Judy Dabler, Matthew 18, and the Silencing of Survivors in the Church
by John Perrine
Silencing Survivors with Matthew 18
Tragically, one of the most common refrains I hear bandied about when survivors of abuse come forward is whether or not they have been “biblical” in their approach to resolving “conflict.” This was a key issue in the unfolding story of a string of resignations of staff from Bethlehem Baptist and the departure of former members who claim they were minimized, ignored, or harmed in Bethlehem Baptist’s “biblical” in-house investigations. A “biblical” model was referred to by Mark Driscoll’s “trial” approach to bringing allegations against an elder, as chronicled in “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill” podcast by Christianity Today. And with #ACNAtoo, one of the repeated claims made privately and publicly by congregants in the Diocese of the Upper Midwest is that the public allegations made by Joanna Rudenborg were an “unbiblical” and therefore inappropriate approach.
It’s helpful to note here, for any who may be uninformed on evangelical culture, that a “biblical approach” to “conflict” is almost always a reference to the well-known (and often-preached) teachings of Jesus in Matthew 18. This passage is typically presented as a “model for reconciliation,” with emphasis placed on not “gossiping” in the church, and instead going “directly to the source” in a “one-on-one” manner. If you can’t resolve your conflict, then some sort of mediator is brought in. If that doesn’t resolve things, well... then surely someone (often the less influential and more vulnerable party) is found to be “unforgiving” and therefore needs to remove themself from the community (or face being shunned).
I know this model of a “biblical approach” to conflict from firsthand experience, having heard it preached frequently from the pulpits in front of which I grew up. I was taught that model in my evangelical youth group and encouraged to enact that model in my personal life and various student ministries I was a part of. And at several points I did exactly that, approaching someone who I was angry, frustrated, or “in conflict” with in order to seek a “reconciliation,” like Jesus taught. So when I spoke up alongside Joanna Rudenborg this past summer to corroborate her allegations of mishandling and spiritual abuse by Bishop Stewart and the Diocese of the Upper Midwest, I was surprised to receive a number of angry private responses from members of the diocese proclaiming that what I had done was “unbiblical” and “not a Matthew 18 approach.”
This leads me to two important questions that have recently come up in light of another story of abuse and misconduct recently reported in Christianity Today: Is it possible we have at times used Matthew 18 in Evangelical circles not for the purpose of seeking truth and righting wrongs, but instead to silence, manipulate, and control survivors making allegations of abuse? Which leads to a deeper biblical question: is the Evangelical “Matthew 18 biblical model to conflict reconciliation” really what Jesus taught?
Judy Dabler and the “Matthew 18 approach” to Reconciliation
On November 16th, 2021, Christianity Today broke an unexpected story on a largely unknown character: Judy Dabler. You’ve probably never heard of Dabler before (I certainly hadn’t). Yet Dabler has long been known in certain circles as a leading advocate and practitioner of “conciliation,” a process that claims to use Matthew 18 as a “biblical basis to pursue reconciliation.” She’s been brought in to prominent organizations such as Ravi Zacharias Ministries and Mars Hill Church, as well as dozens of other churches, and has offered training to over “10,000 people on how to pursue conciliation.” Yet unfortunately, the recent report by Christianity Today has unearthed an extensive array of condemning testimony. Rather than “biblical,” Christianity Today’s report concludes that Dabler was far more often wielding her model to be manipulative, coercive, and controlling in favor of those already in the position of greater power.
As Christianity Today reports: “In her conciliation work, though, Dabler consistently favored the person paying the bills, siding with the leader or big-name institution. Again and again, interviews and documents obtained by CT show, it was the less powerful party—the victim of sexual harassment, the beleaguered employee, the hurt congregant—who was pressured to make confessions they weren’t comfortable with and settle for agreements they thought were unfair.”
The article goes on to describe a number of themes that have been highlighted before on ACNAtoo.org and which are all too common in instances of abuse of power. The pattern was simple. First Dabler established her credibility by claiming that she used a “biblical model.” Using Matthew 18 language as “the only way to resolve conflict biblically,” then adding in a sin inventory using the language of “planks and logs,” Dabler convinced those who worked with her that she claimed overriding spiritual authority. Second, she wielded personal charisma, wit, and a teaching gift that reinforced her reputation as a trustworthy authority (the article repeatedly notes former co-workers who all describe Dabler as “incredibly gifted”). Finally, as the years of her work in various churches extended and her client list grew, Dabler could increasingly rely on her “extensive experience” handling these situations to brush past any remaining doubts and solidify not just her spiritual authority, but her professional mastery as well.
These complex intersecting spheres of power that enable abuse are being increasingly chronicled and I explored this in my other article on spiritual abuse. At the root of these dynamics is a tragic intermingling of our longing for clear spiritual guidance (thus the claim to being “biblical”), with our draw to personal charisma (they just seem “incredibly gifted”), all reinforced over time through the abusive party’s accrual of credentials and experience.
As Christianity Today’s reporting reveals, beneath Dabler’s ostensibly biblical approach, “the documents and the interviews reveal a decades-long trail of emotional wreckage and trauma and raise questions about the way that Christian conciliation has been used to protect power and abuse in evangelical churches.”
A few examples offered by the article help to paint a picture of how Dabler’s approach twisted the conciliation process to be manipulative, uninformed, and often reinforcing of systems of power at the expense of those who had been abused:
At Mars Hill Church in 2012, a woman in the church said her small group leader was sexually harassing her. She was asked to begin with a “speck and log” inventory in which she was to identify any past or present sin which might be leading to her “crazy weird behavior.”
At an Evangelical Free Church in 2013, a woman in an abusive marriage was told to acknowledge and repent of her “sinful fear” as a precondition for working on her marriage. The article states that her husband, who at the time was “considering buying a gun” was told her repentance of her “sinful fear” would help him work on his anger. The two sins were seen as equivalent “specks and logs” that needed to be dealt with.
At a conciliation process with a Chicago-based pastor in the Converge Network, the pastor’s wife was asked what sins in her life were keeping her from restoring her relationship with her husband after his affair with a congregant. Christianity Today pointedly notes that “the affair was not treated as sexual abuse despite the pastor’s spiritual authority over the person he had sex with, and no one attempted to establish the facts of what had happened.”
Finally, in 2020, a couple who were in conflict with the pastor at their Toronto church protested that the homework they were being given was “one size fits all,” a model that suggested their conflict with the pastor was simply a matter of perspective. They felt instead that an actual injustice had taken place. In response, they were told to “do the process.” Afterwards, when they objected that the process had not gotten to the core issues, they were told that complaints are different than conflict, and that “they shouldn’t have entered a conciliation process if they wanted a formal disciplinary hearing.”
The article goes on to describe other concerning incidents and dynamics of Dabler’s approach, including the allegations of sexual misconduct against her. It is a chilling look into a circumstance that has grown far too common, of gifted individuals wielding the authority of the Bible and the depth of their “experience” to position themselves as unquestionable authorities. Yet the particular detail I found most disturbing in Christianity Today’s reporting was Dabler’s claim that the source of the “spiritual authority” was Matthew 18. Which brings us back to my initial concern: is the model that Dabler promotes actually what Jesus taught in Matthew 18?
What Does Matthew 18 Actually Say?
Let me say off the bat: I believe in the authority of Scripture, as “God breathed, and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). I fully agree with Dabler (and any others) who claim that we should turn to Scriptures as the source of God’s wisdom for handling disputes and conflicts. I believe Matthew 18 is offered by Jesus as a profound source of instruction that must be followed carefully and thoughtfully in the church. Which is precisely why I believe we need to examine this passage more closely: so that we can see what Jesus is really teaching us to do.
Here are the three verses people generally reference when invoking Matthew 18 for conflict resolution:
15 “If your brother or sister sins, 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.’ 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.”
- Matthew 18:15-17 NIV
A number of intriguing observations come up as we read through Matthew 18 more carefully. First, the context of this passage is not “conflict” as is typically presented by those who work under the broad umbrella of conciliation ministries. “Conflict” is a broad modern term used in workplace settings and implying a disagreement from differing vantage points. Its root is of course more violent than mere “disagreement.” Conflict comes from the Latin “con-fligere,” referring to when two opposing sides “strike together.” Webster’s Dictionary offers definitions such as “strong disagreement” or “a struggle for power or property.”
This was the complaint of the couple in Toronto and the general tenor of critique by Christianity Today of Dabler’s “logs and specks” approach: she saw all conciliation as a response to conflict, as a resolution of “differing vantage points” in which each party equally had sin to confess (though as noted, this was often slanted in favor of the party footing her bill). There certainly are instances where “differing vantage points” are at play, or where two parties require a meditator to draw out confessions of sin. However, that isn’t what’s taking place in allegations of sexual or spiritual abuse. And it turns out that’s not what’s taking place in Matthew 18, either.
A closer reading of Matthew 18 reveals that the passage is not about conflict but “sin” (Greek: hamartano), the transgression of divine law by one party, being confronted by the other as the primary emphasis of Jesus’ concern. Matthew 18 as a model is entirely accusatory and corrective. Jesus’ clear aim is that, out of love and conviction, the witness who sees another acting in sin would “admonish” or “expose” (Greek: elegcho which means “to bring to light” or “bring out into the open”) them to their sin. There is a certain optimism here in Jesus’s initial proposal. Even the most God-fearing (or perhaps especially the most “religious”) would feel the sting of rebuke, and would have to struggle with their own pride and clouded judgment in order to receive correction offered in love. But Jesus sees the possibility that one of his followers, filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, could receive such correction and change course. Jesus thus provides for the person in sin to be confronted first privately, with dignity, and offered the opportunity to repent.
However, Jesus knew full well the heart’s tendency to resist correction. And so he carefully details that if private confrontation is not enough, we should take “one or two along as witnesses” so that the testimony can be “firmly established.” The way this model is generally preached, this second step functions as permission either to grab a few friends for support, or in the case of Judy Dabler, to spend thousands of dollars on an official “conciliator” to step in. Yet once again we need to read carefully. Jesus is harkening back to the Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15, which requires that any legal action taken against an individual cannot be based solely on one testimony, but on the testimony of “two or three witnesses.”
The logic of this proceeding in the Torah is a good one: sometimes “conflicts” between two parties arise as the result of a difference of perspective. In order to protect individuals from hasty allegations, or overreach of punitive justice, at least two or three witnesses who can independently corroborate the offense should be consulted before any further action takes place. Nothing in what Jesus says suggests “mediation.” Instead, Jesus envisions an analogous process to the Deuteronomic law, in which independent witnesses are consulted. This suggests that whatever the offense is, it is one other people are already aware of---thus contradicting typical modern interpretations of Matthew 18 that insist on “confidentiality” in addressing whatever grievance is being raised.
If after the first two attempts the offense is still not resolved, Jesus encourages the matter to be brought before “the church.” If the person in sin still refuses to repent, Jesus instructs, “treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17). As a number of commentators have pointed out, there is an element of ambiguity here in Jesus’ final edict. What does he mean when he encourages this offense to be brought “to the church”? And what does Jesus imply by associating to the offender as you would a “pagan or a tax collector” when Jesus so clearly and frequently associated with both? We would be wise to be humble here, however we interpret this final stage of repentance. The community’s clear involvement and united conviction around the sin being addressed is paired with a posture that remains open to future reconciliation.
Should We Use Matthew 18 in Responding to Allegations of Abuse?
The question worth asking, however, in light of this closer reading of Matthew 18 is what insight this model offers for allegations of abuse, allegations of mishandling of abuse, and allegations of spiritual abuse, all of which have taken place within the ACNA, as highlighted by the Provincial Response Team’s ongoing investigation into the Diocese of the Upper Midwest.
I’d like to offer three concluding suggestions of what a “biblical” approach to Matthew 18 might actually entail for ongoing investigations in #ACNAtoo as well as in the broader Church.
The first is that Matthew 18 is not meant to be used for all conflicts in the church. Instead, the simplest and most straightforward reading tracks that Jesus has a very specific container in mind for his instruction: use this model when addressing sin that has taken place in the church and that can potentially be corrected by intentional reproach. That container is understandably spacious. A lot of sin takes place in the church. If we apply Jesus’ words too literally, we find ourselves under a mandate of moral scrutiny unrivaled by even the most stringent Pharisee.
But given the context and wording previously addressed, it is clear Jesus did not mean his prescription for addressing a fellow Christian in sin to apply to all conflicts, disputes, and allegations of abuse of power. There are many kinds of conflicts that go beyond the simple definition of “sin.” There are many dynamics to allegations and abuse. Most of those circumstances arguably fall well outside the bounds of addressing “sin in the church.” We would do well to pay attention to the nuance and complexity that each situation requires.
Instead, as report after report detail: pastors, particularly those at the head of larger organizations, have vested interest and organizational means to protect themselves from any allegation of misconduct. This does not mean that once they have been accused, they should automatically be assumed guilty. It does suggest that congregations need to become more “biblical” in seeing conflict, allegations, and abuse more broadly outside of a Matthew 18 lens.
Second, congregants need to stop using Matthew 18 as a means to silence those who are making accusations against those in authority. Matthew 18 is not intended as a “one size fits all” model for handling disputes. It cannot be a Procrustean bed into which we force all our ministry and organizational disputes, let alone accusations of sexual or spiritual abuse. Instead, as report after report detail: pastors, particularly those at the head of larger organizations, have vested interest and organizational means to protect themselves from any allegation of misconduct. Even worse, in most instances of sexual or spiritual abuse in particular, the survivor of abuse has already walked some version of the “Matthew 18 model” where they first privately, and then in meditation sought to address their grievances, only to discover a system of self-protection surrounding their abuser.
When they then “go public” by sharing their story through social or traditional media, and frustrated congregants condemn them as “not following Matthew 18,” it is not the survivor’s lack of biblical commitment, but the congregation's lack of willingness to consider the grievances that have been charged to their pastor. This does not mean that a pastor once accused should automatically be assumed guilty. But it does suggest that congregations need to become more “biblical” in seeing conflict, allegations, and abuse more broadly outside of a Matthew 18 lens.
Finally, the way to respond appropriately to conflict (and particularly allegations of abuse) is not to become less biblical but more biblical by broadening the scope of Scripture’s insight into addressing complex systems of power. Matthew 18 is often the only “biblical model” cited, when in fact, conflict abounded in the early church. Paul rebukes the Corinthians for not responding to an inter-family sexual abuse scandal (1 Corinthians 5). Barnabas challenges Paul publicly around the suitability of John Mark for ministry (Acts 15:36-41), just as Paul challenges Peter around his table practices (Galatians 2:11-21).
These complex scenarios point to situations of nuance, careful discernment, and the need for humility and investigation by all involved. If these dilemmas frequently bombarded the early church, then surely the complexity of organizational structures, power imbalances, and the stature of celebritized authority in our modern church situations demand we wrestle more critically and carefully when allegations are made against those in positions of authority. In particular, Jesus’ love for the poor, those who mourn, and those who are meek, compels us to consider carefully the voices of those who allege abuse.
The recent example of Judy Dabler offers us a warning that the Bible can easily become a shield to deflect investigation and reinforce injustice, rather than a pathway to repentance and righteousness. May we become wise interpreters, quick to listen, slow to speak, and invested in seeking out truth and justice for those who allege they have been harmed.
John Perrine is a pastor from Chicago who currently resides in Belfast, Northern Ireland with his wife Jenna and their two kids. He is pursuing his Doctorate of Theology and Ministry at Durham University and is an avid walker, coffee drinker, and movie enthusiast, who podcasts on scripture, culture and formation over at burningwordpodcast.com.