A Friend Accused

Imagine a childhood friend coming under accusation with few willing to defend him. This may surprise those who knew his prior trusted reputation. “Did I truly know him? Could the accusations be true?” These questions and others pierce our mind with panic. The friend’s name is Matthew—specifically Matthew 18:15-20. For many in childhood, Matthew 18 represented good relational health: “Go to the source. Talk face to face. Don’t gossip. Take courage in addressing sin. Escalate confrontation slowly, responsibly and relationally. Verify testimony with witnesses before proceeding.” Even for those unaware of its Old Testament investigative and dispute resolution background, Matthew 18 stood as a bulwark of interpersonal hygiene. Unfounded rumors, innuendo or gossip were often resolved with one simple question. “Have you followed Matthew 18?” 

What are the Charges?

Not so today. Modern culture increasingly views Matthew 18 with distrust, even potentially as a tool of abusers and of the powerful. Under this new hermeneutic of suspicion, following Matthew 18 step 1—talking face to face with the person you believe sinned against you—means potentially allowing the perpetrator to silence the aggrieved party. Or even worse, retraumatizing the victim by expecting them to first speak with their oppressor. Advancing to Matthew 18 step 2—go and speak to the person with one or two witnesses “that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses (v.16)”—risks not believing the victim and violating the modern demand for transparency. After all, the one or two witnesses could themselves be powerful enablers of abuse who seek to bury the truth and deserve no trust. 

Recognizing Exceptions

This cultural shift may cause whiplash, especially for Christians accustomed to Matthew 18 having the final procedural word in most Christian conflict. In fairness life is complex and Matthew 18 is not a one-size-fits-all passage, which is why we have the entire canon of Scripture. Abused children can’t confront their parents. A battered wife shouldn’t confront her husband alone. Not every allegation of misconduct has witnesses. Abusers can and have wrongfully used Matthew 18 to silence victims. As Michael Kruger observes in The Bully Pulpit, “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.” Likewise, Jesus’ parable of the Unforgiving Servant contains a clear example of reporting egregious behavior directly to the Master. “When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place” (Mathew 18:31). 

But abusus non tollit usum— “abuse does not negate proper use.” Or to state this principle as a question: Is there any circumstance in which Matthew 18 still applies today? Does any of the old ethical and relational wisdom associated with Matthew 18 still hold? Are there any potential pitfalls to viewing Matthew 18 as unworkable in modern culture?  Is our new understanding of Matthew 18’s danger the work of the Holy Spirit or of the spirit of the age? If proponents of Matthew 18’s modern irrelevance cannot conceive of any “proper use” for Jesus’ words today, whose Lordship are we truly serving and what other words of Jesus may we find obsolete? 

Matthew 18’s Old Testament Background

As people who “believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written” (Jerusalem Declaration, 2008), we should reflect on the Old Testament background to Matthew 18:15-20, namely Deuteronomy 19:15-19. Moses instructs Israel:

A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Jesus maintains both continuity and discontinuity with Moses. The requirement of two or three witnesses continues. The insistence that “charges be established” (Matthew 18:16 uses the same Greek words as the Septuagint in Deuteronomy 19:15) remains. Enacting righteous judgment against unrepentant sin or false accusation also continues in the New Testament. 

What of discontinuity? On initial inspection, “the church” replaces Old Testament priests and judges at the final trial. And excommunication (“let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector”) supersedes capital punishment.  

Looking closer, Jesus shifts the emphasis of Deuteronomy 19 in other significant ways. 1.) Echoing Matthew 5:25 (“come to terms quickly with your accuser”), Jesus accentuates the importance of “winning your brother” (rather than condemning him) and resolving the dispute relationally at the earliest possible stage. 2.) In keeping with his merciful nature, Jesus also introduces more stages for conversation, investigation, repentance or judgment, always with the hope of restoration. 3.) Most significantly Jesus insists on personalization between disputing parties as the conflict begins and, if necessary, incrementally escalates. Surely Jesus knows it is difficult to speak face to face with an offender. Yet he says, “go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother” (v. 15). We will return to themes of depersonalization and re-personalization below.

Jesus’ Trial: An Example of Matthew 18’s Neglect

Does the New Testament provide an example of the Deuteronomy 19 and Matthew 18 dispute protocol in action? In fact, it does. Mark 14:55-60 records a trial scene where witnesses make accusations and a court considers discipline:

Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet even about this their testimony did not agree.  And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?”

From the scene of Jesus’ trial, we observe the following: 1.) The chief priests and whole council are seeking to follow Old Testament law, recorded in Deuteronomy 19:15-19 and reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-20, requiring two or more witnesses to achieve conviction.  2.) The lack of agreement in witness testimony against Jesus is materially significant and highlighted twice by Mark in verses 56 and 59 (“their testimony did not agree”).  3.) The evil nature of Jesus’ crucifixion is manifested, in part, by the neglect of faithfully obeying Deuteronomy 19 and Matthew 18. Jesus was crucified when Matthew 18 was abandoned.  Thus, through the negative example of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion, multiple gospel writers uphold the importance and normativity of Matthew 18.

Are We Smarter Than Jesus?

While legitimate exceptions to Matthew 18 exist, which should be taken seriously, abandoning Matthew 18 as unwise and unworkable for modern culture also poses real danger for the church today. Not every accusation or complaint should be investigated using the depersonalized possibility-of-abuse protocol. Doing so creates a de facto end-run around Matthew 18, significantly reduces the possibility of reconciliation (or “winning your brother” as Jesus instructs), immediately impairs trust regardless of the accusation’s merit, and openness the door wide for frivolous or false accusations to cause extensive damage, while clergy and vestries wait defenseless for months or years as “the process unfolds.” 

Our culture is already rife with de-personalized social media accusations, the very opposite of Jesus’ words in Matthew 18. Even our highest church court for the trial of a bishop had to instruct disputing parties on July 6, 2026, as follows:

Good Faith Conferral. 

For the purposes of compliance with the good faith conferral requirement set forth above, the parties are instructed that a single e-mail exchange with opposing counsel shall not (underline original) constitute a good faith effort. The parties are instructed to confer either telephonically or by video conference.

Discovery Disputes. 

Counsel must actually confer and engage in reasonable compromise in a genuine effort to resolve their discovery disputes before seeking the Court’s intervention. If, after conferring, the parties are unable to resolve their discovery dispute without Court intervention, they shall follow the procedure set forth above.

And according to Anglican Ink on July 7, 2026, the home parish of the defendant discovered through a national press release they were accused of intimidating witnesses. A letter from the Rector and Senior Warden of St. Andrew’s to their parish addressed the accusation as follows:

You may have read or heard that the Court for the Trial of a Bishop publicly reported that it received complaints from the Prosecution “about the lack of cooperation from the Archbishop’s home parish and that witnesses are afraid to come forward” in their June 30, 2026 “Procedural Update and Statement of the Court.” We understand this may have caused concern, and we want to offer some clarity.

These were complaints reported by the Prosecution—not findings made by the Court itself—and we do not believe they accurately reflect the ways our leadership has cooperated throughout this process, with the involvement of the Rector, Senior Warden, COO, and Vestry. We were disappointed that the Court did not reach out to us directly before including such language in a public statement. 

Whatever the merits and conclusion of the case, one thing is clear. Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:15-20 are not the governing protocol. In prior years, basic instructions on “good faith conferral” and appeals to “reach out to us directly” would be synonymous with Matthew 18. Not so today.

Toward Blessings and Solutions

What effect would Matthew 18’s insistence on re-personalization during conflict have on the church today? 

• Clergy, vestries, laity and diocese would understand and embrace Jesus’ democratized re-appropriation of Deuteronomy 19:15-19 and his empowerment of the church in Matthew 18:15-20 to fulfill its God-given mandate of personalized discernment, repentance, reconciliation and justice. 
• The church would develop a reputation for courage, care, honesty and personal communication, causing our witness to shine brightly in a depersonalized world. 
• At the beginning of each accusation and investigation process, leaders would ask, “Have you personally spoken to the person you are accusing? What was the result?  If not, why not? Would you be willing to speak to that person with help from someone in authority?” 
• Understandable exceptions would exist to Jesus’ insistence on personalization in Matthew 18. But an investigative protocol of personalization would be the default, unless compelling evidence existed to proceed with a depersonalized investigative protocol. 
• The aggrieved party who believes their brother (or sister) has sinned against them, would be given the hard but dignifying opportunity (with understandable exceptions) to obey the words of Jesus and speak to the person they are accusing face to face or with help from spiritually mature witnesses. 
• A cultural sea change would occur in how attorneys, courts, churches and clergy function. Wherever possible they would prioritize re-personalization over depersonalization. 

Conclusion and Call

In a world suffering from rampant depersonalization, which will only accelerate with the onset of ubiquitous AI, Matthew 18:15-20 insists on something our culture (and increasingly our church) has lost—personalization, even re-personalization amid conflict. Speaking one on one, seeking help toward repentance and / or reconciliation from trusted witnesses, escalating conflict incrementally only based on established charges; these are not intrinsic “conflicts of interest, improper communications or abuses of power.” They are the default words of Jesus, rooted in Old Testament law, for all conflict (including his own crucifixion), unless a clear and compelling case can be made to the contrary.