Source: Michael J. Kruger. Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church (pp. 83-84).

---

While [Matthew 18:15-20] is an important passage for dealing with sins in a congregation, it isn’t exhaustive; it is not meant to address or solve every possible scenario. Unfortunately, sometimes it is treated like a universal cure that can be applied to every situation. Here are several important clarifications that prove to be especially relevant to abuse cases.

First, we must remember that Matthew 18 applies only to individuals who have been sinned against. It doesn’t just say, “If your brother sins,” but rather, “If your brother sins against you.” Thus, the passage doesn’t apply to every situation where one person might accuse another of sin. For example, if a member of a church staff has watched a pastor abuse other members of the staff, they are not obligated to go to that pastor directly. They can go straight to the elder board and report the bad behavior. In fact, 1 Timothy 5:19—“Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses”—implies that such charges against an elder can be brought directly to church leadership. Abusive pastors are understandably eager to block this sort of complaint from ever making it to the elder board. So the pastor’s defenders or the pastor himself will often rebuke the accuser by saying something like, “Why didn’t you go to the pastor first as Matthew 18 requires?” The problem is that Matthew 18 doesn’t apply in this case.

Notably, just a few verses later, Jesus gives a positive example of direct reporting when one person sins against another: the unmerciful servant mistreating someone who owes him money (Matt. 18:21–35). When the other servants notice his bad behavior, they don’t confront him directly. Instead, the text says, “They went and reported to their master all that had taken place” (v. 31). The master did not say, “Well, have you confronted the unmerciful servant yourself?” No, in this case, the rule does not apply.

Second, even if the accuser should have followed Matthew 18 but failed to do so, that does not mean the elder board or other governing body should overlook the sins of the abusive pastor. Some abusive pastors treat Matthew 18 like Miranda rights—if the technical procedures aren’t followed, then they are unable to be prosecuted for the crime. But failing to follow Matthew 18 does not give someone a “get out of jail free card.” The church should still hold the pastor accountable for his abusive actions even if the accuser did not follow the right steps. Sure, the accuser’s failure to follow Matthew 18 should be addressed too, but there should be no attempt to make the two issues equally problematic, as if failing to follow Matthew 18 is equivalent to being an abusive shepherd.

Third, even if the accuser follows Matthew 18 and the abusive pastor admits some wrongdoing, that does not necessarily mean the behavior should not be reported to the church’s leadership. Some pastors want their victims to follow Matthew 18 so they can “resolve” the issue through a quick apology and move on without anyone else knowing. In other words, abusive pastors sometimes use Matthew 18 as a method of silencing the victims and keeping their track record of conflict under wraps.

But some behaviors are indeed serious enough that a member is justified in reporting it to the larger leadership body, even if the abusive pastor seems apologetic about it. Certainly, this includes blatant criminal behaviors where law enforcement needs to be involved. But a case can be made that a member could justifiably report spiritually abusive behavior too: verbal attacks, berating or humiliating a church member, threatening to fire an employee, and more. Bringing such behavior to the attention of those who are responsible for the oversight of that pastor’s ministry does not violate Matthew 18.

Fourth, some abuse cases are so severe that making the victim confront the abusive pastor privately would be irresponsible. For instance, if a pastor sexually groped a female staff member, it would be, in the words of McKnight and Barringer, “inexcusable and psychologically violent” to insist she meet with the perpetrator one-on-one. Indeed, no godly husband, having found out what happened to his wife, would force her back into a room alone with such a person under the pretenses of Matthew 18. Yet in the case of Bill Hybels, the female victims were scolded for not following Matthew 18 and meeting with Hybels privately.

Could those same concerns apply to certain cases of spiritual abuse? I think so. Again, one could understand how a husband might (rightly) refuse to allow his wife to meet alone with a pastor who has verbally intimidated and attacked her. As Lisa Oakley, an expert in spiritual abuse, has argued regarding Matthew 18, “When we get to a situation of spiritual abuse, there’s a mismatch of power. And, actually, trying to get people together in a room at the beginning is not something you would do with other forms of abuse.”

While the lines aren’t always clear, and there are inevitable gray areas that can be debated, we should remember that Matthew 18 is not a catchall passage that applies to every conceivable scenario.

Here’s the point: If a pastor is accused of abusive behavior, be wary if procedural issues become the biggest concern of all those involved.