New Thoughts (02/24/09-02/28/09)
No Anachronisim (02/24/09)
As an opening note to this study, I will briefly address the presence of the word ‘church’ in the text. Some have looked at this and immediately concluded that there must be some apostolic intervention going on. The church, they reason, was a later development, a thing that did not exist until years after the Resurrection, so how could Jesus be speaking of it? Such an argument has lost sight of the living and organic nature of language. The term has certainly come to be closely linked with the Christian faith, but it is not a word invented by that faith. No! The Greek language came ready-made with a term perfectly suited to this new community of believers.
I suspect, although I cannot find conclusive evidence of this, that the term was already in the process of being transferred to the realm of religion by Jewish usage even before Jesus began ministering. It is, after all, a term that at root speaks of the called out. This is not very far from the roots of the name of the Pharisees, the separated ones. True, the origins of the word have more homely roots. It begins life as a reference to a gathering of people summoned by herald to deliberate on some matter or another. But, over time (and again, it would not surprise me to find this somehow linked with the Pharisees and their rabbinical associates), the reference to this gathered group came to speak of those gathered together for some sacred purpose.
I shall also note, in support of this recognition of the term as perfectly in keeping with the era, that the whole of this passage is couched in rabbinical language. The closing verse, with its references to binding and loosing, is most certainly to be understood as the rabbis would understand it. While I recognize that the verses on display are from Matthew, I am mindful that we have found parallels of this conversation in Luke, and I have not found particular cause to suppose that the two accounts are of distinct events. So, it is entirely possible that part of the audience that Jesus is addressing here are those very scribes and Pharisees who had been shaping the terminology. They would understand the intended meaning of binding and loosing, and they would just as readily take the meaning of church.
So long as I’m thinking about the setting, I would also keep myself mindful of what immediately precedes this message of discipline. By Matthew’s account, we have just heard the parable of the One Lost Sheep (Mt 18:10-14), and it seems reasonable that we have also heard the parable of the Lost Coin from Luke’s records (Lk 15:8-10). In the case of the Lost Sheep, the parable concludes with the reminder that God’s preference is that not one of ‘these little ones’ perish. God doesn’t lose sheep! In that regard, we need have no fear of Him failing of His preference. But, when His own laborers cause those same sheep to get lost for a time, with whom should He be upset? The sheep for being sheeplike? No! As we saw in studying that parable, it is the ineffectual, downright reprehensible shepherds who draw His ire.
This whole section of teaching has been triggered by John’s proud, ‘look what we did for You!’ moment. Oh, there was this imposter with enough cheek to think he could call upon Your authority, but we gave him what for. Of course, as nicely couched as that action was, we know from our own character that what John was really trying to protect was his own privilege as one of the Twelve, one of the Three. This is the error (along with the misguided leadership of the Pharisees) that Jesus has been correcting by His teaching, and that really hasn’t changed with this latest piece of the message. God’s concern is that no sheep be lost, even temporarily. Yes, He will see to their eternal safety, but He would be most pleased if their shepherds had enough sense of duty to keep them from straying in the first place.
So, we come into this matter of discipline – how to stay the straying sheep. What is the shepherd to do, when that sheep is heading out of the fold? What shall he do when his calls to return go unheeded? And, sad though the necessity is, at what point should the shepherd give up? All of these questions and more shall be found to be answered as we move through the lesson at hand.
Church Discipline (02/25/09-02/27/09)
While this lesson begins with the most personal of interactions, the one on one counseling between brothers, it is not really concerned with personal relationships or personal conflict. Apparently, somebody somewhere along the line thought that Jesus really was dealing with personal conflict, and therefore inserted the ‘against you’ clause. But, this completely shifts and loses the focus. It also seems to miss what David so clearly understood: “Against You only have I sinned” (Ps 51:4). Certainly, we can and do offend against our fellows. Certainly, as we sin against God, this often enough includes wronging those around us. And, where others are harmed by our sins, there is need for reconciliation and reparation. Sin, however, is an issue with God.
So it is that Jesus moves swiftly from the one on one scenario to that of the full assembly of believers. Many have construed this as how one ought to deal with personal disagreements. Worse still, many think this is how to address the unintended slights of a fellow believer. If your brother sins against you, they reason, it matters not whether he is aware of what he did to you. It is your Christian duty to make darn sure he’s aware of it. And, if he should deny it, or for that matter, respond in any way that deviates from your expectations, then of course you must escalate the issue. It’s right there in Matthew, after all!
This perspective on the passage before us is a shameful abuse of what is being taught. Never mind that your duty in that instance, particularly when dealing with the unintended slight but equally true even in the most purposeful, is forgiveness. How much different would our reactions to these situations be if we first stopped to recognize that we haven’t the least idea what’s going on in the heart, the mind, the life of that one we are busy being offended by? How much different would our reactions be if we stopped to think how overblown and unfounded our reactions generally prove to be? If our own hearts are so able at deceiving us, how can we think ourselves so expert on our brother’s condition? I tell you again: these situations have nothing to do with what Jesus is teaching in this passage.
Here, Jesus is wholly concerned with the wandering sheep. The one who accidentally insulted your sensibilities is not thereby shown to be a sheep that has departed the fold. It has not forever marked that one as in danger of losing his salvation, nor as one about whom we ought have serious doubts as to whether he was ever truly saved at all. The context demands that we keep this reality in sight. Jesus is concerned about the wandering sheep in this message, not about what amount to little more than typical family spats. So, He points to that one who has truly sinned. Against God. He has not only slipped temporarily. He has clearly allowed himself to do what is in direct violation of the most fundamental moral standards God has set forth, and he is clearly not only aware if this, but unconcerned about it. He has sinned, and he is busily making excuses for himself as to why it’s not an issue. And yet, here he is amongst the sheep.
There’s something we ought to really take to heart. The sheep that is in danger of getting lost is as often as not sitting right there in the fold with us. By the time they have stopped coming to assemble with their fellow believers, things have long since gone past the time when the problem should have been addressed. But, we were too busy then. They were in the pew, after all, so we so no reason to worry, no reason to get involved. It’s not our business to get in their face over their sins, after all. Let God correct them. We are not our brother’s keeper, after all. Except, of course, that Jesus says to love others as we love ourselves. If we saw ourselves headed down that road, would we not seek to stop ourselves? Then why not this one?
So, Jesus says, hey! If you have certain knowledge that this brother of yours – and maybe you don’t even know him all that well, but you know about this issue – has an abiding sin, a place where he’s not moving to get right with God, it’s your duty to confront him on it. It is most assuredly not your duty to bring him to public embarrassment, to make an example of him, or to otherwise humiliate him. What you have been called to do, as one who loves others as himself, is to make certain, in a private and loving fashion, that he is aware of the truth of where his actions (or inaction) are taking him. Yes, brother, you are still here in the pews, but where’s your heart? Where’s your attention? Don’t you see what’s happening? You are allowing this thing you have done to become a wedge between you and your salvation. It is currently but a thorn in your flesh, but if it’s left alone, it will fester and rot and the disease will spread until you will require amputation. Don’t let it come to that! Deal with that sin now. Get it out and exposed. Apply the balm of repentance and let the healing of God’s forgiveness wash that wound clean.
Ah, but we all know those hard-headed brothers like ourselves who are not inclined to hear the gentle, personal rebuke. So, allowance is made for that case. Bring a few others to confirm your facts and your solution. It may be that you know of others amidst the body who have dealt successfully with the exact same issue this unrepentant brother is battling. Let them come and add their witness, their testimony to your rebuke. Maybe, hearing that others have had to fight the same fight will give this sheep strength to fight for his own survival. Of course, there is yet the possibility that he will not hear. So, the next, and final escalation is provided.
If this one insists that he is still a member of the flock, and yet simultaneously insists on his right to continue with his life of sin, then the time is near for amputation. The rest of the body must be alerted lest the disease spread. The sins of the one must, since he still refuses a cure, be exposed to the assembled church, that the whole and united weight of that assembly might possibly convict that one of his sin and yet bring him to repentance. I have to say, this has got to be the most difficult of instructions for a pastor to follow today. It is so sadly easy for that unrepentant brother to just wander down the street to the next church and the next, until he finds one that will leave him alone to enjoy his particular sin. And, to the shame of the Church at large, the odds of him finding a church that will never denounce his particular sin are pretty good.
Yet, it is the body that is strong enough to truly practice this discipline which remains strong, just as it is the one who is willing to remove the thorn or splinter before it festers who will remain healthy. The pastor’s job is made even more difficult, in these cases, because it is entirely probable that should it become necessary to expose the sinner to the weight of the whole assembly, the assembly will not be united in its willingness to stand against sin in its midst. There will be those whose relationship with the sinner are too close, for whom the friendship of the flesh will override the sense of the spirit, and their sense of loyalty may well lead them to side with the sinner against the assembly. So, the church suffers greater loss than just the one sinner. Indeed, in severe cases, it may lead to a split. Yet, those who depart suffer the greater shame in the sight of heaven.
Now, with all options explored, the final escalation must be faced. If that one refused to listen (and doesn’t simply leave of his own accord) look upon him as you would any unbeliever, any unrepentant, dedicated sinner. Let me put it to you in blunter terms: If the sinner will not be corrected by these measures then, in spite of what you may have thought, he is no brother. Not yet. He is as lost as all those others you are ostensibly seeking to reach. He is not family. He is a part of the mission field.
We need to hear this very carefully, because this really is the height of Church discipline. Jesus does not tell us to shun such a one. He doesn’t tell us to send him packing with a warning never to return. He simply says to consider him like one of the lost, for that is what he still is. Well, how would you treat the lost? How should you treat the lost? Isn’t this exactly what Jesus has been talking about through the preceding parables? If he is lost, and yet truly is one of the Father’s sheep, then the Father will most assuredly be chasing him down to bring him home. As we have seen, He will not give up on such a one. It is therefore incumbent upon us as His children and His servants to be equally devoted to that one’s restoration. It is not that we stop looking to bring this one to repentance, it is simply that we have no illusions about his current status. He is not yet, nor has he yet been, truly a brother. This does not mean that he never shall be, only that he never has been to date. We’ll just have to start over with him.
It was important, in such a case, that we remove the poison from the body of the church assembled before it spread, before it began to damage other members of the body. Perhaps there are other young believers, others who are themselves in the midst of battling that self same sin. If they perceive, particularly after so public a rebuke, that this one was getting away with it, what shall become of their own efforts towards righteousness? Now, yes, I know and fully believe that these matters of righteousness are most fully and completely in the hands of my Savior. If my brother is truly my brother, then his salvation is not in doubt. But, there remains the question of whether this current journey towards home shall be pleasure or torment for him, and I’d prefer that he could have the pleasure of constant progress in the right direction. I’d rather that he not have to face the same corrective measures that this one has faced, just as I would prefer that my own life be lived in a fashion that would never require such measures.
On the other hand, I have to say that were I ever to be in need of such measures, I pray there would be faithful believers standing ready to bring such correction to me. Better by far to suffer the embarrassment of sin exposed than to suffer the consequences of sin successfully hidden.
Of course, in matters of church discipline, as well as any other aspect of faith, we need to hear the whole counsel of Scripture. It is when we determine our doctrinal stance on the evidence of one passage in isolation that we are most likely to go astray. So, consider just a few of the other passages that address how we ought to deal with those whose sins prove them faithless. Begin with Romans 16:17. Keep an eye on the dissenters, Paul tells his readers. Those who are forever contradicting the teaching you learned? Turn away from them. Some few sects of Christianity have taken this command most literally, turning it into the practice of shunning – manifestly turning their backs upon the one to be so ostracized, that he might feel the physical reality of their rejection of him from their midst.
Paul’s message would allow that there is a time where such a practice might, just might, be reasonable. Even what we have from Jesus might almost allow such a thing. But, ever there remains that balancing point of ‘treat them like a Gentile or a publican’. These are not, as we learn with the expansion of the early Church, cases to be rejected outright and never given the least hope of redemption. These are the mission field, the lost sheep the Father is seeking to restore to the fold. Treat them as such.
Writing to the Corinthians, we have another glimpse of Paul’s deep concern for the effect that false teachings ever seem to have on the Church. We also get a sense of just how easily these doctrinally sound points can be distorted into nonsensical application. In 1Co 5:9-13, Paul is addressing just such a distortion of his previous instruction. When I told you to dissociate from immoral people, he writes, I obviously didn’t mean to separate yourself from every last immoral person in this world. The only way to accomplish that would be to avoid the world itself. Were I to bring in the commentary of Scripture at this point, I would note Jesus’ words to His apostles: I have left you in the world. So you are in it, but not of it.
Paul, however, continues to clarify his original point. What I was saying, he writes, is to remain apart from any ‘so-called brother’ who continues the immoral life of the covetous idolater, reviling truth, pursuing drunkenness, or proving dishonest in pursuit of profits. Don’t even eat with one who is like this! (1Co 5:11). Eventually, he concludes with the instruction, “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves” (1Co 5:13). Harsh stuff, but not so harsh as to be a departure from the instructions Jesus has given. Indeed, as we see from Paul elsewhere, even when these most stringent of measures must be taken, even when he finds it necessary to turn a ‘brother’ over to the devil, it is with one and only one end in sight: that that brother’s soul might be truly redeemed, that the devil’s actions in trying to lure that one further astray might awaken him to his true danger and thereby instigate his restoration to true brotherhood.
Why is it, do you suppose, that these matters of discipline are so strident? Why would the God Who is Love be so firm in dealing with these matters? Isn’t He the one who spoke earlier about the wheat and the tares, and made clear to us that the tares couldn’t be removed without damaging the wheat. Didn’t He tell us that this was why we needed to resist the urge to do the weeding ourselves? Certainly He did. And His point is well taken. Again, though, we must balance that message with this. We must hear the whole counsel, particularly of our very Lord and Savior, Who is, after all the head of the Church!
Indeed, there are many cases where it is beyond us to determine with any certainty who is truly faithful and who is not. Through the centuries, the Church has fallen into the habit of trying to determine these indeterminable cases by means of one fabricated test or another. Yet, those tests have always proven to be either overly harsh or wholly ineffectual. That is because they have fallen into trying to determine the wheat from the tare (Mt 13:24-30).
But, as we learned in studying that parable, the only time the distinction can really be made is when both wheat and tare have borne fruit. It is when, as we say, things have come to a head. Well, isn’t that exactly what we are hearing about both from Paul and from Jesus? When the true nature (at least for the present) of the sheep has been clearly, undeniably shown to be that of a goat, then the potential for damage from that goat in disguise is too great to allow it to remain. Other sheep of lesser growth might become convinced that goat-like behavior is acceptable, even expected of them. Other sheep who have just barely been restored to the fold or who are at risk of wandering off might find in that goat the stumbling block that will cause them to slip away.
Now, such concerns might seem at odds with the doctrinal stance as regards the permanence of salvation. If the Shepherd is already determined to rescue the true sheep, however lost he may become, then what concern is it of ours who happens to be in the fold? Indeed, if their salvation is assured, then why have any concern at all about the impact of false believers and false teachers upon the flock? Either they are saved and God’s got it under control or they are not and the purest and most accurate of teachers would not change their reprobate ways.
While I agree that in the eternal perspective such conclusions are reasonable, as I do count God sovereign and in absolute control over His creation, yet I must also recognize what my Jesus has just told me of His desires. “It is not your Father’s desire that even one of these should perish” (Mt 18:14). Besides, even when that one seems so clearly a goat, even a wolf in the midst of the flock, who am I that I should think I can tell that never in his lifetime shall that wolf be transformed to sheep? Who could have looked at Saul storming about Jerusalem and beyond, hunting down these evil Christians and seen in him the Apostle to the Gentiles? Who could have looked at me in my youth and had any sense that someday I would be found in the faith, devoted to my Lord and Christ, seeking always to know Him more fully? I certainly never would have guessed it! Still, until that wolf has been transformed, it is a great danger to one and all that he should remain in his sheepskin disguise, disrupting the true sheep, preying on the true sheep. In the severest of Church discipline, this remains the hope: that the wolf, being delivered back to the wild, might someday return a sheep in truth.
To finish this topic, I want to consider what is said in 2Peter 2:1-2, which God saw fit to include in yesterday’s message in Table Talk. I do so love His timing in these things we like to think we have determined. At any rate, the message of those verses serves as a fine segue between the matters of church discipline and leadership. Peter reminds his readers that throughout the history of God’s people, there have been those false prophets who sought to mislead the people, often with great success. This hasn’t changed, nor is it likely to, he says. There is never a shortage of false teachers, it seems. These are the sorts to sneak in their heretical teachings. Indeed, as with the Gnosticism of the Apostolic era, so with some in our own day: They even go so far as to deny the very Jesus who saved them! Which fact, Peter notes, is the assurance of their own swift destruction. Sadly, such is our fallen nature that many will follow after them, and do you know why? Because the Lie has a certain sensual appeal, and our senses have a certain capacity for causing us to lose our senses.
“Many will follow their sensuality”, Peter says, and this will bring shame and false accusations to bear on the way of Truth. Listen! This is an ongoing issue! This is as real, if not more, a threat in today’s church than was the case with Peter. Look around! Look at the things that are being preached by some of these claimants to Christianity! Why, if anything, the preacher who delivers the true, unadulterated Word of God is the one that is denounced for his views. “They will go after those who tickle their ears,” (2Ti 4:3-4) “and turn away from the Truth.” Do you see it happening? Do you see denominations announcing the clearly abominable as somehow ordained by God? Do you see those that the world manages to confuse as the unwanted stepchildren of orthodoxy who have truly fulfilled Peter’s prophecy? They even deny the One who saved them! Jesus? Nice guy, prophet maybe, but no way is He God!
Just consider what has happened in these cases. Just consider how many who might be hungering for the Truth have been sidetracked by these false messengers. Just think how many sheep are trapped and slowly starving in these thieving pens. Are the true sheep not truly assured that the Shepherd shall rescue them yet? Absolutely! But, what sorrow that they should waste another day in such misguided and risky behavior. What sorrow that they should miss so much as a moment of their rightful joy and liberty in Christ!
In light of this, and in spite of the clear threats the Apostles saw coming against their young flock of faith, it is really no wonder at all that we find such concern for maintaining the purity of the body. If the falsehood of one of the least members is able to so infect and destroy the body, how much more when the corruption is in leadership? These things must be addressed, for the enemy loves nothing more than to bring about the fall of a leader, knowing that in such a fall lies his greatest capacity to harm the body. For many will fall with the fall of a leader. It is for this cause that we are so strongly admonished to pray for our leadership, and not just the leadership of the Church! But, particularly when it comes to our pastors, elders, ministry leaders, and so on, it is our duty to pray for them. It is in our own self interest to pray that they would remain true to the leading of Christ, true to the message of the Gospel, true to the purpose of the Kingdom. It is also our duty, and in our own self-interest to ensure that, should we find the leadership false and off-course in spite of our prayers, we pursue the path of discipline which has just been provided.
In Matters of Leadership (02/27/09-02/28/09)
I must make clear a certain point in balancing what has been said thus far. Even when, in our determination, the time has come to begin the disciplinary process outlined in this passage – particularly in confronting one in leadership – we must come with a presumption of innocence. We must come with the humility that recognizes it is entirely possible that the fault lies with us. This is especially so in some of the thornier areas of doctrine. We must come to the task prayerfully, and our prayers must be of a nature that leaves with God the right of correcting whichever or whatever is wrong. If we go in dead set that we are in the right and the one confronted must surely change his views or be denounced as a heretic, we are unlikely to get anywhere. I dare say we are unlikely to find God backing our cause.
But, if Truth is on our side, we must recognize that the leader’s error may be thoroughly unintentional. Perhaps it is simply an aspect of Truth that has not been fully considered. Perhaps it is simply that a particular sermon has been stressing one particular issue a bit to strongly, to the point that it distorted the point of our concern. Perhaps he just hadn’t considered the impact of that stressed message. There are any number of reasons that might lead us to be concerned with the Truth of a leader’s views. But, the starting point, as Jesus says, is to come to the leader in private.
When Paul was giving young Timothy advice on how to deal with the church he was presiding over, he made special note of this thing: Pay no heed to any accusation against an elder, unless that accusation comes with proper groundwork, with the confirmation of multiple witnesses (1Ti 5:19). In other words, if somebody is coming to you looking for Matthew 18:17 disciplinary action against one in leadership, make certain – absolutely certain – that the path to your door has led through Matthew 18:15 and Matthew 18:16! If they have not first made the personal attempt at correction, and if they have not established the Truth of their accusations by Biblical standards, then they are but gossips at your door, and they shall have no hearing.
If, on the other hand, they have come to this point legitimately, then by all means, expose the disease most fully. If this still does not bring healing, then the diseased limb must be amputated for the well-being of the body. But, such undertakings must ever and always be taken with the utmost prayer, the utmost openness to the leading of the Spirit, the utmost awareness of God’s mercy.
Consider again what Paul was saying to the Corinthians. Granted, in this case, he is addressing the fact that certain members of that body had been dragging their own brothers before the civil justice system! Paul is dismayed at this development. How dare they air the family laundry before the eyes of a contemptuous and unbelieving world! How dare they allow their issues to become cause for that unbelieving world to cast further aspersions upon the True Way! How dare you make your issue with your leadership a matter for webcasts and news programs! They disciplined you according to Biblical principles and rather than accept this, you decided to get your little moment of fame out of the deal? Truly, it must be that their discipline was insufficient! Truly, such a response has shown that you are not now, nor have yet been, a true sheep of the fold.
But, Paul’s point here, the point he makes to the Corinthian church, is that it would be far better to suffer being defrauded by our brother than to make the Church subject to contempt in the eyes of the unbeliever (1Co 6:7). Wow! You know, I have to seriously think about what this means for myself. When I consider the number of times these studies have considered the seedier side of modern Christianity, I really need to think about whether this is proper discipline or Corinthian foolishness.
Now, on some level, it seems to me that in this age of too much information too easily produced, the foolishness of false teachers ought to be exposed as readily and as loudly as it is proclaimed. And yet, is such an attitude in itself an expression of the false teachings of pragmatism? Is it setting aside real Biblical principle in favor of looking right? Oh dear. Is it the seeds of Pharisaic error all disguised as righteous indignation?
Dear Father! I find myself uncertain here. To expose or to suffer being defrauded lest the unbeliever scoff; which way is right? If the case is truly that of a wolf amongst the sheep, should he not be exposed before he tear the sheep? Indeed, is their continued, terribly public presence not just as much a cause for the unbeliever’s contempt as would be any denouncement of them? Perhaps even more cause? And yet, even as I ask I am put in mind of the truth that vengeance is Yours. I am put in mind that to be so concerned with exposing their error is to manifest a certain distrust in Your own guardianship over Your own Church. Lord, then I ask Your forgiveness if in anything I have written and published in these pages I have overstepped the bounds You would have established. I ask that, if such has been the case, You would cause those things to go unread, if indeed any of this is ever read by other than You and I. Yes, and if this has been the case then, my God, keep me mindful of it going forward. Bring Your fit desire to temper the passion that leads me to pursue such concerns, that in every way I might better reflect Your glory and Your desire.
One other passage that struck me with regard to this subject is 1Peter 3:1 – Wives be submissive to your own husbands, even when they are not subjected to the Word. How, if at all, might we consider this statement when we consider that we are the bride of Christ? Certainly, there is that aspect that we must, as His bride, be submissive to Him. But, is there more here? Is there something in this that might be applied to these issues of leadership and discipline within the Church, His bride? No, I don’t suppose this fits the situation very well at all, does it? Our Husband is hardly likely to be found disobedient to Himself, nor is He in need of winning over to Himself.
That said, consider the natural application of this message from Peter. He is addressing those who are in the closest of relationships available in this life, that of husband and wife. He is further addressing those who, in such a relationship, are unequally yoked. Now, whether you consider Peter’s take on things to reflect more of his own cultural inclinations than anything of heaven, or whether you accept that through him, God is speaking His own view of things, the case remains, at least for the immediate recipients: The husband tends to have the leadership role. Bear in mind the admonitions upon the husband as to how they ought fulfill that role. Bear in mind that it reflects exactly what we have found Jesus teaching throughout this section of lessons. Yes, you may have the leadership role, but lead by serving. That is the measure against which every Christian leader is to be measured, whether in the house of God or in the private home, whether in public ministry or private counsel: lead by serving.
Under the circumstance, particularly in that wedded relationship, it would be quite natural to expect the wife to submit to her husband’s rule. But, what to do when the husband is an unbeliever? Is she free, in that case, to ignore his rule? Not at all, says Peter. Submit even so. Of course, we must hear the unspoken limit of submission: if his rule requires you to break with the Law of God, then his right to authority is revoked, at least for that instance. Apart from that, the rule for this wife is, submit in hope that your behavior might lead him to Christ where your words would do more harm than good.
You know, this same rule of life is applied to our relationship to civil authorities in general. We pray for our leaders whether we approve of their policies or not. We abide by the law of the land whether we consider those laws just or not. We are model citizens within the limits of one simple bound: If civil authority requires us to break God’s Law, then it is no authority. This holds for the exact same reason as in the marital case. All authority is apportioned by God. As such, all authority exercised by man on any level is subject to God’s own authorization. When authority is wielded in direct violation of His rule, then authorization is rescinded. He, as the highest Authority, retains always the right of overruling the orders of His deputies. But, while authority remains in place, “perhaps your behavior will win them to Him without even a word.” Isn’t this what we find Paul practicing as he languishes in prison? You know it is!
So, take it one step further, and consider again how this might apply when we are convinced our leadership within the church is off course. Doesn’t this apply while the situation remains within the same stated bounds? If what the leadership promotes or requires is not in clear and undeniable contravention of God’s law, if what is taught is not an assault upon the reality of salvation, then our approach must surely be as it would be for civil authorities. These civil authorities, as Paul noted in his admonition to the Corinthians, are lesser cases to us than our own, internal church authorities. Surely, then, these church authorities deserve at least the same respectful submission from us! Surely, they deserve at least as much prayer on our part, that their leadership might be true to God’s Word in every respect. Surely, here is a place where, “perhaps your behavior will win them over to Him (or yourself, whichever needs winning) without even a word said!”
It seems to me that far too often, particularly when leadership is involved, we are inclined to jump immediately to that first disciplinary step Jesus has outlined here, if not right past it to talking with tow or three others about it. Truth be told, we are probably not seeking correction at that point, so much as ostracism. Because our motives, though, are so pure in our own sight, it will never occur to us that what we are doing has nothing of discipline in it, and everything of gossip! It will never occur to us that our apparent zeal for God’s Truth is prompting us to directly violate His Law.
The better path, almost always, is to pray. In that prayer, we must be wary of trying to dictate the outcome to God. It is not time to pray that the leaders would come to their senses and see things your way. It is time to pray simply that God would bring correction wherever it is needed, to either side of the disagreement, that His house may be in unity of heart, spirit, soul and purpose once again. I tell you, the number of times I have personally followed this course and found the issue resolved without even a word said are beyond counting. Indeed, in some cases I couldn’t even tell you which side of the equation wound up needing balancing. It is simply that my God has restored that unity, has set my heart at peace.
There will remain, to be sure, those cases where at least the first step of conflict resolution will prove necessary. It is the same as that first step of discipline. If things are that serious, if your concerns are that strong that you feel the issue may well border on matters of salvific import, then by all means approach that leader – privately! It is not time, certainly not yet, to seek to expose this one for his false teachings. Not even close! It is time to air your concerns with that one, to discuss not to accuse. To express the problem you see in prayerful hope of helping him to see (or yourself to see that the issue is not the severe matter you thought it to be).
If such an approach is yet unable to resolve your concern, and you are certain of your stance, it may well be that it is time to seek the wisdom of others in leadership. If that leadership is aligned with your own doctrine, then the procedure outlined here in Matthew is in order. If they are aligned with the one you feel to be a threat to Truth and salvation, then it is probably time that you yourself withdraw from fellowship, and treat the whole as Gentiles and publicans, in need of further missionary efforts.
Authority Comes With Responsibility (02/28/09)
This thought leads me neatly into my final topic. I want us to consider very, very carefully what Jesus says in the final verse of our text. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Now, I know that our tendency is to hear that and get all atingle with the thought of the power God entrusts to us. Indeed, we are entirely too ready to throw our weight around in this regard, binding this and loosing that. We may get it backwards now and then, but our heart’s in the right place, right? But, when I read these words, particularly as I go through some of the other translations, and start to hear some of the underlying syntax and meaning, I feel far more awed by the responsibility laid upon us than the power.
Consider just a few of these alternate translations. “Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.” That’s the NET, with emphasis mine. Even there, it is only beginning to make the implications clear. Try this one. “Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.” That’s the HCSB. Now, unless that is intended to be some assurance to me that the Holy Spirit will so guard my tongue and my thoughts that I would never dare to pronounce such things unless it were an accurate reflection of a pre-existing heavenly order, then what I hear in that statement is an incredible weight of responsibility. It is a powerful cause to think twice, three or four times, if that’s what it takes, before I exercise the fullness of my authority. Am I certain, absolutely certain, that what I consider declaring lawful or unlawful is in keeping with God’s intended order, or is this just a personal foible?
Let me ask it more bluntly: Will God be pleased with my exercise of His authority, or not? In this sense, I see I am following the understanding of the Amplified Bible’s translators. “Whatever you forbid and declare to be improper and unlawful on earth must be what is already forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit and declare proper and lawful on earth must be what is already permitted in heaven.” Do you see it? It’s not a gift of power, it’s a demand of responsibility. Like any other authority delegated from on high, if we use that authority with no concern for the one who delegated it to us, we are bound to find our authority rescinded. In matters of heavenly authority, we must surely recognize that God is not bound by any means to honor our misuses of His authority. He is not required to answer prayers that seek for Him to go against His own purpose.
I dare say, as a child of a sovereign – no, the Sovereign God, that His sovereignty is absolute. Angels are not sufficient in their power to manipulate Him into deviating from His purposes. To suppose otherwise, to think God a being we can cajole and maneuver to do our bidding, is to revert to our inherited paganism. This is the stuff of idolatry, not faith! No! Angels can in no wise force God’s hands, and neither can we. Prayer, it is true, changes things, but only when prayer is aligned with God’s purposes. To pray against the kingdom and expect the King to accede is the utmost foolishness. Yet, we often, if we are not careful, find ourselves doing and expecting just that. The moment we begin to dictate to God that He must do this, that or the other; the minute we fall into demanding God’s action, we are slipping into an abuse of power. If ever we think we can leave off what Jesus Himself felt necessary, “nevertheless, Lord, Your will not mine,” then we are overstepping our bounds.
Quite apart from the relationship Jesus declares between our earthly efforts and the heavenly counterpart, quite apart from whether our determinations reflect heaven’s or are reflected in heaven, there is something else to be aware of in this declaration. The terms Jesus uses are matters of rabbinical legal language. Binding, while it could constitute tying with ropes or some such, is being used in the sense understood by the religious courts: It is a matter of declaring a thing forbidden, prohibited, illegal. Likewise, loosing is not concerned with untying a knot, it is a matter of declaring a thing lawful and accepted.
Obviously, there are matters over which there can be no reasonable debate. They are clearly within one category or the other. But, then there are those things that are perhaps societal mores. There are those debatable matters that Paul warns us to be careful about codifying. There really are those things which might be sinful for you, but not so for me. Unless, of course, I allow my freedom to be your temptation. Are these matters upon which we ought to proclaim our legal decision? It is a place to exercise power with great care, and only as we are certain of God’s direction.
Let me, though, return to this theme of responsibility. Think about some of the other reflections of that responsibility as we find them in the Bible. Jesus, upon Peter’s great confession of Messiah, enters into a discourse with His disciples (not just Peter, folks), and says, amongst other things, “I will entrust the keys of the kingdom to you” (Mt 16:19). Wow! OK, as a parent of a teen on the verge of independent driving, I can consider the concern of handing over the keys to the car. As a survivor of teen foolishness myself, I can recall how well it worked out when the folks handed over the keys to the house and went off on vacation without me. That sure turned out to be a great idea! Yet, here is God Himself handing over the keys to the entire kingdom of heaven into the hands of what, on the spiritual level, are barely even teens yet! Is it any wonder that Jesus is now so thoroughly focused on making sure they get it? Before He heads out, He needs to be as certain as He can possibly be that these guys understand more than just the power in their hands, but also have a clear grasp on the responsibility.
Then, too, there is Jesus’ own message as the time for teaching drew to a close. The disciples had seen Him forgive sins. They had seen Him heal sickness and disease. They had, I suspect, begun to sense a certain connection between these two activities. They were certain that all was done with an eye to pointing God’s children to God’s kingdom once again. Then, Jesus teaches them this, bringing the whole thing home for them. “If you [you, not Me] forgive one his sins, they have been forgiven. If you refuse to do so, his sins are retained” (Jn 20:23). Again, this is no time for an apostolic power trip. It is responsibility. Would you really want the eternal loss of that one’s soul on your account, because you refused to forgive? Now, I confess, it truly is an awesome thing to consider that God is willing to make such a promise to such as me. If you forgive, it is done. Though the sin is against Me and Me only, yet your forgiveness, as My representative, shall have as much power as My own Son’s, as My own.
Again, I would ask, though: If our choices run counter to His purposes, do we really suppose He will bind Himself to our unenlightened positions? I think not. God is Sovereign. If He has predestined one for salvation, I really don’t think our negligent unwillingness to forgive that one’s sins is going to stop His will from being done. Likewise, if we are so willing to forgive sins that we make our pronouncements over the reprobate, that is no assurance of the reprobate’s salvation. No, that assurance lies with Christ and Christ alone. We, however, do well to err on the side of mercy, for it is not often, if ever, in us to truly see the state of a man. Better, then, to seek to express God’s forgiveness than to withhold it. Yes, do so with an earnest eye towards making that recipient aware of the Truth in every regard. Leave him with no false hope of assurance in spite of a continued reprobate existence. But, when one comes repenting, our duty is forgiveness, no matter how many times we’ve heard it before.
The evidence we have in the writings of the Apostles makes clear that they learned well. Indeed, they did their best to make certain that what they had learned they also taught. Like the Teacher, they would do their best to make certain that those who took up the work after them understood both the power and the responsibility before they themselves left the stage. “Don’t you know?”, Paul asked his church. “We shall be judging angels in times to come! Surely, we can begin by judging our own affairs in this life” (1Co 6:3).
Let us, whether leaders or merely sheep, come to grips with the responsibility that is ours. Let us take seriously the power that is entrusted to us, even the least of us. Let us do all that is in our power to ensure that the use we make of that power is the use God would have us make. Let us also resolve to avoid all presumption upon our God and Father. Never again shall we be heard to demand a particular answer or action on His part. Always, always, let our communion with Him be found bearing the stamp of, “Your will be done.”
