The Disciplined Disciple

This sermon was heard at the First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas on Sunday September 7, 2008, the 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time.


Exodus 12:1-14
Psalm 149
Romans 13:8-14
Matthew 18:15-20

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our Rock and our Redeemer. Amen

Let’s get in the way-back machine and take a trip to the Year of Our Lord 48. Some men had come from Judea teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they reported the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the believers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the Law of Moses.” [1]

This narrative from the Acts 15 describes the first great conflict of the church. In the day there were two kinds of Christians, Jewish believers and Gentile converts. Since Jesus was himself a Jew, the Christian faith has roots in the temple and the law, not Gentile shrines and customs. Yet there was a school of thought that believed that Judaism and the Hebrew customs were not prerequisite to faith in the risen Lord Christ. As usual, leave it to the Pharisees to hold the hard line saying that being circumcised and keeping the Law of Moses were necessary for salvation.

Without going into much detail, the Council of Jerusalem was called by church leaders to discuss this issue. The council made three important decisions about the church and its requirements. First, circumcision would not be an entry requirement for gentile Christians. Second, Jewish Christians would continue to practice circumcision. Finally, traditional Jewish dietary regulations were to be maintained by all Christians.

In the end there was compromise, and even this could not be kept. The resolutions of the Jerusalem Council could not be easily sustained in the scattered communities of Christians, communities which were a combination of Jewish and Gentile Christians. The clashes which arose out of these disputes about behavior were a constant threat to the survival of the church.[2] Eventually Paul could not and did not maintain support of the dietary regulations very long. In the end, had the pro-Jewish perspective been maintained, Christianity might well have remained a reform movement within Judaism.[3]

Matthew’s system of conflict resolution from chapter 18 is sound. It begins: If another member of the church has sinned against you, go alone and point out the fault. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. If that doesn’t work, then the situation escalates. Next, go with one or two others so that every word may be confirmed. Finally, if another member of the church has sinned against you and either they continue to sin against you or your grievance was not resolved by the first two steps or if the offender continues to refuse to listen, then put the offender out.

It’s a good system, beginning with one-on-one contact with repercussions if the offender continues to offend. My study bible says, “These instructions emphasize the responsibility of community members rather than leaders focusing on the goal of reconciliation.”[4] But I don’t get that sense from the reading; I sense something going on under the text.

Historically, when we read Matthew’s discourse in conflict resolution, in a way we read about conflict resolution from what was ultimately the losing side of the Council of Jerusalem. While the actions of the Council affirmed what the Jewish Christians believed, much of what they taught and how they behaved, the tide of history would ultimately leave the substance of this council and their specific brand of Jewish Christianity behind.

These were a people who held tight to their Judaism and the Judaism of their Messiah Jesus. We know that Matthew’s audience was specifically Jewish believers, the children of Moses and Jesus.

From this morning’s text, we are told that “if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” In Matthew’s words, there doesn’t seem to be much of a distinction between Gentile believers and the run-of-the-mill Gentile. Gentiles are Gentiles and whether they are believers or not, they are not the same as real believers, those who adhere to the Law of Moses and the restrictions and distinctions set long ago. Surely, tax collectors were collaborators with the Roman overseers. Reading this passage, I feel like someone ought to follow it saying “and some of my best friends are Gentiles and tax collectors.”

My study bible says that the worshiping community is to treat Gentiles and tax collectors as objects of mission. They are to be included as members of the assembly.[5] They may be the object of mission and they may be a part of the community, but I get the sense Mathew is saying they aren’t like us.

After 2,000 years of disagreements in the church you would think we would learn a thing or two about conflicts and resolving them. All we have to do is change a few words here and there and this description from Acts would be applicable to every church conflict. “Gentiles and tax collectors” can be changed to any one of a number of other proper nouns or adjectives and the reading would remain very familiar.

In fact, today we would all be known as Gentile Christians. We might even be members of Matthew’s refuse pile.

As a community, the bar of people who offend us has moved. I assume we welcome the uncircumcised, at least there’s nothing in the Book of Order. I had Canadian bacon for breakfast and would eat bacon at any meal. These two thousand year old scandals have been replaced by dozens of others; some so arcane we would not understand the issue in the first place. Recent Presbyterian scandals are just another drop in the bucket, and a young drop at that.

So what does this have to do with conflict resolution? I believe it has to do with the root of conflict. Returning to the Jerusalem Council, the pro-Jewish Christians insisted that because the church was the true Israel, converts must be circumcised before they were admitted into the community while Paul insisted that with Christ believers were freed from the works of the Law and were justified by grace through faith. The orthodox Jewish believer agreed with the Pharisees. The Gentile believer didn’t know the difference.

So here’s my question; what would have happened if a Gentile believer had been dragged before Matthew’s community for discipline. Then we have to ask what would have happened if one of Matthew’s community had been dragged before the Gentiles. If conflicts are resolved by individual communities, there will be only community justice. We have to find something broader than our communities, than our lives to resolve conflict. We have to follow the example of our Lord Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ.

To do this, we Christians must return to the root of our faith, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the God in three persons. To do this we must return to the Word of God, the Holy Scripture which is the first source of what we know about God. And once we return to the Word, each of us must become interpreters of the Word, doing as it commands.

We must do more than follow rules, we have to follow commands. God saves through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, but we are transformed not only when we hear and respond to the Gospel’s narrative. Truer, fuller, more complete transformation happens when we participate in the human connectional community of the church. The symbolism and story of redemption reach the depths of our very being when we interpret and reinterpret the word in our world.[6] We do not live into our place in the community, we do not live as active followers of Christ until we both read and interpret the word.

Looking at today’s reading from Matthew, it tells us what to do with the offender. I say let’s be careful whom we call “offender.” It is important to look at the people of God, who we are as the people, who we are in the word, and who we can be before we go to another and say, “You have sinned against me.” I have to beware because I might have sinned against you first.

If true, there is one thing to remember, Jesus expected more out of those who knew him. He expects more out of those who read and interpret the word. He expects more out of those who lead the church. He expects more out of us than he does those who do not know him. He expects more out of the community called in His holy name, bearing his holy word.

We talk about those who sin against us, so let us remember the words of Paul to the church at Rome, Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.” Paul commands the Romans to love, this is fulfillment of the Law and our command now and forever.

[1] Acts 15:2-5. See Acts 15 for details.
[2] 1Corinthians 8, Galatians 2:11ff
[3] Rev. Dr. Ellen Babinsky, Course pack, unpublished. Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Theology 100-Church History through 1650. Chapter 2, page 6, 2001.
[4] New Interpreter’s Study Bible, note to Matthew 18:15-20.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Farley, Edward, “Theology in the Life of the Congregation.” Theology and Worship Occasional Paper No. 17, Office of Theology and Worship, PC (USA), Louisville, 2003, page 5. (This publication is a reprint of the first chapter of Farley’s “Practicing Gospel: Unconventional Thoughts on the Church’s Ministry.” Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.”