Curious, Not Judgmental: A Method for Methodists!
Matthew 18:15-20
18:15 "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.
18:16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
18:17 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.
18:18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
18:19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.
18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them."
There is no doubt Jesus is laying out a method in this passage. We don’t know how much of its “order” is the creation of the ears and pen of the writer of the Matthean gospel, and how much is actually from the mouth of Jesus Christ, but let’s assume “Matthew” is reporting what he heard, and unpack this text as written.
Even with this approach, we have a problem, right off the bat. “If another MEMBER OF THE CHURCH…” There was no church yet, so Jesus couldn’t have actually said this. We would have to assume that the author, while writing his testimony of what Jesus did and said, has jumped forward here to his own time, when there WAS a church, and is telling us of their practice of how to handle serial sinners in their midst. One would hope that, if Matthew were actually the author of this text, he was at least “contextualizing” this process, a process that possibly he SAW Jesus use while mentoring the twelve? Maybe we’ll take THIS approach.
Sidebar: There are whole denominations that shall remain nameless that DO make the assumption that, somehow these ARE the words of Jesus (obviously forecasting the existence of a church someday), and that we should adhere literally to what they say. One denomination with which I am familiar uses this “Matthew 18” process as a way to keep their ranks clean. If someone in their local church (or “fellowship”) is guilty of pretty obvious and possibly “dangerous” (to the church) sin, Step One is to have a witness—a friend of that person would be nice—go to that one and point out the infraction. If the “sinner” listens and yields (repents?) of their faux pas, they are to be considered “returned to the fold.” If they do NOT, or they outright resist, Step Two is to expand the “witnessing party” to two or three people, hoping that there is greater persuasion in numbers. The Matthew author brings in a kind of “courtroom scene” at this point, suggesting that testimony witnessed by more than one carries extra weight “on the stand.” If this person is such a hardened transgressor that they continue to either deny their sin or simply to thumb their nose at the “witness team,” then we move on to Step Three, which is: tell it to the church--the whole church and nothing but the church. Yes, apparently this method would have the pastor or a member of the Church Council get up during the announcements and sandwich between the potluck supper notice and the report on last week’s stewardship campaign, the accusation that there is a sinner—who is named--in their midst, and one who is not willing to own up to what she or he has done, thus grieving God and putting in peril the assembly. And if this malevolent soul isn’t moved to renounce his offense, but simply ignores the disdain of the whole church, then we move on to Step Four.
Here's where we run into another major problem. Step Four is to treat them “like as a Gentile and a tax collector.” The denomination I was referring to earlier takes this to mean you throw them out on their buttski and pray they will someday come around, confessing the error of their ways. In the earliest days of my own ministry, I got invited from time to time to lead a staff devotional time for a Pittsburgh religious TV station’s staff, which was largely made up of folk affiliated with the denomination in question, at that time. When I got to Step Four in my devotion on Matthew 18, I reminded them of how JESUS treated Gentiles and tax collectors—he called them as disciples and/or hung out with them, even going to their homes for dinner. He didn’t throw them out the door. That truth got both Jesus and me in trouble. Jesus was eventually crucified for it by those who were the Step Four Boot Bunch (religious leaders), and I was not invited back to lead the TV staff devotions anymore.
What Jesus did was good psychology. When words fail to persuade a “sinner” to repent, embrace and befriend them! That’s a hard task, by the way. It’s much easier to adopt the “three strikes and you’re out” method, as after all, it DOES give the offender three chances to get their act together (requiring little on the “witnesses’” part, I might add), and if they don’t succumb to the “kind” correction by that point, give them the right foot of fellowship. SURELY, once they have been lovingly shown the door, they will feel the “conviction” of the Holy Spirit and come running back to the church, begging to be restored to fellowship!(?) I wonder if any of the folk who interpret and practice Step Four in this way have noticed a correlation between its effacacy and the hordes of folk exiting the church, or never showing up in the first place?
Last week, I used a scene from the popular Apple TV Plus show, “Ted Lasso,” to suggest that an expression central to that particular scene—“Be curious, not judgmental”—was good counsel for the modern Christian and the church. Frankly, this whole process lined out here in today’s lectionary passage from Matthew 18 is all ABOUT being judgmental, not curious. Steps One through Three are about TELLING the offending party exactly what they are doing wrong (judging?). The “sinner” is only to “listen” to these accusations. But if we, instead, switch over to being CURIOUS, the “brotherly visitors” who go to the “sinner” would start by doing their OWN listening! They would be curious about:
a. What the person is actually up to;
b. If they are “guilty” of doing whatever is being flagged, is it really “sinful” behavior, and why are they doing it? (Might they have a NEED that the faith community could help them with so that they don’t have to “sin” to have it met?); and
c. How can these witnesses—presumably friends—embrace and support this person, instead of just being the church police?
“Curious, not judgmental” could conceivably end a lot of the conflict we have in the “Body of Christ” AND might create the kind of understanding, supportive atmosphere today’s crop of “sinners” might relish in a fellowship. Maybe the doors to our churches could starting swinging both ways, not just outwardly, as the disenfranchised exit?
John Wesley’s “Methodists” had a way to offer this kind of “curiosity-based” listening and support to people. They were called “Class Meetings” or “Bands,” in his day. (The late Dr. David Lowes Watson resurrected this method as “Covenant Discipleship” in the 1980s.) The Class Meetings or Bands were where small groups—usually 8 to 12—would “covenant” to meet together weekly. Together they would compose a list of things they WANTED to accomplish in their spiritual journeys and of the things they wanted to STOP doing (various “sins” and negative behaviors). Positives might be things like “I will obey the promptings of the Holy Spirit to serve God and my neighbor.” The “sin list” might include things like, “I will do my best to not ignore or grieve the Spirit of God when the Spirit is trying to correct me or prompt me to commit an act of mercy.” The list of “dos” and “don’ts” is kept manageably short, and each week, participants took turns “giving an account” to one another as to how well they had kept the covenant that week. The fact that each person was going to be “held accountable” by her or his peers was often enough to prompt progress in their behavior, to the glory of God. And the group was pledged to “being curious, not judgmental” in this accountably (to use Ted Lasso’s words).
Did this ancient Wesleyan “Method” work for Methodists? Well, we’re still forming similar “accountability” or “discipleship” groups today, and I’ll bet we wouldn’t be, if they were a bust! Of all of the myriad religious “fads” I saw come and go in my years in ministry, the only one that has persisted were these “accountability” or “Covenant” groups. Yes, they do work, because they foster CURIOSITY about why people of faith do the things we do, and how to ENCOURAGE the “good deeds, as well as SUPPORT and embrace those “tax collectors and Gentiles” when they fall prey to the “sins” and negative behaviors. Fruitful Covenant Groups are pretty much the OPPOSITE of “judgmental.”
Do they work? Well, in 1935, a recovering alcoholic named Bill Wilson used the methods he learned from being involved in “The Oxford Group,” which was a type of Wesleyan Class Meeting, to create a non-judgmental “meeting” to help fellow alcoholics get sober. It was called “Alcoholics Anonymous,” or AA. The assumption is that if a person shows up at an AA meeting, they are self-identifying that they “have a problem” with alcohol. The group has no reason to judge them. Instead, the group welcomes them and offers encouragement—often via their “testimonies”—as to how they may regain and maintain their sobriety. AA is never a “one and done” deal. Mr. Wesley’s spiritual/discipleship groups made exactly the same “assumptions,” with the wider concept of “sin.” The assumption was that if a person showed up to a Class Meeting, they were a sinner, just like everyone else in the group! The group was motivated to help each other get “sober” from sin and begin to live lives where mercy, love, and forgiveness simply “pushed out” sin. Sounds like Jesus stuff, doesn’t it?
Can I get a “Hallelujah” that Jesus was CURIOUS, not JUDGMENTAL? May we also note what the Matthean author eventually gets around to in today’s text:
--“What we BIND on EARTH will be BOUND in heaven, and what we LOOSE on earth will be LOOSED in heaven.” (We have been given the power by Christ to BIND that which oppresses and LOOSE that which sets people free!)
--"If two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.” (The strength in working together is REWARDED by God’s power when it is LIBERATING (curious?), not JUDGMENTAL.
--"For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” (Jesus shows up where WE show up, ready to love, forgive, and support one another. This advocates for our being a community-based people, not solitary “Christian soldiers.”)
This last point runs quite counter to the current trend leading people—now dubbed “nones”—away from the church and into a self-imposed, solitary “faith” exile. We have possibly brought this on ourselves by being more JUDGMENTAL than CURIOUS. Can we reverse this in time?
Let me start. With apologies to AA and Bill W.: “Hi, I’m Jeff Sterling, and I’m here because I’m a sinner in need of grace…” (This is where you would shout, “Hi, Jeff!)
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment