As I have discussed previously in this post, it is way too easy to forget to consider context…making a specific sentence stand on its own which strips it of the balance that context provides.
In this post, I’d like to posit that we can misapply a teaching by missing a key qualifier–turning that teaching into a universal panacea that leads us out of the way into confusion.
When you hear of “Matthew 18”, does anything come to mind? If not, then perhaps I’m one of few that seem to continually run into this misapplication. Perhaps it is just my luck that I run into situation where the answer to the conflict is summed up in, ‘it’s because you didn’t follow Matthew 18.’ But, maybe at least one other person who reads this will appreciate this discussion and, just maybe, it might help you avoid a misapplication mishap.
What is the key qualifier of Matthew 18:15-20? ‘brother shall trespass against thee’
The context of this writing started earlier in the chapter, and we see that Jesus is addressing offences, trespasses, in short, various types of injuries. I wouldn’t advise that we suggest that any injury will result in the hanging of a millstone around the neck of the injurer. Likewise, when Jesus gives the key qualifier in verse 15, let’s not suggest that every conflict should be handled the same way.
Let me give a couple examples of when “Matthew 18” is often used incorrectly. 1)A Christian is sinning against God/others or seemingly walking in a way that is contrary to good religion (visiting a bar, maybe) 2)A carte blanche complaint/appeals/grievance process in organizations.
Both of these fail to appreciate the context and therefore end up missing the mark. The typical argument, even after this is pointed out to someone is, but this is still good practice, and what’s the harm–if the shoe fits, wear it. Regarding example 1, in practice, I’ve heard and seen the following happen in a church setting. A younger Christian sees another acting outside what he considers to be Godly based on the local church practices, and, like an obedient Christian, tries to follow Matthew 18. He runs into problems when he does step 2–take another with you. He may take another like-minded, young Christian with him (likely because an older, mature Christian won’t join him) and that doesn’t go well–so he presses on to involve the church. That doesn’t go well either. He is left feeling like no one cares or God’s ways don’t work or….
Regarding example 2, in practice this seems like a great ideal in an organization, that everyone would follow Matthew 18, so we put it as our official grievance process. Then we have an employee who skips their boss and calls the owner of the business with a concern–usually huge, and usually about their boss. The boss gets wind after the owner confronts him and the boss cries foul. In few cases, the employee follows Matthew 18, or at least attempts to, but finds real difficulty because of the nature of the hierarchy.
I argue that Jesus was not speaking of either of these two examples, and at best, a misapplication of this teaching results in added stress, poorer relationships, and a drop in ‘performance’ (however you want to measure that for a given context). At worst, Jesus’ teachings are viewed as NOT WORKING, calling into question his authority and the veracity of his ways.
Matthew 18 is simply explaining a process for when one believer injures another. I like to give an example–one we are familiar with because we still use this word ‘trespass’ today. Two farmers share a field border and one of them discovers tracks that appear to be from his neighbor tramping down some of his crops. He follows Matthew 18, goes to the farmer to inquire. The farmer knows nothing of it but posits that it could be his hired hand–but checking with the hired hand, receives a denial. By this time the farmer is fairly certain it came from his neighbor one way or the other, and now the offending farmer is denying it. You take another with you to hear both sides, and if the matter is still not resolved, you take it before the church.
In some ways, this pattern has become so common-sense that our court system is loosely built on it. But, to apply this to example 1 or 2 above, is not wise and creates an expectation of behavior that doesn’t work either. Matthew 18 is a trespass one against another. If the trespass is against God, against someone else, against a church organization, or anything other than against YOU, then Matthew 18 is not the venue. There are many other teachings that do address this issue, and all of them would start with the expectation that you communicate with the sinning brother. But, it doesn’t follow that you would take another, and then elevate it, etc.
Further, when you try to apply Matthew 18 to a hierarchical scenario such as an organizational structure, it really muddies the waters. Check out Luke 16. Did Jesus violate his own teaching in Matthew 18 by not demanding that the steward’s accusers follow the Matthew 18 process? Of course not. The master has a fiduciary duty to ensure that his estate and all the subjects of it are being treated well and that the ‘stuff’ of the organization is being handled appropriately. Demanding that a subordinate confront his offending boss before an appeal will be heard is not wise, and, I argue not Biblical. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t almost always ask the plaintiff whether they had spoken about their concern to their boss first. I expect this, and also remind everyone that anonymity isn’t a thing. I’ll sit with two people in my organization if a discussion needs to happen regarding a boss’s behavior–I don’t force the uncomfortable subordinate to go solo. Neither do I presuppose that the boss is in error. A need for anonymity in an organization is a sign of a sick organization. Real leaders always have the backs of all of their people, regardless of rank.
I think that’s enough for now…