Resolving Disputes In the Church

Whenever people congregate together for any length of time, disputes arise. Whether the congregation is religious, political or social, it is a law of human nature that different people will want to do things in different ways. In the realm of religion and politics this is especially true, for groups of these types operate under a set of principles or beliefs in addition to rules of business conduct. Of course YHVH knew all this before He even created us, and has made provisions for resolving those disputes which naturally arise within the Body of Messiah.

    Among the children of Israel, disputes were initially resolved by Moses himself However this method proved to be too burdensome, so a system of elders and judges was established (Exodus 18). All disputants were expected to abide by the decisions laid down by this tribal court system, with Moses serving as the ‘Supreme Court.’
    Another form of decision making involved the High Priest taking problems to HaShem through the use of the Urim and the Thummim. It is believed this method was only available to top ranking priests, judges and kings.
    Later down the road, disputes were resolved through a synagogue court system called the Beit Din (Bait Deen) or ‘House of Judgment.’ These courts were first established when the synagogue system was set up, and were based on the judicial system established during Moses’ time. Most historians believe this judicial system began during the time of Ezra, after the second Temple had been rebuilt. Within this system, membership on a local Beit Din consisted primarily of Scribes and Pharisees, since they were the ones in charge of the Synagogues. However, The Great Sanhedrin (the highest court in the land) was more heavily weighted in favor of the Saducees (mostly Priests and Levites). This being the case, any controversial rulings at the local level were sure to be struck down by the Saducees when presented before the higher level Sanhedrin.
    The Beit Din court system was considered by all Jews to be the legacy of the elder and judge system of Moses’ day. Therefore, the Scribes and Pharisees of Yeshua’s time were considered to be sitting "in Moses’ seat" for judgment at the local level. However, they were never allowed to make any ruling that was contrary to the Torah, but rather (like our courts which are based on the Constitution) they were required to interpret the Torah as it related to specific situations.
    It is interesting to note that Yeshua did not take issue with the Beit Din system. In fact, He gave His support to it:

With this information as background let us now proceed to look at the instructions that Yeshua gave to His disciples concerning how to resolve the disputes that were bound to arise within the Believing congregations. These instructions are well know to most Believers and are found in Matthew chapter 18 and I Corinthians chapter 6.

In Matthew chapter 18, our Saviour begins by telling us that the first priority of a good shepherd is to make sure that he does not lose any of his sheep. This is important in light of what follows, for Yeshua is telling us that when disputes arise in the Church they must be handled in a way that will insure, to the greatest degree possible, that none be lost. This is the perfect goal towards which all of us should strive.

As we proceed through the next few verses please keep well in mind the principle just quoted; "...it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."

The very first thing to be understood is that the offense committed by the offending brother must constitute sin and it must be a sin that has been committed against the accuser personally. This means that every Believer must know the Torah well enough to be able to properly identify sin. Hurt feelings, unfriendliness, lack of consideration, disliking someone’s personality, and general disagreements are not sin.

Sometimes Matthew 18 is used as a club, by individuals or organizations, in order to drum out people whom they do not like, or with whom they disagree concerning certain doctrinal positions. This is not the purpose of this passage, and it should never be used in this manner.

    True heresy is a sin against the entire body, for it can threaten the very belief faith, and ultimately, the salvation of members in the body who might fall prey to the false teaching. But who is qualified to define heresy?
    The dictionary definition of heresy is: "An opinion or doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member." (The American heritage Dictionary, pub. by Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, 1992.)
    Does the Roman Catholic Church establish doctrine for all Believers? The Orthodox and Protestant churches would all give a resounding "No!"
    Many Protestant Believers would say that heresy is when one holds a doctrine at variance with established Evangelical beliefs. Meanwhile, small sects would likely say that heresy is when anyone disagrees with their particular views on the Bible.
    We would like to offer another definition of heresy, that is; "An opinion or doctrine at variance with the Holy Scriptures."
    Of course, now we have a problem. Who is going to be the one to define exactly what the Scriptures mean on any single issue? In a large church organization it is easy. They merely convene a committee of theologians (from their own denomination) and that committee decides the doctrines for that particular church.
    But in small, individually organized local congregations the problem is much greater. There is probably no one member present who is qualified to define all of the doctrines for that particular congregation. Besides, once the doctrines, (‘Statement of Beliefs’) are written down, then what happens when some members of the congregation come to realize that some of the stated points are not in line with Scripture? That’s when trouble really begins to brew.
    In the end, every individual must either place himself under the umbrella of a denomination’s doctrinal platform, or decide to stick by what he or she believes the Scriptures say.
    Now, a person in this latter position must be very careful before pointing an accusing finger against the supposed ‘heresy’ of another member within their group. Often times, what passes for heresy in the minds of some is merely a difference of opinion on a non-salvational issue. Once a Believer begins judging another persons faith, they are stepping onto very soft ground, for it is written:

This scripture tells us that if a Believer falsely accuses another of being a heretic, and does not repent, they will find that same degree of harsh judgment which they brought against their brother, now brought against them.
In reality, many so-called "heresy" issues are really just differences of opinion on matters that have nothing to do with salvation. However, the apostle Peter did warn the church:

Where it really becomes serious is when a false doctrine ("an opinion or doctrine at variance with the Holy Scriptures") causes a person to lose faith in the existence of the Creator God, or in their Saviour, Yeshua HaMashiach. That, in my opinion, is true heresy.

If your brother hears what you have to say, and agrees that he did sin against you, and asks forgiveness for his sin against you, and makes restitution if that is necessary, then you, as a brother in Messiah must forgive him. If he sins against you again, and asks forgiveness a second time, you must forgive him again, flow many times must you forgive him? Yeshua said:

If you ever decide to call a ‘Matthew 18’ on someone, be prepared to forgive. Especially if you do it correctly and in love.

What if a Believer becomes aware of a sin that has been committed against a brother or sister, and they are not taking appropriate action? Perhaps the offended person is weak and is not sure if they should take action, or they "just don’t want to cause any trouble." What if the sinner is a leader in the congregation? Some members of the ‘flock’ may be too intimidated to bring a charge against a ‘minister.’ However, it must also be remembered that an accusation against a minister needs corroboration.

These can be very delicate situations. However, standing by and doing nothing is harmful to both the sinner as well as the observer; for now the sinner has been enabled to continue in sin. Meanwhile, the silent observer has become an ally with sin.
This is a situation where wise counsel may need to be sought before action is taken. However, one other important principle needs to be brought to our attention at this point. When a person sins against one member of the body, they sin against the entire body!

Therefore, if a Believer becomes aware of a sin that has been committed against another brother or sister, they do have the right to become involved. But they must use great wisdom and common sense. If the perpetrator is someone the Believer does not like, they need to be especially careful--for they may actually be operating from a position of revenge, which would be wrong. Motives must always be pure.
Another case in point. What about a person who is committing a sin but it does not involve other members of the congregation? This was the situation the Corinthians found themselves in when Paul wrote his first epistle to them.

The fact of the matter was that this man had indeed sinned against the entire congregation by bringing shame upon them by his illicit sexual relationship with his stepmother. Even worse was the shame he brought upon our Husband, Yeshua HaMashiach. Quick and decisive action was called for in this situation.

    So then, if your brother does not agree with you but believes that you are accusing him falsely, you are to take one or two other Believers, whom you know to be sincere and just people, to meet with him. However, be prepared to have your brother also bring one or two fellow Believers as his personal witnesses.
    What follows is what we might call, in today’s legal terms, a deposition. Each person has an opportunity to state what they perceive to be the facts in the case, and all of the testimony is duly heard (and possibly recorded) by the witnesses. This is not to be a power play where one of the parties brings in someone to try and intimidate their adversary, but it is really what might be called a ‘discovery session.’
    If it is apparent to all assembled, except for the defendant, that he is indeed at fault and has sinned, then the witnesses may be able to convince him that he is in the wrong and needs to repent, apologize, make restitution and be forgiven. If that happens the matter is dropped. The accuser may have ‘lost’ the friendship of that brother personally, but they have been able to keep him from being ‘lost’ from the congregation and, in extreme cases, from the Kingdom of Heaven.
    Obviously, by bringing witnesses into the matter it will require that lashon hara be spoken against the sinning brother. (See the previous article.) That is the only way the witnesses will know what the charges are. The accuser must be prepared to accept the fact that in rebuttal the defendant may well be required to speak lashon hara against him, especially if his position is not particularly tenable.
    Also, the accuser must be prepared for the possible event that the witnesses may decide that he really does not have a case against his brother. In that event, it is the accuser who must repent, and ask forgiveness for falsely accusing a brother. In such a case, the defendant would be required to forgive the accuser.

    The synagogues in Yeshua's day all had a local Beit Din (Bait Deen = House of Judgment) that was required to hear disputes. A local Beit Din consisted of a minimum of three members, all of whom were considered to be elders. While the membership of the Beit Din remained constant (members served for life), the leadership of the Beit Din was rotated annually so that each member of the Beit Din had an opportunity to serve. This was to prevent any one person from gathering undo personal power.
    If the defendant in a case had not repented as a result of the testimony that was given before the witnesses, he probably felt that he had a pretty strong case. This being so, he could choose to let the problem come before the local Beit Din, in hopes of being vindicated there.
    The Beit Din would then hear the testimony of both parties, as well as that of the witnesses. They might well ask questions of both parties (cross examine), and then retire to their chambers to render a decision. Since a Beit Din always had an odd number of members (the Great Sanhedrin had a separate president, usually the High Priest, so it really had seventy-one members) the verdict may have come down to a split decision with the majority ruling.
    It must be pointed out that what ‘taking the matter to the church’ meant, was for both the accuser and the accused (plaintiff and defendant in modem parlance) to stand before the Beit Din. The apostle Paul confirms this practice in his first letter to the Corinthian Church.

In this ancient system, both parties were expected to abide by the decision of the Beit Din. If the judgment went against the defendant he had to accept it or else be considered "...like a heathen or a tax collector." Of course, the same was true if the decision went against the accuser and he refused to hear.

In context, and with an understanding of how the court system of the Beit Din functioned, what this verse is actually saying is that whatever the Beit Din decides (as long as it conforms to the Torah) will be honored by our Father in heaven.
Anciently if the losing party believed the decision of the local Beit Din went against the clear teachings of the Torah, they could appeal to a higher court. This is exactly what happened in Antioch where Paul and Barnabas were living and teaching.

It was there in Antioch that a dispute arose between some orthodox Jews from Jerusalem (Pharisees who were Believers), and Paul and Barnabas. The Pharisaic Believers were teaching:

    This doctrine caused a harsh dispute. It was clearly in violation of the testimony that Peter had given concerning his vision of the unclean things and his visit to the ‘God Fearer,’ Cornelius. However, the Pharisees did have a point.
    The local Beit Din was unable to resolve the dispute satisfactorily. Although scripture does not say that the problem was taken before the local Beit Din, it seems most probable to this writer that such was the case. Apparently, that body decided in favor of Paul and Barnabas. This would be the expected decision from a local Beit Din which could have had both Paul and Barnabas as members.
    However, the men from Jerusalem felt they were on good strong Torah ground. After all, the Torah, explicitly said that circumcision was a requirement for a stranger that wanted to have a part within the household of the children of Israel.

So the matter was referred to the Messianic Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Yacov (James), was the president of that Sanhedrin and was therefore the one responsible for rendering the final decision.

What we are dealing with here is another example of the Church’s court system. The local Beit Din carried the primary responsibility for judging the disputes in the congregation, based on the clear teaching of the Torah. Once the local Beit Din gave a judgment, all parties were expected to follow their decision. Of course it was possible that the Beit Din might decide in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff who brought the charge. In that case the plaintiff had to abide by the decision as well. The punishment for refusing to abide by the decision of the Beit Din was to be become "...like a heathen and a tax collector."
(For more information on how the ‘Jerusalem Council’ or Messianic Sanhedrin functioned and the results of their decision, as given in Acts 15, please write and request our taped message: The Early Church, Part III: The Jerusalem Conference.)

Yeshua put His stamp of approval on a type of ‘Believers Synagogue, complete with its traditional method for resolving disputes when He said:

Here we see Yeshua reassuring His disciples that they would have the power to establish their own Messianic Beit Din court system, and would not have to rely on the decisions of the local Jewish synagogues who’s Beit Din members were non-believers. In fact, the Greek word from which ‘gathered’ is derived is sunago (Strong’s #4863), and it means "to lead together." It is the word from which synagogue (#4864) is derived.
The fact that two are required to agree hints that, in the local congregation, the Beit Din would usually be composed of three members and they would need at least two of them to agree before a decision could be considered binding.

To the best of my knowledge, very few (if any) congregations today have a fully functioning Beit Din. Even if some local congregations have established such a body, it is unlikely that higher up courts have been established to take cases on appeal. Certainly there is no ‘Messianic Sanhedrin’ that has either the right or the power to impose its judgment upon all individual congregations or individual Believers. What exists is a situation similar to that described at the end of the book of Judges:

    Today many Believers belong to organized Churches, each of which have their own methods for dealing with members who may have fallen into sin. In some Churches the rights of the individual are protected, so that a Believer can not be cast out of that Church organization without having gone through some system of due process. However, in other organizations it is just the opposite. Merely questioning the teachings of an authoritative leader may cause a person to be ‘put out of the Church.’ In truth it is impossible for any human being to ‘put someone out of the Church,’ (only the Father and Yeshua can do that). Such action often creates a most unfortunate situation for the person who is dealt with in such a harsh manner. These abused people often find themselves outside looking in, wondering what has happened that they are no longer able to fellowship with their friends. Sometimes families are torn apart by such acts of wanton abuse.
    On the other hand, experiencing the loss of fellowship from an authoritative Church can be a very positive and liberating step. Being outside of a restrictive church organization frees the individual to study the scriptures and find out what they really say, not just what that Church teaches.
    Believers who find themselves in this position often gravitate toward small home-based fellowships. This is a growing phenomena throughout the United States in all branches of Christianity; from Catholicism to Protestantism to Sabbaterians. For many, this has been the opening of a very great door to truth and understanding. But with truth and understanding comes additional personal responsibility. The existence of sin within a local, small home based fellowship becomes the problem of every single person who attends there. This is why it is so important for Believers today to learn how to properly use the principles found in Matthew 18. However, there must never be used for personal vendettas. Since the exercise of Matthew 18 always involves lashon hara, it must be done carefully so that the one bringing the charge against the sinner does not also fall into sin through the evil use of their own tongue.
    Because of the fragmentation of today’s Christian community, Matthew 18 may be a moot point for some small Believing congregations. If someone in a small congregation brings an accusation against a sinner, it is easy for the sinner to pick up his bags and move on to some other unsuspecting congregation. But then, this too was foreseen and addressed by our Messiah:

The tares will exist along with the good wheat (the Believers) until the Messiah comes to sort it all out. In the meantime, we must all do our best to live righteously before HaShem.

    What to do about sin in a local congregation is a very real problem for all Believers, especially those who are meeting in small, home-based fellowship groups Every new congregation must learn how to deal with sin and disputes. The principles set forth in Matthew 18 and I Corinthians 6, should be our guide in such matters. We pray that what has been set forth in this article will be of help to those of you who are being faced with these types of problems within your church or fellowship group.
    Being an obedient Believer is not easy. Sometimes tough decisions need to be made. Sins and disputes must be confronted and eliminated. On the other hand, a local church should never become a little ‘police state’ where everyone is afraid to express an opinion that diverges in the slightest degree from the norm, for fear of being brought before the Church.
    For most of us, this is plowing new ground. But if we allow ourselves to be led by the Holy Spirit, then right decisions will be forthcoming. Above all, seek to learn how to love one another, and how to appreciate the differences that our heavenly Father has created in each one of us.
    One last thought. In a very small fellowship, it may be perfectly proper for all of the adults to function as a Beit Din. Or, the fellowship could choose three of its members to function in that capacity, with the membership of the Beit Din being changed for each new problem as the need arises. Just remember one thing, the more people who sit on the Beit Din, the longer it will take to reach a verdict, and the less likely it will be that a unanimous decision will be obtained.

When Is It Heresy?
A humorous look at the problem of disagreements within a religious group, from a book entitled:
Lake Wobegone Days, written by the noted U.S. author and entertainer, Garrison Keillor.

    "Our family was dirt poor ... And, in a town where everyone was either Lutheran or Catholic, we were neither one. We were Sanctified Brethren, a sect so tiny that nobody but us and God knew about it, so when kids asked what I was, I just said Protestant. It was too much to explain, like having six toes. You would rather keep your shoes on. ...
    "We were ‘exclusive’ Brethren, a branch that believed in keeping itself pure of false doctrine by avoiding association with the impure. Some Brethren assemblies, mostly in larger cities, were not so strict and broke bread with strangers--we referred to them as ‘the so-called Open Brethren,’ the ‘so-called’ implying the shakiness of their position--whereas we made sure that any who fellow-shipped with us were straight on all the details of the Faith, as set forth by the first Brethren who left the Anglican Church in 1865 to worship on the basis of correct principles. In the same year, they posed for a photograph: twenty-one bearded gentlemen in black frock coats, twelve sitting on a stone wall, nine standing behind, gazing solemnly into a sunny day in Plymouth, England, united in the opposition to the pomp and corruption of the Christian aristocracy.
    "Unfortunately, once free of the worldly Anglicans, these firebrands were not content to worship in peace but turned their guns on each other. Scholarly to the core and perfect literalists every one, they set to arguing over points that, to any outsider, would have seemed very minor indeed but which to them were crucial to the Faith, including the question: if Believer A is associated with Believer B who has somehow associated himself with C who holds a False Doctrine, must D break off association with A, even though A does not hold the Doctrine, to avoid the taint?
    "The correct answer is: Yes. Some Brethren, however, felt that D should only speak with A and urge him to break off with B. The Brethren who felt otherwise promptly broke off with them. This was the Bedford Question, one of several controversies that, inside of two years, split the Brethren into three branches.
    "Once having tasted the pleasure of being Correct and defending True Doctrine, they kept right on and broke up at every opportunity, until, by the time I came along, there were dozens of tiny Brethren groups, none of which were speaking to any of the others.
    "Brethren history is confusing, even to those of us who heard a lot on the subject at a young age--the Dennis Brethren, for example: I have no idea whether they left us or we left them. Ditto the Reformed Sanctified, and the Bird Brethren, though I think that Sabbath observance was involved in our (i.e., the Beale Brethren, what we were called before 1932 when we Coxes left the Johnson wing) dispute with the Birds, who tended to be lax about such things as listening to the radio on Sunday and who went in for hot baths to an extent the Beales considered sensual. The Beale, or Cold Water Brethren, felt that the body was a shell or a husk that the spirit rode around in and that it needed to be kept in line with cold baths. But by the time I came along, we listened to the radio on Sunday and ran the bath hot, and yet we never went back and patched things up with the Birds. Patching up was not a Brethren talent. As my Grandpa once said of the Johnson Brethren, ‘Anytime they want to come to us and admit their mistake, we’re perfectly happy to sit and listen to them and then come to a decision about accepting them back.’" (pp. 101, 105-107. pub. by Viking Penguin Inc., New York, 1985.)