Church discipline and heresy

[Ben Zartman]

I am speaking to someone who believes that the Matthew 18 steps of church discipline must be applied to all cases of discipline: private admonition; two or three witnesses; whole church; excommunication, in that order. He would have it that Titus 3:10, in dealing with a heretic, must be crammed into the Matthew 18 paradigm as well.
I had understood that Matt 18 applied to personal offenses too big to be covered in love, but that heresy, being of a different nature, required different steps (Titus 3:10).
There are more Scriptures at play, of course, but these are the big two in this conflict.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Old facebook post of mine on the topic drawing on Presbyterian views, Durham, Westminster assemby discussion.

The view that Matthew 18:15ff concerns private offenses, and not public notorious offenses, is not just the view of a few though notable Presbyterians, but is clearly the understanding of whole national churches i.e. the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, as is clear from Walter Stewart's Collections, which functioned as a sort of BOCO from 1709 in both Scotland and the colonies.

https://archive.org/stream/collectionsobserv00steu...

The section noted is, for those familiar with it, very much drawing on James Durham's Concerning Scandal, one of the most influential works on the subject in Presbyterian literature.

Durham: "When an offense is to be accounted public
An offense then that is to be accounted public, that is, which is so in respect of its notoriety or publicness and such as is not the object of private admonition, but whereof a church judicatory is immediately to take notice, may be considered in respect of its first instant, or in respect of some following circumstance; for what is required in the nature of the sin itself, has been spoken to already. (1) It is public in the first respect, [1] when it is done before so many as probably cannot be satisfied with private admonition, so that thereby there is a hazard to many to be scandalized.

[2] It is public when it seems to be done with contempt and an high hand, as if a person were owning the same. Thus a scandal that has fewer witnesses, may be accounted public, when another, it may be, actually known to as many, is not to be accounted such, because in this case there is no access to private admonition, the person being like a swine, ready to turn on the admonisher. Thus suppose Absalom’s incest had not been actually known to many, yet the very circumstances of his doing it openly, and purposely that it might be known, made it of a public nature. Thus sometimes it is more necessary to take notice of an offense committed in a public place, though it may be few know the same, than of a thing done more privately, because as to them it might have been public to many, and it shows an humor and corruption that is beyond private admonition, when a thing is so circumstantiated.

[3] Sometimes offenses will have an horror, and an indignation wakened against them, even in respect of such circumstances as to be drunk, lascivious, and such like, are offenses, but to be so in a market place or in public streets, even supposing it to be in a day when few do actually see it, wakens an indignation in the hearts of sober men, as being an affront to religion and order, and inconsistent with Christianity and civility, much more than if it had been in a private place, or privately; for that is before the Sun to do so, as Zimrie’s act was, which provoked Phinehas’s zeal.

[4] An offense is public when it is generally accounted to be a certain truth and not a suspicion only, as being a thing in its evidence known to so many (beside what is reported to others) that it cannot be supposed that an ingenuous mind can have access to deny or shift the same, without some indignation in the hearts of those that know it.

[5] Sometimes an offense is to be accounted public when though it may be many are not witnesses thereof, yet when many are in hazard to be infected thereby; as suppose those witnesses to be such as cannot rest quiet in a private satisfaction, but they have either spread it, or are in hazard to spread it, and it may be long afterwards they make it a ground of reproach. In this case it becomes a scandal not only to the first witnesses, but also to those to whom it is reported. So that although it was not at first public, yet it becomes so by the rumor thereof. This infectiousness may also proceed from the time wherein it is committed, the person who committed it, the nature of the fact that is committed (which may more readily ensnare others than facts of some other nature), from those also before whom it was committed. Therefore in such cases it is necessary that public notice be taken thereof.

(2) Therefore, in the second place, we said that some offenses not very public in respect of the fact, yet may by some concurring circumstances be such as the bringing of them in public may be necessary for the edifying of the church at such a time, then that way is to be taken. As suppose [1], that such a sin is in some places scarcely counted a sin; or [2], if it be secretly and frequently in use among others; or [3], if the person found guilty is generally suspected of loose and untender walking in such things, although particulars are not public; or [4], if they be, under false pretexts of tenderness, ready to seduce others to something sinful, or in the like cases. In which, though the fact is not so public, yet the scandal, or hazard, and the benefit of a rebuke are public, and therefore that way is to be followed, because they are necessary for the edifying of the church, which is the end wherefore public rebukes are appointed.
See James Durham, Concerning Scandal (Naphtali Press, 1990), 93-95.

One can also show from the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly and from their debate papers over church polity (The Grand Debate) that the assembly believed Matthew 18 concerned private offenses that would possibly proceed to public censor. Gillespie answering the Erastian argument, “Christ would not have sent his disciples for private injuryes to civill court….” Van Dixhoorn, Minutes, II.525. The assembly as a whole answering the congregationalist minority can be inferred to say so in their reproving an inadequate method of argument from Matthew 18 concerning subordination of assemblies. "Our brethren should have shown what method, terms, bounds, or subordinations of proceedings, Christ had prescribed to the church when offenses are public and openly scandalous, as well as when private and known but to a single brother.” The Westminster Assembly’s Grand Debate (Naphtali Press, 2014), 231.​

Additionally: Westminster Assembly. Session 674, July 9, 1646 (modernized). “the [church] government which we conceive this question aims at stands in the due application of the censures which Christ hath appointed, which are to be dispensed as the nature of the fault or scandal doth require.” “Admonitions are first to be used ... wherin this order is to be observed: if the offence or fault be private, the method appointed [in] Mathew 18:15-16 is to be followed….” “If public, that method is not necessary, 1 Tim. 5:20….”

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Matthew 18 is often used a get out of jail card by those shielding heretics. The passage is not referring to public teaching or notorious public scandals.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Old facebook post of mine on the topic drawing on Presbyterian views, Durham, Westminster assemby discussion.

The view that Matthew 18:15ff concerns private offenses, and not public notorious offenses, is not just the view of a few though notable Presbyterians, but is clearly the understanding of whole national churches i.e. the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, as is clear from Walter Stewart's Collections, which functioned as a sort of BOCO from 1709 in both Scotland and the colonies.

https://archive.org/stream/collectionsobserv00steu...

The section noted is, for those familiar with it, very much drawing on James Durham's Concerning Scandal, one of the most influential works on the subject in Presbyterian literature.

Durham: "When an offense is to be accounted public
An offense then that is to be accounted public, that is, which is so in respect of its notoriety or publicness and such as is not the object of private admonition, but whereof a church judicatory is immediately to take notice, may be considered in respect of its first instant, or in respect of some following circumstance; for what is required in the nature of the sin itself, has been spoken to already. (1) It is public in the first respect, [1] when it is done before so many as probably cannot be satisfied with private admonition, so that thereby there is a hazard to many to be scandalized.

[2] It is public when it seems to be done with contempt and an high hand, as if a person were owning the same. Thus a scandal that has fewer witnesses, may be accounted public, when another, it may be, actually known to as many, is not to be accounted such, because in this case there is no access to private admonition, the person being like a swine, ready to turn on the admonisher. Thus suppose Absalom’s incest had not been actually known to many, yet the very circumstances of his doing it openly, and purposely that it might be known, made it of a public nature. Thus sometimes it is more necessary to take notice of an offense committed in a public place, though it may be few know the same, than of a thing done more privately, because as to them it might have been public to many, and it shows an humor and corruption that is beyond private admonition, when a thing is so circumstantiated.

[3] Sometimes offenses will have an horror, and an indignation wakened against them, even in respect of such circumstances as to be drunk, lascivious, and such like, are offenses, but to be so in a market place or in public streets, even supposing it to be in a day when few do actually see it, wakens an indignation in the hearts of sober men, as being an affront to religion and order, and inconsistent with Christianity and civility, much more than if it had been in a private place, or privately; for that is before the Sun to do so, as Zimrie’s act was, which provoked Phinehas’s zeal.

[4] An offense is public when it is generally accounted to be a certain truth and not a suspicion only, as being a thing in its evidence known to so many (beside what is reported to others) that it cannot be supposed that an ingenuous mind can have access to deny or shift the same, without some indignation in the hearts of those that know it.

[5] Sometimes an offense is to be accounted public when though it may be many are not witnesses thereof, yet when many are in hazard to be infected thereby; as suppose those witnesses to be such as cannot rest quiet in a private satisfaction, but they have either spread it, or are in hazard to spread it, and it may be long afterwards they make it a ground of reproach. In this case it becomes a scandal not only to the first witnesses, but also to those to whom it is reported. So that although it was not at first public, yet it becomes so by the rumor thereof. This infectiousness may also proceed from the time wherein it is committed, the person who committed it, the nature of the fact that is committed (which may more readily ensnare others than facts of some other nature), from those also before whom it was committed. Therefore in such cases it is necessary that public notice be taken thereof.

(2) Therefore, in the second place, we said that some offenses not very public in respect of the fact, yet may by some concurring circumstances be such as the bringing of them in public may be necessary for the edifying of the church at such a time, then that way is to be taken. As suppose [1], that such a sin is in some places scarcely counted a sin; or [2], if it be secretly and frequently in use among others; or [3], if the person found guilty is generally suspected of loose and untender walking in such things, although particulars are not public; or [4], if they be, under false pretexts of tenderness, ready to seduce others to something sinful, or in the like cases. In which, though the fact is not so public, yet the scandal, or hazard, and the benefit of a rebuke are public, and therefore that way is to be followed, because they are necessary for the edifying of the church, which is the end wherefore public rebukes are appointed.
See James Durham, Concerning Scandal (Naphtali Press, 1990), 93-95.

One can also show from the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly and from their debate papers over church polity (The Grand Debate) that the assembly believed Matthew 18 concerned private offenses that would possibly proceed to public censor. Gillespie answering the Erastian argument, “Christ would not have sent his disciples for private injuryes to civill court….” Van Dixhoorn, Minutes, II.525. The assembly as a whole answering the congregationalist minority can be inferred to say so in their reproving an inadequate method of argument from Matthew 18 concerning subordination of assemblies. "Our brethren should have shown what method, terms, bounds, or subordinations of proceedings, Christ had prescribed to the church when offenses are public and openly scandalous, as well as when private and known but to a single brother.” The Westminster Assembly’s Grand Debate (Naphtali Press, 2014), 231.​

Additionally: Westminster Assembly. Session 674, July 9, 1646 (modernized). “the [church] government which we conceive this question aims at stands in the due application of the censures which Christ hath appointed, which are to be dispensed as the nature of the fault or scandal doth require.” “Admonitions are first to be used ... wherin this order is to be observed: if the offence or fault be private, the method appointed [in] Mathew 18:15-16 is to be followed….” “If public, that method is not necessary, 1 Tim. 5:20….”

Truly, this is most helpful. Thank you. An challenge has been made to cite any Reformed commentator that disagrees with this person's position. Here is a gold mine of them. I think the last quote from the WA is most to the point at hand.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Matthew 18 is often used a get out of jail card by those shielding heretics. The passage is not referring to public teaching or notorious public scandals.

This is exactly our position; it is for the convincing others of it firstly from Scripture and secondly from historic writings that I am here. Your first statement is very much on point.

 

[Kinghezy]

Matthew 18 is often used a get out of jail card by those shielding heretics. The passage is not referring to public teaching or notorious public scandals.

You mean like some of the defense surrounding someone who goes by a name that (to shield the identity) sounds like Meth Boore?

 

[Dachaser]

I am speaking to someone who believes that the Matthew 18 steps of church discipline must be applied to all cases of discipline: private admonition; two or three witnesses; whole church; excommunication, in that order. He would have it that Titus 3:10, in dealing with a heretic, must be crammed into the Matthew 18 paradigm as well.
I had understood that Matt 18 applied to personal offenses too big to be covered in love, but that heresy, being of a different nature, required different steps (Titus 3:10).
There are more Scriptures at play, of course, but these are the big two in this conflict.

Jesus was addressing how to handle disputes among Christian's, not between heretics and saved though, correct,,?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

If he said that (how bravely confident!) then one citation is certainly sufficient!

Truly, this is most helpful. Thank you. An challenge has been made to cite any Reformed commentator that disagrees with this person's position. Here is a gold mine of them. I think the last quote from the WA is most to the point at hand.

 

[Jack K]

The "Matthew 18 method" should not even be taken as a hard-and-fast formula that must always be followed when dealing with any personal grievance, much less as a formula for dealing with heresy. In context, Jesus offers it as an example of the sort of approach we might take to being personally sinned against when, rather than looking to make ourselves greatest in the kingdom or to retain our honor through vengeance, we instead genuinely care about sinners and "little ones." Look at the surrounding passage, and that's the theme you'll see.

The counter-cultural intent of love for sinners, humility, and care for the little ones is more important than following an exact formula. I suppose this principle might be applied, to an extent, when an untrained person is unknowingly spreading false teaching. But when a leader in the church (or a self-proclaimed, would-be leader) spreads false teaching, the idea that we must be gentle because we care about him as one of the little ones doesn't fit so well. Such a fellow may be more like those mentioned in verse 6 who are causing the little ones to sin, and Jesus' approach to them is much less patient. Anyone got a millstone?

The key, as usual, is to note the context.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Thanks again to all. This has now been reduced to a quibble over procedure and semantics, and an insistence that OT Israel tallied a vote on all matters, even the stoning of Achan; even the judging of a manslayer in a city of refuge. It's last gasp may be long, but it is, I trust, the last.

 

[Dachaser]

The "Matthew 18 method" should not even be taken as a hard-and-fast formula that must always be followed when dealing with any personal grievance, much less as a formula for dealing with heresy. In context, Jesus offers it as an example of the sort of approach we might take to being personally sinned against when, rather than looking to make ourselves greatest in the kingdom or to retain our honor through vengeance, we instead genuinely care about sinners and "little ones." Look at the surrounding passage, and that's the theme you'll see.

The counter-cultural intent of love for sinners, humility, and care for the little ones is more important than following an exact formula. I suppose this principle might be applied, to an extent, when an untrained person is unknowingly spreading false teaching. But when a leader in the church (or a self-proclaimed, would-be leader) spreads false teaching, the idea that we must be gentle because we care about him as one of the little ones doesn't fit so well. Such a fellow may be more like those mentioned in verse 6 who are causing the little ones to sin, and Jesus' approach to them is much less patient. Anyone got a millstone?

The key, as usual, is to note the context.

Heresy being brought into either the local church or Church at large us do vad that must be adressed right away and severely, much different then Christian's dealing when we do sin against each other.