Tough Love Part 1 #love 01

 

Several months ago, I was out with some friends at a pub when the conversation shifted to a discussion of someone from my old congregation who was “living in sin.”  

For this post, the particular sin doesn’t matter, and, for the sake of argument, we’ll assume the assessment that this person was “living in sin” is valid (meaning a reasonable argument could be made for this person’s behavior to be classified as sin).   I found myself having a lot of resistance to the proposal my friend across the table was making.  They were advocating for a sin intervention (a “sintervention?”), saying that we needed to step in, name the sin, and call this person to repentance.  I was saying that I wasn’t willing to call out this person’s sin in this way, because I felt like I didn’t have enough relationship with them to speak to it. I was confident the person knew the church considered what they were doing as “living in sin”, and that it would be unnecessarily harmful to confront them in the way my friend was suggesting.

That’s when the infamous words were spoken:

“Is it loving to allow someone to continue in sin without saying anything? Aren’t we supposed to correct people if they’re sinning?”

I’ve come to call this the “tough love mandate.”  I call it that, because tough love is what Christians call telling someone you love something they don’t want to hear.  They probably won’t like the thing you're going to tell them, and it may damage the relationship, but you’re doing it because you love them.  It’s tough love. 

I told my friend that, in this case, I found tough love to be an unwise approach if the goal is to point the person to Jesus.  

My friend reiterated their position: “Aren’t we mandated to act if a fellow follower of Jesus is living in willful and rebellious sin?” 

I fumbled through my explanation, and things got a bit tense.  Why do people always want to meet in pubs? I understand that a beer helps get the conversation flowing, but it also impedes cognitive function and makes it difficult to have healthy discussion.  I know I could just order a Coke, but… I digress…

We ended up in the classic “agree to disagree” posture, and I vowed to myself to commit my thoughts on this matter to “paper” once I had the time.  

So here are my thoughts.  In fact, I had so many thoughts that I broke the post into three parts.  Part 1 deals with the origin of the tough love mandate: the Matthew 18 church discipline passage.  Part 2 deals with how most people I’ve encountered aren’t actually practicing “tough love”, and part 3 gets to the heart of my tough love resistance a bit more.   

Tough Love In The Church

I’ve encountered tough love in so many contexts over the years.  

I remember years ago preaching on Matthew 5:38-42, which is Jesus’ famous “Love Your Enemies” portion of the Sermon on the Mount.  The main thrust of my message was that God is the ultimate peacemaker, and Jesus was providing practical, counter-cultural guidance on how far God’s love extends: even to our enemies. After the service, a well-meaning person came up to me, their jaw set, red-faced, their eyes wide as they challenged the idea that God wants us to love Palestinians who bomb Israel, terrorists who attack the U.S., and people who support the wrong political party.  

This person challenged me, “What about tough love? When people are sinning, they need to be held accountable for their sin!”  

Not that long ago, I taught a message about John 13:35 where Jesus said the love we show our fellow followers of Jesus was the main way people know that we’re his disciples.  I called it “The Litmus Test”, which became the moniker for this blog. I finished the message by challenging the congregation, “When did your position on abortion become the litmus test for whether or not you’re a follower of Jesus?”  

Sometime later, a person challenged me: “Aren’t we supposed to correct our brothers and sisters in Christ when they’re believing something that’s a lie?  Allowing them to continue endorsing murder (abortion) is not loving.”  I sensed their genuine concern for the well-being of their fellow followers of Jesus.  They didn’t say, “tough love”, but this is what tough love looks like in action.  "My brother or sister is sinning, and I SHOULD or MUST point it out."  

Then there was my friend at the pub, ready to stage a sintervention for someone in our congregation.   

These are just three of dozens of real-world examples where people were bold enough to challenge me on my view of God’s love by appealing to the tough love mandate.  They expressed to me that we not only have a God-given responsibility to call out our fellow Christian’s sin, but that it’s actually not loving to sit back and say nothing.  

Not A Mandate

“Aren’t we mandated to point out the sins of our fellow followers of Jesus to them?” 

I’m going to give the short answer to the question now: 

“No, I don’t believe we have a mandate to call out our fellow follower of Jesus’ sin.”  

There.

I said it.  

So many of my brothers and sisters are laboring under this “mandate”, and out of a desire to be faithful to Jesus, they’re causing real harm to real people who are drawing near to Christ.  

This is wrecking ball religion dressed up as holiness.

Now that I have that out of my system, here’s my longer answer: 

“It depends…”.  

Tough Love In the Bible

This idea of a “tough love mandate” is rooted in Matthew 18:15-17, where Jesus himself says these words:

15 “If your brother or sister sins (or sins against you), go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[Deuteronomy 19:15] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

That’s the source.  Many call this the “church discipline” passage, where Jesus himself lays out how to handle it “If your brother or sister sins,” or the alternate translation, “or sins against you.”  Many churches follow this model as the biblical model of dealing with a disagreement.  It IS a good model.  It works.  And the fact that Jesus himself spoke these words gives them more weight than other texts on this topic. 

That said, I don’t believe this is a mandate for calling out your fellow follower of Jesus’ sin.  This isn’t a “no questions asked” excuse to stage a sintervention.  At least it’s not intended to be used that way the majority of the time.  

A "Plain Reading"

At face value, Jesus is telling us to point out the sins of the Christians around us.  Laboring under this unthoughtful interpretation of this passage, I’ve seen so many followers of Jesus who have genuine concern for one of their brothers or sisters in Christ, but lack sufficient relationship to act on it.  But because they have a “plain text” perspective on the Bible, they plow ahead and stage a sintervention anyway, acting under the auspices of the "Tough Love Mandate." This often results in tremendous relational wreckage and can unnecessarily taint people’s perspectives of Jesus and his Church.  

We know a “for the Bible tells me so” reading of this text isn’t helpful. Jesus says that if a fellow brother or sister sins, to point it out to them.  But relational experience alone tells us that it would be ridiculous to point out every single little sin that your fellow follower of Jesus committed.  It would be unloving, unkind, and it’s a great way to lose friends and make enemies.  Only the most extreme literalists say that you have to point out every sin, and they don’t have any friends.  We instinctively know that Jesus means something else here.  

Going Deeper

This is where the “or sins against you” alternate translation, which different versions of the Bible use, along with the reference to Deuteronomy 19:15, helps us see what Jesus has in mind: serious sin.  A fellow follower of Jesus sinning against you (stealing, lying, cheating, etc.) is very different than a fellow follower of Jesus just sinning (speeding, jaywalking, thinking bad thoughts, or telling a “white lie”).  Being sinned against suggests a sin serious enough to bring before a judge.  

I believe the “or sins against you” translation better reflects Jesus’ intent, because Jesus quotes Deuteronomy to help his disciples (and us) understand what he means.  Deuteronomy 19:15 says,

“One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”

Jesus is referencing the procedure for accusing someone of a crime.  Witnesses are needed so that the accused isn’t wrongfully prosecuted for a crime they didn’t commit.  You must be able to convince another follower of Jesus of the guilt of the person you’re accusing.  If you can’t, then it might just be your problem. 

What Jesus has in mind here is an interpersonal transgression that needs to be addressed.  Someone has been hurt by someone else’s actions.  He then suggests a way to address the grievance in a good and godly manner that treats the matter seriously while honoring everyone involved.  What I’ve found is that 95% of minor interpersonal grievances are resolved at the first step: bring it up privately with your brother or sister in Christ.  

Here’s an example of what I believe Jesus has in mind: 

You learn that your friend is gossiping about you within your friend group. This is a serious breach of trust.  Jesus says that you should go and confront the person about their sin.  Maybe you misunderstood what happened.  Maybe what you heard from others in your friend group is incorrect.  You go straight to the source, because it’s the most honoring way to do it.  Go to them without judgment, seeking to understand what happened, and willing to hear them out.  You love them and they’re your friend.  It’s also the dignity you’d want to be shown if you were the one being questioned. 

Dozens of books have been written on conflict management that can guide how this conversation can be had in a good and godly way.  You can also read my posts on handling conflict in the Church. What Jesus’ model provides is a framework that encourages open dialogue and discourages retaliation by broadcasting to the friend group instead of talking to the alleged offender. If your friend realizes their sin and asks for forgiveness, you have won them over. Friendships are always strengthened by healthy conflict resolution with the goal of reconciliation.  

Wisdom, Not A Mandate


If your friend denies their sin, or throws it back in your face, you have a choice to make.  Is this sin serious enough to bring someone else into the discussion?  What are your personal motivations - to help them (love) or to harm them (vengeance)?  What do you really want?  Should you just walk away?  So often, we treat Matthew 18 as a process that must be rigidly followed. If step 1 doesn’t work, you MUST go on to step 2.  But not every interpersonal transgression needs to proceed though every step.  It’s a matter of wise discernment. 

In practice, if the first step doesn’t result in you “winning them over”, then sober discernment is required before proceeding to step two.  This is the application of biblical wisdom, not the slavish following of a process.

There are a number of helpful questions to ask yourself in this discernment:

• Is God inviting me to continue to the next step?
• Is the matter truly of such significance that I should bring someone else in?
• What would happen if I simply walked away?
• What do I actually want? 
• What would a godly resolution of this matter look like?

Your answers to these questions might reveal hidden motives that are subtly shaping your response to this matter.  I’ll talk more about this in part 2.  

Another Example

Here’s a more clear-cut example, and the kind of thing I believe Jesus had in mind when he quoted Deuteronomy 19:15:

You learn that one of your most influential volunteer leaders is slandering the lead pastor behind their back and stirring up dissension in the leadership team.  You go to the volunteer leader and confront them, seeking to know the truth.  If they confess and repent, you’ve won them over.  If they deny it, or claim that their actions are justified, you’ll have to consider the next appropriate steps.  Again, you don’t HAVE to move on to step 2 just because step 2 exists.  If there are other options, they should be gracefully considered. 

Jesus’ point is that if you were unable to resolve the matter privately, and you ARE going to proceed with making a formal accusation, then you want to move on to his step 2: bring one or two people with you and confront the person again.  This actually shows love to the accused by protecting them from personal vendettas from those in power.  If the guilt of the accused can’t be established by two or three people, then there may be something you're missing, or you may need to try looking at the situation from a different perspective, or God may be calling you to further discernment.  If they confess, wonderful! If not, you and your witnesses can now discern together if you should move on to step 3.

A Closer Look At Step 3

When Jesus laid out step 3 (bring your accusation before the church), he was referring to the “church” of his day.  The word translated “church” in Matthew 18 is a Greek word that means “the gathering.”  The gathering in Jesus day most likely referred to the Jewish synagogue congregation and was maybe 50-100 people at the time.  Some think Matthew has the early Christian house churches in mind when Jesus says this, in which case, you’d probably be dealing with even fewer people.   

My point is that Jesus was thinking of more than two or three people, but he probably didn’t have dragging the accused before a 3,000 attendee megachurch on Sunday morning in mind. I’ve seen firsthand the relational destruction wrought by a rigid reading of this text.  “No, Jesus said we HAD to tell the whole church!” What typically follows is an unloving public smearing of the accused person.  Love for others is the guiding principle, so a massive public shaming seems out of the question.  

More likely, the 21st-century intent of step 3 is bringing the accused before the decision-making leadership body of the church community.  This would be the Board of Elders or some other established leadership structure.  The matter would only involve the entire 21st century church in the case of small groups, house churches, and tight-knit congregations under 100.  

Again, discernment for step 3 is essential.  Going on to the third step is almost always a relationship killer.  

Step 3 IRL

I've gone to the third step one time in my life.  I believed, and still believe, what was at stake was significant and worth the relational damage it caused (the person has not spoken to me since).  But most importantly, my wife and I spent 24 days reading, seeking godly counsel, and praying every day for discernment on whether or not to proceed to the third step.  In the end, we both felt God’s “yes” on the matter, and so we proceeded.  We did everything we knew to do to discern God’s will, and to enter the third step with eyes wide open.  I don’t know what more you can do. 

The principle behind what Jesus lays out in Matthew 18:15-17 is love. Love for one another.  The Law of Love.  When you let love for others be the guide, you’ll be able to navigate the uncertainties of this model. 

This is what Jesus had in mind, but it’s not how I see most people applying it.  

Tough love is a real thing, and Jesus provided some healthy steps to take to deal with serious relational sin among his disciples.  But Jesus’ Matthew 18 model isn’t a mandate to be rigidly followed.  Love for others is the guiding principle, so if the matter can be resolved in a loving and honoring way that uses some other model, go for it.  

What is your experience with Matthew 18:15-17?  

How has your faith tradition taught you to read it?  

What do you feel as you consider my explanation in this post?  

If you agree or disagree, why?  

What about this post draws you closer to Christ?  

What about his post brings up resistance within you?

Talk to God about all of these things. 

I wanted to honor the text from which the tough love mandate ideology emerges.  That’s why I spent so much time on it here.  Now that I have this established, we can take a look at the deeper matters around this topic.  

In the next post, I'll take a look at the most common misuses of tough love.