Why Matthew 18 is inappropriate in cases of abuse

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.  If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” – Matthew 18:15-17 (ESV)

Matthew 18:15-17 is often the go-to passage for resolving conflicts in church settings. It lays out a clear process:

1.    First, go to the person privately
2.    If that doesn’t work, take one or two others
3.    If they still won’t listen, bring it to the church.

For everyday disagreements or misunderstandings, this approach makes sense. It encourages open communication and a chance to make things right. However, the Bible repeatedly calls Christians to protect the vulnerable and seek justice. Part of our approach towards protection and justice is the ways in which we seek resolution and where possible reparation and reconciliation where harm has been done.    

"Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."  – Psalm 82:3-4 (NIV)

Jesus says,  

"If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea." – Mark 9:42 (NIV)

Spiritual Abuse

In this well-known passage in the gospel of Mark, Jesus is speaking specifically about the actions that lead to a distortion of, or damage to another person’s relationship with God, and the consequences that follow. These behaviours were being described long before the term spiritual abuse was ever used, but Jesus was clear about the seriousness with which such harmful actions should be viewed. The term ‘spiritual abuse‘ is currently contentious for some and the topic of much debate. In some areas, the use of this term is generally accepted, in others, it has raised concerns. Thirtyone:eight hold the position that spiritual abuse is a specific and unique type of abuse found in faith-based contexts. It is defined as:

“A form of emotional and psychological abuse. It is characterised by a systematic pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in a religious context. Spiritual abuse can have a deeply damaging impact on those who experience it. However, holding a theological position is not in itself inherently spiritually abusive, but misuse of scripture, applied theology and doctrine is often a component of spiritually abusive behaviour.”

This blog explains why using Matthew 18 in the case of spiritual abuse or any other type of abuse, can cause particular harm.

Power dynamics 

Spiritual abuse usually (although not always) occurs between a leader and a person they are leading. The verses in Matthew 18 refer to an equality in relationship between the two individuals – “If your brother…’. But a leader and the person they lead do not share an equal relationship like brothers would, because there is an unequal power dynamic between them. This dynamic is shaped by the leader’s influence, authority, and position. The leader has the power to guide, make decisions, and set the direction, while the person being led relies on them for support, guidance, and resources.

The leader's power is often legitimised by their expertise, gifting or vision. In some cases, leaders are believed to be significantly ‘anointed’ or ‘chosen’. This can lead to a belief that these leaders cannot do wrong, or that it is inappropriate to challenge them. This is often exaggerated and used as a means to control and coerce by a leader who is behaving in an unhealthy or harmful manner.

Spiritual abuse occurs when those in positions of leadership in faith-based contexts misuse their power to control, manipulate, or harm others. This further compounds the inequality of the power dynamic.  

The risk of being alone with an abuser

The first principle of Matthew 18 recommends speaking to the person who has ‘sinned against you’ on a one-to-one basis. In the case of a disagreement between equals this makes sense. But in the case of harmful behaviours and abuse, this places the victim at considerable risk.

In no other circumstances would a victim-survivor be recommended either to confront or to be alone with the person who has harmed them. This should also apply in cases of abuse where the victim may be vulnerable to gaslighting, punishment or an escalation of abuse. In being trauma-informed in our practices, it is important to understand what actions have the potential to re-traumatise and how usually-applied practices may not be appropriate when considering those that have been harmed or abused.

It can be used to silence victims

One of the biggest problems with applying Matthew 18 to abuse is that it’s often weaponised against victims.

When victim-survivors speak up they can be made to feel they have in some way failed if they have not followed the first principle to meet the leader in private. This shifts the responsibility onto the victim rather than the perpetrator and in most cases will be an unrealistic and unfair expectation to place upon them. Where someone has been abused the thought of having to be alone with the person who has hurt them, let alone confront them is traumatising. If a victim feels this is the expectation of them, they may not speak up at all and the potential for the abuse to continue is increased.

It fails to recognise the need for external help;

“Speak out on behalf of the voiceless, and for the rights of all who are vulnerable" – Proverbs 31:8

In many cases, when victims do speak up, church leaders use Matthew 18 to control how the situation is handled. They insist that any concerns must be dealt with “in-house”. This not only isolates the victim, it prevents wider accountability and potential help. It is also often used as a means of silencing victims and accusations of gossip will often also be used if the Matthew 18 principle is not applied. This is inaccurate and itself a distortion of the passage and its legitimate use.

Usually, the motivation to handle things in-house is driven by the need to protect the reputation of the organisation over caring for the person who has been harmed. It is also a way of controlling the narrative and the outcome of any legitimate concerns being shared or allegations being made.

Spiritual abuse often requires intervention from beyond the church walls, whether it’s independent safeguarding bodies, counselling professionals, or even legal authorities. This means ‘speaking up’ on behalf of victims to ensure that outside help is sought. The idea that abuse should only ever be handled “internally” is one of the reasons it has been allowed to thrive in our churches for so long. An argument that suggests outside intervention is only needed if a criminal threshold is met is unjustified and risks facilitating ongoing harm.

What Should We Do Instead?

Rather than misapplying Matthew 18, churches need to take allegations of spiritual abuse just as seriously as any other forms of abuse from the outset.

This means:

• Believing victims and providing them with a safe place to speak.
• Following existing safeguarding policies and practices.
• Holding leaders accountable rather than protecting reputations.
• Recognising when an independent investigation is necessary.
• Recognising when it is appropriate to include statutory bodies.
• Understanding that real biblical justice includes exposing wrongdoing, not just seeking quiet resolution.

Spiritual abuse is a deep violation of trust and power. Let’s commit to creating safer places, supporting those who have been hurt and holding those in power accountable for their actions. 

Further reading:

For more information on spiritual abuse, read Escaping the Maze of Spiritual Abuse by Justin Humphreys and Lisa Oakey.