Executive Summary
This white paper argues for the restoration and practical application of Matthew 18:15–20 as a foundational model for public religious courts in the governance of Christian communities. This model, rooted in scriptural justice, emphasizes accountability, transparency, due process, protection for the accused, and publicly reasoned decision-making. It stands in stark contrast to secretive, arbitrary, or authoritarian forms of church discipline. Drawing upon a biblicist approach, the paper also incorporates relevant texts from the Torah, the Prophets, and the Apostolic Writings to build a coherent vision of a righteous judicial structure for the church.
I. Introduction: The Crisis of Church Discipline Today
Contemporary churches often face a dual crisis regarding discipline and adjudication:
Authoritarianism, where decisions are handed down by unaccountable leaders behind closed doors; Anarchy, where no discipline is practiced at all and scandal is ignored.
This paper proposes a biblical alternative: a public religious court based on the principles laid down in Matthew 18, offering both procedural fairness and communal involvement. Such a model encourages justice with mercy, accountability with dignity, and truth with transparency.
II. Matthew 18:15–20 as Judicial Framework
A. The Three-Tiered Process
Matthew 18 outlines a three-stage process for addressing sin among brethren:
Private Confrontation (v.15): “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.” Small-Group Witness (v.16): “But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’” Public Church Adjudication (v.17): “And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”
This escalating process reflects principles of due process, verification, appeal, and public accountability.
B. Authority to Bind and Loose (v.18)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
The authority granted to the church is not arbitrary—it is judicial authority, parallel to rabbinic courts and built upon God’s law. The church is to discern righteous judgment in a way that reflects divine justice.
C. Christ’s Presence in Judgment (v.19–20)
“For where two or three are gathered in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
This assures the ecclesia that Christ affirms righteous judgment made according to His teaching. When the process is followed, judgment becomes an act of communal faithfulness, not mere administrative power.
III. Biblical Protections for the Accused
Scripture repeatedly insists on protections for the accused and procedural fairness:
A. Deuteronomy 19:15
“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.”
This passage, quoted directly in Matthew 18:16, anchors the church’s judicial process in the Torah. No accusation should be upheld without multiple credible witnesses.
B. Public Adjudication in the Gate (Deut. 21:18–21; Ruth 4:1–11)
The gate of the city was the traditional venue for public legal proceedings. Matters were openly addressed, with respected elders deliberating before the people. This served multiple purposes:
Ensured transparency; Discouraged partiality; Allowed the community to observe the reasoning.
C. Avoiding Partiality and Hypocrisy
Leviticus 19:15: “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty.” 1 Timothy 5:19–21: Elders accused of sin are not to be judged without witnesses, and public rebuke is appropriate in cases of unrepentance, to deter others.
These texts underline that no one is above accountability, including church leaders.
IV. Principles of Due Process in Scripture
A biblically faithful church court should operate according to the following principles:
A. Presumption of Innocence
The Bible does not condone judgment on the basis of suspicion or gossip. Accusations must be substantiated.
B. Cross-Examination and Witnesses
Proverbs 18:17: “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.” Acts 25:16: Even Roman justice did not permit sentencing without allowing the accused to face accusers and defend themselves.
Cross-examination is a biblical safeguard for truth.
C. Transparency and Justification
Acts 15:6–29: The Jerusalem council deliberated publicly and reasoned openly. They produced a written judgment that justified their decisions and preserved unity.
This provides precedent for transparent church councils and recorded decisions.
V. Public Rebuke for Unrepentant Leaders
A. 1 Timothy 5:19–20
“Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.”
This instruction preserves protections while requiring public accountability when elders persist in sin. There is no allowance for shielding leaders with private or secret deals.
B. Galatians 2:11–14
Paul publicly confronted Peter for hypocrisy regarding the Gentiles. This was not a personal quarrel but a matter of public sin causing public harm. The confrontation served as a public correction of error and established a precedent for doctrinal accountability.
VI. The Role of the Ecclesia in Judgment
A. Tell It to the Church (Matt. 18:17)
The final stage in the Matthew 18 process involves the whole congregation, not just a pastoral staff or board. This affirms:
Communal responsibility in judgment; Transparency in process and outcome; The role of the church body as witnesses and moral agents.
B. 1 Corinthians 5:1–13
In this case, Paul instructs the entire Corinthian church to discipline a member involved in blatant sin. The problem was inaction, not zeal.
“Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? … Put away from yourselves the evil person.”
This command presumes that discipline is corporate, moral, and visible, with the goal of purification and restoration, not exclusion for its own sake.
VII. The Goals of Public Religious Adjudication
Biblically grounded church courts are not punitive in essence. They aim for:
Restoration of the sinner (Gal. 6:1); Protection of the flock (Acts 20:28–31); Purity of doctrine and conduct (Titus 1:9–11); A public witness to God’s justice (Micah 6:8).
The practice of public, reasoned, and fair discipline upholds the integrity of the gospel and guards against both scandal and secrecy.
VIII. Practical Structure for a Biblical Religious Court
A scripturally faithful religious court could include:
Elder panel or presbytery as judges, selected for impartiality (Exod. 18:21–22; Acts 14:23); Witness testimony from both sides (Deut. 19:15; Prov. 18:17); Open hearings before the congregation when necessary (Matt. 18:17; 1 Tim. 5:20); Published decisions, with scriptural reasoning (Acts 15:22–29); Right of defense and appeal, as seen in Paul’s use of Roman legal rights (Acts 25:10–11).
IX. Anticipated Objections and Responses
Objection
Response
“Public discipline will shame people unnecessarily.”
Only unrepentant sin after multiple private and small-group efforts proceeds to the public stage (Matt. 18). Transparency deters abuse and promotes repentance.
“This will cause division.”
Secret discipline causes more division by spreading confusion, suspicion, and injustice. Open justice fosters healing.
“The Bible allows pastors to handle this alone.”
Scripture involves the whole church, especially in serious cases (Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5).
“Churches aren’t courts.”
Churches are commanded to judge within the body (1 Cor. 6:1–5). Neglecting this task invites disorder.
X. Conclusion: A Call to Courageous Justice
The Matthew 18 model offers a robust framework for righteous judgment that balances due process, communal responsibility, and divine justice. In an era of spiritual confusion, churches must courageously reclaim their biblical duty to judge righteously, rebuke openly, forgive graciously, and uphold justice without partiality.
Let the people of God say again, with conviction:
“Let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.” — Amos 5:24
Appendix A: Scriptural Citations Supporting Church Judicial Process
Matthew 18:15–20 – Primary process model Deuteronomy 19:15 – Two or three witnesses Proverbs 18:17 – Cross-examination 1 Corinthians 5 – Public corporate discipline 1 Timothy 5:19–21 – Elder accountability Galatians 6:1 – Spirit of restoration Acts 15 – Council precedent Acts 25 – Legal rights respected Amos 5:24 – Prophetic justice Leviticus 19:15 – Impartiality
Edge Induced Cohesion 
In Matthew 18:15–20, note that the “you” being sinned against is the same “you” doing the judging. You mentioned the ordained elders sitting in judgment. One could easily read this as supporting a jury of one’s peers. Imagine if a sinning elder was judged by the same people he had routinely ordered to mow his lawn, and without compensation.
…
However, because a church does not have kinetic civil power, the dangers of a ruling class are not as serious as it would be in a civil setting. Or at least, they shouldn’t be. Churches in our society do not have the means to kinetically compel adherence to ecclesiastical decisions. Nor outside of controlling who attends church events, can they use the civil power to do so (“Establishment Clause”). (That hasn’t prevented at least one UCG minister I knew from trying to use civil authority to do exactly that — namely, copywriting a letter to local board members in order to keep it off the Inter-webs. It failed gloriously.)
That said, if a given church or faith tradition impresses upon its membership the idea that it is the “one TRUE” ecclesiastical authority, it can readily be seen to be exerting “undue influence” resulting in members being psychologically held to that ecclesiastical tradition. They simply see no choice but to submit to the ecclesiastical decision, no matter how unjust or even nonsensical it may be. A jury of laymen would go far to mitigating that. A sort of “jury nullification.”
But even without going that bridge too far, PUBLIC trials would go light-years toward breaking cult-like holds over members. Imagine: A member has scriptural and historical insight that endangers, say, the “True Church” (TC) claim of the fellowship or church tradition. The ministry, which explicitly upholds “apostolic succession,” wishes this information suppressed. If doing so would require them to follow a due process in a public event — members in attendance, live-streamed, full videos posted on YouTube and Rumble — the very information they wish to suppress would get out. The defendant would have to be able to present his defense. So, people would learn of his information debunking the ecclesiastical claim right there on the church’s own social media. If the information, which presently can be concealed from the membership, demonstrates the fallacy of the TC claim, members might readily disregard the entire ecclesiastical authority structure. And as stated before, churches don’t have the kinetic power to force members to remain. It has been attempted by some, often ending with quite counterproductive outcomes.
Now, in civil judiciary there are things that are not allowed to be said in open court. National security secrets, some juvenile matters, and some employment issues, etc. The first rule to dealing with this is that any matter that requires that level of secrecy should probably be the domain of the civil judiciary. Churches do not face the same security concerns as political entities. UCG is not going to come under a literal missile attack from, say, CCOG. What physical security issues a church might face really are unlikely to require such secrecy. While a church might hold confidential which CCW permit holders or others are allowed to carry in services, there is no reason to conceal AGAINST THE WILL OF THE MEMBER the fact that an elder or other designated party searched his briefcase (or medicine cabinet), or what was found.
Issues involving youth may call for some discretion. However, during my time in Armstrongism, I saw a rumor mill second to none. “The ‘Church of God’ has the greatest rumor mill in the world!” I said to a minister, almost proudly. In a rare denying of an accolade for the Armstrong church tradition, the minister politely responded that it was simply just as good as any other. So stories will get out. We sorta-kinda saw that recently in Church of God Assembly, and their recent bout with a (supposed) demon possession. The individual was a young adult, who was actually named in prayer requests, but it’s still interesting. People will know which pastor’s kid… impregnated a member’s daughter. The mother should not be required by ecclesiastical ruling to conceal who the father of the child is. And again, if a situation calls for the level of confidentiality that would raise serious concern — e.g., the act was non-consensual, issues of support payments — it probably belongs in the civil setting. (Compare what happened with the Dugger family of “19 and Counting” fame. It wasn’t the crime. It was a cover-up that got them.)
Employment issues are particularly interesting. I never worked in employment law, but I know from experience that employers have certain authority over employees, and there are all sorts of laws protect employees from defamation. So some secrecy will exist there, but only in so far as employment is concerned. Subsequent disfellowshipments, etc., however, would under your system subject the matter to disclosure. Thus, it would be unlikely that, for instance, a church pastor or UCG COE member would be removed for, say, disseminating the aforementioned member’s information debunking TC, and then face disfellowshipment as well. The church powers that be would not want that coming out. And the individual as a member could continue to disseminate the information. At the same time, there are provisions for civil courts to deal with such disputes. I remember a case down in Florida, where a mosque fired an imam, and a court agreed to hear the case, and rule according to the “ecclesiastical law” (yes, the court used that phrase) of the mosque. It was criticized by some as sharia law being Introduced into the American court system. A legitimate concern, but nonetheless suggesting an alternate approach.
The “public function doctrine” in American jurisprudence holds that when a private entity takes on functions generally reserved to the civil power, it can come under constitutional standards. Most churches and religious entities in our society limit their disciplinary actions so as not to even come close to doing this. First Amendment protections easily cover controlling who is allowed to attend services, and courts will be very wary of any involvement in ecclesiastical matters. However, when the disciplinary procedure extends to matters like controlling things like PERSONAL associations — i.e., the 1960 article prohibiting contact with members who don’t toe the line or who ask too many questions comes to mind — it starts to raise an interesting question. Is it possible that one day Armstrongist churches may indeed be required by law to have at least a rudimentary due process akin to constitutional provisions? The result may be that a church can use its own means to decide who attends its services, but if it wishes to tell members who they can and cannot talk to, or maybe whose religious teachings they are forbidden to read, view, or listen to, the situation would be different. Remember “undue influence”? Internal due process as you describe here would go far to heading this off — even as it defeats the efficacy in the eyes of some of the Armstrongist approach.
It’s a stretch, and I can think of legal and jurisprudential arguments against it. But jurisprudence is constantly evolving, and cults can have tremendous public impact in the age of the Inter-webs. And a church in public court arguing that it has in this age of social media the constitutional right to hide historical information contrary to its dogma from its membership would be quite revealing — and entertaining. Its outreach would be destroyed. And if the challenge failed… Well, that would be a new day in your religion.
LikeLike
Given the broad reading of some of the amendments (1, 2, 14 come to mind) l, it is quite possible that some organizations are already running up to the constitutional standards.
LikeLike
.
–
Taking you at your word here, you are thinking in error when I talk about constitutional standards, or whatever phrase I used. I don’t mean, operating in society in accord with our substantive constitutional freedoms. I mean, abiding by the same principles in their operation that our government must abide by (including Anglo-American Common Law). Trial by jury? Right to counsel? Probable cause and warrants for searches? Public trial? Presumption of innocence? No constitutionally vague laws or rules? Probably the most obvious is the “equal protection” violation of not treating people of all religions the same. The list goes on and on.
–
Oh, and let’s not forget a particularly interesting one. My state has a constitutional provision whereby females can refuse to do jury duty simply by virtue of them being female. However, this was challenged in court by a defendant who wanted females on his jury. The state provision was overturned under 14A as a denial of due process and a fair trial. So, an ACOG using elders for “jurors,” as it work, would have to ordain females, or else it would violate a defendant’s rights. (Hey! Weinland’s ahead of the curve on that one!)
–
Churches by definition don’t and often can’t operate like this, nor are they expected to. It’s because churches are not supposed to operate as state actors. That’s not their role now in our society — and Western civilization — and frankly hasn’t been for centuries. My very big stretch of a legal theory is that traditional Armstrongist practice exceeds the normal role of a religious institution — part and parcel of the “undue influence” — and intrudes into a state role. Thus the argument for the Public Function theory to be applied to them. It goes to the “undue influence,” something which courts have repeatedly found was exercised by WCG. Your bowling league can throw you out by any process it wants for talking to a member of the other team. That is freedom of association. But it does not claim authority from God to tell you not to watch instructional videos not approved by them on penalty of the Lake of Fire — unless, of course, it is an Armstrongist church bowling league.
–
As I said, the vast majority of churches simply do not even think about trying to restrict members the way even some of the more moderate ACOGs still sometimes do. Anecdote: My best friend (after perhaps my cat) is a Catholic convert. He married a Catholic. He takes part in Catholic practices. He will leave and go in and light a candle for a sick friends and relatives. He jokes that he is a CINO — Catholic In Name Only — but he does practice it. When I once told him in a particular context about when WCG had the dispute over whether a Black minister had authority over a White member, he was incredulous. Not at the racial issue, but at the whole concept of ministers having “authority over” members. That is simply not how most people in Western civilization think about religious institutions. (It’s also why our people, over 20 years after 9/11, still fail to comprehend how the threat from “radical” Islam actually works.)
–
We have a long history of religious freedom that makes my theory a very big long shot at best. However, that religious freedom is connected to churches staying in their lane. When one goes outside of that lane and exercise that cult(-like) influence, maybe that would be another matter. So who knows?
–
=============
–
And now, because you baited me:
–
Obi-Wan: I sense a trap.
Anakin: What do we do?
Obi-Wan: Spring the trap.
–
I have to point out that practically all of the notable WCG splits save the CGI lineage violate the substance of 2A. I do remember a while back an article on the UCG website specifically saying that 2A was the part of our Bill of Rights that didn’t really effect members. Whether it’s still there or not, the Fundamental Beliefs remain — and exhibit the same dishonesty with Scripture on the matter we have discussed before.
LikeLike
As I generally type on my phone while being fairly busy with multiple tasks I am not at liberty to be as prolix in my replies as you are. Just note that the reply you are responding to did indicate at least some of what you are saying in condensed form which apparently sailed over your head.
LikeLike
Again with a personal insults. You deleted my previous reply several times because I dare say that you misunderstood. But of course, you can tell me that I don’t understand. I get it, it’s your blog. But it is your Christian duty to love your neighbor as yourself. If you permit yourself the privilege of insults on this public forum — and it is public — then you want to permit others at least the privilege of pointing out where you are in error.
Your reference to 2A killed your credibility.
LikeLike
My reference that cogs regularly sought to restrict members regarding the 2A killed my credibility? Or that some churches like Philadelphia regularly seek to restrict freedom of speech? What are you reading, seriously?
LikeLike
Oh, you really did completely misunderstand. You talked about “already running up to the constitutional standards.“ You really did confuse substantive and procedural rights. Whereas my point was that ACOGs would have to live up to constitutional standards, a rational person would read your comment as saying that they “already” were doing so. “Running up to” is an odd way of saying “restricting” or “failing to meet.” “Running up AGAINST” would have worked better for what you’re claiming you meant. However, you also confuse substantive rights and procedural rights in constitutional jurisprudence, as I pointed out in my earlier reply. My point regarded procedural rights. But you, not being schooled in even the basics of our law, can only think in terms of substantive rights, which was not the topic of my point at all. Of the three amendments you mentioned, only 14A addresses procedural rights.
You’ve done this before, with that one paragraph about Christians distinguishing themselves from Jews and the legal protections Jews had. Those prepositions and conjunctions do matter.
LikeLike
I did not consider procedural rights as being an issue regarding a proposal that would grant such procedural rights with regards to church discipline. Hence the discussion about substantive rights.
LikeLike
“I did not consider procedural rights as being an issue regarding a proposal that would grant such procedural rights with regards to church discipline.”
Procedural rights are not an issue when granting procedural rights?
That doesn’t even begin to makes sense here. It barely even sounds like double talk from a politician. Look, you’re a typical person who has the only the most basic understanding of the American constitutional system. You don’t know the difference between substantive and procedural, and that’s OK. It’s like on that math post you did. That was completely over my head, and I made fun of myself for it. No reason an intelligent person can’t laugh at himself. What I didn’t do was come up with some cockamamie line that is that internally contradictory in order to cover for my ignorance.
I can’t believe I have to say this: Procedural rights are indeed an issue in granting procedural rights, whatever the context.
It’s OK that you didn’t understand. But now you do, or at least you say you do. Try to make a point of understanding something BEFORE you fire off the insults. It’s very un-Christian. Also, out of respect I did not reply to your mother. But she’s obviously making a similar mistake of not understanding. Try explaining it to her.
LikeLike
Try working on yourself more, and insulting and demanding less.
LikeLike
I’m not the one who said procedural rights don’t pertain to procedural rights. You need to understand that criticism is not necessarily an insult. You also need to understand that there are things you don’t understand.
LikeLike
When you understand the same it will go much better for you.
LikeLike
Things are going very well for me. You are taking my lead on a lot of points which expose your religion. What you need to learn is that all those ideas for changes you have actually demonstrate the falsity of your “True Church.” Then you need to act on it.
–
No matter what you say, you can never change the fact that Herbert Armstrong would have disfellowshipped you.
LikeLike
This is where the demanding less comes in. Work on yourself. What I do is my business and concern.
LikeLike
OK, I’ll take your point there with regard to interactions with you. Like everyone else who has done so, you’ll come to the realization in your own way. I’m an academic person, so the succession issue seems a kill shot. You are more focused on the intersection of the faith tradition with your life. One day, if your branch doesn’t change drastically (remember my theory of the two forms of Armstrongism in the future), you will realize the undue influence it has, ask yourself why you put up with it, and then face the fact that it’s claim to authority is false.
Until then, I’ll still be around. And I’ll still comment and point out the flaws and the religion I once held. I would respectfully ask that if you think I’m being insulting to you or your mother, point out the insult. Please clarify before insulting. And I will do the same.
LikeLike
That’s fair.
LikeLike
When is truth a personal insult? Your credibility was shot as soon as you imputed motive with followers of first century Christianity, calling it a cult, the same way that the Jewish community called it one—yet you defended it on the same grounds that you accuse the same defenders of the faith for leading people astray. Talk about circular reasoning and convoluted reasoning. Neither of us is going to convince the other.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
Oh, and you’re welcome for the idea.
LikeLike