Matthew 18:15-20
I
was told a story about a member of a church I once served. I never met this
member. He died long before I came on the scene. But this member was known for
letting pastors know exactly what he thought of their sermons, their prayers,
their leadership, etc. One Sunday, this gentleman did not like the intercessory
prayer the pastor led. It went on too long for the member’s liking. Ask for
help, lift up the people in need, get it done, get it over with. Amen. After
church, the member drove all over town looking for the pastor to make sure that
he told him exactly how much he didn’t like the prayer. I guess the pastor had
gone out to eat with his family, so the member finally tracked him down at his
home. I don’t know if he knocked on his door or cornered him in his driveway,
but he gave him a tongue lashing for the deplorable prayer given that Sunday.
While
the members of the church who shared that story with me thought it was funny, I
thought, “I’m really glad I was not the pastor, because that would have reduced
me to tears, which probably would have made the guy give me an even harder
time.”
Recently,
I also heard a story of a family who left a church here in town supposedly
because at a church dinner one member of their family was given a much smaller
portion of meat than a member of a rival family. I doubt that this was the real
reason for leaving the church. I suspect that there had been a feud brewing for
a long, long time between the two families, but that camel must have had a very
overloaded back if that was the straw that finally broke it.
These
two stories represent opposite ends of our passage from Matthew. The first is
taking your need or desire to confront someone to an unhealthy and, I think,
mean extreme. It is one thing to confront someone who has hurt you, or you
believe has done something that has harmed or will harm the fellowship of the
church. But to hunt the pastor down because you didn’t like the prayer, well call
me defensive, but you stand up and do better, then we’ll talk. That felt
more like a demonstration of power than an actual confrontation over a
conflict. The second is an example of what happens when you don’t deal with
conflict; when you let it simmer and fester until it finally blows up over
something small and seemingly insignificant. I am always saddened when I hear
of churches splintering and splitting over inner turmoil and conflicts, but of
the many reasons why a church may break down, may it never be known as the Great
Roast Beef Debacle of 2017.
At
first glance this passage from Matthew’s gospel seems to be strictly about the
rules and regulations for dealing with conflict in the church. It is often
referred to as rules of church discipline, and certainly our own rules of
discipline are modeled after Jesus’ words in these verses. Matthew is often
seen as the most legalistic of the gospel writers – which is one of the reasons
that I tend to struggle with him. It’s not that I don’t want rules and order –
I do. But I grow weary of constant legalism.
But
is this actually legalism on Matthew’s part, or is that how it is has been
interpreted? It is bracketed on either side by passages that are not legalistic
in tone at all. The verses preceding these are about the shepherd leaving
ninety-nine sheep to find the one that is lost. And the verses following are
Peter’s question to Jesus about how often should we forgive someone? Jesus’
answer was an incalculable amount. Forgive and forgive and forgive and forgive.
So
is this legalism that we are dealing with for the sake of legalism, or is it a
way to be in relationship with one another for the sake of community? I think
it is the latter. Jesus came to bring people into deeper relationship with God
and with one another. The kingdom of God
was not a far off wonderland – some divine amusement park filled with
perfection and utopian delights. The kingdom
of God was the true community, the
true fellowship of the people of God. So how do we live in fellowship, in
relationship, in community with one another?
I
think it is important to note that what is implied here is that Jesus assumed
there would be conflict. Nowhere does the text say, “Thou shalt not have
conflict, but if you do, if you fail and mess up and have conflict, then here
is what you do…”
We
tend to see our conflict as failure. I tend to see conflict as failure. But I
don’t think Jesus was saying that to be in conflict was a failure on their
part. How they dealt or did not deal with that conflict might constitute failure,
the conflict itself came from the fact that they were a community of flawed,
finite, limited human beings. Remember when Jesus told Peter that on him he
would build his church, gather his community? Peter was a flawed rock to be
sure. So it is a good bet that the community on which it was built will also be
flawed. Of course it is because we are flawed.
Conflict
is inevitable. That’s what I feel is implied here. But how you deal with
conflict can make a difference. How do we deal with conflict? How do we deal
with someone we believe has sinned against us? Do we confront the person? Or do
we take it to the parking lot? Or to lunch after church? My finger is not
pointed outward with these questions; it is pointed firmly at me.
The
truth is, it is much easier to take conflict to the parking lot or to lunch or
to Facebook or Twitter or an email or some other method or means. It is much
easier to not deal with it, let it go, try to forget about it. But then someone
gets a larger serving of roast beef, and a family leaves the church. Conflict
resolution is not easy, but the method Jesus offered was a way of dealing with
it, of facing it and resolving it that kept the community intact.
But
what if the steps that he laid out it didn’t work? Then we treat the person like
a tax collector or a Gentile. We shun them. That is how this command has been
interpreted. Yet, to read against the text, how did Jesus treat tax collectors
and gentiles? Did he shun them? Did he make them even more outcast than they
already were? Or did he continue to reach out to them? Did he continue to offer
them fellowship, love, acceptance?
Just
as taking conflict to the parking lot is easier than dealing with it directly,
so is shunning easier than trying to offer an extended hand to someone who has
hurt you. It seems to me that the conflict resolution steps Jesus offered were
hard from beginning to end. And while we may see them as step 1, step 2, step
3, etc., when you are dealing with human beings, lines get blurred.
Relationships are messy. Communities are messy. Perhaps Jesus was offering a
warning about what we loose and what we bind. We have power, and we can use
that power with love or we can abuse it. As one commentator wrote, be careful
what you set in stone on earth because that can have cosmic consequences.
Being
in community, in fellowship with one another is a messy reality. I took my
title for my sermon from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s book of the same name. In that
book, he discusses what true Christian fellowship is. I have only begun to read
the book, and I cannot claim to fully understand every point he made, but he
wrote about being disillusioned with one another. True fellowship happens when
we reach the point of disillusionment. It seems to me that when we are disillusioned
with each other, the blinders are off. We see each other as we really are –
flaws, foibles, frailties and also blessed with wonderful gifts and abilities.
True community, true fellowship happens when the blinders come off; when we see
each other for who we really are – sinners yes, but also children of God.
I
think Jesus wanted the disciples to understand that true community was hard,
but it was worth it. I think Jesus wants us to know that as well. It is hard,
it is messy, it is worth it. As we move forward together, may we move forward
disillusioned with one another, aware of the messiness between us, ready to
confront our conflicts, face our challenges and rejoice in our life together.
And may roast beef never come between us.
Let
all of God’s children say, “Alleluia!” Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment