The Anti-Matthew-18 Discipline (I missed it!)

I have long argued (convincing nobody) that Matthew 18 is not a general model for Church discipline:

¹⁵ “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. ¹⁶ But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ ¹⁷ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. (Matt 18:15-17) 

This is, rather inescapably, instruction for one specific type of conflict: personal enmity between two members of the body. There is nothing indicating that it is a general model for dealing with all manner of sin in the church. But it often is used that way, and anything from sustained absence, to unrepentant lifestyle sin (that is not directly “against” another member) to outright heresy is dealt with “Matthew 18” style.

Maybe there is nothing wrong with that—but we should at least acknowledge that we are extrapolating a limited biblical instruction beyond its provided domain. And if extrapolation were a reliable process, we could all get rich on the stock market.

On the other hand, maybe there is something wrong with it. Because in the examples of church discipline found in the bible, there is no indication that a Matthew 18 process was followed. Ever. (To clarify: if there were a case where personal enmity was dealt with in the New Testament, we can assume that Matthew 18 would have been followed to the letter.) But the discipline cases we find are not of that variety, and they are not dealt with a la Matthew 18.  I’ve made this point before and always used these examples:

• The man sleeping with his (probably) step-mother in 1 Cor 5:1-5. Paul says that he has received the report of the incident. He doesn’t ask whether a Matthew 18 type process was followed, nor does he instruct the church to initiate a Matthew 18 type process. He tells the church to summarily excommunicate the man.
• There is no indication that Paul Matt-18’ed the blasphemers Hymenaeus and Alexander. He tossed ‘em out. (1 Tim 1:20)
• There is no indication that Peter Matt -18’ed Simon the Sorcerer for trying to purchase apostolic power. (Acts 8:18-24)

Furthermore, there is no indication of a Matthew 18 process  (or any disciplinary process for that matter) for people who no longer want to be associated with the church. All the discipline examples are aimed at individuals who wish to remain in the body.

How did I not see this? 

I don’t know how, in all the times I have written about this, I could miss the obvious example:

¹¹ But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹² For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. ¹³ And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (Gal 2:11-13)

Here Paul is rebuking Peter, and there is every indication it was a swift and public rebuke. Calvin writes:

The observation of Chrysostom, that, for the sake of avoiding scandal, they would have talked in private if they had any difference, is frivolous. The less important must be disregarded in comparison of the most dangerous of all scandals, that the Church would be rent, that Christian liberty was in danger, that the doctrine of the grace of Christ was overthrown; and therefore this public offense must be publicly corrected. (Calvin Commentary on Galatians) 

Paul’s discipline of Peter is an anti-Matthew 18 process. There is no private counsel. There is no bringing others into the picture. There is no bringing the matter before the church.

I don’t know why we keep using the words “Matthew 18 process.” I do not think those words mean what we think they mean.