(Opinion) When we get church discipline wrong, people get hurt—and the wounds can last a lifetime. Just ask Deborah Perkins.
When she came forward with accusations of spiritual and sexual abuse by International House of Prayer Kansas City (IHOPKC) founder Mike Bickle, the ministry’s first move wasn’t to protect her.
Como earlier reported por El Informe Roys, it was to require her husband to confront Bickle privately, one-on-one, using Matthew 18.
That’s not accountability; it’s a misapplication of Scripture that retraumatizes the wounded and shields the powerful. And in this case, it was a blatant attempt to keep Bickle’s rampant abuse hidden—abuse that we now know involved at least 17 women.
En Part 1 of my series on church discipline, I suggested that church discipline should be a community practice. And instead of being initiated and enforced solely by church leaders to congregants, it should involve the whole congregation. And it should apply equally to leaders as it does to congregants.
Your tax-deductible gift supports our mission of reporting the truth and restoring the church. Donate $50 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you can elect to receive “Primal Fire: Reigniting the Church with the Five Gifts of Jesus” by Neil Cole, haga clic aquí.
But in Part 2, we’ll examine two key passages in the New Testament that guide us in dealing with sin inside the church: Matthew 18:15–17 and 1 Timothy 5:19–20. Both are inspired. Both are necessary. But they’re not interchangeable—and misunderstanding or misapplying them has led to deep wounds, protected sin, and confused congregations.
Mateo 18 is Jesus’ instruction for addressing personal sin between believers. It’s a relational, restorative process aimed at reconciliation, typically involving private offenses that can be resolved in quiet humility.
1 Timothy 5, on the other hand, addresses the accountability of leaders—elders and pastors—especially when they persist in sin. It acknowledges the weight of their influence and the need for transparency and public correction when necessary.
We need to understand these differences not just for clarity—but for courage. Knowing which path to take ensures that we’re not giving cover to wolves or crushing brothers and sisters unnecessarily. Here’s how to know the difference and when to act.
Apply Matthew 18 when:
- The sin is personal and relational, not public or systemic.
- It involves an individual—leader or not—sinning against you directly (e.g., stealing, lying, abusive behavior).
- There’s no abuse of office or platform, and the issue could be resolved privately.
Jesus lays out a step-by-step process:
- Go to the person privately.
- If there’s no repentance, take one or two others.
- If the person is still unrepentant, bring it to the church—not just the leadership board, but the gathered body that walks with that person in life.
This process is often overlooked or misused to silence valid confrontation. It was never meant to shield leaders from accountability, but to invite anyone—leaders included—back into fellowship through humble repentance.
Apply 1 Timothy 5:19–20 when:
- The sin is connected to leadership failure or abuse—spiritual coercion, disqualification, moral compromise, or manipulation.
- The sin is persistent, and there’s a pattern, especially one that causes harm beyond a private offense.
- The situation requires public clarity and response for the sake of protecting the church.
Paul instructs:
- Don’t accept charges against a leader lightly—but do not avoid them if there are multiple credible witnesses.
- If the leader persists in sin, they must be rebuked in front of the community.
- This isn’t vindictive; it’s to warn others and to protect the body.
This passage was written specifically because leaders are more likely to be shielded by systems of power. Paul flips the script: those in authority must be held to higher, not lower, standards.
Why this matters
If we use Matthew 18 when 1 Timothy 5 is needed, we risk keeping abusive leaders in power and leaving victims isolated and retraumatized. We reduce leadership failures to “private offenses” when in fact, they are public breaches of trust.
But if we apply 1 Timothy 5 too broadly, using it to air every grievance, we can bypass restoration and wrongly humiliate brothers or sisters whose sins were never public to begin with.
That’s why we must walk in wisdom, guided by both the Word and the Spirit. Church discipline isn’t about punishment; it’s about healing. But healing only happens when sin is named rightly and dealt with justly.
Church members—You have a role
Let this be clear: these passages weren’t written for elders and pastors alone. They were given to the whole church. That means you, the ordinary believer, are not a bystander in this process. You’re called to participate. So, when sin is harming someone—whether it’s one person or an entire congregation—don’t shrink back.
- If the offense is personal and private, take the Matthew 18 path.
- If the sin is systemic, repeated, or tied to a leader’s role, move toward the 1 Timothy 5 process—wisely, courageously, and with others.
This isn’t rebellion. It’s obedience. It’s what it means to love the church like Jesus does: with truth and tenderness, humility, and boldness. Let’s get this right—not just for the sake of being biblical, but for the sake of being like Christ.
The church discipline Jesus envisioned
So, what does safe, biblical, redemptive discipline look like? It happens in churches that:
- Share leadership rather than centralize it.
- Equip every member to speak truth in love—not just pastors or elders.
- Practice mutual submission and shared responsibility.
- Include the whole church when restoration or correction is necessary.
- Discipline leaders with the same clarity and urgency as anyone else.
This is the church Jesus intended-a body, not a bureaucracy. A priesthood of all believers, not a monarchy of religious executives. A family where members watch over each other, not an organization where a few guard the gates.
In this kind of church, discipline isn’t about control; it’s about care. It’s not about shame; it’s about healing. And it’s not about protecting the brand; it’s about preserving the witness of the Body.
A word to the wounded and the willing
If you’ve been wounded by church discipline, I want you to know what happened to you wasn’t the heart of Jesus. That was someone misusing His name.
And if you’re one of the many who have sworn off church membership because of how discipline has been distorted—I hear you. But don’t give up on the church Jesus imagined just because others have distorted it.
The church needs you. Not just to attend—but to participate. To speak. To lead. To call for repentance. To guide others gently back to Jesus. And when necessary, to call out sin in love—even in those who preach from a stage. That’s not rebellion. That’s responsibility.
Discipline done Jesus’ way requires more than good policies. It requires good people—humble, courageous, Spirit-filled members who refuse to outsource the hard work of truth and love to a few select leaders.
So, let’s reclaim church discipline. Not as a relic. Not as a hammer. But as a healing art. A shared calling. A community practice.
Let the government rest on His shoulders, not ours. And let the Body of Christ grow strong again—through truth, love, and the sacred courage to confront sin with grace.
Lance Ford, pastor and author of many libros, incluyendo Unleader y The Atlas Factor, serves as director of restoration resources at The Roys Report.
Spanish 
English
9 Responses
I appreciate Pastor Ford’s analysis, but it omits a situation when Matthew 18 is applied unscripturally:
1. When it is used by an abusive leader not to deal with sin, but to use as a pretext to disfellowship a member or other leader in the church and to falsely brand them as “unrepentant” publicly. When this occurs:
a. There is no attempt at any type of reconciliation.
b. Many times the leader initiating this is the one that has the willfully unrepentant sin issue and uses this false application of Matthew 18 as a power play to silence anyone who dares to address this.
c. Step one, going privately to the person, is almost never done. Skip directly to step two.
d. Step two may include bringing someone who doesn’t know the targeted person. They are often given false information about the target in advance, so that they can be the “attack dog” in a pretext of applying Matthew 18.
e. Galatians 6:1,2 is totally ignored and violated in every regard.
f. The abusive leader’s intent of labeling the targeted person as “unrepentant” is announced to the church, so that he can wash his hands of his brother in Christ and claim that Matthew 18 was applied. This is similar to how the blind man healed by Jesus was treated by the Pharisees.
2. We must remember that the application of Matthew 18 is not always about dealing with sin. It can be misused in a very manipulative, evil and unscriptural way. Have you ever noticed how quickly people turn to this Scripture, while ignoring Galatians 6:1,2?
Lance Ford, can you please explain why you didn’t mention 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 in this two part series.
1 Corinthians 5:11-13 says there are six sins for which a professing believer should be promptly expelled from the church and treated as an unbeliever:
inmoralidad sexual
greed — covetousness
idolatry — elevating something other than God to the place that only God should occupy
verbal abuse — assailing with scornful language, slander, reviling
drunkenness — by extension this includes any kind of drug abuse
swindling — robbing, extortion, destructive ferocity, ravening, predating, raping, plundering, subsisting on live prey
This is particularly pertinent to the case of Eileen Gray. Every domestic abuser is guilty of verbal abuse, idolatry and swindling. Some domestic abusers also misuse alcohol or drugs. And when it comes to sexual immorality, there are numerous sins they can commit.
I have written about 1 Cor 5:11-13 in depth at cryingoutforjustice dot blog
Good points Barbara. A helpful addition to Mr. Ford’s well written article on the whole. I thought of Eileen Gray also and the injustices that occured to her at several levels by “leadership”. And thus by extension family. Think: her children. Where is the voice of congregation members at MacArthur’s church; silenced? Ignored? Disenfranchised? One wonders….
Thank you very much, Bonnie Boulter!
Lance Ford has not replied to my question. I wonder whether he reads the comments at his opinion pieces.
“ idolatry — elevating something other than God to the place that only God should occupy”
Promptly expelled for bibliolatry? The poor and homeless would be neglected from all the time it would take to carry this out in churches. I’ve never met anyone who could admit they worship the Bible, but the telltale signs couldn’t be ignored.
Barbara, Thanks for the thoughtful question. You’re absolutely right that 1 Corinthians 5:11–13 is a key passage when it comes to how the church responds to serious, ongoing sin among professing believers. Paul is addressing a case of unrepentant sin in the community and calls for decisive action—not out of vengeance, but out of love for both the Body and the individual involved.
The reason I didn’t specifically cite that passage in the article isn’t because I don’t believe it’s relevant. It’s deeply relevant—especially, as you note, in cases like Eileen Gray’s, where the abuse was patterned, destructive, and ongoing. My focus in the article was more on how church discipline is approached and by whom—and less on a list of sins that warrant such action. I was trying to address the widespread dysfunction we’ve seen where discipline is misused (often to control or silence), or neglected altogether—particularly when powerful leaders are involved.
That said, I agree with you: 1 Corinthians 5 gives us a sober reminder that the church is called to protect the vulnerable and preserve the integrity of its witness. When someone persists in sin like those listed—and refuses correction—the church must respond decisively, not cover it up or explain it away. We have to recover both the courage and the clarity to name sin for what it is, especially when it causes harm to others.
So thank you again for raising it. That passage belongs squarely in this conversation.
I appreciate Parts 1 and 2 of these articles. The only comment I need to make is that it is never safe for a victim of abuse from an individual to go to that person privately. I speak as a trauma informed, trauma trained professional Christian therapist who has worked with adult women, mostly Christian women, who when they practice Matthew 18, receive more abuse from their perpetrator.
Well said, Cathy DeLoach Lewis! Matthew 18 is egregiously twisted by abusers and by most church leaders. They typically it to discipline and stigmatise abused women.
Have you ever heard of a church that used 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 to discipline abusers, rather than Matthew 18?
I believe that 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 is THE passage to apply when disciplining an abuser.
It lists six egregious sins for which a person should be PROMPTLY expelled from the church.
Husbands who abuse their wives are typically committing several if not all of those six sins.
I appreciate both parts of this article. I do need to share this one comment: It is never safe for a victim of abuse to confront the abuser privately using the Matthew 18 model. I speak as a trauma informed, trauma trained Christian therapist who has worked with women, mostly Christian women, for 25 years.