There is nothing in the text from an exegetical standpoint that would indicate Jesus was thinking of the elders as opposed to the church at large. Taken in its plain sense, the last step of excommunication is to inform the entire church so that THEY can go and encourage repentance. If the community at large is bringing shame to the individual (something the ancient culture would have be VERY familiar with), that would serve as a powerful tool for correcting sinful behavior.
In your scheme (I assume PCA), Jesus words make no sense because those who are going to this individual are the elders almost from the outset. The book of church order provides explicit instructions around discipline that are completely inconsistent with Mat. 18 in my opinion. The church is merely informed that an individual would not repent after the fact and that they have been excommunicated. Such an arrangement ignores the honor-shame/group mentality of Greco-Roman culture. Moreover, I have watched members just resign their membership and have the elders along with appointed men from the Presbytery just allow it in order to keep things quiet. This is not at all a loving or biblical way to handle these matters.
Finally, your way of looking at this text indicates an inappropriate dichotomy establishing levels in the church that are nowhere expressed or established in the NT. Holding one another accountable is something that not only the servant leaders do, but also something the entire body is responsible to do. To deny the body this service is to deny them a blessing that God intended them to have and experience.
Ed,
With all due respect, one of the first things you need to do in order to interact respectfully on the PB here is put a signature together, so your posts are "signed." You can find basic instructions on how to do that in the
blue link below in my signature.
Second, you may (oddly enough) confess the Presbyterian confession (per your profile) and belong to a Baptist-congregational church. But beside the sacramental incongruity of these two entities, do you take exception to ch.30 of that Confession, "Of Church Censures?" Because, that section contains what Westminsterians confess is the biblical teaching concerning the disciplinary duty of the government of the church, "in the hand of church OFFICERS."
Third, you don't really take explicit issue with a word of what I wrote, or my references to the text. Except you don't agree, which is assertion in lieu of argument. Nice to know you think the "plain sense" supports your view, and cancels mine. That's not especially compelling, and if I just turn that claim around, on what basis would you object to that line of "reasoning?"
Fourth, if you read my post to the end, you can plainly see I have sufficient warrant for the duties of the congregation as a whole--which conclusion you draw from Mt.18--only drawn from 1Cor.5 (with reference to 2Cor.2 & 7). Pertinent to the question, is whether or not our Lord's instruction in Mt.18 is wholly generalized to the body of the faithful, or if it is especially concerned with those who are (that is, will be, from the historic standpoint of the passage) in positions of leadership and authority within the body (cf. v1). That is a pertinent exegetical question, and how it is answered will have important bearing on the directives and applications one derives from the passage.
Fifth, you don't need to assume anything about me. Any pertinent information is available on my profile page, accessible by clicking on my screen name, and the "about me" tab on that page. The rules we follow in church-operations are publicly accessible (on the web) and should be accurately referred to when offering specific criticism.
Sixth, it would probably be helpful to try to get a "handle" on why people with whom you disagree make the sense they do of Jesus' words, even if at the end of the day you still find their reasoning wanting. That would prevent you from saying foolish things like, "In your scheme..., Jesus words make no sense." Are you familiar with the notion of "internal critique?" That's where you argue that a person's conclusions are inconsistent with his alleged first-principles, or his "schemes." All you have indicated thus far (to put a charitable spin on what you wrote) is that
the whole thing--our exegesis and our church order--doesn't make sense to you.
Seventh, show me a church of any stripe, and I'll show you a group of people who are to one degree or another failures when it comes to the exercise of their faith, their fidelity to their vows, their consistent application of their avowed principles, and their love. Presbyterianism is by no means the only offender in these things. And do not forget that success never gets the press that failure does. How many excellent exercises of proper church discipline within Presbyterianism have there been that you know nothing at all about, and with good reason? So, picking out one or even several instances of poor shepherding does nothing at all to challenge the basic institution; and if you insist it does, then the accusation rebounds and undercuts your own preference for polity.
****************************************************************************************************
Eighth, with regard to your final paragraph, you are plainly aware that the NT (to say nothing of the OT) establishes order in the churches. And two indispensable components of order are leaders and followers. And leaders exercise
authority. No one was ever a better or more complete
Servant than our dear Lord Jesus, who stooped down and washed his own disciples feet. And he also commanded them, and they did bow down to him as King and Lord, even God. Those who serve him and his people as his mouthpieces, shepherds, and servants (preachers, elders, deacons) occupy stations of responsibility. And they will be judged more strictly, Jas.3:1.
And because Holy Spirit so clearly states they will be judged more strictly, it is a corollary that they have duties and responsibilities that exceed those of the entire body. Not all are teachers, indeed some are forbidden to teach, 1Tim.2:12, which is an exercise of
authority. Again, authority implies responsibility, which implies a duty to respect the responsible party from him who is the responsibility, stated explicitly in Heb.13:17. That such officers are not to "lord it over the heritage," 1Pet.5:3, does not imply that they are not OVER the heritage; see the previous verse in which such persons have duties of OVERsight. The description itself indicates that they occupy a station from which they exercise their duties under Christ.
Peter is a good example of the highest church-officer putting his emphasis in the right place, when he situates himself among the other elders of the church, in order to exhort them, v1. And he appropriately uses his exceptional apostolic office (by an oblique reference to his "eyewitness" authority) to add weight to what he says; and follows that up with a reference that puts him into the commonest category of every believer who will partake in the glory to be revealed. The fact that he is a common believer, and an ordinary elder, does not at all disestablish him from occupying one of those "twelve thrones" of judgment, Mt.19:28, cf.Rev.4:4.
And besides, there is nothing in the Presbyterian "scheme" that robs the membership of any privilege, including their right to hold their leaders accountable to a review of their exercise of authority, whether instituted from below or above. It appears to me this accusation flows from more misunderstanding and distrust of a foreign way of doing business.
It is a bit absurd to me, to feel obliged to belabor the point that there are obviously "levels" in the church having to do with exercise of authority and responsibility; which are nevertheless not intended by Christ to be positions of "glory" on earth but of service, and rightly occupied only by those possessing a deep sense of humility and unworthiness to be found therein. The determination to abolish all vestiges of such order--on the supposition that men being sinners, they will inevitably corrupt themselves in the work--is ultimately to set oneself against both a divine institution, and the grace of our Lord and the Person and presence of Holy Spirit, meant to counteract the power of sin and temptation. The tyranny of a majority is no more sanctified than a tyranny of oligarchs or of one.
Did our Lord really intend that every member have the "blessing" of the BURDEN of the most momentous decisions cast in his lap? Is there no room in Christianity for simple sheep who have no ambition, only a willingness to trust and a willingness to exercise an elementary discernment? Will everyone who has such aspirations actually exhibit the requisite competence in combination with humility? see Tit.1:10ff. It is an abuse of the principle of equality to insist that everyone is in every way "equal." By the denial of diversity even those with a most reasonable desire to be competently led are left to the mercy of factions. Nature itself tells us that there are a variety of gifts, and those are inequitably distributed.
It is the
a priori insistence that "church"
cannot mean the part-for-the-whole
in this or any biblical context--in an entire chapter dedicated to Jesus' teaching servant-leadership to the pride-oriented disciples--that ends up referring exercises of church-authority to the competence (and incompetence) of the whole. It is a kind of radical egalitarian and ultra democratic orientation that is brought to the text; it does not arise from it, nor from any cultural setting native to the original hearers. Abandon that
a priori and the specific "plain sense" previously alleged evaporates.
With grace,
I continue to pray for those men and my former spouse. I admit that to this day, I still have to acknowledge emotions and remind myself of the grace I walk in so unworthily. The PCA is an excellent church and in my estimation, the best denomination on the planet even though I am not quite a covenant man. Without belittling the error, I recognize that every church is filled with sinners saved by grace, and this means leaders as well. 
