This has to stop. A simple reading of the passage can clarify the problem.

Let’s begin.

I. Scripture

A. First translation

Here are two translations, the first is the New International Version (NIV) and the other by yours truly.

¹⁵ “If your brother or sister^[b] sins,^[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. ¹⁶ 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.’^[d] 17 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. (Matthew 18:15-17, NIV)

B. My translation:

¹⁵ “If your brother or sister sin against you, go and convince him, just you and him. If they listen to you, you have won your brother or sister. ¹⁶ If they do not listen to you, take with you one or two others, so that ‘out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established.’ [Deut. 19:15] ¹⁷ If they do not listen to them, tell the church. But if they do not listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and tax collector.  (Matthew 18:15-17, my translation)

C. Comments:

1.. The context is brother or sister, not a leader

“brother or sister”: it literally reads “brother,” but in this context brother stands in for both sexes. It is generic. Also, following commentator R. T.  France’s clever idea, I made the pronouns “him” into “them” and “he” into “they.” But be careful here. Usually a brother in the church should confront a brother, and a sister should confront a sister. Mixing the genders can be a bad idea in a tense situation, depending on the circumstances. But if a sister needs to confront a brother at first, let it happen in a public setting, like a coffee shop. There’s safety with witnesses.

2. Kick him out?

To make someone like a tax collector or a pagan (or Gentile) is the same as kicking out the offending brother from the church community. Treat him as if he is unsaved–someone outside the church. Strong words!

3. Sins, not crimes

Note that the verse says “sins,” and not “commits a crime” (e.g. sexual abuse). If someone commits the crime of sexual abuse or other physical abuses, you must report him to the civil authorities. In California, (the state where I live), this person is called a “mandated reporter.”

4. Personal context

Next, the context of Matthew 18 is personal. It’s about a brother or sister who offends you personally. Brother to brother and sister to sister. Not brother or sister to leader.

5. Permission to criticize

Further, the context is not about criticizing a mega-ministry which builds a wall around the main leader who is spreading bad doctrine or abusive behavior, like demanding heavy submission. You can point out his errors from a distance. If you can reach him behind his ministry walls and entourage, then you should do so. If not, keep criticizing him from a distance.

C. Wisdom from the pastoral epistle

First Timothy 5:19-20 guides us here:

¹⁹ Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. ²⁰ But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.  (1 Tim. 5:19-20, NIV)

Paul is referring to Deuteronomy 19:15, which says:

¹⁵ One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. (Deut. 19:15)

So the bottom line about the passage in 1 Timothy is once again a local setting. If the minister has a wall around him or an entourage. then keep criticizing from a distance. He made himself unattainable. But don’t stop calling him out. And by the way, the witnesses do not have to see the adultery if it is secret. But they should at confront the alleged adulterer.

Most importantly, Matthew 18 does not apply in the case of elders or church leaders who sin. If he can be reached and confronted personally, all one needs to do is take two or three witnesses to confront the elder (leader). It would be beneficial to take an older person with you, someone mature in the Lord. You alone do not have to confront the accused elder. And certainly the one who has been (allegedly) abused should not confront him. If the accused leader insists on confronting the (alleged) victim alone, then the leader is out of order. Tell him no. You do not have to bring the victim, per 1 Timothy 5:19-20.

II. Application

A. What the law says

Here in California, it is illegal to make the victim of abuse meet with her abuser. It is a sure thing that other states have similar laws, because it would be too traumatic for the victim. The one-on-one meeting may open up old wounds, or the leader may intimidate his victim through mental and emotional terror. There’s wisdom in the state laws. Is the church less wise than the civil authorities? A proper exegesis says no; the church has its own wisdom.

B. No more manipulation

To sum up briefly, don’t allow a church leader accused of clergy abuse to cry “Matthew 18!” That’s manipulative. Matthew 18 is simply about a brother confronting another brother or a sister confronting another sister in a church setting, alone at first. Matthew 18 is not about a brother or sister confronting a leader, one on one, alone. This could be very intimidating for a sister, particularly when she was the one abused. This meeting probably violates all state laws, and it certainly violates state law in California. Mature Christians need to confront his abuser and his misconduct without the victim present.

C. Call to maturity

But does the American and global church have enough mature disciples with Bible knowledge to do this? Or are they entangled with the leader? I don’t know the answer to those questions.

RELATED

Matthew 18 (provides the bigger context, and scroll down to see the bibliography)

Half-Truths in Dr. Brown’s Interview at Mercy Culture Church

Calling Leaders by Name to Repent

Disturbing Allegations against Dr. Michael Brown (I now conclude that he can never return to ministry.)