Christian Home Learning

First, I want to apologize in advance for the length of this entry. It has to be as long as it is, to address the topic. I have however, stayed as close to point as possible. This is something that affects every single Christian on the internet, so I thought it was important, to be thorough.

When I named this blog what I did, I did that in part, because we ('net users) are in fact, a reflection of the times. The very fact that you're reading these very words, proves that you are reflecting the times we live in. The fact that I'm writing these words, not with a pen, but a keyboard, and not on parchment, but into a blog editor, also proves that I am as well, reflecting the times.

In many ways, modern technology allowing us to communicate this way, is really no issue at all. In many ways it's actually a benefit, and even makes our lives a little easier. (consider the quick action that took place as a result of electronic communication, after Katrina). In some ways however, the lines have been blurred, and many of us have bought into an idea that is simply not supported anywhere, in Scripture.

What idea is this? The idea that the community of believers online, is somehow "church". The idea that the internet can actually replace the local church, your pastor's authority, and face to face fellowship, worship, and study. In part, I believe this idea stems from those who are in rebellion in some degree, and choose the 'net over face to face fellowship & submission to a local church assembly. I know that sounds harsh, but in my almost 13 years of being involved in online communications, I've watched this trend, and watched it grow. Not only grow, but gain more and more acceptance by even those who have what most of us would consider solid theology. In the vast majority of situations, the people behind the idea that the 'net either is church, or can be church, are people that have major issues with submission, and have a mile long list of excuses as to why they are not in a local church, themselves.

They seek to defend their position, and they seek support and validation for it. And they're finding it, in some of the most unlikely places.

One of the places they find it, is with those who promote the idea of a universal, invisible church. Now please read this carefully, I don't want to mislead anyone by what I'm saying here. While I do agree that the family of God can be found in every far flung corner of the earth (various denoms, villages, communities, tribes and tongues), and while I do understand that the word "church" used to describe us, simply means "the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth", I can't agree that we are an "invisible" church. It doesn't make sense to me, and as much as I've studied it, it still doesn't make sense to me, especially considering the 115 uses of the word ekklesia in the NT, almost exhaustively refer to a local, physical gathering of believers.

That's really a side issue, however. I don't pretend to be an expert on the teaching of ekklesia, but I certainly do see how this teaching (in part) has contributed to the idea that certain passages and verses of Scripture, are taken out of context in an effort to apply to our "online conduct".

One of the places it's often used, is in the area of women in leadership, or authority, online. There are many who will use the instruction in 1Timothy, as a battering ram when a woman is a moderator in a chat room, or an admin at a forum. Or, a blogger. It's the same thing every time... "how dare you teach/delete/ban/suspend me, you're a woman, and the Bible says you cannot have authority over me!". Being online for the last 13 years, I've seen this more times than I can count. I've gone into this in more detail in Women of Faith Online.

Another passage of Scripture that is also taken out of context, is the "dispute" passage of Matthew 18:15-17. Being a moderator/admin in many different online theology chat formats over the years, I've seen my share of disputes, arguments, slander, malice, and all those other fun things that make "Christian chat" so obnoxious, at times. If you've ever ventured into a Christian chat room, you've likely seen exactly what I just referred to.

While the application of the Matthew passage certainly appears as if it would "work" online, it actually doesn't. Nor can it, because of the very nature of the internet, coupled with the intended application of the passage itself.

In the atmosphere of the internet, you have all sorts of people, who may or may not be, or may or may not truly believe, what they put forth. You might have an online fellowship with someone who appears to be a young woman believer, who is in reality, an old man (or a young man) who is disturbed, unstable, with serious psychological disorders just looking for a cheap thrill. Sound extreme? Believe me, it's not - it happens far more often than people realize. While not desiring to sound paranoid, the fact is, you really do not know (like you would face to face) who you're dealing with, online. One friend of mine suggested that Christian chats & Christian communities online, actually attract people like this, because they are likely looking for acceptance, and/or validation. Another friend once asked "why is it that people with bi-polar, who refuse to take their meds, are ALWAYS in Christian circles, online?". It's very, very common.

Some years ago I did some work with those behind the drafting of the long forgotten (or never heard of) "Communications Decency Act". This legislation went through many revisions, and alterations before new federal laws were put into place, as a result of online communications. Many of those involved in that piece of legislation (at the time I worked with them, between 1993 and 1996) were believers, who struggled with these very issues of conduct, online. These were believers in various levels of law enforcement (state, local and federal), various political persuasions and public office, and even a few federal judges, and prosecutors. All of us, working in whatever capacity we were able to at the time, were concerned not only with conduct from the criminal element that this legislation was originally drafted to address, but also conduct of believers, seeking the refuge of the anonymous nature of the internet. Because there were so many believers working on this, this issue came up time and time again, and was discussed from a wide variety of angles. Matthew 18 was in fact, discussed repeatedly.

Technology, and our laws pertaining to it, have changed drastically since then. People, on the other hand, have not.

Recently when my friend Vivian visited me, I jokingly put together a series of pics from our visit, that portrayed a mock-up from a movie called The Chatters of the Corn. I did that, to poke fun at the idea that "everyone you meet on the internet is a potential axe murderer!". Vivian and I first met online in a Christian community, and only recently had the pleasure of meeting face to face. I can assure you, neither one of us, is an exe murderer.

The point is, the internet actually feeds anonymity, and deception. If you're a person that struggles with being honest, the 'net is the perfect place for you to "hide".

Now please understand this: I certainly don't believe that the majority of people online are like this, obviously, but the fact is, many of them are - and you cannot possibly know which ones. You can't see them, you don't fellowship with them face to face, you never speak to them (audibly) you know virtually nothing about their lives (except for what they tell you), and they are, for all intents and purposes, strangers to you. You likely don't even know where they live, where they go to church, IF they go to church, or what kind of home environment they have. Or... if any of what you think you know about them, is actually true, or something they've made up. That's the reality of the 'net.

So with all that said, let's look at the 'dispute' passage of Matthew 18 to see why it doesn't work, online.

First, context. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, CONTEXT IS CRITICAL, and should never be overlooked. Look at verses 1 and 2:

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them

I've highlighted the key phrases that point out the context: face to face. Jesus was physically present with the disciples, teaching them. They were physically present, learning. This is important to the whole application of the rest of the chapter. While I do agree that many passages and verses can have varied application, sometimes they simply cannot, and I do believe this is one of those cases.

In verses 3 through 14 Jesus teaches about offenses toward "the little ones" (He uses a child as the example of a converted believer, v. 3, and how we ought to never conduct ourselves in a way that would be offensive (entice them to sin) to them, or cause them to stumble in their faith, or fall away from truth. Dire warning is given here about how important this is: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (v.6)

Starting in verse 15 He turns it around, "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother."

Let's look at what Jesus just said there. If a fellow believer sins against you, go and tell him privately. If he considers and receives what you're saying, you've won him over to a right fellowship with Christ, and with you.

The question is, can this be done, online? The answer is, yes and no. While you can certainly make the effort to go to your brother, and discuss this issue with him, in private, it may not be as private as you thought. Your "brother" may have an agenda that you have no knowledge of, and may use your words against you. It happens. You also do not know (because of the nature of the 'net) if you're really speaking with him privately, or not. This is where the context of this verse is so important. Jesus was talking about literally, and physically, getting up off your chair, or couch, or horse, and going face to face to your brother, just the 2 of you, alone, and discussing the issue between you, in an effort to resolve it and restore your fellowship with one another, and the offender's right fellowship with the Lord.

While this doesn't necessarily give you liberty to NOT make the attempt to discuss matters in private, it does throw a monkey wrench into the mix, since electronic communication is not exactly private, nor is it face to face discussion. Much is lost, in text only. Your brother cannot see your face, he cannot know how he's hurt you, or the eagerness in your tone of voice, to reconcile the matter. Likewise, you cannot see his face, or hear his voice, or reach out to him if he expresses his repentance, and sorrow, and wants to shake your hand, or embrace you, or pray together over the matter. So much is lost, in simple text, when it comes to a matter like this. This first instruction in the "dispute" passage was clearly meant to be face to face contact, in an effort to resolve a rift between brothers in the faith.

Moving on to the next verse: "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established" v.16

Jesus says if your brother refuses to hear you, refusing to receive what you have to say, and acknowledge his sin against you, then you go back with witnesses, and try again. Both of you, laying your cards on the table in the presence (physical) of witnesses that know what has happened, in an effort to reconcile the sin your brother has perpetrated against you.

Again, how does this work, online? In my experience, it's VERY rare that it ever does, when attempted. Why? First of all, lines are drawn in the sand, and if your brother knows (or suspects) you're including others in your communication to him, he'll include others in his defense of himself. He said, she said, taking sides and digging in heels - usually via cc's and bcc's in email, or on forums, chat rooms and even blogs. Then before you know it, the whole mess becomes the controversy of the week, and all sorts of people are drawn in, on one side or the other. And the ever popular defense from both sides is repeated continuously "yes, but remember there are always two sides to a story!".

This instruction was never meant, to take place via fiber optics. It was meant to transpire face to face, where resolution was the goal. Again, the problem with communication online is what is lost, as I mentioned in the first verse. None of those things are present or accounted for, with online communication. It's almost like talking to only a part of a person, since so much of what makes up a good, and fruitful conversation, is missing from this kind of interaction.

Verse 17. This is where it all falls apart, online.

"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

Jesus is quite clear here, what the next step is. If you've already tried one on one, face to face, and that didn't resolve anything, take witnesses and make another effort at resolving the issue. If you've done that too, and it didn't work, the next step is to go to the church, and explain the whole thing to them. Let's stop here and see what Jesus meant by "the church".

The word ekklesia is used here, and I believe Jesus was referring to those who have the responsibility over you, in your local physical assembly. The elders, and your pastor. (Heb 13:7, 1Th 5:12, for a couple of quick references).

It is not expressly stated, but it's at least inferred, that the brother that has sinned against you is also under the authority of the same pastor and elders, considering the way the verse is worded "but if he neglect to hear the church" (referring to the same church you've gone to, your own). Even if Jesus was not referring to your own pastor and elders (as having authority over the sinning brother), He was indeed saying that once you've gone to them "but if he neglect to hear the church" and that still doesn't work, then the final step is to consider him in your thoughts as a heathen, and a publican.

This is extreme, since a heathen is ethnikos... "alien to the worship of the true God" and a publican is a tax collector, reviled by believer and unbeliever alike, due to their harsh ways, fraud, greed, and deceptive practices that they employed to do their job.

In other words, if you've made every effort according to this passage to reconcile your brother to you, and he resists all efforts, by you, your witnesses, your church... you are to no longer consider him a brother, but as an alien to the faith.

Now with that established, how does this work, online?

In a nutshell, it does not work. It's not even possible, for it to work. Picture this conversation with your pastor:

You: pastor, billy3toes sinned against me, can you email him for me, I've already tried talking to him privately, even took witnesses, but all he did was throw up a blog to slander me

Your pastor: what? Billy who? why is Billy vomiting blogs? has he seen a medical professional, this sounds serious...

Joking aside, how do you explain something like this to your pastor, especially if your pastor does not use the 'net and has very little knowledge of how it all works? And once you do explain it, what is he supposed to do, gather the elders and send a joint email to the offending brother, requesting that he see things from your perspective, and repent?

Just how realistic is this? In truth, it's not a realistic scenario at all. In many cases, the offending brother has already dug in, and if contacted by your pastor at all, likely won't even believe the email IS from your pastor, and even if he does, certainly doesn't submit himself to the authority OF your pastor, and heed his direction and instruction.

The instruction given in Matthew 18:17 was in reference to an in person situation, a face to face, sit down, confrontation of the issue at hand, not an email, not a chat room, or a voice conference online.

Now I suspect someone out there, has an example in real life, of the instruction given in Matthew 18, and having used it ONLINE, and it working. That's great, if the example actually exists, but it would certainly be the exception to the rule, and not at all common. I'ver tried hard to remember back over the last 13 years of any example of this instruction followed, and it working in a positive way, and I cannot think of 1 incident.

The primary reason this doesn't apply, and doesn't and can't work as intended in this passage, is because it was meant to be employed face to face, within your local, physical environment, and then within your local, physical church. Without that in the equation - it's missing a primary element that is critical in human contact, critical for it to be fruitful and effective: the physical!

With all that said, I certainly do advocate making every effort to reconcile differences between believers, online. There's no excuse not to, if at all possible. But to make the statement that Matthew 18 can be used online, is to be neglectful of the whole context of the passage itself.

There are ways to achieve reconciliation with fellow believers online, however. Going to them one on one, privately, in email or private messaging, is one way. Apologizing if you need to, forigivng when you need to, and/or being very particular in your message if it is them, who has offended you. If they do receive what you have to say, then praise God for the resolution. Unfortunately, it's not always that easy, and it doesn't always work out this way. This is the nature of online communication, unfortunately. Sometimes, you just have to be content with the effort you have made, then let it go, and leave it with the Lord.

I certainly don't pretend to be an authority on these matters, I can only share what I have learned myself, and remain open to correction, and further learning. I realize that subjective experience like what I've just shared, is not "authoritative", but in many ways these kind of experiences only confirm what the text of Scripture already states.

In the past 13 years of being online, I have repeatedly seen folks try to use Matthew 18 to resolve issues, and not once, in all those years, have I ever heard of it being followed to the letter, and it working, as hoped. Like I said, it doesn't work in this medium because it wasn't taught to be employed, in this medium.

Scripture does address our conduct, and the standard we are to strive for. This addresses any situtation, online, offline, with friends, family, the lost, the household of faith, etc. Being a believer, means the Holy Spirit is the guide of our conscience, and He will convict us if we step to the left, or to the right, and deviate from the conduct that Christ has called us to. However, we need to be very careful when we take a verse of passage of text out of context, and make an effort to apply it to a situation where it was never meant, to apply.

I decided to write about this today, since someone suggested to me in the comments of another thread, that Matthew 18 is the route for online disputes. When I disagreed, they wanted to know why. I hope this helps folks understand why I disagree that this is a viable course of action, in matters of "online disputes among believers".

SDG,
Carla

(Another crosspost)