Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.
(1 Timothy 5:19-21)
The self-Anointed Ministers of Truth diligently work at banishing every remnant of Christianity from America’s public square with notable exceptions. Pride of place is reserved for Evangelicalism’s Social Justice renegades whether they are defectors or angry talebearers bent on revenge for their perceived injuries. Because they unthinkingly embrace the notion that accusations establish guilt, Evangelicalism’s defectors publish their unproven grievances on Twitter where they find instant camaraderie from other malcontents who offer them comfort and aid by commending them for their “courage” to tell their “lived experiences.” Thus, they find solace and empathy from gossip mongers who welcome them into their Twitter wolfpacks where mob justice rules. From the protection of these wolfpacks, they howl loudly as they snarl and bark their unrestrained public barrage, accusing their former pastors, elders, fellow church members, faculty colleagues, or teachers of victimizing them and their allies with spiritual manipulation and abusive speech. These zealous warriors for justice are not restrained by the standard protocol that protects private conversations and correspondence. With no regard for violations of confidentiality, they publish whole email exchanges with individual pastors, elders, administrators, or teachers. Of course, if those against whom they speak were to publish the same correspondence, they would be morally outraged.
Not for a moment do they pause to reflect upon their loud, bitter, bellicose, harsh, and wicked behavior. Instead, the presumption that their cause is righteous and just finds reassurances from Twitter allies who equally believe that guilt is established by accusation. Twitter harbors purveyors of gossip who traffic in salacious rumors including bloggers and journalists who, still bearing grudges from their own “lived experiences,” prowl about in search of the latest allegations against prominent Evangelical churches and institutions that they are eager to publish as “breaking news.”
In the presence of Christians for whom they hold visceral contempt, these righteous warriors for justice have sensibilities that are fragile to the extreme. Despite possessing such delicate feelings they know nothing of restrained, gracious, peaceable, gentle, kind, pleasant, or truthful speech concerning Evangelicals with whom they unreasoningly disagree and take issue. Contrast how they speak against their accused with the Apostle Paul’s command: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Colossians 4:6). The wild invectives they hurl and the toxic venom they spew should grieve every Christian and cause us to blush with shame. They launch false testimony salvos against individuals whom they single out by name whose actual interactions with the complainants bear no resemblance at all to the accusers’ contorted caricatures and defamatory accusations. Jude aptly states, “But these people slander what they do not understand, and they are being destroyed by what they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively” (Jude 10).
As I have already shown in Part 2 of this series, elders of a church, administrators of an educational institution, and individual elders or teachers would be fools to enter the Court of Public Opinion to defend themselves in response to those who bear false witness against them. Any attempt to counter false charges shouted by fools dignifies both the charges and the accusers and worse, renders the defendant undistinguishable from the accuser. Those who know the true character of individuals who are being accused of all kinds of evil recognize the accusations to be exaggerated, contorted, false, and evil. What mature Christian would ever give any credence to an audacious student who goes to the Court of Public Opinion to publish numerous accusations against a seasoned classroom professor, old enough to be the student’s father? Why would any devout Christian regard as credible those accusations when the accused professor first learns of the grievances when reading them on Twitter a long time after the alleged incident with the accusing student? How is it conceivable that a seasoned professor of Biblical Studies could conceal from his peers and administrators that he is a disgruntled, spiritually abusive man, intoxicated with white rage, who spews racist garbage and vitriol because he is guilty of gospel-denying racism, whose character disqualifies him for occupying the position of honor afforded him? How is there any believability to such wild and outlandish allegations against a mature Christian whose teaching is regularly subjected to the scrutiny of many, especially when the accuser’s fellow students provide not a whisper of support?
No individual professor or elder so charged should ever mount a defense against such charges in the Court of Public Opinion. Nor should a body of church elders or an institution’s administrators ever attempt to defend themselves against the same kind of accusations. So, if they should never respond in kind outside the regulatory boundaries of the church or the institution, then what should they do when the church or institution or any individual member of either comes under assault from former pastors, church members, professors, or students who are no longer under the governance of the church or the institution? This is where Part 2 in this series ended last week with the following set of questions.
So, if elders of a church, administrators of an educational institution, or individual Christians within either would be fools to defend themselves against the torrent of accusations that flood Twitter and gossip journalism, what should our response be? How should we respond to the insults, the defamation, and false accusations from people who formerly worshiped with us in church, taught courses in our institution, walked among us in our hallways, sat among us in the sanctuary, or were students in our courses? How should churches and Christian institutions respond to former members who bear false witness in the World Court of Public Opinion? Should we silently bear their bearing false witness against our church, our institution, our own characters? What if there is a superior way to respond? What if we are obligated to respond with something much more substantive and holier than silent forbearance?
Has God provided wisdom and instruction concerning this question? Do the Holy Scriptures address the matter? Yes, indeed, the Bible does teach us how to respond, both by explicit instruction and by example. What does Scripture admonish us to do? “Better is open rebuke than hidden love” (Proverbs 27:5).
Of course, it is always preferable to respond to such allegations when the accusers are still members of our churches or institutions. Proper adherence to the procedural steps Christ Jesus outlines for us as reported in Matthew 18:15-18 guards against though may not completely prevent the kind of public disgrace now rampantly on display by disgruntled people who exploit the internet to vent their grievances. That those who claim to be believers in Jesus Christ do so warrants robust admonition, warning, and condemnation.
How does Scripture admonish us to respond to sins committed by church members?
Concerning Private Sins, even of Church Leaders.
How are we to respond to church members who sin against us? Obey Jesus’ teaching as reported in Matthew 18:15-18. It is doubly wicked for any of us to avoid facing a person who has sinned against us but instead gossip to others about that sin and the person who committed it. This is how seriously Christians need to follow Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 18:15-18. Refusal to obey Jesus’ instructions is to jeopardize one’s own forgiveness of sins before God (Matthew 18:21-35).
In the masthead of this blog entry, I cite the Apostle Paul’s instructions to Timothy concerning how to respond to someone’s accusations against an elder in the church (1 Timothy 5:19-21). His directives assume knowledge of Jesus’ teaching outlined in Matthew 18:15-18. Thus, if an elder sins against a church member, the one sinned against is obligated to face the elder privately to appeal for repentance. If the elder repents and receives forgiveness, that is the end of the matter. There should be no further talk of it. If the elder refuses to repent, then the church member against whom he sinned is obligated to face the elder again in the presence of two or three witnesses. Only then, if the elder refuses to repent is the church member sinned against warranted, on the evidence of two or three witnesses, to take the case to all the elders, which is the Apostle Paul’s requirement. This is what the Apostle Paul means when he states: “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.”1
Therefore, it is sinful for anyone to make a flimsy and unsubstantiated accusation against a church elder. To violate the Apostle’s directive is to sin. What if the two or three witnesses have properly determined that an elder has sinned and they testify against him? Of course, the church is to make another appeal for repentance. And that occasion, according to the Apostle, obligates the elders to act solemnly: “As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.” Paul regards this to be an inviolable rule for proper ordering of the Lord’s house, the church. Thus, to this rule he adds these solemn words: “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality” (1 Timothy 5:21).
Concerning Public Sins.
Of course, the Apostle Paul is not guilty of sinning when he instructs the Corinthians that they need to excommunicate the man who is publicly known to be engaged in sexual immorality with his father’s wife. First, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for boasting of their capacity to tolerate behavior condemned among pagans. Then he admonishes them to put the sinning man out of the church. Does he violate Jesus’ teaching by not directing them to begin the Matthew 18 proceedings of church discipline against the man who was having sexual relations with his father’s wife? Certainly not, because the man’s persistent sinful public behavior made it obvious to all that he was unrepentant for his sexual immorality. Therefore, Paul instructs the Corinthians to excommunicate the sinning man with a desire and hope that he will be brought to repentance and be saved in the Last Day (1 Corinthians 5:5). Keep in mind this rule: There is only one sin that warrants excommunication, refusal to repent when confronted with one’s sin.
How does Scripture provide guidance for us to respond to sins committed by church members, especially leaders?
The New Testament provides several examples of how those entrusted with leadership roles are to conduct themselves toward those who commit sins in public. The Apostle Paul was not intimidated by prominent church leaders like Peter and Barnabas. When they sinned against the Lord and against the gospel by withdrawing from believing Gentiles in Antioch of Syria to eat among the Jews, Paul rebuked them and reports this to the Galatians who faced the same temptation: “When I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?’”
Similarly, he admonishes two women who seem to be at odds with one another: “I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life” (Philippians 4:2-3).
How does Scripture provide guidance for us to respond to public sins committed by former church members?
Indeed, none of us are apostles. However, this hardly alleviates us from responding to the public sins committed by individuals who were formerly members of our churches. This is even more urgently necessary if those former members are also individuals who either aspire to the gospel ministry or occupied ministerial roles within our churches. Pastors, elders, and administrators of Christian institutions need to expose and rebuke the high-handed public sinning that many have recently engaged, and they need to call for those who are sinning to repent.
Let us imitate the Apostle Paul as he imitates Christ Jesus. Paul identifies many of his former associates who have sinned by turning against him and his gospel. Consider these. Demas, whom Paul names as one of his associate ministers, came to love the world and deserted the Apostle (Colossians 4:14; Philemon 1:23-24; 2 Timothy 4:10).
Likewise, Paul exposes Hymenaeus and Alexander who abandoned the faith and a good conscience. As with the sinning man in Corinth, the Apostle turned these two men over to Satan “that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Timothy 1:19-20). It is likely that this Alexander is the same one Paul mentions again when he writes to Timothy, “Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message” (2 Timothy 4:15-16).
Later, Paul makes it evident that Hymenaeus teamed up with Philetus to teach deviant doctrines. So, he exposes these heretics and instructs Timothy and us to stay away from engaging such people in debates.
But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity” (2 Timothy 2:16-19).
As frequently as he issues rebukes for sinners, he also commends devout believers. Consider Paul’s commendations of (1) Aristarchus (Colossians 4:10; Philippians 1:24), (2) Tychicus (Ephesians 6:21), (3) Timothy (Philippians 2:19-23), and (4) Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:26).
The Apostle John also commends church members who are worthy of commendation (e.g., Gaius and Demetrius, 3 John 1, 12) and issues a rebuke for another. “I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So, if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church” (3 John 9, 10).
Conclusion
Now, to be direct, how should the elders and administrators of a local church and of a Christian college and seminary respond to former pastors, elders, teachers, and students who adjudicate their grievances in the world’s Court of Public Opinion on Twitter, aided and abetted by gossip journalists and bloggers? The complainants have not submitted their alleged grievances to the procedures that God’s Word requires of Christ’s people. Instead, they angrily left the church and the institution and have published their alleged grievances to damage the church and the institution but especially to do great injury to the reputations of individual members whom they accuse by name. These accusers abandoned the Lord’s ordered procedures and took their accusations to Twitter, a realm beyond the jurisdiction of either the church or the institution where (1) their vicious accusations are deemed sufficient evidence to establish the guilt and condemnation of the ones they charge, and (2) those whom they condemn would be fools to enter to defend their reputations against salacious and contorted caricatures of reality.
Everyone who has left the church and the institution to publish their accusations against individuals needs to be rebuked soundly and publicly because they have sinned by taking their grievances to the world’s Court of Public Opinion instead of obeying the Holy Scriptures and submitting their alleged grievances to the procedures that God’s Word provides. Because these accusers condemn individual members of a church and an institution the elders and administrators, not the individuals accused, bear the responsibility to rebuke those who sin so grievously. Elders and administrators are entrusted with this obligation. With one unified voice, they need to publish on their respective websites firm rebukes and warnings to each and every one of the accusers by name because they have violated (1) the Ninth Commandment, (2) Jesus’ orderly procedures for addressing sins, (3) the Apostle Paul’s explicit requirements to adjudicate grievances within the confines of the church body (1 Corinthians 6:1-11); and (4) the Apostle Paul’s unequivocal rule that addresses how charges are to be brought against men who serve the church as elders.
Those who sin publicly need to be rebuked publicly both for their eternal salvation and to testify to the watching world concerning the weightiness and gravity of such sinning. Do we care about their eternal destinies? If not, remain silent. If we do care, then we are obligated by the love of Christ to admonish them to be reconciled to God and to us. Those who sin publicly set their feet on the broadway that leads to eternal destruction. Love requires that we rebuke them. Do we believe the gospel we preach? If we do, then let us administer the warnings of Christ’s gospel to those who are manifestly disobeying the gospel of peace. Unless the accusers repent, they will perish eternally. Yes, the matter is that serious.
Foolishly responding to the various grievances of the accusers and refusal to expose, rebuke, and call upon those who malign and bear false witness to repent emboldens those who publish their venomous invectives. Difficult and painful as it may be, those to whom the Lord God has entrusted the governance of a local church or institution are responsible for rebuking and censuring sinful behavior that occurs within the purview of their authority which includes protection against wicked assaults from the outside, especially from defectors. As appointed guardians, when sinful behavior disturbs the peace, they are obligated under Christ’s Lordship to adjudicate grievances by seeking the truth, exposing false and defamatory allegations arising from embittered grievances, and rebuking those who sin, and by calling upon them to repent. Failure to condemn sinful accusations is to coddle sinful behavior, which invariably worsens. When former pastors, church members, faculty members, or students publish falsehoods to defame a church or institution and individual members, those entrusted with the welfare of the body are obligated to issue public rebukes and censures of those who sin by seeking redress of their alleged grievances in the Court of Public Opinion whatever venue they exploit. Those whom the Lord has assigned as helmsmen of a church or institution have an obligation to protect the Lord’s church or institution and individual participants from evil and malevolent bearers of falsehoods both inside and outside.
Indeed, the gospel calls for us to expose “the fruitless deeds of darkness,” as the Apostle Paul admonishes us (Ephesians 5:11). However, the gospel also appeals to us to pursue those who become ensnared in sin that we might turn them from their evil ways, rescue them from perishing, and thereby “cover over a multitude of sins.”
Hear the Word of the Lord! “My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20).
1 In her CT article, “Bethlehem Baptist Leaders Clash Over ‘Coddling’ and ‘Cancel Culture,’” Kate Shellnut accurately reports that an accusation was made in a congregational meeting of the church. She shows no realization that the accusation was not only unsubstantiated, out of order, and the kind of allegation that the Apostle Paul condemns. Lamentably, during that congregational meeting, the BBC elders did not stop the proceedings and properly rebuke the woman who expressed the accusatory statement that entailed two male leaders, one an elder and the other the president-elect of Bethlehem College & Seminary.