The reasons I believe Scripture now bars me from nearly all church activities, service and giving until offenses two other believers hold against me are fully resolved--if that ever happens--and what I plan to do now.

There are two situations in my life in which another believer has cut me off. In one case, a member of my own church has, through the words of an intermediary, cut me off from both their life and the church. In the other situation, a fairly close relative who is a member of another church in my city has definitively cut me off, again acting through an intermediary. In both situations, I admit that I was the offender–the one against whom the offense is held–and my church leadership already knows the facts, so I don’t need to spell them out here.

I would probably just let both matters go and allow myself to be cut off without raising any issue, even though both of the other people involved are quite important to me, were it not for one very inconvenient scripture:

Therefore, if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

Matthew 5:23-24 (NASB) 

When I read these verses literally, as any old fool would, they tell me I shouldn’t give an offering while I am aware that a brother or sister holds an offense against me. Instead, I must go and “be reconciled” before I may offer my gift. The burden is on me–I must go. The test isn’t whether I tried to be reconciled, it is whether my attempt was fully successful. As long as the other person holds a record of the offense against me in any way, I am disqualified.

Of course, as anyone preaching this passage will tell you, the main–nearly the only–way in which Israelites who were neither Priests nor Levites could serve in worship was by presenting offerings. So not being able to present offerings was an almost blanket prohibition on all service and collective worship. It was simply not to be done while the worshipper was aware that someone held a grudge against them.

All that mattered was the existence of the grudge. It could be totally unjustified or extremely well justified. It could be guilt for murder or the offense of a minor social insult. It could even be a debt which an objective judge would say had been paid in full a long time ago. If a grudge was held, at all, it was totally disqualifying.

Most people I’ve heard or read teaching about these verses add some kind of qualification or limitation to make the command more “practical.” Something like, “first go and be reconciled to your brother, or do all you can properly do to seek reconciliation, then come and offer your gift.” But there are three problems with these suggested additions.

First, nothing in the verses or their context suggests any limitation. In fact, the context suggests there is no limitation on the literal application of verses 23 and 24 other than that the offended person is a “brother.” The immediately preceding verses deal with the potentially fatal effects of unresolved anger:

“You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be answerable to the court.’  But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. 

Matthew 5:21-22 (NASB).

Thus, anger can lead not only to murder, per se, but also, and more commonly, to contempt– “the feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless.” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.) The feeling that the other person is no longer fully human and can now be ignored, disregarded, cut off–and trampled upon or murdered if this is convenient to the angry person’s purposes. Exactly the same attitude discussed in the previous posts!

Because unresolved anger leads to contempt, “therefore” a would-be worshipper who is aware that another person is angry with them (or that the anger has progressed to contempt!) must go to that person and actually resolve the issue before participating in worship.

The immediately following verses also emphasize that the matter must be actually resolved; simply trying isn’t enough:

Come to good terms with your accuser quickly, while you are with him on the way to court, so that your accuser will not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you will not be thrown into prison. Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last quadrans.

Matthew 5:25-26 (NASB).

Here. again, as in the parable of the two debtors discussed on a previous page, the person who owes the debt of the offense is sent to debtor’s prison if the matter is not fully resolved promptly enough. This is the second problem with the “trying is enough” interpretation. The debtor must stay there until the last tiny coin owed on the debt is paid. There is no excuse for attempting reconciliation and failing to achieve it. What exactly paying the full amount of a debt which can’t be measured in money means I don’t know–but I’m guessing it means that I’m in the same position as the second debtor in the parable of the two debtors. In both situations, both of us are simply locked up, unable to serve or to live (or to do so effectively) until the party I have offended releases me. When that happens, we both go free.

Until then, hello Purgatory–which is on Earth?

The third problem is that just “trying,” unsuccessfully, to be reconciled does nothing to overcome the inability to feel that believers on the other side of the offense are a part of the Body. This is the leprosy-like aspect of the grudge, and also the reason I won’t be able to take the Lord’s Supper until both situations are fully resolved, if they ever are.

The last problem is a procedural problem. Here I’m looking at the situation as an old fool who is also a retired litigation paralegal. Matthew 18 provides a general procedure for resolving offenses within a church (discussed here). The problem with this procedure is that it can only be initiated by the offended person. So, unless there is some strange procedural tweak like the ones that ultimately let the common law writ of trespass be used for nearly everything–and I don’t see any evidence that there is–I can’t initiate it. So if those I’ve offended bypass it and go straight to cutting me off–which they have–Matthew 18 is no help. There is also an instruction in Galatians 6 that lets anyone who “catches” me in a fault come to me to correct me. But if the person who “catches” me is not the person who I offended, the offended person isn’t involved in this procedure at all. Only my behavior is corrected, and any penalties for the benefit of the church are applied. The offense itself isn’t dealt with.

There is no procedure by which I may raise the matter for conciliation.

What I am going to do about all of this:

1. I will take up praying essentially full time for the two people I have offended. I will pray that they, and those around them, find the grace to fully forgive me and then make their decision to reconcile known to church leadership. You may think this is a selfish prayer–asking God to move people to forgive me. But it does not appear so selfish once you realize they are also bound in a debtors’ prison of their own and being tortured for their unforgiveness. They don’t have to tell me about it for me to know it is there–Jesus spoke of it. I am an old man, who has only a few years left. They are both young and should be free to flourish. And I love them both, dearly. (I can likely be punished for saying this, but it’s true). I would gladly take their torture to let them go free, if God would do this for me. But they each hold the key to their own freedom. So I will continually pray that they will use that key, until I know that they have done so!

2. I will cease attending or serving in any church until both parties’ matters are resolved.

3. I will continue with Celebrate Recovery and with therapy.

4, I will place my tithes and offerings in a savings account, to be given when I am free to give. And I’ll make the account POD to the church, in case I die unforgiven. The church will lose no money, it will only be delayed until I’m qualified to give or until I die, whichever comes first.

5. I will consider whether there is anything of actual value to anyone that I can do while in debtors’ prison, other than simply pray for those who hold the keys.

6. As I have expressed in past letters to my pastor, I will abide by any other restrictions the church places on me.

7. If the church decides my analysis of the Scriptures on these points is erroneous in some way that permits me to attend or serve in some ways while the grudges are unresolved, I will resume the activities it has been decided I may now do.

Disclaimers:

I must state again that I am only an old fool trying to apply the scriptures literally to my own situation.

I do not claim that anyone else should do as I am doing.

Indeed, I suspect that if every church member who was aware that someone held a grudge against them were to quit attending church or serving in any way, and were to withhold tithes and offerings until all offenses were fully resolved, most churches would initially shrink away to almost nothing.

Which might not be such a bad thing?

(They could then grow back with people who are fully free to serve effectively, though it might take months or years to get there).

But it’s only a guilty old fool saying this!

ADDENDUM 12/10/24:

1. Those in authority in my church have commanded me to continue attending, so I will. They firmly believe Hebrews 10:25 (a general command to keep assembling together) takes precedence over Matthew 5:23-24 (a specific command regarding unresolved offenses).
2. Even though I still suspect the legal maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (the general does not derogate from the specific; that is, when both a general rule and a rule specific to the facts appear to apply, choose the more specific rule) applies, giving Matthew 5:23-24 (the more specific rule) precedence, I will submit to authority.
3. Even so, I will be very hesitant to participate in any way that isn’t mostly passive or to exercise any leadership, and I will not take the Lord’s Supper until the matters are resolved.
4. Because Matthew 5:23-24 speaks directly to offerings and tells me to leave my gift “in front of the altar,” but not give it while others hold unresolved offenses against me, the plan to retain my offerings in a separate POD account (with the church receiving the monthly statements) until I’m free to give must stand.
5. The only possible exception might be donations intended to be used to provide, through the church, reparations (counseling? expenses?) for damage I’ve caused to those I’ve offended. I am willing to do this, though, under the circumstances, it’s difficult to see how that would work.
6. To clarify on a point about which I was asked: I am not trying to put God on a timeline, or to pressure anyone to act more quickly than they otherwise would. I do not anticipate that either of these matters will be fully resolved prior to my death. (It is much easier to forgive a corpse than a live person you still fear!) So I don’t expect the reconciliation, when it comes, to benefit me at all. But, for the sake of these two dear offended people, and in keeping with Matthew 18:1-6 (the parable of the unjust judge), I do not intend to let God forget the matter at any time I still have enough breath to whisper a prayer!
   

Pages With Further Supporting Scriptures:

There are Two Things God Can’t Do!!!

The Opposite of Love is Indifference

Didn’t Jesus tell us how to handle offenses between believers?

Leprosy–and members cutting each other off

What Does the Lord’s Table have to do with this?

Both Debtors in Matthew 18:21-35 Ended Up in Debtors’ Prison

How should we respond together to the Lord’s discipline? (dated 9/3/24)

What is a root of bitterness? (dated 8/30/24)