Let Me Repeat Myself

I'm sorry I have to say this again

I apologize in advance for repeating myself.

It wasn’t that long ago that I published a post that included some commentary on a passage of scripture from the gospel of Matthew, chapter 18. Three verses that Christians, church leaders especially, appeal to as the official process from God on how to deal with conflict within the church. That’s a lot of heavy lifting to expect three verses to do, especially when we can observe that the Bible is literally full of conflict in which the people of God do not follow a process that looks like what is described in Matthew 18. Here’s what Matthew says,

“If another believer sins against you, go privately and point out the offense. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back. But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses. If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. Then if he or she won’t accept the church’s decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector.” (NLT)

A closely connected statement from Christian leaders is often something like, “So we the people of God don’t put other Christians on blast in public.” Which sounds lovely and very “sweet Jesus, meek and mild” but it requires us to ignore the Bible to arrive at this conclusion. The minor prophets were the Reddit or Facebook forum post of their time. These were public documents putting Israel and Gentile nations on blast – individually and as people groups. You really can’t read Paul’s letters and not notice that these letters, meant to be read to the whole assembly of the saints – a practice reenacted by us over the last 2000 years – calling out individuals (I’m looking at YOU Demas and YOU TOO Alexander) (2Ti 4) and groups (yeah, talking about YOU Peter and the Judaizers) (Ga 2) in very public commentary. And let’s not forget the delightful letters to the seven churches of Asia that start John the Revelator’s epic address to the Church.

I know it sounds like it MUST be Christian to not publicly air our stuff – but if it is, then the Bible is a decidedly non-Christian work.

In March 2025, Vineyard USA Leadership Council (Regional Leaders, Area Leaders, and Association Leaders) met together in Florida for a time of training and connection. At that meeting, Jay Pathak, VUSA National Director, took a few minutes to talk about dealing with internal conflict within Vineyard USA that becomes public conflict. He referenced the passage in Matthew 18 and said this:

“And so in our handbook, and with the different things that we’re building, we’re trying to build processes, I had no idea, literally no idea how many different ways people interpret Matthew 18. For such a straightforward text it’s remarkable how many people can be like, well what that means is if you don’t do what I want I light the world on fire. I don’t think that’s what Matthew 18 says. It actually says the opposite of that. That there’s a process by which conflict gets managed and it isn’t about you just getting what you want.”

If Word came with a snark or sarcasm font option, I would have used it in that paragraph to help convey Jay’s tone.

I don’t know that I live in Jay’s head rent free, but on March 13, 2025, I wrote about those who invoke Matthew 18 as an attempt to silence those who seek to publicly address a wrong that has been done. I wrote this post about my interaction with Vineyard USA national leadership. Here’s part of what I said:

Nevertheless, I did my best to follow Matthew 18 and ultimately, feeling like I was speaking to an unmovable force (after all my previous attempts at conversations that felt like they went nowhere) I went public as the passage seems to advise. If I had access to the email list used by the institution, I would have just emailed all my colleagues. Or if I was given a dedicated page on the denomination’s website, I would have preferred to post there. (Often the implication seems to be that social media is illegitimate but posting an official email or information to the corporate website is legitimate. This arbitrary distinction between forms serves those who control the “official html” and subtly attempts to silence the “unofficial html.”) A person with an issue that they feel is legitimate and questions they feel deserve a reasonable answer can’t be expected to be trapped in an endless loop of submitting questions or issues to those with power and be satisfied by whatever type of answer they give, or don’t give. This passage in Matthew assumes that there is movement towards a resolution that favors the person alleging the offense.

You can read the whole post HERE. Go ahead and then come back. I’ll wait.

Welcome back.

So, it’s hard to imagine the leader of a national movement of Christians, especially the Vineyard, the mongrel of contemporary movements, a stew of many ingredients, a dog’s breakfast, a river made up of various theological streams that are constantly in tension with one another, to express surprise that ANY passage of Scripture had different interpretations. Especially one so full of cultural nuance that comes to us from a time and context in which the synagogue would act as the judicial authority for the Jews living in Roman occupation, 2000 years removed from our own experience. Jay called it “such a straightforward text” but you might notice several hermeneutical layers to peel back in that context.

Don’t take my word for it though, let’s let a New Testament scholar, Dr. Scot McKnight, weigh in on the passage and the interpretive challenges we face trying to make “straightforward” application of the passage.

On the Broken to Be Beloved podcast (that you can listen to HERE) Dr. McKnight makes several points about the challenge of this (it turns out) not so “straightforward text.” Here are several quotes from Dr. McKnight on this podcast talking about this passage in Matthew 18:

“I think that this is about ordinary, inter-human relationships. I don’t think that this is a text that solves all let’s say conflict management theory. This is not about conflict management theory. This is about an interpersonal breakdown.”

“You can never demand that an abuser go one on one with the abused. So I don't think this text, this text is not designed for that situation. It's designed for an interpersonal conflict that's manageable and yet requires repentance. And if there is no repentance, there is going to be no reconciliation.”

“My contention is that churches misuse this as a template for everything that happens that needs to be reconciled, and it's a mistake.”

“When there’s a power differential, I think Matthew 18 should not be used. The word is sibling, brother and sister. This is a family relationship. This is not a hierarchy.”

In his book, A Church Called TOV, Dr. McKnight has a significant section about the interpretation and application of Matthew 18. Spoiler alert, he doesn’t call it “a straightforward text.”

A website called ACNAtoo [a site dedicated to survivors of sexual abuse and their advocates in the Upper Midwest Diocese of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Who describe their work as consisting of research, writing, publishing, and serving as an ACNA watchdog. But say the heart of their mission… “is working confidentially behind the scenes with survivors who have not received support, accountability, or healing inside the ACNA.”] posted an excerpt from this chapter of A Church Called TOV. In one section Dr. McKnight writes:

It’s one thing to set this procedure in motion when someone has said something ugly about another person or has wrongly taken credit for something. But when a woman or a child who has been sexually abused is required to meet one-on-one with the perpetrator, it becomes morally inexcusable and psychologically violent to insist upon legalistically following Matthew 18. Such an approach becomes a cynical dodge and is almost always designed to protect the leader or the church. Yet it happens far too often.

At Willow Creek, “following Matthew 18” was trumpeted loudly by leaders who sought to protect the reputation of the institution rather than showing concern for the victims. “We are saddened with the way this has played out in the media recently,” the head of the Willow Creek elder board said on April 10, 2018, “and we are committed to moving forward in a biblical manner.” The obvious inference was that the women and their supporters, in going public, had taken an approach that was not biblical.

You can read the whole chapter excerpted HERE.

If we follow the basic hermeneutic practice of letting scripture make commentary on scripture, as noted in my previous post, we have the entire Bible challenging the naïve and uninformed assumption that this passage is a “straightforward text” that gives us a clear and simple process by which conflict gets managed in the Church.

I wrote:

Still, even if we don’t always have scriptures that directly apply to our situations, we do have principles like another found in 1 Timothy 5:19-20, “Do not listen to an accusation against an elder unless it is confirmed by two or three witnesses. Those who sin should be reprimanded in front of the whole church; this will serve as a strong warning to others.” Like many other things we can find in our scriptures, rarely is there ever and only one voice or univocality on a formula that must be used in every situation. Because a difficult conversation has not passed through the formula found in Matthew 18 does not mean it hasn’t been handled “biblically” and certainly doesn’t mean it hasn’t been approached in the Spirit of Christ. Galatians 2 takes us beyond principles and into the practice. Paul confronts Peter publicly “to his face.” Sometimes our approach has to take into account the harm being done and the proximity of the people being harmed and addressing things in that awkward moment for the sake of the kingdom.

In the end, we need to ask why Jay, given an opportunity to speak directly to national leadership would make a categorical statement insisting Matthew 18 is a “straightforward text.” According to Dr. McKnight’s observations, this is the approach of the naïve and those in power to silence their critics. I suppose it’s possible that Jay hasn’t checked many Matthew commentaries or studied Hermeneutics, but I find both possibilities highly unlikely. By emailing the link for this the audio recording to Vineyard pastors across the country and beyond, the National Director of Vineyard USA has promoted not only a false narrative but provided a poor example of biblical hermeneutics. Another question we should ask about this timing is this: why did Jay make this statement, when Robb Morgan had just brought charges against John Kliewer and his leadership to the Duluth Vineyard for the elders there to investigate – which was independently investigated with a report issued that exonerated John of any wrongdoing - but is definitely NOT the approach Jay himself promotes by calling Matthew 18 a straightforward text?

One of my least favorite phrases is, “the Bible clearly says…” which is often followed by someone’s inerrant and infallible opinion about something found in the Bible.

At the heart of this matter are, let me remind you, real life victims, men and women, who have been harmed by the system employed by Vineyard USA to deal with those who are brave enough to tell their stories. There are people who once were pastors that are not pastors now who feel chewed up and spit out by the current system practiced by Vineyard USA. There are young women who feel like the abuse perpetrated against them was amplified and not diminished by the response of current leadership in Vineyard USA. One thing we must not do is let people in power distort and misrepresent the scriptures to us in their effort to use the Bible to control the narrative.

If you’ve seen something, say something. If someone shares something with you, listen to them, support them and advocate for them.