Over the years, I have seen many stable, growing, and vibrant churches that have created an atmosphere of peace and growth. Unfortunately, at the same time, I have also seen numerous church congregations filled with strife, politics, scandals, and corruption.

One notable example was a congregation of over 300 in Southern California, where I attended, where due to gross mismanagement, was reduced to 40 in just a few years. Another congregation I attended in the Sacramento, which had just short of 200 on regular Sabbath attendance and upwards to 300 on the Holy Days, ceases to exist today because incompetent church leaders. Another church organization that my father attended, had over 5 congregations and over 600 in regular attendance, once again ceases to exist because of very similar mistakes. A sizable international church organization based out of Ohio with over 20,000 in regular attendance split in half in 2009 due to similar problems.

Although there were different personalities, problems, and politics in all of these situations, there was one common denominator that I believe was the largest contributor to the demise of these churches – a lack of transparency. In ALL of these congregations and organizations, when conflict arose, those in authority made decisions in secrecy that only inflamed the problems rather than resolved them. Even when correct decisions were made, no one understood why they were made, so the rumor mill always assumed the worst. Bad decisions that easily would be considered congregational suicide, were made very casually in secrecy under the belief that no one would find out. In either situation, lack of transparency was their demise.

And so what is the solution? And is that solution biblical? Believe it or not the answer is clearly given by Christ in Mathew 18. -And key to understanding Mathew 18, like many other places in the Bible lies in reading it in context.

The story actually begins in the synoptic account in Luke 9:46 where “an argument arose among them which was this: who would be the greatest among them.” The disciples had learned that they were going to receive high positions of leadership in the Kingdom of God, and wanted to know who was going to receive the highest position. Irritated with the arrogance of the question, Christ then sets a child amongst them and explains to them if you are not humble as a little child, you won’t even be in the kingdom. (Mat 18:3)

Messiah then spends the first half of the chapter outlining strict instructions with punishments for the leadership such as:

  • If you offend one of the little ones, it would be better to we drowned in the sea (v7)
  • It is better to remove those who offend rather than be cast into hell (v8&9)
  • Do not despise the little ones! Their angels are always before the Father (v10)
  • Go after the lost sheep! It is not the will of the Father that one should perish! (v14)

It is in this context that we come to verses 15-17:

Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.
Mat 18:15-20 NKJV.

It is in this passage Yeshuah Messiah outlines the process for removing an unrepentant sinner. And the formula outlined is: when 2 or more witnesses come before 2 or more elders and they tell it to the church, Christ will be there with them in their mist.

And big question that arises: Who is the church?

As easy and simple as this question would seem to be, many who are opposed to transparency try to confuse the situation. The Greek word translated church here is ekklēsia. Any bible dictionary defines it as assembly, congregation, a gathering, or company. In every case ekklēsia is a very inclusive word that refers to everyone in the body. However, many in leadership roles would like you to believe ekklēsia is an exclusive word and only refers to the leadership.

There are several reasons why we know this is incorrect. First, there is no other passage in the New Testament where ekklēsia is used in this manner. It is always used inclusively.

Second, it is clear that the entire chapter of Matthew 18 is directed toward the leadership, wherein the Greek word humin is used seven times and the Greek word soi is used another 6 times- both of which mean ‘you’. The instructions throughout are clearly directed towards the leadership where Christ uses the word “you” talking to the disciples. It makes no sense that He would now use the word ekklēsia to refer to the disciples – a word that never refers to the leadership. If Christ was referring to the disciples here, He would have used the word “you” like He did 13 other times!

It is clear from Matthew 18, that when a member of the body of Christ is either condemned or exonerated, it is to be done before the ekklēsia -transparently- not in secrecy!

This instruction for members of the church to be judged before the church wasn’t new. Throughout the TaNaK, the Old Testament, judgement always took place before the congregation at “the gates” where the accused “stands before the congregation in judgment.” (Num 35:12 & Josh 20:6). Absalom went to the gate of Jerusalem when “anyone who had a lawsuit came to the king for a decision“(2 Sam 15:2). When Lot “sat in the gate” that implied that he was a judge. (Gen 19:1) When a person “stands at the entrance of the gate of the city, and declares his case in the hearing of the elders of that city” they were to hear his case with the voice of 2 or 3 witnesses and render a verdict (Josh 20). “The gate” was the most public place of a city and was very similar to a town square.

There is a great example of this entire process taking place in the book of Ruth. In chapter 4, Boaz went to the gate and sat down (v 1) and asked the near kinsman to sit down as well. He then “took ten men of the elders of the city“(v2) to determine how to redeem the land of Elimelech and to “raise up the name of the dead“(v5) according to the instructions of the Levirate marriage described in Deuteronomy 25. The statues were clear that this process was to take place at “the gate to the elders“(Deut 25:7). And that is exactly what Boaz did as shown in the book of Ruth:

And Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “You are witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, from the hand of Naomi. “Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate. You are witnesses this day.” And all the people who were at the gate, and the elders, said, “We are witnesses.
Rth 4:9-11 NKJV.

This example matches the formula in Matthew 18 exactly. In matters of controversy, two or more witnesses were to come before two or more elders, and these proceedings were to take place “before the congregation in judgment.” No decisions were to take place in secrecy. They were to take place before the congregation.

The Apostle Paul confirms this formula in I Timothy 5:9:

Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.
1Ti 5:19-20 NKJV.

This passage matches Matthew 18, Ruth 4 and Joshua 20 that accusations required 2 or 3 witness and they were to be dealt with “in the presence of all“.

This requirement of judgment to take place “in the presence of all” is seen through out scripture:

  • How did Moses make judgments and teach God’s law at the same time? (Ex 18:16) Because it was done transparently.
  • How did all of Israel hear of the judgments of King Solomon?(IKings3:28) Because it was done transparently.
  • How did all of the Church hear of the judgment brought upon Ananias and Sapphira? (Act 5:11) Because it was done transparently.
  • Why did Paul address the man in Corinth who was sinning in a public letter?(I Cor 5) Because judgment was always done transparently.

One argument I have heard several times is that: “The church can not address these issues publicly or they will get sued!” This is not true. As long as all the parties give their consent, it is perfectly legal to address problems transparently. At a previous job, before I was hired, they required as a condition of employment that I consent to a background search and to have access to my medical records. For them to have this information, without my consent, this would be an invasion of privacy, and they could easily be sued. However, they can, as a condition of employment, require that you give them access. If serious accusations are brought against a member of the church, a pastor can require as a condition of attendance that they attend a meeting to discuss the validity of the accusation. If they don’t want to confront their accusers nor attend the meeting, they can decline, but they can’t attend with the congregation until it is resolved. It’s pretty simple.

However, this process also allows for the accused to defend himself and not get blindsided in a private meeting where they are unprepared. Over the years, I have seen multiple occasions where members and pastors have been accused and removed without any due process. This quickly led to a division in the church congregation.

Another important aspect of using this biblical process is that any member of the congregation can initiate the process if he has two or three witnesses. I have personally seen multiple situations where serious sins (sexual misconduct, pedophilia, assault) were ignored because the accused was well connected with the leadership of the church. Even though multiple witnesses came forward, because the pastor had the authority to arbitrarily decide in private whether or not to address it, our pleas were ignored.

Many times when these controversies come forward, trying to decide how to handle it is very hard. But if these decisions are made in secrecy, quite often, the easy decision is made. And most of the time, the easy decision is the wrong decision.

Many times, leaders confuse secrecy with privacy. In the book The Family of Adoption by Joyce Maguire Pavao, she makes a very clear distinction between the two. “Secrecy is when things about you are kept from you. Privacy is when you choose to whom you want to tell things about yourself”.

When a member of the church is accused of something that they clearly contest and want their case to be heard openly, denying them transparency is secrecy, not privacy. If a member of the church has two or thee witnesses and are denied the ability to have their grievance heard openly, this is secrecy, not privacy.

If church leaders follow this very simple formula requiring decisions of judgment to be only done with two or more witnesses, before two or more elders and before the congregation, Christ promises to be there, in their midst, helping them to make the decision (Mat 18:20). However, if a pastor decides to make a decision, without witnesses or without the council of other elders in secrecy, Christ most definitely will not be there in their midst.

Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, so that you may live and occupy the land that the LORD your God is giving you.
Deut 16:20 NRSV