calls it in Ephesians 6. By it, the Holy Spirit gives new birth to those first born in the devil’s kingdom. By it, the kingdom of God comes and the kingdom of the devil falls. God’s Word, rightly used, is the devil’s undoing.

But God’s Word, twisted and perverted, is the devil’s tool. We know that our enemy, the devil, is a master at misusing God’s Word. “Did God really say…?” he queried Eve. “Throw yourself down! For it is written: ‘He will command his angels concerning you…’” he taunted the famished Lord Christ from the highest point of Jerusalem’s temple. “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone,” the Adversary whispered, influencing the “adversaries” of the Lutheran Church to cite James 2:24 as proof that faith and works must be combined to bring about man’s justification before God.

Our Lutheran forefathers were able to handily untwist God’s Word (Apology, Art. V) by interpreting it in context and by using the whole of Scripture to harmonize the passages which seemed to contradict one another.

Distribuite tempora, et concordat Scriptura, Augustine said. “Distinguish the times (when each Scripture passage applies), and the Scripture agrees with itself” (Sermones, LXXXII). He said this in reference to two passages of Scripture – one oft quoted in our times, the other oft forgotten. He was speaking about the apparent contradiction between Matthew 18:15 and 1 Timothy 5:20.

Actually, he began the discussion talking about the Septuagint (Greek) translation of Proverbs 10:10b, “He that reproves openly makes peace.” Lest anyone should make the argument that the New Testament (Matthew 18) trumps the Old Testament (Proverbs 10), Augustine put the argument on an unquestionably even plain: Christ against Christ, that is, Christ’s words in Matthew 18 vs. Christ’s words in 1 Timothy 5:20 (spoken through his apostle).

Matthew 18:15 – “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you…” (NIV).

1 Timothy 5:20 – “Those [elders] who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning” (NIV).

Augustine - “Brothers, let us then listen to these two precepts in such a way that we may understand them, and let us be at peace between them both. Let us be in agreement with our own heart, and Holy Scripture will in no part disagree with itself. It is entirely true, both precepts are true; but we must make a distinction, that sometimes the one, sometimes the other must be done; that sometimes a brother must be ‘reproved between him and you alone,’ sometimes a brother ‘must be reproved before all, that the others also may fear.’ If we sometimes do the one, and sometimes the other, we will maintain the harmony of the Scriptures, and in doing and fulfilling them, we will not go wrong.” (translation mine)

When does the admonition in Matthew 18:15 apply – for a brother to rebuke a brother privately or secretly? When the sin is known only between the two of them. In that case, it would unnecessarily harm the reputation of the sinner to alert others to it. When does 1 Timothy 5:20 apply? When the sin is committed in the presence of other witnesses. Ergo ipsa corripienda sunt coram omnibus, quae peccantur coram omnibus: ipsa corripienda sunt secretius, quae peccantur secretius. “Therefore, those sins are to be reproved before all that are committed before all; those sins are to be reproved in secret that are committed in secret.”

In addition to the different circumstances in which Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5 apply, they also emphasize different purposes. Matthew 18 focuses on the repentance of the one who has sinned, while 1 Timothy 5 focuses on the effect the public rebuke is to have on “the others.” In context, Paul is speaking of the “presiding elders” in the congregation, “especially those who preach and teach.” No accusation against one of these elders ought to be entertained lightly, because they hold that noble office of the ministry and are worthy of “double honor.” Two or three witnesses are required for any accusation to be entertained against them. But where these witnesses are present, Paul calls for a public rebuke of the elder (in our context, “minister”) who has sinned, “so that the others may take warning.” Literally, “so that the rest may have fear.”

The public nature of the rebuke of an elder is to serve as a warning to anyone – layman or clergy – who might be tempted to sin in a similar way. Whatever an elder does, whether good or bad, has tremendous influence on the beliefs and actions of others, because an elder is supposed to be trustworthy. His life is supposed to be an example, a pattern for others to follow (Phil. 3:17). If that pattern has been sinful in some area and has gone on without rebuke, then others may easily be tempted to conclude that the pattern is, in fact, an acceptable one, and so may be tempted to follow it. For this reason, a public rebuke is called for, so that everyone may be warned against following the sinful pattern set for them by the elder.

The rest of the Scriptures support this same distinction in the use of Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5. When Jesus rebuked the Pharisees as hypocrites, there is no indication that he approached each one individually first to rebuke them in private (though they were, at that time, still his “brothers” in the visible church called “Israel”). Paul rebuked Peter “in front of them all” (Galatians 2:14) because Peter’s public actions had led others astray. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about the man in their midst who had openly taken his father’s wife to be his own (1 Cor. 5:1), he didn’t call on the Corinthians to “begin the steps of Matthew 18” with this man. Paul’s instruction to them was clear: “When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan” (1 Cor. 5:4,5).

Likewise, Paul did not hesitate, at times, to “name names” of those individuals who had sinned publicly. “Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme” (1 Timothy 1:19-20). “For Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica” (2 Timothy 4:10). One wonders if, in our synod today, Paul would be accused of “breaking the 8th Commandment.”

Speaking of the 8th Commandment, Lutheran theologians, starting with Luther, have uniformly observed the distinction between private and public sin. Luther writes in the Large Catechism,

The true way in this matter would be to keep the order in the Gospel. In Matthew 18:15, Christ says, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.” Here you have a precious and excellent teaching for governing well the tongue, which is to be carefully kept against this detestable misuse. Let this, then, be your rule, that you do not too quickly spread evil about your neighbor and slander him to others. Instead, admonish him privately that he may amend his life. Likewise, if someone reports to you what this or that person has done, teach him, too, to go and admonish that person personally, if he has seen the deed himself.

But then he adds,

All this has been said about secret sins. But where the sin is quite public, so that the judge and everybody know about it, you can without any sin shun the offender and let him go his own way, because he has brought himself into disgrace. You may also publicly testify about him. For when a matter is public in the daylight, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying. It is like when we now rebuke the pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. Where the sin is public, the rebuke also must be public, that everyone may learn to guard against it.

As we distinguish between Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5, it is not as if we are being required by God to choose “love” in some cases (Matthew 18) and to choose “lovelessness” in other cases (1 Timothy 5:20). Both actions – rebuking in private when called for and rebuking in public when called for – are commands of God, and therefore, both are perfectly loving. (A person’s attitude for doing either may or may not be motivated by love, but that is a separate question.)

But here is where the devil perverts the Holy Scriptures and reverts to his ancient temptation to turn man into God. He would make us to be gods who judge what love is or isn’t. “How can it be loving to publicly rebuke someone? That will harm their reputation. God tells you to guard your neighbor’s reputation, and therefore, it’s never appropriate to rebuke him in public. Remember, Jesus said, ‘…just between the two of you!’”

The devil would have us remember Matthew 18 while forgetting 1 Timothy 5. This is no different than what he did when he tempted Jesus. He wanted Jesus to remember Psalm 91:11-12 while forgetting Deuteronomy 6:16. (Thankfully, the Word incarnate didn’t forget Himself inspired.)

Then the devil inserts the following argument, “Besides, if you rebuke this man publicly, then it will hinder his preaching of the gospel and bring turmoil to his congregation, which will also hinder the work of the gospel. And since spreading the gospel is the most important work of all, you shouldn’t do anything that might hinder it. Surely discipline in the Church is a lesser work than spreading the gospel!”

Thus, Satan would convince us that one work of God is to be pitted against another. That is, the goal of “evangelism” is more important than following God’s commands for dealing with the one who has publicly sinned. The trouble is, of course, that the God who calls on his Church to preach the gospel is the same God who calls on his Church to rebuke public sins publicly, and this God never works against himself.

What does the devil accomplish when he succeeds in misquoting Matthew 18 in our ears? Several tragedies result:

1. Our definition of “love” supersedes God’s definition of “love,” and our purposes in “evangelism” trump God’s commands regarding public sin. We, therefore, make ourselves to be gods, and leave the First Commandment lying in pieces.


2. Public sins go publicly unreproved. God’s command to reprove publicly has the loving purpose of warning others. When the devil gets his way, others are not warned, but rather emboldened to commit the same sin, knowing that there will be no public consequence for it.


3. Those who act appropriately according to God’s command in 1 Timothy 5:20 are threatened with acting out of line with Matthew 18:15, and may even be censured for acting in line with God’s command.


4. If a sin is committed publicly by one pastor, but the rest of the pastors refuse to address it publicly, then the people of God lose trust in all their pastors.


5. The name of God is “blasphemed among the Gentiles” when elders of God’s Church commit well-known sins, without there ever being any well-known rebuke for those sins. If the sin is well-known but the rebuke is only private, then the world’s suspicions of “clergy cover-up” will not be entirely without merit.

Matthew 18:15 is God’s Word. 1 Timothy 5:20 is God’s Word. The devil can quote either one against the other, and in our time, he seems to be having a great deal of success pushing Matthew 18 when Matthew 18 does not apply. Distribuite tempora, et concordat Scriptura. Distinguish the times, and the Scripture agrees with itself. Fail to distinguish when Matthew 18 applies, and it becomes another weapon in the devil’s arsenal.