Weeding Out the Sinners? - Reflections on Matthew 18:15-20, 15th Sunday after Pentecost, Year A

by John C. Holbert on Saturday, June 20, 2026

         I had a student years ago who came to class one day carrying a heavy burden. I could tell right away that her normally upbeat countenance did not match the look on her face that morning. After the class, I asked her what was wrong. I knew she was from a rather conservative denomination; her classroom responses suggested that my more progressive approach to things was quite new for her, but she was less offended by my ways of doing things than quite curious about them. “Yesterday at church,” she began, “I was approached by three members of my congregation, whom I knew well. I could tell from their very serious expressions that they wanted to talk to me about matters that required attention. The leader of the three said to me, ‘We have had a spirit of discernment concerning you, and we have determined with the help of God’s Holy Spirit that you can no longer be a member of this church in good standing.’ Needless to say, Dr. Holbert, I was flabbergasted and horrified. I had been a member there for several years, participating fully in the church’s life and ministries. I had hoped one day to be ordained in that church.”

         She was able, after gathering herself a bit, to ask what had led to this devastating conclusion. They quoted Mt.18:15-17, implying that their decision about what amounted to excommunication had followed the process that Matthew had outlined in his Gospel for dealing with issues of reconciliation and exclusion in his early Christian community. My student tried to say that this decision had in fact come out of the blue as she had had no indication that her actions or words had in any way caused discomfort or difficulty for any church members. She finally said to me that she found this decision cruel, unsupported in any way, and basically and thoroughly unchristian. Eventually, this student left her church, and found another in her denomination in which to participate. I do not know if she stayed there, or moved on, nor do I know if she sought or gained ordination in that denomination.

         That experience, some forty years ago, led me to look a bit deeper into this text and its peculiar insistence on a procedure that could lead members of a Christian community to exclude another member from participation in that community after a delineated process that, to me, was rife with human weaknesses and open to numerous possibilities for egregious malpractice. I can only imagine that Matthew’s community, like all human organizations, presented issues of human strife and contention that needed, in the mind of that community’s members, ways to address the painful problems. My student’s experience was a classic example, as I was able to understand it, of what could go wrong with such a procedure.

         “If your brother (sister) sins, go, reprove him (her) between you and him (her) alone” (Mt.18:15). We learn nothing of what the “sin” might be, nor are we told what the “reproof” should be to address the sin. However, I think we can conclude that Matthew here, as usual, finds guidance in the Hebrew Bible, or more accurately in the Greek translation of that Bible, the Septuagint (LXX). Lev.19:17 reads “You shall not hate your brother (sister) in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him (her).” The verb elegxw is used both in Mt. and in Lev., suggesting Matthew knew the passage. “If he (she) listens to you, you have gained your brother (sister).” One on one conversation can lead to communion with one another, says Matthew, but note again that neither the word “sins” nor the word “reproof” is further defined. Thus, my perception of your sin, and my subsequent attempt to reprove you for it, are both subject to vast misunderstandings and hurtful confusions.

         Nevertheless, if the one-on-one is a failure, for whatever unstated reasons, there is a step two, a step also grounded in the Hebrew Bible. “If he (she) does not listen, take with you one or two others in order that every word may be confirmed by the mouth of two or three witnesses” (Mt.18:16). Deut.19:15 apparently offers Matthew his scriptural support. “Only on the evidence of two witnesses, or of three witnesses, shall a charge be sustained.” Deuteronomy clearly has a criminal offense in mind, while Matthew’s issue seems quite different. Exactly what are these witnesses to witness to: are they to affirm the offense, that “sin” committed by the member, or are they to witness to the member’s unwillingness to repent of the unnamed sin? Again, the procedure is filled with dangers. Can one of the witnesses see things quite differently, refusing or unable to see the “sin,” and thereby unwilling to see the need for repentance? And how are these witnesses chosen; what is their authority to pass judgment in this way? My student’s accusers were apparently employing step two to address my student’s “sin,” though she was clueless concerning what that “sin” may have been!

         There is a step three for Matthew. “If he (she) refuses to listen to them, tell the church. And if he (she) refuses to listen to the church, let him (her) be to you like a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt.18:17). In other words, this “sinner” is no longer welcome in the community—they are excommunicated. I frankly find all this appalling. Should any person or persons in a Christian community have the right, the authority (granted by whom?) to determine whether any person is worthy to join such a community, a community that is based squarely on the principle of love for neighbor? Can we find any human processes whereby “sinners” may safely be identified and weeded out? I am reminded of Matthew’s own parable of the wheat and the tares (Mt.13:24-30). In that story, Jesus speaks of wheat growing up with weeds (tares), and when the disciples suggest that all be uprooted now, Jesus says to be patient, lest wheat be destroyed along with the weeds. I take this as a warning not to act precipitately when it comes to identifying and then excluding persons thought to be sinners. We humans are too quick to judge and thus to divide between “us and them.” We ought be very careful when given the chance to “cleanse” our community of those judged sinners. Issues of “splinters” and “logs” come to mind as well. This story flies in the face of many of the Gospel’s other claims about patience and judging. I can only see inherent dangers here, and my former student can well attest to them.