5
One-on-One
With step 2 we begin to consider the ways in which one Christian seeks to help another through the use of discipline. In self-discipline, no one else is involved; the believer deals with his sin alone before God. If, for example, he has sinful thoughts relating to another person, he does not disclose them to that person; he handles them in confession and repentance before God alone. The principle followed in Matthew 18:15ff. is that a matter must be kept as narrow as the event itself. In the case of self-discipline, the only parties to the event are the believer and God. That principle applies at the beginning and is operative throughout.
Now we turn to the first of those stages of church discipline in which others participate. It is the stage where one believer confronts another about what he believes to be the other’s sin.
The presence of others can certainly complicate the situation. The successful use of discipline by others, whether it be by one or many, presupposes the knowledge of a number of principles and practices relating to the intricacies in the interrelationships that develop in the process of discipline. Apart from such knowledge, the participating believer may fail to act as he should and, in the end, may do harm rather than good.
I do not say this to discourage the use of church discipline, nor to make anyone hesitate in following the steps of discipline as outlined by Christ; indeed, the very opposite is my concern. Yet, because of the vast ignorance of the facts of church discipline and because of the many erroneous ideas bandied about concerning it, pastors and church leaders should regularly instruct their congregations in the full range of its principles and practices. This would work to help avoid needless injury. Anyone reading and following the biblical teachings in this book ought to be able to wend his way successfully through the intricacies of church discipline with little or no confusion.
Looking back at the full diagram in chapter 3 (page 27), you will notice that I have called steps 1 through 3 “informal discipline” and steps 4 and 5 “formal discipline.” What I am getting at here is the fact that the church as an institution becomes involved in the process only after the first three steps have failed.
In most instances, therefore, discipline never reaches the formal stage. This is quite contrary to the ordinary concept of discipline as it is popularly held. The words “church discipline” usually suggest to people’s minds that the church is officially taking action to remove someone. That is not the way that effective, regularly occurring discipline works; ordinarily, in a church that is comfortable with it, discipline achieves its objectives at stage 2 or 3. So often when someone is put out of the church for failure to repent of open, public sin, it is because there was a failure to exercise informal discipline at an earlier point before the sinful act became a habitual practice that had to be met with formal discipline.
Because informal discipline is so important, I shall take the time to investigate it in detail, especially at this second stage, where another individual first enters the picture. Let me put before you what Jesus says about stage 2:
If your brother sins against you, go and convict him of his sin privately, with just the two of you present. If he listens to you, you have won your brother (Matthew 18:15).
In this verse Jesus sketches a scenario in which one Christian (“your brother”) has wronged another. In such a situation He (1) commands (2) the offended brother to (3) “go” and (4) speak with the brother (5) privately in such as way as (6) to convict him of his sin. If the brother listens (i.e., if he confesses his sin and seeks forgiveness), reconciliation takes place.
In this summary I have numbered the essential elements involved in step 2. The first is that Jesus leaves no options whenever sin separates brothers; He commands informal discipline to bring about reconciliation. He does not say that it would be nice if the offended party were to go and seek reconciliation; He requires him to do so. Whenever an unreconciled condition exists between two believers, there is no option left: discipline must be pursued.
All the reservations, objections, and hesitations that people have about discipline are irrelevant. Jesus does not leave the matter up to us; He tells us what to do. It there are problems about pursuing informal discipline, He expects you to solve them; He does not allow them to short-circuit the process. It you are ignorant of the ways and means of carrying on church discipline, He holds you responsible for learning what you do not already know. Jesus does not suggest, He requires the use of informal discipline.
The next two elements in the process (3, 4) direct the offended brother to go to the offender. It is true that in Matthew 5:23-24, Jesus requires the offender to go immediately to any brother whom he may have offended and be reconciled to him—even leaving his gift at the altar, (Jesus pictures him as interrupting an act of worship to do so, thereby showing the high priority He places on good relations between Christians; cf. 1 Peter 3:7.) It is also true, however (just as it is also in Luke 17:3), that the offended party has the very same obligation. When discord between believers takes place, ideally they ought to meet each other on the way to one another’s house to seek reconciliation.
But why should the offended party be required to go? He may protest, “I haven’t done anything; why should I have to go? Let him come to me!” But according to Christ, that will not do. Why not? Because the offender may enlarge the offense by not going (i.e„ not obeying the command in Matthew 5:23-24), or he may not realize that his brother has taken offense. Let me speak to this latter matter for a moment.
Mary has not seen Jane for some time since Jane has been out of town on a vacation. Now Jane has returned. Mary spots her in church and determines to say hello after the service. After the benediction, Mary hurries to the other side of the church to where Jane has been sitting. By now Jane is on her way out of the church. Mary calls to her, “Hello, Jane. Wait for me!” But Jane sticks her nose up in the air and sails out of the church as quickly as she can, without so much as a “Howdy do” to Mary.
Mary can respond in one of two ways. If she does what many Christians do, she will say, “Hmmph! Well! If that’s the way she wants to act, then let her go! She can come to me the next time; that will be the last time I go after her!” And so a friendship is ruined, the work of Christ is hindered as the body is weakened, and the honor of God is compromised.
But if Mary understands church discipline and is willing to obey Christ, she will not settle for that. Instead, she will follow Jane from the church and search her out. Suppose that she has done so. She says, “Jane! What’s wrong? I was so glad to see you that I hurried over to your aisle and called to you but you stuck your nose in the air and left the church, ignoring me, as if I didn’t exist. What’s wrong? I must tell you that I was greatly hurt.”
In this little fictional episode Jane responds, “Oh, Mary! I’m so sorry! I didn’t have the faintest idea what was happening. Let me explain. I was sitting through church thinking about only one thing. I have a bad cold and my nose began to run. But I left my handkerchief here in the car. I was afraid that since the preacher preached so long I’d drip all over my new dress and my Bible, so as soon as the benediction was over, oblivious to everything else, I put my head back so I wouldn’t drip and rushed for the car.” After a good laugh and a hug or two Mary and Jane are reconciled. Indeed, there was no offense at all—only a misunderstanding.
What a silly scenario! you say. I agree. But I have counseled persons who were separated from each other for more than twenty years by some misunderstanding that was every bit as silly. You see, only the offended person knows that there is a problem when there has been a misunderstanding. It is his toes that have been stepped on—accidentally or not at all in some cases—so that, even if his brother isn’t, he is always aware of the supposed offense. That is another reason why the offended is required to go. If he were allowed not to go, many cases would never be dealt with. But Jesus wants no loose ends; He wants every personal difficulty between brothers resolved. The brother with the sore toes must go because he is always the one who is aware.
When a brother or sister goes to a supposed offender, he or she is to speak to him so as to convict him (4, 6). However, Luke 17:3 adds a dimension to this matter. According to Christ’s words there, the offended brother does not convict the offender initially, making charges and calling for repentance. Rather, he must first go to the offender and rebuke him in a tentative manner. (The word in Luke 17:3 is not elengcho, “convict,” which is the term used in Matthew 18:15ff., a less detailed passage, but epitimao, which means “to rebuke tentatively.”) That is to say, he first goes and explains the situation as he has perceived or experienced it, saying something like this: “As far as I can see, you have wronged me in such and such a way, but if you have an explanation, I am ready to hear it before passing final judgment.”
This tentative rebuke allows for explanation. As in the case of Mary and Jane, there is opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding. And even if there was a real offense, it might have been quite unintentional (e.g., splashing mud on a friend without realizing that your car even went through a mud puddle). The tentative rebuke allows for the statement and discussion of the facts and the working out of the solution to any problems that may have arisen over the incident.
Moreover, even when there has been an offense that was intentional, the tentative rebuke provides a fitting prelude to conviction. The attitude of the one offended is restrained thereby, and this may more likely lead to a quick and easier reconciliation than if he had come charging up with his accusations, making no allowances for explanations at all.
But where an offense has been given, nothing short of conviction will do. The conviction of which Jesus spoke is not the subjective feeling that the word is used to indicate in Christian circles today, but the effective use of objective evidence to convict a person of the crime of which he has been accused: the word comes from the law courts. That is why I have used the language I have in the previous sentence; it expresses exactly what the word means. Therefore, the Lord does not require you to bring another to feelings of guilt and sorrow as the modern usage would seem to indicate. Rather, you are to compile your case so that you are successful in proving the offense has occurred.
The distinction that I have just made is important. Among other things, it implies that if you do not have a good case, with facts to back up any accusation you make, you should not take offense in the first place. Too many Christians become angered, hurt, or otherwise upset on quite insufficient grounds. They make accusations recklessly. They act on suppositions.
That in itself is unchristian and, incidentally, in some instances a reason for instituting church discipline against the accuser, because it is an unloving act spawned by an unloving attitude. In 1 Corinthians 13:7 Paul says that love “believes all things, hopes all things.” If those words mean anything, at the very least they indicate that the loving attitude and action is to give the brother the benefit of the doubt in every case where it is possible. When there is the slightest doubt, you must interpret an action by your brother in the most charitable way.
The last element (6) is privacy. When the offense is between two persons, and between them alone, no others should be brought into the picture if it is possible to bring about reconciliation without them. Before, during, and after the period when the second step is in force, the issue should not be mentioned to anyone else if reconciliation takes place. As in every step before and after, the discussion is to be kept as narrow as the offense.
However, as we have seen in a previous chapter, this does not mean that a promise of absolute confidentiality should be given. It may be that reconciliation cannot be effected in step 2; in that case it would be necessary to involve others if Christ’s command is to be obeyed. So one must not bind himself to secrecy by a rash vow that would keep him from obeying Christ. Rather, he should promise to keep the matter quiet at this stage in the proceedings, bringing no one else in on it, in accordance with the expressed requirements of Christ. Jesus does insist, however, that no one else should be informed of what is happening as long as the matter remains at this level.
“You have won your brother.” That is what Jesus says. To win him is to become reconciled to him (cf. Matthew 5:24). The word for reconciliation is diallasso, which means “to exchange enmity tor friendship.” What does reconciliation involve?
Jesus does not say that the sinning brother is to “apologize.” It is disappointing to see in Christian books everywhere—even in books dealing with the matter of church discipline—authors settling tor this unbiblical and totally inadequate invention that the world substitutes tor forgiveness. Apologizing and forgiving are two different things.
Because I have treated this matter at length elsewhere, I shall but mention it here. Saying “I’m sorry” only tells another how you feel; it asks him to do nothing about the offense. When you say, “I sinned against God and He has forgiven me; now I want to confess that I have also sinned against you; will you forgive me too?” you ask for a decision on his part. When apologizing, you keep the ball in your own court; when you seek forgiveness, you toss the ball to the other party. He must now do something with it.
When he says, “I forgive you,” he makes a promise (which is what forgiveness is) never to raise the matter again. He promises not to bring it up to you, nor to anyone else, and not to sit and brood on it. The matter, he assures you, is closed. A promise can be made whether one feels like it or not; and it can be kept whether one feels like it or not.
But because forgiveness is the promise not to bring up a matter again, it is granted only on repentance (the other’s word is sufficient; cf. Luke 17:4). While you must forgive in your heart and not carry bitterness against another, you may not grant him forgiveness (i.e., promise not to bring up the matter again) until he repents. Otherwise, you could not carry the matter on through the other steps of discipline were it necessary to do so.
Reconciliation is a matter of restoring friendship, so it is not enough merely to bury a matter; both parties must work toward a new and proper relationship for the future. Forgiveness simply clears the way for the friendship that grows out of true reconciliation. This means effort, time, and whatever else may be required to bring it about should be given to assure that the weld becomes stronger than it was before the break. Only in that way will it become manifest that “where sin abounded, grace far more abounded” (Romans 5:20).
Often, because the full intent of reconciliation—restoration of Christian friendship—is missed, forgiveness merely closes an issue but does nothing about the future relationship of the parties involved. When no efforts are made to restore and build a better relationship than ever before, the relationship usually deteriorates in spite of forgiveness. That is because the focus has been on getting one to admit he is wrong (or, on the other hand, on getting someone off one’s back) instead of focusing on the restoration of relationship.
Sometimes the question is raised, Do I have to go to my brother about every little offense? The answer is no. Love covers a multitude of sins (Proverbs 10:12). To cover sins, or to “overlook an offense” (Proverbs 19:11b), is a glorious thing. If we had to bring up every rub between us we’d probably spend all our time doing so. No, any offense that doesn’t get between us and the one who committed it—does not need to be raised. But anything that creates an unreconciled state between us and another must be brought up and dealt with. That is to say, any matter which is carried over to another day, any matter which makes you feel different toward that person for more than a passing moment, any matter that throws love’s covers off must be brought up.
Of course, if the sin which your brother commits against you is debilitating to him and he is not dealing with it adequately in his own life, you may well have to raise the matter anyway, on the basis of Galatians 6:1-2, even if you yourself could overlook the matter. In that case you will raise it for his sake. Both in overlooking or in bringing up matters for the sake of another, it is important to be very sure of your motives; these are areas in which you may easily deceive yourself.
So, step 2. Most instances will be settled at this level without going higher. More of this sort of activity should take place in the church. On the other hand, there are some few—very few—people who take advantage of the discipline process and spend an inordinate amount of time confronting others. Such persons should be taught the glory of overlooking an offense and the art of covering sins in love. If they refuse to learn, they themselves may become divisive and may need to be confronted by others.