fbpx
Articles

How should churches handle reports of abuse?

Matthew 18 in a #MeToo age

/
July 3, 2019

Does Jesus give Christians the authority to handle criminal offenses and accusations in the church without going to the governing authorities? Some have understood Matthew 18:15-20 as teaching that the church can adjudicate crimes like sexual abuse by means of church discipline and interpersonal reconciliation. Such an understanding of Jesus’ instruction, however, is a distortion and misunderstanding of the Bible’s teaching regarding the authority of the church and the authority of the state.

Matthew 18:15-20 records Jesus’ instruction to his disciples regarding discipline in the church. Jesus says,

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

While in the past some believers have either misunderstood or largely ignored this passage, it has started to resurface in the age of the #MeToo movement. Tragically, it appears that some people are attempting to use Matthew 18 as a guide for addressing issues of sexual abuse in the church. Such an application of this passage cannot go unchallenged.

Living under two authorities 

While Jesus’ instruction to his disciples would undoubtedly apply to matters of church discipline, the church must never forget that as long as Christ tarries and the Church remains on earth, the church is living in two overlapping realms of God-ordained authority. In Matthew 18, Jesus was not addressing criminal offenses. As the Creator and Sustainer of all things (Heb. 1:1-3), Jesus was well aware of the vital role that governing authorities must play in dealing with criminal evils. Such governing authorities, as we will see in Romans 13, were his idea. If we continue to read through the Gospel of Matthew, we will find Jesus explicitly affirming the limited but necessary authority of the state.

Consider Matthew 22:15-22, where Jesus tells the Pharisees that certain things “belong to Caesar, while other things belong to God.” The Pharisees, who had a problem with the authority of Rome, were attempting to “entangle Jesus in His words.” The Pharisees wondered if Jesus would affirm a radical view regarding taxes paid to Rome. They believed that many of Jesus’ followers were Jewish Zealots who were anticipating the revelation of his Messianic rule, which would result in the overthrow of Rome. They hoped to catch Jesus teaching that his role and rule as Messiah would undermine the authority of Rome in the life of his disciples. However, Jesus did not affirm an overrealized idea about his rule as the true king of Israel. In fact, when Jesus speaks of his own Kingdom in John 18, he does not place it in opposition to the kingdom of man. Instead, Jesus speaks of the transcendence of his Kingdom, which will “bear witness to the truth” in the context of the Roman Empire.

While the Kingdom of Christ should certainly orient and direct a disciple’s life in the kingdom of man, unless it is at odds with the Christ’s Kingdom, disciples are obligated to live under the authority of the earthly authorities as an expression of their submission to the ultimate authority of Christ. Scripture is clear that God has delegated a limited authority to governments for punishing evil and rewarding good (1 Pet. 2:13-14). Accordingly, the church must recognize that they have no more authority to adjudicate an accusation of murder within the church than they do for an accusation of sexual abuse. While the church must discipline members according to the pattern found in Matthew 18, there may be times when crimes have been committed, and God has ordained the state (not the church) as the institution entrusted with the authority to handle such matters.

What does this mean? 

What does this mean for life in a #MeToo age? While Matthew 18 certainly provides guidelines for Christian reconciliation and discipline in the context of the church, we do not simply live in the context of the church. We also live as citizens of a state that God has granted authority for the good of all people. In fact, the apostle Paul viewed a properly functioning state as an ideal for which Christians should pray (1 Tim. 2:2). We must recognize that we live in the context of and under the authority of a government that God has tasked with investigating and punishing evildoers. If such evildoers turn to Christ for salvation, while they have been forgiven and possess eternal life now and for the world to come, they must still face the consequences of their crimes in this life. 

Such a recognition of the consequences of their crime is also a part of what it means to repent and trust in Christ. Salvation and reconciliation in the church does not exempt a person from the societal and legal consequences of their crimes in the world. Furthermore, it is not the church’s responsibility to investigate and determine the best course of action on a matter that has violated the laws of the state. If the laws of the land are just (punishing evil and rewarding good) and do not require the church to violate the law of God (requiring us to abandon our love for God and our neighbor), then the church is obligated by Christ himself to render unto Caesar not only the taxes but the jurisdiction that belongs to the state. The state, not the saints, bear the sword against evildoers. For the state is “God’s servant for your good.”

In a #MeToo age, the church should be grateful for governments that will investigate and punish evil while preserving and rewarding those who do good. For when a government functions in this manner, it is echoing the righteousness and justice of God.

Casey B. Hough

Casey B. Hough (Ph.D., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary) serves as lead pastor at Copperfield Church in Houston, Texas, and assistant professor of biblical interpretation at a Luther Rice College and Seminary. Casey and his wife, Hannah, have three sons and two daughters. For more ministry resources from Casey, visit his … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24