Jonah : The Bible is clear in Matthew 18:15-17. Jesus said, “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.” This is a straightforward guideline from Jesus Himself, and we should follow it as it is.

Carl: Indeed, the words of Jesus in Matthew 18 provide a foundational approach to conflict resolution. However, we must also look at the broader context of Jesus’ teachings. For instance, in Matthew 22:37-40, Jesus mentions the two greatest commandments: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” In light of this, while we consider the guidelines in Matthew 18, we should also approach conflict resolution with deep love and understanding.

Jonah: Absolutely, love is paramount. But love also means adhering to the truth. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, it is written, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” If we deviate from the clear teachings and processes that Jesus laid out, aren’t we moving away from the truth?

Carl: I’m not suggesting we ignore Jesus’ teachings. Instead, I believe in understanding the essence of His message. For instance, when Jesus speaks of treating someone “as a Gentile and a tax collector,” it’s vital to remember how Jesus Himself treated tax collectors, like Matthew. He invited them into fellowship (Matthew 9:9-13). So, even in moments of separation, there’s an implicit invitation to reconciliation.

Jonah: That’s a fair point. However, there’s a difference between the general compassion Jesus showed and the specific guidelines He set for His followers. While He did eat with sinners and tax collectors, He also upheld the truth, calling people to repentance.

Carl: True, Jesus did call for repentance. But isn’t the essence of His teachings more about the heart’s posture? Like in Luke 6:41-42, where Jesus speaks about the speck and the plank: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? … First, take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Shouldn’t our approach to conflict resolution be marked by humility and self-examination?

Jonah: I agree that self-examination is critical. Still, once we have addressed our shortcomings, there’s a need to uphold the structure and processes given by Jesus for the sake of order and righteousness within the community.

Carl: I just believe that while we uphold these guidelines, it’s essential to balance them with grace, ensuring we don’t compromise the broader message of love and reconciliation that Jesus consistently championed.

Jonah: Transitioning our discussion to the present day, I firmly believe that Matthew 18’s guidelines apply as they stand, even today. Irrespective of how society has changed, God’s word remains unchanged. Just as in Hebrews 13:8 it is written, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” We must, then, approach conflict resolution as instructed, even in our modern context.

Carl: I respect the consistency of your belief in the unchanging nature of Christ. Yet, as society evolves, so do our relationships and modes of communication. This isn’t to dilute the Word but to adapt its application. The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:22 said, “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” Paul adjusted his approach based on his audience without compromising the message. Perhaps, in the same spirit, we can adapt the guidelines in Matthew 18 to our contemporary settings.

Jonah: True, Paul did adapt his approach. But isn’t there a risk that by “adjusting” the guidelines Jesus provided, we could inadvertently water down or stray from the intended path of righteousness and clarity?

Carl: It’s a valid concern. But consider online interactions today. If someone wrongs you on social media or through an email, the process of confronting them might look different than if they were physically present. Furthermore, in our diverse society, many are not Christians. Using Matthew 18 might not resonate with them. Instead, the spirit of the guidance – seeking understanding, reconciliation, and healing – should be our focus.

Jonah: I see where you’re coming from, especially with digital interactions. However, even online, the steps can be mirrored: address the person privately, then with a few witnesses, and escalate if necessary. And as for non-Christians, isn’t it an opportunity for them to see Christ’s wisdom and perhaps be drawn to Him?

Carl: That might be true for some. Yet, there’s a risk of appearing exclusionary or ritualistic to others. Just like the Pharisees in the New Testament were criticised for holding too strictly to the law and missing the heart of God’s message, we must be cautious that our approach to conflict resolution showcases God’s love first and foremost.

Jonah: When Jesus said in verses 15-17, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone…“, and eventually, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church“, it’s clear that the church has an undeniable role in resolving disputes.

Carl: I don’t disagree. The church indeed plays a pivotal role. But, I believe the emphasis is more on the spirit of reconciliation than a strict step-by-step approach. The church’s role, as I see it, is to guide, heal, and restore relationships rather than being the final adjudicator.

Jonah: Matthew 18:17 ends with, “And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” This suggests a clear process that culminates with the church’s decision, which should be final and binding.

Carl: But remember how Jesus treated the Gentiles and tax collectors? With love, mercy, and grace. In Matthew 9:11, the Pharisees asked the disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” So, while the church has a role in the process, it should be an embodiment of Christ’s love and grace, focusing on restoration.

Jonah: I’m not refuting the need for love and grace. But there has to be a process, Carl. It’s not just about feeling and intuition. It’s about following Christ’s words. The church, being the body of believers, serves as the ultimate earthly authority in matters of disputes among members.

Carl: Consider this, Jonah. The early church in Acts operated much differently from today. Acts 15 shows the council in Jerusalem deliberating over the Gentile question. There was debate, disagreement, and finally a letter sent out for clarity. Yet, it was done with mutual respect, understanding, and a willingness to find a middle ground.

Jonah: True, but that doesn’t negate the authority of the church. It just demonstrates that the church can and should engage in discussion. We must adhere to scripture while doing so.

Carl: And I believe we can do both. Remember 1 Corinthians 6:1-7, where Paul discourages Christians from taking disputes before secular courts? He underscores the wisdom that can be found within the church, yet he also emphasizes resolving disputes amicably.

Jonah: I acknowledge that, but we must not forget that these guidelines are there to ensure order, clarity, and righteousness within the church body. We can’t be too flexible, or we risk diluting the word. Delving deeper into Matthew 18, it starts with, “If your brother sins against you…“. This brings me to another topic: the very nature of sin. To address conflicts as instructed, we must first have a clear understanding of what constitutes sin.

Carl: I agree, but sin’s nature can be complex. While there are clear directives in scripture about specific actions being sinful, many modern dilemmas aren’t directly addressed in the Bible. How do we navigate those?

Jonah: We should rely on the unchanging word of God. 1 John 3:4 states, “Everyone who commits sin practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.” If something goes against God’s law, as revealed in scripture, it’s sin. The Ten Commandments provide a foundation, but scripture as a whole informs us of God’s standards.

Carl: I believe Jesus expanded our understanding of sin beyond just actions. In Matthew 5, during the Sermon on the Mount, He equates anger with murder and lustful looks with adultery. He goes to the root – our hearts and motives. It’s not just about actions; it’s the spirit behind them.

Jonah: Absolutely, and I don’t contest that. But there are clear boundaries set in scripture. If we start being subjective about what sin is, we risk diluting God’s word and His standards. We can’t just say something isn’t a sin because society’s views have changed.

Carl: I’m not advocating for a full redefinition. I’m suggesting that, in our modern context, we must approach sin with both scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. James 4:17 reminds us, “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” Sometimes, it’s the absence of doing good, not just committing overtly sinful acts.

Jonah: And while I appreciate that perspective, my concern is: where do we draw the line? If we become too liberal in our understanding of sin, we might fail to correct our brothers and sisters when they stray, as Matthew 18 instructs.

Carl: I think our guiding principle should be love and the two greatest commandments Jesus mentioned in Matthew 22:37-40 – loving God and loving our neighbor. If an action or inaction goes against these core principles, then it’s leading us away from Christ’s teachings.

Jonah: True love, Carl, also involves correction. Proverbs 27:5 says, “Better is open rebuke than hidden love.” We should love our brothers and sisters enough to point out when they stray, based on the clear standards of scripture.

Carl: Agreed, Jonah. But correction must be done with humility, grace, and the realisation that we all fall short. Romans 3:23 reminds us, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Our approach must always be restorative, not condemnatory. Moving forward, there’s another aspect of Matthew 18 that’s been on my mind. When addressing a sin or conflict, how do we balance the directive with the need for privacy and confidentiality?

Jonah: I believe that when Jesus said, “go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone,” in Matthew 18:15, He was emphasising the importance of privacy. The initial step is very personal, very private.

Carl: True, but if the matter isn’t resolved, it escalates. The scripture mentions involving one or two more, and if that fails, then telling it to the church. That’s hardly private.

Jonah: I see it as a process, Jonah. Before it reaches the wider community, there are several checks in place, emphasising resolution at the most private level first. But yes, it can ultimately become a public matter within the church. We must remember that the purpose isn’t to shame or embarrass anyone but to restore them. Galatians 6:1 says, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.” But with that said, if the individual remains unrepentant, then broader accountability within the church becomes necessary.

Carl: I agree with the goal of restoration. But my concern is that in our interconnected world, where news travels fast, especially on social media, how do we prevent harm and unnecessary exposure? The damage done to someone’s reputation could be irreversible, even if they later repent.

Jonah: That’s where wisdom comes in. Proverbs 12:18 mentions, “There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.” We should be wise in our approach, ensuring that matters are handled discreetly. But, we can’t sacrifice the scriptural process out of fear of public perception.

Carl: And that’s a challenge. There’s also the issue of confidentiality. When someone confides in a church leader about a personal struggle, there’s an expectation of trust. Breaching that, even with good intentions, can lead to more harm than good.

Jonah: That’s true, and confidentiality is sacred. James 5:16 says, “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.” The emphasis is on mutual confession and healing. There’s an inherent trust in that process. We mustn’t betray it. But again, if someone’s actions pose a threat or if they remain unrepentant, the wider body must be involved.

Jonah: Based on our earlier discussions, there’s an inevitable tension between reconciliation and excommunication in Matthew 18. The chapter begins with the importance of reconciling with our brother but ends with the prospect of treating the unrepentant as “a Gentile and a tax collector.” How do you see this?

Carl: I think the essence of Christ’s teaching in Matthew 18 is a journey toward reconciliation. The steps outlined, from private confrontation to telling the church, are all aimed at winning the brother over. The treatment as a “Gentile and a tax collector” isn’t necessarily excommunication in the way many view it today.

Jonah: Yet, historically, the church has practiced excommunication as a form of discipline. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5:5, even mentions delivering someone to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, hoping for the person’s ultimate salvation. So, there’s biblical precedent for the need for separation when a person remains unrepentant.

Carl: There is, Jonah, but remember how Jesus treated the Gentiles and tax collectors. He dined with them, ministered to them, and showed them love. So, if we’re to treat someone as a “tax collector,” perhaps it’s an invitation to reach out with even more compassion and understanding, not less.

Jonah: That’s an interesting perspective, but one might argue that by the time the matter is brought before the entire church, all avenues for reconciliation have been exhausted. The act of public acknowledgment serves as a final call for repentance.

Carl: Yes, but let’s not forget the prodigal son in Luke 15. The father never closed the door on his wayward son, even when he was lost in his sins. When the son returned, the father welcomed him with open arms. The essence of the Gospel is about redemption and reconciliation.

Jonah: I agree with the heart of reconciliation, but for the sake of the body of believers, there comes a point where a line has to be drawn. In Revelation 2:20, Jesus rebukes the church in Thyatira for tolerating the woman Jezebel and her misleading teachings. The church has a responsibility to guard against false teachings and influences.

Carl: Absolutely, Jonah. And that’s where discernment comes in. We have to differentiate between someone struggling with sin and seeking help and someone causing division or leading others astray. Romans 16:17 says, “Watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” There’s wisdom in knowing when to engage in reconciliation and when to step back.

Jonah: On a related note, how do you view the idea of seeking outside mediation, especially when internal attempts at reconciliation have failed? Does it align with the principles laid out in Matthew 18?

Carl: While Matthew 18 doesn’t explicitly mention outside mediation, we do live in a society where professional mediation is available and can be beneficial. Paul did advise in 1 Corinthians 6:1-3 against believers taking each other to secular courts. But he also suggested that disputes should be settled within the church community.

Jonah: Right, but one might argue that the essence of Paul’s teaching is about not airing our disputes before unbelievers. Involving an external mediator could risk undermining the witness of the church, making it appear divided and unable to handle its internal issues.

Carl: I see where you’re coming from, but I think there’s a difference between taking a fellow believer to court and seeking mediation. Mediation is a process of facilitated dialogue, and it can be invaluable, especially if it’s led by someone who understands Christian principles. The goal remains reconciliation.

Jonah: True, but wouldn’t this then dilute the role of the church? Matthew 18 outlines a process that should ideally lead to resolution within the community of believers. If we start outsourcing this responsibility, are we not failing in our mandate?

Carl: I wouldn’t view it as outsourcing. Instead, it’s seeking additional tools to aid in the process. Sometimes an outside perspective can provide clarity, especially when emotions and longstanding relationships cloud judgment. Remember, in Matthew 18:20, Jesus said, “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” If the goal of mediation is godly reconciliation, then Christ is present, whether it’s within the church walls or outside.

Jonah: I appreciate that perspective, but my concern remains about the message it sends. The church should be a beacon of unity and reconciliation. If we consistently turn to external avenues, it might seem we lack the spiritual maturity to handle conflicts ourselves.

Carl: But it’s not about replacing the church’s role but complementing it. If both parties are open to mediation and it aligns with biblical principles, then why not use every available resource? Proverbs 11:14 says, “Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counsellors there is safety.” Sometimes, that counsellor could be an external mediator.

Jonah: It’s a compelling argument. I suppose my reservation stems from ensuring that any external mediator understands and respects our biblical principles and doesn’t steer the process in a secular direction.

Carl: And that’s a valid concern. The onus is on us to ensure that the mediator aligns with our values. And always, the end goal is healing and reconciliation, grounded in Christ.

Jonah: We live in complex times, Carl, and while I hold my reservations, I recognise the potential value in your perspective. May we always be guided by the Holy Spirit in such decisions, ensuring Christ remains at the centre.

Carl: I’ve seen instances where people use the process outlined in Matthew 18 not so much out of genuine concern or a desire for reconciliation, but rather as a way to shift the blame or put the onus on the other person. In essence, they weaponise the scripture. What are your thoughts on this?

Jonah: That’s a grave concern. The intention of Matthew 18 is not for blame-shifting but for restoring a broken relationship. If someone is misusing it to evade responsibility or to control the narrative, it’s contrary to the very spirit of the passage.

Carl: Precisely. I’ve seen situations where an individual, instead of examining their own behavior, insists that someone offended should approach them based on Matthew 18. It’s almost as if they’re hiding behind the scripture, waiting for the other person to make the first move, even when they know they’re in the wrong.

Jonah: It’s a distortion of the text. While Matthew 18:15 does mention that “if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault,” this doesn’t absolve individuals from self-reflection or confession. James 5:16 urges us to “confess your sins to one another,” suggesting an active role in admitting our wrongs.

Carl: It becomes especially problematic when it’s used to silence victims or the marginalized. By insisting they adhere to the “Matthew 18 model,” it can sometimes prevent them from seeking the support or intervention they need.

Jonah: That’s a poignant point, Carl. The Bible calls us to protect the vulnerable and give voice to the voiceless. If Matthew 18 is misused in a way that hinders justice or supports oppression, it’s a gross misrepresentation. Micah 6:8 reminds us “to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God.“

Carl: We must also consider the importance of self-awareness and humility. If we’re constantly waiting for someone else to point out our faults or transgressions, we’re missing the mark. The onus is on each of us to regularly examine our hearts and actions, as 2 Corinthians 13:5 suggests: “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves.“

Jonah: Well said, Carl. We should always strive for a posture of humility, seeking reconciliation proactively, not just when confronted. Proverbs 28:13 states, “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.“

Carl: The scripture is meant to be a tool for healing, unity, and restoration. We must guard against any misuse that shifts it into a tool of control or manipulation.

Jonah: Absolutely. Our responsibility is to ensure that God’s Word is applied with wisdom, compassion, and integrity. Misusing it not only harms individuals but also tarnishes the testimony of the church.

Carl: And as believers, we must be vigilant, holding ourselves and each other accountable, ensuring that the spirit and letter of the Word align in our practices.

Jonah: Amen, Carl. We’re called to be stewards of the Word, and that’s a responsibility we must never take lightly.

Our faith calls us to continuously seek wisdom and understanding. It’s vital for us, as Christians, to engage in these dialogues, always aiming to reflect God’s love and wisdom in our lives and the lives of those around us.