
When I was a young, enthusiastic teenage Christian who obviously knew everything, I once commented at a Bible study that the early church didn’t have any internal problems.
Unfortunately for me, my minister was present. He suggested I look at the New Testament a little more closely. The argument over circumcision that needs settling in Acts 15. The ways in which the Apostle Paul remonstrates with congregations, not least the Corinthians.
Whoops.
Our passage today from Matthew shows us that Jesus anticipated there would be problems in the church. Problems that included sin.
It’s no good us thinking, we’re a happy family, no-one will ever rock the boat here. If we think that, we won’t be prepared when something wrong happens among us. It’s best to know in advance what Jesus teaches on the subject, and to be prepared.
Firstly, our aim is restoration:

The three stages that Jesus describes of going first of all privately to the person who has sinned, secondly with witnesses, and finally to the assembled congregation is quite reminiscent of the disciplinary process that was often followed in the synagogues of his day[1].
And the synagogues certainly didn’t rule out the idea of forgiveness for the wrongdoer[2], but Jesus is totally upfront in making the main motive for speaking to the one who has sinned as restoration.
That’s why you have the three stages. A private conversation. If that doesn’t work, take a couple of witnesses with you. And finally, as a last resort, before the whole congregation.
Jesus prioritises the healing of broken relationships, the repentance of the sinner, and the offer of forgiveness by whoever has been wronged. All of these are implied by the process he institutes. All of these will be provided for when he goes to the Cross.
The problem is that this is not what some people want when wrong has been done. On the one hand, some people want to be vindictive and vengeful. You can see that in our culture with the rise of ‘cancel culture’: express a socially unacceptable opinion and you are both ostracised and silenced. Such people will not go privately to the one who has caused offence, because they do not care for the costly reconciliation that Jesus is all about.
Does something like this happen in church circles at times? Yes, to our shame. Rather than challenging wrongdoing, people gossip about the one who has overstepped the mark. This is not the Jesus way.
And neither is the opposite approach, where rather than confronting the one who is out of line, we sweep everything under the carpet. We think ignoring sin is a version of forgiveness. It isn’t. Or we try to explain away someone’s patently wrong actions. This is a tacit acceptance of unholiness in the church.
Therefore, we begin with the private approach. If that doesn’t work, we take one or two witnesses with us. Remember, Jewish law normally required the confirmation of witnesses before a conviction.
Only as a last resort do we go public before the congregation. And only then do we consider banning someone from the church. It takes a serious level of proof to do that.
There will be some who say that you should never ban someone from the church and that you should always offer forgiveness. The problem with that in Jesus’ eyes is that some people are so thoroughly unrepentant that they put themselves beyond the boundaries of the believing community that banning them is only confirming the hardness of their own hearts.
By way of context, I am now in my thirty-fifth year of circuit ministry, and in all that time I have only ever banned one person, and I was instructed to do so by the police. The person in question was a known paedophile, and without telling you the whole story let’s just say he was a persistent repeat offender. For the safety of the worshipping community (and especially for the children in it) he had to be excluded. Tragically, he never fully embraced the costly actions required of him to facilitate restoration of relationships.
Secondly, our authority is heaven:

Listen again to what Jesus says in verse 18:
Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
It sounds like heaven ratifies what we decide. But scholars generally think there is a better translation, albeit one that sounds a little clumsy in English:
Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.
This strange – to us – language of binding and loosing is almost certainly about church discipline. And in the corrected translation, it is heaven that authorises us to undertake either the banning of an unrepentant sinner (that’s ‘binding’) or the forgiveness and restoration of the repentant sinner (that’s ‘loosing’).
We do not sort out problems of sin and broken relationships in the church off our own back. It is something that the court of heaven itself deeply cares about.
Why? Jesus set up the church to be a holy community of people who were reconciled both to him and to each other. It is as the holy and reconciled community that we are a witness to Jesus in the world. Anything that damages that matters to heaven. Anything that can be done to heal and to put things right again matters doubly to heaven.
And therefore, heaven authorises Christ’s church to engage in binding and loosing. It is part of our community life to hold one another accountable for our actions. If we see one of our brothers or sisters in the church acting in a way that brings disrepute to the name of Jesus, then it is our duty to speak to them, and to initiate the process I described in the first point, all with a view to reconciliation and restoration.
What Jesus tells us here is that when we solemnly engage in that, we have divine backing for our words and our actions.
That’s why we should be careful only to do this when someone has truly done something wrong. It is not to be used as a way of putting people down that we don’t like in the church. Nor is it to be used as a way of getting our own back on someone who has done something we don’t like.
I say that with some feeling, having seen someone make something up to get another church member out of a church, and also as someone who has twice been subjected to false safeguarding allegations by people in churches who took a dislike to me. I will not share the details, as it doesn’t do me any good to dwell on these things.
No. The fact that the process to restore a sinner in the church if at all possible begins in heaven is surely all the reminder we need that we are on holy ground when something like this happens. And if that doesn’t shape our words and our deeds in a certain way, then I don’t know what does.
Thirdly and finally, our armour is prayer:

19 ‘Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.’
These final words of Jesus in the reading are usually quoted out of context, as if they are standalone words without a context. We quote them to talk about agreeing in prayer to ask for something. We quote them to invoke the presence of Jesus.
But they are about the subject we have been considering. The two who agree or the two or three who are gathered are the witnesses to the wrongdoing. That is the context. And it is this posture of prayer and attention to the presence of Jesus that keeps them on holy ground when dealing with sin in the church. An appropriate attitude of prayer and attention to Jesus guards against the misuses I described at the end of the last point.
It’s not just any old prayer, because prayer can become a malicious weapon in these circumstances. People include the wrongdoer in public prayer as a means of gossip rather than out of a holy desire to see restoration.
Therefore, prayer that pays attention to the presence of Jesus keeps us in the right place. Would we turn prayer into gossip if we were profoundly aware that Jesus was in our midst? Surely it is our slack attention to Jesus at times that can enable harmful talk, like gossip.
And the gossip is not justified by the wrong that the sinner has done. Remember the words of Michelle Obama about political opponents, because they are worth applying in a different context here: ‘When they go low, we go high.’ And we go high in prayer, focussed on the fact that Jesus is with us. It’s our armour. It’s our protection that helps us deal with problems in the Body of Christ in a godly way.
Not only is Christ-centred prayer our protection, but it is also God’s chosen means in our desire to someone move from their errant ways through repentance to restoration. Therefore, witnesses gathering in prayer and focussing on Jesus is fundamental to all that God – and, I hope, we – desire to see as an outcome when a member of the church has fallen into sin.
Conclusion
You may well have thought that the subject of this sermon was purely theoretical. You may wonder why on earth we have spent this time on a topic that to you sounds little more than hypothetical. If that is what you are thinking, I offer this story.
When I began in ministry, Safeguarding was only just being announced and had not come into force. How I wish it had, because I walked into a drastic situation with unsuitable children’s workers running their own empire. They did not have the best interests of the church at heart. When I challenged them, that was the beginning of eighteen months living under threats of violence and other forms of intimidation.
The other circuit ministers were highly supportive of me, having to begin my ministry like that. One of them observed that this was the sort of crisis you probably only encountered once every thirty years or so.
In parts of the world, there are defence systems against certain weather disasters that may only occur once in several decades. You might think of the Thames Barrier.
Sometimes, we just need to be ready for that ‘once every thirty years.’
[1] Craig S Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, p453f.
[2] Keener, p455.




























