James,

I'm not sure I understand the question.  Is the question about whether the
offending party is required to be present when the church is told?  If
that's the question... once you're past the second stage, the movement of
the text in that passage seems to indicate it doesn't matter.  If he refuses
to listen to more than two witnesses, the two witnesses take it to the
larger body, period.  Jay Adams, in his "Handbook of Church Discipline", has
a two-stage third step: telling it to the elders/elders telling it to the
church.  The church, then, becomes another "witness" to confront this
person, before removal is exercised.

Pragmatically speaking, when someone is confronted with sin in a biblical
manner, normally the first thing the errant one jettisons is the public
meeting.  That would be natural to any person and any group (if moose lodge
"A" prefers red beer... said member who formerly liked red beer but now
prefers green beer is going to feel ostracization and therefore fail to meet
publicly with "A", while looking for moose lodge "B" where the preference is
green beer. :-)).  If an unrepentant someone who has already been through
the first two steps, is now at step 3 (probably with some restrictions
already on ministry), and is still publicly meeting with the congregation,
despite the impending removal and declaration of "goathood", you probably
have a serious problem in your congregation.  Do they really understand the
implications of being barred from the Lord's Table?  Do they understand that
excommunication means that the church moves from a position of calling the
errant one to repentance into a position of evangelizing the lost one to
Christ?

Few people are that brazen to stand in front of the sword that divides
family and friends.  I don't know if this is descriptive of what is going on
in your situation, but such brazen behavior is usually best explained by a
hidden support for that unrepentant one... IOW, that person is not alone in
their thinking.  They are brazen because they are getting moral support from
either family or friends who do not believe 1. the disciplined offense is a
serious offense in need of repentance, or 2. that removal from the
congregation and barring from the table is a declaration of "goathood" as
best as that congregation knows.  If enough people are thinking along those
lines... well... church history is littered with mutinous behavior in these
situations.

I hope this is not the case in your situation.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Beals" <jbeals@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Cc: <jclemens@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 4:33 AM
Subject: [soundofgrace] Matthew 18:15-17


> Friends:
>
> As you can see from the subject, my question is related to the passage in
> Matthew that we are all familiar with.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>   - NKJV
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NB - Most of the translations seem to read very similar to the above.
>
> I put it to you this way:
> I am aware of a situation where the first two "steps" of the "Matthew 18"
> process have been followed without success.
> ... that being:
> 1.  Offended party goes to offending party and seeks reconciliation
> (without success).
> 2.  Offended party goes to offending party "with one or two more" and
seeks
> reconciliation (without success).
>
> In the event that the process is followed through to "step three",
> ... that being:
> 3.  Offended party "tells it the church".
>
> My question is this:
> Is verse 17 above describing two distinct events or gatherings?
>   - One (the first) where the Offended party "tells it to the church" with
> the Offending party ABSENT from that meeting... and
>   - Two (the second) where the church delivers their message to the
> Offending party where he/she subsequently "refuses to hear".
> ----- OR -----
> Is verse 17 above describing a single event or gathering? where:
>   - the Offended party "tells it to the church" with the Offending party
> PRESENT where he/she subsequently "refuses to hear".
>
>
> This as a practical question with practical implications so please be
> practical in your advice / exigesis.
> I realize this may spawn more questions than answers, which in itself may
> be useful, but right now I am looking for the "answers".
> My concern is for the truth and that the Scriptures be "rightly divided"
> and applied and the Lord obeyed.
>
> in Christ,
> Jamie Beals
> Ottawa
>
> PS I will read your reply posts on the SOG chat group, but if you wish,
> please also feel free to reply to me directly at jbeals@...
> PPS Here is a follow-up question:  Would you treat the situation any
> differently if the Offending party was a pastor?  This, of course, has
> implications with respect to the "removal of a pastor" in the same way
that
> it has implications with respect to the "removal of a member".
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>