I'm going to start this discussion by posting the passage that sets forth how Christians should handle individuals who stray from the body:
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
This came up recently with a couple who had questioned some of the financial decisions in the church. They wanted to have an open discussion in front of the congregation to discuss the possible misuse of church funds and the result was that a group of leaders closed ranks and went on the attack against the couple.
I attended a meeting yesterday after service and the meeting was not about the issue of misusing funds but about expelling this couple from the congregation for asking about it.
Matthew 18 was invoked to make the point that having a large group of people on one side makes the people on the other side wrong.
I don't often speak up at church but I did this time. I said that "right and wrong are not a democracy" and we don't get to vote on whether or not something is right or wrong, we have to examine it and then the truth will reveal itself. Naturally I got shouted down and then my wonderful husband stood up and said we needed to look at the question about the finances and one was stupid enough to shout at Steve!
It took some time but then the financial question came out to be examined. $7500 had been spent on reimbursing people for expenses volunteering at a women's shelter we support. That was the thing because we're all supposed to pay our own expenses for this kind of thing because that's part of the sacrifice. Then there were some words that tried to explain why this thing was done and the fact is that there was no excuse for it. The church council never approved the reimbursement and the church treasurer had no authority to issue any checks.
The result of it all was the couple was right and a group of leaders were wrong.
Our treasurer resigned last night and the people involved promised to put the money back in the church by the end of the month. Steve says if they don't he'll call the sheriff to report the embezzlement and he's dead serious.
But back to Matthew 18 here, this is not the first time I've seen or heard of this passage in the Bible being used to justify persecuting people who bring up valid questions or who make valid accusations within the church. It gets abused by people who think they can vote on matters of right and wrong and that a simple vote gets to decide what's right or true.
So I'm just saying if someone invokes Matthew 18 to deal with someone in the church the first thing that needs to be established is if the dissidents are right about their issue because maybe they are.
Further, this also makes me appreciate having a republic over a democracy. In a democracy right and wrong ARE decided by a vote and very bad things can happen that way. I much prefer a republic where right and wrong are examined and then revealed for what they are.
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
This came up recently with a couple who had questioned some of the financial decisions in the church. They wanted to have an open discussion in front of the congregation to discuss the possible misuse of church funds and the result was that a group of leaders closed ranks and went on the attack against the couple.
I attended a meeting yesterday after service and the meeting was not about the issue of misusing funds but about expelling this couple from the congregation for asking about it.
Matthew 18 was invoked to make the point that having a large group of people on one side makes the people on the other side wrong.
I don't often speak up at church but I did this time. I said that "right and wrong are not a democracy" and we don't get to vote on whether or not something is right or wrong, we have to examine it and then the truth will reveal itself. Naturally I got shouted down and then my wonderful husband stood up and said we needed to look at the question about the finances and one was stupid enough to shout at Steve!
It took some time but then the financial question came out to be examined. $7500 had been spent on reimbursing people for expenses volunteering at a women's shelter we support. That was the thing because we're all supposed to pay our own expenses for this kind of thing because that's part of the sacrifice. Then there were some words that tried to explain why this thing was done and the fact is that there was no excuse for it. The church council never approved the reimbursement and the church treasurer had no authority to issue any checks.
The result of it all was the couple was right and a group of leaders were wrong.
Our treasurer resigned last night and the people involved promised to put the money back in the church by the end of the month. Steve says if they don't he'll call the sheriff to report the embezzlement and he's dead serious.
But back to Matthew 18 here, this is not the first time I've seen or heard of this passage in the Bible being used to justify persecuting people who bring up valid questions or who make valid accusations within the church. It gets abused by people who think they can vote on matters of right and wrong and that a simple vote gets to decide what's right or true.
So I'm just saying if someone invokes Matthew 18 to deal with someone in the church the first thing that needs to be established is if the dissidents are right about their issue because maybe they are.
Further, this also makes me appreciate having a republic over a democracy. In a democracy right and wrong ARE decided by a vote and very bad things can happen that way. I much prefer a republic where right and wrong are examined and then revealed for what they are.
