Sermon Tone Analysis

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.

If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.

And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

[1]

The opening words of the text read, “If your brother sins against you…” This is a third class conditional sentence; the first readers of this pericope would have understood that Jesus was presenting a probable situation that might confront a Christian at any time.

The situation is not merely hypothetical, but rather, it is possible.

It would be appropriate, therefore, to translate the words of Jesus with the English phrase, “Should your brother sin.”

Keep this point in mind as the message progresses.

There is also a textual question that should be considered at the outset.

Many manuscripts do not have the words “against you.”

It is possible that these two words are an interpolation.

If the words are genuine, then it indicates that sin against the Christian community is in view; and if the words should be excluded, then it is obvious that concern for the spiritual welfare of a fellow Christian is in view.

In either case, the principle holds that as Christians we are each responsible to be aware of the spiritual condition of our fellow believers; we are each responsible for one another.

In speaking from this text, I am not seeking to review steps leading to congregational discipline; rather, I seek to clarify the basis for mutual responsibility to one another as a community of faith.

My position is opposed to popular practise; I insist that we are responsible for one another and that our responsibility is so much more than mere words.

We are responsible to be so concerned for one another that we cannot ignore self-destructive tendencies.

To clarify my meaning, I direct you to focus on the text for the message—MATTHEW 18:15-20.

In order to understand the text, I suggest that we need to understand the context.

What are the principles that should stand out whenever we read this text?

What standards should we embrace if we truly understand this text?

We do not wish to ignore the text, which is too often done by contemporary pulpit.

Neither do we wish to become legalistic in application of the text, an action that seems to be selectively applied rather frequently whenever a believer becomes angry toward a fellow Christian.

Keep three emphases of this text in mind—responsibility, relationship and reconciliation.

Each of these emphases reminds us of a principle that must be held in mind if the teaching is to have validity.

Responsibility is more important than rights.

Relationship is more important than religion.

Reconciliation, not retaliation, is the goal.

RESPONSIBILITY OVERSHADOWS RIGHTS — The instructions provided in our text emphasises responsibility—individual and corporate.

Church members witnessing sinful behaviour in the life of another church member are responsible to rescue that saint and to seek restoration.

Those believers offending are responsible to respond in a godly fashion.

The entire congregation bears responsibility to act wisely and righteously if the issue should be referred to the assembly.

Unfortunately, responsibility seems to be in short supply among contemporary churches.

Modern social engineers have indoctrinated an entire generation to expect that individual “rights” are the summum bonum of life.

In modern life, the rights of the individual must be protected at all costs.

The rights of a child during the education process are of greater importance than are the responsibilities of the child to learn.

Children’s rights in society trump all responsibilities until at last they are declared adults, at which time they are expected magically to become responsible citizens.

Unfortunately, the rights of adults, while not extending to the right to keep what is produced through their own labours, seemingly extend into the home and into the church.

Since the text especially focuses on the responsibility of Christians to “live in peace” [cf. 2 CORINTHIANS 13:11], our responsibility as believers will be the focus of our consideration as well.

Do we need to be reminded that Christians do not “join” a church?

Language such as this is political, reflecting the efforts of the modern state to regulate the churches of our Lord.

What we witness in the Word is that people are “added to the church” [see ACTS 2:41, 47; see also, ACTS 5:14; 11:24].

If we “join” the church, then we have no particular obligation to the Body.

Instead, we have rights, because we “joined.”

Perhaps it would be better if we guarded our language to ensure that those in attendance at our services are reminded that whilst we indeed desire that they walk in spiritual concord with us, openly committing themselves to share in this ministry, it is nevertheless the Lord Himself that builds His church.

He does use us as human instruments to accomplish His desires, but always it is He who builds.

He adds to the church and we who have been added gladly receive those whom He is adding.

As an aside of no small consequence, in the years of my service before the Lord, I have witnessed a virtual army of people “join” the church.

I have seen some sizeable battalions quit the church, as well.

Inevitably, some will become offended, and often the deciding factor in the offence is me.

I am an equal opportunity insulter.

Eventually, if I have not yet offended you, I am certain to do so.

Don’t misunderstand; I do not deliberately seek to offend—I have a strong desire to be liked.

However, in my effort to be true to the Word of God, I find that the Word can be offensive.

Perhaps people leaving the church have taken umbrage at my dialect, at my mannerisms, at my cultural roots, but more likely they became indignant at something that I said.

Instead of seeking clarification of what I said, the normal response is to quit.

Modern Christians, reflecting society, are easily offended—and the churches too frequently aid the offence.

Whenever a Christian is angry toward her pastor, she can begin to attend another church, knowing that she will be welcomed with open arms.

No one would dare ask whether she left behind unresolved conflict.

The thought of too many in leadership is that warm bodies are evidence of God’s blessing, regardless of how those bodies came to be present.

Each body means greater income, and greater income means more prestige and greater “opportunity to minister.”

An example of the way in which many—dare I say most—modern Christians tend to react when offended is provided through the actions of George Greer, the notorious Florida judge who ruled that a brain-injured woman named Terri Schiavo, could be starved and dehydrated until she was dead.

Judge Greer was a member of the Calvary Baptist church in Clearwater, Florida.

It was the practise of that congregation to send copies of the Florida Baptist Witness to each member of the church.

That publication published a series of editorials reminding Baptists of their responsibility to choose life.

The judge was angered by the editorials, so he ceased to donate to the church.

[2] Then, the recently appointed pastor of the congregation, becoming aware that the Judge was a member of the congregation of 1500 members, wrote Judge Greer a letter in which he urged upon him the Christian responsibility to value life.

[3] Upon receiving the letter, the judge was even more deeply offended and withdrew his membership from the church.

That judge chose to remove himself from the loving care of a biblically sound church rather than submit to the scriptural obligation to exercise his public duties in a manner that is consistent with his professed faith in the Lord of life.

[4]

If he felt the pastor was erroneous in his teaching, and therefore unjustified in his expressed concerns, the Judge was responsible to speak with the Pastor.

However, versed as he was in his “rights,” the Judge publicly renounced membership in the church.

Somehow, this judge felt that his “dignity” was maintained by showing that he was above the church—first by withholding his moneys and then through ceasing membership.

He would punish the church, and I suppose that would teach them—all of them—a lesson.

Similarly, it is common that whenever someone is offended because the Pastor speaks too plainly, because the elders expose their behaviour or because the church did not act as they thought it should, that they simply withdraw their membership instead of seeking to resolve the difficulty.

Unfortunately, petulant saints are often aided in their contempt for God and for His church through the thoughtless actions of other churches.

Some years ago, the pastor of a nearby congregation visited in my office.

As we conversed, he related that his congregation was in turmoil as result of an attempted church coup by some renegade Christians.

He divulged that these attendees had come to him from another local congregation.

They had become disgruntled, left their church and begun attendance at his services.

He eagerly accepted them and soon promoted several to leadership positions within the congregation, though he did not require membership of them.

Once they were in leadership, they rebelled against his leadership.

I was unsympathetic and reminded him that when he fished in someone else’s pond he was obligated to keep what he caught.

I refused to sympathise with him.

Actually, I told that pouting pastor that he got precisely what he deserved since he had not truly dealt with them in a godly manner by refusing to require that they first care for their conflict at their previous church.

They had demonstrated serious character flaws and through his negligence, he had permitted those flaws to fester in their lives.

Throughout the New Testament, I observe a stress upon responsibility of Christians before God and to the churches to do the will of God.

There is not one single verse detailing individual rights.

We are saved by grace—and that is not a right.

Were we to get our rights, we would be condemned as rebels and banished from the precincts of Heaven.

Instead, we receive grace, and it is expected that we will reveal the grace we have received through accepting the responsibility to be godly and holy in all things.

This teaching must be firmly nailed down in our minds.

Our Lord commands each of us as Christians to assume responsibility for one another, confronting errant saints before they destroy themselves, before they damage their testimony, and before they harm the cause of Christ.

“If your brother sins … go and tell him his fault.”

Contemporary society schools us to relinquish responsibility.

We are not permitted even to be responsible for ourselves in the view of modern victimologists.

The minister is “hired” to do this nasty work of confrontation, though we reserve the right to review his actions.

It is our right to be undisturbed by the need to confront others, though we do reserve the right to grumble about those actions.