|
Division – Nothing New
I’ve read many an article, blog or opinion column that has bemoaned that the church, like much of our American society, has never been more divided than it is today. And it’s hard to see how that cannot be a big factor in the drawing-down of numbers of Christians worshipping on Sundays.
Many who were regular “churchgoers” have drifted away or come only when they have no other plans for that Sunday. Others have just stayed away to avoid any uncomfortable conflict or tension. Some say they are the smart ones!
But the church has, over the centuries, been striven over issues of politics, socioeconomics, theology and leadership styles. Not to mention “worship wars” over liturgy, language, and music.
In Chapter 18 of Matthew’s Gospel, we hear Jesus giving his disciples (and the future
congregations to which Matthew is writing) clear instructions on how to handle dissention and division in the church. While the mechanism in this week’s text (18:15-20) is regarding how to deal with a fellow member who sins (“against you” is likely a later addition to this verse). It is also part of our congregation’s constitutional process for discipline and adjudication of member (C15.01). The process is well-known but often not followed.
“If another member of the church sins (against you), go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.
But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you,
so that every world may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to
listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
(Matthew 18:15-17)
Even way back then, there were disputes within the early church. Which might be expected, as the average size of a Christian church in Matthew’s day (around 70 AD) might be 20-50 people all in the same village or neighborhood. They already knew each other – they were related or were already friends. They were also under great pressure from fellow Jews who thought they were lost or blasphemous, from local authorities who were seeking to keep the peace among their own and with the Roman overlords, and the Roman occupiers as well who saw this fledgling faith as a threat to their imposed “peace.”
Since they lived in such close daily circumstances, it’s easy to see how the regular irritations of living/working/playing together would dredge up all sorts of irritations and reactions, not always well-thought out. These tensions and disagreements, along with the almost inevitable offensive behavior, would cause some to take umbrage and demand that the other owed them an apology.
Therefore, a process for correction and reconciliation was essential to the community’s peace and cohesion. I don’t think that it was a matter of them all being in agreement in all things, but rather a way to restore their relationships while continuing to grow into their faith and expand the vision for sharing their good news with others.
I wonder what it would be like to engage in such a process? I can’t imagine how that might come about – can you?
Shalom.
Pr. Mark
| 
