Depending on the streams you swim in, you probably have heard a lot about Matthew 18 lately and whether this confrontation or that public call out followed the proper Biblical protocol.
OK, I won’t bother sidestepping that I’m talking about the Stronger Men’s Conference and how after Mark Driscoll got Matthew 18ed for publically stating the opening of a confernce where a shirtless pole dancer/climber swallowed a sword was proof of the Jezebel spirit being present, and then got yanked from the stage by the pastor citing the Matthew 18 way of allegedly going to him first instead of publicly.
Did pastor John Lindell have a point about this? I don’t know, since they reconciled on stage later that day, and then days later Lindell issued a public rebuke to Mark for something, seemingly not eating his own dog food, and calling Driscoll out publicly.
Anyway, my head is spinning and my eye balls are rolling, too, but bear with me as I didn’t share the following thoughts in last week’s episode of the Fire On Your Head podcast where we covered entertainment and spectacle in the modern Church. Check it out on Spotify below.
You’ve heard of the Matthew 18 “protocol”, right?
Most Bible experts and even casual churchgoers have heard about, and perhaps even been smacked with the billyclub of Matthew 18, especially when controversy brews within the flock. It’s touted as the go-to process or “protocol” for dealing with disputes, often hammered down as the procedure for resolving conflicts.
However, even just a casual reading of the passage in its context reveals reasons why it’s not used as correctly as many seem to think.
Plucking it out of context
In a stitching mishap akin to patching a denim jacket with silk, many extract Matthew 18 from its narrative flow. Jesus doesn’t flip subjects like TV channels. He speaks in full subjects, developing his themes in a continuous stream. Directly before he introduces the steps of confrontation in Matthew 18:15-20, he presents the parable of the lost sheep, a vivid illustration of God’s heart for restoration.
This parable sets the stage for understanding Jesus’ ensuing instructions, something many miss when they yank the passage out of its scenic route.
Misinterpretation of intentions
A natural follow-up blunder comes when the intent woven into the fabric of Matthew 18 is overlooked.
Post-lost sheep parable, Jesus isn’t shifting gears to legalistic protocol; he’s escalating his plea for persistently pursuing a wayward brother. Yet, rather than seeing this as a call to mend fences, it’s often morphed into a mechanism for ostracism or ‘righteous’ exclusion. Verses like Matthew 18:17, “if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector,” don’t mean shun or shame. It’s not an eviction notice but a last-resort plea to bring someone back into the fold.
Misapplication on the wrong grounds
Now here’s where the rubber meets the road, or more accurately, where it skids off track. We’ve hammered in a rule meant for personal skirmishes into situations Jesus was not actually talking about.
Matthew 18 deals with personal offenses – not public errors or pastoral misconduct. That’s a whole different ball game, one better suited for passages like 1 Timothy 5:20, which instructs churches on handling sinning elders in a very public manner. Yet, many misuse Matthew 18 as a blanket policy for all types of disagreements, leading to its weaponization.
As Julie Roys aptly said in the article she published in the aftermath of the controversy, piritual abusers routinely use Matthew 18 to keep misconduct and scandal from becoming public.”
Leaders, in their mischief, have brandished it to silence dissent, ensuring their narrative remains unchallenged and their power, unchecked, all the while gaslighting sincere believers who sound the alarm with legit concerns.
The bigger picture
Using the Matthew 18 billy club in scenarios it was never designed to handle not only distorts its purpose but robs the church of genuine restorative opportunities. It morphs from a healing salve into a blunt instrument. When wrongly wielded, it doesn’t encourage repentance or restoration; it fosters resentment and division.
By realigning our understanding and application of Matthew 18 with Jesus’ original teaching, we can reclaim its profound capacity to heal rather than hurt, to unify rather than divide. And isn’t that the heart of the gospel after all?
As followers striving for truth and reconciliation in every corner of our community, it’s high time we stitch this patch properly onto the quilt of our church practices.
Church Discipline & Matthew 18
Check out this episode of the podcast I did with David Edwards over 12 years ago on proper church discipline, one of the last times Mark Driscoll was making waves for other reasons and using the Matthew 18 rod as a punishment on members of Mars Hill. We didn’t say that in the episode, but that was the context at the time.
