To this day, I can still remember walking home after an incredibly awkward and strange meeting with a person of importance and feeling incredibly uncomfortable with the way it went. If I might hearken to the great Maya Angelou, over that hour, that person showed me who they truly were, and I believed them that first time. As I made my way home, I remember thinking that this person was someone that it would be best to avoid and have minimal interactions with because of the way that he conducted himself.
During the meeting, I caught him in numerous lies while also listening to him disparage people I worked with and knew since I was a child. He even went so far as to invoke the clergy seal of confidentiality to ensure that I might not tell anyone what he said. What I soon came to realize quite quickly into our meeting was that he called me there to intimidate me. I had made what I believed to be a fairly innocuous comment on Facebook about how there is a tendency among our church institutions to be misleading concerning enrollment and membership numbers. Bear in mind that I was not specific about what or who did so. When he asked to meet with me, I obliged, took ownership of my comment, and even apologized for the offense, even though such was not my intention. Strangely, I don’t think he expected that, so he just kept talking. Nonetheless, in my mind, what should have been a five-minute meeting turned into an hour meeting. During that time, he seemed to spiral out of control and dig himself into a hole, yet he just couldn’t stop saying all kinds of crazy things. Alas, on that walk home and later that evening, I came to a very certain conclusion about that man – it would be best and wise to stay away. Maya Angelou was certainly onto something when she said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” And boy, I believed him.
I wish I could say it all ended there, and that I simply stayed away from him and interacted with him as necessary. But anyone with any experience with such a personality knows that they generally won’t give up so easily. Controllers and manipulators are gonna seek to control and manipulate, nah, mean? And so, after about ten months of simply doing my own thing, it happened. A colleague came to me about my relationship, or lack thereof, with this fellow. It was rather apparent right from the get-go that a conversation had occurred about me between this colleague and the aforementioned person. In many respects, this was an excellent example of triangulation. The seeming goal of this colleague was to get us to hash it out or make it right. However, this colleague presumed to know all that had transpired. He was going on the word of this other person, and when I communicated all that had transpired, how I was uncomfortable by the lying and the bullying, he refused to believe me. And then he pulled out the common trump card when such conversations come to an impasse. He cited Matthew 18:15-20, telling me I was now obliged to go to him to work things out. Angered but not surprised, I explained that that was pointless given the behaviors I had witnessed and, actually, had witnessed elsewhere. That doing so was futile, especially considering that since that meeting, I had kept that matter to myself. Really, I wanted to move on and be left alone. I was not out and about telling others what happened, but this individual was clearly. Worse still, the colleague kept pressing the matter and said he would go with me to a meeting or have others involved as witnesses, to which I responded that doing so made no sense because it was my word against his and, given his propensity to lie, such was futile. At that point, the matter was dropped, but I was livid.
In retrospect, I realize that the deep anger I felt during and after the meeting was that a boundary I had established had been breached and dismissed. The irony here is that it had been breached and dismissed by someone doing another person’s bidding while invoking Matthew 18. But, really, underneath it all, there wasn’t a concern for reconciliation so much as a concern for keeping up appearances. Matthew 18 was simply used as a means to get what they wanted – my acquiescence.
This experience prompted me to do a deep dive into Matthew 18:15-20 because, upon further reflection, I realized how often it gets used or treated as some sort of panacea for any type of conflict. Thus, if your brother or sister has sinned against you must go talk with them about it. Seems simple enough, emotionally healthy, too. However, what about in the case of sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse, and the list goes on? What then? What do you do in the case of a habitual liar or deeply narcissistic personality? And what if it is apparent from the start that the so-called church is biased toward the offender? What then? Is this really what the Matthean Jesus was encouraging his followers to do? Is this how the Matthean community in Antioch would have understood these words? Or is there another way to understand them?
Something for us to remember is that early Christian communities like Matthew’s audience and Jesus’ first followers would have known well the challenge of following Jesus. What I mean is that the way of life that Jesus had called them to was truly countercultural and, thereby, marginal. After all, they held that a Jewish Galilean who was crucified was Lord and God of the cosmos. Their way of living and being stood in contrast to the dominant modes of living and being, particularly that of the Roman Empire. Thus, maintaining communal peace and integrity would have been of the utmost importance, especially in a community that was not only small but was dealing with the stressors of resistance and persecution from family, friends, and community.
With this in mind, there’s a reason why Matthew begins this teaching section (Matthew 18:1-35) on community life with Jesus’ teaching on true greatness. True greatness is becoming humble like a child. That is, it is to become vulnerable, unlearning dominant cultural patterns of lording over others and bullying them (see Matt. 20:24-28). Interestingly enough, this is followed by Jesus’ admonition not to cause these little ones to stumble and to cast out the parts of the body that cause such stumbling. In order for the community to maintain its integrity, certain parts of the body might need to be cast out in the event that they do not seek to maintain their integrity. What is more, sensitivity is to be given to those who are weaker, not stronger. Hence, “do not despise one of these little ones” which is followed by The Story of the Lost Sheep. Bear in mind that in this story the shepherd goes to find the lost “little one.” We finally come to the section of Matthew 18 under discussion (15-20). However, before diving in, we should first highlight what comes after in verses 21-35. There, Peter asks Jesus how many times he should forgive, which is followed by The Story of the Unforgiving Servant. Herein, Jesus teaches continual forgiveness among Church members, but a forgiveness predicated on the forgiveness of God within the context of communal accountability. All too easily, such has become fodder for those like my colleagues above, that forgiveness or acceptance should automatically be given because “all is grace.” But remember where we started! Matthew 18 begins with a question, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Those who become humble like children, hearing and doing the Way of Jesus (see the Sermon on the Mount). Ironically, this colleague and the other person were very much concerned with title, with image, with their power, and had no problem demeaning others. The very opposite of becoming humble like a child.
Often when we read the scriptures, particularly the New Testament, we can too easily forget that embedded within them are the assumptions and presuppositions of the Old Testament. In particular, the Torah. It is my contention that to understand Matthew 18:15-20 we must look to the wisdom of the Old Testament and how conflict was to be handled therein. This, I believe, is the key to unlocking Matthew 18:15-20. Moreover, what also must be not be overlooked is the covenantal basis for the Torah and how that certainly would have been part of the thinking of the Matthean community as they sought to live as followers of Christ together. Consider Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount, “you have heard it said, BUT I say to you…” in multiple places. What I mean is that in many respects, there is a sense of operating in good “covenantal” faith toward one another embedded within the teachings and commands of Jesus. Consider also Jesus’ words concerning rulers being tyrants, “It will not be so among you…”
Thus, when we read or hear Matthew 18:15-20, it would be wise to consider Deuteronomy 19:15 as a backdrop. Here it is,
“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.”
With this in mind, here is Matthew 18:15-16,
15 “If your brother or sister sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If you are listened to, you have regained that one. 16 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.
If we read these verses of Matthew 18 with Deuteronomy 19:15 in mind, we’ll see that the former is predicated on their being witnesses to the offensive behavior. In other words, it is predicated on the evidence of other witnesses. If it isn’t, it turns into one’s word against another’s. Moreover, if that is the case, bringing other witnesses only serves the agenda of the offended party without the offender having any recourse. In such a situation, the offender could easily feel ganged up upon, even bullied, especially if the offense is only in the eyes of the offended. Yet, in my experience, this is usually how Matthew 18 is understood. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I was onto something when I said to my colleague that following Matthew 18 in such a way was an exercise in futility because it was simply my word against the offender. The offender could simply deny what he said or did because there were no other witnesses to what had happened. This was at the center of why I thought it wise and prudent to keep my interactions with the man at issue to a minimum. Moreover, it was also why I opted not to speak about what happened publicly. “Telling it to the Church” is predicated on the evidence of other witnesses.
Still, there’s another angle that this undoes. And that is the angle often used by the offending party in stories of abuse. Often, when the offended and abused speak out or go public, they are shamed with claims that they should have brought their hurts to the offending party per Matthew 18. However, if there are no witnesses or if the witnesses refuse to speak up and corroborate what happened, which is often the case in situations of gross abuse and power imbalances, then the offended is left holding the bag, and the offender/abuser is off scot-free while appearing virtuous. But this, too, is a misunderstanding of the text and of its underlying emphasis. What is more, anyone experienced with gross abusers of various stripes understands that their predation is often the fruit of skillfully making sure there are no witnesses to their terrible and offensive acts, which brings me full circle.
I don’t think it was accidental that the aforementioned person asked me to meet with him in the evening when the workday was over for most people in that community. I should also add that it is not accidental that, by all accounts, this person also had Church leaders in his continual orbit and influence. Moreover, close to ten months had passed before my colleague approached me about the matter, which certainly was plenty of time for this person to move behind the scenes, cajoling and dropping comments here and there. To this point, the colleague who came to me about the matter was also someone of influence in the community and Church in that area. Whether realized or not, the scriptures that the Church claims to hold so dear often become the means by which abusive and corrupt behavior becomes covered and glossed over. Mathew 18:15-20, which is predicated on being countercultural and marginal, becomes the means by which others dominate, abuse, and cover up their controlling and bullying behavior. It is the opposite of becoming humble as children, of not lording one’s power over others. Sadly, instead of engaging the world with the gospel of hope, that particular corner of the world was engaged with the gospel of destruction. And, indeed, destruction came.
As we can see, or at least I hope I have shown, Matthew 18 is not the panacea for any conflict that occurs between two persons within the Church. Of course, if it was, it would make things easier, much more black and white. Life together is messy and challenging. However, what needs to be remembered is that it is predicated on power being emptied out and used to serve and build others up, not to control, intimidate, and bully. Such has no place among truly “great” people.
A Foolish Way 