Anyone paying attention over the last six years has seen that mainstream evangelicalism in America has drifted to the Left. It may have already been in that place, but this became clear when the Woke movement took over American society like a Tsunami in 2018. The sad reality is that most well-known evangelical institutions went right along with this push from the political and theological Left. Those who understand how the Christian Left operates understand that they use certain verses frequently to advance their leftward agenda. One verse commonly heard is Matthew 7:1, “Do not judge, lest you be judged.” Frankly, many on the Left don’t know the Bible well, but they know this verse, and they of course interpret it out of context. They try to make the verse say that it is wrong to tell someone to refrain from sinning. To do so is judgmental and unloving, but the Bible clearly says that people are to repent and turn from one’s sins (Acts 2:38). But evil people use Matthew 7:1 to push their own agenda.
There is another place in the gospel of Matthew that sinister people use for their own gain as they accuse others and that is Matthew 18:15-20. There have been many examples of this across the evangelical landscape where corrupt leaders of Christian institutions and churches have weaponized Matthew 18 against someone exposing their compromise. The effort here is to take the blame off the guilty and put the blame on the one shining the light on the sinful actions. I remember a number of years ago hearing about a pastor who had a sinful past and this sinful past was brought to light. A woman he was involved with years before spoke out publicly to reveal his adultery. All this disqualified pastor could say was, “She didn’t follow Matthew 18.”
Matthew 18 has been especially used by the Woke leadership of evangelicalism to accuse those that have exposed their liberal drift. One Christian denomination said this to one of their pastor’s who exposed their compromise: “It was our conclusion that had this pastor spoken to these individuals within the denominational leadership before publishing his book, he would have better understood them and would have different conclusions, correct conclusions and a better book.” What this denominational leadership is saying is that if this pastor had just come and talked to them, then he wouldn’t have written about them in such a negative light. Everything would have been resolved. But it must be understood that this evangelical denomination was pushing public materials to the pastors and church members within the movement. This pastor who spoke out against the denominational leadership correctly was concerned with the Woke content pastors and members were receiving so he responded publicly addressing his concerns. This pastor exposing their error desired to raise awareness to bring the leadership to repentance and to warn pastors and church members not to be influenced by the false teaching that had been pushed through conferences, articles written, and books recommended. The charge that this pastor would have better understood them had he gone to them and would have reached different conclusions is a false one. He saw the unbiblical content they were sending out and of course could understand them, and secondly how would he reach a different conclusion unless they changed their position?
Then this corrupt denominational leadership continued their accusations against this pastor exposing their compromise. They said, “His publication both in writing and video, violate the principle of Matthew 18 and instead employs a misreading of Galatians 2 bringing about published slanderous and accusatory words against the denominational leaders.” But this pastor never made baseless charges against the leaders. The evidence was there and hoped it would lead them to repentance. To say that this pastor violated Matthew 18 is once again a false charge that is often used by progressive evangelicals. Matthew 18 addresses a local church context where one individual sins against another and the individual sinned against is supposed to go to that individual. A parallel passage to this is 1 Corinthians 5 where the apostle Paul instructs the church in Corinth to discipline an unrepentant church member as one, a few, and then the church confronts him. Furthermore, in general, if there is a conflict between individuals the conflict should be resolved between two parties before others are brought in. But the situation where a pastor or anyone else exposes public corruption among Christian leadership, Matthew 18 doesn’t apply.
When an individual or Christian organization produces public materials, a public response is what is appropriate. In Galatians 2:11-14 Paul confronts Peter because Peter would not be seen with the Gentiles when the Judaizers were present but Paul tells Peter that he was out of step with the gospel, and he tells him in front of everyone present because he desired for everyone to know for their benefit that his error was unacceptable. Furthermore, when Jesus addressed the Jewish leadership in Matthew 23 and throughout the gospels, he didn’t practice Matthew 18, he addressed the public errors to the masses calling them not to follow their leadership that leads one away from the Lord. To respond publicly to public errors is not only common sense but it is the biblical pattern.
This abuse of Matthew 18 in the modern day is nothing new. Charles Spurgeon faced this very charge during the Downgrade Controversy. The magazine that Spurgeon published, The Sword and The Trowel, frequently mentioned the liberal drift of the Baptist Union. The Baptist Union leadership was angry that Spurgeon was bringing these errors to light. Instead of listening to Spurgeon and being brought to repentance they weaponized Matthew 18 against him. They said he should have gone to these individuals in order to resolve his concerns. But Spurgeon understood the biblical pattern, that public errors deserve a public response. Had Spurgeon gone to all these men they would have come up with a new charge, continuing to accuse him of being divisive and a disturber of the peace. But the bottom line is that the Baptist Union in that day and evangelical denominations in our day are comfortable in compromise, and they get threatened when true biblical shepherds expose their compromise.
Corrupt leaders have no problem weaponizing Matthew 18 against those who threaten their position and status by exposing their disqualifying errors. Christians need to understand the true understanding of Matthew 18 and the situations where it truly applies. Christians also need to understand that deceitful people desire to abuse Scripture to advance their own agenda. In the case of Matthew 18, it is to take the blame off the individual or institution caught in compromise to instead point the finger at the one who brought the problems to light. It is a sly tactic, but sadly a tactic all too often used in our day. The example that I described in this article of a faithful pastor’s experience as he exposed the error of his denominational leadership is what has happened in abundance over the last several years. Faithful pastors and Christians have experienced the weaponization of Matthew 18 and this should not be. Our prayer must be that the evangelical leadership weaponizing Matthew 18 will no longer participate in this deceit but come to repentance. But if repentance doesn’t come, they should be seen for who they really are, a leadership not committed to Christ but committed to one’s own agenda (1 Peter 5:2). When Matthew 18 is thrown around may Christians be discerning.
Grace and Peace,
Pastor Seth
Copyright © 2017 Eureka Baptist Church - All Rights Reserved.