Confronting Public Endorsements: A Matthew 18 Fallacy

If you have stayed connected to this blog you have seen that I have responded to articles written by high profile pastors, Christian leaders, and academicians in regards to their endorsements of Donald Trump. There has been a continual parade of well-known and influential leaders making the case for the Church to support Donald Trump because he is less of a problem than Hillary Clinton and the only viable alternative. As you are aware from my writings I find that problematic for the Church on the basis of obedience to God’s Word and the presumption of pragmatism. If you read some of the past threads and comments, the discussion can get rowdy. My problem is not so much the passion of the discussion or the rationale that is offered as a defense for Trump, but rather the instant rebuke that is often given to me for daring to respond and critique these leaders endorsements.

Invariably I am told that I have violated The Lord’s words in Matthew 18:15-17, which say,

“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.”

Most specifically, if I am to critique this Christian leader’s views then he deserves a private meeting to discuss it and I suppose if it is irreconcilable then to follow the path these verses outline. Sounds spiritually solid at first glance, but there are a couple of problems with that application in this context.

1. A difference of opinion on candidates or the biblical approach to an election process does not mean anyone has “sinned” against the other. This election cycle has exposed a gap in the understanding of many Christians as to how their faith and the Bible apply to the way they vote. There has been a standard operating procedure in these matters for decades as Christians generally agreed that the choosing of a less “flawed” candidate who was sympathetic to their values was better than a more greatly flawed candidate who was unsympathetic. This mindset is shifting because we can now evaluate what the fruit of that strategy has been. The mindset is also shifting because the Bible has more to say about this then perhaps we have understood in times past. This passionate discussion is the collision of the old pragmatic paradigm and the new biblical paradigm in the intersection of election 2016. This is not “sinning” against one another. I submit it is the clash of “iron sharpening iron”.

2. National Christian leaders have influence far beyond their local ministries and churches. Nothing wrong with this, in fact, it is their right of free speech that allows them to have an opinion and let people know what it is. They influence many believers in various churches all over the country because of their social media presence and celebrity. Again, there is absolutely no problem with any of this. However, because of that influence and celebrity they can circumvent every pastor in America who may see it differently and influence their parishioners in a way that does not conform to their doctrine or discipling. No celebrity pastor or Christian leader ever asks for permission to influence people, they just do it. Again, it’s their right to do that. That being said, neither they nor their followers should cry foul or suggest some Matthew 18 violation when another pastor uses the same public forum the celebrity leader used to suggest they may be wrong. This is a public discussion being disseminated through influence. The celebrity leader does not have a freedom which is withheld from others. That would be a type of tyranny. If any pastor wants to influence the discussion, I say let them jump in; but don’t be thin-skinned when others, in a gracious spirit, evaluate it with a biblical worldview.

3. I have always wondered in this day of social media and Twitter how a real violation of Matthew 18 would play out. A minister of influence could conceivably harm the greater body of Christ or an individual in some form or fashion (after all, no one is perfect, right?). With his 500k Twitter followers how do these people walk out Matthew 18? Do they try and set up a personal meeting? (As if that has a chance) Do they send a personal email and wait for a response? (As if that has a chance) Exactly how does a wounded or offended party break through the insulation of the ministry to this national leader to address the offense? Don’t misunderstand, I am not trying to avoid Matthew 18 or circumvent it, but how exactly is that done? You see, practically speaking, it is virtually impossible to confront a national leader, so the application of Matthew 18 becomes a convenient silencing tool of legitimate dissent because of the layers of insulation many of these leaders have around them. Hey, I understand some of that is legitimate because this world has plenty of goof-balls, but a high profile leader cannot expect to publicly influence without some legitimate critique offered from others.

4. This verse also seems to address those offenses that arise to the level of excommunication. This doesn’t appear to be about petty differences of opinion, but egregious acts. Most banter I have seen (minus the epithets some throw around) is wrestling with the question, “What does the Bible say about a voting principle?” That is not an egregious sin to debate one another. In fact, it may be an important discussion to clarify just how committed we are to a comprehensive, biblical worldview.

As I conclude, I welcome the passionate debate from both sides. While I disagree with those supporting Trump (and I do not support Hillary either), I think this discussion is enlightening to many believers who simply go with the pragmatic flow and have never wrestled with how the Bible speaks to these election issues. So, don’t drop the Matthew 18 on me and expect me to recant from biblical worldview. This election cycle has revealed much about the Church and it has started a great conversation in the Church.
‭‭