A fellow church member and I get into an argument. Nobody else is present. We differ sharply and honestly. After a while he loses his temper and calls me “a hypocrite.” Of course, I feel offended. What am I to do? Scripture gives a clear answer to that question. The offense is both personal and private. To precisely that sort of offense Jesus addressed Himself in Matthew 18:15–17, “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses ever y word may be established. And if he neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.”

I am walking down Broad Street. Ahead of me is a saloon. Just as I pass it, out steps a fellow church member. I greet him and, a bit dazed, he returns the greeting. There is a distinct smell of liquor on his breath and his gait is far from steady. Beyond all doubt, he is “under the influence.” What am I as the sole witness to do? Does Matthew 18:15–17 apply here? To be sure, the offense was not directed against me personally and hence is not personal in that sense, but, being known to the offender and me alone, it certainly is private. Therefore I do not tell my friends about this incident, nor do I inform the minister, neither does it occur to me to rush to the next meeting of the elders in order to insist t hat they discipline t he erring brother. Contrariwise, in the hope of both gaining my brother and saving his reputation I follow the procedure stipulated by the Lord Jesus in the aforesaid passage of Scripture. James 5:19, 20 also applies: “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth and one convert him, let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and shall hide a multitude of sins.”

I am a member of the Christian Reformed Church. A minister of that church writes a book or a magazine article in which he denies a cardinal teaching of the Reformed faith—that from eternity God foreordained unalterably all that was to come to pass. That book or article is published. I read the published denial. Is it wrong for me in a book review or a magazine article of my own to reflect critically on the denial without previously having followed the procedure of Matthew 18:15–17? Most certainly not, for here is an offense which is neither personal nor private. Instead, it is a public offense against the truth. For that very reason the matter requires that I speak up without delay. And, while Christian love demands that I work and pray to the end that the erring brother may recant, I ought not to be dilatory about laying the matter before the proper ecclesiastical assembly.

In their Church Order Commentary Van Dellen and Monsma say quite correctly: “Public sins are to be reported to the Consistory forthwith, not because the general office of all believers has no duties to perform in such cases, but because of the public offense given, which offense must be removed as soon as possible, and because the sin is already known to many and therefore its immediate revelation to the Consistory cannot be termed uncharitable. Fellow believers must certainly show concern when one of their number errs. They should admonish the erring also in case the sin committed is public. But the public offense, the blot upon God’s Church and His sacred name must be removed as soon as possible, and that can only be done publicly. Consequently public sins are to be reported to the Consistory forthwith” (pp. 305f.).

Editor’s note: This article of Professor R. B. Kuiper is reprinted from our November 1965 Torch and Trumpet In support of Kuiper’s remarks we observe that when the Apostle Paul saw Peter acting inconsis tently with the gospel and thereby causing public offense in the church at Antioch (Gal. 2:11ff) he did not take up the matter with Peter privately according to the procedure Matthew 18 prescribes for dealing with private differences, but rebuked him immediately before the whole church. By disregarding the difference between public and private problems and responsibilities in these matters, Matthew 18 is often being misused to silence public criticism and in that way protect and perpetuate offenses to Christian doctrine and life which it was intended to remove. In such cases we see the Scripture cited for a purpose the opposite of that for which it was given.