23 OT A ~ Mt 18:15-20 ~ "Gaining Brothers and Sisters" ~ Rev. Richard Eslinger, PhD

If the full homily seems too lengthy for your pastoral and liturgical context, then two sections or “moves” are offered as alternative content.  Option 1 explores a serious in-church issue while Option 2 moves out to deal with cultural and social issues evoked by the internet.   Please identify which option serves best in your context and delete the other paragraph.  Either way, the homily picks up at “But there is a deeper chasm…”

Our Gospel Lesson at today’s Mass is both familiar and yet mostly unpracticed.  One scholar calls this portion of St. Matthew’s Gospel “the church reconciliation manual.”  The three-fold process heading towards reconciliation begins at a very personal level.  A brother or sister has sinned against you, caused some real harm.  But instead of immediately turning against this person, Jesus calls us to turn toward them.  Here are the instructions from our Lord:

First, go to that that one inflicting harm and “tell him his fault between you and him alone.  If he listens to you, you have gained a brother.”  So far, the church reconciliation process is blessed with honesty and compassion.  The one at fault is shielded from public shame and the two parties have become one.

But, Jesus adds, “If he does not listen to you, take one or two others along with you.”  In a process of long tradition among God’s covenant people, the witnesses can both provide outside wisdom to the dispute and assist in bringing agreement to the parties.

Failing in this attempt at achieving justice and accomplishing reconciliation, our Lord now instructs us, “tell the church.”  Go public within the household of faith and bring the issue to the assembly.  If this last level of appeal is rejected by the one who has done harm, that one is to be regarded as a foreigner to the house of Israel, “as a Gentile or a tax collector.”

The process Jesus hands over to us moves from the confidential and personal level through an intermediate stage of involving one or two emissaries and finally involves the whole community.  These are the steps and stages prescribed in Jesus “Church Reconciliation Manual.”

          [Option 1] Problem is, we modern church folk have patented several varieties of behavior that seek to avoid precisely the confrontation and truth-telling that Jesus commands.  We even rationalize our avoidance of direct communication when we find ourselves injured or upset.  The most pervasive avoidance strategy is simply to invoke the rather unbiblical rule of “we must have no contention.”  Convinced that we are doing the right thing, the result may well be that we do go and tell almost everyone in the church about the “harm” someone did except for any direct engagement with the person most directly involved.  All in the name of “harmony and kindness.”  In one large member parish with multiple staff, the pastor learned just before the weekly staff meeting that the wife of the retired organist had made some very negative comments about the postlude played by the new organist.  The pastor had learned of this behavior from the deacon.  So, after the opening prayer of the staff meeting, the pastor began an investigation of the matter; “Where did you learn about the comment after church by “Linda”?  The message was tracked throughout the clergy and lay staff of the parish.  But the only person who was not brought into the know was…?  Yes, you got it!  The new organist!  In the name of avoiding confrontation, the parish had been injured more than the nasty comment could ever do.  The “secret” had been triangulated throughout the parish staff except for the staff person who was most directly involved.  Jesus’ approach, though, is entirely the opposite.  If his commandment was carried into action, perhaps no one other than “Linda” and the new organist would have even know about the issue.  A sister or brother would have, in Jesus’ words, been gained.  Instead, the entire parish suffered. |

          [Option 2] On the other hand, we do live in a culture that lives for confrontation.  Not always directly, though, but via the internet.  Our world is one in which “the politics of rage” has become the norm of public discourse, especially in the media and online.  The dominance of the internet has poured gasoline on these cultural or political disagreements.  One recent study concluded that a series of outcomes can be discovered regarding the prevalence of internet involvement.  The author notes that the internet distorts and expands our sense of identity and maximizes our sense of opposition.  Then, our feelings of solidarity can be cheapened, and our sense of scale be destroyed.    The success of the internet is grounded in its designed function of intensifying personal and social conflict. Rage sells.   A writer for a university press tells of just one recent happening:

(A rapper) caused a stir online when she posted a thread expressing her dissatisfaction with cats. She might as well have killed one because for over a week the discourse spiraled into outrage, as if disliking cats were a moral failing rather than a personal preference.[1]

This reveals something interesting about our society: we’ve harnessed much of our pent-up anger, and the internet gives us an outlet.  Of course, it is immediately obvious that such internet rage stands in strong opposition to the commands of Jesus about our Christian use of language.  Our society insists that our first reaction to some perceived issue or harm is not to go to that person privately, share our discomfort or injury, and seek reconciliation.  No, in our dominant means of social interaction, the rules insist that we do not go to that person.  Rather, we are encouraged to rant about them online, joining our rage with that of others who also have not dealt directly with the offender.  We often speak of our Christian faith as being countercultural.  But there may well be no present issue more revealing of the chasm between our culture and its wars and our relationships as Christ’s own. |

But there is a deeper chasm between our culture’s politics of rage and our own calling as Christ’s people.  This distinction is even more revealing than that between the rage-filled and the followers of Christ.  In Jesus’ own instructions as to love as his disciples, he emphasizes that the outcome that is sought is reconciliation and return.  Yes, we do need at times to confront our sisters and brothers in Christ about some issue of harm or sin.  And yes, we need to begin that risky journey in a personal, one-to-one manner.  But the outcome we seek is always our Lord’s goal of winning a new brother or sister within the church.

We find these dynamics of confrontation on behalf of reconciliation and return in an amazing place.  Centers of restorative justice have adopted these ways to reconciliation across the country.  In one vital center for restorative justice that focuses on youth, the goal of transforming relationships is central.  The mission statement includes these principles of restorative justice:

Its principles teach us to think not only about the offender but also about the victim; not only about the court but also about the community; not only about the law or the rules that were broken - but also about the impact of that breaking on the people around us. The shift is from rules to relationships.[2]

How much more, then, is the Lord’s command to us to adopt this way of life.  Engagement with those who offend or harm us, speak in person with such people, and seek reconciliation in all that we do!  We are not people of rage, but of truth-telling that leads to healing relationships.  What a difference from the way the world handles such things!

The dynamic of confrontation and reconciliation is now framed by Jesus in a much more profound way.  We may be led by Jesus’ commands to find the presence of Jesus only when the outcome is achieved and we have “gained a brother or sister.”  This is true.  But at the last, we hear these familiar words, though in a new context: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them.”  But notice that the promise is not conditioned on having come to a final agreement about the harm or the sin.  One commentator puts it this way:

There is no question of agreement at this point.  Jesus is present, really present, where two or three are gathered in the Divine Name, not just where two or three agree in Jesus’ name, but where two or three are gathered…This includes the two who cannot listen to each other about the matter of sin, and how to handle it.  Even there, perhaps especially there, Christ Jesus is present.[3]

Of course, this brings us to the heart of the matter, when two or three or especially our whole assembly gathers at the Holy Eucharist.  Christ is truly present among us as we share in his Precious Body and Blood.  And at this center of our faith, the Risen Lord is moving us towards an even deeper reconciliation, with each other and with him.  Even when all of us are not in complete agreement with each other, at the Holy Eucharist, Christ Jesus is present.  One of our songs about the Eucharist sings,

           As Christ breaks bread and bids us share Each proud division ends.

          The love that made us makes us one, and strangers now are friends.[4]

So, what do we do now, friends in Christ?  We could restate the three stages of our Lord’s Church Reconciliation Manual.  Or we could be reminded of the next scheduled Sacrament of Reconciliation.  Or we could, more directly, offer the bread we have received from our gracious God, “fruit of the earth and work of human hands,” joyfully confessing that “it will become for us the bread of life.”  Yes, let’s begin right here.  After all, we are more than only two or three; we are the Body of Christ, and our risen Lord meets us here.

Amen

[1] Joana Karoshi, “The outrage machine: Why the internet wants you angry,” Baylor Lariat, April 2, 2026, https://baylorlariat.com/2026/04/02/the-outrage-machine-why-the-internet-wants-you-angry/.

[2] “What We Do,” Center for Restorative Youth Justice (CRYJ), Kalispell and Missoula, Montana, https://restorativeyouthjustice.org/what-we-do.

[3] Karl Jacobson, “Commentary on Matthew 18:15-20,” Working Preacher, September 4, 2001, https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-23/commentary-on-matthew-1815-20-2.

[4] “I Come with Joy to Meet My Lord,” Worship: A Hymnal and Service Book for Roman Catholics, Chicago: GIA Publications, 1986.